漢字文化圈的板塊位移與知識重構：島／國視域下臺灣文學的轉向與明／鄭文學的生成

Migration and knowledge reconstruction of Chinese character cultural sphere: Diversion of Taiwan literature in island- and nation- based viewpoints and literature production during the Ming- and Zheng- period

魏亦均(Yi-Chun Wei)

指導教授 ： 黃美娥

國立臺灣大學/文學院/台灣文學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201703820

摘要

我們要如何理解並闡釋臺灣漢／文學的「起源」？「明鄭文學」等值於「臺灣文學」嗎？我們又能如何理解、定位「明鄭文學」與「臺灣文學」間的意義、關係與價值呢？
為了廓清明鄭文學生成的脈絡與文學史意義，本文將論述的系譜拉至「南明時期」，以明鄭／臺灣文學的脈絡下，重構南明文學場域，進而指出鄭成功及其勢力集團，已主導著南明文學場域的動態與發展。從這個意義上來看，此一時期的南明文學，不論在形式或意義上都應被視為「明鄭文學」。那麼，1662年至1683年間的臺灣文學（只）是明鄭文學嗎？

對此，本文藉由考察「明鄭」文學離開「大陸」後的文學發展，以為「明鄭」文學在廈門、金門與澎湖等「島嶼」一場域的影響下，已然脫離中國文學傳統，開展出別於以往的美學形制。告別中國文學隨後進入臺灣的明鄭文學，同樣也因臺灣殊異的人文、地理與鄭氏滯臺／治臺等現實的影響，在結構與本質性上發生了不可忽視的變革。

總的來說，本文以為「明／鄭」文學的出現，不僅揭示了「臺灣文學」就此轉向漢字文化圈一本質性的變革，更重要的是，臺灣文學也因此「介入」並「重構」了原先以中國、日本、朝鮮等國為主的「漢字文化圈」的文學秩序。換句話說，十七世紀東亞文學的臺灣轉向，事實上涉及了明／鄭文學跨地域、跨語際與跨文化圈生成一背景與脈絡。
在文學跨域流動與知識傳播一重新歷史化的前提下，本文結合文學場域、文化地理、島嶼研究與文化圈等方法，重新廓清明／鄭文學一現象與活動的政治意義與價值。對比於過去論者皆將「明／鄭」文學化約為臺灣文學的起源的論述模式，本文則試圖自臺灣文學中離析出「明／鄭」文學。此一論述與辯證觀點的實踐，即反映在「明鄭文學等值於臺灣文學嗎？」一命題的提出與回應。

關鍵字

明鄭文學 ； 島嶼論述 ； 鄭成功 ； 鄭經 ； 《東壁樓集》 ； 文學史

並列摘要

How do we pinpoint the starting point of Taiwanese literature? Does the literature of the Ming–Zheng period equal Taiwanese literature? How can the relationship between Ming–Zheng and Taiwanese literature be defined?

To clarify the mechanisms and political meaning involved in the production of literature in the Ming–Zheng period, this study examined literature of the southern Ming period, which, according to the investigation conducted in this study, was mostly created in Fujian Province. However, rather than the royal family who symbolized the legitimacy of Ming dynasty in China, it was the rebel force led by Zheng Chenggong in Taiwan that possessed the primary military and political power and anti-Qing sentiment for overthrowing the new dynasty. From the perspective of the mechanisms and political connotations involved in the production of literature in this period, the literature created during the Ming–Zheng period in Taiwan has replaced the literature of the southern Ming period.

However, can Taiwanese literature of the Ming–Zheng period stand as its own entity? The answer not only involves a clear understanding of the transition and division between Taiwanese literature and China-based Chinese literature but also represents an opportunity to redefine the starting point of Taiwan’s own Chinese literature. An examination of literary works during this undefined transition period revealed that drastic change occurred in Chinese literature after it was spread from China to neighboring islands (e.g., Kinmen), long before it entered Taiwan, implying a possible starting (transition) point for literature of the Ming–Zheng period. In addition, after retreating to Taiwan, Zheng and his descendants generated literary works that created a dialectic between China and Taiwan, suggesting a structural disintegration (division) in the traditional literature of the Ming–Zheng period. Therefore, this study suggested that literary works generated during this period must be distinctly categorized as belonging to either the Ming or Zheng period to identity this literary transition or division.

The value of the literature of the Ming–Zheng period and the relation between the literature of these two eras and Chinese literature were reevaluated in this study. Confucianism is the main target of this discussion; academia generally considers literary works and cultural trends created during the Ming–Zheng period as the starting point of Taiwan literature and Confucianism in Taiwan. However, instead of questioning the overall influence of Confucianism on Taiwan literature, this study intended to question the ability of the Zheng regime to develop Confucianism in Taiwan within a fairly short period of 20 years (during which wars, famine, and power struggles were prevalent) when Taiwan was not yet included in the Chinese cultural sphere, and after Zheng burnt his Confucian scholar robes as a gesture of dedication to battling against the Qing army and disregarding his identity as a committed scholar.

This study observed that, compared with the ideologically dominant role of Confucianism, literature of the Ming–Zheng period generated an expression mechanism of the East. Such a mechanism can be traced back to the introduction of the antiwar spirit of eastern Zhejiang to Taiwan. Dong Bi Lou Ji (Collection of Literary Works on the Dongbi Building), written by Zheng’s first son Zheng Jing, can be regarded as reconstruction of this expression mechanism. This study further proposed the concept of dongbiao, which is defined by the dictionary as “beyond the eastern boundary.” This concept does not involve any geographical or political connotations of sinocentrism, but rather is simply used to emphasize the distinction between Ming–Zheng and Taiwanese literature by emphasizing their relative laterality from Chinese literature. Based in Taiwan (then referred to as the Kingdom of Tungning) and traveling around East Asia, Zheng Jing adopted a dynamic and conscious writing strategy that overthrew the literature of the Ming–Zheng period and heralded a turn in Taiwanese literature.

By dividing the literature of the Ming–Zheng period and indicating this change in Taiwanese literature, this study intended to not only illustrate the complex nature of the acceptance of and structural transitions between Chinese, Ming–Zheng, and Taiwanese literature. In addition, this study also suggested the activeness of the literature of the Ming–Zheng period in portraying Taiwan, and the fact that Taiwanese literature successfully entered the literary scene of the Chinese cultural sphere in an atypical manner through its own production mechanism.

並列關鍵字

the Literature of Ming–Zheng period ； Dong Bi Lou Ji ； Discussion of Island ； History of Literature

參考文獻

徐鼒，《小腆紀年》（臺北：臺灣銀行經濟研究室，1962）。

巴蘇亞．博伊哲努（浦忠成），《臺灣原住民族文學史綱》（臺北：里仁，2009）。

毛一波，《南明史談》（臺北：臺灣商務，1970）。

王璦玲、胡曉真編，《經典轉化與明清敘事文學》（臺北：聯經出版，2009）。

王璦玲編，《明清文學與思想中之主體意識與社會．文學篇下》（臺北：中研院文哲所，2004）。