One resource was left her, by employing which it was possible, at the last moment, to avert2 for a few months the frightful3 prospect4 of the torture and the stake. The unfortunate girl might stoop, on her side, to use the weapons of deception5 against her enemies, and might defame her own character by pleading pregnancy6. That one miserable7 alternative was all that now remained; and, in the extremity8 of mortal terror, with the shadow of the executioner on her prison, and with the agony of approaching torment9 and death at her heart, the forlorn creature accepted it. If the law of strict morality must judge her in this matter without consideration, and condemn10 her without appeal, the spirit of Christian11 mercy — remembering how sorely she was tried, remembering the frailty12 of our common humanity, remembering the warning word which forbade us to judge one another — may open its sanctuary13 of tenderness to a sister in affliction, and may offer her the tribute of its pity, without limit and without blame.
The plea of pregnancy was admitted, and, at the eleventh hour, the period of the execution was deferred14. On the day when her ashes were to have been cast to the winds, she was still in her prison, a living, breathing woman. Her limbs were spared from the torture, her body was released from the stake, until the twenty-ninth of July, seventeen hundred and eighty-two. On that day her reprieve15 was to end, and the execution of her sentence was absolutely to take place.
During the short period of grace which was now to elapse, the situation of the friendless girl, accused of such incredible crimes and condemned16 to so awful a doom17, was discussed far and wide in French society. The case became notorious beyond the limits of Caen. The report of it spread by way of Rouen, from mouth to mouth, till it reached Paris; and from Paris it penetrated18 into the palace of the King at Versailles. That unhappy man, whose dreadful destiny it was to pay the penalty which the long and noble endurance of the French people had too mercifully abstained19 from inflicting20 on his guilty predecessors22, had then lately mounted the fatal steps of the throne. Louis the Sixteenth was sovereign of France when the story of the poor servant-girl obtained its first court circulation at Versailles. The conduct of the King, when the main facts of Marie’s case came to his ears, did all honor to his sense of duty and his sense of justice. He instantly dispatched his royal order to suspend the execution of the sentence. The report of Marie’s fearful situation had reached him so short a time before the period appointed for her death, that the royal mandate24 was only delivered to the Parliament of Rouen on the twenty-sixth of July.
The girl’s life now hung literally25 on a thread. An accident happening to the courier, any delay in fulfilling the wearisome official formalities proper to the occasion — and the execution might have taken its course. The authorities at Rouen, feeling that the King’s interference implied a rebuke26 of their inconsiderate confirmation27 of the Caen sentence, did their best to set themselves right for the future by registering the royal order on the day when they received it. The next morning, the twenty-seventh, it was sent to Caen; and it reached the authorities there on the twenty-eighth.
That twenty-eighth of July, seventeen hundred and eighty-two, fell on a Sunday. Throughout the day and night the order lay in the office unopened. Sunday was a holiday, and Procurator Revel28 was not disposed to occupy it by so much as five minutes’ performance of week-day work. On Monday, the twenty-ninth, the crowd assembled to see the execution. The stake was set up, the soldiers were called out, the executioner was ready. All the preliminary horror of the torturing and burning, was suffered to darken round the miserable prisoner, before the wretches29 in authority saw fit to open the message of mercy and to deliver it at the prison-gate.
She was now saved, as if by a miracle, for the second time! But the cell door was still closed on her. The only chance of ever opening it — the only hope of publicly asserting her innocence30, lay in appealing to the King’s justice by means of a written statement of her case, presenting it exactly as it stood in all its details, from the beginning at Madame Duparc’s to the end in the prison of Caen. The production of such a document as this was beset31 with obstacles; the chief of them being the difficulty of gaining access to the voluminous reports of the evidence given at the trial, which were only accessible in those days to persons professionally connected with the courts of law. If Marie’s case was to be placed before the King, no man in France but a lawyer could undertake the duty with the slightest chance of serving the interests of the prisoner and the interests of truth.
In this disgraceful emergency a man was found to plead the girl’s cause, whose profession secured to him the privilege of examining the evidence against her. This man — a barrister, named Lecauchois — not only undertook to prepare a statement of the case from the records of the court — but further devoted33 himself to collecting money for Marie, from all the charitably disposed inhabitants of the town. It is to be said to his credit that he honestly faced the difficulties of his task, and industriously34 completed the document which he had engaged to furnish. On the other hand, it must be recorded to his shame, that his motives35 were interested throughout, and that with almost incredible meanness he paid himself for the employment of his time by putting the greater part of the sum which he had collected for his client in his own pocket. With her one friend, no less than with all her enemies, it seems to have been Marie’s hard fate to see the worst side of human nature, on every occasion when she was brought into contact with her fellow-creatures.
The statement pleading for the revision of Marie’s trial was sent to Paris. An eminent36 barrister at the Court of Requests framed a petition from it, the prayer of which was granted by the King. Acting37 under the royal order, the judges of the Court of Requests furnished themselves with the reports of the evidence as drawn38 up at Caen; and after examining the whole case, unanimously decided39 that there was good and sufficient reason for the revision of the trial. The order to that effect was not issued to the Parliament of Rouen before the twenty-fourth of May, seventeen hundred and eighty-four — nearly two years after the King’s mercy had saved Marie from the executioner. Who can say how slowly that long, long time must have passed to the poor girl who was still languishing40 in her prison?
The Rouen Parliament, feeling that it was held accountable for its proceedings42 to a high court of judicature, acting under the direct authority of the King himself, recognized at last, readily enough, that the interests of its own reputation and the interests of rigid43 justice were now intimately bound up together; and applied44 itself impartially45, on this occasion at least, to the consideration of Marie’s case.
As a necessary consequence of this change of course, the authorities of Caen began, for the first time, to feel seriously alarmed for themselves. If the Parliament of Rouen dealt fairly by the prisoner, a fatal exposure of the whole party would be the certain result. Under these circumstances, Procurator Revel and his friends sent a private requisition to the authorities at Rouen, conjuring46 them to remember that the respectability of their professional brethren was at stake, and suggesting that the legal establishment of Marie’s innocence was the error of all others which it was now most urgently necessary to avoid. The Parliament of Rouen was, however, far too cautious, if not too honest, to commit itself to such an atrocious proceeding41 as was here plainly indicated. After gaining as much time as possible by prolonging their deliberations to the utmost, the authorities resolved on adopting a middle course, which, on the one hand should not actually establish the prisoner’s innocence, and, on the other, should not publicly expose the disgraceful conduct of the prosecutor47 at Caen. Their decree, not issued until the twelfth of March, seventeen hundred and eighty-five, annulled48 the sentence of Procurator Revel on technical grounds; suppressed the further publication of the statement of Marie’s case, which had been drawn out by the advocate Lecauchois, as libelous49 toward Monsieur Revel and Madame Duparc; and announced that the prisoner was ordered to remain in confinement50 until more ample information could be collected relating to the doubtful question of her innocence or her guilt21. No such information was at all likely to present itself (more especially after the only existing narrative51 of the case had been suppressed); and the practical effect of the decree, therefore, was to keep Marie in prison for an indefinite period, after she had been illegally deprived of her liberty already from August, seventeen hundred and eighty-one, to March, seventeen hundred and eighty-five. Who shall say that the respectable classes did not take good care of their respectability on the eve of the French Revolution!
Marie’s only hope of recovering her freedom, and exposing her unscrupulous enemies to the obliquy and the punishment which they richly deserved, lay in calling the attention of the higher tribunals of the capital to the cruelly cunning decree of the Parliament of Rouen. Accordingly, she once more petitioned the throne. The King referred the document to his council; and the council issued an order submitting the Rouen decree to the final investigation52 of the Parliament of Paris.
At last, then, after more than three miserable years of imprisonment53, the victim of Madame Duparc and Procurator Revel had burst her way through all intervening obstacles of law and intricacies of office, to the judgment-seat of that highest law court in the country, which had the final power of ending her long sufferings and of doing her signal justice on her adversaries54 of all degrees. The Parliament of Paris was now to estimate the unutterable wrong that had been inflicted55 on her; and the eloquent56 tongue of one of the first advocates of that famous bar was to plead her cause openly before God, the King, and the country.
The pleading of Monsieur Fournel (Marie’s counsel) before the Parliament of Paris, remains on record. At the outset, he assumes the highest ground for the prisoner. He disclaims57 all intention of gaining her liberty by taking the obvious technical objections to the illegal and irregular sentences of Caen and Rouen. He insists on the necessity of vindicating58 her innocence legally and morally before the world, and of obtaining the fullest compensation that the law allows for the merciless injuries which the original prosecution59 had inflicted on his client. In pursuance of this design, he then proceeds to examine the evidence of the alleged60 poisoning and the alleged robbery, step by step, pointing out in the fullest detail the monstrous61 contradictions and improbabilities which have been already briefly62 indicated in this narrative. The course thus pursued, with signal clearness and ability, leads, as every one who has followed the particulars of the case from the beginning will readily understand, to a very serious result. The arguments for the defense63 cannot assert Marie’s innocence without shifting the whole weight of suspicion, in the matter of Monsieur De Beaulieu’s death by poisoning, on to the shoulders of her mistress, Madame Duparc.
It is necessary, in order to prepare the reader for the extraordinary termination of the proceedings, to examine this question of suspicion in some of its most striking details.
The poisoning of Monsieur De Beaulieu may be accepted, in consideration of the medical evidence, as a proved fact, to begin with. The question that remains is, whether that poisoning was accidental or premeditated. In either case, the evidence points directly at Madame Duparc, and leads to the conclusion that she tried to shift the blame of the poisoning (if accidental), and the guilt of it (if premeditated), from herself to her servant.
Suppose the poisoning to have been accidental. Suppose arsenic64 to have been purchased for some legitimate65 domestic purpose, and to have been carelessly left, in one of the salt-cellars, on the dresser — who salts the hasty-pudding? Madame Duparc. Who — assuming that the dinner next day really contained some small portion of poison, just enough to swear by — prepared that dinner? Madame Duparc and her daughter, while the servant was asleep. Having caused the death of her father, and having produced symptoms of illness in herself and her guests, by a dreadful accident, how does the circumstantial evidence further show that Madame Duparc tried to fix the responsibility of that accident on her servant before she openly charged the girl with poisoning?
In the first place, Madame Duparc is the only one of the dinner-party who attributes the general uneasiness to poison. She not only does this, but she indicates the kind of poison used, and declares in the kitchen that it is burned — so as to lead to the inference that the servant, who has removed the dishes, has thrown some of the poisoned food on the fire. Here is a foregone conclusion on the subject of arsenic in Madame Duparc’s mind, and an inference in connection with it, directed at the servant by Madame Duparc’s lips. In the second place, if any trust at all is to be put in the evidence touching66 the finding of arsenic on or about Marie’s person, that trust must be reposed67 in the testimony68 of Surgeon Hébert, who first searched the girl. Where does he find the arsenic and the bread-crumbs? In Marie’s pockets. Who takes the most inexplicably69 officious notice of such a trifle as Marie’s dress, at the most shockingly inappropriate time, when the father of Madame Duparc lies dead in the house? Madame Duparc herself. Who tells Marie to take off her Sunday pockets, and sends her into her own room (which she herself has not entered during the night, and which has been open to the intrusion of any one else in the house) to tie on the very pockets in which the arsenic is found? Madame Duparc. Who put the arsenic into the pockets? Is it jumping to a conclusion to answer once more — Madame Duparc?
Thus far we have assumed that the mistress attempted to shift the blame of a fatal accident on to the shoulders of the servant. Do the facts bear out that theory, or do they lead to the suspicion that the woman was a parricide70, and that she tried to fix on the friendless country girl the guilt of her dreadful crime?
If the poisoning of the hasty-pudding (to begin with) was accidental, the salting of it, through which the poisoning was, to all appearance, effected, must have been a part of the habitual71 cookery of the dish. So far, however, from this being the case, Madame Duparc had expressly warned her servant not to use salt; and only used the salt (or the arsenic) herself, after asking a question which implied a direct contradiction of her own directions, and the inconsistency of which she made no attempt whatever to explain, Again, when her father was taken ill, if Madame Duparc had been only the victim of an accident, would she have remained content with no better help than that of an apothecary’s boy? would she not have sent, as her father grew worse, for the best medical assistance which the town afforded? The facts show that she summoned just help enough barely to save appearances, and no more.
The facts show that she betrayed a singular anxiety to have the body laid out as soon as possible after life was extinct. The facts show that she maintained an unnatural72 composure on the day of the death. These are significant circumstances. They speak for themselves independently of the evidence given afterward73, in which she and her child contradicted each other as to the time that elapsed when the old man had eaten his fatal meal before he was taken ill. Add to these serious facts the mysterious disappearance74 from the house of the eldest75 son, which was never accounted for; and the rumor76 of purchased poison, which was never investigated. Consider, besides, whether the attempt to sacrifice the servant’s life be not more consistent with the ruthless determination of a criminal, than with the terror of an innocent woman who shrinks from accepting the responsibility of a frightful accident — and determine, at the same time, whether the infinitesimal amount of injury done by the poisoned dinner can be most probably attributed to lucky accident, or to premeditated doctoring of the dishes with just arsenic enough to preserve appearances, and to implicate77 the servant without too seriously injuring the company on whom she waited. Give all these serious considerations their due weight; then look back to the day of Monsieur De Beaulieu’s death, and say if Madame Duparc was the victim of a dreadful accident, or the perpetrator of an atrocious crime!
That she was one or the other, and that, in either case, she was the originator of the vile32 conspiracy78 against her servant which these pages disclose, was the conclusion to which Monsieur Fournel’s pleading on his client’s behalf inevitably79 led. That pleading satisfactorily demonstrated Marie’s innocence of poisoning and theft, and her fair claim to the fullest legal compensation for the wrong inflicted on her. On the twenty-third of May, seventeen hundred and eighty-six, the Parliament of Paris issued its decree, discharging her from the remotest suspicion of guilt, releasing her from her long imprisonment, and authorizing80 her to bring an action for damages against the person or persons who had falsely accused her of murder and theft. The truth had triumphed, and the poor servant-girl had found laws to protect her at last.
Under these altered circumstances, what happened to Madame Duparc? What happened to Procurator Revel and his fellow-conspirators? What happened to the authorities of the Parliament of Rouen? Nothing.
The premonitory rumblings of that great earthquake of nations which history calls the French Revolution were, at this time, already beginning to make themselves heard; and any public scandal which affected81 the wealthier and higher classes involved a serious social risk, the importance of which no man in France could then venture to estimate. If Marie claimed the privilege which a sense of justice, or rather a sense of decency82, had forced the Parliament of Paris to concede to her — and, through her counsel, she did claim it — the consequences of the legal inquiry83 into her case which her demand for damages necessarily involved would probably be the trying of Madame Duparc, either for parricide or for homicide by misadventure; the dismissal of Procurator Revel from the functions which he had disgracefully abused; and the suspension from office of the authorities at Caen and Rouen, who had in various ways forfeited84 public confidence by aiding and abetting85 him.
Here, then, was no less a prospect in view than the disgrace of a respectable family, and the dishonoring of the highest legal functionaries86 of two important provincial87 towns! And for what end was the dangerous exposure to be made? Merely to do justice to the daughter of a common day-laborer, who had been illegally sentenced to torture and burning, and illegally confined in prison for nearly five years. To make a wholesale89 sacrifice of her superiors, no matter how wicked they might be, for the sake of giving a mere88 servant-girl compensation for the undeserved obloquy90 and misery91 of many years, was too preposterous92 and too suicidal an act of justice to be thought of for a moment. Accordingly, when Marie was prepared to bring her action for damages, the lawyers laid their heads together in the interests of society. It was. found possible to put her out of court at once and forever, by taking a technical objection to the proceedings in which she was plaintiff at the very outset. This disgraceful means of escape once discovered, the girl’s guilty persecutors instantly took advantage of it. She was formally put out of court, without the possibility of any further appeal. Procurator Revel and the other authorities retained their distinguished93 legal positions; and the question of the guilt or innocence of Madame Duparc, in the matter of her father’s death, remains a mystery which no man can solve to this day.
After recording94 this scandalous termination of the legal proceedings, it is gratifying to be able to conclude the story of Marie’s unmerited sufferings with a picture of her after-life which leaves an agreeable impression on the mind.
If popular sympathy, after the servant-girl’s release from prison, could console her for the hard measure of injustice95 under which she had suffered so long and so unavailingly, that sympathy was now offered to her heartily96 and without limit. She became quite a public character in Paris. The people followed her in crowds wherever she went. A subscription97 was set on foot, which, for the time at least, secured her a comfortable independence. Friends rose up in all directions to show her such attention as might be in their power; and the simple country girl, when she was taken to see the sights of Paris, actually beheld98 her own name placarded in the showmen’s bills, and her presence advertised as the greatest attraction that could be offered to the public. When, in due course of time, all this excitement had evaporated, Marie married prosperously, and the Government granted her its license99 to open a shop for the sale of stamped papers. The last we hear of her is, that she was a happy wife and mother, and that she performed every duty of life in such a manner as to justify100 the deep interest which had been universally felt for her by the people of France.
Her story is related here, not only because it seemed to contain some elements of interest in itself, but also because the facts of which it is composed may claim to be of some little historical importance, as helping101 to expose the unendurable corruptions102 of society in France before the Revolution. It may not be amiss for those persons whose historical point of view obstinately103 contracts its range to the Reign23 of Terror, to look a little further back — to remember that the hard case of oppression here related had been, for something like one hundred years, the case (with minor104 changes of circumstance) of the forlorn many against the powerful few all over France — and then to consider whether there was not a reason and a necessity, a dreadful last necessity, for the French Revolution. That Revolution has expiated105, and is still expiating106, its excesses, by political failures, which all the world can see. But the social good which it indisputably effected remains to this day. Take, as an example, the administration of justice in France at the present time. Whatever its shortcomings may still be, no innocent Frenchwoman could be treated now as an innocent Frenchwoman was once treated at a period so little remote from our own time as the end of the last century.
The End
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
avert
|
|
| v.防止，避免；转移(目光、注意力等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
deception
|
|
| n.欺骗，欺诈；骗局，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
pregnancy
|
|
| n.怀孕，怀孕期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
extremity
|
|
| n.末端，尽头；尽力；终极；极度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
torment
|
|
| n.折磨；令人痛苦的东西(人)；vt.折磨；纠缠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
frailty
|
|
| n.脆弱；意志薄弱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
sanctuary
|
|
| n.圣所，圣堂，寺庙；禁猎区，保护区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
deferred
|
|
| adj.延期的，缓召的v.拖延，延缓，推迟( defer的过去式和过去分词 )；服从某人的意愿，遵从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
reprieve
|
|
| n.暂缓执行（死刑）；v.缓期执行；给…带来缓解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
doom
|
|
| n.厄运，劫数；v.注定，命定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
penetrated
|
|
| adj. 击穿的，鞭辟入里的 动词penetrate的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
abstained
|
|
| v.戒（尤指酒），戒除( abstain的过去式和过去分词 )；弃权（不投票） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
inflicting
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
mandate
|
|
| n.托管地；命令，指示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
rebuke
|
|
| v.指责，非难，斥责 [反]praise | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
revel
|
|
| vi.狂欢作乐，陶醉；n.作乐，狂欢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
wretches
|
|
| n.不幸的人( wretch的名词复数 )；可怜的人；恶棍；坏蛋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
beset
|
|
| v.镶嵌；困扰，包围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
vile
|
|
| adj.卑鄙的，可耻的，邪恶的；坏透的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
industriously
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
languishing
|
|
| a. 衰弱下去的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
impartially
|
|
| adv.公平地，无私地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
conjuring
|
|
| n.魔术 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
prosecutor
|
|
| n.起诉人；检察官，公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
annulled
|
|
| v.宣告无效( annul的过去式和过去分词 )；取消；使消失；抹去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
libelous
|
|
| adj.败坏名誉的，诽谤性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
confinement
|
|
| n.幽禁，拘留，监禁；分娩；限制，局限 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
eloquent
|
|
| adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
disclaims
|
|
| v.否认( disclaim的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
vindicating
|
|
| v.澄清（某人/某事物）受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的现在分词 )；表明或证明（所争辩的事物）属实、正当、有效等；维护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
arsenic
|
|
| n.砒霜，砷；adj.砷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
reposed
|
|
| v.将（手臂等）靠在某人（某物）上( repose的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
inexplicably
|
|
| adv.无法说明地，难以理解地，令人难以理解的是 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
parricide
|
|
| n.杀父母；杀亲罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
habitual
|
|
| adj.习惯性的；通常的，惯常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
afterward
|
|
| adv.后来；以后 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
disappearance
|
|
| n.消失，消散，失踪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
eldest
|
|
| adj.最年长的，最年老的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
rumor
|
|
| n.谣言，谣传，传说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
implicate
|
|
| vt.使牵连其中，涉嫌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
authorizing
|
|
| 授权，批准，委托( authorize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
decency
|
|
| n.体面，得体，合宜，正派，庄重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
forfeited
|
|
| （因违反协议、犯规、受罚等）丧失，失去( forfeit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
abetting
|
|
| v.教唆（犯罪）( abet的现在分词 )；煽动；怂恿；支持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
functionaries
|
|
| n.公职人员，官员( functionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
wholesale
|
|
| n.批发；adv.以批发方式；vt.批发，成批出售 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
obloquy
|
|
| n.斥责，大骂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
preposterous
|
|
| adj.荒谬的，可笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
recording
|
|
| n.录音，记录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
heartily
|
|
| adv.衷心地，诚恳地，十分，很 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
subscription
|
|
| n.预订，预订费，亲笔签名，调配法，下标（处方） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
beheld
|
|
| v.看，注视( behold的过去式和过去分词 )；瞧；看呀；（叙述中用于引出某人意外的出现）哎哟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
helping
|
|
| n.食物的一份&adj.帮助人的，辅助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
corruptions
|
|
| n.堕落( corruption的名词复数 )；腐化；腐败；贿赂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
obstinately
|
|
| ad.固执地，顽固地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
expiated
|
|
| v.为（所犯罪过）接受惩罚，赎（罪）( expiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
expiating
|
|
| v.为（所犯罪过）接受惩罚，赎（罪）( expiate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |