I. Reading Comprehension This section contains two passages. Read each passage and then answer the questions given at the end of each passage.
Passage One
Some powerful organizations are headed by a cabinet, others by a supreme council or board of management. The 20 commissioners who run the European Commission, however, are called “the college”. This title, with its academic and ecclesiastical flavor, captures the outfit’s self-image. The commission, part executive and part civil service, sees itself as far more than a mere branch of government. It is the embodiment of the “European idea” and the disinterested guardian of European law. While the countries of the EU vulgarly battle to promote their national interests, the commission stands above the fray and identifies the general good. And while national governments are riven by internal rivalries and political infighting, the multinational college sails on serenely a spirit of good-fellowship.
There is an element of truth to this saccharine self-image. Commissioners are free from many of the pressures of national politics: they are not elected, very seldom reshuffled and almost never fired. In such circumstances, they can afford to be high-minded and collegiate. Appropriately, the commission is headed by a real live former professor, Romano Prodi, an Italian.
But like many a college head in the academic world, Mr. Prodi’s management style is an infuriating mixture of vagueness and guile. Even those of his colleagues who retain some affection for the man, despair of his inability to stick to an agenda and of his tendency to fall asleep in meetings. (Or do his closed eyes simply mean he is thinking deeply?) Mr. Prodi has also alienated many of the other commissiones by his habit of making damaging off-the cuff remarks and by his penchant for secretively compiled reports that undermine his colleagues’ work. Pedro Solbes, the commissioner for economic affairs, was left looking like a chump after Mr. Prodi described the euro zone’s fiscal rules, which Mr. Solbes has stoutly defended, as “stupid”. The commissioners taking part in Europe’s constitutional convention discovered that a group of Prodi advisers had written an entire draft in secret. Such incidents have taken their toll on collegiate spirit.
Mr. Prodi’s two vice-presidents do not make up for his deficiencies. Neil Knnock from Britain is quietly despised in multi-cultural Brussels for speaking only one language. His volubly expressed interests in Welsh rugby and British Labor Party politics of the 1980s are not widely shared by his colleagues. Loyola de Palacio, a Spaniard who is the other vice-president, is guilty of another grave sin against Brussels piety: overt nationalism. All commissioners promise never to fight their country’s corner. All violate this promise from time to time. But Ms de Palacio does it with a regularity and crassness that grates on some colleagues. She and Mr. Kinnock get on badly. And there are other rivalries in the college. Chris Patten, the foreign-affairs commissioner, and Poul Neilson, in charge of aid, are constantly battling over turf. Margot Wallstrom, who oversees environment, and Erkki Liikanen, the enterprise commissioner, snipe at each other over business regulation. She wants more of it; he wants less. After four years of their five year-year mandate, far from building up a jolly college spirit, the commissioners show every sign of growing sick at the sight of each other.
The Prodi commission’s last year as always likely to be tricky. All the commissioners are now thinking about their political lives after November 2004. Mr. Prodi increasingly focuses on his role as the Italian opposition’s de facto leader. Other commissioners, such as Mr. Wallstrom and Portugal’s Antonio Vitorino, are maneuvering for grander jobs in Brussels. And somehow Mr. Prodi must find portfolios for ten new commissioners from the countries due to join the EU next May. One idea is for them to shadow current commissioners for six months, until a new college is formed at the end of the year. As one insider puts it, they will be “interns with BMWs”.
This end-of-term atmosphere is unsettling enough. But in the coming weeks a much worse fate may befall the commission than the usual bickering. A scandal is fermenting over the misuse of funds at Eurostat, the commission’s statistical arm. The details are complicated and, frankly speaking, not all that shocking. Watergate is ain’t. But a report has been commissioned and Mr. Prodi faces a painful session before the European Parliament on September 25th.
1. Explain the following sentences or phrases in English, bringing out the implied meaning, if there is any. (40 points.) 1) This title, with its academic and ecclesiastical flavor, captures the outfit’s self-image. 2) …the disinterested guardian of European law… 3) …the commission stands above the fray and identifies the general good. 4) …they can afford to be high-minded and collegiate. 5) But like many a college head in the academic world, Mr. Prodi’s management style is an infuriating mixture of vagueness and guile. 6) …was left looking like a chump after Mr. Prodi described the euro zone’s fiscal rules, which Mr. Solbes has stoutly defended, as “stupid”. 7) Such incidents have taken their toll on collegiate spirit. 8) All commissioners promise never to fight their counries corner. 9) …are constantly battling over turf.
10) A scandal is fermenting over the misuse of funds at Eurostat…
2. Give a brief answer to each of the following questions (15 points) 1) What do the examples of Mr. Solbes and the commissioners taking part in the Europe’s constitutional convention tell about European Commission? 2) In what way is the European Commission like a college? 3) What are the author’s views on Prodi’s European Commission?
Passage Two
Having decided to hold what was instantly dubbed a “gay summit” of the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, retreated “to reflect, to pray, to consult and to take counsel”. Given that the organization he now heads seems intent on tearing itself apart, his desire to get away from it all is understandable.
The parallels between what is happening to the church today and the drawn-out agony of the Conservative Party over Europe in the 1990s are both instructive and alarming. In each case, a substantial and well-organized minority decided that their views on a particular issue were so strongly held —— the European single currency is one instance; homosexual clergy in the other —— that group loyalty and obedience to properly constituted authority could be ignored. Dr. Williams may be only a few months into the job, but he is already beginning to look like the Church of England’s John Major: everyone’s favorite whipping boy.
That hasn’t happened quite yet. Both sides of the argument still have hopes of him. Liberals who were overjoyed by Dr. Williams’s accession are convinced that his instincts are with them and that left to his own devices his attitude towards sexuality would be as inclusive as their own. There are echoes here of the rejoicing by Tory Europhiles when Mr. Major early on in his premiership declared his policy was to be at the heart of Europe. However, being left to his own devices is exactly what will not happen to Dr. Williams.
Socially conservative evangelicals distrust him, but they think he is frightened of them and can be bullied into appeasement. The shameful treatment of the openly homosexual (albeit celibate) Canon Jeffrey John suggests they might be right. Having supported his appointment as Suffragan Bishop of Reading, Dr. Williams then persuaded him to resign in the name of church unity when the extent of the opposition to his appointment became apparent. Threats by evangelical churches to withhold their dues if Dr. John was not forced to step down were taken seriously in Lambeth Palace. As a supporter of Dr. John observed: “ Rowan was taken aback by the size of his mailbag.”
The conservatives have taken further comfort from Dr. Williams’s response to the latest twist in the crisis —— last week’s decision by the American Episcopal Church to confirm the election of Canon Gene Robinson, an active homosexual, as Bishop of New Hampshire. Dr. Williams commented: “It will be vital to ensure that the concerns and needs of those across the Communion who are gravely concerned at this development can be heard, understood and taken into account.” A couple of days later, Dr. Williams announced under pressure from evangelicals both at home and abroad, the convening in October of an extraordinary meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion to discuss the consequences of “recent developments”.
Perhaps Dr. Williams has a clear idea of what he wants to achieve with this summit of the 38 Anglican primates. But he has admitted in the past two being not much good at strategy. According to those close to him, he seems to be hoping for a miraculous reassertion of the good manners and tolerance that have been the traditional hallmarks of Anglicanism. Fat chance. Too many people are spoiling for a fight.
1. Explain the following sentences or phrases in English. (24 points) 1) …group loyalty and obedience to properly constituted authority could be ignored. 2) …everyone’s favorite whipping boy. 3) …left to his own devices his attitude towards sexuality would be as inclusive as their own. 4) There are echoes here of the rejoicing by Tory Europhiles… 5) The conservatives have taken further comfort from Dr. Williams’s response to the latest twist in the crisis… 6) Fat chance. Too many people are spoiling for a fight.
2. Give a brief answer to each of the following questions. (15 points) 1) What happened to the Conservative Party in the 1990s? 2) What is Dr. Williams’ predicament? 3) What is confusing in the way Dr. Williams respond to the appointment of a gay bishop in the US?
I. Translate the following sentences into Chinese. (24 points)
1. In your own house you might have kicked him downstairs and slammed the door in his face without the suspicion dawning on him that he was not a welcome visitor.
2. He knew everything better than anybody else, and it was an affront to his overweening vanity that you should disagree with him.
3. Father had an extraordinary capacity for amiable inattention. I sized him up and wondered if I should cry, but he seemed to be too remote to be annoyed even by that.
4. Who he was the shoemaker for a moment had no idea, then his heart trembled as he realized, before he had thoroughly discerned the face, that Max himself was standing there, embarrassedly explaining what he wanted done to his old shoes. 5. I became so conscious of my inferiority that even when I overheard my parents speak of John Bullyer as “The Child Wonder” I never even suspected the irony; I took it literally and believed that they regarded him with the same awe and envy as I did.
6. She frowned, conscientiously worrying over what amusements he might secretly be longing for which she had been too busy or too careless to imagine.
II. Translate the following passages into English. (32 points)
一、 我从14岁开始学英语,从此对外语兴趣大发,几不可收;19岁学法语;25岁学俄语、日语;32岁学古希腊语、拉丁语......每学一种外语,我的知识库里便多出一口宝箱。虽然有的装得多,有的装得少,但无一不是我的珍爱至35岁,才忽然对外语生了“厌”,转而积蓄我最大的一口宝箱——汉语。
说不清哪一种外语是我的最爱。我只知道英语那口箱子最有用,用得又多,因此比较熟;德语用得也多,不算生疏。其余等而下之。经年不用的,钥匙生了锈,自然就难以开启。即便如此,偶尔翻出一些陈年旧学,也还可以自我赏玩一番。
常听人说,某君如何了得,精通多种语言云云。可以我不在其列。我只是学过、仅此而已。“精通”二字,份量何等之重,就来我们的母语,谁又敢轻言“精通”啊!面对变幻万千、广无际崖的语言世界,我们惟有承认自己的无知,惟有老老实实地去学。
二、 读书有三个层次,三种境界。第一种境界是见书就读,不加鉴别,没有太多选择。第二种境界是读一部分你特别喜爱的作家的作品,找到你的兴趣和兴奋点在哪里。第三种境界就是只读一本或基本你最喜欢的书,或者反复阅读你喜欢的一个作家,精心研究他的作品。如此,我们应该明白“书越读越少”的意思了。 |