Abstract：One of the primary reasons why the evolution of Chinese calligraphy history is different from other literature and art categories is that the generation of the lineage of the canon masters and masterpieces is based on the beitie and rubbings derived from them. Although calligraphy is believed to be a kind of visual art, it has a very complicated materiality. Limited by the reproduction technology and transmission mode of ancient China, most original works of calligraphy masters were difficult to be directly involved in the appreciation, copying and research of later generations. In fact, their large-scale dissemination depends on beitie, which are essentially derivative products, and the more famous the original works were, the more frequent and tanglesome the reproduction of beitie became. In numerous cases, the developed practices of reproduction dissolve the exclusive status of the original author and the original work, so that it has become an independent field of study and historical tradition. Rubbings, as the material presentation of beitie, are the main carrier of the calligraphy model. As the production process of rubbings is seriously affected by a lot of subjective and objective factors, it is plastic. Whether it can accurately convey the original information is very difficult to generalize, and whether it has reliable academic value also needs to be carefully evaluated by experienced scholars. In addition, rubbings are made by converting three-dimensional inscriptions and images into two-dimensional paper, which is to reduce the materiality of the original object in a quite special way. We can call it the “planarity” of rubbings, which directly influenced the writing style of countless later calligraphers. Obviously, the functional properties, physical characteristics, production processes, preservation methods and transmission channels of all kinds of beitie and rubbings have had an extremely profound impact on the form of calligraphy and the narration of calligraphy history. By taking the famous “Lanting Preface” as the primary example, this study analyzes the formation process of its most significant version “Dingwu Lanting” after the Song Dynasty, especially the process of the rumor that great calligrapher Ouyang Xun in the Tang Dynasty was forcibly attached as the copyist of it. This helps us to understand: how beitie with ever-changing forms and rubbings with diverse appearances can be strongly integrated into the canonization of a specific calligraphy work so that the canon itself is subject to change; and, in the process of canonization, how people’s imagination, speculation, attachment and misinterpretation based on beitie and rubbings play their roles. However, the plasticity of canon has its limits. After the rise of “Stele School” in the Qing Dynasty, various types of calligraphy works from the Qin-Han Period to the Six Dynasties challenged the canon of the past, and partially dissolved its authority. Therefore, the status of the famous calligraphy works in the Pre-Ming Period such as the “Xia Cheng Monument” and “Guo Youdao Monument” has plummeted, and numerous versions of “Lanting Preface” have gradually been overlooked. The materiality of beitie and rubbings have played a historic role in it. Many great researchers have found the break between virtual and actual fractures in the canon through it, thus opening the way for the generation of new knowledge and the construction of new lineage. There is no denying that the perspective of the materiality can help contemporary scholars to go beyond the way of overly focusing on texts and images in the previous studies of calligraphy history, take a plural perspective of authors, works, lineage and traditions, so as to better place various works in the specific historical context and help explore the spread of calligraphy models, the intermediary factors and operating mechanism of shaping canon, and ultimately transform the research paradigm of the history of calligraphy.
2023, Vol. 53 
