三百四十六[1]
吳龍翰《古梅吟稿》六卷。南宋江湖派詩，蓋出入於晚唐、江西二派之間，然不無偏至。秋崖則偏於江西，後村則偏於晚唐。式賢奉劉、方為師（卷一〈見劉後村先生〉第三首：「詩瓢行腳半天下，多謝先生棒喝功」；卷五〈哭秋崖先生〉第二首：「歐蘇喚不起，文印屬秋崖」；第三首：「一瓣南豐後，他師不復求」；卷六〈上劉後村書〉呈詩求品題；〈聯句辨〉有「瓣香方、劉二師」語；《集》後附秋崖和詩一百韻，式賢〈跋〉自稱「門人」），而所作以濡染晚唐處為多，却無新秀語可采，多襲本朝人詞意。《四庫提要》謂其好言金丹爐火，未及其好攀附道學。如卷二〈天目道中〉之「山色儼如嚴父面」，即道學作怪，不特同卷〈讀先曾大父遺文〉之「道參太極本無極，易論先天與後天」而已。
卷一〈持敬堂〉：「大哉紫陽箴，誠爲百世師」，「斷斷猫捕鼠，綿綿鷄哺雛。」按上句本《續傳燈錄》卷二十二黃龍語，見第百六十五則。下句本《朱子語類》卷八論為學云：「如識得些路頭，須是莫斷了。如鷄抱卵，看來抱得有甚暖氣，只被他常常恁地抱得成。若把湯去燙，便死了；若抱才住，便冷了」；97 答問明道語錄「觀鷄雛，可以觀仁」；又卷十九論《孟子》須熟讀，「如鷄伏卵」。參觀《長阿含經‧二‧游行經》云：「內專三昧定， 如鳥出於卵」；《雜阿含經》卷十之二百六十三云：「不修習者，譬如伏鷄不能隨時蔭餾，消息冷暖，而欲令子以嘴以爪啄卵自生，安隱出殼。修習者如伏鷄善養其子，不令子自啄卵出，然諸子自能方便出殼。」《靈仙雜記》卷四引《禪學錄》記：「封少卿問禪於龍華厚參師，曰：『金鷄抱卵時如何？』」《桐江集》卷三〈跋吳古梅詩〉稱其「驚人語如毛髮不勝算」者，不便上門罵人耳。其所標舉，皆淺露乏味，而終之曰：「欲其翕之瘠之，而返於質。」江西派不滿晚唐派之意昭然若揭。虛谷摘句中，有「琴聲大勝俗人談」，按即〈天目道中〉第四句，原作「鳥聲大勝俗人談」，當是虛谷易為「禽聲」，繕寫者無上下文可攷肊，改為「琴」也。
卷一〈靈金山觀金燈〉：「若以色見佛，於法參與商。」按《金剛經》偈云：「若以色見我，以音聲求我，是人行邪道，不能見如來。」少陵〈衛八處士〉詩云：「人生不相見，動如參與商。」拈合恰好。
卷四〈春懷〉：「好景相看作撻盡，閉門不覺了清明。」按下句本簡齋不待言。「作撻」，吾鄉今尚有此語，即京語所謂「糟塌」。
三百四十七[2]
袁說友《東塘集》二十卷。起巖雖與誠齋、石湖唱和（卷一〈題楊誠齋南海集二首〉、卷二〈用楊誠齋運題吳夢與集〉、卷四〈和楊誠齋春雨韻〉、〈謝誠齋惠酒）、〈誠齋指簷頭雪爲詩材二首〉、卷五〈送誠齋二首〉、〈臨安邸中即事且謝誠齋惠詩十二首〉、卷十九〈跋范石湖草書詩帖〉），尚未成家。筆致輕快而語悉滑率，文更蕪淺。《提要》之說，不足據也。卷二〈和周元吉提刑席上得雨韻〉三首、〈寄中都故人〉一首皆七律，誤編入七古。【《誠齋集》四部叢刊本卷二十四[3]、卷二十九、卷三十、卷四十一皆有與起巖唱酬詩，卷三十有七律題曰〈謁范參政并赴袁起巖郡會坐中熾炭周圍遂中火毒得疾垂死乃悟貴人多病皆養之太過耳〉（「後炭前爐便是窯，饒君是鐵也教銷。不須泉下火山獄，新制人間法外條」云云），尤費語助。許及之《涉齋集》卷八亦有與起巖贈答詩。】
卷一〈被旨許浦閲舟歸〉：「橫舟卧平沙，鍪胄半折裂。蒙衝纔什五，水卒無梟傑。祇今衆弊見，噤不一語决」，「君王赦其愚，臣敢畢其說。」
卷二〈揚州堡寨〉：「西風一舸來揚州，疋馬直上新城頭。環城九里十六步，一一峭壁臨深溝。俄焉唯喏兩軍士，衆手指示陳其由。揚鞭試問築城意，曰堡曰寨何所謀。誦言長淮十六郡，天險地利兹其尤。平疇曠野不可限，一城未足防侵牟。譬如一鎧何足恃，被之重鎧前無憂。不知城二勢則一，添足畫蛇真贅疣。吁哉成事不復說，只恐前計無時酬。世間萬事一笑裏，輕帆送我催行舟。」按全《集》壓卷之作，不特資史料也。頗有冗句，點繁成此。
卷五〈入淮〉：「桐柏分源遠，清流接泗濱。於何號邊境，不忍問淮民。北顧關山在，西風草木新。天河如可挽，吾欲洗邊塵。」按參觀毛珝《吾竹小稿‧儀真》詩（第四百三十八則）又尤延之〈淮南民〉（《三朝北盟》炎興下一百四十）。【餘見吳嘉紀詩冊引。】
《瀛奎律髓》卷六選起巖〈肅客借重金紫绶〉七律一首（見《集》卷五），稱其「詼諧有味」，則誠如紀批所謂「野調而加以鄙語，殊不可耐」耳。
三百四十八[4]
《全晉文》卷三十衛恒〈四體書勢〉。按踵蔡伯喈〈篆勢〉而推廣之，其〈篆勢〉一篇即用伯喈語。卷五十九有成公綏〈隸書體〉，後來如孫過庭〈書譜〉（《全唐文》卷二百二），張懷瓘〈書斷序〉、〈六體書論〉（「真書如立，行書如行，草書如走」云云）、姜白石〈續書譜〉（「指點者，字之眉目；橫直畫者，字之骨體；丿乀者，字之手足；挑剔者，字之步履；草書之體，如人坐臥行立，揖遜忿爭；向背者，如人之顧盼指畫」云云）之類，祖構紛紛。侔色揣稱，取譬於山川動植，形骸舉止。懷瓘〈評書藥石論〉（張氏文均見《全唐文》卷四百三十二）且以臣之事主比擬，〈書斷序〉又謂：「磔髦竦骨，似忠臣抗直；矩折規轉，似孝子承順；耀質含章，或柔或剛，似哲人行藏。」然均未嘗謂書家亦如畫家雲峯石迹以造化為師，自物態、人倫中悟筆法也。陸鴻漸〈僧懷素傳〉（《全唐文》卷四百三十三）始載張長史自言：「孤蓬自振，驚沙坐飛，師而爲書」，又「見公孫大娘劍器舞，始得低昂迴翔之狀」，復載懷素自言師「夏雲多奇峯」。李陽氷〈上李大夫論古篆書〉（《全唐文》卷四百三十七）至曰：「於天地山川，得方圓流峙之形；於日月星辰，得經緯昭回之度；於衣冠文物，得揖讓周旋之禮；於鬢眉口鼻，得喜怒慘舒之分；於蟲魚鳥獸，得屈伸飛動之理；於骨角齒牙，得擺拉咀嚼之勢。隨手萬變，任心所成，通三才之氣象，備萬物之情狀」云云。《唐文拾遺》卷二十一蔡希綜〈法書論〉云：「凡欲結構字體，未可虛發，皆須象其一物，若鳥之形，若蟲食木，若山若樹，若雲若霧，縱橫有託。」東坡〈跋文與可論草書〉記與可自言：「見道上鬥蛇，遂得其妙。」山谷〈吳執中有兩鵝爲余烹之戲作〉云：「學書池上一雙鵝，宛頸相隨筆意多」，又〈題畫鵝雁〉云：「鴐鵝引頸回，似我胸中字，右軍數能來，不爲口腹事。」《後山集》卷十八《談叢》云：「蘇、黃兩公皆善書，皆不能懸手。逸少非好鵝，效其宛頸爾，正謂懸手轉腕」；郭熙《林泉高致‧畫訣》云：「說者謂右軍喜鵝，意在取其轉項，如人之執筆轉腕以結字。故世之人多謂善書者往往善畫，蓋由其轉腕用筆之不滯也」；《埤雅》卷六「鵝」條：「又善轉旋其項，古之學書法以動腕，羲之好鵝者以此。」王肯堂《筆麈》卷二引陳繹曾〈法書本象〉云：「趙承旨子昂少日於朱家舫齋學書，舊迹猶存。學『乙』字，先作羣鵝：
；學『子』字、『不』字，先作羣雁：
；學『為』字、『如』字，先作戲鼠：
。」較之何薳《春渚紀聞》卷五所謂「古人作字謂之『字畫』，『畫』蓋有用筆深意。作字之法，要筆直而字圓。若作畫則無有不圓勁[5]，如錐畫沙者是也。不知何時改作『寫字』」云云（按姜白石〈續書譜〉云「用筆如折釵股者，欲其曲折圓而有力；屋漏痕者，欲其無起止之跡；錐畫沙者，欲其勻而藏鋒；壁坼者，欲其無布置之巧。然皆不必如是」云云，「錐畫沙」之說勝於何氏解），更為附會荒唐矣（《佩文齋書畫譜》卷十六引）。Eric Gill 論書 (Lettering) 云：“It
depends for its beauty upon nothing but man’s musical sense. The shapes of
letters do not derive their beauty from any sensual or sentimental reminiscence”
(Autobiography, p. 120)，真撥開雲霧，洞見本原之言。張彥遠《歷代名畫記》卷一始言「工畫者多善書」，卷二又言「書畫用筆同法」。郭若虛《圖畫見聞志》卷一云[6]：「畫衣紋林石，用筆全類於書」，卷四：「唐希雅始學李後主『金錯刀』書，遂緣興入畫，故所爲竹木，乃顫掣之筆」；董其昌《容臺集‧別集》卷四《畫禪室隨筆》：「士人作畫，當以草隸奇字之法為之。」宋、元以來遂有謂畫似書者。《七修類稿》卷二十四云：「《韻語陽秋》嘗謂：『陸探微作一筆畫，實得張伯英草書訣，張僧繇點曳斫拂，實得衛夫人〈筆陣圖〉訣，吳道子又受筆法於張長史』；趙子昂詩謂：『石如飛白木如籀，寫竹還應八法通。若也有人能會此，須知書畫本來同』（《佩文齋書畫譜》卷十二引郁逢慶《 書書題跋記》）；王孟端亦謂：『畫竹法：幹如篆，枝如草，葉如真，節如隸』」云云，皆昧於肝胆胡越之旨者。
〈書勢〉：「張伯英下筆必爲楷則，號『匆匆不暇草書。』」按李端叔《姑溪居士前集》卷三十九〈跋山谷草書漁父詞〉云：「『家貧不辦素食，事忙不及草書』，最是妙語。」而東坡〈跋文與可草書〉云：「草書雖是積學而成，然要是出於欲速。古人云『匆匆不暇草書』，此語非是。」《陔餘叢考》卷二十一謂當時草書結構甚難，虞虹升說「不暇起草」者非也。李小湖《好雲樓二集》卷十四云：「伯英草書明對楷書言，乃《是齋日記》、《隨園隨筆》謂『不及起草』，趙壹〈非草書〉論謂：『今之學者，不思及簡易之旨，書適迫遽，故不及草。草本易而速，今反難而遲，失旨多矣！』可證是齋、隨園肊說無據。」
卷三十三裴頠〈崇有論〉：「夫盈欲可損，而未可絕有也；過用可節，而未可謂無貴也。」[7]按參觀第三百三十五則引 Aulus
Gellius, XIX, xi。《劉屏山全集》卷一〈聖傳論〉云：「李翺〈復性〉三篇其言非不高妙，然非子思《中庸》之學也。《中庸》之學未嘗滅情也。善養性者不汩於情，亦不滅情；不流於喜怒哀樂，亦不去喜怒哀樂。非合非離，中即契焉」云云，可參觀。
〈崇有論〉：「立言藉於虛無，謂之玄妙；處官不親所司，謂之雅遠；奉身散其廉操，謂之曠達。」按卷七十三劉弘〈下荊州教〉云：「太康以來，天下共尚無為，貴談莊、老，少有說事」；卷八十九陳頵〈與王導書〉云：「莊、老之俗，傾惑朝廷，養望者為弘雅，政事者為俗人。王職不卹，法物墮喪」；同卷王沉〈釋時論〉云：「譚道義謂之俗生，論政刑以為鄙極。高會曲宴，惟言遷除消息，官無大小，問是誰力」[8]；卷一百二十七干寶〈晉紀總論〉云：「學者以莊老為宗而黜六經，以虛薄為辨而賤名檢，以放濁為通而狹節信，進仕者以茍得為貴而鄙居正，當官者以望空為高而笑勤恪。」又按卷六十二孫倬〈劉真長誄〉云：「居官無官官之事，處事無事事之心。」興公所稱，正裴、干所譏也。又按《抱朴子‧外篇‧漢過第三十三》云：「於是傲兀不檢，丸轉萍流者，謂之弘偉大量；苛碎峭嶮，懷螫挾毒者，謂之公方正直」一大節，可與王沉、干寶兩〈論〉參觀，稚川此篇雖痛言漢末之弊，實有為而發。
〈崇有論〉：「悖吉兇之禮，忽容止之表，棄長幼之序，漫貴賤之級。其甚者，至於裸裎，言笑忘宜。」按《世說‧德行第一》「王平子、胡毋彥國諸人」條，注引王隱《晉書》云魏末任誕：「去巾幘，脫衣服[9]，露醜惡。甚者名之爲通，次者名之爲達。」《抱朴子‧外篇‧疾謬第二十五》云：「禮教漸頹，傲慢成俗。或蹲或踞，露首袒體」，又云：「漢之末世，或褻衣以接人，或裸袒而箕踞。」皆此數語注腳。樂令所以「名教中自有樂地」也。裴希聲〈侍中嵇侯碑〉（《全晉文》卷三十三）曰：「夫君親之重，非名教之謂也。愛敬出於自然，而忠孝之道畢矣」云云，更進一層意，謂倫常者，世所謂名教，實亦出於自然，欲以黃老之矛攻其盾，較之「三語椽」名教、自然「將無同」之說為進矣。袁宏〈三國名臣序贊〉云：「於是君臣離而名教薄」，又云：「將以文若既明，名教有寄乎？」又云：「豈非天懷發中，而名教束物者乎？」謝靈運〈從游京口北固應詔〉：「事為名教用，道以神理超。」[10]餘見第四百五則。卷十成帝〈奔喪詔〉：「今輕此制，於名教為不盡矣」；康帝〈周年不應改服詔〉：「君親名教之重也」；卷三十七庾翼〈與殷浩書〉：「王夷甫，先朝風流士也，然吾薄其立名非真，而始終莫取，若以道非虞夏，自當超然獨往，而不能謀始，大合聲譽，極致名位，正當抑揚名教，以靜亂源。而乃高談莊、老，說空終日，雖云談道，實長華競」；卷五十七袁宏〈後漢紀序〉：「史傳之興，所以通古今而篤名教也……治功得矣，然名教之本，帝王高義，韞而未敘。」【《全晉文》卷三十七庾冰〈為成帝出令沙門致敬詔〉：「易禮典，棄名教」；庾翼〈貽殷浩書〉：「正當抑揚名教，以正亂源」[11]；卷八十六仲長敖〈覈性賦〉：「周孔徒勞，名教虛設。」】
卷三十四盧諶〈尚書武強侯盧府君誄〉：「諶罪重五嶽，釁深四海，身不灰滅，延於家門。忍在草土之中，撰述平生之迹」云云。按此〈哀啟〉、〈行述〉見存之最古者。
卷三十七庾翼〈貽殷浩書〉：「王夷甫先朝風流士也。然吾薄其立名非真，而始終莫取。若以道非虞夏，自當超然獨往。而不能謀始，大合聲譽，極致名位，正當抑揚名教，以靜亂源，而乃高談莊、老，說空終日。雖云談道，實長華競。及其末年，人望猶存，思安懼亂，寄命推務。而甫自申述，徇小好名，既身囚胡虜，棄言非所。」按卷一百二十五范甯〈王弼何晏論〉更嚴詞痛斥，至云：「虛浮相扇，儒雅日替。二人之罪，深於桀紂。桀紂暴虐，正足以滅身覆國，為後世鑑戒耳。豈能迴百姓之視聽哉」云云，已是「學說殺天下後世」議論矣。孔平仲《珩璜新論》引王坦之〈廢莊論〉、裴頠〈崇有論〉、江惇〈達道崇檢論〉、范甯〈王何論〉謂：「近世士夫尊尚釋氏，亦可戒矣。」郝經《陵川文集》卷九〈荊公配享小像碑本〉云：「至今宗廟無片瓦，學術終於殺天下。」《能改齋漫錄》卷十八云：「高尚處士劉臯謂：『士大夫以嗜欲殺身，以財利殺子孫，以政事殺人，以學術殺天下後世。』」《宋元學案》卷七十九崔與之〈坐右銘〉曰：「無以嗜欲殺身，無以貨財殺子孫，無以政事殺民，無以學術殺天下後世。」唐子西《眉山文集》卷九〈易菴記〉云：「陶隱居曰：『注《易》誤，猶不至殺人；注《本草》誤，則有不得其死者。』與吾說異。夫《六經》者，致治之《本草》也。《本草》所以辨物，《六經》所以辨道。一物之誤，猶不及其餘；道術一誤，則無復孑遺。注《本草》誤，其禍疾而小；注《六經》誤，其禍遲而大。」《魏伯子文集》卷四〈偶書〉：「以理傅欲，如虎傅翼。」戴東原〈孟子字義疏證〉：「人死於法，猶有憐之者，死於理，其誰憐！」皆可參觀。《潛研堂文集》卷二〈何晏論〉則謂：「范甯之論過矣！可以是罪嵇、阮，不可以是罪王、何。□□奏疏有大儒之風。[12]平叔之《論語》、輔嗣之《易》，未嘗援儒入莊、老。」東原「以理殺人」語可參觀 Pascal, Pensées,
XIV. 895 (éd. Victor Giraud, p. 415): “Jamais on ne fait le mal si pleinement
et si gaiement que quand on le fait par conscience”; Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra: “Die Heimkehr”
(Alfred Kröner Verlag, S. 275): “Sonderlich Die, welche sich ‘die Guten’
heissen, fand ich als die giftigsten: Fliegen: sie stechen in aller Unschuld,
sie lügen in aller Unschuld”; Rousseau, Confessions,
Liv. VI ( Pléiade, p. 227): “Elle [Mme Warens under the influence of
the “principes” of M de Tavel, her first lover] eût couché tous les jours avec
vingt hommes en repos de conscience, et sans même en avoir plus de scrupule que
de désir”; A. Huxley, The Olive Tree,
p. : “A theology or political theory may be defined as an intellectual device
for enabling people to do in cold blood things which, without the theology or
the theory, they could only do in the heat of passion”; p. [13]:
“Unsophisticated by thought, anger soon dies down; but supply a man with a
philosophy proving that he is right to be angry, & he will go on performing
in cold blood the acts of malice which otherwise” etc.; cf. Thomas Huxley to Jowett:
“My experience is that no witness is so dishonest as a really good woman with a
cause to serve” (A.J. Ashton, As I went
on my way, p. 44, quoted in G.G. Coulton, Fourscore Years, p. 276 in connection with Pascal’s Pensées)。《水經注》卷二十二云：「俊者所以智勝羣情，辨者所以文身袪惑，夷甫雖體荷㑺令，口擅雌黃，汙辱君親，獲罪羯勒，史官方之華、王，諒爲褒矣。」《中州集》卷一引蔡松年〈樂府自序〉云：「王夷甫神情髙秀，少無宦情。使其雅詠玄虛，超然終身，何必減嵇、阮輩！而當衰世頽俗力不可為之時，不能逺引髙蹈，顛危之禍，卒與晉俱，為千古名士之恨。」蔡氏之言，意在袒護，非確論也。當以庾、范、酈三家為得其平。「不能逺引髙蹈」即未可謂為「無宦情」矣。《南齊書》卷三十二：「禇炫同聞禇淵拜司徒，嘆曰：『使作中書郎而死，不當是一名士邪！』」蔡氏蓋竊取其意而勿能自圓厥說耳。
卷四十五傅玄〈走狗賦〉：「蓋輕迅者莫如鷹，猛捷者莫如虎，惟良犬之稟性，兼二㑺之勁武。」按「走狗」至後世而爲惡稱（劉成禺《洪憲紀事詩本事簿注》載當時有〈走狗言志圖〉尤謔而虐）。亦如卷五十一傅咸〈叩頭蟲賦〉云：「此卑謙以自牧，乃無害之可賈。」意殊褒之，今則詈人語矣。
卷五十一傅咸〈羽扇賦〉：「吳人截鳥翼而搖風，既勝於方圓二扇。滅吳之後，翕然貴之。」按卷九十七陸機〈羽扇賦〉：「宋玉、唐勒操白鶴之羽為扇。諸侯皆笑，玉陳詞」云云；《五雜組》卷十二[14]：「古人多用羽毛之屬為扇，故扇字從羽。今世以毛扇為賤品。」
〈螢火賦〉：「雖無補於日月，期自竭於陋形。」按蔣超伯《榕堂續錄》卷四謂杜詩「暗飛螢自照」本此。
卷五十二傅咸〈答楊濟書〉：「衛公云：『酒色之殺人，此甚於作直。』坐酒色死，人不爲悔，逆畏以直致禍。」按倪鴻寶〈戊辰春〉第十首（《倪文正公遺稿》卷一，顧予咸選，順至三年刊）結句云：「無將忠義死，不與吃河豚！」思路甚奇，疑從此出。《堅瓠補集》卷四引倪詩作「將無忠義事，不及食河豚！」[15]復亦載陸雲士取此意作〈離亭燕〉詞，結云：「子孝臣忠千古事，只是難𢬵一死，口腹亦何為，竟肯輕生如此！」余觀雲士《著書九種》中《玉山詞》，未收此闋。《能改齋漫錄》卷九記：「東坡稱河豚曰：『值那一死！』；李公擇不食曰：『河豚非忠臣孝子所宜食。』東坡可謂知味，公擇可謂知義。」
卷四十六至四十九傅玄《傅子》。按所引文據《意林》卷五當作楊泉《物理論》。玩其詞意，似《意林》誤也。《意林》卷五別有《傅子》所引如秦始皇築長城民謠，據《水經注》則出《物理論》，嚴氏輯本亦無。
三百四十九[16]
The
Critical Opinion of Samuel Johnson, compiled & arranged by J.E. Brown
(1926).
A useful “refresher” of my Johnsonian readings. The compiler confines
himself to classifying, comparing & collating with little commenting. One
or two of his observations are quite illuminating, e.g. the note “on the
intellectual, not musical import” of the word “harsh” in Johnson’s critical vocabulary
(pp. 125-6). A few passages not taken care of, despite the elaborate
cross-references, e.g.: p.476: “Parts are not to be examined till the whole has
been surveyed” etc. (Raleigh, 62) should be compared with p. 55: “Some seem
always to read with the microscope of criticism” etc. (Rambler, no. 176); p. 254: “The great source of pleasure is variety”
etc. (Lives of the Poets, I, 212)
with p. 51: “It is easy to note a weak line” etc. (Lives, I, 454), p. 518 on Gulliver’s
Travels (Boswell’s Life, II, 319)
to p. 123 on “invention” (Mme D’Arblay, Diary & Letters, II, 271-2).
P. 5: “Allegory is perhaps one of
the most pleasing vehicles of instruction” (Rambler,
no. 121 in Wks, VI. 325). This view
was a medieval heritage lingered on like a Struldbrug, though it had entirely
lost its raisons d’être by Johnson’s
time, when a Christian need not feel apologetic about reading pagan poetry. It
was originally the necessity or game of reading plain poems between the lines (through
a “telescope” as Johnson said) which had led to the writing of poems with a
two-or even fourfold meaning, i.e. a trick of interpretation by seeing double
was erected into a rule of composition à
double entendre, e.g. Richard de Bury, Love
of Books, ch. 13 on poetry as “a pious fraud, the delicate Minerva lurking
beneath the mask of pleasure to “entice” wanton minds to wisdom (tr. E.C.
Thomas, “The Medieval Library”, p. 83). Petrarch is therefore not quite correct
when he says in the 9th book of his Africa that the poet can hide himself under a fair cloud (Et varia sub nube potest abscondere sese),
playing an agreeable hide-&-seek with the reader (cf. J.H. Whitfield, Petrarch & the Renaissance, p. 65).
Historically speaking, the allegorical reader prepared the way for the writers
of allegories. In Dante, even the “cloud” is not always fair &, like the
bad casket containing Portia’s portrait, has to be accepted for the sake of
what it hides: “O voi ch’avete gl’intelletti sani, / Mirate la dottrina che s’asconde
/ Sotto il velame degli versi strani”[17]
(Inferno, Canto IX, 61. In Il Convivio, II, i, Dante defines
allegory as the slush hidden under the veil of the fable, or truth sotto bella menzogna[18]).
But as De Sanctis rightly points out, though allegory is “una prima forma
provvisoria dell’arte”, Dante “era poeta e si ribella all’allegoria... La
realtà straripa, oltrepassa l’allegoria, diviene sè stessa; il figurato scompare,
in tanta pienezza di vita, fra tanti particolari” (Gli scrittori d’Italia, compiled by Luigi Russo, I, pp. 100, 102-3).
Croce goes even further & condemned allegory altogether: “non e una forma
di espressione” (Filosofia, Poesia,
Storia, p. 336). E.E. Kellett’s view on allegory seems to me the sanest
& truest: “In due subordination, a touch of allegory is almost an essential
element in poetry. If the mere literal significance is all, the poem may attain
pettiness but rarely the higher beauty. Even the Ancient Mariner itself, if it had not a suggestion of unhappy
far-off things & of conflicts long ago, would lose its charm” (Fashion in Literature, p.211). See supra 第二百七十一則，infra 第四百二十四則，第六百八十九則，第七五三則，七六四則. Cf. Gilbert & Kuhn, A History of Esthetics, p. 165 for the comparison of poetry to a
concealing veil in Olympiodorus, Gilbert of Holland, Dante (Purg. VIII, 20-1) & Boccaccio (had
in his Gen. of Gods used the figure
of veil or sheath 24 times).【E.R. Curtius (anticipated by Croce in his learned &
acute discussion of allegory in Filosofia,
Poesia, Storia, p. 338) has shown that allegorical interpretation of poetry
was first invented as a weapon by Greek critics to defend Homer from the
polemical attack of philosophers: “Die Griechen wollten weder auf Homer noch
auf die Wissenschaft verzichten. Sie suchten einen Ausgleich und fanden ihn in
der allegorischen Umdeutung Homers” (Europäische
Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter, 2te Aufl., S. 211)】【Ronsard:
“Elégie à Jacques Grévin”: “[Les poètes grecs ont] Accouplé le mystère, et d’un
voile divers / Par fables ont caché le vrai sens de leurs vers.”】【Cf.
Sir Philip Sidney, Ap. for Poetrie,
ed. Collins, pp. 26 & 27: “virtue-breeding delightfulness” & “medicine
of cherries” (Gilbert & Kuhn, A Hist. of Esthetics, p. 169)】【見七六四則。】【Cf. 《大智度論》卷三十五〈釋習相應品第三〉；《文心雕龍‧議對篇》：「若文浮於理，末勝其本，則秦女楚珠，復在于此矣」；周濟〈宋四家詞選序論〉：「詞非寄託不入」；《介存齋論詞雜着》[19]：「初學詞求有寄託，有寄托則表裡相宜，斐然成章。既成格調，求無寄托，無寄托，則指事類情，仁者見仁，智者見智。」】【Petrarch says Nicomachean
Ethics only describes virtue but does not make the reader virtuous because
its lessons lack the words that inflame the reader & inspire him to love
virtue & scorn vice (Docet ille, non infitior, quid est virtus — De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia,
IV).】【Bacon’s vestigial medievalism is showing in his
placing allegorical poetry above narrative & dramatic poetry & the
trouble he took in lengthily explaining 3 parables[20]
(Pan, Perseus, & Dionysus) (Adv. of
Learning, Bk. II, ch. 13).】
P. 15: [To Boswell on his
forthcoming Account of Corsica] “Give
us as many anecdotes as you can” (Life,
II. 11). This is all right. But it is anecdotage of the worst kind to say as
Gosse did when he asked E. Denison Ross to contribute a volume on Persian
literature to his series of short literary histories — “Please bear ever before
you that anecdote is the very salt &
pepper of literary history. I am not sure that it is not sometimes the meat as
well” (Ross, Both Ends of the Candle,
p. 253). Cf. Sainte-Beuve’s sensitive passage on his love of “les
correspondances, les conversations, les pensées, tous les détails du caractère,
des moeurs, de la biographie” in order to reconstitute the portrait of a writer
(Les Grands Écrivains Français, par
Sainte-Beuve, Études classées et annotées annotées par Maurice Allem, VII, pp.
141-2).
P. 35: “To the men of study &
imagination the winter is generally the chief time of labour. Gloom &
silence produce composure of mind, & concentration of ideas” (Rambler, no. 80 in Wks, VI. 57). Cf.「三冬」，「三餘」；also supra
第一百零八則李小湖《好雲樓初集》卷二十八：「東方朔上書：『三冬文史足用』，如《詩》之『三秋』，猶三歲也。自十二至十四學書，十五始學擊劍。近人誤為孟、仲、季三冬。」[21]
P. 55 on “the microscope” & “the
telescope” of criticism (Rambler, no.
176 in Wks, VII. 213-4). Cf. p. 476
on an “intellectual remoteness” for comprehending the “full design & true
proportion of a work & a “close approach” for discerning its smaller
niceties” (Johnson on Shakespeare,
ed. W. Raleigh, 62). See supra第一百二十二則 for “distance” in artistic creation; see also第六則 for “microscope
of wit”. Cf. Hugo Schuchhardt: “Die paritätische Verbindung von Mikroskopie und
Makroskopie bildet das Ideal der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit” (quoted E.R.
Curtius, Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches
Mittelalter, IIte Aufl., S. 8); Geoffrey Tillotson, Criticism & the 19th Cent.,
pp. 15 on the “air-borne” critic vs. the critic “on foot”.【Cf. B.
Hathaway , The Age of
Criticism, pp. 190-1.】【Cf. N. Frye, Anatomy
of Criticism, p. 13; W.K. Wimsatt, Jr. & C. Brooks, Literary Criticism: A Short History, p.
305.】
Pp. 116-7 on “the grandeur of
generality” (Lives, I. 45; cf. 46, 20);
cf. Rasselas, ch. X: “The business of
a poet is to examine, not the individual, but the species... he does not number
the streaks of the tulip, or describe the different shades in the verdure of
the forest”; also Reynolds, Discourses,
III & VII, & Idler, no. 82
quoted in F.A. Pottle, The Idiom of
Poetry, p. 45. “Generality” is an inclined place at the bottom of which
lies “that ‘unearthly ballet of bloodless’ abstractions... presided by Everyman
himself” (E.F. Carritt, The Theory of
Beauty, p. 82). Besides Carritt’s very able criticism of this view by a reductio ad absurdum (“... that
connotation varies inversely as denotation, that the more people a picture is
like the less it is like any of them”
— Ibid., p. 81; cf. Ch. Morgenstern’s epigram: “Ein Verallgemeinern /
ist oft ein Verkleinern” — Epigramme und Sprüche, München: R. Riper
& Co. Verlag, 1921, S. 153) & his suggestion that “generality” or “universality”
is a matter “not of quantity but of necessity” (Ibid., p. 84). One should also recall Montgomery Belgion’s pertinent
question[22]: “Can
any artist, by making his portrait of a horse unlike any living horse, render
horseness visible in a way in which it is not visible in living horses?” (The Human Parrot, p. 45); cf. Jacques
Barzun, Romanticism & the Modern Ego,
pp. 101-2 on “classic idealization” which consists in a “common norm” vs “romantic
idealization” which consists in “complete expressiveness”; Étienne Gilson, Les Idées et les Lettres, pp. 253-4 on “la
doctrine classique” which, according to Taine, is “la superstition du général
et le mépris du particulier” as “une sorts de prise de possession de la
littérature française par la scholastique” (quoting Aristotle & Heinsius on
poetry expressing “le général”). An individual or a concrete universal is not a
statistical average.
Pp. 120-1: “I am persuaded that, had
Sir Isaac Newton applied to poetry, he would have made a very fine epick poem.
I could as easily apply to law as to tragick poetry[23]...
The man who has vigour may walk to the east, just as well as to the west, if he
happens to turn his head that way” (Life,
V. 35-6); “The true genius is a mind of large general powers, accidentally
determined to some particular direction” (Lives,
I. 2; cf. Johnsonian Miscellanies,
ed. G.B. Hill, II. 287). As Locke considers mind a tabula rasa, even so Johnson considers genius a carte blanche. But the assumption that
mental powers have a “formal” nature, i.e., they operate in a uniform manner
regardless of the subject matter on which they operate proves groundless upon
scrutiny (see C. Spearman, The Nature of “Intelligence” & the Principles of
Cognition, p. 4). Kant’s account of genius which also mentions Newton is nearer
the truth: “So kann man alles, was Newton in seinem unsterblichen Werke der
Prinzipien der Naturphilosophie, so ein grosser Kopf auch erforderlich war,
dergleichen zu erfinden, vorgetragen hat, gar wohl lernen; aber man kann nicht
geistreich dichten lernen, so ausführlich auch alle Vorschriften für die
Dichtkunst, und so vortrefflich auch die Muster derselben sein mögen. Die
Ursache ist, dass Newton alle seine Schritte... nicht allein sich selbst,
sondern jedem andern, ganz anschaulich und zur Nachfolge bestimmt vormachen
könnte; kein Homer aber oder Wieland anzeigen kann, wie sich seine
phantasiereichen und doch zugleich gedankenvollen Ideen in seinem Kopfe hervor
und zusammen finden... Im Wissenschaftlichen also ist der grösste Erfinder vom
mühseligsten Nachahmer und Lehrlinge nur dem Grade nach... unterschieden” (Kritik d. Urteilskraft, §47, Werke, hrsg. E. Cassirer, et. al., Bd. V, S. 384); cf. Coleridge
to Thomas Poole: “The more I understand of Sir Isaac Newton’s works, the more
boldly I dare utter to my own mind, & therefore to you, that I believe the souls of 500 Sir Isaac Newtons would go to
the making of a Shakespeare or a Milton”
(Letters, ed. E.L. Griggs, II, 709);
cf. Leopardi, Zibaldone, ed. F.
Flora, I, p. 1310. Buffon places Milton above Newton (Ste- Beuve, Les
Grands Écrivains français, ed. Maurice Allem, VII, p. 74.
P. 170: “Buckinger had no hands, and
he wrote his name with his toes, at Charing Cross, for half a crown a piece;
that was a new manner of writing” (John.
Misc., I. 419). Goldsmith also makes a dig at this manner in The Citizen of the World, Letter 45: “There
is an inestimable piece... the merit does not consist in the piece, but in the
manner in which it is done. The painter drew the whole with his foot & held
the pencil between his toes.” In the “Everyman’s Library” edition Austin Dobson
adds a note to this passage mentioning Cornelius Ketel of Amsterdam who,
without the excuse of deformity, took to painting with his feet, & Charles
Felu of Antwerp, who did this from necessity. An armless young German performed
the following stunts before an audience of nigh 250 fine ladies & gentlemen
of the court of Cosimo III, Grand Duke of Tuscany: threading a needle &
sewing a piece of linen, writing a letter in his native language, & shaving
himself — all these done skillfully with his feet (Harold Acton, The Last Medici, pp. 218-9). Thraliana, ed. Katharine C. Balderston,
I, p. 49: “Somebody was telling in Sussex of a woman who writes with her Toes, what does She
write says Seward —
not Manuscripts at
least Replies
Hester archly.” The New Statesman &
Nation, August 11, 1956, p. 155: “Painted Postcards, Ltd. (9 Inverness
Place, London, W2)... an association of painters who have no arms. Some of them
lost the use of their limbs from polio or infantile paralysis.... To have
achieved this accuracy & skill with a brush held in the lips or between the
toes is one of the most remarkable examples of human resolution &
perseverance.” Cf. 張彥遠《歷代名畫記》卷四〈張衡傳〉：「巧者非止於手運思，足亦應乎心也。」梁玉繩《瞥記》卷七：「《十國春秋》：『羅隱曰：我腳間夾筆，可敵數輩。』《酉陽雜俎》卷五〈詭習〉：『大曆中，東都天津橋有乞兒，無兩手，以右足夾筆寫經。』《三岡識略》：『全州有無臂道人，以肘夾筆，揮灑不倦。』」（《庭立記聞》卷一引《明史‧忠義傳》、《友會談叢》、《攤飯續談》等補。）《太平廣記》175 元嘉（《朝野僉載》）：「足書五言絕，六事齊擧，代號神仙童子。」斌椿《乘楂筆記‧比利士記》六月十八日[24]，王令侍臣導之游宮，見修補處「有畫匠一人無手，以足指握管調色點染」。Also 甘熙《白下瑣言》卷四：「報恩寺陳百戲，……道光戊子來一江西人，手縮腹中，圍棚樹竿，掛一皮侯，其人坐地，一足持弓，一足取箭，向上而射，有發必中，且能擲骰子。……又一丐婦，兩手軟而無骨，凡施錢者，以足拈貫繩上結而數之。Il
Pentamerone, III. 2 (tr.
B. Croce, p. 255), cf. Leopardi who tirelessly insisted on the predominance of
habit or nurture (assuefazione) over
nature, or an armless child doing things with his feet & a girl
embroidering with hers (Zibaldone, ed.
F. Flora, I, pp. 1574-5); Montaigne, Essais,
I. 23 already cites an armless man’s dexterous use of his feet as an example of
“coustume” (Pléiade, p. 123).
P. 171 on “hard words” (Idler, no. 70 in Wks, VIII. 280-2); see supra
第一百八十一則。
P. 242: “Not even Shakespeare can
write well without a proper subject. It is a vain endeavour for the most skillful
hand to cultivate barrenness, or to paint upon vacuity” (Raleigh, 133). The
second metaphor has a Buddhist ring; cf.《雜阿含經》卷十五之三七七：「譬如：比丘！畫師、畫師弟子集種種彩色，欲粧畫虛空，寧能畫不？」Matthew Arnold is overstating the case when he says
in the Preface to Merope: “All
depends on the subject: choose a fitting action... everything will follow.” To
redress the balance one might perhaps invoke against Arnold the authority of Patrizzi
(Deca Disputata: “Le materie da
scienza , o da arte, o da istoria comprese, possano esser convenevolli soggetti
a poesia, e a poemi, pure che poeticamente sieno trattate” — quoted in Saintsbury, History of Criticism, II, p. 99, also in B. Hathaway, The Age of Criticism, p. 18, “poeticamente
tratate” merely means “cast in verse”, p. 90); of Goethe (Eckermann, Gespräche mit Goethe, 5 Juli 1827: “Unsere
deutschen Ästhetiker reden zwar viel von poetischen und unpoetischen
Gegenständen, und sie mögen auch in gewisser Hinsicht nicht ganz unrecht haben;
allein im Grunde bleibt kein realer
Gegenstand unpoetisch, sobald der Dichter ihn gehörig zu gebrauchen Weiss” —
Aufbau Verlag, 1956, S. 337)
— see 第七百一則 on The Oxford Book of German
Verse, p. 270, Joseph von Eichendorff: “Wünschelrute”; of Victor Hugo (Préface de l’originale édition des Orientales, Janvier 1829: “Tout est sujet; tout relève de l’art;
tout a droit de cité en poésie. Examinons comme vous avez travaille, non sur
quoi et pourquoi”); of Flaubert (Lettre à Louise Colet: “C’est pour cela qu’il
n’y a ni beaux ni vilains sujets et qu’on pourrait presque établir comme
axiome, en se posant au point de vue de l’Art pur, qu’il n’y en a aucun, le
style étant à lui tout seul une manière absolue de voir les choses” — Correspondance,
éd. Louis Conard, I, p. 346), or even of Saintsbury (“Creed”: “9. Nothing
depends upon the subject, all upon the treatment of the subject” — History of Criticism, III, 410). H.C.
Robinson: “”The subject he [the poet] chooses is mere accident if he could do
without he would have no subject at all” (The
Correspondence of H.C. Robinson with the Wordsworth Circle, ed. Edith J.
Morley, I, p. 47). By following such a “method of one-sided blinkers” (cf. 第二百三十二則) we can more or less define the place of the subject in artistic
creation. True, it is the treatment, not the subject, that is the efficient
cause of a poem being a poem, but the subject it is that determines the kind of
treatment which shall be appropriate. No amount of treatment, no tour de force of style, for example, can
produce any epic other than a mock one
(which may very well be a good poem in its way) on the hunt of fleas or the
battle against flies (witness Fischard’s Die
Flöhhetze & Cocaio’s Moscheide);
Swift could have written “finely upon a broomstick” but to a certainty he could
not have written upon it. Even Walter Pater has to admit in his essay on “style”
that while the “goodness” of art depends on the “form”, the greatness” depends
on the “matter” (Appreciations, pp.
35-6), & theorists as different in their ways of thought as Samuel
Alexander (Beauty & Other Forms of
Value, pp. 137 ff.) & T.S. Eliot (Essays
Ancient & Modern, p. 93) are agreed on this point. Let us bear in mind
Demetrius’s suggestive remark: “The painter Nicias’s view that the subject itself
was a part of the painter’s art, just as the ancient legends were a part of the
art of poetry” (On Style, tr. by W.
Rhys Roberts, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 351). Cf. J. Volkelt, System der Ästhetik, Bd. I, S. 451 on “der
menschlich-bedeutungsvolle Gehalt” as an “ästhetische Grundnorm”.【La
Fontaine, Contes (Poems, ed. Quiller-Couch, p. 7), “Préface”:
“Ce n’est ni le vrai ni le vraisemblable qui font la beauté et la grâce de ces
choses-ci; c’est seulement la manière de les conter” (Garnier, XXXIII).】【Cf. Mário
de Andrade: “Não há temas poéticos” (quoted in P. Demote, T. Greene & L.
Nelson, ed., The Discipline of Criticism,
p. 270).】【What Patrizzi means by “poeticamente tratate” is
simply “being cast in verse form” (cf. Baxter Hathaway, The Age of Criticism (1962), pp. 90-91).】
P. 254 on “variety” & “due
distribution of the still & animated parts” or “artful intermixture” (Lives, I. 212). Had Johnson thought more
architectonicè on this matter instead
of resting satisfied with generalities like “part” & “whole”, he could have
given a magisterial formulation to the principle of composition adumbrated by
Greek rhetoricians.[25]
Longinus, XL: “The phrase [Euripides, Her.
Fur.1245] is indubitably vulgar, yet becomes sublime by being apt to the
setting” (On the Sublime, tr. by W.
Hamilton Fyfe, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 239); Demetrius: “Grace of
style comes from arrangement. The very thought which, if placed at the
beginning or middle of a sentence, would have no charm, if often full of grace
when it comes at the end” (On Style,
tr. by W. Rhys Roberts, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 389). It’s a pity that
Joubert should have confined himself to diction: “Avant d’employer un beau mot,
faites-lui une place” (Pensées, “Librairie
académique”, Tit. XXII, 16); one can say with equal truth: “Avant d’exprimer
une belle pensée” etc. The old Chinese critics showed great perspicacity on
this point: 《山谷內集詩注》卷十六〈次韻高子勉〉第二首：「行布佺期近，飛揚子建親。」天射注：「『行布』字本出釋氏，而山谷論書畫數用之。……『次第行列』、『次第安布』。」《豫章黃先生文集》27〈題明皇真妃圖〉：「故人物雖有佳處，而行布無韻，此畫之沉痾也。」「華嚴所說，有『圓融』、『行布』二門，『行布』謂行列布措。」（《佛祖統紀》卷三）曾季狸《艇齋詩話》記人問蘇子由，何以比韓子蒼於儲光羲。黃門云：「見其行鍼布綫似之。」《竹莊詩話》（according to《桐江集》卷七 the title should be《竹莊備全詩話》by 何汶）卷九：「《詩事》云：『荊公送人至清涼寺，題詩壁間曰：「斷蘆洲渚薺花繁，看上征鞍立寺門。投老難堪與公別，倚崗從此望回轅。」「看上征鞍」之句，為一篇警策；若使置之斷句尤佳，惜乎在第二語耳。譬猶金玉，天下貴寶，製以為器，須是安頓得宜，尤增其光輝。』」賀貽孫《詩筏》：「詩有極尋常語，以作發句無味，倒用作結方妙者。如鄭谷〈淮上別故人〉詩云：『揚子江頭楊柳春，楊花愁殺渡江人；數聲羌笛離亭晚，君向瀟湘我向秦。』蓋題中正意，只『君向瀟湘我向秦』七字而已。若開頭便說，則淺直無味；此却倒用作結，悠然情深，令讀者低迴流連，覺尚有數十句在後未竟者」；again:「〈十九首〉中『生年不滿百』一首十句，皆集樂府〈西門行〉中警語成之，全不易一字，然讀之只似〈十九首〉語。……在樂府中每覺此語奇崛，在〈十九首〉中又覺此語平淡，猶『青青子衿』、『鼓瑟吹笙』等語，在《毛詩》中但見和雅，入曹公詩乃見豪放。筆墨轉移之妙，非深於詩者不能知」；《履園叢話》卷十二：「鹽菜，至賤之物也。上之於酒肴之前，有何意味；上之於酒肴之後，便是加品。」Cf. 第四百三十八則 on 葉紹翁〈游園不值〉。《古詩歸》卷八陸雲〈谷風〉結句：「天地則爾，戶庭已悠」，鍾評：「此二語若在當中，便不見高手，不可不知」；又謝混〈游西池〉起句：「悟彼蟋蟀唱，信此勞者歌」，鍾評：「此中二句常語，移作起便妙」；卷十一謝靈運〈登池上樓〉：「潛虯媚幽姿，飛鴻響遠音」，鍾評：「亦是俳語，作起便清洒」；《古詩歸》卷十一謝惠連〈西陵遇風獻康樂〉結句「昨發浦陽汭，今宿浙江湄」，鍾評：「以此作起語，不如以此作結語，覺含意不盡，此古人手眼高於後人處」；《古詩歸》卷十四劉孝威〈望隔牆花〉：「猶見動花枝」，鍾評：「此語作結便妙」；《唐詩歸》卷六玄宗〈送賀知章歸四明〉：「豈不惜賢達，其如高尚心」，鍾評：「他人便用此作起語矣」； 殷堯藩〈喜雨〉詩 ：「山上亂雲隨手變，淛東飛雨過江來。……千里稻花應秀色，酒樽風月醉亭臺」，待東坡〈有美堂暴雨〉[26]、茶山〈蘇秀道中大雨三日〉移用，精彩始襯出，亦「行布」之一例，參觀七五四則論張臯文〈木蘭花慢〉；《瀛奎律髓》卷九：「陳簡齋〈醉中詩〉：『醉中今古興亡事，詩裏江山搖落時』——紀批：『十四字一篇之意；妙於作起，若作對句便不及』」；紀昀《唐人試律說》：「陳季〈湘靈鼓瑟〉：『一彈新月白，數曲暮山青』略同仲文：『曲終人不見，江上數峯青』。然錢置於篇末，故有遠神，此置於聯中，不過尋常好句。西河『調度入聲』之說，誠至論也。此如：『大江流日夜，客心悲未央』，『悵矣秋風時，余臨石頭瀨』，作發端則超妙，設在篇中則凡語。『客髩行如此，滄波坐渺然』，『問我何所適，天台訪石橋』[27]，則頷聯則挺拔，在結句則索然。」《湘綺樓日記》光緒元年七月五日：「元好問詩大似『十八扯』，其〈赤壁圖〉云：『事殊興發憂思集，天淡雲閒今古同。』絕妙科白也！」Very acute criticism, this; yet these two lines —
the first bodily lifted from杜甫〈渼陂行〉& the second from 杜牧〈宣州開元寺水閣〉— are quite unexceptionable individually & in their respective
original context.
P. 418 on Pope’s lack of critical
merit in mentioning Petronius among great critics (Review of J. Warton’s Essay on Pope, Wks, XV. 475). Cf. J.W.H. Atkins, Literary Criticism in Antiquity, II, pp. 165-6: “This passage [Satiricon, CXVIII: Non enim res gestae versibus comprehendendae, etc.] is the stock
quotation of almost every writer on the heroic poem; it is found in the works
of Rapin, Bossu & St. Évremond, while Dryden not only reproduces the
extract in full (Essays, ed. W.P. Ker, I, p. 152), but refers more than once to
the ideas of Petronius. Pope in his Essay
on Criticism (ll. 667-8) ranked Petronius with Longinus & Quintilian,
though Dr Johnson in his downright fashion suspects that he had
never actually read Petronius apart from the two or three sentences which he
had often seen quoted.... Coleridge first realized the full significance of
this passage, & more particularly of the phrase praecipitandus est liber spiritus (Big. Lit., ed. Shawcross, II, p. 11).”
P. 485: “Shakespeare’s plays are not
in the rigorous & critical sense either tragedies or comedies, but
compositions of a distinct kind; exhibiting the real state of sublunary nature,
which partakes of good & evil, joy & sorrow” etc. (Raleigh, Johnson on Shakespeare, p. 15)
Insistence on “genre tronché” seems to be much older than French classicism. In
his Utopia, Sir Thomas More objects
to the mingling of tragic & comic affairs on the stage & calls “tragical
comedy” “mere gallimaufry”, just as Cicero had said in De optimo genere oratorum, I, i: “In tragoedia comicum vitiosum est
et in comoedia turpe tragicum” (see J.W.H. Atkins, English Literary Criticism: the Renascence, p. 219).
P. 518: [on Gulliver’s Travels] “When once you have thought of big men &
little men, it is very easy to do all the rest” (Life, II. 319); cf. p. 123: “[Miss Burney]: ‘... there is such a
thing as invention? Shakespeare could never have seen a Caliban.’ Johnson: ‘No;
but he had seen a man, and knew, therefore, how to vary him to a monster. A man
who would draw a monstrous cow, must first know what a cow commonly is” (D’Arbley,
Diary & Letters, II. 271-2). In
other words, Dr Johnson had an inkling of what Prof. C. Spearman,
with a passion for binding the Leviathan with a cord & putting the Niagara
in a bottle, formulated as the Third Principle of Intelligence, namely, “eduction
of correlates” (The Nature of “Intelligence”
& the Principle of Cognition, p. 91); among the illustrations of this
principle — “An old system of relations is applied to a new situation, or
rather to same item in such a situation. This new item serves as the initial
fundament, whilst the ensuing action is the correlative fundament” — in “fictive
literature”, Spearman mentions Lilliputians & Brobdingnags (p. 329). In Psychology down the Ages, II, p. 128
Spearman points out that the principle was enunciated by the Stoics &
quotes from Diogenes Laertius: “We use transposition when we fancy eyes in a
man’s breast; combination, when we take in the idea of a Centaur” etc. (cf. Diogenes
Laertius, VI, 53 ff., “The Loeb Classical Library”, II, pp. 163 ff.) Hobbes
calls the Centaur an example of “compounded imagination”[28]
(Leviathan, Pt. I, ch. iii, George
Routledge & Son, pp. 4-5).
三百五十[29]
綦崇禮《北海集》四十六卷。叔厚以表章制誥著稱，今觀所作，殊平平無足采。
[6]「圖畫見聞志」原作「圖書聞見志」。
[7]「未可謂無貴」原作「未可貴無」。
[8]「譚道義謂之俗生」原作「論道義以為俗生」。
[14]「組」原作「俎」。
[15]「瓠」原作「觚」。
[19]「齋」原作「菴」。
[26]「暴雨」原作「觀雨」。
[27]「天台」原作「石台」。
沒有留言:
張貼留言