"What's the matter?" said I. "What is the meaning of this sudden dislike to the most extolled2 of all the divinities of this world?"
F. Hateful money! hateful money!
B. You alarm me. I hear peace, liberty, and life cried down, and Brutus went so far even as to say, "Virtue3! thou art but a name!" But what can have happened?
F. Hateful money! hateful money!
B. Come, come, exercise a little philosophy. What has happened to you? Has Cr?sus been affecting you? Has Mondor been playing you false? or has Zoilus been libelling you in the papers?
F. I have nothing to do with Cr?sus; my character, by its insignificance4, is safe from any slanders5 of Zoilus; and as to Mondor--
B. Ah! now I have it. How could I be so blind? You, too, are the inventor of a social reorganization--of the F---- system, in fact. Your society is to be more perfect than that of Sparta, and, therefore, all money is to be rigidly6 banished7 from it. And the thing that troubles you is, how to persuade your people to empty their purses. What would you have? This is the rock on which all reorganizers split. There is not one, but would do wonders, if he could only contrive9 to overcome all resisting influences, and if all mankind would consent to become soft wax in his fingers; but men are resolved not to be soft wax; they listen, applaud, or reject, and--go on as before.
F. Thank heaven, I am still free from this fashionable mania10. Instead of inventing social laws, I am studying those which it has pleased Providence11 to invent, and I am delighted to find them admirable in their progressive development. This is why I exclaim, "Hateful money! hateful money!"
B. You are a disciple12 of Proudhon, then? Well, there is a very simple way for you to satisfy yourself. Throw your purse into the Seine, only reserving a hundred sous, to take an action from the Bank of Exchange.
F. If I cry out against money, is it likely I should tolerate its deceitful substitute?
B. Then I have only one more guess to make. You are a new Diogenes, and are going to victimize me with a discourse13 á la Seneca, on the contempt of riches.
F. Heaven preserve me from that! For riches, don't you see, are not a little more or a little less money. They are bread for the hungry, clothes for the naked, fuel to warm you, oil to lengthen14 the day, a career open to your son, a certain portion for your daughter, a day of rest after fatigue15, a cordial for the faint, a little assistance slipped into the hand of a poor man, a shelter from the storm, a diversion for a brain worn by thought, the incomparable pleasure of making those happy who are dear to us. Riches are instruction, independence, dignity, confidence, charity; they are progress, and civilization. Riches are the admirable civilizing16 result of two admirable agents, more civilizing even than riches themselves--labour and exchange.
B. Well! now you seem to be singing the praises of riches, when, a moment ago, you were loading them with imprecations!
F. Why, don't you see that it was only the whim17 of an economist? I cry out against money, just because everybody confounds it, as you did just now, with riches, and that this confusion is the cause of errors and calamities18 without number. I cry out against it because its function in society is not understood, and very difficult to explain. I cry out against it, because it jumbles19 all ideas, causes the means to be taken for the end, the obstacle for the cause, the alpha for the omega; because its presence in the world, though in itself beneficial, has, nevertheless, introduced a fatal notion, a perversion20 of principles, a contradictory21 theory, which, in a multitude of forms, has impoverished22 mankind and deluged24 the earth with blood. I cry out against it, because I feel that I am incapable25 of contending against the error to which it has given birth, otherwise than by a long and fastidious dissertation26 to which no one would listen. Oh! if I could only find a patient and benevolent27 listener!
B. Well, it shall not be said that for want of a victim you remain in the state of irritation28 in which you now are. I am listening; speak, lecture, do not restrain yourself in any way.
F. You promise to take an interest?
B. I promise to have patience.
F. That is not much.
B. It is all that I can give. Begin, and explain to me, at first, how a mistake on the subject of cash, if mistake there be, is to be found at the root of all economical errors?
F. Well, now, is it possible that you can conscientiously29 assure me, that you have never happened to confound wealth with money?
B. I don't know; but, after all, what would be the consequence of such a confusion?
F. Nothing very important. An error in your brain, which would have no influence over your actions; for you see that, with respect to labour and exchange, although there are as many opinions as there are heads, we all act in the same way.
B. Just as we walk upon the same principle, although we are not agreed upon the theory of equilibrium30 and gravitation.
F. Precisely31. A person who argued himself into the opinion that during the night our heads and feet changed places, might write very fine books upon the subject, but still he would walk about like everybody else.
F. In the same way, a man would die of hunger, who having decided34 that money is real wealth, should carry out the idea to the end. That is the reason that this theory is false, for there is no true theory but such as results from facts themselves, as manifested at all times, and in all places.
B. I can understand, that practically, and under the influence of personal interest, the fatal effects of the erroneous action would tend to correct an error. But if that of which you speak has so little influence, why does it disturb you so much?
F. Because, when a man, instead of acting35 for himself, decides for others, personal interest, that ever watchful36 and sensible sentinel, is no longer present to cry out, "Stop! the responsibility is misplaced." It is Peter who is deceived, and John suffers; the false system of the legislator necessarily becomes the rule of action of whole populations. And observe the difference. When you have money, and are very hungry, whatever your theory on cash may be, what do you do?
F. You do not hesitate about getting rid of your money?
B. The only use of money is to buy what one wants.
F. And if the baker should happen to be thirsty, what does he do?
B. He goes to the wine merchant's, and buys wine with the money I have given him.
F. What! is he not afraid he shall ruin himself?
B. The real ruin would be to go without eating or drinking.
F. And everybody in the world, if he is free, acts in the same manner?
B. Without a doubt. Would you have them die of hunger for the sake of laying by pence?
F. So far from it, that I consider they act wisely, and I only wish that the theory was nothing but the faithful image of this universal practice. But, suppose now that you were the legislator, the absolute king of a vast empire, where there were no gold mines.
B. No unpleasant fiction.
F. Suppose, again, that you were perfectly38 convinced of this,--that wealth consists solely39 and exclusively in cash; to what conclusion would you come?
B. I should conclude that there was no other means for me to enrich my people, or for them to enrich themselves, but to draw away the cash from other nations.
F. That is to say, to impoverish23 them. The first conclusion, then, to which you would arrive would be this,--a nation can only gain when another loses.
B. This axiom has the authority of Bacon and Montaigne.
F. It is not the less sorrowful for that, for it implies--that progress is impossible. Two nations, no more than two men, cannot prosper40 side by side.
B. It would seem that such is the result of this principle.
F. And as all men are ambitious to enrich themselves, it follows that all are desirous, according to a law of Providence, of ruining their fellow-creatures.
B. This is not Christianity, but it is political economy.
F. Such a doctrine41 is detestable. But, to continue, I have made you an absolute king. You must not be satisfied with reasoning, you must act. There is no limit to your power. How would you treat this doctrine,--wealth is money?
B. It would be my endeavour to increase, incessantly42, among my people the quantity of cash.
F. But there are no mines in your kingdom. How would you set about it? What would you do?
B. I should do nothing: I should merely forbid, on pain of death, that a single crown should leave the country.
F. And if your people should happen to be hungry as well as rich?
B. Never mind. In the system we are discussing, to allow them to export crowns would be to allow them to impoverish themselves.
F. So that, by your own confession44, you would force them to act upon a principle equally opposite to that upon which you would yourself act under similar circumstances. Why so?
B. Just because my own hunger touches me, and the hunger of a nation does not touch legislators.
F. Well, I can tell you that your plan would fail, and that no superintendence would be sufficiently45 vigilant46, when the people were hungry, to prevent the crowns from going out and the corn from coming in.
B. If so, this plan, whether erroneous or not, would effect nothing; it would do neither good nor harm, and therefore requires no further consideration.
F. You forget that you are a legislator. A legislator must not be disheartened at trifles, when he is making experiments on others. The first measure not having succeeded, you ought to take some other means of attaining47 your end.
B. What end?
F. You must have a bad memory. Why, that of increasing, in the midst of your people, the quantity of cash, which is presumed to be true wealth.
B. Ah! to be sure; I beg your pardon. But then you see, as they say of music, a little is enough; and this may be said, I think, with still more reason, of political economy. I must consider. But really I don't know how to contrive--
F. Ponder it well. First, I would have you observe that your first plan solved the problem only negatively. To prevent the crowns from going out of the country is the way to prevent the wealth from diminishing, but it is not the way to increase it.
B. Ah! now I am beginning to see ... the corn which is allowed to come in ... a bright idea strikes me ... the contrivance is ingenious, the means infallible; I am coming to it now.
F. Now, I, in turn, must ask you--to what?
B. Why, to a means of increasing the quantity of cash.
F. How would you set about it, if you please?
B. Is it not evident that if the heap of money is to be constantly increasing, the first condition is that none must be taken from it?
F. Certainly.
B. And the second, that additions must constantly be made to it?
F.. To be sure.
B. Then the problem will be solved, either negatively or positively48, as the Socialists49 say, if on the one hand I prevent the foreigner from taking from it, and on the other I oblige him to add to it.
F. Better and better.
B. And for this there must be two simple laws made, in which cash will not even be mentioned. By the one, my subjects will be forbidden to buy anything abroad; and by the other, they will be required to sell a great deal.
F. A well-advised plan.
B. Is it new? I must take out a patent for the invention.
F. You need do no such thing; you have been forestalled50. But you must take care of one thing.
B. What is that?
F. I have made you an absolute king. I understand that you are going to prevent your subjects from buying foreign productions. It will be enough if you prevent them from entering the country. Thirty or forty thousand custom-house officers will do the business.
B. It would be rather expensive. But what does that signify? The money they receive will not go out of the country.
F. True; and in this system it is the grand point. But to ensure a sale abroad, how would you proceed?
B. I should encourage it by prizes, obtained by means of some good taxes laid upon my people.
F. In this case, the exporters, constrained51 by competition among themselves, would lower their prices in proportion, and it would be like making a present to the foreigner of the prizes or of the taxes.
B. Still, the money would not go out of the country.
F. Of course. That is understood. But if your system is beneficial, the kings around you will adopt it. They will make similar plans to yours; they will have their custom-house officers, and reject your productions; so that with them, as with you, the heap of money may not be diminished.
B. I shall have an army and force their barriers.
F. They will have an army and force yours.
B. I shall arm vessels52, make conquests, acquire colonies, and create consumers for my people, who will be obliged to eat our corn and drink our wine.
F. The other kings will do the same. They will dispute your conquests, your colonies, and your consumers; then on all sides there will be war, and all will be uproar53.
B. I shall raise my taxes, and increase my custom-house officers, my army, and my navy.
F. The others will do the same.
F. The others will redouble theirs. In the meantime, we have no proof that you would succeed in selling to a great extent.
B. It is but too true. It would be well if the commercial efforts would neutralize55 each other.
F. And the military efforts also. And, tell me, are not these custom-house officers, soldiers, and vessels, these oppressive taxes, this perpetual struggle towards an impossible result, this permanent state of open or secret war with the whole world, are they not the logical and inevitable56 consequence of the legislators having adopted an idea, which you admit is acted upon by no man who is his own master, that "wealth is cash; and to increase cash, is to increase wealth?"
B. I grant it. Either the axiom is true, and then the legislator ought to act as I have described, although universal war should be the consequence; or it is false; and in this case men, in destroying each other, only ruin themselves.
F. And, remember, that before you became a king, this same axiom had led you by a logical process to the following maxims58:--That which one gains, another loses. The profit of one, is the loss of the other:--which maxims imply an unavoidable antagonism59 amongst all men.
B. It is only too certain. Whether I am a philosopher or a legislator, whether I reason or act upon the principle that money is wealth, I always arrive at one conclusion, or one result:--universal war. It is well that you pointed60 out the consequences before beginning a discussion upon it; otherwise, I should never have had the courage to follow you to the end of your economical dissertation, for, to tell you the truth, it is not much to my taste.
F. What do you mean? I was just thinking of it when you heard me grumbling61 against money! I was lamenting62 that my countrymen have not the courage to study what it is so important that they should know.
F. The consequences! As yet I have only mentioned one. I might have told you of others still more fatal.
B. Yon make my hair stand on end! What other evils can have been caused to mankind by this confusion between money and wealth?
F. It would take me a long time to enumerate64 them. This doctrine is one of a very numerous family. The eldest65, whose acquaintance we have just made, is called the prohibitive system; the next, the colonial system; the third, hatred66 of capital; the Benjamin, paper money.
B. What! does paper money proceed from the same error?
F. Yes, directly. When legislators, after having ruined men by war and taxes, persevere67 in their idea, they say to themselves, "If the people suffer, it is because there is not money enough. We must make some." And as it is not easy to multiply the precious metals, especially when the pretended resources of prohibition68 have been exhausted69, they add, "We will make fictitious70 money, nothing is more easy, and then every citizen will have his pocket-book full of it, and they will all be rich."
B. In fact, this proceeding71 is more expeditious72 than the other, and then it does not lead to foreign war.
F. No, but it leads to civil war.
B. You are a grumbler73. Make haste and dive to the bottom of the question. I am quite impatient, for the first time, to know if money (or its sign) is wealth.
F. You will grant that men do not satisfy any of their wants immediately with crown pieces. If they are hungry, they want bread; if naked, clothing; if they are ill, they must have remedies; if they are cold, they want shelter and fuel; if they would learn, they must have books; if they would travel, they must have conveyances--and so on. The riches of a country consist in the abundance and proper distribution of all these things. Hence you may perceive and rejoice at the falseness of this gloomy maxim57 of Bacon's, "What one people gains, another necessarily loses:" a maxim expressed in a still more discouraging manner by Montaigne, in these words: "The profit of one is the loss of another." When Shem, Ham, and Japhet divided amongst themselves the vast solitudes74 of this earth, they surely might each of them build, drain, sow, reap, and obtain improved lodging75, food and clothing, and better instruction, perfect and enrich themselves--in short, increase their enjoyments76, without causing a necessary diminution77 in the corresponding enjoyments of their brothers. It is the same with two nations.
B. There is no doubt that two nations, the same as two men, unconnected with each other, may, by working more, and working better, prosper at the same time, without injuring each other. It is not this which is denied by the axioms of Montaigne and Bacon. They only mean to say, that in the transactions which take place between two nations or two men, if one gains, the other must lose. And this is self-evident, as exchange adds nothing by itself to the mass of those useful things of which you were speaking; for if, after the exchange, one of the parties is found to have gained something, the other will, of course, be found to have lost something.
F. You have formed a very incomplete, nay78 a false idea of exchange. If Shem is located upon a plain which is fertile in corn, Japhet upon a slope adapted for growing the vine, Ham upon a rich pasturage,--the distinction of their occupations, far from hurting any of them, might cause all three to prosper more. It must be so, in fact, for the distribution of labour, introduced by exchange, will have the effect of increasing the mass of corn, wine, and meat, which is produced, and which is to be shared. How can it be otherwise, if you allow liberty in these transactions? From the moment that any one of the brothers should perceive that labour in company, as it were, was a permanent loss, compared to solitary79 labour, he would cease to exchange. Exchange brings with it its claim to our gratitude80. The fact of its being accomplished81, proves that it is a good thing.
B. But Bacon's axiom is true in the case of gold and silver. If we admit that at a certain moment there exists in the world a given quantity, it is perfectly clear that one purse cannot be filled without another being emptied.
F. And if gold is considered to be riches, the natural conclusion is, that displacements82 of fortune take place among men, but no general progress. It is just what I said when I began. If, on the contrary, you look upon an abundance of useful things, fit for satisfying our wants and our tastes, as true riches, you will see that simultaneous prosperity is possible. Cash serves only to facilitate the transmission of these useful things from one to another, which may be done equally well with an ounce of rare metal like gold, with a pound of more abundant material as silver, or with a hundred-weight of still more abundant metal, as copper84. According to that, if the French had at their disposal as much again of all these useful things, France would be twice as rich, although the quantity of cash remained the same; but it would not be the same if there were double the cash, for in that case the amount of useful things would not increase.
B. The question to be decided is, whether the presence of a greater number of crowns has not the effect, precisely, of augmenting85 the sum of useful things?
F. What connexion can there be between these two terms? Food, clothing, houses, fuel, all come from nature and from labour, from more or less skilful86 labour exerted upon a more or less liberal nature.
B. You are forgetting one great force, which is--exchange. If you acknowledge that this is a force, as you have admitted that crowns facilitate it, you must also allow that they have an indirect power of production.
F. But I have added, that a small quantity of rare metal facilitates transactions as much as a large quantity of abundant metal; whence it follows, that a people is not enriched by being forced to give up useful things for the sake of having more money.
B. Thus, it is your opinion that the treasures discovered in California will not increase the wealth of the world?
F. I do not believe that, on the whole, they will add much to the enjoyments, to the real satisfactions of mankind. If the Californian gold merely replaces in the world that which has been lost and destroyed, it may have its use. If it increases the amount of cash, it will depreciate87 it. The gold diggers will be richer than they would have been without it. But those in whose possession the gold is at the moment of its depreciation88, will obtain a smaller gratification for the same amount. I cannot look upon this as an increase, but as a displacement83 of true riches, as I have defined them.
B. All that is very plausible89. But you will not easily convince me that I am not richer (all other things being equal) if I have two crowns, than if I had only one.
F. I do not deny it.
B. And what is true of me is true of my neighbour, and of the neighbour of my neighbour, and so on, from one to another, all over the country. Therefore, if every Frenchman has more crowns, France must be more rich.
F. And here you fall into the common mistake of concluding that what affects one affects all, and thus confusing the individual with the general interest.
B. Why, what can be more conclusive90? What is true of one, must be so of all! What are all, but a collection of individuals? You might as well tell me that every Frenchman could suddenly grow an inch taller, without the average height of Frenchmen being increased.
F. Your reasoning is apparently91 sound, I grant you, and that is why the illusion it conceals92 is so common. However, let us examine it a little. Ten persons were at play. For greater ease, they had adopted the plan of each taking ten counters, and against these they had placed a hundred francs under a candlestick, so that each counter corresponded to ten francs. After the game the winnings were adjusted, and the players drew from the candlestick as many ten francs as would represent the number of counters. Seeing this, one of them, a great arithmetician perhaps, but an indifferent reasoner, said--"Gentlemen, experience invariably teaches me that, at the end of the game, I find myself a gainer in proportion to the number of my counters. Have you not observed the same with regard to yourselves? Thus, what is true of me must be true of each of you, and what is true of each must be true of all. We should, therefore, all of us gain more, at the end of the game, if we all had more counters. Now, nothing can be easier; we have only to distribute twice the number." This was done; but when the game was finished, and they came to adjust the winnings, it was found that the thousand francs under the candlestick had not been miraculously93 multiplied, according to the general expectation. They had to be divided accordingly, and the only result obtained (chimerical enough) was this;--every one had, it is true, his double number of counters, but every counter, instead of corresponding to ten francs, only represented five. Thus it was clearly shown, that what is true of each, is not always true of all.
B. I see; you are supposing a general increase of counters, without a corresponding increase of the sum placed under the candlestick.
F. And you are supposing a general increase of crowns, without a corresponding increase of things, the exchange of which is facilitated by these crowns.
B. Do you compare the crowns to counters?
F. In any other point of view, certainly not; but in the case you place before me, and which I have to argue against, I do. Remark one thing. In order that there be a general increase of crowns in a country, this country must have mines, or its commerce must be such as to give useful things in exchange for cash. Apart from these two circumstances, a universal increase is impossible, the crowns only changing hands; and in this case, although it may be very true that each one, taken individually, is richer in proportion to the number of crowns that he has, we cannot draw the inference which you drew just now, because a crown more in one purse implies necessarily a crown less in some other. It is the same as with your comparison of the middle height. If each of us grew only at the expense of others, it would be very true of each, taken individually, that he would be a taller man if he had the chance, but this would never be true of the whole taken collectively.
B. Be it so: but, in the two suppositions that you have made, the increase is real, and you must allow that I am right.
F. To a certain point, gold and silver have a value. To obtain this, men consent to give useful things which have a value also. When, therefore, there are mines in a country, if that country obtains from them sufficient gold to purchase a useful thing from abroad--a locomotive, for instance--it enriches itself with all the enjoyments which a locomotive can procure94, exactly as if the machine had been made at home. The question is, whether it spends more efforts in the former proceeding than in the latter? For if it did not export this gold, it would depreciate, and something worse would happen than what you see in California, for there, at least, the precious metals are used to buy useful things made elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is still a danger that they may starve on heaps of gold. What would it be if the law prohibited exportation? As to the second supposition--that of the gold which we obtain by trade; it is an advantage, or the reverse, according as the country stands more or less in need of it, compared to its wants of the useful things which must be given up in order to obtain it. It is not for the law to judge of this, but for those who are concerned in it; for if the law should start upon this principle, that gold is preferable to useful things, whatever may be their value, and if it should act effectually in this sense, it would tend to make France another California, where there would be a great deal of cash to spend, and nothing to buy. It is the very same system which is represented by Midas.
B. The gold which is imported implies that a useful thing is exported, and in this respect there is a satisfaction withdrawn95 from the country. But is there not a corresponding benefit? And will not this gold be the source of a number of new satisfactions, by circulating from hand to hand, and inciting97 to labour and industry, until at length it leaves the country in its turn, and causes the importation of some useful thing?
F. Now you have come to the heart of the question. Is it true that a crown is the principle which causes the production of all the objects whose exchange it facilitates? It is very clear that a piece of five francs is only worth five francs; but we are led to believe that this value has a particular character: that it is not consumed like other things, or that it is exhausted very gradually; that it renews itself, as it were, in each transaction; and that, finally this crown has been worth five francs, as many times as it has accomplished transactions--that it is of itself worth all the things for which it has been successively exchanged; and this is believed, because it is supposed that without this crown these things would never have been produced. It is said, the shoemaker would have sold fewer shoes, consequently he would have bought less of the butcher; the butcher would not have gone so often to the grocer, the grocer to the doctor, the doctor to the lawyer, and so on.
B. No one can dispute that.
F. This is the time, then, to analyse the true function of cash, independently of mines and importations. You have a crown. What does it imply in your hands? It is, as it were, the witness and proof that you have, at some time or other, performed some labour, which, instead of profiting by it, you have bestowed98 upon society in the person of your client. This crown testifies that you have performed a service for society, and, moreover, it shows the value of it. It bears witness, besides, that you have not yet obtained from society a real equivalent service, to which you have a right. To place you in a condition to exercise this right, at the time and in the manner you please, society, by means of your client, has given you an acknowledgment, a title, a privilege from the republic, a counter, a crown in fact, which only differs from executive titles by bearing its value in itself; and if you are able to read with your mind's eye the inscriptions100 stamped upon it you will distinctly decipher these words:--"Pay the bearer a service equivalent to what he has rendered to society, the value received being shown, proved, and measured by that which is represented by me." Now, you give up your crown to me. Either my title to it is gratuitous101, or it is a claim. If you give it me as payment for a service, the following is the result:--your account with society for real satisfactions is regulated, balanced, and closed. You had rendered it a service for a crown, you now restore the crown for a service; as far as you are concerned, you are clear. As for me, I am just in the position in which you were just now. It is I who am now in advance to society for the service which I have just rendered it in your person. I am become its creditor102 for the value of the labour which I have performed for you, and which I might devote to myself. It is into my hands, then, that the title of this credit--the proof of this social debt--ought to pass. You cannot say that I am any richer; if I am entitled to receive, it is because I have given. Still less can you say that society is a crown richer, because one of its members has a crown more, and another has one less. For if you let me have this crown gratis103, it is certain that I shall be so much the richer, but you will be so much the poorer for it; and the social fortune, taken in a mass, will have undergone no change, because as I have already said, this fortune consists in real services, in effective satisfactions, in useful things. You were a creditor to society, you made me a substitute to your rights, and it signifies little to society, which owes a service, whether it pays the debt to you or to me. This is discharged as soon as the bearer of the claim is paid.
B. But if we all had a great number of crowns we should obtain from society many services. Would not that be very desirable?
F. You forget that in the process which I have described, and which is a picture of the reality, we only obtain services from society because we have bestowed some upon it. Whoever speaks of a service, speaks at the same time of a service received and returned, for these two terms imply each other, so that the one must always be balanced by the other. It is impossible for society to render more services than it receives, and yet this is the chimera104 which is being pursued by means of the multiplication105 of coins, of paper money, &c.
B. All that appears very reasonable in theory, but in practice I cannot help thinking, when I see how things go, that if, by some fortunate circumstance, the number of crowns could be multiplied in such a way that each of us could see his little property doubled, we should all be more at our ease; we should all make more purchases, and trade would receive a powerful stimulus106.
F. More purchases! and what should we buy? Doubtless, useful articles--things likely to procure for us substantial gratification--such as provisions, stuffs, houses, books, pictures. You should begin, then, by proving that all these things create themselves; you must suppose the Mint melting ingots of gold which have fallen from the moon; or that the Board of Assignats be put in action at the national printing office; for you cannot reasonably think that if the quantity of corn, cloth, ships, hats and shoes remains107 the same, the share of each of us can be greater, because we each go to market with a greater number of real or fictitious money. Remember the players. In the social order, the useful things are what the workers place under the candlestick, and the crowns which circulate from hand to hand are the counters. If you multiply the francs without multiplying the useful things, the only result will be, that more francs will be required for each exchange, just as the players required more counters for each deposit. You have the proof of this in what passes for gold silver, and copper. Why does the same exchange require more copper than silver, more silver than gold? Is it not because these metals are distributed in the world in different proportions? What reason have you to suppose that if gold were suddenly to become as abundant as silver, it would not require as much of one as of the other to buy a house?
B. You may be right, but I should prefer your being wrong. In the midst of the sufferings which surround us, so distressing108 in themselves, and so dangerous in their consequences, I have found some consolation109 in thinking that there was an easy method of making all the members of the community happy.
F. Even if gold and silver were true riches, it would be no easy matter to increase the amount of them in a country where there are no mines.
B. No, but it is easy to substitute something else. I agree with you that gold and silver can do but little service, except as a mere43 means of exchange. It is the same with paper money, bank-notes, &c. Then, if we had all of us plenty of the latter, which it is so easy to create, we might all buy a great deal, and should want for nothing. Your cruel theory dissipates hopes, illusions, if you will, whose principle is assuredly very philanthropic.
F. Yes, like all other barren dreams formed to promote universal felicity. The extreme facility of the means which you recommend is quite sufficient to expose its hollowness. Do you believe that if it were merely needful to print bank-notes in order to satisfy all our wants, our tastes and desires, that mankind would have been contented110 to go on till now, without having recourse to this plan? I agree with you that the discovery is tempting111. It would immediately banish8 from the world, not only plunder112, in its diversified113 and deplorable forms, but even labour itself, except the Board of Assignats. But we have yet to learn how assignats are to purchase houses, which no one would have built; corn, which no one would have raised; stuffs, which no one would have taken the trouble to weave.
B. One thing strikes me in your argument. You say yourself, that if there is no gain, at any rate there is no loss in multiplying the instrument of exchange, as is seen by the instance of the players, who were quits by a very mild deception114. Why, then, refuse the philosopher's stone, which would teach us the secret of changing flints into gold, and, in the meantime, into paper money? Are you so blindly wedded115 to your logic33, that you would refuse to try an experiment where there can be no risk? If you are mistaken, you are depriving the nation, as your numerous adversaries116 believe, of an immense advantage. If the error is on their side, no harm can result, as you yourself say, beyond the failure of a hope. The measure, excellent in their opinion, in yours is negative. Let it be tried, then, since the worst which can happen is not the realization117 of an evil, but the non-realization of a benefit.
F. In the first place, the failure of a hope is a very great misfortune to any people. It is also very undesirable118 that the Government should announce the re-imposition of several taxes on the faith of a resource which must infallibly fail. Nevertheless, your remark would deserve some consideration, if, after the issue of paper money and its depreciation, the equilibrium of values should instantly and simultaneously119 take place, in all things and in every part of the country. The measure would tend, as in my example of the players, to a universal mystification, upon which the best thing we could do would be to look at one another and laugh. But this is not in the course of events. The experiment has been made, and every time a despot has altered the money ...
B. Who says anything about altering the money?
F. Why, to force people to take in payment scraps120 of paper which have been officially baptized francs, or to force them to receive, as weighing five grains, a piece of silver which weighs only two and a half, but which has been officially named a franc, is the same thing, if not worse; and all the reasoning which can be made in favour of assignats has been made in favour of legal false money. Certainly, looking at it, as you did just now, and as you appear to be doing still, if it is believed that to multiply the instruments of exchange is to multiply the exchanges themselves as well as the things exchanged, it might very reasonably be thought that the most simple means was to double the crowns, and to cause the law to give to the half the name and value of the whole. Well, in both cases, depreciation is inevitable. I think I have told you the cause. I must also inform you, that this depreciation, which, with paper, might go on till it came to nothing, is effected by continually making dupes; and of these, poor people, simple persons, workmen and countrymen are the chief.
B. I see; but stop a little. This dose of Economy is rather too strong for once.
F. Be it so. We are agreed, then, upon this point,--that wealth is the mass of useful things Which we produce by labour; or, still better, the result of all the efforts which we make for the satisfaction of our wants and tastes. These useful things are exchanged for each other, according to the convenience of those to whom they belong. There are two forms in these transactions; one is called barter121: in this case, a service is rendered for the sake of receiving an equivalent service immediately. In this form, transactions would be exceedingly limited. In order that they may be multiplied, and accomplished independently of time and space amongst persons unknown to each other, and by infinite fractions, an intermediate agent has been necessary,--this is cash. It gives occasion for exchange, which is nothing else but a complicated bargain. This is what has to be remarked and understood. Exchange decomposes122 itself into two bargains, into two actors, sale and purchase,--the reunion of which is needed to complete it. You sell a service, and receive a crown--then, with this crown, you buy a service. Then only is the bargain complete; it is not till then that your effort has been followed by a real satisfaction. Evidently you only work to satisfy the wants of others, that others may work to satisfy yours. So long as you have only the crown which has been given you for your work, you are only entitled to claim the work of another person. When you have done so, the economical evolution will be accomplished as far as you are concerned, since you will then only have obtained, by a real satisfaction, the true reward for your trouble. The idea of a bargain implies a service rendered, and a service received. Why should it not be the same with exchange, which is merely a bargain in two parts? And here there are two observations to be made. First,--It is a very unimportant circumstance whether there be much or little cash in the world. If there is much, much is required; if there is little, little is wanted, for each transaction: that is all. The second observation is this:--Because it is seen that cash always reappears in every exchange, it has come to be regarded as the sign and the measure of the things exchanged.
B. Will you still deny that cash is the sign of the useful things of which you speak?
F. A louis6 is no more the sign of a sack of corn, than a sack of corn is the sign of a louis.
B. What harm is there in looking at cash as the sign of wealth?
F. The inconvenience is this,--it leads to the idea that we have only to increase the sign, in order to increase the things signified; and we are in danger of adopting all the false measures which you took when I made you an absolute king. We should go still further. Just as in money we see the sign of wealth, we see also in paper money the sign of money; and thence conclude that there is a very easy and simple method of procuring123 for everybody the pleasures of fortune.
B. But you will not go so far as to dispute that cash is the measure of values?
F. Yes, certainly, I do go as far as that, for that is precisely where the illusion lies. It has become customary to refer the value of everything to that of cash. It is said, this is worth five, ten, or twenty francs, as we say this weighs five, ten, or twenty grains; this measures five, ten, or twenty yards; this ground contains five, ten, or twenty acres; and hence it has been concluded, that cash is the measure of values.
B. Well, it appears as if it was so.
F. Yes, it appears so, and it is this I complain of, and not of the reality. A measure of length, size, surface, is a quantity agreed upon, and unchangeable. It is not so with the value of gold and silver. This varies as much as that of corn, wine, cloth, or labour, and from the same causes, for it has the same source and obeys the same laws. Gold is brought within our reach, just like iron, by the labour of miners, the advances of capitalists, and the combination of merchants and seamen124. It costs more or less, according to the expense of its production, according to whether there is much or little in the market, and whether it is much or little in request; in a word, it undergoes the fluctuations125 of all other human productions. But one circumstance is singular, and gives rise to many mistakes. When the value of cash varies, the variation is attributed by language to the other productions for which it is exchanged. Thus, let us suppose that all the circumstances relative to gold remain the same, and that the corn harvest has failed. The price of corn will rise. It will be said, "The quarter of corn, which was worth twenty francs, is now worth thirty;" and this will be correct, for it is the value of the corn which has varied126, and language agrees with the fact. But let us reverse the supposition: let us suppose that all the circumstances relative to corn remain the same, and that half of all the gold in existence is swallowed up; this time it is the price of gold which will rise. It would seem that we ought to say,--"This Napoleon, which was worth twenty francs, is now worth forty." Now, do you know how this is expressed? Just as if it was the other objects of comparison which had fallen in price, it is said,--"Corn, which was worth twenty francs, is now only worth ten."
B. It all comes to the same thing in the end.
F. No doubt; but only think what disturbances127, what cheatings are produced in exchanges, when the value of the medium varies, without our becoming aware of it by a change in the name. Old pieces are issued, or notes bearing the name of twenty francs, and which will bear that name through every subsequent depreciation. The value will be reduced a quarter, a half, but they will still be called pieces or notes of twenty francs. Clever persons will take care not to part with their goods unless for a larger number of notes--in other words, they will ask forty francs for what they would formerly128 have sold for twenty; but simple persons will be taken in. Many years must pass before all the values will find their proper level. Under the influence of ignorance and custom, the day's pay of a country labourer will remain for a long time at a franc, while the saleable price of all the articles of consumption around him will be rising. He will sink into destitution129 without being able to discover the cause. In short, since you wish me to finish, I must beg you, before we separate, to fix your whole attention upon this essential point:--When once false money (under whatever form it may take) is put into circulation, depreciation will ensue, and manifest itself by the universal rise of every thing which is capable of being sold. But this rise in prices is not instantaneous and equal for all things. Sharp men, brokers130, and men of business, will not suffer by it; for it is their trade to watch the fluctuations of prices, to observe the cause, and even to speculate upon it. But little tradesmen, countrymen, and workmen, will bear the whole weight of it. The rich man is not any the richer for it, but the poor man becomes poorer by it. Therefore, expedients131 of this kind have the effect of increasing the distance which separates wealth from poverty, of paralysing the social tendencies which are incessantly bringing men to the same level, and it will require centuries for the suffering classes to regain132 the ground which they have lost in their advance towards equality of condition.
F. Have you finished your own dissertation? As for me, I have scarcely begun mine. I have not yet spoken of the hatred of capital, of gratuitous credit--a fatal notion, a deplorable mistake, which takes its rise from the same source.
B. What! does this frightful commotion134 of the populace against capitalists arise from money being confounded with wealth?
F. It is the result of different causes. Unfortunately, certain capitalists have arrogated135 to themselves monopolies and privileges which are quite sufficient to account for this feeling. But when the theorists of democracy have wished to justify136 it, to systematize it, to give it the appearance of a reasonable opinion, and to turn it against the very nature of capital, they have had recourse to that false political economy at whose root the same confusion is always to be found. They have said to the people:--"Take a crown, put it under a glass; forget it for a year; then go and look at it, and you will be convinced that it has not produced ten sous, nor five sous, nor any fraction of a sou. Therefore, money produces no interest." Then, substituting for the word money its pretended sign, capital, they have made it by their logic undergo this modification--"Then capital produces no interest." Then follow this series of consequences--"Therefore he who lends a capital ought to obtain nothing from it; therefore he who lends you a capital, if he gains something by it, is robbing you; therefore all capitalists are robbers; therefore wealth, which ought to serve gratuitously137 those who borrow it, belongs in reality to those to whom it does not belong; therefore there is no such thing as property; therefore everything belongs to everybody; therefore ..."
B. This is very serious; the more so, from the syllogism138 being so admirably formed. I should very much like to be enlightened on the subject. But, alas139! I can no longer command my attention. There is such a confusion in my head of the words cash, money, services, capital, interest, that, really, I hardly know where I am. We will, if you please, resume the conversation another day.
F. In the meantime, here is a little work entitled Capital and Rent. It may perhaps remove some of your doubts. Just look at it, when you are in want of a little amusement.
B. To amuse me?
F. Who knows? One nail drives in another; one wearisome thing drives away another.
B. I have not yet made up my mind that your views upon cash and political economy in general are correct. But, from your conversation, this is what I have gathered:--That these questions are of the highest importance; for peace or war, order or anarchy140, the union or the antagonism of citizens, are at the root of the answer to them. How is it that, in France, a science which concerns us all so nearly, and the diffusion141 of which would have so decisive an influence upon the fate of mankind, is so little known? Is it that the State does not teach it sufficiently?
F. Not exactly. For, without knowing it, it applies itself to loading everybody's brain with prejudices, and everybody's heart with sentiments favourable142 to the spirit of anarchy, war, and hatred; so that, when a doctrine of order, peace, and union presents itself, it is in vain that it has clearness and truth on its side,--it cannot gain admittance.
B. Decidedly, you are a frightful grumbler. What interest can the State have in mystifying people's intellects in favour of revolutions, and civil and foreign wars? There must certainly be a great deal of exaggeration in what you say.
F. Consider. At the period when our intellectual faculties143 begin to develop themselves, at the age when impressions are liveliest, when habits of mind are formed with the greatest ease--when we might look at society and understand it--in a word, as soon as we are seven or eight years old, what does the State do? It puts a bandage over our eyes, takes us gently from the midst of the social circle which surrounds us, to plunge144 us, with our susceptible145 faculties, our impressible hearts, into the midst of Roman society. It keeps us there for ten years at least, long enough to make an ineffaceable impression on the brain. Now observe, that Roman society is directly opposed to what our society ought to be. There they lived upon war; here we ought to hate war. There they hated labour; here we ought to live upon labour. There the means of subsistence were founded upon slavery and plunder; here they should be drawn96 from free industry. Roman society was organised in consequence of its principle. It necessarily admired what made it prosper. There they considered as virtue, what we look upon as vice99. Its poets and historians had to exalt146 what we ought to despise. The very words, liberty, order, justice, people, honour, influence, &c., could not have the same signification at Rome, as they have, or ought to have, at Paris. How can you expect that all these youths who have been at university or conventual schools, with Livy and Quintus Curtius for their catechism, will not understand liberty like the Gracchi, virtue like Cato, patriotism147 like C?sar? How can you expect them not to be factious148 and warlike? How can you expect them to take the slightest interest in the mechanism149 of our social order? Do you think that their minds have been prepared to understand it? Do you not see that, in order to do so, they must get rid of their present impressions, and receive others entirely150 opposed to them?
B. What do you conclude from that?
F. I will tell you. The most urgent necessity is, not that the State should teach, but that it should allow education. All monopolies are detestable, but the worst of all is the monopoly of education.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
economist
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家，节俭的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
extolled
|
|
| v.赞颂，赞扬，赞美( extol的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
insignificance
|
|
| n.不重要；无价值；无意义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
slanders
|
|
| 诽谤，诋毁( slander的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
rigidly
|
|
| adv.刻板地，僵化地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
banished
|
|
| v.放逐，驱逐( banish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
banish
|
|
| vt.放逐，驱逐；消除，排除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
contrive
|
|
| vt.谋划，策划；设法做到；设计，想出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
mania
|
|
| n.疯狂；躁狂症，狂热，癖好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
disciple
|
|
| n.信徒，门徒，追随者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
lengthen
|
|
| vt.使伸长，延长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
fatigue
|
|
| n.疲劳，劳累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
civilizing
|
|
| v.使文明，使开化( civilize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
whim
|
|
| n.一时的兴致，突然的念头；奇想，幻想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
calamities
|
|
| n.灾祸，灾难( calamity的名词复数 )；不幸之事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
jumbles
|
|
| 混杂( jumble的名词复数 )； （使）混乱； 使混乱； 使杂乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
perversion
|
|
| n.曲解；堕落；反常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
impoverished
|
|
| adj.穷困的，无力的，用尽了的v.使（某人）贫穷( impoverish的过去式和过去分词 )；使（某物）贫瘠或恶化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
impoverish
|
|
| vt.使穷困，使贫困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
deluged
|
|
| v.使淹没( deluge的过去式和过去分词 )；淹没；被洪水般涌来的事物所淹没；穷于应付 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
dissertation
|
|
| n.（博士学位）论文，学术演讲，专题论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
benevolent
|
|
| adj.仁慈的，乐善好施的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
conscientiously
|
|
| adv.凭良心地；认真地，负责尽职地；老老实实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
logician
|
|
| n.逻辑学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
watchful
|
|
| adj.注意的，警惕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
baker
|
|
| n.面包师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
prosper
|
|
| v.成功，兴隆，昌盛；使成功，使昌隆，繁荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
incessantly
|
|
| ad.不停地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
vigilant
|
|
| adj.警觉的，警戒的，警惕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
attaining
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的现在分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
socialists
|
|
| 社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
forestalled
|
|
| v.先发制人，预先阻止( forestall的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
uproar
|
|
| n.骚动，喧嚣，鼎沸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
exertions
|
|
| n.努力( exertion的名词复数 )；费力；（能力、权力等的）运用；行使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
neutralize
|
|
| v.使失效、抵消，使中和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
antagonism
|
|
| n.对抗，敌对，对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
grumbling
|
|
| adj. 喃喃鸣不平的, 出怨言的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
lamenting
|
|
| adj.悲伤的，悲哀的v.（为…）哀悼，痛哭，悲伤( lament的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
enumerate
|
|
| v.列举，计算，枚举，数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
eldest
|
|
| adj.最年长的，最年老的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
persevere
|
|
| v.坚持，坚忍，不屈不挠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
fictitious
|
|
| adj.虚构的，假设的；空头的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
expeditious
|
|
| adj.迅速的，敏捷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
grumbler
|
|
| 爱抱怨的人，发牢骚的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
solitudes
|
|
| n.独居( solitude的名词复数 )；孤独；荒僻的地方；人迹罕至的地方 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
lodging
|
|
| n.寄宿，住所；(大学生的)校外宿舍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
enjoyments
|
|
| 愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 )； 令人愉快的事物； 享有； 享受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
diminution
|
|
| n.减少；变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
solitary
|
|
| adj.孤独的，独立的，荒凉的；n.隐士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
displacements
|
|
| n.取代( displacement的名词复数 )；替代；移位；免职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
displacement
|
|
| n.移置，取代，位移，排水量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
copper
|
|
| n.铜；铜币；铜器；adj.铜(制)的；(紫)铜色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
augmenting
|
|
| 使扩张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
depreciate
|
|
| v.降价，贬值，折旧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
depreciation
|
|
| n.价值低落，贬值，蔑视，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
conceals
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，遮住( conceal的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
miraculously
|
|
| ad.奇迹般地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
inciting
|
|
| 刺激的，煽动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
inscriptions
|
|
| （作者）题词( inscription的名词复数 )； 献词； 碑文； 证劵持有人的登记 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
creditor
|
|
| n.债仅人，债主，贷方 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
gratis
|
|
| adj.免费的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
chimera
|
|
| n.神话怪物；梦幻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
multiplication
|
|
| n.增加，增多，倍增；增殖，繁殖；乘法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
stimulus
|
|
| n.刺激，刺激物，促进因素，引起兴奋的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
distressing
|
|
| a.使人痛苦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
consolation
|
|
| n.安慰，慰问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
contented
|
|
| adj.满意的，安心的，知足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
tempting
|
|
| a.诱人的, 吸引人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
plunder
|
|
| vt.劫掠财物，掠夺；n.劫掠物，赃物；劫掠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
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： |
|
|
|
|
114
deception
|
|
| n.欺骗，欺诈；骗局，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
wedded
|
|
| adj.正式结婚的；渴望…的，执著于…的v.嫁，娶，（与…）结婚( wed的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
realization
|
|
| n.实现；认识到，深刻了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
undesirable
|
|
| adj.不受欢迎的，不良的，不合意的，讨厌的；n.不受欢迎的人，不良分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
scraps
|
|
| 油渣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
barter
|
|
| n.物物交换，以货易货，实物交易 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
decomposes
|
|
| 腐烂( decompose的第三人称单数 )； （使）分解； 分解（某物质、光线等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
seamen
|
|
| n.海员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
fluctuations
|
|
| 波动，涨落，起伏( fluctuation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
destitution
|
|
| n.穷困，缺乏，贫穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
brokers
|
|
| n.（股票、外币等）经纪人( broker的名词复数 )；中间人；代理商；（订合同的）中人v.做掮客（或中人等）( broker的第三人称单数 )；作为权力经纪人进行谈判；以中间人等身份安排… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
expedients
|
|
| n.应急有效的，权宜之计的( expedient的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
regain
|
|
| vt.重新获得，收复，恢复 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
meditate
|
|
| v.想，考虑，（尤指宗教上的）沉思，冥想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
commotion
|
|
| n.骚动，动乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
arrogated
|
|
| v.冒称，妄取( arrogate的过去式和过去分词 )；没来由地把…归属（于） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
gratuitously
|
|
| 平白 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
syllogism
|
|
| n.演绎法，三段论法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
anarchy
|
|
| n.无政府状态；社会秩序混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
plunge
|
|
| v.跳入，(使)投入，(使)陷入；猛冲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
susceptible
|
|
| adj.过敏的，敏感的；易动感情的，易受感动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
exalt
|
|
| v.赞扬，歌颂，晋升，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
factious
|
|
| adj.好搞宗派活动的，派系的，好争论的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |