“Misconduct” (J. Wickstead) and “Love’s Bitter Potion” (D. Cole)
from E. Fuchs, Illustrierte
Sittengeschichte: Das bürgerliche Zeitalter
五百八十一[1]
Jottings:
Personification of fortune as a
woman, which survives in American slang as “Lady Luck” and/or “Miss Fortune”,
is a hackneyed literary device. The idea that Fortune favours the bold or that
Fortune is blind is also quite a commonplace (cf. The Dictionary of English Proverbs, p. 112). But by combining the
two, Machiavelli & Lesage have achieved respectively epigrammatic wisdom
& philosophic wit. Il Principe,
cap. 25: “La fortuna é donna, ed è necessario, volendola tenere sotto, batterla
e urtarla... e però sempre, come donna, è amica de’ giovani, perché sono meno
respettivi, più feroci e con più audacia la comandano” (Il Principe e Altri Scritti Minori, “Biblioteca Classica Hoepliana”,
p. 235); as Michele Scherillo says in his Prefactory Essay: “La fortuna, nel
concetto del Machiavelli, è labisbetica dello. Shakespeare, che bisogna domare:
The Taming of the Shrew” (Ibid., p. 10). On the other hand Lesage,
fathering on Epictetus what is really the heir of his own invention, apostrophizes
on Gil Blas, Liv. III, ch. 13: “O
fortune! voilà comme tu dispenses tes faveurs le plus souvent. Le stoïcien
Epictète n'a pas tort de te comparer à une fille de condition qui s'abandonne à
des valets” (Éd. Garnier Frères, p. 475). In other words, both masochism or die geschlechtliche Hörigkeit & la nostalgie de la boue (cf. R.v. Krafft-Ebing,
Psychopathia Sexualis, Authorized
Eng. adaptation by F.J. Rebman, New York, pp. 202-3, & 第八十六則 a propos of Martial, XII, 58 as well as 第五百三十一則 a propos of Orlando Furioso,
XXVIII, 21 & 36).
E. Partridge, Dictionary of Slang, 4th ed., p. 185: “Cow, sleep like a: of a married man, ‘with
a cunt at one’s arse.’ Grosse: ‘All you that in your beds do lie, / Turn to
your wives & occupy; / And when that you have done your best, / Turn arse
to arse, & take your rest.’” How in this as in other matters, appearances
are deceptive, can be seen in the ridiculous anticlimax El Celoso extremeño, one of Cervantes’s “exemplary novels”: “He [Loaysa]
tired himself to no purpose, but she [Leonora] remained the conqueror, &
they both slept” (Complete Works in
English, ed. J. Fitzmaurice-Kelly, VIII, p. 28). Fitzmaurice-Kelly comments
in his Introduction: “Instead of allowing Loaysa to accomplish his purpose...
he weakly pictures the would-be seducer lulled into the comparatively innocent
recess of exhaustion., with the virtuous heroine beside him. It amounts to an
anticipation of M. Sully Prudhomme’s Rendezvous,
grotesque & travestied to the last extremity: ‘Dans une alliance plus haute
/ Que les terrestres unions, / Gravement comme eux, côte à côte, / Sommeillons!’”[2]
Cf. Sandry
et Carrère,
p. 109: “Coucher à l’hôtel du cul tourné.” G.-C. Lichtenberg, Aphorismen, J §321: “Er lag sehr gerne
antipodisch bei seiner Frau im Bette, à
l’antipode” (hrsg. A. Leitzmann, Bd. IV, S. 72); cf. “Coucher à l’hôtel du
cul tourné” (G. Sandry et M. Carrère, Dict.
de l’Argot modern, p. 59, p. 109); Lou Salomé on her stipulated life-long marriage-blanc to F.-C. Andreas: “Diese
Art, dem andern nicht en face zu stehen, ja gewissermassen abgekehrt, blieb uns
eigen” (Lebensrückblick, S. 274,
quoted in I.S. Mackey, Lou Salomé, p.
87).
Il
Principe, cap. 18: “Sendo adunque, uno principe necessitato sapere bene
usare la bestia, debbe di quelle pigliare la golpe e il lione” (op. cit., p. 180; cf. cap. 19: “io
voglio monstrare brevemente quanto bene seppe usare la persona della golpe e
del lione... lo troverrà uno ferocissimo leone et una astutissima volpe” — pp.
195-6). In a footnote Scherillo quotes from Cicero, De Officiis, I, 13: “quasi vulpeculae, vis leonis videtur” etc.,
& Dante, Inferno, XXVII, 74-5: “l’opere
mie / non furon leonine, ma di volpe.” He has overlooked the loci in Epictetus, I, iii: “It is
because of this kinship with the flesh that those of us who incline toward it
become like wolves, faithless & treacherous & hurtful, & others
like lions, wild & savage & untamed; but most of us become like foxes,
that is to say, rascals of the animal kingdom” (tr. W.A. Oldfather, “The Loeb
Classical Library”, I, p. 27); IV, iv: “The proverb about Lacedaemonians, ‘Lions
at home, but at Ephesus foxes,’ will fit us too: Lions in the school-room,
foxes outside” (II, p. 345). Cicero’s distinction between fraus & vis is of
course a familiar one to readers of Machiavelli, e.g. cap. 7: “vincere o per
forza o per fraude” (op. cit., p.
119; cf. p. 123, footnote 4 from Discorso,
III, 40 & p. 278 Castruccio
Castracani, cap. 7). Cf. Tasso, Gerusalemme
Liberata, IV. 16, Lucifer’s instruction to the demons: “fra loro [the
crusaders] entrate, e in ultimo lor danno or la forza s’adopri ed or l’inganno”
(Poesie, ed. F. Flora, p. 85);
Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. I, ch. 13: “Force
and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues” (Ed. George Routledge & Son,
p. 82); see also F.P. Wilson, The
Elizabethan & the Jacobean, pp. 21-2 quoting Lipsius’s defence of
Machiavelli by citing Pindar & Plutarch’s Lysander who both advised the
combination of the lion & the fox; in Midsummer
Night’s Dream, V.i Lysander says: “The lion is a very fox for his valour.”
In the Arabian Nights illegible writing is thus described: “the
characters... in the form of ants’ legs”, “unknown characters... looking like
the feet of ants” (The Thousand Nights
& One Night, tr. Powys Mathers, III, pp. 87, 496)[3];
cf. “pattes de mouches”, “raspatura di gallina”, “poultry scratching”, etc. The ethical neutrality of magic, i.e., magic per se is not black or white any more than science is “Red” or “White”,
is put in black & white in the following passage in “The Tale of Alā
al-Din”: “The slave of the lamp appeared, & cried: ‘I am master of earth &
air & wave, but the slave of the lamp & the bearer’s slave.[4]
What will you have, master, what will you have?’ For the Ifrit had to obey the owner of the lamp,
even though he were vowed to wickedness & perdition as was this Moor” (Ibid., III, p. 592).
Bernhard Stern, Geschichte der öffentlichen Sittlichkeit in Russland, Bd. I, S.
114-5 (quoted in I. Bloch, Die
Prostitution, Bd. I, S. 99: “Kein Bordell ist ohne Heiligenbilder, jedes
Mädchen hat in ihrem Zimmer ihren Schutzpatron, an den es sich inbrünstig vor
Ausübung einer jeden Tat wendet, auf dass der Akt nicht von bösen Folgen
begleitet sei. Während der Zeit, da nach dem Gebet zum Heiligen der Wollust
geopfert wird, bleibt das Bild des Heiligen zur Wand gedreht oder mit einem
Tuche verhängt.” Cf. Magnus Hirschfeld, Curious
Sex Customs in the Far East, tr. by O.P. Green, p. 14: “One sees a portrait
of him [the Emperor of Japan] & his wife in the rooms of almost every
brothel, & an imbai (prostitute) & her guest seldom forget to bow
reverentially before the portrait of Their Majesties before proceeding, she to
her business & he to his pleasure.” In his excellent La Religion des Classiques, Henri Busson recalls an anecdote in
Montaigne’s Italian Travels, on the Roman courtesan who, lying in bed with her
customer, interrupted the rites of Venus to recite her prayer when she heard
the Angelus ring (PMLA, Sept. 1962,
p. 354). Flaubert à Louise Colet: “Il y a, chez toutes les prostituées d’Italie,
une madone qui jour et nuit brille aux bougies, au-dessus de leur lit” (Correspondance, éd. Louis Conard, “La Pléiade”, I, p. 330).《宋元學案》卷十二：“《劉元城語錄》：‘趙清獻（抃）求絕欲，掛父母像於臥牀.’”Vigny, Journal
d'un Poète, (Oeuv. comp., “La
Pléiade”, p. 1001: “Un Christ dans une alcôve. Rêve d’une femme qui l’entend
lui reprocher les, plaisirs qu’elle a goûtés avec son amant devant la croix.
Elle souffre et se sent percer les mains en expiation toutes les nuits.”
Thomas Shadwell, The Woman Captain: Sir Humphrey
Scattergood ordering “cluster’d eggs” for supper (Complete Works, ed. Montague Summers, IV, p. 22). In a note (p.
384) Summers explains that it is also called “buttered eggs”, meaning “raw eggs
which, it is considered, excite to venery”, & he refers to Fletcher, Woman Pleas’d, I, ii: “The very sight of
this egg has made him cockish.” But egg as an aphrodisiac is, like the curate’s
egg for breakfast, only “good in parts”, because the yolk is supposed to have
no potency at all; see e.g. Memoirs of
Casanova, tr. Arthur Machen, IV, pp. 13 & 35 where Casanova spoke of
eating the whites of eggs as stimulant, & pp. 18-9 where the lady M— M—
says: “I positively forbid the whites of eggs for the future, for I would
rather have a little less enjoyment & more security respecting your health.
Alexander Bain, English Composition & Rhetoric, Pt. I, p. 196: “In the Egyptian
hieroglyphics, there is a considerable number of primitive words designating
simple ideas, which bear two opposite significations; e.g. ‘good-bad’, ‘high-low’,
‘give-take’, ‘bring-send’, ‘up-down’, ‘with-without’, etc.... This phenomenon,
called countersense, can still be
traced in the Indo-European languages: Latin altus (high & low), cedere
(to go & to come); Greek σχολή (leisure
& industry), English let (to
permit & to prevent), German borgen
(to lend & to borrow).” Cf. Dr L—n in Humphry Clinker: “in the
Dutch language, stinken signified the
most agreeable perfume, as well as the most fetid odour” (“Everyman’s Library”,
p. 16); Georges May: “L’Histoire a-t-elle engendré le roman?”: “Venu d’une
racine grecque signifiant ‘savoir’, le mot histoire
a aujourd’hui le surprenant privilège des sens diamétralement opposé l’un à l’antre:
... ‘récit des faits’... et ‘récit mensonger’” (Le Revue de l’Hist. Lit. de la France, Avril-Juin, 1955, p. 165).
Cf. Abel’s Der Gegensinn der Urworte
(1884) which confirmed Freud’s theory of ambivalence (Freud, Die Traumdeutung, 6te Auf.,
S. 218). 《敬齋古今黈》卷二：“爽之一字，既為明，又為昏，所以精爽為魂魄之主。介之一字，既為大，又為小，所以儐介成賓主之歡。貴介公子，則介為大；憂悔吝者存乎介，則介為小。亂臣十人，則亂為治；亂邦不居，則亂為危。飲酒溫克，則克為良；克伐怨欲，則克為狠。擾兆民，則擾為安；庸人擾之，則擾為煩。必有忍其乃有濟，則忍為恕；忍人殘忍，則忍為暴。媚兹一人，則媚為忠；取媚於上，則媚為佞。父母昆弟，則昆為長；垂裕後昆，則昆為後。皇極，則極為大中至正之道；六極，則極為貧病夭惡之稱”; cf. also《項氏家說》卷八：“俗間助語多與本詞相反，雖言去，亦曰來，如歸去來之類是也。於口耳亦曰看，如說看、聽看之類是也。於醜惡亦曰好，如好惡、好醜是也。雖在遠外，亦以為裏，如曰遠裏、在外裏是也。雖甚愛惜，亦以為殺，如曰惜殺、愛殺是也，亦曰惜死、愛死 (cf. ‘beautiful or lovely and...’ in Cockney,
‘bell’e...’ in Italian).”《蒿庵閒話》卷二：“經傳用字有以相反為義者，如治亂曰亂，去污曰污，闢荒曰荒，馴物謂之擾，麗網謂之離，多見為衹見。〈柏舟〉一篇之中，目其匹為特，自謂曰人”; 王引之《經義述聞》卷 18：“古者相當、相敵皆謂之與”; 張揖《廣雅》：“苦，快也”;〈離騷〉：“亂曰”， 王逸注：“亂，理也.” T’oung Pao, vol. II, 1891, pp. 175 ff. on “Antiphrase” (by G. Schlegel) citing 讓, 易, 清 etc.【The
most modern example is perhaps the Italian word perché which fulfills two functions sharply contrasted in Goethe’s
epigram: “Wie? Wann? und Wo? Die Götter bleiben stumm! / Da halte dich ans Weil, und frage nicht Warum?”】【馮景《解舂集文鈔》卷十〈旅獒說‧一〉云：“字有正訓則非者，如息、長也（‘天地盈虛，與時消息’），亂、治也，擾、順也，荒、定也（‘荒度土功’、‘遂荒大東’），臭、香也，糞、除也，潰、遂也（‘草不潰茂’、‘是用不潰於成’），結、解也（‘親結其縭’），坐、跪也（‘則皆坐奠之而後取之’），浮、沉也（‘賜之鴟夷而浮之江’），面、背也（‘面縛銜璧’、‘呂馬童面之’），皆美惡相對之字而反用之”（補 A. Bain 論countersense）. 羅璧《羅氏識遺》卷五〈息二訓〉謂“息”訓“止”，亦訓“生”，舉《周禮》“保息”,《孟子》“夜之所息”,《史記‧貨殖傳》等為證.】
George Orwell’s Down & Out in London & Paris is less informative about the
sleeping accommodation open to a homeless person in Paris. For well-written
account of that, one must go to Édouard Estaunié’s short story “Une Nuit de Noces”
in Le Silence dans la Campagne.
Orwell knows that there are also “Twopenny Hangovers” in Paris (ch. 37, “Penguin
Books”, p. 180), but seems to be ignorant of the nail which is even less
comfortable than the ropefor one to lean on while sitting on a bench. In Estaunié’s
words “Un clou parfaitement... un clou suffit à condition de pouvoir y
accrocher sa ceinture car ainsi on peut encore dormir debout, sans risqué de
tomber.” The “twopenny rope” which Sam Weller described to Mr
Pickwick (The Pickwick Paper, ch. 16)
seems to have become out of fashion. Cf. G. Sandry & M. Carrère, Dict. de l’Argot modern, 3e éd.,
p. 210: “Coucher à la corde: Le locataire passait la nuit assis sur banc, les
bras et la tête reposant sur une corde rendue en travers de la pièceet que l’aubergiste
décrochait le matin...”; see Honoré Daumier’s woodcut (E. Fuchs, Illustrierte Sittengeschichte: Das bürgerliche
Zeitalter, S. 57: “Das Nachtasyl der Ärmsten”). René Char: “... dans ma
jeunesse j’ai aperçu ce ‘dortoir à la corde... depuis longtemps disparu un
dortoir où les pauvres venaient sommeiller pour dix sous de bronze. Ils s’asseyaient
les uns à côté des autres et s’endormaient, appuyé sur une corde qui longeait
leurs bancs” (De Sartre à Foucault: vingt
ans de grands Entretiens dans le Nouvel observateur, 1984, p. 260).
In English slang, female breasts are
called “fore-buttocks” or “top ballocks”; on the same principle, in American
slang, bum or rather anus is called “hind titty” (cf. Saul Bellow, The Adventures of Augie March, Eng. ed.,
p. 158: “She’s been trying to make you suck hind titty”) & in Eng. slang “the
bosom of the pants”. Cf. Heine, Reisebilder,
III, I, Kap. 22 on the landlady at Ala: “Erstere war remarkabel korpulent;
Brüste, die sich überreichlich hervorbäumten, die jedoch noch immer klein waren
im Vergleich mit dem kolossalen Hintergestell, so dass jene erst die
Institutionen zu sein schienen, dieses aber ihre erweiterte Ausführung als
Pandekten” (Gesam. Werk., hrsg. Gustav
Karpeles, III, S. 224). In other words, the two are counterparts or, to borrow
Hyacinth’s delightful malapropism, breasts are “antipodex” (Ibid., ii, Kap. 9: “Ich bin ein
Praktikus und Sie sind ein Diarrhetikus [Theoreticus], kurz und gut, Sie sind
ganz mein Antipodex [Antipode]
— S. 298). Cf. H. Pudor, Nackt-Kultur, Bd. II, S. 4: “Man kann
die regio sacralis der Stirn, die regio analis der Nase, die regio pudendalis dem
Munde und die regio glutaea den Wangen oder Backen gleichstellen”; Piton’s mot when he is to be beheaded: “Mais c’est
le contraire de ma tête qui est coupable” (Hugo, Quatre-vingt-treize, Ptie. II, Liv. I, ch. 1); G. Sandry & M. Carrère,
Dictionaire de l’Argot modern, 3e
éd., p. 170: “Causer à rebours: coït anal.” Cf. K. Spalding, A Hist. Dict. of German
Figurative Usage, p. 64).
Vico, The New Science, §491: “The Greeks were accustomed to express the
superlative by the number three, as the French now say très for very. Jove’s thunderbolt was called three- furrowed
because it furrowed the air most forcefully. Similarly, Neptune’s trident was
so called because it was a most powerful hook for biting or grappling ships;
& Cerberus was called three-throated as having an enormous gullet” (tr. T.G.
Bergen & M.H. Fisch, p.148). Although “triple” in French does mean “to a
high degree” as in “prêter à triple usure”, “un triple sot” etc., Vico’s
etymology for très is doubtful.
However, the principle he formulated is right. One thinks of triphallus, trisottin (cf. 第三十三則 apropos of Juvenal, VI, 026), aes triplex (Horace, Odes,
I, ii), triformi (Horace, Odes, I, xxvii) & thrice in the sense of “highly” (see Jespersen
& Haislund, Modern English Grammar,
VII, 2591: “thrice welcome” etc.). That is to say, words denoting quotity
should be understood often for their Gefühlswert
& not for their Anschauungswert,
according to K.O. Erdmann’s illuminating distinction (Die Bedeutung des Wortes, 3te Aufl., S. 215-7; cf. 第二十九則, 第二百十則) with regard to words denoting sensible qualities.
This is what 汪中 called “虛數” in contradistinction to “實數” in
his〈釋三九上〉（《述學‧內篇》; cf. 楊慎《升庵全集》卷四十三〈九國〉; 劉師培《左庵集》卷八〈古籍多虛數說〉）. The Chinese usage of three as a superlative can
be seen in expressions like “利市三倍”, “三致千金”, “三思後行”, “一飯三遺矢”, “三緘其口” etc.【Ita. idiom: “Non bisogna essere tre volte buono”:
one must not be too good.】Cf. also《捫蝨新話》卷一：“詩人之語，要是妙思逸興所寓，固非繩墨度數所能束縛……。予觀康成注《毛詩》乃一一要合周禮［如］〈定之方中〉之‘騋牝三千’、〈采芑〉之‘其車三千’、〈甫田〉之‘歲取十千’、〈棫朴〉之‘六師及之’[5]，……皆是束縛太過。近世沈存中論詩亦有此癖，遂揭老杜〈古柏行〉云：‘無乃太細長乎？’（《夢溪筆談》卷二十三）” （參見第七百三十五則論《全唐文》卷三百五十四敬括〈建木賦〉，《論衡‧語增篇》，《尺牘新鈔二集》卷十施男〈與徐巨源〉），王觀國《學林》卷八，見五七四則眉。[6]【［補五八一則］“存中評〈古柏行〉云云。按〈潼關吏〉曰：‘大城鐵不如，小城萬丈餘。’世豈有萬丈餘城耶？……拘拘然以尺寸校之，則過矣。……存中又謂：‘防風氏身廣九畝，長三丈。……九畝乃五丈四尺，如防風之身，乃一餅餤耳。韋楚老〈蚊〉詩：“十幅紅綃圍夜玉”，十幅為禂，方不及四五尺，何以伸足？’竊謂此猶《史記‧漢武帝紀》謂作建章宮，度為千門萬戶。……若名數覈之，則戶者扉也，二戶為一門。千門萬戶，則一門有十戶矣。“】王得臣《麈史》引《莊子》“櫟社木百圍”成疏“圍乃一尺”，四十圍是四丈，駁存忠說；《野客叢書》卷二十五：“文士言數目處，豈可拘以尺寸？如杜〈新松詩〉‘何當一百丈，欹蓋擁高簷。’縱有百丈松，豈有百丈之簷？漢通天台可也。又如〈古柏行〉‘二千尺’，二百丈也。此如晉人‘峨峨如千丈松’，豈有千丈松之理？”
Vico, The New Science, §180: “When men are ignorant of the natural causes
producing things, & cannot even explain them by analogy with similar
things, they attribute their own nature to them. The vulgar, for example, say
the magnet loves the iron” (p. 63). This is the doctrine explained by Eduard
& Der Hauptmann to Charlotte in Goethe’s Die Verwandtschaften, I, iv: “Der Mensch ist ein wahrer Narziss; er
bespiegelt sich überall gern selbst... seine Weisheit wie seine Torheit, seinen
Willen wie seine Willkür leiht er den Tieren, den Pflanzen, den Elementen und den
Göttern” (Werke,
hrsg. Karl Alt, Bd. VIII, S. 27).
Joubert, Pensées, éd. “Libraire Académique”, Tit. XIII, §31: “Les odeurs sont comme les âmes
des fleurs”; §33: “La tulipe est une fleur sans âme; mais il semble que la rose
et le lys en aient une.” Cf. Jonas Cohn, Allgemeine
Ästhetik, S. 94:
“Der Duft einer Blume kommt
uns wie eine Erschliessung ihres Inneren entgegen.” Cf. T. Gnoli, Canti di sogno: “Ha l’anima un po’
scolorita / come quei fiori che le fanciulle / disseccano nei libri / e che pur
serban / compressi / entro / chiuse volumi / i timidi loro perfume?” (D.
Provenzal, Dizion.
d. Immagini, p. 43; cf. Maurice
Scève, Délie, no. 11: “Les ſeches
fleurs en leur odeur vivront” quoted in H. Weber, La Création Poétique en France au 16e Siècle, I, p. 228).
Lenan, “Der Postillon”: “Denn der Blüten Träume / Dufteten gar wonniglich / Durch
die stillen Räume” (Oxford Bk. of Germ.
Verse, p. 341). The
dreams of flowers scenting the still night, cf. 七○一則; 紀淑望〈古今集真名序〉[7]：“在原中將之歌，情有餘而詞不足，如萎花，雖少彩色，而有薰香”[8]（齋藤謙《拙堂文話》卷一引）；cf.《北江詩話》卷一：“閨秀歸懋昭詩，如白藕作花，不香而韻”；Henry de Montherlant, Carnets, p. 27: “Les dahlias sont sans odeur, et l’odeur est
l’intelligence des fleurs”; Maupassant, however, was grossly materialistic
& says: “un immense souffle de parfums, cette sueur des fleurs” (“Le Père”
in Contes du Jour et de la Nuit, éd.
Conard, p. 36); Hugo: “Loi de formation du Progrès”: “Le parfum est-il l’âme
errante du pistil?” (Oeuv. poét. comp.,
Éd. B. Valiquette, p. 715). Shelley or Keats?: “Their odorous sighs up the
smiling air.”[9]
E. Cassirer, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, Bd. II, S. 59: “ein blosses
Spiel von Eindrücken, eine ‘Rhapsodie
von Wahrnehmungen’.” Whose
phrase is that?[10]
It reminds me of William James’s “blooming, buzzing confusion” (Principles of Psychology, I, p. 488)[11].
Henri Bauche, Le Langage Populaire, éd. 1951, p. 71: “Une phrase humoristique, inventee
de toutos pièces, mais typique, marque bien le genre des textes qu’on offre aux
petits enfants: Les nénés de la nounou de Lili ont du lolo.” Cf. Du Maurier, Trilby, Pt. VI (Everyman’s Library, p.
240-1): “And in the formal gardens were the same pioupious & zouzous still
walking with the same nounous... & just the same old couples petting the
same toutous & loulous.” For redoublement
in the langage enfantin, see 第百二十四則 where various Chinese examples are given.
Du Maurier, Trilby, Pt. III (Everyman’s Library, p. 126): “Hélas! ahimè! ach weh! ay de mi! eheu! οἴμοι — in point of fact, alas! This is the very exclamation I wanted.” Much better than
Southey’s cumulative ejaculation, Aballiboozabanganorribo! (see G. Saintsbury, A Second Scrap Book, p. 234)[12].
The tale “The Father of Farts” in The Arabian Nights is very amusing. When
the close-fisted & pot-bellied kādī suffered from the consequences of a too
hearty meal of beans, peas, white haricots & other flatulent stuff, all of
which the Americans call “artillery” (cf. L. Sainéan, Les Sources de l’Argot ancien, II, p. 417 on “Le haricot” being
called “petard”, “musicien”, “artilleur” in “allusion au bruit des vents qu’il
forme”) & was persuaded by his wife into the belief that his violent colic
was really the son & heir becoming importunate , he reflected: “Surely my
foes will accuse me of many ridiculous things. They will say that I have let
myself be buggered in some extraordinary fashion... They will accuse me of having been buggered,
me, their virtuous kādī, & I have almost forgotten what it feels like!” (The Thousand Nights & One Night, tr.
Powys Mathers, III, p. 738). The story of “兔孕” in《諧鐸》卷一 also describes a hoax in which a cunning woman turs to her lover’s
& her own advantage the piece of pseudodoxia that buggery makes a man
pregnant (cf. 第三十三則). Il
Decamerone, IX, 3 is even wittier & funnier. When Calandrino was
persuaded by practical jokers into believing that he was pregnant, he returned
home & accused his wife: “Oimè! Tessa, questo m’hai fatto tu, che non
vuogli stare altro che di sopra: io il ti diceva bene!... Oimè, tristo me, come
farò io? come partorirò io questo figliuolo? onde uscirà egli? Ben veggo che io
son morto per la rabbia di questa mia moglie... ché io non la doveva mai
lasciar salir di sopra” (Il Decamerone,
ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p. 662). Calandrino’s worry about his supposed son’s uscita reminds one of the passage in《西遊記》第五十三回：“八戒扭腰撒胯的哼道：‘爺爺呀！要生孩子，我們却是男身，那裏開得產門？如何脫得出來？’行者笑道：‘古人云：瓜熟自落。若到那個時節，一定從脅下裂個窟窿，鑽出來也’”(cf. H.H. Ploss, M. Bartels & P. Bartels, Woman, ed. E.J. Dingwall, II, p. 417 on “extra-uterine
pregnancy”;《長阿含經‧一‧大本經》：“菩薩當其生時，從右脇出，其身清淨，不為穢惡之所汙染”& 李威《嶺雲軒瑣記續選》卷一：“禹拆背而生，契剖胸而生，釋迦開右脇而生，老子開左腋而生。夫陰門者，生子之正路也。《地理書》有曰：‘子不嫌母醜。’烏有聖子將生，獨避其母之私處，別殘其肢體以出之事？是皆以鄙淺之心，造為怪誕之語，所謂‘其意欲尊聖人，而未知所以尊之’者也”). Pope in The
Rape of Lock speaks of “Men prove with child, as Powerful Fancy works,”
which has been explained by George Stevens as an allusion to Dr
Edward Pelling: “Having studied himself into the disorder of mind vulgarly
called the hyp, ... he imagined himself to be pregnant... [His wife] was masculine
& large-bon’d in the extreme... Our merry monarch Charles [II] exclaimed
with a good round oath, that “if any woman could get her husband with child, it
must be Mrs Pelling’”; Lord Nonsuch, a character in Dryden’s comedy The Wild Gallant is also persuaded that
he is pregnant (The Rape of the Lock
& Other Poems, “Twickenham edition”, ed. G. Tillotson, p. 185). Cf. Il Pentamerone, II, 3, tr. B. Croce, p.
163, 563.
Horace Traubel, With Walt Whitman in Camden, IV, ed. Sculley Bradley, p. 8: “the
dear Emerson: he felt that Jesus lacked humor, for one thing: a man who lacks humor is likely to concentrate on one
idea.” Emerson was not alone in making this “objection to Jesus”. Cf. E.R.
Curtius, Europäische Literatur und
Lateinisches Mittelalter, 2tes Aufl., 1954, S. 422: “Johannes Chrysostomus
lehrt (Migne, Patr. Graec., 57, 69)
Christus habe nie gelacht.” Novalis, Fragmente,
III, §118: “Die Natur hat Witz, Humor”
usw. (Schriften, hrsg. J. Minor, II, S. 208). Faust, Ier Teil, Prol.
im Himmel, Mephisto to God: “Mein Pathos brächte dich gewiss zum Lachen, / Hättst
du dir nicht das Lachen abgewöhnt.” U. Eco, Il
nome della rosa, 1980 Bompiani, p. 103: “Giovanni Boccadoro ha detto che
Cristo non ha mai riso.” According to Max Eastman, Robert Lamennais in his Esquisse d’une philosophie & J.E.
Erdmann in his Ernste Spiele both
asserted that they could not imagine Christ laughing (see The Sense of Humor, pp. 24-6 for a long discussion of the “incompatibility”
between humor & that “fixed concentration of serious feelings which we call
devout”). The Bishop of Tasmania, however, thought that God laughs & enjoys
an occasional joke & contributed to the Hibbert
Journal an article on “The Theology of Laughter” (Eastman, p. 244). This
seems to have been the general opinion among the dignitaries of the Anglican
Church; cf. Charles Kingsley to the Rev. George Henslowe: “I see humour in
animals, e.g., a crab & a monkey, a parrot, a crow... if I see it, God must
see it also”[13] (Life & Memories, by his wife, the
Bedford ed., II, p. 73); Addison in Spectator, No. 249, “Laughter”, quoted a Roman Catholic
sermon: “... that Laughter was the effect of Original Sin, & that Adam could
not laugh before the Fall”【An Irish sailor in Graves, The Spiritual Quixote, Bk. VII, ch. 12: “I should be glad to know,
whether langhing be any sin or not; for I have heard, that Adam never laughed
befor the fall.”】; Dean Inge, The
Philosophy of Plotinus, II, p. 241: “We may be wrong in not admitting a
sense of humour in the Creator. There are some animals, such as the mandrill,
the hippopotamus, & the skunk, which surely can only have been made for a
joke. We may have the same suspicion about some members of our own species”; Outspoken Essays, II, p. 24: “I have
never understood why it should be considered derogatory to the Creator to
suppose that he has a sense of humour”; Bishop Gore: “The zoo tends to shatter
my belief in a beneficent Creator” (C.A. Alington, Things Ancient & Modern, p. 64). The Father’s sense of humour
which seems to consist in practical jokes is certainly not a family trait &
the Son shows no sign of it whatsoever. The
Autocrat of the Breakfast Table, IV: “The ludicrous is... one of the Divine
ideas, illustrated in the practical jokes of kittens & monkeys long before
Aristophanes or Shakspeare.” Baudelaire’s friend Gustave Le Vavasseur’s Vers contains the line: “Dieux joyeux,
je vous hais: Jésus n'a jamais ri” (quoted in Jacques Crépet’s ed. of
Baudelaire’s Curiosities esthétiques,
p. 500, note; P. Scudo, Philosophie du
rire (1840): “Aussi l’ideal de la miséricorde, Jésus-Christ ne rit jamais”
(quoted in PMLA, Sept. 1965, p. 460);
for an account of the tradition that Jesus never laughed, see Ch. Urbain &
E. Levesque, L’Eglise et le théâtre,
p. 258.
“In every great city, it had been
said, there are thousands of men who have no right to call any woman but a
barmaid by her Chirstian name,” so wrote Havelock Ellis in his Studies in the Psychology of Sex, VII,
p. 299. He added: “In France this intimacy is embodied in the delicious
privilege of tutoiement. ‘The mystery
of tutoiment!’ exclaims Ernest La
Jeunesse in L’Holocauste: ‘Barriers
broken down, veils drawn away, & the ease of existence! At a time when I
was very lonely, & trying to grow accustomed to
Paris & to misfortune, I would
go miles — on foot,
naturally — to see a girl cousin & an aunt, merely to have something to
tutoyer. Sometimes they were not at home, & I had to come back with my tu, my thirst for confidence & familiarity
& brotherliness.” Cf. Signe Toksvig, The
Life of Hans Christian Andersen, pp. 146-7 a propos of Andersen’s hint to
Edvard Collin that they might drop
vouvoiement &
call each other “thou”[14]:
“No one brought up in the English language where ‘you’ is a sea in which
everybody swims forever, & not a Rubicon to be crossed before real intimacy
can be achieved, is able to imagine the nice torments & nicer delights of
having two possible modes of addressing other human beings. Calling your friend
by his or her first name is not quite the same thing. To ‘thou’ someone with
whom you have not played in the democracy of childhood is a far subtler
sensation than the arrival at first names. Between man & woman it offers a
thrill that can tingle with all-divesting meaning, its giving & withdrawing
can be made sunlight & ice alternate;
but even as between men, especially in those shyer & more formal
times, the dropping of the ‘you’ was the dropping of a real barrier, & it
could be an invitation into the heart’s secret garden — if you had such a
thing! Edvard knew that he had not” (cf. pp. 227 & 233). See also Henry
Green, Doting, p. 128 reporting a conversation between Mr Addinsell
&Miss Paynton: “‘Now, why don’t you just call me Charles?’ ‘May I?’ ‘And
can I reciprocate with Ann?’ ‘Of course.’ She spoke with complete unconcern. ‘Everyone
uses Christian names nowadays, at least in my generation. It just doesn’t mean
a thing.’”
In English slang, “like a fart in a
bottle” has the same meaning as “like a pea in a colander”, i.e., to be restless & agitated. Cf.
Journal des Goncourt, 12 Septembre
1862: “Une ci-devant religieuse... nous racontait qu’une des distractions des
religieuses du couvent, où elle se trouvait, était de p... dans des carafes, pour
se régaler la vue des irisations du gaz captif.”
Two Chinese worthies who are not
prophets in their own country: “Un mot qui peint la politique présente de
casse-cou et de sans lendemain: c’est le mot de Rouher à Vatry, fort effrayé de
la situation: ‘Depuis quelque temps, j’étudie beaucoup un philosophe chinois,
dont je mets la sagesse en pratique: c’est le philosophe Ye-men-fou.’” (Journal des Goncourt, 3 Jan. 1869, Édition définitive, T. III, pp. 189-190; cf. T. VI,
p. 79: “Le je m’en fous intellectuel
de l’opinion de tout le monde” etc.); “In
the words of the Chinese Poet: a catchphrase expressive of disgust on
hearing of bad luck or unpleasant instructions. Canadian... If a friend hears
one say this, he is expected to ask sympathetically ‘What Chinese poet?’ — thus
affording the opportunity for ‘Ah Shit, the Chinese poet’” (E.
Partirdge, Dictionary of Slang &
Unconventional English, 4th ed., p. 1083).【”Great
Hang-Yu & Yu-Be-Hung” two suitors of
the beautiful Min-Ne in J.G. Saxe’s poem “Ho-Ho of the Golden Belt”.】【Engels,
Anti-Dühring, II. x refers to “der Londoner City Confusius Macleod”.】【Tristram
Shandy, V, ch. 25: “I
mention it for the comfort of Confucius①, who is-apt to get entangled in telling a plain story... ① Mr Shandy is supposed to mean **********, Esq. member for ****** &
not the Chinese Legislator” (Macdonald Illustrated Classics, p. 371).】【Sodome et Gomorrhe, III, ch. 2, Brichot: “... ce Dieu chinois qui
compte aujourd’hui en France plus de sectateurs que Brahma, que le Christ
lui-même, le très puissant Dieu Je-Men-Fou” (À la Recherche du Temps Perdu, “Pléiade”, II, 965).】【Villiers
de L’Isle-Adam, Contes cruels: “Tout-Fou”.】【A supposed
Chinese servant in Shakespeare: “Peace, Ho!”, “Stay, Ho!”, “O villainy, Ho!”
etc.】
Paul Scarron, Épître à Mme de Hautefort: “Elle [La Reine Ann] avait au
bout de ses manches / Une paire de mains si blanches, / Que je voudrais en
vérité / En avoir été souffleté” (quoted in Paul Morillot, Scarron et le Genre Burlesque, p. 45). Cf. Lover’s couplet: “And
envy the chicken / That Peggy is pickin’” (quoted in Chesterton, G.B. Shaw, “The
Weck-End Library”, p. 122). Scarron called himself “un raccourci de la misère
humaine” & “hôpital allant et venant” (Morillot, p. 57). Although he had
lost the use of his limbs, he “kept his head” till the very last, and Walt
Whitman’s boast can be applied to him: “Whatever happens to me nothing will
happen to my head... My head will stand by me to the last” (Horace Traubel, With Walt Whitman in Camden, IV, p. 26).
Swift’s case is just the reverse: “Young, in his letter on original
composition, tells how he once heard Swift say, ‘I shall be like that tree: I
shall die at the top’” (D.N.B., XIX,
p. 221).
“Je lui dis que ce n’était pas assez
pour faire plaisir à sa
femme, de s’être marié,
qu’il fallait qu’il eût d’elle an moins un enfant, et je lui demandai s’il croyait être en état de le faire:... ‘J’ai ici’
[dit Scarron] Mangin était son valet de chambre” (Segraisiana, 105; quoted in
P. Morillot, Scarron
et le Genre Burlesque, p. 96).
Cf.《莊諧選錄》卷三：“吳中某尚書［潘伯寅］秉體天閹，五十餘無子。一日同僚某造見曰：‘何不納妾為宗祧計乎？’其時，旁侍僕甚眾，某尚書微哂，以手指僕輩曰：‘便宜若輩矣！’”
In English slang, “cracked in the
ring” means “no longer a virgin.” In Melford’s letter to Phillips we read: “though
my being thought capable of making her [Ms Blackerby, an Oxford
whore] a mother might have given me some credit, the reputation of an intrigue
with such a cracked pitcher does me no honour at all” (Humphry Clinker, “Everyman’s Library”, p. 57). Hence such patronymics
like “Lady Crackenbury”, “Mrs Chippenham” & “Mme de
la Cruchecassée” — in Vanity Fair,
ch. 47 — each for a time Lord Steyne’s “reigning favorite”. “Chip” is of course
a synonym of “crack”, & the French
have the saying, “Tant va la cruche à l’eau qu’à la fin elle se brise.” Cf. “破頭鴨子”, “完璧”, etc.; 陳汝錡《甘露園短書》卷七：“《史記》：‘禹辛壬娶塗山，癸甲生啟’，是在胎二日而生也。……若謂二日無生育理，是塗山以敗罐作黃花，大禹醮姙婦為國母也”;《醒世姻緣傳》四十五回：“薛三省娘子問說：‘夜來姐夫往屋裡睡來？’狄周媳婦笑說：‘你該叫著個拘盆釘碗的來纔好。’薛三省媳婦笑道：‘怎麼？姐姐的傢伙沒的破了？’”七十二回：“魏三封退婚約：‘嫌破罐，不成親’”. Cf. James Wickstead’s copperplate “Misconduct” (reproduced
in E. Fuchs, Illustrierte
Sittengeschichte: Das bürgerliche Zeitalter, S. 90): “Hapless Celia,
witless maid / By fond credulity betray’d, / Behold thy favorite vase in
pieces, / It’s size diminish’d, thine increases”, D. Cole’s copperplate “Love’s
Bitter Potion or Dolly Pregannt” (Ib.,
S. 263): “Your pitcher’s bow — now mend it if you can.”[15]【《升庵全集》卷六十駁高棅以五古為律云：“譬之新寡之文君，屢醮之夏姬，美則美矣，謂之初笄室女，則不可。於此有盲妁，取損罐而充完璧，以白練而為黃花，苟有孱婿，必售其欺。”】【元曲《鴛鴦被》第二折：“為別人成了親事，左右是破罐子了。”】【Anatomy
of Melancholy, Part. II,
Sect. III, Mem. II: “a third marries a crackt piece” (George Bell, II, p. 159).】【Croce:
“Poesia popolare e poesia d’arte” quoting “una canzonetta cinquecentesca”: “Meschina
me, che ho rotta la langella, / alla fontana la me s’è spezzata” ecc. (Filosofia,
Poesia, Storia, p. 347).】【Jonson, The
Magnetic Lady, III. i: “cracked within the ring”; IV. i: “...to woo a wife,
/ Which since is proved a crack’d commodity: / She hath broke bulk too soon”[16]
(Complete Plays, “Everyman’s Lib.”, II, pp. 545, 548).】
五百八十二[17]
晁冲之《具茨先生詩集》十五卷。晁氏兄弟中，就詩而論，固當推叔用為白眉矣。叔用列江西宗派，又出後山之門。卷十二〈過陳無己墓〉云：「鎖門脫落封將盡，題壁污漫字不分。我亦嘗參諸弟子，往來徒步拜公墳」；卷十五〈過陳無己墓〉云：「以我懷公意，知公待我情。五年三過客，九歲一門生。近訪遺文錄，重經故里行。寄書無鄭尹，誰為葬彭城」，足徵師弟之誼甚篤。然所作絕非瘦折之格，《瀛奎律髓》卷二十選其梅詩三首，亦衹能評〈感梅憶王立之〉一首云：「此首蓋學陳後山也。」按其大體健爽，轉與山谷為近，而加以溫麗。朱少章《風月堂詩話》謂山谷「用昆體工夫」，要之江西派中，膾炙義山，無如叔用者。此《集》為《海山仙館叢書》本，有注，不知出誰手，疏陋可笑。如卷二〈陸元宰寄日注茶〉云：「更期遺我但敲門，玉川無復周公夢」[18]，注不引盧仝〈謝孟諫議茶歌〉之「打門驚周公」而引《論語》「吾不復夢見周公」；卷三〈復以承晏墨贈之〉云：「大徐小篆徐熙竹」，注不曰徐楚金而曰徐季海；卷六〈謝沈次律水枕〉云：「左手截取吳淞江」，注不引「剪取吳淞半江水」而引《形勝志》，皆其類。至卷十五〈感梅憶王立之〉云：「城南載酒地」，觀《瀛奎律髓》卷二十此詩及王平甫〈黃梅花〉詩原批，乃知立之父才元居汴南作頓有亭，宜注者之不曉，以為泛指矣。【《風月堂詩話》卷下稱叔用〈三月雪〉詩之「從此斷疑摩詰畫，雪中自合有芭蕉。」】
卷一〈題魯山溫泉〉：「五十年昇平一迷，却驅萬騎出關西。」按《冷廬雜識》卷八謂《具茨集》中，五言句每於第一字、第三字讀斷，七言句每於一字、三字、五字讀斷，若「五十年」句是也。他如卷一〈香山示孔處厚〉云：「我來南經幾山過，馬行似衝山色破」；卷五〈洗馬次十一兄之道韻〉云：「主人貴想不必問，特賜內廄天麒麟」；卷八〈客有駑馬不肯借作詩誚之〉云：「金躞蹀微鳴躡影，錦連錢不動追風」；卷十〈和江子我竹夫人〉云：「郭芍藥情元最密，鄭櫻桃迹近相疏」；卷十一〈別昭德第〉云：「合抱樹元從舊種，幾叢菊始自新移」；〈和葉甥少蘊重開西湖〉云：「自迎檝立看時渡，手種花行到處開」；〈次韻再答少蘊〉云：「山蔚藍光交抱舍，水桃花色合圍臺」；〈復和少蘊〉云：「酒沽鸚鵡杯行盡，詩傍蟾蜍硯立成」；卷十二〈僧舍小山〉云：「九疑峯不斷，十字水長流」；〈挽十六叔父〉云：「翰墨傳名教，公深有世風」；〈題超化寺壁〉云：「曲池風定碧瀾平，小白魚如鏡裏行」；卷十三〈都下追感往昔〉云：「看舞霓裳羽衣曲，聽歌玉樹後庭花」，「繫馬柳低當戶葉，迎人桃出隔牆花」；〈次君表韻答葉少蘊甥〉云：「老去幽棲誰比數，傳君詩一邑人驚」；卷十四〈范元章惠然見過〉云：「借有三千兩鍾乳，定無八百石胡椒」[19]，皆是也。《野客叢書》卷八論山谷「管城子無食肉相，孔方兄有絕交書」一聯句法，謂唐人已有，舉張祜「賀知章口徒勞說，孟浩然身更不疑」，李益「柳吳興近無消息，張長公貧苦寂寥」，貫休「郭尚父休誇塞北，裴中令莫說淮西」，杜荀鶴曰「卷一箔絲供釣線，種千林竹作漁竿」，卷二十四舉杜牧、孟郊、元稹、賈島五言。【賈島「一千尋樹直，三十六峯鄰寒」；元稹「庾公樓悵望，巴子國生涯」。】【東野〈弔盧殷〉：「磨一片嵌巖，書千古光輝」；昌黎〈陸渾山火〉：「雖欲悔舌不可捫」；〈送區弘南歸〉：「落以斧引以纆徽」，「嗟我道不能自肥」，「子去矣時若發機」。】【杜牧之〈史將軍〉：「取蝥弧登壘，以駢鄰翼軍」；〈華清宮〉：「一千年際會，三萬里農桑」；〈洛中送冀處士東遊〉：「四百年炎漢，三十代宗周。二三里遺堵，八九所高丘。」】《梅磵詩話》卷上論上三下四為「折腰句」，舉白香山、歐陽永叔、盧贊元、劉後村詩為例，而均未及五言。《匏廬詩話》卷中云：「昔人以七律下四字相連者為『折句』，東野〈懷南岳隱士〉第一首云：『藏千尋瀑布，出十八高僧』，其五言『折句』乎？」不知如常建句〈聽琴贈寇尊師〉云：「一指指應法，一聲聲爽神」，陳子昂〈同宋參軍之問夢趙六贈盧陳二子之作〉云：「達兼濟天下，窮獨善其身」，儲光羲〈至嵩陽〉云：「念兹宫故宇，多此地新泉」，唐人此類句正復不少，「折腰」、「折項」，無不有之。《晚晴簃詩滙》卷十七馮元仲條下詩話云：「次牧七言律句有云：『忍遺虞玩之芒屐，異著陶元亮葛巾』，『樂郊即樹木相讓，愚谷雖鷄犬不驚』，皆以下五字相屬為句。」此又具茨〈都下追感往昔〉、〈范元章惠然見過〉二詩頸聯句法[20]，《冷廬雜識》所未及者。
卷三〈復以承晏墨贈法一〉。按此即《紫微詩話》所稱者，秀健可喜。《宋詩記事》卷三十三據《紫微詩話》錄此詩，遂誤以題為〈廷珪墨詩〉，而結句之「更寫西天貝葉書」亦不可解矣。
〈紀愁〉：「北風吹我裳，夏潦漂我屋。牛羊踐我稼，雀鼠耗我穀。雪寒墮我指，雨淫疾我腹。攬轡馬病黃，伏軾輿脫輻。陟山既見虎，還舍乃對鵩。先生昔離垢，居士今耐辱。飽聞戒畏塗，那知有沉陸。」
卷七〈睡起〉：「素屏紋簟徹輕紗，睡起冰盤自削瓜。風筍微微開綠籜，雨槐細細落黃花。經營薄産初無意，補葺疏籬漸有涯。待得高秋尋靖老，臨流坐石問丹砂。」
〈送韓溫父〉：「東風未曉放船行，臥唱陽關發渭城。老去與人渾惜別，不知何處可忘情。」
〈復次韻四兄〉：「興發看山去，書籤記讀殘。」
卷八〈傷心原注：時籍潞公宅〉：「如何圬者持鏝過，已向比鄰問子孫。」
〈怡怡軒〉：「每笑燃萁何太急，應憐舂粟不相容。」
〈贈山人沈廣漢〉：「忍情斷酒非關病，隨意收書不計貧。」
卷九〈道中〉：「北風吹雨不能晴，羸病人騎瘦馬行。鬚髪向來渾白盡，半緣憂患半多情。」
卷十〈春日〉：「陰陰溪曲綠交加，小雨翻萍上淺沙。鵝鴨不知春去盡，爭隨流水趁桃花。」
〈次二十一兄季此韻〉：「憶在長安最少年，酒酣到處一欣然。獵回漢苑秋高夜，飲罷秦臺雪作天。不擬伊優陪殿下，相隨于蒍過樓前。如今白髮山城裏，宴坐觀空習斷緣。」
卷十一〈戲留次褒三十三弟〉。按此櫽括顏魯公〈寒食帖〉。王景文〈眼兒媚〉詞、辛稼軒〈霜天曉角〉詞亦然，詳見第一百五十三則、第四百十則。
卷十三〈都下追感往昔因成二首〉：「少年使酒走京華，縱步曾游小小家。看舞霓裳羽衣曲，聽歌玉樹後庭花。門侵楊柳垂珠箔，窗對櫻桃卷碧紗。坐客半驚隨逝水，主人星散落天涯。」[22]「春風踏月過章華，青鳥雙邀阿母家。繫馬柳低當戶葉，迎人桃出隔牆花。鬢深釵暖雲侵臉，臂薄衫寒玉映紗。莫作一生惆悵事，鄰州不在海西涯。」按具茨最有名之作。《墨莊漫錄》卷八載此，謂是為李師師賦。姚惜抱《近體詩鈔》亦錄之。出入義山、冬郎間，綺麗而清挺，一洗楊、劉撏撦塗澤之敝。卷七〈次四兄韻效李義山雪〉、卷九〈送王敦素〉七律，皆學義山而不落西崑窠臼者。要以此二律及卷十五〈以少炭寄江子之〉云：「金籍曾通玉虛殿，仙曹擬拜翠微郎。莫嫌薄上温黁火，猶得濃薫篤耨香」，最為夢中神遇也。義山〈魏侯第東北樓堂郢叔言別〉云：「疑穿花逶迤，漸近火温黁。」袁伯長論詩極推義山（《清容居士集》卷四十八〈書湯西樓詩後〉、〈書鄭潛菴李商隱詩選〉），而〈擬李商隱無題四首〉（卷十）木強膚廓。楊鐵厓〈無題効商隱體四首〉（《鐵厓逸編》卷七）亦飾外而不綺麗，又了無微情，皆不如楊、劉，乃知西崑亦未易言。
卷十四〈贈江子我子之〉：「一邱須早計，五斗莫堅辭。」
卷十五〈華嚴水亭〉：「渚蒲淅淅風猶急，岸柳纖纖雨尚餘。栖鷺宿鷗渾去盡，泝溪還有兩三魚。」
五百八十三[23]
李復《潏水集》十六卷。履中博洽多聞，詩、文平直，盡意而已，不為蘇、黃風氣所濡也。此為《關隴叢書》本，誤脫極多。〈贈朗上人〉、〈贈寧公〉諸詩（王元之作），似已遵勞季言《讀書雜識》卷十二之說刪去，而〈贈張萬戶征閩凱還〉（元人李復作）則仍見卷十六。《桐江集》卷三〈讀李潏水集跋〉考其忤童貫，靖康時死於賊。【《朱文公集》卷七十一〈偶讀漫記〉有一則極稱李「博學能文，集中論孟子『養氣』得其旨，近世諸儒之論，多以過高而失之。」又有〈記潏水集二事〉：（禹廟豕首而冕服，當是鯀廟，為黃熊之象）「未考《漢書》說『啟母石』處注中言禹亦嘗變熊」；（邢恕奏下熙河）《容齋四筆》卷六亦極稱其「以區區外官而排斥上相之客（邢恕）」，錄其諫造戰車、造船兩〈疏〉。】
卷三〈回汪衍承議書〉：「徐季海書法不一，少時學其父書，筆畫方勁，多露芒角，晩乃收拾藏鋒。歴觀前人能書者，亦多如此。顏魯公為醴泉尉時，書畫纎勁清麗，後為武部員外郎，書〈千福寺碑〉方實茂密，晚節骨力遒勁，方正嚴重。」
〈回周沚法曹書〉：「〈滕王閣記〉，此不足稱也。唐初文章，沿江左餘風，氣格卑弱。庾信作〈馬射賦〉云：『落花與芝蓋齊飛，楊柳共春旗一色』，後人愛而効之。武德二年，巢刺王建舍利塔於懷州，作〈記〉云：『白雲與嶺松張蓋，明月共岩桂分叢』，如此者甚多。勃狃於習俗，故一時稱之。」按世人考「落霞孤鶩」一聯，僅知引《野客叢書》、《捫蝨新話》，無及此《集》者，陳範川《全唐文紀事》卷四十八即如是。
卷四〈答張尉書〉：「人之為文與詩，最見精神。若品格已定，辭氣卑乏，不能更有損益，此甚不佳也。猶肆筵犒設，大排二十四味，件件皆有，而無可下筯去處。若雖未成就，其中自有佳語，是猶雛鶴䙰褷，戛然一鳴，知其為雲霄外物。」
〈又答彭元發書〉：「某屢默觀投書於高位，有置而不觀者，有觀而不終者，有粗觀而明疑當作『略』讀者，有讀而不識句讀者。某毎不罪其受書之人，罪其獻者不自重而妄動也。露才揚已，觀之可愧。其進卷與程文何異？乃紿朝廷之一術耳。」
卷五〈又與侯謨秀才〉：「承問杜詩所用事實，杜讀書多，不曾盡見其所讀之書，則不能盡注。又用方言，如『岸溉』、『土銼』乃黔、蜀人語。某昔年亦嘗注之，事實稍備，為人借去不還。」
卷十一〈兵餽行〉：「調丁團甲差民兵，一路一十五萬人。鳴金伐鼓別旗幟，持刀帶甲如官軍。兒妻牽衣父抱哭，淚出流泉血滿身。（中略）人負五斗兼蓑笠，米供兩兵更自食。高卑日概給二升，六斗纔可供十日。（中略）[24]古師去疑當作『出』行不裹糧，因糧於敵吾必得。不知何人畫此計，徒困生靈甚非策。但願身在得還家，死生向前須努力。征人白骨浸河水，水聲嗚咽傷人耳。來時一十五萬人，凋沒經時存者幾。運糧懼恐乏軍興，再符差點催餽軍。比戶追索丁口絕，縣官不敢言無人。盡將婦妻作男子，數少更及羸老身。尪殘病疾不堪役，室中長女將問親。暴吏入門便驅去，脫爾恐為官怒嗔。（中略）負米出門時相語，妻求見夫女見父。在家孤苦恨竛竮，軍前死生或同處。氷雪皸瘃徧兩脚，懸淚尋親望沙漠。將軍帳下鼓無聲，婦人皆軍軍氣弱。星使奔問來幾時，下令倉皇皆遣歸。聞歸南欲奔漢界，中途又為西賊窺。悽惻自歎生意促，不見父夫不得哭。一身去住兩茫然，欲向南歸却望北。」按音節詞句雖有疵累，要其切摯處可以壓卷。結句學杜〈哀江頭〉之「黃昏胡騎塵滿城，欲往城南忘南北」，天然湊泊。（《漁隱叢話前集》卷三十五謂杜詩作「忘南北」：「聞洪慶善云：『《楚詞》：「中心瞀亂兮迷惑」，王逸注云：「思念煩惑，忘南北也。」子美用此語。』」《老學庵筆記》卷七云：「老杜〈哀江頭〉云：『欲往城南忘城北』，言皇惑不記孰為南北也。然荊公集句，兩篇皆作『欲往城南望城北』，意則一。北人謂『向』為『望』，亦皇惑之意。」參觀《敦煌掇瑣》廿一〈女人百歲篇〉：「八十眼暗耳偏聾，出門喚北卻呼東。」）卷十四〈過臨晉縣適調發〉云[25]：「千里饋糧人未返，百丁團甲户無餘」，可參觀。《後村大全集》卷八〈運糧行〉亦云：「極邊官軍守戰場，次邊丁壯皆運糧。縣符旁午催調發，大車小車聲軋軋。霜寒晷短路又滑，擔夫肩穿牛蹄脫。嗚呼，漢軍何日屯渭濱，營中子弟皆耕人。」《劍南詩稿》卷四十三〈觀運糧圖〉云：「王師北伐如宣王，（中略）直跨井陘登太行。壺漿簞食滿道傍，豈復芻粟煩車箱。（下略）」真不知甘苦人語！
卷十四〈乙卯七月十六日忽報罷任〉：「白晝曾聞驚市虎，殘灰今見禍池魚。」
卷十五〈靜坐〉：「南郭子綦初喪我，毗耶摩詰已忘言。」
五百八十四[27]
戴復古《石屏詩集》十卷，弘治時馬金汝礪編本。卷首冠以石屏父戴敏敏才《東臯子詩》十首，卷九、卷十則自宋之戴昺以至明之戴通所作詩也。此本中篇什與《中興羣公吟稿》戊集卷一至卷三所收石屏詩互有詳略。此本卷四〈哭澗泉二首〉第一首自注云：「聞時事驚心，得疾而死。『所以桃源人』、『所以商山人』、『所以鹿門人』三詩，此絕筆之詩也」（《澗泉集》卷四〈懷古〉衹存兩首，「所以鹿門人」一首佚），《吟稿》所無。而同卷「春水渡傍渡，夕陽山外山」一首，題目衹作〈世事〉，《吟稿》則題目甚長（詳見《談藝錄》第二百十九頁至二百二十頁[28]），他日當一一參稽之（《南宋羣賢小集》中之《石屏續集》卷三有〈哭澗泉〉詩及自注，又「春水渡傍渡」一詩長題）。【明徐世溥巨源云：「羈旅客中客，亂離身外身。」】石屏詩亦江湖派詩中之近晚唐體者，特才情較富，於小家中卓為雄長，終苦根據淺薄。《瀛奎律髓》卷二十數斥其「輕俗」，是也；然云「高處頗亦清健，不至如高九萬之純乎俗」，則未為公允。菊磵有脆辣處，鮮爽醒心。石屏較為甜熟，且有傖鄙氣，七絕尤無一可采。卷七〈論詩十絕‧之三〉云：「曾向吟邊問古人，詩家氣象貴雄渾。雕鎪太過傷於巧，樸拙惟宜怕近村。」竊謂「村」之一字，正石屏病痛所在。【高斯得《恥堂存稿》卷三有〈東臯子詩序〉。卷八〈次韻戴石屏見寄〉：「投老安蓬戶，平生似草堂」，自注：「戴詩頗近子美。」又〈次韻戴石屏見簡〉第二首：「安得抽簪投海岸，相從朗誦快心詩」，自注：「戴有〈快心詩〉數十章。」】
卷首趙汝騰〈序〉：「懶菴為選其尤者，別為小集。懶菴於詩，少許可韋、陶之外，雖《輞川》、《柳州集》，猶有所擇，今於石屏詩，取至百三十首，非其機有契合者乎？石屏自謂幼孤失學，胸中無千百字書，強課吟筆，如為商賈者乏資本，終不能致奇貨也。又言作詩不可計遲速，每一得句，或經年而成篇。」按包恢〈序〉云：「陶靖節言：『此中有真意，欲辨已忘言』，故『讀書不求甚解』。黃太史稱杜詩『無一字無來處』，然杜無意用事，真意至而事自至耳。黃有意用事，未免少與杜異。不知四詩三百篇用何古人事若語哉？[29]石屏自謂少孤失學，胸中無千百字書。予謂其非無書也，殆不滯於書與不多用故事耳。有靖節之意焉。果無古書，則有真詩。」王埜〈序〉云：「猶每以不讀書為恨。予曰：『「平生不識字，把筆學吟詩」，非韋蘇州之言乎？蘇州興寄冲逸，遠追陶、謝，顧不識字耶？蘇州且不識字，式之亦何必讀書哉！』」卷一〈謝東倅包宏父〉云：「平生不識字，把筆學吟詩。舊說韋蘇州，於余今見之」[30]；同卷〈祝二嚴〉云：「小年學父詩，用心亦良苦。搜索空虛腹，綴緝艱辛語」，皆可參觀。包氏〈序〉今本《敝帚稿略》失收，參觀第六百十一則《劉後村大全集》卷九十四〈韓隱君詩序〉，方正澍子雲所謂「學荒翻得性靈詩」，見稱於《隨園詩話》者也（原作見畢沅《吳會英才集》卷二〈落莫〉：「輕寒輕暖暮春時，落莫心情只自知。交廣易添離別恨，學荒翻得性靈詩。焚香下幔留烟久，臨帖懸肱作字遲。我度放懷偏未得，惱公無賴是楊枝」）。
趙汝談〈序〉：「式之謂蹈中有高鑒，使之擇焉，得百餘首，此編是也。余讀之，竟見式之果清放，弟識亦甚精到，皆非朽拙所能逮者。然式之老益窮，而蹈中則下世踰年矣。蓋存歿俱可哀也。余暇復論詩哉？」按《瀛奎律髓》卷二十原批云：「《石屏小集》詩百餘首，趙嬾菴汝讜字蹈中所選也。蹈中詩，至中年不為律體，獨喜為『選體』，有三謝、韋、柳之風，其所取石屏詩，殆亦庶矣。兄曰南塘汝談，字履常，詩、文俱高，尤精四六跋語，頗亦不滿於石屏之詩」云，即指此。【《瀛奎律髓》卷二十云：「石屏之詩，一言以蔽之，曰輕俗而已，蓋根本淺也。」】
吳子良〈序〉：「其詩清苦而不困於瘦，豐融而不豢於俗，豪健而不役於粗，閒放而不流於漫，古淡而不死於枯，工巧而不露於斵。詩之意義貴雅正，氣象貴和平，標韻貴高逸，趣味貴深遠，才力貴雄渾，音節貴婉暢，若石屏者，庶乎兼之矣。」按《荊溪集》不傳此文，自是水心家法，極口推尊石屏，正以「四靈」之後為晚唐體者，石屏儼然雄伯耳。趙嬾菴詩亦蒙水心所賞，謂為筆力浩大，上追古人而獨步今時，觀《水心集》卷二十七〈答劉子至書〉、《荊溪林下偶談》卷四可知，蓋皆沆瀣一氣也。故趙以夫〈序〉云：「石屏詩備眾體，採本朝前輩理致，而守唐人格律」；鞏豐〈序〉云：「大抵唐律尤工，務新奇而就帖妥」；卷六有七律一首題云〈杜子野主簿約客賦一詩為贈與樸一聯云生就石橋羅漢面吟成雪屋閬仙詩〉，皆資證驗。若包恢〈序〉云：「詩有近體，有古體。以他人則近易工而不及古，在石屏則古猶工而過於近。以此視彼其有效晚唐體，如刻楮剪繒，粧點粘綴，僅得一花一葉之近似，猶黃鐘之於瓦釜也」；王埜〈序〉云：「近世以詩鳴者，多學晚唐，致思婉巧，起人耳目，終乏實用，所謂言之者無罪，聞之者足戒，要不專在風雲月露間。式之獨知之，長篇短章，隱然有江湖廊廟之憂，雖詆時忌，忤達官，勿顧也」；姚鏞〈序〉云：「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」；卷三〈題東野農歌末〉云：「不學晚唐體，曾聞大雅音」（《東野農歌集》卷四〈石屏後集鋟梓敬呈屏翁〉云：「要洗晚唐還大雅，願揚宗旨破羣痴」，即用石屏詩意），皆如不屑晚唐者，非其實也。卷一〈謝東倅包宏父〉第一首即云：「風騷凡幾變，晚唐諸子出」，與「黃鐘瓦釜」之說，正相鑿枘矣。《端平詩隽》卷一〈戴式之垂訪村居〉詩有云：「獨有詩人貨難售，朔雪寒風常滿袖。孤館青燈不自聊，短帽鶉衣競相就。獬豸峨冠豈無事，不觸姦邪觸詩士。雖當聖世尚寬容，滔滔寧免言為諱。君不見古者防川不禁口，里諺村謠無不有」云云，可與「江湖廊廟」語相發明，而《瀛奎律髓》卷二十原批云：「慶元、嘉定以來，乃有詩人為謁客者。錢塘湖山，此曹什百為羣。阮梅峯、林可山、孫花翁、高菊磵，往往雌黃士大夫，口吻可畏，至於望門倒屐。石屏為人則否，每於廣座中，口不談世事，縉紳多之」云云，豈傷時憂國，專資以為詩？如守江、邊事、所聞事機、時事之類，開卷即是。齊己〈偶題〉：「時事懒言多忌諱，野吟無主若縱横。君看三百篇章首，何處分明著姓名。」卷七〈論詩十絕‧之六〉云：「飄零憂國杜陵老，感寓傷時陳子昂。近日不聞秋鶴唳，亂蟬無數噪斜陽。」其慎言語而不謹於文字者乎？【《桐江集》卷四〈跋戴石屏詩〉云：「年四、五十，始以詩遊江湖間，見知於真西山。早年讀書少，故無事料。清健輕快，自成一家。在晚唐間，而無晚唐之纖陋。晚節以詩名重，諸公爭致饋𩟝，歸而成家，八十餘歲。陳杰壽夫為予言：『石屏詩亦非千載不朽之文，未為極致。』」《續集》卷三十〈故家名閥說贈滕賓日〉云：「石屏親筆〈晦翁亭〉詩有云：『故鄉風俗應如舊，前輩風流尚可傳。』字獨肥，語亦平正。賓日謂：『石屏一短小老子，今江湖間罕有此詩人。」】
樓鑰〈序〉：「登三山陸放翁之門，而詩益進。」按卷六〈讀放翁先生劍南詩鈔〉云：「茶山衣鉢放翁詩，南渡百年無此奇。入妙文章本平淡，等閑言語變瑰琦。三春花柳天裁剪，歷代興衰世轉移。李杜陳黄題不盡，先生模寫一無遺。」蓋放翁雖出茶山之門，而不用江西法，出入中晚唐人，《談藝錄》一百四十三頁至一百四十六頁考論甚詳[31]（參觀《桐江集》卷一〈滄浪會稽十詠序〉）。石屏七律如卷六之〈思歸二首〉（「吟詩不換校書郎」）、〈飲中〉、〈客游〉、〈癖習〉、〈思歸二首〉（「地上皇皇蟣虱臣」），每似《劍南集》中頹率之筆，消息可參也。
趙蕃〈序〉：「學詩者莫不以杜為師，句或有似之，而篇之全似者絕難得。陳後山〈寄外舅郭大夫〉，此陳之全篇似杜者也。戴式之亦有〈思家〉用陳韻云：『湖海三年客，妻孥四壁居。飢寒應不免，疾病又何如。日夜思歸切，平生作計疎。愁來仍酒醒，不忍讀家書。』此式之全篇似陳者也。蹈中所選，乃不在數，何耶？」按此本亦未收。石屏雖學晚唐，而不以晚唐自限，亦時一參江西法。卷七〈戲題詩稿〉云：「冷淡篇章遇賞難，杜陵清瘦孟郊寒。黃金作紙珠排字，未必時人不喜看。」〈論詩十絕‧之一〉云：「文章隨世作低昂，變盡風騷到晚唐。舉世吟哦推李杜，時人不識有陳黃。」卷八〈望江南‧自嘲第一解〉云：「賈島形模元自瘦，杜陵言語不妨村，誰解學西昆？」雖不免湊合，然賈島為一妙，杜陵為一祖，言外欲兼江西與永嘉也。「時人不識有陳黃」，分明為江西惋惜矣。
《東臯子詩‧小園》：「小園無事日徘徊，頻報家人送酒來。惜樹不磨修月斧，愛花須築避風臺。引些渠水添池滿，移個柴門傍竹開。多謝有情雙白鷺，暫時飛去又飛回。」
卷一〈夢中亦役役〉：「天鷄啼一聲，萬枕不遑安」；「當其閒睡時，作夢更多端。」
〈觀陸士龍作顧彥先婦答夫二首有感和韻〉。按同卷又有〈答婦詞〉，自注：「舊嘗和〈顧彥先婦答夫二首〉，故復賦此篇。」〈答夫〉有云：「妾生胡不仁，失身從浪子。昔為連理枝，今作摶沙散。勿聽五羊歌，富貴忘貧賤。」〈答婦〉有云：「勿謂遊子心，而不念家室。新交握臂行，肝胆猶楚越。醜婦隔江山，千里情弗絕。」《輟耕錄》卷四記石屏流寓江右武寧，娶富翁女，居二三年，忽欲歸，告妻家以曾娶，妻以奩贈，作詞餞之，投水而死（楊有仁編《升庵全集》卷五十一亦記此事[32]，而斥為不仁不義之尤，至引俗謔：「孫飛虎好色，柳盜跖貪財，石屏殆兼之」）。此二首倘有本事耶？明人荀鴨作《鴛鴦棒》傳奇[33]，〈自序〉云：「戴石屏薄游江西，誘富家一女後卒，致此女含恙自溺而死，有嘲之者曰：『柳盜跖貪財，孫飛虎好色，這個賊牛一身兼得』」云云，亦見俗語流傳之廣。戚鶴泉《景文堂詩集》卷五〈題石屏詩鈔〉云：「湖海人豪推石屏，晚出意氣吞九溟。渭南西山競把臂，眼中寧復知四靈」，已是鄉曲之私，海樣言語，又云：「名高自古受玷傷，新縑舊素誰致詳。南村升庵好剿說，庶幾識者為表章。」蓋指《宋詩鈔》小序實亦未能為開脫也。鶴泉《風雅遺聞》卷一謂《天台縣志》記石屏婦姓金名伯華，後人至祀入貞烈祠，而考之本《集》，石屏遨游湖海，而伉儷濶絕之情，眷眷楮墨，如〈思家〉、〈春日懷家〉、〈簡季道侄〉、〈和彥先〉、〈婦答夫〉。宋末遺集無一言及此，元末明初乃始盛傳其事，所謂「無兄盜嫂」、「未娶婦撾婦翁」。《歷代題畫詩類》卷五十四有石屏〈題亡室真像〉七律云：「求名求利兩茫茫，千里歸來賦悼亡」云云。《至正直記》卷三謂：「台州人授室游他方，見富貴可依者，便云未娶，前日妻不顧矣。」石屏此作，可謂自拔於鄉風者矣。
〈大熱〉：「左手遮赤日，右手招清風。揮汗不能已，扇笠競要功。」「大渴遇甘井，汲多井欲竭。入喉化為汗，不救胸中熱。」
〈毗陵太平寺畫水〉：「何人筆端有許力，捲來一片瀟湘碧。摩挲老眼看不真，怪見層波湧虛壁。天慶觀中雙黑龍，物色雖殊妙處同。能將此水畜彼龍，方知畫手有神通。龍兮水兮終會遇，天下蒼生待霖雨。」按同卷有〈毗陵天慶觀畫龍姑蘇羽士李懷仁醉筆〉云：「萬物焦枯天作旱，兩雄壁隱寧非嬾。」按二畫詳見《梁谿漫志》卷七，太平寺畫水者，「郡人徐友」之筆。《楊誠齋集》《四部叢刊》本卷十〈太平寺水〉七古自注云：「郡人徐友畫清濟貫河。」湯垕《畫鑒》云：「太平寺徐友畫水名清濟貫河，中有一筆，尋其端末，長四十丈。兵火間寺屋盡焚，而此殿巍然獨存。」俞德鄰《佩韋齋集》卷二〈常州天慶觀畫龍二世傳仙筆一點睛乘雷電飛去一經兵火亦復不存〉七古。
〈祝二嚴〉：「我自得二嚴，牛鐸諧鍾呂。粲也苦吟身，束之以簪組。遍參百家體，終乃師杜甫。羽也天姿高，不肯事科舉。風雅與騷些，歷歷在肺腑。持論傷太高，與世或齟齬。長歌激古風，自立一門戶。」按卷二有〈訪嚴坦叔〉五律、卷三有〈江上夜坐懷嚴儀卿李友山〉五律、卷四有〈聞嚴坦叔入朝再用前韻〉五律二首、卷五有〈讀嚴粲詩風撼瀟湘覆江空雪月明以其一聯櫽括為對〉五律、〈寄耒陽令嚴坦叔〉五律、卷六〈有感〉七律（結云：「詩家幸有嚴華谷，襟誼猶能眷眷予」）、卷七〈嚴儀卿約李友山高與權酌別〉七絕、〈昭武太守王子文日與李賈嚴羽共觀前輩一兩家詩因有論詩十絕〉（《滄浪先生吟卷》卷二〈逢戴式之往南方〉五律、〈天末遇周子俊自行在還言石屏消息〉五律、卷三〈送戴式之往天台歌〉）。
〈春郊牧養圖〉：「我之居，原在野，平生慣識牛羊者。」
卷二〈元日呈永豐劉叔冶知縣〉：「焚香拜元日，受歲客他州。白髮難遮老，新年諱說愁。無人能訪戴，有地足依劉。桃李爭春事，梅花笑未休。」按同卷〈過三衢遇徐叔高同訪鄭監丞〉云：「適逢徐孺子，同訪鄭當時。」蓋杜少陵〈題張氏隱居‧之二〉云：「杜酒偏勞勸，張梨不外求」；〈寄岳州賈司馬六丈巴州嚴八使君〉云：「賈筆論孤憤，嚴詩賦幾篇」（《日知錄》卷二十七謂用《史記》賈誼至長沙弔屈原事、《漢書‧藝文志》嚴助賦三十五篇）；岑嘉州〈宿關西客舍寄東山嚴許二山人〉云[36]：「灘上思嚴子，山中憶許由」，已開切姓關合之法。《顏氏家訓‧勉學第八》譏「江南閭里間，羞為鄙樸，強事飾詞，及王則無不仲宣，語劉則無不公幹。」則六朝習俗至唐而入詩也。東坡〈次韻孫巨源〉第三首云：「漱石先生難可意，嚙齧氊校尉久無朋」；周紫芝《太倉稊米集》卷三十五〈沈季卿出元具茨王相山詩卷相示〉云：「子猷何處尋修竹，漫叟今誰弔舊祠」；洪駒父《老圃集》卷下〈宿翠岩寺呈馬彥若徐師川〉云：「已聞高士徐孺子，更約平生馬少游」，亦此體。李符《香草居集》卷一〈將之昆明留別潘方伯張觀察〉：「共說安仁能愛客，真逢京兆善居官。」茹綸常〈一笑山房同田夫西郊兩先生夜坐〉：「王名可冠楊盧駱，任筆能高晉宋齊（《晚晴簃詩滙》卷九十八）。」《吳梅村詩集》卷十二〈過維揚弔衛少司馬紫岫〉：「非關衛瓘需開府，欲下高昂在護軍。」自注：「高杰，秦人，典其軍事。」《漁洋菁華錄》卷六下〈贈謝方山舍人‧之一〉：「深憐謝客吟詩好，莫訝王郎斫地頻。」明人尤喜為之，如李于鱗〈集徐子與席上懷梁公實〉云：「即看徐孺能懸榻，豈謂梁鴻更出關」；謝茂秦〈雪夜過于鱗適已醉卧〉云：「太白醉眠呼不起，惠連賦就却空來」；王元美〈送蔡子木〉云：「一去蔡邕誰倒屣，可堪王粲獨登樓」；又〈鄒山人齎謝茂秦書來謁〉云：「有客相逢鄒衍似，停鞭為出謝莊書」；江進之《雪濤小書》卷三記：「王百穀寓泰興陳令君所，陳觴之樓上，賦詩云：『多君下榻能留穉，有客登樓亦姓王』」，皆奇類。百穀詩未收入《南有堂集》，上句并隱其名「穉登」。《四溟山人集》卷四〈初春同陳郎中汝忠登鄴城兼寄徐子與李于鱗二比部〉云：「中論懷徐幹，髙風識李膺」；卷七〈夏夜集孫員外文揆宅〉云：「我愧謝莊賦，人稱孫楚賢」；卷十二〈寄劉一軒少參〉云：「春草句工慚謝監，扶風歌古憶劉琨」；卷十五〈夜會黃侍御文卿〉云：「才同黃憲逢今代，賦擬玄暉愧此臣」；卷十六〈寄張惟訓〉云：「浪跡謝康樂，端居張長公」；〈秋夕張少參文輝劉僉憲仲安舟發塌河〉云：「作賦張平子，能文劉孝標」；《升庵全集》卷二十九〈何雙梧徐靜谷相送至廣通〉：「纔醒何遜梅花夢，又續徐凝瀑布詩」；《明詩紀事》庚籤卷二高出〈贈荊伯鶚〉云：「忽漫風塵一歌哭，居然天地兩荊高。」《玉茗堂詩集》沈際飛〈題詞〉云：「有沈稱休文，揚稱子雲之類。」卷八〈送沈師門人張茂一餉使〉云：「紫氣尚悔張壯武，青韶同事沈休文。」
〈春盡日〉：「花殘蜂課蜜，林茂鳥安巢。」
〈麻城道中〉：「三杯成小醉，行處總堪詩。臨水知魚樂，觀山愛馬遲。林塘飛翡翠，籬落带酴醾。問訊邊頭事，溪翁總不知。」
卷三〈人不聊生梅柳早有春意〉：「出門如有碍，對酒亦無歡。」
〈庚子荐饑〉：「有天不雨粟，無地可埋屍。」「人語無生意，鳥啼空好音。」「險淅矛頭米，愁聞飯後鐘。」
〈別邵武諸故人〉：「白髮亂紛紛，鄉心逐海雲。此行堪一哭，無復見諸君。老馬尋歸路，孤鴻戀舊羣。酒闌何處笛，今夜不堪聞。」按《須溪集》卷六〈劉孚齋詩序〉斥三、四為俗，「無復」作「何日」，較勝（見第四百十五則）。
卷四〈九日〉：「今日知何日，他鄉憶故鄉。黄花一杯酒，白髮幾重陽。日晚鴉爭宿，天寒雁叫霜。客中無此醉，何以敵凄凉。」按前四句甚好。趙長卿〈南歌子〉云：「此日知何日，他鄉憶故鄉，亂山深處過重陽」，全同。
〈貧作負恩人為何宏甫作〉。
卷五〈山中夜歸〉：「落盡一林月，山中夜半歸。驚行羣犬吠，破暗一螢飛。舉我赤藤杖，敲君白板扉。興來眠不得，吟到曉星稀。」
卷六〈湖南見真帥〉：「以若所爲即伊呂，使其不遇亦丘軻。」
〈夜宿田家〉：「身在亂蛙聲裏睡，心從化蝶夢中歸。」
〈思歸〉：「肉糜豈勝魚羹飯，紈袴何如犢鼻褌。」
〈訪趙升卿〉：「田園自樂陶元亮，鄉里多稱馬少游。」按同卷〈閱世〉云：「自甘韜遁陶元亮，不愛贏餘馬少游。」
卷七〈釣臺〉：「萬事無心一釣竿，三公不換此江山。平生誤識劉文叔，惹起虛名滿世間。」按《西溪叢話》載王菉漪〈梅花〉絕句云：「不受塵埃半點侵竹籬茅舍自甘心。只因誤識林和靖，惹得詩人說到今。」艾性《剩語》卷下〈哭北谷羅先生〉自註：「先生云：『無人描畫無人詠，始是梅花自在時。』蓋自況也，故及之。」
卷八〈望江南‧自嘲第三解〉：「巧語不如瘖。」
【《梅磵詩話》卷上：「唐人詩云：『蛇蝎性靈生便毒，惠蘭根異死猶香。』《詩人玉屑》許此一聯為『愛憎格』。戴式之〈京都懷徐淵子直院〉一聯云：『菊花到死猶堪惜，秋葉雖紅不耐看。』亦此體。」〇「『梅花丈人行，柳色少年時。』上句用唐子西〈二月見梅花〉詩：『衹今已是丈人行，肯與年少爭春風。』下句用《南史》張緒事。」〇「《隋史‧宇文化及傳》『令孤』註：『令，離呈反。』式之〈思歸〉云：『未有人供令狐米，欲從鬼借尉遲錢。』是以『令』為去聲矣。」〇「陸魯望詩云：『溪山自是清涼國，松竹合封蕭灑侯。』式之〈贈葉竹山〉云：『山中便是清涼國，門下合封蕭灑侯。』王性之詩：『雲氣與山為態度，月華借水作精神。』式之〈舟中〉云：『雲為山態度，水借月精神。』則成蹈襲。」〇《中興羣公吟稿》戴石屏〈會稽山中〉絕句云：「若使山中無杜宇，登山臨水定忘歸。」按本少陵〈法鏡寺〉：「冥冥子規叫，微徑不復取。」朱竹垞〈車盤驛題逆旅主人壁〉云：「曲澗層層響，叢篁個個齊。前山行更好，不信鷓鴣啼。」兼石屏此詩及東坡〈和陶〉云：「前山正可數，後騎且勿驅」之意[37]。梁廷柟《曲話》卷二自記「少作《了緣記》有云：『聲喚不如歸，恰似孤燈枕畔、寒風窗裏，怯聽子規啼。』或云脫化自尤展成《鈞天樂》云：『教我琵琶怎抱，行不得也哥哥。』不知元曲先有，石君寶《秋胡戲妻》云：『你待要諧比翼，你也曾聽杜宇，他那裏口口聲聲，攛掇先生不如歸去。』鄭德輝《倩女離魂》云：『只聽的花外杜鵑聲，催起歸程』云云。」《堅瓠集》卷二載人譏李西涯詩云[38]：「回首湘江春未綠，鷓鴣啼罷秭歸啼行不得也哥哥、不如歸去。」
五百八十五[39]
宋庠《元憲集》三十六卷。《提要》謂：「《文獻通考》云：『一作《湜中集》』。」「湜中」二字不可解，觀卷三十六〈緹巾集記〉，乃知形近致誤。館臣於本《集》文字瞠若無覩，遂不能是正淆譌，殊可笑也。莒公詩華整婉秀，沿西崑之體，故〈緹巾集記〉自云見賞於劉子儀，《詩話總龜前集》卷六引《古今詩話》稱莒公好玉谿詩，不愛韋蘇州。而不為所限，姿態較清隽，卷軸較浩博，意境較寬濶，遂尠撏撦餖飣之病。古詩學初唐，不向義山討生活，亦以崑體諸公皆不為古詩也。好作悽怨語、釋氏語，好自注出處用意。文和潤乏警拔，亦初、盛唐人風格。【又第七十一則。】【《說郛》卷 45 錢世昭《錢氏私志》：「宋相郊居政府。上元夜，在書院內讀《周易》，聞其弟學士祁點華燈，擁歌妓，醉飲達旦。翌日，喻所親，令誚讓，云：『相公寄語學士，……不知記得某年上元，同在某州州學內吃虀煮飯時否？』學士笑曰：『却須寄語相公，不知某年同在某處吃虀煮飯，是為甚底？』」
卷一〈幽牕賦〉：「輕吹襲牖，頽陽溢穴」，「但見野馬羣飛，纎蟲族悦」，「隱見互舉，如翳如空。渺倦目以旁睇，監眾態之無窮。」
〈登應州古城賦〉：「春塍如繡，春樹如薺。啼鳥壊堞，蒼烟故壘。」
卷二〈獻臣學士與余通書因成感詠〉：「蒸青勁竹殘，削誤規刀苦。」
〈予自到嶺外居嵐瘴中未嘗不以先死對治今歲在海外遇寒食偶成此詩〉。按劉師培《左菴集》卷八〈元憲集書後〉謂此詩及卷二十〈深州防禦使錢景臻制〉、卷三十六〈成都文翁祠堂碑銘〉皆他人作，誤收入《集》，是也。舍〈文翁祠碑〉定為景文作外（見《景文集》卷五十七），餘均未能得其名。余考此詩乃李泰發作，見《莊簡集》卷二（參觀第五百三十八則）。勞季言《讀書雜識》卷十二亦考定此詩為李莊簡作，疑〈錢景臻制〉為王震作，又據《寇忠愍公詩集》載〈贈謚誥〉及《鷄肋編》卷下考定〈贈太傅中書令寇準謚忠愍制〉為丁度作。
〈登大明寺塔〉：「遠岫幾培塿，空江一明滅」，「豁若醯覆開，醒如豆聰撤。」
〈雨夜秋興示仲氏子京〉：「羣芳伴雨泣，百竅隨風吟」，「暗隙濕已逗，孤燈青欲沉」，「歡緒未盈尺，憂端巳越尋。」
卷三〈馬上見梅花初發〉：「無雙春外色，第一臘前香。」
〈獨坐郡圃北齋〉：「宿雨催秋物，清風卷歲華。殘蜩初去柳，寒蝶尚尋花。密篠留蒼霧，紅衣染落霞。城頭八九子，日昃亂啼鵶。」
〈相州春日〉：「狂飛憎野絮，多舌恨春禽。」
卷四〈霽後〉：「羲皇誰可上，靖節有牕風。」按卷十三〈晚春小園觀物〉云：「北户清風時一至，此身疑到上皇來」；《景文集》卷八〈旬沐〉云：「里無休汝騎，牕有上羲人」；卷十〈公會亭〉云：「靜時飛蝶夢，閒處上皇風」，蓋本帛道猶〈陵峯採藥詩〉「始知百代下，故有上皇民」、王無功〈田家〉「何忝上皇人」、錢仲文〈衡門春夜〉「自謂上皇人」，尚非《古今黈》卷七所詆劉無黨詩「上人談笑自羲皇」之比（劉詩建《中州集》卷三，與劉仙倫《招山小集》中〈題歸去來圖〉詩僅異兩字，足徵《招山小集》於南宋時已流入北方矣）。唐道士陳寡言〈山居〉：「何須問今古，便是上皇人。[40]」
卷五〈甲戌冬屬疾賜告〉：「目界空花眩，脾倉宿滓寒。」
〈臨秋〉：「蟬休疑惜己自注：漢杜密曰：『隱情惜巳，自同寒蟬』，蜻去似猜人自注：事見《淮南子》。」
〈秋湖上晩景〉：「曲檻堪何倚，幽芳幾獨尋。頹雲山露頂，孤月水呈心。翹鷺多依淺，驚魚更就深。歸懷無晤語，身世兩浮沉。」
〈北樓晩景〉：「殘陽鵶翅外，新月鳥行邊。」
卷五〈小疾〉：「味減轑羮釜，心疑照弩觴。」「弩」字拙甚。同卷〈守洛〉：「病與疑弓釋，身隨散櫟存」則無妨。〈晩望京邑〉：「鴻聲騁寥泬，鴉意戀黄昏。」「騁」字拙甚。卷十二〈題高明堂後池雜景〉：「波鳧泛泛騷人卜，風蝶翩翩佛助飛。」下句用「魏收驚蛺蝶」事，是底言語？
卷六〈行舟漢口〉：「鬢亂將成葆，心揺不後旌。」按卷十五〈道出襄城遇大風於野〉云：「心如揺斾頭如葆，却羨枯桑了不知。」
〈春晦小雨〉：「輕雷遙應電，斜日倒成虹。」
〈春夕〉：「暝色蔽孤齋，空軒向夕開。花低應露下，月暗覺雲來。燭牖輕蛾聚，風枝倦鳥猜。無言聊隱几，萬境一靈臺。」
卷八〈自訟〉：「案上仙書𢎥自注：《真誥》謂書一種為一𢎥，齋中梵㲲巾。」按黃伯思《東觀餘論》卷上譏宋景文不識「𢎥」字，賦詩云：「仙圖幾弔開自注：《眞誥》以一卷爲一弔。」檢《武英殿叢書》本《景文集》卷八〈和天休舍人奉祠太一宮見寄詩〉：「端木千尋竦，仙圖幾卷開無自注。」是後人已改為「卷」字，非景文本來面目。觀元憲此詩，亦見兄弟二人皆不識「𢎥」字也。《鏡花緣》第十六回林之洋在毘騫國盤古存案不識「卷」字[41]，曰：「原來盤古舊案都是論弓的。」又按此詩有序云：「余自洛移許，公餘有宴坐之勝，偶感曩事，多所悔，尤類非他人所知，因題曰『自訟』。」陸放翁《劍南詩稿》卷三十八〈簡鄰里〉云：「獨坐冷齋如自訟」，自注：「三舍法行時，嘗上書言事者屏置一齋，曰『自訟』。」
卷十〈坐舊州驛亭上作自注：亭下是梁山泊水數百里〉：「廢壘孤亭四面風，座疑身世五湖東。長天野浪相依碧，落日殘雲共作紅。漁缶回環千艇合自注：泊中漁舟數百艘，各擊瓦缶以驚魚，然後眾舟若合圍狀，巷蒲明滅百帆通自注：泊水無岸，行舟多穿菰蒲為道，舟人謂之蒲巷。恍然歸興無人會，閒向青冥數塞鴻。」按寫梁山泊形勢如畫，今人考訂《水滸》者均未引此。《欒城集》卷六〈梁山泊〉云：「近通沂泗麻鹽熟，遠控江淮粳稻秋。粗免塵泥污車腳，莫嫌菱蔓繞船頭。謀夫欲就桑田變，客意終便畫舫游。愁思錦江千萬里，漁蓑空向夢中求自注：時議者將乾此泊以種菽麥。」又〈梁山泊見荷花憶吳興〉第一首云：「南國家家漾綵𦫊，芙蕖遠近日微明。梁山泊裏逢花發，忽憶吳興十里行。」第五首云：「菰蒲出沒風波際，雁鴨飛鳴霧雨中。應為高人愛吳越，故於齊魯作南風。」比是清遊之勝地也。韓稚圭《安陽集》卷五〈過梁山泊〉云：「蒲密遮如港，山遙勢似彭。不知蓮芰裏，白晝苦蚊蝱。」又按李卓吾《焚書》卷三有〈忠義水滸傳序〉，卷五「李涉贈盜」條引劉伯溫〈詠梁山泊分贓臺〉詩；顧苓《塔影園集》卷四〈跋水滸圖〉（「羅貫中客霸府張士誠，所作《水滸傳》題曰《忠義水滸》。後之讀其書者，艷草竊爲義民，稱盗賊爲英傑。仲尼之徒，不道桓文，貫中何居焉？至正失馭，甚於趙宋；士誠跳梁，劇於宋江。《水滸》之作,以爲士誠諷諫也。士誠不察。而三百年之後，高傑、李定國之徒，聞風興起，始於盗賊，歸於忠義，未始非貫中之敎也」）；《古夫于亭雜錄》卷五載丘石常海石〈過梁山泊〉詩（「施羅一傳堪千古，卓老標題更可悲。今日梁山但爾爾，天荒地老漸無奇」）；《魏叔子詩集》卷一〈讀水滸三首〉（「杯羹亡國，壺飱得士。無往不復，眾少如此」云云；「爾富我覬，爾功我忮。一父之子，截為二體」云云；「君不擇臣，相不下士。士不求友，乃在於此。寒曰衣爾，飢曰食爾。曰相為生，曰相為死。」梁份《懷葛堂集》卷三〈贈顧玉亭序〉：「余師魏叔子題《水滸傳奇》有云」即「君不擇臣」四句）；朱眉君《題鳳館稿》卷一〈讀水滸〉四章（「言登南山，虎豹瞷余。吾不爾獲，爾毋軒渠。含笑縛爾，爾則無餘。惟犬與羊，永奠厥居。如黔之驢，夫何與予」；「彼亦才子，彼亦才子。彼才迅電，彼才瞠視。不敢識字，何況生死。彼才則火，人心如水」）；包慎伯《中衢一勺》卷六《閘河日記》（「陽穀縣猶藏武松所殺虎皮，土人言明初陽穀縣知縣武姓，甚貪虐，有二妻，一潘一金，俱助夫婪索。西門有慶大戶尤被其毒，民稱武為賣餅大郎，言其於小民口邊求利也」）數則皆未見稱引。【袁桷〈次韻瑾子過梁山濼〉：「流移散空洲，崛強尋故壘。波清鳧聚陣，日落魚會市。」《清容居士集》卷十三〈梁山濼三首〉：「梁山水濼八百里，容得碧鷗千萬羣」云云；「嫩草豐茸間軟蒲，一川晴綠映春蕪」云云。《霞外捃屑》卷九「梁山泊」條謂「順治七年後，已成平陸，無復滴水。《宋史》所載宋江事，乃在江淮，不在山東。《水滸》中州、縣，乃弄筆憑空結撰，按之地志，率多不合。《悅親樓集》卷二十二〈閘河雜詠十首‧之五〉云：『小說虞初太雜龐，人言水滸傳無雙。安山前是梁山濼，閒聽兒童說宋江。』」】【曾燦青藜《六松堂集》卷五〈過梁山〉：「舊濼今何在？梁山插暮雲。從來豪傑士，肯蹈虎狼羣。眾志成堅壁，殊恩奪重軍。衣冠皆盜賊，那得更如君。」】【《後山詩集》卷十一〈顏市阻風〉五律二首（第二首：「萬古梁山泊，今年未掾船」），天社注未詳其地，《瀛奎律髓》注之。】【宋末元初吳存《樂庵遺稿》卷一〈過大野〉：「梁山泊裏雨濛濛，借得鷗沙過短篷。三百里天香世界，平生無此芰荷風。」】【《列朝詩集》甲編十五胡翰〈夜過梁山濼〉：「日落梁山西，遙望壽張邑。洸河帶濼水，百里無原隰。葭菼參差交，舟檝窅窕入。……往時冠帶地，孰踵萑蒲習。肆噬劇跳梁，潛謀固壞蟄。古云萃淵藪，豈不增怏悒。」】
〈無題〉：「西峙東流意欲分，紫簫呼鳳隔烟聞。書因屢答機無素，夢為頻驚峽費雲。羽帳枕寒晨未轉，玉樓衣洽夜還薫。琴烏一曲何曾聽，七十鴛鴦失舊羣。」
卷十一〈休日〉：「枉是胸中無塊壘，可能皮裏有陽秋。」按此詩亦見《景文集》卷十三，題作〈歸休〉，「無」字作「存」字。
〈晚坐觀風亭〉：「過窮旅雁書難得，啼殺飢烏曲未成。」
〈府齋秋日〉：「池面宿烟荷蓋老，階脣漏日竹陰疏。」
〈送巢邑孫簿兼過江南家墅〉：「離恨枉能寛帶眼，歸期猶喜詠刀頭。」
〈初春夙興〉：「戌城宮柝應營笳，愁枕無眠感曙鴉。料峭風頭猶助凍，蒼涼天角欲成霞。離離奕局殘星墜，脈脈刀環片月斜。尚喜初年輕病骨，半簪蓬影況蒼華。」
〈新春雪霽坐郡圃池上〉：「水面綠深知凍解，柳梢黄淺覺春來。」
卷十二〈赴鄭出國門經西苑池上〉：「長楊獵近寒熊吼，太液歌餘瑞鵠飛。」按《苕溪漁隱叢話前集》卷二十六引《西清詩話》載此聯，「近」作「罷」，「歌餘」作「波閑」。
〈府齋歲晏節物感人輒成拙詩二篇〉：「衰鬢不徒欺曉雪，孤心兼欲伴寒灰。二」
〈落花〉。按「金谷樓危到地香」不如唐彥謙〈春殘〉之「落花如便去，樓上即河梁。」
〈答子京〉：「蝸頭狼籍爭鋒地，鴻影徘徊避弋天。」按改「角」為「頭」，不妥。《元憲集》中此類語頗多，皆義山短處也。
〈重展西湖〉：「綠鴨東陂已可憐，更因雲竇注西田。鑿開魚鳥忘情地，展盡江河極目天。向夕舊灘都浸月，過寒新樹便留烟。使君直欲稱漁叟，願賜閒州不計年。」按《侯鯖錄》卷二載此詩全首，有數字異，如「過寒」作「遏空」。《宋詩紀事》卷十一錄此詩，實自《侯鯖錄》來，而注曰《西清詩話》，《詩話》僅引三、四而已。《石林詩話》以「樹」為「木」，「留」為「生」。
卷十三〈世事〉：「世事悠悠未遽央，虛名真意兩相忘。休誇失馬曽歸塞，未省牽牛解服箱。四客高風輕楚漢，五君新詠棄山王。秋來數有漁樵夢，多在箕峯潁水旁。」按《瀛奎律髓》卷六選此詩，脫去題目與姓名，遂似楊文公〈書懷寄劉五〉之第二首矣。又「數」字誤作「安」字。紀批云：「『四客』當指四皓，然四皓與楚無涉，未免添出。『安』字恐誤。」又按卷十四〈偶觀竹林七賢畫象〉亦云：「山王偶爾兼榮遇，不得延年贈短章」，即此詩第六句之意。《浦城遺書》本《武夷新集》卷五無此詩[42]，可徵虛谷疏誤。梁退庵反補之入《逸詩文》內，失之未考也。「楚漢」何不易為「漢帝」，庶幾與「山王」對偶不偏枯？
〈寄子京〉：「八年三郡駕朱輪，更忝鴻樞對國均。老去師丹多忘事，少來之武不如人。車中顧馬空能數，海上逢鷗想見親。惟有弟兄歸隱志，共將耕鑿報堯仁。」王銍《四六話》卷上記：「元厚之參知政事，一日奏事差誤，神宗曰：『卿如此忘事？』明日乞退，用元憲詩作〈乞致仕表〉云：『少之燭武尚不如人，老矣師丹仍多忘事』，神宗讀表至此，憐而留之。」
〈晚春小園觀物〉：「新筍偶隨枯篠出，野花閒抱故籐開。」
〈孟津晚景〉：「二月春風引夕陰，鞏煙邙樹悵登臨。醯鷄甕外天方濶，偃鼠河濱水正深。萬疊紺螺山北聳，半邉紅壁日西沉。憑高薄暮人誰見，一寸如丹魏闕心。」
〈春陰復霽〉：「濃雲破綻翻無雨，落日因循便作霞。」
卷十四〈坐池上看水偶成〉：「岸花紅弔影，沙鴨綠昂頭。」「弔影」下字工絕，更勝杜甫〈風雨看舟前落花〉之「影遭碧水潛勾引」。
〈春晚坐建隆寺北池上〉：「城外東風卷落花，更臨春水惜年華。單車刺史無鐃吹，叫殺荒池兩部蛙。」
〈默記淮南王事〉：「室餌初嘗謁帝晨，宮中鷄犬亦登真。可憐南面稱孤貴，纔作仙家守廁人。」按《景文集》卷二有〈詆仙賦〉謂淮南昇仙乃葛洪誣妄，有云：「王負驕以弗虔兮，又見譎（按當作『謫』）於列真。雖長年之彌億兮，屏帑偃而愈愆。」自注：「葛《傳》云：『仙伯主者劉安不恭，乃謫守郡都廁。』」與乃兄此詩意同。《劉後村大全集》卷四十二〈雜興〉第一首云：「昇天雖可喜，削地已堪哀。早知守廁去，何須拔宅來！」更刻峭。
〈再到小園見落花有感〉：「雨餘春色太怱怱，已有殘英滿地紅。先落後開應定分，一般遲日一般風。」參觀三八九則《元詩選‧甲集》黃庚〈春陰芍藥〉。
〈丁晉公故第東池上作〉：「薛縣高臺已半傾，碧波遺甃自盈盈。池蛙不辨興亡意，猶學當年鼔吹聲。」
〈漫成二絶〉：「日日開門避寵呼，舞驂飛蓋共虛徐。昔人枉解痊秦痔，只得君王五乘車。」按《景文集》卷十三〈休日〉云：「誰言舐痔非長策，却得君王五乘車。」高似孫《緯略》卷四亦引之，又《緯略》卷一「茂陵中書」條引元憲「怪牒汲俊來，幽經茂陵聚」，卷九「上雍」條引宋元憲詩「積高人上雍，昭配禮從周」，卷十一「詩用六經字」條引宋元憲詩「花寒陰鶴警，霜早腐螢疏」，此《集》皆未收。《麈史》卷下載元憲改名字，李獻臣不知為誰，元憲書一絕云：「紙尾何勞問姓名，禁林依舊玷華纓。欲知七略稱臣向，便是當年劉更生。」（《苕溪漁隱叢話前集》卷二十六引《西清詩話》載元憲〈答葉清臣〉絕句異八字，《靖康緗素雜記》卷九所載與《西清詩話》略同。[43]）《宋詩紀事》卷十一采自《合璧事類》及《揚州府志》之挽詞四律、〈山光寺〉五古一首，此《集》亦遺去。
〈東園池上書所見〉：「春餘池圃似郊村，吏散斜暉半府門。燕雀不知爭底事，啁啾言語到黄昏。」按卷十五〈晚庭噪雀〉云：「空庭殘雨伴風休，芳樹陰陰晩雀留。無限好枝堪斂翼，不知何事更啁啾。」
卷十五〈聞蛙有感〉：「燕池昔有金丸戲，蟈氏今無牡菊烟。暗水羣鳴聊借問，為官何似為私年。」按三、四佳甚，以口舌得官者讀之，當不知愧悔也。
〈小園〉：「小園烟草接鄰家，桑柘陰陰一徑斜。卧讀陶詩未終卷，又乘微雨去鋤瓜。」「歷盡危機歇盡狂，殘年惟有付耕桑。麥秋天氣朝朝變，蠶月人家處處忙。」「村南村北鵓鳩聲，刺水新秧漫漫平。行偏天涯千萬里，却從鄰父學春耕。」「少年壯氣吞强敵，晩覺丘樊樂事多。駿馬寶刀俱一夢，夕陽閒和飯牛歌。」按風格詞意皆似南宋人語，決非元憲作。【此放翁詩也。見《劍南詩稿》卷十三，「强敵」作「殘虜」，放翁方鄉居治圃，同卷有〈蔬圃〉絕句七首、五古一首、〈灌園〉一首（「少携一劍行天下，晚落空村學灌園」），卷二十七〈讀陶詩〉（「我詩慕淵明，恨不造其微。雨餘鋤瓜壟，月下坐釣磯」）。】
卷三十六〈緹巾集記〉：「余幼學為文，尤嗜篇什，而不能工也。與子京初試吏，罷歸，中山劉公子儀見索近詩，因各獻一編。他日劉公取當世文士古、律詩作句圖置齋中，人不過一兩聯，惟取余兄弟所作獨占三十餘聯，自是劉公深加訓奬。然每自陋其詞，未嘗綴緝。一日忽得新舊詩十餘卷于几案間，乃小兒充國等所次，覽之不覺掩口胡盧而笑，謂之曰：『此燕石也，與瓦甓無異。雖緹巾什襲，庸足寶乎？』命亟去之。」
[5]「棫朴」原作「朴棫」。
[9] It’s Shelley (from “The
Triumph of Life”). 引文脫一「up」字：“Their
odorous sighs up to the smiling air”。
[10] That
is Kant’s phrase. 語出《純粹理性批判》（Kritik
der reinen Vernunft, 1te Auflage, Kapitel 39） 。藍公武譯「知覺斷片」，鄧曉芒譯「知覺的某種夢幻曲」。
[11] William James 確實頗好康德此語，曾數引之，皆誤作「Rhapsodie
der Wahrnehmungen」，見 “The Experience of Activity” (1904) 、 “Pragmatism & Common Sense” (1906)。
[18]「遺我」原作「遺公」。
[19]「范元章」原作「范少章」。
[22]「落天涯」原作「各天涯」。
[24]「中略」原作「下略」。
[25]「臨晉」原作「臨津」。
[26]「遇風」原作「遇氣」。
[29]「若」原作「與」。
[30]「把筆」原作「把臂」。
[32]「楊有仁」原作「楊有慎」。
[33]「荀鴨」前似脫「范」字。
[34]「期」原作「宜」。
[35]「湘上作」原作「湘中作」，據第一百九十五則改，但未知何者為確，待考。
[36]「東山」原作「山東」。
[37]「正可數」原作「正好數」。
[38]「瓠」原作「觚」。
[40]「今古」原作「古今」。
[41]「第十六回」原作「第十五回」。
[42]「浦城遺書」原作「浦城叢書」。
[43]「靖康緗素雜記」原作「建康緗素雜記」。
沒有留言:
張貼留言