This circumstance, in fact, acts upon the human race in two ways, and with equal power in both,—by its continuity, and by its universality. To subsist2, to better one’s condition, to bring up a family, are not affairs of time, or place, or taste, or opinion, or choice; they are the daily, constant, and unavoidable concern of all men, at all times, and in all countries.
Everywhere, the greater part of their moral, intellectual, and physical force is devoted3 directly or indirectly4 to create and replace the means of subsistence. The hunter, the fisher, the shepherd, the agriculturist, the manufacturer, the merchant, the labourer, the artisan, the capitalist,—all think first of all how they are to live (prosaic5 as the avowal6 may seem), and then how to live better and better, if they can. The proof of it is that it is only for this end that they are hunters, fishers, manufacturers, agriculturists, etc. In the same way, the public functionary7, the soldier, the magistrate8, enter upon their careers in order to ensure the supply of their wants. We do not necessarily charge a man with want of devotion or disinterestedness10 when we quote the proverb, The priest lives by the altar, for before he belonged to the priesthood he belonged to humanity; and if at this moment he sits down to write a book against this vulgar view of human nature, the sale of his book will demolish11 his argument. [p455]
God forbid that I should seek to deny the existence of self-denial and disinterestedness. But it must be granted that they are exceptional, and it is because they are so that they merit and call forth12 our admiration13. If we consider human nature in its entirety, without having made a previous covenant14 with the demon15 of sentimentalism, we must allow that disinterested9 efforts bear no comparison, as respects their number, with those which are called forth by the hard necessities of our condition. And it is because those efforts, which constitute the aggregate16 of our employments, engross17 so large a portion of each man’s life, that they cannot fail to exert a powerful influence on national character.
M. Saint-Marc Girardin says somewhere or other that he has been led to acknowledge the relative insignificance18 of political forms in comparison with those great general laws which their employments and their wants impose upon nations. “Do you desire to know the condition of a people?” says he, “ask not how they are governed, but how they are employed.”
As a general view, this is just; but the author hastens to falsify it by converting it into a system. The importance of political forms has been exaggerated; and what does he do? He denies their importance altogether, or acknowledges it only to laugh at it. Forms of government, he says, do not interest us but on the day of an election, or when we are reading the newspapers. Monarchy19 or Republic, Aristocracy or Democracy, what matters it? And what conclusion does he arrive at? In maintaining that infant nations resemble each other, whatever their political constitution happens to be, he assimilates the United States to ancient Egypt, because in both countries gigantic works have been executed. Americans clear lands, dig canals, construct railways, and they do all this for themselves, because they are a democracy, and their own masters. The Egyptians raised temples, pyramids, obelisks20, and palaces for their kings and their priests, because they were slaves. And yet we are told that the difference is a mere21 affair of form, not worth regarding, or which we should regard merely to laugh at. Alas22! how the contagion23 of classical lore24 corrupts25 and misleads its superstitious26 votaries27!
M. Saint-Marc Girardin, still proceeding28 on his general proposition that the prevailing29 occupations of a nation determine its genius, soon after remarks that formerly30 we were occupied with war and religion, but nowadays with commerce and manufactures. This is the reason why former generations bore a warlike and religious impress. [p456]
Rousseau had long before remarked that the care for subsistence was the prevailing occupation only of some nations, and those the most prosaic; and that other nations, more worthy31 of the name, had devoted themselves to nobler exertions33.
Now, in this have not both M. Saint-Marc Girardin and Rousseau been the dupes of an historical illusion? Have they not mistaken the amusements, the diversions, or the pretexts34 and instruments of despotism, which give employment to some of the people, for the occupations of all? And has the illusion not arisen from this, that historians are always telling us about the class which does not work, never about the class which does; and in this way we come to regard the first of these classes as the entire nation.
I cannot help thinking that among the Greeks, among the Romans, among the people of the Middle Ages, men just did what they do now, and were subject to wants so pressing and so constantly recurring35, that they were obliged to provide for them under pain of death. Hence I cannot help concluding that such employments then, as at present, formed the principal and absorbing occupation of the great bulk of the human race.
This much is certain, that very few people succeeded in living without work, on the labour of the subject masses. The small number of idlers who did so caused their slaves to construct for them sumptuous36 palaces, magnificent castles, and sombre fortresses37. They loved to surround themselves with all the sensual enjoyments38 of life, and with all the monuments of art. They amused themselves by descanting on philosophy and cosmogony; and, above all, they cultivated assiduously the two sciences to which they owed their supremacy40 and their enjoyments,—the science of force, and the science of fraud.
Although below this aristocracy there existed countless41 multitudes engaged in creating for themselves the means of sustaining life, and for their oppressors the means of revelling42 in pleasures, yet as historians have never made the slightest allusion43 to those multitudes, we have come to forget their existence, and never taken them into account. Our regards are exclusively fixed44 on the aristocracy. To it we give the name of Old or Feudal45 Families; and we imagine that the men of those times maintained themselves without having recourse to commerce, to manufactures, to labour, to vulgar occupations. We admire their disinterestedness, their generosity46, their taste for the arts, their spirituality, their disdain47 of servile employments, their [p457] elevation48 of mind and sentiment, and, in high-sounding language, we assert that at one epoch49 nations cared only for military glory, at another for the arts, at another for philosophy, at another for religion, at another for virtue50. We sincerely lament51 our own condition, and give utterance52 to all sorts of sarcastic53 observations, to the effect that, in spite of these sublime54 models, we are unable to attain55 the same elevation, but are reduced to assign to labour and its vulgar merits a prominent place in the system of modern life.
Let us console ourselves with the reflection that it occupied a no less important place among the ancients. Only, the drudgery56 of labour, from which a limited number of people had succeeded in freeing themselves, fell with redoubled weight upon the enslaved masses, to the great detriment57 of justice, of liberty, of property, of wealth, of equality, and of progress. This is the first of those disturbing causes to which I propose to solicit58 the attention of the reader.
The means, then, to which men have recourse in order to obtain the means of subsistence cannot fail to exert a powerful influence on their condition, physical, moral, intellectual, economical, and political. Who can doubt that if we were in a situation to observe different tribes of men, one of which had devoted itself exclusively to the chase, another to fishing, a third to agriculture, a fourth to navigation, we should discover very considerable differences in their ideas, in their opinions, in their habits, their manners, their customs, their laws, and their religion? No doubt we should find human nature everywhere essentially59 the same; these various laws, customs, and religions would have many points in common; and such points we designate as the general laws of human society.
Be this as it may, there can be no doubt that in our great modern societies we find at work all, or nearly all, the various means of providing subsistence,—fisheries, agriculture, manufactures, commerce, arts, and sciences, although in different proportions in different countries. This is the reason why we do not discover among nations so situated60 such marked and striking differences as would be apparent if each devoted itself to one of these occupations exclusively.
But if the nature of the occupations in which a people is engaged exercises a powerful influence on its morality, its desires, and its tastes,—its morality in its turn exercises a great influence upon its occupations, at least upon the proportion which obtains between these occupations. But I shall not dwell on this observation, [p458] which I have presented in another part of this work,102 but hasten to the principal subject of the present chapter.
A man (and the same thing may be said of a people) may procure61 the means of existence in two ways,—by creating them, or by stealing them.
Each of these two great sources of acquisition presents a variety of methods.
We may create the means of existence by the chase, by fishing, by agriculture, etc.
If, confining ourselves to the circle of one or other of these two categories, we find that the predominance of one of these methods establishes so marked a difference in the character of nations, how much greater must the difference be between a nation which lives by production, and a nation which lives by spoliation?
For it is not one of our faculties63 only, but all of them, which the necessity of providing for our subsistence brings into exercise; and what can be more fitted to modify the social condition of nations than what thus modifies all the human faculties?
This consideration, important as it is, has been so little regarded, that I must dwell upon it for an instant.
The realization64 of an enjoyment39 or satisfaction presupposes labour; whence it follows that spoliation, far from excluding production, presupposes it and takes it for granted.
This consideration, it seems to me, ought to modify the partiality which historians, poets, and novel-writers have displayed for those heroic epochs which were not distinguished65 by what they sneer66 at under the epithet67 of industrialism. In these days, as in our own, men lived, subsisted68; and labour must have done its office then as now. Only there was this difference, that nations, classes, and individuals succeeded in laying their share of the labour and toil69 on the shoulders of other nations, other classes, and other individuals.
The characteristic of production is to bring out of nothing, if I may so speak, the satisfactions and enjoyments which sustain and embellish70 life; so that a man, or a nation, may multiply ad infinitum these enjoyments, without inflicting71 privation on any other man, or any other nation. So much is this the case, that a profound study of the economic mechanism72 shows us that the success [p459] of one man’s labour opens up a field for the success of another’s exertions.
The characteristic of spoliation, on the contrary, is this, that it cannot confer a satisfaction on one without inflicting a corresponding privation on another; for spoliation creates nothing, but displaces what labour has created. It entails73 an absolute loss of the exertions of both parties. So far, then, from adding to the enjoyments of mankind, it diminishes these enjoyments, and confers them, moreover, on those who have not merited them.
In order to produce, man must direct all his powers and faculties to obtain the mastery over natural laws; for it is by this means that he accomplishes his object. Hence, iron converted into a ploughshare is the emblem74 of production.
To steal, on the other hand, man must direct all his powers and faculties to obtain the mastery over his fellow-man; for it is by this means that he attains75 his end. Hence, iron converted into a sword is the emblem of spoliation.
Between the ploughshare, which brings plenty, and the sword, which brings destruction and death, there is no greater difference than between a nation of industrious76 workmen and a nation of spoliators. They have, and can have, nothing whatever in common. They have neither the same ideas, nor the same rules of appreciation77, nor the same tastes, manners, character, laws, morals, or religion.
No more melancholy78 spectacle can present itself to the eye of philanthropy than to see an industrial age putting forth all its efforts, in the way of education, to get inoculated79 with the ideas, the sentiments, the errors, the prejudices, the vices80, of an era of spoliation. Our own era is frequently accused of wanting consistency82, of displaying little accordance between the judgments83 that are formed and the conduct that is pursued; and I believe that this arises principally from the cause which I have just pointed84 out.
Spoliation, in the shape of War—that is to say, pure, simple, barefaced85 spoliation—has its root deep in the human heart, in the organization of man, in the universal motives87 which actuate the social world, namely, desire of happiness and repugnance88 to pain,—in short, in that principle of our nature called self-interest.
I am not sorry to find myself arraigning89 that principle, for I have been accused of devoting to it an idolatrous worship, of representing its effects as productive only of happiness to mankind, and even of elevating it above the principle of sympathy, of disinterestedness, and of self-sacrifice. In truth, I have not so esteemed91 it; I have only proved beyond the possibility of doubt [p460] its existence and its omnipotence92. I should ill appreciate that omnipotence, and I should do violence to my own convictions, in representing personal interest as the universal actuating motive86 of the human race, did I fail now to point out the disturbing causes to which it gives rise, just as I formerly pointed out the harmonious93 laws of the social order which spring from it.
Man, as we have already said, has an invincible94 desire to support himself, to improve his condition, and to attain happiness, or what he conceives to be happiness, at least to approximate towards it. For the same reason he shuns96 pain and toil.
Now labour, or the exertion32 we make in order to cause nature to co-operate in production, is in itself toil or fatigue97. For this reason, it is repugnant to man, and he does not submit to it, except for the sake of avoiding a still greater evil.
Some have maintained philosophically98 that labour is not an evil but a good, and they are right, if we take into account its results. It is a comparative good; or if it be an evil, it is an evil which saves us from greater evils. This is precisely99 the reason why men have so great a tendency to shun95 labour when they think that, without having recourse to it, they may be able to reap its results.
Others maintain that labour is in itself a good; and that, independently of its productive results, it elevates, strengthens, and purifies man’s character, and is to him a source of health and enjoyment. All this is strictly100 true; and it is an additional evidence to us of the marvellous fertility of those final intentions which the Creator has displayed in all parts of His works. Apart altogether from the productions which are its direct results, labour promises to man, as a supplementary101 recompense, a sound mind in a sound body; and it is not more true that idleness is the parent of every vice81 than that labour is the parent of many virtues102.
But this does not at all interfere103 with the natural and unconquerable inclinations104 of the human heart, or with that feeling which prompts us not to desire labour for its own sake, but to compare it constantly with its results; not to desire to expend105 a great effort on what can be accomplished106 with a smaller effort; not of two efforts to choose the more severe. Nor is our endeavour to diminish the relation which the effort bears to the result inconsistent with our desire, when we have once acquired some leisure, to devote that leisure to new labours suited to our tastes, with the prospect107 of thus securing a new and additional recompense.
With reference to all this, universal facts are decisive. At all times, and everywhere, we find man regarding labour as [p461] undesirable108, and satisfaction as the thing in his condition which makes him compensation for his labour. At all times, and everywhere, we find him endeavouring to lighten his toil by calling in the aid, whenever he can obtain it, of animals, of the wind, of water-power, of steam, of natural forces, or, alas! of his fellow-creature, when he succeeds in enslaving him. In this last case,—I repeat, for it is too apt to be forgotten,—labour is not diminished, but displaced.103
Man, being thus placed between two evils, want or labour, and urged on by self-interest, seeks to discover whether, by some means or other, he cannot get rid of both. It is then that spoliation presents itself to him as a solution of the problem.
He says to himself: “I have not, it is true, any means of procuring109 the things necessary for my subsistence and enjoyments—food, clothing, and lodging—unless these things are previously110 produced by labour. But it is by no means indispensable that this should be my own labour. It is enough that they should be produced by the labour of some one, provided I can get the mastery.”
Such is the origin of war.
I shall not dwell upon its consequences.
When things come to this, that one man, or one nation, devotes itself to labour, and another man, or another nation, waits on till that labour is accomplished, in order to devote itself to rapine, we can see at a glance how much human power is thrown away.
On the one hand, the spoliator has not succeeded as he desired in getting quit of every kind of labour. Armed robbery exacts efforts, and sometimes very severe efforts. While the producer devotes his time to the creation of products fitted to yield satisfactions, the spoliator employs his time in devising the means of robbing him. But when the work of violence has been accomplished, or attempted, the objects calculated to yield satisfaction are neither more nor less abundant than before. They may minister to the wants of a different set of people, but not of more wants. Thus all the exertions which the spoliator has made with a view to spoliation, and the exertions also which he has failed to make with a view to production, are entirely111 lost, if not for him, at least for society.
Nor is this all. In most cases an analogous112 loss takes place on the side of the producer. It is not likely that he will wait for the violence with which he is menaced without taking some [p462] precaution for his own protection; and all precautions of this kind—arms, fortifications, munitions113, drill—are labour, and labour lost for ever, not to him who expects security from this labour, but to mankind at large.
But should the producer, after undergoing this double labour, not esteem90 himself able to resist the threatened violence, it is still worse for society, and power is thrown away on a much greater scale; for, in that case labour will be given up altogether, no one being disposed to produce in order to be plundered114.
If we regard the manner in which the human faculties are affected115 on both sides, the moral consequences of spoliation will be seen to be no less disastrous116.
Providence117 has designed that man should devote himself to pacific combats with natural agents, and should reap directly from nature the fruits of his victory. When he obtains this mastery over natural agents only by obtaining a mastery over his fellow-creatures, his mission is changed, and quite another direction is given to his faculties. It is seen how great the difference is between the producer and the spoliator, as regards foresight—foresight which becomes assimilated in some degree to providence, for to foresee is also to provide against [prévoir c’est aussi pourvoir].
The producer sets himself to learn the relation between cause and effect. For this purpose, he studies the laws of the physical world, and seeks to make them more and more useful auxiliaries118. If he turns his regards on his fellow-men, it is to foresee their wants, and to provide for them, on condition of reciprocity.
The spoliator does not study nature. If he turns his regards on his fellow-men, it is to watch them as the eagle watches his prey119, for the purpose of enfeebling and surprising them.
The same differences are observable in the other faculties, and extend to men’s ideas.104 . . . . . .
Spoliation by means of war is not an accidental, isolated120, and transient fact; it is a fact so general and so constant as not to give place, as regards permanence, to labour itself.
Point me out any country of the world where of two races, conquerors121 and conquered, the one does not domineer over the other. Show me in Europe, in Asia, or among the islands of the sea, a favoured spot still occupied by the primitive122 inhabitants. If migrations123 of population have spared no country, war has been equally widespread.
Its traces are universal. Apart from rapine and bloodshed, [p463] public opinion outraged124, and faculties and talents perverted125, war has everywhere left other traces behind it, among which we must reckon slavery and aristocracy. . . . . .
Not only has the march of spoliation kept pace with the creation of wealth, but the spoliators have seized upon accumulated riches, upon capital in all its forms; and, in particular, they have fixed their regards upon capital in the shape of landed property. The last step was taking possession of man himself. For human powers and faculties being the instruments of labour, they found it a shorter method to lay hold of these powers and faculties, than to seize upon their products. . . . . . .
It is impossible to calculate to what extent these great events have acted as disturbing causes, and as trammels on the natural progress of the human race. If we take into account the sacrifice of industrial power which war occasions, and the extent to which the diminished results of that power are concentrated in the hands of a limited number of conquerors, we may form to ourselves an idea of the causes of the destitution126 of the masses,—a destitution which in our days it is impossible to explain on the hypothesis of liberty. . . . . . .
How the warlike spirit is propagated.
Aggressive nations are subject to reprisals127. They often attack others; sometimes they defend themselves. When they act on the defensive128, they have on their side the feeling of justice, and the sacredness of the cause in which they are engaged. They may then exult129 in their courage, devotion, and patriotism130. But, alas! they carry these same sentiments into their offensive wars—and where is their patriotism then? . . . . . .
When two races, the one victorious131 and idle, the other vanquished132 and humiliated133, occupy the same territory, everything calculated to awaken134 desire or arouse popular sympathies falls to the lot of the conquerors. Theirs are leisure, fêtes, taste for the arts, wealth, military parade, tournaments, grace, elegance135, literature, poetry. For the conquered race, nothing remains136 but ruined huts, squalid garments, the hard hand of labour, or the cold hand of charity. . . . . . .
The consequence is that the ideas and prejudices of the dominant137 race, always associated with military force, come to constitute public opinion. Men, women, and children, all unite in extolling138 the soldier’s life in preference to that of the labourer, in preferring war to industry, and spoliation to production. The vanquished race shares the same sentiments, and when, at periods of transition, it succeeds in getting the better of its oppressors, it shows [p464] itself disposed to imitate them. What is this imitation but madness? . . . . . .
How war ends.
Spoliation, like Production, having its source in the human heart, the laws of the social world would not be harmonious, even to the limited extent for which I contend, if the latter did not succeed in the long-run in overcoming the former. . .
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
distinctive
|
|
| adj.特别的，有特色的，与众不同的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
subsist
|
|
| vi.生存，存在，供养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
prosaic
|
|
| adj.单调的，无趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
avowal
|
|
| n.公开宣称，坦白承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
functionary
|
|
| n.官员；公职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
disinterested
|
|
| adj.不关心的，不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
disinterestedness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
demolish
|
|
| v.拆毁(建筑物等)，推翻(计划、制度等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
covenant
|
|
| n.盟约，契约；v.订盟约 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
demon
|
|
| n.魔鬼，恶魔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
engross
|
|
| v.使全神贯注 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
insignificance
|
|
| n.不重要；无价值；无意义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
monarchy
|
|
| n.君主，最高统治者；君主政体，君主国 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
obelisks
|
|
| n.方尖石塔，短剑号，疑问记号( obelisk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
contagion
|
|
| n.(通过接触的疾病)传染；蔓延 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
lore
|
|
| n.传说；学问，经验，知识 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
corrupts
|
|
| （使）败坏( corrupt的第三人称单数 )； （使）腐化； 引起（计算机文件等的）错误； 破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
superstitious
|
|
| adj.迷信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
votaries
|
|
| n.信徒( votary的名词复数 )；追随者；（天主教）修士；修女 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
28
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
prevailing
|
|
| adj.盛行的；占优势的；主要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
exertion
|
|
| n.尽力，努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
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： |
|
|
|
|
34
pretexts
|
|
| n.借口，托辞( pretext的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
recurring
|
|
| adj.往复的，再次发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
sumptuous
|
|
| adj.豪华的，奢侈的，华丽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
fortresses
|
|
| 堡垒，要塞( fortress的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
enjoyments
|
|
| 愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 )； 令人愉快的事物； 享有； 享受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
countless
|
|
| adj.无数的，多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
revelling
|
|
| v.作乐( revel的现在分词 )；狂欢；着迷；陶醉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
feudal
|
|
| adj.封建的，封地的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
disdain
|
|
| n.鄙视，轻视；v.轻视，鄙视，不屑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
epoch
|
|
| n.(新)时代；历元 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
lament
|
|
| n.悲叹，悔恨，恸哭；v.哀悼，悔恨，悲叹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
utterance
|
|
| n.用言语表达，话语，言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
sarcastic
|
|
| adj.讥讽的，讽刺的，嘲弄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
sublime
|
|
| adj.崇高的，伟大的；极度的，不顾后果的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
drudgery
|
|
| n.苦工，重活，单调乏味的工作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
detriment
|
|
| n.损害；损害物，造成损害的根源 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
solicit
|
|
| vi.勾引；乞求；vt.请求，乞求；招揽(生意) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
situated
|
|
| adj.坐落在...的，处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
realization
|
|
| n.实现；认识到，深刻了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
sneer
|
|
| v.轻蔑；嘲笑；n.嘲笑，讥讽的言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
epithet
|
|
| n.（用于褒贬人物等的）表述形容词，修饰语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
subsisted
|
|
| v.（靠很少的钱或食物）维持生活，生存下去( subsist的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
toil
|
|
| vi.辛劳工作，艰难地行动；n.苦工，难事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
embellish
|
|
| v.装饰，布置；给…添加细节，润饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
inflicting
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
entails
|
|
| 使…成为必要( entail的第三人称单数 )； 需要； 限定继承； 使必需 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
emblem
|
|
| n.象征，标志；徽章 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
attains
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的第三人称单数 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
industrious
|
|
| adj.勤劳的，刻苦的，奋发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
inoculated
|
|
| v.给…做预防注射( inoculate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
vices
|
|
| 缺陷( vice的名词复数 )； 恶习； 不道德行为； 台钳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
consistency
|
|
| n.一贯性，前后一致，稳定性；(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
judgments
|
|
| 判断( judgment的名词复数 )； 鉴定； 评价； 审判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
barefaced
|
|
| adj.厚颜无耻的，公然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
repugnance
|
|
| n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
arraigning
|
|
| v.告发( arraign的现在分词 )；控告；传讯；指责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
90
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
esteemed
|
|
| adj.受人尊敬的v.尊敬( esteem的过去式和过去分词 )；敬重；认为；以为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
omnipotence
|
|
| n.全能，万能，无限威力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
harmonious
|
|
| adj.和睦的，调和的，和谐的，协调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
invincible
|
|
| adj.不可征服的，难以制服的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
shun
|
|
| vt.避开，回避，避免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
shuns
|
|
| v.避开，回避，避免( shun的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
fatigue
|
|
| n.疲劳，劳累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
philosophically
|
|
| adv.哲学上；富有哲理性地；贤明地；冷静地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
supplementary
|
|
| adj.补充的，附加的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
inclinations
|
|
| 倾向( inclination的名词复数 )； 倾斜； 爱好； 斜坡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
expend
|
|
| vt.花费，消费，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
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： |
|
|
|
|
109
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
analogous
|
|
| adj.相似的；类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
munitions
|
|
| n.军火，弹药；v.供应…军需品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
plundered
|
|
| 掠夺，抢劫( plunder的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
disastrous
|
|
| adj.灾难性的，造成灾害的；极坏的，很糟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
auxiliaries
|
|
| n.助动词 ( auxiliary的名词复数 )；辅助工，辅助人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
conquerors
|
|
| 征服者，占领者( conqueror的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
migrations
|
|
| n.迁移，移居( migration的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
outraged
|
|
| a.震惊的，义愤填膺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
perverted
|
|
| adj.不正当的v.滥用( pervert的过去式和过去分词 )；腐蚀；败坏；使堕落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
destitution
|
|
| n.穷困，缺乏，贫穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
reprisals
|
|
| n.报复（行为）( reprisal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
defensive
|
|
| adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
exult
|
|
| v.狂喜，欢腾；欢欣鼓舞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
vanquished
|
|
| v.征服( vanquish的过去式和过去分词 )；战胜；克服；抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
humiliated
|
|
| 感到羞愧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
awaken
|
|
| vi.醒，觉醒；vt.唤醒，使觉醒，唤起，激起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
elegance
|
|
| n.优雅；优美，雅致；精致，巧妙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
dominant
|
|
| adj.支配的，统治的；占优势的；显性的；n.主因，要素，主要的人(或物)；显性基因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
extolling
|
|
| v.赞美( extoll的现在分词 )；赞颂，赞扬，赞美( extol的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |