On 12th April Galileo appeared in great distress7 of mind, for his first hearing in the Palace of the Inquisition, before the Commissary-General of the Holy Office, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, and the fiscal8 attorney of the Holy Tribunal, Father Carlo Sincero. In all his answers to the Inquisitor, he is actuated by one idea—that of shortening the proceedings9 and averting11 a severe sentence by submissive acquiescence13. This resigned attitude must be borne in mind in order to form a correct judgment14 of his depositions16 before the dread17 tribunal.[352]
According to the rules of the Inquisition, an oath is administered to the accused that he will speak the truth, and he is then asked whether he knows or conjectures18 the reason of his citation20. Galileo replied that he supposed he had been summoned to give an account of his last book. He was then asked whether he acknowledged the work shown him, “Dialogo di Galileo Galilei, Linceo,” which treats of the two systems of the world, as entirely21 his own; to which he[202] replied after a close examination of the copy, that he acknowledged all that it contained to have been written by himself. They then passed to the events of 1616. The Inquisitor wishes to know whether Galileo was at that time in Rome, and for what reason. He deposed22 that he certainly came to Rome in that year, and because he had heard that scruples23 were entertained about the Copernican opinions, and he wished to know what opinion it was proper to hold in this matter, in order to be sure of not holding any but holy and Catholic views. This deposition15 seems to be a misrepresentation of the real state of the case; for we know that he went to Rome with a twofold purpose in 1616: on the one hand, to frustrate24 the intrigues25 of his enemies, Fathers Lorini, Caccini, and their coadjutors; and on the other, to avert12 the threatened prohibition of the Copernican doctrines26 by his scientific demonstrations28. The motive30 of his journey to Rome is not in any way altered by the fact that he did not succeed in his object, and that he then submitted to the admonition of Cardinal Bellarmine of 26th February, and to the decree of 5th March.
The Inquisitor asked whether he came at that time to Rome of his own accord, or in consequence of a summons. “In the year 1616 I came of my own accord to Rome, without being summoned,” was the decided31 answer. The conferences were then spoken of, which Galileo had at that time with several cardinals32 of the Holy Office. He explained that these conferences took place by desire of those prelates, in order that he might instruct them about Copernicus’s book, which was difficult for laymen33 to understand, as they specially34 desired to acquaint themselves with the system of the universe according to the Copernican hypothesis. The Inquisitor then asked what conclusion was arrived at on the subject.
Galileo: “Respecting the controversy35 which had arisen on the aforesaid opinion that the sun is stationary36, and the earth moves, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index, that such an opinion,[203] considered as an established fact, contradicted Holy Scripture37, and was only admissible as a conjecture19 (ex suppositione), as it was held by Copernicus.”[353]
Inquisitor: “Was this decision then communicated to you, and by whom?”
Galileo: “This decision of the Holy Congregation of the Index was made known to me by Cardinal Bellarmine.”
Inquisitor: “You must state what his Eminence38 Cardinal Bellarmine told you about the aforesaid decision, and whether he said anything else on the subject, and what?”
Galileo: “Signor Cardinal Bellarmine signified to me that the aforesaid opinion of Copernicus might be held as a conjecture, as it had been held by Copernicus, and his eminence was aware that, like Copernicus, I only held that opinion as a conjecture, which is evident from an answer of the same Signor Cardinal to a letter of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, provincial39 of the Carmelites, of which I have a copy, and in which these words occur: ‘It appears to me that your reverence40 and Signor Galileo act wisely in contenting yourselves with speaking ex suppositione, and not with certainty.’ This letter of the cardinal’s is dated 12th April, 1615.[354] It means, in other words, that that opinion, taken absolutely, must not be either held or defended.”
Galileo was now requested to state what was decreed in February, 1616, and communicated to him.
Galileo: “In the month of February, 1616, Signor Cardinal Bellarmine told me that as the opinion of Copernicus, if adopted absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it must neither be held nor defended, but that it might be held hypothetically, and written about in this sense. In accordance with this I possess a certificate of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, given on 26th May, 1616, in which he says that the Copernican opinion may neither be held nor defended, as it is opposed to Holy Scripture, of which certificate I herewith submit a copy.”[355]
Inquisitor: “When the above communication was made to you, were any other persons present, and who?”
Galileo: “When Signor Cardinal Bellarmine made known to me what I have reported about the Copernican views, some Dominican[204] fathers were present, but I did not know them, and have never seen them since.”
Inquisitor: “Was any other command communicated to you on this subject, in the presence of those fathers, by them or any one else, and what?”
Galileo: “I remember that the transaction took place as follows: Signor Cardinal Bellarmine sent for me one morning, and told me certain particulars which I was to bring to the ears of his Holiness before I communicated them to others.[356] But the end of it was that he told me that the Copernican opinion, being contradictory42 to Holy Scripture, must not be held nor defended. It has escaped my memory whether those Dominican fathers were present before, or whether they came afterwards; neither do I remember whether they were present when the Signor Cardinal told me the said opinion was not to be held. It may be that a command was issued to me that I should not hold nor defend the opinion in question, but I do not remember it, for it is several years ago.”
Inquisitor: “If what was then said and enjoined43 upon you as a command were read aloud to you, would you remember it?”
Galileo: “I do not remember that anything else was said or enjoined upon me, nor do I know that I should remember what was said to me, even if it were read to me. I say freely what I do remember, because I do not think that I have in any way disobeyed the injunction, that is, have not by any means held nor defended the said opinion that the earth moves and the sun is stationary.”
The Inquisitor now tells Galileo that the command which was issued to him before witnesses contained: “that he must neither hold, defend, nor teach that opinion in any way whatsoever44.”[357] Will he please to say whether he remembers in what way and by whom this was intimated to him.
Galileo: “I do not remember that the command was intimated to me by anybody but by the cardinal verbally; and I remember that the command was, not to hold nor defend. It may be that, ‘and not to teach’ was also there. I do not remember it, neither the definition ‘in any way[205] whatsoever’ (quovis modo), but it may be that it was; for I thought no more about it, nor took any pains to impress the words on my memory, as a few months later I received the certificate now produced, of the said Signor Cardinal Bellarmine, of 26th May, in which the injunction given me, not to hold nor defend that opinion, is expressly to be found. The two other definitions of the said injunction which have just been made known to me, namely, not to teach, and in any way, I have not retained in my memory, I suppose, because they are not mentioned in the said certificate, on which I rely, and which I have kept as a reminder45.”
Galileo thus repeats for the fifth time that he is only aware of the injunction which agrees with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th March, 1616. He can likewise only remember that Cardinal Bellarmine told him of the decree of the Holy Congregation; that a command was issued to him, as the Inquisitor asserts, he is not aware; but true to his resolve to make no direct contradiction, he says: “It may be, but I do not remember it.” But the Inquisitor treats the issue of the “command” as an established fact; and Galileo, to whom it may have appeared somewhat indifferent whether he was merely informed of the decree of the Congregation, or whether a command in conformity47 with it was issued to him before witnesses, submissively adopts this assumption of the Inquisitor. He then informs Galileo “that this command issued to him before witnesses contained that he must not in any way hold, defend, nor teach that opinion.” Galileo, to whom the two additions, “in any way whatever” and “nor teach,” sound new, entrenches48 himself behind his stereotyped49 answer, “I do not remember it.” Then he appeals to the certificate given him by Cardinal Bellarmine on 26th May, 1616, which does not mention either of these two definitions. To the repeated query50 who intimated the command to him, he invariably replies: “Cardinal Bellarmine.” He obviously supposes that the Inquisitor regards the cardinal’s communication as the command. Galileo’s depositions do not contain a word from which it can be inferred that (as the document of 26th February reports), after the cardinal’s communication, any further instruction was given him by[206] the Father Commissary of the Inquisition in the name of the Pope and the Holy Congregation, under threat of a trial before the Inquisition. But it is incredible that this most important proceeding10 should have entirely escaped Galileo’s memory. There are but two alternatives: either it did not take place, and, of course, Galileo cannot remember it; or his ignorance is feigned.
Galileo’s attitude before the Inquisition is such that the latter supposition does not seem altogether unjustifiable; but we must assume with Wohlwill, who has analysed the trial with great judicial52 acumen53, and whom we have followed on many points discussed above, that Galileo would only have availed himself of such a lie and misrepresentation, if it would have helped him before the tribunal of the Inquisition. But the advantage of denying any actual proceeding of 26th February is by no means evident. On the contrary, Galileo must have seen—supposing him to make false depositions—from the Inquisitor’s questions that he had the protocol54 of 26th February before him. Of what avail then could a fiction be in face of this document? Of none whatever. It would rather injure his cause by stamping him as a liar55. Wohlwill has pointed56 out that it would have been a masterpiece of cunning to play out the comedy of assumed ignorance from beginning to end of the trial in so consistent a manner, never contradicting himself, as appears from Galileo’s depositions. His simplest replies would then have formed parts of a complex tissue of falsehood, and it would be astonishing that throughout the whole course of the trial he should never for a moment deviate57 from his difficult part.
While the complexity58 of such a mode of defence renders the assumption of Galileo’s denial, to say the least, improbable, there are other more weighty arguments to show that he states before his judges all that he knows about the proceedings in 1616. These arguments consist of all Galileo’s statements and actions with which we are acquainted, during the seventeen years from 1616-1632, and they form the[207] strongest evidence for the credibility of his depositions. We recur59 first, simply to the letters of the time of the first trial, in which there is not only no trace of the assumed absolute prohibition, but Galileo openly expresses his satisfaction that his enemies have not succeeded in obtaining an entire prohibition of the Copernican theory, and he again and again mentions that the hypothetical discussion of it still remains60 open. And the attitude maintained by him during the seventeen years towards the new system is in entire conformity with the decree of the Congregation of the Index of 5th March, 1616, which was in force for everybody, but not with the categorical prohibition of the Commissary-General of the Holy Office. This is shown by his eagerness to get his work on Copernicus published in the very year 1616; by his sending the treatise61 on the tides to the Archduke Leopold of Austria, in 1618; by the discussion of the Copernican theory in his “Il Saggiatore,” in 1623; by his efforts in 1624 to get the clause of 5th March, 1616, abolished by the new, and, as he thought, more tolerant Pope (there is no trace that he tried to get any special prohibition to himself revoked); by his reply to Ingoli of the same date, which treated exclusively of the marked defence of the Copernican theory; and finally, by the writing of the famous “Dialogues” themselves, in which he made every endeavour not to come into collision with the published decree of 1616, while the very authorship of the work would have infringed62 an absolute command to silence on the Copernican system.
We now go back to the first hearing of Galileo. Although his statements, in spite of his submissiveness, obviously contradict the assertion of the Inquisitor, that he had, in 1616, received an injunction not to hold, teach, or defend the Copernican opinions in any way, the Inquisitor does not take the least pains to solve the enigma. Everything is also omitted on the part of the judges which might have cleared up the point; for example, to summon the witnesses, whose names are on the note of 26th February, 1616, and confront[208] them with the accused. And as no attempt is made to account for his ignorance of the prohibition, and it is simply taken for granted, it must be allowed that Galileo’s judges, to say the least, were guilty of a great breach63 of judicial order, in using, without any close examination, a paper as a valid64 document on the trial, which was destitute65 of nearly all the characteristics of one, namely, the signatures of the accused, of the notary66 and witnesses, and in spite of three contradictory depositions of the accused. No special arguments are needed to prove that this breach of order did not proceed from mere46 carelessness. And so, immediately after the accused has declared that he does not remember any command but that intimated to him by Cardinal Bellarmine, we find the Inquisitor asking him: Whether, after the aforesaid command was issued to him, he had received any permission to write the book which he had acknowledged to be his, and which he afterwards had printed?
Galileo: “After receiving the command aforesaid, I did not ask permission to write the book acknowledged by me to be mine, because I did not consider that in writing it I was acting67 contrary to, far less disobeying, the command not to hold, defend, or to teach the said opinion.”
The Inquisitor now asks to be informed whether, from whom, and in what way, Galileo had received permission to print the “Dialogues.” Galileo briefly68 relates the whole course of the negotiations69 which preceded the printing. As his narrative70 agrees entirely with what we know, it is not reproduced here. The Inquisitor then asks: Whether, when asking permission to print his book, he had told the Master of the Palace about the command aforesaid, which had been issued to him by order of the Holy Congregation?
Galileo: “I did not say anything about that command to the Master of the Palace when I asked for the imprimatur for the book, for I did not think it necessary to say anything, because I had no scruples about it; for I have neither maintained nor defended the opinion that the earth moves and the sun is stationary in that book, but have rather demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion, and shown that the arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive71.”
[209]
With this deposition, the last part of which is quite incorrect, the first hearing closed. Silence having been imposed on Galileo on oath on subjects connected with his trial, he was taken to an apartment in the private residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office in the buildings of this tribunal. Here he enjoyed (as appears from his own letters and Niccolini’s reports) kind and considerate treatment. On 16th April he wrote to Geri Bocchineri:—
“Contrary to custom, three large and comfortable rooms have been assigned to me, part of the residence of the fiscal of the Holy Office, with free permission to walk about in the spacious72 apartments. My health is good, for which, next to God, I have to thank the great care of the ambassador and his wife, who have a watchful73 eye for all comforts, and far more than I require.”[358]
Plan of Galileo’s rooms
Niccolini had been permitted to board Galileo, and his servants took the meals to his rooms, so that Galileo could keep his own servant about him, and he was even allowed to sleep in the buildings of the Holy Office.[359] No obstacle was placed in the way of free correspondence between Galileo and Niccolini. The former wrote to his exalted74 friend and[210] patron daily, and he replied, openly expressing his opinions, without exciting any observation.[360]
While, therefore, as far as his material situation was concerned, nothing but favours unheard of in the annals of the Inquisition were shown him, nothing was left undone75 to find the best method of effecting his moral ruin. At the beginning of April, when the actual trial was to come on, his faithful friend and advocate, Father Castelli, who was as well versed76 in theology as he was in mathematics, was sent away from Rome and not recalled until Galileo, who had been meanwhile condemned77, had left the city.[361]
Three days after the first examination the three counsellors of the Inquisition, Augustine Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias Pasqualigus delivered their opinions about the trial of Galileo. Oregius declared that “in the book superscribed ‘Dialogues of Galileo Galilei,’ the doctrine27 which teaches that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary is maintained and defended.” Inchofer’s statements (he drew up two) declared that “Galileo had not only taught and defended that view, but rendered it very suspicious that he was inclined to it, and even held it to this day.” Both these attestations were supported by a memorial, in which the opinions given were founded on passages quoted from the “Dialogues.”[362][211] The first sought to prove that Galileo in his book had treated the stability of the sun and its central position in the universe, not as a hypothesis, but in a definite manner; the second, that in it Galileo had taught, defended, and held the doctrine of the earth’s motion round the sun.
Zacharias Pasqualigus gave in three opinions. In the first he expresses his view that Galileo, by the publication of his “Dialogues,” had infringed the order given him by the Holy Office not in any way to hold the Copernican Opinion, nor to teach nor defend it in writing or speaking, in respect to teaching and defending, and it was very suspicious that he held it.
In his second opinion, Pasqualigus argues, by quoting passages from the “Dialogues,”[363] that although in the beginning of the book Galileo had stated that he should treat the doctrine of the double motion only as a hypothesis, he had in the course of it departed from hypothetical language, and sought to prove it by decisive arguments.
Finally, in his third opinion, Pasqualigus recurs78 to the special prohibition of 1616, and argues at length that Galileo has overstepped it both as regards teaching and defending, and is very strongly open to the suspicion of holding it.[364]
By these declarations Galileo’s cause was as good as decided. His transgression79 of the command of the Holy Office, and particularly of the special prohibition of 26th February, 1616, was proved beyond a doubt. Of his guilt[212] there could be no question—neither could there be any of the penalty.
The prolonged deprivation80 of exercise in the open air, which had been so essential to the old man’s health,[365] combined with great mental agitation81, at length threw him on a sick bed. He wrote on 23rd April to Geri Bocchineri:—
“I am writing in bed, to which I have been confined for sixteen hours with severe pains in my loins, which, according to my experience, will last as much longer. A little while ago I had a visit from the commissary and the fiscal who conduct the inquiry82. They have promised and intimated it as their settled intention to set me at liberty as soon as I am able to get up again, encouraging me repeatedly to keep up my spirits. I place more confidence in these promises than in the hopes held out to me before, which, as experience has shown, were founded rather upon surmises83 than real knowledge. I have always hoped that my innocence84 and uprightness would be brought to light, and I now hope it more than ever. I am getting tired of writing, and will conclude.”[366]
The second examination of Galileo took place on 30th April. It has hitherto astounded85 all those who have studied this famous trial; for while at the close of his first depositions, Galileo decidedly denied having defended the Copernican system in his “Dialogues,” and even asserted that he had done just the contrary, at the second hearing, almost without waiting for the Inquisitor’s questions, he makes a humble86 declaration, which, roundabout as it is, contains a penitent87 confession that he had defended it in his book. The cause of this change in Galileo is explained by a most[213] interesting letter from the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, Father Vincenzo Maccolani da Firenzuola, who was at that time with the Pope in the Castle of Gandolfo, to Cardinal Francesco Barberini. This letter of 28th April, 1633, first published in full by Pieralisi, the learned librarian of the Barberiana at Rome, whom we have so often quoted, is as follows:[367]—
“In compliance88 with the commands of his Holiness, I yesterday informed the most eminent89 Lords of the Holy Congregation of Galileo’s cause, the position of which I briefly reported. Their Eminences90 approved of what has been done thus far, and took into consideration, on the other hand, various difficulties with regard to the manner of pursuing the case, and of bringing it to an end. More especially as Galileo has in his examination denied what is plainly evident from the book written by him; since in consequence of this denial there would result the necessity for greater rigour of procedure and less regard to the other considerations belonging to this business. Finally I suggested a course, namely, that the Holy Congregation should grant me permission to treat extra-judicially91 with Galileo, in order to render him sensible of his error, and bring him, if he recognises it, to a confession of the same. This proposal appeared at first sight too bold, not much hope being entertained of accomplishing this object by merely adopting the method of argument with him; but upon my indicating the grounds upon which I had made the suggestion, permission was granted me. That no time might be lost, I entered into discourse92 with Galileo yesterday afternoon, and after many arguments and rejoinders had passed between us, by God’s grace I attained93 my object, for I brought him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly recognised that he had erred51, and had gone too far in his book. And to all this he gave expression in words of much feeling, like one who experienced great consolation94 in the recognition of his error, and he was also willing to confess it judicially. He requested, however, a little time in order to consider the form in which he might most fittingly make the confession, which, as far as its substance is concerned, will, I hope, follow in the manner indicated.
I have thought it my duty at once to acquaint your Eminence with this matter, having communicated it to no one else; for I trust that his Holiness and your Eminence will be satisfied that in this way the affair is being brought to such a point that it may soon be settled without difficulty. The court will maintain its reputation: it will be possible to deal leniently95 with the culprit; and whatever the decision arrived at, he will recognise the favour shown him, with all the other consequences of satisfaction[214] herein desired. To-day I think of examining him in order to obtain the said confession; and having, as I hope, received it, it will only remain to me further to question him with regard to his intention, and to impose the prohibitions96 upon him; and that done, he might have the house[368] assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your Eminence, to whom I offer my most humble reverence.
Rome, 28th April, 1633.
Your Eminence’s humble and most obedient servant,
Fra Vinc? da Firenzuola.”
The second hearing did not take place on the 28th, as Firenzuola proposed, but not till the 30th, perhaps on account of Galileo’s indisposition. He had again to take an oath that he would speak the truth, after which he was requested to state what he had to say. He then began the following melancholy97 confession:—
“In the course of some days’ continuous and attentive98 reflection on the interrogations put to me on the 16th of the present month, and in particular as to whether, sixteen years ago, an injunction was intimated to me by order of the Holy Office, forbidding me to hold, defend, or teach ‘in any manner,’ the opinion that had just been condemned,—of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—it occurred to me to re-peruse my printed dialogue, which for three years I had not seen, in order carefully to note whether, contrary to my most sincere intention, there had, by inadvertence, fallen from my pen anything from which a reader or the authorities might infer not only some taint41 of disobedience on my part, but also other particulars which might induce the belief that I had contravened99 the orders of the Holy Church. And being, by the kind permission of the authorities, at liberty to send about my servant, I succeeded in procuring100 a copy of my book, and having procured101 it I applied102 myself with the utmost diligence to its perusal103, and to a most minute consideration thereof. And as, owing to my not having seen it for so long, it presented itself to me, as it were, like a new writing and by another author, I freely confess that in several places it seemed to me set forth104 in such a form that a reader ignorant of my real purpose might have had reason to suppose that the arguments adduced on the false side, and which it was my intention to confute, were so expressed as to be calculated rather to compel conviction by their cogency105 than to be easy of solution. Two arguments there are in particular—the one taken from the solar spots, the other from the ebb106 and flow of the tide—which in truth come to the ear of the reader with far greater show of force and power than[215] ought to have been imparted to them by one who regarded them as inconclusive, and who intended to refute them, as indeed I truly and sincerely held and do hold them to be inconclusive and admitting of refutation. And, as excuse to myself for having fallen into an error so foreign to my intention, not contenting myself entirely with saying that when a man recites the arguments of the opposite side with the object of refuting them, he should, especially if writing in the form of dialogue, state these in their strictest form, and should not cloak them to the disadvantage of his opponent,—not contenting myself, I say, with this excuse,—I resorted to that of the natural complacency which every man feels with regard to his own subtleties107 and in showing himself more skilful108 than the generality of men, in devising, even in favour of false propositions, ingenious and plausible109 arguments. With all this, although with Cicero ‘avidior sim gloriae quam satis est,’ if I had now to set forth the same reasonings, without doubt I should so weaken them that they should not be able to make an apparent show of that force of which they are really and essentially110 devoid111. My error, then, has been—and I confess it—one of vainglorious112 ambition, and of pure ignorance and inadvertence.
This is what it occurs to me to say with reference to this particular, and which suggested itself to me during the re-perusal of my book.”[369]
After making this humiliating declaration, Galileo was allowed immediately, to withdraw. No questions were put to him this time. But he must have thought that he ought to go still further in the denial of his inmost convictions, further even than Father Firenzuola had desired in his extra-judicial interview, further than the Inquisition itself required. He did not consider the penitent acknowledgment of the “error” into which he had fallen in writing his “Dialogues” sufficient. The Inquisition was to be conciliated by the good resolution publicly to correct it. He therefore returned at once to the court where the sacred tribunal was still sitting, and made the following undignified proposition:—
“And in confirmation113 of my assertion that I have not held and do not hold as true the opinion which has been condemned, of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun,—if there shall be granted to me, as I desire, means and time to make a clearer demonstration29 thereof, I am ready to do so: and there is a most favourable114 opportunity for this, seeing that in the work already published, the interlocutors agree to meet again after a certain time to discuss several distinct problems of nature, connected with[216] the matter discoursed115 of at their meetings. As this affords me an opportunity of adding one or two other ‘days,’ I promise to resume the arguments already adduced in favour of the said opinion, which is false and has been condemned, and to confute them in such most effectual method as by the blessing116 of God may be supplied to me. I pray, therefore, this sacred tribunal to aid me in this good resolution, and to enable me to put it in effect.”[370]
It is hard to pass an adverse117 judgment on such a hero of science; and yet the man who repeatedly denies before his judges the scientific convictions for which he had striven and laboured for half a century, who even proposes in a continuation of his monumental work on the two chief systems of the world to annihilate118 all the arguments therein adduced for the recognition of the only true system, can never be absolved119 by the historical critic from the charge of weakness and insincere obsequiousness120. It was, however, the century the opening of which had been ominously121 marked by the funeral pile of Giordano Bruno, and but eight years before, the corpse122 of Marc’Antonio de Dominis,—the famous Archbishop of Spalato, who had died suddenly in the prisons of the Engelsburg during his trial before the Inquisition,—had, after the sentence of the Holy Tribunal, been taken from its resting place and publicly burnt in Rome, together with his heretical writings.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
feigned
|
|
| a.假装的，不真诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
enigma
|
|
| n.谜，谜一样的人或事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
subserviency
|
|
| n.有用，裨益 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
7
distress
|
|
| n.苦恼，痛苦，不舒适；不幸；vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
fiscal
|
|
| adj.财政的，会计的，国库的，国库岁入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
averting
|
|
| 防止，避免( avert的现在分词 )； 转移 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
avert
|
|
| v.防止，避免；转移(目光、注意力等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
acquiescence
|
|
| n.默许；顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
deposition
|
|
| n.免职，罢官；作证；沉淀；沉淀物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
depositions
|
|
| 沉积（物）( deposition的名词复数 )； （在法庭上的）宣誓作证； 处置； 罢免 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
dread
|
|
| vt.担忧，忧虑；惧怕，不敢；n.担忧，畏惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
conjectures
|
|
| 推测，猜想( conjecture的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
citation
|
|
| n.引用，引证，引用文；传票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
deposed
|
|
| v.罢免( depose的过去式和过去分词 )；（在法庭上）宣誓作证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
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： |
|
|
|
|
24
frustrate
|
|
| v.使失望；使沮丧；使厌烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
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： |
|
|
|
|
26
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： |
|
|
|
|
27
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
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： |
|
|
|
|
33
laymen
|
|
| 门外汉，外行人( layman的名词复数 )； 普通教徒（有别于神职人员） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
stationary
|
|
| adj.固定的，静止不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
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： |
|
|
|
|
38
eminence
|
|
| n.卓越，显赫；高地，高处；名家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
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： |
|
|
|
|
41
taint
|
|
| n.污点；感染；腐坏；v.使感染；污染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
reminder
|
|
| n.提醒物，纪念品；暗示，提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
conformity
|
|
| n.一致，遵从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
entrenches
|
|
| v.用壕沟围绕或保护…( entrench的第三人称单数 )；牢固地确立… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
stereotyped
|
|
| adj.(指形象、思想、人物等)模式化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
query
|
|
| n.疑问，问号，质问；vt.询问，表示怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
erred
|
|
| 犯错误，做错事( err的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
acumen
|
|
| n.敏锐，聪明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
protocol
|
|
| n.议定书，草约，会谈记录，外交礼节 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
liar
|
|
| n.说谎的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
deviate
|
|
| v.(from)背离，偏离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
complexity
|
|
| n.复杂(性)，复杂的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
recur
|
|
| vi.复发，重现，再发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
infringed
|
|
| v.违反（规章等）( infringe的过去式和过去分词 )；侵犯（某人的权利）；侵害（某人的自由、权益等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
notary
|
|
| n.公证人，公证员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
spacious
|
|
| adj.广阔的，宽敞的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
watchful
|
|
| adj.注意的，警惕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
undone
|
|
| a.未做完的，未完成的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
versed
|
|
| adj. 精通，熟练 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
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： |
|
|
|
|
78
recurs
|
|
| 再发生，复发( recur的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
transgression
|
|
| n.违背；犯规；罪过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
deprivation
|
|
| n.匮乏；丧失；夺去，贫困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
surmises
|
|
| v.臆测，推断( surmise的第三人称单数 )；揣测；猜想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
astounded
|
|
| v.使震惊(astound的过去式和过去分词)；愕然；愕；惊讶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
penitent
|
|
| adj.后悔的；n.后悔者；忏悔者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
compliance
|
|
| n.顺从；服从；附和；屈从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
eminences
|
|
| 卓越( eminence的名词复数 )； 著名； 高地； 山丘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
judicially
|
|
| 依法判决地，公平地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
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： |
|
|
|
|
94
consolation
|
|
| n.安慰，慰问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
leniently
|
|
| 温和地，仁慈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
prohibitions
|
|
| 禁令，禁律( prohibition的名词复数 )； 禁酒； 禁例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
attentive
|
|
| adj.注意的，专心的；关心(别人)的，殷勤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
contravened
|
|
| v.取消，违反( contravene的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
procured
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
perusal
|
|
| n.细读，熟读；目测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
cogency
|
|
| n.说服力；adj.有说服力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
ebb
|
|
| vi.衰退，减退；n.处于低潮，处于衰退状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
subtleties
|
|
| 细微( subtlety的名词复数 )； 精细； 巧妙； 细微的差别等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
devoid
|
|
| adj.全无的，缺乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
vainglorious
|
|
| adj.自负的；夸大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
discoursed
|
|
| 演说（discourse的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
blessing
|
|
| n.祈神赐福；祷告；祝福，祝愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
adverse
|
|
| adj.不利的；有害的；敌对的，不友好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
annihilate
|
|
| v.使无效；毁灭；取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
absolved
|
|
| 宣告…无罪，赦免…的罪行，宽恕…的罪行( absolve的过去式和过去分词 )； 不受责难，免除责任 [义务] ,开脱（罪责） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
obsequiousness
|
|
| 媚骨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
ominously
|
|
| adv.恶兆地，不吉利地；预示地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
corpse
|
|
| n.尸体，死尸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |