康熙四十七年曹寅刻本《施愚山先生詩集》
百八十六[1]
《施愚山先生年譜》四卷[2]、《施氏家風述略》一卷、《詩集》五十卷、《文集》二十八卷、《別集》四卷。愚山負一時重名，全謝山極推愚山詩，《韞山堂文集》卷八至謂：「日讀魏叔子古文一、二頁，令人增長器識；日讀施愚山五言詩一、二首，令人疏瀹肺腸。」而詩甚膚衍，文頗冗蕪。漁洋標舉愚山五言佳句（張宗泰《魯岩所學集》卷十五〈書漁洋詩話後〉斥其取愚山五律為《主客圖》，謂：「一人之作，何分主客？」），李越縵從而增益之，細按則太半因襲清淺。康發祥《伯山詩話後集》卷一則謂：「七律較勝，五律多板滯。」實亦無所軒輊也。而《文集》卷二十八〈寄金長真書〉自論其詩云：「不敢望李、杜後塵，亦或與三唐諸賢分一坐位」云云，可謂人苦不自知矣。【施山《薑露盫雜記》卷一云：「余嘗箋愚山詩，卒卒未就。」】
《年譜》卷一：「崇禎七年，十七歲，元配梅宜人來歸」；「順治三年，二十九歲，李宜人來歸」；「五年，三十一歲，長子彥淳生，夫人李氏出」；「十一年，三十七歲，梅宜人卒於家」；卷二：「順治十二年，三十八歲，次子彥恪生，側室蔣孺人出。」按李非妾媵，明其「兩頭大」也。梅尚未死，何得更有正妻？《文集》卷二十二〈書亡妻梅宜人墓碣〉云：「生一女一子，皆慧而殤，憂懣成疾，卒以是殞」云云，當是飾詞，此中有不可告人者在。愚山復有徐氏姬，卷五十〈戲示徐姬‧自序〉云：「聊以煖老，暑則異榻，寒則同衾，牀笫之間，邈若千里」者也。徐氏亦能作五絕，觀卷四十六〈寄和徐姬珠淵〉、卷五〈和姬人珠淵寄小鏡〉、〈得姬人珠淵寄詩憐而和之〉諸篇附錄可知。
《詩集》卷十二〈石門吳右弨進士詩仿韓孟肯示數首臨別有贈〉：「時論泥詩格，膚附少礧砢。有宋趨杜韓，變雅淪俚瑣。譬乘破浪風，要捩長年柁。卓犖延陵子，獨賞薄眾可。我罕韓孟詩，耽奇興亦頗。」按卷十八〈莆田余希之注李長吉詩作歌寄之〉：「吾愛昌黎有奇癖，鵾鵬垂翅能先識。世人皮相韓無詩，天孫怒罷機中絲。請君並輯為韓李，光怪應須纏十指。」《文集》卷五〈定力堂詩集序〉：「昌黎之崛奧，長吉之詭奇，閬仙、東野之巉削幽寒，皆於唐人淹熟中另為別調，以孤行者也。」
卷二十六〈秦淮閣夜〉：「明月非霜雪，滿城生夜涼。」
〈官亭即事〉：「雀聲空院竹，秋色半亭蕉。」
卷三十〈老至〉：「老自何年至，追歡萬事殘。」
〈谿村書事‧之四〉：「野岸沈江雨，生涯送渚田。偶緣沽酒計，忝受作碑錢。汎覽頻更帙，多吟屢失編。籬邊聞剝啄，時繫客來船。」
卷三十二〈中秋對月〉：「杯乾成獨醉，髮白與爭明。」
卷四十〈見宋荔裳遺詩悽然有作〉：「好客平生酒不空，高歌零落痛無窮。西川終古流殘淚，東海從今少大風。國士魂銷多難後，離人望斷九原中。張堪妻子應誰託，巢卵長抛虎豹叢。」《韞山堂文集》卷八云：「沈確士云：『張堪卒於官，無託妻子事。』願託妻子於朱生，見《後漢書‧朱暉傳》」。（又按沈改「應誰」為「愁難」，蓋緣不知此事，與其改王阮亭詩、崔不雕絕句，如韞山所譏為「使昔賢名句索索無生氣」者，況而愈下。）
〈除夕同雪懷〉：「浮生遲暮身如客，久客重禁天一涯。歲序欺人慵守歲，家書到眼當還家。清夢話舊殷勤致，紅燭邀春爛熳花。此夕鹿門妻子在，不眠相對說京華。」
《文集》卷一〈吃賦〉：「乃有非喑非啞，藥石罔治，掀脣頓頰，疊韻重詞，語未壯而顏頳，聲欲急而逾遲。」
卷四〈邢孟貞詩序〉：「孟貞嘗謂余曰：『剝盡今人面皮，斯成古人。』」
卷二十七、卷二十八諸書，尺牘氣甚重，而《年譜》卷四所載示子兩書論鴻博試事者，皆未收。李武曾《秋錦山房外集》卷一附愚山一簡，亦見遺。其詞云：「早間偶作〈春雪〉詩一首，倘興到賜和為望，切勿一一拘韻，迫人為韻所限，或碍好詩，直是作韻，非作詩耳。」按納蘭容若《淥水亭雜識》卷四載友人云非做詩乃做韻，蓋即指愚山。吳修齡〈答萬季野詩問〉亦稱引愚山此語而申論之。錢飲光《田間文集》卷十六〈兩園和詩引〉曰：「次韻愈出愈奇，奇在能押韻耳，於作者本意無與也，詩道於是大弊。詩言志，志動而有韻。今和詩因韻生志，是以志從韻也」云云，尤明切。《尺牘新鈔》初、二皆載愚山書牘，未知有溢出者否？當校核之。《𢈪堂集》卷二十一〈詹言下〉云：「步韻、限韻初非詩人所貴。龔合肥好用古人韻，曰：『綑了好打』，不知為打詩乎？打題目乎？娛性情，標風雅，而望之交手足受榜所揳也，等之辱形苦境哉。」《聊齋》卷十〈臙脂〉條載愚山一判一詞。《香祖筆記》九：「龔大宗伯往往酒酣賦詩輒用杜韻，歌行亦然，予嘗舉以為問，公笑曰：『無他，只是綑了好打耳！』」
施瑮《隨村先生遺集》六卷，愚山孫。據乾隆元年吳芮序，當作《剩圃詩集》，時隨村已沒矣。詩殊俚弱，未成家數；然有資《紅樓夢》考訂者一事，而治紅學之徒無道之者。卷六〈病中雜賦〉第八首云：「楝子花開滿院香，幽魂夜夜楝亭旁。廿年樹倒西堂閉，不待西川淚萬行。」自注：「曹楝亭公時拈佛語對坐客云：『樹倒猢猻散』，今憶斯言，車輪腹轉！以瑮受公知最深者也。楝亭、西堂，皆署中齋名。」（參觀《愚山集》梅庚跋云：「先生殁三十年，今通政楝亭曹公追念舊游，舉《全集》授諸梓，又館其孫瑮於金陵，事讎校」。又《隨村先生全集》卷一〈四君吟〉第一首：「曹通政楝亭，愛才惜生，少時曾以詩請贄於先祖，今遺集猶藉公之力，得以流傳。」）按《紅樓夢》第十三回秦可卿道：「一日樂極生悲，若應了那句『樹倒猢猻』的俗語，豈不虛稱了一世詩書舊族了。」第三十回脂研齋評云：「『樹倒猢猻散』之語，今猶在耳，屈指三十五年矣，傷哉」云云。據隨村詩注，則此語固雪芹祖父以來慣聞之庭訓也（此語始見龐元英《談藪》）。趙甌北〈觀穫〉云：「人似翅開飛蛺蝶，蝗如樹倒散猢猻。」〈感事〉：「往日肉羶趨螞蟻，衹今樹倒散猢猻。」《象山先生全集》卷三十五：「如鶻孫失了樹，更無住處。」《輟耕錄》卷二十八王梅谷戲嘲回回〈下火文〉云：「壓倒象鼻塌，不見貓睛亮。（中略）阿剌一聲絕無聞，哀哉樹倒胡孫散。」《初刻拍案驚奇》卷二十二：「這叫做『樹倒猢猻散』。」徐文長《雌木蘭》第二折：「花開蝶滿枝，樹倒猢猻散。」
百八十七[3]
G.W. Stonier (ed.), New Statesman Competitions, pp. 99-101: “Not
Quite Fair, Perhaps” [“Instances where a word or a phrase offer the modern
reader a second, ludicrous meaning”] 舉 Henry James: “‘I shall go to America,’ said Mme
Merle, & then she passed out”; Congreve: “Blooming poets”; Hardy: “Who when
wooing Gave her the bird”[4]
等例。按 Bonamy
Dobree, ed., The Letters of Lord
Chesterfield, I, p. 169: “Critics have misunderstood the word ‘dissipation.’
Chesterfield meant it in the old sense of relaxation, as opposed to ‘concentration’”;
Ivor Brown, No Idle Words, pp. 46-7: “Debauched... means, essentially, no more
than lured aside or led astray. Aubrey recorded of Shakespeare that he ‘would
not be debauched’ — Shakespeare, when writing, was not to be diverted by
invitations to parties.” A. Huxley, Texts
& Pretexts (“The Phoenix Library”), p. 50 論
Wordsworth: “On ground which British shepherds tread” 一句云：“Those British shepherds in the last line come very near to blighting[5],
retrospectively, the whole of Wordsworth’s poem. Words change their meaning &,
still more, their flavour. In Wordsworth’s day, ‘British’ was primarily
associated with King Arthur & Boadicea & the Druids. Its flavour was
romantic, antiquarian. The self-conscious imperialism which has made it, for modern
palates, so extremely distasteful, had not yet been thought of.” W.B. Stanford,
Ambiguity in Greek Literature, pp.
28-9: “Homer was not to know that the Attic for an olive tree would be ἐλἀα,
rendering his μἀστξεν δἔλἀαν ludicrous[6].
Nor could Virgil have been expected to anticipate the obscenities that Celius
& Ausonius found in Incipiunt agitata
tumescere. (Georg., I, 357)” cf. I.
Bloch, Die Prostitution, I, S. 556:
“Quintilian (Inst. Orat., VIII. 3.
47) Quintilian berichtet von ihm, dass er sogar in don harmlosen Worten Virgils
über das Meer eine Unanständigkeit gewittert habe. Übrigens gehörte Celsus (De Medicina, VI, 18, 1) zu der schon im
Altertum recht zahlreichen Gattung der sogenannten ‘Nuditätenschnüffler’” (De Medicina, “The Loeb Class. Lib.”, II,
p. 268: [on the disease of “partes obscenas”:] “Apud nos foediora verba ne
consuetudine quidem aliqua verecundius loquentium commendata sunt, ut
difficilior haec explanatio sit simul et pudorem et artis praecepta servantibus”).
Geoffrey Tillotson, Essays in Criticism
& Research, pp. xviii-xx: “The famous speech of Macbeth struck Johnson
as ludicrous because it employed the ‘low’ words ‘blanket,’ ‘dun’ &
‘knife.’ In our time we see Johnson as ludicrous... No critic should be allowed
a hearing on Milton or 18th-century poetry till he has washed his
mind historically clean to receive blooming
promise, fleecy care & the
rest with the delight that was once novelly their due. The original meaning of
a word in a great poem is the only one worth attending to”; René Wellek & Austin
Warren, Theory of Literature, p. 150:
“The standard derived from our present-day usage is misleading. We must forget
the modern meaning in such lines as ‘To have a dame indoors, who trims us up. /
And keeps us tight’ (Tennyson: ‘Edwin Morris’).” “The line with which Burns
opens his Address to Edinburgh, ‘Edina, Scotia’s darling seat,’ will probably
make most modern readers think of a lavatory bowl” (New Statesman, 24 Jan. 1959, p. 119). Cf. T.F. Higham in his Introduction to Higham & C.M. Bowra, Oxford Book of Greek Verse in Translation,
p. xiv, quoting Ruskin to his heart: “Thou little bounder, rest!”; xiv, Thomas
Stanley’s tr. of Bion’s “Lament for Adonis”: “His short Pants Venus grieve.” Francis
Thompson: “She gave me tokens three, / A look, a word of her winsome mouth, &
a sweet wild raspberry.”[7]
Cf. Quintilian, VIII, iii, 44-47, “Loeb”, III, pp. 234-6. New Statesman, 9 May 1980, p. 74, Arthur Marshall: “In Motion” (on
the use of the word ‘motion’ in Wordsworth). 蓋亦如〈離騷〉：「溘吾游此春宮兮。」東坡〈十二月二十八日蒙恩責授檢校水部員外郎黃州團練副使復用前韻〉：「出門便旋風吹面。」（參觀《潛研堂文集》卷三十一〈跋東坡詩集〉[8]。）
P. 110: “Yet More Last Words”: Henry James: “Mountain your molehills,
my dear, mountain your molehills.” 按此本 MacCarthy, Portraits,
I, p. 152 論 Henry James 擅長 “the
art of mountaining molehills.”
百八十八[9]
The
Table Talk of Martin Luther (“Bohn’s
Library”), ii: “The books of the heathen taught nothing of faith, hope, or
charity... they contemplate only the present... Look not therein
for aught of hope or trust in God” (p. 2). 又CCXCVIII:
“Everything in the world is done by hope...How much more does hope urge us on
to everlasting life & salvation?” (p. 146). 按參觀第百四十則 Diogenes Laertius, V, 18。
XCIX: “The most acceptable service
we can do & show unto God, & which alone he desires of us, is that he
be praised of us”; C: “He asks only that we acknowledge him for our God, & thank him for his gifts” (p. 45). 按 W. Somerset
Maugham, The Summing-up, §LXIX: “Most
of us find it embarrassing when flowery compliments are paid to us... When I
was young I had an elderly friend who used often to ask me to stay with him in
the country. He was a religious man and he read prayers to the assembled
household every morning. But he had crossed out in pencil all the passages in
the Book of Common Prayer that praised God. He said that there was nothing so
vulgar as to praise people to their faces &, himself a gentleman, he could
not believe that God was so ungentlemanly as to like it.”（據
Maugham, The Vagrant Mood[10]，此乃
Augustus Hare 語。）《春在堂隨筆》卷八：「余嘗戲語諸君子云：『神祠中楹聯固多諛詞，然神像乃土木偶耳，偃然坐其上，不知愧也。余則尚非土木偶，朝夕出入恆於斯，對此諸聯視，吾色不且赧赧然乎？』」Voltaire, Zadig,
ch. 6, “Le Ministre” (Romans et contes,
“La Pléiade”, pp. 646-7): “Irax, était un grand seigneur... corrompu par la
vanité et par la volupté... Zadig entreprit de le corriger... Il lui envoya de
la part du roi un maître de musique avec douze voix et vingt-quatre violons et
quatre chambellans... Le premier jour, dès que le voluptueux Irax fut éveillé,...
on chanta une cantate qui dura deux heures, et, de trois minutes en trois
minutes, le refrain était: ‘Que son mérite est extrême! / Que de grâces! que de
grandeur! / Ah! combien Monseigneur / Doit être content de lui-même!’... Après
l’exécution de la cantate, un chambellan lui fit une harangue de trois quarts
d’heure, dans laquelle on le louait expressément de toutes les bonnes qualités
qui lui manquaient. La harangue finie, on le conduisit à table... Le dîner dura
trois heures ; dès qu’il ouvrit la bouche pour parler, le premier chambellan
dit: Il aura raison. À peine eut-il prononcé quatre paroles que le second
chambellan s’écria: Il a raison! Les deux autres chambellans firent de grands
éclats de rire des bons mots qu’Irax avait dits ou qu’il avait dû dire. Après
dîner on lui répéta la cantate... Cette première journée lui parut délicieuse...;
la seconde lui parut moins agréable; la troisième fut gênante; la quatrième fut
insupportable; la cinquième fut un supplice.” 此人位衹卿相，故無此大量。使其貴為一國之君，則多多益善，樂此不疲矣。Cf. 第七二三則。
CXXXII: “The crawl... childhood
approaches nearer to the state of innocence wherein Adam lived before his
fall.” 按由前之說，則蛇本有足；後說則 Talmud, Hermetica, Boethius,
Vaughan, Wordsworth 所昌言者也。L.C. Martin: “Henry Vaughan & the Theme of
Infancy” (Seventeenth Century, Presented
to Sir Herbert Grierson, pp. 243 ff.) 却未引此。十九世紀末葉，學者方知童稚野性未除，不得為人，而況天乎？（參觀 E.
Jones, Papers on Psychoanalysis, ed.
1918, p. 588 引 Le Neveu de Rameau [“Textes litt. fr.”, éd Jean Fabre, p. 95，亦見 “Hobbisme”
(Oeuv., Assézat, XV, p. 123)]: “Si le
petit sauvage... réunît au peu de raison de l’enfant la violence des passions
de l’homme de 30 ans, il tordrait le col à son père et coucherait avec sa
mère”; p. 633 引 Browning: “A Soul’s Tragedy”: “The sweetest child...
would be rudely handled by the world’s inhabitants, if he retained these angelic
infantine desires when he has grown 6 feet high, black & bearded.” 又 Havelock
Ellis, The Criminal, 5th
ed., p. 258: “The child is naturally nearer to the animal, to the savage, to
the criminal, than the adult” etc.）
DCLIV: “When I am assailed with
heavy tribulations I rush out among my pigs rather than remain alone by myself.
The human heart is like a millstone in a mill; when you put wheat under it, it
turns & grinds, & bruises the wheat into flour; if you put no wheat in
it, it still grinds on; but then ’tis itself it grinds & wears away. So the
human heart, unless it be occupied with some employment, leaves space for the
devil, who wriggles himself in, & brings with him a whole host of evil
thoughts, temptations, & tribulations, which grind out the heart” (p. 275).
Grillparzer: “Antispekulation”: “Eine Mühle vergleich’ ich dem Verstand, / Die
mahlt, was an Korn sie geschüttet fand; / Doch geschehen der Schüttungen keine,
/ So reiben sich selber die Steine / Und erzeugen Staub und Splitter und Sand”
(Werke, hrsg. S. Hock, II, S. 408)，又 Gesam. Werk., hrsg. E. Rollett & A. Sauer, VII, S. 90 論 Griibelei 亦用此喻。《朱子語類》卷九十六云：「有主於中，外邪不能入，便是『虛』；有主於中，理義甚實，便是『實』。」卷一百十三云：「有主則『實』，此『實』字是好，蓋指理而言也；『無主則實』，此『實』字是不好，指私欲而言也。」《宋元學案》卷六十五引陳器之潛室語云；「明道言：『中有主則實，實則患不能入。』伊川言：『心有主則虛，虛則邪不能入。』其所主不同，何也？蓋有主則『實』，謂有主人在內，先實其屋，外客不能入。有主則『虛』，謂外客不能入，只有主人自在。知惟實故虛。」皆可參觀。
DCCLIV 記尼菴池中、地下皆小兒骸骨 (p. 307)。按 Burton, Anatomy
of Melancholy 亦言之 (”Everyman’s Lib.”, III, pp. 244, 414) 。Ploss,
Bartels & Bartels, Woman, ed. by E.J.
Dingwell, III, pp. 271-2 記此等事最詳，育兒至擲溷圊中也 (Barlette: “O quot luxuriae! O quot sodomiae! O
quot fornicationes ! / Clamant latrinae latibula ubi sunt pueri suffocati!”;
Maillard: “Utinam haberemus aures apertas, et audiremus voces puerorum in latrinis
projectorum et in fluminibus.” — p. 272) 。
百八十九[11]
《寐叟題跋》二冊，商務印書館景印本。書具眾體，有學唐太宗〈溫泉銘〉而參以米南宮、張即之者，有學包倦翁者，有學金冬心者，有似翁覃谿者，有出入錢南園、翁瓶盫者，有學張濂亭者。至以北碑、八分作章草[12]，則子培所創也。合作固多，而波磔處失之矯揉造作，稍不經意，便成惡札，如〈此碑在秋曹〉一跋、〈宣統甲寅帖估周生〉一跋、〈明拓閣帖七冊〉一跋皆是也。
第二冊末〈和康更生〉七律四首非題跋類，不宜編入。第四首結句云：「覺阿吃飯隆師飽，那必雲臺有姓名？」自識云：「但願覺阿有飯吃，隆師自在安養國中踁行受供也。」使事微舛。姚元之《竹葉亭雜記》卷七云：「漁洋載覺隱吃飯事，嘗疑其傳聞有誤。甲申正月二十日，過胡默軒家，成邸舊藏坾仙畫、覺隱書，上有大同山翁凝始子題謂：『覺隱吃飯畢，坾仙亦飽。坾仙吃飯，覺隱亦飽。有覺隱題，坾仙方肯畫。』乃知漁洋非寓言。」覺隱元至正時人，釋覺阿自是道、咸時人，子培誤憶為一人。竊謂王冕嘗畫〈張公吃酒李公醉圖〉，貢性之題詩，不料寓言竟成實事也。陳眉公《太平清話》卷上載覺隱〈莫造屋歌〉及七絕二首。
「寒女蓍簪，澘焉心痛。敝帚蓍簪，奭焉傷懷。損泐無復神采，殆於公路枯骨，非但秋孃遲暮而已。畫家石谷，如詩有歸愚，門下宗傳，都成凡鈍。」
百九十[14]
《野叟曝言》第四十七回李姓〈詠梅〉結句云：「月下朦朧驚我眼，如何空剩老丫叉？」元姓說之曰：「出神入化之筆！月色朦朧，與梅花融成一片，豈不單剩了枝梗？」按此雖本俗傳蘇小妹詩話之「輕風扶細柳，淡月失梅花」，以嘲諷斗方名士惡詩，而句中用意則固唐、宋名家所常有也。雍陶〈詠雙白鷺〉云：「立當青草人先見，行傍白蓮魚未知。」李郢〈淛河館〉詩云：「青蛇上竹一種色，黃蝶隔溪無限情。」李洞〈宿成都松溪院〉云：「翡翠鳥飛人不見松也，琉璃瓶貯水疑無溪也。」《後村大全集》卷一百七十五〈前輩咏蝶〉云：「狂隨柳絮有時見，舞入梨花無處尋。」（《類說》卷五十六《古今詩話》作謝學士詩。）尹穡〈西軒〉詩云：「草黃眠失犢，石白動知鷗。」（《澗泉集》卷十七〈和昌甫〉第一首自注引。）姚勉〈四望亭觀荷花〉云：「面面湖光面面風，可人最是白芙蓉。分明飛下雙雙鷺，才到花邊不見蹤。」（《雪坡舍人集》卷十二）以及《五燈會元》卷二十洞山付曹山詞云：「銀碗盛雪，明月藏鷺。」Marino: “Mentre Lidia premea. / Dentro rustica
coppa. / A la lanuta la feconda poppa, / I’ stava a rimirar doppio candore, /
Di natura e d’amore; né distinguer sapea / Il bianco umor da le sue mani
intatte, / Ch’altro non discernea che latte in latte” (“Ninfa mungitrice” — G.G. Ferrero, Marino
e i Marinisti, p. 361). Jules Renard, Journal,
p. 309: “Noir sur noir, comme un corbeau dans la nuit.”【Marino:
“Ninfa mungitrice”: “né distinguer sapea / il bianco umor da le sue mani
intatte, / ch’altro non discernea che latte in latte” (G.G. Ferrero, Marino e i Marinisti, p. 361).[15]】胥同手眼。嚴鐵橋《全後漢文》卷二十九馬第伯〈封禪儀記〉云：「遙望其人，或以爲小白石，或以爲氷雪。久之，白者移過樹，乃知是人也。」【第伯此文《容齋隨筆》卷十一自應劭《漢官儀》節錄，而極歎其工，頗怪昔賢無稱道者。周晉仙《方泉先生詩集》卷一〈山行行歌〉第七首云：「遠望山腰多白石，細看知是野人行。」即用此文，疑轉本之容齋者。《孫月峯先生全集》卷九補訂此〈記〉全文。陳夢錫《無夢園初集‧馬集》卷四〈名世文宗序〉引此〈記〉爲「文式」。】明人王禕〈開先寺觀瀑布記〉：「從樹隙見岩腰采薪人，衣白，大如粟。初疑此白石耳，有頃漸移動，乃知是人也。」袁小修《珂雪齋詩集》卷四〈感懷‧三十三〉：「如雪如素練，晃耀亂山赭，白者移過樹，乃知是人也。」魏默深《古微堂詩集》卷五〈太室吟〉云：「山腳仰視峯影小，數點白者出林杪，須臾移過雜樹間，乃知是人非飛鳥。」可參觀。餘見七百八十則。
[4] 自 19 世紀中葉以來，便有以「give
the bird」為「發噓聲」、「喝倒彩」之俗語用法。後來遂由聲音衍生出手勢，今日「flip the bird」或「give someone the bird」皆指「舉中指」之侮辱性手勢。
[7] Brian Aldiss: “It’s like
the poem by Francis Thompson that ends ‘She gave me tokens three, a look, a
word of her winsome mouth, and a sweet wild raspberry’; there again the meaning
has changed. It really was a wild raspberry in Thompson’s day.” (Recorded
informal conversation between C.S. Lewis, Kingsley Amis, and Brian Aldiss,
cited in Walter Hooper, ed., Of This and
Other Worlds.) 現代俗語中，「raspberry」或「razzberry」與「give the bird」涵意相同，皆指「發噓聲」、「喝倒彩」。
[8]「研」原作「邱」。文云：「東坡詩『出門便旋風吹面』……注家引《左傳》注以『旋』為『小便』」云云。
[13]《談藝錄‧六九‧隨園論詩中理語‧附說十九‧山水通於理趣》：「近人沈子培《寐叟題跋》上冊有論支謝詩三則，深非劉勰『莊老告退、山水方滋』二語，以為『六朝詩將山水莊老，融併一氣。謝康樂總山水莊老之大成，支道林開其先，模山範水，華妙絕倫。陶公自與嵇阮同流，不入此社』云云。沈氏知作詩『以莊老為意，山水為色』，頗合『理趣』之說。《世說》一書所載曲阿、印渚、華林園、山陰道等游觀諸語，皆老莊風氣中人所說；孫興公『齋前種松，楚楚可憐』，亦幾有濂溪、明道愛翫階草之意。然支道林存詩，篇篇言理，如〈八關齋〉、〈述懷〉、〈詠懷〉、〈利城山居〉等作，偶點綴寫景一二語，呆鈍填砌，未見子培所謂『模範華妙』者。子培好佛學，故論詩蠻做杜撰，推出一釋子，強冠之康樂之上，直英雄欺人耳。以山水通於理道，自亦孔門心法，子培必欲求之老莊，至不言讀《論語》，而言讀皇侃疏，豈得為探本窮源乎。陶公不入此社，固也，與嵇阮亦非同流。陶尊孔子，而〈擬古〉肯稱莊周為『此士難再得』；阮學老莊，而〈達莊論〉乃大言莊周不足道。子培之言，誠為淆惑矣。」
沒有留言:
張貼留言