新TOEFL阅读真题详解：Ancient Rome and Greece古代罗马和希腊

　　There is a quality of cohesiveness about the Roman world that applied neither to Greece norperhaps to any other civilization, ancient or modern. Like the stone of Roman wall, which wereheld together both by the regularity of the design and by that peculiarly powerful Romancement, so the various parts of the Roman realm were bonded into a massive, monolithicentity by physical, organizational, and psychological controls. The physical bonds included thenetwork of military garrisons, which were stationed in every province, and the network ofstone-built roads that linked the provinces with Rome. The organizational bonds were based onthe common principles of law and administration and on the universal army of officials whoenforced common standards of conduct. The psychological controls were built on fear andpunishment—on the absolute certainty that anyone or anything that threatened the authorityof Rome would be utterly destroyed.

　　The source of Roman obsession with unity and cohesion may well have lain in the pattern ofRome’s early development. Whereas Greece had grown from scores of scattered cities, Romegrew from one single organism. While the Greek world had expanded along the Mediterraneanseas lanes, the Roman world was assembled by territorial conquest. Of course, the contrast isnot quite so stark: in Alexander the Great the Greeks had found the greatest territorialconqueror of all time; and the Romans, once they moved outside Italy, did not fail to learn thelessons of sea power. Yet the essential difference is undeniable. The Key to the Greek worldlay in its high-powered ships; the key to Roman power lay in its marching legions. The Greekswere 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 greatemphasis on this almost instinct for the territorial imperative. Roman priorities lay in theorganization, exploitation, and defense of their territory. In all probability it was the fertileplain of Latium, where the Latins who founded Rome originated, that created the habits andskills of landed settlement, landed property, landed economy, landed administration, and aland-based society. From this arose the Roman genius for military organization and orderlygovernment. In turn, a deep attachment to the land, and to the stability which rural lifeengenders, fostered the Roman virtues: gravitas, a sense of responsibility, peitas, a sense ofdevotion to family and country, and iustitia, a sense of the natural order.

　　Modern attitudes to Roman civilization range from the infinitely impressed to the thoroughdisgusted. As always, there are the power worshippers, especially among historians, who arepredisposed to admire whatever is strong, who feel more attracted to the might of Rome thanto 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. Greekcivilization had quality; Rome, mere quantity. Greece was the inventor; Rome, the researchand development division. Such indeed was the opinion of some of the more intellectualRomans.” had the Greeks held novelty in such disdain as we,” asked Horace in his epistle, “what work of ancient date would now exist?”

　　Rome’s debt to Greece was enormous. The Romans adopted Greek religion and moralphilosophy. In literature, Greek writers were consciously used as models by their Latinsuccessors. It was absolutely accepted that an educated Roman should be fluent in Greek. Inspeculative philosophy and the sciences, the Romans made virtually no advance on earlyachievements.

　　Yet it would be wrong to suggest that Rome was somehow a junior partner in Greco-Romancivilization. The Roman genius was projected into new spheres—especially into those of law,military organization, administration, and engineering. Moreover, the tensions that arosewithin the Roman state produced literary and artistic sensibilities of the highest order. It wasno accident that many leading Roman soldiers and statesmen were writers of high caliber.

　　Paragraph 1 There is a quality of cohesiveness about the Roman world that applied neither toGreece nor perhaps to any other civilization, ancient or modern. Like the stone of Roman wall,which were held together both by the regularity of the design and by that peculiarly powerfulRoman cement, so the various parts of the Roman realm were bonded into a massive,monolithic entity by physical, organizational, and psychological controls. The physical bondsincluded the network of military garrisons, which were stationed in every province, and thenetwork of stone-built roads that linked the provinces with Rome. The organizational bondswere based on the common principles of law and administration and on the universal army ofofficials who enforced common standards of conduct. The psychological controls were built onfear and punishment—on the absolute certainty that anyone or anything that threatened theauthority of Rome would be utterly destroyed.

　　1. Which of the sentences below best expresses the essential information in the highlightedsentence in the passage? Incorrect choices change the meaning in important ways or leave outessential information.

　　○The regularity and power of stone walls inspired Romans attempting to unify the parts oftheir realm.

　　○Although the Romans used different types of designs when building their walls, they usedregular controls to maintain their realm.

　　○Several types of control united the Roman realm, just as design and cement held Romanwalls together.

　　○Romans built walls to unite the various parts of their realm into a single entity, which wascontrolled by powerful laws.

　　2. According to paragraph 1, all of the following are controls that held together the roman worldEXCEPT

　　○administrative and legal systems

　　○the presence of the military

　　○a common language

　　○transportation networks

　　Paragraph 2 The source of Roman obsession with unity and cohesion may well have lain in thepattern of Rome’s early development. Whereas Greece had grown from scores of scatteredcities, Rome grew from one single organism. While the Greek world had expanded along theMediterranean seas 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 greatestterritorial conqueror of all time; and the Romans, once they moved outside Italy, did not fail tolearn the lessons of sea power. Yet the essential difference is undeniable. The Key to theGreek 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.

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

　　○thinking about

　　○fixation on

　　○interest in

　　○attitude toward

　　4. According to paragraph 2, which of the following was NOT characteristic of Rome’s earlydevelopment?

　　○Expansion by sea invasion

　　○Territorial expansion

　　○Expansion from one original settlement

　　○Expansion through invading armies

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

　　○To acknowledge that Greek civilization also expanded by land conquest

　　○To compare Greek leaders to Roman leaders

　　○To give an example of Greek leader whom Romans studied

　　○To indicate the superior organization of the Greek military

　　参考答案：

　　1. ○ 3

　　2. ○ 3

　　3. ○ 2

　　4. ○ 1

　　5. ○ 1

　　参考译文

　　古代罗马和希腊

　　罗马具有一种希腊和其他任何不论是古代还是现在文明都不具备的凝聚力。罗马墙上的石块是靠设计的规整和特别有力的粘合剂而被固定在一起，与此相同罗马帝国的各个部分也因物理的、组织的和精神的束缚而组成了一个坚若磐石的整体。物理的束缚包括驻扎在每个省的戍卫军组成的网络和联通每个省与罗马的、用石头铺成的道路网络。组织上的羁绊则基于法律和行政的一般原则，以及遍布各地、统一行动的军政府。精神上的控制则建立在恐惧和惩罚上——毫无疑问的是任何人，或任何事，只要威胁到罗马的权威，都终将被摧毁。

　　罗马人对统一和团结的执着可能源自于罗马早期的发展模式。希腊是从二十几个分散的城邦发展而来，然而罗马则是从单个组织发展而来。希腊沿着地中海扩张，然而罗马帝国则通过领土的占领而壮大。当然，他们的对比也不是那么的**：在亚历山大大帝时期，希腊找到了他们整个历史中最大的领地征服者;罗马人虽曾一度迁移到意大利之外，但他们却没有荒废海洋的力量。然而，他们之间本质的区别是不容否认的。希腊世界的关键是强大的船队，而罗马帝国的关键则是他们行进的部队。希腊人死守着海洋，罗马人则死守着土地。希腊人是天生的水手，罗马人则是陆上强兵。

　　毫无疑问的是，为了解释罗马现象，人们应该极大的强调他们的几乎是本能的领土观念。罗马人的天性就在于对领土的组织、扩张和防御。完全也可能是Latium平原——拉丁人最初建立罗马的地方，早就了罗马人陆地定居、陆地财产、陆地经济、陆地行政以及以陆地基础社会的性格和技巧。在此基础上也产生了罗马人的军事组织和政府管理的才能，。反过来，对土地以及稳定乡村生活的深深的依恋孕育了罗马人的品格：gravitas，一种责任感;peitas，对家庭和国家的牺牲精神;以及iustitia，一种对自然秩序的使命。

　　现在人们对罗马的态度各异，从无限的崇尚到彻底的反感。经常有权威的崇拜者，尤其是在历史学家中，不由自主的推崇强大，他们对罗马权力的欣赏远胜于对希腊狡黠的欣赏。与此同时，有一种固化的观念厌恶罗马。对于很多人而言，罗马至多不过是对希腊更大规模的模仿和延续，希腊文明拥有质量，罗马则仅仅拥有数量。希腊是发明者，而罗马则是研究和发展的分支。这些实际上是一些高智商罗马人的观点。“难道希腊人创造出新的事物后，我们就会被认为是如此的微不足道吗?”Horace 在他的信件中问道“古时候的什么工作现在还存在呢?”

　　罗马受希腊影响很大。罗马人吸收了希腊人的宗教和伦理哲学。在文学上，希腊作家被下意识的当作他们拉丁后裔的模范。毋庸置疑的是一个受过教育的罗马人一定会讲流利的希腊语。在推理哲学和科学上，罗马人实际上没有超过前期希腊的成就。

　　然而如果认为罗马是希腊-罗马文化的晚辈那就错了。罗马的天才们突破了新的领域—尤其是在法律、军队的组织、管理学和工程学上。而且，由罗马国家内部产生的压力促使文学和艺术的造诣达到**水平。所以很多罗马的高级军官和政治家们都是高素质的作家。