苏东坡黄州《浣溪沙五首》墨迹辨疑――读凌天明《苏轼<浣溪沙>词五首笺注之“墨迹”说辨误》

Study on Five Poems of Huanxi Sand by Su Dongpo in Huangzhou

凌先生"萧藏墨迹其实是一件伪作。……萧藏墨迹以只得苏字之形的吴宽《行书东坡词卷》为蓝本进行临仿"的结论是错误的。萧藏墨迹是吴宽仿录苏东坡《浣溪沙五首》墨迹的祖本,绝不是凌先生所说吴宽身后的人"在内容上全抄吴书",凌先生将史实本末倒置了。清康熙时代人安歧《墨缘汇观录》吴宽"行书苏文忠公《浣溪沙五首》,共三十一行,书法亦学苏文忠"的记述已经将吴宽书东坡词卷的来龙去脉表述得清楚明白。凌先生"吴宽的《行书东坡词卷》所据苏词版本现已无从查考",这只能说明其立论底气不足。

Mr. Ling’s conclusion is wrong, which said Xiaozang Ink is actually a fake work, and Xiao Zang’s ink is based on Wu Kuan’s Xingshu Dongpo CI volume which only has the shape of Su characters. Xiao Zang’s ink is the origin of Wu Kuan’s works. The narration of Mr. Ling has made a mistake. Wu Kuan’s works has thirty-one lines, whose calligraphy is learning from Su Wenzhong, which has been clearly expressed. Mr. Ling’s "the version of Su CI based on Wu Kuan’s" Dongpo CI Volume script can not be examined now, which only shows that his argument is insufficient.