Intellectual History of English Colonisation 1500 1625 11816480
Intellectual History of English Colonisation 1500 1625 11816480
https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374
https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312
https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-
s-sat-ii-success-1722018
https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-arco-
master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094
https://ebooknice.com/product/english-women-religion-and-textual-
production-1500-1625-51706196
https://ebooknice.com/product/global-intellectual-history-4544092
https://ebooknice.com/product/andrew-melville-and-humanism-in-renaissance-
scotland-1545-1622-studies-in-the-history-of-christian-traditions-2349610
Humanism and America is the first major study of the impact of the
Renaissance and Renaissance humanism upon the English colonisa-
tion of America. The analysis is conducted through an interdisci-
plinary examination of a broad spectrum of writings on colonisation,
ranging from the works of Thomas More to those of the Virginia
Company. Andrew Fitzmaurice shows that English expansion was pro-
foundly neo-classical in inspiration, and he excavates the distinctively
humanist tradition that informed some central issues of colonisation:
the motivations of wealth and profit, honour and glory; the nature
of and possibilities for liberty; and the problems of just title, includ-
ing the dispossession of native Americans. Dr Fitzmaurice presents a
colonial tradition which, counter to received wisdom, is often hostile
to profit, nervous of dispossession and desirous of liberty. Only in the
final chapters does he chart the rise of an aggressive, acquisitive and
possessive colonial ideology.
i d e a s i n co n t e x t
Edited by Quentin Skinner (General Editor), Lorraine Daston,
Dorothy Ross and James Tully
The books in this series will discuss the emergence of intellectual traditions and of
related new disciplines. The procedures, aims and vocabularies that were generated
will be set in the context of the alternatives available within the contemporary
frameworks of ideas and institutions. Through detailed studies of the evolution of
such traditions, and their modification by different audiences, it is hoped that a
new picture will form of the development of ideas in their concrete contexts. By
this means, artificial distinctions between the history of philosophy, of the various
sciences, of society and politics, and of literature may be seen to dissolve.
The series is published with the support of the Exxon Foundation.
A list of books in the series will be found at the end of the volume.
HUMANISM AND AMERICA
An Intellectual History of English
Colonisation, 1500–1625
ANDREW FITZMAURICE
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
-
isbn-13 978-0-511-06197-4 eBook (NetLibrary)
-
isbn-10 0-511-06197-8 eBook (NetLibrary)
-
isbn-13 978-0-521-82225-1 hardback
-
isbn-10 0-521-82225-4 hardback
Acknowledgements page ix
1 Introduction 1
2 The moral philosophy of Tudor colonisation 20
Tudor moral philosophy: the vita activa and corruption 21
Alexander Barclay’s scepticism 25
John Rastell’s apology 28
Richard Eden’s projections 32
Thomas Smith and Ireland 35
Humphrey Gilbert’s projects 39
The moral philosophy of Gilbert’s projects 47
Walter Ralegh’s projects 50
The moral philosophy of Ralegh’s projects 53
vii
viii Contents
Nostalgia for native virtues 157
The denial of dispossession 164
7 Conclusion 187
Bibliography 195
Index 208
Acknowledgements
This book has a history embracing more than ten years, in various charac-
ters, and has accordingly acquired some profound debts.
I have received generous support from St John’s College, Cambridge,
Churchill College, Cambridge, and also from the Cambridge Common-
wealth Trust. Since arriving at Sydney University I have received invaluable
guidance from Michael Jackson, Richard Waterhouse and Shane White.
Early versions of the chapters have been delivered in a number of confer-
ences and seminars. In particular the Atlantic History Seminar in August
1997 at Harvard University was an invaluable forum in which to present
ideas and I thank Bernard Bailyn for the opportunity to participate and for
the inspiration which he and the other participants provided. My thanks
also to the participants in The touch of the real: A symposium hosting Stephen
Greenblatt, at the Humanities Research Centre, the Australian National
University, June 1998. Stephen Greenblatt’s generous suggestions were also
greatly appreciated. I am grateful to the editors of The Historical Journal,
The Journal of the History of Ideas and to Manchester University Press for
permission to reproduce and revise previously published material.
More people than I can remember have aided in various ways. They in-
clude Richard Bourke, Martin Dzelzainis, Sam Glover, Mark Goldie, Neil
Kenny, Andrew McRae, Jonathan Scott, John O. Ward and Iain Wright.
Karen Kupperman and Anthony Pagden contributed greatly in advising
on the direction the project should take. David Armitage has been untir-
ing in his encouragement and unflinching in his intellectual generosity.
My students have many times forced me to reconsider my convictions
concerning some of the book’s central arguments. I am indebted also to
Richard Fisher at Cambridge University Press for his great patience. The
anonymous readers for the Press have been particularly helpful in the final
stages.
I have several special debts. Conal Condren set me on the path that led
me here. He has tried to teach me to be more sceptical, as well as the best
ix
x Acknowledgements
way to cook broad beans. Saliha Belmessous has read and commented on
the manuscript more times than she would care to remember. She has tried
to teach me to be less sceptical. I promise her never to mention the Virginia
Company again, certainly not after 7 pm.
My greatest debt in the writing of this book is to Quentin Skinner. His
support over the years is beyond praise. The example of his research and
writing is surpassed only by his commitment in teaching – the two virtues
are not always found in company.
At proof stage the text has been copy-edited with the greatest care by
Hilary Scannell.
chapter 1
Introduction
And yet when these insatiably greedy and evil men have divided among
themselves goods which would have sufficed for the entire people, how
far they remain from the happiness of the Utopian Republic, which
has abolished not only money but with it greed!1
Thomas More’s hostility to greed was characteristic of Renaissance hu-
manism. The distinctive aspect of his discussion of greed in Utopia is that
he invented a society free from this vice which he located, twenty-four
years after Columbus’ first voyage, in the New World. Was More alone in
imagining the New World through humanism? Humanism was the dom-
inant intellectual force of Renaissance Europe. In what way did it shape
Europe’s ‘discovery’ and conquest of the New World? My aim is to explore
this question in relation to the English (or, more precisely, anglophone)
understanding of America from More’s generation, early in the sixteenth
century, through to the demise of the Virginia Company in 1625.2 Human-
ists were active in New World projects throughout Europe, but it was in
England, I shall argue, that the humanist imagination dominated colonis-
ing projects.3 Frequently, prominent English humanists – John Rastell,
Thomas Smith, Philip Sidney, Humphrey Gilbert, Walter Ralegh – were at
the forefront of colonisation. Many others who were prominent humanists
(or patrons of humanists) – Richard Eden, John Florio, Dudley Digges,
Henry Wriothesley – were also involved in the projects. We also find that
many men of more humble birth, such as Captain John Smith, employed
their education in the studia humanitatis as a tool of colonisation. But what
in the humanist imagination drew these men to the New World? And why,
1 Thomas More, Utopia, ed. George M. Logan and Robert M. Adams (Cambridge, 1989), p. 109.
2 Our subject is anglophone because while dominated by the English, many of these projects involved
Welsh, Scottish and Anglo-Irish interests. Moreover, Scottish, Welsh and Irish (resettling the Old
English) colonies were projected. As we shall see, these projects all employed similar humanist tools.
3 On humanism in European colonising projects, see Wolfgang Reinhard, ed., Humanismus und Neue
Welt (Bonn, 1987). For humanist nervousness of conquest and war, see Robert P. Adams, The better
part of valor: More, Erasmus, Colet, and Vives, on humanism, war, and peace, 1496–1535 (Seattle, 1962).
1
2 Humanism and America
more than in any other European country, did the first period of English
colonisation assume the form of a humanist project?
Profit and possession are central to our understanding of the motives for
European expansion.4 These motives have great intuitive appeal. Greed, a
desire that serves only itself, is a powerful explanation of human action,
particularly actions that lead to the destruction of entire cultures, the death
of millions and the dispossession of those who survive. It should come as
no surprise, therefore, that Renaissance humanism furnished arguments
of profit and possession for early English colonisers. The highest aim of
humanism was glory, and what better way to achieve glory, promoters of
colonies asked, than to conquer barbarian lands? While historians remain
largely unaware of the impact of humanist culture on European expansion,
it is clear that an understanding of that impact would support their central
conclusions on the motives of profit and possession.5
What may cause surprise is that humanists were deeply sceptical of profit
and nervous of foreign possessions at the same time that they saw both as
possible sources of glory. These ‘adventurers’ were formed by the Platonic
(and Ciceronian) dictum that ‘man was not born himself alone’.6 According
to humanist moral philosophy, we are social animals and as such we have
a duty to pursue the good of the community. This means putting self-
interest to one side, which in turn demands the cultivation of virtue. Profit
and luxury divert us from active participation in public life. The Roman
cultural heritage (upon which humanism was built) showed that foreign
possessions were one of the most likely sources of luxury and corruption.
A variety of Roman sources, including the histories of Sallust and Tacitus,
and works on oratory and moral philosophy (such as Cicero’s Brutus), show
that the luxury of Rome’s colonies was believed to be a source of effeminate
4 See Kenneth R. Andrews, Trade, plunder and settlement: Maritime enterprise and the genesis of the
British Empire (Cambridge, 1984), p. 5; Jack P. Greene, Pursuits of happiness (Chapel Hill, 1988), p. 8;
Wm Roger Louis, foreword to The origins of empire, ed. Nicholas Canny, vol. I of The Oxford history
of the British empire, ed. Wm Roger Louis (Oxford, 1998), pp. x–xii. For more general accounts of
the themes of profit and possession in colonisation, see Ania Loomba, Colonialism/postcolonialism
(London, 1998) p. 2; Marc Ferro, Colonisation: A global history, trans. K. D. Prithipaul (London,
1997).
5 Studies that have examined the role of humanism in English colonising projects include David
B. Quinn, ‘Renaissance influences in English colonisation’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,
5th ser., 26 (1976), pp. 73–92; David B. Quinn, ‘The colonial venture of Sir Thomas Smith in Ulster,
1571–1575’, The Historical Journal, 28 (1985), pp. 261–78; G. J. R. Parry, ‘Some early reactions to the
three voyages of Martin Frobisher’, Parergon, new ser., 6 (1988), pp. 149–61. Cf. Howard Mumford
Jones, ‘Origins of the English colonial idea in England’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, 85 (1942), pp. 448–65. On the impact of humanist geography on colonisation, see Lesley
B. Cormack, Charting an empire: Geography at the English universities, 1580–1620 (Chicago, 1997).
6 Cicero, On duties, trans. and ed. M. T. Griffin and E. M. Atkins (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 9–10.
Introduction 3
and ‘Asiatic’ influences and consequently the cause of a decline in virtue
and the decline of the Republic. For some Romans, for example Cicero
in De officiis (On duties), these problems of conquest reach further into a
more general concern about the justice of empire, a concern that exceeds
fears for the Republic and extends to the treatment of other peoples.
Drawing a parallel between the experience of Rome and their own en-
counters with the New World, humanists perceived colonisation with ner-
vousness, anxiety and, sometimes, outright hostility. Indeed, through to
the first quarter of the seventeenth century, these concerns overshadowed
discussions of colonies. Profit and possession, it was repeatedly emphasised,
were secondary aims or were denied to be aims at all. ‘Beware my hearers’,
Alexander Whitaker declared in the first sentence of his 1613 report from
the Chesapeake, ‘to condemne riches.’7 He echoes book 1 of De officiis
in which Cicero, who for Renaissance humanists was pre-eminent among
moral philosophers, states that ‘nothing is more the mark of a mean and
petty spirit than to love riches’.8 Cicero’s comment is made in the context
of an argument in which even honour and glory are treated with scepticism
and subordinated to justice. He mentions conquest as one of the pitfalls
for the vices of greed and the excessive appetite for glory.9 For early English
would be colonisers, glory had to be separated from profit and allied to the
exercise of virtues such as courage in death, temperance in subduing desire,
justice in the treatment of native Americans and the pursuit of the ends of
God, not Mammon. The mental world of the early modern English was
not, of course, entirely inhabited by dead pagans. When colonisers argued
for the pursuit of glory they usually placed the glory of God first. Religion
complemented the humanist preoccupation with virtue and the scepticism
of greed.
Underlying the humanist nervousness of profit is one of the principal
factors dividing classical and early modern European culture from that
of modern Europe. Following the rise of liberal individualism and the
industrial revolution, selfishness and the profit motive came to be perceived
as potentially positive social forces. Of course, selfishness may well have been
10 See J. G. A Pocock, The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican
tradition (Princeton, 1975); Albert O. Hirschman, The passions and the interests (Princeton, 1977,
with a foreword by Amartya Sen, 1997); Skinner, The foundations of modern political thought.
11 On the proto-capitalism of early American colonisation, see S. M. Kingsbury, ed., The records of the
Virginia Company of London, 4 vols. (Washington, 1906–35), I, pp. 12–15; Wesley F. Craven, The
dissolution of the Virginia Company (Oxford, 1932), p. 24; Herbert L. Osgood, The American colonies
in the seventeenth century, 3 vols. (first published 1904, reissued New York, 1930), I, pp. 68–71.
12 On humanism and the studia humanitatis, see Kristeller, Renaissance thought and its sources, pp. 21–3.
13 On school curricula, see T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere’s small Latine and lesse Greeke, 2 vols.
(Urbana, 1944). On the universities, see Mark H. Curtis, Oxford and Cambridge in transition
1558–1642 (Oxford, 1959). The best recent examination of humanism in English education is part 1
of Quentin Skinner, Reason and rhetoric in the philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996).
Introduction 5
time, numerous treatises were published outlining the education of boys in
the studia humanitatis. Literate culture came increasingly to be dominated
by this revolution in learning. Works within the disciplines of the studia
humanitatis were produced following the classical models.
One of the fundamental distinctions made within humanist texts was
the classical, characteristically Ciceronian, distinction between the contem-
plative and active life. The study of the classical disciplines was, according
to this distinction, essential for the contemplative life. At times this under-
standing of contemplative life would reach a pessimism in which withdrawal
was portrayed as the only alternative to participation in a corrupt society.
In general, however, humanists, and particularly northern European hu-
manists, maintained on the authority of Cicero that the contemplative life
was a preparation for the active.14 The skills of the studia humanitatis, and
the wisdom, justice, courage and temperance that those disciplines were
believed to impart, were to be employed in the active life. This meant that
the classical disciplines would be a source of reflection for immediate po-
litical concerns. Classical and humanist texts were employed to reflect, for
example, upon political and military ethics.15 In an even more direct way,
however, the humanist disciplines could be employed as the language or
the medium of everyday life; the life, as Petrarch had put it, of the street.16
Thus according to the humanistic understanding of the relation between
the contemplative and active life, the study of the classical disciplines was to
be employed, for example, in political life, military affairs, the law courts,
in commerce and in religion.
Several studies have explored the role of the humanist disciplines in
religious reform but, to a large degree, the study of Renaissance human-
ism has been confined to those pursuits humanists themselves would have
regarded as contemplative. It is true that many contemplative pursuits re-
flected on the active life, and no humanist would have denied that any form
of speech or writing was a kind of act. Nevertheless, humanists insisted on
distinguishing levels of engagement with civic life. It is surprising to find,
therefore, that our understanding of the use of the studia humanitatis in
civic life is anecdotal. Our knowledge of the use of classical learning to
understand the colonisation of the New World, which was perceived as
an extension of the civic sphere, has likewise been anecdotal and yet, as I
argue, the studia humanitatis was fundamental to that understanding.
14 Skinner, The foundations of modern political thought, I, pp. 193–262.
15 Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, ‘ “Studied for action”: how Gabriel Harvey read his Livy’, Past
and Present, 129 (1990).
16 Seigel, Rhetoric and philosophy in Renaissance humanism.
6 Humanism and America
The fear of corruption drove some humanists to oppose the foundation
of colonies altogether. Those who did pursue colonisation did so because
they found an outlet for the humanist passion for the vita activa, a means to
exercise virtue in the foundation and conservation of a commonwealth –
the highest calling of the active life. Moreover, when the promoters of
colonies spoke of the glories of serving the commonwealth they did not
always restrict their meaning to the English commonwealth. Their first duty
was, of course, to their sovereign and to England. Frequently, however, the
understanding of virtuous duties in the service of their sovereign extended to
the foundation of new commonwealths. ‘Commonwealth’ was a translation
of res publica, or republic. For the early modern English, it meant simply a
coherent political body defined by mutual obligations.17 A commonwealth
could be a guild, a business, a parish, a town, a city, the state or, in this case,
a colony. The creation of colonies could be represented as the creation of
discrete commonwealths, separate from England but under the imperium
of the crown. In 1610, for example, the Virginia Company advertised for
‘men of most use and necessity, to the foundation of a Common-wealth’.18
The language of the vita activa was quasi-republican. This presented
a problem. In the courtly world of northern Europe, the expression of
Roman republican sentiment was limited. The possibilities for a life of
virtuous action were even more limited. Humanists made great progress in
reconciling much of the republican thought central to the studia humanitatis
with princely societies.19 England was commonly portrayed not simply as
a monarchy but as a mixed constitution, a layered political structure that
provided many opportunities for political participation for men and women
of almost all estates.20 Humanism, as we shall see, provided the ideological
architecture for this constitution. But a tension between the values of the
humanist education system, with its emphasis upon self-government, and
Renaissance European culture persisted. The opportunity to establish new
commonwealths provided a means of political expression both for those
who had no desire to be in conflict with their monarch and for those
(particularly as the conflict between monarch and Parliament deepened
17 See, for example, Thomas Smith’s definition of ‘commonwealth’ in Thomas Smith, The com-
monwealth of England [De republica Anglorum], ed. L. Alston [London, 1583], (Cambridge, 1906),
p. 10.
18 A true and sincere declaration of the purpose and ends of the plantation begun in Virginia (London,
1610), pp. 25–6.
19 Skinner, Foundations of modern political thought, I; Patrick Collinson, ‘The monarchical republic
of Queen Elizabeth I’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 69 (1987),
pp. 394–424; Peltonen, Classical humanism and republicanism in English political thought.
20 On the political participation of women, see Tim Harris, ed., The politics of the excluded, c.1500–1850
(London, 2001). While they were involved in colonising, women did not directly participate in the
promotion of colonies between 1500 and 1625.
Introduction 7
under James I) who did seek political expression outside the confines of
their society. In similar fashion others chose literary means to pursue the
same ends.21
The humanist character of English colonisation can, therefore, in part be
explained by tensions between the studia humanitatis and its reception into
northern Europe. But why, as I argue, did humanism do more to shape the
English understanding of the New World than that of other Europeans?
The answer lies in part in the dependence by the English crown upon the
grant of private patents for establishing colonies. It is true that all Euro-
pean colonisation began in this way. Christopher Columbus was licensed
by the Spanish crown to establish colonies, as were the conquistadors (even
if retrospectively). Similarly, in 1541 Francis I of France granted the right to
colonise to Jean François de laRoque de Roberval, just as in 1578 Elizabeth
I granted the first English patent for colonising in America to Humphrey
Gilbert. As silver and gold were plundered in huge quantities from Mexico
and Peru, the Spanish crown moved quickly to exercise close military, po-
litical and financial control over its New World possessions. It had little
need to persuade anyone to provide support for the conquests (except, of
course, on the question of justice). By contrast, in the period with which
we are concerned, English colonising projects were persistently unsuccess-
ful. They consumed rather than produced resources. As a consequence,
the crown provided legal support but otherwise kept colonial matters at
arm’s length. The success or failure of the enterprises rested entirely on the
ability of private interests to raise capital and personnel. The colonising at-
tempts of the French Huguenots were the most striking European parallel
with the model of English colonisation. The Huguenot projects were also
licensed to private interests and enlisted men of humanist education in their
support. Those men, as we see in ch. 2, included a number of English hu-
manists, such as Richard Eden, who gained employment with their French
co-religionists and subsequently came to prominence in the promotion
of English colonies. Such was the common identification of English and
Huguenot colonisation that joint projects were planned. However, the mas-
sacre of Saint Bartholomew’s Day in 1572 and its aftermath limited further
French Protestant involvement in the New World, and in 1627 Huguenots
were officially banned from venturing to the New World by Cardinal de
Richelieu.22
21 See David Norbrook, Writing the English republic: Poetry, rhetoric and politics, 1627–1660 (Cambridge,
1999), and David Norbrook, ‘Lucan, Thomas May, and the creation of a republican literary culture’,
in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake, eds., Culture and politics in early Stuart England (London, 1994).
22 For the ban, see ‘Article XVII de la charte de la compagnie des Cent-Associés’, Mercure de France,
XIV, 245, cited in Pierre Clément, Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert (Paris, Imprimerie
8 Humanism and America
Falling back upon their wits and their education the English would be
colonisers appreciated that an enormous persuasive project would be re-
quired to gain the necessary support. The creation of private colonising
grants corresponded with the peak of the studia humanitatis in England.
This new intellectual world was fundamentally rhetorical in character. At
the heart of humanism was a belief that the moral world was contingent
and that all political action, or indeed, all social relations, rested upon moral
persuasion. As his model of ‘deliberative’, or political, rhetoric the English
humanist Thomas Wilson used an example from Erasmus of ‘An epistle to
persuade a young gentleman to marriage’.23 Rhetoric was, accordingly, a
central discipline of the studia humanitatis. It was thus to the studia human-
itatis that the promoters of colonies turned to convince their audiences to
part with their purses and, if necessary, with their lives. ‘If losse of life befall
you by this service’, argued Robert Johnson in The new life of Virginea,
‘yet in this case too, wee doubt not but you are resolved with constant
courage.’24
It is often argued that the private grants to European colonisers reflected
a medieval and feudal mental world.25 The position of the conqueror resem-
bled that of the feudal lord. This argument is perhaps true of the Spanish
conquistadors, who could understand their actions as an extension of the
reconquista or, like Columbus, the crusades. It is also true that Ciceronian
values could be reconciled with feudal England.26 It is difficult, however,
to fit a feudal image upon English colonising enterprises in which the
language of self-representation concerned the rewards of virtuous political
action, a language of the classical commonwealth and of the city.27 We
shall see that Walter Ralegh appealed to both traditions, but as silver and
gold proved elusive, the English rejected the possibility of emulating the
conquistadors.28
Impériale, 1865), tome 3, vol. II, p. 404. On Huguenot colonising projects, see Frank Lestringant,
Le Huguenot et le Sauvage. L’Amérique et la controverse coloniale en France au temps des guerres de
religion, 1555–1589 (Paris, 1990).
23 Thomas Wilson, The art of rhetoric, ed. Peter E. Medine (Pennsylvania, 1994), p. 79.
24 Robert Johnson, The new life of Virginea (London, 1612), sigs. D4r–v.
25 See, for example, Francis Jennings, The invasion of America: Indians, colonialism, and the cant of
conquest (New York, 1975), pp. 3–5.
26 See Stephen Alford, The early Elizabethan polity: William Cecil and the British succession crisis 1558–1569
(Cambridge, 1998).
27 This is not to say that civic language was employed exclusively in cities. It was a language also used
for the parish ‘commonwealth’. On the parish as republic, see Mark Goldie, ‘The unacknowledged
republic: officeholding in early modern England’, in Harris, The politics of the excluded, c.1500–
1850.
28 See also Anthony Pagden, Lords of all the world: Ideologies of empire in Spain, Britain and France
c.1500–c.1800 (New Haven, 1995).
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
你不肯。”婦人道:“我也不多著個影兒在這裡,巴不的來總好。我這
裡也空落落的,得他來與老娘做伴兒。自古舡多不礙港,車多不礙
路,我不肯招他,當初那個怎麼招我來?攙奴甚麼分兒也怎的?倒只
怕人心不似奴心。你還問聲大姐姐去。”西門慶道:“雖故是恁說,他
孝服未滿哩。”說畢,婦人與西門慶脫白綾襖,袖子里滑浪一聲掉出個
物件兒來,拿在手裡沉甸甸的,彈子大,認了半日,竟不知甚麼東
西。但見:
原是番兵出產,逢人薦轉在京。身軀小內玲瓏。得人輕借力,
輾轉作蟬鳴。解使佳人心顫,慣能助腎威風。號稱金面勇先鋒。戰降
功第一,揚名勉子鈴。
婦人認了半日,問道:“是甚麼東西兒?怎和把人半邊胳膊都麻
了?”西門慶笑道:“這物件你就不知道了,名喚做勉鈴,南方勉甸國
出來的。好的也值四五兩銀子。”婦人道:“此物使到那裡?”西門慶
道:“先把他放入爐內,然後行事,妙不可言。”婦人道:“你與李瓶兒
也乾來?”西門慶於是把晚間之事,從頭告訴一遍。說得金蓮淫心頓
起,兩個白日里掩上房門,解衣上床交歡。正是:
不知子晉緣何事,才學吹簫便作仙。
話休饒舌。一日西門慶會了經紀,把李瓶兒的香蠟等物,都秤了斤
兩,共賣了三百八十兩銀子。李瓶兒只留下一百八十兩盤纏,其餘都
付與西門慶收了,湊著蓋房使。教陰陽擇用二月初八日興土動工。將
五百兩銀子委付大家人來招並主管賁四,卸磚瓦木石,管工計帳。這
賁四名喚賁第傳,年少生的浮浪囂虛,百能百巧。原是內相勤兒出
身,因不守本分,被趕出來。初時跟著人做兄弟,次後投入大人家做
家人,把人家奶子拐出來做了渾家,卻在故衣行做經紀。琵琶簫管都
會。西門慶見他這般本事,常照管他在生藥鋪中秤貨討人錢使。以此
凡大小事情,少他不得。當日賁四、來招督管各作匠人興工。先拆毀
花家那邊舊房,打開牆垣,築起地腳,蓋起捲棚山子、各亭台耍子去
處。非止一日,不必盡說。
光陰迅速,日月如梭。西門慶起蓋花園,約個月有餘。卻是三月上
旬,乃花子虛百日。李瓶兒預先請過西門慶去,和他計議,要把花子
虛靈燒了:“房子賣的賣,不的,你著人來看守。你早把奴娶過去罷!
隨你把奴作第幾個,奴情願伏侍你鋪床疊被。”說著淚如雨下。西門慶
道:“你休煩惱。我這話對房下和潘五姐也說過了,直待與你把房蓋
完,那時你孝服將滿,娶你過門不遲。”李瓶兒道:“你既有真心娶
奴,先早把奴房攛掇蓋了。娶過奴去,到你家住一日,死也甘心。省
得奴在這裡度日如年。”西門慶道:“你的話,我知道了。”李瓶兒
道:“再不的,我燒了靈,先搬在五娘那邊住兩日。等你蓋了新房子,
搬移不遲。你好歹到家和五娘說,我還等你的話。這三月初十日,是
他百日,我好念經燒靈。”西門慶應諾,與婦人歇了一夜。
到次日來家,一五一十對潘金蓮說了。金蓮道:“可知好哩!奴巴不
的騰兩間房與他住。你還問聲大姐姐去。我落得河水不洗船。”西門慶
一直走到月娘房裡來,月娘正梳頭。西門慶把李瓶兒要嫁一節,從頭
至尾說一遍。月娘道:“你不好娶他的。他頭一件,孝服不滿;第二
件,你當初和他男子漢相交;第三件,你又和他老婆有連手,買了他
房子,收著他寄放的許多東西。常言:機兒不快梭兒快。我聞得人
說,他家房族中花大是個刁徒潑皮。倘一時有些聲口,倒沒的惹虱子
頭上搔。奴說的是好話。趙錢孫李,你依不依隨你!”幾句說的西門慶
閉口無言。走出前廳來,坐在椅子上沉吟:又不好回李瓶兒話,又不
好不去的。尋思了半日,還進入金蓮房裡來。金蓮問道:“大姐姐怎麼
說?”西門慶把月娘的話告訴了一遍。金蓮道:“大姐姐說的也是。你
又買了他房子,又娶他老婆,當初又與他漢子相交,既做朋友,沒絲
也有寸,交官兒也看喬了。”西門慶道:“這個也罷了。到只怕花大那
廝沒圈子跳,知道挾制他孝服不滿,在中間鬼渾。怎生計較?我如今
又不好回他的。”金蓮道:“呸!有甚難處的事?你到那裡只說:‘我到
家對五娘說來,他的樓上堆著許多藥料,你這家伙去到那裡沒處堆
放,亦發再寬待些時,你這邊房子也七八蓋了,攛掇匠人早些裝修油
漆停當,你這裡孝服也將滿。那裡娶你過去,卻不齊備些。強似搬在
五娘樓上,葷不葷,素不素,擠在一處甚麼樣子!’管情他也罷了。”
西門慶聽言大喜,那裡等的時分,就走到李瓶兒家。婦人便問:“所
言之事如何?”西門慶道:“五娘說來,一發等收拾油漆你新房子,你
搬去不遲。如今他那邊樓上,堆的破零零的,你這些東西過去那裡堆
放?還有一件打攪,只怕你家大伯子說你孝服不滿,如之奈何?”婦人
道:“他不敢管我的事。休說各衣另飯,當官寫立分單,已倒斷開了,
只我先嫁由爹娘,後嫁由自己。常言:嫂叔不通問,大伯管不的我暗
地裡事。我如今見過不的日子,他顧不的我。他但若放出個屁來,我
教那賊花子坐著死不敢睡著死。大官人你放心,他不敢惹我。”因
問:“你這房子,也得幾時方收拾完備?”西門慶道:“我如今吩咐匠
人,先替你蓋出這三間樓來,及至油漆了,也到五月頭上。”婦人
道:“我的哥哥,你上緊些。奴情願等到那時候也罷。”說畢,丫鬟擺
上酒,兩個歡娛飲酒過夜。西門慶自此,沒三五日不來,俱不必細
說。
光陰迅速,西門慶家中已蓋了兩月房屋。三間玩花樓,裝修將完,
只少捲棚還未安磉。一日,五月蕤賓時節,正是:
家家門插艾葉,處處戶掛靈符。
李瓶兒治了一席酒,請過西門慶來,一者解粽,二者商議過門之
事。擇五月十五日,先請僧人念經燒靈,然後西門慶這邊擇娶婦人過
門。西門慶因問李瓶兒道:“你燒靈那日,花大、花三、花四請他不
請?”婦人道:“我每人把個帖子,隨他來不來!”當下計議已定,單等
五月十五日,婦人請了報恩寺十二眾僧人,在家念經除靈。
西門慶那日封了三錢銀子人情,與應伯爵做生日。早晨拿了五兩銀
子與玳安,教他買辦置酒,晚夕與李瓶兒除服。卻教平安、畫童兩個
跟馬,約午後時分,往應伯爵家來。那日在席者謝希大、祝實念、孫
天化、吳典恩、雲理守、常峙節連新上會賁第傳十個朋友,一個不
少。又叫了兩個小優兒彈唱。遞畢酒,上坐之時,西門慶叫過兩個小
優兒,認的頭一個是吳銀兒兄弟,名喚吳惠。那一個不認的,跪下說
道:“小的是鄭愛香兒的哥,叫鄭奉。”西門慶坐首席,每人賞二錢銀
子。吃到日西時分,只見玳安拿馬來接,向西門慶耳邊悄悄說道:“二
娘請爹早些去。”西門慶與了他個眼色,就往下走。被應伯爵叫住問
道:“賊狗骨頭兒,你過來實說。若不實說,我把你小耳朵擰過一邊
來,你應爹一年有幾個生日?恁日頭半天里就拿馬來,端的誰使你
來?或者是你家中那娘使了你來?或者是裡邊十八子那裡?你若不
說,過一百年也不對你爹說,替你這小狗禿兒娶老婆。”玳安只說
道:“委的沒人使小的。小的恐怕夜緊,爹要起身早,拿馬來伺
候。”應伯爵奈何了他一回,見不說,便道:“你不說,我明日打聽出
來,和你這小油嘴兒算帳。”於是又斟了一鐘酒,拿了半碟點兒,與玳
安下邊吃去。
良久,西門慶下來更衣,叫玳安到僻靜處問他話:“今日花家有誰
來?”玳安道:“花三往鄉裡去了。花四家裡害眼,都沒人來。只有花
大家兩口子來。吃了一日齋飯,他漢子先家去了,只有他老婆,臨
去,二娘叫到房裡,與了他十兩銀子,兩套衣服。還與二娘磕了
頭。”西門慶道:“他沒說什麼?”玳安道:“他一字沒敢題甚麼,只說
到明日二娘過來,他三日要來爹家走走。”西門慶道:“他真個說此話
來?”玳安道:“小的怎敢說謊。”西門慶聽了,滿心歡喜。又問:“齋
供了畢不曾?”玳安道:“和尚老早就去了,靈位也燒了。二娘說請爹
早些過去。”西門慶道:“我知道了,你處邊看馬去。”這玳安正往外
走,不想應伯爵在過道內聽,猛可叫了一聲,把玳安嚇了一跳。伯爵
罵道:“賊小骨頭兒!你不對我說,我怎的也聽見了?原來你爹兒們乾
的好繭兒!”西門慶道:“怪狗才,休要倡揚。”伯爵道:“你央我央
兒,我不說便了。”於是走到席上,如此這般,對眾人說了一回。把西
門慶拉著說道:“哥,你可成個人!有這等事,就掛口不對兄弟們說聲
兒?就是花大有些話說,哥只吩咐俺們一聲,等俺們和他說,不怕他
不依。他若敢道個不字,俺們就與他結下個大疙瘩。端的不知哥這親
事成了不曾?哥一一告訴俺們。比來相交朋友做甚麼?哥若有使令去
處,兄弟情願火里火去,水裡水去。弟兄們這等待你,哥還只瞞著不
說。”謝希大接過說道:“哥若不說,俺們明日倡揚的裡邊李桂姐、吳
銀兒知道了,大家都不好意思的。”西門慶笑道:“我教眾位得知罷,
親事已都停當了。”謝希大道:“哥到明日娶嫂子過門,俺們賀哥去。
哥好歹叫上四個唱的,請俺們吃喜酒。”西門慶道:“這個不消說,一
定奉請列位兄弟。”祝實念道:“比時明日與哥慶喜,不如咱如今替哥
把一杯兒酒,先慶了喜罷。”於是叫伯爵把酒,謝希大執壺,祝實念捧
菜,其餘都陪跪。把兩個小優兒也叫來跪著,彈唱一套《十三腔》“喜
遇吉日”,一連把西門慶灌了三四鐘酒。祝實念道:“哥,那日請俺們
吃酒,也不要少了鄭奉、吳惠兩個。”因定下:“你二人好歹去。”鄭奉
掩口道:“小的們一定伺候。”須臾,遞酒畢,各歸席坐下。又吃了一
回。看看天晚,那西門慶那裡坐的住,趕眼錯起身走了。應伯爵還要
攔門不放,謝希大道:“應二哥,你放哥去罷。休要誤了他的事,教嫂
子見怪。”
那西門慶得手上馬,一直走了。到了獅子街,李瓶兒摘去孝髻,換
上一身艷服。堂中燈火熒煌,預備下一桌齊整酒席,上面獨獨安一張
交椅,讓西門慶上坐。丫鬟執壺,李瓶兒滿斟一杯遞上去,磕了四個
頭,說道:“今日靈已燒了,蒙大官人不棄,奴家得奉巾櫛之歡,以遂
於飛之願。”行畢禮起來。西門慶下席來,亦回遞婦人一杯,方纔坐
下。因問:“今日花大兩口子沒說什麼?”李瓶兒道:“奴午齋後,叫他
進到房中,就說大官人這邊親事。他滿口說好,一句閑話也無。只說
明日三日里,教他娘子兒來咱家走走。奴與他十兩銀子,兩套衣服,
兩口子歡喜的要不的。臨出門,謝了又謝。”西門慶道:“他既恁說,
我容他上門走走也不差甚麼。但有一句閑話,我不饒他。”李瓶兒
道:“他若放辣騷,奴也不放過他。”於是銀鑲鐘兒盛著南酒,繡春斟
了送上,李瓶兒陪著吃了幾杯。真個是年隨情少,酒因境多。李瓶兒
因過門日子近了,比常時益發歡喜,臉上堆下笑來,問西門慶道:“方
纔你在應家吃酒,玳安來請你,那邊沒人知道麽?”西門慶道:“又被
應花子猜著,逼勒小廝說了幾句,鬧混了一場。諸弟兄要與我賀喜,
喚唱的,做東道,又齊攢的幫襯,灌上我幾杯。我趕眼錯就走出來,
還要攔阻,又說好歹,放了我來。”李瓶兒道:“他們放了你,也還解
趣哩。”西門慶看他醉態顛狂,情眸眷戀,一霎的不禁胡亂。兩個口吐
丁香,臉偎仙杏,李瓶兒把西門慶抱在懷裡叫道:“我的親哥!你既真
心要娶我,可趁早些。你又往來不便,休丟我在這裡日夜懸望。”說畢
翻來倒去,攪做一團,真個是:
情濃胸湊緊,款洽臂輕籠;倦把銀缸照,猶疑是夢中。
詩曰:
早知君愛歇,本自無容妒;誰使恩情深,今來反相誤。
愁眠羅帳曉,泣坐金閨暮;獨有夢中魂,猶言意如故。
話說五月二十日,帥府周守備生日。西門慶封五星分資、兩方手
帕,打選衣帽齊整,騎匹大白馬,四個小廝跟隨,往他家拜壽。席間
也有夏提刑、張團練、荊千戶、賀千戶一班武官兒飲酒,鼓樂迎接,
搬演戲文。玳安接了衣裳,回馬來家。到日西時分,又騎馬去接,走
到西街口上,撞見馮媽媽,問道:“馮媽媽那裡去?”馮媽媽道:“你二
娘使我來請你爹。雇銀匠整理頭面完備,今日送來,請你爹那裡瞧
去。你二娘還和你爹說話哩!”玳安道:“俺爹今日在守備府周老爺處
吃酒,我如今接去。你老人家回罷。等我到那裡,對爹說就是了。”馮
媽媽道:“累你好歹說聲,你二娘等著哩!”這玳安打馬逕到守備府。
眾官員正飲酒間,玳安走到西門慶席前,說道:“小的回馬家來時,在
街口撞遇馮媽媽,二娘使了來說,雇銀匠送了頭面來了,請爹瞧去,
還要和爹說話哩。”西門慶聽了,就要起身,那周守備那裡肯放,攔門
拿巨杯相勸。西門慶道:“蒙大人見賜,寧可飲一杯,還有些小事,不
能盡情,恕罪,恕罪!”於是一飲而盡,辭周守備上馬,逕到李瓶兒
家。
婦人接著,茶湯畢,西門慶吩咐玳安回馬家去,明日來接。玳安去
了。李瓶兒叫迎春盒兒內取出頭面來,與西門慶過目。黃烘烘火焰般
一副好頭面,收過去,單等二十四日行禮,出月初四日準娶。婦人滿
心歡喜,連忙安排酒來,和西門慶暢飲開懷。吃了一回,使丫鬟房中
搽抹涼席乾凈。兩個在紗帳之中,香焚蘭麝,衾展鮫綃,脫去衣裳,
並肩疊股,飲酒調笑。良久,春色橫眉,淫心蕩漾。西門慶先和婦人
雲雨一回,然後乘著酒興,坐於床上,令婦人橫躺於衽席之上,與他
品簫。但見:
不竹不絲不石,肉音別自唔咿。流蘇瑟瑟碧紗垂,辨不出宮
商角徵。 一點櫻桃欲綻,纖纖十指頻移。深吞添吐兩情痴,不
覺靈犀味美。 [紗帳香飄蘭麝,娥眉輕把蕭吹。雪白玉體透香
帷,禁不住魂飛魄揚。 一點櫻桃小口,兩隻手賽柔荑,才郎情
動囑奴知,不覺靈犀味美。]
西門慶醉中戲問婦人:“當初花子虛在時,也和他乾此事不乾?”婦
人道:“他逐日睡生夢死,奴那裡耐煩和他乾這營生!他每日只在外邊
胡撞,就來家,奴等閑也不和他沾身。況且老公公在時,和他另在一
間房睡著,我還把他罵的狗血噴了頭。好不好,對老公公說了,要打
倘棍兒。奴與他這般頑耍,可不硶殺奴罷了!誰似冤家這般可奴之
意,就是醫奴的藥一般。白日黑夜,教奴只是想你。”兩個耍一回,又
幹了一回。旁邊迎春伺候下一個小方盒,都是各樣細巧果品,小金壺
內滿泛瓊漿。從黃昏掌上燈燭,且乾且歇,直耍到一更時分。只聽外
邊一片聲打的大門響,使馮媽媽開門瞧去,原來是玳安來了。西門慶
道:“我吩咐明日來接,這咱晚又來做甚麼?”因叫進來問他。那小廝
慌慌張張走到房門首,因西門慶與婦人睡著,又不敢進來,只在簾外
說道:“姐姐、姐夫都搬來了,許多箱籠在家中。大娘使我來請爹,快
去計較話哩。”這西門慶聽了,只顧猶豫:“這咱晚,端的有甚緣故?
須得到家瞧瞧。”連忙起來。婦人打發穿上衣服,做了一盞暖酒與他
吃。
打馬一直到家,只見後堂中秉著燈燭,女兒女婿都來了,堆著許多
箱籠床帳家伙,先吃了一驚,因問:“怎的這咱來家?”女婿陳敬濟磕
了頭,哭說:“近日朝中,俺楊老爺被科道官參論倒了。聖旨下來,拿
送南牢問罪。門下親族用事人等,都問擬枷充軍。昨日府中楊乾辦連
夜奔來,透報與父親知道。父親慌了,教兒子同大姐和些家伙箱籠,
且暫在爹家中寄放,躲避些時。他便起身往東京我姑娘那裡,打聽消
息去了。待事寧之日,恩有重報,不敢有忘。”西門慶問:“你爹有書
沒有?” 陳敬濟道:“有書在此。”向袖中取出,遞與西門慶。折開觀
看,上面寫道:
眷生陳洪頓首書奉大德西門慶親家台覽:餘情不敘。茲因北
虜犯邊,搶過雄州地界,兵部王尚書不發救兵,失誤軍機,連累朝
中楊老爺,俱被科道官參劾太重。聖旨惱怒,拿下南牢監禁,會同
三法司審問。其門下親族用事人等,俱照例發邊衛充軍。生一聞消
息,舉家驚惶,無處可投,先打發小兒、令愛,隨身箱籠家活,暫
借親家府上寄寓。生即上京,投在姐夫張世廉處,打聽示下。待事
務寧帖之日,回家恩有重報,不敢有忘。誠恐縣中有甚聲色,生令
小兒外具銀五百兩,相煩親家費心處料,容當叩報沒齒不忘。燈下
草書,不宣。 仲夏二
十日 洪再拜
西門慶看了,慌了手腳,教吳月娘安排酒飯,管待女兒、女婿。就
令家下人等,打掃廳前東廂房三間,與他兩口兒居住。把箱籠細軟都
收拾月娘上房來。陳敬濟取出他那五百兩銀子,交與西門慶打點使
用。西門慶叫了吳主管來,與他五百兩銀子,教他連夜往縣中承行房
裡,抄錄一張東京行下來的文書邸報來看。上面端的寫的是甚言語:
兵科給事中宇文虛中等一本,懇乞宸斷,亟誅誤國權姦,以振
本兵,以消虜患事:臣聞夷狄之禍,自古有之。周之獫狁,漢之匈
奴,唐之突厥,迨及五代而契丹浸強,至我皇宋建國,大遼縱橫中原
者已非一日。然未聞內無夷狄而外萌夷狄之患者。語云:霜降而堂鐘
鳴,雨下而柱礎潤。以類感類,必然之理。譬若病夫,腹心之疾已
久,元氣內消,風邪外入,四肢百骸,無非受病,雖盧扁莫之能救,
焉能久乎?今天下之勢,正猶病夫[兀王]羸之極矣。君猶元首也,
輔臣猶腹心也,百官猶四肢也。陛下端 拱於九重之上,百官庶政
各盡職於下。元氣內充,榮衛外扞,則虜患何由而至哉?今招夷虜之
患者,莫如崇政殿大學士蔡京者:本以憸邪姦險之資,濟以寡廉鮮恥
之行,讒諂面諛,上不能輔君當道,贊元理化;下不能宣德布政,保
愛元元。徒以利祿自資,希寵固位,樹黨懷姦,矇蔽欺君,中傷善
類。忠士為之解體,四海為之寒心。聯翩朱紫,萃聚一門。邇者河湟
失議,主議伐遼,內割三郡,郭藥師之叛,卒使金虜背盟,憑陵中
原。此皆誤國之大者,皆由京之不職也。王黼貪庸無賴,行比俳優。
蒙京汲引,薦居政府,未幾謬掌本兵。惟事慕位苟安,終無一籌可
展。乃者張達殘於太原,為之張皇失散。今虜犯內地,則又挈妻子南
下,為自全之計。其誤國之罪,可勝誅戮?楊戩本以紈絝膏粱叨承祖
蔭,憑籍寵靈典司兵柄,濫膺閫外,大姦似忠,怯懦無比。此三臣
者,皆朋黨固結,內外矇蔽,為陛下腹心之蠱者也。數年以來,招災
致異,喪本傷元,役重賦煩,生民離散,盜賊猖獗,夷虜犯順,天下
之膏腴已盡,國家之綱紀廢弛,雖擢發不足以數京等之罪也。臣等待
罪該科,備員諫職,徒以目擊姦臣誤國,而不為皇上陳之,則上辜君
父之恩,下負平生所學。伏乞宸斷,將京等一干黨惡人犯,或下廷
尉,以示薄罰;或致極典,以彰顯戮;或照例枷號;或投之荒裔,以
御魑魅。庶天意可回,人心暢快,國法以正,虜患自消。天下幸甚!
臣民幸甚!
奉聖旨:“蔡京姑留輔政。王黼、楊戩著拿送三法司,會問明白
來說。欽此欽遵。”續該三法司會問過,並黨惡人犯王黼、楊戩,本兵
不職,縱虜深入,荼毒生民,損兵折將,失陷內地,律應處斬。手下
壞事家人、書辦、官掾、親家董升、盧虎、楊盛、龐宣、韓宗仁、陳
洪、黃玉、劉盛、趙弘道等,查出有名人犯,俱問擬枷號一個月,滿
日發邊衛充軍。
西門慶不看,萬事皆休;看了耳邊廂只聽颼的一聲,魂魄不知往那
裡去了。就是:
驚傷六葉連肝肺,嚇壞三毛七孔心。
當下即忙打點金銀寶玩,馱裝停當,把家人來保、來旺叫到卧房
中,悄悄吩咐,如此這般:“雇頭口星夜上東京打聽消息。不消到你陳
親家老爹下處。但有不好聲色,取巧打點停當,速來回報。”又與了他
二人二十兩銀子。絕早五更雇腳夫起程,上東京去了,不在話下。
西門慶通一夜不曾睡著,到次日早,吩咐來昭、賁四,把花園工程
止住,各項匠人都且回去,不做了。每日將大門緊閉,家下人無事亦
不許往外去。西門慶只在房裡走來走去,憂上加憂,悶上加悶,如熱
地蜒蚰一般,把娶李瓶兒的勾當丟在九霄雲外去了。吳月娘見他愁眉
不展,面帶憂容,只得寬慰他,說道:“他陳親家那邊為事,各人冤有
頭債有主,你也不需焦愁如此。”西門慶道:“你婦人都知道些甚麼?
陳親家是我的親家,女兒、女婿兩個孽障搬來咱家住著,平昔街坊鄰
舍惱咱的極多,常言:機兒不快梭兒快,打著羊駒驢戰。倘有小人指
搠,拔樹尋根,你我身家不保。”正是:關門家裡坐,禍從天上來。這
裡西門慶在家納悶,不題。
且說李瓶兒等了一日兩日,不見動靜,一連使馮媽媽來了兩遍,大
門關得鐵桶相似。等了半日,沒一個人牙兒出來,竟不知怎的。看看
到二十四日,李瓶兒又使馮媽媽送頭面來,就請西門慶過去說話。叫
門不開,立在對過房檐下等。少頃,只見玳安出來飲馬,看見便
問:“馮媽媽,你來做甚麼?”馮媽媽說:“你二娘使我送頭面來,怎的
不見動靜?請你爹過去說話哩。”玳安道:“俺爹連日有些事兒,不得
閑。你老人家還拿頭面去,等我飲馬回來,對俺爹說就是了。”馮媽媽
道:“好哥哥,我這在里等著,你拿進頭面去和你爹說去。你二娘那裡
好不惱我哩!”這玳安一面把馬拴下,走到裡邊,半日出來道:“對爹
說了,頭面爹收下了,教你上覆二娘,再待幾日兒,我爹出來往二娘
那裡說話。”這馮媽媽一直走來,回了婦人話。婦人又等了幾日,看看
五月將盡,六月初旬,朝思暮盼,音信全無,夢攘魂勞,佳期間阻。
正是:
懶把蛾眉掃,羞將粉臉勻。滿懷幽恨積,憔悴玉精神。
婦人盼不見西門慶來,每日茶飯頓減,精神恍惚。到晚夕,孤眠枕
上展轉躊躕。忽聽外邊打門,仿佛見西門慶來到。婦人迎門笑接,攜
手進房,問其爽約之情,各訴衷腸之話。綢繆繾綣,徹夜歡娛。雞鳴
天曉,便抽身回去。婦人恍然驚覺,大呼一聲,精魂已失。馮媽媽聽
見,慌忙進房來看。婦人說道:“西門他爹剛纔出去,你關上門不
曾?”馮媽媽道:“娘子想得心迷了,那裡得大官人來?影兒也沒
有!”婦人自此夢境隨邪,夜夜有狐狸假名抵姓,攝其精髓。漸漸形容
黃瘦,飲食不進,卧床不起。馮媽媽向婦人說,請了大街口蔣竹山來
看。其人年不上三十,生的五短身材,人物飄逸,極是輕浮狂詐。請
入卧室,婦人則霧鬢雲鬟,擁衾而卧,似不勝憂愁之狀。茶湯已罷,
丫鬟安放褥墊。竹山就床診視脈息畢,因見婦人生有姿色,便開口說
道:“學生適診病源,娘子肝脈弦出寸口而洪大,厥陰脈出寸口久上魚
際,主六欲七情所致。陰陽交爭,乍寒乍熱,似有鬱結於中而不遂之
意也。似瘧非瘧,似寒非寒,白日則倦怠嗜卧,精神短少;夜晚神不
守舍,夢與鬼交。若不早治,久而變為骨蒸之疾,必有屬纊之憂矣。
可惜,可惜!”婦人道:“有累先生,俯賜良劑。奴好了,重加酬
謝。”竹山道:“學生無不用心,娘子若服了我的藥,必然貴體全
安。”說畢起身。這裡送藥金五星,使馮媽媽討將藥來。婦人晚間吃了
藥下去,夜裡得睡,便不驚恐。漸漸飲食加添,起來梳頭走動。那消
數日,精神複舊。
一日,安排了一席酒餚,備下三兩銀子,使馮媽媽請過竹山來相
謝。蔣竹山自從與婦人看病,懷覬覦之心已非一日。一聞其請,即具
服而往。延之中堂,婦人盛妝出見,道了萬福,茶湯兩換,請入房
中。酒餚已陳,麝蘭香藹。小丫鬟繡春在旁,描金盤內托出三兩白
金。婦人高擎玉盞,向前施禮,說道:“前日,奴家心中不好,蒙賜良
劑,服之見效。今粗治了一杯水酒,請過先生來知謝知謝。”竹山
道:“此是學生分內之事,理當措置,何必計較!”因見三兩謝禮,說
道:“這個學生怎麼敢領?”婦人道:“些須微意,不成禮數,萬望先生
笑納。”辭讓了半日,竹山方纔收了。婦人遞酒,安下坐次。飲過三
巡,竹山偷眼睃視婦人,粉妝玉琢,嬌艷驚人,先用言以挑之,因
道:“學生不敢動問,娘子青春幾何?”婦人道:“奴虛度二十四
歲。”竹山道:“似娘子這等妙年,生長深閨,處於富足,何事不遂,
而前日有此鬱結不足之病?”婦人聽了,微笑道:“不瞞先生,奴因拙
夫棄世,家事蕭條,獨自一身,憂愁思慮,何得無病!”竹山道:“原
來娘子夫主歿了。多少時了?”婦人道:“拙夫從去歲十一月得傷寒病
死了,今已八個月。”竹山道:“曾吃誰的藥來?”婦人道:“大街上胡
先生。”竹山道:“是那東街上劉太監房子住的胡鬼嘴兒?他又不是我
太醫院出身,知道甚麼脈,娘子怎的請他?”婦人道:“也是因街坊上
人薦舉請他來看。還是拙夫沒命,不乾他事。”竹山又道:“娘子也還
有子女沒有?”婦人道:“兒女俱無。”竹山道:“可惜娘子這般青春妙
齡之際,獨自孀居,又無所出,何不尋其別進之路?甘為幽悶,豈不
生病!”婦人道: “奴近日也講著親事,早晚過門。”竹山便道:“動問
娘子與何人作親?”婦人道:“是縣前開生藥鋪西門大官人。”竹山聽了
道:“苦哉,苦哉!娘子因何嫁他?學生常在他家看病,最知詳細。此
人專在縣中包攬說事,廣放私債,販賣人口,家中丫頭不算,大小五
六個老婆,著緊打倘棍兒,稍不中意,就令媒人領出賣了。就是打老
婆的班頭,坑婦女的領袖。娘子早是對我說,不然進入他家,如飛蛾
投火一般,坑你上不上,下不下,那時悔之晚矣。況近日他親家那邊
為事乾連,在家躲避不出,房子蓋的半落不合的,都丟下了。東京關
下文書,坐落府縣拿人。到明日他蓋這房子,多是入官抄沒的數兒。
娘子沒來由嫁他做甚?”一篇話把婦人說的閉口無言。況且許多東西丟
在他家,尋思半晌,暗中跌腳:“嗔怪道一替兩替請著他不來,他家中
為事哩!”又見竹山語言活動,一團謙恭:“奴明日若嫁得恁樣個人也
罷了,不知他有妻室沒有?”因說道:“既蒙先生指教,奴家感戴不
淺,倘有甚相知人家,舉保來說,奴無有個不依之理。”竹山乘機請
問:“不知要何等樣人家?學生打聽的實,好來這裡說。”婦人道:“人
家到也不論大小,只要象先生這般人物的。”這蔣竹山不聽便罷,聽了
此言,歡喜的滿心癢,不知搔處,慌忙走下席來,雙膝跪下告道:“不
瞞娘子說,學生內幃失助,中饋乏人,鰥居已久,子息全無。倘蒙娘
子垂憐,肯結秦晉之緣,足稱平生之願。學生雖銜環結草,不敢有
忘。”婦人笑笑,以手攜之,說道:“且請起,未審先生鰥居幾時?貴
庚多少?既要做親,須得要個保山來說,方成禮數。”竹山又跪下哀告
道:“學生行年二十九歲,正月二十七日卯時建生,不幸去年荊妻已
故,家緣貧乏,實出寒微。今既蒙金諾之言,何用冰人之講。”婦人笑
道:“你既無錢,我這裡有個媽媽姓馮,拉他做個媒證。也不消你行
聘,擇個吉日良時,招你進來,入門為贅。你意下若何?”這蔣竹山連
忙倒身下拜:“娘子就如同學生重生父母,再長爹娘。夙世有緣,三生
大幸矣!”一面兩個在房中各遞了一杯交歡酒,已成其親事。竹山飲至
天晚回家。
婦人這裡與馮媽媽商議說:“西門慶如此這般為事,吉凶難保。況且
奴家這邊沒人,不好了一場,險不喪了性命。為今之計,不如把這位
先生招他進來,有何不可?”到次日,就使馮媽媽遞信過去,擇六月十
八日大好日子,把蔣竹山倒踏門招進來,成其夫妻。過了三日,婦人
湊了三百兩銀子,與竹山打開兩間門面,店內煥然一新。初時往人家
看病只是走,後來買了一匹驢兒騎著,在街上往來,不在話下。正
是:
一窪死水全無浪,也有春風擺動時。
詞曰:
有個人人,海棠標韻,飛燕輕盈。酒暈潮紅,羞蛾一笑生
春。 為伊無限傷心,更說甚巫山楚雲!鬥帳香銷,紗窗月冷,
著意溫存。
話分兩頭。不說蔣竹山在李瓶兒家招贅,單表來保、來旺二人上東
京打點,朝登紫陌,暮踐紅塵,一日到東京,進了萬壽門,投旅店安
歇。到次日,街前打聽,只聽見街談巷議,都說兵部王尚書昨日會問
明白,聖旨下來,秋後處決。止有楊提督名下親族人等,未曾拿完,
尚未定奪。來保等二人把禮物打在身邊,急來到蔡府門首。舊時幹事
來了兩遍,道路久熟,立在龍德街牌樓底下,探聽府中消息。少頃,
只見一個青衣人,慌慌打府中出來,往東去了。來保認得是楊提督府
里親隨楊乾辦,待要叫住問他一聲事情如何,因家主不曾吩咐,以此
不言語,放過他去了。遲了半日,兩個走到府門前,望著守門官深深
唱個喏:“動問一聲,太師老爺在家不在?”那守門官道:“老爺朝中議
事未回。你問怎的?”來保又問道:“管家翟爺請出來,小人見見,有
事稟白。”那官吏道:“管家翟叔也不在了。”來保見他不肯實說,曉得
是要些東西,就袖中取出一兩銀子遞與他。那官吏接了便問:“你要見
老爺,要見學士大爺?老爺便是大管家翟謙稟,大爺的事便是小管家
高安稟,各有所掌。況老爺朝中未回,止有學士大爺在家。你有甚
事,我替你請出高管家來,稟見大爺也是一般。”這來保就借情
道:“我是提督楊爺府中,有事稟見。”官吏聽了,不敢怠慢,進入府
中。良久,只見高安出來。來保慌忙施禮,遞上十兩銀子,說道:“小
人是楊爺的親,同楊乾辦一路來見老爺討信。因後邊吃飯,來遲了一
步,不想他先來了。所以不曾趕上。”高安接了禮物,說道:“楊乾辦
只剛纔去了,老爺還未散朝。你且待待,我引你再見見大爺罷。”一面
把來保領到第二層大廳旁邊,另一座儀門進去。坐北朝南三間敞廳,
綠油欄桿,朱紅牌額,石青鎮地,金字大書天子御筆欽賜“學士琴
堂”四字。
原來蔡京兒子蔡攸,也是寵臣,見為祥和殿學士兼禮部尚書、提點
太乙宮使。來保在門外伺候,高安先入,說了出來,然後喚來保入
見,當廳跪下。蔡攸深衣軟巾,坐於堂上,問道:“你是那裡來
的?”來保稟道:“小人是楊爺的親家陳洪的家人,同府中楊乾辦來稟
見老爺討信。不想楊乾辦先來見了,小人趕來後見。”因向袖中取出揭
帖遞上。蔡攸見上面寫著“白米五百石”,叫來保近前說道:“蔡老爺亦
因言官論列,連日迴避。閣中之事並昨日三法司會問,都是右相李爺
秉筆。楊老爺的事,昨日內里有消息出來,聖上寬恩,另有處分了。
其手下用事有名人犯,待查明問罪。你還到李爺那裡去說。”來保只顧
磕頭道:“小的不認的李爺府中,望爺憐憫,看家楊老爺分上。”蔡攸
道:“你去到天漢橋邊北高坡大門樓處,問聲當朝右相、資政殿大學士
兼禮部尚書諱邦彥的你李爺,誰是不知道!也罷,我這裡還差個人同
你去。”即令祗候官呈過一緘,使了圖書,就差管家高安同去見李爺,
如此替他說。
那高安承應下了,同來保去了府門,叫了來旺,帶著禮物,轉過龍
德街,逕到天漢橋李邦彥門首。正值邦彥朝散才來家,穿大紅縐紗
袍,腰系玉帶,送出一位公卿上轎而去,回到廳上,門吏稟報說:“學
士蔡大爺差管家來見。”先叫高安進去說了回話,然後喚來保、來旺進
見,跪在廳臺下。高安就在旁邊遞了蔡攸封緘,並禮物揭帖,來保下
邊就把禮物呈上。邦彥看了說道:“你蔡大爺分上,又是你楊老爺親,
我怎麼好受此禮物?況你楊爺,昨日聖心回動,已沒事。但只手下之
人,科道參語甚重,一定問發幾個。”即令堂候官取過昨日科中送的那
幾個名字與他瞧。上面寫著:“王黼名下書辦官董升,家人王廉,班頭
黃玉,楊戩名下壞事書辦官盧虎,乾辦楊盛,府掾韓宗仁、趙弘道,
班頭劉成,親黨陳洪、西門慶、胡四等,皆鷹犬之徒,狐假虎威之
輩。乞敕下法司,將一干人犯,或投之荒裔以御魍魎,或置之典刑,
以正國法。”來保見了,慌的只顧磕頭,告道:“小人就是西門慶家
人,望老爺開天地之心,超生性命則個!”高安又替他跪稟一次。邦彥
見五百兩金銀,只買一個名字,如何不做分上?即令左右抬書案過
來,取筆將文捲上西門慶名字改作賈廉,一面收上禮物去。邦彥打發
來保等出來,就拿回帖回學士,賞了高安、來保、來旺一封五兩銀
子。
來保路上作辭高管家,回到客店,收拾行李,還了房錢,星夜回清
河縣。來家見西門慶,把東京所乾的事,從頭說了一遍。西門慶聽
了,如提在冷水盆內,對月娘說:“早時使人去打點,不然怎了!”正
是,這回西門慶性命有如──
落日已沉西嶺外,卻被扶桑喚出來。
於是一塊石頭方纔落地。過了兩日,門也不關了,花園照舊還蓋,
漸漸出來街上走動。
一日,玳安騎馬打獅子街過,看見李瓶兒門首開個大生藥鋪,裡邊
堆著許多生熟藥材。朱紅小櫃,油漆牌匾,吊著幌子,甚是熱鬧。歸
來告與西門慶說──還不知招贅蔣竹山一節,只說:“二娘搭了個新伙
計,開了個生藥鋪。”西門慶聽了,半信不信。
一日,七月中旬,金風淅淅,玉露泠泠。西門慶正騎馬街上走著,
撞見應伯爵、謝希大。兩人叫住,下馬唱喏,問道:“哥,一向怎的不
見?兄弟到府上幾遍,見大門關著,又不敢叫,整悶了這些時。端的
哥在家做甚事?嫂子娶進來不曾?也不請兄弟們吃酒。”西門慶
道:“不好告訴的。因舍親陳宅那邊為些閑事,替他亂了幾日。親事另
改了日期了。”伯爵道:“兄弟們不知哥吃驚。今日既撞遇哥,兄弟二
人肯空放了?如今請哥同到裡邊吳銀姐那裡吃三杯,權當解悶。”不由
分說,把西門慶拉進院中來。正是:
高榭樽開歌妓迎,漫誇解語一含情。纖手傳杯分竹葉,一簾秋
水浸桃笙。
當日西門慶被二人拉到吳銀兒家,吃了一日酒。到日暮時分,已帶
半酣,才放出來。打馬正走到東街口上,撞見馮媽媽從南來,走得甚
慌。西門慶勒住馬,問道: “你那裡去?”馮媽媽道:“二娘使我往門外
寺里魚籃會,替過世二爺燒箱庫去來。”西門慶醉中道:“你二娘在家
好麽?我明日和他說話去。”馮媽媽道:“還問甚麼好?把個見見成成
做熟了飯的親事,吃人掇了鍋兒去了。”西門慶聽了失聲驚問道:“莫
不他嫁人去了?”馮媽媽道:“二娘那等使老身送過頭面,往你家去了
幾遍不見你,大門關著。對大官兒說進去,教你早動身,你不理。今
教別人成了,你還說甚的?”西門慶問:“是誰?”馮媽媽悉把半夜三更
婦人被狐狸纏著,染病看看至死,怎的請了蔣竹山來看,吃了他的藥
怎的好了,某日怎的倒踏門招進來,成其夫婦,見今二娘拿出三百兩
銀子與他開了生藥鋪,從頭至尾說了一遍。這西門慶不聽便罷,聽了
氣的在馬上只是跌腳,叫道:“苦哉!你嫁別人,我也不惱,如何嫁那
矮王八!他有甚麼起解?”於是一直打馬來家。
剛下馬進儀門,只見吳月娘、孟玉樓、潘金蓮並西門大姐四個,在
前廳天井內月下跳馬索兒耍子。見西門慶來家,月娘、玉樓、大姐三
個都往後走了。只有金蓮不去,且扶著庭柱兜鞋,被西門慶帶酒罵
道:“淫婦們閑的聲喚,平白跳甚麼百索兒?”趕上金蓮踢了兩腳。走
到後邊,也不往月娘房中去脫衣裳,走在西廂一間書房內,要了鋪
蓋,那裡宿歇。打丫頭,罵小廝,只是沒好氣。眾婦人同站在一處,
都甚是著恐,不知是那緣故。吳月娘埋怨金蓮:“你見他進門有酒了,
兩三步叉開一邊便了。還只顧在跟前笑成一塊,且提鞋兒,卻教他蝗
蟲螞蚱一例都罵著。”玉樓道:“罵我們也罷,如何連大姐姐也罵起淫
婦來了?沒槽道的行貨子!”金蓮接過來道:“這一家子只是我好欺負
的!一般三個人在這裡,只踢我一個兒。那個偏受用著甚麼也怎
的?”月娘就惱了,說道:“你頭裡何不叫他連我踢不是?你沒偏受
用,誰偏受用?恁的賊不識高低貨!我到不言語,你只顧嘴頭子嘩哩
[口薄]喇的!”金蓮見月娘惱了,便把話兒來摭,說道:“姐姐,不
是這等說。他不知那裡因著甚麼頭由兒,只拿我煞氣。要便睜著眼望
著俺叫,千也要打個臭死,萬也要打個臭死!”月娘道:“誰教你只要
嘲他來?他不打你,卻打狗不成!”玉樓道:“大姐姐,且叫小廝來問
他聲,今日在誰家吃酒來?早晨好好出去,如何來家恁個腔兒!”不一
時,把玳安叫到跟前,月娘罵道:“賊囚根子!你不實說,教大小廝來
拷打你和平安兒,每人都是十板。”玳安道:“娘休打,待小的實說了
罷。爹今日和應二叔們都在院里吳家吃酒,散了來在東街口上,撞遇
馮媽媽,說花二娘等爹不去,嫁了大街住的蔣太醫了。爹一路上惱的
要不的。”月娘道:“信那沒廉恥的歪淫婦,浪著嫁了漢子,來家拿人
煞氣。”玳安道:“二娘沒嫁蔣太醫,把他倒踏門招進去了。如今二娘
與他本錢,開了好不興的生藥鋪。我來家告爹說,爹還不信。”孟玉樓
道:“論起來,男子漢死了多少時兒?服也還未滿,就嫁人,使不得
的!”月娘道:“如今年程,論的甚麼使的使不的。漢子孝服未滿,浪
著嫁人的,才一個兒?淫婦成日和漢子酒里眠酒里卧的人,他原守的
甚麼貞節!”看官聽說:月娘這一句話,一棒打著兩個人──孟玉樓與
潘金蓮都是孝服不曾滿再醮人的,聽了此言,未免各人懷著慚愧歸
房,不在話下。正是:
不如意事常八九,可與人言無二三。
卻說西門慶當晚在前邊廂房睡了一夜。到次日早,把女婿陳敬濟安
在他花園中,同賁四管工記帳,換下來招教他看守大門。西門大姐白
日里便在後邊和月娘眾人一處吃酒,晚夕歸到前邊廂房中歇。陳敬濟
每日只在花園中管工,非呼喚不敢進入中堂,飲食都是內里小廝拿出
來吃。所以西門慶手下這幾房婦人都不曾見面。一日,西門慶不在
家,與提刑所賀千戶送行去了。月娘因陳敬濟一向管工辛苦,不曾安
排一頓飯兒酬勞他,向孟玉樓、李嬌兒說:“待要管,又說我多攬事;
我待欲不管,又看不上。人家的孩兒在你家,每日早起睡晚,辛辛苦
苦,替你家打勤勞兒,那個與心知慰他一知慰兒也怎的?”玉樓
道:“姐姐,你是個當家的人,你不上心誰上心!”月娘於是吩咐廚
下,安排了一桌酒餚點心,午間請陳敬濟進來吃一頓飯。這陳敬濟撇
了工程教賁四看管,逕到後邊參見月娘,作揖畢,旁邊坐下。小玉拿
茶來吃了,安放桌兒,拿蔬菜按酒上來。月娘道:“姐夫每日管工辛
苦,要請姐夫進來坐坐,白不得個閑。今日你爹不在家,無事,治了
一杯水酒,權與姐夫酬勞。”敬濟道:“兒子蒙爹娘抬舉,有甚勞苦,
這等費心!”月娘陪著他吃了一回酒。月娘使小玉:“請大姑娘來這裡
坐。”小玉道:“大姑娘使著手,就來。”少頃,只聽房中抹得牌響。敬
濟便問:“誰人抹牌?”月娘道:“是大姐與玉簫丫頭弄牌。”敬濟
道:“你看沒分曉,娘這裡呼喚不來,且在房中抹牌。”一不時,大姐
掀帘子出來,與他女婿對面坐下,一周飲酒。月娘便問大姐:“陳姐夫
也會看牌不會?”大姐道:“他也知道些香臭兒。”月娘只知敬濟是志誠
的女婿,卻不道這小伙子兒詩詞歌賦,雙陸象棋,拆牌道字,無所不
通,無所不曉。正是:
自幼乖滑伶俐,風流博浪牢成。愛穿鴨綠出爐銀,雙陸象棋
幫襯。 琵琶笙箏簫管,彈丸走馬員情。只有一件不堪聞:見了
佳人是命。
月娘便道:“既是姐夫會看牌,何不進去咱同看一看?”敬濟道:“娘
和大姐看罷,兒子卻不當。”月娘道:“姐夫至親間,怕怎的?”一面進
入房中,只見孟玉樓正在床上鋪茜紅氈看牌,見敬濟進來,抽身就要
走。月娘道:“姐夫又不是別人,見個禮兒罷。”向敬濟道:“這是你三
娘哩。”那敬濟慌忙躬身作揖,玉樓還了萬福。當下玉樓、大姐三人同
抹,敬濟在旁邊觀看。抹了一回,大姐輸了下來,敬濟上來又抹。玉
樓出了個天地分;敬濟出了個恨點不到;吳月娘出了個四紅沉八不
就,雙三不搭兩么兒,和兒不出,左來右去配不著色頭。只見潘金蓮
掀帘子進來,銀絲鬏髻上戴著一頭鮮花兒,笑嘻嘻道:“我說是誰,原
來是陳姐夫在這裡。”慌的陳敬濟扭頸回頭,猛然一見,不覺心盪目
搖,精魂已失。正是:五百年冤家相遇,三十年恩愛一旦遭逢。月娘
道:“此是五娘,姐夫也只見個長禮兒罷。”敬濟忙向前深深作揖,金
蓮一面還了萬福。月娘便道:“五姐你來看,小雛兒倒把老鴉子來贏
了。”這金蓮近前一手扶著床護炕兒,一隻手拈著白紗團扇兒,在旁替
月娘指點道:“大姐姐,這牌不是這等出了,把雙三搭過來,卻不是天
不同和牌?還贏了陳姐夫和三姐姐。”眾人正抹牌在熱鬧處,只見玳安
抱進氈包來,說:“爹來家了。”月娘連忙攛掇小玉送姐夫打角門出去
了。
西門慶下馬進門,先到前邊工上觀看了一遍,然後踅到潘金蓮房中
來。金蓮慌忙接著,與他脫了衣裳,說道:“你今日送行去來的
早。”西門慶道:“提刑所賀千戶新升新平寨知寨,合衛所相知都郊外
送他來,拿帖兒知會我,不好不去的。”金蓮道:“你沒酒,教丫鬟看
酒來你吃。”不一時,放了桌兒飲酒,菜蔬都擺在面前。飲酒中間,因
說起後日花園捲棚上梁,約有許多親朋都要來遞果盒酒掛紅,少不得
叫廚子置酒管待。說了一回,天色已晚。春梅掌燈歸房,二人上床宿
歇。西門慶因起早送行,著了辛苦,吃了幾杯酒就醉了。倒下頭鼾睡
如雷,齁齁不醒。那時正值七月二十頭天氣,夜間有些餘熱,這潘金
蓮怎生睡得著?忽聽碧紗帳內一派蚊雷,不免赤著身子起來,執燭滿
帳照蚊。照一個,燒一個。迴首見西門慶仰卧枕上,睡得正濃,搖之
不醒。其腰間那話,帶著托子,累垂偉長,不覺淫心輒起,放下燭
臺,用纖手捫弄。弄了一回,蹲下身去,用口吮之。吮來吮去,西門
慶醒了,罵道:“怪小淫婦兒,你達達睡睡,就摑掍死了。”一面起
來,坐在枕上,亦發叫他在下盡著吮咂;又垂首玩之,以暢其美。正
是:怪底佳人風性重,夜深偷弄紫簫吹。又有蚊子雙關《踏莎行》詞
為證:
我愛他身體輕盈,楚腰膩細。行行一派笙歌沸。黃昏人未掩朱
扉,潛身撞入紗廚內。款傍香肌,輕憐玉體。嘴到處,胭脂記。耳邊
廂造就百般聲,夜深不肯教人睡。
婦人頑了有一頓飯時,西門慶忽然想起一件事來,叫春梅篩酒過
來,在床前執壺而立。將燭移在床背板上,教婦人馬爬在他面前,那
話隔山取火,托入牡中,令其自動,在上飲酒取樂。婦人罵道:“好個
刁鑽的強盜!從幾時新興出來的例兒,怪剌剌教丫頭看答著,甚麼張
致!”西門慶道:“我對你說了罷,當初你瓶姨和我常如此乾,叫他家
迎春在旁執壺斟酒,到好耍子。”婦人道:“我不好罵出來的,甚麼瓶
姨鳥姨,題那淫婦做甚,奴好心不得好報。那淫婦等不的,浪著嫁漢
子去了。你前日吃了酒來家,一般的三個人在院子里跳百索兒,只拿
我煞氣,只踢我一個兒,倒惹的人和我辨了回子嘴。想起來,奴是好
欺負的!”西門慶問道:“你與誰辨嘴來?”婦人道:“那日你便進來
了,上房的好不和我合氣,說我在他跟前頂嘴來,罵我不識高低的
貨。我想起來為甚麼?養蝦蟆得水蟲兒病,如今倒教人惱我!”西門慶
道:“不是我也不惱,那日應二哥他們拉我到吳銀兒家,吃了酒出來,
路上撞見馮媽媽子,這般告訴我,把我氣了個立睜。若嫁了別人,我
到罷了。那蔣太醫賊矮忘八,那花大怎不咬下他下截來?他有甚麼起
解?招他進去,與他本錢,教他在我眼面前開鋪子,大剌剌的做買
賣!”婦人道:“虧你臉嘴還說哩!奴當初怎麼說來?先下米兒先吃
飯。你不聽,只顧來問大姐姐。常言:信人調,丟了瓢。你做差了,
你埋怨那個?”西門慶被婦人幾句話,沖得心頭一點火起,雲山半壁通
紅,便道:“你由他,教那不賢良的淫婦說去。到明日休想我理
他!”看官聽說:自古讒言罔行,君臣、父子、夫婦、昆弟之間,皆不
能免。饒吳月娘恁般賢淑,西門慶聽金蓮衽席睥睨之間言,卒致於反
目,其他可不慎哉!自是以後,西門慶與月娘尚氣,彼此覿面,都不
說話。月娘隨他往那房裡去,也不管他;來遲去早,也不問他;或是
他進房中取東取西,只教丫頭上前答應,也不理他。兩個都把心冷淡
了。正是:
前車倒了千千輛,後車到了亦如然。分明指與平川路,卻把忠
言當惡言。
且說潘金蓮自西門慶與月娘尚氣之後,見漢子偏聽,以為得志。每
日抖擻著精神,妝飾打扮,希寵市愛。因為那日後邊會著陳敬濟一
遍,見小伙兒生的乖猾伶俐,有心也要勾搭他。但只畏懼西門慶,不
敢下手。只等西門慶往那裡去,便使了丫鬟叫進房中,與他茶水吃,
常時兩個下棋做一處。一日西門慶新蓋捲棚上梁,親友掛紅慶賀,遞
果盒。許多匠作,都有犒勞賞賜。大廳上管待客官,吃到午晌,人才
散了。西門慶因起得早,就歸後邊睡去了。陳敬濟走來金蓮房中討茶
吃。金蓮正在床上彈弄琵琶,道:“前邊上梁,吃了這半日酒,你就不
曾吃些甚麼,還來我屋裡要茶吃?”敬濟道:“兒子不瞞你老人家說,
從半夜起來,亂了這一五更,誰吃甚麼來!”婦人問道:“你爹在那
裡?”敬濟道:“爹後邊睡去了。”婦人道:“你既沒吃甚麼,”叫春
梅:“揀籹里拿我吃的那蒸酥果餡餅兒來,與你姐夫吃。”這小伙兒就
在他炕桌兒上擺著四碟小菜,吃著點心。因見婦人彈琵琶,戲問
道:“五娘,你彈的甚曲兒?怎不唱個兒我聽。”婦人笑道:“好陳姐
夫,奴又不是你影射的,如何唱曲兒你聽?我等你爹起來,看我對你
爹說不說!”那敬濟笑嘻嘻,慌忙跪著央及道:“望乞五娘可憐見,兒
子再不敢了!”那婦人笑起來了。自此這小伙兒和這婦人日近日親,或
吃茶吃飯,穿房入屋,打牙犯嘴,挨肩擦背,通不忌憚。月娘托以兒
輩,放這樣不老實的女婿在家,自家的事卻看不見。正是:
只曉採花成釀蜜,不知辛苦為誰甜。
詩曰:
人靡不有初,想君能終之。別來歷年歲,舊恩何可期。
重新而忘故,君子所猶譏。寄身雖在遠,豈忘君須臾。 既
厚不為薄,想君時見思。
話說西門慶起蓋花園捲棚,約有半年光陰,裝修油漆完備,前後煥
然一新。慶房的整吃了數日酒,俱不在話下。
一日,八月初旬,與夏提刑做生日,在新買莊上擺酒。叫了四個唱
的、一起樂工、雜耍步戲。西門慶從巳牌時分,就騎馬去了。吳月娘
在家,整置了酒餚細果,約同李嬌兒、孟玉樓、孫雪娥、大姐、潘金
蓮眾人,開了新花園門游賞。裡面花木庭台,一望無際,端的好座花
園。但見:
正面丈五高,周圍二十板。當先一座門樓,四下幾間臺榭。假
山真水,翠竹蒼松。高而不尖謂之台,巍而不峻謂之榭。四時賞玩,
各有風光:春賞燕游堂,桃李爭妍;夏賞臨溪館,荷蓮鬥彩;秋賞疊
翠樓,黃菊舒金;冬賞藏春閣,白梅橫玉。更有那嬌花籠淺徑,芳樹
壓雕欄,弄風楊柳縱蛾眉,帶雨海棠陪嫩臉。燕游堂前,燈光花似開
不開;藏春閣後,白銀杏半放不放。湖山側才綻金錢,寶檻邊初生石
筍。翩翩紫燕穿簾幕,嚦嚦黃鶯度翠陰。也有那月窗雪洞,也有那水
閣風亭。木香棚與荼蘼架相連,千葉桃與三春柳作對。松牆竹徑,曲
水方池,映階蕉棕,嚮日葵榴。游漁藻內驚人,粉蝶花間對舞。正
是:芍藥展開菩薩面,荔枝擎出鬼王頭。
當下吳月娘領著眾婦人,或攜手游芳徑之中,或鬥草坐香茵之上。
一個臨軒對景,戲將紅豆擲金鱗;一個伏檻觀花,笑把羅紈驚粉蝶。
月娘於是走在一個最高亭子上,名喚卧雲亭,和孟玉樓、李嬌兒下
棋。潘金蓮和西門大姐、孫雪娥都在玩花樓望下觀看。見樓前牡丹花
畔,芍藥圃、海棠軒、薔薇架、木香棚,又有耐寒君子竹、欺雪大夫
松。端的四時有不謝之花,八節有長春之景。觀之不足,看之有餘。
不一時擺上酒來,吳月娘居上,李嬌兒對席,兩邊孟玉樓、孫雪娥、
潘金蓮、西門大姐,各依序而坐。月娘道:“我忘了請姐夫來坐
坐。”一面使小玉:“前邊快請姑夫來。”不一時,敬濟來到,頭上天青
羅帽,身穿紫綾深衣,腳下粉頭皂靴,向前作揖,就在大姐跟前坐
下。傳杯換盞,吃了一回酒,吳月娘還與李嬌兒、西門大姐下棋。孫
雪娥與孟玉樓卻上樓觀看。惟有金蓮,且在山子前花池邊,用白紗團
扇撲蝴蝶為戲。不妨敬濟悄悄在他背後戲說道:“五娘,你不會撲蝴蝶
兒,等我替你撲。這蝴蝶兒忽上忽下心不定,有些走滾。”那金蓮扭回
粉頸,斜瞅了他一眼,罵道:“賊短命,人聽著,你待死也!我曉得你
也不要命了。”那敬濟笑嘻嘻撲近他身來,摟他親嘴。被婦人順手只一
推,把小伙兒推了一交。卻不想玉樓在玩花樓遠遠瞧見,叫道:“五
姐,你走這裡來,我和你說話。”金蓮方纔撇了敬濟,上樓去了。原來
兩個蝴蝶到沒曾捉得住,到訂了燕約鶯期,則做了蜂須花嘴。正是:
狂蜂浪蝶有時見,飛入梨花沒尋處。
敬濟見婦人去了,默默歸房,心中怏怏不樂。口占《折桂令》一
詞,以遣其悶:
我見他斜戴花枝,朱唇上不抹胭脂,似抹胭脂。前日相逢,似
有私情,未見私情。欲見許,何曾見許!似推辭,本是不推辭。約在
何時?會在何時?不相逢,他又相思;既相逢,我又相思。
且不說吳月娘等在花園中飲酒。單表西門慶從門外夏提刑莊子上吃
了酒回家,打南瓦子巷裡頭過。平昔在三街兩巷行走,搗子們都認的
──宋時謂之搗子,今時俗呼為光棍。內中有兩個,一名草里蛇魯華,
一名過街鼠張勝,常受西門慶資助,乃雞竊狗盜之徒。西門慶見他兩
個在那裡耍錢,就勒住馬,上前說話。二人連忙走到跟前,打個半跪
道:“大官人,這咱晚往那裡去來?”西門慶道:“今日是提刑所夏老爹
生日,門外莊上請我們吃了酒來。我有一椿事央煩你們,依我不
依?”二人道:“大官人沒的說,小人平昔受恩甚多,如有使令,雖赴
湯蹈火,萬死何辭!”西門慶道:“既是恁說,明日來我家,我有話吩
咐你。”二人道:“那裡等的到明日!你老人家說與小人罷,端的有甚
麼事?”西門慶附耳低言,便把蔣竹山要了李瓶兒之事說了一遍:“只
要你弟兄二人替我出這口氣兒便了!”因在馬上摟起衣底順袋中,還有
四五兩碎銀子,都倒與二人。便道:“你兩個拿去打酒吃。只要替我幹
得停當,還謝你二人。”魯華那裡肯接,說道:“小人受你老人家恩還
少哩!我只道教俺兩個往東洋大海裡拔蒼龍頭上角,西華岳山中取猛
虎口中牙,便去不的,這些小之事,有何難哉!這個銀兩,小人斷不
敢領。”西門慶道:“你不收,我也不央及你了。”教玳安接了銀子,打
馬就走。又被張勝攔住說:“魯華,你不知他老人家性兒?你不收,恰
似咱每推脫的一般。”一面接了銀子,扒到地下磕了頭,說道:“你老
人家只顧家裡坐著,不消兩日,管情穩抇抇教你笑一聲。”張勝
道:“只望大官人到明日,把小人送與提刑夏老爹那裡答應,就夠了小
人了。”西門慶道:“這個不打緊。”後來西門慶果然把張勝送在守備府
做了個親隨。此系後事,表過不題。那兩個搗子,得了銀子,依舊耍
錢去了。
西門慶騎馬來家,已是日西時分。月娘等眾人,聽見他進門,都往
後邊去了,只有金蓮在捲棚內看收家活。西門慶不往後邊去,逕到花
園裡來,見婦人在亭子上收家伙,便問:“我不在,你在這裡做甚麼
來?”金蓮笑道:“俺們今日和大姐姐開門看了看,誰知你來的恁
早。”西門慶道:“今日夏大人費心,莊子上叫了四個唱的,只請了五
位客到。我恐怕路遠,來的早。”婦人與他脫了衣裳,因說道:“你沒
酒,教丫頭看酒來你吃。”西門慶吩咐春梅:“把別的菜蔬都收下去,
只留下幾碟細果子兒,篩一壺葡萄酒來我吃。”坐在上面椅子上,因看
見婦人上穿沉香色水緯羅對襟衫兒,五色縐紗眉子,下著白碾光絹挑
線裙兒,裙邊大紅段子白綾高低鞋兒。頭上銀絲鬏髻,金鑲分心翠梅
鈿兒,雲鬢簪著許多花翠。越顯得紅馥馥朱唇、白膩膩粉臉,不覺淫
心輒起,攙著他兩隻手兒,摟抱在一處親嘴。不一時,春梅篩上酒
來,兩個一遞一口兒飲酒咂舌。婦人一面摳起裙子,坐在身上,噙酒
哺在他口裡,然後纖手拈了一個鮮蓮蓬子,與他吃。西門慶道:“澀剌
剌的,吃他做甚麼?”婦人道:“我的兒,你就吊了造化了,娘手裡拿
的東西兒你不吃!”又口中噙了一粒鮮核桃仁兒,送與他,才罷了。西
門慶又要玩弄婦人的胸乳。婦人一面摘下塞領子的金三事兒來,用口
咬著,攤開羅衫,露出美玉無瑕、香馥馥的酥胸,緊就就的香乳。揣
摸良久,用口舐之,彼此調笑,曲盡“於飛”。
西門慶乘著歡喜,向婦人道:“我有一件事告訴你,到明日,教你笑
一聲。你道蔣太醫開了生藥鋪,到明日管情教他臉上開果子鋪來。”婦
人便問怎麼緣故。西門慶悉把今日門外撞遇魯、張二人之事,告訴了
一遍。婦人笑道:“你這個眾生,到明日不知作多少罪業。”又問:“這
蔣太醫,不是常來咱家看病的麽?我見他且是謙恭,見了人把頭只低
著,可憐見兒的,你這等做作他!”西門慶道:“你看不出他。你說他
低著頭兒,他專一看你的腳哩。”婦人道:“汗邪的油嘴!他可可看人
家老婆的腳?我不信,他一個文墨人兒,也乾這個營生?”西門慶
道:“你看他迎面兒,就誤了勾當,單愛外裝老成內藏姦詐。”兩個說
笑了一回,不吃酒了,收拾了家活,歸房宿歇,不在話下。
卻說李瓶兒招贅了蔣竹山,約兩月光景。初時蔣竹山圖婦人喜歡,
修合了些戲藥,買了些景東人事、美女想思套之類,實指望打動婦
人。不想婦人在西門慶手裡狂風驟雨經過的,往往幹事不稱其意,漸
生憎惡,反被婦人把淫器之物,都用石砸的稀碎丟掉了。又說:“你本
蝦鱔,腰裡無力,平白買將這行貨子來戲弄老娘!把你當塊肉兒,原
來是個中看不中吃臘槍頭,死王八!”常被婦人半夜三更趕到前邊鋪子
里睡。於是一心只想西門慶,不許他進房。每日聐聒著算帳,查算本
錢。
這竹山正受了一肚氣,走在鋪子小櫃里坐的,只見兩個人進來,吃
的浪浪蹌蹌,楞楞睜睜,走在凳子上坐下。先是一個問道:“你這鋪中
有狗黃沒有?”竹山笑道: “休要作戲。只有牛黃,那有狗黃?”又
問:“沒有狗黃,你有冰灰也罷,拿來我瞧,我要買你幾兩。”竹山
道:“生藥行只有冰片,是南海波斯國地道出的,那討冰灰來?”那一
個說道:“你休問他,量他才開了幾日鋪子,那裡有這兩椿藥材?只與
他說正經話罷。蔣二哥,你休推睡里夢裡。你三年前死了娘子兒,問
這位魯大哥借的那三十兩銀子,本利也該許多,今日問你要來了。俺
們才進門就先問你要,你在人家招贅了,初開了這個鋪子,恐怕喪了
你行止,顯的俺們沒陰騭了。故此先把幾句風話來教你認範。你不認
範,他這銀子你少不得還他。”竹山聽了,嚇了個立睜,說道:“我並
沒有借他甚麼銀子。”那人道:“你沒借銀,卻問你討?自古蒼蠅不鑽
那沒縫的蛋,快休說此話!”竹山道:“我不知閣下姓甚名誰,素不相
識,如何來問我要銀子?”那人道:“蔣二哥,你就差了!自古於官不
貧,賴債不富。想著你當初不得地時,串鈴兒賣膏藥,也虧了這位魯
大哥扶持,你今日就到這田地來。”這個人道:“我便姓魯,叫做魯
華,你某年借了我三十兩銀子,發送妻小,本利該我四十八兩,少不
的還我。”竹山慌道:“我那裡借你銀子來?就借你銀子,也有文書保
人。”張勝道:“我張勝就是保人。”因向袖中取出文書,與他照了照。
把竹山氣的臉臘查也似黃了,罵道:“好殺才狗男女!你是那裡搗子,
走來嚇詐我!”魯華聽了,心中大怒,隔著小櫃,颼的一拳去,早飛到
竹山面門上,就把鼻子打歪在半邊,一面把架上藥材撒了一街。竹山
大罵:“好賊搗子!你如何來搶奪我貨物?”因叫天福兒來幫助,被魯
華一腳踢過一邊,那裡再敢上前。張勝把竹山拖出小櫃來,攔住魯華
手,勸道:“魯大哥,你多日子也耽待了,再寬他兩日兒,教他湊過與
你便了。蔣二哥,你怎麼說?”竹山道:“我幾時借他銀子來?就是問
你借的,也等慢慢好講,如何這等撒野?”張勝道:“蔣二哥,你這回
吃了橄欖灰兒──回過味來了。你若好好早這般,我教魯大哥饒讓你些
利錢兒,你便兩三限湊了還他,才是話。你如何把硬話兒不認,莫不
人家就不問你要罷?”那竹山聽了道:“氣殺我,我和他見官去!誰借
他甚麼錢來!”張勝道:“你又吃了早酒了!”不提防魯華又是一拳,仰
八叉跌了一交,險不倒栽入洋溝里,將發散開,巾幘都污濁了。竹山
大叫“青天白日”起來,被保甲上來,都一條繩子拴了。李瓶兒在房中
聽見外邊人嚷,走來簾下聽覷,見地方拴的竹山去了,氣的個立睜。
使出馮媽媽來,把牌面幌子都收了。街上藥材,被人搶了許多。一面
關閉了門戶,家中坐的。
早有人把這件事報與西門慶知道,即差人吩咐地方,明日早解提刑
院。這裡又拿帖子,對夏大人說了。次日早,帶上人來,夏提刑升
廳,看了地方呈狀,叫上竹山去,問道:“你是蔣文蕙?如何借了魯華
銀子不還,反行毀打他?甚情可惡!”竹山道:“小人通不認的此人,
並沒借他銀子。小人以理分說,他反不容,亂行踢打,把小人貨物都
搶了。”夏提刑便叫魯華:“你怎麼說?”魯華道:“他原借小的銀兩,
發送喪妻,至今三年,延挨不還。小的今日打聽他在人家招贅,做了
大買賣,問他理討,他倒百般辱罵小的,說小的搶奪他的貨物。見有
他借銀子的文書在此,這張勝就是保人,望爺察情。”一面懷中取出文
契,遞上去。夏提刑展開觀看,寫道:
立借票人蔣文蕙,系本縣醫生,為因妻喪,無錢發送,憑保人
張勝,借到魯華名下白銀三十兩,月利三分,入手用度。約至次年,
本利交還,不致少欠。恐後無憑,立此借票存照。
夏提刑看了,拍案大怒道:“可又來,見有保人、借票,還這等抵
賴。看這廝咬文嚼字模樣,就象個賴債的。”喝令左右:“選大板,拿
下去著實打。”當下三、四個人,不由分說,拖翻竹山在地,痛責三十
大板,打的皮開肉綻,鮮血淋漓。一面差兩個公人,拿著白牌,押蔣
竹山到家,處三十兩銀子交還魯華。不然,帶回衙門收監。
那蔣竹山打的兩腿剌八著,走到家哭哭啼啼哀告李瓶兒,問他要銀
子,還與魯華。又被婦人噦在臉上,罵道:“沒羞的忘八,你遞甚麼銀
子在我手裡,問我要銀子?我早知你這忘八砍了頭是個債椿,就瞎了
眼也不嫁你這中看不中吃的忘八!”那四個人聽見屋裡嚷罵,不住催逼
叫道:“蔣文蕙既沒銀子,不消只管挨遲了,趁早到衙門回話去
罷。”竹山一面出來安撫了公人,又去裡邊哀告婦人。直蹶兒跪在地
上,哭哭啼啼說道:“你只當積陰騭,四山五舍齋佛佈施這三十兩銀子
罷!不與這一回去,我這爛屁股上怎禁的拷打?就是死罷了。”婦人不
得已拿出三十兩雪花銀子與他,當官交與魯華,扯碎了文書,方纔完
事。
這魯華、張勝得了三十兩銀子,逕到西門慶家回話。西門慶留在捲
棚下,管待二人酒飯。把前事告訴了一遍。西門慶滿心大喜說:“二位
出了我這口氣,足夠了。” 魯華把三十兩銀子交與西門慶,西門慶那
裡肯收:“你二人收去,買壺酒吃,就是我酬謝你了。後頭還有事相
煩。”二人臨起身謝了又謝,拿著銀子,自行耍錢去了。正是:
常將壓善欺良意,權作尤雲殢雨心。
卻說蔣竹山提刑院交了銀子,歸到家中。婦人那裡容他住,說
道:“只當奴害了汗病,把這三十兩銀子問你討了藥吃了。你趁早與我
搬出去罷!再遲些時,連我這兩間房子,尚且不夠你還人!”這蔣竹山
只知存身不住,哭哭啼啼,忍著兩腿疼,自去另尋房兒。但是婦人本
錢置的貨物都留下,把他原舊的藥材、藥碾、藥篩、藥箱之物,即時
催他搬去,兩個就開交了。臨出門,婦人還使馮媽媽舀了一盆水,趕
著潑去,說道:“喜得冤家離眼睛!”當日打發了竹山出門。這婦人一
心只想著西門慶,又打聽得他家中沒事,心中甚是懊悔。每日茶飯慵
餐,娥眉懶畫,把門兒倚遍,眼兒望穿,白盼不見一個人兒來。正
是:
枕上言猶在,於今恩愛淪。房中人不見,無語自消魂。
不說婦人思想西門慶,單表一日玳安騎馬打門首經過,看見婦人大
門關著,藥鋪不開,靜落落的,歸來告訴與西門慶。西門慶道:“想必
那矮忘八打重了,在屋裡睡哩,會勝也得半個月出不來做買賣。”遂把
這事情丟下了。一日,八月十五日,吳月娘生日,家中有許多堂客
來,在大廳上坐。西門慶因與月娘不說話,一逕來院中李桂姐家坐
的,吩咐玳安:“早回馬去罷,晚上來接我。”旋邀了應伯爵、謝希大
來打雙陸。那日桂卿也在家,姐妹兩個陪侍勸酒。良久,都出來院子
內投壺耍子。玳安約至日西時分,勒馬來接。西門慶正在後邊出恭,
見了玳安問:“家中無事?”玳安道:“家中沒事。大廳上堂客都散了,
止有大妗子與姑奶奶眾人,大娘邀的後邊去了。今日獅子街花二娘那
裡,使了老馮與大娘送生日禮來:四盤羹果、兩盤壽桃面、一匹尺
頭,又與大娘做了一雙鞋。大娘與了老馮一錢銀子,說爹不在家了。
也沒曾請去。”西門慶因見玳安臉紅紅的,便問:“你那裡吃酒來?”玳
安道:“剛纔二娘使馮媽媽叫了小的去,與小的酒吃。我說不吃酒,強
說著叫小的吃了兩鐘,就臉紅起來。如今二娘到悔過來,對著小的好
不哭哩。前日我告爹說,爹還不信。從那日提刑所出來,就把蔣太醫
打發去了。二娘甚是懊悔,一心還要嫁爹,比舊瘦了好些兒,央及小
的好歹請爹過去,討爹示下。爹若吐了口兒,還教小的回他一聲。”西
門慶道:“賊賤淫婦,既嫁漢子去罷了,又來纏我怎的?既是如此,我
也不得閑去。你對他說,甚麼下茶下禮,揀個好日子,抬了那淫婦來
罷。”玳安道:“小的知道了。他那裡還等著小的去回他話哩,教平
安、畫童兒這裡伺候爹就是了。”西門慶道:“你去,我知道了。”這玳
安出了院門,一直走到李瓶兒那裡,回了婦人話。婦人滿心歡喜,說
道:“好哥哥,今日多累你對爹說,成就了此事。”於是親自下廚整理
蔬菜,管待玳安,說道:“你二娘這裡沒人,明日好歹你來幫扶天福
兒,著人搬家伙過去。”次日雇了五六副扛,整抬運四五日。西門慶也
不對吳月娘說,都堆在新蓋的玩花樓上。擇了八月二十日,一頂大
轎,一匹段子紅,四對燈籠,派定玳安、平安、畫童、來興四個跟
轎,約後晌時分,方娶婦人過門。婦人打發兩個丫鬟,教馮媽媽領著
先來了,等的回去,方纔上轎。把房子交與馮媽媽、天福兒看守。
西門慶那日不往那裡去,在家新捲棚內,深衣幅巾坐的,單等婦人
進門。婦人轎子落在大門首,半日沒個人出去迎接。孟玉樓走來上
房,對月娘說:“姐姐,你是家主,如今他已是在門首,你不去迎接迎
接兒,惹的他爹不怪?他爹在捲棚內坐著,轎子在門首這一日了,沒
個人出去,怎麼好進來的?”這吳月娘欲待出去接他,心中惱,又不下
氣;欲待不出去,又怕西門慶性子不是好的。沉吟了半晌,於是輕移
蓮步,款蹙湘裙,出來迎接。婦人抱著寶瓶,徑往他那邊新房去了。
迎春、繡春兩個丫鬟,又早在房中鋪陳停當,單等西門慶晚夕進房。
不想西門慶正因舊惱在心,不進他房去。到次日,叫他出來後邊月娘
房裡見面,分其大小,排行他是六娘。一般三日擺大酒席,請堂客會
親吃酒,只是不往他房裡去。頭一日晚夕,先在潘金蓮房中。金蓮
道:“他是個新人兒,才來頭一日,你就空了他房?”西門慶道:“你不
知淫婦有些眼裡火,等我奈何他兩日,慢慢的進去。”到了三日,打發
堂客散了,西門慶又不進他房中,往後邊孟玉樓房裡歇去了。這婦人
見漢子一連三夜不進他房來,到半夜打發兩個丫鬟睡了,飽哭了一
場,可憐走到床上,用腳帶弔頸懸梁自縊。正是:
連理未諧鴛帳底,冤魂先到九重泉。
兩個丫鬟睡了一覺醒來,見燈光昏暗,起來剔燈,猛見床上婦人吊
著,嚇慌了手腳。忙走出隔壁叫春梅說:“俺娘上吊哩!”慌的金蓮起
來這邊看視,見婦人穿一身大紅衣裳,直掇掇弔在床上。連忙和春梅
把腳帶割斷,解救下來。過了半日,吐了一口清涎,方纔蘇醒。即叫
春梅:“後邊快請你爹來。”西門慶正在玉樓房中吃酒,還未睡哩。先
是玉樓勸西門慶說道:“你娶將他來,一連三日不往他房裡去,惹他心
中不惱麽?恰似俺們把這椿事放在頭裡一般,頭上末下,就讓不得這
一夜兒。”西門慶道:“待過三日兒我去。你不知道,淫婦有些吃著碗
里,看著鍋里。想起來你惱不過我。未曾你漢子死了,相交到如今,
甚麼話兒沒告訴我?臨了招進蔣太醫去!我不如那廝?今日卻怎的又
尋將我來?”玉樓道:“你惱的是。他也吃人騙了。”正說話間,忽一片
聲打儀門。玉樓使蘭香問,說是春梅來請爹:“六娘在房裡上吊
哩!”慌的玉樓攛掇西門慶不迭,便道:“我說教你進他房中走走,你
不依,只當弄出事來。”於是打著燈籠,走來前邊看視。落後吳月娘、
李嬌兒聽見,都起來,到他房中。見金蓮摟著他坐的,說道:“五姐,
你灌了他些薑湯兒沒有?”金蓮道:“我救下來時,就灌了些了。”那婦
人只顧喉中哽咽了一回,方哭出聲。月娘眾人一塊石頭才落地,好好
安撫他睡下,各歸房歇息。
次日,晌午前後,李瓶兒才吃些粥湯兒。西門慶向李嬌兒眾人說
道:“你們休信那淫婦裝死嚇人。我手裡放不過他。到晚夕等我到房裡
去,親看著他上個弔兒我瞧,不然吃我一頓好馬鞭子。賊淫婦!不知
把我當誰哩!”眾人見他這般說,都替李瓶兒捏著把汗。到晚夕,見西
門慶袖著馬鞭子,進他房去了。玉樓、金蓮吩咐春梅把門關了,不許
一個人來,都立在角門首兒外悄悄聽著。
且說西門慶見他睡在床上,倒著身子哭泣,見他進去不起身,心中
就有幾分不悅。先把兩個丫頭都趕去空房裡住了。西門慶走來椅子上
坐下,指著婦人罵道:“淫婦!你既然虧心,何消來我家上吊?你跟著
那矮忘八過去便了,誰請你來!我又不曾把人坑了,你甚麼緣故,流
那毴尿怎的?我自來不曾見人上吊,我今日看著你上個弔兒我瞧!”於
是拿一條繩子丟在他面前,叫婦人上吊。那婦人想起蔣竹山說西門慶
是打老婆的班頭,降婦女的領袖,思量我那世里晦氣,今日大睜眼又
撞入火坑裡來了,越發煩惱痛哭起來。這西門慶心中大怒,教他下床
來脫了衣裳跪著。婦人只顧延挨不脫,被西門慶拖翻在床地平上,袖
中取出鞭子來抽了幾鞭子,婦人方纔脫去上下衣裳,戰兢兢跪在地平
上。西門慶坐著,從頭至尾問婦人:“我那等對你說,教你略等等兒,
我家中有些事兒,如何不依我,慌忙就嫁了蔣太醫那廝?你嫁了別
人,我倒也不惱!那矮忘八有甚麼起解?你把他倒踏進門去,拿本錢
與他開鋪子,在我眼皮子跟前,要撐我的買賣!”婦人道:“奴不說的
悔也是遲了。只因你一去了不見來,朝思暮想,奴想的心斜了。後邊
喬皇親花園裡常有狐狸,要便半夜三更假名托姓變做你,來攝我精
髓,到天明雞叫就去了。你不信只要問老馮、兩個丫頭便知。後來看
看把奴攝得至死,才請這蔣太醫來看。奴就象弔在麴糊盆內一般,吃
那廝局騙了。說你家中有事,上東京去了,奴不得已才幹下這條路。
誰知這廝斫了頭是個債椿,被人打上門來,經動官府。奴忍氣吞聲,
丟了幾兩銀子,吃奴即時攆出去了。”西門慶道:“說你叫他寫狀子,
告我收著你許多東西。你如何今日也到我家來了!”婦人道:“你可是
沒的說。奴那裡有這話,就把奴身子爛化了。”西門慶道:“就算有,
我也不怕。你說你有錢,快轉換漢子,我手裡容你不得!我實對你說
罷,前者打太醫那兩個人,是如此這般使的手段。只略施小計,教那
廝疾走無門,若稍用機關,也要連你掛了到官,弄倒一個田地。”婦人
道:“奴知道是你使的術兒。還是可憐見奴,若弄到那無人煙之處,就
是死罷了。”看看說的西門慶怒氣消下些來了。又問道:“淫婦你過
來,我問你,我比蔣太醫那廝誰強?” 婦人道:“他拿甚麼來比你!你
是個天,他是塊磚;你在三十三天之上,他在九十九地之下。休說你
這等為人上之人,只你每日吃用稀奇之物,他在世幾百年還沒曾看見
哩!他拿甚麼來比你!莫要說他,就是花子虛在日,若是比得上你
時,奴也不恁般貪你了。你就是醫奴的藥一般,一經你手,教奴沒日
沒夜只是想你。”自這一句話,把西門慶舊情兜起,歡喜無盡,即丟了
鞭子,用手把婦人拉將起來,穿上衣裳,摟在懷裡,說道:“我的兒,
你說的是。果然這廝他見甚麼碟兒天來大!”即叫春梅:“快放桌兒,
後邊取酒菜兒來!”正是:東邊日出西邊雨,道是無情卻有情。有詩為
證:
碧玉破瓜時,郎為情顛倒。感君不羞赧,回身就郎抱。
第二十回 傻幫閑趨奉鬧華筵 痴子弟爭鋒毀花院
詞曰:
步花徑,闌干狹。防人覷,常驚嚇。荊刺抓裙釵,倒閃在荼
蘼架。 勾引嫩枝咿啞,討歸路,尋空罅,被舊家巢燕,引入窗
紗。
話說西門慶在房中,被李瓶兒柔情軟語,感觸的回嗔作喜,拉他起
來,穿上衣裳,兩個相摟相抱,極盡綢繆。一面令春梅進房放桌兒,
往後邊取酒去。
且說金蓮和玉樓,從西門慶進他房中去,站在角門首竊聽消息。他
這邊又閉著,止春梅一人在院子里伺候。金蓮同玉樓兩個打門縫兒往
裡張覷,只見房中掌著燈燭,裡邊說話,都聽不見。金蓮道:“俺到不
如春梅賊小肉兒,他倒聽的伶俐。”那春梅在窗下潛聽了一回,又走過
來。金蓮悄問他房中怎的動靜,春梅便隔門告訴與二人說:“俺爹怎的
教他脫衣裳跪著,他不脫。爹惱了,抽了他幾馬鞭子。”金蓮道:“打
了他,他脫了不曾?”春梅道:“他見爹惱了,才慌了,就脫了衣裳,
跪在地平上。爹如今問他話哩。”玉樓恐怕西門慶聽見,便道:“五
姐,咱過那邊去罷。”拉金蓮來西角門首。此時是八月二十頭,月色才
上來。兩個站立在黑頭裡,一處說話,等著春梅出來問他話。潘金蓮
向玉樓道:“我的姐姐,只說好食果子,一心只要來這裡。頭兒沒過
動,下馬威早討了這幾下在身上。俺這個好不順臉的貨兒,你若順順
兒他倒罷了。屬扭孤兒糖的,你扭扭兒也是錢,不扭也是錢。想著先
前吃小婦奴才壓枉造舌,我陪下十二分小心,還吃他奈何得我那等哭
哩。姐姐,你來了幾時,還不知他性格哩!”
二人正說話之間,只聽開的角門響,春梅出來,一直逕往後邊走。
不防他娘站在黑影處叫他,問道:“小肉兒,那去?”春梅笑著只顧
走。金蓮道:“怪小肉兒,你過來,我問你話。慌走怎的?”那春梅方
纔立住了腳,方說:“他哭著對俺爹說了許多話。爹喜歡抱起他來,令
他穿上衣裳,教我放了桌兒,如今往後邊取酒去。” 金蓮聽了,向玉
樓說道:“賊沒廉恥的貨!頭裡那等雷聲大雨點小,打哩亂哩。及到其
間,也不怎麼的。我猜,也沒的想,管情取了酒來,教他遞。賊小肉
兒,沒他房裡丫頭?你替他取酒去!到後邊,又叫雪娥那小婦奴才毴
聲浪顙,我又聽不上。”春梅道:“爹使我,管我事!”於是笑嘻嘻去
了。金蓮道:“俺這小肉兒,正經使著他,死了一般懶待動旦。若干貓
兒頭差事,鑽頭覓縫乾辦了要去,去的那快!現他房裡兩個丫頭,你
替他走,管你腿事!賣蘿葡的跟著鹽擔子走──好個閑嘈心的小肉
兒!”玉樓道:“可不怎的!俺大丫頭蘭香,我正使他做活兒,他便有
要沒緊的。爹使他行鬼頭兒,聽人的話兒,你看他走的那快!”
正說著,只見玉簫自後邊驀地走來,便道:“三娘還在這裡?我來接
你來了。”玉樓道:“怪狗肉,唬我一跳!”因問:“你娘知道你來不
曾?”玉簫道:“我打發娘睡下這一日了,我來前邊瞧瞧,剛纔看見春
梅後邊要酒果去了。”因問:“俺爹到他屋裡,怎樣個動靜兒?”金蓮接
過來伸著手道:“進他屋裡去,齊頭故事。” 玉簫又問玉樓,玉樓便一
一對他說。玉簫道:“三娘,真個教他脫了衣裳跪著,打了他五馬鞭子
來?”玉樓道:“你爹因他不跪,才打他。”玉簫道:“帶著衣服打來,
去了衣裳打來?虧他那瑩白的皮肉兒上怎麼挨得?”玉樓笑道:“怪小
狗肉兒,你倒替古人耽憂!”正說著,只見春梅拿著酒,小玉拿著方
盒,逕往李瓶兒那邊去。金蓮道:“賊小肉兒,不知怎的,聽見乾恁勾
當兒,雲端里老鼠──天生的耗。”吩咐:“快送了來,教他家丫頭伺候
去。你不要管他,我要使你哩!”那春梅笑嘻嘻同小玉進去了。一面把
酒菜擺在桌上,就出來了,只是繡春、迎春在房答應。玉樓、金蓮問
了他話。玉簫道:“三娘,咱後邊去罷。”二人一路去了。金蓮叫春梅
關上角門,歸進房來,獨自宿歇,不在話下。正是:
可惜團圓今夜月,清光咫尺別人圓。
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebooknice.com