從明人「當行本色」論說「評騭戲曲」應有之態度與方法

On the Method and Attitude of Criticizing Traditional Chinese Drama Based on the Concepts of “Danghan” and “Bense”

「當行」、「本色」可以說是明人論曲最主要的共用術語，關涉戲曲評論極大，但明人治學往往囫圇吞棗，其「當行本色論」參與「爭執」者一二十家，其中不乏名公士夫、一時俊彥，其論說雖有略得「當行」、「本色」之義者，卻無一人完全真正了解其中之真諦，其故乃因為人人可以以己意論說，甚至有近於胡說者；也因此使得明人論曲每每偏執一隅，難窺全豹，於戲曲作品之良窳與文學、藝術上之總體成就，也就難有準確的公正論斷。而筆者以為，如果能考察「當行」、「本色」之真正意涵，據此對於中國戲曲之評騭就會有正確的態度和方法。因此乃敢以〈從明人「當行本色」論說「評騭戲曲」應有之態度與方法〉作為論題，以探討評騭中國戲曲應遵循的途徑。
筆者從事中國戲曲有年，敢就戲曲構成之九元素：本事、歌、舞、樂、雜技、演員充任腳色扮飾人物、代言體、講唱文學敘述方式、狹隘劇場與前人成説，補其不足，綴取併合，約爲「八端」，以爲欣賞評論我國戲曲之資。所謂「八端」即是：本事動人、主題嚴肅、結構謹嚴、曲文高妙、音律諧美、賓白醒豁、人物鮮明、科諢自然。持此八端以爲欣賞評論標準，庶幾可以賞其情趣、辨其優劣、論其價值、定其地位。以上所舉的「八端」，蓋爲欣賞評論我國戲曲所應注意的方向，其要領已略述於各「端」之中。
而若執此「八端」再回顧明人「本色」、「當行」之說，由於其論述失諸草率隨興，不止難以周延深入，而且因其大抵「各說各話」，就使後人探討起來，每每糾葛於其難於取精擇實的混淆之中。但是倘能將「當行」、「本色」還其原本「真諦」，亦即戲曲之「本色」實指「曲」和「戲曲」所具備的真質性、真面貌之總體呈現；戲曲之「當行」者，實指對「曲」和「戲曲」具有全然認知和修為的劇作家和批評家，那麼執此「本色」、「當行」以製曲撰劇和評曲論劇，必為其不二之法門，此「法門」也正是本文所論的「評騭戲曲」的態度與方法，具體的說正是不拘泥的態度與方法，其方法則是本事動人、主題嚴肅、結構謹嚴、曲文高妙、音律諧美、賓白醒豁、人物鮮明、科諢自然等八端。

“Danghang” and “bense” may be regarded as the major common terms for Ming drama criticism. However, due to disagreement of the meaning of these two terms among the critics of Ming drama, there is still lack of fair judgment of the merits and quality of individual dramatic works. Hence, this paper focuses on the method and attitude of criticizing traditional Chinese drama based on the concepts of “danghan” and “bense.” I will explore the eight constituents of Chinese drama: the original story, song, dance, music, acrobatics, and the interpretation of the characters by actors playing different “roles”. I will also examine daiyan style, the chantefable method of narration and the effect of the narrow stage. I propose “eight points” as highlights of methodology in drama criticism: lively story, serious theme, strict structure, melodious song and lyric, harmonious temperament, clear and flowing dialogue and spontaneous jokes. These “eight points” should be regarded as the standard for appreciating and criticizing Chinese drama.
If we return to the original meaning of “danghang” and “bense,” we may conclude that while “bense” refers to the entire presentation of the true nature and true color of “qu” and “xiqu,” the term “danghan” actually refers to the dramatists and critics who have complete understanding and cultivation of the art of Chinese drama. The one and only “famen”(method) for us would be to take “danghang” and “bense” as the proper basis in writing and criticizing Chinese drama.