1492年版《十日談》修士魯斯蒂科教少女阿莉白送魔鬼入地獄一節插畫
二百七十六[1]
呂浦《竹谿稿》二卷。公甫出許白雲門下，吟風弄月每作道學口氣，令人叵耐。如卷上〈鱸魚賦〉結語云：「主人既知魚之樂矣，又豈不兼知魚鳥之樂乎？傳不云乎：『鳶飛戾天，魚躍於淵。』渺雲飛而川泳，合道體之大全。前賢吃緊為人處，活潑潑地。主人豈亦知其所以然而然」云云，方自以為曲終奏雅，而不自知為怪鬼壞事也。又有〈梅邊稿〉皆詠梅花詩七律四十四首（卷上）。《梅磵詩話》記杜小山問句法於趙紫芝，答曰：「但能飽吃梅花數斗，胸次玲瓏，自能作詩」云云，蓋南宋人習氣，故張端義《貴耳集》卷中云：「詩句有『梅花』二字，便覺有清意。」方虛谷《瀛奎律髓》卷二十批杜工部〈和裴迪早梅〉云：「凡唐、宋人詩中有『梅』字者，即便清雅標致。」故錄張澤民《實齋詠梅集》中惡詩至二十首。倘見公甫此作，必把臂入林，為之詠高菊澗〈孤山雪後詩〉曰：「近來行輩無和靖，見說梅花不要詩」；王菉漪〈梅詩〉曰：「衹因誤識林和靖，惹得詩人說到今」（見《西溪詩話》）；杜茶村〈梅花〉曰：「平生衹是知慙愧，逢著梅花不作詩」矣。【《元詩選二集》庚集有郭豫亨〈梅花字字香〉百首錄十二首（《誠齋集》卷三十六〈跋蕭彥毓梅坡詩集〉：「想渠踏月枝枝瘦，贈我盈編字字香」），皆集古人詠梅句為七律（郭詩前後集七律百首，《四庫提要》謂「二百首」者誤）；《三集》有馮海粟〈梅苑百詠〉七絕（《船山遺書》卷五十五有〈和馮氏百詠詩〉并指摘其題目之不通）。】【宋黃大輿輯詠梅詞為《梅苑》十卷（如卷四南山居士〈永遇樂‧梅贈客〉云：「這情懷、厭厭怎向，無人伴我孤另」，大失梅花身分矣）。】【《道古堂集外詩》：〈梅花百詠〉（五絕）、〈全韻梅花詩〉一百六首（五、七絕）。】
二百七十七[2]
《全上古三代秦漢三國六朝文》。按楊守敬《晦明軒稿》第二冊跋此書云：「《鐵橋漫稿》中〈答涂星伯〉、〈陳碩士〉兩書言搜輯之事甚詳。邇來有傳此書為孫淵如所纂者，謂其言出自吳山尊，是大不然。嚴氏致星伯書，欲得〈梁永陽王前墓志〉及〈隋高麗碑〉。今此書已有〈梁墓志〉文，是星伯録寄。此〈志〉海内孤本，孫氏《訪碑録》所未載，尤此書非孫氏作之切證」云云，言「出吳山尊」，蓋本之《譚復堂日記》卷五，俞理初《癸巳存稿》卷十二〈全上古至隋文目録不全本識語〉僅言「實陽湖孫淵如觀察之力」一句，而下文復云：「鐵橋搜校金石古書，補至十分之一，撰作者小傳。」是又孫氏為之先，嚴氏成其後之說矣。【《媿生叢錄》卷二：「據《李申耆先生年譜》道光二年及五年謂，孫星衍倡其事，申耆終之，而書不傳。」】楊氏尚有《補嚴氏古文存》一書，《晦明軒稿》第二冊其書〈序〉略謂：「取《洛陽伽藍記》、《全蜀藝文志》、日本《文館詞林》、《文鏡秘府論》、朝鮮《東古文存》諸書，補嚴氏之佚。」又：「嚴氏載金石文字，多據舊釋，未可依據，取拓本是正之」云云。實則嚴氏於采摭所及之書已不免疏漏，理初〈識語〉謂：「《文選注》中有伍子胥文、《莊子》逸語、《抱朴子》逸文，《太平廣記》有東漢闕名文，皆宜補」云云。今本《全上古文》已補入伍子胥〈水戰兵法〉，而《莊子》則并無其目，蓋尚有交臂失之者。然王伯厚已掇拾《莊子》，見《困學紀聞》卷十，理初亦似偶忘却也。諸如此類，初不必效楊氏之傍搜遠討也。【勞季言《讀書雜識》卷二有校正顏輯《傅子》一條、《典論》二條、《昌言》一條、《典語》一條、《正書》一條、《正論》二條。】【余嘉錫《論學雜著》下冊六七九頁謂《史記‧滑稽列傳‧集解》引鍾繇、王朗、華歆論「三不欺」、《金樓子‧立言篇》引諸葛亮論光武、《列子‧天瑞篇》注引何晏〈道論〉、《世說‧賞譽篇》注引謝鯤〈元化論序〉皆失收。《樵隱昔寱》卷四〈與汪荔牆論全上古三代秦漢三國南北朝文編目書〉亦正其誤，如王樂道〈與穆四書〉「借書一瓻」云云，乃北宋王陶〈與錢穆四書〉語，見《邵氏聞見後錄》，梅氏《文紀》誤以入梁，嚴亦沿之。】【文廷式《純常子枝語》卷四謂其誤以孔璠、張委、張野三晉人為宋人，亦未詳其爵里，卷十謂可補四、五十卷，因舉《御覽》中三代文漏輯者。】【楊鳳苞《秋室集》卷四〈與陳生書〉云：「鐵橋言古錢甚了了，金石文字亦能枚舉。惜其言大而夸，目無前人，不免夜郎自大之誚。出示近詩數章，依然故調，在郡人中為白眉，然去作者門庭尚遠也。[3]」】
《全上古文》卷一〈黃帝金人銘〉。按王粲有〈反金人贊〉、孫楚有〈反金人銘〉。
〈兵法〉。按《藝文類聚》卷二、卷六十、《太平御覽》卷二百四十一、卷三百三十九、卷八百七十八所載《黃帝兵法》，嚴氏遺漏未收。
卷二武王〈盥盤銘〉：「溺於淵，猶可援也；溺於人，不可救也。」按〈筆書〉：「陷水可脫，陷文不活。」二篇意相同。
卷五吳王夫差〈矢書射文種蠡軍〉：「狡兔以死，良犬就烹；敵國如滅，謀臣必亡。」按此見《吳越春秋‧夫差內傳》，據同書〈勾踐伐吳外傳〉及《史記‧越世家》，范蠡自齊遺文種書曰：「高鳥已散，良弓將藏；狡兔已盡，良犬就烹。」《韓非子‧內儲說下》伯嚭遺文種書曰：「狡兔盡則良犬烹，敵國滅則謀臣亡。」此理汪景祺《讀書堂西征隨筆》「功臣不可為」一條闡之最透，所謂「猜忌之主，其才本庸，而其意復怯，遲之既久，而疑心生焉，而畏心生焉，而怒心生焉，而厭心生焉」是也。
卷六太公〈龍韜〉：「多言多語，惡口惡舌，終日言惡，寢臥不絕，為眾所憎，為人所疾，此可使要問閭里，察奸伺猾。」按「校事」、「候官」、「察子」、「覷步」以此等人為之，亦見偵陰私者之不齒於人矣。《茶香室續鈔》卷七云：《能改齋漫錄》謂「察子」之名本之高駢，見《廣陵妖亂志》；《猗覺寮雜記》謂唐人并有「覷步」，不知誰何詩云：「強梁御史人覷步，安得夜開沽酒戶？」【《管子‧七臣七主》：「從狙而好小察。」】【《癸巳存稿》卷七云：「魏吳有『校事官』，似北魏之『候官』，明之『廠衛』，皆凶橫擅作威福，或謂之『典校』、『校曹』、『校郎』、『校官』，見〈孫邈〉、〈衛臻〉、〈潘濬〉、〈朱據〉等傳。〈高柔傳〉云：『太祖置校事盧洪、趙達等，使察羣下柔言，達等擅作威福，太祖曰：要使刺舉而辦眾事，使賢人君子為之，則不能也。」】【明東廠謂之「打事」（《蠡勺編》十七）。】【《曲洧舊聞》卷一。】【《舊唐書》卷一百十二〈李峴傳〉：「初， 李輔國判行軍司馬， 潛令官軍於人間聽察是非， 謂之『察事』，忠良被誣構者繼有之，須有追呼，諸司莫敢抗。」】
「武王伐殷，乘舟濟河，兵車出，壞船於河中。太公曰：『太子為父報仇，今死無生。』所過津梁，皆悉燒之。」按項羽救鉅鹿，沉船破釜。西方亦有 “burn
one’s boats”，“couper les ponts” 之說，蓋行軍常事。至 “dem
Feinde goldene Brücken bauen”，則窮寇莫邀之意矣（說見 G.
Büchmann, Geflügelte Worte, Volks-Ausgabe von B. Krieger, 1926, S. 97）。【Don Quixote, Pt. II, ch. 58: “When the enemy flees, build him a bridge of silver”
(tr. S. Putnam, p. 891).】
卷八鬼谷先生〈遺書責蘇秦張儀〉：「夫女愛不極席，男歡不畢輪。」《容齋四筆》卷二引《戰國策》江乞謂安陵君曰︰「以色交者，華落而愛渝。是以嬖女不敝席，寵臣不敝軒。」呂不韋說華陽夫人曰：「以色事人者，色衰而愛弛。」《詩‧氓》之序曰：「華落色衰，復相棄背。」
卷九荀卿〈賦篇〉：「充盈大宇而不窕，入郄穴而不偪。」按言雲也。《全漢文》卷五十三揚雄〈解嘲〉以此自言《太玄》云：「大者含元氣，纖者入無倫。」《中庸》云：「語大，天下莫能載；語小，天下莫能破。」《淮南子‧原道訓》移此意形容道體云：「舒之幎于六合，卷之不盈于一握。」《全三國文》卷十九曹子建〈釋愁〉云：「尋之不知其際，握之不盈一掌。」《二程遺書》卷十一伊川謂：「《中庸》之言，放之則彌六合，卷之則退藏於密。」正此手眼。【又第一百七則《管子‧宙合》。[4]】
卷十宋玉〈風賦〉，按參觀第二十一則。
〈神女賦〉，按參觀第七十九則。
〈高唐對〉：「旦為朝雲，暮為行雨。朝朝暮暮，陽台之下。」按《通俗編》卷一云：「杜甫〈貧交行〉：「翻手為雲覆手雨。」只反覆不常意，小說家牽高唐雲雨之文，資穢褻不堪之用，殊可笑」云云。實則《莊子‧天運篇》云：「雲者為雨乎？雨者為雲乎？孰隆施是？孰居無事淫樂而勸是？」翟氏當引此說雲雨。【又第六九一則、七四四則。】【Bruno, Candelaio, IV. ix, Marta: “... più di sette mesi sono, che
non me ci ha piovuto” etc. (Opere,
ed. A. Guzzo, p. 123).】
〈好色賦〉：「於是處子恍若有望而不來，忽若有來而不見。意密體疏，竊視流眄。」按此刻劃入微，遂開詩詞家無限法門，可與 Theocritus, V 一節比美，參觀第二百十三則。【柳永〈木蘭花令〉：「問著洋洋回却面」；張先〈踏莎行〉：「佯佯不覷雲鬟點」。】「意密體疏」語與義山之「身無彩鳳雙飛翼，心有靈犀一點通」，所謂貌同心異也。【又七七三〈西南夷列傳〉、七七四則。】
〈小言賦〉，按《全晉文》卷五十一傅咸有〈小語賦〉。【宋玉〈小言賦〉見第七百五則】《書影》卷四引《晏子春秋》答景公天下極大極小（「東海有蟲，巢於蟁睫」云云），謂大、小言不始宋玉。
卷十六彭祖：「上士別牀，中士異被。服藥百過，不如獨臥。」按戴埴《鼠璞》卷上引此節而論之曰：「與世以素女術出於彭籛者大相反」云云，是也。《觀古堂彙刻書》中有《素女經》載彭祖云：「不知交接之道，雖服藥無益也。法之要者，在於多御少女，而莫數瀉精」云云，與此節違牾矣。《真誥》卷二謂修房中事求仙「如以金棺葬狗」。全書反復申此意，如卷一論紫微王夫人與安妃為配偶云：「有偶對之名，定內外之職 。不必苟循世中之弊穢，而行淫濁之下迹。」卷二云：「雖名夫婦，不行夫婦之迹也。是用虛名以示視聽。苟有黃赤存於胸中，真人亦不可得見。」卷九云：「道士求仙勿與女子交。一交而傾一年之藥力。」卷五則謂：「食草木之藥，不知房中之法，無益也。」又與《素女經》合，蓋已莫知適從矣。（補見第二百八十三則眉。[5]）【［補第二百七十七則《全上古文》卷十六］《後村大全集》卷一百七十四云：「山谷與坡公云：『只欠小蠻樊素在，我知造物愛公深』；屏山問李漢老疾云：『欲袖雲門竹篦子，室中驅出散花人』；愛朋友之言也。白公云：『病與樂天相伴住，春同樊素一時歸』；放翁《劍南詩稿》73〈次韻李季章參政哭其夫人‧之二〉云：『九十老農緣底健，一生強半是單栖』；自愛之言也。」《說郛》卷九羅點《聞見錄》云：「有士夫年老納二寵，友以『忠奴』、『孝奴』名之。」皆彭祖意也。顧況〈宜城放琴客歌〉：「服藥不如獨自眠，從他更嫁一少年！」……[6]即引彭祖語。放翁詩及包恢〈獨睡丸〉事，cf. Boccaccio (quoted in Comparative Literature, Fall, 1973, p. 355)。】
二百七十八[7]
A.H. Bullen, ed., Poems, Chiefly Lyrical, from Romances & Prose Tracts of the
Elizabethan Age.
VI: “The old Greek novelists did not
garnish their stories with verse; & Apuleius stuck to prose.” Bullen has
forgotten that Petronius’ Satyricon
is plentifully “garnished” with verse (vide
V, XVIII, XXIII, XXXIV, LV, LXXIX, LXXX, LXXXII, LXXXIII, LXXXIX, XCIII, CIX,
CXIX-CXXIV, CXXVI, CXXVII, CXXIII, CXXXI, CXXXII, CXXXIII, CXXXIV, CXXXV,
CXXXVI, CXXXVII, CXXXIX in “The Loeb Classical Library”, pp. 6-8, 26, 32, 52,
98, 156, 160, 164, 166, 174-8, 186, 226, 252-274, 280, 284, 286, 292, 294-6,
298, 302, 304, 306, 310, 314); Eumolpus especially spouted verses with a
facility that sufflaminandus erat
(CXXIV: “ingenti volubilitate verborum effudisset” — p. 274).
P. 14: Robert Greene, Menaphon: “A bitter sweet, a folly worst
of all” etc. A favourite conceit of Greene’s; cf. p. 21: The Orpharion: “a sharpe, yet sugared smart”, p. 29: Francesco’s Fortunes: “nothing so sweet &
sour as love.” This oxymoron for the ambivalence of love is as early as Sappho,
LXXXI. γλυκύπικρον (Lyra Graeca, ed.
J.M. Edmonds, “The Loeb Classical Library”, I, p. 238); the theme is much
embroidered upon in the Middle Ages, vide
quotations from Marbode, De Meretrice
(“Dulce malum pariter favus atque venenum” etc.) & an anonymous diatribe
against woman (“fetens rosa, tristis paradisus, dulce venenum, poena
delectabilis, dulcor amarus”) in Remy de Gourmont, Le Latin mystique, pp. 218, 220. Petrarch in Canzone, 129 also speaks of “questo mio viver dolce amaro” (L.R.
Lind, Lyric Poetry of the Ital. Ren.,
p. 180). In a sonnet “mia dolce pena” (The
Penguin Bk of It. Verse, p. 120), Sonetti,
13: “mia dolce pena... / d’una chiara fonte viva move ‘l dolce et l’amaro” (Ibid., p. 196). Cf. infra 第二百九十一則、七百三則、七百三十八則、七四四則。【The
Celestina (tr. L.B.
Simpson, p. 118): “a pleasant canker, a savory poison, a sweet bitterness, a
delightful distress, a joyous torture” etc.】【Ronsard, Le Premier livre des Amours, XLV (Pléiade,
I, p. 20): “Amour me tue, et si je ne veux dire / Le plaisant mal que ce m’est
de mourir. / Tant j’ai grand’ peur qu’on veuille secourir / Le doux tourment
pour lequel je soupire. / ...”】【Anatomy
of Melancholy, Pt. II,
Sect. III, Mem. I, Subs. I: “as he [Apuleius, Florid, iv, 18] saith, our whole
life is a glucupicron, a bitter-sweet
passion, honey and gall mixt together”
(George Bell, vol. II, p.
147).】
P. 28: Robert Greene, Francesco’s Fortunes: “He [Cupid] from
his quiver drew a bolt of fire / And aimed so right as that he pierced my eye”;
cf. p. 31: “His bow of steel, darts of fire / He shot amongst them sweet desire,
/ Which straight flies / In their eyes, / And at the entrance made them start, /
For it ran from eye to heart.” Also p. 46: Thomas Lodge: Rosalind: “Turn I my look unto the skies, / Love with his arrows wounds
mine eyes.[8]”
The underlying theory is of course the Platonic theory that Amor est passio quaedam innata procedens ex
vision (Andrea Capellani regii
Francorum de amore libri tres, ed. E. Trojel, p. 3). Castiglione’s passage
in Il Libro del Cortegiano, Lib. IV, §52
is almost a gloss on Greene’s lines: “onde piacevolmente tira a sè gli occhi
umani, e per quelli penetrando s’ imprime nell’anima” (Ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p.
412; cf. §62: “E che così come udir non si può col palato, né odorar con l’orecchie,...
ma con quel senso del qual essa bellezza è vero objetto, che è la virtù visiva”
— p. 425); Petrarch, “e’ [il cor] si rimase seco / Et si nascose dentro a’ suoi
belli occhi”[9]; Merchant of Venice, III, ii, 67 ff.: “It
[fancy] is engend’red in the eyes, / With gazing fed” etc.; cf. supra 第二百五十七則 for other examples. Also Lawrence Babb, The Elizabethan Malady, p. 132: “Some authors believe that spirits
engendered in the heart of the beloved emanate from her eyes, enters the eye of
the lover, penetrate to his heart, & spread through his body. These
spirits, desiring always to return to the place of their origin, cause an intense yearning in the lover.” See Pierre
Boaistuau, Theatrum Mundi, tr. Alday,
pp. 193-4; Plato, Phaedrus, 251, 255
(on p. 143 infra, he refers to
Sidney, Arcadia; Lodge, A Margarite of America, IV, iii, 29;
Dante, The New Life, XIX, etc.). To
these we may add Philostratus, Love
Letters, 10, 11, 12, 56 (“Loeb Class. Lib.”, pp. 435, 437, 439, 519) on
eyes as the gateway or seat of love; Héliodore, Les Éthiopiques, III, vii (Romans
Grecs, “Classiques Garnier,” p. 84). The source of all these is Plato’s Phaedrus, 36.【Dante,
Par., XXVI. 13-5.】【Bruno, Il Candelaio, I. x: “gli occhii... in atto d’amore
principalmente son fenestre dell’anima” etc. (Opere, ed. A. Guzzo, p. 69), & De gli eroici furori, II Parte,
III, Dialogo (pp. 625 ff.).】【Anatomy
of Melancholy, Pt. III, Sect. II, Mem. II, Subs. II: “The first step
of love is sight” (Everyman’s Lib.,III, pp. 65-6), “eyes the hooks of love” (p.
83).】【《花草粹編》卷四〈喜團圓〉：“眼是心媒，心為情本。”】
P. 34: Robert Greene: Philomela: “With folded arms and lips
meeting, / Each soul another sweetly greeting; / For by the breath the soul
fleeteth, / And soul with soul in kissing meeteth.” Curiously enough, Sir
Stephen Gaselee has overlooked this passage in his delightful article “The Soul
in the Kiss” (Criterion, April, 1924,
pp. 349 ff.) which, by the way, has been anticipated to a certain extent by
Robert Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy,
Pt. III, Sect. II, Mem. ii, Subs. 3 (“Everyman’s Library”, vol. III, pp. 110
ff.). Among his other omissions, I may mention: Castiglione, Il Libro del Cortegiano, Lib. IV, §64: “Il
bascio si po piú presto dir congiungimento d’anima che di corpo, perché in
quella ha tanta forza che la tira a sé e quasi la separa dal corpo... che ancora che la bocca sia parte del corpo,
nientedimeno per quella si dà esito alle parole che sono interpreti dell’anima,
e a quello intrinseco anelito che si chiama pur esso ancor anima” (Ed. Ulrico Hoepli,
pp. 427-8). Cf. H. Weber, La création poétique au 16e
siècle en France, I, 178, 237); Guarini: “Baci pur bocca curiosa e scaltra /
O seno o fronte o mano: unqua non fia / Che parte alcuna in bella donna baci /
Che baciatrice sia, / Se non la bocca, ove l’un’alma e l’altra / Corre e si
bacia anch’ ella, e con vivaci / Spiriti pellegrini / Dà vita al bel tesoro / De’
hacianti rubini” (quoted in De Sanctis, Gli
scrittori d’Italia, compiled by Luigi Russo, I, p. 550); Thomas Stanley, “
The Kiss”: “When on thy lip my soul I breathe, / Which there meets thine” etc. (George
Saintsbury, Minor Poets of the Carolina
Period, III, p. 128; cf. Stanley, “The Exchange”, p. 138); Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, Bk. II, ch. v: “Their
lips were joined, their two souls, like two dew-drops, rushed into one.”
Gaselee has also overlooked Sir Philip Sidney, Astrophil and Stella, LXXXI; Marino, L’Adone, VIII. 124: “giungono i cori in su le labra estreme, / corrono
l'alme ad intrecciarsi insieme” (G.G. Ferrero, Marino e i Marinisti, p. 191); 128: “E
mentre tu ribaci, ed io ribacio, / L’alma mia con la tua copula il bacio” (p.
192).
P. 41: Thomas Lodge, Rosalind: “Love in my bosom like a bee /
Doth suck his sweet; / Now with his wings he plays with me, / Now with his
feet” etc. Very prettily & chastely put; cf. on the other hand, 馮猶龍《山歌》卷五〈唱山歌〉：“千阿哥，萬阿哥，那了再來我裏街前屋下唱山歌！唱得小阿奴奴千葉牡丹花心裏悠悠拽拽介動，好似繡花針撥動疥蟲窠！” & Journal des Goncourt, 1886, 26 août: “La
phrase arabe dont elle se sert pour désigner la femme qui jouit: ‘Elle a un ver
dans le derrière!’ est une phrase renfermant un mépris, dont on ne peut donner
l’idée.”
P. 57: Nichloas Breton, The Will of Wit: “Come, all the world,
submit your selves to Care, / And him acknowledge for your chiefest king; / ...
O courteous King, O high & mighty Care” etc. A very disappointing poem. The
opening line raised false hopes for something philosophical & one comes to
earth with a jolt when one finds that by “care” Breton means precaution — “Counsel”
& “foresight”. How childish this “King Care” besides “Frau Sorge” made
familiar by Goethe’s Faust &
Sudermann’s novel (cf. Jethro Bithell, ed., Germany,
p. 20)! Of course one does not expect Breton to take an existential view of “care”
— “Das In-der-Welt-sein wesenhaft ist” etc. (Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, Ite Hälfte, 3te
Aufl., S. 195), but how shallow is his naively cheerful outlook compared with
that of the Cura-Fabel (quoted in Sein und Zeit, S. 197-8)【Gaius
Julius Hyginus, Fabularum Liber, 220
(summarized in Anatomy
of Melancholy, Pt. I,
Sect. II, Mem. iii, Subs. x, Bell, vol. I, p. 314)】: “Tu
Jovis quia spiritum dedisti, in morte spiritum, / tuque Tellus, quia dedisti
corpus, corpus recipito, / Cura enim quia prima finxit, teneat quamdiu vixerit”
(S. 198. Heidegger’s comment on the last line is: “Dieses Seiende hat den
Ursprung seines Seins in der Sorge... Das Seiende wird von diesem Ursprung
nicht entlassen, sondern festgehalten, von ihm durch herrscht, solange dieses
Seiende ‘in der Welt ist’”). Cf. 第七四四則 on Ciro di Pers, “Miseria umana” (G.G. Ferrero, Marino e i Marinisti,
p. 95).
P.
142: “The Phoenix’ Nest”: “Feigned resistance then she will begin, / And yet
unsatiable in all the rest: / And when thou dost unto the act proceed, / The
bed doth groan & tremble at the deed.” Cf. Bullen, ed., Speculum
Amantis, p. 110: “Wit’s Cabinet”: “What is a man that thou shouldst dread /
To change with him a maidenhead? / At first all virgins fear to do it / And but
trifle away their time, / And still unwilling to come to it / In foolish
whining spend their time; / But when they once have found the way, / Then they
are for it night and day.” This is Tirsi’s advice to Aminta: “Perché dunque non
osi oltra sua voglia / Prenderne quel che, se ben grave in prima, / Al fin al fin
le sarà caro e dolce / Che’ abbi preso?” (Tasso, Aminta, II, iii, Poesie,
ed. F. Flora, p. 646). Cf. Martial’s neat phrase “Coniuge
Penelope venit, abit Helene”[10]
(I, lxii, “The Loeb Classical Library”, tr. by W.C.A. Ker, I, p. 68). Il Decamerone, III, x gives a most
ribald example of l’appétit vient en
mangeant: “La giovane [Alibech], che mai più non aveva in inferno messo
diavolo alcuno, per la prima volta sentì un poco di noia, per che ella disse a
Rustico: ‘Per certo, padre mio, mala cosa dee essere questo diavolo e veramente
nemico di Dio, ché ancora al ninferno, non che altrui, duole quando egli v’è
dentro rimesso.’... La qual, poi che vide che Rustico non la richiedeva
a dovere il diavolo rimettere in inferno, gli disse un giorno: ‘Rustico, se il
diavol tuo è gastigato e più non ti dà noia, me il mio ninferno non lascia
stare: per che tu farai bene che tu col tuo diavolo aiuti a attutire la rabbia
al mio ninferno com’io col mio ninferno ho aiutato a trarre la superbia al tuo
diavolo.’ Rustico, che di radici d’erba e d’acqua vivea, poteva male rispondere
alle poste”[11]
(Ed. Ulrico Hoepli, pp. 237-8). 柳宗元〈河間婦傳〉is also a case in point (《野客叢書》卷二十、《鼠璞》卷下 &《十駕齋養新錄》卷十六 all three suggested《漢書‧原涉傳》as a possible source of〈河間婦傳〉，cf.《螺江日記》卷六 citing
“或說‘河間’與‘和奸’同音”[12]); 李審言《媿生叢錄》卷一：“〈齊物論〉‘麗之姬’云云，柳子厚〈河間傳〉似從此變化而出”. Cf. 六百七十二則黃生《義府》卷下 on “今日牛羊上丘隴，當年近前面發紅”（古樂府〈樂辭〉──《詩歸》卷十）.
二百七十九[13]
A.H. Bullen, ed., Speculum Amantis.
P. 6: Thomas Campion’s Fourth Book of Airs: “Beauty, since you
so much desire / To know the place of Cupid’s fire, / About you somewhere doth
it rest, / Yet never harbour’d in your breast, / Nor gout-like in your heel or
toe; / What fool would seek love’s flame so low? / But a little higher, but a
little higher, / There, there, O there lies Cupid’s fire.[14]”
This reminds me of the words Taine inscribed in one of his books he presented
to Jeanne de Tourbey: “Aux pieds de votre Altesse, sons espoir sans espoir de
monter plus haut.” Flaubert also wrote to her: “Laissez moi vous baiser les deux
mains jusqu’aux épaules — et les deux pieds jusqu’où il vous plaira” (sec R.
Dumesnil, L’Epoque realiste et
naturaliste, p. 166).
P. 15: John Atty’s First Book of Airs: “My days, my months,
my years / I spend about a moment’s gain, / A joy that in th’ enjoying ends, /
A fury quickly slain” etc. cf. p. 20: The
Bristol Drollery: “But then, alas! soon ended the delight; / For too much
love had hastened its flight... / Which left
the lovers in a state to prove / Long were the pains but short the joys of
love.” Petronius’s wonderful poem on this subject: “Foeda est in coitu et
brevis voluptas, / et taedet Veneris statim peractae. / Non ergo ut pecudes
libidinosae / caeci protinus irruamus illuc / (nam languescit amor peritque
flamma); / sed sic sic sine fine feriati / et tecum iaceamus osculantes. / Hic
nullus labor est ruborque nullus: / hoc iuvit, iuvat et diu iuvabit; / hoc non
deficit incipitque semper.” (Petronius, “The Loeb Classical Library”, pp.
358-60). One can understand how irritating all this cautious titillation is to
women, & no wonder Rebecca West on the strength of this poem denounces
Petronius as “homosexual & fearful of impotence with women” (Black Lamb & Grey Falcon, I, p.
173). But there are women who experience a thrill of pleasure in such
inconclusive love-making — witness the French lady who remarked on “cette volupté
que ressentent les bords de la mer, d’être toujours pleins sans jamais déborder”
(Havelock Ellis, Studies in the
Psychology of Sex, V, p. 70). For A. Huxley’s view of Petronius’s poem as “the
most succinct & accurate account of certain almost supernatural state of
bodily & mental beatitude,” see Texts
& Pretexts, p. 114. By the way, the French lady’s remark of volupté reminds one of the following
description of perfect art: “Son [Boileau’s] vers voisin de la prose, et qui en
était si distinct, ressemble à ces digues de Hollande qui paraissent au niveau
de la mer et qui pourtant n’en sont pas inondées” (Sainte-Beuve, Port. Litt., II, p. 98); “To put all
that is possible of one’s idea into a form & compass that will contain...
so that there will at the end be neither a drop of one’s liquor left nor a
hair’s breadth of the rim of one’s glass to spare” (Henry James, quoted in
Lowes, Convention & Revolt in Poetry,
p. 158).
P. 48: “The New Academy of Compliments”:
“Sweet Jane, sweet Jane, I love thee
wondrous well, / But I’m afraid / Thou’lt die a maid / And so lead apes to hell”
etc. Cf. p. 88: William Corkine’s Second
Book of Airs: “Away, away! call back what you have said / When you did vow
to live & die a maid: / Oh if you knew what chance to them befell / That
dance about with bobtail apes in hell, / Yourself your virgin girdle would divide
/ And put aside the maiden veil that hides / The chiefest gem of nature; &
would lie / Prostrate to every peasant that goes by, / Rather than undergo such
shame: no tongue can tell / What injury is done to maids in hell.” For other
passages on spinsters leading apes in hell, see P. Ansell Robin, Animal Lore in English Literature, pp.
58, 87. For the various pointless tortures met out in hell to girls who lose
not their heads & kept their maidenheads in life, see Ploss, Bartels &
Bartels, Woman, ed. by E.J. Dingwall,
III, p. 405. As if a maidenhead which withers unplucked were not itself a
torture![15]
Pp. 49-50: “A Maiden’s Denial” (from
Sportive Wit) in a delightful
treatment of the theme of Theocritus, XXVII, “The Lovers’ Talk,” perhaps the
most charming of his idyls (The Greek
Bucolic Poets, ed. J.M. Edmonds, “The Loeb Classical Library”, pp.
332-344).
P. 71: “Against Fruition” (from Choice Drollery), cf. supra 第百十五則（一）.
二百八十[16]
謝逸《溪堂集》十卷、《補遺》一卷。無逸詩修潔而弱，幼槃詩奧崛而悶，吹壎吹篪，伯仲之異也。無逸較有清音，《冷齋夜話》、《豫章詩話》所載斷句如「貪夫蟻旋磨，冷官魚上竿」、「狂隨柳絮有時見，舞入梨花何處尋」、「江天春暖晚風細，相逐賣花人過橋蝴蝶」【《事文類聚後集》卷四十八〈蝶〉門引無逸斷句：「身似何郎全傅粉，心同韓壽暗偷香。」《宋詩紀事》卷三十三失采。按此乃歐公〈望江南‧咏江南蝶〉句，「暗」字原作「愛」，《類聚》誤。胡宿《文恭集》卷三〈嘲蝶〉：「雙翅薄勻何晏粉，一身偷帶賈充香。試拂橫床供晝寢，且容幽夢繞清江。」】，整秀非乃弟所及，但不免江西魔道，如卷二〈廣壽寺〉：「學道護心城，養生戒眉斧。」「心城」之說，詳見《出曜經‧心意品第三十二》：「觀身如空瓶，安心如立城。」《法句經‧心意品第十一》亦云：「藏六如龜，防意如城。」「眉斧」則用「皓齒蛾眉，伐性之斧」，可謂割裂不通。《晁氏客語》云：「劉器之言富鄭年八十書書座屏云：『守口如瓶，防意如城。』」《癸辛雜識‧別集‧下》謂：「語見《梁武懺》六卷，不知本何經？」《山谷老人刀筆》卷十六〈答賢公座主〉云：「持心如城，守口如瓶，必有相應者矣。」《外集》卷一〈放目亭賦〉：「防心以守國之械，防口以挈瓶之智。」朱子〈敬齋箴〉亦云：「守口如瓶，防意如城。」《法苑珠林》卷四七[17]：「防意如城，守口如瓶。可謂金河遺寄，屬在伊人。」朱子〈敬齋箴〉：「守口如瓶，防意如城。[18]」（參觀《語類》卷一〇五）【Anatomy of Melancholy, Pt. II, Sect. III, Mem. VII: “... as a tortoise
in his shell... I decline their fury & am safe” (George Bell,
II, p. 231); Montaigne, Essais, III,
9, “Pléiade”, p. 944.】【富大用《古今事文類聚外集》卷十三載無逸〈寄洪駒父〉：「翼翼魯泮宮，國士徵無雙，行且立教化，儒風成一邦。」《苕溪漁隱叢話》後集卷十引無逸〈讀李肇國史補〉一文及《藝苑雌黃》駁無逸語，此《集》未收，《補遺》亦失采。】
卷一〈懷汪信民村居〉：「苔乾石骨瘦，水落溪毛凋。」
〈遊西塔寺探得王夷甫玉柄麈尾〉：「雖云王謝許，吾老獨不稱。肉緩形頗穢，語拙存真性。但慕杜陵翁，長鑱白木柄。」
卷三〈別李元中宣德〉：「老鳳垂頭噤不語，古木槎枒噪春鳥。」按同卷〈送高彥應〉云：「小儒百鳥喧春風，大儒老鳳栖梧桐。」
卷四〈社日〉：「雨柳垂垂葉，風溪細細紋。清歡唯煮茗，美味衹羹芹。飲不遭田父，歸無遺細君。東臯農事作，舉趾待耕耘 。」
〈寄幼槃〉：「詩成稚子應能誦，酒熟鄰翁漸可邀。」
卷五〈重陽示萬同德〉：「病懷王子同傾酒，愁憶潘郎共賦詩。」自注：「在京師重陽日與立之飲酒。潘邠老嘗得一句，云：『滿城風雨近重陽』，令予足之。今二公皆捐館，令人心折。」按同卷有三絕句，即以邠老句發端者。
〈聞幼槃弟歸喜而有作〉：「門前楊柳未藏鴉，溪上櫻桃已著花。午夢覺來聞好語，阿連有信欲還家。」
〈城南〉：「長恐歸時已閉門，西壇雖好敢盤桓。可憐月夜杉松影，輸與沙鷗野鶴看。」
〈夏日〉：「竹風烟靜午陰凉，飯罷呼童啟北窗。」
無逸與覺範友善，詩文中極推重。卷三〈送惠洪上人〉云：「洪師抖擻蔬筍氣，白晝穴我夫子牆。粥魚齋鼓了無礙，坐禪不廢談文章。老師頷之笑不語，壞衲百孔穿寒光。」卷七〈圓覺經皆證論序〉云：「惠洪取其師真淨之說，潤色而成書。理致高妙，造語簡遠，如晉人之工於文，生肇之徒，不足多也。」〈林間錄序〉云：「洪覺範得自在三昧，游戲翰墨場中。呻吟謦頦，皆成文章。口之所談，筆之所錄，兼有樂、潘之美。」〈景德寺應夢羅漢記〉亦記洪範事。《石門文字禪》卷二十七〈跋謝無逸詩〉謂：「黃魯直稱其『老鳳垂頭噤不語』二句，陳瑩中稱其『老師登堂撾大鼓』二句，於無逸集中尚未為絕唱。予謫海外，無逸吾弟超然曰：『吾此生復能見覺範乎？』語不成聲」云云，亦見二人交契之深。
[3]「近詩」原作「近詩新詩」。
[11] 此即《十日談‧第三日‧故事第十》「送魔鬼入地獄」一節：“The girl [Alibech], who
until then had no experience of putting devils in Hell, felt some pain at this
first trial of it; which made her say to Rustico: ‘Father, this Devil must
indeed be wicked, and in very sooth an enemy of God, for he hurts Hell itself,
let alone other things, when he is put back in it.’... But she, finding that
Rustico did not call on her to put the Devil in Hell, said one day: ‘Even
though your Devil is punished and no longer troubles you, my Hell gives me no
peace. You will do a charity if with your Devil you will quiet the raging of my
Hell, as with my Hell I tamed the pride of your Devil.’ To these demands
Rustico on a diet of herbs and water could ill respond.”
[12]《螺江日記‧卷六‧河間女子傳》：「柳子厚作〈河間女子傳〉本是託詞，然無妄受屈，河間之人奚罪焉？或曰『河間』者『和姦』也，取其音同，故借此二字為題目耳。李德裕門客作《牛羊日錄》以詆牛僧儒、楊虞卿二人，蓋唐人小說習氣如此，然而口孽亦不小矣。」
[15] 關於「They
that die maids, lead apes in hell」一諺，論者多以「猿猴」為「淫亂」之喻。然此諺起於英國宗教改革時期，據此而觀，「猿猴」為僧侶之謔稱，似較可信。
[17]「四七」原作「六十」。
沒有留言:
張貼留言