Consider, for instance, that long-standing popular myth known as “the privacy of the home.” There is something repugnant in the idea of food cooked outside the home, even though served within it; still more in the going out of the family to eat, and more yet in 249the going out of separate individuals to eat. The limitless personal taste developed by “home cooking” fears that it will lose its own particular shade of brown on the bacon, its own hottest of hot cakes, its own corner biscuit.
This objection must be honestly faced, and admitted in some degree. A menu, however liberally planned by professional cooks, would not allow so much play for personal idiosyncrasy as do those prepared by the numerous individual cooks now serving us. There would be a far larger range of choice in materials, but not so much in methods of preparation and service. The difference would be like that between every man’s making his own coat or having his women servants make it for him, on the one hand, and his selecting one from many ready made or ordering it of his tailor, on the other.
In the regular professional service of food there would be a good general standard, and the work of specialists for special occasions. We have long seen this process going on in the steady increase of professionally prepared food, from the cheap eating-house to the fashionable caterer8, from the common “cracker” to the delicate “wafer.” “Home cooking,” robbed of its professional adjuncts, would fall a long way. We do not realize how far we have already progressed in this line, nor how fast we are going.
250One of the most important effects of a steady general standard of good food will be the elevation9 of the popular taste. We should acquire a cultivated appreciation10 of what is good food, far removed from the erratic11 and whimsical self-indulgence of the private table. Our only standard of taste in cooking is personal appetite and caprice. That we “like” a dish is enough to warrant full approval. But liking12 is only adaptation. Nature is forever seeking to modify the organism to the environment; and, when it becomes so modified, so adapted, the organism “likes” the environment. In the earlier form, “it likes me,” this derivation is plainer.
Each nation, each locality, each family, each individual, “likes,” in large measure, those things to which it has been accustomed. What else it might have liked, if it had had it, can never be known; but the slow penetration13 of new tastes and habits, the reluctant adoption14 of the potato, the tomato, maize15, and other new vegetables by old countries, show that it is quite possible to change a liking.
In the narrow range of family capacity to supply and of family ability to prepare our food, and in our exaggerated intensity16 of personal preference, we have grown very rigid17 in our little field of choice. We insist on the superiority of our own methods, and despise the 251methods of our neighbors, with a sublime18 ignorance of any higher standard of criticism than our own uneducated tastes. When we become accustomed from childhood to scientifically and artistically19 prepared foods, we shall grow to know what is good and to enjoy it, as we learn to know good music by hearing it.
As we learn to appreciate a wider and higher range of cooking, we shall also learn to care for simplicity21 in this art. Neither is attainable22 under our present system by the average person. As cooking becomes dissociated from the home, we shall gradually cease to attach emotions to it; and we shall learn to judge it impersonally23 upon a scientific and artistic20 basis. This will not, of course, prevent some persons’ having peculiar24 tastes; but these will know that they are peculiar, and so will their neighbors. It will not prevent, either, the woman who has a dilettante25 fondness for some branch of cookery, wherewith she loves to delight herself and her friends, from keeping a small cooking plant within reach, as she might a sewing-machine or a turning-lathe.
In regard to the eating of food we are still more opposed by the “privacy of the home” idea, and a marked—indeed, a pained—disinclination to dissociate that function from family life. To eat together does, of course, form 252a temporary bond. To establish a medium of communication between dissimilar persons, some common ground must be found,—some rite27, some game, some entertainment,—something that they can do together. And, if the persons desiring to associate have no other common ground than this physical function,—which is so common, indeed, that it includes not only all humanity, but all the animal kingdom,—then by all means let them seek that. On occasions of general social rejoicing to celebrate some event of universal importance, the feast will always be a natural and satisfying institution.
To the primitive28 husband with fighting for his industry, the primitive wife with domestic service for hers, the primitive children with no relation to their parents but the physical,—to such a common table was the only common tie; and the simplicity of their food furnished a medium that hurt no one. But in the higher individualization of modern life the process of eating is by no means the only common interest among members of a family, and by no means the best. The sweetest, tenderest, holiest memories of family life are not connected with the table, though many jovial29 and pleasant ones may be so associated. And on many an occasion of deep feeling, whether of joy or of pain, 253the ruthless averaging of the whole group three times a day at table becomes an unbearable30 strain. If good food suited to a wide range of needs were always attainable, a family could go and feast together when it chose or simply eat together when it chose; and each individual could go alone when he chose. This is not to be forced or hurried; but, with a steady supply of food, easy of access to all, the stomach need no longer be compelled to serve as a family tie.
We have so far held that the lower animals ate alone in their brutality31, and that man has made eating a social function, and so elevated it. The elevation is the difficult part to prove, when we look at humanity’s gross habits, morbid32 tastes, and deadly diseases, its artifice33, and its unutterable depravity of gluttony and intemperance34. The animals may be lower than we in their simple habit of eating what is good for them when they are hungry, but it serves their purpose well.
One result of our making eating a social function is that, the more elaborately we socialize it, the more we require at our feasts the service of a number of strangers absolutely shut out from social intercourse,—functionaries who do not eat with us, who do not talk with us, who must not by the twinkling of an eyelash show any interest in this performance, save to minister to 254the grosser needs of the occasion on a strictly36 commercial basis. Such extraneous37 presence must and does keep the conversation at one level. In the family without a servant both mother and father are too hard worked to make the meal a social success; and, as soon as servants are introduced, a limit is set to the range of conversation. The effect of our social eating, either in families or in larger groups, is not wholly good. It is well open to question whether we cannot, in this particular, improve our system of living.
When the cooking of the world is open to full development by those whose natural talent and patient study lead them to learn how better and better to meet the needs of the body by delicate and delicious combinations of the elements of nutrition, we shall begin to understand what food means to us, and how to build up the human body in sweet health and full vigor38. A world of pure, strong, beautiful men and women, knowing what they ought to eat and drink, and taking it when they need it, will be capable of much higher and subtler forms of association than this much-prized common table furnishes. The contented39 grossness of to-day, the persistent40 self-indulgence of otherwise intelligent adults, the fatness and leanness and feebleness, the whole train of food-made disorders41, together 255with all drug habits,—these morbid phenomena42 are largely traceable to the abnormal attention given to both eating and cooking, which must accompany them as family functions. When we detach them from this false position by untangling the knot of our sexuo-economic relation, we shall give natural forces a chance to work their own pure way in us, and make us better.
Our domestic privacy is held to be further threatened by the invasion of professional cleaners. We should see that a kitchenless home will require far less cleaning than is now needed, and that the daily ordering of one’s own room could be easily accomplished43 by the individual, when desired. Many would so desire, keeping their own rooms, their personal inner chambers44, inviolate45 from other presence than that of their nearest and dearest. Such an ideal of privacy may seem ridiculous to those who accept contentedly46 the gross publicity47 of our present method. Of all popular paradoxes48, none is more nakedly absurd than to hear us prate49 of privacy in a place where we cheerfully admit to our table-talk and to our door service—yes, and to the making of our beds and to the handling of our clothing—a complete stranger, a stranger not only by reason of new acquaintance and of the false view inevitable51 to new 256eyes let in upon our secrets, but a stranger by birth, almost always an alien in race, and, more hopeless still, a stranger by breeding, one who can never truly understand.
This stranger all of us who can afford it summon to our homes,—one or more at once, and many in succession. If, like barbaric kings of old or bloody52 pirates of the main, we cut their tongues out that they might not tell, it would still remain an irreconcilable53 intrusion. But, as it is, with eyes to see, ears to hear, and tongues to speak, with no other interests to occupy their minds, and with the retaliatory54 fling that follows the enforced silence of those who must not “answer back,”—with this observing and repeating army lodged55 in the very bosom56 of the family, may we not smile a little bitterly at our fond ideal of “the privacy of the home”? The swift progress of professional sweepers, dusters, and scrubbers, through rooms where they were wanted, and when they were wanted, would be at least no more injurious to privacy than the present method. Indeed, the exclusion57 of the domestic servant, and the entrance of woman on a plane of interest at once more social and more personal, would bring into the world a new conception of the sacredness of privacy, a feeling for the rights of the individual as yet unknown.
Closely connected with the question of cleaning 257is that of household decoration and furnishing. The economically dependent woman, spending the accumulating energies of the race in her small cage, has thrown out a tangled58 mass of expression, as a large plant throws out roots in a small pot. She has crowded her limited habitat with unlimited59 things,—things useful and unuseful, ornamental60 and unornamental, comfortable and uncomfortable; and the labor35 of her life is to wait upon these things, and keep them clean.
The free woman, having room for full individual expression in her economic activities and in her social relation, will not be forced so to pour out her soul in tidies and photograph holders61. The home will be her place of rest, not of uneasy activity; and she will learn to love simplicity at last. This will mean better sanitary62 conditions in the home, more beauty and less work. And the trend of the new conditions, enhancing the value of real privacy and developing the sense of beauty, will be toward a delicate loveliness in the interiors of our houses, which the owners can keep in order without undue63 exertion64.
Besides these comparatively external conditions, there are psychic65 effects produced upon the family by the sexuo-economic relation not altogether favorable to our best growth. One 258is the levelling effect of the group upon its members, under pressure of this relation. Such privacy as we do have in our homes is family privacy, an aggregate66 privacy; and this does not insure—indeed, it prevents—individual privacy. This is another of the lingering rudiments67 of methods of living belonging to ages long since outgrown, and maintained among us by the careful preservation69 of primitive customs in the unchanged position of women. In very early times a crude and undifferentiated people could flock in family groups in one small tent without serious inconvenience or injury. The effects of such grouping on modern people is known in the tenement71 districts of large cities, where families live in single rooms; and these effects are of a distinctly degrading nature.
The progressive individuation of human beings requires a personal home, one room at least for each person. This need forces some recognition for itself in family life, and is met so far as private purses in private houses can meet it; but for the vast majority of the population no such provision is possible. To women, especially, a private room is the luxury of the rich alone. Even where a partial provision for personal needs is made under pressure of social development, the other pressure of undeveloped family life is constantly against it. The home 259is the one place on earth where no one of the component72 individuals can have any privacy. A family is a crude aggregate of persons of different ages, sizes, sexes, and temperaments73, held together by sex-ties and economic necessity; and the affection which should exist between the members of a family is not increased in the least by the economic pressure, rather it is lessened74. Such affection as is maintained by economic forces is not the kind which humanity most needs.
At present any tendency to withdraw and live one’s own life on any plane of separate interest or industry is naturally resented, or at least regretted, by the other members of the family. This affects women more than men, because men live very little in the family and very much in the world. The man has his individual life, his personal expression and its rights, his office, studio, shop: the women and children live in the home—because they must. For a woman to wish to spend much time elsewhere is considered wrong, and the children have no choice. The historic tendency of women to “gad abroad,” of children to run away, to be forever teasing for permission to go and play somewhere else; the ceaseless, futile75, well-meant efforts to “keep the boys at home,”—these facts, together with the definite absence 260of the man of the home for so much of the time, constitute a curious commentary upon our patient belief that we live at home, and like it. Yet the home ties bind76 us with a gentle dragging hold that few can resist. Those who do resist, and who insist upon living their individual lives, find that this costs them loneliness and privation; and they lose so much in daily comfort and affection that others are deterred77 from following them.
There is no reason why this painful choice should be forced upon us, no reason why the home life of the human race should not be such as to allow—yes, to promote—the highest development of personality. We need the society of those dear to us, their love and their companionship. These will endure. But the common cook-shops of our industrially undeveloped homes, and all the allied78 evils, are not essential, and need not endure.
To our general thought the home just as it stands is held to be what is best for us. We imagine that it is at home that we learn the higher traits, the nobler emotions,—that the home teaches us how to live. The truth beneath this popular concept is this: the love of the mother for the child is at the base of all our higher love for one another. Indeed, even behind that lies the generous giving impulse of sex-love, the 261outgoing force of sex-energy. The family relations ensuing do underlie79 our higher, wider social relations. The “home comforts” are essential to the preservation of individual life. And the bearing and forbearing of home life, with the dominant80, ceaseless influence of conservative femininity, is a most useful check to the irregular flying impulses of masculine energy. While the world lasts, we shall need not only the individual home, but the family home, the common sheath for the budded leaflets of each new branch, held close to the parent stem before they finally diverge81.
Granting all this, there remains82 the steadily83 increasing ill effect, not of home life per se, but of the kind of home life based on the sexuo-economic relation. A home in which the rightly dominant feminine force is held at a primitive plane of development, and denied free participation84 in the swift, wide, upward movement of the world, reacts upon those who hold it down by holding them down in turn. A home in which the inordinate85 love of receiving things, so long bred into one sex, and the fierce hunger for procuring86 things, so carefully trained into the other, continually act upon the child, keeps ever before his eyes the fact that life consists in getting dinner and in getting the money to pay for it, getting the food from the market, working forever 262and ever to cook and serve it. These are the prominent facts of the home as we have made it. The kind of care in which our lives are spent, the things that wear and worry us, are things that should have been outgrown long, long ago if the human race had advanced evenly. Man has advanced, but woman has been kept behind. By inheritance she advances, by experience she is retarded87, being always forced back to the economic grade of many thousand years ago.
If a modern man, with all his intellect and energy and resource, were forced to spend all his days hunting with a bow and arrow, fishing with a bone-pointed spear, waiting hungrily on his traps and snares88 in hope of prey89, he could not bring to his children or to his wife the uplifting influences of the true manhood of our time. Even if he started with a college education, even if he had large books to read (when he had time to read them) and improving conversation, still the economic efforts of his life, the steady daily pressure of what he had to do for his living, would check the growth of higher powers. If all men had to be hunters from day to day, the world would be savage90 still. While all women have to be house servants from day to day, we are still a servile world.
A home life with a dependent mother, a 263servant-wife, is not an ennobling influence. We all feel this at times. The man, spreading and growing with the world’s great growth, comes home, and settles into the tiny talk and fret91, or the alluring92 animal comfort of the place, with a distinct sense of coming down. It is pleasant, it is gratifying to every sense, it is kept warm and soft and pretty to suit the needs of the feebler and smaller creature who is forced to stay in it. It is even considered a virtue93 for the man to stay in it and to prize it, to value his slippers94 and his newspaper, his hearth95 fire and his supper table, his spring bed, and his clean clothes above any other interests.
The harm does not lie in loving home and in staying there as one can, but in the kind of a home and in the kind of womanhood that it fosters, in the grade of industrial development on which it rests. And here, without prophesying96, it is easy to look along the line of present progress, and see whither our home life tends. From the cave and tent and hovel up to a graded, differentiated70 home, with as much room for the individual as the family can afford; from the surly dominance of the absolute patriarch, with his silent servile women and chattel97 children, to the comparative freedom, equality, and finely diversified98 lives of a well-bred family of to-day; from the bottom grade of 264industry in the savage camp, where all things are cooked together by the same person in the same pot,—without neatness, without delicacy99, without specialization,—to the million widely separated hands that serve the home to-day in a thousand wide-spread industries,—the man and the mill have achieved it all; the woman has but gone shopping outside, and stayed at the base of the pyramid within.
And, more important and suggestive yet, mark this: whereas, in historic beginnings, nothing but the home of the family existed; slowly, as we have grown, has developed the home of the individual. The first wider movement of social life meant a freer flux100 of population,—trade, commerce, exchange, communication. Along river courses and sea margins101, from canoe to steamship102, along paths and roads as they made them, from “shank’s mare103 to the iron horse,” faster and freer, wider and oftener, the individual human beings have flowed and mingled104 in the life that is humanity. At first the traveller’s only help was hospitality,—the right of the stranger; but his increasing functional105 use brought with it, of necessity, the organic structure which made it easy, the transitory individual home. From the most primitive caravansary up to the square miles of floor-space in our grand hotels, the public house has 265met the needs of social evolution as no private house could have done.
To man, so far the only fully50 human being of his age, the bachelor apartment of some sort has been a temporary home for that part of his life wherein he had escaped from one family and not yet entered another. To woman this possibility is opening to-day. More and more we see women presuming to live and have a home, even though they have not a family. The family home itself is more and more yielding to the influence of progress. Once it was stationary106 and permanent, occupied from generation to generation. Now we move, even in families,—move with reluctance107 and painful objection and with bitter sacrifice of household goods; but move we must under the increasing irritation108 of irreconcilable conditions. And so has sprung up and grown to vast proportions that startling, portent109 of our times, the “family hotel.”
Consider it. Here is the inn, once a mere makeshift stopping-place for weary travellers. Yet even so the weary traveller long since noted110 the difference between his individual freedom there and his home restrictions111, and cheerfully remarked, “I take mine ease in mine inn.” Here is this temporary stopping-place for single men become a permanent dwelling-place for families! Not from financial necessity. These 266are inhabited by people who could well afford to “keep house.” But they do not want to keep house. They are tired of keeping house. It is so difficult to keep house, the servant problem is so trying. The health of their wives is not equal to keeping house. These are the things they say.
But under these vague perceptions and expressions is heaving and stirring a slow, uprising social tide. The primitive home, based on the economic dependence112 of woman, with its unorganized industries, its servile labors113, its smothering114 drag on individual development, is becoming increasingly unsuitable to the men and women of to-day. Of course, they hark back to it, of necessity, so long as marriage and child-bearing are supposed to require it, so long as our fondest sentiments and our earliest memories so closely cling to it. But in its practical results, as shown by the ever-rising draught115 upon the man’s purse and the woman’s strength, it is fast wearing out.
We have watched the approach of this condition, and have laid it to every cause but the real one. We have blamed men for not staying at home as they once did. We have blamed women for not being as good housekeepers116 as they once were. We have blamed the children for their discontent, the servants for their inefficiency117, 267the very brick and mortar118 for their poor construction. But we have never thought to blame the institution itself, and see whether it could not be improved upon.
On wide Western prairies, or anywhere in lonely farm houses, the women of to-day, confined absolutely to this strangling cradle of the race, go mad by scores and hundreds. Our asylums119 show a greater proportion of insane women among farmers’ wives than in any other class. In the cities, where there is less “home life,” people seem to stand it better. There are more distractions120, the men say, and seek them. There is more excitement, amusement, variety, the women say, and seek them. What is really felt is the larger social interests and the pressure of forces newer than those of the home circle.
Many fear this movement, and vainly strive to check it. There is no cause for alarm. We are not going to lose our homes nor our families, nor any of the sweetness and happiness that go with them. But we are going to lose our kitchens, as we have lost our laundries and bakeries. The cook-stove will follow the loom121 and wheel, the wool-carder and shears122. We shall have homes that are places to live in and love in, to rest in and play in, to be alone in and to be together in; and they will not be confused 268and declassed by admixture with any industry whatever.
In homes like these the family life will have all its finer, truer spirit well maintained; and the cares and labors that now mar26 its beauty will have passed out into fields of higher fulfilment. The relation of wife to husband and mother to child is changing for the better with this outward alteration123. All the personal relations of the family will be open to a far purer and fuller growth.
Nothing in the exquisite124 pathos125 of woman’s long subjection goes deeper to the heart than the degradation126 of motherhood by the very conditions we supposed were essential to it. To see the mother’s heart and mind longing68 to go with the child, to help it all the way, and yet to see it year by year pass farther from her, learn things she never was allowed to know, do things she never was allowed to do, go out into “the world ”—their world, not hers—alone, and
“To bear, to nurse, to rear, to love, and then to lose!”
this not by the natural separation of growth and personal divergence127, but by the unnatural128 separation of falsely divided classes,—rudimentary women and more highly developed men. It is the fissure129 that opens before the boy is ten years old, and it widens with each year.
269A mother economically free, a world-servant instead of a house-servant; a mother knowing the world and living in it,—can be to her children far more than has ever been possible before. Motherhood in the world will make that world a different place for her child.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
fatuous
|
|
| adj.愚昧的；昏庸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
absurdities
|
|
| n.极端无理性( absurdity的名词复数 )；荒谬；谬论；荒谬的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
dangling
|
|
| 悬吊着( dangle的现在分词 )； 摆动不定； 用某事物诱惑…； 吊胃口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
relics
|
|
| [pl.］n.遗物，遗迹，遗产；遗体，尸骸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
outgrown
|
|
| 长[发展] 得超过（某物）的范围( outgrow的过去分词 )； 长[发展]得不能再要（某物）； 长得比…快； 生长速度超过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
caterer
|
|
| n. 备办食物者，备办宴席者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
erratic
|
|
| adj.古怪的，反复无常的，不稳定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
liking
|
|
| n.爱好；嗜好；喜欢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
penetration
|
|
| n.穿透，穿人，渗透 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
maize
|
|
| n.玉米 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
intensity
|
|
| n.强烈，剧烈；强度；烈度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
sublime
|
|
| adj.崇高的，伟大的；极度的，不顾后果的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
artistically
|
|
| adv.艺术性地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
artistic
|
|
| adj.艺术(家)的，美术(家)的；善于艺术创作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
simplicity
|
|
| n.简单，简易；朴素；直率，单纯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
attainable
|
|
| a.可达到的，可获得的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
impersonally
|
|
| ad.非人称地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
dilettante
|
|
| n.半瓶醋，业余爱好者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
mar
|
|
| vt.破坏，毁坏，弄糟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
rite
|
|
| n.典礼，惯例，习俗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
jovial
|
|
| adj.快乐的，好交际的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
unbearable
|
|
| adj.不能容忍的；忍受不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
brutality
|
|
| n.野蛮的行为，残忍，野蛮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
morbid
|
|
| adj.病的；致病的；病态的；可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
artifice
|
|
| n.妙计，高明的手段；狡诈，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
intemperance
|
|
| n.放纵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
extraneous
|
|
| adj.体外的；外来的；外部的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
vigor
|
|
| n.活力，精力，元气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
contented
|
|
| adj.满意的，安心的，知足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
persistent
|
|
| adj.坚持不懈的，执意的；持续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
disorders
|
|
| n.混乱( disorder的名词复数 )；凌乱；骚乱；（身心、机能）失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
inviolate
|
|
| adj.未亵渎的，未受侵犯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
contentedly
|
|
| adv.心满意足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
publicity
|
|
| n.众所周知，闻名；宣传，广告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
paradoxes
|
|
| n.似非而是的隽语，看似矛盾而实际却可能正确的说法( paradox的名词复数 )；用于语言文学中的上述隽语；有矛盾特点的人[事物，情况] | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
prate
|
|
| v.瞎扯，胡说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
irreconcilable
|
|
| adj.（指人）难和解的，势不两立的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
retaliatory
|
|
| adj.报复的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
lodged
|
|
| v.存放( lodge的过去式和过去分词 )；暂住；埋入；（权利、权威等）归属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
bosom
|
|
| n.胸，胸部；胸怀；内心；adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
tangled
|
|
| adj. 纠缠的，紊乱的 动词tangle的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
ornamental
|
|
| adj.装饰的；作装饰用的；n.装饰品；观赏植物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
holders
|
|
| 支持物( holder的名词复数 )； 持有者； （支票等）持有人； 支托（或握持）…之物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
sanitary
|
|
| adj.卫生方面的，卫生的，清洁的，卫生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
undue
|
|
| adj.过分的；不适当的；未到期的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
exertion
|
|
| n.尽力，努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
psychic
|
|
| n.对超自然力敏感的人；adj.有超自然力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
rudiments
|
|
| n.基础知识，入门 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
longing
|
|
| n.（for）渴望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
differentiated
|
|
| 区分，区别，辨别( differentiate的过去式和过去分词 )； 区别对待； 表明…间的差别，构成…间差别的特征 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
tenement
|
|
| n.公寓；房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
component
|
|
| n.组成部分，成分，元件；adj.组成的，合成的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
temperaments
|
|
| 性格( temperament的名词复数 )； （人或动物的）气质； 易冲动； （性情）暴躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
lessened
|
|
| 减少的，减弱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
bind
|
|
| vt.捆，包扎；装订；约束；使凝固；vi.变硬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
deterred
|
|
| v.阻止，制止( deter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
underlie
|
|
| v.位于...之下，成为...的基础 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
dominant
|
|
| adj.支配的，统治的；占优势的；显性的；n.主因，要素，主要的人(或物)；显性基因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
diverge
|
|
| v.分叉，分歧，离题，使...岔开，使转向 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
participation
|
|
| n.参与，参加，分享 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
inordinate
|
|
| adj.无节制的；过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
retarded
|
|
| a.智力迟钝的，智力发育迟缓的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
snares
|
|
| n.陷阱( snare的名词复数 )；圈套；诱人遭受失败（丢脸、损失等）的东西；诱惑物v.用罗网捕捉，诱陷，陷害( snare的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
fret
|
|
| v.(使)烦恼；(使)焦急；(使)腐蚀，(使)磨损 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
alluring
|
|
| adj.吸引人的，迷人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
slippers
|
|
| n. 拖鞋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
hearth
|
|
| n.壁炉炉床，壁炉地面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
prophesying
|
|
| v.预告，预言( prophesy的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
chattel
|
|
| n.动产；奴隶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
diversified
|
|
| adj.多样化的，多种经营的v.使多样化，多样化( diversify的过去式和过去分词 )；进入新的商业领域 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
delicacy
|
|
| n.精致，细微，微妙，精良；美味，佳肴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
flux
|
|
| n.流动；不断的改变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
margins
|
|
| 边( margin的名词复数 )； 利润； 页边空白； 差数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
steamship
|
|
| n.汽船，轮船 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
mare
|
|
| n.母马，母驴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
mingled
|
|
| 混合，混入( mingle的过去式和过去分词 )； 混进，与…交往[联系] | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
functional
|
|
| adj.为实用而设计的，具备功能的，起作用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
stationary
|
|
| adj.固定的，静止不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
reluctance
|
|
| n.厌恶，讨厌，勉强，不情愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
portent
|
|
| n.预兆；恶兆；怪事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
dependence
|
|
| n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
labors
|
|
| v.努力争取(for)( labor的第三人称单数 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
smothering
|
|
| （使）窒息， （使）透不过气( smother的现在分词 )； 覆盖； 忍住； 抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
draught
|
|
| n.拉，牵引，拖；一网（饮，吸，阵)；顿服药量，通风；v.起草，设计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
housekeepers
|
|
| n.（女）管家( housekeeper的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
inefficiency
|
|
| n.无效率，无能；无效率事例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
mortar
|
|
| n.灰浆，灰泥；迫击炮；v.把…用灰浆涂接合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
asylums
|
|
| n.避难所( asylum的名词复数 )；庇护；政治避难；精神病院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
distractions
|
|
| n.使人分心的事[人]( distraction的名词复数 )；娱乐，消遣；心烦意乱；精神错乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
loom
|
|
| n.织布机，织机；v.隐现，(危险、忧虑等)迫近 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
shears
|
|
| n.大剪刀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
alteration
|
|
| n.变更，改变；蚀变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
exquisite
|
|
| adj.精美的；敏锐的；剧烈的，感觉强烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
pathos
|
|
| n.哀婉，悲怆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
degradation
|
|
| n.降级；低落；退化；陵削；降解；衰变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
divergence
|
|
| n.分歧，岔开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
fissure
|
|
| n.裂缝；裂伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |