Footnotes on the English Translation of “A Narrative on Calligraphy” Part I
(1). 夫自古之善書者 - The term “自古” in this context should be interpreted as “since long time ago” rather than “from antiquity” (Chang and Frankel 1995:1) or “ancient times”(De Laurentis 2011:41); “古” here is relative and not absolute in this context, and so does not necessarily include ancient prehistoric periods, and periods of Xia (夏), Shang (商) and Zhou (周), when standard and cursive scripts have not yet been discovered. See footnote (4) for further discussion on “古”.
Hence, the term “善書” is focused mainly on discussing on penning good standard, cursive and semi-cursive scripts, which were widely used during Sun Guoting’s era. In addition, the Four Talents (四賢, line 7), Zhong Yao 鍾繇, Zhang Zhi 張芝, Wang Xizhi (王羲之), Wang Xianzhi (王獻之) mentioned were not renowned for writing the ancient Clerical, Seal Scripts, and etc. Indeed, before the Four Talents, there were many renowned calligraphers, such as Li Si (李斯), who penned these ancient scripts with great beauty. (See 羊欣 , 《采古來能書人名》)
(2), (3). Extracted from On Calligraphy (《論書表》) by Yu He (虞龢) (《歷代書法論文選》。上海: 上海書畫出版社, 1979, pp.49-55).
(4). 古質而今妍 - The phrase was extracted from On Calligraphy (《論書表》) written by Yu He (虞龢). The “古” and “今” refer to “past” and “present” respectively, not “ancient” and “modern” as suggested in other translations. As in footnote (1), these terms are relative, not absolute. This argument is supported by On Calligraphy :
夫古質而今妍…鍾、張方(比)之二王，可謂古矣，...。 (二王) 父子之間又為今古，... 。Zhong and Zhang can be considered as the past relative to the two Wangs, … Between the two Wangs of father and son, it can also be said the son is the present and the father is the past.Source: 《歷代書法論文選》。上海: 上海書畫出版社, 1979, p.50。
The term “質” should be interpreted as a description for unadorned natural beauty without artificial embellishment (質樸), not “substance (物質)” as in Chang and Frankel’s translation (Chang and Frankel:1). “妍” , which is used here to contrast with “質” , should be interpreted as a description for elegance and prettiness that are of synthetic and artificial origins, and it certainly also carries substance.
(5).夫質以代興 – “代興” should be interpreted as “fashionable at times”, not “developed from generations from generations” suggested by Chang and Frankel (Chang and Frankel:1) or “arises through social habits” suggested by De Laurentis (De Laurentis:42) in this context. Original Chinese interpretation for “代” here should be “世代，年代，時代 (times)” while “興” should be “流行(fashionbable)” . It is absurd to assert that primitive natural unadorned beauty (質) can be “developed” by humans as time progresses or “arisen” via their social habits.
(6). “而淳醨一遷, 質文三變” - The vernacular Chinese interpretation can be written approximately as “當樸厚(淳)或浮薄(醨)的風尚一旦移易，書法上之或質或文，同亦因之有着很多的改變和變化。” In this context, the original Chinese interpretation of “三” should be “多數或多次(many or multiple times)” as in “三思者，言思之多，能審慎也。”. Hence, “三變” should mean “many varieties of changes”. Translating it to “changed in three stages” (Chang and Frankel:1) or “three mutations” (De Laurentis:42) is therefore incorrect. Furthermore, “淳醨” is used to describe the different fashions “風尚” and is not used to describe the strength of “wines” as suggested in De Laurentis’s translation (De Laurentis:42).
(7). Extracted from The Analects Yong Ye (《論語·雍也》) , translated to English by James Legge.
(8). 且元常專工於隸書 – The “隸書” here refers to “楷書 (standard script)” which was known as “今隸(current clerical script)” in Tang dynasty.