四
通過(guò)以上比較，我們可以看到文集墓誌具有其他類(lèi)型文章少有的特殊性，即墓誌作者只有不完全的“著作權(quán)”，或曰墓誌作者“著作權(quán)”的不完整性，可能由於墓主家人認(rèn)爲(wèi)墓誌刻好後反正要封閉在墓穴中，包括墓誌作者在內(nèi)的一般人不會(huì)再看到，即使修改也無(wú)人知曉，因此對(duì)墓誌作者的初稿大多進(jìn)行了修改增補(bǔ)，例如前舉竇牟墓誌，在敘述其父事跡時(shí)增加了“與李華善，後生歸之”一句，以及竇牟夫人的情況，增補(bǔ)後的墓誌估計(jì)沒(méi)有經(jīng)過(guò)作者韓愈認(rèn)可，甚至韓愈可能根本就不知道，這樣一來(lái)，雖然石刻墓誌作者署的是韓愈的名字，但實(shí)際內(nèi)容卻與初稿不同，而這種不同往往作者並不知道，那些出現(xiàn)在“作者韓愈”撰寫(xiě)的石刻墓誌中的文字，卻有一部分並非出自韓愈，作者的“著作權(quán)”就這樣被他人實(shí)際分割了，這樣一種由他人任意改動(dòng)原作者文字而又不經(jīng)原作者過(guò)目的作法，在墓誌之外其他類(lèi)型的文章中很少看到，於是造成了文集墓誌與石刻墓誌除誤書(shū)誤刻外的其他種種不同無(wú)法查驗(yàn)的後果，這一點(diǎn)，是我們閲讀分析文集墓誌與石刻墓誌的異同時(shí)要特別加以留意的。
以上所論，恐多錯(cuò)謬，敬請(qǐng)批評(píng)爲(wèi)盼。
The Similarities and Differences Between the Texts-nscribed on the Entombed Epitaphs and those Collected in Literary Anthologies in the Tang Dynasty-With Epitaphs Written by Han Yu as An Example
Huang ZhLngjian
ThL Lpitaphs collLctLd in litLrary anthologiLs and thosL inscribLd on stonLs bL-long to thL samL catLgory of historical sourcL.Accordingly just as wL must pay attLn-tion to LxcavatLd inscribLd tLxts so too must wL focus on collLctLd Lpitaphs as wLll.WhLn comparing thLm with onL anothLr thLrL arL sLvLral diffLrLncLs bLtwLLn thL two.ThL most significant diffLrLncL is that thL pingque平闕（also known as taitou抬頭or shift hLad in thL layout of thL inscribLd tLxts）arL omittLd in thL collLctLd tLxts thL pingque holds grLat valuL for thosL rLsLarching contLmporary thought.An-othLr diffLrLncL is that whLrLas thL inscribLd tLxts contain thL namL and official titlLs of thL author thL calligraphLr and thL inscribLr this information is not usually availa-blL in thL collLctLd tLxts.ThL namL of thL dLcLasLd thL burial datLs and othLr un-dLtLrminLd or sLnsitivL information arL also morL clLarly statLd in thL inscribLd tLxts than in thL collLctLd tLxts.ThLrL is oftLn addLd information on thL dLcLasLd's family in thL inscribLd tLxts that was unknown to thL author of thL collLctLd tLxts in thL litLr-ary anthology.ThLsL diffLrLncLs dLmonstratL thL supLrior quality of information pro-vidLd in thL inscribLd tLxts ovLr thL collLctLd tLxts.HowLvLr it must bL notLd that dLpLnding on thL vLrsion of thL litLrary anthology thL languagL of thL collLctLd Lpi-taphs could also vary from thL inscribLd onLs.WhilL somL collLctLd Lpitaphs arL rL-visLd according to thL inscribLd onLs othLrs prLsLrvL thL diffLrLncLs bLtwLLn thL two thL rLasons for which arL worthy of furthLr study.