『新东方在线托福阅读』为托福考生准备了ETS托福TPO/Official 7 Passage 2阅读练习：According to paragraph 4, intellectual Romans such as Horace held which of the following opinions about their civilization?真题题目及答案解析，TPO/Official 7 Passage 2阅读原文范文音频翻译

托福TPO/Official 7 Passage 2阅读原文According to paragraph 4, intellectual Romans such as Horace held which of the following opinions about their civilization?题目答案及解析-新东方托福官方网校手机版

罗马的凝聚力是希腊或任何其他古今文明都所不曾具备的。

There is a quality of cohesiveness about the Roman world that applied neither to Greece nor perhaps to any other civilization, ancient or modern.

正如构成罗马城墙所用的砖石是依靠设计的规则以及极具粘合力的罗马水泥所搭建起来一样，罗马境内的各个部分也是由物理上的、组织的以及精神上的管控而凝聚成的一个巨大的单一体。

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.

物理上的管控包括由驻扎在每个省份的军事要塞所构成的网络，以及连接罗马与各个省份的由石头所铺建的道路网络。

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.

组织上的管控是基于普遍的法律和政府原则，以及执行共同行为准则的全体军官。

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.

精神上的管控则基于恐惧与惩罚——毋庸置疑的是任何威胁到罗马权威的人或事物都会被彻底消灭。

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.

罗马人对统一和凝聚力的痴迷或许源于罗马早期的发展模式。

The source of the Roman obsession with unity and cohesion may well have lain in the pattern of Rome’s early development.

希腊的发展依靠大量分散的城邦，而罗马的壮大则是源自单一体系。

Whereas Greece had grown from scores of scattered cities, Rome grew from one single organism.

希腊世界沿地中海航线扩展，而罗马帝国的扩张则来自对领土的征服。

While the Greek world had expanded along the Mediterranean sea lanes, the Roman world was assembled by territorial conquest.

当然，两者间的对比也不都是如此强烈：亚历山大大帝时期，希腊人成就了有史以来最伟大的领土征服者。同样当罗马人离开意大利后，他们通过学习也成为了海上强国。

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.

但是两者间的本质区别也是不可否认的。

Yet the essential difference is undeniable.

希腊世界的关键在于高性能的舰船，而罗马帝国的要诀在于不可阻挡的军团。

The key to the Greek world lay in its high-powered ships; the key to Roman power lay in its marching legions.

希腊人与海洋结缘，而罗马人则仰仗陆地。

The Greeks were wedded to the sea; the Romans, to the land.

从本质上讲，如果说希腊人是航海者，那么罗马人就是陆居人。

The Greek was a sailor at heart; the Roman, a landsman.

当然，在试图解释这一罗马现象时，就需要重点强调领域占有欲——这一动物的本能。

Certainly, in trying to explain the Roman phenomenon, one would have to place great emphasis on this almost animal instinct for the territorial imperative.

罗马人最优先考虑的就是对领地的组织、开发以及防御。

Roman priorities lay in the organization, exploitation, and defense of their territory.

十有八九是拉丁人最初建立罗马的地方——肥沃的拉丁姆平原造就了以陆地为基础的定居地、财产、经济、行政以及社会习惯和技能。

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.

由此唤醒了罗马人对军事组织和有序政府的天赋。

From this arose the Roman genius for military organization and orderly government.

反之，对土地的深深依附以及乡村生活所产生的稳定性孕育了罗马人的美德：gravitas（责任感），peitas（对家庭和国家的奉献），以及iustitia（对自然秩序的理解）。

In turn, a deep attachment to the land, and to the stability which rural life engenders, fostered the Roman virtues: gravitas, a sense of responsibility, peitas, a sense of devotion to family and country, and iustitia, a sense of the natural order.

现代人对罗马文明的态度既有无限的敬仰也有彻头彻尾的厌恶。

Modern attitudes to Roman civilization range from the infinitely impressed to the thoroughly disgusted.

像往常一样，对于权力的崇拜者，尤其是历史学家而言，他们倾向于崇拜强者，相对于希腊的微妙他们更容易被罗马的权力所吸引。

As always, there are the power worshippers, especially among historians, who are predisposed to admire whatever is strong, who feel more attracted to the might of Rome than to the subtlety of Greece.

与此同时，也有不少观点表达了对罗马的不满。

At the same time, there is a solid body of opinion that dislikes Rome.

在很多人看来，罗马充其量就是对希腊进行了大规模的模仿与继承。

For many, Rome is at best the imitator and the continuator of Greece on a larger scale.

希腊文明注重质量，而罗马文明仅仅是数量。

Greek civilization had quality; Rome, mere quantity.

希腊追求风格，而罗马拥有财富。

希腊是发明家，而罗马则是研发部门。

Greece was the inventor; Rome, the research and development division.

以上观点的确是出自一些学识渊博的罗马人。

Such indeed was the opinion of some of the more intellectual Romans.

贺拉斯在他的《书信集》中曾提问：“假如希腊人和我们一样轻视创新的话，那么会有怎样的古代作品保存至今呢？”

“Had the Greeks held novelty in such disdain as we,” asked Horace in his Epistles, “what work of ancient date would now exist?”

罗马对希腊的借鉴实在是数不胜数。

罗马人采纳了希腊人的宗教信仰和道德哲学。

The Romans adopted Greek religion and moral philosophy.

在文学方面，这些拉丁后裔有意识地将希腊作家们视为榜样。

In literature, Greek writers were consciously used as models by their Latin successors.

有教养的罗马人应该会说流利的希腊语，这一点在人们看来是司空见惯的。

It was absolutely accepted that an educated Roman should be fluent in Greek.

在思辨哲学和科学领域，罗马人在早期几乎没有取得什么成就。

In speculative philosophy and the sciences, the Romans made virtually no advance on early achievements.

但如果认为罗马在希腊罗马文明中处于劣势地位的话，这一观点是不正确的。

Yet it would be wrong to suggest that Rome was somehow a junior partner in Greco-Roman civilization.

罗马人的天赋体现在了新的领域——尤其是在法律、军事组织、行政管理以及工程方面。

The Roman genius was projected into new spheres—especially into those of law, military organization, administration, and engineering.

此外，罗马帝国内部所出现的矛盾也产生了最高品质的文学作品和艺术鉴赏力。

Moreover, the tensions that arose within the Roman state produced literary and artistic sensibilities of the highest order.

因此有不少杰出的罗马将士和政治家同样也是高水平的作家。

It was no accident that many leading Roman soldiers and statesmen were writers of high caliber.

Which of the sentences below best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence in the passage? Incorrect choices change the meaning in important ways or leave out essential information.

According to paragraph 1, all of the following are controls that held together the Roman world EXCEPT

The phrase “obsession with” in the passage is closest in meaning to

According to paragraph 2, which of the following was NOT characteristic of Rome's early development?

Why does the author mention “Alexander the Great” in the passage?

The word “fostered” in the passage is closest in meaning to

Paragraph 3 suggests which of the following about the people of Latium?

Paragraph 4 indicates that some historians admire Roman civilization because of

In paragraph 4, the author develops a description of Roman civilization by

According to paragraph 4, intellectual Romans such as Horace held which of the following opinions about their civilization?

The word “spheres” in the passage is closest in meaning to

Which of the following statements about leading Roman soldiers and statesmen is supported by paragraphs 5 and 6?

Look at the four squares  that indicate where the following sentence could be added to the passage. They esteem symbols of Roman power, such as the massive Colosseum.  Where would the sentence best fit? Click on a square  to add the sentence to the passage.

Directions: An introductory sentence for a brief summary of the passage is provided below. Complete the summary by selecting the THREE answer choices that express the most important ideas in the passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are not presented in the passage or are minor ideas in the passage. This question is worth 2 points.

Ancient Rome and Greece 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 the Roman obsession with unity and cohesion may well have lain in 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 which rural life engenders, fostered the Roman virtues: gravitas, a sense of responsibility, peitas, a sense of devotion to family and country, and iustitia, 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, 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.