A certain set of individuals calling themselves critics have attacked ‘Lavengro’ with much virulence1 and malice2. If what they call criticism had been founded on truth, the author would have had nothing to say. The book contains plenty of blemishes3, some of them, by-the-by, wilful4 ones, as the writer will presently show; not one of these, however, has been detected and pointed5 out; but the best passages in the book, indeed, whatever was calculated to make the book valuable, have been assailed7 with abuse and misrepresentation. The duty of the true critic is to play the part of a leech8, and not of a viper9. Upon true and upon malignant10 criticism there is an excellent fable11 by the Spaniard Iriarte. The viper says to the leech, ‘Why do people invite your bite, and flee from mine?’ ‘Because,’ says the leech, ‘people receive health from my bite, and poison from yours.’ ‘There is as much difference,’ says the clever Spaniard, ‘between true and malignant criticism as between poison and medicine.’ Certainly a great many meritorious12 writers have allowed themselves to be poisoned by malignant criticism; the writer, however, is not one of those who allow themselves to be poisoned by pseudo-critics; no! no! he will rather hold them up by their tails, and show the creatures wriggling13, blood and foam14 streaming from their broken jaws15. First of all, however, he will notice one of their objections. ‘The book isn’t true,’ say they. Now one of the principal reasons with those that have attacked ‘Lavengro’ for their abuse of it is, that it is particularly true in one instance, namely, that it exposes their own nonsense, their love of humbug16, their slavishness, their dressings17, their goings out, their scraping and bowing to great people; it is the showing up of ‘gentility nonsense’ in ‘Lavengro’ that has been one principal reason for the raising of the above cry; for in ‘Lavengro’ is denounced the besetting18 folly19 of the English people, a folly which those who call themselves guardians20 of the public taste are far from being above. ‘We can’t abide21 anything that isn’t true!’ they exclaim. Can’t they? Then why are they so enraptured22 with any fiction that is adapted to purposes of humbug, which tends to make them satisfied with their own proceedings23, with their own nonsense, which does not tell them to reform, to become more alive to their own failings, and less sensitive about the tyrannical goings on of the masters, and the degraded condition, the sufferings, and the trials of the serfs, in the star Jupiter? Had ‘Lavengro,’ instead of being the work of an independent mind, been written in order to further any of the thousand and one cants, and species of nonsense prevalent in England, the author would have heard much less about its not being true, both from public detractors and private censurers.
‘But “Lavengro” pretends to be an autobiography24,’ 203 say the critics; and here the writer begs leave to observe, that it would be well for people who profess25 to have a regard for truth, not to exhibit in every assertion which they make a most profligate26 disregard of it; this assertion of theirs is a falsehood, and they know it to be a falsehood. In the preface ‘Lavengro’ is stated to be a dream; and the writer takes this opportunity of stating that he never said it was an autobiography, never authorized27 any person to say that it was one; and that he has in innumerable instances declared in public and private, both before and after the work was published, that it was not what is generally termed an autobiography; but a set of people who pretend to write criticisms on books, hating the author for various reasons — amongst others, because, having the proper pride of a gentleman and a scholar, he did not, in the year 1843, choose to permit himself to be exhibited and made a zany of in London, and especially because he will neither associate with, nor curry28 favour with, them who are neither gentlemen nor scholars — attack his book with abuse and calumny29. He is, perhaps, condescending30 too much when he takes any notice of such people; as, however, the English public is wonderfully led by cries and shouts, and generally ready to take part against any person who is either unwilling31 or unable to defend himself, he deems it advisable not to be altogether quiet with those who assail6 him. The best way to deal with vipers32 is to tear out their teeth; and the best way to deal with pseudo-critics is to deprive them of their poison-bag, which is easily done by exposing their ignorance. The writer knew perfectly33 well the description of people with whom he would have to do, he therefore very quietly prepared a stratagem34, by means of which he could at any time exhibit them, powerless and helpless in his hand. Critics, when they review books, ought to have a competent knowledge of the subjects which those books discuss.
‘Lavengro’ is a philological35 book, a poem if you chose to call it so. Now, what a fine triumph it would have been for those who wished to vilify36 the book and its author, provided they could have detected the latter tripping in his philology37 — they might have instantly said that he was an ignorant pretender to philology — they laughed at the idea of his taking up a viper up by its tail, a trick which hundreds of country urchins38 do every September, but they were silent about the really wonderful part of the book, the philological matter — they thought philology was his stronghold, and that it would be useless to attack him there; they of course would give him no credit as a philologist39, for anything like fair treatment towards him was not to be expected at their hands, but they were afraid to attack his philology — yet that was the point, and the only point, in which they might have attacked him successfully; he was vulnerable there. How was this? Why, in order to have an opportunity of holding up pseudo-critics by the tails, he wilfully40 spelt various foreign words wrong — Welsh words, and even Italian words — did they detect these mis-spellings? Not one of them, even as he knew they would not, and he now taunts41 them with ignorance; and the power of taunting42 them with ignorance is the punishment which he designed for them — a power which they might, but for their ignorance, have used against him. The writer, besides knowing something of Italian and Welsh, knows a little of Armenian language and literature; but who, knowing anything of the Armenian language, unless he had an end in view, would say that the word for sea in Armenian is anything like the word tide in English? The word for sea in Armenian is dzow, a word connected with the Tebetian word for water, and the Chinese shuy, and the Turkish su, signifying the same thing; but where is the resemblance between dzow and tide? Again, the word for bread in ancient Armenian is hats; yet the Armenian on London Bridge is made to say zhats, which is not the nominative of the Armenian noun for bread, but the accusative. Now, critics, ravening44 against a man because he is a gentleman and a scholar, and has not only the power but also the courage to write original works, why did not you discover that weak point? Why, because you were ignorant; so here ye are held up! Moreover, who with a name commencing with Z, ever wrote fables45 in Armenian? There are two writers of fables in Armenian — Varthan and Koscht, and illustrious writers they are, one in the simple and the other in the ornate style of Armenian composition, but neither of their names begins with a Z. Oh, what a precious opportunity ye lost, ye ravening crew, of convicting the poor, half-starved, friendless boy of the book, of ignorance or misrepresentation, by asking who with a name beginning with Z ever wrote fables in Armenian; but ye couldn’t help yourselves, ye are duncie. We duncie! Ay, duncie. So here ye are held up by the tails, blood and foam streaming from your jaws.
The writer wishes to ask here, what do you think of all this, Messieurs les Critiques? Were ye ever served so before? But don’t you richly deserve it? Haven’t you been for years past bullying46 and insulting everybody whom you deemed weak, and currying47 favour with everybody whom ye thought strong? ‘We approve of this. We disapprove48 of that. Oh, this will never do. These are fine lines!’ The lines perhaps some horrid49 sycophantic50 rubbish addressed to Wellington, or Lord So-and-so. To have your ignorance thus exposed, to be shown up in this manner, and by whom? A gypsy! Ay, a gypsy was the very right person to do it. But is it not galling52 after all?
Ah, but we don’t understand Armenian, it cannot be expected that we should understand Armenian, or Welsh, or — Hey, what’s this? The mighty54 we not understand Armenian, or Welsh, or — Then why does the mighty we pretend to review a book like ‘Lavengro’? From the arrogance55 with which it continually delivers itself, one would think that the mighty we is omniscient56; that it understands every language; is versed57 in every literature; yet the mighty we does not even know the word for bread in Armenian. It knows bread well enough by name in English, and frequently bread in England only by its name, but the truth is, that the mighty we, with all its pretension58, is in general a very sorry creature, who, instead of saying nous disons, should rather say nous dis: Porny in his ‘Guerre des Dieux,’ very profanely59 makes the three in one say, Je faisons; now, Lavengro, who is anything but profane60, would suggest that critics, especially magazine and Sunday newspaper critics, should commence with nous dis, as the first word would be significant of the conceit61 and assumption of the critic, and the second of the extent of the critic’s information. The we says its say, but when fawning62 sycophancy63 or vulgar abuse are taken from that say, what remains64? Why a blank, a void like Ginnungagap.
As the writer, of his own accord, has exposed some of the blemishes of his book — a task, which a competent critic ought to have done — he will now point out two or three of its merits, which any critic, not altogether blinded with ignorance, might have done, or not replete65 with gall53 and envy would have been glad to do. The book has the merit of communicating a fact connected with physiology66, which in all the pages of the multitude of books was never previously67 mentioned — the mysterious practice of touching68 objects to baffle the evil chance. The miserable69 detractor will, of course, instantly begin to rave43 about such a habit being common — well and good; but was it ever before described in print, or all connected with it dissected70? He may then vociferate something about Johnson having touched — the writer cares not whether Johnson — who, by the by, during the last twenty or thirty years, owing to people having become ultra Tory mad from reading Scott’s novels and the Quarterly Review, has been a mighty favourite, especially with some who were in the habit of calling him a half-crazy old fool — touched, or whether he did not; but he asks where did Johnson ever describe the feelings which induced him to perform the magic touch, even supposing that he did perform it? Again, the history gives an account of a certain book called the ‘Sleeping Bard,’ the most remarkable71 prose work of the most difficult language but one, of modern Europe; a book, for a notice of which, he believes, one might turn over in vain the pages of any review printed in England, or, indeed, elsewhere. So here are two facts, one literary and the other physiological72, for which any candid73 critic was bound to thank the author, even as in ‘The Romany Rye’ there is a fact connected with Iro Norman Myth, for the disclosing of which any person who pretends to have a regard for literature is bound to thank him, namely, that the mysterious Finn or Fingal of ‘Ossian’s Poems’ is one and the same person as the Sigurd Fofnisbane of the Edda and the Wilkina, and the Siegfried Horn of the Lay of the Niebelungs.
The writer might here conclude, and, he believes, most triumphantly74; as, however, he is in the cue for writing, which he seldom is, he will for his own gratification, and for the sake of others, dropping metaphors75 about vipers and serpents, show up in particular two or three sets or cliques76 of people, who, he is happy to say, have been particularly virulent77 against him and his work, for nothing indeed could have given him greater mortification78 than their praise.
In the first place, he wishes to dispose of certain individuals who call themselves men of wit and fashion — about town — who he is told have abused his book ‘vaustly’— their own word. These people paint their cheeks, wear white kid gloves, and dabble80 in literature, or what they conceive to be literature. For abuse from such people, the writer was prepared. Does anyone imagine that the writer was not well aware, before he published his book, that, whenever he gave it to the world, he should be attacked by every literary coxcomb81 in England who had influence enough to procure82 the insertion of a scurrilous83 article in a magazine or newspaper! He has been in Spain, and has seen how invariably the mule84 attacks the horse; now why does the mule attack the horse? Why, because the latter carries about with him that which the envious85 hermaphrodite does not possess.
They consider, forsooth, that his book is low — but he is not going to waste words about them — one or two of whom, he is told, have written very duncie books about Spain, and are highly enraged86 with him, because certain books which he wrote about Spain were not considered duncie. No, he is not going to waste words upon them, for verily he dislikes their company, and so he’ll pass them by, and proceed to others.
The Scotch87 Charlie o’er the water people have been very loud in the abuse of ‘Lavengro’— this again might be expected; the sarcasms88 of the Priest about the Charlie o’er the water nonsense of course stung them. Oh! it is one of the claims which ‘Lavengro’ has to respect, that it is the first, if not the only work, in which that nonsense is, to a certain extent, exposed. Two or three of their remarks on passages of ‘Lavengro’ he will reproduce and laugh at. Of course your Charlie o’er the water people are genteel exceedingly, and cannot abide anything low. Gypsyism they think is particularly low, and the use of gypsy words in literature beneath its gentility; so they object to gypsy words being used in ‘Lavengro’ where gypsies are introduced speaking. ‘What is Romany forsooth?’ say they. Very good! And what is Scotch? Has not the public been nauseated89 with Scotch for the last thirty years? ‘Ay, but Scotch is not —’ The writer believes he knows much better than the Scotch what Scotch is, and what it is not; he has told them before what it is, a very sorry jargon90. He will now tell them what it’s not — a sister or an immediate91 daughter of the Sanscrit, which Romany is. ‘Ay, but the Scotch are’— foxes, foxes, nothing else than foxes, even like the gypsies — the difference between the gypsy and Scotch fox being that the first is wild, with a mighty brush, the other a sneak92, with a gilt93 collar and without a tail.
A Charlie o’er the water person attempts to be witty94 because the writer has said that perhaps a certain old Edinburgh high-school porter, of the name of Boee, was perhaps of the same blood as a certain Bui, a Northern Kemp, who distinguished95 himself at the battle of Horinger Bay. A pretty matter, forsooth, to excite the ridicule96 of a Scotchman! Why, is there a beggar or trumpery97 fellow in Scotland who does not pretend to be somebody, or related to somebody? Is not every Scotchman descended98 from some king, kemp, or cow-stealer of old, by his own account at least? Why, the writer would even go so far as to bet a trifle that the poor creature who ridicules99 Boee’s supposed ancestry100 has one of his own, at least, as grand and as apocryphal101 as old Boee’s of the high school.
The same Charlie o’er the water person is mightily102 indignant that Lavengro should have spoken disrespectfully of William Wallace; Lavengro, when he speaks of that personage, being a child of about ten years old, and repeating merely what he had heard. All the Scotch, by-the-by, for a great many years past, have been great admirers of William Wallace, particularly the Charlie o’er the water people, who in their nonsense-verses about Charlie generally contrive103 to bring in the name of William, Willie, or Wullie Wallace. The writer begs leave to say that he by no means wishes to bear hard against William Wallace, but he cannot help asking why, if William, Willie, or Wullie Wallace was such a particularly nice person, did his brother Scots betray him to a certain renowned104 southern warrior105, called Edward Longshanks, who caused him to be hanged and cut into four in London, and his quarters to be placed over the gates of certain towns? They got gold, it is true, and titles, very nice things no doubt; but surely the life of a patriot106 is better than all the gold and titles in the world — at least, Lavengro thinks so; but Lavengro has lived more with gypsies than Scotchmen, and gypsies do not betray their brothers. It would be some time before a gypsy would hand over his brother to the harum-beck, 204 even supposing you would not only make him a king, but a justice of the peace, and not only give him the world, but the best farm on the Holkham estate; but gypsies are wild foxes, and there is certainly a wonderful difference between the way of thinking of the wild fox who retains his brush, and that of the scurvy107 kennel108 creature who has lost his tail.
Ah! but thousands of Scotch, and particularly the Charlie o’er the water people, will say: ‘We didn’t sell Willie Wallace; it was our forbears who sold Willie Wallace. . . . If Edward Longshanks had asked us to sell Wullie Wallace we would soon have shown him that —’ Lord better ye, ye poor trumpery set of creatures, ye would not have acted a bit better than your forefathers109; remember how ye have ever treated the few amongst ye who, though born in the kennel, have shown something of the spirit of the wood. Many of ye are still alive who delivered over men, quite as honest and patriotic110 as William Wallace, into the hands of an English minister, to be chained and transported for merely venturing to speak and write in the cause of humanity, at the time when Europe was beginning to fling off the chains imposed by kings and priests. And it is not so very long since Burns, to whom ye are now building up obelisks111 rather higher than he deserves, was permitted by his countrymen to die in poverty and misery112 because he would not join with them in songs of adulation to kings and the trumpery great. So say not that ye would have acted with respect to William Wallace one whit79 better than your fathers; and you in particular, ye children of Charlie, whom do ye write nonsense-verses about? A family of dastard113 despots, who did their best, during a century and more, to tread out the few sparks of independent feeling still glowing in Scotland; but enough has been said about ye.
Amongst those who have been prodigal114 in abuse and defamation115 of ‘Lavengro’ have been your modern Radicals116, and particularly a set of people who filled the country with noise against the King and Queen, Wellington and the Tories, in ‘32. About these people the writer will presently have occasion to say a good deal, and also of real Radicals. As, however, it may be supposed that he is one of those who delight to play the sycophant51 to kings and queens, to curry favour with Tories, and to bepraise Wellington, he begs leave to state that such is not the case.
About kings and queens he has nothing to say; about Tories simply that he believes them to be a bad set; about Wellington, however, it will be necessary for him to say a good deal of mixed import, as he will subsequently frequently have occasion to mention him in connection with what he has to say about pseudo-Radicals.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
virulence
|
|
| n.毒力，毒性；病毒性；致病力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
blemishes
|
|
| n.（身体的）瘢点( blemish的名词复数 )；伤疤；瑕疵；污点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
wilful
|
|
| adj.任性的，故意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
assail
|
|
| v.猛烈攻击，抨击，痛斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
leech
|
|
| n.水蛭，吸血鬼，榨取他人利益的人；vt.以水蛭吸血；vi.依附于别人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
viper
|
|
| n.毒蛇；危险的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
malignant
|
|
| adj.恶性的，致命的；恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
fable
|
|
| n.寓言；童话；神话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
meritorious
|
|
| adj.值得赞赏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
wriggling
|
|
| v.扭动，蠕动，蜿蜒行进( wriggle的现在分词 )；（使身体某一部位）扭动；耍滑不做，逃避（应做的事等）；蠕蠕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
foam
|
|
| v./n.泡沫，起泡沫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
jaws
|
|
| n.口部；嘴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
humbug
|
|
| n.花招，谎话，欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
dressings
|
|
| n.敷料剂；穿衣( dressing的名词复数 )；穿戴；（拌制色拉的）调料；（保护伤口的）敷料 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
besetting
|
|
| adj.不断攻击的v.困扰( beset的现在分词 )；不断围攻；镶；嵌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
guardians
|
|
| 监护人( guardian的名词复数 )； 保护者，维护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
abide
|
|
| vi.遵守；坚持；vt.忍受 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
enraptured
|
|
| v.使狂喜( enrapture的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
autobiography
|
|
| n.自传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
profligate
|
|
| adj.行为不检的；n.放荡的人，浪子，肆意挥霍者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
authorized
|
|
| a.委任的，许可的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
curry
|
|
| n.咖哩粉，咖哩饭菜；v.用咖哩粉调味，用马栉梳，制革 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
calumny
|
|
| n.诽谤，污蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
condescending
|
|
| adj.谦逊的,故意屈尊的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
vipers
|
|
| n.蝰蛇( viper的名词复数 )；毒蛇；阴险恶毒的人；奸诈者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
stratagem
|
|
| n.诡计，计谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
philological
|
|
| adj.语言学的，文献学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
vilify
|
|
| v.诽谤，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
philology
|
|
| n.语言学；语文学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
urchins
|
|
| n.顽童( urchin的名词复数 )；淘气鬼；猬；海胆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
philologist
|
|
| n.语言学者，文献学者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
wilfully
|
|
| adv.任性固执地；蓄意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
taunts
|
|
| 嘲弄的言语，嘲笑，奚落( taunt的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
taunting
|
|
| 嘲讽( taunt的现在分词 )； 嘲弄； 辱骂； 奚落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
rave
|
|
| vi.胡言乱语；热衷谈论；n.热情赞扬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
ravening
|
|
| a.贪婪而饥饿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
fables
|
|
| n.寓言( fable的名词复数 )；神话，传说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
bullying
|
|
| v.恐吓，威逼( bully的现在分词 )；豪；跋扈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
currying
|
|
| 加脂操作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
disapprove
|
|
| v.不赞成，不同意，不批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
horrid
|
|
| adj.可怕的；令人惊恐的；恐怖的；极讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
sycophantic
|
|
| adj.阿谀奉承的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
sycophant
|
|
| n.马屁精 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
galling
|
|
| adj.难堪的,使烦恼的,使焦躁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
gall
|
|
| v.使烦恼，使焦躁，难堪；n.磨难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
arrogance
|
|
| n.傲慢，自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
omniscient
|
|
| adj.无所不知的；博识的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
versed
|
|
| adj. 精通，熟练 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
pretension
|
|
| n.要求；自命，自称；自负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
profanely
|
|
| adv.渎神地，凡俗地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
conceit
|
|
| n.自负，自高自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
fawning
|
|
| adj.乞怜的，奉承的v.（尤指狗等）跳过来往人身上蹭以示亲热( fawn的现在分词 )；巴结；讨好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
sycophancy
|
|
| n.拍马屁，奉承，谄媚；吮痈舐痔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
replete
|
|
| adj.饱满的，塞满的；n.贮蜜蚁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
physiology
|
|
| n.生理学，生理机能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
dissected
|
|
| adj.切开的，分割的，（叶子）多裂的v.解剖（动物等）( dissect的过去式和过去分词 )；仔细分析或研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
physiological
|
|
| adj.生理学的，生理学上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
candid
|
|
| adj.公正的，正直的；坦率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
triumphantly
|
|
| ad.得意洋洋地；得胜地；成功地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
metaphors
|
|
| 隐喻( metaphor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
cliques
|
|
| n.小集团，小圈子，派系( clique的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
virulent
|
|
| adj.有毒的，有恶意的，充满敌意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
mortification
|
|
| n.耻辱，屈辱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
whit
|
|
| n.一点，丝毫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
dabble
|
|
| v.涉足，浅赏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
coxcomb
|
|
| n.花花公子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
scurrilous
|
|
| adj.下流的，恶意诽谤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
mule
|
|
| n.骡子，杂种，执拗的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
envious
|
|
| adj.嫉妒的，羡慕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
enraged
|
|
| 使暴怒( enrage的过去式和过去分词 )； 歜； 激愤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
scotch
|
|
| n.伤口，刻痕；苏格兰威士忌酒；v.粉碎，消灭，阻止；adj.苏格兰(人)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
sarcasms
|
|
| n.讥讽，讽刺，挖苦( sarcasm的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
nauseated
|
|
| adj.作呕的，厌恶的v.使恶心，作呕( nauseate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
jargon
|
|
| n.术语，行话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
sneak
|
|
| vt.潜行(隐藏,填石缝)；偷偷摸摸做；n.潜行；adj.暗中进行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
gilt
|
|
| adj.镀金的；n.金边证券 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
witty
|
|
| adj.机智的，风趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
ridicule
|
|
| v.讥讽，挖苦；n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
trumpery
|
|
| n.无价值的杂物；adj.（物品）中看不中用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
ridicules
|
|
| n.嘲笑( ridicule的名词复数 )；奚落；嘲弄；戏弄v.嘲笑，嘲弄，奚落( ridicule的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
100
ancestry
|
|
| n.祖先，家世 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
apocryphal
|
|
| adj.假冒的，虚假的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
mightily
|
|
| ad.强烈地；非常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
contrive
|
|
| vt.谋划，策划；设法做到；设计，想出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
renowned
|
|
| adj.著名的，有名望的，声誉鹊起的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
warrior
|
|
| n.勇士，武士，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
patriot
|
|
| n.爱国者，爱国主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
scurvy
|
|
| adj.下流的，卑鄙的，无礼的；n.坏血病 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
kennel
|
|
| n.狗舍，狗窝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
forefathers
|
|
| n.祖先，先人；祖先，祖宗( forefather的名词复数 )；列祖列宗；前人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
obelisks
|
|
| n.方尖石塔，短剑号，疑问记号( obelisk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
dastard
|
|
| n.卑怯之人，懦夫；adj.怯懦的，畏缩的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
prodigal
|
|
| adj.浪费的，挥霍的，放荡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
defamation
|
|
| n.诽谤；中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
radicals
|
|
| n.激进分子( radical的名词复数 )；根基；基本原理；[数学]根数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |