Footnotes on the English Translation of “A Narrative on Calligraphy” Part V
(70). 伯英不真，而點畫狼藉 – “而點畫狼藉” should be a sentence that is written to address Zhang Zhi’s standard script, not his renowned cursive script. This is for two reasons. First, Sun Guoting already acknowledged Zhang Zhi was the “Sage of the Cursive Script” in the previous sentence (Line 94), so praising his cursive script here again is unnecessary and redundant. Second, it is likely that Sun Guoting wanted to point out Zhang Zhi wrote reasonably well standard script despite the fact that he was commonly known to have penned fantastic cursive script. The notion of Zhang Zhi having written standard script is supported by two independent sources:
I). The Xuanhe Calligraphy Catalogue , Volume 13, Han, Zhang Zhi (《宣和書譜•張芝》)：
(張芝)每作楷字，則曰: “匆匆,不暇草書。” 其精勤如此。故於草書尤工。Whenever he (Zhang Zhi) wrote a standard script work, he always commented, “In a rush, did not find the time, leisure and mood to pen it in cursive script.” This indicates his rigor and diligence towards the cursive script. Hence, he was especially adept at writing the cursive script.(translated by KS Vincent Poon)
Source:《宣和書譜》卷十三, 漢, 張芝。上海: 上海書畫出版社, 1984, p101。
《晉書》卷三十六衛瓘傳。北京:中華書局，1974，p.1065。
The above passage can be interpreted to vernacular Chinese as:(張芝) 每寫楷字，便說:「匆匆忙忙(按: 此即孫過庭所言「五乖」中之「心遽體留」)，沒閑暇寫草書。」足見他對草書是這麽的嚴謹和盡心盡力。故此在草書方面，尤為擅長。(Interpreted by Kwok Kin Poon)
Thus, Zhang Zhi certainly had written good standard script, and, more importantly, he wrote his renowned cursive script only when he had the time, leisure and mood (which suggested that writing good cursive script requires more focus and concentration, contrary to common belief). In addition, since Sun Guoting was much closer in time to Zhang Zhi’s era than us, it is likely that Sun Guoting had once observed Zhang Zhi’s standard script works in his lifetime.II). In Judgements on Calligraphy (《書斷》) by Zhang Huaiguan (張懷瓘), Zhang Zhi's cursive scripts are categorized as masterpieces (神品) while his standard scripts are regarded as wonderful works (妙品).Source: 《歷代書法論文選》。上海: 上海書畫出版社, 1979, pp.171-173。
Accordingly, the vernacular Chinese interpretation of “伯英不真，而點畫狼藉” should be:
伯英(張芝) 雖不專精楷書，但他楷書的點畫(上文所謂「真以點畫為形質」)，卻是奔放不拘。(interpreted by Kwok Kin Poon)
As such, the following translations of “伯英不真，而點畫狼藉” are completely incorrect:
- “Although Zhang Zhi did not do zhen, dots and lines can be seen everywhere in his calligraphy.” (Chang and Frankel, Two Chinese Treatises on Calligraphy, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1995 :6)- “[Zhang]Boying did not write in the standard script, but his dots and strokes were scattered all over.” (De Laurentis, The Manual of Calligraphy by Sun Guoting of the Tang, Napoli: Universita degli Studi di Napoli "L'Orientale", 2011:49)
(71). 元常不草，使轉從橫- “使轉從橫” should refer to Zhong Yao’s cursive script, not his standard script. Sun Guoting wanted to point out that Zhong Yao wrote reasonably well cursive script despite he was well known for his standard script. According to two indepedent sources:
I). In《中國書法大辭典》, Zhong Yao was known to “write various scripts well (兼善各體)”( see梁披雲《中國書法大辭典》。廣東: 廣東人民出版社，1991, p.274), and so it would not be surprising for Sun Guoting to argue that Zhong Yao had written fine cursive script by stating “使轉從橫”.II). In Judgements on Calligraphy (《書斷》) by Zhang Huaiguan (張懷瓘), Zhong Yao's standard scripts are categorized as masterpieces (神品) while his cursive scripts are regarded as wonderful works (妙品).Source: 《歷代書法論文選》。上海: 上海書畫出版社, 1979, pp.171-173。
Hence, the vernacular Chinese interpretation of “元常不草，使轉從橫” should be:
元常(鍾繇)雖不專精草書，但他草書的使轉(上文所謂「(草以)使轉為形質」)，同亦奔放自如。(interpreted by Kwok Kin Poon)
Note both “點畫狼藉” and “使轉從橫” were used to describe the physical forms (形質) of the standard and cursive scripts respectively (see Lines 86-87).
Accordingly, Sun Guoting reasonably argued that Zhang Zhi, the cursive script sage, could still pen fine physical forms of standard script while Zhong Yao, the standard script wizard, could still write good physical forms of cursive script. In other words, they wrote both scripts well (兼善), which is connected with the argument of the next sentence (see Line 96).
As such, the two translations of “元常不草，使轉從橫” are flawed:
- “Zhong You did not write cao, curving movements abound in his pieces of writing.” (Chang and Frankel:6)- “Yuanchang did not write in the cursive, but his pulls and rotations were everywhere.” (De Laurentis:49)
(72). 自茲已降，不能兼善者，有所不逮，非專精也 - The vernacular Chinese interpretation of this entire sentence should be:
所以，自此之後，書家沒能兼善，有所不及，這不會是專精的緣故。(interpreted by Kwok Kin Poon)