古典與奇變—晚明士人對六朝書論的接受研究

六朝是書法史上「眾聲喧嘩」的時代，不僅各種書體發展成形，在書論的寫作上亦蓬勃發展。就歷史發展而言，六朝繼承東漢末年的書論思想，並在前哲的基礎上，發展出具有時代風格的論述模式。其中，包括筆法陳述，書體讚詠，書史發展，書法審美與書法品評等。先哲將學書所得行諸文字，是試圖從言說中，詮釋書法旨要，藉此證明自己的存有。然而，語言具有難以言宣的限制，因此，要能接受六朝書論，必須有語文與書法能力為基礎，否則，容易流於表面的解釋，而無法得到語言背後的美學真義。在書法創作上，二王的蕭散書風，向為時人所接受，尤其在受到皇室與鑒藏家的高舉後，更成為書法家競相模仿的典範。他們獨宗羲、獻，冀能從臨古中與之企及，甚至有超越二王之志。董其昌如此，王鐸、傅山又何嘗不是？如果將古典與奇變視為書法美學兩端，那麼值得思考的是，在古典書論的影響下，何以出現奇變書風？可以想見的是，「汲古出新」是書法家共同的信念，「變」是超越與證明存有的反映。為釐清古典書論與奇變書風的關係，本文試圖從閱讀六朝書論中，梳理其中的意義與發展脈絡。其次，從接受美學的角度，分析書論、本文與讀者之間的關係，並將自己置於當時的語境，思考其中的微言大義。再者，從晚明書法的發展面向，窺探奇變書風發展的內、外緣因素。最後，將晚明與六朝的書論相對照，抽繹晚明對六朝的接受關係。進而驗證「汲古出新」是書法家創作的法則，以及奇變出於古典之中的必然關係。晚明對六朝書論的接受，除反映在著述上，書畫題跋也可見其審美旨趣。而當書法家不輟地臨摹六朝法帖，實際上正是對六朝書論的接受反映。而這種形式的接受，雖未必見言說記載，然而，卻悄然地在書法家的筆跡中實現了。

關鍵字

六朝；晚明；書論；士人；接受美學

並列摘要

Six Dynasties were the era of “Heteroglossia” in calligraphy history. Various calligraphic styles were developed and formed, and the writing of calligraphy theories was thriving as well. In terms of the progression of history, Six Dynasties succeeded the calligraphy concepts from Late Han Dynasty, and developed a theory model that matched the style at the time on the basis of sages of previous times, such as stroke description, type compliment, calligraphy history development, calligraphy appreciation, and calligraphy comments, etc. The sages of previous times utilized the words they learned in order to interpret the topics of calligraphy works and therefore to attest their own existence from the words. However, languages have the unique limitations of being difficult to describe and interpret. Therefore, to accept the calligraphy theories of Six Dynasties, one must have the foundation on language as well as calligraphy skills, or otherwise they only see the surface but fail to obtain the aesthetics truth behind the language. In terms of calligraphic creations, the unconstrained style of two Wangs was often accepted by people. Such style even became the models of calligraphers after the imperial family and collectors. From the solely dominating Wang Xizhi and Wang Xianzhi, the calligraphers had the ambition of catching up and even going beyond both of them. Dong Qichang was one of those ambitious figures, as well as Wang Duo and Fu Shan. If we put the classical and the transformed as the two extremes of calligraphic aesthetics, what we can consider is that how the transformed emerged in the first place under the influences of the classical? Obviously, “From the Old Born the New” is the common faith of calligraphers; “the transformed” is the reflection of going beyond and attesting what had been existed. In order to clarify the correlation between classical theories and transformed styles, the study tries to organize the meaning and development progress in the reading of calligraphy theories in Six Dynasties. Secondly, it analyzes the correlations between the theories, the main textures, and the readers from the perspective of theory of reception, and put itself into the atmosphere at the time, considering the substantial meaning within. Then, it observes the internal and external factors on the transformed from the development aspects of calligraphy in Late Ming Dynasty. Lastly, it makes the compare and contrast of the calligraphy theories in Late Ming Dynasty and Six Dynasties, interpreting the reception between them and attesting that “From the Old Born the New” was the principle for calligraphers’ creation as well as the inevitable trend of “The Transformed Comes from the Classical”. The reception in Late Ming Dynasty toward calligraphy theories in Six Dynasties is not only reflected on the works and descriptions, but also on the appreciation amusements. The continuous pursuance and facsimile of models for writing in Six Dynasties were actually their reception reflection on the calligraphy theories. Such reception might not be seen in texts, but it was realized in the strokes of calligraphers, unnoticed.