有声英语少儿读物 月亮月六便士 Volume1 Chapter 6-10

CharlesStrickland lived obscurely. He made enemies rather than friends. It is notstrange, then, that those who wrote of him should have eked out their scantyrecollections with a lively fancy, and it is evident that there was enough inthe little that was known of him to give opportunity to the romantic scribe;there was much in his life which was strange and terrible, in his charactersomething outrageous, and in his fate not a little that was pathetic. In duecourse a legend arose of such circumstantiality that the wise historian wouldhesitate to attack it.

But a wisehistorian is precisely what the Rev. Robert Strickland is not. He wrote hisbiography(3) avowedly to "remove certain misconceptions which had gainedcurrency" in regard to the later part of his father's life, and which had"caused considerable pain to persons still living. " It is obviousthat there was much in the commonly received account of Strickland's life toembarrass a respectable family. I have read this work with a good deal ofamusement, and upon this I congratulate myself, since it is colourless anddull.

Mr.Strickland has drawn the portrait of an excellent husband and father, a man ofkindly temper, industrious habits, and moral disposition. The modern clergymanhas acquired in his study of the science which I believe is called exegesis anastonishing facility for explaining things away, but the subtlety with whichthe Rev. Robert Strickland has "interpreted" all the facts in hisfather's life which a dutiful son might find it inconvenient to remember mustsurely lead him in the fullness of time to the highest dignities of the Church. 

I see alreadyhis muscular calves encased in the gaiters episcopal. It was a hazardous,though maybe a gallant thing to do, since it is probable that the legendcommonly received has had no small share in the growth of Strickland'sreputation; for there are many who have been attracted to his art by thedetestation in which they held his character or the compassion with which theyregarded his death; and the son's well-meaning efforts threw a singular chillupon the father's admirers.

It is due tono accident that when one of his most important works, The Woman of Samaria,(4) was sold at Christie's shortly after the discussion which followed thepublication of Mr. Strickland's biography, it fetched POUNDS 235 less than ithad done nine months before when it was bought by the distinguished collectorwhose sudden death had brought it once more under the hammer. Perhaps CharlesStrickland's power and originality would scarcely have sufficed to turn thescale if the remarkable mythopoeic faculty of mankind had not brushed asidewith impatience a story which disappointed all its craving for theextraordinary. And presently Dr. Weitbrecht-Rotholz produced the work whichfinally set at rest the misgivings of all lovers of art.

Dr.Weitbrecht-Rotholz belongs to that school of historians which believes thathuman nature is not only about as bad as it can be, but a great deal worse; andcertainly the reader is safer of entertainment in their hands than in those ofthe writers who take a malicious pleasure in representing the great figures ofromance as patterns of the domestic virtues. For my part, I should be sorry tothink that there was nothing between Anthony and Cleopatra but an economicsituation; and it will require a great deal more evidence than is ever likelyto be available, thank God, to persuade me that Tiberius was as blameless amonarch as King George V. Dr. Weitbrecht-Rotholz has dealt in such terms withthe Rev.

RobertStrickland's innocent biography that it is difficult to avoid feeling a certainsympathy for the unlucky parson. His decent reticence is branded as hypocrisy,his circumlocutions are roundly called lies, and his silence is vilified astreachery. And on the strength of peccadillos, reprehensible in an author, butexcusable in a son, the Anglo-Saxon race is accused of prudishness, humbug,pretentiousness, deceit, cunning, and bad cooking.

Personally Ithink it was rash of Mr. Strickland, in refuting the account which had gainedbelief of a certain "unpleasantness" between his father and mother,to state that Charles Strickland in a letter written from Paris had describedher as "an excellent woman, " since Dr. Weitbrecht-Rotholz was ableto print the letter in facsimile, and it appears that the passage referred toran in fact as follows: God damn my wife. She is an excellent woman. I wish shewas in hell. It is not thus that the Church in its great days dealt withevidence that was unwelcome.

Dr. Weitbrecht-Rotholzwas an enthusiastic admirer of Charles Strickland, and there was no danger thathe would whitewash him. He had an unerring eye for the despicable motive inactions 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. Nomystic ever saw deeper meaning in common things. The mystic sees the ineffable,and the psycho-pathologist the unspeakable. There is a singular fascination inwatching the eagerness with which the learned author ferrets out everycircumstance which may throw discredit on his hero. His heart warms to him whenhe can bring forward some example of cruelty or meanness, and he exults like aninquisitor at the auto da fe of an heretic when with some forgotten story hecan confound the filial piety of the Rev. Robert Strickland. His industry hasbeen amazing. Nothing has been too small to escape him, and you may be surethat 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 transactionwill be omitted.

讲到查理斯·思特里克兰德，生前知道他的人并不多。他树了不少敌人，但没有交下什么朋友。因此，那些给他写文章的人必须借助于活跃的想象以弥补贫乏的事实，看来也就不足为奇了。非常清楚，尽管人们对思特里克兰德生平的事迹知道得并不多，也尽够浪漫主义的文人从中找到大量铺陈敷衍的材料，他的生活中有不少离奇可怕的行径，他的性格里有不少荒谬绝伦的怪僻，他的命运中又不乏悲壮凄怆的遭遇。经过一段时间，从这一系列事情的演绎附会中便产生了一个神话，明智的历史学家对这种神话是不会贸然反对的。

罗伯特·思特里克兰德牧师偏偏不是这样一位明智的历史学家。他认为有关他父亲的后半生人们误解颇多，他公开申明自己写这部传记③就是为了“排除某些成为流传的误解”，这些谬种流传“给生者带来很大的痛苦”。谁都清楚，在外界传播的思特里克兰德生平轶事里有许多使一个体面的家庭感到难堪的事。我读这本传记的时候忍不住哑然失笑，但也暗自庆幸，幸好这本书写得实在枯燥乏味。

特里克兰德的最重要的一幅作品《萨玛利亚的女人》④九个月以前曾经卖给一位有名的收藏家。由于这位收藏家后来突然逝世，这幅画再度拍卖，又被克利斯蒂购去。这次拍卖正值思特里克兰德牧师的传记出版、人们议论纷纷之际，这幅名画的价格竟比九个月以前降低了二百三十五镑；这显然不是一件偶合。如果不是人们对神话的喜爱，叫他们对这个使他们的猎奇心大失所望的故事嗤之以鼻的话，只靠思特里克兰德个人的权威和独特也许无力挽回大局的。说也凑巧，没有过多久魏特布瑞希特-罗特霍尔兹博士的文章就问世了，艺术爱好者们的疑虑不安终于消除了。

③《思特里克兰德，生平与作品》，画家的儿子罗伯特·思特里克兰德撰写，1913年海因曼出版。（作者注）

④根据克利斯蒂藏画目录的描述，这幅画的内容是：一个裸体女人，社会岛的土人，躺在一条小溪边的草地上，背景是棕榈树、芭蕉等热带风景。60英寸×48英寸。（作者注）

魏特布瑞希特-罗特霍尔兹博士隶属的这一历史学派不只相信“人之初，性本恶”，而且认为其恶劣程度是远远超过人们的想象的；用不着说，比起那些把富有浪漫色彩的人物写成道貌岸然的君子的使人败兴的作家来，这一派历史学者的著作肯定能够给予读者更大的乐趣。对于我这样的读者，如果把安东尼和克莉奥佩特拉的关系只写作经济上的联盟，我是会觉得非常遗憾的；要想劝说我让我把泰伯利欧斯⑤看作是同英王乔治五世同样的一位毫无瑕疵的君主，也需要远比手头掌握的多得多的证据（谢天谢地，这种证据看来很难找到）。

魏特布瑞希特-罗特霍尔兹博士在评论罗伯特·思特里克兰德牧师那部天真的传记时所用的词句，读起来很难叫人对这位不幸的牧师不感到同情。凡是这位牧师为了维护体面不便畅言的地方都被攻击为虚伪，凡是他铺陈赘述的章节则率直地被叫作谎言，作者对某些事情保持缄默则干脆被魏特布瑞希特-罗特霍尔兹斥之为背叛。作品中的这些缺陷，从一个传记作家的角度来看，固然应该受到指摘，但作为传记主人公的儿子倒也情有可原；倒霉的是，竟连盎格鲁-萨克逊民族也连带遭了殃，被魏特布瑞希特-罗特霍尔兹博士批评为假装正经、作势吓人、自命不凡、狡猾欺心，只会烹调倒人胃口的菜饭。讲到我个人的意见，我认为思特里克兰德牧师在驳斥外间深入人心的一种传述——关于他父母之间某些“不愉快”的事件时，实在不够慎重。他在传记里引证查理斯· 思特里克兰德从巴黎写的一封家信，说他父亲称呼自己的妻子为“了不起的女人”，而魏特布瑞希特-罗特霍尔兹却把原信复制出来；原来思特里克兰德牧师引证的这段原文是这样的：“叫上帝惩罚我的妻子吧！这个女人太了不起了，我真希望叫她下地狱。”在教会势力鼎盛的日子，它们并不是用这种方法对待不受欢迎的事实的。

⑤泰伯利欧斯·克劳迪乌斯·尼禄（公元前42—公元37），罗马皇帝。

魏特布瑞希特-罗特霍尔兹博士是查理斯·思特里克兰德的一位热心的崇拜者，如果他想为思特里克兰德涂脂抹粉本来是不会有什么危险的。但他的目光敏锐，一眼就望穿了隐含在一些天真无邪的行为下的可鄙的动机。他既是一个艺术研究者，又是一个心理——病理学家。他对一个人的潜意识了如指掌。没有哪个探索心灵秘密的人能够象他那样透过普通事物看到更深邃的意义。探索心灵秘密的人能够看到不好用语言表达出来的东西，心理病理学家却看到了根本不能表达的事物。我们看到这位学识渊深的作家如何热衷于搜寻出每一件使这位英雄人物丢脸的细节琐事，真是令人拍案叫绝。每当他列举出主人公一件冷酷无情或者卑鄙自私的例证，他的心就对他更增加一分同情。在他寻找到主人公某件为人遗忘的轶事用来嘲弄罗伯特·思特里克兰德牧帅的一片孝心时，他就象宗教法庭的法官审判异教徒那样乐得心花怒放。他写这篇文章的那种认真勤奋劲儿也着实令人吃惊。没有哪件细小的事情被他漏掉，如果查理斯·思特里克兰德有一笔洗衣账没有付清，这件事一定会被详细记录下来；如果他欠人家一笔借款没有偿还，这笔债务的每一个细节也绝对不会遗漏；这一点读者是完全可以放心的。

思特里克兰德牧师在传记里刻划的是一个体贴的丈夫和慈祥的父亲，一个性格善良、作风勤奋、品行端正的君子。当代的教士在研究人们称之为《圣经》诠释这门学问中都学会了遮掩粉饰的惊人本领，但罗伯特·思特里克兰德牧师用以“解释”他父亲行状（这些开行动都是一个孝顺的儿子认为值得记住的）的那种精思敏辩，在时机成熟时肯定会导致他在教会中荣获显职的。我好象已经看到他那筋骨强健的小腿套上了主教的皮裹腿了。他做的是一件危险的，但或许是很勇敢的事，因为思特里克兰德之所以名传遐迩，在很大程度上要归功于人们普遍接受了的传说。他的艺术对很多人有那么大的魅力，或者是由于人们对他性格的嫌恶，或者是对他惨死的同情；而儿子的这部旨在为父亲遮羞掩丑的传记对于父亲的崇拜者却不啻当头浇了一盆冷水。