《装饰》1998年第3期上,发表了拙作《工艺史和傅斯年》,它的主题基于一个判断,即中国工艺美术史的教学和研究梭巡不前,歧路彷徨,认为纠正的方法是尽可能占有原始资料和全面占有资料.此后,《装饰》连续刊载王象、郑巨欣先生的大作,对上述方法等提出质疑.我坚执前说,本文拟再做解释,仍望诸同行有以教我.为何要尽可能地占有原始资料?因为它起码较少以讹传讹的缺欠.这道理太浅近,不会招致批评.但是,切莫以为人人能守住它的规矩,近例出在郑先生文中.郑先生对夹缬的研究成绩斐然,但白璧竟有微瑕,即运用的主要文献张冠李戴.他说,关于夹缬的做法,“解释最完备的算是(唐人的)《因语录》”,以下是节引文.不过,按目前的知识,唐人并无此著.本望这是郑文的校误,可惜不是,查郑著《染缬艺术》,其全引文亦称出《因语录》.晚唐的赵璘倒有本名《因话录》的著 On the third issue of “Decoration”, in 1998, he published his clumsy book, “Craft History and Fu Si Nian”. Its theme is based on the judgment that the teaching and research of the history of arts and crafts in China is too patrolled to follow the same route and think that the method of rectification is as far as possible Possession of the original data and the full possession of information after which, “Decoration” published a series of elephants, Mr. Zheng Junshi’s masterpiece, questioned the above methods, etc. I firmly insisted that this article intends to explain, still hope that all my colleagues have to teach me Why should we retain the original information as much as possible? Because it is, at least, it is a mistake to argue for the lack of correctness. This principle is too shallow to lead to criticism. However, we should not think that everyone can hold its own rules. Mr. Cheng has done a good job in studying valerian, but Bai Bi has a slight flaw, namely, Zhang Guanli, the main document used. He said that regarding the practice of valerian, “the most complete explanation is because of” Quotations “ However, according to current knowledge, there is no such thing as the Tang language, which is a proofreading mistake by Zheng Wen, but it is a pity not to look into ”the art of dyeing valleys“. The late Tang Zhao 璘 down with the original ”because of words" With