I Promessi Sposi
三百九十六[1]
張綱《華陽集》四十卷。平順無愜心處。洪景盧一〈序〉刻意為奧鍊，《須溪集》卷七〈答劉英伯書〉斥其古文榛塞，信然。不如《容齋隨筆》、《夷堅志》無心求工、自然嫻雅多矣。
卷三十六〈次韻彥達催詩〉：「老去交親渾漫與，興來終日飲亡何。」按朱竹垞《曝書亭集》卷四十三〈書韻府群玉後〉謂 ：「『漫與』者，即景口占，率意而作也。姜堯章〈蟋蟀詞〉云：『豳詩漫與。』段復之詞云：『詩句一春渾漫與。紛紛紅紫俱塵土。』陰時夫此書亦采入『語』字韻。『漫與』作『漫興』，始楊廉夫，而其弟子吳復傅會。（亦見《明詩綜》卷六張孟兼〈漫興〉下[2]）」胡鳴玉《訂譌叢錄》卷七謂介甫、東坡詩已作「漫興」。沈西雍《匏廬詩話》卷下謂：「月泉吟社第三十一名陳希邵詩第一首有『詩是田園漫興時』，以後各首繼之以『飲興』、『懶興』、『引興』、『寄興』、『乘興』、『盡興』、『感興』，是杜詩誤字，宋末已然。」張宗泰《魯巖所學集》卷十二謂袁易有〈春雨漫興〉詩，中有「彩筆彫零詩漫興」之句。袁為元初人，然觀張莊簡此聯及《江湖長翁集》卷二〈次前韻贈龔養正〉云：「詩就寧漫與」，卷二十〈漫與〉七絕，則南宋尚未誤也。【楊弘道《小亨集》卷四〈修武春日〉：「已從漫與寛詩律，更覔無何入睡鄉。」】【《舒藝室餘筆》卷三引姜堯章〈清波引〉「新詩漫與」又〈齊天樂〉「豳詩謾與」：「蓋所見杜詩尚未誤。」】
三百九十七[3]
曹彥約《昌谷集》二十二卷。詩格頹語俚，文拖沓。
卷三〈偶成〉二十一首：「夫子文章不用為，從心到口沒參差。從心到口沒參差。咄哉韓子休汙我，却道詩葩與易奇。二」「勿學唐人李杜癡，作詩須作古人詩。世傳李杜文章伯，聞著關睢恐不知。五」按《慈湖遺書》卷六〈偶作〉十九首，昌谷此作與之全同，而次序倒易，又刪節去半首。刪去一首并入〈偶成〉兩絕句。《皇朝文鑑》卷二十八呂大臨〈送劉戶曹〉云：「學如元凱方成癖，文似相如反類俳。獨立孔門無一事，唯傳顏氏得心齋。」參觀《習學紀言》卷四十七、《滹南遺老集》卷五。《二程遺書》卷十八伊川引此詩，稱為極好。然《呂氏童蒙訓》卷上作：「文如元凱徒稱癖」云云，不如此本。朱子尚不如此說，曹氏出其門，大言爾許，適見其不知好歹耳。
勞格《讀書雜識》卷十二云：「刪〈總領戶部楊公挽詩〉（程公許作）、〈謝撰攀龍臺碑蒙賜物表〉（李嶠作，見《文苑英華》卷五百九十二），補〈跋竹齋手帖〉（《竹齋詩集‧附錄》）、〈跋辛巳泣蘄錄〉（舊鈔）。」
【《劉後村大全集》卷十〈題鄭寧文卷〉云：「昔侍西山講習時，頗於函丈得精微。書如逐客猶遭絀，辭取橫汾亦恐非。箏笛豈能諧雅樂，綺紈元未識深衣。嗟余老矣君方少，勤向師門扣指歸。」自注：「西山先生編《文章正宗》，如〈逐客書〉之類止作小字附見。詩歌一門，初委余裒輯。余取〈秋風辭〉，西山欲去之，其議論森嚴如此。」何琇《樵香小記》卷下云：「《文選》錄潘朂〈魏公九錫文〉、阮籍〈勸進晉王牋〉，是獎篡也；《文苑英華》錄孔熙先〈為彭城王檄征鎮文〉、祖君彥〈為李密檄隋文〉，是獎叛也。若《文章正宗》，則必無此矣。」】
三百九十八[4]
Alessandro Manzoni, I Promessi Sposi (Ed. Ulrico Hoepli).
Goethe who praised this novel with generous fervor made one criticism: “Ich
sagte Ihnen doch neulich dass unserm Dichter in diesem Roman der Historiker
zugute käme, jetzt aber im dritten Bande finde ich, dass der Historiker dem
Poeten einen bösen Streich spielt, indem Herr Manzoni mit einem Mal den Rock
des Poeten auszieht und eine ganze Weile als nackter Historiker dasteht... Der
deutsche Übersetzer... muss die Beschreibung des Kriegs und der Hungersnot um
einen guten Teil, und die der Pest um zwei Dritteil zusammenschmelzen” u.s.w.
(Eckermann, Gespräche mit Goethe, 23
Juli 1827, Auflage Aufbau verlag, 1955, S. 348; cf. 31 Jun. 827, S. 379). But
it is not esatezza storica alone
which he spoiled the novel as a work of art. A critic less tolerant or more
impartial can point out instances of what Henry James calls “a mass of seated
information” and wish them excised or at least reduced; e.g. the account of the
successive gridi against the bravi
(cap. I, pp. 8-11), the story of Il padre Cristoforo (cap. IV, pp. 48-61), the
story of Gertrude (cap. IX & X, pp. 132-160), etc. True, the dreary
stretches of narrative are indeed enlivened with shrewd observations &
brilliant metaphors, but they badly need “bovrilizing”. The best-drawn
character is Don Abbondio; Agnese & Renzo came next neck
& neck; Lucia is a “bella baggiana” in a different sense from the one in
which the author uses the phrase (cap. XXXIII, p. 572); the saints Cristoforo
& Frederigo, however, have as little life in them as the villain Rodrigo. It
is a neat sleight of hand to convert in all senses of the word the devil in
flesh, L’Innominato, into the deus ex machina,
though I wonder whether, artistically speaking, it is fair play. This seem a
common failing among writers of historical novel, cf. A. Bellessoit, Victor Hugo. Essai sur son oeuvre, p. 80
on certain chapters in Notre-Dame de
Paris. Enrico Panzacchi, in his rhetorical lecture on Manzoni’s novel,
shrewdly says: “Il gran lombardo che ricordava tutti i placiti dell’antichità, qualche
volta si dimenticava di un detto sapientissimo: cave a consequentiariis. Una volta che egli aveva preso in mano un
argomento, una volta che colle sua testa così sottile e così tormentatrice di
sé stessa arrivava a porre certe basi e certe premesse, egli non si contentava
di andare fino all'ultimissima conseguenza, ma passava il segno... Dunque tutta
quella esattezza storica” (Alessandro D’Ancona & Orazio Bacci, Manuale della Letteratura Italiana, VI,
pp. 263-4).【According to Antonio Cippico, who noticed “the
heavy feeling of weariness this masterpiece produces in many inexperienced
English as well as Italian readers”, there was a large sect which ventures to
mention the Promessi Sposi in the
same breath with the Divina Commedia”
(The Romantic Age in Italian Literature,
pp. 76, 75).】
Il frate Galdino: “Perché noi siam
come il mare, che riceve acqua da tutte le parti, e la torna a distribuire a
tutti i fiumi” (cap. III, p. 45). A variation, but certainly not an improvement
on a rather common simile: John Webster, Duchess
of Malfi, III, ii: “Bosola: ‘Here
is an example for extortion: What moisture is drawn out of the sea, when foul
weather comes, pours down, & runs into the sea again’” (Webster & Ford,
Plays, “Everyman’s Lib.”, p. 137);
Johnson, Lives of the English Poets, “Dryden”:
“Learning once made popular is no longer learning; it has the appearance of
something which we have bestowed upon ourselves, as the dew appears to rise from
the field which it refreshes”; Chateaubriand: “Les animaux de la création
veillaient; la terre, en adoration, semblait encenser le ciel, et l’ambre exhalé
de son sein retombait sur elle en rosée, comme la prière redescend sur celui
qui prie” (Mémoires d’outre-tombe,
quoted in Maurice Baring, Have You
Anything to Declare?, p. 216); Gladstone: “As showers descend from heaven
to return to it in vapour, so Tennyson’s loving observation of nature & his
Muse seem to have had a compact of reciprocity well kept on both sides” (Lord Tennyson, a Memoir, by his son, II,
p. 133); Dr. Noyes: “Our duties to God ascend like the vapors, not to refresh
the sky, but to fall again in genial showers upon ourselves” (quoted in Samuel
Longfellow, Life of H.W. Longfellow, 1886, II, p. 63); cf. H.J.C. Grierson, Rhetoric & English Composition, p.
11: “Gladstone used to say that the orator gives back in a shower what he gets
from his audience as a vapour.” For Goethe, Keats & others, see 第六五五則.
There are several wonderful comparaisons à longue queues in this
novel, e.g. the simile of new wine in an old, badly hooped cask (cap. XI, p.
167, see 三九五則眉[5]).【［補三九八則］I Promessi
Sposi , cap. XI,
p. 167 (Opere, Ricciardi, p. 560):
“Certo è che un così gran segreto slava nel cuore della povera donna, come, in
una botte vecchia e mal cerchiata, un vino molto giovine, che grilla e
gorgoglia e ribolle” ecc. A wonderful simile perhaps amplified from Bouhours, Les Entretiens d’Ariste et d’Eugène,
III: “un secret dans la pluspart des hommes est semblable au vin nouveau, qui
ne cherche qu’à s’échapper et qu’à se répandre” (éd. Armand Colin, 1962, p. 95).
Cf. Moravia, La Romana: “Come un’acqua troppo abbondante in un vaso angusto, il
segreto traboccava dal mio animo, e io ero tentata di versarlo in un’altra” (D.
Provenzal, Dizion. delle Immagini, p.
793).】The most ingenious is the one on Father Cristoforo’s
facial expression in which native fiery spirit fought a losing battle with
Christian meekness: “Un suo confratello ed amico, che lo conosceva bene, l’aveva
una volta paragonato a quelle parole troppo espressive nella loro forma
naturale, che alcuni, anche ben educati, pronunziano, quando la passione
trabocca, smozzicate, con qualche lettera mutata; parole che, in quel
travisamento, fanno però ricordare della loro energia primitiva” (cap. IV, p.
60). Though in the line of Dante’s “Parean l’occhiaie anella senza gemme; / chi
nel viso degli uomini legge omo, / ben
avria quivi conosciuto l’emme”[6]
(Purg. XXIII. 31-3, Opere, Moore & Toynbee, p. 86);
Heine: “Der Brüstchen Rosenknospen sind / Epigrammmatisch gefeilet” etc. (“Das
Hohelied”); Wm. Barnes, Views of Labour &
Gold: “The kindness which is done by capital when it affords employment to
people from whom, by a monopoly, it has taken their little businesses, is such
as one might do to a cock by adorning his head with a plume made of feathers
pulled out of his own tail” (quoted in G. Grigson, The Mint, p. 99), see also 第六百五十五則《倪文貞公文集》卷七〈姚孟長翰長代言稿序〉, it surpasses them all. This is almost Jules
Renard writing with the pen — or should we rather say, tapping on the
typewriter? — of Henry James. Cf. D. Provenzal, Dizion. d. Immagini, 417, see第七三二則。
Il proverbio: ambasciator non porta pena (cap. V, p. 67). Cf. A. Arthaber, Dizionario Comparato di Proverbi, p. 23
for similar sayings in French, German, etc. The
Oxford Dict. of Eng. Proverbs, p. 296: “Messengers should neither be headed
nor hanged (Legatus nec violatur, nec
laeditur)”, cf. the lines quoted by Sancho Panza in Don Quixote, Pt. II ch. 10: “A messenger you are, my friend, / No
blame belongs to you” (tr. S. Putnam, II, p. 567); “兩國相爭，不斬來使”; cf. Giuseppe Giusti’s little essay on this proverb in his Dai Proverbi Toscani where he gives two
exceptions (Prose e Poesie Scelte, “Biblioteca
Classica Hoepliana”, pp. 121-123). The
Oxford Dict. of Eng. Prov., p. 296.
Due bravacci... giocavano alla mora,
etc.[7]
(cap. VII, p. 100). This game, the equivalent of 拇戰, was
first mentioned in Calpurnius Siculus, Eclogae,
II, l. 26: “ter quisque manus iactate micantes” (J. Wirght Duff & Arnold M. Duff, Minor
Latin Poets, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 228). Cf.《容齋續筆》卷十六〈唐人酒令〉on “手打令”. The best description of it in English is found
in Holmes, Autocrat at the Breakfast
Table, I.【Daniele Vare, La
Gabbia d’Avorio: “...[8]
si gioca in Cina nè più nè meno che da noi, ma con qualche variante pura
forma... I cineci... aggiungono un sostantivo al numerale per esempio le cinque
virtù, gli otto tesori.”】【“The play which the Italians call cinque, and the French mourre, is extremely ancient; it was played
at by Hymen & Cupid at the marriage of Psyche, & termed by the Latins, digitis micare” (Satires & Personal Writings by Jonathan Swift, ed.W.A. Eddy,
p.120)[9]
】【George Soulié de Morant, Bijou-de-ceinture, p. 186: “...deviner les doigts... sorte de morra.”[10]】【Fronto,
Correspondence, tr. C.R. Haines, “Loeb”, I, p. 96 ref. to mora by quoting the proverb “en cum quo in tenebris mices.” Cf. ...[11]】
Chi è in difetto è in sospetto, dice
il proverbio milanese (cap. VIII, p. 112). Cf. “賊人心虛”.
The ironical account of Don Ferrente’s
multifarious learning in cap. XXVII (pp. 400 ff.) is too long & rather
wasted on a character who plays only “a thinking part” in the development of
events. The stock character of pedant-sciolist is as old as Holmer’s lost epic
the Margites whose hero “knew many
things but knew all badly” (Homerica,
tr. by H.G. Evelyn-White, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 537; The Margites, §3 from Plato, Alcib., II, 147A). The moral, “the fox
knows many a wile, but the hedge-hog’s one trick can beat them all” (p. 539, §5)
has taken on new significance in Isaiah Berlin’s thoughtful study The Hedgehog & the Fox which shows
among other things how Tolstoy, by nature a Fox of varied interests, relates everything to “a single central vision”; H.
Levin, The Gates of Horn, p. 370: “Zola was a hedgehog, purely & squarely,
not a fox or a hybrid of the two.”[12]
Cf.《朱子語類》卷八 & 卷一百十五: “宗杲： ‘寸鐵可以殺人，無殺人手段，則載一車鎗刀，逐件弄過，畢竟無益。’” Bacon, The
Colours of Good & Evil: “Whereas the fox bragged what a number of
shifts & devices he had to get from the hounds, & the cat said she had
but one, which was to climb a tree, which in proof was better worth than all
the rest.”【La Fontaine, Fables,
IX. 14, “Le Chat et le Renard”: “Le trop d’expédients peut gâter une affaire; /
On perd du temps au choix, on tente, on veut tout faire. / N’en ayons qu’un,
mais qu'il soit bon”; cf. Victor Hugo, Littérature
& Philosophie Mêlées, p. 114-5 (quoted 第七百三則 Rilke).】【The Oxford Book of Greek
Verse in Translation, no.
113 (p. 187) gives the following epigram by Archilochus as tr. by anon.: “Few
trick there are a fox won’t learn; / Hedge-hogs have one — a master-turn.”】【Ars
varia vulpis, ast una echino maxima.】
Excellent apercus on group mind a
propos of the plague
(cap. XXXI, p. 463 & cap.
XXXII, p. 465). It would be too naïve to say “Die Sache ist ex!”[13]
They are full of actuality, especially the passage on “le piace più d’attribuire
i mali a una perversità umana”. Think of the “Germ Warfare”! Think of the flood
supposed to be a result of the hydrogen bomb. J. Volkelt cites the plague in
this novel as an example of “sas Grauenhaft-Erhabene” (System der Ästhetik, Bd. II, S. 151) whose essence consists in “dem
Dunkel & Nichtwissen hinsichtlich der Herkunft der vernichtenden Kräfte”
(S. 150). But the effect is marred by too many digressions & disquisitions.
三百九十九[14]
李彌遜《筠谿集》二十四卷、《樂府》一卷。【本名彌遠，改名事見《夷堅甲志》卷六，又前世為僧，見《丁志》卷十二載七律，《集》中未識有不。[15]】似之文有議論而無氣勢，且冗散無節制。以詩勝，七言近體尤多佳製。格不高，詞不典，平易流利，雖每失之淺滑，而新意巧語時出其間。非出坡門，亦不入江西社，於南渡作者中自具手眼，詞却近眉山。詩、文、樂府中，為李伯紀作者最夥。【《夷堅甲志》載似之〈小雲堂〉七律（「老子當年一念差，肯將簪紱換袈裟」），《梅磵詩話》卷十引之以《後村詩話》，此《集》失收。】【《夷堅甲志》、《梅磵詩話》卷十引似之〈小雲堂〉七律，與世傳清世宗「可惜當年一念差」（見《蕉廊脞錄》卷五記阿其那子鈔本[16]、《翁文恭公日記》丙戌十月錄〈西山慈善寺有人題壁〉十首作「惱恨當年一念差」）一絕相似。】
卷十一〈次韻學士兄發毘陵之作〉：「嗟今肉食謀，捕賊如捕影。」
卷十二〈次韻仲輔山中之作〉：「崖陰坐清暝，目爲山光注。妙意不可名，悠然與心晤。疏泉石中鳴，落葉衣上住。冷風起虛籟，還向無中去。三生聽鐘魚，偶失來時步。佛屋倚秋風，團團兩桂樹。卻疑此境中，曾是經行處。」【Die
Wunderblum, 13, 457-8.】
卷十五〈將到金陵投宿烏江寺〉：「閱世真成一夢闌，塵埃誰復共開顔。辛壬癸甲常爲客，南北東西只問山。縈樹遠雲髙作蓋，護田流水曲於環。秋風送我江邉寺，凖擬如今到處閑。」按《思適齋集》卷十五〈孫可之集跋〉云：「〈龍多山錄〉『起辛而遊，洎甲而休』，此《周書》『辛壬癸甲』也。」《湖樓筆談》卷六云：「樊宗師〈絳守居園池記〉以『甲』、『辛』二字易『東』、『西』二字，《日知錄》譏之謂類吳人之呼『庚癸』。班固〈幽通賦〉『歸於龍虎』謂『卯』與『酉』也。」《茶香室續鈔》卷七云：「《菰中隨筆》『入止都門，艮坤濶絕』，用韋蘇州〈酬李儋〉詩：『都城二十里，居在艮與坤。』謂一居西南，一居東北也。」《霞外捃屑》卷八上云：「元結〈峿臺銘〉『周行三、四百步，從未申至丑寅』，謂從西南至東北耳。《焦氏筆乘續集》卷七〈金陵舊事〉引洪邁文『皆延庚揖辛，賔夕陽而導初月』。《湖海詩傳》卷二十一程之章〈齋居漫興〉詩：『石排甲子苔斑瘦，魚戲庚辛水影重』，下句用古詩『蓮葉東西』也。」似之此詩頸聯可補諸家所未及。淵明〈庚子阻風〉云：「巽坎相與期」，〈於王撫軍座送客〉云：「瞻夕欲艮謙」，亦其類。故《菰中隨筆》作一聯云：「入止都門，既艮坤之闊絕；出遊江上，又巽坎之難期。」又按李詩結句仿秦少游之「平生《王直方詩話》作『平生』，《藏海詩話》作『十年』逋欠僧房睡，凖擬如今處處還」，《淮海集》不載。
〈雪門道中晚步〉：「層林疊巘暗東西，山轉崗回路更迷。望與游雲奔落日，步隨流水過前溪。樵歸野燒孤烟盡，牛臥春犂小麥低。獨繞輞川圖畫裏，醉扶白叟杖青藜。」按蘇子美〈寄王幾道同年〉云：「眼看好景嬾下馬，心隨流水先還家。」[17]筠溪後來居上。
〈渡橫溪〉：「百尺滄浪兩岸沙，肩輿徒涉步欹斜。溪聲猶帶夜來雨，山色漸分雲外霞。岸畔斷林開鳥道，水邉疏竹近人家。塵埃何處尋真境，試逐寒流認落花。」
〈東崗晚步〉：「飯飽東崗晚杖藜，石梁横渡綠秧畦。深行徑險從牛後，小立臺髙出鳥棲。問舍誰人村遠近，喚船别浦水東西。自憐頭白江山裏，回首中原正鼓鼙。」
卷十六〈筠莊李花正開雨不得往〉：「賸欲叩舷浮綠淨，未容着屐上蒼頑。」
〈次韻尚書兄同游青原〉：「暑風無力上襟裾，雁序衝烟入翠虛。小憇淨蓮開梵境，偶聞密竹話真如。倦游政似知還翼，便靜聊同得計魚。不爲尋思問心法，是翁心外已無餘。」
卷十七〈初歸筠莊蘇粹之以詩見貽次韻答之〉：「一溪止水清涵月，三日行雲薄釀霖。」
〈新成茅廬獨宿西山〉：「溪響隔溪來枕面，月光先月到林梢。」
〈題張仲宗鷗盟軒〉：「早知世事翻覆手，更覺人生起滅漚。」
卷十九〈次韻春日即事〉：「小雨絲絲欲網春，落花狼藉近黄昏。車塵不到張羅地，宿鳥聲中自掩門。」
卷二十一〈跋趙見獨詩後〉：「山谷以『水清石見』為音家秘藏，雖其宗派中人，有不能喻。」按山谷〈次韻文潛〉：「水清石見君所知，此是吾家秘密藏。」【《內集》《四筆》……[18]】《誠齋集》卷三十二〈戲用禪觀答曾無逸問山谷語并序〉：「昨日評諸家詩，偶入禪觀，如杜之詩法出審言，句法出庾信，但過之爾。白樂天云：『笙歌歸院落』云云，不如杜子美云：『落花游絲白日靜』云云也。孟浩然云：『氣蒸雲夢澤』云云，不如九僧云：『雲間下蔡邑』云云也。漫及之。右山谷語無逸云：『見墨蹟於張功父處。』功父云：『屢問人不曉。』」正可參觀。
四百[19]
〈齊俗訓〉：「今屠牛而烹其肉，或以為酸，或以為甘，煎熬燎炙，齊和萬方，其本一牛之體。伐楩柟豫樟而剖梨之，或為棺槨，或為柱梁，披斷撥檖，所用萬方，然一木之朴也。」按與釋氏「瓶盤釧釵為一金，酥酪醍醐為一味」之說（參觀圭峯《禪源諸詮集都序‧裴休序》又卷上之一）相印可。
〈氾論訓〉：「夫見不可布於海內，聞不可明於百姓，故因鬼神禨祥而為之立禁，……枕戶橉而臥者，鬼神蹠其首」云云。按此節極□通深為神道設教之意，參觀《菉友肊說》論「不出門而寫水，出門必遇雨」；《寄龕丙志》卷四論「騎貓狗者娶婦日必雨」，「屋下張蓋者軀不復長」等。參觀又 T.R.
Glover, The Greek Byways, pp.
270-1(?) 引希臘、羅馬說喻。
〈兵略訓〉[21]：「飛鳥之摯也，俛其首；猛獸之攫也，匿其爪。虎豹不外其爪，噬犬不見其齒。用兵之道，示之以柔，而迎之以剛。」按〈人間篇〉云：「夫狐之摶雉也，必先卑體弭毛，以待其來也。雉見而信之，故可得而擒也。使狐瞋目植耆，見必殺之勢，雉亦知驚憚遠飛。」其旨正同。《埤雅》卷六引《裴氏新書》云：「虎、豹無事行步者，若將不勝其軀。鷹在眾鳥之間，若睡寐然。蓋積怒而後，全剛生焉。」元曲張國寶《羅李郎》第三折云：「咬人狗兒不露齒。」《意林》卷六（李過孫刻本）「鷙鳥之擊，必俛其首；猛獸之攫，必匿其爪」云云一篇，與此全同。
〈兵略訓〉：「五指之更彈，不若捲手之一挃；萬人之更進，不如百人之俱至。」按此毛奇《兵法》所謂 “Getrennt
marschieren, vereint schlagen” (詳見 G.
Büchmanns, Geflügelte Worte,
Volks-Ausgabe, von B. Krieger, 1926, S. 381)。
〈說山訓〉：「將軍不敢騎白馬。」《陔餘叢考》卷四十曰：「蓋懼其易識也。《蒼梧雜志》亦云：『古戎服上下一律皆赤色，恐戰有傷殘，或沮士氣，故衣赤，使血色不得見也。』《甕牖閑評》亦云：『軍主不可自表暴，以防敵人之窺伺也。宋南渡以前，戎服猶皆用緋，紹興末乃變而用皂色。』薛仁貴欲自顯，乃著白衣。」Philostratus
the Elder, Letters, 3 亦言斯巴達人上陣衣紅色以掩血跡 (“Loeb Class. Lib.”, p. 417)。Plutarch,
Instituta Laconica, 24 亦言。[22]
〈說山訓〉：「畫西施之面，美而不可說；規孟賁之目，大而不可畏；君形者亡焉。」按《明文授讀》卷二十二徐禎卿〈與同年諸翰林論文書〉云：「僕故近時人，那不作近時人語，而三代兩漢為？畫不若醜女之能娠，怯夫之作力也。」
〈說山訓〉：「射者使人端，釣者使人恭，事使然也。」按《墨子‧魯問篇》云：「魡者之恭，非為賜也。」
〈說山訓〉：「狂者東走，逐者亦東走，東走則同，所以東走則異。溺者入水，拯之者亦入水，入水則同，所以入水者則異。」按張爾岐《蒿菴閒話》卷二云：「諸子之說曰：亡者東走，逐亡者亦東走，言跡之不足以徵心也。此說不然，亡者東走，逐亡者亦東走，此自走之始言也，同走未幾而走者異矣。其人而亡者歟，始而東，終而亦東者也，不然則逐者逮之而後西者也。其人而逐者歟，始而人東亦東，繼而人東己必西也，逮人則與人俱西，不逮人則人東己獨西也。」
〈說山訓〉：「走不以手，縛手走不能疾；飛不以尾，屈尾飛不能遠。物之用者必待不用者。」按《容齋續筆》卷十二云：「《莊子》云：『人皆知有用之用，而莫知无用之用』，『知无用，而始可與言用矣。夫地非不廣且大也，人之所用，容足耳。然則廁而墊之致黃泉，所謂无用之為用也，亦明矣。』此義本起於《老子》『三十輻共一轂，當其无，有車之用』一章。〈學記〉：『鼓無當於五聲，五聲勿得不備；水無當於五色，五色勿得不章。』其理一也。今夫飛者以翼為用，縶其足，則不能飛。走者以足為用，縛其手，則不能走。為國者，其勿以无用待天下之士，則善矣！」
〈說林訓〉：「綆短不可以汲深，器小不可以盛大。」按《大智度論》卷五十七〈釋述誠程品第三十三〉云[23]：「譬如井深，綆短不及，便言失井，井實不失。般若波羅蜜實相如深井，經卷名為綆。」《說苑‧政理》亦云：「夫短綆不可以汲深井，知鮮不可以與聖人言。」
〈說林訓〉：「佳人不同體，美人不同面，而皆悅於目；梨橘棘栗不同味，而皆調於口。」按《莊子‧天運篇》：「柤梨橘柚，其味相反，而皆可於口。」陸賈《新語‧思務篇》：「好者不必同色而皆美，醜者不必同狀而皆惡。」《樂府雅詞》卷下曹組〈醉花陰〉：「無限面皮兒，雖則不同，各是一般好。」《論衡‧自紀篇》：「美色不同面，皆佳于目；悲音不共聲，皆快于耳。」[24]
沒有留言:
張貼留言