Not only patriotic6 prejudice, but evangelical prejudice as well, characterizes this encyclop?dia’s treatment of the world’s great achievements;[196] and nowhere does this latter bias1 exhibit itself more unmistakably than in the articles relating to Catholicism. The trickery, the manifest ignorance, the contemptuous arrogance7, the inaccuracies, the venom8, and the half-truths which are encountered in the discussion of the Catholic Church and its history almost pass the bounds of credibility. The wanton prejudice exhibited in this department of the Britannica cannot fail to find resentment9 even in non-Catholics, like myself; and for scholars, either in or out of the Church, this encyclop?dia, as a source of information, is not only worthless but grossly misleading.
The true facts relating to the inclusion of this encyclop?dia’s article on Catholicism, as showing the arrogant10 and unscholarly attitude of the editors, are as interesting to those outside of the Church as to Catholics themselves. And it is for the reason that these articles are typical of a great many of the Encyclop?dia’s discussions of culture in general that I call attention both to the misinformation contained in them and to the amazing refusal of the Britannica’s editors to correct the errors when called to their attention at a time when correction was possible. The treatment of the Catholic Church by the Britannica is quite in keeping with its treatment of other important[197] subjects, and it emphasizes, perhaps better than any other topic, not only the Encyclop?dia’s petty bias and incompleteness, but the indefensible and mendacious11 advertising12 by which this set of books was foisted13 upon the American public. And it also gives direct and irrefutable substantiation14 to my accusation15 that the spirit of the Encyclop?dia Britannica is closely allied16 to the provincial17 religious doctrines18 of the British bourgeoisie; and that therefore it is a work of the most questionable19 value.
Over five years ago T. J. Campbell, S. J., in The Catholic Mind, wrote an article entitled The Truth About the Encyclop?dia Britannica—an article which, from the standpoint of an authority, exposed the utter unreliability of this Encyclop?dia’s discussion of Catholicism. The article is too long to quote here, but enough of it will be given to reveal the inadequacy22 of the Britannica as a source of accurate information. “The Encyclop?dia Britannica,” the article begins, “has taken an unfair advantage of the public. By issuing all its volumes simultaneously23 it prevented any protests against misstatements until the whole harm was done. Henceforth prudent24 people will be less eager to put faith in prospectuses25 and promises. The volumes were delivered in two installments26 a couple of[198] months apart. The article Catholic Church, in which the animus27 of the Encyclop?dia might have been detected, should naturally have been in the first set. It was adroitly28 relegated29 to the end of the second set, under the caption30 Roman Catholic Church.
“It had been intimated to us that the Encyclop?dia’s account of the Jesuits was particularly offensive. That is our excuse for considering it first. Turning to it we found that the same old battered31 scarecrow had been set up. The article covers ten and a half large, double-columned, closely-printed pages, and requires more than an hour in its perusal32. After reading it two or three times we closed the book with amazement33, not at the calumnies34 with which the article teems35 and to which custom has made us callous36, but at the lack of good judgment37, of accurate scholarship, of common information, and business tact38 which it reveals in those who are responsible for its publication.
“It ought to be supposed that the subscribers to this costly39 encyclop?dia had a right to expect in the discussion of all the questions presented an absolute or quasi-absolute freedom from partisan40 bias, a sincere and genuine presentation of all the results of the most modern research, a positive exclusion41 of all second-hand42 and discredited43 matter,[199] and a scrupulous44 adherence45 to historical truth. In the article in question all these essential conditions are woefully lacking.
“Encyclop?dias of any pretence46 take especial pride in the perfection and completeness of their bibliographies47. It is a stamp of scholarship and a guarantee of the thoroughness and reliability20 of the article, which is supposed to be an extract and a digest of all that has been said or written on the subject. The bibliography48 annexed49 to the article on the Jesuits, is not only deplorably meagre, but hopelessly antiquated50. Thus, for instance, only three works of the present century are quoted; one of them apparently51 for no reason whatever, viz.: The History of the Jesuits of North America, in three volumes, by Thomas Hughes, S. J., for, as far as we are able to see, the Encyclop?dia article makes no mention of their being with Lord Baltimore in Maryland, or of the preceding troubles of the Jesuits in England, which were considered important enough for a monumental work, but evidently not for a compiler of the Encyclop?dia. Again, the nine words, ‘laboring amongst the Hurons and Iroquois of North America,’ form the sum total of all the information vouchsafed53 us about the great missions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, though we are referred to the seventy-three[200] volumes of Thwaites’ edition of the Jesuits Relations. Had the author or editor even glanced at these books he might have seen that besides the Huron and Iroquois missions, which were very brief in point of time and very restricted in their territorial54 limitations, the Jesuit missions with the Algonquins extended from Newfoundland to Alaska, and are still continued; he would have found that most of the ethnological, religious, linguistic55 and geographical56 knowledge we have of aboriginal57 North America comes from those Jesuit Relations; and possibly without much research the sluggish58 reader would have met with a certain inconspicuous Marquette; but as Englishmen, up to the Civil War, are said to have imagined that the Mississippi was the dividing line between the North and South, the value of the epoch-making discovery of the great river never entered this slow foreigner’s mind. Nor is there any reference to the gigantic labors59 of the Jesuits in Mexico; but perhaps Mexico is not considered to be in North America.
“Nor is there in this bibliography any mention of the Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu, nor of the Monumenta P?dagogica, nor is there any allusion60 to the great and learned works of Duhr, Tacchi-Venturi, Fouqueray, and Kroes, which have just been published and are mines of information[201] on the history of the Society in Spain, Germany, Italy and France; and although we are told of the Historia Societatis Jesu by Orlandini, which bears the very remote imprint61 of 1620, is very difficult to obtain, and covers a very restricted period, there is apparently no knowledge of the classic work of Jouvency, nor is Sacchini cited, nor Polanco. The Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus, by De Backer, not ‘Backer,’ as the Encyclop?dia has it, is listed; but it is simply shocking to find that there was no knowledge of Sommervogel, who is the continuator of De Backer, and who has left us a most scholarly and splendid work which is brought down to our own times, and for which De Backer’s, notable though it be, was only a preparation. In brief, the bibliography is absolutely worthless, not only for a scholar, but even for the average reader.
“On the other hand it is quite in keeping with the character of the writers who were chosen for the article. The New York Evening Post informs us that before 1880, when a search for a suitable scribe for the Jesuit article was instituted, some one started on a hunt for Cardinal62 Newman, but the great man had no time. Then he thought of Manning, who, of course, declined, and finally knowing no other ‘Jesuit’ he gave the work to[202] Littledale. Littledale, as everyone knows, was an Anglican minister, notorious not only for his antagonism63 to the Jesuits, but also to the Catholic Church. He gladly addressed himself to the task, and forthwith informed the world that ‘the Jesuits controlled the policy of Spain’; that ‘it was a matter of common knowledge that they kindled64 the Franco-Prussian war of 1870’; that ‘Pope Julius II dispensed65 the Father General from his vow67 of poverty,’ though that warrior68 Pope expired eight years before Ignatius sought the solitude69 of Manresa, and had as yet no idea of a Society of Jesus; again, that ‘the Jesuits from the beginning never obeyed the Pope’; that ‘in their moral teaching they can attenuate70 and even defend any kind of sin’; and, finally, not to be too prolix71 in this list of absurdities72, that, prior to the Vatican Council, ‘they had filled up all the sees of Latin Christendom with bishops73 of their own selection.’
“It is true that only the last mentioned charge appears in the present edition, and it is a fortunate concession74 for Littledale’s suffering victims; for if ‘there are no great intellects among the Jesuits,’ and if they are only a set of ‘respectable mediocrities,’ as this ‘revised’ article tells us, they can point with pride to this feat75 which makes a dozen Franco-Prussian wars pale into insignificance[203] alongside it. We doubt, however, if the 700 prelates who sat in the Vatican Council would accept that explanation of their promotion76 in the prelacy; and we feel certain that Cardinal Manning, who was one of the great figures in that assembly, would resent it, at least if it be true, as the Encyclop?dia assures us, that he considered the suppression of the Society in 1773 to be the work of God, and was sure that another 1773 was coming.
“The wonder is that a writer who can be guilty of such absurdities should, after twenty years, be summoned from the dead as a witness to anything at all. But on the other hand it is not surprising when we see that the Rev21. Ethelred Taunton, who is also dead and buried, should be made his yoke-fellow in ploughing over this old field, to sow again these poisonous weeds. There are many post-mortems in the Encyclop?dia. Had the careless editors of the Encyclop?dia consulted Usher’s Reconstruction77 of the English Church, they would have found Taunton described as an author ‘who makes considerable parade of the amount of his research, but has not gone very far and has added little, if anything, to what we knew before. As a whole, his book on The History of the Jesuits in England is uncritical and prejudiced.’
[204]
“Such is the authority the Encyclop?dia appeals to for information. That is bad enough, but in the list of authors Taunton is actually described as a ‘Jesuit.’ Possibly it is one of the punishments the Almighty78 has meted79 out to him for his misuse80 of the pen while on earth. But he never did half the harm to the Jesuits by his ill-natured assaults as he has to the Encyclop?dia in being mistaken for an ‘S. J.’; for although there are some people who will believe anything an encyclop?dia tells them, there are others who are not so meek81 and who will be moved to inquire how, if the editor of this publication is so lamentably82 ignorant of the personality and antecedents of his contributors, he can vouch52 for the reliability of what newspaper men very properly call the stuff that comes into the office. We are not told who revised the writings of those two dead men, one of whom departed this life twenty, the other four years ago; and we have to be satisfied with a posthumous83 and prejudiced and partly anonymous84 account of a great Order, about which many important books have been written since the demise85 of the original calumniators, and with which apparently the unknown reviser is unacquainted.
“It may interest the public to know that many of these errors were pointed86 out to the managers[205] of the Encyclop?dia at their New York office when the matter was still in page proof and could have been corrected. Evidently it was not thought worth while to pay any attention to the protest.
“It is true that in the minds of some of their enemies, especially in certain parts of the habitable globe, Catholics have no right to resent anything that is said of their practices and beliefs, no matter how false or grotesque87 such statements may be; and, consequently, we are not surprised at the assumption by the Encyclop?dia Britannica of its usual contemptuous attitude. Thus, for instance, on turning to the articles Casuistry and Roman Catholic Church we find them signed ‘St. C.’ Naturally and supernaturally to be under the guidance of a Saint C. or a Saint D. always inspires confidence in a Catholic; but this ‘St. C.’ turns out to be only the Viscount St. Cyres, a scion88 of the noble house of Sir Stafford Northcote, the one time leader of the House of Commons, who died in 1887. In the Viscount’s ancestral tree we notice that Sir Henry Stafford Northcote, first Baronet, has appended to his name the title ‘Prov. Master of Devonshire Freemasons.’ What ‘Prov.’ means we do not know, but we are satisfied with the remaining part of the description. The Viscount was educated at[206] Eton, and Merton College, Oxford89. He is a layman90 and a clubman, and as far as we know is not suspected of being a Catholic. A search in the ‘Who’s Who?’ failed to reveal anything on that point, though a glance at the articles over his name will dispense66 us from any worry about his religious status.
“We naturally ask why he should have been chosen to enlighten the world on Catholic topics? ‘Because,’ says the editor of the Encyclop?dia Britannica, ‘the Viscount St. Cyres has probably more knowledge of the development of theology in the Roman Catholic Church than any other person in that Church.’
“The Church was unaware91 that it had at its disposal such a source of information. It will be news to many, but we are inclined to ask how the Viscount acquired that marvelous knowledge. It would require a life-long absorption in the study of divinity quite incompatible92 with the social duties of one of his station. Furthermore, we should like to know whence comes the competency of the editor to decide on the ability of the Viscount, and to pass judgment on the correctness of his contribution? That also supposes an adequate knowledge of all that the dogmatic, moral and mystic theologians ever wrote, a life-long training in the language and methods of the[207] science, and a special intellectual aptitude93 to comprehend the sublime94 speculations95 of the Church’s divines.
“It will not be unkind to deny him such qualifications, especially now, for did he not tell his friends at the London banquet: ‘During all these (seven) years I have been busy in the blacksmith’s shop (of the editor’s room) and I do not hear the noise that is made by the hammers all around me’—nor, it might be added, does he hear what is going on outside the Britannica’s forge.
“Meantime, we bespeak96 the attention of all the Catholic theologians in every part of the world to the preposterous97 invitation to come to hear the last word about ‘the development of theology’ in the Catholic Church from a scholar whose claim to theological distinction is that ‘he has written about Fénélon and Pascal.’ The Britannica shows scant98 respect to Catholic scholarship and Catholic intelligence.”
Father Campbell then devotes several pages to a specific indictment99 of the misstatements and the glaring errors to be found in several of the articles relating to the Catholic Church. He quotes eight instances of St. Cyres’ inaccurate100 and personal accusations101, and also many passages from the articles on Papacy, Celibacy102 and St. Catherine of Siena—passages which show the low and biased[208] standard of scholarship by which they were written. The injustice103 contained in them is obvious even to a superficial student of history. At the close of these quotations104 he accuses the Britannica of being neither up-to-date, fair, nor well-informed. “It repeats old calumnies that have been a thousand times refuted, and it persistently105 selects the Church’s enemies who hold her up to ridicule106 and contempt. We are sorry for those who have been lavish107 in their praises of a book which is so defective108, so prejudiced, so misleading and so insulting.”
It seems that while the Britannica’s contributions to the general misinformation of the world were being discussed, the editor wrote to one of his subscribers saying that the Catholics were very much vexed109 because the article on the Jesuits was not “sufficiently110 eulogistic111.”
“He is evidently unaware,” Father Campbell goes on to comment, “that the Society of Jesus is sufficiently known both in the Church and the world not to need a monument in the graveyard112 of the Encyclop?dia Britannica. Not the humblest Brother in the Order expected anything but calumny113 and abuse when he saw appended to the article the initials of the well-known assassins of the Society’s reputation. Not one was surprised, much less displeased114, at the absence of[209] eulogy115, sufficient or otherwise; but, on the contrary, they were all amazed to find the loudly trumpeted116 commercial enterprise, which had been so persistently clamorous117 of its possession of the most recent results of research in every department of learning, endeavoring to palm off on the public such shopworn travesties118 of historical and religious truth. The editor is mistaken if he thinks they pouted119. Old and scarred veterans are averse120 to being patted on the back by their enemies.
“It is not, however, the ill-judged gibe121 that compels us to revert122 to the Society, as much as the suspicion that the editor of the Encyclop?dia Britannica seems to fancy that we had nothing to say beyond calling attention to his dilapidated bibliography, which he labels with the very offensive title of ‘the bibliography of Jesuitism’—a term which is as incorrect as it is insulting—or that we merely objected to the employment of two dead and discredited witnesses to tell the world what kind of an organization the Society is.
“It may be, moreover, that we misjudged a certain portion of the reading public in treating the subject so lightly, and as the Encyclop?dia is continually reiterating124 the assertion that it has no ‘bias’ and that its statement of facts is purely125 ‘objective,’ a few concrete examples of the opposite[210] kind of treatment—the one commonly employed—may not be out of place.
“We are told, for instance, that ‘the Jesuits had their share, direct or indirect, in the embroiling126 of States, in concocting127 conspiracies128 and in kindling129 wars. They were responsible by their theoretical teachings in theological schools for not a few assassinations’ (340). ‘They powerfully aided the revolution which placed the Duke of Braganza on the throne of Portugal, and their services were rewarded with the practical control of ecclesiastical and almost civil affairs in that kingdom for nearly one hundred years’ (344). ‘Their war against the Jansenists did not cease till the very walls of Port Royal were demolished130 in 1710, even to the very abbey church itself, and the bodies of the dead taken with every mark of insult from their graves and literally131 flung to the dogs to devour’ (345). ‘In Japan the Jesuits died with their converts bravely as martyrs132 to the Faith, yet it is impossible to acquit133 them of a large share of the causes of that overthrow’ (345). ‘It was about the same time that the grave scandal of the Chinese and Malabar rites134 began to attract attention in Europe and to make thinking men ask seriously whether the Jesuit missionaries135 in those parts taught anything which could fairly be called Christianity at all’[211] (348). ‘The political schemings of Parsons in England was an object lesson to the rest of Europe of a restless ambition and a lust137 of domination which were to find many imitators’ (348). ‘The General of the Order drove away six thousand exiled Jesuit priests from the coast of Italy, and made them pass several months of suffering on crowded vessels138 at sea to increase public sympathy, but the actual result was blame for the cruelty with which he had enhanced their misfortunes’ (346). ‘Clement XIV, who suppressed them, is said to have died of poison, but Tanucci and two others entirely acquit the Jesuits.’ ‘They are accountable in no small degree in France, as in England, for alienating139 the minds of men from the religion for which they professed140 to work’ (345).
“Very little of this can be characterized as ‘eulogistic,’ especially as interwoven in the story are malignant141 insinuations, incomplete and distorted statements, suppressions of truth, gross errors of fact, and a continual injection of personal venom which makes the argument not an ‘unbiased and objective presentment’ of the case, but the plea of a prejudiced prosecuting142 and persecuting143 attorney endeavoring by false testimony144 to convict before the bar of public opinion an alleged145 culprit, whose destruction he is trying[212] to accomplish with an uncanny sort of delight.”
After having adduced a long list of instances which “reveal the rancor146 and ignorance of many of the writers hired by the Encyclop?dia,” the article then points out “the fundamental untruthfulness” on which the Britannica is built. In a letter written by the Encyclop?dia’s editor appears the following specious147 explanation: “Extreme care was taken by the editors, and especially by the editor responsible for the theological side of the work, that every subject, either directly or indirectly148 concerned with religion, should as far as possible be objective and not subjective149 in their presentation. The majority of the articles on the various Churches and their beliefs were written by members within the several communions, and, if not so written, were submitted to those most competent to judge, for criticism and, if need be, correction.”
Father Campbell in his answer to this letter says: “Without animadverting on the peculiar150 use of the English language by the learned English editor who tells us that ‘every subject’ should be ‘objective’ in their presentation, we do not hesitate to challenge absolutely the assertion that ‘the majority of the articles on the various Churches were written by members within the several communions, and if not so written were submitted[213] to those most competent to judge, for criticism and, if need be, for correction.’ Such a pretence is simply amazing, and thoroughly151 perplexed152, we asked: What are we supposed to understand when we are informed that ‘the majority of the articles on the various Churches and their beliefs were written by members within the several communions’?
“Was the article on The Roman Catholic Church written by a Catholic? Was the individual who accumulated and put into print all those vile153 aspersions on the Popes, the saints, the sacraments, the doctrines of the Church, a Catholic? Were the other articles on Casuistry, Celibacy, St. Catherine of Siena, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, written by a Catholic? The supposition is simply inconceivable, and it calls for more than the unlimited154 assurance of the Encyclop?dia Britannica to compel us to accept it.
“But ‘they were submitted to the most competent judge for criticism and, if need be, correction.’ Were they submitted to any judge at all, or to any man of sense, before they were sent off to be printed and scattered155 throughout the English speaking world? Is it permissible156 to imagine for a moment that any Catholic could have read some of those pages and not have been filled with horror at the multiplied and studied insults to[214] everything he holds most sacred in his religion? Or did ‘the editor responsible for the theological side of the work’ reserve for himself the right to reject or accept whatever recommended itself to his superior judgment?”
The article then points out that “far from being just to Catholics, the Britannica pointedly157 and persistently discriminated158 against them.” The article on the Episcopalians was assigned to the Rev. Dr. D. D. Addison, Rector of All Saints, Brookline, Mass.; that on Methodists to the Rev. Dr. J. M. Buckley, Editor of the Christian136 Advocate, New York; that on the Baptists to the Rev. Newton Herbert Marshall, Baptist Church, Hampstead, England; that on the Jews to Israel Abrahams, formerly159 President of the Jewish Historical Society and now Reader on Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature in Cambridge, and so on for the Presbyterians, Unitarians, Lutherans, etc. But in the case of the Catholic Church not only its history but its theology was given to a critic who was neither a theologian, nor a cleric, nor even a Catholic, and who, as Father Campbell notes, is not known outside of his little London coterie160.
The Britannica’s editor also apologized for his encyclop?dia by stating that “Father Braun, S. J., has assisted us in our article on Vestments, and that Father Delehaye, S. J., has contributed,[215] among other articles, those on The Bollandists and Canonization. Abbé Boudinhon and Mgr. Duchesne, and Luchaire and Ludwig von Pastor161 and Dr. Kraus have also contributed, and Abbot Butler, O. S. B., has written on the Augustinians, Benedictines, Carthusians, Cistercians, Dominicans and Franciscans”; and, finally: “The new Britannica has had the honor of having as a contributor His Eminence162 James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, who has written of the Roman Catholic Church in America.”
“But, after all,” answers Father Campbell, “it was not a very generous concession to let Father Joseph Braun, S. J., Staatsexamen als Religionsoberlehren für Gymnasien, University of Bonn, assist the editors in the very safe article on Vestments, nor to let the Bollandists write a column on their publication, which has been going on for three or four hundred years. The list of those who wrote on the Papacy is no doubt respectable in ability if not in number, but we note that the editor is careful to say that the writers of that article were ‘principally’ Roman Catholics.
“Again we are moved to ask why should a Benedictine, distinguished163 though he be, have assigned to him the history of the Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.? Were there no men in those great and learned orders to tell what[216] they must have known better than even the erudite Benedictine? Nor will it avail to tell us that His Eminence of Baltimore wrote The History of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, when that article comprises only a column of statistics, preceded by two paragraphs, one on the early missions, and the other on the settlement of Lord Baltimore. No one more than the illustrious and learned churchman would have resented calling such a mere123 compilation164 of figures a History of the Catholic Church in the United States, and no one would be more shocked than he by the propinquity of his restricted article to the prolix and shameless one to which it is annexed.”
Here in brief is an account of the “impartial” manner in which Catholicism is recorded and described in that “supreme” book of knowledge, the Encyclop?dia Britannica. And I set down this record here not because it is exceptional but, to the contrary, because it is representative of the way in which the world’s culture (outside of England), and especially the culture of America, is treated.
The intellectual prejudice and contempt of England for America is even greater if anything than England’s religious prejudice and contempt for Catholicism; and this fact should be borne in mind when you consult the Britannica for knowledge.[217] It will not give you even scholarly or objective information: it will advise you, by constant insinuation and intimation, as well as by direct statement, that English culture and achievement represent the transcendent glories of the world, and that the great men and great accomplishments165 of other nations are of minor166 importance. No more fatal intellectual danger to America can be readily conceived than this distorted, insular167, incomplete, and aggressively British reference work.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
bias
|
|
| n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
bourgeois
|
|
| adj./n.追求物质享受的(人)；中产阶级分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
suburban
|
|
| adj.城郊的，在郊区的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
disparaged
|
|
| v.轻视( disparage的过去式和过去分词 )；贬低；批评；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
arrogance
|
|
| n.傲慢，自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
venom
|
|
| n.毒液，恶毒，痛恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
resentment
|
|
| n.怨愤，忿恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
arrogant
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
mendacious
|
|
| adj.不真的，撒谎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
advertising
|
|
| n.广告业；广告活动 a.广告的；广告业务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
foisted
|
|
| 强迫接受，把…强加于( foist的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
substantiation
|
|
| n. 实体化, 证实, 证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
questionable
|
|
| adj.可疑的，有问题的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
reliability
|
|
| n.可靠性，确实性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
rev
|
|
| v.发动机旋转，加快速度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
inadequacy
|
|
| n.无法胜任，信心不足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
prudent
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，有远见的，精打细算的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
prospectuses
|
|
| n.章程，简章，简介( prospectus的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
installments
|
|
| 部分( installment的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
animus
|
|
| n.恶意；意图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
adroitly
|
|
| adv.熟练地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
relegated
|
|
| v.使降级( relegate的过去式和过去分词 )；使降职；转移；把…归类 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
caption
|
|
| n.说明，字幕，标题；v.加上标题，加上说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
battered
|
|
| adj.磨损的；v.连续猛击；磨损 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
perusal
|
|
| n.细读，熟读；目测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
amazement
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊讶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
calumnies
|
|
| n.诬蔑，诽谤，中伤（的话）( calumny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
teems
|
|
| v.充满( teem的第三人称单数 )；到处都是；（指水、雨等）暴降；倾注 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
callous
|
|
| adj.无情的，冷淡的，硬结的，起老茧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
tact
|
|
| n.机敏，圆滑，得体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
costly
|
|
| adj.昂贵的，价值高的，豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
partisan
|
|
| adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
second-hand
|
|
| adj.用过的，旧的，二手的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
discredited
|
|
| 不足信的，不名誉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
scrupulous
|
|
| adj.审慎的，小心翼翼的，完全的，纯粹的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
adherence
|
|
| n.信奉，依附，坚持，固着 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
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： |
|
|
|
|
48
bibliography
|
|
| n.参考书目；(有关某一专题的)书目 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
annexed
|
|
| [法] 附加的，附属的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
antiquated
|
|
| adj.陈旧的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
vouch
|
|
| v.担保；断定；n.被担保者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
vouchsafed
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的过去式和过去分词 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
linguistic
|
|
| adj.语言的，语言学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
geographical
|
|
| adj.地理的；地区(性)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
aboriginal
|
|
| adj.（指动植物）土生的，原产地的，土著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
sluggish
|
|
| adj.懒惰的，迟钝的，无精打采的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
labors
|
|
| v.努力争取(for)( labor的第三人称单数 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
imprint
|
|
| n.印痕，痕迹；深刻的印象；vt.压印，牢记 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
antagonism
|
|
| n.对抗，敌对，对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
kindled
|
|
| （使某物）燃烧，着火( kindle的过去式和过去分词 )； 激起（感情等）； 发亮，放光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
dispensed
|
|
| v.分配( dispense的过去式和过去分词 )；施与；配（药） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
dispense
|
|
| vt.分配，分发；配(药)，发(药)；实施 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
vow
|
|
| n.誓(言)，誓约；v.起誓，立誓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
warrior
|
|
| n.勇士，武士，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
solitude
|
|
| n. 孤独; 独居,荒僻之地,幽静的地方 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
attenuate
|
|
| v.使变小，使减弱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
prolix
|
|
| adj.罗嗦的；冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
absurdities
|
|
| n.极端无理性( absurdity的名词复数 )；荒谬；谬论；荒谬的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
bishops
|
|
| （基督教某些教派管辖大教区的）主教( bishop的名词复数 )； （国际象棋的）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
feat
|
|
| n.功绩；武艺，技艺；adj.灵巧的，漂亮的，合适的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
reconstruction
|
|
| n.重建，再现，复原 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
meted
|
|
| v.（对某人）施以，给予（处罚等）( mete的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
misuse
|
|
| n.误用，滥用；vt.误用，滥用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
meek
|
|
| adj.温顺的，逆来顺受的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
lamentably
|
|
| adv.哀伤地，拙劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
posthumous
|
|
| adj.遗腹的；父亡后出生的；死后的，身后的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
anonymous
|
|
| adj.无名的；匿名的；无特色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
demise
|
|
| n.死亡；v.让渡，遗赠，转让 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
grotesque
|
|
| adj.怪诞的，丑陋的；n.怪诞的图案，怪人（物） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
scion
|
|
| n.嫩芽，子孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
Oxford
|
|
| n.牛津（英国城市） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
layman
|
|
| n.俗人，门外汉，凡人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
unaware
|
|
| a.不知道的，未意识到的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
incompatible
|
|
| adj.不相容的，不协调的，不相配的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
aptitude
|
|
| n.(学习方面的)才能，资质，天资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
sublime
|
|
| adj.崇高的，伟大的；极度的，不顾后果的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
speculations
|
|
| n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 )；思考；投机活动；推断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
bespeak
|
|
| v.预定；预先请求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
preposterous
|
|
| adj.荒谬的，可笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
scant
|
|
| adj.不充分的，不足的；v.减缩，限制，忽略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
inaccurate
|
|
| adj.错误的，不正确的，不准确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
celibacy
|
|
| n.独身(主义) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
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： |
|
|
|
|
105
persistently
|
|
| ad.坚持地；固执地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
ridicule
|
|
| v.讥讽，挖苦；n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
lavish
|
|
| adj.无节制的；浪费的；vt.慷慨地给予，挥霍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
vexed
|
|
| adj.争论不休的；（指问题等）棘手的；争论不休的问题；烦恼的v.使烦恼( vex的过去式和过去分词 )；使苦恼；使生气；详细讨论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
eulogistic
|
|
| adj.颂扬的，颂词的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
graveyard
|
|
| n.坟场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
calumny
|
|
| n.诽谤，污蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
displeased
|
|
| a.不快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
eulogy
|
|
| n.颂词；颂扬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
trumpeted
|
|
| 大声说出或宣告（trumpet的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
clamorous
|
|
| adj.吵闹的，喧哗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
travesties
|
|
| n.拙劣的模仿作品，荒谬的模仿，歪曲( travesty的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
pouted
|
|
| v.撅（嘴）( pout的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
averse
|
|
| adj.厌恶的；反对的，不乐意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
gibe
|
|
| n.讥笑；嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
revert
|
|
| v.恢复，复归，回到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
reiterating
|
|
| 反复地说，重申( reiterate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
embroiling
|
|
| v.使（自己或他人）卷入纠纷( embroil的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
127
concocting
|
|
| v.将（尤指通常不相配合的）成分混合成某物( concoct的现在分词 )；调制；编造；捏造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
conspiracies
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋( conspiracy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
kindling
|
|
| n. 点火, 可燃物 动词kindle的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
demolished
|
|
| v.摧毁( demolish的过去式和过去分词 )；推翻；拆毁（尤指大建筑物）；吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
martyrs
|
|
| n.martyr的复数形式；烈士( martyr的名词复数 )；殉道者；殉教者；乞怜者（向人诉苦以博取同情） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
acquit
|
|
| vt.宣判无罪；(oneself)使(自己)表现出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
missionaries
|
|
| n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
lust
|
|
| n.性(淫)欲；渴(欲)望；vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
alienating
|
|
| v.使疏远( alienate的现在分词 )；使不友好；转让；让渡（财产等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
malignant
|
|
| adj.恶性的，致命的；恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
prosecuting
|
|
| 检举、告发某人( prosecute的现在分词 )； 对某人提起公诉； 继续从事（某事物）； 担任控方律师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
persecuting
|
|
| （尤指宗教或政治信仰的）迫害(~sb. for sth.)( persecute的现在分词 )； 烦扰，困扰或骚扰某人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
rancor
|
|
| n.深仇，积怨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
subjective
|
|
| a.主观(上)的，个人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
perplexed
|
|
| adj.不知所措的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
vile
|
|
| adj.卑鄙的，可耻的，邪恶的；坏透的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
permissible
|
|
| adj.可允许的，许可的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
pointedly
|
|
| adv.尖地，明显地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
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： |
|
|
|
|
159
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
coterie
|
|
| n.(有共同兴趣的)小团体，小圈子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
pastor
|
|
| n.牧师，牧人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
eminence
|
|
| n.卓越，显赫；高地，高处；名家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
compilation
|
|
| n.编译，编辑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
accomplishments
|
|
| n.造诣；完成( accomplishment的名词复数 )；技能；成绩；成就 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
insular
|
|
| adj.岛屿的，心胸狭窄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |