不通文理漫抄書：嘉慶御寶〈小楷醉翁亭記〉價值重估

台北故宮博物院收有一幅署名文徵明書寫的〈小楷醉翁亭記〉，向來視為文氏傳世極品、晚年代表作。然而，1996年有鑽研文徵明的知名學者周道振，從跋文所牽涉的相關人事，到書寫時間、為文措辭、文氏用印，多方面指出疑竇，質疑該件作品的真實度；2009年又有張卉從字跡進行分析，發現與文氏整體書寫習慣多有不同，推斷是為偽作。本文贊成周、張二人的看法，而在他們的論述方法外，從文人抄寫經典篇章的角度切入，點出該作品中〈醉翁亭記〉有多處錯別字與顛倒詞語，造成文義與原典有所出入，顯示書寫者對此散文名篇的理解大有問題，對比另一件亦署名文徵明而文從字順的〈大字行書醉翁亭記〉，書寫者的文學涵養高下立判。由此推測，〈小楷醉翁亭記〉非文氏所書的可能性更高，而視之為文徵明真跡者，亦絕不能推崇為代表作，因為這是一件錯誤百出、足以令抄寫者蒙羞的閱讀紀錄。

關鍵字

文徵明；〈小楷醉翁亭記〉；〈大字行書醉翁亭記〉；周道振；即抄寫即閱讀

並列摘要

There is a calligraphy work ＂Record of the Pavilion of the Old Drunkard in Small Regular Script＂ signed by Wen Zhengming in Taipei Palace Museum, and it has always been regarded as one of his best masterpieces. However, in 1996, Zhou Daozhen, a research scholar who deeply studied in Wen Zhengming, pointed out many doubts in terms of many aspects like the postscript and expression, and even questioned the authenticity of the piece. In 2009, Zhang Hui analyzed the handwriting and found the overall writing habits quite different from Wen's, and inferred it to be a counterfeit work. This article is in favor of Zhou and Zhang's opinions. Besides their views, I discovered that there are many typos and reversed words in this work resulting in wrong meanings and allusions. It displays the copyist had problem understanding this classic article. Contrary to another work ＂Record of the Pavilion of the Old Drunkard in Large Running Script＂ with less mistake also signed by Wen Zhengming, the copyists's literary extents are totally different. To sum up, I assume that ＂Record of the Pavilion of the Old Drunkard in Small Regular Script＂ is not written by Wen Zhengming in higher possibility. If it is regarded as Wen's authentic work, it must not be viewed as his representative masterpiece, because it is a reading record full of mistakes that making shame on the copyist.