William Hogarth (1697–1764), First
Stage of Cruelty (1751)
百六十一[1]
Jean Wahl, A Short History of Existentialism (1946), Eng. tr. by F. Williams &
S. Maron.
P. 32: “Thanks to existentialism, to
be or not to be has again become the question... Hamlet was an existent.” 按 Marjorie
Grene, Dreadful Freedom, p. 5 引 Wylie
Sypher: “Hamlet: The Existential
Madness” (Nation, June 22, 1946) 謂 “Hamlet is an existential drama”，又 p.
28: “Conrad’s Lord Jim seems to me an existential character”; p. 57: “Simone de
Beauvoir sees in Julien Sorel the existential hero. Camus finds in Dostoievsky
the existentialist novelist par excellence” 皆可與 Wahl 云云發明。Simone de Beauvoir, L’existentialisme
et la sagesse des nations, p. 104: “Après avoir pensé l’univers à travers
Spinoza ou Kant, je me demandais: ‘Comment peut-on être assez futile pour
écrire des romans?’ Mais lorsque je quittais Julien Sorel ou Tess d’Urberville,
il me semblait vain de perdre son temps à fabriquer des systèmes”; p. 114: “Proust,
romancier authentique, découvre des vérités dont aucun des théoriciens de son temps
n’a proposé l’équivalent abstrait.” 是不僅 Stendhal 也。
P. 33: “Carlyle [is an existent.]” 按 E.
Cassirer, The Myth of the State, p.
197: “Carlyle’s thought is existential, & has all the characteristics of
the type of thought represented by Kierkegaard.” 考論精詳。P. 218 論 Carlyle 衹求信行奉持之精誠，不斤斤於信行者為何事，宗旨本之 Goethe 自傳所謂 “In
Faith, everything depends on the fact of believing, what is believed is
perfectly indifferent.”［按此見 Dichtung und Wahrheit, IIIte Teil, 14tes Buch: “Beim
Glauben, sagte ich, komme alles darauf an, dass man glaube; was man glaube, sei
völlig gleichgültig... Mit dem Wissen sei es gerade das Gegenteil; es komme gar
nicht darauf an, dass man wisse, sondern was man wisse, wie gut und wie viel
man wisse” (Sämtliche Werke, “Tempel-Klassiker”,
XII, S. 202).］尤 Kiekegaard 反復申明之意，實本之 Isaiah, 7.9: “Nisi credideritis non intelligetis.” The Journals, August 1, 1835: “The thing is to find a truth which
is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live & die. I
still recognize an imperative understanding, but it must be taken up into my
life.... There are many people who reach their conclusions about life like
schoolboys; they cheat their master by copying the answer out of a book without
having worked out the sum for themselves.” (Robert Bretall, ed., A Kierkegaard Anthology, pp. 5, 19); Unscientific Postscript: “Where is the
most truth? The one prays in truth to God, although he worships
an idol; the other prays falsely to the true God, & hence worships in fact
an idol... The objective accent falls on What
is said; the subjective accent falls on How
it is said... An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation-process
of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable
for an existing individual. This is the equivalent to faith: without risk,
there is no faith.... If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not
believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe” (Ibid., pp. 212-215). The Journals, August 1, 1835: “Dons and
parsons live by presenting the sufferings of others... the religion of the congregation
is nothing but hearing this presented.
As a religion, charmante, just about as genuine as tea
made from a bit of paper which had once been used to wrap up a few dried tea
leaves from which tea had already been made three times” (p. 431). 即
Grillparzer: “So ist die deutsche Philosophie wesentlich atheistisch... Sie
nehmen einen Gott an, statt von ihm überzeugt zu sein... sie achten ihn als ihr
Werk, nicht sich als seines” (Werke,
hrsg. E. Rollett und A Sauer, Bd. VII, S. 156). 又 Newman, Grammar of Assent (Burns, Oates, &
Co.), pp. 90-2: “Many a man will live & die upon a dogma: no man will be a
martyr for a conclusion... This is why a literary religion is so little to be
depended upon; it looks well in fair weather; but its doctrines are opinions, &,
when called upon to suffer for them, it slips them between its folios, or burns
them at its hearth. I have no confidence in philosophers who cannot help being religious, & are
Christians by implication. They have worked out by a calculation the lie of a
country which they never saw, & mapped it by means of a gazetteer.... To
act you must assume, & that assumption is faith.” 惜
Cassirer 未引。（按譚藝亦然。《援鶉堂筆記》卷四十四云：「歸愚以帖括之餘研究風雅，然徒資探討，殊鮮契悟。味密味之中邊，眩寶器之飯色。未得為得，未證為證。禪家所謂『用盡氣力，不離故處』，《淮南》所云『有以言白黑，無以知白黑』也。」Oscar Wilde: “There are two ways of disliking art;
one is to dislike it; the other is to like it rationally”; Berlioz, A travers chants, p. 4: “Les musiciens —
ils ne savent pas” vs. “Les musiciens — ils ne sentent pas”; Ramon Fernandez, “On
Classicism” in Melvin M. Rader, A Modern
Book of Esthetics, 1st ed. 1935, pp. 220-4: “The great weakness
of the neo-classicists is that they set out to feel only what they have already comprehended... an intellectual pretense of feeling.”）又 Thomas à
Kempis, Of the Imitation of Christ,I,
i: “I had rather feel contrition than know the definition thereof.” 又「增上慢：未得為得，未證為證」見《妙法蓮華經‧方便品卷二》（《文句記》卷十）。「瞽師有以言白黑，無以知白黑，故言白黑與人同，其別白黑與人異」見《淮南子‧主術訓》。桓寬《鹽鐵論‧能言第四十》云：「盲者口能言白黑，而無目以別之。」【Chalmers on Carlyle: “a lover of earnestness more
than a lover of truth.”】【Daniel Cory, ed., The Letters of George Santayana, p. 209 to L.P. Smith: “... &
what do you suppose was my joy at finding the theory of essence beautifully
expounded in the last volume of Proust, (the second of Le temps retrouvé) and made in a manner, the pivot of his immense
work! Do read it, page 14 to 20.”】【Louis Fraiberg, Psychoanalysis & American Criticism, pp. 3-9, Freud: “Storytellers
are valuable allies” etc. (Delusion &
Dream, tr. Helen M. Downey, p. 123).】
P. 48: Emmanuel Levinas 引
Husserl 云：“During the first stage [of the spread of a new
doctrine], one cries: it's absurd! During the second stage, one says
indignantly: but everybody knows that! There is a third stage, in which the
doctrine is reinstated in its true originality.” 按 The Letters of William James, ed. by His Son Henry James, vol. II, pp. 267-268:
“Münsterberg, who hitherto has been rather pooh-poohing my thought, says I seem to be ignorant that Kant ever wrote,
Kant having already said all that I say. I regard this as a very good symptom.
The third stage of opinion about a new idea, already arrived: First: absurd! Second: trivial! Third: We discovered it!”; Sidney Hook, Metaphysics of Pragmatism, p. 1, John
Dewey: “Foreword”: “On the one hand, there is an exaggeration of the factor of
novelty which creates an illusion of total breach of continuity. On the other
hand, there is an injection into the new ideas of older conceptions which are irrelevant
& the elimination of that which is demanded by the new ideas.” 汪穰卿《莊諧選錄》卷二云：「近有一溫州人年夜往觀自來火公司，既觀，友問機器巧否，曰：『此亦何奇？不過鍊煤成氣、鍊氣為火耳。』余謂中國人中此病者至多：凡於己不識之事，始則詆斥之，繼則驚異之，迨稍明大概，則輕視以為無足異者，舉公共之理以為足以括其綱要，且自矜評語之精當。」可以參觀。「舉公理括其綱要」一語尤切。志剛《初使泰西紀要》中議論皆此類也，如卷一論火車云：「鍊硃成汞、鍊汞還硃，本中國古法，西人得之，以為化學之權輿。孔子云：『引而申之，觸類而長之，天下之能事畢矣。』通閱西法，不出此言。」
Wahl 反復言
Existentialism 導源於 Schelling (p. 8, etc.)，而乏援據。按 Schelling, The Ages of the World,
Eng. tr. by Frederick de Wolfe Bolman, Jr., pp. 8n, 50n, 198n 可補證。
百六十二[2]
李流芳長蘅《檀園集》十二卷。懈緩淡薄，修詞較松圓稍妥飭耳。五、七古勝於近體。猶子宜之〈後序〉：「居恒自言：『我古文不及叔達，書法不及子柔，詩律不及孟陽，獨畫無師承而頗得古人之意。』」【徐樹丕《識小錄》卷一錄其〈西湖絕句〉七首。】
卷一〈將赴試白下走筆別荃之〉：「憶昔婉孌時，與子有成說。」按同卷〈己酉春日以看梅到彈山當時共事者徐孺穀張君實與小史荃之皆死矣愴然作詩〉云：「小史最清發，與我情婉孌。」卷八〈劍蛻齋記〉云：「往余暱孺穀、小史、荃之。眾皆笑之，勿顧之。亡何而荃之以瘵死。當時綢繆繾綣，所為求致其情而不得者，自今思之，余亦自笑其痴，而況於人乎。」卷十〈祭徐孺穀文〉云：「維時鄭生，實同婉孌。」蓋荃之姓鄭也。其事亦略同迦陵之有雲郎矣。卷二〈戲贈吳鹿長〉云：「自古鍾情在我輩，僕本恨人諳此味。風流老却夢已陳，古劍悠悠猶有氣。」卷七〈沈巨仲詩草序〉云：「僕往時為情癡，好為情語，有〈無題〉詩數篇。嘗自命曰：『僕本恨人，終為情死。』至取二語，刻為印記佩之。無何而自笑其癡，今遂如昨夢不復省矣。」今檢《集》中，未收〈無題〉詩。張大復《梅花草堂筆談》卷一云：「長蘅好外，淚濕張荃，曰：『舍予無能好張生者』」云云，即言此事。據《集》，「張」當作「鄭」也。[3]《梅花草堂集》卷十六〈夢遊顧升伯太史南園〉：「當年七子今何在」，自注己與長蘅皆在七子之列。
〈和朱修能蕉雪詩〉：「雪中蕉正綠，火裏蓮亦長。」
〈冬日同袁小修王幼度諸君集鍾伯敬邸舍即事〉。按長蘅與鍾、譚遊，尤善友夏。同卷有〈別友夏過林女郎天素〉、〈送王屺生歸楚〉（「頃與譚子別，輒作數日惡」），卷二有〈西湖喜遇譚友夏〉（「誰言譚郎貌似我，執手問人還似無」；「我昔知子因子詩，曉風殘月風鳴枝」；「十年相求始相得」；「欻然魂魄化為一」）【譚友夏〈贈長蘅〉亦云：「他年誰後死，優孟免躊躇。」】，卷四有〈除夕白門伯敬遣人餉酒〉諸詩。
〈南歸詩〉二十首，長蘅《集》中最有筆力之作。《列朝詩集》丁十三下錄〈南歸詩〉十八首，後有朱雲子語，略云：「予謂嘉、隆間五古，正恨其通套無痛癢，如一副應酬贄禮牙笏繡補[4]，璀璨滿前，自可假借，不必己出，人亦不堪領受；又如楚蜀舊俗，以木魚漆鴨宴客，不若菘韭之適口。惡其偽也，惡其襲也，豈恨其平哉」云云。［「吾觀長安中，縱橫曳朱紫。雲臺逞高議，意氣一何侈。但恃虜不來，來亦竟無恃。吾儕藜藿人，敢云肉食鄙。進既不求榮，退則如脫屣。會當翔冥鴻，何乃嚇腐鼠。」「我年未四十，已懷退隱圖。……富貴亦復佳，歲月待我乎？」（《列朝詩集》附朱雲子評：「較樂天『欲留年少待富貴，富貴不來年少去』二語婉折多少。」）「粵客自南來，吳儂從北下。解后黃河邊，蹤跡兩相訝。問我歸何遽，問爾行何暇。同是公車人，不及公車罷。此時長安客，闐隘舉子舍。豈知風波間，有此閒晝夜。」］後來《竹葉菴文集》卷十四〈南歸雜詩四十五首〉、《復莊詩問》卷十五〈南轅雜詩一百八章〉皆紀行鉅篇。【程孟陽、唐叔達一篇不能作也。】
卷二〈蓴羹歌〉：「世人耳食不貴近，更須遠挹湖湘波。」自注：「袁石公盛稱湘湖蓴菜美，不知湘湖無蓴，皆從西湖採去，以湘湖水浸之耳。蓴菜初摘後，以水浸之，經宿則愈肥。凡泉水湖水皆可浸，不必湘湖水也。」按卷十一〈西湖臥游冊跋語〉（〈三潭采蓴圖〉[5]）亦云云。
〈送汪君彥同項不損燕游〉：「我是長安舊游人，三年一度長安春。……長安城中有何好？惟有十丈西風塵。人畜糞土相和勻，此物由來無世情。貴人逢之亦入唇，其味不減天廚珍。[6]……君不聞京師畫工如布粟，閩中吳彬推老宿。前年供御不稱旨，褫衣受撻真隸畜。此事下賤不可為，君但自娛勿干祿。」按「十丈西風」句云云，參觀《墨憨齋重訂萬事足傳奇》第十六折顧愈論京師云：「『七香散』是牛糞、馬糞、驢糞、騾糞、猪糞、狗糞、人糞，右七味各二兩，西北風起日，用騾車碾碎，以唾嚥下，能療普天下爭名奪利之病。」
卷十一〈西湖臥游冊跋語‧紫陽洞〉 ：「凡山水皆不可畫，然皆不可不畫也。」
百六十三[7]
李重華玉洲《貞一齋詩集》十卷、《詩說》一卷。余向在《清詩話》中覩玉洲《詩說》，無甚高論。沈歸愚序此《集》，極稱其「才華豪逸，陶冶萬類，籠挫一切」云云。詞求博麗，氣頗健拔，而了不能真切貼妥。五、七古較勝於近體。
卷三〈送徐編修澂齋冊使琉球〉云：「人言地缺東南陬，羣川萬派爭歸流。談天志怪寓言耳，寧知地體圓如球。」按卷七〈登州城觀日出〉云：「天極併包元渾渾，地球中處直區區。」以西洋學說入詩，絕無僅有。前乎此者，如【此處十餘字墨跡漫漶難辨】《職方外紀》謂「天有九重」、「日大於地」、「地形如圓球」云云，是西域天文志，非中國志也。左仁、周詒樸同輯《九煙先生遺集》卷一〈天地與日月食論〉曰：「狂夫之言，聖人擇焉。世間有所謂西土之學者，誠荒誕不足道，然其論天地之形與日月食之理，則至當而不易，曰：天包地外，地居天中，地形如大圓球，海水繞球而流，人物環球而生」云云，然皆未嘗驅使入詞章也。按顧黃公詩亦然，見第五百二十三則。至《秋蟪吟館詩鈔》卷七〈題李小池環游地球圖〉（五古），則已在清末，不足奇矣。《晚晴簃詩滙》卷一百二十一齊彥槐（《梅麓詩鈔》）〈翼梅〉第二首「日天一點内，容此大地球」云云，尤暢言者，又嘉、道時人。
卷九〈與張支百研江話詩隨筆〉絕句九首、卷十〈唐人詩話〉絕句十三首、〈背誦古詩偶作〉絕句二首皆意庸語滯。
《詩說》分〈論詩答問三則〉又〈詩談雜錄〉若干則。宋人稱東坡，猶在意中。唐人有取於陸魯望，謂得昌黎奧衍之概，則頗異乎人云矣。
「或謂絕大題一首了却，固是高手，些小題偏作得長篇大幅，尤屬才人手法奇變。余曰：『獅子摶兔用全力，終屬獅子之愚。』」又云：「嚴滄浪以禪悟論詩，阮亭因而選《三昧集》。試思詩教自尼父論定，何緣墮入佛事？」按前一則《隨園詩話補遺》卷一引玉洲論詩語三則之一；後一則則《補遺》卷一駁阮亭語所本。玉洲於隨園為館前輩，卷三有〈送袁子才給假歸娶〉七古。
「詩求文理能通者，為初學言之也」；「論山水奇妙曰：『徑路絕而風雲通。』徑路絕，人之所不能通也。如是而風雲又通，其為通也至矣。古文亦必如此，何況於詩。」按微言妙喻。參觀 J.
Culler, Structuralist Poetics, p. 36;
D. Lodge, The Modes of Modern Writing,
p. 2 論 “foregrounding”
(“the aesthetically intentional distortion of linguistic components,” “the use
of deviant or ungrammatical constructions”)。
「《才調集》乃西崑門戶，《瀛奎律髓》則西江皮毛。較其短長，《才調集》未至誤人，《瀛奎律髓》無論其他，只此四字名目，已足貽笑無窮。」按虛谷命名，確纖仄割裂，以「十八學士登瀛州」寓唐，以「五星聚奎」寓宋，真減字換字之醜拙者，尚不如陳耀文《花草粹編》之摘取《花間集》、《草堂詩餘》兩書名以寓唐、宋為較雅切也。
「少時見趙秋谷先生為述吳修齡云：『意思猶五穀，文則炊而為飯，詩則釀而為酒。』余謂以酒喻詩，善矣。第今人釀酒，最要分別醇醨。與其魯酒千鐘，不若雲安一盞。先生大笑。」
「秋谷向余云：『少時作詩，請政阮亭，阮亭粗為點閱，其竅妙處，吝不一示。因發憤三、四月，始於古體有古中之古、古中之近，近體有近中之古、近中之近，截然判析明白。』」
「近見阮亭批抹杜集，知今人去古，分量大是懸絕，有多少矮人觀場處，乃正昌黎所謂『不自量』也。余并聞近世名家云：『少陵如四大天王，至白香山方是正殿觀音。』彼蓋從文理光順起見也，不值一笑。」按《談龍錄》云：「阮翁酷不喜少陵，特不敢顯攻之，每舉楊大年『村夫子』之目以語客。」《隨園詩話》卷三云：「李、杜、韓、白，俱非阮亭所喜，因其名太高，未便詆毀。」得玉洲目驗，更信而有徵矣。
百六十四[8]
易順鼎《壬子詩存》二卷，當列百五十五則《甲寅詩存》以前。截搭拉雜而排比整齊，瓜皮李皮而如大珠小珠，自由於才氣奔放也。古詩之體，有迴旋餘地，容屠沽入座，律、絕則不宜矣。
卷上〈雪後徐園探梅作〉：「更番寒未消九九，頃刻花如開七七」；「姑詠天地一籠統，且喜世界無凹凸。張元三百萬玉鱗，歐九四十萬鐵甲。黃狗黑狗貪打油，赤蛇白蛇任流血」；「滕六巽二葛三去，黃九秦七鄭五集」；「即今東海久生桑，何處西山堪采蕨」；「雖同玉局睹尖叉，恐效柳州吟絕滅。」
〈題某君所藏神仙秘戲圖〉：「彭祖御八十一女，周禮御八十一妻。神仙帝王有同嗜，周公後盾彭前提」；「孰摹仙人秘戲狀，十有二冊超恒蹊」；「雲海中與瀑布下，裸體相抱尤恢奇。」
〈告剪髮詩〉：「分非與國同休戚，義非與土俱存亡。眾人待我眾人報，雖事二姓誰雌黃。何為區區數莖髮，欲剪未剪心徬徨」；「我生遭逢更坎坷，出入虎口行羊腸。五上春官悉報罷，六乘夏縵皆投荒」；「自從皇綱一解紐，新政舊政紛蜩螗」；「禮義廉恥喪四維，君父夫婦廢三綱」；「不賢者皆父盜跖，賢者亦復兄孔方」；「侯王盡變為盜賊，盜賊盡變為侯王」；「所稱志士尤可笑，改制易服懸徽章。其狀非驢而非馬，其人如羊而如狼。為東胡奴則不屑，為西夷奴抑何忙。又有受恩深重者，高官大爵爭輝煌。國家無事則富貴，國家有事則叛降。叛降富貴固自在，反稱黨魁據中央」；「嗟我不富不貴者，為廉所累居首陽。嗟我不叛不降者，為節所累成翳桑」；「臣之形生而質死，臣之髮短而心長」；「恐人疑我忠一姓，我忠一姓殊騃狂」；「今朝決計便剪去，地下本不見高皇。下告賓友上祖禰，余髮種種天蒼蒼。」伯嚴云：「噴薄出之。」節庵云：「光芒萬丈。」
于式枚〈書易五剪髮詩後四首〉：「臺司家世冠龍陽，猶較升階話短長。正論我思元世祖，蔽賢休怨賈平章。」（元世祖問宋降臣：「何易也？」以「賈似道蔽賢，不見用」對。世祖曰：「此賈似道，非國家也。果爾，則似道不用汝輩，固宜。」）「胡漢恩知自淺深，智敖往事久沉吟。錢王獨義羅昭諫，不以唐亡有怨心。」（舒王〈明妃曲〉，宋仁詆為悖義傷教。王阮亭〈國士橋〉詩自云：「可以敦薄。」羅昭諫勸錢武肅討賊，武肅以昭諫不遇于唐，必有怨心，及聞其言，心義之。）「姦貪歷詆漢公卿，湯武唐虞更假名。尚有詩人忠厚意，未將桀紂罵崇禎。」（明末流賊餘黨以崇禎為桀紂。）「自云死不見高皇，鐵棒何須怕趙匡。萬一梅村妖夢到，低頭金盒再商量。」按易五此詩可與三百年前李舒章〈答髮責〉文（《蓼齋後集》卷五，略謂：「順治二年五月，李子將薙髮於燕都，先夕乃夢有物蒼蒼，蒙茸其形，怒而呼曰：『豈曼纓之可羨，曾毛裏之莫痌？』李子聞之，涕泣掩面，凝思展意而對曰」云云）參觀。
〈賈郎曲〉：「小史真如日在東，詩人欲賦風懷左」；「從來一部婁羅歷，歌舞酣時國將畢。豈意羊車看璧人，已悲鳳闕遷金狄」；「王面金錢月萬元，歌臺聲價試評論。名高始信優伶貴，祿薄誰求總統尊」；「誰知艷質爭嬌寵，賈郎似蜀梅似隴。」
〈和天琴〉：「耳如歐白偏無謗，鬢少坡霜却享名。」
〈集靜安寺和天琴〉：「小集禪人皆慧遠，自由我輩即盧騷。」
〈秋日天琴邀飲酒樓作長歌一首〉：「四十萬人齊解甲，三百餘年俱隸籍」；「東籬菊花解笑人，西山薇蕨難充食。」
〈張黃樓招飲六合春〉：「詩格象羚鯨翡翠，食單蠔蠣蟹龍蝦。」
卷下〈和樊山天仙三女伶詩原韻〉：「梨似哀家聲浪脆，桃為息國臉霞新。娶來我若為天子，值得多蒙幾度塵。」（為王克琴作，餘二人則林黛玉、王寶寶。同卷〈滬上觀劇詩四首〉分詠三人外，尚增一賈璧雲。稱林黛玉云：「留得金剛不壞身」，蓋謂滬上名妓「四大金剛」也。）
〈觀王克琴演遺翠花劇〉：「書生未必皆皮厚克琴道白云『讀書人臉皮厚』一語令人絕倒，騷客居然獨目成。……男兒慢詡黃金膝，倘得卿憐膝亦輕。」
〈再呈湘綺老人〉：「今歲寒初聞鶴語，此間樂不聽鵑啼。」
〈陳笑山嘲余醉心琴客〉：「西子倘能隨少伯，南無惟有念觀音。」（按卷上〈代玉頎和天琴贈別〉云：「願隨北去汪元量，長念南無觀世音。」玉頎即琴姬，〈雪後徐園探梅〉詩所謂「雪堂斗酒難謀婦，雪水烹茶方對妾」是也。）
百六十五[9]
Agnes Repplier, The Fireside Sphinx 蓋說貓者，與其 To Think of Tea, In Pursuit
of Laughter 兩書體製相同，皆以數典為行文，而頗能化堆垛為烟雲者，非若王初桐《貓乘》之僅比於類書也[10]。錢葆馚、朱竹垞、厲樊榭輩以〈雪獅兒〉調詠貓諸詞，其庶幾乎（竹垞〈雪獅兒〉三詞見《曝書亭集》卷二十九）。
讀之惘然，悵念兒貓。四年前暮春貍奴初來時，生纔三月耳。飽食而嬉，余與絳手足皆渠齒爪痕，倦則貼人而臥。《續傳燈錄》卷二十二黃龍云：「子見貓兒捕鼠乎？目睛不瞬，四足據地，諸根順向，首尾一直，擬無不中。求道亦然。」（按《禮記‧射義》「以狸首為節」，皇侃謂：「舊解云：『狸之取物，則伏下其頭，然後必得，言射亦必中，如狸之取物矣。』正是黃龍語意。【參觀第六十六則。[11]】黃梨洲《明文授讀》卷五十五沈一貫〈搏者張松溪傳〉云：「其徒曰：『吾師嘗觀矛師，曰：刺則刺矣，而多為之擬，心則歧矣，尚得中耶？』余聞而憬然，因憶往王忠伯言：『邊人無伎，遇虜近三十步始發射，短兵接，直前攻刺。不左右顧者勝，瞬者不可知，傍觀死矣。」皆即《莊子‧達生篇》痀僂承蜩、梓慶削木，《關尹子‧一宇篇》魚見餌之旨。）余謂貓兒弄縐紙團，七擒七縱，再接再厲，或腹向天抱而滾，或背拱山躍以撲，儼若紙團亦秉氣含靈、一噴一醒者，觀之可以啟發文機：用權設假，課虛鑿空，無復枯窘之題矣。志明〈野狐放屁詩〉第二十七首云：「矮櫈階前晒日頭，又無瞌睡又無愁。自尋一個消閒法，喚小貓兒戲紙毬。」尚未盡其理也。余記兒貓行事甚多，去春遭難，與他稿都拉雜摧燒，所可追記衹此及第九十七則一事耳。
P. 11: “The house-cat figures in
some of the oldest Indian fables, always as an arrant hypocrite... Her first entrance
into the Chinese empire appears to have been about 400 A.D. She is conspicuous by
her absence from Greece & Rome.” 按《蘿摩亭札記》卷八：「《詩》、《禮》雖有『貓』字，而字書輒言『貍捕鼠』，蓋溷家貓與野貓為一，如周以前不辨馬與驘也。」《烟嶼樓筆記》卷六：「古以狗捕鼠，見《呂覽‧士容篇》，而〈功名篇〉則言以貍捕鼠。」又佛典載貓狡詐事，見竺法護譯《生經》卷一第六野貓自言修靜行，不食肉，而獨處寂寞，願嫁野鷄為妻，誘其自樹下地，亦即《雜寶藏經》卷三第三十五山鷄王因緣也。《大莊嚴論經》卷十五第八十三云[12]：「貓兒問母：『當何所食？』母答兒言：『人自教汝。』夜至他家隱甕器間[13]，有人見已而相約敕：『酥乳肉等極好覆蓋，鷄雛高舉莫使貓食。』貓兒即知，鷄酥乳酪皆是我食。」又 T.R.
Glover, The Challenge of the Greek: “The
cat was an Egyptian beast, new to the Greeks, & not needed in Europe, for
the rat had not yet come from India... India had not yet made her most
significant contribution to the West; the rat was still unknown in Europe. The Athenians
could store their wheat in pits.” (pp. 1, 94); Edward Hyams: “A Mouse of a
Different Colour”: “The very name mouse
in the Indo-European language from which derived all tongues from Germany to
the Punjab, means to steal, & the
earliest domesticated enemy of the mouse was evidently not the cat, except in
Egypt. In the Batrachomyomachia, the
Mouse says to the Frog: ‘I fear above all things on earth, the Hawk & the
Weasel... but most of all the Weasel.’ In The
Wasps, we read: ‘Once upon a time, there was a mouse & a weasel...’ as
we should say, ‘a mouse & a cat’” (The
New Statesman & Nation, Jan. 19, 1952)【Homerica, “The Loeb Classical Library”, tr. H. E. Evelyn-White, pp. 545, 551: “Three
things: the Eagle, the Ferret, & the Trap.”】;
Theocritus, XV: “Praxinoa: ‘Here, Eunoa, take up the spinning & put it away
with the rest. Cats always will lie soft’” (J.M. Edmonds, The Greek Bucolic Poets, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 181); Theophrastus,
Characters, XVI: “Superstitiousness”:
“If a cat cross his path he will not proceed on his way till someone else be
gone by” (J.M. Edmonds, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 79); Thomas Flatman: “An
Appeal to Cats in the Business of Love” (Saintsbury, Minor Poets of the Caroline Period, III, p. 343) 皆可參觀。
Pp. 34-5 記一人告友夜來怪事，見羣貓抬一棺葬之友家，貓忽躍起作人言曰：“Then I am the King of the Cats!” 即失所在。Scott 嘗述其事，實本之 Scandinavia 童話。按此語運用最妙者，見 Lily Yeats 載乃兄事：“On the day of Swinburne’s death, I met Willy in O’Connell
Street & said to him, ‘Swinburne is dead.’ ‘I know, & now I am King of
the Cats!’” (J.B. Yeats, Letters to His
Son & Others, p. 51; cf. Joseph Hone, W.B. Yeats, p. 245)，即《雲溪友議》卷下載朱沖和嘲張祜詩所謂「白在東都元已薨，鸞臺鳳閣少人登。冬瓜堰下逢張祜，牛屎堆邊說我能」之旨。（朱沖和號「宦途惡少」，見《金華子雜編》卷下[15]。）【［補百六五則[16]］P. 34-5: “Then I’m
the King of the Cats!” TLS, 29 Oct
1982, p. 1181: Daniel Hughes arrived with the news that Robert Frost had died.
John Berryman’s reaction was brisk & self-interested: ‘It’s scary. Who’s number one? Who’s number
one? Cal [Robert Lowell] is number one, isn’t he?’ This was his way of saying
that if Lowell wasn’t (as he hoped he wasn’t), then he must be.”《清波雜志》：「山谷在南原落星寺，一日憑欄，忽傳坡逝，痛惜久之，已而顧寺僧，拈几上香合在手曰：『此香匣子自此却屬老父矣。』」】
P. 49 ff. 歷舉殘殺貍奴西俗，如 “gibbeting
the cat”, “putting a cat in a leather bottle as a target for archery” 等。按
Hogarth, Four Stages of Cruelty 第一圖中，即有 “two
cats tied to the extremities of a rope & hung over a lamp iron” (參觀 John
Trusler, The Works of William Hogarth,
vol. II, facing p. 184)。又按 Hogarth 畫狗勝於畫貓，如Marriage
a-la-Mode第六圖中瘦狗 (Ibid., vol.
II, facing p. 209)，傳神妙絕，遠非 The Rake’s Progress 第一圖中瘦貓 (vol. I, facing p. 10) 所可及也。
P. 120 論中國、日本皆以貓入畫，而僅道 Hok’sai。[17]按吾國畫貓者，不可一一舉，若夫諧聲寓意，別成一類，則「耄耋圖」是也。唐刁光胤有此圖（見《江村消夏錄》），以後明宣宗（見《紅豆樹館書畫記》）、孫克弘、惲壽平（見郋園《觀畫百詠》）紛紛祖構，余皆未得寓目，惟睹日本人編印《中國名畫集》第三冊景印徐文長〈耄耋圖〉，畫兩貓伺蝶，意態栩栩。
P. 160: “M. Dupont de Nemours maintained
that, whereas the dog possesses only vowel sounds, the cat uses in her language
no less than 6 consonants — m, n, g, h, v, & f.” 按
Coleridge, Table Talk, August 18,
1833: “Brute animals have the vowel sounds, man only can utter consonants.”;
Lotze, Microcosmos, Eng. tr. by
Hamilton & Jones, Bk. V, ch. iii: “The dog says r & guttural ch very
distinctly, the cat is acquainted with f,
cows & sheep with
ŋ.”
P. 180 ff. 引科學家論貓習性語。按 Havelock Ellis, The Criminal,
5th ed., p. 87: “Lombroso finds that the eyes of assassins resemble
those of the feline animals at the moment of ambush or struggle. Insistence on
the feline aspect is very frequent among those who describe criminals.” 可謂大殺風景矣。
P. 181: “The cat consents to be our
guest... But she never parts with her liberty” etc. 按 Rousseau
語 Boswell 云：“There you have the despotic instinct of men. They
do not like cats because the cat is free & will never consent to become a
slave. He will do nothing to your order, as the other animals do... A cat will
understand you perfectly & not obey [your orders]” (Boswell on the Grand Tour: Germany & Switzerland, “Trade Ed.”,
pp. 2... [18]).
【《陳止齋文集》卷四十二〈跋周伯壽畫貓〉云：「余家有數貓，終日飽食，相跳擲為戲，而不捕鼠。余怪而問人，人曰：『貓之善捕鼠者，日常睡。』」】【王君玉《續纂‧愛便宜門》：「畜養母狗雌貓。」】【Journal des Goncourt, 1891, 7 Sept.: “Dans les couvents, il est permis
aux religieuses d’avoir des chats, mais qu’il leur est défendu d’avoir des
chattes. Les amours des chats étant extérieurs ne leur tombent pas sous la vue,
tandis qu’on craint que la grossesse, la mise bas, la maternité des chattes,
puissent éveiller la curiosité de l’amour chez ces femmes.”】【《羅湖野錄》卷二。】【Roaul Gineste, Chattes et Chats
(1894) 皆詠貓詩。】【《揚州畫舫錄》卷一：「靈鷲庵旦和尚愛畜貓，與貓同寢數十年，一夜為貓噬死。」】【《笠翁一家言》卷二〈逐貓文〉謂六畜之中最貪最僭[19]。俗說：「狗認人，貓認屋。」按《頻羅菴遺集》卷十五《日貫齋塗說》□元遺山〈游天壇雜詩〉注：「仙貓洞，土人傳燕家鷄犬升天，貓獨不去。」因云：「『同向燕家舔丹鼎，不隨鷄犬上青雲』，梅村『我是淮王舊鷄犬，不隨仙家落人間』脫胎於此」；「魏禧〈畫貓記〉：『俗傳二危合畫貓，鼠輒避去。』（卷十二〈題方蘭士畫貓〉亦引叔子文[20]。）二事竹垞〈詠貓詞〉隸事所未及（第三百二十八則、第四百三十八則、第五百三十一則、第七百二十四則）。」】【《游名山記》卷二都穆〈王屋山〉[21]：「仙貓洞，人云燕真人丹成，鷄犬俱升，仙貓獨留不去，人就洞呼『仙哥』，時或有應者。」】【曹彥伯《昌谷集》卷十四〈開禧德安守城錄序〉：「丁卯之春，縋者來言，城中癘疫大作，醢貓以侑食。余聞之泣下曰：『人之愛貓，近於愛子，殺貓而甘其味，去相食無幾矣。」】【《全唐文》卷六八二牛僧孺〈譴貓〉、卷七二七舒元輿〈養貍述〉、卷七六七陳黯〈本貓說〉、戴袁元《剡源文集》卷二十三〈貓議〉、程晉芳《勉行堂詩集》卷七〈愛貓詩〉、姚某伯《復莊詩問》卷六〈貓五古六十韻〉。】【《湧幢小品》：「乾明門養貓十二隻，日飼豬肉四斤七兩、肝一副。」《花當閣叢談》卷一：「郡中一機戶名彭禹，其子日買熟豕蹄飼獅貓。」】
[5]「采」原作「菜」。
[10]「王初桐」原作「黃初桐」。
[12]「八十三」原作「八十二」。
[15]「雜編」原作「雜錄」。
[19] 文曰：「鷄司晨，犬守暮，貓辟鼠，亦同功也。稱者則止曰鷄犬，而不及貓。昔人丹成上昇，鷄犬俱仙，而貓不與。……蓋鷄犬之鳴吠，無所利而為之者也。貓得鼠以自啖，有所利而為之者也。自利者貪，自利而獲利人之名者僭。」
沒有留言:
張貼留言