One of the cardinal9 factors in this Briticization of our intellectual outlook is the common language of England and America. Of all the civilized10 nations of the world, we are most deficient11 as linguists12. Because of our inability to speak fluently any language save our own, a great barrier exists between us and the Continental13 countries. But no such barrier exists between America and England; and consequently there is a constant exchange of ideas, beliefs, and opinions. English literature is at our command; English criticism is familiar to us; and English standards are disseminated14 among us without the impediment of translation. Add to this lingual16 rapprochement the traditional authority of Great Britain, together with the social aspirations17 of moneyed Americans, and you will have both the material and the psychological foundation on which the great edifice18 of English culture has been reared in this country.
The English themselves have made constant and liberal use of these conditions. An old and[3] disquieting19 jealousy20, which is tinctured not a little by resentment21, has resulted in an open contempt for all things American. And it is not unnatural22 that this attitude should manifest itself in a condescending23 patronage24 which is far from being good-natured. Our literature is derided25; our artists are ridiculed26; and in nearly every field of our intellectual endeavor England has found grounds for disparagement27. It is necessary only to look through British newspapers and critical journals to discover the contemptuous and not infrequently venomous tone which characterizes the discussion of American culture.
At the same time, England grasps every opportunity for foisting29 her own artists and artisans on this country. She it is who sets the standard which at once demolishes30 our individual expression and glorifies31 the efforts of Englishmen. Our publishers, falling in line with this campaign, import all manner of English authors, eulogize them with the aid of biased32 English critics, and neglect better writers of America simply because they have displeased34 those gentlemen in London who sit in judgment6 upon our creative accomplishments35. Our magazines, edited for the most part by timid nobodies whose one claim to intellectual distinction is that they assiduously play the parrot to British opinion, fill their publications with the[4] work of English mediocrities and ignore the more deserving contributions of their fellow-countrymen.
Even our educational institutions disseminate15 the English superstition and neglect the great men of America; for nowhere in the United States will you find the spirit of narrow snobbery so highly developed as in our colleges and universities. Recently an inferior British poet came here, and, for no other reason apparently36 save that he was English, he was made a professor in one of our large universities! Certainly his talents did not warrant this appointment, for there are at least a score of American poets who are undeniably superior to this young Englishman. Nor has he shown any evidences of scholarship which would justify37 the honor paid him. But an Englishman, if he seek favors, needs little more than proof of his nationality, whereas an American must give evidence of his worth.
England has shown the same ruthlessness and unscrupulousness in her intellectual colonization of America as in her territorial38 colonizations; and she has also exhibited the same persistent39 shrewdness. What is more, this cultural extension policy has paid her lavishly40. English authors, to take but one example, regard the United States as their chief source of income. If it were the highest[5] English culture—that is, the genuinely significant scholarship of the few great modern British creators—which was forced upon America, there would be no cause for complaint. But the governing influences in English criticism are aggressively middle-class and chauvinistic41, with the result that it is the British bourgeois42 who has stifled43 our individual expression, and misinformed us on the subject of European culture.
No better instance of this fact can be pointed44 to than the utterly45 false impression which America has of French attainments46. French genius has always been depreciated47 and traduced48 by the British; and no more subtle and disgraceful campaign of derogation has been launched in modern times than the consistent method pursued by the English in misinterpreting French ideals and accomplishments to Americans. To England is due largely, if not entirely49, the uncomplimentary opinion that Americans have of France—an opinion at once distorted and indecent. To the average American a French novel is regarded merely as a salacious record of adulteries. French periodicals are looked upon as collections of prurient50 anecdotes51 and licentious52 pictures. And the average French painting is conceived as a realistic presentation of feminine nakedness. So deeply rooted are these conceptions that the very word “French”[6] has become, in the American’s vocabulary, an adjective signifying all manner of sexual abnormalities, and when applied53 to a play, a story, or an illustration, it is synonymous with “dirty” and “immoral.” This country has yet to understand the true fineness of French life and character, or to appreciate the glories of French art and literature; and the reason for our distorted ideas is that French culture, in coming to America, has been filtered through the nasty minds of middle-class English critics.
But it is not our biased judgment of the Continental nations that is the most serious result of English misrepresentation; in time we will come to realize how deceived we were in accepting England’s insinuations that France is indecent, Germany stupid, Italy decadent54, and Russia barbarous. The great harm done by England’s contemptuous critics is in belittling55 American achievement. Too long has bourgeois British culture been forced upon the United States; and we have been too gullible56 in our acceptance of it without question. English critics and English periodicals have consistently attempted to discourage the growth of any national individualism in America, by ridiculing57 or ignoring our best ?sthetic efforts and by imposing58 upon us their own insular criteria59. To such an extent have they succeeded that an[7] American author often must go to England before he will be accepted by his own countrymen. Thus purified by contact with English culture, he finds a way into our appreciation60.
But on the other hand, almost any English author—even one that England herself has little use for—can acquire fame by visiting this country. Upon his arrival he is interviewed by the newspapers; his picture appears in the “supplements”; his opinions emblazon the headlines and are discussed in editorials; and our publishers scramble61 for the distinction of bringing out his wares62. In this the publishers, primarily commercial, reveal their business acumen63, for they are not unaware64 of the fact that the “literary” sections of our newspapers are devoted65 largely to British authors and British letters. So firmly has the English superstition taken hold of our publishers that many of them print their books with English spelling. The reason for this un-American practice, so they explain, is that the books may be ready for an English edition without resetting66. The English, however, do not use American spelling at all, though, as a rule, the American editions of English books are much larger than the English edition of American books. But the English do not like our spelling; therefore we gladly arrange matters to their complete satisfaction.
[8]
The evidences of the American’s enforced belief in English superiority are almost numberless. Apartment houses and suburban67 sub-divisions are named after English hotels and localities. The belief extends even to the manufacturers of certain brands of cigarettes which, for sale purposes, are advertised as English, although it would be difficult to find a box of them abroad. The American actor, in order to gain distinction, apes the dress, customs, intonation68 and accent of Englishmen. His great ambition is to be mistaken for a Londoner. This pose, however, is not all snobbery: it is the outcome of an earnest desire to appear superior; and so long has England insisted upon her superiority that many Americans have come to adopt it as a cultural fetish.
Hitherto this exalted69 intellectual guidance has been charitably given us: never before, as now, has a large fortune been spent to make America pay handsomely for the adoption70 of England’s provincialism. I refer to the Encyclop?dia Britannica which, by a colossal72 campaign of flamboyant73 advertising74, has been scattered75 broadcast over every state in the union.
No more vicious and dangerous educational influence on America can readily be conceived than the articles in this encyclop?dia. They distort the truth and disseminate false standards. America[9] is now far enough behind the rest of the civilized world in its knowledge of art, without having added to that ignorance the erroneous impressions created by this partial and disproportioned English work; for, in its treatment of the world’s progress, it possesses neither universality of outlook nor freedom from prejudice in its judgments—the two primary requisites76 for any work which lays claim to educational merit. Taken as a whole, the Britannica’s divisions on culture are little more than a brief for British art and science—a brief fraught77 with the rankest injustice78 toward the achievements of other nations, and especially toward those of America.
The distinguishing feature of the Encyclop?dia Britannica is its petty national prejudice. This prejudice appears constantly and in many disguises through the Encyclop?dia’s pages. It manifests itself in the most wanton carelessness in dealing79 with historical facts; in glaring inadequacies when discussing the accomplishments of nations other than England; in a host of inexcusable omissions81 of great men who do not happen to be blessed with English nationality; in venom28 and denunciation of viewpoints which do not happen to coincide with “English ways of thinking”; and especially in neglect of American endeavor. Furthermore, the Britannica shows unmistakable[10] signs of haste or carelessness in preparation. Information is not always brought up to date. Common proper names are inexcusably misspelled. Old errors remain uncorrected. Inaccuracies abound82. Important subjects are ignored. And only in the field of English activity does there seem to be even an attempt at completeness.
The Encyclop?dia Britannica, if accepted unquestioningly throughout this country as an authoritative83 source of knowledge, would retard84 our intellectual development fully85 twenty years; for so one-sided is its information, so distorted are its opinions, so far removed is it from being an international and impartial86 reference work, that not only does it give inadequate87 advice on vital topics, but it positively88 creates false impressions. Second- and third-rate Englishmen are given space and praise much greater than that accorded truly great men of other nations; and the eulogistic89 attention paid English endeavor in general is out of all proportion to its deserts. In the following chapters I shall show specifically how British culture is glorified90 and exaggerated, and with what injustice the culture of other countries is treated. And I shall also show the utter failure of this Encyclop?dia to fulfill91 its claim of being a “universal” and “objective” reference library. To the contrary, it will be seen that the Britannica[11] is a narrow, parochial, opinionated work of dubious92 scholarship and striking unreliability.
With the somewhat obscure history of the birth of the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclop?dia Britannica, or with the part played in that history by Cambridge University and the London Times, I am not concerned. Nor shall I review the unethical record of the two issues of the Encyclop?dia. To those interested in this side of the question I suggest that they read the following contributions in Reedy’s Mirror: The Same Old Slippery Trick (March 24, 1916). The Encyclop?dia Britannica Swindle (April 7, 1916). The Encyclop?dia Britannica Fake (April 14, 1916); and also the article in the March 18 (1916) Bellman, Once More the Same Old Game.
Such matters might be within the range of forgiveness if the contents of the Britannica were what were claimed for them. But that which does concern me is the palpable discrepancies93 between the statements contained in the advertising, and the truth as revealed by a perusal94 of the articles and biographies contained in the work itself. The statements insisted that the Britannica was a supreme95, unbiased, and international reference library—an impartial and objective review of the world; and it was on these statements, repeated[12] constantly, that Americans bought the work. The truth is that the Encyclop?dia Britannica, in its main departments of culture, is characterized by misstatements, inexcusable omissions, rabid and patriotic96 prejudices, personal animosities, blatant97 errors of fact, scholastic98 ignorance, gross neglect of non-British culture, an astounding99 egotism, and an undisguised contempt for American progress.
Rarely has this country witnessed such indefensible methods in advertising as those adopted by the Britannica’s exploiters. The “copy” has fairly screamed with extravagant100 and fabulous101 exaggerations. The vocabulary of hyperbole has been practically exhausted102 in setting forth103 the dubious merits of this reference work. The ethics104 and decencies of ordinary honest commerce have been thrown to the wind. The statements made day after day were apparently concocted105 irrespective of any consideration save that of making a sale; for there is an abundance of evidence to show that the Encyclop?dia was not what was claimed for it.
With the true facts regarding this encyclop?dia it is difficult to reconcile the encomiums of many eminent106 Americans who, by writing eulogistic letters to the Britannica’s editor concerning the exalted merits of his enterprise, revealed either their unfamiliarity107 with the books in question or[13] their ignorance of what constituted an educational reference work. These letters were duly photographed and reproduced in the advertisements, and they now make interesting, if disconcerting, reading for the non-British student who put his faith in them and bought the Britannica. There is no need here to quote from these letters; for a subsequent inspection108 of the work thus recommended must have sufficiently109 mortified110 those of the enthusiastic correspondents who were educated and had consciences; and the others would be unmoved by any revelations of mine.
Mention, however, should be made of the remarks of the American Ambassador to Great Britain at the banquet given in London to celebrate the Encyclop?dia’s birth. This gentleman, in an amazing burst of unrestrained laudation, said he believed that “it is the general judgment of the scholars and the investigators111 of the world that the one book to which they can go for the most complete, comprehensive, thorough, and absolutely precise statements of fact upon every subject of human interest is the Encyclop?dia Britannica.” This is certainly an astonishing bit of eulogy112. Its dogmatic positiveness and its assumption of infallibility caused one critic (who is also a great scholar) to write: “With all due respect for our illustrious fellow-countryman, the utterance113 is a[14] most superlative absurdity114, unless it was intended to be an exercise of that playful and elusive115 American humor which the apperceptions of our English cousins so often fail to seize, much less appreciate.” But there were other remarks of similar looseness at the banquet, and the dinner evidently was a greater success than the books under discussion.
Even the English critics themselves could not accept the Britannica as a source for “the most comprehensive, thorough and absolutely precise statements on every subject of human interest.” Many legitimate116 objections began appearing. There is space here to quote only a few. The London Nation complains that “the particularly interesting history of the French Socialist117 movement is hardly even sketched118.” And again it says: “The naval119 question is handled on the basis of the assumption which prevailed during our recent scare; the challenge of our Dreadnought building is hardly mentioned; the menace of M. Delcassé’s policy of encirclement is ignored, and both in the article on Germany and in the articles on Europe, Mr. McKenna’s panic figures and charges of accelerated building are treated as the last word of historical fact.” The same publication, criticising the article on Europe, says: “There is nothing but a dry and summarized general[15] history, ending with a paragraph or two on the Anglo-German struggle with the moral that ‘Might is Right.’ It is history of Europe which denies the idea of Europe.”
Again, we find evidence of a more direct character, which competently refutes the amazing announcement of our voluble Ambassador to Great Britain. In a letter to the London Times, an indignant representative of Thomas Carlyle’s family objects to the inaccurate120 and biased manner in which Carlyle is treated in the Encyclop?dia. “The article,” he says, “was evidently written many years ago, before the comparatively recent publication of new and authentic121 material, and nothing has been done to bring it up to date.... As far as I know, none of the original errors have been corrected, and many others of a worse nature have been added. The list of authorities on Carlyle’s life affords evidence of ignorance or partisanship122.”
“Evidently,” comments a shrewd critic who is not impressed either by the Ambassador’s panegyric123 or the photographed letters, “the great man’s family, and the public in general, have a reasonable cause of offense124, and they may also conclude that if the Encyclop?dia Britannica can blunder when handling such an approachable and easy British subject as Carlyle, it can be reasonably[16] expected to do worse on other matters which are not only absolutely foreign, but intensely distasteful to the uninformed and prejudiced scribes to whom they seem to be so frequently, if not systematically125, assigned.”
The expectation embodied126 in the above comment is more fully realized perhaps than the writer of those words imagined; and the purpose of this book is to reveal the blundering and misleading information which would appear to be the distinguishing quality of the Britannica’s articles on culture. Moreover, as I have said, and as I shall show later, few subjects are as “intensely distasteful” to the “uninformed and prejudiced” British critics as is American achievement. One finds it difficult to understand how any body of foreigners would dare offer America the brazen127 insult which is implied in the prodigal128 distribution of these books throughout the country; for in their unconquerable arrogance129, their unveiled contempt for this nation—the outgrowth of generations of assumed superiority—they surpass even the London critical articles dealing with our contemporary literary efforts.
Several of our more courageous130 and pro-American scholars have called attention to the inadequacies and insularities in the Britannica, but their voices have not been sufficiently far-reaching[17] to counteract131 either the mass or the unsavory character of the advertising by which this unworthy and anti-American encyclop?dia was foisted133 upon the United States. Conspicuous134 among those publications which protested was the Twentieth Century Magazine. That periodical, to refer to but one of its several criticisms, pointed out that the article on Democracy is “confined to the alleged135 democracies of Greece and their distinguished136, if some time dead, advocates. Walt Whitman, Mazzini, Abraham Lincoln, Edward Carpenter, Lyof Tolstoi, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Iceland, Oregon are unknown quantities to this anonymous137 classicist.”
It is also noted138 that the author of the articles on Sociology “is not very familiar with the American sociologists, still less with the German, and not at all with the French.” The article is “a curious evidence of editorial insulation,” and the one on Economics “betrays freshened British capitalistic insularity139.” In this latter article, which was substituted for Professor Ingram’s masterly and superb history of political economy in the Britannica’s Ninth Edition, “instead of a catholic, scientific survey of economic thought, we have a ‘fair trade’ pamphlet, which actually includes reference to Mr. Chamberlain,” although[18] the names of Henry George, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, John A. Hobson, and William Smart are omitted.
The Eleventh Edition, concludes the Twentieth Century, after recording140 many other specimens141 of ignorance and inefficiency142, “is not only insular; it betrays its class-conscious limitation in being woefully defective143 in that prophetic instinct which guided Robertson Smith in his choice of contributors to the Ninth Edition, and the contributors themselves in their treatment of rapidly changing subjects.” Robertson Smith, let it be noted, stood for fairness, progressiveness, and modernity; whereas the Britannica’s present editor is inflexibly144 reactionary145, provincial71, and unjust to an almost incredible degree.
The foregoing quotations146 are not isolated147 objections: there were others of similar nature. And these few specimens are put down here merely to show that there appeared sufficient evidence, both in England and America, to establish the purely148 imaginary nature of the Britannica’s claims of completeness and inerrancy, and to reveal the absurdity of the American Ambassador’s amazing pronouncement. Had the sale of the Encyclop?dia Britannica been confined to that nation whose culture it so persistently149 and dogmatically glorifies at the expense of the culture[19] of other nations, its parochial egotism would not be America’s concern. But since this reference work has become an American institution and has forced its provincial mediocrity into over 100,000 American homes, schools and offices, the astonishing truth concerning its insulting ineptitude150 has become of vital importance to this country. Its menace to American educational progress can no longer be ignored.
England’s cultural campaign in the United States during past decades has been sufficiently insidious151 and pernicious to work havoc152 with our creative effort, and to retard us in the growth of that self-confidence and self-appreciation which alone make the highest achievement possible. But never before has there been so concentrated and virulently153 inimical a medium for British influence as the present edition of the Encyclop?dia Britannica. These books, taken in conjunction with the methods by which they have been foisted upon us, constitute one of the most subtle and malign154 dangers to our national enlightenment and development which it has yet been our misfortune to possess; for they bid fair to remain, in large measure, the source of America’s information for many years to come.
The regrettable part of England’s intellectual intrigues155 in the United States is the subservient[20] and docile156 acquiescence157 of Americans themselves. Either they are impervious158 to England’s sneers159 and deaf to her insults, or else their snobbery is stronger than their self-respect. I have learned from Britishers themselves, during an extended residence in London, that not a little of their contempt for Americans is due to our inordinate160 capacity for taking insults. Year after year English animus161 grows; and to-day it is the uncommon162 thing to find an English publication which, in discussing the United States and its culture, does not contain some affront163 to our intelligence.
It is quite true, as the English insist, that we are painfully ignorant of Europe; but it must not be forgotten that the chief source of that ignorance is England herself. And the Encyclop?dia Britannica, if accepted as authoritative, will go far toward emphasizing and extending that ignorance. Furthermore, it will lessen164 even the meagre esteem165 in which we now hold our own accomplishments and potentialities; for, as the following pages will show, the Britannica has persistently discriminated166 against all American endeavor, not only in the brevity of the articles and biographies relating to this country and in the omissions of many of our leading artists and scientists, but in the bibliographies167 as well. And[21] it must be remembered that broad and unprejudiced bibliographies are essential to any worthy132 encyclop?dia: they are the key to the entire tone of the work. The conspicuous absence of many high American authorities, and the inclusion of numerous reactionary and often dubious English authorities, sum up the Britannica’s attitude.
However, as I have said, America, if the principal, is not the only country discriminated against. France has fallen a victim to the Encyclop?dia’s suburban patriotism168, and scant169 justice is done her true greatness. Russia, perhaps even more than France, is culturally neglected; and modern Italy’s ?sthetic achievements are given slight consideration. Germany’s science and her older culture fare much better at the hands of the Britannica’s editors than do the efforts of several other nations; but Germany, too, suffers from neglect in the field of modern endeavor.
Even Ireland does not escape English prejudice. In fact, it can be only on grounds of national, political, and personal animosity that one can account for the grossly biased manner in which Ireland, her history and her culture, is dealt with. To take but one example, regard the Britannica’s treatment of what has come to be known as the Irish Literary Revival170. Among[22] those conspicuous, and in one or two instances world-renowned, figures who do not receive biographies are J. M. Synge, Lady Gregory, Lionel Johnson, Douglas Hyde, and William Larminie. (Although Lionel Johnson’s name appears in the article on English literature, it does not appear in the Index—a careless omission80 which, in victimizing an Irishman and not an Englishman, is perfectly171 in keeping with the deliberate omissions of the Britannica.)
Furthermore, there are many famous Irish writers whose names are not so much as mentioned in the entire Encyclop?dia—for instance, Standish O’Grady, James H. Cousins, John Todhunter, Katherine Tynan, T. W. Rolleston, Nora Hopper, Jane Barlow, Emily Lawless, “A. E.” (George W. Russell), John Eglinton, Charles Kickam, Dora Sigerson Shorter, Shan Bullock, and Seumas MacManus. Modern Irish literature is treated with a brevity and an injustice which are nothing short of contemptible172; and what little there is concerning the new Irish renaissance173 is scattered here and there in the articles on English literature! Elsewhere I have indicated other signs of petty anti-Irish bias33, especially in the niggardly174 and stupid treatment accorded George Moore.
Although such flagrant inadequacies in the case[23] of European art would form a sufficient basis for protest, the really serious grounds for our indignation are those which have to do with the Britannica’s neglect of America. That is why I have laid such emphasis on this phase of the Encyclop?dia. It is absolutely necessary that this country throw off the yoke175 of England’s intellectual despotism before it can have a free field for an individual and national cultural evolution. America has already accomplished176 much. She has contributed many great figures to the world’s progress. And she is teeming177 with tremendous and splendid possibilities. To-day she stands in need of no other nation’s paternal178 guidance. In view of her great powers, of her fine intellectual strength, of her wide imagination, of her already brilliant past, and of her boundless179 and exalted future, such a work as the Encyclop?dia Britannica should be resented by every American to whom the welfare of his country is of foremost concern, and in whom there exists one atom of national pride.
[24]
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
colonization
|
|
| 殖民地的开拓，殖民，殖民地化； 移殖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
ridicule
|
|
| v.讥讽，挖苦；n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
disparage
|
|
| v.贬抑，轻蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
insular
|
|
| adj.岛屿的，心胸狭窄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
judgments
|
|
| 判断( judgment的名词复数 )； 鉴定； 评价； 审判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
snobbery
|
|
| n. 充绅士气派, 俗不可耐的性格 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
deficient
|
|
| adj.不足的，不充份的，有缺陷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
linguists
|
|
| n.通晓数国语言的人( linguist的名词复数 )；语言学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
continental
|
|
| adj.大陆的，大陆性的，欧洲大陆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
disseminated
|
|
| 散布，传播( disseminate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
disseminate
|
|
| v.散布；传播 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
lingual
|
|
| adj.语言的；舌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
aspirations
|
|
| 强烈的愿望( aspiration的名词复数 )； 志向； 发送气音； 发 h 音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
edifice
|
|
| n.宏伟的建筑物(如宫殿，教室) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
disquieting
|
|
| adj.令人不安的，令人不平静的v.使不安，使忧虑，使烦恼( disquiet的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
jealousy
|
|
| n.妒忌，嫉妒，猜忌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
resentment
|
|
| n.怨愤，忿恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
condescending
|
|
| adj.谦逊的,故意屈尊的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
patronage
|
|
| n.赞助，支援，援助；光顾，捧场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
derided
|
|
| v.取笑，嘲笑( deride的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
ridiculed
|
|
| v.嘲笑，嘲弄，奚落( ridicule的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
disparagement
|
|
| n.轻视，轻蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
venom
|
|
| n.毒液，恶毒，痛恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
foisting
|
|
| 强迫接受，把…强加于( foist的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
demolishes
|
|
| v.摧毁( demolish的第三人称单数 )；推翻；拆毁（尤指大建筑物）；吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
glorifies
|
|
| 赞美( glorify的第三人称单数 )； 颂扬； 美化； 使光荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
biased
|
|
| a.有偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
bias
|
|
| n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
displeased
|
|
| a.不快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
accomplishments
|
|
| n.造诣；完成( accomplishment的名词复数 )；技能；成绩；成就 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
persistent
|
|
| adj.坚持不懈的，执意的；持续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
lavishly
|
|
| adv.慷慨地，大方地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
chauvinistic
|
|
| a.沙文主义(者)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
bourgeois
|
|
| adj./n.追求物质享受的(人)；中产阶级分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
stifled
|
|
| （使）窒息， （使）窒闷( stifle的过去式和过去分词 )； 镇压，遏制； 堵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
attainments
|
|
| 成就，造诣； 获得( attainment的名词复数 )； 达到； 造诣； 成就 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
depreciated
|
|
| v.贬值，跌价，减价( depreciate的过去式和过去分词 )；贬低，蔑视，轻视 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
traduced
|
|
| v.诋毁( traduce的过去式和过去分词 )；诽谤；违反；背叛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
prurient
|
|
| adj.好色的，淫乱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
anecdotes
|
|
| n.掌故，趣闻，轶事( anecdote的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
licentious
|
|
| adj.放纵的，淫乱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
decadent
|
|
| adj.颓废的，衰落的，堕落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
belittling
|
|
| 使显得微小，轻视，贬低( belittle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
gullible
|
|
| adj.易受骗的；轻信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
ridiculing
|
|
| v.嘲笑，嘲弄，奚落( ridicule的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
criteria
|
|
| n.标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
scramble
|
|
| v.爬行，攀爬，杂乱蔓延，碎片，片段，废料 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
wares
|
|
| n. 货物, 商品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
acumen
|
|
| n.敏锐，聪明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
unaware
|
|
| a.不知道的，未意识到的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
resetting
|
|
| v.重新安放或安置( reset的现在分词 )；重拨（测量仪器指针）；为（考试、测试等）出一套新题；重新安置，将…恢复原位 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
suburban
|
|
| adj.城郊的，在郊区的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
intonation
|
|
| n.语调，声调；发声 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
colossal
|
|
| adj.异常的，庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
flamboyant
|
|
| adj.火焰般的，华丽的，炫耀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
advertising
|
|
| n.广告业；广告活动 a.广告的；广告业务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
requisites
|
|
| n.必要的事物( requisite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
fraught
|
|
| adj.充满…的，伴有(危险等)的；忧虑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
omission
|
|
| n.省略，删节；遗漏或省略的事物，冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
omissions
|
|
| n.省略( omission的名词复数 )；删节；遗漏；略去或漏掉的事（或人） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
abound
|
|
| vi.大量存在；(in，with)充满，富于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
authoritative
|
|
| adj.有权威的，可相信的；命令式的；官方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
retard
|
|
| n.阻止，延迟；vt.妨碍，延迟，使减速 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
impartial
|
|
| adj.(in,to)公正的，无偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
eulogistic
|
|
| adj.颂扬的，颂词的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
glorified
|
|
| 美其名的，变荣耀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
fulfill
|
|
| vt.履行，实现，完成；满足，使满意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
dubious
|
|
| adj.怀疑的，无把握的；有问题的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
discrepancies
|
|
| n.差异，不符合（之处），不一致（之处）( discrepancy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
perusal
|
|
| n.细读，熟读；目测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
blatant
|
|
| adj.厚颜无耻的；显眼的；炫耀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
scholastic
|
|
| adj.学校的，学院的，学术上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
astounding
|
|
| adj.使人震惊的vt.使震惊，使大吃一惊astound的现在分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
fabulous
|
|
| adj.极好的；极为巨大的；寓言中的，传说中的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
ethics
|
|
| n.伦理学；伦理观，道德标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
concocted
|
|
| v.将（尤指通常不相配合的）成分混合成某物( concoct的过去式和过去分词 )；调制；编造；捏造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
unfamiliarity
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
inspection
|
|
| n.检查，审查，检阅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
mortified
|
|
| v.使受辱( mortify的过去式和过去分词 )；伤害（人的感情）；克制；抑制（肉体、情感等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
investigators
|
|
| n.调查者，审查者( investigator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
eulogy
|
|
| n.颂词；颂扬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
utterance
|
|
| n.用言语表达，话语，言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
elusive
|
|
| adj.难以表达(捉摸)的；令人困惑的；逃避的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
socialist
|
|
| n.社会主义者；adj.社会主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
sketched
|
|
| v.草拟（sketch的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
inaccurate
|
|
| adj.错误的，不正确的，不准确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
Partisanship
|
|
| n. 党派性, 党派偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
panegyric
|
|
| n.颂词，颂扬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
offense
|
|
| n.犯规，违法行为；冒犯，得罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
systematically
|
|
| adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
brazen
|
|
| adj.厚脸皮的，无耻的，坚硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
prodigal
|
|
| adj.浪费的，挥霍的，放荡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
arrogance
|
|
| n.傲慢，自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
courageous
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，有胆量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
counteract
|
|
| vt.对…起反作用，对抗，抵消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
foisted
|
|
| 强迫接受，把…强加于( foist的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
anonymous
|
|
| adj.无名的；匿名的；无特色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
insularity
|
|
| n.心胸狭窄；孤立；偏狭；岛国根性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
recording
|
|
| n.录音，记录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
specimens
|
|
| n.样品( specimen的名词复数 )；范例；（化验的）抽样；某种类型的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
inefficiency
|
|
| n.无效率，无能；无效率事例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
inflexibly
|
|
| adv.不屈曲地，不屈地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
reactionary
|
|
| n.反动者，反动主义者；adj.反动的，反动主义的，反对改革的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
persistently
|
|
| ad.坚持地；固执地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
ineptitude
|
|
| n.不适当；愚笨，愚昧的言行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
insidious
|
|
| adj.阴险的，隐匿的，暗中为害的，（疾病）不知不觉之间加剧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
havoc
|
|
| n.大破坏，浩劫，大混乱，大杂乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
virulently
|
|
| 恶毒地，狠毒地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
malign
|
|
| adj.有害的；恶性的；恶意的；v.诽谤，诬蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
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： |
|
|
|
|
156
docile
|
|
| adj.驯服的，易控制的，容易教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
acquiescence
|
|
| n.默许；顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
impervious
|
|
| adj.不能渗透的，不能穿过的，不易伤害的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
sneers
|
|
| 讥笑的表情（言语）( sneer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
inordinate
|
|
| adj.无节制的；过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
animus
|
|
| n.恶意；意图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
uncommon
|
|
| adj.罕见的，非凡的，不平常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
affront
|
|
| n./v.侮辱，触怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
lessen
|
|
| vt.减少，减轻；缩小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
discriminated
|
|
| 分别，辨别，区分( discriminate的过去式和过去分词 )； 歧视，有差别地对待 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
bibliographies
|
|
| （有关某一专题或某一作者的著作的）书目( bibliography的名词复数 )； 书志学，文献学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
scant
|
|
| adj.不充分的，不足的；v.减缩，限制，忽略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
revival
|
|
| n.复兴，复苏，（精力、活力等的）重振 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
renaissance
|
|
| n.复活，复兴，文艺复兴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
niggardly
|
|
| adj.吝啬的，很少的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
yoke
|
|
| n.轭；支配；v.给...上轭，连接，使成配偶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
teeming
|
|
| adj.丰富的v.充满( teem的现在分词 )；到处都是；（指水、雨等）暴降；倾注 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
paternal
|
|
| adj.父亲的，像父亲的，父系的，父方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
boundless
|
|
| adj.无限的；无边无际的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |