rary plays; early modern theological tracts; and classical, biblical, and medieval sources. For example, Kerrigan teases out the range of oaths in revenge drama beyond Shakespeare before turning to the key revenge plays noted above. Ultimately, then, the forms of binding language, rather than chronology, serve as the organizing principle, as the book moves from revenge to swearing, from oaths to slander, from charms to bonds. Kerrigan’s style is inviting. His argument develops through ebbs and flows, examining the function of oaths from one vantage point—such as oaths that bind, or that are taken in groups—and then another—such as oaths that are slippery or solitary. For a book of such monumental size, it is readable and discursive. Part of this success could, arguably, be seen as its downside: the book does not foreground its contributions through direct conversation with other scholars in the field. Its argument is not bogged down by citation, yet, at times, it lacks thorough engagement with the scholarship on a given play, in part because the book notices missing conversations rather than lingering on extant ones. He writes, “Surprisingly little work has been done on Shakespeare’s binding language” (32). Such language is “underinvestigated” (33) or “neglected” (175). Of Troilus and Cressida he posits, “Scholars have not explored the binding language in this play” (4). However, other studies, driven by complementary questions, do traverse similar terrain: Kerrigan’s reading of The Merchant of Venice might have considered Janet Adelman’s analysis of this play in Blood Relations or James Shapiro’s work in Shakespeare and the Jews; his argument on bonds might have engaged with Amanda Bailey’s Of Bondage, particularly given her extended reading of Timon of Athens; and his consideration of pledges and oaths might have invoked the work of Angela McShane. While Kerrigan’s scholarly range is immense and he cites many of the above monographs in his bibliography (and passingly in the notes), the unquestionable freshness of this book’s insights and the subtlety of its readings might have been even more keenly felt were it to have entered into conversation with the work of fellow scholars. The book’s contribution is nevertheless brilliantly clear: cataloguing the wide range of binding language, Kerrigan’s monumental study exposes the unwinding, foreswearing, and doublespeaking that so often accompany pledges, oaths, and vows in Shakespeare. In illuminating this complex process across the Shakespeare canon, this book will remain a resource for students and scholars for decades.

中文翻译：

---

莎士比亚和斯图尔特·西勒斯的视觉想象

重演；早期现代神学小册子；以及古典、圣经和中世纪的资料来源。例如，在转向上述关键复仇剧之前，凯瑞甘梳理了莎士比亚之外复仇剧中的誓言范围。最终，装订语言的形式，而不是年表，成为组织原则，因为这本书从报复到发誓，从誓言到诽谤，从魅力到束缚。Kerrigan 的风格很吸引人。他的论点在潮起潮落中发展，从一个有利的角度检查誓言的功能——例如有约束力的誓言，或成群结队的誓言——然后是另一个——例如滑溜溜或孤独的誓言。对于一本如此巨大规模的书来说，它具有可读性和可讨论性。可以说，这种成功的一部分可以被视为它的缺点：这本书没有通过与该领域其他学者的直接对话来突出其贡献。它的论点并没有因为引用而陷入困境，但有时，它缺乏对特定戏剧的学术研究的彻底参与，部分原因是这本书注意到了遗漏的对话，而不是留在现存的对话上。他写道，“令人惊讶的是，对莎士比亚的约束性语言所做的工作很少”（32）。这种语言是“调查不足”（33）或“被忽视”（175）。对于特洛伊罗斯和克瑞西达，他认为，“学者们还没有探索这部剧中的约束性语言”（4）。然而，由互补问题驱动的其他研究确实跨越了类似的领域：凯瑞甘对威尼斯商人的阅读可能考虑了珍妮特·阿德尔曼在血缘关系中对这部戏剧的分析或詹姆斯·夏皮罗在莎士比亚和犹太人中的作品；他关于债券的论点可能与阿曼达·贝利 (Amanda Bailey) 的《束缚》(Of Bondage) 有关，特别是考虑到她对雅典的丁满 (Timon of Athens) 的广泛阅读 他对誓言和誓言的考虑可能会援引安吉拉·麦克沙恩 (Angela McShane) 的工作。虽然 Kerrigan 的学术范围非常广泛，并且他在参考书目中引用了许多上述专着（并且在笔记中顺便提到了），但如果它进入了本书，则可能会更加敏锐地感受到本书见解的新鲜度和阅读的微妙性。与其他学者的工作进行对话。尽管如此，这本书的贡献仍然非常清楚：凯瑞甘的巨大研究对广泛的约束性语言进行了编目，揭示了莎士比亚中经常伴随着誓言、誓言和誓言的解体、誓言和双重说话。