Non Dubito
简体中文
← 艺术作品细读

NON DUBITO · 书法 · 中国书法

《曹全碑》:伸长的一笔,靠什么站住

同一开里,“孝”和“季”都托着一个“子”。

这篇谈什么

同一开里,“孝”和“季”都托着一个“子”。左半开中列最上面的“孝”,上部横向铺开,下面的“子”收得很短;最左列第四字“季”,下部却垂下来,转向左边,划出一道很长的弧线。两字下部相近,却没有写成同一副样子:一个低而宽,另一个把宽度转成了向下的行程。

再看它们旁边。“孝”下面是斜向右下伸出的“之”,再下面,“性”的竖画使字形变窄;“季”上面则是横画层叠的“養”,下面接“祖”。相近的部件没有独自表演两种姿态,它们还使邻近几个字的距离显出了差别。

明拓《曹全碑》整开,左页可比较“孝”与“季”,右页保留“好學”等相邻字列
图1 故宫藏明代初拓《曹全碑》册的一开。左半开中列自上而下为“孝之性根生於”;最左列为“心收養季祖母”。后一列第四字“季”的上部为“禾”。看见相似轮廓以后,还须回到笔画与语句辨认。 官方高清放大前往馆方作品页查看原图 ↗

“孝之性,根生于心,收养季祖母”,是在说孝养的品性生于内心,并记述曹全照料季祖母这位长辈。两个字都以下部“子”为骨架,在浅色字口与深色拓墨的对照里,很容易先看见它们相近的上下组织。那个被拉长的弧线,属于“季”的具体写法。

把两列一起看,“之”把长笔送向右下,“季”下部的弧线却向左兜回。长笔没有都飞向同一边:一处斜向送出,一处向下再回收。同一开册页上,相近的部件与邻字给出不同的行程。《曹全碑》的舒展,正在这些方向与收放的差别里。

先分清:眼前是汉碑,还是明代的一册纸

原碑立于东汉中平二年(185)十月,记郃阳令曹全的家世与政绩,石今藏西安碑林。这里观看的是北京故宫博物院藏、文物号新00045355的明代出土初拓未断本。它从石上拓下,又剪裱成册,后来经王弘撰收藏。原石的刻立年代、拓纸的制作年代、装裱和摄影的年代,不能叠成一个日期。故宫藏品说明

字是浅的,底是黑的。它不是曹全或书写者蘸着白墨写在黑纸上的手稿。拓印把刻入石面的字口与周围表面转成这种明暗关系;我们通过纸、墨、石面和刻工的共同传递,接近曾经的书写。本文谈粗细、弯转和开合,不把纸上每一点破碎都当作毛笔留下的飞白。

每幅图是一整开册页,两半各有三条字列,自右向左、每列自上而下读。明显的接缝、窄条边缘和两页间隔属于剪裱后的观看条件。因此,本页相邻可供比较,并不保证它们原来就是石上相邻的长行;也不能把六字一列的换列当作汉代书写者特意安排的停顿。我们先在这个具体拓本里辨字,讨论原碑行列时则保留这道边界。

“或”重复了四次,字也没有变成印章

《曹全碑》家族分布一段,右半开可见四个“或”,左半开有“枝分葉布”
图2 右半开最右列第五字、中列第三字、左列第一与第五字,都是“或”。左半开右列从上往下为“敦煌枝分葉布”。故宫博物院藏,同册整开缩图。 官方高清放大前往馆方作品页查看原图 ↗

这段说:“或在安定,或处武都,或居陇西,或家敦煌。枝分叶布,所在为雄。”意思是,曹氏支系分别居于安定、武都、陇西、敦煌,如枝叶分布,在各处成为有地位的家族。这是碑文对家世的称扬。它交代了“或”为什么一再出现,也使我们知道,这些字首先承担着一段有目的的公共叙述。

四个“或”都显得横向开展,却没有一个现成外框供它们填进去。右半开左列顶上的“或”,中间的小“口”很清楚,向右伸出的斜画在它上方与旁边构成另一层;同列靠下的“或”,两部分的重心关系又略有移动。最右列的“或”紧跟在“風”下面,顶横与斜画向外展开,“口”则留在较紧的中心。相同的识别线索反复出现,彼此间的黑色空处却并不相同。

可以先只看“口”,再看它到最右端的距离。那个小空间并不是字完成之后剩下的废地。内收的“口”使外伸的一笔显得更长;若把里面也同步撑宽,整个字也许更大,却未必还有这种从紧处放出去的感觉。

左半开又换了材料。“葉”笔画较多,横画与中间竖线交织;紧接的“布”笔画少,顶部向左右撑开,下部露出较大的黑色间隙。两字没有被写成同样密度。

两个“于”,让横画获得不同的余地

《曹全碑》册页,右页末字和左页首字均为“于”,保留“曹國”“王室”等邻列
图3 右半开最右列底部与左半开最左列顶部各有一“于”。右半开中列“國”下可见大块缺损、补纸区域及朱印,不将其当作字的正常结构。故宫博物院藏。 官方高清放大前往馆方作品页查看原图 ↗

图3的两个“于”比“或”更省笔。右半开最右列底端的“于”,较短的上横与展开的下横拉出层次,竖笔弯向左下;左半开最左列顶端的另一个“于”,横画伸展与弯笔回收的比例又有变化。两个“于”都让很少的线条占住了明确的空间。

与它们对照的,是右半开中列顶端的“曹”。上下部件层层相叠,里面有多个小空格;再往下的“國”又用外框把内部收住。少笔字的宽阔与多笔字的紧密,在这一开并排出现。只把《曹全碑》概括成“扁平”,会漏掉这两种完全不同的组织办法。

传统隶书讨论中的“波磔”,在这里可以落实为一条笔画由较窄处行向较宽处、末端再挑起的变化。看左半开“王”的底横,横势并非均匀的直尺;看“土”的下部,也能找到中间与两端的起伏。所谓平稳,并不来自每一段都水平。局部的俯仰,被安排在一个整体仍然安定的字里。

“蚕头燕尾”可以帮助初学者寻找起收笔的差别,若每字都只忙着找一只燕尾,眼睛又容易只认最显眼的末端。这里还要看横画下面留下多少黑地,竖笔在哪里穿过,其他短线怎样避免和主笔争抢同一块空间。一个字的舒展,不仅是某一笔很长,也是别处没有一起占满。

一个很小的“七”,并不显得空

《曹全碑》赈济医药一段,右半开左列“合七首藥神明”完整可见
图4 右半开左列为“合七首藥神明”,第二字依馆录读“七”。“神明”须接左半开右列首字“膏”,连读为药名“神明膏”。“親”在左半开右列第二字,其下为“至”;用于比较的“王”在左半开中列第二字。邻列保留“大女桃”等字,其中“桃”只是人名的开头。故宫博物院藏。 官方高清放大前往馆方作品页查看原图 ↗

“七”只用很少的线条,横画长长伸向右边,另一笔转折后围出低低的一角。它上方的“合”以覆盖和小口聚拢,下方的“首”又把多层横画安置在竖向的范围里。“七”少了那么多笔,旁边却没有出现一个需要补足的洞。它的线端、转折与空地之间,已经形成足够清楚的关系。

这段碑文涉及对民众的救助与配药。“神明”与换列后的“膏”连读为药名“神明膏”,不能把它从句中拆成一句药效赞语。“七首”依馆录保留,其计量及相关异释在这里不强定。这几张拓图让我们看见的,是“七”“首”“藥”在不同复杂度中怎样站住。

左半开的“親”又给出另一种分量。它并不因为笔画多就被挤成白团,左右部分间仍保留深色的缝隙。邻列的“王”则以数道横线与中竖定形,和“親”的左右分部形成对照。疏字不靠填满来显得完整,密字也不靠缩成一团来显得紧凑。所谓秀润,落到眼前,是线条能转得过去,空处能分得出来,而非一张照片看起来柔软。

孙承泽称这碑“字法遒秀,逸致翩翩”。其中“秀”若只理解为漂亮,就太快了;“遒”提醒我们,线条虽有圆转与舒展,仍有组织它的骨架。这句旧评值得留下,正因为它把两种看来容易相反的感觉放在一起。四个“或”的内紧外展、“七”的少而不散,都给我们重新理解这句话的具体机会。故宫所引孙承泽评语

回到那两个字

回看图1,把“孝”和“季”的上部与下部分开看一遍。但认对以后,仍可以比较:上部怎样覆住下部,“子”怎样或收短、或向下舒展,它们分别让旁边的“之”“養”“祖”显出什么样的距离。语义的辨认没有取消形式上的发现,反而替发现找到更可靠的着落。

《曹全碑》常被用作隶书入门。熟悉它,不一定要先背出一组风格形容词。可以从很小的一步开始:辨清一个字,把邻字留下,再找第二个相近结构。宽不等于所有笔画都拉长,整齐也不等于相同字的复制。它让每一个字有自己的尺寸感,又让这些差异相处在同一种明亮而有节制的秩序里。

可选附读|认出了名字,眼睛能不能再留一下

在《天暗下来,花园换了一种样子》里,我曾写过,知道名称能够帮助观看,也可能让观看过早结束。把这个问题带到图3,可以做一个更具体的练习:先找出“于”的长横,再看“曹”里面那些小空格。眼睛刚从宽处回来,紧处是否变得更紧?再反着看,从“曹”移向“于”,少笔字的空处是否又多了一点分量?

字没有改变,我们比较它们的次序变了。SAE总纲讨论感知时区分美、愉快与理解;这里借用的,只是让辨认之后的观看继续有自己的工作。“于”不是因为被判定为秀美才有长横,“曹”也不会因为知道它是姓氏就失去内部的间隔。让目光在这两字之间往返,伸出的线条与收住的空处,才能同时进入一次判断。《SAE判断力与美学》

版本、校读与图片说明

本文依据官方高清影像,非现场观看。四图为整开摄影的等比例缩小,保留剪裱接缝、纸损与收藏印;不补字、不去印、不变色、不生成笔迹。高清通过馆方公开Deep Zoom瓦片按原坐标复原,细节记录见IMAGE_NOTES。内置图不能用于精确量测石上尺寸。

故宫网页题名作“明初拓东汉曹全碑”,正文则说碑于万历初出土、此为“明代出土初拓未断本”。本文采用正文的时代关系,不把“明初拓”翻译成明朝早期拓制。原碑为185年,本文所看纸本不是汉代纸。

碑文节引以便读的通行字排写,标点为今加,原迹字形以图为准。“孝”与“季”字形相近,图1下明示位置,不以相似外形取代释文;“于/於”等书写差异保留于图注。图3缺损和补纸旁的朱印属于物质与收藏记录,不能由颜色直接确定其先后。

图像版权归故宫博物院等相关权利人;本包未取得再发布许可,不宣称开放授权,公开传播或商业出版前需另行核权。

图4的“七首”遵照馆录排写,不据此断言为七种药方;“親”下为“至”,“王”在邻列。“神明膏”跨列连读,药名不拆译。

参考资料

Episode 11 — Sources / 来源与版本核对

Accessed and read 2026-10-19 UTC. The four source images were actually inspected.

1. Palace Museum, 《明初拓东汉曹全碑》, accession 新00045355
https://www.dpm.org.cn/collection/impres/228534.html
Main source for the original stone's date (Zhongping 2, tenth month, 185 CE), Cao Quan's office at Heyang, the stone's present location in Xi’an Beilin, the particular Ming rubbing before the stone broke, and Wang Hongzhuan's former ownership. Also quotes Sun Chengze's “字法遒秀,逸致翩翩”. The article's own close reading is based on the images rather than repeating the museum's general stylistic account.
2. Official high-resolution viewers
- Figure 1: https://www.dpm.org.cn/bigimg/32/11
- Figure 2: https://www.dpm.org.cn/bigimg/32/23
- Figure 3: https://www.dpm.org.cn/bigimg/32/21
- Figure 4: https://www.dpm.org.cn/bigimg/32/3
Public Deep Zoom metadata supplies image dimensions and tile coordinates. It was used to assemble and proportionally downsample the photographed album openings. See IMAGE_NOTES.md and IMAGE_MANIFEST.json.
3. 秦汉, 《天暗下来,花园换了一种样子》, ray 08
https://nondubito.net/essays/aesthetics/ray08.html?lang=zh
English title and page: As the Light Fades, the Garden Appears Differently
https://nondubito.net/essays/aesthetics/en/ray08.html?lang=en
Read in full. Used only in the optional appendix to ask how naming and the order of comparison affect continued looking. The concrete exercise compares the broad 于 and the compact internal spaces of 曹, not the writer's personality.
4. National Palace Museum, another Cao Quan rubbing, public transcription
https://digitalarchive.npm.gov.tw/Collection/Detail/34589?dep=P
An excerpt returned by the search index for this official record was used to cross-check the continuous text spanning the mounted album columns: “合七首藥神明膏。親至離亭。部吏王宰。程橫等。” The record page itself returned HTTP 403 when directly opened; no successful full-page access is claimed and that denial was not retried through another route. This is not the image source for the essay. The original text crosses the displayed column boundary from 神明 to 膏. 神明膏 is the medicinal name; 神明 is not translated here as a separate praise of efficacy.
5. Wang Wentao, 《“癃”病与汉代社会救助》, 2012
https://www.caoss.org.cn/UploadFile/news/201611518551594788.pdf
《河北师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》35(1), January 2012, pp.125–130; DOI 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.psse.2012.01.009. Printed p.129 (PDF page 5), left column, quotes “七首药神明膏,亲至离亭,部吏王宰、程横等”. The PDF page was actually rendered and inspected. Its reference [12] is Gao Wen, 《汉碑集释》, Henan University Press, 1997, cited p.474. This supports the continuous reading and the identification of 至 beneath 親 without treating 七首 as an established count of seven prescriptions.
6. 《SAE判断力与美学》
https://self-as-an-end.net/papers/sae-judgment-aesthetics.html
Read for the account of perception and distinctions among beauty, pleasure and understanding. The traditional analysis of structure and the historical critical quotation remain independently meaningful.

Chronology / 年代校读

The official page's title “明初拓” must not be translated mechanically as “early Ming-dynasty rubbing”: the same page states that the stone was unearthed in the early Wanli era and calls this a 明代出土初拓未断本, an early rubbing taken after the Ming excavation, before the stone broke. The body chronology governs the essay. The paper is not from 185 CE. Its cut-mounting and photographic reproduction are further material stages, not parts of the Han writing event.

Reading boundaries / 释读边界

孝 and 季 share lower component 子 but have distinct upper components and meanings. Figure 1 explicitly locates both. Four 或 and two 于 are read within neighboring columns. In figure 4, the visible column 合七首藥神明 continues with 膏 at the top of the left half's right column, forming the medicinal name 神明膏. The phrase 七首 is preserved without asserting an unverified meaning such as seven prescriptions. 親 is followed by 至; 王 is second in the adjacent middle column, not directly beneath 親. The red seal, damage and repair below 國 in figure 3 are not regular character strokes, and color alone does not date their sequence. Album adjacency does not prove original stone-column adjacency.

Image rights

No republication permission has been obtained. No open license is claimed. Public research access to the official site is not a grant of republication rights. Copyright remains with the Palace Museum and any other relevant rights holders; public or commercial redistribution requires separate clearance.

图像来源与使用说明

本站保留适合阅读的 WebP 配图,包括局部与不同角度。点击配图可前往馆方作品页;完整原图不再随网站发布。以下尺寸、文件名、裁切坐标与校验值为原始素材的存档记录,并非网页预览图的规格。

Published image provenance / 配图来源

Collection record / 馆藏记录

Episode 11 — Image provenance / 图片处理说明

All four figures show the same Palace Museum album, 新00045355, an early post-excavation Ming rubbing of the Cao Quan Stele, taken before the stone broke. Original stone: 185 CE; paper: Ming. All are whole photographed album openings, preserving three short columns per half. The cut-mounted short columns are not claimed to reproduce original stone-column adjacency.

Acquisition and processing, 2026-10-19 UTC

The public museum collection page links directly to the four official viewers. Each viewer's public Deep Zoom metadata specifies its image bundle, full dimensions, 510-pixel tiles and one-pixel overlap. The acquisition script fetches the highest pyramid level (12), places each tile at its published coordinates and removes only prescribed tile overlap. It saves the assembled master as JPEG quality 96, then makes a proportional reading-size reduction fitting 1400 × 1400 pixels at JPEG quality 92. No image content was cut out of these four openings.

| Figure | Viewer | Assembled dimensions | Reading file |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | https://www.dpm.org.cn/bigimg/32/11 | 3794 × 3684 | images/page_11.jpg |
| 2 | https://www.dpm.org.cn/bigimg/32/23 | 3782 × 3694 | images/page_23.jpg |
| 3 | https://www.dpm.org.cn/bigimg/32/21 | 3788 × 3690 | images/page_21.jpg |
| 4 | https://www.dpm.org.cn/bigimg/32/3 | 3778 × 3696 | images/page_3.jpg |

`IMAGE_MANIFEST.json` records exact public tile roots and operations. The reading release does not include the assembled masters or source-page downloads. The first and sixth thumbnails of the museum's older gallery link to the same image; the essay does not label figure 1 as the original beginning of the inscription.

No AI generation, inpainting, handwriting reconstruction, restoration, recoloring, watermark removal or seal removal was performed. Tears, joins, paper edges, dark areas and collection marks remain. The embedded figures are smaller reading copies, not a basis for precise measurement of the stone.

What was actually inspected

The writer viewed all four assembled/reduced images and checked the individual characters against neighboring columns. The source reviewer and the series editor independently viewed the four 1400-pixel images. Verified positions:
- Figure 1: 孝 at top of left half's middle column; 季 fourth in its far-left column, with 禾 above 子. Neighbors 之, 性, 養, 祖 remain.
- Figure 2: four 或 in the right half, far-right column fifth; middle column third; left column first and fifth. Left half's right column reads 敦煌枝分葉布.
- Figure 3: two 于, right half far-right column bottom and left half far-left column top. 曹 and 國 in right half middle column; damage/repair/red seal below 國 are separated from normal writing.
- Figure 4: right half left column 合七首藥神明, 七 second. The next displayed column, at the right of the left half, begins 膏親至離亭部. 神明 continues across the mounted columns to 膏 as the medicinal name 神明膏. 王 is the second character in the left half’s middle column; the character directly below 親 is 至.

These are actual local image inspections, not claims of final HTML browser inspection. Final article browser checks, if performed, are documented separately in README.

Rights

图像版权归故宫博物院及其他相关权利人。未取得再发布许可,不宣称开放授权。 用户允许在研究包中使用并注明未获许可;这不授予对外传播权。 / Copyright remains with the Palace Museum and any other rights holders. No republication license has been obtained and no open license is claimed. Further public or commercial redistribution requires separate rights clearance.