| 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. | 魏若特博士之流的曆史學家相信，不僅人性本惡，而且惡貫滿盈；當然與那些將傳奇人物描寫成修身齊家的楷模而幸災樂禍的作家相比，他們當然更不會拿讀者開涮。就我而言，如果認為羅馬王安東尼和埃及豔後克利奧帕特拉之間隻是經濟上往來的關係，我會喟然歎息；如果把羅馬皇帝二世提貝裏烏斯當作一位無可厚非的國君對待，與溫莎王朝的喬治五世相提並論，想要說服我這一點需要有更多的證據，感謝上帝，這樣的證據看起來很可能永遠也收集不到。在評論司羅伯牧師那篇單純幼稚的傳記時，魏若特博士所采用的措辭很難不令人在某種程度上對這位倒黴牧師表示同情。傳記中的木訥寡言被打上偽善烙印，迂回婉轉直接被稱為謊話連篇，緘默不語被詆毀為背叛變節。作為傳記作者，司羅伯牧師犯下這些無傷大雅的過失，理應受到譴責，但身為傳記主人公的兒子倒情有可原。正是因為這些過失，整個盎格魯●撒克遜人種都被魏若特博士指責為迂腐守舊、謊話連篇、裝腔作勢、招搖撞騙、陰險狡猾，以及廚藝欠佳。人們已經普遍認為司羅伯父母之間存在某種“不睦”，我個人覺得司羅伯在駁斥這種說法時有些草率魯莽，他聲稱父親司查爾在一封由巴黎寄出的家書中把母親描繪成“一位很優秀的女人”，而魏若特博士把那封家書影印了一份，而且好像司羅伯牧師引用的那段話實際上內容如下：我太太真該死。她是一位很優秀的女人。但願她下地獄。即使在當年教會勢力鼎盛的歲月裏，教會也不至於采用這種方式來處理對自己不利的證據。 |
| 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. | 魏若特博士是司查爾的熱情崇拜者，不會為司查爾塗脂抹粉，掩蓋真相。他看人絕不會走眼，能夠發現所有天真無邪的外表之下隱藏的恬不知恥的動機。他是一位心理病理學家，也是一位藝術研究者，對他來說潛意識沒有什麽秘密可言。沒有哪個神秘主義者能夠像他那樣在普通事物中看到了更深層的意義：神秘主義者看到了不可言傳的東西，而心理病理學家看到了羞於啟齒的東西。看著這位知識淵博的作者迫不及待搜索著各種細節，而每一條細節都可能會給傳記主人公臉上抹黑，人們無不感覺到這其中存在著一股獨特的魔力。當他可以舉出主人公一些惡行劣跡時，他就會對主人公心生暖意；而當他找出已經被人們遺忘的故事可以用來抨擊司羅伯牧師的孝道時，他就會像教會審判官一樣將異教徒治罪那樣而歡喜若狂。他這種勤勉刻苦的精神令人驚歎不已。任何小事都休想從他手心溜走，如果司查爾留有一張洗衣賬單尚未支付，他一定毫無遺漏地把此事記錄在案；如果司查爾從別人那裏曾借了三十便士遲遲未還，這筆欠賬的一點一滴他都不會漏掉。 |
