During the last half-century—that is, practically since the introduction of the photographic plate—various abnormalities have been reported in developed photographs. Some of these have appeared to reputable observers to be incapable1 of natural explanation, and have been eagerly seized upon by spiritualists as proof of survival after death—the sensitive emulsion being supposed to have recorded the presence of spirits, otherwise invisible. It is evident that a permanent photographic record, if its genuineness can be established, would stand almost alone as evidence of the presence of the spirit-forms described by clairvoyants2.
Various types of such photographic abnormalities must be distinguished4:
1. “Thought photographs,” “dream photographs,” photographs of “psychic auras,” and the like. These are rarely distinct, and as they have little bearing on spirit phenomena5 they will not be discussed here.
2. Photographs taken of a visible spirit form. Such have been taken at séances: e.g., by Sir William Crookes, of Miss King’s “control,” Katie. The photographs taken recently at the Goligher circle should perhaps be included in this category. Similar experiments might, perhaps, be carried out in a “haunted house”—provided that one can be found which bears investigation6.
3. The more usual type of “spirit photograph,” with which this article is chiefly concerned. Here a plate is exposed upon a sitter or sitters, and on development an “extra” appears, varying from splashes of light to fully-formed features or figures. The presence of a medium is usually regarded as being essential for such phenomena; but similar appearances have occasionally been obtained by amateurs on several well-attested occasions, either unexpectedly, or upon plates deliberately7 exposed for the purpose, no professional medium being present.
[8]
4. In some cases the plates are not exposed in a camera, but merely submitted to “spirit influences,” which results in more or less distinct faces, or even screeds of writing, appearing on development.
It is not perhaps surprising to find that the spirit photograph originated in America, where it dates back to the days of the wet-plate process. The first recorded case comes from Boston, in 1862. One Mumler, an engraver8 by trade, made chemistry and photography his hobby; and having among his friends a professional photographer, he was frequently dabbling9 with plates and chemicals in his studio. Up to this time he had shown no mediumistic tendencies, although it is safe to assume that he must have known something of spiritualism, since this was attracting much attention in America at the time.
One day Mumler suddenly produced a photograph of himself, standing10, with a chair by his side supporting a shadowy female figure. The face of this figure was not clear, though the upper part of the body was fairly well defined; below the waist it faded away. The chair and background were distinctly visible through the extra. He alleged11 that this was an untouched photograph, which he had taken by focussing the camera on the chair, inserting the plate, and standing by the chair for the period of the exposure. This picture raised a considerable stir, and Mumler published the following declaration in the press: “This photograph was taken of myself, by myself, on Sunday, when there was not a living soul in the room beside myself—‘so to speak.’ The form on my right I recognise as my cousin who passed away about twelve years since.—W. H. Mumler.”
Not unexpectedly, other people soon wanted their dead relatives to be photographed with them, and Mumler’s services were in considerable demand. Many of his sitters were rewarded with extras, and he soon started a regular business, claiming that he was a medium for taking spirit photographs. His pictures aroused much interest both in America and in this country, and he evidently found it a paying business. The following advertisement with regard to copies of his photographs appeared in the Spiritual Magazine for 1863:
“The packet of three photos may be obtained from Mr. Pitman, 20, Paternoster Row; price 3s. 6d.”
Very few copies of Mumler’s photographs still exist; they are all similar in their general characters to the first. Noteworthy points are that the spirits are always without legs, and are usually on the right of the sitter. A considerable number of his extras, indistinct though they were, were recognised by the sitters and their friends as the dead person whose photograph they were expecting. (The value of these recognitions is dealt with in a later section.) Naturally, cries of fraud were raised, and investigators12, consisting of men of science and newspaper representatives, devised “test conditions” to eliminate this possibility. This they did to their own satisfaction, and obtained spirit
[9]
extras; but on reading their accounts it is easy to see that ample loopholes were left for fraud. In some cases the camera and lens were minutely inspected, and Mumler’s operations carefully supervised, but a glass plate provided by Mumler was used for the sensitised emulsion. (How this renders a natural explanation of the extra possible is explained in the section on methods of fraud.) In other cases where tests were instituted the developing-room was in complete darkness, no ruby14 light being used, which put the investigators completely in the medium’s hands.
On one occasion Mumler was persuaded to forsake15 his studio for the private house of an investigator13. Here he was not allowed to use any of his own apparatus—camera, plates, and chemicals all being provided for him. The result was a complete failure to get anything abnormal on the plates. Mumler explained that he “thought his (medium’s) influence had not been sufficiently16 long in contact with the chemicals.” This one can readily believe.
He presently became bolder, and his spirits’ features became more distinct. This led to a bad mistake, for in February 1863 the sceptics were able to show that one of Mumler’s spirit extras was the likeness17 of a man still alive, and living in Boston; and, worse still, that this man had had his photograph taken by Mumler a few weeks before. Such carelessness on the part of the spirits ruined a promising18 business, for after the outcry which followed we hear no more of Mumler for some six years.
In 1869 he appeared again in New York, and commenced business on his old lines. Before he had been practising many months, however, the public authorities arrested him, and prosecuted19 him for fraud. At the trial the Boston evidence was disallowed20 and consequently little positive evidence of fraud was brought against him, for he had only been practising in New York for a short time. The chief ground of the prosecution21 was a spirit extra which he represented to be a dead relative of the sitter’s, whereas the latter declared it to be utterly22 unlike the relative in question. The trial was interesting, in that Mumler was defended by many of his sitters, who swore that they recognised his extras as their dead friends; and by others, including a professional photographer, who had investigated his processes and had found no evidence of trickery. He was acquitted23 for lack of evidence on the part of the prosecution; but he apparently24 gave up producing spirit photographs, for no more is heard of him.
Three years later spirit photographs were being taken in this country. Hudson, the principal exponent25, was introduced by Mrs. Guppy, a well-known medium of the time. His performance was on the same lines as Mumler’s, and his results similar, the faces of the extras being always partly obscured and the figures draped. Nevertheless, many of them were recognised. The usual unsatisfactory
[10]
tests were applied26 by the more sceptical sitters; in particular we have the report of an optician named Slater, who took his own camera and lenses to Hudson, obtaining “a fine spirit photo” and observing “no suspicious circumstances.” However, a less easily duped critic soon appeared, in the person of one Beattie, a professional photographer of Clifton, and a man of high repute. He showed that in many of Hudson’s photographs not only did the background appear through the extra—as might perhaps be expected with an ethereal spirit—but that the background was clearly visible through the very material bodies of the human sitters! Sometimes the backgrounds had a double outline; and in one case at least he was able to point out that clumsy attempts had been made to obliterate27, by retouching, the pattern of a carpet showing through the legs of the sitter. All this clearly pointed28 to double exposure and fraud; and Beattie was joined in denouncing Hudson by the editor of the Spiritualist. In fact, on closer inspection29, Hudson’s pictures were found to be very poor frauds indeed; some of the “spirits” were stated by the critics to be Hudson himself dressed up!
Much controversy30 followed this exposure; while many declared that spirit photographs were an utter fraud, others considered that though some were genuine, mediums frequently obtained their spirits by trickery in order not to disappoint their sitters. Few went so far as to declare their belief that the phenomena were all genuine, and these few were mostly those who had identified as their dead relatives the extras presented to them. Ingenious explanations were offered by them of the appearances pointed out by Beattie; the spirit aura was, they declared, doubly refracting; hence the legs of a chair might, by atmospheric31 refraction, appear through the legs of its occupant. It is possible that the unscientific were impressed by such explanations. Support was certainly lent to them for a time by the statements of Mr. Russell, of Kingston-on-Thames. Working as an amateur for his own satisfaction, he declared that he had obtained spirit photographs showing evident signs of double exposure, whereas only one had taken place. Challenged to produce his plates, however, he demurred32, and eventually said that they had been accidentally destroyed.
Disgusted by the trickery he had detected in Hudson, Beattie determined33 to experiment for himself as to whether genuine spirit photographs could actually be obtained. He accordingly set to work with some friends, one of whom was reputed to be a medium, and held many séances, exposing dozens of plates with but little result. He procured34 as his dark-room assistant a certain Josty, whose character, unfortunately, appears not to have been above suspicion. Thenceforward streaks35 and splashes of light were obtained on some of the plates, though the séances were mostly blanks. Josty discovered himself to be possessed36 of clairvoyant3 faculties37, and declared that he
[11]
saw spirits at the séances; the marks on the plates would then appear in the positions he had indicated. These marks had only the very slightest resemblance to human figures: one is described as being like a dragon. Out of several hundred plates, thirty-two bore these marks. Beattie’s integrity was never challenged; but it has been suggested that Josty produced the smudges on the plates—as he very easily could do—in order to keep himself in employment of a light and lucrative38 character. In any case, the results obtained were so trifling39, and so different from the usual professional medium’s photographs, as to be chiefly of value as negative evidence.
Similar experiments were made by Dr. Williams, of Haywards Heath. He exposed plates, in the hope of obtaining spirit extras, over a period of eighteen months. Out of many hundreds, he obtained three plates with unexplained marks on them, one of which bore some resemblance to two eyes and a nose. He also claimed that a complete human figure developed on one of his plates, only to disappear again; this could scarcely have had any objective existence, since there was no trace of it in the finished negative. The value of his experiments, also, can only be considered as against the occurrence of spirit photography where trickery plays no part.
In the summer of 1874 there came to London a Parisian photographer named Buguet, who represented himself as able to photograph spirits. Besides being a more skilful40 photographer than his predecessors41, he appears also to have had a sense of humour. The spirit faces of Dickens, Charles I., and other celebrities42 appeared in his photographs! His spirits had clearly-defined features, and were much better productions than anything that had appeared before. Many well-known people sat to him, and were duly rewarded with the spirit features of their equally well-known friends. Next year he returned to Paris, and, continuing in business there, produced among other things a photograph of Stainton Moses, the spiritualist, while the latter was lying in a trance in London, his spirit being supposed to have visited Buguet’s studio in Paris.
Before he had been back long, however, the French authorities intervened. His studio was raided by the police and a large stock of cardboard heads, a lay figure, and other incriminating paraphernalia43 were found. Buguet was arrested and charged with fraud. At the trial he made a complete confession44. All his spirits had, he said, been obtained by double exposure. At first his assistants had acted as the ghosts, but this soon became dangerous on account of constant repetition of the same features, and he procured the lay figure and cardboard heads for the purpose. He also explained how he employed his assistants to extract all possible information from the sitters, as to the facial characteristics of the spirits they were expecting. And then came the extraordinary feature of the trial. In spite of the damning
[12]
material evidence against him, and of his own confession, witness after witness came forward to defend him! They said they had sat to him and obtained unquestionable likenesses of their dead relations, and had satisfied themselves that no tricks were played upon them. In spite of Buguet assuring them in court that they had been deceived, they maintained that it could not be so. Buguet pointed out to the court one face which had been recognised as the mother of one sitter, the sister of a second, and the friend of a third. One spirit, recognised by a sitter as his lifelong friend, was declared by another man to be an excellent likeness of his still-living—and much annoyed—father-in-law. Buguet was convicted and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment45 and a fine of 100 francs. It was maintained by spiritualists in England that he had been bribed46 to make a false confession; and after the expiry of his sentence he appears to have told the same tale. This, however, quite fails to explain the finds made at his studio by the French police.
At the time of Buguet’s trial, another spirit photographer, Parkes by name, was practising in London. He never produced photographs of any value, as he gave but little opportunity of watching his proceedings47 in the dark-room; nor were many of his extras recognised. Nevertheless there are certain points of interest in his career. Some of his plates showed evident marks of double exposure; he was adroit48 enough to write articles to the spiritualistic papers, drawing attention to this fact and suggesting theories to account for it. It had been previously49 assumed by spiritualists that the spirit forms, although invisible to the eye, were present at the side of or behind the sitter, and that their images were projected on to the plate by refraction through the lens in the ordinary way. Hence their images on the plate would be inverted50, like the image of the sitter. Parkes, however, described an experiment, which he professed51 to have carried out, throwing doubt on this. He placed, he said, a mirror obliquely52 across the camera between the lens and the plate, so as to project the image of the sitter and background on to a second plate at the side of the camera—the same principle employed in the viewing screen of the modern reflex camera. He said that the position of the spirit photograph was unaffected by the mirror, and that the extra still appeared on the plate at the back of the camera, while the sitter and background were naturally only photographed on the side plate. He further declared that the spirit was not affected53 by the lens, and appeared erect54 on the back plate, instead of inverted as a normal photograph would be. The absurdity55 of this statement is evident when we realise that in his ordinary photographs sitter and spirit appeared the same way up—i.e., both inverted on the plate; in order to effect this and comply with his other statement, the spirits would have to be standing on their heads beside the sitters! Now Parkes also professed to have
[13]
clairvoyant power, and claimed actually to see the spirits standing with the sitters; as he never mentions them adopting the inverted attitude we may safely assume that they did not put themselves to this discomfort56. One, at least, of Parkes’ statements must therefore have been false.
On one occasion, however, his spirit extra did appear upside down. The plate—supplied by the sitter—was loaded into the camera by Parkes in the usual way, and all was ready for the exposure when a photographer present requested that the plate be inverted in the camera. This was done, and the exposure made; with the result that on the developed plate the spirit was inverted with regard to the sitter. It was indeed fortunate for Parkes’ reputation that the company present were able to affirm that the plate on which this occurred “had never been in Parkes’ possession before”!
Since 1875 a number of spirit photographers have practised in this country, but few have attained57 any note. Not many people have considered their claims seriously, any critical investigation soon finding cause for suspicion, if not actual evidence, of fraud. Perhaps the two best known are Boursnell, who was taking spirit photographs in London during the first decade of this century, and Hope, of Crewe, who has now been practising for many years, and has attained considerable proficiency58 in the art. The conditions allowed have never been such as to preclude59 fraud, and the general method of procedure and results obtained have been so similar to those of their predecessors as to need no separate description. In 1909 a Commission was appointed, under the auspices60 of the Daily Mail, to investigate the subject. The Commission consisted of three spiritualists and three expert photographers; at the conclusion of the investigation the photographers reported with regard to the results obtained that “they would not testify to their supernatural production; they bore on the face of them evidence of the way in which they had been produced.” They pointed out that some of the plates had been exposed twice, as shown by the marks on the edges caused by two different patterns of dark slide. The spiritualists, on the other hand, reported that “the photographers were not in a proper frame of mind” to obtain results.
In America the movement has always found rather more adherents61 than in this country. Spirit photography has been practised in different parts of the United States practically since Mumler’s time to the present day; the same medium usually producing other kinds of spirit phenomena as well. The conditions under which most of these photographs have been taken, and the ridiculous results obtained, renders them unworthy of serious consideration. It is quite usual to find in the background of these photographs a dozen or more heads, of all shapes and sizes, and with all kinds of headgear; bunches of flowers often appear, and even a spirit buttonhole sometimes ornaments62 the
[14]
lapel of the sitter’s coat! An amusing account is given by Hereward Carrington[3] of a visit to a medium of this type at Lily Dale in 1907:
“On arriving at Mr. Norman’s house I was obliged to wait for some time on the verandah, as he was busy inside the house with a ‘customer.’ When he came out I was invited to sit ‘just where I was,’ and the medium disappeared into the house, and the next minute came out carrying a large camera and two plates, already in the slide, prepared. There was a white chalk-mark on one side of the double-back plate slide, and this side was carefully inserted foremost. Mr. Norman erased63 the chalk-mark with his finger as he inserted the slide into the camera. I posed, and the photograph was taken.
“Next we went indoors. The plate slide was reversed, and the room placed in total darkness. I was informed that ‘the spirits would materialise their own light,’ and that none was needed. This was ‘where the mediumship came in.’ The second plate was then exposed, the cap being removed about a minute. During that minute I was informed that I ‘should sit for physical manifestations64,’ and the medium asked me if I had ever sat to a spirit photographer before....
“When, however, I asked the medium to allow me to examine the process of development of the plates, he flatly refused to allow anything of the kind! I said cautiously that I should think it would be very interesting to watch the development of a plate upon which might appear spirit faces; the answer was that these faces developed in exactly the same manner as any other faces. I replied that I should like to watch the process in order to convince myself that they developed in the manner stated, and that they were not already on the plate. The result was to bring forth65 a flat refusal to allow me to watch the process of development! It need hardly be said that this refusal to allow any test conditions of the most elementary order deprives the photographs of all evidential value; and definite evidence of fraud was brought against this medium at a later date. For when the photograph was examined, none of the faces bore the slightest trace of any family resemblance; and, more than that, the photograph showed unmistakable signs of fraudulent manipulation. One of the faces, that of a woman, upon being examined through a magnifying glass, clearly shows the miniature indentations made by the electric needle in reproducing newspaper cuts. This is clearly noticeable in the forehead, but can be seen to extend all over the face, even with the naked eye, examined carefully. This face was therefore copied from some newspaper or magazine, reproducing it from the paper in which it originally appeared. The other faces show clear marks of manipulation.”
A new method of procedure in taking spirit photographs was
[15]
apparently introduced by one Wyllie, of San Francisco, about 1903. No camera was used; the plates were unpacked66 in the dark-room and held by the sitter, Wyllie simply placing his hands on the plate for some seconds. On development, a face or faces, more or less blurred67, would appear. These were never larger than the print of a thumb, which suggested to Dr. Pierce—who was investigating Wyllie’s methods—that they were possibly produced by chemicals pressed into contact with the plate. He therefore made Wyllie wash his hands before entering the dark-room, but the extras still appeared. It would, of course, have been a simple matter for the medium to have had concealed68 about his person a slip of thin card or a small rubber stamp, with an “extra” sketched69 on it in some suitable chemical; when in the dark-room this would be palmed and applied to the plate. Dr. Pierce, however, evidently considered the results were genuine spirit manifestations, and the next year carried out a series of experiments by himself in London. Needless to say, he found that without Wyllie’s mediumship no results could be obtained.
Another modern development, which has been largely exploited by Hope, of Crewe, is the “psychograph.” For this, again, no camera is used; a plate is carefully wrapped up, usually sealed, and submitted to the medium’s influence. The plate is then developed by the victim, and screeds of writing appear, usually arranged in circles instead of lines. Sometimes the plate is sent to the medium through the post, carefully wrapped and sealed, and returned apparently unopened a few days later. On development, the message appears—and the most banal70 rubbish it usually is. Yet many people actually believe that these productions are the means adopted by higher intelligences to communicate with us. Surely such folk must be lacking in a sense of humour?
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
clairvoyants
|
|
| n.透视者，千里眼的人( clairvoyant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
3
clairvoyant
|
|
| adj.有预见的；n.有预见的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
engraver
|
|
| n.雕刻师，雕工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
dabbling
|
|
| v.涉猎( dabble的现在分词 )；涉足；浅尝；少量投资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
investigators
|
|
| n.调查者，审查者( investigator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
investigator
|
|
| n.研究者，调查者，审查者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
ruby
|
|
| n.红宝石，红宝石色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
forsake
|
|
| vt.遗弃，抛弃；舍弃，放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
likeness
|
|
| n.相像，相似（之处） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
prosecuted
|
|
| a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
disallowed
|
|
| v.不承认（某事物）有效( disallow的过去式和过去分词 )；不接受；不准；驳回 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
acquitted
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
exponent
|
|
| n.倡导者，拥护者；代表人物；指数，幂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
obliterate
|
|
| v.擦去，涂抹，去掉...痕迹，消失，除去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
inspection
|
|
| n.检查，审查，检阅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
atmospheric
|
|
| adj.大气的，空气的；大气层的；大气所引起的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
demurred
|
|
| v.表示异议，反对( demur的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
procured
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
streaks
|
|
| n.（与周围有所不同的）条纹( streak的名词复数 )；（通常指不好的）特征（倾向）；（不断经历成功或失败的）一段时期v.快速移动( streak的第三人称单数 )；使布满条纹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
lucrative
|
|
| adj.赚钱的，可获利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
trifling
|
|
| adj.微不足道的；没什么价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
celebrities
|
|
| n.（尤指娱乐界的）名人( celebrity的名词复数 )；名流；名声；名誉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
paraphernalia
|
|
| n.装备；随身用品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
bribed
|
|
| v.贿赂( bribe的过去式和过去分词 )；向（某人）行贿，贿赂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
adroit
|
|
| adj.熟练的，灵巧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
inverted
|
|
| adj.反向的，倒转的v.使倒置，使反转( invert的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
obliquely
|
|
| adv.斜； 倾斜； 间接； 不光明正大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
erect
|
|
| n./v.树立，建立，使竖立；adj.直立的，垂直的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
discomfort
|
|
| n.不舒服，不安，难过，困难，不方便 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
proficiency
|
|
| n.精通，熟练，精练 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
preclude
|
|
| vt.阻止，排除，防止；妨碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
auspices
|
|
| n.资助，赞助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
ornaments
|
|
| n.装饰( ornament的名词复数 )；点缀；装饰品；首饰v.装饰，点缀，美化( ornament的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
erased
|
|
| v.擦掉( erase的过去式和过去分词 )；抹去；清除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
manifestations
|
|
| n.表示，显示（manifestation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
unpacked
|
|
| v.从（包裹等）中取出（所装的东西），打开行李取出( unpack的过去式和过去分词 )；拆包；解除…的负担；吐露（心事等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
blurred
|
|
| v.（使）变模糊( blur的过去式和过去分词 )；（使）难以区分；模模糊糊；迷离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
sketched
|
|
| v.草拟（sketch的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
banal
|
|
| adj.陈腐的，平庸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |