德莱顿的“戏剧文论”

诗剧是否应当用韵？

在这个问题上，批评者的质疑在于韵文远离日常对话、因而做作不自然，德莱顿的回应则聚焦于这样一个问题：“自然”是否应当作为原则，或说，诗剧的原则应当是什么？ 为了回答这一问题，他进而讨论了如下几个问题：①戏剧的核心目的（delight & instruct）；②诗人、剧作家的任务，以及诗艺的必要性；③不同体裁戏剧的差别，以及悲剧的恰当风格。

韵诗是否“自然”？而“自然”意味着什么？

• 反对观点：相较于散文，韵文远离日常对话，因而不适用于正剧 "since verse is granted to be more remote than prose from ordinary conversation, therefore no serious plays ought to be writ in verse "

德莱顿的观点：在正剧中，押韵不仅更为自然，而且比无韵诗更具效果。 "rhyme as natural in a serious play, and more effectual than blank verse" （8） [PS：“正剧”——17世纪的语境下，serious play 通常指的是严肃主题的戏剧，尤其是英雄剧（heroic drama）或悲剧（tragedy），而“正剧”在中文中恰好涵盖了这一含义，指代具有严肃主题、注重道德或政治意义的戏剧，与喜剧（comedy）相对。]

诗剧的使命：自然 V.S. 愉悦

• “自然”不是诗剧的使命 诗剧的使命是“愉悦”（delight），其次是“教化”（instruct）

我满足于它能带来愉悦；因为愉悦是诗歌的主要目的（即便不是唯一目的）。教化只能退居其次，因为诗歌唯有通过愉悦才能实现教化。（9） I am satisfied if it cause delight; for delight is the chief, if not the only, end of poesy: Instruction can be admitted but in the second place, for poesy only instructs as it delights.

“模仿” V.S. 诗艺

诗人/剧作家的任务是“模仿”，但这是基本任务，为了达到终极目的——delight 和instruct，诗人必须作用于观众的灵魂和激情，因此仅仅是模范并不够，还需要诗艺（poesy），因此一切对话不能没有准备地说出

• 戏剧通过delight来instruct，悲剧使人愉悦的方式是“唤起惊叹（move admiration）”

诚然，模仿是诗人的本分；但若要触动灵魂、激发情感，尤其是唤起惊叹（这正是严肃戏剧的愉悦所在），仅靠苍白模仿是远远不够的。 It is true, that to imitate well is a poet's work; but to affect the soul, and excite the passions, and, above all, to move admiration (which is the delight of serious plays), a bare imitation will not serve. The converse, therefore, which a poet is toimitate, must be heightened with all the arts and ornaments of poesy; and must be such as, strictly considered, could never be supposed spoken by any without premeditation.

• 反对观点：“即兴” 戏剧仍应被视为多人即兴演说的合集，而优美的诗句恰恰是最难以想象能即兴道出的存在。

"a play will still be supposed to be a composition of several persons speaking extempore, and that good verses are the hardest things which can be imagined to be so spoken"

• 德莱顿：模仿+诗艺 戏剧理应被视为诗人的创作成果

诗人通过模仿或再现多人对话来达成艺术目的。 a play is supposed to be the work of the poet, imitating, or representing, the conversation of several persons

• 为何散文、日常对话不适用于正剧：过于贴近日常反而不合适。 → 艺术应当是对自然的美化。因而应当只取能够整体中美的部分，而舍弃瑕疵

散文不宜用于严肃戏剧的一个重要原因，在于其过分贴近日常对话的本质——正如最精湛的画家所断言：画作若追求纤毫毕现的相似，反而难成佳作。真正的艺术在于取舍有度，仅摄取能呈现整体神韵的特征，以巧夺天工之笔强化局部之美，同时遮掩其余瑕疵。 one great reason why prose is not to be used in serious plays, is, because it is too near the nature of converse: There may be too great a likeness; as the most skilful painters affirm, that there may be too near a resemblance in a picture: To take every lineament and feature is not to make an excellent piece, but to take so much only as will make a beautiful resemblance of the whole: and, with an ingenious flattery of nature, to heighten the beauties of some parts, and hide the deformities of the rest（10）

• 以“愉悦时人”为目标，用韵是和目的行为 为此，炼字（election of words）也很重要

倘若塞内加能通过精妙的措辞选择，使寻常事物在拉丁文中焕发光彩，那么以同样的匠心，此等境界亦可在英语中达成。 if Seneca could make an ordinary thing sound well in Latin by the choice of words, the same, with the like care, might be performed in English（13）

悲剧、喜剧与闹剧

• 反对者观点："悲剧、喜剧乃至闹剧之别，仅由品味（taste）断决。" "In the difference of tragedy, comedy, and farce itself, there can be no determination but by the taste."（15）
• 德莱顿：“纵使世间无评判、无品味、无定见，悲剧与喜剧的本质仍泾渭分明” Were there neither judge, taste, nor opinion in the world, yet they would differ in their natures
• 悲剧与喜剧的区别

悲剧的情节、人物与语言必显崇高庄严，而喜剧则趋于平易近人。前者以激荡心灵为乐，后者以讽喻世情为趣。 for the action, character, and language of tragedy, would still be great and high; that of comedy, lower and more familiar. Admiration would be the delight of one, and satire of the other. （15）

• 观众的喜好虽是目的，但并不说明体裁的优劣甚至作品的好坏。

取悦观众理当是诗人的追求，因戏剧本为娱众而生；然观众未必总为好戏喝彩，亦非其喝彩者皆为佳作。 To please the people ought to be the poet's aim, because plays are made for their delight; but it does not follow that they are always pleased with good plays, or that the plays which please them are always good. 今人独钟喜剧，故我投其所好而作喜剧，不作正剧——至此，观众品味确为我设限。然此理不可推及喜剧本质优于悲剧，因本质属性如铁律不可移易，犹人之必为理性生灵。然观众好恶无常，异代或即当代，正剧未必不能重夺魁首。 The humour of the people is now for comedy; therefore, in hope to please them, I write comedies rather than serious plays: and so far their taste prescribes to me. But it does not follow from that reason, that comedy is to be preferred before tragedy in its own nature; for that, which is so in its own nature, cannot be otherwise, as a man cannot but be a rational creature: But the opinion of the people may alter, and in another age, or perhaps in this, serious plays may be set up above comedies.

关于“三一律”

对于“三一律”，批评者认为“三一律”是教条主义的权威规定、而本身并没有意义和必要性。德莱顿则从以下几个问题进行了抽丝剥茧的讨论：①戏剧创作是否应当遵循逻辑和理性？（进而，《论戏剧诗艺》是否公正严谨？）②戏剧的时、空统一性的原因和限度。 为了讨论第二个问题，德莱顿还特意讨论了想象（imagination）与理性（reason）的关系。

关于理性（reason）及其约束

• 反对观点："诗人本不必拘泥于严苛的逻辑，因其早已惯于驰骋更为广阔的疆域——若强令其恪守理性之规，反倒迫其僭越本分，自缚才情。"

"That it is not necessary for poets to study strict reason, since they are so used to a greater latitude than is allowed by that severe inquisition, that they must infringe their own jurisdiction, to profess themselves obliged to argue well."

• 德莱顿： “那些不擅长逻辑推理的人，永远成不了优秀的诗人。错误的论证和浮夸的辞藻，正是不懂戏剧创作之人的典型特征。因为诗人必须像哲学家那样恪守道德真理——诗歌既要反映自然真实，更要符合道德准则。诗人确实可以修饰真理、美化自然，但绝不能篡改其本质。”

they cannot be good poets, who are not accustomed to argue well. False reasonings and colours of speech are the certain marks of one who does not understand the stage: for moral truth is the mistress of the poet as much as of the philosopher; poesy must resemble natural truth, but it must be ethical. Indeed, the poet dresses truth, and adorns nature, but does not alter them. (16)

对三一律的反驳

• 反对观点："但若以严密的理性检视戏剧创作通则，便会发现其谬误同样昭然——那被奉为圭臬的根基，经细究方知不过是空中楼阁。" "But if we examine the general rules laid down for plays by strict reason, we shall find the errors equally gross; for the great foundation which is laid to build upon, is nothing as it is generally stated, as will appear upon the examination of the particulars."
• 德莱顿： 三一律是否是戏剧创作的基础？这样看戏剧的定义是什么。

这些具体观点将在适当时候逐一检视。眼下，我们不妨先思考他所谓"根本不存在"的戏剧诗学基础究竟为何。就我所知，戏剧诗学的基础唯有效法自然——无论古人今人，抑或追循此道的我辈，从未标榜过其他准则。我在界定戏剧本质时已明确申明：戏剧乃对人性正当而生动的模仿……若此定义成立，则戏剧的根基便坚如磐石；若其不成立，他理应举证反驳，证明戏剧非自然之摹仿，而是他心目中的别样存在。 These particulars in due time shall be examined. In the mean while, let us consider what this great foundation is, which he says is nothing, as it is generally stated. I never heard of any other foundation of Dramatic Poesy than the imitation of nature; neither was there ever pretended any other by the ancients or moderns, or me, who endeavour to follow them in that rule. This I have plainly said in my definition of a play; that it is a just and lively image of human nature, &c. Thus the foundation, as it is generally stated, will stand sure, if this definition of a play be true; if it be not, he ought to have made his exception against it, by proving that a play is not an imitation of nature, but somewhat else, which he is pleased to think it. (18)

• 三一律不是基础，而是手段。 既然戏剧需要“模仿自然”，那么达成这个目的需要途径和手段，三一律是其中之一，但手段实则各异。

然而显而易见的是，他将根基与建筑其上的事物混为一谈——虽非直接等同。因为最直接的逻辑推论应是：若要模仿自然，则必存在正确模仿自然之法则，否则便只有目标而无达致之途径。至此我所论述皆循逻辑推演；但正如神学家们虽皆因秩序存在而证得神明，亦皆主张神明当受崇拜，却在崇拜方式上各执己见。 But 'tis very plain, that he has mistaken the foundation for that which is built upon it, though not immediately: for the direct and immediate consequence is this; if nature be to be imitated, then there is a rule for imitating nature rightly, otherwise there may be an end, and no means conducing to it. Hitherto I have proceeded by demonstration; but as our divines, when they have proved a Deity, because there is order, and have inferred that this Deity ought to be worshipped, differ afterwards in the manner of the worship

德莱顿：我是否机械地遵循了教条？

• 怀疑主义精神

他屡次在其序言中指摘我言辞专断，此番又复如是。为自辩清白，我须郑重声明：拙作通篇皆秉持怀疑主义精神，承袭苏格拉底、柏拉图及古代学园派之思辨传统，效法西塞罗等先贤之道，更与皇家学会谦逊求索之风一脉相承。此非虚言——不仅《论稿》的题名可证，全书架构与论述方式更足为明证。 （19） He is here pleased to charge me with being magisterial, as he has done in many other places of his preface; therefore, in vindication of myself, I must crave leave to say, that my whole discourse was sceptical, according to that way of reasoning which was used by Socrates, Plato, and all the academics of old, which Tully and the best of the ancients followed, and which is imitated by the modest inquisitions of the Royal Society. That it is so, not only the name will shew, which is, An Essay, but the frame and composition of the work

• 本文的公正性 公正：多人对话与争论，而不灌输观点 论点来源于亚里士多德和贺拉斯，举例来自于本·琼森和高乃依

戏剧的时空统一性

• 反对观点："舞台既不可能真实呈现两个房间或房屋，正如无法呈现两个国家或王国；五小时或二十四小时不可能等同于两小时，正如一千小时或岁月不可能短于实际长度，或较长时间被压缩为较短时段——既然这些皆属不可能，便都同样背离真实，与所表现事物的本质相去甚远。所有不可能之事皆属同等荒谬，岂有程度之分。"

（20）His argument against the unities of place and time is this: "That 'tis as impossible for one stage to present two rooms or houses truly, as two countries or kingdoms; and as impossible that five hours or twenty-four hours should be two hours, as that a thousand hours or years should be less than what they are, or the greatest part of time to be comprehended in the less: for all of them being impossible, they are none of them nearest the truth, or nature of what they present; for impossibilities are all equal, and admit of no degree."

• 德莱顿：这并非“不可能性”的问题。

对于“剧院是一个地方，因而不可能是两个地方”的回应： “虽然舞台无法同时呈现两地，却可以恰如其分地依次展现——或通过时间转换来实现。” （21）though the stage cannot be two places, yet it may properly represent them successively, or at several times

空间统一性：剧场的想象与真实

“真实的场所是上演戏剧的剧场或场地；而虚构的则是剧中情节发生的房屋、城镇或国家——更直白地说，就是戏剧故事设定的地点。” （21）The real place is that theatre, or piece of ground, on which the play is acted. The imaginary, that house, town, or country where the action of the drama is supposed to be, or, more plainly, where the scene of the play is laid. 观众在诗人的台词与布景的辅助下，完全可以通过想象将舞台视为时而此处、时而彼处。 （21）imagination of the audience, aided by the words of the poet, and painted scenes, may suppose the stage to be sometimes one place, sometimes another

→ 空间的统一并不是说剧场为了真实起见只展现一个场景，既然它本身就诉诸观众的想象力得以再现虚构场景，那么它便可以依次代表/再现不同的虚构场景

想象与理性的关系

人类的想象力——作为理性存在与生俱来的禀赋——天然带有理性特质。当想象主导思维时（如同我们接受虚构情节时的心理状态），理性并未消亡，只是暂时被误导或蒙蔽。在戏剧演出过程中，想象能够为理性构建一种微弱的信以为真的状态；而理性也甘愿暂时受此蒙蔽，以便更好地享受虚构之乐。但理性绝不会彻底沦为俘虏，盲目相信那些荒诞不经之事——它始终是自由民而非奴隶，只会在适当时自愿认同，绝不受外力强迫。自然规律中，两室之距近于两宅，两宅之距近于两城，余者皆然。因此，理性更容易被想象引导着：从一室步入另一室，总比往返两处宅邸更易接受；而后者又比女巫般腾云驾雾、瞬息穿越不同疆域更合情理。想象与理性始终相伴而行——前者永不能将后者抛诸脑后：当想象面对鸿沟时，虽如敏捷者般跃跃欲试，却总被理性所制约；一旦间距过大，理性便会拒绝纵身跨越。纵使本·琼森在同一幕中将场景从罗马迁至托斯卡纳，又即刻转回罗马，理性也会判定：此间未有足量时间完成旅程，故而宁择留守。由此可见，场景转换愈少，角色位移所耗时间愈符合理性推演——而戏剧的卓越之处，正在于虚构与真实间这般精妙的类比与呼应。 （22）Imagination in a man, or reasonable creature, is supposed to participate of reason, and when that governs, as it does in the belief of fiction, reason is not destroyed, but misled, or blinded; that can prescribe to the reason, during the time of the representation, somewhat like a weak belief of what it sees and hears; and reason suffers itself to be so hood-winked, that it may better enjoy the pleasures of the fiction: But it is never so wholly made a captive, as to be drawn headlong into a persuasion of those things which are most remote from probability: It is in that case a free-born subject, not a slave; it will contribute willingly its assent, as far as it sees convenient, but will not be forced. Now, there is a greater vicinity in nature betwixt two rooms, than betwixt two houses; betwixt two houses, than betwixt two cities; and so of the rest: Reason, therefore, can sooner be led, by imagination, to step from one room into another, than to walk to two distant houses, and yet rather to go thither, than to fly like a witch through the air, and be hurried from one region to another. Fancy and Reason go hand in hand; the first cannot leave the last behind: And though Fancy, when it sees the wide gulph, would venture over, as the nimbler, yet it is with-held by Reason, which will refuse to take the leap, when the distance over it appears too large. If Ben Jonson himself will remove the scene from Rome into Tuscany in the same act, and from thence return to Rome, in the scene which immediately follows, reason will consider there is no proportionable allowance of time to perform the journey, and, therefore, will choose to stay at home. So, then, the less change of place there is, the less time is taken up in transporting the persons of the drama, with analogy to reason; and in that analogy, or resemblance of fiction to truth, consists the excellency of the play.

时间的统一性

• 时间的统一性也一样。 并非认为“以少/小来涵盖多/大”，而是“以小见大”——如同镜子虽小，但可以倒映比它大得多的事物。

德莱顿：“绝非意图将舞台机械地束缚在二十四小时的桎梏之中……每部戏剧的虚构时间，理应压缩至最紧凑的范畴——只要情节本质、人物特质与事件变化尚容如此安排。” （24）not this with the least design of limiting the stage too servilely to twenty-four hours... the imaginary time of every play ought to be contrived into as narrow a compass, as the nature of the plot, the quality of the persons, and variety of accidents will allow

因而， “喜剧创作中，我主张不宜超过二十四至三十小时——因其情节、事件与人物皆属细微，自然可于短暂时段内完成转折；然悲剧之构思恢弘，人物崇高，故势必需要更绵长的时空维度来运筹帷幄。” （24）In comedy, I would not exceed twenty-four or thirty hours; for the plot, accidents, and persons, of comedy are small, and may be naturally turned in a little compass: But in tragedy, the design is weighty, and the persons great; therefore, there will naturally be required a greater space of time in which to move them.

• 另一种谬误：将过多事件压缩在过短时间内。

一方面，若戏剧的虚构时间与实际演出时长差距过大，实属谬误；另一方面，将剧情事件强行压缩至比自然发展更局促的时空，亦为失察。 （25）as it is an error, on the one side, to make too great a disproportion betwixt the imaginary time of the play, and the real time of its representation; so, on the other side, it is an oversight to compress the accidents of a play into a narrower compass than that in which they could naturally be produced. 然而二者相较，将诸多事件强行压缩于过促时空虽属谬误，却更为可恕——因其能呈现更丰富的变化，从而为观众带来更多愉悦；更何况，虚构时间与实际比例的相近，亦能巧妙掩饰这种情节的浓缩。 （25）Yet, of the two, I think that error the most pardonable, which in too strait a compass crowds together many accidents, since it produces more variety, and, consequently, more pleasure to the audience; and, because the nearness of proportion betwixt the imaginary and real time, does speciously cover the compression of the accidents.

个人疑问❓

• （P. 11）一个有趣的比喻，让人不仅好奇德莱顿如何认识君主和统治权的？

因此，散文虽为合法君主，却因无力统御严肃戏剧而被公议废黜。王权既坠，遂有两位竞争者崭露锋芒：其一为血统更近的素体诗，其二为更契合治国之道的韵文。素体诗确与散文更为亲近，却沿袭了前朝的孱弱弊病。韵文（恕我直言）虽带篡位者之嫌，然其气度恢弘，治下令人心悦。正因这愉悦之故，古人（我始终认为其智慧不逊于那些自负的修正者）明知诗体最远离日常对话，仍以韵文书写全部悲剧。 Thus Prose, though the rightful prince, yet is by common consent deposed, as too weak for the government of serious plays: and he failing, there now start up two competitors; one, the nearer in blood, which is Blank Verse; the other, more fit for the ends of government, which is Rhyme. Blank Verse is, indeed, the nearer Prose, but he is blemished with the weakness of his predecessor. Rhyme (for I will deal clearly) has somewhat of the usurper in him; but he is brave, and generous, and his dominion pleasing. For this reason of delight, the ancients (whom I will still believe as wise as those who so confidently correct them) wrote all their tragedies in verse, though they knew it most remote from conversation.

• （P. 17）为诗艺辩护：“亚里士多德、贺拉斯、本·琼森与高乃依”，这是什么次序？勾画出了一条怎样的传统？

若我仍对亚里士多德、贺拉斯、本·琼森与高乃依怀有崇高敬意，因而不敢在此等议题上为他效力、与这些巨匠为敌，还望见谅——我宁愿如荷马笔下的小透克洛斯那般，躲在巨人埃阿斯的神盾之后射箭御敌。 he must pardon me if I have that veneration for Aristotle, Horace, Ben Jonson, and Corneille, that I dare not serve him in such a cause, and against such heroes, but rather fight under their protection, as Homer reports of little Teucer, who shot the Trojans from under the large buckler of Ajax Telamon.

• （18）宗教自由主义？德莱顿竟认为，只要崇拜同一个神明，不同的崇拜方式都可以接受！

正如神学家们虽皆因秩序存在而证得神明，亦皆主张神明当受崇拜，却在崇拜方式上各执己见。 （18）Hitherto I have proceeded by demonstration; but as our divines, when they have proved a Deity, because there is order, and have inferred that this Deity ought to be worshipped, differ afterwards in the manner of the worship

• （19）德莱顿的“怀疑主义精神”的传统脉络：苏格拉底、柏拉图及古代学园派之思辨传统，西塞罗，皇家学会

为自辩清白，我须郑重声明：拙作通篇皆秉持怀疑主义精神，承袭苏格拉底、柏拉图及古代学园派之思辨传统，效法西塞罗等先贤之道，更与皇家学会谦逊求索之风一脉相承。此非虚言——不仅《论稿》之题名可证，全书架构与论述方式更足为明证。 （19）He is here pleased to charge me with being magisterial, as he has done in many other places of his preface; therefore, in vindication of myself, I must crave leave to say, that my whole discourse was sceptical, according to that way of reasoning which was used by Socrates, Plato, and all the academics of old, which Tully and the best of the ancients followed, and which is imitated by the modest inquisitions of the Royal Society. That it is so, not only the name will shew, which is, An Essay, but the frame and composition of the work