敬请英语翻译高手入内！！！译成汉语。

When sir Winston Churchill, the great British Prime Minister, reached his eightieth birthday in November, 1954,he was presented with his portrait (肖像) by a well-known modern artist, Graham Sutherland. The painting had been ordered and paid for by the members of Parliament (国会) . who wanted to honor the Grand Old Man of World War II.
1954年11月，当英国首相温斯顿·丘吉尔八十岁生日时，他收到一幅由著名的现代艺术家格拉汉姆·萨特兰为他画的肖像。这幅画由国会定制和偿付，用来表彰二战中的伟人。

Sir Winston and lady Churchill were deeply moved by this mark of respect. Neither of them, of course, allowed the donors (捐赠人)to see how much they both disliked the portrait. “It makes me look stupid-which I am not!” said Churchill in private. Publicly. He only remarked that it was “a fine example of modern art”. His friends smiled; it was well known that Sir Winston didn’t care for modern art.
温斯顿和夫人都为这幅画寄予的尊敬感到深深地感动。但当然，他们都没有让捐赠人知道他们都不喜欢这幅肖像画。“这让我看起来很傻，其实我不是！”丘吉尔私下里说。公众场合，他只说这幅肖像画是“现在艺术的很好的例子”。他的朋友们心领神会，众所周知温斯顿先生不喜欢现代艺术。

Churchill was so unhappy about the portrait that finally his wife had it destroyed. Churchill died at ninety in January, 1965. Lady Churchill followed him in 1977. Shortly after her death, the public learned what had happened to Sutherland’s painting, and heated argument broke out. The painter was understandably sad. The artistic community, shocked and angry, claimed (声称) that the destruction(破坏) of the picture had been a crime. Historians said that they regretted the disappearance of a historical document(资格). All agreed that the Churchills didn’t have the right to do what they had done.
丘吉尔非常不喜欢这幅肖像以至于最后他的妻子不得不把它销毁。丘吉尔于1965年1月去世，享年90岁。丘吉尔夫人1977年跟随他而去。她死后不久，公众知道了关于萨特兰的肖像画的故事，激烈的舆论爆发了。这位画家自然很难过。艺术家群体又惊讶又愤怒，声称破坏这幅画是犯罪。历史学家说，他们为一件历史档案的消失而惋惜。所有人都认为丘吉尔夫妇没有权利那么做。

Well did they? A good part of the public felt that the subject(and owner)of a portrait had the right to get rid of it if it made him so unhappy. The question, however, has been raised many times before: who has the right to a work of art the sitter, the owner, the donor, or the artist who painted it? And when the painting is the portrait of a historical figure, should the right of posterity(后裔) be considered, as the historians claimed?
但他们真的没有权利么？很大一部分公众认为肖像画的主题（和所有者）有处理掉画的权利，如果这幅画让他觉得很不高兴。但是这个问题以前就被提出很多次了：谁拥有处理一幅画的权利？模特，所有者，捐赠者，还是画家？还有，如历史学家们声称的一样，如果是一位历史人物的肖像画，他的后裔的权利也要考虑进去么？

Another question comes to mind: who is qualified(有资格的) to judge a portrait? Graham Sutherland had told Sir Winston that he would paint him “as he saw him”, Churchill never had a chance to see the work in progress since the painter refused to show it to him. He found out only when he received his present that Sutherland had seen him as a heavy,sick, tired old man.
另外一个问题让人思考：谁有评判一幅画的权利？格拉汉姆·萨特兰告诉温斯顿先生他会“如他所见”地为他画肖像，在作画过程中丘吉尔从来没有机会看一下画，因为画家拒绝向他展示。丘吉尔一直到收到肖像画作为礼物时才发现萨特兰眼中的他是一个沉重，病态，疲惫的老人。

Since he hated old age, he was naturally hurt. But was the portrait a good one , as many(including the painter) said? Or was it bad as others(and the sitter)thought? Who is to judged?It is well known that we never see ourselves as others see us; but do we see ourselves better than they do?
None of these questions have been answered yet to everybody’s satisfaction.
因为他讨厌年迈，他自然地感到受了伤害。但是，这幅肖像是一副好的作品么，像许多人（包括画家自己）认为的一样？或者是一副失败的作品，像另一些人（包括被肖像者）认为的一样？谁有资格去评判？我们都知道我们眼中的自己和别人眼中的不一样。但我们觉得自己比在别人眼中更好么？
这些问题从来没有得到让所有人满意的答案。

当1954年11月份，英国首相丘吉尔迎来他80大寿之际，收到了著名的现代艺术家葛拉汉.萨瑟兰赠予的一幅肖像。肖像由国会为他预定并付款，用以表彰他对二战所做的卓越贡献。
丘吉尔夫妇深为这份热情所感动，因而他们决不允许赠画人看出来他们实际上是多么地不喜欢这幅肖像。“我在画里显得蠢极了——简直一点不像我!” 丘吉尔私下曾说.在公众场合. 他却把肖像评价为“现代艺术的杰作”. 这时只有他的朋友才会会心一笑：他们心知肚明丘吉尔压根就不欣赏现代艺术。
可是丘吉尔对这幅肖像如此耿耿于怀，他夫人终究还是将画毁掉了。丘吉尔于1965年1月，以90高龄逝世。1977年，夫人也随他而去。他们去世不久， 公众就知道了他们对肖像的处置结果, 热烈的争论爆发了.可想而知作者是多么地沮丧. 恼羞成怒的艺术界声称，破坏画作属于犯罪行为. 历史学家则对这份珍贵史料的永久灭失感到遗憾. 所有人一致认为，丘吉尔并没有权利毁坏画作.
他们做得对吗? 相当部分的公众认为如果肖像令人不快，则所有人有权任意处置画作. 历史上这种问题已被提起多次: 艺术品的权利人是谁？被画人, 所有权人, 捐赠人, 还是作画者? 当画作是历史人物的肖像时, 应由历史学家所言，由人物后代享有权利么？?
另一问题也值得关注: 谁有资格来决定肖像怎么画? 葛拉汉.萨瑟兰告诉丘吉尔：我将“如我所见”为你作画,并拒绝向展示未完的作品，丘吉尔在创作全程没机会看作品一眼. 作品完成后，他才发觉自己被葛拉汉.萨瑟兰化成了一个面目阴沉的，显露病态的疲倦老头.
不喜年老的丘吉尔自然深受伤害。但奇怪的是，很多欣赏过的（包括作者）却说肖像是杰作。它有被画人想的那么糟糕吗？谁来裁判？众所周知，不识庐山真面目,只缘身在此山中。人到底能比他人更了解自身么？
以上问题，至今仍无所有人满意的答案。