六百七十六[1]
《潛夫論》議論佳而文朴僿，蓋《論衡》之流。〈務本篇第二〉云：「今賦頌之徒，苟為饒辯屈蹇之辭，競陳誣罔無然之事，以索見怪於世。愚夫戇士，從而奇之。此悖孩童之思，而長不誠之言者也。」按即柏拉圖及中世紀道學家非詩之說，參觀 J.E. Spingarn, Literary
Criticism in the Renaissance, pp. 4-5。
〇〈愛日篇第十〉云：「治國之日舒以長，故其民閒暇而力有餘；亂國之日促以短，故其民困務而力不足。所謂治國之日舒以長者，非謁羲和而令安行也；所謂亂國之日促以短者，非謁羲和而令疾驅也。」仲長統《昌言論‧理亂篇》：「夫亂世長而化世短」；李長吉〈相勸酒〉云：「羲和騁六轡，晝夕不曾閑。彈烏崦嵫竹，抶馬蟠桃鞭」，正其意。餘見第二百四十八則論墨憨齋主人《山歌》卷五[2]。又按〈大雅‧既醉〉：「其類維何？室家之壼。」《十駕齋養新錄》卷一曰：「『壼』，《傳》訓為『廣』，《國語》叔向引此章而云：『壼也者，廣裕民人之謂也。』夫古人先齊家而後治國；父子之恩薄，兄弟之志乖，夫婦之道苦，雖有廣厦，常覺其隘矣」云，殊有妙義。亦可謂：治國之境寬以廣，亂國之境促以迫。《詩‧正月》所以歎局天蹐地，〈節南山〉所以難蹙蹙靡騁也。叔向語見〈周語下〉。
〇《鹽鐵論‧大論第五十九》：「是猶遷延而拯溺，揖讓而救火也。」按《宋文憲公全集》卷三十七〈燕書〉「趙成陽堪宮火」一篇，即敷陳「揖讓救火」，以資笑枋。
〇荀悅《申鑒‧政體第一》云：「睹孺子之驅鷄也，而見御民之方。孺子驅鷄，急則驚，緩則滯。方其北也，遽要之，則折而過南；方其南也，遽要之，則折而過北。迫則飛，疎則放。志閑則比之，流緩而不安則食之。」按南要之北，北要之南，《唐音癸籤》卷十七謂韋蘇州詩「驅鷄嘗理邑」、許丁卯詩「遯跡驅鷄吏」皆用此，其意可參觀第二百三十二則論《二程遺書》卷十八伊川論學者扶東倒西語。急、緩二語，可參觀《全後漢文》卷七十四蔡邕〈連珠〉「琴緩張則撓，急張則絕」；《佛說四十二章經》：「沙門思悔欲退。佛問之曰：『汝昔為何業？』曰：『愛彈琴。』佛言：『絃緩如何？』曰：『不鳴矣！』『絃急如何？』曰：『聲絕矣！』『急緩得中如何？』曰：『諸音普矣！』按亦見《雜阿含經》卷九之二五四，又《出曜經》卷六，《真鋯》襲之。」劉賓客〈調瑟詞〉即本此意。
〇《牡丹亭》第十折〈驚夢〉云：「裊晴絲吹來閒庭院，搖漾春如線。」奇語也！下文云：「遍青山啼紅了杜鵑。」花作鳥啼，春如絲漾，思路字法，正爾同揆。《李笠翁偶集》卷一〈貴顯淺〉云：「以游絲一縷，逗起情絲，費如許深心！聽歌《牡丹亭》者，百人之中，有一二人解否？」是也。以情為絲，自吳子華以來，已成常語，蓋自「思緒」推類而得，實本之《楚辭‧九章‧悲回風》云：「糺思心以為纕兮，編愁苦以為膺」，王注：「膺，絡胸。」見第六百二十二則。至以情絲牽合游絲，少陵〈白絲行〉衹云：「落絮游絲亦有情，隨風照日宜輕舉」而已。王涯〈春閨思〉始云：「愁見游空百丈絲，春風挽斷更傷離。」皎然〈效古〉則申言之曰：「萬丈游絲是妾心，惹蝶縈花亂相續。」呂勝幾〈謁金門〉詞曰：「俊雅風流不見，定被鶯花留戀。千尺遊絲舒又罥，繫人心上綫」（《歷代詩餘》卷十一）；程過〈謁金門〉詞曰：「愁似游絲千萬縷，倩東風約住」（《歷代詩餘》卷十二）。【劉文成〈踏莎行‧詠游絲〉云：「弱不勝烟，嬌難著雨、如何綰得春光住」；張埜〈水龍吟‧詠游絲〉云：「縈回不下，似欲繫，春光住」（《歷代詩餘》卷三十六、七十五）。】金星軺注《青邱詩集》卷一〈長相思〉云：「長相思，思何長！愁如天絲遠悠揚，搖風曳日不可量。未能絆去足，唯解結離腸。」一反義山〈春光〉詩所謂「幾時心緒渾無事， 得及游絲百尺長？」【周紫芝《太倉稊米集》卷三十八〈吳傳朋作游絲書為作數語書軸尾〉自注乃云：「『游絲』二字[3]，前人語中無及此者，唯歐陽公有『游絲寂無事，百尺拖清光』之句。」亦寡陋之至矣。】又按臧晉叔《負苞堂文選》卷三〈玉茗堂傳奇引〉云：「此案頭之書，非筵上之曲」云云，又譏若士「逞汗漫之詞藻」，六字定讞。若士詩文詞曲，造語用字，無不鹵莽滅裂，英雄欺人。（周櫟園《書影》卷二：「徐文長知湯義仍先生特深，然評其〈感士不遇賦〉，既以『四裔語譯字生』譏之，又云：『此不過以古字易今字，以奇譎語易今語。如論道理，却不過只有些子。』其推之雖力，其詬之也，亦甚不少矣。」沈際飛評選《玉茗堂集‧賦集》卷一〈廣意賦〉評：「却似象胥，不漢語而數夷語。」皆可參觀。）【楊恩壽《詞餘叢話》卷二記程雨蒼謂：「《牡丹亭》疵纇尤多，如『沉魚落雁鳥驚喧，羞花閉月花愁顫』，『魚雁』而單提『鳥』，『花月』而單提『花』；『閒凝眄，生生燕語明如剪，嚦嚦鶯聲溜滴圓』，下二句主聽，與上三字不貫。」】笠翁此節，暢論曲文之詞采與詩文之詞采非但不同，且要判然相反，因舉若士造語雖「費經營」而「欠明爽」云云，亦謂不易搬演也。二說已逗 “The
long divorce between the stage & literature” (New Statesman, 25 Oct. 1958, p. 563) 之意，亦即 Fritz
Hochwälder 所謂 “Theater
ist keineswegs Literatur. Es kann zur Literaur werden... Von Anfang und in
Zeiten höchster Blüter was echtes Theater immer dein Zirkus zugewandter als dem
Seminar, der Clownerie näher als der Studierstube. Manchmal also endet das
Theater als Literatur. Wo es als Literatur beginnt, lebt as meist nicht lang
als Theater” (“Ueber mein Theater” in German
Life & Letters, Jan. 1959, p. 111)。參觀 Dictionary of World Literature, ed. J.T. Shipley, p. 174, art. “Drama &
Theater”，又 Eric Bentley, The
Playwright as Thinker, (“Meridian Books”), p. 308 引
Aristotle, Lessing, H.D. Traill (“of every drama... it may... be affirmed that...
they are, to the extent to which they are literary, undramatic, &, to the
extent to which they are dramatic, unliterary”)。
〇金星軺輯注《青邱先生詩集》卷十七〈宮女圖〉云：「小犬隔花空吠影，夜深宮禁有誰來？」《列朝詩集傳》謂「有為而作，觀國初昭示諸錄，及高帝手詔豫章侯罪狀可知。」徐釻《本事詩》引《堯山堂外記》謂：「張尚禮作〈宮怨〉詩云：『庭院沉沉晝漏清，閑門春草共愁生。夢中正得君王寵，却被黃鸝叫一聲。』高帝以其能摹寫宮闈心事，下蠶室死。」此事正與青邱相類。《靜志居詩話》謂：「青邱〈題畫犬〉云：『莫向瑤階吠人影，羊車半夜出深宮。』不類明初掖庭事，二詩或是刺庚申君而作。」《明詩紀事》甲籤卷七遍引三家之說。按金氏所輯青邱《遺詩‧紅蕉仕女》云：「憑仗小厖休吠影，深宮那得外人來？」豈青邱三用此意耶？竹垞所引〈畫犬〉詩見卷十八。諸君似皆不知青邱作意，本之王涯〈宮詞〉云：「白雪猧兒拂地行，慣眠紅毯不曾驚。深宮更有何人到？只曉金階吠晚螢。」又卷九〈百花洲〉云：「豈唯世少看花人，縱來此地無花看」；卷十〈約諸君范園看杏花〉云：「休言亂後少花看，得到花前人亦寡。」卷十三〈牧〉云：「但知牛背穩，莫笑馬蹄忙」；《遺詩‧牧童》云：「誰知牛背穩，不似馬蹄忙。」【卷十四〈清明呈館中諸公〉云[4]：「白下有山皆繞郭，清明無客不思家。」按黎延瑞《芳洲集》卷一〈思歸〉云：「清明寒食能多雨，白下長干又一年」；張伯雨《貞居先生詩集補遺》卷上〈湖上雅集〉云：「花先寒食清明過，人自長干白下來」；高得暘《節菴集》卷四〈暮春有感〉云：「寒食清明節，長干白下春。」】【吳鎮松厓〈題青邱梅詩後〉云「雪滿山中高士臥，梅花典故美成知。竹垞但說吟松好，忘却香篝素被詞。」自注：「周美成〈詠梅〉詞：『更可惜、雪中高士，香篝薰素被」』，正用其意。朱竹垞乃為此句似松不似梅，誤矣！」（《小匏菴詩話》卷五引。）】
六百七十七[5]
Dante’s passage on vocabula pexa and vocabula hirsuta in De
vulgari eloquentia, Lib. II, cap. 7 (Opere, ed. E. Moore & P. Toynbee,
p. 395) has been embroidered upon by Edith Sitwell in her gushingly
hypersensitive A Poet’s Notebook, pp.
19 ff. Curious enough, no one has noticed that there is in European literary
criticism a long tradition of “the word made flesh”, to adopt St. John’s phrase.
Demetrius in his treatise On Style
already mentioned the fact that “musicians are accustomed to speak of words as ‘smooth’,
‘rough’, ‘well-proportioned’, ‘weighty’” etc. (tr. W. Rhys Roberts, “The Loeb
Classical Library, p. 411). Dionysius of Halicarnassus went so far as to speak
of “words smooth & soft as a maiden’s cheek” (On Literary Composition, tr. W. Rhys Roberts, p. 234). The Italian
theorist Sperone Speroni[6],
to whom Du Bellay was heavily indebted, studied “la ‘testura della parole’”; to
quote De Sanctis’s summary: “La parola ebbe una sua personalità, fu isolata
dalla cosa; e ci furono parole pure e impure, belle e brutte, aspre e dolci,
nobili e plebee”[7] (Storia della Letteratura Italiana, a
cura di B. Croce, riv. da A. Parente, II, p. 145). Joubert, too, repeatedly
observed: “Quand on entend parfaitement un mot, il devient comme transparent;
on en voit la couleur, la forme; on sent son poids; on aperçoit sa dimension,
et on sait le placer” (Pensées, “Libraire Académique”, Tit. XXII, 10); “Les beaux
mots ont une forme, un son, une couleur et une transparence” (Ibid., Tit. XXIV, iv, 7). When Aldo
Capasso criticises Pascoli and Mario Praz criticies D’Annunzio for their “amor
sensuale della parola” (Walter Binni, I
Classici Italiani nella storia della critica, II, pp. 648, 670), or when
Charles Maurras takes Renée Vivien & the Comtesse de Noailles to task for
their “sensualité verbale”: “Les vocables reçoivent ce poids matériel, cette
valeur physique, ce goût de chair qui...
deviennent sensibles au toucher” etc. (Le
Romantisme féminin, pp. 153 ff.), they apparently fail to see that the so-called
“decadent” or “romantic” sensibility of these poets has a respectable classical
ancestry. Incidentally, Edith Sitwell who makes great play with the word “texture”
and with feminine adhesiveness clings like a vine to such towers of strength as
Dante, Blake, Wagner & others, might very well have included Sperone
Speroni among her means of literary support.[8]
Cf. Croce, La Poesia, 5a
ed., p. 52: “Amare e cercare le espressioni poetiche come cose o (che qui è lo
stesso) come persone” etc. & p. 256: “... una libidine esercitata sulle parole
delle poesie altrui è quella del D’Annuzio... le sue appropriazioni... erans
mosse... dal piacere di mettere nel suo ‘harem’, e possedere nella loro carnalità,
certe immagini e certe parole...”; June E. Downey, Creative Imagination, pp. 62-6 on words as “things-in-themselves”,
& Gautier’s famous passage on words as “des pierres précieuses qui ne sont
pas encore taillées et montées” in his essay on Baudelaire; MLR, Jan. 1959, p. 85: “After all, no
writer can write well unless he feels that words are good to eat. The phrase is
Bagehot’s”【Walter Bagehot writes in his essay on “Bishop
Butler”: “You often see that writers, — Gibbon, for instance, — believe that
their words are good to eat, as well as to read; they had a pleasure in rolling
them about in the mouth like sugar-plums, & gradually smoothing off any
knots or excrescences” (Literary Studies,
ed. R.H. Hutton, III, p. 126)】; E. Bullough, Aesthetics,
pp. 142-3: “... painters... assumed two entirely different relations to
[colour], according as whether they view it, so to speak, aesthetically or
pictorially. As artists they displayed the same attitude which they would
assume towards a work of Art; as painters they treated it with a kind of
objective detachment as a mere, almost indifferent, instrument. The same
dualism of attitude will, I think, be found in all arts. The architect or
sculptor will feel a thrill of purely aesthetic enjoyment at the beauty of a
finely grained stone & will lovingly caress the surface of a beautiful
marble; the literary artist will gloat over the sonorousness & rhythm of a
word; but each will, when the occasion arises, treat the same object of his delight
as part of a completed whole with apparent indifference & will ruthlessly
discard it from an unwanted place... The indifference of his professional
attitude is not the indifference of the heedless layman, but the higher
detachment which removes the medium from the grossly practical function of a ‘materialisation’
of his vision into an integral part of it.” Marcel Aymé, Le Confort intellectuel, p. 26: “Moins respectueux qu’amoureux de
la langue, ils commencent à la caresser et à l’aimer pour elle-même sans se
montrer très attentifs à son contenu.” Cf. Wordsworth, The Prelude, 1805 text, V, 575-581: “Thirteen years / Or haply
less, I might have seen, when first / My ears began to open to the charm / Of
words in tuneful order, found them sweet / For their own sakes, a passion &
a power; / And phrases pleas’d me, chosen for delight, / For pomp, or love.”
Walter Muschg, Die Zerstörung der
deutschen Literatur, 3te Auf., S. 156 on Josef Weinhebers: “Die
Sprache ist ihm ein Weib, das er körperlich um wirbt und besitzt will [e.g. ‘Ode
an die Buchstaben’, ‘Hymnus aus die deutsche Sprache’].... Auch in den Aufsätzen
und Vorträgen geht Weinheber immer vom ‘sinnenhaften Wesen das Wortes’ aus....
Er behauptet, die Lyrik stehe der
plastik näher als der Musik, weil sie ‘im Gefühl des Körperhaften, Gestaltigen begründet’
sei” usw. V.-É. Michelet: “De qu’il n’y a pas d’amour sans désir, de même qui
aime les idées doit aimer aussi les mots qui en sont la forme materielle” (Les Nouvelles Littéraires, 19 août,
1948).【Hugo: “Suite de la Réponse à un acte d’accusation”:
“Car le mot, qu’on le sache, est un être vivant”】【Sartre:
“Les poètes sont des hommes qui refusent d’utiliser
le langage... l’attitude poétique... considère les mots comme des choses et non
comme des signes” (“Qu’est-ce que la littérature?” quoted in F. Jeanson, Sartre par lui-même, p. 109).】
六百七十八[9]
陳弢菴《滄趣樓詩集》卷三 〈滄趣樓雜詩〉云：「敢嫌池淥照鬑鬑，庭樹親栽盡出檐。障得驕陽偏礙月，故知人事不能兼。」按《巢經巢詩集》卷二〈庭樹〉云：「昔余種樹時，意使蔽庭日。蔭成繞檐戶，乃覺似居室。隨時各含花，無心復結實。夜涼壁上影，靜共人抱膝。雖辭晝閒日，永礙初上月。人事寧可兼，此得彼亦失。窅然發深心，陰陰亂蟲唧。」陳詩意全取之鄭也。Cf. Johnson, Rasselas,
ch. 29, ed. G.B. Hill, p. 107: The Princess: “...the position so often uttered
by the mouth of Imlac, — That nature sets her gifts on the right hand & on
the left. Those conditions, which flatter hope & attract desire, are so
constituted, that, as we approach one, we recede from another... No man can
taste the fruits of autumn while he is delighting his scent with the flowers of
the spring.”[10]【魚與熊掌、揚州鶴。】【《吳會英才集》卷二方子雲〈青溪消夏詞‧之二〉：「交牀羅合瀹朱溪茶名，午夢初回聽鳥啼。不礙風來偏障日，綠楊一樹石闌西」；《宋詩紀事》卷四十八晁公武〈夏日過莊嚴寺〉：「最憐林葉深深處，遮盡斜陽不礙風。」】
〇洪稚存《北江詩話》卷一自記少作詞云：「燕子平生真恨事，不見梅花。」《梧門詩話》楊鶴賓手錄本卷二稱引之，郭𠐺伽《爨餘叢話》卷二謂：「語雖纖仄，意亦巧矣。」然宋人已逗此意，李邴漢老〈漢宮春‧梅〉詞早云：「無情燕子，怕春寒、輕失花期。」【《樊榭山房集》卷七〈庭梅二月朔始花〉：「可是春人易惆悵，疏花明月不同時。」】樊雲門《樊山集》卷五〈洪北江詞燕子云云陳藍洲酷愛此語因畫梅一枝著玄鳥其上以為可以補恨余謂洪詞誠隽而傷於直不若史悟岡游仙詩云海棠無福見芙蓉語（《隨園詩話‧補遺》卷二稱之）較婉麗藍老何不寫此詩為海棠種福耶戲書四絕句為湊〉。《樊山續集》三刻卷二十二〈清平樂〉云：「春色惱人無一可，燕子梅花相左。」[11]按《巢經巢詩集》卷二〈柏容種菊盛開招賞〉云：「却恨與梅不相見，異時獨立長悲辛。回頭一笑百感失，梅花突出蒼江濱。金支鐵幹各心照，共識百鍊氷霜身。又怪梅花底入室，乃是坡老筆奪真。」機杼相似，善於截搭。《雲仙雜記》卷二引《金城記》黎舉云：「欲令梅聘海棠，但恨時不同耳！」見第七百十七則。蕭泰來〈霜天曉角‧詠梅〉云：「原沒春風情性，如何共、海棠說。」
【《汪穰卿遺著》卷八：「甲申曾忠襄及陳伯潛學士與法使議和，語時陳偶微哂，法使問，陳曰：『吾自笑耳，不煩相問也。』法使曰：『吾歐俗凡人語正事而無端竊笑，謂之慢，且為人疑，以為必有故也。』陳曰：『吾華乃無此俗。』法使不復語。余按《禮經》所載，史傳所記，古人於言笑動作咸有定規，稍有踰越，則為人譏誚。今人都不講此，反為外人所責，可恥也。」】
〇施愚山《蠖齋詩話》自比其詩於「人間築室，一磚一木，累積而成」，漁洋之詩「如華嚴樓閣，彈指即現。」[12]《談藝錄》第一一四至一一五頁論「渠儂大是被眼謾」，引《烟畫東堂小品》於一及《嘯亭雜錄》卷八為證。按田同之《西園詩說》云：「詩中篇無累句，句無累字，即古人亦不多覯。唯阮亭先生刻苦於此，每為詩閉門障窗，備極修飾，無一隙可指，然後出以示人，宜稱詩家，謂其語妙天下也」云云，是《麓堂詩話》所記「青面成詩」之類也，「彈指」云乎哉！愚山語，與屠長卿《鴻苞集》卷十〈論詩文〉云：「杜甫之才大而實，李白之才高而虛。杜是造建章宮殿千門萬戶手，李是造清微天上五城十二樓手。杜極人工，李純是氣化」，詞意酷肖。曹子建〈公讌〉詩：「朱華冒綠池」，王船山《古詩評選》批云：「如雕金堆碧，作佛舍莊嚴爾。天上五雲宮殿，自無彼位。」Edward Young, Conjectures
on Original Composition: “A genius differs from a good understanding, as a
magician from an architect; that raises his structure by means invisible, this
by the skilful use of common tools” (E. D. Jones, ed., English Critical Essays:
16th, 17th & 18th Centuries, “The World’s
Classics”, p. 279). 正復巧合。
六百七十九[13]
Aubrey Beardsley (1872-98) 所繪
Cinesias 向 Myrrhina 求歡一節插圖
(The Lysistrata of Aristophanes,
London, 1896)
Aristophanes,
Eng. tr. B.B. Rogers, “The Loeb Classical Library”; Fr. tr. Hilaire Van Daele, “Collection
des Universités de France.” Cf. supra 百四十七則a, 二百十則,
二百二十則,
六百二十九則. Fun, verve, buffoonery, riotous &
inexhausible; yes. Slapstick and slap-and-tickle sublimated by poetry; granted.
But a deep thinker? a serious moralist? No in capital letters! His
personalities are vigorous and amusing; but his attacks on ideas are curiously
feeble & ineffective, & the reductio
ad absurdum of the views of Socrates, Plato & Euripides is of a kind
which reveals the fundamental triviality & vulgarity of his mind. Even “peace”
became a dirty word — as it has recently become since the Stockholm Appeal —
associated with Trygaeus’s coprophagous beetle & Lysistrata’s hot pants,
with the retention of faeces (The Peace,
l. 151 ff.; “Loeb “, II, p. 17 & “Collection”, II, p. 105) & the
abstention from coitus (The Lysistrata,
l. 124 ff.; “Loeb”, III, p. 17 & “Collection”, III, p. 125). Incidentally,
the plot of The Lysistrata is not
watertight; paedophily & pederasty being the order of the day among the
Greeks, a Greek husband has a second string to his bow or carries a & will
not be so hard put to it by the “General Love-strike” called by women (the
phrase is Eric Linklater’s, in his Impregnable
Women, p. 172). Cf. 第七六七則 on Erika Mitterer’s bitter poem “Klage der
deutschen Frauen.” Plutarch’s strictures on Aristophanes’s lack of verisimilitude
& strain of vulgarity (Moralia, “Loeb
Class. Lib.”, vol. X, tr. H.N. Fowler, p. 465-7) are eminently just.
The
Clouds, l. 482 ff. Socrates: “Is your memory good?” Strepsiades: “Two ways,
by Zeus: If I’m owed anything, I’m mindful, very: But if I owe (Oh! dear),
forgetful, very” (Loeb, II, p. 311). Miles
Gloriosus, III, iii, 14 on woman’s memory, & the French proverb: “Mémoire
du mal a longue trace, mémoire du bien tantôt passe.”
Ibid., l. 975. “And then with their hand they would smooth down the sand
whenever they rose from their seat, / To leave not a trace of themselves in the
place for a vigilant lover to view” (“Loeb”, p. 353). Droysen translated the
line as follows: “Und standen sie auf, so verwischten sie gleich in dem Sande
die Spur, zu verhindern / Dass Liebenden nicht der Natur Abbild unreine
Begierden erregte” (quoted in Hans Licht,
Beiträge zur Antiken Erotik, S. 85). Cf. a piece of comic ribaldry in Quevedo, Vida del Buscón, Bk. II, ch. 4: “The villain was there [in gaol]
for sodomy... and scarcely dare we break wind for fear of exciting him with a
reminder of the backparts” (The Choice
Humorous & Satirical Works, ed. Charles Duff, “Broadway Translations”,
p. 98).
The Lysistrata, ll. 158 f. Cléonice: “Mais quoi, si nos maris
nous laissent là, ma bonne?” Lysistrata: “Selon le mot de Phérékratès, il nous
faudra ‘écorcher une chienne écorchée’” (note: masturbari) (“Collection”, III, p. 126).Cf.《醒世姻緣》第 87 回戴奶奶：“我就浪的荒了，使手𢱉也不要你。”
Ibid., ll. 900 ff. (“Loeb”, III, p. 89 ff. & “Collection”, III, p. 160
f.) a very entertaining scene of “cock-teasing” between Myrrhina and Cinesias
which deserves to have more than it actually has imitations in later farces and
droll stories.
Ibid., l. 1039. “We can’t live with such tormentors, no, by Zeus, nor yet
without you” (“Loeb”, III, p. 101); “Collection”, III, p. 166
gives a number of parallel passages in Greek poets. Cf. Ovid, Amores, III, xi: “Sic ego non sine te,
nee tecum / vivere possum”; Martial, XII, xivii: “nec tecum possum vivere nec
sine te.”
The Thesmophoriazusae, ll. 40 ff. Agathon’s servant: “All people be
still... Let Ether be lulled” etc. (“Loeb”, III, p. 135). Cf. “閉門覓句”; Alfred de Vigny, Journal
d’un Poète, la
Pléiade, II, p. 1025: “solitude où l’on ne me parle pas” etc.
Ibid., ll. 148 ff. Agathon: “I choose my dress to suit my poesy” etc. (“Loeb”,
III, p. 145). Cf. Sainte-Beuve: “On a voulu plaisanter sur la toilette que
Buffon faisait avant de se mettre à écrire; il croyait que le vêtement de
l'homme fait partie de sa personne” (Les
Grands Écrivains français, études classées et annotées par Maurice Allem, VII,
p. 78). Cf. E.E. Kellett.
The Ecclesiazusae, ll. 7 ff. Praxagora: “Thou [the lamp] only
knowest it, & rightly thou, / For thou alone, within our chambers standing,
/ Watchest unashamed the mysteries of love” etc. (“Loeb”, III, p. 249;
“Collection”, V, p. 15). Cf. Petronius, Poems,
XXVII: “sit torus et lecti genius secretaque lampas, / quis tenera in nostrum
veneris arbitrium” (Satyricon etc.,
“Loeb”, p. 356); Ariosto, Terza Rima,
cap. VIII: “Né più debb’'io tacer di te, lucerna, / che con noi vigilando, il
ben ch’io sento, / vuoi che con gli occhi ancor tutto discerna. / Per te fu
duplicato il mio contento; / né veramente si può dir perfetto / uno amoroso
gaudio a lume spento” (George Kay, The
Penguin Book of Italian Verse, p. 156); 李白〈寄遠〉第七首：“何由一相見，滅燭解羅衣”; V. de Sola Pinto & A.E. Rodway, The
Common Muses, pp. 250-1: “The London Prentice”: “Some may peep in and spy,
Love, / Let’s blow the candle out. / ... And we’ll kiss one another, / Let's
blow the candle out.”
Ll. 1076 ff. Youth: “Detested kites, you’ll rend me limb from limb” etc.
(“Loeb”, III, p. 347; “Collection”, V, p. 66). Cf.《醒世姻緣》第 87 回 the tug of war between 郭總兵’s two
concubines.
六百八十[14]
William Hogarth (1697-1764), “Gin Lane” (1751)
袁潔《蠡莊詩話》卷七云：「《隨園詩話》擇焉不精甚夥。方公扶南有《春及草堂集》行世，〈過周公瑾墓〉云：『周郎年少領元戎，談笑能收赤壁功。大帝君臣同骨肉，小喬夫婿是英雄。行間老將醇皆醉，坐上清歌曲未終。何事不如張子布，墓前飛過白頭翁。』推為絕唱。隨園謂其中年改為『大帝誓師江水綠，小喬卸甲晚粧紅』，晚年又改為『小喬粧罷胭脂濕，大帝謀成翡翠通』，愈改愈謬。今《集》中原詩具在，何嘗改易！不知此語，聞自隨園，遽信為實。」按息翁詩見《春及堂二集》，〈江北懷古三十首〉第一首也（梁退庵《楹聯叢話》卷四論周瑜祠聯，極稱《桃符綴語》所載「大帝君臣」云云「落落大方」，不知其逕摭取息翁詩句）。子才所記，固屬厚誣，然所謂「存得幾句好詩，亦須福分」，則所慨深而所見亦真。《詩人玉屑》卷八〈煅煉〉門廣載古人論詩不厭改諸則，《陵陽室中語》至謂：「賦詩十首，不如改詩一首。」然《蔡寬夫詩話》則又以用功之過為病，且曰：「有意為之，輒不能盡妙，詩尤然。」【《板橋詞鈔‧自序》：「為文須千斟萬酌，以求一是，再三更改，無傷也。然改而善者十之七，改而謬者十之三。乖隔晦拙，反走入荊棘叢中去，要不可以廢改，是學人一片苦心也。」】蓋詩文不厭改，然痛改至於手滑，苦思至於途迷，則求工反拙。西諺云：“The better is the enemy of the good” (參觀 H.J. Jones, Samuel Butler, II, p. 334: “One of
Voltaire’s Contes en vers, ‘La
Bégueule, conte moral’, begins: ‘Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien / Dit que le
mieux est l’ennemi du bien’, & the article ‘Art dramatique’ in the Dict. philos. ends with this quotation: ‘Il
meglio è l’inimico del bene.’ Cf. Shakespeare’s sonnet 103: ‘Were it not sinful then, striving to mend, / To mar the subject that
before was well?’”)，此之謂也。Pliny, Historia
naturalis, XXXIV. 19 論 Callimachus 云：“semper
calumniator sui nec finem habentis diligentiae, ob id catatexitechnus
appellatus, memorabili6 exemplo adhibendi et curae modum”(“The Loeb Classical
Library”, vol. IX, p. 194)；又 XXXV. 36 記 Appelles
自言勝 Protogenes 賴有一端：“quod manum de tabula sciret tollere, memorabili praecepto nocere saepe
nimiam diligentiam” (op. cit., p.
320)，大可參觀。Eugène Delacroix, Journal, 8 mars 1860: “Il y a deux choses que l’expérience doit
apprendre: la première, c’est qu’il faut beaucoup corriger; la seconde, c’est
qu’il ne faut pas trop corriger”; Félix Davin: “Introduction aux Études philosophiques”: “Le Chef-d’oeuvre inconnu nous montre l’art
tuant l’oeuvre” (La comédie humaine, éd.
Bib. d. l. Pléiade, T. XI, p. 218); Vasari: “lo stento e la troppa diligenza
alcuna fiata toglia la forza et il sapere a coloro, che non sanno mai levare le
mani dall’opera, che fanno” (Vita di Luca della Robbia, quoted in L. Pareyson, Estetica, p. 104); Kathleen Coburn, The Notebooks of S.T. Coleridge, vol. I,
§35: “Poetry, like schoolboys, by too frequent & severe correction, may be
cowed into Dullness!” 正相印可。Frank Kermode, Romantic
Image, p. 117 引 Alfred Poizat, Le
symbolisme de Baudelaire à Claudel 書中論 Mallarmé 有云：“Il y
a, dans toute oeuvre d’art, un point de perfection, qu’il ne faut pas dépasser,
sous peine de la détruire.... Balzac, dans le Chef-d’oeuvre inconnu, a déviné
et décrit cette maladie du style, qui arrive a détruire une oeuvre,
primitivement belle”，言之尤明切，惜其不知 Pliny 書中已道此，亦未及 Henry James, The
Madonna of the Future 與 Zola, L’oeuvre
二作均寫求工而至於空，求妙而至於渺之情狀耳。Katharine Gilbert & Helmut Kuhn, A History of Esthetics, Revised Ed., p.
90 謂 Pliny 所記 Appelles 語與 Demetrius, On
Style, IV. 222 記 Theophrastus
相似： “Here
is an almost romantic appreciation of the beauty of the unfinished & the
suggestive” 云云，則謬以千里。Theophrastus 語，余《談藝錄》第三七三頁嘗引而論之[15]，自宜與 Pliny, Hist.
nat., XXXV. 36 論 Timanthes 所謂 “atque in unius hujus
operibus intelligitur plus semper, quam pingitur” (op. cit., p. 316) 相發明耳。焦弱侯《筆乘》卷三載鄭善夫論少陵云：「不說到盡，不寫到真，可想而不可道。杜病在求真求盡」云云，蓋少陵〈八哀詩〉稱張九齡云：「詩罷地有餘，篇終語清省」，〈寄高適岑參三十韻〉云：「篇終接混茫」，而自運却未然也。Servius, Ad Aen., I. 683: “Artis
poeticae est non omnia dicere” (見 T.R. Glover,
Greek Byways, p. 185 引); Dante,
Purg..
XXXIII,
139-142: “Ma perchè piene son tutte le carte / ordite
a questa cantica seconda, / non mi lascia più
ir lo fren dell’arte”[16]; Muratori, La perfetta poesia,
Lib. II, cap. 10: “Oltre all’ eloquenza in parlare... dovrebbe ancora studiarsene
un altra, che
può chiamarsi eloquenza in tacere”; Burke, A Philosophical Inquiry into the Sublime &
the Beautiful, Pt. II, Sect. xi: “The spring is the pleasantest of the
seasons; & the young of most animals, though far from being completely
fashioned, afford a more agreeable sensation than the full grown; because the
imagination is entertained with the promise of something more. In unfinished
sketches of drawing, I have seen something which pleased me beyond the best
finished” (Ed. J.T. Boulton, p. 77); cf. Lamb: “On the Genius & Character
of Hogarth” on “Gin Lane” suggesting “something beyond the sphere of
composition” & quoting for comparison Shakespeare’s description of the
painting of Trojan War in “The Rape of Lucrece”, st. 204 (Lucas ed., Works, I, p. 74) 皆此意。Timanthes 畫
Iphigenia 待死，傍觀者皆悲涕，其父自掩其面 (patris
ipsius voltum velavit) (op. cit., p.
314)，使人想象得之，庶幾 Theophrastus 所言之境界矣【Thackeray, The English Humourists 引 Spence 記 Lord Bolingbroke 悼 Pope 云：“‘I have known him these 30
years, & value myself more for that man’s love than’ — Here,” Spence says, “St
John sank his head, & lost his voice in tears.” 而論之曰：“The sob which finishes the epitaph is finer than words. It is the cloak
thrown over the father’s face in the famous Greek picture, which hides the grief
& heightens it” (Everyman’s Lib., p. 176)】。參觀 Tacitus, Annalium, XIII. 45 記 Poppaea Sabina 半露其面云：“modestiam praeferre et lascivia uti; rarus in
publicum egressus, idque velata parte oris, ne satiaret adspectum, vel quia sic
decebat” (The Histories & the Annals,
“The Loeb Classical Library”, IV, p. 80)，又第六百八十九則、六百九十一則。【《太平廣記》213〈張萱〉（《畫斷》）：「皆綃上幽閑多思，意逾于象。」[17]】【顏魯公〈張長史十二意筆法記〉（《全唐文》卷三百三十七）云：「損謂有餘，子知之乎？豈不謂趣長筆短，常使意勢有餘，點畫若不足之謂乎」云云，妙解！可以移論詩文圖畫。Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille
und Vorstellung, Die Ergänzungen, Kap. 34: “Les secret d’être ennuyeux, c’est de tout dire... Denn sie lassen
der Phantasie nichts zu thun übrig... Ganz befriedigt durch den Eindruck eines
Kunstwerks sind wir nur dann, wann er etwas hinterlässt, das wir, bei allem
Nachdenken darüber, nicht bis zur Deutlichkeit eines Begriffs herabziehn können”
(Sämtl. Werk., hrsg. E. Grisebach,
II, S. 478-9); Parerga und Paralipomena,
Kap. XIII, §282: “Hier findet das Hesiodische πλεον ήμισυ παντός seine rechte
Anwendung. Ueberhaupt, nicht Alles sagen: le
secret pour être ennuyeux, c’est de tout dire”[18] (Sämtl. Werk., hrsg. P. Deussen, V, S.
570).】【Margaret M. McGowan: “La
Fontaine’s Technique of Withdrawal” (French
Studies, Oct. 1964, pp. 322-3, e.g. “je ne décrirai point ni...”; “je laisse
à penser quels ils pouvoient être” etc).】【Odette de Mourgues, O Muse,
fuyante proie, pp. 115 ff.】
〇希臘人畫重形似，却未可以東坡詩所謂「見與兒童鄰」斥之。然 Pliny 稱Timanthes 所繪能不落跡象，耐人思索，蓋謂巧傳題義，使人解會，指情事之曲折，非指神韻，詳見七九二則。Timanthes 之畫 Iphigenia 及巨人 (p. 314)、Neacles
之畫尼羅河 (XXXV. 37, p. 364)，皆不過如吾國畫深山有古寺者，衹畫暮色蒼茫，一僧拾徑入山；畫踏花歸去馬蹄香者，衹繪一人騎馬，數蝶翻飛，巧思而未為高格也。
〇希臘人論畫，匪特求其似真，并欲亂真，以至於奪真，庶幾如張彥遠《歷代名畫記》所謂「形似」之外求「氣韻」：「有生動之可狀，須神韻而後全。」故畫屋而瞻烏爰止 (Hist. nat., XXXV. 7, p. 276
)；畫葡萄而飛禽爭啄；畫馬則馬見而長嘶 (XXXV. 36, pp. 308-10, 330)；畫蛇則鳥見而息響 (XXXV. 38, p. 350)，蓋出人入天。參觀二二六則《鴻慶居士集》卷二〈題東坡畫枯木〉、七四○則。【《全唐文紀事拾遺》卷三十二溫憲撰〈程修己墓志銘〉：「李宏慶嘗有鬥鷄，為其對傷首。異日，公圖其勝者，而其對壞籠怒出，擊傷其畫」；卷四十八歐陽炯〈蜀八卦殿壁畫奇異記〉稱黄筌云[19]：「白鷹見壁上所畫野雉，連連掣臂，不住再三，誤認為生類焉」；《續齊諧記》景山畫鰿魚，羣獺競赴；《歷代名畫記》卷八：「高孝珩於壁畫蒼鷹，鳩雀不敢近」；道略集《雜譬喻經》卷八：「畫師繪己絞死像於壁，蠅鳥啄之，木師謂為實死，破戶欲以刀斷繩」；《圖畫見聞志》卷二：「厲歸真畫一鷂壁間，自是雀鴿無復棲止」；卷四：「易元吉畫鷂子一只，舊有燕二巢，自此不復來止」；《華陽散稿》卷上〈記天荒〉：「段玉畫墨葡萄在其上隅，垂蔓於棟，有鼠懸其上，貍以為真也，每循棟攫之。」】Pliny 論 Protogenes 所謂 “cum in pictura verum
esse, non verisimile vellet” (XXXV. 36, p. 336)，此語殊妙，當與 Longinus, On the Sublime,
XXII: “For art is only perfect when it looks like nature & Nature succeeds
only by concealing art about her person” (“The Loeb Classical Library”, tr. W.
Hamilton Fyfe, p. 193); Quintilian, Institutio
Oratoria, IV. ii. 127: “perire artem putamus, nisi apparent, cum desinat
ars esse, si apparet” ((“The Loeb Classical Library”, vol. II, p. 118) 合觀，亦即彥遠云云也。Hegel 極嗤此說，謂不啻蛆與象競走 (dass bei blosser Nachahmung die Kunst im Wettstreit mit der Natur nicht
wird bestehen können, und das Ansehn eines Wurms erhält, der es unternimmt,
einem Elefanten nachzukriechen” (Ästhetik,
Berlin Aufbau-Verlag, 1955, p. 85)，亦舉 Zeuxis 畫葡萄而鳥來啄；Rösel 畫金甲蟲而猴來嚙為例，而笑曰：畫而以欺猴鳥 (sie sogar Tauben und Affen getäuscht) 為極詣，亦卑之不足道矣 (eine so niedrige Wirkung)。Boccaccio, Il Decameron, VI.
5: “[Giotto] ebbe uno ingegno di tanta eccellenzia, che niuna cosa dà la natura...
che egli... non dipignesse sì simile a quella, che non simile, anzi più tosto
dessa paresse, in tanto che molte volte nelle cose da lui fatte si truova che
il visivo senso degli uomini vi prese errore, quello credendo esser vero che
era dipinto” (ed. Hoepli, p. 388) 即希臘以來古說也。【Vasari, Lives, “Everyman’s
Lib.”, I, p. 85.】
〇Hist.
nat., XXXV. 36 記 Zeuxis 以集腋成裘之法畫 Helen，召美女五人，各擷取其妙相模寫，合於一體 (inspexerit virgines
eorum nudas et quinque elegerit, ut quod in quaque laudatissimum esset pictura
redderet) (p. 308)。按 Cicero, De Inventione, II, 1 載此事更詳，所謂人無兼美，故必捃摭而會萃之 (neque enim putavit
omnia, quae quaereret ad venustatem uno in corpore se reperire posse ideo, quod
nihil simplici in genere omnibus ex partibus perfectum natura expoliuit) (“The
Loeb Classical Library”, p. 168). Xenophon[20], Memorabilia, III. 10 記 Socrates 謂 Parrhasius 云：“When you copy types of beauty, it is so difficult to find a perfect
model that you combine the most beautiful details of several, & thus
contrive to make the whole figure look beautiful” (“The Loeb Classical
Library”, tr. E.C. Marchand, p. 233); Aristotle, Politics, III, vi, 5: “The superiority... of the works of the
painter’s art over the real objects, really consists in this, that a number of
scattered good points have been collected together into one good example” (“Loeb”,
p. 223); Shakespeare, A Winter’s Tale,
V. i. 13-6 (Croce, Aesthetic, tr. by D. Ainslie, p. 171 謂
Aristotle 之 mimesis 及 Apollonius 之 imagination 實皆此意). Kenneth
Clark, The Nude, p. 10 考論其說，而駁之甚明快。然此實男女愛戀中常事也，Catullus, lxxxvi, 5-6: “Lesbia
formosa est: quae cum pulcherrima tota est, / tum omnibus una omnis surripuit
Veneres”. 又 Girolamo Benivieni: “Canzona
dello Amore celeste e divino”: “From many fairs / That thought from matter
tears / Is shaped a type, wherein what nature rends, / For sense asunder, into
one image blends” (見 J.B. Fletcher, Literature of the
Italian Renaissance, pp. 111-2), 正即
Stendhal, De l’amour, Liv. I, ch. 2 論 “la première
cristallisation” 所謂 “on se plaît à orner de mille perfections une femme de l’amour de
laquelle on est sûr” etc. (Éd. “Le Divan”, I, pp. 32 f.).
〇彥遠《名畫記》卷一雖云：「自古善畫者，莫非衣冠貴胄、逸士高人。」然而閻立本見役，至有兒子一勿習丹青之誡（《名畫記》卷九）【《顏氏家訓‧雜藝第十九》謂書法「不宜過精，為人所役」，鼓琴「不可令有稱譽，見役勛貴，處之下坐」，謂即繪事也】；文衡山待詔亦傳「翰林何來畫匠」之嘲（《四友齋叢說》卷十五）。Pliny, XXXV. 7 謂畫非搢紳之藝業 (non est spectata honestis manibus) (p. 274)。中西正復類似，詩人貴而畫人賤，至文藝復興時尚然 (Samuel C. Chew, The Virtues
Reconciled, p. 6)。【《顏氏家訓‧雜藝篇》記：「顧士端父子尤妙丹青，常被元帝所使，每懷慙恨。劉岳為陸護軍畫支江寺壁，與諸工雜處。向使三賢都不曉畫，豈見此恥乎！」[21]《宣和畫譜》卷十一及《聖朝名畫評》皆記李成不應孫四皓之召，曰：「吾本儒生，奈何入戚里賔館，與畫史冗人同列乎？」葉盛《水東日記》卷四：「范啟東聞之前輩云：『士大夫游藝，必審輕重，學文勝學詩，學詩勝學書，學書勝學畫。』」】彥遠《名畫記》又云：「真畫一劃，見其生氣。」可參觀 Pliny, XXXV. 36 記
Apelles 遠訪 Protogenes 未晤，不留姓名，於畫板作一劃 (lineam duxit) 而去，Protogenes 歸見之，曰：「此必出 Apelles 手 (dixisse Apellen venisse) (p. 320)。」【Matthew Prior: “Protogenes & Apelles” 一詩即賦其事，而變一劃為一圈 (A circle regularly true) (Literary Works, ed. Wright & Spears, pp.
463-5)。】東坡〈跋戴嵩牛〉謂有牧童云牛不掉尾而鬥，嵩畫誤，因歎：「耕當問奴，織當問婢」，可參觀 Pliny, XXXV. 36 記 Apelles 與補履匠事 (pp. 322-4)。
沒有留言:
張貼留言