Wilhelm Dilthe
(“Little bits of green eyes swimming in their fat filled orbits” or “kluges
freudiges Aufblitzen altersloser Augen”?)
五百一[1]
Jottings:
Taking more than a hint from
Schelling, Coleridge rightly distinguishes between “form as proceeding & shape
as superinduced” (Biographia Literaria,
ed. J. Shawcross, II, p. 262). Elsewhere, e.g., in his Lectures on Shakespeare, I, he describes the distinction as one
between “mechanic”, “predetermined form” & “organic”, “innate form”. But
mechanically superinduced form helps to make poetry, even as manners or clothes
make man. For those poets whose poetry is not inevitable, it is a great
advantage to write to a regular, stylized pattern; it is like playing with
loaded dice. That explains why bad “old” Chinese poetry has a certain air of
distinction which bad “new” Chinese poetry lacks; a tattered & soiled
singing looks at least more decent than a bedraggled pajama. Thus when
Francesco de Sanctis penetratingly remarks of the humanists: “Ne nasce
l’indifferenza del contenuto. Ciò che importa non è cosa s’ha a dire... Il
pensiero è per lui [il letterato] un dato, venutogli dal di fuori, quale esso
sia: a lui spetta dargli la veste. Il suo cervello è un ricco emporio di frasi,
di sentenze, di eleganze; il suo orecchio è pieno di cadenze e di armonie:
forme vuote e staccate da ogni contenuto... Lo
scrittore non dice quello che pensa o immagina o sente, perchè non è l’immagine
che gli sta innanzi, ma la frase di Orazio o di Virgilio” (Storia della letteratura italiana, a cura di B. Croce, riv. da A.
Parente, 1962, I, p. 342. Cf. Arnold, On
Translating Homer, I: “Homer invariably composes ‘with his eye on the
object’... Pope composes with his eye on his style, into which he translates
his object, whatever it is” [The whole passage, including the phrase “with his
eyes on the subject”, is derived from Wordsworth’s letter to Scott, of Nov.
1805, on Dryden’s translation of Virgil — Early
Letters of William & Dorothy Wordsworth, ed. E. de Selincourt, p. 541]) — remarks which also aptly describe “old” Chinese
poets & prose writers — he overlooks the point raised by Goethe: “Es werden
jetzt Produktionen möglich, die Null sind, ohne schlecht zu sein: Null, weil
sie keinen Gehalt haben; nicht schlecht, weil eine allgemeine Form gute Muster
den Verfassern vorschwebt” (Goethes Sämtliche
Werke, Der Tempel Verlag, III, S. 308). 五百二則眉[2].【［補五百一則］Croce, La
Poesia, 5a ed., p. 82: “... è mero accidente... ciò che si esegue
o ciò che accade quando la lingua, ossia la somma delle espressioni già
prodotte, poeteggia essa invece del poeta...”; p. 280: “Ciò è detto nel noto
epigramma del Goethe: ‘Weil es ein Vers dir gelingt in einer gebildeten Sprache, / Die für dich
dichtet und denkt, glaubst du ein Dichter zu sein.’ Il Lemaître notava che qualcosa
di simile accadeva sovente all’ Hugo.” The distich is not Goethe’s, but
Schiller’s (Tabulae Votivae: “Dilletant”,
Gesam. Werk. in 8 Bänden, Aufbau
Verlag, 1959, I, S. 243). Cf. Samuel Becket: “En français c’est plus facile
d’écrire sans style” (quoted in Archiv
für der neueren Sprachen, Nov. 1959, S. 235). Coleridge applied the distich
to Samuel Rogers (The Notebooks, ed.
Kathleen Coburn, II, §3134). Samuel Alexander: “The art of Jane Austen”: “A
dull man may sit down to write French & find himself pointed in thought
because the expression compels him to be so” (Philosophical & Literary Pieces, p. 321).】Cf.
Thibaudet’s distinction between “ceux qui savent faire des vers parce qu’ils
sont poètes” & “ceux qui sont poètes parce qu’ils savent faire des vers”,
& also the distinction implied in Louis Veuillot’s epigram on Hugo: “qui a
cessé d’être musicien pour devenir
exécutant” (Les Odeurs de Paris, éd. P. Lethielleux,
p. 208). Cf.《圍爐詩話》卷一：“有詞無意之詩，二百年來，習以成風。……宋詩亦有意，惟賦而少比興，其詞徑以直，如人而赤體。明之瞎盛唐詩，字面煥然，無意無法，直是木偶被文繡耳。……學二李之詩，則一入門即齊肩於高、岑、李、杜，而頭童齒豁，不過如此。如優人入場，便可作侯王卿相，而老死只是優人。……弘、嘉人湊麗字以成句[3]，湊麗句以成篇，便有詞無意。宋不剿說，故無此病。……人于順逆境遇，所動情思，皆是詩材。子美之詩，多得於此。人不能然，失却好詩，乃至作詩，了無意思，惟學古人句樣而已。”
The startling statement, “Mussolini
is always right” occurs in both the 1934 & the 1938 versions of The Fascist Decalogue — the 8th
saying in the former & the 10th & last saying in the latter.
Being Italians, Benito’s followers probably found nothing strange in
considering an erring human infallible, whether the Pope or Il Duce; but being
Italians, they ought to have known the maxim in Fambri’s comedy, Il Caporale di Settimana, III, xiii: “Nel
militare, il superiore ha sempre ragione, ma specialissimamente poi quando ha torto.
La è una massima però di cui l’inferiore deve ricordarsi sempre, e il superiore
mai.”[4]
(Cf. Publius Syrus, §228: “Falsum etiam est verum quod constituit superior” — Minor Latin Poets, “The Loeb Class. Lib.”,
p. 44.) Cf. Napoléon to Fontanes: “Voyez-vous, Fontanes, vous avez raison au
fond, mais vous avez le tort de vouloir avoir raison contre moi en public.”
Boileau: “Dorénavant, je serai toujours de l’avis de M. de Prince le grand de
Condé, quand il aura tort” (Causeries,
III, p. 208).
John Masefield, Sard Harker, pp. 38-9: Captain Cary: “A company, as we say, has
neither a stern to be kicked nor a soul to be saved. It is a damned
abstraction, without either a mind to understand or an eye to see: it has
neither guts to scare nor hands to shake.” An elaboration of the saying
attributed to Lord Thurlow: “Did you ever expect a corporation to have a
conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, & no body to be kicked?” (The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, p.
444; cf. The Oxford Dict. of Eng.
Proverbs, p. 80 attributed to Lord Elton). “No heart to appeal to, & no
arse to kick” (E. Partridge, A Dictionary
of Catch Phrases, p. 156, of a committee). “Mr Howel Walsh
observed that a corporation cannot blush. It was a
body, it was true; had certainly a head — a new one every year... Arms... it
had, & very long ones too, for it could reach at anything. Legs, of course,
when it made such long strides. A throat to swallow the rights of the community,
& a stomach to digest them. But who ever yet discovered, in the anatomy of
any corporation, either bowels or a heart?” (Wm. Hone, Table Book).
De Vigny, Journal d’un Poète, la Pléiade, II, p. 1218: “Les Anglais ont un
proverbe qui dit que les corps n’ont point d’honneur.”
Will Rogers made a crack on Wilbur
L. Cross: “He has a bunch of degrees after his name till it sounds like a
radio-station” (Wilbur L. Cross, Connecticut
Yankee, p. 294). Cf. Dorothy Parker: “She says she has something she wants to tell me — It can’t
be her age — She says it’s too hard to say over the wire — Then
it may be her age, she’s afraid it might sound like her telephone number.”
《全唐文》卷二百二十六張說〈錢本草〉云：「錢味甘，大熱有毒，偏能駐顏，彩澤流潤。」按《西湖二集》卷十六引諺語云：「家寬出少年」，即此意。又按繼構之作如侯味虛〈百官本草〉《朝野僉載》、賈忠言〈監察本草〉《御史臺記》（皆見《太平廣記》卷二百五十五引）、慧日雅禪師〈禪本草〉（《羅湖野錄》卷四）、董若雨〈夢本草〉（《豐草菴全集》卷三）、張山來〈書本草〉（《檀几叢書》）。《文章游戲》又闢一門。《潛研堂文集》卷三十二〈跋錢本草〉云：「此好事者所為，託之燕公。偶憶宋人小說稱盧懷慎暴死復蘇，歎云：『冥司有三十爐，日夜為張說鑄橫財，我無一焉！』然則燕公亦未免采之非理矣」云云。
卷三百三十七顏真卿〈與李太保帖‧之八〉云：「病妻服藥，要少鹿肉脯，有新好者，望惠少許。」按李小湖《好雲樓初集》卷二十五〈戲題鹿脯帖〉云：「山谷嘗言：『凡餌藥者，勿食鹿肉，服藥必不得力，以鹿常啖解毒之草，是故能制毒散諸藥也。』而魯公有此帖，豈唐時尚無其說？」竊謂小湖之臆測是也。《酉陽雜俎》卷八記李衛公說道書中言：「麋鹿無魂，故可食。」後來陳簡齋〈題易元吉畫麞〉云：「我不是李衛公，欺爾無魂規爾肉」，即用其語。《埤雅》卷三「麕」條：「道書曰：『麞鹿無魂。』」《清異録》卷二云：「道家流書言麞鹿麂是『玉署三牲』，神仙所享，故奉道者不忌。」可為佐證。
《道山清話》載黃育事，有諺云：「日在雨落，翁婆相撲。」按英、法、意諺略同：“Devil is beating his wife with a leg of mutton”,
“Le diable bat sa femme et marie sa fille”, “Le nozze del diavolo” (E.
Partridge, Dict. of Slang, 4th
ed., p. 216; M. Rat, Dict des locutions
fr., p. 157), “Piove e fa sole, il diavolo fa l’amore” (D. Provenzal, Perché si dice così?, p. 243) 皆謂日出而有雨也。
五百二[5]
史堯弼唐英《蓮峯集》十卷。氣機尚暢，而浮熟未足名家。《提要》憐其姓字不著，述作無存，欲懷才賫志之士，無聲塵翳如之慨，稱為「有其鄉蘇氏之遺風」。夫省齋（未署姓名）〈序〉記張魏公見唐英〈洪範〉等論，謂義理之學大類東坡，獎借後生，所指亦衹策論、場屋之文，百世以後，不得復假為口實也。任清全〈敘〉謂南軒平生尊敬東坡，少年自得於性理，唐英之力為多，固屬誇飾，《提要》不喜宋學，斥任「門戶標榜，欲援唐英入道學之列，轉不足以見唐英」，則又過當。唐英文好作性理語，其詩如卷一〈醉臥至夜半半醒中若有所愧者聞空庭石渠流水㶁㶁清亮不覺心體頓舒醉臥俱失因賦其所感〉略云：「孰為見在心，勿正能勿忘。涓涓石渠溜，起予者卜商。泠然落枕寒，解渴不待嘗。坐令肝肺間，一一流天漿。須臾四體喻，髮膚了無癢。夢覺與醉醒，忽落俱亡羊。流水去不舍，此心湛如常。」〈留題丹經卷後〉略云：「人身生死猶晝夜，以道順守全此天。何須行怪出世法，屏棄骨肉潛荒山。君臣父子與夫婦，兄弟朋友綱常間。聖人設教若大路，反趨旁徑迷榛菅。方壺員嶠渺何許，徒令世俗滋欺瞞。」趙繼珪〈跋〉云：「學仙之術，形容殆盡。然極其說而歸之正，有晦菴〈感興〉之遺意。讀其詩則其學可知矣。」皆足徵唐英非無意於道學者也。
卷三〈湖上〉：「浪洶濤翻忽渺漫，須臾風定見平寬。此間有句無人得，赤手長蛇試捕看。」按此詩差有致，結句出孫可之〈與王霖秀才書〉稱玉川、昌黎詩文云：「拔地倚天，句句欲活。讀之如赤手捕長蛇，不施控騎生馬，急不得暇，莫可捉搦」（《孫樵集》卷二）。而可之又本之退之〈送無本歸范陽〉云：「蛟龍弄角牙，造次欲手攬」（《昌黎先生集》卷五），柳州〈讀韓愈所著毛穎傳後題〉云：「索而讀之，若捕龍蛇、搏虎豹，急與之角而力不敢暇」（《唐柳先生集》卷二十一）。
五百三[6]
Jottings:
Heinrich Heine: “In der
französischen Literatur herrscht jetzt ein ausgebildeter Plagiatismus. In der république des lettres ist Gedankengütergemeinschaft”[7]
(Gedanken und Einfälle, Gesammelte Werke, hrsg. Gustav Karpeles,
VIII, S. 300). Cf. Augusto Franchetti on Paolo Ferrari’s Amore senza stima, a rifacimento
of Goldoni’s Moglie saggia: “All’arte
drammatica, come a molte cose di questo mondo, può attribuirsi la scherzosa
definizione che Napoleone primo dava del commercio quando chiamavalo: un brigandage organisé... la così detta
repubblica letteraria può tollerare senza paura quella maniera di comunismo;
poiché rimane sempre in ogni opera lo stampo che un peculiare ingegno v’
imprime; e in ciò sta la sua proprietà vera, la quale nessuno gli può
ritogliere”[8] (Alessandro
D’Ancona & Orazio Bacci, Manuale
della Letteratura Italiana, nuova ed., VI, p. 253); cf. A. Abingdon, More Boners: “A plagiarist is a writer of plays.” Elsewhere
Heine makes the observation which shares Franchetti’s tolerant view & takes
the sting out of his own sarcasm about the commonwealth of letters: “In der
Kunst ist die Form alles, der Stoff gilt nichts. Staub [a French tailor] berechnet
für den Frack, den er ohne Tuch geliefert, denselben Preis, als wenn ihm das
Tuch geliefert worden. Er lasse sich nur die Form bezahlen und den Stoff
schenke er” (op. cit., S. 287-8).
In refuting logical positivism, W.M.
Urban points out that “not only can we distinguish between the feeling attitude
& the value meaning; we can also distinguish completely between the
qualities for which value words stand & our feeling towards those qualities...
You may like the proud action, I may dislike it, but
both of us acknowledge it to be proud. The quality remains; we both apprehend it”
(Language & Reality, p. 163; cf.
Burke, The
Sublime & Beautiful, Works, G. Bell & Sons, I, p. 55: “A
man frequently comes to prefer the taste of tobacco to that of sugar, and the
flavour of vinegar to that of milk; but this makes no confusion in tastes,
whilst he is sensible that the tobacco & vinegar are not sweet.”) Cf.
Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, ix, 29 (“Loeb”,
p. 97). This is beautifully illustrated in the following fragment of
conversation between Martin Chuzzlewit & Tom Pinch: M.C.: “A chief ingredient in my composition is a most determined —”
T.P.: “Obstinacy.” M.C.: “What a fellow you are, Pinch!” T.P.: “I beg your pardon. I thought you
wanted a word.” M.C.: “I didn’t want
that word... a chief ingredient in my composition is a most determined
firmness” (Martin Chuzzlewit, ch. 6).
Cf. Byron, Don Juan, XIV. 89: “Firmness
yclept in heroes, kings & seamen, / That is, when they succeed; but greatly
blamed / As obstinacy, both in men &
women, / Whene’er their triumph pales, or star is tamed” (Variorum ed., by T.G.
Steffan & W.W. Pratt[9],
III, p. 448). The remark probably suggested by this passage from Dickens &
often fathered on Bertrand Russell, “I am firm, thou art obstinate, he is
pig-headed”, & its numerous imitations in The New Statesman & Nation, June 5, 1948 (“I am beautiful, you
have quite good features, she isn’t bad looking if you like that type”; “I have
reconsidered it, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word”; “I
have about me something of the haunting fragrance of the Orient, you rather
overdo it dear, she stinks ”; “I am an epicure, you are a gourmand, he has both
feet in the trough”; “I am sunburnt, you are sallow, she must have a touch of
the tar-brush”; “I am an artist, you are artistic, he is arty”; “I travel, you
tour, he trips”; “I am Oxford, you are Cambridge, he is London School of
Economics”; “I am frank, you are blatant, he is a Buchmanite”; “I know what I
like, you have no taste, he is a Philistine”; “I love her, you seem fond of
her, he is leading her astray”; “I have a few rarish things, you are a goldmine
for dealers, he fills his house with junk” etc.; cf. Gontran de Poncins’s
fastidious father to his negligent mother: “The King of England is attired. I
am dressed. You are merely covered”
— quoted in T.L.S., June 29, 1956, p. 387, review of
Father Sets the Pace) — all show that value is a fact that has many
facets. Three real examples occur in my recent readings: (1)《老學庵筆記》卷四：“慎東美伯筠工書，王逢原贈之詩，極稱其筆法，有曰：‘鐵索急纏蛟龍僵。’蓋言其老勁也。東坡見其題壁，亦曰：‘此有何好，但似篾束枯骨耳！’伯筠聞之，笑曰：‘此意逢原已道了。’”Cf.《尹文子‧大道篇上》：“名宜屬彼，分宜屬我。我愛白而憎黑，韻商而捨徵，好膻而惡焦，嗜甘而逆苦，白黑、商徵、膻焦、甘苦，彼之名也；愛憎、韻捨、好惡、嗜逆，我之分也。定此名分，則萬事不亂也。”(“名”denotes the objective quality, &“分”refers
to the feeling
attitude.) (2) In the article on George Sand in his Les
Contemporains, IIIe
Série, Lemaître exclaims: “Lactea ubertas,
un ruisseaux copieux et bienfaisant de mammelle nourricière, ô douce Io du
roman contemporain!” Cf. Nietzsche’s biting sarcasm in Götzen-Dämmerung, “Streifzüge eines Unzeitgemässen”: “1. ... George
Sand: oder lactea ubertas, auf deutsch: die Milchkuh mit ‘schönem Stil’.... 6.
George Sand.... diese fruchtbare Schreibe-Kuh” (Werke, Taschen-Ausgabe, Alfred Kröner Verlag, Bd. X, S. 293, 297);
also Jules Renard, Journal, 23 fév.
1891: “George Sand, la vache bretonne de la littérature.” (3) William James on
Dilthey: “A soft fat man with black hair, of a totally uncertain age between 25
and 40, with little bits of green eyes swimming in their fat filled orbits, &
the rest of his face quite ‘realizing one’s idea’ of the infant Bacchus... [He]
wore the ‘obligatory coat’ etc., had an exceedingly grimy shirt & collar
and a rusty old rag of a cravat...[10]
The Prof, was overflowing with information with regard to everything knowable &
unknowable... This cuss seemed to me to be nothing if not a professor”
(Letters, ed. by Henry James, I, pp.
109-110). Cf. Hugo von Hofmannsthal’s tribute to Dilthey[11]:
“Wunderbar die Luft um diesen alten Mann.
Herbstluft, geistige,
strahlende Herbstluft: Fernes, Fernstes, zum Greifen nahe, das Nahe vergeistigt
und wie verklärt... Schwingendes Gespräch, rastloses Vorwärts, kluges freudiges
Aufblitzen altersloser Augen... Geistiges Gebilde, ihm war es lebendig... So
knüpfte er Zeit an Zeit, so war ihm Geschichte ein lebendiges Geschehen... Ein
deutscher Professor, wie Doktor Faust. Der Name ehrt ihn, er ehrt den Namen” (Gesammelte Werke, S. Fischer Verlag, Bd.
III, S. 155, 157, 158).【Tristram Shandy, Bk. I, ch. 17: “’Tis known by the name of
perseverance in a good cause — & of obstinacy in a bad one.”】【New Statesman, 13 May 1977: “I cite, you incorporate, he
plagiarizes”; “I tell a funny story, you get the details wrong, he forgets the
punch line”; “I’m reasonably handy, you’re a Do-It-Yourself bore, he even makes
his own matches”; “I possess a rational degree of self-esteem, you’re
a shade too pleased with yourself at times, he’s A.I. Rowse”; “I wash
regularly, you’re a bit of a hygiene fanatic, his pores must be shouting at him
‘why can’t you bloody well leave us alone!”; “my handwriting has character,
your handwriting is untidy, he is a doctor”; “I am stocky, you are short &
stout, he is a fat little turd”; “I meditate, you day-dream, hejust sits there”;
New Statesman, 26 Jan. 1979, p. 116: “The
old snob declension still holds: I am a traveller; You are a holiday-maker; He
is on a package tour.”】
Black Butterflies (papillons noirs) on White Nights (nuits blanches): 1. The non-party man
who serve as the figurehead or shirt-front: a yes man and a nobody. 2. The
masses: a merger of “mass” & “asses”; the proper geese for propaganda. 3. “Get
organized!”: wear livery if you want a livelihood. 4. Écrivain engage: a windbag which tries to be a sandbag.
五百四[12]
王之望《漢濱集》十六卷。文論事明暢，不可以格律繩之。詩亦偶有佳意，而詞未雅適。
卷一〈雜詩四首〉：「春蠶口吐絲，生人皆仰供[13]。蜘蛛絲滿腹，衹能打飛蟲。衣服與網羅，利害豈可同。蠶生旬月老，蜘蛛無春冬。蠶食惟草木，蜘蛛肉食豐。蠶以繭自縛，蜘蛛挂青空。蜘蛛有餘毒，春蠶有餘功。受報乃如此，天理不可窮。二」「龜肉不可食，蟹螯不中卜。龜以殻自戕[14]，蟹以味見戮。所養殊毅豹，所亡等臧穀。一足致患害，內外皆鴆毒。嵇康坐才死，霍禹以勢族。樂哉蟹螯中，貯此老龜肉。三」按瞻叔詩以此二篇為最洗鍊。
【勞格《讀書雜識》卷十二刪〈謝宰相啟〉四首，皆疑是汪浮溪之作。補〈題王氏秀野堂〉七律一首，見《天台續集別編》卷五。】
五百五[15]
張嵲《紫微集》三十六卷。《四庫提要》云：「嵲為陳與義之表姪，少時嘗從學，故劉克莊《後村詩話》謂其詩句法與簡齋相似，而於五言古詩，尤極賞其語意高簡，意味深遠。又所摘七言絕句，尤能以標格見長，大抵清和婉約，較勝與義。其他雖未能遽相方駕，而氣體高朗，頗足以自名一家。古文典雅沈實，亦尚有北宋諸家矩矱。惟〈紹興復古詩〉一章，貢諛秦檜，深玷生平。《朱子語錄》載嵲為檜草奏藁，陳振孫《書錄解題》亦載此事，且稱檜旋疑嵲貳己。今代檜奏稿雖已不存，而是詩尚傳，供千秋嗤點，亦足以昭炯戒矣。今據《永樂大典》所錄，裒輯排比，當已尠所缺遺」云云。【《賓退錄》卷四：「秦會之當國，決意講和，虜俄背盟，秦不知所措。張巨山時為司勳郎，為代作自解之奏，略曰：『伊尹告成湯，德無常師，主善為師。臣前贊議和，今請伐虜，是皆主善為師，如其不濟，則陳力就列，不能者止。當遵孔聖之訓。』秦大喜，擢巨山為右吏，而不知所引皆誤也。……或大書於［秘書省］門云：『周任為孔聖，太甲作成湯。』秦大怒。」】余每謂《提要》之援引每輾轉稗販，《四庫》之編輯常草率成書。此《集》亦其一例。《後村大全集》卷一百七十六《詩話續集》謂巨山陳簡齋之表姪，舉五古四首，稱為「語意高簡，意味深遠」，舉五、七絕九首，稱為「精麗宛轉有思致」，「世好巨山詩者絕少，惟余與湯伯紀爾。」又引其評梅聖俞、黃魯直兩文，以為皆「不易之論」，因推為「南渡巨擘」。《宋詩紀事》卷四十則略為一句云：「巨山，陳簡齋表姪，詩法似之。」平白杜撰「詩法似之」四字，《提要》遽信以為實。又《宋詩紀事》於後村所稱引之篇什，五古僅錄二首，絕句尚存五首，多寡亦復懸殊，《提要》因附會謂巨山七言絕句獨勝簡齋。使館臣一檢後村原書，則不應此《集》卷三十三衹有〈讀梅聖俞詩〉一篇，而無〈讀黃魯直集〉一篇也。後村所稱五言絕句「犖確南山路，叢筠冒水生。寒梅銷落盡，猶有數花明」，《宋詩紀事》亦轉載之，而此《集》竟失收。乃至卷七〈三月二日奉詔赴西園曲宴席上賦呈致政開府大帥〉七律四首，蘇子容作，見《蘇魏公集》卷一，又卷三十三〈書帖為戒〉一篇云：「朱文公熹晚年書帖為戒云：『肉食太多，為害尤甚』云云，夫巨南渡時人，朱子父執（卷三十六有〈祭朱喬年文〉），安能有此言？明是後人所作，皆羼入《集》中，館臣瞠若無覩，尤可欪笑。「太師」誤作「大帥」，其他訛脫，隨處皆是，不知署名謄錄、校勘諸臣所司何事？巨山貢諛乞憐秦檜之作，《集》在在而有，匪衹卷一之〈紹興中興上復古詩‧并序〉。卷三〈賀師垣賜御書一德格天之閣牌并鍍金器皿青羅涼繖從人紫羅衫鍍金腰帶儀物等〉七律四章（「炎精光復論元功，事業伊周信比蹤」云云），歌頌會之功德，更非如〈復古詩〉之尚歸美於高宗也。卷二十六〈與劉待制狀〉第一首謂以獻言得罪狀丞相：「氷炭交懷，曉惴夕懼，乞委曲一言，使鈞意釋然，庶幾稍敢仕進」云云，當即《提要》引陳振孫所謂檜疑其貳己之事。同卷尚有〈賀秦太師車駕幸賜第啟〉亦稱為「道冠伊臯，功踰周召」，而自謂「夙蒙恩遇，久荷帲幪，望丞相之門，豈絕掃塵之念」，莫非千秋嗤點之資也。簡齋詩氣體蒼健，韻節高亮，屬詞運事如織錦琢玉，深得少陵、山谷之髓。巨山雖尊簡齋，而《後村大全集》卷一百七十六載其評山谷云：「譽者或過其實，毀者或損其真，皆非真知魯直者。大抵魯直文不如詩，詩律不如古，古不如樂府。蓋魯直所學詩，源流甚遠。自以為出於《詩》與《楚詞》，過矣。蓋規模漢魏以下，而得其彷彿者也。故其佳處往往與《古樂府》、《玉台新詠》中諸人所作合。其古律詩酷學少陵，雄健太過，遂流而入於險怪。要其病在太著意，欲道古今人所未道爾。其文則專學西漢，惜其才力褊局，不能汪洋，趦趄如其紀事，立言頗時有類處。其詩雖特妙於樂府，然惜乎擇之不精。用古今語頗雜，遂有害騷雅處。昔柳子厚讀《鶡冠子》，以『貪夫徇利……』數語，為非《鶡冠子》。何以知之？曰不類。況古語之與今語，其類耶？至其為〈黃夫人碑〉，文似左氏，詞似屈原，可以闊步古今矣。雖使柳柳州復生，不能出其右也。」【《永樂大典》22537「集」字張嵲〈豫章集序〉。】是其大本已與江西違牾。卷四〈贈陳符寶去非〉五古、卷三十五〈陳公資政墓誌銘〉擬其詩於陶、謝、韋、柳，不言得之少陵、山谷，大可著眼。故所作不主用事，不為高調，異乎簡齋。至如卷二〈庚辰二月雪夜作〉之「辦此了不難，咳唾煩天公」[16]，襲簡齋〈浴室觀雨〉、〈夏雨〉、〈積雨喜霽〉諸五古語意，偶一為之，不足為憑也。大多詞蕪而氣惰，其佳者則言語澄淡而意摯韻遠。五、七律最非所擅。後村「南渡巨擘」之稱，未免過情，然不肯依門傍戶而尚足以自立，則遠勝山谷諸外甥矣。
卷一〈紹興聖孝感通詩并序〉：「將強卒武，人有奮心，舉而并勍敵、復故地，宜如竈上掃除。而方且詔封疆之臣無得妄動，敵來則禦之，去則已，曰：南北等吾赤子也。淺陋之臣悵悵然，率不喻聖意所謂。下臣嵲竊迹行事而深思焉，若有得其解於萬分者。蓋敵固吾仇也，而二聖、大母在焉，顧可投鼠而不忌器乎？紹興辛酉，金人來告和，且許以先帝梓宮歸於我，別命貴臣奉太母輿衛以歸。向非皇帝陛下自得聖人之意於六經之所不載，且有同德之臣以輔，其治何以至於是哉！」按可謂善於說辭者矣。卷十〈讀楚世家〉云：「喪歸荆楚痛遺民，修好行人繼入秦。不待金仙來震旦，君王已解等寃親。」後村稱之曰：「其忠憤切於戊午讜議矣，但微而顯婉而成章耳。」然則〈聖孝感通詩〉面諛也，〈讀楚世家〉退有後言也。兩舌固可恨，然尚勝於全無心肝而一心迎合者。
卷二〈將至臨安途中偶作呈表叔陳給事去非〉。按卷三有〈自順陽至均房道五首用陳符寶去非韻〉、卷四有〈贈陳符寶去非〉（「唯公妙句法，字字陵風騷」；「癯瘦藏具美，和平蓄餘豪」；「世無杜陵老，誰知何水曹？柳韋儻可作，論詩與定交」）、卷六有〈陳參政挽詩三首〉、卷八有〈與陳去非夏致宏孫信道遊南澗同賦四首〉、卷三十五有〈陳公資政墓誌銘〉（「公尤邃於詩，體物寓興，清邃超特，紆餘閎肆，高舉橫厲，上下陶、謝、韋、柳之間」）、卷三十六有〈祭陳參政去非文〉。
〈雨霽出郊外〉：「時雨當夜來，出郭喜新霽。佇立望四郊，春容莽無際。羣山隔大江，蒼巖澹相對。輕風生水波，微露滋花氣。緣津柳已暗，忽悟清明至。融怡歲序同，俯仰山河異。逢時思墳墓，拜掃十年廢。聞有故童僕，壺飡酹荒隧。新阡固已遠，龍輴尚天外。已深濡露悲，更下孤臣淚。」按巨山稱簡齋「上下陶、謝、韋、柳」，分明自道祈嚮所在，觀此章可知。
〈晚行閣道自對溪趨小柏宿〉：「高峯猶返照，絕壑已先晦。蒼波去不窮，青崖儼相對。山回路欲斷，溪豁雙流滙。閣道自委蛇，林影常澹瀩。仰空欣樹佳，佇立驚石怪。山晚雲不驅，路暗客猶邁。平生事幽討，興與林泉會。何意漂泊年，得此行李內。境勝固所便，地絕復多畏。娟娟月初上，飂飂遠風快。幽蟬響復咽，宿鳥驚欲墜。望望驛尚賒，應在青烟外。」按此亦學韋、柳者，為刪去鋪比語。參觀卷三〈遊下巖寺〉：「攬勝欣遠游，撫身悲轉蓬。憂樂未相償，林霏生晚容」；卷四〈入峽〉：「奇觀忽鶩過，我興方未已。賴此慰羈愁，無庸傷轉徙。」
〈夷陵〉：「吳蜀相持地，江山真險固。昔聞焚夷陵，今兹但遺堵。山遠欲連天，江寛疑浸樹。左顧渚宫塗，右眺襄陽路。野逈無居人，荒村但豺虎。依依念鄉井，愴愴悲墳墓。月淡江風寒，雲深楚山暮。佇立小踟蹰，蒼蒼歸鳥去。」
〈防江〉：「兵銷田事始，夜來春雨勻。向時耦耕者，十無三四人。努力勿轉徙，赦語如陽春。一」「大漠與吳越，天南天北頭。不虞《後村詩話》引作『虜猶』二字涉吾地，飲馬長淮流。飲馬猶尚可，莫使學操舟。二」按「飲馬」二句仿〈獨漉篇〉句法，淵明〈歸田園居〉「衣沾不足惜」二語亦此法。《後漢書‧王莽傳》、〈南蠻傳〉、《新唐書‧楊虞卿傳》、孫可之〈書田將軍邊事〉皆有此類句法。參觀《陵陽室中語》論山谷詩、吳景旭《歷代詩話》卷五十九[17]。《穀梁傳‧文公九年》：「毛伯來求金。求車猶可，求金甚也！」《水滸傳》六回丘小乙歌：「我無妻時猶閒可，你無夫時好孤栖。」〈小雅‧正月〉：「哿矣富人，哀此惸獨」，「哿」即「閒可」、「尚可」、「猶可」也。
卷五〈閩中早春〉：「愁見繁雲帖死灰，驟喜春從天際回。晴雲流爛滿峯起，瀲灔陂塘泉脈來。春歸欲驗將何許，柳腰杏頰知春處。出門矯首望四郊，滿目都無故園樹。（中略）老夫此時三歎息，晴靄暄風總輕擲。緣岡繞澗試幽尋，好鳥一聲山桂碧。却憶當年漢水邊，花光柳色媚晴天。（中略）衹今春事知何有，傷心萬里空回首。中原但有骨如麻，杜曲應無花似酒。我今流落荒山隈，秋蓬作鬢心催頽。逢花却恐被花惱，幸兹寂寞無狂媒。閉門睡足高舂後，爐烟一炷消清晝。」按修詞不精潔，「衹今」、「我今」兩換頭處太相似。又按巨山居閩甚久，故《屏山集》中酬答甚多。
〈蔓菁花詩〉[18]：「遊絲百尺如堪挽，小蟲羣飛欣日暖。蒿萊滿地不見春，唯有蔓菁迷病眼。無復陵陂間碎金，青苔漫想元都觀。今朝幸值天無風，飛來雌蝶畏雄蜂。村中女兒將插鬢，不信河陽萬樹紅。幽人惜春春已遠，把酒屬君君自遣，蔓菁開花猶爛漫。君不見西園桃李能幾時，此輩天教擅春晚。」
卷九〈過覃氏園偶題〉：「十日濃陰飛細雨，清川初漲水平沙。幽人閉户春已半，開遍山南山北花。」
〈二月二十四日至魏塘〉：「一行疏柳對柴門，又見荒烟上晚村。日日牆陰觀日影，人生消得幾黄昏。六」按句本之趙德麟〈清平樂〉詞之「斷送一生憔悴，只消幾個黃昏。」放翁〈小園〉詩：「晨露每看花藟坼，夕陽頻見樹陰移」，自注：「此二事非閑寂不知也。」（《劍南詩稿》卷二十五）景略同而情大異矣。黃莘田〈春日雜思〉云：「夕陽大是無情物，又送墻東一日春」，則巨山之意也。韓冬郎〈夕陽〉絕句云：「花前灑淚臨寒食，醉裏回頭問夕陽。不管相思人老盡，朝朝容易下西墻。」而賀方回〈薄倖〉詞云：「人間晝永無聊賴。厭厭睡起，猶有花梢日在」；周美成〈丹鳳吟〉詞云：「晝永惟思傍枕[19]，睡起無憀，殘照猶在亭角」，皆可比勘。皆本之劉禹錫〈牆陰歌〉：「莫言牆陰數尺間，老却主人如等閒。」然諸君皆得福而不自知，若夫居危處困，則如宋明帝〈與諸方鎮及大臣詔〉所謂「休仁坐生嫌畏，每值宵，輒語左右云：『我已復得今一日。』[20]」（《全宋文》卷八）【鄭思肖〈春日遊承天寺〉：「不管少年人老去，春風歲歲闔閭城。」】【劉禹錫〈牆陰歌〉：「莫言牆陰數尺間，老却主人如等閒。」[21]】
〈讀太平廣記〉：「夢裏空驚歲月長，覺時追憶始堪傷。十年烜赫南柯守，竟日歡娛審雨堂。三」按後村載巨山此詩自注云：「有人夢入蟻穴，榜曰『審雨堂』。」按此盧汾事，見《太平廣記》卷四七四引《窮神秘苑》。【《搜神記》卷十：「夏陽盧汾，字士濟，夢入蟻穴，見堂宇三間，勢甚危豁，題其額，曰：『審雨堂』。」】方虛谷屢用其語，如《桐江續集》卷一〈七月初一日晚惡風而雨〉云：「審雨堂中知是夢，未須豪橫詫衰翁」，卷三〈老悔〉云：「即今安在凌烟閣，畢竟無非審雨堂」。又按《樹萱錄》載大菌下有樓台，榜「朝榮觀」三字，恰相似。
〈絕句〉：「日炙櫻桃已半紅，更薰花氣滿襟風。路傍謁舍蹲遺獸，應有荒墳在麥中」
卷十〈建炎庚戌潰兵犯襄漢寒食阻趨光化拜掃追慕痛哭因成二詩〉：「故園墳樹想青葱，寒食風光淚眼中。自痛不如傖父子，紙錢猶挂樹頭風。」
卷三十二〈讀管子〉：「書多古字，如『專』作『摶』，『忒』作『貸』，『況』作『兄』，此類甚眾。〈大匡〉載召忽語曰：『雖得天下，吾不生也，兄與我齊國之政也』。注乃謂『召忽呼管仲為兄』。」按〈漢武內傳〉：「王母命田四飛答哥，哥畢」，「哥」即古文「歌」也，而呂種玉《言鯖》不知當以「答哥」為句、「哥畢」為句 ，連屬為一，乃謂：「弟呼兄為哥哥，本此。」正與召忽呼「兄」作對。「摶」、「剸」、「顓」、「嫥」皆通「專」，見盧紹弓《鍾山札記》卷一引《史記》、《管子‧內業篇》、《荀子‧榮辱篇》等。
卷三十三〈讀梅聖俞詩〉：「長於敘事，雄健不足而雅淡有餘。然其淡而少味，無一唱三歎之意，蓋有愧古人矣。五言律詩特精，句法步驟真有大曆諸公之騷雅云。」
〈追薦亡姊夫王性之亡姊疏〉。按卷三十六〈祭姊夫王性之文〉云：「室廬廢為邱墟，橐金盡於賊手。名未列於王官，年不登於中壽。漂轉困窮，客死異縣，母妻兒女，瓦解氷散」云云，絕非王銍，乃別一人也。
卷三十五〈陳公資政墓誌銘〉。按見第四百五十六則。
[3]「弘、嘉」原作「宏、嘉」。
[13]「生人」原作「生人」。
[14]「自戕」原作「為戕」。
[16]「煩」原作「了」。
[17]「竹石牛」條。
[18]「蔓菁」原作「蔓青」。
[19]「惟思」原作「思惟」。
[20]「休仁」原作「休文」。
沒有留言:
張貼留言