
七七三(四)
〇《李將軍列傳》:“見草中石,以為虎而射之,中石沒鏃”;《考證》:“何焯曰:‘《呂覽‧精通篇》云:“養由基射虎,中石,矢乃飲羽。”‘”按《韓詩外傳》卷六:“楚熊渠子夜行。見寢石以為伏虎,彎弓射之,沒金飲羽”,《新序‧雜事四》亦記之,與李廣事較類。《蘆浦筆記》卷一謂《能改齋漫錄》以《漢書》李廣事及《新序》熊渠子事入類對門,而不及《北史》李萬歲事,萬歲為李遠字也。《周書‧李遠傳》:“見石於叢蒲中,以為伏兔,射之而中,鏃入寸餘,太祖賜書曰:‘昔李將軍廣親有此事,公今復爾,可謂世載其德;雖熊渠之名,不能獨擅其美’”,已將三事並舉矣。
〇《匈奴列傳》中行說曰:“必我行也,為漢患者。”按陳造《江湖長翁文集》卷二十九《文法》云:“文有順而健,有逆置而彌健,遷、固多得此法。‘必我也為漢患者’,‘必湯也令天下重足而立、側目而視’;‘必我也’‘必湯也’置之於上,其語彌健而法,作文至此妙矣”[1];陸以湉《冷廬雜識》卷四舉《漢書》倒句,“必我也為漢患者”亦在諸例中,皆未愜允,又削去“行”字,曲成其說。張文虎《舒藝室隨筆》卷四謂“也”通“耶”,“者”者,語絕之詞,今文牘猶用之,言必欲我行耶,則當為漢患,亦未解“必”字之義。“必”有“如”、“若”、“脫”、“倘”之意,已見前論《淮陰侯列傳》。《汲鄭列傳》汲黯曰:“必湯也”云云,亦此意。一則謂:若使我行,必為漢患;一則謂:若使湯為公卿,必殘民以逞。“也”不須釋作“耶”,“者”即“人”,中行說自道耳,非如《西游記》六十八回朱紫國招醫皇榜、八十七回凰仙郡祈雨榜文所謂“須至榜者”,《儒林外史》五十回通緝萬中書牌票所謂“須至牌者”。《太平廣記》卷四八八元微之《鶯鶯傳》:“徐謂張曰:‘始亂之,終棄之’,固其宜矣!愚不敢恨。必也君亂之,君終之,君之惠也”,“必也”尚作“倘”、“若”解,是《史》、《漢》舊詁也。
〇《衛將軍驃騎列傳》:“天子嘗欲教之孫吳兵法,對曰:‘顧方略何如耳,不至學古兵法。’”按與岳武穆語同。
〇《平津侯主父列傳》。按《潛邱劄記》卷二云:“廉易而恥難”,如公孫弘布被脫粟,不可謂不廉,而曲學阿世,何無恥也!馮道刻苦儉約,不可謂不廉,而更事四姓十君,何無恥之甚也!“蓋廉乃立身之一節,而恥實根心之大德,故廉尚可矯,而恥不容偽。”[2]
主父曰:“且丈夫生不五鼎食;死即五鼎烹耳!”按《左傳》哀公十六年:“拘石乞而問白公之死焉。(中略)曰:‘不言將烹。’乞曰:‘此事克則為卿,不克則烹,固其所也。何害!’”;《全唐文》卷八九七羅隱《廣陵妖亂志》諸葛殷“族人競以謙損戒殷,殷曰:‘男子患於不得遂志,既得之,當須富貴自處,人生寧有兩遍死者!’[3]“可以比勘。
主父“遍召昆弟賓客,數之曰:‘始吾貧時,昆弟不我衣食,賓客不我內門。今吾相齊,諸君迎我,或千里。’”按《蘇秦列傳》“蘇秦之昆弟妻嫂”一節、《司馬相如列傳》“於是卓王孫、臨邛諸公”一節、《汲鄭列傳》“太史公曰”一節,三事相類。交態炎涼,反復不厭,史公殆深有所感也。
〇《西南夷列傳》:“西南夷君長以什數,夜郎最大;其西靡莫之屬以什數,滇最大;自滇以北君長以什數,邛都最大。”此西方修詞所謂 “climax”, “gradatie”
(Demetrius, On Style, V, §270, “The Loeb
Classical Library”, p. 465; H.
Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen
Rhetorik, I, S. 315:
“Die gradatio ist eine
fortschreitende Anadiplose [reduplicatio]” asw.; James
Reeves, The Voice of
the People, p. 212:
“cumulative songs”[4])。史公《報任少卿書》中,“太上不辱先,其次不辱身”亦此結構。他如宋玉《好色賦》“天下之佳人,莫若楚國”一節、李翺《感知己賦》“見善而不能知”一節(見第七三久則論《全唐文》卷六三四),均有拾級循徑,而造絕頂、登極峯之致。然皆不如《戰國策‧楚策四》莊辛謂楚襄王:“君不見夫蜻蛉乎?”一節之尤窮奇觀。汪容甫《述學補遺‧修禊序跋尾》云[5]:“今體隸書以右軍為第一,右軍書以《修禊序》為第一,《修禊序》以定武本為第一,世所存定武本以此為第一,在于四累之上。”“四累之上”語出《呂覽‧順說篇》惠盎說宋康王“臣有道於此”云云,波瀾僅亞於《國策》一節耳。然則名此法為“累上”可矣。
〇《司馬相如傳》。《考證》:“劉知幾曰:‘司馬相如為《自敘傳》,具在集中,子長因錄斯篇。’”按《漢書‧揚雄傳‧贊》曰:“雄之《自序》云爾”,蓋全取雄《自序》。據《文選》卷四十三劉孝標《重答劉秣陵沼書》善《注》引“劉峻《自序》云云”,與《梁書》本傳同。則《梁書》亦采孝標《自敘》耳。吾國自傳之作,當昉自司馬長卿矣。
相如、文君事,參觀第七三五則論《全唐文》卷三九六鄭少微《憫相如賦》。【《外戚世家》論卓文君事移此。[6]】【《外戚世家》:“甚哉妃匹之愛,君不能得之於臣,父不能得之於子,況卑下乎?既驩合矣,或不能成子姓;能成子姓矣,或不能要其終。豈非命也哉!孔子罕稱命,蓋難言之也。非通幽明之變,惡能識乎性命哉?”[7]按慨男女妃匹,忽高言性命,一若小題大做,實徵卓識。《曝書亭詩集》卷二《無題》云:“織女牽牛匹,姮娥后羿妻;神人猶薄命,嫁娶不須啼。”《湘綺樓日記》光緒四年十二月四日謂《司馬相如傳》特載卓文君之奔,史公有微意在,惜未以此數語印證之(詳見第七三五則論《全唐文》卷三九六鄭少微《憫相如賦》)。蓋婚姻之道,智力無所用之。當時重以父母之命、媒妁之言,幾於暗中摸索。好逑怨耦,唯有以宿世姻緣、前生註定為解。故切身經濟中,最使人安命或怨命者,此一事也。西土亦每云:“Ehen
werden im Himmel geschlossen (das halb fallen die Leute nach der
Heirat aus den Wolken)” (K. Spalding
& K.
Brooke, A Historical Dictionary of German
Figurative Usage, p. 547); “Matrimoni e vescovati / son dal
cielo destinati” (A. Arthaber, Dizionario
comparato di proverbi, p. 388); “Marriage is a lottery”,
“Marriage is destiny”, “Marriages are made in heaven” (The
Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs, p.
291; The
Merchant of Venice, II.
ix, Nerissa: “Hanging & wiving goes by
destiny”; All’s Well That Ends Well, I.
iii, Clown’s song: “Your marriage comes by destiny”); W.G.
Sumner, Folkways, p. 396: “The aleatory
element in marriage is very large”。Milton 尤慨乎言之:“For
either / He [Man] never shall find out fit Mate, but such / As some
misfortune brings him, or mistake; / Or whom he wishes most shall
seldom gain / Through her perverseness, but shall see her gained /
By a far worse, or if she love, withheld / By Parents, or his
happiest choice too late / Shall meet, alreadie linked &
Wedlock-bound / To a fell adversarie, his hate or
shame”[8] (Paradise
Lost, Bk. X, 898 ff.)。史公因妃匹而及天命,良有以哉!《後漢書》卷五十九《郅惲傳》光武廢郭后,惲言:“臣聞夫婦之間,父不能得之於子,君不能得之於臣,況臣欲得之於君乎?”即本史公意,而更明豁。】
相如《游獵賦》:“其石則赤玉、玫瑰、琳琘、琨珸、瑊玏、玄厲、瑌石、武夫。”按他如禽獸、華果,莫不牽連標舉,《文心雕龍‧詮賦篇》所謂“相如《上林》繁類以成豔”也。《天傭子集》卷二《王子鞏觀生草序》遂譏漢賦不過“排比類書”。《潛邱劄記》卷五至斥謂:“此等說話,罪不容誅。”竊以為漢賦窠臼固板重可厭,然善用其法,未嘗不可化堆垛為煙雲,如元曲《百花亭》第三折王煥叫賣是也(第四八則)。西方詩文亦有此訣,見第六九九則(論 Il
Pentamerone)。Paradise
Lost, XI, 385-411 [all
Earth’s Kingdoms]: “Of Cambalu ... / ... / Call El Dorado”; 479-489
[A lazar house wherein were laid all diseased]: “Of gastly spasm...
/ ... / ... & joint-racking rheums”即其例。
【“子虛”、“烏有”、“無是”。】
“相如口吃而善著書”;《考證》引《韓非列傳》:“非為人口吃,不能道說,而善著書。”按《儒林列傳》兒寬“善著書,書奏敏於文,口不能發明也”(《漢書‧公孫弘卜式兒寬傳》:“善屬文,然懦於武,口弗能發明也”)。揚雄、摯虞、潘岳、郭璞等皆然。《全宋文》卷十五范曄《獄中與諸甥姪書》云:“往往有微辭,言乃不能自盡,口機不調利,以此無談功。”則蔚宗亦其類也。李治《敬齋古今黈》卷三云:“長卿、子雲皆蜀人,能文而吃。玉壘、銅梁之氣,於兹二人,獨厚之以游、夏之才,而又吝於宰我、子貢之舌,何歟?”Walter
Muschg, Tragische Literaturgeschichte,
3te Auf., 1957, S. 409: “Corneille:
‘J’ai la plume féconde et la bouche stérile, / Bon galant au
théâtre et fort mauvais en ville; / Et l’on peut rarement m'écouter
sans ennui / Que quand je me produis par la bouche d’autrui’
(Oeuv., éd.‘Grands
Écrivains de la France’, X, 477). Über den unnachahmlichen
schriftlichen Plauderer Wieland berichtet Mozart seinem Vater [27
Dez. 1779]: ‘Er hat einen Defekt in der Zunge, vermög er ganz
sachte redet und nicht sechs Worte sagen kann, ohne einzuhalten.’
Der Ekstatiker Kleist stotterte, auf Grillparzer litt an einem
Sprachfehler.”參觀 Garrick:
“Here lies poet Goldsmith, for shortness called Noll, Who wrote
like an Angel, but talked like poor Poll”
(Goldsmith, Miscellaneous Works, “The Globe
Edition”, 1869, p. lv)。近人 Alred
Adler所謂 “Minderwertigkeit” 是矣:“As
physicians have long known, damage to certain organs in the body is
sometimes followed by a compensatory reaction, e.g., damage to a
kidney or lung may be followed by increased compensatory
functioning of the undamaged organ. Adler believed that there are
similar reactions in the psychological sphere... Painters have
suffered from defective vision or musicians from deafness... ‘To be
a human being means the possession of a feeling of inferiority that
is constantly pressing on towards its own conquest’” etc. (J.A.C.
Brown, Freud & the Post-Freudians,
“Pelican Books”, p. 38)。【王子淵《洞蕭賦》:“使夫性昧之宕冥”云云,終曰:“寡所舒其思慮兮,專發憤乎音聲。”言瞽者精於樂,亦“補償”之意。】【Cf.
Bacon, Essays, “Of
Deformity”.】
相如上疏諫馳逐野獸云:“卒然遇軼材之獸,駭不存之地,(中略)輿不及還轅,人不暇施巧,(中略)枯木朽株盡為害矣。”按《鄒陽傳》獄中上梁孝王書云“故有人先談(《漢書》作‘游’),則以枯木朽株,樹功而不忘。(中略)而素無根柢之容,(中略)則人主必有按劍相眄之跡,是使布衣不得為枯木朽株之資也。”【《東觀漢記》班超疏曰:“鉛刀一割之用。”】一言無用者亦足為害,一言無用者亦能有益,足為比喻貌同心異之例。參觀第三二○則曹植《蝙蝠賦》、三三五則諸葛亮《與人書》、七三二則 D.
Provenzal, Dizion. delle Immagini, p. 287、七七○則《詩‧谷風》。
【《大人賦》:“下崢嶸而無地兮。”[9]】
〇《汲鄭列傳》:“大將軍青侍中,上踞廁而見之。”按 Montaigne, Essais,
I. 3: “... des princes, qui pour depescher, les plus
importants affaires, font leur throsne de
leur chaire percée (Éd. Bib. de la Pléiade, p.
37)。
《汲鄭列傳》:“忿發罵曰:‘天下謂刀筆吏不可以為公卿!’”按《蕭相國世家‧贊》即謂何為“秦時刀筆吏”,蓋刀筆吏之為公卿,已成有漢以來故事,黯誠黯矣!揚雄《法言‧問道篇》云:“刀不利,筆不銛,而加諸砥”,一若筆亦金鐵所為,有似西洋古代之 stilus 者,則如“大夫不得造車馬”之類,所謂“從一而省文”也(詳見第七六九則論《繫辭》上:“吉凶與民同患”[10])。Heine, Reisebilder,
II, “Norderney”: “... hingegen kein Stil, sondern ein Stilett ist
die spitzige, zustossende Schreibart des französischen Arztes
Antommarchi” (Gesam. Werk., hrsg. G. Karpeles, II, S.
96),亦雙關刀筆,而語尤隽。
“上曰:‘君薄淮陽耶?(中略)吾徒得君之重,臥而治之。’”按《戰國策‧中山策》末羼入秦昭王命白起伐趙一節,有云:“君雖病,強為寡人臥而將之。”
“太史公曰:‘下邽翟公有言’”云云。按《漢書‧張馮汲鄭傳》以此節上屬《鄭當時傳》末“當時死,家無餘財。先是下邽翟公”云云,於翟公署門語後逕承以“《贊》曰”。橫生枝節,全失倫脊,不忍割愛之過也。
〇《酷吏列傳》:“始為小吏乾沒。”按詳見第七二八則論《太函集》卷九十七《與方景武書》。
【〇《酷吏列傳》:“乾沒。”(七二八則又《趙世家》論“即”字。)】
〇《大宛列傳》:“張騫出隴西,匈奴得之,留騫十餘歲,與妻,有子,然騫持漢節不失。”按《漢書‧張騫李廣利傳》亦本之。《史記‧匈奴列傳》僅云:“漢遣蘇武厚賂單于,單于益驕。”《漢書‧李廣蘇建傳》遂詳載武留北庭事,記其“杖漢節牧羊,臥起操持。”至娶胡婦生子事,則於篇終“上問左右:‘武在匈奴久,豈有子乎?’武因平恩侯自白”云云補出。
“昆莫生棄於野。烏嗛肉蜚其上,狼往乳之。”按與 Romulus 兄弟事同 (“where
a wolf came & continued to suckle them, while birds of various
sorts brought little morsels of food, which they put into their
mouths” — Plutarch, Lives, “The Modern
Library”, p. 25)。《周書‧異域傳下》謂突厥族盡滅。有一兒十歲,刖足,棄草澤中。牝狼飼以肉,與合,有孕,生十男,其一姓即阿史那也。
〇《游俠列傳》:“郭解以軀借交報仇。”按《刺客列傳》嚴仲子曰:“臣有仇”;聶政曰:“老母在,政身未敢以許人也”[11](全本《國策‧韓策二》),適相對照。《聊齋》卷四《田七郎》則老母厲色曰:“老身止此兒”云云,可謂善於翻新。
〇《佞幸列傳》。按此《傳》亦徵史公創識,參觀第七七一則論《詩‧秦風‧駟鐵》。《傳》載“閎、籍之屬”,特天子所寵嬖者耳。《五宗世家》記膠西王端“陰痿,一近婦人,病之數月,而有愛幸少年為郎”,是諸侯之佞幸也。《漢書‧哀帝紀‧贊》曰:“雅性不好聲色,即位痿痺”,而《佞幸傳》曰:“董賢為人美麗,哀帝望見,悅其儀貌,由是始幸”,與膠西王事劇類。《初刻拍案驚奇》卷二十六云:“看官聽說:原來那本事不濟的,專好男風”,可以釋陰痿而愛幸少年。
“諺曰:‘力田不如逢年,善仕不如遇合’,固無虛言。非獨女以色媚,而士宦亦有之。”按《漢書‧佞幸傳‧贊》始曰:“柔曼之傾意,非獨女德,蓋亦有男色焉。”史公拈出“士宦”者,蓋以害於其政,故著之史冊。若僅止比狎頑童,則其事不勝書,而亦不足奇,何勞特著男色以比於女色乎?【Bentham
on “alleged mischiefs” of homosexuality: “the strength of the
influence exercised by the female sex over the male, sometimes to
good, sometimes to evil, purposes, instances are to be found in
abundance; if any such influence exercised over a person of the
male sex by a male, an example is scarcely to be
found”[12] (quoted
in C.K. Ogden, Jeremy Bentham, 1832-2032,
p. 102),蓋未知《史記》、《漢書》也。】
“文帝夢欲上天,不能,有一黃頭郎從後推之上天,顧見其衣裻帶《漢書‧佞幸傳》作‘尻帶’後穿。(中略)即見鄧通,其衣後穿,夢中所見也。召問其名姓,姓鄧氏,名通《漢書》多一句‘鄧,猶登也’,文帝說焉。”按“姓鄧氏,名通”五字,卒讀若詞費,實則諧聲褻語,《漢書》“鄧,猶登也”蓋強詞掩飾耳。“鄧”者“臀”,“通”者“尻後穿”,故文帝之說,非徒以其狀貌應夢,亦說其名之符實也。又按《陳書‧韓子高傳》:“容貌美麗,狀似婦人。文帝甚寵愛之,未嘗離於左右。文帝嘗夢見騎馬登山,路危欲墮,子高推捧而升”,事略類。
“甚哉愛憎之時!”按《滑稽列傳》:“此知可以言時矣”;《貨殖列傳》:“白圭樂觀時變,趨時若猛獸摯鳥之發”;《國語‧越語下》范蠡曰:“臣聞從時者,猶救火追亡人也,蹶而趨之,唯恐勿及”;《呂覽‧首時篇》亦云:“聖人之見時,若步之與影之不可離”;《戰國策‧秦策三》秦客卿造謂穰侯曰:“聖人不能為時,時至而弗失”;《孟子‧公孫丑上》引齊諺[13]:“雖有智慧,不如乘勢;雖有鎡基,不如待時”;Machiavelli 所謂 “temporeggiare”
(Il Principe, cap. 2; Opere, a cura
di Mario Bonfantini, p. 5); “temporeggiarsi” (Discorsi sopra la
Prima Deca di Tito Livio, I. 33; p. 163), “procedere con le
qualità de tempi” (Il Principe, cap. 25; p. 81), “procedere
coi tempi... accomodarsi alla diversità de’ temporali”
(Discorsi, III. 9; p.
344-5) , “si
concordano col tempo” (Discorsi, III. 9; p. 343);
Guicciardini 所謂 “Le
cose medesime che tentate in tempo sono facili a riuscire anzi
caggiono quasi per loro medesime, tentate innanzi al tempo, non
solo non riescono allora, ma ti tolgono ancora spesso quella
facilitá che avevano di riuscire al tempo suo: però non correte
furiosi alle cose, non le precipitate, aspettate la sua maturitá,
la sua stagione” (Ricordi, §78; Opere, a cura di
Vittorio de Caprariis, p. 114),皆時宜也。李夫人臨終側面,可謂知“愛憎之時”矣。
〇《滑稽列傳》:“太史公曰:‘談言微中,亦可以解紛。’”按《傳》言齊威王“國且危亡,左右莫敢諫”,楚莊王下令曰:“有敢以馬諫者,罪至死”,而淳于髡、優孟之流冒威之不測,言人所不敢。《國語‧晉語二》優施謂里克曰:“我優也,言無郵”;韋昭注:“郵,過也”,即 King
Lear, I. iv. 220:
“all-licens’d fool” (Complete Works, L. Kittredge, p.
1206) 【Enid
Welsford, The Fool: His Social & Literary
History, p. 14】。此倡優之所以不畏刀鋸鞭扑(《晉語六》:“刀鋸日弊”,韋注:“小人之刑”;《魯語》:“薄刑用鞭扑”;King
Lear, I. iv. 129: “Take
heed, sirrah — the whip”; 198: “we’ll have you
whipp’d”),敢於諷諫也。
“優孟曰:‘馬者,王之所愛也。而以大夫禮葬之,薄!請以人君禮葬之。’”按所謂“reductio
ad absurdum”。如《孟子‧滕文公章》孟子問陳相:“許子必種粟、織布、織冠、為陶冶乎?”皆充類以見其說之謬也。
“優孟曰:‘請為大王六畜葬之。以壠竈為椁,銅歷為棺,齎以薑棗,薦以木蘭,祭以糧稻,衣以火光,葬之於人腹腸。’”按李泰伯《盱江全集》卷三十六《論文》第一首云:“若見江魚須慟哭,腹中曾有屈原墳”同卷《屈原》云:“何事靈均不知退?却將閑肉付江魚”;惠洪《禪林僧寶傳》卷十九:“端獅子見持死鷄疾行者,曰:‘為貍害,法不可食,將棄水中。’端苦求之。曰:‘當得偈,乃可與。’端跪作祭文曰:‘維靈生有鷹鸇之厄,死有湯鑊之災;奉為轉化檀越,施肚與汝作棺材’”《癸巳存稿》卷十三《佛教斷肉述義》自日本不染居士《護法資治論》轉引羅山《神社考》云:“叡山僧為鮒魚說法:‘汝放不可生,生亦不可久。汝身入我腹,我心入汝身’”云云,可參觀;方虛谷《桐江續集》卷三十二《孔端卿東征集序》摘其《至日本高麗覆舟》七古中句云:“千生萬命魚為槨”,歎為“奇絕”;《王陽明全書》卷二十五《瘞旅文》云:“縱不爾瘞,陰崖之狐成羣,陰壑之虺如車輪,亦必能葬爾於腹,不致久暴露爾”;曾弗人《紡授堂二集》卷九《出都僅百里見餓殍三,愴然感賦‧之三》云:“饞犬却能知掩骼,好將人葬腹腸中”;李笠翁《一家言》卷五《活虎行》云:“豢以死肉不屑食,欲食生物屠心肝;是畜投之若固有,天生肚腹為衾棺。”Gorgias
Leontini 稱飢鷹 (Vultures) 為 “Living
sepulchres” (Longinus, III, “The Loeb Classical Lib.”, p. 129);
Lucretius, V. 991 [on beasts eating men]: “Viva videns vivo
sepcliri viscera busto”; Ennius, Annals,
fr. 141-2: “Vulturus in silvis miserum mandebat homonem. / Heu!
quam crudeli condebat membra sepulchro!” (Remains of Old
Latin, “The Loeb Classical Lib.”, I, p.
50); Achilles Tatius, Leucippe
& Clitophon, III. 5: “If our fate is to become food for
sea-beasts, let one fish destroy us & one maw swallow us, that
even in the fish, we may have a common tomb”; Seneca the
Elder, Controversiae, IX, praef: “Birds
that fly, fish that swim, beasts that run, find graves in our
insides”; The Notebooks of Leonardo da
Vinci, tr. E. MacCurdy, I, p. 69: “Man & the animals are
merely a passage & channel for food, a tomb for other animals,
a haven for the dead”; Jacopone da Todi: “Lauda delle Malattie”:
“Elegome en sepultura / Ventre de lupo en voratura” (L.R.
Lind, Lyric Poetry of the Italian
Renaissance, p. 64); Ariosto, Orlando
Furioso, X. 28: “Di disagio morrò; né chi mi cuopra / Gli occhi
sarà, né chi sepolcro dia, / Se forse in ventre lor non me lo dànno
/ I lupi, ohimè, ch’in queste selve stanno” (ed. Ulrico Hoepli, p.
84); Basile, Il pentamerone, V. 9: “ti sarà
cataletto una padella e sepoltura un ventre” (traduzione di B.
Croce, ed. Laterza, 1957, p. 525);
Milton, Samson Agonistes, 103: “My self, my
sepulchre, a moving grave” (cf. “An Epitaph on the Marchioness of
Winchester” [who died in childbirth]: “And the languished mother’s
womb / was not long a living tomb”);
Pope, Essay on Man, III. 162: “Of half that
live the butcher & the tomb”; Lamb: “A Dissertation upon Roast
Pig”: “He hath a fair sepulchre in the grateful stomach of the
judicious epicure — & for such a tomb might be content to die”
(The Essays of Eha, “Everyman’s Library”, p. 146); Émile
Goudeau: “La Revanche des Bêtes”: “Et l’écrevisse aura, vive, dans
l’eau bouillante, / L’infernal baiser du carmin; / Et, morne
enterrement! l’huître glisse vivante / Au sépulcre de l’abdomen”
(P. Mille, Anthropologie des Humoristes
français contemporains, 272); The Thousand
Nights & One Night, tr. P. Mathers, II, p. 229: “‘Can you
tell me what tomb moved about with its contents?’ ‘The whale which
took down the Prophet Jonah into its
belly.’” 皆可比勘。Il
pentamerone 語尤與優孟語相似。
〇《貨殖列傳》。按文筆奇恣騰驤,固不待言,而卓識大胆,洞燭世情,不屑高論飾說,尤為難能可貴。蓋人事往往匪知之艱、行之難,而以言之為最不易。舉世成風,日用習為,而無人敢拈出道破、明詔大號。以事之必然為理所當然。若史公此篇,亦庶幾 Machiavelli, Il
Principe 之類也。E.
Cassirer, The Myth of the State, p. 155:
“If we wish to compress
the Prince into a
short formula we could perhaps do no better than to point to
Taine’s words in the Intrduction to his History
of English Literature that a historian should
speak of human actions in the same way as a chemist speaks of
different chemical compounds”; J.H.
Whitfield, Machiavelli, p. 67: “What is
the keyword of the Prince? Is it
not necessity, which, as noun, participle,
or adjective, occurs 76 times in this short treatise of only 26
chapters?”[14] 讀《貨殖列傳》,當作如是觀。《漢書‧司馬遷傳‧贊》論史公“是非繆於聖人”,舉其“述貨殖則崇勢利而羞賤貧”,以為一“蔽”,烏足以知此!汪兆鏞《微尚齋雜文》卷一《讀史記貨殖傳》駁姚姬傳說,略謂:“此《傳》與《平準書》相表裏,所以重商,政非譏切好利也。惲子居曰:‘《貨殖》亦天人古今之大會也。’”亦未搔著癢處。
“財幣欲其行如流水。”按參觀第三六九則論《全晉文》卷一一一魯褒《錢神論》。
“白圭曰:吾治生產,猶伊尹、呂尚之謀,孫吳用兵,商鞅行法。”按兼嚴密、嚴酷二義。後世計學及商戰之旨,發於此矣。
“由此觀之,賢人深謀於廊廟,論議朝廷,守信死節,隱居巖穴之士設為名高者,安歸乎?歸於富厚也。是以廉吏久,久更富,廉賈歸富。富者,人之情性所不學而俱欲者也。故壯士在軍,(中略)不避湯火之難者,為重賞使也。其在閭巷少年,攻剽椎埋,(中略)不避法禁,走死地如騖者,其實皆為財用耳。今夫趙女鄭姬,(中略)目挑心招,出不遠千里,不擇老少者,奔富厚也。(中略)醫方諸食技術之人,焦神極能,為重糈也。吏士舞文弄法,刻章偽書,不避刀鋸之誅者,沒於賂遺也。”按參觀 Rabelais, Le
Quart Livre, ch. 57 論 “Et
tout pour la trippe” (Oeuv. Comp., éd. Jean Plattard, IV,
pp. 205-7); Quevedo: “Letrilla”: “Poderoso caballero / es don
Dinero” (Eleanor L. Turnbull, Ten Centuries of
Spanish Poetry, p. 304);
Giusti, Gingillino, III, st. 32: “Io credo
nella Zecca onnipotente / e nel figliuol suo detto Zecchino” (G.
Fumagalli, Chi l’ha detto?,
9a ed., p.
94)。“廉吏久,久更富”,即《儒林外史》第八回王太守所謂“三年清知府,十萬雪花銀”,亦即《戰國策‧趙策三》平原君述公子牟語所謂“貴不與富期而富至”也。“廉賈歸富”之“歸”,即上文“歸於富厚”之“歸”,歸結之意。舊注“歸”為“財富流通”之意,大誤。廉賈謀利薄,利薄則貨速售,速售則易致富。參觀英諺 “Small
profits & quick returns”;意諺 “Il
morto mangia il vivo”。
“家貧親老,妻子軟弱,歲時無以祭祀、進酒醵飲食,被服不足以自通,如此不慙恥,則無所比矣!(中略)無巖處奇士之行,而長貧賤,好語仁義,亦足羞也!”按參觀《世說新語‧汰侈篇》石崇見顏回、原憲像,曰:“士當令身名俱泰,何至以甕牖語人”;《醒世姻緣傳》第三十三回:“聖賢千言萬語叫那讀書人樂道安貧。(中略)我想,說這樣話的聖賢畢竟自己處的地位也還挨的過的日子。(中略)連稀粥湯已沒得一口呷在肚裏,那討‘疏食簞瓢’?(中略)孔夫子在陳剛絕得兩三日糧,(中略)我想那時的光景一定也沒有甚麼‘樂’處。倒還是後來的人說得平易,道是‘學必先於治生’”(王陽明《傳習錄》卷上:“許魯齋謂‘儒者以治生為先’之說亦誤人”)。《易餘籥錄》卷十引《史記》此數語而附記汪容甫曰:“儒者固不可得非義之利,然養父母,蓄妻子,詎可不講生財之計?譬如老母病,須服人參,得則生,不得則死;為人子者,遂心安而忍之乎?”
〇《太史公自序》:“春秋之中,弒君三十六,亡國五十二,諸侯奔走不得保其社稷者,不可勝數。”按《漢書‧楚元王傳》劉向上《封事》,亦云:“二百四十二年之間,弒君三十六,亡國五十二。”《韓非子‧姦劫弒臣篇》云:“諺曰:‘厲憐王’。此不恭之言也。雖然,古無虛諺,不可不察也,此謂劫殺死亡之主言也。(中略)厲雖癰腫疕瘍,上比於春秋,未至於絞頸射股也,下比於近世,未至於餓死擢筋也。(中略)由此觀之,雖‘厲憐王’可也”;《備內篇》云:“《桃左春秋》曰:‘人主之疾死者,不能處半。’”Shakespeare, Richard
II, III. ii, King: “For God’s sake let us sit upon the ground /
And tell sad stories of the death of kings! / How some have been
deposed; some slain in war, / Some haunted by the ghosts they have
depos’d; / Some poisoned by their wives, some sleeping kill’d — /
All murder’d: for within the hollow crown / That rounds the mortal
temples of a king / Keeps Death his court” (Complete Works,
ed. G.L. Kittredge, p. 525); Alfred de
Vigny, Journal d’un Poète, éd. Conard,
p.[15]:
“Il y a deux choses que l’on conteste bien souvent aux rois: leur
naissance et leur Il y a deux choses que l'on conteste bien souvent
au\ rois : leur naissance et leur mort. On ne veut pas que l’une
soit légitime, ni l’autre naturelle.”
“太史公曰:‘唯唯!否否!不然!’”;晉灼注:“唯唯,謙應也;否否,不通也。”按即德語“Ja
nein” 之的譯,乃英語所謂 “Well,
no”,非 “Yes
& No” 如 James
Joyce, Ulysses 中,Leopold
Bloom 在淫肆答老妓 Bella
Cohen 問倘相憶耶:“Nes.
Yo”;或 Evelyn
Waugh, Unconditional Surrender, p. 179,
Uncle Peregrine 答 Gay 問其歡暢不:“Yes
& no. More no than yes
perhaps”,答其問見某婦興會高乎:“Yes
& no. More yes than no”。《升庵全集》卷四十八:“子曰:‘賜也以予為多學而識之者與?’對曰:‘然!非與?’蓋辭讓而對,事師之理。鬻子對文王、武王、成王,皆曰:‘唯!疑’,太史公曰:‘唯唯!否否!’,皆可證。”而章行嚴《邏輯指要》二四二頁論 “Multiple
question” 云:“蕭《選》中賓主問答各篇,答語輒冠以‘唯唯否否’四字,正反并用。蓋篇中所問,遽以一面之詞作答,大抵不能罄意。‘唯唯否否’亦謂是者‘唯’之,非者‘否’之,從而區以別焉爾。唯吾文有之,大可寶貴!”立說甚巧,然實非“唯唯否否”之本意。觀史公《自序》接四字以“不然”二字,雖亦“唯”,而衹是“否”之意甚明。章氏似未求此語之朔,亦未知升庵之論,至云“唯吾文有之”,則其於西學之淺嘗粗涉,亦可見矣!
“乃論六家之要指曰。”按見七七八則。
【《自序》:“為《太史公書》。”按光律元《有不為齋隨筆》云云(見本則首)。[16]】
〇[移末]光聰諧《有不為齋隨筆》卷甲云:“錢辛楣《考異》言《史記》元稱《太史公》,漏引《法言‧問神篇》、《君子篇》、《晉書‧劉殷傳》、《魏書‧崔鴻傳》等。《後漢書‧班彪傳》‘司馬遷著史記’是泛言作史,故下文又云‘《太史公書》’。《漢書‧五行志》引‘史記成公十六年’云云,出《周語》,謂之‘史記’,亦是泛言,顏注誤為司馬遷撰,其實《魯》、《晉世家》皆無此文。《周本紀》云:‘太史伯陽讀史記’;《陳杞世家》云:‘孔子讀史記’;《十二年表》云:‘孔子西觀周室,論史記舊聞’;《老子列傳》云:‘史記周太史儋見秦獻公。’劉知幾云:‘遷因舊目,名之《史記》’,上句是而下句失考。”
【《法言‧寡見》:“司馬子長有言,曰五經不如《老子》之約也,當年不能極其變,終身不能究其業。”】
[1]《管錐編‧史記會註考證‧四六‧匈奴列傳》引此,“逆置”誤脫“置”字(同前,568 頁)。
[2]《管錐編‧史記會註考證‧四八‧平津侯主父列傳》引此,“根心之大德”誤脫“根”字(同前,572 頁)。
[3]《管錐編》引此,“兩遍”誤作“兩邊”(同上)。
[7]“罕稱命”原作“罕言命”(《漢書‧外戚傳上》)。
[10]“七六九則”原作“七六則”,“患”原作“憂”。
[12]“of
the male sex”原作“of
a male sex”。
加载中,请稍候......