摘要
Before the nineteenth century, most Chinese antique collectors centred around the region of the Yellow and Yangtze rivers. Starting from the middle of the nineteenth century, certain Cantonese scholars serving in the North, as well as Cantonese merchants in the salt business, began to show an interest in antique objects. As a result, five art collections of considerable size were built up in Kwangtung, the southernmost part of China. Moreover these five collectors had all compiled catalogues for their collections.
From the Sung dynasty onward, two editing principles became commonly used in the compilation of Chinese art catalogues. One was to divide the record of calligraphy from that of painting, so that they formed two independent sections. The other was to combine the records of calligraphy and painting into one chronicle. These two principles had been in use ever since the Sung dynasty. However, during the Ch'ing dynasty, the number of catalogues that were compiled in accordance with the combination principle far exceeded those that followed the separate section principle. The ration between them was approximately 1:4.5.
Among the art catalogues of the nineteenth century Cantonese collectors, only Yeh Meng-lung's 葉夢龍 (1775-1832) "Fêng-man-lou-shu-hua-lu" 風滿樓書畫錄 (4 vols. completed around 1840) was compiled in accordance with the separate section principle. The other four catalogues, namely Wu Yung-kuang's 吳榮光 (1773-1843) "Hsin-ch'ou-hsiao-hsia-chi" (5 vols. completed in 1841) 辛丑銷夏記, P'an Cheng-wei's 潘正煒(1791-1850) "T'ing-feng-lou-shu-hua-chi" 聽颿樓書畫記 (5 vols. completed in 1843) and hsü-chi 續記 (two vols. completed in 1849), Liang T'ing-jan's 梁廷柟(1796-1861) "T'eng-hua-t'ing-shu-hua-pa" 藤花亭書畫跋 (4 vols. completed in 1855), and Kung Kuang-tao's 孔廣陶(1832-?) "Yüeh-hsüeh-lou-shu-hua-lu" 嶽雪樓書畫錄 (5 vols. completed in 1861), all abided by the combination principle. In the matter of editing principle, among the five Cantonese art catalogues, the ration between the one that followed the separate section principle and those that conformed with the combination principle is 1:4, which is quite close to the 1:4.5 ratio between catalogues that followed either of these two principles throughout the Ch'ing dynasty.
As to the editing methods used in Chinese art catatogues, there appeared three main characteristics before the Wan-li 萬曆 era (1573-1619) of the Ming dynasty, namely (1) brief description of subject matter in the painted proper; (2) only the names of those who had inscribed colophons on or outside the painted proper were recorded; (3) only the names of those who had stamped their seals on or outside the painted proper were recorded. It was Chu Ts'un-li 朱存理 who first recorded in his "Tieh-wang-shan-hu" 鐵網珊瑚 (first published in 1597, reprinted in 1610) the whole text of every colophon. However, Wang K'o-yü 汪砢玉 was the first one to record the format (hanging scroll, album, handscroll) and texture of each painting, something which Chu Ts'un-li had overlooked. Pien Yung-yü 卞永譽 of early Ch'ing further started to record the size of paintings, as well as the text and shape of all the seals that appeared on them. Being the first to grasp these five essential elements in art catalogue (i.e. inscription, text and shape of seal, texture and size of painting), Pien's influence was far-reaching. Even the art catalogue of the Ch'ing imperial collection followed his methods. Among the art catalogues that were privately compiled, the editing methods used in Sun Ch'êng-tsê's 孫承澤 "Keng-tzu-hsiao-hsia-chi" 庚子銷夏記 (completed in 1659) and Kao Shih-ch'i's 高士奇 "Chiang-ts'un-hsiao-hsia-lu" 江村銷夏錄 (completed in 1693) were the closest to those employed in Pien Yung-yü's "Shih-ku-t'ang-shu-hua-hui-k'ao" 式古堂書畫彙考 (completed in 1682).
Although a small number of art catalogues did not follow the five-essential-elements editing method initiated by Pien Yung-yü, the five Kwangtung collectors' catalogues, however, completely abided by Pien's way. Nevertheless these five collectors held Sun and Kao's catalogues in high esteem. Moreover, Wu Yung-kuang in the introductory remarks of his catalogue stated explicitly that his book was compiled by taking Kao Shih-ch'i's as his model. It is rather surprising that though the editing method used in these five collectors' catalogues was first introduced by Pien Yung-yü, yet it did seem that these Kwangtung art collectors had no knowledge of Pien's work.
Unfortunately the five Cantonese collectors all committed certain errors in their catalogues. These errors can generally be categorized as:
(1) Improper editing method. For example, there are two works by Ni Tsan 倪瓚(1301-1374) and three works by Wang Fu 王紱 (1362-1416) recorded in the "Hsin-ch'ou-hsiao-hsia-chi". However following the introduction of Ni Tsan's first painting, Wu Yung-kuang recorded six paintings by other painters, and then continued with Ni's second painting. Similarly, he inserted the introduction of eight pieces of work by other artists between the texts recording Wang Fu's first two paintings and the third one. Yet in his introduction of Ch'ien Hsüan 錢選 and Chao Mêng-fu 趙孟頫, their four paintings were all grouped together, without being interrupted by the record of works of other painters. From this it can be seen that Wu Yung-kuang was inconsistent in the matter of editing methods. His way of separating the record of works by Ni Tsan and Wang Fu is most confusing to the reader.
(2) Carelessness in proof-reading. It is well known that Wu Sheng 吳升 was the author of the famous art catalogue "Ta-kuan-ku" 大觀錄, which was completed in early Ch'ing. Wu Yung-kuang once mentioned Wu Sheng in his catalogue "Hsin-ch'ou-hsiao-hsia-chi" by the latter's literary name Tzǔ-min 子敏. Since he knew Wu Sheng's literary name, evidently he must have known Wu's personal name. However in another passage in the same catalogue he recorded Wu Sheng as Wang Sheng 王升. And in the same way, he mistook "wu-ya 烏雅" for "wu-ya 烏鴉". In the case of "Têng-hua-t'ing-shu-hua-pa," Liang T'ing-jan correctly recorded the literary name of Ch'ien Hsüan as Shun-chü in the text, but in the list of contents, it was found that "Shun-chü 舜擧" had been misprinted as "Hsin-chü 信擧" for three times.
(3) Chronological discrepancy. In "Hsin-ch'ou-hsiao-hsia-chi," there is an inscription written by Wu Yung-kuang himself for the "Tzǔ-li-t'u" 賜梨圖. The date recorded at the end of this inscription is "chia-shu" 甲戌. Yet no such year could be found in the Tao-kuang era 道光. The stems and branches closest tot "chia-shu" are "chia-wu" 甲午, "mu-shu" 戊戌, and "chia-ch'ên" 甲辰. However the year "chia'ch'ên" (1844) could be ignored, since by that time Wu Yung-kuang had already passed away. As to the other two dates, Wu was sixty-two years of age in the year "chia-wu" (1834) and sixty-eight by "mu-shu" (1838). It was then the beginning of the last decade before his death. By then he must have shown certain degrees of old age, and could no longer recall the correct date that he himself had lived through.