Part B: Information Matching (2012)
“Universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here,” wrote the Victorian sage Thomas Carlyle. Well, not any more it is not.
Suddenly, Britain looks to have fallen out with its favourite historical form. This could be no more than a passing literary craze, but it also points to a broader truth about how we now approach the past: less concerned with learning from our forefathers and more interested in feeling their pain. Today, we want empathy, not inspiration.
41 & 42
From the earliest days of the Renaissance, the writing of history meant recounting the exemplary lives of great men. In 1337, Petrarch began work on his rambling writing De Viris Illustribus-On Famous Men, highlighting the virtus (or virtue) of classical heroes. Petrarch celebrated their greatness in conquering fortune and rising to the top. This was the biographical tradition which Niccolò Machiavelli turned on its head. In The Prince, he championed cunning, ruthlessness, and boldness, rather than virtue, mercy and justice, as the skills of successful leaders.
43
Over time, the attributes of greatness shifted. The Romantics commemorated the leading painters and authors of their day, stressing the uniqueness of the artist’s personal experience rather than public glory. By contrast, the Victorian author Samuel Smiles wrote Self-Help as a catalogue of the worthy lives of engineers, industrialists and explorers. “The valuable examples which they furnish of the power of self-help, of patient purpose, resolute working, and steadfast integrity, issuing in the formation of truly noble and manly character, exhibit,” wrote Smiles, “what it is in the power of each to accomplish for himself.” His biographies of James Watt, Richard Arkwright and Josiah Wedgwood were held up as beacons to guide the working man through his difficult life.
44
This was all a bit bourgeois for Thomas Carlyle, who focused his biographies on the truly heroic lives of Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon Bonaparte. These epochal figures represented lives hard to imitate, but to be acknowledged as possessing higher authority than mere mortals.
45
Not everyone was convinced by such bombast. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” wrote Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. For them, history did nothing, it possessed no immense wealth nor waged battles: “It is man, real, living man who does all that.” And history should be the story of the masses and their record of struggle. As such, it needed to appreciate the economic realities, the social contexts and power relations in which each epoch stood. For: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past.”
This was the tradition which revolutionized our appreciation of the past. In place of Thomas Carlyle, Britain nurtured Christopher Hill, EP Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm. History from below stood alongside biographies of great men. Whole new realms of understanding-from gender to race to cultural studies- were opened up as scholars unpicked the multiplicity of lost societies. And it transformed public history too: downstairs became just as fascinating as upstairs.
Matching Questions
41. Petrarch
42. Niccolò Machiavelli
43. Samuel Smiles
44. Thomas Carlyle
45. Marx and Engels
全文翻译
维多利亚时代的圣人托马斯·卡莱尔写道："普世历史，即人类在这个世界上所取得成就的历史，归根结底是在此工作过的伟人的历史。"好吧，不再是了。
突然之间，英国似乎已经与它最喜欢的历史形式失去了联系。这可能只不过是一种一时的文学热潮，但它也指向了一个关于我们现在如何对待过去的更广泛的事实：不再那么关心从先辈那里学习，而更感兴趣于感受他们的痛苦。今天，我们需要的是共情，而不是激励。
从文艺复兴最早的日子开始，历史的书写就意味着叙述伟人的典范生活。1337年，彼特拉克开始写作他漫无边际的《论名人》，突出古典英雄的美德。彼特拉克颂扬了他们在征服命运和登顶过程中的伟大。这是尼科洛·马基雅维利彻底颠覆的传记传统。在《君主论》中，他推崇狡猾、冷酷和大胆，而非美德、仁慈和正义，作为成功领导者的技能。
随着时间的推移，伟大的属性发生了转变。浪漫主义者纪念他们时代的主要画家和作家，强调艺术家个人体验的独特性而非公共荣耀。相比之下，维多利亚时代作家塞缪尔·斯迈尔斯将《自助》写成了一本工程师、实业家和探险家有价值人生的目录。斯迈尔斯写道："他们提供的关于自助、耐心目标、坚定工作和坚定不移的正直的力量，最终形成真正高尚和刚毅品格的有价值范例，展示了每个人为自己所能成就的。"他关于詹姆斯·瓦特、理查德·阿克莱特和约西亚·韦奇伍德的传记被奉为引导劳动者度过艰难生活的灯塔。
这对托马斯·卡莱尔来说有点过于资产阶级了，他将传记聚焦于马丁·路德、奥利弗·克伦威尔和拿破仑·波拿巴这些真正英雄式的人生。这些划时代的人物代表着难以模仿但被承认为拥有超越凡人的更高权威的人生。
并非所有人都被这种浮夸所说服。马克思和恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中写道："迄今为止所有现存社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史。"对他们来说，历史什么也没做，它既不拥有巨大的财富，也不发动战争："是人，真实的、活生生的人做了这一切。"而历史应当是大众的故事和他们奋斗的记录。因此，它需要理解每个时代所处的经济现实、社会背景和权力关系。因为："人们自己创造自己的历史，但他们并不是随心所欲地创造；他们不是在自己选定的条件下创造，而是在直接碰到的、既定的、从过去承继下来的条件下创造。"
这是彻底改变了我们对过去的理解的这一传统。取代托马斯·卡莱尔，英国孕育了克里斯托弗·希尔、E.P.汤普森和埃里克·霍布斯鲍姆。自下而上的历史与伟人传记并立。随着学者们剖析失落社会的多样性，从性别到种族再到文化研究的全新理解领域被打开。它也改变了公共历史：下层社会变得和上层社会同样引人入胜。
答案解析 (Answers & Explanations)
41. Petrarch 对应 [A]
【解析】定位第3段。文中指出 Petrarch 的著作是“highlighting the virtus (or virtue) of classical heroes（突出古典英雄的美德）”。选项 [A] 中的 “emphasized（强调）” 完美同义替换了 “highlighting”，后半句内容完全一致。
42. Niccolò Machiavelli 对应 [F]
【解析】定位第3段后半部分。文中指出 Machiavelli 彻底颠覆了传统，他在《君主论》中“championed cunning... rather than virtue... as the skills of successful leaders（拥护狡猾……而不是美德……作为成功领导者的技能）”。选项 [F] “认为美德对于成功的领导者是不必要的（dismissed virtue as unnecessary）”正是对其观点的准确概括。
43. Samuel Smiles 对应 [G]
【解析】定位第4段。文中指出 Samuel Smiles 创作了《自助》一书，作为“a catalogue of the worthy lives of engineers, industrialists and explorers（工程师、实业家和探险家有价值的生活目录）”。选项 [G] 的后半句字面完全一致，“depicted（描绘）”同义替换了写书记录的行为。
44. Thomas Carlyle 对应 [C]
【解析】定位第5段。文中明确指出 Thomas Carlyle 聚焦于马丁·路德、拿破仑等人的英雄生活：“These epochal figures represented lives hard to imitate（这些划时代的人物代表了难以模仿的生活）”。这与选项 [C] “聚焦于那些生活难以模仿的划时代人物”完全吻合。
45. Marx and Engels 对应 [E]
【解析】定位第6段。文中提到 Marx and Engels 在《共产党宣言》中的观点：“And history should be the story of the masses and their record of struggle（并且历史应该是大众的故事和他们斗争的记录）”。这与选项 [E] 在字面表达上完全一致。
【干扰项排除】
[B] 强调了领先艺术家的公共荣誉：第4段讲到浪漫主义者时说他们强调个人经验“rather than public glory（而不是公共荣誉）”，这属于反向干扰。
[D] 开辟了理解历史伟人的新领域：最后一段确实提到了“Whole new realms of understanding... were opened up”，但这是 Christopher Hill 等学者的贡献，且他们研究的是大众史（History from below）而非伟人（great men）。