喫茶に水は欠かすことができない．中国の喫茶文化において，茶の味をよりいっそう引き出すために，各地，各種の水を飲み比べてその品質を定め，優れた水を選び，水のランキングをつけるということを行う．そうした行為，およびその鑑定結果，判断基準などを中国茶文化では「水品」と言う．

　「水品」と言った場合，大別すると二つの異なる概念が含まれている．一つは，実際に水の品質を定める行為と，その判断の結果であり，もう一つは，「水の品質の判定基準」，つまり「良い水の基準」である．そこで本稿では，前者を「水品実践」，後者を「水品基準」と呼ぶことにする．

　今までの研究では，古人の「水品」に関する諸説の矛盾について論及したものは見当たらない．また，「水品」に関する理論面での時代変遷に応じた変化，それに伴う各時代の特徴について言及したものは見当たらない．この面で言えば，本稿は中国茶文化研究領域において，「喫茶用水」に関する初の全面的な研究になる．

　本稿は，文献を中心に，そして中国の唐・宋・明・清の四代を中心にして，喫茶文化における「水品実践」及び「水品基準」の時代特徴，そして，それぞれの歴史的な変遷について考察して行く．

　そして，本校は「水品実践」と「水品基準」について，歴代の特徴を述べた上，その時代の変遷の特徴を発見し，まとめた．つまり，「水品実践」の変遷では，（唐）ランク付けをおこない活発な動き→（宋）前時代を踏襲し，地味で新鮮味に欠ける→（明）新しいランク付けが起き，再び活発化→（清）前時代を踏襲し，地味で新鮮味に欠ける，という結果であった．一方，「水品基準」では，（唐）水は「重」を良いとした→（宋）水は「軽」を良いとした→（明）再び「重」に→（清）また「軽」に，という変遷だった．

　本稿は最後で表を作り，その原因について，下記のように分析した．

　唐代と宋代は多少の変化はあるものの，本質的には同じ喫茶法，同じ茶だった．そして明代と清代も同じ喫茶法，同じ茶だったのである．しかし，「水品実践」と「水品基準」になると，唐代と宋代，明代と清代は異なってしまい，唐代と明代，宋代と清代が同じになるのである．唐代と明代が「水品実践」と「水品基準」が同じなのは，喫茶特徴として挙げた「新しい喫茶法の確立時代」で，宋代と清代が同じなのは，「前時代の喫茶法を継承した」からである．

　また，「重」と「軽」という「水品基準」の変遷は喫茶法継承の宋代と清代は「繊細さ」を追求するので，中国茶文化では，「淡」と表現するが，「軽」水を好む結果につながったと分析した．

I have been examining Yan Zhenqing 顔真卿 of the Tang from the perspective of the reception of works of calligraphy in later times, and in my article “Sō-Gen jidai no ʻGan Shinkeiʼ” 宋元時代の「顔真卿」(“ʻYan Zhenqingʼ in the Song-Yuan period”; in Kokusai shogaku kenkyū / 2000 国際書学研究／2000, Tokyo: Kayahara Shobō 萱原書房, 2000), focusing on the Song-Yuan period, I examined accounts of Yan Zhenqing in abridged histories, his ancestral temple (Yan Lu Gong ci 顔魯公祠 ), his calligraphic works recorded in historical sources, and their assessment. In this article, I take up the assessment of his works, focusing in particular on the three phrases “silkworm heads and swallow tails” (cantou yanwei 蚕頭燕尾), “sinews of Yan, bones of Liu,” and zhuanzhou 篆籀 (seal script), and adding some new materials, I reexamine their usage during the Song and consider their dissemination and changes in their usage from the Ming period onwards.

  As a result, I clarify the following points. (1) Usage of the expression “silkworm heads and swallow tails” to describe the characteristics of Yan Zhenqingʼs calligraphy appears from the Northern Song, although this characterization was rejected in contemporary treatises on calligraphy; from the Ming period onwards it came to be used to describe the distinguishing features of the style of calligraphy in which he excelled, and in addition there are examples of its use from the Song period to comment on his clerical script (lishu 隷書). (2) The phrase “sinews of Yan, bones of Liu” referred to the calligraphic skills of Yan Zhenqing and Liu Gongquan 柳公権 and was not an assessment of Yan Zhenqingʼs calligraphy; although some instances of “sinews” being linked to Yan Zhenqingʼs calligraphy appear from the Southern Song and extend to the Ming, they are few in number, and examples of the use of this phrase in its initial meaning are also found from the Ming period onwards. (3) There are examples of the use of the term zhuanzhou in the Song, but it is questionable whether it was used in its present-day sense of explaining the provenance of Yan Zhenqingʼs calligraphy; examples of its use in its current meaning appear in the Yuan period and increase from the Ming period onwards. In addition, I point out that background factors in these changes in the usage of these terms and their entrenchment may have been the existence of the Yanshi jiamiao bei 顔氏家廟碑 and other works in regular script, references to which increase rapidly from the Ming period onwards, and the fact that there were few Song rubbings of Yan Zhenqingʼs works that might serve as benchmarks and people were seeing many rubbings from the Ming period onwards.