古原宏伸《芥子园画传初集解题》商榷

Discussion on the The First Edition of Mustard Garden Painting Settle by Furuhara Nomura

日本学者古原宏伸的《芥子园画传初集解题》一文,认定李渔和王槩是初集的编撰者和责任人,无视沈心友对初集深度参与的贡献和所应承担的责任,由此引出一系列错误的结论。《解题》质疑初集所依据的李流芳稿本的真实性,难以令人信服,因为此本非李渔而是沈心友家藏本。《解题》谓王槩为博取"见过真迹的荣耀"而"弄虚作假",事实上是沈心友没有也不可能为其提供全部名画的真迹。《解题》强调初集画论"大部分不是王槩自己的语言文字",完全未考虑到沈心友参与了初集画论文字的搜集编辑工作,而且初集的宗旨就是要集前人山水画论之大成。《解题》批评了初集的常识性错误,但有时忽略了版本问题,有时错怪了人。应当客观公允地衡量初集的价值。

Japanese scholar Furuhara Nomura's The First Edition of Mustard Garden Painting Settle found that Li Yu and Wang Gai are the authors and responsible persons of the book,regardless of the contribution that Shen Xinyou made in deep participation and responsibility carried for the initial set,which leads to a series of wrong conclusions.Settle questioned the authenticity of Li Liufang's manuscript which considered as the basis of the initial set and which is unconvincing,because it is not the possession of Li Yu but that of Shen.Settle said Wang Gai'deceives readers'to gain'the glory of having laid eyes on the original';in fact,Shen Xinyou did not and could not provide all the authentic paintings.Settle emphasizes the early painting theory that'most of the language is not Wang's own language',and it does not take into account the participation of Shen Xinyou to the initial collection of painting on the collection of editorial work,and the purpose of the early set is to collect the predecessors landscape paintings.Settle criticizes the common-sense errors of the initial set,but sometimes ignores the version problem,which sometimes results in wrong blames.The value of the initial set should be measured objectively and fairly.