《伯遠帖》之傳藏與董其昌跋文真偽析辨
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2016-09-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學
National Taiwan Normal University
National Taiwan Normal University
Abstract
本研究以文獻研究法、文本分析法、文本比較法，從《伯遠帖》之傳藏歷程探究陶玉璞論及《石渠寶笈初編》成書前仍未目睹《伯遠帖》的論點，理據稍嫌薄弱，並對陶氏推論該帖應在乾隆10年或隔年正月前進入清宮的假設性說法，持保留態度。本文研究發現，乾隆10年乙丑冬10月該編成書之前已輯錄《伯遠帖》，且該帖原藏於御書房，後移至三希堂，推估最晚應不遲於乾隆10年10月29日丁卯小雪，更精準來說《伯遠帖》應在公元1745年11月22日前進入清宮。其次，清人姚之駰、黃之雋、于敏中，近人穆棣、黃緯中皆論及「楊明時」，與《歙縣志》、《石渠寶笈》及臺南謙受堂《餘清齋法帖》諸帖題跋之「揚明時」名款，互有出入，研究者推論「楊明時」應受到行草連筆關係而書寫成「揚明時」名款並依此形體摹勒上石，「楊明時」與「揚明時」應為同一人無疑。再者，關於吳廷、吳新宇與吳興宇三人之考辨，穆棣與黃緯中皆論及吳廷即吳新宇的說法，經研究者仔細耙梳後發現吳廷不是吳新宇，亦非吳興宇，遑論吳楨或吳禎。同時，推估吳廷庋藏《伯遠帖》前後不超過8年、甚至更少，亦非陶玉璞「只不過九年而已」算法。而穆棣述及先歸吳新宇、後轉入吳廷的論點，次序應為先吳廷、後輾轉流入吳新宇，理據似乎更為充分。最後，從臺南謙受堂收藏《餘清齋法帖》散帖《蘭草帖》及《黃庭經帖》後董跋年款與墨蹟本董跋用筆進行比對，復參以董氏傳世書蹟名款相較，發現墨蹟本董跋存有諸多斧鑿痕跡，且「長安」一詞非穆棣所指金陵，亦非黃緯中述及長安，應為明都北京。此外，再從元代黃公望《富春山居圖》的無用師本董跋與子明本董跋進行析論，補足前人論述當今北京故宮所藏墨蹟本《伯遠帖》董其昌偽跋成立之理據基礎。
The present study used literary research, contextual analysis, and comparative study to analyze the collection history of Boyuan Tie and argues that Yu-Pu Tao’s standpoint lacked evidence that Boyuan Tie was still unknown before Shiqu Baoji’s initial version was fi nished. Moreover, the author expresses reservations about Tao’s uncertain estimation that Boyuan Tie would have been in the Qing Palace in the 10th year of Qianlong, or the following January. This study found that before the book was fi nished in Oct., 1745, Boyuan Tie was recorded and held in the imperial study room, and then moved to the San Hsi Tang no later than Oct. 29th in the 10th year of Qianlong. Specifi cally, Boyuan Tie was held in the Qing Palace before Nov. 22th, 1745. Chih-Yin Yao, Chih-Jin Huang, Min-Chung Yu, Di Mu, and Wei-Chung Huang all mentioned that the postscript of “Yang Min-Shih” is different from that in She Xian, Shiqu Baoji, and Yu Qing Zhai Fa Tie held in the Qian Shou Tang, Tainan. The author argues that “Yang Min-Shih” was infl uenced by the Xian Chi calligraphy style of the late Ming Dynasty and the wide and broad concept of copy promoted by Chi-Chang Dong. Thus, the two “Yang Min-Shi” are the same person. Regarding the debate over whether Ting Wu, Sin-Yu Wu, and Shing-Yu Wu are the same person, Di Mu and Wei-Chung Huang both claimed that Ting Wu is Sin-Yu Wu. But the present author argues that Ting Wu is not Sin-Yu Wu, Shing-Yu Wu, or Zen Wu. The author estimated that Ting Wu kept Boyuan Tie for no more than eight years, differing from Yu-Pu Tao’s estimation of “only for nine years.” In addition, the author believes that it is more credible that Boyuan Tie was first owned by Ting Wu and then by Sin-Yu Wu, differing from Di Mu’s view that it was fi rst owned by Sin-Yu Wu and then Ting Wu. Finally, by comparing the postscripts of Yu Qing Zhai Fa Tie, Lan Cao Tie, and Huang Ting Ching Tie held in the Qian Shou Tang in Tainan, as well as other postscripts of Dong’s works, the a
The present study used literary research, contextual analysis, and comparative study to analyze the collection history of Boyuan Tie and argues that Yu-Pu Tao’s standpoint lacked evidence that Boyuan Tie was still unknown before Shiqu Baoji’s initial version was fi nished. Moreover, the author expresses reservations about Tao’s uncertain estimation that Boyuan Tie would have been in the Qing Palace in the 10th year of Qianlong, or the following January. This study found that before the book was fi nished in Oct., 1745, Boyuan Tie was recorded and held in the imperial study room, and then moved to the San Hsi Tang no later than Oct. 29th in the 10th year of Qianlong. Specifi cally, Boyuan Tie was held in the Qing Palace before Nov. 22th, 1745. Chih-Yin Yao, Chih-Jin Huang, Min-Chung Yu, Di Mu, and Wei-Chung Huang all mentioned that the postscript of “Yang Min-Shih” is different from that in She Xian, Shiqu Baoji, and Yu Qing Zhai Fa Tie held in the Qian Shou Tang, Tainan. The author argues that “Yang Min-Shih” was infl uenced by the Xian Chi calligraphy style of the late Ming Dynasty and the wide and broad concept of copy promoted by Chi-Chang Dong. Thus, the two “Yang Min-Shi” are the same person. Regarding the debate over whether Ting Wu, Sin-Yu Wu, and Shing-Yu Wu are the same person, Di Mu and Wei-Chung Huang both claimed that Ting Wu is Sin-Yu Wu. But the present author argues that Ting Wu is not Sin-Yu Wu, Shing-Yu Wu, or Zen Wu. The author estimated that Ting Wu kept Boyuan Tie for no more than eight years, differing from Yu-Pu Tao’s estimation of “only for nine years.” In addition, the author believes that it is more credible that Boyuan Tie was first owned by Ting Wu and then by Sin-Yu Wu, differing from Di Mu’s view that it was fi rst owned by Sin-Yu Wu and then Ting Wu. Finally, by comparing the postscripts of Yu Qing Zhai Fa Tie, Lan Cao Tie, and Huang Ting Ching Tie held in the Qian Shou Tang in Tainan, as well as other postscripts of Dong’s works, the a