mentally “unfree” (107). he proposes that the medieval tradition of courtly love started to open the door for the distinct world-historical achievement of free, reciprocal lovemaking between men and women, the dawning possibilities of which are subsequently explored and developed by Shakespeare. kottman excitingly affirms romeo and Juliet’s challenge to (1) mortality, and (2) family love and loyalty in the name of the free mutuality they have discovered and dramatize. Particularly subtle is his argument that, as it were, inside their love Shakespeare’s lovers are negotiating their own solitary apartness—owning it, exploring it as something other than an external obstacle. i don’t entirely buy the related assertion that othello strikes Desdemona in order to provoke her into demonstrating independence from him, nor that in assaulting her sexual honor he is trying to make sense of her innocence “as something other than obedience and fidelity to command” (147). and unlike kottman, i do believe that dark, tormented, and ambivalent disgust is in the mix: “ to be discarded thence, / or keep it as a cistern for foul toads / to knot and gender in” (4.2.70–72). But i am very taken with kottman’s argument that othello recoils as much from Desdemona’s positive attractiveness, which leaves him asking “By whom or what am I seduced?” (147). “if,” kottman argues, “it is just her feminine beauty and sensuous charm, then she— Desdemona—has no independent existence: there is only ‘woman,’ witchcraft, voluptuousness, impersonal appetites” (147). he ultimately offers a fascinating reading of the play as one in which Desdemona can submit to othello even unto death but cannot thereby deliver him “a world in which lovemaking could have objective standing, demonstrable normative authority” (149). according to kottman, we are still working on bringing such a world into being, both at a political-cum-institutional level and in our own love lives. heterosexual freedom requires that we “sexually disentangle procreation from eros” (120), so contraception has made a big difference. and kottman notes the increasing social authority of love-based commitments, as in same-sex marriage, as well as the unstable, inconsistent but historically unmistakable erosion of a gender-based division of labor. in its rigorous and properly demanding fashion, Love as Human Freedom tells what is in more ways than one a great story. in so doing, it defines life, art, and criticism as interdependent forms of thinking with the highest possible stakes. i hope Shakespeareans and others will sit up and take notice.

中文翻译：

---

莎士比亚的自由：为什么戏剧很重要 伊万·弗尼

精神上“不自由”（107）。他提出，中世纪宫廷爱情的传统开始为男女之间自由、互惠的性爱这一独特的世界历史成就打开大门，莎士比亚随后探索和发展了这种可能性的曙光。科特曼以他们发现和戏剧化的自由相互关系的名义，激动地肯定了罗密欧和朱丽叶对（1）死亡和（2）家庭之爱和忠诚的挑战。特别微妙的是他的论点，在他们的爱情中，莎士比亚的情人正在协商他们自己的孤独——拥有它，将它作为外部障碍之外的东西来探索。我不完全相信奥赛罗袭击苔丝狄蒙娜以激起她表现出对他的独立性的相关断言，也不是在侵犯她的性荣誉时，他试图将她的清白理解为“除了服从和忠于命令”（147）。与 kottman 不同的是，我确实相信黑暗、折磨和矛盾的厌恶是混合在一起的：“从那里被丢弃，/或将其保留为臭蟾蜍的蓄水池/打结和性别”（4.2.70-72） . 但我对 kottman 的论点非常感兴趣，即奥赛罗对苔丝狄蒙娜的积极吸引力同样退缩，这让他问“我被谁或什么诱惑了？” (147)。“如果，”科特曼认为，“这只是她的女性美和性感魅力，那么她——苔丝狄蒙娜——就没有独立的存在：只有‘女人’、巫术、性感、非个人的欲望”（147）。他最终提供了对这部戏剧的引人入胜的解读，在其中苔丝狄蒙娜可以屈服于奥赛罗甚至至死，但不能因此给他“一个世界，在这个世界中，做爱可以具有客观地位，可证明的规范权威”（149）。根据科特曼的说法，我们仍在努力使这样一个世界成为现实，无论是在政治和制度层面还是在我们自己的爱情生活中。异性恋自由要求我们“将生殖与性爱分开”（120），因此避孕产生了很大的不同。科特曼指出，基于爱的承诺的社会权威越来越大，如在同性婚姻中，以及不稳定、不一致但历史上明确无误的基于性别的劳动分工的侵蚀。以其严谨而严苛的时尚，作为人类自由的爱以更多的方式讲述了一个伟大的故事。这样做时，它将生活、艺术和批评定义为具有最高风险的相互依存的思维形式。我希望莎士比亚和其他人能坐下来注意。