So consistently does British bourgeois5 prejudice and complacency characterize the material on painting contained in this Encyclop?dia, that any[86] attempt to get from it an ?sthetic point of view which would be judicious6 and universal, would fail utterly7. Certain French, German, and American artists of admitted importance are considered unworthy of space, or, if indeed deserving of mention, are unworthy of the amount of space, or the praise, which is conferred on a large number of lesser8 English painters. Both by implication and direct statement the editors have belittled9 the ?sthetic endeavor of foreign nations, and have exaggerated, to an almost unbelievable degree, the art of their own country. The manner in which the subject of painting is dealt with reveals the full-blown flower of British insularity11, and apotheosizes the narrow, aggressive culture of British middle-class respectability. In the world’s art from 1700 on, comparatively little merit is recognized beyond the English Channel.
The number of English painters whose biographies appear in the Britannica would, I believe, astonish even certain English art critics; and the large amount of space devoted12 to them—even to inconsequent and obscure academicians—when compared with the brief notices given to greater painters of other nations, leaves the un-British searcher with a feeling of bewilderment. But not only with the large number of English painters mentioned or even with the obviously[87] disproportionate amount of space devoted to them does the Encyclop?dia’s chauvinistic13 campaign for England’s ?sthetic supremacy14 cease. The criticisms which accompany these biographies are as a rule generously favorable; and, in many cases, the praise reaches a degree of extravagance which borders on the absurd.
Did this optimism of outlook, this hot desire to ferret out greatness where only mediocrity exists, this ambition to drag the obscure and inept15 into the glare of prominence16, extend to all painters, regardless of nationality, one might forgive the superlative eulogies17 heaped upon British art, and attribute them to that mellow18 spirit of sentimental19 tolerance20 which sees good in everything. But, alas21! such impartiality22 does not exist. It would seem that the moment the biographers of the Britannica put foot on foreign ground, their spirit of generosity23 deserts them. And if space is any indication of importance, it must be noted24 that English painters are, in the editors’ estimation, of considerably25 more importance than painters from abroad.
Of William Etty, to whom three-fourths of a page is devoted, we are told that “in feeling and skill as a colorist he has few equals.” The implication here that Etty, as a colorist, has never been surpassed scarcely needs refutation. It is[88] unfortunate, however, that Mr. Etty is not with us at present to read this exorbitant26 testimony27 to his greatness, for it would astonish him, no doubt, as much as it would those other few unnamed painters who are regarded as his equals in color sensibilité. J. S. Cotman, we discover, was “a remarkable28 painter both in oil and water-color.” This criticism is characteristic, for, even when there are no specific qualities to praise in an English painter’s work, we find this type of vague recommendation.
No points, though, it would seem, are overlooked. Regard the manner in which J. D. Harding’s questionable29 gifts are recorded. “Harding,” you will find, “was noted for facility, sureness of hand, nicety of touch, and the various qualities which go to make up an elegant, highly-trained and accomplished30 sketcher31 from nature, and composer of picturesque32 landscape material; he was particularly skillful in the treatment of foliage33.” Turning from Mr. Harding, the “elegant” and “accomplished” depicter34 of foliage, to Birket Foster, we find that his work “is memorable35 for its delicacy36 and minute finish, and for its daintiness and pleasantness of sentiment.” Dainty and pleasant sentiment is not without weight with the art critics of this encyclop?dia. In one form or[89] another it is mentioned very often in connection with British painters.
Landseer offers an excellent example of the middle-class attitude which the Britannica takes toward art. To judge from the page-and-a-half biography of this indifferent portraitist of animals one would imagine that Landseer was a great painter, for we are told that his Fighting Dogs Getting Wind is “perfectly drawn37, solidly and minutely finished, and carefully composed.” Of what possible educational value is an art article which would thus criticise38 a Landseer picture?
An English painter who, were we to accept the Encyclop?dia’s valuation, combines the qualities of several great painters is Charles Holroyd. “In all his work,” we learn, “Holroyd displays an impressive sincerity39, with a fine sense of composition, and of style, allied40 to independent and modern thinking.” Truly a giant! It would be difficult to recall any other painter in history “all” of whose work displayed a “fine sense of composition.” Not even could this be said of Michelangelo. But when it comes to composition, Arthur Melville apparently41 soars above his fellows. Besides, “several striking portraits in oil,” he did a picture called The Return From the Crucifixion,[90] which, so we are told, is a “powerful, colossal42 composition.” To have achieved only a “powerful” composition should have been a sufficiently43 remarkable feat44 for a painter of Mr. Melville’s standing3; for only of a very few masters in the world’s history can it be said that their compositions were both powerful and colossal. El Greco, Giotto, Giorgione, Veronese, Titian, Michelangelo and Rubens rarely soared to such heights.
But Melville, it appears, had a contemporary who, if anything, was greater than he—to-wit: W. Q. Orchardson, to whose glories nearly a page is devoted. “By the time he was twenty,” says his biographer, “Orchardson had mastered the essentials of his art.” In short, at twenty he had accomplished what few painters accomplished in a lifetime. A truly staggering feat! We are not therefore surprised to learn that “as a portrait painter Orchardson must be placed in the first class.” Does this not imply that he ranked with Titian, Velazquez, Rubens and Rembrandt? What sort of an idea of the relative values in art will the uninformed person get from such loose and ill-considered rhetoric45, especially when the critic goes on to say that Master Baby is “a masterpiece of design, color and broad execution”? There is much more eulogy46 of a similar careless variety, but enough has been quoted here to show[91] that the world must entirely47 revise its opinions of art if the Encyclop?dia Britannica’s statements are to be accepted.
Even the pictures of Paul Wilson Steer48 are criticised favorably: “His figure subjects and landscapes show great originality49 and technical skill.” And John Pettie was “in his best days a colorist of a high order and a brilliant executant.” George Reid, the Scottish artist, is accorded over half a column with detailed50 criticism and praise. Frederick Walker is given no less than an entire column which ends with a paragraph of fulsome51 eulogy. Even E. A. Waterlow painted landscapes which were “admirable” and “handled with grace and distinction”—more gaudy52 generalizations53. When the Encyclop?dia’s critics can find no specific point to praise in the work of their countrymen, grace, distinction, elegance54 and sentiment are turned into ?sthetic virtues55.
Turning to Hogarth, we find no less than three and one-half pages devoted to him, more space than is given to Rubens’s biography, and three times the space accorded Veronese! It was once thought that Hogarth was only an “ingenious humorist,” but “time has reversed that unjust sentence.” We then read that Hogarth’s composition leaves “little or nothing to be desired.” If such were the case, he would unquestionably[92] rank with Rubens, Michelangelo and Titian; for, if indeed his composition leaves little or nothing to be desired, he is as great as, or even greater than, the masters of all time. But even with this eulogy the Encyclop?dia’s critic does not rest content. As a humorist and a satirist57 upon canvas, “he has never been equalled.” If we regard Hogarth as an “author” rather than artist, “his place is with the great masters of literature—with the Thackerays and Fieldings, the Cervantes and Molières.” (Note that of these four “great masters” two are English.)
Mastery in one form or another, if the Britannica is to be believed, was common among English painters. The pictures of Richard Wilson are “skilled and learned compositions ... the work of a painter who was thoroughly58 master of his materials.” In this latter respect Mr. Wilson perhaps stands alone among the painters of the world; and yet, through some conspiracy59 of silence no doubt, the leading critics of other nations rarely mention him when speaking of those artists who thoroughly mastered their materials. In regard to Raeburn, the Encyclop?dia is less fulsome, despite the fact that over a page is allotted60 him. We are distinctly given to understand that he had his faults. Velazquez, however, constantly reminded Wilkie of Raeburn; yet, after all, Raeburn was[93] not quite so great as Velazquez. This is frankly61 admitted.
It was left to Reynolds to equal if not to surpass Velazquez as well as Rubens and Rembrandt. In a two-page glorification62 of this English painter we come upon the following panegyric63: “There can be no question of placing him by the side of the greatest Venetians or of the triumvirate of the seventeenth century, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velazquez.” If by placing him beside these giants is meant that he in any wise approached their stature64, there can be, and has been, outside of England, a very great question of putting him in such company. In fact, his right to such a place has been very definitely denied him. But the unprejudiced opinion of the world matters not to the patriots65 who edited the Encyclop?dia Britannica. That “supreme66” English reference work goes on to say that in portraits, such as Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic67 Muse68, Reynolds “holds the field.... No portrait painter has been more happy in his poses for single figures.” Then, as if such enthusiasm were not enough, we are told that “nature had singled out Sir Joshua to endow him with certain gifts in which he has hardly an equal.”
Nature, it seems, in her singling out process, was particularly partial to Englishmen, for among those other painters who just barely equalled[94] Reynolds’s transcendent genius was Gainsborough. Says the Britannica: “Gainsborough and Reynolds rank side by side.... It is difficult to say which stands the higher of the two.” Consequently hereafter we must place Gainsborough, too, along with Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt and Velazquez! Such a complete revision of ?sthetic judgment69 will, no doubt, be difficult at first, but, by living with the Encyclop?dia Britannica and absorbing its British culture, we may in time be able to bracket Michelangelo, Reynolds, Rubens, Gainsborough, Rembrandt, Hogarth and Velazquez without the slightest hesitation70.
It is difficult to conceive how, in an encyclop?dia with lofty educational pretences71, extravagance of statement could attain72 so high a point as that reached in the biographies of Reynolds and Gainsborough. So obviously indefensible are these valuations that I would hesitate to accuse the Britannica’s editors of deliberate falsification—that is, of purposely distorting ?sthetic values for the benefit of English artists. Their total lack of discretion73 indicates an honest, if blind, belief in British ?sthetic supremacy. But this fact does not lessen74 the danger of such judgments75 to the American public. As a nation we are ignorant of painting and therefore are apt to accept[95] statements of this kind which have the impact of seeming authority behind them.
The same insular10 and extravagant76 point of view is discoverable in the article on Turner. To this painter nearly five pages are devoted—a space out of all proportion to the biographies of the other painters of the world. Titian has only three and one-half pages; Rubens has only a little over three pages; and El Greco has less than two-thirds of a page! Of course, it is not altogether fair to base a judgment on space alone; but such startling discrepancies77 are the rule and not the exception.
In the case of Turner the discrepancy78 is not only of space, however. In diction, as well, all relative values are thrown to the winds. In the criticism of Turner we find English patriotism79 at its high-water mark. We read that “the range of his powers was so vast that he covered the whole field of nature and united in his own person the classical and naturalistic schools.” Even this palpable overstatement could be forgiven, since it has a basis of truth, if a little further we did not discover that Turner’s Crossing the Brook80 in the London National Academy is “probably the most perfect landscape in the world.” In this final and irrevocable judgment is manifest the supreme insular egotism which characterizes nearly all the art articles in the Encyclop?dia Britannica. This[96] criticism, to take merely one example, means that Crossing the Brook is more perfect than Rubens’s Landscape with Chateau81 de Stein! But the Encyclop?dia’s summary of Turner’s genius surpasses in flamboyant82 chauvinism anything which I have yet seen in print. It is said that, despite any exception we may take to his pictures, “there will still remain a body of work which for extent, variety, truth and artistic83 taste is like the British fleet among the navies of the world.” Here patriotic84 fervor85 has entirely swallowed all restraint.
Over a page is devoted to Constable86, in which we are informed that his “vivid tones and fresh color are grafted87 upon the formul? of Claude and Rubens.” This type of criticism is not rare. One frequently finds second-rate English artists compared not unfavorably with the great artists of other nations; and it would seem that the English painters add a little touch of their own, the imputation88 being that they not seldom improve upon their models. Thus Constable adds “vivid tones and fresh colors” to Rubens’s formula. Another instance of this kind is to be found in the case of Alfred Stevens, the British sculptor89, not the Belgian painter. (The latter, by the way, though more important and better-known, receives less space than the Englishman.) The vigorous[97] strength of his groups “recalls the style of Michelangelo, but Stevens’s work throughout is original and has a character of its own.” I do not deny that Stevens imitated Michelangelo, but, where English artists are concerned, these relationships are indicated in deceptive90 phraseology. In the case of French artists, whose biographies are sometimes written by unbiased critics, the truth is not hidden in dictional suavities. Imitation is not made a virtue56.
Let us now turn to Watts91. Over two pages are accorded him, one page being devoted largely to eulogy, a passage of which reads: “It was the rare combination of supreme handicraft with a great imaginative intellect which secured to Watts his undisputed place in the public estimation of his day.” Furthermore, we hear of “the grandeur92 and dignity of his style, the ease and purposefulness of his brushwork, the richness and harmoniousness93 of his coloring.” But those “to whom his exceptional artistic attainment94 is a sealed book have gathered courage or consolation95 from the grave moral purpose and deep human sympathy of his teaching.” Here we have a perfect example of the parochial moral uplift which permeates96 the Britannica’s art criticism. The great Presbyterian complex is found constantly in the judgments of this encyclop?dia.
[98]
So important a consideration to the Britannica’s critico-moralists is this puritan motif97 that the fact is actually set down that Millais was devoted to his family! One wonders how much influence this domestic devotion had on the critic who spends a page and a half to tell us of Millais, for not only is this space far in excess of Millais’ importance, but the statement is made that he was “one of the greatest painters of his time,” and that “he could paint what he saw with a force which has seldom been excelled.” Unfortunately the few who excelled him are not mentioned. Perhaps he stood second only to Turner, that super-dreadnought. Surely he was not excelled by Renoir, or Courbet, or Pissarro, or Monet, or Manet, or Cézanne; for these latter are given very little space (the greatest of them having no biography whatever in the Encyclop?dia!); and there is no evidence to show that they are considered of more than minor98 importance.
Perhaps it was Rossetti, a fellow Pre-Raphaelite, who excelled Millais in painting what he saw. Rossetti’s The Song of Solomon, as regards brilliance99, finish and the splendor100 of its lighting101, “occupies a great place in the highest grade of modern art of all the world.” Even Holman Hunt, one of the lesser Pre-Raphaelites, is given[99] over a full page, and is spoken of in glowing terms. “Perhaps no painter of the nineteenth century,” we read, “produced so great an impression by a few pictures” as did Hunt; and during the course of the eulogy the critic speaks of Hunt’s “greatness.” Can it be that the na?f gentleman who wrote Hunt’s biography has never heard of Courbet, or Manet, or of the Impressionists, or Cézanne? After so sweeping102 and unreasoned a statement as the one concerning the great impression made by Hunt’s pictures, such an extreme conclusion is almost inevitable. Or is this critic’s patriotic vanity such that he considers an impression made in England as representative of the world? Even to intimate that the impression made by Hunt’s pictures was comparable to that made by L’Enterrement à Ornans or Le Déjeuner sur l’Herbe, or that the Pre-Raphaelites possessed103 even half the importance of Courbet and Manet, is to carry undeserved laudation to preposterous104 lengths.
Here as elsewhere, superlatives are used in such a way in describing unimportant English painters that no adequate adjectives are left for the truly great men of other nationality. It would be difficult to find a better example of undeserving eulogy as applied105 to an inconsequent British painter than that furnished by Brangwyn, whose[100] compositions, we are astonished to learn, have “a nobly impressive and universal character.” Such a statement might justly sum up the greatness of a Michelangelo statue; but here it is attached to the works of a man who at best is no more than a capable and clever illustrator.
The foregoing examples by no means include all the instances of how English painters, as a result of the liberal space allotted them and the lavish106 encomiums heaped upon them by the Encyclop?dia Britannica’s editors, are unduly107 expanded into great and important figures. A score of other names could be mentioned. From beginning to end, English art is emphasized and lauded108 until it is out of all proportion to the rest of the world.
Turn to the article on Painting and look at the sub-title, “Recent Schools.” Under “British” you will find twelve columns, with inset headings. Under “French” you will find only seven columns, without insets. Practically all the advances made in modern art have come out of France; and practically all important modern painters have been Frenchmen. England has contributed little or nothing to modern painting. And yet, recent British schools are given nearly twice the space that is devoted to recent French schools! Again regard the article, Sculpture.[101] Even a greater and more astonishing disproportionment exists here. Modern British sculpture is given no less than thirteen and a half columns, while modern French sculpture, of vastly greater ?sthetic importance, is given only seven and a half columns!
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
biased
|
|
| a.有偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
bourgeois
|
|
| adj./n.追求物质享受的(人)；中产阶级分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
lesser
|
|
| adj.次要的，较小的；adv.较小地，较少地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
belittled
|
|
| 使显得微小，轻视，贬低( belittle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
insular
|
|
| adj.岛屿的，心胸狭窄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
insularity
|
|
| n.心胸狭窄；孤立；偏狭；岛国根性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
chauvinistic
|
|
| a.沙文主义(者)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
inept
|
|
| adj.不恰当的，荒谬的，拙劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
prominence
|
|
| n.突出；显著；杰出；重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
eulogies
|
|
| n.颂词，颂文( eulogy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
mellow
|
|
| adj.柔和的；熟透的；v.变柔和；(使)成熟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
sentimental
|
|
| adj.多愁善感的，感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
tolerance
|
|
| n.宽容；容忍，忍受；耐药力；公差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
impartiality
|
|
| n. 公平, 无私, 不偏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
exorbitant
|
|
| adj.过分的；过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
questionable
|
|
| adj.可疑的，有问题的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
sketcher
|
|
| n.画略图者，作素描者，舞台布景设计者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
picturesque
|
|
| adj.美丽如画的，（语言）生动的，绘声绘色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
foliage
|
|
| n.叶子，树叶，簇叶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
depicter
|
|
| 描绘者，描写者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
35
memorable
|
|
| adj.值得回忆的，难忘的，特别的，显著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
delicacy
|
|
| n.精致，细微，微妙，精良；美味，佳肴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
sincerity
|
|
| n.真诚，诚意；真实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
colossal
|
|
| adj.异常的，庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
feat
|
|
| n.功绩；武艺，技艺；adj.灵巧的，漂亮的，合适的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
rhetoric
|
|
| n.修辞学，浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
eulogy
|
|
| n.颂词；颂扬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
steer
|
|
| vt.驾驶，为…操舵；引导；vi.驾驶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
originality
|
|
| n.创造力，独创性；新颖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
fulsome
|
|
| adj.可恶的，虚伪的，过分恭维的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
gaudy
|
|
| adj.华而不实的；俗丽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
generalizations
|
|
| 一般化( generalization的名词复数 )； 普通化； 归纳； 概论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
elegance
|
|
| n.优雅；优美，雅致；精致，巧妙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
satirist
|
|
| n.讽刺诗作者，讽刺家，爱挖苦别人的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
allotted
|
|
| 分配，拨给，摊派( allot的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
glorification
|
|
| n.赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
panegyric
|
|
| n.颂词，颂扬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
stature
|
|
| n.（高度）水平，（高度）境界，身高，身材 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
patriots
|
|
| 爱国者，爱国主义者( patriot的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
tragic
|
|
| adj.悲剧的，悲剧性的，悲惨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
muse
|
|
| n.缪斯（希腊神话中的女神），创作灵感 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
pretences
|
|
| n.假装( pretence的名词复数 )；作假；自命；自称 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
lessen
|
|
| vt.减少，减轻；缩小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
judgments
|
|
| 判断( judgment的名词复数 )； 鉴定； 评价； 审判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
discrepancies
|
|
| n.差异，不符合（之处），不一致（之处）( discrepancy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
discrepancy
|
|
| n.不同；不符；差异；矛盾 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
brook
|
|
| n.小河，溪；v.忍受，容让 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
chateau
|
|
| n.城堡，别墅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
flamboyant
|
|
| adj.火焰般的，华丽的，炫耀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
artistic
|
|
| adj.艺术(家)的，美术(家)的；善于艺术创作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
fervor
|
|
| n.热诚；热心；炽热 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
constable
|
|
| n.(英国)警察，警官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
grafted
|
|
| 移植( graft的过去式和过去分词 )； 嫁接； 使（思想、制度等）成为（…的一部份）； 植根 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
imputation
|
|
| n.归罪，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
sculptor
|
|
| n.雕刻家，雕刻家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
deceptive
|
|
| adj.骗人的，造成假象的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
watts
|
|
| （电力计量单位）瓦，瓦特( watt的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
grandeur
|
|
| n.伟大，崇高，宏伟，庄严，豪华 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
harmoniousness
|
|
| 和谐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
attainment
|
|
| n.达到，到达；［常pl.］成就，造诣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
consolation
|
|
| n.安慰，慰问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
permeates
|
|
| 弥漫( permeate的第三人称单数 )； 遍布； 渗入； 渗透 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
motif
|
|
| n.(图案的)基本花纹，(衣服的)花边；主题 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
brilliance
|
|
| n.光辉，辉煌，壮丽，（卓越的）才华，才智 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
splendor
|
|
| n.光彩；壮丽，华丽；显赫，辉煌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
lighting
|
|
| n.照明，光线的明暗，舞台灯光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
sweeping
|
|
| adj.范围广大的，一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
preposterous
|
|
| adj.荒谬的，可笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
lavish
|
|
| adj.无节制的；浪费的；vt.慷慨地给予，挥霍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
unduly
|
|
| adv.过度地，不适当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
lauded
|
|
| v.称赞，赞美( laud的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |