大学英语六级考试拓展阅读练习(6)

　　Publishers cannot have enough of books from serious historians about the whys of war. Why do they start? Why do they last? What makes a peace fragile? The past is one place to look for answers. Charles Esdaile, a lecturer at the University of Liverpool, is too good a scholar to make easy comparisons between then and now. But the whys of war run through his masterly account of the Napoleonic wars, a 12-year conflict between France and Europes other powers that killed almost 2m soldiers. Mr Esdaile, in a politico-military survey of extraordinary scope and detail, tells us what he believes caused the conflict, what it was about and why it lasted so long despite, as it seemed, frequent chances for peace. Neither battlefield chronicle nor biography in disguise, Napoleons Wars is explanatory history of high order. Historians date the Napoleonic wars from 1803, when Britain declared war on France after the brief Peace of Amiens. Mr Esdaile recounts how Napoleon came to power in 1799, mastering France and then Europe. Britain commanded the seas after Trafalgar in 1805. But France held the continent thanks to victories on land against the Austrians, Prussians and Russians. Setbacks in Spain, which Napoleons troops entered in 1807, and disaster in Russia in 1812, led to eventual defeat at Waterloo. Mr Esdaile makes that familiar story fresh in three connected ways. He shows how marginal-looking conflicts for example over the Romanian lands, Sweden, Portugal, Canada ignited larger ones or divided potential allies. He reminds us that defeating Napoleon was never sure. Europes armies had first to learn from their own failures and their rulers had to make common cause. Both things happened, but late in the day. Above all, he stresses that the conflict was not ideological but geopolitical. It was about the balance of power, disturbed for a century by Ottoman decline, Russian and Prussian growth and Franco-British rivalries. Few if any of Frances foes were fighting for regime change in Paris. At many times they would have settled with Napoleon had he settled with them. But they could never trust him to settle, and the wars went on. His two strongest opponents, Britain and Russia, resisted him, in Mr Esdailes view, not because he was a revolutionary, a republican or the head of an upstart dynasty. They fought him because as long as he controlled France, there was no telling where France would stop. At this point Napoleons character enters Mr Esdailes intricate geopolitical equations. Without accepting a great-man theory of history, he thinks the Napoleonic wars deserve their name. Europes powers would have fought over their differences without Napoleon. But the scale and ferocity of conflict was due in large part to the emperors aggression, egomania and lust for power . Mr Esdailes book reflects a vast and varied range of recent scholarship. But he never leaves his geopolitical story for long. War started, he believes, because Europe was not in balance. It dragged on because Napoleon could not be trusted. Peace came and lasted until later generations forgot the horror of the alternative. 1. Mr. Esdaile s book can be best described as_____ a politico-military survery of the Napoleonic wars. an account of the Napoleonic wars in extrodinary scope and detail. a historical chronicle of the Napoleonic wars with comparisons of the past and the present. an exploration of the deep-rooted reason that led to the long war. 2. Mr Esdaile holds the view that the Napoleonic wars are originated by _____ marginal conflicts. imbalance of power in Europe. Napoleon s aggressive ambition. Franco-British rivalries. 3. Mr. Esdaile s novelty in recounting the conflict in _____ that he dates from 1799 when Napoleon came to power in France. that he explains Napoleon s character and history in detailed and vivid account. that he reminds us the importance of some marginal-looking conflicts. that he thinks the war was indeed started due to geopolitical factors. 4. France s rivals fought against Napoleon despite chances for peace because_____ the political imbalance of Europe stimulated inevitable hatred and conflict between the countries and Napoleon. they were alert to the possible aggression by Napoleon. they attempted to settle with Napoleon but in vain. Napoleon was too ambitious to be trusted by them. 5. According to the passage, which one of the following statements is NOT true of the Napoleonic wars? The wars would not have been fought without Napoleon. The wars were due to the emperor s aggression, egomania and lust for power. The wars lasted for so long time because France s rivals could not trust Napoleon. The wars were fought over the difference of the Europe s powers.

　　文章剖析： 这篇文章介绍了Esdaile先生的《拿破仑战争》一书。文章第一段讲述了该书解释性的特征;第二段讲述书中战争的梗概;第三段讲述其研究的创新之处;第四段讲述战争延续了很久的原因所在;第五段讲述拿破仑性格对于这次战争的影响;第六段总结了该书的特色。 词汇注释： ferocity n. 残酷 egomania n. 自大狂 难句突破: Mr Esdaile, in a politico-military survey of extraordinary scope and detail, tells us what he believes caused the conflict, what it was about and why it lasted so long despite, as it seemed, frequent chances for peace. Mr Esdaile tells us what , what and why 这是一个复合句，有一个比较复杂的宾语从句。该宾语从句由三个疑问句组成，分别以what和why引导;介词短语in 是句子的状语。 Esdaile先生在他一次广泛、细致的政治军事调查中告诉我们他对这次战争起因的看法，这次战争的目的并解释为什么虽然看起来有好多次都有可能恢复和平，但战争还是持续了很长时间的原因。 His two strongest opponents, Britain and Russia, resisted him, in Mr Esdailes view, not because he was a revolutionary, a republican or the head of an upstart dynasty. His two opponents resisted him not because 这是一个复合句。Britain and Russia是前面主语的同位语，in组成的介词短语是状语，后面not because 是句子的原因状语。 在Esdaile看来，拿破仑的两个劲敌 英国和俄国与之抵抗并不是因为他是革命者、是共和党人或是一个崛起的王朝的领袖。 题目分析： 1. Mr. Esdaile s book can be best described as_____ 1. Esdaile先生的书可以看作是_____ a politico-military survery of the Napoleonic wars. 拿破仑战争的政治军事纵览。 an account of the Napoleonic wars in extrodinary scope and detail. 对拿破仑战争详细、宽泛的描述。 a historical chronicle of the Napoleonic wars with comparisons of the past and the present. 一部比较了拿破仑战争过去与现状的历史编年史。 an exploration of the deep-rooted reason that led to the long war. 拿破仑战争 最深层原因 的探究。

　　D ☆☆☆ 推理题。这篇文章主要分析了Esdaile先生的《拿破仑战争》一书，第一段中就提到，这本书和以往的相关书不同， 为什么 贯穿全书，主要就是分析了拿破仑战争的起因，战争持续时间很长的原因，以及战争的目的。该书是解释性的历史。因此，选项中D最为符合题意。 2. Mr Esdaile holds the view that the Napoleonic wars are originated by _____ 2. Esdaile先生认为拿破仑战争是由_____引起的。 marginal conflicts. 一些边缘的纷争 imbalance of power in Europe. 欧洲权利的不均衡 Napoleon s aggressive ambition. 拿破仑侵略的欲 Franco-British rivalries. 法英冲突 B ☆☆ 细节题。文章第三段提到，拿破仑战争不是因为意识形态原因而是因为地理政治原因，是因为势力不均衡。最后一段也提到，发生战争是因为欧洲势力不均衡。因此，拿破仑战争是因势力不均衡而起的。选项B为正确答案。 3. Mr. Esdaile s novelty in recounting the conflict in _____ 3. Esdaile 先生描述拿破仑战争的创新之处在于_____ that he dates from 1799 when Napoleon came to power in France. 他将该历史追溯至1799年拿破仑在法国上台之时。 that he explains Napoleon s character and history in detailed and vivid account. 他用丰富翔实且生动的材料描述了拿破仑的性格和历史。 that he reminds us the importance of some marginal-looking conflicts. 他提醒了我们一些看上去较为微小冲突的重要性。 that he thinks the war conflict was indeed started due to geopolitical factors. 他认为该战争是由于地理政治的因素引起的。 D ☆☆☆ 细节题。文章第三段指出，Esdaile先生让旧故事出新意的地方有三处，第一处是提到看起来不很重要的冲突如何演变为大的战争，第二处是拿破仑并不一定被击败了;第三处，也是首当其冲的是这场战争并不是意识形态的，而是起源于地理政治的。这三个创新点在选项中只有D提到了其中之一，因此是正确答案。 4. France s rivals fought against Napoleon despite chances for peace because_____ 4. 尽管有多次讲和的机会, 法国的敌人还是和拿破仑对抗这是因为_____ the political imbalance of Europe stimulated inevitable hatred and conflict between the countries and Napoleon. 欧洲的政治失衡必然导致了拿破仑和这些国家之间的仇恨和冲突。 they were alert to the possible aggression by Napoleon. 他们害怕拿破仑可能会发动侵略。 they attempted to settle with Napoleon but in vain. 他们向与拿破仑讲和却没有成功。 Napoleon was too ambitious to be trusted by them. 拿破仑过于野心勃勃，因此敌人们并不信任他。 B ☆☆☆☆ 细节题。第四段中提到，法国的敌人中几乎没有一个国家是为了让法国改朝换代而战争的，本来可以有讲和的机会，但是战争却一直继续，原因就是因为只要法国在拿破仑的控制中，那么别国就不知道法国什么时候才会停止侵略，这些国家自身随时都有可能遭到法国侵略的危险。因此，它们一直战争的原因还是害怕潜在的这种危险。因此，选项B最符合题意。 5. According to the passage, which one of the following statements is NOT true of the Napoleonic wars? 5. 根据本文, 关于拿破仑战争下列哪个陈述是错误的? The wars would have been fought even without Napoleon. 如果没有拿破仑,这场战争也会发生。 The wars were due to the emperor s aggression, egomania and lust for power. 这场战争是因为拿破仑的野心、自大和对权力的贪欲才引起的。 The wars lasted for so long time because France s rivals could not trust Napoleon. 战争持续了这么长时间是因为法国的敌人不信任拿破仑。 The wars were fought over the difference of the Europe s powers. 战争是因为欧洲各势力国家的不同而起的。

　　B ☆☆☆ 细节题。选项A，在文章第五段提到，即使拿破仑不存在，欧洲的强国也会进行战争，只是因为他的存在战争更为残酷，规模更大。选项B，文章第六段提到，战争是因为欧洲势力不均衡才引起的。选项C，文章第六段提到了这一点。选项D，各国家的不同也就是欧洲势力不均衡。因此，只有选项B是错误的说法。 参考译文： 关于战争的 为什么 ，出版商们能从严肃的历史学家那里获得的书远远不够。为什么会发生战争?为什么战争一直延续?是什么使得和平不堪一击?历史只是寻找答案的一个途径。Charles Esdaile是利物浦大学的一名讲师，他是一位优秀的学者，因此并没有简单地对比现在和过去。但是，在他关于拿破仑战争的精妙叙述中，战争的 为什么 却一直贯穿始终。拿破仑战争是法国和欧洲其他国家进行的为期12年的一场战争，有200万名士兵为此捐躯。Esdaile先生在他一次广泛、细致的政治军事调查中告诉我们他对这次战争起因的看法，这次战争的目的并解释为什么虽然看起来有好多次都有可能恢复和平，但战争还是持续了很长时间的原因。 拿破仑战争 既不是战争编年史，又不是传记，它是对非凡历史的解释。 历史学家将拿破仑战争战争追溯到1803年，当时英国在短暂的 亚眠和平 后向法国宣战。Esdaile先生讲述了拿破仑如何于1799年当政开始统治法国，而后统治了整个欧洲。英国在1805年特拉法尔战争后获得了海上霸权。但是由于法国在陆上战争中打败了澳大利亚、普鲁士和俄罗斯，最终取得了陆上霸权。而拿破仑军队于1807年侵入西班牙后遇阻，1812年在俄罗斯又遇到灾祸，最终导致了滑铁卢惨败。 Esdaile先生以三种途径给予了这个旧故事新的诠释。他指出看起来很微小的冲突，比如因罗马尼亚土地、瑞典、葡萄牙和加拿大而引起的冲突，最终引发了更大的战争，或者将本来可以结盟的盟国弄得四分五裂。他认为很难说我们是否彻底击垮了拿破仑。欧洲军队必须从自己的失败中汲取教训，而统治者则需要联合起来。这些后来都实现了，但已经为时过晚。他强调，首先这场战争并不是基于意识形态的，而是基于地理政治学的。这是一场关于权力均衡的战争，在一个世纪中由于土耳其帝国的衰落、俄国和普鲁士的不断强大以及英法对抗等因素而不断延续。 法国敌人中几乎没有一个是为了要巴黎政权而战的。很多时候如果拿破仑愿意停战的话，这些愿意也很可能停战。但是这些国家不相信拿破仑这么做，因此战争就一直持续下去。在Esdaile看来，拿破仑的两个劲敌 英国和俄国与之抵抗并不是因为他是革命者、是共和党人或是一个崛起的王朝的领袖，而是因为只要他统治着法国，其他国家无法预料法国什么时候才能停止扩张。 在这一点上, 拿破仑的个性被列入Esdaile复杂的地理政治方程式中。Esdaile没有接受历史英雄理论，但他认为拿破仑战争理应享受如此盛名。即使没有拿破仑，欧洲强国也会因为彼此不同而发动战争，但是拿破仑战争的规模和惨烈程度却很大程度上是因为这个皇帝的 侵略性、自大狂和对权力的贪欲 。 Esdaile的这本书反映了近期学术广泛、多样的特点。但是他从未离开过地理政治这个概念。他相信，战争就是由于欧洲大陆的不平衡引起的，而战争一直延续是因为各国无法信任拿破仑。和平最终来临，直到后面几代人都忘记了战争的残酷。