《容安館札記》766～770則

七六六^[1]

Adelbert von Chamisso, Peter Schlemihls wundersame Geschichte (1814) 首版扉頁

Jottings:

Jean Paul, Vorschule der Ästhetik, §75: “Das Epos stellt die Begebenheit, die sich aus der Vergangenheit entwickelt, das Drama die Handlung, welche sich für und gegen die Zukunft ausdehnt, die Lyra die Empfindung dar, welche sich in die Gegenwart einschliesst” (Werke, München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1963, Bd. V, S. 272). R. Wellek says that E.S. Dallas (Poetics) & E. Staiger (Grundbegriffe der Poetik) are inspired by this neat schema (A History of Modern Criticism, II, 379). I think Jean Paul himself might have taken some hint from Aristotle and Goethe. In discussing the three kinds of rhetoric, Aristotle says: “To each of these a special time is appropriate: to the deliberative the future; to the forensic the pasts; to the epideictic the present” (Rhetoric, I. ii. 4; The Loeb Classical Library, pp. 33-5); & Goethe thus contrasts the epic & the drama: “1. Vorwärts schreitende, welche die Handlung fördern; deren bedient sich vorzüglich das Drama. 2. Rückwärts schreitende, welche die Handlung von ihrem Ziel entfernen; deren bedient sich das epische Gedicht fast ausschliesslich” (“Über epische und dramatische Dichtung”; G.F. Senior & C.V. Bock, Goethe the Criric, p. 47).

Hegel wrote to Niethammer on Oct. 13, 1806 after having caught sight of Napoleon: “... den Kaiser — diese Weltseele — sah ich durch die Stadt zum Rekognoszieren hinausreiten; — es ist in der Tat eine wunderbare Empfindung, ein solches Individuum zu sehen, das hier auf einen Punkt konzentriert, auf einem Pferde sitzend, über die Welt übergreift und sie beherrscht...”[2] (Hegel, Ausgewählte Texte, hrsg. R.O. Gropp, Bd. I, S. 50). Cf. Tom Moore to Lady Donegal: “What do you think now of my supernatural friend, the emperor [who has come back from Elba]?... For my part, I could have fancied that Fate herself was coming in that carriage” (The Letters of Thomas Moore, ed. Wilfred S. Dowden, I, pp. 355-6; cf. p. 356, to Leigh Hunt: “... for my own part, I should have thought that Fate herself was coming in that carriage”). “Die Weltseele auf einem Pferde”; “Fate herself in a carriage” — the two phrases form nice pendants to each other.

Philip Massinger, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, IV. ii: “Justice Greedy: ‘Who, Tapwell? I remember thy wife brought me / Last new-year’s tide, a couple of fat turkies.’ Tapwell: ‘And shall do every Christmas....’ Greedy: ‘... See you this honest couple; they are good souls / As ever drew out faucet; have they not / A pair of honest faces?’ Wellborn: ‘I o’erheard you, / And the bribe he promis’d... / ... / ... I’ll give you a yoke of oxen / Worth all his poultry.’” Greedy: ‘... Come near; nearer, rascal. / And, now I view him better, did you e’er see / One look so like an archknave?’” etc. (Plays, ed. F. Cunningham, p. 418, “The World’s Classics”, pp. 571-2). Cf.《水滸傳》九回：“那差撥不見他把錢出來，變了面皮，指著林沖罵道：‘……我看這賊配軍，滿臉都是餓文，一世也不發跡！……’ 差撥見了銀子，看林沖笑道：‘林教頭，……雖然目下暫時受苦，久後必然發跡。據你這大名，這表人物，必不是等閑之人，久後必做大官’”；《儒林外史》三回：“胡屠戶罵一個狗血噴頭道：‘像你這尖嘴猴腮，也該撒拋尿自己照照。……我每常說，我的這個賢婿，才學又高，品貌又好，就是城裏頭那張府、周府這些老爺，也沒有我女婿這樣一個體面的相貌。’”

When Peter Schlemihl learns from bitter experience that human activity is vain & proper respect must be paid to the actually happened event, the child of necessity, which surpass any accomplished deed, his sad remark: “Ich habe erstlich diese Notwendigkeit verehren lernen, und was ist mehr als die gethane Tat, das geschehene Ereignis, ihr Eigentum!” (A. Chamisso, Peter Schlemihls wundersame Geschichte, §VII, “Nelson’s German Texts”, p. 44) can be given a Hegelian twist & turned into a definition of freedom. See 第二○八則; to Pindar, Cicero, Epictetus, Ariosto, Montesquieu, Goethe & others quoted there, the following may be added. Campanella: “Senno senza Forza de’ Savi”: “Tal che sforzati i savi a viver come / gli stolti usavan, per schifar la morte, / ché ’l più gran pazzo avea le regie some, / vissero sol col senno a chiuse porte, / in pubblico applaudendo in fatti e nome / all’altrui voglie forsennate e torte”[3] (Opere di G. Bruno e di T. Campanella, a cura di A. Guzzo e R. Amerio, p. 799); Leopardi: “La libertà, il più bello ed util pregio di una lingua deriva nella lingua tedesca, e proporzionatamente ancora nell’inglese, dall’imperfezione: laddove nell’italiana, unica fra le moderne, deriva o sta colla perfezione... E nell’italiano e ne’ savi reggimenti, la perfetta legislazione e la libertà non solo si compatiscono, ma scambievolmente si favoriscono. Nel tedesco la libertà sarebbe incompatibile colla legge, e non sussiste che in virtù della non esistenza o imperfezion della legge”[4] (Zibaldone, a cura di F. Flora, I, pp. 1228-9); Coleridge: “What we must, let us love to do. It is a noble chemistry, that turns Necessity into Pleasure” (The Notebook of S.T. Coleridge, ed. Kathleen Coburn, I, §41). Heiddeger also speaks of transforming  historical necessity into resolution (Entschlossenheit) (Marjorie Greene, Martin Heidegger, p. 33). Campanella’s poem, in particular, is prophetic & has a significance for contemporary intellectuals, though it was written before the Orwellian 1984, & contains the naïve belief in the security of closed windows & barred doors. What Campanella means is somewhat similar to the moral pointed by Kafka’s ape: “My way out could not be reached through flight... If I became like human beings the bars of my cage would be taken away” etc. (“A Report to an Academy”, In the Penal Settlement, tr. by E. Muir, p. 176). But being only an ape, he lacks the ability to make restriction mentale of Campanella’s savi; cf. Donne, Ignatius His Conclave on the Jesuit improvement upon the Machiavellian liberty of dissembling, & lying — the doctrine of “mental reservation” (Complete Poetry & Selected Prose, by J. Hayward, p. 385). Campanella’s savi are the descendents of the Greek sceptics; cf. Sextus Empiricus’s treatise Arguments Against Belief in a God: “We sceptics follow in practice the way of the world, but without holding any opinion about it” etc. (quoted in B. Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 262); Descartes’s 1^st & 2^nd “maximes” by which he “formai une morale par provision” (Discours de la Méthode, III^e Ptie., éd. G. Gadoffre, pp. 23-4); Gibbon on the duplicity of the ancient philosophers (Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 2 & 15, “The World’s Classics”, vol I, pp. 34-5; II, pp. 78-9. According to J.M. Robertson’s judicious A History of Free Thought in the 19^th Century, such a hot gospeller of veracity & sincerity as Carlyle was a life-long practitioner of “mental reservation” (though Robertson did not use the term), not to mention Samuel Rogers, George Eliot & Macauley (vol. I, pp. 7, 105, 108; II, p. 527), who all dared not “speak out” but followed Aristotle’s inculcation of “caution.” Somerset Maugham, A Writer’s Notebook, p. 59: “If forty million people say a foolish thing it does not become a wise one, but the wise man is foolish to give them the lie.” Cf. E. Westermarck, Early Beliefs & Their Social Influence, p. 76-7.

Henry Tonks: “A present should always be something the giver would like to keep” (Joseph Hone, The Life of Henry Tonks, p. xii). This remark is worthy of a place besides Hopkins’s advice to Robert Bridges on giving alms: “Give, up to the point of sensible inconvenience” (The Letters of G.M. Hopkins to R. Bridges, ed. C.C. Abbott, p. 63), which he explains in another letter: “... for instance, you might know of someone needing & deserving an alms to give which would require you in prudence to buy no books till next quarter day or to make some equivalent sacrifice of time. These are sensible inconveniences” (p. 63).

Sartre’s analysis of “le regard” is perhaps one of the few really original & sensitive passages in his turgid tome L’Être et le Néant: “Mon appréhension d’autrui dans le monde... se refère à ma possibilité permanente d’être vu par lui... L’autrui est, par principe, celui qui me regarde” (p. 315).The he devotes nearly twenty verbose pages to labour the point, which boils down to this: Suppose I am listening at or peeping into a keyhole, & suddenly feel myself, in turn, observed; all at once, instead of being engaged as a free agent, in a project of my own, I find myself becoming a mere object in the observer’s view, & recognize the indignity of my positions, my regard is reduced to a regard regardé by the observer’s regard regardant. Morris Bishop’s limerick on a highly absurd situation contains the best illustration of Sartre’s philosiphising and might be called a specimen of existentialism without tears & yawns: “Said old Peeping Tom of Fort Lee: / ‘Peeping ain’t what it’s cracked up to be; / I lose all my sleep, / And I peep & I peep / And I find ’em all peeping at me’” (David McCord, What Cheer, p. 214). Cf. Christian Morgenstern: “Vice Versa”: “Ein Hase sitzt auf einer Wiese, / des Glaubens, niemand sähe diese. // Doch, im Besitze eines Zeisses, / betrachtet voll gehaltnen Fleisses // vom vis-à-vis gelegnen Berg / ein Mensch den kleinen Löffelzwerg. // Ihn aber blickt hinwiederum / ein Gott von fern an, mild und stumm” (Wm Rose, A Book of Modern German Lyric Verse, p. 39); Bliss Perry, The American Mind, pp. 174-5: “A German Professor in a lecture illustrated the humor of superiority in this way. A company of strolling players sets up its tent in a country village. On the front seat is a peasant, laughing at the antics of the clown... Just behind the peasant sits the village shop-keeper. He has watched stage clowns many a time & he laughs, not at the humor of the farce, but at the naïve laughter of the peasant infront of him... Behind the shop-keeper sits the schoolmaster... & he smiles in turn at the sile of superiority on the face of the shop-keeper. Well, peeping in at the door of the tent is a man of the world, who glances at the clown, then at the peasant, then at the shop-keeper, then at the schoolmaster, each one of whom is laughing at the other, & the man of the world laughs at them all.” These situations may be called “la chaîne de regards en cascade on en escalier.” Cf. also《韓詩外傳》卷十：“楚莊王將興師伐晉［《說苑‧正諫》：‘吳王欲伐荆’］，……孫叔敖………進諫曰［《說苑》：‘舍人少孺子，…… 懷丸操彈於後園，露沾其衣……］：‘臣園中有榆，其上有蟬，蟬方奮翼悲鳴，欲飲清露，不知螳蜋之在後，曲其頸，欲攫而食之也；螳蜋方欲食蟬，而不知黃雀在後，舉其頸，欲啄而食之也；黃雀方欲食螳蜋，不知童挾彈丸在下，迎而欲彈之；童子方欲彈黃雀，不知前有深坑，後有窟也［《說苑》：‘臣挾彈欲取黃雀，不知露沾衣］’”（cf.《戰國策‧楚策四》莊辛諫楚襄王）；《莊子‧山木篇》：“莊周遊於雕陵之樊，覩一異鵲。……蹇裳躩步，執彈而留之。覩一蟬，方得美蔭而忘其身。螳蜋執翳而搏之，見得而忘其形；異鵲從而利之，見利而忘其真。莊周怵然曰：‘噫！物固相累，二類相召也。’捐彈而反走。”

André Gide: “Originalité, consiste à se priver de certaines choses. La personnalité s’affirme par ses limites. Mais, au dessus, il est un état supérieur, où Goethe arrive, olympien. Il comprend qu’originalité limite, qu’en étant personnel, il n’est plus que quelqu’un. Et se laissant vivre en les choses, comme Pan, partout, il écarte de lui toutes limites, jusqu’à n’avoir plus que celles mêmes du monde. Il devient banal, supérieurement” (Journal, 1893 “Feuillets”, Bib. de la Pléiade, p. 42). This banalité supérieur is nothing else but the “negative capability” & lack of “identity” required of the poets by Keats (Letters, ed. H.E. Rollins, I, p. 193, p. 387), see 第六八四則. If Gide’s reading in English literature had included Keats, he would have mentioned him, together with Blake & Browning, among those in whose works “j’ai trouvé... plutôt une autorisation qu’un éveil” (pp. 729, 781, 782, 785, 859) (The entry on Oct. 30, 1917 quoted, most probably at second-hand, Keat’s remark “Better be imprudent movables than prudent fixtures” — p. 635).

Gide: “C’est presque toujours par vanité qu’on montre ses limites — en cherchant à les dépasser” (Journal, 27 Juillet, 1922, p. 738). Cf. Leopardi, Zibaldone, ed. F. Flora, II, p. 1290: “Il più certo modo di celare agli altri i confini del proprio sapere, è di non passarli mai” (Also verbatim as no. 86 od Pensieri with the word “mai”omitted, Opere, a cura di S. Solmi, I, p. 741).

Gide: “Ce qui prouve que son appétit n’était pas très vif, c’est qu’il prétendait préfère ‘rien’, dès qu’il ne pouvait obtenir l’exquis. Montaigne blâme le souci du choix chez les jeunes; il préfère les voir plutôt un peu gloutons, que gourmets” (26 Juillet, 1924, p. 787). Cf. Coleridge, Lectures & Notes on Shakespeare, ed. T. Ashe, p. 81: “It would be a hopeless symptom, as regards genius, if I found a young man with anything like perfect taste”; Schopenhauer, Aphorismen zur Lebensweisheit, Kap. 6: “An einem jungen Menschen ist es in intellektueller und auch in moralischer Hinsicht ein schlechtes Zeichen, wenn er im Tun und Treiben der Menschen sich recht früh zurecht zu finden weiss:... es kündigt Gemeinheit” (Sämtl. Werk., hrsg. P. Deussen, Bd. IV, S. 533).

Gide: “Ce besoin de chercher partout et sans cesse un enseignement, une ‘leçon’ — m’est insupportable... Les grandes oeuvres ne nous instruisent pas tant, qu’elles nous plongent dans une sorte d’hébétude presque amoureuse. Ceux qui cherchent partout leur profit, je les compare à ces prostituées qui, avant de se livrer, demandent: ‘Combien tu donnes?’” (18 mai, 1930, p. 983). Very sharply said (cf. the “formule de la fille de joie avant de se livrer aux étreintes du client,” recorded iby G. Sandry, Dict. de l’Argot Moderne: “Chéri, tu penses à mes rentes!”); but Gide in his old age seems to have fallen himself into the habit of “venal” reading, see for example Pages de Journal 1939-1942, p. 24: “[à propos of Eckermann’s Conversations with Goethe] toujours profitable”; p. 96: “Tous deux [Simplicius Simplicissimus & Buckle’s History of Civilization] m’ont été de si grand profit.” Saintsbury criticized Goethe as “a Utilitarian of culture” (History of Criticism, III, p. 375), because he had said to Eckermann: “Fleming ist ein recht hübsches Talent, ein wenig prosaisch, bürgerlich; er kann jetzt nichts mehr helfen” (Gespräche, 4 Januar 1827, Aubau Verlag, 1956, S. 251). Gide is not entirely clear of a similar suspicion. On the other hand, he has also well characterised the complementary didactic indecency on the part of the artists who flash the meat or fling it all in one’s face: “Jean Christophe. Ces traînasseries, ce lyrisme épais et rudimentaire, germanique on dirait — me sont intolérables. Et jusqu’à la constante évidence de l’intention, qui me choque comme une impudeur artistique, une indélicatesse” (28 mars, 1916, p. 551).

Gide: “C’est avec les beaux sentiments qu’on fait de la mauvaise littérature” (28 Juillet 1929, p. 928); again: “J’ai écrit, et suis prêt à récrire encore, ceci qui me paraît d’une évidente vérité: ‘C’est avec’ etc. Je n’ai jamais dit ni pensé, qu’on ne faisait de la bonne littérature qu’avec les mauvais sentiments. J’aurais aussi bien pu écrire que les meilleures intentions font souvent les pires oeuvres d’art et que l’artiste risque de dégrader sont art, à le vouloir édifiant. Je n’ai garde d’ajouter: toujours; l’exemple de Péguy m’en empêche”[5] (2 sept. 1940; Pages de Journal, p. 67). Cf. Alberto Moravia: “Dei loro prodotti artistici tutto é stato detto quando si é detto che sono il frutto della buona volontà. Ora con la buona volontà si costruiscono le fabbriche, ma non si fa della poesia” (“Il comunismo al potere e i problemi dell’arte” in L’uomo come fine e altri saggi, p. 171). Oddly enough, Gide seems never to have suspected that he was saying ditto to Wilde in De Profundis: “In art good intentions are not of the smallest value. All bad art is the result of good intentions” (Letters, ed. R. Hart-Davis, p. 495). Cf. Carducci: “delle buone intenzioni non è lastricata soltanto la via dell’inferno, si anche la cattiva poesia, o la poesia falsa, o la poesia pedagogica o utilitaria o socialistica d’oggi, o la poesia romantica a velleità popolaresche di venti o trent’anni fa, che son tutt’uno” (Opere, Ed. nazionale, XIX, p. 90, quoted in N. Busetto, G. Carducci, 1958, p. 326).

Gide: “Ce qu’ils veulent, c’est un critère qui leur permette de ne pas avoir de goût pour juger” (quoted in Raymond Bayer, Traité d’Esthétique, p. 244). Cf. Croce, La Poesia, 5^a ed., pp. 308-9; Charles Maurras on Brunetière’s lack of taste and direct literary experience: “Faute d’yeux, cette homme avisé s’est enquis de bonnes lunettes; faute de jambes, il s’est procuré des béquilles. Traduisons. Il a essayé de remplacer le goût et le jugement dont il était pauvre par les meilleurs des principes qu’il pût trouver” (“Bon et Mauvais Maîtres” in Oeuvres Capitales, III, p. 521); Rivarol: “Tandis que le jugement se mesure avec son objet on le pèse dans la balance, il ne faut au goût qu’un coup d’oeil pour décider sou suffrage ou sa répugnance, je dirais presque son amour ou sa baine” (Écrits politiques et littéraires, choisis par V.-H. Debidour, p. 54); E.E. Kellett, Fashion in Literature, p. 87: “Criticism comes in later to justify taste, but it is not itself taste”; Ramon Fernandez: “On Classicism”: “Pseudo-classical sensibility is nothing but an intellectual pretence of feeling” (Melvin Rader, A Modern Book of Esthetics, 1^st ed., 1935, p. 224); G. Santayana, The Sense of Beauty: “So people who have no sensations, & do not know why they judge, are always trying to show that they judge by universal reason” (Op. cit., 3^rd.ed., p. 45). It was Quintilian who first drew the distinction between the learned & the vulgar[6]: “Docti rationem artis intelligunt, indocti voluptatem.”[7] Clive Bell, Old Friends, p. 69 [on Roger Fry][8]: “The pure unscientific aesthete is a sensationalist. He feels first; only later, if he happens to be blest — or curst — with a restless intellect, will he condescend to reason about his feelings... Now the mere aesthete is for ever being bowled over by facts: the facts that upset him being as a rule works of art which according to current doctrine ought not to come off but which somehow or other do.” The phrase about the lame man’s crutches recalls Lessing’s famous passage in the Hamburg Dramaturgy, “Nachspiel” (Verlag Philipp Reclam jun; Leipzig, S. 533): “Ich bin ein Lahmer, den eine Schmähschrift auf die Krücke unmöglich erbauen kann. Doch freilich; wie die Krücke dem Lahmen wohl hilft, sich von einem Orte zum andern zu bewegen.” According to J.G. Robertson, Lessing’s Dramatic Theory, p. 132, this is perhaps an allusion to a passage in Young’s Conjectures on Original Composition[9]: “For Rules, like crutches, are a needful aid to the Lame, tho’ an impediment to the strong.” Cf. Robert Lloyd: “Shakespeare: An Epistle to M^r Garrick” (on the classicist with their “pomp of rules” & their “pedantry of schools”): “Which rules, like crutches, ne’er became, / of any use but to the lame” (The Oxford Bk. of 18th Cent Verse, p. 471).

            【Jules Renard, Journal, éd. NRF, p. 15: “Elle a une façon d’être bonne, très méchante.” Cf. the famous Italian epitaph given in G. Fumagalli, Chi l’ha detto?, 9^a ed., p. 705: “Qui giace un Cardinale / Che fe’ più mal che bene, / Il ben lo fece male, / Il mal lo fece bene”; Hugo, Littérature et Philosophie Mêlées, éd. Albin Michel, p. 231: “Lemercier fait du bon et du mauvais, mais il fait mieux le mauvais que le bon”; Montesquieu, Cahiers 1716-1755, éd. Bernard Grasset, p. 49: “Je disais d’un homme: ‘Il fait le bien; mais il ne le fait pas bien’”; Rivarol: “Sur 10 personnes qui parlent de nous, 9 en disent du mal, et souvent la seule personne qui dit du bien, le dit mal”; Marcel Pagnol, Topaz, II. v, Suzy: “En somme, il faut quelqu’un qui fasse honnêtement desaffaires malhonnêtes.” Castel-Bénac: “Non, non! Employons des mots innocents, ça nous fera la bouche fraîche. Il nous faut quelqu’un qui fasse à la manière d’avantguerre des affaires d’après guerre”; H.F. Jones, Samuel Butler, II, p. 34: “Gladstone... a good man in the very worst sense of the word.”】

七六七^[10]

George Grosz, THE POET MAX HERMANN-NEISSE (1927, MoMA)

讀 Wm. Rose, A Book of Modern German Lyric Verse，甚有佳篇，異乎常選。安得求諸家全集諷詠之，免於賣花擔上看桃李哉？Richard Beer-Hofmann: “Schlaflied für Mirjam”: “Blinde — so gehn wir und gehen allein. / Keiner kann keinem Gefährte hier sein — / ... / Was ich gewonnen gräbt mit mir man ein. / Keiner kann Keinem ein Erbe hier sein —” usw. (p. 21). 按 Hermann Hesse: “In Nebel”: “Seltsam, im Nebel zu wandern! / Einsam ist jeder Busch und Stein, / Kein Baum sieht den anderen, / Jeder ist allein” (p. 95); Alfred Wolfenstein: “Städter”: “Nah wie Löcher eines Siebes stehn / Fenster beieinander, drängend fassen / Häuser sich so dicht an, dass die Strassen / Grau geschwollen wie Gewürgte sehn. // ... // Unsre Wände sind so dünn wie Haut, / Dass ein jeder teilnimmt, wenn ich weine, / Flüstern dringt hinüber wie Gegröhle: // Und wie stumm in abgeschlossner Höhle / Unberührt und ungeschaut / Steht doch jeder fern und fühlt: alleine”[11] (p. 154)，居羣而愈獨，有鄰而更孤，所謂 “the Lonely Crowd” 也。Fritz Strich: “Franz Kafka und das Judentum”: “Die Heimatlosigkeit und Fremdheit in dieser Welt, die Ungeborgenheit, die unbehaustheit und die unerbittlich kalte Einsamkeit, aus der es keine Ausweg keinen Durchbruch gibt. ‘Ja’, so heisst es in einem Gespräch [Kafkas], ‘der Mensch ist trostlos, weil er inmitten der ständig anwachsenden Massen von Minute zu Minute immer mehr und mehr vereinsamt’” (Kunst und Leben, S. 141); “” (S. 143). 「斯世非吾世，羣倫當誰倫」《盋山詩錄》卷二〈雨中喜蘇龕枉過留宿山居即事有作〉[12]，此即猶太人也【“The French poet Edmond Jabès says that all poets are Jews” (New Statesman, 20 Dec. 1974, p. 890)】。Giovanni Papini: “Ottava Poesia”: “Son di me stesso l'amato amante / bacio labbro con labbro, mi stringo / hi mano con mano bruciante, / mi posseggo intero e non fingo. // Non siamo più coppia — son l'uno / partorito dal proprio amore; / son chi non cerca nessuno / sazio appena del suo furore” (Carlo L. Galino, ed., Contemporary Italian Poetry, p. 34)，亦孑然弔影者之強顏為壯語，如豪彘之「自為牝牡」耳。餘見七○一則論 Goethe: “Erlkönig”，又六三五則論 Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena, §396。參觀 Erich Fromm, The Fear of Freedom (略見 J.A.C. Brown, Freud & the Post-Freudians, pp. 151-5[13])。【E.M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel, p. 98: “We cannot understand each other, except in a rough & ready way; we cannot reveal ourselves, even when we want to; what we call intimacy is only a makeshift; perfect knowledge is an illusion.” Maugham: “We go lonely, side by side but not together, unable to know our fellows & unknown by them”; cf. Schnitzler’s play The Lonely Way & T.S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party: “People make noises, & think they are talking to each other; they make faces & think they understand each other” (Klaus W. Jonas, The World of Somerset Maugham, p. 74).】

〇Christian Morgenstern: “Zwei Elementarphantasien” (pp. 32-5) 奇思妙筆，第一首 “Meeresbrandung”: “Warrrrrrrte nur... / ... / wie viele stolze Festen wird / mein Arm noch in die Tiefe ziehn — / ... / zurück und vor, zurück und vor — / und immer vor mehr denn zurück — / ... / und endlich nichts mehr ist als Ich / und Ich und Ich und Ich und Ich / warrrrrrrte nur...”。按  Robert Frost: “Once by the Pacific”: “Great waves looked over others coming in, / And thought of doing something to the shore / That water never did to land before. / ... / ... & yet it looked as if / The shore was lucky in being backed by cliff, / The cliff in being backed by continent” (An Anthology of Famous English & American Poetry, “Modern Library”, p. 747) 亦頗蘊此意，而未抒寫飽滿【袁中道《珂雪齋近集》卷一〈游石首繡林山記〉（「以水戰石」、「以石戰水」）】【W.S. Landor: “To Ianthe”: “My hopes retire; my wishes as before. / Struggle to find their resting place in vain: / The ebbing sea thus beats against the shore; / The shore repels it; it returns again”】，遂使 George Crabbe: “The Village”: “Who still remain to hear the ocean roar,[14] / Whose greedy waves devours the lessening shore” 黯然無光焰矣！第二首 “Die Flamme”: “So sterben zu müssen — / auf einer elenden Kerze! / Tatenlos, ruhmlos / im Atemchen / eines Menschleins / zu enden!... / ... / Komm doch näher, / du schlafender Kopf! / ... / Der Pelz am Mantel — / der Pelz — der Pelz — / hinüber — hinüber — / ah! fass ich dich — hab ich dich — / ... / so — / den Vorhang hinauf — /” usw.，于星星之火，不啻如見肺肝，若自口出。Jeremy Taylor, XXVIII Sermons: “For so have I seen a busie flame sitting upon a sullen cole turn its point to all the angles & portions of its neighbourhood & reach at a heap of prepared straw, which like a bold temptation called it to a restless motion & activity” etc. (L.P. Smith, ed., The Golden Grove, p. 52) 雖侔色揣稱，亦應謝後來居上也。Theodor Däubler: “Die Efeuranke”: “Der Efeu dort am gotischen Palaste / Verschlangelt sich zum inarm ornen Balkone: / Sein Schattenwesen gleicht einem Spione, / Den irgendwie ein Rachewunsch erfasste. // Es ist, als ob er wachsend weitertaste, / Um klar zu werden, wer das Schloss bewohne / Und ob sich wirklich ein Verrat verlohne: / Er winkt ja schon mit einem freien Aste! // Nun blickt der Mond um eine hohe Ecke: / Und sieh, ein Weib erscheint hinter den Scheiben, / Was halt es dort so bleich — an einem Flecke? // Der Efeu muss noch viele Zweige treiben, / Damit er seinen Kundschaftsweg vollstrecke: / Die Dinge sterben ab, die Ratsel bleiben” (p. 89)【cf. Emily Dickinson: “To My Quick Ear”: “To my quick ear the leaves conferred; / The bushes they were bells; / I could not find a privacy / From Nature’s sentinels. / In cave if I presumed to hide, / The walls began to tell; / Creation seemed a mighty crack / To make me visible” (W.R. Benét & C. Aiken, An Anthology of Famous English & American Poetry, p. 682)】機杼與兩篇略同。《易經‧乾卦》：「彖曰：乾道變化，各正性命」，《正義》曰：「天本無情，何情之有？隨時念慮謂之情，無識無情。」竊謂水、火、木、石，無識無情，故可役使，而不可親近。若此三詩，皆寫其有識無情。有識則有心眼，無情則無心肝，貪譎殘忍，可畏孰甚矣！參觀第七四七則論 Vischer, Auch Einer。

〇Hermann Hesse: “An die Melancholie”: “Zum Wein, zu Freunden bin ich dir entflohn. / Da mir vor deinem dunklen Auge graute, / In Liebesarmen und beim Klang der Laute / Vergass ich dich, dein ungetreuer Sohn. // Du aber gingest mir verschwiegen nach / Und warst im Wein, den ich verzweifelt zechte, / Warst in der Schwüle meiner Liebesnächte / Und warest noch im Hohn, den ich dir sprach. // Nun kühlst du die erschöpften Glieder mir / Und hast mein Haupt in deinen Schoss genommen, / Da ich von meinen Fahrten heimgekommen: / Denn all mein Irren war ein Weg zu dir” (p. 96). 按庾子山〈愁賦〉：「深藏欲避愁，愁已知人處」；辛稼軒〈鷓鴣天〉：「欲上高樓本避愁，愁還隨我上高樓」；李中麓《一笑散》載臨清人商調〈醋葫蘆〉：「幾番上危樓將曲檻憑，不承望愁先在樓上等」；陸放翁〈春愁〉：「春愁茫茫塞天地，我行未到愁先至。滿眼如雲忽復生，尋人似瘧何由避？客來勸我飛觥籌，我笑謂客君罷休。醉自醉倒愁自愁，愁與酒如風馬牛。」此詩用意相同，詞特危苦，情益凄摯。Horace, Odes, III. i. 40: “Post equitem sedet atra Cura”; Faust, III^ter Teil, V^ter Akt, 11384-11391: Erste Grau Weib: “Ich heisse der Mangel.” Zweite: “Ich heisse die Schuld.” Dritte: “Ich heisse die Sorge.” Vierte: “Ich heisse die Not.” Sorge: “Ihr Schwestern, ihr könnt nicht und dürft nicht hinein. / Die Sorge, sie schleicht sich durchs Schlüsselloch ein” (Faust, hrsg. E. Trunz, S. 397) 亦微達此旨，而相形見絀矣。參觀第二八四則論《薛浪語集》卷十一〈春愁詩〉。Günter Eich: “Reise”: “Du kannst dich abwenden / vor der Klapper des Aussätzigen, / Fenster und Ohren verschliessen / und warten, bis er vorbei ist. // Doch wenn du sie einmal gehört hast, / hörst du sie immer, / und weil er nicht weggeht, musst du gehen. // Packe ein Bündel zusammen, das nicht zu schwer ist, / denn niemand hilft tragen. / Mach dich verstohlen davon und lass die Tür offen, / du kommst nicht wieder. // Geh weit genug, ihm zu entgehen, / fahre zu Schiff oder suche die Wildnis auf: / die Klapper des Aussätzigen verstummt nicht. // Du nimmst sie mit, wenn er zurückbleibt. / Horch, wie das Trommelfell klopft / vom eigenen Herzschlag!” (p. 249) 亦謂愁思附著，逃不可脫。屈子避世遠逝，浪漫詩人閱世漫遊。遠逝者多事多難，所以謝事；閱世者無事無聊，所以生事。而皆未歷此境也。參觀第七○一則論 J. Kerner: “Wanderlied”，七六一則論〈離騷〉「索藑茅以筳篿兮」一節。【定庵《古今體詩》上〈賦憂患〉：「故物人寰少，猶蒙憂患俱。春深恆作伴，宵夢亦先驅。不逐年華改，難同逝水徂。多情誰似汝？未忍託禳巫。」】

〇Alfons Petzold: “Die Teilnahmslosen”: “Sie sind nicht Menschen mehr, sind nur Maschinen, / die in dem vorgeschrieb'nen Stundenkreis / sich drehen müssen, ohne dass von ihnen / nur einer seine Kraft zu schätzen weiss” (p. 112). 按此即 Marx, Economic & Philosophic Mss., Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, pp. 67 ff. 所謂 “Estranged Labour (die entfremdete Arbeit)”。

〇Ernst Stadler: “Form ist Wollust”: “Form und Riegel mussten erst zerspringen, / Welt durch aufgeschlossne Röhren dringen: / Form ist Wollust, Friede, himmlisches Genügen, / Doch mich reisst es, Ackerschollen umzupflügen. / Form will mich verschnüren und verengen, / Doch ich will mein Sein in alle Weiten drängen —” usw. (p. 114).按當與 Goethe: “In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister” (Sämtl. Werk., “Tempel-Klassiker”, Bd. III, S. 96), Wordsworh: “Nuns fret not in the convent’s narrow room” 合觀，可以瞻文風演變焉，見第二○八則、七○三則。呂天成《曲品》卷上「沈璟」條記沈嘗言：「寧律協而詞不工」，湯若士聞之曰：「彼惡知曲意哉！予意所至，不妨抝折天下人嗓」（《玉茗堂尺牘》卷三〈答孫俟居〉：「弟在此自謂知曲意者，筆懶韻落，時時有之，正不妨拗折天下人嗓子」），即此旨。

〇Max Herrmann-Neisse: “Rast auf der Flucht”: “Lass mich das Leben noch schmecken, / eh die Vernichtung uns trifft: / Gaskrieg, Marter, Verrecken, / Bombe, tückisches Gift. / ... / Heut lass zum letzten Male / arglos und froh mich hier sein, / fülle die gläserne Schale / mir mit Abschiedswein! / Wird sie geleert zerscherben, / war ich doch göttlich zu Gast. / Gönne vor Kampf und Sterben / mir diese lindernde Rast!” (pp. 132-3). 凄摯極矣！實即 “carpe diem”, “post mortem nulla voluptas” 之旨 (參觀 The Oxford Book of English Verse, ed. 1900, pp. 354-5, Thomas Jordan: “Coronemus nos Rosis antequam marcescant”; p. 376, Abraham Cowley: “The Epicure”; etc.)，而能與古為新，化空泛為親切者。Wm. K. Pfeifer, German Literature in Exile, pp. 69-71 論 Herrmann-Neisse 流亡時篇什頗詳。

〇Arnim T. Wegner: “Der Zug der Häuser” (pp. 136-7) 即 Verhaeren 之 “les villes tentaculaires”[15]，也宜與 Georg Heym: “Der Gott der Städte” (pp. 138-9), “Die Dämonen der Städte” (pp. 139-140), Alfred Wolfenstein: “Städter” (p. 154) 參觀。

〇Friedrich Schmack: “Busch” (p. 153). 參觀第七四九則論 Pascal, Pensées, VI. 347。

〇Heinrich Lersch: “Im Schützengraben”: “... Es wächst wie Gras und Baum / der Menschheit strebend Volk sich hin zum Licht; / zwei gleiche Bäume stehn zusammen nicht, / der eine frisst des andern Licht und Raum” (p. 157). 按 Hardy 亦云：“Even the rank poplars bear / Lothly a rival’s air, / Cankering in black despair / If overborne” (The Oxford Bk. of 19^th Cent. Eng. Verse, p. 82-3)。Joseph de Maistre 早曰：“Dans le vaste domaine de la nature vivante, il règne une violence manifeste, une espèce de rage prescrite qui arme tous les êtres in mutua funera... Déjà, dans le règne végétal, on commence à sentir la loi: depuis l’immense catalpa jusqu’à la plus humble graminée, combien de plantes meurent et combien sont tuées!” etc. (Les Soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg, 7^e Entretien, “Classiques Garnier”, II, p. 25)。Carl Zuckmayer: “Der Baum”: “Ein Baum wuchs auf aus einem Brud? im Sumpf, / Wo es nach Pilz und bittrem Laube roch. / Erst brach ein Trieb aus längst verfaultem Stumpf, / Auf dem die Fiedele wie ein grauer Aussatz kroch. // Dann schoss ein wildes Heer von Trieben hoch / Und war ein Kampf nach Licht und eine Schlacht um Erde. / Wer starb, verfaulte bald, dass seine Leiche noch / Zu Trank und Speise für die andren werde” usw. (p. 214) 寫同根連枝，彼此相賊，尤透過一層。龔定庵詩云：「落紅不是無情物，化作春泥更護花」，而不知此也。參觀第七八九則論少陵〈獨立〉（「空外一鷙鳥」）詩。

〇Werner Bergengruen: “Ballade vom Wind” (pp. 175-7) 於終風之噎、飄風之發、大王之雄、庶人之雌、折木揚波、拂花搖葉，無不刻劃及之。生平所覩此題中外賦詠，要推極唱。“Preist den Wind! Gott gab dem Winde / oberhalb der Erdenrinde / alles in sein Eigentum, / alle Meere, alle Länder, / gab ihm Masken und Gewänder” (p. 175) 尤為善作破題，深得大塊噫氣，因物成態，隨地殊致之神。

            〇Werner Bergengruen: “Die Ausgeschlossenen”: “Wie früh fällt die braune / Dämmerung des Herbstes ein! / Die Toten stehen am Zaune / und starrn in den Feuerschein. // Sie spüren, dass hinter den Scheiben / die uralte Fensterglas ist vergittert, / die Ritze geschlossen mit Kitt. / Und das Frösteln der Toten zittert / in allem Lebenden mit” (pp. 181-2). 按Walter de la Mare: “The Listeners”: “‘Is there anybody there?’ said the Traveller, / Knocking on the moonlit door; / And his horse in the silence champed the grasses / Of the forest’s ferny floor: / ... / But only a host of phantom listeners / That dwelt in the lone house then / Stood listening in the quiet of the moonlight / To that voice from the world of men!” etc. 與此詩異曲同工，殊途同歸。一寫死者之無隙可入，一寫生人之叩門不應，而幽明道隔，則此物此志也。室內春溫，而戶外亡魂瑟縮秋宵風露中，與室中人冥通潛感，使之亦不寒而慄，尤為善於造境。Joseph von Eichendorff: “Auf meines Kindes Tod”: “Von fern die Uhren schlagen, / Es ist schon tiefe Nacht, / Die Lampe brennt so düster, / Dein Bettlein ist gemacht.  // Die Winde nur noch gehen / Wehklagend um das Haus, / Wir sitzen einsam drinnen / Und lauschen oft hinaus. // Es ist, als müsstest leise / Du klopfen an die Tür, / Du hättst dich nur verirret, / Und kämst nun müd zurück. // Wir armen, armen Toren! / Wir irren ja im Graus / Des Dunkels noch verloren — / Du fandst dich längst nach Haus” (The Oxford Book of German Verse, p. 271)，與閉門不納者相反，而幽明永隔則無乎不同，可以悟作文法矣。意大利俗語云：“Roba che mangia non si perde”，為小兒黃昏不歸家者言之，思及其語，益覺 “Du hättst dich nur verirret” 云云之傷心酸鼻。參觀第四五三則論高菊磵〈清明日對酒〉。

〇Erika Mitterer: “Klage der deutschen Frauen”: “Selig, die heut keinen Sohn gebären! / ... / Wir können nicht hassen, wir Frauen, wir können nur warten und trauern, / ... / Preist das erbärmliche Los: unfruchtbar darbenden Schoss!” (pp. 246-8). 按《詩‧芣莒‧小序》云：「和平則婦人樂有子矣」，《正義》云：「若天下亂離，兵役不息，則我躬不閱，于此之時，豈思子也？」秦始皇時民歌云：「生男慎勿舉，生女哺用脯」《太平御覽》卷五七一引楊泉《物理論》，《意林》卷五引傅玄《傅子》；少陵〈兵車行〉云：「信知生男惡，反是生女好」；Victor Hugo, La Fin de Satan, Liv. I. ‘Le Glaire”, Strophe ii “Ceux qui parlaient dans le bois” (Oeuv. poétiques comp., B. Valiquette, p. 943: “En général, nos pères sont bonapartistes, nos mères sont royalistes. Nos pères ne voient dans Napoléon que l’homme qui leur donnait des épaulettes; nos mères ne voient dans Buonaparte que l’homme qui leur prenait leurs fils... Pour nos mères, la révolution, c’est une guillotine, l’empire, c’est un sabre” (Littérature & Philosophie Mêlées, éd. Albin Michel, pp. 85-6) 皆此意。Aristophanes, Lysistrata 畏婦女拒與男子交接，以此要挾息戰弭兵，徒戲論耳（參觀第六七九則）。必不生育，庶幾行伍無人，而徵募士卒乃至掘墳破棺，覓及枯骸，如 B. Brecht: “Legende vom toten Soldaten” (pp. 216-8; Gedichte, Aufbau Verlag, 1961, S. 136-140) 所嘲諷矣。【Christina Rossetti: “At Home”: “When I was dead, my spirit turned / To seek the much-frequented house: / I passed the door, & saw my friends / Feasting beneath green orange boughs / ... / I, all-forgotten, shivered, sad / To stay, & yet to part how loth” (Poetical Works, ed. W.M. Rossetti, p. 399).】

            〇Josef Weinheber: “Mit halber Stimme”: “Nimm des Menschen Dunkelstes: Dies ist ewig. / Nimm aus weher Brust das Verlorne, hauch die / Scham, die Sehnsucht, flüstre das Weinen in die / Stille des Abends, // die Gedanken vor dem Entschlafen; alle / hingehauchten Worte der Herbstnacht, alle / einsam armen Wege, die Trauer und das / Ende der Liebe. // Wie ein Sturm ist menschliches Leid und wie das / ferne Spiel von Harfen; das tiefste aber / ist ein Strom: nicht strömt er von hier, er flutet / inner der Erde. // Nimm das Leid und mach es zum Liede: Welches / Lied ist süsser, welches mit Würde leiser! / Gleich dem wunden Mund der Geliebten, nachher; / oder dem kargen // Lächeln eines Sterbenden. Immer werden // im den Grenzen gross die Gefühle” usw. (pp. 190-1). 按 cf. 2 Spanish coplas quoted in S. de Madariaga, Shelley & Calderon & Other Essays, pp. 110 & 124: “No sé que pena es mas honda, / si la pena que se canta / o la pena que se llora” (I know not which is more deep, / whether the grief that we sing / or else the grief that we weep); “El que quiera cantar bien / cante cuando tenga pena. / Que la misma pena le hace / cantar bien aunque no sepa” (He who would care to sing well / Let him sing when grieved at heart. / Though he know nothing of singing Grief will take the place of art); Leopardi, Zibaldone, a cura di F. Flora, II, p. 1231: “È cosa notata che il gran dolore (come ogni grande passione) non ha linguaggio esterno. Io aggiungo che non ne ha neppure interno. Vale a dire che l’uomo nel grande dolore non è capace di circoscrivere, di determinare a se stesso nessuna idea” ecc.; Hugo, Littérature & Philosophie Mêlées, éd. Albin Michel, p. 238: “Les grandes conviction parlent haut. Les grandes douleurs parlent bas”。參觀第七○一則論Justinus Kerner: “Poesie”。

七六八^[16]

雜書：

【(also end of the entry)[17] Orl. Fur., I. 55-6, p. 6 Anfelica on her “fior virginal” unplucked by Orlando during their peregrinations together (quoted in 五三一則 beginning). This seems to have been imitated by Don Quixote, I, cap. 51, the cabrero’s story[18]: “[Leandra]  Contó también como el soldado, sin quitalle su honor, le robó cuanto tenía, y la dejó en aquella cueva y se fue: suceso que de nuevo puso en admiración a todos. Duro, señor, se hizo de creer la continencia del mozo; pero ella lo afirmó con tantas veras, que fueron parte para que el desconsolado padre se consolase” (IV, p. 301). 】

Ariosto, Orlando Furioso, VIII. 71: “La notte Orlando alle noiose piume / Del veloce pensier fa parte assai; / Or quinci or quindi il volta, or lo rassume / Tutto in un loco, e non l’afferma mai: / Qual d’acqua chiara il tremolante lume, / Dal sol percossa o da’ notturni rai, / Per gli ampli tetti va con lungo salto / A destra ed a sinistra, e basso ed alto”[19] (ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p. 69). John Hoole in his translation (vol. I, p. 254) points out the source of this ingenious conceit in the Aeneid, Lib. VIII: “Sicut aquae tremulum labris ubi lumen aenis / Sole repercussum aut radiantis imagine lunae, / Omnia pervolitat late loca, iamque sub auras / Erigitur summique ferit laquearia tecti.”【The source is Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, III. 755-60 on Medea’s fluttering heart（七六九則眉）.[20]［補七六八則 Orl. Furioso, VIII. 71］Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, III. 755-60 [Medea’s worries about the dangers Jason was to encounter kept her wakeful] “And fast did her heart throb within her breast, as a sunbeam quivers upon the walls of a house when flung up from water, which is just poured forth in a caldron or a pail may be; & hither & thither on the swift eddy does it dart & dance along; even so the maiden’s heart quivered in her breast” (Loeb, p. 247).】Jeremy Taylor must have drawn from the same source: “For so have I seen the rayes of the Sun or Moon dash upon a brazen vessel whose lips kissed the face of those waters that lodged within its bosome, but being turned back & sent off with its smooth pretences, or rougher waftings, it wandred about the room and beat upon the roof, & still doubled its heat & motion: So is a sicknesse & a sorrow entertained by an unquiet & a discontented man” (Holy Dying, in Golden Grove: Selected Passages from Jeremy Taylor, ed. L.P. Smith, p. 87). Cf. Ben Jonson, The Staple of News, II, Pennybody Junior: “I shook with fear, & yet I danced for joy, / I had such motions as the sun-beams make / Against wall or playing on a water” (Plays, “Everyman’s Lib.”, II, p. 378).

【Orl. Fur., X. 84: “Non è un sì bello in tante altre persone; / Natura il fece, e poi roppe la stampa”[21] (p. 90). E.R. Curtius, Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter, 2^te Aufl., S. 190 quotes Ronsard, Sonnets pour Hélène & Rousseau, Conf., Liv. I. To which I can add two Elizabethan examples: J. Heywood: “A Praise of his Lady”: “I think Nature hath lost the mould / where she her shape did take; / or else I doubt if Nature could / so fair a creature make” (Q., The Oxf. Bk. of Eng. Verse, p. 82); Philip Massinger, The Fatal Dowry, II. ii, Novall junior praising Beaumelle: “This heavenly piece, which nature having wrought, / She lost her needle, & did then despair / Ever to work so lively & so fair!” (Plays, ed. F. Cunningham, p. 363) — in IV. i the parasite Aymer goes even one better: “Lest thou, dear lord, Narcissus like, should’st doat / upon thyself, & die; & rob the world / of nature’s copy, that she works form by” (p. 374).】

Orlando Furioso, XXVIII. 73: “[Il Re Astolfo e Iocondo disson tra lor:] Provate mille abbiamo, e tutte belle; / Né di tante una è ancor che ne contraste. / Se provian l’altre, fian simili anch’elle; / Ma per ultima prova costei baste. / Dunque possiamo creder che più felle / Non sien le nostre, o men de l’altre caste: / E se son come tutte l’altre sono, / Che torniamo a godercile fia buono”[22] (p. 307). Cf. Donne’s “Song”: “If thou beest borne to strange sights, / Things invisible to see, / Ride ten thousand daies & nights, / Till age snow white haires on thee, / Thou, when thou return’st, wilt tell mee / All strange wonders that befell thee, / And sweare / No where / Lives a woman true, & faire” (Complete Poetry & Selected Prose, ed. J. Hayward, p. 4).

Jeremy Taylor, The Great Exemplar, Pt. III: “...so is the age of every day a beginning of death, & night composing us to sleep bids us go to our lesser rest; because that night, which is the end of the preceding day, is but a lesser death” (The Golden Grove, p. 257). Cf. Boswell, The Ominous Years, ed. C. Ryskamp & F.A. Pottle, p. 190: “I had kept my bad humour all night with a strange obstinacy... After I went to bed, my wife got the better of my bad humour by asking me to be friends before I fell asleep; ‘For,’ said she, ‘the consequence of sleep is uncertain.’ I was struck with the awful reflection that I might not awake again in life, & that it would be shocking to die in such a frame”; Macbeth, II. ii: “Sleep... the death of each day’s life” (Complete Works, ed. G.L. Kittredge, p. 1123); Donne, Devotions, III: “Every nights bed is a Type of the Grave” (Complete Poetry & Selected Prose, p. 510); George Herbert: “Mortification”: “When boyes go first to bed, / They step into their voluntarie graves, / Sleep bindes them fast; only their breath / Makes them not dead” (Workds, ed. E.F. Hutchinson, p. 98); Paulus Gerhardt: “Abendlied”: “Der Leib eilt nun zur Ruhe, / Legt ab das Kleid und Schuhe, / Das Bild der Sterblichkeit” (The Oxford Book of German Verse, p. 28); Ch.Fr. Hebbel: “Der Schlaf”: “Alles wird uns Genuss, so schön ist das Leben gerundet, / Selbst der Tod” (Werke, hrsg. Th. Poppe, I^ter Theil, S. 175); Hugo: “Le Cimetière d’Eylau” (La Légende des Siècles, XLIX. 6): “Dormir, c’est essayer la mort” (Oeuv. poétiques complètes, éd. B. Valiquette, p. 591); Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena: “Aphorismen zur Lebensweisheit”, Kap. 5: “So ist denn endlich auch das Einschlafen ein täglicher Tod und jedes Erwachen eine neue Geburt” (Sämtliche Werke, hrsg. D. Dessen, IV, S. 481); Gustav Janouch: “Conversations with Kafka”: “Perhaps my insomnia only conceals a great fear of death. Perhaps I am afraid that the soul — which in sleep leaves me — will never return” (W. Phillips & P. Rahv, ed., The Partisan Anthology, p. 132). To supplement 第一一七則 a propos《永樂大典》卷四九○ “終”字、卷二六○三 “臺”字引《大藏一覽‧古德頌》：“一盞孤燈照夜臺，上牀別了襪和鞋。三魂七魄望中去，天曉知他來不來。” Jan Struther, M^rs Miniver: “How brave, how trustful people are, to dare to go to sleep!”【《全金元詞》頁馬鎮〈滿庭芳〉：“尋思上牀鞋履，到來朝、事節如何。”】【Novalis, Fragmente, IV, §332 (Schriften, hrsg. J. Minoe, Jena, 1923, Bd. III, S. 68-9): “Schlaf, Analogen des Todes... Man ist Morgens jung und Abends alt. Jeder Abend muss unser Testament finden und unsre Sachen in Ordnung!”】

Inferno, I. 60: “dove’l sol tace”[23] (La Divina Commedia, a cura di N. Sapegno, p. 8). Is there a conscious literary reminiscence in “Das Nachtlied” in Also sprach Zarathustra, II^ter Teil: “O Schweigsamkeit aller Leuchtenden! Viel Sonnen kreisen im öden Raume: zu allem, was dunkel ist, reden sie mit ihrem Lichte, mir schweigen sie” (Alfred Kröner Verlag, S. 154-5)? Cf. III^ter Teil, “Von der Seligkeit wider Willen”: “zur Stunde, da alles Licht stiller wird... vor Glück ist alles Licht jetzt stiller worden” (S. 235). For contrast, cf. C. Coccioli: “Il sole mi rombava negli orecchi come un cane selvaggio nelle notti di luna” (D. Provenzal, Dizionario delle Immagini, p. 833).

IV. 68-9[24]: “... quand’io vidi un foco / ch’emisperio di tenebre vincia”[25] (p. 49). Cf. Decamerone, VIII. 7: “et egli veggendo lei colla bianchezza del suo corpo vincere le tenebre della notte... la notte passata con la sua bianchezza vinceva le tenebre” (ed. Ulrico Hoepli, pp. 507 & 515). Vincere le tenebre is good, but emisperio is even better & aroused the admiration of Emerson: “How many millions would have looked at candles, lamps, & fires, & planets, all their days, & never noticed this measure of their illuminating force, ‘of conquering a hemisphere of the darkness’” (The Heart of Emerson S Journals, ed. Bliss Perry, p. 282). For “vincere”, cf. Michelangelo: “Tal ch’ ogni verme assai ne [i.e. la notte] rompe o poco”; “Ch’ una lucciola sol gli può far guerra” (Sonnets, ed. J.A. Symonds, pp. 46 & 47); Saint-Amant, Moyse sauvé: “ces miracles volans, / ces astres de la terre / qui de leurs rayons d’or font aux ombres la guerre” (J. Rousset, Anthologie de la poésie baroque française, I, p. 146).

XX. 13-5 [the wizards & fortune-tellers with twisted bodies]: “ché da le reni era tornato ’l volto, / e in dietro venir li convenia, / perché ’l veder dinanzi era lor tolto”[26] (p. 229). Cf. Dumas père’s simile for his nolstalgia for his Ancient Régime: “Moi, je suis le mouvement. Dieu me garde de prêcher l’immobilité! L’immobilité, c’est la mort. Mais je vais comme un de ces hommes dont parle Dante, dont les pieds marchent en avant — c’est vrai — mais dont la tête est tournée du côté de leurs talons” (Mille et un fantômes, Préface, quoted in H. Clouard, A, Dumas, p. 144).

V. 121-3: “Nessun maggior dolore / che ricordarsi del tempo felice / ne la miseria” (p. 67); cf. Étienne Durant: “Que d’un plaisir perdu triste est le souvenir” (A.J. Steele, Three Centuries of Fr. Verse, p. 119); the snatch of song given in Du Maurier, Trilby, “Everyman’s Library”, p. 130: “Félicité passée / Qui ne peux revenir, / Tourment de ma pensée, / Que n'ay-je, en te perdant, perdu le souvenir!”; Pascoli: “Allora”: “Allora... in un tempo assai lunge / felice fui molto; non ora: / ma quanta dolcezza mi giunge / da tanta dolcezza d’allora!” (The Penguin Book of Italian Verse, p. 322).

In her memoir of M^me de Staël prefixed to Dix Années d’Exil (Bibliothèque Charpentier, p. 174), M^me Necker de Saussure recalls: “Certaines strophes lyriques lui donnaient un plaisir tout à fait indépendant de leur signification, et après les avoir pompeusement récitées, elle s’écriait: ‘Voilà de la poésie! ce que j’aime là dedans, c’est qu’il n’y a pas une idée.’”[27] Even more sharply than Verlaine’s “De la musique avant toute chose”, this remark stands in contrast to the classicist ideal formulated by Boileau: “Mon vers, bien ou mal, dit toujours quelque chose.” Curiously enough, I have not seen this quoted by anyone writing on the movement towards “la non-conceptualité de l’art,” which consists in substituting “au type du binôme pictura-poësis celui de poésie-musique” (G. Morpurgo-Tagliabue, L’Ésthétique contemporaine, tr. Marcelle Bourrette Serre, p. 175)[28]. Emil Staiger’s theory that the lyrical mood defies verbalization & consequently a lyric poem is a best only a pis aller, is really a sophisticated version of M^me de Staël’s boutade: “In der Sprache nämlich als Organ der Erkenntnis setzen wir uns mit allem Dasein auseinander und stellen bestimmte Zusammenhänge der Dinge her. Die lyrische Stimmung dagegen wurde als Ineinander charakterisiert, das keiner Zusammenhänge bedarf, weil alles bereits in der Stimmung geeinigt ist. Jedes einzelne Wort stellt fest und ordnet die vergänglichen Erscheinungen in ein Dauerndes ein. Der lyrisch Gestimmte aber gleitet; sobald er feststellt, ist er ernüchtert... Drum weil sogar die reinste lyrische Art, ein Lied, schon Dichtung ist, kann selbst ein Lied die Idee des Lyrischen nie ausschliesslich realisieren. Es besteht aus Wörtern, die immer zugleich Begniffe sind; aus Sätzen, die immer zugleich einen objektiven zusammenhaug bedeuten” (Grundbegriffe der Poetik, 5^te Aufl., S. 76-7). Cf. 七三○則 on Goethe, Spruchweisheit in Vers und Prosa, in Sämtl. Werk., “Tempel-Klassik”, III, S. 368; 七五三則 on Croce’s identification of “intuizione” with “expressione.”

Goethe, Ueber Wahrheit und Wahrscheinlichkeit der Kunstwerke: “... Wortspiele dieser Art selbst ein Bedürfnis des Geistes anzeigen, der, da wir das, was in uns vorgeht, nicht geradezu ausdrücken können, durch Gegensätze zu operiren, die Frage von zwei Seiten zu beantworten, und so gleichsam die Sache in die Mitte zu fassen sucht” (G.F. Senior & C.V. Bock, Goethe the Critic, p. 18). To supplement 第二三二則 on 二程’s “扶醉漢” & Schopenhauer’s “das Gesetz der Pendelschwingung.” Cf. Pascal, Pensées, §353 & 567 (quoted in 第六六一則). Cf. Rasselas, ch. 8, Imlac: “Inconsistencies cannot both be right, but, imputed to man, they may both be true” (ed. G.H. Hill, p. 56); De Quincey: “Notes from the Pocketbook of a Late Opium-Eater”: “Most proverbs are hemispheres as it were; & they imply another hemisphere with an opposite pole; & the two proverbs jointly compose a sphere — i.e., the entire truth. Thus, one proverb says — ‘Fortune favours fools;’ but this is met by its anti-proverb — ‘Sapiens dominabitur astris.’ Each is true, as long as the other co-exists, each becomes false, if taken exclusively” (Collected Writings, ed. David Masson, X, p. 436), cf. Marginalia to Hegel, Geschichte der Philosophie, S. 108; F. Rolfe, Hadrian the Seventh, “The Phoenix Library,” p. 252, WilliamII: “My sainted mother used to quote an English proverb which says that Onlookers see most of the game.” Hadrian VII: “All English proverbs which are positive, have their corresponding negative — ‘Absence makes the heart grow fonder’ — ‘out of sight out of mind.’ Your Majesty’s proverb is contradicted by ‘only the toad under the harrow has counted the spikes.’”

Anatole France, La Vie littéraire, I^ère Série, p. 102: “Quels que soient nos doutes philosophiques, nous sommes bien obligés d'agir dans la vie comme si nous ne doutions pas.”[29] With disarming candour, Hume admits: “I am first affrighted & confounded with that forelorn solitude, in which I am plac’d in my philosophy... When I turn my eye inward, I find nothing but doubt and ignorance.... Where am I, or what?” (Treatise, Bk. I, Pt. iv, Sect. 7, ed. L.-A. Selby-Bigge, p. 264); and yet: “I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, & am merry with my friends; & when after three or four hours’ amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, & strain’d, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther” (ib., p. 269). Kierkegaard has such armchair philosophising in his mind when he writes in his journal: “Usually the philosophers... exist in quite different categories for everyday purposes from those in which they speculate, & console themselves with categories very different from those which they solemnly discuss...  In relation to their systems most systematizers are like a man who builds an enormous castle & lives in a shack close by” (Journals, tr. A. Dru, p. 156). This is precisely the criticism Diderot made of the philosophy of Berkeley & Hume in his article “Philosophie Pyrrhonienne” in the Encyclopédie: “L’homme un et vrai n’aura point deux philosophies, l’une de cabinet, et l’autre de société; il n’établira point dans la spéculation des principes qu’il sera forcé d’oublier dans la pratique... Occupons-nous de quelque chose de plus important ; ou si nous n’avons que de ces frivolités présentes, dormons & digérons” (Oeuv. Comp., éd. J. Assézat, XVI, pp. 491-2). For another instance, the pessimists Leopardi & Schopenhauer, for all their praise of death as the sole liberator, clung bloodthirstily to life (cf. 二五三則 on Leopardi’s poem “Bruto Minore”); as Samuel Butler succintly puts it: “To live is like to love — all reason is against it, & all healthy instinct for it” (The Notebooks, ed. H.F. Jones, p. 227). Cf. Leonard Nelson, Socratic Method & Critical Philosophy, tr. Thomas K. Brown III, p. 9: “But if, on the conclusion of our debate, one of the skeptics failed to find his overcoat beside the door where he had hung it, he would hardly reconcile himself to the unfortunate loss of his coat on the ground that it simply confirmed his philosophical doubt of the permanence of substance” etc.; p. 101: “Indeed, we observe that philosophers whose systems differ most radically are of one mind in using the same principles as soon as they turn from doctrine to its application. How could the determinist, who denies the responsibility of man, ever pass an ethical judgement in daily life? If he is cheated, he might at most lament his misfortune, but he would have no grounds for moral indignation. Or has one ever found that the skepic, who calls the assumption of a causal relation between phenomena an illusion, has stopped being interested in the causes of the events he observes, especially of those that touch him personally?” There is therefore more logical cognancy than has been suspected in D^r Johnson’s refutation of Berkeley by “striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it” (cf. H.F. Hallett’s article in Mind, LVI, no. 22, pp. 137 ff.). Cf. the joke told by Bertrand Russell against the Viennese Circle: “At a certain period, when his finances were not very flourishing, Hempel entered a cheap restaurant... He ordered beef... The food came & he took a mouthful... He summoned the restaurateur & said, ‘this is horse-flesh, not beef.’ The restaurateur replied, ‘Pardon me, but the scientists of my culture circle circle include the sentence this is beef among those that they ‘accept’...” (Encounter, no. 64, p. 9); 桓譚《新論》：“公孫龍謂‘白馬非馬’，人不能屈。後乘白馬，無符傳，欲出關，關吏不聽。此虛言難以奪實也”（《全後漢文》卷十五）── i.e. Assertions compared with assertions vs. Assertions confronted with facts.

七六九^[30]

民國二十四年傅增湘珂羅版影印宋紹興本《周易正義》

            閱《周易正義》：

            第一、〈論易之三名〉：「《易緯乾鑿度》云：『易一名而含三義，所謂易也，變易也，不易也。』鄭玄依此義作〈易贊〉及〈易論〉云：『易一名而含三義：易簡一也，變易二也，不易三也。』」按此與〈詩譜序〉、《正義》論詩「一名而三訓」、皇侃《論語義疏‧自序》謂「論」有四義，皆為虛涵多義之古例，詳見第七二八則。《蒿庵閒話》卷上駁康成云：「『簡易』、『變易』，皆順文立義，語當不謬。若『不易』則破此立彼，兩義背馳，如仁之與不仁、義之與不義。以『不易』釋『易』，將不仁可以釋仁、不義可以釋義乎？承譌襲謬如此，非程、朱誰為正之」云云。訓詁家不解玄微之理，未知體靜用動之正反相成，不易而能變易。《繫辭》上云：「不疾而速，不行而至」；《老子》三十七章所謂「道常無為而無不為」（四十八章：「無為而無不為」）。

〈復〉：「彖曰：『復其見天地之心乎！』」王輔嗣《注》云：「復者、反本之謂也。天地以本為心者也。凡動息則靜，靜非對動者也；語息則默，默非對語者也。然則天地雖大，富有萬物，雷動風行，運化萬變，寂然至无，是其本矣。」他如《中庸》曰：「誠者，天之道也。（中略）不勉而中，不思而得。（中略）故至誠無息，不息則久。（中略）如此者，不見而章，不動而變，無為而成。（中略）其為物不貳，則其生物不測」；《莊子‧知北遊》與〈則陽〉所謂「物化者，一不化者也」；東坡〈前赤壁賦〉所謂「逝者如斯，而未嘗往也；盈虛者如彼，而卒莫消長也。」Heraclitus, Fragments, no. 83: “By changing it rests” (Hippocrates & Heraclitus, “The Loeb Classical Library”, IV, p. 497); St. Augustine, Confessions, I. iv: “unchangeable, yet all changing” (immutabilis, mutans omnia) (“Harvard Classics,” VII, p. 7); Daniel von Czepko, Sexcenta monodistiche Sapientum: “Es regt sich alles zwar, doch er bleibt unbewegt” (M. Wehrli, Deutsche Barocklyrik, 3^te Aufl., S. 170); Hölderlin, Hyperion: “Wie der Sternenhimmel, bin ich still und bewegt” 皆此意也。蓋中外先哲觀天運、究物理，無不有見於變不失常、一而能殊。吾國古籍，《中庸》道此最為賅徹，《老》、《易》所不及。「不息」、「不貳」、「不測」六言尤包舉 Uniformity of nature 與夫 Emergence，簡括得未曾有。《繫辭》「生生之謂易」，所謂「不息」也；「至動而不可亂」、「不言而信」，所謂「不貳」也；「變動不居」，所謂「不測」也。Alphonse Karr: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (D.P. Scales, Alphonse Karr: Sa vie et son oeuvre, p. 106); Ronald A. Knox: “‘Plus c’est la même chose, plus ça change’ — a remark waiting to be made by someone” (Let Dons Delight, p. iii) 雖嘲諷人事，其理亦相發明。M.R. Cohen, The Meaning of Human History, pp. 58 & 63: “Inertia is the first law of social change.... We could not well say that a man grows older or wiser if nothing persists in him so that he was the identical person before & after the change. As abstract categories change & persistence, discontinuity & continuity, are mutually exclusive, but every concrete real existence involves both.” 足以解蒿庵之惑。又《繫辭》下云：「為道也屢遷，變動不居。（中略）不可為典要，唯變所適」，即「變易」也。而又云：「初率其辭而揆其方，既有典常」，即「不易」與「簡易」也。亦足見三義之驂而非背馳矣。參觀七五五則論《老子》六章：「用之不勤。」

            〇〈乾〉：「象曰：天行健」；《正義》：「或有實象，或有假象。實象者，若地上有水、地中生木升也；皆非虛，故言實也。假象者，若天在山中、風自火出；如此之類，實無此象，假而為義，故謂之假也。」[31]按《繫辭》上云：「聖人有以見天下之賾，而擬諸形容，象其物宜，故謂之象。」正 Vico 所謂 “universali fantastici” (Scienza Nuova, §209, in Opere, a cura di Riccardo Ricciardi, p. 453, 詳見第七三二則)。陳騤《文則》卷上丙云：「《易》之有象，以盡其意；《詩》之有比，以達其情。文之作也，可無喻乎？」章學誠《文史通義‧內篇一‧易教下》發揮象之廣包，亦云：「《易》象雖包六藝，與《詩》之比興，尤為表裏。」皆能觀其會通，知其同為 symbol，然而未能窮底蘊，不知 sign 之別于 icon 也，詳見第七九三則論《詩‧狡童》。沖遠真象、假象之分，移論詩文比喻，則殊確當，即 Themistius 云：“It is in our power to imagine not merely things that can be but those that cannot be” (Jacopo Mazzoni, Della difesa della “Comedia” di Dante, Bk. I, ch. 67 引，見 Allan H. Gilbert, Literary Criticism: Plato to Dryden, p. 386); Giraldi Cinthio 云：“There is nothing marvellous in that which happens often or naturally, but there is in what appears impossible & yet is assumed to have happened if not in truth at least in fiction” (Discorso intorno al comporre dei romanzi, delle comedie e tragedie, §56, 亦見同書 p. 270)。真象者，“things that can be” 也；假象者，“things that cannot be” 也。

            〇〈泰〉：「乾下坤上」，

。按楊瑀《山居新語》云：「陳鑑如寫趙文敏像，文敏援筆改其未然者，謂曰：『人中者，以自此而上，眼、耳、鼻皆雙竅，自此而下，口暨二便皆單竅，成一〈泰〉卦也』」（《輟耕錄》卷五釆之）。趙台鼎《脈望》卷五論「人中」亦云然。《七修類稿》卷十五駁此說，而未言所出。王山史《山志初集》卷一論八卦皆備于人身，舉〈泰〉為人中為例，亦陰襲元人之說耳。又按曹籀《古文原始》論「中」字曰：「《說文》云：『中、和也。』按『和』當是『私』字之譌，謂男子陰也。『私』本作

，與此『中』字同為象形。《逸周書‧武順解》：『人有中曰三，無中曰兩，男生而成三，女生而成兩。』謝墉謂：『「有中」、「無中」，即謂男女，皆以形體言之，皆下體形象。』其說甚通，從之。」

            〇〈噬嗑〉：「亨」，《注》：「噬、齧也，嗑、合也。凡物之不親，由有間也；物之不齊，由有過也。有間與過，齧而合之，所以通也。」按此以「噬嗑」為相反相成 (coincidentia oppositorum) 之象，故「彖曰：頤中有物曰噬嗑，噬嗑而亨；剛柔分動而明，雷電合而章。」蓋必分而合，庶能合而通。齒之齧，刀之剪，皆若是矣。《燕書》曰：「烈祖嘗從容問諸侍臣曰：『夫口以下動，乃能制物，鈇鑕為用．亦噬嗑之意，而從上下，何也？』申弼答曰：『口之下動，上使下也，鈇鑕之用，上斬下也』」（《太平御覽》卷三六七引），「鈇」不如「剪」之比擬得當。【范亨《燕書》二十卷，見《新唐書‧藝文志‧偽史類》，已佚。「烈祖」為莫容㑺。此則《晉書》、《北史》均失載。】Morris Cohen, A Preface to Logic, ed. George Routledge & Sons, p. 76: “Felix Adler has used the figure of the scissors to denote the fact that the mind never operates effectively except by using both unity & plurality like the two blades which move in opposite directions... At other times the action of our jaws in mastication, or the necessity of applying a brake when you are going downhill, have appeared to me as representative figures.” 可以移釋，參觀 W.H. Sheldon, Process & Polarity, p. 11: “Active cooperation of opposites — polarity: To the polar opposites, right & left foot, are added the polar opposites, poise & fall — the second, joining with the first, give the process of advance”【Nietzsche, Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, Bd. II, Abt. ii, §13: “Es ist gut, eine Sache sofort doppelt auszudrücken und ihr einen rechten und einen linken Fuss zu geben. Auf Einem Bein kann die Wahrheit zwar stehen; mit zweien aber wird sie gehen und herumkommen” (Werke, hrsg. K. Schlechta, I, S. 879)】。《老子》七十七章以「張弓」為喻，《左傳》昭公二十年晏子對齊景公以「琴瑟」為喻，則與 Heraclitus, §45 “like that of the bow & the harp” (op. cit., IV, p. 485)（詳見六六一則）相同。晏子又以「和羹」為喻，皆不如噬嗑之近取諸身，親切有味也（晏子語與《國語‧鄭語》史伯對鄭桓公語相類，見七七二則）。七五一則引 Bruno 論 “per via d’antiperistasi”，六六一則引 Pascal 論 “commencer par les deux raisons contraires”，六七八則引 Goethe “durch Gegensätze zu operieren”，又〈睽〉：「彖曰：天地睽而其事同也，男女睽而其志通也，萬物睽而其事類也；象曰：君子以同而異」，《正義》云：「歷就天地、男女、萬物，廣明『睽』義，體乖而用合也」云云，與「噬」相發明。「睽」即有間隔也，「以同而異」、「體乖用合」正晏子所謂「合而不同」。

            〇〈頤〉：「象曰：君子以慎言語，節飲食」；《正義》云：「病從口入，禍從口出。」按此徑取傅玄〈口銘〉中語（《太平御覽》卷三六七），《困學紀聞》卷一已言之。《鬼谷子》云：「口可以食，不可以言」，參觀第七三七則論《全唐文》卷六○八劉禹錫〈口兵誡〉。[32]

            〇〈大過〉：「九二：枯楊生稊，老夫得其女妻，無不利。象曰：老夫女妻，過以相與也」；「九五，枯楊生華，老婦得其士夫，無咎無譽。象曰：枯楊生華，何可久也？老婦士夫，亦可醜也。」按〈恒〉之六五：「恒其德，貞；婦人吉，夫子凶。象曰：婦人貞，吉，從一而終也；夫子制義，從婦凶也。」所謂 “die doppelte Sexualmoral” (I. Bloch, Die Prostitution, Bd. I, S. 214, 454)，殆亦如制禮之為周公而非周姥矣【Goldoni, The Servant of Two Masters, tr. E.J. Dent, II. ii (pp. 38-9): Smeraldina: “They say women are unfaithful, but men are committing infidelities all day long... Do you know why? Bacause ’tis the men who have made the laws”; Dumas fils, Monsieur Alphonse, Préface: “L’homme a fait deux morales” etc., Théâtre complet, éd. Calmann Lévy, VI, p. 32; R. Mandrou, Introduction à la France moderne, p. 118】。《二刻拍案驚奇》卷十一云「天下事有好些不平的所在！假如男人死了，女人再嫁，便道是失了節，玷了名，污了身子。及至男人家喪了妻子，卻又憑他續弦再娶，置妾買婢。女人少有外情，便是老大的醜事。及至男人家撇了妻子，宿娼養妓，不為十分大害」；李笠翁《一家言》卷八〈花心動〉詞云：「十個男兒心硬九，同伴一齊數說。大別經年，小別經春，比我略爭時月。陶情各有閑花柳，都藉口、不傷名節。問此語，出何經典，諒伊詞囁。制禮前王多缺。怪男女同情，有何分別。女戒婬邪，男恕風流，以致紛紛饒舌。男兒示袒左男兒，始作俑、周公貽孽。無今古，個個郎心如鐵。」又按 Bruno, Candelaio, IV. viii, Marta: “A i giovanetti le giovanette, a giovani le giovane, e più vecchi si denno contentar delle più stantive.” Bonifacio: “... a gatto vecchio sorece tenerello.” Marta: “Questo, come intendete per i vecchi, perché non intendete per le vecchie?” Bonifacio: “Perché le donne son per gli uomini, no gli omini per le donne”[33] (Opere di G. Bruno e di T. Campanella, a cura di A. Guzzo e R. Amerio, p. 121)，即〈大過〉「生稊」、「生華」之說也，參觀七九五則論元曲《劉行首》。《兒女英雄傳》二十七回云：「同一個人，怎的女子就該從一而終，男子便許大妻小妾？無如陽奇陰耦，乃造化之微權；此倡彼隨，是人生之至理。」Plautus, Mercator, 817 ff. Syra: “Nam si vir scortum duxit clam uxorem suam, / id si rescivit uxor, impunest viro; / uxor virum si clam domo egressa est foras, / viro fit causa, exigitur matrimonio”; Lord Halifax, Advise to a Daughter: “The World in this is somewhat unequal, and our sex seemeth to play the Tyrant, in distinguishing partially for our selves, by making that in the utmost degree Criminal in the Woman, which in a Man passeth under a much gentler Censure” (Complete Works, ed. W. Raleigh, p. 10); Carl Van Doren, Three Worlds: “A woman was blamed for adultery. ‘It is for the man to ask & for the woman to say no,’ the blunt saying ran”，餘見第五三一則論Ariosto, Orlando Furioso, IV. 63 & 66 (ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p. 32): “Sia maladetto chi tal legge pose” ecc.。又按《唐文續拾》卷五杜寶符〈唐故京兆杜氏夫人墓志銘〉云：「邱墟荒野，有時而城。死楊空株，有時而稊。夫人此去，永永無期」云云，用《易》語甚奇。

〇〈睽〉：「彖曰：火動而上，澤動而下。二女同居，其志不同行。（中略）天地睽而其事同也，男女睽而其志通也，萬物睽而其事類也。睽之時用大矣哉！」《正義》：「水火二物，共成烹飪，理宜相濟；今火在上而炎上，澤居下而潤下，無相成之道，所以為乖。（中略）歷就天地、男女、萬物，廣明『睽』義，體乖而用合也。」按即相反相成。然「睽」有三形：一者體乖而用不合，火在水上是也；二者體不乖則用不合，二女同居是也──此兩者皆無相成之道；三者乖而能合，反而相成，天地事同，男女志通是矣，言其用則通，言其體則睽也。又按〈革〉：「彖曰：二女同居，其志不相得。」而〈咸〉：「彖曰：咸，感也，柔上而剛下，二氣感應以相與。止而說，男下女」，《注》云：「凡感之為道，不能感非類者也，故引取女，以明同類之義也。」[34]適相對照。同類始相感，然同類而復同性則不能相感，如晏子論「和羹」所謂「以水濟水」矣。《參同契》中篇：「二女共室，顏色甚姝。令蘇秦通言，張儀結媒，使為夫妻，弊髮腐舌，終不相知，猶和膠補釜，以滷塗瘡，去冷加氷，除熱用湯，飛龜舞蛇，愈見乖張。」即取〈睽〉彖詞鋪陳耳。

〇〈損〉：「象曰：君子以懲忿窒欲」；《正義》云：「懲者息其既往，窒者閉其將來；忿、欲皆有往來，懲、窒互文而相足也。」按沖遠此等處，妙得修辭之奧。《繫辭》上云：「以言乎遠則不禦，以言乎邇則靜而正」，《正義》云：「禦、止也。」遠尚不禦，近則不禦可知；近既靜正，則遠亦靜正，互文也。《左傳》宣公十四年：「申舟曰：『鄭昭宋聾』」；《正義》：「『鄭昭』言其『目明』，則宋不明也；『宋聾』言其耳闇，則鄭不闇也。耳目各舉一事而對以相反。」又十二年：「隨武子曰：『貴有常尊，賤有等威，禮不逆矣』」；《正義》：「言『貴有常尊』，則當云『賤有常卑』，而云『賤有等威』者，威儀、等差，文兼貴賤，既屬『常尊』於『貴』，遂屬『等威』於『賤』，使互相發明耳。」皆「互文相足」之法，捉置一處，其事更明。

〇〈姤〉：「女壯，勿用取女」；「初六：羸豕孚蹢躅」；《正義》云：「此女壯甚，淫壯若此，不可與之長久。羸豕，謂牝豕也；孚，猶務躁也。不貞之陰，失其所牽，其為淫醜，若羸豕之孚務蹢躅也。」[35]按蓋以豕為淫欲之象也。《左傳》定公十四年野人歌云：「既定爾婁豬，盍歸吾艾豭？」《史記‧秦始皇本紀》三十六年會稽刻石云：「夫為寄豭」，《索隱》云：「言夫淫他室」；《太平廣記》卷二一六引《朝野僉載》張璟藏裴珪妾趙氏曰：「准相書：豬視者淫」；周祈《名義考》卷十〈豭豝〉條：「《說文》：『豝，牝豕也。』《詩》：『一發五豝。』南人謂餈曰『巴』，北人謂女陰曰『巴』。南人有音而無字，作『粑』者，俗也。北人取義於牝，故每聞南人言，輒盧胡」，皆可參證。《西游記》中獨寫豬八戒好色，一變大玃盜妾之古說（見六九五則論《焦氏易林》卷一〈坤〉之〈剝〉），蓋有由來。Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, XIX. ii 論人有五官[36]，尤耽於食色 (libidines in cibos atque in Venerem prodigae)，最為無饜無節 (incontinentes, intemperantes)，此二慾者，人禽所同 (solae sunt hominibus communes cum beluis)，尤與驢若豕相類 (sunt homini cum sue atque asino communes) (“The Loeb Classical Library”, III, p. 356-8)。豕之饞淫，特標而出，洞矚豬八戒之食腸與色胆矣。《全晉文》卷一二三郭璞〈封豕贊〉所謂：「有物貪婪，……荐食無厭。」西語亦以 “Cochonnerie”, “Ferkelei”, “Schweinerei”, “Porcheria” 指淫蕩，參觀 Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, V, p. 86: “It is worth noting that in Greek the word χοῖρος means both a sow & a woman’s pudenda; in Acharniam Aristophanes plays on this association at some length. The Romans also (as may be gathered from Varro’s De Re Rustica) called the feminine pudenda porcus”。又按見 Acharnians, 738，參觀 Deipnosophists, XIII, 581 “ὗς”（見第二一○則引）。又按《老子》二十九章：「聖人去甚，去奢，去泰」，河上公注「甚」云：「貪淫聲色」；《說文》：「甚，尤安樂也，從甘、匹」，朱駿聲《說文通訓定聲》云：「『甘』者飲食，『匹』者男女，人之大欲存焉，故訓安樂之尤」，incontinentes, intemperantes 即「甚」也。

〇〈革〉：「彖曰：革，水火相息」；《注》云：「變之所生，生於不合者也。息者，生變之謂也」；《正義》云：「燥濕殊性，不可共處。若其共處，必相侵剋。既相侵剋，其變乃生。」按王、孔之解「相息」，有相剋相生、相反相成二義，《漢書‧藝文志》所謂「譬猶水火，相滅亦相生也，相反亦相成也。」恰如 Hegel, Wissenschft der Logik, I^tes Buch, 1^ter Abschnitt, Kap. 1, §3 “Anmerkung” 之論 “Aufheben” (Reclams “Universal-Bibliothek” ed., Bd. I, S. 124-5)，可與七五一則論《老子》四十章「反者，道之動」，「反」兼正反、往返兩意參觀。[37]羅璧《羅氏識遺》卷五〈息二訓〉云：「《易》『不息則久』，《左傳》『繼好息民』，『王者之迹息』，皆訓止。《周禮》『保息以養萬民』，《孟子》『夜之所息』，《漢書‧高帝紀》『臣有息女』，〈貨殖傳〉『息二千』，〈宣帝紀〉『刑者不可息』，皆訓生。」僅知生息、止息兩意之「歧出分訓」(disjunctive plurisignation)，而不知《易經》此語兩意之可以「同時合訓」(integrative plurisignation)，尚為未達一間。Hegel 云：“... es kann dem Denken eine Freude gewähren, auf solche Wörter zu stossen und die Vereinigung Entgegengesetzter, welches Resultat der Spekulation für den Verstand aber widersinnig ist, auf naive Weise schon lexikalisch als ein Wort von den entgegengesetzten Bedeutungen vorzufinden” (“Vorrede zur zweiten Ausgabe”, op. cit., S. 20)，正此旨耳。參觀第七七○則論詩者，「之也」，「持也」。又按 Hegel 甚薄漢語，以為不宜於邏輯思辯 (op. cit., S. 19)，固出於無知妄說。使其識漢語亦如所誇德語之反訓相成，當自悔失言。然余能首拈此義，亦正賴 Hegel 之啟余。嚴幾道《天演論‧自序》云：「考道之士，（中略）以其所得於彼者，反以證諸吾古人之所傳，乃澄湛精瑩，如寐初覺。……此真治異國語言文字之至樂也。……乃轉於西學得識古之用焉。」言之于吾心有戚戚焉。【一詞多意可分二種，一曰「並行分訓」(conjunctive plurisignation)，如「不舍晝夜」之「舍」可訓棄捨，亦可訓止息（《困學紀聞》卷七），兩義不相同，而亦不相倍。二曰「歧出分訓」(disjunctive plurisignation)，如「亂」兼訓「治」，「息」兼訓「生」，兩義相反而亦相仇（語本《正蒙‧太和篇第一》）。此皆言其體也，若夫用時，取其一義，則亦無所謂「虛涵數意」也。「虛涵數意」者，乃詞之用「並行分訓」或「歧出分訓」者用「同時合訓」(integrative or additive plurisignation) 焉，不倍者交協、相反者互成，如「易」、「詩」之三義，《老子》之用「反」字，Hegel 之用 “aufheben”，與他人之用此等字之僅明一義者，區以別矣。《韓詩外傳》卷五：「『王者何也？』曰：『往也。天下往之，謂之王。』（中略）四統者俱，而天下往之，四統無一，而天下去之，往之謂之王，去之謂之亡」云云，亦「歧出分訓」而「同時合訓」也，兩訓同音，尤妙（《穀梁傳》莊公四年祇云：「其曰王者，民之所歸往也」）。《莊子‧齊物論》：「以是其所非，而非其所是」，「物無非彼，物無非是」，「彼出於是，是亦因彼。彼是，方生之說也」，「因是因非，因非因是」，「彼亦一是非，此亦一是非」云云，「是」與「彼」並舉則作「此」解，「是」與「非」並舉，則作「然」解（〈秋水〉：「因其所然而然之，則萬物莫不然；因其所非而非之，則萬物莫不非」，成玄英疏：「然猶是也」，又參觀第七五一則論《老子》第二章）。而是、非之生，正由於彼、是之別，又取「並行分訓」而「同時合訓」之例也。】

〇〈震〉：「六三：震蘇蘇；上六：震索索」；《正義》云：「畏懼不安之貌。」按《水滸》三十七回宋江與公人聽梢公唱湖州歌「都酥軟了」，四十二回宋江鑽入神厨裏，「身體不住簌簌發抖」；《殺狗勸夫》第二折孫蟲兒唱：「則被這吸里忽刺的朔風兒，那裏好篤簌簌避！」音義並與「蘇蘇」、「索索」相通。今俗語狀恐懼，亦尚云：「嚇穌了」、「瑟瑟抖」。

〇〈艮〉：「艮其背，不獲其身；行其庭，不見其人。無咎」，《注》云：「凡物對面而不相通，否之道也。（中略）目無患也。（中略）唯不相見乃可也。（中略）背者無見之物也，無見則自然靜止」；《正義》云：「目者能見之物；施止于面，則抑割所見，強隔其欲，是目見之所患，今施止于背，則目無患也。（中略）老子曰：『不見可欲，使心不亂。』防止之法，宜防其未兆。既兆而止，則傷物情，故施止於無見之所，則不隔物欲，得其所止也。若施止於面而不相通，強止其情，則姦邪並興」。按《老子》三章曰：「常使民無知無欲」，輔嗣隱取其旨以說〈艮〉，沖遠則明詔大號，喻《老》解《易》，別具會心。夫為政愚民之術，無過「艮其背」者。《困學紀聞》卷七謂：「四勿九思，皆以視為先。《陰符經》言：『心生於物，死於物，機在目。』蔡季通引《老子》『不見可欲，使心不亂』釋其旨」云云，惜伯厚未取此卦註疏印證之，詳見第八一則論 Aulus Gellius, X. xvii (II, p. 260)，又七三八則論 Marino, L’Adone, VI. 25 (G.G. Ferrero, Marino e i Marinisti, p. 90)。

〇〈漸〉：「九三：鴻漸于陸，夫征不復，婦孕不育」；《注》云：「夫征不復，樂於邪配，則婦亦不能守貞矣。非夫而孕，故不育也。」按《詩‧豳風‧東山》「其新孔嘉，其舊如之何？」蓋征夫遠返，近鄉情怯，心口相語，自以新婚長別，竊慮少婦之難守空房而漸變初衷，匪復結褵時之情好。「我征聿至」亦歸人自言，《毛傳》乃解為周公調歸士語，謂：「極序其情，樂而戲之。」節外生枝，不合情理，當合此卦及〈邶風‧擊鼓〉末章（見七七○則）觀之。參觀七四四則論 L. Casaburi: “Rimprovero di bella donna al suo marito, che propone d’andare alla guerra” (G.G. Ferrero, Marino e i Marinisti, p. 1061)。又按 H.H. Ploss, M. Bartels & P. Bartels, Woman, ed. E.J. Dingwall, II, p. 148 記一事亦資談助：“In 1637 the Parliament at Grenoble established as legitimate the birth of a boy who was born after the father had been absent for four years, since his mother confessed that her husband had certainly embraced her in a dream. This kind of impregnation is called Lucina sine concubitu”，則孕而可育矣！吾國小說中，夫死冥合而孕者有之，夫出夢通而育者未見。

〇〈歸妹〉：「彖曰：說以動，所歸妹也。初九：歸妹以娣，跛能履。九二：眇能視」，《注》云：「少女而與長男交，所不樂也。（中略）雖與長男交，嫁而係姊，是以說也。少女而與長男為耦，非敵之謂，是娣從之義也」；《正義》云：「雖非正配，不失常道，譬猶跛人之足然。雖不正，不廢能履。雖非正配，不失交合之道，猶如眇目之人，視雖不正，不廢能視。」[38]按〈大過〉九二：「象曰：老夫女妻，過以相與也」，《注》云：「老過則枯，少過則稚。以老分少，則稚者長；以稚分老，則枯者榮，過以相與之謂也」；《正義》云：「若老夫而有老妻，（中略）女妻而得少夫，是依分相對。婦當少稚於夫」，與此卦相鑿椎。女妻老夫，尚「過以相與」、「無不利」，何以少女長男「非敵」、「不樂」乎？當是女年過稚，未解人事，與姊閨中相伴，不忍分離，故非樂於適人，而樂於依姊，「說以動」者，此之謂也。跛履、眇視亦指女言，尚未如《韓詩外傳》卷一所謂「精化小通」，雖「不失常道」，亦不能勝任耳。[39]〈履〉：「六三：眇能視，跛能履。象曰：眇能視，不足以有明也；跛能履，不足以與行也。」其意甚明，沖遠輕重倒置，當云：「雖能履能視，而足與目不正也」，然謂「婦當少稚於夫」，則契合事理。參觀 Goethe, Die Wahlverwandtschaften, II. i: Charlotte: “Denn da wir ungefähr von denselben Jahren sind, so bin ich als Frau wohl älter geworden, du nicht als Mann” (Werke, hrsg. Karl Alt, Bd. VIII, S. 6); Amram Scheinfeld, Women & Men, p. 48: “The male & female who are chronologically of the same age are not of the same age biologically. When a girl infant is born simultaneously with a boy (as in mixed twins) she is older than he biologically by a month or more, for she is that much further along in development (Thus a cat at the age of one is biologically much older than a year-old human boy). When both are two, the girl is biologically six months older; when five, one year older; at thirteen, two years older.” 餘見第七七四則論《全漢文》卷三一杜欽〈說王鳳〉。【Cf. Charles Reade, The Cloister & the Hearth, ch. 72: “Jerome reported that Clement’s spirit was willing, but his flesh was weak. ‘Good!’ said Anselm; ‘his flesh is weak, but his spirit is willing’” (“Everyman’s Lib.”, p. 515); Alfred Harbage, As They Liked It: An Essay on Shakespeare & Morality, p. 75: “Shakespeare satisfies a man like Johnson because, although not a moralist, he is moral; & he satisfies a man like Hazlitt because, although moral, he is not a moralist.”[40]】

〇《繫辭》上：「一陰一陽之為道」；《正義》：「以理言之為道，以數言之謂之一，以體言之謂之無，以物得開通謂之道，以微妙不測謂之神，以應機變化謂之易。總而言之，皆虛無之謂也」。按參觀《全晉文》卷五九成公綏〈天地賦〉云：「天地至神，難以一言定稱。故體而言之，則曰『兩儀』；假而言之，則曰『乾坤』；氣而言之，則曰『陰陽』；性而言之，則曰『柔剛』；色而言之，則曰『玄黃』；名而言之，則曰『天地』」；《河南二程遺書》卷十一云：「天者理也，神者妙萬物而為言者也，帝者以主宰事而名也」；《履齋示兒編》卷一云：「以形體謂之天，以主宰謂之帝，以運動謂之乾。」

〇《繫辭》上：「鼓萬物而不與聖人同憂」；《注》云：「萬物由之以化。（中略）聖人雖體道以為用，未能至無以為體，故順通天下，則有經營之跡也」；《正義》「道則無心無跡，聖人則無心有跡。（中略）內則雖是無心，外則有經營之跡，則有憂也。」按沖遠之言非是，當云：「道無心有跡，聖人有心有跡，蓋道化育而不經營故也。」夫「鼓萬物」句承「顯諸仁，藏諸用」二句，豈非道有跡乎？「憂」豈非聖人有心乎？《維摩詰所說經》僧肇〈序〉云：「非本無以垂跡，非跡無以顯本。」【《梁書‧處士傳》阮孝緒著論：「夫至道之本，貴在無為；聖人之跡，存乎拯弊。（中略）然不垂其跡，則世無以平；不究其本，則道實交喪。丘、旦將存其跡，故宜權晦其本；老、莊但明其本，亦宜深抑其跡。（中略）若能體兹本跡，悟彼抑揚。」】Herbart, Hauptpunkte der Metaphysik: “Wieviel Schein, soviel Hindeutung aufs Seyn” (Werke, hrsg. Hartenstein, II, S. 187)，道有跡之謂也（參觀下文「見乃謂之象，形乃謂之器」）。《明道語錄》云：「聖人人也，故不能無憂。天則不為堯存，不為桀亡者也」；《伊川語錄》云：「『鼓萬物，不與聖人同憂』，此天與人異處，聖人有不能為天之所為處。」Spinoza, Ethica, Pars. V,  Propositio xvii: “Deus expers est passionum, nec ullo laetitiae aut tristitiae affectu afficitur” (Éd. “Classiques Garnier”, II, p. 198); Arnold: “A Summer Night”: “Ye heavens, whose pure dark regions have no sign / Of languor, though so calm, & though so great, / Are yet untroubled & unpassionate! / Who, though so noble, share in the world’s toil, / And, though so task’d, keep free from dust & soil!” 道無心、不同憂之謂也。R.L. Nettleship: “I sometimes think one might conceive of God as a being who might experience what we call the intensest pain & pleasure without being ‘affected’ by it” (C.E. Montague, A Writer’s Notes on His Trade, “The Phoenix Library”, p. 237)，正 Spinoza 語註脚，參觀第七一四則論《全晉文》卷十八何劭〈王弼傳〉。Leibniz, Théodicée, “Discours Préliminaire”, §22: “S. Athanase s’est moqué avec raison du galimatias de quelques auteurs de son temps, qui avoient soutenu que Dieu avoit pati sans passion. ‘Passus est impassibiliter. O ludicram doctrinam aedificantem simul et demolientem!’” (Die philosophischen Schriften, hrsg. C.J. Gerhardt, VI, S. 63)，則真如 B. Russell 所譏曲學阿世之言（參觀 History of Western Philosophy, p. 604），非所以語於天人之故。

〇《繫辭》上：「易、聖人之所以極深而研幾也」；《注》云：「極未形之理則曰『深』，適動微之會則曰『幾』」；《正義》云：「『幾』者，離無入有，是有初之微。」《繫辭》下：「幾者，動之微、吉之先見者也」；《注》云：「幾者，去無入有。理而無形，不可以名尋，不可以形覩者也。（中略）合抱之木，起於亳末，吉凶之彰，始於微兆」；《正義》云：「『幾』、微也。（中略）事物初動之時，其理未著，唯纖微而已。若其已著之後，則心事顯露，不得為幾；若未動之前，又寂然頓無，兼亦不得稱幾也。幾是離無入有，在有無之際。」按沖遠釋「幾」字甚精。康伯注本之《老子》六十四章云：「其安易持，其未兆易謀，其脆易破，其微易散，為之於未有，治之於未亂。合抱之木，生於毫末；九層之臺，起於累土；千里之行，始於足下。」然竊以為太著迹象。《老子》十四章云：「搏之不得名曰」，「是謂無狀之狀，無物之象，是謂惚恍」；二十一章：「惚兮恍兮，其中有象；恍兮惚兮，其中有物」，尤可以移說「幾」，所謂「在有無之際」。「深」者，本也；「幾」者，跡之未著者也。《法華玄義》卷六上云：「機有三義：一者機是微義，二者機是關義，三者機是宜義。」亦資參驗。【少陵〈閬山歌〉：「松浮欲盡不盡雲，江動將崩未崩石」；東坡〈高郵陳直躬處士畫雁〉：「野雁見人時，未動意先改」，〈次韻趙景貺春思〉：「春風如繫馬，未動意先騁。」】

〇《繫辭》上：「吉凶與民同患」；《正義》云：「凶雖民之所患，吉亦民之所患也；既得其吉，又患其失，故老子云『寵辱若驚』也」。按沖遠之詞辯矣，然未免強為之解。此正如《說卦》曰：「風以散之，雨以潤之」，而《繫辭》上則曰：「潤之以風雨」耳。《左傳》襄公二年：「以索馬牛皆百匹」，《正義》云：「牛當稱『頭』，而亦云『匹』者，因馬而名牛曰『匹』，兼言之耳。經、傳之文，此類多矣。《易‧繫辭》云：『潤之以風雨』，《論語》云：『沽酒市脯不食』，《玉藻》云：『大夫不得造車馬』，皆從一而省文也」（邢昺《論語正義‧鄉黨章》「沽酒市脯」句疏全襲此），而不知「吉凶同患」亦屬此例。又如《禮記‧學記》：「君子知至學之難易」；《正義》：「隨器與之，是至學之易；隨失而救之，是至學之難。」「難易」即「難」，猶「吉凶」即「凶」，沖遠渾忘「從一省文」，不免千慮之一失矣。孔平仲《珩璜新論》云：「宋玉〈賦〉『豈能料天地之高哉』，地言『高』，不可也；《後漢‧楊厚傳》『耳目不明』，耳言『明』，不可也」，正緣未之沖遠「從一省文」之論。王楙《野客叢書》卷二十一論《漢書》「于定國食酒數石不亂」、《論語》「沽酒市脯不食」如《繫辭》「潤之以風雨」、《左傳》「牛馬皆百匹」、《玉藻》「大夫不得造車馬」是皆「因其一而并其一，古人省言之體」；徐𤊹《筆精》卷二云[41]：「張氏曰：『潤之以風雨，風未嘗潤也；烜之以日月，月未嘗烜也。』楊用修曰：『古人之文，有因此而援彼者，有從此而省彼者。如「沽酒市脯不食」，「酒」非可「食」也；「大夫不得造車馬」，「馬」不可言「造」也。』」似均不知沖遠早有此說者。王國維《觀堂集林》卷二〈與友人論詩書中成語書〉云：「古人言『陟降』，不必兼『陟』與『降』二義。《周頌》：『念慈皇祖，陟降庭止』，『陟降厥士，日監在兹』，以『降』為主而兼言『陟』者也。『文王陟降，在帝左右』，以『陟』為主而兼言『降』者也」云云，實即「從一省文」之理。沖遠舉名詞為例，靜庵所徵則為動詞，此物此志也。他如《左傳》昭公四年：「子產曰：『苟利社稷，生死以之』」，謂雖死不惜，而兼舉「生」（參觀實同僖公二十八年：「榮季曰：『死而利國，猶或為之』」）。《史記‧匈奴列傳》「舉事而候星月，月盛壯則攻戰，月虧則退兵」，因「月」而兼舉「星」；《法言‧問道篇》「申韓之術，刀不利，筆不銛，而加諸砥」，則礪刀而兼舉筆。【左思〈吳都賦〉：「魚鳥聱耴」，向注：「聱耴，衆聲貌。[42]魚當無聲，此云『魚鳥聱耴』，文之失也。」】《列子‧楊朱篇》「堯舜偽以天下讓許由」，因堯及舜，則其尤甚者耳。

〇《繫辭》上：「見乃謂之象，形乃謂之器。」按參觀上文「鼓萬物而不與聖人同憂」注疏，又下文「形而上者謂之道，形而下者謂之器。」Goethe, Spruchweisheit in Vers und Prosa: “Das Wahre ist gottähnlich: es erscheint nicht unmittelbar, wir müssen es aus seinen Manifestationen erraten” (Sämtl. Werk., “Tempel-Klassiker”, III, S. 39); Faust, II, 12104-7: “Alles Vergängliche / Ist nur ein Gleichnis; / Das Unzulängliche, / Hier wird’s Ereignis” (Faust, hrsg. E. Trunz, 3^te Auf., 1954, S. 364); Hegel, Ästhetik, Aufbau Verlag, 1955, S. 55: “Doch der Schein selbst ist dem Wesen wesentlich, die Wahrheit wäre nicht, wenn sie nicht schiene und erschiene”，均僧肇所謂「非跡無以顯本」也。

〇《繫辭》上：「是故易有太極，是生兩儀」；《注》云：「夫有必始於無，故太極生兩儀也。太極者，無稱之稱，不可得而名，取有之所極，況之太極者也」；《正義》云：「太極謂天地未分之前，元氣混而為一，即是太初、太一也。故《老子》云『道生一』，即此太極是也。又謂混元既分，即有天地。（中略）即《老子》云『一生二』也。」按輔嗣語未晰，「有必始於無」是以「太極」為「無」也，而「有之所極」則又以「太極」為「有」矣。沖遠以「太極」為「一」，「兩儀」為「二」，皆「有」也，增出「道」則「無」矣，亦隱導夫《通書》所謂「無極而太極」之先路者。參觀第三一五則。

〇《繫辭》上：「子曰：『書不盡言，言不盡意。』」按參觀第七五一則論《老子》五十六章「知者不言」。《漢書‧趙尹韓張兩王傳》張敞上封事曰：「夫心之精微口不能言也，言之微眇書不能文也」；《全晉文》卷三十四盧湛〈與司空劉琨書〉曰：「《易》曰：『書不盡言，言不盡意。』然則書非盡言之器，言非盡意之具矣。況言有不得至於盡意，書有不得至於盡言耶？」亦可參觀。

〇《繫辭》下：「子曰：『天下何思何慮；天下同歸而殊塗，一致而百慮。』」按《象山先生全集》卷二十二〈雜說〉云：「千萬世之前，有聖人出焉，同此心，同此理也；千萬世之後，有聖人出焉，同此心，同此理也；東、南、西、北海有聖人出焉，同此心，同此理也。」若可以說此數語矣，然而未周徧也。《列子‧湯問篇》云：「九土所資，或農或商，或田或漁，如冬裘夏葛，水舟陸車，默而得之，性而成之」，張湛注：「夫方土所資，自然而能，故吳越之用舟，燕朔之乘馬，得之於水陸之宜，不假學於賢智。慎到曰：『治水者茨防決塞，雖在夷貊，相似如一，學之於水，不學之於禹也。』」合之象山之說，庶乎圓到。心同理同，亦緣物同理同；水性如一，故治水者之心思不謀而合。 “Laws of Thought” 即 “Laws of Things”，良以此耳。參觀 H.W.B. Joseph, An Introduction to Logic, 2^nd ed., p. 13)；亦正 Spinoza, Ethica, Partes II, Prop. 7: “ordo et connexio idearum idem est, ac ordo et connexio rerum” (“Classiques Garnier”, I, p. 131); Vico, Scienza nuova, §238: “L’ordine dell’idee dee procedere secondo l’ordine delle cose” (Opere, a cura di F. Nicolini, ed. Riccardo Ricciardi, p. 458)。〈湯問篇〉師文自言：「內不得于心，外不應于器」，而泰豆氏論善御云：「得之于銜，應之于轡；得之于轡，應之于手；得之于手，應之于心」（《莊子‧天道篇》輪扁云：「得之於手而應於心」）。《關尹子‧三極篇》論善琴者曰：「非手，非竹，非絲，非桐。得之心，符之手；得之手，符之物。」二說相輔：得心而物應，得物而心應，因物而亦隨心也 (參觀 H. Lotze, Logic, Eng. tr. ed. B. Bosanquet, I, p. 8: “Now a tool must fulfil two conditions, it must fit the thing & it must fit the hand” etc.)【John Lyly, Campaspe, III. iv, Alexander: “This is awry.” Apelles: “Your eyes goeth not with your hand.” Alex.: “Now it is worse!” Ap.: “Your hand goeth not with your mind.”】。心理之同然，物理之當然，因勢而導，順理以裁，並提而不可偏舉耳 (參觀 L. Pareyson, Estetica: Teoria delia Formatività, 2^a ed., pp. 33-5 論 “la materia” 與 “il lavoro dell’artista”[43])。

〇《繫辭》下：「尺蠖之屈，以求信也。」按參觀四五○則論 Lord Chesterfield, Letters, ed. B. Dobrée, p. 2343: “Et l’on ne recule que pour mieux sauter”，七四三則論《全唐文》卷九五○高無際〈漢武帝後庭秋千賦〉。

〇《繫辭》下：「物相雜，故曰文。」按《藝概》卷一論此語，真能引而申之，觸類而長之，其詞曰：「《易‧繫辭》：『物相雜，故曰文』；《國語》：『物一無文』。徐鍇《說文通論》：『強弱相成，剛柔相形，故於文：人、乂為文』。朱子《語錄》：『兩物相對待，故有文，若相離去，便不成文矣』。為文者盍思文之所生乎？」又曰：「《國語》言『物一無文』，後人更當知物無一則無文。蓋一乃文之真宰；必有一在其中，斯能用夫不一者也」（《國語‧鄭語》史伯對鄭桓公曰：「聲一無聽，物一無文，味一無果，物一無講」）。「雜」即 Publius Syrus, §278: “Iocundum nil est, nisi quod reficit varietas” (Minor Latin Poets, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 50), Phaedrus, II, Prolog. 10: “Varietas delectat” (G. Büchmann, Geflügelte Worte, Volks-Ausgabe von B. Krieger, 1926, S. 284) 之 “varietas”。「相雜成文」、「無一無文」二事彼此輔佐，即 Goethe, Die Wahlverwandtschaften, II. vii: “Abwechselung ohne Zerstreuung wäre für Lehre und Leben der schönste Wahlspruch” (Werke, hrsg. K. Alt, Bd. VIII, S. 141)，參觀 Coleridge, Table Talk, ed. T. Ashe, pp. 146, 268, 291 on “il più nell’ uno”; B. Bosanquet, A History of Aesthetic, 2^nd ed., p. 4: “Among the ancients the fundamental theory of the beautiful was connected... with the general formula of unity in variety”; p. 30: “... the one true aesthetic principle recogniz by Hellenic antiquity in general... [is] that beauty consists in the imaginative or sensuous expression of unity in variety”。近來譚藝者如 Th. Lipps 亦以 “Das Gesetz der Einheit in der Mannigfaltigkeit” 為典則 (詳見 Grundlegung der Ästhetik, Bd. I, Kap. 3, S. 29 ff.)，別有稱為 “The principle of variety-in-unity” 者 (L.A. Reid, A Study in Aesthetics, p. 114)。

〇《繫辭》下：「危者使平，易者使傾」；《注》云：「易，慢易也。」按《繫辭》上：「子曰：『危者安其位者也，亡者保其存者也，亂者有其治者也』」；《繫辭》下云：「尺蠖之屈，以求信也；龍蛇之蟄，以存身也」；〈謙〉卦：「彖曰：天道虧盈而益謙，地道變盈而流謙，鬼神害盈而福謙，人道惡盈而好謙。」《老子》一書反復明此義，如九章云：「持而盈之，不如其已；揣而棁之，不可長保」；十五章云：「保此道者不欲盈」；二十二章云：「曲則全，枉則直，窪則盈，敝則新」；四十二章云：「故物或損之而益，或益之而損」；五十八章云：「禍兮福之所倚，福兮禍之所伏」；七十七章云：「天之道其猶張弓與！高者抑之，下者舉之，有餘者損之，不足者補之。天之道，損有餘而補不足。」希臘古人言 “the envious reversal of the gods”, “Nemesis”, “Divine Jealousy”（參觀 W.C. Greene, Moira, pp. 75, 85-7 引 Odyssey, XXIII. 209-12, Pindar, Pyth., 10. 20 f.; Herodotus, I. 34, 40-3, 120-5; VII. 10, 24, 35, 38 f.; Exodus, 20-5: “For I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God” 則謂忌人之奉事他神，非此意)。Emerson: “Compensation” 則頗道此意，而為游詞所掩，如云：“Every advantage has its tax”, “the compensations of calamity are made apparent to the understanding” etc. (F.H. Pritchard, Great Essays of All Nations, p. 836, 838)，僅窺「易者使傾」、「福兮禍伏」、「益之而損」，揚子雲〈解嘲〉所謂「炎炎者滅，隆隆者絕」，「高明之家，鬼瞰其室」，而未識「危者使平」、「禍兮福倚」、「損之而益」也。

〇《說卦》：「數往者順，知來者逆」；《正義》云：「人欲知既往之事者，《易》則順後而知之；人欲知將來之事者，《易》則逆前而數之。」按《易‧繫辭》下云：「夫《易》彰往而察來」，此處更拈出「順」、「逆」。然顧後則於既往亦可言「逆」，瞻前則於將來亦可言「順」，所從言之異路耳。故「前秋」可訓去秋，亦可訓來秋；「自今以來」即「自今以往」。晁補之〈滿江紅〉云：「問向前、猶有幾多春。三之一」，謂未來春色也；吳潛〈鵲橋仙‧己未七夕〉：「銀河半隱，玉蟾高掛，已覺炎光向後」，謂已過炎光也。《論語‧述而》「互鄉難與言」章「不保其往」，鄭玄注：「往，猶去也，亦何能保其去後之行也」；皇侃疏：「往謂已過去行。顧歡曰：『往謂前日之行也。』鄭注云：『去後之行』，亦謂今日之前，是已去之後也」；邢昺《正義》：「謂往前之行，今已過去」云云。若以今語釋之，則康成謂辭我而去以後之行，正將來耳。參觀七三五則論《全唐文》卷三七九李抱玉〈讓副元帥及山南節度使表〉。

〇《說卦》：「乾，天也，故稱乎父；坤地也，故稱乎母。」[44]按 J.J. Winckelmann, Versuch einer Allegorie besonders für die Kunst: “Die in Bildern redende Natur und die Spuren von bildlichen Begriffen erkennt man sogar in dem Geschlechte der Worte... Die Sonne hat in den alten und in den mehresten neuen Sprachen eine männliche Benennung, wie der Mond eine weibliche... Die erde hat eine Bennenung weiblichen Geschlechts und ist in weiblicher Gestalt gebilde” (Kleine Schriften und Briefe, Auswahl von W. Senff, S. 179; 參觀 Casanova, Memoirs, Eng. Tr. Arthur Machen, I, p. 18: “The Englishman, pleased with my reasoning, wrote down the following old couplet: ‘Dicite, grammatici, cur mascula nomina cunnus, / Et cur femineum mentula nomen habet’”[45]; Reuben A. Brower, ed., On Translation, p. 237: “The Rissian painter Repin was baffled as to why Sin had been depicted as a woman by German artists; he did not realize that ‘Sin’ is feminine in German (die Sünde) but masculine in Russian. Likewise a Russian child, while reading a translation of German tales, was astounded to find that death, obviously a woman (Russian fem.), was pictured as an old man (der Tod)” etc.)。

〇《說卦》：「乾為天，為父，為良馬，為老馬。坤為地，為母，為子母牛。」按〈坤〉卦：「元亨，利牝馬之貞。」何以《說卦》易馬為牛耶？參觀 E. Jones, Nightmare, Witches, & Devils, pp. 248 ff. 引 M. Jähns, Ross und Reiter in Leben und Sprache, Glauben und Geschichte der Deutschen, Bd. I, S. 77: “Die innige Zusammenstellung von Pferd und Frau ist uralt” usw.。

七七○^[46]

           

宋版《毛詩正義》（紹興九年刊╱金沢文庫本）

            閱《毛詩正義》【又見第七九三則】：

〈詩譜序〉：「詩之道放於此乎」；《正義》云：「『詩』一名而三訓。」按參觀七二八則論「虛涵數意」。又按「三訓：承也，志也，持也」尚有未盡。〈關雎‧序〉云：「詩者，志之所之，在心為志，發言為詩」；劉熙《釋名》本之云：「詩，之也，志之所之也」，「之」訓勝「志」訓。《詩緯‧含神霧》云：「詩者，持也。在於敦厚之教，自持其心；諷刺之道，可以扶持者也。」「之」之與「持」，一縱一歛，一弛一張，相反而相成，亦如《易經‧革》之「水火相息」矣。又按王荊公《字說》云：「『詩』，從『言』從『寺』，寺者法度之所在也」（李之儀《姑溪居士後集》卷十五〈雜題跋〉「作詩字字要有來處」則引）。倘「法度」為杜子美所謂「詩律細」、唐子西所謂「詩律傷嚴」，則「詩」有四訓；若防範懸戒、儆惡閑邪之意，則「持」之引申而已，舊解而未出新意也。

〇〈關雎‧序〉：「情發於聲，聲成文，謂之音」；毛《傳》云：「『成文』者，宮商上下相應」；《正義》云：「使五聲為曲，似五色成文。」按陸士衡〈文賦〉亦云：「暨音聲之迭代，若五色之相宣」；《文心雕龍‧情采篇》亦云：「形文，五色是也；聲文，五音是也；情文，五性是也。」「聲成文」正《易‧繫辭》下「物相雜，故曰文」之旨。然文乃眼色為緣，屬眼識界，音乃耳聲為緣，屬耳識界語本《楞嚴經》卷三。音而成文，是通感 (synaesthesia) 矣（參觀 C. Spearman, Psychology Down the Ages, I, p. 71; II, pp. 222-3 論 “Form” 自空間推而至時間）。E. Hanslick 謂音樂以聲造形，比之圖畫 (pittura) (參觀 Croce, Estetica, 10^a ed., p. 463)；M. Schneider  謂樂有遠近表裏，比於風物堂室，聆音者自得之 (Raumtiefenhören) (參觀 Fr. Kainz, Aesthetics the Science, Eng. tr. H.M. Schueller, p. 306)，皆「聲成文」一語之引申觸類。Dewey, Art as Experience, p. 184: “We see intervals & directions in picture & we hear distances & volumes in music”;《左傳》襄公二十九年季札論樂節：「為之歌〈大雅〉，曰：『曲而有直體』」，杜預注云：「論其聲如此」，聲而曰「體」，即 volume 也。又按〈樂記〉曰：「聲成文，謂之音」，《正義》僅云：「聲之清濁，雜比成文」，知「相雜曰文」者，而未言「五色」。〈樂記〉又曰：「屈伸、俯仰、綴兆、舒疾，樂之文也」，即下文所言「舞動其容」，乃應樂而舞之態，正如所謂「周還、裼襲，禮之文也」，非「聲文」之謂也。

〇《正義》又云：「設有言而非志，謂之矯情：情見於聲，矯亦可識。若夫取彼素絲，織為綺縠，或色美而材薄，或文惡而質良，唯善賈者別之。取彼歌謠，播為音樂，或詞是而意非，或言邪而志正，唯達樂者曉之。」按沖遠意謂言可矯飾，而聲不容矯飾也。即〈樂記〉所謂「唯樂不可以為偽」之理。譚峭《化書‧德化篇》亦云：「衣冠可詐而形器不可詐，言語可文而聲音不可文」，足助張目。音樂出於人心之至真，入於人心之至深，徑直而不迂，親切而無介，非如文詞尚隔一間 (參觀 Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, III^tes Buch, §52: “[Die Musik]... wirkt so mächtig auf das Innerste des Menschen, wird dort so ganz und so tief von ihm verstanden, als eine ganz allgemeine Sprache, deren Deutlichkeit sogar die der anschaulichen Welt selbst übertrifft... Die Musik ist also keineswegs, gleich den anderen Künsten, das Abbild der Ideen; sondern Abbild des Willens selbst... denn diese reden nur vom Schatten, sie aber vom Wesen... Alle möglichen Bestrebungen, Erregungen und Aeusserungen des Willens, alle jene Vorgänge im Innern des Menschen, welche die Vernunft in den weiten negativen Begriff Gefühl wirft, sind durch die unendlich vielen möglichen Melodien auszudrücken” usw. (Sämtliche Werke, hrsg. E. Griesbach, Bd. I, S. 337-8, 340, 345-6; 參觀 E.F. Carritt, The Theory of Beauty, pp. 136-7 引 Plato, Laws, Republic, Aristotle, Poetics, Politics, Problemata 謂 “Music resembles character”, “Music is the most direct expression of temperament”; 又 André Suarès, Remarques: “Le visage se compose. Les gestes se calculent. Le regard même peut duper. Mais la voix ne trompe point, même si les paroles trompent”)。《東原集》卷一〈書鄭風後〉云：「〈樂記〉魏文侯曰：『吾端冕而聽古樂，則唯恐臥；聽鄭衞之音，則不知倦。』子夏謂其所好者『溺音』。許叔重《五經異義》以鄭詩解《論語》『鄭聲淫』，而康成駁之，曰：『《左傳》說「煩手淫聲」，謂之「鄭聲」，言煩手躑躅之聲，使淫過矣。』其注〈樂記〉『桑間、濮上之音』，引『紂作靡靡之樂』為證，不引〈桑中〉之篇，明桑間、濮上其音之由來巳久，凡所謂『聲』、所謂『音』，非言其詩也。如靡靡之樂、滌濫之音，其始作也，實自鄭、衛、桑間、濮上耳。然則鄭、衛之音非鄭詩、衛詩，桑間、濮上之音非〈桑中〉詩，其義甚明」云云。厥詞辨矣，然於詩樂相偶一貫，如《文心雕龍‧樂府篇》所謂「詩為樂心，聲為樂體」之理，概乎未知。沖遠《正義》云：「詩是樂之心，樂為詩之聲，故詩、樂同其功也。初作樂者，準詩而為聲，聲既成形，須依聲而作詩，故後之作詩者，皆主應於樂文也。」曰「依」，曰「準」，曰「應」，可謂明切周詳矣。《朱子語類》卷七十八論「聲依永」亦謂古人作詩，自道心事，他人歌之，其聲之長短清濁，各依其詩之語言；今人先安排腔調了，造作語言合之，則是「永依聲」也。蓋洋洋雄放之詞，不能播之於滌濫、靡靡之樂；而寫以桑、濮之音，亦必以情、詞佚蕩者為宜。否則合之兩傷，如壯夫而施粉黛，婉孌而披甲冑也。且據沖遠前論，詞不淫或出於矯，聲而淫則衷情流露，安知詩詞之非矯飾乎？

〇〈關雎‧序〉：「故詩有六義焉：（中略）四曰興。」按《困學紀聞》卷三引李仲蒙所謂「索物以託情，謂之『比』；觸物以起情，謂之『興』；叙物以言情，謂之『賦』」，見胡寅《斐然集》卷十八〈致李叔易書〉，說「興」義最明切者。《朱子語類》卷八十云：「《詩》之『興』全無巴鼻，後人詩猶有此體。如：『青青陵上柏，磊磊澗中石；人生天地間，忽如遠行客。』又如：『高山有涯，林木有枝；蔓來無端，人莫之知』；『青青河畔草，綿綿思遠道』」；項平甫《項氏家說》卷四云：「作詩者多用舊題而自述己意，如樂府家『飲馬長城窟』、『日出東南隅』之類，非真有取於馬與日也，特取其章句音節而為詩耳。〈楊柳枝曲〉每句皆足以柳枝，〈竹枝詞〉每句皆和以竹枝，初不於柳與竹取興也。《王》國風以『揚之水，不流束薪』賦戍甲之勞；《鄭》國風以『揚之水，不流束薪』賦兄弟之鮮。作者本用此二句以為逐章之引，而說詩者乃欲即二句之文，以釋戍役之情，見兄弟之義，不亦陋乎，大抵說詩者皆經生，作詩者乃詞人，彼初未嘗作詩，故多不能得作詩者之意也」；徐文長《青籐書屋文集》卷十七〈奉師季先生書〉云：「《詩》之『興』體，起句絕無意味，自古樂府亦已然。樂府蓋取民俗之謠，正與古國風一類。今之南北東西雖殊方，而婦女、兒童、耕夫、舟子、塞曲、征吟、市歌、巷引，若所謂〈竹枝詞〉，無不皆然。此真天機自動，觸物發聲，以啟其下段欲寫之情，默會亦自有妙處，決不可以意義說者」云云，皆深得作詩之理。以「興」說成「賦」、「比」，亦如荊公《字說》以形聲解為會意。鼷鑽角尖，而自以為蟻穿珠曲，皆意過於通者也。平甫「經生」、「詞人」之論，隱導賀貽孫、萬時華輩之說《詩經》矣。《明詩綜》卷一百載兒謠「貍貍斑斑，跳過南山」一首，即其例。

〇〈關雎‧序〉：「是以一國之事，繫一人之本，謂之風；言天下之事，形四方之風，謂之雅」；《正義》云：「『一人』者，作詩之人。其作詩者，道己一人之心耳。要所言一人之心，乃一國之心。（中略）莫不取眾之意以為己辭。」按此謂風謠雖寫眾人之心，復播眾人之口，而初出一人之手，非所謂 “Gemeinsames dichten”, “das Volk dictet” 也。F.B. Gummere, The Beginnings of Poetry, p. 420: “If it were possible to conceive a tale as telling itself, without the instrumentations of a conscious speaker, the ballad would be such a tale” 夸大不合情實。 Sergio Baldi, Studi sulla poesia popolare d’Inghilterra e di Scozia, p. 42: “Non credo che sia possibile documentare per quegli anni altro senso della parola ‘popolare’ se non quello di ‘rinvenuto fra il popolo’; né dimostrare che il popolo fosse allora visto altrimenti che il fedele e passivo depositario di un’arte dimenticata dalle classi colte” 最為得之。蓋雖原出一手，而既眾口流傳，亦有眾手增削，不盡本來面目。故M.J.C. Hodgart, The Ballads, p. 27 擬之於 “montage” 也。參觀 A. Preminger, ed. Encyclopedia of Poetry & Poetics, p. 63: “Individualists” (John Meier, Louise Pound) assert that all ballads are the work of individual poets & are ‘popular’ merely in having been taken up by the folk. Communalists (F.B. Gummere, W.M. Hart, G.L. Kittredge) insist that the prototypical ballad was concocted in assemblies of the folk in the exultations of choral dance. Current opinion concedes that the traits of ‘balladness’ may be explained by the communal theory, but holds that all extant ballads are the work of individuals originally... However, the work of an individual poet does not become a ballad until it is accepted by the folk & remodeled by the ballad conventions in the course of its tour in oral tradition”[47]，又 Croce: “La poesia popolare et la poesia d’arte” 論 H. Steinthal 之說 (“disse la poesia popolare un nomen actionis, non essendovi, in realtà, Volksgedicht ma un Volksdichten, non un Volksepos, ma una Volksepik”)，云：“Nessuna poesia è collettiva nell’origine... quanto allo stato di ‘fluidità’ in cui si troverebbe la poesia popolare, non si tratta d’altro che dell’incessante imitare, ritoccare o rifare che si, riscontra parimente, nella poesia d’arte da parte degli amanuensi, editori, interpreti e altri trasmissori” (Filosofia, Poesia, Storia, p. 342)。

            〇〈關雎〉：「窈窕淑女」；毛《傳》云：「窈窕、幽閒也；淑、善」；鄭《箋》謂：「幽閒處深宮貞專之善女」；《正義》從之而曰：「揚雄謂『善心為窈，善容為窕』者，非也」。按沖遠未道子雲之非，其故何在？竊謂「窈窕」言女之美貌，「淑」言女之善行，即〈陳風‧東門之池〉所謂「彼美淑姬」也。施山《薑露盦雜記》卷六曰：「『窈窕淑女』善於形容。蓋『窈窕』慮其佻也，而以『淑』字鎮之[48]；『淑』字慮其腐也，而以『窈窕』揚之」。頗有說詩解頤之趣。「輾轉反側」；鄭《箋》：「臥而不周曰輾」；《正義》：「反側猶反覆，輾轉猶婉轉，俱是迴動。」按《太平樂府》卷一喬夢符〈蟾宮曲‧寄遠〉云：「睡如翻餅」，是也。

〇〈卷耳〉：「陟彼崔嵬，我馬虺隤，我姑酌彼金罍；陟彼高岡，我馬玄黃，我姑酌彼兕觥」；鄭《箋》謂「我馬」之「我」使臣也，「我姑酌彼」之「我」君也。按第二章鄭《箋》云：「此章為意不盡，申殷勤也」；《正義》云：「詩本蓄志發發憤，情寄於詞，故有意不盡，『重章』以申殷勤。詩之初始有此，故解之。」按此非通方之見，〈關雎〉早有「重章」，不始於此。參觀Gummere, The Beginnings of Poetry, p. 194 論 “repetition” 及 E. Staiger, Grundbegriffe der Poetik, 5^te Aufl., S. 27 論 “Wiederholung”。蓋言之不足，反復言之，風謠莫匪然也。

            〇「桃之夭夭，灼灼其華」；《正義》云：「『夭夭』言桃之少，『灼灼』言華之盛。」按「少小」之「少」，非「多少」之「少」。〈檜風‧隰有萇楚〉：「夭之沃沃」；毛《傳》云：「夭、少也。」後世以「夭夭」亦訓美盛，《湘綺樓日記》同治八年九月二十八日云：「《說文》『𡝩』字引《詩》『桃之夭夭』，以證『𡝩』為女笑之貌，明『芺』即『笑』字。隸書『竹』、『艹』互用，今遂不知『笑』即『芺』字，而妄附『笑』於『竹』部。」蓋「夭夭」乃比喻之詞，亦指華言，義山〈即日〉云[49]：「夭桃唯是笑，舞蝶不空飛」，上句正得聖解，「夭」即「笑」，如「舞」即「飛」耳。他如〈判春〉云：「一桃復一李，井上占年芳。笑處如臨鏡，窺時不隱牆」；〈早起〉云：「鶯花啼又笑，畢竟是誰春」；〈李花〉云：「自明無月夜，強笑欲風天」；〈槿花〉云：「殷鮮一相雜，啼笑兩難分」；長吉〈春歸昌谷〉云：「細綠及團紅，當路雜啼笑」，皆「夭夭」之義。花笑之喻，莫早於此。為讀者蔽于注疏，遂無人拈出。駱賓王〈蕩子從軍賦〉云：「花有情而獨笑，鳥無事而恒啼」；李太白〈古風〉云：「桃花開東園，含笑誇白日」；《史通‧外篇‧雜說上第七》云：「《左傳》稱仲尼曰：『鮑莊子智不如葵，葵猶能衛其足。』尋葵之向日傾心，本不衛足；由人覩其形似，強為立名。亦猶今俗文士謂鳥鳴為『啼』、花發為『笑』，花之與鳥，豈有啼笑之情哉」云云。牽連書之，聊資說助。Addison, The Spectator, No. 249, “Of Laughter”[50]: “the metaphor of laughing, applied in fields & meadows, when they are in flower, or to trees when they are in blossom, runs through all languages; which I have not observed of any other metaphor, excepting that of Fire & Burning when they are applied to Love.”

            〇〈芣苢〉。按見七六七則論 Erika Mitterer: “Klage der deutschen Frauen” (W. Rose, A Book of Modern German Lyric Verses, pp. 246-8)。

            〇〈汝墳〉：「未見君子，惄如調飢」；鄭《箋》云：「如朝飢之思食。」按此以飲食喻男女，參觀六二○則論 Feuerbach: “Das Geheimnis des Opfers”: “Die Liebe ist kein grobes, fleischliches, sondern herzliches und mündliches Essen” (Sämtl. Werke, hrsg. Wm Bolin & Fr. Jodl, Bd. X, S. 60)。

            〇〈小星〉：「抱衾與裯」；鄭《箋》云：「裯，床帳也」；《正義》引《鄭志》謂「所施帳者，為二人共侍於君，有須在帳者。妾往必二人俱往，不然不須帳」，意謂二人同當夕，而初非長枕大被，與君為無遮之會。「施帳」所以翳障彼此，而各專其夜，異乎蠻夷之「交會不相避」也（《太平御覽》七八○《臨海水土志》）[51]。制禮者之苦心乎？抑說詩者之細心耶？《容齋三筆》卷十謂「〈詩序〉誤，而毛、鄭從而為之辭。諸侯有一國，其宮中嬪妾雖云至下，固非閭閻賤微之比，何至於抱衾而行？況於牀帳，勢非一己之力所能致者，其說可謂陋矣。此詩本是詠使者遠適，夙夜征行，不敢慢君命之意，與〈殷其雷〉之指同。」鄭箋〈草蟲〉「亦既覯止」為「覯精」，《漢學商兌》卷中之下譏之云：「豈有作詩自言媾精，況其為女子之言，大夫之妻乎！」[52]竊謂當與此處「施帳」之說，及《周禮‧天官》「九嬪」節鄭注論后、夫人、九嬪進御（參觀《升菴全集》卷四十四、《鈍翁前後類稿》卷十六〈周禮九嬪世婦女御辨〉、《續子不語》卷五〈麒麟喊冤〉，又《瞥記》卷一引《讀禮志疑》、《齊東野語》卷十九引崔靈恩《三禮義宗》）合觀。蓋宋之道學家諱言男女，其失也腐；而漢之經生不諱言男女，其失亦不免於迂。皆不通人情、不達世故所致也。《困學紀聞》卷三引李清臣《詩論》謂康成之學「長於《禮》，以《禮》訓《詩》」，是案形迹以求性情，所以「繁塞而多失」。竊謂康成之說〈小星〉，可謂於情與禮斟酌得中矣。

        〇〈摽有梅〉首章曰：「求我庶士，迨其吉兮」，尚可從容相待。次章曰：「求我庶士，迨其今兮」，則敦促其言下承當，故毛《傳》云：「今，急辭也。」末章曰：「求我庶士，迨其謂之」，則急不及緩，真情畢露，盡芟葛籐矣。此重章之循序漸進 (progressive iteration) 者也。〈草蟲〉首章曰：「亦既見止，亦既覯止，我心則降」；次章曰：「亦既見止，亦既覯止，我心則說」；末章曰：「亦既見止，亦既覯止，我心則夷」，三者詞異而意類，此重章之一意屢申 (varied iteration) 者也。又按〈召南‧草蟲〉首章云：「喓喓草蟲，趯趯阜螽。未見君子，憂心忡忡。亦既見止，亦既覯止，我心則降」，〈小雅‧出車〉末章全同，而無「亦既覯止」一句。〈鄭風‧風雨〉「既見君子，云胡不夷」，「既見君子，云胡不瘳」，「既見君子，云胡不喜」，與〈草蟲〉詞意相類。〈衛風‧氓〉云：「既見復關，載笑載言」；〈唐風‧揚之水〉云：「既見君子，云何不樂」；〈小雅‧蓼蕭〉云：「既見君子，我心寫兮」；〈菁菁者莪〉云：「既見君子，我心則喜」，亦出一律，足徵「覯止」即「見止」之重言申明。不然則是召之女淫於鄭，他國之女見面不足慰意，必媾合而後悅夷也。〈豳風‧伐柯〉云：「我覯之子」，此詩明言淑妻，而鄭卻不作「覯精」解，何耶？《檮杌萃編‧緣起》云：「好色不淫是欺人之談，不淫無以申其情。男女相悅，若不得肌膚相親，總覺此願未了。所以《毛詩》上說了一句『亦既見止』，還要申上一句『亦既媾止』」云云，為康成張目。而康成聞之，亦當掩耳疾走。

            〇〈野有死麕〉：「無使尨也吠」；毛《傳》云：「貞女思開春以禮與男會。（中略）非禮相侵則狗吠。」按明是幽期密約之詞，丁寧其潛踪藏影，毋使人驚覺，致犬啀喍也。唐王涯〈宮詞〉云：「白雪猧兒拂地行，慣眠紅毯不曾驚，深宮更有何人到，只曉金階吠晚螢」，可以與「無使尨也吠」句相發明。高青邱〈宮女圖〉云：「小犬隔花空吠影，夜深宮禁有誰來？」實本王涯語意，而歷來無人拈出。

            〇〈柏舟〉。

            〇〈燕燕〉：「瞻望勿及，佇立以泣」。按許彥周《詩話》云：「此真可泣鬼神矣！張子野長短句云：『眼力不如人，遠上溪橋去』；東坡〈與子由〉詩云：『登高回首坡壠隔，惟見烏帽出復沒』；皆遠紹其意。」陳舜百《讀風臆補》一則全襲此，陳書繼戴忠甫《讀風臆評》而作。《朱子語類》卷八十早曰：「讀《詩》且只將做今人做底詩看。」；萬時華（茂先）《詩經偶箋‧自序》云：「今之君子知《詩》之為經，不知《詩》之為詩，一蔽也」；阮吾山《茶餘客話》卷十一云：「予謂三百篇正不必作經讀，只以讀古詩樂府之法讀之，真足陶冶性靈，益人風趣不少。」戴、陳二氏之書，皆即此旨，亦時有悟入處。張子野〈虞美人〉云：「眼力不知人遠，上江橋。」許氏誤憶，作行人遠上溪橋，而送者眼力望不到之意。子野〈南鄉子〉亦云：「春水一篙殘照濶，遙遙，有個多情立畫橋」；〈一叢花令〉又云：「嘶騎漸遙，征塵不斷，何處認郎蹤。」李陵〈別蘇武〉云：「長當從此別，且復立斯須」；梁朱超道〈別席中兵〉云：「扁舟已入浪，孤帆漸逼天，停車對空渚，長望轉依然」；王摩詰〈齊州送祖三〉云：「解纜君已遙，望君猶佇立」；〈觀別者〉云：「車徒望不見，時見起行塵」，已導子野、東坡先路，然「停」也，「立」也，「不見」也，「唯見」也，視〈燕燕〉原句，尚多粘皮帶骨。左緯〈送許白丞至白沙為舟人所誤詩以寄之〉詩題本《永樂大典》卷一萬四千三百八十〈寄〉字引云：「水邊人獨自，沙上月黃昏」，與子野「眼力」云云，庶幾脫胎換骨者矣。參觀 Cymbeline, I. iii, Imogen: “I would have broke mine eyestrings, crack’d them but / To look upon him; till the diminution / Of space had pointed him sharp as my needle; / Nay, follow’d him, till he had melted from / The smallness of a gnat to air, & then / Have turn’d mine eyes & wept” (Complete Works, ed. G.L. Kittredge, p. 1336; Gray: “Ode on the Pleasure Arising from Vicissitude”: “And lessening from the dazzled sight, / [the skylark] Melts into air & liquid light”)。

            〇「燕燕于飛，下上其音」；毛《傳》云：「言語感激，聲有大小。」按〈雄雉〉曰：「雄雉于飛，下上其音」；毛《傳》云：「宣公小大其聲，怡悦婦人。」皆可笑，亦自壞其例。夫比喻之法，一表一裏，鳥飛表也，人事裏也。若「上下其音」即「小大其聲」，則表裏無別，非比而賦。二語之間，出彼入此，互相違牾矣。

            〇〈終風〉：「終風且暴」；毛《傳》云：「終日風」；韓《詩》云：「西風」。按焦理堂《家訓‧下》云：「王念孫先生例之以『終和且平』、『終窶且貧』，知『終風』當解作『既風』。如是說《詩》，《詩》無不達之詁。而毛公解作『終日風』，真令人悶悶。」

            〇〈終風〉：「寤言不寐，願言則嚏」；鄭《箋》云：「今俗人嚏，云『人道我』，此古之遺語也。」按《嬾真子》卷三、《容齋隨筆》卷四皆考此，見第三○則論楊文奎《兒女團圓》第二折。

            〇〈擊鼓〉：「死生契濶，與子成說，執子之手，與子偕老」；鄭《箋》云：「契濶，勤苦也。從軍之士，與其伍約：『死也、生也，相與處勤苦之中，我與子成相說愛之恩』。志在相存救也；『俱老』者，庶幾俱免於難」；《正義》云：「王肅云：『言國人室家之志，欲相與從；『生死契濶』而不相離，相與成男女之數，相扶持俱老。』」按王說是也，鄭說謬甚。此蓋征人別室婦之詞，恐戰死而不能歸，故次章曰：「不我以歸，憂心有忡」；若不得還，則遺骸須覓，故三章曰：「于以求之？于林之下」；此章溯成室之時，死生相守，盟言在耳；末章謂盟誓旦旦，而死離生別，道遠年長，居者未必踐信，故曰：「于嗟濶兮，不我活兮！于嗟洵兮，不我信兮！」〈豳風‧東山〉末章與此正相發明（見七六九則論《易‧漸卦》）。黃生《義府》卷上云：「『契』、合也，『濶』、離也，與『死生』對言。『偕老』即偕死，此初時之『成說』；今者從軍，有『濶』而已，『契』無日也，有『死』而已，『生』無日也。『洵』、信也，『信』、申也；前日之言果信，而偕老之願則不得申也。今人通以『契濶』為隔遠之意，皆承《詩》註之誤。」釋「契濶」甚當。《玉臺新詠》卷一蘇武詩：「結髮為夫婦，恩愛兩不疑。（中略）行役在戰場，相見未有期。（中略）生當復來歸，死當長相思」，即所謂「死生契濶」。張文虎《舒藝室餘筆》卷三云[53]：「王肅說〈邶風‧擊鼓〉之三章，以為從軍者與其家室訣別之詞；杜詩〈新婚別〉深得其意」，尤具妙解。又按王燾〈外臺秘要方序〉（《全唐文》卷三九七）云：「冒犯蒸暑，自南徂北，既僻且陋。染瘴嬰痢，十有六七。死生契濶，不可問天。賴有經方，僅得存者」云云，「契濶」即用鄭《箋》「勤苦」之義。

            〇〈谷風〉。按此〈邶風〉也。小〈序〉謂：「刺夫婦失道。」〈小雅〉亦有〈谷風〉小〈序〉謂：「刺朋友道絕。」實則二詩詞意相類，疑是同篇之異文，不必橫生分別。

            〇〈谷風〉：「行道遲遲，中心有違；不遠伊爾，薄送我畿」；毛《傳》：「畿、門內也」；鄭《箋》：「送我裁於門內，無恩之甚！行於道路之人，至於將別，尚舒行，其心徘徊。」[54]按「行道」二句，乃棄婦自道其不忍遽去之狀，毛《傳》失之。楊誠齋〈分宜逆旅逢同郡客子〉云：「在家兒女亦心輕，行路逢人皆弟兄；未問後來相憶否，其如臨別不勝情」，則毛《傳》之意也。

            〇〈谷風〉：「采葑采菲，無以下體？」毛《傳》云：「此二菜者，上下可食，然而其根有美時有惡時，采之者不可以其根惡時並棄其葉。喻夫婦以禮義合，顏色相親，亦不可以顏色衰，棄其相與之禮」；《正義》：「《坊記》引此詩證君子不盡利於人，故注云：『無以其根美則並取之』，與此異也。」按《左傳》僖公三十三年臼季亦引此詩[55]，而曰：「君取節焉可也」；杜預注：「葑、菲上善下惡，食之者不以其惡而棄其善，言可取其善節」，又與《坊記》異。《詩》謂當因善而並不棄惡，《坊記》謂毋因善而並不棄惡，《傳》謂毋因惡而並棄善。取喻之物 (G. Frege 所謂 “Sinn”) 同，而立喻之意 (Frege 所謂 “Bedeutung”) 各別 (參觀 J.O. Urmson, The Concise Encyclopaedia of Western Philosophy & Philosophers, pp. 148 & 189)，此余所謂 “metaphorical polygon”。蓋一事一物也，而所具則非止一性一能所資，遂不限于一功一用。立喻者用心各別，著眼迥異，援象雖同，人人節取其性能功用之一偏，應所需而適所宜，故譬 (vehicle, le comparant) 一而喻 (tenor, le comparé) 則殊，指同而旨則歧，其象可以一應多，以常應變。C.-L. Estève, Études philosophiques sur l’Expression littéraire, p. 187: “La présentation à la conscience ne coïncident nullement avec les possibilités de l’objet, infinies en raison des innombrables rapports inaperçus qui le rattachent à tous les autres objets; ni avec les virtualités du concept... objets et concepts proposent; partielle parce que partiale, l’attention du subjet dispose. L’enfant qui chevauche un balai se croit à cheval... il néglige du balai tous les caractères ou rapports qui le fontautre qu’une monture”，足相發明。黃侃《文心雕龍札記》云：「夫〈柏舟〉命篇，〈邶〉、〈鄘〉兩見，然〈邶〉詩以喻仁人之不用，〈鄘〉詩以譬女子之有常。〈杕杜〉之目，〈風〉、〈雅〉兼存，而〈小雅〉以譬得時，〈唐風〉以哀孤立，此物同而感異也。」雖僅據題目之粗，未探文心之本，而頗有會於此矣。參觀七三一則論徐彥伯〈樞機論〉、七三二則論 T. Colsalvatico, Sempre festa (D. Provenzal, Dizionario delle immagini, p. 287)、七六○則論飛鳥各投林、七七三則論《史記‧司馬相如傳》上疏諫馳逐野獸、七九三則論〈柏舟〉。

            〇〈谷風〉：「宴爾新婚，如兄如弟」；《正義》云：「愛汝之新婚，恩如兄弟。」按後世常情，必謂以疏喻親，比擬失當。姚柬之《伯山文集》卷一〈經說〉「夫妻兄弟」條即說此二句，引《禮記‧曾子問‧正義》「夫婦有兄弟之義」云云，苦無發明。〈小雅‧黃鳥‧正義〉云：「《周官‧大司徒》十有二教，其三曰：『聯兄弟』，《注》云：『聯猶合也，兄弟謂昏姻嫁娶』，是謂夫婦為『兄弟』也。夫婦而謂之『兄弟』者，《列女傳》曰[56]：『執禮而行兄弟之道。』何休亦云：『圖安危可否，兄弟之義，故比之也。』」可補伯山之漏，而亦未洞見本原。古人重血胤，故以兄弟為天倫，若夫妻則人倫而已。骨肉之親，重于室家之好。新婚而「如兄如弟」，結髮而如連枝，正是以親喻疏也。〈小雅‧常棣〉以兄弟與妻帑相較，而終之曰：「亶其然乎！」言外之意，彰然可識。《文苑英華》卷七百四十八常得志〈兄弟論〉云：「若以骨肉遠而為疏，則手足無心腹之用；判合近而為重，則衣衾為血屬之親」，亦謂兄弟當親於夫妻。」、「判」即「半」，「牉合」即合兩半而成一體（參觀 “Better half”, “bessere Hälfte”, “moitié”, “metà”）。【《梁書‧顧協傳》：「晚雖判合，卒無胤嗣。」】段若膺《經韻樓文集》卷二〈夫妻牉合也〉一篇說此甚明。[57]《三國演義》十五回劉玄德云：「兄弟如手足，妻子如衣服。衣服破，尚可縫；手足斷，安可續？」元曲鄭廷玉《楚昭公》第三折船小浪大「須遣不著親者下水」，昭公以弟為親而妻為疏，昭公夫人亦曰：「兄弟同胞共乳，一體而分，妾身乃是別姓不親，理當下水」；《神奴兒》第一折李德仁曰：「在那裏別尋一個同胞兄弟，媳婦兒是牆上泥皮」（石君寶《秋胡戲妻》第二折：「常言道：『媳婦是壁上泥皮』」）。Anthony and Cleopatra, I. ii. Anthony 自言聞其妻死耗，Enobarbus 賀之曰：“When it pleaseth their deities to take the wife of a man from him, it shows to man the tailors of the earth; comforting therein, that when old robes are worn out, there are members to make new... your old smock brings forth a new petticoat” (Complete Works, ed. G.L. Kittredge, p. 290)，是亦以妻為衣服，破而易新也。Donne, L Sermons, ii. 14: “She [the wife] is but Adjutorium, but a Help: and nobody values his staffe, as he does his legges” 可以參觀。

            〇〈谷風〉：「毋逝我梁，毋發我笱。我躬不閱，遑恤我後。」按四句亦見〈小雅‧小弁〉。

            〇〈谷風〉：「宴爾新婚，以我御窮。」按下句謂往日，貧賤夫妻也；上句謂今日，富貴易妻也。《後漢書‧宋宏傳》引諺云：「富易妻，貴易交」；《三國志‧魏書‧袁紹傳》裴注引《典略》云：「王琰獲高幹，以功封侯；其妻哭於室，以為琰富貴將更娶妾媵而奪己愛故也。」

            〇〈旄丘〉：「叔兮伯兮，褎如充耳」；鄭《箋》云：「人之耳聾，恒多笑而已。」按此注與本文羌無係屬，然妙達人情。蓋聾者欲自掩其不聞，強笑以示領會。今語則謂「瞎子趁淘笑」，如清都散客《笑贊》云：「一瞽者與衆人坐，衆人所見而笑，瞽者亦笑，衆人問之曰：『何所見而笑？』瞽者曰：『你們所笑，定然不差。』」

            〇〈泉水〉：「載脂載舝，還車言邁。」按〈小雅‧何人斯〉云：「爾之亟行，遑脂爾車」；《左傳》哀公三年云：「校人乘馬，巾車脂轄」；昌黎〈送李愿歸盤谷序〉云：「膏吾車兮秣吾馬。」【《史記‧田敬仲完世家》：「淳于髡曰：『豨膏棘軸，所以為滑也，然而不能運方穿。』」】【《淮南子‧說山訓》：「人有少言者，猶不脂之户」；高誘注：「言其不鳴，故不脂之。」】英語謂牛油之劣者曰：“Axle grease”，又諺曰：“The creaking wheel gets the grease”，即潤轄之脂也。Ben Jonson, Bartholomew Fair, III. i, Quarlous 嘲肥婦 Ursula 云：“She’ll make excellent gear for the coach-makers here in Smithfield, to anoint wheels & axle-trees with” (Ccomplete Plays, “Everyman’s Lib.”, p. 204)。而 Byron, Don Juan, XIII. 46: “The postboys have no reason to disparage / Their fee; but ere the watered wheels may hiss hence, / The ostler pleads too for a reminiscence” (Don Juan, ed. T.G. Steffan & W.W. Pratt, III, p. 379; notes in IV, p. 274: “Referring to the custom of pouring water in the spokes & rims of carriage wheels to keep them tight & prevent them from rattling”)，蓋亦用水。

            〇〈泉水〉：「思須與漕，我心悠悠，駕言出游，以寫我憂。」按〈衛風‧竹竿〉云：「淇水悠悠，桂楫松舟，駕言出游，以寫我憂」，曰「舟」曰「駕」，忽水忽陸，頗疑鑿椎。東坡〈日日出東門〉詩（「日日出東門，步尋東城游。城門抱關卒，笑我此何求。我亦無所求，駕言寫我憂」）大可引此解嘲，不必遠徵「尻輪神馬」。

            〇〈北風〉：「莫赤匪狐，莫黑匪烏」；《正義》云：「狐色皆赤，烏色皆黑，喻衛之君臣皆惡也。」按俗語「天下烏鴉一般黑」即昉於此。

            〇〈靜女〉：「自牧歸荑，洵美且異；匪女之為美，美人之貽」；《正義》云：「言不美此女，乃美此人之遺於我者。」按謬甚。明言物以人重，却解為物重於人，草荑珍於姝女，顛倒好惡。蓋不知「女」即「汝」字，正如〈檜風‧隰有萇楚〉：「樂子之無知」，呼荑、呼楚曰「子」，《履齋示兒編》卷十論杜詩「濁醪誰造汝」等句所謂「少陵爾汝羣物」是也（施鴻保《讀杜詩說》卷八論〈廢畦〉：「天風吹汝寒」句可合觀）。參觀第四九八則論《夾漈遺稿》卷一〈靈龜潭〉絕句「著手摩娑溪上石，他年來訪汝為家」，木石無情，而詩人與相爾汝，此 Martin Buber 所謂 “Ich-Es” 變而為 “Ich-Du”，二者之間有 “Begegnung”, “Zwiesprache” 也 (I & Thou, Eng. tr., p. 4: “All real living is meeting”; Between Man & Man, Eng. tr., p. 19: “There is genuine dialogue — no matter spoken or silent — where each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present or particular being.”)。Philip Wheelwright, The Burning Fountain, p. 81 論 “Confrontative Imagination” 云[58]：“Where the entire self is given up to a single impression & is in a state of tranquil tension toward it, then the self finds its object comforting it as a thou & becomes in turn a thou before the presence of its object.”。〈魏風‧碩鼠〉云：「三歲貫女」，「逝將去女」（陳舜百《讀風臆補》云：「呼鼠而汝之，實呼汝而鼠之也」）；《書‧湯誓》云：「時日曷喪，予及女皆亡。」蓋爾汝羣物，匪僅出於愛暱，亦可出於憎恨。要之吾衷情洋溢，濡染及物，變化其氣質，彷彿為我等匹，愛則吾友，憎則吾仇，於我有冤親之別，而與我非族類之殊，若可曉之以言，激之以情焉。梁玉繩《瞥記》卷二云：「爾汝者，賤簡之稱也。故《孟子》云：『人能充無受爾汝之實』；《世說》載孫浩為晉武帝作〈爾汝歌〉；《魏書‧陳奇傳》、《隋書‧楊伯醜傳》皆可為例。乃禹告舜曰『安汝止』；伊尹之告太甲，呼『爾』者四，呼『汝』者三；箕子陳〈洪範〉，呼『汝』者十三；〈金縢〉呼三王為『爾』者六；〈洛誥〉呼『汝』者七；〈立政〉呼『爾』者一；《詩‧卷阿》言『爾』者十三，又〈民勞〉：『王欲玉汝』。蓋古之君臣尚質，不相嫌忌，所謂「忘形到爾汝」亦見人之「爾汝」相稱，或賤簡，或親密，不拘一端〉。於物亦猶是矣。

〇〈淇奧‧序〉：「美武公之德也」；《正義》云：「〈世家〉云武公殺兄篡國，得為美者，美其逆取順守；齊桓、晉文皆以篡弒而立，終建大功，亦其類也。」按《援鶉堂筆記》卷六引而稱之曰：「說經者當如是也」，方植之案語云：「此唐儒迴避太宗建成元吉事耳。」[59]

〇〈淇奧〉：「瞻彼淇奧，綠竹猗猗。」按見六五四則論《水經注》卷九。參觀下論〈溱洧〉。

〇〈淇奧〉：「寬兮綽兮，倚重較兮。善戲謔兮，不為虐兮」；鄭《箋》云[60]：「君子之德，有張有弛，故不常矜莊，而時戲謔。」按《禮記‧表記》云：「君子貌足畏也，色足憚也，言足信也」；〈玉藻〉云：「君子之容舒遲：足容重，手容恭，目容端，口容止，聲容靜，頭容直，氣容肅，立容德，色容莊。」《左傳》襄公三十一年北宮文子論君子威儀云：「有威而可畏謂之威，有儀而可象謂之儀。」故儒者論容止，必尊瞻視，寡言笑，峻整威重，使人望而畏之，於此詩寬綽戲謔之旨，概乎未聞。〈東山〉「其新孔嘉」二句，鄭《箋》云 ：「又極序其情樂而戲之」[61]，謂周公「戲」歸士，殆即所謂「不常矜莊，而時戲謔」者耶？韓退之頗悟此旨，故〈重答張籍書〉曰：「昔者夫子猶有所戲；《詩》不云乎：『善戲謔兮，不為虐兮』；《記》云：『張而不弛，文武不能也』。惡害于道哉！」即本鄭《箋》。[62]又按〈答張籍第一書〉云：「吾子又譏吾與人人為無實駁雜之說，此吾所以為戲耳。比之酒色，不有間乎？」《漢書‧嚴朱吾丘主父徐嚴終王賈傳》載武帝令王褒等為歌頌[63]，議者多以為「淫靡不急」，帝曰：「不有博弈者乎，為之猶賢乎已！（中略）詞賦賢於倡優博弈遠矣！」亦可參觀。

〇〈碩人〉：「手如柔荑，膚如凝脂。領如蝤蠐，齒如瓠犀。螓首蛾眉，巧笑倩兮，美目盼兮」；毛《傳》云：「螓首，顙廣而方。倩，好口輔。盼，白黑分。」按〈君子偕老〉：「揚且之皙也。子之清揚，揚且之顏也」；毛《傳》云：「揚，眉上廣。清，視清明也；揚，廣，顏角豐滿」；〈鄭風‧野有蔓草〉：「有美一人，清揚婉兮」；〈齊風‧猗嗟〉：「頎而長兮，抑若揚兮，美目揚兮，美目清兮，清揚婉兮。」《楚辭‧招魂》云：「蛾眉曼睩，目騰光些。靡顏膩理，遺視綿些。娭光眇視，目曾波些」，王逸注：「目采盼然白黑分明」，即《詩》之「凝脂」、「蛾眉」、「目盼」、「清」也。〈大招〉：「靨輔奇牙，宜咲嘕只」，即《詩》之「巧笑倩」也。然〈衛風〉中美人如工筆素描，未施色澤。〈鄭風‧有女同車〉：「顏如舜華」，「顏如舜英」，著色矣而又不及其他。至《楚辭》始以雪膚玉肌與桃頰櫻唇相映，〈招魂〉云：「美人既醉，朱顏酡些」，〈大招〉云：「朱唇皓齒，嫭以姱只。容則秀雅，穉朱顏只」；宋玉〈好色賦〉遂云：「施粉則太白，施朱則太赤」，相提並稱矣。西土選色，亦尚廣顙。Brantôme, Vies des Dames galantes, Discours II, Article iii 舉西班牙論美女三十相，其六云：“Tres anchas: los pechos, la frente, y el entrejeco” (éd. “Classiques Garnier”, p. 162) (Mirabeau, Erotika Biblion, “L’Anandrine”, éd “Les Maîtres d’Amour”, p. 107 引 J. de Nevisan, Sylva Nuptialis 詩十八句，詠美女三十二相，與此小異，三廣為 “pectora lata, / Et clunes, distent ipsa supercilia”，非胸、臀、眉間而為胸、臀、額；E.W. Lane, Arabian Society in the Middle Ages, pp. 215 f. 舉亞刺伯之選女三十六相，四廣大為額、目、胸、臀)。「齒如瓠犀」參觀 D’Annunzio, Alcione: “I denti negli alvèoli  / son come mandorle acerbe” (D. Provenzal, Dizionario delle Immagini, p. 242); Bianca De Maj, Pagare e tacere: “I denti minuti e bianchi come le mandorle” (ib., p. 243); A. Mori, La mascherata di maggio: “Quattro incisivi bianchi e grossi come confetti de mandorle” (ib., p. 244)。後世小說則曰「糯米銀牙」，參觀 G. Maggiore, Gli occhi cangianti: “I denti minuscole gran di riso” (ib., p. 244); S. Quasimodo, Ed è subito sera: “Dentini meravigliosi, bianchi e piccini come grani di riso” (ib., p. 246)。又按宋玉〈好色賦〉云：「齒若含貝」，東方朔上書云：「齒若編貝」，人所熟知。《韓詩外傳》卷九齊王欲以醜女妻屠牛吐，《太平御覽》卷三八二引其文曰：「目如擗杏，齒如編蟹」，「編蟹」不識何狀？趙億孫、周霽原兩校本《外傳》皆作「編貝」，非也。「齒如編貝」是美而不醜矣。

〇〈碩人〉：「大夫夙退，無使君勞」；鄭《箋》云[64]：「無使君之勞倦，以君夫人新為配偶。」按杜子美〈收京〉：「萬方頻送喜，無乃聖躬勞」，即此「勞」字。〈長恨歌〉云：「春宵苦短日高起，從此君王不早朝」，視朝晚與退朝早正是一事。義山〈富平少侯〉云：「當關不報侵晨客，新得佳人字莫愁」，亦相發明。參觀下論〈齊風‧鷄鳴〉。

〇〈氓〉。按層次分明，委曲詳備，敘事佳篇，足導〈孔雀東南飛〉矣。如「兄弟不知，咥其笑矣」，較之「阿母大拊掌，不圖子自歸」，更近情理。蓋以私誘始，而以被棄終，早知如此，何必當初，其事可笑。兄弟非同母之憐念，其人能笑也。

〇〈氓〉：「士之耽兮，猶可說也；女之耽兮，不可說也」；鄭《箋》云[65]：「說，解也。士有百行，可以功過相除；至於婦人，無外事，維以貞信為節。」按甚切事理。解者，脫也。開脫辯解，則第七六九則論《易‧大過》所謂 “die doppelte Sexualmoral”，擺脫寬解，則 Byron, Don Juan, I. 194: “Man’s love is of man’s life a thing apart, / ’Tis woman’s whole existence; man may range / The court, camp, church, the vessel, & the mart; / Sword, gown, gain, glory, offer in exchange / Pride, fame, ambition, to fill up his heart, / And few there are whom these cannot estrange; / Men have all these resources, we but one, / To mourn alone the love which has undone”[66] (ed. T.G. Steffan & W.W. Pratt, II, p. 131; IV, p. 45, Notes: “cf. M^me de Staël, De l’Influence des passions: “L’amour est l’histoire de la vie des femmes; c’est un épisode dans celle des hommes” etc.)。

〇〈河廣〉：「誰謂河廣？一葦杭之。誰謂河廣？曾不容刀」；鄭《箋》云：「船曰刀，作『舠』，亦作『𦩍』。」按作「刀」解亦可，與「葦」之大小庶幾相近。〈漢廣〉云：「漢之廣矣，不可泳思」，非河、漢廣狹之異，乃願欲強弱之殊，不可據以考訂方輿。亦如唐詩人表豪士散漫揮金，則曰「斗酒十千」；寫寒儒悉索傾囊，則曰「斗酒三百」（參觀王觀國《學林》卷八、俞德鄰《佩韋齋輯聞》卷一、史繩祖《學齋呫嗶》卷二、王夫之《船山遺書》卷六三〈夕堂永日緒論內編〉），不可據以推測價之漲落，酒之美惡，或疑酒家胡之上下其手，於沽者有厚薄。Vico 所謂 “Il vero poetico” 乃 “un vero metafisico”，異於 “il vero fisico” (Nuova scienza, §205, Opere, a cura di F. Nicolini, p. 452)。參觀七二八則論《露書》卷三評少陵詩，七六一則論秋菊落英。又按〈河廣〉言葦可以杭，刀不能容，蓋願重則生輕心，志切則無難事。〈鄭風‧蹇裳〉云：「子惠思我，蹇裳涉溱，蹇裳涉洧」；無名氏 “Love will find out the way” 詩云：“If the earth it should part him, / He would gallop it o’er; / If the seas should o’erthwart him, / He would swim to the shore” (The Oxford Book of English Verse, p. 455)，皆其意也。〈漢廣〉：「漢有游女，不可求思。漢之廣矣，不可泳思。江之永矣，不可方思」，乃可望難即，有求不遂之範例 (typical situation)。陳啟源《毛詩稽古編‧附錄》所謂「夫悅之必求之，然惟可見而不可求，則慕悅益至」，〈秦風‧蒹葭〉「所謂伊人，在水一方」云云，尤發揮盡致。浪漫主義所言「企慕」(Sehnsucht)，每取此象。《史記‧封禪書》方士論三神山云：「未至，望之如雲；及到，三神山反居水下，臨之，風輒引去」，又云：「皆以風為解，曰未能至，望見之焉」，亦其意耳。故庾子山〈哀江南賦‧序〉曰：「況復舟楫路窮，星漢非乘槎可上；風飇道阻，蓬萊無可到之期！」第六九五則論《易林》卷一〈屯〉之〈小畜〉「夾河為婚，期至無船」[67]，已舉德國古民謠 “Tiefe Wasser”、但丁 Purgatorio, XXVIII, 67-75 為例，兹復增益數事：〈古詩十九首〉《玉臺新詠》卷一枚乘〈雜詩九首‧之八〉云：「迢迢牽牛星，皎皎河漢女。 纖纖擢素手，札札弄機杼。 終日不成章，泣涕零如雨。 河漢清且淺，相去復幾許？ 盈盈一水間，脈脈不得語」；《太平御覽》卷五五九引《搜神記》云：「宋大夫韓馮，取妻而美，康王奪之，馮怨，王囚之，論為城旦。妻密遺馮書，謬其詞曰：『其雨淫淫，河大水深，日出當心。』王以問蘇賀，對曰：『「其雨淫淫」，言愁且思也；「河大水深」，不得往來也；「日出當心」，有死志也』」；Aeneid, VI. 314: “Tendebantque manus ripae ulterioris amore”; D’Annunzio: “Bocca di Serchio” (in Alcione): “La gioia è sempre all’altra riva” (E. de Michelis, Tutto D’Annunzio, p. 338 引); John Masters, Bugles & a Tiger, The Viking Press, p. 172: “one of the most famous of Pathan songs, the Zakhmi Dil (Wounded Heart) begins with the words, ‘There’s a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but, alas, I cannot swim’.”。桃喻可參觀 D.H. Lawrence: “The Peach”: “Why the groove? Why the lovely, bivalve roundnesses?” (Birds, Beasts, & Flowers, 見 Harry T. Moore, The Intelligent Heart, p. 273 引)。

〇〈伯兮〉：「自伯之東，首如飛蓬，豈無膏沐，誰適為容？其雨其雨，杲杲出日。願言思伯，甘心首疾。」按前四句即少陵〈新婚别〉所謂「羅襦不復施，對君洗紅粧」，末二句參觀第七五六則柳永〈鳳棲梧〉。〈小弁〉亦云：「心之憂矣，疢如疾首。」今日英俚語 “headache” 亦正謂憂慮之事，真所謂 “Métaphore en deçà, cliché au delà des Pyrénées” (C.-L. Estève, Études philosophiques sur l’expression littéraire, p. 251)。

〇〈君子于役〉：「鷄棲于塒，日之夕矣，羊牛下來。 君子于役，如之何勿思！鷄棲於桀，日之夕矣，羊牛下括。君子于役，苟無飢渴。」按《日知錄》卷三論此詩謂：「君子以嚮晦入宴息，是以古無卜夜之賓，有宵行之禁」云云，迂氣撲人，如以宋伯姬責李易安矣（見七五八則）。[68]許瑤光《雪門詩鈔》卷一〈再讀詩經四十二首‧之十四〉云：「鷄棲於桀下牛羊，飢渴縈懷對夕陽。已啟唐人閨怨句，最難消遣是昏黃。」香山〈閨婦〉云：「斜凭繡牀愁不動，紅綃帶緩綠鬟低。遼陽春盡無消息，夜合花開日又西」（《少室山房類稿》卷一百五〈題白樂天集〉稱此詩為「中唐後第一篇」，而恨《正聲》、《品彙》之失收，謂其題為〈倦繡圖〉，不知何本），可為許詩證驗。然較之三百篇，勞逸迥殊，質文褫變，可以瞻世風升降焉。參觀 Sappho, no. 149: “Evening Star that bringest back all that lightsome Dawn hath scattered afar, thou bringest the sheep, thou bringest the goat, thou bringest her child home to the mother” (Lyra Graeca, Loeb, I, pp. 285-7); Tennyson: “Mariana”: “... but most she loathed the hour / When the thick-moted sunbeam lay / Athwart the chambers, & the day / Was sloping toward his western bower. / Then said she, ‘I am very dreary...’” etc.。又按潘安仁〈寡婦賦〉云：「時曖曖而向昏兮，日杳杳而西匿。雀羣飛而赴楹兮，鷄登棲而斂翼。歸空館而自憐兮，撫衾裯以歎息。」蓋死別生離，皆以昏黃為「最難消遣」也。

〇〈中谷〉：「中谷有蓷，暵其乾矣。有女仳離，嘅其嘆矣。中谷有蓷，暵其脩矣。有女仳離，條其歗矣。中谷有蓷，暵其濕矣。有女仳離，啜其泣矣」；鄭《箋》云：「鵻之傷於水，始則濕，中而脩，久而乾，有似君子於己之恩，徒用凶年深淺為薄厚」；《正義》云：「婦既見棄，先舉其重，然後倒本其初，故章首二句先言乾，次言脩，後言濕。下四句言婦既被棄，怨恨以漸而甚，初而嘆，次而歗，後而泣。水之浸草，當先濕後乾，今詩立文，先乾後濕，從其甚而本之也。」按文心甚細。蓋此詩指 (vehicle, le comparant) 之與旨 (tenor, le comparé)、譬之與喻、象之與事參觀 S. Ullman, Semantics, p. 213，層次適相反，指、譬、象甚而漸減 (diminuendo)，旨、喻、事增而漸甚 (crescendo)。交互錯綜，修辭之奇，覩記所及中西詩文中，未見厥偶。參觀七○八則論杜詩〈麗人行〉參觀 Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, I, S. 361: “Ueberkreuzstellung”; Henri Morier, Dictionnaire de Poétique et de Rhétorique, p. 77: “chiasme”。

〇〈兔爰〉：「有兔爰爰，雉離於羅。」按少陵〈有懷台州鄭十八司戶〉云：「如水上鷗，今如罝中兔」，則鳥縱而兔急矣。

〇〈采葛〉：「一日不見，如三月兮」；毛《傳》云：「一日不見於君，憂懼於讒矣」。按《全晉文》卷一○五閻纘〈陳宜選擇東宮師傅奏〉云：「一朝不朝，其間容刀」；《北齊書》卷三九陽休之勸崔季舒宣行，曰[69]：「一日不朝，其間容刀」，即毛《傳》之意。〈鄭風‧子衿〉：「一日不見，如三月兮」；鄭《箋》云[70]：「獨學無友，故思之甚。」與此異義。

〇〈叔于田〉：「叔于田，巷無居人；豈無居人？不如叔也，洵美且仁。」按《論衡‧藝增篇》云：「《易》曰：『豐其屋，蔀其家，窺其戶，闃其無人也』；非其無人也，無賢人也。」昌黎〈送温處士赴河陽軍序〉云：「伯樂一過冀北之野而馬羣遂空，非無馬也，無良馬也」，機杼本此，言韓文者未拈出。參觀七六一則論〈九章‧之五‧懷沙〉。

〇〈有女同車〉：「彼美孟姜，洵美且都。」按《升菴全集》從子有仁錄本卷四二及卷七八各一則說「都」字，謂：「彼山姬野婦，雖美而不都」，「今諺云：『野樣』，即古之所謂『鄙』。」真說詩解頤矣！「舜英」（見《楚辭》節）。

〇〈狡童〉、〈蹇裳〉、〈丰〉、〈東門之墠〉皆女思男之詩，倘牽合為一人一事，更饒情味。〈東門之墠〉云：「豈不爾思？子不我即」；〈將仲子〉云：「仲可懷也，父母之言諸兄之言、人之多言亦可畏也」；〈王風‧大車〉云：「豈不爾思？畏子不敢，畏子不奔」；〈蹇裳〉云：「子不我思，豈無他人？」相映成趣。一則盼其來，一則戒其來，一則欲去而未決，一則絕望而他圖。〈蹇裳〉者，男有踰牆之行，而女無投梭之拒，亂之而不能終之之詞。〈丰〉云：「悔余不送兮」，「悔余不將兮」，則期而不至，事或多磨，自怨自尤。〈子衿〉云：「縱我不往，子寧不嗣音？」，「縱我不往，子寧不來？」，則薄責己而厚責人。各有入情入理之妙。又云：「衣錦褧衣，裳錦褧裳」，「駕余與行」，「駕余與歸」，可與〈衛風‧氓〉云：「以爾車來，以我賄遷」參觀；蓋雖非靜女，却亦非奔女也。「衣錦」、「裳錦」，即《漢書‧外戚傳上》：「顯因為成君衣補」，師古注：「謂縫作嫁時衣被也。」〈孔雀東南飛〉亦云：「阿母謂阿女：『適得府君書，明日來迎汝；何不作衣裳，莫令事不舉』。（中略）左手持刀尺，右手執綾羅；朝成繡裌裙，晚成單羅衫。」

〇〈溱洧〉：「伊其相謔，贈之以芍藥。」按李廌《師友談記》云：「張文潛曰：先皇尚經術，本欲求聖賢旨趣，而一時師說，競以新奇相高，臆說穿鑿。如說《詩‧溱洧》『贈之以芍藥』，謂善墮胎行血故。然《詩》言士與女相謔，借謂女贈士，安用墮胎行血也！劉貢父曰：此注士女不分。若夫『視爾如荍，贈我握椒』，則女贈士必矣。《本草》云：『椒性溫，明目，暖水藏』，則女無用也。莫不以為笑。」[71]據《彥周詩話》引陸農師云：「勺藥破血，欲其不成子姓耳」，則文潛所言，正指農師。黃朝英《湘素雜記》卷六「芍藥」條云：「先儒說《詩‧溱洧》，……以為男淫女，蓋芍藥破血，令人無子。『贈之以芍藥』者，所以為男淫女也。又〈東門〉之詩，……以為女淫男，蓋椒氣下達，用以養陽。『貽我握椒』，所以為女淫男也。其說雖近乎鄙俚，然頗得詩人之深意，故誌之。」《緯略》卷五亦取其說。蓋以貢父之戲語，合之農師之迂論，真癡人前說不得夢矣（《四庫總目提要》卷一一八謂：「晁公武譏黃朝英為王安石之學，又譏其解《詩》『芍藥』、『握椒』為鄙褻。劉敞《七經小傳》亦摭此條為諧笑，雖不出姓氏，殆亦指黃氏」云云。《七經小傳》卷上〈毛詩〉門並未道及，館臣失檢）！江瀚《石翁山房札記》卷三引羅慎齋《詩說》，謂「視爾如荍，貽我握椒」乃指男女陰，與鄭《箋》〈草蟲〉「亦既覯止」無獨有偶。又按香山〈經溱洧〉云：「落日駐行騎，沉吟懷古情。鄭風變已盡，溱洧至今清。不見士與女，亦無芍藥名。」則亦如淇澳之竹矣。

〇〈鷄鳴〉：「鷄既鳴矣，朝既盈矣。匪鷄則鳴，蒼蠅之聲。東方明矣，朝既昌矣。匪東方則明，月出之光。蟲飛薨薨，甘與子同夢。會且歸矣，無庶予子憎。」按〈鄭風‧女曰鷄鳴〉：「女曰鷄鳴，士曰昧旦。子興視夜，明星有爛」；鄭《箋》云：「言不留色也。」語甚簡古，可與此詩及〈衛風‧碩人〉合觀。義山〈為有〉云：「無端嫁得金龜婿，辜負香衾事早朝」，即其意。古樂府云：「可憐烏臼鳥，强言知天曙。無故三更啼，歡子冒暗去。」則非因公召之促遽，而畏私情之敗露，貌同心異矣。毛《傳》謂：「蒼蠅之聲，有似遠鷄之鳴」，殊不可解。豈古蠅異於今蠅？抑今耳異於古耳？《埤雅》卷十云：「青蠅善亂色，蒼蠅善亂聲」，即本《詩經》附會，非真博物致知也。又按鄭《箋》、孔《疏》皆以「鷄既鳴矣」二句、「東方明矣」二句為古賢妃貞女警君之詞，以「匪鷄則鳴」、「匪東方則明」為詩人申說之詞；言「賢妃貞女，心常驚懼，恒恐傷晚」，故「謬聽」、「謬見」。竊謂作男女對答，更饒情致：一則催起，一則淹戀。Romeo and Juliet, III. v., Juliet: “Wilt thou be gone? It is not yet near day. / It was the nightingale, & not the lark, / ...” Romeo: “It was the lark, the herald of the morn, / No nightingale. Look, love, what envious streaks / Do lace the severing clouds in yonder East. / ...” Juliet: “Yond light is not daylight;... / It is some meteor...” (op. cit., p. 1031)，情景可相發明。

〇〈敝笱〉：「齊子歸止，其從如雲。……其從如雨。……其從如水」；鄭《箋》云：「其從者之心意，如雲然，雲之行，順風耳。如雨言無常。水之性可停可行。」按〈鄭風‧出其東門〉：「有女如雲」；毛《傳》云：「衆多也」；鄭《箋》云：「『有女』謂諸見棄者也：『如雲』者，如其從風，東西南北，心無有定。」鄭之深文穿鑿，此類是也。然後世以無所用心喻於行雲流水，實導源於康成之說。

〇〈伐檀〉：「坎坎伐檀兮。……河水清且漣猗」[72]；毛《傳》云：「坎坎，伐檀聲。風行水成文曰『漣』。」按〈齊風‧盧令〉：「盧令令」；毛《傳》云：「盧，田犬；令令，纓環聲」；〈王風‧大車〉：「大車檻檻」，「大車啍啍」；〈大雅‧靈臺〉：「鼉鼓逢逢。」《文心雕龍‧物色第四十六》云：「『喈喈』逐黃鳥之聲，『喓喓』學草蟲之韻」，所舉皆《詩經》摹追物聲之例。若〈伐檀〉、〈盧令〉、〈大車〉、〈靈臺〉，則象仿事聲之例也。又〈定勢第三十〉云：「激水不漪，槁木無陰」；〈情采第三十一〉云：「夫水性虛而淪漪結，木體實而花萼振，文附質也」，即以「漣」喻文。【《易‧渙》：「象曰：風行水上渙。」】《升菴全集》從子有仁錄本卷四十二謂〈文甫字說〉乃衍毛萇「風行水成文」之語，殊得間，而未知彥和已在其先。

            〇〈蟋蟀〉：「今我不樂，日月其除。」按〈秦風‧車鄰〉又云：「今者不樂，逝者其耋。」《國語‧晉語四》重耳適齊，「齊侯妻之，甚善焉，有馬二十乘，將死於齊而已矣。曰：『民生安樂，孰知其他』」[73]；楊惲〈拊釜歌〉云：「人生行樂耳，須富貴何時」：古樂府〈西門行〉云：「今日不作樂，當待何時？夫為樂，為樂當及時；晝短苦夜長，何不秉燭游」[74]；〈古詩十九首〉云：「人生忽如寄，壽無金石固；不如飲美酒，被服紈與素」[75]；潘安仁〈笙賦〉云：「歌曰『棗下纂纂，朱實離離；宛其落矣，化為枯枝。人生不能行樂，死何以虛謚為」[76]；以至〈游仙窟〉贈十娘詩云：「生前有日但為樂，死後無春更著人。只有倡佯一生意，何須負持百年身？」[77]……朱希真〈西江月〉詞所謂「不須計較與安排，領取而今現在」者[78]。……開於此，參觀 A. Preminger, Encyclopedia of Poetry & Poetics, p. 103-4 論 “carpe diem”。[79]〈唐風‧山有樞〉云：「子有車馬，勿馳勿驅。宛其死矣，他人是愉。子有鐘鼓，勿鼓勿考。宛其死矣，他人是保。」[80]少陵〈草堂〉云：「鬼妾與鬼馬，色悲充爾娛。……」[81]

---

[1]《手稿集》2321-9 頁。

[2] Clark Butler & Christine Seiler 英譯：“... the Emperor — this world-soul — riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it...”

[3] Giorgio Pinton 英譯：“The wise were forced to live like the fools / were in order to escape death, because / the greatest fool was carrying the weight of ruling. / Behind closed door they live by wisdonm, / but in public they applauded in acts and words / the mad and wrong wishes of the other.”

[4] Kathleen Baldwain, et. al. 英譯：“Freedom, the most beautiful and useful quality in a language, stems from imperfection in German, and proportionately again in English. In Italian, uniquely among the modern languages, it stems from or accompanies perfection... In Italian and in the wiser regimes, perfect legislation and freedom are not only compatible but are mutually enhancing. In German, freedom would be incompatible with the law, and it only subsists by virtue of the nonexistence or imperfection of the law.”

[5]「évidente vérité」原作「vérité évidente」。

[6]「Quintilian」原作「Quintillian」。

[7] “The learned understand the principles of art, the unlearned feel its pleasure.”

[8]「Old Friends」原作「Some Friends」。

[9]「perhaps」原作「perhamps」。

[10]《手稿集》2329-36 頁。

[11]「Nah」原作「Näh」。

[12]「蘇龕」原作「蘇厂」。顧雲原詩上句「吾」作「我」，自注為「蘇戡（鄭孝胥）語」。《槐聚詩存》一九四三年〈斯世〉襲之云：「斯世非吾世，何鄉作故鄉？氣猶埋劍出，身自善刀藏。樸學差成札，芳年欲綰楊。分才敢論斗？愁固斛難量。」以詩意觀之，似出《札記》此時 (ca. 1966)。疑因首句而有所諱，乃改繫於 1943。

[13] “Faced by these pathological conditions in his social world, the individual attempts to escape from his intolerable feelings of helplessness and aloneness. Fromm describes certain ‘psychic mechanisms’ analogous to the ‘neurotic character traits’ of Karen Horney by which man tries to relate himself to society and solve his problem. These are moral masochism, sadism, destructiveness, and automaton conformity.”

[14]「Who still」原作「Who will」。

[15]「Verhaeren」原作「Verhaerens」。

[16]《手稿集》2336-41 頁。

[17] 即下文，見《手稿集》2341 頁夾縫、下脚。

[18]「cabrero’s」原作「carebro’s」。

[19] Barbara Reynold 英譯（下同） : “Orlando that same night lies wide awake, / His thoughts, distracted, rambling here, now there. / He tries to concentrate but cannot make / His troubled conscience settle anywhere, / As on the crystal surface of a lake / The trembling shafts of sunlight mirrored are, / Leaping to roof-top, and, at random glancing, / Sparkle and gleam, in all directions dancing.”

[20] 即下文，見《手稿集》2341 頁眉。

[21] “... this prince surpasses Nature’s laws, / For having fashioned him, she broke the mould.”

[22] “A thousand women we have had in bed, / And all were eautiful and to our taste, / And no resistance any of them made. / To sample any more would be a waste. / We have now proved the wives whom we have wed / Are no more lecherous and no less chaste: / Così fan tutte! Let us now go home, / Enjoy our wives ourselves and cease to roam.”

[23] 黃國彬譯但丁《神曲‧地獄篇》第一章：「太陽不做聲的地方」。

[24]「68-9」原作「88-9」。

[25] 黃譯《地獄篇》第四章：「……就看見一朵火在燃燒不熄，╱半球形的亮光，把黑暗摒於外頭。」「半球形的亮光」似可商榷。參觀 Allen Mandelbaum 英譯：“...when I beheld a fire / win out against a hemisphere of shadows”；Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 英譯：“when I saw a fire / That overcame a hemisphere of darkness”。「半球」云云，當指黑暗所轄之範圍。

[26] 同上第二十章：「其面龐也轉了過來，望著兩股；╱移動時則要向著背後倒退──╱他們前望的能力已經被禠除。」

[27]「Certaines」原作「Certains」。

[28] 原文此處下接「characteristic exclamation」兩字，似應刪而未刪。

[29] 原文脫落「pas」字。

[30]《手稿集》2341-64 頁。

[31]「皆非虛」原作「皆非虛言」。

[32]「誡」原作「箴」。

[33]「Bonifacio」原皆作「Bonifaccio」。

[34]「感之為道」原脫「為」字，「故引取女」原作「故引取男女」。

[35]「羸豕，謂牝豕也」以下一段實為〈姤〉 初六王弼注。

[36] 此處以「五官」謂「味、觸、香、色、聲」(gustus, tactus, odoratus, visus, auditus)，似欠妥切。故《管錐編‧周易正義‧一一‧姤》改為「五欲」（三聯書局 2007 年版，49 頁）。

[37]「七五一則」原作「七五一節」。

[38]「不失常道」原作「不少常道」。

[39]「不失常道」原作「不少常道」。

[40] Samul Johnson: “[Shakespeare] makes no just distribution of good or evil, nor is always careful to show in the virtuous a disapprobation of the wicked; he carries his persons indifferently through right and wrong, and at the close dismisses them without further care, and leaves their examples to operate by chance. This fault the barbarity of his age cannot extenuate; for it is always a writer’s duty to make the world better, and justice is a virtue independent on time or place” (Preface to the Works of Shakespeare); William Hazlitt: “... for morality (commonly so called) is made up of antipathies; and [Shakespeare’s] talent consisted in sympathy with human nature, in all its shapes, degrees, depressions, and elevations. The object of the pedantic moralist is to find out the bad in everything: his was to show that ‘there is some soul of goodness in things evil’” (Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays).

[41]「卷二」原作「卷一」。

[42]「聱耴」原作「耴聱」。

[43]「artista」原作「artiste」。

[44]「父」原作「夫」。

[45] “Tell us, grammarians, why cunnus (vulva) is masculine and mentula (penis) is feminine?”

[46]《手稿集》2364-97 頁。

[47]「oral tradition」原脫「oral」一字。

[48]「而以」原脫「以」字。

[49] 此題《管錐編‧毛詩正義‧八‧桃夭》誤作〈即目〉（三聯書局 2007 年版，122 頁）。

[50] 此處「No.」數原留空未標。

[51] 句尾原贅一「也」字。

[52]「女子之言」原作「女子之詩」。

[53]《管錐編‧毛詩正義‧一六‧擊鼓》引此誤作《舒藝室隨筆》（三聯書局 2007 年版，138 頁）。

[54] 原文無「鄭《箋》」二字，誤將「送我」云云上屬毛《傳》，故下文「毛《傳》」亦當作「鄭《箋》」。

[55]「三十三年」原作「二十三年」。

[56]「列女傳」原脫「女」字。

[57]「經韻樓文集」原脫「文集」二字。

[58]「Wheelwright」原作「Wheelright」。

[59] 此處「說經者當如是也」，《援鶉堂筆記》原作「說經者當如是乎」，語氣迥異。《管錐編‧毛詩正義‧二三‧淇奧》則已改正，並易「稱之」為「斥之」（三聯書局 2007 年版，153 頁）。

[60]「鄭《箋》」原作「毛《傳》」。

[61]「鄭《箋》」原作「毛《傳》」，「又極序」原脫「極」字。

[62]「鄭《箋》」原作「毛《傳》」。此三處《管錐編‧淇奧》皆已改正（同前，157-8 頁）。

[63]《管錐編‧淇奧》引此，「嚴朱吾丘主父徐嚴終王賈」脫「終」字（同上，159 頁）。

[64]「鄭《箋》」原作「毛《傳》」。

[65]「鄭《箋》」原作「《正義》」。

[66]「Man’s love is of man’s life a thing apart」原作「Man’s love is of a man’s a thing apart」。

[67]「夾河」原作「隔河」。

[68]「七五八」原作「七五六」。

[69]「崔季舒」原作「崔季休」。

[70]「鄭《箋》」原作「毛《傳》」。

[71]「競以」原脫「以」字，「荍」原作「莜」。

[72]「漣猗」原作「漣兮」。

[73] 原文脫落「死」、「生」二字。此卷手稿末頁殘破，臆補之處，皆本《管錐編‧毛詩正義‧三九‧蟋蟀》及〈四○‧山有樞〉。

[74] 原文脫落「時夫維樂」四字。

[75] 原文脫落「寄……被」一段。

[76] 原文脫落「潘安仁……棗」一段。

[77] 原文脫落「生前……無」一段。

[78] 原文脫落「真」字以上一段。

[79] 原文脫落「p. 103-4 論 “carpe diem”」一段。

[80] 原文脫落「唐風……勿馳」、「鼓勿考……他」二段及「保」字。

[81] 原文脫落「少」字及「悲」字以下。