Non Dubito
繁體中文
← 藝術作品細讀

NON DUBITO · 書法 · 中國書法

《曹全碑》:伸長的一筆,靠什麼站住

同一開裏,“孝”和“季”都托著一個“子”。

這篇談什麼

同一開裏,“孝”和“季”都托著一個“子”。左半開中列最上面的“孝”,上部橫向鋪開,下面的“子”收得很短;最左列第四字“季”,下部卻垂下來,轉向左邊,劃出一道很長的弧線。兩字下部相近,卻沒有寫成同一副樣子:一個低而寬,另一個把寬度轉成了向下的行程。

再看它們旁邊。“孝”下面是斜向右下伸出的“之”,再下面,“性”的豎畫使字形變窄;“季”上面則是橫畫層疊的“養”,下面接“祖”。相近的部件沒有獨自表演兩種姿態,它們還使鄰近幾個字的距離顯出了差別。

明拓《曹全碑》整開,左頁可比較“孝”與“季”,右頁保留“好學”等相鄰字列
圖1 故宮藏明代初拓《曹全碑》冊的一開。左半開中列自上而下爲“孝之性根生於”;最左列爲“心收養季祖母”。後一列第四字“季”的上部爲“禾”。看見相似輪廓以後,還須回到筆畫與語句辨認。 官方高清放大前往館方作品頁查看原圖 ↗

“孝之性,根生於心,收養季祖母”,是在說孝養的品性生於內心,並記述曹全照料季祖母這位長輩。兩個字都以下部“子”爲骨架,在淺色字口與深色拓墨的對照裏,很容易先看見它們相近的上下組織。那個被拉長的弧線,屬於“季”的具體寫法。

把兩列一起看,“之”把長筆送向右下,“季”下部的弧線卻向左兜回。長筆沒有都飛向同一邊:一處斜向送出,一處向下再回收。同一開冊頁上,相近的部件與鄰字給出不同的行程。《曹全碑》的舒展,正在這些方向與收放的差別裏。

先分清:眼前是漢碑,還是明代的一冊紙

原碑立於東漢中平二年(185)十月,記郃陽令曹全的家世與政績,石今藏西安碑林。這裏觀看的是北京故宮博物院藏、文物號新00045355的明代出土初拓未斷本。它從石上拓下,又剪裱成冊,後來經王弘撰收藏。原石的刻立年代、拓紙的製作年代、裝裱和攝影的年代,不能疊成一個日期。故宮藏品說明

字是淺的,底是黑的。它不是曹全或書寫者蘸着白墨寫在黑紙上的手稿。拓印把刻入石面的字口與周圍表面轉成這種明暗關係;我們通過紙、墨、石面和刻工的共同傳遞,接近曾經的書寫。本文談粗細、彎轉和開合,不把紙上每一點破碎都當作毛筆留下的飛白。

每幅圖是一整開冊頁,兩半各有三條字列,自右向左、每列自上而下讀。明顯的接縫、窄條邊緣和兩頁間隔屬於剪裱後的觀看條件。因此,本頁相鄰可供比較,並不保證它們原來就是石上相鄰的長行;也不能把六字一列的換列當作漢代書寫者特意安排的停頓。我們先在這個具體拓本裏辨字,討論原碑行列時則保留這道邊界。

“或”重複了四次,字也沒有變成印章

《曹全碑》家族分佈一段,右半開可見四個“或”,左半開有“枝分葉布”
圖2 右半開最右列第五字、中列第三字、左列第一與第五字,都是“或”。左半開右列從上往下爲“敦煌枝分葉布”。故宮博物院藏,同冊整開縮圖。 官方高清放大前往館方作品頁查看原圖 ↗

這段說:“或在安定,或處武都,或居隴西,或家敦煌。枝分葉布,所在爲雄。”意思是,曹氏支系分別居於安定、武都、隴西、敦煌,如枝葉分佈,在各處成爲有地位的家族。這是碑文對家世的稱揚。它交代了“或”爲什麼一再出現,也使我們知道,這些字首先承擔着一段有目的的公共敘述。

四個“或”都顯得橫向開展,卻沒有一個現成外框供它們填進去。右半開左列頂上的“或”,中間的小“口”很清楚,向右伸出的斜畫在它上方與旁邊構成另一層;同列靠下的“或”,兩部分的重心關係又略有移動。最右列的“或”緊跟在“風”下面,頂橫與斜畫向外展開,“口”則留在較緊的中心。相同的識別線索反覆出現,彼此間的黑色空處卻並不相同。

可以先只看“口”,再看它到最右端的距離。那個小空間並不是字完成之後剩下的廢地。內收的“口”使外伸的一筆顯得更長;若把裏面也同步撐寬,整個字也許更大,卻未必還有這種從緊處放出去的感覺。

左半開又換了材料。“葉”筆畫較多,橫畫與中間豎線交織;緊接的“布”筆畫少,頂部向左右撐開,下部露出較大的黑色間隙。兩字沒有被寫成同樣密度。

兩個“于”,讓橫畫獲得不同的餘地

《曹全碑》冊頁,右頁末字和左頁首字均爲“于”,保留“曹國”“王室”等鄰列
圖3 右半開最右列底部與左半開最左列頂部各有一“于”。右半開中列“國”下可見大塊缺損、補紙區域及朱印,不將其當作字的正常結構。故宮博物院藏。 官方高清放大前往館方作品頁查看原圖 ↗

圖3的兩個“于”比“或”更省筆。右半開最右列底端的“于”,較短的上橫與展開的下橫拉出層次,豎筆彎向左下;左半開最左列頂端的另一個“于”,橫畫伸展與彎筆回收的比例又有變化。兩個“于”都讓很少的線條佔住了明確的空間。

與它們對照的,是右半開中列頂端的“曹”。上下部件層層相疊,裏面有多個小空格;再往下的“國”又用外框把內部收住。少筆字的寬闊與多筆字的緊密,在這一開並排出現。只把《曹全碑》概括成“扁平”,會漏掉這兩種完全不同的組織辦法。

傳統隸書討論中的“波磔”,在這裏可以落實爲一條筆畫由較窄處行向較寬處、末端再挑起的變化。看左半開“王”的底橫,橫勢並非均勻的直尺;看“土”的下部,也能找到中間與兩端的起伏。所謂平穩,並不來自每一段都水平。局部的俯仰,被安排在一個整體仍然安定的字裏。

“蠶頭燕尾”可以幫助初學者尋找起收筆的差別,若每字都只忙着找一隻燕尾,眼睛又容易只認最顯眼的末端。這裏還要看橫畫下面留下多少黑地,豎筆在哪裏穿過,其他短線怎樣避免和主筆爭搶同一塊空間。一個字的舒展,不僅是某一筆很長,也是別處沒有一起佔滿。

一個很小的“七”,並不顯得空

《曹全碑》賑濟醫藥一段,右半開左列“合七首藥神明”完整可見
圖4 右半開左列爲“合七首藥神明”,第二字依館錄讀“七”。“神明”須接左半開右列首字“膏”,連讀爲藥名“神明膏”。“親”在左半開右列第二字,其下爲“至”;用於比較的“王”在左半開中列第二字。鄰列保留“大女桃”等字,其中“桃”只是人名的開頭。故宮博物院藏。 官方高清放大前往館方作品頁查看原圖 ↗

“七”只用很少的線條,橫畫長長伸向右邊,另一筆轉折後圍出低低的一角。它上方的“合”以覆蓋和小口聚攏,下方的“首”又把多層橫畫安置在豎向的範圍裏。“七”少了那麼多筆,旁邊卻沒有出現一個需要補足的洞。它的線端、轉折與空地之間,已經形成足夠清楚的關係。

這段碑文涉及對民衆的救助與配藥。“神明”與換列後的“膏”連讀爲藥名“神明膏”,不能把它從句中拆成一句藥效讚語。“七首”依館錄保留,其計量及相關異釋在這裏不強定。這幾張拓圖讓我們看見的,是“七”“首”“藥”在不同複雜度中怎樣站住。

左半開的“親”又給出另一種分量。它並不因爲筆畫多就被擠成白團,左右部分間仍保留深色的縫隙。鄰列的“王”則以數道橫線與中豎定形,和“親”的左右分部形成對照。疏字不靠填滿來顯得完整,密字也不靠縮成一團來顯得緊湊。所謂秀潤,落到眼前,是線條能轉得過去,空處能分得出來,而非一張照片看起來柔軟。

孫承澤稱這碑“字法遒秀,逸致翩翩”。其中“秀”若只理解爲漂亮,就太快了;“遒”提醒我們,線條雖有圓轉與舒展,仍有組織它的骨架。這句舊評值得留下,正因爲它把兩種看來容易相反的感覺放在一起。四個“或”的內緊外展、“七”的少而不散,都給我們重新理解這句話的具體機會。故宮所引孫承澤評語

回到那兩個字

回看圖1,把“孝”和“季”的上部與下部分開看一遍。但認對以後,仍可以比較:上部怎樣覆住下部,“子”怎樣或收短、或向下舒展,它們分別讓旁邊的“之”“養”“祖”顯出什麼樣的距離。語義的辨認沒有取消形式上的發現,反而替發現找到更可靠的着落。

《曹全碑》常被用作隸書入門。熟悉它,不一定要先背出一組風格形容詞。可以從很小的一步開始:辨清一個字,把鄰字留下,再找第二個相近結構。寬不等於所有筆畫都拉長,整齊也不等於相同字的複製。它讓每一個字有自己的尺寸感,又讓這些差異相處在同一種明亮而有節制的秩序裏。

可選附讀|認出了名字,眼睛能不能再留一下

在《天暗下來,花園換了一種樣子》裏,我曾寫過,知道名稱能夠幫助觀看,也可能讓觀看過早結束。把這個問題帶到圖3,可以做一個更具體的練習:先找出“于”的長橫,再看“曹”裏面那些小空格。眼睛剛從寬處回來,緊處是否變得更緊?再反着看,從“曹”移向“于”,少筆字的空處是否又多了一點分量?

字沒有改變,我們比較它們的次序變了。SAE總綱討論感知時區分美、愉快與理解;這裏借用的,只是讓辨認之後的觀看繼續有自己的工作。“于”不是因爲被判定爲秀美才有長橫,“曹”也不會因爲知道它是姓氏就失去內部的間隔。讓目光在這兩字之間往返,伸出的線條與收住的空處,才能同時進入一次判斷。《SAE判斷力與美學》

版本、校讀與圖片說明

本文依據官方高清影像,非現場觀看。四圖爲整開攝影的等比例縮小,保留剪裱接縫、紙損與收藏印;不補字、不去印、不變色、不生成筆跡。高清通過館方公開Deep Zoom瓦片按原座標復原,細節記錄見IMAGE_NOTES。內置圖不能用於精確量測石上尺寸。

故宮網頁題名作“明初拓東漢曹全碑”,正文則說碑於萬曆初出土、此爲“明代出土初拓未斷本”。本文採用正文的時代關係,不把“明初拓”翻譯成明朝早期拓制。原碑爲185年,本文所看紙本不是漢代紙。

碑文節引以便讀的通行字排寫,標點爲今加,原跡字形以圖爲準。“孝”與“季”字形相近,圖1下明示位置,不以相似外形取代釋文;“于/於”等書寫差異保留於圖注。圖3缺損和補紙旁的朱印屬於物質與收藏記錄,不能由顏色直接確定其先後。

圖像版權歸故宮博物院等相關權利人;本包未取得再發布許可,不宣稱開放授權,公開傳播或商業出版前需另行核權。

圖4的“七首”遵照館錄排寫,不據此斷言爲七種藥方;“親”下爲“至”,“王”在鄰列。“神明膏”跨列連讀,藥名不拆譯。

參考資料

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.

圖像來源與使用說明

本站保留適合閱讀的 WebP 配圖,包括局部與不同角度。點擊配圖可前往館方作品頁;完整原圖不再隨網站發布。以下尺寸、檔名、裁切座標與校驗值為原始素材的存檔記錄,並非網頁預覽圖的規格。

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.