对蔡邕《九势》和《笔论》的再考证

曲靖师范学院学报 ›› 2016, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (5): 101-106.

对蔡邕《九势》和《笔论》的再考证

辛魁鹏¹, 冯琼花²

1.曲靖师范学院教师教育学院,云南曲靖 655011;
2.曲靖市特殊教学学校,云南曲靖 655000

收稿日期:2016-05-23 出版日期:2016-09-26
作者简介:辛魁鹏,曲靖师范学院教师教育学院讲师,主要从事古代文学研究。

More Assessment of Cai Yi’s Jiushi and Bilun

Xin Kuipeng¹,Feng Qionghua²

1.School of Teacher Education, Qujing Normal University, Qujing Yunnan 655011, P.R.China;
2.Qujing School of Special Education,Qujing Yunnan 655000,P.R.China

Received:2016-05-23 Published:2016-09-26

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 《九势》和《笔论》并非出于蔡邕之手,这已基本成定论。但是,笔者认为二论被人伪托的朝代值得进一步考证,人们通常认为二论是宋代人所托,笔者觉得唐代人伪托的可能性更大,宋人只是传抄而已。一是统治者的倡导,唐玄宗对八分书十分喜好,这就为伪托者提供坚实的政治基础,与宋代相比唐代更具备这一条件;二是唐代与“蔡邕的《九势》与《笔论》”相关的内容已普及开来,相对宋人来说在唐代应有人早已阅之;三是“蔡邕《九势》”的内容应在唐代已形成,因其出于伪托,所以不被书家所重视,传至宋代,才将其附于蔡邕名下;四是唐人特别重视笔法;五是二文有拼凑六朝和唐代的理论之嫌。

关键词: 蔡邕, 《九势》, 《笔论》, 伪托年代

Abstract: It is sure that Jiushi and Bilun are not Cai Yi’s works. The theory that theses two papers are from Song Dynasty needs more assessment and the author of this thesis claims that the papers are from Tang Dynasty and the people in Song Dynasty just copied them. The proofs for my claim are: the Emperor’s Tang Xuanzong’s favorite calligraphy was of this style, which was the solid political basis; the popularity of the papers in Tang Dynasty and some people had read them in Tang Dynasty; the books had formed in Tang Dynasty but they got little attention and they got popular under the name of Cai Yi; people in Tang Dynasty paid much attention to the writing skills of calligraphy; and there was the possibility that the papers combined the theories from Liu Dynasty and Tang Dynasty.

Key words: Cai Yi, Jiushi, Bilun, false writing periods

中图分类号:

I206.2/.4

辛魁鹏, 冯琼花. 对蔡邕《九势》和《笔论》的再考证[J]. 曲靖师范学院学报, 2016, 35(5): 101-106.

Xin Kuipeng,Feng Qionghua. More Assessment of Cai Yi’s Jiushi and Bilun[J]. JOURNAL OF QUJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY, 2016, 35(5): 101-106.

参考文献

[1] [36]卫恒.四体书势[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012.8:14;14.
[2] 刘师培.刘师培中古文学论集[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1997 :125 .
[3] 李泽厚,刘纲纪.中国美术史:第二卷[M].北京:社会科学出版社,1984:408;萧元.书法美学史[M].长沙:湖南美术出版社,1990:33.
[4] 王镇远.中国书法理论史[M].上海:上海古籍出版社,2009:13.
[5] 陈滞东.中国书学论著提要[M].成都:成都出版社,1990:5.
[6] 刘德杰.蔡邕研究百年回顾与展望[J].文学遗产,2011(4):149.
[7] [10][14][18]张天弓.蔡邕《九势》考辨[M]//张天弓先唐书学考辨文集.北京:荣宝斋出版社,2009.12:43;45;45:37.
[8] [13][22]甘中流.蔡邕书法地位的变化与相关的历史问题[J].东岳论丛,2011(8):87;89;89.
[9] 萧统主编,清代胡克家刻本.文选[M].上海:上海书店,1988:238.
[11] 沈尹默.历代名家学书经验谈辑要释义[M]//现代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,1980 :123 .
[12] [19]赵彦辉,李少鹏.《九势》真伪再考——兼释“惟笔软则奇怪生焉”[M].古籍整理研究学刊,2013(3):51-52,51.
[15] 余绍宋.《书画书录解题》(影印本)卷九“九势八字决”[M].北京:北京图书馆出版社,2003:603.
[16] 张天弓.蔡邕《笔论》考[M]//张天弓先唐书学考辨文集.北京:荣宝斋出版社,2009:48-49.
[17] 余绍宋著,江兴祐点校.书画书录解题[M].杭州:西泠印社出版社,2012:113.
[20] 叶德辉.书林清话[M].长沙:岳麓书社,1999 : 40-47.
[21] 张彦远.法书要录(一)[C].北京:中国书店,2014:34.
[23] 刘聪,王黎芳.三教归一:佛教与道教、儒教[M].郑州:中州古籍出版社,2014:47.
[24] [27]孙过庭.书谱[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:125-129.
[25] 李嗣真.书后品[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:135-139.
[26] [35][39]张怀瓘.《书断》之“书议”和“书断上”条[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:145-148,209,211.
[28] 索靖.草书势[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:20.
[29] 虞龢.论书表[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:51.
[30] [32]王僧虔.笔意赞[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:60,62.
[31] 萧衍.答陶隐居论书[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:80.
[33] 欧阳询.八诀;传授诀[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:98,105.
[34] 李世民.笔法诀[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:117.
[37] 成公绥.隶书体[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:9.
[38] 李嗣真.书后品[M]//华东师范大学古籍整理研究室.历代书法论文选.上海:上海书画出版社,2012:139.