在當代戲曲中重探「孝」之文化意涵：論豫莎劇《天問》

Abstract

《天問》作為豫莎劇三部曲的謝幕作，在改編自《李爾王》的戲曲作品中亦屬較新，相比《歧王夢》和《李爾在此》，學界目前對此劇的研究相對缺乏，而從既有論述中，則可見對劇中使用「孝」之概念的爭議。將《李爾王》中的「愛」(love)、「美德」(virtue)、「服侍」(service)等詞彙翻譯或改編為「孝」字，是否有淪於說教及扭曲原作之嫌？本文比較兩部文本後卻認為不然。首先，在莎士比亞時代的英國，個人自由主義僅在萌芽階段，在傳統君權與基督教的意識形態下，加上父家長對子女財務及婚姻的支配權，其社會價值觀與中國儒家的孝道文化其實相去不遠；呈現其時代限制，不必然等於向當代觀眾說教。其次，將上述詞彙翻為「孝」、「忠」等字眼，非《天問》或彭鏡禧的翻譯所獨有，而在中譯本中甚為常見，且考量戲曲精簡的古典語言風格，比起任何意識形態，貼近戲曲語言程式的需求，會是編劇團隊更主要的衡量標準。 在將《天問》與原作《李爾王》對照之餘，本文亦建立兩道框架，比較《天問》、《歧王夢》、《李爾在此》三部對於《李爾王》的戲曲改編：一是討論三作中對父母輩的刻畫，包含主角之於自身對小女兒的疏遠、同情心之缺乏、或威權式的統治是否帶有悔恨心情等；二是針對作品對不孝子女的塑造，比較三劇如何處理反派子女的行為動機，並從改編策略出發，討論原作中的瘋審橋段、私生子生平背景、及三角愛情是否被保留與或如何被改寫，及這些橋段的處理對於反派角色的觀感影響，並由此延伸討論，各部劇本對於傳統孝道的倫理價值，是否提供了觀者在當代將其重新審視的空間。 三部改編中，《天問》還原原作內涵的意圖最為堅定，其對於原作的詮釋，則貼近早期莎學學者的論述，即強調李爾的精神成長及救贖（而非否定其成長的虛無主義），並偏向對權力架構的重建和革新（而非對其顛覆）。在表演上，《天問》對於兩名長女與母親的衝突之刻畫，展現出了相當的立體度及可信度，而非僅僅是對「不孝女」的妖魔化。然而，從幾則負評中可見，《天問》需在戲曲格律中取捨如此大部頭的原作，劇作家所欲呈現莎劇深度、打破傳統善惡二元對立之意圖，仍受到相當的限制，而主角邠赫拉最後扣題的段段「問蒼天」，反而招來認為她並未成長、在劇末仍要對觀眾說教的解讀。不過，末尾的幕後合唱，將氛圍導向沉靜的思索，收幕前一句後設性的「散場繼續說是非」，將全劇引向開放式的論辯：回顧來看，《天問》引發的對於「孝」的辯題，亦反映了「孝」內部既有的「互惠」及「權威」的二重性，及「傳統集體主義」價值觀與「當代個人主義」的並存及衝突。藉由對《天問》及《李爾王》的思索，除對於當代戲曲革新議題的進一步思考外，或許也能摸索出一條世代之間對話與和解的可能。

As the third of the trilogy of Shakespeare Bangzi operas, Questioning Heaven is relatively new among the xiqu adaptations of King Lear. Compared to the earlier adaptations, King Qi’s Dream and Lear is Here, there has been less research on the play, and the controversy over its use of filial piety could be seen in the existing discussions. Is the translation or adaptation of words such as “love,” “virtue,” and “service” in King Lear into xiao 孝 [filial piety] proper enough, or does such an adaptation thus fall into a didactic lecture or “twist” the play? After comparing the two texts, the author thinks otherwise. Firstly, in Shakespearean England, individualism was only in its infancy. Under the traditional ideology of monarchical power and Christianity, coupled with the dominance of parents over their children’s finances and marriages, the social environment was not that far removed from the Chinese feudal society. Presenting constraints from the period does not necessarily mean preaching values from that era to the contemporary audience. Secondly, the translation of the above words into xiao 孝and zhong 忠 [loyalty] was not unique to Questioning Heaven or Perng Ching-Hsi's translations but quite common in other Mandarin translations of King Lear. Considering the concise classical language style in xiqu, the need to follow the language program of xiqu would be more important to the scriptwriting team than any ideology. In addition to comparing Questioning Heaven with King Lear, I also establish two frameworks for the comparison with King Qi’s Dream and Lear is Here: firstly, to discuss the portrayal of parenthood in these three works, including whether the protagonist’s estrangement from the youngest daughter, lack of sympathy, and authoritative rule is accompanied by a feeling of remorse; and secondly, to compare how these three plays portray the unfilial children, and how they deal with them. Focusing on the portrayal of unfilial children in the works, I compare how the three plays deal with their behavioral motives, whether or how the mock trial scene is adapted, the background of the illegitimate son, and the love triangle, as well as how the treatment of these sequences affects the characterization of the antagonists. From this, I extend the discussion to see if these adaptations have provided the viewers with the reflective space to reexamine traditional filial piety in the contemporary world. Among the three adaptations, Questioning Heaven is the most resolute in its intention to restore the messages in King Lear, with an interpretation closer to that of the early Shakespearean scholars, emphasizing Lear’s spiritual growth and salvation (rather than the nihilism that denies his growth), and favoring the reconstruction and renewal of the power structure (rather than the subversion of it). In terms of performance, rather than a mere demonization of the “unfilial daughters,” the portrayal of the conflict between the two elder daughters and their mother is quite convincing. Despite the playwrights’ intent to showcase the depth in Shakespearean drama and break down traditional dichotomies of good and evil, some negative reviews indicate that the goal is only achieved partially. The adaptation must remove so much of the original work from the metrical framework of xiqu, making it difficult to present it in its fullest form. The protagonist, Bin Hela’s final questioning passage has also led to an interpretation as a didactic lecture, reducing the demonstration of her spiritual growth. However, the chorus at the end of the play leads the atmosphere to quiet contemplation, and the meta-dramatical line “散場繼續說是非” [The audience could continue to discuss the play after they leave the theater] also leads the play to an open debate: In retrospect, the debate on filial piety triggered by Questioning Heaven also reflects the duality of reciprocality and authoritarianism within filial piety, as well as the co-existence of and conflict between the values of traditional collectivism and contemporary individualism. Through the discussion of Questioning Heaven and King Lear, apart from the issue of innovation in contemporary xiqu, a re-evaluation for inter-generational dialogue and reconciliation may also be conducted.