再论古典戏曲的文学阶段与非文学阶段——答安葵先生

A Further Argumentation of the Literary Phase and Non-Literary Phase in Classical Drama——A Response to Ankuis Criticism

安葵先生著文批评本文作者的戏曲研究“距实践太远”,两人的区别确实在他们的学术研究与实践的“距离”上。安葵一方面不能把研究上升到思辨的高度,其“理论”平庸地依附于“实践”,缺乏学术品格;一方面还服从政治实用主义的要求,把“弘扬”(民族文化)放在“求真”之上,缺乏与其研究对象的必要距离。其实,中国古典戏曲虽然曾经和欧洲古典戏剧一样是文学本质的戏剧,但前者始终是以“语言”描绘人物的艺术,而后者则始终是“情节”构建的艺术,这也是为什么中国戏曲最终嬗变成为表演本质的戏剧的道理。

This paper is a response to Anqui' s criticism of the author' s drama study as ' being too far away from the practice'. The author agrees that their difference does lie in the 'distance' between their academic study and the practice. Ankui, on one hand, adhering plainly to the practice, fails to upgrade his study to the theoretical level and therefore lacks an academic spirit. On the other hand, he privileges 'propagating the national culture' over 'seeking truth' from the perspective of political pragmatism, thereby keeping insufficient distance from the subject of his study. This author argues once more that the classical Chinese drama, although originally similar to the European classical drama in terms of its literary nature, is always character-oriented rather than plot-oriented. This accounts for the reason why the classical Chinese drama has developed into a performance art.