The word religion has a very definite meaning to us. It is the term applied1 to the body of beliefs that any group of men maintain about supernatural entities2 upon whom they consider themselves wholly dependent. The salient fact of modern religions is that for most men the group is very large indeed, that it vastly transcends3 all national limits. Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism6, all profess7 the purpose of gaining the entire human race for their adherents8, and have actively9 attempted to do so. The fact that the religions with which we are most familiar are “world-religions,” and the abstract character of the predicates of the Deity11 in them, would seem to make religion as such practically free from local limitation. However, that is not completely true even for our time. In the first place, the bulk of Christians12, as of Muslims and Buddhists13, are in all three cases bearers of a common culture, and have long believed themselves of common descent. They occupy further a continuous, 22even if very large, area. Religious maps of the world would show solid blocks of color, not spots scattered15 everywhere. Secondly16, even within the limits of the religion itself national boundaries are not wholly expunged17. The common Christianity of Spain and England presents such obvious differences that insistence18 upon them is unnecessary; nor does the fact that Southern Germany, Belgium, and Ireland are all Roman Catholic imply that all these sections have the same religious attitude.
These are modern illustrations, and they represent survivals of a state of things which in the Greek world was fundamental. As it seems to us axiomatic19 that an abstractly conceived God cannot be the resident of a limited area on the surface of the earth, just so axiomatic it seemed, at one stage of Greek religious growth, that a god was locally limited, that his activities did not extend—or extended only in a weakened form—beyond a certain sharply circumscribed20 geographical21 area. That is probably the most fundamental and thoroughgoing of the differences between Greek religious feeling and that of our day. Opinions may differ widely about the degree of anthropomorphism present at the contrasted periods; and then, as now, the statements made about the nature and power of the Deity were contradictory22, vague, and confusing. But one thing it is hard to question: the devoutly23 religious man of to-day feels himself everywhere, always, in the presence of his God. The Greek did not feel that his god was everywhere with him, certainly did not feel that he was everywhere approachable.[5]
23At another point too we are in great danger of importing modern notions into ancient conditions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all book-religions. The final source of their doctrines25 is a revelation that has been written down, and is extant as an actual and easily accessible book. Moreover, it is the narrative27 portion of this book that is the best-known part of it, and that is generally associated in the popular mind with it. In the same way, we are prone28 to think of Greek religion as a series of extraordinarily29 beautiful myths or narratives30 of gods and heroes, which have likewise been written down, and are extant in the poems and dramas of which they are the subject. This view has been greatly strengthened by the unfortunate currency of the epigram that Homer was the Greek Bible. No one would be inclined to force, except as a paradox31, the analogy upon which the statement rests; yet the phrase is so terse32 and simple, and the elements of the comparison are so generally familiar, that consciously and unconsciously current conceptions are moulded by it.
Now if the epigram quoted is essentially33 true, we have at once a measure of Greek religious feeling, since the Homeric poems are as accessible to us as to the Greeks themselves. We should be compelled to reckon with variety in the interpretation34 of the text, but in the literal signification there would always be a point of departure. And we should at once realize that for divine beings depicted35 as they are by Homer a devotion of a very different sort is demanded from that which 24modern faiths give their Deity. Nor does later literature represent the gods on a loftier moral plane. When we read Aristophanes,[6] it becomes still more difficult to understand how the gods could retain their divinity not only when deprived of their moral character, but even when stripped of their dignity. So far from raising the moral character of the divine beings who are the actors in these legends, the later versions of many quite unexceptionable myths deliberately36 debase them by subjecting most actions to a foully37 erotic interpretation.[7] The less offensive narrative, to be sure, survives as well, but it is to be noted38 that the divinity of the personages in question seems to be as unquestioned in the corrupt39 as in the purer form of the story.
How might an emotionally sensitive or mentally trained man pour forth40 supplication41 before a guzzling42 braggart43 like the Aristophanic Heracles or an effeminate voluptuary like the Apollo of Alexandrian poetry? It seems hard to discover any other defense44 than the one Charles Lamb offered for the dramatists of the Restoration—that the world the gods moved in was a wholly different one from the human world; a world in which moral categories had no existence, a Land of Cockayne without vices46, because it was without the sanctions which vice45 disregards. No doubt some Greeks felt in this way toward the myths. But it was not a satisfactory theory. It introduced a dualism into standards of conduct that soon became intolerable, when men reflected seriously upon other sides of the divine nature, and drew inferences from it.
25As a matter of fact, the difficulty we find in addressing words of prayer and praise to such unworthy gods as sat upon the Homeric Olympus is modern, and was probably not felt at all by the vast majority of Greeks, either in Homer’s time or later. Not that the fraud, cruelty, faithlessness there exhibited seemed to the Greeks of any epoch47 commendable48 or imitable qualities. Even the Homeric Greek was far from being in a barbarous or semi-barbarous state. Civic49 virtues50 as between men were known and practised. But the personality of the individual gods in these stories could be disregarded in practice, because they were in no sense a part of the Greek religion. The chastest of men might with a clear conscience worship the lecherous51 Zeus, because worship did not at all concern itself with the catalogue of his amours. In Homer’s time and after, the Greek firmly believed that the Olympians were actually existing beings, but he scarcely stopped to ask himself whether it was literally52 true that Zeus had bidden Hera be silent under threats of personal violence. What did concern him in his relation with his gods was the disposition53 in which the god was likely to be toward him or his people. And his religious activity was directed to the end of making that disposition as good as possible.
The matter just set forth is far from being new doctrine26; but for the general reader it must be constantly re-emphasized, because it is constantly forgotten. We continually find the Greek myths discussed in terms that would be true only of the Gospel narratives, and we see 26the Greek gods described as though they possessed55 the sharpness of personal outline which the Deity has in the minds of believing Christians. It is no doubt the extant literature—a florilegium at best—that is at fault in the matter. This literature, it must be remembered, was not preserved altogether by accident. To a large extent it represents a conscious selection, made for pedagogic purposes. The relative coherence56 which Greek myths have for us is due to the fact that the surviving poems and dramas which contain them were selected, partially57 at least, by Hellenistic and Byzantine schoolmasters in order to fit into a set cycle or scheme. Even in what we have there is abundant evidence that the myths about the gods could pretend to no sanctity for anybody, devout24 or scoffer58, for the simple reason that they negated59 themselves, that widely differing and hopelessly contradictory stories were told of the same event or person.
In reality the Greek myths were not coherent. It is hard to discover in many of them a folkloristic60 kernel61 that had to be kept intact. Almost everywhere we are dealing62 with the free fantasies of highly imaginative poets. So fully63 was this understood that the stories most familiar to us are generally alluded64 to in serious Greek literature with an apologetic, ?? o? ποιητα? φασι, “as the poets say,” or some similar phrase. And as these stories were largely unrelated, so also were the gods of whom they were told, even though they bore the same name. If mythographers had taken the trouble to collect all the stories known of any one 27god—Hermes, for example—there would be nothing except the common name to indicate that they referred to the same chief actor, and much that, except for the common name, would be referred to different gods. Not even a single prominent trait, not a physical feature, would be found to run through all the myths so collected.
So far we have been dealing with extant literature. But if the more recondite65 notices of popular superstition66 are taken into account, as well as the archeological discoveries, we meet such figures as Demeter, Artemis, Apollo,[8] in various and curious forms and associations, so that one might be tempted10 to suppose that these highly individualized figures of poetry were, in the shrines67 in which they were worshiped, hardly more than divine appellatives of rather vague content. And on the islands of the Aegean, in Crete and Cyprus, where the continuity between Aegean, Mycenean, and Hellenic civilization[9] was perhaps less disturbed by convulsive upheavals69, this seems especially to have been the case.
For cult14 purposes, then—the primary purpose of Greek religion—there was less difference between gods than we might suppose. Not even the strongly marked personages that poetry made of them were able to fix themselves in the popular mind. Sculptors70 had been busy in differentiating71 types, and yet even here the process was not completed. While in general we know of Poseidon-types, Zeus-types, etc., in art, the most thoroughly72 equipped critics find themselves embarrassed if 28they are required to name a statue that is wholly lacking in definite external symbols or attributes, such as the thunderbolt, trident, caduceus, and others.[10] Even the unrivaled artistic73 abilities of Greek sculptors found it impossible to create unmistakable types of the Greek gods, for the reason that the character of the god as portrayed74 in myth and fable75 was fluid, and not fixed76.
As among most peoples of the time, the essential religious act was that which brought the god and his worshiper into contact—the sacrifice. What the real nature of sacrifice was need not concern us here. The undoubted fact is that sacrifice and prayer formed a single act;[11] that it was during the sacrifice that the worshiper ventured to address his prayer to the godhead he invoked77. In doing so he must of necessity use the god’s name, and, as we have seen, the name was of more general and less specific connotation than is usually supposed. But the act of worship itself was specifically occasioned. Even the fixed and annually78 recurring80 festivals related to a specific, if recurring, occasion in the life of the people. This was eminently81 the case in the irregular acts of worship that arose out of some unforeseen contingency82. Whatever the divine name was that was used, the specific occasion of its use made it necessary also to specify83 the function of the divinity of which the intervention84 was sought. That was regularly done by attaching to the name a qualifying epithet85. When the rights of hospitality were threatened with invasion, it was Ζε?? Ξ?νιο?, Zeus the Protector of Strangers, that was addressed. In gratitude86 29for a deliverance, Zeus or Apollo or Heracles or the Dioscuri or many another might be invoked as “the Savior.”[12] And it might well be argued that the Greek who did so had scarcely anything more definite in mind than a Roman who worshiped Salus, the abstract principle of safety. In very many cases the particular function was especially potent87 in certain areas, so that a local adjective applied as a divine epithet would sum up the power desired to be set in motion.
In the actual moment of prayer or propitiation, it was often a matter of courtesy to ignore the existence of other gods. This makes perhaps a sufficiently88 definite phenomenon to justify89 the application to it of the special name “henotheism” long ago devised by Max Müller;[13] and in henotheism we have very likely the germ of monotheism. But when not actually engaged in worship, the Greek was well aware that there were many gods, and that there were differences among them, and this quite apart from the myths, to which, as has been said, no very great importance can be attached in this connection. The differences in power and prominence90 of deities91 were perhaps not original, but they had arisen quickly and generally.
One difference particularly, that between gods and heroes, seems to have been real to the popular mind. A difference in the terminology92 that described the ritual act, and a difference in the act itself, point to a real distinction between the two divine conceptions.[14]
Who and what the heroes actually were is an extremely doubtful matter. That some of them were 30originally men is a proposition with which legend has made us familiar.[15] We shall recur79 later to the common heroization of the dead. That some of them were undoubted gods has been amply established.[16] It may well be that they were deities of a narrowly limited territory, knowledge of whom, for one reason or another, remained sharply circumscribed for a long time, so that when they came later within the range of myth-making they could not be readily fitted into any divine scheme. Often the name that appears in some legends as a hero appears in others as an epithet or cult-title of a better-known god. This fact may be variously interpreted. At least one interpretation derives93 this fusion94 of names from the fact that the worshipers of the later deity invaded the cult-home of the earlier, and ultimately degraded the latter to accessory rank. Or it may be taken as a compromise of existing claims. At any rate, in some of the heroes we seem to reach an element somewhat closer to the religious consciousness of the Greek masses. And if the gods, or most of them, are heroes who owe their promotion95 to a fortunate accident rather than to any inherent superiority, we may discover the fundamental divine conceptions of the Greeks in the traits that especially mark the heroes: sharp local limitation, absence of personal lineaments, adoration96 based upon power for evil as well as for good.[17]
It was because of this last fact that Greek poets could deal freely with gods and heroes in the narratives they created. The divine name possessed none of the ineffable97 sanctity it has for us by thousands of years of tradition. 31Except during the performance of the ritual act, the god’s presence and power were not vividly98 felt, and it would have been considered preposterous99 to suppose that he resented as compromising an idle tale from which he suffered no impairment of worship. That the gods really existed, and that honor was to be paid them after the ancestral manner, was more than the essence, it was the totality, of popular Greek theology. Speculation100 as to the real nature of gods and the world, the mass of citizens would have regarded as the most futile101 form of triviality.[18]
But there were some who thought otherwise. Many thoughtful men must have felt the absurdities102 and immoralities of the myths as keenly as we do. Xenophanes[19] protests, and no doubt not first of all men, against them. Further, with the earliest stirrings of cosmic speculation in Ionia, systems of theology are proposed that dispense103 with demiurges and administrators104. Intellectually developed men cannot have been long in ridding themselves of popular conceptions that violated the most elementary reflection. To be sure, the philosopher did not always feel free to carry his conviction to the point of openly disregarding the established forms. To do so would bring him into conflict with other institutions that he valued, and with which religious forms had become inextricably bound up. But his own beliefs took broader and broader ground, and well before Alexander became monotheism, pantheism, or agnosticism.[20]
32All these standpoints must be kept in mind when we deal with the conflict between Greek and Jew: the popular one, no doubt rooted in a primitive105 animism, to which the gods were of indifferent and somewhat shifting personality, but to which the ritual act was vital; the attitude of poetry and folk-lore, in which divine persons appeared freely as actors, but in which each poem or legend was an end in itself unrelated to any other; and finally the philosophic106 analysis, which did not notably107 differ in result from similar processes of our own day.
We find the Hellenic world in possession of very many gods. Some of them are found practically wherever there were Greeks, although the degree of veneration108 they received in the different Greek communities varied109 greatly. However, such common gods did exist, and their existence involves the consideration of the spread of worships.
It is of course quite possible that the common gods grew out of the personification of natural phenomena110, the solar-myth theory, on which nineteenth-century scholars sharpened their ingenuity111.[21] It may be, too, that one or more of them are the national gods of the conquering Hellenes, whensoever and howsoever such a conquest may have taken place. Some may have been of relatively112 late importation. The Greeks lived in territory open to streams of influence from every point of the compass. Of one such importation we know some details—the worship of Dionysus.[22] Of others, such as Aphrodite, we suspect a Semitic origin by way of 33Cyprus.[23] It will be noticed that the names of most of the common gods are difficult to trace to Greek roots, a fact in itself of some significance.
We must remember that the wandering of the god is often merely the wandering of a name. That is especially true in those cases in which an old divine name becomes the epithet or cult-title of the intruding113 deity. Here obviously there was no change in the nature of the god worshiped and no interruption of his worship. It is very likely, too, that very few deities ever completely disappeared, even when there was a real migration114 of a god. The new god took his place by the side of the old one, and relations of many kinds, superior or inferior, were speedily devised. So at Athens, in the contest between Poseidon and Athena, permanently115 recorded on the west pediment of the Parthenon, the triumph of Athena merely gave her a privilege. The defeated Poseidon remained in uninterrupted possession of shrine68 and votaries116.
How did the worship of certain gods spread? One answer is obvious: by the migration of their votaries. Locally limited as the operation of the divinity was, in normal circumstances there never was a doubt that it could transcend4 those limits when the circumstances ceased to be normal. And that certainly took place when the community of which the god was a member changed its residence. The methods of propitiation, as crystallized into the inherited ritual, and the divine name, in which, for the rank and file, the individuality of the god existed, would be continued, though 34they were subject to new influences, and not infrequently suffered a sea-change.
But migration of all or some of the worshipers of a given deity was not the only way by which the god himself moved from place to place. Exotic rituals, as soon as men became acquainted with them, had attractions of their own, especially if they contained features that made a direct sensational117 appeal. The medium of transference may have been the constantly increasing commerce, which brought strangers into every city at various times. In all Greek communities there was a large number of “disinherited”—metics, emancipated118 slaves, suffrageless plebs—to whom the established gods seemed cold and aloof119, or who had only a limited share in the performance of the established ritual. These men perhaps were the first to welcome newer rituals, which it was safer to introduce when they were directed to newer gods.[24] They were assisted in doing this by the long-noted tolerance120 Greeks exhibited toward other religious observances, a tolerance which Christian5 Europe has taught us to consider strange and exceptional.
That tolerance was not altogether an inference from polytheism itself. Polytheism, to be sure, takes for granted the existence of other gods in other localities, but it does not follow that it permits the entrance of one god into the jurisdiction121 of another. And it was not universal. Among communities inhospitable in other respects it did not prevail. But it was the general rule, because the conception of ?σ?βεια, of “impiety122,”[25] 35was largely the same everywhere. Impiety was such conduct as prevented or corrupted123 the established forms of divine communication. The introduction of new deities was an indictable offense124 at Athens only so far as it displaced the old ones. Where no such danger was apprehended125, no charge would lie. The traditions that describe the bitter opposition126 which the introduction of Dionysus encountered in many places, are too uniform to be discredited127.[26] But the opposition was directed to the grave social derangements that doubtless attended the adoption128 by many of an enthusiastic ritual. The opposition cannot have been general nor of long duration, since the worship of Dionysus spread with extraordinary rapidity, and covered the whole Greek world.
Religious movements curiously129 like the “revivals” of medieval and modern times visited Greece as they visit most organized communities. One of the most important of these, which gradually spread over Greece during the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E., must be reserved for later treatment. We may note here merely that there had been present from very early times the nuclei130 of a more intense religious life than any that could be experienced through the rather perfunctory solemnities of the state cults131. These were the mysteries, of which the most famous were the Eleusinian in Attica. Some assign the latter to an Egyptian origin.[27] Wherever they came from, they had assumed a large place in the imagination of Greeks as early as the eighth century;[28] and they gained their adherents not so much by wrapping themselves in impenetrable secrecy132 as by 36promising their participants an otherwise unattainable degree of divine favor. Other mysteries existed elsewhere, possibly modeled upon the Eleusinian. All, however, made similar claims. It was in the form of mysteries that the emotional side of religion was deepened. Further, the organization of these mysteries exercised a profound influence upon all propagandizing movements, whether religious or not. It is not unlikely that the earliest organization of the Christian ecclesiae was, at least in part, influenced by the organization of the mysteries, whether of Eleusis or of some other sort.
It has been said that one commonly worshiped group of heroes were frankly133 and concededly dead men. It needs no demonstration134 to make clear that such worship of the dead must of necessity be very old; but at many places in the Greek world this ancient worship of the dead had become much weakened. The Homeric poems, for example, know it only in a very attenuated135 form.[29] At many other places, on the other hand, it flourished vigorously and continuously from the earliest times. The application of the word ?ρω?, “hero,” to the dead may have had very ancient sanction. In later times, the term appears very commonly,[30] and undoubtedly136 claims for the persons so qualified137 the essential characteristics of other heroes—i.e. immortality138, the primary divine quality in Homer, and greatly increased power. It involved no difficulty to the Greek mind to make this claim, for it was a very common, perhaps universal, belief that gods and men were akin54, that they were the same in nature. Perhaps the very oldest of 37transcendental beliefs is that the all-overwhelming phenomenon of death is not an annihilation, and that something survives, even if only as a shadow in the House of Hades. When men began to speculate actively upon the real results of bodily death, it must have occurred to many that the vaguely139 enlarged scope of such life as did survive was a return to a former and essential divinity.[31]
But from a hero, limited and obscure, to a god, seated in full effulgence140 at the table of Zeus, was a big step, and bigger yet was the deification of living men. It may even be that the latter conception was not Greek, but was borrowed from Egypt or Mesopotamia. There is no indication of its presence before Alexander. That a man in the flesh might be translated from mortality to immortality—entrückt—was a very ancient conviction. The son-in-law of Zeus, Menelaos, had been so privileged.[32] A poetic141 hyperbole claimed as much for the tyrannicide Harmodius.[33] There were others, of no special moment, who by popular legend had walked among men and were not found, as in later times happened to Arthur and Barbarossa. But they became as gods only by their translation. We do not meet in Greece for centuries men who ventured to claim for themselves in the visible body that measure of divinity. In Egypt, however, and Mesopotamia the conception was not new. Certainly Pharaoh did not wait to receive his divine character from the hand of the embalmer142. He was at all times Very God. At both the Euphrates and the Nile, Alexander found ample precedent143 for the 38assumption of divine honors, to which he no doubt sincerely believed he had every claim. We know how he derived144 his descent, without contradiction from his mother Olympias. It was novel doctrine for Greeks, but the avidity with which it was accepted and imitated showed that it did not absolutely clash with Greek manner of thought.
After Alexander, every king or princelet who appeared with sufficient force to overawe a town could scarcely avoid the formal decree of divinity. The Ptolemies quietly stepped—though not at once—into the throne and prerogatives145 of Ra. Seleucus adopted Apollo as his ancestor, and his grandson took Θε??, “the God,” as his title. His line maintained a shadowy relation with Marduk and Nebo of Babylon. Demetrius the Besieger146 had only to show himself at Athens to be advanced into Olympus.
The religion briefly147 and imperfectly sketched148 in this chapter was not really a system at all. There is a deal of incoherency in it, of cross-purposes and contradiction. There was no priestly caste among the Greeks to gather into a system the confused threads of religious thinking. Its ethical149 bearings came largely through the idea of the state, in which religion was a highly important constituent150. There was also a personal and emotional side to Greek religion, and in particular cases the adoration of the worshiper was doubtless the sacrifice of a broken and contrite151 heart, and not the blood of bullocks. But the crudities of animism cropped out in many places, 39and in the loftiest of Greek prayers there is no note like “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy might.” In its most developed form a Greek’s dependence152 on his god was resignation, not self-immolation.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
entities
|
|
| 实体对像； 实体，独立存在体，实际存在物( entity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
transcends
|
|
| 超出或超越（经验、信念、描写能力等）的范围( transcend的第三人称单数 )； 优于或胜过… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
transcend
|
|
| vt.超出，超越(理性等)的范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
Buddhism
|
|
| n.佛教（教义） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
actively
|
|
| adv.积极地，勤奋地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
tempted
|
|
| v.怂恿（某人）干不正当的事；冒…的险（tempt的过去分词） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
Buddhists
|
|
| n.佛教徒( Buddhist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
expunged
|
|
| v.擦掉( expunge的过去式和过去分词 )；除去；删去；消除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
insistence
|
|
| n.坚持；强调；坚决主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
axiomatic
|
|
| adj.不需证明的，不言自明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
circumscribed
|
|
| adj.[医]局限的：受限制或限于有限空间的v.在…周围划线( circumscribe的过去式和过去分词 )；划定…范围；限制；限定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
geographical
|
|
| adj.地理的；地区(性)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
devoutly
|
|
| adv.虔诚地，虔敬地，衷心地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
devout
|
|
| adj.虔诚的，虔敬的，衷心的 (n.devoutness) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
prone
|
|
| adj.(to)易于…的，很可能…的；俯卧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
extraordinarily
|
|
| adv.格外地；极端地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
narratives
|
|
| 记叙文( narrative的名词复数 )； 故事； 叙述； 叙述部分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
paradox
|
|
| n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法；自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
terse
|
|
| adj.(说话，文笔)精炼的，简明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
depicted
|
|
| 描绘，描画( depict的过去式和过去分词 )； 描述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
foully
|
|
| ad.卑鄙地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
corrupt
|
|
| v.贿赂，收买；adj.腐败的，贪污的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
supplication
|
|
| n.恳求，祈愿，哀求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
guzzling
|
|
| v.狂吃暴饮，大吃大喝( guzzle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
braggart
|
|
| n.吹牛者；adj.吹牛的，自夸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
vices
|
|
| 缺陷( vice的名词复数 )； 恶习； 不道德行为； 台钳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
epoch
|
|
| n.(新)时代；历元 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
commendable
|
|
| adj.值得称赞的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
civic
|
|
| adj.城市的，都市的，市民的，公民的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
lecherous
|
|
| adj.好色的；淫邪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
akin
|
|
| adj.同族的，类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
coherence
|
|
| n.紧凑；连贯；一致性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
partially
|
|
| adv.部分地，从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
scoffer
|
|
| 嘲笑者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
negated
|
|
| v.取消( negate的过去式和过去分词 )；使无效；否定；否认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
folkloristic
|
|
| 民俗学研究者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
kernel
|
|
| n.(果实的)核，仁；(问题)的中心，核心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
recondite
|
|
| adj.深奥的，难解的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
shrines
|
|
| 圣地，圣坛，神圣场所( shrine的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
shrine
|
|
| n.圣地，神龛，庙；v.将...置于神龛内，把...奉为神圣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
upheavals
|
|
| 突然的巨变( upheaval的名词复数 )； 大动荡； 大变动； 胀起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
sculptors
|
|
| 雕刻家，雕塑家( sculptor的名词复数 )； [天]玉夫座 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
differentiating
|
|
| [计] 微分的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
artistic
|
|
| adj.艺术(家)的，美术(家)的；善于艺术创作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
portrayed
|
|
| v.画像( portray的过去式和过去分词 )；描述；描绘；描画 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
fable
|
|
| n.寓言；童话；神话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
invoked
|
|
| v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 )；行使（权利等）；祈求救助；恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
recur
|
|
| vi.复发，重现，再发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
recurring
|
|
| adj.往复的，再次发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
eminently
|
|
| adv.突出地；显著地；不寻常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
contingency
|
|
| n.意外事件，可能性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
specify
|
|
| vt.指定，详细说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
epithet
|
|
| n.（用于褒贬人物等的）表述形容词，修饰语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
potent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有权势的；有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
prominence
|
|
| n.突出；显著；杰出；重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
deities
|
|
| n.神，女神( deity的名词复数 )；神祗；神灵；神明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
terminology
|
|
| n.术语；专有名词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
derives
|
|
| v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
fusion
|
|
| n.溶化；熔解；熔化状态，熔和；熔接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
adoration
|
|
| n.爱慕，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
ineffable
|
|
| adj.无法表达的，不可言喻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
vividly
|
|
| adv.清楚地，鲜明地，生动地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
preposterous
|
|
| adj.荒谬的，可笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
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： |
|
|
|
|
103
dispense
|
|
| vt.分配，分发；配(药)，发(药)；实施 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
administrators
|
|
| n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 )；有管理（或行政）才能的人；（由遗嘱检验法庭指定的）遗产管理人；奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
philosophic
|
|
| adj.哲学的，贤明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
veneration
|
|
| n.尊敬，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
intruding
|
|
| v.侵入，侵扰，打扰( intrude的现在分词)；把…强加于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
migration
|
|
| n.迁移，移居，（鸟类等的）迁徙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
votaries
|
|
| n.信徒( votary的名词复数 )；追随者；（天主教）修士；修女 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
117
sensational
|
|
| adj.使人感动的，非常好的，轰动的，耸人听闻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
emancipated
|
|
| adj.被解放的，不受约束的v.解放某人（尤指摆脱政治、法律或社会的束缚）( emancipate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
aloof
|
|
| adj.远离的；冷淡的，漠不关心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
tolerance
|
|
| n.宽容；容忍，忍受；耐药力；公差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
corrupted
|
|
| （使）败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 )； （使）腐化； 引起（计算机文件等的）错误； 破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
offense
|
|
| n.犯规，违法行为；冒犯，得罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
apprehended
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
discredited
|
|
| 不足信的，不名誉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
curiously
|
|
| adv.有求知欲地；好问地；奇特地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
nuclei
|
|
| n.核 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
cults
|
|
| n.迷信( cult的名词复数 )；狂热的崇拜；（有极端宗教信仰的）异教团体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
secrecy
|
|
| n.秘密，保密，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
attenuated
|
|
| v.（使）变细( attenuate的过去式和过去分词 )；（使）变薄；（使）变小；减弱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
immortality
|
|
| n.不死，不朽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
vaguely
|
|
| adv.含糊地，暖昧地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
effulgence
|
|
| n.光辉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
poetic
|
|
| adj.富有诗意的，有诗人气质的，善于抒情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
embalmer
|
|
| 尸体防腐者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
143
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
prerogatives
|
|
| n.权利( prerogative的名词复数 )；特权；大主教法庭；总督委任组成的法庭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
besieger
|
|
| n. 围攻者, 围攻军 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
147
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
sketched
|
|
| v.草拟（sketch的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
ethical
|
|
| adj.伦理的，道德的，合乎道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
constituent
|
|
| n.选民；成分，组分；adj.组成的，构成的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
contrite
|
|
| adj.悔悟了的，后悔的，痛悔的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
dependence
|
|
| n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |