德莱顿　《论戏剧诗》

约翰·德莱顿 （1631—1700）

约翰·德莱顿是英国文艺复兴时代的文学名家，纵横穿梭于各门文类，集诗人、戏剧家、批评家、翻译家、散文家于一身。在诗歌领域，他是弥尔顿死后最伟大的英国诗人，1668年荣膺桂冠诗人的头衔；在戏剧领域，他总共创作了27部作品，有悲剧、英雄悲剧、闹剧、悲喜剧、歌剧，几乎涉足全部戏剧题材，构成了王政复辟时代（1660—1688）戏剧创作的主流；在文学批评领域，他是英国第一位戏剧理论家和批评家，被称为“英国文学批评之父”（塞缪尔·约翰逊语）；他的散文简洁明朗，平易如话，议题有感而发，其流风余韵，延及18世纪；受崇古风气的熏染，他翻译过维吉尔、普鲁塔克等古罗马作家的名作，译笔晓畅，可读性强。

德莱顿出生在清教色彩浓厚的资产阶级家庭，毕业于剑桥大学的三一学院。他曾是英国革命的支持者，克伦威尔统治时期，他在革命政府中任职。克伦威尔去世之际，他同约翰·弥尔顿、安德鲁·马维尔一道出席葬礼。查理二世复辟之后，他改宗天主教，写诗称颂查理二世，批评英国国教。这种首鼠两端的投机行为，最为时人诟病。王政复辟时期，他获得桂冠诗人的称号；但是，1688年“光荣革命”之后，这一头衔又被新政府剥夺。

德莱顿的作品主要写于王政复辟时代。查理二世从法国翩然而归，不仅带回来了奢靡的凡尔赛宫廷生活方式，也带回来了法兰西的新古典主义理念。在此之前，新古典主义风格已经出现在本·琼生的作品中；但是，本·琼生的新古典主义理念主要来自意大利。王政复辟之后，法国的新古典主义对英国文坛开始产生强劲而全面的影响。对于这套舶来的理论，德莱顿总体上赞成，但没有生吞活剥地接受或亦步亦趋地顶礼膜拜，而是始终保持一种批判式的认可。正因为这个原因，他的文学批评显得非常具有灵活性。法国新古典主义热衷于制定绝对的理论标准，例如“三一律”，敦促后人加以师法；德莱顿则无意去构建普遍性法则，而是有的放矢，品评和鉴赏具体作家的风格、具体作品的技巧。就此而言，他是实践型的批评家，而非理论型的批评家。他认为，在不同的国家，观众的禀性和需求不尽相同，作家的创作要因时因地、量体裁衣，切不可泥古不化、刻舟求剑。“诗人所面对的风尚、时代以及观众的性情大不相同，那些让古希腊人满意的作品不一定让英国观众满意”，这条论断挑战了法国新古典主义的一个重要观点，即在任何时空、任何文化中，人性都是恒定不变的。就某种程度而言，这条论断发出了现代读者反映批评的先声。他还给戏剧下了一个定义：戏剧是对人性公正而生动的描述。所谓公正，就是不偏不倚、如实地模仿描述，这就是亚里士多德提倡的艺术模仿自然的原则；然而，“生动”就要求剧作家要顾及观众的口味，这就很可能有悖于新古典主义的典范性原则（decorum）。

内容提要

本文选自德莱顿最有代表性的批评论作《论戏剧诗》。全文以四人对话形式展开，讨论当时英国文坛上的热门问题：古代戏剧与现代戏剧孰优孰劣，法国新古典主义戏剧理论对于当代英国戏剧是否具有指导意义，以及戏剧创作中可能涉及的一些具体问题。在第一个问题上，德莱顿基本上持有厚今薄古的态度；在第二个问题上，他认为法国新古典主义的三一律原则过于刻板，妨碍了戏剧内容的丰赡。

文中四位对话者的名字是尤吉涅斯（Eugius）、克里提斯（Crites）、利西迪亚斯（Lisideius）和尼安达（Neander），分别影射王政复辟时代的诗人查尔斯·塞克威尔（Charles Sackville）、罗伯特·霍华德（Robert Howard）、查尔斯·塞德利（Charles Sedley）以及德莱顿本人。据后来的学者推测，Neander可能由希腊文中的neo和andros组合而成，意为newman（新人）。这篇选文是尼安达在四人讨论中的发言。这种利用人名来影射个人主张的做法，在新古典主义时代屡见不鲜。

作者对莎士比亚的才能推崇备至，认为他在古今文学家当中才智最广博、悟性最强；他洞悉世间百态，行文运笔得心应手，浑然天成，毫无斧凿之痕；他写人状物栩栩如生，仿佛伸手可及。至于有人说莎士比亚学问不济，德莱顿反倒认为这是一种恭维，因为他的学问纯属天赐，无需借助书本之力；他只需借助自己的心智，即可洞察世态人情，而无需旁视他途。不过，莎士比亚的创作并非白璧无瑕、无可指责。在德莱顿看来，他的作品有时平淡无味，他的一些诙谐妙语（comic wit）有时沦为插科打诨，而一些严肃妙语又过于渲染、流于浮词虚饰。但不管怎么说，他总能以大手笔表现大题材，让二者珠联璧合，相得益彰；他信笔所至，总能远迈时贤。因此，伊顿公学的约翰·黑尔说，其他作家写过的题材，莎士比亚都能写，而且写得更好。在同时代的作家当中，有人在现今时代更受推崇，声誉在他之上；但是，在莎翁时代，比起弗莱彻和本·琼生这些人，人们更尊崇的是莎士比亚。查理一世在位时期，正值本·琼生的文名如日中天之际；但约翰·萨克灵和大部分朝臣都认为，莎士比亚胜过本·琼生。

德莱顿认为，在戏剧领域，琼生是最为博学、最有文学判断眼光的作家；他不仅严于察己，也严于察人。我们不能说他缺少文学才华（wit），只能说他珍惜这种才华而不肯滥用。他下笔极简，要言不烦，作品既成，无须修改。在他之前，妙语的运用、辞藻的遴选、个人癖性的描写，在戏剧界已屡见不鲜；但是，直到本·琼生横空出世，戏剧艺术才臻于完美。比起前人，他更能扬长避短。在他的作品中，很少发现描写男女求爱或震撼心灵的场面；他本人的文学才质过于阴沉忧郁，不能出色地做到这一点；而且，他也深知，在这方面，前人的成就已经达到了相当高的程度。他的专长在于描写人物的癖性，他喜欢表现工匠这样的人物。他谙熟古希腊古罗马作家的作品，并从中进行了大胆借鉴。两部直接以罗马故事为题材的悲剧中，他几乎引用和翻译了古罗马所有作家和史家的作品。这种公然剽窃的行径，他干起来毫不顾忌。他劫掠起作家，犹如帝王盘剥百姓，毫无惧色；以别人之所失，化为自己之所得。于是，在他笔下，古罗马时代的典章制度、礼仪风俗，悉数呈现在今人眼前；即便由时人执笔，也不见得在他之上。他行文刻意追求拉丁化，这在他的喜剧中表现得尤为明显。结果，他笔下的文字不符合英文的特色，读来不像英文，更像拉丁文。与莎士比亚相比，他以锤炼字句见长，而莎士比亚更有才华。莎士比亚相当于荷马，开风气之先，为后世的戏剧诗人效仿；本·琼生相当于维吉尔，为工巧细致的典范。他固然让人对他钦佩有加，但更让人心仪的则是莎士比亚。

John Dryden (1631—1700)

From An Essay of Dramatic Poesy

To begin, then, with Shakespeare. He was the man who of all modern, and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul. All the images of nature were still present to him, and he drew them, not laboriously, but luckily; when he describes anything, you more than see it, you feel it too. Those who accuse him to have wanted learning, give him the greater commendation: he was naturally learned; he needed not the spectacles of books to read nature; he looked inwards, and found her there. I cannot say he is everywhere alike; were he so, I should do him injury to compare him with the greatest of mankind. He is many times flat, insipid; his comic wit degenerating into clenches, his serious swelling into bombast. But he is always great, when some great occasion is presented to him; no man can say he ever had a fit subject for his wit, and did not then raise himself as high as above the rest of poets,

Quantum lenta solent inter viburna cupressi.

The consideration of this made Mr. Hales of Eton say, that there was no subject of which any poet ever writ, but he would produce it much better done in Shakespeare; and however others are now generally preferred before him, yet the age wherein he lived, which had contemporaries with him Fletcher and Jonson, never equalled them to him in their esteem: and in the last king's court, when Ben's reputation was at highest, Sir John Suckling, and with him the greater part of the courtiers, set our Shakespeare far above him.

Beaumont and Fletcher, of whom I am next to speak, had, with the advantage of Shakespeare's wit, which was their precedent, great natural gifts, improved by study: Beaumont especially being so accurate a judge of plays, that Ben Jonson, while he lived, submitted all his writings to his censure, and, 'tis thought, used his judgment in correcting, if not contriving, all his plots. What value he had for him, appears by the verses he writ to him; and therefore I need speak no farther of it. The first play that brought Fletcher and him in esteem was their Philaster: for before that, they had written two or three very unsuccessfully, as the like is reported of Ben Jonson, before he writ Every Man in His Humor. Their plots were generally more regular than Shakespeare's, especially those which were made before Beaumont's death; and they understood and imitated the conversation of gentlemen much better; whose wild debaucheries, and quickness of wit in repartees, no poet before them could paint as they have done. Humor, which Ben Jonson derived from particular persons, they made it not their business to describe: they represented all the passions very lively, but above all, love. I am apt to believe the English language in them arrived to its highest perfection: what words have since been taken in, are rather superfluous than ornamental. Their plays are now the most pleasant and frequent entertainments of the stage; two of theirs being acted through the year for one of Shakespeare's or Jonson's: the reason is, because there is a certain gaiety in their comedies, and pathos in their more serious plays, which suit generally with all men's humors. Shakespeare's language is likewise a little obsolete, and Ben Jonson's wit comes short of theirs.

As for Jonson, to whose character I am now arrived, if we look upon him while he was himself (for his last plays were but his dotages), I think him the most learned and judicious writer which any theater ever had. He was a most severe judge of himself, as well as others. One cannot say he wanted wit, but rather that he was frugal of it. In his works you find little to retrench or alter. Wit, and language, and humor also in some measure, we had before him; but something of art was wanting to the drama till he came. You seldom find him making love in any of his scenes, or endeavoring to move the passions; his genius was too sullen and saturnine to do it gracefully, especially when he knew he came after those who had performed both to such a height. Humor was his proper sphere; and in that he delighted most to represent mechanic people. He was deeply conversant in the ancients, both Greek and Latin, and he borrowed boldly from them: there is scarce a poet or historian among the Roman authors of those times whom he has not translated in Sejanus and Catiline. But he has done his robberies so openly, that one may see he fears not to be taxed by any law. He invades authors like a monarch; and what would be theft in other poets is only victory in him. With the spoils of these writers he so represents old Rome to us, in its rites, ceremonies, and customs, that if one of their poets had written either of his tragedies, we had seen less of it than in him. If there was any fault in his language, 'twas that he weaved it too closely and laboriously, in his comedies especially: perhaps, too, he did a little too much Romanise our tongue, leaving the words which he translated almost as much Latin as he found them: wherein, though he learnedly followed their language, he did not enough comply with the idiom of ours. If I would compare him with Shakespeare, I must acknowledge him the more correct poet, but Shakespeare the greater wit. Shakespeare was the Homer, or father of our dramatic poets; Jonson was the Virgil, the pattern of elaborate writing; I admire him, but I love Shakspeare.

1. 这里的nature，不专指自然界，而是泛指宇宙之间的事态万物。

2. wanted：缺少。

3. naturally learned：（他的学问）浑然天成，他无须读书即可洞悉世间百态。

4. looked inwards：反诸自心，无须旁视。

5. he is everywhere alike：他处处都对。

6. I should do him injury to compare him with the greatest of mankind：莎士比亚横绝古今，即便把他与人类最伟大的作家相比，那对他也是一种侮辱。意即，莎士比亚不可超越。

7. clenches：插科打诨。

8. no man can say he ever had a subject for wit：一旦莎士比亚找到与他的天才相称的题材，他的作品就会远迈时贤。wit这里指天才，而非“诙谐妙语”。

9. 拉丁文，语出维吉尔的《牧歌》（Ecologues），意为“犹如低矮灌木丛中的翠柏”，类似汉语中的“鹤立鸡群”。

10. Mr. Hales of Eton: John Hales（1584—1656），伊顿公学的教师。

11. writ：write的过去式；本文中的poet，不单指诗人，而泛指“作家”。

12. Fletcher：弗莱彻（John Fletcher，1579—1625），英国詹姆士一世统治时期的著名剧作家，与弗朗西斯·博蒙特密切合作，创作剧本10余部，尤以悲喜剧见长，主要有《菲拉斯特》《少女的悲剧》等。

13. Jonson：琼生（Ben Jonson, 1572—1637），英国剧作家、诗人、评论家，剧作有《炼金术士》（The Alchemist）和《圣巴托罗缪市集》（Bartholomew Fair）等。

14. 指查理一世统治时期（1625—1649）。

15. Sir John Suckling：萨克林（1609—1642），英国诗人、廷臣。

16. 指本·琼生所作的箴言诗《致弗朗西斯·博蒙特》。

17. Philaster：《菲拉斯特》，弗莱彻与博蒙特合著的悲喜剧，讲述王子与美人恋爱的故事，情节复杂，悬念迭起，很受贵族和市民阶层的欢迎。菲拉斯特为剧中主人公的名字。

18. 本·琼生的“癖性喜剧”《人人高兴》（Every Man in His Humor, 1598）。故事大意为：老爱德华好管闲事，对小爱德华经常疑神疑鬼，唯恐他滥交匪人。剧中另有疑心极大的商人凯特利，唯恐自己年轻的妻子另觅情郎，误会由此而产生。经过一系列波折之后，真相终于大白，小爱德华爱的是凯特利的妹妹，最后有情人终成眷属。

19. humor：这里的humor，既不是通常所说的“幽默”，也不是指“心情”，而是本·琼生所谓的“癖性”。本·琼生在《人人高兴》的序言中解释说，“当一个人被某种特性所控制，以至于他的情感、精神和力量都被指向某一特定方向，那么这种特性就可被称作‘癖性’”。“癖性”一说来自中世纪生理学中著名的体液论。按照这种理论，人体有四种体液（humor），分别为血液、黏液、胆汁和忧郁液。如果四种体液比例协调，人的情绪就稳定平和；如果其中一种比例过高，则使人易怒、胆怯、多疑、嫉妒、贪婪。癖性喜剧挖苦和讽刺的就是具有上述特殊气质的人物。参见王佐良、何其莘《英国文艺复兴时期的文学史》。

20. 这里指的是本·琼生的一些晚期剧作，如《新闻批发客栈》（1629）和《一只桶的故事》（1633）。这些作品质量平庸，没有创新，并不成功。作者在句子中指出，这些失败之作表明，本·琼生的创作已呈现老迈疲态。

21. saturnine：阴沉、忧郁。

22. mechanic people：体力劳动者、工匠。

23. 这是琼生以罗马故事为题材的两部戏剧，分别作于1603和1611年。

24. taxed：受到惩罚。

25. romanise our tongue：使英语拉丁化。