從《李爾王》到豫莎劇《天問》：中國化語境下的教化衝動與改編議題

From King Lear to Questioning Heaven: The Urge to Edify in Chinese Cultural and Linguistic Contexts and Its Issues of Adaptation

臺灣從一九八○年代開始出現以戲曲改編、搬演西方經典，三十多年來已形成一股蓬勃的風潮。其中，可能唯有臺灣豫劇團與莎士比亞著名學者彭鏡禧和戲曲學者陳芳合作的豫莎劇三部曲有發展出一套固定的改編原則。包括二○○九年改編自《威尼斯商人》的《約／束》、二○一二年改編自《一報還一報》的《量．度》與二○一五年改編自《李爾王》的《天問》，都是遵循同一套改編原則：時空移植為中國古代，企圖貼近原著精義，並高度強調語言的文學性。改編者陳芳也從此改編策略衍生，發展跨文化改編的實務運作方法，並以此評論其他莎戲曲，形成改編美學與建構評論理論，值得受到審視。本篇論文第一部分先梳理豫莎劇改編者的意識形態、理論形成與改編策略，審視其改編原則，揭露可能隱藏的假定，並提供不同的思考點，尤其是何謂劇場的語言文學性。第二部分分析《天問》的文本展現與可能的問題，以闡述此改編策略形成不可抑制的「教化衝動」，導致主要人物只能扮演倫常次序上最重要的角色：明君與忠臣；忠臣的刻劃單一，王后的情感強度，與劇本傳達的思想性均因此被削弱。本文第三部分進一步將戲曲的跨文化改編置於臺灣戲曲改革的大脈絡下，來思考改編者「戲曲主體性」的論述與當代觀眾可能的接收回應，再度提出「時代感知」（sensibility）的改編觀點；同時，強調在現代臺灣「此時此地」的時空下，重新思考戲曲主體性的可能內涵。

In the past three decades, Taiwan has witnessed a popular practice of adapting western canonical works into various types of xiqu (traditional opera) performances. Among these numerous adaptations, probably only the three plays of Taiwan Bangzi Opera Company’s Shakespeare’s Trilogy have followed a consistent set of principles of adaptation, developed by their adaptors Perng Ching-Hsi and Chen Fang. These three works, Bond (2009) adapted from The Merchant of Venice, Measure, Measure! (2012) from Measure for Measure, and Questioning Heaven (2015) from King Lear, with the setting transferred to ancient feudal China, strive to be as close to the essence of the original as possible, and aim to achieve a high literary quality due to their great emphasis on the beauty of language in Shakespeare’s works. From these principles, Chen Fang has further developed a system of adapting Shakespeare into xiqu and has applied this system in her critique of other intercultural xiqu performances. Such discourses need to be examined because they are not just adaptation strategies, but have formed a kind of theoretical criticism. In the first part of this article, I examine these principles of adaptation to uncover their hidden assumptions, explore the problems such strategies may cause, and provide different perspectives in terms of what counts as “literary quality” in theatre. In part two, I focus on one specific problem in Questioning Heaven--its urge to edify (or, exhibiting strong didactic intent) in the Chinese linguistic and cultural context. This urge limits the characterization of three main characters, who can play nothing else but loyal court officials and king, the most important in traditional Chinese human relations as taught by Confucius. Thus, the two loyal officials become stereotypes, the emotional intensity of King Lear is reduced, and the thought explored in the play is narrowed. In addition, the urge to edify arises not just from the strategies of using Chinese idioms, but also from what adaptor Chen Fang calls “the subjectivity of xiqu”—in content, following Confucian culture as always expressed in xiqu ; and in performing, renovating the stage conventions within its recognizable frame. In the third and final part of this article, situating Questioning Heaven in the theatrical contexts of Taiwan—that is, the reform of xiqu and its fashionable trend of intercultural adaptation—I propose revisiting modern sensibility as a principle of adaptation, and more importantly, what the content of xiqu subjectivity could be in Taiwan here and now.