中国社会科学院
Translate the underlined sentences into good Chinese. The new dictionary Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) extends these values, but with a painstakingly revised sense of what inclusiveness means where it concerns women, minorities and celebrities. (1) In spite of this advance, however, it is nonetheless striking that none of the DNB editors since 1882 felt the need to declare unambiguously why we should care about biography in the first place. The obvious answer is that we do, and that the dictionary exists to reflect rather than to interpret society. Public appetite for biography has soared in the past 20 years and obituary writing has become a fine art. We are curious about others, including their private lives. The current dictionary doesn’t entirely reject the contemporary results of this curiosity. The current editor, Brian Harrison, says: “Celebrity—even notoriety—will sometimes get you into the dictionary. It inevitably reflects the values of the society in which the individual exists.”This isn’t wholly new: it may simply be more honest. In a lecture delivered in 1896, Lee insisted that subjects’ achievements must be “permanent, public and perspicacious”. But even by the standards of his day this was an optimistic pronouncement, for how could such permanence ever be ascertained? (2) Awareness of our temporal fallibility is built in to the new edition, which generates a deliberate snapshot in time, capturing the late 20th century’s perception of past generations.(3) But the biographical enthusiasm has not been constant: indeed, we are just emerging from something like a half-century decline of the national addiction. For, although Oxford University Press had begun to think of reworking the dictionary as early as the 1940s, the environment was never conducive—in large part because of successive shifts in the intellectual climate.Historians of the future may note that the original DNB came of age at the height of Victorian self-confidence; that the single rupture in the dictionary’s entire history coincided with the First World War, when George Smith’s estate was handed over to a curiously apathetic OUP; that the leisurely and slightly eviscerated mid-20th-century volumes coincided with a less enthusiastic view of biography; and that the upsurge of enthusiasm for a new project intersected with the closure of the cold war and a renewed belief that individuals can change history. The new dictionary, which “enshrines the role of the individual” even more than its Victorian predecessor, came of age among the Thatchers, Reagans, Gorbachevs and Mandelas of the late 20th century.(4) Underlying the rise, fall and rise of biographical confidence in Britain since the 19th century, there is another explanation of the public appetite for biography—that it reflects a deep-seated need for inspiration and practical guidance at a time when traditional models have collapsed. Morality rooted in Christianity no longer carries conviction, except loosely and conventionally. Biography is all we have left.This “collapse” was well advanced by the time the first DNB appeared in print. The intellectual historian J.T. Merz spent 30 years compiling a massive History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century published in four volumes, between 1904-1912. Straddling Victorian confidence and 20th-century decimation, his objective was a unified theory of knowledge. And yet he arrived at the terrible question: “Is life worth living?” (5) His ultimate “answer” was to observe order and unity in nature and intellect, expressed as individuality—a polite way of saying that biography is the mainstay of civilization.
5 / 107
本模块为学员专用
学员专享优势
老师批改作业 做题助教答疑
学员专用题库 高频考点梳理
成为学员