Question

Moreover, insofar as any interpretation of its author can be made from the five or six plays attributed to him, the Wake field Master is uniformly considered to be a man of sharp contemporary observation. He was, formally, perhaps clerically educated, as his Latin and music, his Biblical and patristic lore indicate. He is, still, celebrated mainly for his quick sympathy for the oppressed and forgotten man, his sharp eye for character, a ready ear for colloquial vernacular turns of speech and a humor alternately rude and boisterous, coarse and happy. Hence despite his conscious artistry as manifest in his feeling for intricate metrical and stanza forms, he is looked upon as a kind of medieval Steinbeck, indignantly angry at, uncompromisingly and even brutally realistic in presenting the plight of the agricultural poor.
Thus taking the play and the author together, it is mow fairly conventional to regard the former as a kind of ultimate point in the secularization of the medieval drama. Hence much emphasis on it as depicting realistically humble manners and pastoral life in the bleak hills of the West Riding of Yorkshire on a typically cold bight of December 24th. After what are often regarded as almost “documentaries” given in the three successive monologues of the three shepherds, critics go on to affirm that the realism is then intensified into a burlesque mock-treatment of the Nativity. Finally as a sort of epilogue or after-thought in deference to the Biblical origins of the materials, the play slides back into an atavistic mood of early innocent reverence. Actually, as we shall see, the final scene is not only the culminating scene but perhaps the raison d’etre of introductory “realism.”
There is much on the surface of the present play to support the conventional view of its mood of secular realism. All the same, the “realism” of the Wakefield Master is of a paradoxical turn. His wide knowledge of people, as well as books indicates no cloistered contemplative but one in close relation to his times. Still, that life was after all a predominantly religious one, a time which never neglected the belief that man was a rebellious and sinful creature in need of redemption, So deeply (one can hardly say “naively” of so sophisticated a writer) and implicitly religious is the Master that he is less able (or less willing) to present actual history realistically than is the author of the Brome “Abraham and Isaac”. His historical sense is even less realistic than that of Chaucer who just a few years before had done for his own time costume romances, such as The Knight’s Tale, Troilus and Cressida, etc. Moreover Chaucer had the excuse of highly romantic materials for taking liberties with history.
小題1:Which of the following statements about the Wakefield Master is NOT True?
[A]. He was Chaucer’s contemporary.
[B]. He is remembered as the author of five or six realistic plays.
[C]. He write like John Steinbeck.
[D]. HE was an accomplished artist.
小題2: By “patristic”, the author means
[A]. realistic. [B]. patriotic
[C]. superstitious. [C]. pertaining to the Christian Fathers.
小題3: The statement about the “secularization of the medieval drama” refers to the
[A]. introduction of mundane matters in religious plays.
[B]. presentation of erudite material.
[C]. use of contemporary introduction of religious themes in the early days.
小題4: In subsequent paragraphs, we may expect the writer of this passage to
[A]. justify his comparison with Steinbeck.
[B]. present a point of view which attack the thought of the second paragraph.
[C]. point out the anachronisms in the play.
[D]. discuss the works of Chaucer.

Answer 1

小題1:C
小題2:D
小題3:A
小題4:B

小題1:C. 他象斯坦貝克一樣寫。第一段作者說他是一位公認(rèn)的對(duì)當(dāng)時(shí)代具有敏銳洞察力的作家�，F(xiàn)在仍然享有盛名。主要在于“他對(duì)被壓迫和被遺忘的人民的同情，有著對(duì)人物性格了解的犀利眼光，對(duì)日常方言的曲折轉(zhuǎn)意的“耳朵”。他的幽默粗放而又喧鬧，粗魯而又愉快。因此，盡管他有意識(shí)的藝術(shù)效果（性），明顯表現(xiàn)在他對(duì)復(fù)雜韻律和詩(shī)節(jié)的感受力上，人們?nèi)匀蛔鹚麨橹惺兰o(jì)的斯坦貝克，對(duì)貧苦農(nóng)民悲慘命運(yùn)的疾首憤怒，給以毫不妥協(xié)地甚至野性地真實(shí)描述”。這段話說明，文內(nèi)兩位作家之共同點(diǎn)是在內(nèi)容觀點(diǎn)上。而不是指一樣的藝術(shù)形式上。韋克菲爾德寫的是詩(shī)歌形式——韻文，而斯坦貝克是小說和散文劇。所以說他像斯坦貝克那樣寫就錯(cuò)了。故選C.
A. 他是喬叟同時(shí)代人，見最后一句“他的歷史觀點(diǎn)的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義稍遜于喬叟。喬叟在幾年前就為其時(shí)代寫了一本傳奇�！� B. 他是作為五或六本現(xiàn)實(shí)之劇本的作者而為人紀(jì)念。本文第一句話“只能從他寫的五個(gè)或六個(gè)劇本來說明這位作者�！� D. 他是一位有成就的藝術(shù)家。
小題2:D. Patristic 義：為關(guān)于早期基督教領(lǐng)袖的。第一段中his Biblical and Patristic lore indicate的意思是“他那有關(guān)圣經(jīng)和早期基督教領(lǐng)袖們的歌謠�！�
A. 現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的。 B. 愛國(guó)的。 C. 迷信的。
小題3:A. 在宗教劇中介紹世俗之事。見第二段中的secularization義：世俗化，脫離教會(huì)。這一整段都講了韋劇中對(duì)世俗之事的描述：“拿劇本和作者兩者一起講的話，現(xiàn)在習(xí)慣于把他的劇本看作中世紀(jì)戲劇世俗化的一個(gè)頂點(diǎn)。因此，對(duì)他世俗化強(qiáng)調(diào)常以一個(gè)例子來說明，即他現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的描述12月24日一個(gè)寒冷的夜晚，在約克郡西區(qū)荒涼的山里的那種粗陋的習(xí)俗和鄉(xiāng)村的生活；在常被人認(rèn)為幾乎是‘記錄文獻(xiàn)’的三個(gè)牧人三段連續(xù)的獨(dú)白之后，批評(píng)家們繼續(xù)認(rèn)為他的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義在此時(shí)被強(qiáng)化到以諷刺嘲弄的口吻處理了基督的誕生。最后，作者收?qǐng)霭谆蚴潞蟮难a(bǔ)充，對(duì)材料的來源圣經(jīng)表示敬意。劇本又滑回到早期純潔無邪（天真）的崇敬，一種返祖基調(diào)中去。事實(shí)上最后一幕不僅是全劇的高潮，也許還是“現(xiàn)實(shí)主義”引言存在的理由�！边@一段清楚表明。批評(píng)者認(rèn)為宗教只是作者的收?qǐng)霭�，�?jì)劃外的添加劑而已。
B. 表現(xiàn)淵博知識(shí)材料。 C. 應(yīng)用當(dāng)代材料。太籠統(tǒng)。當(dāng)代也有宗教之事。
D. 介紹早期宗教題材。
小題4:B. 表達(dá)抨擊第二段思想的觀點(diǎn)。這個(gè)問題最難回答，其所以選擇B，是因?yàn)楸救俗髡卟⒉煌�意流行的觀點(diǎn)。他在講完“常規(guī)看法”有，用引導(dǎo)來談“紀(jì)實(shí)文獻(xiàn)”和“現(xiàn)實(shí)主義”。這說明作者之含義并不是這兩個(gè)詞的本義。這段最后一句話“事實(shí)上，最后一幕……”表明：最后一幕有宗教內(nèi)容，而“現(xiàn)實(shí)主義”不過處于introductory階段。第三段點(diǎn)明作者的觀點(diǎn)“現(xiàn)在的戲劇表面上有許多支持世俗現(xiàn)實(shí)主義模式的觀點(diǎn)。韋之‘現(xiàn)實(shí)主義’有一個(gè)自相矛盾的特點(diǎn)。他對(duì)人和書本的廣泛的了解表明：“他不是與世隔絕，而是和時(shí)代緊密相連的。再說，那時(shí)的生活畢竟是全方位的宗教。那時(shí)代絕不會(huì)忽視這種信仰——人是叛逆和有罪的生靈，需要贖罪。大師是那么深沉含蓄的信奉宗教，因而他比布羅姆作者更不可能（更不愿）現(xiàn)實(shí)主義地表現(xiàn)真正的歷史。他的歷史感現(xiàn)實(shí)性甚至比喬叟更不現(xiàn)實(shí)主義。喬叟早在前幾年為他的時(shí)代寫了‘類似’騎士的故事”�！疤亓_依拉斯和克萊西德”等傳奇。再說，喬叟以高度浪漫的材料為借口對(duì)歷史事實(shí)任意處理�！彼�以說，我們可以期望作者在下面一步發(fā)揮自己的觀點(diǎn)，抨擊第二段的看法。
A. 他和斯坦貝克的比較是公平的。 C. 指出劇中時(shí)代錯(cuò)誤。 D. 討論喬叟作品。