自20世纪80年代中期中国大陆掀起傩戏研究热，一转眼30多年过去了。记得1988年夏，“中国戏剧起源研讨会”在乌鲁木齐举行。在会上，曲六乙先生强调傩戏在戏剧起源中的作用，我提交的论文却说，马林诺夫斯基关于戏剧起源于宗教仪式的“断言”，在中国迎面碰上一个“例外”。回想起来，真是无知者无畏。后来我的学术观念发生了很大的转变，或许正从某个侧面反映了30年来中国戏剧研究的进步。

30多年来傩戏研究成果斐然，有目共睹，毋庸置疑。然而，傩戏研究遇上了难以解决的瓶颈也是大家的共识。拙著《傩戏艺术源流》曾经举出过的“傩戏研究热”带出来的某些弊端，迄今并未得到很好的解决。记得几年前参加一个研讨会，某位年长的当地学者质问我：“我们这里的阳戏明明都是人装扮的，你为什么说阳戏最早是傀儡戏？”我苦笑以对。贵州的阳戏由人扮演是事实，但文献记载，阳戏在明代的江西是傀儡戏也是事实，今川北还保留了人偶同台的阳戏。很有可能，阳戏在西迁的过程中，其形态也发生了变化。当然，这是需要深入研究，拿出证据才能说明的。我想说的是，单纯个案研究产生的“只见树木不见森林”的偏狭认识，很可能会遮蔽事物的本来面目。

此外，随着“傩戏研究热”产生的“泛傩论”“傩文化”的提法，以及傩戏为戏剧“活化石”的说法，也都在推进傩戏研究的同时，产生了某些负面作用。“傩”的本质是什么？如何突破“泛傩”的视阈和局限？傩和傩戏是不是中国戏剧的“活化石”？如何在材料的基础上进行高屋建瓴的理论归纳？这些，都是亟待解决的问题。所以，当看到德全的《中国西南地区端公文化研究》的书稿时，我的欣喜之情是难以言表的。可以说，本书在观念、视野、研究方法诸方面都有新的突破，其最大的特征就是在大量可靠材料的基础上建筑了一个理论高地。

德全在中山大学、贵州民族大学等单位的图书馆，以及“中国方志库”（电子资源）中查阅了近百种方志和风俗志资料。此外，他还广泛搜集了一些端公个人（主要是掌坛师）所收藏的家谱、族谱，记载坛班师承关系的《历代师名录》，未曾公开出版的科仪本、演出剧本资料，以及一些与端公行为密切相关的文书、经忏、咒诰、符箓、访谈资料、田野图片等资料。更重要的是，德全声明：“本研究并不准备采用所谓‘材料性观点’支撑‘理论假设’的研究范式，而是以‘问题意识’来统领纷繁的材料。”我认为，德全的立脚点是正确的。本书至少解决了以下几个问题。

首先，突破以往傩戏研究的地域桎梏，以通观、综合性的学术视野，探讨了我国西南地区端公文化的存在方式及其社会文化意义。以往多把端公戏当作“傩戏”的一种，德全则认为端公文化的本质是巫文化，其范围要远远大于所谓的“傩文化”:“傩其实是被统合进端公文化系统之内，其结构、形式、精神、意蕴都统一于端公（巫）的意志之下，因而所谓的‘傩文化’其实是涵融于端公文化之中的。”这就从理论上颠覆了“泛傩论”，以往形形色色的所谓“傩”的表现形式，其实有许多并不是傩，而应属于端公文化；所谓“傩戏”，基本上属于端公戏、巫戏。

也许傩属于巫这一点并不是德全首先意识到的，也不是他第一次提出的。但由于他是带着强烈的“问题意识”，有针对性地将所谓“傩文化”与端公文化在意蕴与形态诸方面进行了细致的比较，才得出了令人信服的结论。这就足以使“泛傩论”者警醒：今后不要再使用旧的提法，以免混淆视听。当然，概念、术语、范畴的背后，都是有某种理论、理念在支撑的。德全的研究，正是如此。

不过，我隐约觉得，德全似乎认为巫与傩是后来才结合的。其实，傩从一开始就是巫的一部分。在这一点上，我大体服从王国维的意见。《宋元戏曲史》第一章开篇即说：“歌舞之兴，其始于古之巫乎？”在接下来举出的例子中，就有“方相氏驱疫”。显然，“方相氏”就是巫师充任的。这一看法请德全参考。

其次，德全指出：端公文化在地域上有一个由东向西的迁徙路线；端公的法事和技术行为，在西南地区有一个“在地化”的“调适”甚至妥协的过程。这就突破了以往把本地的“傩戏”原始化、凝固化的思维，也突破了个案研究中“只见树木不见森林”的弊端。德全先以云南昭通为例指出：“昭通地区的端公法事活动本非土著民俗，系随汉族移民由江西、四川、湖广等省流入，约肇端于明代，兴盛于清代中后期和民国年间。这一流入时间、地点，基本与西南移民历史的大背景相吻合。”众所周知，民间素有“湖广填四川”一说。德全指出，这不仅是一种口头传说，而且西南地区大量的汉族族谱等文献支持这一说法。这样，某些家乡本位的研究者，认为本地的“傩”最古老、可以上接《周礼》时代的说法，也就不攻自破了。同时，作为一种文化形态，端公文化在西迁的过程中绝不会是原封不动。也就是说，端公文化是动态的而非静态的。德全指出：端公作为“强势文化”的持有者，在逐步“在地化”的过程中，借助其观念、信仰，改变并重新编辑西南土著民族有关神灵祭祀的原声音频，并最终完成“因土成俗”的象征意义转换。顺着这一线索，德全进而分析了“道巫”这一文化结构，指出“端公既通过供奉道教神灵、采用道教仪式和法术而保持着与道教文化的认同，同时又以开放的神系和神坛与民间信仰结成联盟，并借此体现出‘民众道教’之本色”。这一结论亦带有普遍性，以往所谓道与“傩”之间纠缠不清的关系得以澄清。

再次，特别值得称道的是，德全指出：“从远古时代一个单纯驱鬼仪式，到宋代以降带有戏剧表演因素的驱鬼仪式，再到今天西南地区由端公主持的驱鬼与还愿融为一体的‘傩愿戏’（驱鬼＋许愿还愿＋傩戏）的全过程。而‘傩’的这一历史演进过程本身，也对‘活化石’观点提出了根本性质疑。”

的确，戏剧（中国戏剧也不例外）是源于宗教祭祀仪式的。但以戏曲为代表的成熟的戏剧样式，又不是直接从宗教仪式脱胎而出的。所以，认为傩或傩戏是戏剧的“活化石”缺乏依据。“活化石”之说极易遭致非议，前些年有位年轻学者撰文说：“我们无法假想，从巫师傩神的狂魔乱舞中可以产生一个高雅端庄的梅兰芳。”这一观点，如果仅仅是针对“活化石”之论而发的话，也不是没有道理的。中国文化的特殊性在于，儒家文化过早地成了官方的意识形态，从而排斥各种“怪力乱神”的存在。于是，当巫不再被充分信任的时候，从巫和巫术演变而来的优和优戏，也一直难登大雅之堂。于是，一种外来的宗教——佛教乘虚而入，为宣讲教义而产生了俗讲。俗讲就是用通俗的说唱方式讲经，留存至今的变文就是俗讲的底本。这种形式极大地影响了诸宫调，而诸宫调讲唱才是元杂剧的母体。所以我认为，中国的戏剧是分成“明河”与“潜流”这两种虽有交往却各自相对独立的形态，分途发展的。

德全将“端公戏”作为一个独立、自在的演剧系统去观照，这说明，他是认同我的上述观点的。令人高兴的是，我的另一个学生刘怀堂博士也持同样的看法，前不久他给我看过一本书稿，特别强调祭祀性戏剧与观赏性戏剧的分途发展。然而，还有一些人，要么否认戏剧源于宗教仪式，要么将元杂剧直接和宗教仪式挂钩。这两种看法，都未免失于片面。

德全指出，“端公祭祀活动中衍生出来的诸种演剧形态，均是由端公表演、创造的，在演剧结构方面亦具有共通性，因此，均可被纳入‘端公戏’系统之中，而其间的细部差异，正好表征的是‘端公戏’（系统性概念）在不同区域、不同族群中的形态‘变格’”。这样，以往被称作“傩戏”的祭祀戏剧，就梳理成章地纳入了“端公戏”的系统之中。

本书虽然着眼于理论建构，但由于材料掌握的全面，在微观上也有不少新的发现。相信读者一定感兴趣，此处就不饶舌了。

最后想说的是，此书的写法也很有特点——脚注篇幅很长。由于文章的理论色彩浓厚，有时候为了中心论点的阐述，为了避免枝蔓，把一些材料和介绍性、知识性的文字放入脚注中。例如对于“梯玛”的不同解释，对“和梅山”法事、“降宝山”的祭仪、“上元和会”之完整内容的介绍，都放入脚注中叙述，有时一条注释达千字以上。这种写法，有些老一辈学者用过，港台学者的论文也较常见，但大陆学者，尤其是青年学者的论文中较为罕见。我觉得这是一种很好的做法，值得推荐。

回想起德全在中山大学从我读博时，一次担任“元杂剧”专题的主要发言人。我担心这位来自贵州的小伙子对“傩”熟悉，对元杂剧或比较陌生。但听过他富有激情的讲述，才知道他其实对戏剧史是下过功夫的。对“明河”抑或“潜流”，都有相当好的基础。不过德全来自贵州，学位论文选题时我依然怂恿他选“傩”的课题。在我的“误导”下，他当时的选题过于庞大，很难驾驭，开题时被无情地“毙”了。但他没有气馁，而是综合了老师们的意见，以较为具体的“西南端公文化”为题，另起炉灶，论文答辩时获得了老师们的一致首肯和赞扬。本书就是在他博士论文的基础上加工修改而成的。

后来，当我知道德全要到上海交通大学单世联教授处从事文化产业方向的博士后研究的时候，由衷地感到一种失落和遗憾。现在德全出站后继续在贵州民大从事文化产业研究，但我还是希望他能多多关注戏剧和戏剧史。

德全在其大著出版之际问序于我，草草写了上面这些话，是为序。

康保成

2017年9月28日于珠海寓所

Since the mid-80s of the 20th century Chinese mainland set off a puppet research fever, and more than 30 years have passed in the blink of an eye. I remember that in the summer of 1988, the "Seminar on the Origin of Chinese Theater" was held in Urumqi. At the meeting, Mr. Qu Liuyi emphasized the role of puppet opera in the origin of theater, but my paper said that Malinowski's "assertion" that theater originated in religious rituals met with an "exception" in China. In retrospect, it was really fearless for the ignorant. Since then, my academic concept has undergone a great change, perhaps reflecting the progress of Chinese theater research in the past 30 years. The research results of more than 30 years of puppet opera are remarkable and obvious to all, and there is no doubt about it. However, it is also the consensus that the research of puppet drama has encountered a bottleneck that is difficult to solve. Some of the drawbacks brought out by the "puppet research fever" once cited in his book "The Origin of Puppet Art" have not been well solved so far. I remember attending a seminar a few years ago, and an elderly local scholar asked me: "Our Yang opera here is obviously dressed up by people, why do you say that Yang opera was originally a puppet opera?" I smiled wryly. It is a fact that Guizhou's Yang opera was played by people, but it is also a fact that Yang opera was a puppet opera in Jiangxi in the Ming Dynasty, and the Yang opera with puppets on the same stage is still preserved in northern Sichuan. It is very likely that in the process of moving west, the shape of Yang Opera has also changed. Of course, this requires in-depth research and evidence to illustrate. What I want to say is that the narrow perception of "seeing the trees but not the forest" generated by simple case studies is likely to obscure things as they are. In addition, with the "puppet research fever" produced by the "puppet opera research fever", the "pan-puppet theory" and "puppet culture" formulation, as well as the statement that puppet opera is a "living fossil" of drama, have also promoted the study of puppet opera, but also produced some negative effects. What is the essence of "傩"? How to break through the threshold and limitations of "pan-puppet"? Is the puppet and the puppet opera a "living fossil" of Chinese drama? How to carry out theoretical induction on the basis of materials? These are all urgent problems to be solved. Therefore, when I saw the manuscript of Dequan's "Research on Duangong Culture in Southwest China", my joy was indescribable. It can be said that this book has made new breakthroughs in concepts, visions, and research methods, and its biggest feature is to build a theoretical highland on the basis of a large number of reliable materials. Dequan consulted nearly 100 kinds of Fangzhi and customs records in the libraries of Sun Yat-sen University, Guizhou Minzu University and other units, as well as the "China Fangzhi Library" (electronic resource). In addition, he also extensively collected some genealogies and genealogies collected by Duan Gong's personal (mainly altar masters), the "List of Past Teachers" that records the relationship between the altar class and teachers, scientific ritual books and performance script materials that have not been published, as well as some documents, scriptures, curses, talismans, interview materials, field pictures and other materials closely related to Duan Gong's behavior. More importantly, Dequan declared: "This study does not intend to adopt the research paradigm of the so-called 'materiality view' to support the 'theoretical hypothesis', but to dominate the complex material with 'problem awareness'." "I think Dequan's footing is correct. This book addresses at least the following questions. Firstly, this paper breaks through the regional shackles of previous puppet opera research, and discusses the existence mode of Duangong culture and its social and cultural significance in southwest China from a comprehensive academic perspective. In the past, Duan Gong opera was mostly regarded as a kind of "Wu opera", but Dequan believed that the essence of Duan Gong culture was Wu culture, and its scope was far greater than the so-called "Duan Gong culture": "Duan Gong is actually integrated into the Duan Gong culture system, and its structure, form, spirit, and meaning are unified under the will of Duan Gong (Wu), so the so-called 'Fu culture' is actually contained in Duan Gong culture." This theoretically subverts the "pan-puppet theory", and many of the various forms of so-called "puppet" in the past are actually not puppets, but should belong to Duangong culture; The so-called "puppet play" basically belongs to Duangong opera and witch opera. Perhaps the fact that Wu belonged to Wu was not the first thing Dequan realized, nor was it the first time he raised it. However, because he had a strong sense of "problem" and carefully compared the so-called "Fu culture" with the Duangong culture in terms of meaning and form, he came to a convincing conclusion. This is enough to remind the "pan-theorist" that the old formulation should not be used in the future, so as not to confuse the public. Of course, behind the concepts, terms, and categories, there are some theories and concepts that are supported. Dequan's research is exactly that. However, I vaguely feel that Dequan seems to think that Wu and Wu were combined later. In fact, 傩 has been part of the witch from the beginning. On this point, I generally obey Wang Guowei's opinion. The first chapter of the "History of Song and Yuan Opera" begins by saying: "The prosperity of song and dance began in ancient Wuhu? Among the examples given next, there is "Fang Xiang's exorcism". Obviously, the "Fang Xiang Clan" is filled by wizards. This view is for Dequan's reference. Secondly, Dequan pointed out that the Duangong culture has a migration route from east to west geographically; Duan Gong's legal affairs and technical behavior have a process of "localization" and "adjustment" and even compromise in the southwest region. This breaks through the previous thinking of primitive and solidifying the local "puppet play", and also breaks through the drawback of "only seeing the trees but not the forest" in the case study. De Quanxian pointed out that "the Duan Gong legal activities in the Zhaotong area are not indigenous folk customs, but were influxed from Jiangxi, Sichuan, Huguang and other provinces with Han immigrants, and originated in the Ming Dynasty and flourished in the middle and late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China. The time and place of this inflow basically coincide with the background of the history of migration in the southwest. As we all know, the people have always said that "the lake fills Sichuan". Dequan pointed out that this is not only an oral legend, but also supported by a large number of Han genealogies and other documents in the southwest region. In this way, some hometown-based researchers believe that the local "傩" is the oldest and can be inherited from the era of the "Zhou Li", and it is self-defeating. At the same time, as a cultural form, Duangong culture will never remain unchanged in the process of moving west. In other words, Duangong culture is dynamic rather than static. Dequan pointed out that Duangong, as the holder of a "strong culture", in the process of gradually "localizing", with the help of his concepts and beliefs, changed and re-edited the original audio of the sacrifices of gods and spirits of the indigenous peoples of southwest China, and finally completed the symbolic transformation of "due to soil and customs". Following this clue, Dequan further analyzed the cultural structure of "Daowu", pointing out that "Duangong not only maintained his identity with Taoist culture through the worship of Taoist deities and the use of Taoist rituals and magic, but also formed an alliance with folk beliefs with an open divine system and altar, and thus reflected the true color of 'people's Taoism'". This conclusion is also universal, and the entangled relationship between the so-called Tao and the "puppet" in the past is clarified. Thirdly, and particularly commendable, Dequan pointed out: "From a simple exorcism ceremony in ancient times, to the exorcism ceremony with theatrical performance elements in the Song Dynasty, to the 'ghost exorcism play' (exorcism + wish return + puppet play) presided over by Duan Gong in today's southwest region." And this historical evolution process itself also raises fundamental questions about the view of 'living fossils'. Indeed, drama (and Chinese drama is no exception) is derived from religious rituals. However, the mature drama style represented by opera is not directly born out of religious ceremonies. Therefore, there is no basis for thinking that the puppet or puppet play is a "living fossil" of drama. The idea of "living fossils" is very easy to criticize, and a young scholar wrote a few years ago: "We cannot assume that from the crazy dance of the wizard god, an elegant and dignified Mei Lanfang can be produced." This view, if only in response to the theory of "living fossils", is not unreasonable. The peculiarity of Chinese culture lies in the fact that Confucian culture has prematurely become the official ideology, thus rejecting the existence of various "strange forces and chaotic gods". Therefore, when witches are no longer fully trusted, the excellent and excellent dramas that evolved from witchcraft and witchcraft have always been difficult to enter the hall of elegance. As a result, a foreign religion, Buddhism, took advantage of the void and produced secular teachings in order to preach teachings. Colloquial speech is to use popular rap to preach the scriptures, and the variations that have survived to this day are the basis of popular speech. This form greatly influenced the tunes of the palaces, and the singing of the tunes of the palaces is the mother body of the metadrama. Therefore, I believe that Chinese drama is divided into two forms of "Ming River" and "Undercurrent", which have interacted but are relatively independent of each other, and develop separately. Dequan views "Duan Gong Opera" as an independent and comfortable acting system, which shows that he agrees with my above view. Happily, another of my students, Dr. Liu Huaitang, recently showed me a manuscript of a book that emphasized the development of sacrificial drama and ornamental drama. Others, however, either deny that drama originated from religious rituals or associate metadrama directly with religious rituals. Both views are one-sided. Dequan pointed out that "the various forms of drama derived from the Duangong sacrifice activities are all performed and created by Duangong, and they also have commonality in the structure of the drama, so they can all be included in the 'Duangong Opera' system, and the detailed differences between them just characterize the 'declension' of the form of 'Duangong Opera' (a systematic concept) in different regions and different ethnic groups." In this way, the sacrificial drama that used to be called "puppet opera" was sorted out and incorporated into the system of "duan gong opera". Although this book focuses on theoretical construction, due to the comprehensive grasp of materials, there are also many new discoveries at the microscopic level. I believe that readers must be interested, so I will not rap here. Finally, the way this book is written is also very characteristic - the footnotes are very long. Due to the strong theoretical color of the article, sometimes in order to elaborate the central thesis, in order to avoid branches, some materials and introductory and informative words are put into footnotes. For example, different interpretations of "Tima", the introduction of the rituals of "Hemeishan", the rituals of "Falling Treasure Mountain", and the complete content of "Shangyuan Hehui" are all described in footnotes, sometimes with a single note of more than 1,000 words. This kind of writing has been used by some scholars of the older generation, and the papers of Hong Kong and Taiwan scholars are also more common, but the papers of mainland scholars, especially young scholars, are relatively rare. I think this is a good practice and worth recommending. I recall that when Dequan was studying for a PhD at Sun Yat-sen University, he once served as the main speaker on the topic of "Yuan Miscellaneous Opera". I am worried that this young man from Guizhou is familiar with "傩", and is relatively unfamiliar with metadramas. But after listening to his passionate narration, I know that he has actually worked the history of theater. There is a fairly good foundation for whether the "Ming River" or the "undercurrent" is. However, Dequan is from Guizhou, and I still encouraged him to choose the topic of "Qi" when choosing the topic of his dissertation. Under my "misdirection", his topic selection at that time was too large and difficult to control, and he was ruthlessly "killed" when opening the topic. However, he was not discouraged, but synthesized the opinions of the teachers, took the more specific "Southwest Duan Public Culture" as the topic, and won the unanimous approval and praise of the teachers when defending the thesis. This book was processed and revised on the basis of his doctoral dissertation. Later, when I learned that Dequan was going to Shanghai Jiao Tong University to engage in postdoctoral research in the field of cultural industry, I felt a sense of loss and regret. Now Dequan continues to engage in cultural industry research at Guizhou Minda after leaving the country, but I still hope that he will pay more attention to drama and theater history. Dequan asked me the preface on the occasion of the publication of his magnum opus, and hastily wrote the above words for the preface. Kang Baocheng at his apartment in Zhuhai on September 28, 2017（AI翻译）