欢迎访问《文艺理论研究》,

文艺理论研究 ›› 2012, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (2): 56-65.

• 古代文论与古代文学的理论研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

近百年来宋元戏曲本体与生成的反思

陈建森,莫嘉丽   

  1. 华南师范大学文学院;暨南大学中文系
  • 出版日期:2012-03-25 发布日期:2012-08-30
  • 作者简介:陈建森,华南师范大学文学院教授,博士生导师。主要从事唐宋文学、中国戏曲史研究。 莫嘉丽,暨南大学中文系副教授,硕士生导师。主要从事文艺学、海外华文文学研究。

Reflections on the Researches to the Essence and Existence of Song-Yuan Drama in the Past Century

Chen Jiansen, Mo Jiali   

  1. School of Liberal Arts, South China Normal University; School of Liberal Arts, Ji'nan University
  • Online:2012-03-25 Published:2012-08-30
  • About author:Chen Jiansen is a professor in School of Liberal Arts, South China Normal University, with academic expertise in the literatures of Tang and Song dynasties and Chinese opera history. Mo Jiali is an associate professor in School of Liberal Arts, Ji'nan University, with research interests in the theory of literature and art, and overseas Chinese literature.

摘要: 本文对学界近百年来关于宋元戏曲本体与生成的研究成果进行反思,指出宋元戏曲“是什么”?“如何演”?“何以如此演”?这既是王国维《宋元戏曲史》留下的“戏曲史难题”,亦是戏曲学界一直追问然至今在研究的逻辑起点上就陷入概念的模糊不清乃至误解的学术问题。究其原因有三:一是认为王国维的“戏曲”是指“剧本”“曲本”“文章”;二是套用西方戏剧理念统括中国的戏剧和戏曲,导致中国戏曲史研究中“戏剧”和“戏曲”不分,进而将“我国戏剧”的“形成”视为“我国戏曲”的“形成”,乃至演生出尴尬的“戏剧戏曲学”;三是前修时贤大体上沿着王国维“代言体”“必合言语、动作、歌唱,以演一故事”的致思去探讨宋元南戏北剧的形成,然诸贤均将戏曲视为由多种元素构成的综合性艺术成品,集中于戏曲诸种元素如何“合”的剖析,而不是将戏曲视为“活”在剧场的无“墙”之戏来探究。学界以往恰恰是运用文献考据的、静态的、适合平面研究的方法去研究鲜活的、动态的、立体的、“存在”于剧场的戏曲。这正是近百年来戏曲研究所面临的学术困境。本文认为,应将宋元戏曲“还原”于剧场展开“存在”之思:紧紧围绕戏曲演述者“如何演”这一核心,探究剧作家、演员、行当、剧中人、观众之间“视界”交融与“文本”会通以及共生的关系,解读各种“文本”的语义、功能及其言说方式,在“剧场交流语境”中领悟和揭示“谁正在演”“戏曲如何演”“戏曲何以如此演”。

关键词: “戏曲史难题”, 本体与生成, 反思, 剧场交流语境理论

Abstract: This paper is a reflective study of the researches on Song-Yuan drama's essence and existence done in the past century. It tries to define what Song-Yuan drama really is, and demonstrate how it is put on the stage and why it is staged in such a certain way. These issues have been tackled in Wang Guowei's Song-Yuan Drama History but have not been clarified since, so they have met with much misinterpretation. Three types of reasons lie behind the misinterpretation, and this has become the conundrum in the study of Chinese opera history. The first type proposes that Wang defined Chinese Song-Yuan opera as drama, song text, or writing. The second, which adopts Western theater theory to explain Chinese opera, does not distinguish between drama and opera, and therefore the genesis of Chinese drama and that of Chinese opera are indiscriminately studied. The third type of scholars usually share a view of speech-impersonation with Wang Guo-wei who claimed that Chinese opera should perform in such a way as to integrate speech, action, and singing into the story-telling. These scholars usually take Chinese opera as a composite art form instead of taking it as an art alive in the theatre. Scholar are accustomed to textual, static and planar approaches instead of dynamic and multi-dimensional ones. The paper proposes that the study of Chinese opera should return to the site of performance in order to investigate its nature of existence, focusing on "how to perform," and with this focus the study can then examine the confluence of horizons and symbiosis between dramatists, actors, characters, roles, and audience, and the analysis of the meaning, function and discursive modes of dramatic text can be possible, while the who, how and why in the performance can be revealed in the context of theatric communication. 

Key words: conundrum of Chinese opera history, essence and existence, reflective study, context of theatric communication