本文首先闡明「文述」與「演述」在「（歷史）敘述」上的分型意涵及理論依據。其次，以「趙氏孤兒」為敘事主軸，選取《左傳》、《史記》與紀君祥《趙氏孤兒》雜劇為文本來分析其「文述」中的敘事演變，考察其如何在起源文本，－《左傳》中的編年敘事，而發展至《史記〈趙世家〉中的「下宮之難」，在「本事」與「新編」此二概念的對待中，一種事件的標題－即「趙氏孤兒」，是如何在歷史中發展形成，落於元紀君祥的雜劇中成為了「劇名」；一種敘事基調及主導意識，又如何影響著後人對《左傳》及《史記》之閱讀。再者，在「趙氏孤兒」此一標題言說自身成形的故事中，又如何地已顯現出了「歷史文本」間的「互異」及應當如何看待的線索。作為「演述」底本的雜劇劇本，其「劇情」在何處始為「劇」？其更動《史記》與《史記》之更動《左傳》有何不同？「文述」與「演述」的差異與同質何在？何處可以作為基點以進行探討？本文並考察「莊姬」－作為歷史的或角色的人物，出現在《左傳》、《史記》、《紀劇》及裘派搬演中的諸般不同之情節處理，以呈顯「書寫文本」與「影視文本」的對較。最後，在結論中，作者嘗試重提「何謂歷史劇」的古老議題，藉由「挪用歷史」角度的考察，討論其「歷史」抑「據」之屬性，以啟歷史理論新視視域展開之可能。

　　　　　The present paper begins by describing the difference between "text" and "performance" in historical narrative in terms of type and theory. It then proceeds to investigate how the narrative of "Zhao's Orphan" developed through such texts as the Zuo zhuan, Shi ji and Ji ju, following the narrative's progression from a chroniclenarrative in the Zuo zhuan to an event-title in the "Zhao's House" section of the Shi ji. In the latter work, it is found that "plot" and "new story" were treated as two distince concepts. The investigation focuses on two major issues:1) how "Zhao's Orphan" developed historically and emerged as a form and title in the Ji ju; 2) how its narrative base and dominant consciousness influenced later readers of the Zuo zhuan and Shi ji. In addition, the paper also addresses such questions ass: 1)how the title-discourse of "Zhao's Orphan" takes on different forms in the various historical texts; 2) when and h ow "Zhao's Orphan," in terms of performance, transformed from "dramatic plot" into "drama"; 3) the difference between the adaptation of the chronicle-narrative in the Zuo zhuan into the story in the Shi ji and the adaptation of the story in the Shi ji into drama; 4) how "text" and "performance" are similar and different, and what point of departure to take in exploring this issue. Furthermore, the author also examines the person Zhuang Ji, both as a historical figure and literary character, using the treatment of Zhuang Ji in the Zuo zhuan, Shi ji, Ji ju and "Qiu's Performance" to explore the opposition between "written text" and "visual text." In conclusion, the author reexamines the age-old question "What is historical drama," discussing the features of history and drama from the perspective of "appropriation of history" in order to open up the possibility of new perspectives in historical theory.