As at the time these works were published the fact of man’s descent from the lower orders of life had not been established, and as nothing was then known of the origin and development of organized society it is not remarkable5 that theories concerning the early relations of the sexes should prove worthless except perhaps to show the extent to which established prejudices may warp6 the judgment7 and dwarf8 the intellectual faculties9 even of those who are honestly seeking after truth.
The avowed10 object of Mr. McLennan’s volume216 was to trace the origin of wife-capture which is found to exist either as a legal symbol in marriage ceremonies, or as a stern reality among peoples which have not yet reached civilized11 conditions. This writer declares: “In the whole range of legal symbolism there is no symbol more remarkable than that of capture in marriage ceremonies.”
After setting forth13 numerous examples to prove the prevalence of wife-capture among uncivilized tribes and races, and after denouncing as absurd the theories relative to the symbol of force entering into the marriage ceremonies in Sparta and in Rome, Mr. McLennan observes:
The question now arises, what is the meaning and what the origin of a ceremony so widely spread that already on the threshold of our inquiry14 the reader must be prepared to find it connected with some universal tendency of mankind?
We believe the restriction16 on marriage to be connected with the practice in early times of female infanticide which rendering17 women scarce led at once to polyandry within the tribe and the capture of women from without.
In another portion of this work it has been shown that although marriage was restricted within the gens, the earliest form of organized society, this restriction did not extend to the217 tribe. Marriage was forbidden among closely related groups. The gentes coalesced18 to form the tribe. Although a man might not marry within his own gens, he was not forbidden to marry within the tribe.
In Mr. Morgan’s work on Primitive Society, published in 1871, are to be found the systems of consanguinity19 and affinity20 of 139 tribes and races representing, numerically, four-fifths of the entire human family. These systems show conclusively21 that the restrictions22 on marriage observed in the gens did not extend to the tribe. The author of Primitive Marriage has evidently mistaken a rule of the gens for a binding23 tribal24 decree.
Mr. McLennan’s theory relative to female infanticide is found to be equally fallacious. Noting the numerical difference in the two sexes among lower races, he says that as subsistence was scarce, and as war was the natural and constant condition of primitive groups, only those of their members would be spared who could contribute to the defence of the tribe, or who would be able to aid in the supply of subsistence. Males were possessed25 of strength, they were by organization and inclination26 adapted to war and the chase, and could therefore be depended upon to assist in defending the tribe against the assaults of its enemies and in securing the necessary food for its requirements. On the other hand, women being worthless in war and in the chase were regarded as useless appendages27, and as they constituted a218 source of weakness to the tribe, large numbers of them were destroyed at birth. Through this practice the balance of the sexes was greatly disturbed, and wives could be obtained only by means of stealth or a resort to force. Thus in process of time, the stealing of women became a legitimate28 practice, and each warrior29 depended on his skill in this particular direction to provide himself with a wife.
Finally the children of these alien women began to intermarry and thus the necessity for wife-capture no longer existed, and the practice of stealing women for wives was superseded30 by a system through which wives from other tribes were habitually31 obtained either by gift or sale. Thereafter the symbol of wife-capture was retained in marriage ceremonies.
With a better understanding of peoples in a less developed state of society, it is found that infanticide has been less prevalent among them than was formerly32 supposed; that when through scarcity33 of food it has been practised it has not been confined to females, neither has it been carried on by tribes in the lowest stages of barbarism.
Regarding this custom in Arabia, Prof. W. R. Smith says that our authorities “seem to represent the practice of infanticide as having taken a new development not very long before the time of Mohammed.” This writer declares that the chief motive34 for infanticide was219 “scarcity of food which must always have been felt in the desert.”
Much has been written in the attempt to explain the practice of infanticide which to some extent seems to have prevailed during a certain stage of human development; but with the exception of those cases in which children of both sexes were slain35 because of scarcity of food, the one cause, namely, the dread36 of capture, is sufficient to explain this unnatural37 practice.
Although to a considerable extent, men had come to depend on foreign tribes for their wives, they nevertheless found little pleasure in furnishing their quota38 of women in return, and as mothers doubtless preferred the death of their female children to the degradation39 and suffering which was inevitable40 in case of capture, female infanticide no doubt seemed the wisest and in fact the only expedient41.
The blood-tie of ancient society which bound together all those born of the women of the group irrespective of their fathers, must have emphasized the influence of mothers in the matter of infanticide. It is not reasonable to suppose that the law of sympathy which had united the members of a clan42 by a bond stronger than that which binds43 together the members of a modern family was reversed without some deeper cause than has thus far been assigned for it. It is indeed difficult to believe, in opposition44 to all the facts before us, that a practice which involved the destruction220 of the female members of the group would have gained the sanction of the tribe to such an extent that it would have become an established rule among them.
Regarding the destruction of female infants among early races, Mr. Darwin remarks:
They would not at that period have lost one of the strongest of all instincts common to all lower animals, namely the love of their young offspring, and consequently they would not have practised female infanticide.143
Another reason why female infanticide could not have prevailed to any considerable extent is seen in the fact that any diminution45 in the number of females, would have involved a scarcity of warriors46, thus weakening their means of defence. From available facts it is quite evident that the practice of female infanticide throws no light on wife-capture.
Mr. McLennan declares that women among rude tribes are usually depraved and inured47 to scenes of depravity from their earliest infancy48; hence when property began to amass49 in the hands of men, in order to assure paternity, it became necessary, that women be brought under subjection.
As the female, when free, is unwilling50 to pair with individuals for whom she feels no affection, and as under earlier conditions of human society women chose their mates, and so long as they221 remained together were true to them, it is reasonable to suppose that paternity was known, or at least that it might have been readily determined51.
Mr. Morgan informs us that the “Turanian, Ganowánian, and Malayan systems of consanguinity show conclusively that kinship through males was recognized as constantly as kinship through females,” that a man had brothers and sisters, grandfathers and grandmothers traced through males as well as through females. Although under gentile institutions descent and all rights of succession were traced through mothers, kinship through fathers was easily ascertained52.
Hence it is plain that Mr. McLennan’s assumption that women were enslaved in order to assure paternity, that they became subject to the dominion53 and control of men so that fathers might not be compelled to support children not their own, is not supported by the evidence at hand.
That it was through capture, the forcible carrying away of women at first singly and later in groups to foreign tribes, in which as aliens and dependents they were shorn of their right to the soil, that males were first enabled to arrogate54 to themselves the individual right to property is a fact which has been overlooked by Mr. McLennan.
From the facts at hand relative to the earliest social regulation of mankind, that into classes on the basis of sex, it is evident that it was inaugurated for no other purpose than the restriction of the marital55 relation—a restriction to prevent the222 pairing of near relations. Yet Mr. McLennan would have us believe that “the law compelling marriage outside the recognized limit of near relationship originated in no innate56 or primary feeling against marriage with kinsfolk.”
The repugnance57 of females among the lower orders of life to pairing with those individuals which were distasteful to them, or for which they felt no genuine affection, has already been referred to in these pages. At the earliest dawn of human life there probably existed within woman a naturally acquired aversion to pairing with near relations, yet doubtless many ages elapsed before an idea of kinship sufficiently58 definite to be incorporated into an arbitrary law for the government of the group was formulated59; but in due course of time, with the further development of the higher characters, the idea of relationship began to take shape, whereupon was inaugurated a movement which doubtless represents one of the most important steps ever taken toward human advancement60.
As the female among all the orders of life, when free, is unwilling to pair with individuals for which she feels no affection, and as the sex-instinct has ever been restricted or held in abeyance61 by her, and as according to the savants, it was through the efforts of women that from time to time during the earlier ages of human existence the range of conjugal62 rights was abridged63, it is reasonable to suppose that it was woman who first objected to the pairing with near relations.
223
The statement of Mr. McLennan that the women of primitive races were depraved, that they were inured to scenes of depravity from their earliest infancy is not borne out by facts. It has been shown in another portion of this work that the most trustworthy writers, those who have personally investigated tribes and races in the various stages of development, agree that chastity was an unvarying rule among them, that before they were corrupted64 by civilization, a condition of morals existed nowhere to be found among the so-called higher races.
After referring to a state of advanced social existence in which every person knowing what is right would feel an irresistible65 impulse toward right-living, Mr. Wallace remarks that among peoples low in the scale of development “we find some approaches to such a perfect social state.” He observes: “It is not too much to say that the mass of our population have not at all advanced beyond the savage66 code of morals, and have in many cases sunk below it.”
Most of the reports which come to us regarding the immorality67 of lower races are brought by missionaries68, who, although unacquainted with the language, customs, and habits of thought of the peoples whose countries they visit, nevertheless feel called upon to furnish lengthy69 reports of those benighted70 races which are “utterly destitute71 of Christian72 training.”
As the restrictions on marriage among early224 peoples were limited to closely related groups, it is evident that the capture of wives was not carried on because of any established law of exogamy, neither was it practised because of the scarcity of women resulting from female infanticide nor because of a desire for recognized paternity. Wife-capture arose from a demand for foreign women, aliens, who, torn from their homes and deprived of the protection of their own kinsfolk, had no alternative but sexual slavery. These women were much more desirable than the free-born women of a man’s own tribe.
After having created a false and wholly unwarrantable hypothesis, an hypothesis in which exogamy and endogamy, two principles which as applied73 to tribes never existed, play a conspicuous74 part, Mr. McLennan has thrust nearly all the facts which he has observed relative to primitive society into false positions and forced them to do duty in bolstering75 up his thoroughly76 imaginative theory to account for the origin of wife-capture. It is perhaps needless to say that the whole subject, so far as his contribution is concerned, is as much a mystery as before he attempted a solution of the problem.
Sir John Lubbock, like J.?F. McLennan, assumes that the earliest organization of society was that of the tribe, and that a man was first regarded as belonging only to a group. Subsequently, as the maternal77 bond is stronger than that which225 unites a father to his offspring, kinship with his mother and her relations was established. In course of time he was accounted as a descendant of his father only, and lastly he became equally related to both parents.
Numerous illustrations are cited by this writer, going to show that among certain peoples descent is still reckoned in the female line, and that all the rights of succession, both as regards property and tribal honours, are traced through women.
In his Origin of Civilization the fact is noted78 that in Guinea, when a wealthy man dies, his property passes by inheritance, not to his sons, but to the children of his sister. He quotes also from Pinkerton’s Voyages to show that the town of Loango is governed by four chiefs who are sons of the king’s sisters, and from Caillie who observes that in Central Africa the sovereignty remains79 always in the same family, but that the son never succeeds to his father’s position. These and numerous other instances, similar in character, are cited from various parts of the world, going to prove that a system of descent and inheritance through women was once general throughout the races of mankind.
With Herr Bachofen and Mr. McLennan, Sir John Lubbock is of the opinion that the earliest conjugal unions of the human race were communal80. Communal marriage was founded on the supremacy81 of males, or, was based on the undisputed right of men to the control of women. According to226 this writer, communal marriage was succeeded by individual marriage through capture.
Although Lubbock coincides with McLennan in the belief that under certain circumstances infanticide has been practised by the lower races, he does not agree with him as to the extent to which it has prevailed among them; neither is he of the opinion that it was confined to the female sex. On the contrary, he cites trustworthy authority to prove that boys were as frequently disposed of as were girls.
Although with McLennan, Lubbock recognizes the prevalence of wife-capture and the principle of exogamy, yet, according to the theory of the former, marriage by capture arose from exogamy, while, according to the latter, exogamy arose from marriage by capture.
Lubbock accounts for wife-capture by the following theory: As under the communal system, women of the tribe were the “common property” of the men of the group, no individual male among them would have attempted to appropriate one of these women to himself, for the reason that such appropriation82 would have been regarded as an infringement83 on the rights of the remaining males in the community. A warrior, however, upon capturing a woman from a hostile people, might claim her as his rightful possession, and hold her as against all the other members of the tribe. Since the women of the group were so emphatically the common property of the men, the exclu227sive right to one of them in progressive tribes which had reached a state of friendliness84 would involve a symbol of capture to make valid85 such a claim. This symbol, according to Lubbock, has no reference to those from whom the woman has been stolen, but is intended to bar the rights of other members of the tribe into which she is brought. He thinks that “the exclusive possession of a wife could only be legally acquired by a temporary recognition of the pre-existing communal rights,” and cites the account given by Herodotus of the custom existing in Babylonia, where every woman once during her lifetime must present herself at the temple, there to accept the proposals of the first man who requests her to follow him.
Although Lubbock declares that the symbol of violence in marriage ceremonies “can only be explained by the hypothesis that the capture of wives was once a stern reality,” he claims not to believe that the early conditions under which men were compelled to capture their wives by violence, or do without them, were in any degree the result of feminine will in the matter.
In referring to the fallacious theory of Mr. McLennan, that the capture of women for wives arose from the practice of female infanticide, which, by producing a scarcity of women, created a necessity for marriage without the limits of the tribe, Sir John Lubbock, although seemingly unable to recognize the actual force which was228 in operation to prevent the “appropriation” of women by men, has nevertheless shown himself able to perceive the reason why foreign women were captured, and what the tendency in males was which demanded their presence.
After referring to the fact that no male could appropriate to himself a female belonging to the tribe, he says:
Women taken in war were, on the contrary, in a different position. The tribe, as a tribe, had no right to them, and men surely would reserve to themselves exclusively their own prizes. These captives then would naturally become wives in our own sense of the term.
Foreign women would become dependents, their captors having the undisputed right to the control of their persons.
At the outset, Sir John Lubbock finds himself confronted with the fact that a system of reckoning descent through women once prevailed over the habitable globe. According to his own reasoning, this system presupposes a condition of society under which property rights and all rights of succession were traced through women, still we find him offering the following belief concerning the matter. “I believe, however, that communities in which women have exercised the supreme86 power are rare and exceptional, if, indeed, they ever existed at all.”
Were we not already acquainted with the preju229dices of most of the writers who have thus far dealt with this subject, in view of the facts everywhere represented going to prove that a system of gynecocracy once prevailed over the entire earth, this “belief” of Mr. Lubbock would be truly remarkable, especially when we learn the reason given by him for his conclusion. He says:
We do not find in history, as a matter of fact, that women do assert their rights, and savage women would, I think, be peculiarly unlikely to uphold their dignity in the manner supposed.144
It is quite true that it is not observed “in history” that women assert their rights. It has been shown, however, that prior to the historic age, through capture and the individual ownership of land, women had become dependent upon men and wholly subject to their control. After thousands of years of subjection to male influence, the movements of women, who are still dependent upon men, furnish little satisfactory information regarding the character of free women at a time before they had succumbed88 to the exigencies89 of brute90 force, and the unbridled appetites of their male masters. Slaves seldom assert their rights, or, if they do, of what avail is it?
Were we in possession of no other facts in support of the theory of an early age of female supremacy than that all relationships to which rights of succession were attached were formerly traced230 through women, the evidence in its favour would be sufficient to prove it true, but this manner of reckoning descent represents only one of the many indications of such an age which Lubbock himself has been constrained91 to record; yet, because—during the historic age—an age throughout which the masculine element has ruled supreme, women have not asserted their rights, this writer feels inclined to ignore all the evidence bearing upon the subject, at the same time declaring that women could not have “upheld their dignity in the manner supposed”; that the female, on gaining human conditions, could not have exercised the instincts inherited by her from her dumb progenitors92.
If the females among insects, birds, and many species of mammals are able to control the relations between themselves and their male mates, why should it not be inferred that the female of the human species would still be able to uphold the natural dignity of the female sex?
As an argument in support of his theory that the influence of women was never supreme, Sir John Lubbock alludes93 to the position of Australian women as being one of “complete subjection,” and as the native Australians represent perhaps the lowest existing stage of human society, he doubtless thinks his argument unassailable. However, that the position of Australian women cannot be taken as a reliable guide in estimating primitive womanhood is shown by the writer’s own reasoning when he says:
231
It must not be assumed, however, that the condition of primitive man is correctly represented by even the lowest of existing races. The very fact that the latter have remained stationary94, that their manners, habits, and mode of life have continued almost unaltered for generations, has created a strict, and often complicated, system of customs, from which the former was necessarily free, but which has in some cases gradually acquired even more than the force of law.145
Yet we find him comparing primitive women with this race which for thousands upon thousands of years, because of its environment, or through some cause which is not understood, has been unable to advance.
While this writer perceives clearly that foreign women were much more desirable for wives than those belonging to a man’s own tribe, he has not been able to discover the reason why this was so, but, continuing to babble95 about the “rights” of the men of the group, overlooks the fact that native-born women were free, and as only those women who had first been torn from their friends and shorn of their independence could at this stage of human existence be forced into the position of wife, it became necessary to secure them by violence from surrounding tribes. He is not blind to the fact that it was a desire to extend the limit of conjugal liberties on the part of males which prompted wife-capture; yet he would have232 us believe that although women were absolutely independent of men, and although they were the recognized heads of families, and the source whence originated all the privileges of the gens, it was in no degree owing to their influence that the conjugal liberties of males were restricted within the tribe, but, on the contrary, that this restriction was enforced out of regard for the “proprietary rights” of the men of the group. He says: “We must remember that under the communal system the women of the tribe were all common property. No one could appropriate one of them to himself without infringing96 on the general rights of the tribe.”
As well might we say of the female bird for whose favours the male fights until overcome by exhaustion97 and loss of blood, that she belongs to him, or that he may appropriate her, as to say that the men of early groups could “appropriate” women. From all the facts relative to the condition of early society, it is plain that if either sex could with propriety98 be designated as property it must have been the male. It is evident that women were stolen from distant tribes for the express purpose of sexual slavery, a position to which free, native-born women could not be dragged; therefore, when Lubbock assures us that these foreign women naturally “became wives in our own sense of the term,” we may be sure that he is neither unmindful of the origin of our present social system, nor of the true signi233ficance attached to the position of wife. Indeed, he informs us that the “origin of marriage was independent of all sacred and social conditions,” and proves the same by actually producing the evidence. He has no hesitancy in declaring that marriage is a masculine institution, established in the interest (or supposed interest) of males; that it was “founded not on the rights of the woman, but of the man,” and that there was not on the woman’s part even the semblance99 of consent. In fact he declares that he regards it as an illustration of the good old plan that “he should take who has the power, and he should keep who can.” He says also that it had nothing to do with mutual100 affection or sympathy, that it was invalidated by no appearance of consent, and that it was symbolized101 not by any demonstration102 of warm affection on the one side and tender devotion on the other, but by brutal103 violence and unwilling submission104. To prove that the connection between force and marriage is deeply rooted, Sir John Lubbock, like Mr. McLennan, has furnished numerous examples of peoples among whom marriage by actual capture still prevails, as well as many among which the system has passed into a mere105 symbol. He is quite certain that the complete subjection of the woman in marriage furnishes an explanation to those examples in barbarous life in which women are looked upon as being too great to marry—and cites the case of Sebituane, chief of the Bechuanas, who told his daughter,234 Mamochisáne, that all the men were at her disposal—“she might take any one, but ought to keep none.”
This instance, together with numberless others which might be cited, proves that long after the practice of appropriating solitary106 women for sexual purposes had become general, the position of wife was considered too degrading to be occupied by women of rank.
Attention has been called to Lubbock’s idea concerning the “rights” of the males of the group. We have seen that it is his opinion that the exclusive possession of a woman could only be legally acquired by a temporary recognition of the pre-existing communal rights, and that the account in Herodotus of the debasement of Babylonian women was cited by him as evidence to prove his position. He seems, however, to forget that this custom, which was practised in various nations, is a religious rite12, and was inaugurated at a time when the adoration107 of the sun, as the source of all life and light, had degenerated108 into the most degrading phallic worship. To those who have given attention to the growth of the god-idea, the supposed cases of “expiation for marriage,” cited by Lubbock, are to be explained by the peculiar87 practices inaugurated under fire and passion worship at a time long subsequent to the establishment of ba’al marriages.
In his chapter on “The Origin of Marriage by Capture,” this writer says:
235
That marriage by capture has not arisen from female modesty109, is, I think, evident, not only because we have no reason to suppose that such a feeling prevails especially among the lower races of man; but also, firstly, because it cannot explain the mock resistance of the relatives; and, secondly110, because the very question to be solved is why it became so generally the custom to win the female not by persuasion111 but by force.146
That female modesty may not account for marriage by capture will scarcely be disputed; it is not impossible, however, that disgust, or aversion, on the part of women, may, in a measure, serve to explain it.
Sir John Lubbock should bear in mind that “choice” in the matter of pairing was an early prerogative112 of the female; that true affection, a character differing widely from the sex instinct developed in the male was necessary before she could be induced to accept the attentions of the male. While the women among primitive peoples abhorred113 strangers or foreigners, it may scarcely be said of them that they were too modest to accept them as suitors. Evidently, modesty is not the term to be employed in this connection.
In seeking a reason to explain why force rather than persuasion was used in the consummation of early marriages, we have to remember the wide difference existing between the position of free women and that of those who were obliged to accept236 the ba’al form of marriage. If, as we have reason to believe, as late as the beginning of the second or Middle Status of barbarism, instead of following the father of her children to his house as his slave, a woman remained in a home owned, or at least controlled jointly114 by herself, her mother, her sisters, and her daughters, it is plain that a state of female independence existed which was incompatible115 with female subjection. Add to this the fact that a woman’s children belonged exclusively to herself, or to her family, and that all hereditary116 honours and rights of succession were traced through females, and we have a set of circumstances which would seem sufficient to explain why force was necessary to bring women into the marital relation.
That the capture of women for wives arose because the independence of free women was a bar to the gratification of the lower instincts in man, can, in the presence of all the facts at hand, scarcely be doubted; and that women submitted to the position of wife only when obliged to do so, or when deprived of liberty and dragged from home and friends, is only too apparent. While modesty as a cause for capture may not account for the resistance of the relations, the sacrifice of a daughter may serve to explain even this knotty117 point. If the capture of a free and independent girl from her mother by a band of marauders from a hostile tribe for purposes of the most degrading slavery, cannot account for the resistance of the237 mother-in-law, among most of the so-called lower races, then indeed it is difficult to conjecture118 any provocation119 or any set of circumstances which can account for it.
This writer’s assertion that it is “contrary to all experience that female delicacy120 diminishes with civilization,” proves conclusively that he regards the slight degree of reserve which he is pleased to accredit121 to women in modern times, as a result of civilization—a civilization, too, which he evidently considers as wholly the result of masculine achievement; in other words, he doubtless thinks that the degree of self-respect observed among women at the present time is the result not of the innate tendencies in the female constitution, but of masculine tuition and training, an assumption which, when viewed by the light which in recent years has been thrown upon the development of the two diverging122 sex columns, is as absurd as it is arrogant123 and false. Some time will doubtless elapse before Sir John Lubbock and the class of writers which he represents will be willing to admit that civilization has been possible only because of the checks to the animal nature of the male, which are the natural result of the maternal instinct.
With a system, however, under which for six thousand years every womanly instinct has been smothered124, and under which female activity has been utilized125 in the service of the strong sex instinct developed in males, the outward expression of238 female delicacy has doubtless diminished; and, in their weakened mental and physical condition, women, dependent not only for all the luxuries but the necessities of life as well, upon pleasing the men, have doubtless given them, blinded as they have become by the conditions of their own peculiar development, some reason for believing that within the female as within the male, passion has been the ruling characteristic.
Sir John Lubbock, as well as other writers who have dealt with this subject, should bear in mind the fact that female delicacy is a subject which can be satisfactorily discussed only in relation to free and independent women; hence the degree of its manifestation126 at any time during the past six thousand years may bear little testimony127 concerning the natural tendencies of women, or the condition of society under a system where female influence was in the ascendency.
To those individuals whose minds are not clouded by prejudice, the fact will doubtless be apparent, that the valuable information which has been presented by three of the foremost writers on the subject of the early relations of the sexes and the origin of marriage, instead of serving as evidence to substantiate128 the fallacious theories which they have propounded129, is found to lie in a direct line with the facts and principles which have been put forward by scientists in the theory of natural development.
A review of the theories set forth by these three239 writers shows that about the only point on which they agree is the lawlessness, or promiscuity130, of early races. As they have all started out with a false premise131, it is not singular that none of them has succeeded in setting forth a consistent and reasonable hypothesis to account either for the symbol of wife-capture, or for the early supremacy of women.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
speculations
|
|
| n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 )；思考；投机活动；推断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
warp
|
|
| vt.弄歪，使翘曲，使不正常，歪曲，使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
dwarf
|
|
| n.矮子，侏儒，矮小的动植物；vt.使…矮小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
avowed
|
|
| adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
rite
|
|
| n.典礼，惯例，习俗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
query
|
|
| n.疑问，问号，质问；vt.询问，表示怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
coalesced
|
|
| v.联合，合并( coalesce的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
consanguinity
|
|
| n.血缘；亲族 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
affinity
|
|
| n.亲和力，密切关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
conclusively
|
|
| adv.令人信服地，确凿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
tribal
|
|
| adj.部族的，种族的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
appendages
|
|
| n.附属物( appendage的名词复数 )；依附的人；附属器官；附属肢体（如臂、腿、尾等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
warrior
|
|
| n.勇士，武士，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
superseded
|
|
| [医]被代替的，废弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
habitually
|
|
| ad.习惯地，通常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
scarcity
|
|
| n.缺乏，不足，萧条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
slain
|
|
| 杀死，宰杀，杀戮( slay的过去分词 )； (slay的过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
dread
|
|
| vt.担忧，忧虑；惧怕，不敢；n.担忧，畏惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
quota
|
|
| n.（生产、进出口等的）配额，（移民的）限额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
degradation
|
|
| n.降级；低落；退化；陵削；降解；衰变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
expedient
|
|
| adj.有用的，有利的；n.紧急的办法，权宜之计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
clan
|
|
| n.氏族，部落，宗族，家族，宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
binds
|
|
| v.约束( bind的第三人称单数 )；装订；捆绑；（用长布条）缠绕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
diminution
|
|
| n.减少；变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
warriors
|
|
| 武士，勇士，战士( warrior的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
inured
|
|
| adj.坚强的，习惯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
infancy
|
|
| n.婴儿期；幼年期；初期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
amass
|
|
| vt.积累，积聚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
ascertained
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
dominion
|
|
| n.统治，管辖，支配权；领土，版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
arrogate
|
|
| v.冒称具有...权利，霸占 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
marital
|
|
| adj.婚姻的，夫妻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
innate
|
|
| adj.天生的，固有的，天赋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
repugnance
|
|
| n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
formulated
|
|
| v.构想出( formulate的过去式和过去分词 )；规划；确切地阐述；用公式表示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
advancement
|
|
| n.前进，促进，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
abeyance
|
|
| n.搁置，缓办，中止，产权未定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
conjugal
|
|
| adj.婚姻的，婚姻性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
abridged
|
|
| 削减的，删节的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
corrupted
|
|
| （使）败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 )； （使）腐化； 引起（计算机文件等的）错误； 破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
immorality
|
|
| n. 不道德, 无道义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
missionaries
|
|
| n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
lengthy
|
|
| adj.漫长的，冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
benighted
|
|
| adj.蒙昧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
bolstering
|
|
| v.支持( bolster的现在分词 )；支撑；给予必要的支持；援助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
maternal
|
|
| adj.母亲的，母亲般的，母系的，母方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
communal
|
|
| adj.公有的，公共的，公社的，公社制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
infringement
|
|
| n.违反；侵权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
friendliness
|
|
| n.友谊，亲切，亲密 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
succumbed
|
|
| 不再抵抗（诱惑、疾病、攻击等）( succumb的过去式和过去分词 )； 屈从； 被压垮； 死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
exigencies
|
|
| n.急切需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
progenitors
|
|
| n.祖先( progenitor的名词复数 )；先驱；前辈；原本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
alludes
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
stationary
|
|
| adj.固定的，静止不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
babble
|
|
| v.含糊不清地说，胡言乱语地说，儿语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
infringing
|
|
| v.违反（规章等）( infringe的现在分词 )；侵犯（某人的权利）；侵害（某人的自由、权益等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
exhaustion
|
|
| n.耗尽枯竭，疲惫，筋疲力尽，竭尽，详尽无遗的论述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
propriety
|
|
| n.正当行为；正当；适当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
semblance
|
|
| n.外貌，外表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
symbolized
|
|
| v.象征，作为…的象征( symbolize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
solitary
|
|
| adj.孤独的，独立的，荒凉的；n.隐士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
adoration
|
|
| n.爱慕，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
degenerated
|
|
| 衰退，堕落，退化( degenerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
modesty
|
|
| n.谦逊，虚心，端庄，稳重，羞怯，朴素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
persuasion
|
|
| n.劝说；说服；持有某种信仰的宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
prerogative
|
|
| n.特权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
abhorred
|
|
| v.憎恶( abhor的过去式和过去分词 )；（厌恶地）回避；拒绝；淘汰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
jointly
|
|
| ad.联合地，共同地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
incompatible
|
|
| adj.不相容的，不协调的，不相配的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
hereditary
|
|
| adj.遗传的，遗传性的，可继承的，世袭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
knotty
|
|
| adj.有结的，多节的，多瘤的，棘手的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
provocation
|
|
| n.激怒，刺激，挑拨，挑衅的事物，激怒的原因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
delicacy
|
|
| n.精致，细微，微妙，精良；美味，佳肴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
accredit
|
|
| vt.归功于，认为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
diverging
|
|
| 分开( diverge的现在分词 )； 偏离； 分歧； 分道扬镳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
arrogant
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
smothered
|
|
| （使）窒息， （使）透不过气( smother的过去式和过去分词 )； 覆盖； 忍住； 抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
utilized
|
|
| v.利用，使用( utilize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
manifestation
|
|
| n.表现形式；表明；现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
substantiate
|
|
| v.证实；证明...有根据 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
propounded
|
|
| v.提出（问题、计划等）供考虑[讨论]，提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
promiscuity
|
|
| n.混杂，混乱；（男女的）乱交 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
premise
|
|
| n.前提；v.提论，预述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |