Reviewed by:

• Games and Theatre in Shakespeare's England ed. by Tom Bishop, Gina Bloom, and Erika T. Lin
• Doyeeta Majumder

It has nearly been a century since the publication of the inaugural text of ludology, Joseph Huizinga's Homo Ludens (1938), and the first videogame versions of Shakespearean texts started appearing back in the 1990s. But so far very few studies of early modern theatre have used the critical framework of game theory in order to probe the ludic quality inherent in theatre, a critical approach that is doubly relevant to the Shakespearean stage that existed in such close geographical and cultural proximity to other non-theatrical gaming practices. Gina Bloom's Gaming the Stage: Playable Media and the Rise of English Commercial Theater (2018) was one of the first book-length studies of the ludic roots of theatre and Renaissance plays as interactive games. The present volume, coedited by Bloom, Tom Bishop, and Erika T. Lin, takes this approach forward, framing theatre as not merely mimetic but interactive and ludic, with the audience, actors, and playwrights bound together into the magic circle of gameplay that is the stage. The essays in the collection draw attention not just to the representation of games in early modern drama, but the ludic texture of theatre itself and the centrality of the concept of "play" to both the gaming and dramatic practices of the Renaissance, and the translation of those practices in our own times. While drawing on the foundational work of Huizinga and Roger Caillois (Man, Play, and Games [1961]), the volume also simultaneously critiques Huizinga's exclusion of Renaissance theatre from his study of the "play element in civilization" and Caillois's understanding of theatre as mimicry, closer to free, unruly paidia than to the rule-bound, structured ludus.

The eleven essays in this volume are divided thematically into three groups. The first set of four [End Page 530] essays focuses on the semantic doubleness of "playing" and explores the ways in which the vocabulary of games suffuses the language of early modern drama. Stephen Purcell's "The Player's Game" analyzes the ways in which Renaissance drama's latent affinities to gameplay are revivified and resurrected in modern adaptations of Shakespeare, particularly those staged at the new Globe. Using interviews—of Mark Rylance (the director of the Globe), who repeatedly uses football metaphors to unravel the dynamics of performance; and of exponents of physical theatre like Marcello Magni, who sees theatre as a game and acting as play—Purcell demonstrates how the ludic temper of modern performances of Shakespeare can be used to supplement the rather insubstantial corpus of information about actual early modern performances without committing to vulgar anachronisms. In Purcell's analysis, the actors play "with" the audience, and not merely "to" the audience, and are compelled by the ludic structure of the text to compete with each other as well as the audience throughout the performance. This is followed by David Kathman's study of the rise and fall in the fortunes of "tenys" and the strictures on "playing" in early modern England. With page after page of data on the sales on tennis balls, the extraordinarily empirical approach of this essay borders on the absurd, but it draws attention to symmetry in the language deployed by the London authorities in their attempts to control theatrical playing as well as other "unlawful" games. Katherine Steele Brokaw uses the language of another kind of unlawful game—dice play—as the refrain that underpins early modern theatre, economics, and theology. Through her deft reading of three lesser-known early Tudor plays, Nice Wanton, Impatient Poverty, and Misogonus, Brokaw argues persuasively that sandwiched between the rise of capitalistic speculation on the one hand and the chanciness of salvation within the paradigm of Calvinistic double-predestination on the other, early modern drama participates in the vocabulary and partakes of the metaphors of "hazarding" and other forms of dice play. The first section ends with Heather Hirschfield's "The Games Afoote," which uses...

审核人：

• 莎士比亚英国版的游戏和戏剧。Tom Bishop、Gina Bloom 和 Erika T. Lin
• 多伊塔玛琼德

自游戏学的创始文本 Joseph Huizinga 的Homo Ludens (1938) 出版以来已经将近一个世纪了，莎士比亚文本的第一个电子游戏版本开始出现在 1990 年代。但迄今为止，很少有早期现代戏剧研究使用博弈论的批判框架来探讨戏剧中固有的滑稽品质，这种批判方法与莎士比亚舞台具有双重相关性，而莎士比亚舞台在地理和文化上如此接近其他非戏剧性游戏行为。吉娜·布鲁姆 (Gina Bloom)的舞台游戏：可播放媒体与英国商业剧院的兴起（2018 年）是最早将戏剧和文艺复兴时期戏剧的滑稽根源作为互动游戏进行研究的一本书。由 Bloom、Tom Bishop 和 Erika T. Lin 合编的本卷采用了这种方法，将戏剧构筑为不仅是模仿性的，而且是互动和滑稽的，观众、演员和剧作家一起进入了游戏玩法的魔力圈是舞台。文集中的文章不仅关注游戏在早期现代戏剧中的表现，还关注戏剧本身的滑稽结构和“游戏”概念在文艺复兴时期的游戏和戏剧实践中的中心地位，以及翻译我们这个时代的那些做法。在借鉴 Huizinga 和 Roger Caillois（人、游戏和游戏）的基础工作时[1961])，该书还同时批评了 Huizinga 将文艺复兴时期的戏剧排除在他对“文明中的戏剧元素”的研究之外，以及 Caillois 将戏剧理解为模仿，更接近于自由、不守规矩的paidia而不是受规则约束、结构化的ludus。

本卷中的十一篇论文按主题分为三组。第一集四【完530页】论文侧重于“玩”的语义双重性，并探讨了游戏词汇如何渗透到早期现代戏剧的语言中。斯蒂芬·珀塞尔 (Stephen Purcell) 的“玩家游戏”分析了文艺复兴时期戏剧与游戏玩法的潜在亲和力如何在莎士比亚的现代改编作品中，尤其是在新环球剧场上演的那些作品中得到复兴和复兴。使用采访——Mark Rylance（环球报导演）的采访，他反复使用足球比喻来揭示表现的动态；以及像 Marcello Magni 这样的形体戏剧代表人物，谁将戏剧视为游戏，将表演视为游戏——珀塞尔展示了如何利用莎士比亚现代表演的滑稽气质来补充关于实际早期现代表演的相当虚无的信息集，而不会犯下庸俗的时代错误。在 Purcell 的分析中，演员是在“与”观众一起表演，而不仅仅是“对着”观众，而且在整个表演过程中，演员们被文本的滑稽结构所驱使与彼此以及观众竞争。接下来是大卫·凯斯曼 (David Kathman) 对“tenys”命运的兴衰以及近代早期英格兰对“玩”的限制的研究。有了一页又一页的网球销售数据，这篇文章的非同寻常的实证方法近乎荒谬，但它提请注意伦敦当局在试图控制戏剧表演和其他“非法”游戏时所使用的语言的对称性。凯瑟琳·斯蒂尔·布罗考 (Katherine Steele Brokaw) 使用另一种非法游戏的语言——掷骰子——作为支撑早期现代戏剧、经济学和神学的副歌。通过熟练阅读三部鲜为人知的都铎王朝早期戏剧，Nice Wanton、Impatient Poverty和Misogonus，Brokaw 有说服力地论证说，夹在一方面资本主义投机的兴起和另一方面加尔文主义双重宿命论范式内的救赎机会之间，早期现代戏剧参与了词汇并参与其中“危险”和其他形式的骰子游戏的隐喻。第一部分以希瑟·赫希菲尔德 (Heather Hirschfield) 的“The Games Afoote”结尾，它使用了……