英語(yǔ)聽(tīng)力 學(xué)英語(yǔ),練聽(tīng)力,上聽(tīng)力課堂! 注冊(cè) 登錄
> 在線聽(tīng)力 > 有聲讀物 > 世界名著 > 譯林版·月亮與六便士 >  第1篇

雙語(yǔ)·月亮與六便士 第一章

所屬教程:譯林版·月亮與六便士

瀏覽:

2022年04月14日

手機(jī)版
掃描二維碼方便學(xué)習(xí)和分享

I confess that when first I made acquaintance with Charles Strickland I never for a moment discerned that there was in him anything out of the ordinary. Yet now few will be found to deny his greatness.I do not speak of that greatness which is achieved by the fortunate politician or the successful soldier;that is a quality which belongs to the place he occupies rather than to the man;and a change of circumstance reduces it to very discreet proportions.The Prime Minister out of office is seen, too often, to have been but a pompous rhetorician, and the General without an army is but the tame hero of a market town.The greatness of Charles Strickland was authentic.It may be that you do not like his art, but at all events you can hardly refuse it the tribute of your interest.He disturbs and arrests.The time has passed when he was an object of ridicule, and it is no longer a mark of eccentricity to defend or of perversity to extol him.His faults are accepted as the necessary complement to his merits.It is still possible to discuss his place in art, and the adulation of his admirers is perhaps no less capricious than the disparagement of his detractors;but one thing can never be doubtful, and that is that he had genius.To my mind the most interesting thing in art is the personality of the artist;and if that is singular, I am willing to excuse a thousand faults.I suppose Velasquez was a better painter than El Greco, but custom stales one's admiration for him:the Cretan, sensual and tragic, proffers the mystery of his soul like a standing sacrifice.The artist, painter, poet, or musician, by his decoration, sublime or beautiful, satisfes the aesthetic sense;but that is akin to the sexual instinct, and shares its barbarity:he lays before you also the greater gift of himself.To pursue his secret has something of the fascination of a detective story.It is a riddle which shares with the universe the merit of having no answer.The most insignifcant of Strickland's works suggests a personality which is strange, tormented, and complex;and it is this surely which prevents even those who do not like his pictures from being indifferent to them;it is this which has excited so curious an interest in his life and character.

It was not till four years after Strickland's death that Maurice Huret wrote that article in the Mercure de France which rescued the unknown painter from oblivion and blazed the trail which succeeding writers, with more or less docility, have followed. For a long time no critic has enjoyed in France a more incontestable authority, and it was impossible not to be impressed by the claims he made;they seemed extravagant;but later judgements have confirmed his estimate, and the reputation of Charles Strickland is now firmly established on the lines which he laid down.The rise of this reputation is one of the most romantic incidents in the history of art.But I do not propose to deal with Charles Strickland's work except in so far as it touches upon his character.I cannot agree with the painters who claim superciliously that the layman can understand nothing of painting, and that he can best show his appreciation of their works by silence and a cheque-book.It is a grotesque misapprehension which sees in art no more than a craft comprehensible perfectly only to the craftsman:art is a manifestation of emotion, and emotion speaks a language that all may understand.But I will allow that the critic who has not a practical knowledge of technique is seldom able to say anything on the subject of real value, and my ignorance of painting is extreme.Fortunately, there is no need for me to risk the adventure, since my friend, Mr.Edward Leggatt, an able writer as well as an admirable painter, has exhaustively discussed Charles Strickland's work in a little book 1 which is a charming example of a style, for the most part, less happily cultivated in England than in France.

Maurice Huret in his famous article gave an outline of Charles Strickland's life which was well calculated to whet the appetites of the inquiring. With his disinterested passion for art, he had a real desire to call the attention of the wise to a talent which was in the highest degree original;but he was too good a journalist to be unaware that the“human interest”would enable him more easily to effect his purpose.And when such as had come in contact with Strickland in the past, writers who had known him in London, painters who had met him in the cafés of Montmartre, discovered to their amazement that where they had seen but an unsuccessful artist, like another, authentic genius had rubbed shoulders with them, there began to appear in the magazines of France and America a succession of articles, the reminiscences of one, the appreciation of another, which added to Strickland’s notoriety, and fed without satisfying the curiosity of the public.The subject was grateful, and the industrious Weitbrecht-Rotholz in his imposing monograph 2 has been able to give a remarkable list of authorities.

The faculty for myth is innate in the human race. It seizes with avidity upon any incidents, surprising or mysterious, in the career of those who have at all distinguished themselves from their fellows, and invents a legend to which it then attaches a fanatical belief.It is the protest of romance against the commonplace of life.The incidents of the legend become the hero's surest passport to immortality.The ironic philosopher refects with a smile that Sir Walter Raleigh is more safely enshrined in the memory of mankind because he set his cloak for the Virgin Queen to walk on than because he carried the English name to undiscovered countries.Charles Strickland lived obscurely.He made enemies rather than friends.It is not strange, then, that those who wrote of him should have eked out their scanty recollections with a lively fancy, and it is evident that there was enough in the 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 character something outrageous, and in his fate not a little that was pathetic.In due course a legend arose of such circumstantiality that the wise historian would hesitate to attack it.

But a wise historian is precisely what the Rev. Robert Strickland is not.He wrote his biography 3 avowedly to“remove certain misconceptions which had gained currency”in regard to the later part of his father’s life, and which had“caused considerable pain to persons still living.”It is obvious that there was much in the commonly received account of Strickland’s life to embarrass a respectable family.I have read this work with a good deal of amusement, and upon this I congratulate myself, since it is colourless and dull.Mr.Strickland has drawn the portrait of an excellent husband and father, a man of kindly temper, industrious habits, and moral disposition.The modern clergyman has acquired in his study of the science which I believe is called exegesis an astonishing facility for explaining things away, but the subtlety with which the Rev.Robert Strickland has“interpreted”all the facts in his father’s life which a dutiful son might fnd it convenient to remember must surely lead him in the fullness of time to the highest dignities of the Church.I see already his muscular calves encased in the gaiters episcopal.It was a hazardous, though maybe a gallant thing to do, since it is probable that the legend commonly received has had no small share in the growth of Strickland’s reputation;for there are many who have been attracted to his art by the detestation in which they held his character or the compassion with which they regarded his death;and the son’s well-meaning efforts threw a singular chill upon the father’s admirers.It is due to no 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 the publication of Mr.Strickland’s biography, it fetched£235 less than it had done nine months before, when it was bought by the distinguished collector whose sudden death had brought it once more under the hammer.Perhaps Charles Strickland’s power and originality would scarcely have suffced to turn the scale if the remarkable mythopoeic faculty of mankind had not brushed aside with impatience a story which disappointed all its craving for the extraordinary.And presently Dr.Weitbrecht-Rotholz produced the work which fnally set at rest the misgivings of all lovers of art.

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 fgures of romance as patterns of the domestic virtues.For my part, I should be sorry to think that there was nothing between Antony 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 vilifed as treachery.And on the strength of peccadilloes, 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.

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 fé of an heretic when with some forgotten story he can confound the flial 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.

毋庸諱言,當(dāng)我初次結(jié)識(shí)查爾斯·斯特里克蘭時(shí),并未看出他有何過(guò)人之處。然而,現(xiàn)在大多數(shù)人都認(rèn)識(shí)到了他的偉大。我所說(shuō)的偉大,并非官運(yùn)亨通的政客或者立功受獎(jiǎng)的軍人所贏得的那種偉大,因?yàn)檫@些人的偉大只關(guān)乎于他們的地位,而無(wú)涉于個(gè)人的品性。一旦時(shí)過(guò)境遷,他們身上的光環(huán)也就褪去了。人們通常會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)一位卸職的首相想當(dāng)年無(wú)非是個(gè)夸夸其談的政客,沒(méi)有一兵一卒的光桿司令現(xiàn)在也只不過(guò)是市肆中氣短的英雄。但是查爾斯·斯特里克蘭的偉大卻是貨真價(jià)實(shí)的,可能你不喜歡他的藝術(shù),但不管怎樣你無(wú)法拒絕由它所喚起的興趣。他的作品能吸引你的目光,觸動(dòng)你的心弦。他受人譏諷的時(shí)代已經(jīng)過(guò)去了,而且對(duì)他的辯護(hù)不再被看作是古怪的行徑,對(duì)他的贊頌也不再被認(rèn)為是反常的表現(xiàn)。瑕不掩瑜,甚至他的缺點(diǎn)在人們的眼中也變得理所應(yīng)當(dāng)。他在藝術(shù)領(lǐng)域的地位尚無(wú)定論,或許崇拜者的恭維和貶損者的蔑視都很任性隨意,但有一點(diǎn)卻毋庸置疑,那就是他秉具的天賦。在我看來(lái),對(duì)于藝術(shù),最有趣的東西就是藝術(shù)家的個(gè)性。如果個(gè)性非凡,即使這個(gè)藝術(shù)家有再多的缺點(diǎn),我也愿意原諒。我認(rèn)為委拉斯開(kāi)茲[1]是個(gè)比艾爾·格列柯[2]更優(yōu)秀的畫(huà)家,可是他的畫(huà)風(fēng)和題材司空見(jiàn)慣,缺乏新鮮感,不免讓人們對(duì)他的崇拜大打折扣。而那位來(lái)自克里特島[3]的畫(huà)家格列柯,他的作品充滿肉欲和悲劇的情調(diào),仿佛作為永恒的犧牲把自己靈魂的神秘奉獻(xiàn)出來(lái)。藝術(shù)家們,無(wú)論是畫(huà)家、詩(shī)人或是音樂(lè)家,會(huì)用他們或者崇高、或者美妙的作品來(lái)裝點(diǎn)世界,滿足人們審美的需要,但這又類同于人的性本能,美妙的同時(shí)又不無(wú)野蠻粗暴。偉大的藝術(shù)家會(huì)將作品與其個(gè)人本身的偉大才能一同展現(xiàn)出來(lái),尋找藝術(shù)家的秘密有種閱讀偵探小說(shuō)般讓人欲罷不能的感覺(jué),又如同宇宙充滿了奧秘,迷人之處在于無(wú)法找到答案。即便是斯特里克蘭最不起眼的作品也在暗示著他那怪異、復(fù)雜、受折磨的個(gè)性。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),正是這些特點(diǎn)使得那些不喜歡他的作品的人也無(wú)法對(duì)這些畫(huà)作漠然視之。同樣也正是因?yàn)檫@一點(diǎn),才會(huì)有那么多人對(duì)他的生活和性格感到興奮和好奇,激發(fā)了他們濃厚的興趣。

直到斯特里克蘭去世四年后,莫里斯·休瑞寫(xiě)了一篇文章,發(fā)表在《法蘭西信使》上,正是這篇文章才使得這位默默無(wú)聞的畫(huà)家不致湮沒(méi),而且為后來(lái)的那些囿于傳統(tǒng)的評(píng)論家們開(kāi)辟了一條新的道路。在法國(guó),長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)沒(méi)有哪位評(píng)論家像休瑞那樣具有無(wú)可爭(zhēng)辯的權(quán)威性,他的觀點(diǎn)絕對(duì)讓人印象深刻。他對(duì)斯特里克蘭的贊譽(yù)似乎有些過(guò)頭,但后來(lái)人們對(duì)這位畫(huà)家的評(píng)價(jià)證明他的話所言非虛。今天斯特里克蘭的名聲正是建立在他當(dāng)初的判斷之上,這位畫(huà)家的聲名鵲起可以說(shuō)是藝術(shù)史上最具浪漫色彩的事件之一。某些畫(huà)家傲慢地宣稱外行們根本不懂繪畫(huà)藝術(shù),所以俗人要表達(dá)對(duì)畫(huà)作欣賞的最好方式就是閉嘴和掏出支票,我對(duì)這種說(shuō)法不能認(rèn)同,因?yàn)樗囆g(shù)是感情的表達(dá),而感情是人類共通和能夠理解的。所以,藝術(shù)只有藝術(shù)家才能鑒賞的說(shuō)法,就如同精妙的手藝只有能工巧匠才能完全理解一樣荒誕不經(jīng)。但是我也承認(rèn),對(duì)繪畫(huà)技巧缺乏實(shí)際知識(shí)的評(píng)論家很少能對(duì)畫(huà)作提出真正有價(jià)值的看法,而我自己對(duì)繪畫(huà)就一無(wú)所知。幸運(yùn)的是,在這方面我不必冒妄加評(píng)論的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),因?yàn)槲业呐笥褠?ài)德華·勒加特先生,既是一位有能力的作家,又是一位造詣?lì)H深的畫(huà)家,在他的一本小書(shū)[4]中,對(duì)斯特里克蘭的作品做了充分的探討,此書(shū)的文風(fēng)優(yōu)美,堪稱典范,令人難過(guò)的是,這種文風(fēng)在英國(guó)的大部分地區(qū)遠(yuǎn)不如在法國(guó)那樣受到推崇。

莫里斯·休瑞在他那篇著名的文章中對(duì)查爾斯·斯特里克蘭的生平做了簡(jiǎn)介,旨在吊足讀者好奇的胃口。在對(duì)藝術(shù)表現(xiàn)出的冷峻的感情之下,他卻表達(dá)出了真誠(chéng)的渴望,呼喚人們對(duì)一個(gè)極具原創(chuàng)精神的天才要給予明智的關(guān)注。但是,休瑞是個(gè)撰稿的高手,他不會(huì)不知道“好奇之心,人皆有之”的道理,他用這種方式輕易地達(dá)到了預(yù)期的效果。當(dāng)那些過(guò)去與斯特里克蘭有過(guò)接觸的人——有些作家在倫敦時(shí)就認(rèn)識(shí)他,有些畫(huà)家在蒙特馬特爾咖啡館和他見(jiàn)過(guò)面——驚訝地發(fā)現(xiàn),原來(lái)他們以為他不過(guò)是個(gè)失敗的畫(huà)家,現(xiàn)在卻好像換了個(gè)人似的,成了一個(gè)真正的天才,并與他們失之交臂。他的名字開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)在法國(guó)和美國(guó)雜志刊登的一系列文章中,某個(gè)人會(huì)撰寫(xiě)對(duì)他的回憶文章,另一個(gè)人會(huì)撰寫(xiě)對(duì)他畫(huà)作的鑒賞文章,這些文章增加了斯特里克蘭的名聲,但卻勾起了公眾的好奇心,而又無(wú)法完全滿足他們的好奇。有關(guān)斯特里克蘭的文章很受讀者歡迎,勤奮的維特布瑞希特—洛特霍爾茲在他鴻篇巨制的專著[5]里開(kāi)列了一張書(shū)單,列舉出富有權(quán)威性的一些文章。

編造神話的能力是人類所固有的,在那些出類拔萃的人的生涯中,無(wú)論發(fā)生的是令人驚訝的事件還是神秘的事件,都會(huì)被人們津津樂(lè)道,人們還熱衷發(fā)明一種傳奇,并且狂熱地篤信不移。它是用一種浪漫對(duì)平庸生活進(jìn)行的抗議。傳奇中的種種事件已然成為英雄走向不朽最可靠的通行證。沃爾特·雷利爵士[6]在人們的記憶中被奉為神圣,與其說(shuō)是因?yàn)樗l(fā)現(xiàn)了很多領(lǐng)地,并以英國(guó)的名字命名的豐功偉績(jī),還不如說(shuō)是因?yàn)樗雅L(fēng)鋪在地上讓伊麗莎白女王踏過(guò)去的小插曲。一個(gè)慣于冷嘲熱諷的哲學(xué)家想到這點(diǎn)時(shí),會(huì)啞然失笑。查爾斯·斯特里克蘭生前默默無(wú)聞,一生樹(shù)敵頗多而交友甚少,那些為他著書(shū)立說(shuō)的人要用活躍的想象去彌補(bǔ)所收集資料的不足也就毫不為奇了。但顯而易見(jiàn)的是,盡管人們對(duì)斯特里克蘭生平事跡知道得并不多,但足夠浪漫的文人騷客從中可以找到大量鋪陳敷衍的材料,他的生活中有不少離奇可怕的事件,他的性格里也有反常粗暴的一面,他的命運(yùn)中又不乏悲壯凄愴的遭遇。經(jīng)過(guò)一段時(shí)間,便從這材料中產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)傳奇,即使是睿智的歷史學(xué)家對(duì)這種傳奇也不敢貿(mào)然抨擊。

然而,一個(gè)明智的歷史學(xué)家本應(yīng)該講求準(zhǔn)確,但羅伯特·斯特里克蘭牧師顯然不屬此類。他宣稱寫(xiě)他父親的傳記[7]是為了“消除某些街談巷議的誤解”,尤其是關(guān)于他父親后半生的謬種流傳,已經(jīng)“給活著的親人帶來(lái)很大痛苦”。顯而易見(jiàn),眾所周知的對(duì)斯特里克蘭生平的種種描述,都讓一個(gè)體面的家庭蒙羞。我是帶著一種消遣娛樂(lè)的心情來(lái)讀這本傳記的,而且暗自慶幸,這本書(shū)寫(xiě)得毫無(wú)生氣,枯燥乏味。斯特里克蘭先生在書(shū)中被刻畫(huà)成一個(gè)模范丈夫和好父親,一個(gè)脾氣隨和、做事勤勉、品行端正的謙謙君子。這位當(dāng)代的牧師在做《圣經(jīng)》詮釋學(xué)[8]的研究時(shí),已經(jīng)獲得了某種令人吃驚的、顧左右而言他的能力,其精妙之處在于,作為一個(gè)盡職的兒子,羅伯特·斯特里克蘭牧師在“詮釋”乃父生前種種事跡時(shí),總能很方便地找到某些細(xì)節(jié),使他能夠在時(shí)機(jī)成熟時(shí)在教會(huì)獲得顯要職位,甚至我都似乎看到了他肌肉結(jié)實(shí)的小腿上儼然已經(jīng)套上了主教的綁腿。雖然這事做起來(lái)需要巨大的勇氣,也會(huì)冒一定的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),因?yàn)樵谒固乩锟颂m聲譽(yù)日隆時(shí),那些普遍被人接受的傳說(shuō),并沒(méi)有對(duì)他的名聲帶來(lái)好的影響。他的藝術(shù)對(duì)很多人有那么大的吸引力,或者是因?yàn)槿藗儗?duì)他的性格很憎惡,或者是對(duì)他的死充滿同情。斯特里克蘭兒子的這部為父親粉飾的傳記,不啻給其父的崇拜者們澆了一頭冷水。在這部傳記出版后,人們還在對(duì)此書(shū)議論紛紛之際,斯特里克蘭一生中最重要的作品之一——《撒瑪利亞的女人》[9]旋即被賣給了克里斯蒂[10]拍賣行,可最后拍出的價(jià)錢比九個(gè)月前少了235英鎊就并非偶然了。那時(shí),一位有名的收藏家購(gòu)得了這幅畫(huà),但他突然離世,所以這幅畫(huà)又重新被拍賣。如果人類非凡的造就神話史詩(shī)的能力無(wú)法消除某種影響,即一個(gè)故事不能滿足人類的獵奇心的話,光憑查爾斯·斯特里克蘭的力量和獨(dú)創(chuàng)性,是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不能使得其畫(huà)作的價(jià)錢前后差別有如此之大的。幸虧沒(méi)過(guò)多久,維特布瑞希特—洛特霍爾茲博士的作品就問(wèn)世了,最終讓所有的藝術(shù)愛(ài)好者們打消了顧慮。

維特布瑞希特—洛特霍爾茲博士屬于這樣一類歷史學(xué)家的學(xué)派:認(rèn)為人性要多壞就有多壞,可以說(shuō)沒(méi)有最壞只有更壞。當(dāng)然,比起那些成心把傳奇性的大人物寫(xiě)成道貌岸然的君子,使人敗興的作家來(lái)說(shuō),這一派歷史學(xué)家的著作肯定能給讀者帶來(lái)更大的樂(lè)趣。對(duì)我而言,如果把安東尼和克里奧佩特拉[11]之間僅僅寫(xiě)成經(jīng)濟(jì)上的聯(lián)盟,我會(huì)感到遺憾的。同樣要讓我相信提比略[12]和英王喬治五世一樣是無(wú)可指摘的君主的話,恐怕要拿出比現(xiàn)存材料更多的證據(jù)來(lái)證明,謝天謝地,目前似乎還沒(méi)有。維特布瑞希特—洛特霍爾茲博士正是用了這樣的邏輯來(lái)評(píng)論羅伯特·斯特里克蘭牧師所寫(xiě)的傳記,這部天真的傳記讓人們對(duì)于那位不幸的人兒難免會(huì)產(chǎn)生某種同情。牧師為顧及體面故意閃爍其詞的地方,被攻擊為虛偽;大肆渲染的地方,被嚴(yán)責(zé)為謊言;而保持沉默的地方又被詬病為背叛。對(duì)于傳記作者來(lái)說(shuō),作品中的這些小過(guò)失應(yīng)該受到指責(zé),但是對(duì)于傳記主人公的兒子而言,又情有可原。倒霉的是,盎格魯—撒克遜民族似乎也因此受到牽連,被非難為假裝正經(jīng)、弄虛作假、狂妄自大、欺騙成性、狡猾成精,甚至烹飪也一塌糊涂。我個(gè)人認(rèn)為,斯特里克蘭牧師在駁斥已深入人心的,說(shuō)他父母之間“不太愉快”的論調(diào)時(shí),實(shí)在過(guò)于草率。他在傳記中引用一封查爾斯·斯特里克蘭從巴黎寄來(lái)的信件,把他的妻子描述為“一個(gè)優(yōu)秀的女人”,而維特布瑞希特—洛特霍爾茲博士把這封信的原件復(fù)制了出來(lái),原來(lái)段落中這句話的原意是這樣的:“讓上帝詛咒我的妻子吧,她可真是一個(gè)‘優(yōu)秀得可以’的女人,我真希望她能下地獄。”牧師對(duì)于不受歡迎的證據(jù)這樣來(lái)處理,即使在教會(huì)鼎盛的時(shí)代,似乎也大為不妥。

維特布瑞希特—洛特霍爾茲博士是查爾斯·斯特里克蘭熱情的崇拜者,他如果要想為斯特里克蘭進(jìn)行粉飾不會(huì)有絲毫危險(xiǎn)。但是,他目光敏銳,對(duì)于所有隱藏在天真無(wú)邪表象下卑劣的動(dòng)機(jī)都能明察秋毫。他既是一個(gè)精神病理學(xué)家,又是藝術(shù)的研究者,沒(méi)有什么潛意識(shí)下的秘密能夠瞞得了他,沒(méi)有哪個(gè)探究秘密的人能夠像他那樣在平凡物體中看出更深的意義。這個(gè)探秘的人看出了不便言傳的東西,而精神病理學(xué)家看到了無(wú)法說(shuō)出的東西。我們看到這位博學(xué)的作家熱衷于搜尋出每一件讓這位主人公丟臉的逸聞逸事,不免讓人嘖嘖稱奇。每當(dāng)他找出某件主人公冷酷無(wú)情或卑鄙自私的例子,他的心就會(huì)對(duì)他多一份熱情,而且在找到某件被遺忘的故事,能夠用來(lái)嘲弄羅伯特·斯特里克蘭牧師的一片孝心時(shí),他就會(huì)像宗教法庭[13]的法官審判異教徒那樣興高采烈。他那孜孜不倦的精神著實(shí)令人贊嘆,沒(méi)有什么瑣事能夠在他的筆下漏掉,如果查爾斯·斯特里克蘭有一筆洗衣費(fèi)用沒(méi)有付清,細(xì)節(jié)就會(huì)被詳細(xì)地[14]記錄下來(lái);如果他欠別人半克朗的錢沒(méi)有償還,這筆債務(wù)的每一個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)絕不會(huì)被漏掉。

用戶搜索

瘋狂英語(yǔ) 英語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法 新概念英語(yǔ) 走遍美國(guó) 四級(jí)聽(tīng)力 英語(yǔ)音標(biāo) 英語(yǔ)入門(mén) 發(fā)音 美語(yǔ) 四級(jí) 新東方 七年級(jí) 賴世雄 zero是什么意思成都市桂王橋北街30號(hào)院英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)交流群

  • 頻道推薦
  • |
  • 全站推薦
  • 推薦下載
  • 網(wǎng)站推薦