書学書道史研究
Online ISSN : 1884-2550
Print ISSN : 1883-2784
ISSN-L : 1883-2784
論文
法帖からみる秋萩帖王羲之臨書の源流
髙木 義隆
著者情報
ジャーナル フリー

2023 年 2023 巻 33 号 p. 29-39,103

詳細
抄録

  Three of Wang Xizhi's imitating copies in the second half of Akihagijô are included in Chinese model calligraphies copybook. By comparing them and referring to the relevant literature, I estimate the shape of the original and the transmission route of the rubbed copies of the original from Japan to China.

  1. The “De danyangshu-tie” and “Xiang qinghe shiren jia-tie” from the imitating copies of Wang Xizhi's Akihagijô, are included in the Dongshutangjigu fatie of Yongle 14 (1416) in the reverse order of the Akihagijô, but consecutively. They also have the same line order and character layout. The Hanxiangguan Fashu, completed in Kangxi 14 (1675), contains the “Chongxi-tie,” which shows a high degree of similarity to the Akihagijō. This comparison suggests that the imitating copies of Wang Xizhi's Akihagijô are relatively faithful copies that retain the form of the Wang Xizhi copies of the Tang dynasty quite well.

  2. The direct original of all three copies is most likely the Chunxibige fatie of Nansong.

  3. Since the four copies traces of which were left in China—including the “Gaozhen-tie,” contained in the Xuanheshupu—were found to continue from the end of the “Akihagijô,” it can be assumed that the four copies were transmitted together until the Song period.

  4. The original of the imitating copies of Wang Xizhi's Akihagijô is assumed to be a Tang period copy in two volumes. It is divided into 22 and 35 lines. This is similar to the number of lines and the number of included copies in the Wang Xizhi copy of the scrolls in the Tang dynasty court after Kaiyuan 5 (717), which can be assumed from the Shôsôin kenmotutyô and the Fashuyaolu.

  5. Since the Huainanzi on the reverse side of the paper shows no sign of Bihui, there are many theories as to the period and place of production. However, given the absence of Bihui in the Dunhuang manuscript, it can be assumed that it is a Tang period abridged copy, even if there is no Bihui in Huainanzi.

著者関連情報
© 2023 書学書道史学会
前の記事 次の記事
feedback
Top