論明代曲話對康海、王九思之評議

The study of Kang hai and Wang jiu-si’s comment in the Ming Dynasty dramatic commentary

盧柏勳(Po-Hsun Lu)

康海 ； 王九思 ； 明代曲話 ； 戲曲理論 ； 戲曲史 ； Kang Hai ； Wang Jiusi ； Ming Dynasty dramatic commentary ； theory of Chinese opera ； history of Chinese opera

漢學研究集刊

22期（2016 / 06 / 01）

75 - 110

繁體中文

在明代曲話中，常有將康海與王九思合併評論的現象。本文主要在研究諸曲論家對康海、王九思之評議，結合理論與作品，使兩者相互映證，以釐清諸家評議之是非曲直。主要探討方向可區分為三：其一，評康、王劇曲之諷刺旨趣。其二，評康、王曲作之音律。其三，評康、王曲作之造語及風格透過三個面向的切入，可更為清楚的揭示康海、王九思在明代曲壇上的成就與定位康海《中山狼》雜劇，與王九思《杜子美沽酒遊春》雜劇，在明代曲話中，多被認定為寄寓諷刺，且有所影射的曲作，然筆者就文獻史料及交遊關係考察，認為《中山狼》雜劇並非侷限在專一對象的諷刺。而《杜子美沽酒遊春》雜劇則有指涉，因劇中詞彙與現實有過多巧合，難以不令人加以聯想。康、王兩人雖講求度曲須熟諳音律，卻不免缺失，如在用韻與字聲方面李開先、王世貞俱有指正，務使音律和諧美聽；在句法與對仗方面，王驥德批評王九思【雙調．水仙子】〈席上對雪次韻〉；末三句對仗不整，筆者檢閱曲譜格律與《全元散曲》後，認為王九思將不需對仗之處，刻意錘鍊，反不工穩。關於康、王曲作之造語及風格之評議，曲論家之意見，大抵可析分為揚王抑康與康、王不分軒輊兩方。主張王九思高於康海者，認為康海造語豪放，用典蕪雜，欠缺修飾，王九思則內斂蘊藉，精於構思。主張康、王不分軒輊者，則將兩人併論，稱許為當代名家，以為各有短長。

In Ming Dynasty dramatic commentary, Kang Hai and Wang Jiusi were often combined in commentary. This article mainly seeks to research the commentary on Kang Hai and Wang Jiusi by various dramatic commentators, in conjunction of theory and the works so that they can serve as mutual evidence to clarify the rightness or wrongness of the commentary. There are three main areas of exploration: first, to comment the satirical subjects in Kang and Wang’s opera; second, to evaluate the musical pitch of Kang and Wang����s qu; third, to evaluate the linguistic creation and styles of Kang and Wang’s qu. The engagement with these three dimensions can more clearly reveal the accomplishments and orientation of Kang Hai and Wang Jiusi in the qu field during the Ming dynasty. Kang Hai’s The Wolf of Zhongshan variety show and Wang Jiusi’s Du Fu Buys Wine and Roams in the Spring variety show had generally been considered in Ming Dynasty dramatic commentary to be satire with allusions. However, based on literature and historical materials and on investigations of their relationships, it is the author’s belief that The Wolf of Zhongshan variety show was not limited to satire of a fixed subject. As for the allusions of Du Fu Buys Wine and Roams in the Spring variety show, there were too many coincidences between terms in the opera and reality, thus making it difficult to avoid associations. Although Kang and Wang both emphasized familiarity with musical pitch in writing qu, but there were inevitable shortfalls in rhymes and word sounds. Li Kaixian and Wang Shizhen both pointed out corrections in an effort to make the musical pitch harmonious and aurally pleasing. In terms of sentence pairing structures, Wang Jide criticized Wang Jiusi’s [Two Melodies, Water Fairy] “Reply Rhyme on the Mat to the Snow” for poor pairing. After reviewing the musical notation and The Complete Collection of Yuan Dynasty Qu, the author believes that Wang Jiusi had deliberately rewritten places that did not need to be paired, resulting in unsteadiness. As for commentary on linguistic creation and styles of Kang and Wang’s qu, commentators were generally divided into the view that Wang was better than Kang and the view that Kang and Wang were equals. Commentators who asserted that Wang Jiusi was better than Kang Hai believed that Kang Hai’s linguistic creation was bold, used the classics purely, and lacked embellishment, while Wang Jiusi was reserved and proficient at constructing ideas. Commentators who believed that Kang and Wang were equally good tended to combine them in commentary, referring to them as contemporary elites with different strengths and weaknesses.

1. 王璦玲(1998)。明清抒懷寫憤雜劇之藝術特質與成分。中國文哲研究集刊，13
   連結：
2. 陳靝沅(2009)。失序之抗衡─王九思曲作中的兩種歸隱。戲劇研究，3
   連結：
3. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
4. (2003)。續修四庫全書。上海:上海古籍出版社。
5. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
6. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
7. (1966)。孤本元明雜劇。台北:台灣商務印書館。
8. (2002)。續修四庫全書。上海:上海古籍出版社。
9. (1984)。元曲研究。台北:里仁書局。
10. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
11. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
12. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
13. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
14. (1997)。四庫全書存目叢書。台南:莊嚴出版社。
15. (2002)。續修四庫全書。上海:上海古籍出版社。
16. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
17. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
18. (1959)。中國戲曲論著集成。北京:中國戲劇出版社。
19. (1983)。文淵閣四庫全書。台北:台灣商務印書館。
20. (1983)。文淵閣四庫全書。台北:台灣商務印書館。
21. (1997)。四庫全書存目叢書。台南:莊嚴出版社。
22. (1997)。四庫全書存目叢書。台南:莊嚴出版社。
23. (2002)。續修四庫全書。上海:上海古籍出版社。
24. (1983)。文淵閣四庫全書。台北:台灣商務印書館。
25. （清）顧起綸：《國雅品》，台北：國家圖書館善本書室，明萬曆元年（1573）勾吳顧氏奇字齋刊本、增補本
26. (2002)。續修四庫全書。上海:上海古籍出版社。
27. 明 王九思(1976)。渼陂集。台北:偉文圖書出版社有限公司。
28. 明王九思、沈廣仁點校(1985)。碧山樂府。上海:上海古籍出版社。
29. 明李開先、卜鍵箋校(2004)。李開先全集。北京:文化藝術出版社。
30. 明康海、明沈泰輯編(1979)。中山狼。台北:廣文書局。
31. 明康海、陳靝沅編校、孫崇濤審訂(2011)。康海散曲集校箋。杭州:浙江古籍出版社。
32. 唐杜甫、清仇兆鰲注(1980)。杜詩詳注。台北:里仁書局。
33. 清張廷玉(2010)。明史。台北:臺灣商務印書館。
34. 清錢謙益(1961)。列朝詩集小傳。台北:世界書局。
35. 汪超宏(2006)。明清曲家考。北京:中國社會科學出版社。
36. 金寧芬(2004)。康海研究。武漢:崇文書局。
37. 青木正兒、王古魯譯、蔡毅校訂(2010)。中國近世戲曲史。北京:中華書局。
38. 俞為民編、孫蓉蓉編(2009)。歷代曲話彙編─新編古典戲曲論著集成。合肥:黃山書社。
39. 徐子方(2003)。明雜劇史。武漢:崇文書局。
40. 陳貞吟(2006)。試論康海散曲與雜劇的思想呈現。輔仁國文學報，增刊
41. 曾永義(1994)。明雜劇概論。台北:學海出版社。
42. 隋樹森輯(2004)。全元散曲。台北:漢京文化事業有限公司。
43. 黃仁生(1988)。論王九思及其雜劇創作。中國文學研究，02
44. 鄭雅寧(2011)。王九思《杜甫遊春》雜劇志士品格．詩人情懷．曲家本色。寶雞文理學院學報（社會科學版），02
45. 鄭騫(2008)。北曲新譜。台北:藝文印書館。
46. 蘇育生(1986)。王九思、康海及其雜劇。唐都學刊，02