2016年4月1日 星期五

《容安館札記》166~170則



葛飾北齋〈富嶽三十六景‧駿州江尻〉



百六十六[1]



            嚴繩孫蓀友《秋水集》十卷。心摹手追,以義山為主,偶參少陵。僅工七律一體。雖思力不深,乏壯藻微情,而頗得纏綿宛轉之致,不似他人學玉溪之悶塞也。斯已難能可貴。明、清兩代吾鄉詩人,要無出藕漁之上者矣。

            卷一〈無題〉:「凌波何許慰陳思,不誤湔裙水上期。醉淺去留俱未可,語深悲喜竟難持。珠簾曲轉迴燈夜,畫舸風移却扇時。多少尋常堪憶在,不將愁賦定情詩。」

            〈秋日雜感三〉:「春雨曾過九曲堤,雷塘官柳半萋迷。飄來畫角纔江北,數去青樓是竹西。極浦風驚聞馬渡,重城燈暗失烏栖。試看明月三分夜,猶有簫聲雜鼓鼙。」李符分虎《耒邊詞》〈揚州慢〉(廣陵驛舍對月遇山左調兵南下):「竹西歌吹,甚聽來、都換笳音。」【「心上檀郎陌上簫。〈一剪梅〉見卷九」】

            〈淹泊〉:「盡處淹留類賈胡,淡烟流水即三吳。魚鱗淺瀨明孤鶩,犢背微陽坐晚烏。人事驚心公幹網,歲華回首嗣宗塗。冬來未得江南住,歸到寒梅試蘂無。」

            卷二〈生涯〉:「牢落生涯一惘然,河陽霜鬢此經年。已空北海盈尊酒,又賣南山種豆田。妄意豈難消破甑,危機終怯傍驚弦。五湖烟水三秋月,簡點蒙莊第一篇。」

            〈湖上竹枝詞〉:「空王臺殿入清虛,昭慶房頭駐客車。免得放生池上稅,佛珠纏臂看叉魚。三」「日斜伐木去駸駸,翠柏青松給羽林。愁煞西陵蘇小小,不知何處結同心。七」

            卷三〈病瘧口占〉:「賸魄殘形費錯磨,大雲雪浪兩嵯峨。莫言此際暄涼甚,飽歷人情不啻過。」

            卷五〈萬柳堂柳枝詞〉:「問訊平泉金縷枝,陌頭飛絮可同時。移根獨近金莖露,不向春風管別離。二」按本義山〈詠柳〉,參觀百四十七則 B 金檜門詩。



百六十七[2]



            The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, Eng. tr. by Edward MacCurdy. 格物研幾,自具心眼。至於泛論天人,每錄陳言,初非己出。“O Time, thou that consumest all things” 一節之本於 Ovid, Metamorphoses, XV, 232-6,Gerolamo Calvi 已言之 (I, pp. 67-8);“In life beauty perishes & does not endure” 一句之逕取 Petrarch, Sonnets, CXC,則 Eric Maclagan 已言之 (I, p. 98)。The Times Literary Supplement, April 17, 1953, p. 253: J. Gwyn Griffiths 通訊考 “O God, dost sell us all good things at the price of labour” (Tu, o Iddio, ci vendi tutti li béni per prezzo di fatica) 不特如 J.R. Richter 所謂,本之 Horace, Satires, I, ix, 59-60: “Nil sine magno / vita labore dedit mortalibus” (cf. MacCurdy,... p. 91),而遠承 Hesiod, Works and Days, 289; Epicharmus (in Xenophon, Mem. ii. I. 20),亦即 Lucian, A Professor of Public Speaking 所謂之 “Blessings were engendered of toil.” (“The Loeb Class. Lib.”, tr. by A.M. Harmon, IV, p. 145) 也。其他類此者尚夥,MacCurdy 茫然不知也,例若 I, p. 74: “One ought not to desire the impossible.” 按此本之 Bias: “It is a disease of the soul to be enamoured of things impossible of attainment.” (Diogenes Laertius, I, 86, “The Loeb Classical Library”, I, p. 87) (參觀下論 p. 80);又 I, . 78: “Truth alone was the daughter of Time.” 按此古諺也,Samuel Chew, The Virtues Reconciled: “Veritas filia temporis... The Truth is Time’s daughter & his heir is visualized in a curious conflation of the two personifications when a winged woman has Time’s scythe & his hour-glass, & hold the candle of Truth & a book labelled ‘Veritas’ (Daniel Meisner, Sciographia cosmica, 1637, plate E-43).” (pp. 69, 88)。又 II, p. 489: “When fortune comes, seize her with a firm hand. In front, I counsel you, for behind she is bald.” 按此古諺也,Dicta Catonis, II, 26: “Fronte capillata, post est occasio calva.” (Minor Latin Poets, ed. J.W. & A.M. Duff, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 608);又 Phaedrus, Fab. V, viii □□;Oxford Book of English Proverbs, p. 411: “Take occasion by the forelock, for she is bald behind: The Greek god Καιρός, Occasio, used to be represented with a full forelock: fronte capillata.” 安得方聞之士,一一訂正,物歸其主哉?MacCurdy 分類編次而歧出複見者頗多 (I, p. 52: “The desire of good men is knowledge,” p. 95, ditto; p. 62: “Demetrius said” etc., p. 73, ditto; p. 90: “Every action of nature is made along the shortest possible,” p. 82, p. 253 with slightest varied; etc. etc.),亦其疏也。

            Vol. I, p. 62: “Demetrius said” etc. 按參觀第二則。

            P. 69: “Man and the animals are merely a passage and channel for food, a tomb for other animals, a haven for the dead... a coffer full of corruption.” 按見第七七三則論《史記‧滑稽列傳》。按此節宜與 p. 91: “The earth has a spirit of growth; its flesh is the soil, its bones the rocks, its blood the water” etc. 一節合觀,所謂 Hylozoism 也 (參觀 Joseph T. Shipley, ed. Dictionary of World Literature, p. 427, art. “Pathetic Fallacy”)。[3]

P. 78: “What is it that is much desired by men, but which they know not while possessing? It is sleep.” 按 Meredith, Diana of the Crossways 言此更妙,有云:“Slumber... a paradoxical thing you must battle for, & can only win at last when utterly beaten.”

            P. 79: “That which is termed nothingness” etc. 按參觀第四十六則。

            P. 80: “Behold now the hope or desire of going back to one’s own country or returning to primal chaos, like that of the moth to the light... This longing is in its quintessence the spirit of the elements, which, finding itself imprisoned within the life of the human body, desires continually to return to its source”[4] etc. 按異哉!浪漫主義之 Sehnsucht, Rückkehr 均發於此。(參觀 Fritz Strich, Deutsche Klassik und Romantik, s. 40: “Die klassische Liebe... ‘eine Liebe des Besitzes’... konnte nicht Sehnsucht bleiben”; S. 75: “Sein sein ist die Sehnsucht, und seine Heimat ist die unendliche Ferne”; S. 107-8: “Die Seele der Romantik war die Sehnsucht ohne Ziel und Grenze und Gegenstand. Aber jetzt deute Fr. Schlegel diese: sie ist die Sehnsucht der einsamen Seele zu der unendlichen Gemeinsamkeit in Gott. Die Sehnsucht zu Gott ist die Erinnerung an ihre und Rückkehr zu ihren”; S. 301: “Der Weg des Geistes als seine Rückkehr in das verlorene Paradies... Hölderlin: ‘Ideal ist, was einst Natur war.’”) 又按浪漫主義之企羨,希臘人已道之。Diogenes Laertius, I, 8: Bias: “It is a disease of the soul to be enamoured of things impossible of attainment” (Eng. tr. by D. Hicks, “The Loeb Classical Library”, vol. I, p. 87); Pindar, Pyth. III: “She [Corônis] was enamoured of things otherwhwere — that passion which many, ere now, have felt. For, among men, there is a foolish company of those, who, putting shame on their home, cast their glances afar, & pursue idle dreams in hopes that shall not be fulfilled”; Nem. XI: “It is right to pursue the due measure; but far too keen are the pangs of madness that come from unattainable longings” (Eng. tr. by John Sandy, “The Loeb Classical Library”, pp. 187, 433; cf. pp. 529-31) 早逗 Shelley: “The desire of the moth for the star” 矣。MacCurdy 附會 “To go to make arrangements for my garden” (vol. II, p. 592) 為 Voltaire: “Il faut cultiver notre jardin” 之意 (the formula of renunciation),此處却了無會心,何耶?

            P. 86: “Lo Some who can call themselves nothing more than a passage for food, producers of dung, fillers up of privies” etc. 按吾國斥人,於「酒囊飯袋」之外,復有「糞桶」、「造糞機器」,正此之謂。Cf. Ariosto, Satire, II, 31-3: “Unga il suo schidon pur o il suo tegame / sin a l’orecchio a ser Vorano il muso, / Venuto al mondo sol per far letame” (Opere minori, ed. Cesare Segre, Riccardo Ricciardi, p. 512).

            P. 96: “Iron rusts from disuse; water loses its purity from stagnation... even so does inaction sap the vigour of the mind.” 按即「流水不腐,戶樞不蠹」,“If I rest, I rust” 之意。參觀第八十一則。

            P. 106: “The act of procreation” etc. 按參觀第百五十則。

            P. 210: “A dead woman lies face downwards in water, a man the opposite way.” 按又見 p. 212。吾國俗信,適與此反。《參同契》中篇:「男生而伏,女偃其軀。及其死也,亦復效之。」《東坡題跋》卷一〈書左傳醫和語〉(亦見《志林》卷三):「男子之生也覆,女子之生也仰。其死於水也亦然。」《朱子語類》卷七十六云:「男生必伏,女生必偃,其死於水也亦然。」

            Pp. 330-2, 349-50, 351-9 皆論高山上有蛤蚌遺介及海藻,事與《朱子語類》卷九十四舉高山螺蠣殼以證天地變遷兩條用意相同,而論據詳明。唐才常《覺顛冥齋內言》卷四〈朱子語類已有西人格致之理〉篇,取朱子片言隻語,單文孤證,引申傅會,分天、地、氣、重、化、礦、電、光、聲諸門,而獨遺此。惟江叔海《孔學發微》卷下云:「地隨天動之說,著於《張子正蒙‧參兩篇》。月借日光之論,見於〈月令〉孔氏《正義》引京房說。沈括《夢溪筆談》又《容齋五筆》述劉孝榮語(《癸巳存稿》卷二則駁此說),朱子亦言嘗見『高山有螺蚌殼』,則西人所謂地質學」云云。又按徐昂發《畏壘筆記》卷三:「利瑪竇論月食曰:『日射地球,地球反影射月。』此即張衡『當日之衝,光蔽於地,是為闇虛之說。』」博明《西齋偶得》卷上云:「古人說天文者,惟朱子實有見解。」又云:「潮汐之理,惟朱子月光之說,的是千古不易。」又按《酉陽雜俎‧卷二十‧肉攫部》云:「凡禽獸,必藏匿形影同於物類也。是以蛇色逐地,茅兔必赤,鷹色隨樹」云云,此已發生物學所謂「保護色」之旨,牽類記於此(看第百六十九則上方[5],又第四百五則)。【Samuel Butler, Characters & Passages from Note-Books, ed. A.R. Waller, p. 359: “The Backs of all Fishes are very neare of the cullour of the water that they are bred in, to avoyd the discovery of those that prey upon them. As the Antients usd to cullour those boates that they usd for discovery, & dy the sayles and the garments of the mariners that went in them, of the cullour of the Sea.”(補第百六十七則)】

            II, pp. 227-9 論「詩之不如畫,緣耳之不如目」云云。按後世較量詩畫異同得失,蓋昉於此,詳見 W.G. Howard: “Ut Pictora Poesis” (PMLA, 1909, pp. 48 ff.; 53 ff.)。古人論散文亦以畫為比,如 Croce, Brutus, 70: “Similis in pictura ratio est.” 又Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isaeo, cap. 3 (參見 S.F. Bonner, The Literary Treatises of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, p. 54)。

            P.235: “The mind of the painter should be like a mirror” etc. 按 Leonardo Da Vinci 數用此喻,後來 Dürer 亦然,參觀 Gilbert & Kuhn, A History of Esthetics, p. 164。

            P. 281: “In representing wind,in addition to showing the bending of the boughs and the inverting of their leaves at the approach of the wind, you should represent the clouds of fine dust mingled with the troubled air.”[6]按前半吾國畫家慣技,王維〈山水論〉所謂「有風無雨,只看樹枝」;韓拙《山水純全論》所謂「風雖無迹,而草木衣帶之形,雲頭雨脚之勢,毋少逆也」(《佩文齋書畫譜》十三);朱新仲《灊山集》卷一〈謝人惠淺灘一字水圖〉:「風本無形不可畫,遇水方能顯其質。[7]畫工畫水不畫風,水外見風稱妙筆」;江弢叔《伏敔堂詩錄》卷七〈彥沖畫柳燕〉詩云[8]:「柳枝西出葉向東,此非畫柳實畫風。風無本質不上筆,巧借柳枝相形容」是也。竊謂《莊子‧齊物論》寫風之聲,柳子厚〈袁家渴記〉云:「每風從四山而下,振動大木,掩苒眾草,紛紅駭綠,蓊勃香氣,衝濤旋瀨,退貯谿谷,搖颺葳蕤」,善寫風態,皆具捕風之手者。黃公度《人境廬詩草》卷三〈不忍池晚游詩‧之十二〉云[9]:「柳梢斜掛月如丸,照水搖搖頗耐看。欲寫真容無此鏡,不難捉影捕風難」,則真難畫,蓋月動漾而仍完整也。余見日本 Hokusai 畫風三幅 (Künstler-Monographien, LXVII, Pl. 17, 29, 58),灑然泠然,欲生紙上。後半則東方畫家所不屑為者也。

            P. 424: “At every arch there should be a spiral staircase; it should be round because in the corners of square ones nuisances are apt to be committed.” 按絕倒!確有此事。在中國,則牆角為便遺之地,正以其方而非圓也。石天基《傳家寶》一集〈知世事新言〉云[10]:「揚州俗:橋梁并牆角或刻或寫『佛』字,意使人見而敬畏,不敢出恭作污也。槩不知世間不識字草率者多,我佛如來乃成看守糞污,輕褻極矣。凡刻寫『佛』字處,急宜削去,以鱉甲懸掛,粘紅紙云:『作污者變此物』。識字不識字者,皆見而知此不甚妙。」據 Herbert Giles, Dictionary of the Chinese Language「東」字條謂:「禁止便溺,牆上懶於畫龜,以此字代之()。」尤奇聞也。

            P. 437: “Music has two ills, the one mortal, the other wasting; the mortal is ever allied with the instant which follows that of the music’s utterance, the wasting ill lies in its repetition, making it seem contemptible & mean.” 按前之說可參觀 vol. I, p. 85: “Shun those studies in which the work that results dies with the worker.” 陸容《菽園雜記》卷二:「淮雲寺僧惟寅語人曰:『凡人學藝,須學有跡者,無跡者不能傳後。如琴、奕皆為無跡,書、畫、詩、文有跡可傳也。』」《紀錄彙編》卷一百五十三《餘冬序錄》記:「前輩言士大夫游藝必審輕重,且當先有跡者」云云,皆此意。後之說則由於貴目賤耳,不解聲音低迴反復之趣也。Bergson, Les Données Immédiates 論此最妙,德國浪漫主義文家謀篇布局每仿 the third movement of sonatas & symphonies (參觀 Margaret E. Atkinson: “Musical Forms in Some Romantic Writings,” Modern Language Review, April 1949),蓋窺見 repetition 之秘矣。

            P. 464: “The fall of snow” etc. 按參觀第百四十八則。



百六十八[11]



            貝青喬子木《半行盦詩存稿》八卷。子木《咄咄吟》二卷,曩於《嘉業堂叢書》中見之。事頗當行,意刻峭而體仍風華,時時失之纖薄,故未許與伏敔堂比戶開門(參觀黃富民〈序〉又卷七〈贈江少尉湜)[12]。其身世坎壈,意思鬱勃,則略相似耳。

            卷一〈春閨怨〉:「膠鬢慵盤鏡裏鴉,香幬愁掩日西斜。歸期衹有春光準,樓外輕寒又落花。」

            〈山塘即席〉:「金隨歸路盡,鬢比故山蒼。」

            〈雨夜渡上崦至礀上草宿雜成六絕句〉:「跨路泉紳瀉一條,老禪門外晝蕭寥。苔花寸厚無人跡,豆大蝦蟇歷亂跳。」按末句襲汪東山〈郊園雜興‧之五〉,見五百六十九則。

            〈為葉丈廷琯題詩壇點將錄〉,蓋即《乾嘉詩壇點將錄》也,故曰「人才蔚起乾嘉會」。足證俗傳舒鐵雲作之訛。

            〈詠燕〉:「海燕歸來亦斷魂,雕梁掃盡故巢痕。人間衹重金環報,莫恃當年舊主恩。」「楊花如雪撲烟莎,易主樓台掠影過。何似秋風遼海上,棲身自帶小行窩。」

            卷二〈詠熟梅〉:「止渴其如眾望何,此中酸味已無多。有人重索梅花笑,用作調羹衹解和。」

            卷三〈夜抵狼洞〉:「一星如月大,硤角照微明。四壁天窺井,千盤澗入城。更闌投店急,裝薄卸鞍輕。顧影寒燈畔,霜猿不住鳴。」

            〈初抵歸化營答程七顧二〉:「如此天涯漫致詢,却將何語為君陳。沈沈瘴雨常疑夜,慘慘蠻花也算春。山不成名偏遇我,魅猶遁跡況求人。客愁都入高堂夢,莫過柴門話苦辛。」

            〈寄酬林師〉:「破甑邊情誰復顧,漏巵財力漸將乾。」

            卷六〈羣公〉:「清時袞袞炫輕肥,多故方知粉飾非。百爾歸思懸晝錦,萬幾樞務任宵衣。臨戎有策談心學,封事無章競腹誹。終望羣公憂國淚,盡情揮洒到民依。」

            子木飽經喪亂,集中詠英人攻浙(可與《咄咄吟》參觀),及洪、楊軍入蘇諸作,哀時述事,詞意痛切,亦詩史也。詠貴州風土如卷三〈苗妓詩七律六首〉、卷四〈跳月歌〉(與陸雲士《峝谿纖志》不甚脗合),殊廣異聞。



百六十九[13]



            Wyndham Lewis, Blasting and Bombardiering 拉雜絮煩,力求生警,衹成滯相耳。

            P. 17: “The function of Karl Marx is that of the Marx Brothers; to disrupt.” 按Harold Acton, Memoirs of an Aesthete, p. 146: “Many miss their marks in spite of Marx... Auden, Spender, Day-Lewis & MacNeice grafted political messages on to T.S. Eliot’s technique. Through the clowning of the Marx Brothers they were approaching Father Marx.”

            P. 106 論 Huline 好辨難而學識不足,有云:“He was a journalist with a flair for philosophy & art, not a philosopher.” 按余觀 Huline, Speculations 盛氣凌人耳,而無識者誤以為漢庭老吏,殊可笑。Richard Aldington, Life for Life’s Sake, p. 169: “F.S. Flint translated Bergson & Huline revised & put his own name on the translation.” 又 Aldington, p. 172: “An Old Lady: ‘Don’t you men are dying for civilisation?’ Intellectual: ‘Certainly, & I am the civilisation they are dying for.’” Lewis, p. 183: “There were the tales of how a certain famous artist would sit in the Café Royal & addressing an admiring group back from the Front, would exclaim: ‘We are the civilization for which you are fighting.’” Humbert Wolfe, Portraits By Inference, pp. 131-2: “It was he [H.W. Garrod] who, tottering up Whitehall from having been rejected for active service for the fifth time, was offered a white feather by some tricoteuse with the words, ‘Don’t you know that young men like you are dying in France for civilization?’ Flattered though he was at being fallaciously described as young, he instantly replied, ... ‘And, madam, don’t you know that I am the civilization for which they are dying?’”

            P. 297 記俄國革命時,一女子匿鐵路臥車中,為紅軍一師輪姦後至巴黎,人稱為 “Notre-Dame des Wagons-Lits”。按 Maurice Barrès 稱 Marie Bashkirtseff 為 “Notre-Dame du Sleeping” (A. Thibaudet, Réflexions sur la Critique, p. 7),又 Maurice Dekobra 有小說亦名 Madonne des Sleepings。



百七十[14]



            費丹旭曉樓《依舊草堂遺稿》一卷。曉樓以畫名,詩淺弱因襲,似女郎閨課。有曹柳橋〈序〉。憶柳橋《籀書續編‧三》有〈答黃淑芬女士夢中書〉,自注:「癸酉暮春望夜,夢得女士黃淑芬書,約余同生極樂,作此報之」云云,嘗為絕倒。曉樓詩末一首題云:「余寓汪氏蔭園,十月十二日夜,夢一老嫗貽余畫幅,上題絕句云:『記曾二月別儂時,兩岸垂垂柳未絲。歸燕一雙簾半捲,畫成妝閣寄相思。』欵書:『東芙女史沈某』,展讀時心頗異之。余年來心如止水,客館寒宵,何來芳訊?夢中說夢,信有之耶。早起彷彿圖成,復次韻於後」云云。二事無獨有偶,而曹所為,猶痴人也。





[1]《手稿集》243 頁。
[2]《手稿集》243-6 頁。
[3] 此節自「《史記‧滑稽列傳》」至「一節合觀」之間,似已全部塗去。姑留「按此節宜與 p. 91」云云一段以為連貫。
[4]「the life of the human body」原作「the life of human body」。
[5] 即下文「Samuel Butler」一段,見《手稿集》247 頁眉。
[6]「the troubled air」原作「the sky」。
[7]「方」原作「本」。
[8]「伏敔堂」原作「服敔堂」。
[9]「之十二」原作「之十一」。
[10]「石天基」原作「石天寶」。
[11]《手稿集》246-7 頁。
[12]「伏敔堂」原作「服敔堂」。
[13]《手稿集》247-8 頁。
[14]《手稿集》248 頁。

《容安館札記》161~165則



William Hogarth (1697–1764), First Stage of Cruelty (1751)



百六十一[1]



            Jean Wahl, A Short History of Existentialism (1946), Eng. tr. by F. Williams & S. Maron.

            P. 32: “Thanks to existentialism, to be or not to be has again become the question... Hamlet was an existent.” 按 Marjorie Grene, Dreadful Freedom, p. 5 引 Wylie Sypher: “Hamlet: The Existential Madness” (Nation, June 22, 1946) 謂 “Hamlet is an existential drama”,又 p. 28: “Conrad’s Lord Jim seems to me an existential character”; p. 57: “Simone de Beauvoir sees in Julien Sorel the existential hero. Camus finds in Dostoievsky the existentialist novelist par excellence” 皆可與 Wahl 云云發明。Simone de Beauvoir, L’existentialisme et la sagesse des nations, p. 104: “Après avoir pensé l’univers à travers Spinoza ou Kant, je me demandais: ‘Comment peut-on être assez futile pour écrire des romans?’ Mais lorsque je quittais Julien Sorel ou Tess d’Urberville, il me semblait vain de perdre son temps à fabriquer des systèmes”; p. 114: “Proust, romancier authentique, découvre des vérités dont aucun des théoriciens de son temps n’a proposé l’équivalent abstrait.” 是不僅 Stendhal 也。

            P. 33: “Carlyle [is an existent.]” 按 E. Cassirer, The Myth of the State, p. 197: “Carlyle’s thought is existential, & has all the characteristics of the type of thought represented by Kierkegaard.” 考論精詳。P. 218 論 Carlyle 衹求信行奉持之精誠,不斤斤於信行者為何事,宗旨本之 Goethe 自傳所謂 “In Faith, everything depends on the fact of believing, what is believed is perfectly indifferent.”[按此見 Dichtung und Wahrheit, IIIte Teil, 14tes Buch: “Beim Glauben, sagte ich, komme alles darauf an, dass man glaube; was man glaube, sei völlig gleichgültig... Mit dem Wissen sei es gerade das Gegenteil; es komme gar nicht darauf an, dass man wisse, sondern was man wisse, wie gut und wie viel man wisse” (Sämtliche Werke, “Tempel-Klassiker”, XII, S. 202).]尤 Kiekegaard 反復申明之意,實本之 Isaiah, 7.9: “Nisi credideritis non intelligetis.” The Journals, August 1, 1835: “The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live & die. I still recognize an imperative understanding, but it must be taken up into my life.... There are many people who reach their conclusions about life like schoolboys; they cheat their master by copying the answer out of a book without having worked out the sum for themselves.” (Robert Bretall, ed., A Kierkegaard Anthology, pp. 5, 19); Unscientific Postscript: “Where is the most truth? The one prays in truth to God, although he worships an idol; the other prays falsely to the true God, & hence worships in fact an idol... The objective accent falls on What is said; the subjective accent falls on How it is said... An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation-process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an existing individual. This is the equivalent to faith: without risk, there is no faith.... If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe” (Ibid., pp. 212-215). The Journals, August 1, 1835: “Dons and parsons live by presenting the sufferings of others... the religion of the congregation is nothing but hearing this presented. As a religion, charmante, just about as genuine as tea made from a bit of paper which had once been used to wrap up a few dried tea leaves from which tea had already been made three times” (p. 431). 即 Grillparzer: “So ist die deutsche Philosophie wesentlich atheistisch... Sie nehmen einen Gott an, statt von ihm überzeugt zu sein... sie achten ihn als ihr Werk, nicht sich als seines” (Werke, hrsg. E. Rollett und A Sauer, Bd. VII, S. 156). 又 Newman, Grammar of Assent (Burns, Oates, & Co.), pp. 90-2: “Many a man will live & die upon a dogma: no man will be a martyr for a conclusion... This is why a literary religion is so little to be depended upon; it looks well in fair weather; but its doctrines are opinions, &, when called upon to suffer for them, it slips them between its folios, or burns them at its hearth. I have no confidence in philosophers who cannot help being religious, & are Christians by implication. They have worked out by a calculation the lie of a country which they never saw, & mapped it by means of a gazetteer.... To act you must assume, & that assumption is faith.” 惜 Cassirer 未引。(按譚藝亦然。《援鶉堂筆記》卷四十四云:「歸愚以帖括之餘研究風雅,然徒資探討,殊鮮契悟。味密味之中邊,眩寶器之飯色。未得為得,未證為證。禪家所謂『用盡氣力,不離故處』,《淮南》所云『有以言白黑,無以知白黑』也。」Oscar Wilde: “There are two ways of disliking art; one is to dislike it; the other is to like it rationally”; Berlioz, A travers chants, p. 4: “Les musiciens — ils ne savent pas” vs. “Les musiciens — ils ne sentent pas”; Ramon Fernandez, “On Classicism” in Melvin M. Rader, A Modern Book of Esthetics, 1st ed. 1935, pp. 220-4: “The great weakness of the neo-classicists is that they set out to feel only what they have already comprehended... an intellectual pretense of feeling.”)又 Thomas à Kempis, Of the Imitation of Christ,I, i: “I had rather feel contrition than know the definition thereof.” 又「增上慢:未得為得,未證為證」見《妙法蓮華經‧方便品卷二》(《文句記》卷十)。「瞽師有以言白黑,無以知白黑,故言白黑與人同,其別白黑與人異」見《淮南子‧主術訓》。桓寬《鹽鐵論‧能言第四十》云:「盲者口能言白黑,而無目以別之。」【Chalmers on Carlyle: “a lover of earnestness more than a lover of truth.”】【Daniel Cory, ed., The Letters of George Santayana, p. 209 to L.P. Smith: “... & what do you suppose was my joy at finding the theory of essence beautifully expounded in the last volume of Proust, (the second of Le temps retrouvé) and made in a manner, the pivot of his immense work! Do read it, page 14 to 20.”】【Louis Fraiberg, Psychoanalysis & American Criticism, pp. 3-9, Freud: “Storytellers are valuable allies” etc. (Delusion & Dream, tr. Helen M. Downey, p. 123).】

            P. 48: Emmanuel Levinas 引 Husserl 云:“During the first stage [of the spread of a new doctrine], one cries: it's absurd! During the second stage, one says indignantly: but everybody knows that! There is a third stage, in which the doctrine is reinstated in its true originality.” 按 The Letters of William James, ed. by His Son Henry James, vol. II, pp. 267-268: “Münsterberg, who hitherto has been rather pooh-poohing my thought, says I seem to be ignorant that Kant ever wrote, Kant having already said all that I say. I regard this as a very good symptom. The third stage of opinion about a new idea, already arrived: First: absurd! Second: trivial! Third: We discovered it!”; Sidney Hook, Metaphysics of Pragmatism, p. 1, John Dewey: “Foreword”: “On the one hand, there is an exaggeration of the factor of novelty which creates an illusion of total breach of continuity. On the other hand, there is an injection into the new ideas of older conceptions which are irrelevant & the elimination of that which is demanded by the new ideas.” 汪穰卿《莊諧選錄》卷二云:「近有一溫州人年夜往觀自來火公司,既觀,友問機器巧否,曰:『此亦何奇?不過鍊煤成氣、鍊氣為火耳。』余謂中國人中此病者至多:凡於己不識之事,始則詆斥之,繼則驚異之,迨稍明大概,則輕視以為無足異者,舉公共之理以為足以括其綱要,且自矜評語之精當。」可以參觀。「舉公理括其綱要」一語尤切。志剛《初使泰西紀要》中議論皆此類也,如卷一論火車云:「鍊硃成汞、鍊汞還硃,本中國古法,西人得之,以為化學之權輿。孔子云:『引而申之,觸類而長之,天下之能事畢矣。』通閱西法,不出此言。」

            Wahl 反復言 Existentialism 導源於 Schelling (p. 8, etc.),而乏援據。按 Schelling, The Ages of the World, Eng. tr. by Frederick de Wolfe Bolman, Jr., pp. 8n, 50n, 198n 可補證。



百六十二[2]



            李流芳長蘅《檀園集》十二卷。懈緩淡薄,修詞較松圓稍妥飭耳。五、七古勝於近體。猶子宜之〈後序〉:「居恒自言:『我古文不及叔達,書法不及子柔,詩律不及孟陽,獨畫無師承而頗得古人之意。』」【徐樹丕《識小錄》卷一錄其〈西湖絕句〉七首。】

            卷一〈將赴試白下走筆別荃之〉:「憶昔婉孌時,與子有成說。」按同卷〈己酉春日以看梅到彈山當時共事者徐孺穀張君實與小史荃之皆死矣愴然作詩〉云:「小史最清發,與我情婉孌。」卷八〈劍蛻齋記〉云:「往余暱孺穀、小史、荃之。眾皆笑之,勿顧之。亡何而荃之以瘵死。當時綢繆繾綣,所為求致其情而不得者,自今思之,余亦自笑其痴,而況於人乎。」卷十〈祭徐孺穀文〉云:「維時鄭生,實同婉孌。」蓋荃之姓鄭也。其事亦略同迦陵之有雲郎矣。卷二〈戲贈吳鹿長〉云:「自古鍾情在我輩,僕本恨人諳此味。風流老却夢已陳,古劍悠悠猶有氣。」卷七〈沈巨仲詩草序〉云:「僕往時為情癡,好為情語,有〈無題〉詩數篇。嘗自命曰:『僕本恨人,終為情死。』至取二語,刻為印記佩之。無何而自笑其癡,今遂如昨夢不復省矣。」今檢《集》中,未收〈無題〉詩。張大復《梅花草堂筆談》卷一云:「長蘅好外,淚濕張荃,曰:『舍予無能好張生者』」云云,即言此事。據《集》,「張」當作「鄭」也。[3]《梅花草堂集》卷十六〈夢遊顧升伯太史南園〉:「當年七子今何在」,自注己與長蘅皆在七子之列。

            〈和朱修能蕉雪詩〉:「雪中蕉正綠,火裏蓮亦長。」

            〈冬日同袁小修王幼度諸君集鍾伯敬邸舍即事〉。按長蘅與鍾、譚遊,尤善友夏。同卷有〈別友夏過林女郎天素〉、〈送王屺生歸楚〉(「頃與譚子別,輒作數日惡」),卷二有〈西湖喜遇譚友夏〉(「誰言譚郎貌似我,執手問人還似無」;「我昔知子因子詩,曉風殘月風鳴枝」;「十年相求始相得」;「欻然魂魄化為一」)【譚友夏〈贈長蘅〉亦云:「他年誰後死,優孟免躊躇。」】,卷四有〈除夕白門伯敬遣人餉酒〉諸詩。

            〈南歸詩〉二十首,長蘅《集》中最有筆力之作。《列朝詩集》丁十三下錄〈南歸詩〉十八首,後有朱雲子語,略云:「予謂嘉、隆間五古,正恨其通套無痛癢,如一副應酬贄禮牙笏繡補[4],璀璨滿前,自可假借,不必己出,人亦不堪領受;又如楚蜀舊俗,以木魚漆鴨宴客,不若菘韭之適口。惡其偽也,惡其襲也,豈恨其平哉」云云。[「吾觀長安中,縱橫曳朱紫。雲臺逞高議,意氣一何侈。但恃虜不來,來亦竟無恃。吾儕藜藿人,敢云肉食鄙。進既不求榮,退則如脫屣。會當翔冥鴻,何乃嚇腐鼠。」「我年未四十,已懷退隱圖。……富貴亦復佳,歲月待我乎?」(《列朝詩集》附朱雲子評:「較樂天『欲留年少待富貴,富貴不來年少去』二語婉折多少。」)「粵客自南來,吳儂從北下。解后黃河邊,蹤跡兩相訝。問我歸何遽,問爾行何暇。同是公車人,不及公車罷。此時長安客,闐隘舉子舍。豈知風波間,有此閒晝夜。」]後來《竹葉菴文集》卷十四〈南歸雜詩四十五首〉、《復莊詩問》卷十五〈南轅雜詩一百八章〉皆紀行鉅篇。【程孟陽、唐叔達一篇不能作也。】

            卷二〈蓴羹歌〉:「世人耳食不貴近,更須遠挹湖湘波。」自注:「袁石公盛稱湘湖蓴菜美,不知湘湖無蓴,皆從西湖採去,以湘湖水浸之耳。蓴菜初摘後,以水浸之,經宿則愈肥。凡泉水湖水皆可浸,不必湘湖水也。」按卷十一〈西湖臥游冊跋語〉(〈三潭采蓴圖〉[5])亦云云。

            〈送汪君彥同項不損燕游〉:「我是長安舊游人,三年一度長安春。……長安城中有何好?惟有十丈西風塵。人畜糞土相和勻,此物由來無世情。貴人逢之亦入唇,其味不減天廚珍。[6]……君不聞京師畫工如布粟,閩中吳彬推老宿。前年供御不稱旨,褫衣受撻真隸畜。此事下賤不可為,君但自娛勿干祿。」按「十丈西風」句云云,參觀《墨憨齋重訂萬事足傳奇》第十六折顧愈論京師云:「『七香散』是牛糞、馬糞、驢糞、騾糞、猪糞、狗糞、人糞,右七味各二兩,西北風起日,用騾車碾碎,以唾嚥下,能療普天下爭名奪利之病。」

            卷十一〈西湖臥游冊跋語‧紫陽洞〉 :「凡山水皆不可畫,然皆不可不畫也。」



百六十三[7]



            李重華玉洲《貞一齋詩集》十卷、《詩說》一卷。余向在《清詩話》中覩玉洲《詩說》,無甚高論。沈歸愚序此《集》,極稱其「才華豪逸,陶冶萬類,籠挫一切」云云。詞求博麗,氣頗健拔,而了不能真切貼妥。五、七古較勝於近體。

            卷三〈送徐編修澂齋冊使琉球〉云:「人言地缺東南陬,羣川萬派爭歸流。談天志怪寓言耳,寧知地體圓如球。」按卷七〈登州城觀日出〉云:「天極併包元渾渾,地球中處直區區。」以西洋學說入詩,絕無僅有。前乎此者,如【此處十餘字墨跡漫漶難辨】《職方外紀》謂「天有九重」、「日大於地」、「地形如圓球」云云,是西域天文志,非中國志也。左仁、周詒樸同輯《九煙先生遺集》卷一〈天地與日月食論〉曰:「狂夫之言,聖人擇焉。世間有所謂西土之學者,誠荒誕不足道,然其論天地之形與日月食之理,則至當而不易,曰:天包地外,地居天中,地形如大圓球,海水繞球而流,人物環球而生」云云,然皆未嘗驅使入詞章也。按顧黃公詩亦然,見第五百二十三則。至《秋蟪吟館詩鈔》卷七〈題李小池環游地球圖〉(五古),則已在清末,不足奇矣。《晚晴簃詩滙》卷一百二十一齊彥槐(《梅麓詩鈔》)〈翼梅〉第二首「日天一點内,容此大地球」云云,尤暢言者,又嘉、道時人。

            卷九〈與張支百研江話詩隨筆〉絕句九首、卷十〈唐人詩話〉絕句十三首、〈背誦古詩偶作〉絕句二首皆意庸語滯。

            《詩說》分〈論詩答問三則〉又〈詩談雜錄〉若干則。宋人稱東坡,猶在意中。唐人有取於陸魯望,謂得昌黎奧衍之概,則頗異乎人云矣。

            「或謂絕大題一首了却,固是高手,些小題偏作得長篇大幅,尤屬才人手法奇變。余曰:『獅子摶兔用全力,終屬獅子之愚。』」又云:「嚴滄浪以禪悟論詩,阮亭因而選《三昧集》。試思詩教自尼父論定,何緣墮入佛事?」按前一則《隨園詩話補遺》卷一引玉洲論詩語三則之一;後一則則《補遺》卷一駁阮亭語所本。玉洲於隨園為館前輩,卷三有〈送袁子才給假歸娶〉七古。

            「詩求文理能通者,為初學言之也」;「論山水奇妙曰:『徑路絕而風雲通。』徑路絕,人之所不能通也。如是而風雲又通,其為通也至矣。古文亦必如此,何況於詩。」按微言妙喻。參觀 J. Culler, Structuralist Poetics, p. 36; D. Lodge, The Modes of Modern Writing, p. 2 論 “foregrounding” (“the aesthetically intentional distortion of linguistic components,” “the use of deviant or ungrammatical constructions”)。

            「《才調集》乃西崑門戶,《瀛奎律髓》則西江皮毛。較其短長,《才調集》未至誤人,《瀛奎律髓》無論其他,只此四字名目,已足貽笑無窮。」按虛谷命名,確纖仄割裂,以「十八學士登瀛州」寓唐,以「五星聚奎」寓宋,真減字換字之醜拙者,尚不如陳耀文《花草粹編》之摘取《花間集》、《草堂詩餘》兩書名以寓唐、宋為較雅切也。

            「少時見趙秋谷先生為述吳修齡云:『意思猶五穀,文則炊而為飯,詩則釀而為酒。』余謂以酒喻詩,善矣。第今人釀酒,最要分別醇醨。與其魯酒千鐘,不若雲安一盞。先生大笑。」

            「秋谷向余云:『少時作詩,請政阮亭,阮亭粗為點閱,其竅妙處,吝不一示。因發憤三、四月,始於古體有古中之古、古中之近,近體有近中之古、近中之近,截然判析明白。』」

            「近見阮亭批抹杜集,知今人去古,分量大是懸絕,有多少矮人觀場處,乃正昌黎所謂『不自量』也。余并聞近世名家云:『少陵如四大天王,至白香山方是正殿觀音。』彼蓋從文理光順起見也,不值一笑。」按《談龍錄》云:「阮翁酷不喜少陵,特不敢顯攻之,每舉楊大年『村夫子』之目以語客。」《隨園詩話》卷三云:「李、杜、韓、白,俱非阮亭所喜,因其名太高,未便詆毀。」得玉洲目驗,更信而有徵矣。



百六十四[8]



            易順鼎《壬子詩存》二卷,當列百五十五則《甲寅詩存》以前。截搭拉雜而排比整齊,瓜皮李皮而如大珠小珠,自由於才氣奔放也。古詩之體,有迴旋餘地,容屠沽入座,律、絕則不宜矣。

            卷上〈雪後徐園探梅作〉:「更番寒未消九九,頃刻花如開七七」;「姑詠天地一籠統,且喜世界無凹凸。張元三百萬玉鱗,歐九四十萬鐵甲。黃狗黑狗貪打油,赤蛇白蛇任流血」;「滕六巽二葛三去,黃九秦七鄭五集」;「即今東海久生桑,何處西山堪采蕨」;「雖同玉局睹尖叉,恐效柳州吟絕滅。」

            〈題某君所藏神仙秘戲圖〉:「彭祖御八十一女,周禮御八十一妻。神仙帝王有同嗜,周公後盾彭前提」;「孰摹仙人秘戲狀,十有二冊超恒蹊」;「雲海中與瀑布下,裸體相抱尤恢奇。」

            〈告剪髮詩〉:「分非與國同休戚,義非與土俱存亡。眾人待我眾人報,雖事二姓誰雌黃。何為區區數莖髮,欲剪未剪心徬徨」;「我生遭逢更坎坷,出入虎口行羊腸。五上春官悉報罷,六乘夏縵皆投荒」;「自從皇綱一解紐,新政舊政紛蜩螗」;「禮義廉恥喪四維,君父夫婦廢三綱」;「不賢者皆父盜跖,賢者亦復兄孔方」;「侯王盡變為盜賊,盜賊盡變為侯王」;「所稱志士尤可笑,改制易服懸徽章。其狀非驢而非馬,其人如羊而如狼。為東胡奴則不屑,為西夷奴抑何忙。又有受恩深重者,高官大爵爭輝煌。國家無事則富貴,國家有事則叛降。叛降富貴固自在,反稱黨魁據中央」;「嗟我不富不貴者,為廉所累居首陽。嗟我不叛不降者,為節所累成翳桑」;「臣之形生而質死,臣之髮短而心長」;「恐人疑我忠一姓,我忠一姓殊騃狂」;「今朝決計便剪去,地下本不見高皇。下告賓友上祖禰,余髮種種天蒼蒼。」伯嚴云:「噴薄出之。」節庵云:「光芒萬丈。」

            于式枚〈書易五剪髮詩後四首〉:「臺司家世冠龍陽,猶較升階話短長。正論我思元世祖,蔽賢休怨賈平章。」(元世祖問宋降臣:「何易也?」以「賈似道蔽賢,不見用」對。世祖曰:「此賈似道,非國家也。果爾,則似道不用汝輩,固宜。」)「胡漢恩知自淺深,智敖往事久沉吟。錢王獨義羅昭諫,不以唐亡有怨心。」(舒王〈明妃曲〉,宋仁詆為悖義傷教。王阮亭〈國士橋〉詩自云:「可以敦薄。」羅昭諫勸錢武肅討賊,武肅以昭諫不遇于唐,必有怨心,及聞其言,心義之。)「姦貪歷詆漢公卿,湯武唐虞更假名。尚有詩人忠厚意,未將桀紂罵崇禎。」(明末流賊餘黨以崇禎為桀紂。)「自云死不見高皇,鐵棒何須怕趙匡。萬一梅村妖夢到,低頭金盒再商量。」按易五此詩可與三百年前李舒章〈答髮責〉文(《蓼齋後集》卷五,略謂:「順治二年五月,李子將薙髮於燕都,先夕乃夢有物蒼蒼,蒙茸其形,怒而呼曰:『豈曼纓之可羨,曾毛裏之莫痌?』李子聞之,涕泣掩面,凝思展意而對曰」云云)參觀。

            〈賈郎曲〉:「小史真如日在東,詩人欲賦風懷左」;「從來一部婁羅歷,歌舞酣時國將畢。豈意羊車看璧人,已悲鳳闕遷金狄」;「王面金錢月萬元,歌臺聲價試評論。名高始信優伶貴,祿薄誰求總統尊」;「誰知艷質爭嬌寵,賈郎似蜀梅似隴。」

            〈和天琴〉:「耳如歐白偏無謗,鬢少坡霜却享名。」

            〈集靜安寺和天琴〉:「小集禪人皆慧遠,自由我輩即盧騷。」

            〈秋日天琴邀飲酒樓作長歌一首〉:「四十萬人齊解甲,三百餘年俱隸籍」;「東籬菊花解笑人,西山薇蕨難充食。」

            〈張黃樓招飲六合春〉:「詩格象羚鯨翡翠,食單蠔蠣蟹龍蝦。」

      卷下〈和樊山天仙三女伶詩原韻〉:「梨似哀家聲浪脆,桃為息國臉霞新。娶來我若為天子,值得多蒙幾度塵。」(為王克琴作,餘二人則林黛玉、王寶寶。同卷〈滬上觀劇詩四首〉分詠三人外,尚增一賈璧雲。稱林黛玉云:「留得金剛不壞身」,蓋謂滬上名妓「四大金剛」也。)

            〈觀王克琴演遺翠花劇〉:「書生未必皆皮厚克琴道白云『讀書人臉皮厚』一語令人絕倒,騷客居然獨目成。……男兒慢詡黃金膝,倘得卿憐膝亦輕。」

            〈再呈湘綺老人〉:「今歲寒初聞鶴語,此間樂不聽鵑啼。」

            〈陳笑山嘲余醉心琴客〉:「西子倘能隨少伯,南無惟有念觀音。」(按卷上〈代玉頎和天琴贈別〉云:「願隨北去汪元量,長念南無觀世音。」玉頎即琴姬,〈雪後徐園探梅〉詩所謂「雪堂斗酒難謀婦,雪水烹茶方對妾」是也。)



百六十五[9]



            Agnes Repplier, The Fireside Sphinx 蓋說貓者,與其 To Think of Tea, In Pursuit of Laughter 兩書體製相同,皆以數典為行文,而頗能化堆垛為烟雲者,非若王初桐《貓乘》之僅比於類書也[10]。錢葆馚、朱竹垞、厲樊榭輩以〈雪獅兒〉調詠貓諸詞,其庶幾乎(竹垞〈雪獅兒〉三詞見《曝書亭集》卷二十九)。

            讀之惘然,悵念兒貓。四年前暮春貍奴初來時,生纔三月耳。飽食而嬉,余與絳手足皆渠齒爪痕,倦則貼人而臥。《續傳燈錄》卷二十二黃龍云:「子見貓兒捕鼠乎?目睛不瞬,四足據地,諸根順向,首尾一直,擬無不中[11]。求道亦然。」(按《禮記‧射義》「以狸首為節」,皇侃謂:「舊解云:『狸之取物,則伏下其頭,然後必得,言射亦必中,如狸之取物矣。』正是黃龍語意。【參觀第六十六則。[12]】黃梨洲《明文授讀》卷五十五沈一貫〈搏者張松溪傳〉云:「其徒曰:『吾師嘗觀矛師,曰:刺則刺矣,而多為之擬,心則歧矣,尚得中耶?』余聞而憬然,因憶往王忠伯言:『邊人無伎,遇虜近三十步始發射,短兵接,直前攻刺。不左右顧者勝,瞬者不可知,傍觀死矣。」皆即《莊子‧達生篇》痀僂承蜩、梓慶削木,《關尹子‧一宇篇》魚見餌之旨。)余謂貓兒弄縐紙團,七擒七縱,再接再厲,或腹向天抱而滾,或背拱山躍以撲,儼若紙團亦秉氣含靈、一噴一醒者,觀之可以啟發文機:用權設假,課虛鑿空,無復枯窘之題矣。志明〈野狐放屁詩〉第二十七首云:「矮櫈階前晒日頭,又無瞌睡又無愁。自尋一個消閒法,喚小貓兒戲紙毬。」尚未盡其理也。余記兒貓行事甚多,去春遭難,與他稿都拉雜摧燒,所可追記衹此及第九十七則一事耳。

            P. 11: “The house-cat figures in some of the oldest Indian fables, always as an arrant hypocrite... Her first entrance into the Chinese empire appears to have been about 400 A.D. She is conspicuous by her absence from Greece & Rome.” 按《蘿摩亭札記》卷八:「《詩》、《禮》雖有『貓』字,而字書輒言『貍捕鼠』,蓋溷家貓與野貓為一,如周以前不辨馬與驘也。」《烟嶼樓筆記》卷六:「古以狗捕鼠,見《呂覽‧士容篇》,而〈功名篇〉則言以貍捕鼠。」又佛典載貓狡詐事,見竺法護譯《生經》卷一第六野貓自言修靜行,不食肉,而獨處寂寞,願嫁野鷄為妻,誘其自樹下地,亦即《雜寶藏經》卷三第三十五山鷄王因緣也。《大莊嚴論經》卷十五第八十三云[13]:「貓兒問母:『當何所食?』母答兒言:『人自教汝。』夜至他家隱甕器間[14],有人見已而相約敕:『酥乳肉等極好覆蓋,鷄雛高舉莫使貓食。』貓兒即知,鷄酥乳酪皆是我食。」又 T.R. Glover, The Challenge of the Greek: “The cat was an Egyptian beast, new to the Greeks, & not needed in Europe, for the rat had not yet come from India... India had not yet made her most significant contribution to the West; the rat was still unknown in Europe. The Athenians could store their wheat in pits.” (pp. 1, 94); Edward Hyams: “A Mouse of a Different Colour”: “The very name mouse in the Indo-European language from which derived all tongues from Germany to the Punjab, means to steal, & the earliest domesticated enemy of the mouse was evidently not the cat, except in Egypt. In the Batrachomyomachia, the Mouse says to the Frog: ‘I fear above all things on earth, the Hawk & the Weasel... but most of all the Weasel.’ In The Wasps, we read: ‘Once upon a time, there was a mouse & a weasel...’ as we should say, ‘a mouse & a cat’” (The New Statesman & Nation, Jan. 19, 1952)【Homerica, “The Loeb Classical Library”, tr. H. E. Evelyn-White, pp. 545, 551: “Three things: the Eagle, the Ferret, & the Trap.”】; Theocritus, XV: “Praxinoa: ‘Here, Eunoa, take up the spinning & put it away with the rest. Cats always will lie soft’” (J.M. Edmonds, The Greek Bucolic Poets, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 181); Theophrastus, Characters, XVI: “Superstitiousness”: “If a cat cross his path he will not proceed on his way till someone else be gone by” (J.M. Edmonds, “The Loeb Classical Library”, p. 79); Thomas Flatman: “An Appeal to Cats in the Business of Love” (Saintsbury, Minor Poets of the Caroline Period, III, p. 343) 皆可參觀。

            P. 22: 摩罕默德愛貓 Muezza,不忍驚其睡,自斷衣袖,漢哀帝之於董賢矣。[15]若為易哭庵知,必排比作一對。

            Pp. 34-5 記一人告友夜來怪事,見羣貓抬一棺葬之友家,貓忽躍起作人言曰:“Then I am the King of the Cats!” 即失所在。Scott 嘗述其事,實本之 Scandinavia 童話。按此語運用最妙者,見 Lily Yeats 載乃兄事:“On the day of Swinburne’s death, I met Willy in O’Connell Street & said to him, ‘Swinburne is dead.’ ‘I know, & now I am King of the Cats!’” (J.B. Yeats, Letters to His Son & Others, p. 51; cf. Joseph Hone, W.B. Yeats, p. 245),即《雲溪友議》卷下載朱沖和嘲張祜詩所謂「白在東都元已薨,鸞臺鳳閣少人登。冬瓜堰下逢張祜,牛屎堆邊說我能」之旨。(朱沖和號「宦途惡少」,見《金華子雜編》卷下[16]。)【[補百六五則[17]]P. 34-5: “Then I’m the King of the Cats!” TLS, 29 Oct 1982, p. 1181: Daniel Hughes arrived with the news that Robert Frost had died. John Berryman’s reaction was brisk & self-interested: ‘It’s scary. Who’s number one? Who’s number one? Cal [Robert Lowell] is number one, isn’t he?’ This was his way of saying that if Lowell wasn’t (as he hoped he wasn’t), then he must be.”《清波雜志》:「山谷在南原落星寺,一日憑欄,忽傳坡逝,痛惜久之,已而顧寺僧,拈几上香合在手曰:『此香匣子自此却屬老父矣。』」】

            P. 49 ff. 歷舉殘殺貍奴西俗,如 “gibbeting the cat”, “putting a cat in a leather bottle as a target for archery” 等。按 Hogarth, Four Stages of Cruelty 第一圖中,即有 “two cats tied to the extremities of a rope & hung over a lamp iron” (參觀 John Trusler, The Works of William Hogarth, vol. II, facing p. 184)。又按 Hogarth 畫狗勝於畫貓,如Marriage a-la-Mode第六圖中瘦狗 (Ibid., vol. II, facing p. 209),傳神妙絕,遠非 The Rake’s Progress 第一圖中瘦貓 (vol. I, facing p. 10) 所可及也。

            P. 120 論中國、日本皆以貓入畫,而僅道 Hok’sai。[18]按吾國畫貓者,不可一一舉,若夫諧聲寓意,別成一類,則「耄耋圖」是也。唐刁光胤有此圖(見《江村消夏錄》),以後明宣宗(見《紅豆樹館書畫記》)、孫克弘、惲壽平(見郋園《觀畫百詠》)紛紛祖構,余皆未得寓目,惟睹日本人編印《中國名畫集》第三冊景印徐文長〈耄耋圖〉,畫兩貓伺蝶,意態栩栩。

            P. 160: “M. Dupont de Nemours maintained that, whereas the dog possesses only vowel sounds, the cat uses in her language no less than 6 consonants — m, n, g, h, v, & f.” 按 Coleridge, Table Talk, August 18, 1833: “Brute animals have the vowel sounds, man only can utter consonants.”; Lotze, Microcosmos, Eng. tr. by Hamilton & Jones, Bk. V, ch. iii: “The dog says r & guttural ch very distinctly, the cat is acquainted with f, cows & sheep with ŋ.”

            P. 180 ff. 引科學家論貓習性語。按 Havelock Ellis, The Criminal, 5th ed., p. 87: “Lombroso finds that the eyes of assassins resemble those of the feline animals at the moment of ambush or struggle. Insistence on the feline aspect is very frequent among those who describe criminals.” 可謂大殺風景矣。

            P. 181: “The cat consents to be our guest... But she never parts with her liberty” etc. 按 Rousseau 語 Boswell 云:“There you have the despotic instinct of men. They do not like cats because the cat is free & will never consent to become a slave. He will do nothing to your order, as the other animals do... A cat will understand you perfectly & not obey [your orders]” (Boswell on the Grand Tour: Germany & Switzerland, “Trade Ed.”, pp. 2... [19]).

            【《陳止齋文集》卷四十二〈跋周伯壽畫貓〉云:「余家有數貓,終日飽食,相跳擲為戲,而不捕鼠。余怪而問人,人曰:『貓之善捕鼠者,日常睡。』」】【王君玉《續纂‧愛便宜門》:「畜養母狗雌貓。」】【Journal des Goncourt, 1891, 7 Sept.: “Dans les couvents, il est permis aux religieuses d’avoir des chats, mais qu’il leur est défendu d’avoir des chattes. Les amours des chats étant extérieurs ne leur tombent pas sous la vue, tandis qu’on craint que la grossesse, la mise bas, la maternité des chattes, puissent éveiller la curiosité de l’amour chez ces femmes.”】【《羅湖野錄》卷二。】【Roaul Gineste, Chattes et Chats (1894) 皆詠貓詩。】【《揚州畫舫錄》卷一:「靈鷲庵旦和尚愛畜貓,與貓同寢數十年,一夜為貓噬死。」】【《笠翁一家言》卷二〈逐貓文〉謂六畜之中最貪最僭[20]。俗說:「狗認人,貓認屋。」按《頻羅菴遺集》卷十五《日貫齋塗說》□元遺山〈游天壇雜詩〉注:「仙貓洞,土人傳燕家鷄犬升天,貓獨不去。」因云:「『同向燕家舔丹鼎,不隨鷄犬上青雲』,梅村『我是淮王舊鷄犬,不隨仙家落人間』脫胎於此」;「魏禧〈畫貓記〉:『俗傳二危合畫貓,鼠輒避去。』(卷十二〈題方蘭士畫貓〉亦引叔子文[21]。)二事竹垞〈詠貓詞〉隸事所未及(第三百二十八則、第四百三十八則、第五百三十一則、第七百二十四則)。」】【《游名山記》卷二都穆〈王屋山〉[22]:「仙貓洞,人云燕真人丹成,鷄犬俱升,仙貓獨留不去,人就洞呼『仙哥』,時或有應者。」】【曹彥伯《昌谷集》卷十四〈開禧德安守城錄序〉:「丁卯之春,縋者來言,城中癘疫大作,醢貓以侑食。余聞之泣下曰:『人之愛貓,近於愛子,殺貓而甘其味,去相食無幾矣。」】【《全唐文》卷六八二牛僧孺〈譴貓〉、卷七二七舒元輿〈養貍述〉、卷七六七陳黯〈本貓說〉、戴袁元《剡源文集》卷二十三〈貓議〉、程晉芳《勉行堂詩集》卷七〈愛貓詩〉、姚某伯《復莊詩問》卷六〈貓五古六十韻〉。】【《湧幢小品》:「乾明門養貓十二隻,日飼豬肉四斤七兩、肝一副。」《花當閣叢談》卷一:「郡中一機戶名彭禹,其子日買熟豕蹄飼獅貓。」】





[1]《手稿集》236-7 頁。
[2]《手稿集》237-8 頁。
[3] 然據卷二〈春雪有懷龔三仲和兼訊劉長卿張荃之〉七古以觀,則「『張』當作『鄭』」云云,亦似未必然。
[4] 原文脫落「副」字。
[5]「采」原作「菜」。
[6] 一本「天廚」作「庖廚」。
[7]《手稿集》238-9 頁。
[8]《手稿集》239-41 頁。
[9]《手稿集》241-3 頁。
[10]「王初桐」原作「黃初桐」。
[11]「踞地」原作「據地」。
[12] 此則論李文石《舊學盦筆記》,已全則塗去。
[13]「八十三」原作「八十二」。
[14] 原文脫落「間」字。
[15]「Muezza」原作「Muezz」。
[16]「雜編」原作「雜錄」。
[17] 見《手稿集》2570 頁。
[18] 即葛飾北齋(Katsushika Hokusai, 1760-1849)。
[19] 此處脫落頁數。
[20] 文曰:「鷄司晨,犬守暮,貓辟鼠,亦同功也。稱者則止曰鷄犬,而不及貓。昔人丹成上昇,鷄犬俱仙,而貓不與。……蓋鷄犬之鳴吠,無所利而為之者也。貓得鼠以自啖,有所利而為之者也。自利者貪,自利而獲利人之名者僭。」
[21] 謂《頻羅菴遺集》卷十二。
[22] 「《游名山記》卷二都穆〈王屋山〉」原作「都穆《游名山記》卷二〈王屋山〉」。