舊鈔本《南宋羣賢小集》
四百四十六[1]
《南宋羣賢小集》：
第九冊薛嵎仲止《雲泉詩》。學四靈而益酸鄙，如〈秋夜宋希仁同吟松風閣有感〉云：「瘦得吟肩聳過頤」，〈冬日雜言〉云：「凍得形模龜樣縮」，他如〈悼張寺丞〉云：「夫人扶病秋牕下，深夜看經帶哭聲」，〈漁村雜句〉云：「絮帽蒙頭霜月下，水村深夜看梅花」，以此為清為切，真惡道也！〈閒居雜興〉云：「渔樵非始志」，〈潘懷古參學〉云：「同吟四十過三四，常恨詩銜欠一官」，則亦非安貧食淡之士也。
〈潘南夫察院出臺〉：「波濤不動中流砥，風雨難瘖晦旦鷄。」
第十冊葛天民《葛無懷小集》。雖與趙紫芝友善，而筆頗勁辣，寧失之獷，非四靈清弱之類。《瀛奎律髓》卷十一謂其「可及四靈」，語欠明確。參以楊誠齋，七古學誠齋體（「參禪學詩無兩法，死蛇解弄活鱍鱍」，「生機熟語却不俳」），餘作初不似也。【《冷然齋詩集》卷六〈金陵雜興二百首〉有云：「葛巾裹却葛天民，有女閨中號燕春。只在西湖不行脚，金陵風月欠斯人。」按《癸辛雜識》謂天民有二侍姬，名如夢、如幻。燕春者，不知是姬，抑其女也？《貴耳集》卷上頗稱引其詩，且謂：「詩愈工，俗念愈熾，後加冠巾。」《江湖長翁集》卷二十〈次銛朴翁韻〉、《劍南詩稿》卷二十七〈贈徑山銛書記〉七古、《南湖集》卷二〈次韻酬銛上人〉七古二首、卷四〈走筆贈銛上人〉五律二首、《澗泉集》卷二〈寄朴翁〉。】
〈春懷〉：「向晚一鳩鳴，道人春睡足。無處寫幽懷，巡簷數脩竹。」
〈絕句〉：「夜雨漲波高二尺，失却搗衣平正石。天明水落石依然，老夫一夜空相憶。」
〈看山〉：「我本田夫作比丘，也知騎馬勝騎牛。如今馬上看山色，不似騎牛得自由。」按《宋詩紀事》卷九三引《白獺髓》載僧儀〈上權臣〉云：「我本田中一比丘，却來乘馬不乘牛。如今馬上風波急，不似騎牛得自由。」《宋詩紀事補遺》卷六十一載喻峙〈山中〉詩與無懷此作同，僅首句作「我是山中萬戶侯」，「也知」作「明知」，「如今」作「晚來」而已。
〈即事〉：「春漲侵高岸，春雲裹亂山。倒扦楊柳活，斜倚桔橰閒。世味老方淡，花時晴最慳。東風嗔嬾動，故故撼柴關。」
〈仲春初〉：「初交二月草蒙茸，鄰里紛紛去折蓬。柳下閉門非嬾出，苦無筋力趁兒童。」
〈郊園避暑〉：「竹疎身共瘦，湖近意先凉。」
〈詶畫上人石湖春望〉：「鶯來占柳爲歌院，蝶去尋花作醉鄉。」《鷗陂漁話》卷五：「路德（閏生）在京師見一楹聯云『鶯來』云云，喜其清麗，偶為各賦試帖詩一首，後刻《檉花館集》，其門下士為注釋，徧尋二句出處不得。近日余檢《兩宋名賢小集》得之。[2]」
〈湖村晚興〉：「柳塘雙槳急，茅舍一燈微。」
〈小亭〉：「貓來戲捉穿花蝶，雀下偷銜卷葉蟲。」
〈上巳呈嚴叟〉：「楊柳稍傳鶯割據，茅茨敢望燕商量。」
〈雨中郊外〉：「暖氣先回宿草根，青青行可藉芳尊。未須著意催花柳，且爲乾坤補燒痕。」
俞桂晞郄《漁溪詩稿》二卷，《乙稿》一卷。欲為姿媚，故雖晚唐而非四靈也。
卷二〈口占〉：「園林綠暗又紅稀，蜀鳥啼山筍蕨肥。春夏一番交篆早，綿衣脫了著單衣。」
劉翰武子《小山集》。亦風華姿媚之體。
〈立秋日〉：「亂鴉啼散玉屏空，一枕新凉一扇風。睡起秋聲無覓處，滿階梧葉月明中。」
張良臣武子《雪牕小集》。周益公《平園續稿》卷十四〈雪牕集序〉謂其「從魏南夫、史直翁二丞相游，仕宦二十五年，他人朱紫，君困青衫。欲效陳無己之簡古，呂居仁之淡泊。裒古賦四篇，古、律詩四百首」云云。按此則今本真一鱗一爪耳。皆清麗風華之體，未覩益公所謂「步武江西」者。袁伯長《清容居士集》卷五十〈題雪竇平禪師詩卷〉云：「大梁張武子來吾鄉，始正唐律，由是禪林悉守其法。」又參觀第三百十則、第四百三十八則。
第十一冊張蘊仁溥《斗野稿支卷》。亦纖麗之體。
〈錄錄〉：「燕履登巢息，蜂程載蜜虧。」
林希逸肅翁《竹溪十一稾詩選》。竹溪詩妥緻而能流活，為理語作詩之最工者，庶幾以劉潛夫之筆，寫邵堯夫之旨。刻畫風物亦復新切，餘見第二十二則，又《談藝錄》第二百七十九頁。[4]。陳樂軒詩，吾未之見。若艾軒、網山之作，固不乏為竹溪師法也。《竹溪鬳齋十一稿續集》十二卷（抄本），門人林式之編，與後村倡和甚多，風格亦似，而頹率佻滑者太半。乃知此《選》之精也。（此《選》中已采及《續集》，如〈詠蓮花〉見《續集》卷三。）【《碧梧玩芳集》卷十三〈題汪心齋讀史雜詠後〉云：「先友林竹溪〈詠詩按『詩』字前脫『史』字〉百篇，應葺芷袖達安晚丞相，丞相大歎賞，即以上聞，遂簡帝心。」王麟洲《王奉常集》卷三十八〈與周子禮〉云：「如吾讀莊氏書而疑也，已又讀郭子玄《注》而益以疑，中年乃得林希逸《口義》，旁引直解，砉然似中其竅。䋯以為天下之寶，在吾笥珍而襲之有年。」】【《隱居通議》卷三載竹溪撰〈陳藻詩筌序〉，卷十引後村〈竹溪詩序〉稱其「經義、策論之有韻者」，一語道著宋詩之病，然自作有所不免，又云劉須溪謂：「後村所短，適在於此。」】【《後村大全集》有竹溪〈序〉，後村詩中唱酬最多，推崇最至，始則趙南塘，後則竹溪而已（如卷十六〈讀竹溪詩〉；卷三十二〈題竹溪近稿二首〉有云：「白敏居常嘲杜甫，愈謙自說效盧仝」；卷四十〈竹溪中書評余近詩發藥甚多次韻一首〉有云[5]：「璧瑕自是難爲掩，言玷誰云不可磨」；〈五和〉云：「君從老艾傳衣鉢，僕似元城耐搗磨」）。作〈竹溪詩序〉（《大全集》卷九十四）云：「本朝則文人多，詩人少。三百年間，雖人各有集，集各有詩，詩各自為體，或尚理致，或負材力，或逞辨駁，要皆經義、策論之有韻者爾，非詩也。竹溪詩槁乾中含華滋，蕭散中藏嚴密，窘狹中見紆餘。天下誦之曰：『詩也！非經義、策論之有韻者也！』」卷九十六〈山名別集序〉中……亦序竹溪詩而首尾有序趙仲白詩篇……與同卷〈竹溪集序〉合并[6]）。】
〈龍灣秋夜〉：「獨星明似月，重露冷於風。」
〈讀黃詩〉：「我生所敬涪江翁，知翁不獨哦詩工。逍遥頗學漆園吏，下筆縱橫法略同。……內篇外篇手分別，冥搜所到真奇絕。頡頏韓柳追莊騷，筆意尤工是晚節。……生前忍苦琢詩句，飄泊不憂無死處。今人更病語太奇，哀公不遇今猶故。」按推尊山谷如此，而自作詩却不涉西江藩籬，〈題新稿〉云：「斷無子美驚人語，差似堯夫遣興時。」又〈身外〉、〈夢寒齋〉等篇屢用樂天語，是其入手處也。
〈心王〉：「一語何思千古訓，莫言爲陸背程張。」按〈元扃〉云：「君從何處叩元扃，耳學紛紛莫浪聽。剗盡念頭方近道，掃空注脚始明經。見聞日富祇塵積，涉歷年深似酒醒。不必但疑禪背理，請君細讀信心銘。」學問宗旨可見，雖有〈讀程氏遺書〉五律、〈田園雜興〉第五首用朱子語，非所思存也。《續集》卷三〈老來猶喜看書清晨有警書以自砭‧之二〉云：「本來性即虛空是，自障塵因聞見多。」〈答友人論學〉云：「逐字箋來學轉難，逢人個個說曾顔。那知剝落皮毛處，不在流傳口耳間。禪要自參方印可，仙須親煉待丹還。賣花擔上看桃李，此語吾今憶鶴山。」末二句本《鶴山大全集》卷三十七〈答周監酒〉，即為勸讀朱子書而發（《續集》卷三〈即事〉則又云：「徹底書須隨字解」）。《續集》卷五〈讀子厚李華釋氏二碑作〉：「佛學紛紛半是非，若爲疑議到昌黎。柳推性善碑南嶽，華指心宗傳左溪。有誕有微須自別，或排或讚總非迷。痴人但道書皆好，讀得明時論易齊藏中諸經皆可翫。」卷六〈見陳郎中啟〉。
〈登舟喜風頓清秋暑〉：「觸暑登途衆共猜，好風誰料逐帆開。天公應是憐行客，正忤炎官熱屬來。」
〈題江貫道山水四言〉：「遠山叢叢，遠樹濛濛。咫尺萬里，江行其中。短長何岸？高低何峰？彼坻彼洔，彼瀑彼洪。……或斷或屬，且淡且濃。爾崒奚寺？爾盤奚宮？或垣陰翳，或梁嵌空。有吠者厖，有樵者翁。危檣落碇，短棹掀蓬。……昔我經行，雲山萬重。若淮南北，與江西東。……及此開卷，恍然昔同。誰居作者？造化論功。……聲聞九陛，既召而終。謂彼樹白，讖其身窮貫道畫林木如算子，其身皆白。其然豈然？訊之天公。」按郭熙《林泉高致‧山水訓》云：「畫亦有相法，李成子孫昌盛，其山腳地面皆渾厚濶大，上秀而下豐，合有後之相也」云云，可參觀。
〈郊行即事〉：「色有淺深峯遠近，影無長短樹高低」，「群鳥爭枝聲上下，孤松夾澗影東西。」
〈溪上謠〉：「溪上行吟山裏應，山邊閑步溪間影。每因人語識山聲，却向溪光見人性。溪流自語溪不喧，山鳥相呼山愈靜。野鷄伏卵似養丹，睡鴨依蘆如入定。人生何必學臞仙，我行自樂疑散聖。無人獨賦溪山謠，山能遠和溪能聽。」
〈莊子口義成〉：「機鋒頗似禪三昧，根極衹求性一初。」
〈列子口義成〉：「但知絕迹無行地，豈羨輕身可御風。」
〈物理〉：「醯鷄甕中世界，蜘蛛網上天機。他心我心壹是，大知小知俱非。」「蚯蚓兩頭是性，桃花一見不疑。了得葛藤三昧，却參芣苢諸詩。」「非魚知魚誰樂，夢鹿得鹿誰誣。若與予也皆物《莊子》，執而我之則愚《關尹子》。」
第十二冊敖陶孫器之《臞翁詩集》二卷。純乎江西手法，絕非江湖體，雖與劉後村友（《詩評》自跋云：「自寫兩紙，其一以遺劉潛夫」），卻未濡染晚唐。觀《江湖後集》卷十八〈借山谷後山詩編〉七古，分明自道宗尚矣（第四百五十三則）。《小石山房叢書》中有宋顧樂《夢曉樓隨筆》一卷，多論宋人詩，有云：「臞翁雖不屬江西派，深得江西之體」，頗為中肯。《四朝聞見錄》丙集云：「予嘗以敖卷示杜忠可，杜謂『典實』，其詩率多效陸務觀用事，終不肯效唐風。初識劉克莊，得其詩卷曰：『所欠典實爾。』《南岳集》中率多用事，蓋取其說。喜而語陳宗之曰：『且喜潛夫已成正覺』」云云，蓋於談藝如腦脂蒙眼者，以其時世相接，姑妄聽之可也。【《澗泉集》卷八〈寄敖器之〉、卷十二〈十一日再贈器之〉、卷十三〈正旦次韻敖器之所寄〉。】命意空膚，措詞粗硬，殊不足觀。【陳安卿《北溪全集》第五門卷二〈用敖教所贈詩韻送行名陶孫，郡教授〉（七古）。】【《鶴林玉露》甲編卷二：「敖器之善察脈。」】【《明文海》卷四百郭萬程〈宋敖先生傳〉。】
卷一〈寄福清翅山舅陳夢寔〉：「路岐引人不作長，野梅官柳禪風光。看山看水入詩眼，歲月不覺鬚眉蒼。請從丈人開肺腸，身非石人忘故鄉。……毛錐不補萬事裂，存者各在天一方。善和里第知幾易，遼東城郭空相望。平生何用酷似舅，政似嫫母顰施嬙。兒時拊頭祝文章，衹今未入崔蔡行。……眼前欠甥頗念否，我亦口挂蠔山旁。」按此得山谷皮毛，錄之以見一斑。
器之題三元樓壁七律，《集》中未收[9]。按《詩人玉屑》卷十九引趙威伯《詩餘話》載此詩與《四朝聞見錄》小異，末句作「休說渠家末世孫」。又按《後村大全集》卷一百四十八〈臞菴敖先生墓志銘〉云：「或為律詩，托先生以行，京尹承望風旨，急逮捕，先生微服變姓名去。本朝列聖，好文憐才。真詩未為先生之福，而贗詩每為先生之禍」云云，蓋謂此詩非臞翁作也。《匏廬詩話》卷上云：「義山〈隋宮〉詩：『地下若逢陳後主，豈宜重問後庭花。』此調後人率相祖襲，呂由庚〈溫公挽詩〉云：『地下若逢中執法，為言今日再昇平』，見《聞見前錄》；黃姓〈万俟丞相挽詩〉云：『地下若逢秦相國，也應說不到沅湘』，見《清波雜誌》（卷三）；敖器之題三元樓壁云：『九原若遇韓忠獻，休道如今有末孫』，見《四朝聞見錄》（丙集）。然義山自用《異聞錄》煬帝見臣後主事，非若宋人掉虛也。」按《湧幢小品》卷二十二載薛綱挽陳文詩云：「九原若遇南陽李文達，為道羅倫已復官」，匏廬失引（按乃史明古鑑《西村集》中詩，「倫」作「生」）。
此《集》冠以《詩評》。宋人所作，前乎臞翁者，有張芸叟、蔡百衲二家（均見《苕溪漁隱叢話後集》卷三十三，亦見《賓退錄》卷二），敖翁措語之工，繼張軼蔡矣。《隱居通議》卷六亦載三家《詩評》，而推敖《評》為「能近取譬，如行雲流水，超軼飛動，詞語刻琢精麗」云云，非過論也。故《藝苑巵言》卷五（《弇州四部稿》卷一百四十八）全錄其文而仿為之（後來如《藝苑巵言》卷五、《露書》卷三、《北江詩話》卷一、《爨餘叢話》卷三詩、文評亦其繼武）。湯大奎《炙硯瑣談》載史承豫《國朝詩評》（姚椿《樗寮詩話》卷中亦載），魏叔子《日錄》卷二《雜說》：「唐宋八大家：退之如崇山大海，孕育靈怪；子厚如幽巖怪壑，鳥叫猿啼」云云，明寧獻王自署丹丘先生、涵虛子《太和正音譜》卷上《古今羣英樂府格勢‧元一百八十七人》：「馬東籬之詞如朝陽鳴鳳」云云，〈國朝一十六人〉：「王子一之詞如長鯨飲海」云云，亦此類，而每人品目衹四字，附說各一節。《洪北江詩話》又湯大奎《炙硯瑣談》載史承豫皆有國朝人詩評（《樗寮詩話》卷中載史評及宋喻良能唐詩評）。戴良〈呂復傳〉末載呂〈論諸醫〉有云：「扁鵲醫如秦鑑燭物，……倉公醫如輪扁斲輪」，亦仿此體。《水東日記》卷二十三引元李性學《古今文章精義》中論元人古文一篇，尤罕見。
朱繼芳季實《靜佳乙稿》、《靜佳龍尋稿》。晚唐體之瘦淡而語意尚淺者，如《乙稿‧雪中僧虛舟來》云：「開戶千山白，逢僧一個緇。」
第十三冊陳必復无咎《山居存稿》。〈自序〉謂：「愛晚唐詩，及讀少陵先生集，然後知晚唐詩盡在是，三熏三沐，敬以爲法。」而所作純乎晚唐寫景之體，豈專取少陵句如〈遊何將軍山林〉之「綠垂風折筍，紅綻雨肥梅」、「花妥鶯捎蝶，溪喧獺趁魚」者而學之耳？
林尚仁潤叟《端隱吟稿》亦瘦淡體，頗有刻至語，如〈寒夜即事〉云：「凍油燈影薄，深屋語聲圓。」
姚鏞希聲《雪篷稿》。筆放未歛，學晚唐而非刻意求似者。
〈寄趙東野〉：「病葉滿山難獨掃，狂花一樹爲誰開。」
〈題梅屋吟〉一律未收集中。有〈題戴石屏詩卷後〉云：「詩盛於唐，極盛於開元、天寶間，昭、僖以後，則氣索矣。式之詩天然不費斧鑿處，大似高三十五輩。晚唐諸子，當讓一頭。」
劉翼躔父《心游摘稾》。僅十九首，了不見佳處，而林竹溪〈序〉極口稱之，謂：「樂軒詩初為唐語，後為晉語，晚而盡去繩墨法度，自為一家之言，如娑羅林中，最後說法。同門中獨躔父入此三昧，十九首乃吾師初時詩法也」云云，蓋標榜同門之詞也。「初時詩法」指晚唐體，如〈題心游樓〉云：「前場歲計禾麻麥，後圃年深竹荔松」，在彼法中亦落下乘。少而不工如此，是亦可以已矣。
第十四冊宋伯仁《雪巖吟草》。按見第三百四十五則。
四百四十七[11]
Henri M. Peyre (ed.), Essays in Honor of Albert Feuillerat.
Gilbert Chinard’s essay on Hobbes & Pascal, & Peyre’s on Renan &
Lamartine are very good. H. Carrington Lancaster’s “The Horse in French Plays
of the 17th Century” is an interesting piece of Notes-&-Queryism.
Baldensperger’s contribution on “les petit illogismes” of A Huxley’s Grey Eminence is turgid and thin; one
expect from him something better.
P. 77: “Pampinea [the oldest of the
seven carissime, graziose, amorose donne
in the Decameron] is derived from the
Latin sdjective ‘pampineus’, [which] in turn was formed from the noun ‘pampinus’
[signifying] the new shoot growing out of an old vine, not a new or a different
vine plant living apart from the old stem... The significance is that Boccaccio’s
art was of classical derivation.” The essay, by Angelo Lipari, is an elaborious
attempt to prove that the Decameron
is allegorical. However, the figure Pampinea may be conveniently borrowed to
symbolize true originality which always has some origins in tradition.
P. 105: “According to Regnard, Le Distrait, III, iii, one talks Swiss,
that is German Swiss, to horses: “Un grand homme disait que s’il parlait aux
dieux, / Ce serait espagnol; italien aux femmes; / L’amour par son accent se
glisse dans leurs âmes: / A des hommes, français, et suisse à des chevaux!” The
“grand homme” was Charles-Quint; see Père Bouhours, Les Entretiens d’Ariste et d’Eugène, IIe Entretiens, èd.
Armand Colin, p. 42; The Letters of Lord
Chesterfield, ed. Bonamy Dobrée, IV, p. 1497: “What progress do you make in
that language, in which Charles V said that he would
choose to speak to his mistress [Italian]?... You already possess... that
language which he reserved for his horse. You are absolutely master, too, of
that language in which he said he would converse with men; French.” (Again, VI,
p. 2399, quoted in French); Dobrée should have added a footnote quoting the
following passage as Chesterfield’s possible source: “Charles-Quint... disait
que, s’il voulait parler aux dames, il parlerait italien; que s’il voulait parler aux hommes il parlerait français;
que, s'il voulait parler à son cheval, il parlerait allemand; mais que, s’il
voulait parler à Dieu, il parlerait espagnol” (Père Bouhours, Entretiens d’Ariste et d’Eugène, 1671, èd.
Radouant, Paris, 1920, p. 62). Le Cardinal Du Perron, Perroniana,1669, Genève, p. 192: “... la langue Italienne est fort
propre pour les choies d'amour, à cause de la quantité de diminutifs qu'elle
possède, et est propre i représenter quelque chose plus petite qu’elle n’est:
au contraire l’Espagnole est fort propre pour les rodomontades, et pour
représenter les choses plus grandes
qu’elles ne font: la
Française tient le milieu... et représente mieux les choses telles qu’elles sont;
elle est fort propre pour l’histoire, la controverse, la théologie...” Cf. the
saying fathered, or rather mothered, on Marguerite of Navarre: “Latin was the
language of prayer, Italian the language of music, Spanish the language of
love, French the language of courts, German the language in which one addressed
one’s servants, & English the language in which one spoke to one’s horses.”
(quoted in Partridge, The World of Words,
3rd ed., p. 12). Cf. also C. Miłosz, The Captive Mind, “Mercury Books”, p. 241: “It is asserted that French
is the language of feudalism; English, the language of capitalism; &
Russian, the language of socialism”; Grillparzer’s aphorism: “Zum Singen ist die italienische Sprache,
etwas zu sagen: die deutsche, darzustellen: die griechische, zu reden: die lateinische, zu schwatzen: die französische, für Verliebte: die spanische und für Grobiane: die englische” (Gesammelte Werke, hrsg. E. Rollett und
A. Sauer, II, S. 143). “Les Chinois et presque tous les peuples de l’Asie
chantent; les Allemands râlent; les Espagnols déclament; les Italiens
soupirent; les Anglais sifflent. Il n'y a proprement que les Français qui
parlent” (Père Bouhours, Les Entretiens
d’Ariste et d’Eugène, èd. Armand Colin, p. 39); cf. Pierre Bayle, Dict., art. “Charles V”; F. Mauthner , Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache,
II, 305 (amplification on the serpent speaking Spanish or Italian). Cf. also Du
Bellay, Déf. et Ill. de la lang. fr.,
ix (quoted in John Orr, Words &
sounds in Eng. & Fr., p. 57). Gulliver’s
Travel, IV, 3: “The Emperor Charles V. made almost the same observation,
when he said, that if he were to speak to his horse, it should be in High Dutch”
(Oxford, p. 278).
Pp. 140-1: Chinard points out that
although the analogy between the State & human body is as old as St. Paul
& Epictetus, the comparison of the sovereign to mind (l’âme) or “la volonté première qui gouverne le corps” must have
been suggested to Pascal by Hobbes. The analogy is really as old as Livy, II,
xxxii, 9-12: “Tempore, quo in homine non, ut nunc, omnia in unum consentientia,
sed singulis membris suum cuique consilium, suus sermo fuerit, indignatas
reliquas partes sua cura, suo labore ac ministerio uentri omnia quaeri, uentrem
in medio quietum nihil aliud quam datis voluptatibus frui; conspirasse inde ne
manus ad os cibum ferrent, nec os accipere datum, nec dentes conficerent... Comparando
hinc, quam intestina corporis seditio similis esset irae plebis in patres, flexisse
mentes hominum.” In the nomenclature of classical Chinese psychology, the State
becomes the vehicle & the mind the tenor; see 光聰諧《有不為齋隨筆‧甲》云：“范氏浚〈心箴〉：‘天君泰然，百體從令’，蓋本《荀子‧解蔽篇》：‘心者，形之君也，而神明之主也，出令而無所受令。自禁也，自使也，自奪也，自取也，自行也，自止也’；〈天倫篇〉：‘心居中虛，以治五官，夫是之謂天君’”；《皮子文藪‧六箴序》：“心為己帝，耳目為輔相，四支為諸侯。因為心、口、耳、目、手、足箴”. The metaphor à
la Hobbes & Pascal is also a commonplace in Chinese political
philosophy; its most comic elaboration is 馮景《解舂集文鈔》卷十〈鼻息說〉：“天子，元首也，二三執政，股肱也，諫官，王之喉舌也；此見於詩書傳記，天下之公言也。庶人，鼻也，其歌謠詛祝謗議，猶鼻孔之息也。九竅百骸四體之衰強存亡，懸於鼻息也；口可以終日閉，而鼻息不可以一刻絕”【魏源《古微堂內集》卷二〈治篇十二〉：“天下其一身歟！后，元首，相，股肱，諍臣，喉舌。然則孰為其鼻息？夫非庶人歟！九竅百骸四肢之存亡，視乎鼻息”】— a good example of “近引諸身” or animism which Goethe in one of the rare happy moments in his dull
novel Die Wahlverwandtschaften (I,
iv) describes as follows: “der Mensch ist ein wahrer Narziss ; er bespiegelt
sich überall gern selbst... seine Weisheit wie seine Thor- heit, seinen Willen
wie seine Willkür leiht er den Tieren, den Pflanzen, den Elementen und den
Göttern” (Werke,
hrsg. Karl Alt, Bd. VIII, S. 26-7). Cf. Rivarol: “Dans le corps humain, c’est
la combinaison des organes qui forme la constitution: la tête dicte des lois ,
et les autres membres les exécutent. Il faut que la tête, qui représente les
pouvoirs législatif et judiciaire, soit calme et lente dans ses décrets! et que
le bras, représentant du pouvoir exécutif, ait la promptitude et la force. Mais
nous verrons bientôt comment l’Assemblée nationale n'a fait agir que la tête ,
et a paralysé le corps politique” (Journal
Politique National in Écrits
politiques et littéraires, chosen by V.-H. Debidour, pp. 132-3).
【Peyre quotes (p. 215) from Renan’s Cahiers, pp. 257-8: “Les
classiques sont finis, et les romantiques sont infinis... L’un est une
hyperbole, l’autre un cercle.” This forestalls Fritz Strich, Deutsche Klassik und Romantik, S. 302: “Nur
eine Form der Rückfahrt kannte die romantische Bewegung wirklich wiedergeben:
die Form des Kreises, die unendlich in sich selbst zurückläuft, dieses Sinnbild
der Unendlichkeit, nicht der Vollendung.”[12]
Cf.《關尹子‧一宇篇》：“以盆為沼，以石為島，魚環游之，不知其幾千萬里而不窮也[13]。夫何故？水無源無歸。聖人之道，本無首，末無尾，所以應物不窮.”】
Pp.
227-8: Peyre shows that the “catégorie du devenir” which Renan introduced into “les
choses religieuses” (e.g. “Dieu sera plutôt qu’il n’est” — Dialogues philosophiques, p. 184) had been adumbrated in Lamartine’s La Chute d’un Ange. He has failed to notice the source in Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes, “Vorrede”: “Das
Wahre ist das Ganze. Das Ganze aber ist nur das durch seine Entwicklung sich
vollendende Wesen. Es ist von dem Absoluten zu sagen, dass es wesentlich
Resultat, dass es erst am Ende das ist, was es in Wahrheit ist” (ed. J.
Hoffmeister, p. 21). Elsewhere, Renan said, “Le terme du progrès universel
étant un état... où toute la matière existante engendrera une résultante
unique, qui sera Dieu” (L’Avenir de la Science,
p. 501); & no one has called attention to the affinity between this view
& the thesis of Samuel Alexander’s monumental book: “Deity is the next
higher empirical quality to the highest we know.... For any level of existence,
deity is the next higher empirical quality” etc. (Space, Time, & Deity, II, pp. 345, 348) Even André Gide, who
was very much a “reading man”, not to have included Renan in his Belesenheit or he would, as in connexion
with Freud, have added a rider to the following entry to “Si j’avais à formuler
un credo, je dirais: Dieu n’est pas en arrière de nous. Il est à venir. C’est
non pas au début, c’est à la fin de l’évolution des êtres qu’il le faut
chercher. Il est terminal et non initial” (Journal,
1916, Janvier 30, éd. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade” NRF, p. 533). C.S. Lewis
combatted this view & put it in the mouth of an arrogant scientist: “Does
it follow that because there was no God in the past that there will be no God
also in the future?” (That Hideous
Strength, ch. 8, sect. 3). Deus ex machina
indeed!
P.
271: Pierre Reverdy: “La conversion est une espèce de suicide. Mais qui a cet extreme
avantage qu’on y passe de l’autre côté vivant” (Le Gant de Crin, p. 236). A most arresting way of putting the matter. Cf. Henri
Delacroix: “La conversion suppose une interruption, un conflit, le sentiment de
la rupture entre le moi et le moi d’après... La conversion n’est alors que
retour à soi” (La Religion et la Foi,
pp. 330, 334); Sante de Sanctis: “In its biological aspect, conversion can only
be interpreted as ‘adaptation for defence’” (Religious Conversion, p. 37); 袁了凡: “從前種種譬如昨日死; 以後種種譬如今日生.” None of these has expressed the heart of the
matter — the paradox of survival through suicide — so adequately as Reverdy’s
aphorism.
四百四十八[14]
Johannes Volkelt, System der Ästhetik, Bd. II & III.
For Bd. I, see supra 第三百九十一則. The Teutonic passion for exhaustiveness is aided & abetted by a
Scholastic knack of multiplying distinctions which show very little difference
between them. He is under the tyranny of words & tries to find the
substance of every shade of meaning or assign to each synonym a corresponding
aspect of reality. Hence a bewilderingly infinite variety of the Sublime (zerstörend & wohltuend; furchtbar, grauenhaft, grässlich & duster; prächtig, würdevolle, majestätische,
feierlich & pathetisch), the Graceful (hohe,
liebliche & derbe; holde; herbe & weiche, zierliche), the
Tragic, the Comic, the Beautiful, the Characteristic, etc., each with numerous
subdivisions. Distinguo — et extinguo
seems to be the first member of the Professor’s logic.
II, S. 55-6: Hartmann’s Lehre von
den “Konkretionsstufen des Schönen”.[15]
Croce poked ponderous fun at this theory; see Aesthetic, tr. D. Ainsley, pp. 346, 380.
II, S. 57: In Fr. Schlegel’s Denken
spielt das charakteristische — unter dem Namen des ‘Interessanten’ — eine grosse
Rolle” u.s.w. Much water has flown under the bridge since Goethe in the “Vorspiel
auf dem Theater” in the Faust made Lustige
Person say: “Ein jeder lebt’s, nicht vielen ist’s bekannt, / Und wo ihr’s
packt, da ist’s interessant” (168-9); & the Interesting has been erected
into an aesthetic category to denote something that “demands less concentration
than beauty, less tension than sublimity” (cf. Albert R. Chandler, Beauty & Human Nature, p. 28).
II, S. 385: Volkelt argued that
though Kant, Schopenhauer, Vischer, Zeisig, Hartmann & Groos all had
considered das Plötzliche essential
to the comic, as a matter of fact only das
Derbkomische presupposes it, not das
Feinkomische; S. 402: “Dem Derbkomischen entspricht das Lachen, dem
Feinkomischen das Lächeln.” The idea of “sudden
glory” is as early as Hobbes (Leviathan,
Pt. I, ch. 6, Ed. Routledge & Son, p. 33), but that is a minor point. The Inkongruenz may be more striking in das Derbkomische, the Umschlag des Bedeutenden ins Nichtige
(S. 357) more violent, the Kontrastwirkung
more piquant, than in das Feinkomische,
but there is no difference in kind. A sheer precipice is of course not a door
step; the latter is however by no means a gradual slope, but, on the contrary, implies
a sudden drop in the level, and at as sharp an angle as the former (cf.
Coleridge’s rhapsody in Semina Rerum: “Wonderful are the efforts
of Nature to reconcile chasm with continuity, to vault & nevertheless to
glide” — quoted in J.H. Muirhead, Coleridge as Philosopher, p. 121). Cf.
Leibniz, Monadology, §13 (tr. R.
Latta, p. 223; Nouv. Essais, Préface,
Gebhardt, V, p. 49; Liv. IV, ch. 26, p. 4..) Volkelt has quite confused the
suddenness in the awakening of the sense of humour, in “seeing the joke” with
the suddenness of explosion of or bursting into laughter. Laughter & smile
are essentially identical (cf. James Sully, An
Essay on Laughter, p. 29; Max Eastman, The
Sense of Humor, p. 239), & one may take a hint from Roberti’s sentence.
“non ha a presumere di udirlo [il riso], ma si contenti di vederlo” (G.
Leopardi, La Crestomazia Italiana, “Biblioteca
classica Hoepliana”, p. 63) & call laughter heard smile. Volkelt’s distinction rests merely on the superficial
difference between drawing-room decorum & smoking-rook boisterousness, a
difference in noise, not in the nature of the fun. If Lord Chesterfield wished
that his son might “often be seen to smile, but never heard to laugh” (The Letters of Philip Dormer Stanhope,
ed. Bonamy Dobrée, III,
p. 1115), if both Swift & Pope resisted any tendency to laughter (Ibid., p. 1116, Dobrée’s note), if
Congreve thought laughter a “vulgar
expression” unbecoming a man of quality (Double
Dealer, I, i), & finally if Fontenelle boasted: “Je n’ai jamais fait: Ah! ah! ah!” (quoted in Sainte-Beuve, Les Grands Écrivains Français, études
classées et annotés par Maurice Allem, VII, p. 9); while on the other hand
Blake declared “I hate scarce smiles; I love laughing” (Gilchrist, Life of William Blake, “Everyman’s
Library”, p. 54), it means simply that they had different manners & moved
in different sociale milieu, not that they perceived the comic differently or
responded to different kinds of the comic. Though no “agelast”, Plato was never
seen to laugh outright in his youth (Diogenes Laertius, III, 26, “The Loeb Classical
Library”, I, p. 301) and objected to excessive laughter (Republic, 388e); & Socrates said that “one should use laughter
as one uses salt” (Stobaeus. Florilegium,
quoted in Atkins, Literary Criticism in
Antiquity, I, p. 58). For others who forestalled Lord Chesterfield in this,
see Marcellus Palingenius, Zodiacus vitae,
Fr. tr. by de la Monnerie, IV, p. 141; Owen Feltham, Resolves, XXXVIII; Francis Quarles, Enchiridion, III, maxim iii; Hobbes, Human Nature, ch. ix, §13; Antoine de Courtin, Traité de la civilité, p. 53; Shaftesbury, The Life, etc., ed. B. Rand, pp. 225-8. E.R. Curtius, Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches
Mittelalter, 2tes Aufl., S. 422: “Johannes Chrysostomos lehrt
(Migne Pat. Gr. 57, 69) Chritus habe
nie gelacht.” Though 安世高譯《佛說處處經》：“佛笑口有五色光出者，有五因緣：……二者，恐人言佛不知笑故.”[16] Swift, in particular, though he never laughed,
showed the most derb kind of humour. When Volkelt cited Ariosto’s poem full of
heart & rollicking fun as an instance of das Feinkomische, one can only permit oneself one of those feinem Lächeln described on S. 386.【Ch.
Morgenstern on Gladstone: “Er konnte nie über etwas lachen. / Wie kann ein
Mensch so tief verflachen!” (Epigramme
und Sprüche, R. Riper Verlag, 1921, S. 21)】
Bd. III, S. 157: “Das Bewusstsein
unterwirft das Unbewusste seiner Teleologie; es drückt diesem seine
Zweckrichtung ein. Die Bewusstseinsteleologie wird für das Unbewusste massgebende.”
Of course, this is not the Freudian unconscious which would be the wirepuller,
the power behind the throne, an agent of leading if not of light. C. Delisle
Burns has cleverly formulated the relationship between the conscious & the
unconscious: “The unconscious without the conscious is blind, as the conscious
without the unconscious is empty” (The
Horizon of Experience, p. 105); or as Edith Sitwell pungently says: “An
irrational spirit in logical form is manifest in Shakespeare, Da Vinci,
Beethoven; a logical spirit in an irrational form sprouts the poetasters &
the surrealists” (Tradition &
Experiment, ed. , p. 85).[17]
In discussing the ... influence of “academic orthodoxy” in American literature,
i.e. “analytic criticism” leading to “synthetic poetry”, Stephen Spender almost
says ditto to Edith Sitwell: “[American criticism] assumes that writing is an
intellectual process of making a work which can then be analysed back to its
elements by an intellectual process... There is surely something misleading in
writing of an unconscious process of creation as though Dylan Thomas
consciously wove such references into his poetry... A process of increasing
self-conscious purposiveness in writing gradually leads to the situation where
the analytic critic is almost dictating his themes to the self-conscious poet” (The Creative Element, pp. 182, 184, 185).
Cf. Spender, The Making of a Poem, p.
10; Conrad Aiken, A Reviewer’s ABC,
p. 94; 六百三十五則眉. Cf. Grillparzer’s epigram on “Shakespeare an
seinen Ausleger”: “Wie alles sich dir zur Absicht eint! / Du scheinst in meiner
Brust zu lesen. / So hätt ichs allerdings gemeint, / Heisst: wenn ich Ludwig Tieck
gewesen” (Werke, hrsg. Stefan Hock, Bd.
II, S. 245); again: “[Der Deutsche] der Dichter Herz und Nieren, / Kennt jede
Schwellung ihrer Brust, / Weiss mehr von Dante und Shakespearen, / Als jene
beide selbst gewusst” (Ibid., S.
252); Proust, Le Temps retrouvé, II,
p. 29: “Une oeuvre où il y a des théories est comme un objet sur lequel on
laisse la marque du prix”; Van Wyck Brooks, Opinions
of Oliver Allston, p. 246: “All this technical talk is vulgar. It concerns
what Henry James called the ‘secrets of the kitchen’, & in the kitchen it
has dignity, but it should not be obtruded at the dinner table”; also Guy Boas,
Lays of Learning: “I dreamt last
night that Shakespeare’s ghost / Sat for a Civil Service post. / The English
paper for the year / Had several questions on King Lear, / Which Shakespeare answered very badly, / Because he
hadn’t studied Bradley” (quoted in R.W. Chambers, Man’s Unconquerable Mind, p. 74). Volkelt cites from Schiller,
Goethe, Jean Paul, Heine, Hebbel & Schelling testimonials to das Bewusstlose in artistic creation;
Schiller’s remark in his letter to Goethe on March 27, 1801, “das Bewusstlose
mit dem Besonnenen vereinigt macht den poetischen Künstler aus” can be compared
to the views of Sitwell & Burns.【Cf. A.W. Schlegel, Brief über Poesie, Sylbenmass und Sprache, I: “Sie [die Theorie] ist
für die Poesie der Baum der Erkenntniss des Guten und Bösen: sobald diese davon
gekostet hatte, war ihr Paradies der Unschuld verloren” (Kritische Schriften und Briefe, W. Kohlhammer verlag, I, S. 146).】【Pushkin
in a letter to Vjazemskij, May 1826: “Poetry must be a little on the stupid
side” (M. Friedberg, A Decade of Euphoria,
p. 86).】Cf. Newbolt: “Tom — automaton — the Man in the Basement, the unconscious self” (The Later Life & Letters of Sir Henry Newbolt,
p. 190; cf. pp. 194, 240, 282, 310, 337); Kipling: “When your daemon is in
charge, do not try to think consciously. Drift, wait, obey” (Something of Myself, Albatross ed., p.
107);《梁書‧蕭子顯傳‧自序》：“每有製作，物寡思功，須其自來，不以力構”[18]; 李文饒《外集‧文章論》附〈箴〉：“惝怳而來，不思而至”[19]; also《西京雜記》卷二：“司馬相如為〈上林〉、〈子虛〉賦，忽然如睡，煥然而興”[20]. The last quotation shows that in artistic creation there is something
analogous to mystic experience; cf. The
Khāndogya Upanishad, VI, viii, 1-2: “When a man sleeps here, then... he
becomes united with the True; he is gone to his own (Self)” (The Sacred Books of the East, I, pp.
98-9). Francisco de Ossuna: “Dormimos a las cosas temporalis y callamos dentro
en nosotros” (E. Allison Peers, Spanish
Mysticism, p. 189); Bernardino de Laredo: “El sueño espiritual, en el cual,
adormidas las potencias de estas ánimas, se infunden y se transforman en el
amor de su Dios en pureza de substancia... quietud interior” (Ibid., p. 194); also J. Adam, The Vitality of Platonism, p. 38
(commenting on Pindar fr. 181). On S. 183-4 Volkelt names Gottsched, Boileau,
Poe & Richard Dehmel as exponents of the theory that “nicht der seelischen
Dumpfheit, sondern der geistigen Erleuchtung, nicht einem holdselig drangvollen
Unbewussten, sondern der Herrschaft des Gedankens entstammen die grossen Schöpfungen”.
Perhaps Richard Dehmel would have included Pindar, &Goethe and all the rest
among the “Herren Unbewusstler” he ridiculed in his Autobiografie, S. 10 ff. Cf. 十九, 七八三則.
四百四十九[21]
周必大跋李結〈西塞漁舍圖〉
周必大《周益國文忠公集》二百卷（道光二十八年刊一百六十二卷，咸豐元年續刊三十八卷），清季歐陽棨所校刻也。益公學問淹貫，而才情未足驅使之。詩意庸藻俗（《春融堂集》卷二十二〈舟中無事偶作論詩絕句〉：「楊監詩多終淺俗，平園老去亦疏庸。石湖居士真清遠，不獨驂鸞寫秋濃。」述庵詩識甚陋，此詩評益公却當），文亦懈鈍，四六雖能組運故事，平整而不警盪。孫奕《示兒編》極口推重，卷八謂其〈三忠堂碑〉破題可與東坡〈韓文公廟碑〉破題爭光，又歎其〈表〉、〈啟〉破題「字字破的，篇篇出奇，文中之虎」；卷十記[22]：「益公論詩謂要有警策，就題著句，不可泛泛」，舉慶、挽諸聯為例。鄉曲之私，場屋之見，未為知言。《後村大全集》卷一百〈跋益公親書艾軒神道碑〉云：「平園晚作，益自磨礪，然散語終是洗滌詞料氣習不盡，惟〈艾軒志銘〉極簡嚴有古意。」《隱居通議》卷十八駁之曰：「平順典雅則有之，謂之簡古則未也。工舉業者，力學古文，淘汰未盡，謂之『金盤盛狗矢』」，則正論也。惟雜記小文頗雅適，掌故紛綸，更不必言。《水東日記》卷二十一載益國周公詞科舊稿後刻益國親書一〈跋〉（記占象靈驗事）。
〈次韻王少府送蕉坑茶〉：「初似參禪逢硬語，久如味諫得端人。」
〈胡邦衡送酒有酒婢之語次韻〉：「侍郎情所寄，九醖屈楊枝。」按卷四〈邦衡置酒出小鬟予以官柳名之聞邦衡近買婢名野梅故以爲對〉（七律），是澹菴頗好聲色也。《鶴林玉露》卷十二：「澹庵十年貶海外，比歸，飲於湘潭胡氏園，題詩云：『君恩許歸此一醉，傍有梨頰生微渦。』謂侍妓黎倩也。後朱文公見之，題絕句云：『十年浮海一身輕，歸對梨渦却有情。世上無如人欲險，幾人到此誤平生。』」正可與平園詩印證。
卷四〈立春日飲羊羔酒〉：「傷多莫厭扶頭醉，貴少翻嫌滿眼花。」
〈次韻胡邦衡相迎〉：「衹今皇側求賢席，底事公銜樂聖杯。」
卷十四〈改左右丞相御筆并御批詔草録跋〉：「乾道七年十二月辛酉，有旨以僕射之名不正，欲採周、漢舊制，改左右丞相，令有司討論。右揆虞允文深不以爲然，嘗語客云：『既易履爲靴，又改相名，與虜奚辨？』」按靴本北俗，然自唐中葉以後，遂久為朝會公服（參觀《陔餘叢考》卷三十一），虞公之言云云，蓋徽宗時嘗廢靴而仍用履也（《學齋佔畢》卷二：「本朝徽宗政、宣間，嘗變靴為履矣。至高宗時，務反政、宣之失，仍變履為靴。此由秦檜不知書，而止知有北狄為國爺也」）。
〈虞允文梁克家拜相御筆跋〉：「舊例草后妃宰相制，皆有錫賚。紹興以來就賜御前所用金硯匣、筆格、鎮紙、糊筒、粘板等。後既不設此，乃謂打造不及，金百兩代之，殆減半也。」
卷十五〈總跋自刻六一帖〉：「昔公為《集古錄》，上起周穆，下迄五代，雖仙釋詭怪，平時力闢而不語者，苟一字畫可取，一事迹可記，莫不咸在。」按光律元《有不為齋隨筆‧辛》云：「《集古錄‧跋顏師古慈寺碑》云：『太宗英雄智識，而猶崇信浮圖，豈以其言浩博無窮而好盡物理為可喜耶？』公不喜浮圖，嘗著《本論》，斥其幻龐，兹又稱其『浩博無窮，好盡物理』。公於竺乾之書，知之深矣。」又按《韻語陽秋》卷十二云：「歐陽永叔素不信釋氏之說，如〈酬淨照師〉、〈酬惟悟師〉詩是也。既登二府，病亟，夢見釋氏所謂十王，問：『世人飯僧造經，為亡人追福，果有益乎？』曰：『安得無益？』既寤，病已，遂信佛法。文康公得之陳去非，去非得之公之孫恕，當不妄。葉少蘊守汝陰，謁見永叔之子棐，久不出。已而棐持數珠出，謝曰：『今日適與家人共為佛事。』葉問所以，棐曰：『先公無恙時，薛夫人已如此，公弗之禁也。』」又云：「歐公〈感事詩〉、〈仙草詩〉麾去神仙之說，而〈贈石唐山人詩〉乃云『神清之洞鎖樓台』、『鸞鶴今應待我來』，何耶？蔡約之云：『公守亳社日，有許昌齡者，得神仙之術，來游太清宮，公與語，豁然有悟。許告以公屋宅已壞，難復語此。』所謂〈石唐山人詩〉，乃公臨終寄許之作。」是則歐公暮年已墮二氏彀中矣。邵康節〈學佛吟〉云：「求名少日投宣聖，怕死老年親釋迦」（《擊壤集》卷十四），真洞察情隱語也。
〈題東坡元祐手錄〉：「前輩云：『故事勿語子容，今事勿語君實。』蓋二公有所聞，必書之冊也。然當時士大夫疑以傳疑，未必皆信，後世以二公名德之重，率取法焉。記事所由異同也。今東坡書子容數說，往往與史不合，如捕斬李壹及杜祁公為小人所擠二事，李燾作《長編》又雜取之。」按《雜著述》卷二十《二老堂雜志》卷四：「陸務觀云：『蘇子容聞人引故事，必就令撿出處。』司馬溫公聞新事，即錄於冊，且記所言之人。故當時諺曰：『古事莫語子容，今事勿告君實。』」《舊唐書‧忠義傳上‧高叡傳》：「子仲舒，宋璟嘗謂人曰：『古事問高仲舒，今事問崔琳，則亦何所疑矣！』」
卷十六〈跋宋景文公墨跡〉：「柳子厚作司馬刺史，詞章始極其妙，後世益信窮人詩乃工之說。景文出藩入從，終身榮顯，而述懷感事之作，徑逼子厚〈贈楊憑〉等詩，自非機杼既殊，經緯又至，安能底此？殆未可以窮達論也。」
〈跋蘇子由和劉貢父省上示座客詩〉：「集中觀詩難為詩，猶羣妹中觀色難為色也。吾友陸務觀，當今詩人之冠冕，數勸予哦蘇黃門詩。退取《欒城集》觀之，殊未識其旨趣。劉友子澄忽寄此卷相示，快讀數過，溫雅高妙，如佳人獨立，姿態易見，然後知務觀於此道，真先覺也。」按楊夔生《匏園掌錄》卷下云：「選詩之難，難於作詩。大抵如燕趙麗人，流觀無一不佳，實實欲捐金為我有，便覺無一可者。」二說各明一義。又按《瀛奎律髓》卷八方批云：「益翁常問詩法於放翁，對云：『當法子由。』此言深有旨，子由詩勝子瞻，不工、不博、不深，於其間字用力，而有幽味。[26]」紀批：「此似英雄欺人，子由終不及子瞻也。」竊謂紀批尚是恕詞，子由詩似子瞻而遠不如，有類婢之學夫人，詞、意皆無可采，如〈秀州僧本瑩淨照堂〉之「故山別後成新歲，歸夢春來繞舊房」，即學乃兄〈澠池懷舊〉之「老僧已死」一聯，而靈滯迥異。賀黃公《載酒園詩話》卷五云其暱欒城「殆甚於老坡」，而所稱如「雨餘嶺上雲披絮，石淺溪頭水蹙鱗」（《欒城集》卷十三〈初到績溪〉第一首），上句即本坡之〈新城道中〉「嶺上晴雲披絮帽」來也[27]。
〈跋山谷發願文〉：「今己刻石廬陵郡齋，然可傳者，位置形勢而已。若乃濃淡鮮妍，則副墨之子，亦如佩夫子象環耳。」
〈跋宗室子嵸藏前輩帖〉：「山谷翰墨，毀棄於大觀、政和間，而中興之初，搜訪甚急，故散在士大夫家者浸少。往聞唐文皇盡收二王真蹟，惟不取弔喪、問病者。此帖得傳於世，亦幾是耶？」
〈跋此菴記〉：「韓退之力排佛氏，欲火其書。柳子厚乃推尊之，謂與《論語》合浩初之左右佩劍。今攷二公心迹，誰為善學展季者耶？」
〈跋宋景文公唐史稿〉：「香山詩語平易，六一文體清駛，疑若信手而成者，閒觀遺稿，則竄定甚多。景文之於唐史，尤宜不苟也。」按益公編定《六一集》，故得觀遺稿，至香山稿，或出傳聞耳。《苕溪漁隱叢話前集》卷八正《冷齋夜話》之謬，而引張文潛云：「世以樂天詩為得於容易而來，嘗於洛中一士人家見白公詩草數紙，點竄塗之，及其成篇，殆與初作不侔。」王正德《餘師錄》卷二載張芸叟語云：「世謂樂天之文閑和夷暢，必得之容易。予今再見樂天稿草，雖數句詩，必加塗抹至十數字者，何也？豈其良玉必加琱琢，大匠不敢廢斤斧耶？不然《魁紀公》應是一揮而成，文不加㸃也」云云。益公之語，當是本此。芸叟語，不見今本《畫墁集》中。《隨園詩話》卷六謂：「白香山詩云：『舊句時時改，無妨悅性情。』周元公之言信矣。」所謂「元公」，當即指「益公」，蓋出於稗販也。
卷十七〈跋初寮先生帖〉：「初寮先生未冠時，及拜東坡於中山，筆精墨妙，宜有傳授。當政、宣間，禁切蘇學，一涉近似，旋坐廢錮，而先生以奪胎換骨之手，揮毫禁林，初無疑者。靖康而後，黨禁己解，玉佩瓊琚之詞，怒猊渴驥之書，盛行於東南，然後人人知其蘇門顏閔也。」按《平園續稿》卷十三〈初寮先生前後集序〉云：「時方諱言蘇學，而公潛啟其秘鑰。萬目睽睽，徒謂其鶴鳴九臯，而不知奪胎換骨，自有仙手。黃、張、晁、秦既沒，系文統，接墜緒，誰出公右？」《瀛奎律髓》卷二十四亦有「初寮陰學東坡文，韓子蒼陰學山谷詩」之說，二十七亦云：「當蘇學方以為禁，而陰襲東坡步驟，世人不悟也。此〈山茶〉詩亦全用東坡句翻出，不可不令學者知之。」周煇《清波雜志》卷六亦謂初寮〈象州上元〉五古與東坡〈上元詩〉（「前年侍玉輦」云云）「語意切類」。《須溪集》卷六〈題劉玉田選杜詩〉云：「初寮跋坡帖，頗病學蘇者橫肆逼人，因舉『不復知天大，空餘見佛尊』二語，乍見極若有省，及尋上句本意，不過樹密天少耳，『見』字宜作『現』音，猶言『現在佛』，讀如字，則『空餘見』殆何等語矣？」云云，雖不免鑿，亦見初寮之為坡門忠臣矣。《獨醒雜志》卷十云：「王履道安中初學東坡書，後仕於崇、觀，宣、政間，頗更少習。南渡以來，復還其舊」云云，是初寮書法亦師蘇也。《曲洧舊聞》卷七則謂初寮：「議論淵源多得於晁以道，而作詩句法頗似山谷。」《誠齋集》卷九十九〈跋尚提幹所藏王初寮帖〉[28]：「覽王初寮〈帖〉卷首，愛其字畫美秀，而其神氣風骨，竟莫名其冑出也。最後〈次韻尚仲明衡陽〉十絕句，如『歗臺』、『雁峯』等字，乃知其為東坡之別子。豈其出之於建炎之後，而秘之於宣、政之間耶？」
〈跋汪季路所藏朱希真帖〉：「希真避亂南渡，流落嶺海江浙間，德壽皇帝因明槖薦，特召而用之。既掛冠矣，秦丞相擢其子為勅局刪定官，希真間來就養，是時東閣郎君慕其詩名，欲從之游，為修廢官，留為鴻臚少卿。希真愛子而畏禍，不能引退。秦薨，例遭論罷。出處固有可議，然亦可憫也。」按《雜著述》卷十五《二老堂詩話》卷上「朱希真出處」條更詳，謂：希真舊有〈鷓鴣天〉云：「幾曾著眼看侯王，且插梅花醉洛陽」蜀人武橫作詩譏之云：「少室山人久挂冠，不知何事到長安。如今縱插梅花醉，未必王侯著眼看。」
卷十八〈題宋景文公家書〉：「前輩謂：『文章當如作家書。』今勸景文公家書皆成文章，是固一理也。」
卷二十〈王元渤洋右史文集序〉：「葉少蘊嘗問公：『劉貢父精於漢史，謂杜詩「功曹非復漢蕭何」為誤用事，信乎？』公曰：；『〈高紀〉：「蕭何為主吏計。」孟康注：「功曹也。」』」按少蘊《避暑錄話》卷上記此則讀書自得，非問之元渤也。汪應辰《文定集》卷十〈跋劉貢父詩話〉亦云：「〈漢高祖紀〉：『蕭何為主吏。』孟康注曰：『主吏，功曹也。』孫策謂虞翻曰：『卿以功曹爲吾蕭何。』則杜非誤。」《墨莊漫錄》卷二亦引孟康注駁貢父。《西溪叢語》卷上亦然。
卷二十二〈謝除學官啟〉：「二年在泮，席既煖而安焉；一命登畿，氊雖寒而寵矣。」
《平園續稿》卷一〈上巳訪楊廷秀賞牡丹其東園僅一畝為術者九名曰三三徑意象極新〉：「回環自斸三三徑，頃刻常開七七花。」
卷三〈元宵煮浮圓子前輩似未曾賦此〉（五律）。
卷五什九為自贊寫真，皆應人求，大似今人以機照名人象索題詞事。
卷六〈跋鄴侯遺事奏稿〉：「朱公喬年之子元晦為某言：『先君子少喜學荊公書，多諸真跡。』」
〈跋何居仁自作墓誌〉：「泛論古今，來聽者唯恐後，如司馬長卿之傾座也。而高談濶論，頗為鄉校之議，其去者亦惟恐後，又如列侯陳遵之驚座也。」
卷十一〈跋楊廷秀飲酒對月辭〉：「退之稱柳子厚云：『玉佩瓊琚，大放厥詞。』子瞻〈答王庠書〉云：『詞至於達而已矣。』誠齋此詩可謂樂斯二者。」
卷十四〈曾氏農器譜題詞〉：「宋景文本賈思勰謂牛耕始趙過[30]，以駁王弼《易傳》之說。予謂輔嗣固失矣，賈、宋亦未為得也。《論語》：『犁牛之子騂且角。』蓋犁田之牛，純雜牝牡皆可，祭牛則非純非牡不可。孔子弟子冉耕亦字伯牛。《禮記》、《呂氏‧月令》：『季冬出土牛』，示農知耕早晚。賈誼《新書》、劉向《新序》俱載鄒穆公曰：『百姓飽牛而耕。』大率在東漢之際，趙過特教人耦犁共二牛，費省而功倍耳。[31]」按趙彥衛《雲麓漫鈔》卷一、羅璧《羅氏識遺》卷六皆舉冉伯牛名字之例，羅氏并舉司馬牛亦名耕。益公此作，尤為博覈。
卷十五〈書贈安福劉儼子思〉：「往年楊廷秀歎劉子思才名，二十年獨遺場屋，今又十五年，未遇如初。予安能知，盍問諸嚴君平乎？不然，讀房千里〈骰子選格序〉，爲一餉之歡，洗積年之滯可也。」
〈書曾無疑匹紙〉：「蘇文忠全素慕白樂天之為人，蓋二公文章皆以詞達為主，其忠厚樂施，剛直盡言，與人有情，於物無著，亦略相似。樂天為忠州刺史，作〈東坡〉、〈種花〉二詩，又有〈步東坡〉詩。文忠中年謫黃州，遂號東坡居士，後為從官，羨樂天口之不置。」按此意又見《雜著述》卷十五《二老堂詩話》卷上「東坡立名」條。參觀《容齋三筆》卷五「東坡慕樂天」條。
卷二十二〈盧陵縣學三忠堂記〉：「文章天下之公器，萬世不得而私也；節義天下之大閑，萬世不得而踰也。」按《履齋示兒編》卷八極稱數語破題之妙，以為可與永叔〈縱囚論〉、韓文公〈廟碑〉二篇破題爭光，且二篇各論一人，此篇包舉歐陽修、楊邦義、胡銓三人，尤為難能[32]。夫此破誠佳，然即以場屋論文法繩之，下文平敘三人，一曰：「士大夫翕然尊之，天子從而謚之」，未嘗呼應破題始。歐有無節義，楊、胡有無文章，並未點清繳足，亦不得為滴水不漏也。
《雜著述》（諸《錄》皆日記也）卷一《親征錄》：「諸將每遇敵，輒以捷告。都人望旗呼舞，尚書省揭黃榜於通衢，不移刻摹印遍都下。驗其地，則皆自北而南，實未嘗有所獲也。」按《清波雜志》卷五：「紹興辛巳冬，敵馬飲淮，煇在建康城中。南北既交兵，捷音日馳，後生輩喜躍，獨老成人有憂色。言頃歲擾攘，三鎮失守，何嘗不日報捷於外路」云云。《三朝北盟會編》炎興下帙一百三十六引《遺史》云：「是時諸處以報捷旗趨行在者，絡繹于道路。市人為之語曰：雖日聞報捷可喜，但一報近於一報，亦可憂。」皆可參觀。
「鄭樵字愚仲，力學著書，不事科舉，屢至闕下，游諸公間。至是，欲進《通志》而病，病數日而卒，年五十九。樵好為攷証倫類之學，成書雖多，大抵博而寡要，平生甘枯淡，樂施予，獨切切於仕進，識者以是少之。」
「蔡子平洗，乃君謨曾孫。陳亞嘗有『蔡襄無口便成衰』之戲，自是子孫立名多連口字，惟子平從水。」
卷二《龍飛錄》：「初，洪景盧在境上，與接伴約用敵國禮，故沿路表章皆用在京舊式。纔入燕京，盡却回，使景盧依近例易之，景盧不可。於是扃驛門，絕供饋。而館伴者云：『嘗從景盧父尚書公學，陽吐情實，言勿固執。』景盧等懼留，易表章授之。既入見，使副例不跪，至是皆跪，虜主傳令云：『國書不如式，不當受，可付有司。』其詭詐虛喝類此。」
「越人以欲雪而日光穿漏為『雪眼』。」
卷六《泛舟游山錄》卷二：「汪強中謂酒有五品：苦、淡、酸、臭、甜。其貶甜乃在臭之下。」
卷十《思陵錄》卷上：「上問：『誰可為太常？』予奏：『論學問該洽，無如尤袤，但其人物短小眾［sic］人，恐前導時不軒昂。』上曰：「此不須管，顧學問如何耳。』」
「紫霞帔二十道：藍合兒、藍福福、譚強兒、鄺寶寶。聽宣二十道：劉寶奴、劉惜兒、王換奴、李好奴、張倩兒、胡迎兒。」《隨隱漫錄》卷二記度宗所幸有王秋兒、朱春兒、朱夏兒、周冬兒等。《靖康稗史》第三種《開封府狀》所列宋妃嬪名尤鄙俚可笑。
「洪邁言太上時有老中官云：『太上臨生，徽宗嘗夢吳越錢王引御衣云：「我好來朝，便留住我，終須還我山河，待教第三子來。」』邁父皓在虜買一妾，東平人，偕其母來。母曾在明節皇后閣中，能言顯仁皇后初生太上時，夢金甲神人，自稱錢武肅王鏐，年八十一，太上亦八十一。卜都於此，亦不偶然。」
卷上按日記宋高宗病狀并藥方，卷下記陵寢。按《說郛》卷二十九《朝野遺記》云：「北風甚勁，而上誤信汪、黃之言，亦不甚虞。比江都宮中方有所御宰，而張浚告變者遽至，矍然驚惕，遂病痿腐。故明受殂後，後宮絕孕。」《己卯叢編》中《靖康稗史》亦記康王好色。《清波雜志》卷一乃云：「高宗踐祚之初，一日語宰執曰：『朕性不喜與婦人久處』云云。」人言自言，果將孰信乎？
《玉堂雜記》卷下「禁中鎖院」條：「內夫人失於詳閱。」按「內夫人」即宮女之諱，五代已有，宋承之，見《十國春秋‧吳‧李德誠傳》、《南唐‧嚴續傳》，又《國老談苑》（《西雲札記》卷三）。
卷十五《二老堂詩話》卷上：「陶靖節〈讀山海經〉詩云：『形夭無千歲，猛志故常在。』曾紘易為『刑天舞干戚』，《竹坡詩話》襲為己說。余謂此題十三篇，篇指一事。前篇終始記夸父，則此篇恐專說精衛啣石。若并指刑天，似不相續。末句云：『徒設在昔心，良晨詎可待。』何預干戚之猛耶？」
「《池陽集》載：杜牧之守郡時，有妾懷娠而出之，以嫁州人杜筠，後生子，即荀鶴也。此事人罕知。予過池嘗有詩云：『千古風流杜牧之，詩材猶及杜筠兒。向來稍喜唐風集，今悟樊川是父師。』」按亦見《游山錄》卷二、《省齋集》卷四〈池陽四詠〉，《唐才子傳》卷九遂逕襲其說矣。
「陸務觀云：『性之謂東坡〈詠董卓〉詩譏介甫也，「豈信車中有布乎」借呂布以指惠卿姓、曾布名也。』」
「朱新仲《鄞川志》載郭功父老人〈十拗詩〉謂『不記近事記遠事，不能近視能遠視，哭無淚笑有淚，夜不睡日睡，不肯坐多好行，不肯食軟要食硬，兒子不惜惜孫子，大事不問碎事絮，少飲酒多飲茶，暖不出寒即出。』予補一聯云：『夜雨稀聞聞耳雨，春花微見見空花。』」按太平老人《袖中錦》云：「老人有十拗：白日頓睡，夜間不交睫。哭則無淚，笑則泣下。三十年前事總記得，眼前事轉頭忘了。喫肉肚裏無，總在牙縫裏。面白反黑，髮黑反白。」《文海披沙》卷四云：「夜不臥而晝瞌睡，子不愛而愛孫，近事不記而記遠事，哭無淚而笑有淚，近不見而遠却見，打却不疼不打却疼，面白却黑髮黑却白，如廁不能蹲作揖却蹲，此老人之反也。」沈日霖《晉人麈》（《屑玉叢談三集》）〈老人十拗〉云：「肯近不肯遠，淚笑不淚哭，睡日不睡夜，出雨不出晴，憶昔不憶今，愛細不愛鉅，愛孫不愛子，惜畜不惜人，惡逸不惡勞，傷廉不傷惠。」姜特立《梅山續稿》卷二〈偶成〉：「僻習難施日用間，老人拗事更相關。愁來得句翻成樂，忙裏尋詩却是閒。」方中通《續陪》卷三〈老病〉：「對客忽眠宵便覺，吃餐以飽過夜飯。」
卷十六《二老堂詩話》卷下：「予家有米元章書『長壽菴』三字，後題：『人是西方無量佛，壽如南極老人星。』不知古人詩句，或元章自作也？」
The
Letters of Lord Chesterfield, ed. Bonamy Dobrée, six volumes.
Even if the innumerable and — one
must, pace his Lordship, say — wearisome
repetitions were excised, there would still remain God’s plenty of wit &
wisdom. Chesterfield’s expressed ideal is the combination of French
good-breeding with English knowledge (passim
e.g. II, p. 526), of lustre with weight (passim
e.g. III, p. 877), but its logical inclusion would be nothing less than
Castiglione’s Courtier with his sprezzatura,
plus Machiavelli’s Politician with
his virtù. The “last edition” of his “works”
(cf. III, p. 896) is really Il Cortigiano
& Il Principe bound in a single
volume. This is what Samuel Foote’s famous verdict (The letters “inculcate the
morals of a whore & the manners of a dancing master” — Table-Talk, ed. J. Thornton, “Everyman’s Lib.”, p. 126) boils down
to.[34]
Bonamy Dobrée has not probe the matter to the bottom when he dismissed it with
a reference to “the Horatian rationalistic attitude” (I, p. 162).The
scandalized hullabaloo aroused by Chesterfield’s worldly wise saws &
modernist instances is only another illustration of the truth that words shock
more than deeds, & it requires more courage to say things than to do them.
Indeed, his fundamentally decent gentleman-diplomat would seem only a softie to
the old hands at the tough & rough game of Realpolitik, and would on his
part find such a game “not cricket”; he stoops, it is true, but not enough to
conquer, because among other things, he will not tell a lie (e.g. III, p. 1008;
IV, p. 1484) & considers “simulation”, “false, mean, & criminal” (e.g.
IV, p. 1351). Here Chesterfield’s advice seems to me casuistical rather than
practical, for not only les vices sont
frères, but they are so close that there is between them a kind of osmosis
or, as Jeremy Taylor says of virtues & vices, They are not “like warlike nations
separated by prodigious walls, vast seas & portentous hills” but “like the
bounds of a parish” (The Golden Grove,
ed. L.P. Smith, p. 147). “Dissimulation” & “simulation”, “conceding a truth”
& “telling a lie” are in real life often one & the same thing, &
R.L. Stevenson’s profound observation, “the cruelest lies are often told in
silence” (Virginibus Puerisque, IV;
cf. Hazlitt, Characteristics, XV: “The
silence of a friend commonly amounts to treachery”, Complete Works, ed. P.P. Howe, IX, p. 168), neatly shows the
identity of the opposites. Even he himself has to make an exception to his own
rule & say that simulation is “allowable” in dealing with women (IV, p.
1354, cf. p. 1438), who, as he affirms again & again, can be used as tools
for getting at the secrets of the Court or as links in the chain that leads up
to the prince (IV, p. 1235, p. 1383). So it is very difficult, I will not say
impossible, for a politician in playing his tricks to say to himself “Thus far
& no further!”; a man of action cannot afford to be a scrupulously honest
person bent upon presenting a clean bill of moral health (cf. infra a propos of p. 1351). As Hazlitt
says: “Want of moral principle is power. Truth & honesty set a limit to our
efforts, which impudence & hypocrisy easily overleap” (Characteristics, CXCVII, Complete
Works, ed. P.P. Howe, IX, p. 197; cf. C, p. 183). Curiously enough, with
all his clairvoyance, Chesterfield failed to see that “morals” & “manners”
cannot be rigidly separated (cf. IV, p. 1249), & that to be preoccupied
with one’s manners in order to be aimable,
because to be aimable is the key to
success, raises a moral problem & implies a judgement of practical reason.
It is all very well to say that social talents have their moral value (I, p.
164), but to cultivate social talents because careers are open to social rather
than other talents (passim e.g. IV,
p. 1261, p. 1748), is set store by them for sake of a value other than moral. It is of course
just another one of life’s little ironies that Stanhope should become a dull,
pedantic fellow for all his father’s efforts & exhortations. But even if he
had acquitted himself better, I wonder whether he would have satisfied his
father. On the subject of the petit-muîtres
français & their German, Italian & English imitators, Chesterfield
writes: “Il n’y a que l’original qui plaît, toutes les traductions en sont
pitoyables” (IV, p. 1357). Chang
traductions into copies, & we have the moral of the
whole story of this parental solicitude & advice. Sedulous apes, to mix the
metaphors, remain mere coy-cats. Such an assiduous reader of La Rochefoucauld
as Chesterfield could not have forgotten the maxim, “Les seules bonnes copies
sont celles qui nous font voir le ridicule des méchants originaux” (Réflexions ou sentences, §133, Maximes, éd. “La Renaissance du Livre”,
p. 38), but he could not possibly be expected to perceive that even if the originaux were not méchants, the copies would be ridiculous because qua copies they are something de mécanique plaqué sur le vivant (cf.
Bergson, Le Rire, p. 133). Cf. also Guicciardini,
Istoria d’Italia, Lib. VI: “L’imitazione
del male supera sempre l’esempio, come per il contrario l’imitazione del bene è
sempre inferior” (Ed. Milano, 1803, vol. III, p. 232). R.W. Chapman, Johnsonian & Other Essays & Reviews,
p. 121 on Chesterfield’s letters: “The letters are not affected by those he
received; there is no interplay; they are addressed not to a real young man,
but to a pattern of docility which the writer had fashioned out of his own
ambitions & passionate affection.”
Chesterfield never addressed his son
“Mon Petit Drôle” or “Mon Petit Éveillé” as he did his godson. A very
intriguing psychological problem.
Vol. I. P. xxiv on some peculiarities
of his French spelling. Though he writes French as if to the manner born, there
are occasional lapses in his grammar, e.g. “elles [les étoffes] se sont fait trop longtemps attendre” (IV, p.
1369). He writes Italian with much less command, e.g. “si ricordi del garbo, della
gentilezza, e della leggiadria: cose tante
necessarie ad un cavaliere” (IV, p. 1467)
— equivalent to the
over-correct “Intimidated English” exemplified in “Whom shall I say is calling?”
But as he himself says: “Les crimes de lèse-grammaire sont pardonnables dans
une langue étrangère” (IV, p. 1586). Incidentally, Chesterfield is one of the
very few English authors quoted in the original in Leopardi’s Zibaldone, & is praised as “veramente
molto pratico e della lingua, ed anche dei particolari e minuti detti usuali
nel nostro parlar familiar” (Zib.,
ed. F. Flora, II, p. 1080).
P. 214: “Tyrawley & I have been
dead these two years; but we don’t choose to have it known.” Cf. Journal des Goncourt, VI, p. 142: “Littré,
à une demande de renseignements historiques, que lui adressait Renan, lui répondait
par une lettre, où il le suppliait de le laisser tranquille, dans cette belle
et désolée phrase: ‘J’ai le droit de passer pour mort.’”
Vol. II. P. 321: “On a fait une
jolie epigramme au sujet de Didon, que je vous envoie: ‘Pauvre Didon! où t’a réduite
/ De tes maris le triste sort? / L’un en mourant cause ta fuite, / L’autre en
fuyant cause ta mort.’” Chesterfield quotes the epigram again for the benefit
of his Godson (VI, pp. 2625, 2725, with the Latin original). Leibniz also
quotes the epigram, giving tels for tes, & comments: “sans prendre
garde, que c'estoit le sort de Didon même, et non pas celuy de ses maris qui étoient
[sic] triste, car Enée fut heureux. Autres fois un François, homme de savoir,
m’ayant dit qu’on n’avoit pas le [sic] rendre aussi serré en François qu’il l’est
en latin, voicy comme je l’essay: ‘Quel mari qu’ait Didon, son malheur la
poursuit. / Elle fuit quand l’un meurt, et meurt quand l’autre fuit’” (An die die
Königin Sophie Charlotte, in Philosophische Schriften, hrsg. von
C.J. Gerhardt, Bd. VI, S. 524). Leibniz’s French grammar seems as faulty as
Chesterfield’s. A number of Italian versions are given in Thraliana, among
which may be mentioned the Marquis of Araciel’s “Misera Dido! fra i nuziali
ardori, / L’un muore e fuggi; l’altro fugge e muori” (vol. II, p. 670); Guarini’s
“O sfortunata Dido! / Mal fornita d’amante e di marito! / Ti fu quel traditor —
questo tradito: / Morì l’uno e fuggisti, / Fuggì l’altro e moristi” (p. 6710;
the Abate Ravasi’s “Misera Dido! che fra gl’amor ti struggi. / L’un fugge e
muori, l’altro muore e fuggi” & “Dido! a qual maristo serbar gl’onori? / Se
un muore e fuggi; l’altro fugge e muori” (p. 673) [35].
In fairness to the memory of Dido, Chesterfield, especially as he was an
enthusiastic reader of Ariosto, ought to have quoted Orlando Furioso, Canto XXXV. 28: “Da l’altra parte, odi che fama
lascia / Elissa, ch’ebbe il cor tanto pudico; / Che riputata viene, una
bagascia, / Solo perché Maron non le fu amico” (Ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p. 378).
Petrarch had already said in Trionfo
della Castità: “... e Dido, / ch’amor
pio del suo sposo a morte
spinse, / non quel d’Enea com’è ’l publico grido” (Le Rime, “I Classici del Giglio”, p. 433).
P. 364: “La politesse des gens de cour,
et du beau monde, est naturelle & aisée; et il faut bien la distinguer de
la politesse des bourgeois, ou des campagnards, qui est très gênante et
incommode. Ces gens-là sont tout pleins de façons, et vous accablent à force de
complimens... campagnard vous étouffe en vous embrassant, et vous jette à
terre, pour vous faire passer le premier.” Very true; but this noisy &
almost brutal courteousness so characteristic of the good-manners of the
ill-bred, which is pithily conveyed by the Italian saying, o mangi questa minestra o salti dalla finestra, has its reverse
side as “Dans la bourgeoisie, la grande peur de chacun est de faire au prochain
une ‘avance’ trop marquée qu’il considèrerait comme une humiliation. Un noble,
par contre, a tellement l’idée de sa grandeur que, quelle que soit son amabilité,
il ne peut pas s’abaisser envers un inférieur. Les règles de la politesse consistent
pour un duc à faire croire à un bourgeois qu’il est cependant son égal, bien
plus que vous lui êtes supérieur. Du côte de l’inférieur, la politesse consiste
à ne pas croire à cette avalanche d’expressions aimables et à protester... La
politesse du noble exprime seulement son immense orgueil... A cette comédie de
la politesse, le bourgeois restera fermé. Cet empressement que lui témoignera
le duc, il le pendra pour de l’argent comptant” (Léon Pierre-Quint, Marcel Proust: Sa vie, son oeuvre, pp.
181-2).【Sodome et Gomorrhe, II, ch. 3 (À
la recherche du temps perdu, “Bib. de la Pléiade”, II, p. 1069).】As Le Baron
de Charlus says, “Condescendre n’est pas descender.” (Cf. Heine, Reisebilder, III, Kap. 11: “die
starrsten Aristokraten sind froh, wenn sie Gelegenheit finden zur Herablassung,
denn dadurch eben fühlen sie, wie hoch sie gestellt sind”
— Gesam. Werk., hrsg. G. Karpeles, III, S. 20).
P. 460: “A genteel manner prepossesses
people in your favour” etc. This is a leit-motiv
of Chersterfield’s exhortations. How to sit, to stand, to walk, to carry
oneself — & to do all these one has to take lessons with a dancing master
even though nemo saltat sobrius (cf,
III, p. 698; IV, p. 1295, p. 1581, p. 1612; VI, p. 2895)[36].
Goethe’s remark seems very pertinent here: “Was die Franzosen Tournure nennen, ist eine zur Anmut
gemilderte Anmassung. Man sieht daraus, dass die Deutschen keine Tournure haben können; ihre Anmassung
ist hart und herb, ihre Anmut mild und demütig, das Eine schliesst das andere
aus und sind nicht zu verbinden” (Sprüche
in Prosa, hrsg. von Löper, §147). “Insolence tempered with grace” cannot be
bettered as a definition of the Grand Manner.
P. 461: on proverbs as the language
of footmen & housemaids, cf. p. 1407 on proverbs as “the flowers of the
rhetoric of a vulgar man”. Dr. Thomas Fuller is also of the opinion that “constant
popping off of proverbs will make thee a byword thyself” (L.P. Smith, A Treasury of English Aphorisms, p.
174); cf. Kant, Anthropologie, §56, Werke, hrsg. E. Cassirer, VIII, III: “Durch
Sprichwörter reden ist daher die Sprache des Pöbels, und beweiset den
gänzlichen Mangel des Witzes im Umgange mit der feineren Welt.” However, like
Don Quixote who cursed Sancho for threading proverbs but would himself
occasionally string them (cf. Don Quixote,
Pt. II, ch. 43, 67, 68, S. Putnam’s translation, vol. II, pp. 783, 951, 953),
Chesterfield was not above resorting to proverbs like “spoiling a hog for
halfpenny worth of tar” or “il y a de la merde au bout du baton” when they
served his purpose (V, p. 1997; VI, p. 2651), though he always took care to
introduce them by the expression, “to use a very coarse & vulgar saying”,
or “the vulgar have a coarse saying”
— an excellent example of
what H.W. Fowler called “Superiority” (Modern
English Usage, p. 585), or the attempt to touch pitch but not be defiled.
P. 464: “To begin a story or
narration... & to say in the middle of it, ‘I have forgot the rest,’ is very
unpleasant & bungling.” The most amusing example is the joke in《傳家寶初集》卷七〈笑得好〉：“一人向眾誇說：‘我見一首虎詩，做得極好極妙，止四句，便描寫已盡。’傍人請問，其人曰：‘頭一句是甚的甚的虎，第二句是甚的甚的苦，第三句其實忘了，還虧第四句記得明白，是狠得很的意思 ‘”.[37]
Pp. 553-4: on Humour & its “two handles”, to borrow a useful metaphor from
Epictetus’s Encheiridion, XLIII (Epictetus, “The Loeb Classical Library”,
tr. by W.A. Oldfather, II, p. 527). The new sense had emerged, but the old
sense was not yet extinct. I wonder whether F. Baldensperger has quoted this in
his essay.
Vol. III. P. 732: “Horace’s Art of Poetry [is] his masterpiece,
& the rules he there lays down are applicable to almost every part of life.”
This défaut de la qualité becomes
even more pronounced in Horace’s imitator Boileau so that the irreverent
Saintsbury demands: “Is Boileau’s Art
Poétique in any vital & important sense an Art of Poetry at all, any
more than it is an Art of Pig-breeding or of Pottery-making? In all these
useful & agreeable pursuits it is desirable to know what you are about, to
proceed cautiously, etc. etc. But what is there specifically poetical about all
this?” (History of Criticism, II, p.
296; E.R. Curtius called Boileau “diese beschränkter Banause” & expressed
agreement with Saintsbury’s estimates in Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches
Mittelalter, IIte Auf., S. 270). Croce,
La Poesia, tr. D. Dreyfus, p. 50: “Qu’on
pense au fameux styliste francais, Boileau, pauvre de fantaisie et aussi
d’expérience: au fond, il n’avait rien d’autre à dire que du mal des mauvais écrivains.”
But cf. W.G. Moore’s article in French Studies,
Jan. 1960, pp. 52-62 in which Curtius’s judgement on Boileau is refuted.
P. 799: “Search everyone for that
ruling passion” etc. Dobrée in the footnote quotes from Pope’s Moral Essays; Johnson in his Life of Pope attacked this as a
pernicious & dangerous doctrine (Lives
of the English Poets, ed. G.B. Hill, III, p. 174). Cf. Frederick the Great’s
remark: “Die Hauptsache, wenn man die Menschen leiten will, besteht darin,
ihren Geschmack, ihre Ansichten und ihre Schwächen zu kennen”, & his
illustration of it by a piquant anecdote about his own grandmother (Gespräche Friedrichs des Grossen mit Henri
de Catt[38],
S. 11, quoted in I. Bloch, Die
Prostitution, I, S. 14).
P. 973: “My Lord Bacon says, that a
pleasing figure is a perpetual letter of recommendation.” Dobrée in his note
quotes from Bacon’s essay “Of Ceremonies & Respects”: “Like perpetual
letters commendatory, to have good forms.” I think Chesterfield’s memory must
have “conflated” Bacon’s saying with the dictum of Archbishop Germonius in his De Legatis Principum et Populorum (1627):
“Beauty recommend a man better than any letter” (quoted in J.J. Jusserand, The School for Ambassadors, p. 13).
P. 1000: “Pour moi, qui ne suis
nullement philosophe... je trouve que l’attraction universelle dé notre Newton
a quelque chose d’infiniment plus joli et de plus galant” etc. An example of Newtonianism per le dame then much in
vogue (cf. C.M. Conrad Wright, A
History of French Literature, p.
444; also Mr Jolter’s lecture in Peregrine
Pickle, ch. 24), an endeavor, in Dr Johnson’s phrase on Walter,
to “fetch an amorous sentiment from the depth of science”. The thing is of
course much older; see e.g., Ben Jonson, Every
Man out of His Humour, II, i. on Sir Puntarvolo “making congies to his wife
in geometrical proportions”, Andrew Marvell, “The Definition of Love”, etc. See
also E. de Selincourt, Wordsworth & Other Studies, pp. 158 ff.
Pp. 1066-7: “I knew a gentleman who
was so good a manager of his time that he would not even lose that small
portion of it which the calls of nature obliged him to pass in the necessary-house;
but gradually went through all the Latin poets in those moments. He bought, for
example, a common edition of Horace, of which he tore off gradually a couple of
pages, carried them with him to that necessary place, read them first, &
then sent them down as a sacrifice to Cloacina,” that is, use them both as
reading material & as bum-fodder. Cf. Coleridge’s polysyllabic humour: “I
left the Annual Anthology behind! — Save, O save it from Edward's
papyrologiophagous Cacodaemony!” (Collected Letters, ed. E.L. Griggs, I,
p. 532); Joyce, Ulysses, “The Modern
Library”, pp. 68-9, Bloom reading a paper “asquat on the cuckstool” etc.;
Boswell, The Ominous Years, Jan. 11,
1776: “Began to read Macquer’s Chemistry
while I was at stool, & thought that by getting a habit of reading it while
at that operation, I would get through it by degrees, & each portion of it
would be keenly seized.” Cf.《歸田錄》：“錢思公云：‘平生惟好讀書，坐則讀經史，臥則讀小說，上廁則閱小詞。’謝希深亦言：‘宋公垂每走廁，必挾書以往，諷誦之聲朗然，聞於遠近’”；《北東園筆錄初編》卷一：“家大人［梁章鉅］公車詣京時，及見余秋室學士，嘗因問私請曰：‘先生書法精妙，何以不得鼎元？’學士笑曰：‘丙戌科榜下歸班時，有廣東吳某者來訪，曰：“君其出恭看書耶？”予怪之，吳曰：“我亦犯此罪過，去歲大病，夢入陰司，閻王命判官取，判官取生死簿，上簽‘出恭看書’，余減壽二紀，君削狀元為進士”‘“；《圍爐詩話》卷一：“人之登廁，不可無書，無書則不暢。書須淺陋，不足嚴待，又逐段易了者，《韻府群玉》、《五車韻瑞》最善”；錢泳《履園叢話》17：“戴堯垣《春水居筆記》載杭州余秋室學士廁上看書折去狀元一事甚詳。乾隆壬子七月，余初次入京，見學士即問此事，學士曰有之。……雲間蔡禮齋，通才也，最喜在窬桶上看書，鄉試十餘科不第。……作江西縣丞，……窮苦殊甚。有長子甚聰慧，未婚而死，禮齋亦旋歿。余嘗勸之，不聽”；《全三國文》卷五十三伏義〈與阮嗣宗書〉：“古人稱竊簡寫律，踞廁讀書，誦之可悼.”In his essay L’Amore
del Libri, Edmondo di Amicis comments on the scarcity of books in the
Italian household & says that “la
sola proprietà libraria della casa” consists of a few “laceri e scuciti”
volumes which are kept “per smorzare la candela, per accendere il fuoco, per
fornire di carta le parti della casa dove è bene che ci sìa sempre carta” (E.
Grillo, The Italian Prose Writers, p.
580) — “bathroom stationary” or loo paper included. Cf. 第五十二則 on Catullus, XXXVI, 1 & 20[39]. Robert Herrick, “To His Book”: “Who with thy leaves
shall wipe (at need) / The place where swelling piles do breed; / May every ill
that bites or smarts / Perplex him in his hinder parts” (Poetical Works, ed. L.C. Martin, p. 6). Fr. von Logau: “Auf
Marcum”: “Was du, Marcus, hast geschrieben, ist gewiss sehr gut gewesen, / Weil
die Leute deine Schriften mit entblösstem Rücken lesen” (Sinngedichte: eine
Auswahl, von Uwe Berger, S. 134). Swinburne’s delightful misquotation applied
to Gil Blas, the Parisian daily which
he called “‘The Bog-house Miscellany — well designed / To ease the body, &
improve the mind’” (Letter to W.M. Rossetti, in Cecil Y. Lang, The Swinburne Letters, V, p. 97).【《孤本元明雜劇》劉唐卿《降桑椹》第二折廁神云：“我坐的是淨桶，翫的是糞坑。尿長溺一臉，屎長汙一身，何曾得聞清香味？每日人來把屁薰。……這小蔡兒……前日望我嘴頭子上放了個屁，把我牙進掉了。”】【M. Bandello, La
Novelle, XXXV: “renderia il tributo due e tre volte a la contessa di
Laterino in meno d’un quarto d’ora.”】【《顏氏家訓‧治家篇》：“故紙有五經辭義，及賢達姓名，不敢穢用也。”】【斌椿《海國勝遊草‧至巴黎斯》七律第二首云：“簡編不惜頻飛溷。”張德彝《再述奇》同治七年九月十七日：“西人好潔……惟將新聞紙及書札等字……用以拭穢，未知敬惜也。”】【《曬書堂筆錄》卷四：“舊傳有婦人篤奉佛經，雖入廁時亦諷誦不綴，後得善果而竟卒於廁，傳以為戒。《歸田錄》云云，余讀而笑之，入廁脫褲，手又携卷，非惟太褻，亦苦甚忙……。又一條云：‘燕王好坐木馬子，坐則不下，或饑則便就其上飲食，往往乘興奏樂於前，酣飲終日。’亦可笑也”（“燕王”即周王元儼所謂“八大王”也，其事亦見《說郛》卷二十三沈徵《諧史》）。】
P. 1104: “And you would do well to
keep a blank-paper book, which the Germans call an Album.” A German character in Saint-Evremond’s comedy Sir Politick Would-Be said: “Lorsque nos
voyageurs sont gens de lettres, ils se munissent, en partant de chez eux, d’un
livre blanc, bien relié, qu’on nomme Album
amicorum; et ne manquent pas d’aller visiter les savants de tous les lieux
où ils passent, et de le leur présenter afin qu’ils y mettent leur nom; ce
qu’ils font ordinairement en y joignant quelques propos sententieux.” It will
be remembered that in the “studierzimmer” scene in Faust, Iter Theil, the Schüler also said: “Ich muss Euch
noch mein Stammbuch überreichen” (2045). A German practice which has now become
universal.
P. 1115-6: Chesterfield boasts of
himself as an “age-last”; cf. also IV, p. 1250, p. 1753. See supra 第四百四十八則. To the quotations from Congreve & others given by Dobrée in the
note may be added the following from Sir Richard Burton: “Arab writers often
mention the smile of beauty, but rarely, after European fashion, the laugh,
which they look upon as undignified. A Moslem will say ‘Don’t guffaw (kahkahah)
in that way; leave giggling & grinning to monkeys and Christians.’ The
Spaniards, a grave people, remark that Christ never laughed” (The Arabian Nights, Library Edition, IV,
p. 147).
P. 1139: “I cannot help carrying my
Pyrrhonism still further.” Chesterfield is here talking about “tracing” the “true
causes” of “historical events” (p. 1138), & the phrase is beyond doubt a
reminiscence of Voltaire’s essay Le Pyrrhonisme
de l’Histoire. Dobrée’s footnote which only explains that Pyrrho was a
skeptic is inadequate. Chesterfield’s Pyrrhonism is merely of the kind of
Cleopatra’s nose: “I am convinced that a light supper, & a good night’s
sleep, & a fine morning have sometimes made a hero of the same man who, by an indigestion, a restless night, & a
rainy morning would have proved a coward” (pp. 1138-9); “Contrary to the custom
of profound historians,
who always assign deep causes for great events” (IV, p. 1261). Although
Cleopatra would have been no less irresistible even if her nose had been
shorter, since that change would have been more in harmony with her pert spirit
(cf. Sidney Hook, The Hero in History, p. 177), the rôle of such contingents
would not be denied by anyone who understands the multidimensionality of history (cf. Morris R. Cohen, The Meaning of
Human History, p. 228). Cf. marginalia to Pascal, Pensée.
Vol. IV. P. 1232: “Dr
Berkeley’s arguments are, strictly speaking, unanswerable” etc. Cf. H.F
Hallett, “Dr Johnson’s Refutation of Bishop Berkeley”: “But what is
not sensational is the ‘kicking’ & the ‘rebounding’ from the stone that kicks back. It was not that he ‘felt’
the stone, but that there was action & reaction between his body & the
stone... His action of kicking the stone was not a mental action, like
perceiving or thinking, but a physical
action — in short, the reality of his own body as other than his mind. He was
not a mere observer of collision, but
an agent... The essence of his
reputation might equally well have been expressed had he said: ‘Sir, I know that my eye is not merely ideal, or in seeing with it I do not see it. Thus when it is most truly an eye it is least ideal’” (Mind, vol. LVI,
no. 22, pp. 138, 141, 144). For Hohnson’s “refutation”, see Boswell’s Life, ed. Hill-Powell, I, p. 471(cf.
also IV, p. 27).
P. 1235: “You must therefore, not
break a link of that chain, by which you hope to climb up to the prince.”
Chesterfield is talking of the King’s wife or mistress, her lover & her
chambermaid as well as his valet. Cf. Giusti’s Gingillino, a sort of breviary for government functionaries: “Colle
donne di casa abbi giudizio; / Perché, credilo a me, ci puoi trovare / Tanto
una scala quanto un precipizio, / E bisogna saper barcamenare” etc. (Prose e Poesie Scelte, “Biblioteca
classica Hoepliana”, p. 363); cf. infra
p. 1383.
P. 1306: “He [Achilles] went about
killing people basely, I will call it, because he knew himself invulnerable.”
The heroes in Orlando Furioso, not to
say those in old Chinese romances, are open to the same objection: Ferraù &
Orlando, e.g. are both as “invulnerable” as Achilles — “Né l’un né l’altro si
potea ferire” (XII. 47, ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p. 107). Though the King of Friza
became an object of scorn & execration for using the firearm, yet the
heroes of chivalry thought it no disgrace to take every advantage of magic
weapons to bring down their opponents in combat, Ruggiero with his “lancia d’
or ch’ al primo tratto / Quanti ne tocca della sella
caccia” (VIII. 17, p. 63) Astolfo with his “un corno, / che fa fuggir ognun,
che l’ode intorno” (XV. 14, p. 137), etc. Cf. Burckhardt, Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, Phaidon, S. 58.
P. 1351: “Lord Bolingbroke, in his Idea of a Patriot King, says very justly
that simulation is a stiletto... an
unlawful weapon...; whereas dissimulation is a shield, as secrecy is armour.”
An elaboration of & improvement upon a passage in Pietro Aretino, Lo Ipocrito, I, ii: “Chi non sa fingere
non sa vivere, a simulazione è uno scudo che spunta ogni armee, e un’arme
che spezza ogni scudo.”
P. 1380: “Whoever is had... in company for the sake of any
one thing singly, is singly that thing.” Cf. p. 1464 on omnis homo, l’homme universel & V, p. 1994 on “all accomplished”.
This is the ideal formulated by La Rochefoucauld: “Le vrai honnête homme est
celui qui ne se pique de rien” (Réflexions
ou sentences, §203, Maximes, éd.
“La Renaissance du Livre”, p. 47). 【Lesage, Crispin,
II: “un homme universel”; Gil Blas,
I, 5: “un garçon universel”.】【cf. Burckhardt, S. 79 “l’uomo universale”.】
P. 1383: “You must therefore, not
break a link of that chain, by which you hope to climb up to the prince.” Cf. supra 1235. That is, the mistress, the
valet, the chambermaid all must be courted, cultivated; cf.《韓非子‧八姦第九》：“一曰在同床，二曰在傍”. Here Chesterfield shows himself a more astute
courtier & diplomat than Sir Henry Wotton whose mistake it was, as G.F.
Biondi said, to pay court to the prince: “Ogni santo vuole la sua candela, ed
egli non l’impiccia che a Domenedio solo.
La ragione è buona, ma in
chiesa, non in corte, dove l’idolatria e necessaria” (L.P. Smith, The Life & Letters of Sir Henry Wotton,
I, p. 117). See 一五一則 on Lord Halifax’s “A Character of Charles II”; 七○三則 on Andrés Fernández de Andrada’s Epístola
Moral. Chesterfield’s favorite formula volto
sciolto con pensieri stretti (IV, p. 1248; p. 1350; p. 1384; p. 1520; V, p.
1867; p. 2004; VI, p. 2945 etc.) is adapted from the sentence “A caminarse per il mondo con li
pensieri stretti et il viso sciolto” (Smith, Life & Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, I, p. 327).
P. 1472: “The lesser talents, the leniores virtutes.” Cf. Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. I, ch. 11 on manners as “small
morals” (ed. Rutledge & Sons, p. 61).
P. 1504: [A propos of Dante]: “The easiest
books are generally the best.” This taken in conjunction with what he said
about “Men of Pleasure” who “adopt other people’s [pleasures], but without any
taste of their own” (p. 1502) contradicts the view of “Hermes” Harris: “‘We are
on no account to expect that fine things should descend to us’— our taste, if
possible, must be made ascend to them. The same learned writer recommends to us
‘even to feign a relish, till we find a relish comes; & feel, that what
began in fiction, terminates in reality’” (Sir John Reynolds, Discourses, XV).
P. 1505: After an enthusiastic
eulogy of Ariosto’s poem, Chesterfield writes: “When Angelica, after having
wandered over half the world alone with Orlando, pretends, notwithstanding, — ch’el
fior virginal così avea salvo, / Come selo portò dal matern’ alvo. — The author
adds, very gravely, Forse era ver, ma non però credibile / A chi del senso suo
fosse signore.” But, full of dead-pan humour & prince sans rire as he is, Ariosto is not being ironical at
Angelica’s expense (I, 55-56; ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p. 6); for in XIX, 33, we read: “Angelica a Medor la prima rosa / Coglier lasciò,
non ancor tocca inante: / Né persona fu mai sì aventurosa, ch’in quel giardin
potesse por le piante” (p. 194). So Angelica was telling Sacripante the truth
which, to a man like Chesterfield, must have appeared stranger than the wildest
fiction.
P. 1640: The maxim of Cardinal de
Retz: “On est aussi souvent dupe par la defiance que par la confiance.” Cf. La
Rochefoucauld: “Notre défiance justifie la tromperie d’autrui” (Maximes, “La Renaissance du Livre”, p. 3);
Vauvenargues: “L’extrême défiance n’est pas moins nuisible que son contraire.
La plupart des hommes deviennent inutiles à celui qui ne veut pas risquer
d’être trompé” (Oeuv. chois., “La
Renaissance du Livre”, p. 157). Though, as Vauvenargues says, “Il y a peu de
pensées synonymes, mais beaucoup d’approchantes” (p. 186), these three pensées apparently hang together.
P. 1752: “Taking great care,
however, de ne jamais parler de cordes dans
la maison d’un pendu.” Demetrius put rhetoricians on their guard against
dropping such bricks (On Style, tr. W. Rhys Roberts, “The Loeb Classical
Library”, p. 479). The proverb, nombrar
la soga en casa del ahorcado, appears twice in Don Quixote, I, ch. 25 & II, ch. 28 (tr. S. Putnam, I, p. 209
& II, p. 694).
P. 1764: “The French manner of
hunting is gentlemanlike... The poor beasts here are pursued &
run down by much greater beasts than themselves.” Cf. Heine, Gedanken und Einfälle: “Die
hannövrischen Junker sind Esel, die nur von Pferden sprechen” (Sämtl.Werk., hrsg. O. Walzel, Bd. X, S.
270); Oscar Wilde, A Woman of No
Importance: “The English gentleman galloping after a fox — the unspeakable
in pursuit of the uneatable.”
Vol. V. P. 1901: “Chi sta bene non
si muova.” Voss quoted this saying to dissuade F.A. Wolf from going to Leydon
(cf. Mark Pattison, Essays, “The New
University Library”, I, p. 268).
P. 1931: “There [in Spain] Venus rarius colatur is not sufficient,
but Venus nunquam colatur is
absolutely necessary; at least inermis.
Pray do the reverse of Achilles, & provide solid & proof armour for the
only vulnerable part. Let no air, probability or even attestations of health,
nay of untouched virginity itself tempt you. Their vestal fire is hereditary &
inextinguishable.” Venus rarius colatur
was what Boerhaave had prescribed for Chesterfield himself, cf. pp. 1824, 2345,
vol. VI, p. 2765. Chesterfield is here advising Lord Huntingdon to use the male
pessary, “certain preservative sheath”, in Casanova’s words (Memoirs, tr. Arthur Machen, IV, pp.
14-5; cf. VI, pp. 203-4, 258-260; VIII, pp. 85, 250); in short, behave like “the
young curate of Horsham who always took every precaution”. Although scholars
like W. Helbig & H. Ferdy tried to make out that the emptied goat’s bladder
prepared by Procris for King Minos to use during coitus (Antpninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses, cap. 41) is “ein Kondon
in Altertume” (see I Bloch, Die
Prostitution, Bd. I, S. 436), condoms were certainly little used before the
18th century. Their price was so costly — those of fine quality cost
three francs each (Casanova’s Memoirs,
VII, p. 61) — that only people like Lord Huntingdon could
afford them. Boswell on his grand tour often felt the acute need of such sheath: “black girl —
had no condom [and so refrained]” (Boswell
on the Grand Tour: Germany & Switzerland, ed. F.A. Pottle, “Trade
Edition”, p. 25); “'Swear solemn with drawn sword not to be with women sine condom nisi Swiss lass” (p. 127); “Try for condoms... At eight have sweet
lass” (p. 128). For the meaning of Chesterfield’s last sentence, see Cervantes’s
story La Tia Fingida in which Doña
Claudia reviewed various ways of making “artificial maids” & “doctor’d virgins”,
and to the horror of Esperanza, wound up with: “Long live my thimble & my
needle; long live, at the same time, thy patience and endurance” (cf. 第七十八則[40]).
P. 1996: “A prudent cuckold pockets
his horns when he cannot gore with them.” Cf. the 18th-century
proverb: “had better put his horns in his pocket than wind them” (E. Partridge,
Dict. of Slang, p. 405). Dobrée who
is so anxious to show the intellectual affinities between Chesterfield &
his grandfather, Lord Halifax, & must have felt disappointed with the
dearth of concrete proofs, might here have quoted from Advice to a Daughter: “Remember that next to the danger of
committing the fault
yourself, the greatest is
that of seeing it in your husband. Do not seem to look or hear that way... An
affected ignorance, which is seldom a Virtue, is a great one here” (The Complete Works, ed. Walter Raleigh,
pp. 10-11). The grandfather’s advice to a possible cornette is exactly similar to the grandson’s to a possible cornard. Richard Allestree even used
Chesterfield’s favorite word in this connection: “A wise dissimulation... is
sure the likeliest means of reclaiming” etc. (The Ladies Calling, 1673, quoted in The Review of English Studies, April 1954, pp. 166-6).
P. 2002: “At Court, many more people
can hurt than can help yon; please the former, but engage the latter.” Why “court”
alone? Say “the world”. 李義山〈十一月中旬至扶風見梅花〉:“素娥惟與月，青女不饒霜”；紀曉嵐 comments:“愛之者虛而無益，妬之者實而有損”（《瀛奎律髓刊誤》卷二十）— this seems to me to put the wisdom of experience
& the pathos of life in a nutshell.
P. 2108: “Gregorio Letti, author of
innumerable books, whom the Italians, very justly, call Letti caca libri.” The French derived a metaphor from the minor
rather than the major need, would say “un pisseur de copie”.【“Pisser
de la copie”, German: “Seichen”.】
P. 2191: “The late Duke of Somerset said
absurdly, when accidentally placed below himself at table, ‘the best place is
wherever I sit.” This reminds one of the story told by Sancho Panza (Don Quixote, Pt. II, ch. 31), how after
a long contest of politeness, the gentleman, at the end of his patience,
shouted to the farmer: “Sit down, you stupid ass, for wherever I sit will be
the head of the table to you!” (tr. S. Putnam, II, p. 714).
P. 2343: “Et l’on ne recule que pour
mieux sauter.” The phrase took on great philosophical significance in the
system of Leibniz: “Vous avez raison, Monsieur, de dire, que notre globe
devroit être une espèce de Paradis, et j’ajoute que si cela est, il pourroit
bien encore le devenir, et avoir reculé pour mieux sauter” (Philosophische Schriften, hrsg. von C.J.
Gerhardt, Bd. VIII, S. 578); “Et quoyqu’on recule quelque fois comme les lignes qui ont des rebroussements,
l’avancement ne laisse pas de prevaloir enfin et de gagner” (Bd. VI, S. 508;
cf. also “before he did anything, took a step backwards, like the bull-fighter
who leaps back to deliver the mortal thrust. He searched the past for a pattern
into which he might slip as into a diving-bell, and being thus at once
disguised & protected might rush upon his present problem. Thus his life
was... an archaizing attitude” (Essays of
Three Decades, tr. H.T. Lowe-Porter, p. 424); 又四百五十二則眉[41].【［補第四百五十則］Ben Johnson, Timber: “Repeat often what we have
formerly written; which beside that it helps the consequence, & makes the
juncture better, it quickens the heat of imagination, that often cools in the
time of setting down, & gives it new strength, as if it grew lustier, by
the going back. As we see in the contention of leaping, they jump farthest that
fetch their race largest; or as in throwing a Dart or Iavelin, we force back
our arms to make our loose the stronger.” Herbert, Jacula Prudentum, no. 1121: “We must recoile a little, to the end
we may leap the better” (Works, ed.
F.E. Hutchinson, p. 359); Michelangelo: “Ha! Per levar tutti questi tantini,
bisogna un tantone, e per questo far come quel che ha un fosso da passare più
largo che non converria per poter saltar da l’altra banda, che bisognarebbe
alcuni palmi di larghezza di manco; allora deve allontanarsi per poter far il salto”
(Robert J. Clements, Michelangelo’s
Theory of Art, p. 42); The Letters of
David Hume, ed. J.Y.T. Greig, I, p. 202: “Sir Harry, I hope, has only run
backwards to make a better jump”; W.H. Sheldon, Process & Polarity, p. 10: “And these tool-sharpeners [logical
positivists & linguistic philosophers] are like Wm James’s man
who’s running to jump over a ditch
forever”; Montaigne, Essais, I. 39: “De
la solitude”: [on the ambitious men who retire from the world]: “Ils se sont
seulement reculez pour mieux sauter, et pour d’un plus fort mouvement faire une
plus vive faucée [percée] dans la trouppe” (Éd. “Bib. de la Pléiade”, pp.
248-9).】See
The Monadology & Other Philosophical Writings, tr. by R. Latta, p. 350. The idea is of
course very old; cf. e.g., Dicta Catonis,
II, 10: “Cui scieris non esse parem, pro tempore cede: victorem a victo
superari saepe videmus” (Minor Latin
Poets, ed. J.W. & A.M. Duff, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 606);
also Bruno, Spaccio de la Bestia,
Dialogo I, I (Opere di Bruno e di T.
Campanella, ed. A. Guzzo e R. Amerio, p. 475): “Chi studia di superar più
efficacemente trapassando un fosso, accatta tal volta l’empito sì ritirando
otto o dieci passi a dietro”; Thomas Mann, Freud
& the Future: “Ortega y Gasset puts it that the man of antiquity, [before
he did anything, took a step backward.]”[42]
Learned Marxist-Leninist scholars, however, have traced this phrase to the wit
& wisdom of Lenin.[43]
E.L. Griggs, Collected Letters of Samuel
Taylor Coleridge, p. 167: “You will be retrograde that you may spring the
farther forward.” Mr Micawber also says of one of his plans of
raising money: “You find me, fallen back, for
a spring” (David Copperfield, ch.
27).
P. 2692: “The word sentimental, which some very learned
etymologists have derived from the two Latin words sentire et mentula.”
Sterne’s Sentimental Journey ends
like this: “I put out my hand and caught hold of the fille-de-chambre’s —. FINIS.” Chesterfield’s etymology would seem
to have been suggested by this bit of “geography”.
[2]「檢」原作「檢得」。
[7]「三百三十二」原作「三百三十三」。
[8]「蛇生弓影」原作「蛇生杯影」。
[9]《四朝聞見錄》丙集載此詩：「左手旋乾右轉坤，如何群小恣流言。狼胡無地居姬旦，魚腹終天弔屈原。一死固知公所欠，孤忠幸有史長存。九原若遇韓忠獻，休說如今有末孫。」
[10]「巢」原作「窩」。
[13]「也」原作「乎」。
[16]「五色光」原作「五笑光」。
[19]「惝怳」原作「惝悅」。
[20]「而」原作「如」。
[22]「卷十」原作「卷十一」。
[23]「聖神」原作「聖人」。
[24]「叔晉」原作「晉叔」。
[26]「於其」原作「於於」。
[27]「嶺上晴雲」原作「山上晴雲」。
[29]「謗」原作「跋」。
[30]「賈思勰」原作「賈公彥」。
[31]「二牛」原作「一牛」。
[34]
Samuel Johnson’s famous verdict?
[37]「其實忘了」原作「其忘了」，「狠得很」原作「狠得狠」。
[40] 此則已刪，剩此補語：「按 Cervantes, La Tía Fingida:
“Sumac & ground glass are of little use, leeches less, myrth is of no use
at all, neither is sea onion, nor pigeon’s crop... Long live my thimble &
my needle.” (見 Ploss, Bartels & Bartels, Woman, ed. E.J. Dingwall, II, p. 48 引) 補天之術，備於此矣。余見……」。
沒有留言:
張貼留言