西林太清夫人聽雪小照
六百六十一[1]
Heraclitus, Fr. 45: “They understand not how that which is a[t] variance with itself agrees with itself. There sits
attunement of opposite tensions, like that of the bow & the harp” (Hippocrates & Heraclitus, tr. W.H.S.
Jones, “The Loeb Classical Library”, vol. IV, p. 485). This metaphor for “the
unity of the opposite” (what Plotinus called “l’harmonie qui résulte des
contraires”, Ennéads, III. ii. 16,
tr. E. Bréhier, “Collection des universités de France”, III, p. 45; cf. 第七五一則) or dialectic (see Jonas Cohn, Theorie der Dialektik, S. 6 on
Heraclitus with whom “Widerspruch und Widerstreit selbst muss Erkenntnismittel werden”).
Which reminds one of《老子》七十七章“天之道，其猶張弓”, can now be supplanted by giving the “tenor” a “vehicle”
perhaps unknown to the pre-Socratic Greeks. Morris R. Cohen, A Preface to Logic, p. 76: “Felix Adler
has used the figure of the scissors to denote the fact that the mind never
operates effectively except by using both unity & plurality like the two
blades which move in opposite directions. Professor Marshall, in his Principles of Economics, has used the
same figure to denote the mutual dependence of the economic factors of supply &
demand. At other times the action of our jaws in mastication, or the necessity
of applying a brake when you are going down hill, have appealed to me as
representative figures” (cf. Cohen, Reason
& Nature, p. 165 on “Theory of Polarity”: “... like blades of scissors
accomplishing the same task by moving in opposite direction”). Cf. Jeremy
Taylor: “Isidore [Orig., Lib. VI,
cap. xiv] in contemplation of a Pen observ’d that the nib of it was divided into
two, but yet the whole body remained one: Credo
propter mysterium; he found a knack it [sic.],
& thought it was a mystery” (The
Golden Grove, ed. L.P. Smith, p. 143). Incidentally Sydney Smith
used a similar figure when speaking of marriage: “It resembles a pair of shears,
so joined that they cannot be separated; often moving in opposite directions,
yet always punishing anyone who comes between them” (Lady Holland, A Memoir of Sydney Smith, new ed. N.D.,
ch. 11, p. 234). The Italians highlight another aspect of the simile: “Gli
avvocati... sono come le lame delle
forbici; si scagliano l’un contro l’altro, ma non si feriscono mai; chi ne
tocca è il povero cliente che sta in mezzo” (Dino
Provenzal, Perché si dice così?, p.
53). Cf. Allan Wade on not including in his edition of Yeats’s letters the
correspondence between Yeats & Sturge Moore: “To have included Yeats’s
letters alone in the present collection, had that been possible, would have
been, in Henry James’s phrase, like trying to cut with one blade of a pair of
scissors” (The Letters of W.B. Yeats,
p. 15). See 第七六九則.【Nietzsche, Menschliches,
Allzumenschliches, Bd. II, Abt. i, §79: “Wir fördern mitunter die Wahrheit
durch eine doppelte Ungerechtigkeit, dann nämlich, wenn wir die beiden Seiten
einer Sache, die wir nicht im Stande sind zusammen zu sehen, hintereinander
sehen und darstellen, doch so, daß wir jedesmal die andre Seite verkennen oder
leugnen, im Wahne, Das, was wir sehen, sei die ganze Wahrheit” (Werke, hrsg. K. Schlechta, I. 768).
Pascal’s thought is frequently dialectical, e.g. Pensées, §353: “On ne montre pas sa grandeur pour être à une
extrémité, mais bien en touchant les deux à la fois et remplissant tout l’entre‑deux”; §567: “Les deux raisons contraires. Il faut
commencer par là sans cela on n’entend rien, et tout est hérétique. Et même à
la fin de chaque vérité il faut ajouter qu’on se souvient de la vérité opposée”
(Oeuvres, ed. L. Brunschvicg, XIII, pp.
267-8; XIV, p. 14). Cf. Goethe quoted in 七六八則, 又七六九則. 】
The
Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 2nd ed., 1954, p. 21 gives Émile
Augier’s play Le Mariage d’Olympe, I.
i as the locus of the phrase “la
nostalgie de la boue”. Good for old Augier, pedestrian & prosaic, to have
hit upon this expressive formula! But I find in Heraclitus, Fr. 54: “To delight in mud (bόrboro chaίrein[2])”
(op. cit., p. 487); probably a boldly
literal statement, especially as Fr.
53 runs: “Pigs wash in mud and barnyard fowl in dust.”
六百六十二[3]
When trying — without success — to
track down Henry James’s remark, “Tennyson was not Tennysonian”, of which The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 2nd
ed., p. 268 gives The Middle Years as
the locus, I recall Marx’s famous
disclaimer recorded in Engel’s letter to Conrad Schmidt, Aug. 5, 1890: “Ganz
wie Marx von den französischen ‘Marxisten’ der letzten 70er Jahre Jahre
sagte: ‘Tout ce que je sais, c’est que je ne suis pas Marxiste’” (Marx-Engels, Ausgewählte Schriften, Dietz Verlag
1955, II, p. 457). The “Marxist” can retort to Marx: “So much the worse for
you! You would be one if you could.” If it is true that “a science which
hesitates to forget its founders is lost” (A.N. Whitehead, The Organization of Thought, Educational & Scientific, p. 115),
a school of thought, in order to be a going concern, cannot afford to remember
too well the ipse dixit of the dead
and gone master. While bolstering up the prestige of the old sage &
carefully preserving the patina of his ancient saws, it has to move with the
times & accommodate modern instances. In other words, for Marxism to be a
living force, it must be dead to Marx’s own exhortations; or rather if Marxism
is to live long, Marx must be safely dead, though his corpse is kept with all
the reverence due to the loved one & prepared with all the mummifying skill
of the mortician. Close attachment to his teachings would be a kind of
spiritual and intellectual Mezentian union. Unfortunately, however, no school
of living thought, qua school, can completely shake off its
dead founder; it is therefore always a haunted house. New wine is put into the
old bottle, but the cask will always savour of the first fill.【Charles
Maurras, Bons et Mauvais Maîtres: “Ainsi
Hugo vaut mieux que l’hugolisme” (Oeuvres Capitales, III, p. 334).】【Frank
Binder, Dialectic, p. 16: “He [Gorgias]
would have never found a school, since it is the mediocrity of the pupil &
not the eminence of the master that is multiplied.”】【G.
Ryle, Dilemmas, ch. 1: “So too Plato
was, in my view, a very unreliable Platonist. He was too much of a philosopher
to think that anything that he had said was the last word. It was left to his
disciples to identify his footmarks with his destination.】
In repudiating his French disciples,
Marx therefore shows much less wisdom than Nietzsche in Also sprach Zarathustra, I, xii, 3: “Allein gehe ich nun, meine
Jünger! Auch ihr geht nun davon und allein! So will ich es. Geht fort von mir
und wehrt euch gegen Zarathustra! Und besser noch: schämt euch seiner!... Man
vergilt einem Lehrer schlecht, wenn man immer nur der Schüler bleibt” (Werke, Alfred Kröner, Bd. VI, S. 114).
Croce also says: “I meri ascoltatori del mònito,... che ripetono combinano
meccanicamente o various superficialmente le opere originali dei capiscuola,
non apportano niente alla storia viva della poesia, e la stasi che ne consegue à rotta soltanto, in poesia come in filosofia, e
dappertutto, dal cosiddetto ‘scolaro infedele’, dal fedelissimo scolaro
infedele, da colui che ha qualcosa di proprio da dire, il solo degno del
maestro, che con la sua forza voleva suscitare forza e non già dar luogo a
inerzia” (La Poesia, 5a
ed., p. 180); again: “È certamente assai penoso per chi ha posto certe
definizioni e certi concetti e segnato le correlative metodiche, vedere le sue
formole, di cui conosce, con la forza, il limite, e che vuol serbare vive e
plastiche, in continuo sviluppo di ulterion determinazioni, vedere irrigidite
in mano a gente che le adopera come se fossero mazze, picconi, accette, e
simili grosse e pesanti strumenti da stroncare ed abbattere. [quoting Marx’s boutade, he goes on] È l’atteggiamento
che è tratto a prendere l’indagatore e espositore di verità in presenza del
meccanico uso che si fa delle verità da lui ritrovate, e che anche lo porta e
rifiutare ogni aggettivo tratto dal suo nome o il suo nome ridotto all’astratto
con una terminazione in ‘ismo’” (Ib.,
p. 310; cf. R.P. Blackmur, quoted in 第七百二則).【Tucker: “Nobody was less of an epicure than
Epicurus himself”(Judith S. Neaman & Carole G. Silver, A Dictionary of Euphemisms, Unwin Paperbacks, 1984, p. 85).】Cf.
the Chinse zenists（《五燈會元》卷二神秀稱能大師「得無師之智」；卷十三龍牙云：「江湖雖無礙人之心，為時人過不得，江湖成礙人去；祖佛雖無謾人之心，為時人透不得，祖佛成謾人去」；卷十四道楷云：「若得心中無事，佛祖猶是冤家」；《僧寶傳》卷二十九佛印云：「昔雲門說法如雲雨，絕不喜人記錄其語，見必罵逐曰：『汝口不用，反記吾語，異時裨販我去。漁獵文字語言，正如吹網欲滿，非愚即狂』」；王陽明《傳習錄》徐愛〈序〉云：「門人有私錄先生之言者，先生聞之，謂之曰：『聖賢教人，如醫用藥，皆因病立方，酌其虛實、溫涼、陰陽、內外，而時時加減之，初無定說。若拘執一方，鮮不殺人矣』」）.
André Gide, Journal, “Bibliothèque de la Pléiade”, p. 1292: “... ‘Je ne suis
pas marxiste’, s’écriait Marx lui-même, prétend-on. J’aime cette boutade. Elle
veut dire: ‘Je vous apporte une méthode nouvelle, et non point une recette, ni
un système clos qui dispense désormais l’homme de tout effort de pensée. Ne
vous en tenez donc pas à mes paroles, mais passez outre.’” That this is not
what Marx means, nay, is the very opposite of what he means, can be seen from
the context of the boutade in Engel’s
letter. Julien Benda is nearer the mark when he quotes it as pointing the moral
of “les déformations que fait l’humanité anonyme des idées” (Du Style d’Idées, p. 162), and wisely
adds: “Et pourtant ce qui constitue l’histoire des idées, en tant qu’elle est
action et passion collective, ce n’est la pensées de Kant ou de Descartes que
vingt solitaires lisent, c’est précisément la simplification qu’on font les
manuels” etc.
For similar remarks: Wilkes to
George III on Sergeant Glynn: “The fellow is a Wilkite which Your Majesty knows
I never was” (Jest Book, ed. Mark
Lemon, “Golden Treasury Series”, §530); Swinburne to John Morley: “All I say is
that Christ was not a Christian, & certainly would not (me judice) have been if born within the
Christian era” (C.Y. Lang,
The Swinburne Letters, IV, p. 147); Mark Twain, Notebook:
“If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would not be — a Christian” (Clifton
Fadiman & Charles van Doren, The
American Treasury, p. 983); É. Gilson: “Platon lui-même n’est nulle part,
mais le platonisme est partout. Disons plutôt qu’il y a partout des
platonismes” (Philosophie au moyen âge,
2e éd., 1944, p. 268); cf. George Soutar’s epigram which damns the barrenness
of the Popian school[4]:
“Pope has written nothing since his death” (Nature
in Greek Poetry, p. xi); Böhm’s book Faust
der Nichtfaustische (mentioned in W. Kaysor, Das Sprachliche Kunstwerk, p. 220[5]).
Cf. 一百八十二則 on
Rolfe, Hadrian the Seventh, p. 23; 六百八十四則on Keat’s Letters, I, p. 252.
六百六十三[6]
太清西林春《天游閣集》五卷。詞旨纖俗，閨中人繡餘學語，填匡湊字，聊賢於博奕，往往拙劣可哂。如卷五〈辛丑七夕先夫子下世三周年矣清風閣看初日有感〉云：「當年舊句難忘却，可也靈魂憶我耶」；又〈戲答蘇嫗〉云：「老嫗從容含笑道，苔階路滑向須扶。愛人若輩應如此，畢竟今吾非故吾」，皆似唱本體，而王幼遐、冒鶴亭、況夔生等，乃艷說「男中成容若，女中太清春」，蓋非特腦脂遮目，抑亦勢利薰心矣。陳雲伯攀附揑造，為太清所斥（見第二百四十四則），固咎由自取。然就詩論，雲伯儘非高手，為太清師則綽乎有餘。使太清果能求教通人，所造當不至是，惜其僅知與太素惡詩唱隨耳。【《詞學季刊》第二卷第四號影印〈西林太清夫人聽雪小照〉，皤然嫗矣，尚矜飾作態，殊不能想見當年風韻。第一卷第四號謂太清本鄂爾泰曾孫女，西林覺羅氏，幼經變故，養於榮邸包衣人顧氏，遂被選為側福晉。】
〇趨炎好色，人之常情。若乃好死人不可見之色，趨前朝不復熱之炎，以乞兒向火之心，作過門大嚼之態，秀才味酸，清客扯淡，兼莫須有與無聊賴，則冒鶴亭之於《天游閣集》是矣！胡漱唐《退廬詩集》卷三〈答冒鶴亭〉七律自注云：「鶴亭好談掌故，所輯顧太清遺事，不啻楊妃傳也」云云，語含嘲諷。今觀卷四太清詆陳雲伯詩後鶴亭有考訂，且云：「雲伯處處摹仿隨園，裝腔作調，到老不脫脂粉之氣，實實可詆。」蓋未嘗以溺以自鑑醜態也。《集》中附識，企羨揣想，涎流津出，如卷一〈東山苗道士寄小猴〉[7]、卷五〈戲答蘇嫗〉按語是[8]。尤可嗤鄙者，卷三〈春游詩〉按語云：「聞太清游西山，馬上彈鐵琵琶，手白如玉，琵琶黑如墨，見者謂是一幅王嬙出塞圖也。」太清婢學夫人，意度矜貴，力爭上流，與阮雲臺、許滇生、錢衎石家眷屬交往，寧作此角妓行徑？即令有之，事隔百許年，雖尚及見之，而能憶之，且為鶴亭鑿鑿言之乎？《日知錄》卷二十五「湘君」條云：「甚矣人之好言色也！太白，星也，而有妻；河伯，水神也，而有妻；常儀，占月官也，而《淮南子》以為嫦娥；小孤山訛為小姑；杜拾遺訛為十姨。」本亭林之意，若鶴亭者，科以覬覦貴人閨閣，意淫鬼交，亦非過耳。Kierkegaard 嘗云：“Like
Leporello learned literary men keep a list, but the point is what they lack;
while Don Juan seduces girls & enjoys himself — Leporello notes the time,
the place, & a description of the girl” (Kierkegaard, selected by W.H. Auden, p. 20)。Yeats 亦嘲學究：“Old, learned, respectable bald heads / Edit & annotate the lines / That
young men, tossing on their beds, / Rhymed out in love’s despair / To flatter
beauty’s ignorant ear” (“The Scholars”, Collected
Poems, Macmillan, 1934, p. 158)；Hugh Kingsmill 亦云：“Poor
Casanova, the hero of those sprightly academics who spend their lives letting I dare not wait upon In any case I could not” (Michael
Holroyd, Hugh Kingsmill, p. 154)。E.A.
Freeman 所以有 “chatter
about Harriet” 之譏也 (Oxford
Dict. of Quotations, 2nd ed., p. 211)。初不知尚有博雅之士以風流厚誣古人，借而自補平生未足之心者為之詠。《閱微草堂筆記》卷十一狐女詩曰：「深院滿枝花，只應蝴蝶採。喓喓草下蟲，爾有蓬蒿在。」若夫《孽海花》第三回，褚愛林傳言太清與龔定庵遇合事，則《孟心史叢刊》三集「丁香花」條已辨其誣，余不復贅。
六百六十四[9]
西方古詩文中，每有「好內」、「好外」之爭，所謂 “Dubbio amoroso” 是也。Achilles Tatius, II. 35-8 即其一例，“Loeb Classical Library” 中 Stephen Gaselee 譯本 pp. 182-3 有注，引 Pseudo-Lucian,
Amores, ad fin.; “Ganymede and Helen”; Arabian
Nights 按即
P. Mathers 譯本 The Thousand Nights & One Night, Revised ed., 1937, vol. II, pp. 599 ff. “Girls or
Boys?” 諸書。近世學術著作，則 Hans Licht, Beiträge zur antiken
Erotik, S. 25-33 其尤昌言無諱者也。E.R. Curtius, Europäische
Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter, 2te Aufl., 1954, p. 126 考論 “Ganymede and Helen” 一詩源流謂：“Die Vergleichung der Liebesarten ist ein
hellenischer topos” (Christ-Schmidt, Geschichte
der griechischen Litteratur, 6te Auf. II I, 22A. 2) 比類比附，復舉 Anthologia Palatina, V 64 & 115, Gespräch
zwischen Goethe und Riemer 1808 (Biedermann V 74)。參觀二百十則論 The Deipnosophists, Bk. VIII. 605。竊謂梁簡文帝〈桃花曲〉：「但使新花艷，得間美人簪。何須論後實，怨結子瑕心」；李頎〈鄭櫻桃歌〉：「美人姓鄭名櫻桃，……娥娥侍寢專宮掖」；羅虬〈比紅兒詩〉云：「一舸春深指鄂君，好風從度水成紋。越人若見紅兒貌，繡被應羞徹夜薰」；《山中一夕話》卷二〈禁男風告示〉：「雖云寬不如緊」云云：《杏花天》第一回傅貞卿謂花俊生「如兄才貌情趣」云云；《清賢紀》卷四論倪雲林「豈肯舍此娟娟，趣彼渾渾」云云；《品花寶鑑》第二十三回姬亮軒論「坐船、坐車」云云，此物此志也。George Soulié de Morant, Bijou-de-ceinture
一書每襲《品花寶鑑》，第八章袁爽秋論外勝於內，却未以舟車為喻，而以桃之甘而軟喻女，以蘋果之甘而脆喻男 (p. 76)。而以《野叟曝言》第六十回四姨娘所唱歌「怎還似偷鷄的貓兒，要尋那小夥兒」云云，最為盡致。
〇Colin MacInnes, City
of Spades, p. 145 寫 Mr
Vial 謂黑人 Johnny 云：“You’ve lovely finger-nails”，答云：“My toenails also have been much admired”。按 Inman Barnard, Cities & Men, p. 191: “A charming
but impulsive New York lady who sat next General Boulanger, remarked: ‘You have
beautiful hands, General.’ This elicited the reply: ‘But you should see my
feet, Madame.’” 參觀 Jules Renard, Journal, éd. NRF, p. 704: “Vous ne
pourrez pas me dire quelle était la couleur de ma robe la première fois que
vous m’avez vous dire quelle était la couleur de votre pantalon.”
六百六十五[10]
戴望《謫麐堂遺集》文二卷、詩二卷。子高文雅歛，琢飾經術，欲為東漢人整齊安重之格，動成疲弛。詩與當時譚復堂、潘鳳洲等同宗尚，蓋從明詩入手，上攀漢、魏、盛唐。近體勝古體，五律每似徐昌穀之學盛唐，七律每學義山，調亮韻饒，非隔靴搔癢者。如文一之〈記言遺族弟百禮〉、詩一之〈歷歷〉、〈自江寧歸杭州雜詩四十首〉[11]、詩二之〈雜感五首〉、〈和周十二〉、〈別緒〉則皆為龔定盦體。先君藏《復堂師友箋存》，中有周涑人一札云：「戴子高〈自江寧至杭州四十首雜詩〉章法甚好，漁洋〈歲暮懷人〉尚不及其團卓也」云云，蓋未知其師承所在。《復堂日記補錄》同治二年十一月廿一日謂：「子高於詩志識，而才力薄，未堪深論」，其言頗允。
〇《補遺》僅〈景祐六壬神定經跋〉一篇，殊為未盡。【《媿生叢錄》卷二：「謝湘谷先生言子高有〈上曾文正書〉最佳，今其《集》中不載。」】《復堂師友箋存》中有子高書三通，皆月旦人倫，平章學術，可以增補。又有「十五團欒月」五律一首，即詩二〈別𨝸儀〉，字句小異；〈抽思〉五古四首即詩一〈泉州碧山巖宴集有作〉之第二、三、四、五首，字句小異，當是刻《集》時脫落題目，誤以上屬〈泉州碧山巖宴集〉，遂使詞意與題義乖刺耳；〈高門寓樓坐雨〉一首云：「鬱鬱高樓迥，悠悠短晝眠。枯田春水外，猛雨落花前。夢裏華胥國，愁中㣼利天。人生無一可，撫劍思茫然」，則《集》中所無。
〇施均甫撰〈墓表〉云：「時兵事大定，文治聿修，自公卿以至將帥咸慕儒術，皆將稱道程、朱以蹤孔、孟。而君所講習，又與世違異。」【按《澤雅堂文集》卷六〈戴子高墓表〉字句與此本大異，無許語。】按子高丁卯正月六日金陵與復堂書云：「自設書局，名士麕集，然多考據之經學、江西宗派之詩、桐城之文章，下者為理學家言。」又按均甫《澤雅堂詩集》卷六〈哭戴子高十首〉，最足以考見生平，如第六首云：「佳耦招不來，怨耦推不去。勃谿一室中，久絕生人趣。孔門三出妻，古義今不據。決絕棄家鄉，隱忍對親故。……豈無小星詩，衾綢歌在御。旁生與側挺，亦足慰遲暮。吁嗟龍宮方，獨不傳療妬。」即《復堂文續‧亡友傳》所云：「娶凌氏，強婦人也，不能事姑君。與異居，終其身。妻父凌教諭堃，子高則曰：『吾友教諭之學，不識為妻父』」云云是也。第七首云：「開閣上相尊，接席經生重。六年任校讎，頗獲量才用。……雄雷震大厦，驚飈折隆棟。四海哭曾侯，無似斯人慟」，自注：「曾侯薨，君哭之哀，疾遂亟。」徵之詩一〈贈太傅曾文正公挽詞四首〉、詩二〈上湘鄉相國二首〉、〈送曾相國移督直隸二首〉，一則曰：「九京誰可作，一藝愧相知」；再則曰：「幸得見顏色，遂使忘疎賤」；三則曰：「扣角自慚非國士，摳衣竊喜拜元侯」，亦非偃蹇不屑者。而劉申叔作〈子高傳〉謂其「尤嫉視湘軍諸將帥，方張汶祥刺馬新貽，先生適居金陵，聞報拍案稱善，目汶祥為英傑。嗚呼！此可以觀先生之志」云云，不知何本？「湘軍將帥」語意尤含混。
〇子高與復堂書數稱劉開生，戊辰八月初十日書有云：「東南人物，無過毘陵。毘陵人士，眾首開老」；又云：「所著書高寸許，文之波瀾意度，擬之味經先生，幾有『有若似夫子』之歎。」《遺集》文一〈故禮部儀制司主事劉先生逢祿行狀〉云：「孫某某開孫懌（此字疑『愷』之誤）最有名」；又云：「客游金陵，與開孫玉遇，德量淵然，有黃憲、郭泰之風」；詩二〈贈武進劉開孫〉云：「曠世得見君，自愧非匹儔。」《中和月刊》第二卷趙椿年〈覃研齋師友小記〉記開孫事頗詳，謂：「原名愷，改名翰清，道光丙午舉人，充曾惠敏使俄參贊。曾文正〈復郭意城書〉、李文忠同治十一年與文正會奏〈派遣幼童出洋事實摺〉、薛庸菴〈敘文正幕僚〉、陳頌南《籀經堂集》、張嘯山《舒藝室雜著》（乙編卷上）皆及其人」云云，獨遺却子高此《集》及張德彝《四述奇》（開孫隨曾惠敏使英、法，充參贊官，見光緒六年正月十四日日記；為使署同僚撰〈惠敏叔澄夫婦六十壽序〉，全文見五月初五日日記），何也？【馮夢華《蒿叟隨筆》卷五下記趙惠甫述曾文正軼事、《郭嵩燾日記》。】子高所謂「著書高寸許者」，亦未知行世否？
〇楊葆光《蘇盦文錄》卷一〈書戴子高箑〉云：「頃嘯山翁寓書，以足下箑索字，且曰稱謂勿用『大人』字，何足下之好古也！惲子居戒弟子勿稱『大人』，嘗謂：『不願以此施之於人，尤不願人以此施之於我。』其言良是」云云。此亦子高遺事，可與念劬廬叢書中《復堂日記補錄》所記子高事並傳（如同治五年正月十三日載：「子高竊余前年所得陳奐碩父傳校《管子》走蘇州，咄咄怪事」）。【張嘯山《舒藝室雜著》甲編下〈書戴氏注論語後〉：「注文簡古，頗有漢儒遺意。然公羊解經已多乖刺，邵公申傳益覺煩苛，劉申受乃述之以說《論語》，自鳴其專門之學，君復踵而加厲。凡古書題某氏注，多出自其門人尊師之詞，亦有後人題者，今自稱戴氏，失未思爾。」《楹聯偶記‧代作挽戴子高》云：「漢宋本無爭，笑眾口傳聞實誤；瑕瑜不相掩，到此時毀譽皆空」；又云：「赤舌燒城，再入輪迴須慎口；青雲沒地，博通載籍豈虛生。」魏繇《邵陽魏季詞先生遺集‧復初文錄‧書曾文正公逸事》記：「子高不好洋務，言輒與公忤，公笑謝之。」】
[7] 孟森《心史叢刊‧丁香花》：「冒氏於詩後忽綴一語曰：『此亦長安俊物也。』驟見之不知為何意，意其賞此猴耳。既而按定公《己亥雜詩》，太平湖丁香花之下一首為憶北方獅子貓，詩云：『繾綣依人慧有餘，長安俊物最推渠。故侯門第歌鐘歇，尚辦晨餐二寸魚。』『長安俊物』字出此。冒氏蓋以與定公注射也。幸而太清自詠小猴，設亦有詠獅子貓詩，則將謂與定公所憶同是一貓矣。」
[8]〈戲答蘇嫗〉按語云：「太清僮名段八，婢名石榴，與此嫗皆附驥傳矣。」
[11]「杭州」原作「蘇州」。
沒有留言:
張貼留言