英文小說連載《朗讀者The Reader》Part 2 Chapter 5

　　THE TRIAL could not have gone any worse for Hanna. She had already made a bad impression on the court during the preliminary questioning. After the indictment had been read out， she spoke up to say that something was incorrect； the presiding judge rebuked her irritably， telling her that she had had plenty of time before the trial to study the charges and register objections； now the trial was in progress and the evidence would show what was correct and incorrect. When the presiding judge proposed at the beginning of the actual testimony that the German version of the daughter’s book not be read into the record， as it had been prepared for publication by a German publisher and the manuscript made available to all participants in the trial， Hanna had to be argued into it by her lawyer under the exasperated eyes of the judge. She did not willingly agree. She also did not want to acknowledge that she had admitted， in an earlier deposition， to having had the key to the church. She had not had the key， no one had had the key， there had not been any one key to the church， but several keys to several different doors， and they had all been left outside in the locks. But the court record of her examination by the judge， approved and signed by her， read differently， and the fact that she asked why they were trying to hang something on her did not make matters any better. She didn’t ask loudly or arrogantly， but with determination， and， I think， in visible and audible confusion and helplessness， and the fact that she spoke of others trying to hang something on her did not mean she was claiming any miscarriage of justice by the court. But the presiding judge interpreted it that way and responded sharply. Hanna’s lawyer leapt to his feet and let loose， overeagerly； he was asked whether he was agreeing with his client’s accusations， and sat down again.

　　Hanna wanted to do the right thing. When she thought she was being done an injustice， she contradicted it， and when something was rightly claimed or alleged， she acknowledged it. She contradicted vigorously and admitted willingly， as though her admissions gave her the right to her contradictions or as though， along with her contradictions， she took on a responsibility to admit what she could not deny. But she did not notice that her insistence annoyed the presiding judge. She had no sense of context， of the rules of the game， of the formulas by which her statements and those of the others were toted up into guilt and innocence， conviction and acquittal. To compensate for her defective grasp of the situation， her lawyer would have had to have more experience and self-confidence， or simply to have been better. But Hanna should not have made things so hard for him； she was obviously withholding her trust from him， but had not chosen another lawyer she trusted more. Her lawyer was a public defender appointed by the court.

　　Sometimes Hanna achieved her own kind of success. I remember her examination on the selections in the camp. The other defendants denied ever having had anything to do with them. Hanna admitted so readily that she had participated—not alone， but just like the others and along with them—that the judge felt he had to probe further.

　　“What happened at the selections？”

　　Hanna described how the guards had agreed among themselves to tally the same number of prisoners from their six equal areas of responsibility， ten each and sixty in all， but that the figures could fluctuate when the number of sick was low in one person’s area of responsibility and high in another’s， and that all the guards on duty had decided together who was to be sent back.

　　“None of you held back， you all acted together？”

　　“Yes.”

　　“Did you not know that you were sending the prisoners to their death？”

　　“Yes， but the new ones came， and the old ones had to make room for the new ones.”

　　“So because you wanted to make room， you said you and you and you have to be sent back to be killed？”

　　Hanna didn’t understand what the presiding judge was getting at.

　　“I . . . I mean . . . so what would you have done？” Hanna meant it as a serious question. She did not know what she should or could have done differently， and therefore wanted to hear from the judge， who seemed to know everything， what he would have done.

　　Everything was quiet for a moment. It is not the custom at German trials for defendants to question the judge. But now the question had been asked， and everyone was waiting for the judge’s answer. He had to answer； he could not ignore the question or brush it away with a reprimand or a dismissive counterquestion. It was clear to everyone， it was clear to him too， and I understood why he had adopted an expression of irritation as his defining feature. It was his mask. Behind it， he could take a little time to find an answer. But not too long； the longer he took， the greater the tension and expectation， and the better his answer had to be.

　　“There are matters one simply cannot get drawn into， that one must distance oneself from， if the price is not life and limb.”

　　Perhaps this would have been all right if he had said the same thing， but referred directly to Hanna or himself. Talking about what “one” must and must not do and what it costs did not do justice to the seriousness of Hanna’s question. She had wanted to know what she should have done in her particular situation， not that there are things that are not done. The judge’s answer came across as hapless and pathetic. Everyone felt it. They reacted with sighs of disappointment and stared in amazement at Hanna， who had more or less won the exchange. But she herself was lost in thought.

　　“So should I have . . . should I have not . . . should I not have signed up at Siemens？”

　　It was not a question directed at the judge. She was talking out loud to herself， hesitantly， because she had not yet asked herself that question and did not know whether it was the right one， or what the answer was.

　　法庭審理對漢娜來說糟得不能再糟了。在審問她個人情況時，她就沒給法庭留下什么好印象。起訴書宣讀完之后，她要求發(fā)言，因為她認為有些事不屬實。審判長憤怒地駁回了她。他說，在刑事訴訟主要程序開始之前，她已有足夠的時間研究起訴書，而且可以提出反對意見，現(xiàn)在人們已進入了主要程序，起訴書中起訴的事屬實不屬實，要由聽證來決定。聽證開始時，審判長建議放棄朗讀那位女兒寫的那本書的德文版本，因為有家德國出版社正準備出版此書，所有與此有關的人都已經人手一本草稿。審判長惱怒的目光注視著漢娜，他讓其辯護律師說服她，使她同意這樣做。漢娜不同意。她也不想接受那種認為她在一次初審中承認過她曾經拿到過教堂的鑰匙的說法。她說，她沒有拿過那把鑰匙，沒有人拿過那把鑰匙，根本就沒有開教堂的一把鑰匙，而是有好多把開好多門的鑰匙，它們都插在門外的鎖眼里。但是，在一份審判員的審訊記錄中所記載的情況卻是另外一個樣子，那份記錄由她本人閱讀過并簽了字。她問人們?yōu)槭裁匆�把這件事強加于她，但這絲毫無濟于事。她問得聲音不大，聽起來并不自以為是，但卻很固執(zhí)。就像我感覺到的那樣，她感到困惑不解和無可奈何。她說人們強加于她時，并不是譴責他們這樣做違反了法律。但是，審判長先生卻是這樣理解的，而且反應強烈。漢娜的辯護律師急忙跳起來，熱心地為她辯護。當他被問到他是否想把人們對他的委托人的譴責據(jù)為己有時，他又坐了下來。

　　漢娜想要討個公道。她認為她被冤枉的地方，她就提出抗議；如果她認為別人對她的譴責公正的話，她也接受。她有時固執(zhí)地抗議，有時心甘情愿地承認，好像她要通過承認來獲得抗議的權利，或者通過抗議的方式來承認她正常情況下無法爭辯的事情。但是，她沒有注意到她的固執(zhí)惹惱了審判長。她對前后關系沒有概念，對游戲規(guī)則沒有概念，對自己的和別人的表達方式都沒有概念，不知有罪或無罪，判刑或釋放往往取決于表達方式。為了彌補她的這種缺陷，她的辯護律師必須是個經驗豐富、沉著自信或者高人一籌的高手才行�；蛟S漢娜不該那樣難為他，她明顯地表現(xiàn)出對他的不信任，但她沒有能選擇她所信賴的律師。她的律師是由審判長為她指定的，他有義務、有責任為她進行辯護。

　　有時漢娜也能取得某種勝利。我還記得對她在集中營里挑選囚犯這一問題所進行的審訊。其他被告用某時某刻做了某事來否認參與了此事，漢娜卻心甘情愿地承認參與了此事，但她說她不是惟一的一個，而是像其他人一樣，和其他人一起參與了此事。這樣一來，審判長就不得不逼問她。

　　"挑選是如何進行的？"

　　漢娜描述道，她們幾位女看守取得了一致意見，從她們六人所主管的同樣大小的范圍內，選出同等數(shù)目的囚犯，也就是說，每人選出十名，總共為六十名。但是，被選出的人數(shù)在低發(fā)病的情況下和高發(fā)病的情況下要有所木同。這樣，所有當班的女看守最后要一起決定誰該被送回去。

　　"你們當中沒有人回避此事，您所講的包括所有的人嗎？"

　　"是的。"

　　"難道您不知道您是送那些囚犯去死嗎？"

　　"當然是知道的，可是新的要來，先來的必須要給后來的讓地方。"

　　"因為要騰地方，您是這樣說的吧：你，你，還有你就必須被送回去殺掉嗎？"

　　漢娜沒有弄明白審判長想以此問什么問題。

　　"我有……我認為……要是您的話，您會怎么做呢？"漢娜是把這個問題作為一個嚴肅問題提出來的。她不知道她該怎樣做，又能怎么做。因此她想聽一聽看上去廣見多識的審判長該怎樣做。

　　一時，大廳里鴉雀無聲。被告人向審判長提問題不合乎德國的刑事審判程序。但是，現(xiàn)在問題被提出來了，而且所有的人都在等著審判長的回答。他必須回答，不能避開問題或者做非難性的評論或者用反問的方式拒絕回答。每個人都清楚，他自己也明白，我也明白了他做出惱怒的表情的詭計。惱怒的表情給他戴上了一副假面具，在這副假面具的背后，他為自己回答問題贏得了一點時間，但是沒有太多的時間，他拖延的時間越長，人們的期待就越大，氣氛就越緊張，而他的回答就必須越好。

　　"有些事情人們根本就不該做，如果不去做不會要命的話，人們就必須回避。"

　　假如他說漢娜或者他自己如何做，也許就足夠了。只談論人們必須做什么，不允許做什么和人們做什么要付出什么代價，這與漢娜提出的問題的嚴肅性不相符。她想知道的是處在她當時的情況下，她應該怎樣做，而不是有什么事情人們不可以做。審判長的回答顯得無可奈何，毫無分量。在座的人都有同感。大家都很失望地深深地呼了口氣，驚奇地望著在某種程度上贏得了這場舌戰(zhàn)的漢娜。但是，漢娜本人仍在沉思。

　　"那么，我要是……沒有……如果我不能在西門子公司報名呢？"

　　那不是向法官提出的問題。她在自言自語，她在猶豫不定地自問，因為她還沒有把這個問題提出來。她在懷疑這個問題的正確性，在尋找它的答案。