評論
打印
"That is satisfactory so far as it goes," thought I.
我想：這還算令人滿意，
"Friend Sholto is safe, at any rate.
我們的朋友舒爾托總算是恢復(fù)自由了。
I wonder what the fresh clue may be,
新的線索是什么呢？
though it seems to be a stereotyped form whenever the police have made a blunder."
這好象仍是警署方面掩飾錯誤的老派頭。
I tossed the paper down upon the table,
我把報紙扔到桌上，
but at that moment my eye caught an advertisement in the agony column.
目光忽然又被報上尋人欄里面的一段小廣告吸引住了。
It ran in this way: LOST–Whereas Mordecai Smith, boatman, and his son Jim,
廣告文曰："尋人：船主茂迪凱·斯密司及其長子吉姆
left Smith's Wharf at or about three o'clock last Tuesday morning in the steam launch Aurora,
在星期二清晨三時左右乘汽船'曙光'號離開斯密司碼頭，至今未歸。
black with two red stripes, funnel black with a white band,
'曙光'號船身黑色，有紅線兩條，煙囪黑色，有白線一道。
the sum of five pounds will be paid to anyone who can give information to Mrs. Smith,
如有知茂迪凱·斯密司與其船'曙光'號的下落者，
at Smith's Wharf, or at 221B, Baker Street, as to the whereabouts of the said Mordecai Smith and the launch Aurora.
請向斯密司碼頭斯密司太太或貝克街221號乙報信，當(dāng)酬謝金幣五鎊。
This was clearly Holmes's doing.
"這個小廣告顯然是福爾摩斯登的，
The Baker Street address was enough to prove that.
貝克街的住址就足以證明了。
It struck me as rather ingenious because it might be read by the fugitives
我以為這個廣告的措辭非常巧妙，因為即使匪徒們看到了，
without their seeing in it more than the natural anxiety of a wife for her missing husband.
也會認為那不過是一個瓶子尋找丈夫的普通廣告，并看不出其中的隱秘。
It was a long day.
這一天過得真慢。
Every time that a knock came to the door or a sharp step passed in the street,
每次聽到敲門的聲音或是街上沉重的腳步聲音，
I imagined that it was either Holmes returning or an answer to his advertisement.
我都以為是福爾摩斯或者是看見廣告來報信的人來了。
I tried to read, but my thoughts would wander off to our strange quest
我試著看書，但是精神不能集中，
and to the ill-assorted and villainous pair whom we were pursuing.
思想總是跑到我們所追蹤的那兩個奇怪的匪徒身上去。
Could there be, I wondered, some radical flaw in my companion's reasoning?
有時我還這樣想：會不會是福爾摩斯的理論發(fā)生了基本的錯誤？
Might he not be suffering from some huge self-deception?
他是不是犯了嚴重的自欺病？
Was it not possible that his nimble and speculative mind had built up this wild theory upon faulty premises?
會不會是由于這些證據(jù)不夠真實，他臆斷錯了？
I had never known him to be wrong,
我從沒有看見過他的工作發(fā)生錯誤，
and yet the keenest reasoner may occasionally be deceived.
可是智者千慮必有一失，
He was likely, I thought, to fall into error through the over-refinement of his logic
我想或者可能因為他的自信力太強了，
his preference for a subtle and bizarre explanation when a plainer and more commonplace one lay ready to his hand.
把一個平淡的問題反而看成一個極復(fù)雜極離奇的疑案，以致一誤再誤？
Yet, on the other hand, I had myself seen the evidence,
可是回過來一想，這些證據(jù)又是我親眼所見的，
and I had heard the reasons for his deductions.
他的推斷的理由我也聽見過的。
When I looked back on the long chain of curious circumstances,
再看一看這一連串的奇怪事實，
many of them trivial in themselves but all tending in the same direction,
雖然其中有的是無關(guān)重要的，可是全部都指明了同一方向。
I could not disguise from myself that
我不得不承認，
even if Holmes's explanation were incorrect the true theory must be equally outre and startling.
縱然就是福爾摩斯的理解真是錯誤了，這案子本身也必定是異乎尋常的費解。
