|
|
|
| “打 (Da)” and “拓 (Ta)” |
| Huang Jing, Feng Guodong |
| Research Institute for Ancient Books, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The character “打” with the meaning of rubbing went through three periods, i.e., the prominent period in the Tang and Song Dynasties, the obscure period in the Yuan and Ming Dynasties, and the comeback period in the Qing Dynasty. A total of nine examples in the existing Tang Dynasty literature can prove the use of “打” with the meaning of rubbing, spanning the entire Tang Dynasty and recording a number of rubbing activities. There were four officially sponsored rubbing activities, involving three imperial inscriptions. These rubbing activities marked a continuation of the political landscape function of the stele, with the person in charge and the participants being high-ranking officials, and the resulting rubbings were either presented to the imperial court, posted for the courtiers to appreciate, or given to powerful courtiers. Some of the unofficially sponsored rubbings were used for private appreciation, such as the Stone Classics in Three Scripts and the Shigu Wen, which were valued highly by the literati of the Middle Tang period for their epigraphic value; others were associated with religious activities. The Buddhists, for example, used the rubbing technique to achieve a rapid reproduction of the U??ī?a Vijaya Dhāra?ī Sūtra.Many variant texts for the character “拓”, which is now commonly used, exist in such core documents used frequently by former and contemporary scholars as the Suishu: Record of Classic Works, hence they are insufficient to prove the meaning of “拓” as rubbing in the Tang Dynasty. Based on the records of early character books such as Shuowen Jiezi and Yupian, and given the actual use of “拓” in manuscripts and stone inscriptions, it is certain that the original meaning of “拓” was to pick up, its common meaning was to open up, and was not associated with the rubbing activities before the Northern Song Dynasty. The postscripts on bronze wares or stones in the Northern Song Dynasty still used such characters as “摹 (mo)”, “打” and “搨 (ta)” to denote the meaning of rubbing. It was not until the late Northern Song Dynasty that the word “椎拓 (zhuita)” in the meaning of rubbing appeared in the literature and the meaning of “拓” as rubbing began to be established.The popular character “打”, which was created at the end of the Han Dynasty, was a common character used to denote the meaning of “strike”. Around the 8th Century AD, the pronunciation of “打” was influenced by the northern dialects and changed from a yangsheng rhyme to a yinsheng rhyme. A possible reason for “打” to denote rubbing was the evolution of its original meaning of “strike”. Most of the currently found rubbing activities associated with “打” occurred in the north, where the later yinsheng rhyme of “打” was similar to the pronunciation of “搨”. Meanwhile, the two characters “打” and “搨” both had the meaning of “strike”, and were also common expressions for ancient copying techniques, making them easily confused. The character “拓”, which represented the meaning of rubbing, was probably a variant for “打”. In later times, “拓” became more widely used due to its semantic right side “石” that means “stone”, to the extent that it gradually replaced “打” as a proper name for the rubbing technique.The advent of the rubbing technique realized the transfer of texts from stone materials to paper and facilitated the dissemination and transmission of stone inscriptions. However, in relation to the chronological origins of the rubbing technique, scholars have focused on the now commonly used character “拓 (ta)” to find literature evidence while ignoring the significant value of the character “打 (da)” as an ancient name for rubbing.
|
|
Received: 31 March 2023
|
|
|
|
1 王昶： 《金石萃编》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2020年。
2 叶昌炽撰、柯昌泗评： 《语石 语石异同评》，陈公柔、张明善点校，北京：中华书局，1994年。
3 唐兰： 《释“打”》，见《唐兰论文集》第二册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2018年，第684-694页。
4 施蛰存： 《金石丛话》，北京：中华书局，2013年。
5 徐松辑： 《宋会要辑稿》，刘琳、刁忠民、舒大刚等校点，上海：上海古籍出版社，2014年。
6 慧立、彦悰： 《大慈恩寺三藏法师传》，孙毓堂、谢方点校，北京：中华书局，2000年。
7 欧阳修： 《欧阳修全集》，李逸安点校，北京：中华书局，2001年。
8 陈岩肖： 《庚溪诗话》，见吴文治编： 《韩愈资料汇编》第1册，北京：中华书局，1983年。
9 董诰等编： 《全唐文》，北京：中华书局，1983年。
10 王钦若等编纂： 《册府元龟》（校订本），周勋初等校订，南京：凤凰出版社，2006年。
11 圆仁： 《入唐求法巡礼行记校注》，白化文、李鼎霞、许德楠校注，周一良审阅，北京：中华书局，2019年。
12 释道世： 《法苑珠林校注》，周叔迦、苏晋仁校注，北京：中华书局，2003年。
13 王国维： 《观堂集林》，北京：中华书局，1959年。
14 罗振玉： 《罗振玉校刊群书叙录》，南京：江苏广陵古籍刻印社，1998年。
15 吕思勉： 《两晋南北朝史》，上海：上海三联书店，2021年。
16 曹之： 《中国印刷术的起源》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2015年。
17 王赛男： 《“响搨”考：兼“传拓始于唐代”说质疑》，《文化学刊》2020年第9期，第218-220页。
18 封演： 《封氏闻见记校注》，赵贞信校注，北京：中华书局，2005年。
19 赵明诚： 《宋本金石录》，北京：中华书局，1991年。
20 魏徵等： 《隋书》，北京：中华书局，1973年。
21 钱大昕： 《十驾斋养新录摘抄》，见《潜研堂序跋 竹汀先生日记钞 十驾斋养新录摘抄》，程远芬点校，上海：上海古籍出版社，2018年。
22 王建： 《王建诗集校注》，尹占华校注，成都：巴蜀书社，2006年。
23 施安昌编： 《颜真卿书〈干禄字书〉》，北京：紫禁城出版社，1990年。
24 徐时仪校注： 《一切经音义三种校本合刊》（修订第二版），上海：上海古籍出版社，2023年。
25 中国社会科学院历史研究所等编： 《英藏敦煌文献》，成都：四川人民出版社，1990年。
26 西安市长安博物馆编： 《长安新出墓志》，北京：文物出版社，2011年。
27 张希舜主编： 《隋唐五代墓志汇编》（山西卷），天津：天津古籍出版社，1991年。
28 北京图书馆金石组编： 《北京图书馆藏中国历代石刻拓本汇编》，郑州：中州古籍出版社，1989年。
29 黄伯思： 《宋本东观余论》，北京：中华书局，1988年。
30 黄典诚： 《普通话“打”字的读音》，见《黄典诚语言学论文集》，厦门：厦门大学出版社，2003年，第290-291页。
31 黄峰： 《“打”字的音和义》，《古汉语研究》1998年第4期，第92-94页。
32 钟明立： 《普通话“打”字的读音探源》，《中国语文》2007年第5期，第470-471页。
33 徐时仪： 《“打”的形、音、义衍变递嬗探微》，见《学海先飞：徐时仪学术论文集》，上海：上海辞书出版社，2017年，第363-375页。
34 王耀东、敏春芳： 《“打”字的来源及读音考》，《宁波大学学报（人文科学版）》2011年第2期，第36-39页。
35 郝懿行： 《证俗文》，见安作璋主编： 《郝懿行集》第三册，济南：齐鲁书社，2010年。
36 胡吉宣： 《玉篇校释》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1989年。
37 真大成： 《中古史书校证》，北京：中华书局，2013年。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
