Six weeks had scarcely elapsed after Galileo’s return from Rome, when he received from his friend Francesco Stelluti the startling intelligence of the death of his influential4 patron, Prince Cesi, who had been snatched away on 1st August by an attack of fever, after a few days’ illness.[230] This was a great blow to Galileo. It was not only that he lost in the prince an adherent5, as influential as he was devoted6, but his death just then was of the greatest moment on account of the “Dialogues.” There was, perhaps, no one so well qualified7 to forward their publication as Cesi, who, as president of the Accadémia dei Lincei, seemed just the man for it. The Academy, deprived of its strongest support, was gradually dissolved, after the hand was wanting which knew how to weave its multitudinous threads into a firm and solid fabric8.
Only the third week after the prince’s death, Galileo felt the first effects of his heavy loss. In a letter of 24th August, Castelli urgently advised him “for many most weighty reasons which he did not wish just then to commit to paper, to have the work printed at Florence, and as soon as possible.”[231] Castelli added that he had inquired of Father Visconti whether this would present any difficulties, to which he had replied that there was nothing to prevent, and he[139] (Visconti) desired above all things that the work should see the light. Galileo was the more ready to fall in with this proposition because the plague, which had made fearful ravages9 in North Italy, had now made its appearance in Tuscany, and the precautionary measures taken by the neighbouring States made all intercourse10 with them, and especially with the States of the Church, very tedious and often impossible. Galileo therefore at once took the needful steps for publishing his book at Florence. He applied11 to the Inquisitor-General of the city, to the Vicar-General, and to the political authorities for permission, and it was granted without hesitation12 on 11th September, 1630.[232]
Galileo next addressed himself to Riccardi; represented to him the great obstacles to publishing the work at Rome, and therefore asked permission to publish it at Florence. This was the beginning of troubles. The chief of the Roman censorship at first roundly refused, and when Galileo urged his request again, he informed him through the Tuscan ambassador at the papal court, Francesco Niccolini, that the work must be sent in for final revision as agreed upon, without which he should never have consented to the publication. Castelli also wrote to Galileo on 21st September,[233] as commissioned by Riccardi, that as his coming himself to Rome, as originally agreed upon, was rendered impossible by the outbreak of the plague, he had better send the manuscript to Riccardi, in order that he and Mgr. Ciampoli might make the final corrections. Castelli said further that Riccardi was still very favourably14 disposed to Galileo, and that when his work had undergone this censorship, he could send it to press in Florence as well as anywhere else. After this Galileo made inquiries15 whether, under present circumstances, a large packet of MSS. could be sent safely over the border. But he was[140] everywhere met with a negative, and the remark that mere16 letters scarcely passed. In vain he applied to the postmaster, in vain he appealed to the Grand Ducal secretary of state, Bali Cioli, for help; no means could be devised, under the strict close of the frontiers, whereby the bulky work could be transmitted to Rome with any prospect17 of safety.
Greatly disconcerted, Galileo represented this state of things to Riccardi, and offered to send, at any rate, the preface and conclusion of the “Dialogues,” that the ecclesiastical authorities might alter these important parts of the work as seemed good to them, and said that he was willing to designate the Copernican views mentioned in the book as mere chimeras19, paralogisms, dreams, and fantasies, which, as is well known, was afterwards actually done. As to the final revision, Galileo proposed that Riccardi should entrust20 it to some one at Florence. Exceedingly annoyed by all these obstacles to an early publication of his “Dialogues,” Galileo at the same time asked the Tuscan ambassador, Niccolini, and his wife, who were well disposed towards him, to try and induce Riccardi, whom he had often seen at their house, to accept this proposal. And what friends and colleagues of the chief censor13 and other eminent21 men had failed in, was accomplished22 by the delicate mediation23 of a lady. On 19th October, 1630, Caterina Niccolini wrote to Galileo, that the Padre Maestro, who was heartily24 devoted to him, would obligingly excuse him from sending the whole work; let him send the introduction and conclusion, but on condition that the whole MS. should be revised before publication by some competent person at Florence, and by a theologian empowered by the ecclesiastical authorities, who must belong to the Benedictine order. Father Riccardi proposed Father Clement25 for the task. The ambassador’s wife added, however, commissioned by the Master of the Palace, that if this choice were not agreeable to Galileo, he might himself propose a suitable person, who would be empowered to act.[234]
[141]
And, in fact, Father Clement was not to Galileo’s taste, and he proposed Father Hyacinthe Stephani, counsellor to the Holy Inquisition at Florence, who was approved by Riccardi. This ecclesiastic18 revised the work very thoroughly26, and—so at least Galileo reports[235]—was moved to tears at many passages by the humility27 and reverent28 obedience29 which the author had displayed. Having made some insignificant30 corrections, suggested by extra caution, he gave the “Dialogues” his approval, and declared that the famous author should be begged to publish them rather than have obstacles placed in his way.
Riccardi, notwithstanding his friendship for Galileo, seems to have been of a different opinion. The preface and conclusion had been sent, but he had allowed weeks and months to pass without letting Galileo hear anything of them, to say nothing of sending them back. Castelli once wrote to Galileo that he had met Riccardi, and that he had told him that these portions were now quite in order, and that he would send them to Galileo immediately; but months again went by without his fulfilling his promise.
Galileo was in despair, and on 7th March, 1631, addressed a long letter to Bali Cioli, in which he first related the course of the negotiations32 respecting the “Dialogues”[236] in detail, and then asked for the powerful intervention33 of his Highness the Grand Duke, at Rome, to bring the business to a conclusion, so that he (Galileo) might enjoy while he lived these fruits of the labours of over fifty years. Little did Galileo foresee what dire34 results these “fruits” were to bring. On 8th March his request was granted, and he was informed that Niccolini, at Rome, would be commissioned in the name of[142] the Grand Duke to hasten as much as possible the termination of the negotiations with the Master of the Palace.[237]
Galileo was all the more pleased with the success of this attempt, because meanwhile, weary of the long delays, he had begun to have his “Dialogues” printed. This is confirmed by a letter from him of 20th March to his learned friend, Cesare Marsili, in which he says that six sheets of his work, which would consist of fifty or more, were finished.[238] We may here remark that this proceeding35 of Galileo’s has been the subject of severe and unjustifiable blame on the part of some authors actuated by party spirit. It seems the less called for, since Galileo made no secret of the printing having been begun, and he was not reproached for it at the subsequent trial before the Inquisition. He quite supposed that after Father Stephani had inspected and sanctioned the work, all the conditions were fulfilled. He therefore considered Riccardi’s consent to the publication in Florence as certain. It never occurred to him that after all this he would raise new difficulties.
A report of Niccolini’s of 19th April to Cioli[239] confirmed him in this supposition, and rejoiced his heart, as there seemed to be an immediate31 prospect of an end to these tiresome36 negotiations. Niccolini wrote that he and his wife had a little while before had a long conversation with Father Riccardi about Galileo’s affairs, which had resulted in his promising37 to grant permission for the publication, but with the addition of a declaration, for his own protection, which he was to forward to Niccolini in a few days. On the 28th Niccolini received it, but instead of its containing the promised imprimatur, it required new clauses and imposed[143] fresh conditions on the publication. The chief censor indeed acknowledged, at the beginning of this letter, that he had given the imprimatur to the work, but stated that it was only with the reservation that the author should make some alterations38 as agreed upon, and send his book to Rome to be published, where with the help of Mgr. Ciampoli all difficulties would have been overcome. “Father Stephani,” continues Riccardi, “has no doubt subjected the book to a conscientious39 revision; but as he was not acquainted with the Pope’s views, he had no power to give any approval which would enable me to sanction the printing without incurring40 the danger both to him and myself that unpleasantnesses might arise, if things were still found contrary to the proscriptions.” Riccardi then asserts that he had no greater desire than to serve the Grand Duke, but he considers that it must be done so as to prevent any danger to his Highness’s reputation. And this would not be the case if he gave his imprimatur, as it was not his province to give it for Florence,[240] while it would be secured by his assuring himself that everything was in accordance with the commands of his Holiness. “When I have inspected the beginning and end of the work,” he continued, “I shall easily discover what I want to know, and will then give a certificate that I have approved the whole work.”
This sentence is, to say the least, very obscure. Riccardi had had these two portions of the work in his possession for months, and could long before have discovered from them what he wanted to know. Or had he not condescended41 to look at them? This seems scarcely credible42, and is in direct opposition43 to what he said to Castelli months before. But a desire to spin the matter out is evident enough from this obscure sentence as well as the rest of the letter. The Master of the Palace then proposed, if it were still impossible to forward the work, to send the ordinances44 of his Holiness to[144] the Inquisitor at Florence, in order that he, after assuring himself that they had been complied with, might give the imprimatur. When Niccolini expressed his suspicions that these delays had been caused by some intrigues45 of Galileo’s enemies, Riccardi assured him that no one but friends of the famous astronomer46 had spoken to him on the subject, and that there really had been no cabal47 of any sort.[241]
When Galileo received the news of this letter, which, contrary to all his expectations, once more removed all hope of an end of these transactions into the far future, he could not repress his ill humour. This is plain enough from a letter to Cioli of 3rd May. He begins with the tart3 remark: “I have read what the Father Master of the Palace has written about the publication of the ‘Dialogues,’ and perceive, to my great vexation, that after keeping me for nearly a year without coming to any conclusion, he means to pursue the same course with his Holiness, namely, to delay and spin out everything with empty words, which it is not easy to put up with.” He then bitterly complains that this letter of Riccardi’s, instead of the promised imprimatur, contains nothing but fresh delays on the pretext48 of conditions with which he had complied several months before, and in such a way as to prove to his Holiness and all who were willing to be convinced that he had done so. “And since I perceive,” he continues bitterly, “that my affairs are afloat on a vast and boundless49 ocean, while the publication of my book is of the utmost importance to me, as I wish to see the fruits of my labours secured, I have been considering various ways by which it might be accomplished; but the authorization50 of his Holiness is indispensable for all.” Galileo then says that in order to come to some result it might be of the highest importance some day, and that as soon as possible, to be summoned to appear before his Highness, with the Inquisitor and Father Stephani. He would like to show them the work with all the corrections from the hands of Fathers[145] Riccardi, Visconti, and Stephani, in order that, in the first place, they might see how trivial the alterations were, and in the second, how submissively and reverently51 he had designated all the evidence and arguments which appeared to confirm an opinion not approved by the authorities, as dreams, chimeras, and nullities. He concludes by saying: “Those present will then perceive how true and just my doctrines52 are, and that I have never entertained other views or opinions than those held by the most venerable and holy fathers of the Church.”[242]
The Grand Duke, Ferdinand II., however, with all his good will towards his chief mathematician53, was by no means inclined to interfere54 personally in the matter. He was desirous to use all the influence he possessed55 to bring about a decision at Rome, but it no more occurred to him now to exercise his rights as sovereign ruler, than it did afterwards when he gave up the infirm philosopher, at nearly seventy years of age, to the Roman tribunal. Galileo’s suggestion, therefore, that the Grand Duke should, to some extent, take the initiative was by no means acceptable, and was not followed. The summons to the Inquisitor and Father Stephani to appear with Galileo before the Grand Duke never came; Niccolini, however, made fresh efforts to bring about a solution of the question at Rome. He went to the Master of the Palace and strongly represented to him that through the dedication56 the Grand Duke himself was greatly interested in the publication of this work, at the head of which his exalted57 name was placed.[243] Galileo finally succeeded, on 24th May, in inducing Riccardi to address a letter to Fra Clemente Egidio, the Inquisitor at Florence, in which he left it entirely58 to him, after examining the work, to grant permission for the publication or not. The Master of the Palace again expressly mentioned in this letter that he had given the authorization[146] to print, but with the reservation that the necessary alterations should be made, and that after further revision it should go to press in Rome, which conditions, however, had not been able to be fulfilled owing to the plague. The most interesting parts of the letter for us are the hints which Riccardi gives the Inquisitor, in the course of it, as to the Pope’s views on the subject, which are to guide him in sanctioning the work. Title as well as contents are only to relate to the mathematical aspects of the Copernican system, and so that “the absolute truth of this view is never conceded, but made to appear as mere hypothesis, and without reference to Scripture59.”[244] “It must also be explained,” continued Riccardi, “that this work is only written to show that all the arguments which can be adduced in favour of this view were well known; that therefore the sentence of 1616 was not to be attributed to ignorance at Rome, and the beginning and end of the book must agree with this statement, which portions, properly arranged, I will send from here. By observance of these precautions the work will meet with no obstacles at Rome, and your reverence60 will be able to gratify the author, as well as to serve his Highness, who has shown so warm an interest in the matter.”[245] The Inquisitor replied on 31st May that he would act in accordance with the received instructions. He says further that he had given the MS. to Stephani, as a very eminent man and counsellor of the Holy Office, to be revised again, and this time in accordance with the papal instructions; also that Galileo consented most willingly to all the corrections.[246]
But it would almost appear as if Riccardi had again repented61 of the steps he had taken for the final settlement of the business, for weeks and months passed before Fra Clemente Egidio received the preface and conclusion. Not till Niccolini,[147] at Galileo’s request, had repeatedly urged him to send them, could he be induced to do so, after a further delay of two months, and then, as the ambassador graphically62 describes the situation, not “till formally pulled by the hair.”[247] In the letter of 19th July, 1631, which accompanied them, Riccardi empowered the author to alter the style of the revised introduction as he pleased, and to ornament63 it rhetorically, but so that the sense should remain the same. As to the conclusion, he made the vague remark that it must be based upon the same argument as the beginning.[248]
This seems to be the place to enter into the oft discussed question of the real authorship of this remarkable64 introduction. Some, who rely upon the letter of Riccardi’s above quoted, attribute it to him; others even maintain that it owes its origin to Urban VIII. himself; while, on the other hand, some are of opinion that Galileo had the chief share in it, though assuredly only because he considered that it would secure his object—permission to publish the “Dialogues.” All these opinions contain some truth, contradictory65 as they seem; the truth lies between them. After careful examination of the documents relating to the subject, the historical facts appear to be as follows:—
When Galileo was at Rome in the early part of the summer of 1630, in order to submit his “Dialogues” to the Roman censorship, an introduction was sketched67 for him, which he was to complete at Florence, and on his intended return to Rome in the autumn to lay it and the whole manuscript before the Master of the Palace for final revision.[249] From the good understanding which then existed between Riccardi, Mgr. Ciampoli, and Galileo, and from the contents of the introduction,[148] we may conclude with certainty that the sketch66 was made with Galileo’s concurrence68, or even that the main idea of it was his own. For on close examination we find that the idea on which the whole introduction turns—namely, that it was by no means ignorance of the scientific arguments in favour of the Copernican system which led to the verdict of 1616—is precisely69 the same as that stated by Galileo in his reply to Ingoli in 1624.[250] As we are aware, since the plague prevented Galileo from returning to Florence or sending the whole MS., he sent the introduction and conclusion to the chief censor, who kept them for months, and did not return them to the Inquisitor at Florence till 19th July. From Riccardi’s letter we learn two facts: firstly, that he had only concerned himself with the introduction, leaving the conclusion to the author with the vague remark we have quoted; and secondly70, that Galileo’s preface must have undergone considerable alterations by the chief censor, as he gave him leave to alter the style but not the sense. There can be no more doubt that the Pope had some hand in the final composition of the preface than that it was not penned by himself. Riccardi appeals in both his ex officio letters to the Inquisitor of 24th May and 19th July, to the “views” and commands of his Holiness; and when the great storm afterwards burst, the Master of the Palace loudly asserted that in Galileo’s affairs he had always and in everything acted in concert with the papal secretary, Mgr. Ciampoli, and the latter appealed decidedly to special commands of Urban’s.[251] Riccardi and Ciampoli indeed paid for this indiscretion with the loss of their posts, but Cantor has aptly remarked on the subject that, “evidence of the falsity of a statement was never yet[149] afforded by the fact of the witnesses being compelled to silence or suffering punishment.”[252]
With the arrival at last of the preface and conclusion, all the obstacles which had threatened the continuation of the printing of the “Dialogues” were removed. Stephani, who was charged by the Inquisitor at Florence to undertake the final censorship, was not the man to place difficulties in the way of the appearance of the book. He took great care, however, that the Pope’s commands as to the treatment of the Copernican doctrines should, as far as the letter went, be strictly71 obeyed. The “Dialogues,” from beginning to end, were opposed to the spirit both of the decree of 5th March, 1616, and the papal ordinances, and there was great naiveté in the idea that the fine-spun preface and the various little diplomatic arts which Galileo employed in the course of his work could disguise its real meaning from the learned world. But that was not Stephani’s affair; for the MS. as a whole had been sanctioned by Father Visconti and had received the imprimatur for Rome from the authorities of the censorship.
The delay about the preface, which, according to Riccardi’s orders, was to be printed before the book, had two results out of which Galileo’s enemies afterwards tried to make capital for their intrigues, and which must therefore find mention here. The printing had been long in hand and was proceeding when the preface arrived. It was therefore necessary to print it on a separate sheet, which, according to Riccardi’s orders, was placed at the beginning of the book. For technical reasons, also, it was printed in different type from the rest of the work. From these two insignificant circumstances, Galileo was afterwards reproached with having by the outward form destroyed the inner connection between the introduction and the book; and with having thus, to some extent, intended to indicate that it had nothing to do with the “Dialogues.”[253] This was at the time when one party was setting every lever in[150] motion to find cause for accusation against Galileo. The book itself, which appeared with the double imprimatur of the ecclesiastical censorship of Rome and Florence, afforded no legal ground for it. We will not, however, anticipate the historical course of these memorable72 events, but will carefully follow them step by step.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
impatience
|
|
| n.不耐烦，急躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
tart
|
|
| adj.酸的；尖酸的，刻薄的；n.果馅饼；淫妇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
influential
|
|
| adj.有影响的，有权势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
adherent
|
|
| n.信徒，追随者，拥护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
fabric
|
|
| n.织物，织品，布；构造，结构，组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
ravages
|
|
| 劫掠后的残迹，破坏的结果，毁坏后的残迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
censor
|
|
| n./vt.审查，审查员；删改 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
favourably
|
|
| adv. 善意地，赞成地 =favorably | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
inquiries
|
|
| n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 )；疑问；探究；打听 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
ecclesiastic
|
|
| n.教士，基督教会；adj.神职者的，牧师的，教会的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
chimeras
|
|
| n.（由几种动物的各部分构成的）假想的怪兽( chimera的名词复数 )；不可能实现的想法；幻想；妄想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
entrust
|
|
| v.信赖，信托，交托 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
mediation
|
|
| n.调解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
heartily
|
|
| adv.衷心地，诚恳地，十分，很 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
clement
|
|
| adj.仁慈的；温和的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
humility
|
|
| n.谦逊，谦恭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
reverent
|
|
| adj.恭敬的，虔诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
insignificant
|
|
| adj.无关紧要的，可忽略的，无意义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
dire
|
|
| adj.可怕的，悲惨的，阴惨的，极端的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
tiresome
|
|
| adj.令人疲劳的，令人厌倦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
alterations
|
|
| n.改动( alteration的名词复数 )；更改；变化；改变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
conscientious
|
|
| adj.审慎正直的，认真的，本着良心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
incurring
|
|
| 遭受，招致，引起( incur的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
condescended
|
|
| 屈尊，俯就( condescend的过去式和过去分词 )； 故意表示和蔼可亲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
ordinances
|
|
| n.条例，法令( ordinance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
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： |
|
|
|
|
46
astronomer
|
|
| n.天文学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
cabal
|
|
| n.政治阴谋小集团 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
pretext
|
|
| n.借口，托词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
boundless
|
|
| adj.无限的；无边无际的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
authorization
|
|
| n.授权，委任状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
reverently
|
|
| adv.虔诚地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
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： |
|
|
|
|
53
mathematician
|
|
| n.数学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
dedication
|
|
| n.奉献，献身，致力，题献，献辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
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： |
|
|
|
|
60
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
repented
|
|
| 对（自己的所为）感到懊悔或忏悔( repent的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
graphically
|
|
| adv.通过图表；生动地，轮廓分明地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
ornament
|
|
| v.装饰，美化；n.装饰，装饰物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
sketch
|
|
| n.草图；梗概；素描；v.素描；概述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
sketched
|
|
| v.草拟（sketch的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
concurrence
|
|
| n.同意；并发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
memorable
|
|
| adj.值得回忆的，难忘的，特别的，显著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |