查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 懷素「論書帖」中張晏、趙孟頫二跋歸屬溯源=Tracing the Origin of Zhang Yan and Zhao Meng-fu's Postscripts in Huai Su's Lun Shu Tie |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 穆棣; | 書刊名 | 故宮學術季刊 |
| 卷 期 | 18:2 民89.冬 |
| 頁 次 | 頁35-59+180-181 |
| 分類號 | 943 |
| 關鍵詞 | 論書帖; 食魚帖; 華氏印; 彥清; Lun Shu Tie; Calligraphy models; Shi Yu Tie; Hua's seals; Yan-qing; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 懷素《論書帖》中張晏、趙孟頫二跋歸屬如何,諸說甚為相悖。以遼寧博物館名譽館長楊仁愷為代表的多數鑑家奉清初顧復之說為圭臬,以為二跋嘗誤入懷素《食魚帖》中,後乃重還舊觀,論據即所謂《論》帖係張氏舊藏。徐邦達持論迥異,以為二跋的係《食》帖原跋,而與《論》帖無涉;其考《食》帖中多華彥清印,華為趙孟頫晚輩,故斷趙跋乃專為華氏而題。然則,以張晏鑑藏方式為衡石,則《論》帖非張氏物灼然無疑,是知楊說絕無立論之餘地。復驗所謂「華氏印」、「彥清」,概屬傅會而已,則又顯見徐說之不確。經考,二跋確乃《食》帖原跋,可從多層次、多角度予以論證。至於顧復之失眼之處,亦鑑家之常事,除囿於時代之外,猶有諸多複雜因素,宜作具體剖析,不可苛責於古人。 |
| 英文摘要 | This paper investigates the debate relating to the origin of two postscripts written by Zhang Yan and Zhao Meng-fu on Huai Su's Lun Shu Tie (Calligraphy Models). A great many scholars have posited this question of origin and provided a vast array of views, including many that are contradictory. Yang Ren-kai is the honorable director of the Museum of Liaoning Province. His views on the topic are representative of the majority of respected appraisers and is in line with the original widely acknowledged model put forth by Gu Fu of the early Ch'ing dynasty. Yang thought that the two postscripts had been erroneously added to Huai Su's Shi Yu Tie, then returned to the original form. Namely, the so-called "Lun" Tie was originally part of Zhang Yan's collection. On the other hand Xu Bang-da's view on the matter is utterly different. He firmly believes the two postscripts are related to the "Shi" Tie original and have no relation to the "Lun" Tie. In addition, numerous seals which belong to Hua Yan-qing are impressed on the "Shi" Tie. Xu's textural research has led him to conclude that since Hua Yan-qing belonged to a younger generation than Zhao, Zhao's postscript was specially written for him. If Zhang's appraisal conclusions and pattern of collecting is considered as a measuring criterion, that the "Lun" Tie could not possible by in Zhang's collection is clearly beyond doubt. Knowing this, Yang's views stand on weak ground toward supporting his argument. In re-examining both the so-called "Hua seals" and "Yan-qing" it is clear they serve only to propagate false interpretations and obviously indicate that Xu's views are incorrect. Drawing from research, the two postscripts surely are the originals of the "Shi" Tie, This can be demonstrated and proven on a number of different levels and by using varying approaches. As for Gu Fu's failure to recognize the proper provenance of the postscript, this was a common occurrence amongst appraisers. Apart from the constraints of the historical ear, there were many complex factors, thus, we should make our analysis as concrete as possible and not severely reprove our forefathers. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。