At an earlier, but not the earliest, stage of barbarism, the leisure class is found in a less differentiated13 form. Neither the class distinctions nor the distinctions between leisure-class occupations are so minute and intricate. The Polynesian islanders generally show this stage of the development in good form, with the exception that, owing to the absence of large game, hunting does not hold the usual place of honour in their scheme of life. The Icelandic community in the time of the Sagas14 also affords a fair instance. In such a community there is a rigorous distinction between classes and between the occupations peculiar15 to each class. Manual labour, industry, whatever has to do directly with the everyday work of getting a livelihood16, is the exclusive occupation of the inferior class. This inferior class includes slaves and other dependents, and ordinarily also all the women. If there are several grades of aristocracy, the women of high rank are commonly exempt from industrial employment, or at least from the more vulgar kinds of manual labour. The men of the upper classes are not only exempt, but by prescriptive custom they are debarred, from all industrial occupations. The range of employments open to them is rigidly17 defined. As on the higher plane already spoken of, these employments are government, warfare, religious observances, and sports. These four lines of activity govern the scheme of life of the upper classes, and for the highest rank—the kings or chieftains—these are the only kinds of activity that custom or the common sense of the community will allow. Indeed, where the scheme is well developed even sports are accounted doubtfully legitimate19 for the members of the highest rank. To the lower grades of the leisure class certain other employments are open, but they are employments that are subsidiary to one or another of these typical leisure-class occupations. Such are, for instance, the manufacture and care of arms and accoutrements and of war canoes, the dressing20 and handling of horses, dogs, and hawks21, the preparation of sacred apparatus22, etc. The lower classes are excluded from these secondary honourable employments, except from such as are plainly of an industrial character and are only remotely related to the typical leisure-class occupations.
If we go a step back of this exemplary barbarian culture, into the lower stages of barbarism, we no longer find the leisure class in fully18 developed form. But this lower barbarism shows the usages, motives23, and circumstances out of which the institution of a leisure class has arisen, and indicates the steps of its early growth. Nomadic24 hunting tribes in various parts of the world illustrate25 these more primitive26 phases of the differentiation. Any one of the North American hunting tribes may be taken as a convenient illustration. These tribes can scarcely be said to have a defined leisure class. There is a differentiation of function, and there is a distinction between classes on the basis of this difference of function, but the exemption of the superior class from work has not gone far enough to make the designation "leisure class" altogether applicable. The tribes belonging on this economic level have carried the economic differentiation to the point at which a marked distinction is made between the occupations of men and women, and this distinction is of an invidious character. In nearly all these tribes the women are, by prescriptive custom, held to those employments out of which the industrial occupations proper develop at the next advance. The men are exempt from these vulgar employments and are reserved for war, hunting, sports, and devout27 observances. A very nice discrimination is ordinarily shown in this matter.
This division of labour coincides with the distinction between the working and the leisure class as it appears in the higher barbarian culture. As the diversification28 and specialisation of employments proceed, the line of demarcation so drawn29 comes to divide the industrial from the non-industrial employments. The man's occupation as it stands at the earlier barbarian stage is not the original out of which any appreciable30 portion of later industry has developed. In the later development it survives only in employments that are not classed as industrial,—war, politics, sports, learning, and the priestly office. The only notable exceptions are a portion of the fishery industry and certain slight employments that are doubtfully to be classed as industry; such as the manufacture of arms, toys, and sporting goods. Virtually the whole range of industrial employments is an outgrowth of what is classed as woman's work in the primitive barbarian community.
The work of the men in the lower barbarian culture is no less indispensable to the life of the group than the work done by the women. It may even be that the men's work contributes as much to the food supply and the other necessary consumption of the group. Indeed, so obvious is this "productive" character of the men's work that in the conventional economic writings the hunter's work is taken as the type of primitive industry. But such is not the barbarian's sense of the matter. In his own eyes he is not a labourer, and he is not to be classed with the women in this respect; nor is his effort to be classed with the women's drudgery31, as labour or industry, in such a sense as to admit of its being confounded with the latter. There is in all barbarian communities a profound sense of the disparity between man's and woman's work. His work may conduce to the maintenance of the group, but it is felt that it does so through an excellence32 and an efficacy of a kind that cannot without derogation be compared with the uneventful diligence of the women.
At a farther step backward in the cultural scale—among savage33 groups—the differentiation of employments is still less elaborate and the invidious distinction between classes and employments is less consistent and less rigorous. Unequivocal instances of a primitive savage culture are hard to find. Few of these groups or communities that are classed as "savage" show no traces of regression from a more advanced cultural stage. But there are groups—some of them apparently34 not the result of retrogression—which show the traits of primitive savagery35 with some fidelity36. Their culture differs from that of the barbarian communities in the absence of a leisure class and the absence, in great measure, of the animus37 or spiritual attitude on which the institution of a leisure class rests. These communities of primitive savages38 in which there is no hierarchy39 of economic classes make up but a small and inconspicuous fraction of the human race. As good an instance of this phase of culture as may be had is afforded by the tribes of the Andamans, or by the Todas of the Nilgiri Hills. The scheme of life of these groups at the time of their earliest contact with Europeans seems to have been nearly typical, so far as regards the absence of a leisure class. As a further instance might be cited the Ainu of Yezo, and, more doubtfully, also some Bushman and Eskimo groups. Some Pueblo40 communities are less confidently to be included in the same class. Most, if not all, of the communities here cited may well be cases of degeneration from a higher barbarism, rather than bearers of a culture that has never risen above its present level. If so, they are for the present purpose to be taken with the allowance, but they may serve none the less as evidence to the same effect as if they were really "primitive" populations.
These communities that are without a defined leisure class resemble one another also in certain other features of their social structure and manner of life. They are small groups and of a simple (archaic41) structure; they are commonly peaceable and sedentary; they are poor; and individual ownership is not a dominant42 feature of their economic system. At the same time it does not follow that these are the smallest of existing communities, or that their social structure is in all respects the least differentiated; nor does the class necessarily include all primitive communities which have no defined system of individual ownership. But it is to be noted43 that the class seems to include the most peaceable—perhaps all the characteristically peaceable—primitive groups of men. Indeed, the most notable trait common to members of such communities is a certain amiable44 inefficiency45 when confronted with force or fraud.
The evidence afforded by the usages and cultural traits of communities at a low stage of development indicates that the institution of a leisure class has emerged gradually during the transition from primitive savagery to barbarism; or more precisely46, during the transition from a peaceable to a consistently warlike habit of life. The conditions apparently necessary to its emergence47 in a consistent form are: (1) the community must be of a predatory habit of life (war or the hunting of large game or both); that is to say, the men, who constitute the inchoate48 leisure class in these cases, must be habituated to the infliction49 of injury by force and stratagem50; (2) subsistence must be obtainable on sufficiently51 easy terms to admit of the exemption of a considerable portion of the community from steady application to a routine of labour. The institution of leisure class is the outgrowth of an early discrimination between employments, according to which some employments are worthy52 and others unworthy. Under this ancient distinction the worthy employments are those which may be classed as exploit; unworthy are those necessary everyday employments into which no appreciable element of exploit enters.
This distinction has but little obvious significance in a modern industrial community, and it has, therefore, received but slight attention at the hands of economic writers. When viewed in the light of that modern common sense which has guided economic discussion, it seems formal and insubstantial. But it persists with great tenacity53 as a commonplace preconception even in modern life, as is shown, for instance, by our habitual54 aversion to menial employments. It is a distinction of a personal kind—of superiority and inferiority. In the earlier stages of culture, when the personal force of the individual counted more immediately and obviously in shaping the course of events, the element of exploit counted for more in the everyday scheme of life. Interest centred about this fact to a greater degree. Consequently a distinction proceeding55 on this ground seemed more imperative56 and more definitive57 then than is the case to-day. As a fact in the sequence of development, therefore, the distinction is a substantial one and rests on sufficiently valid58 and cogent59 grounds.
The ground on which a discrimination between facts is habitually60 made changes as the interest from which the facts are habitually viewed changes. Those features of the facts at hand are salient and substantial upon which the dominant interest of the time throws its light. Any given ground of distinction will seem insubstantial to any one who habitually apprehends61 the facts in question from a different point of view and values them for a different purpose. The habit of distinguishing and classifying the various purposes and directions of activity prevails of necessity always and everywhere; for it is indispensable in reaching a working theory or scheme of life. The particular point of view, or the particular characteristic that is pitched upon as definitive in the classification of the facts of life depends upon the interest from which a discrimination of the facts is sought. The grounds of discrimination, and the norm of procedure in classifying the facts, therefore, progressively change as the growth of culture proceeds; for the end for which the facts of life are apprehended62 changes, and the point of view consequently changes also. So that what are recognised as the salient and decisive features of a class of activities or of a social class at one stage of culture will not retain the same relative importance for the purposes of classification at any subsequent stage.
But the change of standards and points of view is gradual only, and it seldom results in the subversion63 or entire suppression of a standpoint once accepted. A distinction is still habitually made between industrial and non-industrial occupations; and this modern distinction is a transmuted64 form of the barbarian distinction between exploit and drudgery. Such employments as warfare, politics, public worship, and public merrymaking, are felt, in the popular apprehension65, to differ intrinsically from the labour that has to do with elaborating the material means of life. The precise line of demarcation is not the same as it was in the early barbarian scheme, but the broad distinction has not fallen into disuse.
The tacit, common-sense distinction to-day is, in effect, that any effort is to be accounted industrial only so far as its ultimate purpose is the utilisation of non-human things. The coercive utilisation of man by man is not felt to be an industrial function; but all effort directed to enhance human life by taking advantage of the non-human environment is classed together as industrial activity. By the economists66 who have best retained and adapted the classical tradition, man's "power over nature" is currently postulated67 as the characteristic fact of industrial productivity. This industrial power over nature is taken to include man's power over the life of the beasts and over all the elemental forces. A line is in this way drawn between mankind and brute68 creation.
In other times and among men imbued69 with a different body of preconceptions this line is not drawn precisely as we draw it to-day. In the savage or the barbarian scheme of life it is drawn in a different place and in another way. In all communities under the barbarian culture there is an alert and pervading70 sense of antithesis71 between two comprehensive groups of phenomena72, in one of which barbarian man includes himself, and in the other, his victual. There is a felt antithesis between economic and non-economic phenomena, but it is not conceived in the modern fashion; it lies not between man and brute creation, but between animate73 and inert74 things.
It may be an excess of caution at this day to explain that the barbarian notion which it is here intended to convey by the term "animate" is not the same as would be conveyed by the word "living". The term does not cover all living things, and it does cover a great many others. Such a striking natural phenomenon as a storm, a disease, a waterfall, are recognised as "animate"; while fruits and herbs, and even inconspicuous animals, such as house-flies, maggots, lemmings, sheep, are not ordinarily apprehended as "animate" except when taken collectively. As here used the term does not necessarily imply an indwelling soul or spirit. The concept includes such things as in the apprehension of the animistic savage or barbarian are formidable by virtue75 of a real or imputed76 habit of initiating78 action. This category comprises a large number and range of natural objects and phenomena. Such a distinction between the inert and the active is still present in the habits of thought of unreflecting persons, and it still profoundly affects the prevalent theory of human life and of natural processes; but it does not pervade79 our daily life to the extent or with the far-reaching practical consequences that are apparent at earlier stages of culture and belief.
To the mind of the barbarian, the elaboration and utilisation of what is afforded by inert nature is activity on quite a different plane from his dealings with "animate" things and forces. The line of demarcation may be vague and shifting, but the broad distinction is sufficiently real and cogent to influence the barbarian scheme of life. To the class of things apprehended as animate, the barbarian fancy imputes81 an unfolding of activity directed to some end. It is this teleological82 unfolding of activity that constitutes any object or phenomenon an "animate" fact. Wherever the unsophisticated savage or barbarian meets with activity that is at all obtrusive83, he construes84 it in the only terms that are ready to hand—the terms immediately given in his consciousness of his own actions. Activity is, therefore, assimilated to human action, and active objects are in so far assimilated to the human agent. Phenomena of this character—especially those whose behaviour is notably formidable or baffling—have to be met in a different spirit and with proficiency85 of a different kind from what is required in dealing80 with inert things. To deal successfully with such phenomena is a work of exploit rather than of industry. It is an assertion of prowess, not of diligence.
Under the guidance of this naive86 discrimination between the inert and the animate, the activities of the primitive social group tend to fall into two classes, which would in modern phrase be called exploit and industry. Industry is effort that goes to create a new thing, with a new purpose given it by the fashioning hand of its maker87 out of passive ("brute") material; while exploit, so far as it results in an outcome useful to the agent, is the conversion88 to his own ends of energies previously89 directed to some other end by an other agent. We still speak of "brute matter" with something of the barbarian's realisation of a profound significance in the term.
The distinction between exploit and drudgery coincides with a difference between the sexes. The sexes differ, not only in stature90 and muscular force, but perhaps even more decisively in temperament91, and this must early have given rise to a corresponding division of labour. The general range of activities that come under the head of exploit falls to the males as being the stouter92, more massive, better capable of a sudden and violent strain, and more readily inclined to self assertion, active emulation93, and aggression94. The difference in mass, in physiological95 character, and in temperament may be slight among the members of the primitive group; it appears, in fact, to be relatively96 slight and inconsequential in some of the more archaic communities with which we are acquainted—as for instance the tribes of the Andamans. But so soon as a differentiation of function has well begun on the lines marked out by this difference in physique and animus, the original difference between the sexes will itself widen. A cumulative97 process of selective adaptation to the new distribution of employments will set in, especially if the habitat or the fauna98 with which the group is in contact is such as to call for a considerable exercise of the sturdier virtues99. The habitual pursuit of large game requires more of the manly100 qualities of massiveness, agility101, and ferocity, and it can therefore scarcely fail to hasten and widen the differentiation of functions between the sexes. And so soon as the group comes into hostile contact with other groups, the divergence102 of function will take on the developed form of a distinction between exploit and industry.
In such a predatory group of hunters it comes to be the able-bodied men's office to fight and hunt. The women do what other work there is to do—other members who are unfit for man's work being for this purpose classed with women. But the men's hunting and fighting are both of the same general character. Both are of a predatory nature; the warrior and the hunter alike reap where they have not strewn. Their aggressive assertion of force and sagacity differs obviously from the women's assiduous and uneventful shaping of materials; it is not to be accounted productive labour but rather an acquisition of substance by seizure103. Such being the barbarian man's work, in its best development and widest divergence from women's work, any effort that does not involve an assertion of prowess comes to be unworthy of the man. As the tradition gains consistency104, the common sense of the community erects105 it into a canon of conduct; so that no employment and no acquisition is morally possible to the self respecting man at this cultural stage, except such as proceeds on the basis of prowess—force or fraud. When the predatory habit of life has been settled upon the group by long habituation, it becomes the able-bodied man's accredited106 office in the social economy to kill, to destroy such competitors in the struggle for existence as attempt to resist or elude107 him, to overcome and reduce to subservience108 those alien forces that assert themselves refractorily in the environment. So tenaciously109 and with such nicety is this theoretical distinction between exploit and drudgery adhered to that in many hunting tribes the man must not bring home the game which he has killed, but must send his woman to perform that baser office.
As has already been indicated, the distinction between exploit and drudgery is an invidious distinction between employments. Those employments which are to be classed as exploit are worthy, honourable, noble; other employments, which do not contain this element of exploit, and especially those which imply subservience or submission110, are unworthy, debasing, ignoble111. The concept of dignity, worth, or honour, as applied112 either to persons or conduct, is of first-rate consequence in the development of classes and of class distinctions, and it is therefore necessary to say something of its derivation and meaning. Its psychological ground may be indicated in outline as follows.
As a matter of selective necessity, man is an agent. He is, in his own apprehension, a centre of unfolding impulsive113 activity—"teleological" activity. He is an agent seeking in every act the accomplishment114 of some concrete, objective, impersonal115 end. By force of his being such an agent he is possessed116 of a taste for effective work, and a distaste for futile117 effort. He has a sense of the merit of serviceability or efficiency and of the demerit of futility118, waste, or incapacity. This aptitude119 or propensity120 may be called the instinct of workmanship. Wherever the circumstances or traditions of life lead to an habitual comparison of one person with another in point of efficiency, the instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative121 or invidious comparison of persons. The extent to which this result follows depends in some considerable degree on the temperament of the population. In any community where such an invidious comparison of persons is habitually made, visible success becomes an end sought for its own utility as a basis of esteem122. Esteem is gained and dispraise is avoided by putting one's efficiency in evidence. The result is that the instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative demonstration123 of force.
During that primitive phase of social development, when the community is still habitually peaceable, perhaps sedentary, and without a developed system of individual ownership, the efficiency of the individual can be shown chiefly and most consistently in some employment that goes to further the life of the group. What emulation of an economic kind there is between the members of such a group will be chiefly emulation in industrial serviceability. At the same time the incentive124 to emulation is not strong, nor is the scope for emulation large.
When the community passes from peaceable savagery to a predatory phase of life, the conditions of emulation change. The opportunity and the incentive to emulate125 increase greatly in scope and urgency. The activity of the men more and more takes on the character of exploit; and an invidious comparison of one hunter or warrior with another grows continually easier and more habitual. Tangible126 evidences of prowess—trophies127—find a place in men's habits of thought as an essential feature of the paraphernalia128 of life. Booty, trophies of the chase or of the raid, come to be prized as evidence of pre-eminent force. Aggression becomes the accredited form of action, and booty serves as prima facie evidence of successful aggression. As accepted at this cultural stage, the accredited, worthy form of self-assertion is contest; and useful articles or services obtained by seizure or compulsion, serve as a conventional evidence of successful contest. Therefore, by contrast, the obtaining of goods by other methods than seizure comes to be accounted unworthy of man in his best estate. The performance of productive work, or employment in personal service, falls under the same odium for the same reason. An invidious distinction in this way arises between exploit and acquisition on the other hand. Labour acquires a character of irksomeness by virtue of the indignity129 imputed to it.
With the primitive barbarian, before the simple content of the notion has been obscured by its own ramifications130 and by a secondary growth of cognate131 ideas, "honourable" seems to connote nothing else than assertion of superior force. "Honourable" is "formidable"; "worthy" is "prepotent". A honorific act is in the last analysis little if anything else than a recognised successful act of aggression; and where aggression means conflict with men and beasts, the activity which comes to be especially and primarily honourable is the assertion of the strong hand. The naive, archaic habit of construing132 all manifestations133 of force in terms of personality or "will power" greatly fortifies134 this conventional exaltation of the strong hand. Honorific epithets135, in vogue136 among barbarian tribes as well as among peoples of a more advance culture, commonly bear the stamp of this unsophisticated sense of honour. Epithets and titles used in addressing chieftains, and in the propitiation of kings and gods, very commonly impute77 a propensity for overbearing violence and an irresistible137 devastating138 force to the person who is to be propitiated139. This holds true to an extent also in the more civilised communities of the present day. The predilection140 shown in heraldic devices for the more rapacious141 beasts and birds of prey142 goes to enforce the same view.
Under this common-sense barbarian appreciation143 of worth or honour, the taking of life—the killing144 of formidable competitors, whether brute or human—is honourable in the highest degree. And this high office of slaughter145, as an expression of the slayer's prepotence, casts a glamour146 of worth over every act of slaughter and over all the tools and accessories of the act. Arms are honourable, and the use of them, even in seeking the life of the meanest creatures of the fields, becomes a honorific employment. At the same time, employment in industry becomes correspondingly odious147, and, in the common-sense apprehension, the handling of the tools and implements148 of industry falls beneath the dignity of able-bodied men. Labour becomes irksome.
It is here assumed that in the sequence of cultural evolution primitive groups of men have passed from an initial peaceable stage to a subsequent stage at which fighting is the avowed149 and characteristic employment of the group. But it is not implied that there has been an abrupt150 transition from unbroken peace and good-will to a later or higher phase of life in which the fact of combat occurs for the first time. Neither is it implied that all peaceful industry disappears on the transition to the predatory phase of culture. Some fighting, it is safe to say, would be met with at any early stage of social development. Fights would occur with more or less frequency through sexual competition. The known habits of primitive groups, as well as the habits of the anthropoid151 apes, argue to that effect, and the evidence from the well-known promptings of human nature enforces the same view.
It may therefore be objected that there can have been no such initial stage of peaceable life as is here assumed. There is no point in cultural evolution prior to which fighting does not occur. But the point in question is not as to the occurrence of combat, occasional or sporadic152, or even more or less frequent and habitual; it is a question as to the occurrence of an habitual; it is a question as to the occurrence of an habitual bellicose153 frame of mind—a prevalent habit of judging facts and events from the point of view of the fight. The predatory phase of culture is attained154 only when the predatory attitude has become the habitual and accredited spiritual attitude for the members of the group; when the fight has become the dominant note in the current theory of life; when the common-sense appreciation of men and things has come to be an appreciation with a view to combat.
The substantial difference between the peaceable and the predatory phase of culture, therefore, is a spiritual difference, not a mechanical one. The change in spiritual attitude is the outgrowth of a change in the material facts of the life of the group, and it comes on gradually as the material circumstances favourable156 to a predatory attitude supervene. The inferior limit of the predatory culture is an industrial limit. Predation can not become the habitual, conventional resource of any group or any class until industrial methods have been developed to such a degree of efficiency as to leave a margin157 worth fighting for, above the subsistence of those engaged in getting a living. The transition from peace to predation therefore depends on the growth of technical knowledge and the use of tools. A predatory culture is similarly impracticable in early times, until weapons have been developed to such a point as to make man a formidable animal. The early development of tools and of weapons is of course the same fact seen from two different points of view.
The life of a given group would be characterised as peaceable so long as habitual recourse to combat has not brought the fight into the foreground in men's every day thoughts, as a dominant feature of the life of man. A group may evidently attain155 such a predatory attitude with a greater or less degree of completeness, so that its scheme of life and canons of conduct may be controlled to a greater or less extent by the predatory animus. The predatory phase of culture is therefore conceived to come on gradually, through a cumulative growth of predatory aptitudes158 habits, and traditions this growth being due to a change in the circumstances of the group's life, of such a kind as to develop and conserve159 those traits of human nature and those traditions and norms of conduct that make for a predatory rather than a peaceable life.
The evidence for the hypothesis that there has been such a peaceable stage of primitive culture is in great part drawn from psychology160 rather than from ethnology, and cannot be detailed161 here. It will be recited in part in a later chapter, in discussing the survival of archaic traits of human nature under the modern culture.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
barbarian
|
|
| n.野蛮人；adj.野蛮(人)的；未开化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
feudal
|
|
| adj.封建的，封地的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
exempt
|
|
| adj.免除的；v.使免除；n.免税者，被免除义务者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
honourable
|
|
| adj.可敬的；荣誉的，光荣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
warrior
|
|
| n.勇士，武士，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
warriors
|
|
| 武士，勇士，战士( warrior的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
exemption
|
|
| n.豁免，免税额，免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
differentiation
|
|
| n.区别，区分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
retinue
|
|
| n.侍从；随员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
diversified
|
|
| adj.多样化的，多种经营的v.使多样化，多样化( diversify的过去式和过去分词 )；进入新的商业领域 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
differentiated
|
|
| 区分，区别，辨别( differentiate的过去式和过去分词 )； 区别对待； 表明…间的差别，构成…间差别的特征 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
sagas
|
|
| n.萨迦（尤指古代挪威或冰岛讲述冒险经历和英雄业绩的长篇故事）( saga的名词复数 )；（讲述许多年间发生的事情的）长篇故事；一连串的事件（或经历）；一连串经历的讲述（或记述） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
livelihood
|
|
| n.生计，谋生之道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
rigidly
|
|
| adv.刻板地，僵化地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
dressing
|
|
| n.(食物)调料；包扎伤口的用品，敷料 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
hawks
|
|
| 鹰( hawk的名词复数 )； 鹰派人物，主战派人物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
apparatus
|
|
| n.装置，器械；器具，设备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
nomadic
|
|
| adj.流浪的；游牧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
illustrate
|
|
| v.举例说明，阐明；图解，加插图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
devout
|
|
| adj.虔诚的，虔敬的，衷心的 (n.devoutness) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
diversification
|
|
| n.变化，多样化；多种经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
appreciable
|
|
| adj.明显的，可见的，可估量的，可觉察的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
drudgery
|
|
| n.苦工，重活，单调乏味的工作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
excellence
|
|
| n.优秀，杰出，(pl.)优点，美德 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
savagery
|
|
| n.野性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
fidelity
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠实；精确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
animus
|
|
| n.恶意；意图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
hierarchy
|
|
| n.等级制度；统治集团，领导层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
pueblo
|
|
| n.（美国西南部或墨西哥等）印第安人的村庄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
archaic
|
|
| adj.(语言、词汇等)古代的，已不通用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
dominant
|
|
| adj.支配的，统治的；占优势的；显性的；n.主因，要素，主要的人(或物)；显性基因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
amiable
|
|
| adj.和蔼可亲的，友善的，亲切的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
inefficiency
|
|
| n.无效率，无能；无效率事例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
emergence
|
|
| n.浮现，显现，出现，（植物）突出体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
inchoate
|
|
| adj.才开始的，初期的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
infliction
|
|
| n.（强加于人身的）痛苦，刑罚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
stratagem
|
|
| n.诡计，计谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
tenacity
|
|
| n.坚韧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
habitual
|
|
| adj.习惯性的；通常的，惯常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
imperative
|
|
| n.命令，需要；规则；祈使语气；adj.强制的；紧急的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
definitive
|
|
| adj.确切的，权威性的；最后的，决定性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
cogent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有说服力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
habitually
|
|
| ad.习惯地，通常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
apprehends
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的第三人称单数 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
apprehended
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
subversion
|
|
| n.颠覆，破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
transmuted
|
|
| v.使变形，使变质，把…变成…( transmute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
apprehension
|
|
| n.理解，领悟；逮捕，拘捕；忧虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
postulated
|
|
| v.假定，假设( postulate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
imbued
|
|
| v.使（某人/某事）充满或激起（感情等）( imbue的过去式和过去分词 )；使充满；灌输；激发（强烈感情或品质等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
pervading
|
|
| v.遍及，弥漫( pervade的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
antithesis
|
|
| n.对立；相对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
animate
|
|
| v.赋于生命，鼓励；adj.有生命的，有生气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
inert
|
|
| adj.无活动能力的，惰性的；迟钝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
imputed
|
|
| v.把（错误等）归咎于( impute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
impute
|
|
| v.归咎于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
initiating
|
|
| v.开始( initiate的现在分词 )；传授；发起；接纳新成员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
pervade
|
|
| v.弥漫，遍及，充满，渗透，漫延 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
imputes
|
|
| v.把（错误等）归咎于( impute的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
teleological
|
|
| adj.目的论的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
obtrusive
|
|
| adj.显眼的；冒失的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
construes
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的第三人称单数 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
proficiency
|
|
| n.精通，熟练，精练 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
naive
|
|
| adj.幼稚的，轻信的；天真的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
maker
|
|
| n.制造者，制造商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
conversion
|
|
| n.转化，转换，转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
stature
|
|
| n.（高度）水平，（高度）境界，身高，身材 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
temperament
|
|
| n.气质，性格，性情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
stouter
|
|
| 粗壮的( stout的比较级 )； 结实的； 坚固的； 坚定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
emulation
|
|
| n.竞争；仿效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
physiological
|
|
| adj.生理学的，生理学上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
cumulative
|
|
| adj.累积的，渐增的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
fauna
|
|
| n.(一个地区或时代的)所有动物，动物区系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
manly
|
|
| adj.有男子气概的；adv.男子般地，果断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
agility
|
|
| n.敏捷，活泼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
divergence
|
|
| n.分歧，岔开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
seizure
|
|
| n.没收；占有；抵押 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
consistency
|
|
| n.一贯性，前后一致，稳定性；(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
erects
|
|
| v.使直立，竖起( erect的第三人称单数 )；建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
accredited
|
|
| adj.可接受的；可信任的；公认的；质量合格的v.相信( accredit的过去式和过去分词 )；委托；委任；把…归结于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
elude
|
|
| v.躲避，困惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
subservience
|
|
| n.有利，有益；从属（地位），附属性；屈从，恭顺；媚态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
tenaciously
|
|
| 坚持地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
ignoble
|
|
| adj.不光彩的，卑鄙的；可耻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
impulsive
|
|
| adj.冲动的，刺激的；有推动力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
accomplishment
|
|
| n.完成，成就，（pl.）造诣，技能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
impersonal
|
|
| adj.无个人感情的，与个人无关的，非人称的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
futility
|
|
| n.无用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
aptitude
|
|
| n.(学习方面的)才能，资质，天资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
propensity
|
|
| n.倾向；习性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
emulative
|
|
| adj.好胜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
incentive
|
|
| n.刺激；动力；鼓励；诱因；动机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
emulate
|
|
| v.努力赶上或超越，与…竞争；效仿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
tangible
|
|
| adj.有形的，可触摸的，确凿的，实际的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
trophies
|
|
| n.（为竞赛获胜者颁发的）奖品( trophy的名词复数 )；奖杯；（尤指狩猎或战争中获得的）纪念品；（用于比赛或赛跑名称）奖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
paraphernalia
|
|
| n.装备；随身用品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
indignity
|
|
| n.侮辱，伤害尊严，轻蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
ramifications
|
|
| n.结果，后果( ramification的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
cognate
|
|
| adj.同类的，同源的，同族的；n.同家族的人，同源词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
construing
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的现在分词 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
manifestations
|
|
| n.表示，显示（manifestation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
fortifies
|
|
| 筑防御工事于( fortify的第三人称单数 )； 筑堡于； 增强； 强化（食品） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
135
epithets
|
|
| n.（表示性质、特征等的）词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
Vogue
|
|
| n.时髦，时尚；adj.流行的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
devastating
|
|
| adj.毁灭性的，令人震惊的，强有力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
propitiated
|
|
| v.劝解，抚慰，使息怒( propitiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
140
predilection
|
|
| n.偏好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
rapacious
|
|
| adj.贪婪的，强夺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
slaughter
|
|
| n.屠杀，屠宰；vt.屠杀，宰杀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
glamour
|
|
| n.魔力，魅力；vt.迷住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
implements
|
|
| n.工具( implement的名词复数 )；家具；手段；[法律]履行（契约等）v.实现( implement的第三人称单数 )；执行；贯彻；使生效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
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： |
|
|
|
|
150
abrupt
|
|
| adj.突然的，意外的；唐突的，鲁莽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
anthropoid
|
|
| adj.像人类的，类人猿的；n.类人猿；像猿的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
sporadic
|
|
| adj.偶尔发生的 [反]regular；分散的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
bellicose
|
|
| adj.好战的；好争吵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
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： |
|
|
|
|
155
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
margin
|
|
| n.页边空白；差额；余地，余裕；边，边缘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
aptitudes
|
|
| （学习方面的）才能，资质，天资( aptitude的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
conserve
|
|
| vt.保存，保护，节约，节省，守恒，不灭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
psychology
|
|
| n.心理，心理学，心理状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |