大历史与小人物:北宋晚期党争视域下的官私石工考察
|
摘要
北宋中央官署石工多来源于地方石工家族以及荫子授官,属伎术官,被视为杂流,晋升甚难,他们难以直接参与高层党争活动,在北宋党争叙事中显得寂寂无闻。相比取湮后世的官署石工,民间石工安民、李仲宁却因谨守忠义而名盛后世,其实二人拒刻党籍碑并非全为公理,亦有一定的私情所在。从民间石工拒刻行为看党争舆情与党争叙事,可知在"崇宁党禁"高压下士人集体失语时,小人物却做出了正义之举,间接表达了自己的政治立场,体现了当时社会舆情对旧党的同情。同时也体现出南渡后入籍党人子孙在党争叙事上是旧非新的总体趋势,他们为了弘扬祖德而进行了一定程度的舆论反攻。透过石工行为看党争,说明看似与政治无关或处于政治边缘的小人物并不能完全独立于重大政治事件之外,他们亦会不自觉地参与党争或被党争洪流所裹挟,甚至也会在政治斗争中坚持自己的政治立场。
The study of factionalism is an important issue in the historical research of the Northern Song Dynasty.So far,emphases have mainly been focused on people like scholars,generals and royals,etc.However,this paper turns the perspective from the upper class to one group of small figures or insignificant people,namely,the stone carving workers.This change in perspective may lead to a preliminary exploration into the public opinions and narrative standpoints of scholars in the Southern Song Dynasty.Stone carving workers were part of the traditional community of manual laborers,a group of people earning their living by carving skills.Therefore,they are rarely mentioned in the existing ancient documents.Occasionally,the workers would leave their names on the stones,which constitute the only historical materials for us to study them.At present,the ongoing studies mainly concentrate on collecting and compiling the name lists of these workers,but systematic and deep-going studies still fall short.Except for comprehensively filtrating the handed-down literatures,this paper attempts to makes full use of the stone carving workers'signatures occasionally left on the stone carvings and study them from the perspective of factionalism,which not only contributes to a better knowledge about the living state of these people,but also makes a better understanding of the political stand of small figures in the grand history.In the Northern Song Dynasty,most of the stone carving workers taking office in the central government came from local stone carving families or succeeded the posts from their fathers who had been technical officials.Compared with civil officials,they were usually humble both in political status and earnings.As a consequence,they were regarded as craftsmen and had difficulty in promotion or direct involvement in the upper class factionalism.That is the reason why they are relatively unknown in the documents about factionalism.Different from many official stone carving workers who have been forgotten,civil stone workers such as An Min and Li Zhongning have enjoyed longstanding reputation for rejecting to carve steles for Yuanyou Partisans in the″Inhibition of Party in the Reign of Chongning″.Stories about An Min and Li Zhongning are found in personal note novels in the Song Dynasty.The History of Song Dynasty which was compiled and revised in the Yuan Dynasty adopted the story of An Min into Biography of Sima Guangto praise his noble character and outstanding moral principles,which unquestionably expanded the influence.From the stories of An Min and Li Zhongning,it can be concluded that these were brave enough to uphold justice and expressed their political stands when civil officials dared not voice their opinions.For one thing,extolling their stories showed public sympathy to the Old Faction;for another,the descendants of the partisans recorded in the list uniformly backed up the Old Faction and opposed the New Faction when narrating factionalism in the Northern Song Dynasty.To some extent,they launched a counterattack with the purpose of carrying forward ancestral merits and virtues.In actuality,An Min and Li Zhongning's refusal to carve for Yuanyou Partisans were not only due to justice,but also for private reasons.Many poems in the Ming and Qing Dynasties eulogized An Min and Li Zhongning,which reflects later scholars'appreciation for their sticking to justice and virtue in spite of their insignificant status.Judging from the perspective of factionalism,small figures like stone carving workers,who appeared to be far from or at the edge of politics,couldn't be completely independent of big events.Faced with such circumstances,they would join in the factionalism consciously or get involved in the stream passively,and some of them even took their own stand in the political struggle.The paper surmises about the names of the people who carved for Yuanyou Partisans'Steles in the imperial capital Kaifeng.Our studies show that Zhao Yin and his fellows might be the ones who carved for Yuanyou Partisans'Steles in Chongning.The main research methods used in this paper are dual evidence,document statistics and analysis and so on.It is expected that these research methods may contribute to the future studies of stone carving workers.
The study of factionalism is an important issue in the historical research of the Northern Song Dynasty.So far,emphases have mainly been focused on people like scholars,generals and royals,etc.However,this paper turns the perspective from the upper class to one group of small figures or insignificant people,namely,the stone carving workers.This change in perspective may lead to a preliminary exploration into the public opinions and narrative standpoints of scholars in the Southern Song Dynasty.Stone carving workers were part of the traditional community of manual laborers,a group of people earning their living by carving skills.Therefore,they are rarely mentioned in the existing ancient documents.Occasionally,the workers would leave their names on the stones,which constitute the only historical materials for us to study them.At present,the ongoing studies mainly concentrate on collecting and compiling the name lists of these workers,but systematic and deep-going studies still fall short.Except for comprehensively filtrating the handed-down literatures,this paper attempts to makes full use of the stone carving workers'signatures occasionally left on the stone carvings and study them from the perspective of factionalism,which not only contributes to a better knowledge about the living state of these people,but also makes a better understanding of the political stand of small figures in the grand history.In the Northern Song Dynasty,most of the stone carving workers taking office in the central government came from local stone carving families or succeeded the posts from their fathers who had been technical officials.Compared with civil officials,they were usually humble both in political status and earnings.As a consequence,they were regarded as craftsmen and had difficulty in promotion or direct involvement in the upper class factionalism.That is the reason why they are relatively unknown in the documents about factionalism.Different from many official stone carving workers who have been forgotten,civil stone workers such as An Min and Li Zhongning have enjoyed longstanding reputation for rejecting to carve steles for Yuanyou Partisans in the″Inhibition of Party in the Reign of Chongning″.Stories about An Min and Li Zhongning are found in personal note novels in the Song Dynasty.The History of Song Dynasty which was compiled and revised in the Yuan Dynasty adopted the story of An Min into Biography of Sima Guangto praise his noble character and outstanding moral principles,which unquestionably expanded the influence.From the stories of An Min and Li Zhongning,it can be concluded that these were brave enough to uphold justice and expressed their political stands when civil officials dared not voice their opinions.For one thing,extolling their stories showed public sympathy to the Old Faction;for another,the descendants of the partisans recorded in the list uniformly backed up the Old Faction and opposed the New Faction when narrating factionalism in the Northern Song Dynasty.To some extent,they launched a counterattack with the purpose of carrying forward ancestral merits and virtues.In actuality,An Min and Li Zhongning's refusal to carve for Yuanyou Partisans were not only due to justice,but also for private reasons.Many poems in the Ming and Qing Dynasties eulogized An Min and Li Zhongning,which reflects later scholars'appreciation for their sticking to justice and virtue in spite of their insignificant status.Judging from the perspective of factionalism,small figures like stone carving workers,who appeared to be far from or at the edge of politics,couldn't be completely independent of big events.Faced with such circumstances,they would join in the factionalism consciously or get involved in the stream passively,and some of them even took their own stand in the political struggle.The paper surmises about the names of the people who carved for Yuanyou Partisans'Steles in the imperial capital Kaifeng.Our studies show that Zhao Yin and his fellows might be the ones who carved for Yuanyou Partisans'Steles in Chongning.The main research methods used in this paper are dual evidence,document statistics and analysis and so on.It is expected that these research methods may contribute to the future studies of stone carving workers.
引文
[1]程章灿:《石刻刻工研究》,上海:上海古籍出版社,2008年。[Cheng Zhangcan,A Study on the Stone Carving Workers,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2008.]
[2]叶昌炽、柯昌泗:《语石 语石异同评》,北京:中华书局,1994年。[Ye Changchi &Ke Changsi,Yushi &Yushi Yitong Ping,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1994.]
[3]河南省文物局编著:《安阳韩琦家族墓地》,北京:科学出版社,2012年。[Administration of Cultural Heritage of Henan Province(ed.),Family Cemetery of Han Qi in Anyang,Beijing:Science Publishing House,2012.]
[4]王昶编:《金石萃编》,见新文丰出版公司编辑部编:《石刻史料新编》第1辑第4册,台北:新文丰出版公司,1982年。[Wang Chang(ed.),Jinshi Cuibian,in Editorial Department of Xinwenfeng Publishing Company(ed.),Newly Organized Compiled Stone Inscriptions:Vol.1,No.4,Taipei:Xinwenfeng Publishing Company,1982.]
[5]徐松辑:《宋会要辑稿》,北京:中华书局,1957年。[Xu Song(ed.),Song Huiyao Jigao,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1957.]
[6]李焘:《续资治通鉴长编》,北京:中华书局,1995年。[Li Tao,Xu Zizhi Tongjian Changbian,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1955.]
[7]叶盛:《水东日记》,北京:中华书局,1980年。[Ye Sheng,Ye Sheng's Diary,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1980.]
[8]脱脱等:《宋史》,北京:中华书局,1985年。[Toqto'a et al.,The History of Song Dynasty,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1985.]
[9]龚延明:《宋代官制辞典》(增补本),北京:中华书局,2017年。[Gong Yanming,A Dictionary of the Bureaucracy of the Song Dynasty(Enlarged Edition),Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2017.]
[10]邵伯温:《邵氏闻见录》,北京:中华书局,1983年。[Shao Bowen,Shaoshi Wenjian Lu,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1983.]
[11]罗昌繁:《元祐党籍碑的立毁与版本源流———兼论元祐党籍名录的变更》,《北京社会科学》2018年第11期,第58-74页。[Luo Changfan,″The Establishment,Demolition and Edition of Yuanyou Partisans'Stele:An Additional Study on the Changes of Its Name List,″Social Sciences of Beijing,No.11(2018),pp.58-74.]
[12]王明清:《挥麈录》,上海:上海古籍出版社,2012年。[Wang Mingqing,Huizhu Lu,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2012.]
[13]汪师韩:《谈书录》,见《续修四库全书》第1147册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2002年。[Wang Shihan,Tanshu Lu,in Xuxiu Siku Quanshu:Vol.1147,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2002.]
[14]朱彝尊:《曝书亭集》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第116册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Zhu Yizun,Pushuting Ji,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.116,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[15]陶宗仪、朱谋垔:《书史会要 续书史会要》,杭州:浙江人民美术出版社,2012年。[Tao Zongyi &Zhu Mouyin,Shushi Huiyao &Xu Shushi Huiyao,Hangzhou:Zhejiang People's Fine Arts Publishing House,2012.]
[16]邵博:《邵氏闻见后录》,北京:中华书局,1983年。[Shao Bo,Shaoshi Wenjian Houlu,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1983.]
[17]史能之:《咸淳毗陵志》,见《续修四库全书》第699册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2002年。[Shi Nengzhi,Xianchun Piling Zhi,in Xuxiu Siku Quanshu:Vol.699,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2002.]
[18]卢:《四照堂诗集》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第19册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Lu Hong,Collected Poems of Lu Hong,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.19,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[19]沈德潜:《归愚诗钞余集》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第234册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Shen Deqian,Guiyu Shichao Yuji,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.234,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[20]陶澍:《陶文毅公全集》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第530册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Tao Shu,The Complete Works of Tao Shu,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.530,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[21]郭金台:《石村诗文集》,长沙:岳麓书社,2010年。[Guo Jintai,Collections of Guo Jintai,Changsha:Yuelu Publishing House,2010.]
[22]吴省钦:《白华前稿》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第371册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Wu Xingqin,Baihua Qiangao,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.371,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[23]罗惇衍:《集义轩咏史诗钞》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第657册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Luo Dunyan,Jiyixuan Yongshi Shichao,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.657,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[24]张纲:《华阳集》,见《四部丛刊三编》65,上海:上海书店,1986年。[Zhang Gang,Huayang Ji,in Sibu Congkan Sanbian:Vol.65,Shanghai:Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House,1986.]
(1)广义的新旧党争由神宗朝王安石变法引起,前后持续约半个世纪,至北宋晚期(哲宗、徽宗、钦宗朝,尤其是徽宗朝)已非新旧两党的二元对立,而是数党交攻导致的复杂政争。
(2)石刻刻工可简称为石工(或石匠),以与书籍版刻刻工相区别。石刻与版刻一身兼二任者不乏其人,此乃另一主题,本文不予考察。篆刻家亦属于广义的石工,本文亦不考察。本文探讨的是与北宋晚期党争有关的以刻石为业的专门石工,尤指官署石工及与党争事件有关的民间石工。
(3)古人常用“铁笔”来雅称刻石、篆刻、雕画等工作。
(1)关于石工研究,清末叶昌炽《语石》(见叶昌炽、柯昌泗《语石语石异同评》,中华书局1994年版,以下不再标注版本)已有涉及;曾毅公《石刻考工录》(书目文献出版社1987年版)辑录较多石工名姓;程章灿《石刻刻工研究》(上海古籍出版社2008年版,以下不再标注版本)上编为“石刻刻工研究”,下编为“《石刻考工录》补编”,可视为首部集中探讨石工的专著,兼有制度考察与石工名录辑佚,具有重要意义。另外,部分书学与史学、考古研究也偶及石工考察,但总体而言,囿于史料不足,石工研究仍显薄弱,目前未见专门从党争角度来研究石工的成果。
(2)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》载:“关于汉代中央或地方政府中是否有专设机构雇用专门刻工负责刻石,在汉碑及汉代正史中,似乎未见到明确记载,依据情理以及间接证据推论,应该是有的。”第4页。
(3)本文所谓官署石工指中央官署石工,因未见相关史料记载地方官署石工,所以不将其列入考察范围。笔者怀疑大多数地方无正式的石刻官署,地方官署刻石任务可能多由民间石工兼任。
(4)龚延明教授引《宋会要辑稿·职官》谓翰林御书院“掌皇帝亲笔文字,供奉书写之属、图籍之册及琴棋之艺”,其编制中有“印碑匠”与“雕字匠”(龚延明《宋代官制辞典》,中华书局2017年版,第78页,以下不再标注版本),可知御书院的石工主要为御书翰墨刻石。《北宋皇陵》(河南省文物考古研究所编,中州古籍出版社1997版)附录的宗室碑志题署皆为中央官署石工,说明他们多为皇帝与宗室、后妃碑志刻石。又从出土的《韩琦墓志》石工题署可知,官署石工的服务对象也兼及朝廷名公巨卿碑志。《郡斋读书志·附志》赵希弁记载《石经尚书》曰:“右《尚书》十三卷,经注并序八万一千九百四十四字。将仕郎试秘书省校书郎臣周德贞书,镌玉册官陈德超镌。”(孙猛校证《郡斋读书志校证》,上海古籍出版社1990年版,第1084页)可见官署石工亦负责石经镌刻。宋代学士院及舍人院之士人题名亦由官署石工镌刻,如洪遵所编《翰苑群书》卷一二《翰苑遗事》引曾纡《南游记旧》载:“学士及舍人院最重题名,学士及舍人赴职之日,本院设具,应他学士、给、谏、丞郎、待制皆预会。以是日题名于石,玉册官刊字。后有拜宰相者,即其名下刊‘相’字。”(《影印文渊阁四库全书》第595册,台湾商务印书馆1986年版,第408页)官署石工还负责皇家寺观碑刻石,如洪迈《容斋随笔·容斋三笔》“六经用字”载:“孝宗初登极,以潜邸为佑圣观,令玉册官篆碑。”(孔凡礼点校,中华书局2005年版,第544页)由诸文献记载可见,宋代官署石工几乎承担了与官方、皇家有关的一切刻石任务。
(1)就石工题署而言,部分官署石工或为胥吏,有勒留官之嫌,本文统一视为伎术官来讨论。
(2)龚延明《宋代官制辞典》,第738页。有关伎术官,还可参见余贵林、张邦炜《宋代伎术官研究》,原载《大陆杂志》1991年第1、2期,后收入张邦炜《宋代政治文化史论》,(北京)人民出版社2005年版;包伟民《宋代技术官制度述略》,原载《漆侠先生纪念文集》,(保定)河北大学出版社2002年版,后收入包伟民《传统国家与社会:960-1279年》,(北京)商务印书馆2009年版。
(3)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》云:“大部分石工都做了无名英雄,他们并没有在石刻上留下名字,而只是站在历史舞台幕后的人物。从客观方面来看,这似乎是由于石刻制度中存在不重视刻工的因素,反映了社会对刻工之身份地位的认定;而从主观方面来看,它也在一定程度上反映了刻工对身份地位的自我体认。”第7页。
(4)见河南省文物考古研究所编《北宋皇陵》附录三“北宋皇陵出土墓志、墓记录文”,题衔为少府监玉册官寋思的有25篇。
(5)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》载:“在元丰改制以后,原隶中书省的玉册官以及中书省的镌刻职责被撤并入少府监中去了。”第106页。
(6)参见本文下面所列《宋代官制辞典》中“翰林御书院”的官署石工编制。
(7)作为姓氏,一般认为寋与蹇不同,均未入《百家姓》,皆为稀见姓氏无疑;或谓寋即蹇。有关此二姓氏之区别,唐宋明清皆有人论述,不赘举。
(1)北京图书馆藏金石组编《北京图书馆藏中国历代石刻拓本汇编》第41册,(郑州)中州古籍出版社1989年版,第79页。张士亨刻黄裳所撰《太平州芜湖县新学记》,由米芾行书书丹,乃米芾晚期名作,石刻行书较楷书更难,足见张士亨石刻技术超群。
(2)叶昌炽《语石》卷六谓,“至《芜湖县新学记》,翰林张士亨模刊,则文学侍从之臣亦为之”(第415页)。此翰林似非一般翰林学士之简称,乃翰林书艺局之简称。
(3)如亲身经历过徽宗朝党争的翟汝文有《内侍五人直睿思殿制》,藤本猛《直睿思殿与承受官---北宋末的宦官官职》(载《东洋史研究》2015年第74卷第2号)也认为睿思殿相关人员可能由宦官充任。
(4)脱脱等《宋史》卷四六九《宦者传·董宋臣传》谓南宋著名宦官董宋臣“以睿思殿祗候特转横行官”,(北京)中华书局1985年版,第13675页。
(5)张乃常见姓氏,古人以“士某”起名也较为常见,但笔者以“张士”二字检索“中国基本古籍库”,其中北宋中晚期人物中,未见洛阳以外的其他地区有大规模的以“张士某”(某起笔为点“丶”)为名的家族。又检索杨倩描主编《宋代人物辞典》(河北大学出版社2015年版),北宋前期有贝州清河(今河北清河县)张氏,其中有张士安、张士宣、张士宗,乃五代宋初武将张美之孙。又以“张士”二字检索“中国金石总录”,刻石者皆为洛阳石工。所以,基本可以断定石工中以起笔为点“丶”的“张士某”皆为洛阳人。
(1)明徐《笔精》卷七杂记《党籍碑重刻》:“元祐党籍碑,蔡京欲传示后世,使其子孙有余辱也。”见《影印文渊阁四库全书》第856册,(台北)台湾商务印书馆1986年版,第563页。
(1)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》载:“已知宋代刻工中自署为少府监玉册官者有赵隐、王磻、邢肃、寋思、张惟几五人,此外还有一个佚名。”(第107页)此与笔者统计大致相同。赵隐(活动时限为元丰、元祐、绍圣、崇宁、大观)、寋思(活动时限为元符、建中靖国、大观)、张惟几(活动时限为大观)三人刻石较多,他们活动时限集中在崇宁前后。王磻似乎更年长,其刻石集中在元祐年间。邢肃刻石则集中在元祐时期,政和年间亦有之。
(2)《北宋皇陵》附录明确记载的崇宁年间有石刻产出的仅有赵隐一人,其在崇宁元年(1102)刻《赵令杳女墓记》,题署少府监玉册官。
(3)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》第五章第四节“宋代官署刻工及其所刻碑目”辑录宋代官署石工共计五十余人,而其“《石刻考工录》补编”(第221-289页)所辑宋代民间石工则有数百人之多,如果再加上新近各地方出土的宋代石刻,民间石工人数当远超官署石工。
(1)历来似乎未曾有人怀疑过邵氏谓其为常安民的记载,但清人张澍提出了异议。其《石工安民为武威人考》云:“澍按:石工姓安名民,武威人。邵氏以为姓常,名安民,误矣……是宋世,金石著于人间者,大半系安氏所镌。其驳落沉霾不传于世者,谅复不少。其云京兆安民者,安民本武威籍,寓长安镌字,故曰京兆也。”(张澍《养素堂文集》卷一二,见《清代诗文集汇编》本第536册,上海古籍出版社2010年版,第448页)张澍此说有理。常安民“字希古,邛州人”(脱脱等《宋史》卷三四六,中华书局1985年版,第10988页),曾入元祐党籍碑。清人王梓材也说:“梓材谨案:时二蔡为元祐党籍刻石,召石工安民,至则乞不刻‘安民镌字’于碑,恐后世并以为罪。安民长安人,《邵氏闻见录》误以为常安民。倪文正《跋党籍碑》云:‘石工安民乞免书名,今披诸贤位中,赫然有安民在。’盖亦同此误也。”(黄宗羲等《宋元学案》卷一九,中华书局1986年版,第806页)至于张澍所谓“安民本武威籍,寓长安镌字,故曰京兆”却难以确定,因为京兆本有安氏一族,安民是京兆本地安氏,还是武威一族,尚难考实。又辛德勇也认为邵伯温所记常安民之“常”字当为衍字,见辛德勇《说阜昌石刻〈禹迹图〉与〈华夷图〉》,载燕京研究院《燕京学报》新28期,北京大学出版社2010年版,后收入辛德勇《石室賸言》,(北京)中华书局2014年版。
(1)辛德勇《说阜昌石刻〈禹迹图〉与〈华夷图〉》(载燕京研究院《燕京学报》新28期,北京大学出版社2010年版)也认为安民家族与吕大防等有关系。
(2)毕沅《关中金石记》卷四:“《藏真律公二帖》,无号年,释怀素草书,宋元祐八年九月安宜之刻。有游师雄跋,并在西安府学。”(见《石刻史料新编》第2辑,第14册,新文丰出版公司1979年版,第10679页)这说明安宜之不仅能书丹,也能刻石,其所刻《怀素法帖》今藏西安碑林。
(3)宋地方石刻常有撰者、书丹人题署乡贡进士,此安宜之所题进士极有可能是指乡贡进士。
(1)分别是1970年冬出土于江西南丰县,由李仲宁与李仲宪合刻的《中书舍人曾巩墓志铭》(元丰七年,1084),以及1972年出土于江西彭泽县,由李仲宁独刻的《刘元周妻易氏墓志铭》(元祐五年,1090),见陈柏泉《江西出土墓志选编》,(南昌)江西教育出版社1991年版,第37、55页。
(1)相关举措可参看杨仲良《皇宋通鉴长编纪事本末》(李之亮校点,黑龙江人民出版社2006年版)卷一二一《禁元祐党人上》与卷一二二《禁元祐党人下》。
(2)“崇宁党禁”或“崇宁党锢”前后长达二十余年。崇宁元年(1102),分元祐诸臣章疏姓名为正邪各三等,诏始禁元祐学术政事,意味着党禁正式开始。完全解除党禁在靖康元年(1126)“除元祐学术党籍之禁”。
(1)李剑雄和刘德权点校《邵氏闻见录》之《点校说明》(中华书局1983年版)、李华瑞《宋代笔记小说中的王安石形象》(见氏著《王安石变法研究史》,人民出版社2004年版)、程国赋和叶菁《北宋新旧党争影响下的笔记小说创作》(载《陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2016年第6期)一致认为与北宋新旧党争有关的南宋笔记总体持有党争叙事立场。
[2]叶昌炽、柯昌泗:《语石 语石异同评》,北京:中华书局,1994年。[Ye Changchi &Ke Changsi,Yushi &Yushi Yitong Ping,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1994.]
[3]河南省文物局编著:《安阳韩琦家族墓地》,北京:科学出版社,2012年。[Administration of Cultural Heritage of Henan Province(ed.),Family Cemetery of Han Qi in Anyang,Beijing:Science Publishing House,2012.]
[4]王昶编:《金石萃编》,见新文丰出版公司编辑部编:《石刻史料新编》第1辑第4册,台北:新文丰出版公司,1982年。[Wang Chang(ed.),Jinshi Cuibian,in Editorial Department of Xinwenfeng Publishing Company(ed.),Newly Organized Compiled Stone Inscriptions:Vol.1,No.4,Taipei:Xinwenfeng Publishing Company,1982.]
[5]徐松辑:《宋会要辑稿》,北京:中华书局,1957年。[Xu Song(ed.),Song Huiyao Jigao,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1957.]
[6]李焘:《续资治通鉴长编》,北京:中华书局,1995年。[Li Tao,Xu Zizhi Tongjian Changbian,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1955.]
[7]叶盛:《水东日记》,北京:中华书局,1980年。[Ye Sheng,Ye Sheng's Diary,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1980.]
[8]脱脱等:《宋史》,北京:中华书局,1985年。[Toqto'a et al.,The History of Song Dynasty,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1985.]
[9]龚延明:《宋代官制辞典》(增补本),北京:中华书局,2017年。[Gong Yanming,A Dictionary of the Bureaucracy of the Song Dynasty(Enlarged Edition),Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2017.]
[10]邵伯温:《邵氏闻见录》,北京:中华书局,1983年。[Shao Bowen,Shaoshi Wenjian Lu,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1983.]
[11]罗昌繁:《元祐党籍碑的立毁与版本源流———兼论元祐党籍名录的变更》,《北京社会科学》2018年第11期,第58-74页。[Luo Changfan,″The Establishment,Demolition and Edition of Yuanyou Partisans'Stele:An Additional Study on the Changes of Its Name List,″Social Sciences of Beijing,No.11(2018),pp.58-74.]
[12]王明清:《挥麈录》,上海:上海古籍出版社,2012年。[Wang Mingqing,Huizhu Lu,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2012.]
[13]汪师韩:《谈书录》,见《续修四库全书》第1147册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2002年。[Wang Shihan,Tanshu Lu,in Xuxiu Siku Quanshu:Vol.1147,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2002.]
[14]朱彝尊:《曝书亭集》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第116册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Zhu Yizun,Pushuting Ji,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.116,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[15]陶宗仪、朱谋垔:《书史会要 续书史会要》,杭州:浙江人民美术出版社,2012年。[Tao Zongyi &Zhu Mouyin,Shushi Huiyao &Xu Shushi Huiyao,Hangzhou:Zhejiang People's Fine Arts Publishing House,2012.]
[16]邵博:《邵氏闻见后录》,北京:中华书局,1983年。[Shao Bo,Shaoshi Wenjian Houlu,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1983.]
[17]史能之:《咸淳毗陵志》,见《续修四库全书》第699册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2002年。[Shi Nengzhi,Xianchun Piling Zhi,in Xuxiu Siku Quanshu:Vol.699,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2002.]
[18]卢:《四照堂诗集》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第19册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Lu Hong,Collected Poems of Lu Hong,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.19,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[19]沈德潜:《归愚诗钞余集》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第234册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Shen Deqian,Guiyu Shichao Yuji,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.234,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[20]陶澍:《陶文毅公全集》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第530册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Tao Shu,The Complete Works of Tao Shu,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.530,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[21]郭金台:《石村诗文集》,长沙:岳麓书社,2010年。[Guo Jintai,Collections of Guo Jintai,Changsha:Yuelu Publishing House,2010.]
[22]吴省钦:《白华前稿》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第371册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Wu Xingqin,Baihua Qiangao,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.371,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[23]罗惇衍:《集义轩咏史诗钞》,见《清代诗文集汇编》编纂委员会编:《清代诗文集汇编》第657册,上海:上海古籍出版社,2010年。[Luo Dunyan,Jiyixuan Yongshi Shichao,in Codification Committee of Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty(ed.),Collections of Poetry and Prose in Qing Dynasty:Vol.657,Shanghai:Shanghai Classics Publishing House,2010.]
[24]张纲:《华阳集》,见《四部丛刊三编》65,上海:上海书店,1986年。[Zhang Gang,Huayang Ji,in Sibu Congkan Sanbian:Vol.65,Shanghai:Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House,1986.]
(1)广义的新旧党争由神宗朝王安石变法引起,前后持续约半个世纪,至北宋晚期(哲宗、徽宗、钦宗朝,尤其是徽宗朝)已非新旧两党的二元对立,而是数党交攻导致的复杂政争。
(2)石刻刻工可简称为石工(或石匠),以与书籍版刻刻工相区别。石刻与版刻一身兼二任者不乏其人,此乃另一主题,本文不予考察。篆刻家亦属于广义的石工,本文亦不考察。本文探讨的是与北宋晚期党争有关的以刻石为业的专门石工,尤指官署石工及与党争事件有关的民间石工。
(3)古人常用“铁笔”来雅称刻石、篆刻、雕画等工作。
(1)关于石工研究,清末叶昌炽《语石》(见叶昌炽、柯昌泗《语石语石异同评》,中华书局1994年版,以下不再标注版本)已有涉及;曾毅公《石刻考工录》(书目文献出版社1987年版)辑录较多石工名姓;程章灿《石刻刻工研究》(上海古籍出版社2008年版,以下不再标注版本)上编为“石刻刻工研究”,下编为“《石刻考工录》补编”,可视为首部集中探讨石工的专著,兼有制度考察与石工名录辑佚,具有重要意义。另外,部分书学与史学、考古研究也偶及石工考察,但总体而言,囿于史料不足,石工研究仍显薄弱,目前未见专门从党争角度来研究石工的成果。
(2)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》载:“关于汉代中央或地方政府中是否有专设机构雇用专门刻工负责刻石,在汉碑及汉代正史中,似乎未见到明确记载,依据情理以及间接证据推论,应该是有的。”第4页。
(3)本文所谓官署石工指中央官署石工,因未见相关史料记载地方官署石工,所以不将其列入考察范围。笔者怀疑大多数地方无正式的石刻官署,地方官署刻石任务可能多由民间石工兼任。
(4)龚延明教授引《宋会要辑稿·职官》谓翰林御书院“掌皇帝亲笔文字,供奉书写之属、图籍之册及琴棋之艺”,其编制中有“印碑匠”与“雕字匠”(龚延明《宋代官制辞典》,中华书局2017年版,第78页,以下不再标注版本),可知御书院的石工主要为御书翰墨刻石。《北宋皇陵》(河南省文物考古研究所编,中州古籍出版社1997版)附录的宗室碑志题署皆为中央官署石工,说明他们多为皇帝与宗室、后妃碑志刻石。又从出土的《韩琦墓志》石工题署可知,官署石工的服务对象也兼及朝廷名公巨卿碑志。《郡斋读书志·附志》赵希弁记载《石经尚书》曰:“右《尚书》十三卷,经注并序八万一千九百四十四字。将仕郎试秘书省校书郎臣周德贞书,镌玉册官陈德超镌。”(孙猛校证《郡斋读书志校证》,上海古籍出版社1990年版,第1084页)可见官署石工亦负责石经镌刻。宋代学士院及舍人院之士人题名亦由官署石工镌刻,如洪遵所编《翰苑群书》卷一二《翰苑遗事》引曾纡《南游记旧》载:“学士及舍人院最重题名,学士及舍人赴职之日,本院设具,应他学士、给、谏、丞郎、待制皆预会。以是日题名于石,玉册官刊字。后有拜宰相者,即其名下刊‘相’字。”(《影印文渊阁四库全书》第595册,台湾商务印书馆1986年版,第408页)官署石工还负责皇家寺观碑刻石,如洪迈《容斋随笔·容斋三笔》“六经用字”载:“孝宗初登极,以潜邸为佑圣观,令玉册官篆碑。”(孔凡礼点校,中华书局2005年版,第544页)由诸文献记载可见,宋代官署石工几乎承担了与官方、皇家有关的一切刻石任务。
(1)就石工题署而言,部分官署石工或为胥吏,有勒留官之嫌,本文统一视为伎术官来讨论。
(2)龚延明《宋代官制辞典》,第738页。有关伎术官,还可参见余贵林、张邦炜《宋代伎术官研究》,原载《大陆杂志》1991年第1、2期,后收入张邦炜《宋代政治文化史论》,(北京)人民出版社2005年版;包伟民《宋代技术官制度述略》,原载《漆侠先生纪念文集》,(保定)河北大学出版社2002年版,后收入包伟民《传统国家与社会:960-1279年》,(北京)商务印书馆2009年版。
(3)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》云:“大部分石工都做了无名英雄,他们并没有在石刻上留下名字,而只是站在历史舞台幕后的人物。从客观方面来看,这似乎是由于石刻制度中存在不重视刻工的因素,反映了社会对刻工之身份地位的认定;而从主观方面来看,它也在一定程度上反映了刻工对身份地位的自我体认。”第7页。
(4)见河南省文物考古研究所编《北宋皇陵》附录三“北宋皇陵出土墓志、墓记录文”,题衔为少府监玉册官寋思的有25篇。
(5)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》载:“在元丰改制以后,原隶中书省的玉册官以及中书省的镌刻职责被撤并入少府监中去了。”第106页。
(6)参见本文下面所列《宋代官制辞典》中“翰林御书院”的官署石工编制。
(7)作为姓氏,一般认为寋与蹇不同,均未入《百家姓》,皆为稀见姓氏无疑;或谓寋即蹇。有关此二姓氏之区别,唐宋明清皆有人论述,不赘举。
(1)北京图书馆藏金石组编《北京图书馆藏中国历代石刻拓本汇编》第41册,(郑州)中州古籍出版社1989年版,第79页。张士亨刻黄裳所撰《太平州芜湖县新学记》,由米芾行书书丹,乃米芾晚期名作,石刻行书较楷书更难,足见张士亨石刻技术超群。
(2)叶昌炽《语石》卷六谓,“至《芜湖县新学记》,翰林张士亨模刊,则文学侍从之臣亦为之”(第415页)。此翰林似非一般翰林学士之简称,乃翰林书艺局之简称。
(3)如亲身经历过徽宗朝党争的翟汝文有《内侍五人直睿思殿制》,藤本猛《直睿思殿与承受官---北宋末的宦官官职》(载《东洋史研究》2015年第74卷第2号)也认为睿思殿相关人员可能由宦官充任。
(4)脱脱等《宋史》卷四六九《宦者传·董宋臣传》谓南宋著名宦官董宋臣“以睿思殿祗候特转横行官”,(北京)中华书局1985年版,第13675页。
(5)张乃常见姓氏,古人以“士某”起名也较为常见,但笔者以“张士”二字检索“中国基本古籍库”,其中北宋中晚期人物中,未见洛阳以外的其他地区有大规模的以“张士某”(某起笔为点“丶”)为名的家族。又检索杨倩描主编《宋代人物辞典》(河北大学出版社2015年版),北宋前期有贝州清河(今河北清河县)张氏,其中有张士安、张士宣、张士宗,乃五代宋初武将张美之孙。又以“张士”二字检索“中国金石总录”,刻石者皆为洛阳石工。所以,基本可以断定石工中以起笔为点“丶”的“张士某”皆为洛阳人。
(1)明徐《笔精》卷七杂记《党籍碑重刻》:“元祐党籍碑,蔡京欲传示后世,使其子孙有余辱也。”见《影印文渊阁四库全书》第856册,(台北)台湾商务印书馆1986年版,第563页。
(1)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》载:“已知宋代刻工中自署为少府监玉册官者有赵隐、王磻、邢肃、寋思、张惟几五人,此外还有一个佚名。”(第107页)此与笔者统计大致相同。赵隐(活动时限为元丰、元祐、绍圣、崇宁、大观)、寋思(活动时限为元符、建中靖国、大观)、张惟几(活动时限为大观)三人刻石较多,他们活动时限集中在崇宁前后。王磻似乎更年长,其刻石集中在元祐年间。邢肃刻石则集中在元祐时期,政和年间亦有之。
(2)《北宋皇陵》附录明确记载的崇宁年间有石刻产出的仅有赵隐一人,其在崇宁元年(1102)刻《赵令杳女墓记》,题署少府监玉册官。
(3)程章灿《石刻刻工研究》第五章第四节“宋代官署刻工及其所刻碑目”辑录宋代官署石工共计五十余人,而其“《石刻考工录》补编”(第221-289页)所辑宋代民间石工则有数百人之多,如果再加上新近各地方出土的宋代石刻,民间石工人数当远超官署石工。
(1)历来似乎未曾有人怀疑过邵氏谓其为常安民的记载,但清人张澍提出了异议。其《石工安民为武威人考》云:“澍按:石工姓安名民,武威人。邵氏以为姓常,名安民,误矣……是宋世,金石著于人间者,大半系安氏所镌。其驳落沉霾不传于世者,谅复不少。其云京兆安民者,安民本武威籍,寓长安镌字,故曰京兆也。”(张澍《养素堂文集》卷一二,见《清代诗文集汇编》本第536册,上海古籍出版社2010年版,第448页)张澍此说有理。常安民“字希古,邛州人”(脱脱等《宋史》卷三四六,中华书局1985年版,第10988页),曾入元祐党籍碑。清人王梓材也说:“梓材谨案:时二蔡为元祐党籍刻石,召石工安民,至则乞不刻‘安民镌字’于碑,恐后世并以为罪。安民长安人,《邵氏闻见录》误以为常安民。倪文正《跋党籍碑》云:‘石工安民乞免书名,今披诸贤位中,赫然有安民在。’盖亦同此误也。”(黄宗羲等《宋元学案》卷一九,中华书局1986年版,第806页)至于张澍所谓“安民本武威籍,寓长安镌字,故曰京兆”却难以确定,因为京兆本有安氏一族,安民是京兆本地安氏,还是武威一族,尚难考实。又辛德勇也认为邵伯温所记常安民之“常”字当为衍字,见辛德勇《说阜昌石刻〈禹迹图〉与〈华夷图〉》,载燕京研究院《燕京学报》新28期,北京大学出版社2010年版,后收入辛德勇《石室賸言》,(北京)中华书局2014年版。
(1)辛德勇《说阜昌石刻〈禹迹图〉与〈华夷图〉》(载燕京研究院《燕京学报》新28期,北京大学出版社2010年版)也认为安民家族与吕大防等有关系。
(2)毕沅《关中金石记》卷四:“《藏真律公二帖》,无号年,释怀素草书,宋元祐八年九月安宜之刻。有游师雄跋,并在西安府学。”(见《石刻史料新编》第2辑,第14册,新文丰出版公司1979年版,第10679页)这说明安宜之不仅能书丹,也能刻石,其所刻《怀素法帖》今藏西安碑林。
(3)宋地方石刻常有撰者、书丹人题署乡贡进士,此安宜之所题进士极有可能是指乡贡进士。
(1)分别是1970年冬出土于江西南丰县,由李仲宁与李仲宪合刻的《中书舍人曾巩墓志铭》(元丰七年,1084),以及1972年出土于江西彭泽县,由李仲宁独刻的《刘元周妻易氏墓志铭》(元祐五年,1090),见陈柏泉《江西出土墓志选编》,(南昌)江西教育出版社1991年版,第37、55页。
(1)相关举措可参看杨仲良《皇宋通鉴长编纪事本末》(李之亮校点,黑龙江人民出版社2006年版)卷一二一《禁元祐党人上》与卷一二二《禁元祐党人下》。
(2)“崇宁党禁”或“崇宁党锢”前后长达二十余年。崇宁元年(1102),分元祐诸臣章疏姓名为正邪各三等,诏始禁元祐学术政事,意味着党禁正式开始。完全解除党禁在靖康元年(1126)“除元祐学术党籍之禁”。
(1)李剑雄和刘德权点校《邵氏闻见录》之《点校说明》(中华书局1983年版)、李华瑞《宋代笔记小说中的王安石形象》(见氏著《王安石变法研究史》,人民出版社2004年版)、程国赋和叶菁《北宋新旧党争影响下的笔记小说创作》(载《陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2016年第6期)一致认为与北宋新旧党争有关的南宋笔记总体持有党争叙事立场。