填空题 Translate the following into Chinese．(华东师范大学2010研，考试科目：翻译)No doubt throughout all past time there actually occurred a series of events which, whether we know what it was or not, constitutes history in some ultimate sense. Nevertheless, much the greater part of these events we can know nothing about, not even that they occurred: many of them we can know only imperfectly: and even the few events that we think we know for sure we can never be absolutely certain of, since we can never revive them, never observe or test them directly. The event itself once occurred, but as an actual event it has disappeared: so that in dealing with it the only objective reality we can observe or test is some material trace which the event has left—usually a written document. With these traces of vanished events, these documents, we must be content since they are all we have: from them we infer what the event was, we affirm that it is a fact that the event was so and so. . . Let us then admit that there are two histories: the actual series of events that once occurred: and the ideal series that we affirm and hold in memory. The first is absolute and unchanged—it was what it was whatever we do or say about it: the second is relative , always changing in response to the increase or refinement of knowledge. The two series correspond more or less, it is our aim to make the correspondence as exact as possible, but the actual series of events exist for us only in terms of the ideal series which we affirm and hold in memory. This is why I am forced to identify history with knowledge of history. For all practical purposes history is, for us and for the time being, what we know it to be.History as the artificial extension of the social memory is an art of long standing, necessarily so since it springs instinctively from the impulse to enlarge the range of immediate experience, and however camouflaged by disfiguring jargon of science, it is still in essence what it has always been. History in this sense is story, in aim always a true story : a story that employs all the devices of literary art(statement and generalization, narration and description, comparison and comment and analogy)to present the succession of events in the life of man, and from the succession of events thus presented to derive a satisfactory meaning. The history written by historians, like the history informally fashioned by Mr. Everyman, is thus a convenient blend of truth and fancy, of what we commonly distinguish as " fact" and " interpretation". In primitive times, when tradition is orally transmitted, bards and story-tellers frankly embroider, or improvise the facts to heighten the dramatic import of the story. With the use of written records, history, gradually differentiated from fiction, is understood as the story of events that actually occurred: and with the increase and refinement of knowledge the historian recognizes that his first duty is to be sure of his facts, let their meaning be what it may. Nevertheless, in every age history is taken to be a story of actual events from which a significant meaning may be derived: and in every age the illusion is that the present version is valid because the related facts are true, whereas former versions are invalid because they are based upon inaccurate or inadequate facts.Left to themselves, the facts do not speak: left to themselves, they do not exist, not really since for all practical purposes there is no fact until someone affirms it . The least the historian can do with any historical fact is to select and affirm it. To select and affirm even the simplest complex of facts is to give them a certain place in a certain pattern of ideas, and this alone is sufficient to give them a special meaning. However " hard" or " cold" they may be, historical facts are after all not material substances which, like bricks or scantlings(锯解成(5立方英寸以下的)木、石块), possess definite shape and clear, persistent outline. To set forth historical facts is not comparable to dumping a barrow of bricks. A brick retains its form and pressure wherever placed : but the form and substance of historical facts, having a negotiable existence only in literary discourse, vary with the words employed to convey them. Since history is not part of the external material world, but an imaginative reconstruction of vanished events, its form and substance are inseparable: in the realm of literary discourse substance, being an idea is form: and form, conveying the idea, is substance. It is thus not the undiscriminated fact, but the perceiving mind of the historian that speaks:the special meaning which the facts are made to convey emerges from the substance-form which the historian employs to recreate imaginatively a series of events not present to perception.