My own share in this misfortune is all I could pretend to describe with fidelity2. Without (I hope) any meretricious3 display of fine writing, I have related the facts of my case, giving a precise account of my prosecutions6, and as vivid a narrative7 as memory allows of my imprisonment8 in Holloway Gaol9. I have striven throughout to be truthful10 and accurate, nothing extenuating11, nor setting down aught in malice12; and I have tried to hit the happy mean between negligence13 and prolixity14. Whether or not I have succeeded in the second respect the reader must be the judge; and if he cannot be so in the former respect, he will at least be able to decide whether the writer means to be candid15 and bears the appearance of honesty.
One reason why I have striven to be exact is that my record may be of service to the future historian of our time. It is always rash to appeal to the future, as a posturing16 English novelist did in one of his Prefaces; and it is well to remember the witticism17 of Voltaire, who, on hearing an ambitious poeticule read his Ode to Posterity18, doubted whether it would reach its address. But it is the facts, and not my personality, that are important in this case. My trial will be a conspicuous19 event in the history of the struggle for religious freedom, and in consequence of Lord Coleridge's and Sir James Stephen's utterances20, it may be of considerable moment in the history of the Criminal Law. It is more than possible that I shall be the last prisoner for blasphemy in England. That alone is a circumstance of distinction, which gives my story a special character, quite apart from my individuality. As a muddle-headed acquaintance said, intending to be complimentary21, Some men are born to greatness, others achieve it, and I had it thrust upon me.
Prosecutions for Blasphemy have not been frequent. Sir James Stephen was able to record nearly all of them in his "History of the Criminal Law." The last before mine occurred in 1857, when Thomas Pooley, a poor Cornish well-sinker, was sentenced by the late Mr. Justice Coleridge to twenty months' imprisonment for chalking some "blasphemous22" words on a gate-post. Fortunately this monstrous23 punishment excited public indignation. Mill, Buckle24, and other eminent25 men, interested themselves in the case, and Pooley was released after undergoing a quarter of his sentence. From that time until my prosecution5, that is for nearly a whole generation, the odious26 law was allowed to slumber27, although tons of "blasphemy" were published every year. This long desuetude28 induced Sir James Stephen, in his "Digest of the Criminal Law" to regard it as "practically obsolete29." But the event has proved that no law is obsolete until it is repealed31. It has also proved Lord Coleridge's observation that there is, in the case of some laws, a "discriminating32 laxity," as well as Professor Hunter's remark that the Blasphemy Laws survive as a dangerous weapon in the hands of any fool or fanatic33 who likes to set them in motion.
In the pamphlet entitled Blasphemy No Crime, which I published during my prosecution, and which is still in print if anyone is curious to see it, I contended that Blasphemy is only our old friend Heresy34 in disguise, and that, we know, is a priestly manufacture. My view has since been borne out by two high authorities. Lord Coleridge says that "this law of blasphemous libel first appears in our books—at least the cases relating to it are first reported—shortly after the curtailment35 or abolition36 of the jurisdiction37 of the Ecclesiastical Courts in matters temporal. Speaking broadly, before the time of Charles II. these things would have been dealt with as heresy; and the libellers so-called of more recent days would have suffered as heretics in earlier times." [Reference: The Law of Blasphemous Libel. The Summing-up in the case of Regina v. Foote and others. Revised with a Preface by the Lord Chief Justice of England. London, Stevens and Sons.] Sir James Stephen also, after referring to the writ4 De Heretico Comburendo, under which heresy and blasphemy were punishable by burning alive, and which was abolished in 1677, without abridging38 the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts "in cases of atheism39, blasphemy, heresie, or schism40, and other damnable doctrines41 and opinions," adds that "In this state of things, the Court of Queen's Bench took upon itself some of the functions of the old Courts of Star Chamber43 and High Commission, and treated as misdemeanours at common law many things which those courts had formerly44 punished... This was the origin of the modern law as to blasphemy and blasphemous libel." [Reference: Blasphemy and Blasphemous Libel. By Sir James Stephen. Fortnightly Review, March, 1884.]
Less than ten years after the "glorious revolution" of 1688 there was passed a statute45, known as the 9 and 10 William III., c. 32, and called "An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy and Profaneness47." This enacts48 that "any person or persons having been educated in, or at any time having made profession of, the Christian49 religion within this realm who shall, by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the persons in the Holy Trinity to be God, or shall assert or maintain there are more gods than one, or shall deny the Christian doctrine42 to be true, or the Holy Scriptures50 of the Old and New Testament51 to be of divine authority," shall upon conviction be disabled from holding any ecclesiastical, civil, or military employment, and on a second conviction be imprisoned52 for three years and deprived for ever of all civil rights.
Lord Coleridge and Sir James Stephen call this statute "ferocious," but as it is still unrepealed there is no legal reason why it should not be enforced. Curiously53, however, the reservation which was inserted to protect the Jews has frustrated54 the whole purpose of the Act; at any rate, there never has been a single prosecution under it. So much of the statute as affected55 the Unitarians was ostensibly repealed by the 53 George III., c. 160. But Lord Eldon in 1817 doubted whether it was ever repealed at all; and so late as 1867 Chief Baron56 Kelly and Lord Bramwell, in the Court of Exchequer57, held that a lecture on "The Character and Teachings of Christ: the former defective58, the latter misleading" was an offence against the statute. It is not so clear, therefore, that Unitarians are out of danger; especially as the judges have held that this Act was special, without in any way affecting the common law of Blasphemy, under which all prosecutions have been conducted.
Dr. Blake Odgers, however, thinks the Unitarians are perfectly59 safe, and he has informed them so in a memorandum60 on the Blasphemy Laws drawn61 up at their request. This gentleman has a right to his opinion, but no Unitarian of any courage will be proud of his advice. He deliberately62 recommends the body to which he belongs to pay no attention to the Blasphemy Laws, and to lend no assistance to the agitation63 for repealing64 them, on the ground that when you are safe yourself it is Quixotic to trouble about another man's danger; which is, perhaps, the most cowardly and contemptible65 suggestion that could be made. Several Unitarians were burnt in Elizabeth's reign66, two were burnt in the reign of James I., and one narrowly escaped hanging under the Commonwealth67. The whole body was excluded from the Toleration Act of 1688, and included in the Blasphemy Act of William III. But Unitarians have since yielded the place of danger to more advanced bodies, and they may congratulate themselves on their safety; but to make their own safety a reason for conniving68 at the persecution69 of others is a depth of baseness which Dr. Blake Odgers has fathomed70, though happily without persuading the majority of his fellows to descend71 to the same ignominy.
It will be observed that the Act specifies72 certain heterodox opinions as blasphemous, and says nothing as to the language in which they may be couched. Evidently the crime lay not in the manner, but in the matter. The Common Law has always held the same view, and my Indictment73, like that of all my predecessors74, charged me with bringing the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion "into disbelief and contempt." With all respect to Lord Coleridge's authority, I cannot but think that Sir James Stephen is right in maintaining that the crime of blasphemy consists in the expression of certain opinions, and that it is only an aggravation75 of the crime to express them in "offensive" language.
Judge North, on my first trial, plainly told the jury that any denial of the existence of Deity76 or of Providence77 was blasphemy; although on my second trial, in order to procure78 a conviction, he narrowed his definition to "any contumelious or profane46 scoffing79 at the Holy Scriptures or the Christian religion." It is evident, therefore, what his lordship believes the law to be. With a certain order of minds it is best to deal sharply; their first statements are more likely to be true than their second. For the rest, Judge North is unworthy of consideration. It is remarkable80 that, although he charged the jury twice in my case, Sir James Stephen does not regard his views as worth a mention.
Lord Coleridge says the law of blasphemy "is undoubtedly81 a disagreeable law," and in my opinion he lets humanity get the better of his legal judgment82. He lays it down that "if the decencies of controversy83 are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without a person being guilty of blasphemous libel."
Now such a decision can only be a stepping-stone to the abolition of the law. Who can define "the decencies of controversy?" Everyone has his own criterion in such matters, which is usually unconscious and fluctuating. What shocks one man pleases another. Does not the proverb say that one man's meat is another man's poison? Lord Coleridge reduces Blasphemy to a matter of taste, and de gustibus non est disputandum. According to this view, the prosecution has simply to put any heretical work into the hands of a jury, and say, "Gentlemen, do you like that? If you do, the prisoner is innocent; if you do not, you must find him guilty." Such a law puts a rope round the neck of every writer who soars above commonplace, or has any gift of wit or humor. It hands over the discussion of all important topics to pedants84 and blockheads, and bans the argumentum ad absurdum which has been employed by all the great satirists from Aristophanes to Voltaire.
When Bishop85 South was reproached by an Episcopal brother for being witty86 in the pulpit, he replied, "My dear brother in the Lord, do you mean to say that if God had given you any wit you wouldn't have used it?" Let Bishop South stand for the "blasphemer," and his dull brother for the orthodox jury, and you have the moral at once.
"Such a law," says Sir James Stephen, "would never work." You cannot really distinguish between substance and style; you must either forbid or permit all attacks on Christianity. Great religious and political changes are never made by calm and moderate language. Was any form of Christianity ever substituted either for Paganism or any other form of Christianity without heat, exaggeration, and fierce invective87? Saint Augustine ridiculed88 one of the Roman gods in grossly indecent language. Men cannot discuss doctrines like eternal punishment as they do questions in philology90. And "to say that you may discuss the truth of religion, but that you may not hold up its doctrines to contempt, ridicule89, or indignation, is either to take away with one hand what you concede with the other, or to confine the discussion to a small and in many ways uninfluential class of persons." Besides, Sir James Stephen says,
"There is one reflection which seems to me to prove with
conclusive force that the law upon this subject can be
principle—the principle of persecution. It is that if the
it offends the feelings of believers, it ought also to punish
such preaching as offends the feelings of unbelievers. All
the more earnest and enthusiastic forms of religion are extremely
offensive to those who do not believe them. Why should not
people who are not Christians93 be protected against the rough,
coarse, ignorant ferocity with which they are often told that
they and theirs are on the way to hell-fire for ever and ever?
Such a doctrine, though necessary to be known if true, is, if
false, revolting and mischievous94 to the last degree. If the
law in no degree recognised these doctrines as true, if it were
same rule as it applies to the Freethinker and its contributors."
Excellently put. I argued in the same way, though perhaps less tersely97, in my defence. I pointed98 out that there is no law to protect the "decencies of controversy" in any but religious discussions, and this exception can only be defended on the ground that Christianity is true and must not be attacked. But Lord Coleridge holds that it may be attacked. How then can he ask that it shall only be attacked in polite language? And if Freethinkers must only strike with kid gloves, why are Christians allowed to use not only the naked fist, but knuckle-dusters, bludgeons, and daggers99? In the war of ideas, any party which imposes restraints on others to which it does not subject itself, is guilty of persecution; and the finest phrases, and the most dexterous100 special pleading, cannot alter the fact.
Sir James Stephen holds that the Blasphemy Laws are concerned with the matter of publications, that "a large part of the most serious and most important literature of the day is illegal," and that every book-seller who sells, and everyone who lends to his friend, a copy of Comte's Positive Philosophy, or of Renan's Vie de Jesus, commits a crime punishable with fine and imprisonment. Sir James Stephen dislikes the law profoundly, but he prefers "stating it in its natural naked deformity to explaining it away in such a manner as to prolong its existence and give it an air of plausibility101 and humanity." To terminate this mischievous law he has drafted a Bill, which many Liberal members of Parliament have promised to support, and which will soon be introduced. Its text is as follows:
of religion are no longer suitable for that purpose and it is
"1. After the passing of this Act no criminal proceedings104
shall be instituted in any Court whatever, against any person
whatever, for Atheism, blasphemy at common law, blasphemous
libel, heresy, or schism, except only criminal proceedings
instituted in Ecclesiastical Courts against clergymen of the
Church of England.
Edward VI., c. 1, intituled 'An Act against such as shall
unreverently speak against the sacrament of the body and blood
of Christ, commonly called the sacrament of the altar, and for
the receiving thereof in both kinds,' and an Act passed in the
9th and 10th year of his late Majesty King William III., c. 35,
intituled an Act for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy
and profaneness are hereby repealed.
"3. Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed
to affect the provisions of an Act passed in the nineteenth year
of his late Majesty King George II., c. 21, intituled 'An Act
more effectually to prevent profane cursing and swearing,' or
any other provision of any other Act of Parliament not hereby
expressly repealed."
Until this Bill is carried no heterodox writer is safe. Sir James Stephen's view of the law may be shared by other judges, and if a bigot sat on the bench he might pass a heavy sentence on a distinguished106 "blasphemer." Let it not be said that their manner is so different from mine that no jury would convict; for when I read extracts from Clifford, Swinburne, Maudsley, Matthew Arnold, James Thomson, Lord Amberley, Huxley, and other heretics whose works are circulated by Mudie, Lord Coleridge remarked "I confess, as I heard them, I had, and have a difficulty in distinguishing them from the alleged107 libels. They do appear to me to be open to the same charge, on the same grounds, as Mr. Foote's writings."
Personally I understand the Blasphemy Laws well enough. They are the last relics108 of religious persecution. What Lord Coleridge read from Starkie as the law of blasphemous libel, I regard with Sir James Stephen as "flabby verbiage109." Lord Coleridge is himself a master of style, and I suppose his admiration110 of Starkie's personal character has blinded his judgment. Starkie simply raises a cloud of words to hide the real nature of the Blasphemy Laws. He shows how Freethinkers may be punished without avowing111 the principle of persecution. Instead of frankly112 saying that Christianity must not be attacked, he imputes113 to aggressive heretics "a malicious114 and mischievous intention," and "apathy115 and indifference116 to the interests of society;" and he justifies117 their being punished, not for their actions, but for their motives118: a principle which, if it were introduced into our jurisprudence, would produce a chaos119.
Could there be a more ridiculous assumption than that a man who braves obloquy120, social ostracism121, and imprisonment for his principles, is indifferent to the interest of society? Let Christianity strike Freethinkers if it will, but why add insult to injury? Why brand us as cowards when you martyr122 us? Why charge us with hypocrisy123 when we dare your hate?
Persecution, like superstition124, dies hard, but it dies. What though I have suffered the heaviest punishment inflicted125 on a Freethinker for a hundred and twenty years? Is not the night always darkest and coldest before the dawn? Is not the tiger's dying spring most fierce and terrible?
My sufferings, therefore, are not without the balm of consolation126. I see that the future is already brightening with a new hope. Without rising to the supreme127 height of Danton, who cried "Let my name be blighted128 that France be free," I feel a humbler pleasure in reflecting that I may have been instrumental in breaking the last fetter129 on the freedom of the press.
G. W. FOOTE.
February 1st, 1886.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
fidelity
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠实；精确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
meretricious
|
|
| adj.华而不实的，俗艳的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
writ
|
|
| n.命令状，书面命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
prosecutions
|
|
| 起诉( prosecution的名词复数 )； 原告； 实施； 从事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
gaol
|
|
| n.(jail)监狱；(不加冠词)监禁；vt.使…坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
truthful
|
|
| adj.真实的，说实话的，诚实的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
extenuating
|
|
| adj.使减轻的，情有可原的v.（用偏袒的辩解或借口）减轻( extenuate的现在分词 )；低估，藐视 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
negligence
|
|
| n.疏忽，玩忽，粗心大意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
prolixity
|
|
| n.冗长，罗嗦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
candid
|
|
| adj.公正的，正直的；坦率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
posturing
|
|
| 做出某种姿势( posture的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
witticism
|
|
| n.谐语，妙语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
posterity
|
|
| n.后裔，子孙，后代 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
utterances
|
|
| n.发声( utterance的名词复数 )；说话方式；语调；言论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
complimentary
|
|
| adj.赠送的，免费的，赞美的，恭维的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
blasphemous
|
|
| adj.亵渎神明的，不敬神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
buckle
|
|
| n.扣子，带扣；v.把...扣住，由于压力而弯曲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
slumber
|
|
| n.睡眠，沉睡状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
desuetude
|
|
| n.废止，不用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
obsolete
|
|
| adj.已废弃的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
repeal
|
|
| n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
repealed
|
|
| 撤销，废除( repeal的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
discriminating
|
|
| a.有辨别能力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
fanatic
|
|
| n.狂热者，入迷者；adj.狂热入迷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
curtailment
|
|
| n.缩减，缩短 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
abridging
|
|
| 节略( abridge的现在分词 )； 减少； 缩短； 剥夺（某人的）权利（或特权等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
atheism
|
|
| n.无神论，不信神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
schism
|
|
| n.分派，派系，分裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
profaneness
|
|
| n.渎神，污秽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
48
enacts
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
scriptures
|
|
| 经文，圣典( scripture的名词复数 )； 经典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
imprisoned
|
|
| 下狱，监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
curiously
|
|
| adv.有求知欲地；好问地；奇特地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
frustrated
|
|
| adj.挫败的，失意的，泄气的v.使不成功( frustrate的过去式和过去分词 )；挫败；使受挫折；令人沮丧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
baron
|
|
| n.男爵；(商业界等)巨头，大王 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
exchequer
|
|
| n.财政部；国库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
memorandum
|
|
| n.备忘录，便笺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
repealing
|
|
| 撤销，废除( repeal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
commonwealth
|
|
| n.共和国，联邦，共同体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
conniving
|
|
| v.密谋 ( connive的现在分词 )；搞阴谋；默许；纵容 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
fathomed
|
|
| 理解…的真意( fathom的过去式和过去分词 )； 彻底了解； 弄清真相 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
descend
|
|
| vt./vi.传下来，下来，下降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
specifies
|
|
| v.指定( specify的第三人称单数 )；详述；提出…的条件；使具有特性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
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： |
|
|
|
|
75
aggravation
|
|
| n.烦恼，恼火 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
scoffing
|
|
| n. 嘲笑, 笑柄, 愚弄 v. 嘲笑, 嘲弄, 愚弄, 狼吞虎咽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
pedants
|
|
| n.卖弄学问的人，学究，书呆子( pedant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
witty
|
|
| adj.机智的，风趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
invective
|
|
| n.痛骂，恶意抨击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
ridiculed
|
|
| v.嘲笑，嘲弄，奚落( ridicule的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
ridicule
|
|
| v.讥讽，挖苦；n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
philology
|
|
| n.语言学；语文学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
impartial
|
|
| adj.(in,to)公正的，无偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
penal
|
|
| adj.刑罚的；刑法上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
tersely
|
|
| adv. 简捷地, 简要地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
daggers
|
|
| 匕首，短剑( dagger的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
dexterous
|
|
| adj.灵敏的；灵巧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
plausibility
|
|
| n. 似有道理, 能言善辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
majesty
|
|
| n.雄伟，壮丽，庄严，威严；最高权威，王权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
relics
|
|
| [pl.］n.遗物，遗迹，遗产；遗体，尸骸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
verbiage
|
|
| n.冗词；冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
avowing
|
|
| v.公开声明，承认( avow的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
imputes
|
|
| v.把（错误等）归咎于( impute的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
malicious
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
apathy
|
|
| n.漠不关心，无动于衷；冷淡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
justifies
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的第三人称单数 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
chaos
|
|
| n.混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
obloquy
|
|
| n.斥责，大骂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
ostracism
|
|
| n.放逐；排斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
martyr
|
|
| n.烈士，殉难者；vt.杀害，折磨，牺牲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
consolation
|
|
| n.安慰，慰问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
blighted
|
|
| adj.枯萎的，摧毁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
fetter
|
|
| n./vt.脚镣，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |