Chapter 1.6

Chapter 1.6

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[kliəˈpɑ:trə] 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 [taiˈbiəriəs] 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 [ˌpekəˈdɪləʊs], 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: It is not thus that the Church in its great days dealt with evidence that was unwelcome.

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）。罗特霍尔兹博士在评论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，固然应该受到指责，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。