论文部分内容阅读
《洛神赋》的声誉固然起于曹植的赋文,但由于在此“传统”的形塑过程中因王献之和顾恺之的参与,更有加乘的效果。尤其是后二者,分别在中国书画的历史上占据着最高典范的位置,最能吸引后人的崇拜,其作品也成为收藏者追逐的对象。可是,令人遗憾的是:这两位大师是否真正曾为《洛神赋》赋予形象,实是不可冒然轻信的传说。王献之的《洛神赋》书写在书史上传诵已久,而且较未受到书法史家正式而严肃的质疑,比起他父亲王羲之的《兰亭序》在20世纪中叶所遭受的严重挑战①,可谓十分幸运。可是,这并不意谓此事全然令人无疑。不像《兰亭序》之可以根据7世纪唐贞观年间褚遂良编的《晋右军王羲之书目》及8世纪初何延之的《兰亭记》所述而被公认为流传有序②,王献之《洛神赋》书法的早期记录却相当模糊。题为《洛神赋》的书迹记录虽早在6世纪初陶弘景写给梁武帝的《论书启》中出现:“昔于马澄
The reputation of ”Luo Shen Fu“, of course, originates from Cao Zhi’s Fu Wen, but due to the participation of Wang Xianzhi and Gu Kaizhi in this ”traditional “ shaping process, there is a more multiplying effect. In particular, the latter two occupy the highest standard positions in the history of Chinese calligraphy and painting, respectively, and are most likely to attract the worship of posterity. Their works have also become the objects pursued by collectors. However, what is regrettable is that whether these two masters really gave the image of ”Lo Goddess“ really is a tale that can not be considered by chance. Wang Xianzhi’s book ”Luo Shen Fu“ has long been chanted in the history of books and has not been formally and seriously questioned by calligrapher history historians. It is very fortunate than the serious challenge that his father Wang Xizhi’s ”Lanting Preface“ suffered in mid-20th century . However, this does not mean that this matter is entirely beyond doubt. Unlike the ”Orchid Pavilion“ can be based on the Tang Dynasty in Tang Dynasty, Tang Su Guolian compiled by the ”King of the right army Wang Xizhi bibliography“ and the early 8th century He Yanzhi ”Lanting“ described and was generally described as orderly ②, Wang Xianzhi ”Luo Shen Fu Early records of calligraphy are rather vague. The book entitled “Luo Shen Fu” records as early as the early 6th century Tao Hongjing wrote to Emperor Wu’s “Book of Kai” appeared: "