六百二十六[1]
盧秉〈題驛舍〉云：「青衫白髮病參軍，旋糶黃粱置酒樽。但得有錢留客醉，也勝騎馬傍人門」（《皇朝文鑑》卷二十八、《珊瑚鈎詩話》卷二、《西溪叢話》卷下）。宋人詩話極稱之。【《侯鯖錄》卷一題作〈題汴河驛中〉，「病」作「老」，「旋」作「剩」，「黃粱」作「官糧」，「留」作「供」，「也勝」作「準能」[2]。】【《復初齋詩集》卷卅〈江秋史得趙文敏墨迹云青衫白髮老參軍旋糶黃粱買酒樽但得有錢留客醉也勝騎馬傍人門余最愛此詩頻頻書之以自適意耳子昂凡四十四字半為人描壞不復成字予為審擇存廿五字題曰完璧帖而歸之因題其後〉（五律「完璧得於趙」云云）自注：「此詩宋德清盧政議作。」】《山谷內集》十五〈和高仲本喜相見〉云[3]：「閒尋書冊應多味，老傍人門似更慵」，天社注即引秉詩，謂「蓋出於此」，又引香山〈不出〉絕句云：「檐前新葉覆殘花，席上餘杯對早茶。好是老身銷日處，誰能騎馬傍人家。」秉詩實本白詩也。《竹莊詩話》卷十八引《西溪詩話》載秉夢中賦〈宮詞〉十首（中五首亦見《錦繡萬花谷》卷八），《宋詩紀事》卷十八未收。【陳仁錫編本《沈石田先生集》七言絕〈題畫〉：「秋林黃葉獨行人，短髪蕭騷兩鬢銀，老到江南窮不死，也勝騎馬踏京塵。」】
〇《蓮坡詩話》卷中云：「唐時僧景雲〈題松〉云：『畫松一似真松樹，且待尋思記得無。曾在天台山上見，石橋南畔第三株。』王漁洋〈題折枝牡丹〉云：『三尺霜縑寫鼠姑，檀心倒暈貌來殊。如今疑夢還非夢，曾向南泉見一株。』[4]風神意調皆妙。」按《林和靖詩集》卷三〈乘公橋〉云：「晚峯橫碧樹梢紅，數榜魚罾水影中。憶得江南曾看著，巨然名畫在屏風」；賀方回《慶湖遺老集》卷九〈秋江晚望〉云：「黄蘆洲渚赤楓林，林外殘陽疊嶂深。記得廣陵城裏市，董源橫障賣千金」；《西河合集‧七言絕句》卷二〈題櫟園藏畫頁子〉云：「溪山羃羃路綿綿，不到雲門已十年。認得數株黄杏樹，辯才墳畔寺橋邊」；楊亨壽鈔訂本《梧門詩話》卷三載崔念陵〈江南曲〉云：「層城畫閣杳難分，山帶嵐光水戴雲。記得仍望何處見，一帆烟雨李將軍」；竇庠〈贈道芬上人善畫松石〉：「雲濕烟封不可窺，畫時唯有鬼神知。幾回逢著天台客，認得巖西最老枝」，與查氏所引二詩貌異心同，皆本之香山〈畫竹歌〉所謂「西叢七莖勁而健，省向天竺寺前石上見。東叢八莖疎且寒，憶曾湘妃廟裏雨中看。」
〇《太平廣記》卷四百九十五引《乾𦠆子》逸文有〈西鄙人歌〉曰：「北斗七星高，哥舒夜帶刀。吐蕃總殺盡，更築兩重濠。」而洪容齋《萬首唐人絕句》五言卷二十〈西鄙哥舒歌〉曰：「北斗七星高，哥舒夜帶刀。至今窺牧馬，不敢過臨洮。」《全唐詩》十一函衹載後一首，而前首遂淹沒無聞矣。
〇《五燈會元》卷十七歸宗志芝庵主偈云：「千峯頂上一間屋，老僧半間雲半間。昨夜雲隨風雨去，到頭不似老僧閒。」按此《誠齋集》卷百十四《詩話》以此為僧顯萬詩，第一句首四字為「萬松嶺上」，第三句為「三更雲去作行雨」，第四句首四字為「回頭方羨」。實則點竄陸龜蒙〈山中僧〉云：「手開一室翠微裏，日暮白雲棲半間。白雲朝出天際去，若比老僧猶未閒。」誠齋偶忘之耳。【《劍南詩稿》卷八十四〈八月二十三夜夢中作〉：「道士上天鶴一隻，老僧住庵雲半間。」】《梧門詩話》（楊亨壽鈔訂本）卷一謂最愛黃莘田一絕云：「一間老屋如斗大，老夫半間花半間。重檐落日雀聲晚，人與黃花相對閒。」以為「得大自在」，而不知其機調有本也；卷三所稱釋偉然〈半雲軒落成〉云：「結屋深山愧未能，白雲携得到金陵。莫言全是留雲宿，猶有半間分與僧」，則更狗咬矢橛矣。禪宗對答，每本之成語。《傳燈錄》卷四：「鵲巢和尚云：『諸惡莫作，眾善奉行。』白香山曰：『三歲孩兒也解道。』師曰：『三歲孩兒雖道得，八十老人行不得。』」《酉陽雜俎續集》卷四已考其出於梁元帝《雜傳》沙門耆域語。《高僧傳》卷九：「耆域升高座曰：『守口攝身意，慎莫犯眾惡。修行一切善，如是得度世。』竺法行重請曰：『願上人當授所未聞。如斯偈義，八歲童子亦已諳誦。』域笑曰：『八歲雖誦，百歲不行。』」《續傳燈錄》卷十八：「僧問：『知有道不得時如何？』慈受曰：『啞子吃蜜。』曰：『道得不知有時如何？』師曰：『鸚鵡喚人。』」此本之《南部新書》乙：「太和中，上謂宰臣曰：『明經會義否？』宰臣曰：『明經只念經疏，不會經義。』帝曰：『只念經疏，何異鸚鵡能言？』」
〇《蘆浦筆記》卷十極稱彭仲衡〈丫頭巖〉詩思致之高，其詩云：「前峯號龜豈是龜，近巖謂月亦非月。世閒景幻語未真，說著丫頭便痴絕。蒼然頑石自天成，道傍過者皆含情。我來於此發浩嘆，乃知有色能傾城。」按此本譚銖〈題真娘墓〉詩云：「武丘山下冢累累，松柏蕭條盡可悲。何事世人偏重色，真娘墓上獨題詩？」（《萬首唐人絕句》七言卷三十九，出《雲溪友議》卷中）。【《漁隱叢話前集》37：「東坡曰：『張子野詩筆老健，……而世俗但稱其歌詞。昔周昉畫人物皆入神品，而世但知有周昉士女，蓋所謂「未見好德如好色者」也。』（《東坡題跋》卷三）」】
〇《湛淵靜語》卷二：「韓侂胄為相時，招致水心葉適。已在坐，忽門外有以漫刺求謁者，題曰：『水心葉適候見』，坐中恍然。胄以禮接之，歷舉水心進卷中語，客皆曰：『某少作也，後皆改之。』每誦改本，精好逾之。遂延入書院飯焉，出一楊妃手卷令跋，索筆書曰：『開元、天寶間，有如此姝，當時丹青不及，麒麟凌烟，而及諸此。吁！世道判矣。』又出米南宮帖，即跋云：『米南宮筆跡，盡歸天上，猶有此紙散落人間。吁！欲野無遺賢，難矣！』胄大喜，密語之曰：『自有水心在此。』其人笑曰：『文人才士如水心一等，天下不可車載斗量也。今日某不假水心之名，未必蒙引進至此。』胄然之，為造就焉。其人姓陳，名讜，建寧人。」按黃槆編《黃九烟先生別集》（不分卷）中《芻狗齋詩集》有〈假黃九烟歌序〉云：「黃九烟安得假哉？乃旅屩所至，往往有搶豎輩，見其貧賤坦易，而形容復不老，竊相與揶揄云：『此必假黃九烟也。』因作此〈歌〉以自問。」其〈歌〉略云：「咄咄白門黃九烟，爾為真耶抑為假？似兹真假兩莫據，一個九烟在何處？一疑九烟定富貴，不應行徑太寒酸。二疑九烟當蒼皓，那能鬢髮顏渥丹。三疑九烟必宦套，豈肯真率輒披肝。誰知果有假九烟，昔年相遇江淮邊。車從甚都事干謁，深情厚貌工周旋。一聞我到輒宵遁，有如燕雀避鷹鸇。我聞昔日楊鐵崖，賓朋高會顧氏齋。門外復遞鐵崖刺，相戒勿語肅升階。其人入坐殊魁岸，揮毫浮白驚羣儕。眾賓酣暢或漏語，坦然略不縈襟懷。又聞衡山文待詔，山游避雨投村釂。座中先有衡山存，據案橫肱何倨傲。徐出詩文強叩之，惶恐乃說真名號。聞恆山非文衡山，異字同音堪一笑」云云。世有繼《能改齋漫錄‧類對門》及周櫟園《同書》者，當采此數事。
【〇方虛谷力非晚唐江湖體，而五律實不能擺脫。如《桐江續集》卷一開卷〈仲夏書事十首〉（「此地吾能淨，非天獨肯涼」；「捲畫防梅雨，鎸詩惜石苔」；「兵戈生長老，夢幻去來今」；「園林初畏日，里巷只雌風」）、〈獨游塘頭五首〉、〈雨後〉（「紙潤剪彌鈍，墨膠書不濃」）等，使不知為虛谷作，必認作染指「四靈」者手筆矣。】
【〇《瀛奎律髓》卷四十二后山〈贈王聿修商子常〉詩批語、卷四十三山谷〈十二月十九日發鄂渚〉詩批語皆主詩用虛字。《桐江集》卷一〈鮑子壽詩序〉論用虛字、不緊要字[6]；卷四〈跋趙章泉詩〉論「於助詞上著力，亦須渾成不露乃可，近人學之乃至偏枯憔悴，全用『之、乎、者、也』作對」；卷五〈劉元暉詩評〉論后山〈除正字〉詩四句用八虛字[7]，「章泉頗得其法」；《續集》卷十四〈過李景安論詩〉云：「雙井白門浣花脈，實字用正虛用奇」。而自作殊不稱所言，如《桐江續集》卷一〈獨游塘頭〉云：「詩必城之外，胡爲不出城」；〈梅雨連日〉云：「豈不苦於雨，江昏水迫城」；卷三〈細雨〉云：「云無又有之，細亦不毫絲」；卷四〈初晴〉云：「雨與花無怨，何其氣候乖。寒於春不便，晴以晚爲佳」；卷六〈郡送桃符戲書〉云：「狂頗如豪拙似癡，人難忍者我能之」；卷十四〈至後有感〉云：「晴日久之今雪作，老夫於此豈途窮」，皆酸腐可笑。虛谷痛罵後村（見第六百十一則），而每用本朝故事，正後村惡習也。如《續集》卷十五〈遯翁賜詩不已復次韻〉云：「未斷周妻及何肉，已忘黨酒與陶茶」；卷十八〈數日項頰顴咽腫痛髮中有瘡〉云：「未問劉伶墳上土，何妨張詠鬢邊瘡」；卷二十〈俳體戲書〉云：「司馬夢迷蘇小小，屏山詩痛李師師」（《張右史集》卷 47 書司馬槱事，又見《苕溪漁隱叢話後集》卷三十八，又曾慥《類說》卷十八引《雲齋廣錄》）；卷二十三〈丁酉元日年七十一〉云：「一第僅如晁濟北，萬詩堪繼陸嚴州」；卷二十四〈誰識〉云：「百杯聖俞酒，萬首放翁詩。」】
【〇《桐江續集》卷二十六〈七月十五日書〉云：「家貧難辦素食，事忙不及草書。今日果然如此，古人可信非歟。」按《姑溪居士前集》卷三十九〈跋山谷草書漁父詞〉云：「家貧不辦素食，事忙不及草書」；《皇朝類苑》載「諺云：『信速不及草書，家貧難為素食』，言其難卒置也」；《全晉文》卷三十衛恆〈四體書勢〉云：「張伯英下筆必為楷則，號『匆匆不暇草書』。」】
〇《桐江續集》卷十一〈重至秀山售屋將歸〉第九首云：「離亂斯人致，艱危我輩當。渾淪俄破碎，桀黠盡飛揚。吐舌何能已，捫心肯自量。忍窮非左計，天象看弧狼。」第十首云：「田園亡失後，兒女長成時。救急終無策，紓憂漫有詩。數年爲去計，今日是歸期。把酒東籬處，黄花賸幾枝。」按此虛谷力仿後山學杜之作，而筆性舒和，故老淡而不蒼健，不如同時蕭氷崖之逼似也。《老學庵筆記》卷五云：「靖康兵亂，宣和舊臣悉已遠竄。黃安時歎曰：『造禍者全家盡去嶺外避地，却令我輩橫屍路隅耶！』」第九首一、二句即師其意。參觀俞德鄰《佩韋齋文集》卷七〈感事‧二〉：「投閣先生著劇秦，隴西降將欲全身。沙場無萬沉冤骨，却是周嫠與杞人」；《劍南詩稿》卷二十九〈董逃行〉：「誰知此亂亦不遭，名雖放斥實遁逃。平民踣死聲嗸嗸，今兹受禍乃我曹」；Roger Peyrefitte, La fin des Ambassades, pp. 89-90: “Sur le quoi de la gare d’Austerlitz, une centaine de fonctionnaires attendaiant le train
spécial... Les vrais privilégies ne se trouvaient pas sur le quai, non plus que
les vrais responsables. Ils avaient
quitté Paris depuis long
temps.”《藏海居士集》卷下〈春雪後寄范長民〉云：「扶持衰病元無術，感嘆飄零漫有詩。」第十首三、四句即本其意。
〇《疑耀》卷五說陳仲子事，謂螬可療目，故三嗜而目有見，引《本草》及《晉書》盛彥母為證（《菽園雜記》卷三記當塗邵某母食蠐螬瞽目復明事，可參觀）。又說張翰事，謂《本草》言蓴、鱸二物作羮，可下氣止嘔。季鷹當時意思鬱逆，故作此憶。亦陸、黃說經之類。江叔海《石翁山房札記》卷三引牟廷相《詩切》鑿空諸例，如〈桑中〉刺醜夫欲得美室而不諧，〈有蓷〉咏醜婦欲去其夫[8]，〈澤陂〉嘲人怕婦；羅慎齋《詩說》謂「視爾如荍，貽我握椒」乃指男陽女陰[9]，尤荒誕矣。竊謂皆《鄭箋》階之厲。〈草蟲〉：「亦既覯止」，《鄭箋》謂是「媾精」，故《漢學商兌》卷中之下斥之云：「天下豈有作詩自言如此？況其為女子之言，大夫之妻乎？」
【〇范鎮《東齋記事》卷一云：「賞花釣魚賦詩，往往宿製。天聖中，永興軍進『山水石』，因命賦〈山水石歌〉，出於不意，多荒惡者。中坐優人入戲，各執筆若吟咏狀。一人忽仆於石上，曰：『日來作賞花釣魚詩，準備應制，郤被這石頭捺倒。』」按《清高宗詩文十全集》卷二十九〈紫光閣錫宴聯句得詩二首〉：「蕆功自是資提戟，聯句何妨有捉刀」，自注：「平定兩金川戰勝成功[10]，實賴武臣之力。至宴間聯句，不妨人代為之。且邇年新正聯句皆預擬御製句成，其餘則命內廷翰林擬就，臨時填名，非即席自作。」】
〇《鐵圍山叢談》卷三云：「熙寧間，東平有名士王景亮，喜名貌人，後反為人號作『猪觜關』。」按《苕溪漁隱叢話前集》卷五十五引《桐江詩話》云：「元祐間，東平王景亮，與諸仕族無成子結為一社，純事嘲誚，士大夫無問賢愚，一經諸人之目，即被不雅之名，當時人號曰『猪觜關』。」二書皆未言「猪觜」之義。《朱子語類》卷一百三十云：「宣政間，鄆州子弟聚州前旅店中。每士夫過，以嘴伸縮作猪掘土狀，以示長短，號『猪嘴關』。」則了然矣。《桐江詩話》謂「說法馬留」乃嘲呂惠卿，《鐵圍山叢談》謂嘲呂升卿，未知孰是。
〇齋藤謙《拙堂文話》雖不免牖中窺月，未極海天之觀［如《續文話》泛引喻古文於山水語，有隨園〈武夷山記〉云：「以文論山，武夷無直筆，故曲；無平筆，故峭；無復筆，故新；無散筆，故遒緊」，而不知此乃當時常談：翁霽堂《賜書堂詩稿》卷一〈同張南華尚湖晚步〉云：「友如作畫須求澹，山似論文不喜平」；洪北江《卷施閣詩》卷十二〈曉發玉屏口占六首‧之一〉云：「眼前指點為文法，似此峯巒始不平」；後來如鄭子尹《巢經巢詩集》卷三〈自毛口宿花堌〉亦云：「君試親行當自知。此道如讀昌黎之文少陵詩，眼著一句見一句，未來都匪夷所思」【金子青《三李堂集》卷二〈追悼樊大〉第一首自注引樊硯雲〈病起〉詩云：「貧來交友須求淡，雲起看山便不平」，蓋襲翁霽堂語也；尚喬客《持雅堂文集》卷二〈與婁澗筠明府論古文書〉全以名山比目清代文家（「侯朝宗如少室凌空；姚姬傳如金焦相對；惲子居如太行鬱蟠」等凡十九家）】。又如《續文話》卷二引惲子居〈游通天巖記〉云：「巖，岸也，其不際水者曰巗山；瀆無所通曰谿；泉出通川曰谷。（中略）小山岌大山，大山宮小山，小山別大山，皆有之。（中略）凡狀山水，莫善於《爾雅》，而《說文》次之」（《大雲山房文稿二集》卷三）【晁補之〈酬李唐臣贈山水短軸〉：「大山宮，小山霍，欲識山高觀石脚。大波爲瀾，小波爲淪，欲知水深觀水津」，《匏廬詩話》卷一已□洪詩仿晁詩】，而不知此亦當時習氣：洪北江《附鮚軒詩》卷四〈遊醉翁亭〉云：「一成坏，再成英，一再曲折山以名。注川曰谿，注谿曰谷，谿行谷行水聲複」；《蘀石齋詩集》四〈西園〉：「一卷山體微，苔蘚臥園角。……眾磊而小礫，小磝而大礐」］。而真積力久，殊有入處，足為此土談藝者他山之石。李次青《天岳山館文鈔》卷二十六〈古文話序〉云：「日本國人所撰《拙堂文話》、《漁村文話》，反流傳於中國」云云，蓋同、光古文家已覩其書矣。卷一云：「物徂徠與王弇州東西屹對，並為曠世偉人」【岡千仞《觀光紀游》明治十七年十二月七日：「李芋仙曰：『方今詩人，西有芋仙，東有鹿門』」】；又云：「先師精里先生曰：『大抵世儒不能自立脚跟，常依傍西人之新樣而畫葫蘆』」；又云：「袁、徐猶可參，如金、李輩小說家耳，或尊為太山北斗，使西人聞之，必曰東方無人」；又云：「西土文章日衰，本邦文章日隆」；又云：「袁子才以詩、文鳴於西土，但其言頗淫靡，傷風教者不少。頃得石鈞《清素堂集》，〈與宋左彝書〉、〈與王應和論文書〉指斥某翁。因是觀之，西人既有不服隨園者」；又引《隨園詩話》斥方望溪、屈晦翁，而論之云：「方、屈皆西土有名之士、猶貽嗤笑。紀曉嵐《瀛奎律髓》批本老杜以下有不合其意者，一筆勾斷，恣加辯駁。使隨園見之，其謂之何？」；卷七云：「國家字，西人獨用之於天子，我邦不必拘，可矣」；又云：「凡籍貫，當書其所座，不當效西土人，書其生之所自出。如物徂徠自稱三河，室鳩巢自稱英賀，非是。西土人猶以此為非，況本邦舊無此例乎」；又云：「近人或書生人名曰『諱某』，甚為不祥，西土亦有此誤」；卷八云：「西土記都邑者，有宋人《夢華錄》、《夢游錄》等書」；又云：「精里先生〈題觀弈圖〉，孰謂東人之文不若西土哉」；又云：「西洋人輸駱駝，邦人少見多怪，西人常資以為用，唯見其材能，未見其詭異也」；《續文話》卷二云：「我邦每事後於西土，獨祝壽之禮，先於西土數百年，且以四十為壽之始。」凡所言「西土」皆指中國，亦猶歐洲人以印度為東土，而中國則以歐洲與印度並稱「二西」（見《昭代叢書》甲集《西方要紀‧小引》又《鮚埼亭詩集》卷八〈二西詩〉），所謂《論衡‧四諱》、《邵氏聞見後錄》卷一（仁宗語）：「西家之東即東家之西」也。《文話》卷七云：「我邦神聖繼統，別成一天下，其曰『中國』，謂我邦中土也。近人稍知『倭奴』、『大東』等之非，改曰『皇和』，是亦效西土，未盡善也。」此則如法顯《佛國記》之稱印度為「中國」，而稱中國為「邊地」。Aristotle, Politics,
VIII. 7 以希臘為世界之中心，Vitruvius, On
Architecture, Bk. VI, sect. 3-11 以羅馬為世界之中心，而 Ibn
Khaldum 以亞剌伯為世界之中心也（詳見 Morris
R. Cohen, The Meaning of Human History,
pp. 148-150）。汪介人《中州雜俎》卷二云：「汝寧為天中，有天中山。周都潁川陽城，謂之地中。故洛陽為天下之中，此『古中國』也；《史通》以荊州為其地之中，此『今中國』也；《道書》以崑崙為天地之中，潁川陽城特『中國』之中耳；成光子以中天竺為天地之中；《呂氏春秋》曰：『白人之南，建木之下[11]，日中無影，蓋天地之中也。』皆不可辨」云云。又參觀《露書》卷二「天地之中」條。【《唐文拾遺》卷七十一引《日本書紀》卷二十五日本國王孝德〈薄葬詔〉云：「朕聞西土之君，戒其民。」】【《碧鷄漫志》卷二、《駱臨海集》卷四：宋玉為「西鄰」。】【崔致遠《桂苑筆耕集》洪奭周〈序〉：「吾東方之有文章」；〈自序〉：「離家西泛。」】
〇鏑木清方《日本風俗畫大成》第八冊（明治時代）中有《郵便報知新聞》六幅，出月岡芳年、小林永濯手，恍然悟《點石齋畫報》所自出。而吳友如輩筆致粗俗，殊有邯鄲學步之歎。《皇朝類苑》卷四十三引《楊文公談苑‧日本僧》條云：「國中多習王右軍書，寂照頗得其筆法。國王弟與寂照書，章草特妙，中土能書者亦尠及」；陶穀《清異錄》卷四「卯品」條謂「日本人筆法有晉人標韻」；王山史《山志‧初集》卷六記郭宛委遺論云：「家君提兵遼左時，覘騎獲倭帥豐臣書一紙，間以行草，蒼勁古雅，宛然晉、唐風格，且腕力獨至，其草書却不可讀」；葉德暉《郋園詩鈔》第一種《觀古堂詩錄》中第三種《漢上集‧客居日本松廼旅社》第十首云：「千載同文俗漸移，人人書似小唐碑。縱然狂草皆淳化，說與蘇黃恐不知」，自注：「書法人人有晉、唐筆意，行草多似〈閣帖〉，今則佉盧東漸矣」，皆非妄歎。《人境廬詩草》卷七〈續懷人詩〉云：「直引蛇行橫蟹足，而今安用此毛錐？」自注：「日本謂西文為『蟹行書』」，可與郋園詩注參證。安知「佉盧東漸」、「不用毛錐」乃在齋藤謙所謂「西土」乎？
六百二十七[12]
Pantagruel,
ch. 15: “une vache avecques un pet en [i.e. les murailles de Paris] abbatroit
plus de six brasses” (Oeuvres Complètes
de Rabelais, éd. Jean Plattard, II, p. 77). In China, it is the canine, not
the bovine, race which is endowed with this ability of “parler du cul,” to
borrow a phrase used by Rabelais in another connection (Ibid., ch. 9, p. 49: “Je croy, dist Eustenes, que les Gothz
parloient ainsi. Et, si Dieu vouloit, ainsi parlerions nous du cul”). In the Arabian Nights, however, the ass is the Furz-major or a master of the “langaige
gastréiforme” (cf. the story “Les Joyeulsetez du Roy Loys le Unziesme” in
Balzac’s Contes Drolatiques, éd.
Louis Conard, I, p. 133), e.g. “‘With your permission, I will enjoy myself for
a short time, as I am sure Adamkin cannot hear me.’ So saying, the ass brayed
violently & followed this noise with a magnificent series of three hundred
running farts” (The Thousand Nights &
One Night, tr. P. Mathers, I, p. 792). The arse of the Ass in Apuleius
speaks in a language much less ethereal &, if we adopt George Tyrrell’s
distinction, more bookish[13]
(cf. Baron Friedrich von
Hügel, Selected Letters, p. 13: “Solid, liquid,
gas — are the three forms in which thoughts can be presented; the last for an
audience; the second for a book; the first for an Archangel in retreat”): “fimo
fistulatim excusso quosdam extremi liquoris aspergine, alios putore nidoris
faetidi, a meis iam quassis scapulis abegisset” (Metamorphoses, IV. 3); “liquida fimo strictim egesta faciem atque
oculos eius confoedassem” (VII. 28).
Pantagruel,
ch. 15: “Une vieille sempiterneuse... voyant le lyon venir, tumba de peur à la
renverse en telle faczon que le vent luy renversa robbe, cotte et chemise
jusques au dessus des espaules. Ce que voyant, le lyon [dict au regnard]: Regarde
que la plaie est grande: depuis le cul jusques au nombril, mesure quatre, mais
bien cinq empans et demy.... Je me doubte que la playe soit vieille. Pourtant,
afin que les mousches n’y prennent, esmouche la bien fort, je t’en prie, et
dedans et dehors. Tu as bonne queue et longue: esmouche, mon amy,... et ce
pendent je voys querir de la mousse, pour y mettre.... Le pauvre regnard
esmouchoit fort bien et deçà et delà, dedans et dehors; mais la faulse vieille
vesnoit et vessoit puant comme cent diables... Le lyon finablement retourne,
portant de mousse plus que n’en tiendroient dix et huit balles, et commença en
mettre dedans la playe, avec un baston qu’il apporta, et y en avoit ja bien mis
seize balles et demye et s’esbahyssoit: ‘Que diable! ceste playe est parfonde...’
Mais le regnard l’advisa: ‘O compère lyon... ne metz icy toute la mousse;
gardes en quelque peu, car y a encores icy dessoubz un aultre petit pertuys qui
put comme cinq cens diables...’”[14]
(op. cit., II, pp. 79-81; incidentally,
this is the passage quoted in extenso
by Alfred Perlès in his My Friend Henry Miller, pp. 101-2 to show that Rabelais &
Miller “belong to the same race of men”). In Pantagruel, ch. 31, Panurge gave une vieille lanternière to le roi Anarche as his wife & said to
Pantagruel: “Elle n’a garde de péter... Ne voyez-vous que les châtaignes qu’on
fait cuire au feu si elles sont entières, elles pètent que c’est raige; et,
pour les engarder de peter
l’on les entame. Aussi
ceste nouuelle mariée est bien entamée parle bas, ainsi elle ne petera point” (op. cit., II, p. 160). If so, the vieille sempiterneuse must have been “bud”
or “cherry”. Cf. Oeuvres de Tabarin, “Classiques
Garnier”, p. 57: “Amésure que les femmes ouvrent la bouche ferment le ponant;
et, si de cas fortuit elles veulent ouvrir la porte de derrière et lascher la
bride à quelque sifflement...., vous les voyez serrer les lèvres et faire la
petite bouche”; p. 177: “la femme pette mieux que l’homme.” The old hag also
reminds one of Mother-of-Calamity in “The Tale of King Umar Al-Numān” in Arabian Nights: a nasty old Christian
famous for her “ringing farts” which “went fuming towards the moon” or made “a
cloud of dust spring up” or “startled the horses & sent pebbles jumping
from the road” (The Thousand Nights &
One Night, tr. P. Mathers, I, pp. 480, 785), & whose smell was as
powerful as their sound & fury (p. 604: “All her perfumes with their
scented arts could not disguise the fetor of her farts”). At the beginning of
the tale, we find Mother-of-Calamity in a position like that of the vieille sempiterneuse: “She lay twisting
about, with her legs waving in the air, so that she showed all the laughable
horrors of her wrinkled & hairy flesh” (p. 480). The word plaie anticipates gash in English slang, which, as E. Partridge says in his Dictionary, is “a brutally realistic
name” for women’s genitals. For the fox’s suggestion, see 鈔本百回本《綠野仙踪》第七回：“削竹為梃，截木為釘[15]；挺其已往，釘其將萌”; but cf. Nicarchus in Greek
Anthology, XI. Cccxcv: “A fart which cannot find an outlet kills many a
man; a fart also saves, sending forth its lisping music” (“The Loeb Classical
Library”, IV, p. 261; cf. Le Quart Livre,
ch. 17: “Plus de celluy honteux lequel, par retenir son vent et default de
peter un meschant coup, subitement mourut en la presence de Claudius” — op. cit., IV, p. 84 — an exaggeration of
a passage in Suetonius, Claudius,
32).
Le
Tiers Livre, ch. 27, Frère Jean advised Panurge that he should be assiduous
in doing his marital duty: “Si tu y fais intermission; tu es perdu, pauvret, et
t’adviendra ce que advîent es nourrisses. Si elles desistent alaicter enfans,
elles perdent leur laict. Si continuellement ne exerces ta mentule, elle perdra
son laict, et ne te servira que de pissotière” ((op. cit., III, p. 126). Cf. Grose: “The old fellow thought he had
an erection; but his — was only piss-proud” (quoted in Partridge, Dictionary of Slang, art. “Morning Pride”)
& 朱京藩《風流院》第十折：“管他十分來不得，尿也撒他兩泡當數”.
Mes
Poisons: 1. On C—L—P’s Marriage: He will be her stiff, though he cannot
become stiff enough to bore her. 2. On C—L—P who, besides being a bore & babilans, is a miser: Highbrow? Hebrew?
Shylock (see Partridge, Dict. of Slang,
art. “Key”). 3. On an importunate woman: A dogged bitch. 4. Dictator’s wish:
that the people should have no tongue because they are supposed to have some
voice in the state affairs.
The
Arabian Nights contain the story of a bridegroom who had his thumbs cut
because he did not wash his hands after eating garlic. “Why did you eat zīrbājah
& not wash your hands?” The bride fiercely demanded & called him “vulgar”
& “criminal” (The Thousand Nights &
One Night, tr. P. Mathers, I, p. 274). Cf. Horace, Epodes, III to Macaenas
who has eaten garlic which is worse than hemlock (cicutis allium nocentius): “precor / manum puella suavio opponat
tuo, / extrema et in sponda cubet” (Odes
& Epodes, “The Loeb Class. Lib.”, p. 372); Swift: “Verses Made for
Fruit Women”: “But lest your kissing should be spoil’d, / Your onions must be
thoroughly boil’d: / Or else you may spare your mistress a share, / The secret
will never be known; / She cannot discover / The breath of her lover, / But
think it as sweet as her own” (A. Chalmers, English
Poets, XI, p. 461); Dorothy Dix to Jane who inquired if it would be too
much to ask her lover to refrain from eating onion: “Become an onion eater yourself”
(David L. Cohn, Love in America, p. 142); 屈翁山《詩外》卷十四〈勸姬人酒〉云：“每嫌明月夜，酒氣太薰卿。不若同沾醉，氤氳直到明”; cf. 第二百十則. Southey, Commonplace
Book, ed. J.W. Water, II, 649 quoting Evlia[16]:
“When Satan stept out from Paradise on the earth garlic sprung up from the spot
whereon he had put his left foot, & onions where he set his right.” In
Daniele Varè’s story “Sogno d’una notte d’estate”, the French gourmet Henri de
Valois pushed a Chinese servant into the river because he breathed on the
silver pot ready to be filled with la
mousse aux lichees à la chinoise: “Il fiato dei coolies cinesi.... neutralizzerebbe
tutti i profumi di Houbigant... Aglio concentrato e in triplice estratto! cicutis allium nocentius, come scrive
Orazio” (La Gabbia d’Avorio, p. 196).
In the Arabian Nights, an infidel’s soul makes its exit by the anus when
he gives up his ghost: “His unbelieving soul fled through his backside &
went to mingle with the fires of hell” (The
Thousand Nights & One Night, tr. P. Mathers, I, p. 600; also pp. 617,
785), though, as it is often a case of a warrior dying in action, Tasso’s
description would have been more suitable: “Né cessò mai sin che nel seno immersa
/ gli ebbe una volta e due la fera spada. / Cade il meschin sulla ferita, e
versa / gli spirti, e l’alma fuor per doppia strada” (Gerus. Lib., V, 31; “Biblioteca classica Hoepliana”, p. 105), cf. L’oeuvre du Divin Arétin (“Les Maîtres
d’Amour” series), I, p. 111: “Elle... lui qit sortir l’âme par ou sort le pain degree.”
In his account of “le people outré” (Le
Cinquiesme Livre, ch. 17), Rabelais writes: “[Les gens du païs] estoient
tous outrés, et tous petoient de graisse; et... ils déchiquetoient leur peau,
pour y faire bouffer la graisse.... Nous entendismes en l’air un son haut et
strident, comme si quelque gros chesne esclatoit en deux
pieces; lors fut dit par les voisins que les crevailles estoient faictes, et
que cestuy esclat estoit le ped de la mort. Là me souvint du venerable Abbé de
Castilliers, celuy qui ne daignoit biscoter ses chambrieres, nisi in Pontificalibus, lequel importuné
de ses parens et amis de resigner sus ses vieux jours son Abbaye, dist et protesta, que point ne se despouilleroit
devant soy coucher, et que le dernier ped que feroit sa paternité seroit un ped
d’Abbé” (op. cit., V, pp. 60-61). Cf.
Rousseau, Les Confessions, Liv. II: “[Mme
de Vercellis] ne garda le lit que les deux derniers jours, et ne cessa de s’entretenir paisible ment avec tout le monde. Enfin ne parlant
plus, et déjà dans les combats de l’agonie, elle fit un gros pet. Bon! dit-elle
en se retournant, femme qui pète n’est pas morte. Ce furent les derniers mots
qu’elle prononça” (Éd. “Bibliothèque de la Pléiade”, p. 82).《文章游戲》二編卷八〈杭州俗語集對〉：“上無氣，下無屁；窮生蝨，晦生瘡。” In the French film La Grande Bouffe, middle-aged, middle-class men resolved to eat
themselves to death & one expires from a gigantic fart. Cf. the ancient
Roman superstition which is said to survive among Tyrolese peasants that a man’s
soul issues from his mouth at death (E.B. Taylor, Primitive Culture, in V.F. Calverton, The Making of Man, p. 642); 補見六百十二則眉[17]【［補六二七則］[Arabian Nights, the issue of
the soul] V. Pareto, A Treatise on
General Sociology, tr. A. Bongiorno & A. Livingston, Dover ed., I, p.
434, note to §695, quoting Theil, Dictionnaire
complet d’Homère, art. ψυχἠ: ... When a man dies this vital principle goes
out through his mouth (Iliad, IX,
408-9) or through a wound (Il., XIV,
518-9). Sir Fleetwood Shepherd: “Epitaph on the French King”: “All earthly
glory’s but a Farce — / Here lyes a Monarch kill’d with his A— [fistula in ano]
/ The Papists pray for his sweet Soul / That went out of a stinky hole” (The Literary Works of Matthew Prior, ed.
H.B. Wright & M.K. Spears, vol. II, p. 845). Cf. Vasari, Lives, “Orcagna”
(Everyman’s Lib., I, p. 146).】
The aphrodisiac function of fear has
been analysed by Havelock Ellis in his Studies
in the Psychology of Sex, II, pp. 138, 172-3. The cathartic function of
fear was early pointed out by Aristotle in his Poetics, XIV, 1-2, but fear is also cathartic in a sense other than
the Aristotelian one, as witness the scholia’s gloss on Aristophanes, The Birds, 66: “Dicit hoc, quasi prae
timore cacaverit” (“The Loeb Class. Lib.”, II, p. 137) & on The Frogs, 307-8, Xanthias: “How pale I
grew to see her, But he, from fright
has yellowed me all over”: “At ille prae timore in me cacavit” (p. 325);
Coleridge, Collected Letters, ed.
E.L. Griggs, I, p. 9: “Urine, the soft flowing Daughter of Fright” & idioms
like “屁滾尿流”, “avoir la foire”, “er macht (or hat) die Hosen voll” or “dem wird
seine Hose schon zu eng” etc. “Filled with terror, the hunchback felt all his
belly dissolve in a diarrhea” (The Thousand
Nights & One Night, tr. P. Mathers, I, p. 198). Rabelais expatiates on
the laxative effect of fear in Le Quart
Livre, ch. 67: “La vertus retentrice du nerf qui restrainct le muscle nommé
Sphincter (c’est le trou du cul) estoit dissolue par la vehemence de paour... s’ouvre
le guichet du serrail auquel est à temps la matière fecale retenue. Exemple en messer
Pantolfe de la Gassine, Senois, lequel en poste passant par Chambéry, et chez
le sage mesnagier Vinet descendant prit une fourche de l’estable, puys luy dist:
‘Da Roma in qua io non son andato del corpo. Di gratia, piglia in mano questa
forcha, et fa mi paura.’ Vinet, avecques la fourche, faisoit plusieurs tours d’escrime,
comme feignant le vouloir à bon essyant frapper. Le Senoys luy dist: ‘Se tu non
faialtramente, tu non fai nulla. Pero sforzati di adoperarli più guagliardamente.’
Adoncques Vinet de la fourche luy donna un si grand coup entre col et collet qu’il
le jetta par jerre à jambes rebidaines... A bonne heure avoit le Senoys ses
chausses destachées, car soubdain il fianta... En fin, le Senoys gracieusement remercia
Vinet, se luy dist: Io ti ringratio, bel messere. Cosi facendo tu m’hai esparmiata
la speza d’un servitiale.’
Exemple aultre en roy d’Angleterre,
Edouard le Quint... Un jour le Roy susdict, estant à ses affaires, monstra à
Villon les armes de France en paincture, et luy dist: ‘Voyds tu quelle reverence
je porte à tes roys Françoys? Ailleurs n’ay je leurs armoyries qu’en ce
retraict icy, prés ma scelle persée.’ ‘Sacre Dieu, respondit Villon.... Car
seulement les voyant, vous avez telle vezarde et paour si honificque que
soubdain vous fiantez comme dixhuyct bonases de paeonie.’”[18]
(op. cit., IV, pp. 241-3). For the
projectile power of Poeonia in excreting, see Pliny, Hist. Nat., VIII. 2.《國策‧燕策二》：“今宋王射天笞埊，鑄諸侯之象，使侍屏匽，展其臂，彈其鼻。”
At an International Congress of
Philosophy at Oxford, Irwin Edman met Croce & recorded their conversation
in Philosopher’s Holiday: “I remarked
that one of the reasons I was glad to have learned the Italian language was
that I could now read his Estetica in
the original. The translation was abominable. ‘So I gather,’ he said, ‘But non si deve dire. The translator is
standing right near us.’ ‘It does not matter. I do not believe he understands
Italian.’” (“Penguin Books”, p. 30). The habit of writing for slick magazine
has festered in Edman a tendency towards smart-aleckishness & wise-crackery
which makes the veracity of his statements suspect[19],
but that it must be conceded whatever may be his knowledge of Italian, Douglas
Ainsley’s English is atrocious. I have not Croce’s original Poesia e Non-poesia by me, but I can see
that European Literature in the 19th
Century is a poor translation. Yet, with all its bad grammar (e.g., p. 139:
“although... but yet...”) & malapropism (e.g., p. 139: “adhesion” for “adherence”),
its loose-jointed sentences & slipshod language, I can also see from the
translation as in a glass darkly that Croce is a remarkably fine critic who has
warmed his hands before the fire of life & good literature. I even think
that his practical criticism will wear better than his aesthetic theory. He is
sensitive & incisive, and, with his reputation as a philosopher &
historian established beyond cavil, can afford to make short shrift of “historical
criticism” & “philosophical poetry” without fear & without mercy. His
cool aplomb & light touch in brushing aside such cobwebs of criticism are
delightful & bespeak a certain aristocratic hauteur. His gibier favori
(cf. Sainte-Beuve, Mes Poisons, p.
111: “chaque critique a son gibier favori sur lequel il tombe et qu’il dépèce
de préférence”) seems to be French academic criticism — e.g., p. 192 on the
author of Henri Heine Penseur, pp. 207 ff. on a French literary historian who
fulsomely praises Georges Sand, pp. 267 ff. on Brunetière).
Croce & Saintsbury exchanged
some feline amenities, the former dismissing digiuno di filosofia (Aesthetics,
tr. Ainsley, p. 477) while the latter punning on the danger of Aesthetics
becoming Anaesthetics & benumbing one’s literary sense & sensibility (History of Criticism, III, p. 188).
There is, however, more agreement in their views than they think or care to
admit; both, for instance, hold that in poetry matter is immaterial: “Nothing
depends upon the subject; all upon the treatment of the subject” (History of Criticism, III, p. 409; cf.
p. 533 on “treating poetically”); “It may be true & it may be false that
Schiller later changed his political attitude, but poetry may equally well
appear in either or neither of these cases” (Europ. Lit. in the 19th Cent., p. 36); “But poetry is
written about all the passions, even about those which seem, like love, to be
the most poetical” (Europ. Lit., p.
167); “There are joke & joke, satire & satire, didactics &
didactics, the one poetical, the other prosaic, because there is always le ton qui fait la chanson, & the
material that appears to be identical in the abstract belongs to the one or the
other class according to the spirit which breathes within” (Europ. Lit., p. 182). Such a view of the
role of subject matter is in keeping with Croce’s insistence on liricità & his theory that “in ogni
poeta e in ogni libro di poesia vi è oltre, la poesia... ‘allotrio’” (Giovanni
Castellano, Benedetto Croce, Seconda
Ed., p. 77). All this shows that Croce belongs to the movement of “Pure Poetry”.
Small wonder that he should have praised Baudlaire as one of the profoundest
writers on art (Europ. Lit., p. 288) — Baudelaire who was the originator of the concept,
if not the name of “Pure Poetry” (cf. Valéry, Variété II, pp. 145 ff. & René Lalou, Défense de l’homme, pp. 61 ff.; the English term was first used by
Thomas Warton & revived by Francis Jeffrey in his criticism of James Hogg’s
Queen’s Wake, see J.A. Greig, Francis Jeffrey, pp. 133 & 166, of
course in a sense quite different from what Valéry calls “poésie à l’état pure”
in op. cit., p. 166). Indeed, thanks
to his philosophy of spirit which distinguishes & gives accommodation to
four “moments”, il bello, il vero,
l’utile et il buono can live peacefully together in a house of many
mansions, each reigning supreme in a room of its own. “Art for Art’s Sake” or “Poetry
for Poetry’s Sake” becomes for him a matter of course.
“Alfieri ends by admiring &
sympathizing with his Tyrants... whom yet he strikes down inexorably with the
axe” (Europ. Lit., pp. 7-8). The same
thing happens to Homer & the Trojans (cf. B. Constant, quoted in Leopardi, Zibaldone, II, p. 320), to Dante &
some of his sinners (cf. M.R. Cohen, The
Faith of a Liberal, p. 240), to Milton & his Satan: “the Devil had...
been his hero instead of Adam” (Dryden, “Dedication of the Aeneis”); “Milton was
a true poet and of the Devil’s party without knowing it” (Blake, “The Marriage
of Heaven & Hell”); “Milton’s devil as a moral being is... mush superior to
his God” (Shelley, “A Defence of Poetry”); “Privo di Satana, il suo ‘Paradiso
Perduto’ ci parrebbe deserto; come il paradiso terrestre, nel medesimo poema,
sembrava allo stesso Adamo, prima della creazione della donna... Fra noi e le altre
creature celesti del Milton, è differenza di natura; fra noi e Satana, soltanto
di grado” (Bonaventura Zumbini, Studi di
letterature straniere, quoted in E. E. Grillo, Ital. Prose Writers, pp. 554-5); Chamfort, Caractères et Anecdotes, éd. par Ad. van Bever, p. 168: “J’ai vu
peu de fierté don’t j’ai été content ce que je connais de mieux en ce genre, c’est
celle de Satan dans le Paradis perdu”;
see M. Praz, Romantic
Agony, p. 56-7; H.J.C.
Grierson, Cross-currents in Eng. Lit. of
the 17th Cent., Ed. “Harper Torchbooks”, pp. 256-7.
“Monti lacked that kind of feeling
which is generally understood as feeling for real things, moral, political or
religious, etc. But there is a corner of the world, which is called ‘literature’
& has a reality of its own, inspiring emotions which also have their
reality.... But literary & artistic feeling is among the modest &
poorest; because it is limited to love of external forms... void of the life
which they once contained, like jars & phials which had held perfumes &
still retain something of their odorous traces” (Europ. Lit., p. 27). Cf. Gosse on Swinburne’s “high literary
temperature”: “He reminds us of the hero of Gautier’s novel (which he admired
so extravagantly) ‘dont la sensualite imaginative s’est compliquée et raffinée,
avant, l’expérience, dans les musées et les bibliothèques.’ Swinburne displayed
a prodigious sensibility, which was fed on books & pictures, not on life” (Humphry
Ward, ed., English Poets, V, p. 370).
Cf. Croce, Poesia popolare e poesia d’arte,
p. 449 on Poliziano: “alla voluttà delle cose si unisce la voluttà dell’elegante
letteratura”; Fr. Schlegel, Literary
Notebooks, ed. H. Eichner, p. 36: Ҥ189. Es soll Naturkunst geben und
Kunstkunst”; Leopardi, Zibaldone, ed.
F. Flora, I, 1153; Jo
Création hn Butt in Essays on the 18th Century
Presented to D.N. Smith, pp. 76-7; H. Weber, La Creation poétique en France au 16e siecle, I, pp. 116
f.; F.T. Marinetti on D’Annunzio: “Fiore di carta sbocciato fuor dalla polvere
delle biblioteche”(D. Provenzal, Dizionario
delle Immagini, p. 237). Curious enough, Byron’s opinion of Monti who owes
all his poetry to art & learning is, if we believe Stendhal: “He knows not
how he is a poet” (E.J. Lovell, ed., His
Very Self & Voice, p. 197); cf. Jean Levaillant: “Chez France, comme chez
La Fontaine, Flaubert ou Chénier, le livre nait du livre. Mais aussi, mais
surtout de la vie... Le livre propose des images, la vie des joies et des
souffrances: la création se tisse au point de rencontre, au point d’échange... Thaïs n’aurait pas vu la jour sans la
passion de France pour Mme Arman” etc. (Revue d’Hist. litt. de la France, Oct.-Déc., 1955, p. 472).
“It is only owing to the confusion
of history of poetry with that of culture that it has been possible to create
the couple Goethe-Schiller” (Europ. Lit.,
p. 30); “I have only wished to transfer Georges Sand also from the sphere [sic] Literaturgeschichte
to that of Kulturgeschichte where
alone her work can be adequately understood & justice rendered to it” (p.
229). Cf. F.L. Leavis, New Bearings in
English Poetry, p. 73: “But the Sitwells belong to the history of publicity
rather than of poetry.” Cf. Nietzsche（六二八則眉）[20].【［補六二七則］Croce, Europ.
Lit., p. 30. Cf. Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung:
“Streifzüge eines Unzeitgemässen”, §16: “Die Deutschen sagen ‘Goethe und Schiller’, — ich fürchte, sie sagen ‘Schiller
und Goethe’. Kennt man noch nicht
diesen Schiller? Es giebt noch schlimmere ‘und’; ich habe mit meinen eigenen
Ohren, allerdings nur unter Universitäts-Professoren, gehört ‘Schopenhauer und Hartmann’” (Werk, hrsg. K.
Schlechta, II, S. 1000); René Doumic: “L’oeuvre d’Alexandre Dumas tient une
grande place dans l’histoire littéraire et n’en tient aucune dans la
littérature” (quoted Revue d’Histoire littéraire
de la France, Avril-Juin, 1957, p. 265).】
“An over-excited & convulsed
realism, considered echt deutsch,
ur-germanisch, is nothing but an indigestion of Shakespeare” (Europ. Lit., p. 33). Cf. Grillparzer’s
essay “Zur Literargeschichte”: “Es fand sich auf einmal, dass die deutsche
Nation eine urpoetische sei, obgleich die aufgefundenen Gedichte, mit Ausnahme
des rätselhaften Nibelungenliedes, den fremden Ursprung eingeständlich und
offen an der Stirn trugen. Man postulierte antediluvianische,
mastodontisch-ichthyosaurische Volksepen, oder doch Fragmente derselben” u.s.w.
(Gesammelte Werke, hrsg. E. Rollett &
A. Sauer, Bd. VII, S. 144-5).
“Werner’s Weihe der Unkraft proves that he was quite capable of rolling
himself in the dust before people’s eyes & of carrying out the most
humiliating acts of penitence, but not of accomplishing in himself the truly
human redemption which gathers itself together in silence” (Europ. Lit., pp. 46-7). Cf. Castellano, Benedetto Croce, p. 55; “[Il Croce]
preferisce di gran lunga in tale riguardo [i.e. ethics, religion, patriotism,
etc.] di passare per uomo e scrittore freddo. Anche a questo proposito egli
ripete a s é stesso i versi di un poeta italiano del
Risorgimento, da lui scoperto e riscoperto, di Alessandro Poerio: ‘Gentil quell’amator
che di sua donna / pensi e non dica!’”【Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Vol de Nuit, Préface d’André Gide, . 15: “Je pourrais mettre en
épigraphe à cette citation un apophtegme extrait du livre de Quinton: ‘On se
cache d’être brave comme d’aimer’; ou mieux encore: ‘Les braves cachent leurs
actes comme les honnêtes gens leurs aumônes. Ils les déguisent ou s’en excusent.’”】Or as
Croce’s favorite poet Alfred di Vigny says in La Mort du Loup: “Seul le silence est grand; tout le reste est
faiblesse.”
“Scott’s manner of describing &
narrating exercised its influence upon professional historians & led them
to abandon the colourless method of historiography” (Europ. Lit., pp. 69-70). Cf. Vigny in his Journal...[21]
under the entry “Du roman historique et de l’Histoire Romantique” (a previous entry
on p. 1318 “... l’histoire Romanesque”): “Par une sorte de fusion qui a produit la confusion,
l’oeuvre d’imagination, le roman, a
emprunté à l’histoire l’exactitude et
la réalité des faits tandis que l’histoire,
oeuvre de la mémoire et du jugement, a pris au roman quelque chose
de sa passion, de ses allures tragiques et comiques et ses descriptions
détaillées. Or l’historien est
coupable, et le romancier
ne l’est pas” (Oeuv. com., “la Pléiade”, II, p. 1325). Thackeray,
Works, ed. G. Saintsbury, II, p. 622:
“How astonishingly Sir Walter Scott has influenced the world; how he changed
the character of novelists, then of historians, whom he brought from
their philosophy to the study of pageantry & costume.” Cf. Congress of the ICLA, I, pp. 273 ff.
“By critical I mean the extent to
which an author takes count of difficulties & objections, & by
systematic, the extent to which he links together the various propositions
& reduces them to unity. What is neither critical nor systematic may
apparently resemble an idea, while it is in reality a feeling” (pp. 97-8). Cf.
J.M. Murry, The Problem of Style, p.
29: “The meditation of a writer is, in spite of all analogies, different in
kind from the meditation of the philosopher or the scientist... A tragic poet
is not a pessimistic philosopher... The large & complex emotional conviction,
which is sometimes called ‘a writer’s philosophy’,... may with less danger of misinterpretation
be called his ‘attitude’”; p. 33: “Tragic poets are not pessimistic
philosophers; if they were, they would have written pessimistic philosophies”;
pp. 73-4: “In literature there is no such thing as pure thought; in literature,
thought is always the handmaid of emotion.... The thought that plays a part in
literature is systematized emotion, emotion become habitual till it attains the
dignity of conviction.”
In analysing Stendhal’s “immoralité
systématique” (the term is Anatole France’s, see La Vie Littéraire, II, p. 48). Croce notices “a sort of double soul,
one part watching the other at work & registering results” (Europ. Lit., p. 105). No one seems to
have perceived the affinity between Stendhalian seductio ad absurdum & the technique of Kierkegaard’s Don Juan
as recorded in the Diary of the Seducer.
Marjorie Plant, The Domestic Life of Scotland in the 18th Century, p. 3:
“A French visitor to England in the early 18th century was struck by
the extraordinary amount of attention paid
to young
children: their elders seemed always to be fondling them & holding them up
to admiration, whereas French infants were kept in complete subjection (F.M.
Mission, Memoirs & Observations in
his Travels, London, 1719, p. 33).... If our traveller had gone on to the
Scottish Lowlands he would have found that the children there were brought up
as strictly as those in France.” But cf. Furetière, La Roman Bourgeois, Éd. Porteret, pp. 94-5: “C’est la coustume de
ces bons bourgeois d’avoir toujours leurs enfans devant leurs yeux, d’en faire
le principal sujet de leur entretien, d’en admirer les sottises et d’en boire
toutes les ordures” etc.
Silvio Pellico, Le Mie Prigioni, cap. 60: “Il vecchio [i.e. Schiller]... mi serrò la mano con forza bestiale, e quasi da
storpiarmi. Benché mi facesse male, ne ebbi piacere. Simile al piacere che
prova un innamorato se avviene che la sua diletta, ballando, gli pesti un
piede: griderebbe quasi dal dolore, ma, invece, le sorride, e s’estima beato”
(Pellico, I Capolavori,”Biblioteca classica
Hoepliana”, p. 117). A very charming simile reminiscent of the one in
Shakespeare’s Antony & Cleopatra,
V, ii, 297-8: “The stroke of death is as a lover’s pinch / Which hurts, &
is desired,” though not so “dramatically perfect, bearing an essential part in
the process of the emotional change” (J.M. Murry, The Problem of Style, p. 37). Havelock Ellis, in discussing “Love
& Pain”, quoted these lines in Antony
& Cleopatra as an example that “little escaped” Shakespeare’s “observation”
(Studies in the Psychology of Sex,
II, p. 59). R.v. Krafft-Ebbing also cites these lines in connexion with paraesthesia sexualis (Psychopathia Sexualis, Authorized Eng.
Adaptation by F.J. Rebman, p. 201)[22].
As Camille Bos says, “In pain all is not painful” (quoted in Studies in the Psychology of Sex, II,
p. 93). Cf. 第四十四則、第七九五則論關漢卿《玉鏡臺》.
In contradistinction to the “vulgato
concetto del sistema filosofico” to the popular “credenza di una filosofia
definitiva, cioè della possibilità di raggiungere, una volta o Valtra, la verità
ultima delle cose e fissarla per sempre”, Croce speaks of the “serie incessante
delle sempre nuove sistematizioni filosofiche” (G. Castellano, Benedetto Croce, Seconda Ed., p. 19).
The building of a philosophical system, unlike that of a house, is a kind of
work ever in progress (see第四百八十九則), & hence the ridiculousness of the rubric in Rudolf
Eucken’s autobiography: “Costruisco il mio sistema filosofico e prendo moglie.”
Cf. Jean Paul, Vorschule der Ästhetik,
§9: “In der Philosophie ist das blosse Talent ausschliessend-dogmatisch, sogar
mathematisch und daher intolerant, und es numeriert die Lehrgebäude und sagt,
es wohne No. 1 oder 99 oder so, indes sich der grosse Philosoph im Wunder der
Welt, im Labyrinthe voll unzähliger Zimmer halb über, halb unter der Erde
aufhält. Von Natur hasset der talentvolle Philosoph, sobald er seine
Philosophie hat, alles Philosophieren” (Werke,
hrsg. von R. Wustmann, Bd. IV, S. 96). What Jean Paul said of “der grosse
Philosoph” should be said in connection with Novalis’s opinion of Lessing: “Lessing
sah zu scharf und verlor darüber das Gefühl des undeutlichen Ganzen, die
magische Anschauung der Gegenstände zusammen in mannigfacher Erleuchtung und
Verdunklung” (Fragmente, IV, p. 34, Schriften, hrsg. J. Minor). Cf. M.
Bradbury & J. McFarlane, Modernism,
p. 90.
Gerusalemme
Liberata, III, 2 on “Il saggio Capitan” guiding the Christian soldiers’
march on the Holy City: “Gli ordina, gl’incammina, e ’n suon gli regge / Rapido
sì, ma rapido con legge” (“Biblioteca classica Hoepliana”, p. 53). The second
line might serve as a gloss on Buffon’s famous definition of style: “Le style n’est
que l’ordre et le mouvement qu’on met dans ses pensées.” Cf. Félix Hémon in his
chapter on Buffon in Petit de Julleville, ed., Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française: “Car le movement...
s’épanche de l’ordre, comme d'une source profonde: c’est... un fleuve, non un torrent.
Sans le mouvement, l’ordre resterait inanimé... Sans l’ordre,... le mouvement
dévierait du but. L’ordre prend vie, grâce au mouvement, mais le mouvement est
en germe dans l’ordre... ‘ordre se transforme en mouvement, la clarté en
chaleur, qui elle-même reste claret” (Tome VI, ch. v, pp. 242-3), for “l’ordre”
in French classicism, see Henri Peyre, Le
Classicisme Français, p. 127 ff. Cf. Pater on “mind” & “soul” in Style
(Appreciations, Macmillan, pp. 18-23) &《文心雕龍‧風骨第二十八》.
F.C.S. Schiller’s burlesque Mind! which created some flutter in the
dovecote of Oxford in the ’10’s, contained an article on “The Humour of the Absolute” by “I. Cant.” Judging
by G.V. Cox’s Recollections of Oxford,
the pun on the name of the philosopher of Königsberg is quite an old one;
witness the following specimen from “a rather lengthy but learned & witty jeu-d’esprit, entitled Phrontisterion,” written in 1852 & attributed to Dean Mansel:
“Professors we, from over the sea, / From the land where Professors in plenty
be; / And we thrive & flourish, as well we may, / In the land which
produced one Kant with a K, / And many a Cant
with a C. / Where Hegel taught, to his profit & fame, / That something &
nothing were one & the same” (Recollections,
2nd ed., 1870, p. 385). The Germans themselves are apparently fond
of this pun too, e.g.: Nietzsche, Götzen-Dämmerung: “Streifzüge eines
Unzeitgemässen”, 1. “Kant: oder cant als intelligibler Charakter” (Werke, Taschen-Ausgabe, Alfred Kröner
Verlag, Bd. X, S. 293); E. Bernstein, Voraussetzungen
des Sozialismus, “Schluss: Kant wider Cant.”
In fact, Kant’s father spelled his name Cant
(see De Quincey’s Collected Writings,
ed. David Masson, IV, p. 326). There is also a witty essay on “The Philosophy
of Cant” in “Aguecheek’s” My Unknown Chum:
“I cannot but respect Emmanuel Kant as a remarkable intellectual man; & I
hope to be pardoned for saying that his surname might properly be anglicized,
by spelling it with a C instead of a K.... The useful art of saying ‘No’ opportunely... the philosophy of CAN’T” (p. 366). Hamann, Metakritik: “Die kritische Schule hat
sich in Kants System hineinstudiert und muss seinen cant redden” (quoted in F. Mauthner, Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache, Bd. III, mottos facing p. 1).
“The Professors of philosophy in ‘Titillatio” (a story in Clive Sinclair, Hearts of Gold) struggled, in the act
itself, between Spinoza & spermatozoa, Kant & cunt” (T.L.S., 13 Dec., 1979, p. 114).
Le
Journal des Goncourt, Éd. Déf.
publiée sous la direction
de l’Académie Goncourt, T. III, p. 7, 6 Janvier, 1866: “L’antiquité a peut-être
été faite pour être le pain des professeurs.” True! But modern professors have
a way of disarming such criticism by leveling the charge against their
colleagues, thereby implying that while others in their profession abide the
artists’ criticism, they themselves are free. E.g., H. Taine, Les Philosophes Classiques du 19e
Siècle en France, p. iv: “Quand on leur [les jeunes] demandait ce que c’est que la philosophie
classique , ils répondaient que c’est la philosophie à l’usage des classes”;
F.C.S. Schiller, Must Philosophers
Disagree?, p. 10: “It [the public] turns them [the philosophers] into desiccated
lecture-fodder, which provides innocuous sustenance for ruminant professors”;
C.M. Bowra, A Classical Education, p. 10: “The strict old spirit is
immortalized in the story of the headmaster who said to his sixth form: ‘Boys,
this term you are to have the privilege of reading the Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles, a veritable treasure-house of
grammatical peculiarities’”; Etienne Gilson: “La cause de ses hésitations nait
serait-elle pas simplement que les ouvres d’art, créées par des artistes et
pour des fins artistiques, finissent inévitablement par devenir des objets d’enseignement,[23]
étudiés pour des fins scolaires, et par des professeurs? Le fait est patent,
les conséquences en sont catastrophiques!” (quoted Modern Language Review, Oct. 1955, p. 576). Cf. The Letters of Sir Walter Raleigh, ed.
Lady Raleigh, I, p. 164: “[A propos of Christina Rossetti] you cannot lecture
on really pure poetry any more than you can talk about the ingredients of
really pure water — it is adulterated, methylated, sanded poetry that makes the
best lectures.” Also John Wain in The
London Magazine, II, xi, p. 58: “a too easy acceptance of him [Ezra Pound]
by American Universities, as a subject for these.... The man has become a
classic — in other word, a nuisance.” The French have a saying, “Tout finit en
Sorbonne” (quoted Henri Peyre, The
Contemporary French Novel, p. 13).
六百二十八[24]
俞德鄰《佩韋齋文集》二十卷，故宮博物院影印元刻本。向衹於曹石倉《宋百家詩存》卷十九中覩宗太篇什，又在《讀畫齋叢書》中覩其《輯聞》四卷，即此《集》之卷十七至卷二十也。宗太詩有氣勢，工使事，最擅七律，出入東坡、劍南間。雖詞偶失之堆垛，氣或失之弛懈，感慨沉鬱者，差能自成門戶，非宋末江湖體或江西體，於遺民中足與蕭氷崖抗靳。【補見《翁山詩外》冊十九。】
卷一〈龔聖予號翠巖晚歲更號巖翁為賦〉五古。按同卷〈遣興十首呈孟兵部使君〉云：「髯龔詩中英，髙卧翠巖側。……似聞中饋虛，桑麻欠機織。母氏聖且善，門閭望朝夕。擇婦要得人，在德不在色。」卷二〈題郭元德所藏龔聖予瘦馬圖〉云：「吾聞神駿之肋十有五，雄姿矯矯騰龍虎。……崚嶒瘦骨見者歎，度越駑駘猶萬萬。……我知髯龔欲畫時，天地黯黲風煙悲。離離禾黍今如此，誰識羸驂真騄駬」（卷七有〈題瘦馬圖〉六言絕句：「一十五條瘦肋，八千萬里脩程」云云，亦必為聖予作）。張雨《貞居先生詩集》卷二〈洞庭臥游八篇‧自序〉載龔聖予跋存上人清游舊稿云：「如古師德行道，坐珍果樹下，取自墜者信緣而食，不與獼猴較得失多寡。」湯垕《畫鑒》記龔聖予「身長八尺，碩大美髯」，故宗太有「髯龔」之□。柳貫《柳待制文集》卷十八〈題江磯圖後〉（龔所畫）。卷三〈題白廷玉所藏白馬圖〉；卷七〈訪徐叔詠〉、〈到徐叔詠居〉二詩後跋云：「丁夘正月七日，予與龔君聖予訪叔詠於西湖南山上」；卷八〈熟齋銘并序〉云：「虛谷方公為之箴」；卷九〈困學齋記〉：「漁陽鮮于君[25]……作為歌詩，金舂玉應。……引筆行墨，奇態横生」；卷十一〈龍興祥符戒壇院分韻詩序〉云：「白廷玉來訪」。宋末勝流掛姓名於宗太《集》中，此三人也。
〇〈前哀哉行〉：「妾家淛水東，一門十朱輪。男多衹一女，鍾愛歸妾身。（中略）不忍嫁張掖，愛我歸寧頻。去年邊事起，處處驚爲燐。（中略）羣盜政猖獗，白晝昏埃塵。傳聞官軍至，草木生歡欣。豈料反縱暴，舞戈獵生人。倉皇不得避，驅斥行海濱。避寇寇幸免，依人人不仁（下略）。」
〈後哀哉行〉：「前年强寇至，倉忙避空谷。我里數百家，及歸半魚肉。去年南軍來，詎意行殺戮。縱暴與寇等，十家九家哭。今年迎北軍，膜拜卷兩足。死者歸塗泥，存者依草木。驚魂苦未定，乃復遭驅逐（下略）。」
卷二〈京口遣懷呈張彥明劉伯宣郎中并諸友一百韻〉。按慨歎宋社之屋也，《集》中第一篇大文字，可與汪元量〈醉歌〉並傳。如云：「壞雲覆紫微，疾風捲黄屋。生靈半塗炭，社稷竟傾覆。借問誰厲階，往事具可復。……維時望公閭，高譽儗方叔。遄歸持相印，景定實初卜。百寮逆近郊，至尊略邊幅。策勛告廟庭，陳樂備敔柷。煌煌福華編，傳者筆爲禿。焉知事夸毗，欲掩天下目。（中略）一朝襄樊破，殺氣薄川谷。（中略）沙武倏飛渡，長江儼平陸。（中略）老夏亦遁逃，竟學龜藏六。（中略）總統付虎臣，竊倚晉郤縠。[26]丁洲帥前鋒，未戰兵已衄。潰卒爭倒戈，降將羣袒肉。（中略）區區拒毘陵，曾不事版築。（中略）獨松守張濡，兒戲鬥蠻觸。（中略）庭芝困廣陵，儲亡二年粟。力戰尚可支，而乃事蝸縮。（中略）南紀訖朱厓，一戰絕遺躅。旋聞俘文相，繫頸縶燕獄。又聞陸元樞，抗節死彌篤。（中略）海宇今一家，貢賦均四隩。化日滿窮閻，淳風變頹俗。餘生……」[27]宋遺老於國之亡，多痛斥賈似道，如方虛谷、釋文珦（見第五百二十五則）等是也。宗太獨詳著將帥之庸懦惜死。卷六〈故樞密使陸公挽詞〉第三首云：「羣雄紛愛死，一士獨捐生」；卷七〈感事〉云：「一朝天險失長江，肉食諸公競賣降。受禪碑中無姓字，衹今誰憶鹿門龐」；「投閣先生著劇秦，隴西降將欲全身。沙場無萬沉冤骨，却是周嫠與杞人」，參觀六二六則論《桐江續集》卷十一〈重至秀山售屋將歸〉第九首。卷十八《輯聞》云：「予于北士家見二詩，其一〈讀史詩〉曰：『襄漢雲屯十萬兵，習池酩酊不曽醒。紛紛誤晉皆渠輩，何獨王家一寧馨？』德祐末，邊將沉溺酒色。兵事起，賣降恐後。乃指儒臣，以為誤國。此可以關其口而奪之氣矣！」此篇用意略近，篇末云：「海宇今一家，貢賦均四隩。化日滿窮閻，淳風變頹俗。餘生幸未化，刀劍易牛犢。聊種邵平瓜，且植淵明菊。」可參觀卷二十《輯聞》末一則論「文章與時高下」云：「宋自渡江以來，文人才士視東都諸老，若有愧焉。故説者得以光嶽氣分而議之。方今東西南北，寸地尺土，靡不臣屬。三光五嶽之氣，渾然合矣！大音之振，式在今日」云云，蓋宗太雖乃心故國，不仕新朝（參觀卷四〈次韻簡林紹先諸友三首〉、卷五〈送程道大歸新安兼簡憲使盧處道學士四首〉），亦未嘗奪大一統，而不與元也。參觀三二九則《則堂集》論〈題中州詩集後〉。
卷四〈曲肱〉：「門掩青苔硯掩塵，曲肱隱几自觀身。已憐白髮無公道，獨喜清風似故人。躍馬卧龍俱寂寞，盟鷗狎鷺莫逡巡。東屯澗水通畦稻，植杖看耘意更真。」
〇〈秋日客中〉：「百年三萬六千日，半世東西南北人。」
〇〈次韻碧窗聶道錄〉：「遼鶴不歸人已換，濠魚自樂子焉知。」
〇〈記夢〉：「雲封槐里黯平蕪，無復魚燈照玉鳬。樂奏馬驚猶奮鬣，鼎成龍去莫攀胡。老歸燕國常悲隴，夢斷滎河偶得圖。淳景布衣今白髮，西風搔首獨踟躕。」
〇〈秋殘〉：「緩步當車休下澤，澆愁得酒即中山。」
〇〈次韻簡林紹先諸友〉：「落月照梁疑太白，西風揮扇障元規。」
卷五〈送程道大歸新安兼簡憲使盧處道學士〉：「携妓東山須載酒，上書北闕莫求官。一」
「山中朝露閒觀槿，嶺曲春風自采薇。二」
「青山是處堪埋骨，白髮新來漸滿頭。三」
「少室山人徵不起，貞元朝士已無多。四」
〇〈病中〉：「門堪羅雀那容駟，釜不烹魚但作糜。三」
卷六〈小園漫興〉：「燕頷素無難食肉，蟹螯才有便持杯。二」
「詩思寂寥無腹稿，病軀憔悴減腰圍。四」
〇〈村居即事〉：「兒挑苦芺供鵝食，妻擷葫荽薦客茶。二」按卷八〈荽茗賦〉云：「擷穢荽以盈握，溷綠華而三嗅」，即《湘山野錄》卷中記李退夫父子所種物也（《野叟曝言》第六十八回三姨娘所講笑話，即本退夫事）。
〇〈姑蘇有贈〉：「商女不知寧有恨，徐娘雖老尚多情。」
卷七〈癸未遊杭作口號十首〉：「杖藜乘興不辭遙，行盡蘇堤過斷橋。白髮老翁依古柳，相逢揮淚說前朝。四」按元末梁寅〈初至錢塘〉詩尚云：「游女競誇新服玩，遺民猶詫小朝廷」（暨用其編《石門集》卷五）。
卷八〈瞶皁〉：「吳郡之齋，皁而趨者十餘輩，率慠且黠。……有瞶而貧者，目眵昏，手足惰寙，隆背而低首，行步朅蹶，揚其聲呼之，則『呀、呀』開口。羣視之若無人。一日竢於庭，遷延而入余室，卑陬而前，纖抑而笑，出片紙若訟牒者置余几，亟傴僂而退，睨左右，若畏若駭。追而問之，不應。余驚焉，視之，覼縷數百字，蓋摘校人之欺而悼子產之謬而不悟也。余於是憮然，曰：『嘻！可畏哉！不能容人之過、善於伺人之短者，何往而非耳聰而目明者哉！』」
六百二十九[28]
自左至右：邵彌〈蓮華大士〉（局部）、劉松年〈天女戲花〉（局部）、敦煌絹畫〈觀音經變〉（局部）
〇John Van Druten, I Am a Camera, I, ii, FRITZ: “I write
her [Natalia] poems. Poems from Heinrich Heine, & always she recognizes
them, & then she laughs at me” (Famous
Plays of 1954, Victor Gollancz, p. 39). 按參觀 Evelyn Waugh, The Loved One: “Dennis
resumed his search of the Oxford Book of
English Verse for a poem for Aimée” etc.
〇I Am a
Camera, I, i, NATALIA: “... I am not sixty years old,
& I can go home unmolested all by myself.” CHRIS (quoting): “Bin weder Fräulein noch schön, kann ungeleitet nach
Hause gehn.” SALLY: “Why is that?” NATALIA: “It is from Faust, ‘Strasse’.” CHRIS: “It means, ‘I am not a virgin, & I am
not beautiful, & I can go home alone.’” FRITZ (earnestly): “Oh, but that is not true... Not in this case.” SALLY
(eagerly): “Yu mean you think Fräulein
Landauer is a virgin? How do you
know?” (Famous Plays of 1954, pp.
32-3). 按 Ernest Tonnelat, A Hist. of the German Language, E.T. by D.P. Inskip, p. 203: “If Goethe’s
Gretchen declines the right to be called Fräulein,
this is because to her mind this title could only be apply to women of much
higher social status than hers; but since the 18th century the word Fräulein has, so to speak, lost caste”
etc. 然脚本打諢，未可苛責其譯事之不信也。
〇《紀錄彙編》卷一百三十九《水東日記》卷七云：「昔翰林陳登善謔，一日見刊印章中舍炳如所作詩，登戲之曰：『昔西江士有偕友宿舟中者，中夜起開鎖風板，友人驚問曰：「夜寒何得開板？」答曰：「偶氣洩，恐熏及吾友耳。」友人曰：「不開板，熏止於我，開板則熏及多人矣。氣洩自氣洩，奚以開板為？」』炳如頗銜之。」按《嘻談錄》卷上：「一先生最愛放屁，將椅子挖一窟窿為出屁之所。東家見而問之，先生道所以，東家曰：『放屁只管放屁，何必刻板』」云云（亦見《鏡花緣》93 回祝題花講笑話），即本此。參觀第五百九十七則論《西樓記》。
〇《紀錄彙編》卷一百三十九《水東日記》云：「『上大人，丘乙己，化三千，七十士』等數語，凡鄉學小童，臨倣字書，皆昉於此，謂之描朱。爾傳我習，幾遍海內，然皆莫知所謂。或云有出，陳儒士洙云：『嘗見宋學士晚年以眼明自誇[29]，細書及此。學士其知所自者耶？』」按祝枝山《猥談》并附會此數語為「孔子上其父書」，不知乃臨濟宗白雲守端所作答郭功甫〈山頌〉。《蒿庵閒話》卷二、《援鶉堂筆記》卷四十八、《通蘇編》卷七、《蕙風簃隨筆》卷二皆考之，云見《傳燈錄》、《五燈會元》。余按《五燈會元》卷十九載白雲以此〈頌〉示郭，「郭初疑，後聞小兒誦之，忽有省」云云，則此數語亦非白雲作，宋時兒童已讀之矣。《敦煌掇瑣》八十一：「上大夫，丘乙己，化三千，七十二，女小生，八九子，牛羊万，日舍屯（以下模糊不可辨）[30]。」
〇《紀錄彙編》卷一百七十八《四友齋叢說》（卷二十九）記陳惟允以粉筆交弓上彈王叔明畫，遂成〈岱宗密雪圖〉（亦見都穆《談纂》，亦見《輟耕錄》）。【《明詩綜》卷十三陳汝言下詩話記此圖下落。《列朝詩集傳》甲編前十陳汝言條亦記王叔明為雪景[31]，而難於設色事。】按此隱師張彥遠《歷代名畫記‧論畫體工用搨寫》所謂「吹雲」之法。方文《嵞山續集‧魯游草‧岱宗密雪圖歌》。
〇《紀錄彙編》卷一百九十七《琅琊漫鈔》云：「成化間，太監王高嘗休沐居慶壽寺，時有兵部尚書者，不欲言其名，往謁之，與侍郎某先後出部，各紿以他往。已而偕集門下，進退惶恐。」按此與《齊東野語》卷十一所記王質、沈瀛詣張說事相同。
〇《紀錄彙編》卷二百一陸釴《病逸漫記》載正統初，北京馬姓通里婦，忽見其夫待之甚厚，而婦乃有淫行，取刀殺之。卷二百二祝允明《前聞記‧床下義氣條》作某校尉事。按即《貪歡報》第八回鐵念三事也。
〇Grillparzer: “Eines der grössten übel der deutschen
Litteratur ist, dass niemand bei seinem Fache bleibt. Jeder sucht seine Grenzen
auszudehnen, so weit als möglich. Jeder walkt seinen Teig nach Leibeskräften,
und indem er nach den Enden zu immer ausgedehnter wird, wird er immer dünner in
der Mitte, bis er endlich reisst und die Lücken im Innern entstehen, die man
nach aussen vermeiden wollte” (Gesam.
Werk., hrsg. E. Rollett und A Sauer, Bd. VII, S. 230). 按 Mlle Delaunay de Staal, Mémoires 早云：“Ces grands, à force de s’étendre, deviennent si minces qu’on voit le
jour au travers” (Petit de Julleville, ed., Hist.
de la langue & de la litt. française, VI, p. 393 引).
〇《心史叢刊》二集〈顧橫波〉一篇，引吳仲倫《聞見錄》，以證橫波初與劉芳約為夫婦，背約，而芳以情死；又引《同人集》張公亮〈結交〉，以證橫波願為張小妻。皆在龔芝麓定情以前，因云：「以身許人，青樓慣技。」按極殺風景而極入情理，匪特考訂之學，亦資洞明世故也。吳仲倫所記，本之錢湘靈《調運齋詩文隨刻‧重答孫蔗菴年兄芥閣詩》[32]「橫波館築劉郎死」句自注，孟氏未知。李義山《雜纂‧謾人語門》即有「說風塵有情」一條；《太平樂府》卷三無名氏〈柳營曲‧詠風月担〉第七首云：「罷字兒心上有，嫁字兒口頭𠶧」；沈廷松《皇明百家小說》第一百十二帙黃允交《雜纂三續‧未足信門》有「娼願從良」一條；賀貽孫《水田居存詩》卷二〈戲和梅道人歌館惜艷詩‧之六〉云：「單思一枕游仙夢，許嫁千番搗鬼詞」；《莊諧選錄》卷八云：「有狎妓者謂其儕曰：『某妓身分甚高，自待甚潔，然實傾意於余。』旁一人不服云：『此妓實屬意於余，已訂婚矣。』大爭，至於相毆。鄉人某至山東，遇某妓，待之甚欵。歸，思之不置，至以瘵疾死，猶呼妓名。戚某深憐之，後至山左見此妓，述其言，此妓都不憶。余謂平常人與官場人交，宜知此意；與外人交，亦宜知此意」；《兩般秋雨庵隨筆》載「某生至粵，見一妓，甚相憐，謂：『他人笑君迂，我獨愛君厚道，恨不得嫁君。』生歸家，與友人言及。友後至粵，遇此妓，問之，則不省矣。余有友，初入京，見諸貴人，垂問備至，居處飲食，咸詢問詳悉，以為有古大臣風，久之乃覺其言屬而意不屬」，皆可參觀。何良俊《四友齋叢說》卷九（《紀錄彙編》卷一百七十五）論大臣愛才薦士，云：「嚴介溪為南宗伯時，余嘗見之，其謙虛愛才之意，僾然可掬。及在政府，但以言語誘人，未曾著實舉行，或者其奪於小相歟」云云，尚是老實人想法也。《宋書‧顏竣傳》載時人語曰：「謝莊笑而不與人官」，由來舊矣。故《照世盃》卷一曰：「惟妓女鍾情，最為死心塌地。」Dame aux Camélias, ch. 12: Legouvé: “Les candidats prennent les politesses pour dès
promesses, et les académiciens leurs promesses pour des politesses” (quoted in
A. Billy, L’Époque 1900, p. 269). 【《開元天寶遺事》：「長安名妓劉國容與郭昭述短書云：『歡寢方濃，恨鷄聲之斷愛；恩憐未洽，嘆馬足以無情。』」《雲溪友議》卷中載崔涯〈雜嘲〉詩云：「日暮迎來畫閤中，百年心事一宵同。寒鷄鼓翼紗窗外，已覺恩情逐曉風。」《露書》卷七云：「趙城劉秀才暱一妓，暑夜開門睡，劉潛覘之，妓方與夫狎，夫問：『我親乎？劉大親乎？』妓答：『劉大以錢親耳。』劉始詬忿。洪洞秦秀才暱妓玉梅，玉梅兩眼翳，秦猶日至其家奉湯水。一日，秦在牀前坐，妓以為夫耳，遽問：『秦家無廉恥的去未？』始絕不聞問。」】【陳維崧《湖海樓詞集》卷十〈解語花〉（「鳴高弟昔年曾與一年少為狎游，昨偶遇市上，而此年少已不復相識，歸而悵然。因記昔年都下，緯雲弟曾宿一北里某家，明日拉余曁魯望跡之，而此妓驚問誰何，亦漫不相記憶，與此事絶相類，因作此詞」）。】【“Être aimé d’une jeune fille chaste.... S’emparer d’un coeur qui n’a pas
l’habitude des attaques, c’est entrer dans une ville ouverte et sans garnison....
Mais être réellement aimé d’une courtisane, c’est une victoire bien autrement
difficile. Chez elles, le corps a usé l’âme, les sens ont brûlé le coeur, la
débauche a cuirassé les sentiments....
Elles sont mieux gardées par leurs calculs qu’une
vierge par sa mère et son couvent... Puis, quand Dieu permet l’amour à une
courtisane, cet amour, qui semble d’abord un pardon, devient presque toujours
pour elle un châtiment” (éd. Nelson, pp. 131-2); La Fontaine, Contes et Nouvelles, Garnier, pp. 247
ff. “La Courtisane amoureuse”; Villiers de l’Isle-Adam: “Les Demoiselles de
Bienfilâtre” in Contes cruels. Boswell on the Grand Tour, ed. F. Brady
& F.A. Pottle, “Trade Edition”, p. 19: “Signora B. [i.e. Girolama
Piccolomini] told me that a man is wrong to boast that he possesses the
affection of a girl, because the poor ignorant knows no better, never having
had opportunity to know the merits of lovers. But when a woman has had a little
experience & knows men, then her attachment is truly flattering.” 可以比勘。】
〇Aristophanes, The
Peace 寫 Trygaeus 跨大 beetle (κάνθάρος) 飛昇籲天，其女問何不御 Pegasus 乎？答曰：“Nay, then I must have had supplies for two; / But now the very food I eat myself, / All this
will presently be food for him” (137-9, Aristophanes,
tr. B.B. Rogers, “The Loeb Classical Library”, II, p. 15). 蓋此物嗜糞穢 (σκαταιβάτου) 也。可與烟霞散人《斬鬼傳》第四回齷齪鬼「自思路途遙遠，出起恭來，豈將包屎丟了，不如喚個狗跟上」事相映成趣。
〇《燉煌變文》中〈醜女緣起〉有云：「上唇半斤有餘」，不如德文 Wurstlippe 之侔色揣稱多矣。
〇Aristophanes’s The
Birds 寫 Peisthetaerus 與鳥約法云：“To wit that they’ll not bite me / Nor pull me about, nor scratch my —”
(Schol.: τὸν πρωκτὸν δεικνύϛ). 羣鳥答云：“Fie, for shame! Not this? no,
no !” Pei 云：“My eyes, I was going to say” (441-3, op. cit., p. 171). 按
Oliver Twist, ch. 28: “Giles: ‘I... got softly out of bed; drew on a pair of —‘
‘Ladies present, Mr Giles,’ murmured the tinker. ‘Of shoes, sir!’” 正復相似。
〇《紀錄彙編》卷二十三李賢《古穰雜錄》云：「也先曰『者』。胡語云『者』，然詞也。」按觀此，則清以來官腔之「者」，在明尚未通行也。李氏記「也先曰：『者！者！』」處甚多。天虛我生《新酒痕》第四回云：「當初答應一個『是』字，彷彿像個『著』字，又像『照』字。每應一聲，必把兩手一垂，脖子一低，退後一步。如今却便改了樣子，答應起來，也帶十二分官腔，稱做『咱』字了。兩只手把個袖子甩甩，昂著頭把胸膛一挺」云云，「咱」、「照」、「著」皆「者」也。疑即古之唱喏，「喏」即「諾」字。
〇《紀錄彙編》卷一百七十五何良俊《四友齋叢說》云：「顧東橋曰：『空同言詩必學杜子美。詩至子美，如至圓不能加規，至方不能加矩矣。此空同之過言也。夫規矩方圓之至，故匠者皆用之。杜亦在規矩中耳。若說必要學杜，則是學某匠。何得就以子美為規矩耶？』」按馬永卿《嬾真子錄》卷二云：「王抃謂退之〈送窮〉擬子雲〈逐貧〉，余嘗問於舅氏張奉議名桐，舅氏曰：『不然。規矩，方圓之至也，若與規矩合，則方圓自然同也。若學問至古人，自然與古人同，不必擬也。譬如善射，後矢續前矢，同一理也。』」徐枋《居易堂集》卷二〈答退翁老和尚書〉：「吾亦謂苟造其極，何必古人？真能敘事，便是馬班[33]；真能修詞，便是檀左；真能訓詞深厚，便是典謨；真能詠歌盛德，便是雅頌。亦何法之可循，而不知真能敘事，必合馬班；真能修詞，必合檀左；真能訓詞深厚、詠歌盛德，必合典謨、雅頌，何也？是實有不易之體，古人已立其極，而吾不能出其範圍也。」三節可相發明。以子美為規矩，即 Scaliger, Poetices Libri Septem, III, 4: “All the
things which you have to imitate, you have according to another nature, that
is, Virgil”（見 J.E. Spingarn, Literary Criticism in the Renaissance,
p. 134 引）。然《空同子集》卷六十二〈駁何氏論文書〉云：「規矩者，方圓之自也，即欲舍之，烏乎舍！守之不易，於是為曹、為劉、為阮、為陸、為李、為杜，即今為何大復，何不可哉？」〈再與何氏書〉云：「《詩》云：『有物有則。』故曹、劉、阮、陸、李、杜能用之而不能異，能異之而不能不同。」却無語病。
〇《紀錄彙編》卷一百九十四陳鼐《百可漫志》云：「《赤城詩選‧潘留鶴太山詩》有『混沌以來惟此老，乾坤之外更無山』之句。近時莊定山有『開闢以來原有此，蓬萊之外更無山』，語亦豪放，殆默符於潘者。」【參觀第一百七十二則。】【定山此聯不見其集，陳常道編《定山先生集》卷五〈閑叟〉云：「越水以東惟剡曲，子陵而下幾漁翁。」】按安磐《頤山詩話》論定山此聯及謝方石之「唐舜以來皆是道，許巢之外更誰班」，「兩漢以來皆智力，六經之外幾刪修」，「秦晉以來寧有治，虞周之上不同風」，謂皆襲明初王當宗之「三代以來方有學，六經之外更無書」。是也。後來如鍾伯敬〈過文啟美香草垞〉云：「一廳以後能留水，四壁之中別有香」；王岱〈登岱〉云：「唐虞以上誰開創，天地之間獨主盟」；宗觀〈文選樓〉云：「兩漢以來無選本，六臣之後有傳書」（王詩見王爾綱《天下名家詩永》卷二，宗詩見《詩永》卷七），皆如填匡格。唯嚴繩孫《秋水集》卷二〈杭州雜感〉云：「北狩以還猶半壁，南音從此雜中州」，稍能變化。【方文《嵞山續集‧餘杭游草‧西湖廣化寺前樓崇祀近代死難諸公》：「弘正以前猶悱惻，天崇之末自酸嘶。」】【黃梨洲〈寄友人〉：「三代之治真可復，七篇以外豈無為。」】【《吾炙集》舊京孤臣一是〈三月十九日〉云：「詩書以內何曾見，婦寺之中亦有人」；《蜀雅》卷十五龍為霖〈郊外書事〉：「羲皇以上懷陶令，山水之間學醉翁」；黃野鴻《長吟閣詩集》卷三〈舟次錫山走謁王銓部澍〉：「兩晉而還誰翰墨，九州之大獨聲名」[34]；陳沆《簡學齋詩刪》卷三〈孟廟〉：“戰國之中一儒者，春秋而後七篇書】；屈悔翁《弱水集》卷十〈山陰道中〉：「溪山以外遙無路，花竹之間近有村」（餘見百七十二）。】
〇《五雜組》卷十一云[35]：「昔范質謂：『人能鼻吸三升醋，便可作宰相。』均一醋也，何男子吸之便稱德量，而婦人吃之反為媢嫉之名耶？」《後村大全集》卷二十一〈嘗醋圖〉云：「翁真堪宰相，嫗亦可夫人。」[36]則宋時已有「吃醋」之說。《通俗編》卷二十二引《在閣知新錄》謂：「世以妒婦比獅子，《續文獻通考》：『獅子日食醋酪一瓶』，『吃醋』本此。」《蕙風簃隨筆》卷一云：「《說文》：『媢，夫妒婦也。』小徐：『讀若「胞」，一曰「梅目相視」。』『梅目』字新，可入詞。常言妒曰醋，醋亦酸。『梅』、『媒』、『昧』皆通『馮』，即憑河之意，猶言怒目相視也。」二則雖皆附會，可資談助。【楊无咎〈西江月〉云：「盡教塗抹費工夫，到底翻成喫醋」（《全宋詞》卷一百十七）。】
〇張孟奇《疑耀》卷二云：「妒婦不可少。諸葛武侯以醜婦為養心之資，余謂妒婦亦然。南唐樞密杜業妻張氏妒烈，皇后誡張[37]，張泣曰：『業早衰多病，縱之有禍。』」《五雜組》卷八云[38]：「人有為妒婦解嘲者曰：『士君子情慾無節，得一嚴婦約束之，亦動心忍性之一端也。故諺有曰：「到老方知妒婦功。」』余笑曰：『君知人之愛六畜者乎？豈真愛其命哉？欲充己口腹耳。妒婦得無似之乎？』」《北江詩話》卷三云：「前人詩：『老健方知妒婦賢。』《北史‧隋‧獨孤后傳》：『后性尤妬忌，崩後，陳夫人、蔡夫人有寵，帝惑之，發疾危竺，謂侍者曰：「使皇后在，吾不及此。」』」按三節相發明。
〇《聖經》Isaiah, 2.4：“They
shall beat their swords into plowshares, & their spears into pruning hooks.”
裴晉公亦有〈鑄劍戟為農器賦〉。少陵〈蠶穀行〉云：「焉得鑄甲作農器，一寸荒田牛得耕」；〈諸將〉詩云：「稍喜臨邊王相國，肯銷金甲事春農」；孟東野〈弔國殤〉云：「堯舜宰乾坤，器農不器兵。秦漢盜山岳，鑄殺不鑄耕。」Aristophanes, The Peace, 1197
ff. 即此意，至云：“O what’s the
use of this habergeon now?... ’Twill do superbly for my chamber-pan’” (1224
& 1228, Aristophanes, “The Loeb
Class. Lib.”, II, p. 113)，尤趣。
〇One’s own face: one of the few things with which
familiarity does not breed contempt.
〇燉煌畫佛，菩薩皆鬑鬑有鬚似羅敷夫，文殊、觀音皆然。《樊山集》卷十八〈壬辰三月初九禱雨入終南山〉第三首寫圓光寺云：「玉座觀世音，磔鬚交頷頤」，自注：「觀音多現善女身，此獨虯鬚。」以後唯邵僧彌畫〈蓮華大士像〉女貌而亦有鬚（《故宮》第十三期），宋劉松年畫〈天女戲花圖〉中大士像亦然（《故宮》第四十期）。
〇To one who is not to the Greek manner born, the
fierce battle of books in Aristophanes’s The
Frogs, in which Euripides criticized the death of action in the Aeschyluan
drama & Aeschylus censured the ergotage
in Euripidian characters (The Frogs,
911 ff., 1069 ff.; Aristophanes, “The
Loeb Classical Library”, II, pp. 379 ff., 397 ff.)... recalls the mutual
recrimination of the pot & the kettle. While pointing out the “etwas
stationäres” in Aeschyluan tragedies, Grillparzer rightly says that both
Aeschylus & Euripides — even the divine Plato too! — are beset with the
Greek national vice: “Geschwätzigkeit im guten Sinn”, “in der Ausartung: Geschwätz”
(Gesam. Werk., hrsg. E. Rollett und A
Sauer, Bd. VII, S. 309-11). Cf. Leopardi,
Pensieri, 86 (Opere, p. 741); Oxf. Dict. of Quotations, p. 506.
〇In his
Studies in the Psychology of Sex, V,
p. 70, Havelock Ellis quotes with approval the remark of a lady on the analogy
between sexual tension & vesical tension: “Cette volupté que ressentent les
bords de la mer, d’être toujours pleins sans jamais déborder.” Cf. Sir John
Denham’s famous lines in Cooper’s Hill
which have often been considered an apt description of the classical ideal in
art: “Though deep, yet clear, though gentle, yet not dull; / Strong without
rage, without o’erflowing full” (ll. 191-2); also Henry James: “To put all that
is possible of one’s idea into a form & compass that will contain &
express it only by delicate adjustments & an exquisite chemistry, 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” (quoted in John Livingston Lowes, Convention & Revolt in Poetry,
Constable & Co., p. 158). Erotically speaking, this formulates the ideal of
the traditional Chinese men:《素女經》：“采女問曰：‘交接以瀉精為樂，今閉而不瀉，將何以為樂乎？’彭祖答曰：‘夫精出則身體怠倦，……雖復暫快，終於不樂也。若乃動不瀉，氣力有餘，恆若不足，何以不樂耶？’” For an amusing description of the nemesis of such sexual athlete-miser
who boast of “不以涓滴與所歡”, see《螢窗異草‧三編》卷一〈田再春〉.
〇《野叟曝言》第三十回[39]：「李四嫂云：『不是小媳婦誇口，憑著這個舌，兩爿牙齒，掠雨撩雲，能使南海觀音偷嫁西池王母，銀河織女私奔月窟嫦娥！』連公子笑道：『這你說錯了，四個都是女人哩！』四嫂道：『女人還去跟他，若是男人，豈不餳做一堆，化做一塊呢！』」奇語也！遠勝《金瓶梅》寫王婆所云：「女似麻姑須亂性，調弄嫦娥偷漢子。」Shadwell, The Miser 中 Mrs Cheatly 云：“If I had liv’d in that time, I would have been hang’d if I had not
married the Pope to Queen Elizabeth” (Works,
ed. Montague Summers, II, p. 39) 可參觀。《金瓶梅》第三十七回西門慶云：「咱聞那佛祖西天，也止不過要黃金鋪地；陰司十殿，也要些楮鏹營求。咱只消儘這家私廣為善事，就使強奸了嫦娥，和奸了織女，拐了許飛瓊，盜了西王母的女兒」云云，則奇語也。
〇《野叟曝言》第三十三回[40]，老鴇勸石氏接客，云：「竈君皇帝一日早晚兩堂追比，那開門七件事兒誰肯放鬆一點？」奇語也！Anatole France, Le Jardin
d’Épicure, p. 37 引
Gerard d’Amyntor 云：“L’éternel retour de la
question: ‘Que faut-il faire cuire aujourd’hui?’... Sur l’autel flamboyant où
mijote le pot-au-feu, sont sacrifiées jeunesse, liberté, beauté.”
〇Aristophanes, The
Clouds, 1085 ff. 有εὐρύπρωκτος[41]。按即《儒林外史》第四十二回所謂「難道你上頭兩隻眼睛也撐大了？」1330 有 λακκόπρωκτος[42]。按即法國俚語所謂 “Perdre ses légumes” 是也。參觀Hans Licht, Beiträge zur Antiken
Erotik, S. 187-8; H. Bauche, Le langage
populaire, p. 202.《金瓶梅》第三十一回云：「行動就睜著兩個𣭈窟礲喓喝人。」蓋眼孔比之前後竅均可。
六百三十[43]
王漁洋作〈西樵詩選序〉，借東坡所謂「出新意於法度之中，寄妙理於豪放之外」二語，評騭乃兄之詩。按東坡語見《經進東坡文集事略》卷六十〈書吳道子畫後〉。後一語謂豪而有韻，放而不盡，不同杜默之豪也（參觀《津逮秘書‧東坡題跋》卷三〈評杜默詩〉。前一語即「豪放」註脚，謂神明乎規矩之中，而非破律壞度也。《文集事略》卷四十六〈答謝民師書〉謂作文如「行雲流水」，卷五十七〈文說〉謂「文如泉源，不擇地而湧」，可謂極自在之逸致矣。而兩篇皆又云：「常行於所當行，常止於所不可不止。」曰「當」，曰「不可不」，則復戒律甚嚴，所謂「法度之中」也。黃伯思《東觀餘論》卷上〈論張長史書〉：「千狀萬變，雖左馳右騖，而不離繩矩之内。猶縱風鳶者翔戾於空，隨風上下，而綸常在手；撃劔者交光飛刃，歘忽若神，而器不離身。昔之聖人縱心而不踰規矩，妄行而蹈乎大方，亦猶是也。嘗觀莊周書，其自謂謬悠荒唐而無端涯，然觀其論度數形名之際，大儒宗工有所不及。於戲！觀旭書尚其怪而不知入規矩，讀莊子知其放曠而不知其入律，皆非二子之鍾期也。」J. Huizinga, Homo
Ludens, tr. R.F.C. Hull, pp. 7-11: “By this quality of freedom alone, play
marks itself off from the course of the natural process.... Inside the
play-ground an absolute & peculiar order reigns.... All play has its rules
which are absolutely binding & allow no doubt.” 正此意。《翰苑新書續集》卷二載王臞軒〈賀林直院〉云：「筆有活法，珠走於盤而不出於盤」（《臞軒集》失收），亦其的解。可與第二百八則所引 Goethe, Hegel 等談藝語印證。亦即孔子所謂「從心所欲不踰矩」也，參觀第二百九十二則李方叔《畫品》論郭忠恕〈樓居仙圖〉【二〇八、七〇三、七六六則】。《荀子‧禮論》所謂：「步驟馳騁，厲鶩不外」；《莊子‧山木篇》所謂「猖狂妄行，乃蹈乎大方。」鄧繹《藻川堂談藝》謂陸士衡〈文賦〉「來不可遏，去不可止」即東坡語意，則皮相附會。士衡乃言文興、文思（前云：「應感之會，通塞之紀」；後云：「方天機之駿利」，「及其六情底滯」），東坡乃言文法也。
〇東坡善取譬，《陵陽室中語》已言之（《詩人玉屑》卷十七引）。然所舉如〈澠池懷舊〉之「應似飛鴻踏雪泥」，〈守歲〉之「有似赴壑蛇」，〈次韻定惠院寓居月夜偶出〉之「少年辛苦真食蓼，老境安閒如啖蔗」之類，皆一物喻一事。其他佳喻，如〈弔李臺卿〉之「敝衣來過我，危坐若持釣」，〈次韻趙景貺春思〉之「春風如繫馬，未動意先騁」（參觀〈秀州僧本瑩靜照堂〉云：「鳥囚不忘飛，馬繫常念馳」[44]）亦然，未及〈百步洪〉第一首「有如兔走鷹隼落，駿馬下注千丈坡；斷絃離柱箭脫手，飛電過隙珠翻荷」四句中有七事而道一意，層喻疊譬之奇妙也。陳騤《文則》卷上丙論「取喻之法有十」，其六曰：「博喻：取以為喻，不一而足。《書》曰：『若金，用汝作礪；若濟巨川，用汝作舟楫；若歲大旱，用汝作霖雨。』《荀子》曰：『猶以指測河也，猶以戈舂黍也，猶以錐飱壺也。』」即此類。【東坡〈上神宗皇帝書〉云：「人心之於人主也，如木之有根，如燈之有膏，如魚之有水，如農夫之有田，如商賈之有財」；又云：「夫人言雖未必皆然，而疑似則有以致謗。人必貪財也，而後人疑其盜；人必好色也，而後人疑其淫」；「驅鷹犬而赴林藪，語人曰：『我非獵也』，不如放鷹犬而獸自馴；操網罟而入江湖，語人曰：『我非漁也』，不如捐網罟而人自信」；「自古役人必用鄉戶，猶食之必用五穀，衣之必用絲麻，濟川之必用舟楫，行地之必用牛馬」云云，皆博喻也。】《莊子》每喜為之，如〈天運篇〉連用「芻狗已陳」、「舟行陸」、「車行水」、「猨狙衣周公之服」、「醜人學西施之矉」五事，以喻不合時宜。昌黎亦優為之，如〈送石處士序〉稱其議論明快曰：「若河決下流而東注，若駟馬駕輕車就熟路，而王良、造父為之先後也，若燭照、數計而龜卜也」，亦五事。其在韻語，則《詩經》中亦屢見，如〈國風‧柏舟〉之「我心匪鑑，不可茹也」、「我心匪石，不可轉也」、「我心匪席，不可卷也」，〈小雅‧斯干〉之「如跂斯翼，如矢斯棘。如鳥斯革，如翬斯飛。君子攸躋。」【《戰國策‧東周》顏率論遷鼎句：「非效鳥集烏飛，兔興馬逝，灕然止於齊者。」】唐詩人中以昌黎為最多。〈南山詩〉之「或如」雖夥，乃分咏石勢，尚非此類。若〈送無本〉之「蛟龍弄角牙」等八句四事喻一意，〈岣嶁山〉之「科斗拳身薤倒披」等二句四事喻一意，則是矣。要皆無如東坡者，〈石鼓歌〉之「古器縱橫猶識鼎」六句六事皆喻「時得一二遺八九」，〈讀孟郊詩〉第一首之「孤芳擢荒穢」八句四事皆喻「佳處時一遭」[45]，亦其類。參觀第一百十九則論 “Method
of varied reiteration”。
〇東坡〈書吳道子畫後〉所謂「寄妙理於豪放之外」，可與〈鳳翔八觀詩‧王維吳道子畫〉一首所謂「摩詰得之於象外」一語參觀。而〈書後〉稱道子「如以燈取影，橫斜平直，各相乘除，得自然之數，不差毫末」，又可與此詩稱摩詰之「門前兩叢竹，雪節貫霜根。交柯亂葉動無數，一一皆可尋其源」數語參觀。蓋文中品評道子者，詩中皆奪以與摩詰，而東坡詩各家評注皆未見及此。王文誥《蘇文忠公詩編注集成》卷三註此詩，斥曉嵐「未嘗於畫道翻過筋斗，故其說隔膜」云云，亦茫然未窺此重公案也。王書粗有整齊排比之功，而學陋識卑，絕無發明（如〈吳中田婦歎〉云：「萬里招羌兒」，此指「熙河之役」也，而王氏無注；〈荔枝歎〉云：「前丁後蔡相籠加」，此言竹籠或篛籠也，見《蔡忠惠公集》卷三〈采茶〉詩、卷三十〈茶錄〉、《漁隱叢話後集》卷十一載蔡襄〈貢茶〉詩。《萍洲可談》卷二云：「人目棋枰為『木野狐』，言其媚惑人失業也。崇寧復榷茶，法制日嚴，目茶籠為『草大蟲』，言其傷人也。」而王氏無注）。却矜心好詆，妄自尊大，斥朱子曰：「凡言理者，一涉詩，無不糊塗」（卷十〈有美堂暴雨〉：「天外黑風吹海立」，王謂「杜詩『風吹滄江樹，雨灑石壁來』之『樹』字亦作『立』字解，朱子謂『樹』不對『來』，欲改『去』字」云云，蓋舊注早謂東坡用杜「四海之水皆立」，王氏於無話可說處尋話說也），斥紀文達曰：「不懂琴」（卷一〈舟中聽大人彈琴〉）。筆舌尤鄙俗拖㳫，不堪入目。不知王註之出依託所謂「百家」者，非百家各有蘇注，乃徵引及此百人，又穿鑿放翁之〈施注序〉，皆可欪笑。〈凡例〉中忽論琴數千言（卷八〈聽賢師琴〉注中又云云），《識餘》忽述南宋理學萬餘言，拉扯雜糅，以示博通，彌見其村學究伎倆。《識餘》卷二有云：「唐子西所撰《庚谿詩話》，多有可採。」即此一語，足以徵王氏之學矣。趙克宜《角山樓蘇詩評註彙鈔》云：「王評未能盡中窾會，好與紀異，適形其短」云云，是也。《湘綺樓日記》宣統元年九月廿五日：「連日看王文誥《蘇詩注》，以其似文韶兄弟，而初未聞有此人。知世間書癡不少，又非科舉學堂所可盡」；二年三月廿二日：「看王注蘇詩，殊為可笑。」李鼎元《使琉球記》嘉慶五年二月二十九日載趙文楷從客三人，中有王文誥。
〇〈七月二十四日出禱磻溪〉：「亂山銜月半牀明」，馮無注（卷四），王注：「寫景入神」（卷四）。按本唐人楊凝〈行思〉之「破月銜高岳」，又李頻〈漢上送人西歸〉云：「野銜天去盡，山夾漢來深」，施肩吾〈秋夜山居‧之二〉云：「百尺老松銜半月。」「銜」字從吳均〈登八公山〉之「疎峯時吐月」，少陵之「四更山吐月」，右丞〈東谿玩月〉之「月從斷山口，遙吐柴門端。」[46]【秦韜玉〈題刑部李郎中山亭〉：「卷荷擎雨出盆池。」】D’Annunzio, La
Leda: “I denti dell’Alpe masticano l’oro del tramonto, lo ruminano” (D.
Provenzal, Dizionario delle Immagini,
p. 24).
〇〈佛日山榮長老方丈〉第五絕：「山人睡覺無人見，衹有飛蚊遶鬢鳴。」按本唐人何諷〈夢渴賦〉之「窗日斜照，飛蚊繞鬢，既驚既覺」（《全唐文》卷六百十八）。
[3]「十五」原作「十四」。
[4]「株」原作「枝」。
[5]「天上」原作「天下」。
[6]「不緊要字」原作「不要緊字」。
[7]「除正字」原作「辭正字」。
[8]「醜婦欲去其夫」原作「醜夫欲去其婦」。
[9]「荍」原作「莜」。
[10]「戰勝」原作「戰務」。
[11]「建木」原作「建水」。
[15]「截」原作「裁」。
[25]「漁陽」原作「漢陽」。
[26]「郤縠」原作「郤穀」。
[27]「餘生」後脫落下文。
[29]「嘗見」原作「嘗及」。
[30]「上大夫」原作「上大人」，「屯」字脫落，「以下」原作「以上」。
[31]「列朝」原作「歷朝」。
[32]「芥閣」原作「蔗閣」。
[35]「組」原作「俎」。
[36]「嫗亦可」原作「婢亦作」。
[37]「張氏」原作「張若」，又原文脫落「后」字。
[38]「組」原作「俎」。
[39]「三十回」原作「三十四回」。
[40]「三十三回」原作「三十一回」。
[41]「εὐρύπρωκτος」(wide-anused;
H.G. Liddell & R. Scott, A
Greek-English Lexicon 譯為「wide-breeched」) 原作「εὐρύπρωκτως」。
[44]「不忘」原作「不能」。
