The reason for this criticism seems to be, that while one small set of students is interested in, and familiar with the themes examined in the first part (namely the psychological characteristics of certain mental states from which, in part, the doctrine7 of spirits is said to have arisen), that set of students neither knows nor cares anything about the matter handled in the second part. This group of students is busied with “Psychical8 Research,” and the obscure human faculties9 implied in alleged10 cases of hallucination, telepathy, “double personality,” human automatism, clairvoyance11, and so on. Meanwhile anthropological readers are equally indifferent as to that branch of psychology12 which examines the conditions of hysteria, hypnotic trance, “double personality,” and the like. Anthropologists have not hitherto applied13 to the savage14 mental conditions, out of which, in part, the doctrine of “spirits” arose, the recent researches of French, German, and English psychologists of the new school. As to whether these researches into abnormal psychological conditions do, or do not, indicate the existence of a transcendental region of human faculty15, anthropologists appear to be unconcerned. The only English exception known to me is Mr. Tylor, and his great work, “Primitive Culture,” was written thirty years ago, before the modern psychological studies of Professor William James, Dr. Romaine Newbold, M. Richet, Dr. Janet, Professor Sidgwick, Mr. Myers, Mr. Gurney, Dr. Parish, and many others had commenced.
Anthropologists have gone on discussing the trances, and visions, and so-called “demoniacal possession” of savages16, as if no new researches into similar facts in the psychology of civilised mankind existed; or, if they existed, threw any glimmer17 of light on the abnormal psychology of savages. I have, on the other hand, thought it desirable to sketch18 out a study of savage psychology in the light of recent psychological research. Thanks to this daring novelty, the book has been virtually taken as two books; anthropologists have criticised the second part, and one or two Psychical Researchers have criticised the first part; each school leaving one part severely19 alone. Such are the natural results of a too restricted specialism.
Even to Psychical Researchers the earlier division is of scant20 interest, because witnesses to successful abnormal or supernormal faculty in savages cannot be brought into court and cross-examined. But I do not give anecdotes21 of such savage successes as evidence to facts; they are only illustrations, and evidence to beliefs and methods (as of crystal gazing and automatic utterances23 of “secondary personality”), which, among the savages, correspond to the supposed facts examined by Psychical Research among the civilised. I only point out, as Bastian had already pointed24 out, the existence of a field that deserves closer study by anthropologists who can observe savages in their homes. We need persons trained in the psychological laboratories of Europe and America, as members of anthropological expeditions. It may be noted25 that, in his “Letters from the South Seas,” Mr. Louis Stevenson makes some curious observations, especially on a singular form of hypnotism applied to himself with fortunate results. The method, used in native medicine, was novel; and the results were entirely26 inexplicable27 to Mr. Stevenson, who had not been amenable28 to European hypnotic practice. But he was not a trained expert.
Anthropology29 must remain incomplete while it neglects this field, whether among wild or civilised men. In the course of time this will come to be acknowledged. It will be seen that we cannot really account for the origin of the belief in spirits while we neglect the scientific study of those psychical conditions, as of hallucination and the hypnotic trance, in which that belief must probably have had some, at least, of its origins.
As to the second part of the book, I have argued that the first dim surmises30 as to a Supreme Being need not have arisen (as on the current anthropological theory) in the notion of spirits at all. (See chapter xi.) Here I have been said to draw a mere31 “verbal distinction” but no distinction can be more essential. If such a Supreme Being as many savages acknowledge is not envisaged32 by them as a “spirit,” then the theories and processes by which he is derived33 from a ghost of a dead man are invalid34, and remote from the point. As to the origin of a belief in a kind of germinal Supreme Being (say the Australian Baiame), I do not, in this book, offer any opinion. I again and again decline to offer an opinion. Critics, none the less, have said that I attribute the belief to revelation! I shall therefore here indicate what I think probable in so obscure a field.
As soon as man had the idea of “making” things, he might conjecture35 as to a Maker36 of things which he himself had not made, and could not make. He would regard this unknown Maker as a “magnified non-natural man.” These speculations37 appear to me to need less reflection than the long and complicated processes of thought by which Mr. Tylor believes, and probably believes with justice, the theory of “spirits” to have been evolved. (See chapter iii.) This conception of a magnified non-natural man, who is a Maker, being given; his Power would be recognised, and fancy would clothe one who had made such useful things with certain other moral attributes, as of Fatherhood, goodness, and regard for the ethics38 of his children; these ethics having been developed naturally in the evolution of social life. In all this there is nothing “mystical,” nor anything, as far as I can see, beyond the limited mental powers of any beings that deserve to be called human.
But I hasten to add that another theory may be entertained. Since this book was written there appeared “The Native Tribes of Central Australia,” by Professor Spencer and Mr. Gillen, a most valuable study.1 The authors, closely scrutinising the esoteric rites39 of the Arunta and other tribes in Central Australia, found none of the moral precepts40 and attributes which (according to Mr. Howitt, to whom their work is dedicated), prevail in the mysteries of the natives of New South Wales and Victoria. (See chapter x.) What they found was a belief in ‘the great spirit, Twanyirika,’ who is believed ‘by uninitiated boys and women’ (but, apparently41, not by adults) to preside over the cruel rites of tribal42 initiation43.2 No more is said, no myths about ‘the great spirit’ are given. He is dismissed in a brief note. Now if these ten lines contain all the native lore44 of Twanyirika, he is a mere bugbear, not believed in (apparently) by adults, but invented by them to terrorise the women and boys. Next, granting that the information of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen is exhaustive, and granting that (as Mr. J.G. Frazer holds, in his essays in the ‘Fortnightly Review,’ April and May, 1899) the Arunta are the most primitive of mortals, it will seem to follow that the moral attributes of Baiame and other gods of other Australian regions are later accretions45 round the form of an original and confessed bugbear, as among the primitive Arunta, ‘a bogle of the nursery,’ in the phrase repudiated47 by Maitland of Lethington. Though not otherwise conspicuously48 more civilised than the Arunta (except, perhaps, in marriage relations), Mr. Howitt’s South Eastern natives will have improved the Arunta confessed ‘bogle’ into a beneficent and moral Father and Maker. Religion will have its origin in a tribal joke, and will have become not ‘diablement,’ but ‘divinement,’ ‘changée en route.’ Readers of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen will see that the Arunta philosophy, primitive or not, is of a high ingenuity49, and so artfully composed that it contains no room either for a Supreme Being or for the doctrine of the survival of the soul, with a future of rewards and punishments; opinions declared to be extant among other Australian tribes. There is no creator, and every soul, after death, is reincarnated50 in a new member of the tribe. On the other hand (granting that the brief note on Twanyirika is exhaustive), the Arunta, in their isolation51, may have degenerated52 in religion, and may have dropped, in the case of Twanyirika, the moral attributes of Baiame. It may be noticed that, in South Eastern Australia, the Being who presides, like Twanyirika, over initiations is not the supreme being, but a son or deputy of his, such as the Kurnai Tundun. We do not know whether the Arunta have, or have had and lost, or never possessed53, a being superior to Twanyirika.
With regard, to all such moral, and, in certain versions, creative Beings as Baiame, criticism has taken various lines. There is the high a priori line that savage minds are incapable54 of originating the notion of a moral Maker. I have already said that the notion, in an early form, seems to be well within the range of any minds deserving to be called human. Next, the facts are disputed. I can only refer readers to the authorities cited. They speak for tribes in many quarters of the world, and the witnesses are laymen55 as well as missionaries56. I am accused, again, of using a misleading rhetoric57, and of thereby58 covertly59 introducing Christian60 or philosophical61 ideas into my account of “savages guiltless of Christian teaching.” As to the latter point, I am also accused of mistaking for native opinions the results of “Christian teaching.” One or other charge must fall to the ground. As to my rhetoric, in the use of such words as ‘Creator,’ ‘Eternal,’ and the like, I shall later qualify and explain it. For a long discussion between myself and Mr. Sidney Hartland, involving minute detail, I may refer the reader to Folk–Lore, the last number of 1898 and the first of 1899, and to the Introduction to the new edition of my ‘Myth, Ritual, and Religion’ (1899).
Where relatively62 high moral attributes are assigned to a Being, I have called the result ‘Religion;’ where the same Being acts like Zeus in Greek fable63, plays silly or obscene tricks, is lustful64 and false, I have spoken of ‘Myth.’3 These distinctions of Myth and Religion may be, and indeed are, called arbitrary. The whole complex set of statements about the Being, good or bad, sublime65 or silly, are equally Myths, it may be urged. Very well; but one set, the loftier set, is fitter to survive, and does survive, in what we still commonly call Religion; while the other set, the puerile66 set of statements, is fairly near to extinction67, and is usually called Mythology68. One set has been the root of a goodly tree: the other set is being lopped off, like the parasitic69 mistletoe.
I am arguing that the two classes of ideas arise from two separate human moods; moods as different and distinct as lust22 and love. I am arguing that, as far as our information goes, the nobler set of ideas is as ancient as the lower. Personally (though we cannot have direct evidence) I find it easy to believe that the loftier notions are the earlier. If man began with the conception of a powerful and beneficent Maker or Father, then I can see how the humorous savage fancy ran away with the idea of Power, and attributed to a potent70 being just such tricks as a waggish71 and libidinous72 savage would like to play if he could. Moreover, I have actually traced (in ‘Myth, Ritual, and Religion’) some plausible73 processes of mythical74 accretion46. The early mind was not only religious, in its way, but scientific, in its way. It embraced the idea of Evolution as well as the idea of Creation. To one mood a Maker seemed to exist. But the institution of Totemism (whatever its origin) suggested the idea of Evolution; for men, it was held, developed out of their Totems-animals and plants. But then, on the other hand, Zeus, or Baiame, or Mungun-ngaur, was regarded as their Father. How were these contradictions to be reconciled? Easily, thus: Zeus was the Father, but, in each case, was the Father by an amour in which he wore the form of the Totem-snake, swan, bull, ant, dog, or the like. At once a degraded set of secondary erotic myths cluster around Zeus.
Again, it is notoriously the nature of man to attribute every institution to a primal75 inventor or legislator. Men then, find themselves performing certain rites, often of a buffooning or scandalous character; and, in origin, mainly magical, intended for the increase of game, edible77 plants, or, later, for the benefit of the crops. Why do they perform these rites? they ask: and, looking about, as usual, for a primal initiator, they attribute what they do to a primal being, the Corn Spirit, Demeter, or to Zeus, or to Baiame, or Manabozho, or Punjel. This is man’s usual way of going back to origins. Instantly, then, a new set of parasitic myths crystallises round a Being who, perhaps, was originally moral. The savage mind, in short, has not maintained itself on the high level, any more than the facetious78 mediaeval myths maintained themselves, say, on the original level of the conception of the character of St. Peter, the keeper of the keys of Heaven.
All this appears perfectly79 natural and human, and in this, and in other ways, what we call low Myth may have invaded the higher realms of Religion: a lower invaded a higher element. But reverse the hypothesis. Conceive that Zeus, or Baiame, was originally, not a Father and guardian80, but a lewd81 and tricky82 ghost of a medicine-man, a dancer of indecent dances, a wooer of other men’s wives, a shape-shifter, a burlesque83 droll84, a more jocular bugbear, like Twanyirika. By what means did he come to be accredited85 later with his loftiest attributes, and with regard for the tribal ethics, which, in practice, he daily broke and despised? Students who argue for the possible priority of the lowest, or, as I call them, mythical attributes of the Being, must advance an hypothesis of the concretion of the nobler elements around the original wanton and mischievous86 ghost.
Then let us suppose that the Arunta Twanyirika, a confessed bugbear, discredited87 by adults, and only invented to keep women and children in order, was the original germ of the moral and fatherly Baiame, of South Eastern Australian tribes. How, in that case, did the adults of the tribe fall into their own trap, come to believe seriously in their invented bugbear, and credit him with the superintendence of such tribal ethics as generosity88 and unselfishness? What were the processes of the conversion89 of Twanyirika? I do not deny that this theory may be correct, but I wish to see an hypothesis of the process of elevation90.
I fail to frame such an hypothesis. Grant that the adults merely chuckle91 over Twanyirika, whose ‘voice’ they themselves produce; by whirling the wooden tundun, or bull-roarer. Grant that, on initiation, the boys learn that ‘the great spirit’ is a mere bogle, invented to mystify the women, and keep them away from the initiatory92 rites. How, then, did men come to believe in him as a terrible, all-seeing, all-knowing, creative, and potent moral being? For this, undeniably, is the belief of many Australian tribes, where his ‘voice’ (or rather that of his subordinate) is produced by whirling the tundun. That these higher beliefs are of European origin, Mr. Howitt denies. How were they evolved out of the notion of a confessed artificial bogle? I am unable to frame a theory.
From my point of view, namely, that the higher and simple ideas may well be the earlier, I have, at least, offered a theory of the processes by which the lower attributes crystallised around a conception supposed (argumenti gratia) to be originally high. Other processes of degradation93 would come in, as (on my theory) the creed94 and practice of Animism, or worship of human ghosts, often of low character, swamped and invaded the prior belief in a fairly moral and beneficent, but not originally spiritual, Being. My theory, at least, is a theory, and, rightly or wrongly, accounts for the phenomenon, the combination of the highest divine and the lowest animal qualities in the same Being. But I have yet to learn how, if the lowest myths are the earliest, the highest attributes came in time to be conferred on the hero of the lowest myths. Why, or how, did a silly buffoon76, or a confessed ‘bogle’ arrive at being regarded as a patron of such morality as had been evolved? An hypothesis of the processes involved must be indicated. It is not enough to reply, in general, that the rudimentary human mind is illogical and confused. That is granted; but there must have been a method in its madness. What that method was (from my point of view) I have shown, and it must be as easy for opponents to set forth95 what, from their point of view, the method was.
We are here concerned with what, since the time of the earliest Greek philosophers, has been the crux96 of mythology: why are infamous97 myths told about ‘the Father of gods and men’? We can easily explain the nature of the myths. They are the natural flowers of savage fancy and humour. But wherefore do they crystallise round Zeus? I have, at least, shown some probable processes in the evolution.
Where criticism has not disputed the facts of the moral attributes, now attached to, say, an Australian Being, it has accounted for them by a supposed process of borrowing from missionaries and other Europeans. In this book I deal with that hypothesis as urged by Sir A.B. Ellis, in West Africa (chapter xiii.). I need not have taken the trouble, as this distinguished98 writer had already, in a work which I overlooked, formally withdrawn99, as regards Africa, his theory of ‘loan-gods.’ Miss Kingsley, too, is no believer in the borrowing hypothesis for West Africa, in regard, that is, to the highest divine conception. I was, when I wrote, unaware100 that, especially as concerns America and Australia, Mr. Tylor had recently advocated the theory of borrowing (‘Journal of Anthrop. Institute,’ vol. xxi.). To Mr. Tylor’s arguments, when I read them, I replied in the ‘Nineteenth Century,’ January 1899: ‘Are Savage Gods Borrowed from Missionaries?’ I do not here repeat my arguments, but await the publication of Mr. Tylor’s ‘Gifford Lectures,’ in which his hypothesis may be reinforced, and may win my adhesion.
It may here be said, however, that if the Australian higher religious ideas are of recent and missionary101 origin, they would necessarily be known to the native women, from whom, in fact, they are absolutely concealed102 by the men, under penalty of death. Again, if the Son, or Sons, of Australian chief Beings resemble part of the Christian dogma, they much more closely resemble the Apollo and Hermes of Greece.4 But nobody will say that the Australians borrowed them from Greek mythology!
In chapter xiv., owing to a bibliographical103 error of my own, I have done injustice104 to Mr. Tylor, by supposing him to have overlooked Strachey’s account of the Virginian god Ahone. He did not overlook Ahone, but mistrusted Strachey. In an excursus on Ahone, in the new edition of ‘Myth, Ritual, and Religion,’ I have tried my best to elucidate105 the bibliography106 and other aspects of Strachey’s account, which I cannot regard as baseless. Mr. Tylor’s opinion is, doubtless, different, and may prove more persuasive107. As to Australia, Mr. Howitt, our best authority, continues to disbelieve in the theory of borrowing.
I have to withdraw in chapters x. xi. the statement that ‘Darumulun never died at all.’ Mr. Hartland has corrected me, and pointed out that, among the Wiraijuri, a myth represents him as having been destroyed, for his offences, by Baiame. In that tribe, however, Darumulun is not the highest, but a subordinate Being. Mr. Hartland has also collected a few myths in which Australian Supreme Beings do (contrary to my statement) ‘set the example of sinning.’ Nothing can surprise me less, and I only wonder that, in so savage a race, the examples, hitherto collected, are so rare, and so easily to be accounted for on the theory of processes of crystallisation of myths already suggested.
As to a remark in Appendix B, Mr. Podmore takes a distinction. I quote his remark, ‘the phenomena108 described are quite inexplicable by ordinary mechanical means,’ and I contrast this, as illogical, with his opinion that a girl ‘may have been directly responsible for all that took place.’ Mr. Podmore replies that what was ‘described’ is not necessarily identical with what occurred. Strictly109 speaking, he is right; but the evidence was copious110, was given by many witnesses, and (as offered by me) was in part contemporary (being derived from the local newspapers), so that here Mr. Podmore’s theory of illusions of memory on a large scale, developed in the five weeks which elapsed before he examined the spectators, is out of court. The evidence was of contemporary published record.
The handling of fire by Home is accounted for by Mr. Podmore, in the same chapter, as the result of Home’s use of a ‘non-conducting substance.’ Asked, ‘what substance?’ he answered, ‘asbestos.’ Sir William Crookes, again repeating his account of the performance which he witnessed, says, ‘Home took up a lump of red-hot charcoal111 about twice the size of an egg into his hand, on which certainly no asbestos was visible. He blew into his hands, and the flames could be seen coming out between his fingers, and he carried the charcoal round the room.’5 Sir W. Crookes stood close beside Home. The light was that of the fire and of two candles. Probably Sir William could see a piece of asbestos, if it was covering Home’s hands, which he was watching.
What I had to say, by way of withdrawal112, qualification, explanation, or otherwise, I inserted (in order to seize the earliest opportunity) in the Introduction to the recent edition of my ‘Myth, Ritual, and Religion’ (1899). The reader will perhaps make his own kind deductions113 from my rhetoric when I talk, for example, about a Creator in the creed of low savages. They have no business, anthropologists declare, to entertain so large an idea. But in ‘The Journal of the Anthropological Institute,’ N.S. II., Nos. 1, 2, p. 85, Dr. Bennett gives an account of the religion of the cannibal Fangs115 of the Congo, first described by Du Chaillu. ‘These anthropophagi have some idea of a God, a superior being, their Tata (“Father”), a bo mam merere (“he made all things”), Anyambi is their Tata (Father), and ranks above all other Fang114 gods, because a’ne yap (literally, “he lives in heaven”).’ This is inconsiderate in the Fangs. A set of native cannibals have no business with a creative Father who is in heaven. I say ‘creative’ because ‘he made all things,’ and (as the bowler116 said about a ‘Yorker’) ‘what else can you call him?’ In all such cases, where ‘creator’ and ‘creative’ are used by me, readers will allow for the imperfections of the English language. As anthropologists say, the savages simply cannot have the corresponding ideas; and I must throw the blame on people who, knowing the savages and their language, assure us that they have. This Fang Father or Tata ‘is considered indifferent to the wants and sufferings of men, women, and children.’ Offerings and prayers are therefore made, not to him, but to the ghosts of parents, who are more accessible. This additional information precisely117 illustrates118 my general theory, that the chief Being was not evolved out of ghosts, but came to be neglected as ghost-worship arose. I am not aware that Dr. Bennett is a missionary. Anthropologists distrust missionaries, and most of my evidence is from laymen. If the anthropological study of religion is to advance, the high and usually indolent chief Beings of savage religions must be carefully examined, not consigned119 to a casual page or paragraph. I have found them most potent, and most moral, where ghost-worship has not been evolved; least potent, or at all events most indifferent, where ghost-worship is most in vogue120. The inferences (granting the facts) are fatal to the current anthropological theory.
The phrases ‘Creator,’ ‘creative,’ as applied to Anyambi, or Baiame, have been described, by critics, as rhetorical, covertly introducing conceptions of which savages are incapable. I have already shown that I only follow my authorities, and their translations of phrases in various savage tongues. But the phrase ‘eternal,’ applied to Anyambi or Baiame, may be misleading. I do not wish to assert that, if you talked to a savage about ‘eternity,’ he would understand what you intend. I merely mean what Mariner121 says that the Tongans mean as to the god Tá-li-y Tooboo. ‘Of his origin they had no idea, rather supposing him to be eternal.’ The savage theologians assert no beginning for such beings (as a rule), and no end, except where Unkulunkulu is by some Zulus thought to be dead, and where the Wiraijuris declare that their Darumulun (not supreme) was ‘destroyed’ by Baiame. I do not wish to credit savages with thoughts more abstract than they possess. But that their thought can be abstract is proved, even in the case of the absolutely ‘primitive Arunta,’ by their myth of the Ungambikula, ‘a word which means “out of nothing,” or “self-existing,”’ say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.6 Once more, I find that I have spoken of some savage Beings as ‘omnipresent’ and ‘omnipotent.’ But I have pointed out that this is only a modern metaphysical rendering122 of the actual words attributed to the savage: ‘He can go everywhere, and do everything.’ As to the phrase, also used, that Baiame, for example, ‘makes for righteousness,’ I mean that he sanctions the morality of his people; for instance, sanctions veracity123 and unselfishness, as Mr. Howitt distinctly avers124. These are examples of ‘righteousness’ in conduct. I do not mean that these virtues125 were impressed on savages in some supernatural way, as a critic has daringly averred126 that I do. The strong reaction of some early men against the cosmical process by which ‘the weakest goes to the wall,’ is, indeed, a curious moral phenomenon, and deserves the attention of moralists. But I never dreamed of supposing that this reaction (which extends beyond the limit of the tribe or group) had a ‘supernatural’ origin! It has been argued that ‘tribal morality’ is only a set of regulations based on the convenience of the elders of the tribe: is, in fact, as the Platonic127 Thrasymachus says, ‘the interest of the strongest.’ That does not appear to me to be demonstrated; but this is no place for a discussion of the origin of morals. ‘The interest of the strongest,’ and of the nomadic128 group, would be to knock elderly invalids129 on the head. But Dampier says, of the Australians, in 1688, ‘Be it little, or be it much they get, every one has his part, as well the young and tender, and the old and feeble, who are not able to go abroad, as the strong and lusty.’ The origin of this fair and generous dealing130 may be obscure, but it is precisely the kind of dealing on which, according to Mr. Howitt, the religion of the Kurnai insists (chapter x.). Thus the Being concerned does ‘make for righteousness.’
With these explanations I trust that my rhetorical use of such phrases as ‘eternal,’ ‘creative,’ ‘omniscient,’ ‘omnipotent,’ ‘omnipresent,’ and ‘moral,’ may not be found to mislead, or covertly to import modern or Christian ideas into my account of the religious conceptions of savages.
As to the evidence throughout, a learned historian has informed me that ‘no anthropological evidence is of any value.’ If so, there can be no anthropology (in the realm of institutions). But the evidence that I adduce is from such sources as anthropologists, at least, accept, and employ in the construction of theories from which, in some points, I venture to dissent131.
A.L.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
anthropological
|
|
| adj.人类学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
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： |
|
|
|
|
4
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
censured
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
psychical
|
|
| adj.有关特异功能现象的；有关特异功能官能的；灵魂的；心灵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
clairvoyance
|
|
| n.超人的洞察力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
psychology
|
|
| n.心理，心理学，心理状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
glimmer
|
|
| v.发出闪烁的微光；n.微光，微弱的闪光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
sketch
|
|
| n.草图；梗概；素描；v.素描；概述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
scant
|
|
| adj.不充分的，不足的；v.减缩，限制，忽略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
anecdotes
|
|
| n.掌故，趣闻，轶事( anecdote的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
lust
|
|
| n.性(淫)欲；渴(欲)望；vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
utterances
|
|
| n.发声( utterance的名词复数 )；说话方式；语调；言论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
inexplicable
|
|
| adj.无法解释的，难理解的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
amenable
|
|
| adj.经得起检验的；顺从的；对负有义务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
anthropology
|
|
| n.人类学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
surmises
|
|
| v.臆测，推断( surmise的第三人称单数 )；揣测；猜想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
envisaged
|
|
| 想像，设想( envisage的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
invalid
|
|
| n.病人，伤残人；adj.有病的，伤残的；无效的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
maker
|
|
| n.制造者，制造商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
speculations
|
|
| n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 )；思考；投机活动；推断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
ethics
|
|
| n.伦理学；伦理观，道德标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
precepts
|
|
| n.规诫，戒律，箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
tribal
|
|
| adj.部族的，种族的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
initiation
|
|
| n.开始 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
lore
|
|
| n.传说；学问，经验，知识 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
accretions
|
|
| n.堆积( accretion的名词复数 )；连生；添加生长；吸积 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
accretion
|
|
| n.自然的增长，增加物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
repudiated
|
|
| v.（正式地）否认( repudiate的过去式和过去分词 )；拒绝接受；拒绝与…往来；拒不履行（法律义务） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
conspicuously
|
|
| ad.明显地，惹人注目地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
reincarnated
|
|
| v.赋予新形体，使转世化身( reincarnate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
isolation
|
|
| n.隔离，孤立，分解，分离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
degenerated
|
|
| 衰退，堕落，退化( degenerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
laymen
|
|
| 门外汉，外行人( layman的名词复数 )； 普通教徒（有别于神职人员） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
missionaries
|
|
| n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
rhetoric
|
|
| n.修辞学，浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
covertly
|
|
| adv.偷偷摸摸地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
fable
|
|
| n.寓言；童话；神话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
lustful
|
|
| a.贪婪的；渴望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
sublime
|
|
| adj.崇高的，伟大的；极度的，不顾后果的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
puerile
|
|
| adj.幼稚的，儿童的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
extinction
|
|
| n.熄灭，消亡，消灭，灭绝，绝种 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
mythology
|
|
| n.神话，神话学，神话集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
parasitic
|
|
| adj.寄生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
potent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有权势的；有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
waggish
|
|
| adj.诙谐的，滑稽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
libidinous
|
|
| adj.淫荡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
mythical
|
|
| adj.神话的；虚构的；想像的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
primal
|
|
| adj.原始的；最重要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
buffoon
|
|
| n.演出时的丑角 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
edible
|
|
| n.食品，食物；adj.可食用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
facetious
|
|
| adj.轻浮的，好开玩笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
lewd
|
|
| adj.淫荡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
tricky
|
|
| adj.狡猾的，奸诈的；(工作等)棘手的，微妙的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
burlesque
|
|
| v.嘲弄，戏仿；n.嘲弄，取笑，滑稽模仿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
droll
|
|
| adj.古怪的，好笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
accredited
|
|
| adj.可接受的；可信任的；公认的；质量合格的v.相信( accredit的过去式和过去分词 )；委托；委任；把…归结于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
discredited
|
|
| 不足信的，不名誉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
conversion
|
|
| n.转化，转换，转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
elevation
|
|
| n.高度；海拔；高地；上升；提高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
chuckle
|
|
| vi.／n.轻声笑，咯咯笑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
initiatory
|
|
| adj.开始的；创始的；入会的；入社的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
degradation
|
|
| n.降级；低落；退化；陵削；降解；衰变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
crux
|
|
| adj.十字形；难事，关键，最重要点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
unaware
|
|
| a.不知道的，未意识到的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
missionary
|
|
| adj.教会的，传教(士)的；n.传教士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
bibliographical
|
|
| 书籍解题的，著书目录的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
elucidate
|
|
| v.阐明，说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
bibliography
|
|
| n.参考书目；(有关某一专题的)书目 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
persuasive
|
|
| adj.有说服力的，能说得使人相信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
copious
|
|
| adj.丰富的，大量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
charcoal
|
|
| n.炭，木炭，生物炭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
withdrawal
|
|
| n.取回，提款；撤退，撤军；收回，撤销 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
deductions
|
|
| 扣除( deduction的名词复数 )； 结论； 扣除的量； 推演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
fang
|
|
| n.尖牙，犬牙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
fangs
|
|
| n.（尤指狗和狼的）长而尖的牙( fang的名词复数 )；（蛇的）毒牙；罐座 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
bowler
|
|
| n.打保龄球的人，（板球的）投（球）手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
illustrates
|
|
| 给…加插图( illustrate的第三人称单数 )； 说明； 表明； （用示例、图画等）说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
consigned
|
|
| v.把…置于（令人不快的境地）( consign的过去式和过去分词 )；把…托付给；把…托人代售；丟弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
Vogue
|
|
| n.时髦，时尚；adj.流行的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
mariner
|
|
| n.水手号不载人航天探测器，海员，航海者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
veracity
|
|
| n.诚实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
avers
|
|
| v.断言( aver的第三人称单数 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
averred
|
|
| v.断言( aver的过去式和过去分词 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
platonic
|
|
| adj.精神的；柏拉图（哲学）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
nomadic
|
|
| adj.流浪的；游牧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
invalids
|
|
| 病人，残疾者( invalid的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
dissent
|
|
| n./v.不同意，持异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |