同名詞牌、曲牌初論

A Brief Discussion of Same-title Tzu and Qu

10.6973/CJ.200606.0043

林逢源(Forng-Yuan Lin)

詞牌 ； 曲牌 ； tzu ； qu

國文學誌

12期（2006 / 06 / 01）

43 - 79

繁體中文

詞曲同為合樂文學，有淵源關係，同為長短句形式。兩者易生混淆，也有同名問題。本文首先依《康熙詞譜》、《康熙曲譜》兩書索引比對同名牌調，開列〈同名詞牌、曲牌一覽表〉，作為指引。進而將同名同律詞牌曲牌分北曲、南曲兩項各舉類例。同名異律者其原因歸納為：1.別名混淆；2.詞調一牌多體，又有令、引、近、慢之別；3.南曲同一宮調有引子、過曲、慢詞之別；4.宮調不同。餘論概言判斷同名詞牌、曲牌先由句數、韻協入手，進而考平仄、句法、宮調，文末兼及吳梅詞樂說。

Tzu and qu are both compatible to music and both characterized by lines of irregular length; therefore, readers sometimes have difficulty drawing a distinction between the two literary forms, especially when they carry same titles. This paper first compares tzu and qu pieces that carry same titles, based on the indexes of Kang Hsi Collection of Tzu and Kang Hsi Collection of Qu, and compile a ”Same-title Tzu and Qu Pieces Table” as guidance. Second, the author divides same-title and same-pattern tzu and qu works into two categories: Northern Qu and Southern Qu and gives respective examples. Then the paper sums up the four possible explanations for tzu and qu works with same titles but different patterns: (1) the second name of a tzu qu is identical to the formal title of a qu tzu, thus causing confusion; (2) the same title was used in various patterns or forms; (3) ling qu, yin qu, fin qu and man qu have differences; (4) music modes are different. The rest of the discussion includes a brief description of how to differentiate same-title tzu and qu-one should start with comparing the number of lines and rhyming patterns, then study their phonetic tones, sentence structures and music modes. The melody part of music deserves further research.

1. (1984)。善本戲曲叢刊。台北:學生書局。
2. (1971)。散曲叢刊。台北:中華書局。
3. 清陳廷敬、清王奕清(2000)。康熙詞譜。長沙:岳麓書社。
4. 王國維(1993)。宋元戲曲考。台北:里仁書局。
5. 台灣中華書局編輯部(1967)。姜白石詞編年箋校。台北:中華書局。
6. 吳梅(1997)。南北詞簡譜。台北:學海書局。
7. 隋樹森。詞曲研究。武漢:湖北教育出版社。
8. 鄭騫(1973)。北曲新譜。台北:藝文印書館。
9. 龍沐勛(1996)。倚聲學。台北:里仁書局。