Man suffers; society suffers. We ask why? This is to ask why God has been pleased to indue man with sensibility and free will. As regards this, no one knows more than the revelation in which he has faith has taught him.
But whatever may have been the designs of God, what human science can take as its point of departure is a positive fact, namely, that man has been created free and indued with feeling.
This is so true that I defy those who are astonished at it to conceive a living, thinking, acting1 being indued with volition2 and affections—such a being, in short, as man—yet destitute3 of sensibility and free will.
Could God have ordered things otherwise? Reason undoubtedly4 answers yes, but imagination says eternally no, so radically5 impossible is it for us to separate in thought humanity from this double attribute. Now, to be indued with feeling is to be capable of experiencing sensations which are agreeable or painful. Hence comfort or uneasiness. From the moment, then, that God gave existence to sensibility, He permitted evil, or the possibility of evil.
In giving us free will, He has indued us with the faculty6, at least in a certain measure, of shunning8 evil and seeking after good. Free will supposes and accompanies intelligence—what would the faculty of choosing signify if it were not allied9 with the faculty of examining, of comparing, of judging? Thus, every man who comes into the world brings with him mind and a motive10 force.
The motive force is that personal irresistible11 impulse, the essence of all our forces, which leads us to shun7 Evil and seek [p496] after Good. We term it the instinct of preservation12, personal or private interest.
This sentiment has been sometimes decried13, sometimes misunderstood, but as regards its existence there can be no doubt. Irresistibly14 we seek after all which, according to our notions, can ameliorate our destiny, and we avoid all which is likely to deteriorate15 it. This is at least as certain as it is that every material molecule16 possesses centripetal17 and centrifugal force. And just as the double movement of attraction and repulsion is the grand spring of the physical world, we may affirm that the double force of human attraction towards happiness and human repulsion from pain is the mainspring of the social mechanism19.
But it is not enough that man is irresistibly led to prefer good to evil; he must also be able to discern what is good and what is evil. This is what God has provided for in giving him that marvellous and complex mechanism called intelligence. To fix his attention, to compare, judge, reason, connect effects with causes, to remember, to foresee; such are—if I may use the expression—the wheels of that admirable machine.
The impulsive20 force which is possessed21 by each of us moves under the direction of our intelligence. But our intelligence is imperfect. It is liable to error. We compare, we judge, we act in consequence; but we may err22, we may make a bad choice, we may tend towards evil, mistaking it for good, or we may shun good, mistaking it for evil. This is the first source of social dissonances; and it is inevitable23, for this reason, that the great motive spring of humanity—personal interest—is not, like material attraction, a blind force, but a force guided by an imperfect intelligence. Let us be very sure, then, that we shall not see Harmony except under this restriction24. God has not seen proper to found social order or Harmony upon perfection, but upon human perfectibility, our capacity for improvement. If our intelligence is imperfect, it is improvable. It develops, enlarges, and rectifies25 itself. It begins of new and verifies its operations. Experience at each moment puts us right, and Responsibility suspends over our heads a complete system of punishments and rewards. Every step that we take on the road of error plunges26 us into increased suffering, and in such a way that the warning cannot fail to be heard, and the rectification27 of our determinations, and consequently of our actions, follows, sooner or later, with infallible certainty.
Under the impulse which urges him on, ardent28 to pursue happiness, prompt to seize it, man may be seeking his own good in the misery29 of others. This is a second and an abundant source of [p497] discordant30 social combinations. But the limit of such disturbances31 is marked; and they find their inevitable doom32 in the law of Solidarity33. Individual force thus misapplied calls forth34 opposition35 from all the analogous36 forces, which, antagonistic37 to evil by their nature, repel38 injustice39 and chastise40 it.
It is thus that progress is realized, and it is not the less progress from being dearly bought. It springs from a native impulse, which is universal and inherent in our nature, directed by an intelligence which is frequently misled, and subjected to a will which is frequently depraved. Arrested on its march by Error and Injustice, it receives the all-powerful assistance of Responsibility and Solidarity to enable it to surmount41 these obstacles, and it cannot fail to receive that assistance since it springs from these obstacles themselves.
This internal, universal, and imperishable motive power, which resides in each individual and constitutes him an active being, this tendency of every man to pursue happiness and shun misery, this product, this effect, this necessary complement42 of sensibility, without which sensibility would be only an inexplicable43 scourge44, this primordial45 phenomenon which is at the bottom of all human actions, this attractive and repulsive46 force which we have denominated the mainspring of the social mechanism, has had for detractors the greater part of our publicists; and this is one of the strangest aberrations47 which the annals of science present.
It is true that self-interest is the cause of all the evils, as it is of all the good, incident to man. It cannot fail to be so, since it determines all our acts. Seeing this, some publicists can imagine no better means of eradicating48 evil than by stifling49 self-interest. But as by this means they would destroy the very spring and motive of our activity, they have thought proper to endow us with a different motive force, namely, devotion, self-sacrifice. They hope that henceforth all transactions and social combinations will take place at their bidding, upon the principle of self-abandonment. We are no longer to pursue our own happiness, but the happiness of others; the warnings of sensibility are to go for nothing, like the rewards and punishments of Responsibility. All the laws of our nature are to be reversed; the spirit of sacrifice is to be substituted for the instinct of preservation; in a word, no one is to think longer on his own personality, but for the purpose of hastening to sacrifice it to the public good. It is from such a universal transformation50 of the human heart that certain publicists, who think themselves very religious, expect to realize perfect social harmony. They [p498] have forgotten to tell us how they hope to effect this indispensable preliminary, the transformation of the human heart.
If they are foolish enough to undertake this, they will find that they want the power to accomplish it. Do they desire the proof of what I say? Let them try the experiment on themselves; let them endeavour to stifle51 in their own hearts all feeling of self-interest, so that it shall no longer make its appearance in the most ordinary actions of life. They will not be long in finding out their powerlessness. Why, then, pretend to impose upon all men, without exception, a doctrine52 to which they themselves cannot submit?
I confess myself unable to see anything religious, unless it be in intention and appearance, in these affected53 theories, in these impracticable maxims54 which they affect so earnestly to preach, while they continue to act just as the vulgar act. Is it, I would ask, true and genuine religion which inspires these catholic economists55 with the presumptuous57 thought that God has done His work ill, and that it is their mission to repair it? Bossuet did not think so when he said, “Man aspires58 to happiness, and he cannot help aspiring59 to it.”
Declamations against personal interest never can have much scientific significance; for self-interest is part of man’s indestructible nature—at least, we cannot destroy it without destroying man himself. All that religion, morals, and political economy can do is to give an enlightened direction to this impulsive force—to point out not only the primary, but the ulterior consequences of those acts to which it urges us. A superior and progressive satisfaction consequent on a transient suffering, long continued and constantly increased suffering following on a momentary60 gratification; such, after all, are moral good and evil. That which determines the choice of men towards virtue61 is an elevated and enlightened interest, but it is always primarily a personal interest.
If it is strange that personal interest should be decried, when considered not with reference to its immoral62 abuse, but as the providential moving spring of all human activity, it is still stranger that it should have been put aside altogether, and that men should have imagined themselves in a situation to frame a system of social science without taking it into account.
It is an inexplicable instance of folly63 that publicists in general should regard themselves as the depositaries and the arbiters64 of this motive spring. Each starts from this point of departure: Assuming that mankind are a flock, and that I am the shepherd, [p499] how am I to manage in order to make mankind happy? Or this: Given on the one hand a certain quantity of clay, and on the other a potter, what should the potter do in order to turn that clay to the best account?
Our publicists may differ when the question comes to be which is the best potter, who forms and moulds the clay most advantageously; but they are all at one upon this, that their function is to knead the human clay, and what the clay has to do is simply to be kneaded by them. Under the title of legislators they establish between themselves and the human race relations analogous to those of guardian65 and ward18. The idea never occurs to them that the human race is a living sentient66 body, indued with volition, and acting according to laws which it is not their business to invent, since they already exist, nor to impose, but to study; that humanity is an aggregate67 of beings in all respects like themselves, and in no way inferior or subordinate; endowed both with an impulse to act, and with intelligence to choose; which feels on all sides the stimulus68 of Responsibility and Solidarity; and that, in short, from all these phenomena69 there results an aggregate of self-existing relations, which it is not the business of science to create, as they imagine, but to observe.
Rousseau, I think, is the publicist who has most na?vely exhumed70 from antiquity71 this omnipotence72 of the resuscitated73 legislator of the Greeks. Convinced that the social order is a human invention, he compares it to a machine; men are the wheels of that machine, the ruler sets it in motion; the lawgiver invents it, under the impulse given him by the publicist, who thus finds himself definitively74 the mainspring and regulator of the human species. This is the reason why the publicist never fails to address himself to the legislator in the imperative75 style; he decrees him to decree: “Found your society upon such or such a principle; give it good manners and customs; bend it to the yoke76 of religion; direct its aims and energies towards arms, or commerce, or agriculture, or virtue,” etc. Others more modest speak in this way: “Idlers will not be tolerated in the republic; you will distribute the population conveniently between the towns and the country; you will take order that there shall be neither rich nor poor,” etc.
These formulas attest77 the unmeasured presumption78 of those who employ them. They imply a doctrine which does not leave one atom of dignity to the human race.
I know not whether they are more false in theory or pernicious in practice. In both views, they lead to deplorable results.
They would lead us to believe that the social economy is an [p500] artificial arrangement coined in the brain of an inventor. Hence every publicist constitutes himself an inventor. His greatest desire is to find acceptance for his mechanism; his greatest care is to create abhorrence79 of all others, and principally of that which springs spontaneously from the organization of man and from the nature of things. The books conceived and written on this plan are, and can only be, prolix80 declamations against Society.
This false science does not study the concatenation of effects and causes. It does not inquire into the good and evil produced by men’s actions, and trust afterwards to the motive force of Society in choosing the road it is to follow. No; it enjoins81, it constrains83, it imposes, or, if it cannot do that, it counsels; like a natural philosopher who should say to the stone, “Thou art not supported; I order thee to fall, or at least I advise it.” It is upon this footing that M. Droz has said that “the design of political economy is to render easy circumstances as general as possible,”—a definition which has been welcomed with great favour by the Socialists84, because it opens a door to every Utopia, and leads to artificial regulation. What should we say if M. Arago were to open his course in this way, “The object of astronomy is to render gravitation as general as possible?” It is true that men are animated85 beings, indued with volition, and acting under the influence of free will. But there also resides in them an internal force, a sort of gravitation; and the question is to know towards what they gravitate. If it be fatally, inevitably86, towards evil, there is no remedy, and assuredly the remedy will not come to us from a publicist subject like other men to the common tendency. If it be towards good, here we have the motive force already found; science has no need to substitute for it constraint87 or advice. Its part is to enlighten our free will, to display effects as flowing from causes, well assured that, under the influence of truth, “ease and material prosperity tend to become as general as possible.”
Practically, the doctrine which would place the motive force of society, not in mankind at large, nor in their peculiar88 organization, but in legislators and governments, is attended with consequences still more deplorable. It tends to draw down upon Governments a crushing responsibility, from which they never recover. If there are sufferings, it is the fault of Government; if there are poor, it is the fault of Government. Is not Government the prime mover? If the mainspring is bad or inoperative, break it, and choose another. Or else they lay the blame on science itself; and in our days we have it repeated ad nauseam that “all social sufferings are [p501] imputable89 to Political Economy.”115 Why not, when Political Economy presents herself as having for design to realize the happiness of men without their co-operation? When such notions prevail, the last thing men take it into their heads to do is to turn their regards upon themselves, and inquire whether the true cause of their sufferings is not their own ignorance and injustice; their ignorance which brings them under the discipline of Responsibility, and their injustice which draws down upon them the reaction of Solidarity. How should mankind ever dream of seeking in their errors the cause of their sufferings when the human race is persuaded that it is inert90 by nature, and that the principle of all activity, consequently of all responsibility, is external, and resides in the will of the lawgiver and the governing power?
Were I called upon to mark the feature which distinguishes Socialism from Political Economy, I should find it here. Socialism boasts of a vast number of sects91. Each sect92 has its Utopia, and so far are they from any mutual93 understanding, that they declare against each other war to the knife. The atelier social organisé of M. Blanc, and the an-archie of M. Proudhon,—the association of Fourier, and the communisme of M. Cabet,—are as different from each other as night is from day. Why do these sectarian leaders, then, range themselves under the common denomination94 of Socialists, and what is the bond which unites them against natural or providential society? They have no other bond than this, they all repudiate95 natural society. What they wish is an artificial society springing ready made from the brain of the inventor. No doubt, each of them wishes to be the Jupiter of this Minerva—no doubt each of them hugs his own contrivance, and dreams of his own social order. But they have this in common, that they recognise in humanity neither the motive force, which urges mankind on to good, nor the curative force, which delivers them from evil. They fight among themselves as to what form they are to mould the human clay into, but they are all agreed that humanity is clay to be moulded. Humanity is not in their eyes a living harmonious96 being, that God himself has provided with progressive and self-sustaining forces, but rather a mass of inert matter which has been waiting for them to impart to it sentiment and life; it is not a subject to be studied, but a subject to be experimented on.
Political Economy, on the other hand, after having clearly shown [p502] that there are in each man forces of impulse and repulsion, the aggregate of which constitutes the social impellent, and after being convinced that this motive force tends towards good, never dreams of annihilating97 it in order to substitute another of its own creation, but studies the varied98 and complicated social phenomena to which it gives birth.
Is this to say that Political Economy is as much a stranger to social progress, as astronomy is to the motion of the heavenly bodies? Certainly not. Political Economy has to do with beings which are intelligent and free,—and, as such, let us never forget, subject to error. Their tendency is towards good; but they may err. Science, then, interferes99 usefully, not to create causes and effects, not to change the tendencies of man, not to subject him to organizations, to injunctions, or even to advice, but to point out to him the good and the evil which result from his determinations.
Political Economy is thus quite a science of observation and exposition. She does not say to men, “I enjoin82 you, I counsel you, not to go too near the fire;” she does not say, “I have invented a social organization; the gods have taught me institutions which will keep you at a respectful distance from the fire.” No, Political Economy only shows men clearly that fire will burn them, proclaims it, proves it, and does the same thing as regards all other social or moral phenomena, convinced that this is enough. The repugnance101 to die by fire is considered as a primordial pre-existent fact, which Political Economy has not created, and which she cannot alter or change.
Economists cannot be always at one; but it is easy to see that their differences are quite of another kind from those which divide the Socialists. Two men who devote their whole attention to observe one and the same phenomenon and its effects—rent, for example, exchange, competition—may not arrive at the same conclusion, and this proves nothing more than that one of the two has observed the phenomenon inaccurately102 or imperfectly. It is an operation to be repeated. With the aid of other observers, the probability is that truth in the end will be discovered. It is for this reason, that if each economist56 were, like each astronomer103, to make himself fully100 acquainted with what his predecessors104 have done, as far as they have gone, the science would be progressive, and for that reason more and more useful, rectifying105 constantly observations inaccurately made, and adding indefinitely new observations to those which had been made before.
But the Socialists,—each pursuing his own road, and coining [p503] artificial combinations in the mint of his own brain,—may pursue their inquiries106 in this way to all eternity107 without coming to any common understanding, and without the labours of one aiding to any extent the labours of another. Say profited by the labours of Adam Smith; Rossi by those of Say; Blanqui and Joseph Garnier by those of all their predecessors. But Plato, Sir Thomas More, Harrington, Fénélon, Fourier, might amuse themselves with organizing according to their own fancy a Republic, an Utopia, an Oceana, a Salente, a Phalanstère, and no one would ever discover the slightest affinity108 between their chimerical109 creations. These dreamers spin all out of their own imaginations, men as well as things. They invent a social order without respect to the human heart, and then they invent a human heart to suit their social order. . .
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
volition
|
|
| n.意志；决意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
radically
|
|
| ad.根本地，本质地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
shun
|
|
| vt.避开，回避，避免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
shunning
|
|
| v.避开，回避，避免( shun的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
decried
|
|
| v.公开反对，谴责( decry的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
irresistibly
|
|
| adv.无法抵抗地，不能自持地；极为诱惑人地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
deteriorate
|
|
| v.变坏；恶化；退化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
molecule
|
|
| n.分子，克分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
centripetal
|
|
| adj.向心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
impulsive
|
|
| adj.冲动的，刺激的；有推动力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
err
|
|
| vi.犯错误，出差错 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
rectifies
|
|
| 改正，矫正( rectify的第三人称单数 )； 精馏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
plunges
|
|
| n.跳进，投入vt.使投入，使插入，使陷入vi.投入，跳进，陷入v.颠簸( plunge的第三人称单数 )；暴跌；骤降；突降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
rectification
|
|
| n. 改正, 改订, 矫正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
ardent
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，强烈的，烈性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
discordant
|
|
| adj.不调和的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
doom
|
|
| n.厄运，劫数；v.注定，命定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
solidarity
|
|
| n.团结；休戚相关 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
analogous
|
|
| adj.相似的；类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
antagonistic
|
|
| adj.敌对的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
repel
|
|
| v.击退，抵制，拒绝，排斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
chastise
|
|
| vt.责骂，严惩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
surmount
|
|
| vt.克服；置于…顶上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
complement
|
|
| n.补足物，船上的定员；补语；vt.补充，补足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
inexplicable
|
|
| adj.无法解释的，难理解的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
scourge
|
|
| n.灾难，祸害；v.蹂躏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
primordial
|
|
| adj.原始的；最初的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
repulsive
|
|
| adj.排斥的，使人反感的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
aberrations
|
|
| n.偏差( aberration的名词复数 )；差错；脱离常规；心理失常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
eradicating
|
|
| 摧毁，完全根除( eradicate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
stifling
|
|
| a.令人窒息的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
transformation
|
|
| n.变化；改造；转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
stifle
|
|
| vt.使窒息；闷死；扼杀；抑止，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
economist
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家，节俭的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
presumptuous
|
|
| adj.胆大妄为的，放肆的，冒昧的，冒失的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
aspires
|
|
| v.渴望，追求( aspire的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
aspiring
|
|
| adj.有志气的；有抱负的；高耸的v.渴望；追求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
momentary
|
|
| adj.片刻的，瞬息的；短暂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
immoral
|
|
| adj.不道德的，淫荡的，荒淫的，有伤风化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
arbiters
|
|
| 仲裁人，裁决者( arbiter的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
sentient
|
|
| adj.有知觉的，知悉的；adv.有感觉能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
stimulus
|
|
| n.刺激，刺激物，促进因素，引起兴奋的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
exhumed
|
|
| v.挖出，发掘出( exhume的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
omnipotence
|
|
| n.全能，万能，无限威力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
resuscitated
|
|
| v.使（某人或某物）恢复知觉，苏醒( resuscitate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
definitively
|
|
| adv.决定性地，最后地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
yoke
|
|
| n.轭；支配；v.给...上轭，连接，使成配偶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
attest
|
|
| vt.证明，证实；表明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
presumption
|
|
| n.推测，可能性，冒昧，放肆，[法律]推定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
abhorrence
|
|
| n.憎恶；可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
prolix
|
|
| adj.罗嗦的；冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
enjoins
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
enjoin
|
|
| v.命令；吩咐；禁止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
constrains
|
|
| 强迫( constrain的第三人称单数 )； 强使； 限制； 约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
socialists
|
|
| 社会主义者( socialist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
constraint
|
|
| n.(on)约束，限制；限制(或约束)性的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
imputable
|
|
| adj.可归罪的，可归咎的，可归因的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
inert
|
|
| adj.无活动能力的，惰性的；迟钝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
sect
|
|
| n.派别，宗教，学派，派系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
denomination
|
|
| n.命名，取名，(度量衡、货币等的)单位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
repudiate
|
|
| v.拒绝，拒付，拒绝履行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
harmonious
|
|
| adj.和睦的，调和的，和谐的，协调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
annihilating
|
|
| v.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的现在分词 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
interferes
|
|
| vi. 妨碍，冲突，干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
repugnance
|
|
| n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
inaccurately
|
|
| 不精密地，不准确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
astronomer
|
|
| n.天文学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
rectifying
|
|
| 改正，矫正( rectify的现在分词 )； 精馏； 蒸流； 整流 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
inquiries
|
|
| n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 )；疑问；探究；打听 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
eternity
|
|
| n.不朽，来世；永恒，无穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
affinity
|
|
| n.亲和力，密切关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
chimerical
|
|
| adj.荒诞不经的，梦幻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |