查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 王珣「伯遠帖」考=A Study of the "Po-yuan Letter" by Wang Hsun |
---|---|
作 者 | 穆棣; | 書刊名 | 故宮學術季刊 |
卷 期 | 16:3 民88.春 |
頁 次 | 頁35-66+左4-5 |
分類號 | 943.5 |
關鍵詞 | 宣和裝; 伯遠帖; 王珣; Hsuan-ho mounting; Po-yuan letter; Wang Hsun; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 昔為乾隆內府「三希」之一,而今藏北京故宮博物院的顯赫名跡--王珣《伯遠帖》墨跡,乃存世晉人法書中唯一有款之真跡;自明季復出以來,夙為古今鑑家品鑒、推許,幾成「一邊倒」之勢,而日本《書道全集第四卷.東晉》乃獨以「榻摹本」論之。考之諸說,俱云其然而不云其所以然;前者囿於目鑑印象而著筆,實乃陳陳相因而無所發見,其真跡確據何如,無疑仍付闕如而已! 後者孤掌難鳴,況疑而無證,曷足為人所重耶?是知此帖真跡據之考斠迄今懸而未決,諸如此類的問題猶有:明清之際所謂「宣和裝」之存佚,以及是否明季吳廷之舊藏等等,亦莫不撲朔離而疑竇叢生。筆者從此帖內證入手,復以文獻史料暨其餘傳世實物為據,探賾索隱,於揭示其真跡等確據之同時,詳盡剖析諸家於「宣和裝」存佚問題上大失所據之原由:不僅在於對明季諸家題以及刻帖問題未作綜合考察分析;還在於端賴清初吳其貞、顧復二說而不君審辨、考訂。殊不佑吳氏明言「釣摹」,無異透露消息;顧氏誤貽偽證,實乃蔽於識見。諸家不辨,襲訛承舛,不遂積非成是也。古賢云:「差之毫釐,謬以千里」,豈虛言哉!」 |
英文摘要 | Once one of the prized treasures in the private art collection of the Ch'ienlung Emperor (r.1736-1795), the "Po-yuan Letter" by Wang Hsun now is in the Peking Palace Museum. This remains as the only surviving authentic example of signed Chin dynasty calligraphy. Appearing in the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), it has been admired ever since as a treasure from antiquity. However, Japanese scholars have considered it a rubbing copy. Many scholars have presented different opinions, but they all seem to lack evidence to support their reasoning. In other words, their conclusions are based on impressions of the work, and many of them merely follow previous opinions. Whether the work is authentic or not still remains an open question. The Japanese opinion stands out as unique, but it has not been met with much approval, mostly due to their lack of proof Other issues for study are the existence of the "Hsiian-ho mounting" during the Ming and Ch'ing dynasties and whether it was actually in the collection ofWu T'ing in the Ming. My approach starts with the letter itself and combines historical material and other examples of calligraphy as supporting evidence. I not only find evidence to determine its authenticity, but I also have resolved another problem by providing a detailed explanation for why scholars have not been able to find evidence for the "Hsuan-ho Mounting." The first reason is that previous scholars did not provide a general analysis of inscriptions and carvings, and the second is that many merely follow the opinions of the early Ch'ing connoisseurs Wu Ch'i-chen and Ku Fu without double-checking them. They did not realize, for example, that when Wu wrote about it being an "outline copy," he was already providing an important clue. In addition, Ku Fu mistakenly passed on incorrect evidence, due to his lack of expertise. Later scholars overlooked these followed them, thus magnifying a small oversight into a major error of judgement. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。