為《原野》辯：新寫實主義析白

本文為曹禺《原野》辯，有兩個目的。首先，自該劇發表於1937後的幾十年，評論者將它分類為一部寫實劇或表現主義。在另一方面指控它是拷貝，甚至剽竊奧尼爾《瓊斯皇帝》。如何澄清？從基本情節結構來檢視本劇，3／4 屬於寫實，1／4 為表現主義，係一種混合模式。至少，就當時而論，較五四運動以來的劇作，它是一部嶄新戲劇文類；因此，本文簡略的定義它是：新寫實主義。不過，這是可以討論的。其次，一位評論者的職責，是對愈高成就的創作，提出愈嚴厲的批評，其目的是提供下一階段創作高度基石。舉例來說，與《原野》相似的情況，在凱舍《從早晨到午夜》與《瓊》之間，卻有非常多的相似性；換言之，後者中的表現主義核心元素係屬於前者。Brander Matthews 完全無視於拷貝與否，而創造了一個理論，稱為「演Hamlet 甩掉Hamlet」，它的意思是說，處理所有這類戲劇，凡其中主人翁讓他在全劇或接近劇終時，都不出現，但幽靈般的，在舞台之上。他以本劇示範了這個理論，相同如易卜生《群鬼》，貝克特《等待果陀》，而本劇也是如此。但Matthews 認定《瓊》劇較《群鬼》好，當然優於凱舍。依此相同理論，本文卻認定《原野》的創作成就，遠不及上述的任何一個劇作。這個批評不只是一般的評論，而是應用各種不同的理論，分析不同層面，企圖解決這個困惑的議題。同時本文希望一位批評者的實踐是不僅提出一些玩弄知識的評論，而更具意義的，開啟一個理論化的門，如Matthews，提升下一個階段更高度的創作。

關鍵字

曹禺；《原野》；《瓊斯皇帝》；寫實主義；表現主義

並列摘要

The two goals of the paper are an apology for ”The Wildness” by Tsao Yu. At the first, in the last decades since the play published in 1937, the commentators classified it either a realistic play, or expressionism. On the other hand, they accused it as a copy, and even a plagiarism of Eugene O'Neill's ”The Emperor Jones”. How to clarify them? Simply basic upon the plot structure to examine the play, the 3/4 belongs to realism, and the1/4, expressionism. So, it is a mixed pattern, which, at least, was, at that time, a brand new dramatic genre, if compared with its kind, since 1919, the 4th May Movement on. Therefore, the paper loosely defines it as neo-realism, but it is an issue disputable.Secondly, a goal of the job of a critic is to give a higher achievement, just in order to lay a stone to upgrade the playwriting in the next phase. Take an example. As the same situation of ”The Wildness”, there are certainly many likenesses between Georg Kaiser's ”From Morn to Midnight” and ”The Emperor Jones”; in other words, the expressionistic core elements in the later belong to the former. Brander Matthews fairly ignored it was a copy or not, but made a theory, entitled ”Hamlet with Hamlet Left Out”, dealing with plays in which the protagonist has been kept off, but haunting on, the stage all or nearly all the time. He applied ”The Emperor Jones” to demonstrate the theory, just the same case in Ibsen's ”Ghosts”; in Samuel Breckett's ”Waiting for Godot”, and ”The Wildness” as well. But Matthews claimed ”The Emperor Jones better than Ghosts”, surely, superior to Kaiser's pattern. Following the same idea, the paper inclines to claim the artistic value of ”The Wildness” much afar behind any play as mentioned above. It is not a comment in general, but applies various theories to analyze it in different levels, and tries hopefully to solve this confused issue. It is a hope of the paper that the practices of a critic are not to give some pedantic comments, but more significant, open a theoretical way, like Matthews, to enhance a higher achievement of the playmaking in coming.