《月亮和六便士》重译01D

Dr. Weitbrecht-Rotholz belongs to that school of historians which believes that human nature is not only about as bad as it can be, but a great deal worse; and certainly the reader is safer of entertainment in their hands than in those of the writers who take a malicious pleasure in representing the great figures of romance as patterns of the domestic virtues. For my part, I should be sorry to think that there was nothing between Anthony and Cleopatra but an economic situation; and it will require a great deal more evidence than is ever likely to be available, thank God, to persuade me that Tiberius was as blameless a monarch as King George V. Dr. Weitbrecht-Rotholz has dealt in such terms with the Rev. Robert Strickland's innocent biography that it is difficult to avoid feeling a certain sympathy for the unlucky parson. His decent reticence is branded as hypocrisy, his circumlocutions are roundly called lies, and his silence is vilified as treachery. And on the strength of peccadillos, reprehensible in an author, but excusable in a son, the Anglo-Saxon race is accused of prudishness, humbug, pretentiousness, deceit, cunning, and bad cooking. Personally I think it was rash of Mr. Strickland, in refuting the account which had gained belief of a certain "unpleasantness" between his father and mother, to state that Charles Strickland in a letter written from Paris had described her as "an excellent woman," since Dr. Weitbrecht-Rotholz was able to print the letter in facsimile, and it appears that the passage referred to ran in fact as follows: God damn my wife. She is an excellent woman. I wish she was in hell. It is not thus that the Church in its great days dealt with evidence that was unwelcome.

魏若特博士之流的历史学家相信，不仅人性本恶，而且恶贯满盈；当然与那些将传奇人物描写成修身齐家的楷模而幸灾乐祸的作家相比，他们当然更不会拿读者开涮。就我而言，如果认为罗马王安东尼和埃及艳后克利奥帕特拉之间只是经济上往来的关系，我会喟然叹息；如果把罗马皇帝二世提贝里乌斯当作一位无可厚非的国君对待，与温莎王朝的乔治五世相提并论，想要说服我这一点需要有更多的证据，感谢上帝，这样的证据看起来很可能永远也收集不到。在评论司罗伯牧师那篇单纯幼稚的传记时，魏若特博士所采用的措辞很难不令人在某种程度上对这位倒霉牧师表示同情。传记中的木讷寡言被打上伪善烙印，迂回婉转直接被称为谎话连篇，缄默不语被诋毁为背叛变节。作为传记作者，司罗伯牧师犯下这些无伤大雅的过失，理应受到谴责，但身为传记主人公的儿子倒情有可原。正是因为这些过失，整个盎格鲁●撒克逊人种都被魏若特博士指责为迂腐守旧、谎话连篇、装腔作势、招摇撞骗、阴险狡猾，以及厨艺欠佳。人们已经普遍认为司罗伯父母之间存在某种“不睦”，我个人觉得司罗伯在驳斥这种说法时有些草率鲁莽，他声称父亲司查尔在一封由巴黎寄出的家书中把母亲描绘成“一位很优秀的女人”，而魏若特博士把那封家书影印了一份，而且好像司罗伯牧师引用的那段话实际上内容如下：我太太真该死。她是一位很优秀的女人。但愿她下地狱。即使在当年教会势力鼎盛的岁月里，教会也不至于采用这种方式来处理对自己不利的证据。

Dr. Weitbrecht-Rotholz was an enthusiastic admirer of Charles Strickland, and there was no danger that he would whitewash him. He had an unerring eye for the despicable motive in actions that had all the appearance of innocence. He was a psycho-pathologist, as well as a student of art, and the subconscious had few secrets from him. No mystic ever saw deeper meaning in common things. The mystic sees the ineffable, and the psycho-pathologist the unspeakable. There is a singular fascination in watching the eagerness with which the learned author ferrets out every circumstance which may throw discredit on his hero. His heart warms to him when he can bring forward some example of cruelty or meanness, and he exults like an inquisitor at the auto da fe of an heretic when with some forgotten story he can confound the filial piety of the Rev. Robert Strickland. His industry has been amazing. Nothing has been too small to escape him, and you may be sure that if Charles Strickland left a laundry bill unpaid it will be given you in extenso, and if he forebore to return a borrowed half-crown no detail of the transaction will be omitted.

魏若特博士是司查尔的热情崇拜者，不会为司查尔涂脂抹粉，掩盖真相。他看人绝不会走眼，能够发现所有天真无邪的外表之下隐藏的恬不知耻的动机。他是一位心理病理学家，也是一位艺术研究者，对他来说潜意识没有什么秘密可言。没有哪个神秘主义者能够像他那样在普通事物中看到了更深层的意义：神秘主义者看到了不可言传的东西，而心理病理学家看到了羞于启齿的东西。看着这位知识渊博的作者迫不及待搜索着各种细节，而每一条细节都可能会给传记主人公脸上抹黑，人们无不感觉到这其中存在着一股独特的魔力。当他可以举出主人公一些恶行劣迹时，他就会对主人公心生暖意；而当他找出已经被人们遗忘的故事可以用来抨击司罗伯牧师的孝道时，他就会像教会审判官一样将异教徒治罪那样而欢喜若狂。他这种勤勉刻苦的精神令人惊叹不已。任何小事都休想从他手心溜走，如果司查尔留有一张洗衣账单尚未支付，他一定毫无遗漏地把此事记录在案；如果司查尔从别人那里曾借了三十便士迟迟未还，这笔欠账的一点一滴他都不会漏掉。