It was evidently drawn2 up by someone grossly ignorant of the Bible. The Apocalypse was described as the "Book of Revelations," and the Gadarean swine came out as Gadderean. Probably Sir Henry Tyler and Sir Hardinge Giffard knew as much of the Scriptures3 they strove to imprison4 us for disputing as the person who drew up our Indictment. Mr. Cluer caused some amusement in the Court of Queen's Bench when, in the gravest manner, he drew attention to these errors. Lord Coleridge as gravely replied that he could not take judicial5 cognisance of them. Whereupon Mr. Cluer quietly observed that he was ready to produce the authorised version of the Bible in court in a few minutes, as he had a copy in his chambers6. This remark elicited7 a smile from Lord Coleridge, a broad grin from the lawyers in Court, and a titter from the crowd. It was perfectly8 understood that a gentleman of the long robe might prosecute9 anybody for blasphemy10 against the Bible and its Deity11, but the idea of a barrister having a copy of the "sacred volume" in his chambers was really too absurd for belief.
The preamble12 charged us, in the stock language of Indictments13 for Blasphemy, as may be seen on reference to Archibold, with "being wicked and evil-disposed persons, and disregarding the laws and religion of the realm, and wickedly and profanely14 devising and intending to asperse15 and vilify16 Almighty17 God, and to bring the Holy Scriptures and the Christian18 Religion into disbelief and contempt."
The first observation I have to make on this wordy jumble19 is, that it seems highly presumptuous20 on the part of weak men to defend the character of "Almighty God." Surely they might leave him to protect himself. Omnipotence22 is able to punish those who offend it, and Omniscience23 knows when to punish. Man's interference is grossly impertinent. When the emperor Tiberius was asked by an informer to allow proceedings24 against one who had "blasphemed the gods," he replied: "No, let the gods defend their own honor." Christian rulers have not yet reached that level of justice and common sense.
Next, it was flagrantly unjust to accuse us of aspersing25 and vilifying26 Almighty God at all. The Freethinker had simply assailed27 the reputation of the god of the Bible, a tribal28 deity of the Jews, subsequently adopted by the Christians29, whom James Mill had described as "the most perfect conception of wickedness which the human mind can devise." What difference, I ask, is there between that strong description and the sentence quoted from the Freethinker in our Indictment, which declared the same being as "cruel as a Bashi-Bazouk and bloodthirsty as a Bengal tiger"? The one is an abstract and the other a concrete expression of the same view; the one is philosophical30 and the other popular; the one is a cold statement and the other a burning metaphor31. To allow the one to circulate with impunity32, and to punish the other with twelve months' imprisonment33, is to turn a literary difference into a criminal offence.
Further, as Sir James Stephen has observed, it is absurd to talk about bringing "the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion into disbelief and contempt." One of these words is clearly superfluous34. Considering the extraordinary pretensions35 of the Bible and Christianity, it is difficult to see how they could be brought into contempt more effectually than by bringing them into disbelief.
But greater absurdities36 remain. Our Indictment averred37 that we had published certain Blasphemous38 Libels "to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the scandal of the Christian religion and the Holy Bible or Scriptures, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity." Let us analyse this legal jargon39.
How did our prosecutors40 learn that we displeased41 Almighty God? In what manner did Sir Henry Tyler first become aware of the fact? Was it, in the ancient fashion, revealed to him in a dream, or did it come by direct inspiration? What was the exact language of the aggrieved42 Deity? Did he give Sir Henry Tyler a power of attorney to defend his character by instituting a prosecution43 for libel? If so, where is the document, and who will prove the signature? And did the original party to the suit intimate his readiness to be subpoenaed44 as a witness at the trial? All these are very important questions, but there is no likelihood of their ever being answered.
"The scandal of the Christian Religion" is an impertinent joke. Christianity, as Lord Coleridge remarked, is no longer, as the old judges used to rule, part and parcel of the law of England. I argued the matter at considerable length in addressing the jury, and his lordship supported my contention45 with all the force of his high authority. After pointing out that at one time Jews, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists of all sorts—in fact every sect46 outside the State Church—were under heavy disabilities for religion and regarded as hardly having civil rights, and that undoubtedly47 at that time the doctrines48 of the Established religion were part and parcel of the law of the land, Lord Coleridge observed, as I had done, that "Parliament, which is supreme49 and binds50 us all, has enacted51 statutes52 which make that view of the law no longer applicable." I had also pointed53 out that there might be a Jew on the jury. His lordship went further, and remarked that there might be a Jew on the bench. His words were these:
"Now, so far as I know, a Jew might be Lord Chancellor54; most
certainly he might be Master of the Rolls. The great and
illustrious lawyer [Sir George Jessel] whose loss the whole
lost a warm friend and a loyal colleague; he, but for the accident
of taking his office before the Judicature Act came into operation,
might have had to go circuit, might have sat in a criminal court
to try such a case as this, might have been called upon, if
the law really be that 'Christianity is part of the law of the
land' in the sense contended for, to lay it down as law to a jury,
amongst whom might have been Jews,—that it was an offence
against the law, as blasphemy, to deny that Jesus Christ was
the Messiah, a thing which he himself did deny, which Parliament
had allowed him to deny, and which it is just as much part of
the law that anyone may deny, as it is your right and mine, if
we believe it, to assert."
Clearly then, according to the dictum of the Lord Chief Justice, it is not a crime to publish anything "to the scandal of the Christian Religion," although it was alleged56 against us as such in our Indictment.
The only real point that can be discussed and tested is in the last clause. I do not refer to the Queen's "crown and dignity," which we were accused of endangering; for our offence could not possibly be construed57 as a political one, and it is hard to perceive how the Queen's dignity could be imperilled by the act of any person except herself. What I refer to is the statement that we had provoked a disturbance58 of the peace; a more hypocritical pretence59 than which was never advanced. I venture to quote here a passage from my address to the jury on my third trial before Lord Coleridge:—
for blasphemy unless it led to a breach of the peace. I have
of the peace. Very little breach of the peace might make a
good case of blasphemy. A breach of the peace in a case like
this must not be constructive63; it must be actual. They might
have put somebody in the witness-box who would have said that
his sleep. They might have even found somebody who said it
was thrust upon him, and that, he was induced to read it, not
knowing its character. Gentlemen, they have not attempted to
of the people who approved it. They have not even shown there
was an advertisement of it in any Christian or religious paper.
They have not even told you that any extravagant67 display was
made of it; and I undertake to say that you might never have
known of it if the prosecution had not advertised it. How can
all this be construed as a breach of the peace? Our Indictment
says we have done all this, to the great displeasure of Almighty
God, and to the danger of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.
You must bear that in mind. The law-books say again and again
that a blasphemous libel is punished, not because it throws
obloquy on the deity—the protection of whom would be absurd—
but because it tends to a breach of the peace. It is preposterous68
to say such a thing tends to a breach of the peace. If you want
right to their ideas—I have nothing to say about them; but
in India, where, according to the law, no prosecution could
be started against a paper like the Freethinker, many are
have not sent out men with banners and bands in which each
Nothing of the sort is alleged. A paper like this had to be
bought and our utterances76 had to be sought. We have not done
anything against the peace. I give the Indictment an absolute
denial. To talk of danger to the peace is only a mask to hide
They don't want to punish us because we have assailed religion,
but because we have endangered the peace. Take them at their
word, gentlemen. Punish us if we have endangered the peace,
and not if we have assailed religion; and as you know we have
not endangered the peace, you will of course bring in a verdict
of Not Guilty. Gentlemen, I hope you will by your verdict to-day
champion that great law of liberty which is challenged—the law
of liberty which implies the equal right of everyman, while he
what he pleases for people who choose to buy and read it, so
to the commission of crime."
Appealing now to a far larger jury in the high court of public opinion, I ask whether Freethinkers are not one of the most orderly sections of the community. Why should we resort to violence, or invoke81 it, or even countenance82 it, when our cardinal83 principle is the sovereignty of reason, and our hope of progress lies in the free play of mind on every subject? We are perhaps more profoundly impressed than others with the idea that all institutions are the outward expression of inward thoughts and feelings, and that it is impossible to forestall84 the advance of public sentiment by the most cunningly-devised machinery85. We are par21 excellence86 the party of order, though not of stagnation87. It is a striking and pregnant fact that Freethought meetings are kept peaceful and orderly without any protection by the police. At St. James's Hall, London, the only demonstrations88, I believe, for which the services of a certain number of policemen are not charged for in the bill with the rent, are those convened89 by Mr. Bradlaugh and his friends.
Lord Coleridge, ostensibly but not actually following Michaelis, raised the subtle argument that as people's feelings are very tender on the subject of religion, and the populace is apt to take the law into its own hands when there is no legal method of expressing its anger and indignation, "some sort of blasphemy laws reasonably enforced may be an advantage even to those who differ from the popular religion of a country, and who desire to oppose and to deny it." But this is an inversion90 of the natural order of things. What reason is there in imprisoning91 an innocent man because some one meditates92 an assault upon him? Would it not be wiser and juster to restrain the intending criminal, as is ordinarily done? I object to being punished because others cannot keep their tempers; and I say further, that to punish a man, not because he has injured others, but for his own good, is the worst form of persecution. During the many years of my public advocacy of Freethought in all parts of Great Britain, both before and since my imprisonment, I have never been in a moment's danger of violence and outrage93. I never witnessed any irritation94 which could not be allayed95 by a persuasive96 word, or any disturbance that could not be quelled97 by a witticism98. With all deference99 to Lord Coleridge, whom no one admires and respects more than I do, I would rather the law left me to my own resources, and only interfered100 to protect me when I need its assistance.
Now for the counts of our Indictment. There is danger in writing about them, as it is held that the publication of matter found blasphemous by a jury, except in a legal report for the profession, is itself blasphemy, and may be punished as such. I am not, however, likely to be deterred101 from my purpose by this consideration. On the other hand, as the incriminated passages were all carefully selected from many numbers of a journal never remarkable102 for its tender treatment of orthodoxy, I do not see any particular advantage to be derived103 from their republication. They are, of course, far more calculated to shock religious susceptibilities (if these are to be considered) when they are picked out and ranked together than when they stand amid their context in their original places. Such a process of selection would be exceedingly hard on any paper or book handling very advanced ideas, and very backward ones, in a spirit of great freedom. Nay104, it would prove a severe trial to most works of real value, whose scope extended beyond the respectabilities. Not to mention Byron's caustic105 remarks on the peculiar106 expurgation of Martial107 in Don Juan's edition, it is obvious that the Bible and Shakespeare could both be proved obscene by this process; and setting aside ancient literature altogether, half our own classics, before the age of Wordsworth and Scott, would come under the same condemnation108. I know I am intruding109 among my betters; but I do not claim equality with them; I merely ask the same liberal judgment110. A man is no more to be judged by a few casual sentences from his pen, without any reference to all the rest, than he is to be judged by a few casual expressions he may let fall in a year's conversation.
Curiously111, in all those twenty-eight folios of blasphemy, only three sentences were from my own pen, and two of them were extracted from long articles. One was a jocose112 reference to the Jewish tribal god, who, as Keunen allows, was carried about, probably as a stone fetish, in that wooden box known as the "ark of the covenant113." Another occurred in a long review of Jules Soury's remarkable book on the subject of Jesus Christ's hallucinations and eccentricities114, in which he endeavors to show that the Prophet of Nazareth passed through certain recognised stages of brain disease. Referring to the close of his career, I wrote that, "When Jesus made his triumphant115 entry into Jerusalem he was plainly crazed." That one sentence was picked out from a long review, running through three numbers of the Freethinker, and filling six columns of print. The third sentence was a satirical comment on the sensational116 and blasphemous title of Dr. Parker's book on "The Inner Life of Christ." I asked, "How did he contrive117 to get inside his maker118?" There was a fourth sentence I wrote for the Freethinker, but as it was a verbatim report of some Bedlamite observations of a Salvationist at Halifax, published, as I said, "to show what is being done and said in the name of Christianity," I decline to be held responsible for it. Let General Booth be answerable for the blasphemies119 of his own followers120.
All the other passages in the Indictment were from the pens of contributors, over whom, as they signed their articles, I never held a tight rein121. They were mostly amplifications of the sentence I have already quoted about the cruel character of the Bible God. I did not, however, dwell on this fact in my address to the jury. I took the full responsibility, and fought my contributors' battle as well my own. I bore their iniquities122, the chastisement123 of their peace was upon me, and by my stripes they were healed.
Four of the Comic Bible Sketches124 were included in the Indictment. They appeared in the Freethinker on the following dates:—January 29, April 23, May 28, and June 11 (1882). Readers who care to see what they were like can refer to the file in the British Museum. Those illustrations have not been declared blasphemous, for when the Indictment I have been explaining was tried before Lord Coleridge, the jury, after several hours' deliberation, could not agree to a verdict of Guilty.
The Indictment on which I was found guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, was a later one. It was based on the Christmas Number, 1882, to which I previously125 referred. Let me now give a brief history of my second prosecution.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
scriptures
|
|
| 经文，圣典( scripture的名词复数 )； 经典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
imprison
|
|
| vt.监禁，关押，限制，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
elicited
|
|
| 引出，探出( elicit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
prosecute
|
|
| vt.告发；进行；vi.告发，起诉，作检察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
preamble
|
|
| n.前言；序文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
indictments
|
|
| n.（制度、社会等的）衰败迹象( indictment的名词复数 )；刑事起诉书；公诉书；控告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
profanely
|
|
| adv.渎神地，凡俗地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
asperse
|
|
| v.流言；n.流言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
vilify
|
|
| v.诽谤，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
jumble
|
|
| vt.使混乱，混杂；n.混乱；杂乱的一堆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
presumptuous
|
|
| adj.胆大妄为的，放肆的，冒昧的，冒失的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
omnipotence
|
|
| n.全能，万能，无限威力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
omniscience
|
|
| n.全知，全知者，上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
aspersing
|
|
| v.毁坏（名誉），中伤，诽谤( asperse的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
26
vilifying
|
|
| v.中伤，诽谤( vilify的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
tribal
|
|
| adj.部族的，种族的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
metaphor
|
|
| n.隐喻，暗喻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
impunity
|
|
| n.(惩罚、损失、伤害等的)免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
absurdities
|
|
| n.极端无理性( absurdity的名词复数 )；荒谬；谬论；荒谬的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
averred
|
|
| v.断言( aver的过去式和过去分词 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
blasphemous
|
|
| adj.亵渎神明的，不敬神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
jargon
|
|
| n.术语，行话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
prosecutors
|
|
| 检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 )； 告发人； 起诉人； 公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
displeased
|
|
| a.不快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
aggrieved
|
|
| adj.愤愤不平的，受委屈的；悲痛的；（在合法权利方面）受侵害的v.令委屈，令苦恼，侵害( aggrieve的过去式)；令委屈，令苦恼，侵害( aggrieve的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
subpoenaed
|
|
| v.（用传票）传唤（某人）( subpoena的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
sect
|
|
| n.派别，宗教，学派，派系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
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： |
|
|
|
|
49
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
binds
|
|
| v.约束( bind的第三人称单数 )；装订；捆绑；（用长布条）缠绕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
chancellor
|
|
| n.(英)大臣；法官；(德、奥)总理；大学校长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
deploring
|
|
| v.悲叹，痛惜，强烈反对( deplore的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
56
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
construed
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的过去式和过去分词 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
indicted
|
|
| 控告，起诉( indict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
constructive
|
|
| adj.建设的，建设性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
impaired
|
|
| adj.受损的；出毛病的；有（身体或智力）缺陷的v.损害，削弱( impair的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
digestion
|
|
| n.消化，吸收 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
publicity
|
|
| n.众所周知，闻名；宣传，广告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
preposterous
|
|
| adj.荒谬的，可笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
breaches
|
|
| 破坏( breach的名词复数 )； 破裂； 缺口； 违背 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
gaol
|
|
| n.(jail)监狱；(不加冠词)监禁；vt.使…坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
tumult
|
|
| n.喧哗；激动，混乱；吵闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
tune
|
|
| n.调子；和谐，协调；v.调音，调节，调整 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
hideous
|
|
| adj.丑陋的，可憎的，可怕的，恐怖的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
discord
|
|
| n.不和，意见不合，争论，（音乐）不和谐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
utterances
|
|
| n.发声( utterance的名词复数 )；说话方式；语调；言论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
repulsive
|
|
| adj.排斥的，使人反感的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
trench
|
|
| n./v.(挖)沟，(挖)战壕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
incite
|
|
| v.引起，激动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
invoke
|
|
| v.求助于(神、法律)；恳求，乞求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
countenance
|
|
| n.脸色，面容；面部表情；vt.支持，赞同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
forestall
|
|
| vt.抢在…之前采取行动；预先阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
excellence
|
|
| n.优秀，杰出，(pl.)优点，美德 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
stagnation
|
|
| n. 停滞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
convened
|
|
| 召开( convene的过去式 )； 召集； （为正式会议而）聚集； 集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
inversion
|
|
| n.反向，倒转，倒置 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
imprisoning
|
|
| v.下狱，监禁( imprison的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
meditates
|
|
| 深思，沉思，冥想( meditate的第三人称单数 )； 内心策划，考虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
allayed
|
|
| v.减轻，缓和( allay的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
persuasive
|
|
| adj.有说服力的，能说得使人相信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
quelled
|
|
| v.（用武力）制止，结束，镇压( quell的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
witticism
|
|
| n.谐语，妙语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
deference
|
|
| n.尊重，顺从；敬意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
interfered
|
|
| v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 )；调停；妨碍；干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
deterred
|
|
| v.阻止，制止( deter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
caustic
|
|
| adj.刻薄的，腐蚀性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
martial
|
|
| adj.战争的，军事的，尚武的，威武的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
intruding
|
|
| v.侵入，侵扰，打扰( intrude的现在分词)；把…强加于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
curiously
|
|
| adv.有求知欲地；好问地；奇特地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
jocose
|
|
| adj.开玩笑的，滑稽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
covenant
|
|
| n.盟约，契约；v.订盟约 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
eccentricities
|
|
| n.古怪行为( eccentricity的名词复数 )；反常；怪癖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
sensational
|
|
| adj.使人感动的，非常好的，轰动的，耸人听闻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
contrive
|
|
| vt.谋划，策划；设法做到；设计，想出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
maker
|
|
| n.制造者，制造商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
blasphemies
|
|
| n.对上帝的亵渎，亵渎的言词[行为]( blasphemy的名词复数 )；侮慢的言词（或行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
rein
|
|
| n.疆绳，统治，支配；vt.以僵绳控制，统治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
iniquities
|
|
| n.邪恶( iniquity的名词复数 )；极不公正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
chastisement
|
|
| n.惩罚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
sketches
|
|
| n.草图( sketch的名词复数 )；素描；速写；梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |