2023考研英語(yǔ)閱讀19世紀(jì)英國(guó)政壇

　　Book Review;19th-century Britishpolitics;Third man

　　書評(píng);19世紀(jì)英國(guó)政壇;第三人;

　　John Bright: Statesman, Orator, Agitator.By BillCash.

　　《約翰布萊特：政治家, 演說(shuō)家, 改革推動(dòng)者》;比爾凱西。

　　Bill Cash, a Conservative British backbenchpolitician, has written a book about anotherbackbench politician, who also happens to be anancestor. Mr Cash frets that his great-grandfather s cousin has been forgotten, but he hasn t really. No historian doubts theimportance of John Bright; it is just that he has slipped out of the popular consciousness.

　　比爾卡什, 這個(gè)英國(guó)保守黨普通議員為另一位普通議員寫了一本書, 而其撰寫的這個(gè)人物恰好是他的一位先人。卡什議員對(duì)于人們已經(jīng)忘卻了他的曾祖父的這位表兄感到不快, 但是其實(shí)他沒有被忘記。 沒有任何歷史學(xué)家會(huì)懷疑約翰。布萊特的重要?dú)v史地位; 現(xiàn)今他只是從公眾的視野中淡出了。

　　So, for the layman, who was he? The very question, Mr Cash tells us, would haveflabbergasted anyone in the 19th century. In 1878 Punch published a series of cartoons of thethree Britons whom they deemed to be the greatest statesmen of the ageBenjaminDisraeli, William Gladstone and Bright. Born in 1811 and with a political career spanningnearly 50 years as a member of parliament for Durham, Manchester and Birmingham, Brightwould be the one contemporary statesman whose fame and accomplishments transcendedthe age, according to Walter Bagehot, this newspaper s editor from 1860-77. A biographyby G.M. Trevelyan, which came out in 1913, described him as a rare example of the hero aspolitician.

　　那么，對(duì)于我們這些門外漢來(lái)說(shuō), 這個(gè)約翰布萊特究竟何方神圣?如果是在十九世紀(jì), 卡什先生向我們提出的這個(gè)問(wèn)題, 會(huì)令任何人感到詫異。 在1878年, Punch報(bào)紙出版了一系列的連載漫畫, 講述了被認(rèn)為是這個(gè)國(guó)家最偉大的政治家的3個(gè)人, 他們當(dāng)中有本杰明迪斯累利，威廉格萊斯頓, 還有一位就是約翰布萊特。 曾于1860-1877年間擔(dān)任該報(bào)主編的瓦爾特伯格霍特稱贊這位生于1811年, 曾擔(dān)任杜倫、曼切斯特和伯明翰地區(qū)議員,擁有跨越了50個(gè)年頭政治生涯的老議員布萊特為聲譽(yù)和成就超越了本時(shí)代的當(dāng)代政治家。 在1913年為其出版的一本傳記中, 該書作者也將布萊特描述為一位罕見的能被稱為英雄的政壇人物。

　　A Quaker born in Rochdale, Bright made his name campaigning for the repeal of theprotectionist Corn Laws, distinguishing himself, as Karl Marx testified, as one of the mostgifted orators that England has ever produced. He was inspiring as well as courageous,and his passion for free trade was allied to his passion for democracy. He crusadedagainst monopoly, aristocracy, slavery and more. It was Bright who said that England isthe mother of Parliaments, a phrase that has passed into idiom. He fought tirelessly for theReform Act of 1867 which gave the vote to working-class men. A radical as well as anonconformist, Bright was vocal in his opposition to the Crimean war, which he believedto be un-Christian, a stance that eventually lost him his parliamentary seat.

　　作為來(lái)自于羅奇達(dá)爾的公宜會(huì)信徒, 布萊特在針對(duì)保護(hù)主義者的玉米法案的反對(duì)運(yùn)動(dòng)中初次參加競(jìng)選活動(dòng), 就展現(xiàn)出超凡的演講才能, 正如卡爾馬克思所言, 他是英格蘭有史以來(lái)最有天賦的演說(shuō)家之一。他的演講大膽豪邁又鼓舞人心, 而他對(duì)自由貿(mào)易的激情又與其對(duì)民主自由的熱忱緊緊結(jié)合。他嚴(yán)詞討伐壟斷勢(shì)力，貴族階層和奴隸制度等不平等的制度，而今已成諺語(yǔ)的名言英國(guó)是議會(huì)之母就是出自其語(yǔ)。布萊特曾經(jīng)為給予了勞工階層投票權(quán)的1867年改革法案而不知疲倦的斗爭(zhēng)。身為一個(gè)激進(jìn)派的新教徒, 他也曾直言不諱的反對(duì)克里米亞戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。布萊特認(rèn)為這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是不符合基督教精神的，而這種立場(chǎng)最終讓他丟掉了自己的議員席位。

　　Whether you rated him a hero or a villain depended on your point of view. His pugnacityfascinated and repelled people in equal measure. Early tales include a furious quarrel with alocal Anglican vicar, both of them hollering from tombstones in the parish churchyard. Hewas, says Mr Cash, an independent Radical by principle, with a persistent strain ofinnate conservatism. He was in the Liberal Party as it evolved but not always of, orevenwith, the Liberal Party. His relationships with Gladstone and Disraeli were complex. Heloathed Lord Palmerston, a former prime minister, and the feeling was mutual.

　　你認(rèn)為布萊特是個(gè)英雄還是惡棍完全取決于你自己的好惡。他好斗的個(gè)性有多令人欣賞，同時(shí)就有多令人討厭。他早期的軼事中就有一則關(guān)于一次他和一個(gè)圣公會(huì)的副主教暴吵了一架，兩個(gè)人都在一個(gè)地區(qū)教堂的墓地里大喊大叫的故事。卡什先生說(shuō)，布萊特是一個(gè)天生流著保守主義血液的自有原則的激進(jìn)派;他始終都在自由黨中, 但并不總是屬于自由黨, 甚至不見得總是支持自由黨。布萊特和格萊斯頓以及迪斯累利的關(guān)系都很復(fù)雜。 他還極端厭惡前首相帕梅爾斯通, 而帕梅爾斯通對(duì)布萊特也沒什么好感。

　　Mr Cash is a lawyer by training and a politician by profession. He has a sharp eye for detailand he presents a strong case. What he does not explain is how Bright slipped out of view. Hisown interest, he tells the reader, has increased in inverse proportion to the decline in thevibrancy, accountability and sovereignty of our Parliament. But the underlyinglament, that Bright has been censored out by fashion as people became cynical of moraland political certainties is too marbled with nostalgia to be believable.

　　卡什先生是法律專業(yè)出身, 但是現(xiàn)在是職業(yè)政治家。 他眼光犀利, 善于捕捉細(xì)節(jié), 并能擺出有力的例證。 他并不想解釋為什么布萊特從公眾的關(guān)注中淡出了。 他在書中透露給讀者, 與英國(guó)議會(huì)的權(quán)威性、可信度和活躍度的每況愈下, 他自己的影響力倒是與日俱增。但是那份對(duì)于由于如今人們對(duì)道德和政治信仰已是不屑一顧而導(dǎo)致布萊特被人淡忘的哀傷卻顯得過(guò)于有懷舊的意味而不足以令人信服。

　　Bright was a political force, but he never held high office, so he was rather like a midfielderwho forever sets up the strikers: assists don t count as much as goals. A full- scale revival ofhis reputation would have to rouse the reader s imagination. Mr Cash quotes Bright sdictum that my life is in my speeches, many of which are rhetorical masterpieces; but thereader wants more of the man, more of the life outside the speeches. Bright believed thatbiographies are soon forgotten, and of no influence in the future. Historians will enjoy thisfine political portrait, but it is unlikely to make Bright famous again.

　　布萊特有相當(dāng)?shù)恼斡绊懥? 但是卻從未擔(dān)任高官, 所以其實(shí)他更像是一個(gè)永遠(yuǎn)為前鋒提供支持的中場(chǎng)隊(duì)員：他的助攻不見得都能轉(zhuǎn)化為得分。 要全面恢復(fù)布萊特的聲望還有賴于喚起讀者們的想象空間。 卡什先生引述了布萊特的一句格言我的生命都在演講中, 布萊特的演講的確很多都是修辭極佳的經(jīng)典之作, 但是讀者們恐怕想要更多的了解這個(gè)人, 了解這個(gè)人在演講之外的生活中是什么樣子。布萊特本人認(rèn)為傳記都是容易被人遺忘的, 而且對(duì)未來(lái)也不會(huì)產(chǎn)生什么影響。歷史學(xué)家們應(yīng)該會(huì)對(duì)這一部精致地描寫了這個(gè)政治人物的著作很有興趣, 但是這本書還是不太可能讓布萊特再火起來(lái)。

　　Book Review;19th-century Britishpolitics;Third man

　　書評(píng);19世紀(jì)英國(guó)政壇;第三人;

　　John Bright: Statesman, Orator, Agitator.By BillCash.

　　《約翰布萊特：政治家, 演說(shuō)家, 改革推動(dòng)者》;比爾凱西。

　　Bill Cash, a Conservative British backbenchpolitician, has written a book about anotherbackbench politician, who also happens to be anancestor. Mr Cash frets that his great-grandfather s cousin has been forgotten, but he hasn t really. No historian doubts theimportance of John Bright; it is just that he has slipped out of the popular consciousness.

　　比爾卡什, 這個(gè)英國(guó)保守黨普通議員為另一位普通議員寫了一本書, 而其撰寫的這個(gè)人物恰好是他的一位先人。卡什議員對(duì)于人們已經(jīng)忘卻了他的曾祖父的這位表兄感到不快, 但是其實(shí)他沒有被忘記。 沒有任何歷史學(xué)家會(huì)懷疑約翰。布萊特的重要?dú)v史地位; 現(xiàn)今他只是從公眾的視野中淡出了。

　　So, for the layman, who was he? The very question, Mr Cash tells us, would haveflabbergasted anyone in the 19th century. In 1878 Punch published a series of cartoons of thethree Britons whom they deemed to be the greatest statesmen of the ageBenjaminDisraeli, William Gladstone and Bright. Born in 1811 and with a political career spanningnearly 50 years as a member of parliament for Durham, Manchester and Birmingham, Brightwould be the one contemporary statesman whose fame and accomplishments transcendedthe age, according to Walter Bagehot, this newspaper s editor from 1860-77. A biographyby G.M. Trevelyan, which came out in 1913, described him as a rare example of the hero aspolitician.

　　那么，對(duì)于我們這些門外漢來(lái)說(shuō), 這個(gè)約翰布萊特究竟何方神圣?如果是在十九世紀(jì), 卡什先生向我們提出的這個(gè)問(wèn)題, 會(huì)令任何人感到詫異。 在1878年, Punch報(bào)紙出版了一系列的連載漫畫, 講述了被認(rèn)為是這個(gè)國(guó)家最偉大的政治家的3個(gè)人, 他們當(dāng)中有本杰明迪斯累利，威廉格萊斯頓, 還有一位就是約翰布萊特。 曾于1860-1877年間擔(dān)任該報(bào)主編的瓦爾特伯格霍特稱贊這位生于1811年, 曾擔(dān)任杜倫、曼切斯特和伯明翰地區(qū)議員,擁有跨越了50個(gè)年頭政治生涯的老議員布萊特為聲譽(yù)和成就超越了本時(shí)代的當(dāng)代政治家。 在1913年為其出版的一本傳記中, 該書作者也將布萊特描述為一位罕見的能被稱為英雄的政壇人物。

　　A Quaker born in Rochdale, Bright made his name campaigning for the repeal of theprotectionist Corn Laws, distinguishing himself, as Karl Marx testified, as one of the mostgifted orators that England has ever produced. He was inspiring as well as courageous,and his passion for free trade was allied to his passion for democracy. He crusadedagainst monopoly, aristocracy, slavery and more. It was Bright who said that England isthe mother of Parliaments, a phrase that has passed into idiom. He fought tirelessly for theReform Act of 1867 which gave the vote to working-class men. A radical as well as anonconformist, Bright was vocal in his opposition to the Crimean war, which he believedto be un-Christian, a stance that eventually lost him his parliamentary seat.

　　作為來(lái)自于羅奇達(dá)爾的公宜會(huì)信徒, 布萊特在針對(duì)保護(hù)主義者的玉米法案的反對(duì)運(yùn)動(dòng)中初次參加競(jìng)選活動(dòng), 就展現(xiàn)出超凡的演講才能, 正如卡爾馬克思所言, 他是英格蘭有史以來(lái)最有天賦的演說(shuō)家之一。他的演講大膽豪邁又鼓舞人心, 而他對(duì)自由貿(mào)易的激情又與其對(duì)民主自由的熱忱緊緊結(jié)合。他嚴(yán)詞討伐壟斷勢(shì)力，貴族階層和奴隸制度等不平等的制度，而今已成諺語(yǔ)的名言英國(guó)是議會(huì)之母就是出自其語(yǔ)。布萊特曾經(jīng)為給予了勞工階層投票權(quán)的1867年改革法案而不知疲倦的斗爭(zhēng)。身為一個(gè)激進(jìn)派的新教徒, 他也曾直言不諱的反對(duì)克里米亞戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。布萊特認(rèn)為這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是不符合基督教精神的，而這種立場(chǎng)最終讓他丟掉了自己的議員席位。

　　Whether you rated him a hero or a villain depended on your point of view. His pugnacityfascinated and repelled people in equal measure. Early tales include a furious quarrel with alocal Anglican vicar, both of them hollering from tombstones in the parish churchyard. Hewas, says Mr Cash, an independent Radical by principle, with a persistent strain ofinnate conservatism. He was in the Liberal Party as it evolved but not always of, orevenwith, the Liberal Party. His relationships with Gladstone and Disraeli were complex. Heloathed Lord Palmerston, a former prime minister, and the feeling was mutual.

　　你認(rèn)為布萊特是個(gè)英雄還是惡棍完全取決于你自己的好惡。他好斗的個(gè)性有多令人欣賞，同時(shí)就有多令人討厭。他早期的軼事中就有一則關(guān)于一次他和一個(gè)圣公會(huì)的副主教暴吵了一架，兩個(gè)人都在一個(gè)地區(qū)教堂的墓地里大喊大叫的故事。卡什先生說(shuō)，布萊特是一個(gè)天生流著保守主義血液的自有原則的激進(jìn)派;他始終都在自由黨中, 但并不總是屬于自由黨, 甚至不見得總是支持自由黨。布萊特和格萊斯頓以及迪斯累利的關(guān)系都很復(fù)雜。 他還極端厭惡前首相帕梅爾斯通, 而帕梅爾斯通對(duì)布萊特也沒什么好感。

　　Mr Cash is a lawyer by training and a politician by profession. He has a sharp eye for detailand he presents a strong case. What he does not explain is how Bright slipped out of view. Hisown interest, he tells the reader, has increased in inverse proportion to the decline in thevibrancy, accountability and sovereignty of our Parliament. But the underlyinglament, that Bright has been censored out by fashion as people became cynical of moraland political certainties is too marbled with nostalgia to be believable.

　　卡什先生是法律專業(yè)出身, 但是現(xiàn)在是職業(yè)政治家。 他眼光犀利, 善于捕捉細(xì)節(jié), 并能擺出有力的例證。 他并不想解釋為什么布萊特從公眾的關(guān)注中淡出了。 他在書中透露給讀者, 與英國(guó)議會(huì)的權(quán)威性、可信度和活躍度的每況愈下, 他自己的影響力倒是與日俱增。但是那份對(duì)于由于如今人們對(duì)道德和政治信仰已是不屑一顧而導(dǎo)致布萊特被人淡忘的哀傷卻顯得過(guò)于有懷舊的意味而不足以令人信服。

　　Bright was a political force, but he never held high office, so he was rather like a midfielderwho forever sets up the strikers: assists don t count as much as goals. A full- scale revival ofhis reputation would have to rouse the reader s imagination. Mr Cash quotes Bright sdictum that my life is in my speeches, many of which are rhetorical masterpieces; but thereader wants more of the man, more of the life outside the speeches. Bright believed thatbiographies are soon forgotten, and of no influence in the future. Historians will enjoy thisfine political portrait, but it is unlikely to make Bright famous again.

　　布萊特有相當(dāng)?shù)恼斡绊懥? 但是卻從未擔(dān)任高官, 所以其實(shí)他更像是一個(gè)永遠(yuǎn)為前鋒提供支持的中場(chǎng)隊(duì)員：他的助攻不見得都能轉(zhuǎn)化為得分。 要全面恢復(fù)布萊特的聲望還有賴于喚起讀者們的想象空間。 卡什先生引述了布萊特的一句格言我的生命都在演講中, 布萊特的演講的確很多都是修辭極佳的經(jīng)典之作, 但是讀者們恐怕想要更多的了解這個(gè)人, 了解這個(gè)人在演講之外的生活中是什么樣子。布萊特本人認(rèn)為傳記都是容易被人遺忘的, 而且對(duì)未來(lái)也不會(huì)產(chǎn)生什么影響。歷史學(xué)家們應(yīng)該會(huì)對(duì)這一部精致地描寫了這個(gè)政治人物的著作很有興趣, 但是這本書還是不太可能讓布萊特再火起來(lái)。