故宮書畫錄(卷五),第三冊,頁325-326&故宮書畫圖錄,第六冊,頁223-224&沈周(1427-1509)字啟南,號石田,自稱石田翁。長洲(今江蘇蘇州)人。父沈貞吉(1400-?)叔沈?吉(1409-1477)皆工唐律,亦善繪事。山水少承家法,四十歲前師王蒙(1308-1385),中年後以黃公望(1269-1354)為宗,晚乃醉心吳鎮(1280-1354),然皆能出入變化,而具自家風貌。一時名士若唐寅(1470-1523)、文徵明(1470-1559)之流,咸出其門。其畫以水墨山水為主,寫意花卉鳥獸亦甚佳,影響後人甚鉅,為明四大畫家之首。 疏樹數株,筆法中鋒勁挺。後兩峰並列,中有一塢繫黏,左側後方又延一峰,不施皴擦只以墨染,遠峰亦以墨略勾勒淡烘染。通幅皴山畫樹,用筆疏朗,與黃公望名蹟「富春山居」圖卷有若干契合處;而大片水墨烘染山石則似又自米芾(1501-1107)出。自題云「米不米,黃不黃,淋漓水墨餘清蒼。」落筆佈墨間,蓋心有所寄故能從腕底陶融調勻,蛻化而成。 年齒大沈周十餘歲的劉玨(1410-1472)極愛周之畫,每與玨晤面,不問「寒暑風雨日夜冗暇醒醉」,皆強之作畫。據沈周於畫上自題云,知此幅乃作於酒後,筆墨清朗率略,與細緻疏秀的「崇山修竹」有同工之趣,二幅成畫時間當甚接近,約於成化庚寅(1470)之際,時沈周四十四歲。(註1) 沈周不善飲,自謂平生於酒至痛飲處僅升許,而於六十五歲(弘治辛亥,1491)作〈老杯酒軒詩引〉中嘗言之所以不戒酒者,「以其有醉之鄉,處之可以佚吾老也。」(註2)三兩小杯醺醺然為樂,益可增添畫趣,周之不欲絕者當非無因。 註1:國立故宮博物院編,《吳派畫九十年展》(台北:國立故宮博物院,1975)頁295,圖版017,「沈周畫山水」說明。 註2:沈周,《石田先生集》(明萬曆陳仁錫編刊分體本)(台北:國立中央圖書館編印,1968),第二冊,頁805-808。& 此畫亦為劉珏作,畫成於醉後。據沈周自跋,劉珏極愛沈周之畫,每一晤面,輙求周作,不間醒醉冗暇寒暑,甚致夜亦張燈,強之作畫云。 枯樹枝用筆勁挺,中部兩峰相並。右面一峰尖瘦細長,峰上小樹用筆疏朗,皆與崇山修竹軸近似。惟一醒一醉,工率略異耳。庚寅(一四七○)辛卯之間,珏與周來往甚密,而珏死於壬辰(一四七二),故疑此幅與崇山修竹成於同年,為四十四歲所畫。自題米不米,黃不黃,蓋意在黃公望。周不能飲,強之,一兩樽輙醉。 &Landscape Shen Chou (1427-1509) Ming Dynasty This landscape was painted for Liu Chüeh, after a bout of drinking. According to Shen Chou’s inscription, Liu was extremely fond of Shen’s paintings and begged for one each time they met, regardless of whether Shen was drunk or sober, busy or at leisure, in summer heat or winter cold; even at night with lanterns lit, Liu would compel Shen Chou to paint. The branches of the withered trees in this painting were executed with strong, blunt brushstrokes. Two peaks stand linked in the middle distance; to their right rises a smaller peak, slender and pointed. The small trees on the mountains are executed in a casual but distinct manner which is close to that of “Lofty Mountains and Towering Bamboo”. The differences between the two are explained by the fact that one was executed when sober, the other when drunk. Shen and Liu were particularly close in 1470 and 1471; Liu died in 1472. Thus this “Landscape” was probably painted in the same year as “Lofty Mountains”, when Shen was fourty-three years old. He says in his inscription, “Mi is not Mi, Huang is not Huang.” This probably means that his original idea was to paint in the style of Huang Kung-wang, but he was pressed by Liu Ch üen to drink some wine and could not carry out his intent.