Galileo knew no more than the rest of the world of the secret proceedings3 of the Inquisition against him and his system. He had only discovered that some Dominican monks5 wanted to make use of his letter to Castelli to effect the condemnation7 of the Copernican doctrines10, and that they were spreading all sorts of calumnies11 against him based upon it. Fearing that the copy of it on which they relied might have been tampered12 with, he sent a correct copy on 16th February, 1615, to his sincere friend Mgr. Dini at Rome, with a request that he would forward it to the mathematician13, Father Griemberger, and perhaps even to Cardinal14 Bellarmine. Galileo observed in the accompanying letter that he had written the one to Castelli “currente calamo,” that since then he had made many researches into the subject therein discussed, and announced the speedy completion of a larger work, in which he should carry out his reasoning far more in detail; as soon as it was finished he would send it to Mgr. Dini. (This was his great Apology to the Grand Duchess Christine.) In conclusion, he bitterly complains that his enemies were daily increasing in number, and, in order to injure him the more, were spreading the strange report among the people that he was the founder15 of the system of[60] the double motion of the earth, which gave rise to incidents like that with Bishop16 Gherardini.[110]
The philosopher, who it is evident was a good deal discomfited17, received in reply consolatory18 assurances from Mgr. Dini and others of his ecclesiastical friends. But they earnestly advised him to treat the subject of the Copernican system purely19 from the mathematical, physical point of view, and carefully to avoid religious discussion. This hint came rather late in the day, and could not now be of much use to Galileo, when his doctrines were already attacked as heretical, although secretly at that time, and the accusation21 was based on the purely scientific work on the solar spots. War had been declared with the Copernican system in the name of the Bible.
Galileo’s letters to Mgr. Dini of 16th February and 28th March,[111] plainly show how unwillingly22 he had been driven into the theological field by his opponents. After he had in the second letter decidedly rejected Dini’s suggestion that he should treat the Copernican system merely as a hypothesis, he added that it had been his earnest desire to keep strictly23 to his part as a man of science, and not to be compelled to defend his astronomical24 system against religious scruples25. He entirely26 agrees with those who say that the task of bringing natural science into agreement with Holy Scripture27 should be left to theologians, and shows that he has been compelled to defend himself on this dangerous ground. He says besides that his letter to Castelli was not originally intended to go any farther, and regrets that Castelli had had copies made of it without his knowledge.
It is a noteworthy circumstance that at the very time when the secret denunciation had been laid before the tribunal of the Inquisition at Rome, all the letters and reports which Galileo received from Rome, even from trustworthy friends, Mgrs. Dini, Ciampoli, and Prince Cesi, were calculated to allay1 his anxious fears. None of those persons, although in[61] influential29 positions, and likely it would seem to have been better informed, knew, as appears from their correspondence with Galileo, anything of the proceedings which were being instituted at Rome against him and the Copernican system. The Inquisition knew well enough how to keep its secrets. On 28th February[112] Mgr. Ciampoli writes confidently to Galileo that, notwithstanding all the inquiries31 he had made, he could learn nothing of any measures against him or the new doctrines; he sets down the whole rumour32 to the incautious talk of some hot-headed fellow.
On 7th March[113] Dini tells Galileo that Cardinal Bellarmine had said “he did not think that the work of Copernicus would be prohibited, and the worst that would happen would be that some addition would be made to it, stating that this theory was only accepted to explain phenomena33,[114] or some such phrase, and with this reservation Galileo would be able to discuss the subject whenever he had occasion.” Under the same date Prince Cesi tells Galileo that a work had just been published by a Dominican monk6, which brilliantly defended the opinion of Copernicus and made it agree with Holy Scripture. He adds that the work could not have appeared more opportunely34.[115]
But what seems the most strange are the express and repeated assurances of the cardinals35 Barberini, Del Monte, and Bellarmine, to Galileo, through Dini and Ciampoli, that so long as he did not go beyond the province of physics and mathematics, nor enter into any theological interpretations37 of Scripture, he had nothing to fear.[116] How could Cardinal[62] Bellarmine, who had not long before expressly stated to Prince Cesi that the new system was not compatible with the doctrines of Holy Scripture, and who, as a member of the Inquisition, must have been aware of the transactions which had been going on about Galileo since 5th February, give these assurances so directly opposed to the truth? And yet these three prelates afterwards gave many proofs of good will towards Galileo. How then is their ambiguous conduct to be explained? It was simply that they were friendly to Galileo, but not to his doctrines. They certainly desired to shield his person, and afterwards honestly endeavoured to do so even under most difficult circumstances; but the system he defended, which endangered the faith of the Church, must be suppressed at all hazards. In order to this end it appeared advisable to keep it a secret from Galileo that the statement of Copernicus that the earth moved was assailed38 from the theological standpoint, until the Holy Office had issued the interdict39 against its circulation and defence. It was thus that they prudently40 rounded the rocks which the dreaded41 dialectics of the clever Tuscan had exposed to view.
And the nearer the period was drawing when the verdict of the Church was to be pronounced on the Copernican theory, and the more eagerly the secret inquiries about Galileo were being prosecuted42, the more confident became the tone of the letters of his friends from the very city where this ominous43 web was being woven. It seems as if all Galileo’s trusty adherents45 had been struck with blindness, for we should not be justified46 in doubting the sincerity47 of a Dini, a Ciampoli, and a Cesi, men who afterwards proved by their actions their true friendship for the great astronomer48. On 20th March the evidence of Caccini was taken, and on the 21st Ciampoli communicates to Galileo the consoling observations of the cardinals Del Monte and Bellarmine mentioned above. Ciampoli also adds to these comforting assurances by telling him that Foscarini’s work was no doubt in great danger of being prohibited by the Congregation of[63] the Holy Office to take place next month, but only because it meddled49 with matters concerning Holy Scripture. He goes on to say with real satisfaction that he can only confirm his previous information, and that all this noise originated with four or five persons who are hostile to Galileo; he and Dini had taken all possible pains to find out this assumed agitation50, but had discovered absolutely nothing. He repeats this most decidedly in a letter of a week later;[117] and in another of 16th May[118] he cannot at all understand what has so disconcerted Galileo, and adds that it was no longer doubtful that the Copernican doctrine9 would not be prohibited, and expresses his conviction that it would be a great satisfaction to every one if Galileo would come to Rome for a time, and the more so because he had heard that many of the Jesuits were secretly of Galileo’s opinion, and were only keeping quiet for the present.
A private note enclosed in a letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo, of June 20th, is equally sanguine51. He tells him that Foscarini’s work, of which a new and enlarged edition is to appear immediately, has had great success at Rome, and that the opponents of Galileo and of the new system are much cast down about it; he adds that neither the author of that treatise52 nor the doctrines in question are in any danger, if only a little prudence53 is exercised. Cesi even thinks that the new edition, in which the author refutes all the objections to his work, will satisfy the ecclesiastical authorities, convince opponents, and put an end to the whole business. “Then,” continues the prince confidently, “when every difficulty is removed and attack rendered impossible, the doctrine will be so fully20 permitted and recognised, that everybody who wishes to maintain it will be at liberty to do so, as in all other purely physical and mathematical questions.”[119]
This is the last letter we have from Galileo’s friends of this period. From this date to the time of his stay in Rome,[64] in 1616, there are no letters to him extant. This is the more to be regretted, as the gap occurs at a very interesting juncture54. Perhaps after the Copernican doctrines were condemned55 Galileo may have destroyed this correspondence out of regard for his friends, for it may have contained allusions56 to very delicate matters.
Meanwhile, after having been repeatedly urged to it by Mgr. Dini,[120] he had completed his great apologetic treatise, in the form of a letter to the Grand Duchess Dowager, Christine. As it accurately57 defines the standpoint which Galileo desired to take as a natural philosopher and sincere Catholic, with respect to the Church of Rome, it seems necessary to give a sketch58 of its contents.
Galileo begins with the motive59 of his Apology. Several years ago he had made many discoveries in the heavens, the novelty of which, and the vast consequences they involve, which are opposed to many of the principles of the modern Aristotelian school, have incensed60 no small number of professors against him, as if he had placed these phenomena in the heavens with his own hands in order to overturn nature and science. Placing a greater value on their own opinions than on truth, these men had taken upon themselves to deny the existence of these discoveries, whereas if they had only consented to observe them, they would have been convinced. Instead of this, they assailed the new discoveries with empty arguments, and worst mistake of all, interwove them with passages of Scripture which they did not understand. But when the majority of the scientific world was convinced with its own eyes, so that it was impossible any longer to doubt the truth of these phenomena, their opponents tried to consign61 them to oblivion by obstinate62 silence; and when that did not avail they took another course. Galileo says that he should pay no more heed63 to these attacks than to former ones, at which, confident of the final result, he had always laughed, but they seek to cast an aspersion64 on him which he dreads[65] more than death. His opponents, knowing that he favoured the opinion of the double motion of the earth, and thereby65 attacked the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian principles, and perceiving since the universal recognition of his observations that they could never combat him successfully on the field of natural philosophy, are trying now to make a shield for their false statements out of a fictitious66 piety67 and the authority of Holy Scripture. They have therefore first tried to spread the opinion that the views he defends are opposed to the Bible, and therefore heretical and worthy28 of condemnation. They then easily found some one to denounce them from the pulpit, and he hurled68 his anathemas69 not only at the Copernican doctrines, but against mathematicians70 in general. They also gave out that the modern views of the system of the universe would shortly be pronounced heretical by the highest authorities.
Galileo then points out that Copernicus, the originator of these doctrines, was not only a good Catholic, but a priest highly esteemed71 by the Roman curia, both for his learning and piety. He had dedicated72 his famous work: “De Revolutionibus Orbium C?lestium,” to Pope Paul III., and no one had felt any scruples about his doctrines, although some ill-disposed persons want to have the book pronounced heretical, without ever having read, to say nothing of studied it. As an adherent44 of the Copernican theory, Galileo now feels compelled, in order to justify73 himself, to discuss in detail these arguments from Scripture brought forward by his opponents, and he hopes to prove that he is animated74 by a greater zeal75 for true religion than his adversaries76; for he by no means demands that the book should not be condemned, but that it should not be condemned without being understood or even looked at. Before proceeding4 to discuss these arguments, he protests that he will not only always be ready publicly to rectify77 the errors he may from ignorance have fallen into on religious matters in this treatise, but that it was not in the least his intention to enter into dispute with[66] any one on such subjects; it is rather his desire, by these remarks, to incite78 others to deliberations useful to the Church. As to the decision about the Copernican system, we must bow to the opinions of the ecclesiastical authorities, and should it be adverse79 to him, let his work be torn up and burnt, for he had neither wish nor intention to promote results that were not catholic and pious80.
After this long and cautious introduction, Galileo comes to the matter itself,—the discussion of the principles of exegesis81 of Scripture with respect to natural science. He employs the same arguments as in his letter to Castelli, only more in detail, and cites several passages from St. Augustine in support of his views, as to how far questions of natural philosophy should be left to the understanding and to science. He also quotes a saying of Cardinal Baronius: “The Holy Spirit intended to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go.” Galileo then illustrates82 by examples how derogatory it will be to the dignity of Holy Scripture if every unauthorised scribbler is permitted to adduce passages from it in support of his views, which he often does not interpret rightly; and experience shows the futility83 of this method of proof. He then turns to the claim of theologians to enforce upon others in scientific discussions opinions which they hold to agree with passages of Scripture, while maintaining that they are not bound to explain the scientific phenomena which are opposed to their decisions. In support of this they affirm that theology is the queen of all the sciences, and need not condescend84 to accommodate herself to the teachings of other sciences far beneath her: they must submit to her as their sovereign, and modify their conclusions accordingly. This leads Galileo to some considerations which he will here set forth85, that he may learn the opinions of others more expert on such questions than he is, and to whose decisions he is always ready to bow.
He is in doubt whether some ambiguity86 has not crept in[67] for want of more precision in defining why theology is entitled to be called a queen. It must either be because all that is taught by other sciences is comprised in and explained by theology, only in a higher sense; or because theology treats of a subject which far surpasses in importance all the subjects of which profane87 science treats. But even the theologians themselves will hardly maintain that the title belongs to theology in the first sense; for no one can say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine, are better treated of in Scripture than in the writings of Archimedes, Ptolemy, Boccius, and Galen. It appears then that the royal prerogative88 of theology must be derived89 from some other source. Galileo here remarks:—
“If then theology occupies herself solely90 with the highest problems, maintains her throne by reason of the supreme91 authority conferred on her, and does not condescend to the lower sciences as not affecting salvation92, the professors of theology should not assume authority on subjects which they have not studied. For this is just as if an absolute ruler should demand, without being a physician or an architect, that people should treat themselves, or erect93 buildings, according to his directions, to the great peril94 of poor sick people and obvious ruin of the edifices95.”
Galileo then demonstrates the vast difference between doctrinal and exact sciences, and says that in the latter opinions cannot be changed to order. Supported by the authority of St. Augustine, he maintains that opinions on natural science which have been proved to coincide with actual facts cannot be set aside by passages of Scripture, but these must be explained so as not to contradict the indisputable results of observation. Those, therefore, who desire to condemn8 an opinion in physics must first show that it is incorrect. But it must be made the subject of close investigation96, and then a different result will often be obtained from the one desired. Many learned men who intended to refute the Copernican theory have been changed, by examination, from opponents to enthusiastic defenders97 of it. In order to banish98 it from the world, as many desired, it would[68] not be enough to shut the mouth of any one individual, it would be necessary to prohibit not only the writings of Copernicus and his followers99, but astronomy altogether. But to suppress his work now, when new discoveries are daily confirming his theory, after it has been quietly submitted to for so many years, appears to Galileo like opposition100 to truth itself; and to permit the book and condemn the doctrine would be still more pernicious to the souls of men, for it would allow them the opportunity of convincing themselves of the truth of an opinion which it was a sin to believe. To forbid astronomy altogether would be like rejecting hundreds of passages of Scripture which teach us how the glory of God is revealed in all His works, which are best to be studied in the open book of nature.
Galileo then applies these general principles to the Copernican theory. According to many, it ought to be pronounced erroneous because it is opposed to the apparent meaning of many passages in the Bible, while the opposite opinion is to be believed de fide. He sharply defines two kinds of scientific questions: those on which all man’s researches can only lead to probability and conjecture101, as for instance, whether the stars are inhabited or not; and those on which, by experience, observation, and inevitable102 deduction103, we either have attained104 certainty or may safely reckon on doing so,—as whether the earth or the heavens move. In the first case, Galileo is decidedly of opinion that it behoves us to be guided by the literal sense of Scripture; in the second, he repeats what he has said before, that two truths can never contradict each other. The Bible speaks of the sun as moving and of the earth as standing30 still to accommodate itself to the understanding of the people, and not to confuse them, otherwise they might refuse to believe the dogmas which are absolutely de fide. For the same reason the fathers have spoken about things not appertaining to salvation, more in accordance with usage than actual facts, and he confirms this by quotations106 from St. Jerome and St. Thomas.
[69]
Even the general agreement of the fathers in the interpretation36 of any passage of Scripture of scientific import should, in Galileo’s opinion, only confer authority on it when the question has been discussed by many fathers with knowledge of both sides. But this is not the case with the question of the double motion of the earth, for it had not come up at all at that time, and it could not occur to the holy fathers to dispute it, for the current opinion was in entire agreement with the literal meaning of the Bible. It was not enough to say that the fathers had all believed that the earth stood still, and that therefore it was to be held de fide, for it was very possible that they never investigated it, and only held it as generally current. If they had done so and found it deserving of condemnation, they would have said so, but it had never been discovered that they had. The writings of Diego di Zu?iga show, on the contrary, that when some theologians began to consider the Copernican theory, they did not find it erroneous or contrary to Scripture. Moreover, no argument could be drawn107 from an unanimous opinion of the fathers, for some of them spoke105 of the sun as stationary108, others of the primum mobile.
Galileo declares himself ready to sign an opinion of wise and well informed theologians on the Copernican theory. Since no investigation of it was instituted by the ancient fathers, it might be done now by theologians fitted for it, who, after they had carefully examined all the scientific arguments for and against, would establish on a firm footing what was dictated109 to them by Divine inspiration. He once more lays great stress on the need of first convincing one’s self of the actual facts of nature under the guidance of science, and then proceeding to interpret texts of Scripture. He is indignant with those who, from malice110 or blinded by party interest, say that the Church should draw the sword without delay, since she possesses the power. As if it was always desirable to do whatever was in our power! He shows that the fathers were not of that opinion, but agreed with him, and[70] exclaims to these wranglers111: “Try first to refute the arguments of Copernicus and his followers, and leave the task of condemning112 them to those to whom it belongs; but do not hope to find among the fathers, who were as discreet113 as they were far-seeing, or in the wisdom of Him who cannot err2, those hasty conclusions to which you are led by personal interests and passions. It is doubtless true that concerning these and similar statements which are not strictly de fide, his Holiness the Pope has absolute authority to approve or condemn; but it is not in the power of any human being to make them true or false, or other than they de facto are.”
This lengthy114 treatise concludes with a disquisition on the passage in the book of Joshua, which he treats in the same way as in the letter to Castelli.
Notwithstanding all the care Galileo exercised in this apology[121] not to give any handle to his enemies, it contained far too many liberal and merely human principles not to do the author more harm than good in the eyes of the orthodox party, both on religious and scientific questions. His opponents saw this plainly enough, and agitated115 against him all the more vehemently116 at Rome.
Ominous reports reached the astronomer, who was anxious enough before; but he could not any how learn anything definite about these attacks, only so much eked117 out, that something was brewing118 against him, and that it was intended to interdict the Copernican theory. Galileo thought he could best meet these intrigues119 by his personal appearance at Rome; he wanted to learn what the accusations120 against him were, and to show that there was nothing in them; he desired energetically to defend the new system, to aid truth in asserting her rights. So, early in December, 1615, provided with cordial letters of introduction from the Grand Duke, he set out for Rome.[122]
[71]
Some older authors, and recently Henri Martin,[123] have repeated as a fact the report circulated at the time by Galileo’s enemies,[124] that this visit to Rome was by no means so voluntary as he thought fit to give out. Martin appeals in support of this view to a letter of Mgr. Querenghi to Cardinal Alexander d’Este, of 1st January, 1616,[125] in which he says that the philosopher had been cited to appear at Rome, that he might explain how he made his doctrines, which entirely contradict Holy Scripture, agree with it. Martin also states that the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, in a despatch121 of 11th September, 1632, announced that a document had been discovered in the books of the Holy Office, which showed that Galileo had been summoned to Rome in 1616; and finally, this otherwise excellent biographer of Galileo adds some grounds of probability which, however, are not conclusive122. Besides, these arguments, in the face of other facts, are not valid123. Even if Galileo’s contemporary letters from Rome, in which he repeatedly expresses his satisfaction that he had come there,[126] are not relied upon, and are regarded merely as a consistent carrying out of the fiction, his statement on his trial of 12th April, 1633, bears clear witness that Martin is in error. Being asked if he came at that time to Rome of his own accord, or in consequence of a summons, he answered: “In the year 1616 I came to Rome of my own accord, without being summoned.”[127] It was impossible that he should then have persisted in the assumed fiction, for he could not have denied[72] before the Inquisition a summons issued by itself seventeen years before, since it would certainly have been entered in their registers.[128] According to the statement of the Tuscan ambassador mentioned above, such a document had been discovered one year previously124 in the protocols125 of the Holy Office. But in the face of the question put at the examination this does not seem very credible126. Moreover, in none of the documents now open to historical research relating to the transactions of 1616, is there any such record to be found, nor anything to indicate that this visit of Galileo’s to Rome did not originate with himself.
Neither does the flattering reception he met with at all agree with the assumed secret summons. Nevertheless, his correspondence with Picchena, successor in office to Vinta, though very cautious, shows that notwithstanding the comforting assurances he had received from his friends at Rome, he found that a zealous127 agitation was going on, not only against the doctrines he advocated, but against himself.[129] In another letter of 8th January, 1616, he says he sees every day what a good idea it was to come here, for he had found so many snares128 laid for him that it would have been quite impossible not to be caught by one or other of them, and he would not have been able to extricate129 himself for a long time, perhaps never, or only with the greatest difficulty. He is confident that he shall now very soon destroy the traps of his enemies, and be able to justify himself in a way that will bring all their unworthy calumnies to light. They have spread the false report that he was in disgrace at the grand ducal court in consequence of the enormity of his offence, and that the proceedings against him had the Grand Duke’s entire approval. Now, as the cordial introductions given him by Cosmo II. proved precisely130 the contrary, the assertions of his enemies would lose all credit, and he would be believed all[73] the more, so that he should be able to justify himself completely.[130]
Judging, however, from a letter written fourteen days later to the Tuscan Secretary of State, Galileo had not found it so easy to defend himself as he anticipated. Indeed it seems to have been a very complicated business. A passage from the letter above mentioned will give an idea of it:—
“My business is far more difficult, and takes much longer owing to outward circumstances, than the nature of it would require; because I cannot communicate directly with those persons with whom I have to negotiate, partly to avoid doing injury to any of my friends, partly because they cannot communicate anything to me without running the risk of grave censure131. And so I am compelled, with much pains and caution, to seek out third persons, who, without even knowing my object, may serve as mediators with the principals, so that I may have the opportunity of setting forth, incidentally as it were, and at their request, the particulars of my interests. I have also to set down some points in writing, and to cause that they should come privately132 into the hands of those whom I wish should see them; for I find in many quarters that people are more ready to yield to dead writing than to living speech, for the former permits them to agree or dissent133 without blushing, and then finally to yield to the arguments used—for in such discussions we have no witnesses but ourselves, whereas people do not so readily change their opinions if it has to be done publicly.”[131]
Galileo at length succeeded by his strenuous134 efforts in freeing himself from all false accusations and in refuting the slanders135 of Caccini. His affairs took so favourable136 a turn that the monk found it advisable to pay an obsequious137 visit of several hours to Galileo, humbly138 begged pardon for his previous conduct, offered any satisfaction in his power, and assured Galileo that the agitation going on was not in any way to be laid at his door.[132] But he could not refrain from trying to prove that the Copernican doctrines were erroneous, in which however he had no more success than in convincing Galileo of his sincerity, for he wrote to Picchena that he[74] had found in Caccini “great ignorance and a mind full of venom139.”[133]
But Galileo had only performed half his task by the happy adjustment of the difficulties affecting himself; the more important and grander part of it, the preservation140 of the Copernican system from the interdict of the Church, had yet to be accomplished141. His letter of 6th February to Picchena tells him of the favourable turn in his own affairs, as well as of the noble purposes by which he was animated. He writes:—
“My business, so far as it concerns myself, is completed; all the exalted142 personages who have been conducting it have told me so plainly, and in a most obliging manner, and have assured me that people are fully convinced of my uprightness and honour, and of the devilish malice and injustice143 of my persecutors. As far as this point is concerned, therefore, I might return home without delay, but there is a question concerning my own cause which does not concern myself alone, but all those who, during the last eighty years, have advocated in printed works or private letters, in public lectures or private conversations, a certain opinion, not unknown to your Grace, on which they are now proposing to pronounce judgment144. In the conviction that my assistance may be of use in the investigation of the matter, as far as a knowledge of those truths is concerned which are proved by the science to which I have devoted145 myself, I neither can nor ought to neglect to render this assistance, while I shall thereby follow the dictates146 of my conscience and Christian147 zeal.”[134]
This was magnanimous, and Galileo was entitled, as few others were, to appear as the advocate of science. But unfortunately his warm and perhaps too solicitous148 efforts for the Copernican cause had a result precisely opposite to the one he intended. He was still under the great delusion149 that the Roman curia must above all things be convinced of the correctness of the Copernican doctrines. He therefore sought out scepticism on the subject everywhere in the eternal city, combated it eagerly and apparently150 with signal success. In many of the first houses in Rome, such as the Cesarini’s, Ghislieri’s, and others, he unfolded before numerous audiences[75] his views about the construction of the universe. He always began these discourses151 by carefully enumerating152 all the arguments for the Ptolemaic system, and then proved that they were untenable by the telling arguments with which his own observations had so abundantly supplied him; and as he not seldom added the biting sarcasm153 of his wit to serious demonstration154, thus bringing the laugh on his side, he prepared signal defeats for the orthodox views of nature.[135]
But by this method he obviously took a false standpoint. He would not see that the Romanists cared far more for the authority of Scripture than for the recognition of the laws of nature; that his system, running counter to orthodox interpretation of the Bible, was opposed to the interests of the Church. And as his tactics were founded upon a purely human way of looking at things, and he erroneously imagined that the true system of the universe would be of greater importance, even to the servants of the Church, than her own mysteries, it was but a natural consequence of these false premises155 that, instead of attaining156 his end, he only widened his distance from it.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
allay
|
|
| v.消除，减轻(恐惧、怀疑等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
err
|
|
| vi.犯错误，出差错 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
monk
|
|
| n.和尚，僧侣，修道士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
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： |
|
|
|
|
11
calumnies
|
|
| n.诬蔑，诽谤，中伤（的话）( calumny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
tampered
|
|
| v.窜改( tamper的过去式 )；篡改；（用不正当手段）影响；瞎摆弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
mathematician
|
|
| n.数学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
Founder
|
|
| n.创始者，缔造者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
discomfited
|
|
| v.使为难( discomfit的过去式和过去分词)；使狼狈；使挫折；挫败 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
consolatory
|
|
| adj.慰问的，可藉慰的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
unwillingly
|
|
| adv.不情愿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
astronomical
|
|
| adj.天文学的，（数字）极大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
scruples
|
|
| n.良心上的不安( scruple的名词复数 )；顾虑，顾忌v.感到于心不安，有顾忌( scruple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
scripture
|
|
| n.经文，圣书，手稿；Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》，《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
influential
|
|
| adj.有影响的，有权势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
inquiries
|
|
| n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 )；疑问；探究；打听 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
rumour
|
|
| n.谣言，谣传，传闻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
opportunely
|
|
| adv.恰好地，适时地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
cardinals
|
|
| 红衣主教( cardinal的名词复数 )； 红衣凤头鸟（见于北美，雄鸟为鲜红色）； 基数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
interpretations
|
|
| n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 )；表演；演绎；理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
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： |
|
|
|
|
39
interdict
|
|
| v.限制；禁止；n.正式禁止；禁令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
prudently
|
|
| adv. 谨慎地，慎重地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
dreaded
|
|
| adj.令人畏惧的；害怕的v.害怕，恐惧，担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
prosecuted
|
|
| a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
ominous
|
|
| adj.不祥的，不吉的，预兆的，预示的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
adherent
|
|
| n.信徒，追随者，拥护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
sincerity
|
|
| n.真诚，诚意；真实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
astronomer
|
|
| n.天文学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
meddled
|
|
| v.干涉，干预（他人事务）( meddle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
sanguine
|
|
| adj.充满希望的，乐观的，血红色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
juncture
|
|
| n.时刻，关键时刻，紧要关头 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
allusions
|
|
| 暗指，间接提到( allusion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
sketch
|
|
| n.草图；梗概；素描；v.素描；概述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
incensed
|
|
| 盛怒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
consign
|
|
| vt.寄售（货品），托运，交托，委托 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
obstinate
|
|
| adj.顽固的，倔强的，不易屈服的，较难治愈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
heed
|
|
| v.注意，留意；n.注意，留心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
aspersion
|
|
| n.诽谤，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
fictitious
|
|
| adj.虚构的，假设的；空头的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
hurled
|
|
| v.猛投，用力掷( hurl的过去式和过去分词 )；大声叫骂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
anathemas
|
|
| n.（天主教的）革出教门( anathema的名词复数 )；诅咒；令人极其讨厌的事；被基督教诅咒的人或事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
70
mathematicians
|
|
| 数学家( mathematician的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
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： |
|
|
|
|
72
dedicated
|
|
| adj.一心一意的；献身的；热诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
rectify
|
|
| v.订正，矫正，改正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
incite
|
|
| v.引起，激动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
adverse
|
|
| adj.不利的；有害的；敌对的，不友好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
pious
|
|
| adj.虔诚的；道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
exegesis
|
|
| n.注释，解释 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
illustrates
|
|
| 给…加插图( illustrate的第三人称单数 )； 说明； 表明； （用示例、图画等）说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
futility
|
|
| n.无用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
condescend
|
|
| v.俯就，屈尊；堕落，丢丑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
ambiguity
|
|
| n.模棱两可；意义不明确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
prerogative
|
|
| n.特权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
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： |
|
|
|
|
90
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
erect
|
|
| n./v.树立，建立，使竖立；adj.直立的，垂直的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
edifices
|
|
| n.大建筑物( edifice的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
banish
|
|
| vt.放逐，驱逐；消除，排除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
deduction
|
|
| n.减除，扣除，减除额；推论，推理，演绎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
stationary
|
|
| adj.固定的，静止不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
dictated
|
|
| v.大声讲或读( dictate的过去式和过去分词 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
wranglers
|
|
| n.争执人( wrangler的名词复数 )；在争吵的人；（尤指放马的）牧人；牛仔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
112
condemning
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的现在分词 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
discreet
|
|
| adj.(言行)谨慎的；慎重的；有判断力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
lengthy
|
|
| adj.漫长的，冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
agitated
|
|
| adj.被鼓动的，不安的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
vehemently
|
|
| adv. 热烈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
eked
|
|
| v.（靠节省用量）使…的供应持久( eke的过去式和过去分词 )；节约使用；竭力维持生计；勉强度日 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
brewing
|
|
| n. 酿造, 一次酿造的量 动词brew的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
intrigues
|
|
| n.密谋策划( intrigue的名词复数 )；神秘气氛；引人入胜的复杂情节v.搞阴谋诡计( intrigue的第三人称单数 )；激起…的好奇心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
despatch
|
|
| n./v.(dispatch)派遣；发送；n.急件；新闻报道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
protocols
|
|
| n.礼仪( protocol的名词复数 )；（外交条约的）草案；（数据传递的）协议；科学实验报告（或计划） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
zealous
|
|
| adj.狂热的，热心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
snares
|
|
| n.陷阱( snare的名词复数 )；圈套；诱人遭受失败（丢脸、损失等）的东西；诱惑物v.用罗网捕捉，诱陷，陷害( snare的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
extricate
|
|
| v.拯救，救出；解脱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
privately
|
|
| adv.以私人的身份，悄悄地，私下地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
dissent
|
|
| n./v.不同意，持异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
strenuous
|
|
| adj.奋发的，使劲的；紧张的；热烈的，狂热的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
slanders
|
|
| 诽谤，诋毁( slander的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
obsequious
|
|
| adj.谄媚的，奉承的，顺从的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
humbly
|
|
| adv. 恭顺地，谦卑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
venom
|
|
| n.毒液，恶毒，痛恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
dictates
|
|
| n.命令，规定，要求( dictate的名词复数 )v.大声讲或读( dictate的第三人称单数 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
solicitous
|
|
| adj.热切的，挂念的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
delusion
|
|
| n.谬见，欺骗，幻觉，迷惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
discourses
|
|
| 论文( discourse的名词复数 )； 演说； 讲道； 话语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
enumerating
|
|
| v.列举，枚举，数( enumerate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
sarcasm
|
|
| n.讥讽，讽刺，嘲弄，反话 （adj.sarcastic） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
attaining
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的现在分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |