清中期帖学书法研究
|
摘要
在当代中国书法史论研究中,笼统地将清代书法概述为“碑学大兴”、“碑学笼罩”似乎已渐成惯例。清代书法由于碑学体系的加入扩大了书法创造的表现领域,创造了自晋唐以后得又一具有鲜明时代特色的书法高峰,对于整个清代书法史而言,若论其在整个书法史上的最突出贡献,当属“碑学大兴”了,所以在很长一个时期以来,人们研究清代书法史时往往过多偏向于碑学,总结继承清代书家所取得的成就时,对嘉庆后的碑学的兴起及发展津津乐道,褒奖有加,倾注大量的热情,而对于顺治、康熙、雍正、乾隆时期的帖学书家取得的成就却视而不见,更有甚者对帖学书家大加贬斥,以碑学为中心去观看整个清代已成为一种研究清书史的思维习惯。与“碑学笼罩”相对应,“帖学大坏”成为概括清代帖学书法的最常用词语。因此,在很多人眼中,只见碑学,不见帖学,甚至总结出清代帖学无成就的结论。这是康有为以来书法界对于清代帖学书法的普遍看法。
事实上,“碑学”书法只不过在嘉庆以后才逐渐兴起与发展的,“碑学”书法之所以影响甚大,主要成就在于碑学理论上的成就,而在实践方面,虽然受碑学理论的引导取法于碑,但在以“笔法”为核心的书法本体中,传统帖学书法仍然是整个清代书法的取法对象,碑学的介入只是扩大了取法的范围,而不是取代帖学成为取法的标准,清代书法史的主流仍然是帖学书法。然而,在关于清代书法史研究中,对清代帖学的研究很少,对于代表清代帖学最高成就的中期帖学书法更是少之又少。本文为清中期帖学的专题研究。
本文认为,在清代中晚期碑学大兴的背景下,帖学书法并没有消亡,而是“低调”的不断继承与发展,特别是中期帖学书法在继承晚明传统帖学技法的同时,不断地“取法乎上”将唐楷纳入到取法体系中,使得传统帖学技法在“碑学”的冲击下得到继承与发展,并且创造了清代帖学书法的高峰。
本文分为三个部分：第一章,阐述“碑学时代”遮蔽下清代帖学的发展状况。“抑帖扬碑”、“尊魏卑唐”在对“碑学”过度关注的背景下,“碑学书法”似乎成为清代书法的代名词。然而在以“笔法”为核心的书法艺术中,在以文人书法为书法经典体系的构建者的背景中,传统帖学仍然在清代书法史上占据主流地位,通过本章的论述还原人们一个清代书法的真实面貌。
第二章是对清代中期帖学的系统分析。中期帖学作为清代帖学书法的最高成就,一方面是“取法董赵”对晚明传统技法的延续,另一方面“尊唐”的创新实践扭转了清帖学书法萎靡状态,大胆创新,开辟了清代帖学的新境界,使得传统帖学在碑学的猛烈冲击下得以继承与发展。中期帖学书法之所以代表清帖学的最高成就就在于取法上的“尊唐”实践。这是本文的重点与核心部分。清代中期的帖学状况、金石考据学的影响以及唐碑本身的取法优势使得取法唐楷给清代帖学注入了新鲜的血液,扭转了清帖学的萎靡状态。
第三章是对中期帖学代表书家的研究。张照、刘墉、翁方纲、王文治、梁同书是清中期帖学“尊唐”实践的杰出代表者,他们将传承下来的晚明传统书风与“唐楷”完美的融合在一起,将柔美与骨力恰当的结合起来,传承并丰富了帖学书法的创新发展。
本文论述清中期帖学的目的在于纠正“碑学”笼罩这一观念下对清代帖学书法特别是中期帖学书法无成就的认识,借以凸显清中期帖学的发展状况和影响,从而纠正书法史研究中对于清代帖学的误读,为当代书法取向提供有益的借鉴与了解。
It seems to be a tendency to overview the development of Chinese calligraphy in Qing Dynasty as a revival of beixue(a rubbing from a stone inscription usually as a model for calligraphy, which is called beixue in Chinese and inscriptional writing in English) and to regard this period as one that was wrapped in a shroud of atmosphere of researching the inscriptional writing. It has become a tradition in Chinese calligraphy study nowadays. The study of inscriptional writing in Qing Dynasty had actually opened up new horizons for Chinese calligraphy and its expressing ranges had been stretched. Calligraphy of Qing Dynasty created its own characters and attained one of tops in Chinese calligraphy history since Jin Dynasty and Tang Dynasty had achieved the top glories. The study of inscriptions on the tomb stones which were mainly inscribed in Han Dynasty contributed too much to that great achievement. Therefore, when we talk about calligraphy of Qing Dynasty, we prefer to the influence of study of inscriptional writing, and we focus on the highlight so much that sometimes we overlook the other side of the problem. We take more delight in discussing the flourish of inscriptional study happened since the era of emperor Jiaqing than what the calligraphy conditions were like in the era of emperor Shunzhi, and of Kangxi, and of Yongzheng, and of Qianlong. The calligraphy achievements of Qing Dynasty before emperor Jiaqing were overlooked, and sometimes they were denounced severely. To observe the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty standing at the point of inscriptional study has becoming a tradition in the field of study of Qing Dynasty calligraphy. In relation to the great influence of inscriptional writing, the declination of traditional calligraphy, which is called tiexue in Chinese, are often mentioned by some scholars in this field. Therefore, there was no traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty but inscriptional writing in many people's eyes. They denied the existence of traditional calligraphy and overlooked its achievements in the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty. And on this base it has come to become a general viewpoint since the standard-bearer of inscriptional study, Kang Youwei, who denounced the traditional calligraphy and praised the inscriptional writing.
In fact, the calligraphy of inscriptional writing only gradually arose and developed after emperor Jiaqing. The reason why inscriptional writing study influenced so far is due to its theoretical achievements. However, in practice, although guided by the theory, it tried to find out some new writing methods on the tablets mainly of Han Dynasty. Nevertheless, how to use a brush to write was still the ontology of the Chinese calligraphy in Qing Dynasty, and traditional calligraphy continued to be the resource of writing learning at that time. The study of inscriptional writing just enlarged the range of this resource, and it didn't change the standards and the goal of learning of Chinese calligraphy. Traditional calligraphy remained the important position in the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty, and it was the mainstream. Comparatively, we have paid less attention to the conditions of traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty than the study of inscriptional writing at that time.
My paper argues that under the background of "Revival of beixue" in the latter period of Qing Dynasty, traditional calligraphy did not disappear, and it constantly went forward in a low-key attitude. In the mid-Qing Dynasty, traditional calligraphy inherited traditional calligraphy techniques of the late Ming Dynasty. Calligraphy of this period tried to find a better way to write in the middle ancient times, such as in Tang Dynasty. People lived at that time liked to learn the standard script of Tang Dynasty. They attained the top of traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty and made the tradition go on.
There are three chapters in my paper. In the first chapter, I expound the development of the traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty under the influence of inscriptional writing study. To some extent, traditional calligraphy got repressed, and inscriptional writing in the Northern Wei Dynasty (368 B.C.-534 B.C.) was praised highly and people denounced the style of calligraphy of Tang Dynasty. In this context, the study of inscriptional writing has been paid close and excess attention to and it almost has been the synonym of the calligraphy of Qing Dynasty. However, how to use the Chinese brush to write(called bifa in Chinese), instead of a graver or other nicking tool, is the central problem of Chinese calligraphy. We can see that traditional calligraphy was still retaining the mainstream position in the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty. I try to reconstruct the real historical fact in the fist chapter.
I analyze systematically the traditional calligraphy in Mid-Qing Dynasty in the second chapter of my paper.Mid-Qing traditional Calligraphy represented the highest achievement of the traditional Calligraphy in Qing Dynasy. On the one hand, it is a continuity for the tradition arising in late Ming Dynasty to take Dong Qichang and Zhao Mengfu's calligraphy as a model. On the other hand, the innovative practice of respecting Tang Dynasty's calligraphy reversed the sluggish state of the traditional Calligraphy, and bold innovation opened up a new realm for traditional calligraphy. It made the traditional techniques of calligraphy get inheritance and development under the impact of the study of inscriptional writing. The reason why Mid-Qing traditional calligraphy is a representative of the highest achievements of traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty is that it set up the flag of respecting Tang's calligraphy. This is the key part of my thesis. The status of mid-Qing traditional Calligraphy, the influence of textual research and advantage of the inscriptional tablets of Tang Dynasty poured fresh blood into the Qing traditional calligraphy, and reversed its sluggish state.
In the third chapter, I list some representative calligraphers who lived mainly in the period of mid-Qing, such as Zhang Zhao, Liu Yong, Weng Fanggang, Wang Wenzhi and Liang Tongshu. They are the distinguished representative of respecting Tang Dynasty's calligraphy. They carried on the tradition of the late Ming Dynasty's style and trace it to the standard script of Tang Dynasty. They combined the quality of being gentle and lovely with the property of spirit together.They propelled the traditional calligraphy forward.
My article discusses the mid- Qing traditional Calligraphy so as to correct the idea that the mid- Qing traditional Calligraphy owned no achievements under the preconceived idea of beixue. I put the developing situation and influence of the mid- Qing traditional calligraphy under a highlight in order to correct the misreading of the Qing Dynasty's Calligraphy, and wish to provide a different way to interpret the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty.
事实上,“碑学”书法只不过在嘉庆以后才逐渐兴起与发展的,“碑学”书法之所以影响甚大,主要成就在于碑学理论上的成就,而在实践方面,虽然受碑学理论的引导取法于碑,但在以“笔法”为核心的书法本体中,传统帖学书法仍然是整个清代书法的取法对象,碑学的介入只是扩大了取法的范围,而不是取代帖学成为取法的标准,清代书法史的主流仍然是帖学书法。然而,在关于清代书法史研究中,对清代帖学的研究很少,对于代表清代帖学最高成就的中期帖学书法更是少之又少。本文为清中期帖学的专题研究。
本文认为,在清代中晚期碑学大兴的背景下,帖学书法并没有消亡,而是“低调”的不断继承与发展,特别是中期帖学书法在继承晚明传统帖学技法的同时,不断地“取法乎上”将唐楷纳入到取法体系中,使得传统帖学技法在“碑学”的冲击下得到继承与发展,并且创造了清代帖学书法的高峰。
本文分为三个部分：第一章,阐述“碑学时代”遮蔽下清代帖学的发展状况。“抑帖扬碑”、“尊魏卑唐”在对“碑学”过度关注的背景下,“碑学书法”似乎成为清代书法的代名词。然而在以“笔法”为核心的书法艺术中,在以文人书法为书法经典体系的构建者的背景中,传统帖学仍然在清代书法史上占据主流地位,通过本章的论述还原人们一个清代书法的真实面貌。
第二章是对清代中期帖学的系统分析。中期帖学作为清代帖学书法的最高成就,一方面是“取法董赵”对晚明传统技法的延续,另一方面“尊唐”的创新实践扭转了清帖学书法萎靡状态,大胆创新,开辟了清代帖学的新境界,使得传统帖学在碑学的猛烈冲击下得以继承与发展。中期帖学书法之所以代表清帖学的最高成就就在于取法上的“尊唐”实践。这是本文的重点与核心部分。清代中期的帖学状况、金石考据学的影响以及唐碑本身的取法优势使得取法唐楷给清代帖学注入了新鲜的血液,扭转了清帖学的萎靡状态。
第三章是对中期帖学代表书家的研究。张照、刘墉、翁方纲、王文治、梁同书是清中期帖学“尊唐”实践的杰出代表者,他们将传承下来的晚明传统书风与“唐楷”完美的融合在一起,将柔美与骨力恰当的结合起来,传承并丰富了帖学书法的创新发展。
本文论述清中期帖学的目的在于纠正“碑学”笼罩这一观念下对清代帖学书法特别是中期帖学书法无成就的认识,借以凸显清中期帖学的发展状况和影响,从而纠正书法史研究中对于清代帖学的误读,为当代书法取向提供有益的借鉴与了解。
It seems to be a tendency to overview the development of Chinese calligraphy in Qing Dynasty as a revival of beixue(a rubbing from a stone inscription usually as a model for calligraphy, which is called beixue in Chinese and inscriptional writing in English) and to regard this period as one that was wrapped in a shroud of atmosphere of researching the inscriptional writing. It has become a tradition in Chinese calligraphy study nowadays. The study of inscriptional writing in Qing Dynasty had actually opened up new horizons for Chinese calligraphy and its expressing ranges had been stretched. Calligraphy of Qing Dynasty created its own characters and attained one of tops in Chinese calligraphy history since Jin Dynasty and Tang Dynasty had achieved the top glories. The study of inscriptions on the tomb stones which were mainly inscribed in Han Dynasty contributed too much to that great achievement. Therefore, when we talk about calligraphy of Qing Dynasty, we prefer to the influence of study of inscriptional writing, and we focus on the highlight so much that sometimes we overlook the other side of the problem. We take more delight in discussing the flourish of inscriptional study happened since the era of emperor Jiaqing than what the calligraphy conditions were like in the era of emperor Shunzhi, and of Kangxi, and of Yongzheng, and of Qianlong. The calligraphy achievements of Qing Dynasty before emperor Jiaqing were overlooked, and sometimes they were denounced severely. To observe the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty standing at the point of inscriptional study has becoming a tradition in the field of study of Qing Dynasty calligraphy. In relation to the great influence of inscriptional writing, the declination of traditional calligraphy, which is called tiexue in Chinese, are often mentioned by some scholars in this field. Therefore, there was no traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty but inscriptional writing in many people's eyes. They denied the existence of traditional calligraphy and overlooked its achievements in the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty. And on this base it has come to become a general viewpoint since the standard-bearer of inscriptional study, Kang Youwei, who denounced the traditional calligraphy and praised the inscriptional writing.
In fact, the calligraphy of inscriptional writing only gradually arose and developed after emperor Jiaqing. The reason why inscriptional writing study influenced so far is due to its theoretical achievements. However, in practice, although guided by the theory, it tried to find out some new writing methods on the tablets mainly of Han Dynasty. Nevertheless, how to use a brush to write was still the ontology of the Chinese calligraphy in Qing Dynasty, and traditional calligraphy continued to be the resource of writing learning at that time. The study of inscriptional writing just enlarged the range of this resource, and it didn't change the standards and the goal of learning of Chinese calligraphy. Traditional calligraphy remained the important position in the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty, and it was the mainstream. Comparatively, we have paid less attention to the conditions of traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty than the study of inscriptional writing at that time.
My paper argues that under the background of "Revival of beixue" in the latter period of Qing Dynasty, traditional calligraphy did not disappear, and it constantly went forward in a low-key attitude. In the mid-Qing Dynasty, traditional calligraphy inherited traditional calligraphy techniques of the late Ming Dynasty. Calligraphy of this period tried to find a better way to write in the middle ancient times, such as in Tang Dynasty. People lived at that time liked to learn the standard script of Tang Dynasty. They attained the top of traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty and made the tradition go on.
There are three chapters in my paper. In the first chapter, I expound the development of the traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty under the influence of inscriptional writing study. To some extent, traditional calligraphy got repressed, and inscriptional writing in the Northern Wei Dynasty (368 B.C.-534 B.C.) was praised highly and people denounced the style of calligraphy of Tang Dynasty. In this context, the study of inscriptional writing has been paid close and excess attention to and it almost has been the synonym of the calligraphy of Qing Dynasty. However, how to use the Chinese brush to write(called bifa in Chinese), instead of a graver or other nicking tool, is the central problem of Chinese calligraphy. We can see that traditional calligraphy was still retaining the mainstream position in the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty. I try to reconstruct the real historical fact in the fist chapter.
I analyze systematically the traditional calligraphy in Mid-Qing Dynasty in the second chapter of my paper.Mid-Qing traditional Calligraphy represented the highest achievement of the traditional Calligraphy in Qing Dynasy. On the one hand, it is a continuity for the tradition arising in late Ming Dynasty to take Dong Qichang and Zhao Mengfu's calligraphy as a model. On the other hand, the innovative practice of respecting Tang Dynasty's calligraphy reversed the sluggish state of the traditional Calligraphy, and bold innovation opened up a new realm for traditional calligraphy. It made the traditional techniques of calligraphy get inheritance and development under the impact of the study of inscriptional writing. The reason why Mid-Qing traditional calligraphy is a representative of the highest achievements of traditional calligraphy in Qing Dynasty is that it set up the flag of respecting Tang's calligraphy. This is the key part of my thesis. The status of mid-Qing traditional Calligraphy, the influence of textual research and advantage of the inscriptional tablets of Tang Dynasty poured fresh blood into the Qing traditional calligraphy, and reversed its sluggish state.
In the third chapter, I list some representative calligraphers who lived mainly in the period of mid-Qing, such as Zhang Zhao, Liu Yong, Weng Fanggang, Wang Wenzhi and Liang Tongshu. They are the distinguished representative of respecting Tang Dynasty's calligraphy. They carried on the tradition of the late Ming Dynasty's style and trace it to the standard script of Tang Dynasty. They combined the quality of being gentle and lovely with the property of spirit together.They propelled the traditional calligraphy forward.
My article discusses the mid- Qing traditional Calligraphy so as to correct the idea that the mid- Qing traditional Calligraphy owned no achievements under the preconceived idea of beixue. I put the developing situation and influence of the mid- Qing traditional calligraphy under a highlight in order to correct the misreading of the Qing Dynasty's Calligraphy, and wish to provide a different way to interpret the calligraphy history of Qing Dynasty.
引文
①葛兆光：《七世纪至十九世纪中国的知识、思想与信仰》,复旦大学出版社2000年版,614页。
①侯开嘉：《中国书法史新论》,上海古籍出版社,2009年版,143页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,2002年版,827页。
②康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,804页。
①廖铁：《魏晋书风》,长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006年版,239页。
①段玉裁：《说文解字注》,上海古籍出版社,1981年版,359页。
②阮元：《北碑南帖论》,见《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,636-637页。
③包世臣：《艺舟双楫》,见《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,644-668页。
①叶昌炽、柯昌泗：《语石》,中华书局,1994年版,180-181页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,754-755页。
②康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,778页。
③刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年,4页。
①祝嘉：《艺舟双楫·广艺舟双楫疏证》,成都：巴蜀书社,1989年版,172页。
①冯班：《钝吟书要》,《历代书法论文选》下册,552页。
②阮元：《南北书派论》,《历代书法论文选》,634页。
③阮元：《南北书派论》,《历代书法论文选》,593页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫·尊碑第二》,《晚清书论》,武昌：湖北美术出版社,2004年版,198页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫·尊碑第二》,《晚清书论》,武昌：湖北美术出版社,2004年版,202页。
②包世臣：《艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,669页。
③包世臣：《艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,654页。
④包世臣：《艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,653页。
⑤康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,812页。
⑥康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,813页。
①《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,287页。
②庾肩吾：《书品》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,86-87页。
③李嗣真：《书后品》载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,134-135页。
①张怀瓘：《书断中》,载《历代书法论文选》上海书画出版社,1979年版,171页。
②包世臣：《国朝书品》,《艺舟双楫》,北京图书出版社,2004年版,89页。
③包世臣：《国朝书品》,《艺舟双楫》,北京图书出版社,2004年版,89页。
④陈大中：《当代书法创作模式与流派研究》,北京：荣宝斋出版社,2005年版,89页。
⑤陈大中：《当代书法创作模式与流派研究》,北京：荣宝斋出版社,2005年版,89页。
①《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1981年版,826页。
②《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1981年版,807页。
③《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1981年版,827页。
④《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1981年版,827页。
⑤这一段文字转引《真奇怪：今天的书法家为什么不学当代“不规整”的书迹》,白谦慎著,2004年。
①转引胡泊：《复古与经典重建：以清代书法为个案》,《艺术百家》,2010年第3期,240页。
②转引胡泊：《复古与经典重建：以清代书法为个案》,《艺术百家》,2010年第3期,240页。
①陈振濂：《中国书法批评史》,杭州：中国美术学院出版社,2002年版,221页。
②廖铁：《魏晋书风》,长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006年版,239页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,812页。
①钟明善：《中国书法史》,石家庄：河北美术出版社,1983年版,144页。
②钟明善：《中国书法史》,石家庄：河北美术出版社,1983年版,144页。
①钟明善：《中国书法史》,石家庄：河北美术出版社,1983年版,144页。
②刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京:江苏教育出版社,1999年版,105页。
①白蕉：《碑与帖》,《书谱》,1980年版,41页。
②沙孟海：《近三百年的书学》,《东方杂志》,1930年27期,2页。
③白蕉：《碑与帖》,《书谱》,1980年版,41页。
④沃兴华：《敦煌书法艺术三题》,《中国书法》,1995年,3页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,121页。
①龚自珍《咏史》诗句。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,3页。
②转引韩顺仁《唐代楷书主体形态分析》。
①转引韩顺仁《唐代楷书主体形态分析》。
②转引韩顺仁《唐代楷书主体形态分析》。
③转引韩顺仁《唐代楷书主体形态分析》。
①朱仁夫：《中国古代书法史》,北京大学出版社,1992年版,482页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,103页。
②梁巘：《评书帖》,《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社1979年版。
③刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,103页。
④杨再春编著：《中国书法工具手册》,北京体育学院出版社1988年版,1152页。
⑤朱仁夫：《中国古代书法史》,北京大学出版社,1992年版,482页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,103页。
②(清)梁同书《频罗庵论书·复孔谷园论书》,载《明清书法论文选》。
③刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,103页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,108页。
②朱仁夫：《中国古代书法史》,北京大学出版社,1992年版,488页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,108页。
②刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,108页。
③金开诚、王岳川主编：《中国书法文化大观》,北京大学出版社1995年版,587页。
①(清)包世臣《艺舟双楫·与吴熙载书》。
②(清)王文治《快雨堂题跋》卷六《张得天、刘石庵合卷》、《刘石庵书卷》。
③(清)徐珂《清稗类钞·艺术类》。
④(清)康有为《广艺舟双楫》卷六《行草第二十五》。
①沈津：《翁方纲题跋手札集录》,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2002年版,357页。
②翁方纲：《苏斋笔记》卷第十三古典刊行,昭和八年刊。
③翁方纲：《苏斋笔记》卷第十三古典刊行,昭和八年刊。
④翁方纲：《复初斋文集》之《欧虞褚论》,台湾文海出版社,369-370页。
①翁方纲：《复初斋文集》之《欧虞楮论》,台湾文海出版社,372页。
②翁方纲：《复初斋文集》之《欧虞褚论》,台湾文海出版社,373页。
①李元度：《国朝先正事略》卷四十二。
①王文治：《灵岩寺碑》,《快雨堂题跋》卷三,7页。
②王文治：《自临乐毅论》,《快雨堂题跋》卷六,15页。
③杨守敬：《学书尔言》,《历代书法论文选续编》,741页。
④钱泳：《履园丛话》,山东画报出版社,2004年版。
⑤张宗祥：《书学源流论》,《历代书法论文选续编》,889页。
⑥王文治：《快雨堂题跋》,《中国书画全书》第十册,上海书画出版社,1996年版,798页。
⑦陈云君：《中国书法史论》,人民日报出版社,1987年版。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,109页。
[1](清)康有为《广艺舟双楫》卷二。
[2](清)李元度《国朝先正事略》卷四十二。
[3]林志钧《帖考》,1963年线装排印本。
[4]《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979。
[5]崔尔平选编点校：《历代书法论文选续编》,上海：上海书画出版社,1979。
[6]沈尹默：《书法论丛》,上海教育出版社,1979。
[7]段玉裁《说文解字注》,上海古籍出版社,1981年。
[8]潘伯鹰：《中国书法简论》,上海人民美术出版社,1981。
[9]祝嘉《书学论集》,南京：金陵书法社,1982年。
[10]蔡美彪：《中国通史》第七册,北京：人民出版社,1983。
[11]祝嘉：《书学史》,四川：成都古籍出版社,1984。
[12]马宗霍：《书林藻鉴·书林纪事》,北京：文物出版社,1984。
[13]戴逸主编《简明清史》,北京：人民出版社,1984。
[14]洪丕谟：《书论选读》,郑州：河南美术出版社,1988。
[15]祝嘉《广艺舟双楫·广艺舟双楫疏证》,成都：巴蜀书社,1989。
[16]金诤：《科举制度与中国文化》,上海人民出版社,1990。
[17]崔尔平选编点校：《明清书法论文选》,上海书店,1994。
[18]邱振中：《中国书法技法的分析与训练》,杭州：中国美术学院出版社,1996。
[19]华人德：《历代笔记书论彙编》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1996。
[20]葛兆光《中国思想史》,上海：复旦大学出版社,1998。
[21]梁启超《清代学术概论》,上海古籍出版社,1998。
[22]鲁道夫·阿恩海姆《艺术与视知觉》,成都：四川人民出版社,1998。
[23]郑天挺《清史探微》,北京大学出版社,1999。
[24]刘正成：《中国书法全集》卷46,北京：荣宝斋出版社,2000。
[25]许大龄《明清史论集》,北京大学出版社,2000。
[26]徐复观《中国艺术精神》,上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001。
[27]周汝昌：《永字八法》,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2002。
[28]陈振濂：《线条的世界》,杭州：浙江大学出版社,2002。
[29]赖非：《书法环境—类型学》,北京：文物出版社,2003。
[30]钱泳《履园丛话》济南：山东画报出版社,2004。
[31]弗·威·谢林(著)魏庆征(译)：《艺术哲学》,北京：中国社会出版社,2005。
[32]邱振中：《神居何所—从书法史到书法研究方法论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005。
[33]邱振中：《书法的形态与阐释》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005。
[34]杨义：《中国古典文学图志》,北京：三联书店,2006。
[35]葛兆光：《中国思想史》,上海：复旦大学出版社,2007。
[36]顾随《顾随论学精要》,天津人民出版社,2007。
[1]沙孟海《近三百年的书学》,《东方杂志》,1930年第27期。
[2]李心庄《阁帖源流考略》,《书学》1943年第1期。
[3]白蕉《碑与帖》,《书谱》,1980年。
[4]李正峰《唐楷漫谈》,《唐都学刊》第8卷1992年第1期。
[5]庄桂森《清初帖学派书法略论》,《徐州师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学院)2001年第2期
[6]王夕闻董世斌《清代碑学兴盛成因略论》,《商丘师范学院学报》,2002年12月第6期
[7]郑伯阳《康有为“尊碑卑唐”得失谈》,《中国艺术报》,2004年12月。
[8]蒋君慧《异化的尊碑》,《美术报》,2005年3月。
[9]张俊弟《清代碑学兴盛的原因探析》,《河西学院学报》2009年第4期
[10]胡泊《复古与经典重建：以清代书法为个案》,《艺术百家》,2010年第3期。
①侯开嘉：《中国书法史新论》,上海古籍出版社,2009年版,143页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,2002年版,827页。
②康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,804页。
①廖铁：《魏晋书风》,长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006年版,239页。
①段玉裁：《说文解字注》,上海古籍出版社,1981年版,359页。
②阮元：《北碑南帖论》,见《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,636-637页。
③包世臣：《艺舟双楫》,见《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,644-668页。
①叶昌炽、柯昌泗：《语石》,中华书局,1994年版,180-181页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,754-755页。
②康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,778页。
③刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年,4页。
①祝嘉：《艺舟双楫·广艺舟双楫疏证》,成都：巴蜀书社,1989年版,172页。
①冯班：《钝吟书要》,《历代书法论文选》下册,552页。
②阮元：《南北书派论》,《历代书法论文选》,634页。
③阮元：《南北书派论》,《历代书法论文选》,593页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫·尊碑第二》,《晚清书论》,武昌：湖北美术出版社,2004年版,198页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫·尊碑第二》,《晚清书论》,武昌：湖北美术出版社,2004年版,202页。
②包世臣：《艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,669页。
③包世臣：《艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,654页。
④包世臣：《艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,653页。
⑤康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,812页。
⑥康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,813页。
①《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,287页。
②庾肩吾：《书品》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,86-87页。
③李嗣真：《书后品》载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,134-135页。
①张怀瓘：《书断中》,载《历代书法论文选》上海书画出版社,1979年版,171页。
②包世臣：《国朝书品》,《艺舟双楫》,北京图书出版社,2004年版,89页。
③包世臣：《国朝书品》,《艺舟双楫》,北京图书出版社,2004年版,89页。
④陈大中：《当代书法创作模式与流派研究》,北京：荣宝斋出版社,2005年版,89页。
⑤陈大中：《当代书法创作模式与流派研究》,北京：荣宝斋出版社,2005年版,89页。
①《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1981年版,826页。
②《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1981年版,807页。
③《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1981年版,827页。
④《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1981年版,827页。
⑤这一段文字转引《真奇怪：今天的书法家为什么不学当代“不规整”的书迹》,白谦慎著,2004年。
①转引胡泊：《复古与经典重建：以清代书法为个案》,《艺术百家》,2010年第3期,240页。
②转引胡泊：《复古与经典重建：以清代书法为个案》,《艺术百家》,2010年第3期,240页。
①陈振濂：《中国书法批评史》,杭州：中国美术学院出版社,2002年版,221页。
②廖铁：《魏晋书风》,长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006年版,239页。
①康有为：《广艺舟双楫》,载《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979年版,812页。
①钟明善：《中国书法史》,石家庄：河北美术出版社,1983年版,144页。
②钟明善：《中国书法史》,石家庄：河北美术出版社,1983年版,144页。
①钟明善：《中国书法史》,石家庄：河北美术出版社,1983年版,144页。
②刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京:江苏教育出版社,1999年版,105页。
①白蕉：《碑与帖》,《书谱》,1980年版,41页。
②沙孟海：《近三百年的书学》,《东方杂志》,1930年27期,2页。
③白蕉：《碑与帖》,《书谱》,1980年版,41页。
④沃兴华：《敦煌书法艺术三题》,《中国书法》,1995年,3页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,121页。
①龚自珍《咏史》诗句。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,3页。
②转引韩顺仁《唐代楷书主体形态分析》。
①转引韩顺仁《唐代楷书主体形态分析》。
②转引韩顺仁《唐代楷书主体形态分析》。
③转引韩顺仁《唐代楷书主体形态分析》。
①朱仁夫：《中国古代书法史》,北京大学出版社,1992年版,482页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,103页。
②梁巘：《评书帖》,《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社1979年版。
③刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,103页。
④杨再春编著：《中国书法工具手册》,北京体育学院出版社1988年版,1152页。
⑤朱仁夫：《中国古代书法史》,北京大学出版社,1992年版,482页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,103页。
②(清)梁同书《频罗庵论书·复孔谷园论书》,载《明清书法论文选》。
③刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,103页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,108页。
②朱仁夫：《中国古代书法史》,北京大学出版社,1992年版,488页。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,108页。
②刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,108页。
③金开诚、王岳川主编：《中国书法文化大观》,北京大学出版社1995年版,587页。
①(清)包世臣《艺舟双楫·与吴熙载书》。
②(清)王文治《快雨堂题跋》卷六《张得天、刘石庵合卷》、《刘石庵书卷》。
③(清)徐珂《清稗类钞·艺术类》。
④(清)康有为《广艺舟双楫》卷六《行草第二十五》。
①沈津：《翁方纲题跋手札集录》,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2002年版,357页。
②翁方纲：《苏斋笔记》卷第十三古典刊行,昭和八年刊。
③翁方纲：《苏斋笔记》卷第十三古典刊行,昭和八年刊。
④翁方纲：《复初斋文集》之《欧虞褚论》,台湾文海出版社,369-370页。
①翁方纲：《复初斋文集》之《欧虞楮论》,台湾文海出版社,372页。
②翁方纲：《复初斋文集》之《欧虞褚论》,台湾文海出版社,373页。
①李元度：《国朝先正事略》卷四十二。
①王文治：《灵岩寺碑》,《快雨堂题跋》卷三,7页。
②王文治：《自临乐毅论》,《快雨堂题跋》卷六,15页。
③杨守敬：《学书尔言》,《历代书法论文选续编》,741页。
④钱泳：《履园丛话》,山东画报出版社,2004年版。
⑤张宗祥：《书学源流论》,《历代书法论文选续编》,889页。
⑥王文治：《快雨堂题跋》,《中国书画全书》第十册,上海书画出版社,1996年版,798页。
⑦陈云君：《中国书法史论》,人民日报出版社,1987年版。
①刘恒：《中国书法史·清代卷》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1999年版,109页。
[1](清)康有为《广艺舟双楫》卷二。
[2](清)李元度《国朝先正事略》卷四十二。
[3]林志钧《帖考》,1963年线装排印本。
[4]《历代书法论文选》,上海书画出版社,1979。
[5]崔尔平选编点校：《历代书法论文选续编》,上海：上海书画出版社,1979。
[6]沈尹默：《书法论丛》,上海教育出版社,1979。
[7]段玉裁《说文解字注》,上海古籍出版社,1981年。
[8]潘伯鹰：《中国书法简论》,上海人民美术出版社,1981。
[9]祝嘉《书学论集》,南京：金陵书法社,1982年。
[10]蔡美彪：《中国通史》第七册,北京：人民出版社,1983。
[11]祝嘉：《书学史》,四川：成都古籍出版社,1984。
[12]马宗霍：《书林藻鉴·书林纪事》,北京：文物出版社,1984。
[13]戴逸主编《简明清史》,北京：人民出版社,1984。
[14]洪丕谟：《书论选读》,郑州：河南美术出版社,1988。
[15]祝嘉《广艺舟双楫·广艺舟双楫疏证》,成都：巴蜀书社,1989。
[16]金诤：《科举制度与中国文化》,上海人民出版社,1990。
[17]崔尔平选编点校：《明清书法论文选》,上海书店,1994。
[18]邱振中：《中国书法技法的分析与训练》,杭州：中国美术学院出版社,1996。
[19]华人德：《历代笔记书论彙编》,南京：江苏教育出版社,1996。
[20]葛兆光《中国思想史》,上海：复旦大学出版社,1998。
[21]梁启超《清代学术概论》,上海古籍出版社,1998。
[22]鲁道夫·阿恩海姆《艺术与视知觉》,成都：四川人民出版社,1998。
[23]郑天挺《清史探微》,北京大学出版社,1999。
[24]刘正成：《中国书法全集》卷46,北京：荣宝斋出版社,2000。
[25]许大龄《明清史论集》,北京大学出版社,2000。
[26]徐复观《中国艺术精神》,上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001。
[27]周汝昌：《永字八法》,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2002。
[28]陈振濂：《线条的世界》,杭州：浙江大学出版社,2002。
[29]赖非：《书法环境—类型学》,北京：文物出版社,2003。
[30]钱泳《履园丛话》济南：山东画报出版社,2004。
[31]弗·威·谢林(著)魏庆征(译)：《艺术哲学》,北京：中国社会出版社,2005。
[32]邱振中：《神居何所—从书法史到书法研究方法论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005。
[33]邱振中：《书法的形态与阐释》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005。
[34]杨义：《中国古典文学图志》,北京：三联书店,2006。
[35]葛兆光：《中国思想史》,上海：复旦大学出版社,2007。
[36]顾随《顾随论学精要》,天津人民出版社,2007。
[1]沙孟海《近三百年的书学》,《东方杂志》,1930年第27期。
[2]李心庄《阁帖源流考略》,《书学》1943年第1期。
[3]白蕉《碑与帖》,《书谱》,1980年。
[4]李正峰《唐楷漫谈》,《唐都学刊》第8卷1992年第1期。
[5]庄桂森《清初帖学派书法略论》,《徐州师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学院)2001年第2期
[6]王夕闻董世斌《清代碑学兴盛成因略论》,《商丘师范学院学报》,2002年12月第6期
[7]郑伯阳《康有为“尊碑卑唐”得失谈》,《中国艺术报》,2004年12月。
[8]蒋君慧《异化的尊碑》,《美术报》,2005年3月。
[9]张俊弟《清代碑学兴盛的原因探析》,《河西学院学报》2009年第4期
[10]胡泊《复古与经典重建：以清代书法为个案》,《艺术百家》,2010年第3期。