东魏《张琼墓志》疏证
|
摘要
本文在对《张琼墓志》进行录文、标点、补残的基础上,对碑文及志主相关问题进行了疏证。考察以为志记张琼死于东魏天平五年十一月有误,许和杀张琼时间当定在天平四年;志称琼字"德连"正确,而《北齐书》《北史》作"连德"为颠倒。志称琼为"燉煌"汉人,而非史书所谓鲜卑乌丸种之"代人",可视为墓志书法中攀附先世的行径。"谥曰礼也"的书写是墓志"异刻"现象之一——"谥号空位"。对于琼历官的书写,有意隐去了从葛荣事,是褒赠高洁之外隐晦于当时而言不甚光彩的起家事迹。
In this article, on the basis of transcribing, punctuating and patching the epitaph of Zhang Qiong, the author examines and verifies issues concerning the epitaph itself and Zhang Qiong's life. After investigation, the author believes that Zhang Qiong's death in the November of the fifth year of Tianping of Eastern Wei, as is inscribed in the epitaph, is a mistake; instead, Zhang was killed by Xu He in the fourth year of Tianping. Zhang's alternate name, ‘Delian', was correctly recorded in the epitaph; while in Bei Qi Shu(The Book of Northern Qi) and Bei Shi(History of Northern Dynasties), ‘Delian' was reversed as ‘Liande'. In historical records, Zhang was a member of ‘Dai people' from Wuwan Xianbei ethnic group. In the epitaph, however, Zhang was a Han Chinese from ‘Dunhuang'. This can be considered as seeking connections with upper social class and prestigious clans. ‘Zhang's posthumous name is Li', which equalizes "the posthumous name is left vacant', is an example of abnormal epitaph writings. Apart from propagating Zhang's immaculateness, the epitaph includes content on Zhang's career that deliberately concealed his working for Ge Rong. His this experience was thought to be humiliating at that time.
In this article, on the basis of transcribing, punctuating and patching the epitaph of Zhang Qiong, the author examines and verifies issues concerning the epitaph itself and Zhang Qiong's life. After investigation, the author believes that Zhang Qiong's death in the November of the fifth year of Tianping of Eastern Wei, as is inscribed in the epitaph, is a mistake; instead, Zhang was killed by Xu He in the fourth year of Tianping. Zhang's alternate name, ‘Delian', was correctly recorded in the epitaph; while in Bei Qi Shu(The Book of Northern Qi) and Bei Shi(History of Northern Dynasties), ‘Delian' was reversed as ‘Liande'. In historical records, Zhang was a member of ‘Dai people' from Wuwan Xianbei ethnic group. In the epitaph, however, Zhang was a Han Chinese from ‘Dunhuang'. This can be considered as seeking connections with upper social class and prestigious clans. ‘Zhang's posthumous name is Li', which equalizes "the posthumous name is left vacant', is an example of abnormal epitaph writings. Apart from propagating Zhang's immaculateness, the epitaph includes content on Zhang's career that deliberately concealed his working for Ge Rong. His this experience was thought to be humiliating at that time.
引文
[1]a.贾振林.文化安丰.郑州:大象出版社,2011:158.b.河北省金石学会.金石拓本题拔集萃.石家庄:河北美术出版社,2012:57.
[2]志文中漫漶不清者以“□”代,似是而不敢断定之字加“[]”,敬空处以“○”标示,据文意对应今日简体字者置于“()”内,有特殊情况处书于字后“<>”中。为疏证方便,行前加阿拉伯数字,行末加“」”。
[3]北齐书.北京:中华书局,1972:265,266.
[4]北史校勘记引钱大昕《考异》说以为此处张欣当是卷一四《后妃传》所言“开府张欢”,因齐史避高欢讳该作“欣”,校勘记赞成之。《北齐书》作“忻”当应该也是“欢”字。
[5]北史.北京:中华书局,1974:1913.
[6]魏书.北京:中华书局,1974:302.
[7]a.同[3]:19.b.同[5]:225.
[8]周书.北京:中华书局,1971:22.
[9]赵超.汉魏南北朝墓志汇编.天津:天津古籍出版社,1992:72.
[10]仇鹿鸣.“攀附先世”与“伪冒士籍”-以渤海高氏为中心的研究.历史研究,2008,(2).
[11]姚薇元.北朝胡姓考.北京:中华书局,1962:254.
[12]桑原骘藏.隋唐时代入居中原之西域人//羽田享,编.内藤博士还历祝贺支那学论丛.京都:弘文堂,1926:570.
[13]同[3]:257,359,638.
[14]陈连庆.中国古代少数民族姓氏研究.长春:吉林文史出版社,1993:149,150.
[15]《魏书》卷四上《世祖太武帝纪》:“(太延五年)六月甲辰,车驾西讨沮渠牧犍。八月丙申,车驾至姑臧,牧犍兄子祖逾城来降,乃分军围之。九月丙戌,牧犍兄子万年率麾下来降。是日,牧犍与左右文武五千人面缚军门。”(魏书.北京:中华书局,1974:89,90.)
[16]左景权.敦煌文书学(汉文篇)发凡//北京大学中国中古史研究中心.敦煌吐鲁番文献研究论集.北京:中华书局,1982:6.
[17](美)杨联陞.《敦煌吐鲁番研究论集》读后.北京大学学报,1983,(4).
[18]谭世宝.燉(焞、敦)煌考释.文史(第37辑).北京:中华书局,1993:55~59.
[19]同[9]:58.
[20]a.同[3]:265.b.同[5]:1913.
[21]徐冲.从“异刻”现象看北魏后期墓志的“生产过程”.复旦学报(社会科学版),2011,(2).
[22]王利器.颜氏家训集解(增补本).北京:中华书局,1993:343,344.
[2]志文中漫漶不清者以“□”代,似是而不敢断定之字加“[]”,敬空处以“○”标示,据文意对应今日简体字者置于“()”内,有特殊情况处书于字后“<>”中。为疏证方便,行前加阿拉伯数字,行末加“」”。
[3]北齐书.北京:中华书局,1972:265,266.
[4]北史校勘记引钱大昕《考异》说以为此处张欣当是卷一四《后妃传》所言“开府张欢”,因齐史避高欢讳该作“欣”,校勘记赞成之。《北齐书》作“忻”当应该也是“欢”字。
[5]北史.北京:中华书局,1974:1913.
[6]魏书.北京:中华书局,1974:302.
[7]a.同[3]:19.b.同[5]:225.
[8]周书.北京:中华书局,1971:22.
[9]赵超.汉魏南北朝墓志汇编.天津:天津古籍出版社,1992:72.
[10]仇鹿鸣.“攀附先世”与“伪冒士籍”-以渤海高氏为中心的研究.历史研究,2008,(2).
[11]姚薇元.北朝胡姓考.北京:中华书局,1962:254.
[12]桑原骘藏.隋唐时代入居中原之西域人//羽田享,编.内藤博士还历祝贺支那学论丛.京都:弘文堂,1926:570.
[13]同[3]:257,359,638.
[14]陈连庆.中国古代少数民族姓氏研究.长春:吉林文史出版社,1993:149,150.
[15]《魏书》卷四上《世祖太武帝纪》:“(太延五年)六月甲辰,车驾西讨沮渠牧犍。八月丙申,车驾至姑臧,牧犍兄子祖逾城来降,乃分军围之。九月丙戌,牧犍兄子万年率麾下来降。是日,牧犍与左右文武五千人面缚军门。”(魏书.北京:中华书局,1974:89,90.)
[16]左景权.敦煌文书学(汉文篇)发凡//北京大学中国中古史研究中心.敦煌吐鲁番文献研究论集.北京:中华书局,1982:6.
[17](美)杨联陞.《敦煌吐鲁番研究论集》读后.北京大学学报,1983,(4).
[18]谭世宝.燉(焞、敦)煌考释.文史(第37辑).北京:中华书局,1993:55~59.
[19]同[9]:58.
[20]a.同[3]:265.b.同[5]:1913.
[21]徐冲.从“异刻”现象看北魏后期墓志的“生产过程”.复旦学报(社会科学版),2011,(2).
[22]王利器.颜氏家训集解(增补本).北京:中华书局,1993:343,344.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |