"Chen Lan Ti" (yesterday's post) On paper, Line book Length 25.9 cm Width 20.8 cm Collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei
Among the calligraphers of the Song Dynasty, Mi Fu had the largest number of handed down inkblots, and the authenticity of the works was also the most complicated, and the authenticity of many of them was endlessly discussed in the academic community, and it was difficult to determine. The Qing Dynasty scholar Zhang Boying conducted a systematic examination of the authenticity of the Mi Fu calligraphy he saw, and explicitly eliminated a number of widely circulated forgeries and pseudo-engravings[1], laying a good academic foundation for later research; in 1992, Mr. Cao Baolin made a detailed and meticulous combing and summarizing of the surviving Mi Fu calligraphy works in the "Complete Collection of Chinese Calligraphy - Mi Fu Scrolls", of which 80 ink books were identified as authentic (including the works of the Ancients of Mi Fu) and 7 important pseudo-works in the collection [2]. The work is well-researched and orderly, and the authenticity of the work has been widely accepted and cited by the academic community.
However, in the process of proofreading the inkblots of Mi Fu, the author found that there were still several forgeries that were not clearly recognized by predecessors due to the relatively realistic method of counterfeiting, including the "Chen Lan Ti" in the collection of the National Palace Museum in Taipei. Obviously, the re-identification of the authenticity of this collection is of great academic significance. In addition, it is worth noting that this work can be mixed with fish eyes for a long time, escaping the eyes of many connoisseurs in ancient and modern times, and is closely related to its forgery technique. Previously, Mr. Oe had mentioned the authenticity of Chen Lan Ti in his writings, but had not examined it or discussed its falsification in depth. As far as the author knows, at present, the issue has been systematically expounded in the text, so it is intended to examine the authenticity of "Chen Lanti" in this article, and analyze its falsification techniques from some sentence doubts, hoping to summarize the universal law on this basis.
1. Comparison of the images of "Chen Lan Ti" with the original works of Mi Fu
The authenticity identification of calligraphic works first needs to be elaborated from its ontology, specifically, it is necessary to conduct image analysis between the identified works and standard parts, and to carry out statistics and analysis of differences in handwriting characteristics in order to obtain true conclusions [4]. With this in mind, the author first conducted an image comparison analysis between the "Chen Lan Ti" and the recognized authentic works of Mi Fu, and obtained a number of sets of significant differences, limited to the space of 5 groups listed here as follows:
1.1 The "unconnected" characteristic of the word "芾"
As we all know, the signature characteristics of calligraphers are an important basis for authenticity identification [5]. As shown in Figure 1, in the original signature of Mi Fu, after the long horizontal, it is necessary to lift the pen and rewrite the short vertical, and the two strokes are completely separated. Mi Fu's signature varies slightly from period to period in his life, but this feature has never changed. In contrast, the "芾" character of "Chen Lan Ti" is written with a short vertical similar to an apostrophe after a long horizontal, and the difference between it and the original handwriting is very significant. In fact, this signature flaw exists in many forgeries that have been passed down from generation to generation, which should be caused by the later generations of counterfeiters who do not follow the ancient law in terms of techniques such as writing and carrying pens, which is easier to identify.
Figure 1 Analysis of the difference between the signed "芾" characters, the black box on the left is the "Chen Lan Tie" character, and the standard signature legend on the right is taken from yu Zhong Ti, Dongpo MuShi Tu Shi Bao, Zhu Qian Huai Hou Shi Ti (two characters), Shi Feng Ti, Shu Bai Ti, Bo Chong Ti, Chang Zhi Ti, Zhang Hou Ti, Han Ma Ti (in order from left to right, from top to bottom)
1.2 Do not practice "fire" nature
The difference between the fire character next to the word "annoying" in "Chen Lan Ti" and the standard part is very obvious. As shown in Figure 2, the shape of the right point of the word "annoyance" is frivolous and slippery, similar to picking, while all the standard works of Cha Mi Fu, all the explanations of the right point next to the fire word are very clear and cut, and there is no situation similar to "Chen Lan Ti".
Figure 2 Analysis of the differences next to the fire characters, the black box on the left is the annoying character of "Chen Lan Ti", and the illustrations next to the fire characters listed on the right are taken from Xue Shaopeng Shu, Tanmo Qiu Shan Ti, Shu Xi Poetry Scroll, Wang Liu Tie Zan, Xi Cheng Ti (two words), Yan Shan Ming, Xiang Xi Poetry Scroll, Bian Zhou Poetry Scroll, Sand Step Poem (in order from left to right, from top to bottom)
1.3 The hook and the unhook of the vertical knife
As shown in Figure 3, the end of the "to" vertical knife is picked out to the upper left, and the form is extremely unnatural; on the contrary, almost all of the sharp knives are written in a long vertical shape, and occasionally gently kicked out to the lower left (as shown in the red circle in Figure 3), which is significantly different from the form of the "to" character in "Chen Lan Ti".
Figure 3 Analysis of the difference next to the vertical knife, the black box on the left is "Chen Lan Ti" to the word, and the illustrations next to the vertical knife listed on the right are taken from the Three Wu Tie, the Bian Zhou Poetry Post, the Shu Xi Poetry Scroll, the Shu Su Poetry Scroll (two characters), the Bamboo Front Locust Post, the Light Ink Qiushan Post, the Zhang Du Da Tie (two words), and the Xie Ci Imperial Book Poetry Post (in the order from left to right, from top to bottom)
1.4 Physiological characteristics of the "ear" part
There are also significant differences between the "part" character next to the ear and the authentic handwriting of the Mi Fu, as shown in Figure 4, the "part" character is written up and down next to the ear, and the curve at the middle turn is not continuous, and the strokes at the turn are thinner; in the Mi Fu authentic handwriting, all the earsides are written continuously, the curve is continuous, and the stroke thickness at the turn is consistent with other parts - or even thicker.
Figure 4 Analysis of the difference between the ears, the black box on the left is the "Chen Lan Ti" part of the characters, the right side of the standard piece of ear illustrations listed are taken from the Three Wu Ti, Wu Jiang Zhou Zhong Shi Ti, Zhen Zhong Ti, Shu Su Poetry Scroll (two words), Zhu Qian Huai Hou Shi Ti, Xiang Shi Ti, Xin En Ti, Andu Tu Ti (two words)
1.5 Concatenation between two words
In the "Chen Lan Ti", there are two links between words, which are located between "Sheng Ten" and "Mo Bu", as shown in Figure 5, these two links have a significant impact on the form of "ten" and "no", and the thread and the main pen are not distinguished, and the explanation is not clear.
For ease of comparison, a similar concatenation in the original mifu is listed in Figure 5. As shown in the upper right of the figure, the "ten" character of Mi Fu is concise and powerful, which is very different from the "Chen Lan Ti"; as shown in the lower right of the figure,
The word "no" of Mi Fu occasionally has a situation of being associated with the previous word, but trying to compare the form of the single word "no" and the combination of "no", it can be seen that these joints do not affect the independent form of the word "no", which is also in stark contrast to the unclear explanation of "Chen Lan Ti".
Figure 5 Analysis of the difference between the two characters, the black box on the left is the example of "Chen Lan Ti", the standard piece legend listed on the right side is taken from the bamboo front and back poems, the Jin paper post, and the lai drama post (three places), and the standard piece legend listed on the right side is taken from the Hui Citrus Post, the Value Rain Post (two places), the Karma Mirror Post, and the Township Stone Post
In fact, the handwriting of Chen Lan Ti is very different from that of Mi Fu, and its pseudo-works are not limited to the above 5 places. However, the five features listed by the author are relatively significant, easy to identify, and can be used as a universal identification standard to identify the authenticity of Mi Fu's works.
2. A preliminary study of the falsification techniques of "Chen Lan Ti"
At this point, it is possible to make a certain conclusion about the authenticity of the "Chen Lan Ti", but I believe that there are still many scholars who are inclined to identify the authenticity through literature examination, and in order to explain this doubt, the author hereby proposes several "examination evidence" supporting evidence to further falsify, and will expound the falsification method of "Chen Lan Ti" based on these supporting evidences.
2.1 Chamois and deer
The first corroboration stems from the doubts in the interpretation of "Chen Lan Ti", which is interpreted as follows on the official website of the National Palace Museum in Taipei:
Yesterday Chen Lan's victory, the deer got the deer, the deer, the same people, do not have to bother others, only like ordinary life, the ten officials if they do not meet the ministry, the gentry district is also, mi fu dun first worship.
This passage is difficult to understand, and the interpretation of this passage in the literary theories of the past is also vague[2], in large part because the sentence "deer is deer" is really difficult to explain," whether the original meaning of the word "deer" is used or the word is used. The author believes that this is a difficult problem of interpretation caused by the forger mistakenly writing a deer in a custom of mi fu (with the same bold), for the following reasons:
1) Replace the deer in "Chen Lan Ti" with a moose, then the literary theory immediately penetrates: "Yesterday Chen Lan Shu won, the chamois (coarse) was obtained, and the eel (coarse) should be qizhi", which is consistent with the logic of the following text "the same person who has been restrained, (Mo) does not have to bother others".
2) Through the examination of all extant Works of Mi Fu, almost all the "thick" characters are written as 麁, as shown in Figure 6, which shows that this is the inherent word habit of Mi Fu; at present, only one exception has been found, which appears in the Seven Theses of Mi Lin [6], but this is due to the need for copying and cannot be used as a counter-evidence of this view.
Figure 6 Mi Fu Suo Shu Shu
From this, it can be seen that "deer get deer yi" is indeed caused by a mistake. Obviously, Mi Fu will not write his commonly used words wrong, then it can only be a mistake made by the counterfeiter in the process of writing - on the one hand, it further confirms the falsity of the "Chen Lan Ti", and on the other hand, it also inspires the exploration of the forgery method of the post. Common counterfeiting techniques include imitation, pro, and fabrication, among which fabrication can be divided into fabrication with original text basis and fabrication without original text basis and pure fiction. The elk distinction excludes not only the possibility of facsimiles, but also the possibility of fiction— because the forger does not invent a text that he himself cannot understand. So, is "Chen Lan Ti" a pro-text or a conjecture based on the original text? This requires us to look at several other "evidence-based" evidence.
2.2 "Face" does not raise the grid and "mo do not use"
In "Chen Lan Ti", "face-to-face" is a word that needs to be written in an elevated frame, but it is not raised in the actual writing process, which can be seen as a suspicious point. Based on this, we checked all the credible inkblots of Mi Fu, and counted that the "face" characters that needed to be written by the grid appeared a total of 4 times, of which 3 times were written by the grid and 1 time without the grid. Three of the codexes are located in the "Lai Xi Ti", "Han Ma Ti" and "Hui Citrus The", these three codexes are either asking for help, or thanking each other for their gifts, in order to show respect, they are all written at the "face"; the example of unscented writing is the ShengZhi Ti, which is a codex made by friends who exchange calligraphy and painting works, and it is understandable that the unruly frame is not rigorously raised. In contrast, in "Chen Lan Ti", from the words "tongren", "to the ministry", "and "the district of the gentry", it can be inferred that the ruler is a letter of a public service nature, and it is obviously inappropriate for the "face" not to be raised.
In addition, "Don't bother others" is also an obvious sentence doubt, the double negation of "Mo no" indicates the positive meaning, then the literal meaning of the sentence should be understood as "everyone is going to trouble others", which is obviously not the original intention of Mi Fu, although there are often some inexplicable words and sentences in the Mi Fu Ruler [7], but this obvious error is rare.
Combining these two doubts, we can rule out the possibility of linben, and basically confirm that the counterfeiter obtained the text content of the original copy of the Chen Lan Ti through certain channels (ancient books or Fa Ti), and then imitated the mi fu style of writing on his own. It is easy to understand that some errors made by the ancients in the process of transmitting texts, which explains the above-mentioned doubts about the elevation and "no use".
In short, the "Chen Lan Ti" is a pseudo-book made by ancient forgers who obtained the text content of the Rice Cook ruler from the literature and further imitated the meaning of the Rice Cook. A closer look at the style of this post shows that the forger was clearly influenced by the Ming Dynasty calligrapher Dong Qichang, and some of the strokes and structures were handled in exactly the same way as Dong's; in addition, the post contained a number of seals of the Qing Dynasty collector An Qi, so the time of counterfeiting of the post can be tentatively set as the end of the Ming and early Qing dynasties.
[1] Zhang Boying's "Synopsis of The Fa Ti"
[2] Cao Baolin, Complete Collections of Chinese Calligraphy, vols. 37-38
[3] Dajiang's "Mi Fu Jian Zhen - A Study of the Falsehood of the Duojinglou Poetry Post" and the Study of the Rice Book
[4] Zhao Hua, Pseudo-Zhao Mengfu Calligraphy and Painting Printing and Identification: A Case Study of Yu He's Pseudo-Zhao Mengfu Calligraphy and Painting, Proceedings of the Third Lanting Forum on Chinese Literature
[5] Cao Baolin, Mi Fu,"Bamboo Before and After the Acacia Poems", "The Collection of Holding Urns"
[6] Baojin Zhai Fa Ti, The Complete Collection of Chinese Fa Ti
[7] Cao Baolin, Commentary on Mi Fu, Complete Collection of Chinese Calligraphy, 38 volumes
Source: Sihai College