本文試從人們習焉而可能不察的幾個小地方探索，別發議論，一是《牡丹亭》中何以柳夢梅一定要持柳入夢、杜麗娘必須要弄梅入畫？二是〈閨塾〉改稱〈春香鬧學〉是否合適？這是我看過前賢們論述中所沒談到的。三則是就青春版《牡丹亭》演出的幾個小段落說說己見。 由於第一個論題涉及版本的考證，必先釐清《牡丹亭》的因襲，才能談它的創新。確定「折柳」是因襲，「弄梅」是新創，兩者基於「柳枝」寓有「復活」及「容止」的特性，進一步推論出柳夢梅必得「持柳」，杜麗娘也只能「弄梅」，約略窺知可能來之於典故的制約。因層層而遞，逐占了本文的一半篇幅，正說明了它是本論文主要重心所在。至於演出和改編則是另一層面的問題，也更見仁見智。少了前置考證的需要，可較輕鬆地就情節來龍去脈而單刀直論，只挑二三小題聊表一己之見，一為〈春香鬧學〉與〈閨塾〉，命意實大不同，回歸湯顯祖原意，恐仍屬〈閨塾〉為是。二為青春版《牡丹亭》演出的兩段情節，覺得還是依原著較妥。

The study was to explore the unobservable details, which are: 1. Why did Liu Meng-mei hold willow branch to sleep and Du Li-niang have to have plum into the painting? 2. Is Chunxiang Naohsueh appropriate instead of Kueishu? 3. Give some descriptions on The Peony Pavilion's youth edition. The main discussion was on The Peony Pavilion investigation including textual research, tradition, creation and characteristics of willow and plum. As for acting and adaptation, they belonged to the level which was objective and could be expressed various ideas by different people. With the view of plots, back to the origin of Xian-zu Tang, for my points of view, Kueishu is the better interpretation than Chunxiang Naohsueh. Concerning The Peony Pavilion's youth edition, it is thought that two scenes are best to be true to the original.