问题 阅读理解与欣赏

阅读下文,回答问题。

  在月光下砌座小塔在月光下砌座小塔,砌一座小小的塔来迎接那圆圆的中秋月亮。我对于每一个佳节,都会预先以好几天欢乐兴奋的心情来等待那个节日的来临,最特别的是中秋节,我除了以一颗跃动的心在等待外,并且有所行动。我费了不少力气,去寻找砖块和瓦片,然后很小心地用这些材料,在我家门口的广场上,砌一座与我差不多同等高度的小塔。在当年小孩的眼里,这座塔像是很高、很大。

  小塔往往在中秋前三天就砌成了。塔尖遥遥望着碧空,在期待着天上的月亮快点变得更大、更圆。中秋节砌小塔这个风俗习惯,我不知起于何时,也不知这个习惯的流行面有多广,但是在我的故乡潮汕一带,却是早就有之,而且十分普遍。

  砌小塔本来多数是由男孩子来带头,女孩子一般只是在一旁帮助。而我的童年,不单很戏剧化,同时也有点男性化,我不甘向男孩子们示弱,于是,我独自砌我的塔。人小塔小。但也玲珑通透,俨然像一座真塔。中秋晚上,孩子们愉快地拿着木柴、干草,由小塔的塔门放进塔里,然后点上火,烧起塔来。

  熊熊的火光由砖块与砖块中的间隙冒出来,有时我又抓了一把一把的盐,向红彤彤的小塔撒去。“噼啪”作响的声音从塔里传出,跟着便升起阵阵青蓝色的火焰,烧得通红的瓦片,使小塔显得更加明亮,更加美丽了。我鼓着掌在塔前雀跃、蹦跳,两条辫子轻轻地在我的肩上左右摇晃。

  愉快的时间随着月亮西沉而逝,小塔也寂静暗淡下去。

  中秋节过后的两三天,我跟别的孩子一样,怅然地拆去了小塔。自己砌成的小塔自己拆!难免心有不甘,但总存有一个希望——明年的中秋节,我又再重新砌一座小塔。

  有一次,我的小塔提前被人毁去了!不知道是哪一个男孩子恶作剧,他拿了几个大鞭炮,丢进我的小塔里,“嘭!嘭!嘭!”几声震耳的鞭炮声响起,过后,接着便哗哩哗啦地……啊!我的小塔!我的小塔的大部分骤然倒塌下来了。我噙着满眶眼泪,塔碎了,我的心也碎了!我怨恨那个毁掉我的小塔的男孩子。

  但是,我没有哭出声,也没有骂出声来,我只痛在心里。一个小女孩自己辛辛苦苦砌成的小塔,竟也有人忍心一扬手就把它毁了!

  童年的时光过去了。我踏上了迂回曲折、阴霾四布的人生旅途。幸福、快乐,对我是何等陌生!我在“秋月春风等闲度”中过着一段漫长的岁月!在那段期间里,我怕看到天上的明月,怕它给我带来内心的激荡,尤其是“一年明月今宵多”的中秋月。

  天上月圆,而我心中却有几许残缺!我怕见月圆,一见月圆便会勾起很多悲痛的往事……

  虽然目前我的心境已经好些了,但对于中秋月,我还是不敢多看……

  至于儿时在故乡的中秋月下砌成的小塔被毁的往事如今回忆起来,倒觉得很有趣。对那个抛掷鞭炮、故意毁掉我的小塔的小男孩,我一点也不记恨。我想,假如有一天我有机会再见到那个男孩(如今,该是个中年汉子了吧),我们可能会有很多话要谈,我倒想问问他,如果我再砌一座属于我的小塔,你还会把它毁掉吗?

1.为什么童年时砌的小小的塔,当时在小孩的眼里“像是很高、很大”?

_____________________________________________

2.用横线在文中画出描写小塔明亮、美丽的语句;用曲线画出表现“我”兴奋的语句。

_____________________________________________

3.“中秋节过后的两三天,我跟别的孩子一样,怅然地拆去了小塔。”请结合句义,说明“怅然”在句中的意思。

_____________________________________________

4.童年时,“我”对毁掉“我”的小塔的男孩是“怨恨”的,如今“我”对那个小男孩一点也不“记恨”。“怨恨”和“记恨”可不可以调换一下位置?为什么?

_____________________________________________

5.如果将结尾改为“我倒想问问他,童年时,你为什么要毁掉那座属于我的小塔”。可以吗?为什么?

_____________________________________________

答案

1.(1)童年时砌的小塔与“我”差不多同等高度。

(2)砌塔时“我”付出了辛苦的劳动,“费不少力气”。

(3)这座小塔充满了“我”对幸福,欢乐的向往、期望。

2.小塔:“升起阵阵青蓝色的火焰,烧得通红的瓦片。”“我”:“我鼓着掌在塔前雀跃、蹦跳,两条辫子轻轻地在我的肩上左右摇晃。”

3.不情愿。

4.不可以调换。“怨恨”指对人或事物强烈的不满。“记恨”是把对别人的怨恨记在心里。童年时,小男孩毁掉了“我”的小塔,用“怨恨”准确表达了“我”不满的心理。如今,是说对过去发生的事的感受,只能用“记恨”才准确表达“我”的心理。

5.不可以。因为:①上文说“我一点也不记恨”,②小塔仍然是“我”心中的期望。

单项选择题
填空题

"Universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here," wrote the Victorian stage Thomas Carlyle. Well, not any more it is not.

Suddenly, Britain looks to have fallen out with its favourite historical form. This could be no more than a passing literary craze, but it also points to a broader truth about how we now approach the past: less concerned with learning from forefathers and more interested in feeling their pain. Today, we want empathy, not inspiration.

From the earliest days of the Renaissance, the writing of history meant recounting the exemplary lives of great men. In 1337, Petrarch began work on his rambling writing De Viris Illustribus—On Famous Men, highlighting the virtus (or virtue) of classical heroes. Petrarch celebrated their greatness in conquering fortune and rising to the top. This was the biographical tradition which Niccolo Machiavelli turned on its head. In The Prince, the championed cunning, ruthlessness, and boldness, rather than virtue, mercy and justice, as the skills of successful leaders.

Over time, the attributes of greatness shifted. The Romantics commemorated the leading painters and authors of their day, stressing the uniqueness of the artist’s personal experience rather than public glory. By contrast, the Victorian author Samual Smiles wrote Self-Help as a catalogue of the worthy lives of engineers, industrialists and explores. "The valuable examples which they furnish of the power of self-help, if patient purpose, resolute working and steadfast integrity, issuing in the formulation of truly noble and many character, exhibit," wrote Smiles. "what it is in the power of each to accomplish for himself" His biographies of James Walt, Richard Arkwright and Josiah Wedgwood were held up as beacons to guide the working man through his difficult life.

This was all a bit bourgeois for Thomas Carlyle, who focused his biographies on the truly heroic lives of Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon Bonaparte. These epochal figures represented lives hard to imitate, but to be acknowledged as possessing higher authority than mere mortals.

Communist Manifesto. For them, history did nothing, it possessed no immense wealth nor waged battles: "It is man, real, living man who does all that. "And history should be the story of the masses and their record of struggle. As such, it needed to appreciate the economic realities, the social contexts and power relations in which each epoch stood. For: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. "

This was the tradition which revolutionized our appreciation of the past. In place of Thomas Carlyle, Britain nurtured Christopher Hill, EP Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm. History from below stood alongside biographies of great men. Whole new realms of understanding—from gender to race to cultural studies—were opened up as scholars unpicked the multiplicity of lost societies. And it transformed public history too: downstairs became just as fascinating as upstairs.

 

[A] emphasized the virtue of classical heroes.
41. i Petrarch[B] highlighted the public glory of the leading artists.
42. Niccolo Machiavelli[C] focused on epochal figures whose lives were hard to imitate.
43. Samuel Smiles[D] opened up new realms of understanding the great men in history.
44. Thomas Carlyle[E] held that history should be the story of the masses and their record ofstruggle.
45. Marx and Engels[F] dismissed virtue as unnecessary for successful leaders.
 [G] depicted the worthy lives of engineer industrialists and explorers.

45()