明茅暎評點《牡丹亭》析論

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. 從茅暎評點《牡丹亭》出發，可總結出八項內涵：（一）印象批評；（二）對湯氏主情之說之評點；（三）對湯氏寫作技巧之批評；（四）對臧懋循改本之批評；（五）對湯劇與元雜劇關係之評點；（六）對明代流行語“當行”、“本色”之觀點；（七）對湯劇與唐詩、宋詞之關係之評點；（八）雜評等。將茅暎評點與其同時代之曲家作比較，亦可發現當代曲家大多以“場上演出”之角度著眼，而茅暎則從“案頭欣賞”之觀點出發，所以產生了不同的結論。茅暎之評點觀在明代並非普遍，然就湯顯祖所主張“文以神、色、意、趣爲主”之立場而言，茅暎無愧爲湯氏之知音。而茅暎以案頭文字爲觀點之批評，雖非當代主流，然若從文學史角度看，絕對可與唐詩、宋詞所形成之韻文史相銜接，而成爲文學史在明代韻文中與唐詩宋詞相銜接之關鍵，從而擴大明代文學史之討論範圍；就此點而論，茅暎之評點《牡丹亭》居功厥偉，亦爲其評點中，意義非凡之所在。 This study of Ming-dynasty critic Mao Ying’s comments on The Peony Pavilion consists of eight aspects, namely: (1) impression critique; (2) comments on Tang Xianzu’s (1550-1616) emphasis on love; (3) criticism of Tang’s writing skills; (4) critique of Zang Maoxun’s (1550-1620) revision of the play; (5) comments on the relationship between Tang’s play and Yuan drama; (6) views of the Ming-dynasty popular terms danghang (“professional”) and bense (“original colors”); (7) comments on the relationship between Tang’s play and Tang shi-poetry and Song ci-poetry; and (8) miscellaneous comments. This study compares Mao Ying’s comments with those of his contemporaneous playwrights, arguing that playwrights of his time mostly focused on stage performance while Mao treated the plays (i.e., the scripts) as “readers for enjoyment” and, thus, they came to different conclusions. The approach of Mao Ying was not common in the Ming Dynasty. However, Mao’s sharing in Tang Xianzu’s advocacy that “the cores of literature include spirit, guise, idea, and aesthetic appeal” shows that he was certainly a true fan of Tang. Although Mao’s comments on the play as a reader were not mainstream at the time, from the perspective of literary history they certainly can be regarded as a continuation of the poetic history formed by Tang shi-poetry and Song ci-poetry and a crucial link that connects Tang-Song poetry with Ming poetry. Hence, the contribution of Mao’s comments on The Peony Pavilion is exceptional and significant.