明清人關於碑誌文體的討論中，韓愈、歐陽修的高下品評是一個值得注意的問題。在具體作家、作品評價的背後，實際上潛藏著有關碑誌文類源流正變的整體觀念，牽涉到知識資源、理論架構以及審美判斷之間的複雜互動。茅坤以歐高於韓，背後的觀念是將碑誌文溯源到史傳傳統，以《史記》爲標準衡量唐宋古文創作。從明代到清前期，這一思路乃是古文家分析碑誌文的主流，不論贊同還是反對，士人大多接受其觀念預設。然而，清代金石學蔚興，爲碑版文字的研究提供了新的知識資源。姚範、姚鼐、章學誠等主張突出碑誌作爲“金石之文”的屬性，與“史家”區隔，以此爲韓愈辯護。對金石傳統的體認，刺激學者從新的角度考慮碑誌文寫作中的“正”“變”問題。另一方面，金石學的風氣進一步引發了對漢魏碑文的好尚，使得韓、歐代表的唐宋碑誌傳統本身受到了質疑。即使是以韓、歐爲正統的古文家王芑孫，也不得不撰寫考索漢魏六朝碑碣的專著，以此反過來證明韓、歐碑誌的價值。韓、歐碑誌的評價問題，正可以折射出傳統文章學内部“知識”與“理論”二端如何互相影響而又互相制約。

The ranking of great authors has always been a core subject of the canonization of a certain literary genre. As for beizhi 碑誌 (tomb inscription) written in guwen 古文 (ancient-style writing), competition between the mode of Han Yu 韓愈 and that of Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修, is the most controversial issue for Ming-Qing scholars. This article aims to explain the theoretical basis upon which such debates were generated. Scholars who insist on the superiority of Ouyang Xiu generally consider tomb inscription as a sub-genre of historical writing and therefore regard Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 Shiji 史記 (Records of the Grand Historian) as not only the origin but also the supreme canon of tomb inscription prose. Supporters of Han Yu, on the other hand, emphasize the distinction between epigraphy and historiography, assert that Han has established a novel genre of tomb inscription that derives from, while independent of, the great historiographic tradition. Epigraphic knowledge has thus become a new source for understanding and learning tomb inscription prose. Apart from the classic works of Han and Ouyang, the interest in collecting and studying jinshi 金石 (bronze and stone), which was nurtured during the early to mid-Qing period, has introduced the stele inscriptions and grave memoirs in the Han to Wei dynasties as another competitive canon. Through my analysis of the debates and discussions on the tomb inscription prose, I hope to explore how literary critics has been intertwined with the interest in the knowledge of antiques.