明代瞿佑的《剪燈新話》成書於1378 年，於十五世紀末流傳至日本。 1666 年，淺井了意的假名草紙《伽婢子》，開啟《剪燈新話》翻改的序章。 1768 年，上田秋成的讀本《雨月物語》則將《剪燈新話》的翻改推向高峰。 在《剪燈新話》中，影響最鉅的當屬〈牡丹燈記〉。十九世紀末，三遊 亭圓朝的落語《怪談牡丹燈籠》與三世河竹新七的歌舞伎《怪異談牡丹燈 籠》，使其成為家喻戶曉的怪談故事。迄今為止的研究也多圍繞淺井了意、 上田秋成及十九世紀末的作品。 有鑑於此，本文將另闢蹊徑，將關心移轉至十九世紀初，模仿〈牡丹燈記〉 的三部作品─山東京傳的讀本《浮牡丹全傳》、四世鶴屋南北的歌舞伎《阿 國御前化粧鏡》、山東京傳的合卷《戲場花牡丹燈籠》。三作於1809-1810 年間陸續問世，以怪談及諸侯家的權力鬥爭為主題，透過讀本、歌舞伎、合 卷的迥異形式，賦予原作嶄新的面貌。作品的故事特徵、角色塑造、圖像呈 現，將是首先關注的重點。其次，針對三作間的受眾差異進行論述。最後， 從文藝傳播與接受的角度，檢討三作的文學暨歷史價值，藉以填補〈牡丹燈 記〉影響研究之空缺，釐清十九世紀初的受容樣貌。

Qu You’s 瞿佑 Jiandeng xinhua 剪燈新話(New Stories Told while Trimming the Wick) had been published in 1378 and began circulating in Japan in the end of the 15th century. In 1666, Asai Ryoi’s 淺井了意 Otogi boko 伽婢子(Hand Puppets) was the first adaptation of Jiandeng xinhua, and Ugetsu monogatari 雨月物語(Tales of Moonlight and Rain), written by Ueda Akinari 上田秋成, marked the peak of adaptation in 1768. “Mudan dengji” 牡丹燈記 is one of the stories which has maintained immense influence from Jiandeng xinhua. By the end of the 19th century due to Sanyutei Encho’s 三遊亭圓朝 Kaidan botan dōrō 怪談牡丹燈籠 (Tales of the Peony Lantern) and Kawatake Shinshichi III’s 三世河竹新七 Kaiidan botan dōrō 怪異談牡丹燈籠, the story became a well-known work of ghost fiction. Until now, concerned research has primarily focused on the works of Asai Ryoi, Ueda Akinari and others from the end of the 19th century. This paper shifts its attention to works produced in the beginning of the 19th century: Santō Kyōden’s 山東京傳 Ukibotan zenden 浮牡丹全傳 and Gekijyo botan dōrō 戲場花牡丹燈籠 and Tsuruya Nanboku IV’s 四世鶴屋南 北 Okuni gozen keshō no sugatami 阿國御前化粧鏡 (Lady Okuni’s Makeup Mirror). These three works, published from 1809 to 1810, emphasized tales of ghosts and the power struggles within aristocratic families as themes, and through different kinds of performance—such as yomihon 讀本, kabuki 歌舞 伎 and gōkan 合卷, created a new vision differing from the original work. This research first focuses on specific aspects of the works—plot, characters and illustrations. Secondly, it discusses the differences in target audiences between the works. Finally, by examining their dissemination and levels of acceptance, this paper discusses their literary and historical value in an attempt to both supplement the oversights in research concerning “Mudan dengji” and clarify the kind of acceptance in the beginning of the 19th century.