首页 > 分享 > 【转载及翻译】最后的礼物：《宝石花》（下）

【转载及翻译】最后的礼物：《宝石花》（下）

花匠小妙招
2024-08-19 19:13

（前两部分：CV7430396、CV7431066）

（啊，终于到我翻译的部分了。。。）

Ideology as Artistic Weapon

作为艺术武器的意识形态

The premiere of The Stone Flower marked the beginning of an open confrontation between the defenders of drambalet and the supporters of symphonic dance. Different views about the correct path for choreographic development in the Soviet Union lay at the heart of this conflict, but the confrontation was intensified by the tensions inherent in any generational shift, and by the usual animosities and jealousies between competing artists. The struggle between the different camps was exacerbated by the Soviet attempt to impose an ideological framework on the arts, making it possible for artists to use ideology as a weapon to defend their position against challengers.

《宝石花》的首演标志着戏剧芭蕾的捍卫者与交响舞蹈的支持者之间开始了公开冲突。对苏联编舞发展正确道路的不同观点，是这场冲突的核心所在，但由于一切更新换代中固存的紧张关系，以及艺术家竞争中常怀的敌意和嫉妒，冲突被大大加剧了。苏联试图给艺术强加意识形态框架，使艺术家可能以意识形态为武器来捍卫自己的立场，对抗挑战者，这加剧了不同阵营之间的斗争。

If for some, The Stone Flower represented the dawn of a new era wherein music drove the dramatic structure of choreography and where complex classical dance returned to the ballet stage, others looked at it askance, observing in it serious violations of the conventions of drambalet. Gavriyela Komleva, a Kirov ballerina who joined the company a few months after the ballet’s premiere, remembers the stormy atmosphere within the company at the time:

The Stone Flower revealed the dissatisfaction of a part of the company with the repertoire and offered a new direction for searches. A split appeared within the company: some thirsted for novelty, the usual suited the rest... “Like-mindedness” existed neither among the dancers nor among the choreographers. The theatre was boiling. The trade union meetings of the company in those years were eventful, each time they returned to heated debates about the fate of art and our ballet...The meetings lasted for hours and... they were often continued on the following day.[60]

对于一些人来说，《宝石花》象征着一个新时代的黎明，音乐推动编舞的戏剧结构，复杂的古典舞蹈重回舞台；而另外一些人则对它持怀疑态度，注意到它严重违背了戏剧芭蕾的惯例。在《宝石花》首演几个月后加入基洛夫的芭蕾演员Gavriyela Komleva，还记得当时舞团公司内部的激烈争论：

《宝石花》揭示了公司一部分人对现有剧目的不满，提供了新的探索方向。公司内部出现了分歧：一些人渴求新奇，其余人则安于常规……“志同道合”无论在舞者还是编舞之间都不存在。剧院沸腾了，那几年的剧团工会会议可谓波澜起伏，每次会议都会回到对艺术和我们芭蕾命运的激烈辩论……会议持续几个小时，而且……经常在第二天还会继续。

第二幕第四场谱例

Many talked about a crisis and Komleva realized only later that she had participated in one of the Kirov’s most fruitful periods. Yet despite illusions of increased freedom during the Khrushchev Thaw, borders continued to exist, not just in party doctrines, but also within the artists’ minds; passionate convictions often fused with intolerance into narrow-mindedness. The company was divided into two camps, corresponding not just to aesthetic preferences, but also to egoistic interests and human sympathies.[62]

许多人都在谈论（这）一场危机，而Komleva后来才意识到，她参与了基洛夫成果最丰硕的时期之一。然而，尽管赫鲁晓夫解冻产生了自由度提高的假象，但界限仍然存在，不仅存在于党的理论中，也存在于艺术家们的头脑中。热切的信念与缺乏容忍往往交织相融，导致了观念的偏执狭隘。公司分为两个阵营，这不仅是依据审美偏好，也是依据个人利益与同情。

Although the arguments ran high, Grigorovich by no means rejected all the characteristics of drambalet, notably “content-rich” drama and a focus on the psychology of a ballet’s heroes. His artistic credo thus mirrored both the goals and limitations of de-Stalinization. If de-Stalinization aimed to renegotiate the country’s Stalinist legacies to re-launch the Soviet project without challenging the core of the system itself—an ideologically driven one-party state with a planned economy—Grigorovich’s ballets infused new life into the Soviet formula of content-rich, plot driven, full-length dramatic ballets by returning dance to its rightful place at the center of choreographic expression without challenging the fundamental premise of Soviet ballet as narrative art form.

虽然争论不断，但Grigorovich绝不排斥戏剧芭蕾的诸多特点，特别是其“内容丰富”的戏剧性，以及对主角心理的关注。因此，他的艺术信条同时反映了去斯大林化的目标和局限性。去斯大林化的目的是重新审视斯大林主义的遗产，以重振苏联项目[63] ，而不挑战体系本身的核心——一个意识形态驱动的一党制计划经济国家；通过让舞蹈回归其在编舞表达中应有的中心地位，而不挑战苏联芭蕾作为叙事艺术的基本前提，Grigorovich的芭蕾也为内容丰富、情节驱动的长篇戏剧芭蕾的苏联模式注入了新的生命。

Even though The Stone Flower did not challenge the most basic, narrative demand made of Soviet ballet, Grigorovich’s determination to develop the plot by means of dance alone and his refusal to obsess about presenting a realistic image of life in the drambalet manner bore the signs of “Western” heresy to some. Proponents of drambalet accused their symphonic challengers of a casual attitude towards a realistic presentation of reality, coming dangerously close to a flirtation with abstraction. The defenders of the established Soviet choreographic order tried to present the aesthetic struggle between choreographic symphonism and drambalet as a Manichean battle between Western-style formalism and Soviet realism. Framing the debate in these terms had potentially lethal ideological implications for the choreographer-innovators. At the All-Union Choreographic Conference held in Moscow in 1960, Grigorovich and Bel’sky were declared leaders of formalism. The criticism hurled at the two choreographers was at times preposterous and illustrates the absurd distortions of artistic debates by ideological dogmatism. For example, a choreographer from the Urals decided to take Grigorovich to task for the geological non-authenticity of The Stone Flower:

What on earth is Grigorovich doing? Among his semiprecious stones there is a jasper. But there are no jaspers in these regions! I, for example, am now staging a ballet about the underwater kingdom of the Baikal. What would happen, comrades, if instead of an omul, I showed some sort of sprat?[64]

尽管《宝石花》并没有挑战苏联芭蕾最基本的叙事要求，但Grigorovich决定只用舞蹈来推动剧情发展，并拒绝以戏剧芭蕾的方式呈现现实生活景象，这在一些人看来是“西方”异端的迹象。戏剧芭蕾的支持者指责这些交响化挑战者对真实表现现实的态度太过随意，已然接近于摆弄抽象主义。苏联现有编舞秩序的捍卫者试图将交响编舞与戏剧芭蕾之间的美学斗争描述为西方形式主义与苏联现实主义之间的摩尼教之争[65] 。用这些术语来对这场争论定性，在意识形态上对编舞革新者构成了潜在的致命作用。1960年在莫斯科召开的全苏编舞大会上，Grigorovich和Belsky被宣告为形式主义的代表领袖。对这两位编舞的批评有时是十分荒唐的，这体现了意识形态教条主义对艺术争论的荒谬扭曲。例如，一位来自乌拉尔的编舞决定以《宝石花》的地质因素不合现实为由，对Grigorovich进行批判：

Grigorovich到底在干什么？他描绘的那些半宝石中，竟然出现了一块碧玉，可那个地区根本没有碧玉！比如说，我现在要上演一部关于贝加尔湖水下王国的芭蕾。同志们，如果我让大家看的不是奥木尔鱼，而是什么西鲱[66] ，会怎么样呢？

At the conference, a stormy debate between defenders of Grigorovich and Bel’sky’s choreographic innovation and the drambalet old guard broke loose. Leonid Lavrovsky gave the keynote address at the meeting. In an effort to defend the tenets of drambalet—and his own position in the choreographic hierarchy—Lavrovsky railed against the so-called “theory of the world of agitated feeling.” Singling out the second act of The Stone Flower set in the subterranean kingdom of the Mistress of the Copper Mountain, Lavrovsky, whose own production of the ballet for the Bolshoi in 1954 had widely been declared a failure because of its faithful observation of drambalet dogmas, accused Grigorovich of using the formal means of modernized acrobatics typical for this “theory of the world of agitated feeling” to express this hallowed topic of Russian nature.

在会议上，Grigorovich和Belsky的编舞革新的捍卫者和戏剧芭蕾的卫道士之间爆发了一场狂风骤雨般的辩论。拉夫洛夫斯基在会上作了主旨发言。为了捍卫戏剧芭蕾的信条——以及他自己在编舞体制中的地位，拉夫洛夫斯基抨击了所谓的“激情世界的理论”。他自己在1954年为莫斯科大剧院制作的这部芭蕾，由于忠实地遵守戏剧芭蕾的教条，曾被广泛认为是失败之作。他特别提到《宝石花》中以铜山女王地下王国为背景的第二幕，指责Grigorovich用这种“激情世界的理论”中典型的现代化造作表演的形式手段，来表现俄罗斯的自然这一神圣话题。

Using typical Soviet rhetoric, Lavrovsky contrasted Soviet ballet’s elevation to a serious art rich in content with the pointless demonstration of dance technique. He stressed that there were some people who had a simplistic view of ballet as something where one needed to jump around non-stop from curtain up to curtain down. Lavrovsky stated that the champions of this “danciness” had a confederate in the West, George Balanchine, who led a technically accomplished company that didn’t dance music but naked rhythm without any content.[67] In his concluding remarks at the end of the conference, Lavrovsky stated that there was a struggle between two directions in ballet, a realist one and a formalist one. Lavrovsky called the ballet scholar and librettist Yuriy Slonimsky and the ballet historian and critic Vera Krasovskaya, who had had given talks strongly supporting recent innovations, the theorists of formalism, and branded Grigorovich and the choreographer Bel’sky as the practitioners of this formalism.[68]

拉夫洛夫斯基用典型的苏联话术，将苏联芭蕾提升为内容丰富的严肃艺术，与毫无意义的舞蹈技巧展示形成鲜明对比。他强调，有些人把芭蕾想得太简单，认为它只需要不停地从开演跳到落幕。拉夫洛夫斯基说，这种“狂舞”[69] 的拥护者在西方有一个同道——乔治·巴兰钦，他领导的舞团技艺高超，但他们的舞蹈不是音乐，而是纯无内容的赤裸裸的节奏。拉夫洛夫斯基在会议结束时的总结发言中指出，芭蕾的两个发展方向之间存在相互斗争，一个是现实主义方向，一个是形式主义方向。他把曾在讲话中极力支持近代革新的芭蕾学者和编剧Yuriy Slonimsky以及芭蕾史学家和评论家Vera Krasovskaya称为形式主义理论家，并把Grigorovich和编舞Belsky说成是这种形式主义的实践者。

Galina Ulanova

1954 production of the ballet, village maidens. RGALI

The ideologically framed diatribes of the drambalet establishment belligerently claimed that the Soviet Union’s ideological weapons needed to be safe-guarded for a struggle with the capitalist West, and showed an absurd preoccupation with biographical and other “realistic” details in ballets. Sergeyev was apparently disturbed by theories put forth at the conference which tried to rally everyone to the “‘world of agitated feeling,’ the world of emotions, the world of abstract images, devoid of biographical particulars, biography and profession.” [70]

有人从意识形态架的角度出发对戏剧芭蕾的成规发起声讨和指责，苏联的意识形态武器需要被好好保护起来，以便对抗西方资本主义。同时，他们挑衅似的宣称，这些武器对传记性和现实细节的执着已经到了一个荒谬的地步。大会上有一些理论被提出，尽力让大家团结起来支持 “‘激情的世界理论’——情感组成的世界，抽象图像组成的世界，（与现实主义描绘的不同）缺乏传记一般的细节与专业性” 。Sergeyev显然因为这些理论感到烦扰不安。【EX】

Sergeyev’s words showed the absurd variety of meanings the abusive term “abstraction” could take in Soviet parlance: Sergeyev stated that Ostrovsky’s[71] Snegurochka could hardly be recognized in Lopukhov’s “abstract” ballet on the play, Spring FairyTale, because its heroes had no names, no identifiable place of residence and no clearly stated profes-
sion, but only showed random people who lived somewhere doing something in complete separation from concrete surroundings. Sergeyev added that tendencies of “abstract” ballet could also be seen in The Stone Flower.[72]

Sergeyev的言论反映了“抽象”这个被滥用的术语在苏联语境中可能具有的荒谬的多重含义，他认为，Ostrovsky的（原著）《雪姑娘》在Lopukov的“抽象”芭蕾舞剧《春天的童话》中几乎没了影子，因为主角们没有名字，没有辨识度高的居住地也没有清楚说明的职业，（整个舞剧）只是随便展示了几个人住在某个地方，做着与具体环境无关的事情。他认为这种倾向也可以在“抽象”的芭蕾舞剧《宝石花》中见到。

Even though Grigorovich and Bel’sky were attacked from many sides at the conference, the power of the old guard was waning. In his closing remarks, the chairman of the conference, Deputy USSR Minister of Culture A. Kuznetsov emphasized that contemporary topics should take the center of attention, but that did not mean depicting a man with a portfolio. Warning against abstraction and deviations to Western European modernism and American jazz, Kuznetsov also cautioned against demagogic attacks against those searching for new paths:

One ought to protect our principles of Socialist Realism in every possible way from attempts to distort them ideologically. But one mustn’t attach labels and subject some comrades who are searching for new paths in art to demagogic criticism. [73]

尽管Grigorovich和Belsky在大会上被多方面攻击，但老顽固们的力量也在消退。大会主席兼苏联文化副部长A.Kuznetsov在他最近的言论中强调道，我们的注意力应该放在当代题材上，但即使这样，也并不意味着要把形象的方方面面事无巨细地展现出来。他一边警示大家远离抽象主义以及不能走上西欧现代主义及美国爵士的歧路，一边提醒艺术家们小心那些不怀好意煽动对新道路探索者发起攻击的人：

我们要尽一切努力保护我们苏联现实主义的（艺术）准则，不能让任何企图从意识形态上瓦解它们的尝试得逞；但任何人都不该给那些正在探索艺术道路的同志贴标签，也不该以煽动性的批判让他们臣服。

The conference proceedings were published in 1962, incidentally the year that George Balanchine and New York City Ballet visited the Soviet Union for the first time. Accord-
ing to the editors, some of the comments at the conference underestimated Grigorovich’s and Bel’sky’s achievements, illegitimately trying to separate them from the principles of
narodnost’, partiynost’ and realism. [74]

大会的内容于1962年被出版，正好与G.Balachine和纽约城市芭蕾舞团头一次访问苏联是同一年。据编辑记载，一些会议发言看轻了Grigorovich和Belsky的成就，试图将他们和民族主义、党派关系以及现实主义的准则分开。

In the same year when the proceedings were published, the grand dame of Soviet ballet, Galina Ulanova, published an article in Izvestiya that argued it was the duty of the older
generation to support the younger in its progressive artistic experiments, which were bound to include some blunders; there ought not to be any antagonism between the generations, the older generation should be happy when the young generation tried to find its own voice. Ulanova explicitly condemned any attempts to brand Bel’sky as abstractionist and Grigorovich as modernist. “It is easiest to stick a label on somebody,” she wrote. “For example: Igor’ Bel’sky is sick with abstractionism, Yuri Grigorovich—is a modernist. That’s it.” Ulanova pointed out that the literal meaning of the word “modern” was positive, it only became negative when used in its metaphorical sense as denominator of bourgeois art. She defended Grigorovich’s Stone Flower and Legend of Love。Pointing out that older generations had committed their own mistakes, she pleaded for the right of the young generation to commit their own artistic mistakes on a path that would lead to new discoveries. [75]

在大会内容记录被出版的同一年，苏联芭蕾界的女王G.Ulanova，在《消息报》上发表了一篇文章，提出老一辈（艺术家）的职责是在进步的艺术实验中支持年轻艺术家，而这个过程中会难免会有人犯错、误入歧途；两代人之间也不应该有敌意，年轻人尝试发出自己的声音，老前辈们应该高兴才是。Ulanova的态度明确地谴责了所有尝试将Belsky冠以抽象主义者和将Grigorovich定为现代主义者的行为。“给人贴标签是很容易的”，她写道，“比如：Igor Belsky是个病态的抽象主义者，Y.Grigorovich——是个现代主义者。”她指出“现代”一词的字面意义是积极的，只有用来指代资产阶级艺术时才是负面的。她支持Grigorovich的《宝石花》和《爱的传奇》。在指出老前辈已经承认他们犯下的错误后，她希望也能给予年轻人机会，承认他们在探索可能通向新发现的道路时犯下的艺术上的错误。

Conclusion

结语

After his return to the Soviet Union in 1936, Prokofiev gave to history three ballet scores, Romeo and Juliet, Cinderella and The Stone Flower. All three scores embodied distinctive
phases in Soviet ballet. Leonid Lavrovsky’s production of Romeo and Juliet for the Kirov Ballet in 1940 marked the high-point of drambalet. Shown to Western audiences and professionals for the first time during the Bolshoi Ballet’s first visit international tour, its visit to London in 1956, most professionals were entranced by the weighty, highly dramatic production and the total ability of each dancer from the corps de ballet to the principal to build a defined character. Romeo and Juliet was hailed it as an innovative alternative to the Western predilection for short, one-act ballets. Its impact on the development of narrative ballet in theWest, and in England in particular, was enormous. Also a perennial favorite with audiences, most large ballet companies today strive to have a production of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet in their repertoire.
在1936年返回苏联后，普罗科菲耶夫创作了三部具有重大意义的芭蕾舞剧（音乐）——《罗密欧与朱丽叶》《灰姑娘》《宝石花》。这三部作品都标志了苏联芭蕾的重要节点。Lavrovsky于1940年代为基洛夫芭蕾舞团制作的《罗密欧与朱丽叶》标志着戏剧芭蕾的巅峰。在莫斯科大剧院的芭蕾舞团首次全球巡演，于1956年访问伦敦时，它被首次展现给西方观众。大多数专业人士都为它那高度戏剧化且极具张力的表现水准所倾倒；从群舞到主演个个才华横溢，舞台上一个个生动的人物形象也让他们着迷。《罗密欧与朱丽叶》在欢呼声中，成为了西方观众偏好的单幕短芭蕾舞剧的富于创新性的替代品。它对于西方，尤其是英国叙事芭蕾发展的影响是极其重大的。作为观众最喜欢的剧目之一，时至今日，大多数大的芭蕾舞团公司仍然努力出品此剧并将其加入剧目单。
Cinderella marked the return of both the Bolshoi and the Kirov to their home theatres after their evacuation during World War II. The ballet’s premiere at the Bolshoi (1945) pointed toward the dead end drambalet was beginning to reach. Choreographer Rostislav Zakharov found himself trapped in his own dogmas, failing to produce interesting choreography and resorting instead to special stage effects to keep the interest of the audience. [76] Prokofiev himself considered Konstantin Sergeyev’s production of the ballet for the Kirov (1946) to be the most precise implementation of his musical ideas. Begun during the difficult days of the Kirov’s evacuation to Perm (Molotov), Sergeyev’s first major ballet production would arguably remain his best, weaving together poetic lyricism, irony and emotionally infused virtuosity. [77] The score of Cinderella has presented a bigger challenge to choreographers than Romeo and Juliet, explaining why it has found its way into the repertoire of fewer companies, but even so, it has entered the international repertoire.

《灰姑娘》则见证了莫斯科大剧院和基洛夫在经历了二战期间撤离之后重返故园的历史性时刻。这部芭蕾1945年在莫斯科大剧院的首演标志着戏剧芭蕾已经开始走上末路。编舞师R.Zakharov发现自己被困在了自己的教条里，他无法编排出有趣的舞蹈，只好用特殊的舞台效果来保持观众的兴趣。作曲家本人则认为，K.Sergeyev于1946年为Kirov制作的版本是对他音乐理念的最为精确严格的诠释。它在基洛夫撤离到Perm时最艰难的日子开始，是Sergeyev制作的第一部大型芭蕾舞剧，并且有充分理由认为这是他最好的一部，其中，诗一般的抒情、讽刺和精湛的技艺融合地天衣无缝。比起《罗密欧与朱丽叶》，《灰姑娘》的总谱给编舞师们抛出了更大的挑战，这也是它出现在更少的公司的剧目单上的原因——尽管如此，它依然是国际名剧。[78]

Of his three “Soviet” ballet scores, The Stone Flower thus turned out to be most specifically “Russian,” not just in terms of its musical material, but also in terms of its significance. Composed during the low-point of Prokofiev’s Soviet years, the score absorbed the pressures exerted on the composer during the time of its creation, but in Prokofiev’s melodious use of Russian folk material, there lies a haunted beauty and hidden urgency. The score was the composer’s last gift to ballet, inspiring a course of reform that made the 1950s and early 1960s a golden era for ballet in the Soviet Union.

在这三部“苏联”芭蕾中，《宝石花》是最“俄罗斯”的——不仅仅是在音乐材料这方面，也是在影响力和重要性上当之无愧[79] 。作于普罗科菲耶夫的苏联岁月中的人生低谷，这部作品吸收了作曲家在创作过程中的外在压力。但是作曲家将俄罗斯民族素材的运用得优美动听，音乐之中有着摄人心魄的美和潜藏着的紧迫感。这部作品是普罗科菲耶夫为芭蕾艺术留下的最后的礼物，正是由它激发的一系列改革使得1950年代-1960年代早期成为了苏联芭蕾的黄金时代。

1954 production of the ballet, Mistress of Copper Mountain and
the doomed Sever’yan. RGALI

Adapted material from “Ballet Battles: The Kirov Ballet during
Khrushchev’s Thaw,”[80]by Christina Ezrahi from Swans of the
Kremlin: Ballet and Power in Soviet Russia © 2012. Used by
permission of the University of Pittsburgh Press.

注释：

【0】我确实是负责了这一整块的翻译。。。但是我和某不愿透露id的大佬的工作内容有重合，衡量之后，重合的部分（在第一张插图之前）还是采用的他的译文，剩下的是我的，咳质量明显下滑。注释仍然是他翻译的，毕竟我真的不懂那些俄语转写。

总之这篇翻译完啦！咳，希望大家看的时候把全文（包括注释翻完）

[61] Gavriyela Komleva, Tanets—schast’ye i bol’... Zapiski peterburgskoy balerinï (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2000), 128-29.

Gavriyela Komleva，《舞蹈——幸福与痛苦……一位圣彼得堡芭蕾演员的笔记》[OK1] ，128-29页。

[62] Ibid., 130-31.

[63] the Soviet project指五十年代初斯大林发起的一系列建设项目，目的在于扩展苏联共产主义在全球的影响，包括工业建设和文化建设，在工业上就是一般所说的“伟大共产主义建设”工程。

[64]Quoted in Larisa Abïzova, Igor’ Bel’skiy (St. Petersburg: Akademiya russkogo baleta imeni A. Ya. Vaganovoy, 2000), 132.

[65]摩尼教教义以善恶俱存的二元论著称，这里应该是借以形容形式主义与现实主义之间的极端对立。

[66]奥木尔鱼是贝加尔湖特产，西鲱是地中海及欧洲西部大西洋的海产，前者是淡水鱼，后者是海水鱼。

[67] L. M. Lavrovskiy, “O putakh razvitiya sovetskogo baleta,” Muzïkal’nïy teatr i sovremennost’. Voprosï razvitiya sovetskogo baleta (Moscow: Vserossiyskoye teatral’noye obshchestvo, 1962),24-26.

Lavrovskiy，《剧院与现代性：苏联芭蕾发展中的问题》中“苏联音乐的发展道路”，24-26页。

[68] Ibid., 105.

[69] 关于“danciness”。这个词在理解时出了一点问题：普通的字典查不到它，OED也查不到，维基字典能查得到是dancy的名词形式（而dancy意为“参差不齐的”，是纹章学术语，相当罕见）。但是这个意思和舞蹈有什么关系？我们猜测，这应该是造的词，只是正好和danciness长相一致罢了，结合有时加y可以表示“多”，结合文中Lavrovsky反对“从头跳个不停的舞”发，批评“（他认为的）跳着节拍没有内涵只有技巧的舞”，这个词可以理解为“dance+y=舞技泛滥——变为名词=danciness”所以译为“狂舞”。

假装那个词条不存在，反而好理解，要是把它当成“参差不齐”，理解就不对劲了，所以词典不是越大越好。——某不知名大佬

[70] Ibid., 82.

[71] 此奥斯特洛夫斯基非彼奥斯特洛夫斯基（《钢炼》啊不，《钢铁是怎样炼成的》作者）

[72] Ibid., 83

[73] Ibid., 107.

[74] Ibid., 75-76.

[75] Galina Ulanova, “Dolg starshikh,” Izvestiya, May 27, 1962, p. 6.

《消息报》，1962年5月27日，6页，Galina Ulanova，“老一辈的职责”。

[76] Larisa Abïzova, Istoriya khoreograficheskogo iskusstva. Otechsetvennïy balet XX—nachala XXI veka (St. Petersburg: Kompozitor, 2012), 86.

Larisa Abïzova，《编舞艺术史：国内芭蕾——20世纪至21世纪初》，86页。

[77] Ibid., 108.

[78] 突然想到B站可以看02年编舞版的

[79] 所以这剧为什么这么冷？（手动狗头）

[80] 放个卫星，下一篇就搞这个摘编的源文章

Cover of the program of the Grigorovich production of the ballet
at the Bolshoi Theater.

【EX】

@古典主义66：

Drambalet不是Drama ballet
1917 年，俄国十月革命胜利，推翻沙皇统治的同时，芭蕾也险些被当作贵族阶级的象征被一并剿灭。幸运的是，文化委员卢那察尔斯基（Anatoly Lunacharsky）挺身而出，为芭蕾艺术在苏联换来新生。他指出芭蕾虽然昂贵，但对革命一定是有益的——只要经过改良并给予它无产阶级血统。
但说到底，芭蕾还是沙俄的遗产，想彻底赋予它无产阶级血统，就必须创作和推广顺应时代需要的作品。许多反映民众反抗霸权领导的作品应运而生，从而出现了一种叫作 “drambalet”的芭蕾类别，这一类舞剧或是为了政治宣传而特别制作的类似“样板戏”，或是“新瓶装旧酒”，给古典芭蕾套上共产主义的外套。尽管以今日标准评判，“drambalet”不免显得乏善可陈，但在那个特殊时期，“drambalet”是芭蕾艺术得以在苏联存活、最终成为俄罗斯艺术瑰宝的唯一选择。（我：似曾相识的情景，指中国的芭蕾革命样板戏）

首演于 1932 年的《巴黎的火焰》是第一部被正式定义为“drambalet”的舞剧，也是“第一部以人民为主角的芭蕾舞剧”。《巴黎的火焰》取材于 19 世纪法国大革命，但不难看出它借法国大革命来歌颂俄国十月革命——底层人民揭竿而起、团结一心、取得胜利。

Ortiz（某大佬同学）：这说的也是对的，drambalet实际上是俄语转写，问题是，它实在无法翻成别的，再者，drambalet与所谓交响芭蕾的并举已经是基操了——现在一般说的戏剧芭蕾都是指的苏联这套。你现在去搜戏剧芭蕾，搜到的都是苏联的。所以这个翻译没有问题，而且这也是一个翻译传统，绝无必要随便更改一些固定翻译。
-我：所谓戏剧芭蕾交响芭蕾之分之争本来就是苏联搞出来的？本来芭蕾不分家（？）所以可以这么理解吗（尝试理解）
-Ortiz：怎么说呢。戏剧芭蕾算是一种错误翻译，但是已成固定翻译传统——就像德国古典哲学常说的Wissenschaft 一直都翻译成'科学' 但这很不正确，尽管我们都知道这一点，但依然这么翻译。
所以，把它理解成样板戏是很贴切的。只不过翻译的话。。还就是戏剧芭蕾。这种术语译文与实际内涵相差甚远的情况其实很多，俄国人本就叫它drambalet 说明他们也就是认为它具有戏剧原则，也就是说这所有的错误都是源于命名者自己对于命名对象的一种错误认知，所以，不赖我们。

关于那段一直翻译不好的话：

-Ortiz：艹我才发现我那句确实理解错了，我全搞反了。我忘了语境。
第一句话我现在觉得应该是：
有人从意识形态出发，对戏剧芭蕾成规发起了声讨和指责，挑衅似地宣称，苏联的意识形态武器表现出对传记性“现实”细节的一种荒谬执念；我们保护这种武器是为了对抗西方资本主义。
是为了对抗西方资本主义（而非其它例如内部目的）。
-我：所以可以这么说吗“…宣称着苏联的意识形态武器需要被好好保护起来，以便与资本主义的西方作斗争”，仅这一句。
-Ortiz：可以。
我这是结构性错误，那个needed是和showed并列的，不是claimed和showed，以及这个diatribe of的of，应该是对于戏剧芭蕾而不是由它发起，我们都理解错了。
-我：是有人用“意识形态”来支撑自己指责dramabalet
而不是 dramabalet占着意识形态的制高点去指责别人？我以前理解的是后一种（）
-Ortiz：对。我以前也是理解的后一种。
-我：我想当然了，我觉得是保守派占着意识形态的制高点，再一看后面，什么把芭蕾当成武器呀，感觉很像保守派的作风嘛。没想到是不保守的，同时既认为芭蕾是武器，也认为保守派是残害芭蕾艺术，所以是新人在占据制高点（诶制高点似乎不太恰当）在指责。这波我在第一层原文在第五层。
-Ortiz：因为这三段的重点应该都放在谢尔盖耶夫对于这种激进的异见的反对态度上，所以最终的落脚点要放在他的反对，这一段一开始应该还是介绍一下激进者的情况，然后表明他的反对。不过，我不觉得他们认为芭蕾是武器，而是说，他们指责把芭蕾当作武器——枪口不能朝内。
-我：是…不保守的用意识形态做论点/支撑，指责保守派把芭蕾政治化、武器化的行为，指责他们过于细节和传记性的荒谬之处？
-Ortiz：意思是这样，但是原文其实没说反武器化。至于是否反对将芭蕾作为武器，没提，但我估计是有的，所以翻译就不用管了。表达出原文意思就好，多余的自己延伸的意思不要有。这句话的翻译我就到此为止。