The very first Greek historian who has more than a vague surmise4 of the character and history of the Jews is Hecataeus of Abdera (comp. above, p. 92). As has been seen, his tone is distinctly well-disposed. But he knows also of circumstances which to the Greek mind were real national vices6. He mentions with strong disapproval7 their credulity, their inhospitality, and their aloofness9.
Credulity is not a vice5 with which the Jews were charged in later times. That may be due to Christian11 tradition, in which of course the sin of the Jews is that they did not believe enough, as stated in Christian controversial writings. But Greeks and Romans were quite in accord, that the Jews were duped with extraordinary facility; especially that they were the victims of the deception12 of their priests, so that they attached importance to thousands of matters heartily13 without importance. We may remember Horace’s jibe14, Credat 177Iudaeus Apella, “Tell it to the Jew Apella”;[185] and nearly two hundred years later Apuleius mentions the Iudaei superstitiosi, “the superstitious15 Jews.”[186]
Among the Greeks particularly the quality of ε??θεια, “simplicity,” had rapidly made the same progress as the words “silly” and “simpleton” have in English.
Sharpness and duplicity were the qualities with which non-Greek nations credited the Greeks, and whether the accusation16 was true or not, “na?veté,” ε??θεια, excited Greek risibilities more quickly than anything else. The ε??θεια of the Jews lay of course not in their beliefs about the Deity17. On that point all educated men were in accord. But it lay in believing in the sanctity of the priests, and in the observance of the innumerable regulations, particularly of abstention, which had already assumed such proportions among the Jews. The line of Meleager of Gadara, about his Jewish rival,
?στι κα? ?ν ψυχρο?? σ?ββασι θερμ?? ?ρω?,[187]
Even on the cold Sabbaths Love makes his warmth felt,
contains in its ψυχρ? σ?ββατα “cold Sabbaths,” an epitome18 of the Greek point of view, ψυχρ??, “cold,” was almost a synonym19 for “dull.” That a holiday should be celebrated20 by abstention from ordinary activities and amusements seemed to a Greek the essence of unreason. Their own religious customs were, like those of all other nations, full of tabus, but they were the less conscious of them because they were wholly apart from their daily life. Jews avoided certain foods, not merely as an occasional fast, but always. Their myths were not 178irrelevant and beautiful stories, but were firmly believed to be the records of what actually happened. The precepts22 of their code were sanctioned, not merely by expediency23, but by the fear of an offended God.
An excellent example of how the rhetorical τ?πο? of “na?veté” was handled is presented by Agatharchidas of Cnidus, who wrote somewhere near 150 B.C.E.[188]
He tells us of Stratonice, daughter of Antiochus Soter and wife of Demetrius of Macedon, who was induced by a dream to remain in a dangerous position, where she was taken and killed. The occasion is an excellent one to enlarge upon the topic of superstition25, and Agatharchidas relates in this connection an incident that is said to have happened one hundred years before Stratonice, the capture of Jerusalem by Ptolemy Soter through the fact that the Jews would not fight upon the Sabbath. “So,” says Agatharchidas, “because, instead of guarding their city, these men observed their senseless rule, the city received a harsh master, and their law was shown to be a foolish custom.” One cannot reproduce in English the fine antitheses26 of the related words φυλ?ττειν τ?ν π?λιν balanced by διατηρο?ντων τ?ν ?νοιαν, ν?μο? answering to ?θισμ?ν; but, besides the artificiality of the phrases, the total absence of any attempt to make the words fit the facts is shown by the conclusion to which Agatharchidas, by rule of rhetoric24, had to come. Now a “harsh master” is just what Ptolemy was not to the Jews, and Agatharchidas of all men must have been aware of that fact, for he wrote not only at Alexandria, but at the court of Philometor, an especial patron of the Jews individually and as a corporation.
179The practice of the Sabbath was one of the first things that struck foreigners. It is likely that the congregations of Sabbatistae in Asia Minor27 were composed of Jewish proselytes.[189] The name of the Jewish Sibyl Sambethe,[190] the association of Jewish worship with that of the Phrygian Sabazios,[191] were based upon this highly peculiar28 custom of the Jews. But its utter irrationality29 seemed to be exhibited in such instances as Agatharchidas here describes, the abstention from both offensive and defensive30 fighting on the Sabbath.
Whether the incident or others of the same kind ever occurred may reasonably be doubted. The discussion of the question in Talmudic sources is held at a time when Jews had long ceased to engage in warfare31.[192] Their nation no longer existed, and their legal privileges included exemption32 from conscription, if they chose to avail themselves of it. In the Bible there is no hint in the lurid33 chronicles of wars and battles that the Sabbath observance involved cessation from hostilities34 during time of war, and the supposition that no resistance to attack was offered on that day is almost wholly excluded. It is not easy to imagine one of the grim swordsmen of David or Joab allowing his throat to be cut by an enemy because he was attacked on the Sabbath.
That any rule of Sabbath observance which demanded this had actually developed during the post-Exilic period is likewise untenable. The Jews served frequently in the army under both Persian and Greek 180rule. This is amply demonstrated by the Aramaic papyri of Elephantine and the existence of Jewish mercenaries under the Ptolemies.[193] The professional soldier whose service could not be relied upon one day in seven would soon find his occupation gone.
Several passages in the Books of Maccabees have often been taken to imply that the strict observance of the Sabbath was maintained before the Hasmonean revolt, and deliberately35 abrogated36 by Mattathiah (I Macc. ii. 30-44; II Macc. viii. 23-25). But upon closer analysis it will be seen that the incidents there recorded do not quite show that. The massacre37 of the loyal Jews in the desert was a special and exceptional thing. They were not rebels in arms, but hunted fugitives38. Their passive submission39 to the sword was an act of voluntary martyrdom (I Macc. ii. 37). ?ποθ?νωμεν ο? π?ντε? ?ν τη ?πλ?τητι ?μων: μαρτυρει ?φ’ ?μα? h?ο?ρανο? κα? ? γ? ?τι ακριτω? ?π?λλυτε ?μα?, “Let us all die in our innocence40. Heaven and earth bear witness for us that ye put us to death wrongfully.”
Again, it is not Mattathiah, but the sober reflection of his men, that brings them to the resolution that such acts of martyrdom, admirable as they are in intention, are futile41. The decision is rather a criticism of their useless sacrifice than anything else.
Similar acts of self-devotion on the part of inhabitants of doomed42 cities were not uncommon43. As final proofs of patriotism44 on the part of those who would not survive their city, they received the commendation of ancient writers.[194] But to kill oneself or allow oneself 181to be killed for a fantastic superstition, could have seemed only the blindest fanaticism45.
Now there is no reason for doubting the essential accuracy of the report in I Maccabees, to the effect that one group of Jewish zealots chose passive resistance to the attempt of Antiochus, and by that nerved the Hasmoneans to a very active resistance. And it is very likely that in this event we have the basis for the stories that related the capture of Jerusalem—almost in every case—on the Sabbath. The story is told of the capture by Nebuchadnezzar, by Artaxerxes Ochus, by Ptolemy, and by Pompey. It is a logical inference from the non-resistance of the refugees mentioned in I Maccabees. The conditions of ancient warfare make it highly improbable that it was more.
The rationalist Greek or Roman felt it a point of honor to hold in equal contempt the “old-wives’ tales” of his own countrymen as to the supramundane facts with which the myths were filled,[195] and the vain and foolish attempts by which barbarians46, and Greeks and Romans too, sought to dominate the cosmic forces or tear the secret from fate. These attempts generally took the form of magic, not, however, like the primitive47 ceremonies, of which the real nature had long been forgotten, but in the elaborate thaumaturgic systems which had been fashioned in Egypt, Persia, and Babylon. In their lowest forms these were petty and mean swindling devices. In their more developed forms they contained a sincerely felt mysticism, but under all guises48 they aroused the contempt of the skeptic49, to whom the most 182ancient and revered50 rites51 of his own cult52 were merely ancestral habits which it did no harm to follow. The tone such men adopted toward the complicated Oriental theologies and rituals was very much like that of modern cultivated men toward the various “Vedantic philosophies,” which at one time enjoyed a certain vogue53. Those who seriously maintained that by the rattling54 of a sistrum, or the clash of cymbals55, or by mortifications of the flesh, influences could be exerted upon the laws that governed the universe, so as to modify their course or divert them, were alike insensate fools, whose chatter56 no educated man could take seriously. The Jews, who observed, even when they were less rigorous, a number of restrictive rules that gravely hampered57 their freedom of action, who seriously maintained that they possessed58 a direct revelation of God, were fanatics59 and magicians, and exhibited a credulity that was the first sign of mental inferiority.
“Senseless,” “nonsense,” ?νοητ??, ?νοια, are terms that are principally in the mouths of the Philopator of III Maccabees and the Antiochus of IV Maccabees, in whose words we may fairly see epitomized all the current abuse as well as criticism which opponents to the Jews, from philosophers to malevolent60 chauvinists, heaped upon them.
Hecataeus says of Moses that he instituted an “inhospitable and strange form of living.”[196] The two words μισ?ξενον and ?π?νθρωπον form a doublette, or rhetorical doubling of a single idea. That idea is “inhospitality,” lack of the feeling of common humanity, a term which 183for Greeks and Romans embodied61 a number of conceptions not suggested by the word to modern ears.
The word ξ?νο?, which is the root of the words for “hospitality” and its opposite, has no equivalent in English. A ξ?νο? was a man of another nation, who approached without hostile intent. The test of civilization was the manner in which such a ξ?νο? was dealt with. The Greek traditions, even their extant literature, have a very lively recollection of the time when hospitality was by no means universal, when the ξ?νο? was treated as an enemy taken in arms or worse. The one damning epithet62 of the Cyclops is ?ξενο?, “inhospitable.”[197] The high commendation bestowed63 upon the princely hospitality of the Homeric barons64 itself indicates that this virtue65 was not yet a matter of course, and that boorish66 nations and individuals did not possess it.
Legally, of course, the ξ?νο? had no rights. Such claim as he could make for protection rested upon the favor of the gods, especially of Zeus, who was frequently addressed by the cult title of Ξ?νιο?, the Protector of Strangers. The uncertain aid of the gods was soon displaced by personal relations between individuals and groups of individuals in different states, who were mutually πρ?ξενοι to each other, a title that always created a very definite moral obligation and soon a legal one as well. So, when Alexander destroyed Thebes, he spared the πρ?ξενοι of his own family and of the Macedonians in general.[198]
184The institution and the development had practically gone on in similar ways all through the Mediterranean68 world. The Bedouins still maintain the ancient customs of their fathers in that respect. The Romans had the word hospes, of which the history is a close parallel to that of ξ?νο?.
Of the Jews the same thing may be said. The Bible enjoins69 the protection of strangers as a primary obligation. They were the living symbols of the Egyptian bondage70. So Exodus71 xxiii. 9, “Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” One of Job’s protests of righteousness is his hospitality (Job xxxi. 32).
In these circumstances just what could the charge of μισοξεν?α, of “inhospitality,” have meant? We shall look in vain in Greek literature for an injunction to hospitality as finely phrased as the passage just quoted from Exodus. To understand the term as applied72 to the Jews we shall have to examine the words that are used for the acts connected with hospitality.
In Homer the word ξειν?ζω[199] is frequently found. Strictly73 of course it means simply “to deal with a stranger,” but it is used principally in the sense of “entertain at dinner.” The wandering stranger might as such claim the hospitality of the people among whom chance had brought him, and claim it in the very concrete sense that food and lodging74 at the master’s table were his of right. Indeed it would almost seem that he became pro8 hac vice a member of the family group in 185which he partook of a meal, protected in life and limb by the blood-vengeance75 of his temporary kinsmen76.
That however seems to have been the general rule in the older communities of the East, in Palestine just as in Greece and Asia. There was no feeling against entertaining a stranger at table among the Jews, although the relation could not well be reversed. And there was the rub. It was not in Palestine (where the Jew was likely always to be the host), but in the communities in which Jew and non-Jew acknowledged the same civic77 bond that the refusal of the Jew to accept the hospitality of his neighbor would be a flagrant instance of μισοξεν?α, of dislike of strangers. We need not suppose that it needed careful investigation78 and the accumulation of instances to produce the statement. A few incidents within anyone’s experience would suffice. We shall have to remember further that we are dealing79 with a literary tradition in which many statements are taken over from the writer’s source without independent conviction on his own part.
However, among the great masses the general feeling that the Jews disliked strangers, and so were properly to be termed μισ?ξενοι, was in all likelihood based on an observation of more obvious facts than dietary regulations. It is principally in meat diet that the separation is really effective, and meat diet was the prerogative80 of the rich. Then, as now, the great majority of the people ate meat rarely, if at all, and surely could take no offense81 at a man’s squeamishness about the quality or nature of the food he ate. But what everybody 186was compelled to notice was that the Jews deliberately held aloof10 from practically all public festivities, since these were nearly always religious, and that they created barriers which seemed as unnecessary as they were foolishly defended. That in itself could be interpreted by the man in the street only as a sign of deep-rooted antipathy82, of μισοξεν?α.
This accusation, as has been shown, was more than the reproach of unsociability. The vice charged by it was of serious character. Those individuals who in Greek poetry are called inhospitable are nothing short of monsters. It implied not merely aloofness from strangers, but ill-usage of them, and that ill-usage was sometimes assumed to be downright cannibalism83. So Strabo (vii. 6) tells us that the “inhospitable” sea was called so, not only because of its storms, but because of the ferocity of the Scythian tribes dwelling84 around it, who devoured85 strangers and used their skulls86 for goblets87. That was of course to be inhospitable with a vengeance, but the term covered the extreme idea as well as the milder acts that produced at Sparta and Crete frequent edicts of expulsion (ξενηλασ?αι)[200] and a general cold welcome to foreigners.
In very many cases, especially in the rhetorical schools, “inhospitality,” “hatred88 of strangers,” was a mere21 abusive tag, available without any excessive consideration of the facts. And when intense enmity was to be exhibited, the extreme form of “inhospitality” was naturally enough both implicitly89 and expressly charged against the objects of the writer’s dislike.
GREEK INSCRIPTION90, FOUND ON SITE OF TEMPLE AREA, FORBIDDING GENTILES TO PASS BEYOND THE INNER TEMPLE WALLS AT JERUSALEM
(Now In the Imperial Ottoman Museum Constantinople)
187There are many instances in which the hereditary91 enemy was credited with human sacrifice or cannibalism. Indeed it was currently believed that cannibalism had universally prevailed at one time, and with advancing civilization was gradually superseded92.[201] As far as human sacrifice was concerned, many highly civilized93 states knew of vestiges94 or actual recurrences95 of it in their own practice. Rome is a striking example. But in Rome such things were rare exceptions, employed in times of unusual straits to meet a quite unusual emergency.[202] In Greece there were many traces frankly96 admitted to be such—if not actual instances of such sacrifices. But here, as at Rome, the act was admittedly something out of the ordinary, a survival of primitive savagery97.[203]
Accordingly when Greeks and Romans spoke98 of human sacrifices, it was not of an inconceivable form of barbarity, which placed those who took part in it quite out of the human pale, but as a relic99 of a condition from which they had themselves happily grown, and to which they reverted100 only in extremities101. Its presence among other tribes was a demonstration102 that they were still in the barbarous stage, and especially was it deemed to be so when all strangers who chanced to come upon the foreign shore were the selected victims of the god.
That charge, as we know, was made against many Scythian and Thracian tribes. The story of Iphigenia in Tauris is an example of it. It was made against the Carthaginians, at least in the early stages of their history. The Gauls, according to both Greek and 188Roman writers, had made of it a very common institution.[204] We do not know very much of the evidence in the case of the Thracians, Scythians, and Gauls. It is not impossible that customs like certain symbolic103 rites found in many places were misinterpreted. Or it is highly likely that, if human sacrifices existed, they were, as among Greeks and Romans, a rare form of expiation104. For the Carthaginians the story is almost certainly a by-product105 of national hatred, and rests upon the same foundations as the “cruelty” and “perfidy” of Hannibal.
Human sacrifices, similar to those of Greece and Rome, existed in Palestine. Children were sacrificed to the nameless god or gods that bore the cult title of melech, i.e. “king.” As in the rest of the Mediterranean world such sacrifices were exceptional and grisly forms of expiation, used when ordinary means had failed. Among the Jews, on the other hand, they seem to have been prohibited from the very beginning of their history as a community. It is a purely106 gratuitous107 theory that makes melech, or molech, a cult-title of Yahveh in Israel. There is simply no evidence of any kind that it was so. On the contrary, the oldest traditions of the Jews represent the abolition108 of human sacrifices as one of the first reforms instituted by the founders109 of their faith. The Mosaic110 code made these sacrifices a capital offense (Lev. xviii. 21; xx. 2). The very name molech indicates an intense abhorrence111, if, as has been plausibly112 suggested, it is simply ???, or “king,” with the vowels113 of ???, “the Abomination.”[205]
189With so old a tradition on the subject, the Jews must have felt, as peculiarly irritating, the transference of this vituperative114 tag to them. That it might be so applied was of course an inevitable115 expansion of the belief that the Jews were μισ?ξενοι, “haters of strangers.” However, it must not be supposed that the statement was widely current. On the contrary, we have only two references to it. Damocritus, who lived perhaps in the first century B.C.E., as quoted by the late Byzantine compiler Suidas,[206] asserts that the Jews captured a stranger every seven years, and sacrificed him to their god; and Apion, in the first century C.E., relates the circumstantial story of the captured Greek who was found immured116 in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes.
The latter story is an amusing instance of rhetorical method. Of its baselessness of course no proof need be adduced. It is almost certainly the concoction117 of Apion himself, perhaps based upon some such statement as this just quoted from Damocritus. Its melodramatic features, the fattening118 of the stranger, the oath sealed by blood, are highly characteristic of Apion’s style.
It cannot be said that this particular charge against the Jews had any real success. The later writers do not mention it. Tacitus and Juvenal, both of whom are very likely to have read Apion, pass by the story in silence. And Juvenal, who in his Fifteenth Satire119 expresses such detestation of a similar act among the Egyptians he abominated,[207] would certainly not have let off the Syrian fortune-tellers, whom he equally disliked, with an allusion120 to their unsociability.
190Non monstrare vias nisi eadem sacra colenti,[208] “They are instructed not to point out a road except to those who share their rites.” It might almost seem as though even rhetorical animosity demanded more for its terms of abuse than the authority of Apion.
The tragic121 importance of the “ritual murder” in the modern history of the Jews since the Crusades has given the account of Apion a significance to which it is by no means entitled. The least analysis will show that the “ritual murder” of modern times is not really like the ancient story at all. The latter is simply an application to the Jews of the frequent charge of ξενοθυσ?α, “sacrifice of strangers,” such as was made against the Scythians. And Apion’s fable122 found practically no acceptance. There is of course no literary transmission between Apion and the chroniclers of Hugh of Lincoln, but we cannot even suppose that there was a popular one. In the fearful struggles of the rebellions under Hadrian and Trajan, it is impossible to believe that the mutual67 hatred, which found such expression as the massacre at Salamis and the reprisals123 of the Greeks, would have failed to register this charge against the ?ν?σιοι ?ουδα?οι, “the wicked Jews,” if it were known.
The early Middle Ages, at any rate from the Crusades on, devised the “ritual murder” without the aid of older authorities. It is one of the many cases in which parallel developments at different times and in different places produce results that are somewhat similar, although only superficially so.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
ass
|
|
| n.驴；傻瓜，蠢笨的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
meager
|
|
| adj.缺乏的，不足的，瘦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
surmise
|
|
| v./n.猜想，推测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
vices
|
|
| 缺陷( vice的名词复数 )； 恶习； 不道德行为； 台钳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
disapproval
|
|
| n.反对，不赞成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
pro
|
|
| n.赞成，赞成的意见，赞成者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
aloofness
|
|
| 超然态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
aloof
|
|
| adj.远离的；冷淡的，漠不关心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
deception
|
|
| n.欺骗，欺诈；骗局，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
heartily
|
|
| adv.衷心地，诚恳地，十分，很 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
jibe
|
|
| v.嘲笑，与...一致，使转向；n.嘲笑，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
superstitious
|
|
| adj.迷信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
epitome
|
|
| n.典型，梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
synonym
|
|
| n.同义词，换喻词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
precepts
|
|
| n.规诫，戒律，箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
expediency
|
|
| n.适宜；方便；合算；利己 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
rhetoric
|
|
| n.修辞学，浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
antitheses
|
|
| n.对照，对立的，对比法；对立( antithesis的名词复数 )；对立面；对照；对偶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
irrationality
|
|
| n. 不合理，无理性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
defensive
|
|
| adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
exemption
|
|
| n.豁免，免税额，免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
lurid
|
|
| adj.可怕的；血红的；苍白的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
hostilities
|
|
| n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
abrogated
|
|
| 废除（法律等）( abrogate的过去式和过去分词 )； 取消； 去掉； 抛开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
massacre
|
|
| n.残杀，大屠杀；v.残杀，集体屠杀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
fugitives
|
|
| n.亡命者，逃命者( fugitive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
doomed
|
|
| 命定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
uncommon
|
|
| adj.罕见的，非凡的，不平常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
fanaticism
|
|
| n.狂热，盲信 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
barbarians
|
|
| n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 )；外国人；粗野的人；无教养的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
guises
|
|
| n.外观，伪装( guise的名词复数 )v.外观，伪装( guise的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
skeptic
|
|
| n.怀疑者，怀疑论者，无神论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
revered
|
|
| v.崇敬，尊崇，敬畏( revere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
Vogue
|
|
| n.时髦，时尚；adj.流行的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
rattling
|
|
| adj. 格格作响的, 活泼的, 很好的 adv. 极其, 很, 非常 动词rattle的现在分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
cymbals
|
|
| pl.铙钹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
chatter
|
|
| vi.／n.喋喋不休；短促尖叫；(牙齿)打战 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
hampered
|
|
| 妨碍，束缚，限制( hamper的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
fanatics
|
|
| 狂热者，入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
malevolent
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
epithet
|
|
| n.（用于褒贬人物等的）表述形容词，修饰语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
barons
|
|
| 男爵( baron的名词复数 )； 巨头； 大王； 大亨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
boorish
|
|
| adj.粗野的，乡巴佬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
Mediterranean
|
|
| adj.地中海的；地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
enjoins
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
bondage
|
|
| n.奴役，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
exodus
|
|
| v.大批离去，成群外出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
lodging
|
|
| n.寄宿，住所；(大学生的)校外宿舍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
vengeance
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，复仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
kinsmen
|
|
| n.家属，亲属( kinsman的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
civic
|
|
| adj.城市的，都市的，市民的，公民的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
prerogative
|
|
| n.特权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
offense
|
|
| n.犯规，违法行为；冒犯，得罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
antipathy
|
|
| n.憎恶；反感，引起反感的人或事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
cannibalism
|
|
| n.同类相食；吃人肉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
devoured
|
|
| 吞没( devour的过去式和过去分词 )； 耗尽； 津津有味地看； 狼吞虎咽地吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
skulls
|
|
| 颅骨( skull的名词复数 )； 脑袋； 脑子； 脑瓜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
goblets
|
|
| n.高脚酒杯( goblet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
implicitly
|
|
| adv. 含蓄地, 暗中地, 毫不保留地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
inscription
|
|
| n.（尤指石块上的）刻印文字，铭文，碑文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
hereditary
|
|
| adj.遗传的，遗传性的，可继承的，世袭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
superseded
|
|
| [医]被代替的，废弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
vestiges
|
|
| 残余部分( vestige的名词复数 )； 遗迹； 痕迹； 毫不 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
recurrences
|
|
| n.复发，反复，重现( recurrence的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
savagery
|
|
| n.野性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
relic
|
|
| n.神圣的遗物，遗迹，纪念物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
reverted
|
|
| 恢复( revert的过去式和过去分词 )； 重提； 回到…上； 归还 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
extremities
|
|
| n.端点( extremity的名词复数 )；尽头；手和足；极窘迫的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
symbolic
|
|
| adj.象征性的，符号的，象征主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
expiation
|
|
| n.赎罪，补偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
by-product
|
|
| n.副产品，附带产生的结果 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
founders
|
|
| n.创始人( founder的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
mosaic
|
|
| n./adj.镶嵌细工的，镶嵌工艺品的，嵌花式的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
abhorrence
|
|
| n.憎恶；可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
plausibly
|
|
| 似真地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
vowels
|
|
| n.元音，元音字母( vowel的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
vituperative
|
|
| adj.谩骂的；斥责的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
immured
|
|
| v.禁闭，监禁( immure的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
concoction
|
|
| n.调配(物)；谎言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
fattening
|
|
| adj.（食物）要使人发胖的v.喂肥( fatten的现在分词 )；养肥（牲畜）；使（钱）增多；使（公司）升值 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
satire
|
|
| n.讽刺，讽刺文学，讽刺作品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
tragic
|
|
| adj.悲剧的，悲剧性的，悲惨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
fable
|
|
| n.寓言；童话；神话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
reprisals
|
|
| n.报复（行为）( reprisal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |