顧炎武在《日知錄》中曾有「亡國」、「亡天下」之辨，所謂「亡國」，指一 姓朝代的更迭；所謂「亡天下」，則指華夏道統的淪亡。明清易代，依當時身處易 代之際的士人的感受，顯然不是單純「亡國」的改朝換代，而是有著「亡天下」 性質的天下易主。明清的鼎革世變，對於當時的士夫有著深重的影響，這段特殊 時期的文學創作，涉及「歷史書寫」、「記憶」與「作家自我敘寫」的關聯，本文 之撰寫，即以「記憶」與「敘事」之種種關聯為考量，針對清初劇作中的「前朝 意識」與「易代感懷」之戲劇轉化問題進行探討。其中重要議題如下：清初遺民 如李玉( 1 5 9 1 ? - 1 6 7 1 ? )、王夫之(1619-1692) 等，如何藉由歷史記憶或想像，在其劇 作中寄寓故國之思與民族意識，並鎔鑄出某種普遍的價值觀？如果「書寫」是一 種「自我遺忘」，是一種記憶的「外延」，與記憶的內在化背道而馳，清初劇作家 如吳偉業(1609-1671) 在經歷了自我的幻滅後，如何透過戲劇的敘事策略來展現其 「記憶重塑」的歷程，以尋求自我定位？面對故明之「結束」與清朝之「開始」， 這些劇作家係如何透過其作品中「多重時間結構」的展現，整體地、內在地重組 自己生命中的經驗，賦予自我一種「延續」的生命意識與價值？劇作家如丁耀亢 (1599-1669) 之輩，如何透過記憶性敘事中的「意識雙重化」來表述「故國之思」 與「忠君之忱」的「公」、「私」分際？而稍晚的孔尚任( 1 6 4 8 - 1 7 1 8 )，則又是如何 以戲劇來舖敘其個人記憶，呈現出記憶、歷史想像與永恆「視界」(horizon) 之關 聯，並展示出一種「集體記憶」／「文化記憶」的形塑歷程？

The fall of the Ming was not only a national crisis; it also seemed to contemporaries to mark the dissolution of the Chinese world. The Chinese always experienced complex feelings of being able neither to accept nor reject the Qing, and these contradictory impulses produced the painful and tragic consciousness that was expressed in early Qing drama. This paper takes memory and narrative as points of convergence to explore how these writers employed drama as an intimate vehicle for retaining public and private memories, expressing their lament for the late Ming and their sentiments about dynastic changeover. To explicate the interaction of “m e m o r y,” “h i s t o r i c a l writing” and “self-narration,” it focuses on the plays by Li Yu (1591?-1671?), Wang Fuzhi (1619-1692), Wu Weiye (1609-1671), Ding Yaokang (1599-1669) and Kong Shangren (1648-1718). The i ssues addressed are: How Li Yu and Wang Fuz hi communicated their national consciousness and mourning for the Ming in drama; how, if writing is a way of “self-forgetting” or “self-extension,” the “twice-serving official” Wu Weiye dramatized his “self-justification” through the processes of “remembering,” “forgetting” and “memory rebuilding”; how Ding Yaokang shifted from his lament for the Ming to loyalty to the Qing through the conflict of “d o u b l e - c o n s c i o u s n e s s” i n private and public arenas; and how Kong Shangren reconstructed his life experiences by “memorial narrative” with a triple structure—from the past to the present, from the present to the past, and the eternal present—to demonstrate the formation of cultural and collective memories of the times.