作　　者： ;

机构地区： 中山大学人文科学学院中国古文献研究所

出　　处： 《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》 2009年第1期76-84,共9页

摘　　要： 《贞文记》,据卷首"题词",成于明崇祯癸未(1643),徐朔方据孟称舜任松阳教谕的行历,考定其成于清顺治十三年(1656)或略后;今传祁彪佳之《孟子塞五种曲序》,实即《贞文记序》,祁氏卒于顺治二年(1645),故此序属于伪托。邓长风则据董康所记述的久保天随旧藏本,认为徐说不能成立。今人多从邓说。笔者目验今存于台湾大学的久保氏旧藏本,认为它与《古本戏曲丛刊二集》之影印本为同一版本,唯尚存封面及祁彪佳"叙"。邓氏之说,系误读董康之语而致;署祁彪佳撰之"叙",确系假托,但当是得到孟称舜本人的首肯,甚至可能即出孟氏自撰。 Zhenwen Ji, one of Meng Chengshun＇s great plays, was acclaimed to be finished in 1643 according to its preface written by the author himself. On the basis of the historical records of the period when Meng serviced as District Instructor in Songyang, Xu Shuofang suggests the play was finished in 1656 or a little later. He also argues that an article known as Preface to the Meng Zisai＇s Five Dramas （Meng Zisai Wuzhongqu Xu ）, written by Qi Biaojia, was actually another preface to the play. Qi committed suicide in 1645, so the preface under his name could not be attributed to him. Deng Changfeng doubts Xu＇s viewpoint by assuming that there was another edition of this play according to Dong kang＇s records. The edition was so rare and precious that few scholars read it. His point seems to have been universally accepted. This essay examines the edition of the play that Deng has mentioned and finds that it is the same edition with the popular one included in the second series of Guben Xiqu Congkan. The difference is just that the former preserves the front cover and Qi＇s preface which are missing in the latter. Therefore, Deng has misinterpreted Dong＇s records and arrived at the wrong conclusion. The essay also discusses the possibility that Meng Chengshun, who took part in the editing work, knew Qi＇s preface was fake one, or even wrote it himself.

关 键 词： 孟称舜 贞文记 祁彪佳

领　　域： [文学] [文学]