欧阳修《尹师鲁墓志》引发质疑的逻辑与史实                                 张兴武

墓铭文字既要面对“朋友门生故吏与孝子用心常异”的情感寄托，更需坚守“所纪事皆录实有稽据”的信史原则，其撰述过程往往牵涉到经学、史学与“古文”创作关联互动的深层逻辑。欧阳修所撰《尹师鲁墓志铭》所引发的争议，既隐约反映出欧、尹等人“以同而异”的史学取向，更集中体现着欧阳修“意主文章”而“于情事或不能详备”的著史风格。《墓志铭》文在称述尹洙“倡道”功绩方面颇有“所惜”，盖与尹、欧之间的学术分歧密切相关。尹氏着意效法《春秋》之“微言大义”，并倡言国家应“以明经为上第”，其经学理念与欧阳修、孙复、石介等人“弃传从经”、“以己意言经”者背道而驰。至于师鲁文章“简而有法”的评述，既是欧阳修“每夸政事，不夸文章”的惯常做法，更隐约透露出此公不肯就“古文”一事少让于尹洙的微妙心态，其深刻复杂的人格动因及精神内涵值得深究。

The Questionable Logic and Historical Facts in the “Epigraph of Yin Shilu” by Ouyang Xiu          Zhang Xingwu

   The controversy caused by Ouyang Xiu’s “Epigraph of Yin Shilu” both reflected different historical approaches between Ouyang and Yin Zhu, and displayed Ouyang’s historiographical style of “intention dominating article” and “not being detailed on circumstances.” In the essay, Ouyang somehow showed “pity” toward Yin’s advocacy of Dao, which might be closely related to the academic pergence between them. Yin intentionally followed the style of “sublime words with deep meaning”, and proposed that the country should “take the studies of Confucian classics to be the first thing,” which was contrary to the idea of Ouyang Xiu, Sun Fu, and Shi Jie. The comment that Yin’s writings were “concise and methodical” especially revealed Ouyang’s subtle mentality that he was unwilling to concede to Yin on the “ancient literature.”