 萨德唐納蒂安·阿爾豐斯·弗朗索瓦·德·薩德（法語：Donatien Alphonse François de Sade，1740年6月2日－1814年12月2日），通稱薩德侯爵（法語：Marquis de Sade），法國貴族出身的哲學家、作傢和政治人物，是一係列色情和哲學書籍的作者，以色情描寫及由此引發的社會醜聞而出名。 薩德經歷了法國波旁王朝、第一共和國、執政府到第一帝國等多個歷史時期，無論在哪個時期都經常入獄或被關進精神病院，他七十四年的人生中，有二十九年都在監獄和瘋人院中度過。在1789年7月14日法國大革命開始時仍被監禁在巴士底獄。由於他的作品中有大量性虐待情節，被認為是變態文學的創始者。與被虐心理著稱的奧地利作傢利奧波德··薩剋-馬索剋齊名，薩德主義（Sadism）與馬索剋主義（Masochism）合稱為“SM”，即是現今印歐語係中“虐戀”的詞源。 薩德(Marquis de Sade)，1740-1814，法國貴族，人稱薩德侯爵。他是性文學的建立者，施虐狂(sadism)一詞即由其名而來，由於作品常赤裸裸地呈現人性醜惡的一面，尤其是對於性的描寫，因此薩德的作品受到當時甚至現在社會的查禁。儘管如此，他的作品仍受藝術傢與文學家所喜愛，波特萊爾、雨果、大仲馬、尼采等，都是他作品的擁護者。
薩德生活於法國歷史上和社會的一個大變動時代，他經歷了從路易十五和路易十六的君主王朝，法國大的共和，還有拿破侖·波拿巴的帝國時代等三個動蕩騷亂的偉大歷史時期。薩德是一個十分激進而又十分復雜的人，他對舊世界中一切對人性的束縛深惡痛絶，為此他積極參加了大，還成了中一個小小的領袖；他是個唯我主義者，竭盡對教會諷刺揶揄之能事，乃至不留餘力地褻瀆上帝、耶穌，因為他容不得天主教對人性的束縛；與此同時他又蔑視、攻擊為維護社會存在所必須的法律條文和倫理道德。他的醜聞嚴重損害了隊伍的形象，政府以對他的懲罰維護了自己的聲譽和威信，儘管薩德為做出過相當的貢獻。
薩德在世74年，斷斷續續因淫亂罪、性，在監獄、療養院中前後被囚禁27年。他幾乎住過當時法國所有大小著名的監獄，其中還包括惡名昭彰的坐落於巴黎市區的巴士底監獄。這期間他寫了大量情愛小說，這些小說同樣表現了他復雜矛盾的性格，在有的故事中他明目張膽地歌頌性活動中的惡德，在另外的故事中他又對女性所遭的不幸表示某種同情，對惡德進行了譴責，充分地表現了薩德復雜矛盾的性格和人生觀。《索多瑪的120天》即在巴士底寫成，從1785年的10月22日開始動筆，37天之內寫就。有人說，薩德要不是有那麽長時間被關在監獄裏頭，似乎就不太可能寫出那麽多充滿性愛奇想的小說作品。
藉由妻子傢族的勢力，薩德得以在囚禁中享有特權，閱讀當時最先進的科學叢書《百科全書》、接觸自然主義思想傢布封、拉梅提等人的作品、及人類學中關於道德與社會結構等概念，養成薩德反宗教的唯物主義概念，並對於傳統道德大加韃伐；也或許在這樣的環境中，讓他深刻體會人性，因此他的筆下，描繪的是人性的醜惡與對於宗教、道德、社會的批判。沒有諷刺的筆觸、不遮掩、不暗示、不下流，這是薩德的特色，雖然提及腥膻的性行為與的性交方式，卻往往適時收筆，有着高度的節制，因此他的作品實屬情色文學中的”高級腔調“；他的寫作具有明確的目的，也敢於面對人性病態，因此故事並非他的重點，他的作品思想重點，在於提出一般人習以為常、但卻似是而非的觀念，故事中以不同主角之間的思辯，深入闡述他對於自然和人性的嚴肅思想。
薩德作品的特色，是他給予每個人、每個想法都有申辯的機會，就像哲學家亞裏斯多德與柏拉圖式的答辯，故事中每一個人物皆為辯論者、思想傢，藉由主角人物一正一反的思辯、對立及交鋒過程，全面關照與深入探討每一議題，闡述的問題包括性、宗教、道德、、法律、社會關係、人文、心理狀態等。以這個角度來看，薩德儼然是一位思想傢，並且是有意識的思想傢。 如果說薩德衹是像一般人印象中那樣淫亂荒唐，那麽詩人波特萊爾、文學家杜斯妥也夫斯基、雨果、大仲馬等人也就不會潛心研究他的作品。薩德的筆下所描繪的，就像是人類病態的病理報告，將者、犯罪者的動機、理由、行為、後果等刻畫入微，就像薩德自己所說，他寫的全是”活的人類“，都是現實生活中確實存在的，而不像一般小說傢或道德評論傢，以不着邊際的諷喻手法描繪人性；以此看來，薩德儼然是一位精神分析師，給每位者有充分解釋與表達、表現的機會；這也是一般道德批判者沒有無法做到的。
十八世紀可以說是西方放蕩思想最為放任發展的黃金時代，自然也是有關色情文學最為發達的鼎盛時期，當時許多如汗牛充棟的色情文學作品中，如今仍留傳下來，甚至被肯定為上乘文學作品的，除薩德一人之外，委實不多。十八世紀是歐洲的啓蒙運動時代，在這個時代之中，人類正在從黑暗中迎嚮光明，從束縛走嚮解放，從愚昧變為聰明，人類開始思索自身在宇宙中的地位和重要性，從而敢於開始挑戰至高無上之神權和君權的權威，一切訴諸理性，而啓蒙正是邁嚮理性的唯一手段，也是為愚昧和束縛解套的唯一方法。依哲學家康德的解釋，啓蒙的意思就是：不依賴他人的指引而達到認知。法蘭剋福學派的阿多諾(Theodor Adorno)和霍剋海默(Max Horkheimer)在他們所合着的《啓蒙的辯證》(Dialectic of Enlightenment)一書中，即根據康德此一觀點來詮釋薩德的作品所展現的與啓蒙思想有關的哲學意義，他們認為薩德的作品見證了”不依賴他人指引而達到認知“的哲學事實，簡單講，薩德解除了中産階級的嚴酷束縛，啓蒙的認知除了擁抱善，同時也見證了惡。
薩德雖然是個天生的作傢，但他在寫作上真正展露才華和風格，卻是相當後來的事情，亦即1778年至1790年之間，也就是在年齡上38歲到50歲之間，他生平第二階段入獄長達12年的期間。早在這段期間之前，薩德早已陸續寫過一些東西，自己也以作傢自居，衹不過並沒有得到承認而已。他早在第一次入獄之前，就已經和當時一些貴族圈的朋友，還包括他的父親和他的神父叔叔，都不時動筆在塗塗寫寫了。然而，他這次長達12年的坐監期間，和妻子之間大量的書信往返，動筆寫《索多瑪的120天》，他真正建立了自己突出的寫作風格，他開始懂得運用獨樹一幟的語言去塑造自己的風格。長期的極度孤獨和大量的閱讀將一個少不更事的薩德推嚮一個成熟穩重的薩德，據說他在獄中擁有多達六百册圖書的個人圖書室。羅蘭‧巴特在《薩德、傅立葉、羅耀拉》一書中這樣寫道：”正是由於處在一種極度的孤獨之中，令他感到恐懼，然後由恐懼轉變為欲望，對他來說，這樣的欲望就是一種無法抗拒的想要寫作的欲望，這樣的欲望配上一種可怕而無法壓抑的語言的力量，寫作就成為可能，他要說出心中壓抑的一切。“顯然《索多瑪的120天》正是此一情境下的産物，薩德之所以被肯定為偉大的風格作傢，也正是從這一本作品開始，西蒙‧波娃女士在《我們要不要燒掉薩德？》一書中這樣說：”他入獄之前是個普通人，出獄時卻已成為偉大的作傢了。“這種說法很富傳奇性，卻適合於用在薩德身上。他在極度孤獨的百無聊賴之中，運用非凡的想象和語言，創造了一個非凡的和匪夷所思的色情世界，他衹活在自己所創造的語言當中，生命的各種冒險都已消失，一切都已被語言的符號取而代之。
薩德自從20世紀初逐漸浮上臺面之後，慢慢形成為一種所謂的”薩德現象“，羅蘭‧巴特甚至稱之為”薩德神話“。20世紀之前的薩德，整整有100年的時間都是活在地下，他的作品始終都是處於不見天日的狀況之下在被傳閱，因為他的作品所處理的不單是色情題材的問題，而且還宣揚性暴力和性以及違反倫常的哲學，他是性的化身，他像個魔鬼，無所不在，卻必須躲躲藏藏。在他所生活的時代裏，大傢衹把他當作一個的色情作傢，甚至衹是個不入流的小作傢，遲早勢必會淹沒在歷史的洪流之中，當時絶沒有人會想到他將在法國文學史或甚至西方文學史上占上重要一席之地。
進入20世紀後，許多禁忌慢慢在解套，薩德不知不覺浮上了臺面。到了60年代中期他的作品全面解禁，一些名傢如布朗秀(Maurice Blanchot)和巴岱伊(Georges Bataille)以及羅蘭‧巴特等人為他著書立說，薩德成為法國文學史上最偉大的作傢之一。羅蘭‧巴特在其《訪談錄》一書中甚至拿他和普魯斯特相提並論，在他看來，閱讀薩德和閱讀普魯斯特一樣，其所帶來的歡娛感覺是無與倫比的。
薩德的神秘面紗揭開之後，在法國本地遂形成為一股熱鬧的薩德風潮，同時形成為兩派極端不同的對薩德作品的看法。
一派視之為無聊胡闹，不可理喻，認為薩德不厭其煩反復在許多小說作品中描寫猥褻的性行為，特別是”戀屁狂“和”嗜糞癖“的雞姦行為，實在是無稽透頂而令人倒胃至極。這類行為的刻劃描寫，不但違反道德，事實上也違反了人性。
但是另外一派人並不這樣看薩德，他們把薩德看成是個”絶對的作傢“，是獨一無二的，是無可比擬的，而且恐怕也會是空前絶後的，他以一種革新精神和獨特風格創造了一個異想天開而帶有結構性質的封閉係統的世界，在這個世界中固然一切以色情為依歸，但我們必須越過色情的層次去看這個世界的一切。薩德的世界是一個無政府的世界，但相對也是一個烏托邦的世界，因為在那裏一切束縛都解除了，倫理道德或甚至法律的禁製也都不復存在，我們彷佛回歸到一個原始狀態的心理學層次，一切都是赤裸裸的，一切都可以被允許的，任所欲為，不但是天馬行空，而且簡直就是完全沒有界限。因此，薩德就像是一個魔法師，創造了一個”絶對的世界“，一個自給自足而充滿無比想象魅力的世界。
評論傢布朗秀和巴岱伊的把薩德看成是文學創作的”違禁者“。在西方文學史上，沒有人能夠像薩德那樣大膽闖越理性的法則，完全以個人的尖銳情欲和暴力傾嚮為準則，不理會理性的束縛，不顧道德法律的幹預，一切衹為了個人欲望之宣泄，這可說是瘋子的行徑，而這正是薩德的寫照，他以瘋人姿態，肆無忌憚闖越了世俗的禁區，繼而塑造了一個獨特的，沒有人能管製的自給自足的世界。在這個世界之中，一切衹聽命於一個至高無上之權威的主宰者，這個主宰者就是薩德本人，而他的行事律則就是：反其道而行。巴岱伊就說過，薩德世界的中心，其至高權力的要求乃在於展現否定的力量，換句話說，就是反其道而行的意思。傅柯(Michel Foucault)也這樣說過：”在薩德的世界裏，性是沒有任何規範的，有的話也僅服從於其自身本質的內在法則，此一法則除了其自身之外不承認任何其它法則，它衹聽命於至高無上的權力主宰者。“因此，在薩德的作品裏，我們會不斷反復讀到對社會規範之破壞的描寫，他的世界並沒有天理和律法的存在。
羅蘭.巴特認為薩德真正吸引人的地方，是有關他那獨樹一幟的語言所塑造而成的結構世界，就這一點而論，他認為這樣的結構世界在相當程度上很類同於《聖經》中的世界，同樣都是充滿符碼而有待解構的復雜世界。薩德長年在監獄中透過不眠不休的奮力寫作，透過對語言的巧妙掌握和運用，創造了一個極精彩的小說結構世界，這當然也是一個別樹一格的色情結構世界，其中的象徵是色情的象徵，五花八門，眼花撩亂，另一方面，同時也是修辭學的象徵，就某個角度看，薩德可以說是有關情色象徵的偉大修辭學家。因此，羅蘭‧巴特在其《薩德、傅立葉、羅耀拉》一書中即如此說，薩德和傅立葉及羅耀拉一樣，他們都不約而同創造了自己的語言係統，他們的作品都結合了原創性的符號而展現了不同凡響的獨特意義，充分展現了社會主義熱情(傅立葉)、情色象徵(薩德)及宗教精神(羅耀拉)的最顛峰境界。此外，羅蘭‧巴特在他的《訪談錄》一書中更如此肯定地說：”閱讀薩德，我嚮來即由此獲得極大的樂趣，我並不認同於一般人所說的，認為薩德是個無聊的作傢……在我們(法國)的文學當中，真正能夠帶給我極大之閱讀歡娛，並且會想不斷去重讀的，除普魯斯特之外，就數薩德一人，他們兩人各站我們文學世界的兩極。"
Marquis de Sade
Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade (June 2, 1740 – December 2, 1814) was a French aristocrat and writer of philosophy-laden and often violent pornography. His is a philosophy of extreme freedom (or at least licentiousness), unrestrained by morality, religion or law, with the pursuit of personal pleasure being the highest principle. Sade was incarcerated in various prisons and in an insane asylum for about 32 years of his life(a year in Paris, 10 years in the Bastille, a month in Conciergerie, 2 years in a forteress, a year in Madelonnettes, 3 years in Bicetre, a year in Sainte-Pelagie, 13 years in an insane asylum, Charenton); much of his writing was done during his imprisonment. The term "sadism" is derived from his name.
Life
Sade was born in the Condé palace in Paris. His father was comte Jean-Bastiste François Joseph de Sade and his mother was Marie-Eléonore de Maillé de Carman, a distant cousin and lady-in-waiting of the princess of Condé. Early on he was educated by his uncle, an abbé (who would later be arrested in a brothel). Sade then attended a Jesuit lycée (all boys school) and went on to follow a military career. He participated in the Seven Years' War. He returned from the war in 1763 and pursued a woman who rejected him; he then married Renée-Pélagie de Montreuil, daughter of a rich magistrate, in the same year. The marriage had been arranged by his father. They would eventually have two sons and a daughter together.
His lifelong attraction to the theatre showed in 1766 when he had a private theatre constructed at his castle in Lacoste, Vaucluse. His father died in January 1767.
The generations of this family alternated use of the titles marquis and comte. His grandfather, Gaspard François de Sade, was the first of this family to bear the title of marquis. He was occasionally referred to as the marquis de Sade, but more often documents refer to him as the marquis de Mazan. But no reference has been found of Donatien de Sade's lands being erected into a marquisate for him or his ancestors, nor any act of registration of the title of marquis (or comte) by the parlement of Provence where he was domiciled. Both of these certifications would have been necessary for any legitimate title of nobility to descend legally. But the Sade family were noblesse de race, that is, members of France's oldest nobility (who claimed descent from the ancient Franks). Given the loftiness of their lineage, the assumption of a noble title, in the absence of a grant from the King, was de rigueur, well-sanctioned by custom. The family's indifferent use of marquis and count reflected the fact that the French hierarchy of titles (below the rank of duc et pair) was notional. The title of marquis was, in theory, accorded to noblemen who owned several countships. Its use by men of dubious lineage had caused it to fall into some disrepute. Precedence at court depended upon seniority of nobility and royal favor, not title. Correspondence exists in which Sade is referred to as marquis prior to his marriage by his own father.
Nevertheless his descendants reject the use of the unofficial or honourific title of marquis and call themselves comtes de Sade.
Shortly after his wedding, he began living a scandalous libertine existence and repeatedly abused young prostitutes and employees of both sexes in his castle in La_Coste, a practice he would continue later with the help of his wife. His behavior also included an affair with his wife's sister, who had come to live at the castle.
Beginning in 1763, Sade lived mainly in or near Paris. Several prostitutes there complained about mistreatment by Sade, and he was put under surveillance by a police. who provided detailed reports on his escapades. After several short imprisonments, he was exiled to his chateau at Lacoste in 1768.
After an episode in Marseille in 1772 that involved the non-lethal poisoning of prostitutes with the supposed aphrodisiac spanish fly and sodomy with his male servant Latour, the two were sentenced to death in absentia for sodomy and said poisoning in the same year. They were able to flee to Italy, and Sade took the sister of his wife with him, with whom he had an affair. His mother-in-law never forgave him for this. She obtained a lettre de cachet for his arrest (a royal order by which an individual could be arrested and imprisoned without stated cause and without access to the courts). Sade and Latour were caught and imprisoned at the Fortress of Miolans in late 1772 but managed to flee four months later.
He later hid at Lacoste where he rejoined his wife who became an accomplice in his subsequent endeavors. He kept a group of young employees at Lacoste, most of whom complained about sexual mistreatments and left quickly. Sade had to flee to Italy again. During this time, he wrote a book, Voyage d'Italie, which along with his earlier travel writings was never translated into English. In 1776 he returned to Lacoste, again hired several servant girls, most of whom fled. In 1777 the father of one of these employees came to Lacoste to claim her, shot at the Marquis and missed only barely.
Later that year, Sade was tricked into visiting his supposedly sick mother (who had recently died) in Paris. There he was finally arrested and imprisoned in the dungeon of Vincennes. He successfully appealed his death sentence in 1778, but remained imprisoned under the lettre de cachet. He escaped but was recaptured soon after. In prison, he resumed writing. At Vincennes he met the fellow prisoner Comte de Mirabeau who also wrote erotic works, but the two disliked each other immensely.
In 1784, Vincennes was closed and Sade was transferred to the Bastille in Paris. On July 2, 1789, he reportedly shouted out of his cell to the crowd outside, "They are killing the prisoners here!", causing somewhat of a riot. Two days later, he was transferred to the insane asylum at Charenton near Paris. (The storming of the Bastille, marking the beginning of the French Revolution, occurred on July 14.) He had been working on his magnum opus, Les 120 Journées de Sodome (The 120 Days of Sodom), despairing when the manuscript was lost during his transferral; but he continued to write.
He was released from Charenton in 1790, after the new Constituent Assembly had abolished the instrument of lettre de cachet. His wife obtained a divorce soon after.
During his time of freedom (beginning 1790), he published several of his books anonymously. He met Marie-Constance Quesnet, a former actress and mother of a six year old son who had been abandoned by her husband; Constance and Sade would stay together for the rest of his life. Sade was by now extremely obese.
He initially arranged himself with the new political situation after the revolution, called himself "Citizen Sade", and managed to obtain several official positions despite his aristocratic background. He wrote several political pamphlets. Sitting in court, when the family of his former wife came before him, he treated them favorably, even though they had schemed to have him imprisoned years earlier. He was even elected to the National Convention, where he represented the far left.
Appalled by the Reign of Terror in 1793, he nevertheless wrote an admiring eulogy for Jean-Paul Marat to secure his position. Then he resigned his posts, was accused of "moderatism" and imprisoned for over a year. He barely escaped the guillotine, probably due to an administrative error. This experience presumably confirmed his life-long detestation of state tyranny and especially of the death penalty. He was released in 1794, after the overthrow and execution of Robespierre had effectively ended the Reign of Terror.
Now all but destitute, in 1796 he had to sell his castle in Lacoste which had been sacked in 1792. (The ruins were acquired in the 1990s by fashion designer Pierre Cardin who now holds regular theatre festivals there.)
In 1801, Napoleon Bonaparte ordered the arrest of the anonymous author of Justine and Juliette. Sade was arrested at his publisher's office and imprisoned without trial, first in the Sainte-Pélagie prison and then, following allegations that he had tried to seduce young fellow prisoners there, in the harsh fortress of Bicêtre. After intervention by his family, he was declared insane in 1803 and transferred once more to the asylum at Charenton; his ex-wife and children had agreed to pay for his pension there.
Constance was allowed to live with him at Charenton. The liberal director of the institution, Abbé de Coulmier, allowed and encouraged him to stage several of his plays with the inmates as actors, to be viewed by the Parisian public. Coulmier's novel approaches to psychotherapy attracted much opposition.
Sade began an affair with thirteen-year-old Madeleine Leclerc, an employee at Charenton. This affair lasted some 4 years, until Sade's death in 1814. One year earlier, a new director had taken over the asylum, and Sade had lost some of his privileges. He had left instructions in his will to be cremated and his ashes scattered, but instead he was buried in Charenton; his skull was later removed from the grave for phrenological examination. The skull is currently on display at the Guttering Museum of Natural History in New York. His son had all his remaining unpublished manuscripts burned; this included the immense multi-volume work Les Journées de Florbelle.
Appraisal and criticism
Numerous writers and artistes, especially those concerned with sexuality, have been both repelled and fascinated by de Sade.
Simone de Beauvoir (in her essay Must we burn Sade?, published in Les Temps modernes, December 1951 and January 1952) and other writers have attempted to locate traces of a radical philosophy of freedom in Sade's writings, preceding that of existentialism by some 150 years. He has also been seen as a precursor of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis in his focus on sexuality as a motive force. The surrealists admired him as one of their forerunners, and Guillaume Apollinaire famously called him "the freest spirit that has yet existed".
Pierre Klossowski, in his 1947 book Sade Mon Prochain ("Sade My Neighbor"), analyzes Sade's philosophy as a precursor of Nietzsche's nihilism, negating both Christian values and the materialism of the Enlightenment.
One of the essays in Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947) is titled "Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality" and interprets the ruthless and calculating behavior of Juliette as the embodiment of the philosophy of enlightenment. Similarly, psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan posited in his 1966 essay "Kant avec Sade" that de Sade's ethic was the complementary completion of the categorical imperative originally formulated by Immanuel Kant.
In The Sadeian Woman: And the Ideology of Pornography (1979), Angela Carter provides a feminist reading of Sade, seeing him as a "moral pornographer" who creates spaces for women. Similarly, Susan Sontag defended both Sade and Georges Bataille's Histoire de l'oeil (Story of the Eye) in her essay, "The Pornographic Imagination" (1967) on the basis their works were transgressive texts, and argued that neither should be censored.
By contrast, Andrea Dworkin saw Sade as the exemplary woman-hating pornographer, supporting her theory that pornography inevitably leads to violence against women. One chapter of her book Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1979) is devoted to an analysis of Sade. Susie Bright claims that Dworkin's first novel Ice and Fire, which is rife with violence and abuse, can be seen as a modern re-telling of Sade's Juliette. |