由反抗到傾斜

Abstract

吳德功為彰化地區宿儒，同治十三年秀才，清領時期在當地文壇及社會工作上都居於領導者的地位，與官方維持著相當良好的關係，是清廷統治下典型的科舉士子。一八九五年的割臺，打破了臺灣社會原有的秩序和權力結構。在「政治」、「文化」兩方面皆認同大清王朝的臺灣人，至此，開始面臨了割裂與抉擇的痛苦。有人黯然西渡，從此不復臺定居；有人見風轉舵，馬上向新政權投誠示好，也有人選擇了獨立建國，武裝抗日，民主國勢力瓦解，武裝抗日成了不可能之後，有人從此閉門不出，拒絕日方的招撫；有人則在幾度痛苦掙札之後選擇了妥協，與日本當局維持目當親近的關係。彰化吳 德功便是屬於「親日文人」中的一員。本文寫作的目的，不是要基於「民族大義」來責求前人；更不是要輕率地區分對方是「抗日文人」或「御用文人」，然後幫他們貼上色彩鮮明的標籤。相反地，筆者希望從過去粗糙的二分法走出來，嘗試透過目前所能掌握的吳德功作品，來了解他如何透過詩文乃至實際作為，表現對日本政權的認同，並進一步追問他的認同是屬於那一層次（政治的或文化的）？而後透過精細的閱讀，嘗試分析作者某些作品中潛藏著不易為人所知的幽微心靈。希以相應的了解去詮釋、解讀其人其作，為「親日文人」作一個比較公正的評價。

WU, Te-Kung is an erudite scholar in Changhua region, a Hsiu Tsai (The lowest scholar degree under the former civil service examination system) in Tung Chih thirteenth year of Ching dynasty. He who served as a leader on local literature circles and society activities during Ching Dynasty, and established excellent relationship with officials, is a typical Ko Chu (the civil service examination system of Ching dynasty)scholar under the governance of Ching dynasty. The ceding of Taiwan terriotory in 1985 broke the original order and authority structure of Taiwan. From now on, the Taiwanese who stood upon the "polity" and "culture" of Ching dynasty began to go through segmentation and alternative. Some people went westward and never went back for settling down in Taiwan; some people acted as the occasion dictates, and voluntarily surrendered to the reins of new government; the others chose independence to establish a nation, and armed resistance against Japanese. Then the domecratic country disintegrated and the armed resistance against Japanese become impossible. After that, some people closed their door and never stepped out to refuse the surrender calling of Japanese government; some people compromised with the enemy after painful struggle over and over, and kept close relationship with Japanese authority. Wu, Te-Kung, a navtive of Changhua, is one of the "Japanese authority. Wu, Te-Kung, a native of Changhua, is one of the "Japan-affiliated scholars." The purpose to write this text is not going to criticise the countryside gentlemen with "national righteousness", and to distinguish unadvisedly someone is a "Japan-resistant scholar" or a"Japan-affiliated scholar" neither, then stamped them with a distinct colorful label. Contrarily, I hope to step out from the former rough dichotomy, trying to realize that how did Wu, Te-Kung show his identity with Japanese authority through his literary works and actual behavior by means of his works which I caugth presently? And qu