網繭與飛躍之間——論湯顯祖之心態發展歷程及其創作思維

Quest for Liberty：Mental Development and Creative Thinking of T'ang Hsien-tsu

黃莘瑜(Sin-Yu Huang)

指導教授 ： 柯慶明

國立臺灣大學/文學院/中國文學研究所/博士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.02909

摘要

湯顯祖於當代中晚明研究所踞之地位，和「尊情」或「主情」說密切相關；連帶而言，「尊情」、「主情」所以被認定為中晚明的文化潮流或特徵，湯氏絕對位居關鍵。然而值得推敲的是，即使單就《牡丹亭》來說，言其「尊情」固然可以成立，但何以如此的原由，若就湯顯祖自身書寫之文本作全面梳理，便會發現和「啟蒙」或「反傳統」觀點下情理論述的解釋存有相當距離。更何況《牡丹亭》、《南柯記》、《邯鄲記》這三部完成年份相當集中的作品，不論題材或風格都有很大的落差；尤其主角之「情」的表現，有著近乎相反的發展。這是否意味湯氏思想上的轉變？抑只是基於不同劇作主題的發揮？不管是用前一種或後一種方式提問，都常是把「情」當作意涵一致，且是相對於「理」的概念來處理。然而從具體文本脈絡來分析，「情」所指涉的向度及用法，實在很難，可能也不必用單一的模式來掌握。因此拙文不打算建立或銜接任何宏觀體系，而重在由文脈的辨異和分疏，去探索湯顯祖「創作思維」和「心態發展」間的聯繫，並試圖對「情」之相關問題進行說明，進而思考文藝與性命之道間的可能關係。
論題之「創作思維」，主要指焦點意識的形成、表現方式及意義脈絡，同時也包含對創作活動本身的思索；因為不只是純粹的理性運作，所以往往牽涉作者應對不同處境的「心態發展」。而「網繭」與「飛躍」的意象，則是借以表示湯顯祖由少到老始終存在，並甚為自覺的生存張力。
先前學界對晚明文化的討論，往往是以明中葉後商業發達及市鎮興起的框架為論述背景；而現今觀眾或讀者，也常是透過崑曲或明清江南出版、評點的現象，去認識湯顯祖其人及作品。但江南吳地對湯氏來說，卻是風土、聲口殊異的「他鄉」。「江右」不僅是其籍貫之所在，而且是具有密切情感聯繫，並涉及「價值」和「歸屬」的「地方」。可以說，湯氏中年後愈形清晰的生存張力，在其生命初期即已埋下伏筆。
江右士人一度於明代政壇佔有重要地位；經略天下就湯氏而言，更帶有幾分成就豪俠壯舉的浪漫想像。他以俠者為典範，企圖建立自我在世界的定位；但既是將官場視為實現俠義之所在，便注定要承受權力場域不得自主的掙扎。《紫釵記》作成前後，湯氏正陷入人事構釁的低潮，因此更激發他以「直」自任的堅持並強調「真」與「假」的辨別。相較於蔣防的＜霍小玉傳＞，《紫釵記》?堛?撓主角戀情的不是門閥，卻是權力、金錢的糾葛；反面人物的特徵也非李益的薄倖，而是盧太尉的私門壟斷。以私門壟斷取代階級門第，再以壟斷彰顯俠行的構思，應當與湯氏的政治觀點及立場緊密相關。劇中既藉由霍小玉、黃衫客等俠者，對比出異於「私門」的價值選擇；但價值選擇的行動，終究仍需靠「公家」的權勢和秩序為保證。而湯顯祖對於公」的認知，既以「分義」為前提，「分義」的制訂權又在「公家」，那麼公家之於俠者，便又牽涉「個人」和「國家」間的相互關係。在價值判斷上兩者既有交集，但在自由的行使上卻也隱含齟齬。
萬曆十九年湯氏向皇帝上疏受挫後，眼光不再只向外聚焦於「君」及「天下」，心態並產生耐人尋味的變化。其由強烈冀望行俠於世，轉向尋求與世無傷。從編年的角度推斷，羅汝芳、李贄、紫柏，雖都曾給予他啟發或影響，但上疏失敗的挫折，才使其更為自覺三人在其生命中所扮演的角色，而且也使他重新思考自我與世界間的關係。他頻頻採取懺悔的修辭，以獲罪謫臣兼地方官吏的身份，發表個人感悟並倡導「天性」大義的言說。但看似返向性命、時自惕厲的同時，卻也難掩傷感及對政治場域的痛切反省。
同時引人注目的是，湯顯祖的創作力也在此後數年間臻至高峰。奠定其於文學史上重要地位之「四夢」，除《紫釵記》是作於萬曆十五年前後外，《牡丹亭》、《南柯記》、《邯鄲記》則各完成於萬曆二十六、二十八、二十九年，也就是湯氏自遂昌任上棄官還鄉的最初四年間。藉由可繫年之詩文，可見尋索人生歸宿，乃是其劇作巔峰期所關切的問題。並此歸宿的探求，不止為返鄉四年間詩文的主題。
從其劇作來觀察，任職南京期間寫成的《紫釵記》，「情」僅僅是烘托俠義主題的戲劇成素；至《牡丹亭》和「二夢」，才真正被突顯為戲劇整體的綱領。而這般區隔，又恰好和湯氏心態的轉折構成呼應。
縱使《牡丹亭》及「二夢」，「情」皆為導引主角行動的核心；然而迥異的和詮釋觀點，也顯示出聚焦於「情」，不代表就是從特定角度賦予其堅實不移的價值。或者說，這三部戲都是以「情」為介質，呈現其在不同思想脈絡中，侔契性命之道的「幾種」可能。參照萬曆二十六至二十九年間，湯氏詩文?奡M求歸宿的意向，既未透露重大轉變，卻也多線穿插的現象，正與此不相違逆。因此，即使肯定「情」確實為湯氏戲劇文本的關鍵詞，還需釐清其如何作為關鍵詞才有意義。經由對「情」與「理」、「情」與「法」、「情」與「想」、「深情」與「智骨」等範疇在具體文脈中的分疏，可見湯氏對「情」的界義方式不僅多樣，並且容許矛盾。「情」既可能指向「飛躍」，也可能指向「網繭」；且無論為何，它都和「法」、「想」、「智」等相對端點都共同形成生存張力的結構。
湯顯祖以戲劇之道為「人情之大竇」。「竇」在《禮記》為隱喻用法，到了湯氏筆下，雖然還是隱喻，但《牡丹亭》或「二夢」呈演的戲劇之道，重心則回到「竇」的字面意思，也就是「穴」或「孔竅」上。換言之，隱喻乃反身指向自己。所以如此，應和「情」何以成為關鍵詞有關。湯氏對於「情」的用法，不論彰顯其穿透束縛的性質，或陷入封閉的趨力，都涉及「單一」及「多重」觀點的問題。
如果說《牡丹亭》是以「似怪如妖」的現象表現「天然」，那麼「二夢」則是從凡情世俗的構成，暴露其怪誕虛妄。可以說，《牡丹亭》和「二夢」，前後選取了「情」的相對面來展演「真實」。「世界」是「單一」或「多重」？「真實」是「單一」或「多重」？「孔竅」既區隔不同的時空，也銜接相異的世界。「竇」之兩端，《牡丹亭》表現為「死」、「生」，「二夢」則展演為「夢」、「覺」。戲劇主角進入而後出之，便不再侷限於原本熟悉的「單維」時空、「一個」世界；或者說，「情」都經由「孔竅」而獲得某種照明或轉化。這種表現型態和思考模式，正是湯氏十分特殊之處。
戲劇創作就其對《易經•觀卦》?堙u觀我生」、「觀其生」的關注，不啻為推演「自我」與「世界」間諸多「可能性」又寓「道」於「樂」的場域。透過人物形象、場景意象等的經營，既使得戲劇之外的人生議題和感觸益形「可觀」；但戲劇文本又遠非作者一己順逆及相伴而來的命運感所能規範。易言之，其所謂「駘蕩淫夷」之美，就在能展現豐盈而活潑創化的生機。至於生機在何處？就「荒園」與「湖山石」的意象引申，即共同導向局限和穿越、顯和隱、死與生的辯證。而生機就何而言？從其觀點可以看出一種拆解習常，重視幽隱，並直探究竟真實的傾向。又如何是世界的真實狀態？無論從儒、釋或道來詮釋，所對照者皆為僵化局限或趨向封閉的世故或世態。就此而言，不僅《牡丹亭》，包括《南柯記》和《邯鄲記》，都透露對遠離「真實」之世俗儒者及其觀點的批判。
「戲」固然不同於「經制彝常」，但「遊戲之道」亦關乎嚴肅與神聖。他一方面由「戲神」之「創生」立論，另一方面又自「宜伶」之「抽離」成說。這與其劇作展演「情」與「真實」關係的兩重方式，恰可相互參照。

關鍵字

湯顯祖 ； 情 ； 牡丹亭 ； 南柯記 ； 邯鄲記

並列摘要

Abstract

This paper is written due to interest in when and how “ch’ing”（情） became a value in the traditional culture. Advocacy of“ch’ing”was considered a cultural trend or feature in middle and late Ming Dynasty, and it was largely contributed by T’ang Hsien-tsu（湯顯祖） and his work “Peony Pavilion”（牡丹亭）. However, “Peony Pavilion”, “Nan-k’o Chi”（南柯記）, and “Han-tan Chi”（邯鄲記）, which were written during the same period, showed significantly different themes and styles; especially the expression of “ch’ing” by the main characters was nearly contrary. Does it indicate the change in T’ang’s thoughts? Or is it simply because of different themes? Regardless of the question asked, T’ang treated “ch’ing” as a concept with consistent connotation and compared with “li”（理）. However, based on the analysis of the textual context, the vector and usage of “ch’ing” is difficult to summarize, or described with a single model. In the discourses of “enlightenment” or “anti-tradition”, the view of “ch’ing” in the middle and late Ming Dynasty is reduced. Therefore, this paper does not plan to establish or connect any macro systems, instead, it aims to differentiate and analyze the textual context, in order to explore the relationship between T’ang’s creative thinking and mental development, and explain related questions on “ch’ing”.
Creative thinking refers to the formation, expression, and connotation of focus consciousness, while including the thinking concerning the creative activity. Since it is not only about the mere rational operation, but it also concerns the mental development of writers in response to different situations.
Previous discussion on the culture of late Ming Dynasty by the academia was often based on the background of the prosperity of business and rising of towns after the mid-Ming Dynasty. Audience or readers today often learn about T’ang and his works through Kun opera（崑曲）, as well as publications and comments in southern China during Ming and Qing Dynasties. For T’ang , the Wu（吳） territory in south of the Yangtze River, a “foreign land”（他鄉） and “right side of the Yangtze River”（江右）with different customs and languages, was not only where he registered the residence but also it is a “place” involves “value” and “belongingness”; in another word, the better clarified life energy after middle-aged years of T’ang was implied in his early days.
The literati who came from right side of the Yangtze River once had occupied significant political positions in Ming Dynasty. For T’ang, serving as a government official especially brought romantic senses in achieving chivalrous conducts. He learned from chivalrous experts to establish his position in the world. Since he practiced chivalrous conducts in a political world, he was destined to burden the uncontrollable struggle in a power field. Comparing with “Huo Hsiao Yu Chuan” （霍小玉傳）and “Tzu Ch’ai Chi”（紫釵記）, the obstacle to love was not from influences of family but from complication of power and money. Characteristics of the villain figures are not Li Yi（李益）’s heartlessness but government officer Lu（盧太尉）’s personal monopolization. The story theme is closely correlated with T’ang’s political views and standpoint.
Turning down by Wan Li Emperor（萬曆皇帝） for his frank criticism in 1591A.D, T’ang was frustrated and changed his mindset instead of concentrating on emperor and his ruling world. From chronicle records, Lo Ju-fang（羅汝芳）, Li Chih（李贄）, and Tzu Po （紫柏）had once offered inspiration or had impact on T’ang. Since he was frustrated that his criticism was not accepted, he especially valued these three persons and reconsidered the relationship between himself and the world.
It is worth noting that his creativity reached a peak stage after his mindset switched to the other direction during several years. In addition to “Tzu Ch’ai Ch” that was finished during the time serving as government official in Nanjing around 1587, the “Si Meng” （四夢）that established T’ang’s significant status in literature history includes “Peony Pavilion”, “Nan-k’o Chi”, and “Han-tan Chi” that were completed in 1598, 1600, and 1601, respectively, the first four years he returned hometown from his government post. Through poetry, he searched for his life destination, which is also the issue his opera most concerned about during his prime days. The search for destination is not only the subject of poetry during the four years at hometown. In fact while watching his opera, “ch’ing” is only an element reflecting the subject of chivalrous conduct in “Tzu Ch’ai Chi”; it is until “Peony Pavilion” and “Er Meng” （二夢）that essence of the entire opera is truly accentuated. This differentiation coincides with the transition of T’ang’s mindset.
Although “ch’ing” is the center for guiding action of the leading character in “Peony Pavilion” and “Er Meng”, the totally different story development and interpretation reveal “ch’ing” does not represent the solid value from a fixed angle. While “ch’ing” is indeed the keyword in the context of T’ang’s opera, it is important to clarify how it became the keyword. By analyzing the scope of “ch’ing” and “li”, “ch’ing” and “fa”（法）, “ch’ing” and “hsiang”（想）, “shen ch’ing”（深情） and “chih ku”（智骨） in the specific context, T’ang certainly had numerous ways to define “ch’ing”; “ch’ing” may possibly indicate “infinite” and “limited” in the opposite relationship. Anyway, it would become a life structure with opposite points (e.g. “fa”, “hsiang”, and “chih”).
T’ang Hsien-tsu considered the “way”（道）of “opera god”（戲神） as “Jen Ch’ing Chih Da Tou”（人情之大竇）. “Tou” was used as a metaphor in “Book of Rites”（禮記）. Written by T’ang, it is still a metaphor; yet, the course of opera presented in “Peony Pavilion” and “Er Meng” changes its focus back on the literal meaning of “tou”, which is also “hole” or “opening”. In another word, metaphor points to self; thus, it shall have something to do with how “ch’ing” became the keyword. T’ang used “ch’ing” to indicate the nature of penetrating constraint or being caught in a closed power, which both involve issues with “single” and “multiple” perspectives. Is the “world” “single” or “multiple”? Is the “truth” “single” or “multiple”? “Tou” distinguishes time and space; it also connects worlds that are different. Two ends of “tou” demonstrated in “Peony Pavilion” are “death” and “life”, while in “Er Meng” are “dream” and “awakening”. The leading role of the opera entered and came out instead of living in the familiar “one-dimensional” time and space in the “one” world.
In terms of T’ang, opera may provide a place to present various “possibilities” among “self” and “world”. What, on earth, is the true status of the world? Regardless of the interpretation from Confucianism, Buddhism, or Daoism, all sorts of comparison are rigid confinement or self-contained sophistication. For this, not only “Peony Pavilion”, “Nan-k’o chi” and “Han-tan chi” indicate the criticism to secular scholars who went far away from “liberty”, too.
Establish the theory from “intoxicating creation” of “opera god”, T’ang also suggested theory from “conscious acting” of “Yi actors”（宜伶）. It can be referred to dual methods of demonstrating the relationship between “ch’ing” and “liberty” in his operas.

並列關鍵字

Peony Pavilion ； Han-tan chi

參考文獻

〔明〕湯顯祖著，徐朔方箋校：《湯顯祖全集》（北京：北京古籍出版社，1999）。

王璦玲主編：《明清文學與思想中之主體意識與社會——文學篇（上）（下）》（臺北：中央研究院中國文哲研究所，2004）。

王璦玲：《晚明清初戲曲之審美構思與其藝術呈現》（臺北：中央研究院中國文哲研究所，2005）。

巫仁恕：《品味奢華——晚明的消費社會與士大夫》（臺北：聯經出版公司，2007）。

余安邦：《情、欲與文化》（臺北：中央研究院民族研究所，2003）。