问题补充&&
本页链接：
猜你感兴趣山东吕剧调查与研究--《山西师范大学》2010年硕士论文
山东吕剧调查与研究
【摘要】：吕剧曾名“化妆扬琴”、“琴戏”等,在山东临邑、济阳一带也被称为“迷戏”,在胶东则又叫“蹦蹦戏”,是山东省具有代表性的地方剧种,也是全国八大戏曲种类之一。
吕剧酝酿于民间说唱艺术“山东琴书”(坐腔扬琴),同时又吸收融合了如“大鼓”、“弋阳腔”、“坠子”等其它民间戏曲、曲艺精华,借鉴化用了“五音戏”、“扽腔”、“柳腔”、“京剧”、“梆子腔”等剧种中适于自身的某些音乐腔调、表演等成份,不断地丰富、发展、完善,而一跃成为山东省重要的代表性剧种。吕剧是黄河三角洲地区及至山东省文化发展的产物。它起源、兴盛于素有吕剧“窝子”之称的博兴、广饶一带地区,成长、成熟并定型于济南等大城市,流传于江苏、新疆、黑龙江、辽宁等地。
吕剧以山东琴书主调【凤阳歌】为曲调母体产生出基本腔调【四平腔】,使唱腔结构由曲牌联套体演变为板腔体,又由【四平腔】衍生出【慢四平】、【快四平】、【四平散板】等多种板式;以山东琴书曲调【垛子板】发展出【二板】,又由【二板】进而衍生出【慢二板】、【快二板】等丰富的戏曲音乐板式。吕剧唱腔以板腔体为主,兼唱曲牌。曲调简单朴实、柔美动听、灵活顺口、易学易唱。在长期的演出实践中,吕剧的唱腔、念白统一于以“济南官话“为基础。
吕剧富有浓郁的齐鲁文化韵味,乡村气息浓重,许多优秀剧目生动地反映出齐鲁民俗风情,内容健康活泼,戏词风趣诙谐,具有较高的思想性和艺术性。
吕剧迄今发展有百年历史,在二十世纪五、六十年代一度辉煌,文革时又遭受了巨大破坏。新时期,吕剧又得以恢复和发展。而电视、电影等新媒介的兴起,使吕剧的发展受到了很大挑战,同时吕剧艺术自身包括音乐和题材内容等方面也存在着诸多问题,亟待改革以顺应时代潮流。2008年,吕剧被收入第二批国家非物质文化遗产名录,其保护、传承、发展问题越来受到人们的重视。
本文在对吕剧实地调查的基础上,结合吕剧史料、戏曲史、戏曲美学、戏曲文化学、戏曲社会学等知识对吕剧源流、吕剧艺术表现形式、吕剧生态进行全面、系统的透析。在此基础上,联系国家非物质文化遗产保护工作的展开,来探讨吕剧的发展对策,使其重新焕发光彩。
吕剧根植于齐鲁文化的深厚土壤,是一笔无形的文化财富,对其进行深入探讨和研究,对传承齐鲁乃至中国的优秀传统文化具有重要的历史和社会意义。
第一章,绪论部分,主要是对本文研究的原因和意义、当前研究成果,以及本文的研究方法、创新之处作系统、详细的介绍,突出本文研究的价值所在。
第二章,针对吕剧音乐腔调的原生态、形成时间、产生地、创始人以及定名等社会上莫衷一是的问题,在调查采访的基础上结合吕剧史料、戏曲知识对其进行客观、科学的探讨和分析。
第三章对吕剧母体山东琴书的历史源流作系统探析,探索出吕剧产生的内在因素和外在动因。
第四章,对吕剧的艺术特色作系统、全面、深入地探讨,对其各种表现形式包括音乐、剧本、行当表演等,在前人研究成果的基础上,进行实地考察(包括对剧团提供的各个时期的剧本、现场观看并拍摄剧团排练、演出等)和采访,对各个艺术组成部分做深入的探讨和研究。
第五章,通过查阅吕剧史料、市、县志并结合对吕剧起源地的调查采访所得来对吕剧的历史兴衰、流变作以客观、详细的归纳整理和研究。
第六章,对吕剧早期艺人班社、建国后各剧团及各个时期的代表人物等在查阅史料和调查采访的基础上,作详细、条分缕析的整理、介绍。
第七章,基于实地调查的成果对吕剧的生存状态和存在的问题作以客观分析。
第八章,结合非物质文化遗产保护工作的展开,为吕剧的保护和传承、创新与发展,提出切实可行的发展对策。
第九章,对本文研究做出总结,试图为以上对吕剧的探讨得出一个合理的结论,指出实地调查采访并结合戏曲理论知识对吕剧研究的价值和意义。
【关键词】：
【学位授予单位】：山西师范大学【学位级别】：硕士【学位授予年份】：2010【分类号】：J825【目录】：
摘要3-5Abstract5-121 绪论12-16 1.1 本文选题的原因和意义13-14
1.1.1 选题的原因13-14
1.1.2 选题的意义14 1.2 吕剧的研究现状14-15 1.3 本文的研究方法和创新之处15-16
1.3.1 研究方法15
1.3.2 本文的创新之处15-162 吕剧起源与定名问题考辩16-30 2.1 吕剧起源于山东琴书16-20 2.2 吕剧形成时间、创始人、起源地辨析20-25 2.3 吕剧产生于黄河三角洲的必然性25-27 2.4 吕剧的名称由来27-29 2.5 吕剧定名时间29-303 吕剧母体-山东琴书的渊源流变30-364 吕剧的艺术特色36-69 4.1 吕剧语言—浓郁的齐鲁乡土话语特色36-39 4.2 吕剧音乐解析39-52
4.2.1 吕剧唱腔音乐的特点—散发着柔婉、质朴的温馨气息39-48
4.2.2 吕剧的伴奏音乐—乐器、乐队的特色48-52 4.3 吕剧的表演特色52-56
4.3.1 吕剧脚色行当的历史沿革与现行体制53-56 4.4 吕剧剧目、剧本56-69
4.4.1 吕剧剧目的分类56-60
4.4.2 吕剧剧本分析60-695 吕剧历史状态探析69-75 5.1 建国前早期吕剧—化妆扬琴的发展69-71
5.1.1 拉地摊（亦称“盘凳子”）时期69-70
5.1.2 搭舞台与组班演出时期70-71
5.1.3 进入城市，在剧场演出时期71 5.2 改革完善时期（改革、定名和繁荣阶段）71-73 5.3 文革及新时期的发展73-756 吕剧演出团体和演艺人员75-99 6.1 早期吕剧—化妆扬琴时期班社、活动及代表艺人75-82
6.1.1 化妆扬琴时期主要班社75-76
6.1.2 化妆扬琴时期班社主要活动76-78
6.1.3 化妆扬琴时期代表艺人78-81
6.1.4 东营市早期吕剧—化妆扬琴时期艺人谱系81-82 6.2 建国后至今吕剧代表剧团及著名演艺人员82-99
6.2.1 吕剧代表剧团82-92
6.2.2 建国后至今著名吕剧演艺人员92-997 吕剧生存状态透析99-104 7.1 国家专业剧团的生存现状99-101 7.2 民营剧团的生存现状101 7.3 民办公助庄户剧团的生存现状101-1048 吕剧艺术的保护、传承与发展104-113 8.1 吕剧艺术的保护与传承104-109 8.2 吕剧的革新与发展109-1139 结语113-116致谢116-118参考文献118-122附录122-130攻读学位期间所发表的论文和及获奖情况130
欢迎：、、)
支持CAJ、PDF文件格式
【参考文献】
中国硕士学位论文全文数据库
陈阳;[D];东北师范大学;2007年
【共引文献】
中国期刊全文数据库
崔蕴华;[J];安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2002年03期
陈廷亮;谭婷;;[J];北京舞蹈学院学报;2005年04期
潘怀剑,田家怡,窦慧;[J];滨州师专学报;2002年02期
杨成钢;张太富;;[J];重庆社会科学;2006年04期
穆宏燕;[J];东疆学刊;2002年01期
田同旭,武兴芳;[J];山西大学师范学院学报;2002年01期
陈维昭;[J];复旦学报(社会科学版);2001年02期
张明非;[J];广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2005年02期
吴明德;[J];广西民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版);2002年04期
吴瑞霞;[J];湖北师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版);2003年04期
中国重要会议论文全文数据库
刘云燕;;[A];京剧的历史、现状与未来暨京剧学学科建设学术研讨会论文集（下册）[C];2005年
中国博士学位论文全文数据库
黄季鸿;[D];东北师范大学;2002年
张君仁;[D];福建师范大学;2002年
杨宇振;[D];重庆大学;2002年
卢寿荣;[D];复旦大学;2003年
吕文丽;[D];中国艺术研究院;2004年
高益荣;[D];陕西师范大学;2004年
薛泉;[D];河北大学;2004年
姜娓娓;[D];清华大学;2004年
陈建华;[D];华东师范大学;2005年
李志梅;[D];华东师范大学;2005年
中国硕士学位论文全文数据库
何晓苇;[D];西南师范大学;2001年
华伟丽;[D];山东师范大学;2001年
肖晓丽;[D];重庆大学;2002年
高峰;[D];湖南大学;2002年
杨飞;[D];内蒙古师范大学;2003年
李英顺;[D];延边大学;2003年
郭宏梅;[D];中国艺术研究院;2004年
王琦;[D];西安建筑科技大学;2004年
陈怡琳;[D];中央民族大学;2004年
罗文茜;[D];西南师范大学;2004年
【同被引文献】
中国期刊全文数据库
徐元勇;[J];交响-西安音乐学院学报;2000年03期
徐元勇;[J];交响-西安音乐学院学报;2003年02期
徐东娜;[J];音乐探索;2005年02期
项阳;;[J];中国音乐;2007年02期
杨红;;[J];中央音乐学院学报;2005年04期
中国硕士学位论文全文数据库
曹霞;[D];湖南师范大学;2007年
【二级参考文献】
中国期刊全文数据库
刘晓春;[J];民俗研究;2003年01期
乔晓光;[J];美术研究;2004年03期
李于昆;[J];民族艺术;2005年01期
董乃斌,程蔷;[J];湛江海洋大学学报;2003年02期
周来达;[J];中国音乐;2005年02期
施维;;[J];浙江艺术职业学院学报;2006年02期
中国博士学位论文全文数据库
刘艳卉;[D];上海戏剧学院;2007年
谭真明;[D];曲阜师范大学;2007年
中国硕士学位论文全文数据库
汪余礼;[D];武汉大学;2005年
【相似文献】
中国期刊全文数据库
王蕴明;[J];中国戏剧;2001年09期
欣闻;[J];中国戏剧;1992年06期
杨景贤;[J];中国戏剧;2003年03期
惠敏;[J];中国戏剧;2004年11期
刘关权;[J];瞭望;1990年43期
李继华;[J];滨州师专学报;2004年03期
李新新;[J];中华女子学院山东分院学报;1992年01期
卢政;刘坤;刘洪艳;;[J];中国戏剧;2007年10期
涂沛;[J];中国戏剧;1997年12期
任素芬;;[J];作家;2010年20期
中国重要会议论文全文数据库
赵迎芳;;[A];建设经济文化强省：挑战·机遇·对策——山东省社会科学界2009年学术年会文集（4）[C];2009年
谭永春;;[A];山东省群文理论研讨会论文集[C];2000年
刘瑞强;;[A];中国民间文化艺术之乡建设与发展初探[C];2010年
商昌峰;;[A];山东省群文理论研讨会论文集[C];2000年
黄阜生;;[A];2004年山东省群众文化学会“全省优秀论文评选”一等奖获奖论文集[C];2004年
高树森;;[A];崇尚科学 关爱家庭 珍惜生命 反对邪教——中国反邪教协会第九次报告会暨学术讨论会论文集[C];2004年
白敏君;;[A];欧阳予倩诞辰120周年纪念文集[C];2009年
林琳;;[A];欧阳予倩诞辰120周年纪念文集[C];2009年
中国重要报纸全文数据库
王晓家;[N];中国文化报;2004年
姜少华;[N];中国文化报;2002年
济南市吕剧院院长
于鹤咏;[N];中国文化报;2002年
流 泉;[N];中国文化报;2004年
盛潇涵;[N];威海日报;2011年
王波　李德强;[N];烟台日报;2010年
本报驻济南记者
朱军;[N];中国文化报;2001年
本报记者　李艳丽 实习生 李秀玲;[N];烟台日报;2006年
陈炜敏;[N];济南日报;2010年
驻济南记者
朱军;[N];中国文化报;2001年
中国博士学位论文全文数据库
刘洪艳;[D];山东大学;2008年
中国硕士学位论文全文数据库
苏远尚;[D];山西师范大学;2010年
董刚德;[D];山西师范大学;2012年
王虹;[D];山东师范大学;2010年
孙雪;[D];西安音乐学院;2012年
杨昭君;[D];南京艺术学院;2012年
开万贺;[D];河南大学;2012年
文翠婷;[D];中央民族大学;2008年
陈阳;[D];东北师范大学;2007年
张婷;[D];山东大学;2008年
牛文佳;[D];上海戏剧学院;2008年
&快捷付款方式
&订购知网充值卡
400-819-9993
《中国学术期刊（光盘版）》电子杂志社有限公司
同方知网数字出版技术股份有限公司
地址：北京清华大学 84-48信箱 知识超市公司
出版物经营许可证 新出发京批字第直0595号
订购热线：400-819-82499
服务热线：010--
在线咨询：
传真：010-
京公网安备75号工具类服务
编辑部专用服务
作者专用服务
古代戏曲色彩考论
色彩作为大自然与人类生活相通的意象集合,基于人类生理构造和生活环境方面的共性对色彩的感受,无论是对于单一色彩还是色彩组合,大多数人的感受存有共同的倾向,色彩这种共性的感受与共同的倾向,在约定俗成的社会认知背景下固化为一种社会观念,并形成本民族特有的色彩内涵。古代戏曲融汇传统色彩的文化语言,将其推衍为戏曲艺人与受众群体间对话的有效工具,并赋予其多重表现功能,成为我们了解民族文化内涵及戏曲演出形态的一个窗口。　　本文以古代戏曲舞台色彩为研究对象,上编三章内容以文献考证及文物考古等手段梳理戏曲舞台色彩演进轨迹及视觉呈现,并结合戏曲发展形态探讨色彩与演出间的内在关联。在戏曲漫长的孕育期,色彩作为视觉符号活跃在各类扮饰表演的角色造型中,并随着扮演者地位的变化及戏剧形态的演进呈现出不同的特征及选择范畴。从先秦时期巫傩仪礼的扮饰演出中所展现出对自然色彩的崇尚,到两汉乐舞百戏及俳优装扮中对五行色彩的遵守,直至隋唐戏弄歌舞戏及科白戏中角色表演中以生活常色为依据的色彩重构,戏曲演出中色彩成为人物造型及扮饰表演中不可或缺的组成部分。　　宋元演剧过程中,脚色行当制的初建不仅奠定了中国古典戏曲独立的戏剧品格与演出形态,成为古代戏曲成熟的标志;而且为诸多泛戏剧形态走向成熟戏曲提供了借鉴效法的路径及方式,成为传统戏曲舞台组织及色彩扮饰的核心内涵。人物装扮不再以巫觋倡优的“演员”角度来进行色彩选择,而是转向以“脚色”的分工来进行参演人员的色彩扮饰。宋金杂剧不仅突破了以“演员”身份为依据的五色正间及附加的尊卑意识范畴,实现了正间色彩的杂糅与汇通;南戏演出以“穿插诸伎”及“角色串扮”的搬演风格,在色彩选择上通过对民间风俗及视觉习惯的深层融汇来展现脚色特征及戏剧冲突,形成具有浓重民间意味、观演之间互相认同的色彩传达符号,使得观众和演员之间建立起无障碍的交流渠道,极大强化了戏曲演出中受众群体的地位及观演互动的良性循环。元代杂剧不仅形成一本四折的文本范式、曲牌联套的音乐体制,而且逐步确立相应的舞台表演程序及人物扮饰与色彩选择的相关规范。戏曲表演最终回归到以“舞台”为中心的视听感受及故事叙述上来。色彩运用及造型设计与舞台布景的贯穿融汇,不仅构成独立于世俗生活之外的虚拟时空,而且以视觉符号组建新型的舞台秩序与时空关系,形成符合民族审美习惯、适应虚拟时空、相对独立的戏曲舞台色彩体系。　　明清戏曲舞台演出形制的成熟,不仅使得观演习惯由欣赏剧本的故事情节转移到了赏玩舞台的表演技艺,而且将色彩从以“脚色”个体扮饰及人物造型的塑造转向“舞台”整体视觉秩序及审美风格的建构上,将戏曲色彩扮饰所营造的视觉形式超脱于剧目内容及道德评价之上,进行相对独立的韵味赏玩与美感体验。明清宫廷演剧以精巧华丽的视觉秩序重建着舞台上虚拟时空、转变着杂剧演出的舞美风格,将视觉上的美感体验及层次序列推向受众群体,形成具有强烈唯美主义的舞台着色倾向。四大声腔的勃兴在演出舞台上开创了以南曲为主的传奇时代,无论是厅台楼阁中精雅细腻的昆山雅调还是庙社草台上粗犷火爆的弋阳诸腔,在不同的唱腔风格、表演形制以及受众群体的影响下在舞台上呈现出相对独立的着色原则与搭配依据,不仅给风格迥异的腔调剧种带来了营造舞台秩序的组织法则,而且为戏曲舞台色彩程式的定型奠定了坚实的基础。清代宫廷大戏则以明清传奇舞台演出为基础,吸纳融汇不同声腔剧种间的着色原则,适合大场景及复杂剧情铺垫的内廷演剧需要,并在人物扮饰及景物造型上形成舞台色彩的妆扮规范与法则,使得戏曲舞台以特定的色彩程式来营构视觉秩序与时空场景。无论是泛戏剧形态下以“演”为中心的个人扮饰,还是宋元演剧中以“脚色”为核心的人物装扮,乃至明清戏曲演出中以“舞台”为依据的视觉呈现,色彩演进伴随着戏曲本体的发展成熟经历了由简到繁、从无序到有序、由写实到写意、从客观模仿到主观重组,成为戏曲舞台视觉秩序营造的重要手段。同时,色彩选择也无可回避地受制于戏曲本体之外的社会文化环境影响,展示出强烈的舞台表现功能、庞杂的民俗约定成份、厚重的社会文化内涵以及深厚的古典美学意蕴。　　本文分别从表演学、民俗学、文化学及美学视角进行分层解析,试图阐释古代戏曲色彩演进的介入因素与生态环境。从表演学上看戏曲色彩具有情感性、饰美性、符号性的舞台功能及表现特征,通过这些功能特征获取舞台视觉上的观演互动与心理认同,并营造出美仑美奂的写意幻景及井然有序的符号体系。从民俗意义上看无论是驱鬼逐疫还是迎神祭祖,色彩作为原始信仰的符号构成不仅隐喻着观演之间对神灵先祖的敬畏与礼赞,而且饱含着从自然现实世界到舞台虚幻之境的情感体验及心灵宣泄。从乐天悯人的色彩狂欢到趋吉避祸的色彩文饰,色彩以岁令时节的民间习俗调节着舞台上的表演情绪及视觉感应。由民族传统的色彩崇拜到地域风尚的色彩选择,不同民族及地域间的色彩习惯不仅使得戏曲在人物扮饰中呈现出绚烂多彩的舞台效果,而且成为不同剧种间最具别异特征的标识符号。从文化视角上看戏曲色彩以阴阳五行的哲学观及天人合一的思维方式来建构舞台秩序;以“绘事后素”、以色明礼的儒家色彩观及“知白守黑”、“以色证道”的道家色彩理论来营造色彩意象;以忠奸善恶的色彩象征及谱系秩序的色彩比附来关联色彩的道德评判。同时,将自然宇宙与人类社会之间的色彩符号投射到戏曲舞台的着色规范上来,形成与五色三统相匹配和正间色彩相对应的视觉秩序。从美学角度上看戏曲色彩存在着“意”与“象”、“简”与“繁”、“雅”与“俗”之间的表现与转换,无论是“离形得似”与“随类赋彩”的色彩营造,还是“单纯的张力”与“繁缛的夸饰”之间的色彩传达,乃至是“雅而能俗”及“俗而化雅”的色彩认同,戏曲色彩以古典美学为统摄组织着舞台视觉的美感呈现及着色依据。戏曲作为以“演”为核心的人物扮饰活动,舞台色彩不仅凝聚着戏曲各种形态下的视觉形式与观演习惯,同时也折射出不同文化环境中的色彩传统与民间禁忌。
学科专业：
授予学位：
学位授予单位：
导师姓名：
学位年度：
在线出版日期：
本文读者也读过
相关检索词
万方数据知识服务平台--国家科技支撑计划资助项目（编号：2006BAH03B01）(C)北京万方数据股份有限公司
万方数据电子出版社中国古代戏曲中的悲剧
中国古代戏曲中的悲剧
作者：钱钟书
　　 批评的钟摆已经再次向回摆，有迹象表明中国古代文学正在重新受到世人的青睐。据说时下国外正在流行中国古代文学热，尤其是古代戏曲在西方呼声更高。我们很以此为荣。中国古代戏曲在这次热潮中能够导夫先路是不足为奇的，因为戏剧的真正力量，如亚里士多德在《诗学》中所说，是不倚靠表演或演员的，戏剧也能适应那些兴趣并不仅在演出和奇观上而有其他特别要求的多数人。此外，兰姆谈风俗喜剧时所用的那个词“做作”，可以用来形容我国古代戏曲。对于耽于单调乏味的现实主义和令人厌倦的社会问题剧的西方读者来说，就像看多了平内罗和琼斯的感伤剧再看巴利的愉快幻想一样，中国传统戏曲能够令他们耳目一新。无论我国古代戏曲作为舞台表演或作为诗有什么价值，但作为戏剧而言，它们都不能同西方的戏剧名作相媲美。不管对古代作家怀有多大的敬意，我们有时不得不重复枯立治在评论博蒙特和弗莱泽时所希望的，他们不应当写戏剧而应当去写诗，而诗在广义上也包括“词”和“曲”。我这样说并没有任何偏见，我对我国古代文学的喜爱不输任何人，如果中国古代作家和现代作家之间爆发论争的话，我肯定站在天使和古代作家这
戏剧艺术的最高形式当然是悲剧，然则正是在悲剧方面，我国古代并没有一位成功的剧作家。除了喜剧和闹剧外，我们那些严肃的剧目都应该被归为传奇剧。这种戏没有表现单一的主导激情，却表现出一串松散地连续着的激情。所搬演的多是因果报应，其中感伤与幽默的场景有规律地交相更替，借用《雾都孤儿》里一个家常比喻，犹如一层层红白相间的五花咸猪肉。对于悲剧的感觉，那种因崇高所致的痛苦，“啊！我胸中有两个灵魂！”的感觉和对小善翻成大恶的认识，在戏里都极少表现。确实有不少古代戏曲结尾的调子是悲哀的。但是敏感的读者极易将其与真正悲剧区以别焉：顾曲既毕，全无激情过后的平静，或者如斯宾诺莎所谓对内在命运的默许；与之相反，却被一种剧烈的、郁闷的、失落的甚至自身意欲隐藏的悲痛所折磨。为了感知其间的不同，不妨将莎士比亚的《安东尼与克娄巴特拉》和德莱顿的《一切为了爱》与白仁甫《梧桐雨》和洪昇的《长生殿》加以比较。两出中国戏曲所表现的唐玄宗、杨贵妃故事，就像是两出英国戏剧所表现的安东尼和克娄巴特拉的故事。并且两个故事都是由爱情而导致“穷途末路”。两出中国戏曲和《安东尼与克娄巴特拉》有特别相似之处，因为它们都放弃了舞台上时间与地点的
一致性；并且在所有这些戏的前半场，完全没有悲剧场面和悲剧事件；它们都如田园诗那样开场，而结局竟如此不同！读两部中国戏曲，我们没有从个人同情上升到更高的体验层面。《梧桐雨》中敏锐的抒情性和《长生殿》中能激发美感的动人奢华，对其自身而言，都再好不过，但是未宜将其与悲剧力量混为一谈。它们在结尾留给我们的不是和谐与完成，而是因对剧中人遭际的同情而削弱了的隐隐心痛，和对一些如安慰、支持和更靠近精神需求的东西的呼喊。这确实远离了直接的悲剧体验，如I.A.瑞恰兹先生在《文学批评原理》中的妙论所云那样：“处于不需安慰，不需胁迫，独立和自给自足的状态。”由是可知，一种体验适堪与另一种同等宝
贵，但一种体验所具有的感受却不可能与另一种相同。&
这些中国戏曲留给读者的是对更美好事物的向往，而不是对万物有更悲惨结局的感觉。其戏剧结构加深了这种印象。大幕不在主要悲剧事件上落下，而落在悲剧事件所产生的后果上。悲惨时刻所产生的最高热情和最深痛苦，似乎在缓缓的落幕当中退去。这好比是颤音或呜咽的扩开，产生了奇特效果。意味深长的是，在《梧桐雨》中，杨贵妃在第三折已死，剩下整整一折来表现唐玄宗的哀诉、苦思和他那颗残破的心被无助的忧伤所吞噬；在《长生殿》里，杨贵妃死于第二十五出只是为在第五十出的重聚预做准备（多少与华兹华斯诗中普罗忒希勒和罗达米亚的方式一致）。更重要的是，人们无法从对悲剧人物的可怜的个人同情中升华。因为这些人物并未伟大到使我们与之保持相当的精神感应距离。悲剧性缺陷存在着，它并不刻意于与任何个性影响或人物力量产生鲜明对比。例如，两出戏中的唐玄宗本质上都是懦弱、失败、极度自私、好色的，不做任何抗争地随波逐流。他没有内心的冲突。他因宠爱杨贵妃而失去了江山，为夺回江山又抛弃了杨贵妃。他的个性不足以把爱与江山这两个方面紧紧地扯在一起，他甚至没有两全其美的意识。在白仁甫的剧里，他似乎是个懦夫和无赖。当叛军要求处死杨贵妃时，他说：“妃子不济事了，寡人自不能保。”杨贵妃哀求救命，他回答说：“寡人怎生是好！”杨贵妃最终被叛军带走时，他又对她说：“卿休怨寡人！”我们不爱夸口说大话，但这些话却是过于轻慢了，他自知有过，任何评论都是多余的。在洪昇的剧里，唐玄宗的态度更加无耻。杨贵妃勇敢赴死，但唐玄宗却不让，说为了爱宁可不要江山。可是，在说了一些模棱两可的话后，他还是把她交给了叛军。临别时却说：“罢罢，妃子既执意如此，朕也做不得主了。”公正地说，唐玄宗讲这些话时含泪跺脚，是动了感情的。
但是，把这些话与莎士比亚剧中安东尼的话比较一下：&
　　 “让罗马在台伯河里融化吧，让宽敞的帝国拱门倒塌吧！这里是我的空间。”
或与德莱顿剧中安东尼那更平实的话语比较：“带走一切吧，这个世界对我来说一钱不值。”
当然，把如此根本不同的东西拿来比较，简直是一种过失。遭遇灾难时对生活中的残忍还抱有希望，在不幸中还尽量享乐，这绝不是悲剧。我很清楚，按照历史事实，唐玄宗没有如安东尼一样死去。但我的看法是，即使他不死，也有许多悲剧因素，而剧作家们却未能据
以创作出能够给我们以充分悲剧经验的剧作。&
因此，我恕不同意（虽然并不很自信）已故中国古代戏曲专家王国维的见解。王国维在《宋元戏曲史》中说：“明以后传奇，无非喜剧，而元则有悲剧在其中。就其存者言之，如《汉宫秋》、《梧桐雨》……等，初无所谓先离后合，始困终亨之事也。其最有悲剧之性质者，则如关汉卿之《窦娥冤》、纪君祥之《赵氏孤儿》。剧中虽有恶人交构其间，而其赴汤蹈火者仍出于其主人翁之意志。即列之于世界大悲剧中，亦无愧色也。”（说见第十
二章《元曲之文章》）。&
我们前已论及《梧桐雨》。正如奥古斯丁·毕雷尔妙语所云：“衡量绳子的强度不能看其最粗之处而要看其最细之处，而评价诗人则要看其最得意之时。”因此，我们将对被王国维称为“最有悲剧之性质”的两出戏曲进行检验。假使我们可能加以辨别的话，王国维对这两出戏曲所作评论中有三条大可商榷：第一，它们是伟大的文学杰作。这一点，我们衷心赞同。第二，它们是伟大的悲剧，因为主人公坚持灾难性意愿。这一点，我们有所保留。第三，它们是伟大的悲剧，就像我们说《俄底浦斯》、《奥赛罗》以及《贝蕾妮斯》是伟大的悲剧一样。对此，我们恕不同意。当然，王国维这种植根于主人公意志的完整悲剧观似乎明显是高乃依式的，而他所构想的悲剧冲突比起高乃依则少了人物内心的冲突。以《熙德》的罗德里克为例，无论如何马虎塞责，高乃依有时还是触及了荣誉与爱情间的猛烈对抗的。鉴定布丁的办法就是去吃它，还是让我们对这两出戏逐一作些简
要的考论。&
先看《窦娥冤》。潦倒不堪的穷秀才窦天章要进京赶考，为了抵偿旧债，将女儿窦端云送给寡妇蔡婆。八年后，窦娥与蔡婆的儿子成亲。两年后，她的丈夫死于肺病。恶棍张驴儿觊觎她，但她坚守从一而终的传统道德信条而不肯答应。最后，张驴儿毒死其父，诬称她是凶手。于是就有了血凝白练的法场戏：为了使婆婆免受怀疑，窦娥一人承认所有指控，她被判死刑。临斩前，她祈求苍天可怜降给人间亢旱三年。这些发生在第三折。第四折，离家多年的窦天章任提刑肃政廉访使，重审此案并为窦娥之死昭雪。主要剧情概略如此。在最后一折中，特有的因果报应对于我们被伤害的感情很有安抚作用，但重要的问题是：它加强悲剧事件了吗？即使我们暂时放弃这个问题，抛开第四折不论，我们能说前三
折给我们留下了“处于不需安慰，不需胁迫，独立和自给自足状态”的完整悲剧印象吗？任何人只要用心想一下都会说不。人们的感觉是：窦端云的品格是如此高尚和完美无缺，她的死是如此悲惨，冤案强加于她是如此令人不能容忍，以至于第四折不可避免地要调整平衡。换句话说，作者已经设置了这种情节，使这出戏只能是以因果报应而不是以悲剧结束。为什么？窦端云之死既不是她有什么过错，也不是命运注定。对于她的性格中可能有的悲剧缺陷，剧作家已经视而不见，并且最终希望我们也作如是观。剧作家当然对她寄予同情，我们评判她是有道德的，甚至上天和命运也站在她一边———让亢旱三年和六月飞雪的预言应验。老天惩治了浪荡子，然则为何要有那么多的因果报应？此外，剧中所表现的悲剧冲突纯粹是外在的。她初心不改：始终保持对已故丈夫的忠贞和对新求婚者的厌恶。她抗拒恶棍，以全副心力迎接挑战。在这种情形下，保持主人公的意志是一件比较容易的事。然而，通过展示窦端云爱惜自己生命与拯救婆婆的愿望之间的内心斗争，也许会构成内在的悲剧冲突。意味深长的是，剧作者没有把握住这
我们对《窦娥冤》的批评也多少适用于《赵氏孤儿》。这出戏的主人公是赵家的医人程婴，他牺牲自己的孩子，保住了赵氏孤儿，最后鼓励他向坏人报了仇。这出戏的结局是十足的因果报应和大团圆：坏人受酷刑后毙命，孤儿找回了失去的一切，程婴的牺牲也得到报答。这里的悲剧冲突更激烈、更内在些。程婴在亲子之爱和痛苦的奉献职责之间的自我分裂得到了有力的表现。但不幸的是，亲情与责任之间的竞争力并不匹敌，很明显，其中一个不难战胜另一个。程婴显然认为（而且剧作家也希望我们同他一起认为）尽责牺牲比沉溺父爱更加正当———“若再剪除了这点萌芽，可不断送他灭门绝户？”这里的斗争并不激烈，紧张的悲剧对抗突然中止，天平朝向一边倾斜。这在公孙杵臼身上表现得非常清楚，他舍命救孤，毫不犹豫地在爱与责中做出了抉择。这出被认为“列于世界大悲剧中亦无愧色”的剧作，是在身体的实现中完成，而不是在精神的消耗中结束的。我要赶紧补充说明，做出这样的批评丝毫不是要否定《赵氏孤儿》是一出非常感人的戏，它显然比《窦
娥冤》更具有悲剧力量。&
按L.A.李德博士的说法（他在《美学研究》中对悲剧所作的明晰论述，使我获益匪浅），悲剧有两种主要类型：第一种，重在性格塑造。第二种，命运本身就能吸引注意力。莎士比亚属于第一种，希腊悲剧属于第二种。我们习惯上称之为悲剧的那些中国古代戏曲，只能算是莎士比亚式的。像莎剧一样，它们不实行三一律，并强调性格和对邪恶境遇的反应。但它们不是悲剧，因为正如我们已经看到的，剧作家对于悲剧性缺陷和悲剧冲突的观念不正确。已故的欧文·白璧德在《卢梭与浪漫主义》中一条关于“中国原始主义”的注解中，把悲剧的缺乏归结为中国人身上缺少“伦理上的严肃性”。
这个说法太含糊其辞，需要做些解释。白璧德的意思可81.3.&
能是指本文开头所谈及的“做作”。如果我们上文的分析完全正确，那么，这个缺陷就起因于等级制度下的特定道德秩序。每一种道德价值在天平上都有适合的位置，而所有的财产和权利都依照严格的“价值顺序”排定。因此，两种根本不相容的伦理本体发生冲突时往往不会激烈。当其中一种的道德标准高过另一种时，标准较低的一方便始终在打一场不可能取胜的仗。因此，我们只能看到直线性的个性，而看不到平行的个性。较低的伦理本体所忽略的，由较高的伦理本体来实行，因此完全没有“悲剧过度”———具见《孟子·离娄》论“大人”品行和柳宗元妙文《四维论》。这种
观点也在我们古代剧作中得到证实。&
我们被认为是个宿命论的民族。因此，令人费解的是，我们古代戏曲作家极少把命运当作悲剧的主题。但是，悲剧命运实际上与宿命论无关。宿命论本质上是失败主义的、消极的、导致懒散和迟钝的、逆来顺受的态度，而悲剧性反讽则存在于人在面对命运的播弄时所作的种种努力当中。此外，我们平常所谓命运与希腊悲剧所表现的命运完全不同。怀特海教授在《科学与近代世界》中指出：“今天所存在的科学思想的始祖是古雅典的伟大悲剧作家———埃斯库罗斯、索福克勒斯和欧里庇德斯等人。他们认为命运是冷酷无情的，驱使着悲剧性事件不可逃避地发生。这正是科学所持的观点……物理的定律就等于人生命运的律令。”我们的命运观还没有那么科学，认为善有善报，恶有恶报，正是A.C.布拉德雷博士在《莎士比亚悲剧》中要求我们将之与悲剧冤屈完全区别开来的因果报应。换句话说，我们的命运观与其说等同于动机和效果不如说是等同于行为和报酬。它不是以伦理学的中性观念认定当事人必须遭受苦难，而是感性地相信德行的报酬就是德行本身以及随之而来的其他。不仅“旦种椒豆，暮成藿叶”，而且“心之所愿，志快意惬”。但是，效果可能与动机并不一致，报酬和行为的完全不相符也就是可以想见的了。我们总是用轮回说来解释这种不一致，我们不是在前生欠债，就是在来世得偿。这种观念与希腊的观念截然对立。另一方面，我们通常认为的命运，一如尼采所说，是人的、人性的。其反讽并不可怕，但正如哈代论天意时所说，是一种有微不足道害处的“卖
弄风情”。———马致远有趣的剧本《荐福碑》足资证明。E.M.福斯特先生在《小说面
面观》中对哈代的批评，也适用于这出戏。&
我们已经通过戏剧自身的原因，详细论述了为什么中国古代文学缺乏悲剧。当然我们可以从种族和文化的原因来解释这种缺乏，可以启动一种有趣的社会学的或人类学的猜想，可以依据怀特海的提示用缺乏悲剧来说明我们科学的落后。但是，我应当把这些事情留给更适合的人去做。毕竟我们一次只能做一件事。我们对中西戏剧的比较研究是极有助益的，这有两个理由。第一，能够打消包括中国批评家在内的人们对我们自己的戏曲所抱的许多幻觉。第二，有助于研究比较文学的学者确定中国古代戏曲在艺术宫殿中的适当位置。我深信，假使比较文学专业的学者肯把中国古代文学纳进他们的视野，他们就会找到许多新资料，足以动摇西方批评家奉为圭臬的那些理论教条。对治中国古代文学批评史的学者来说，这种切实的比较研究是特别重要的，因为他们由此才能够懂得我国古代批评家的材料同西方批评家的有怎样的不同，懂得西方批评家和我们自己的批评家之间，为什么一方批评的基本原理不能被对方所了解和利用。这曾是我用多种方法研究中国古典文学的目的。为了充实美学经验，我们必须走向外国文学，为了充实其他方面，我们也必须走向我们自己的文学。文学研究中的禁欲主义已经够糟了，而拒绝承认西方
微言妙论的爱国主义则更糟。&
　　 （陆文虎译）&
译者附识：本文原文为英文，载《天下月刊》（T'ienHsiaMonthly）第1卷第1期（1935年8月）。我于1990年8月译为中文，并写了一篇简单的提要。钱钟书先生读后表示：“我想请足下在文后添一节，是否可以，全凭卓裁”。根据钱先生对本文和对他其他“少作”的一贯意见，我在文后补注了一段附记，大意如下：“据我知道，钱先生对这篇‘少作’，像对其他‘少作’一样（除掉少数几篇旧体诗），很不满意，也不愿意别人称述。因为我觉得这篇文章颇有值得注意之处，所以，不揣冒昧，写了以上简单的提要。”译文首度发
钱钟书：中国戏曲中的悲剧（英文）
TRAGEDY IN
OLD CHINESE DRAMA
In writing the present article, the writer has profited by
discussions with his former teacher Professor Y.N. Wen and his
friend Dr. W. F. Wang.
The critical pendulum has once more swung back and there are signs
that our old literature is coming into favour again. Knowing
persons have also told us that there is just at present even a
craze for our old literature among foreigners and that our old
drama especially has all the cry in the West. We are quite proud to
hear of these things. That our old drama should lead the way of the
craze need not surprise us for, though the real power of drama, as
Aristotle says in his Poetics, should be felt apart from
representation and action, drama can for that very reason appeal to
the majority of persons whose interest does not rise above mere
representation and spectacle. Moreover, our old drama richly
deserves the epithet “artificial” which Lamb applies to the comedy
of manners. To Western readers surfeited with drab realism and
tiresome problem plays our old drama comes as “that breathing place
from the burthen of a perpetual moral questioning” which must be as
refreshing as (say) Barrie’s pleasant fancy and pathos after an
overdose of Pinero and Jones. But whatever value our old dramas may
have as stage performances or as poetry, they cannor as dramas hold
their own with great Western dramas. In spite of the highest
respect for the old dramatists, one cannot sometimes help echoing
Coleridge’s wish as regards Beaumont and Fletcher that instead of
dramas, they should have written poetry in the broad sense
inclusive of tzu(词) and ch’u(曲) as well. I say this without the
least prejudice, because I yield to none in my enthusiasm for our
old literature and would definitely range myself on the side of the
angels and the ancients, should a quarrel between the Ancients and
the Moderns break out in China.
The highest dramatic art is of course tragedy and it is precisely
in tragedy that our old playwrights have to a man failed. Apart
from comedies and farces, the rank and file of our serious drama
belong to what is property called the romantic drama. The play does
not present a single master-passion, but a series of passions
loosely strung together. Poetic justice is always rendered, and
pathetic and humorous scenes alternate as regularly as the layers
of red and white in a side of streaky bacon, to borrow a homely
simile from Oliver Twist. Of the tragic sense, the sense of pathos
touched by the sublime, the sense of “Zwey Seelen wohene, achl in
meiner Brust, the knowledge of universal evil as the result of
partial good, there is very little trace. True, there are numerous
old plays which end on the note of sadness. But a sensitive reader
can very easily feel their difference from real tragedies: he goes
away from them not with the calm born of spent passions or what
Spinoza calls acquiescentia with the workings of an immanent
destiny, but, on the contrary, haunted by the pang of a personal
loss, acute, disconsolate, to be hidden away even form oneself. One
has only to compare Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra and Dryden’s
All for Love with Pei Jen-fu’s Rain in the Oil Trees(白仁甫梧桐雨) and
Hung Shen’s The Palace of Everlasting Life(
洪升长生殿)&&in order to perceive the
difference. The story of Emperor Yuan Tsung of the T’ang dynasty
and his ladylove Yand Kuei-fei is presented in both Chinese plays
just as that of Antony and Cleopatra is presented in both English
plays. And both are stories of “the world well lost” for love. The
parallel between the two Chinese plays and Antony and Cleopatra is
particularly close, because they all throw the unities of time and
place by the board and in the first half of all of them, tragic
scenes and events are entirely absent. They all begin idyllically,
but how differently they end! In reading the two Chinese plays, we
are not lifted beyond personal sympathy to a higher plane of
experience. The piercing lyricism of Rain in the Oil Trees and the
sensuous and emotional luxury of The Palace of Everlasting Life are
fine things in themselves, but they are not to be confused with
tragic power. Instead of a sense of reconciliation and fruition,
they leave us at the end weakened by vicarious suffering, with a
tiny ache in the heart, crying for some solace or support and a
scheme of things nearer to the heart’s desire. This is surely
worlds away from the full tragic experience which, as Mr. I. A.
Richards describes so finely in Principles of Literary Criticism,
“stands uncomforted, unintimidated, alone and self-reliant.” Now,
on kind of experience may be as precious as another, but one kind
of experience cannot possess the same feeling as another.
These Chinese plays leave the reader yearning for a better scheme
of things instead of that feeling of having come to the bitter end
of everything. This impression is heightened by the structure of
the plays. The curtain does not fall on the main tragic event, but
on the aftermath of that event. The tragic moment with passion at
its highest and pain at its deepest seems to ebb out in a long
falling close. This gives the peculiar effect of lengthening-out as
of a trill or a sigh. It is significant that in Rain in the Oil
Trees Yang Kuei-fei dies in the third act, leaving a whole act to
the Emperor to whine and pine and eat away in impotent grief the
remains of his broken heart, and that in The Palace of Everlasting
Life, the bereavement occours in the twentyfifth scene only to
prepare us for the happy re-union (more or less after the fashion
of Protesilaus and Laodamia in Wordsworth’s poem) in the fiftieth
scene. What is more important still, one is unable to rise beyond a
merely personal sympathy with the tragic characters because they
are not great enough to keep us at a sufficient psychical distance
from them. The Tragic flaw (αυρτια) is there, but it is not thrown
into sharp relief with any weight of personality or strength of
character. The Emperor, for example, appears in the plays as
essentially a weak, ineffectual and almost selfish sensualist who
drifts along the line of least resistance. He has no sense of
inward conflict. he loses the world by loving Yang Kuei-fei and
then gives her up in the attempt to win back the world. He has not
character enough to be torn taut between two worlds he has not even
sense enough to make the best of both worlds. In Pei Jen-fu’s play
he seems a coward and a cad. Pressed by rebels for Yang Kuei-fei’s
life, he says to her: “I cannot help it. Even my own life is at
stake.” When Yang Kuei-fei implores him, he replies:“What can I
do!” When finally Yang Kuei-fei is led away by the rebels, he says
to her:“Don’t blame me, my dear.” We have no love for rant and
fustian, but these speeches are understatements with a vengeance.
They stand self-convicted any comment on them is superfiuous. In
Hung Shen’s play, the Emperor indeed puts on a bolder front. Yang
Kuei-fei meets her death bravely, but the Emperor will not let her,
and talks of the world well lost for love. After a little hedging,
however he delivers her over to the rebels with these parting
words:“Since you have made up your mind to die, how can I prevent
you?” To do justice to Emperor. these words are spoken very
feelingly with tears and much stamping of foot. But compare them
with Antony’s speech in shakespeare’s play:
“Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch
Of the ranged empir fall! Here is my space.”
or ever with Antony’s more plain words in Dryden’s Play:
“Take all, the world is not worth my care!”
Indeed, it is almost a critical gaffe to compare things so
radically different. To cling bloodthirstily to life in face of
calamity and then to luxuriate in grief is anything but tragic. I
know very well that as a matter of historical fact, the Emperor did
not die as Antony did. But my point is that while there is tragic
quintessence enough and to spare in this situation even without the
Emperors death, our old dramatists in handling the situation have
not produced plays which give us the full tragic experience.
Hence I beg to differ — with great diffidence, to be sure — from
such an authority on old Chinese drama as the late Wang Kuo-wei
(王国维). In A History of The Dramas of the Sung and Yuan Dynasties
(宋元戏曲史), Wang Kuo-wei says:“Dramas written since the Ming dynasty
are all comedies. But some of the Yuan dramas are tragic. In plays
like The Han Palace in Autumn(汉宫秋)，Rain in the Oil Trees, etc.,
there is neither recognition nor happy reversal of fortune. The
most tragic of all are Kuan Han-ching’s The Gross Injustice to Maid
Tou (关汉卿窦娥冤) and Chi Ch&n-hsiang’s Chao’s Orphan (纪君祥赵氏孤儿).
In these two plays, although the calamity comes through the
machinations of the villains, yet the tragic heroes assert their
will-power to the full in precipitating the calamity and facing it
without wince. Thus, they are quite worthy of the company of the
greatest tragedies of the world.” These bold words are quoted from
the twelfth chapter on “The Yuan Drama considered as
Literature”(元曲之文章).
We have already discussed Rain in the Oil Trees. As Augustine
Birrell wittily puts it:“The strength of a rope may be but the
strength of its weakest part, but poets are to be judged in their
happiest hours” so we shall examine the two plays which Wang
Kuo-wei has singled our as “the most tragic”. If we may multiply
distinctions, we can see no less than three claims made by Wang
Kno-wei for the two plays in question. First, they are great
literary masterpieces, to which we may heartily agree. Second, they
are great tragedies because the hero’s assertion of will issues in
calamity, about which we have some reserves to make. Third, they
are great tragedies in the sense that, let us say, Oedipus and
Othello and Berenice are great tragedies, with which we beg leave
to differ. Indeed, Wang Kuo-wei’s whole conception of the tragic as
springing from the assertion of will seems definitely Corneillian
and the tragic conflict as conceived by him is even less inward
than that as conceived by Corneille who, however perfunctorily,
does sometimes touch upon the rudes combats between propre honneur
and amour as in the case of Rodrigue in Le Cid. The proof of the
pudding lies in the eating: let us examine the two plays briefly in
We shall take The Gross Injustice to Maid Tou first. Tou
Tien-chang, a poverty-stricken scholar, leaves for the capital to
participate in the competitive examination and hands over his
daughter Tou Tuan-y&n to a widow to pay for some old debt. After
eight years Tou Tuan-y&n marries the widow’s son who dies of
consumption two years later. The villain Chang L&-er takes a fancy
to her, but she adheres to the traditional moral code of constancy
to one man and will have nothing to do with him. Finally Chang
poisons his own father and accuses her of the murder. Then comes
the blood-curdling law-court scene in which she claims he whole
guilt to herself in order to avert the suspicion from her
mother-in-law. She is sentenced to death. On the scaffold, she
invokes Heaven to have pity on her and visit a drought of three
years upon the people. This takes place in Act Ⅲ. In Act Ⅳ, Tou
Tien-chang who has been away for a long time, and who now becomes
the Lord Chief Justice, ferrets out the case and revenges for his
daughter’s death. This is a rough summary of the main incidents of
the play. The characteristic poetic justice in the last act is very
soothing to our outraged feelings, but the pertinent question is:
does it heighten the tragic event? Even if we waive the question
for a moment and leave the fourth act our of account, can we say of
the three proceding acts that they give us a total impression of
tragedy “unintimidated, uncomforted, self-reliant and alone”? One
looks into one’s own heart and answers no. One feels that Tou
Tuan-y&n’s character is so noble and flawless, her death so
pathetic, and the wrong done to her so outrageous that the fourth
act is imperatively called for to adjust the balance. In other
words, the playwright has so presented the situation that the play
is bound to end in poetic justice and fault of her own nor by any
decree of Fate. If there is any tragic flaw in her character, the
playwright has turned the blind-spot to it and evidently wishes us
to do the same. The playwright’s own sympathy is certainly with
her, our moral judgment is with her. and even Divinity or Fate, is
with her — test the drought and the fall of snow. Why then — in the
name of all gods and wanton boys who kill for sport — not a little
poetic justice? Again, the tragic conflict as presented in the play
is a purely outward one. Her mind is all of a piece: there is a
pre-established harmony between her constancy to the dead husband
and her repugnance to the new suitor. She opposes the villain and
meets the challenge with an undivided soul. The assertion of one’s
will in such a case is comparatively an easy matter, The co
conflict, however, may be made internal by showing Tou Tuan-y&n’s
love of her own life warring with the wish to save her
mother-in-law’s life. Significantly enough, the dramatist fails to
grasp this.
Our criticisms of The Gross Injustice to Maid Tou apply more or
less to Chao’s Orphan too. The hero of this play is CH’eng Ying,
the family physician of Chao, who sacrifices his own child to save
the life of the orphan and finally instigates the orphan to take
vengeance on the villain. The play closes with ample poetic justice
and universal jubilee: the villain is cruelly done to death, the
orphan recovers his lost property, and Ch’eng Ying receives rewards
for his sacrifice. Here the tragic conflict is more intense and
more internal. Ch’eng Ying’s self-division between love for his own
boy and the painful duty of sacrifices is powerfully presented. *
But unfortunately, the competing forces, love and duty, are not of
equal strength and there is apparently no difficulty for the one to
conquer the other. Ch’eng Ying obviously thinks (and the dramatist
invites us to think with him) that it is more righteous to fulfil
the duty of sacrifice than to indulage in paternal love — “a little
more and how much it is!” The combats here are not rudes at all.
The taut tragic opposition is snapped and the scale tips towards
one side. This is shown most clearly in the case of Kun-sun
Ch’u-chiu who in sacrificing his own life to protect the orphan,
shows not the slightest hesitation in choosing between love and
duty. This play which gives high promise to be a tragedy “worthy of
the company of the greatest tragedies in the world” ends in
material fruition rather than spiritual waste. I hasten to add that
I make these criticisms without in the least denying that Chao’s
Orphan is a very moving play and shows even greater promise of
tragic power than The Gross Injustice to Maid Tou.
There are, according to Dr. L. A. Reid (to whose lucid discussion
of tragedy in A Study of Aesthetic I am much indebted), two main
types of tragedy. In the first, the interest tends to be centered
on character. In the second, Fate itself draws the attention.
Shakespearean tragedies belong to the first type, while Greek
tragedies only by courtesy tend towards the Shakespearean type,
while Greek tragedies to the second. Our old dramas which can be
called tragedies only by courtesy tend towards the Shakespearean
type. Like Shakespearean tragedies, they dispense with the unities
and emphasize characters and their responses to evil circumstances.
But they are not tragedies because, as we have seen, the
playwrights have but an inadequate conception of the tragic flaw
and conflict. In a note on“Chinese primitivism” in Rousseau and
Romanticism, the labe Irving Babbitt ascribes our lack of tragedy
to the absence of “ethical seriousness” among our people. The
phrase is ambiguous and a little explanation would be welcome.
Perhaps Babbitt means by it that “artificiality” which we refer to
in the beginning of this article. If our own analysis above is true
at all, then the defect seems to arise from our peculiar
arrangement of virtues in a hierarchy. Every moral value is
assigned its proper place on the scale, and all substances and
claims are arranged according to a strict “order of merit.” Hence
the conflict between two incompatible ethical substances loses much
of its sharpness, because as one of them is of higher moral value
than the other, the one of lower value fights all along a losing
battle. Thus we see a linear personality and not a parallel one.
The neglect of the lower ethical substance is amply compensated by
the fulfilment of the higher one so that it is not “tragic excess”
at all — witness Mencius epigram on the conduct of the “great
man”(大人) in Lilou(离娄) and Liu Sung-yuan’s superfine essay On Four
Cardinal Virtues(柳宗元四维论). This view is certainly borne out by our
old dramas.
We are supposed to be a fatalistic people. It is therefore curious
that Fate is so little used as a tragic motif by old dramatists.
But tragic Fate has at bottom nothing to do with fatalism. Fatalism
is essentially a defeatist, passive, acceptant attitude which
results in lethargy and inaction whereas tragic irony consists in
the very fact that in face of mockeries of Fate at every endeavour,
man continues to strive. Moreover, what we ordinarily mean by Fate
is something utterly different from Fate as revealed in Greek
tragedies. Professor Whitehead points out in Science and the Modern
World: “The pilgrim fathers of the scientific imagination as it
exists today, are the great tragedians of ancient Athens —
Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides. Their vision of fate, remorseless
and indifferent, urging a tragic incident to its inevitable issue,
is the vision possessed by science.… The laws of physics are the
decrees of fate.” Now, our idea of Fate has not such scientific
vigour and is really poetic justice which Dr. A. C. Bradley in
Shakespearean Tragedy asks us to distinguish sharply from tragic
injustice — that prosperity and adversity are distributed in
proportion to the merits of the agents. In other words, our
conception of Fate is the equivalence of action and award rather
than that of cause and effect. It is not the ethically neutral idea
that the doer must suffer, but the sentimental belief that virtue
is its own reward with additional rewards to be forthcoming. It is
not merely a case of “as you sow, so you reap” it is the case of
“as you sow in joy, you cannot reap in tears.” Thus, whereas the
effect cannot be in disproportion to the cause, the award may quite
conceivably be disproportionate to the action. We usually explain
away this disproportion by the theory of metempsychosis we either
have owed scores in a previous life or will receive compensations
in a future one. This idea and the Greek idea stand at opposite
poles. Again. Fate as we usually conceive of it is menschliches,
all zumenschliches as Nietzsche says in another connection. Its
irony is not awful, but petty, malign and “coquettish” as Hardy
says of Providence — witness the interesting play The Monument of
Tsien Fu Monastery(荐福碑) by Ma Chib-yuan(马致远). Mr. E. M. Forster’s
criticism of Hardy in Aspects of the Novel holds good also with
this play.
We have so far accounted for the absence of tragedy in old Chinese
literature by reasons suggested by the dramas themselves. Of course
we can explain the absence by racial and cultural reasons. We can
make it a jumping-off place to plunge into some interesting
sociological and anthropological guess-work. We can even take the
hint from Whitehead and explain the backwardness of our science by
the absence of tragedy. But these things I must leave to more
competent persons. After all, we can only do one thing at a time.
Our comparative study of Chinese and Western dramas is helpful for
two reasons. First, it dispels many illusions cherished even by
Chinese critics about our own drama. Second, it helps students of
comparative literature to assign old Chinese drama to its proper
place in the Palace of Art. It has been my conviction that if
students of comparative literature can include old Chinese
literature in their purview, they will find many new data which may
lead to important modifications of those dogmata critica formulated
by Western critics. For students of the history of old Chinese
criticism, such a comparative study of actual literatures is
especially important, because only by means of it can they
understand how the data of our old critics differ from those of
Western critics, and why those first principles of Western
criticism are not seized upon by our own critics and vice versa.
This has ever been my aim in various studies of our old literature.
To have our fill of some aesthetic experiences, we must go to
foreign literatures to have our fill of others, to our own.
Asceticism in the study of literature is bad enough, but patriotism
which refuses to acknowledge “good things” coming “out of Nazareth”
is even worse.
*DR. W. F. Wang reminds me of the similarity of situation between
this play and the story of Abraham and Isaac.
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。