和台北故宫博物院萧宗煌院长，余佩瑾副院长等师长友人在三希堂人文空间用过午餐，稍微恢复上午导览后耗尽的精力。离下午演讲还有三十分钟，我想到地下一楼的储物柜整理整理图册书籍。
演讲厅就在储物柜对面，一边找着钥匙，看见观众陆续进场。
我站在演讲厅门口瞄了一眼，哇！已经快要坐满了！
讲座司仪蔡君彝博士让出她的座位，指引观众入座。临时多加后排折叠椅子，会场两侧的走道也水泄不通。星期四下午，那么多热爱文化艺术的朋友们，来听我谈《千年宋韵．风月共食：跟着苏轼和黄庭坚神游书法文图学之旅》。
我串讲了苏轼《赤壁赋》、《寒食帖》诗和黄庭坚题跋，以及黄庭坚的《松风阁》诗卷，放映我拍摄湖北黄冈和鄂州的风景照片，穿梭古今。大家全神贯注，一同观想千年。
“知识的厚度，跨学科的广度，更有人文学科的温度”，一位观众告诉我他“如沐春风”的感觉。我回答现场提问，关于苏轼《寒食帖》被称誉为“天下第三行书”的理由。
一般认为这是元代鲜于枢的观点，其实，鲜于枢只在颜真卿《祭侄文稿》题跋
“天下行书第二”
。那么，谁的什么作品是第一呢？宋代米芾跋唐褚遂良摹王羲之《兰亭序》说这是“天下法书第一”。元代护都沓儿则说王羲之《快雪时晴帖》才是“天下法书第一”。总之，第一是王羲之；第二是颜真卿，至于第三，我想是出于后人对于苏轼的景仰和爱戴。我在导览台北故宫博物院《千年神遇》和《甲子万年》特展时，也有美国来看展的观众问我是否赞成北宋书法四大家“苏黄米蔡”的排名顺序？
是啊，好像我们都接受了“苏黄米蔡”的讲法，还相信明代人提出的观点，说“蔡”是指蔡京，以为这是按照年龄顺序。如果按照年龄顺序，应该是“苏黄蔡米”才对，蔡京出生于1047年；米芾出生于1051年。或者认为“蔡”是指蔡襄，“苏黄米蔡”的顺序是基于汉语四声的音韵和谐，这就颇有编造的意味了。
回溯典籍，“苏黄米蔡”并列之前，是“苏黄米薛”，“薛”是指薛绍彭，他比米芾年纪小，曾经收藏《定武兰亭》刻石，书法学王羲之。南宋高宗的《思陵翰墨志》归纳了北宋的书法发展：
本朝承五季之后，无复字画可称。至太宗皇帝始搜罗法书，备尽求访。当时以李建中字形瘦健，姑得时誉，犹恨绝无秀异。至熙丰以后，蔡襄、李时雍体制方入格律，欲度骅骝，终以駸駸不为绝赏。继苏、黄、米、薛，笔势澜翻，各有趣向。然家鸡野鹄，识者自有优劣，犹胜泯然与草木俱腐者。
这段叙述也见于孙应时（1154-1206年）《烛湖集》、陈鹄（活动于南宋孝宗、宁宗时期，1162-1224年）《西塘集耆旧续闻》、董史《皇宋书录》（理宗淳祐二年1242自序）等书。意思是宋太宗时欣赏的是瘦硬刚健的李建中书法。神宗朝蔡襄、李时雍崭露头角。之后苏轼、黄庭坚、米芾和薛绍彭各有特色。
网上流传的“最早宋四家”记载，所谓“王存跋蔡襄《洮河石砚铭》”，作者应该是王芝，他也是李公麟《五马图》的收藏者。现存辽宁省博物馆的蔡襄《洮河石砚铭》是后人伪作，署名王芝的书风和颜真卿《刘中使帖》后的王芝题跋差别很大。清代胡敬《西清札记》收录了蔡襄《洮河石砚铭》王芝跋文，提到蔡襄、苏轼、黄庭坚、米芾“位置为四家”。
另一则较为可靠的文献，是宇文公谅（1292-?）跋蔡襄《寒蝉赋》写的：“先朝评书者，称苏子瞻、蔡君谟、黄鲁直、米元章为四大家。”可知南宋的“苏黄米薛”到了元代被替换成“苏蔡黄米”。
无论是“苏黄米薛”，还是“苏蔡黄米”，即使排名未必显示书艺的高下，苏轼总是拔得头筹！
凭什么呢？
苏轼自己说“我书意造本无法，点画信手烦推求” 。我们这样孜孜矻矻地研究宋四家与天下第三行书，或许就像黄庭坚跋《寒食帖》说的，东坡先生会笑我们“于无佛处称尊”哪！
2026年1月3日，新加坡《联合早报》“上善若水”专栏
I Lo-fen
I had lunch with Director Xiao Zonghuang
of the Taipei National Palace Museum, Deputy Director Yu Peijin, and other
respected teachers and friends at the Sanxitang Humanities Space, regaining a
bit of the energy depleted by the morning guided tour. With thirty minutes to
go before my afternoon lecture, I went down to the basement storage lockers to
reorganize my albums and books.
The lecture hall was directly opposite the
lockers. While looking for my key, I saw audience members steadily entering.
I glanced into the hall from the
doorway—wow! It was almost full!
The moderator, Dr. Tsai Chun-yi, gave up
her seat and guided the audience to theirs. Extra folding chairs were
temporarily added at the back, and the aisles on both sides of the venue were
completely packed. On a Thursday afternoon, so many friends who love culture
and the arts came to hear me speak on A Millennium of Song Elegance ·
Sharing Wind and Moon: A Journey through Calligraphic Text and Image Studies
with Su Shi and Huang Tingjian.
I wove together Su Shi’s Rhapsody on
the Red Cliff and Cold Food Observance poem, Huang Tingjian’s
colophons, and Huang Tingjian’s Pine Wind Pavilion poetry scroll, while
projecting landscape photographs I had taken in Huanggang and Ezhou,
Hubei—moving back and forth between past and present. Everyone listened with
full concentration, collectively envisioning a millennium.
“One feels the depth of knowledge, the
breadth of interdisciplinarity, and, above all, the warmth of the humanities,”
one audience member told me, describing the experience as “like being bathed in
a spring breeze.” I then answered questions from the floor, including why Su
Shi’s Cold Food Observance (Hanshi Tie) is praised as the “third
best running script under heaven.”
It is generally believed that this view
comes from the Yuan-dynasty calligrapher Xianyu Shu. In fact, Xianyu Shu only
described Yan Zhenqing’s Draft of a Eulogy for My Nephew as “the second
best running script under heaven.” So whose work is first? In the Song dynasty,
Mi Fu wrote in a colophon to a Tang copy by Chu Suiliang of Wang Xizhi’s Preface
to the Orchid Pavilion that it was “the finest model of calligraphy under
heaven.” In the Yuan dynasty, Huduta’er argued instead that Wang Xizhi’s Quick
Snow, Clearing Weather was the true “number one under heaven.” In short,
first place belongs to Wang Xizhi; second to Yan Zhenqing; as for third, I
believe it stems from later generations’ admiration and affection for Su Shi.
When I guided tours of the National Palace Museum exhibitions A
Thousand-Year Spiritual Encounter and Sixty Years, Ten Thousand Ages,
American visitors also asked whether I agreed with the ranking of the Four
Great Calligraphers of the Northern Song as “Su, Huang, Mi, Cai.”
Indeed, it seems we have all accepted the
formula “Su, Huang, Mi, Cai,” and even believed a Ming-dynasty claim that “Cai”
refers to Cai Jing, assuming the order follows age. But if ranked by age, it
should be “Su, Huang, Cai, Mi,” since Cai Jing was born in 1047 and Mi Fu in
1051. Others argue that “Cai” refers to Cai Xiang, and that the order “Su,
Huang, Mi, Cai” is based on the tonal harmony of the four Mandarin tones—an
explanation that feels rather contrived.
Tracing the textual record further back,
before “Su, Huang, Mi, Cai” there was “Su, Huang, Mi, Xue,” with “Xue”
referring to Xue Shaopeng. Younger than Mi Fu, Xue once collected the Dingwu
Orchid Pavilion stone inscription and modeled his calligraphy on Wang
Xizhi. Emperor Gaozong of the Southern Song summarized the development of
Northern Song calligraphy in Records of Imperial Mausoleum Calligraphy:
“After the Five Dynasties, our dynasty had
no calligraphy worth mentioning. It was only under Emperor Taizong that model
works were widely sought and collected. At that time, Li Jianzhong was praised
for his lean and vigorous style, though it still lacked true elegance. After
the Xifeng era, Cai Xiang and Li Shiyong began to conform to proper standards,
aspiring to gallop like fine steeds, yet ultimately fell short of supreme
admiration. Then came Su, Huang, Mi, and Xue, whose brushwork surged and turned,
each with distinctive interests. As for which surpasses the others, discerning
eyes will judge—yet all are far superior to those who faded away with grass and
trees.”
This account also appears in Sun Yingshi’s
Collected Works of Zhuhu, Chen Hu’s Supplementary Anecdotes of Elders
from Xitang, and Dong Shi’s Records of Calligraphy of the Imperial Song.
The meaning is clear: during Emperor Taizong’s reign, appreciation favored Li
Jianzhong’s lean, firm style; under Emperor Shenzong, Cai Xiang and Li Shiyong
emerged; afterward, Su Shi, Huang Tingjian, Mi Fu, and Xue Shaopeng each
developed their own distinctive characteristics.
Online claims about the “earliest record
of the Four Great Song Masters,” supposedly from “Wang Cun’s colophon on Cai
Xiang’s Inscription on a Tao River Inkstone,” are problematic. The
author should be Wang Zhi, who was also a collector of Li Gonglin’s Five
Horses. The extant Inscription on a Tao River Inkstone attributed to
Cai Xiang in the Liaoning Provincial Museum is a later forgery, and the
calligraphic style of the signature “Wang Zhi” differs greatly from Wang Zhi’s
colophon following Yan Zhenqing’s Letter to the Eunuch Liu. In the Qing
dynasty, Hu Jing’s Notes from the Xiqing Studio included Wang Zhi’s
colophon on Cai Xiang’s Inscription on a Tao River Inkstone, mentioning
Cai Xiang, Su Shi, Huang Tingjian, and Mi Fu as “positioned as the Four
Masters.”
Another, more reliable source is a
colophon by Yuwen Gongliang (1292–?) on Cai Xiang’s Rhapsody on the Cicada,
which states: “Those who judged calligraphy in the former dynasty called Su
Zizhan, Cai Junmo, Huang Luzhi, and Mi Yuanzhang the Four Great Masters.” This
shows that the Southern Song formula “Su, Huang, Mi, Xue” was replaced in the
Yuan dynasty by “Su, Cai, Huang, Mi.”
Whether it is “Su, Huang, Mi, Xue” or “Su,
Cai, Huang, Mi,” even if ranking does not necessarily indicate artistic
superiority, Su Shi always takes first place.
Why?
Su Shi himself said: “My calligraphy
follows the intent of creation and originally has no fixed method; the dots and
strokes flow freely, without painstaking pursuit.” Our diligent research into
the Four Great Song Masters and the “third best running script under heaven”
may well be what Huang Tingjian joked about in his colophon to Cold Food
Observance—that Master Dongpo would laugh at us for “claiming supremacy
where there is no Buddha at all.”
January 3,
2026
‘Shangshan Ruoshui’ Column, Lianhe Zaobao, Singapore
