The writer now wishes to say something on the subject of canting nonsense, of which there is a great deal in England. There are various cants in England, amongst which is the religious cant1. He is not going to discuss the subject of religious cant; lest, however, he should be misunderstood, he begs leave to repeat that he is a sincere member of the old-fashioned Church of England, in which he believes there is more religion, and consequently less cant, than in any other church in the world; nor is he going to discuss many other cants; he shall content himself with saying something about two — the temperance cant and the unmanly cant. Temperance canters say that ‘it is unlawful to drink a glass of ale.’ Unmanly canters say that ‘it is unlawful to use one’s fists.’ The writer begs leave to tell both these species of canters that they do not speak the words of truth.
It is very lawful3 to take a cup of ale, or wine, for the purpose of cheering or invigorating yourself when you are faint and down-hearted; and likewise to give a cup of ale or wine to others when they are in a similar condition. The Holy Scripture4 sayeth nothing to the contrary, but rather encourageth people in so doing by the text, ‘Wine maketh glad the heart of man.’ But it is not lawful to intoxicate5 yourself with frequent cups of ale or wine, nor to make others intoxicated6, nor does the Holy Scripture say that it is. The Holy Scripture no more says that it is lawful to intoxicate yourself or others, than it says that it is unlawful to take a cup of ale or wine yourself, or to give one to others. Noah is not commended in the Scripture for making himself drunken on the wine he brewed7. Nor is it said that the Saviour8, when He supplied the guests with first-rate wine at the marriage feast, told them to make themselves drunk upon it. He is said to have supplied them with first-rate wine, but He doubtless left the quantity which each should drink to each party’s reason and discretion10. When you set a good dinner before your guests, you do not expect that they should gorge11 themselves with the victuals12 you set before them. Wine may be abused, and so may a leg of mutton.
Second. It is lawful for anyone to use his fists in his own defence, or in the defence of others, provided they can’t help themselves; but it is not lawful to use them for purposes of tyranny or brutality14. If you are attacked by a ruffian, as the elderly individual in ‘Lavengro’ is in the inn-yard, it is quite lawful, if you can, to give him as good a thrashing as the elderly individual gave the brutal13 coachman; and if you see a helpless woman — perhaps your own sister — set upon by a drunken lord, a drunken coachman, or a drunken coalheaver, or a brute15 of any description, either drunk or sober, it is not only lawful, but laudable, to give them, if you can, a good drubbing; but it is not lawful, because you have a strong pair of fists, and know how to use them, to go swaggering through a fair, jostling against unoffending individuals; should you do so, you would be served quite right if you were to get a drubbing, more particularly if you were served out by some one less strong, but more skilful16 than yourself — even as the coachman was served out by a pupil of the immortal17 Broughton — sixty years old, it is true, but possessed18 of Broughton’s guard and chop. Moses is not blamed in the Scripture for taking part with the oppressed, and killing19 an Egyptian persecutor20. We are not told how Moses killed the Egyptian; but it is quite as creditable to Moses to suppose that he killed the Egyptian by giving him a buffet21 under the left ear, as by stabbing him with a knife. It is true, that the Saviour in the New Testament22 tells His disciples23 to turn the left cheek to be smitten24, after they had received a blow on the right; but He was speaking to people divinely inspired, or whom He intended divinely to inspire — people selected by God for a particular purpose. He likewise tells these people to part with various articles of raiment when asked for them, and to go a-travelling without money, and to take no thought of the morrow. Are those exhortations25 carried out by very good people in the present day? Do Quakers, when smitten on the right cheek, turn the left to the smiter26? When asked for their coat, do they say: ‘Friend, take my shirt also’? Has the Dean of Salisbury no purse? Does the Archbishop of Canterbury go to an inn, run up a reckoning, and then say to his landlady27, ‘Mistress, I have no coin’? Assuredly the Dean has a purse, and a tolerably well-filled one; and, assuredly, the Archbishop, on departing from an inn, not only settles his reckoning, but leaves something handsome for the servants, and does not say that he is forbidden by the Gospel to pay for what he has eaten, or the trouble he has given, as a certain Spanish cavalier said he was forbidden by the statutes29 of chivalry30. Now, to take the part of yourself, or the part of the oppressed, with your fists, is quite as lawful in the present day as it is to refuse your coat and your shirt also to any vagabond who may ask for them, and not to refuse to pay for supper, bed, and breakfast, at the Feathers, or any other inn, after you have had the benefit of all three.
The conduct of Lavengro with respect to drink may, upon the whole, serve as a model. He is no drunkard, nor is he fond of intoxicating31 other people; yet when the horrors are upon him he has no objection to go to a public-house and call for a pint32 of ale, nor does he shrink from recommending ale to others when they are faint and downcast. In one instance, it is true, he does what cannot be exactly justified33; he encourages the Priest in the dingle, in more instances than one, in drinking more hollands and water than is consistent with decorum. He has a motive34 indeed in doing so; a desire to learn from the knave35 in his cups the plans and hopes of the Propaganda of Rome. Such conduct, however, was inconsistent with strict fair dealing36 and openness; and the author advises all those whose consciences never reproach them for a single unfair or covert37 act committed by them, to abuse him heartily38 for administering hollands and water to the Priest of Rome. In that instance the hero is certainly wrong; yet in all other cases with regard to drink, he is manifestly right. To tell people that they are never to drink a glass of ale or wine themselves, or to give one to others, is cant; and the writer has no toleration for cant of any description. Some cants are not dangerous; but the writer believes that a more dangerous cant than the temperance cant, or, as it is generally called, teetotalism, is scarcely to be found. The writer is willing to believe that it originated with well-meaning, though weak people; but there can be no doubt that it was quickly turned to account by people who were neither well-meaning nor weak. Let the reader note particularly the purpose to which this cry has been turned in America; the land, indeed, par9 excellence39, of humbug40 and humbug cries. It is there continually in the mouth of the most violent political party, and is made an instrument of almost unexampled persecution41. The writer would say more on the temperance cant, both in England and America, but want of space prevents him. There is one point on which he cannot avoid making a few brief remarks — that is, the inconsistent conduct of its apostles in general. The teetotal apostle says it is a dreadful thing to be drunk. So it is, teetotaller; but, if so, why do you get drunk? I get drunk? Yes, unhappy man, why do you get drunk on smoke and passion? Why are your garments impregnated with the odour of the Indian weed? Why is there a pipe or cigar always in your mouth? Why is your language more dreadful than that of a Poissarde? Tobacco smoke is more deleterious than ale, teetotaller; bile more potent42 than brandy. You are fond of telling your hearers what an awful thing it is to die drunken. So it is teetotaller. Then take care that you do not die with smoke and passion, drunken, and with temperance language on your lips; that is, abuse and calumny43 against all those who differ from you. One word of sense you have been heard to say, which is, that spirits may be taken as a medicine. Now you are in a fever of passion, teetotaller; so, pray take this tumbler of brandy; take it on the homoeopathic principle, that heat is to be expelled by heat. You are in a temperance fury, so swallow the contents of this tumbler, and it will, perhaps, cure you. You look at the glass wistfully — you say you occasionally take a glass medicinally, and it is probable you do. Take one now. Consider what a dreadful thing it would be to die passion drunk, to appear before your Maker44 with intemperate45 language on your lips. That’s right! You don’t seem to wince46 at the brandy. That’s right — well done! All down in two pulls. Now you look like a reasonable being!
If the conduct of Lavengro with regard to drink is open to little censure47, assuredly the use which he makes of his fists is entitled to none at all. Because he has a pair of tolerably strong fists, and knows to a certain extent how to use them, is he a swaggerer or oppressor? To what ill account does he turn them? Who more quiet, gentle, and inoffensive than he? He beats off a ruffian who attacks him in a dingle; has a kind of friendly tuzzle with Mr. Petulengro, and behold48 the extent of his fistic exploits.
Ay, but he associates with prize-fighters; and that very fellow, Petulengro, is a prize-fighter, and has fought for a stake in a ring. Well, and if he had not associated with prize-fighters, how could he have used his fists? Oh, anybody can use his fists in his own defence, without being taught by prize-fighters. Can they? Then why does not the Italian, or Spaniard, or Affghan use his fists when insulted or outraged49, instead of having recourse to the weapons which he has recourse to? Nobody can use his fists without being taught the use of them by those who have themselves been taught, no more than anyone can ‘whiffle’ 200 without being taught by a master of the art. Now let any man of the present day try to whiffle. Would not anyone who wished to whiffle have to go to a master of the art? Assuredly! but where would he find one at the present day? The last of the whifflers hanged himself about a fortnight ago on a bell-rope in a church steeple of ‘the old town,’ from pure grief that there was no further demand for the exhibition of his art, there being no demand for whiffling since the discontinuation of Guildhall banquets. Whiffling is lost. The old chap left his sword behind him; let anyone take up the old chap’s sword and try to whiffle. Now much the same hand as he would make who should take up the whiffler’s sword and try to whiffle, would he who should try to use his fists who had never had the advantage of a master. Let no one think that men use their fists naturally in their own disputes — men have naturally recourse to any other thing to defend themselves or to offend others; they fly to the stick, to the stone, to the murderous and cowardly knife, or to abuse as cowardly as the knife, and occasionally more murderous. Now which is best when you hate a person, or have a pique50 against a person, to clench51 your fist and say ‘Come on,’ or to have recourse to the stone, the knife, or murderous calumny? The use of the fist is almost lost in England. Yet are the people better than they were when they knew how to use their fists? The writer believes not. A fisty combat is at present a great rarity, but the use of the knife, the noose52, and of poison, to say nothing of calumny, are of more frequent occurrence in England than perhaps in any country in Europe. Is polite taste better than when it could bear the details of a fight! The writer believes not. Two men cannot meet in a ring to settle a dispute in a manly2 manner without some trumpery53 local newspaper letting loose a volley of abuse against ‘the disgraceful exhibition,’ in which abuse it is sure to be sanctioned by its dainty readers; whereas some murderous horror, the discovery, for example, of the mangled54 remains55 of a woman in some obscure den28, is greedily seized hold on by the moral journal and dressed up for its readers, who luxuriate and gloat upon the ghastly dish. Now, the writer of ‘Lavengro’ has no sympathy with those who would shrink from striking a blow, but would not shrink from the use of poison or calumny; and his taste has little in common with that which cannot tolerate the hardy56 details of a prize-fight, but which luxuriates on descriptions of the murder dens57 of modern England. But prize-fighters and pugilists are blackguards, a reviewer has said; and blackguards they would be, provided they employed their skill and their prowess for purposes of brutality and oppression; but prize-fighters and pugilists are seldom friends to brutality and oppression; and which is the blackguard, the writer would ask, he who uses his fists to take his own part, or instructs others to use theirs for the same purpose, or the being who from envy and malice58, or at the bidding of a malicious59 scoundrel, endeavours by calumny, falsehood, and misrepresentation to impede60 the efforts of lonely and unprotected genius?
One word more about the race, all but extinct, of the people opprobriously61 called prize-fighters. Some of them have been as noble, kindly62 men as the world ever produced. Can the rolls of the English aristocracy exhibit names belonging to more noble, heroic men, than those who were called respectively Pearce, Cribb, 201 and Spring? 202 Did ever one of the English aristocracy contract the seeds of fatal consumption by rushing up the stairs of a burning edifice63, even to the topmost garret, and rescuing a woman from seemingly inevitable64 destruction? The writer says, No. A woman was rescued from the top of a burning house, but the man who rescued her was no aristocrat65; it was Pearce, not Percy, who ran up the burning stairs. Did ever one of those glittering ones save a fainting female from the libidinous66 rage of six ruffians? The writer believes not. A woman was rescued from the libidinous fury of six monsters on —— Down, but the man who rescued her was no aristocrat; it was Pearce, not Paulet, who rescued the woman, and thrashed my lord’s six gamekeepers — Pearce, whose equal never was, and probably never will be, found in sturdy combat. Are there any of the aristocracy of whom it can be said that they never did a cowardly, cruel, or mean action, and that they invariably took the part of the unfortunate and weak against cruelty and oppression? As much can be said of Cribb, of Spring, and the other; but where is the aristocrat of whom as much can be said? Wellington? Wellington, indeed! A skilful general, and a good man of valour, it is true, but with that cant word of ‘duty’ continually on his lips, did he rescue Ney from his butchers? Did he lend a helping67 hand to Warner?
In conclusion, the writer would strongly advise those of his country-folks who may read his book to have nothing to do with the two kinds of canting nonsense described above, but in their progress through life to enjoy as well as they can, but always with moderation, the good things of this world, to put confidence in God, to be as independent as possible, and to take their own parts. If they are low-spirited, let them not make themselves foolish by putting on sackcloth, drinking water, or chewing ashes, but let them take wholesome68 exercise, and eat the most generous food they can get, taking up and reading occasionally, not the lives of Ignatius Loyola and Francis Spira, but something more agreeable; for example, the life and adventures of Mr. Duncan Campbell, the deaf and dumb gentleman; the travels of Captain Falconer in America, and the journal of John Randall, who went to Virginia and married an Indian wife; not forgetting, amidst their eating and drinking, their walks over heaths, and by the sea-side, and their agreeable literature, to be charitable to the poor, to read the Psalms69, and to go to church twice on a Sunday. In their dealings with people to be courteous70 to everybody, as Lavengro was, but always independent like him; and if people meddle71 with them, to give them as good as they bring, even as he and Isopel Berners were in the habit of doing; and it will be as well for him to observe that he by no means advises women to be too womanly, but bearing the conduct of Isopel Berners in mind, to take their own parts, and if anybody strikes them, to strike again.
Beating of women by the lords of the creation has become very prevalent in England since pugilism has been discountenanced. Now the writer strongly advises any woman who is struck by a ruffian to strike him again; or if she cannot clench her fists, and he advises all women in these singular times to learn to clench their fists, to go at him with tooth and nail, and not to be afraid of the result, for any fellow who is dastard72 enough to strike a woman, would allow himself to be beaten by a woman, were she to make at him in self-defence, even if, instead of possessing the stately height and athletic73 proportions of the aforesaid Isopel, she were as diminutive74 in stature75, and had a hand as delicate and a foot as small as a certain royal lady, who was some time ago assaulted by a fellow upwards76 of six feet high, whom the writer has no doubt she could have beaten had she thought proper to go at him. Such is the deliberate advice of the author to his countrymen and women — advice in which he believes there is nothing unscriptural or repugnant to common-sense.
The writer is perfectly77 well aware that, by the plain language which he has used in speaking of the various kinds of nonsense prevalent in England, he shall make himself a multitude of enemies; but he is not going to conceal78 the truth, or to tamper79 with nonsense, from the fear of provoking hostility80. He has a duty to perform, and he will perform it resolutely81; he is the person who carried the Bible to Spain; and as resolutely as he spoke82 in Spain against the superstitions83 of Spain, will he speak in England against the nonsense of his own native land. He is not one of those who, before they sit down to write a book, say to themselves, What cry shall we take up? what principles shall we advocate? What principles shall we abuse? Before we put pen to paper we must find out what cry is the loudest, what principle has the most advocates, otherwise, after having written our book, we may find ourselves on the weaker side.
A sailor of the Bounty84, waked from his sleep by the noise of the mutiny, lay still in his hammock for some time, quite undecided whether to take part with the captain or to join the mutineers. ‘I must mind what I do,’ said he to himself, ‘lest in the end I find myself on the weaker side.’ Finally, on hearing that the mutineers were successful, he went on deck, and seeing Bligh pinioned85 to the mast, he put his fist to his nose, and otherwise insulted him. Now, there are many writers of the present day whose conduct is very similar to that of the sailor. They lie listening in their corners till they have ascertained86 which principle has most advocates; then presently they make their appearance on the deck of the world with their book; if truth has been victorious87, then has truth their hurrah88! but if truth is pinioned against the mast, then is their fist thrust against the nose of truth, and their gibe89 and their insult spirted in her face. The strongest party had the sailor, and the strongest party has almost invariably the writer of the present day.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
cant
|
|
| n.斜穿，黑话，猛扔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
manly
|
|
| adj.有男子气概的；adv.男子般地，果断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
scripture
|
|
| n.经文，圣书，手稿；Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》，《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
intoxicate
|
|
| vt.使喝醉，使陶醉，使欣喜若狂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
intoxicated
|
|
| 喝醉的，极其兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
brewed
|
|
| 调制( brew的过去式和过去分词 )； 酝酿； 沏（茶）； 煮（咖啡） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
saviour
|
|
| n.拯救者，救星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
gorge
|
|
| n.咽喉，胃，暴食，山峡；v.塞饱，狼吞虎咽地吃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
victuals
|
|
| n.食物；食品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
brutality
|
|
| n.野蛮的行为，残忍，野蛮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
immortal
|
|
| adj.不朽的；永生的，不死的；神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
persecutor
|
|
| n. 迫害者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
buffet
|
|
| n.自助餐；饮食柜台；餐台 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
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： |
|
|
|
|
24
smitten
|
|
| 猛打，重击，打击( smite的过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
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： |
|
|
|
|
26
smiter
|
|
| 打击者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
landlady
|
|
| n.女房东，女地主 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
den
|
|
| n.兽穴；秘密地方；安静的小房间，私室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
chivalry
|
|
| n.骑士气概，侠义；（男人）对女人彬彬有礼，献殷勤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
intoxicating
|
|
| a. 醉人的,使人兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
pint
|
|
| n.品脱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
knave
|
|
| n.流氓；（纸牌中的）杰克 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
covert
|
|
| adj.隐藏的；暗地里的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
heartily
|
|
| adv.衷心地，诚恳地，十分，很 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
excellence
|
|
| n.优秀，杰出，(pl.)优点，美德 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
humbug
|
|
| n.花招，谎话，欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
potent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有权势的；有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
calumny
|
|
| n.诽谤，污蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
maker
|
|
| n.制造者，制造商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
intemperate
|
|
| adj.无节制的，放纵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
wince
|
|
| n.畏缩，退避，（因痛苦，苦恼等)面部肌肉抽动；v.畏缩，退缩，退避 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
behold
|
|
| v.看，注视，看到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
outraged
|
|
| a.震惊的，义愤填膺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
pique
|
|
| v.伤害…的自尊心，使生气 n.不满，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
clench
|
|
| vt.捏紧（拳头等），咬紧（牙齿等），紧紧握住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
noose
|
|
| n.绳套，绞索（刑）；v.用套索捉；使落入圈套；处以绞刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
trumpery
|
|
| n.无价值的杂物；adj.（物品）中看不中用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
mangled
|
|
| vt.乱砍（mangle的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
hardy
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，果断的，吃苦的；耐寒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
dens
|
|
| n.牙齿，齿状部分；兽窝( den的名词复数 )；窝点；休息室；书斋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
malicious
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
impede
|
|
| v.妨碍，阻碍，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
opprobriously
|
|
| adv.无礼地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
62
kindly
|
|
| adj.和蔼的，温和的，爽快的；adv.温和地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
edifice
|
|
| n.宏伟的建筑物(如宫殿，教室) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
aristocrat
|
|
| n.贵族，有贵族气派的人，上层人物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
libidinous
|
|
| adj.淫荡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
helping
|
|
| n.食物的一份&adj.帮助人的，辅助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
wholesome
|
|
| adj.适合；卫生的；有益健康的；显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
psalms
|
|
| n.赞美诗( psalm的名词复数 )；圣诗；圣歌；(中的) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
courteous
|
|
| adj.彬彬有礼的，客气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
meddle
|
|
| v.干预，干涉，插手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
dastard
|
|
| n.卑怯之人，懦夫；adj.怯懦的，畏缩的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
athletic
|
|
| adj.擅长运动的，强健的；活跃的，体格健壮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
diminutive
|
|
| adj.小巧可爱的，小的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
stature
|
|
| n.（高度）水平，（高度）境界，身高，身材 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
upwards
|
|
| adv.向上，在更高处...以上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
conceal
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
tamper
|
|
| v.干预，玩弄，贿赂，窜改，削弱，损害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
hostility
|
|
| n.敌对，敌意；抵制［pl.］交战，战争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
resolutely
|
|
| adj.坚决地，果断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
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： |
|
|
|
|
83
superstitions
|
|
| 迷信，迷信行为( superstition的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
bounty
|
|
| n.慷慨的赠予物，奖金；慷慨，大方；施与 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
pinioned
|
|
| v.抓住[捆住]（双臂）( pinion的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
ascertained
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
hurrah
|
|
| int.好哇，万岁，乌拉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
gibe
|
|
| n.讥笑；嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |