在明代曲話中，常有將康海與王九思合併評論的現象。本文主要在研究諸曲論家對康海、王九思之評議，結合理論與作品，使兩者相互映證，以釐清諸家評議之是非曲直。主要探討方向可區分為三：其一，評康、王劇曲之 諷刺旨趣。其二，評康、王曲作之音律。其三，評康、王曲作之造語及風格。透過三個面向的切入，可更為清楚的揭示康海、王九思在明代曲壇上的成就 與定位。康海《中山狼》雜劇，與王九思《杜子美沽酒遊春》雜劇，在明代曲話中，多被認定為寄寓諷刺，且有所影射的曲作，然筆者就文獻史料及交遊關 係考察，認為《中山狼》雜劇並非侷限在專一對象的諷刺。而《杜子美沽酒遊春》雜劇則有指涉，因劇中詞彙與現實有過多巧合，難以不令人加以聯想。康、王兩人雖講求度曲須熟諳音律，卻不免缺失，如在用韻與字聲方面，李開先、王世頁倶有指正，務使音律和諧美聽；在句法與對仗方面，王驥德 批評王九思【雙調•水仙子】〈席上對雪次韻〉末三句對仗不整，筆者檢閱 曲譜格律與《全元散曲》後，認為王九思將不需對仗之處，刻意錘鍊，反不工穩。關於康、王曲作之造語及風格之評議，曲論家之意見，大抵可析分為揚王抑康與康、王不分軒輊兩方。主張王九思高於康海者，認為康海造語豪放， 用典蕪雜，欠缺修飾，王九思則內斂蘊藉，精於構思。主張康、王不分軒輊者，則將兩人併論，稱許為當代名家，以為各有短長。

In Ming Dynasty dramatic commentary, Kang Hai and Wang Jiusi were often combined in commentary. This article mainly seeks to research the commentary on Kang Hai and Wang Jiusi by various dramatic commentators, in conjunction of theory and the works so that they can serve as mutual evidence to clarify the rightness or wrongness of the commentary. There are three main areas of exploration: first, to comment the satirical subjects in Kang and Wang’s opera; second, to evaluate the musical pitch of Kang and Wang’ s qu; third, to evaluate the linguistic creation and styles of Kang and Wang’s qu. The engagement with these three dimensions can more clearly reveal the accomplishments and orientation of Kang Hai and Wang Jiusi in the qu field during the Ming dynasty. Kang Hai’s The Wolf of Zhongshan variety show and Wang Jiusi’s Du Fu Buys Wine and Roams in the Spring variety show had generally been considered in Ming Dynasty dramatic commentary to be satire with allusions. However, based on literature and historical materials and on investigations of their relationships, it is the author’s belief that The Wolf of Zhongshan variety show was not limited to satire of a fixed subject. As for the allusions of Du Fu Buys Wine and Roams in the Spring variety show, there were too many coincidences between terms in the opera and reality, thus making it difficult to avoid associations. Although Kang and Wang both emphasized familiarity with musical pitch in writing qu, but there were inevitable shortfalls in rhymes and word sounds. Li Kaixian and Wang Shizhen both pointed out corrections in an effort to make the musical pitch harmonious and aurally pleasing. In terms of sentence pairing structures, Wang Jide criticized Wang Jiusi’s [Two Melodies, Water Fairy] “Reply Rhyme on the Mat to the Snow” for poor pairing. After reviewing the musical notation and The Complete Collection of Yuan Dynasty Qu, the author believes that Wang Jiusi had deliberately rewritten places that did not need to be paired, resulting in unsteadiness. As for commentary on linguistic creation and styles of Kang and Wang’s qu, commentators were generally divided into the view that Wang was better than Kang and the view that Kang and Wang were equals. Commentators who asserted that Wang Jiusi was better than Kang Hai believed that Kang Hai’s linguistic creation was bold, used the classics purely, and lacked embellishment, while Wang Jiusi was reserved and proficient at constructing ideas. Commentators who believed that Kang and Wang were equally good tended to combine them in commentary, referring to them as contemporary elites with different strengths and weaknesses.