研究所、轉學考(插大)、學士後-英文題庫下載題庫

上一題
IV. Reading Comprehension
Questions 41-50: Choose the BEST answer to each question below according to what is stated and implied in the following passages.
       There is a quality of cohesiveness about the Roman world that applied neither to Greece nor perhaps to any other civilization, ancient or modern. Like the stones of a Roman wall, which were held together both by the regularity of the design and by that peculiarly powerful Roman cement, so the various parts of the Roman realm were bonded into a massive, monolithic entity by physical, organizational, and psychological controls. The physical bonds included the network of military garrisons, which were stationed in every province, and the network of stone-built roads that linked the provinces with Rome. The organizational bonds were based on the common principles of law and administration and on the universal army of officials who enforced common standards of conduct. The psychological controls were built on fear and punishment—on the absolute certainty that anyone or anything that threatened the authority of Rome would be utterly destroyed.
       The source of Roman obsession with unity and cohesion may well have been the pattern of Rome’s early development. Whereas Greece had grown from scores of scattered cities, Rome grew from one single organism. While the Greek world had expanded along the Mediterranean sea lanes, the Roman world was assembled by territorial conquest. Of course, the contrast is not quite so stark: in Alexander the Great, the Greeks had found the greatest territorial conqueror of all time, and the Romans, once they moved outside Italy, did not fail to learn the lessons of sea power. Yet the essential difference is undeniable. The key to the Greek world lay in its high-powered ships; the key to Roman power lay in its marching legions. The Greeks were wedded to the sea; the Romans, to the land. The Greek was a sailor at heart; the Roman, a landsman.
       Certainly, in trying to explain the Roman phenomenon, one would have to place great emphasis on this almost animal instinct for the territorial imperative. Roman priorities lay in the organization, exploitation, and defense of their territory. In all probability, it was the fertile plain of Latium, where the Latins who founded Rome originated, that created the habits and skills of landed settlement, landed property, landed economy, landed administration, and a land-based society. From this arose the Roman genius for military organization and orderly government. In turn, a deep attachment to the land and to the stability of rural life fostered the Roman virtues: gravitas, a sense of responsibility; pietas, a sense of devotion to family and country; and justitia, a sense of the natural order.
       Modern attitudes to Roman civilization range from the infinitely impressed to the thoroughly disgusted. As always, there are the power worshippers, especially among historians, who are predisposed to admire whatever is strong and who feel more attracted to the might of Rome than to the subtlety of Greece. At the same time, there is a solid body of opinion that dislikes Rome. For many, Rome is, at best, the imitator and the continuator of Greece on a larger scale. Greek civilization had quality; Rome, mere quantity. Greece was original; Rome, derivative. Greece had style; Rome had money. Greece was the inventor; Rome, the research and development division. Such indeed was the opinion of some of the more intellectual Romans. “Had the Greeks held novelty in such disdain as we,” asked Horace in his Epistles, “what work of ancient date would now exist?” 
       Rome’s debt to Greece was enormous. The Romans adopted Greek religion and moral philosophy. In literature, Greek writers were consciously used as models by their Latin successors. It was absolutely accepted that an educated Roman should be fluent in Greek. In speculative philosophy and the sciences, the Romans made virtually no advance on early achievements. 
       Yet it would be wrong to suggest that Rome was somehow a junior partner in Greco-Roman civilization. The Roman genius was projected into new spheres—especially into those of law, military organization, administration, and engineering. Moreover, the tensions that arose within the Roman state produced literary and artistic sensibilities of the highest order. It was no accident that many leading Roman soldiers and statesmen were writers of high caliber.

【題組】42. What does Horace’s question in the passage imply about Roman attitudes?
(A) Romans valued novelty more than Greeks.
(B) Romans were more creative than Greeks.
(C) Romans preserved Greek works better than Greeks.
(D) Romans held novelty in disdain compared to Greeks.


答案:登入後觀看
難度: 計算中

10
 【站僕】摩檸Morning:有沒有達人來解釋一下?
倒數 5天 ,已有 1 則答案
Celeste 小五下 (2024/08/17):

Horace在文章中的問題暗示羅馬人相比希臘人對新奇事物持輕蔑態度。


正確答案是 (D)Romans held novelty in disdain compared to Greeks" 羅馬人相比希臘人對新奇事物持輕蔑態度。

文章第四段文字可以看得出來羅馬人對新奇事物的態度:

"Modern attitudes to Roman civilization range from the infinitely impressed to the thoroughly disgusted. As always, there are the power worshippers, especially among historians, who are predisposed to admire whatever is strong and who feel more attracted to the might of Rome than to the subtlety of Greece. At the same time, there is a solid body of opinion that dislikes Rome. For many, Rome is, at best, the imitator and the continuator of Greece on a larger scale. Greek civilization had quality; Rome, mere quantity. Greece was original; Rome, derivative. 翻譯
中文翻譯:現代對羅馬文明的態度從無限欽佩(infinitely impressed)徹底厭惡(thoroughly disgusted)。正如往常一樣,總有一些崇拜權力的人(power worshippers),尤其是歷史學家,他們傾向於(predisposed)欽佩任何強大的東西,並且更容易被羅馬的力量(might  of Rome)所吸引,而不是希臘的微妙(subtlety of Greece)。同時,有一部分人對羅馬持反感態度。對許多人來說,羅馬充其量只是希臘的模仿者和繼承者,只是規模更大。希臘文明有質量;羅馬,僅僅是數量。希臘是原創的;羅馬是衍生的。

這段文字提到,許多人認為羅馬只是希臘的模仿者和繼承者,希臘文明具有質量,而羅馬僅僅是數量。這暗示了羅馬人對新奇事物的態度,即他們更傾向於傳統和延續,而不是創新和新奇。這與選項 (D) "Romans held novelty in disdain compared to Greeks" 相符。
0個讚
檢舉


IV. Reading ComprehensionQuestions 41-50..-阿摩線上測驗