【作者】 朱源；

【导师】 汪榕培；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 比较文学与世界文学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本论文以共时与历时、微观与宏观的综合方式与视野,对中国古典戏曲理论史与英国古典话剧理论史中各自最重要、最具代表性的戏剧理论家李渔与德莱顿的戏剧理论文本与内涵,进行了深入的比较分析。以“求同存异”的基本态度,试图发掘与阐释中英戏剧理论间的普遍性与特殊性,以达到认识他人与自我、互相交流的目的。本论文研究范围分李渔与德莱顿论戏剧结构、语言、人物、思想等四个主要范畴,以及他们剧论本身的文体风格。首先,李渔的创新性在于提出“结构第一”与“立主脑”,而德莱顿的贡献在于他对“三一律”的修正。李渔倡导戏曲结构由传统的松散型向紧严型转变,而德莱顿则变通“三一律”,使戏剧结构由单一、紧严变为宽松、自由。李渔与德莱顿的戏剧结构论在某种程度上都既继承又背离各自文化圈的戏剧实践与理论传统,反而朝向对方的传统戏剧结构观念。其二、李渔与德莱顿论述戏剧语言都集中在其通俗性、生动性、创新性、精炼性、音乐性、语体特征等方面。李渔号召戏曲语言通俗化,德莱顿呼吁英剧语言规范、文雅化。其三、李渔与德莱顿都强调戏剧人物的真实性,以合情合理为人物形象塑造标准,注重人物个性与共性的统一。李渔提倡塑造主要人物的单一性,以此来紧缩以往戏曲作品松散的情节结构;而德莱顿则肯定英国戏剧人物的多样性。其四、李渔与德莱顿都将戏剧的娱乐性置于首位,教诲第二,而理想则是寓教于乐。李渔要求戏剧题材新颖、推陈出新,德莱顿更注重艺术想像和技能。最后,李渔的剧论外部结构系统、完整,但其内部论说方式仍属于诗话式的;德莱顿的剧论并不系统、完整,而其灵动的评说方式似中国诗话。李渔与德莱顿巧用修辞,形成了一种论理为主、形容为辅,理性与形象相结合的剧论言说风格。通过此项分析与研究,本论文揭示出李渔与德莱顿剧论中几项重要的共通之处,同时也指出他们的戏剧中各自的独特性。两人的剧论在诸多方面形成了针对其各自传统的某种二律背反,而针对其对方却形成了互相靠近的倾向,但这决非意味着彼此可以互相通融与消解,而是遥相呼应。李渔与德莱顿在戏剧理论不同层次上的相通与相异性使我们更深地了解自己与对方,同时加固了中英与中西戏剧理论沟通的平台,促进了中西文化的顺利交流与和谐发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 The present dissertation, with its diachronic and synchronic perspectives, conducts a substantial analysis of the major critical texts and views on both Chinese classical opera and English classical drama by the most representative Chinese and English dramatic theorists, Li Yu and John Dryden. The basic stance hereby is to seek the similarity while retaining the difference, so that the universality and uniqueness in Chinese and English dramatic theories can be revealed and expounded, and the mutual understanding and communication as well as self-understanding can be achieved.The comparative analysis includes four major critical dramatic categories of structure, language, character and thoughts, in addition to their critical styles. First of all, Li Yu’s innovation is his proposal of“Structure First”and“Establish the Main Focus”while Dryden’s contribution lies in his revision of“Three Unities.”Li Yu advocates the tightening of dramatic structure from the traditional structural looseness; in contrast, Dryden loosens“Three Unities”, turning dramatic structure less restricted. In a sense, Li Yu and Dryden both inherit and deviate from their own traditional dramatic practice and critical practice, and tend to move towards each other’s traditional dramatic heritage. Secondly, their views on dramatic language concentrate on its popularity, vividness, innovation, succinctness, musicality and variety of stylistic genres. Li Yu promotes the popularity of dramatic language while Dryden emphasizes its standardization and gracefulness. Thirdly, both Li Yu and Dryden stress the truthfulness of characterization. They consider decorum in emotion and reason as criterion for characterization, and emphasize the unity between its the common characteristics and unique features. By the dominance of the main character, Li Yu tightens the traditionally loose dramatic structure while Dryden favours the traditional English variety of characterization. Fourthly, both Li Yu and Dryden regard entertainment as the first priority function in drama, instruction second, and ideally the unity of both. Li Yu requires novelty for subject matter and innovation from the old source; however, Dryden is more concerned with imagination and craft for dramatic effectiveness. Last, Li Yu has much system and completeness in his framework of critical discourse while retaining the traditional style of critical commentary; nonetheless, Dryden lacks system and completeness in his critical discourse while his flexibility and casualness resemble the Chinese traditional style of critical commentary. Li Yu’s and Dryden’s rhetorical devices are well combined with their reasoning, forming a critical style with the unity of both vividness and rationalization.By such research and analysis, the dissertation reveals certain critical characteristics shared by Li Yu and Dryden as well as their unique features. Both Li Yu and Dryden deviate from their own critical heritage in their major critical views and ironically tend towards each other’s dramatic heritage, and yet they do not merge or dissolve, but echo in the same large sphere. The similarity and difference at the various levels in Li Yu’s and Dryden’s dramatic theories enable us to understand ourselves and others better, to consolidate the platform for the communication between Chinese dramatic theory and English and even Western dramatic theories, and therefore to enhance the cultural exchange and mutual development between the East and West.更多还原