题干

阅读下面的文言文,完成下题。

    崔季舒,字叔正,博陵安平人。父瑜之,魏鸿胪卿。季舒少孤,性明敏,涉猎经史,长于尺牍,有当世才具。年十七,为州主簿,为大将军赵郡公琛所器重,言之于神武。神武亲简丞郎,补季舒大行台都官郎中。

    文襄辅政,转大将军中兵参军,甚见亲宠。以魏帝左右,须置腹心,擢拜中书侍郎。文襄为中书监,移门下机事总归中书,又季舒善音乐,故内伎亦通隶焉,内伎属中书,自季舒始也。文襄每进书魏帝,有所谏请,或文辞繁杂,季舒辄修饰通之,得申劝戒而已。静帝报答霸朝,恒与季舒论之,云:“崔中书是我你母。”转黄门侍郎,领主衣都统。虽迹在魏朝,而心归霸府,密谋大计,皆得预闻。于是宾客辐凑,倾心接礼,甚得名誉,势倾崔暹。暹尝于朝堂屏人拜之曰:“暹若得仆射,皆叔父之恩。”其权重如此

    时勋贵多不法,文襄无所纵舍,外议以季舒及崔暹等所为,甚被怨疾。及文襄遇难,文宣将赴晋阳,黄门郎阳休之劝季舒从行,曰:“一日不朝,其闲容刀。”季舒性爱声色,心在闲放,遂不请行,欲恣其行乐。司马子如缘宿憾,及尚食典御陈山提等共列其过状,由是季舒及暹各鞭二百,徙北边

    天保初,文宣知其无罪,为将作大匠,再迁侍中。俄兼尚书左仆射、仪同三司,大被恩遇。乾明初,杨愔以文宣遗旨,停其仆射。遭母丧解任,起复,除光禄勋,兼中兵尚书。出为齐州刺史,遣人渡淮互市,亦有赃贿事,为御史所劾,会赦不问。武成居藩,曾病,文宣令季舒疗病,备尽心力。大宁初,追还,引入慰勉,累拜度支尚书、开府仪同三司。营昭阳殿,敕令监造。以判事式为胡长仁密言其短,出为西兖州刺史。为博戏于吏部,责免官,又以诣广宁王宅,决马鞭数十。及武成崩,不得预于哭泣。久之,除胶州刺史,迁侍中、开府,食新安、河阴二郡干。加左光禄大夫,待诏文林馆,监撰《御览》。加特进、监国史。季舒素好图籍,暮年转更精勤,兼推荐人士,奖劝文学,时议翕然,远近称美。

(选自《北齐书•列传•卷三十九•崔季舒》)

上一题 下一题 0.0难度 选择题 更新时间:2016-08-31 11:38:08

答案(点此获取答案解析)

同类题2

阅读理解

Wilderness

    “In wilderness(荒野) is the preservation of the world.” This is a famous saying from a writer regarded as one of the fathers of environmentalism. The frequency with which it is borrowed mirrors a heated debate on environmental protection: whether to place wilderness at the heart of what is to be preserved.  

     As John Sauven of Greenpeace UK points out, there is a strong appeal in images of the wild, the untouched; more than anything else, they speak of the nature that many people value most dearly. The urge to leave the subject of such images untouched is strong, and the danger exploitation(开发) brings to such landscapes(景观) is real. Some of these wildernesses also perform functions that humans need—the rainforests, for example, store carbon in vast quantities. To Mr.Sauven, these ”ecosystem services” far outweigh the gains from exploitation.

    Lee Lane, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, takes the opposing view. He acknowledges that wildernesses do provide useful services, such as water conservation. But that is not, he argues, a reason to avoid all human presence, or indeed commercial and industrial exploitation. There are ever more people on the Earth, and they reasonably and rightfully want to have better lives, rather than merely struggle for survival. While the ways of using resources have improved, there is still a growing need for raw materials, and some wildernesses contain them in abundance. If they can be tapped without reducing the services those wildernesses provide, the argument goes, there is no further reason not to do so. Being untouched is not, in itself, a characteristic worth valuing above all others.

    I look forwards to seeing these views taken further, and to their being challenged by the other participants. One challenge that suggests itself to me is that both cases need to take on the question of spiritual value a little more directly. And there is a practical question as to whether wildernesses can be exploited without harm.

    This is a topic that calls for not only free expression of feelings, but also the guidance of reason. What position wilderness should enjoy in the preservation of the world obviously deserves much more serious thinking.