While the best sixteenth-century Renaissance scholars mastered the classics of ancient Roman literature in the original Latin and understood them in their original historical context, most of the scholar's educated contemporaries knew the classics only from school lessons on selected Latin texts. These were chosen by Renaissance teachers after much deliberation, for works written by and for the sophisticated adults of pagan Rome were not always considered suitable for the Renaissance young: the central Roman classics refused (as classics often do) to teach appropriate morality and frequently suggested the opposite. Teachers accordingly made students' needs, not textual and historical accuracy, their supreme interest, chopping dangerous texts into short phrases, and using these to impart lessons extemporaneously on a variety of subjects, from syntax to science. Thus I believe that a modern reader cannot know the associations that a line of ancient Roman poetry or prose had for any particular educated sixteenth-century reader. => 我的理解: 16世纪文艺复兴的学者自己受教育时, 他们研究的罗马经典文学未经筛选, 原汁原味.但是当他们把经典教给学生时,删除了跟异教徒有关不恰当的部分,因此现在学生 学习到的只是片段的知识,散乱在各学科间.主旨是"文艺复兴学者"与"现在学生"两者学习 的不同 1. The passage is primarily concerned with discussing the A.unsuitability of the Roman classics for the teaching of morality B.approach that sixteenth-century scholars took to learning the Roman classics C.effect that the Roman classics had on educated people in the Renaissance D.way in which the Roman classics were taught in the sixteenth-century E.contrast between the teaching of the Roman classics in the Renaissance and the teaching of the Roman classics today => 答案是D 可是我认为E也正确 甚至比D更适合 因为有讲到两者的比较?另外D正确的话 D与B的差别为何? 我也看不太出来@@ 很好奇我是哪里理解错误,请各位版友多多指教,谢谢!! --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 50.198.14.125 ※ 文章网址: http://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/GRE/M.1409945233.A.C47.html ※ 编辑: thousandfish (50.198.14.125), 09/06/2014 23:42:19