民间视野下的“戏行祖师”论——从董每戡《说戏行祖师》说开去  

Theory of“Master of Theatrical Arts”under the Folk View——From Dong Meikan's Master of Theatrical Arts

作　　者：段金龙 DUAN Jinlong

机构地区：[1]信阳师范学院传媒学院,信阳464000

出　　处：《浙江艺术职业学院学报》2023年第2期24-28,共5页Journal of Zhejiang Vocational Academy of Art

基　　金：信阳师范学院博士科研启动经费项目“董每戡戏剧学研究”(项目编号:902-18001);河南省哲学社会科学规划项目(项目编号:2019CYS035);信阳师范学院“南湖学者奖励计划(Nanhu Scholars Program of XYNU)”的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：董每戡通过对于戏神这一民俗事象的关注与讨论,在一定程度上厘清了戏神的诸多说法,并就该问题做出了“戏行祖师即是唐明皇”这一较为合理的结论。但与此同时,这一结论的单一指向却忽略了戏神生成的地域性与历时性,致使其结论显得相对偏狭和单薄,并未将戏神研究的戏剧史意义及时揭露出来。但董每戡研讨这一问题所持的民间立场将戏曲研究的目光“下移”,投向了民间,投向了康保成所说的“戏曲发展的暗流”,并且与民间信仰相结合,渗透到了民俗学、人类学的领域,这样立体的研究视域和交叉学科的研究方法,对后人研究有着一定的价值和启发。By paying close attention to and discussing the folk custom of the god of drama,Dong Meikan clarified to a certain extent many opinions of the god of drama,and on the issue itself made a this more reasonable conclusion as“the master of theatrical arts being Emperor Xuanzong of Tang”.But at the same time,the single direction of this conclusion ignores the regional and diachronic nature of the creation of the gods of drama,which makes its conclusion appear relatively narrow and thin.Moreover,his research on the ancestors of drama is limited to talking about prob⁃lems,and does not reveal the significance of drama history in time.However,Dong's folk stance on this issue has shifted the focus of opera research“down”to the folk,to what Kang Baocheng called“the undercurrent of the de⁃velopment of opera”,and combined with folk beliefs.It has infiltrated into the field of folklore and anthropology.With a three⁃dimensional research perspective and cross-disciplinary research methods,it has a certain value and in⁃spiration for the study of future generations.

关 键 词：董每戡 戏行祖师 民间视野 

分 类 号：J803[艺术—戏剧戏曲]