偶然在國學網看到有關錢學的幾篇資料AI疊印描邊沒反應。想想天涯還有幾個錢迷，可能沒看過這幾篇。轉過來聊作參考。
關于蘇東坡賦英譯本的錢序
《讀書》一九九四年第二期柳葉先生介紹英譯《蘇東坡文選》的文章，談到了錢鐘書先生的書評、序和《談藝錄》中的有關記載；但又說沒讀到錢序，推測是為再版寫的AI疊印描邊沒反應。對于柳先生淘舊書的福氣，真是羨慕之至。蘇東坡和錢鐘書是筆者最喜歡的兩位文學家，而這本書也是向往已久而又自知既不可求也無緣遇的，羨慕之余，便也來湊湊熱鬧。
十年前，偶讀海外學人陳幼石所著《韓柳歐蘇古文論》一書，見到書里引用了李高潔(陳誤譯為“克拉克”，Le Gros Clark是三字姓)《蘇東坡的賦》的錢序(《The Pure-Poetry of Su Tung-po》，一九六三年紐約Panagon再版，Pure當為Prose之誤)，被吊起胃口而又不能解饞，就冒昧寫信向錢先生借閱AI疊印描邊沒反應。錢先生很快回函告知，李高潔英譯蘇賦于一九三五年由Kelly ＆ Wabsh出版，序言憶作于一九三四年；該書已遺失，“無存稿，也不想存稿”。后來到了廈門大學，鄭朝宗先生授我一本陸文虎學長編的《錢鐘書詩文輯》油印稿，其中有用英文寫的《蘇東坡的文學背景及其賦》，就是這篇序言，原文載于一九三四年六月出版的《學文月刊》一卷二期。從時間先后來看，柳先生的推測應該是大致不差的。
在古代作家中，蘇軾應該是與錢鐘書最具相同點的一個：深沉而能笑對人生，達觀而不茍且敷衍；聰明絕頂，辯才無礙，幽默風趣，比喻繁富；錢先生在這篇序言中稱贊蘇軾“那不加節(jié)制的、漫不經心的天賦隨意揮灑，咳唾成珠”，也是本地風光，完全適合他自己AI疊印描邊沒反應。所以，由錢評蘇，無論對于蘇軾研究者還是錢鐘書研究者，想必都是一份值得重視的文獻。因柳先生提起此序，我找出過去粗粗譯成的草稿，對照原文又細讀改譯了一遍；鍵入電腦后仍手癢不止，乘興向大家略作介紹。
在這篇五千字的序言里，錢先生從宋代的文學批評、道學、詩文風尚以及歷代賦體四個方面把蘇東坡跟他的文學背景作了比較，批評和道學尤為著重AI疊印描邊沒反應。錢先生首先勾勒了彌漫宋代的批評風氣，但認為宋人尚奇甚于明辯，好奇心多于神秘感。所以在他們的智力活動中沒有掃空一盡，沒有大膽無忌，沒有闊大的氣魄，也沒有確定的界限。在詩文評里，存在著過分集中地研究煉字錘句的傾向，這既是文學批評的兆端，同時也是結束。當然錢先生也肯定了宋人對文學批評的熱心實踐，他們用評論各別詩人的方式探討文學原理，而詩話因此就作為中國式批評的載體得以確立起來。與此相比，在他的同時代人作為批評家的那種意義上，蘇東坡并不是個批評家。在蘇東坡的藝術哲學精華中，他直探問題的根本，從藝術作品轉向藝術家的內心：按照他的看法，一個詩人應該身與物化，不能僅僅滿足于文學的表面色澤。這與那種“點鐵成金”之類的“近視”相較，自然是不可同日而語。不過錢先生甚至斷言蘇東坡與時代精神無涉，這多少有點使人覺得太“過”一些。東坡愛發(fā)議論，詩文里論詩書畫的不在少數(shù)；東坡好辯，敲進一層隨手抹倒正其所擅；東坡也曾對陶詩對門人詩詞煉過字錘過句；雖然他明顯高出時人一籌，但畢竟與時人習氣有其相似之處。
錢先生對道學的評價甚低，稱之為形而上學、心理學、倫理學和詭辯術的雜拌兒；指出道學家們的冗長詭辯麻痹人心，虛耗元氣；諷刺他們把道教或佛教打扮成正統(tǒng)儒教是虛偽的“哲學化妝”AI疊印描邊沒反應。他提示，中國的普通讀者常常把宋人稱為假道學；宋人的一本正經和心智道德上的瑣細拘執(zhí)，對于中國人慣常的任真氣質來說是既可惱又可笑的。他認為道學對性理的條分縷析、碎碾細研是一種消蝕哲學也消蝕時代精神的病態(tài)自省，盡管他也承認他們對人類靈魂的解剖將會對文學心理學很有幫助。而蘇東坡從根本上憎惡道學的精神上的賣弄，即良心和道德感的漫無邊際的虛飾，反對道學集團的領袖人物程頤，同時也受到朱熹的怪罪責難。這也是錢先生斷言蘇東坡與時代精神無涉的主要根據。他還特別區(qū)分道學和蘇東坡之間貌同心異的自然主義，認為前者僅僅是在教條上的；而后者卻是個性上的，是精神的一部分，其文化來源則錢先生傾向于認為受道家和佛家的薰染。
在把蘇詩和整個宋詩比較時，錢先生援引席勒的概念，把宋詩稱為“刻露見心思之今詩”，以與唐詩之為“真樸出自然之古詩”相對應AI疊印描邊沒反應。他不無贊許地說，至今還是空靈縹渺、精致纖弱的中國詩歌，在宋代變得豐腴結實，而它承負的思想更使它增加了分量。他指出宋詩多刻露的思想和直露的宣說，少言外之意、幽掩之美；而最惱人的事情也許是宋代詩人的博學和慣于隱喻，使他們喜歡大量用典使事，即使在中國詩人中也顯得堆垛不堪。在我看來，上述特點在蘇詩中都明顯存在。當然，蘇詩又有超越宋詩的一面。錢先生說蘇詩是宋詩中最“真樸出自然”的。用《談藝錄》中的觀點推論，我們或許可以說，蘇詩就是“唐詩”。這也許是為了強調蘇詩的天成，清新，簡潔，自然，充滿即興，行云流水，揮灑自如，亦即一般宋詩所缺乏的特點。
作為一部英譯蘇賦的序言，錢先生沒有像我們所期望的那樣就蘇賦發(fā)表長篇大論AI疊印描邊沒反應。不過他對蘇賦的評價顯然非常之高。他稱東坡是寫賦的大家圣手，使賦變成了至今依然壯觀的嶄新文體；他特別贊許蘇賦的革新意義：拋棄了舊賦家慣于向讀者炫耀的靡麗繁艷，把庚信以來駢四儷六的僵硬的律賦改造成富于彈性的散賦。正是在這個意義上，錢先生稱贊蘇賦超過蘇軾在其它藝術門類的貢獻，是文學史上的一大奇跡。錢先生還特別指出，蘇賦的節(jié)奏特慢，不同于其他詩文的疾速飛馳。比如，在《前赤壁賦》的開頭問道：“何為其然也？”節(jié)奏的推進伴著審思細商，仿佛摩娑著每一個字眼。這一點似乎為評論家們所忽略，值得重視。
和錢先生的所有作品一樣，本文也是妙語連珠，妙喻連篇AI疊印描邊沒反應。如說到宋詩變得豐腴結實，盡管與西洋詩相比仍顯輕淡，“但是宋詩的輕淡，仿佛一架飛機劃出的優(yōu)雅曲線，而不再是一只飛蛾在柔美朦朧的暮靄中振翼輕翔了。”只是筆者的英文水平太過可憐，不敢多引。同樣，上面譯述錢先生的觀點時，恐怕也有不少誤解。若因拙文而引得有心人去尋讀錢先生的原作，那可真叫“拋磚引玉”了。
王依民
《讀書》1995年第3期
錢鐘書：蘇東坡的賦及其文學背景
SU TUNG-PO’S LITERARY BACKGROUND AND HIS PROSE-POETRY by Qian Zhongshu
(Primarily written as a foreword to “Su Tung-Po’s Prose-poems” translated into English With Notes and Commentaries by C. D. Le Gros Clark, this is published here by kind permission of Mr. Le Gros Clark. Those who are interested in textual criticism may consult Mr. Wu Shih-ch’ang’s review in Chinese which appeared in The Crescent Monthly, Vol. IV, No. 3. –Ed.)
Of the Sung dynasty, it may be said, as Hazlitt said of himself, that it is nothing if not critical. The Chinese people dropped something of their usual wise passiveness during the Sung dynasty, and “pondered, searched, probed, vexed, and criticized”. This intellectual activity, however, is not to be compared with that of the Pre-Chin period, the heyday of Chinese philosophy. The men of the Sung dynasty were inquisitive rather than speculative, filled more with a sense of curiosity than with a sense of mystery. Hence, there is no sweep, no daring, no roominess or margin in their intellectualism. A prosaic and stuffy thing theirs is, on the whole. This critical spirit revealed itself in many directions, particularly in the full flourish of literary criticism and the rise of the tao-hsüeh （道學）, that mélange adultere of metaphysics, psychology, ethics and casuistry.
Literary criticism in China is an unduly belated art. Apart from a handful of obiter dicta scattered here and there, Liu Hsieh’s Literary Mind （劉勰文心雕龍） and Lo Chi’s A Prose-poem on Literature （陸機文賦） are the critical writings that count up to the Sung dynasty. There is Chung Yung’s Classification of Poets (鐘嶸詩品) of course. But Chung Yung is a literary genealogist rather than a critic, and his method of simply dividing poets into sheep and goats and dispensing praise or dispraise where he thought due, is the reverse of critical, let alone his fanciful attempts to trace literary parentages(1). Ssu-Kung Tu’s Characterisations of Poetry (司空圖詩品) is a different matter(2). Ssu-Kung Tu seeks to convey purely with imagery the impressions registered by a sensitive mind of twenty four different kinds of poetry: “pure, ornate, grotesque,” etc. His is perhaps the earliest piece of “impressionistic” or “creative criticism” ever written if any language, so quietly ecstatic and so autonomous and self-sufficient, as it were, in its being but it fails on that very account to become sober and proper criticism. It is not until the Sung dynasty that criticism begins to be practiced in earnest. Numerous “causeries on poetry” （詩話）are written and principles of literature are canvassed by way of commentaries on individual poets. Henceforth, causeries on poetry become established as the vehicle for Chinese criticism. One must note in passing that there do not appear professional critics with the rise of criticism. In those good old days of China, criticism is always the prerogative of artists themselves. The division of labour between critics and artists in the West is something that the old Chinese literati would scoff at. The criticism of Sung dynasty, like all Chinese criticismsbefore the “New Literature Movement” with the possible exception of Hsieh’s Literary Mind, is apt to fasten upon particulars and be given too much to the study of best words in best places. But it is symptomatic of the critical spirit, and there is an end of it.
The Chinese common reader often regards the men of the Sung dynasty as prigs. Their high seriousness and intellectual and moral squeamishness are at once irritating and amusing to the ordinary easy-going Chinese temperament. There is something paralyzing and devitalizing in their wire-drawn casuistry which induces hostile critics to attribute the collapse of the Sung dynasty to its philosophers. There is also a disingenuousness in their attempts at what may be called for want of a better name, philosophical masquerade: to dress up Taoism of Buddhism as orthodox Confucianism. One need but look into Sketches in a Villa（閱微草堂筆記）and Causeries on Poetry in a Garden（隨園詩話） to see what a good laugh these two coxcombs of letters, Chi Yuen （紀昀） and Yuan Mei （袁枚） have had at the expense of the Sung philosophers and critics respectively. Nevertheless ofe is compelled to admit that the Sung philosophers are unequalled in the study of mental chemistry. Never has human nature been subject to a more rigorous scrutiny before or since in the history of Chinese thought. For what strikes one most in the tao-hsüeh is the emphasis on self-knowledge. This constant preying upon itself of the mind is quite in the spirit of the age. The Sung philosophers are morbidly introspective, always feeling their moral pulses and floundering in their own streams of consciousness. To them, their mind verily “ a kingdom is”. They analyse and pulverize human nature. But for that moral bias which Nietzsche thinks to be also the bane of German philosophy, their vivisection of human soul would have contributed a good deal to what Santayna calls literary psychology.
The poetry of the sung dynasty is also a case in point. It is a critical commonplace that the Sung poetry furnishes a striking contract to the T’ang poetry. Chinese poetry, hitherto ethereal and delicate, seems in the Sung dynasty to take on flesh and becomes a solid, full-blooded thing. It is more weighted with the burden of thought. Of course, it still looks light and slight enough by the side of Western poetry. But the lightness of the Sung poetry is that of an aeroplane describing graceful curves, and no longer that of a moth fluttering in the mellow twilight. In the Sung poetry one finds very little of that suggestiveness, that charm of a beautiful thing imperfectly beheld, which foreigners think characteristic of Chinese poetry in general. Instead, one meets with a great deal of naked thinking and outright speaking. It may be called “sentimental” in contradistinction to the T’ang poetry which is on the whole “naiuml;ve”, to adopt Schiller’s useful antithesis. The Sung poets, however, make up for their loss in lisping naivete and lyric glow by a finesse in feeling and observation. In their descriptive poetry, they have the knack of taking the thing to be described sur le vif: witness Lo Yu (陸游) and Yang Wan-li （楊萬里）. They have also a better perception of the nuances of emotion than the T’ang poets, as can be seen particularly in their Ts’u （詞）, a species of song for which the Sung dynasty is justly famous(3). Small wonder that they are deliberate artists, considering the fact that they all have been critics in the off hours of their inspiration. The most annoying thing about them is perhaps their erudition and allusiveness which makes the enjoyment of them to a large extent the luxury of the initiated even among the Chinese.
The interest of Su Tung-po for us lies in the fact that he does not share the spirit of his age. He seems to be born out of his due time and is nonetheless an anachronism for being himself unaware of it. To begin with, he is not critical in the sense that his contemporaries are critical. In the excellent of Su’s philosophy of art, Mr. C. D. Le Gros Clark has shown that Su goes to the root of the matter he turns from the work of the art to the mind of the artist: A poet, according to Su should “merge himself” with reality, and not content himself with the mere polishing of literary surfaces(4). Compared to this conception of the ontological affinity between the artist and Nature, the most meticulous studies in diction and technique of Su’s contemporaries dwindle into mere fussiness of the near-sighted over details. Again, Su has a rooted antipathy against the spiritual pedantry of tao-hsüeh that “unseasonable ostentation” of conscience and moral sense. He speaks disparagingly of the high talk about human nature and reason, and the inefficiency of those who model themselves upon Confucius and Mencius(5). He is also opposed to Cheng Yi (程頤), the leader the tao-hsüeh party in politics with a virulence almost incompatible with his otherwise genial and tolerant character(6). He is probably still in purgatory for these offences. Chü Hsi (朱熹) has condemned him several times in his writings(7) —— and, in a way, to be dispraised of Chü His is no small praise! Finally, as poet, he is comparatively the most “naiuml;ve” among his “sentimental” contemporaries. Though on “native wood notes wild”, his poetry smells more of the perfume of books, as the Chinese phrase goes, than of the lamp oil. His stylistic feats seem rather lucky accidents than the results of sweating toil. He is much more spontaneous and simple in the mode of feeling than (say) Huang T’ing-chien (黃庭堅), who and Su are the twin giants in the Sung poetry. Ling Ai-hsüan （林愛軒） has put the contrast between Su and Huang in a nutshell comparable to Johnson’s epigram on the difference between Dryden and Pope. “Su’s poetry is manly and walks in big strides while Huang’s is woman-like and walks in mincing steps”(8). Has not Su himself also said that simplicity and primitiveness should be the criteria of good art(9)?
Su’s strains are as profuse as his art is unpremeditated. He throws out his good things to the winds with the prodigality and careless opulence of Nature. Here’s God’s plenty indeed! He says of his own style: “My style is like a spring of inexhaustible water which bubbles and over-flows where it lists, no matter where. Running its course through the plains, it may glide along at the speed of a thousand li a day. When it threads its way through cliffs and mountains, one never knows beforehand what size it would assume to conform with these obstacles —— It flows where it must flow and stops where it must stop”(10). Elsewhere he repeats almost verbatim what he says here with the additional metaphor that our style should be like the floating cloud (11). It is significant that this simile of water with its association of fluidity and spontaneity recurs with slight variations in all criticisms of Su. To quote a few examples from his contemporaries will suffice: his brother Tsu-yu (子由) likens his style to a mountain stream young after rain(12); Huang Ting-chien, to the sea, tractless and boundless into which all rivers empty(13); Li Chi-ch’ing (李耆卿), to an impetuous flood（14）; Hsü Kai （許顗）（如舸齋案AI疊印描邊沒反應，錢先生讀白字了！） to a big river(15). Thus the abiding impression of Su’s art is one of “spontaneous overflow”. Ch’ien Ch’ien-i （錢謙益） varies the metaphor by comparing Su’s style to quicksilver and draws the conclusion that the Taoist and Buddhist Naturalism must have been the formative influence in Su’s life and art(16) —— a conclusion Mr Le Gros Clark arrives at independently four centuries later.
It is strange that this Naturalism which exercises a liberating influence upon Su should also form an important element in the harrowing, cut-and-dry Sung philosophy or t’ao-hsüeh. One is tempted to think that where the Sung philosophers are only naturalistic in “creed”, Su is naturalistic in “character”, Su is a spirit apart indeed!
Famed in all great arts, Su is supreme in prose-poetry or Fu （賦）(17). In other species of writing, he only develops along the lines laid down by his immediate predecessors; but his prose-poetry is one of those surprises in the history of literature. Here is an art rediscovered that has been lost for several centuries. The whole T’ang dynasty is a blank as far as prose-poetry is concerned (18). The famous prose-poems by Han Yu （韓愈） and Liu Tsung-yuan （柳宗元） are all stiff-jointed imitative and second-rate. Ou-yang Hsiu （歐陽修） first shows the way by his magnificent Autumn Dirge (19), and Su does the rest. In Su’s hands,the Fu becomes a new thing he brings ease into what has hitherto been stately; he changes the measured, even-paced tread suggestive of the military drill into a swinging gait, even now and then a gallop; and he dispenses altogether that elaborate pageantry which old writers of fu are so fond of unrolling before the reader (20). He is by far the greatest fu-writer since Yü Sin （庾信）. While Yü Sin shows how supple he can be in spite of the cramping antithetical style of the Fu, Su succeeds in softening and thawing this rigid style, smoothing over its angularity and making the sharp points of the riming antitheses melt into one another. T’ang Tsu-his （唐子西） does not exaggerate when he says that in Fu Su “beats all the ancients”(21). The fag-end of a foreword is not the place for a detailed discussion of the literary qualities of Su’s Fu’s. Su’ usual freakishness, buoyancy, humour, abundance of metaphor are all there. But critics, while noting all these, have overlooked that which distinguishes his Fu’s from his other writings —— the difference in tempo. Su’s normal style is “eminently rapid”, as Arnold says of Homer, in his prose-poems, however, he often slackens down almost to the point of languidness as if he were caressing every word he speake. Take for instance the section in Red Cliff Part I beginning with Su’s question “Why is it so?” it moves with the deliberate slowness and ease of a slow-motion picture. What is said above does not apply, of course, to such sorry stuff as Modern Music in the Yen-ho Palace, On the Restoration of the Examination System, etc., which Mr Le Gros Clark has also translated for the sake of having Su’s prose-poems complete in English. They are written in the style empesé, being rhetorical exercises borrowed from “ambulant political experts”, as Mr Waley points out.
There is, therefore, no better proof of Mr Le Gros Clark’s deep knowledge of Chinese literature than his choice of Su’s Fu’s for translation. Throughout the whole translation he shows the scruples of a true scholar and the imaginative sympathy possible only to a genuine lover of Su. His notes and commentaries are particularly valuable, and so much more copious and learned than Lang Yi (郎曄)s that even Chinese students will profit by them in reading Su’s prose-poems in the original. If the English reader still can not exchange smiles and salutes with Su across the great gulf of time so familiarly as the Chinese does, it is perhaps due to a difficulty inherent in the very nature of translation. It is certainly no fault of Su’s accomplished translator.
(1) See 葉夢得：石林詩話AI疊印描邊沒反應。王士禎：漁洋詩話 and 古夫于亭雜錄， especially 陳衍：詩品評議。
(2) For a version of rather perversion of Characterizations, see Giles: A History of Chinese Literature. BK. V. Chap. 1.
(3) Mr Arthur Waley, however, thinks differently. (see 170 Chinese Poems. P. 31) In the same breath Mr Waley dismisses Su Tung-po’s poetry as “patchwork” and declares that “Su hardly wrote a poem which does not contain a phrase borrowed from Po Chu-i”. Whether or no this charge can be substantiated, a cursory glance into 馮應: Variorum Edition of Su Tung-po’s Poetical Work will show. But we must bear in mind that commentators are apt to give poets the credit of a memory as tenacious as their own. For the best account of the difference between Su Tung-po and Po Chu-i, see 羅大經：鶴林玉露AI疊印描邊沒反應。 Mr Waley say further that Su’s verse is valued by his countrymen chiefly for its musical qualities. On this point, Mr Waley is misled perhaps by some of Su’s “countrymen” who are not poetry-lovers.
(4) To Mr Gros Clark’s quotations from Su’s own writings illustrative of this philosophy of art, we may supplement quotations from poems like 書晁補之所藏與可畫竹AI疊印描邊沒反應，吳子野將出家贈以扇山枕屏，次韻吳傳正枯木歌筼筜欲絕句 etc.
(5) See答劉巨濟書.
(6) For a succinct account of this party strife, see 宋史紀事本末卷四十五.
(7) Cf 朱子大全答程允夫書，答汪尚書書，答呂東萊書AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(8) Quoted in 王士禎：池北偶談 and 袁枚：隨園詩話AI疊印描邊沒反應。 Here is given only a loose translation.
(9) 書鄢陵王主簿所畫折枝AI疊印描邊沒反應。 Quoted also in Mr Gros Clark’s Introduction.
(10) 東坡密語子瞻自論文AI疊印描邊沒反應。 Quoted in part by Mr Le Gros Clark in his Introduction.
(11) 答謝民詩書AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(12) 欒城集東坡先生墓志AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(13) 山谷詩集子瞻詩句妙一世乃云效庭堅體故次韻道之AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(14) 文章精義AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(15) 彥周詩話AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(16) 初學集讀蘇長公文，cf, 漁洋精華錄讀唐宋金元明詩各題一絕AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(17) See the section on “The Nature of the fu” in Mr Le Gros Clark’s Introduction.
(18) Cf. 包世臣：藝舟雙楫答董普卿書 and 周星譽：鷗堂日記李蓴客語AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(19) See Giles: Gems of Chinese Literature p. 164, and Waley: More Traslations p. 105.
(20) Cf. 艾南英：天傭子集王子鞏觀生草序，章學誠文史通義文理篇 and 書坊刻詩話后AI疊印描邊沒反應。
(21) 強幼安：唐子西文錄AI疊印描邊沒反應。
編者謹案：本文署名Chi’en Chung-shu，載《學文月刊》一卷二期（1934.6.1）第130至144頁AI疊印描邊沒反應。
如舸齋案：錄自陸文虎編《錢鐘書詩文輯》（一），廈門大學中文系1982年9月油印本AI疊印描邊沒反應。個別單詞與油印本不同，系錄入者以意校之。全文未曾根據《學文月刊》校對。凡欲在正式學術論著中引用者，切勿以此為據。
錢鐘書：中國戲曲中的悲?。ㄓ⑽模?/p>
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(詞) 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( 洪升長生殿) 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 twentyfifth 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 (王國維). In A History of The Dramas of the Sung and Yuan Dynasties (宋元戲曲史), 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(漢宮秋)AI疊印描邊沒反應，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 (關漢卿竇娥冤) and Chi Chün-hsiang’s Chao’s Orphan (紀君祥趙氏孤兒).
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 turn.
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-yün to a widow to pay for some old debt. After eight years Tou Tuan-yün marries the widow’s son who dies of consumption two years later. The villain Chang Lü-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-yün’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-yün’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(離婁) and Liu Sung-yuan’s superfine essay On Four Cardinal Virtues(柳宗元四維論). 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(薦福碑) by Ma Chib-yuan(馬致遠). 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.
編者謹案：本文署名 Ch’ien Chung-shu (錢鐘書)，載T’ien Hsia Monthly 一卷一期第三七至四六頁AI疊印描邊沒反應。
如舸齋案：錄自陸文虎編《錢鐘書詩文輯》（一），廈門大學中文系1982年9月油印本AI疊印描邊沒反應。個別單詞與油印本不同，系錄入者以意校之。全文未曾根據《天下月刊》校對。凡欲在正式學術論著中引用者，切勿以此為據。
錢鐘書對中國古代悲劇戲曲的研究
陸文虎
錢鐘書先生曾用英文發(fā)表過許多論文，《中國古代戲曲中的悲劇》①是其中的一篇AI疊印描邊沒反應。本篇在比較中西戲劇的異同后，對有關中國古代戲曲的一些問題提出了中肯的看法。茲略述該文要點，以期引起中國古代戲曲研究者的注意。
一
錢鐘書先生在這篇論文的開頭指出：“批評的鐘擺已經再次向回擺，有跡象表明中國古代文學正在重新受到世人的青睞AI疊印描邊沒反應。”關于中西文學的交通，特別是中國戲劇在更早時期對西方的影響，《管錐編》曾兩次提及元曲《趙氏孤兒》，大意說，此劇經十八世紀法國神甫約瑟夫#8226;普雷馬雷和路易士#8226;拉羅譯為法文，“盛傳歐洲”，“仿作紛如”。例如，莫泊桑曾本之謀篇而更進一解②。這大概就是批評的鐘擺第一次擺到中國古典文學一邊時的熱鬧情形吧。至于這一次中國戲曲如何在西方吃香，錢先生沒有細述，只是點到為止。
據我們了解，在本世紀初葉，中國傳統(tǒng)戲曲確實又在西方出了一次風頭AI疊印描邊沒反應。1910年，路易士拉羅在法國演出了《漢宮怨》。1930年，梅蘭芳率團訪美，1935年訪蘇，受到美、蘇及世界各國的廣泛歡迎。1932年，程硯秋赴蘇、德、法等歐洲國家考察，發(fā)現(xiàn)“中國戲劇有許多固有的優(yōu)點，（連）歐洲人尚且要學我們的。”他的這些說法不久就得到了證明。德國戲劇家布萊希特1935年看了萊因哈特演出的《灰闌記》，受到觸動；1935年在莫斯科看梅蘭芳演出后，更是大受啟發(fā)，并據以提出“隔離感”說；他的《高加索灰闌記》就是全面借鑒中國戲曲的產物。后來的法國著名荒誕戲劇家讓#8226;熱內的作品則是世界公認的中國戲曲影響當代西方戲劇的突出例證。
造成這種情況的原因，也許就在于中國傳統(tǒng)戲曲所特具的完全有異于西方的戲劇觀念AI疊印描邊沒反應。西方戲劇經過長期的發(fā)展，形成了強大的傳統(tǒng)。16世紀以后，日趨寫實，即使是取材于古希臘、古羅馬神話或歷史的悲劇，也很注意情節(jié)和人物的真實感；喜劇以諷刺為職志，更是特別注意從生活中汲取素材。18世紀的風俗劇，多以表現(xiàn)當時的人情世態(tài)為題材。19世紀的演出更具有寫實風格。20世紀初葉，現(xiàn)代派起而反動；兼以當時電影剛剛發(fā)明，亦大有取戲劇而代之的趨勢。西方戲劇界急于找到新的出路。于是他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，古老的中國戲曲在程式化的表演中所體現(xiàn)出來的“人工化”，竟然極為符合西方戲劇界的“現(xiàn)代意識”。對于那些對中國文化不甚了了的一般觀眾來說，中國戲曲表演上的新奇樣式、內容上的不可思議，也都具有特殊的意味和魅力。誠如錢先生所指出的：“對于耽于單調的現(xiàn)實主義和煩人的問題劇的西方讀者來說，就像看多了平內羅和瓊斯的感傷再看巴利的愉快幻想一樣，中國傳統(tǒng)戲曲能夠令人耳目一新。”
盡管如此，錢先生仍然對中國古代戲曲評價不高AI疊印描邊沒反應。他說：“無論我國古代戲曲作為舞臺表演或作為詩有什么價值，但作為戲劇而言，它們都不能同西方的戲劇名作相媲美。不管對古代劇作家懷有多大的敬意，我們有時不得不重復枯立治在評論博蒙特和弗萊澤時所表示的愿望：他們不應當寫戲劇，而應當去寫詩。”我以為，錢先生所以這樣講，乃是由于他不僅熟知中國古代戲曲的特點與優(yōu)長，而且十分了然其弱點與缺失。
二
錢先生認為，“戲劇的最高形式當然是悲劇AI疊印描邊沒反應。”所謂悲劇，乃是西方戲劇理論中的一個重要概念。關于“悲劇”的定義，眾說紛紜，以亞里斯多德的說法最為傳誦。亞氏說：悲劇是對于一個嚴肅、完整、有一定長度的行動的摹仿；它的媒介是語言，具有各種悅耳之音，分別在劇的各部分使用；借引起憐憫與恐懼來使這種情感得到陶冶。” ③ 我們知道，悲劇有著悠久的歷史和傳統(tǒng)，早在古希臘就已產生。酷愛藝術的希臘人十分崇拜日神和酒神，所以，古希臘的日神藝術——史詩、雕塑、繪畫和酒神藝術——音樂、舞蹈，同樣發(fā)達。在這兩種藝術迅速發(fā)展的同時，作為西方思想淵源的希臘哲學也達到了相當高的水準。希臘文化的發(fā)展達到極致時，悲劇便應運而生了。古希臘悲劇的最初形態(tài)不過是人體羊首神的樂舞合唱，一種希臘人借以張揚理性、鼓動激情、激發(fā)社會發(fā)展動力的藝術。雖然悲劇精神后來有種種發(fā)展，但它在總能給人以前進的力量上是共同的。顯然，悲劇精神同東方思想是格格不入的。因此，中國古代戲曲中沒有這種意義上的悲劇，也就既合乎情又順乎理了。盡管中國古代戲曲中沒有真正意義上的悲劇，假使我們用西方悲劇理論觀照一下我國古代戲曲中那些類似悲劇的劇目，也還是大有益處的。錢鐘書先生在55年前已經這樣做了。我們且看他是怎樣分析的。
錢鐘書先生認為，雖然“中國古代劇作家正是在悲劇中寫人物的失敗的”，但由于“我們那些重要劇目都屬于傳奇劇一類”，因此，第一，“劇中表現(xiàn)的不是單一的總的激情，而是一系列松散串連的激情AI疊印描邊沒反應。”第二，“詩的正義總被表現(xiàn)出來。”第三，“悲哀和幽默的場景猶如五花肉上的紅白相間的顏色一樣交替出現(xiàn)。”這就是中國古代戲曲中那些類似于悲劇而并非是悲劇的劇目區(qū)別于西方悲劇的三條主要特征。
由于這些區(qū)別，讀者或觀眾從中得到的是同悲劇審美經驗迥然相異的感受AI疊印描邊沒反應。為了說明這一點，錢先生把莎士比亞的《安東尼和克婁巴特拉》、德萊登的《一切為了愛》同白樸的《梧桐雨》、洪升的《長生殿》進行比較。他發(fā)現(xiàn)，“兩出中國戲曲所表現(xiàn)的唐玄宗、楊貴妃故事，就像是兩出英國戲劇所表現(xiàn)的安東尼、克婁巴特拉的故事。并且兩個故事都是由愛而導致‘窮途末路’。兩出中國戲曲同《安東尼和克婁巴特拉》有特別相似之處，因為它們都放棄了舞臺上時間、地點的一致性；并且所有這些戲的前半場，完全沒有悲劇場面和悲劇事件；它們都如田園詩那樣開場，而結局竟如此不同！”
《梧桐雨》和《長生殿》都是佳作，我們讀之也自然回腸蕩氣，為其激動、感動AI疊印描邊沒反應。然而，這些感受都是遠離悲劇審美經驗的。讀者或觀眾的感受僅限于對主人公遭遇的同情，對事物的美好主題的向往，而沒有被提高到一個較高的層次。也就是說，沒有如亞里斯多德所說的，“借引起憐憫與恐懼來使這種情感得到陶冶”。錢先生指出，除了戲劇內容之外，戲劇結構更加深了這種印象：“大幕不在主要悲劇事件上落下，而落在悲劇事件所產生的后果上。悲慘時刻所產生的最高熱情和最深痛苦，似乎在緩緩的落幕當中退去。”劇中的悲慘場景僅僅成為某種平和場面的鋪墊，本應加強的悲劇力量竟然喪失殆盡。另外，讀者和觀眾也“無法從對悲劇人物的可憐的個人同情中升華。因為這些人物并未偉大到使我們與之保持相當?shù)木窀袘嚯x。”令人感到十分遺憾的是，“悲劇性缺陷存在著，它并不刻意于與任何個性影響或人物力量產生鮮明對比。”由于劇作者創(chuàng)作觀念的局限，這兩出戲劇所應強調的悲劇特征被忽略了。錢先生指出，“我很清楚，按照歷史事實，唐玄宗并沒有如安東尼一樣死去。但我的看法是，即使他不死，也有許多悲劇因素，而劇作家們卻未能據以創(chuàng)作出能夠給我們以充分悲劇經驗的劇作。”劇作家生活在與西方完全不同的物質環(huán)境和精神文化背景之中，其宇宙觀與人生觀決定他除了表現(xiàn)善惡之爭以及與這相應的輪回果報之外，不可能去強調和突出悲劇特征。在這一點上，我們正不必苛求于古人。
三
西方的悲劇理論只是在海通以后才有可能進入中國AI疊印描邊沒反應。王國維是近代最早引進西方悲劇理論來評論中國古代戲曲的學者。他在《宋元戲曲史》中說：“明以后傳奇，無非喜??；而元則有悲劇在其中。就其存者言之，如《漢宮秋》、《梧桐雨》……等，初無所謂先離后合、始困終亨之事也。其最有悲劇之性質者，則如關漢卿之《竇娥冤》、紀君祥之《趙氏孤兒》。劇中雖有惡人交構其間，而其蹈湯赴火者仍出于其主人翁之意志。即列之于世界悲劇中，亦無愧色也。”對于這段話，錢先生明確表示“不贊成”。他說：“王國維為《竇娥冤》、《趙氏孤兒》提出了三條論斷。第一，它們是偉大的杰作。這一點，我們衷心贊同。第二，它們是偉大的悲劇，因為主人翁堅持災難性意愿。這一點，我們有所保留。第三，它們是偉大的悲劇，就像我們說《俄底浦斯》、《奧賽羅》、《白倫尼斯》是偉大的悲劇一樣。對此我們恕不同意。”生活在清朝末世的王國維，能夠大膽借鑒西方學說反觀中國傳統(tǒng)文化，其勇可嘉。可惜他常常只是稗販膚受，知見不真。如其本叔本華之說而斷言《紅樓夢》為“悲劇之悲劇”，錢先生就曾譏其“削足適屢”，“作法自弊” ④。看來王氏在這里犯的是同一類錯誤。
錢先生還曾分別考察《竇娥冤》、《趙氏孤兒》二戲AI疊印描邊沒反應。
在略述《竇娥冤》的梗概后，錢先生指出：“最后一折特有的詩的正義對于我們被傷害的感情很有安撫作用，但問題是：它加強悲劇事件了嗎？”當然沒有AI疊印描邊沒反應。他并且指出，即使拋開第四折不論，前三折給我們的全面印象也不是悲劇的。“讀者的感覺是：竇娥的品格是如此高尚和完美無缺，她的死是如此悲慘，冤案強加于她是如此令人不能容忍，以致干第四折不可避免地要調整平衡。換句話說，作者已經設置了這種情節(jié)，使這出戲只能是以詩的正義而不是以悲劇結束。”為什么？首先，對于竇娥可能有的悲劇缺陷，作者已經視而不見，竇娥僅僅作為一個完美的“節(jié)婦”與“孝婦”的代表而出現(xiàn)。其次，劇中的悲劇沖突純粹是外在的、表面化的。其實，就《竇娥冤》提供的材料來看，劇作者完全可以通過竇娥心中意欲保全自己生命和希望救助婆婆之間的根本沖突，極為內在地加以表現(xiàn)。但是，如錢先生所指出的：“意味深長的是，劇作者沒有把握住這一點。”正是由于這個原因，《竇娥冤》還算不得真正的悲劇。
錢先生認為，對于《竇娥冤》的這些批評，也多少可以應用在《趙氏孤兒》上AI疊印描邊沒反應。他并且指出：“這里的悲劇沖突更強烈、更內在。程嬰的親子之愛和痛苦的奉獻職責之間的自我分裂得到了有力的表現(xiàn)。”于是，他認為，《趙氏孤兒》本來有指望成為世界上最偉大的悲劇之一，它的悲劇力量甚至比《竇娥冤》有更大的前途。但是，很不幸，愛和責的斗爭力量并不相當，后者很容易地就戰(zhàn)勝了前者。不但程嬰勇于犧牲，公孫杵臼也自甘舍命，義無反顧。他們之救孤，完全與個人利益無關，只是出于一個堅定的信念，即：為晉國除奸，為忠臣留后。因此，他們并不是悲劇人物，而是“忠”、“義”一類抽象理念的化身。
錢先生在援引L．A，李德博士的悲劇理論后指出：“悲劇有兩種類型AI疊印描邊沒反應。第一種，重在性格塑造。第二種，命運本身就能吸引注意力。莎士比亞屬于第一種，希臘悲劇屬于第二種。我們習慣上稱之為悲劇的那些中國古代戲曲，只能算是莎士比亞式。像莎劇一樣，它們不實行三一律，并強調性格和對邪惡境遇的反應。”錢先生的結論是：“但它們不是悲劇。因為正如我們已經看到的，劇作家對悲劇缺陷和悲劇沖突的觀念不正確。”
從以上的分析和辯證中，我們已經可以看出，王國維關于中國古代戲曲中的悲劇的論斷過于牽強，事實上是站不住腳的AI疊印描邊沒反應。
四
中國為什么缺乏悲?。?白璧德認為是中華民族缺少“倫理上的嚴肅性”AI疊印描邊沒反應。錢先生認為這種說法語焉不詳，實際上沒有說明什么問題。真正造成中國缺乏悲劇的原因乃是在于儒家的等級制度。這種等級制度成了道德標準的差距。因此，“兩種根本不相容的倫理本質發(fā)生沖突時往往不會激烈。當其中一種道德標準高過另一種時，標準較低的一方便始終在打一場不可能取勝的仗。”中國傳統(tǒng)的倫理道德觀念，如錢先生所指出的，《孟子#8226;離婁》中所謂“大人者，言不必信，行不必果，唯義所在”與柳宗元《四維論》中所謂“廉與恥，義之小節(jié)，不得與義抗而為維”等等，都在中國古代戲曲中得到了體現(xiàn)。在中國文化精神中，當然是儒家思想占著上風，所以，強調情感與理性的合理調節(jié)，以取得社會存在和個體身心的均衡穩(wěn)定。“道在倫常日用之中”，實用理性使中國人的人生觀念和生活信仰崇尚在有限中追求無限，在實在處獲得超越。后來，一般人民的意識中更摻入佛教的輪回果報觀念，“善有善報，惡有惡報”成為普通人的理想。這些思想內容表現(xiàn)在我國古代戲曲中，便是所謂“詩的正義”。這既是理性化的極致，也是理想化的極致。
錢先生指出，“我們是個宿命論的民族AI疊印描邊沒反應。因此，令人費解的是，我們古代戲曲作家極少把命運當作悲劇的主題。”這是為什么呢？宿命論是一種迷信，宿命論認為在人力之外，有一種冥冥的力量為人類預定了遭遇，人之前途、發(fā)展，皆由命定，抗爭并無益處，因為人根本不可能改變自己的命運。錢先生說：“宿命論本質上是失敗主義的、消極的、導致懶散和遲鈍的、逆來順受的態(tài)度，而悲劇性反諷則存在于人在面對命運的播弄時所作的種種努力當中。”古代中國人確實讓宿命論占了上風；到佛家的輪回果報說侵入之后，普通中國人便把自己的一切全部交給了命運，而這種命運的意指完全不同于古希臘悲劇所揭示的命運。身經苦難浩劫而渾然不覺其苦，與時浮沉、自甘淪落者不知悲劇為何物。只有爆發(fā)出反抗與斗爭、突現(xiàn)出靈感與超越時才算有了悲劇。宿命論只能產生無盡的苦難，卻不能造就悲劇。因此，錢先生說：“悲劇命運實際上與宿命論無關。”
除了從中國古代戲曲本身說明之外，錢先生還引述懷特海、布瑞德雷等西方大學問家關于悲劇的理論來反觀古代戲曲，從理論上深入探討了中國古代缺乏悲劇藝術的原因AI疊印描邊沒反應。限于篇幅，此處不能備述。
五
錢鐘書先生在對中西戲劇進行廣泛的比較研究以后得出中國古代戲曲中缺乏悲劇的結論AI疊印描邊沒反應。他這樣做究竟基于什么考慮？有什么意義？錢先生認為，第一，這樣做意在打消中國批評家對我們自己的戲曲所抱有的許多幻覺；第二，這樣做有助于研究比較文學的學生確定中國古代戲曲在藝術宮殿中的適當位置。我們認為這種實事求是的態(tài)度是十分可取的，因為它既批評了中國人對本土文化的妄自尊大，又橫掃了西方人以歐美文化為中心的偏見。
當認真讀過上述見解之后，我們又一次深深感受到作者所一貫抱持的文化批判精神AI疊印描邊沒反應。對于中國傳統(tǒng)文化的精熟和對于世界文化的通覽，致使他在觀察中國文化事物時，總是表現(xiàn)出一種清醒的頭腦和一種深刻的洞察力。錢先生在另一篇文章中曾經談到，他在學術研究中經常有意識地運用著的一種方法，叫做“回過頭來另眼相看”。他并且解釋說：“這種回過頭來另眼相看，正是黑格爾一再講的認識過程的重要轉折點：對習慣事物增進了理解，由‘識’（bekannt）轉而為‘知’（erkannt），從舊相識進而成真相知。” ⑤這種方法既可以幫助我們重新認識中國古代文學和文藝理論的深厚義蘊和獨特價值，也能夠幫助我們重新評價其歷史局限性和地域局限性，從而促使中國文學走向世界，加入世界文學的總格局中。
錢鐘書先生還指出：“我深信，假使比較文學專業(yè)的學生肯把中國古代文化納進他們的視野，他們將能找到許多新材料，足以動搖西方批評家奉為圭臬的那些理論教條AI疊印描邊沒反應。對中國古代文學批評史專業(yè)的學生來說，這種切實的比較研究是特別重要的，因為他們由此才能夠懂得我國古代批評家的材料同西方批評家的有怎樣的不同，懂得在西方批評家和我們自己的批評家之間，為什么一方批評的基本原理不能被對方所了解和利用。這曾是我用多種方法研究中國古典文學的目的。為了充實美學經驗，我們必須走向外國文學，為了充實其它方面，我們也必須走向我們自己的文學。文學研究中的禁欲主義已經夠糟了，而拒絕承認西方微言妙論的‘愛國主義’則更糟。”中西文學中容有許多相同之處，但是，我們對這種相同的認知，是僅僅停留在現(xiàn)象的表面，還是深到它的本質層，意義大不一樣。我們看到，只有如錢鐘書先生那樣，進行深刻的研究和探討，才有可能對中西文學的異中之同和同中之異獲致真正的了解和理解。
附記：據我知道，錢先生對這篇“少作”，像對其他“少作”（除掉少數(shù)幾篇舊體詩）一樣，很不滿意，也不愿意別人稱述AI疊印描邊沒反應。因為我覺得這篇文章頗有值得注意之處，所以，不揣冒昧，寫了以上簡單的提要。
注釋：
（如舸齋案：注釋原為頁下注，現(xiàn)改為篇后注并相應調整注序AI疊印描邊沒反應。）
?、侔l(fā)表于 T’ien Hsia Monthly（《天下月刊》）Ⅰ．l（August 1935）AI疊印描邊沒反應。
?、凇豆苠F編》第1冊，第292頁，第2冊，第531頁AI疊印描邊沒反應。《趙氏孤兒》的法譯本又被轉譯為英文、德文、俄文等譯本，并先后在法、德、意諸國出現(xiàn)了五種改編本，其中兩種還分別出于大文豪伏爾泰和歌德之手。
③《詩學》第6章AI疊印描邊沒反應。
?、堋墩勊囦洝返?51頁AI疊印描邊沒反應。
?、荨蹲x〈拉奧孔〉》，《七綴集》第30頁AI疊印描邊沒反應。
感謝：
解放軍藝術學院學報1999年第2期
錢鐘書與王國維近半個世紀的對話
熊元義
二十世紀，就中國悲劇問題，我國兩位杰出學者錢鐘書與王國維進行了將近半個世紀的學術對話AI疊印描邊沒反應。
盡管這場學術對話因為對話一方王國維在這之前就已逝世，不可能有回應，但錢鐘書在這一場學術對話中是有發(fā)展和變化的AI疊印描邊沒反應。如果我們完整地把握了王國維的中國悲劇觀的發(fā)展和變化，就可以從這場學術對話中管窺錢鐘書的中國悲劇觀的發(fā)展和變化。盡管這種表現(xiàn)沒有王國維的顯著，但還是可以找到其中的線索的。這就是錢鐘書在中國悲劇問題上也有一個從否定到回歸的過程。
有趣的是，在這場學術對話中，王國維基本上是受錢鐘書針砭的AI疊印描邊沒反應。無論是王國維的《宋元戲曲史》，還是其《〈紅樓夢〉評論》，都遭到了錢鐘書的批判。
我們知道，王國維從《〈紅樓夢〉評論》到《宋元戲曲史》，其中國悲劇觀是發(fā)展和變化的AI疊印描邊沒反應。
一九○四年，王國維引入德國哲學家叔本華的悲劇理論，對我國古典小說巨著《紅樓夢》進行了深入而系統(tǒng)的解剖AI疊印描邊沒反應。這就是王國維的《〈紅樓夢〉評論》。在這部論著中，王國維提出：“《紅樓夢》一書，徹頭徹尾的悲劇也。”王國維在高度肯定《紅樓夢》在美學上的價值的基礎上，斷言中國古典戲曲、小說除了《紅樓夢》以外，沒有其它悲劇存在。他說：“吾國之文學以挾樂天的精神故，故往往說詩歌的正義：善人必令其終，而惡人必令其罰。此亦吾國戲曲小說之特質也。《紅樓夢》則不然。”王國維將《紅樓夢》作為偉大悲劇和我國其它文藝作品完全對立起來，徹底地否定了我國其它悲劇的存在。即使他略有肯定的文藝作品《桃花扇》，因為是他律的，非自律的，也遭到了貶斥。“《桃花扇》之解脫非真解脫也。滄桑之變，目擊之而身歷之，不能自悟而悟于張道士之一言，且以歷數(shù)千里，冒不測之險，投縲紲之中，所索之女子才得一面，而以道士之言，一朝舍之，自非三尺童子其誰信之哉？”（注：《王國維學術經典集》（上），江西人民出版社1997年5月版， 第59頁。）
一九一二年，王國維雖然沒有完全擺脫西方悲劇理論，真正地從中國悲劇觀出發(fā)審視中國古典藝術的悲劇，但是他無疑較過去有很大的進步，朝中國悲劇觀回歸了AI疊印描邊沒反應。在《宋元戲曲史》一書中，王國維深刻地指出：“明以后，傳奇無非喜劇，而元則有悲劇在其中。就其存者言之：如《漢宮秋》《梧桐雨》《西蜀夢》《火燒介子推》《張千替殺妻》等，初無所謂先離后合，始困終亨之事也。其最有悲劇之性質者，則如關漢卿之《竇娥冤》，紀君祥之《趙氏孤兒》。劇中雖有惡人交構其間，而其蹈湯赴火者，仍出于其主人翁之意志，即列之于世界大悲劇中，亦無愧色。”（注：《王國維學術經典集》（上），江西人民出版社1997年5月版，第281—282頁。）可以說， 這是王國維對中國悲劇的進一步發(fā)現(xiàn)。盡管還不徹底，但和過去相比，無疑有了相當大的進步。
本來，作為后起之秀的錢鐘書應該在王國維所達到的高峰上繼續(xù)攀登和前進AI疊印描邊沒反應。但是，錢鐘書卻運用西方悲劇理論徹底否定了這一高峰。
一九三五年，錢鐘書在上海的《天下》月刊用英文發(fā)表論文《中國古典戲曲中的悲劇》AI疊印描邊沒反應。錢鐘書在這篇論文中認為中國戲曲沒有悲劇這種戲劇的最高形式。他說：“悲劇自然是最高形式的戲劇藝術，但恰恰在這方面，我國古代劇作家卻無一成功。除了喜劇和滑稽劇外，確切地說，一般的正劇都屬于傳奇劇。這種戲劇表現(xiàn)的是一連串松散連綴的激情，卻沒有表現(xiàn)出一種主導激情。賞善懲惡通常是這類劇的主題，其中哀婉動人與幽默詼諧的場景有規(guī)則地交替變換，借用《霧都孤兒》里一個通俗的比喻，就像一層層肥瘦相間的五花肉。至于真正的悲劇意義，那種由崇高而觸發(fā)的痛苦，‘?。?我心中有兩種情感！’之類的感受以及因未盡善而終成盡惡的認識，在這種劇作中都很少涉及。”（注：《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第359頁。）
王國維認為：“明以后，傳奇無非喜劇，而元則有悲劇在其中AI疊印描邊沒反應。”而列之于世界大悲劇中亦無愧色的關漢卿的《竇娥冤》、紀君祥的《趙氏孤兒》在元代悲劇中是最有悲劇之性質的。王國維的這個論斷首當其沖地遭到了錢鐘書的批判。錢鐘書認為王國維所說的“最有悲劇之性質”的兩部古典戲曲“一、它們是文學名著。這一點我們也默認。二、它們都是大悲劇，因為赴湯蹈火都出自主人翁的意志。對于這一點，我們還有話要說。三、它們是大悲劇，可以說是建立在這個基礎之上，即認定《俄狄浦斯》《奧賽羅》以及《貝蕾尼斯》都是大悲劇。這一點，恕我們不敢茍同。”（注：《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第362—363頁。）
錢鐘書之所以不敢茍同王國維所說的，是因為“王國維這種萌發(fā)于主人翁意志的整個悲劇觀似乎是高乃依式的AI疊印描邊沒反應。但王氏所構想的悲劇沖突并不像高乃依所構想的那樣傾向于人物內在的沖突。”（注：《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第363頁。）
王國維曾經引進西方悲劇理論闡釋中國古典小說《紅樓夢》，錢鐘書也是如此AI疊印描邊沒反應。與王國維引進叔本華的悲劇理論不同， 錢鐘書不過是以L#8226;A#8226;里德博士的悲劇理論為矢的。 錢鐘書認為：“悲劇有兩種主要類型：一種是以人物性格為中心的悲劇，另一種是以命運本身為主的悲劇。莎士比亞的悲劇屬第一種，而古希臘的悲劇卻屬第二種。中國古代戲劇中勉強稱得上悲劇的作品大都傾向于第一種。像莎式劇一樣，它們都摒棄了三一律，并強調人物性格及其對惡劣環(huán)境的反應。但是，它們并不是悲劇，正如我們所看到的，因為劇作者對于悲劇性弱點及悲劇沖突的概念，只有一種不適當?shù)挠^念而已。”（注：《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第365頁。）
錢鐘書認為關漢卿的《竇娥冤》沒有挖掘竇端云對自身生命的熱愛與拯救其婆婆性命的愿望之間的矛盾這種內在的悲劇沖突，而是描寫外在的悲劇沖突AI疊印描邊沒反應。竇端云的“思想始終如一：在她對已故丈夫的忠貞與對新求婚者的反感之間存在著一種預定的和諧。她拒斥了惡棍張驢兒，以不容分割的靈魂迎接了這一場挑戰(zhàn)。”“竇端云既沒有任何過錯應當夭亡，也不是命運注定要喪生。如果說她的性格中有什么可悲的弱點的話，那么劇作者對此則是視而不見的，而且最終希望我們也同樣如此。”（注：《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第364頁。）而“在最后一折中，具有中國戲曲特色的因果報應， 使我們的義憤之情完全化為烏有。隨之出現(xiàn)的問題是：這種因果報應是否加強了悲劇氣氛？即使我們暫時回避這個問題，拋開第四折不計，難道我們能說前三折給我們留下了無需安慰、無需鼓舞、獨立自恃這么一種悲劇印象嗎？只要細心體味一下，便會作出否定回答。人們覺得，竇端云這個人物性格非常崇高，毫無缺陷，她的死令人非常同情，她的冤屈令人十分憤怒，以至于第四折中人們迫切需要調節(jié)一下心理平衡。換言之，劇作者這樣描寫是為了讓該劇以因果報應結尾，而不是以悲劇告終。”（注：《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第363—364頁。）因此，《竇娥冤》還算不得真正的悲劇。
錢鐘書認為，對于《竇娥冤》的這些批評，或多或少也適用于《趙氏孤兒》AI疊印描邊沒反應。《趙氏孤兒》的“悲劇的沖突要激烈、更內在一些。程嬰在骨肉之愛與拋子之責這兩者之間的自我選擇得到了充分的表現(xiàn)。然而不幸的是，抗爭力、疼愛與責任之間原非勢均力敵，顯而易見，其中之一不難戰(zhàn)勝其它兩者。程嬰顯然認為（而且劇作者也誘使我們替他認為）盡到棄子之責比沉溺于父愛之中更加仗義——‘僅此一端算幾何！’這里的悲劇沖突根本不強烈，緊張的悲劇對抗戛然而止，局勢便徑直朝一個方面傾斜。這一點在公孫杵臼身上表現(xiàn)得再清楚不過了。他在決心不惜性命保護孤兒時，對愛與責的抉擇沒有半點猶豫。最后希望成為‘列于世界大悲劇中亦無愧色’的此劇，不是在精神的耗費中完結，而是在物質的成果里告終。”（注：《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第364—365頁。）所以，《趙氏孤兒》也不是真正的悲劇。
顯然，錢鐘書沒有真正地把握中國悲劇的審美特征，而是引進西方悲劇理論否認中國悲劇的存在AI疊印描邊沒反應。
近現(xiàn)代以來，對中國悲劇無論是否定還是肯定的，都是以西方悲劇概念為評價標準，只不過前者認為凡不符合西方悲劇概念的就不是悲劇，后者將不符合西方悲劇概念的東西視為中國悲劇的獨特性AI疊印描邊沒反應。這都沒有從中國悲劇實際出發(fā)概括中國悲劇的審美特征。與西方悲劇相比，中國悲劇有其獨特的審美特征。中國悲劇既有正義力量和邪惡勢力的先后毀滅，即悲劇沖突的雙方的先后毀滅，也有正義即道不但得到延續(xù)，而且是克服重重困難和阻遏后取得最終勝利。在這一方面，它和西方悲劇沒有根本上的區(qū)別。但是，中國悲劇對現(xiàn)存沖突的解決不是形而上的，而是形而下的；不是訴諸某種“絕對理念”的自我發(fā)展和自我完善，而是訴諸從根本上解決現(xiàn)實生活的矛盾和沖突的物質力量即正義力量。這樣，中國悲劇就和西方悲劇從根本上區(qū)別開來。而中國悲劇的大團圓不是抽象的，而且具體地表現(xiàn)了這種正義力量戰(zhàn)勝邪惡勢力的歷史過程。中國悲劇的悲劇人物不但是歷史正義的化身，而且在道德上還是完美的。中國悲劇的正義力量不是因為自我的局限而遭受毀滅，而是因為邪惡勢力的摧殘和毀滅。因此，正義力量的暫時毀滅不是黑格爾所說的罪有應得，而是無辜的。正義力量在道德上是完美的，沒有罪過和不義。正義力量在大團圓這種現(xiàn)實世界的延續(xù)中經過不懈的努力和奮斗，最終戰(zhàn)勝和消滅了邪惡勢力，達到了歷史的進步和道德的進步的統(tǒng)一。
追求歷史的進步和道德的進步的統(tǒng)一，是中西方悲劇的共同境界AI疊印描邊沒反應。中國悲劇是通過否定和拒絕邪惡勢力實現(xiàn)這個統(tǒng)一的，西方悲劇是通過否定人自身的缺陷和罪過完成這個統(tǒng)一的。中國悲劇人物之所以陷入悲劇不但是因為邪惡勢力過于強大，而且是因為他們追求自身的完美。和中國悲劇人物追求自身的完美一樣，西方悲劇人物也追求自身的完美。不過，中國悲劇人物是性本善，這種追求表現(xiàn)為守節(jié)，西方悲劇人物是有罪的，毀滅包括自我毀滅是自我懲罰或以贖前愆。這種不同也表現(xiàn)在悲劇沖突上，中國悲劇的悲劇沖突主要發(fā)生在邪惡勢力與正義力量之間，很少有悲劇人物的內在沖突。中國悲劇人物對外在的邪惡勢力的斗爭最堅決的，一往無前的，義無反顧的，這是中國悲劇的優(yōu)勢。但是，中國悲劇人物因為自身的完美，所以對悲劇的發(fā)生不承擔什么責任，往往容易一概諉過于外在的邪惡勢力。中國悲劇不敢正視悲劇人物的自身缺陷，即使存在某種缺陷，也曲意修正美化。西方悲劇則有所不同。其悲劇沖突盡管也表現(xiàn)在正義力量和邪惡勢力之間，但主要地表現(xiàn)在悲劇人物身上，西方悲劇人物在自我反省中主動承擔責任，很是值得中國悲劇吸收和發(fā)揚。中國悲劇人物和西方悲劇人物都有主動放棄的行為，但是，中國悲劇人物的放棄和拒絕是繼續(xù)斗爭，是繼續(xù)抗爭，西方悲劇人物的放棄是退讓，是自我否定。
錢鐘書因為按圖索驥，所以不可能真正理解和認識中國悲劇AI疊印描邊沒反應。例如洪升的《長生殿》。錢鐘書認為《長生殿》里極富美感而令人動情的華貴場面，是絕好的素材，但不能把它與悲劇力量混為一談，它最終給我們留下的不是和諧與舒適，而是內心由于對劇中人物遭難產生共鳴而削弱了的輕微的隱痛，是對慰藉、支持以及更為貼近感情愿望的一系列東西的渴望。這確實完全脫離了純粹的悲劇體驗。錢鐘書說：“在災難面前渴望生活，在悲痛中追求享受，這才是屬于悲劇的東西。我清楚地知道唐明皇沒有像安東尼那樣死去，這是歷史事實。但我的看法是，在這種情況下，即使不安排皇帝的死亡，悲劇的典型性也很突出。盡管如此，我們古代的悲劇家們在處理這種劇情時，卻未能使他們的劇作給我們以充分的悲劇體驗。”（注：《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第362頁。 ）從《漢宮秋》的王昭君到《長生殿》的楊玉環(huán)，她們都能夠為了江山社稷拋卻自己的生命。只有在她們挽救了江山社稷，她們所追求的愛情才具有真正震撼人心的力量。當江山變色的時候，她們所追求的愛情也就不存在了。孔尚任的《桃花扇》就是這樣告訴我們的，“當此地覆天翻，還戀情根欲種，豈不可笑！”“兩個癡蟲，你看國在那里，家在那里，君在哪里，父在哪里，偏是這點花月情根，割他不斷么？”因此，這些悲劇作品的悲劇沖突不是要江山和要美人的沖突，而是追求真正的愛情和這種要求實現(xiàn)不了的沖突。如果悲劇人物對真正的愛情的追求是執(zhí)著的，生死不渝，真心到底，而這種追求又受到邪惡勢力的阻遇而實現(xiàn)不了，那么，其悲劇沖突就非常強烈。破壞他們真正的愛情的，盡管不能說沒有他們個人的原因，但主要還是外在的邪惡勢力，或是外敵入侵，或是發(fā)生叛亂，或是權奸當?shù)?。?他們沖破這些外在的邪惡勢力的阻遏，追求真正的愛情，無疑是真正的悲劇。
錢鐘書不能從中國悲劇的實際出發(fā)把握中國悲劇，就很難有正確的認識AI疊印描邊沒反應。
當然，我們承認中國悲劇的存在，并有自己的獨特的審美特征，但也不否認消解悲劇的傾向的存在，這就是還債說AI疊印描邊沒反應。這在中國古典小說中有比較突出的表現(xiàn)。例如《紅樓夢》，王國維不但認為這是徹頭徹尾的悲劇，而且認為是悲劇中的悲劇。他說：“茲就寶玉、黛玉之事言之，賈母愛寶釵之婉嫕，因懲黛玉之孤僻，又信金玉之邪說，而思厭寶玉之?。煌醴蛉斯逃H于薛氏，鳳姐以持家之故，忌黛玉之才，而虞其不便于已也，襲人懲尤二姐、香菱之事，聞黛玉‘不是東風壓西風，就是西風壓東風’之語，懼禍之及，而自同于風姐，亦自然之勢也。寶玉之于黛玉，信誓旦旦，而不能言之于最愛之之祖母，則普通之道德使然，況黛玉一女子哉！由此種種原因，而金石以之合，木石以之離，又豈有蛇蝎之人物，非常之變故，行于其間哉？不過通常之道德，通常之人情，通常之境遇為之而已。由此觀之，《紅樓夢》者，可謂悲劇中之悲劇也。”（注：《王國維學術經典集》（上），江西人民出版社1997年5月版，第60—61頁。）然而，這個木石良緣不過是“只因當年這個石頭，媧皇未用，自己卻也落得逍遙自在，各處去游玩；一日，來到警幻仙子處，那仙子知他有些來歷，因留他在赤霞宮中，名他為赤霞宮神瑛侍者。他卻常在西方靈河岸上行走，看見那靈河岸上三生石畔有棵絳珠仙草，十分嬌娜可愛，遂日以甘露灌溉，這絳珠草始得久延歲月。后來既受天地精華，復得甘露滋養(yǎng)，遂脫了草木之胎，幻化人形，僅僅修成女體，終日游于‘離恨天’外，饑餐‘秘情果’，渴飲‘灌愁水’，只因尚未酬報灌溉之德，故甚至五內郁結著一段纏綿不盡之意，常說：‘自己受了他雨露之惠，我并無此水可還；他若下世為人，我也同去走一遭，但把我一生所有的眼淚還他，也還得過了！’因此一事，就勾出多少風流冤家都要下凡，造歷幻緣。那絳珠仙草也在其中。”看來，外在的邪惡勢力拆散寶黛二人反倒是成全林黛玉了。這樣，愛情悲劇就不存在了。又例如《說岳全傳》。岳飛和秦檜夫婦的沖突，乃是前世冤仇。“且說西方極樂世界大雷音寺我佛如來，一日端坐九品蓮臺，旁列著四大菩薩、八大金剛、五百羅漢、三千偈諦、比邱尼、比邱僧、優(yōu)婆夷、優(yōu)婆塞，共諸天護法圣眾，齊聽講說妙法真經。正說得天花亂墜、寶雨繽紛之際，不期有一位星官，乃是女士蝠，偶在蓮臺之下聽講，一時忍不住撒出一個臭屁來。我佛原是個大慈大悲之主，毫不在意。不道惱了佛頂上頭一位護法神祗，名為大鵬金翅明王，眼射金光，背呈祥瑞，見那女士蝠污穢不潔，不覺大怒，展開雙翅落下來，望著女士蝠頭上，這一嘴就啄死了。那女士蝠一點靈光射出雷音寺，徑往東士認母投胎，在下界王門為女，后來嫁與秦檜為妻，殘害忠良，以報今日之仇。”“且說佛爺將慧眼一觀，口稱：‘善哉，善哉！原來有此一段因果！’即換大鵬鳥近前，喝道：‘你這孽畜！既歸我教，怎不皈依五戒，輒敢如此行兇！我這里用你不著。今將你降落紅塵，償還冤債。直待功成行滿，方許你歸山，再成正果。’大鵬鳥遵了法旨，飛出雷音寺，徑來東士投胎”。這個神話故事生動地演繹了岳飛和秦檜夫婦在前世的恩恩冤冤。看來，岳飛含冤而死乃是償還冤債，是罪有應得。楊義認為這是預敘。他在比較了中西敘事學的差異后指出：“預敘和倒敘在時間順序變異操作中，是處于兩極的概念。”在西方文學傳統(tǒng)中，預敘相對薄弱。預敘遠不如倒敘那么頻繁出現(xiàn)。在中國文學傳統(tǒng)中，正好相反。“中國作家在作品的開頭就采取了大跨度、高速度的時間操作，以期和天人之道、歷史法則接軌。這就使他們的作品不是首先注意到一人一事的局部細描，而是在宏觀操作中充滿對歷史、人生的透視感和預言感。于是，預敘也就不是其弱項而是其強項。 ”（注：參見《中國敘事學》， 人民出版社1997年12月版，第151—152頁。）如果僅僅從藝術形式上著眼，這是可以肯定的。但從審美價值上來看，則是應該否定的。因為這是對悲劇的消解。
近半個世紀后，錢鐘書認識到按照西方悲劇理論是無法完全認識中國悲劇作品的AI疊印描邊沒反應。這表現(xiàn)在錢鐘書對王國維的《〈紅樓夢〉評論》的批判上。
這個批判引伸出了兩個重要結論AI疊印描邊沒反應。一是中國古典小說《紅樓夢》有不同西方悲劇理論即叔本華的悲劇理論的獨特的審美特征；二是小說、詩歌、戲劇與哲學、歷史、社會學這兩家“利導則兩美可以相得，強合則兩賢必至相阨”。
1984年9月，錢鐘書在《談藝錄》（修訂本）中指出， 王國維附會叔本華以闡釋《紅樓夢》，不免作法自斃，是削足適履AI疊印描邊沒反應。
錢鐘書說：王國維“于叔本華著作，口沫手胝，《〈紅樓夢〉評論》中反復稱述，據其說以斷言《紅樓夢》為‘悲劇之悲劇’AI疊印描邊沒反應。賈母懲黛玉之孤僻而信金玉之邪說也；王夫人親于薛氏、鳳姐而忌黛玉之才慧也；襲人慮不容于寡妻也；寶玉畏不得于大母也；由此種種原因，而木石遂不得不離也。洵持之有故矣。然似于叔本華之道未盡，于其理未徹也。茍盡其道而徹其理，則當知木石因緣，徼幸成就，喜將變憂，佳耦始者或以怨耦終；遙聞聲而相思相慕，習進前而漸疏漸厭，花紅初無幾日，月滿不得連宵，好事徒成虛話，含飴還同嚼蠟（參觀《管錐編》一○九頁、三二六頁、一五二四頁）。”（注：《談藝錄》（修訂本），中華書局1984年9月版，第349頁。）“茍本叔本華之說，則寶黛良緣雖就，而好逑漸至寇仇，‘冤家’終為怨耦，方是‘悲劇之悲劇’。然《紅樓夢》現(xiàn)有收場，正亦切事入情，何勞削足適履。”（注：《談藝錄》（修訂本），中華書局1984年9月版，第351頁。）《紅樓夢》有不同于叔本華的悲劇理論的獨特的審美特征。王國維不從《紅樓夢》本身出發(fā)，而是附會叔本華的哲學，削足適履地闡釋《紅樓夢》，頗不可取。
當然，王國維的《〈紅樓夢〉評論》所存在的問題遠不只這些AI疊印描邊沒反應。王國維在《〈紅樓夢〉評論》中不但按照西方悲劇理論削足適履地闡釋中國悲劇作品，而且按照西方悲劇理論完全徹底地否定了除了《紅樓夢》以外的其它中國悲劇作品的存在。這些錯誤在后來都有各自不同的表現(xiàn)。
錢鐘書認為：“蓋自叔本華哲學言之，《紅樓夢》未能窮理窟而抉道根；而自《紅樓夢》小說言之，叔本華空掃萬象，斂歸一律，嘗滴水知大海味，而不屑觀海之瀾AI疊印描邊沒反應。夫《紅樓夢》、佳著也，叔本華哲學、玄諦也；利導則兩美可以相得，強合則兩賢必至相阨。此非僅《紅樓夢》與叔本華哲學為然也。”（注：《談藝錄》（修訂本），中華書局1984年9月版，第351頁。）錢鐘書以對“吾輩窮氣盡力，欲使小說、詩歌、戲劇，與哲學、歷史、社會學等為一家”，提倡“參禪貴活，為學知止，要能舍筏登岸，毋如抱梁溺水也”（注：《談藝錄》（修訂本），中華書局1984年9月版，第352頁。）。二十世紀即將結束了，這場學術對話的兩位杰出學者都已先后作古。從王國維的《〈紅樓夢〉評論》（1904年）到錢鐘書的《談藝錄》（修訂本）（1984年），整整八十年。我們在世紀末梳理這場學術對話，可以說是從一個側面勾勒了二十世紀學術發(fā)展的背景。但愿二十一世紀我們不要重蹈覆轍。
感謝：
戲曲藝術 2000年第2期
錢鐘書：中國古典戲曲中的悲?。ㄗg文）
中國古典戲曲中的悲劇
錢鐘書
悲劇自然是最高形式的戲劇藝術，但恰恰在這方面，我國古代劇作家卻無一成功AI疊印描邊沒反應。除了喜劇和滑稽劇外，確切地說，一般的正劇都屬于傳奇劇。這種戲劇表現(xiàn)的是一連串松散連綴的激情，卻沒有表現(xiàn)出一種主導激情。賞善懲惡通常是這類劇的主題，其中哀婉動人與幽默詼諧的場景有規(guī)則地交替變換，借用《霧都孤兒》里一個通俗的比喻，就像一層層肥瘦相間的五花肉。至于真正的悲劇意義，那種由崇高而觸發(fā)的痛苦，“啊！我心中有兩種情感！”之類的感受以及因未盡善而終成盡惡的認識，在這種劇作中都很少涉及。的確，有相當一部分古代戲曲的結尾是悲哀的。但是一個敏感的讀者很容易覺察到它（們）與真正悲劇的區(qū)別：讀完作品，并無激情已經耗盡之后的平靜，或者如斯賓諾莎所謂的對存在于萬物之中的命運之捉弄的默許；恰恰相反，卻被一種劇烈的悲痛所纏繞而感到極度的郁郁不樂和悵然若失，甚至連自身都想回避。只要將莎士比亞的《安東尼與克利奧佩特拉》和德萊頓的《為愛犧牲》與白仁甫的《梧桐雨》和洪昇的《長生殿》相比較，就能認識到其間的差異。這兩部中國戲曲都是寫唐玄宗及其寵妃楊貴妃的，而兩個英國劇本也正好都是寫安東尼和克利奧佩特拉的，并且都是為了愛情而“失去江山”的故事。兩出中國劇和《安東尼與克利奧佩特拉》極為相似，因為它們都摒棄了時間與地點的一致性，這四個劇的前半部，根本沒有悲劇場景和事件的出現(xiàn)。它們都如田園詩一般開場，但其結局卻毫不相同。讀完兩部中國戲曲之后，留下的只有個人的同情，而沒有上升到更高層次的悲劇體驗。雖然《梧桐雨》中扣人心弦的抒情，和《長生殿》里極富美感而令人動情的華貴場面，都是絕好的素材，但不能把它們與悲劇力量混為一談，它們最終給我們留下的不是和諧與舒適，而是內心由于對劇中人物遭難產生共鳴而削弱了的輕微的隱痛，是對慰藉、支持以及更為貼近感情愿望的一系列東西的渴求。 確實完全脫離了純粹的悲劇體驗，這種悲劇體驗正如I#8226;A#8226;瑞恰茲在《文學批評原理》中所精辟論述的那樣：“存在著，無需安慰，也無需鼓勵，它獨立自恃。”可見，盡管一種體驗也許與另一種體驗同等重要，但它們留下的感受卻絕不相同。
這些中國戲曲留給讀者的不是悲痛欲絕之感，而是對更美好世界的渴望，其戲劇結構更加強了這一感受AI疊印描邊沒反應。帷幕的落下不是在主要悲劇事件發(fā)生之時，而是在后果顯示之后。所以，悲劇的激情和痛苦的高潮似乎帶有漫長的尾聲。它就好像是顫音或嘆息的綿延，產生出一種特殊的效果。在《梧桐雨》中，楊貴妃在第三折就死了，而留下了整整的一折來表現(xiàn)唐玄宗的哀痛、憔悴，以致他那一顆破碎的心完全被無可奈何的不幸所吞噬。在《長生殿》里，唐明皇在第二十五出里喪失了愛妃，這僅僅是為第五十出的重新團圓作好鋪墊（這或多或少與華茲華斯詩中的普羅忒希勒和羅達米亞格式相似）。這些安排都絕非偶然，而更為重要的是，由于劇中悲劇人物的崇高不足以使我們與之保持足夠的心理距離，所以人們僅僅局限于對他們懷有個人的同情而已。盡管悲劇人物存在著缺陷，但它并沒有與任何人格的分量和個性的魅力形成鮮明的對比。比如兩個劇中的唐明皇基本上都是一個懦弱無能、幾乎完全是自私的、耽于聲色的昏君，他沒有一點抗爭，沒有內在的矛盾沖突。由于對楊貴妃的寵愛，他丟掉了社稷；但為了奪回江山，他寧可拋棄楊貴妃。他沒有把恩愛與社稷這兩極緊緊地擰在一起而不致分離的個性，他甚至缺乏兩全其美的意識。在白仁甫的劇里，他好像是一個懦夫和無賴。當叛賊以處死楊貴妃來脅迫他時，他對她說：“妃子不濟事了，寡人直不能保。”楊貴妃哀求他救命，他答道：“寡人怎生是好！”楊貴妃最終被帶走時，他又對她說：“卿休怨寡人！”我們并不喜歡夸大其辭，但他這些話確系過分軟弱無力的表白，言之鑿鑿，勿庸贅述。在洪昇的劇里，唐明皇的態(tài)度更加厚顏無恥。楊貴妃勇敢地去死，但他執(zhí)意不肯，竟說為了恩愛，寧可不要江山。然而在片刻思忖之后，他又把她交給了叛軍，并與之訣別道：“罷罷，妃子既執(zhí)意如此，朕也做不得主了。”為唐明皇說句公道話，他的這番言詞倒還是含著淚，跺著腳動情地道出來的。然而，試將它們與莎劇中安東尼的話對比：
讓羅馬融化在臺伯河的流水里AI疊印描邊沒反應，
讓廣袤的帝國的高大的拱門倒塌吧AI疊印描邊沒反應！
這兒是我的生存的空間AI疊印描邊沒反應。
或與德萊頓劇中安東尼那更樸實的話語相比：
將一切都帶走吧，這個世界對我來說不屑不顧AI疊印描邊沒反應。
誠然，把如此霄壤之別的東西放在一起來比較，實在近乎可笑AI疊印描邊沒反應。在災難面前渴望生活，在悲痛中追求享受，這才是屬于悲劇的東西。我清楚地知道唐明皇沒有像安東尼那樣死去，這是歷史事實。但我的看法是，在這種情況下，即使不安排皇帝的死亡，悲劇的典型性也很突出。盡管如此，我們古代的悲劇家們在處理這種劇情時，卻未能使他們的劇作給我們以充分的悲劇體驗。
因此，我這里斗膽——當然肯定懷著怯懼——向王國維這樣一位古代中國戲曲研究權威提出異議AI疊印描邊沒反應。在《宋元戲曲史》中，王國維說：“明以后，傳奇無非喜劇，而元則有悲劇在其中。就其存者言之：如《漢宮秋》、《梧桐雨》等，初無所謂先離后合，始困終亨之事也。其最有悲劇之性質者，則如關漢卿之《竇娥冤》、紀君祥之《趙氏孤兒》。劇中雖有惡人交構其間，而其赴湯蹈火者，仍出于其主人翁之意志。即列之于世界大悲劇中，亦無愧色也。”（以上高論錄自第十二章《元曲之文章》。）我們已經討論了《梧桐雨》。正如奧古斯丁#8226;比勒爾巧妙地指出的：“一條繩子力量的大小只能根據它的最細的那部分去判斷，而對詩人的評價則要看其鼎盛時期。”下面我們將研究一下被王國維認為是“最有悲劇性質”的兩部戲曲。歸納一下，我們至少可以看出王國維對以上兩劇所做出的三條評論：一、它們是文學名著。這一點我們也默認。二、它們都是大悲劇，因為赴湯蹈火都出自主人翁的意志。對于這一點，我們還有話要說。三、它們是大悲劇，可以說是建立在這個基礎之上，即認定《俄狄浦斯》、《奧賽羅》以及《貝蕾尼斯》都是大悲劇。這一點，恕我們不敢茍同。的確，王國維這種萌發(fā)于主人翁意志的整個悲劇觀似乎是高乃依式的。但王氏所構想的悲劇沖突并不像高乃依所構想的那樣傾向于人物內在的沖突。無論怎樣輕描淡寫，高乃依有時確實觸及了榮譽與愛情之間的強烈矛盾，《熙德》里的主人翁羅德利克就是一例。空談不如實驗，還是讓我們依次對這兩劇進行扼要的探討。
首先看看《竇娥冤》AI疊印描邊沒反應。竇天章是一位貧窮潦倒的秀才，他要上京城應試，但苦于缺少盤纏，而且尚欠著蔡婆一些舊賬，所以將其女端云送給蔡婆作童養(yǎng)媳以抵債。八年后，端云與蔡婆的兒子完婚。兩年后，她的丈夫死于癆病。流氓惡棍張驢兒便打起她的主意。但她恪守烈女不嫁二夫這一傳統(tǒng)的道德準則，堅決不從。后來，張驢兒想毒死蔡婆未遂，卻誤將其父毒死，便嫁禍于竇娥，接著便出現(xiàn)了令人毛骨悚然的《法場》這一折戲。在這里，為了消除昏官對婆婆的懷疑，竇娥便一身承擔了所有罪責，她被判為犯罪。在法場上，她祈求上天憐憫她降給人間大旱三年。這發(fā)生在第三折。在第四折中，離家多年的竇天章以提刑肅政廉訪使的身份來審理此案，并為竇娥之死進行了昭雪。以上便是對主要劇情的簡單概括。在最后一折中，具有中國戲曲特色的因果報應，使我們的義憤之情完全化為烏有。隨之出現(xiàn)的問題是：這種因果報應是否加強了悲劇氣氛？即使我們暫時回避這個問題，拋開第四折不計，難道我們能說前三折給我們留下了無需安慰、無需鼓舞、獨立自恃這么一種悲劇印象嗎？只要細心體味一下，便會作出否定回答。人們覺得，竇端云這個人物性格非常崇高，毫無缺陷，她的死令人非常同情，她的冤屈令人十分憤怒，以至于在第四折中人們迫切需要調節(jié)一下心理平衡。換言之，劇作者這樣描寫是為了讓該劇以因果報應結尾，而不是以悲劇告終。為什么？竇端云既沒有任何過錯應當夭亡，也不是命運注定要喪生。如果說她的性格中有什么可悲的弱點的話，那么劇作者對此則是視而不見的，而且最終希望我們也同樣如此。劇作者無疑對她寄予同情，我們也對她懷有道德正義感，甚至神力與命運也站在她一邊——大旱三年和六月飛雪的應驗。那么，天哪！我不知為什么要如此過分地表現(xiàn)因果報應？再者，劇中所描寫的悲劇沖突純屬外在的。她的思想始終如一：在她對已故丈夫的忠貞與對新求婚者的反感之間存在著一種預定的和諧。她拒斥了惡棍張驢兒，以不容分割的靈魂迎接了這場挑戰(zhàn)。在這種情況下，保持主人翁的意志相對而言應屬易事。然而，如果通過描寫竇端云對自身生命的熱愛與拯救其婆婆性命的愿望之間的矛盾，也許會構成內在的悲劇沖突。這一點盡管如此重要，劇作者卻沒有將其把握住。
我們對《竇》劇的批語或多或少也適用于《趙氏孤兒》AI疊印描邊沒反應。該劇的主人翁是趙氏門下攻人程嬰，他割舍了自己的親生骨肉，拯救了孤兒的生命，最后哺育孤兒長大，向惡棍報了冤仇。這個劇近乎十足的因果報應大團圓：惡棍被千刀萬剮，孤兒重獲榮華富貴，程嬰的犧牲也得到了報償。在這里，悲劇的沖突更激烈、更內在一些。程嬰在骨肉之愛與拋子之責這兩者之間的自我選擇得到了充分的表現(xiàn)。然而不幸的是，抗爭力、疼愛與責任之間原非勢均力敵，顯而易見，其中之一不難戰(zhàn)勝其它兩者。程嬰顯然認為（而且劇作者也誘使我們替他認為）盡到棄子之責比沉溺于父愛之中更加仗義——“僅此一端算幾何！”這里的悲劇沖突根本不強烈，始終的悲劇對抗戛然而止，局勢便徑直朝一個方向傾斜。這一點在公孫杵臼身上表現(xiàn)得再清楚不過了。他在決心不惜性命保護孤兒時，對愛與責的抉擇沒有半點猶豫。最后希望成為“列于世界大悲劇中亦無愧色”的此劇，不是在精神的耗費中完結，而是在物質的成果里告終。我要趕緊聲明，作出如此的批評絲毫不是要否定《趙氏孤兒》是一出非常激動人心的戲曲，比之《竇娥冤》，它更顯示了悲劇無量的潛力。
依照L#8226;A#8226;里德博士的看法（他在《美學研究》中對悲劇所作的精辟討論，使我獲益匪淺），悲劇有兩種主要類型：一種是以人物性格為中心的悲劇，另一種是以命運本身為主的悲劇AI疊印描邊沒反應。莎士比亞的悲劇屬第一種，而古希臘的悲劇卻屬第二種。中國古代戲劇中勉強稱得上悲劇的作品大都傾向于第一種。像莎式劇一樣，它們都摒棄了三一律，并強調人物性格及其對惡劣環(huán)境的反應。但是，它們并不是悲劇，正如我們所看到的，因為劇作者對于悲劇性弱點及悲劇沖突的概念，只有一種不適當?shù)挠^念而已。在《盧梭與浪漫主義》中的《中國原始主義》一文中，歐文#8226;白璧德把悲劇作品的缺乏歸結為中國人身上的“倫理嚴肅性”意識的缺乏。這個術語很含糊，需要進一步解釋。白璧德可能指的是本文開頭所談到的“人為性”。如果我們上面的分析正確的話，那么，中國人的這個毛病就源于等級制度下特定的道德秩序。每一道德價值在這個社會天平上都被放在應有的位置，而所有精神和物質上的東西都依照嚴格的“道德秩序”（order of merit）來安排，因此，兩個不相容的倫理實體之間的沖突也就失去其尖銳性，因為其中的一個比另一個道德價值高，而道德價值較低的實體在沖突中永遠處于劣勢。這樣，我們只能從中看到一種直線性人格，而不是一種平行人格。較低的道德實體之否定，得到的充分補償則是較高道德實體的肯定，所以說這絲毫也不是“悲劇超越”。（參見《孟子#8226;離婁》篇中關于“大人”品行的幾句名言以及柳宗元的優(yōu)秀雜文《四維論》。）這種看法的確也表現(xiàn)在我們古代劇作之中。
我們被認為是相信天命的人AI疊印描邊沒反應。然而，古代劇作者以天命為悲劇主題的作品卻十分罕見，這就頗為奇怪。但是，悲劇命運實際上與宿命論毫無關系。后者本質上是一種由冷淡和遲鈍所導致的被命運擊敗的、被動的和易于接受的處世態(tài)度，而前者則基于這種事實之上，即人類縱使受到命運的百般捉弄，依然繼續(xù)進行斗爭。進一步講，我們通常所指的命運與希臘悲劇中所反映的命運毫不相同。懷特海教授在《科學與現(xiàn)代世界》中指出：“當今崇拜科學想象的朝圣者們，其圣祖應是古希臘雅典悲劇家——埃斯庫羅斯、索?？死账购蜌W里庇德斯。他們對于命運的想象——無情的或冷漠的——都促使悲劇事件有一個不可避免的結局，這正是科學所擁有的遠見……物理定律就是命運律令。”我們中國人的命運觀念尚不那么具有科學活力，而只是因果報應。（在《莎士比亞悲劇》一書中，A#8226;C#8226;布拉德雷博士要求我們明確地把它與悲劇性的不公正區(qū)別開來。）前者認為，幸運與災難的分配是與劇中人的是非曲直相對應的。換句話說，我們的命運觀是行為與獎賞的代名詞，而不是原因與結果的同義語。行動觀念，它不是一種中性的倫理觀念，即認定行動者必然遭受苦難，而是一種情感信仰，即美德就是其自身的一種獎賞，而且還伴隨許多將要到來的獎賞。事實非只“種瓜得瓜，種豆得豆”而已，而是在快樂中種，則不會在淚水中收。反之，結果可能與原因不相對應。可想而知，獎賞也就完全可能與行為不相一致。我們便總是用靈魂轉生理論去解釋這種不一致性：我們要么在前生欠下許多債，要么在來世得彌補。這種觀念與古希臘的觀念截然對立。此外，依照我們通常的設想，命運如尼采所為的那樣，是人道的，仁慈的。命運的冷嘲并不可怕，但是正如哈代在談論天意時所說，卻帶有一種微妙的不無害處的公開戲弄。——參見馬致遠的饒有趣味的劇作《薦福碑》。E#8226;M#8226;福斯特先生在《小說面面觀》中對哈代的批評，同樣適用于這部戲劇作品。
對于中國和西方戲劇的比較研究，是很有益處的AI疊印描邊沒反應。這有兩個原因。第一，消除了包括中國批評家在內的中外批評家對中國戲劇所抱的成見。第二，能夠幫助從事比較文學研究的學者們在藝術殿堂里把古代中國戲劇擺在適當?shù)奈恢谩＆?我一直深信，如果這些學者能夠將比較研究視野擴大到古代中國文學，他們就會發(fā)現(xiàn)許多新的參考資料，而這些東西將會對由西方批評家所形成的教條原理作出重大修正。這對研究中國古代文學批評史的學者們去研究具體的作品，萬為重要。因為只有這樣，他們才能懂得我們古代的批評理論與西方有何差異，以及為什么西方批評理論最初不被我們的批評家所利用，反之亦然，這也一直是我對古代文學進行各種探討的目的。要獲得對某些審美經驗的充分認識，我們就必須研究外國的文學作品，要充分了解別人的作品，才能充分認識自己的作品。盡管文學研究中的禁欲主義已經錯誤透頂，然而，拒絕承認來自“拿撒勒”的“好東西”的所謂愛國主義則更不可取。
薛載斌 譚戶森 譯 伍中文 校
出處：
《中外比較文學的里程碑》，人民文學出版社1997年12月版，第359頁至第367頁AI疊印描邊沒反應。
感謝青青子衿兄提供文本AI疊印描邊沒反應。