论文部分内容阅读
关于《兰亭序》之隶书笔意,研究表明,无论《兰亭序》有无隶书笔意,都是合理的,隶书笔意已不能作为《兰亭序》为伪的证据。但由此而引申出来的关于唐人楷法的质疑仍在延续,有的认为是后人的伪造,有的认为是唐人钩摹时的失真现象。无论哪一种,似乎研究者都已默认《兰亭序》是不应该具有类似唐人楷法的用笔的。因此,要明晰《兰亭序》应不应该有唐人楷法,需要明确唐人楷法究竟何时开始出现,《兰亭序》所具有的唐人楷法主要体现在哪些方面,王羲之是否已熟练应用这些楷法等方面的问题。一唐人楷法的提出
As for the “Luting Pavilion”, the study shows that it is reasonable whether or not the Lanting Preface is written in the script, and that the writing intention of the Lanting Pavilion can not serve as evidence that Lanting Preface is false. However, the resulting doubts about the Kai-Kai law in the Tang dynasty still continue. Some believe it is a forgery of later generations, while others think it is a distorting phenomenon when the Tang people copy. Either way, it seems that researchers have acquiesced that “Lanting Preface” should not have a pen similar to the Chinese script. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify that “Lanting Preface” should not have the Tang Kai scripture. It is necessary to know exactly when the Kai scripture began to appear in the Tang dynasty. The Kai scriptures owned by Lanting Preface are mainly reflected in the following aspects: Law and other issues. A Tang Chinese Kai-fa put forward