Gian Lorenzo Berini, ECSTASY OF ST. THERESA
(1645-52, detail)
“Ah! If this is divine love, I know it well.”
— Charles de Brosses
三百一[1]
章甫《自鳴集》六卷。五律蒼秀，餘體雖清淺，亦尚不落江湖派小樣。【勞格《讀書雜識》卷十二補〈送韓季舒歸宣城〉（見《寧國府志》）。】
卷三〈惜花〉：「前朝西風不肯住，紅雨毿毿落深樹。昨日東風更放顛，香雪紛紛飄滿園。四時催人頭髮白，薄相春風亦欺客。漸覺繁枝過眼空，歷歷黄花亂疏麥。 野店沽酒酸如𦺅，先生不飲春將歸。屋頭向晚雨聲急，自炷爐香坐盤膝。」
〈從賈倅乞貓〉：「此詩雖拙勝鹽茶，不問白黑灰狸花。」案卷一〈代呼延信夫以筍乞貓於韓子雲〉云：「妻孥仍有言，乞貓宜乞女。他時遂生育，鄰里轉相予。」
卷四〈次韻韓無咎途中寄陸務觀〉：「園筍看成竹，庭榴已著花。老來猶是客，歸去亦無家。萬事大槐國，一身焦穀芽。心閒聊默坐，紅日下天涯。五」
〈即目〉：「苦憶花吹盡，生嫌草長齊。鶯啼春已暮，客散日還西。孺子拋書卷，童奴理菜畦。怒雷將急雨，一夜水平隄。一」「吟苦知音少，棋低敵手多。故人亡恙不，薄酒奈愁何。未暇兔三窟，聊同鷗一波。傳聞江北路，人應力田科。二」
〈春日村居〉：「冬暖惟憂麥，春寒却勒花。」
〈即事〉：「天意誠難測，人言果有不。便令江海竭，未厭虎狼求。獨下傷時淚，誰陳活國謀。君王自神武，况乃富貔貅。三」「初失清河口，駸駸遂逼人。餘生偷歲月，無處避風塵。精銳看諸將，謀謨仰大臣。愞夫憂國淚，欲忍已沾巾。十」按凡十首，可以追配《瀛奎律髓》卷三十二〈忠憤類〉所選浮溪、東萊五律。此二首其尤沉摯者。
〈閏月二日清坐〉：「淮海秋風日，柴荆老病夫。詩因窮處得，愁到酒邊無。俗物妨青眼，浮生喜白鬚。繩床供午寢，清夢落江湖。」
卷五〈春晚寺居即事〉：「晚晴鳥雀喜窺簷，客舍餘寒怕卷簾。多病新來知本草，安心老去讀楞嚴。髮稀帽側頭慵櫛，火冷香消手自添。百念不生唯飽飯，春山蔬筍十分甜。」按遒適似東坡。冠之讀《楞嚴》，乃知孔、孟、莊、列、《周易》之道盡在於是，見卷六〈雜說‧一〉。又云：「近代李習之、王介甫父子、程正叔兄弟、張子厚、蘇子由、呂吉甫、張天覺、張九成、張栻、呂祖謙、朱熹、劉子翬之徒，心知此說，第畏人嘲，劇未敢顯言耳」云云，令人咋舌。
三百二[3]
陳杰《自堂存稿》四卷。胡漱唐〈跋〉謂杰「字燾夫，豐城人」。《提要》沿《宋詩紀事》之誤，以為「字壽夫，分甯人」。燾夫詩句律整緻，頗工屬對，得力於晚唐為多，與江西派面目殊不肖。《提要》謂其「源出江西」，亦未具眼。好於近體詩中作理學家言（如卷二〈題濂溪畫像〉云：「翠草紅蓮地，光風霽月天。幾神千載悟，紙上更須圈」；〈和葉宋英〉云：「風葉靜千林，歸根深復深。江山皆本色，天地見初心」；〈歸夢〉云：「人事擾多智，天機行不言」；〈天人〉云：「聖賢惟任道，兩不繫天人」；〈醉鄉〉云：「酒亦有何好，離人而趣天」；卷三〈携碧香酒賞紅白桃因觀江漲〉云：「言之淺矣乾坤大，逝者如斯晝夜滔」；〈惡講義不遜者〉全首；〈天命〉全首；〈窮居〉云：「幸生朱陸相鳴後，猶憶羲文未露前」）。山谷雖偶有此類句，江西社中人却衹作禪語。放翁則喜為之，江湖派遂成習氣。《劉後村大全集》卷一百十一〈吳恕齋詩稿跋〉謂：「近世貴理學而賤詩，間有篇詠，率是語錄、講義之押韻者耳」（卷九十四〈竹溪詩序〉云：「皆經義、策論之有韻者，爾非詩也」），渾忘專騖吟咏者亦每作此體也。汪水雲《湖山類稿》卷四有〈東湖送春和陳自堂〉五律一首。《桐江集》卷一〈送俞唯道序〉云：「〈留荊湖幕府時和勸農詩〉云：『忽思前夜一犁雨，焉用平生百尺樓。』陳杰自堂宗豫章派，一見稱嘆，指授甚詳。江東倉幕有阮梅峯者（《後村大全集》卷八十一〈看詳阮秀實進所撰文稿申省狀〉），索余詩稿稿往觀，批抹圈點，取『飲若山頹無舊侶，坐如泥塑有新功』，予乃大悟大進，阮、陳之力居多。」《瀛奎律髓》卷三十六亦記與陳論姜白石詩事。又按「飲若山頹」一聯全首見《新安文獻志甲集》卷五十四，題為〈初夏〉，「飲」字作「醉」。
卷二〈出郊〉：「柳塘風度絮，花逕日移陰。」
〈挽雲屋徐侍郎〉：「著高棋敗後，力盡厦顛時。」
〈過衢阻潦宿民家〉：「涼借何方雨，香來隔浦花。」
卷三〈寸祿〉：「同遊鼎貴佩鳴珂，寸祿中年不啻過。方朔猶須設非有，爰絲正可飲無何。山前華表書官大，江上郵亭送使多。草草百年勳業夢，插天浯石未曾磨。」
〈題王氏先壠壽松亭〉：「馬鬣未隨陵谷變，龍髯還長子孫枝。」
〈山居〉：「讀殘貝葉都忘世，看足梅花不要春。」
三百三[6]
《全後漢文》卷五十二張衡〈温泉賦‧序〉：「遂適驪山，觀温泉，浴神井，風中巒。」按蔣超伯《窺豹集》卷下謂此仿曾點語意，昌黎改為「沿乎沂」，非也。桂未谷《札樸》卷四謂：「《論衡》論『浴乎沂』當為『沿乎沂』，古人無入水浴體之事。《宋書‧禮志》、《韓詩》皆記三月上巳水上之俗，〈月令〉：『季春，天子始乘舟。』蔡邕《章句》：『乘舟禊於名川也。』《論語》『浴乎沂』，洎上及下，古有此禮。今三月上巳祓於水濱，蓋出此也。可知蔡書《石經》不作『沿』字。」
卷五十四張衡〈髑髏賦〉。按《全三國文》卷十八陳王植〈髑髏說〉、卷四十三李康〈髑髏賦〉、卷五十三呂安〈髑髏賦〉，遂成科臼，皆本《莊子‧至樂》。平子〈賦〉云：「髑髏答曰：『吾宋人也，姓莊名周』」云云，後世小說院本遂以為莊子「歎枯」矣。
卷六十五劉楨〈諫曹植書〉：「採庶子之春華，忘家丞之秋實。」按《全晉文》卷八十二虞喜〈志林〉云：「是樂春藻之繁華，而忘秋實之甘口也」，正用此。至《文心雕龍‧徵聖篇》之「銜華佩實」，則本《淮南子‧本經訓》云：「草木之句萌、銜華、戴實而死者，不可勝數」，非用公幹此〈書〉也。
卷六十六秦嘉〈重報妻書〉：「明鏡可以鑒形，寶釵可以耀首[7]，芳香可以馥身去穢，麝香可以辟惡氣，素琴可以娛耳。」按卷九十六徐淑〈報嘉書〉云[8]：「此言過矣，未獲我心。素琴之作，當須君歸；明鏡之鑒，當待君還。未奉光儀，則寶釵不設也；未侍帷帳，則芳香不發也」云云，真如箭鋒拄矣。《全三國文》卷七十五孫仲奇妹〈臨亡書〉云[9]：「鏡與粉盒與郎，香奩與若，欲其行身如明鏡，純如粉，譽如香」，則又生別解。元微之《鶯鶯傳》崔氏緘報之詞「玉環」、「亂絲」、「文竹茶碾子」云云，王實甫《西廂》第五本中張生鶯鶯寄書贈物一段情事，此三篇文字早發之矣。鮑令暉〈代葛沙門妻郭小玉作〉第二首云：「君子將遙役，遺我雙題錦。臨當欲去時，復留相思枕。題用常著心，枕以憶同寢」云云，機杼亦出此。《宗子相集》卷八〈報元美〉（贈豸衣、腰帶、古劍）亦仿此[10]。Shakespeare,
Sonnet 77[11]
(Stevens suggested that this sonnet is accompanied by the gift of a mirror, a
dial & a notebook).
卷六十八戴良〈失父零丁〉自是奇文，刻劃乃翁狀貌醜惡，猶可說也。「鴟頭鵠頸獦狗喙」，徒相擬於禽獸，不足為表識，毋乃過乎？疑游戲之作也。「爹」字與「禍」字、「我」字爲韻，《廣雅》「爹」音「徒可切」，注：「北方呼父。」《梁書‧蕭憺傳》：「憺刺荊州還，人歌曰：『始興王，人之爹。赴急如水火，何時多哺乳我？』」注：「爹，徒我反，荊土方言。」
卷六十六蔡邕。按《困學紀聞》卷十三云：「邕文今存九十篇，而銘墓居其半。曰『碑』，曰『銘』，曰『神誥』，曰『哀讚』，其實一也。自言：『爲〈郭有道碑〉，獨無愧辭』，其他可知矣。其頌胡廣、黃瓊，幾與老、韓同傳。若繼成漢史，豈有南董之筆？」云云。章實齋《丙辰劄記》亦云：「中郎學優而才短；觀遺集碑版文字，不見所長。如撰《後漢書》，未必長於范、陳。」皆可謂論古有識。又按勞季言《讀書雜識》卷二校訂《蔡中郎集》甚詳覈。
〈協和婚賦〉。按雖語未淫褻，已隱白行簡〈天地陰陽交歡大樂賦〉中「求吉士，問良媒，六禮盈止，百兩爰來，青春之夜，紅煒之下」云云一段情事。如云：「長枕橫施，大被竟牀，莞蒻和軟，茵褥調良」，用意已似張生賃鋪蓋（參觀第十六則）。至云：「粉黛弛落，髮亂釵脫」，與行簡〈賦〉之「色變聲顫，釵垂髻亂」何異[12]？宋玉〈諷賦〉衹云：「以其翡翠之釵掛臣冠纓」；司馬相如〈美人賦〉亦衹：「玉釵掛臣冠。」初無此蕩冶也。李義山〈偶題〉詩云：「水紋簟上琥珀枕，旁有墮釵雙翠翹」；楊衡〈春夢〉云：「落庭日照花如錦，紅粧美人當晝寢。傍人不知夢中事，唯見玉釵時墜枕」（《萬首唐人絕句》卷二十六）；白樂天〈如夢令〉云：「腸斷腸斷，記取釵橫鬢亂」；歐陽永叔〈臨江仙〉云：「涼波不動簟紋平，水精雙枕，傍有墮釵橫」；東坡〈洞仙歌〉云：「一點明月窺人，人未寢[13]，欹枕釵橫鬢亂」，語意含蓄多矣。
〈青衣賦〉。按見第八十六則。卷八十四張超〈誚青衣賦〉正譏伯喈此篇，有云：「醴泉可飲，何必洿泥？」則 Heraclitus, LIV: “To delight in the mud” (in Hippocrates, tr. by W.H.S. Jones, “The
Loeb Classical Library,” IV, p. 487), Émile Augier, Le Mariage d’Olympe, I, i: “La nostalgie de la boue”，因非超之斤斤門第者所能知也。
卷七十四〈連珠〉：「琴緩張則撓，急張則絕。」按《四十二章經》云：「沙門思悔欲退。佛問之曰：『汝昔為何業？』曰：『愛彈琴。』佛言：『絃緩如何？』曰：『不鳴矣！』『絃急如何？』曰：『聲絕矣！』『急緩得中如何？』曰：『諸音普矣！』佛言：『沙門學道亦然。』」（亦見《雜阿含經》卷九之二五四，沙門名「尊者二十億耳」；又見《出曜經》卷六。）伯喈之世，此《經》早流傳中土矣。
卷八十二張升〈友論〉：「噓枯則冬榮，吹生則夏落。」按姜西溟《湛園札記》卷一云：「鄭泰曰：『孔公緒清談高論，噓枯吹生。』注：『枯者噓之使生，生者吹之使枯。』《淮南子》：『嘔之而生，吹之而死。』二字義正相反，今竿牘家動曰『吹噓』，《北史‧盧思道傳‧贊》已誤用矣。」其言是也，然而未盡。張氏此〈論〉，及《文心雕龍‧史傳第十六》云：「吹霜喣露，寒暑筆端」（參觀〈詔策第十九〉：「文有春露之滋，詞有秋霜之烈」）皆宜引，一也。六朝時已誤用，不自唐始，《梁書‧卷四十一‧劉遵傳》載昭明太子〈與劉孝儀悼遵書〉曰：「吾之劣薄，其生也不能揄揚吹噓，使得騁其才用」，《隋書》卷七十五王孝藉〈與牛弘書〉曰：「咳唾足以活枯鱗，吹噓可用飛窮羽」可證，二也。【《魏書‧郭祚傳》：「然主上直信李沖吹噓之說耳。」謂王瓊為并州中正也，即「竿牘家」義。】唐人亦不盡誤用，薛逢〈謝西川白相公寄賜新詩書〉云：「吹歔而寒谷春生」（《全唐文》卷七六六）此類固有，然如盧照鄰〈雙槿賦〉云：「柔條朽幹，吹噓變其死生」（《全唐文》卷一六六），柳宗元〈天對〉云：「噓炎吹冷，交錯而功」（《全唐文》卷五八五），皆分疏明白。今日乃以「吹噓」作誇張解，蓋本「吹牛」來，益見學之不講，丁字之不識矣。【《全唐文》卷三○六張楚〈與達奚侍御書〉：「其於樗散，必待吹噓」；卷六三四李翺〈感知己賦〉：「許翺以拂拭吹噓」；六五○元稹〈同州刺史謝上表〉：「無朋友為臣吹噓」；六七四白居易〈與陳給事書〉：「率不過有望於吹噓剪拂耳」；七六八盧肇〈進海潮賦狀〉[14]：「全無親黨，不能吹噓」；七七四李商隱〈上令狐相公狀〉：「有負吹噓」；七七五〈上華州周侍郎狀〉：「吹噓尚切」；七七七〈為張周封上楊相公啟〉：「吹噓盡力」；卷八一五顧雲〈投翰林劉學士啟〉：「願借吹噓」[15]。】【杜甫〈秋日荊南送石首薛明府三十韻〉云：「嚮來披述作，重此憶吹噓」；〈奉贈太常張卿二十韻〉：「吹噓人所羨，騰躍事仍睽」；〈贈獻納使起居田舍人澄〉云：「唯待吹噓送上天……」。】【張九齡〈初發道中贈王司馬〉[16]：「子雲應寂寞，公叔為吹噓」；李頎〈送綦毋三謁房給事〉：「高道時坎坷，故交願吹噓。」】【《老子》二十九章云：「夫物或行或隨，或嘘或吹，或强或羸。」】【《淮南子‧齊俗訓》：「吹嘔呼吸。」】
卷八十三孔融〈與諸卿書〉：「鄭康成多肊說。……若子所執，以爲郊天鼓必當麒麟之皮也。」按《續子不語》卷五〈麒麟喊冤〉所由昉也。
〈難曹公表制酒禁書〉、〈又書〉。按皆強詞詭辯，言之成理。【〈制酒禁書〉云：「酒之爲德久矣。天垂酒星之曜，地列酒泉之郡，人著旨酒之德。」按唐子朝《延州筆記》卷三云：「太白〈月下獨酌‧之二〉云：『天若不愛酒，酒星不在天，地若不愛酒，地應無酒泉』，本孔融語意。」】《典論‧論文》謂其「不能持論，理不勝詞，至于雜以嘲戲。」竊謂「嘲戲」誠有之，「理不勝詞」云云者，殆代乃翁報復耳。文舉好奇立異，《三國志》本傳裴注載其對曹公論武王以妲己賜周公，《全晉文》卷四十九傅玄《傅子》載其論管秋陽殺伴而食為「無嫌」，皆其類也。其尤貽人口實者，莫如《全後漢文》卷九十四路粹〈枉狀奏孔融〉云：「與白衣禰衡跌蕩放言，云：『父之於子，當有何親？論其本意，實為情欲發耳。子之於母，亦復奚為？譬如寄物瓶中，出則離矣。』」【孔融〈薦禰衡表〉（見《堯山堂偶記》卷一眉一）。】《全三國文》卷二魏武帝〈宣示孔融罪狀令〉云：「以為父母與人無親，譬若缻器，寄盛其中，又言若遭饑饉，而父不肖，寧贍活餘人。」實則王充《論衡‧物勢篇》早云：「夫婦合氣，非當時望欲生子。情欲動而合，合則生子矣。且夫婦不故生子，以知天地不故生人也。天地不故生人，人偶自生耳。」文舉本此意，推而至盡耳。《朱子語類》卷百二十六引黃蘗一僧與其母偈云：「先時寄宿此婆家」，以為佛氏滅絕人倫至此，蓋忘却文舉之說。西方此意尤數見：The
Greek Anthology, X,
44, Palladas: “If thou rememberest, o man, how thy father sowed thee.... Thou art sprung from incontinent lust &
and a filthy drop” (tr. by W.R. Paton, “The Loeb Classical Library,” IV, p.
25); Petrarch, Fam. X, V: “Quid enim
pater nisi vile semen? Quid nisi fedum mater habitaculum?”; Thomas Shadwell, The Libertine: “Jacomo: ‘Cutting his throat was a very good return for his
begetting of you.’ Don John: ‘That
was before he was aware on’t, ’twas for his own sake, he ne’er thought of me in
the business’” (Complete Works, ed. Montague
Summers, III, 27); Jean Richepin, Blasphèmes,
“Tes Père et Mère”: “Et vous voulez me voir à genoux devant cà! / Des père et
mère, ça! C’est ça que l’on révère! / Allons donc! On est fils du hasard qui
lança / Un spermatozoïde aveugle dans l’ovaire”; W. Somerset Maugham, The Breadwinner, Act I: “Patrick: ‘He [Father] oughtn’t to kick
at anything. After all, I didn’t ask to be brought into the world. He did it
entirely for his amusement’”; C.E.M. Joad, The
Testament of Joad, p. 28: “I was, for example, a bad son who asked
perpetually why he should be expected to love & honour any chance couple of
persons, merely because in the pursuance of the satisfaction of their desires
they had happened to produce him”; A.P. Herbert, Made for Man, p. 118 [Mr. Stammers:] “... not one of us asked to be
born — we were born against our will”; A. Moravia: “Lasciami perdere”: “La madre
diceva a Marcella...: ‘Guarda che non dovresti rispondere così a tuo padre...’
Marcella alzava le spalle e rispondeva: ‘Io non avevo chiesto di venire al
mondo. Mi ci avete fatta venire...’” (Nuovi Racconti Romani, Opere complete, ed. Bompiani, XI, 251-2);
Paradise Lost, X. 760-2: “...What if
thy son / Prove disobedient, &, reproved, retort, / ‘Wherefore didst thou
beget me? I sought it not!’” (Poetical
Works, Everyman’s Lib., p. 224); Dryden, Aureng-zebe, III: “Children (the blind effect of Love & Chance,
/ Form’d by their sportive parents’ ignorance)”; Elizabeth Lyttleton &
Herbert Sturz, Reapers of the Storm,
p. 27: “He [Juan de Dios] had brought these children into being. They had not
asked to be born”; Marek Hlasco, The
Eighth Day of the Week, tr. N. Guteman, p. 13: “‘You’ll get what’s coming
to you,’ said the mother... ‘But I don’t want a kid here.’ ‘You didn’t ask me
if I wanted to be born,’ said Agnieszka.”
三百四[17]
徐鑅慶原名嵩《玉山閣詩選》八卷、《古文選》四卷。向於《吳會英才集》卷二十一覩閬齋詩。早作氣體頗振爽，詞意恨空疏耳。中歲以後，歛華歸實，遂益索然無味。卷七記湖北白蓮教匪諸詩頗資掌故。
卷一〈下第〉：「錦瑟華年廿七春，虎頭金粟是前身。虛名麗六流傳遍，下第江南第一人。」自注：「癸卯省試得解首後，場卷損，補一字被貼，主司謝、戴二公刊其文曰：『麗六』，蓋闈中紅號也。」
〈花朝示子勵〉：「吳江官舍柳如煙，餵鶴修琴費俸錢。束閣懸簾一尊酒，春燈飄雨百花天。醉來舊事關心事，人入中年憶少年。他日定知追此會，題封應寄薛濤箋。」
卷五〈醫〉有云：「爾腸腐於酒，爾舌焚以煙」；卷八〈戒服篇〉有云：「近代有烟草，其名金絲醺。別種號鴉片，酷烈入髓筋。又有水煙童，婉孌妬楚妘」云云。洪北江《卷施閣文乙集》卷二〈七招〉亦云：「古刺之丸，歐羅之表，呂宋所產一世瑞草，含茹則火入四肢，呼吸則煙騰百竅。」可作《癸巳存稿》卷十一〈喫煙事述〉增補。《劉海峯文集》卷一〈慎始〉亦曰：「舉天下之無味而辛苦蜇其口者，未有如煙草者也。」《清詞玉屑》卷十一舉樊謝、許周生、吳穀人賦烟草，韓螺山賦水烟袋，陳叔安賦鼻烟，均用〈天香調〉。英國十七世紀詩文中，亦每斥淡巴菰之為害。Ben Johnson, Every
Man in His Humour, III, ii: “Cob:
‘This roguish tobacco’ etc.”; Bartholomew
Fair, II, i: “Overdo: ‘The lungs
of the tobacconist are rotted’ etc.”; Sir Thomas Overbury, “A Roaring Boy”: “He
sleeps with a tobacco pipe in his mouth... And I have heard of some begged for
anatomies; only to deter man from taking tobacco” (Richard Aldington, A Book of Characters, pp. 139-140); The Wandering Jew Telling Fortunes to
Englishmen: “Them that take tobacco will endure hell-fire” (Ibid., p. 382). 非如後來雲霧吞吐，烟霞痼疾，反指目不喫者為怪也。George Sand: “Le cigare est le complément
indispensable de toute vie oisive et élégante” (Larousse du XXe Siècle, II, p. 261); David Kalisch: “Wo
man raucht, da kannst du ruhig harren, böse Menschen haben nie Zigarren” (G. Büchmann, Geflügelte
Worte, Volks-Ausgabe von B. Krieger, S. 178). 而
Heine, Die romantische Schule, II, 1:
“Herr [A.W.] Schlegel gehörte zu den wenigen Deutschen, die keinen Tabak
rauchen” (Sämtl. Werk., verlag von A.
Weichert, Bd. VIII, S. 185) 亦語含譏諷矣。又閬齋〈醫〉詩後半忽痛斥鐘錶（「洋人騁絕藝」云云），殊失倫類，殆亦如洪北江《意言‧形質篇第二十》（《卷施閣文甲集》卷一）論「知巧益出，性情益漓」，舉「西洋鐘表自鳴，不差累黍」為例也。陳仲魚鱣《簡莊綴文》卷一〈風俗論〉（《庭立紀聞》卷四全引）謂：「什物器具，無不貴乎洋者：洋銅、洋磁、洋布、洋紙、洋畫、洋錢，大為風俗所害」，而不言鐘。
《古文選》卷一〈送邵中翰序〉極稱畢秋帆之愛士：「有待以膏車者焉，有待以舉火者焉，有待以歸骸骨而畢婚嫁者焉。依秋帆前後十五、六年，見人之求者無虛日，秋帆必委曲應之。因舉邵二雲及己事為例。而太息秋帆之亡，不可復見」云云。乃知吳澹川《南野堂筆記》卷六記「秋帆好客，士多如鯽，無以位置，有孟嘗君食客三千歸家吃飯之稱」云云，雖理必有之，而事非盡然也。「歸家吃飯」之謔，見陸灼《艾子後語》季孫好客，又見馮猶龍《笑府》卷二謂「或誇某人好客」，非孟嘗君。荀彧〈報曹公書〉云袁紹「布衣之雄，能聚人而不能用。」夫「位置」云云者，非用之也，僅養之俾勿散歸吃飯而已。布衣之雄，亦正難及。【王惕甫《淵雅堂編年詩稿》卷十六載閬齋遺詩云：「昔聞黃金萬里贖蛾眉，今盼白璧千雙救窮士。但擬千字文，不歌河滿子。使我再生公必喜，公必喜，我再生。疎財仗義，佛心俠骨，萬古知公名。王鐵夫、曾南城。」
三百五[18]
Laurence Housman, A.E.H.
P. 66: “He was only quite kind to
two [poets]: Campbell & Matthew Arnold.” Very curious that Campbell should
have won the heart of two such fastidious craftsmen as A.E. & G.M. Hopkins
(cf. The Correspondence of G.M. Hopkins
&R.W. Dixon, ed. C.C. Abbott, pp. 23, 99: “There is always the ‘free
hand’ of a master in his work beyond almost all our poets, a kind of inspired
felicity... a perfect master of style”). “The Scottish professor” who “pretended
to be touched to his native quick” by Housman’s “severe attack” on Burns was
A.P. Ker: “He read a paper on Burns when W.P. Ker was present, packed full of
jibes at Scots & Scotsmen, but Ker refused to be drawn” etc. (R.W.
Chambers, Man’s Unconquerable Mind,
pp. 371-372).
P. 77. He kept a notebook in which
he wrote down fitting phrases waiting for the opportunity to use them. Somewhat
like what Goethe called his Walpurgissack
(cf. Thomas Mann, Essays of 3 Decades,
p. 4). Auden on Housman: “Kept tears like dirty postcards in a drawer.” Cf.
Sainte-Beuve on Rivarol: “La plupart de ces mots... étaient faits d’avance, on le sent, et ils
servaient dans l’occasion” (Les Grands
Écrivains Français, études classées et annotées par Maurice Allem, X, 285).
P. 89 ff. Examples of the bitter
& contemptuous things he wrote about “those objects of his special
aversion,” “pedants” who meddled with textual criticism. O the animosity &
brutality of the devotees to the humanities! Scholars are good haters; with
them the virulence & malignancy seems to be an occupational malady like the
painter’s colic or the housemaid’s knee. Pierre Bayle has an expressive phrase
for this: “entremangeries professorales” (quoted in Sainte-Beuve, Portraits Littéraires, I, p. 373). Greek Anthology, IX, 251, Evenus: “Page-eater
(selidepháge)[19], the Muses’ bitterest foe... black bookworm” (Loeb,
III, p. 133). Textual critics in particular are a race of irascible petty syllabarum aucupes, “creepers into
worm-holes,” for their mind is turned into a “microscope of wit” which “sees
hairs & pores, examines bit by bot” at the cost of perspective & proportion.[20]
G. Highet, The Classical Tradition,
496 on Housman’s textual criticism: “it is ultimately a glorified form of
proof-reading.” Cf. Goethe: “Die Gelehrten sind meist gehässig, wenn sie
widerlegen; einen Irrenden sehen sie gleich als ihren Todfeind an” (Spruchweisheit, in Sämtl. Werk., Der Tempel Verlag, III, S. 325); Novalis: “Vorurteile
der Gelehrten sind: 1. Hang zur Eigentümlichkeit (Originalitätssucht). Damit
steht der Streit um die erste Entdeckung in Verbindung. 2. Prätension auf Konsequenz
und Infallibilität. 3. Hass der Autorität. 4. Verachtung der Nichtgelehrten. 5.
Eifersucht und Verkleinerungssucht der Kollegen. 6. Verachtung der andern
Wissenschaften. 7. Übertriebne Bewunderung der Mühseligkeit. 8. Sucht, alles
alt und schon dagewesen zu sinden und deshalb zu verachten. 9. Verachtung alles
dessen, was nicht gelehrt oder gelernt werden kann”[21]
(Fragmente, hrsg. Ernst Kamnitzer, §412).
While noticing that good scholars are never good soldiers (Anatomy of Melancholy, “Everyman’s Library,” I, p. 301) because
their health is bad, old Burton had quite overlooked the fact that they are
nonetheless good verbal pugilists because their temper is bad.
P. 97: “His reply to a friend who
regretted that she had been unable to obtain a first edition of Last Poems & had been obliged to
content herself with the second: ‘In that case, you have the more valuable
edition. In the first two commas are missing.’” This reminds one of Pons de
Verdun’s epigram on bibliomania: “C’est elle! Dieu que je suis aise! / Oui, c’est
la bonne édition; / Voilà bien, pages douze et seize, / Les deux fautes d’impression
/ Qui ne sont pas dans la mauvaise” (Larousse
du XXe Siècle, I, p. 691).
P. 98: “What was & what was not
poetry he decided simply... by the physical response, or none, in the throat,
the spinal cord, or the pit of the stomach, & the last the m. Once... he
was asked, what is the solar plexus?... ‘It is what my poetry comes from!’” Cf.
p. 199. For physiological responses as the “touchstone” of poetry, see supra 第百八十則, 第二百八十七則. Housman expressed to Grant Richards his interest
in Lady Chatterley’s Lover (see
Richards, Housman 1897-1936, p. 251);
it is amusing to read that in a dispute with Aldous Huxley on evolution, D.H.
Lawrence also appealed to the solar plexus: “‘But I don’t care about evidence.
Evidence doesn’t mean anything to me. I don’t feel it here.’ And he pressed his
two hands on his solar plexus” (Aldous Huxley, The Olive Tree, collected edition, p. 208). Housman wrote: “I hear
that Kipling says I am ‘dead right’ about the pit of the stomach” (p. 185);
Robert Graves is also of opinion that “Housman’s test of a true poem was simple
& practical” (The White Goddess,
Creative Age Press, N.Y., p. 7).
Pp. 112, 174 on Housman’s antipathy
to Galsworthy. Laurence elsewhere recorded that in 1903, A.E. agreed to
contribute to his annual, The Venture,
only on the condition that the volume did not include Galsworthy (The Unexpected Years, p. 203). In 1928,
A.E. declined to be one of Hardy’s pall-bearers because Galsworthy was
similarly honoured & only consented after Barrie’s entreaties (see Percy
Withers, A Buried Life, p. 100).
P. 183: “Coventry Patmore’s nasty
mixture of piety & concupiscence.” I am always inclined to apply to Patmore’s
lurid descriptions of unio mystica
the remark made by the Président de Brosses in front of a Bernini in the church
of Santa Maria della Vittoria: “Ah! Si c’est l’amour divin, je le connais bien.”
Housman’s characterization is quite apt, & I want only to add that with
Patmore “concupiscence” must be strictly connubial: the altar as a bed, but no
bed previous to the altar, or as the French vulgarly put it, pas d’ p’lotage avant l’mariage! (see
Henri Bauche, Le Langage populaire,
nouvelle éd., 1956, p. 212). Patmore rejected the Platonic transcendence of
body & embraced the Swedenborgian consecration of “conjugal love [as]
chastity itself” or as “a fount of perpetual virginity” (cf. J.C. Reid, The Mind & Art of Coventry Patmore,
pp. 36, 42, 81); in other words, he thought he could dilute “juice” & “jelly”
with holy water. C. Hayward’s remark that the Christians “were obliged to
lower the ideal of marriage & let into it that indulgence in pleasure which
in the pagan system was relegated to association with a mistress” (The Courtesan, The Casanova Society,
1926, p. xxiii) is very pertinent. Cf. the saying quoted in Laurence Durrell, Justine, p. 102: “Omnis ardentior amator
propriae uxoris adulter est.”
Some Housman anecdotes: (1) André
Gide, “Réflexions sur la poésie française,” in Le Figaro Littéraire, 10 Juillet, 1948: “En 1917, me trouvant à
Cambridge, je fus aimablement convié à un lunchs. J’avais comme voisin de table
le poéte A.E. Housman... Depuis le commencement du repas, nous restions donc
silencieux l’un et l’autre et ma gêne était près de devenir intolérable, lorsque
Housman, au se tournant vers moi brusquement, me dit enfin, en un français
impeccable et presque sans accent: ‘Comment expliquez-vous, Monsieur Gide, qu’il
n’y ait pas de poésie française?’ etc.”; (2) G.G. Coulton, Fourscore Years, p. 315: “I had the temerity to plead that I had
been one of the earliest readers of A
Shropshire Lad. He replied: ‘I am told that it appeals especially to the
criminal classes.’ Then he unbent, & explained that three copies in
succession had been stolen from the University Library”; (3) Letters of J.M. Barrie, ed. Viola
Meynell, p. 249: “‘Dear Professor Houseman:
I am sorry about last night, when I sat next to you & did not say a word.[22]
You must have thought I was a very rude man: I am really a very shy man.
Sincerely yours, J.M. Barrie.’ Housman replied: ‘Dear Sir James Barrie: I am
sorry about last night, when I sat next to you & did not say a word. You
must have thought I was a very rude man: I am really a very shy man. Sincerely
yours, A.E. Housman. P.S. And now you’ve made it worse for you have spelt my
name wrong.’”
Housman’s famous saying in one of
his prefaces, “You should be welcome to praise me if you did not praise one
another,” recalls the following anecdote told by Walter Sickert: “I wished to
introduce McColl to Whistler, & said[23]:
‘You know — the author of that article in the Saturday, “Hail Master!”’ ‘Humph, that’s all very well — “Hail
Master!” But he writes about other people, other people, Walter!’” [24]
(A Free House!, ed. by Osbert Sitwell,
p. 184).
[2]「賈客詞」原作「賈客行」。此處有所脫落，臆補「賈雄則」三字。
[4]「風沙」原作「長風沙」。
[5]「何陰」原作「陰何」。
[7]「明鏡可以鑒形，寶釵可以耀首」原作「明鏡可以耀首」。
[8]「卷九十六」原作「卷九十」。
[9]「卷七十五」原作「卷七十三」。
[10]「卷八〈報元美〉」當作「卷五〈古劍篇〉」。
[12]「色變」原作「氣變」，「釵垂」原作「釵墜」。
[14]「七六八」原作「六七八」。
[15]《全唐文》尚有卷六二七呂温〈代竇中丞與襄陽於相公書〉：「猥蒙吹噓。」
[16]「張九齡」原作「楊炯」。
