remainder “I am here; this is mine; come and get me” (88). Such reductive presuppositions conform to author theory, prompting three clowns in search of an author function (chapters 3–5). In chapter 3, anonymous pamphlet writers “strategically converted” (110) the late Tarlton (d. 1588) into “a posthumous author function” (110) to assert the property of a solo dramatist, alienate performers from their labor, and reduce the actor to a “mouthpiece” (135). In chapter 4, because Kemp’s clowning and authorship did not in fact require improvised antagonism as theorized, this clown “co-opts” improvisation “deviously” (145). His popular jig, being scripted, “was not even clowning anymore, but something more insidious: it was playwriting masquerading as clowning” (155). Preiss then reads mild reactions to fans’ interruptions in Kemps Nine Daies Wonder (1600)—Kemp’s account of his 115-mile morris—as “pathological” (167), “antisocial exertions” aimed at “deter[ring] the crowd” (164), “misanthropy . . . [a]s the basis of professional performance” (173). In chapter 5, Preiss predictably extends the tradition that Robert Armin was more scripted than Kemp by applying it to his postplay performances. Deduction alone leads Preiss to “believe (and here there can be no proof but the sheer audacity of the claim)”—i.e., absent any evidence—that Quips Upon Questions (1600) was delivered “verbatim” (211). If so, since clowning supposedly equaled antagonistic improvising, not to improvise was to become “just another actor” (214). Thus, Armin “insidious[ly]” (209) made audiences “erase themselves” (210) in order to make clowning “a commodity, capable of textual reproduction” (214). Ultimately, this book’s deduction that an antisocial, extradramatic clown was “the ‘protoauthor’” (9) of the individual dramatic author is only as persuasive as its concomitant theory that all clowns are reducible to one uniform, hostile clown function and the chain of supporting presuppositions. Preiss has pushed neoclassical assumptions and modern theories as far as possible. That he had to stretch evidence and logic so far invites rethinking them.

中文翻译：

---

Allison P. Hobgood 在早期现代英格兰的热情玩耍

剩下的“我在这里；这是我的; 来接我”（88）。这种还原预设符合作者理论，促使三个小丑寻找作者功能（第 3-5 章）。在第 3 章中，匿名小册子作者“战略性地将”（110）已故的塔尔顿（卒于 1588 年）转变为“死后的作者职能”（110），以维护独奏剧作家的财产，疏远表演者的劳动，并减少演员成为“喉舌”（135）。在第 4 章中，因为肯普的小丑和作者身份实际上并不需要理论上的即兴对抗，这个小丑“狡猾地”“加入”即兴创作（145）。他的流行治具，根据剧本，“甚至不再是小丑，而是更阴险的东西：这是伪装成小丑的剧本创作”（155）。然后，普雷斯将粉丝在 Kemps Nine Daies Wonder (1600) 中被打断的温和反应解读为“病态的”(167)，旨在“阻止[环]人群”的“反社会行为”(1600)——坎普对他的 115 英里莫里斯的描述164），“厌世。. . [a] 是专业表现的基础”（173）。在第 5 章中，普莱斯可以预见地扩展了罗伯特·阿明比坎普更有剧本的传统，将其应用于他的赛后表演。仅推论就使普赖斯“相信（这里没有任何证据，只有大胆的主张）”——即在没有任何证据的情况下——Quips On Questions (1600) 是“逐字逐句”的 (211)。如果是这样，既然小丑被认为等同于敌对的即兴表演，那么不即兴表演就是成为“只是另一个演员”（214）。因此，阿明“阴险[ly]”（209）让观众“抹去自己”（210），以使小丑成为“一种商品，能够进行文本复制”（214）。最终，本书关于反社会的、戏剧化的小丑是个别戏剧作者的“'原始作者'”（9）的推论，仅与其伴随的理论一样有说服力，即所有小丑都可以还原为一个统一的、敌对的小丑功能和支持前提。普莱斯尽可能地推动了新古典主义假设和现代理论。到目前为止，他必须扩展证据和逻辑，这让我们重新思考它们。戏剧外的小丑是个别戏剧作者的“'原作者'”（9）仅与其伴随的理论一样有说服力，即所有小丑都可以还原为一个统一的、敌对的小丑功能和支持预设链。普莱斯尽可能地推动了新古典主义假设和现代理论。到目前为止，他必须扩展证据和逻辑，这让我们重新思考它们。戏剧外的小丑是个别戏剧作者的“'原始作者'”（9）仅与其伴随的理论一样有说服力，即所有小丑都可以还原为一个统一的、敌对的小丑功能和支持预设链。普莱斯尽可能地推动了新古典主义假设和现代理论。到目前为止，他必须扩展证据和逻辑，这让我们重新思考它们。