| 摘要: | 明代文學家陳繼儒(1558-1631)曾評點過《西廂記》、《琵琶記》、《幽閨記》、《繡襦記》、《紅拂記》、《玉簪記》等劇作。在署名為「陳眉公」的戲曲評點本中，原為明代書林師儉堂書坊所刻，清代時被修文堂購買，重新印行，彙集六部劇作此次合刊稱為《六合同春》。 本論文從陳眉公的文集和明清文人筆記中，整理有關論述，理析陳眉公思想與劇中評點內涵互相參照。研究範圍以陳眉公評點的《六合同春》為主，依序分析各劇評點內涵及其理論價值。 藉由評點本的評價、比對，和探析評點內容，爬梳其中呈現眉公戲劇學觀點，包括人物形象的塑造、曲白科諢的營造、關目情節的安排、場上觀念的有無等，並與眉公思想相互照應比對，藉以比對研判評語是否有因襲或是偽造的可能。 比對此六劇評點內涵後，可知與眉公的思想主張是相符的，他肯定「至情」、「真情」，以及「奇巧」的文學思想。藉由評點本發抒己見，挖掘劇作家的創作手法、敘事技巧，整理出陳眉公曲評本的戲劇學觀點，可做為補充陳眉公文學理論，也可視為明代評點文學發展的一部份：眉公的戲曲評點不只是著重於曲意鑑賞，也能對關目情節的設計經營有所發揮，這也是其評點的理論價值。 Chen Jiru had criticized drama pieces as follow: Xixiang ji, Pipa ji, Yougui ji, Xiuru ji, Hongfu ji and Yuzan ji. In p’ing-tien named Chen Meigong, the book was originally published by the printing shop Shulin Shijian tang of the Ming, and purchased by Shiuwen tang of the Chin. Being republished, six pieces of criticisms were bound and renamed Liuhe tongchun. Research measure adopted by this study is data analysis. Information are collected through Chen’s anthology and notes made by intellectuals of Ming and Chin. Pertinent discussions are reorganized, and compared with concepts proposed by Meigong. Liuhe tongchun criticized by Chen is included in research scope. Contents of each criticism are analyzed, and the value of these sayings is explored in this study as well. Through evaluations, comparisons and explorations, theatre stances of Chen are investigated, which include personnel image shaped, arias, dialogues, and comic interludes, plots arrangements, etc. Compared with Meigong’s thought, all mentioned segments are examined to check the possibilities of counterfeit or imitation. After comparisons, it is found that these aspects are basically corresponding to Meigong’s thoughts, which recognized the literacy of “true affections”. Stances are revealed through explorations of dramatists’ creations and narrations. Stances concealed in Chen Meigong’s literature theory can be regarded as partial of literature criticism developments in Ming dynasty. Meigong’s criticism focuses not only on play appreciations, but also the plot developments of plays. This is the theoretical value of his criticism. |
