《中原音韻》「的本」與「翻切圈註」本考辨──兼談對元明填詞度曲之意義 =An Investigation of Diben and Fanqie quanzhu Editions of Zhongyuan yin yun --their Significance to Lyrics Writing and Composition in the Yuan and Ming Dynasty

Abstract

本文運用周德清(1277-1365）《中原音韻》瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏元刊本(簡稱瞿本）與明刊訥菴本(1441）相互校勘，統稱「的本」。再運用明王文璧(約1415-1504年以後）《中州音韻》(1503-1504）與《重訂中原音韻》(1601）二書勘誤「的本」，統稱「翻切圈註」本。兩種系統有一脈相承的關係，本文擬深入探索，從而宏觀其對元明填詞度曲之意義。 本文第一個層次包含四個議題。其一，逐條舉證十九韻部中，瞿本與訥菴本各有正誤，或皆有訛誤者。從瞿本漫漶訛誤的現象觀察，瞿本較有可能是元刊景本。其二，根據《中州音韻》兩篇序文，考述王文璧據以校正的「故本」是指周德清《中原音韻》；然是否與〈正語作詞起例〉之十五提及「逐一字解註《中原音韻》見行刊雕」有關，則不得而知。再從卜二南序文考述王文璧《重訂中原音韻》墨本並未刊行，直到葉以震(？-？）歷經四年的讎校鐫摹，得以問世。故署題「高安周德清編輯，吳興王文璧增註，古吳葉以震校正」。其三，根據王文璧兩本韻書〈凡例〉考辨其內容體例之異同，兼與周德清《中原音韻》略作比較，彰顯王文璧先後進行「校正」與「增註」之功。其四，略舉翻切圈註本對的本勘誤之功。包括「的本形近而誤、字書查無的本韻字、的本音韻地位不符、的本小韻字音字形重出」等四種現象。這些都是隱藏在翻切圈註之中，必須與的本逐字校勘，並深入考察音韻語料，方足以分析校正勘誤的音理。 本文第二個層次是從曲韻韻書史的角度，探究的本與翻切圈註本對元明填詞度曲之意義。周德清編撰《中原音韻》，強調以中原正音創作北曲，入派三聲亦為作詞廣其押韻而設，建構北曲度曲體系具有開創地位。王文璧翻切圈註本因兼具「音切釋義」之特質，成為明代劇作家與度曲家重現北曲的語音圭臬。這是本文探索《中原音韻》的本與翻切圈註本相關議題時，在戲曲音韻跨領域研究中獲得的重要成果。

This paper collates the edition of Zhou Deqing's (1277-1365) Zhongyuan yin yun(《中原音韻》), housed at Tongjian Library(銅劍樓) by Qu Tieqin in the Yuan(Qu edition thereafter), with the naan(訥菴) edition in the Ming. Both editions are generally called diben(的本). In addition, Ming scholar Wang Wenbi's (1415-1504?) Zhongzhou yin yun (《中州音韻》[1503-1504])and Re-collation of Zhongyuan yin yun (《重訂中原音韻》[1601]), both called fanqie quanzhu(翻切圈註) edition, are used to correct diben. The two types of editions are traceable to the same stock. Based on the collations and annotations, this paper explores these editions' significances to lyrics writing and composition in the Yuan and Ming dynasty through a panoramic view. The first level of this paper conducts four issues. The first issue lists the correctness and wrongness of Qu and naan editions in the nineteen rhyming categories. The observation of Qu edition's wrongness suggests that his version could be a duplicate from the Yuan dynasty. Secondly, according to the two prefaces in Zhongzhou yin yun, Wang Wenbi's work is a collation on Zhou's. Moreover, a preface by Pu Ernan confirms that Wang's Re-collation of Zhongyuan yin yun was not published until the four-year proofreading and woodblock copying by Ye Yizhen(?-?). The Annotation, therefore, is titled "Edited by Gaoan's Zhou Deqing, annotated by Wuxing's Wang Wenbi, and proofread by Guwu's Ye Yizhen." Thirdly, compared with Zhou's original copy and the differences between Wang's two books on the basis of fanli(凡例), this research highlights Wang's contribution to his collation and annotation on Zhou's. Fourthly, the achievement of fanqie quanzhu edition for correcting diben is enumerated as well. From the view of history of Chinese phonetic dictionary, the second level looks into the significance of diben and fanqie quanzhu editions to lyrics writing and composition. Zhou's work tends to rectify the sounds of zhongyuan(中原[central plains]) for the composition of the northern Chinese traditional opera. That the entering tone was recategorized into other three tones was accordingly initiated for rhyme; he thus founded a composition system for the northern Chinese traditional opera. Besides, thanks to their quality “separating sounds to give meanings,” Wang's works became the phonetic norm for reproducing the northern Chinese traditional opera and the composition of Ming operas. This is an essential observation when engaging in related issues on diben and fanqie quanzhu editions in the interdisciplinary research of phonology of Chinese traditional operas. (Translated by Huang-Lan Su, Ph. D Candidate, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)