※主题思路：

主旨：墓志铭经一个大牛演变成一种艺术形式。

※段落大意：

第一段：说明为何此碑文为art

epitaph 墓志铭给了名词给解释。古希腊碑文原本并不是一种艺术形式直到一个大师的出现的出现。有一种在石头上刻诗的艺术品，是某S诗人发明的。他prefer把他写的epitaph刻在石头上。然后讲他是怎么具体把这种艺术形式形成的/他将这种类型发扬光大了还是怎么的。

第二段：讲这些刻字原来是oral的，现在是written的了，以及交代此art和poetry的差别

及当年应用的限制

以前的人们都是通过口头上表达，讲到一个人，这个人要刻在碑上(肯定是墓志铭我又想起还说了inscription什么的)。这里有比较这种形式和另外所盛行的oral epitaph的区别，分别说他们包括什么。描述了两种诗歌的form IN form 和EN form(具体忘记了)，然后说其中一种form 是有利于social 交流和XX信息传达(这句话是P2的重点，有两道考题)，而另外一种则不是。/然后说这种类型的诗和oral poem(是碑文还是诗歌有待确定)是不同的，主要在于physical? 然后又说了还是有经济的推动什么的。以及他用的石头成本高是一个限制。

※题目:

1)主旨

忘记选的什么了好像是介绍还是描述(12年11月狗主)

有讲述一个人对这种东西的贡献(考古狗主)

2)问那种有利于social 形式的会怎么样

好像是选的是读这种诗歌有利于交流

3)高亮social 问提到social 的作用是什么

好像我题目2 和题目3 有点记不清了但是都定位那一句话附近比较简单

4)文章说oral里面restrict在某几个方面,为什么作者要说这个方面

我好象是选的是表明oral和inscript的区别，然后这两句又出了一个题目

5)social XX(一个单词，不认得...)的作用(from 考古)

这个词在第二段前后比较时出现，我选了为了比较

6)考点：印象中是材料必须由patron买来(讲当年此art应用的限制)

7)这里有比较这种形式和另外所盛行的oralepitaph的区别。

相关文章

【V1：2011.09】荷马史诗在200-600 B.C.的时候被篡改了很多，因为人们在口头流传的时候改了很多原来的语言，现代人想编辑出最authentic的edition。普遍方法是通过脚注来解释篡改的内容，但是有一个人说这些不同其实是因为演员在表演这些诗歌的时候加入了自己的即兴所以慢慢原本的语言就不在了，而这些演员自己的创造又是很valuable的所以should be paid more attention，而且提出出multi-version的荷马史诗让其中包含这个新加入的元素。

【V2：2009】荷马史诗. (P1) 无法确认荷马史诗是writeby荷马ororal，从16世纪到20世纪出现了很多关于此的text，有很多variation，很多学者对此很敢兴趣，但是却无法解决。(P2) F提出了一个新观点，认为研究这些variation并不重要，而更加注重讲述故事的时间，地点，意义等内容。并且用了一种不同与其他学者的方式，将这些variation describe as footnote(有细节题)文章最后一句对F提出疑问，大概是doubtwhetherthe variation‘sinsignificance intersttoF notenoug has(有一题问此句意义) 有主题题：我选提出了一种新的theoryexplainaphenomena78.关于canada以前是否有hugehot-blooded举了很多原因：气候，气候对plantbiomass的影响以及其对hot-blooded的predator的影响等(有题，except题型)后面有转折however，

【V3：2002】荷马史诗(伊利亚特、奥的赛): 对于荷马的两个作品，有一个人好像是通过结构来分析(有composed一词)说6世纪之前怎样怎样(有single一词)，6世纪之后发生变化，在6世纪及其second century开始divergent了，第二段说有另一个家伙，认为不应该从结构上分析，而是要考虑到他的performance(好像是)和其他一些东西，诸如时间地点等等.

相关文章

While a new surge of critical interest inthe ancient Greek poems conventionally ascribed to Homer has taken place in thelast twenty years or so, it was nonspecialists rather than professional scholarswho studied the poetic aspects of the Iliad and the Odyssey between, roughly,1935 and 1970. During these years, while such nonacademic intellectuals asSimone Weil and Erich Auerbach were trying to define the qualities that madethese epic accounts of the Trojan War and its aftermath great poetry, thequestions that occupied the specialists were directed elsewhere: ?Did theTrojan War really happen?? ?Does the bard preserve Indo-European folkmemories?? ?How did the poems get written down?? Something was driving scholarsaway from the actual works to peripheral issues.

Scholars produced books about archaeology,about gift-exchange in ancient societies, about the development of oral poetry,about virtually anything except the Iliad and the Odyssey themselves as uniquereflections or distillations of life itself?as, in short, great poetry. Theobservations of the English poet Alexander Pope seemed as applicable in 1970 asthey had been when he wrote them in 1715: according to Pope, the remarks ofcritics ?are rather Philosophical, Historical, Geographic?or rather anythingthan Critical and Poetical.?

Ironically, the modern manifestation ofthis ?nonpoetical? emphasis can be traced to the profoundly influential work ofMilman Parry, who attempted to demonstrate in detail how the Homeric poems,believed to have been recorded nearly three thousand years ago, were theproducts of a long and highly developed tradition of oral poetry about theTrojan War. Parry proposed that this tradition built up its diction and itscontent by a process of constant accumulation and refinement over manygenerations of storytellers. But after Parry?s death in 1935, his legacy wastaken up by scholars who, unlike Parry, forsook intensive analysis of thepoetry itself and focused instead on only one element of Parry?s work: thecreative limitations and possibilities of oral composition, concerning on fixedelements and inflexibilities, focusing on the things that oral poetry allegedlycan and cannot do. The dryness if this kind of study drove many of the moreinventive scholars away from the poems into the rapidly developing field ofHomer?s archaeological and historical background.

Appropriately, Milman Parry?s son Adam wasamong those scholars responsible for a renewed interest in Homer?s poetry asliterary art. Building on his father?s work, the younger Parry argued that theHomeric poems exist both within and against a tradition. The Iliad and theOdyssey were, Adam Parry thought, the beneficiaries of an inherited store of diction,scenes, and at the same time highly individual works that surpasses theseconventions. Adam Parry helped prepare the ground for the recent Homericrevival by affirming his father?s belief in a strong inherited tradition, butalso by emphasizing Homer?s unique contributions within that tradition.

1. Which one of the following best statesthe main idea of the passage?

(A) The Homeric poems are most fruitfullystudied as records of the time and place in which they were written.

(B) The Homeric poems are the products of ahighly developed and complicated tradition of oral poetry.

(C) The Homeric poems are currentlyenjoying a resurgence of critical interest after an age of scholarship largelydevoted to the poems? nonpoetic elements.

(D) The Homeric poems are currentlyenjoying a resurgence of scholarly interest after am age during which moststudies were authored by nonacademic writers.

(E) Before Milman Parry published hispioneering work in the early twentieth century, it was difficult to assign adate or an author to the Homeric poems.

2. According to the passage, the work ofSimone Weil and Erich Auerbach on Homer was primarily concerned with which oneof the following?

(A) considerations of why criticism ofHomer had moved to peripheral issues

(B) analyses of the poetry itself in termsof its literary qualities

(C) studies in the history and nature oforal poetry

(D) analyses of the already ancient epictradition inherited by Homer

(E) critiques of the highly technical analysesof academic critics

3. The passage suggests which one of thefollowing about scholarship on Homer that has appeared since 1970?

(A) It has dealt extensively with theHomeric poems as literary art.

(B) It is more incisive than the work ofthe Parrys.

(C) It has rejected as irrelevant thescholarship produced by specialists between 1935 and 1970.

(D) It has ignored the work of Simone Weiland Erich Auerbach.

(E) It has attempted to confirm that theIliad and the Odyssey were written by Homer.

4. The author of the passage most probablyquotes Alexander Pope (lines 24-26) in order to

(A) indicate that the Homeric poems havegenerally received poor treatment at the hands of English critics

(B) prove that poets as well as criticshave emphasized elements peripheral to the poems

(C) illustrate that the nonpoeticalemphasis also existed in an earlier century

(D) emphasize the problems inherent inrendering classical Greek poetry into modern English

(E) argue that poets and literary criticshave seldom agreed the interpretation of poetry

5. According to the passage, which one ofthe following is true of Milman Parry?s immediate successors in the field ofHomeric studies?

(A) They reconciled Homer?s poetry witharchaeological and historical concerns.

(B) They acknowledged the tradition of oralpoetry, but focused on the uniqueness of Homer?s poetry within the tradition.

(C) They occupied themselves with thequestion of what qualities made for great poetry.

(D) They emphasized the boundaries of oralpoetry.

(E) They called for a revival of Homer?spopularity.

6. Which one of the following bestdescribes the organization of the passage?

(A) A situation is identified and itsorigins are examines.

(B) A series of hypotheses is reviewed andone is advocated.

(C) The works of two influential scholarsare summarized.

(D) Several issues contributing to acurrently debate are summarized.

(E) Three possible solutions to along-standing problem are posed