- UID
- 870243
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2013-3-22
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
In February 1848 the people of Paris rose in revolt
against the constitutional monarchy of Louis-Philippe.
Despite the existence of excellent narrative accounts, the
February Days, as this revolt is called, have been largely
ignored by social historians of the past two decades. For
each of the three other major insurrections in
nineteenth-century Paris—July 1830, June 1843, and May
1871----there exists at least a sketch of participants'
backgrounds and an analysis, more or less rigorous, of the
reasons for the occurrence of the uprisings. Only in the
case of the February Revolution do we lack a useful
description of participants that might characterize it in the
light of what social history has taught us about the
process of revolutionary mobilization.
Two reasons for this relative neglect seem obvious.
First, the insurrection of February has been overshadowed
by that of June. The February Revolution overthrew a
regime, to be sure, but met with so little resistance that it
failed to generate any real sense of historical drama. Its
successor, on the other hand, appeared to pit key
socioeconomic groups in a life-or-death struggle and was
widely seen by contemporary observers as marking a
historical departure. Through their interpretations, which
exert a continuing influence on our understanding of the
revolutionary process, the impact of the events of June
has been magnified, while, as an unintended consequence,
the significance of the February insurrection has been
diminished. Second, like other "successful" insurrections,
the events of February failed to generate the most
desirable kinds of historical records. Although the June
insurrection of 1848 and the Paris Commune of 1871
would be considered watersheds of nineteenth-century
French history by any standard, they also present the
social historian with a signal advantage: these failed
insurrections created a mass of invaluable documentation
as a by-product of authorities‘ efforts to search out and
punish the rebels.
Quite different is the outcome of successful
insurrections like those of July 1830 and February 1848.
Experiences are retold, but participants typically
resume their daily routines without ever recording
their activities. Those who played salient roles may
become the objects of highly embellished verbal
accounts or in rare cases, of celebratory articles in
contemporary periodicals. And it is true that the
publicly acknowledged leaders of an uprising
frequently write memoirs. However, such
documents are likely to be highly unreliable,
unrepresentative, and unsystematically preserved,
especially when compared to the detailed judicial
dossiers prepared for everyone arrested following a
failed insurrection. As a consequence, it may prove
difficult or impossible to establish for a successful
revolution a comprehensive and trustworthy picture
of those who participated, or to answer even the
most basic questions one might pose concerning the
social origins of the insurgents.
12. Which of the following is the most logical objection
to the claim made (lines 38-39) ?
A
The thesis of the passage is stated and
supporting evidence systematically presented.
A The February Revolution of 1848 is much less
significant than the July insurrection of 1830.
BThe backgrounds and motivations of participants
in the July insurrection of 1830 have been
identified, however cursorily.
CEven less is known about the July insurrection
of 1830 than about the February Revolution
of 1848.
DHistorical records made during the July
insurrection of 1830 are less reliable than those
made during the May insurrection of 1871.
E
The importance of the July insurrection of 1830
has been magnified at the expense of the
significance of the February Revolution of
1848.
为什么选B？？？
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-4-9 16:50:26
收藏
收藏
楼主
