 Bramer Leonard, THE GRAPES OF ZEUXIS (1596)
二百二十六
孫覿《鴻慶居士集》四十二卷。仲益立身行事，至不足道。並世以儷偶名者有汪彥章（《鴻慶居士集》卷三十有《浮溪集序》），仲益四六差相埒，而詩、古文則遠遜矣。惟卷三十六《万俟公墓誌銘》表章其臺諫論事云：“諸大將起於行伍，知利不知義，畏死不畏法”，“岳飛有不臣之漸”，《韓公墓誌銘》謂中興諸將“岳飛、范瓊輩皆以跋扈賜死”，足與《浮溪集》卷一之《行在越州條具時政》及《奏論諸將無功狀》相比。卷二十七《論太學諸生伏闕劄子》斥李綱“以帷幄之臣，為穿窬之謀”，“不知羞愧，戴面立朝”，又與《浮溪集》卷十二之《李綱落職鄂州居住制》相類。仲益詩學東坡，筆力頗健，好使事而欠精緻。近體一首之內，每至“綠”、“赤”、“蒼”、“紫”、“青”（卷一《釣台》第一首），“千”、“百”、“二”、“三”（《蘭溪津亭病起》第二首），“兩”、“九”、“萬”、“百”、“一”、“一”（《仙遊山九日歎逝》第一首），“蠅”、“鷗”、“鴨”、“螭”（卷二《妙覺書事》第一首），“豹”、“鵬”、“麟”、“鹿”、“鶴”、“牛”、“鷁”、“龜”、“魚”、“鵝”、“鴨”（《再和何襲明》二首），“萬”、“一”、“五”、“八”、“三”、“五”（卷三《到象州太守陳容德携酒見過》第一首），“六”、“三”、“一”、“千”、“九”（卷四《次韻向伯恭致政》），足見其乏洗鍊之功矣。古文亦平衍欠振盪。周必大《平園續稿》卷十三《鴻慶集序》云：“乾道丁亥，遇公陽羨，公八十有七矣。論文之餘，語及前朝舊事，健論滔滔如洪河東注，緒言纚纚如束蠒繅絲。《韻語陽秋》載東坡自海南歸，公方髫齡，坡命對‘衡門稚子璠璵器’，公應聲曰：‘翰苑神仙錦綉腸。’坡歎曰：‘真璠璵也。’以公早慧，固應有此。然坡北歸，實靖國辛巳，公已二十一。得非元豐乙丑自便還常，公纔五歲時乎？”《泛舟游山錄》卷一：“乾道丁亥三月乙亥，聞孫仲益尚書艤舟北郭，往謁之。年八十七矣，精明如六、七十人，詩、文不減少作，談舊事纚纚不倦，可謂異秉。”按《韻語陽秋》一節見卷三。仲益尚有《內簡尺牘》十卷，務為雅語，而破碎乏韻味，摭用坡語甚多。《朱文公集》卷七十一《記孫覿事》：“靖康之難，欽宗幸虜營，虜人欲得某文，欽宗不得已，為詔從臣孫覿為之。陰冀覿不奉詔，得以爲解。而覿不復辭，一揮立就，過爲貶損，以媚虜人，而詞甚精麗云云。虜人大喜，至以大宗城鹵獲婦餉之，覿亦不辭。其後每語人曰：‘人不勝天久矣；古今禍亂，莫非天之所為云云。孟子所謂“順天者存，逆天者亡”者，蓋謂此也。’”[1]石茂良《避戎夜話》：“靖康城陷議和，上見二酋，作二降表過北，皆孫覿……之筆。其略云：‘……恭維大金皇帝陛下：……上皇負罪以播遷，微臣捐軀而聽命。……社稷不殞，宇宙再清。’粘罕抹去‘大金’二字，止欲稱皇帝。又指‘宇宙’二字云：‘大金亦宇宙也。’又易‘負罪’二字為‘失德’。”《桯史》：“《鴻慶集》太半銘誌，諛墓之常，不足咤。獨有武功大夫李公碑列其間，乃儼然一璫耳。亟稱其高風絕識，自以不獲見之為大恨。言必稱公，殊不怍於宋用臣之論謚也。” span style=; < Font-Family: Mingliu; Font-Size: 12 pt" > ; `Longs" >; and `Lows: "Lows" ; ” ” `Brows and "Brows" ; and “Brows". 卷一《湖州天寧寺飲王生》：“莫鬥蝸兩角，且共貉一邱。”按卷二十八《西徐上梁文》：“蝸盤兩角，貉共一邱。” & nbsp;
《蘭溪津亭病起》：“藥裹關心防二豎，謗書盈篋忤三蟲。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp > < /span style=" FONT-FAMILY: MingLiU; FONT-SIZE: 12 pt" < 《贈曹山長老了如》：“一念挂世網，平生誤儒冠。笑看蠅穴紙，坐待鮎緣竿。” < 《東塔》：“偶與白雲共出，忽隨倦鳥俱還。明日重尋舊路，桃花流水空山。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; <
《清明日》：“兀兀三杯卯困，昏昏一枕春融。酒醒落花風裏，夢回啼鳥聲中。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < : "3 cups of sleep in the evening." 卷二《題妙覺寺壁》：“葉底紅稀不見花，枝頭綠暗可藏鴉。春歸古殿蒼苔滿，一點籠燈隱絳紗。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp;
《宜黃尉李集義遺書問安否小詩為謝》：“行隨木上坐，臥對竹夫人。”按參觀第二百五十二則。 & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp;
卷四《送僧慧徹》：“危坐肘生柳，獨謠肩聳山。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp;
卷五《龜潭》：“蝸舍三間小，龜泉一勺甘。楞嚴渾不看，彌勒久同龕。潭影千峰倒，雲梢萬木參。巖花自無主，紅雨落毿毿。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp & nbsp; & nbsp;
《題莫壽朋所藏東坡畫枯木》：“龍筋鶴骨老催頹，百尺修圍折巨雷。倦鵲飛來空自繞，踏枝不着又驚回。”按此意當時詩中屢見。《三朝北盟會編》炎興下帙卷八十一：“劉豫初僭立，奔附者眾，識者譏之云：‘濃磨一鋌兩鋌墨，畫出千年萬年樹。誤得百鳥盡飛來，踏枝不着空飛去。’”《圖繪寶鑑》卷四馬宋英自題畫云：“磨出一錠兩錠墨，掃出千年萬年樹。月明烏鵲誤飛來，蹋枝不着空歸去。”“一錠兩錠”二句，又本之唐人朱灣《題段上人院壁畫古松》之“掃出三寸五寸枝，便是千年萬年物”也。即 Zeuxis 畫蒲桃，飛禽爭啄之意，Pliny, Hist. Nat., XXXV. 36 (Loeb, IX, pp 308-10)，見第六八〇則。參觀 G.F. Senior & C.V. Bock, Goethe the Critic, pp. 21-2; A. Russi, L’Arte e le Arti, p. 24，又第七四〇則論Marino, La Galeria。 & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp > ; 《春事》：“茆棟依林出，松扉傍水斜。浮蒼圍百疊，亂綠翳三叉。屋破蝸飛壁，庭蕪鶴印沙。小桃供一笑，已着兩三花。” & & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp;
卷八：“子不問馬，雖焚廐而悉傷；吾何愛牛，以釁鐘而不忍罷臺察提點襲慶府景靈宮謝表。” & nbsp; & nbsp; >10pt' > > > > > > “俄值飛龍利見之辰，敢有屈蠖求伸之意和州謝上表。” & nbsp; “寄衰病於越吟，返游魂於楚些謝徽猷閣待制知秀州表。” & nbsp; < > > > > ; 卷九：“鼠入角中，雀巢幕上。雖衝冠之髮共憤，而當車之臂何為乞宮祠狀。” & nbsp; < > “虺隤無用，猶有望於蓋帷；腕脫奚為，恐遂填於溝壑乞郡狀。” & nbsp; < ; “子卿牧海上之羊，節旄盡落；令威化遼東之鶴，城郭今非知臨安府謝表。”即山谷《次韻宋懋宗三月十四日到西池都人盛觀翰林公出遊》：“人間化鶴三千歲，海上看羊十九年。” >, 10 pt' >, “西方佛以謂：人而為鬼，鬼復為人，歷三生而懷恩未泯；北山公亦云：子既生孫，孫又生子，累千世而圖報難忘復左朝奉郎謝表。” ; “新豐翁右臂已折，杜陵老左耳亦聾。無復二毛，唯餘兩齒。已掛冠避賢者路，行就木為土中身落職謝表。” < >
卷十二《與曾端伯書》：“蒙馳賜《百家新選》一集，讀之惟恐盡也。秦少游云：‘曾子固文章妙絕古今，而有韻者輒不工。’【Croce, Filosofia, Poesia, Storia, p. 274: “Cicerone, sommo prosatore e letterato, che tentò di scrivere in versi, passarono in proverbio i ridenda poemata. Né di Sofocle o Euripide, né di Virgilio o Lucrezio o Properzio, restano prose.”】此語一出，天下遂以為口實。南豐作《李白引》，以謂‘閎肆瑰瑋，非近世騷人所可及者’，而‘連類引義，中法度者寡’。荊公屢稱郭功父詩，而南豐不謂然。荊公曰：‘豈非謂天才超逸，更當約以古詩之法乎？’南豐論詩如此。【王德正《餘師錄》卷四[2]：“孫仲益云：‘某見前輩文字褒賞，一時名士，東坡最多，可往往過其實，惟荊公未嘗以言假人，而南豐為尤嚴。比見郭祥正得荊公數帖，皆稱道其詩者，中一帖云：“子固之言，不知所謂。豈非足下天才超軼，尚當繩以古詩之法乎？”‘云云。”與此處語意同而較詳。】如《兵間》一詩，指徐德占；《論交》一詩，指呂吉甫；又有《黃金》、《顏揚》諸詩，皆卓然有濟世之用。而世人便謂不能詩，某所以不喻其言也。荊公《竹》詩‘人言直節’一聯，《雪》詩‘平治險穢’一聯，《送李璋下第》‘才如吾子’一聯，世人傳誦，然非佳句。公詩至知制誥乃盡善，歸蔣山乃精絕。其後《再送李璋下第》、《和吳仲卿雪》詩，比少作如天淵矣。蘇黃門詩已不逮諸公，北歸後效白公體，益不逮，惟四字詩最善。張文潛晚年詩不逮前作，意謂亦效白公詩者。公述潘邠老言：‘文潛晚喜白公詩。’信矣，如所料也。呂居仁作《江南宗派》，既云宗派，固有次第。陳無己本學杜子美，後受知於曾南豐，自言‘向來一瓣香，敬為曾南豐’，非其派也。靖康末，呂舜徒作中憲，居仁遇師川於寶梵佛舍，極口訽罵其翁於廣座中，居仁俛首不敢出一語。故於宗派貶之於祖可、如璧之下，師川固當不平。然惠洪偽作魯直贈詩云：‘氣爽絕類徐師川’，師川喜以為是，不免與惠洪為類，此又不可曉者。《冷齋夜話》載秀老一事，某在江西時，惡其狂誕無稽。此僧中奴，固不以笞罵為辱。東坡《橄欖》詩云：‘已輸崖蜜十分甜’，惠洪以崖蜜為櫻桃。又有俗子假東坡名注杜詩，云‘金城土酥靜如練’為蘆菔根者。東坡《地黃》詩云：‘崖蜜助甘冷，山薑發芳辛。’製地黃法當用薑與蜜，而用櫻桃可乎？黃師是守泗時，以酥酒遺東坡，答詩云：‘關右土酥黃似酒，揚州雲液却如酥。’謂土酥為蘆菔根可乎？曹元寵、米元暉，殆是子美詩中黃四娘者耶？然元寵詩殊有可觀，若‘都都平丈我’，又待入《紅窗迴》矣。”按此《書》有資談藝者匪尟，而未見徵引。惟趙與時《賓退錄》卷六備錄之，稱其評論婉而嚴。（“《詩選》載曹元寵《題梁仲敍所作陳坦畫村敎學詩》云：‘此老方捫蝨，眾雛亦附火。想見文字間，都都平丈我。’《詩選》去取，多未精當……。仲益所稱南豐《兵間》、《論交》、《黃金》、《顏楊》諸篇，及蘇黃門四字詩，無一在《選》中者，而反錄‘都都平丈我’之句。答書及此，亦因以箴之也。”）《津逮秘書?東坡題跋》卷三《記少游論詩文》、《東坡題跋》上溫一貞本記秦少游言：“人才各有分限，杜子美詩冠古今，而無韻者殆不可讀，曾子固以文名天下，而有韻者輒不工。”觀《淮海集》卷一《曾子固哀詞》，則少游嘗學文於子固（參觀第二百五十一則），而談藝一無假借如此。《後山先生集》卷二十三《詩話》云：“世語……曾子固短於韻語。”《冷齋夜話》卷九“淵材迂濶好怪”條記淵材五恨，“曾子固不能作詩”其第五也。後世《劉後村大全集》卷一百七十五稱子固能詩，引《明妃曲》、《哭尹師魯》、《挽丁元珍》、《北歸》諸詩為證。《瀛奎律髓》卷十六方批子固《上元》兩律。《隱居通議》卷七謂子固非不能詩，舉《麻姑山》、《英宗皇帝挽詞》等摘句尤夥。《楊升菴外集》卷七十八謂子固能詩，引《享祀軍山廟歌》為證。《義門讀書記?元豐類稿》卷一謂子固詩尚古直、乏細潤，蓋學李、杜、韓而未參六朝者。然於其名章佳句一一摘賞，是亦視子固為詩人也。賀黃公《載酒園詩話》卷五云：“俗傳曾子固不能詩，真妄語耳。”《昭昧詹言》卷一：“南豐字句極奇，而少鼓盪之氣，又篇法少變換，無兀傲起落，故不及杜、韓。大約南豐學陶、謝、鮑、韓工夫到地，其失在不放一字一句，有有車之用，無無車之用。然以句格求之，則其至者，直與謝、陶、鮑、韓並有千古。其次者，亦非宋以來詩家所夢及。”潘彥輔《養一齋詩話》卷四稱曾子固五、七言排宕有氣，近體佳句清深婉轉，徵引甚詳。姚石甫《後湘詩集》卷九《論詩絕句》云：“文掩詩名曾子固，論才合與亞歐王。元豐類稿從頭讀，遺恨何人比海棠。”楊希閔《鄉詩摭譚》正集卷三引姚石甫此絕而稱子固能詩，此外隱襲後村所舉，無新見。《池北偶談》卷十四：“子固詩亦荊公之亞，天分微不及耳。”紀曉嵐、錢竹汀論江西宗派，王國維跋《冷齋夜話》，皆茫然不知仲益有此《書》也。《浮溪集》卷十七《柯山集書後》云：“公詩晚更效白樂天體，而世之淺易者，往往以此亂真”云云，可與仲益語發明。《賓退錄》謂：“曹組作《紅窗迴?題陳坦畫村敎學詩》云：‘此老方捫蝨[3]，眾雛亦附火。想見文字間，都都平丈我。’端伯於詩有《百家詩選》，於詞有《樂府雅詞》，稗官小說則有《類說》，神仙之學亦有《道樞十鉅編》。以示其於書無所不讀，於學無所不能，故未免以不知為知”云云。《朱子語類》卷一百四十論端伯《百家詩選》亦曰：“只是他所見如此。他要無不會，詩詞文章字畫外，更編道書八十卷。又別有一書甚少，名《八段錦》，看了便真以為是神仙不死底人”云云。《清波雜誌》卷八謂：“端伯《百家詩選》，去取任一己之見，且於歐、王、蘇皆不載。雖曰用荊公《唐詩選》韓、杜、李不與編故事，其亦大名之下，不容銓擇耶？曾帥江陵日，叔祖為參議官，親見亟欲《詩選》成，僅得數篇，即撰小序以刊行，旋悟疎略，欲删去而不及”云云。他書之成，想亦必率爾也。《渭南文集》卷二十七《跋中興間氣集》云：“議論凡鄙，與近世《宋百家詩選》中小序可相甲乙。”仲益《集》卷六《讀類說》二首（“亡是談烏有，彭郎得小姑。誰言鳩作婦，謾道雁為奴。絡緯那能織？提壺豈解酤？龜兹堪一笑，非馬亦非驢。”“額痒會出耳，足閒仍有氂。石頑飛作雁，楮老孕生鷄。楓癭那因怒，松肪豈是肥。君看轉丸手，亦復化神奇。”）當足題端伯書也。卷三十二《讀臨川集》（“荊公自謂知經明道，與子固、王深父、逢源四人者，發六藝之蘊於千載絕學之後。荊公當國，二王已下世，獨有子固以秘閣校勘在京師，便當引而進之，乃擯棄不用，通判越州而去。余觀《南豐集》，《序禮閣新儀》則指新法，《記襄州長渠》則指水利，《兵間詩》則指徐德占，《論交詩》則指呂吉甫，而二人者，如水火矣。”）亦可與此《書》參觀。《隱居通議》卷十四亦云[4]：“《南豐續稿》有《喜似》一篇為介甫作，尊敬甚至。及其得志，則與之異。故《過王介甫歸偶成》云：‘直道詎非難，盡言竟多忤。知者尚復然，悠悠誰可語。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; <
《與蘇季文書》：“根器頑鈍，惟讀東坡先生之文竟一篇，則心目開通。在京師時，嘗過謝任伯，見夏均父在坐，紛然問其故。均父曰：‘唐有韓昌黎，宋有蘇東坡，是一流人也。’任伯搖首不然，均父慍怒，某曰：‘東坡雄奇如韓公，辯博如孟子。任伯參未透耳，未可以口舌爭也。’後十年，任伯作《李邦直集序》謂歐陽文忠云：‘李清臣文似蘇某，而議論過之。’讀之歎駭不已，不知任伯何所據而云。”
卷十三：“鷄犬不鳴，人牛俱喪辭臨安啟。” & nbsp; < > . 卷十七：“強弩射市，非我獨也，而薄命安所逃？腐鼠中人，了無預焉，而奇禍乃如此！舉有竊鈇之態，動成投杼之疑復官謝沈相啟。” & nbsp; <
卷十八：“號眢井而出，已踐初言；合浮圖之尖，更終大惠復修撰宮觀謝沈相啟。”按參觀第三百三十則。 & nbsp; & nbsp; : `The first words have come out of the & & nbsp; top of the pine > > ; FON:325 “如偃師造木偶耳，始傅合丹漆於游戲之間；若工祝棄芻狗然，已狼籍道途於蹂踐之後。瀧吏譏訶，亭尉嘲罵謝万俟相啟。” 卷十九：“月明感烏鵲之南飛，日夕羨牛羊之來下謝朱右相啟。” & nbsp; & nbsp; < ; FONT-SIZE: 12pt: 10pt" > > ; FONT-SIP: 12 > > >. “芻狗已陳於無所用，自甘塗地而不辭；土偶既敗而得所歸，奚俟蓋棺而後定謝楊參政啟。” & nbsp; < “強弩射市，固亦有命焉；怒劍逐蠅，又何其隘也。蓋數周必復，而否不可長。繄平生埽地之初，人牛皆喪；迨老去歸田之日，頭璧俱還謝楊待制啟。”
卷二十七《侍御史論太學諸生伏闕劄子》，按同卷尚有《上何丞相劄子》第一首亦論陳東事，其第二首言太學諸生攘盜官米，而移禍於齋僕，有“聚眾伏闕，恐嚇官家，罵詈宰相，手殺內貴，更無世界”等語，可與《癸辛雜識後集》“三學之橫”條、“賈相制外戚抑北司戢學校亦不可及”條參觀。
卷二十八《馬迹上梁文》：“悵昨夢之已非，佚吾生於已老。木居士安能為福，土偶人自得所歸。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp;
卷三十二《題秦會之跋後山居士集》：“會之跋云：‘曾南豐辟陳無己、邢和叔爲《英宗皇帝實録》檢討。初呈稿，無己便蒙許可；至邢，乃遭横筆微聲，稱亂道。’余按曾子固著《亡兄行述》，爲《實録》檢討官不逾月而罷，通判越州，而《類稿》中有《鑑湖序》，則熙寧二年也。謝克家《敘後山居士集》：元祐東坡薦無己，繇布衣特起為徐州教授。熙寧至元祐二十餘年，無己入仕，南豐墓木拱矣。《實録》有修撰檢討官，《國史》有編修官，首相監總，朝廷除授，非辟闕也。試官考卷與鄉先生課試諸生之文則有橫筆，邢和叔造宣仁太后之謗，排王珪，附蔡確，今人聞其名，往往縮頭，南豐敢加橫筆於其文乎？會之又云病起聞鷄唱，寢不寐，書付塤堪。余曰：幸付塤堪，若以示識者，則橫筆作微聲，如公所云矣。”按會之此文為示孫之作，論後山詩文甚推重。全文見王德正《餘師錄》卷四[5]，仲益所引，其首節耳。王明清《揮麈三錄》卷一駁會之《示孫文》與仲益略同，皆未得。南豐實有辟無己事[6]，廟堂以其為布衣難之，會之但誤以《五朝史》為《英宗實錄》耳。《老學庵筆記》卷七、《劉後村大全集》卷一百七十五《詩話續集》皆有□正仲益此文語。朱子作《南豐年譜後序》則隱取仲益之說，所謂“斯人為世所重，自以知公”即指會之。《隱居通議》卷十四錄朱子此《序》謂：“‘斯人’不知為誰，想在當時有權位，不敢顯斥。”蓋數十年間，已覺代遠言龐矣。（如卷六載張芸叟詩評而論之曰[7]：“不聞盛名，亦不見有何偉作。今閱此評，似非碌碌者也。”則并《皇朝文鑑》亦未寓目。卷十一《謝法曹詩句》：“‘多情未老已白髮，野思到春如亂雲’見歐詩注，惜不知其何名。”則并《六一詩話》亦未寓目。《宋詩紀事補遺》卷九十遂據此增一“謝法曹”，不知即《紀事》卷十一之謝伯初矣。） & nbsp; & nbsp; , 二百二十七 E.E. Kellett, Fashion in Literature. 思精語隽，談藝之 taste 乃取譬於飲食。Voltaire、Sainte-Beuve 等皆言之（見第八十一則），而判析微茫，莫過此書（pp. 3-13, 95-6, 340）。按天竺談藝，有 rasa 之說（S.K. De, Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics, II, p. 70: “An idea similar to what we mean when we speak of tasting food”; A.K. Coomaraswamy, The Transformation of Nature in Art, 2nd ed., p. 47: “Aesthetic experience is described as the tasting of flavor (rasasvādana) or simply as tasting (svāda,āsvāda)”）。西方自 Baltasar Gracian 以來，“gusto” 一字遂為談藝者常言（Croce, Aethetic, Eng. tr. by D. Ainslie, pp. 191-2, 466, 469; Gilbert & Kuhn, History of Esthetics, p. 228 [8]; Milton A. Buchanan inHispainc Review, IV, 1936, pp. 286-7）。英國則 Milton 詩中始以 “taste” 作文心詩眼（Logan Pearsall Smith, Milton & His Modern Critics, p. 69），至 Shaftsbury 而後濫用（Elizabeth Wheeler Manwaring,Italian Landscape in 18th Century England, pp. 27-8; Shaftsbury: “Advice to an Author,” sect. III: “a right & wrong taste” etc. (Characteristics, ed. J.M. Robertson, I, pp. 216 ff.); “Miscellany III,” ch. 1 & 2: “[Heat & heart] aspire to a just taste” etc. (II, pp. 255 ff.)）。吾國却無此說。司空表聖《與李生論詩書》首言：“愚以為辨於味而後可以言詩也。江嶺之南，凡足資於適口者，若醯非不酸也，止於酸而已。若鹺非不鹹也，止於鹹而已。中華之人所以充饑而遽輟者，知其酸鹹之外，醇美者有所乏耳。”篇末又言：“倘復以全美為上，即知味外之旨”云云。【鍾嶸《詩品》雖以“味”論詩，如於永嘉詩曰：“淡乎寡味”，於五言詩曰：“眾作之有滋味者”，不似司空說精妙。唯論賦比興曰：“使味之者無極……是詩之至也。”差近司空。】“味外之旨”即同篇所謂“近而不浮，遠而不盡，可以言韻外之致”，指詩文之風格，非言鑑賞，識力略等於 “je ne sais quoi” 而已（“je ne sais quoi” 淵源，參觀 Shaftsbury, Characteristics, ed. J.M. Robertson, I, p. 214; Voltaire, Dict. philos., art. “Grace,”Oeuv. Compl., XIX, p. 301; Francesco de Sanctis, Hist. of Ital. Lit., Eng. tr. by Joan Redfern, p. 653; J.A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy, VII, pp. 23-4; Croce, Aesthetic, Eng. tr. by Douglas Ainslie, pp. 200, 207-8; Spingarn, Lit. Criticism in the Renaissance, p. 328; Modern Language Notes, May 1958, pp. 351-5。他如 Thomas Shadwell, The Virtuoso, Complete Works, ed. by Montagne Summers, III, p. 136; William Whitehead’s song “Je ne scais quoi”; Goldsmith, Citizen of the World, XIV: “somethingness”; Poems of Wm Blake, ed. Sampson, “Oxford Standard Authors”, p. 201: “Jenny sink awa’” 皆可補。蓋 Cicero, De Oratore, III, c. 50: “tacitus quidam sensus sine ulla ratione et arte”; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Lysia, c. 11& De Thucydide, c. 27: álogos aísthesis [9] (cf. S.F. Bonner, The Literary Treatises of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, pp. 47, 104; Newman, A Grammar of Assent, Burns, Oates, & Co., 1870, p. 354: “The illative sense is parallel to phronesis in conduct, & to taste in the Fine Arts,” cf. pp. 33, 350; Kellett,Fashion in Literature, pp. 21-2: “Like religion, taste has primarily nothing to do with the intellect, though the intellect comes in to aid both.”【Alexander Brome: “Love’s Without Reason”: “Something there is moves me to love, & I / Do know I love, but know not how nor why.” (Oxf. Bk. of 17th-Cent. Verse, 727) A. Moravia, Racconti romani: “Scorfani” (Opere complete, Bompiani, VII, 83): “E poi... hai un non so che, che mi piace tanto.... In quella frase, lo sentivo, stava la spiegazione del mistero. Per quell ‘non so che’ come sapevo, piacevano alle donne i gobbi, i nani, i vecchi, perfino i mostri.” Pascal, Pensées, sect. II, §162: “La cause en [de l’amour] est un je ne sais quoi (Corneille) [Médée, II, 5; Rodogune, I. 5] et les effets en sont effroyables.” (Oeuvres, “Grands écrivains de la France,” XIII, p. 82) cf. Hegel: “die kraftlose Sch?nheit hasst den Verstand” (W. Kaufmann [10], Hegel: Reinterpretation, p. 406)】“能”既如此，“所”亦宜然，所謂 “similis similibus percipiuntur” 也，參觀第五十三則），“所”而非“能”，《與王駕評詩書》“右丞、蘇州，趣味澄夐”云云，亦復如是。唯《題柳柳州集後》云：“得柳詩，味其深搜之致，亦深遠矣”云云，“味”字指“能”言，然仍限於體會其所為深遠而已。鍾記室《詩品》早云：“理過其辭，淡乎寡味。”又云：“五言居文詞之要，是眾作之有滋味者也。”李後主《相見歡》詞云：“是離愁，別是一般滋味在心頭。”陸放翁《晚興》詩云：“睡餘書味在胸中。”《風雨夜坐》詩云：“掩書餘味在胸中。”（皆本之《豫章黃先生文集》卷十九《與王子予書》：“古人有言：‘并敵一向，千里殺將。’要須心地收汗馬之功，讀書乃有味。棄書策而游息，書味猶在胸中。”）《明文授讀》卷三十三趙汸《潛溪後集序》［見《東山先生存稿》卷三（《新安文獻志》甲集卷二十附載趙致潛溪一書，則不見《集》中）］云：“袁公伯長嘗問於先師虞公伯生曰：‘為文當何如？’虞公曰：‘子浙人也。子欲知為文，當問諸浙中庖者。予川人也，何足以知之？’”此類甚多，或則“所”而非“能”，或則“明”而未“融”，與 “Rasa”, “taste” 尚去一間。 P. 23: “The Senior Wrangler who said that poetry proved nothing had his reward... John Smith: ‘...God is best discerned, as Plotinus phraseth it, by an intellectual touch. The soul itself hath its sense as well as the body; & therefore David saith, oh, Taste & see how good the Lord is.’” 按前語早見 Diderot,Satire I sur les Mots de Caractères de Profession, etc.: “Un géomètre, fatigué des éloges dont la capitale retentissait lorsque Racine donna son Iphigénie, voulut lire cette tragedie si vantée. Il prend la pièce; il se retire dans un coin; il lit une scène, deux scènes; à la troisième, il jette le livre en disant: ‘Qu’est-ce que cela prouve?’” (Oeuv. Comp., éd. Assézat, VI, pp. 307-8)；後語參觀 Sāhitya-Darpana, III. 2-3: “Flavor (rasah) is tasted (āsvādyate) by men having an innate knowledge of absolute values, in exaltation of pure consciousness....in the mode at once od ecstasy & intellect... twin brothers to the tasting of Brahma (brahmasvāda-sah?darah), whereof the life is a super-worldly lightning flash.”（見 A.K. Coomaraswamy,The Transformation of Nature in Art, p. 195 引）。
P. 35: “The hearers of early poetry knew that they ‘preferred’ one bard to another: the magic of the one was the more powerful, his incantation more compelling” etc. 按此意 F.C.S. Schiller, Our Human Truths, p. 129 道之最妙（“In almost every country the earliest literature is magical, & those who could read & write were magicians ex officio. Spells were a part of spelling, & glamour was the efficacious part of grammar.”）。 P. 35: `The hearers of early petry news that they `preferred'one bard to noor: the magic of the & & nebsp; Pp. 52-3: “To the beginner in Latin, Virgil’s style is non-existent” etc. 按所謂“不厭百回讀”也。Sainte-Beuve 引 Alexis Piron 語云：“‘La lecture a ses brouillons comme les ouvrages,’ c’est-à-dire que, ‘pour bien comprendre un livre et s’en former une idée nette, lire ne suffit pas, il fautrelire.’” [11] (Nouv. Lund., VII, p. 465) 《西游補》亦有“帶草看法，一覽而盡”之語，可參觀。然熟則有味，佳作固然，Levin L. Schücking, The Sociology of Literary Taste, tr. by E.W. Dickes, p. 61 論“The aesthetic sense is remarkably open to influence”，舉 Max Liebermann: “Take the picture away, or I shall begin to like it”; Fr. Gundolf: “For a youth growing up with this translation [his own unreadable version of Shakespeare], such difficulties of reading or speaking will no longer exist.”；習則相安，劣作亦賴以僥倖。世事難言如此。 , , `Times new roman', & nbsp; & nbsp; Pp. 56 ff.: “No writer lives for himself alone etc.... To talk of a Buch an sich is to talk of an impossibility etc.” 按是也，即 Albert Guérard, Literature & Society, pp. 222 ff. 所謂 “Tacit interlocutor”。 P. 63: “I asked him how he reconciled Addison’s portentous wit with his light essays, or what likeness there was between the style of Cowper’s John Gilpin & the nightcap so dear to all familiar with Cowper’s works. Again, if short skirts go with short sentences, what about the present time, when short skirts are worn by day & long in the evening? Is a novel written in the morning more snappy than one by the same lady at night?” 按參觀 Sainte-Beuve: “On a voulu plaisanter sur la toilette que Buffon faisait avant de se mettre à écrire; il croyait que le vêtement de l’homme fait partie de sa personne.” (Les Grands écrivains fran?ais, études classées et annotées par Maurice Allem, VII, p. 78)。 & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbs; p. 63: Pp. 73 ff.: “Greatness, littleness, mediocrity are but names for the impression a writer makes upon his readers & will vary with those readers etc.” 按 Ch. Lalo, Introduction à l’Esthétique, p. 337: “La valeur esthétique d’une oeuvre n’est pas; elle devient, elle se fait, elle vit ou meurt perpétuellement.” (cf. Lalo: “Les Principaux Types du Dénivellement des Valeurs Esthétiques”, Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Philosophy, pp. 364 ff.); Albert Guérard, Literature & Society, pp. 106 ff.: “Tradition does not merely preserve masterpieces; it enriches them. Great works grow after their suthor’s death” etc. 惜 Kellett僅言一人之 “growth of taste” (pp. 52-3, 57-9)，未及此意。 P. 81: “‘There is one person,’ said Talleyrand, ‘wiser than Napoleon; c’est tout le monde’” etc. 按此理 J.S. Mill 論 “Bentham” 一文中說之最精，有云：“The collective mind does not penetrate below the surface, but it sees all the surface; which profound thinkers, even by reason of their profundity, often fail to do.” (Dissertations & Discussions, I, p. 352)
P. 139: “The quietness & restraint of Homer & Hesiod may, for all we can tell, be due to a reaction against the noise & violence of still earlier poets whose works have perished.” 按參觀 Henri Peyre, Le Classicisme francais, pp. 45 ff.: “Mais le classicisme suit le désordre plus encore qu’il ne la précède... La ‘grande époque’ est venue après une longue suite de guerres extérieures” etc.; p. 224: “Encore faut-il qu’il existe au préalable quelque fougue à refréner, quelque passion à modérer. Sinon cette discipline s’exerce à vide.”
Pp. 140-1 論 Exaggeration，謂 Homer 言二力士不能舉，Virgil 增飾之為十二力士不能舉；Homer 言十口十舌不能道，Virgil 則曰百口百舌不能道，Pope 至謂千口千舌不能道。按Ennius, Annals, fr. 547-8 (E.H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, I, p. 206) 亦云十口不能道，Il Pentamerone, IV. 9 (tr. B. Croce, p. 427) 則云百口千舌。Boiardo, Orlando Innamorato, Lib. I, canto XIX, st. 61[the lovemaking of Brandimarte & Fiordelisa]: “Come ciascun sospira e ciascun geme / De alta dolcezza, non sapprebbi io dire; / Lor lo dican per me, poi che a lor tocca / Che ciascaduno avea due lingue in bocca.” (Garzanti, I, 370) A.A. Milne, Autobiography, p. 24: “In the first flush of inspiration, I wrote ‘The day-boys have thousands of chaps...’ I acknowledged sadly to myself that ‘thousands’ is an exaggeration... Hundreds? There were only 35 day-boys... In my last clean copy, the day-boys had ‘about 50 chaps’, & in all that I have written since I have held to my creed that Art is exaggeration — but in fifties not in thousands.” 石動筩之“青谿二千仞，中有兩道士“（《太平廣記》二百四十七引《啟顏錄》）；徐五之“金以兩千酬漂母，鞭須六百報平王”（張遠作《徐五傳》載此聯，《兩般秋雨盦隨筆》卷三“某作詩力求新異”云云，“以”字作“欲”，“報”字作“撻”）。 , P. 191: “Equivoques may in certain cases have been the skillful invention of some member of an oppressed nation who hit on this method of venting his feelings or conveying messages without betraying himself to his masters... It may have been from such origin that the more literary allegory sprout.” 按Gabriele Rossetti, La Beatrice di Dante 即以此意立說（見 W. Binni, ed., I Classici Italiani: nella storia della critica, I, p. 65），所謂“言者無罪，聞者足戒。”Phaedrus: “Nunc, fabularum cur sit inventum genus, / Brevi docebo. Servitus obnoxia, / Quia quae volebat non audebat dicere, / Affectus probrios in fabellas transtulit” 正其意。Vico 引之以論 Aesop 寓言，舉獅驢分食為例（The New Science, tr. by T.G. Bergin & M.H. Fisch, p. 123, §425）。不特此也，Albert Guérard, Literature & Society, pp. 81-2: “The most favorable conditions are found in the Oppressive State that fails to oppress... Oppression compels us to use finer tactics & keener weapons, ropier of allusive irony... This sharpens the wit of author & ...” [12] Bosanquet 論此更妙：“Beauty, in short, thus ceases to be a datum, & becomes a problem; & in pursuing a fanciful interpretation, the mind will often extract the expressive essence of sensuous forms, with incomparable subtlety.” (History of Aesthetic, 2nd ed., p. 159)，參觀 Owen Barfield 論“Tarning” [13] (Essays Presented to Charles Williams, pp. 108 ff.) 又第三百四十九則。 , , P. 192: “De Foe, in his Short Way with the Dissenters, posed as the most violent of High Churchmen” etc. 按 John F. Ross, Swift & Defoe, pp. 82-4: “All that can be granted him is that he intended to write irony, but did not succeed... Irony is not achieved unless it is achieved in the mind of the reader, who must be aware of a tenor as well as a vehicle. The Shortest Way was all vehicle & no tenor... Thus the reader’s natural assumption that the pamphlet was literally meant... After the fact, Defoe sought often to rectify his failure by letting the world into his secret — by labelling the Shortest Way ‘banter’ & ‘irony.’” (pp. 82-4) 蓋與 Orbaneja 自題其畫曰 “This is a cock”（見 Don Quixote, Pt. II, ch. 3 又 ch. 71, tr. S. Putnam, pp. 530, 932）何異？參觀 F.A. Pottle, ed. Boewell on the Grand Tour: Germany & Switzerland, “Trade Edition,” p. 24: “And as in the infancy of painting, people generally wrote, ‘This is a cow,’ ‘This is a horse,’ so from Sir Joe’s [Sir Joseph Yorke’s] mouth cometh a label with these words, ‘I am an Ambassador.’” > ; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nebsp; & snbsp; P. 249: “Mere poetry is hardly ever poetry at all. A poem... must teach, though it must not be didactic. It must have content” etc. 按 Goethe, Dichtung und Wahrheit, IIIter Teil, Ites Buch: “Ich ehre den Rhythmus wie in Prosa übersetzt wird: dann bleibt der reine vollkommene Gehalt, den uns ein blendendes den Reim, wodurch Poesie erst zur Poesie wird, aber das eigentlich tief und gründlich Wirksame, das wahrhaft Ausbildende und F?rdernde ist dasjenige, was vom Dichter übrig bleibt, wenn er in Prosa übersetzt wird: dann bleibt der reine vollkommene Gehalt, den uns ein blendendes ?ussere oft, wenn er fehlt, vorzuspiegeln weiss, und, wenn er gegenw?rtig ist, verdeckt.”（參觀第四百八十九則引 Hegel 論譯詩）即此意，而持之太過。惟 Walter Pater, Appreciations: “Style” 末節云：“The distinction between great art & good art depending immediately, as regards literature at all events, not on its form, but on its matter... Given the conditions I have tried to explain as constituting good art; — then, if it be devoted further to the increase of men’s happiness, to the redemption of the oppressed, etc.... it will be also great art.” 最為平情之論（參觀 Samuel Alexander, Beauty & Other Forms of Value, ch. VIII, “Beauty & Greatness”; L.A. Reid, A Study in Aesthetics, ch. IX, “Subject-matter, Greatness, & the Problem of Standards” 皆未引 Pater）。
Pp. 342-3 論 “Catholicity of tatste” 有云 “‘True love,’ whether for mankind or for letters, ‘in this differs from gold & clay, that to divide is not to take away.’... His mind is capacious enough for both the old & the new” etc. 按 G. Saintsbury, Collected Essays & Papers, II, pp. 50-1: “‘one to one’ is not ‘cursedly confined’ in the relation of book & reader; & a man need not be a Don Juan of letters to have a list of almost mille e tre loves in that department;” p. 226: “Three kinds of literary lovers... Those who only love one or a very few things & cleave to it or them... Inconstants who love & who ride away... those who are polygamous but faithful... who constantly add to their loves, but never drop, forget, or slight the old. ”（參觀 Journal des Goncourt, 27 octobre, 1882: “D?ner entre peintres et littérateurs. Le peintre: ‘6039, c’est bien cela... oui, j’ai couché avec 6039 femmes. Vous, à combien en êtes-vous?’ Le littérateur: ‘Moi, je ne crois pas avoir dépassé le nombre de Salomon... les 700. Mais vous savez, le nombre de Don Juan estMille e tre.’ Le peintre: ‘C’est peut-être pour l’Espagne seulement... quant à moi, je suis s?r de mon chiffre.’” 其言是也，Don Juan 所淫，尚有意大利婦人七百名、德國婦人八百名、土耳其及法國婦人合九十一名。【Mozart, Don Giovanni, I, ii, Dover, p. 100: “In Italia seicento e quaranta; / in Alemagna duecento e trentuna; / cento in Francia, in Turchia novantuna; / ma in Ispagna, ma in Ispagna son già mille e tre!” (Leporello: “il catalogo delle belle che amò il padron mio, un catalogo egli è che ho fatti io.”) [14]】）; Walter Sickert, A Free House!, ed. by Osbert Sitwell, p. 5: “You are not to consider that every new & personal beauty in art abrogates past achievement as an Act of Parliament does preceding ones. You are to consider these beauties, these innovations, as additions to an existing family. How barbarous you would seem if you were unable to bestow admiration & affection on a fascinating child in the nursery without at once finding yourselves compelled to rush downstairs & cut its mother’s throat & stifle its grandmother” 之喻尤妙，即C. Delisle Burns, The Horizon of Experience, p. 163: “The new horizon in science lies beyondthe old, whereas in the arts it is beside the old.”; W.P. Ker, On Modern Literature, p. 187: “Progress in politics is a progress that deletes the old for the sake of the new; whereas in the progress of poetry the old order does not change to give place to the new. The old order, if it ever was of any good at all, need be none the worse on account of that which follows it.” 馮夢龍《山歌》卷四《多》云：“天上星多月弗明，池裏魚多水弗清。朝裏官多亂子法，阿姐郎多亂子心。”則 Kellett, pp. 68-9 論 Magliabecchi, Joshua Barnes, Macaulay 等博覽而無衡鑑之類。馮氏按語云：“余嘗問名妓侯慧卿云：‘卿輩閱人多矣，方寸得無亂乎？’曰：‘不也。我曹胸中，自有考案一張，如捐額外者不論，稍堪屈指，第一、第二以至累十，井井有序。倘獲奇材，不妨黜陟。即終身結果，視此為圖，不得其上，轉思其次。何亂之有？’余嘆美久之。雖然，慧卿自是作家語，若他人未必心不亂也。世間尚有一味淫貪，不知心為何物者。則有心可亂，猶是中庸阿姐。”則 Kellett, p. 343: “It is a great mistake to imagine that width of mind involves indifference” etc. 註腳。又按錢希言《獪園》卷四“垢仙”條亦載吳歌曰：“朝裏官多壞子法，姐為多郎亂子心。”【Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, III, “Vom Geiste der Schwere”: “Allgenügsamkeit, die Alles zu schmecken weiss: das ist nicht der beste Geschmack! Ich ehre die widersp?nstigen w?hlerischen Zungen und M?gen... Alles aber kauen und verdauen — das ist eine rechte Schweine-Art!” (Alfred Kr?ner Verlag, S. 284)】 , ; Pp. 349 ff.: “Do we not feel that the magnitude of Tennyson’s production is a main element in our conception of him?” etc. 按 G.F. Lahey, G.M. Hopkins, p. 63 引 Hopkins 云：“Where there is high excellence in the work, labour in the execution, there volume, amount, quantity tells & helps to perpetuate all. If you wrote a considerable poem more it would not only add to your works & fame its own weight or its own buoyancy but it would bulk out & buoy up all the rest. Are Virgil’s Georgia & Bucolics read more or less for his having written the Aeneid? Much more”; Jules Renard, Journal (Edition NRF), p. 7: “Le talent est une question de quantité. Le talent, ce n’est pas d’écrire une page: c’est d’en écrire 300.”《說郛》卷二十鄭文寶《南唐近事》云：“元宗命從官賦詩，朱鞏唯進一聯，曰：‘好物不在多。’左右皆掩口而笑。自是金陵士庶遺餉不豐者，皆以爲口實。”焦弱侯編《楊升菴外集》卷七十七云：“夏侯審為大歷十才子之一，而詩集不傳，僅存《詠被中繡鞋》及《織錦圖歌》[15] 。劉潤之在蜀刻十子詩無審，余以二詩訊之，潤之笑曰：‘兩枚棗子如何泡茶？’余笑：‘子誠晉人也。’”皆可印證。Stephen C. Pepper [16], The Basis of Criticism in the Arts, p. 80: “It does take a good deal of physical size to incorporate a very large amount of aesthetic material: The greatest fiction is among novels rather than short-stories; the greatest pictures are among oils, frescoes rather than miniatures. Bigness is aesthetically important.” 然戎昱《詠蜀葵》曰：“動人嫌處只緣多。”多文為富者，正恐如行李繁重，不易傳遠耳。 , & nbsp > Pp. 352-3 論選本之不足見作者面目： “The life of a man cannot be appreciated by a few hours of heroism or of pusillanimity, & the author, as author, cannot be appreciated by a few lines, bad or good... As a rule [an anthology] tries to catch him in his Sunday suit, & looking his best. The sole sue of an anthology is to allure to further study.” 按 Harriet Monroe, A Poet's Life: "Ezra Pound called Blunt, Rhys & others 'food for anthologies,' poets who shows to their best advantage by a poem or so."《結鄰集》卷八李敬《答王貽上》云：“東鄰之女美而眚一目，西鄰之子倚戶窺之，見其美不見其眚。從媒氏求焉，則宛然眚者也。西鄰之子不咎其不明，而且重尤媒氏之罔己也。足下向見僕章句，亦從戶隙見之耳，若再索全集，則眚者見矣。”按《汪鈍翁類稿》自題即引此語。Hazlitt, English Literature, ch. 9: "The only specimen of Burke is, all that he wrote."《雪橋詩話》卷七引包慎伯題王西御《秋蓮子詞》云：“詩文有由選本得者，有由全集得者。選本得者，塗逕窄而詞句淨；全集得者，詞句雜而塗逕寬”云云，頗足發明。
二百二十八 H. Parigot, Théatre Choisi des Auteurs Comiques du XVIIe et XVIIIe Siècle. 太半舊經眼者，偶記數事： andnbsp; Théatre Choi des Autoeurs Comiques du XVIIe >nbsp; et XVIIIe > Siècle. & nbsp; Collin d’Harleville, Les Chateaux en Espagne, III, vii，參看七五九則《列子?周穆王》。 , for seventy-five-nine times King Chow. Pierre Corneille, La Place Royale 第二幕第二場，Alidor 致書Clarine 言Angélique 貌不美[17]，書為 Angélique 所得，怒而撕之，Alidor 與鏡曰：“Cassez; ceci vous dit encor pis que ma lettre.” 答云：“S’il me dit mes défauts autant ou plus que toi, / Déloyal, pour le moins il n’en dit rien qu’à moi: // Il m’en donne un avis sans me les reprocher, / Et me les découvrant, il m’aide à les cacher.” 按此本 Il Decamerone, VI, 8 Fresco 對 Ciesca 語：“Figliuola, se così ti dispiaccion gli spiacevoli, come tu di’, se tu vuoi viver lieta, non ti specchiare giammai.” (Ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p. 395) 習鑿齒《漢晉春秋》云：“鏡至明而醜者無怒。”（《三國志?蜀書?李嚴傳》裴注引）諒不然矣。Allan Wade, The Letters of W.B. Yeats, p. 334, To Clement Shorter: “Moore’s play is falsely supposed to be a satire on everybody & everything. Some body is certain to find his face in the mirror & to try if he can break the glass.” 而鄭谷《閒題》：“舉世何人肯自知，須逢精鑒定妍媸。若教嫫母臨明鏡，也道不勞紅粉施。” , Rotron, La Soeur 第二幕第二場，Ergaste 云：“La fille ayant atteint l’age de la raison / Est un meuble importun dedans une maison.” 按即元曲所謂“女大不中留”（《牆頭馬上》第折、《瀟湘雨》第一折、《李逵負荊》第一折、《竇娥寃》第一折、王實甫《西廂》第四本第二折、《碧桃花》楔子）。鮑溶《東鄰女》云：“身為父母幾時客，一生知向何人家。”亦申此意。《詩?蝃蝀》：“女子有行，遠父母兄弟。”胡承珙《毛詩後箋》卷四引《田間詩學》曰：“‘女子有行’二句似是當時陳語，故多引用之，猶言女生外向，本非父母兄弟之所能留。” Boursault, Le Mercure Galant 第四幕第四場，姊妹二人皆自負能守默緘口，爭競不已，Oronte云：“Je me fais un bonheur du defir de vous plaire; / Mais comment en parlant montrer qu’on sait se taire?” 按可為白香山《讀老子詩》所謂“言者不知知者默，此語吾聞於老君。若道老君是知者，緣何自著五千文”註腳。《廣弘明集》卷五載孫盛《老子疑問反訊》，皆抵隙索瘢，舉《道德經》之自相矛盾處，惜其未及此也。 John Morley 論 Carlyle 云：“The golden Gospel of Silence is effectively compressed in thirty fine volumes.” (Critical Miscellanies, I, p. 135) 可參觀。 ; Nivelle de la Chaussée, Le Préjugé à la Mode 寫 Dorval 以篤於伉儷為恥，人亦嘲之，如第二幕第三場，Damon: “Est-il disgracié?” Clitandre: “Bien pis.” Argant: “Mort?” Clitandre: “Autant vaut, / Il est amoureux fou.”... Constance: “Mais ne seroit-cè point son épouse qu'il aime?” Argant: “Sa femme!” Clitandre: “Et vraiment oui, c’est sa femme elle-même!” 按 Augier, Le Gendre de M. Poirier 第三幕第四場，Gaston 云：“J’allais tout simplement me couvrir de ridicule; j’étais en chemin de devenir amoureux de ma femme”; J.-G. de Campistron, Le Jaloux Désabusé, Dorante: “Quel est l’homme, disoit-je, en faisant l’agréable, [18] / qui garde pour sa femme un amour véritable? / C’est aux petites gens à nourrir de tels feux.” Dubois: “Et pourquoi teniez-vous cet imprudent langage?” Dorante: “Morbleu! pour imiter les gens du haut étage.”（J.G. Robertson, Lessing’s Dramatic Theory, p. 199 引）。他如 Alainville, L’Ecole des Bourgeois; Arthur Murphy, The Way to Keep Him 諸劇，命意胥同 Parigot 所言，A. Dumas père, Un Mariage sous Louis XV 則余未見。【Cf. “omnis ardentior amator propriae uxoris adulter est” (quoted in L. Durrell, Justine, p. 103)】【Cf. La Bruyère, Les Caractères, XIV, §35, Hachette, p. 432.】【Lesage,Turcaret, II. I, Frontin: “Un mari et une femme qui s’aiment, des gens extraordinaires.” Swift, A Letter to a Young Lady on her Marriage: “I must likewise warn you strictly against the least degree of fondness to your Husband before any Witnesses whatsoever... This proceeding is so exceeding odious & disgustful to all who have either good breeding or good sense.” (Satires & Personal Writings, ed. W.A. Eddy, p. 62) Lady Morgan, La France, ed. 1818, p. 253: “Et si elles ont un amant, elles ont autant de soin de ne pas donner à l’heureux mortel des marques de prédilection en public, qu’un Anglais du bon ton, de ne pas para?tre amoureux de sa femme en compagnie.” (Leopardi, Zibaldone, ed. F. Flora, I, 235 引) The Journal Of Thomas Moore, ed. Peter Quennell, p. 46: “Lady E. Fielding said to me... ‘Every one speaks of your conjugal attention, & I assure you, all Paris is disgusted with it.’” Tom Jones, VII, ch. 3: Mrs Western: “You will allow me, I think, to have seen the world, in which I have not an acquaintance who would not rather be thought to dislike her husband than to like him. The contrary is such out-of-fashion romantic nonsense.” 又 Byron, Don Juan, III. 6（第七六五則）。】【Montesquieu, Lettres Persanes, Lettre LV: “Ici un mari qui aime sa femme est un homme qui n’a pas assez demérite pour se faire aimer d’une autre; qui abuse de la nécessité de la loi pour suppléer aux agrémens qui lui manquent” etc. (“Classiques Garnier”, p. 122)】【Dumas fil, Le Père Prodigue, II. i: “De Prailles... mais j'ai le ridicule — dans ce temps-ci c’en est un, je crois, — d’aimer ma femme.”】 > ; Gresset, Le Méchant 第四幕第七場，Ariste: “On est en garde, on doute enfin si l’on rira: / L’esprit qu’on veut avoir gate celui qu’on a.” 按參觀 Marivaux: “Courir après l’esprit, et n’être point naturel, voilà les reproches à la mode.” (Le Spectateur fran?ais, 7e feuille); Montesquieu, Cahiers 1716-1755 (éd. Bernard Grasset): “Quand on court après l’esprit, on attrape la sottise.” , ; 二百二十九 文同《丹淵集》四十卷、《拾遺》二卷、《附錄》一卷。焦弱侯編《升菴外集》卷七十八稱“與可五律有蘇州、襄陽之風，曰宋無詩，豈然！”後見《宋詩鈔》中，與可詩佳篇殊寡。今覩全集，乃知升菴鄉曲之私，非定論也。格調生勁，詞句直白。近體每不諧律、不作對，以見抝折。古體每以文為詩、以短為悍，時時失之粗獷俚鄙，與韋、孟之清婉大異。五古、七律拙率處，則類《宛陵集》中語，然遒峭爽辣，異於宛陵之禿筆歛鋒、卷舌屏氣也。文欲鑄偉詞，矜仄密栗，頗不同宋文之舒轉，亦苦乏真詣。【《馮安岳集》卷十二有《送文與可》、《重陽寄文與可》、《過永泰文與可宅因寄》諸作，而卷七《求劉忱明復龍圖為畫山水》云：“復古雖清尚許格，與可亦壯非燕徒。”自注：“復古有許道寧格，疑其學許也；文與可學燕穆之，然未至也。”《容齋四筆》稱其《秦王卷衣篇》及《王昭君三絕句》。王質《雪山集》卷五《跋文與可畫竹》云：“與可得意無過竹者。木石蓋晚爲之，亦寡作，不自以爲奇。此帖去死無幾日，猶眷戀竹。帖云：‘伏暑不能退，今僅能飲食，惟皮骨耳。所嗜好都自撒去，惟畫竹、吟詩有子駿、子瞻為真賞，故斷之遲遲。’”】 > ; < /span < < fnpan style = Font-FMILY : 12 pt > > > ; & fn & stweak > > ; and tweak, swung, sprung & sprung, swwwww t t t. 卷三《讀武紀》：“嗟哉徹之有天下，甘心神仙希羽化。五十餘丈起樓觀，萬八千里走車駕。安期羨門竟何在？五利文成終死詐。若非留意尚文學。嬴政且賢非爾亞。”
卷三《早晴至報恩山寺》：“山石巉巉磴道微，拂松穿竹露沾衣。烟開遠水雙鷗落，日照高林一雉飛。大麥未收治圃晚，小蠶猶臥斫桑稀。暮烟已合牛羊下，信馬林間步月歸。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp;
《織婦怨》：“昨朝持入庫，何事監官怒？大字雕印文，濃和油墨污。父母抱歸舍，拋向中門下”；“里胥踞門限，叫駡嗔納晚。安得織婦心，變作監官眼。”按《秋崖小稿》卷二十六《山莊書事》亦云：“載絹入官輸，官怒邊幅窄。拋擲下堂階，退字印文赤。”郭功甫《青山集》卷十六《墨染絲》亦云：“繰絲自喜如霜白，輸入官家吏嫌黑。手持退印競傳呼，倏見長條染深墨。墨絲歸織家人衣，別買輸官吏嗔遲。寄言夷狄與三軍，汝得豐衣民苦辛。” & nbsp; 卷四《重過舊學山寺》：“當年讀書處，古寺擁群峰。不改歲寒色，可憐門外松。有僧皆老大，待客轉從容。又下白雲去，樓頭敲暮鐘。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp;
《大熱》：“大熱早復暮，幽居如火圍。更無風稍快，只有汗頻揮。袒露憂生客，沾濡怕熟衣。何當生兩翼，直近廣寒飛。”
《寄楊歸一》：“烟霄惟子未，鬢髮已翁為。”按“為”字韻雖本少陵之“顏狀老翁為”，終覺生硬。亦如卷七《宿李同年蔭碧亭》：“主人止之宿，借與終南山。”“借”字雖本東野之“借月南樓中”，亦嫌蠻狠。至同卷《豳州》：“昔年戎馬盡南豳，今日風光已太文”；卷十五《將赴洋州書東谷舊隱》：“壁間細書字，多是親寫錄。當時苦謀身，如此用意毒”；“文”字、“毒”字更杜撰趁韻矣。 Smoking in the North. 卷五《徐太元》：“彼徐太元者，杭州之參軍。同僚曰張惠，犯贜抵深文”云云。按此詩純以古文為之，尚朴茂，惟中間如“此等雖曰人，犬彘曾豈然”；“我今作此詩，中有二義存”等句太直率，佳處劣處胥近宛陵。卷十八《西岡僦居》之“盡室徒跣行，一起復一顛”；《閿鄉值風》之“守吏索姓名，沸亂如蟲蛆”；《積雨》之“往往被濺污，直落舌與睛”，亦宛陵體。
《晚至村家》：“高原磽確石徑微，籬巷明滅餘殘暉。舊裾飄風採桑去，白袷卷水秧稻歸。深葭繞澗牛散臥，積麥滿場鷄亂飛。前溪後谷暝烟起，稚子各出關柴扉。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp;
《江上主人》：“客路逢江國，人家占畫圖。青林隨遠岸，白水滿平湖。魚小猶論尺，鷗輕欲問銖。何時遂休去，來此伴潛夫。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp;
卷八《閒居院上方晚景》：“繞巖縈谷到禪扃，更上危顛最上亭。風攬亂鴉盤古木，雨催群鷺下寒汀。秋田溝壠如棋局，晚岫峯巒若畫屏。詩已就成終夕去，遠村燈火一星星。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp;
《書鶴鳴化壁》：“晚氣陰陰別作寒，夕陽林下動歸鞍。忽然人報後山雪，更上上清宮上看。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp; : "Nightfalls are cold and sunsets are cold and sunsets are warmer. 《夜學》（絕句）：“文字一床燈一盞，只應前世是深讐。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp; 卷九《和子平弔猿》：“尋常忽然遇小疾，不過蜘蛛噉三四。咽喉才下即無恙，何此不效況頻餌。”按殊廣異聞。《拾遺》有慶元元年家誠之《跋》云：“詩與東坡往還者，輒易其姓字。如《杭州鳳咮堂》，坡所作也，則易以‘胡侯’。詩中凡及‘子瞻’者，率以‘子平’易之”云云，此首是一例也。《永樂大典》卷二萬二千五百三十六“集”字引項安世《讀文與可集效其體送新邛州范宗丞》云：“每到和蘇作，姓詭字亦諼。多稱蘇子平，或號胡使君。家侯為之譜，其事蓋有云。是時黨禍起，無敢交蘇門。子孫抱遺槁，塗改仍竄焚。至今集中字，舛駁難具論。” vol. IX & Pingpepepepepe: & Nbsp; & & nbsp > & nbsp; >, vols. >Stubbed down in Hangzhou Hall, `Hu-Hu-Su-Su-Su-Su-Su-Sun. 卷九《步月》：“百蟲催夜去，一雁領寒起。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp; 卷十《和提刑度支王店鷄詩》：“王店有郵吏，養鷄殊可笑。昂然處高襟，不肯以時嘂。官有宿此者，西征待初曉。鷄竟不一鳴，問吏吏已（按當作‘以’）告。云此最荒絕，左右悉蓬蓼。狐貍占為宅，恣橫不可道。前此三四鷄，一一遭其暴。尋聲即知處，盡獲爪牙禍。自後始得此，其若有人教。東方或未明，群醜尚騰趠。此鷄但鉗結，直伺太陽耀。雖然謂失旦，似得保身要。官曰此何用，不然則宜糶。不見不鳴雁，先死蓋自召。天下已明白，豈假更喧鬧。徒爾費稻梁，曾莫知所報。吏云官言是，且願勿嘲誚。知是本在人，此物何足校。”按似梅都官，意頗詼諧，語未妥貼，押韻尤窘。 & pseudos: & pseudos: & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp & nbsp; < / / span span style= `Font-Font-FMILY: Ming Liu; Font-Size: 12 pt's volume > 10, & & punt >, not knowing, not knowing. 卷十一《新晴山月》：“高松漏疎月，落影如畫地。徘徊愛其下，及久不能寐。怯風池荷卷，病雨山果墜。誰伴余苦吟？滿林啼絡緯。”按同卷《厭蟲》則云：“百蟲爾胡為，嘖嘖饒秋聲。求靜不能得，我詩何由成。” & nbsp;
卷十二《觀風閣》：“忽暗識歸雲，乍明知積水。風從半天下，月向平地起。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < . 《平雲閣觀雨》：“黑雲漆天雷破地。” & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; < & nbsp; 《山城秋日野望感事書懷詩呈吳龍圖》：“身外流年波渺渺，眼前生事葉紛紛。” < "Autumn vision of the Mountain City's Autumn Hope Book of the Year of Expatriation. 卷十三《觀音院怪松》：“怪松屢見無如此，每度來觀說向僧。若遇風雷宜守護，恐生頭角便飛騰。秋聲繞殿隨齋磬，夜影侵廊對佛燈。韋偃畢宏今不在，欲求人畫有誰能。”按此詩尚可。同卷《慈濟院雙楠》云：“護持必有諸賢聖，觸犯寧無惡鬼神。”是底言語？亦《宛陵集》中惡調也。
卷十四《北齋雨後》：“小庭幽圃絕清佳，愛此常教放吏衙。雨後雙禽來占竹，秋深一蝶下尋花。喚人掃壁開吳畫，留客臨軒試越茶。野興漸多公事少，宛如當日在山家。”按此首與卷五《江上主人》一首，乃《丹淵集》中不可多得之作。五、六本鄭谷《重陽日訪元秀上人》之“展畫長懷吳寺壁，宜茶偏賞霅溪泉。
卷十五《屬疾梧軒》：“暖蟲垂到地，晴鳥語多時。” 卷十六《過朝天嶺》：“山若畫屏隨峽勢，水如衣帶轉岩陰。” < 《晚泊金牛》：“斜日斂回疏木影，急風收斷落泉聲。” and & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; 卷十七《此君菴》：“斑斑墮籜開新筠，粉光璀璨香氛氳。我常愛君此默坐，勝見無限尋常人。”按王元之《小畜外集》卷六《望熊耳山》云：“感謝雙峯對雙眼，也勝逢見等閒人。”與可用其意而筆致高。 & nbsp; ; "Funt-Size: 12 pt" ; "Funt-silp" ; 卷十八《問景遜借梅聖俞詩卷》：“為我誦佳句，實亦郊島徒。我方嗜此學，常恨失所趨。願子少假之，使之識夷途。”按此言非偶然也。餘見第二百二十二則。 & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp;
卷十八《嘲中條》：“荊山赴太華，百萬如走駝。觜尾不相殊，前後翻海波。既至擁而蹲，仰首爭列羅。太華勢愈尊，引手欲下摩。中條從北來，亦願依巍峨。豈知隊伍弱，只類馬與驘[19]。奔騰氣力盡，群伏飲大河。飲已只南望，岌然將奈何。” > > >. 二百三十 [1] “詞甚精麗”原作“詞亦精麗”，“莫非天之所為”脫落“非”字。 [2] “王德正”原作“王正德”。 [3] “蝨”原作“火”。 [4] “卷十四”原作“卷十二”。 [5] “王德正”原作“王正德”。 [6] “無己”原皆作“無已”。 [7] “卷六”原作“卷七”。 [8] “History of Esthetics”原作“History of Esthetic”。 [9] “á”、“í”原文皆帶柔氣與銳音符（?），即“?λογο? α?σθησι?”。 [11]“comprendre”原作“entendre”。 [12] 此二、三字墨跡漫漶難辨。 [13] 意謂 “saying one thing and meaning another”。 [18]“disois”原作“disoit”。 [20] 似誤，待查。 |
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论