七三六[1]
左：Raphael, La Madonna dei Garofani (c. 1506-7)；右：Hans Memling, The Nativity (c. 1470-2)
Jottings:
Fritz
Heinemann, ed., Die Philosophie im XX-Jahrhundert,
S. 473: “Auch unsere Seele spielt der Traum ist ein unbewusstes Spiel mit
Vorstellungen und Erinnerungen und damit der erste Dichter. Es dichtet in uns,
wenn wir träumen.” A réchauffé of the old romantic view neatly expressed by
Jean Paul: “Der Traum ist unwillkürliche Dichtkunst” (Vorschule der Ästhetik, §57, note, Werke, Carl Hanser Verlag, 1963, Bd. V, S. 211; cf. §14, S. 63).
Otto Rank in his supplementary essay “Traum und Dichtung” to Freud’s Die Traumdeutung, Kap. VI (6te
Auf., S. 346 ff.), which forestalls somewhat Béguin’s book, has not overlooked
this passage in his pêle-mêle of
quotations (S. 362-3). According to Albert
Béguin, Ludwig-Heinrich von Jacob forstalled Jean
Paul in formulating the idea: “rêve n’est rien d’autre que de la poésie
involontaire” (L’Âme romantique et le rêve,
2nd ed., 1939, p. 8; on p. 189 “Le rêve est poésie involontaire” is
quoted from Jean Paul’s essay Sur le rêve);
he also quotes I.P.V. Troxler to the effect that “pensée et la création
poétique ne font qu’un” (p. 97).[2] What
they have failed to notice is that as early as 1587 Giacopo Manzoni in his Della difesa della Commedia di Dante had
closely associated dream with poetic fantasy in such a way as would “deserve
the approval” of the Freudian literary critics[3] (B.
Hathaway, The Age of Criticism, p.
357), & that Gravina in his Razione
poetica regards poetry as the means to help people “sognare con gli occhi
aperti” (J.G. Robertson, The Genesis of
Romantic Poetry, p. 38); cf. Christopher Caudwell’s ingenious analogy
between “dream-work” & poetic technique (Illusion & Reality, ch. X, esp. pp. 212 ff.); cf. Nietzsche, Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, I. 5 on
“Im Traum... ist der Ursprung aller Metaphysik”[4] (Werke, hrsg. K. Schlechta, I, S. 450).
Freud quotes Schiller’s letter to Körner (Dec. 1, 1788) to show the similarity
between dreaming & poetic creation in the respect of “involuntary ideas” (The Interpretation of Dreams, 1959, pp.
102-3; Die Traumdeutung, 6te Auf., S.
72). Cf. Nietzsche, Die Geburt der
Tragödie, I (Werke in 3 Bänden, hrsg.
K. Schlechta, I, p. 22) quoting Hans Sachs: “Mein Freund, das grad ist Dichters
Werk, / dass er sein Träumen deut’ und merk’. / ... / all
Dichtkunst und Poeterei / ist nichts als Wahrtraum-Deuterei”; Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, Bd.
II, Abt. ii, §194 “Der Traum” (S. 954). Emerson: “In dreams we are true poets;
we create the persons of the drama; we give them appropriate figures faces,
costumes... moreover they speak after their own characters, not ours.... Indeed,
I doubt if the best poet has yet written any five-act play that can compare in
thoroughness of invention with this unwritten play in fifty acts, composed by
the dullest snorer on the floor of the watch-house” — Emerson: A Modern Anthology, ed. A. Kazin & D. Aaron, p. 155-6;
“Dreams have a poetic integrity & truth” etc. (p. 348).
Coleridge’s
perceptive distinction between the Italian & the Dutch style of painting
has been overlooked by critics & theorists writing on the Baroque: “The
Italian masters differ from the Dutch in this — that in their pictures ages are
perfectly ideal. The infant that Raffael’s Madonna holds in her arms cannot be
guessed of any particular age; it is Humanity in infancy. The babe in the
manger in a Dutch painting is a fac-simile of some real new-born bantling; it
is just like the little rabbits we fathers have all seen with some dismay at
first burst...” (The Table-Talk &
Omniana, July 24, 1831, ed. T. Ashe, pp. 124-5). That is, the Italian
masters paint object sub specie
aeternitatis & have eliminated the element of time & the
possibility of becoming. Cf. Fritz Strich: “Der malerische Schein zeigt uns die
zeitliche Welt im ihrer Flüchtigkeit, Wandelbarkeit, Vergänglichkeit. Die
werdende und vergehende, flierende und allstürzende zeit ist also das religiöse
Erlebnis des Barock... Man sieht es Rembrandts Menschen an, dass sie eine
Vergagenheit besitzen, und eine Zukunft; denn sie leben in der Zeit... Wie
anders ein Porträt Raphaels. Es enthebt den Menschen der Zeit und entrückt ihn
in die Sphäre der Zeitlosigkeit, des ruhenden Seins, was es dadurch erreicht,
das es den Menschen typisiert” (Kunst und
Leben, S. 51-2; cf. also S. 227-8);
Luciano Anceschi: “[Il Barocco]... iniziava un
nuovo sentimento del tempo che doveva trovare il suo senso nell’opera di
Bergson. E certo in Wölfflin oscuramente troviamo un’intuizione di quella continuità del tempo reale che Bergson,
contemporaneamente... andava formulando nella dottrina della durée” (“Le poetiche del Barocco
letterario in Europa”, Momenti e Problemi
di storia dell’ Estetica, I, p. 456).
Fritz
Strich: “Dass in jedem Augenblick der Geschichte verschiedenste Generationen
und Lebensalter zu gleicher Zeit da sind und die Einheit der Zeit problematisch
machen, das hat man schon oft bemerkt” (Kunst
und Leben, S. 11). Cf. Jean Pommier: “Les diverses générations chevauchent côte
à côte, l’une sur un cheval frais, l’autre au milieu de sa course, la troisième
approchaut déjà de son relais. Les théoriens empruntent une autre comparaison à
la branche de chêne, où les feuilles jaunes du dernier automne se voient auprès
des bourgeons du printemps. On peut auffi penser à des montres qui battent en mêmes
temps, mais qui ne disent pas la même heure” (Questions de critique et d’histoire littéraire, pp. 8-9). Cf. Kafka’s
illuminating remark on Picasso: “He only registers the deformities which have
not yet penetrated our consciousness. Art is a mirror, which goes fast, like a
watch — sometimes” (Gustav Janouch, “Conversations with Kafka”, tr. by Goronwy
Rees, in W. Phillips & P. Rahv, ed., The
Partisan Review Anthology, p. 132).
Fritz
Strich: “Ich mache dagegen darauf aufmerksam, dass ein Dichter, wenn er an die
Bearbeitung einer ältern Schöpfung geht, die innere Beziehung zu ihr schon ganz
verloren haben kann und ihr dann von seiner neuen Entwicklungsstufe aus eine
Form aufnötigt, die ihr nivht mehr angemessen ist” (Kunst und Leben, S. 32). Cf. G.M. Hopkins’s letter to Patmore: “For
a time we keep the connection with our past feelings open; they recede, but
still we have an insight into them; then something comes between & a long
while after looking back, like the tail of a train going round a sharp curve, you
see your own self quite from the outside. And even verbal alterations will be
hazardous, for the stress of mood which dictated or justified the word or image
has passed away” (C.C. Abbott, ed., Further
Letters of G.M. Hopkin, 2nd ed. P. 313). Cf. Goethe’s remark: “Begeisterung
ist keine Heringsware, die man einpökelt auf einige Jahre” (Sämtl. Werk., Der Tempel Verlag, Bd. III, S. 109). Cf. Marcel Proust, À l’ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs,
II, “Noms de pays” (À la recherche du
temps perdu, la Pléiade, I, p. 643).
Hopkins in a
letter to Patmore: “Men sometimes marry for beauty, but being married become
deadened to, lose their eye for, that & care only to satify their bodily
cravings as they could do, beauty or no beauty: so a thirsty traveller is
cheered by the sight of a lovely lake far off, but coming to it cares for
nothing but to quench his thirst at it” (op.
cit., p. 314). Cf. Leo Spitzer: “Le lointain est un élèment nécessaire de
tout amour, aussi nécessaire que le contact — ces troubadours ont en somme
senti la selige Sehnsucht de Goethe,
aspirant au milieu du plaisir du lit conjugal vers une andere Begattung. C’est
le lointain qui donne à la tenue morale un rayonnement métaphysique et un sens
à l’amour, comme la mort le donne à la vie” (Romanische Literaturstudien, p. 379).
七三七[5]
續七三五則：
〇《全唐文》卷四四六陳詡〈唐洪州百丈山故懷海禪師塔銘〉：「結集微言，纂成語本。」按即語錄。
〇卷四四七竇泉〈述書賦上下篇〉自周秦以至並世，無不品題，旁及署印裝裱，文雖未工，可謂體大物該矣同卷竇蒙〈題述書賦語例字格後〉謂兩〈賦〉共「七千六百四十言」！〈下篇〉自注，尤資掌故。靈長論本朝書，於歐、褚皆有微詞，而曰：「吾兄則書包雜體，首冠眾賢。」可謂內舉不避親者也。〈述書賦下〉自注云：「賀知章興酣命筆，好書大字，或三百言，或五百言，詩筆唯命」；又云：「時議論詩則曰王維、崔顥；論筆則王縉、李邕；祖詠、張說不得預焉。」[6]按卷三七○王縉〈進王維集表〉云：「詩筆共成十卷」；卷六七五白居易〈白氏長慶集後序〉云：「詩筆大小凡三千八百四十首」；杜牧〈讀杜韓集〉絕句云：「杜詩韓筆愁來讀」，皆分指有韻、無韻而言。卷五二七柳冕〈與滑州盧大夫論文書〉云：「有筆語兩大卷」，則指無韻者矣，即六朝所謂「文筆」也。然「文筆」、「詩筆」有分稱，有泛稱。阮伯元《揅經室續集》卷三〈文韻說〉殊嫌拘泥，《三集》卷二〈書梁昭明太子文選序後〉隱改前說，以「沉思翰藻」為文之特色，不復主有韻，然所謂「經、子、史非文，故不選；必文而後選」，仍參死句，未得活路。《學海堂集》卷七劉天惠、侯康、梁光釗等〈文筆考〉衹敷陳阮說，繫徵傍引，亦無新見。《潛研堂集》卷三十〈跋何義門讀書記〉謂「《宋書‧陶潛傳》衹言文章不署甲子，不云詩也，詩亦文章之一，而其體則殊。」宋于庭《過庭錄》卷十五詳考魏、晉以前，無「文」、「筆」之分，《世說》記潘、陸事用「文」、「筆」出於後人追記，《金樓子‧立言篇》始嚴別之，而《文心雕龍》即駁之矣。竊謂《文心雕龍‧總術篇第四十四》云：「今之常言，有文有筆」，阮氏〈文韻說〉即引以發端。然彥和之作，自經史以至方書、符、牒〈書記篇第二十五〉無不論列，却題曰「文心」，而不曰「文筆」，足見「文」可概「筆」而泛指一切有字之書，不計其用韻、翰藻與否，正如昭明題目其書曰「文選」也。《全唐文》卷四五八李道昌〈祭幽獨君文〉云：「君是何人？能閑詩筆」，「詩筆」泛指詩言，初不及文；同卷高仲武〈紀蘇渙文〉（按即出《中興間氣集》卷上）云：「作變律詩十九首，（中略）其文意長於諷刺，亦有陳拾遺一鱗半甲。或曰：『此子左右嬖臣，侵敗王略，今著其文可乎』」；《白氏長慶集‧後序》末云：「又有《元白唱和因繼集》共十七卷，《劉白唱和集》五卷，《洛下游賞宴集》十卷，其文盡在大集內錄出，別行於時」[7]，三「文」字皆指詩言，又沿六朝用法矣。【《晉宋書故》「文筆」條謂「二字對文則別，散文則通」，是也。】【竇氏兩篇始見張彥遠《法書要錄》卷五、卷六，卷六〈賦下〉附泉兄蒙〈述書賦語例字格〉，其「字格」實吾國文藝批評術語詞彙之草創，凡二百四十條，如「神」（「非意所到，可以識知」）、「能」（「千種風流曰能」）、「老」（「無心自達曰老」）、「喇」（「超能越妙曰喇」）、「嫩」（「力不副心曰嫩」）、「強」（「筋力露見曰強」）、「重」（「質勝於文曰重」）、「纖」（「文過於質曰纖」）、「妍」（「逶迤並行曰妍」）、「媚」（「意居形外曰媚」）、「熟」（「過猶不及曰熟」）、「肥」（「龜臨洞穴，沒而有餘」）、「瘦」（「鶴立喬松，長而不足」）、「壯」（「力在意先曰壯」）、「麗」（「體外有餘曰麗」）。】
〇卷四五四李子卿諸〈賦〉工刻劃而清隽，〈聽秋蟲賦〉、〈夜聞山寺鐘賦〉兩首尤佳。
〇卷四五六獨孤授〈涇渭合流賦〉：「涇如經也，自北面是南流；渭若緯焉，從西而東注。」按巧不可階，勝於李義山〈為滎陽公賀幽州破奚寇表〉「錄圖洪範」（卷七七二）之假「錄」、「洪」為「綠」、「紅」矣。
〇卷四五九杜確〈岑嘉州集序〉：「每一篇絕筆，則人人傳寫。」按「絕筆」即後世所謂「脫稿」也。
〇陸宣公文雖未擺脫對偶，而容與鬯達，不事組織典故成語，既異唐人駢文，亦非宋人四六，論事明切犀利。如卷四六六〈論裴延齡奸蠹書〉云：「所謂失人心而聚財賄，亦何異割支體以徇口腹哉。殊不悟支體分披，口安能食；人心離析，財豈能存」；卷四七一〈興元論中官及朝官賜名定難功臣狀〉云：「見危無補，曷謂功臣？致寇方深，孰云定難？縱使遭罹圍逼，跋履崎嶇，難則當之，定將安據？勞或有矣，功其謂何？」此等何須韓、柳古文革除？亦非韓、柳古文所能革除也。又按韓、柳以前唐人，率意漫與之文則成單散，經心刻意之作每復駢儷，雖李、蕭、權、梁、獨孤諸家抗志希古者亦然，惟元次山免乎此。【《榕村語錄續集》卷八：「韓文公出陸宣公門，平生無一字及其文。」】【張宗泰《魯巖所學集》卷十四〈三跋唐文粹〉謂：「陸宣公〈收河中後請罷兵狀〉云：『若苞桑綴旒，幸而不殊者屢矣。』按『苞桑』見《易‧否卦》，是牢固不可搖動之意；『綴旒』字見《公羊‧襄十六年傳》，是劣相係屬之意，乃俱作『杌陧不安』用之。」】
〇卷四八九權德輿〈答柳冕書〉[8]：「近者祖習綺靡，過於雕蟲，俗謂之甲賦、律詩，儷偶對屬。」按《純常子枝語》卷三十九謂：「甲賦即今之律賦，舒元輿〈論貢舉書〉云：『今之甲賦、律詩，皆是偷折經誥，侮聖人之言。』」
〇卷四九三權德輿〈送靈澈上人廬山迴歸沃洲序〉。按載之禪學更深於獨孤至之，遂能通禪於詩，卷四九二〈送元上人歸天竺寺序〉[9]、卷五一○〈唐故章敬寺百嚴大師碑銘〉亦有精微之論。〈碑銘〉有云：「嘗試言之：以中庸之自誠而明，以盡萬物之性，以大易之寂然不動，感而遂通，則方袍、褒衣，其極致一也」，更昌言儒、釋之殊途同歸矣。【載之〈與道者同守庚申〉五古有云：「四支動用息，一室虛白生。收視忘取舍，叩齒集神靈。……無令耳目勝，則使性命傾。……釋宗稱定慧，儒師著誠明。派分示三敎，理詣無二名。」】參觀卷五七九柳宗元〈送元十八山人南遊序〉、〈送僧浩初序〉、〈送元嵩師序〉、〈送濬上人歸淮南覲省序〉。唐以前智者《摩訶止觀》卷六以周、孔為「世間法藥」之說（《法華玄義》卷八上亦稱「周、孔經籍，愛民治國，而稱為實」）；《魏書》卷一一四〈釋老志〉以佛、法、僧「三歸」為「若君子之三畏」，五戒「大義與仁、義、禮、智、信同，名為異耳」；《顏氏家訓‧歸心篇第十六》以外典五常為符合內典初門之五戒，要皆以孫興公〈喻道論〉為先河（參觀第三五四則）。李肇《國史補》載李舟〈與妹書〉亦云：「釋迦生中國，設教如周孔；周孔生西方，設教如釋迦」（《太平廣記》卷一百一引），正如基督教宗之論希臘哲學矣（例如 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata,
Bk. I, ch. 5, 13, 19, 20, Ante-Nicene
Christian Library, IV, pp. 366, 389, 413-7, 418-20）。後來如李習之〈復性書〉、契嵩《鐔津文集》卷一〈原教〉、卷二〈廣原教〉、卷四〈中庸解〉、宋孝宗〈原道論〉（《佛祖統記》卷四十七）、《憨山老人夢游集》卷二十九〈大學綱目決疑〉，皆導源於此。《五燈會元》卷三慧海答問「儒、釋、道三教同異」云：「大量者用之即同，小機者執之即異。總從一性上起用，機見差別成三。迷悟由人，不在教之同異也」；卷十六劉經臣〈明道諭儒篇〉云：「昔人有言曰：『今古應無墜，分明在目前』；又曰：『大道衹在目前，要且目前難覩。欲識大道真體，不離聲色言語』；又曰：『夜夜抱佛眠』（中略），此佛者之語道為最親者。『立則見其參於前也，在輿則見其倚於衡』也；『瞻之在前，忽焉在後』也；『取之左右逢其源』也，此儒者之語道最邇者。奈何此道唯可心傳，不立文字。故或瞬目揚眉，擎拳舉指；或行棒行喝，豎拂拈槌；或持義張弓，輥毬舞笏；或拽石搬土，打鼓吹毛。孔子之言，默而識之，一以貫之。目擊而道存，指掌而意喻。然孟子既沒，不得其傳」云云。《朱子語類》卷五稱稱佛家說心如六窗中有一獼猴「儘有好處」；卷六以禪語說「仁之量」，又說仁義本源；卷十六論《大學》「誠意」即佛家所謂怕「流注想」；卷十八論「格物」引「一月普現一切水」[10]；卷二十二論「三省」復引「流注想」；卷三十三引禪語說「吾無隱乎爾、；卷五十七論「君子存之」與釋氏所謂「作用是性」；卷六十三又一百十八引禪語說《中庸》「鳶飛魚躍」等，亦可參觀。卷七十五云：「『寂然不動，感而遂通天下』，『窮理盡性以至於命』，本是說《易》，不是說人。諸家借就人上說，亦通。『寂然』是體，『感』是用」云云，胥可與載之相發明。【卷一三○吳越王錢俶〈宗鏡錄序〉[11]：「儒，吾之師也。道，儒之師也。釋，道之宗也。」】【《全唐文》四四六陳詡〈唐洪州百丈山故懷海禪師塔銘〉：「西方教行於中國，以彼之六度，視我之五常，遏惡遷善，殊途同轍。唯禪那一宗，度越生死，大智慧者方得之。」】【元道士李道純〈沁園春〉（《全元詞》1225-6 頁）：「叉手者誰？合掌者誰？擊拳者誰？只這些伎倆，人猶錯會，無為妙理，孰解操持。我為諸公，分明舉似，老子瞿曇即仲尼。思今古，有千賢萬聖，總是人為。可憐後學無知。辨是是非非沒了期。況天地與人，一源分判，道儒釋子，一理何疑。見性明心，窮微至命，為佛為仙只在伊。功成後，但殊途異派，到底同歸。」[12]】
〇卷四九五權德輿〈釋疑〉：「舟有溺，騎有墜，寢有魘，飲有醉，食有噎，行有蹷，其甚則皆可致斃。無非危機，其可以盡廢此而如土偶木寓耶？」按《莊子‧達生篇》云：「夫畏途者，十殺一人，則父子兄弟相戒也，必盛卒徒而後敢出焉，不亦知乎！人之所取畏者，衽席之上，飲食之間，而不知為之戒者，過也！」載之云云，可以答莊生之說。
〇卷五一○陸長源〈上宰相書〉：「且尚書六司，天下之理本。兵部無戎帳，戶. 部無版圖。虞水不管山川，金倉不司錢穀。光祿不供酒，衛尉不供幕；秘書不校勘，著作不修撰。官曹虛設，祿俸枉請。計考者假而為資，養聲者籍而為地。」按明諺「翰林院文章」云云，濫觴於此，詳見第二○三則論《野獲編》卷二四。
〇卷五一二李吉甫〈杭州徑山寺大覺禪師碑銘〉。按見第六六七則論《金臺紀聞》載袁海叟語。
〇卷五一四殷亮〈顏魯公行狀〉：「肅宗之在靈武也，公前後遣判官李銑及馬步軍張雲子，以蠟為彈丸，以帛書表，實於彈丸之內，潛至靈武奏事。」按「蠟丸書」始見此。杜牧之〈竇烈女傳〉亦云：「有獻含桃者，桂娘白希烈子，請分遺先奇妻，且以示無事於外。因為蠟帛書，（中略）以朱染帛丸，如含桃」（卷七五六）。
〇卷五一七梁肅〈述初賦〉：「喪我南郭之几，盡心西域之書。悟幻有之遷斡，得環中之妙樞。合乃一指，流為萬塗。」按同卷有〈天台法門議〉、〈止觀統例議〉，卷五一八有〈維摩經略疏序〉，卷五一九有〈湼槃經疏釋文〉[13]，卷五二○有〈心印銘〉（卷六八四陳諫〈心印銘序〉謂敬之「學止觀法門於沙門元浩」，此〈銘〉「自『浩浩羣生』至『有無』云云，言未知也；自『本則不然』至終篇，言其既知也」），其他銘僧墓、贊佛象之作，姑置勿論可也。遐叔、至之、載之輩，雖濡染釋氏，皆不若敬之明目張膽為佛弟子。卷四八○崔恭〈梁肅文集序〉云：「公早從釋氏，結意為文，志在於此，故敘釋氏最為精博」云云。世人乃謂唐人作古文乃所以尊儒家之學，直瞽說耳[14]！【參觀下論卷五九七歐陽詹〈送無知上人往五臺序〉：韓、小杜闢佛，柳、義山尊佛，小杜、義山皆尊韓，孫樵、皮日休尊韓闢佛。】敬之以遐叔、至之為師友，而文平衍少味，在二子之下。多儷詞而不用典故，當時所謂「復古」，如此而已！又按卷六三四李翺〈感知己賦〉即為敬之作。
〇敬之精究台教，卷五二○〈台州隋故智者大師修禪道場碑銘〉，所謂「述祖德」也。而於禪宗頗有微詞，卷五一七〈天台法門議〉云：「今之人正信者鮮，啟禪關者或以無佛無法、何罪何善之化化之。中人以下，馳騁愛欲之徒，出入衣冠之類，以為斯言至矣，且不逆耳，私慾不廢。故從其門者，若飛蛾之赴明燭，破塊之落空谷。殊不知坐致焦爛，而莫能自出，雖欲益之，而實損之。與夫眾魔外道，為害一揆」；〈止觀統例議〉云：「空有云云，為坑為井。有膠於文句不敢動者，有流於漭浪不能住者，有太遠而甘心不至者，有太近而我身即是者，有枯木而稱定者，有竅號而稱慧者，有奔走非道而言權者，有假於鬼而言通者，有放心而言廣者，有罕言而為密者，有齒舌潛傳為口訣者。凡此之類，自立為祖，繼祖為家」云云，皆可參證。柳子厚亦然，卷五七九〈送琛上人南遊序〉云：「佛之跡，去乎世久矣！其留而存者，佛之言也。言之著者為經，翼而成之者為論。（中略）世之上士，將欲由是以入者，非取乎經論，則悖矣！而今之言禪者，有流蕩舛誤，迭相師用，妄取空語，而脫略方便，顛倒真實，以陷乎己，而又陷乎人。又有能言體而不及用者，不知二者之不可斯須離也」；卷五八六〈東海若〉云：「其一人曰：『我佛也，毗盧遮那、五濁、三有、無明、十二類，皆空也，一也，無善無惡，無因無果，無修無證，無佛無眾生，皆無焉，吾何求也！』問者曰：『子之所言，性也，有事焉。夫性與事，一而二，二而一者也，子守而一定，則大患者至矣。』其人曰：『子去矣，無亂我』」；卷五八七〈南嶽大明寺律和尚碑〉云：「儒以禮立仁義，無之則壞；佛以律持定慧，去之則喪。是故離禮於仁義者，不可與言儒；異律於定慧者，不可與言佛」；〈龍安海禪師碑〉云：「故傳道益微，而言禪最病。拘則泥乎物，誕則離乎真，真離而誕益勝。故今之空愚失惑縱傲自我者，皆誣禪以亂其教。」後來陸希聲〈仰山通智大師塔銘〉（卷八一三）言之更切，見前第三七二則論《東堂集》卷十〈送南禪長老浩然赴雙林序〉。
〇卷五一八〈補闕李君前集序〉：「故文本於道，失道則博之以氣，氣不足則飾之以辭，蓋道能兼氣，氣能兼辭，辭不當則文斯敗矣。」按昌黎以前唐人論文言「氣」者，柳敬叔而外（卷五二七〈答楊中丞論文書〉：「天下之才少久矣，文章之氣衰甚矣」；「無病則氣生，氣生則才勇，才勇則文壯」），惟敬之耳。同卷〈導引圖序〉云：「氣之貫萬物也，盛矣」云云，即此「氣」也。昌黎後來論「文氣」者，則李文饒為最精，觀卷七○九〈文章論〉可知。
〇卷五二二梁肅〈獨孤公行狀〉：「故天下謂之文伯。」按卷三三四陶翰〈送孟大入蜀序〉云：「信詩伯矣！」
〇卷五二六趙元一〈奉天錄序〉：「輕塵罕增於巨岳，墜露無益於廣川。」按本之唐高宗〈聖教序後記〉云：「輒以輕塵足岳，墜露添流。」卷八○四崔琪〈心鏡大師碑〉云：「松風水月，未足比其清華；仙露明珠，詎能方其朗潤。故以智通無累，神測未形。超六塵而迥出，隻千古而無對」，更全襲太宗〈聖教序〉中稱玄奘語矣！《唐文續拾》卷一三闕名〈優婆夷阿劉造石浮圖銘〉云：「竊以法流湛寂，窺之者莫知；妙道疑玄、仰之者無盡」，亦襲〈聖教序〉：「妙道凝玄，遵之莫知其際；法流湛寂，挹之莫測其源。」
〇卷五二七柳冕存文十四首，而論文者居其半，雖反復不出數語，亦見其有志斯事矣！以文合之儒術，力推孟、荀、賈、董，而不取屈、宋、揚、馬，此真布帛菽米之文，乏韓公所謂「沉浸濃郁」之致。後世道學家「虛車」之說，發自敬叔。韓公雖崇六經，而傍搜遠紹，初不如是枯槁拘腐也。〈謝杜相公論房杜二相書〉云：「蕭、曹雖賢，不能變淫麗之體；二荀雖盛，不能變聲色之詞；房、杜雖明，不能變齊、梁之弊。是則風俗好尚，繫在時王，不在人臣明矣。」按歐公《居士集》卷四三一〈蘇氏文集序〉云：「予嘗考前世文章政理之盛衰，而怪唐太宗致治幾乎三王之盛，而文章不能革五代之餘習」《集古錄跋尾》卷五〈隋太平寺碑跋〉同；《續通鑑長編》熙寧九年五月癸酉神宗曰：「唐太宗亦英主也，乃學徐、庚為文」；《朱子語類》卷一三九云：「大率文章盛則國家却衰，如唐貞觀、開元都無文章，及韓、柳以文顯，而唐之治已不如前矣」；《困學紀聞》卷一四載鄭毅夫曰：「唐太宗功業雄卓，然所為文章纖靡浮麗，嫣然婦人小兒嘻笑之聲，不與其功業稱，甚矣淫詞之溺人也」，皆可參證。卷七一四李宗閔〈馬公家廟碑〉云：「在滑與中貴人迕，在閩不協於柳冕，是以濱於死而厄窮十年。」
〇卷五二八顧況〈茶賦〉，按見第七二八則論《封氏聞見記》卷六；〈右拾遺吳郡朱君集序〉，按見第六八九則。逋翁文機調急促，詞句警峭，謀篇鑄語皆不主故常，雖每弔詭，不為大方之家，要是作手。
〇卷五二八顧況〈戴氏廣異記序〉。按直堪作〈太平廣記〉序文。論晉、唐小說者，皆不解徵引，亦見俗學之淺嘗薄植矣！有云：「故許氏之說天文垂象，蓋以示人也。古文『示』字如今文『不』字，儒者不本其意，云『子不語』，此大破格言，非觀象設教之本也。」大是怪論，可與昌黎〈論語解〉之說「浴乎沂」為「沿乎沂」並傳。又云：「志怪之士，劉子政之《列仙》、葛稚川之《神仙》、王子年之《拾遺》、東方朔之《神異》、張茂先之《博物》、郭子潢之《洞冥》、顏黃門之《稽聖》、侯君素之《旌異》，其中神奧，陶君之《真誥》、周氏之《冥通》、而《異苑》、《搜神》、《山海》之經、《幽冥》之錄、襄陽之《耆舊》、楚國之《先賢》、《風俗》所通、《歲時》所記，《吳興》、《陽羨》、《南越》、《西京》，注引古今，辭標淮海。裴松之、盛宏之、陸道瞻等，諸家之說，蔓延無窮。國朝燕公《梁四公傳》、唐臨《冥報記》、王度《古鏡記》、孔慎言《神怪志》、趙自勤《定命錄》，至如李庾成、張孝舉之徒互相傳說，譙郡戴君孚幽賾最深」云云。俗學每謂唐人傳奇大盛，韓、柳古文與有力焉，余素非之。逋翁「國朝」數語，已可見傳奇行文，自有相承舊體，不待韓、柳矣。逋翁文如卷五二九之〈仙遊記〉、〈華亭縣令延陵包公壁記〉（「嘗夢入冥府，浹時而蘇，言地下之法，峻於人間，頗符干寶《搜神》之事」）、〈王氏廣陵散記〉，皆齊諧志怪之遺也。
〇卷五二九顧況〈送朱拾遺序〉：「將刀畫水，水中不斷；以道親人，人何有別？」按此用《楞嚴經》卷六云：「猶如割水，亦如吹光，性無搖動」；卷九云：「如風吹光，如刀斷水，了不相觸」；太白〈謝朓樓餞別校書叔雲〉云：「抽刀斷水水更流，舉杯消愁愁更愁」【馮夢龍《山歌》卷二〈姐兒生得‧之七〉：「石橋上走馬有得𠍽記認，水面砍刀無損傷」】。亦如卷五二八〈右拾遺吳郡朱君集序〉之用少陵〈病後過王倚飲贈歌〉也，見第六七五則論杜牧之〈讀韓杜集〉。
〇卷五二九顧況〈仙遊記〉。按刻意仿〈桃花源記〉，所謂「古莽然之墟」云云，當與卷五二八〈莽墟賦〉合觀。王元之《小畜集》卷十四〈録海人書〉亦其類。
〇卷五三○〈衢州開元觀碑〉：「洞之法，金璫玉佩之書，玉馬之券。」按逋翁有〈金璫玉佩歌〉。
〇李觀文排奡有氣骨，勝於梁敬之輩之廓落弛惰，而詞不圓妥，意欠警拔，終嫌獷野。比偶語亦時來筆端，卷五三五〈項籍碑銘〉通篇排比用韻，直類賦矣。
〇卷五三二李觀〈請修太學書〉：「諺謂：『溜之細穿石，綆之細斷幹。』」按西諺亦謂 “gutta cavat lapidem”，詳見 Oxford Dict. of Eng. Proverbs, p. 80: “constant
dropping wears the stone” 條下。Lyly, Euphues 則云： “the softe droppes of
raine pearce the hard Marble” (The
Complete Works, ed. R.W. Bond, I, p. 225)。
〇卷五三六朱灣〈別湖州崔使君書〉。按見《唐摭言》卷十一。「門如龍而難登，食如玉而難得。食如玉之粟，登如龍之門；如龍之門轉深，如玉之粟轉貴」云云，可參觀卷五三二李觀〈與吏部奚員外書〉云：「今甚痛者，莫若羈旅，曷有帝城之下，薪如桂，米如瓊，僕人不長三四尺，而僦瘦驢以求食？有時不食，人畜間日曛黑未還，則令憂駭。一日不為，則便失餐。」《官場現形記》中候差苦趣，早見於此。「玉粟」、「龍門」之喻，本《國策‧楚策三》蘇秦所謂「食玉炊桂，因鬼見帝」，而稍變易之。卷九五六誤收馬子才〈送陳自然西上序〉亦云：「聞之京師曰：『米如買珠，薪如束桂，膏肉如玉，酒樓如登天。』」
〇卷五四三令狐楚〈薦齊孝若書〉：「必能應馬上之急求，言腹中之所欲。」按即李白〈上韓荊州書〉所謂「日試萬言，倚馬可待。」後世語「馬上」（元曲）之意始見於此。
〇昌黎、柳州文皆別有論，兹復記柳文數事：子厚文有矜心作意，然往往棘塞，確不如退之之渾灝舒適。【《須溪集》卷七〈答劉英伯書〉：「柳子厚、黃魯直說文最上，行文最澀。」】《望溪文集》卷五〈書柳文後〉、卷六〈答程夔州書〉所評殊允。《靈芬館雜著續編》卷四〈與汪已山書〉非篤論也（𠐺伽稱子厚碑版最近古實，則衹卷五八七〈饒娥碑〉、五八八〈故殿中侍御史柳公墓表〉、〈國子司業陽城遺愛碣〉三篇，皆用四言，肅括近漢文而已）。望溪謂柳文晚作方佳，高斯得《恥堂存稿》卷三〈跋南軒永州諸詩〉、〈跋林逢吉玉溪續草〉亦謂：「子厚永州以前詩，劉夢得編集不取，故存篇孤峭嚴健，無可揀擇」，可參觀。又《孫月峯先生全集》卷六〈簡葉美度五古〉記弇州、太函晚年譽柳不容口；卷九〈與呂美箭論詩文書‧之四〉云：「子厚不知因何，每事必讓退之而居其次。如退之學《左傳》，子厚則學《國語》；退之學《史記》，子厚則學《漢書》；退之學《莊子》，子厚則學《荀》」；〈五〉云：「韓、柳二公，其命題作文，不知有意無意？韓有〈張中丞傳後敘〉，柳有〈段太尉逸事狀〉；韓有〈進學解〉，柳有〈晉問〉；韓有〈平淮碑〉，柳有〈平淮雅〉；韓有〈送窮文〉，柳有〈乞巧文〉，若相配者。」按《鶴林玉露》卷五云：「韓、柳文多相似：韓有〈平淮碑〉，柳有〈平淮雅〉；韓有〈進學解〉，柳有〈起廢答〉；韓有〈送窮文〉，柳有〈乞巧文〉；韓有〈與李翊論文書〉，柳有〈與韋中立論文書〉；韓有〈張中丞傳敘〉，柳有〈段太尉逸事狀〉。」《牡丹亭》第六齣柳夢梅謂韓子才云：「你公公說道：『宗元，宗元，我和你兩人文章，三六九比勢：我有〈王泥水傳〉，你便有〈梓人傳〉；我有〈毛中書傳〉，你便有〈郭駝子傳〉；我有〈祭鱷魚文〉，你便有〈捕蛇者說〉。這也罷了。則我〈進平淮西碑〉，你却又進個平淮西的〈雅〉』」云云，可參觀。然比擬每不倫，譬如〈祭鱷文〉正當以柳州〈愬螭文〉（卷五八三）作配，〈進學解〉與〈答問〉尤相類。黃式三《儆居集‧讀子集》卷一〈讀柳子厚集〉謂韓、柳「文有同有異，異者未嘗不同」，舉其議論之同，而調停其議論之異者。又李小湖《好雲樓初集》卷二十六〈雜識〉云：「汰閒字為短句，莫甚於柳州；累虛字為長句，莫甚於紫陽。短不傷脈，長不掩骨，則皆善。」亦得間語。【卷五六七韓愈〈圬者王承福傳〉：「嘻！吾操鏝以入富貴之家有年矣，有一至者焉，又往過之，則為墟矣」云云。按《封氏聞見記》卷五〈第宅〉：「中書令郭子儀見修宅者，謂曰：『好築此牆，勿令不牢。』築者釋錘而對曰：『數十年來，京城達官家牆，皆是某築，衹見人自改換，牆皆見在。』郭令聞之，愴然動容」云云。】【《容齋隨筆》卷六論裴晉公〈寄李翺書〉斥昌黎云[15]：「公作此書時，名位猶未達，其末云：『昨弟來，欲度及時干進』云云。然則公出征淮西，請愈為行軍司馬，又令作碑，蓋在此累年之後，相知已深，非復前比也。」】【《弇州讀書後》卷三〈書韓文後〉：「謂之文士，則西京而下，故當以牛耳歸之」；〈書柳文後〉：「才秀於韓，而氣不及。〈封建論〉之勝〈原道〉，非文勝也，論事易長，論理易短。吾嘗謂柳之早歲多棄其日於六季之學，而晚得幽僻遠地，足以深造。韓合下便超六季而上之，而晚為富貴功名所分，且多酬應。蓋於益損，各中半耳。」】【王益吾《自訂年譜》卷中：「光緒二十七年，刻《駢文類纂》，自為序例云：『少讀柳子厚〈永州新堂記〉，至於「邇延野綠，遠混天碧」，詫曰：「此儷語也！而雜廁散文，深疑不類。」』」】【陶元藻《泊鷗山房集》卷十一〈與蔡芳三論韓柳文優劣書〉（抑韓揚柳）。】【《青瑣高議前集》卷一〈韓文公祭文〉則載韓〈祭柳子厚文〉戒其母化蛇祟民，必偽託也，然亦可為《全唐文》拾遺。】【柳州〈李赤傳〉：「惑於厠鬼而死，反以世為溷，溷為帝居清都」；昌黎〈李虛中墓志〉：「好道士說，以水銀為黃金，服之冀果不死。將疾，夢大山裂，流出赤黃物如金，左人曰：『是所謂大還者。』卒疽發背死。山者艮，艮為背，裂而流赤黃，疽象也。大還者，大歸也。」按兩篇諷喻之法同（《黃氏日抄》卷四二引《陸復齋文集‧與王申伯書》：「人生之迷，千種萬類，不可名狀，而大要皆是利欲。李赤入厠，天下之樂於是在，而不知其死於糞穢也」[16]）。】【《艇齋詩話》：「韓子蒼詩：『塵緣吾未斷，不是薄蓬萊』（《陵陽先生詩》卷三〈留別館中諸公〉），本柳州〈謫龍說 〉：『吾薄蓬萊羞崑崙。』」】【李漢〈昌黎集序〉[17]：「日光玉潔，周情孔思。」按趙以夫〈沁園春‧和劉後村〉云：「向酒邊陶寫，韓情杜思，案頭料理，漢蠹秦煨」；《定庵文集》卷上〈徐尚書代言集序〉：「舜聲堯容，羲情軒思。」】
〇退之偶為駢語，如〈明水賦〉、〈為韋相公讓官表〉、〈為裴相公讓官表〉、〈請上尊號表〉、〈賀皇帝即位表〉、〈賀赦表〉、〈賀冊皇太后表〉、〈潮州刺史謝上表〉，皆木強質滯。【王禹偁《小畜集》卷十八〈再答張扶書〉摘退之〈祭裴少卿〉文中「儋石之儲，不供於私室；方丈之食，每盛於賓筵」：「此必吏部自慚，而當時人好之者也」（必是謂其落駢儷調耳）。】子厚較圓熟，亦未為工麗，如卷五六九〈披沙揀金賦〉、〈迎長日賦〉、〈記里鼓賦〉、卷五七○、五七一諸〈表〉、卷五七六〈上武元衡相公謝撫問啟〉、〈謝李夷簡尚書委曲撫問啟〉、卷五七七〈送苑論登第後歸覲詩序〉、卷五七八〈送從兄偁罷選歸江淮詩序〉[18]、卷五八七〈南府君睢陽廟碑〉、卷五八九〈武城縣開國男食邑三百戶張公墓志銘〉、〈貴州刺史鄧君墓志銘〉，在唐人此體中，正是套語凡響。退之不屑為駢文，子厚當是為而未升堂嚌胾者，此李義山之所以難能可貴也。然使退之、子厚攝心摶意為之，當不在四傑之下，蓋古文難為於駢文多矣！彭甘亭四六名家，而《懺摩錄》云：「小時喜古文，唐人中尤好子厚，後乃深知其難，去而作排偶文字。」此則真畏難苟安也，可謂誠實不欺者。李小湖《好雲樓初集》卷二十一〈木鷄書屋駢文五集序〉云：「雪苑正短於駢儷，故為是名（壯悔），以尊其集耳。」[19]然明人駢文絕無名家，未蔚然成風，宜雪苑之不肯為也。
〇卷五七一〈平淮西雅〉：「鼎臑俎胾。」按《校禮堂文集》卷三二〈書平淮西雅後〉力斥四字之不典：「『鼎臑』二字本《楚辭‧大招》。肉之無骨者皆實於豆。若俎，但載牲之骨體而已。若鼎，則不獨一臑也。稽之《禮》例，無一合者。蓋唐之詞人疎於經術，尤疎於《禮》也。」[20]
〇卷五七一〈寄許京兆孟容書〉：「自古賢人才士」云云[21]，雜引直不疑、管仲等十七人。《霞外捃屑》卷七上云：「太史公〈報任安書〉先引西伯等九人，後引文王等七人，皆本《韓非‧難言》『文王說紂』云云雜引二十一人也。[22]趙用賢《評林》謂柳州〈與楊京兆憑書〉仿此，然僅引子羽等七人而已。」
〇卷五七三柳宗元〈與蕭翰林俛書〉：「楚越間聲音特異，鴂舌啅噪。」按退之〈送區冊序〉云：「皆鳥言夷面」；皇甫持正〈東還賦〉云：「蟲聲鬼軀，面綠眼青」（卷六八五）；胡稚威〈送周司馬序〉云：「俗獠風狺，面狸舌鳥」（《石笥山房文集》卷二）。
【卷五七三〈寄許京兆孟容書〉：「伏惟興哀於無用之地，垂德於不報之所。」按卷五七六〈上廣州趙宗儒尚書陳情啟〉：「竊以動心於無情之地，施惠於不報之人。」】
〇卷五七四柳宗元〈與崔連州論石鍾乳書〉：「盧之沽名者，皆可以為太醫；西子之里，惡而矉者，皆可以當侯王；山西之冒沒輕儳、沓貪而忍者，皆可以鑿凶門、制閫外；山東之稚騃樸鄙，力農桑、啖棗栗者，皆可以謀謨於廟堂之上。」按「盧醫」、「東施」言之甚明，末二句則暗用《漢書‧辛慶忌傳‧贊》「山西出將」、「山東出相」耳。
〇卷五七四柳宗元〈與李睦州論服氣書〉：「及年已長，則嗜書，又見有學書者，亦不能得碩書，獨得國故書，伏而攻之。（中略）知書者又大笑曰：『是形縱而理逆。』卒為天下棄，又大慚而歸。」[24]按卷五七五〈報崔黯秀才論為文書〉云：「凡人好詞工書者，皆病癖也。吾不幸早得二病」；卷六一○劉禹錫〈為鄂州李大夫祭柳員外文〉云：「篋盈草隸，架滿文篇。鍾索繼美，班揚差肩。」王觀國《學林》卷七則謂子厚書法不佳。退之〈題歐陽生哀詞後〉云：「愈性不喜書」；〈祭侯主簿文〉云：「我或為文，筆俾子持。」此又韓、柳之一反也。子厚有〈永字八法頌〉卷五八三，亦嗜書之證，可與卷三三六顏魯公〈永字八法頌〉參觀。
【〈答韋中立論師道書〉：郭熙《林泉高致‧山水訓》：「柳子厚善論為文，余以為不止於文。萬事有訣，盡當如是，況於畫乎！何以言之？凡一景之畫」云云，詳說「積惰氣而強之者」、「積昏氣而汨之者」、「以輕心挑之者」、「以慢心忽之者」各弊，實出子厚此〈書〉。本節另有郭思識語「思平昔見先子作一、二圖」云云，亦分說「惰氣」、「昏氣」、「輕心」、「慢心」四弊。言子厚文者皆未采及此。】
〇卷五七五柳宗元〈報崔黯秀才論為文書〉：「然聖人之言，期以明道，學者務求諸道而遺其詞。詞之傳於世者，必由於書。道假詞而明，詞假書而傳，要之之道而已耳。道之及，及乎物而已耳，斯取道之內者也。今世因貴詞而矜書，粉澤以為工，遒密以為能，不亦外乎」云云。而〈答韋中立論師道書〉（「參之穀梁、孟、荀、莊、老、《國語》、〈離騷〉、太史以為之文」）、〈報袁君陳秀才避師名書〉（「《左氏》、《國語》、莊周、屈原之詞，稍采取之，穀梁子、太史公甚峻潔，可以出入」）論古文皆以「道」與「詞」隱分兩橛。「道」必源於儒書，勿取異端；「詞」則可參莊、老，未嘗墨守【卷五七三〈與楊京兆憑書〉：「誠使博如莊周，哀如屈原，奧如孟軻，壯如李斯，峻如馬遷，富如相如，明如賈誼，專如揚雄」】，參觀七二○則論〈進學解〉，退之宗旨亦復如是。司馬君實《迂書》所以有〈斥莊〉一篇，痛斥莊子「文勝」，取悅於人，如「朽屋而塗丹雘」，「眢井而冪綺繢」，「烏喙而漬飴糖」也。詳見第七二○則論〈進學解〉。【司馬君實斥莊之「眢井而冪綺繢」即本柳子厚〈答吳武陵論非國語書〉斥《國語》「務富文采，不顧事實，而益之以誣怪（云云），是猶用文錦覆陷穽也。」子厚〈與呂道州溫論非國語書〉云：「病其文勝而言厖，好詭以反倫。……伏膺呻吟者，至比六經，則溺其文，必信其實，是聖人之道翳也。」而〈答韋中立論師道書〉「此吾所以羽翼夫道也」與「此吾所以旁推交通而以為之文也」分為兩橛，其「旁推交通」者，不獨有「參之莊、老以肆其端」，亦有「參之《國語》以博其趣。」〈報袁君陳秀才避師名書〉則六經、《論語》、《孟子》「皆經言」，《左傳》、《國語》、《莊子》均在「稍采取」之列。李翺〈答朱載言書〉云：「六經之後，百家之言興。……皆足以自成一家之文，學者之所師歸也」，歷舉老、莊、列、墨、韓非、李斯等，而以孟、荀厠其間。唐古文家之尊儒家之道，不過如此。至宋之伊川，始深知道與文不可得兼矣。宋智圓《閑居編》卷二九〈送庶幾序〉言學古文為宗儒。】然子厚尊儒乃專為作文地，安身立命則迴嚮釋氏，亦不廢老子，此又大異乎昌黎，而略同於獨孤、權、梁輩者。卷五七九〈送元十八山人南遊序〉云：「予觀老子，亦孔子之異流也，不得以相抗。（中略）太史公沒，其後有釋氏。（中略）今有河南元生者，（中略）悉取向之所以異者，通而同之，搜擇融液，與道大適，咸伸其長而黜其奇衺。要之，與孔子同道，皆有以會其趣」；〈送巽上人赴中丞叔父召序〉云：「吾自幼好佛，求其道，積三十年」（卷五八一〈永州龍興寺西軒記〉亦為巽上人作，有云：「居龍興寺西序之下。予知釋氏之道且久，固所願也。然予所庇之屋甚隱蔽，其戶北向，居昧昧也。中略於是鑿西墉以為戶，戶之外為軒。中略夫室，嚮者之室也；席與几，向者之處。向也昧而今也顯，豈異物耶？因悟夫佛之道，可以轉惑見為真智，即羣迷為正覺，捨大闇為光明。夫性豈異物耶？孰能為予鑿大昏之墉，闢靈照之戶，廣應物之軒者，吾將與為徒」）；〈送僧浩初序〉云：「儒者韓退之與予善，嘗病予嗜浮屠言，訾予與浮屠游。（中略）且曰：『見〈送元生序〉，不斥浮屠。』浮屠誠有不可斥者，往往與《易》、《論語》合，誠樂之，其於性情奭然，不與孔子異。（中略）退之忿其外而遺其中，是知石而不知蘊玉也」；〈送元嵩師序〉云：「予觀世之為釋者，或不知其道，則去孝以為達。（中略）釋之書有《大報恩》十篇，咸言由孝而極其業。世之蕩誕慢施者，雖為其道而好違其書。於元嵩師，吾見其不違且與儒合也」；〈送濬上人歸淮南覲省序〉云：「金仙氏之道，蓋本於孝敬，而後積以眾德，歸於空無」；卷五八七〈曹溪第六祖賜諡大鑒禪師碑〉云：「孔子無大位，沒以餘言持世，更楊、墨、黃、老益雜，其術分裂，而吾浮圖說後出，推離還源，合所謂生而靜者」云云【《初學集》33〈一樹齋集序〉】，皆陽欲援釋歸儒，而實則以儒文釋。視梁敬之用心尤苦，伎倆益巧。上承權載之，下開契嵩。至〈送元嵩〉、〈送濬上人南〉，更不啻《鐔津文集》卷三〈孝論〉之先河矣！【王逢原《廣陵集》卷十四〈段秀實太尉傳〉（本柳文作，以補史闕，蓋時《新唐書》尚未出也）；卷十六〈代韓退之答柳子厚示浩初序書〉（「釋氏非毁之也。譬之器然，舊嘗完而暴鑠之，謂為毁也可矣。其從來不為器者，是自然耳，豈人毁之耶」）；《皇朝文鑑》卷一一九王令〈代韓愈答柳宗元示僧浩初序書〉：「讀而駭之，不知真子厚作否也？……子厚亦不思哉？……孔子察聖人作卦之因，……曰：『……有萬物然後有男女，有男女然後有夫婦，有夫婦然後有父子，有父子然後有君臣』……《論語》二十篇，大率不過弟子問仁、問政、問忠之類爾，於鬼神與死之類，則皆『未能事人』……不識子厚謂『與《易》、《論語》合』者何哉？」】
〇卷五七九〈送元舉歸幽泉寺序〉。按見第六三三則論《有學集》卷四〈寄懷嶺外四君詩〉。
〇卷五七九柳宗元〈送詩人廖有方序〉[25]：「交州多南金、珠璣、玳瑁、象犀，其產皆奇怪，至於草木亦殊異。吾嘗怪陽德之炳耀，獨發於紛葩瓌麗，而罕鍾乎人。」按李審言《媿生叢錄》卷一謂與退之〈送區宏南歸〉詩「野有象犀水貝璣，分散百寶人士稀」語意相同。
〇卷五八○〈嶺南節度饗軍堂記〉。《霞外捃屑》卷七上云「問工焉取」一句全仿《國語‧楚語上》「靈王為章華之臺」節伍舉言莊王匏居之台云：「問誰宴焉？則宋公、鄭伯；問誰相禮？則華元、駟騑；問誰贊事？則陳侯、蔡侯、許男、頓子。」參觀〈古詩十九首〉：「誰能為此曲？無乃杞梁妻」；陶淵明〈雜詩〉：「問君何能爾？心遠地自偏」，皆自問自答。
〇卷五八○〈邕州柳中丞作馬退山茅亭記〉。按談遷《棗林雜俎‧聖集》：「太祖高皇帝〈諭幼儒敕〉有曰：『蓋於〈馬退山茅亭記〉見柳子厚之文無益也。柳子厚之兄司牧邕州，構亭山顛，非勞人而勿成，既成而無益於民。略不規諫，乃詠亭之美。曰「以青山為屏障」，此雖無益，文尚有理。曰「以白雲為藩籬」，此果虛耶實耶？』」帝皇談藝，所謂「衹是怕他」也！
〇卷五八四〈天說〉：「韓愈謂柳子曰：『（中略）物壞，蟲由之生；元氣陰陽之壞，人由之生。蟲之生而物益壞，食齧之，攻穴之。（中略）人之壞元氣陰陽也，（中略）不甚於蟲之所為乎？吾意有能殘斯人，使日薄歲削，（中略）是則有功於天地者也；蓄而息之者，天地之仇也。（中略）』柳子曰：『子誠有激而為是耶？則信辯且美矣。吾能終其說。（中略）天地，大果蓏也；元氣，大癰痔也[27]；陰陽，大草木也，其烏能賞功而罰禍乎？功者自功，禍者自禍，欲望其賞罰者，大謬矣；呼而怨，欲望其哀且仁者，愈大謬矣。子而信子之仁義以遊其內，生而死爾，烏置存亡得喪於果蓏、癰痔、草木耶？』」【此意又見〈時令論下〉、〈亡姊崔氏夫人墓志〉[28]、〈亡姊前京兆府參軍裴君夫人墓志〉、〈亡妻弘農楊氏墓志〉、〈先太夫人河東縣太君歸祔志〉。】【《太平經》卷四十五：「今子言：『人小小，所動為不能疾地。』今大人軀長一丈、大十圍，其齒有齲蟲，小小不足道。合人齒，大疾當作之時，其人啼呼交，且齒久久為墮落悉盡。夫人比於天地大小，如此蟲害人也。……今疥蟲蚤蝨小小，積眾多，共食人；蠱毒者殺人。……夫人大小比於地如此矣。」[29]】按張臯文《茗柯文初編‧續柳子厚天說》謂人亦如天地，有知亦若無知，以寄生蟲為喻，而大意正同子厚。子厚析理甚明，卷五八五〈天對〉云：「無功無作」，亦此旨，即《荀子‧天論篇》（「天行有常，不為堯存，不為桀亡」；「治亂非天也」）之意，却不如退之之論為工於感慨。兩人意中，當皆有史公〈伯夷列傳〉在。參觀四六一則 Francion, Liv. XI (T. IV, p. 11)。退之以蟲之於物，喻人之於天地，絕似 T. Campanella: “Del mondo e sue parti”: “Il mondo è un animal grande e
perfetto, / statua di Dio, che Dio lauda e simiglia: / noi siam vermi
imperfetti e vil famiglia, / ch’intra il suo ventre abbiam vita e ricetto. /
... / Siam poi alla terra, ch’è un grande animale / dentro al massimo, noi come
pidocchi / al corpo nostro, e però ci fan male. /...” (Opere di G. Bruno e di T. Campanella, a cura di A. Guzzo e di
Amerio, p. 789)；又劉向〈別錄〉云：「人民蚤蝨眾多，則地癢也」（《全漢文》卷三十八）；Guillaume Appollinaire: “Endurcis-toi vieux coeur”: “Hommes poux de la
terre ô vermine tenace” (Oeuvres
poétiques, La Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, p. 744)。子厚此文，則用意略同 Goethe: “Das Göttliche”: “Denn unfühlend / Ist die Natur: / Es leuchtet
die Sonne / Über Bös und Gute, / Und dem Verbrecher / Glänzen wie dem Besten / der
Mond und die Sterne. // ... / Nur allein der Mensch / Vermag das Unmögliche: / Er
unterscheidet, / Wählet und richtet; / ... / Er allein darf / Den Guten lohnen,
/ Den Bösen strafen, / Heilen und retten, / Alles Irrende, Schweifende / Nützlich
verbinden” — Auswahl in drei Bänden, Veb, II, S.
123 一篇，Leopardi: “Alla primavera, o delle favole antiche” 及 “Il Risorgimento” 兩篇 (Opere, a cura di S. Solmii, I. pp. 38, 90)。詳見第二五三則，又七七一則論〈小雅‧正月〉。又按退之〈與崔羣書〉云：「不知造物者意竟如何，無乃所好惡與人異心哉？又不知無乃都不省記，任其死生壽夭耶？未可知也」，又〈孟東野失子〉詩云：「天曰天地人，由來不相關。」是未嘗不同子厚之論，特有激而云爾。
〇卷五八五〈敵戒〉：「皆知敵之仇，而不知為益之尤；皆知敵之害，而不知為利之大。（中略）孟孫惡臧，孟死臧恤：『藥石去矣，吾亡無日。』」按子厚舉《左傳》，又舉秦始皇為例，實則《左傳》成十六年：「范文子曰：『自非聖人，外寧必有內憂。盍釋楚以為外懼乎』」（《國語‧晉語六》：「范文子曰：『且唯聖人能無外患，又無內憂，詎非聖人，必偏而後可。偏而在外，猶可救也，疾自中起，是難。盍姑釋荊與鄭以為外患乎』」）；《孟子‧告子章》：「無敵國外患者，國恒亡。然後知生於憂患而死於安樂也」，皆此意。然而鳥盡弓藏，兔死狗烹（參觀第二七七則論《全上古文》卷五吳王夫差〈矢書射文種〉；《史記‧淮陰侯傳》蒯通曰：「野獸已盡而獵狗亨」，韓信曰：「果若人言：狡兔死，良狗亨；高鳥盡，良弓藏；敵國破，謀臣亡」；〈韓信傳〉：「信曰：『果若人言：狡兔死，良狗亨』」，師古注：「此黃石公《三略》之言」；〈蒯通傳〉：「語曰：『野禽殫， 走狗亨；敵國破，謀臣亡』」），養寇自重，亦同斯理。武涉（《漢書‧韓彭英盧吳傳》、《史記‧淮陰侯列傳》僅謂「人」）之說韓信，臧衍之說張勝，皆以此為詞。王建〈射虎行〉所謂「惜留猛虎著深山，射殺恐畏終身閑」（范浚《香溪先生文集》卷八〈讀王建射虎行〉引申之曰：「有如邊將圖偷安，遵養時晦容其姦，翻愁努力盡高鳥，良弓掛壁無由彎」）【faire le coup de presse-citron】，又子厚所未及矣。參觀汪景祺《讀書堂西征隨筆‧功臣不可為條》、丁國鈞《荷香館瑣言》卷上：「年羹堯得罪後奏摺可為慨歎」（「臣功最高，臣罪最重」；「鳥盡弓藏，兔擒狗殺，揆之聖世，或有未然」；「與『莫須有』三字約略無異」）【“on lui a fait le coup du presse-citron”】；Machiavelli 於人主之 “ingratitudine” 重言申明 (Discorsi, I. 29; Il Principe, 21; Opere, a cura di M. Bonfantini,
pp. 155-8; 75)[31]。《陳后山詩注》卷五〈病起〉：「災疾資千悟，寃親併一空」，注：「《孟子》所謂『人之有德、慧、術、知者，恆存乎疢疾』是也」；《藥地炮莊》卷二〈養生主〉引曹大文曰：「竹關題大士曰：『人只念救苦救難觀世音，何不念救安救樂觀世音？』『安樂』二字，今古北邙一隙則邊，即便偷息，故現出許多水火刀兵，生吞活剝。是個漢便于此處轉身，翻個筋斗，始悟第一寃家，即是第一恩人」云云；卷三〈大宗師〉引杖人曰：「貧、病、死是三大恩人」，則 Jeremy Taylor, Holy Dying: “Sickness
is a messenger of God... The soul, by the help of sickness, knocks off the
fetters of pride & vainer complacencies” (The Golden Grove, ed. L.P.
Smith, pp. 878); Simone Weil, La Pesanteur et la Grâce, p. 109: “La misère humaine contient le
secret de la sagesse divine, et non pas le plaisir. Toute recherche d’un
plaisir est recherche d’un paradis artificiel, d’une ivresse, d’un
accroissement. Mais elle ne nous donne rien, sinon l’expérience qu’elle est
vaine. Seule la contemplation de nos limites et de nos misère nous met un plan
au dessus”; Nietzsche, Schopenhauer als
Erzieher: “... aber er weiss, was auch Meister Eckhard weiss: ‘Das
schnellste Tier, das dich trägt zur Vollkommenheit, ist Leiden’” (Werke in drei Bänden, ed. Karl
Schlechta, I, S. 317); Eckhardt, Von Abgeschiedenheit:
“das snellste tier, das iuch treit ze vollekommenheit, ist lîden, wan ez
geniazet, nieman mê êwiger sêligkeit wan die mit Kristô stent in der groesten
bitterkeit” 之旨，為出世法言之，與子厚貌同心異，亦非《孟子》「天降大任於斯人」之意也[32]。參觀 A. Lalande, Vocabulaire technique
et critique de la philosophie, 7e éd., p. 247: “Dolorisme”。【Amiel reoueille le propos de sa femme de ménage: “le bon Dieu ne veut
pas q’on soit heureux” (8 déc. 1869).】【Xavier
de Maistre: “Ce qui gêne l’homme le fortifie” (Gordon N. Ray, Thackeray: The Uses of Adversity, p.
15). But D’Annunzio, Il Fuoco: “Colui il quale molto ha sofferto è men sapiente di
colui il quale molto ha gioito[33].”】【Cf. Lou Salomé: “Anden Schmerz”: “Das Leben ohne dich — es wäre schön! / Und
doch — du bist es werth, gelebt zu werden” (Ilonka Schmidt Mackey, Lou Salomé , p. 53).】
〇卷五八五〈對賀者〉：「嘻笑之怒，甚乎裂眥；長歌之哀，過乎慟哭。庸詎知吾之浩浩，非戚戚之尤者乎？」按深摯語，參觀 Petrarca, Le Rime, CII: “Però,
s’alcuna volta io rido o canto, / facciol perch’i’ non ò se non quest’una /
via da celare il mio angoscioso pianto”(Rime,
Trionfi, e poesie latine, a cura di F. Neri, G. Martellotti, E. Bianchi e
N. Sapegno, p. 141); Shakespeare, Titus
Andronicus, III. I, Marcus: “Now is a time to storm; why art thou still?” Titus: “Ha, ha, ha!” Marc.: “Why dost thou laugh? It fits not
with this hour.” Tit.: “Why, I have
not another tear to shed” (Complete Works,
ed. G.L. Kittredge, p. 989); Descartes, Les
Passions de l’âme, Ptie. II, article 125: “on trouve par expérience que
lorsqu’on est extraordinairement joyeux, jamais le sujet de cette joie ne fait
qu’on éclate de rire, et même on ne peut pas si aisément y être invité par
quelque autre cause, que lorsqu’on est triste” (Oeuvres et Lettres, “Bib. de la Pléiade”, p. 752); Beaumarchais, Le Barbier de Seville, I. ii: “Je me
presse de rire de tout, de peur d’être obligé d’en pleurer” (Théâtre, “Classique Garnier”, éd.
Maurice Rat, pp. 43-4); Flaubert, lettre à Louise Colet: “Voir les choses en
farce est le seul moyen de ne pas les voir en noir. Rions pour ne pas pleurer”
(Corr., éd. Louis Conard, II, p. 472);
Horace Walpole to John Cranford (in 1766): “I consider everything round me but
in the light of amusement, because if I looked at it seriously, I should detest
it. I laugh, that I may not weep... & I am not at all of Mme
du Deffimd’s opinion, that one might as well be dead as not love somebody — I
think one had better be dead than love anybody” (TLS, June 12, 1981, p. 681); Langston Hughes’s novel Laughing to Keep from Crying (1952); cf. Stuart M. Tave, The
Amiable Humorist, pp. 190 ff. on laughters & tears regarded as “neighbours
& confiners”。而 Byron, Don Juan, IV, 4: “If I laugh at any
mortal thing, / ’Tis that I may not weep...” (Variorum ed. by T.G. Steffan
& W.W. Pratt, II, p. 346)，註者僅引 A. Dyce, Recollections of the
Table Talk of Samuel Rogers, p. 281: “Richardson had said the same thing
long ago: ‘... I am forced, as I have often said, to try to make myself laugh,
that I may not cry...’ (Clarissa Harlowe,
letter 84)” (IV, p. 105) 而已。
〇卷五八五〈愚溪對〉「汝欲窮我之愚說耶」以下一節，〈對賀者〉「是以儻蕩其心」以下一節，波瀾似莊子。齋藤謙《拙堂文話》卷六謂「〈郭橐駝傳〉結尾學〈養生主〉結尾；〈韋使君新堂記〉首學〈胠箧篇〉首；〈羆說〉又從〈秋水篇〉『夔憐蚿』章來」云云，尚嫌刻舟求劍也。〈對賀者〉有云：「有自京師來者，既見，曰：『（中略）予適將唁子。今予視子之貌浩浩然也，能是達矣。（中略）』柳子曰：『子誠以貌乎則可也，（中略）庸詎知吾之浩浩非戚戚之尤者乎？子休矣。』」按卷六一二崔羣〈祭柳州柳員外文〉云：「五嶺三湘，寒暑潛推。樂道忘憂，襟靈甚夷。」真不知己語！所謂「休矣」者。
〇卷五八六〈晉問〉：「其高壯，則騰突撐拒，聱岈鬱怒，若熊羆之咆、虎豹之嘷，終古而不去。……其案衍，則平盈旋緣，紆徐夷延，若飛鳶之翔舞，洄水之容與。」按前以聲喻形，後以形喻形。「河魚之大」一節，極言晉之多魚「填溢饜飫」。按《公羊傳》宣公六年[34]：「勇士曰：『嘻！子（趙盾）為晉國重卿而食魚飧，是子之儉也。』」《史通外篇‧雜說上第七》云：「蓋公羊生自齊邦，不詳晉物，以東土所賤，謂西州亦然。」柳州乃所謂「先生晉人也」，却以魚為晉之土產，「魦、鱨、鮪、鯉、鰋、鱧、魴、鱮」之屬，無不具有，何哉？蔣超伯《南漘楛語》卷二云：「今山右得魚甚艱，有『魚龍鴨鳳』諺，春秋時不然」，因引《公羊傳》此節為證，惜其未引柳州此文，至云「莫保龍籍」也。
〇卷五八六〈鞭賈〉。按亦卷五八五〈三戒〉之類。劉夢得〈因論七篇〉（卷六○八）正此體。若退之〈雜說〉，則全乎議論矣。有云：「視其內則空空然，其理若糞壤，無所賴者。今之梔其貌，蠟其言，以求賈技於朝者，（中略）居無事，雖過三年不為害。當其有事，驅之於陳力之列以御乎物，以夫空空之內，糞壤之理，而以責其大擊之效，惡有不折其用而獲墜傷之患者乎？」【尤延之〈蠟梅詩〉：「梔貌寧欺我輩人」；《牧齋初學集》卷三〈蠟梅‧之二〉：「莫以黃中笑梔貌。」】卷五七七〈送豆盧膺秀才南遊詩序〉云「無乎內而飾乎外者，是設覆為穽也。」即此意而語尤簡辣。Saintsbury, A Scrap Book, pp.
202-3: “Cabbage-Sticks” 與子厚冥契，有云：“... a fair metaphorical title for at least some chapters in any
rational being’s autobiography. May I ask whether there was ever such a
Cabbage-Stick as the League of Nations? So tall! so polished! so finely
knotted! so suggestive of a real oak-plant! & so certain to crack at the
first serious strain!” (p. 203)。參看曹子建〈矯志詩〉：「都蔗雖甘，杖之必折；巧言雖美，用之必滅」；劉向〈杖銘〉：「都蔗雖甘，殆不可杖；佞人悅己，亦不可相」（《藝文類聚》卷 69）。
〇卷五九○〈覃季子墓銘〉記其取《史》、《漢》以下數十家，「橫豎鈎貫」為《史纂》，又取「儒、墨、名、法，百有若干家」為《子纂》。卷五七七〈柳宗直西漢文類序〉則刺取班書賦、頌、書、奏等以類編次（參觀卷五九一〈志從父弟宗直殯〉）。
〇卷五九二〈李赤傳〉，參觀第七二四則論《太平廣記》卷三四一。有云：「取絳雪餌之」，唐制臘日頒口脂「紅雪」、「紫雪」，唐人集中多載謝恩表狀（如卷六百二劉禹錫〈為杜相公、李中丞謝表〉），當非此物。又按未採〈河間婦傳〉，亦如卷四七六沈既濟不采〈枕中記〉；卷六一二陳鴻不采〈長恨歌傳〉，而僅采〈華清湯池記〉（鴻之〈東城老父傳〉却見卷七二○，別出一「陳鴻祖」）；卷六五四元稹不采〈會真記〉；卷六七六白居易〈記異〉即《太平廣記》卷三四四〈王裔老〉一則；卷六九二白行簡〈三夢記〉、〈紀夢〉亦出《太平廣記》；卷七一○李德裕〈周秦行紀論〉而不附〈周秦行紀〉（卷六八二牛僧孺文亦不載）；卷七一九蔣防無〈霍小玉傳〉；卷七二五李公佐却錄〈謝小娥傳〉；卷七三七沈亞之却錄〈異夢錄〉。陸心源《唐文拾遺》卷二四有沈既濟〈枕中記〉，則錄自《吳興藝文補》，〈會真記〉、〈霍小玉傳〉等皆未補闕也。
〇歐陽詹文唯卷五九八〈棧道銘〉最佳，餘文每失之俗滑，論品尚在李觀之下。比偶更多，如卷五九六〈送王式東遊序〉，幾通篇儷語，結云：「離者會之資，會實離之本。今離既由昨會，後會得不由今離乎？」却有妙諦。卷五九七〈送周孝廉擢第歸覲序〉至云：「已比郄詵之玉，思懷陸績之橘」，然此尚可以贈序之體例多駢偶為解。卷五九七〈曲江池記〉、卷五九八〈珍祥論〉、〈棧道銘〉亦幾通篇排比，〈曲江池記〉有云：「俯睇沖融，得渭北之飛鴈；斜窺澹濘，見終南之片石」；「九重繡轂，翼六龍而畢降；千門錦帳，同五侯而偕至」；「砰輷沸渭，神仙奏鈞天於赤水；黤藹敷俞，天人曳雲霓於玄都」[35]，亦見積重之難返矣。《好雲樓集》卷二十八〈雜識〉摘退之〈與崔羣書〉用駢語「鳳皇芝草，賢愚皆以為美瑞；青天白日，奴隸亦知其清明」；《霞外捃屑》卷七上摘永叔〈思潁詩後序〉云：「不類倦飛之鳥，然後知還；惟恐勒移之靈，却回俗駕。」韓、歐尚未能刮磨淨盡，於行周何尤？卷五九七〈送無知上人往五臺山序〉云：「上人從儒至道，從道至釋。如歷星月，以得白日；若棄扇霎，而灑長風。」同卷〈福州南澗寺上方石像記〉亦夸陳佛法神通，有云：「予則求福不回者，焚香跪仰，或從釋子之後。」蓋亦迴嚮彼法者，與退之特文字交耳。卷五四四李貽孫〈故四門助教歐陽詹文集序〉稱行周與退之「同道而相上下」[36]，非謂「理道」之「道」。【孟簡〈詠歐陽行周事‧序〉云：「生於單貧，以徇名故，心專勤儉，不識聲色，及兹筮仕，未知洞房纖腰之為蠱惑。」按《豫章黃先生文集》卷 16〈小山集序〉云：「妙年美士，近知酒色之虞；苦節臞儒，晚悟裙裾之樂，鼓之舞之，宴安酖毒而不悔，是則叔原之罪也哉？」】
〇卷五九六歐陽詹〈上鄭相公書〉：「四門助教，限以四考，格以五選，十年方易一官也。自兹循資歷級，然得國子助教，其考選年數，又如太學。若如之，則三十年矣。三十年間，未離助教之官。人壽百歲，七十者希。某今四十年有加矣，更三十年於此，是一生不睹高衢遠途矣。況先三十年，孰知存亡哉？其或素蓄，當在重泉之下矣。」按《夷堅甲志》卷十載廖剛中〈戲賦詩自嘲〉云：「二十年前錄辟雍，而今官職儼然同。何當三萬六千歲，趕上齊陽魯國公謂蔡元長」；《孽海花》一九回載李純客門聯曰：「戶部員外補闕一千年」，皆此意。
〇劉禹錫文與子厚為近，刻鍊處正復不亞，卷六百八〈猶子蔚適越誡〉云：「昔吾友柳儀曹嘗謂吾文隽而膏，味無窮而炙愈出也」，亦見同聲之相賞惜。氣機迫促，無長言永歎之致，不然真堪與韓、柳鼎足，如卷六百十〈祭韓吏部文〉所謂「子長在筆，予長在論。時惟子厚，竄言其間」矣！
〇卷五九九劉禹錫〈楚望賦〉：「亦有輕舟，軒輊泛浮。拖綸往復，馴鷗相逐。暮夜澄寂，嘯歌群族。傖音俚態，幽怨委曲。逗疎柝於江城，引哀猿於山木。」按夢得〈竹枝詞自序〉謂取之巴蜀民謠，觀此數語，則在湘時，亦已傾耳於棹唱。元次山〈欸乃歌〉正其類。
〇卷五九九劉禹錫〈秋聲賦〉：「嗟乎！驥伏櫪而已老，鷹在韝而有情。聆朔風而心動，盼天籟而神驚。力將痑兮足受紲，猶奮迅於秋聲。」按夢得〈始聞秋風〉云：「馬思邊草拳毛動，鵰盼青雲倦眼開」，即此意。又按毛西河〈書歐陽永叔秋聲賦後〉謂永叔此作是「秋風賦」，歷舉其措詞用意與〈風賦〉相似者為證，復參驗之於夢得之作，因曰：「秋聲者，無往不得，隨物而起。而衹曰聲在樹間，非風而何？」其語甚辨。然夢得之〈賦〉，較之蔣竹山之〈聲聲慢〉、項蓮生之〈水龍吟〉，又瞠乎後矣。蓮生「秋到無聲更苦」視西河所謂聞聲「已晚」更進一解。卷六九七李德裕〈秋聲賦〉云：「草木陰蟲，皆有秋聲。」而模寫亦甚粗略。
〇卷五九九劉禹錫〈問大鈞賦〉：「賦大運兮無有淑惡，彼多方兮自生醜好。爾奚不德，余以驟壯，姑尤我以速老耶？（中略）望所未至，謂余舒舒。欲其久留，謂我瞥如。我一子二，誰之曲歟？」按同卷〈何卜賦〉云：「同涉於川，其時在風，沿者之吉，溯者之凶；同藝於野，其時在澤，伊穜之利，乃穋之厄。故曰：是邪非邪，主者時邪！諒淑惡之同出兮，顧所卜之如何」，即此意。詳見一七則，又七一八則。
〇卷六○四劉禹錫〈答連州薛郎中論書儀書〉：「《語》曰：『俟自直之箭，則百代無一矢；俟自圓之木，則千歲無一輪。執矯揉之器者，視之灌叢，無非良材耳。』」按語出《韓非子‧顯學篇》：「必恃自直之箭，百世無矢；恃自圜之木，千世無輪」，《困學紀聞》卷十已言之。《呂覽‧離俗覽》：「飛兔、要褭，古之駿馬也，材猶有短。故以繩墨取木，則宮室不成矣」；《淮南子‧齊俗訓》：「夫待騕褭、飛兔而駕之，則世莫乘車；待西施、毛嬙而為配，則終身不家矣」；《鹽鐵論‧大論》：「大夫曰：『為治者不待自善之民，為輪者不待自曲之木』」；白香山〈和微之霓裳羽衣舞歌〉云：「如君所言誠有是，君試從容聽我語。若求國色始翻傳，但恐人間廢此舞。妍媸優劣寧相遠，大都只在人擡舉。李娟張態君莫嫌，亦擬隨宜且教取」；《伊川擊壤集》卷十六〈量力吟〉云：「須求騏驥方乘馬，亦恐終身無馬騎」，正此意。
〇卷六○六劉禹錫〈管城新驛記〉：「四時萬象，來貺於我。」按同卷〈洗心亭記〉云：「槃高孕虛，萬景坌來」；卷五九九〈楚望賦〉亦云：「四垂無蔽，萬景坌入」；又云：「萬象起滅，森來貺予。」〈洗心亭記〉又云：「遠邇細大，雜然陳乎前，引人目去，求瞬不得。」語尤奇，即《世說‧言語第二》王子敬云：「從山陰道上行，山川自相映發，使人應接不暇」之意。
〇卷六○六劉禹錫〈洗心亭記〉。按參觀第七五八則論曹組〈蝶戀花〉。
〇卷六○七劉禹錫〈天論‧上篇〉論「天與人交相勝」，天道「用在強弱」，人道「用在是非」。〈中篇〉論莽蒼則「天理勝」，郛郭則「人理勝」。Hume, Treatise of Human Nature,
III. i. 1 論 “fact” 與 “right”，又 “is” 與 “ought” 之無瓜葛 (ed. L.-A.
Selby-Bigge, pp. 460, 469; Goethe: “Das
Göttliche” (見論卷五八四柳宗元〈天說〉); Huxley, Evolution & Ethics
論 “State of Nature vs.
State of Art”, “the cosmic process vs. the ethical process” (Collected Essays, ed. Macmillan,
IX, pp. 12-3, 44-51, 81-2); Baudelaire, Curiosités esthétiques 論 “la vertu est artificielle,
surnaturelle” (“Éloge du maquillage”, Oeuv.
comp., éd. “Bib. de la Pléiade”, pp.
911-2) 已發於此。嚴幾道譯《天演論‧羣治篇》後按語即引夢得語，可謂具眼。【劉〈讀張曲江集作（五古）并引〉力言「陰謫最大，神可誣乎？」】【元稹〈人道短〉樂府：「古道天道長人道短，我道天道短人道長」（各舉例頗頭巾氣），而結云：「蛟螭與變化，鬼怪與隱藏。蚊蚋與利觜，枳棘與鋒鋩。賴得人道有揀别，信任天道真茫茫。若此撩亂事，豈非天道短，賴得人道長。」】【《魯巖所學集》卷十四〈三跋唐文粹〉：「〈天論‧下〉：『在商中宗，心知說賢。』按以傅說為相者乃高宗，非中宗也。」】
〇卷六○八劉禹錫〈口兵誡〉：「我誡於口，惟心之門。無為我兵，當為我藩。以慎為鍵，以忍為閽。可以多食，勿以多言。」按參觀《全齊文》卷一五張融〈門律自序〉云：「人生之口，正可論道說義，惟飲與食，此外如樹網焉。吾每以不爾為恨，爾曹當振綱也。」《南齊書‧謝𤅢傳》：「兄朏為吳興，𤅢於征虜渚送別，朏指𤅢口曰：『此中唯宜飲酒。』」本之《易經‧頤卦》，參觀第七六九則。
〇卷六一○劉禹錫〈祭虢州楊庶子文〉：「昔與君遊，俱為壯年。怒人言命，笑人言天。」按閱歷深而情事真。窮老始知人意難隨、人力有限、人事莫測，遂以「天命」自解。少年盛氣，固不達也。
〇卷六一○劉禹錫〈祭韓吏部文〉：「三十餘年，聲名塞天。」按卷六三四李翺〈感知己賦〉：「是時梁君之譽塞天下。」
〇卷六一七段文昌〈平淮西碑〉冗弱了不典重，如云：「逐餘孽如鳥雀，獵殘寇似狐狸」，才絀語拙，令人笑來。凌次仲《校禮堂文集》卷三十二〈書唐文粹後〉乃力稱姚寶之取此篇不取昌黎為「深知文體，明於抉擇」，專固而不識好歹人語也！宜其〈上洗馬翁覃溪師書〉譏汪容甫之「既以蕭、劉作則，而又韓、柳是崇」矣（見卷二十二）。
〇卷六一八何諷〈夢渴賦〉思致甚奇，修詞尚不足以發之。有云：「窗日斜照，飛蚊遶鬢。」東坡〈佛日山榮長老方丈〉第五首云：「山人睡覺無人見，只有飛蚊遶鬢鳴」，正取之此，不獨第四首「腹搖鼻息庭花落」為本於孫可之〈乞巧對〉也施元之注已引孫可之文，《猗覺寮雜記》等亦言之，而自來無人拈出何氏此文者。
七三八[37]
Giambattista Marino (Giovan Battista Marino, 1569-1625)
G.G. Ferrero, Marino e i Marinisti.
Le Père Bouhours, Les Entretiens d’Ariste et d’Eugène: “A
ce compte-la, dit Eugene, ce ne seroit pas un bel eiprit que lc Cavalier Marin.
Car il ne s’est jamais veû une imagination plus fertile, ni moins reglée que la
sienne... qui ne laisse rien à penser, ni à dire sur les matière qu’il traite... S’il parlait d’un
rossignol, ou d’une qu’on en peut imaginer... i il épuise toûjours son sujet” (éd.
Armand Colin, 1962, p. 118). This forgotten passage deserves to be quoted. “Il épuise toujours son sujet”, yes, but he also exhausts his reader. Fr.
Schlegel says of Guarini’s Pastor Fido:
“Der reine Kunstsinn ohne Gefühl ist doch etwas sehr langweiliges” (Literary Notebooks, ed. Hans Eichner, §485,
p. 62); Croce says of D’Annunzio: “si spiega come, nonostante l’apparenza
lussureggiante, il mondo dannunziono dia senso di povertà, di una povertà se
così piace, simile a quella di Mida... o, come si suol dire, che la sua arte
sia monotonia” (Filosofia, Poesia, Storia);
cf. Max Jacob, Cornet à Dés, éd. corrigée,
1923, p. 13: “Il est difficile d’être longtemps beau.”
“Introduzione”,
p. xii quotes F. Flora on “certi impasti di metafore nello scambio dei cinque
sensi” without giving examples. Two can be supplied: Marino “La Ninfa avara”: “Grida
l’alma tacendo; / ma tu, lasso! non senti, / perché sorda hai la vista, i miei lamenti” (p. 529); G. Battista: “Mentre
stava in villa”: “O cibo delle orecchie,
inni sonori! / O degli occhi armonia,
sguardi amorosi!” (p. 1014). Cf. Byron, Don
Juan, XV. 76: “I sometimes almost think that eyes have ears” (A Variorum
ed. by T.G. Steffan & W.W. Pratt, III, p. 489); Hugo: “L’oreille aussi a sa
vue”, & Alexandre Soumet: “On voit en écoutant” (quoted in Maxime
Chastaing: “Audition colorée”, in Vie et Langage,
Déc. 1960, p. 633). In ransacking for the literatures of various European
languages illustrations of synaesthesia, S. Ullmann has overlooked the Italian
baroque poets as well as Dante’s wonderful phrase on the “visible speech”
(visibile parlare) of the graven figures (Purg.
X. 95; cf. 39: “che non sembiava imagine che tace”[38] — Opere, ed. E. Moore & P. Toynbee, p.
66) (see the Principles of Semantics,
2nd ed., 1957, pp. 225 ff.). Cf. supra
第七三二則, apropos of Provenzal, Diz. d. Immag., p. 76,
where John Cleveland is quoted. Cf. Also
sprach Zarathustra, “Der Genesende”: “Höre mich auch mit deinen Augen” (Alfred
Kröner Verlag, S. 314-5).
Marino’s
letter “Al Conte d’Aglia”: “... dove Luca e Luigi Pulci... compongono a tutte
ore sonetti mordaci” (p. 20); “...mi trattenga con Menalca, Monandro, Menelao,
e Menalippo” (p. 21). The first puns on pulce
(flea), the second on menare
(masturbate), just as the common idiom “andare a Legnaia”, which means “essere
bastonato”, is a pun on the name of a suburb of Florence. Cf. O. Jespersen, Linguistica, pp. 409 ff. on “veiled language”;
also supra 第六四則 on〈哀江南賦〉. Montaigne, Essais, I. 51: “langage rare et
pellegrin” (Pléiade, p. 291).
Marino’s
letter “A Carlo Emanuele I”: “Imperocché la poesia richiede singolarità” (p.
24-5); cf. his Murtoleide, xxxiii: “È
del poeta il fin la meraviglia” (p. 627) & my comments in supra 第七○三則. The baroque maraviglia is a
way out of the classicist tout est dit
(cf. Imbrie Buffum, Studies in the
Baroque, pp. 43, 154). “... richi di metafore scelte e pellegrine” (p. 25);
cf. his letter “Al signor Gierolamo Preti”: “... la traccia delle cose scelte e
pellegrine” (p. 32), & “La Ninfa avara”: “Conviensi a non vulgare / spirito
peregrino / dal segnato sentier sviarsi alquanto, / e per novo camino / dietro
a novi pensier movere il corso” (p. 524) — i.e. metaphors bold or far-fetched.
Cf. Muretus’s praise of the obscurity & peregrinitas
of Tacitus’sstyle (G. Williamson, 17th
Century Contexts, p. 121). The fons
et origo of all this is Aristotle’s Rhetoric, which repeatedly counsels the
writer to give his language & style “a foreign air” by means of metaphors
& epithets (III. ii. 3 & 8; iii. 3; “Loeb”, pp. 351, 355, 363). E.
Tesauro, the theorist of the Marinist school, defines metaphor as “parola
pellegrina” (Il Cannocchiale Aristotelico,
ed. 1655, p. 311, quoted in MLN, Jan.
1963, p. 18) & talks of the “opposition metaforica”: “dove al Positivo si
congiunge, ò il Negativo, ò un Positivo incompossibile: talche una parte distrugga
l’altra: & ambe formino un composito monstruoso; che per la novità genere
maraviglia, e questa il diletto” (p. 302, quoted p. 26; cf. Odette de Mourgues,
Metaphysical Baroque & Précieux
Poetry, p. 74: “the reconciliation of clashing opposites”; Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four: “Top is bottom, /
Black is white, / Far is near, / And day is night. / Big is little, / High is
low, / Cold is hot, / And yes is no”). Cf. 六八九則 on《柳南隨筆》, 七三九則 on 皇甫湜〈答李生書〉. One cannot
help recalling St. Augustine’s words in Confessions,
I. iv: “immutabilis, mutans omnia... semper agens, semper quietus... quaerens,
cum nihil desit tibi” or Theseus’s in Midsummer
Night’s Dream, V. i. 58-60: “Merry & tragical! tedious & brief! / That
is, hot ice & wondrous strange snow. / How shall we find the concord of
this discord?” Cf. Jean de Meun, Roman de
la Rose, V. 4, 263-8, 277-8; cf. Mario Praz, The Flaming Heart, pp. 157 ff.; Étienne Jodelle, (A.J. Steele, Three Centuries of French Verse, p. 55).
Tesauro’s theory explains the Marinist partiality for oxymora & for the
theme of “the beauty of the Medusa” — witness Marino’s “Schiava” (p. 374), Claudio
Achillini’s “Bellissima mendica” (p. 699) & “Bellissima spiritata” (p.
700), Marcello Giovanetti’s “Bella corteggiana frustata” (p. 741), “Bella donna
con macchie rosse sul volto” (p. 744), & “Bella serva” (p. 745-6), Giovan
Leone Sempronio’s “La bella zoppa” (p. 759), “La bella nana” (p. 759-760),
& “La bella serva” (p. 761), Scipione Errico’s “Bella balbuziente” (pp.
789-790), Anton Maria Narducci’s “Bella pidocchiosa” (p. 820), Paolo Abriani’s “La
bella tartagliante” (p. 832),
Girolamo Fontanella’s “La sua donna salassandosi”
(p. 852) & “Bella donna losca” (pp. 853-4), Giuseppe Salomoni’s “La bella
vecchia” (pp. 905-8), Bernardo Morando’s “Bellissima spiritata” (p. 911) & “Bellissima
donna cui manca un dente” (p. 912), Anton Giulio Brignole Sale’s “La cortigiana
frustatà” (p. 968), Lorenzo Casaburi’s “Amante di bella donna muta” (p. 1058), Tommaso
Gaudiosi’s “Bella donna impazzita” (pp. 1084-5), etc. If Tesauro has formulated
the rhetorical strategy, Morando has revealed the psychological trick in a note
prefixed to his sonnet on the beautiful lady with a gap in her teeth: “Amore
con magica fascinazione fa travedere l’amante, sì che stimi nell’amata donna
eccessi di bellezza i difetti medesimi” (p. 912). Cf. Croce on “il Barocco”: “...
alla coerenza propria delle immagini poetiche e artistiche si è sosituita una
incoerenza coerente...fatta con l’unico sottinteso di destare ammirazione per
aver osato e saputo riprodurre ciò che altri non avrebbe mai pensato di
prendere a materia d’arte” (Filosofia,
Poesia, Storia, pp. 371-2); cf. also supra
第七○三則 on Berni’s “Ritratto”, & 第二一三則 on Theocritus, Idylls, no. x.
For the ridicule of the far-fetched sacentist metaphors, cf. U. Limentani, La Satira nel Seicento, pp. 149-152
apropos of S. Rosa.
Marino’s
letter “Al Signor Claudio Achillini”: “Ad arte ed a bello studio si può fare
altresi per uno di questi tre capi: o a fine di tradurre, o a fine d’imitare, o
a fine di rubare” (p. 26). Cf. supra 第六九九則 on Il Pentamerone, p. 451 “Egloga”.
Cf. Johnson, Rambler, no. 143, “The
criterions of plagiarism”; Adventurer,
no. 95: “Apology for apparent plagiarism. Sources of literary variety” (see
Wm.K. Wimsatt, Jr. &
Cleanth Brooks, Literary
Criticism: A Short History, 326-7).
L’Adone, I. 48-50, description of Fortuna
(pp. 47-8), Ferrero in a note refers to Ger.
lib., XV. 4-5 (Poesie, ed. F.
Flora, pp. 365-6) for cpomparison. Surely Macchiavelli’s sharply-etched picture
in “L’Occasione” (Opere, ed. M.
Bonfantini, p. 1073) is every bit as pertinent here as Tasso’s lines: Miss
Groll, or T.L. Peacock, has pointed out the similarity between Macchiavelli’s l’occasione & Boiardo’s Fata Morgana
(Gryll Grange, ch. 20, in Novels, ed. Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent
& Co., p. 857). Boiardo, Orl. innam.,
I. viii, §43 (Gazanti, II, p. 689).
L’Adone, I. 120, description of a storm: “Ruinosa nel mar
scende la pioggia, / il mar col cielo, il ciel col mar si mesce. / In nuovo
stile, in disusata foggia / l’augello il nuoto impara, il volo il pesce” (p.
51). Cf. Marino’s “Descrive un’aurora marittima” (p. 341): “Le cerulee bellezze,
e mattutine / il mar dal ciel, il ciel dal mar prendea; / e tranquillo e seren
senza confine / un mar il ciel, vn ciel il mar parca.” Improved in the two
French imitations: François Tristan L’Hermite’s ode “La Mer”: “L’orage ajoute
une autre nuit / A celle qui vient dessus l’onde; / ... / Et dans ce confus
élément / Il descend un si grand déluge. / Qu’à voir l’eau dans l’eau s’abîmer,
/ Il n’est personne qui ne juge / Qu’une mer tombe dans la mer” (Poésies, choisies par Philip A.
Wadsworth, p. 110); Habert de Cérisy: “Métamorphoses des yeux de Philis en
astres”: “Et que le sens charnié d’une trompeuse idole / Doute si l’oyseau
nage, ou si le poisson vole” (Rousset, Anthologie,
I, p. 245; cf. Racine: “Description de l’Étang”, pp. 247-8); cf. also Schiller:
“Der Taucher”: “Und Flut auf Flut sich ohn’ Ende drängt, / Und will sich nimmer
erschöpfen und leeren, / Als wollte das Meer noch ein Meer gebären” (Werke, hrsg. L. Bellermann, I, S. 211).
The Canadian poet Robert Choquette, Suite
marine: “La vague après la vague évanouie en elle, / Renouvelle la mer dans
la mer éternelle” (quoted in Ch. Bruneau, Petite
Histoire de la langue française,
II, p. 355); Valéry: “Le cimetière marin”: “La mer, la mer, toujours
recommencée”; Coventry Patmore: “The sighing sea’s recurrent crest / Breaking,
resign’d to its unrest”; Somerset Maugham, A
Writer’s Notebook, p. 30: “The wind dragged up the sea by its roots”; 張爾旦〈雷雨〉：“一雨奪晨成黑夜，萬龍捲海上青天”（《小匏庵詩話》卷六）；汪承慶〈喜雨〉：“風勢挾潮知有海，雲容翻墨欲無天”（《晚晴簃詩滙》卷一五六）；《北江詩話》稱鄭所南詩“翻海洗青天”五字為“古今奇詞之冠”；《樗園銷夏錄》下余旻〈大風〉：“欲吹山作地，能送海升天”；《甌北集》卷三十九〈題謝薌泉侍御自焦山放舟金山觀月圖‧之二〉自注[39]：“君詩‘高浪入雲飛作雨，冷風吹海化為天’句最雄傑。”
L’Adone, I. 129-165, description of “Cipro
ridente di perpetua primavera” (pp. 54-63). For a poignant contrast, see
Baudelaire’s “Un voyage à Cythère”, in which the happy isle has become “une
pauvre terre” decorated by “un gibet a trois branches” & dominated by “de
féroces oiseaux” (Oeuv. compl., “La
Bibl. d. l. Pléiade”, pp. 187-8).
L’Adone, V. 26, Narcissus & his own
image: “Egli amante, egli amato, or gela, or bolle, fatto e strale e bersaglio,
arco ed arciero” (p. 76); same idea in his “Mentre la sua donna si specchiava”
(p. 330) with a less paradoxical treatment (Scheffler, von
Logau & von Lohenstein treat the theme moralistically, see their poems in
M. Wehrli, Deutsche Barocklyrik, 3te
Auf., S. 22-3). Cf. Antonio Muscettola’s “Narciso”: “io che l’offeso son, son
chi m’offende” (p. 1001). Considered from this angle, Narcissus may serve as
the symbol of Marinism in so far as he is the embodiment of what Tesauro calls
an opposizione metaforica. Cf.
Baudelaire’s grim poem “L’Héautontimorouménos”: “Je suis la plaie et le
couteau! / Je suis le soufflet et la joue! / Je suis les membres et la roue!” (op. cit., p. 150; cf. Stefan George’s
“Der Stern des Bundes”: “Ich bin der Eine und bin Beide / Ich bin der zeuger
bin der schooss / Ich bin der degen und die scheide / Ich bin das opfer bin der
stoss / Ich bin die sicht und bin der seher / Ich bin der bogen bin der bolz / Ich
bin der altar und der fleher / Ich bin das feuer und das holz / Ich bin der
reiche bin der bare / Ich bin das zeichen bin der sinn / Ich bin der schatten
bin der wahre / Ich bin ein end und ein beginn” (Gesamt-Ausgabe der Werke, Berlin, 1931, VIII, S. 27). Cf. the
terrific idea of Leopardi (見本冊末[40]).【［補第七三八則］Marino, L’Adone, V. 26. Cf. Leopardi, Pensieri: “Quanto sia grande l'amore che
la natura ci ha dato verso i nostri simili si può comprendere da quello che fa
qualunque animale, e il fanciullo inesperto, se si abbatte a vedere la propria
immagine in qualche specchio; che, credendola una creatura simile a sé, viene
in furore e in ismanie, e cerca ogni via di nuocere a quella creatura e di
ammazzarla” esc. (Opere, a cura di S.
Solmi, I, p. 723; cf. Zibaldone, ed.
F. Flora, I, pp. 1114, 1231-2, 1317). Extremes meet: love & hate spring
from the same mistake about one’s own reflection. For Baudelaire’s poem, cf. Paul
Fleming: “Wider streit in sich selbst”: “So lieg’ ich stets mit mir und wider
mich zu Felde, / Verkaufe mich mir selbst mit meinem eignen Gelde, / Bestreite
mich durch mich” usw. (M. Wehrli, Deutsche
Barocklyrik, 3te Auf., S. 40).】Thus, two extremes of narcissism & nemesism (Saul Rosenzweig’s term
for “aggression turned against the self”, see J.G. Flugel, Man, Morals & Society, p. 78) meet in terms of metaphor. Cf. also
Oscar Wilde’s ingenious twist in his prose-poem “The Disciple”: “And the pool
answered, ‘But I love Narcissus because, as he lay on my banks & looked
down at me, in the mirror of his eyes I saw ever my own beauty mirrored’” (Works, ed. G.F. Maine, p. 844);《楞嚴經》卷四：“室羅城中，演若達多，忽於晨朝，以鏡照面，愛鏡中頭，眉目可見，瞋責己頭，不見面目，以為魑魅，無狀狂走”; see also 第十九則. Saint-Amant
in his Epistre diversifiée applies
the Narcissist idea to birds: “Ils meurent d’aise, et pensent en ces eaux / sein
contre sein baiser d’autres oyseaux” (J. Rousset, Anthologie de la poésie baroque française, I, p. 143). Cf. W.H.
Auden, The Dyer’s Hand & Other Essays,
p. 94: “Narcissus dioes not fall in love with his reflection because it is
beautiful, but because it is his. If
it were his beauty that enthralled him, he would be set free in a few years by
its fading.” Paradise Lost, IV.
449-76 on Eve “pining with vain desire” for her own “shape”reflected in a pool (補本則末[41]).【［補本則 L’Adone, V. 26］Lucilius’s epigram in The Greek Anthology (Bk. XI, no. 76, “The
Loeb Classical Lib.”, vol. IV, p. 109): “Having such a mug, Olympicus, go not
to a fountain nor look into any transparent water, for you, like Narcissus,
seeing your face clearly, will die, hating yourself to death”; cf. 第六六八則à propos of inverted Narcissism exemplified in the draping of all
mirrors;《埤雅》卷三：“舊說犀之通天者惡影，常飲濁水”. Hugo’s little poem “Jeune fille, l’amour” (Les voix intérieures, 26) is a variation on the theme of Narcissus:
“Jeune fille, l’amour, c’est d’abord un miroir / Où la femme coquette et belle
aime à se voir, / Et, gaie ou rêveuse, se penche; / Puis, comme la vertu, quand
il a votre coeur, / Il en chasse le mal et le vice moqueur, / Et vous fait
l’âme pure et blanche; // Puis on descend un peu, le pied vous glisse… — Alors
/ C’est un abîme! en vain la main s’attache aux bords, / On s’en
va dans l’eau qui tournoie! — / L’amour est charmant, pur, et mortel. N’y crois
pas! / Tel l’enfant, par un fleuve attiré pas à pas, / S’y mire, s’y lave et
s’y noie” (Oeuvres poétiques complètes,
Montréal: Édition Bernard Valiquette[42], p.
207).】
L’Adone, VI. 25: “Le più degne e prime /
parti di tutta la sensibil massa / l’occhio, sì come principe sublime / in
gloria accede, in nobiltà trapassa” esc.
(p. 90). The primacy of the sense of vision, pointed out by Plato (cf. J.H.
Hagstrum, The Sister Arts, p. 13; cf.
Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, I, S. 173
quoting St. Augustine on “Vorrang des Sehens”), was a commonplace among Renaissance
painters; Leonardo da Vinci, e.g., speaks of the eye as “the chief means” of
understanding & a “nobler sense” than the ear (The Notebooks, tr. by Edward McCurdy, II, p. 227). Cf. also Bruno, De Gli Eroici Furori, II Parte, Dial.
III on the role of the eye in cognition & intellectual love (Opere, ed. A. Guzzo, pp. 625 ff.). Later
writers on aesthetics have also upheld this view; see Addison, The Spectator, no. 411: “Our sight is
the most perfect & most delightful of all our senses” (ed. Gregory Smith,
VI, p. 56); Hegel, Aesthetik on the
eye as “der theoretische Sinn” par
excellence, in which “die ganze Seele als Seele erscheint” (Aubau-Verlag,
1955, S. 82, 181, 584; cf. also S. 424, 653, 675, 728 on the human eye). Cf. Arsène
Soreil, Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Esthétique
française, nouvelle éd. revue, 1955, pp. 18-9: “Le caractère le plus
élémentaire de cette intuition est qu’elle est d’ordre avant tout visuel.
Rappelons la formule thomiste bien connue: ‘Pulchrum est quod visum placet’ (Summa theol., I, q5 a4; St. Thomas, as Montgomery
Belgion points out in The Human Parrot,
p. 65, was talking about perception, not about ‘vision’ or ‘intuitive knowledge’
as Jacques Maritain has tried to explain)”; Revue
d’Esthétique, Jan.-Mars, 1961, p. 41: “Volney: ‘Le mot nature... désigne
des objets du ciel et de la terre offerts à nos regards’ (La loi naturelle, ch. 1, cité dans Lalande, Vocabulaire [7e éd. 1956, p. 670]). Remarquons ca privilège
accordé au sens visuel, comme si cette nature du ciel et de la terre était-muette,
intouchable, inodore et sans saveur”; Herder (quote in 第四八五則); Goethe, Der Sammler und die
Seinigen, 5ter Brief: “Schönheit kommt von Schein, sie ist ein
Schein...” (G.F. Senior & C.V. Bock, Goethe
the Critic, p. 25); Schopenhauer, Aphorismen
zur Lebensweisheit, Kap. XIX, §211: “‘Schön’ ist, ohne Zweifel, verwandt
mit dem Englischen to shew und wäre
demnach shewy, schaulich, what shews well, was sich gut zeigt” (Sämtl. Werk., hrsg. P. Deussen, V, S. 463).
Robert Mandrou, however, points out that in 16th-century France, “la
hiérarchie [des sens] n’est pas la
même, ouisque l’oeil qui règne aujourd’hui se
trouve au 3e rang après l’ouïe et le toucher, et loin après ceux-ci”
(Introduction à la France moderne, p.
69); see also K.E. Gilbert & H. Kuhn, A
History of Esthetics, rev. ed., 1954, pp. 117, 139 on scent & hearing
as the senses most closely related to reason.《維摩詰所說經‧佛國品第一》：“寶積以偈頌曰：‘目淨修廣如青蓮’”，肇注：“五情百骸，目最為長，瞻顏而作，故先讚目也”；《楞嚴經》卷四謂眼見前不見後，“功德不全”[43]；耳“周聽十方無遺，圓滿一千二百功德“；卷六文殊師利王子偈謂：“目非觀障外，口鼻亦復然；隔垣聽音響，遐邇俱可聞”；汪瑔《旅譚》卷四引潘石洲《文賸‧耳目鼻說》。【M.H. Abrams, The Mirror & the Lamp, pp. 160-1 in discussing what Coleridge called a “dissipation of the
eye”, has called attention only to 18th-cent. Eng. writers.】【Tolstoy on Air, Ed. & tr. by A. Maude, p. 138: “In Russian, by the word krasota (beauty) we mean only that which
pleases the sight... ‘beautiful music’... is not good Russian.”】
L’Adone, VI. 79-94, the legend of the
pheasant, “l’occhiuto angel” (pp. 94-98); cf. Giovanni Canale: “Il pavone e la
donna” (p. 1044) & Federico Meninni” “Il Pavone” (p. 1048-9); Jean Rousset,
who considered this bird “ce symbole exemplaire de l’ostentation baroque” (Circé et le paon, nouv. éd., 1954, p.
219), quotes only Gracián & has overlooked these Italian examples.
L’Adone, VI. 173-4, a string of
twenty-nine oxymora on love, beginning with “Lince privo di lume, Argo bendato”
& ending with “paradiso infernal, celeste inferno” (p. 105). This beats by
sheer cumulative effect the passage in Luigi Groto’s tragedy Adriana: “Fu il mio male un piacer senza
allegrezza” etc. which, according to Mario Praz, must have inspired the
passionate address to love in Romeo &
Juliet, I. i. 182-8 (The Flaming
Heart, p. 159). Cf. supra 第二七八則 on Robert Greene’s
Menaphon, 第七○三則 on San Juan
de la Cruz’s “Llama de amor viva”, & infra
第七六二則 on La
Celestina, 10th Aucto. Bartolomeo Dotti’s “Occhi neri” also
consists entirely a heap of oxymora (twenty-seven in number): “ Luci
caliginose, ombre stellate” etc. (p. 1088). Cf. E.Ch. Homburg’s “Was ist die
Liebe”: “Ein Feuer sonder Feur, ein lebendiger Tod, / Ein Zorn, doch ohne Gall,
ein angenehme Not” etc.
— 14 oxymora including “süsse Bitterkeit” (M. Wehrli,
Deutsche Barocklyrik, 3te
Auf., S. 50).
L’Adone, VIII. 32-56, the competition
between the nightingale & the musician which costs the poor bird its life
(pp. 112-9). Cf. supra 第七二八則 on 顧況〈鄭女彈箏歌〉. One may
perhaps read between the lines a moral, namely, that art, which begins by
imitating nature, ends by far surpassing it. In other words, whereas nature is
imitable, art is inimitable. Elsewhere Marino speaks of the workmanship of a
verse in similar terms: “In un de’vasi il simulacro altero / dela diva del loco
è sculto e finto, / ma sì sembiante è il simulato al vero / che l’esser dal
parer quasi n'è vinto” (VII. 133, p. 135). This view is even bolder than the
one expressed by Marcello Macedonio’s “Ritratto della primavera”: “O mirabil
pittura, / quanto feste, si face arte, natura” (p. 672) — in his gloss on these
lines, “la natura imitò la sua abituale imitatrice, l’arte”, Ferrero has failed
to point out the source in Tasso, Ger.
Lib., XVI. 10: “Stimi (si misto il culto è col negletto) / Sol naturali gli
ornamenti e i siti. / Di natura arte par che per diletto / l’imitatrice sua
scherzando imiti” (Poesie, ed. F.
Flora, p. 386; these lines of Tasso’s were quoted by Eugène a propos of the
beauty of seashells in Bouhours, Les
entretiens d’Ariste et d’Eugène, Éd. Armand Colin, p. 10). Cf. Praz, The
Flaming Heart, p. 309 on these lines of Tasso’s, the germ of Wilde’s paradox in
The Decay of Lying (“Life imitates
Art more than Art imitates Life” etc.
— Works,
p. 921). For the conception of art surpassing nature, see Giraldi Cinthio, Mazzoni,
Philip Sidney, Scaliger (Allan H. Gilbert, Literary
Criticism: Plato to Dryden, pp. 270, 387, 412-3) & Kant, Krit. d. Urteilskraft, §49 (Werke, hrsg. E. Cassirer, V. S. 390).
37: “E calar tra le vene e dentro 1’ossa / tanta dolcezza un atomo sonante?”
(p. 113); cf. Marino: “Formica”: “od atomo o formica” (p. 603); Paolo
Zazzaroni: “Epitaffio nella sepoltura d’una pulice”: “ch’atomo avea credea sorte
immortale” (p. 983); & La Strage degl’Innocanti,
II. 183: “animate faville, atomi vivi” (p. 618); Paolo Zazzaroni: “Per un neo
bruno, ch’aveva la sua donna nel volto”: “atomo sembra in quel sembiante assiso”
(p. 976); Giuseppe Battista: “Cava moralità della lucciola”: “atomo alato e
fiaccola lucente” (p. 1005); Giuseppe Artale: “Pulce sulle poppe di bella donna”:
“fatto etiopo un atomo d’amore” (p. 1027); Giacomo Lubrano: “L’occhialino”: “stimando
un mondo ogni atomo di vano” (p. 1035), “Alla zanzara”: “importuni susurri
atomo vivo” (p. 1035), “Nella vita non essere nulla di nostro”: “che son poi
nel morir atomi neri” (p. 1037), “Stravaganza velenosa della tarantola”: “ri
nova il tòsco un atomo d’insetti” (p. 1041) & “la tarma”: “appesta I fogli
in atomi di bisce” (p. 1042); Bartomlomeo Dotti: “Le formiche”: “D’atomi vivi
qui turba indefessa” (p. 1095). In the late 19th century, the word
has become a cliché, e.g. Giovanni Marradi: “Neve in campagna”: “fra un bianco
polverio d’atomi erranti” (L. Baldacci, Poeti
minori dell’Ottocento, I, p. 1070). Cf. Mesnardière: “Follette”: “Et que ce
petit corps d’atome” (Jean Rousset, Anthologie
de la poésie baroque française, I, p. 127); Saint-Amant: “L’Hyver des Alpes”:
“Ces atomes de feu” (p. 131); Scudéry: “Le Printemps”: “Oyez cet atome sonnant
[Le Rossignol]” (p. 148).
37:
“Una piuna canora, un canto alato” (p. 114); this is what Jean Rousset calls
the “métaphore-type” of the Baroque style, see Circé et le Paon, pp. 184-5, E.R. Curtius, Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter, IIte
Auf., 1954, S. 285, & supra 第六四三則 for similar examples. 235-248: “Ama la terra il cielo” etc. (pp.
149-153); for this eroticist view of nature, cf. supra 第七二四 on《太平廣記》卷二 & 第六九○則 on N.
Kazantzakis, Zorba the Greek, p. 65.
L’Adone, VIII. 6: “Sia modesto l’autor;
che sien le carte / en pudiche talor, curar non deve” etc. (p. 155); see supra 第八六則 on Martial, I. iv. The whole canto shows Marino’s facultés maîtresses, “esprit” & “volupté” (see W. Binni, ed., I Classici italiani nella
Storia della
Critica, II, p. 74 quoting Sismondi at their most rampant;
44: “Sembra caso ogni gesto ed è tutt’arte. / Giungon vaghezza ai vaghi membri
ignudi / consigliati disprezzi, incolti studi” (p. 167) — an amplification of a
line in Gerusalemme Liberata, II. 18
(Poesie, a cura di Flora, p. 37)[44]; cf. 五一七則 on Boileau. 58 to the end of the Canto (pp. 171 ff.) describes minutely
the act of sexual love with all its fore-pleasures & end-pleasure. 117-148
(pp. 189-197) is a 10-page amplification of Guarini’s poem “Tirsi morir volea”[45] (Alfred
Einstein, Italian Madrigal, I, p. 177) or Tasso’s “Nel dolce seno de la bella Clori” (Poesie, ed. F Flora, p. 783, which
Einstein has overlooked) with wearisome reiterations of “morir” & “morte”.
The lovers are by far too loquacious in their swooning ecstasy or, in Marino’s
own words “i baci dan luogo a le parole” (141, p. 195). Cf. 二四八則 on《山歌‧十六不諧》.[46]
For sheer luscious lussuria, cf.
Marino’s own “Amori notturni” (pp. 357 ff.), “Trastulli estivi” (pp. 388 ff.),
& “Venere pronube” (pp. 419 ff.). 124 on “bacia” e “ribacia” (p. 190) is
amplified into Baci (pp. 352 ff.). The description of the nuptial bed in 94: “qui
quasi in verdi e concave prigioni / stuol d’angellini infra le fronde alloggia,
/ onde s’alcun talor scote la pianta / ode concerto angelico che canta” (p.
182), may refer to “uccelletti cipriani” (see an elaborate article on this device of luxury in
connection with a passage in Decamerone,
III. x, in Giornale storico della Ltteratura
italiana, vol. CXXXV, Fasc. 410-1, 1958, pp. 363 ff.). 148: “Gl’iterati
sospiri, i rotti accenti, / le dolcissime guerre e le ferite, / narrar non so.
Fresche aure, onde correnti, / voi che’l miraste e che l’udiste, il dite, / voi
secretari de’ felici amori / verdi mirti, alti pini, ombrosi allori” (p. 197);
cf. supra 第六二二則 on 曹組〈憶瑤姬〉詞：“此事憑誰執證？有樓前明月，窗外花影”; Tasso, Rime d’Amore, Parte
II, no. 56: “Così fur testimoni a’nostri amori / in ciel le vaghe stelle e n’
terra i fiori” (Poesie, a cura di F.
Flora, p. 783); Théophile de Viau: “Solitude”: “Ma Corine, que je t’embrasse, /
Personne ne nous voit qu’Amour, / Vois que même les yeux du jour / Ne trouvent
point ici de place. // Les vents, qui ne se peuvent taire, / Ne peuvent écouter
aussi, / Et ce que nous ferons ici / Leur est un inconnu mystère” (J. Rousset, Anthologie de la poésie baroque fr., I,
p. 204); Walther von der Vogelweide: “Under der linden an der heide”: “was er
mit mir pflaege, / niemer miemen / bevinde daz, wan er und ich / und ein
kleinez vogellîn; / tandaradei, / daz mac
wol getriuwe sîn” (Max Wehrli, Deutsche Lyrik des Mittelalters, 6tes Auf. 1984, S. 247);
V. Nabokov, Lolita, The Olympia
Press, p. 12: “There we
had a brief session of avid caresses, with somebody’s
lost pair of sunglasses for only witness.”
L’Adone, X. 43-5: “Del telescopio, a questa etate ignoto,
/ per te fia, Galileo, l’opra composta” etc. (pp. 211-2); see Marjorie Nicolson,
Science & Imagination, pp. 18 ff.
for comments. In La Galeria, Marino
devotes a sonnet to Galileo & again associates the geographical discovery
of Columbus (“il ligustico guerriero”, cf. “il ligure argonauta” in L’Adone) with Galileo’s scientific invention
(p. 592).
L’Adone, XV. 79 on the coiffure of the ladies: “Le trecce
alfin distingue e quella e questa / stringe in due masse eguali e poi l’aduna /
e forma in cima dela bionda testa / con due corna superbe aurata luna. / Del
vulgo de’ capei che ’ntorno resta, / parte non lascia inordinata alcuna, / ma
ne fabrica e tesse in mille modi / anella ed archi e labirinti e nodi” (pp. 241-2).
Cf. E. Fuchs, Illustrierte
Sittengeschichte, Ergänzungsband II, S. 43-5 for caricatures of
modish-hair-do’s: on one beau’s coiffure was a tree on which perched two
monkeys, one smoking a pipe & urinating on the other holding a torch to set
fire to, the man’s wig; on an elegant lady’s hair was set the model of a
village with trees, a windmill, a hay-stack & in this mise-en- scène a man stood
looking at the sky through a telescope while another bared his buttocks cacking
& pissing with the urine & excrement represented by two feathers
drooping before the lady’s face! For other vagaries of fashion among the
Italian ladies, see Tommaso Gaudiosi’s “Per
lo spadino, che portano in testa le donne” (p. 1075), “Il guarda infante” &
“Stravaganze di bella donna” (p. 1076).
L’Adone, XX. 98: “Fiamma ed onda somiglia e turbo e biscia,
/ se poggia, o cala, o si rivolge, o striscia” (pp. 302); cf. VII. 92: “e
colori e pensier trasforma e muta” (p. 122). Both are examples of versus rapportati, cf. supra 第七○三則 on Jodelle & 七三五則 on《全唐文》卷三五二.
Marino’s “Avvenimento
di un usignuolo” (pp. 345-6). This is one of the 4 of Marino’s sonnets transcribed
by Coleridge in The Notebooks, ed. Kathleen
Coburn, II, §2625. He praised this sonnet for “the sweetness & simple flow
of the style f its narration”, but deplored its “falseness to nature” & its
“mode of belying the lively countenance of things & red-ochring the rose.” A shrew judgment worthy of a place besides
Croce’s on Marino’s characteristic faultsn of “descrittivismo” & “sonorità”
(Walter Binni, ed., I Classici Italiani nella
Storia della Critica, II, p. 77). “Red-ochring the rose” recalls Shakespeare’s
“to paint the lily, to throw a perfume on the violet” (King John, IV. ii. 11; no parallels given in Furness’s New Variorum
Edition, p. 297); cf. Georges Duhamel on the exegesis of certain obscure lines
in Mallarmé’s poems: “Ne cherchez pas à les trop expliquer. Vous ressembleiez à
ces vierlles dames à l’odorat usé et qui parfument les roses!” (Les Nouvelles littéraires, 25 mars,
1948).
Marino’s “Baci”
etc. (pp. 352-6). Obviously modelled upon Johannes Secundus’s famous sequence
of poems, but perhaps also indebted to Aretino’s notorious Sonetti lussuriosi for the idea of tabulating the various modes of
kissing. Lord Herbert
of Cherbury’s poem “Kissing” is worth all the
decorative ingenuities of Marino, Dorat et
al: “Come hither Womankind, & all their worth, / Give me thy kisses as
I call them forth. / Give me the billing-kiss, that of the dove, / A kiss of
love; / The melting-kiss, a kiss that doth consume / To a perfume; / The
extract-kiss, of every sweet a part, / A kiss of art; / The kiss which ever
stirs some new delight, / A kiss of might; / The twaching smacking kiss, &
when you cease / A kiss of peace; / The music-kiss, crotchet & quaver time,
/ The kiss of rhyme; / The kiss of eloquence, which doth belong / Unto the
tongue; / The kiss of all the sciences in one, / The kiss alone. / So ’tis
enough”[47] (quoted
in Ivor Brown, No Idle Words, p. 119,
with the comment: “Even the larger Oxford
Dictionary knows nothing of ‘twach’, a verb which must be left to speak (or
kiss) for itself”). But Browning’s two short stanzas in “In a Gondola” (“The
moth’s kiss, first!”, “The bee’s kiss, now!”) makes Lord Herbert’s poem seem
frigid in comparison.
Marino’s “Amori
notturni”: “Per ch’io m’adiro e dico: — o di me stesso / pane vole insensata, /
chi fia più che t’avivi ohimè! se ’nvano / sì vezzosa ed amica / più volte s’affatica
/ di farti risentir la bella mano? / Certo di sasso sei, ma come, ahi lasso! /
come sì molle sei, se sei di sasso?” (p. 360). Much wittier than the
descriptions of impotence in Petronius, Satyricon,
cxxix: “Funerata est illa pars corporis, qua quondam Achilles eram” (Loeb, p.
286); cxxx: “Illud unum memento, non me sed instrumenta peccasse. Paratus miles
arma non habui” (p. 288), & especially cxxxii on the sullen impotent member
keeping its eye fixed on the ground after Encolpius’s bitter reproaches: “illa
solo fixos oculos aversa tenebat, nec magis incepto vultum sermone movetur / quam
lentae salices lassove papavera collo” (p. 294); cf. Orlando Furioso, VIII.
49-50 (supra 第五三一則) & Charles Sorel, Hist. Comique
de Francion, I, p. 3; also Sir Francis Kynaston, Leoline & Sydanis, xxix ff. (Saintsbury, Minor Poets of the Caroline Period, II, pp. 75 ff.); the last two lines are another example of opposizione metaforica. The theme of
impotence treated first in Ovid, Amores,
3. 7. Cf. Marek Hlasco, The 8th Day of
the Week, tr. N. Guteman, p. 58: “I can lift my head all right. But who'll
lift that thing?” Leonardo da Vinci, Notebooks,
tr. by E. MacCurdy, I, 129: “Della verga: This... sometimes has intelligence of
itself, & although the will of the man desires to stimulate it it remains
obstinate & takes its own course... & often the man is asleep &
it is awake, & many times the man is awake & it is asleep...” For “farti
risentir la bella mano”, cf. Montaigne, Essais,
I. 21 which is largely devoted to the “nouement
d’aiguillette” on “l’indocile liberté de ce membre... refusant avec tant de
fierté et d’obstination nos sollicitations mentales et manuelles” (Pléiade, p.
115); Rochester’s “A Song of a Young Lady to her Ancient Lover”: “And, sooth’d
by my reviving Hand, / In former warmth & vigor stand” (Poems, ed. by Vivian de de Sola Pinto,
“The Muses’ Library”, 2nd ed., p. 20).
Marino’s “Ninfa
mungitrice”: “né distinguer saper / il bianco umor da le sue mani intatte, / ch’altro
non discernea che latte in latte” (p. 361). See supra 第一九○則 on《野叟曝言》第四七回.
Marino’s “Schiava”
(p. 374); cf. Marcello Giovanetti: “Bella Serva” (p. 745) & Giovanni Leone
Sempronio: “La bella serva” (p. 761); Tristan l’Hermite’s “La belle esclave
maure” (Poésies, chosen by P.A.
Wadsworth, p. 93). Cf. Modern Language
Review, July 1957, pp. 321 ff. for a thoughtful comparison between Marino
& the English metaphysicals, with an analysis of this poem as an example: “Marino
is extravagant by Italian & not by Elizabethan or Metaphysical standards...
Italian, unlike English, is not a particularly metaphorical language so that a
poet like Marino who does use many conceits is bound to be conspicuous, in the
same way that a hill looks higher than it actually is when the surrounding
country is flat (p. 322).... Although this sonnet, wih its numerous metaphors,
antitheses, oxymorons & quibbles, aroused ‘stupore’ in Seicento Italians,
it is in no way daring or unusual to one accustomed to Elizabethan &
Jacobean poetry (cf. Shakespeare’ Sonnets, nos. 131 & 132; Sidney, Astrophil & Stella, sonnets nos. 7,
89 & 91; Lord Herbert’s ‘To her Hair’; Crashaw’s ‘On the baptized Aethiopian’
& ‘In the glorious Epiphanie’)” (p. 323). “Tout est relatif, voilà le seul
principe absolu,” as Comte says (quoted in Charles Maurras, Bons & Mauvais Maîtres, in Oeuvres Capitales, III, p. 460). For
other examples of literary relativity, cf. E.R. Curtius, Europ. Lit. und Latein. Mittelalt., 2te Auf., S. 274: “Die
französische Romantik eine bewusste Antiklassik ist. Romantik und Klassik
stehen sich in Frankreich gegenüber wie Revolution und Ancien Regime. Spanien
und England haben eine Romantik; aber kleine Klassik. Deutschland hat beides,
aber mit einer sehr bedeutsam Abwandlung... Die deutsche Blütezeit von 1750 bis
1832 ist durch den Divisor Klassik-Romantik nicht teilbar. Wie steht es mit
Italien? Ist es heute noch sinnvoll den ‘klassischen’ Leopardi dem ‘romantischen’
Manzoni gegenüberzustellen?”; Gottfried F. Merkel, ed., On Romanticism & the Art of Translation, 1956, p. 68: “From a
western viewpoint all German art is unclassical, romantic, eastern, &
conversely French romanticism appears only half romantic to the German eyes”;
Margaret Gilman, The Idea of Poetry in
France, p. 165 quotes Paul Hasard & Henri Peyre to the effect that
French romanticism is a continuation of, rather than a deviation from, French
classicism. “Nera sì, ma se’ bella”; Giovan Leone Sempronio: “La bella serva”: “Serva
sei, ma sei vaga” (p. 761); Giuseppe Salomoni: “La cicala”: “O rauca sì ma
rara, / stridula sì, ma cara” (p. 899); the same author’s “La bella vecchia”: “Sì, sì,
bella mia vecchia, / vecchia sei ma leggiadra” (p. 908) — all
imitated from Ger. Lib., XII. 21 (Poesie, ed. F. Flora, p. 298). See supra 第四八五則.
七三九[48]
《全唐文》續：
卷六一九陸參〈長城賦〉頗有盤空硬語，開篇「干城絕，長城列」一段，中間「邊雲夜明，列雲鏵也」一段【《皇朝文鑑》卷七周邦彥〈汴都賦〉：「宫旋室浮，艫艦移也」】，皆小杜〈阿房宮賦〉所祖。而自孫可之〈與王霖秀才書〉衹稱楊敬之〈華山賦〉見卷七二一，後來《野客叢書》卷二四、《容齋五筆》卷七亦僅言〈阿房賦〉之本〈華山賦〉，無道此篇者。廖瑩中《江行雜錄》謂〈阿房宮賦〉「六王畢」云云仿陸傪此〈賦〉之「干城絕」云云，而於「明星熒熒」云云，仍云本楊敬之。《茶香室叢鈔》卷八引廖說，僅云：「〈華山賦〉以小形大，〈阿房賦〉以大形小，意似有別。」浦銑《復小齋賦話》卷上云：「謝惠連〈雪賦〉起四句皆三字，後人祖之者：梁簡文〈舞賦〉、杜牧之〈阿房宮賦〉、陸魯望〈苔賦〉、邵雍〈洛陽賦〉、陳普〈無逸圖賦〉、羅明〈玉燭賦〉、沈幹〈浙江賦〉、夏言〈天賜時玉賦〉、羅喻義〈瀛洲賦〉。先於惠連者，有郭景純〈井賦〉。推而上之，相如〈上林〉」云云[49]，亦不及陸氏此篇。
〇呂溫在韓、柳同遊中，比偶之習最深，更過於歐陽行周。劉夢得〈唐故衡州刺史呂君集序〉卷六○五云：「始學左氏書，故其文微為富艷」，蓋指此而婉言之耳。然如〈藥師如來繡像讚〉卷六二九，正不害為佳文。卷六二七〈與族兄皋請學春秋書〉言世風大壞，恥為人師，亦恥師人，至云：「鄉校之老人，呼以『先生』，則勃然動色」云云。然昌黎〈師說〉、柳州〈答韋中立論師道書〉則又何耶？卷六五三元稹〈白氏長慶集序〉[50]：「見村校諸童，競習歌詠，召而問之，皆對曰：『先生教我樂天、微之詩』。」呼師曰「先生」，今世仍然。又按卷九七○闕名〈請禁師生稱謂奏〉長興元年六月云：「朝廷較藝，為擇賢才，或臣下收恩，豈成公道？時論以貢舉官為邱門、恩門，及以登第為門生。門生者門弟子也。（中略）大朝所命春官，不曾教誨舉子。舉子是國家貢士，非宗伯門徒」云云；《潛研堂文集》卷三十三〈與友人論師書〉略謂：「今之所謂師者，曰童子之師，曰會試之師，曰投拜之師。投拜之師，師最無謂。師之所求者利，弟子之所藉者勢」，與《鮚埼亭集外編》卷三十八〈門生論〉謂「門生非門牆高弟，乃門戶私人」云云相發明。此又韓、柳之所未窺。按貢舉是公家師生，而投拜則私門貢舉也。徐謨《太室麈談》云：「受業門生則門生聽先生之差使，投拜門生則先生聽門生之差使」〉，可參觀[51]。《魏伯子文集》卷三〈師說〉分「師而匠」、「而賈」、「而奴隸」、「而盜賊」、「而禽獸」、「而鬼魅」諸類，則另明一義。
〇卷六二九呂溫〈藥師如來繡像讚〉：「觸慮成端，沿情多緒。黃昏望絕，見偶語而生疑；清旭意新，聞疾行而誤喜。」按曲傳思婦之閨中心事，新警親切，然居人行者，情味大同。羈囚盼赦，逐客思歸；心死復蘇（少陵〈自京竄至鳳翔喜達行在所〉詩云：「心蘇七校前」），望厚忽絕；氷炭交爭，波濤起伏；腸若輪轉之九廻，念若魚環而千里。和叔「黃昏望絕」、「清旭意新」二語[52]，足補《詩經‧柏舟》、《楚辭‧九章》之缺，可謂盪氣搖魂、千金一字者矣！“Hoffnung ist die zweite Seele der Unglücklichen”, “La patience est
faite d’espoir”, “Patience is a minor form of despair” 足相印證。
〇李翺真與退之同道。當時古文家昌言闢佛者，韓以外，惟習之及皇甫持正。習之文如卷六三四〈與本使楊尚書請停率修寺觀錢狀〉、〈再請停率修寺觀錢狀〉、卷六三六〈答泗州開元寺僧澄觀書〉、〈去佛齋論〉皆是也。然所闢者佛之迹，於佛之心則許與而不諱。〈再請停率修寺觀錢狀〉云：「佛法害人，甚於楊墨，論心術雖不異於中土，考教迹實有蠹於生靈」；〈去佛齋論〉云：「佛法之所言者，列禦寇、莊周所言詳矣，其餘則皆戎狄之道也。（中略）故惑之者溺於其教，而排之者不知其心」云云，皆已為〈復性書〉張本矣！持正則闢佛之嚴，不亞昌黎（卷六八六〈送簡師序〉、〈送孫生序〉）。儒門護法，衹此二人為龍象耳。習之文質樸平直，絕無韓、柳瑰琦振盪之概，妥適雍容亦復不易得。卷六三五〈答韓侍郎書〉、卷六三九〈韓公行狀〉最有鋒棱。【《越縵堂日記補》咸豐七年十月二十七日：「李習之常自負其〈髙愍女碑〉、〈楊烈婦傳〉兩作，謂不在班、蔡下，然〈碑〉文後一段敷演閒文，議論甚平熟，不及杜樊川之傳竇桂娘也。至楊烈婦，事似奇而理實庸，習之筆力散弱，亦無足觀。使習之即成《唐史》，亦不過與宋景文頡頏，且恐出其下耳。唐代韓昌黎外，若杜牧、孫樵始可與言史矣」云云，評習之二文甚當。不知宋景文之遠邁習之，不知修史之筆與古文異，可之尤不相宜，亦識力未達處。張文虎《舒藝室餘筆》卷三：「李習之〈知鳳說〉本於韓退之〈獲麟解〉，〈送馮定序〉後段本於〈送董邵南序〉。蘇子瞻〈後赤壁賦〉結語本於李習之〈解江靈〉。」平景蓀《霞外攟屑》卷七上：「唐人本稱『韓、李』，不稱『韓、柳』。歐公〈蘇氏文集序〉所云『韓、李之徒』是也。老泉〈上歐公書〉韓子後亦舉習之。」按劉夢得〈唐故中書侍郎平章事韋公集序〉（《全唐文》卷六○五）云：「一旦習之悄然謂蕃曰：『翺昔與韓吏部退之為文章盟主，同時倫輩，柳儀曹宗元、劉賓客夢得耳。』」亦可為證，惜平氏未引。】【丁國鈞《荷香館瑣言》卷上：「李翺〈皇祖實錄〉，人多譏之。陶齋藏〈唐李晝墓志〉稱父廓為『皇考』，〈苻載妻李氏墓志〉稱姑為『皇姑』，皆與梁廷柟《金石稱例》：「〈唐處士包公夫人墓志〉稱『皇父諱鄰』，〈戎仁詡夫人劉氏墓志〉稱『皇妣隴西李氏』，皆取皇大之義。唐時風氣如此。歐公〈瀧岡阡表〉稱父為「皇考」，有以也。】
〇卷六三四李翺〈論故度支李尚書事狀〉：「朝廷公議，皆云李尚書性猜忌，甚於李益，而出其妻。」按足見《太平廣記》卷四八七蔣防〈霍小玉傳〉不盡齊東野語。
〇卷六三五〈薦所知於徐州張僕射書〉：「見而不能知其賢，如勿見而已矣；知其賢而不能用，如勿知其賢而已矣；用而不能盡其材，如勿用而已矣；能盡其材而容讒人之所間者，如勿盡其材而已矣。」按卷六三四〈感知己賦〉云：「夫見善而不能知，雖善何為；知而不能譽，則如勿知；譽而不能深，則如勿譽；深而不能久，則如弗深；久而不能終，則如勿久」，其句即余所謂「累上法」。《南齊書‧崔祖思傳》：「啟陳政事曰：『夫有賢而不知，知賢而不用，用賢而不委，委賢而不信，此四者，古今之通患也』」；《全唐文》卷三一八李華〈賢之用捨〉：「上之於賢也，患不能好之；好之也，患不能求之；求之也，患不能知之；知之也，患不能任之；任之也，患不能終之；終之也，患不能同其心而化於道」；卷三八二元結〈丐論〉云：「於刑丐命，命不可得，就死丐時，就時丐息，至死丐全形而終」，亦此法。【《左傳‧昭公十三年》韓宣子曰：「取國有五難：有寵而無人，一也；有人而無主，二也；有主而無謀，三也；有謀而無民，四也；有民而無德，五也。」《中庸》「在下位不獲乎上」節四累。《管子》最多此類句，如〈權修篇〉「地之守在城」云云四累，「故地不辟」云云五累，「天下者國之本也」云云六累。】習之命意相同，而屬詞多一波折。參觀 Demetrius, On Style, V. 270
(Loeb, p. 465); 第七七三則論《史記‧西南夷列傳》; H. Lausberg, Handbuch der
literarischen Rhetorik, I, 315 論 “gradatio”。宋玉〈好色賦〉「天下之佳人，莫若楚國」一節、司馬遷〈報任安書〉「太上不辱先」一節，皆如風轉而上、梯階而升；汪中《述學補遺‧修禊序跋尾》「在于四累之上」亦用此法。又按「居四累之上」語出《呂覽‧順說篇》惠盎說康王[53]。若習之之……[54]【馮夢龍《山歌》卷二〈哭〉：「只指望山上造樓，樓上造塔，塔上參梯。」】又卷六三五〈答韓侍郎書〉云：「三五日前，京尹從叔云：『某大官甚知重陸洿。』當時對云：『（中略）若如此之知，知與不知果同也。若實知，乃反不知矣。』」正此〈賦〉所慨嘆也。
〇卷六三五李翺〈答朱載言書〉：「其理往往有是者，而詞章不能工者有之矣，王氏《中說》、俗傳《太公家教》是也。」[55]按王靜庵《觀堂集》卷二十一〈唐寫本太公家教跋〉引習之此語及王明清《玉照新志》卷五、胡仔《漁隱叢話》卷十五載《藝苑雌黃》、張淏《雲谷雜記》等書，謂：「此書至宋、元間尚存，特以淺俗鄙俚，故館閣與私家均未著錄。今觀其書，多作四字韻語，鄙俗無倫次」云云。又按羅璧《羅氏識遺》卷三云：「小說著太公勸忍之言曰：『吞釣之魚，悔不忍飢；罹網之鳥，悔不忍飛；人生誤計，悔不忍為。故唾面將襟拭，嗔來把笑迎，則知辱之當忍矣；被罵招功德，嗔來送福田，則知忍之為福矣。』」疑即引《太公家教》也。又項安世《項氏家說》云：「古人教童子，多用韻語，如今《蒙求》、《千字文》、《太公家教》、《三字訓》之類。」余嘉錫《四庫提要辯證》八五三—四頁亦未引羅璧、《項氏家說》。
〇卷六三六李翺〈卓異記序〉：「廣記則隨所聞見，雜載其事，不以次第，然皆是警惕在心，或可諷歎。且神仙鬼怪，未得諦言，非有所用。俾好生不殺，為仁之一途，無害於教化。故貽謀自廣，不俟繁書，以見其意。」按汪鈍翁謂柳子厚始以古文為小說見第七二四則論《太平廣記》卷三四一，不知尚有李習之也。然其文如卷六三七之〈解惑〉、〈解江靈〉、六三八之〈何首烏錄〉，皆駸駸逼稗官矣。〈何首烏錄〉：「何首烏祖田兒，天生閹，嗜酒。年五十八，見野中籐兩株，苗蔓相交，久乃解，解合三四。心異之，以籐篩末酒中服之。經七宿，忽思人道，累旬力輕健，慾不制，遂娶寡婦」云云，猖褻去〈河間婦傳〉僅一間。《戴南山集》卷八〈陳士慶傳〉：「聚羣婦人，剜取其陰上肉方寸，置爐中，雜以藥熬之」（卷六〈與洪孝儀書〉謂尊杜而不別瑕瑜，如愛毛嬙、西施而珍及其溺）。古文「義法」，倘可引此為解耶？唐人他如白居易（卷六七六〈記異〉亦見《長慶集》卷二十六，《太平廣記》卷三百四十四〈王裔老〉即其文）、沈亞之（卷七三七〈異夢錄〉、〈誼鳥錄〉、卷七三八〈馮燕傳〉）、李商隱（卷七八○〈李賀小傳〉、〈紀事〉五則）亦以古文為小說。張籍〈上韓昌黎書〉云：「比見執事多尚駮雜無實之說，使人陳之於前以為歡」；〈上韓昌黎第二書〉云：「君子發言舉足，不遠於理，未嘗聞以駮雜無實之說為戲也，執事每見其說，亦拊抃呼笑」（卷六八四）。所謂「駮雜無實之說」，當是齊諧志怪之類，如後來東坡在黃州令人「說鬼」，是昌黎未嘗不好小說家言，特未命筆為之耳。《臨川集》卷七十三〈答曾子固書〉云：「然世之不見全經久矣，讀經而已，則不足以知經。故某自百家諸子之書，至《難經》、《素問》、《本草》諸小說，無所不讀；農夫女工，無所不問；然後於經為能知其大體而無疑」云云，則更昌言讀小說之裨益矣。卷六三九李翺〈吏部侍郎韓公行狀〉記退之與王庭湊士卒對答及穆宗大悅褒獎，皆有意作口語，韓、柳文中記言所無。而《世說新語》以來，唐人傳奇中却成慣例，亦可參也。
〇卷六三七〈解江靈〉記月夜泊舟聞鬼語詬誶，蓋同賈而負心者。通篇四言押韻，了無警拔，唯結云：「於是言者歎息吐氣，掩鬱無語。啟戶視之，不見其處」，開無數志怪筆記法門，不特東坡〈赤壁賦〉仿製而已。《須溪精選陸放翁詩集》卷三〈石首縣雨中繫舟戲作短歌〉（「鬼語亦如人語悲，楚國繁華非昔時」云云）批：「造奇更絕，遠勝〈解江靈〉語。」
〇卷六三七〈學可進〉：「百骸之中，有心焉，與聖人無異也。囂然不復其性，惑矣哉！」按同卷〈復性書〉三篇主旨，不外此數語。〈復性書‧中篇〉尤暢論「人之性，猶聖人之性」，參觀第七二五則論《高僧傳》卷七道生。又〈復性書‧上篇〉論《易》之「寂然不動」，〈中篇〉論《中庸》之「誠則明矣」，其緒早發於權載之〈唐故章敬寺百巖大師碑銘〉見前第七三七則，而世無知者。又〈上篇〉云：「情既昏，性斯匿矣。（中略）情者，性之動。水汩於沙，而清者渾；火鬱於煙，而明者昏；性動於情，而善者惡。（中略）水之渾也，其流不清，火之煙也，其光不明」；〈中篇〉云：「水之性情澈，其渾之者沙泥也。（中略）人之性，猶水之性也。」陸士衡〈連珠〉云：「烟出於火，非火之和；情生於性，非性之適」；嵇康〈答難養生論〉云：「夫嗜欲雖出於人，而非道之正，猶木之有蝎，雖木之所生，非木之宜也」；劉晝《新論‧防慾第二》云：「情出於性而情違性，欲由於情而欲害情。情之傷性，性之妨情，猶烟冰之與水火也。烟生於火而烟鬱火；氷出於水而氷遏水」；《宋書‧顏延之傳‧庭誥》云：「猶火含煙而煙妨火，桂懷蠹而蠹殘桂。然則火勝則煙滅，蠹壯則桂折。故性明者欲簡，嗜繁者氣昏」；淨覺《楞伽師資記》載惠可語云：「氷生于水而氷遏水，氷泮而水通；妄起于真而妄迷真，妄盡而真現」；《摩訶止觀》卷一〈一‧發大心〉云：「法性不異苦、集，但迷苦、集，失法性。如水結為氷，無別水也」，又云：「無明轉即變為明，如融氷成水」[56]；《宗鏡錄》卷七論「水喻真心者，以水有十義，同真性故」；《禮記‧中庸》「天命之謂性」節，孔穎達《正義》引賀瑒云：「性之與情，猶波之與水。靜時是水，動則是波；靜時是性，動則是情」【《東塾讀書記》卷九：「《孔疏》非但詳於考典制，其說性理亦甚精。《中庸》疏云：『性情之義，說者不通，亦略言之，賀瑒云……』觀此可見唐以前論性理者已多，孔仲遠作疏，已偏覽之，而為折衷之說。種遠非但深於禮學，其於理學亦不淺也」】，皆早於習之。六朝譯《雜阿含經》卷八第二一七章：「眼是人大海，彼色為濤波。若能堪色濤波者，得度眼大海竟。耳、鼻、舌、身、意是人大海，聲、香、味、觸、法為濤波，若堪忍彼法濤波，得度於意海竟。」亦以心識為海，感境接物為波濤。【呂溫〈望思臺銘〉（《全唐文》卷六二九）云：「性雖生情，情或滅性」，修詞尤簡賅，亦徵此為當時常語。黃石牧《𢈪堂集》卷十六〈李翺言復性論〉僅曰：「其說本於劉晝。吾謂歸惡於情可也，離情於性不可也。夫性之情，如水之波，如火之光，非沙與烟之謂也。水濁則波不清，火暗則光不明，性惡則情不善」云云，雖頗得間，尚未探本。《陸象山全集》卷三十四《語錄》云：「〈樂記〉曰：『人生而靜』云云，亦根於老氏。如專言静是天性，則動獨不是天性耶？」尤為創闢之論，實則當云：「人生而動。天之性，得求物有得而暫靜，欲之滿也。」《東原集》卷八〈讀孟子論性〉：「以欲為亂其靜者，不見於性之欲，其本然中正，動靜胥得，神自寧也。」六朝譯《雜阿含經》卷八第二一七章：「眼是人大海，彼色為濤波。若能堪色濤波者，得度眼大海竟。耳、鼻、舌、身、意是人大海，聲、香、味、觸、法為濤波，若堪忍彼法濤波，得度於意海竟。」亦以心識為海，感境接物為波濤。】【Marsilio Ficino, Five Questions
Concerning the Mind: “The end of intellectual motion is not motion but rest...
Motion is always incomplete & strives toward something else” (E. Cassirer,
P.O. Kristeller & J.H. Randall, Jr., ed., The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, p. 198-9); C.S. Peirce: “Thought
in action has for its only possible motive the attainment of thought at rest”
(C. Fadiman & Ch. Van Doren, The
American Treasury, p. 709).】〈上篇〉復云：「聖人者，寂然不動，不往而到，不言而神，不耀而光。（中略）雖有情也，未嘗有情也。」按即僧肇〈物不遷論〉所謂「言常而不住，稱去而不遷」、〈般若無知論〉所謂「終日知而未常知，知而無知，無知而知」，參觀第四八八則論唐譯《華嚴經》卷四四。西方神秘家言略同，如 St. Augustine, Conf., Bk. I,
cap. iv: “Quid es ergo, Deus meus?... stabilis et incomprehensibilis,
immutabilis mutans omnia, numquam novus numquam vetus... semper agens semper
quietus, conligens et non egens... quaerens cum nihil desit tibi” etc. (Evelyn
Underhill, Mysticism, 12th
ed., reprinted 1962, p. 38 引)。《劉屏山全集》卷一〈聖傳論〉云：「李翺〈復性〉三篇，其言非不高妙，然非子思《中庸》之學也。《中庸》之學，未嘗滅情也。善養性者，不汩於情，亦不滅情；不流於喜怒哀樂，亦不去喜怒哀樂。非合非離，中即契焉。」劉禹錫〈贈别君素上人詩‧并引〉：「曩予習《禮》之《中庸》，至「不勉而中，不思而得」，𢥠然知聖人之德，學以至於無學。然而斯言也，猶示行者以室廬之奧耳，求其徑術而布武，未易得也。晚讀佛書，……是余知突奧於《中庸》，啟鍵關於內典，會而歸之，猶初心也。……夫悟不因人，在心而已，其證也，猶喑人之享太牢，信知其味，而不能形於言，以聞於耳也。口耳之間兼寸耳，尚不可使聞，他人之不吾知，宜矣」（詩云：「問法到無言」；〈偶作‧之二〉云：「悟佛不因人」）。又〈上篇〉記陸傪曰：「子之言，尼父之心也。東方如有聖人焉，不出乎此也；南方如有聖人焉，亦不出乎此也。」《陸象山文集》卷二二〈雜說〉亦曰：「東西南北海有聖人出焉，同此心，同此理。」參觀李商隱〈上崔華舟書〉、七九九〈書元結文集後〉。李、陸皆陽儒陰釋，此言蓋預為答難解嘲之地。故〈上篇〉曰：「於戲！性命之書雖存，學者莫能明，是故皆入於莊、列、老、釋。不知者謂夫子之徒不足以窮性命之道，信之者皆是也。有問於我，我以吾之所知而傳焉。（中略）於戲！夫子復生，不廢吾言矣」云云，蓋餘光已借諸鄰，而曰神珠不求於外也。馬永卿《元城語錄》卷上云：「所謂『禪』一字，於六經中亦有此理，但不謂之『禪』耳」，正可發明。贊寧《高僧傳三集》卷十七〈惟儼傳〉記退之與劉、柳、李三人「為文會，相約勿逃儒歸釋，有渝盟者，明神糺之，不得享人爵而永天年。無何，習之遇惟儼，頓了本性，因著〈復性書〉，露而且隱，蓋而又彰，於釋教勿事言陳，唯萌意許。韓、柳覽之，歎曰：『翺且逃矣』」云云。其事不見他書，當是僧徒依託惟儼，即藥山《傳燈錄》卷一四載習之問道并贈偈所謂「雲在青天水在瓶」者是也。蘇籀《欒城遺言》記蘇子由言：「唐士大夫少知道，知道惟李習之。白樂天喜〈復性書〉」；《劉屏山全集》卷一〈聖傳論〉駁〈復性書〉（見第三四八則論《全晉文》卷三十三裴頠〈崇有論〉）；范浚《香溪先生文集》卷十六〈答徐提幹書〉云：「李翺在唐諸儒中，言道最純，而時人莫之知，後世亦莫知。如〈復性書〉三篇，貫穿羣經，根極理要，發明聖人微旨良多」；《石林避暑錄話》卷三云：「唐人善學佛而能不失其為儒者，無如李翺」；章甫《自鳴集》卷六〈雜說一〉謂孔、孟、莊、列、《周易》之道盡在《楞嚴》，「近代李習之、王介甫父子、程正叔兄弟、張子厚、蘇子由、呂吉甫、張天覺、張九成、張栻、呂祖謙、朱熹、劉子翬之徒，心知此說，第畏人嘲，劇未敢顯言耳」；陸桴亭《思辨錄輯要後集》云：「〈復性書〉所引用者，皆《學》、《庸》、《語》、《孟》及《繫辭》之文。當時宋儒未興，《學》、《庸》、《語》、《孟》與《繫辭》之文俱未顯，而翺能見及此，亦可謂善讀書矣」；潘德輿《養一齋集》卷十四〈駁佛言前後身〉：「前身之前，復有前身。開闢之始，其誰先乎？……韓退之，唐之闢佛者也，李翺作其〈行狀〉，首即云：『能記他生之所習。』以此邪說，而狀退之之所為，甚矣其妄也！然李翺，欲去佛者也。彼豈謂佛宜去，而『前後身」之說不可去乎？亦汩沒於所聞見，而未之思耳矣。」
〇卷六三八〈五木經〉，按習之殆亦如退之，好博塞之戲者（參觀卷六八四張籍〈上韓昌黎書〉）。同卷〈來南錄〉，按今世所傳日記，莫古於此。【卷六三八〈高愍女碑〉：「愍女姓高，妹妹名也。」】
〇卷六四○李翺〈祭吏部韓侍郎文〉：「儷花鬥葉，顛倒相上。」按可與子厚〈讀韓愈所著毛穎傳後題〉所謂「模擬竄竊，取青妃白」參觀，皆斥駢文也。
〇卷六五七白居易〈授王建秘書郎制〉。按卷六四六有元稹〈授張籍秘書郎制〉，元、白、張、王更有此層文字因緣，亦詞林佳話。
〇卷六六六白居易〈論請不用奸臣表〉。按奸臣指微之，蓋助裴晉公以攻元，至云：「斷往日之交，存國章之政。」《文苑英華》謂此〈表〉為偽託，不見白集，是也。觀卷六六七〈論元稹第三狀〉力爭微之「守官正直」，不可左降，即知樂天斷不至有此〈表〉矣。唐人奏狀每直白不事文藻，如韓退之〈應所在典貼良人男女等狀〉即然，而樂天為尤甚，如〈論元稹第三狀〉云：「如奏李佐等之事，多是朝廷親情，人誰無私」；〈請罷兵第二狀〉云：「請而後捨，模樣可知」；又云：「況神策官健，又最烏雜」；又云：「回鶻、吐蕃，皆有細作」；〈請罷兵第三狀〉云：「今果聞神策所管徐泗、鄭滑兩道兵馬，各有言語」；又云：「一種罷兵，可如早罷！必待事不得已，然後罷之，只使陛下威權轉銷，天下模樣更惡」；又云：「伏望讀臣此狀一二十遍，斷其可否」；卷六六八〈論承璀職名狀〉云：「四夷聞之，必笑中國；王承宗聞之，必增其氣」；〈讓絹狀〉云[57]：「臣家素貧，非不要物」；〈論行營狀〉云：「若比向前模樣，用命百倍相懸」；〈論姚文秀打殺妻狀〉云：「殺人了，即曰：『我有事而殺，非故殺也』」又云：「有謀殺人者，先引相罵，便是交爭，一爭之後，以物毆殺了。」「模樣」即今語所謂「情形」；「氣」即今語「氣惱」、「生氣」之「氣」【《南史》卷四十二〈齊高帝諸子傳上‧豫章王嶷傳〉：「酉溪蠻王田頭擬殺［沈］攸之使，攸之責賧千萬，頭擬輸五百萬，發氣死」，皆「生氣」、「三氣周瑜」之「氣」】；「殺人了」即今語之「殺了人」。同時惟李德裕奏狀亦往往如此（如卷七○三〈續得高文端賊中事宜四狀〉、〈論故循州司馬杜元穎第二狀〉）。
〇卷六七○白居易《策林‧序》云：「揣摩當代之事。」蓋懸擬應舉之作，衹求入彀，不惜迎合。〈一‧策頭〉所謂「無隱」、「獻言」，又謂「不敢希旨」、「不敢隱情」，〈三‧策尾〉所謂「極言」、「直言」，皆套語也。《策林‧六十八‧議文章》、〈六十九‧採詩〉兩篇，可與〈秦中吟〉之〈立碑〉，〈新樂府〉之〈採詩官〉相發明。至〈六十一‧黜子書〉謂當廢百氏之異端，而定一本於九經[58]；〈六十七‧議釋教〉謂化民致治自有先王之道，不得以外教參之，「佛寺日崇」則「天下凋弊」云云，得不謂為違心之談乎？
〇卷六七五白居易〈與濟法師書〉。按洪覺範《林間錄》卷下稱此〈書〉「鈎深索隱，精確高妙，恨不見濟公所答」，因補擬一首曰：「辱賜書，蒙以教乘為問。顧惟魯鈍之資，何足以當天縱之辯。然敢不竭疲陋，以塞外議，為法之勤耶」云云。
〇卷六七五白居易〈與元九書〉：「又詩之豪者，世稱李、杜。李之作，才矣，奇矣，人不逮矣！索其風雅比興，十無一焉。杜詩最多，可傳者千餘篇，至於貫穿今古，覼縷格律，盡工盡善，又過於李。」按卷六五四元微之〈唐故工部員外郎杜君墓係銘〉中，「時山東人李白，亦以奇文取稱於時」一節，即敷陳此意而堂皇言之耳。《唐文拾遺》卷二三樊晃〈杜工部小集序〉云：「文集六十卷，行於江漢之南。常蓄東游之志，竟不就。屬時方用武，斯文將墜，故不為東人之所知。江左詞人所傳誦者，皆君之戲題劇論耳，曾不知君有大雅之作，當今一人而已。採自《杜工部集》」亦見少陵生時，尚無赫赫名。
〇卷六七五白居易〈荔枝圖序〉，按參觀第一二二則。同卷〈序洛詩序〉，按參觀第三九五則。
〇卷六七六白居易〈東林寺白氏文集記〉，按卷九一九匡白〈江州德化東林寺白氏文集記〉載樂天「誡掌執者嚴以鎖鑰開閉，準白侯文集，無令出寺，勿借外人」，至太和六年時訪之，老僧則曰：「執事者不勤，剪無遺矣」（吳睿帝太和六年，觀〈記〉中「唐之季世，兵火四起」及「有吳之天下也」諸句可知，編者誤唐文宗年號，遂以匡白居元和中僧之後，開成中僧之前）。
〇卷六七六白居易〈冷泉亭記〉：「春之日，吾愛其草；（中略）夏之夜，吾愛其泉。」[59]按董斯張《吹景集》卷十四謂白傅此〈記〉、呂溫〈虢州三堂記〉「都以四時寫景物。希文狀岳陽，一擷其菁，爭光日月」云云【最早為江淹〈麗色賦〉（全梁文卷三十三）】。呂〈記〉見卷六二八，有「春之日」、「夏之日」、「秋之日」、「冬之日」四節，樂天此〈記〉衹有春、夏。寫景記事，鋪述四季，乃唐文套格，白行簡〈天地陰陽交歡大樂賦〉亦然。李後主〈昭惠周后誄〉中「景旭雕甍，風和繡額」云云，「舍桃薦實，畏日流空」云云，「蟬響吟愁，槐凋落怨」云云，「寒生蕙幄，雪舞蘭堂」云云，亦分述四季行樂，特未點明春、夏、秋、冬耳。《唐文拾遺》卷三○崔耿〈東武樓碑記〉云：「春日暖而花含笑，夏風涼 (sic) 而簷度涼 (sic)，秋氣澄明而慮淡，冬景矓通而望遠。」後來如歐陽永叔〈醉翁亭記〉云：「野芳發而幽香，佳木秀而繁陰，風霜高潔，水落而石出者，山間之四時也」；〈豐樂亭記〉云：「掇幽芳而蔭喬木，風霜冰雪，刻露清秀，四時之景，無不可愛」；蘇子瞻〈放鶴亭記〉云：「春夏之交，草木際天；秋冬雪月，千里一色」；〈書王定國所藏煙江疊嶂圖〉云：「君不見武昌樊口幽絕處，東坡先生留五年。春風搖江天漠漠，暮雲卷雨山娟娟。丹楓翻鴉伴水宿，長松落雪驚醉眠」【東坡〈和蔡準郎中見邀遊西湖‧之一〉：「夏潦漲湖深更幽，西風落木芙蓉秋。飛雪暗天雲拂地，新蒲出水柳映洲。湖上四時看不足，惟有人生飄若浮」】，皆較錯落有致。《西游記》二十三回婦人把在家人好處說與長老聽，云：「春裁方勝著新羅，夏換輕紗賞綠荷；秋有新蒭香糯酒，冬來暖閣醉顏酡」云云，亦此體也。尚有以東西南北寫者，參觀《野客叢書》卷十四。《初學集》卷四十一〈徐州建保我亭記〉：「登斯亭也，西北望芒碭，劉季朱三之枌榆猶在也；西俯白門樓，曹公之所縛呂布也；東南臨呂梁，吳明徹之所堰泗以灌徐也；又東眺泗水三城，高齊之所版築以扼陳也。」
〇卷六七六白居易〈太湖石記〉：「厥狀非一：有盤拗秀出，如靈邱鮮雲者；有端嚴挺立，如真官神人者；有縝潤削成，如珪瓚者；有廉棱銳劌，如劍戟者；又有如虬如鳳，若跧若動，將翔將踴，如鬼如獸，若行若驟，將攫將鬬。」按意中似有昌黎〈南山詩〉「爛漫堆眾皺」以下一節。此〈記〉作於會昌三年，昌黎之歿近二十載矣。卷七一八吳武陵〈陽朔縣廳壁題名〉云：「孤崖絕巘，森聳駢植。（中略）如樓通天，如闕凌霄，如修竿，如高旗。如人而怒，如馬而驩。如陣將合，如戰將散」云云，亦襲昌黎故智。「如馬而驩」即〈南山詩〉之「或決若馬驟」也[60]（參觀第五六四則論《灌園集》卷六〈過列岫軒〉）。卷七二一楊敬之〈華山賦〉云：「嶽之殊，巧說不可窮，見於中天，挲挲而掌，峩峩而蓮。起者似人，伏者似獸，坳者似池，窪者似臼，欹者似弁，呀者似口，突者似距，翼者似抱。」
〇卷六七七白居易〈畫雕贊〉：「想入心匠，寫從筆精。不卵不雛，一日而成。」按樂天〈畫竹歌〉云：「不根而生從意生，不筍而成由筆成」，正此意，董玄宰《容臺別集》卷四所謂「毫生」也。參觀第七二四則論《太平廣記》卷二八八〈畫工〉。
〇卷六七八白居易〈蘇州重玄寺法華院石壁經碑文〉。按參觀第六三三則論昌黎〈歸彭城〉詩。
〇卷六七八白居易〈西京興善寺傳法堂碑銘〉記為贊善大夫時，問法於惟寬一節，即《傳燈錄》卷七所本。「第三問云：『垢即不可念，淨無念可乎？』師曰：『如人眼睛上，一物不可住，金屑雖珍寶，在眼亦為病。』」卷九二四司馬承禎《坐忘論‧收心篇》：「心法如眼也，纖毫入眼，眼則不安」；王陽明《傳習錄》卷下：「心體上著不得一念留滯，就如眼著不得些子塵沙。這一念不但是私念，便好的念頭亦著不得些子，如眼中放些金玉屑，眼亦開不得了」；方大鎮密之祖《寧澹語》卷上云：「瓦礫、金玉屑，貴賤不同，總屬外物，原非眼中所有，皆眼障也。第可以喻欲，不可以喻理，理本性中所固有也。理安得有障？見理者為之障耳。既落於見，即同於欲。」後世每借以談藝，如《施愚山別集》卷一駁東坡評孟襄陽云：「詩如人之眸子，一道靈光，此中著不得金屑，作料豈可在詩求」；《儒林外史》第十三回馬二先生論八股不能帶注疏氣，尤忌詞賦氣云：「古人說得好：『作文之心如人目。』凡人目中，塵土屑固不可有，即金玉屑又是著得的麼」；《范伯子詩集》卷十五〈再與義門論文設譬〉云：「雙眸炯炯如秋水，持比文章理最工。糞土塵沙不教入，金泥玉屑也難容」，皆是也。
〇卷六八一白居易〈祭廬山文〉：「夙聞匡廬，天下神秀。」按少陵〈望岱〉云：「造化鍾神秀。」
〇卷六八二牛僧孺文頗明辯。〈養生論〉斥嵇叔夜知「養生」而不知「養身」，殊得間蹈竅，〈善惡無餘論〉等析理亦有叔夜諸〈論〉之風，殆入室操戈者耶？〈譴貓〉一篇可與戎昱〈苦哉行〉第一首參觀，見第六六九則。
〇卷六八五皇甫湜〈醉賦〉：「余嘗為沉湎所困。」按皇甫松〈醉鄉日月〉之作，殆家學耶？持正之文，奇崛鋒銳勝習之，惜乏舉重若輕之概。〈答李生第三書〉云：「凡比必於其倫」，此理易曉。〈第二書〉云：「凡喻必以非類」，則識力卓絕。楊敬之〈華山賦〉形容峯巒之奇，所謂「文乎文，質乎質，動乎動，息乎息，鳴乎鳴，默乎默。上上下下，千品萬類，似是而非，似非而是」，亦窺厥恉。《墨子‧經下第四十一》云：「異類不吡即『比』字，說在量」，〈經說下第四十三〉舉例明此，有云：「木與夜孰長？智與粟孰多？」蓋為慎思明辨言之，非所語於罕譬而喻，所謂言各有當也（參觀劉融齋《藝概》卷三曰：「賦欲縱橫自在，係乎知類。太史公〈屈原傳〉曰：『舉類邇而見義遠』；〈敘傳〉又曰：『連類以爭義』；司馬相如〈封禪書〉曰：『依類託寓』；枚乘〈七發〉曰：『離辭連類』；皇甫士安敘〈三都賦〉曰：『觸類而長之』」）。余〈讀拉奧孔〉一文有闡論，參觀第六四七則、六八九則（論《柳南隨筆》）、七三八則（論 opposition metaforia）。又參觀 E. Tesauro: “[Metafora] cioè Parola Pellegrina, velocemente
significante un obietto per mezzo di un altro” (Il cannocchiale Aristotelico, p. 311,
quoted in MLN, Jan. 1963, p. 18); Valéry:
“Toutes choses se substituent, — ne serait — ce pas la définition des choses?” (Les Divers Essais sur Léonard de Vinci, éd. NRF, p. 47); Robert
Frost: “Poetry is metaphor, saying one thing & meaning another, saying one
thing in terms of another”; I.A. Richards, The
Philosophy of Rhetoric, pp. 123-5 論 “remoteness”; R.A. Sayce, Style in French Prose, 62-3 論 “angle”; Cleanth Brooks: “Metaphor,
Paradox, & Stereotype” (The British
Journal of Aesthetics, Oct. 1965, pp. 317-8)。如〈第一書〉之「方伐柯而捨其斧」、「徒涉而恥濡足」，〈第二書〉之「豈可見黃門而稱貞」【本之嵇叔夜〈與山巨源絕交書〉，其意則 Johnson, Lives of English Poets,
“Dryden”: “There is so much likeness in the initial comparison, that there is
no illustration [in Eleonora]. As a
king would be lamented, Eleonora was lamented... This is little better than to
say in praise of a shrub that it is as green as a tree, or of a brook, that
it waters a garden as a river waters a country” (Brooks 文僅引 Johnson: “Addison” 論 The
Campaign 謂：“Marlborough’s
conduct of the Battle of Blenheim & the angel’s riding in & directing a
storm are too nearly parallel to form a simile”)】，皆妙喻也。
〇卷六八五〈答李生第二書〉：「詩未有劉長卿一句，已呼阮籍為老兵矣；筆語未有駱賓王一字，已罵宋玉為罪人矣；書字未識偏旁，高談稷、契；讀書未知句度，下視服、鄭。」按司馬光《文正公集》卷四十五〈論風俗劄子〉云：「新進後生，口傳耳剽，讀《易》未識卦爻，已謂《十翼》非孔子之言；讀《禮》未知篇數，已謂《周官》為戰國之書，讀《詩》未盡〈周南〉、〈召南〉，已謂毛、鄭為章句之學；讀《春秋》未知十二公，已謂《三傳》可束之高閣」；方孝孺《遜志齋集》卷九〈與王脩德‧之四〉云：「未能執筆，己斥顏、柳不知晉人書法；未能遣辭，己呼蘇子瞻為阿軾，欲毁棄其文；於孔、孟之書未嘗詳讀旬日，巳指程、朱說經之誤，紛然辯駁」[61]云云，正仿此。又按《章實齋遺書》卷八〈皇甫持正文集書後〉一文甚長，集矢於〈答李生三書〉，譏其強詞奪理、無實之辯。
〇卷六八六皇甫湜〈東晉元魏正閏論〉。按參觀第四○五則論習鑿齒〈晉承漢統論〉。
〇卷六八七皇甫湜〈諭業〉。按參觀第七二四則論《太平廣記》卷一九六。
〇卷六八七皇甫湜〈韓文公墓誌銘〉刻劃文章一節，語句奇而思致密，遠勝〈諭業〉。所謂「至是歸工」，「是」即退之〈答劉正夫書〉云：「文無難易，惟其是爾」；「工」即〈答李生第一書〉云：「顧其文工與否耳。」所謂「豪曲快字」，「曲」即〈進學解〉「同工異曲」之「曲」。又按此篇與〈答李生第三書〉擅持正一集之勝。白樂天〈哭皇甫七郎中〉云：「涉江文一首，便可敵公卿」，自注：「持正奇文甚多，〈涉江〉一章尤著。」徵之存文，未見其目，倘即卷六八七〈讓風〉一篇耶「昨以南昌，迄於建昌。悠悠三千，厥路何長。值子之喜，逢時之祥。高桅引帆，月抱虹張。縱飛挾箭，疾激無妨。僕夫謳愉，懷戴難忘。今由建康，抵於我家。終朝之程，百里之賒。翻然怒號，格在灘沙。洶洶湍波，蛟螭磨牙。胡力甚易，為竟思哀。若曰昨非相恩，今非相戾」云云？《太平廣記》卷二四四引《闕史》載裴晉公屬撰〈福先寺碑〉，持正與樂天爭名。此〈碑〉亦已佚，然彥休親見之，并數其字得三千二百五十有四。《援鶉堂筆記》卷三三謂無撰碑事，蕭敬孚《類稿》卷六〈再跋皇甫持正集〉謂「持正壽不過五十，故樂天挽詩云：『不得人間壽』，撰碑事當是垂六十時矣。碑文至三千二百餘字，何煩冗無法？為韓公〈神道碑〉亦衹一千六百餘字耳。」因亦謂無撰碑事，皆過於武斷。顧爭名一節，恐是齊東野語，不然則樂天雅量亦古今所罕矣！
〇卷六九五韋宗卿〈隱山六峒記〉：「可以施欄檻，為載酒之場，可以構簷楹，為更衣之所。乃……闢廚戶，列便房。」按分承載酒、更衣，「便房」必言廁，非偃息之地，如潘尼〈桑樹賦〉所言「憩便房以偃息」也。古書中僅見此。
〇李德裕諸〈賦〉，多自注用字來歷、使事出處，如卷六九六〈鼓吹賦〉之「侲童」、〈白芙蓉賦〉之「澄瀛」、〈傷年賦〉之「郤縠老而敦《詩》」、〈觀釣賦〉之「直鍼」、〈斑竹筆管賦〉之「綴明璣」、〈白猿賦〉之「神通有知」、「華養形」、卷六九七〈知止賦〉之「難復於玷缺」、「託北阜以為宅」、「就東山而結廬」、「仲既得於清曠」，與謝客等〈賦〉自注僅申說文義者大異詳見第四二五則，亦徵風氣之變，當與當時詩家自注合觀。韋絢《劉賓客嘉話錄》記夢得言詩中用僻字，必須有據、有來處。夢得作詩，自注本事之外，如〈送僧方及南謁柳員外〉之「狙公」、〈九華山歌〉之「仚」字、〈答樂天見憶〉之「𤞱」字、〈蘇州白舍人寄新詩有歎早白無兒之句因以贈之〉兩「高」字、〈自左馮歸洛下酬樂天兼呈裴令公〉之「江左風流」、〈武陵書懷五十韻〉之「格磔」、〈和楊侍郎初至郴州紀事書情題郡齋八韻〉之「鶴立」、「鳳棲」、〈和西川李尚書傷孔雀及薛濤之什〉之「玉兒」、「金鐶」皆自注音義及出處。樂天晚年與夢得唱和愈密，亦濡染此習，如〈想東遊五十韻〉之「蘭澤」、「蘋洲」、「吾衰」、「子在」、〈予與微之今年冬各有一子戲作二什〉之「陰德有慶」、「皇天無知」、〈初喪崔兒〉之「敦」字、〈寄盧少尹〉之「差一毫」、〈裴侍中晉公以集賢林亭即事詩見贈廣為五百言〉之「因依」、〈青氊帳〉之「張弮」[62]、「王家舊物」、〈吳秘監每有美酒不以飲招〉之「揮玉爵」、「名士能飲」、〈雪中酒熟欲携訪吳監，先寄此〉之「延枚」、〈與夢得偶同到敦詩宅〉之「山東」、〈戲贈夢得兼呈思黯〉之「今老矣」、〈酬夢得貧居詠懷見贈〉之「烏止屋」、〈酬夢得見喜疾瘳〉之「末疾」、〈哭劉尚書夢得〉之「君與操」、「我知丘」、〈酬令狐留守尚書見贈〉之「酤」字等皆是。其他自注用佛經語者，尚不與此數。後來皮、陸自注冷字僻典，導源於中唐也。【宋刊本《分門集注杜工部詩‧兵車行》：「爺娘妻子走相送」，王彥輔曰：「杜原注云：『古樂府云：「不聞爺娘喚女聲，但聞黃河之水流濺濺。」』」】【義山詩如〈越燕〉「越燕」句、〈即日〉「桂林聞舊說」二句、〈今月二日不自量度輒以詩一首四十韻干瀆尊嚴〉「王佩玉丁東」句、〈病中聞河東公樂營置酒〉「風長應側帽，路隘豈容車」一聯（上句自注又見〈飲席代官妓贈兩從事〉「舊主江邊側帽簷」句注）、〈哭虔州楊侍郎〉「中憲方外易」句、〈牡丹〉「錦幃初卷衛夫人」句、〈馬嵬〉「海外徒聞更九州」句、〈無題〉「小姑居處本無郎」句、〈涉洛川〉「不為君王殺灌均」句、〈韓冬郎即席為詩相送〉第二首「瘦盡東陽姓沈人」句，皆自注出典。如「王佩」句自注引摯虞《決錄要注》：「漢末絕無玉佩，侍中王粲識舊佩，始復作之。今玉佩受法于粲也，故云」；「衛夫人」句自注引《典略》云：「夫子見南子在錦幃之中」（《全三國文》卷 43 魚豢失收），皆逸書之片羽碎金也。】歐公《集古錄跋尾》卷八〈唐元稹修桐柏宮碑〉云：「其文以四言為韻語，既牽聲韻，有述事不能詳者，則自為注以解之。為文自注，非作者之法」云云，《元氏長慶集》不載其文，《全唐文》卷六五四〈桐柏宮重修記〉自注已削去，無一存者。窺歐公之意，為文應本末詳具，讀之自了，不宜加注，若韻語、詩賦，固不在此例。至自注之徵典而非敘事者，當更無妨。微之為文而出以韻語，作繭自縛又從而畫蛇添足焉，遂遭譏評耳。卷七三二趙儋〈梓州刺史鮮于公為故拾遺陳公建旌德之碑〉「義士食薇，人誰造周」，自注云：「嗟乎！道不可合，運不可諧，遂放言於〈感遇〉，亦阮公之〈詠懷〉。已而已而，陳公之微意在斯」；卷七三七沈亞之〈臨涇城碑〉「臨涇地扼洛口」，自注云：「有洛川在涇州西北，盡於臨涇」；卷八二五、八二六黃滔諸〈碑〉自注尤夥，〈丈六金身碑〉八二五注句讀者三，注本事者四，中一注長至二百六十字；卷八七○宋齊邱〈仰山光湧長老塔銘〉以語錄為注[63]，一百六十餘字；卷八九八皮光業〈吳越國武肅王廟碑〉自注三（「此二事安國縣父老言之也」，「護敵人之言也」，「即葛仙公種瓜之地，故曰『葛圃』，與茅山相接，在臨安縣城東二里」）。後來全謝山碑版亦多自注，如《外編》卷八〈殤兄壙志〉，其尤甚者也。【李德裕〈羊祜留賈充論〉為蘇明允〈漢高帝論〉所本，見《能改齋漫錄》。】
〇卷七百李德裕〈與紇扢斯可汗書〉：「昨見可汗表求訪公主，使公主上天入地，必須覓得」又見同卷〈賜黠戛斯書〉、卷七百七〈代劉沔與回鶻宰相書意〉，皆指太和公主。按樂天〈長恨歌〉云：「升天入地求之遍」；陳鴻〈長恨歌傳〉亦云：「出天界，没地府以求之。」
〇卷七○九李德裕〈文章論〉，純粹以精之作，參觀第四五六則論《簡齋集》卷十一〈浴室觀雨〉，又第六八九則論「詩文以靜為高境」。然駁休文處，誤以「音韻」為「協韻」，未中肯綮。〈文箴〉「如彼璞玉」云云，須磨礲而不貴雕琢，其間辨別甚精微。又按文饒諸〈論〉臧否時人，譏彈朝政，氣直語切。卷七○九〈方士論〉尤足為太白〈古風‧秦皇掃六合〉、〈周穆八荒意〉兩首註脚【沈休文：「秦皇御宇宙，漢帝恢武功。懽娛人事盡，情性猶未充。銳意三山上，託慕九霄中。既表祈年觀，復立望仙宮。寧為心好道，直由意無窮」】【Balzac, La Peau de chagrin
[the inscription on the piece of skin]: “Si tu me possèdes, tu posséderas tout;
mais à chacun de tes désirs tu me verras décroître, et tes jours diminuer”】【七七三則論《史記‧封禪書》節移補此】。何光遠《鑒戒錄》卷一〈九轉驗〉云：「武宗皇帝酷求長生之道，訪九轉之丹。茅山道士杜元陽制藥既成，白日輕舉。弟子馬全真得殘藥，詣京表進。上因餌之，遍體生瘡，髭髮俱脫，十日而崩。此《唐實錄》隱而不書。或曰武宗因拆寺患癩而崩，實庸說也。」則文饒〈論〉所記武宗自言知方士譎詐不可信，宮中無事，聊以遣悶云云，特飾詞耳。《鑒戒錄》卷二〈耽釋道〉云：「李德裕相公，性好玄門，修彭祖房中之術，求茅君點化之功。」是文饒此〈論〉亦行與言乖，尤而乃效矣！
〇卷七一三邱元素〈天王道悟禪師碑〉直以語本即「語錄」，見第七三七則論卷四四六陳詡〈百丈山禪師塔銘〉俚語載入碑版矣！卷六九一符載〈荊州城東天皇寺道悟禪師碑〉亦然。卷八九二陳守中〈大漢韶州雲門山大覺禪寺大慈雲匡聖宏明大師碑銘〉載機鋒俚語愈多。卷九九七闕名〈趙州真際禪師行狀〉、《唐文拾遺》卷四八雷嶽〈匡真大師塔銘〉其尤甚者。如卷三一九李華〈荊州南泉大雲寺故蘭若和尚碑〉、卷五一二李吉甫〈杭州徑山寺大覺禪師碑銘〉、卷六七八白居易〈西京興善寺傳法堂碑銘〉、卷七一五韋處厚〈興福寺內道場供奉大德大義禪師碑銘〉記問答皆稍潤飾，求雅馴也。卷八二○鄭愚〈潭州大溈山同慶寺大圓禪師碑銘〉[64]「淨蕩蕩，圓團團。更無物，不勞看。聽他語，被人謾。（中略）牛阿房，鬼五通。專覷捕，見西東。（中略）人不見，自心知。動便是，莫狐疑。其下說，沒文詞」更逕取語本俚語，組運為銘詞。卷八七○宋齊邱〈仰山光湧長老塔銘〉正文衹云：「似驢之問，非佛之對」，而小注一百六十餘言則全載語本。
〇卷七一三裴潾〈諫信用方士疏〉：「《禮》曰：『君之藥，臣先嘗之；親之藥，子先嘗之。』臣子一也，臣願所有金丹之藥，伏乞先令煉藥人及所薦之人，皆先服一年，以考其真偽，則自然明驗矣。」按見《舊唐書‧裴潾本傳》；又〈憲宗本紀下〉：「元和十四年十一月上服方士柳泌金丹藥，起居舍人裴潾上表」；〈職官志三‧尚藥局〉：「藥成，嘗而進焉」，〈尚食局〉：「當進，必先嘗」；〈歸登傳〉：「有饋金石之藥者，且云：『先嘗之矣。』登服之不疑，藥發毒幾死，方訊，云：『未之嘗』」；《周禮‧天官冢宰‧膳夫》：「品嘗食，王乃食」，鄭注：「每物必嘗，道［導］尊者也」；《禮記‧玉藻》：「［君賜臣食，臣］先飯．辯嘗羞」，鄭注：「君將食，臣先嘗之，忠孝也」；《說苑‧君道》：「藥食先嘗於卑，後至於貴」；《漢書‧外戚傳上》［霍光妻顯欲女醫淳于衍投毒藥許皇后］衍曰：「藥雜治，當先嘗，安可？」；《後漢書‧禮儀志下》：「不豫，太醫令丞將醫人，就進所宜藥。嘗藥監、近臣中常侍、小黃門皆先嘗藥，過量十二」；《湧幢小品》卷二十五[65]：「御藥烹二服為一服，候熟，分為二器，御醫先嘗，次院判，次內官，其一器以進御。」Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists,
Bk. IV, §171 on the foretasters (progeustae,
protenthes) who taste first the food
& drink set before the kings (Loeb, vol. II, p. 279): Sir John Suckling: “To
Dissuade a Friend from Marrying a Widow: An Answer”: “’Tis prince-like to marry
a widow, for ’tis to have a taster” (Works,
ed. A.H. Thompson, p. 310).
七四○[68]
Giovan Battista Marino, Venere
pronuba, gli amori notturni, i baci ed altre poesie (1883)
G.G. Ferrero, Marino e i Marinisti (continued).
Marino’s “La bella vedova” (pp 374-8):
“Quest’animata Notte” etc. Tristan l’Hermite lifted a few conceits from this
long poem for his sonnet “La Belle en Deuil”: “Que vous avez d’appas, belle
Nuit animée!” etc. (Poésies,
chosen by P.A. Wadsworth, p. 31).
Marino’s “Amore incostante” (pp. 398-402). See supra 第七○三則. Cf. aslo Antoine
Furetière, Le Roman Bourgeois: éd. Porteret,
p. 134: “Polyphile estoit de ces femmes qu’on peut nommer psudo-coquettes.
Jamais femme ne fut plus avide de coeurs. Il n’y en avoit point qui ne lui fust propre; le blondin et le
brunet, le spirituel at le stupide, le courtisan et le bourgeois, lui estoient également
bons”; a worthy partner to Marino’s “inconstant” or Donne’s “indifferent”
lover! See also Patrick Carey’s ingenious variation on the theme, “To the Tune
of Bobbing Joan”【cf. 第十九則】: “I ne’er yet saw a lovely creature. / (Were she a widow, maid, or
wife) / But straight within my breast her feature / Was painted, strangely to
the life: / If out of sight / (Though ne’er so bright) / I straightways lost
her picture quite. //... The reason was / That my breast has / Instead of
heart, a looking-glass. // And as those forms which lately shined / I’ th’
glass, are easily defac’d; / Those beauties so, which were enshrined / Within
my breast, are soon displac’d: /
Both seem as they / Would
ne’er away; / Yet last but whilst the lookers stay. // Then let no woman think
that ever / In absence I shall constant prove; / Till some occasion does us
sever / I can, as true as any, love: / But when that we / Once parted be, / Troth,
I shall court the next I see.”
(G. Saintsbury, ed., Minor Poets of the Caroline Period, II,
p. 456).
Marino’s “Tratta delle miserie umane”
(p. 406). Also transcribed by Coleridge in his Notebooks, ed. Kathleen Coburn, II, §2625, with the comment: “...
often imitated but superior to all the imitations... serena seems to me an ill-chosen word” etc. The imitations which I
find in the present anthology are Girolamo Fontanella’s “Infelicità” (p. 860),
Ciro di Pers’s “Miseria umana” (pp. 934-5) & Tommaso Gaudiosi’s “Infelicità
della vita umana” (pp. 1077-8). Cf. Tristan l’Hermite’s sonnet “Misère de l’homme
du monde”: “Venir à la clarté sans force et sans adresse, / Et n’ayant fait
longtemps que dormir et manger, / Souffrir mille rigueurs d’un secours étranger
/ Pour quitter l’ignorance en quittant la faiblesse” (Poésies, chosen by P.A.
Wadsworth, p. 63), & the long poem “Les Misères humaines” (pp. 85-88) which
is really an amplification of the sonnet. Marino’s poem begins: “Apre l’uomo
infelice, allor che nasce. / in questa vita, di miserie piena, / pria ch’al
sol, gli occhi al pianto” (p. 406); cf. G. Fontanella[69]: “Infelicità”:
“Piange l’uomo infelice, allor che viene / fanciullino a spirar l’aura vitale; /
e per mostrar che varca un mar di pene / celebra con le lagrime il natale. /
... / piangendo nasce e sopirando muore” (p. 860); Ciro di Pers: “Miseria
umana”: “Piangendo nasce
e sospirando more” (p. 934); King Lear, IV. vi: “We came crying hither... When we are born, we
cry that we are come / To this great stage of fools”;《甌北詩鈔‧五言古四‧偶書所見‧之二》：“墮地第一聲，開口便是哭。可知有此身，即是苦所伏”; Jeremias Drexel: “Das ganze Leben ist Weinen”: “Mit Weinen ich ang’fangen
hab, / Mit Weinen geh ich in das Grab” (Deutsche
Barocklyrik, hrsg. M. Wehrli, 3te Auf. S. 34); Sir Henry Wotton:
“De Morte”: “Mans life’s a Tragedy ... / ... / ... The first cry / The Prologue
to th’ ensuing Tragedy” (The Oxford Bk.
of 16th-cent. Verse, p. 80); 馬樸臣《報循堂詩鈔》卷一〈醉後放言〉：“思量墮地一聲哭，領略為人萬種難”; Donne, LXXX Sermons, III: “How
much misery is presaged to us, when we come so generally weeping into the
world, that, perchance, in the whole body of history we reade but of one childe,
Zoroaster, who laughed at his birth” (J. Hayward, Complete Poetry & Selected Prose, p. 588); Shaw, Prefaces, London, p. 487; in the Preface
to Back to Methuselah, Shaw says that
while Shakespeare or rather Lear felt pity for the tragic cries of the infant,
he himself hears in the cries the happy beginings of life: “in the act of
yelling he begins to breathe”; Herbert, Outlandish
Proverbs, §199: “I wept when I was born, & every day shows why” (Works, ed. E.F. Hutchinson, p. 327);
Herodotus, V. 4: “[Among the Trausi] When a child is born, the kinsfolk sit
round and lament for all the tale of ills that it must endure from its birth
onward, recounting all the sorrows of men” (Loeb, III, p. 5). Cf. J.J. Barthélemy,
Voyage du jeune Anacharsis en Grèce,
quoted in Leopardi, Zibaldone, ed. F.
Flora, II, 34. Cf. the pregnant Spanish proverb: “Desque naci lloré, y cada día
nace porqué.” Ciro di Pers also wrote a long-winded poem “Della miseria e vanità umana”
(pp. 956-63), whose verbosity pitilessly exposes the platitudinousness of its
ideas, but which, with the refrain of “Misera sorte umana, / e che cosa è qua
giù che non sia vana?”, reminds me of 跛足道人〈好了歌〉in《紅樓夢》第一回, cf. 第一九三則 on Henry King’s “Sic vita”.
Marino’s
“Venere pronuba” (pp. 419 ff)【cf. Richard
Crashaw: “Epithalamium”, 六七二則《西廂記》】. Another masterpiece of ornate lasciviousness. “Spoglia bianca e
succinta al divin corpo / era velo sottile, / sottile e lieve in guisa / che,
quasi lenta e delicata aragna, / le bellezze piú chiuse e piú secrete / copria,
ma non celava” (p. 419)【cf. Gerusal. Lib., III, 32, (p. 89)】; cf. the joke: “The modern girl’s clothes are like a barbed wire fence,
They protect the property without obstructing the view.” “Sovra il candido
collo, / sotto il tenero seno, / per l’anche dilicate, / e ’ntorno a l’altre parti / piú basse e piú
riposte / con salto repentino / stendi la man lasciva; / la qual, serpendo poi
/ qual curiosa spia, / cupida esploratrice / del fonte d’Onestade, / cerchi il
piú chiuso varco / del bastion d’Onore, / e ’l piú commodo sito / lá dove
piantar possa / ne la ròcca guardata / l’amoroso vessillo” (p. 431) — the
most “poetic” account I have ever read of “firkytoodle” or “geography” (E.
Partridge, Dict. of Slang, 4th
ed., pp. 278 & 1058) or “aller aux renseignements” (G. Sandry & M.
Carrère, Dict. de l’argot modern, 3e
éd., p. 173); for the last lines, cf. supra
第五三一則 on Orlando
Furioso, XXV. 68.
Marino’s
“La bruna pastorella” (pp. 511 ff.). Cf. Anonymous’ “Per una mora veduta alla
finestra con bella donna” (p. 684), Girolamo Fontanella’s “La bella bruna” (p.
888) & Lorenzo Casaburi’s “Amante bruno alla sua donna” (p. 1054). A
continuation of the Renaissance theme on the beauty of the dark lady (see
Sidney Lee, The French Renaissance in
England, pp. 273-4); cf. John Cleveland’s “A Fair Nymph Scorning a Black
Boy Courting Her” & Henry King’s “A Blackmoor Maid Wooing a Fair Boy”
(Saintsbury, ed., Minor Poets of the
Caroline Period, II, pp. 42 & 171). E. Rodocanachi, La Femme italienne, p. 102: “Le blond était
à ce point la couleur que devaient
posséder les belles que ce fut longtemps une
disgrâce d’être brun. Les poètes réservaient cette couleur aux méchantes gens,
aux traîtres, aux mécréants. Godelive de Bruges était l’objet de cruelles
avanies parce qu’elle avait des cheveux ‘couleur de corneille’. Elle les endura
tant de résignation que ce fut pour elle le commencement de la vie de pénitence
qui la mena à la sainteté. En Italie, on se montrait moins sévère ou moins
exclusif. Poliziano fit une canzone
pour vanter les charmes d’une brune (La
Brunnettina); voir G. Carducci, Cantilene
e ballate nei
Sec. XIII-XIV, 1871, p. 59: ‘Brunetta ch’ai le ruose alle mascelle...’”
“O luci tenebrose, / tenebre luminose” (p. 520); cf. “Schiava”: “o luce uscir
di tenebroso inchiostro” (p. 374), Pietro Casaburi’s “Chiome nere”: “tenebre
luminose” (p. 1071), & Bartolomeo Dotti’s “occhi neri”: “Luci caliginose, ombre
stellate” etc. (pp. 1088-9). The oxymoron of bright darkness or dark brightness
— San Juan de la Cruz’s “rayo de tiniebla” in Noche Escura del Alma, Lib. II, cap. 5 (cf. supra 第七○一則 on Justinus
Kerner’s “Zur Ruh, Zur Ruh” & 七○三則 on Théophile de Viau’s “Le monde renversé”) — is a commonplace in
mystic literature. Superficially, an oxymoron by which the mystics seek to
convey the core of their ineffable experience (“dying life”, “blind vision”
etc. see Comparative Literature, Winter
1961, pp. 16 ff.) is akin to the “opposizione metaforica” recommended by
Tesauro the the practitioners of the Baroque, but Croce is surely right when he
warns: “Ma bisogna guardarsi dall’errore di credere che certi tipi di forme,
astratti dalle singole opere d’arte, siano proprî del barocco, in modo che dove
s’incontrano quelli si debba affermare l’esistenza di questo. In tale errore,
proprio del formalismo, è incorso chi, in Italia, ha recato come cosi di
barocco espressioni di mistici.... Similmente errano quei critici tedeschi che
confondono l’antitesi dei barocchisti con quelle dei mistici...” (Filosofia, Poesia, Storia, p. 372). “Vedi
la luccioletta, / fiaccola del contado / e baleno volante, / viva favilla
alata, / viva stella animata” etc. (p. 524). Ferrero in his footnote quotes for
comparison Guido Casoni’s ode on “luccioletta gentile”: “rubin volante e
fuggitiva stella” etc. Much imitated by other marinisti, cf. Tommaso Stigliani: “Desiderio di lucciole” (p. 653);
Scipione Caetano: “Alla lucciola” (p. 675); Gianfrancesco Maia Materdona: “Alla
zanzara” (p. 771); Girolamo Fontanella: “Alla lucciola” (p. 843) & “Alla
lucciola” (p. 856); Giuseppe Battista: “Cava moralità dalla lucciola” (p.
1005); Giacomo Lubrano: “Le lucciole” (p. 1036). The French baroque poet
Saint-Amant in his “Le contemplateur” only manages to say “un astre vivant”
& “belle escarboucle qui chemine” as conceits for “un ver qui brille” (J.
Rousset, Anthologie de la poésie baroque
française, I, p. 144); in Moyse sauvé
he succeeds to say “feux animez” (p. 146). None of these ingenious conceits can
bear comparison with Michelangelo’s powerful lines on the pale “debol” Night: “Ch’
una lucciola sol gli può far guerra” (Sonnets,
ed. J.A. Symonds, p. 47).
Marino’s
“Ninfa avara”: “che sempre ha nel sembiante / facondia muta e silenzio loquace”
(p. 528). Cf. “La bruna pastorella”: “Fanno ufficio di labra / le palpebre
loquaci, e sguardi e cenni / son parolette e voci / e son tacite lingue, / la
cui facondia muta io ben intendo”[70] (p.
522); Marino’s “Maddalena piangente”: “Oh come in atto e languida, e vivace, / dove
manca a le labra, aver spedita / par negli occhi la lingua, e parla, e tace!”
(p. 582); Giovan Leone Sempronio’s “Non poteva aver dalla sua donna altro che
sguardi”: “Parlo con gli occhi a’ tuoi begli occhi, e spesso / con gli occhi
ancora i tuoi begli occhi ascolto” (p. 756); Lorenzo Casaburi’s “Amante di
bella donna muta”: “o la tua lingua entro il silenzio asconde, / mentre per
intimar e guerre e paci / sono i begli occhi tuoi lingue faconde?” (p. 1058).
Cf. Gerusalemme Liberata, IV. 85: “E
ciò, che lingua esprimer ben non puote, / muta eloquenza ne’suoi gesti espresse”
(Tasso, Poesie, ed. F. Flora, p.
103); Jonson, Every Man out of His Humour,
III. i, Fastidious: “you shall see
sweet silent rhetorick, & dumb eloquence speaking in her eye” (Complete Plays, “Everyman’s Lib.”, I, p.
97-8); The Staple of News, III. i,
Band: “‘Dumb rhetoric, & silent eloquence?’ / As the fine poet says”[71] (II, p.
390); Gongora’s phrase for Acis’s feigned sleep: “mentido / retórico silencio” (Fábula de Polifemo y Galatea, st. xxx,
quoted in L. Nelson, Jr., Baroque Lyric
Poetry, p. 196), which E.R. Curtius has wrongly attributed to Calderon when
drawing a comparison with Nonnos, Dionysiaka,
4, 261: “Rundete er beredten Schweigens
geschrieben Umriss” (Europäische
Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter, 2te Auf., S. 312). See
supra 第七三二則 where John
Cleveland’s poem “The Hecatomb to his Mistress” is quoted. “Quante volte solete
/ dirne voialtri, adulatori amanti, / che ’l vostro idolo amato / i zaffiri ha
negli occhi, e ne la bocca / i rubini e le perle? / Or sí fatto tesoro / non si
merca senz’oro! / ... / L’òr, l’argento e le gemme, / di cui, come signore, /
sí larga offerta e libera mi fai, / son pubbliche ricchezze, / da natura a
ciascun fatte communi; / e pretend’io d’avervi / altrettanta ragion quanta tu
v’hai. / Ma che vuoi far di cosa / la qual non si smaltisce né si spende, / non
si compra né vende? / Se ’l bisogno vien mai, / impegnale, se sai!” (pp.
543-5). Cf. Cervantes’ story “Man of Glass”: “Poets have it in their power to
be rich if they only know how to make use of the wealth that lies in their hands
at times — namely, that of their ladies, who are all exceedingly opulent in
golden locks, brows of burnished silver, eyes that are green emeralds, teeth of
ivory, coral lips, & throats of transparent crystal, while their tears are
liquid pearls” (Three Exemplary Novels,
tr. S. Putnam, p. 101); cf. Claudio Achillini’s mush imitated “Bellissima Mendica”:
“Ché se vaga sei tu d’altro tesoro, / china la ricca e preziosa testa, / che
pioveran le chiome i nembi d’oro” (p. 700); also 第六九一則. Don Quijote, II. xxxviii (marginalia
to Shipley, Dict. of World Lit., p.
346). Cf. Ariosto, Sonetti, 1: “... l’avorio
e l’oro, / l’estro e le perle e l’altro bel tesoro” (Opere Minori, Riccardo Riccardi, p. 129, note: “indicano, come
sempre, la pelle, la chioma, le labbra, i denti.” 又七四一則眉.[72]【［補七四○則］Marino’s “Ninfa avara”: “Canzon? Non vo’ canzoni; / son di versi satolla:
/ ... / ... Venga pur l’oro / in qualunque lavoro, / anel, vezzo o maniglia, /
o cintura o pendente; / sia pur d’oro il presente, / in moneta battuto o in
massa accolto, / di ciò non mi cal molto”[73] (pp.
539, 541). Cf. Charles Argentil’s madrigal: “Moneta, signor mio, non più parole
/ se’l dolce frutto del mio amor volete” etc. or another madrigal: “Ma chi
godermi volle, / Siave ditto per sempre o brutta o bella, / Metta spesso le man’alla
scarsella!” (Alfred Einstein, The Italian
Madrigal I, p. 178). The German witicism: “Die Frau ist am so hingebender, je
hergebender der Mann” (J. Volkelt, System
der Ästhetik, Bd. II, S. 513) neatly points the moral of Marino’s poem
(e.g. Filaura: “Orsú! facciam ch’io t’ami: / qual guiderdon, qual dono / in
cambio del mio amor tu mi prometti?” — p. 538).《樂府羣珠》卷一無名氏〈上小樓‧嘲妓家〉云：“折末你潘安態、子建才，諸般不愛。道你這五言詩，不中還債。”】Filaura’s practical sense is like Mr Fox’s utilitarian
philosophy: “The world of reality is not the world of romance. When a lover
talks of lips of coral, teeth of pearl, tresses of gold, & eyes of
diamonds, he knows all the while
he is lying by wholesale; & that no baker in
England would give him credit for a penny roll on all this display of his
Utopian treasury” (Peacock, Melincourt,
ch. 12, The Novels, ed. Simpkin,
Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., p. 552). Cf. Albert Guérard, Preface to World Literature, p. 97
quoting a Frenchman: “In the old days, you could write a sonnet & get away
with it. Now you would be called a cheapskate: you have to take her out.”
Marino’s
La Galeria (pp. 573 ff.). For the
tradition of iconic poetry & Marino’s attempt to give a new interpretation
to Simonides’ dictum, see Jean H, Hagstrum, The
Sister Arts, esp. pp. 97 ff. (see also R.J. Clements). For “Licaone in Lupo”
(p. 578), cf. supra 第一八則 on
Aristotle, Rhetoric, XI. 23; cf. also
Lessing, Laokoon, II: “Mancher neuere
Künstler würde sagen: ‘Sei so ungestalten, wie möglich; ich will dich doch
malen. Mag dich schon niemand gern sehen: so soll man doch mein Gemälde gern sehen; nicht insofern es dich vorstellt, sondern
insofern es ein Beweis meiner Kunst ist, die ein solches Scheusal so ähnlich
nachzubilden weiss.’” (Gesam. Werke,
hrsg. P. Rilla, Aufbau Verlag, 1955, Bd. V, S. 19); Peacock, Gryll Grange, ch. 14: “Lord Curryfin: ‘Detail has its own
beauty. I have admired a Dutch picture of a butcher’s shop, where all the charm
was in detail.’ Dr Opimian:
‘I cannot admire anything of the kind. I must take pleasure in the thing
represented before I can derive any from the representation’” (The Novels, ed. Simpkin, Marshall,
Hamilton, Kent & Co., p. 815); Hazlitt: “On Imitation”: “Objects in
themselves disagreeable or indifferent, often please in the imitation. A
brick-floor, a pewter-plate, an ugly cur barking, a Dutch boor smoking or
playing at skittles, the inside of a shambles, a fishmonger’s or a green-grocer’s
stall, have been made very interesting as pictures by the fidelity, skill, &
spirit, with which they have been copied... One chief reason... why imitation
pleases, is, ... it leads the attention to a variety of details & distinctions
not perceived before” (The Round Table,
etc., “Everyman’s Lib.”, pp.172-3). This problem, as Bosanquet points out, was
first stated in plain terms by Plutarch rather than by Aristotle (in De Audiendis Poetis, iii, see A Hist. of
Aesthetic, 2nd ed., p. 106). Zeuxis’s poor deluded sparrow (see
Pliny, Hist. Nat., XXXV. 36, “The Loeb
Class. Lib.”, IX, p. 310; cf. 第六八○則 for other examples) is very much in evidence in Marino’s praise of the
pictures[74]:
“Non finto il fonte, e chi si mira in esso / è vivo, e vero, e vera è l’onda, e
viva; / se tace l’un, l’altra di suono è priva: / ch’opra sia però d’Arte io
non confesso” (“Narciso”, p. 574); “vedi la bocca replicar gli accenti; / ma le
voci non senti. / Ben sentiresti ancor le voci istesse, / se dipinger la voce
si potesse!” (“Eco”, p. 574); “e i fior son si ben finti / che si senton gli
odori ancor dipinti” (“Zefiro e Clori”, p. 576); “Finto non è, ma spira / il
divin pargoletto” (“Madonna”, p. 580); “Finta dunque è costei? chi credea mai /
animati i color, vive le carte? / Finta certo è costei, ma con tal arte, / che
l’esser dal parer vinto è d’assai” (“Maddalena piangente”, p. 581); cf. “高堂見生鶻，颯爽動秋骨；初驚無拘攣，何得立突兀？乃知畫師妙，巧刮造化窟”（杜甫〈畫鶻行〉）；“惠崇煙雨歸鴈，坐我瀟湘洞庭；欲喚扁舟歸去，故人言是丹青”（黃庭堅〈題鄭防畫夾〉）；“龍筋鶴骨老摧頹，百尺修圍折巨雷；倦鵲飛來望百繞，踏枝不著又驚回”（孫覿〈題莫壽朋內翰所藏東坡畫枯木〉）；“西風雨過藕花稀，湛湛池波見雪衣；老眼不知原是畫，移筇欲近畏驚飛”（藍仁〈題荷池白鷺〉），etc. Cf. Goethe: “Über Wahrheit und Wahrscheinlichkeit der Kunstwerke”: “Der Anwald des Künstlers: ‘Nur dem ganz
umgebildeten Zuschauer kann ein Kunstwerk aus ein Naturwerk erscheinen...
Gewiss, erinnern Sie sich der Vögel, die nach des grossen Meisters Kirschen
flogen?’ Zuschauer: ‘Nun beweis’t das
nicht, dass diese Früchte vortrefflich gemalt waren?’ Anwald: ‘Keineswegs,
vielmehr beweis’t mir’s, dass diese Liebhaber echte Sperlinge waren’” (G.F.
Senior & C.V. Bock, Goethe the Critic,
p. 21; cf. Hegel, Ästhetik, Aufbau
Verlag, 1955, S. 85, where he tacitly repeats Goethe’s examples of Xeuxis’s
birds & Büttner’s monkey; cf. also Robert J. Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, p. 148 on “the ideal of facsimile
painting”); Antonio Russi, L’Arte e le
Arti, p. 24: “È subito in cui si trovava l’estetica dell’imitazione nella
sua forma più gretta. In
tal caso, si condivide immediatamente l’ingenuità
degli uccelli di Zeusi, che avevano preso tanto sul serio la sua uva dipinta,
da volare a beccarla.” For noise of the painted water & the scent of the
painted flower, cf. Russi, pp. 17-9: “ogni volta abbiamo avuto insieme delle
sensazione reali... e delle sensazioni
concomitanti immaginate... Nell’esperienza
normale, in ogni senso sono contenuti, attraverso la memoria, tutti gli altri
sensi... Il riconoscimento di un oggetto attraverso uno dei sensi è anche
certezza della realizzabilità di tutte le sensazioni laterali, momentaneamente
ricostruite con la memoria”; Johannes Volkelt, System der Ästhetik, I, S. 110: “Die sinnliche Ergänzung
des Gegenstandes hat zwei
Formen. Entweder gehören die hinzugefügten Empfindungsreproduktionen
demselben Sinnesbereiche an, in den der ästhetische Gegenstand nach seiner sinnlichen
Erscheinung hineinfällt; oder Reproduktionen und sinnliche Erscheinung fallen
in zwei verschiedene Sinnesklassen” usw. Cf. 第七九○則 on 杜甫題畫詩.
Marino’s
La Strage degl’ Innocenti[75], for all
its piling up of horror & agony, lacks the intensity of Agrippa d’ Aubigné’s
similar descriptions in Les Tragiques.
Cf. e.g. Lib. II, §56: “vede l’altro bambino che tra le braccia / stretto le
giace, e la monteggia, e grida: / — Poiché, con tanto amor teco s’allaccia, / ragion
non è ch’io te da lui divida: / ma, perché non si sciolga il caro nodo / fia
gran pietá s’io nel tuo sen l’inchiodo! —” (pp. 613-4) with “L’on void dedans
le sein de l’enfant transporté / Le poignard chaud qui sort des poulmons de la
mère” (Les Fers, 580-1, quoted in I.
Buffum, Agrippa d’Aubigné’s “Les Tragiques”,
p. 39). The word “chaud” is especially powerful.
Cesare
Rinaldi’s “Amor verace” (p. 638). Cf. supra
第七○二則 on《圖繪寶鑑》卷二.
Tommaso Stigliani’s
“Dono avuto d’un fiore”: “E gettommi in ritrarsi un fior dal seno, / in atto
che fu studio e parve errore” (p. 645); cf. L’Adone,
VIII. 44: “consigliati disprezzi, incolti studi” (p. 167) — both from Tasso
(cf. 五一七則, 七○三則).
Stigliani’s “Desiderio
di lucciole” (p. 653); cf. 第六四三則. Besides those quoted there, other poems on the firefliy are Scipione
Caetano’s “Alla lucciola” (p. 675); Girolamo Fontanella’s “Alla lucciola” (p. 843);
Stigliani’s “Desiderio di lucciole” 2 (p. 654); cf. supra 第七三則 on
Provenzal, Dizion. d. Immag., p. 325 —
the Chinese cliché of 囊螢.
Stigliani’s
“Bacio dimandato con arguzia”: “Volentier tel confesso, / perché già ripentito
/ del furto ch’ho commesso: voglio al tuo vago volto / render quel che gli ho
tolto” (p. 653). Cf. Gianfrancesco Maia Materdona’s “Bacio rubato”: “Stendi
dunque il bel volto, / ch’io vo’ riporre il furto onde l’ho tolto” (p. 779); Romeo & Juliet, I. v: “Romeo: “Sin from thy lips [a kiss]? O
trespass sweetly urged! / Give me my sin again [kisses her]”; George Grenville
(Lord Lansdowne), Heroic Love, V. i: “The
kiss you take is paid by that you give.”
Claudio
Achillini’s “Scherza intorno
alla Primauera” (p. 679). See infra 第七五八則 on 曹組〈蝶戀花〉（《全宋詞》卷一○一）.
Claudio
Achillini’s “Bellissima mendica” (p. 699); see supra 第七○三則 on Berni’s “Ritratto”.
Girolamo
Preti’s “Per una donna, mentre vedeva
il suo vago che giuocava a palla” (pp. 712-3). Cf. Modern Language Notes, Jan. 1962, pp. 90
ff. for an exegesis of this poem as an allegory of the bitter-sweet,
sadistic-masochistic love game, “la palla è il dardo” being a phallic paradox.
At any rate, the poem is a fresh departure from the usual treatment of the
motif; see e.g., Martino Lunghi’s “Il pallone”: “Questa, ch’in sen di cuoio
alma ha di vento, / industriosa macchina leggiera, / forse è di novo mondo
imago vera, / di superbo ludibrio alto istrumento” (p. 836); Giuseppe Battista’s
“Cavaliere che manda un pallone alla sua donna”: “Par del mondo un’idea, se
non è il mondo, / e prigione volubile del vento” (p. 1015).
Preti’s
“L’oriuolo” (pp. 717-9). The timepiece is a favoritesubject among the baroque
writers; as Fr. Strich says, “die Zeit ist die unheimliche Gött in des Barock”
(Kunst und Leben, S. 52; cf. supra 第七三六則 on Coleridge’s distinction between the Italian & the Dutch style of
painting). Cf. Tommaso Stigliani’s “Orologio da polvere” (p. 651), Giovan Leone
Sempronio’s “Mostra d’orologio” (p. 766), & Ciro di Pers’s “Orologio da
polvere” (2 poems), “Orologio da rote”, “Orologio da sole” (pp. 935-7). In Du Bartas’s
Ière Semaine, 4e
Jour, there is also avery elaborate description of the workings of “l’horloge
tendu” (A.J. Steele, Three Centuries of
French Verse, p. 65). For the sociological significance of the timepiece,
which implies a new interpretation of time as a value, as something of utility
but always in shortage, see Alfred von Martin, Sociology of the Renaissance, Eng. tr. by W.L. Luetkens, p. 16.[76]
Incidentally, the wonderful image in Rossetti’s “The Blessed Damozel”: “From
the fixed place of Heaven she saw / Time like a pulse shake fierce / Through
all the worlds”, must have been suggested by the ticking of the timepiece.
Marcello
Giovanetti’s “Loda una chioma nera” (pp. 740-1); cf. Ciro di Pers’s “Chiome
nere” (p. 928), & Pietro Casaburi’s “Chiome nere” & “La chioma nera”
(p. 1071). Giovanetti’s “Bella cortigiana frustata”[77] (p.
741); see supra 第六九一則.
[7]「五卷」原作「五集」。
[11]「錢俶」原作「錢元瓘」。
[12]「一源分判」原作「一理分判」。
[13]「湼槃經疏釋文」原作「楞嚴經疏釋文」。
[14] 劉大杰《中國文學發展史》第十二章〈唐代的古文運動〉一節，即持此論。默存先生曾於 1959 年以《宋詩選註》奉贈劉氏，款曰：「大杰道長以大作《中國文學史》相遺，余乃郵此奉正，匪敢以雕蟲報雕龍，聊志永好耳。槐聚識，己亥仲春。」
[16]「千種萬類」原作「千種百類」。
[17]《全唐文》卷七四四。
[18]「卷五七八」原作「卷五七九」。
[19]「駢儷」原作「駢體」。
[20]「卷五七一」原作「卷五六九」，「平淮西雅」即「平淮夷雅」（亦見《全唐詩》卷三五○）。《校禮堂文集》此節原文如下：「『俎胾』二字尤不典，牛、羊、豕之『胾』，則肉之無骨者，皆實於豆。若俎，但載牲之骨體而已。安所謂『胾』哉？」
[21]「卷五七一」原脫「一」字，「寄」原作「與」，「賢人才士」原脫「人」字。
[22]「七人」原作「八人」，「文王說紂」原作「文王說囚」。
[23]「卷五七四」原作「卷五七五」，因插補於卷五七五〈報崔黯秀才論為文書〉一節之後，依序移此。「論為文」原脫「為」字。
[24]「伏而攻之」原作「服而攻之」。
[25]「卷五七九」原作「卷五七八」。
[27]「大癰痔也」原脫「也」字。
[28]「崔氏」原作「翟氏」。
[32]「Eckhard」、「Eckhardt」，皆指人稱「Meister」（大師）之中世紀德國神學家 Johannes Eckhart（或 Eckhart von Hochheim, 1260-1327/8?）。兩處差異，當出自引用版本。蓋今日較為通行之「Eckhart」（《札記》他處引文所用），原有「Ekkehard」、「Eckardt」、「Eckard」、「Eckart」、「Eckhardt」、「Ekkehart」、「Eckhardt」、「Eckhard」等諸多變異。拼法不同，讀音則一。
[33]「Colui il quale molto ha sofferto è men sapiente di
colui il quale molto ha gioito」原作「Colui quale ha molto sofferto e mens sapiente di colui il quale molto ha gioito」。
[36]「李貽孫」原作「高貽孫」。
[43]「卷四」原作「卷五」。
[52]「和叔」原作「叔溫」。
[53]「康王」原作「荊王」。
[55]「太公家教」原作「太公家傳」。
[56]「融氷成水」原作「融氷如水」。
[57]「讓絹狀」原作「讓絹表」。
[58]「黜子書」原作「斥子書」。
[59]「夏之夜」原作「夏之日」。
[60]「決若馬驟」原作「決如馬驟」。
[61]「書法」原作「筆法」。
[62]「弮」原作「拳」。
[63]「八七○」原作「八七一」。
[64]「八二○」原作「八二一」。
[65]「卷二十五」原作「卷十二」。
[75]「La Strage degl' Innocenti」原作「La Strage del' Innocenti」。
沒有留言:
張貼留言