Abstract:

John Brown is a figure so intensely contested as to embody diametrically opposed meanings according to the varied contexts in which his image has been activated. At times hailed as the man who started the US Civil War, Brown has been variously described as a righteous abolitionist, a religious zealot, a gifted orator, a formidable military strategist, a self-appointed white savior, and a madman. Today, Brown is conjured in the name of all manner of causes, from leftist gun clubs to collegiate sports, while his theatricalized image is activated in wildly disparate ways. The apparent singularity of Brown as a historical figure, together with his ready adoption and deployment across various arenas—from entertainment to revolutionary politics—presents a problem familiar to theatre and performance scholars, namely the space between the image or concept of a person (or a character) and their actual performance, in life or onstage. There is perhaps an obvious tension in the ways that John Brown is remembered and reperformed and for whom he is remembered and reperformed. Or, as Ted A. Smith points out in thinking with Brown: "An image, however iconic, is not an argument."

 抽象：

约翰·布朗是一个如此激烈竞争的人物，以至于根据他的形象被激活的不同背景，体现了截然相反的意义。布朗有时被誉为美国内战的发源者，但人们却被形容为正义的废奴主义者、宗教狂热者、才华横溢的演说家、令人敬畏的军事战略家、自封的白人救世主和疯子。今天，布朗以各种事业的名义被召唤出来，从左翼枪支俱乐部到大学体育，而他的戏剧化形象则以截然不同的方式被激活。布朗作为历史人物的明显独特性，以及他在各个领域（从娱乐到革命政治）的随时被采用和部署，提出了一个戏剧和表演学者熟悉的问题，即一个人（或角色）的形象或概念与他们在生活中或舞台上的实际表演之间的空间。约翰·布朗 （John Brown） 被记住和重新表演的方式与他被记住和重新表演的方式可能存在明显的紧张关系。或者，正如 Ted A. Smith 在与 Brown 一起思考时指出的那样：“图像，无论多么标志性，都不是争论。