自從詮釋學之「詮釋」觀點被運用於解釋作者與作品，乃至於作品與讀者的關係以來，作品的接受史 (reception history) 即成為文學研究另一項新的取徑。文評家不再專注於「文本」 ， 將文學文本本身當成具有獨特的美學作用的本體性的客體，而是轉而強調文學文本的語用作用 (pragmatic function)，其中「接受主體」(the receiving subject) 在「作者一文本一讀者」的傳播結構中，扮演著主要角色。接受 美學強調文學是為讀者(接受者) 而存在，文學存在於讀者的閱讀 (接受) 之中。文學的特性在文本中只是一系列潛在的要素，只有經過閱讀才得以實現，成為現實的存在；作品的審美特質是在閱讀中發生與顯現的。而值得注意的是，在目前所說的此種研究的趨向�堙A一種文類的經典名著，由於它長時期被不同時代的讀者以各自的審美角度去經驗著，同時又不斷被文學的研究者加以反復地詮釋與批評，故其被接受的歷史更易成為此項研究的重點。對於中國傳奇的戲劇丈類而言，類如洪昇的〈長生殿〉，正是其中一項值得關注的焦點。有趣的是，就在〈長生殿〉的作者完成其偉大的劇作不久，這部作品即受到作者的好友吳儀一的重視，加以詳細地批註，而且作者與批註者之間早已有了明顯的對話。這使得這部作品一開始就被「作者」與「讀者」以不同的兩個角度加以理解與詮釋。所謂「理解」，在理想的狀態下，是透過邏輯思維對於作品的一種認知。這種「認知」，是採用「分析」與「比對」的方法，而且對於「認知」活動的進行與結果，大都是透過規範性的語言加以表達；至於「詮釋」，則是站在一個整體觀看的角度對於文本作出屬於「意義 J 的整體性論述。以一個具有研究基礎的評者來說，除了初級的「感知性閱讀」 (perceptual reading) 之外，他常是盡可能先對文本預作議題式的分析與理解後，繼而才進行一種作品意義之整體性的掌握與詮釋。總之，談到文本詮釋，必然牽涉到「讀者」與「作者」之間、「作者」與 「作品」之間的問題，而加上評點者，則必然更形複雜。正緣於此，本文研究之原始動機，在於說明洪昇劇作之思維脈絡，以及其評點者吳儀一如何企圖扮演「理 想讀者」的角色，並在戲劇理論與成規發展之「典律化」過程中產生其影響力。而實質處理部分，則初步選擇以下兩方面來論析吳儀一之評點 : 一、關於文本 「背景資料」方面 ( 如文學傳統、傳奇體製與成規等之「理解」)，本文擬探討的是，作者與評點者對於掌握「製作」之共同「理解」基礎為何 ? 作為自己作品的作者，洪昇如何透過〈自序〉、〈例言〉等來「定位」自己的作品 ? 二、關於文本 「組織策略」之批評實踐方面，本文擬探討的是，吳儀一如何評價洪昇之操作樣態 ? 討論之方式大致分從「構思」與「構造」是兩個層次來考量。「構思」指作者之策略安排，即劇作之主題原則，布局思維與人物之基本設計；而「構造」，則是就實際的文本構成而說，其中包括情節的處理，人物的語言及行動之描繪，以及在此種創作作為進行時所內含的「成果期待」。除了以上兩方面之外，我們對於作為評者、讀者與接受者的吳儀一如何企圖經由對於傳奇之戲劇成規、理論技巧 與文本的「理解」，對洪劇作出一種基於「有效閱讀」之目的而產生之綜合詮釋 ? 而洪昇又如何回應吳儀一的評點，這兩者間的即時互動，其意義何在 ? 亦是一項必然將觸及的課題。

　　　　　 Theory of hermeneutics inspires serious considerations of the relationship between the author and the text, and between the text and the reader; reception-history has become a major concern in literary study. Canonical works that have been continuously read and reread by succeeding generations have received much critical attention. Among the great literary works of China, Hong Sheng's (1645-1704) Changshengdian deserves careful study. A play loved by the Chinese, Changshengdian's spectacular reception results from its text and its performance. Interestingly, the transmission of Hong's artistry owes much to his friend Wu Yiyi. Right after Hong finished his text, Wu contributed an annotated, scene-by-scene commentary to the play. Hong warmly welcomed that. The discernible interactions between Hong and Wu in the commentated text suggest the possibility of a two-way interpretation. The convergences and divregences of artistic understanding between the author's aesthetic principles and the critic's comprehension of the author's artistry through his own aesthetic experience are worthy of close examination. Wu's commentary traverses poetry and narrative literature, bringing Chinese dramatic theory to a new height. Especially noteworthy are his elaboration on the "qing cult" and his employment of narratology in analyzing the text of a chuanqi drama. This paper explores the dialogue between Hong's subjective expression and Wu's commentary, and evaluates its influences on later works in the process of canonization of Chinese drama. We address the following issues: How did Wu play the role of "ideal reader" and attempt to establish a new standard of artistic criticism through his interpretation of the play? Concerning the "repertoires" of the play, what is the basis for Hong's and Wu's shared understanding of producing a chuanqi play? As the author, how did Hong define his own work through the "preface" and "introduction?" In terms of "textual strategies," how did Wu evaluate Hong's accomplishments in dramatic composition and construction? As a reader and commentator, how did Wu, through effective reading of the text, forge a comprehensive view, which showed his perceptive understanding of chuanqi's dramatic techniques and performing art, of Hong's play? Finally, we will evaluate Wu's position and influence in the commentary tradition of Chinese drama.