舊京城 新曙光 論1930年代的齊如山與北平國劇學會及其期刊

Chi Ju-shan: Pioneer of Peking Opera as Cultural Heritage On Chi Ju-shan in the 1930s, the Beiping Guoju Xuehui, and ItsPublications

陳淑美(Shu-Mei Chen)

指導教授 ： 孫玫

國立中央大學/文學院/中國文學系/博士(2015年)

摘要

齊如山（1875-1962），京劇創作與編劇者，也是京劇理論探索及研究者。齊如山在京劇史上的貢獻，過去在臺灣經常以他曾參與梅蘭芳戲劇改革，率先研究京劇舞台元素，來臺後致力提升京劇地位、提拔京劇演員、推廣京劇教化等成就，稱他為「京劇大師」，對其編劇及創作的位階，甚至拔高為「中國的莎士比亞」。
近年來中國大陸學界，對齊如山卻常以「戲曲改革先驅者」來定位，不論是參與梅蘭芳戲劇改革的「導演」位階，或是對其劇學研究所強調的「藝術改革論」，及許多將齊如山與同時代戲劇改革者（如翁偶虹）並列的研究論文，都顯現中國大陸學界看待齊如山的觀點。
兩岸對齊如山的研究觀點與定位，都潛藏特定時空的意識型態。
本論文針對齊如山在京劇研究史上的定位做探討，研究方法上不採縱觀齊如山一生劇學的宏觀論述，卻以1930年代齊如山的「京劇研究」為探索核心，環繞著齊如山在「中國戲劇史上第一個戲劇研究專門機構」的北平國劇學會作為論述重點，特別集中在齊氏在國劇學會轄下的《戲劇叢刊》與《國劇畫報》所發表的內容做微觀分析，結果發現，齊如山抓住了20世紀中國戲劇史上的精華時空，對京劇資料的整理論述展現開創性，齊如山不僅為後來因為時間、戰亂而消失的戲曲文物留下一手記錄，也率先對京劇腳色名詞、身段、臉譜等場上元素，戲臺、梨園信仰等當時還不被注意的京劇議題進行探索，齊如山京劇研究先行者的角色確立。
值得注意的，齊如山在1930年代的京劇研究，受到斯時在北平由胡適帶領「整理國故」風潮的影響，以珍視、讚嘆（而非改變、進化）的眼光，對戲曲進行「返古探索」，他的角色非但不是「戲曲改革者」，倒有點像「戲曲文物保存者」；1930年代齊如山的「京劇研究」已深入戲劇形式、語言、角色、身段等範疇，他晚年能拈出「有聲必歌」、「無動不舞」等至今人們仍琅琅上口，對京劇特質總括的總結性語言，與齊如山在此時期的研究息息相關。

關鍵字

齊如山 ； 京劇研究 ； 北平國劇學會 ； 戲劇叢刊 ； 國劇畫報

並列摘要

Chi Ju-shan: Pioneer of Peking Opera as Cultural Heritage
On Chi Ju-shan in the 1930s, the Beiping Guoju Xuehui, and Its Publications

Abstract
Chi Ju-shan (1875-1962), an innovator and playwright of Peking Opera, was also a pioneer in the theory and academic study of this dramatic art from. In Taiwan, his contributions to the history of Peking Opera are generally seen as (a) his participation in the reform movement of Mei Lanfang, (b) his leading role in the study of the staging elements of Peking Opera, and (c) his efforts after coming to Taiwan to raise the status of Peking Opera, train Peking Opera performers, formalize the doctrine and elements of Peking Opera, and change more lives by bringing people into contact with Peking Opera education. In Taiwan he is known as a “Maestro of Peking Opera,” and analysts of his place as a playwright and innovator have even gone so far as to raise him to the status of “China’s Shakespeare.”

In mainland China, on the other hand, in recent years scholars have often defined Chi Ju-shan as “a pioneer in the reform of Chinese opera.” Whether it be studies that define him as a “director” participating in Mei Lanfang’s reform movement, that emphasize the “artistic reformist” nature of his academic studies, or that see him as a colleague and peer of opera reformers of the same era (such as Weng Ouhong), all indicate the viewpoint from which the mainland Chinese academic community sees Chi Ju-shan.

The research perspectives on, and definition of the status of, Chi Ju-shan on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait suggest underlying ideological factors stemming from specific contexts.

This study explores the definition of the status of Chi Ju-shan in the history of the academic study of Peking Opera. In terms of methodology, this study does not adopt a macro-view of Chi Ju-shan’s life in Peking Opera, but rather looks specifically at Qi’s 1930’s Peking Opera research, and at Qi’s Beiping Guoju Xuehui (Beiping Association for the Study of Peking Opera, aka Peking Opera Association), the “first institution in the history of Chinese theater to be specifically dedicated to the study of the dramatic arts.” In concrete terms, this study will be a micro-view analysis of the content that Chi published in the Association’s periodicals Xiju Congkan [Drama Digest, aka Journal of Drama] and Guoju Huabao [Peking Opera Pictorial, aka National Drama Pictorial].

The conclusion of the study is that Chi Ju-shan seized a critical moment in the history of Chinese drama in the 20th century to make ground-breaking new systematic studies of, and theories about, the materials and content of Peking Opera. He not only left a record for future generations of opera artefacts that would otherwise have been lost through war, chaos, or the simple passage of time, he also pioneered the study of many aspects of this dramatic form that were ignored or taken for granted, including gestures and movements, facial makeup, and nomenclature for roles; staging and stage structure; and the religious beliefs associated with traditional Chinese drama. Chi Ju-shan should be seen as having a critical role as the pathfinding figure in the intellectual study of Peking Opera.

It is especially important to note that Chi’s research into Peking Opera in the 1930s was influenced by the trend led by Hu Shih in Beiping to use scientific methods to itemize, define, categorize, and analyze traditional Chinese culture—to rationalize it, not eliminate it. Chi was an admirer of traditional Peking Opera; he wanted to consolidate and preserve Peking Opera, not to “reform” it or “advance” it. His explorations looked backward in time to the past.

Therefore, Chi’s role not only was not that of a “reformer of Peking Opera,” but rather more like that of a “conservationist of the cultural heritage of opera.” Chi’s study of Peking Opera in the 1930s was an in-depth exploration of the range and parameters of the idiom’s form, language, and roles. The maxims that he developed and that are still familiar today, such as “if there is vocalization of any kind, spoken or sung, it must be stylized and song-like” and “if there is movement of any kind, it must be stylized, artful, and dance-like”—which have had a definitive impact on the special characteristics of the language of Peking Opera—are closely connected to the intellectual work he did in the 1930s.
Key words: Chi Ju-shan, Peking Opera studies, Beiping Guoju Xuehui, Xiju Congkan, Guoju Huabao

並列關鍵字

Chi Ju-shan ； Peking Opera studies ； Beiping Guoju Xuehui ； Xiju Congkan ； Guoju Huabao

參考文獻

李孝悌，〈民初的戲劇改良論〉，臺北：中央研究院《近代史研究所集刊》22期，1993年6月，頁281-307。

吳宛怡，〈近代劇評的發生：《順天時報》與辻聽花〉，《戲劇研究》10期，2012年7月，頁69-108。

紀蔚然，〈善惡對立與晦暗地帶----臺灣反共戲劇文本研究〉，《戲劇研究》7期，2011年1月，頁151-172。

紀蔚然，〈重探一九五○年代反共戲劇----後世評價與時人之論述〉，《戲劇研究》3期，2009年1月，頁193-217。

王國良，〈臺靜農先生的學術研究成果管窺：以民間文學、小說、戲曲為範圍〉，臺北：東吳大學二十世紀中葉人文學術研討會，2003年，頁1-14。