民國李氏宜秋館刊本《宋人集乙編‧慶湖遺老集》
三百九十一[1]
Browsing. In Song of Myself, sect. iii Walt Whitman says: “Houses & rooms
are full of perfumes, the shelves are crowded with perfumes, / I breathe the
fragrance myself & know it & like it;” he is here speaking of “creeds &
schools in abeyance”; “the spectres in books” (Leaves of Grass, ed. Halloway & Adimari, pp. 24-25).[2]
Besides the phrase in Richard de Bury’s The
Love of Books, ch. viii on the “delightful libraries” in Paris, which are “more
aromatic than stores of spicery” (tr. by E.C. Thomas, “The Medieval Library”,
p. 56), this is the only parallel I can find in Western literature to the
Chinese conception of “濃薰班馬香” (杜牧〈小姪阿宜詩〉), “經香閣” (《閱微草堂筆記》), etc. Sainte-Beuve, on the contrary, “quand on
lui annonçait, l’après-midi, quelque belle visite, il répandait de l’eau de
Cologne sur le parquet, pour chasser
l’odeur d’encre,
disait-il”[3]
(Jules Troubat, La Salle à manger de
Sainte-Beuve, p. 19, cf. p. 101).
Journal
des Goncourt, le 29 fév., 1876 (Édition
Définitive, T. V, p. 200): “En parlant du papier usé, effiloqué, qui est
toute la monnaie de certains pays de l’Europe, de l’Italie surtout,
Saint-Victor dit assez joliment que ce papier lui apparaît, comme la charpie d’un
État blessé.” Cf. 孔齊《至正直記》卷一 on “楮幣” at the end of the Sung dynasty: “‘觀者鈔’ — 描不成，畫不就，如觀音也; ‘折腰鈔’
— 折半用; ‘波鈔’ — ‘波’ 者，俗言急走，謂不樂受即走去” — all symptomatic of the decline & fall of the kingdom.［Cf.《鼠璞‧楮券源流》；《困學紀聞》卷十四、卷十七 on 紙幣；《四朝聞見錄》乙集：“孝宗方造券，以便民用。陳天祐時為侍從，力抗疏，以為不及五十年，必大壞極敝而不可收拾。水心生進策，亦謂不數年間，將交執空券而無所售。至於今日驗矣”；《隱居通議》卷二十：“端平二年，趙公汝談直翰苑，命題發策以楮為問，問意不滿諸賢之罔功，筆力髙簡，朝野稱之。（問楮幣至是術窮矣，其將何以救之歟？非楮之不便民用也，其法貴少，而今多焉故也。……楮幣於宋謂之㑹子，于今謂之寶鈔。物價踊貴，近年較宋殆有甚焉。”（南塘策題及王實之對策詳見《愛日齋叢鈔》卷四，較後村〈少卿王公墓誌〉所載為得實。）］又第五百十一則。
Journal
des Goncourt, le 13 mars, 1876 (Éd. Définitive,
T. V, p. 203): “Lisant, ces jours-ci, les Contes
drolatiques de Balzac, je suis effrayé de l’admiration naïve avec laquelle
je les lis. Cela me fait presque peur. Le fabricateur de livres, encore capable
d’en fabriquer, dans sa lecture, ne se départ jamais; et cela tout
naturellement, d’un certain sens critique. Le jour où il lit comme un bourgeois,
il me semble prêt à perdre sa puissance créatrice.” Again, le 16 mai, 1879 (T.
VI, p. 52): “Enfin, un jour où je puis me donner La récréation de Lire an
bouquin pour mon plaisir — récréation rare pour le fabricateur de livres.” Cf. Bruyère:
“Le plaisir de la critique nous ôte celui d’être vivement touchés de fort
belles choses” (Les Caractères, “La
Renaissance du livre”, p. 20). Cf. Henry James: “I, as a battered producer
& ‘technician’ myself, have long since inevitably ceased to read with naïveté; I can only read critically, constructively,
re-constructively, writing the thing
over my way, & looking at it from
within” (Letters, ed. P. Lubbock, I,
p. 429; cf. L. Edel & G.N. Ray, Henry
James & H.G. Wells, pp. 62, 81, 173 for similar passages)[4].
劉辰翁《須溪集》卷六〈胡仁叔詩序〉：「舊常評某人詩『清嫩』，其人不滿，以示羅澗谷。凡諱嫩欲稱老，不知『清嫩』與『淺嫩』異，政未可少也。如輕風淡日、時花美女、小兒睍睕睆初語，别能令人賞愛，有味亦不在多，固未可與彼老者同年而語也。杜子美『轉添愁伴客，更覺老隨人』，儻無起語十字坐盡情事曲折，更接以『紅入』、『青歸』桃柳之句，豈不誠愧其嫩耶？」I wonder whether such a nice distinction would have
pacified 鄒繼蘇 who went on rampage and asked 冷于氷
aggressively as well as rhetorically, “吾賦且嫩，而老者屬誰？” (《綠野仙踪》第六回；抄本百回本第七回)
Johannes Volkelt, System der Ästhetik, Bd. I, S. 34: “Von
besonderem Vorteil wird es für den Ästhetiker sein, wenn seine ästhetischen
Innenerfahrungen... auch künstlerisches Schaffen in ihrem Umkreise aufweisen...
Dieser (in gutem Sinn verstandene) Dilettantismus in irgend einer Kunst ist für
den Ästhetiker von unschätzbarem Wert.” In a footnote, Volkelt refers to
Lichtwark for the phrase “der gesunder Dilettantismus”. E.E. Kellet, as usual,
writes very subtly on this matter &gives his own experience in novel
writing as an example: “No one can criticize fairly who does not know the difficulties
of the art; & he cannot really know them unless he had himself made the
attempt. I would have every critic of poetry a man who has failed as a poet
& knows he has failed... But a
critic must not have failed too completely: he must not be a total incompetent.
Though he may be a poor executant, he must have a share of the creative
imagination which is the mark of the writer he undertakes to criticize” (Fashion in Literature, pp. 99-100). See supra 第一百八十一則。
Bd. I, S. 441: Theodor Alt is quoted
as saying that “die Schönheit eines organischen Körpers besteht ‘in der
Vollkommenheit, mit welcher er das ihm eigentümliche Wesen erfüllt’” (System der Künste, S. 29). Volkelt seems
to have forgotten that this is the view of Eckermann at which Goethe mildly
demurred (Gespräche mit Goethe, 18
April, 1827: “Ein Geschöpf sei dann schön, wenn es zu dem Gipfel seiner
natürlichen Entwicklung gelangt sei” — Aufl. besorgt
von H.T. Kroeber, Bd. II, S. 519). On S. 445 ff. Volkelt blows up Alt’s
definition sky-high: “In zahlosen In zahllosen Fällen haben vielmehr
schwächliche, kränkliche, verkrüppelte, halbzerstörte Gattungsvertreter eben
wegen dieser ihrer Abweichung vom Vollkommenheitsideal ihren eigentümlichen
ästhetischen Reiz” u.s.w. Cf. Burke, A
Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime & Beautiful, Pt. III, Sect. ix: “Perfection
is not the cause of beauty. Beauty is the female sex almost always carries with
it an idea of weakness & imperfection” etc. (Works, ed. G. Bell & Sons, I, p. 129) See supra 第四十則。
Bd. I, S. 504: Writing of the “Willenlosigkeit
im ästhetischen Verhalten”, Volkelt gives the instance of a scene in the
sickroom: “Einem künstlerisch gestimmten Betrachter kann ein Kranker,
Krankenlager und Krankenzimmer zu einem künstlerischen Anblick werden. Ein
nächster Anblick werden. Ein nächster Angehöriger dagegen... ist von aller künstlerischen
Auffassung weit entfernt.” This is almost the classic instance of “Psychical
distance” in aesthetic contemplation & dwelt upon in great detail by José
Ortega y Gasset in La Deshumanización del
Arte;[5]
see supra 第五十六則。
Bd. I, S. 542: À propos of the “Erkennt
losigkeit im ästhetische Verhalten”, Velkelt writes scornfully of “unzählige
Galeriebesucher” who “sich für die Bilder vorwiegend nur insofern
interessieren, als sie zu wissen begehren, wohin dieser Berg, dieser Strand
u.s.w. geographisch gehöre, wen das Bildnis darstelle.” For this human, all too
human failing, see supra 第一百三十一則。
Bd. I, S. 580-1: A very sensible
discussion on “die Überschaubarkeit” in works of art. A work too big or too
small, too long or too short, is unüberschaubar.
Of the former Volkelt names Zola’s Rougon-Macquart cycle, the Mahabharata, etc.; of the latter he
gives as example “Ein Insekt von der Grösse eines Stecknadelkopfes”, but we
might perhaps name the Japanese hokku
(cf. Max Jacob, Cornet à Dés, éd.
corrigée, 1923, p. 13: “Il est difficile d’être longtemps beau. On peut
préférer un poème japonais de trois lignes à l’Eve de Péguy, qui a trois cents pages.”) Aristotle had
forestalled Volkelt long ago: “Beauty consists in magnitude (μεγἐθει) &
ordered arrangement. From which it follows that neither would a very small
creature be beautiful
— for our view
of it is almost instantaneous & therefore confused — nor a very large one, since
being unable to view it all at once, we lose the effect of a single whole; for
instance, suppose a creature a thousand miles long. As then creatures &
other organic structures must have a certain magnitude & yet be easily
taken in by the eye, so too with plots: they must have length but must be
easily taken in by the memory.” (Poetics,
VII. 9-10, tr. by William Hamilton Fyfe, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 31).
Cf. Castelvetro’s reason for preferring a long poem to a short one: “Perché
quella cosa è veramente bella, nella quale non si scopre bruttezza, ma, se vi
fosse, vi si scoprirebbe, e quella veramente non è bella, che essendo brutta,
per alcune cagione non apparendo la bruttezza, par bella” (quoted in R.S.
Crane, ed., Critics & Criticism,
p. 367).
Although Scaliger declared: “Omnis
enim oratio εἶδος, ἔννοια, μίμησις, quemadmodum et pictura: id quod et ab
Aristoteles et a Platone declaratum est” (Poetica,
ed. 1617, p. 401, quoted in W.G. Howard, “Ut Pictura Poesis” in PMLA, 1909, p. 44), no one seems to have
noticed how often Aristotle resorted to painting for illustration of his theory
of literature. I content myself with a few examples from his Poetics (tr. by W. Hamilton Fyfe, “The
Loeb Classical Library”): II. 2 (p. 9); IV. 3-6 (pp. 13-15); VI. 20 (p. 27); IX. 11
(p. 57-59); XXV. 2 (p. 101); XXV. 28
(p. 111). Barrows Dunham: “Kant’s Theory of Artistic Form”: “Harmony &
counterpoint are forms of music, but think away the tones & the formal
structure cannot even exist.... Let us imagine a performance of a symphony in
which the violin parts are played by the horns & the horn played by the
violins, the finest music in the world will not survive ill-treatment of its
tonal qualities. Colur is ‘integral to the form itself’ or it becomes ‘mere
colours’ (Amédée Ozenfant Foundations of
Modern Art, p. 254)” (G.T. Whitney & D.F. Bowers, ed., The Heritage of Kant, pp. 373-4). Dionysius
of Halicarnassus in De Isaeo, III
also says that the style of Lysias may be compared with early paintings, which
reveal no subtlety in the mixing of colours, but are correct in outline &
derive their charm from this simplicity, while that of Isaeus is like later
paintings which are less well defined in their outlines, but exhibit a greater
perfection of detail & derive their effect from their subtle interplay of
light & shade, & their variety of colours (see S.F. Bonner, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, p. 54). Cicero,
Brutus, §70: “Similis in pictura
ratio est” etc. VI. 20: “It is much the same also in painting; if a man smeared
a canvas with the loveliest colours at random, it would not give as much
pleasure as an outline in black & white” (p. 27). Cf. 張彥遠《歷代名畫記》卷一：「今之畫人……具其彩色，則失其筆法」；盛大士《谿山臥遊錄》卷二：「畫以墨為主，以色為輔。色之不可奪墨，猶賓之不可溷主也」；Alfred Stevens: “Ingres a dit, ‘Le dessin est la
probité de la peinture.’ Il eut pu ajouter que la couleur en est l’ennoblissement”
(H.P. Jones, Dict. of Foreign Phrases,
p. 251); Clive Bell, Art, p. 236: “Colour
becomes significant only when it has been made subservient to form”; & Domenico
Neroni (quoted in Vernon Lee, Renaissance
Fancies & Studies, p. 120): “Colour is the enemy of all noble art. It
is the enemy of all precise & perfect form, since where color exists form
can be seen only as juxtaposition of colours.” On the other hand, El Greco
says: “el colorido es superior al dibujo” (quoted Joan Evans, Taste & Temperament, p. 77 on the
Quiet Extrovert). Whistler said that drawing must be a firm master & lord
to its wife, colour, which might otherwise become “a jaunty whore”, rioting
into “a chaos of drunkenness, trickery, regrets & incompleteness”.
XIV. 23: “The plot should be so
constructed that even without seeing the play anyone hearing of the incidents
happening thrills with fear & pity as a result of what occurs. To produce
this effect by means of an appeal to the eye is inartistic and needs
adventitious aid” (p. 49)
— cf. VI. 28 (p. 29);
what a far cry from this to Diderot’s boast about his own deafness: “Je n’ai
jamais mieux jugé du jeu et de l’effet que depuis que je n’entend plus
lesacteurs” (Lettre sur les sourds et les
muets, Oeuvres Complètes, éd.
Assézat, I, p. 360)!
XXII. 1: “The merit of diction is to
be clear (σαφή) & not commonplace (ταπεινὴν)” (p. 85) — Nietzsche seems to have had this
in his mind when he wrote in Götzendämmerung:
“J.S. Mill: oder die beleidigende Klarheit” (“Streifzüge eines Unzeitgemässen”,
§1, Werke, Taschen-Ausgabe, Alfred Kröner
Verlag, Bd. X, S. 298).
XXV. 11 & 28: “Suppose the
charge is ‘That is not true’, one can meet it by saying ‘But perhaps it ought
to be’... It may be impossible that there should be such people as Zeuxis used
to paint, but it would be better if there were” (p. 403) — This seems to be the ultimate source of Bruno’s “Se
non è vero è ben trovato” (De gli eroici
furori, Pt. II, Dialogue iii; Bruno e Campanella, Opere, ed. A. Guzzo e R. Amerio, p. 630). Cf. Greuze’s “Soyez
piquant, si vous ne pouvez pas être vrai” (H.E.A. Furst, The New Anecdote of Painters & Painting, p. 5) & Turner’s
reply to the lady who said that she had “never seen such a sunset”: “Would you
wish you had ever seen it?” Cf. Jacques Barzun, Romanticism & the Modern Ego, pp. 101-2 on “idealization”: “Criticism
has only slowly come to recognize, for instance, that Turner’s painting of a
particular spot is truer in virtue of his alteration of the separate details.
Likewise, a scene such as Victor Hugo’s bringing together of Danton,
Robespierre, & Marat in Ninety-Three
incurs the charge of false drama & idealization [in Hugo, Quatrevingt-treize, Ptie II, Liv. Ii,
ch. 2-3], until an historian like H.V. Temperley says of it: ‘No historian in
such short compass gives us as good an idea of the gross manly breadth of
Danton, of the feline caution of Robespierre, or of the insane suspicions of
Marat...’ All this is nothing more than the old Aristotelian teaching that
poetic truth is sometimes truer than history.” Cf. H.M. Margoliouth, Wordsworth & Coleridge, 1795-1834,
p. 54: “Wordsworth habitually does what he likes with incidents & places of
‘real’ life” etc. Cf. 第六百四十九則。That is why no reader, however literal minded, has
ever taken 白居易 to task for the line “夜半無人私語時” in《長恨歌》, but many readers have boggled at 鉏麑’s soliloquy
before his suicide in《左傳》(宣公二年); cf. 李元度《天岳山房文鈔》卷一〈鉏麑論〉: “況既觸槐死矣，不忘恭敬數語，又誰聞而誰述之耶？”《槐西雜志》卷一：「鉏麑樹下之詞，渾良夫夢中之譟，誰聞之歟？」《姑妄聽之》盛時彥〈跋〉記紀昀謂：「《聊齋》非著書者之筆也……燕昵之詞、媟狎之態，使出自言，似無此理；使出作者代言，則何從而聞見之？」W.F. Mainland, Schiller
& the Changing Past, p. 110: “As a writer of historical dramas,
Schiller has been at times venomously attacked, because he changed the nature
& course of events. He decided that Mary Stuart should meet Queen
Elizabeth; & for the burning of Joan of Arc, he substituted death on the
battlefield.”
三百九十二[6]
馮山《馮安岳集》十二卷。詩皆獷直無足觀，惟附載范鎮等贈答之作，可補《宋詩紀事》。劉光祖〈序〉謂：「當熙豐間，不能苟合於新法。」《提要》遂引卷八〈寄上金陵王荊公詩〉「更張漢法新」一句為證，然此詩於荊公頌揚甚至，如云：「風霆傳號令，束縛解生民。所志惟膏澤，當除亦斧斤」，「軻雄平可駕，房魏淺非倫」。其自述語則云：「才非當世用，仕為有時貧」，「古心終少合，老態強難馴」。自明介立之操誠有之，若謂微文譎諫，恐未必然。
三百九十三[7]
陳深《寧極齋稿》一卷、陳植《慎獨叟遺稿》一卷。鄉學究詩，寬靡已染元人習氣。
三百九十四[8]
吳則禮《北湖集》五卷。子副與饒德操、陳後山、唐子西皆有酬答，為韓子蒼所作詩尤多。此《集》舊有子蒼〈序〉，今佚不傳。其詩力求峭硬，用江西派手法，卷一〈少馮約同趙伯山飲贈伯山〉所謂「往時黄宜州，句法天下奇」者是也。而詩情既乏，詩功未密，徒掇拾涪皤以來套語濫調粧點門面，衹見其蠻做杜撰，魯莽突兀。每作禪語，亦衹是老婆嚼舌根耳。東坡賦詩用人姓名，多以「老」字足成句，如〈壽州龍潭〉云「觀魚并記老莊周」是也（詳見《容齋三筆》卷六）。山谷多用「阿」字，如〈贈米元章〉云「教字玄暉繼阿章」，〈和答魏道輔寄懷〉第六首云「天涯阿介老」（謂黃介）是也。蓋學魏、晉人口吻，如王戎之稱阿戎、王僧謙之稱「阿謙」、呂蒙之稱「阿蒙」、崔鴻之稱「阿鴻」、王子敬之稱「阿敬」、王平子之稱「阿平」（《蘆浦筆記》卷一「阿」字條所舉則以小名為多）。又《日知錄》卷三十二「阿」字條引《隸釋‧漢郩阬碑陰》云：「其間四十人，皆字其名，而繫以『阿』字，如劉興『阿興』、潘京『阿京』。」〈漢武帝內傳〉上元夫人自稱「阿環」、青真小童自稱「阿昌」（《南部新書》甲王皇后自稱「阿忠」亦此類）。子副遂似狗咬矢橛，如卷一〈寄印老〉云：「半生阿印奇」[9]，卷二〈從王謹常求墨戲〉云：「阿常爲官真拓落」，又〈謹常以墨戲見遺〉云：「得此三昧惟阿常」，又〈不伐寄長短句〉云：「天教阿傑解玄文」，又〈戲作簡朱天球〉云：「阿球端知有此事」，又〈題鍾隱簡寂觀圖〉云：「飽知阿隱有妙處」，又〈贈希先〉云：「憑仗阿先歸舉似」，又〈次坰韻〉云：「大笑阿蒼如瓠肥」，又〈次子蒼寄余清老韻〉云：「詎與阿朔論輩行」，又〈次天啟贈浄名吳道人韻〉云：「典型真有阿度風」，又〈次朱天球贈吳茂先韻〉云：「阿球高氣寧用論」，又〈贈元暉〉云：「阿暉詎獨愛奇字」，卷三〈入汴先寄韓子蒼〉云：「我輩阿馮真解事」，卷四（卷二）〈將至宋先寄相之〉云：「眼中阿相安在哉」，又〈寄介然〉云：「寄聲吾黨阿介」，又〈題吳道人庵壁間米元暉畫〉云：「阿暉戲拈禿筆」，其他呼子曰「阿坰」者尚不在此例。又好用「奇懷」、「吾人」、「奴人」、「朵頤」，「得得」、「拍拍」、「咬咬」、「軒軒」等疊字，多欠妥。「跛跛」二字尤數，如卷一〈次寄綠莎翁韻〉云：「緬懷眼中人，跛跛豈易忘」，又〈贈呂少馮〉云：「跛跛踐危磴」，又〈贈夷白介然〉云：「跛跛登摧車」，卷二〈贈江貫道〉云：「獨憐老子跛跛歸」，又〈有懷介然〉云：「意行跛跛復挈挈」，卷三〈至龜山先寄呂少馮〉云：「出舟跛跛為情親」，又〈簡呂少馮〉云：「未嫌跛跛著南冠」，又〈簡王長元次元〉云：「跛跛鬢毛短」。《容齋四筆》卷七論杜詩用「受」、「覺」二字云：「用之雖多，然每字命意不同，又雜於千五百篇中，學者讀之，唯見其新工。若陳簡齋亦好用此二字，未免頻複者，蓋只在數百篇內，所以見其多」云云。若子副所為，尤動人嫌矣。姑錄古近體三篇：
卷一〈再至山陽〉：「北湖錐也無，四海一兒子。此生吾知之，不過老病死。五斗一彊謀，要飽聊爾耳。禿髪猶讀書，盡勝種種事。初解行脚包，問訊長淮水。端欲洗枯腸，相見輒歡喜。將借官屋居，聊復置牀几。更煮楚州糜，尚欠淮南睡。手中楞嚴經，咀嚼真有味。姑降老鼻雷，豈復論字義。」
卷三〈懷關聖功〉：「破除午夢晴鳥呼，起喚奴人轉轆轤。半世奇奇兼怪怪，一春白白與朱朱。生憎張儀舌尚在，大笑香巖錐也無。矻矻休論抱關事，快來相對說江湖。」
〈同王子和過張氏小園〉：「永夏追涼得午陰，扶藜仍有小叢林。應憐老子腰脚健，可是禪房花木深。卷簾高竹與佳色，隱几黄鸝供好音。更遣驚人十様錦，併澆宿昔江湖心自注：張氏有定州變窰茶甌，名『十様錦』。」
《誠齋集》卷一百十四《詩話》記尤延之稱子副三絕句（編入此本卷四），確佳。《四庫提要》據《大典》載韓子蒼〈北湖集序〉考定子副歿於宣和辛丑，而絕句語意類高宗時作，疑誠齋誤憶是也。按其風格亦絕不肖，故未錄。
三百九十五[10]
賀鑄《慶湖遺老集》九卷、《補遺》一卷、《拾遺》一卷。古詩雖頗雅飭，不如近體佳者之秀而健。時學晚唐，惜大率用虛字不拘對仗聲律，作變格獷腐粗鄙，幾不類能吟「梅子黃時雨」者手筆。《王直方詩話》載方回論詩語云：「平淡不涉於流俗，奇古不鄰於怪僻，題詠不窘於物義，敍事不病於聲律。比興深者通物理，用事工者如己出。」可謂言之匪艱者也。【《老學庵筆記》卷三謂王中父、韓持國近體喜用虛字，《誠齋大全集》卷一百十三記李誠之詩亦然，今李、王二家集皆不傳。《南陽集》中遺逸甚多，不見有虛字之篇。北宋詩集見存者，惟邵堯夫、賀方回兩家多語助耳。】【《老學庵筆記》卷五：「賀方回作〈王子開挽詞〉：「和璧終歸趙，干將不葬吳」，見於秦少游集中。子開大觀己丑卒於江陰，而返葬臨城，故方回此句為工。時少游已沒十年矣。」按此詩見《補遺》中，乃〈王迥子高挽詩〉第五首，「璧」作「氏」字。】【《聲畫集》卷一載方回〈題寇萊公真〉七律、〈內翰出龍眠居士寫真圖〉七律，此《集》及《補遺》、《拾遺》皆未收。】
〈自序〉：「隨篇敘其歲月與所賦之地者，異時開卷，回想陳迹，喟然而歎，莞爾而笑，猶足以起予狂也。」
楊龜山〈序〉：「方回自少有奇才，其器業足以自表於世，意功名可必也，逮今流落州郡不少振，豈詩真能窮人耶？」按楊繩組重刊《龜山先生集》卷二十六有此文，題作〈跋賀方回鑑湖集〉，又卷一〈留別僧訥〉云：「詩解窮人未必工」，卷九〈題詩卷後〉云：「詩豈窮人窮者工，斯言聞諸六一翁。端慙少作老更拙，不廢汝詩吾固窮。」參觀第五十八則。白居易〈序洛詩序〉始發此論，略云：「蘇、李以還，次及鮑、謝，迄於李、杜輩，觀其所自，多因讒冤譴逐，征戍行旅，凍餒病老，存歿別離，情發於中，文形於外，故憤憂怨傷之作，通計古今，什八九焉。世所謂文士多數奇，詩人尤命薄，於斯見矣。又以知理安之世少，離亂之時多，亦明矣。」（《全唐文》卷六百七十五，同卷〈與元九書〉亦申此意。）參觀孟郊〈招文士飲〉：「詩人命屬花」。
卷一〈調北鄰劉生〉：「荒園老牆百堵破，北鄰劉子南鄰賀。今朝兩望不相過，端怯衡陽芒屩涴。吾庖無魚未必餓，晏飯糠覈煩脾磨。吾牀何容凡物坐，書爲睡媒即牀卧」，「此日可惜難再圖，秋風西來莫挽吾。後日相思幾千里，書不盡言徒耗紙。」
卷二〈喜雨〉：「紛紛白羽箭，齊發萬牛弩。落瓦復鳴階，浮漚如沸煮。」
〈邯鄲郡樓晚望〉：「新凉瀉軒檻，草木带秋聲」，「百蟲暮吟動，一鳥歸思輕。」
〈遊雲龍山張氏山居〉。按觀題下自敘，即張天驥放鶴亭也，謂：「亭下有小屋曰『蘇齋』，壁間榜東坡二詩及畫大枯株。」
卷四〈望夫石〉：「秋雨疊苔衣，春風舞蘿帶。」
〈寄題潯陽周氏濂溪草堂〉。按泛泛流連光景，未嘗如山谷有「光風霽月」之慕也。方回與濂溪長子元翁壽友善，同卷有〈送元翁西上〉一首、〈懷寄周元翁〉十首，亦彷彿參寥之於元翁矣。第六首云：「周郎西笑時，疊寄兩函書。妙翰騁遒放，抵突黄與蘇。黄癯曳羸筋，蘇厚凝腯膚。我於季孟間，增少損有餘。」即蘇、黃互謔之「老僧藜杖」、「驢夫腳跟」及「石壓蝦蟆」也。
卷五〈自訟〉：「朝聽鳴鐘出，暮隨衙鼓歸。朝朝復暮暮，是是與非非。跡寄升沉路，言投禍福機。何窮百年事，端使一心違。」
〈辭酒〉：「魯酒一樽薄，吾愁萬斛多。」
〈快哉亭朝暮寓目〉：「不淺胡牀興，無多團扇功。」
〈宿黃葉嶺田家〉：「聚落荒山裏，畬田歲不登。牛衣障隙雪，鼠穴見鄰燈。愁入魚難瞑，寒凝酒亦氷。悵然歌白石，推枕待晨興。」
〈高望道中〉：「遠山宜薄莫，高燕弄微涼。」
〈廣津門東馬上〉：「津頭落帆鼓，薄暮尚蓬鼕。疑是秦淮口，扁舟醉夢中。不堪隋岸北，塵土一鞭風。傳語端能否，伯勞飛自東。」按此變體之尚雅者。他如卷六〈答陳傳道〉云：「吾家季真登大蓬，我爲斗筲來寶豐。公乎時以監呼我，自笑名同實不同（下略）」；〈招寇元弼兼呈張隱居〉云：「長鋏長鋏歸來乎，十口想厭淮南魚。遊宦非圖飽而已，浮生且問樂何如（下略）」；〈留別張白雲謀父〉云：「三年官局冷如冰，炙手權門我未能。頼與白雲之隱者，不談黄卷即尋僧（下略）」；卷七〈度黄葉嶺寄懷白雲菴主〉云：「黄葉嶺頭黄葉飛，白雲菴畔白雲歸。葉隨游子終相失，雲伴禪翁得所依（下略）」；〈九日懷京都舊遊〉云：「昔年九日登臨處，把酒梁王舊吹臺。今年九日登臨處，江上黄華殊未開（下略）」；〈席上呈錢德循〉云：「棗華纂纂桑葉肥，老蠶起眠雛雀飛。南鄰買酒勸行樂，越客廢書歌式微。式微式微胡不歸，明日會知今日非。舊溪手種水楊柳，長與秋風掃釣磯」；《拾遺‧聞鶯有懷故園》云：「海陵春後雨冥冥，耳厭鼃 嗥鸛齒（此字疑誤）鳴。何意東亭好風日，流鶯忽作故園聲。故園千里長牽夢，老病三年不廢情。想見楊花收卷盡，綠苔池院落朱櫻。」惟末首尚可，餘皆野甚。此句為方回自編定，〈自序〉謂：「近體長句，第六、第七卷」，則〈呈錢德循〉一律不得以七古羼入解嘲也。
〈留別米雍丘〉題下自敘云：「米辨博有才具，著《山林集》數十卷，爲人知者特水淫、書學而已。」按《寶晉英光集》卷六〈輓東坡〉七律第四首自注有云：「公簡云：『相知三十年，恨知公不盡。』余答曰：『更有知不盡處』」云云。《劉後村大全集》卷十有七絕二首題云〈米元章有帖云老弟山林集多於眉陽集然不襲古人一句子瞻南還與之說茫然歎久之似歎渠偷也戲跋〉，皆可與方回語發明。
〈龜山晚泊〉：「春候半寒溫，維舟淮上村。長林補山豁，青草際潮痕。久厭浮家役，重招去國魂。禪房欲舒寫，煙雨促黃昏。」按荊公〈江上〉詩云：「春風似補林塘破」，可與第三句參觀。
卷六〈冠氏縣齋書事〉：「小閣燒香麝煎濃，翠苔庭院綠陰風。卷簾燕自雙飛去，敧枕人方半夢中。秋鬢先於懷縣令，春愁多似義城公。西園酒伴無消息，欲寄魚箋水自東。」按方回七律時時學晚唐，極似晏同叔，如此首及卷七〈戲答張商老〉云：「揚子江頭兩信潮，送君西去木蘭橈。依依暮雨鴛鴦夢，嫋嫋春風豆蔻梢。細字碧箋隨雁到，小簾朱戶抵天遥。長安觸緒牽情地，不特魂銷骨亦銷」；《拾遺‧海陵西樓寓目》云：「天涯樽酒與誰開，風外徂春挽不回。掃地可憐花更落，卷簾無奈燕還來。王孫莫顧漳濱卧，漁父何知楚客才。强策駑筋懷故國，浮雲千里思悠哉。」其尤佳者。他如卷六〈上巳有懷金明池游賞〉、〈雨晴西郊寓目〉、〈寄王岐〉、〈和田錄事詠雪〉、〈詠燕〉、〈冠氏寺居書懷〉、〈和彭城王生悼歌人盼盼〉、〈京居春日遣懷〉諸律皆似其類。卷五〈擬溫飛卿〉則五言長律也。【「春愁」句可參觀《山谷外集》卷三〈答李子真讀陶庾詩〉：「憂思庾義城」，青神注引子山〈愁賦〉。】
〈九日登戲馬臺〉。按《瀛奎律髓》卷十六選此，紀批揀「射蛇公」三字是也。余則取其結句「不與興亡城下水，穩浮漁艇入淮天」。蓋自小杜〈齊安郡晚秋〉詩結句化出。
卷七〈宿芥塘佛祠〉：「青青麰麥欲抽芒[12]，浩蕩東風晚更狂。微徑斷橋尋古寺，短籬高樹隔橫塘。開門未掃楊花雨，待曉先燒柏子香。底許暫忘行役倦，故人題字滿長廊。」末句即周清真〈浣紗溪〉詞所謂「下馬先尋題壁字」也。
〈寄清涼和上人〉第一首起句云：「吾家無擔石之儲」。按方回好作此體，如《拾遺‧海陵書事》起句云：「海濱流浪胡爲乎」；〈海陵喜雨〉起句云：「閏年四月之相交」；〈書三國志陳登事後〉起句云：「求田問舍良可嘉，元龍偶未思之耶」；〈寄武昌方令李尉〉起句云：「好在桐江三拜翁，謫仙之裔好應同」，皆劣。
〈留別王景通〉：「憲也但貧猶未病，公乎非酒自能狂。」
卷九〈清燕堂〉：「雀聲嘖嘖燕飛飛，在得殘紅一兩枝。睡思乍來還乍去，日長披卷下簾時。」
〈黄埭魏氏見江亭〉：「浮生欲寄酒杯間，馬上誰容一日閑。不是登高粗解賦，老夫真負爾江山。」
《拾遺》程俱〈序〉：「方回少時，俠氣蓋一座，馳馬走狗，飲酒如長鯨，然遇空無有時，俛首北窗下，作牛毛小楷，雌黄不去手。方回儀觀甚偉，如羽人劍客，然戲為長短句，皆雍容好麗，極幽閑思怨之情。」按《補遺》俱作〈墓志銘〉云：「方回哆口竦眉，目面鐵色。」又《老學庵筆記》卷八謂：「方回狀貌奇醜，色青黑而有英氣，俗謂之『賀鬼頭』。喜校書，朱黃未嘗去手。」皆相發明。「羽人劍客」之與「鬼頭」，不啻李端端之「雪嶺」、「墨池」矣。按〈賀方回詩集序〉見《北山小集》卷十五，而〈墓志銘〉則《集》中佚去，卷八〈秋夜寫懷〉第二首屬方回有云：「讎書五千卷，字字窮根源。」
〈題海陵寓舍〉第一首：「暮涼百燕抵突雨，晝靜一蟬饕餮風。」參觀六百十一則。
〈江夏秋懷〉第二首：「洛下微吟聊擁鼻，西山爽氣爲支頤。」
〈中秋懷寄潘邠老〉：「得酒未容歡獨伯，把書端與睡爲媒。」《老學庵筆記》卷八載潘邠老〈贈方回〉詩云：「詩束牛腰藏舊稿，書訛馬尾辨新讎。」
〈重遊鍾山定林寺〉。按見第六百四則。
沒有留言:
張貼留言