:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:明清抒懷寫憤雜劇之藝術特質與成分
書刊名:中國文哲研究集刊
作者:王璦玲 引用關係
作者(外文):Wang, Ayling
出版日期:1998
卷期:13
頁次:頁37-120
主題關鍵詞:明清雜劇抒情寫情發憤著書自我呈現主體性藝術傳奇寫憤自傳性戲劇性Ming-ch'ingTsa-chuDramaLyricismSubjectivityCh'uan-ch'iSelf-representationAutobiographicalDramaticLyrical
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(2) 專書(2) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:97
  • 點閱點閱:68
     明人以雜劇遣懷諷世,始於王九思(1468-1551)《曲江春》,其後徐渭(1521-1593)的《四聲猿》,王衡(1561-1609)的《鬱輪袍》、《真傀儡》,沈自徵(1591-1641)的《漁陽三弄》等,亦皆借劇作以排遣憤世嫉俗之情。逮入清後,則又有尤侗(1618-1704)的《讀離騷》、嵇永仁(1637-1678)的《續離騷》、張韜(1678年在世)的《續四聲猿》、桂馥(1736-1805)的《後四聲猿》等。此類作品特有的劇作審美特質,《盛明雜劇》一書所附數篇序言,蓋已論及。如袁幔亭(1592-1674)云︰「雜劇,詞場之短兵也。或以寄悲憤、寫跅弛,紀妖冶、書忠孝,無窮心事,無窮感觸,借四折為寓言,減之不得,增之不可,作者情之所含,辭之所畫,音之所合,即具大法程焉。」徐翽也說︰「今之所謂北者(按︰此所謂「北」者,指雜劇言),皆牢騷骯髒,不得於時者之所為也。」「牢騷骯髒」四字不唯指作者之憤懣,亦是說此種憤懣之情積在作者胸中,必待去之而後快。總括而言,本文所謂「抒懷寫憤」雜劇,主要是就作品的創作目的與內涵取類,這其中所涵蓋的明清雜劇作家,包括︰康海、王九思、馮惟敏、徐渭、陳與郊、徐復祚、王衡、沈自徵、吳偉業、尤侗、陸世廉、鄭瑜、鄒式金、鄒兌金、王夫之、嵇永仁、廖燕、裘璉、張韜、桂馥等。   在中國戲曲的發展歷程中,此一類特殊的劇作,由於受到作者「自抒胸臆」創作動機的引導,往往成為作家「自我呈現」的載體,形成了具有可稱之為「戲劇抒情化」傾向的抒情短劇。這類劇作以「發憤」為動機,在創作過程中將個人的精神鬱悶投向世情中類同的感慨之中,從而激起創作者與欣賞者所可同有的一種情感激盪,並以此種情感的激盪做為藝術表現的核心。而為了在表現中將欲表達之情集中化、深刻化,以達到特殊的審美效果,劇作家嘗試在戲劇結構的設計中,以「取境」之情感凝結與「借事」之情節壓縮手法,創造所謂「不盡」之境,充分發揮短劇「無盡而有神」、「以無結為結」的特點。此種「短而有神」的審美特質,對於劇作家以「寫心」為創作目的,所謂「稱心而出,如題而止」的表現來說,正是可以凸顯出「寫憤」雜劇深刻主觀化、文人化的色彩。此類劇作之濃厚的「抒情化」傾向,與同時期明清傳奇之高度戲劇化發展,適成相反趨勢。寫憤雜劇作家借他人之事來洩一己之憤懣,乃是借戲劇的形式表現來呈現抒情的內涵,易言之,抒情的表現才是戲劇的焦點 明清抒懷寫憤雜劇之藝術特質與成分。所以在此層意義上,人物與情事之所謂「真」,都只在特定的內涵意義上,戲劇人物的完整性並不真正獨立於此抒情的主旨之外。這與在某些戲劇化充分展現的傳奇中,劇作家之「主體性」與劇中人物之「個體性」能予清楚隔離的狀況,截然不同。此項明清寫憤雜劇與傳奇劇類在藝術特質的表現可以有的各自的「適合」,是在許多「名作」中所以可有不同發展趨勢的根本原因,亦是寫憤雜劇之所以蔚成明清戲曲中一獨特劇類之根源所在。
     It has been a notable trend for the Ming-Ch'ing tsa-chu writers to express their self-lament and self-assertion by playwriting since Wang Chiu-szu (1468-1551) wrote his play Ch'u-chiang-ch'un. Besides the famous Ming dramatists Hsu Wei (1521-1593), Wang Heng (1561-1609) and Shen Chih-cheng (1591-1641), Ch'ing playwrights like Yu T'ung (1618-1704), Chi Yung-jen (1637-1678), Chang T'ao (ca. 1678) and Kuei Fu (1736-1805) all conveyed their laments of frustration and laid claim on high ideals in their plays. Conducted by the authors' motivation of self-lament and self-assertion, these special plays became vehicles of self-representation for the dramatists. While these plays were featured with the authors' self-expression, they transformed the authors' personal yearning and persistence for self-realization into an earnest wish for meaningful life which was greatly echoed by the reader or audience. In order to intensify these feelings to a sensory, effective artistic form, the dramatists employed the skills of“emotion crystallization”and“plot condensation”in their dramatic design to create a“lingering”poetic state with endless vitality. With the authors' purpose of self-depiction, the lyrical tsa-chu drama's“shortened and animated”quality has highlighted its subjectivity with an intellectual and introspective touch. These plays' strong self-expressive tendency was evidently opposed to the highly dramatized development of the Ming-Ch'ing ch'uan-ch'i drama. By integrating their personal awareness of self-existence into the contrived or historical stories, the tsa-chu authors thus presented subjective lyrical themes through dramatic forms. In other words, since the authors' self-representation is the focus of the whole play, the dramatic characters are usually personification of the author's lyric-self. The Ming-Ch'ing lyrical tsa-chu plays, in this sense, are entirely different from the highly dramatized ch'uan-ch'i plays in which the authors' subjectivity is obviously detached from the dramatic characters' individuality. This difference of introversion and extroversion between Ming-Ch'ing tsa-chu and ch'uan-ch'i drama explains why the subjective lyrical tsa-chu drama became a special type of drama-series for self-representation.
期刊論文
1.王璦玲(19950900)。明清傳奇名作中主題意識之深化與其結構設計。中國文哲研究集刊,7,245-393。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.松原壽之(1998)。電子化。大学の図書館,17(4)=293。  延伸查詢new window
3.孫崇濤(1987)。《四聲猿》館窺。戲曲研究。  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.王璦玲(1998)。明清傳奇藝術呈現中之「主體性」與「個體性」。明清戲曲國際研討會。中央研究院中國文哲研究所籌備處。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.蔣瑞藻(1971)。小說考證。小說考證。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
2.Frye, Northrop(1973)。Anatomy of Criticism。Anatomy of Criticism。Princeton。  new window
3.Pfister, Manfred(1988)。The Theory and Analysis of Drama。Cambridge。  new window
4.周貽白(1954)。中國戲劇史。上海。  延伸查詢new window
5.(明)程羽文(1979)。盛明雜劇。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
6.顧仲彝(1981)。編劇理論與技巧。北京。  延伸查詢new window
7.廖燕(1995)。二十七松堂集。臺北:中央研究院中國文哲研究所籌備處。  延伸查詢new window
8.曾永義(1979)。明雜劇概論。臺北市:學海出版社。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.王夫之(1978)。清人楚辭注三種。臺北:長安出版社。  延伸查詢new window
10.鍾嗣成、王鋼(1991)。校訂錄鬼簿三種。河南鄭州:中州古籍出版社。  延伸查詢new window
11.何晏、邢昺(1981)。論語注疏。藝文印書館。  延伸查詢new window
12.王士禛、方東樹(1975)。方東樹評古詩選。臺北:聯經出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
13.臧晉叔(199112)。元曲選。北京:中華書局。  延伸查詢new window
14.張廷玉(1981)。明史。臺北:臺灣中華書局。  延伸查詢new window
15.黃文暘、董康同(1992)。曲海總目提要。天津:河北省:天津古籍書店。  延伸查詢new window
16.朱光潛(1970)。詩論。臺北:正中書局。  延伸查詢new window
17.侯百朋(1989)。琵琶記資料彙編。北京:書目文獻出版社。  延伸查詢new window
18.徐渭(1983)。徐渭集。北京:中華書局。  延伸查詢new window
19.王驥德(1959)。曲律。北京:中國戲劇出版社。  延伸查詢new window
20.葉長海(1993)。曲律與曲學。台北:學海。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.莊一拂(1982)。古典戲曲存目彙考。上海:上海古籍出版社。  延伸查詢new window
22.尤侗(1970)。西堂雜俎。臺北:廣文書局。  延伸查詢new window
23.鍾嶸、曹旭(1994)。詩品集注。上海:上海古籍出版社。  延伸查詢new window
24.祁彪佳(1959)。遠山堂劇品。中國戲劇出版社。  延伸查詢new window
25.李桓、陳壽祺(1985)。國朝耆獻類徵。臺北:明文書局。  延伸查詢new window
26.蔡毅(1989)。盛明雜劇跋。中國古典戲曲序跋彙編。濟南。  延伸查詢new window
27.王汝梅、侯忠義(1986)。金瓶梅資料彙編。金瓶梅資料彙編。北京。  延伸查詢new window
28.鄭振鐸(1934)。清人雜劇二集。清人雜劇二集。香港。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.(清)焦竑。劇說。  延伸查詢new window
2.(清)李漁(1979)。閒情偶寄,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
3.(明)孟稱舜(1985)。節義鴛鴦塚嬌紅記,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
4.(清)鄒式金(1992)。雜劇三集,合肥。  延伸查詢new window
5.(元)高明(1979)。元本琵琶記校注,上海。  延伸查詢new window
6.(西漢)司馬遷(1966)。史記,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
7.(唐)韓愈(1966)。韓昌黎文集,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
8.(北宋)歐陽修(1981)。歐陽文忠全集,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
9.(明)李贄(1984)。焚書,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
10.(南朝梁)劉勰(1994)。文心雕隆義證,上海。  延伸查詢new window
11.(元)施耐庵(1993)。水滸傳,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
12.(明)李贄(1978)。明登道古錄,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE