張竹坡評點《金瓶梅》的態度：對金聖歎的繼承與演变

Chang Chu-p‘o's Attitude in Critiquing the Chin P‘ing Mei: Continuity and Development from Chin Sheng-t‘an

《金瓶梅》的版本有三種。第一種是最早刊行的附有萬曆四十五年（1617）弄珠客序的《新刻金瓶梅詞話》版本，一般被稱為詞話本。第二種是對詞話本的本文有所改動並附有簡單評點的《新刻繍像批評金瓶梅》版本，一般被稱為崇禎本。（但關於該版本的刊行年代有不同意見）。最後一種是清代張竹坡附評點的所謂的第一奇書本,也就是張評本。該版本後來成了最為普及的《金瓶梅》版本。第一奇書本的最早刊本題為《皋鶴堂批評第一奇書金瓶梅》，有康煕三十四年（1695）的序文。根據王汝梅先生的研究可知，扉頁上印有「彭城張竹坡批評金瓶梅／第一奇書／本衙蔵板翻刻必究」的字樣、且各回前有總評的版本就是第一奇書本的祖本。王先生還提出，大連圖書館所藏的本衙藏板本是第一奇書本的初刻本，因為小說正文前所附的《金瓶梅寓意説》一文的末尾有其他的版本裡見不到的227字。不過，後來宋真榮先生指出，首爾梨花女子大學圖書館藏本中也有這些字。第一奇書本除了回前總評以外，正文中還含有夾批、眉批和旁批。另外前面還有〈序（謝頤）〉、〈竹坡閒話〉、〈金瓶梅寓意説〉、〈苦孝説〉、〈第一奇書非淫書論〉、〈第一奇書金瓶梅趣談〉、〈雜錄〉、〈冷熱金針〉、〈批評第一奇書金瓶梅讀法〉、〈凡例〉、〈第一奇書目〉等（有些版本未收錄以上部分文章或收錄的順序不同）。作為張竹坡評點的底本我們本應該採用大連圖書館的藏本系統，但這些版本並未影印發行，筆者也尚未親見此套版本，所以本文姑且用王汝梅先生的以吉林大學圖書館藏本為底本進行校訂的排印本進行討論。 日本國內關於金聖歎之《水滸傳》評點的研究比較多，對張竹坡的《金瓶梅》評點卻還幾乎未被研究過,就筆者所見彷彿僅有澤田瑞穂先生于1969年發表過一篇名為〈批評第一奇書金瓶梅讀法〉（後文簡稱〈讀法〉）的文章。澤田先生認為：「當然這不是現代意義上的作品論，而且他也沒有提出能揭示這部小說之本質的敏銳的見解」。相比之下，大陸和美國的學術界對張竹坡的關心比日本強得多：在大陸有研究張竹坡的專著出版；在美國，芮效衛（David T. Roy）先生早在1970年代就指出張竹坡在中國文藝批評史上佔有很重要的地位。無論如何，張竹坡對《金瓶梅》的評點，不僅在作為四大奇書之一的《金瓶梅》的解釋史上意義重大，而且在對後代讀者的影響力上也有著不容輕視的意義。 為了正確地把握張竹坡的《金瓶梅》評點，最好的參照系無疑是對張竹坡產生了巨大影響的金聖歎之《水滸傳》的評點。兩個評點所針對的是不同的兩部小說，我們無法比較他們的解釋內容本身，但如果關注兩個評點家的著眼點，幷對他們在評論時預設為前提的一些想法進行比較，就會發現看似相似的評點方式間實際上存在著某些明顯的差別。特別是關於他們所設想的在作品形成過程中作者的作用，二者的明顯差距是非常值得注意的。本論文將從對這一差距的探討出發，力求描述出張竹坡評點的一些特徵，幷討論造成這些差距的背景因素。

T According to the biography written by his brother, Chang Chu-p‘o 張竹坡 (1670–98) published a critique of the Chin P‘ing Mei 金瓶梅 because he thought that after the death of Chin Sheng-t‘an 金聖歎 (1608–61) few people were aware of the fine quality of the construction of this novel. In his critique, Chang followed the pattern of forms and terminology used in Chin's critique of the Shui-hu chuan 水滸 傳, although some differences in perspective did exist between the two critics. Chin had insisted that every literary masterpiece is finely and tightly (ching-yen 精嚴) constructed—from elements such as characters and wording to the structure of the work as a whole—according to the principle of organization (fa 法), and as a result all such works can be understood by means of one particular method of analysis. He placed a higher value on the Shui-hu chuan than on the Shih-chi 史記 because the plot of the text (wen 文) of the former develops on its own, without being constrained by the preexisting events (shih 事) that it depicts, whereas the text of the latter serves specifically to elucidate fixed historical events. Chin also stated that Shih Nai-an 施耐 庵 was able to depict various fictional characters in the Shui-hu chuan so realistically because he moved his state of mind (tung hsin 動心) in order to identify with the characters as he was writing. Chang, on the other hand, asserted that it was inadequate to read the Chin P‘ing Mei simply as a piece of text; instead the reader must read it as his own novel, the plot of which he is working out, in order to gain a complete grasp of the author's intentions. In Chang's critique, the author is presented as a manager who controls every detail of the novel through his intentions (i 意); the success of the character depictions is also dependent upon the author's understanding of his characters' emotions and reasoning (ch‘ing-li 情理). Thus, his image of the author is more that of a technician than Chin's. The difference between the two critics is also made clear in Chang's approach in comparing the Chin P‘ing Mei with the Shih-chi. Unlike Chin, he made no distinction between higher and lower literary values, and he simply compared the degree of difficulty in composing these two works. As background factors in these differences, besides the change in literary trends that took place from the late Ming 明 to the early Ch‘ing 清 and placed a high value on concrete discussion instead of inner intuition, we can point to Chang 's unsuccessful experience of attempting to write a book about the ways of the world (shih-ch‘ing shu 世情書). By pointing out the author's novelistic process of controlling the work through intention and technique, he may be indicating his yearnings for a talented author and his wish for self-expression. His sometimes far-fetched interpretations were, at least in his own mind, serious attempts to affirm that the secret of creation lay within his reach.