2017年5月SAT亚太阅读真题四

　　新东方在线SAT频道为大家带来2017年5月SAT亚太真题阅读四一文，希望对大家SAT备考有所帮助。更多精彩尽请关注新东方在线SAT频道!

　　第四篇历史双篇 弗吉尼亚制宪会议上的发言

　　Passage 1, by Patrick Henry,and Passage 2, by Edmund Pendleton, are adaptedfrom speeches delivered to theVirginiaratifyingconvention in 1788. Both are in response to the proposal by the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new constitution establishing a national government.

　　题目： 两篇文章都是关于是否要用“1787年宪法”取代“联邦条例”的演说。演说是在弗吉尼亚宪法批准会上，演说人1是Patrick Henry; 演说人2是Edmund Pendleton

　　【解析】文章发生在美国“宪法大讨论”时期。相关背景我们在“制宪”专题中给大家介绍过。

　　Passage 1

　　Ifa wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this newgovernment will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall bedisappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise.

　　【阐释】Henry不支持用“1787年宪法”取代“联邦条例”。能读出这个“作者观点”，第一段过关。

　　【单词】republic：n a state inwhich the supreme power rests in the body of citizens

　　【翻译】如果现在迈出错误的一步，共和可能会永远失去。 如果这个新政府达不到人民的预想，他们将会失望，自由将会丧失，暴政就会也必然会产生。

　　. . . And here I would makethis inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federalConvention『指邦联议会中制定和支持新宪法的人(不是所有的人都支持新宪法，所以说part of)』. Iam sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead ofa confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrablyclear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

　　【阐释】作者认为新宪法政府的特点是：consolidated，是加强了中央政府权利的。这点是宪法的制订者认为最重要的;同时也是Patrick认为最危险的。读出这个点，本段过关。 【单词】federal Convention：指邦联的议会。1787年宪法本来召开是为了修正一些邦联条例中的问题，但最后开成了制宪会议。制订了1787年宪法。

　　【翻译】…在此，我想请问那些邦联议会中的某些人。我相信他们对组建一个伟大而统一的政府，而不仅限于邦联的必要性印象深刻。 这会是一个统一的政府，这点清晰无误; 而在我看来，这样一个政府的危险是非常惊人的。

　　I have the highestveneration for those gentlemen; but, sir『主席先生』,give me leave to demand, What right had theyto say, We, the people『美国宪法首句就是We the people of the United States』? My politicalcuriosity, exclusive of myanxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speakthe language of, We, the people, instead of,We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of aconfederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states....

　　【阐释】关键句what right had they to say WE THE PEOPLE。 质疑宪法文件采用的主体是“人民”，而不是“州”的合法性。

　　【单词】give me leave to demand：giveme permission to demand leave=permission to do something 请允许我

　　exclusive of : not including something 除去，不包括 agent: na person or thing that acts or has the power to act.

　　【翻译】我对这些先生们怀有最崇高的敬意; 但是，主席先生，请允许我发问，他们有什么权力说“我们，人民”?抛开我对公众福祉的担心外，我政治上的好奇令我疑虑：谁授权他们(在宪法中使用)“我们，人民”，而不是“我们，各州”?州才是联盟的特征和灵魂。 如果各州都无权在这份契约中作为代理人出现，那它必须是一个伟大的、统一的，属于各州人民的统一的国家政府....

　　The people gave them no powerto use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It isnot mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger,which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen inother parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, noinsurrection or tumult have happened; everything has been calm andtranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of humanaffairs. I see no landmark to guideus. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gonetoadegree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country,which has been occasioned『vt togive occasion or cause for; bring about.引起』 bythis perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; forthis purpose they were solely delegated; the object『目的』 of their missionextended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthymember to know what danger could havearisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causesof this proposal to change our government.

　　【阐释】本段开头，是紧紧承接上一段的内容。可以看到，首句The people gave them no power to usetheir name是对上段who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people的回答。反正，人民，并没有赋予他们这种权力。所以，他们越权了。

　　接着，作者又以退为进(让步)，针对“越权可能是出于某种特定局势下的需要”的想法，否定了弗吉尼亚并没有产生“足以采纳新宪法的”危机。并在结尾重申了“federal convention”本该是履行“完善邦联条例”的职责，却开了成“制宪会议”这种越权的行为。并质问这种做法的必要性?

精彩内容第二页继续......