The great strength of the theory that the poems are the work of several ages is the existence in them of various strata1 of languages, earlier and later.
Not to speak of differences of vocabulary, Mr. Monro and Mr. Leaf, with many scholars, detect two strata of earlier and later grammar in Iliad and Odyssey2. In the Iliad four or five Books are infected by “the later grammar,” while the Odyssey in general seems to be contaminated. Mr. Leafs words are: “When we regard the Epos in large masses, we see that we can roughly arrange the inconsistent elements towards one end or the other of a line of development both linguistic3 and historical. The main division, that of Iliad and Odyssey, shows a distinct advance along this line; and the distinction is still more marked if we group with the Odyssey four Books of the Iliad whose Odyssean4 physiognomy is well marked. Taking as our main guide the dissection5 of the plot as shown in its episodes, we find that marks of lateness, though nowhere entirely7 absent, group themselves most numerously in the later additions . . . ” 313 We are here concerned with linguistic examples of “lateness.” The “four Books whose Odyssean physiognomy” and language seem “well marked,” are IX., X., XXIII., XXIV. Here Mr. Leaf, Mr. Monro, and many authorities are agreed. But to these four Odyssean Books of the Iliad Mr. Leaf adds Iliad, XI. 664–772: “probably a later addition,” says Mr. Monro. “It is notably8 Odyssean in character,” says Mr. Leaf; and the author “is ignorant of the geography of the Western Peloponnesus. No doubt the author was an Asiatic Greek.” 314 The value of this discovery is elsewhere discussed (see The Interpolations of Nestor).
The Odyssean notes in this passage of a hundred lines (Iliad, XI. 670–762) are the occurrence of “a purely9 Odyssean word” (677), an Attic10 form of an epic11 word, and a “forbidden trochaic caesura in the fourth foot”; an Odyssean word for carving12 meat, applied13 in a non-Odyssean sense (688), a verb for “insulting,” not elsewhere found in the Iliad (though the noun is in the Iliad) (695), an Odyssean epithet14 of the sun, “four times in the Odyssey” (735). It is also possible that there is an allusion15 to a four-horse chariot (699).
These are the proofs of Odyssean lateness.
The real difficulty about Odyssean words and grammar in the Iliad is that, if they were in vigorous poetic16 existence down to the time of Pisistratus (as the Odysseanism of the Asiatic editor proves that they were), and if every rhapsodist could add to and alter the materials at the disposal of the Pisistratean editor at will, we are not told how the fashionable Odysseanisms were kept, on the whole, out of twenty Books of the Iliad.
This is a point on which we cannot insist too strongly, as an argument against the theory that, till the middle of the sixth century B.C., the Iliad scarcely survived save in the memory of strolling rhapsodists. If that were so, all the Books of the Iliad would, in the course of recitation of old and composition of new passages, be equally contaminated with late Odyssean linguistic style. It could not be otherwise; all the Books would be equally modified in passing through the lips of modern reciters and composers. Therefore, if twenty out of twenty-four Books are pure, or pure in the main, from Odysseanisms, while four are deeply stained with them, the twenty must not only be earlier than the four, but must have been specially17 preserved, and kept uncontaminated, in some manner inconsistent with the theory that all alike scarcely existed save in the memory or invention of late strolling reciters.
How the twenty Books relatively18 pure “in grammatical forms, in syntax, and in vocabulary,” could be kept thus clean without the aid of written texts, I am unable to imagine. If left merely to human memory and at the mercy of reciters and new poets, they would have become stained with “the defining article”— and, indeed, an employment of the article which startles grammarians, appears even in the eleventh line of the First Book of the Iliad? [Footnote (exact placing uncertain): Cf. Monro and Leaf, on Iliad, I. 11–12.]
Left merely to human memory and the human voice, the twenty more or less innocent Books would have abounded19, like the Odyssey, in [Greek: amphi] with the dative meaning “about,” and with [Greek: ex] “in consequence of,” and “the extension of the use of [Greek: ei] clauses as final and objective clauses,” and similar marks of lateness, so interesting to grammarians. 315 But the twenty Books are almost, or quite, inoffensive in these respects.
Now, even in ages of writing, it has been found difficult or impossible to keep linguistic novelties and novelties of metre out of old epics20. We later refer (Archaeology21 of the Epic) to the Chancun de Willame, of which an unknown benefactor22 printed two hundred copies in 1903. Mr. Raymond Weeks, in Romania, describes Willame as taking a place beside the Chanson de Roland in the earliest rank of Chansons de Geste. If the text can be entirely restored, the poem will appear as “the most primitive” of French epics of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. But it has passed from copy to copy in the course of generations. The methods of versification change, and, after line 2647, “there are traces of change in the language. The word ?o, followed by a vowel23, hitherto frequent, never again reappears. The vowel i, of li, nominative masculine of the article” (li Reis, “the king”), “never occurs in the text after line 2647. Up to that point it is elided or not at pleasure. . . . There is a progressive tendency towards hiatus. After line 1980 the system of assonance changes. An and en have been kept distinct hitherto; this ceases to be the case.” 316
The poem is also notable, like the Iliad, for textual repetition of passages, but that is common to all early poetry, which many Homeric critics appear not to understand. In this example we see how apt novelties in grammar and metre are to steal into even written copies of epics, composed in and handed down through uncritical ages; and we are confirmed in the opinion that the relatively pure and orthodox grammar and metre of the twenty Books must have been preserved by written texts carefully ‘executed. The other four Books, if equally old, were less fortunate. Their grammar and metre, we learn, belong to a later stratum24 of language.
These opinions of grammarians are not compatible with the hypothesis that all of the Iliad, even the “earliest” parts, are loaded with interpolations, forced in at different places and in any age from 1000 B.C. to 540 B.C.; for if that theory were true, the whole of the Iliad would equally be infected with the later Odyssean grammar. According to Mr. Monro and Sir Richard Jebb, it is not.
But suppose, on the other hand, that the later Odyssean grammar abounds25 all through the whole Iliad, then that grammar is not more Odyssean than it is Iliadic. The alleged26 distinction of early Iliadic grammar, late Odyssean grammar, in that case vanishes. Mr. Leaf is more keen than Mr. Monro and Sir Richard Jebb in detecting late grammar in the Iliad beyond the bounds of Books IX., X., XXIII., XXIV. But he does not carry these discoveries so far as to make the late grammar no less Iliadic than Odyssean. In Book VIII. of the Iliad, which he thinks was only made for the purpose of introducing Book IX., 317 we ought to find the late Odyssean grammar just as much as we do in Book IX., for it is of the very same date, and probably by one or more of the same authors as Book IX. But we do not find the Odyssean grammar in Book VIII.
Mr. Leaf says, “The peculiar27 character” of Book VIII. “is easily understood, when we recognise the fact that Book VIII. is intended to serve only as a means for the introduction of Book IX. . . . ” which is “late” and “Odyssean.” Then Book VIII., intended to introduce Book IX., must be at least as late as Book IX. and might be expected to be at least as Odyssean, indeed one would think it could not be otherwise. Yet it is not so.
Mr. Leaf’s theory has thus to face the difficulty that while the whole Iliad, by his view, for more than four centuries, was stuffed with late interpolations, in the course of oral recital29 through all Greek lands, and was crammed30 with original “copy” by a sycophant31 of Pisistratus about 540 B.C., the late grammar concentrated itself in only some four Books. Till some reasonable answer is given to this question — how did twenty Books of the Iliad preserve so creditably the ancient grammar through centuries of change, and of recitation by rhapsodists who used the Odyssean grammar, which infected the four other Books, and the whole of the Odyssey? — it seems hardly worth while to discuss this linguistic test.
Any scholar who looks at these pages knows all about the proofs of grammar of a late date in the Odyssey and the four contaminated Books of the Iliad. But it may be well to give a few specimens32, for the enlightenment of less learned readers of Homer.
The use of [Greek: amfi], with the dative, meaning “about,” when thinking or speaking “about” Odysseus or anything else, is peculiar to the Odyssey. But how has it not crept into the four Odyssean contaminated Books of the Iliad?
[Greek: peri], with the genitive, “follows verbs meaning to speak or know about a person,” but only in the Odyssey. What preposition follows such verbs in the Iliad?
Here, again, we ask: how did the contaminated Books of the Iliad escape the stain of [Greek: peri], with the genitive, after verbs meaning to speak or know? What phrase do they use in the Iliad for speaking or asking about anybody? [Footnote (exact placing uncertain): Monro, Homeric Grammar. See Index, under Iliad, p. 339.]
[Greek: meta], with the genitive, meaning “among” or “with,” comes twice in the Odyssey (X. 320; XVI. 140) and thrice in the Iliad (XIII. 700; XXI. 458; XXIV. 400); but all these passages in the Iliad are disposed of as “late” parts of the poem.
[Greek: epi], with the accusative, meaning towards a person, comes often in the Iliad; once in the Odyssey. But it comes four times in Iliad, Book X., which almost every critic scouts33 as very “late” indeed. If so, why does the “late” Odyssey not deal in this grammatical usage so common in the “late” Book X. of the Iliad?
[Greek: epi], with the accusative, “meaning extent (without motion),” is chiefly found in the Odyssey, and in the Iliad, IX., X., XXIV. On consulting grammarians one thinks that there is not much in this.
[Greek: proti] with the dative, meaning “in addition to,” occurs only once (Odyssey, X. 68). If it occurs only once, there is little to be learned from the circumstance.
[Greek: ana] with the genitive, is only in Odyssey, only thrice, always of going on board a ship. There are not many ship-farings in the Iliad. Odysseus and his men are not described as going on board their ship, in so many words, in Iliad, Book I. The usage occurs in the poem where the incidents of seafaring occur frequently, as is to be expected? It is not worth while to persevere34 with these tithes35 of mint and cummin. If “Neglect of Position” be commoner — like “Hiatus in the Bucolic36 Diaeresis”— in the Odyssey and in Iliad, XXIII., XXIV., why do the failings not beset37 Iliad, IX., X., these being such extremely “late” books? As to the later use of the Article in the Odyssey and the Odyssean Books of the Iliad, it appears to us that Book I. of the Iliad uses the article as it is used in Book X.; but on this topic we must refer to a special treatise38 on the language of Iliad, Book X., which is promised.
Turning to the vocabulary: “words expressive39 of civilisation” are bound to be more frequent, as they are, in the Odyssey, a poem of peaceful life, than in a poem about an army in action, like the Iliad. Out of all this no clue to the distance of years dividing the two poems can be found. As to words concerning religion, the same holds good. The Odyssey is more frequently religious (see the case of Eumaeus) than the Iliad.
In morals the term [Greek: dikaios] is more used in the Odyssey, also [Greek: atemistos] (“just” and “lawless”). But that is partly because the Odyssey has to contrast civilised (“just”) with wild outlandish people — Cyclopes and Laestrygons, who are “lawless.” The Iliad has no occasion to touch on savages40; but, as the [Greek: hybris] of the Wooers is a standing41 topic in the Odyssey (an ethical42 poem, says Aristotle), the word [Greek: hybris] is of frequent occurrence in the Odyssey, in just the same sense as it bears in Iliad, I 214 — the insolence43 of Agamemnon. Yet when Achilles has occasion to speak of Agamemnon’s insolence in Iliad, Book IX., he does not use the word [Greek: hybris], though Book IX. is so very “late” and “Odyssean.” It would be easy to go through the words for moral ideas in the Odyssey, and to show that they occur in the numerous moral situations which do not arise, or arise much less frequently, in the Iliad. There is not difference enough in the moral standard of the two poems to justify44 us in assuming that centuries of ethical progress had intervened between their dates of composition. If the Iliad, again, were really, like the Odyssey, a thing of growth through several centuries, which overlapped45 the centuries in which the Odyssey grew, the moral ideas of the Iliad and Odyssey would necessarily be much the same, would be indistinguishable. But, as a matter of fact, it would be easy to show that the moral standard of the Iliad is higher, in many places, than the moral standard of the Odyssey; and that, therefore, by the critical hypothesis, the Iliad is the later poem of the twain. For example, the behaviour of Achilles is most obnoxious46 to the moralist in Iliad, Book IX., where he refuses gifts of conciliation47. But by the critical hypothesis this is not the fault of the Iliad, for Book IX. is declared to be “late,” and of the same date as late parts of the Odyssey. Achilles is not less open to moral reproach in his abominable48 cruelty and impiety49, as shown in his sacrifice of prisoners of war and his treatment of dead Hector, in Iliad, XXIII., XXIV. But these Books also are said to be as late as the Odyssey.
The solitary50 “realistic” or “naturalistic” passage in Homer, with which a lover of modern “problem novels” feels happy and at home, is the story of Phoenix51, about his seduction of his father’s mistress at the request of his mother. What a charming situation! But that occurs in an “Odyssean” Book of the Iliad, Book IX.; and thus Odyssean seems lower, not more advanced, than Iliadic taste in morals. To be sure, the poet disapproves52 of all these immoralities.
In the Odyssey the hero, to the delight of Athene, lies often and freely and with glee. The Achilles of the Iliad hates a liar28 “like the gates of Hades”; but he says so in an “Odyssean” Book (Book IX.), so there were obviously different standards in Odyssean ethics53.
As to the Odyssey being the work of “a milder age,” consider the hanging of Penelope’s maids and the abominable torture of Melanthius. There is no torturing in the Iliad for the Iliad happens not to deal with treacherous54 thralls55.
Enfin, there is no appreciable56 moral advance in the Odyssey on the moral standard of the Iliad. It is rather the other way. Odysseus, in the Odyssey, tries to procure57 poison for his arrow-heads. The person to whom he applies is too moral to oblige him. We never learn that a hero of the Iliad would use poisoned arrows. The poet himself obviously disapproves; in both poems the poet is always on the side of morality and of the highest ethical standard of his age. The standard in both Epics is the same; in both some heroes fall short of the standard.
To return to linguistic tests, it is hard indeed to discover what Mr. Leaf’s opinion of the value of linguistic tests of lateness really is. “It is on such fundamental discrepancies58”— as he has found in Books IX., XVI.—“that we can depend, and on these alone, when we come to dissect6 the Iliad . . . Some critics have attempted to base their analysis on evidences from language, but I do not think they are sufficient to bear the super-structure which has been raised on them.” 318
He goes on, still placing a low value on linguistic tests alone, to say: “It is on the broad grounds of the construction and motives59 of the poem, and not on any merely linguistic considerations, that a decision must be sought.” 319
But he contradicts these comfortable words when he comes to “the latest expansions,” such as Books XXIII., XXIV. “The latest expansions are thoroughly60 in the spirit of those which precede, them on account of linguistIC evidence, which definitely classes them with the Odyssey rather than the rest of the Iliad.” 320
Now as Mr. Leaf has told us that we must depend on “fundamental discrepancies,” “on these alone,” when we want to dissect the Iliad; as he has told us that linguistic tests alone are “not sufficient to bear the superstructure,” &c., how can we lop off two Books “only on account of linguistic evidence”? It would appear that on this point, as on others, Mr. Leaf has entirely changed his mind. But, even in the Companion (p. 388), he had amputated Book XXIV. for no “fundamental discrepancy,” but because of “its close kinship to the Odyssey, as in the whole language of the Book.”
Here, as in many other passages, if we are to account for discrepancies by the theory of multiplex authorship, we must decide that Mr. Leaf’s books are the work of several critics, not of one critic only. But there is excellent evidence to prove that here we would be mistaken.
Confessedly and regretfully no grammarian, I remain unable, in face of what seem contradictory61 assertions about the value of linguistic tests, to ascertain62 what they are really worth, and what, if anything, they really prove.
Mr. Monro allows much for “the long insensible influence of Attic recitation upon the Homeric text;” . . . “many Attic peculiarities63 may be noted” (so much so that Aristarchus thought Homer must have been an Athenian!). “The poems suffered a gradual and unsystematic because generally unconscious process of modernising, the chief agents in which were the rhapsodists” (reciters in a later democratic age), “who wandered over all parts of Greece, and were likely to be influenced by all the chief forms of literature.” 321
Then, wherefore insist so much on tests of language?
Mr. Monro was not only a great grammarian; he had a keen appreciation64 of poetry. Thus he was conspicuously65 uneasy in his hypothesis, based on words and grammar, that the two last Books of the Iliad are by a late hand. After quoting Shelley’s remark that, in these two Books, “Homer truly begins to be himself,” Mr. Monro writes, “in face of such testimony66 can we say that the Book in which the climax67 is reached, in which the last discords68 of the Iliad are dissolved in chivalrous69 pity and regret, is not the work of the original poet, but of some Homerid or rhapsodist?”
Mr. Monro, with a struggle, finally voted for grammar, and other indications of lateness, against Shelley and against his own sense of poetry. In a letter to me of May 1905, Mr. Monro sketched70 a theory that Book IX. (without which he said that he deemed an Achilleis hardly possible) might be a remanié representative of an earlier lay to the same general effect. Some Greek Shakespeare, then, treated an older poem on the theme of Book IX. as Shakespeare treated old plays, namely, as a canvas to work over with a master’s hand. Probably Mr. Monro would not have gone so far in the case of Book XXIV., The Repentance71 of Achilles. He thought it in too keen contrast with the brutality73 of Book XXII. (obviously forgetting that in Book XXIV. Achilles is infinitely74 more brutal72 than in Book XXII.), and thought it inconsistent with the refusal of Achilles to grant burial at the prayer of the dying Hector, and with his criminal treatment of the dead body of his chivalrous enemy. But in Book XXIV. his ferocity is increased. Mr. Leaf shares Mr. Monro’s view; but Mr. Leaf thinks that a Greek audience forgave Achilles, because he was doing “the will of heaven,” and “fighting the great fight of Hellenism against barbarism.” 322 But the Achzeans were not Puritans of the sixteenth century! Moreover, the Trojans are as “Hellenic” as the Achzeans. They converse75, clearly, in the same language. They worship the same gods. The Achzeans cannot regard them (unless on account of the breach76 of truce77, by no Trojan, but an ally) as the Covenanters regarded “malignants,” their name for loyal cavaliers, whom they also styled “Amalekites,” and treated as Samuel treated Agag. The Achaeans to whom Homer sang had none of this sanguinary Pharisaism.
Others must decide on the exact value and import of Odyssean grammar as a test of lateness, and must estimate the probable amount of time required for the development of such linguistic differences as they find in the Odyssey and Iliad. In undertaking78 this task they may compare the literary language of America as it was before 1860 and as it is now. The language of English literature has also been greatly modified in the last forty years, but our times are actively79 progressive in many directions; linguistic variations might arise more slowly in the Greece of the Epics. We have already shown, in the more appropriate instance of the Chancun de Willame, that considerable varieties in diction and metre occur in a single MS. of that poem, a MS. written probably within less than a century of the date of the poem’s composition.
We can also trace, in remaniements of the Chanson DE Roland, comparatively rapid and quite revolutionary variations from the oldest — the Oxford80 — manuscript. Rhyme is substituted for assonance; the process entails81 frequent modernisations, and yet the basis of thirteenth-century texts continues to be the version of the eleventh century. It may be worth the while of scholars to consider these parallels carefully, as regards the language and prosody82 of the Odyssean Books of the Iliad, and to ask themselves whether the processes of alteration83 in the course of transmission, which we know to have occurred in the history of the Old French, may not also have affected84 the Iliad, though why the effect is mainly confined to four Books remains85 a puzzle. It is enough for us to have shown that if Odyssean varies from Iliadic language, in all other respects the two poems bear the marks of the same age. Meanwhile, a Homeric scholar so eminent86 as Mr. T. W. Allen, says that “the linguistic attack upon their age” (that of the Homeric poems) “may be said to have at last definitely failed, and archaeology has erected87 an apparently88 indestructible buttress89 for their defence.”
收听单词发音 |
1
strata
|
|
| n.地层（复数）；社会阶层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
odyssey
|
|
| n.长途冒险旅行；一连串的冒险 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
linguistic
|
|
| adj.语言的，语言学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
odyssean
|
|
| adj.（荷马史诗）（式）的，（似）奥德修斯的，（似）奥德修斯历程的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
5
dissection
|
|
| n.分析；解剖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
dissect
|
|
| v.分割；解剖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
attic
|
|
| n.顶楼，屋顶室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
epic
|
|
| n.史诗，叙事诗；adj.史诗般的，壮丽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
carving
|
|
| n.雕刻品，雕花 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
epithet
|
|
| n.（用于褒贬人物等的）表述形容词，修饰语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
poetic
|
|
| adj.富有诗意的，有诗人气质的，善于抒情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
abounded
|
|
| v.大量存在，充满，富于( abound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
epics
|
|
| n.叙事诗( epic的名词复数 )；壮举；惊人之举；史诗般的电影（或书籍） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
archaeology
|
|
| n.考古学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
benefactor
|
|
| n. 恩人，行善的人，捐助人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
vowel
|
|
| n.元音；元音字母 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
stratum
|
|
| n.地层，社会阶层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
abounds
|
|
| v.大量存在，充满，富于( abound的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
liar
|
|
| n.说谎的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
recital
|
|
| n.朗诵，独奏会，独唱会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
crammed
|
|
| adj.塞满的，挤满的；大口地吃；快速贪婪地吃v.把…塞满；填入；临时抱佛脚( cram的过去式) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
sycophant
|
|
| n.马屁精 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
specimens
|
|
| n.样品( specimen的名词复数 )；范例；（化验的）抽样；某种类型的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
scouts
|
|
| 侦察员[机，舰]( scout的名词复数 )； 童子军； 搜索； 童子军成员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
persevere
|
|
| v.坚持，坚忍，不屈不挠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
tithes
|
|
| n.（宗教捐税）什一税，什一的教区税，小部分( tithe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
bucolic
|
|
| adj.乡村的；牧羊的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
beset
|
|
| v.镶嵌；困扰，包围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
expressive
|
|
| adj.表现的，表达…的，富于表情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
ethical
|
|
| adj.伦理的，道德的，合乎道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
insolence
|
|
| n.傲慢；无礼；厚颜；傲慢的态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
overlapped
|
|
| _adj.重叠的v.部分重叠( overlap的过去式和过去分词 )；（物体）部份重叠；交叠；（时间上）部份重叠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
obnoxious
|
|
| adj.极恼人的，讨人厌的，可憎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
conciliation
|
|
| n.调解，调停 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
abominable
|
|
| adj.可厌的，令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
solitary
|
|
| adj.孤独的，独立的，荒凉的；n.隐士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
phoenix
|
|
| n.凤凰，长生(不死)鸟；引申为重生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
disapproves
|
|
| v.不赞成( disapprove的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
ethics
|
|
| n.伦理学；伦理观，道德标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
treacherous
|
|
| adj.不可靠的，有暗藏的危险的；adj.背叛的，背信弃义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
thralls
|
|
| n.奴隶( thrall的名词复数 )；奴役；奴隶制；奴隶般受支配的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
appreciable
|
|
| adj.明显的，可见的，可估量的，可觉察的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
discrepancies
|
|
| n.差异，不符合（之处），不一致（之处）( discrepancy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
peculiarities
|
|
| n. 特质, 特性, 怪癖, 古怪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
conspicuously
|
|
| ad.明显地，惹人注目地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
climax
|
|
| n.顶点；高潮；v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
discords
|
|
| 不和（discord的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
chivalrous
|
|
| adj.武士精神的；对女人彬彬有礼的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
sketched
|
|
| v.草拟（sketch的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
repentance
|
|
| n.懊悔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
brutality
|
|
| n.野蛮的行为，残忍，野蛮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
converse
|
|
| vi.谈话，谈天，闲聊；adv.相反的，相反 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
truce
|
|
| n.休战，(争执，烦恼等的)缓和；v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
undertaking
|
|
| n.保证，许诺，事业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
actively
|
|
| adv.积极地，勤奋地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
Oxford
|
|
| n.牛津（英国城市） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
entails
|
|
| 使…成为必要( entail的第三人称单数 )； 需要； 限定继承； 使必需 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
prosody
|
|
| n.诗体论，作诗法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
alteration
|
|
| n.变更，改变；蚀变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
ERECTED
|
|
| adj. 直立的，竖立的，笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立，建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
buttress
|
|
| n.支撑物；v.支持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |