I quite forget what particular concatenation of circumstances brought me into personal touch with Mr Arthur Henderson, M.P., but I rather think that when I waited for him at Waterloo Station I was acting2 the part of messenger-boy. Perhaps I delivered a letter or telegram to him, or I may have given him a verbal message. All I remember is, that something very important had happened, and it was necessary that Mr Arthur Henderson should be apprised3 of this happening at the earliest possible moment. So I volunteered to meet him at Waterloo.
We walked across the station together, and I was depressingly aware of a rather bulky form with a Manchester kind of face. He spoke4 heavily and uttered commonplaces that fell dead on his very lips. I could feel his self-importance radiating from him, and I gathered that I was supposed to be in the presence of a very exceptional person indeed. But I did not feel that he was exceptional. There has never been a moment since I reached manhood that I haven’t known that my intellect is of finer texture5 than that of the five thousand who elbow each other on the Manchester Exchange, and it seemed to me that night at Waterloo Station that Mr Henderson would be very much at home on the Manchester Exchange. I recollect6 most vividly7 that he bored me very much and 176that, offering him some plausible8 excuse, I parted from him before we had crossed the river, and darted9 away to more congenial people.
A few weeks previous to this encounter I had heard Mr Henderson give an “address” in a Nonconformist chapel10. An “address,” I am given to understand, is a kind of homely11 sermon in which the speaker talks to his audience in a friendly and distinctly unbending manner. He seeks to improve them, to lead them to higher and better things: in a word, to make them more like himself.... I have not the faintest recollection of what drove me inside this Nonconformist chapel, but I cannot conceive I went there of my own free will. I suppose that someone paid me to go there. But my mind retains a very clear picture of a pulpit containing a man with a face so like other faces that, sometimes, when I examine it, it seems to belong to Mr Jackson of Messrs Jackson & Lemon, the famous auctioneers of Boodlestown, and at other times it is owned by Mr Brownjonesrobinson who, I need scarcely point out, is known everywhere.... Really, I have no intention of being violently rude. This question of faces is important. A face should express a soul. No great man whose portrait I have seen possessed12 a commonplace face.
The address was heavy, obvious and dull. I was taken back twenty years to my boyhood when stern parents compelled me to go to a Wesleyan chapel one hundred and three times a year (twice every Sunday and once on Christmas Day); on most of those hundred and three occasions I used to hear exhortations13 to be “good,” not, so to speak, for the love of the thing, but because being “good” paid. Mr Arthur Henderson, Samuel Smiles redivivus, proved that it paid. He didn’t say: “Look at me!” but, all the same, we did look at him. The spectacle to most of his congregation was, I suppose, encouraging; me, it didn’t excite. I can well believe 177that, as I stepped out of the building, I said to myself: “No, Gerald. We will remain as we are. The penalties of virtue14 are much too heavy for us to pay.”
. . . . . . . .
One Saturday evening I journeyed to Liverpool with twenty or thirty other newspaper men to dine with Lord Derby. Pressmen are accustomed to this kind of entertainment from public men, and their host generally contrives15 to be exceptionally agreeable. It would be putting it very crudely to state that these dinners are intended as a bribe16: let me therefore say that they serve the purpose of smoothing the way for the dissemination17 of some propaganda or other. To the best of my recollection, Lord Derby had no other purpose in view than the laudable and kindly18 intention of making the journalists of Manchester and Liverpool better acquainted with one another.
After dinner, various ladies and gentlemen from the neighbouring music halls provided us with an excellent entertainment, and I can now see Lord Derby smilingly and courteously19 receiving these artists and making them feel that they, like ourselves, were honoured guests, and not merely paid mimes22. He seemed to me then, as he has always seemed to me, our dearly loved, bluff23 but unfailingly courteous20 national John Bull. He is, I think, the most British man with whom I have ever spoken—honest, brave, resourceful, self-sacrificing, fond of good company and good cheer, hail-fellow-well-met yet a trifle reserved and not a little cautious, blunt but considerate of others’ feelings. Some of us collected signatures on the backs of our menus, but when Lord Derby had written his name on the top of mine I left it there alone, not caring to see other names mingling24 with his: perhaps feeling that no other name of those present was worthy25 to stand beneath his name.
178He spoke to us, but his speech had nothing in it save welcome.
. . . . . . . .
When I see, as I frequently do, the newspapers and reviews praising the works of Mrs Humphry Ward26 and describing her as the greatest of living British female writers, I rub my eyes in astonishment27 and wonder why Miss Elizabeth Robins is overlooked. Mrs Humphry Ward can, it is true, tell a story: she knows well much of the behind-the-scenes life of modern politics: moreover, she is a woman of the world with a highly cultivated mind and a varied28 experience of life. But if ever there was a woman without genius, without, indeed, the true literary gift, she is that woman. She cannot fire the imagination, quicken the pulse, or stir the heart. She plays with puppets and never reveals life. Miss Robins, on the contrary, strikes deep into life—cleaves it asunder29, disrupts it, opens it out to our gaze. She has the gift of tragedy.... When I think concentratedly of Mrs Humphry Ward’s books, I remember atmospheres, social environments, a few incidents, and I see dimly about half-a-dozen pictures. But when my mind dwells on The Open Question and The Magnetic North, I see and hear and touch live men and women.
I know nothing of Miss Elizabeth Robins’ private affairs, but if my intuition guides me rightly, she has had a tragic30 life and her life is still and always will be tragic. Her temperament31 is not dissimilar to Charlotte Brontë’s, that great little woman whose sense of the ridiculous was so great but whose power of expressing it was so small.
Miss Robins, as you all know, entered the ranks of the militant32 suffragettes, and it was at a meeting of the W.S.P.U. that I met her and heard her speak. In the real sense, she has no gift of speech. When she has to address an audience, she prepares her words beforehand, memorises them, and then delivers them with the lucidity33, 179the passion and the eloquence34 of a great actress. I think I have heard all the best-known women speakers from Lady Henry Somerset up to Mrs Pankhurst, but though my admiration35 of Mrs Pankhurst’s brave and proud gifts scarcely knows a limit, I consider that Miss Robins surpasses her in her power of sweeping36 an audience along with her and in her great gift of quickening the spirit and urging it upwards37 to the heights of an enthusiasm that does not quickly die....
Perhaps in reading this book you have not gathered the impression that I am afflicted38 by a devastating39 bashfulness that, always at the wrong moments, robs me of speech and makes me appear an imbecile. Nevertheless that affliction is mine. The more I like and reverence40 people, the more bereft41 of speech I become in their presence. It is so when I am with Orage, though we have been intimate enough for him to address me in letters as “My dear Gerald”; it is so with Frank Harris (but perhaps you think I ought not to “reverence” him—yet his genius compels me to); and it is so with Ernest Newman and Granville Bantock. And when Miss Elizabeth Robins’ hand met mine in a firm clasp and she spoke some words of greeting, I had not a word to say. Like an ashamed schoolboy, I walked, speechless and fuming42, from the room and kicked myself in the passage outside.... I know this shyness has its origin in vanity, but then I am vain. But I am a fool to allow my vanity to gain the upper hand of my speech.
. . . . . . . .
Frank Mullings!... Well, I have more than once said that singers bore me, but if a man is bored by Mullings, he is worse than a fool. One always has a special kind of affection for men whom one has known in obscurity and of whom one’s prophecies of great things has come true. Mullings has, indeed, travelled far since those jolly days when we used to meet in Sydney Grew’s little flat in 180Birmingham and make music with Grieg, Bantock and Wolf for company. A great “lad,” as we say in Lancashire: a great fat boy without affectation, without jealousy43, without even the pride that all great artists should possess: a generous, simple-hearted man who is capable of travelling a couple of hundred miles to sing, without fee, the songs of Bantock, just because he loved those songs and wanted others to love them.
He was always untidy, short-sighted, and either very depressed44 or very jolly. His moods were thorough, and they infected you. In Birmingham, in days when only a few, and those few powerless to help, were aware of his astonishing gifts, he was serene45 and happy. I remember him, Sydney Grew and myself sitting on the floor of Grew’s very narrow drawing-room, our backs to the wall, and talking of our future. I was the oldest of the three, and for that reason spoke with simulated wisdom.
“Only one of us is marked down for real success, and you, Mullings, are the man,” I said. “You have the successful temperament. Sydney here will do valuable work, but he hasn’t the gifts that shine and blind. As for me, I shall make the most of my small but, I really think, engaging talent and swank about in a little circle of appreciators.”
Mullings laughed.
“Do you really think I shall?” he asked. “Have another whisky, Cumberland, and go on talking; you give me confidence. And confidence is half the battle, isn’t it?”
“So they say. But haven’t you confidence already?”
“Well, it ebbs47 and it flows.”
“Oh, he’s all right,” said Sydney Grew. “Don’t worry about Mullings. But what do you mean when you say that I shall do valuable work?”
“You’re an artist, and you’ve got personality and 181ideas. Haven’t you often reproached me on the score that you meet me for an hour and, a month later, see all that you have told me in two or three articles that in the meantime I have written for the papers?”
“Well, you do pick my brains, Gerald. You know you do.”
“Simply because they are worth picking. And if I didn’t, they would be lost to the world. Why don’t you yourself write? You must write more and talk less.”
He took my advice, and began a career that promised much until the war interrupted it.
In the meantime, Mullings has “arrived” and I am longing48 to meet him again, for I know very well he will be still fat and jolly, that he will still allow me to play accompaniments for him on any old piano that is handy, and that we shall talk excitedly of Bantock and Julius Harrison, of the Manchester Musical Society and Phyllis Lett, of “Colonel” Anderton and Ernest Newman, and of everything and everybody that made those far-off days so full of interest and so sweet to remember.
. . . . . . . .
Harold Bauer set out to conquer the world, and has done nothing more than arouse the interest of one or two countries. Yet he is a great pianist. But I am told that his personality stands between him and the real thing in the way of success. I have sat next to critics at his recitals50 who have squirmed in their stalls as he played.
“What is the matter?” I have asked.
“I don’t quite know. But don’t you feel it yourself?”
“Feel what?”
“Something. I don’t quite know what. Something indefinable. His playing is too greasy51. Did you ever hear Brahms played like that before?”
“No. I wish I had. I think his Brahms wonderfully fine.”
Certainly, his temperament is not magnetic like the 182personality of Paderewski, of Kubelik, of Yvette Guilbert, and the public is a connoisseur52 of temperaments53. I think I have elsewhere observed in this book that the public collects temperaments just as a few people collect china or autographs. Perhaps Bauer is not exotic or orchidaceous enough. He is too “straight,” too downright.
“What are they like, these Manchester people?” Bauer asked me one afternoon before he was to play in England’s musical metropolis54.
“Well, they’re ‘difficult,’ I think. They know something about music here. You are not in London now, you know. You have reached the centre of things.”
“Seriously?”
“Quite. I mean it. These people really do know. You see, for the last fifty years they have had nothing but the best. They have a tradition and stick to it.”
“The Clara Schumann tradition? Joachim and Brahms and Hallé and all that?”
“No, no! That is on its last legs, on its knees even. The tradition, I admit, is hard to define, but it’s there all the same. If you get a couple of encores here, you may well consider that a success.”
“Funny thing, the public,” he muttered. “You never know where you have it. But, of course, there is no such entity55 as ‘the public.’ There are thousands of publics and they are all different.”
. . . . . . . .
Emil Sauer has a glittering style and had, fifteen years ago, a technique that no word but rapacious56 accurately57 describes. The piano recital49 he gave in Manchester nearly two decades ago was the first recital I ever attended, though I was a lad in my late teens; the occasion then seemed, and still seems, most romantic. It is true that, on the nursery piano at home, one of my elder brothers used to give recitals with me as sole auditor58, and that 183I used to return the compliment the following evening, but though we took these affairs very seriously and even wrote lengthy59 criticisms of each other’s playing, our performances were not of a high order. But one evening, defying parental60 authority and risking paternal61 anger, we slipped unseen from home and went to hear Sauer.
I think we must both have been much younger than our years—certainly we were much younger than the average educated boy of eighteen or nineteen to-day—and we were in a very high state of nervous excitement as we sat in the gallery of the Free Trade Hall waiting for the great man’s appearance. His slim and, as it seemed at the time, spirit-like figure passed across the platform to the piano, and two hours of pure trance-like joy began for at least a couple of his listeners. My brother and I knew all there was to know about the great pianists of the past, and often we had tried to imagine what their playing was like; but neither he nor I had conceived that anything could be so gorgeous as what we now heard. For once, realisation was many more times finer than anticipation62. Only one thing disturbed my complete happiness—and that was the notion that the pianist might possibly be disappointed with the amount of applause he was receiving, though, of a truth, he was receiving a great deal of applause. So I clapped my hands and stamped my feet as hard and as long as possible. The Appassionata Sonata63 almost frenzied64 me and a Liszt Rhapsody was like heady wine.
But all beautiful things come to a close, and towards ten o’clock my brother and I found ourselves on the wet pavement outside, feeling very exalted65 but at the same time uncertain whether we had done our utmost to make Sauer’s welcome all that we thought it should have been.
“Let’s wait for him outside the platform entrance and cheer him when he comes out,” suggested my brother.
184Very strange must that two-voiced cheer have sounded to Sauer as, in the dark side street, he stepped quickly into his cab, which began immediately to move away. As our voices died, he opened the window and leaned out, holding out to us his long-fingered hand. Running eagerly to him, we clasped his hand in turn and, amazed, listened to the few words of thanks he shouted to us.
For long after that, Sauer was one of our major gods, and we followed his triumphs both in England and on the Continent with the utmost interest and excitement. When we boasted to our friends that we had shaken hands with the great pianist, they evinced little interest in the matter. “Why, that’s nothing!” exclaimed a Philistine66; “last Saturday afternoon I touched the sleeve of Jim Valentine’s coat!” Now, Jim Valentine was a great rugger player.
. . . . . . . .
Perhaps the most exquisite67 and the most fragile thing in the world at present is the Chopin playing of Vladimir de Pachmann. For more than a quarter of a century writers have been attempting to reproduce his coloured music in coloured words: they have all failed. De Pachmann is an exotic, a hothouse plant. Not a hothouse plant among many other plants, but a plant living luxuriously68 and solitarily69 and with exaggerated self-consciousness in its own hothouse.
In thinking of him, one feels that he belongs to the very last minute of civilisation’s progress. All the civilisations of the past have come and gone and returned; they have worked age-long with tireless industry; mankind has struggled upwards and rushed precipitately70 downwards71 through thousands of years; cities have been sacked and countries ravaged72; Babylon, Nineveh, Athens and Rome have bloomed flauntingly and wilted73 most tragically74: and the most exquisite thing that has been produced by all this suffering, all this unimaginable labour, is the 185Chopin playing of de Pachmann. The world has toiled75 for thousands of years and has at last given us this thing more delicate than lace, more brittle76 than porcelain77, more shining than gold....
There is the rather painful question of this pianist’s eccentricities78. One can discuss them publicly for de Pachmann himself continually thrusts them on the public. You know to what I refer: the running commentary of words, gestures, nods, smiles and leers which he almost invariably passes not only on the music he plays, but also on his manner of playing it. I refuse to believe that this most extraordinary behaviour is mere21 affectation: it seems to me a direct and irrepressible expression of the man’s very soul. It is not ridiculous, because it is so serious and so natural. Nevertheless, it is entirely79 ineffective. It does not help in the least. Rather does it mar46. To see the performer winking80 slyly at you when he has, as it were, “pulled off” a particularly delicate nuance81 does not give that nuance a more subtle flavour: it merely distracts the attention and sets one conjecturing82 what really is going on in the performer’s mind. It has appeared to me that the pianist has been saying: “You noticed that, didn’t you? Well, you couldn’t do it if you spent a whole lifetime trying; yet how easily I achieved it!”
The large, smooth face, with its loose mouth and dizzied eyes, is the face of a magician out of a story book. It is not a real face. It has only one of the attributes of power—egotism. Egotism has furrowed83 every line on that countenance84; it dilates85 the eyes. Egotism runs through the sensitive fingers. I have stood by his side and wilfully86 shut my ears on the music and fastened my eyes on his face; but I learned nothing. I do not know if his mind dwells aloof87 from all emotion, his intellect functioning automatically—as would seem to be the case; or if, experienced and cynical88, he has the power of pouring the very essence of his spirit into sound, laughing at himself 186and us as he does so—but laughing more at us than at himself, for we are deceived whilst he is not.
It is strange that so exotic a personality should have a firm and unrelaxing hold on the public. He is not caviare to the general. Villiers de l’Isle Adam is worshipped by the few; Walter Pater cannot have more than a thousand sincere disciples89, but de Pachmann is adored by millions. “Millions” is no exaggeration. People are taken out of themselves whilst he plays. You remember, don’t you? the Paderewski craze in America fifteen years ago, when the platform was stormed and taken by assault night after night by society ladies. I witnessed pretty much the same kind of thing at a de Pachmann recital in a Lancashire town; but the latter pianist was stormed, not by society ladies, but by unemotional bank clerks, stockbrokers90, merchants, working men and women. At the end of the concert, they flowed on to the platform in hundreds, and surrounded the pianist whilst he played encore after encore, smiling vacantly the while and enjoying himself immensely, pausing between each piece only to motion his ring of worshippers a little farther from the piano.
An enigmatic creature, this; a creature who will never give up his secret; perhaps, even, a creature who is not aware that he possesses a secret.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
robins
|
|
| n.知更鸟，鸫( robin的名词复数 )；（签名者不分先后，以避免受责的）圆形签名抗议书（或请愿书） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
apprised
|
|
| v.告知，通知( apprise的过去式和过去分词 )；评价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
texture
|
|
| n.(织物)质地；(材料)构造；结构；肌理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
recollect
|
|
| v.回忆，想起，记起，忆起，记得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
vividly
|
|
| adv.清楚地，鲜明地，生动地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
darted
|
|
| v.投掷，投射( dart的过去式和过去分词 )；向前冲，飞奔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
chapel
|
|
| n.小教堂，殡仪馆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
homely
|
|
| adj.家常的，简朴的；不漂亮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
exhortations
|
|
| n.敦促( exhortation的名词复数 )；极力推荐；（正式的）演讲；（宗教仪式中的）劝诫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
contrives
|
|
| （不顾困难地）促成某事( contrive的第三人称单数 )； 巧妙地策划，精巧地制造（如机器）； 设法做到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
bribe
|
|
| n.贿赂；v.向…行贿，买通 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
dissemination
|
|
| 传播,宣传,传染(病毒) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
kindly
|
|
| adj.和蔼的，温和的，爽快的；adv.温和地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
courteously
|
|
| adv.有礼貌地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
courteous
|
|
| adj.彬彬有礼的，客气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
mimes
|
|
| n.指手画脚( mime的名词复数 )；做手势；哑剧；哑剧演员v.指手画脚地表演，用哑剧的形式表演( mime的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
bluff
|
|
| v.虚张声势，用假象骗人；n.虚张声势，欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
mingling
|
|
| adj.混合的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
astonishment
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊异 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
asunder
|
|
| adj.分离的，化为碎片 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
tragic
|
|
| adj.悲剧的，悲剧性的，悲惨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
temperament
|
|
| n.气质，性格，性情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
militant
|
|
| adj.激进的，好斗的；n.激进分子，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
lucidity
|
|
| n.明朗，清晰，透明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
sweeping
|
|
| adj.范围广大的，一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
upwards
|
|
| adv.向上，在更高处...以上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
afflicted
|
|
| 使受痛苦，折磨( afflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
devastating
|
|
| adj.毁灭性的，令人震惊的，强有力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
bereft
|
|
| adj.被剥夺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
fuming
|
|
| 愤怒( fume的现在分词 )； 大怒； 发怒； 冒烟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
jealousy
|
|
| n.妒忌，嫉妒，猜忌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
depressed
|
|
| adj.沮丧的，抑郁的，不景气的，萧条的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
serene
|
|
| adj. 安详的，宁静的，平静的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
mar
|
|
| vt.破坏，毁坏，弄糟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
ebbs
|
|
| 退潮( ebb的名词复数 )； 落潮； 衰退 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
longing
|
|
| n.（for）渴望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
recital
|
|
| n.朗诵，独奏会，独唱会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
recitals
|
|
| n.独唱会( recital的名词复数 )；独奏会；小型音乐会、舞蹈表演会等；一系列事件等的详述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
greasy
|
|
| adj. 多脂的，油脂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
connoisseur
|
|
| n.鉴赏家，行家，内行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
temperaments
|
|
| 性格( temperament的名词复数 )； （人或动物的）气质； 易冲动； （性情）暴躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
metropolis
|
|
| n.首府；大城市 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
entity
|
|
| n.实体，独立存在体，实际存在物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
rapacious
|
|
| adj.贪婪的，强夺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
auditor
|
|
| n.审计员，旁听着 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
lengthy
|
|
| adj.漫长的，冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
parental
|
|
| adj.父母的；父的；母的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
paternal
|
|
| adj.父亲的，像父亲的，父系的，父方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
anticipation
|
|
| n.预期，预料，期望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
sonata
|
|
| n.奏鸣曲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
frenzied
|
|
| a.激怒的；疯狂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
philistine
|
|
| n.庸俗的人；adj.市侩的，庸俗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
exquisite
|
|
| adj.精美的；敏锐的；剧烈的，感觉强烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
luxuriously
|
|
| adv.奢侈地，豪华地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
solitarily
|
|
| adv.独自一人地，寂寞地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
precipitately
|
|
| adv.猛进地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
downwards
|
|
| adj./adv.向下的（地），下行的（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
ravaged
|
|
| 毁坏( ravage的过去式和过去分词 )； 蹂躏； 劫掠； 抢劫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
wilted
|
|
| （使）凋谢，枯萎( wilt的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
tragically
|
|
| adv. 悲剧地，悲惨地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
toiled
|
|
| 长时间或辛苦地工作( toil的过去式和过去分词 )； 艰难缓慢地移动，跋涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
brittle
|
|
| adj.易碎的；脆弱的；冷淡的；(声音)尖利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
porcelain
|
|
| n.瓷；adj.瓷的，瓷制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
eccentricities
|
|
| n.古怪行为( eccentricity的名词复数 )；反常；怪癖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
winking
|
|
| n.瞬眼，目语v.使眼色( wink的现在分词 )；递眼色（表示友好或高兴等）；（指光）闪烁；闪亮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
nuance
|
|
| n.(意义、意见、颜色)细微差别 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
conjecturing
|
|
| v. & n. 推测，臆测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
furrowed
|
|
| v.犁田，开沟( furrow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
countenance
|
|
| n.脸色，面容；面部表情；vt.支持，赞同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
dilates
|
|
| v.（使某物）扩大，膨胀，张大( dilate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
wilfully
|
|
| adv.任性固执地；蓄意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
aloof
|
|
| adj.远离的；冷淡的，漠不关心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
cynical
|
|
| adj.(对人性或动机)怀疑的，不信世道向善的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
disciples
|
|
| n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 )；门徒；耶稣的信徒；（尤指）耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
stockbrokers
|
|
| n.股票经纪人( stockbroker的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |