莊月江

拿到季志耀先生“和園叢書(shū)”之《寸心容香》新書(shū)，我感到特別溫馨，因?yàn)?8年前我采訪過(guò)季先生，并寫了一則采訪記，題目就叫《寸心原不大，容得許多香》。

《寸心容香》是一本耐讀的好書(shū)，有極濃郁的地方文化味，這與某些涵蓋面“廣博”的論著的寡淡形成鮮明對(duì)比。書(shū)的內(nèi)容以古陶瓷考古與古建筑考古為主，兼蓄書(shū)畫鑒賞與作者的書(shū)畫代表作。我特別看重前者，因?yàn)檫@些都是作者親身經(jīng)歷的經(jīng)驗(yàn)之談。

季先生1961年考入浙江美院，畢業(yè)正逢“文化大革命”，被分配在衢縣新華書(shū)店當(dāng)營(yíng)業(yè)員，其實(shí)那時(shí)候也無(wú)甚圖書(shū)可賣。1979年，他調(diào)入衢縣博物館，總算從事了與自身學(xué)業(yè)多少有點(diǎn)關(guān)聯(lián)的文博與考古工作。1992年，他調(diào)入衢州市書(shū)畫院“回歸本行”，專心于美術(shù)創(chuàng)作，成績(jī)頗著。2000年起，他任書(shū)畫院院長(zhǎng)直至退休。

季先生參加了20世紀(jì)80年代衢州市的文物普查與文物鑒定工作，并參與了對(duì)全旺古窯址、云溪古墓葬的發(fā)掘。十余年間，他寫出了不少有分量的科研學(xué)術(shù)報(bào)告，如《漫談衢州古瓷窯》《試論衢州市全旺古窯址群的新發(fā)現(xiàn)及彩繪瓷的繪畫工藝》等。由于季先生是受過(guò)高等美術(shù)教育的國(guó)畫家，對(duì)于彩陶的研究，其功力非一般考古人員可比。同樣，對(duì)于作為歷史文化名城的衢州的城鄉(xiāng)遺存的一些明、清時(shí)期古建筑（民居、祠堂、戲臺(tái)、寺廟、庵堂、寶塔、牌坊、城墻）的介紹，他除了配之以按比例的縝密圖紙說(shuō)明其構(gòu)造，并用畫家獨(dú)特的觀察力繪形繪色，連細(xì)微的構(gòu)件也描寫得惟妙惟肖，在科學(xué)嚴(yán)肅的基礎(chǔ)上給人以形象的導(dǎo)讀——藝術(shù)感染。

對(duì)于古建筑和古窯址的斷代或確定事主，季先生不僅從有關(guān)史書(shū)中旁征博引，還從世家大戶的譜牒中尋找線索，結(jié)論嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)。尤其值得稱道的是，對(duì)于一些異常現(xiàn)象，季先生有自己獨(dú)特的判斷，如在《六朝及隋代陶瓷》一文中，作者對(duì)越人的墓葬中至今未發(fā)現(xiàn)陶俑現(xiàn)象，推斷“如果是沒(méi)有殺殉奴隸的葬俗，那么，以后的朝代也就無(wú)須用象征活人的陶俑來(lái)代替了”。我很贊同作者的這一觀點(diǎn)。作為一種史實(shí)，這一現(xiàn)象，很值得史學(xué)家們探索和研究。又如《明清衢州戲臺(tái)略考》一文，作者在對(duì)江山、龍游、衢江等縣（市、區(qū)）現(xiàn)存于宗祠、廳堂和廟宇中古戲臺(tái)進(jìn)行考古研究的同時(shí)，參考大量古籍與民間唱本，旁征博引，再現(xiàn)湯顯祖、洪昇、李漁等戲劇家在衢州留下的蹤跡，描繪出一幅明清時(shí)期衢州城鄉(xiāng)“演戲迎神遍市圜”“鄉(xiāng)風(fēng)貪看亂彈班”的戲劇繁榮景象。而一席“有關(guān)中國(guó)古建筑鑒賞問(wèn)題答記者問(wèn)”的談話，更顯露出作者考古文化的涵養(yǎng)與淵博的學(xué)識(shí)。

《寸心容香》衢州味濃，不僅濃在豐富的古陶瓷遺址和多彩的古建筑實(shí)物散發(fā)著衢州的鄉(xiāng)土氣息，還濃在作者對(duì)衢州的名勝古跡如數(shù)家珍地娓娓道來(lái)。如衢州府城的城墻與龍游石窟的關(guān)系，如弘一法師駐錫蓮花和弘一法師遺物的征集，如陳鵬年詩(shī)碑的發(fā)現(xiàn)，如為何建在水路要津的海神廟天妃宮，在陸路通道上的衢州南鄉(xiāng)大洲鎮(zhèn)會(huì)有兩座……翻看書(shū)頁(yè)，一個(gè)個(gè)“衢州話題”紛至沓來(lái)，讀者猶如行走在山陰道上，目不暇接，美不勝收。

20世紀(jì)80年代末，季先生曾約我與幾位朋友去參觀位于衢州城西下?tīng)I(yíng)街的一座明代民居。這房子經(jīng)歷400余年的風(fēng)雨滄桑，木構(gòu)架還在頑強(qiáng)地負(fù)載著歲月沉重的壓力，現(xiàn)在只剩下前后兩楹。原來(lái)這里是長(zhǎng)方形的布局，占地273平方米，朝東偏南；臨街有臺(tái)門，臺(tái)門內(nèi)即小廂房，小廂房西有一偏門，進(jìn)入便到前廳；前廳面對(duì)一長(zhǎng)形小園；后楹與前廳緊相連接，只隔一層板壁；后楹南北兩邊各有一個(gè)天井；再后又是一小園。季先生帶著我們邊看邊解說(shuō)。我至今還記得他說(shuō)的話：中國(guó)古代建筑，即使平常的民居，往往也富有園林氣息，這在世界建筑史上非常獨(dú)特。

附帶說(shuō)一下季先生鑒賞書(shū)畫的眼力。對(duì)唐宋以降書(shū)畫界的名家名作，季先生有選擇有代表性地加以介紹與評(píng)價(jià)。我最為欣賞的是，對(duì)于有些事情，季先生從不人云亦云，能亮出自己的看法與觀點(diǎn)。如在談到宋代畫家李成《寒林騎驢圖》時(shí)，季先生認(rèn)為“此畫的線條用筆與宋畫大相徑庭……尤其是畫面左側(cè)那個(gè)枯樹(shù)干，將光的效果染出來(lái)了，（這是）只有在清代郎世寧后才會(huì)出現(xiàn)的畫法。更令人疑惑的是畫里有類似彎曲的竹竿和枯枝卻無(wú)竹……這些是否是竹子令人詫異。我不可能相信它是一張宋畫。”

（本文圖片由作者提供）

The moment I saw Ji Zhiyaos new book Cunxin Rongxiang sitting on my desk， my mind went back to the interview with the man 18 years ago.

The book has an enduring， fragrant flavor of concrete local culture that stands in sharp contrast to those self-claimed “monumental， all-compassing” works. In the book， the author talks about porcelain and architectural archaeology and incorporates art appreciation between the lines.

After graduation from Zhejiang Art Academy in the 1960s， Ji Zhiyao worked in a Xinhua Bookstore in Quxian as a shop assistant. In the political tension and chaos at that time， it was not much a bookstore at all. After his wings were clipped for many years， he finally found his place at the Quxian Museum in 1979. In 1992， Ji Zhiyao started his work at the Quzhou Calligraphy and Painting Society， where his artistic cravings were fully satisfied.

Ji Zhiyao played an important role in the archaeological exploration of Quzhou in the 1980s. His educational background in traditional Chinese arts gives him a discerning and artistic eye that leaves his peers too far behind to catch up with. His unique perspective as an artist adds a charming flair to poker-faced archaeological studies. Ji Zhiyao is expert in loading pages with convincing references and raising questions， as shown in many of his essays and published books， such as Quzhou Opera in Ming and Qing， a wonderful summary of the lesser-known opera prosperity of Quzhou in the old times.

His new book Cunxin Rongxiang is full of Quzhou flavors， depicting the colorful porcelain and architectural heritages of Quzhou from an angle that not only shows the authors archaeological attainments but also his talents as an artist and historian. The writing of the book demonstrates his stunning story-telling talents and brings a new life to the magnificent cultural treasures of Quzhou. In the book， the author analyzes the correlation between the city walls of Quzhou and the grottos in Longyou County， depicts the details about the discovery of the poem tablet of Chen Pengnian， and raises interesting questions about why there are two Sea God Temple and Tianfei Temple in Dazhou Town in Quzhou. Reading the book feels like a cultural promenade that ensures endless archaeological and aesthetic surprises.

In the late 1980s， Ji Zhiyao invited me and several friends of mine to visit a folk house in Xiayingjie， Quzhou. The wooden structure that was first built in the Ming Dynasty about 400 years ago has been reduced by the ravage of time into a skeleton of columns. Ji Zhiyao showed us around， trying to bring us into the houses lavish past by explaining every detail of the sprawling， garden-style premise. The mans comment remains fresh in my memory even today. “One of the architectural characteristics of Chinese civil dwelling in the old times is the fact that the traditional Chinese garden-landscaping aesthetics are not a luxury reserved for the privileged but can be found in the houses built by commoners.”

Last but not the least， Jis ability of art appreciation， especially about the art scene of Tang and Song， is worth mentioning. As an art critic， Ji Zhoyao is never interested in following the herd.

When mentioning a painting believed to be by the Song artist Li Cheng， Ji Zhiyao analyses， “The brushstrokes demonstrate a style that is completely different from that of most of the other artists in the Song Dynasty， for example， the dead tree trunk on the left brings out the effect of lighting， and such a style did not emerge until the times of Giuseppe Castiglione in the Qing Dynasty. Moreover， a more confusing fact about the painting is the absence of bamboo. Whether the crooked deadwood depicted by the painter is bamboo or not is a big question mark， which raises my doubts about the conclusion that it is a Li Cheng work.”