During the two centuries that ended with the close of the Peloponnesian war, a single race, weak numerically, and weakened still further by political disunion, simultaneously1 developed all the highest human faculties2 to an extent possibly rivalled but certainly not surpassed by the collective efforts of that vastly greater population which now wields3 the accumulated resources of modern Europe. This race, while maintaining a precarious4 foothold on the shores of the Mediterranean5 by repeated prodigies7 of courage and genius, contributed a new element to civilisation8 which has been the mainspring of all subsequent progress, but which, as it expanded into wider circles and encountered an increasing resistance from without, unavoidably lost some of the enormous elasticity9 that characterised its earliest and most concentrated reaction. It was the just boast of the Greek that to Asiatic refinement10 and Thracian valour he joined a disinterested11 thirst for knowledge unshared by his neighbours on either side.5 And if a contemporary of Pericles could have foreseen all that would be thought, and said, and done during2 the next twenty-three centuries of this world’s existence, at no period during that long lapse12 of ages, not even among the kindred Italian race, could he have found a competitor to contest with Hellas the olive crown of a nobler Olympia, the guerdon due to a unique combination of supreme13 excellence14 in every variety of intellectual exercise, in strategy, diplomacy15, statesmanship; in mathematical science, architecture, plastic art, and poetry; in the severe fidelity16 of the historian whose paramount17 object is to relate facts as they have occurred, and the dexterous18 windings19 of the advocate whose interest leads him to evade20 or to disguise them; in the far-reaching meditations21 of the lonely thinker grappling with the enigmas22 of his own soul, and the fervid23 eloquence24 by which a multitude on whose decision hang great issues is inspired, directed, or controlled. He would not, it is true, have found any single Greek to pit against the athletes of the Renaissance25; there were none who displayed that universal genius so characteristic of the greatest Tuscan artists such as Lionardo and Michael Angelo; nor, to take a much narrower range, did a single Greek writer whose compositions have come down to us excel, or even attempt to excel, in poetry and prose alike. But our imaginary prophet might have observed that such versatility26 better befitted a sophist like Hippias or an adventurer like Critias than an earnest master of the Pheidian type. He might have quoted Pindar’s sarcasm27 about highly educated persons who have an infinity28 of tastes and bring none of them to perfection;6 holding, as Plato did in the next generation, that one man can only do one thing well, he might have added that the heroes of modern art would have done much nobler work had they concentrated their powers on a single task instead of attempting half a dozen and leaving most of them incomplete.
This careful restriction29 of individual effort to a single3 province involved no dispersion or incoherence in the results achieved. The highest workers were all animated30 by a common spirit. Each represented some one aspect of the glory and greatness participated in by all. Nor was the collective consciousness, the uniting sympathy, limited to a single sphere. It rose, by a graduated series, from the city community, through the Dorian or Ionian stock with which they claimed more immediate32 kinship, to the Panhellenic race, the whole of humanity, and the divine fatherhood of Zeus, until it rested in that all-embracing nature which Pindar knew as the one mother of gods and men.7
We may, perhaps, find some suggestion of this combined distinctness and comprehensiveness in the aspect and configuration34 of Greece itself; in its manifold varieties of soil, and climate, and scenery, and productions; in the exquisite35 clearness with which the features of its landscape are defined; and the admirable development of coast-line by which all parts of its territory, while preserving their political independence, were brought into safe and speedy communication with one another. The industrial and commercial habits of the people, necessitating36 a well-marked division of labour and a regulated distribution of commodities, gave a further impulse in the same direction.
But what afforded the most valuable education in this sense was their system of free government, involving, as it did, the supremacy37 of an impersonal38 law, the subdivision of public authority among a number of magistrates39, and the assignment to each of certain carefully defined functions which he was forbidden to exceed; together with the living interest felt by each citizen in the welfare of the whole state, and that conception of it as a whole composed of various parts, which is impossible where all the public powers are collected in a single hand.
A people so endowed were the natural creators of philo4sophy. There came a time when the harmonious41 universality of the Hellenic genius sought for its counterpart and completion in a theory of the external world. And there came a time, also, when the decay of political interests left a large fund of intellectual energy, accustomed to work under certain conditions, with the desire to realise those conditions in an ideal sphere. Such is the most general significance we can attach to that memorable42 series of speculations44 on the nature of things which, beginning in Ionia, was carried by the Greek colonists45 to Italy and Sicily, whence, after receiving important additions and modifications46, the stream of thought flowed back into the old country, where it was directed into an entirely48 new channel by the practical genius of Athens. Thales and his successors down to Democritus were not exactly what we should call philosophers, in any sense of the word that would include a Locke or a Hume, and exclude a Boyle or a Black; for their speculations never went beyond the confines of the material universe; they did not even suspect the existence of those ethical49 and dialectical problems which long constituted the sole object of philosophical51 discussion, and have continued since the time when they were first mooted52 to be regarded as its most peculiar53 province. Nor yet can we look on them altogether or chiefly as men of science, for their paramount purpose was to gather up the whole of knowledge under a single principle; and they sought to realise this purpose, not by observation and experiment, but by the power of thought alone. It would, perhaps, be truest to say that from their point of view philosophy and science were still undifferentiated, and that knowledge as a universal synthesis was not yet divorced from special investigations54 into particular orders of phenomena56. Here, as elsewhere, advancing reason tends to reunite studies which have been provisionally separated, and we must look to our own contemporaries—to our Tyndalls and Thomsons, our Helmholtzes and Z?llners—as furnishing the fittest parallel to5 Anaximander and Empedocles, Leucippus and Diogenes of Apollonia.
It has been the fashion in certain quarters to look down on these early thinkers—to depreciate57 the value of their speculations because they were thinkers, because, as we have already noticed, they reached their most important conclusions by thinking, the means of truly scientific observation not being within their reach. Nevertheless, they performed services to humanity comparable for value with the legislation of Solon and Cleisthenes, or the victories of Marathon and Salamis; while their creative imagination was not inferior to that of the great lyric58 and dramatic poets, the great architects and sculptors59, whose contemporaries they were. They first taught men to distinguish between the realities of nature and the illusions of sense; they discovered or divined the indestructibility of matter and its atomic constitution; they taught that space is infinite, a conception so far from being self-evident that it transcended60 the capacity of Aristotle to grasp; they held that the seemingly eternal universe was brought into its present form by the operation of mechanical forces which will also effect its dissolution; confronted by the seeming permanence and solidity of our planet, with the innumerable varieties of life to be found on its surface, they declared that all things had arisen by differentiation8 from a homogeneous attenuated62 vapour; while one of them went so far as to surmise63 that man is descended64 from an aquatic65 animal. But higher still than these fragmentary glimpses and anticipations66 of a theory which still awaits confirmation68 from experience, we must place their central doctrine69, that the universe is a cosmos70, an ordered whole governed by number and law, not a blind conflict of semi-conscious agents, or a theatre for the arbitrary interference of partial, jealous,6 and vindictive72 gods; that its changes are determined73, if at all, by an immanent unchanging reason; and that those celestial74 luminaries75 which had drawn76 to themselves in every age the unquestioning worship of all mankind were, in truth, nothing more than fiery77 masses of inanimate matter. Thus, even if the early Greek thinkers were not scientific, they first made science possible by substituting for a theory of the universe which is its direct negation78, one that methodised observation has increasingly tended to confirm. The garland of poetic79 praise woven by Lucretius for his adored master should have been dedicated80 to them, and to them alone. His noble enthusiasm was really inspired by their lessons, not by the wearisome trifling81 of a moralist who knew little and cared less about those studies in which the whole soul of his Roman disciple82 was absorbed.
When the power and value of these primitive83 speculations can no longer be denied, their originality84 is sometimes questioned by the systematic85 detractors of everything Hellenic. Thales and the rest, we are told, simply borrowed their theories without acknowledgment from a storehouse of Oriental wisdom on which the Greeks are supposed to have drawn as freely as Coleridge drew on German philosophy. Sometimes each system is affiliated86 to one of the great Asiatic religions; sometimes they are all traced back to the schools of Hindostan. It is natural that no two critics should agree, when the rival explanations are based on nothing stronger than superficial analogies and accidental coincidences. Dr. Zeller in his wonderfully learned, clear, and sagacious work on Greek philosophy, has carefully sifted87 some of the hypotheses referred to, and shown how destitute88 they are of internal or external evidence, and how utterly89 they fail to account for the facts. The oldest and best authorities, Plato and Aristotle, knew nothing about such a derivation of Greek thought from Eastern sources. Isocrates does, indeed, mention that Pythagoras borrowed his philosophy7 from Egypt, but Isocrates did not even pretend to be a truthful90 narrator. No Greek of the early period except those regularly domiciled in Susa seems to have been acquainted with any language but his own. Few travelled very far into Asia, and of those few, only one or two were philosophers. Democritus, who visited more foreign countries than any man of his time, speaks only of having discussed mathematical problems with the wise men whom he encountered; and even in mathematics he was at least their equal.9 It was precisely92 at the greatest distance from Asia, in Italy and Sicily, that the systems arose which seem to have most analogy with Asiatic modes of thought. Can we suppose that the traders of those times were in any way qualified93 to transport the speculations of Confucius and the Vedas to such a distance from their native homes? With far better reason might one expect a German merchant to carry a knowledge of Kant’s philosophy from K?nigsberg to Canton. But a more convincing argument than any is to show that Greek philosophy in its historical evolution exhibits a perfectly94 natural and spontaneous progress from simpler to more complex forms, and that system grew out of system by a strictly95 logical process of extension, analysis, and combination. This is what, chiefly under the guidance of Zeller, we shall now attempt to do.
II.
Thales, of Miletus, an Ionian geometrician and astronomer96, about whose age considerable uncertainty97 prevails, but who seems to have flourished towards the close of the seventh century before our era, is by general consent regarded as the father of Greek physical philosophy. Others before him had attempted to account for the world’s origin, but none like him had traced it back to a purely98 natural beginning. According to Thales all things have come from water. That8 the earth is entirely enclosed by water above and below as well as all round was perhaps a common notion among the Western Asiatics. It was certainly believed by the Hebrews, as we learn from the accounts of the creation and the flood contained in Genesis. The Milesian thinker showed his originality by generalising still further and declaring that not only did water surround all things, but that all things were derived99 from it as their first cause and substance, that water was, so to speak, the material absolute. Never have more pregnant words been spoken; they acted like a ferment100 on the Greek mind; they were the grain whence grew a tree that has overshadowed the whole earth. At one stroke they substituted a comparatively scientific, because a verifiable principle for the confused fancies of mythologising poets. Not that Thales was an atheist101, or an agnostic, or anything of that sort. On the contrary, he is reported to have said that all things were full of gods; and the report sounds credible102 enough. Most probably the saying was a protest against the popular limitation of divine agencies to certain special occasions and favoured localities. A true thinker seeks above all for consistency103 and continuity. He will more readily accept a perpetual stream of creative energy than a series of arbitrary and isolated104 interferences with the course of Nature. For the rest, Thales made no attempt to explain how water came to be transformed into other substances, nor is it likely that the necessity of such an explanation had ever occurred to him. We may suspect that he and others after him were not capable of distinguishing very clearly between such notions as space, time, cause, substance, and limit. It is almost as difficult for us to enter into the thoughts of these primitive philosophers as it would have been for them to comprehend processes of reasoning already familiar to Plato and Aristotle. Possibly the forms under which we arrange our conceptions may become equally obsolete105 at a more advanced stage of intellectual evolution, and our sharp distinctions may prove to be not9 less artificial than the confused identifications which they have superseded106.
The next great forward step in speculation43 was taken by Anaximander, another Milesian, also of distinguished107 attainments108 in mathematics and astronomy. We have seen that to Thales water, the all-embracing element, became, as such, the first cause of all things, the absolute principle of existence. His successor adopted the same general point of view, but looked out from it with a more penetrating109 gaze. Beyond water lay something else which he called the Infinite. He did not mean the empty abstraction which has stalked about in modern times under that ill-omened name, nor yet did he mean infinite space, but something richer and more concrete than either; a storehouse of materials whence the waste of existence could be perpetually made good. The growth and decay of individual forms involve a ceaseless drain on Nature, and the deficiency must be supplied by a corresponding influx110 from without.A For, be it observed that, although the Greek thinkers were at this period well aware that nothing can come from nothing, they had not yet grasped the complementary truth inalienably wedded112 to it by Lucretius in one immortal113 couplet, that nothing can return to nothing; and Kant is quite mistaken when he treats the two as historically inseparable. Common experience forces the one on our attention much sooner than the other. Our incomings are very strictly measured out and accounted for without difficulty, while it is hard to tell what becomes of all our expenditure114, physical and economical. Yet, although the indestructibility of matter was a conception which had not yet dawned on Anaximander, he seems to have been feeling his way towards the recognition of a circulatory movement pervading115 all Nature. Everything, he says, must at last be reabsorbed in the Infinite as a punishment for the sin of its separate existence.10 Some may find in this sentiment a note of Oriental10 mysticism. Rather does its very sadness illustrate116 the healthy vitality117 of Greek feeling, to which absorption seemed like the punishment of a crime against the absolute, and not, as to so many Asiatics, the crown and consummation of spiritual perfection. Be this as it may, a doctrine which identified the death of the whole world with its reabsorption into a higher reality would soon suggest the idea that its component118 parts vanish only to reappear in new combinations.
Anaximander’s system was succeeded by a number of others which cannot be arranged according to any order of linear progression. Such arrangements are, indeed, false in principle. Intellectual life, like every other life, is a product of manifold conditions, and their varied119 combinations are certain to issue in a corresponding multiplicity of effects. Anaximenes, a fellow-townsman of Anaximander, followed most closely in the footsteps of the master. Attempting, as it would appear, to mediate33 between his two predecessors121, he chose air for a primal122 element. Air is more omnipresent than water, which, as well as earth, is enclosed within its plastic sphere. On the other hand, it is more tangible123 and concrete than the Infinite, or may even be substituted for that conception by supposing it to extend as far as thought can reach. As before, cosmogony grows out of cosmography; the enclosing element is the parent of those embraced within it.
Speculation now leaves its Asiatic cradle and travels with the Greek colonists to new homes in Italy and Sicily, where new modes of thought were fostered by a new environment. A name, round which mythical124 accretions125 have gathered so thickly that the original nucleus126 of fact almost defies definition, first claims our attention. Aristotle, as is well known, avoids mentioning Pythagoras, and always speaks of the Pythagoreans when he is discussing the opinions held by a certain Italian school. Their doctrine, whoever originated it, was that all things are made out of number. Brandis regards Pythagoreanism as an entirely original effort of speculation,11 standing127 apart from the main current of Hellenic thought, and to be studied without reference to Ionian philosophy. Zeller, with more plausibility128, treats it as an outgrowth of Anaximander’s system. In that system the finite and the infinite remained opposed to one another as unreconciled moments of thought. Number, according to the Greek arithmeticians, was a synthesis of the two, and therefore superior to either. To a Pythagorean the finite and the infinite were only one among several antithetical couples, such as odd and even, light and darkness, male and female, and, above all, the one and the many whence every number after unity31 is formed. The tendency to search for antitheses129 everywhere, and to manufacture them where they do not exist, became ere long an actual disease of the Greek mind. A Thucydides could no more have dispensed130 with this cumbrous mechanism131 than a rope-dancer could get on without his balancing pole; and many a schoolboy has been sorely puzzled by the fantastic contortions132 which Italiote reflection imposed for a time on Athenian oratory134.
Returning to our more immediate subject, we must observe that the Pythagoreans did not maintain, in anticipation67 of modern quantitative135 science, that all things are determined by number, but that all things are numbers, or are made out of numbers, two propositions not easily distinguished by unpractised thinkers. Numbers, in a word, were to them precisely what water had been to Thales, what air was to Anaximenes, the absolute principle of existence; only with them the idea of a limit, the leading inspiration of Greek thought, had reached a higher degree of abstraction. Number was, as it were, the exterior136 limit of the finite, and the interior limit of the infinite. Add to this that mathematical studies, cultivated in Egypt and Phoenicia for their practical utility alone, were being pursued in Hellas with ever-increasing ardour for the sake of their own delightfulness137, for the intellectual discipline that they supplied—a discipline even12 more valuable then than now, and for the insight which they bestowed138, or were believed to bestow139, into the secret constitution of Nature; and that the more complicated arithmetical operations were habitually141 conducted with the aid of geometrical diagrams, thus suggesting the possibility of applying a similar treatment to every order of relations. Consider the lively emotions excited among an intelligent people at a time when multiplication142 and division, squaring and cubing, the rule of three, the construction and equivalence of figures, with all their manifold applications to industry, commerce, fine art, and tactics, were just as strange and wonderful as electrical phenomena are to us; consider also the magical influence still commonly attributed to particular numbers, and the intense eagerness to obtain exact numerical statements, even when they are of no practical value, exhibited by all who are thrown back on primitive ways of living, as, for example, in Alpine143 travelling, or on board an Atlantic steamer, and we shall cease to wonder that a mere144 form of thought, a lifeless abstraction, should once have been regarded as the solution of every problem, the cause of all existence; or that these speculations were more than once revived in after ages, and perished only with Greek philosophy itself.
We have not here to examine the scientific achievements of Pythagoras and his school; they belong to the history of science, not to that of pure thought, and therefore lie outside the present discussion. Something, however, must be said of Pythagoreanism as a scheme of moral, religious, and social reform. Alone among the pre-Socratic systems, it undertook to furnish a rule of conduct as well as a theory of being. Yet, as Zeller has pointed145 out,11 it was only an apparent anomaly, for the ethical teaching of the Pythagoreans was not based on their physical theories, except in so far as a deep reverence146 for law and order was common to both.13 Perhaps, also, the separation of soul and body, with the ascription of a higher dignity to the former, which was a distinctive147 tenet of the school, may be paralleled with the position given to number as a kind of spiritual power creating and controlling the world of sense. So also political power was to be entrusted148 to an aristocracy trained in every noble accomplishment149, and fitted for exercising authority over others by self-discipline, by mutual150 fidelity, and by habitual140 obedience151 to a rule of right. Nevertheless, we must look, with Zeller, for the true source of Pythagoreanism as a moral movement in that great wave of religious enthusiasm which swept over Hellas during the sixth century before Christ, intimately associated with the importation of Apollo-worship from Lycia, with the concentration of spiritual authority in the oracular shrine152 of Delphi, and the political predominance of the Dorian race, those Normans of the ancient world. Legend has thrown this connexion into a poetical153 form by making Pythagoras the son of Apollo; and the Samian sage154, although himself an Ionian, chose the Dorian cities of Southern Italy as a favourable155 field for his new teaching, just as Calvinism found a readier acceptance in the advanced posts of the Teutonic race than among the people whence its founder156 sprang. Perhaps the nearest parallel, although on a far more extensive scale, for the religious movement of which we are speaking, is the spectacle offered by mediaeval Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of our era, when a series of great Popes had concentrated all spiritual power in their own hands, and were sending forth157 army after army of Crusaders to the East; when all Western Europe had awakened158 to the consciousness of its common Christianity, and each individual was thrilled by a sense of the tremendous alternatives committed to his choice; when the Dominican and Franciscan orders were founded; when Gothic architecture and Florentine painting arose; when the Troubadours and Minnes?ngers were pour14ing out their notes of scornful or tender passion, and the love of the sexes had become a sentiment as lofty and enduring as the devotion of friend to friend had been in Greece of old. The bloom of Greek religious enthusiasm was more exquisite and evanescent than that of feudal160 Catholicism; inferior in pure spirituality and of more restricted significance as a factor in the evolution of humanity, it at least remained free from the ecclesiastical tyranny, the murderous fanaticism161, and the unlovely superstitions163 of mediaeval faith. But polytheism under any form was fatally incapable164 of coping with the new spirit of enquiry awakened by philosophy, and the old myths, with their naturalistic crudities, could not long satisfy the reason and conscience of thinkers who had learned in another school to seek everywhere for a central unity of control, and to bow their imaginations before the passionless perfection of eternal law.
III.
Such a thinker was Xenophanes, of Colophon. Driven, like Pythagoras, from his native city by civil discords165, he spent the greater part of an unusually protracted166 life wandering through the Greek colonies of Sicily and Southern Italy, and reciting his own verses, not always, as it would appear, to a very attentive167 audience. Elea, an Italiote city, seems to have been his favourite resort, and the school of philosophy which he founded there has immortalised the name of this otherwise obscure Phocaean settlement. Enough remains168 of his verses to show with what terrible strength of sarcasm he assailed169 the popular religion of Hellas. ‘Homer and Hesiod,’ he exclaims, ‘have attributed to the gods everything that is a shame and reproach among men—theft, adultery, and mutual deception170.’12 Nor is Xenophanes content with attacking15 these unedifying stories, he strikes at the anthropomorphic conceptions which lay at their root. ‘Mortals think that the gods have senses, and a voice and a body like their own. The negroes fancy that their deities171 are black-skinned and snub-nosed, the Thracians give theirs fair hair and blue eyes; if horses or lions had hands and could paint, they too would make gods in their own image.’13 It was, he declared, as impious to believe in the birth of a god as to believe in the possibility of his death. The current polytheism was equally false. ‘There is one Supreme God among gods and men, unlike mortals both in mind and body.’14 There can be only one God, for God is Omnipotent172, so that there must be none to dispute his will. He must also be perfectly homogeneous, shaped like a sphere, seeing, hearing, and thinking with every part alike, never moving from place to place, but governing all things by an effortless exercise of thought. Had such daring heresies173 been promulgated174 in democratic Athens, their author would probably have soon found himself and his works handed over to the tender mercies of the Eleven. Happily at Elea, and in most other Greek states, the gods were left to take care of themselves.
Xenophanes does not seem to have been ever molested175 on account of his religious opinions. He complains bitterly enough that people preferred fiction to philosophy, that uneducated athletes engrossed176 far too much popular admiration177, that he, Xenophanes, was not sufficiently178 appreciated;B but of theological intolerance, so far as our information goes, he says not one single word. It will easily be conceived that the rapid progress of Greek speculation was singularly favoured by such unbounded freedom of thought and speech. The views just set forth have often been regarded as a step towards spiritualistic monotheism, and so, considered in the light of subsequent developments, they unquestionably were. Still, looking at the matter from another aspect, we may say16 that Xenophanes, when he shattered the idols179 of popular religion, was returning to the past rather than anticipating the future; feeling his way back to the deeper, more primordial180 faith of the old Aryan race, or even of that still older stock whence Aryan and Turanian alike diverged181. He turns from the brilliant, passionate182, fickle183 Dyaus, to Zên, or Ten, the ever-present, all-seeing, all-embracing, immovable vault184 of heaven. Aristotle, with a sympathetic insight unfortunately too rare in his criticisms on earlier systems, observes that Xenophanes did not make it clear whether the absolute unity he taught was material or ideal, but simply looked up at the whole heaven and declared that the One was God.15 Aristotle was himself the real creator of philosophic50 monotheism, just because the idea of living, self-conscious personality had a greater value, a profounder meaning for him than for any other thinker of antiquity185, one may almost say than for any other thinker whatever. It is, therefore, a noteworthy circumstance that, while warmly acknowledging the anticipations of Anaxagoras, he nowhere speaks of Xenophanes as a predecessor120 in the same line of enquiry. The latter might be called a pantheist were it not that pantheism belongs to a much later stage of speculation, one, in fact, not reached by the Greek mind at any period of its development. His leading conception was obscured by a confusion of mythological186 with purely physical ideas, and could only bear full fruit when the religious element had been entirely eliminated from its composition. This elimination187 was accomplished188 by a far greater thinker, one who combined poetic inspiration with philosophic depth; who was penetrating enough to discern the logical consequences involved in a fundamental principle of thought, and bold enough to push them to their legitimate189 conclusions without caring for the shock to sense and common opinion that his merciless dialectic might inflict190.
17
Parmenides, of Elea, flourished towards the beginning of the fifth century B.C. We know very little about his personal history. According to Plato, he visited Athens late in life, and there made the acquaintance of Socrates, at that time a very young man. But an unsupported statement of Plato’s must always be received with extreme caution; and this particular story is probably not less fictitious191 than the dialogue which it serves to introduce. Parmenides embodied192 his theory of the world in a poem, the most important passages of which have been preserved. They show that, while continuing the physical studies of his predecessors, he proceeded on an entirely different method. Their object was to deduce every variety of natural phenomena from a fundamental unity of substance. He declared that all variety and change were a delusion194, and that nothing existed but one indivisible, unalterable, absolute reality; just as Descartes’ antithesis195 of thought and extension disappeared in the infinite substance of Spinoza, or as the Kantian dualism of object and subject was eliminated in Hegel’s absolute idealism. Again, Parmenides does not dogmatise to the same extent as his predecessors; he attempts to demonstrate his theory by the inevitable196 necessities of being and thought. Existence, he tells us over and over again, is, and non-existence is not, cannot even be imagined or thought of as existing, for thought is the same as being. This is not an anticipation of Hegel’s identification of being with thought; it only amounts to the very innocent proposition that a thought is something and about something—enters, therefore, into the general undiscriminated mass of being. He next proceeds to prove that what is can neither come into being nor pass out of it again. It cannot come out of the non-existent, for that is inconceivable; nor out of the existent, for nothing exists but being itself; and the same argument proves that it cannot cease to exist. Here we find the indestructibility of matter, a truth which Anaximander18 had not yet grasped, virtually affirmed for the first time in history. We find also that our philosopher is carried away by the enthusiasm of a new discovery, and covers more ground than he can defend in maintaining the permanence of all existence whatever. The reason is that to him, as to every other thinker of the pre-Socratic period, all existence was material, or, rather, all reality was confounded under one vague conception, of which visible resisting extension supplied the most familiar type. To proceed: Being cannot be divided from being, nor is it capable of condensation197 or expansion (as the Ionians had taught); there is nothing by which it can be separated or held apart; nor is it ever more or less existent, but all is full of being. Parmenides goes on in his grand style:—
‘Therefore the whole extends continuously,
Being by Being set; immovable,
Subject to the constraint198 of mighty199 laws;
Both increate and indestructible,
Since birth and death have wandered far away
By true conviction into exile driven;
The same, in self-same place, and by itself
Abiding200, doth abide201 most firmly fixed202,
And bounded round by strong Necessity.
Wherefore a holy law forbids that Being
Should be without an end, else want were there,
And want of that would be a want of all.’16
Thus does the everlasting203 Greek love of order, definition, limitation, reassert its supremacy over the intelligence of this noble thinker, just as his almost mystical enthusiasm has reached its highest pitch of exaltation, giving him back a world which thought can measure, circumscribe204, and control.
Being, then, is finite in extent, and, as a consequence of its absolute homogeneity, spherical205 in form. There is good reason for believing that the earth’s true figure was first discovered in the fifth century B.C., but whether it was suggested by the à priori theories of Parmenides, or was19 generalised by him into a law of the whole universe, or whether there was more than an accidental connexion between the two hypotheses, we cannot tell. Aristotle, at any rate, was probably as much indebted to the Eleatic system as to contemporary astronomy for his theory of a finite spherical universe. It will easily be observed that the distinction between space and matter, so obvious to us, and even to Greek thinkers of a later date, had not yet dawned upon Parmenides. As applied206 to the former conception, most of his affirmations are perfectly correct, but his belief in the finiteness of Being can only be justified207 on the supposition that Being is identified with matter. For it must be clearly understood (and Zeller has the great merit of having proved this fact by incontrovertible arguments)17 that the Eleatic Being was not a transcendental conception, nor an abstract unity, as Aristotle erroneously supposed, nor a Kantian noumenon, nor a spiritual essence of any kind, but a phenomenal reality of the most concrete description. We can only not call Parmenides a materialist208, because materialism209 implies a negation of spiritualism, which in his time had not yet come into existence. He tells us plainly that a man’s thoughts result from the conformation of his body, and are determined by the preponderating210 element in its composition. Not much, however, can be made of this rudimentary essay in psychology211, connected as it seems to be with an appendix to the teaching of our philosopher, in which he accepts the popular dualism, although still convinced of its falsity, and uses it, under protest, as an explanation of that very genesis which he had rejected as impossible.
As might be expected, the Parmenidean paradoxes212 provoked a considerable amount of contradiction and ridicule213. The Reids and Beatties of that time drew sundry214 absurd consequences from the new doctrine, and offered them as a sufficient refutation of its truth. Zeno, a young friend and20 favourite of Parmenides, took up arms in his master’s defence, and sought to prove with brilliant dialectical ability that consequences still more absurd might be deduced from the opposite belief. He originated a series of famous puzzles respecting the infinite divisibility of matter and the possibility of motion, subsequently employed as a disproof of all certainty by the Sophists and Sceptics, and occasionally made to serve as arguments on behalf of agnosticism by writers of our own time. Stated generally, they may be reduced to two. A whole composed of parts and divisible ad infinitum must be either infinitely215 great or infinitely little; infinitely great if its parts have magnitude, infinitely little if they have not. A moving body can never come to the end of a given line, for it must first traverse half the line, then half the remainder, and so on for ever. Aristotle thought that the difficulty about motion could be solved by taking the infinite divisibility of time into account; and Coleridge, according to his custom, repeated the explanation without acknowledgment. But Zeno would have refused to admit that any infinite series could come to an end, whether it was composed of successive or of co-existent parts. So long as the abstractions of our understanding are treated as separate entities216, these and similar puzzles will continue to exercise the ingenuity217 of metaphysicians. Our present business, however, is not to solve Zeno’s difficulties, but to show how they illustrate a leading characteristic of Greek thought, its tendency to perpetual analysis, a tendency not limited to the philosophy of the Greeks, but pervading the whole of their literature and even of their art. Homer carefully distinguishes the successive steps of every action, and leads up to every catastrophe218 by a series of finely graduated transitions. Like Zeno, again, he pursues a system of dichotomy, passing rapidly over the first half of his subject, and relaxes the speed of his narrative219 by going into ever-closer detail until the consummation is reached. Such a poem as the ‘Achilleis’ of modern critics21 would have been perfectly intolerable to a Greek, from the too rapid and uniform march of its action. Herodotus proceeds after a precisely similar fashion, advancing from a broad and free treatment of history to elaborate minuteness of detail. So, too, a Greek temple divides itself into parts so distinct, yet so closely connected, that the eye, after separating, as easily recombines them into a whole. The evolution of Greek music tells the same tale of progressive subdivision, which is also illustrated220 by the passage from long speeches to single lines, and from these again to half lines in the dialogue of a Greek drama. No other people could have created mathematical demonstration221, for no other would have had skill and patience enough to discover the successive identities interposed between and connecting the sides of an equation. The dialectic of Socrates and Plato, the somewhat wearisome distinctions of Aristotle, and, last of all, the fine-spun series of triads inserted by Proclus between the superessential One and the fleeting222 world of sense,—were all products of the same fundamental tendency, alternately most fruitful and most barren in its results. It may be objected that Zeno, so far from obeying this tendency, followed a diametrically opposite principle, that of absolutely unbroken continuity. True; but the ‘Eleatic Palamedes’ fought his adversaries223 with a weapon wrested224 out of their own hands; rejecting analysis as a law of real existence, he continued to employ it as a logical artifice225 with greater subtlety226 than had ever yet been displayed in pure speculation.18
22
Besides Zeno, Parmenides seems to have had only one disciple of note, Melissus, the Samian statesman and general; but under various modifications and combined with other elements, the Eleatic absolute entered as a permanent factor into Greek speculation. From it were lineally descended the Sphairos of Empedocles, the eternal atoms of Leucippus, the Nous of Anaxagoras, the Megaric Good, the supreme solar idea of Plato, the self-thinking thought of Aristotle, the imperturbable227 tranquillity228 attributed to their model sage by Stoics229 and Epicureans alike, the sovereign indifference230 of the Sceptics, and finally, the Neo-platonic One. Modern philosophers have sought for their supreme ideal in power, movement, activity, life, rather than in any stationary231 substance; yet even among them we find Herbart partially232 reviving the Eleatic theory, and confronting Hegel’s fluent categories with his own inflexible233 monads.
We have now to study an analogous234, though far less complicated, antagonism235 in ancient Greece, and to show how her most brilliant period of physical philosophy arose from the combination of two seemingly irreconcilable236 systems. Parmenides, in an address supposed to be delivered by Wisdom to her disciple, warns us against the method pursued by ‘ignorant mortals, the blind, deaf, stupid, confused tribes, who hold that to be and not to be are the same, and that all things move round by an inverted237 path.’19 What Parmenides denounced as arrant238 nonsense was deliberately239 proclaimed to be the highest truth by his illustrious contemporary, Heracleitus, of Ephesus. This wonderful thinker is popularly known as the weeping philosopher, because, according to a very silly tradition, he never went abroad without shedding tears over the follies240 of mankind. No such mawkish241 sentimentality, but bitter scorn and indignation, marked the attitude of23 Heracleitus towards his fellows. A self-taught sage, he had no respect for the accredited242 instructors243 of Hellas. ‘Much learning,’ he says, ‘does not teach reason, else it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Hecataeus.’20 Homer, he declares, ought to be flogged out of the public assemblages, and Archilochus likewise. When the highest reputations met with so little mercy, it will readily be imagined what contempt he poured on the vulgar herd244. The feelings of a high-born aristocrat245 combine with those of a lofty genius to point and wing his words. ‘The many are bad and few are the good. The best choose one thing instead of all, a perpetual well-spring of fame, while the many glut246 their appetites like beasts. One man is equal to ten thousand if he is the best.’ This contempt was still further intensified247 by the very excusable incapacity of the public to understand profound thought conveyed in a style proverbial for its obscurity. ‘Men cannot comprehend the eternal law; when I have explained the order of Nature they are no wiser than before.’ What, then, was this eternal law, a knowledge of which Heracleitus found so difficult to popularise? Let us look back for a moment at the earlier Ionian systems. They had taught that the universe arose either by differentiation61 or by condensation and expansion from a single primordial substance, into which, as Anaximander, at least, held, everything, at last returned. Now, Heracleitus taught that this transformation248 is a universal, never-ending, never-resting process; that all things are moving; that Nature is like a stream in which no man can bathe twice; that rest and stability are the law, not of life, but of death. Again, the Pythagorean school, as we have seen, divided all things into a series of sharply distinguished antithetical pairs. Heracleitus either directly identified the terms of every opposition249, or regarded them as necessarily combined, or as continually24 passing into one another. Perhaps we shall express his meaning most thoroughly250 by saying that he would have looked on all three propositions as equivalent statements of a single fact. In accordance with this principle he calls war the father and king and lord of all, and denounces Homer’s prayer for the abolition251 of strife252 as an unconscious blasphemy253 against the universe itself. Yet, even his powerful intellect could not grasp the conception of a shifting relativity as the law and life of things without embodying254 it in a particular material substratum. Following the Ionian tradition, he sought for a world-element, and found it in that cosmic fire which enveloped255 the terrestrial atmosphere, and of which the heavenly luminaries were supposed to be formed. ‘Fire,’ says the Ephesian philosopher, no doubt adapting his language to the comprehension of a great commercial community, ‘is the general medium of exchange, as gold is given for everything, and everything for gold.’ ‘The world was not created by any god or any man, but always was, and is, and shall be, an ever-living fire, periodically kindled256 and quenched25.‘ By cooling and condensation, water is formed from fire, and earth from water; then, by a converse257 process called the way up as the other was the way down, earth again passes into water and water into fire. At the end of certain stated periods the whole world is to be reconverted into fire, but only to enter on a new cycle in the series of its endless revolutions—a conception, so far, remarkably258 confirmed by modern science. The whole theory, including a future world conflagration259, was afterwards adopted by the Stoics, and probably exercised a considerable influence on the eschatology of the early Christian159 Church. Imagination is obliged to work under forms which thought has already superseded; and Heracleitus as a philosopher had forestalled260 the dazzling consummation to which as a prophet he might look forward in wonder and hope. For, his elemental fire was only a picturesque261 presentation indispensable to him, but not to us, of the sovereign law wherein all things live and move and have their being. To have introduced such an idea into speculation was his distinctive and inestimable achievement, although it may have been suggested by the ε?μαρμ?νη or destiny of the theological poets, a term occasionally employed in his writings. It had a moral as well as a physical meaning, or rather it hovers262 ambiguously between the two. ‘The sun shall not transgress263 his bounds, or the Erinyes who help justice will find him out.’ It is the source of human laws, the common reason which binds264 men together, therefore they should hold by it even more firmly than by the laws of the State. It is not only all-wise but all-good, even where it seems to be the reverse; for our distinctions between good and evil, just and unjust, vanish in the divine harmony of Nature, the concurrent265 energies and identifying transformations266 of her universal life.
According to Aristotle, the Heracleitean flux111 was inconsistent with the highest law of thought, and made all predication impossible. It has been shown that the master himself recognised a fixed recurring267 order of change which could be affirmed if nothing else could. But the principle of change, once admitted, seemed to act like a corrosive268 solvent269, too powerful for any vessel270 to contain. Disciples271 were soon found who pushed it to extreme consequences with the effect of abolishing all certainty whatever. In Plato’s time it was impossible to argue with a Heracleitean; he could never be tied down to a definite statement. Every proposition became false as soon as it was uttered, or rather before it was out of the speaker’s mouth. At last, a distinguished teacher of the school declined to commit himself by using words, and disputed exclusively in dumb show. A dangerous speculative272 crisis had set in. At either extremity273 of the Hellenic world the path of scientific inquiry274 was barred; on the one hand by a theory eliminating non-existence from thought, and on the other hand by a theory identifying it with existence. The26 luminous275 beam of reflection had been polarised into two divergent rays, each light where the other was dark and dark where the other was light, each denying what the other asserted and asserting what the other denied. For a century physical speculation had taught that the universe was formed by the modification47 of a single eternal substance, whatever that substance might be. By the end of that period, all becoming was absorbed into being at Elea, and all being into becoming at Ephesus. Each view contained a portion of the truth, and one which perhaps would never have been clearly perceived if it had not been brought into exclusive prominence276. But further progress was impossible until the two half-truths had been recombined. We may compare Parmenides and Heracleitus to two lofty and precipitous peaks on either side of an Alpine pass. Each commands a wide prospect277, interrupted only on the side of its opposite neighbour. And the fertilising stream of European thought originates with neither of them singly, but has its source midway between.
IV.
We now enter on the last period of purely objective philosophy, an age of mediating278 and reconciling, but still profoundly original speculation. Its principal representatives, with whom alone we have to deal, are Empedocles, the Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus, and Anaxagoras. There is considerable doubt and difficulty respecting the order in which they should be placed. Anaxagoras was unquestionably the oldest and Democritus the youngest of the four, the difference between their ages being forty years. It is also nearly certain that the Atomists came after Empedocles. But if we take a celebrated279 expression of Aristotle’s21 literally280 (as there is no reason why it should not be taken),27 Anaxagoras, although born before Empedocles, published his views at a later period. Was he also anticipated by Leucippus? We cannot tell with certainty, but it seems likely from a comparison of their doctrines281 that he was; and in all cases the man who naturalised philosophy in Athens, and who by his theory of a creative reason furnishes a transition to the age of subjective282 speculation, will be most conveniently placed at the close of the pre-Socratic period.
A splendid tribute has been paid to the fame of Empedocles by Lucretius, the greatest didactic poet of all time, and by a great didactic poet of our own time, Mr. Matthew Arnold. But the still more rapturous panegyric283 pronounced by the Roman enthusiast284 on Epicurus makes his testimony285 a little suspicious, and the lofty chant of our own contemporary must be taken rather as an expression of his own youthful opinions respecting man’s place in Nature, than as a faithful exposition of the Sicilian thinker’s creed286. Many another name from the history of philosophy might with better reason have been prefixed to that confession287 of resigned and scornful scepticism entitled Empedocles on Etna. The real doctrines of an essentially288 religious teacher would hardly have been so cordially endorsed289 by Mr. Swinburne. But perhaps no other character could have excited the deep sympathy felt by one poetic genius for another, when with both of them thought is habitually steeped in emotion. Empedocles was the last Greek of any note who threw his philosophy into a metrical form. Neither Xenophanes nor Parmenides had done this with so much success. No less a critic than Aristotle extols290 the Homeric splendour of his verses, and Lucretius, in this respect an authority, speaks of them as almost divine. But, judging from the fragments still extant, their speculative content exhibits a distinct decline from the height reached by his immediate predecessors. Empedocles betrays a distrust in man’s power of discovering truth, almost, although not quite, unknown to them. Too much certainty would be28 impious. He calls on the ‘much-wooed white-armed virgin291 muse’ to—
‘Guide from the seat of Reverence thy bright car,
And bring to us the creatures of a day,
What without sin we may aspire292 to know.’22
We also miss in him their single-minded devotion to philosophy and their rigorous unity of doctrine. The Acragantine sage was a party leader (in which capacity, to his great credit, he victoriously293 upheld the popular cause), a rhetorician, an engineer, a physician, and a thaumaturgist. The well-known legend relating to his death may be taken as a not undeserved satire295 on the colossal296 self-conceit297 of the man who claimed divine honours during his lifetime. Half-mystic and half-rationalist, he made no attempt to reconcile the two inconsistent sides of his intellectual character. It may be compared to one of those grotesque298 combinations in which, according to his morphology, the heads and bodies of widely different animals were united during the beginnings of life before they had learned to fall into their proper places. He believed in metempsychosis, and professed299 to remember the somewhat miscellaneous series of forms through which his own personality had already run. He had been a boy, a girl, a bush, a bird, and a fish. Nevertheless, as we shall presently see, his theory of Nature altogether excluded such a notion as the soul’s separate existence. We have now to consider what that theory actually was. It will be remembered that Parmenides had affirmed the perpetuity and eternal self-identity of being, but that he had deprived this profound divination300 of all practical value by interpreting it in a sense which excluded diversity and change. Empedocles also declares creation and destruction to be impossible, but explains that the appearances so denominated arise from the union and separation of four everlasting substances—earth, air, fire, and water. This is the famous doctrine of the four29 elements, which, adopted by Plato and Aristotle, was long regarded as the last word of chemistry, and still survives in popular phraseology. Its author may have been guided by an unconscious reflection on the character of his own philosophical method, for was not he, too, constructing a new system out of the elements supplied by his predecessors? They had successively fixed on water, air, and fire as the primordial form of existence; he added a fourth, earth, and effected a sort of reconciliation301 by placing them all on an equal footing. Curiously302 enough, the earlier monistic system had a relative justification303 which his crude eclecticism304 lacked. All matter may exist either in a solid, a liquid, or a gaseous305 form; and all solid matter has reached its present condition after passing through the two other degrees of consistency. That the three modifications should be found coexisting in our own experience is a mere accident of the present régime, and to enumerate306 them is to substitute a description for an explanation, the usual fault of eclectic systems. Empedocles, however, besides his happy improvement on Parmenides, made a real contribution to thought when, as Aristotle puts it, he sought for a moving as well as for a material cause; in other words, when he asked not only of what elements the world is composed, but also by what forces were they brought together. He tells us of two such causes, Love and Strife, the one a combining, the other a dissociating power. If for these half-mythological names we read attractive and repulsive307 forces, the result will not be very different from our own current cosmologies. Such terms, when so used as to assume the existence of occult qualities in matter, driving its parts asunder308 or drawing them close together, are, in truth, as completely mythological as any figments of Hellenic fancy. Unlike their modern antitypes, the Empedoclean goddesses did not reign91 together, but succeeded one another in alternate dominion309 during protracted periods of time. The victory of Love was complete when all things had been drawn into a30 perfect sphere, evidently the absolute Eleatic Being subjected to a Heracleitean law of vicissitude310 and contradiction. For Strife lays hold on the consolidated311 orb40, and by her disintegrating312 action gradually reduces it to a formless chaos313, till, at the close of another world-period, the work of creation begins again. Yet growth and decay are so inextricably intertwined that Empedocles failed to keep up this ideal separation, and was compelled to admit the simultaneous activity of both powers in our everyday experience, so that Nature turns out to be composed of six elements instead of four, the mind which perceives it being constituted in a precisely similar manner. But Love, although on the whole victorious294, can only gradually get the better of her retreating enemy, and Nature, as we know it, is the result of their continued conflict. Empedocles described the process of evolution, as he conceived it, in somewhat minute detail. Two points only are of much interest to us, his alleged314 anticipation of the Darwinian theory and his psychology. The former, such as it was, has occasionally been attributed to Lucretius, but the Roman poet most probably copied Epicurus, although the very brief summary of that philosopher’s physical system preserved by Diogenes Laertius contains no allusion315 to such a topic. We know, however, that in Aristotle’s time a theory identical with that of Lucretius was held by those who rejected teleological316 explanations of the world in general and of living organisms in particular. All sorts of animals were produced by spontaneous generation; only those survived which were accidentally furnished with appliances for procuring317 nourishment318 and for propagating their kind. The notion itself originated with Empedocles, whose fanciful suppositions have already been mentioned in a different connexion. Most assuredly he did not offer it as a solution of problems which in his time had not yet been mooted, but as an illustration of the confusion which prevailed when Love had only advanced a little way in her ordering, harmonising,31 unifying319 task. Prantl, writing a few years before the appearance of Mr. Darwin’s book on the Origin of Species, and therefore without any prejudice on the subject, observes with truth that this theory of Empedocles was deeply rooted in the mythological conceptions of the time.23 Perhaps he was seeking for a rationalistic explanation of the centaurs320, minotaurs, hundred-handed giants, and so forth, in whose existence he had not, like Lucretius, learned completely to disbelieve. His strange supposition was afterwards freed from its worst extravagances; but even as stated in the De Rerum Natura, it has no claim whatever to rank as a serious hypothesis. Anything more unlike the Darwinian doctrine, according to which all existing species have been evolved from less highly-organized ancestors by the gradual accumulation of minute differences, it would be difficult to conceive. Every thinker of antiquity, with one exception, believed in the immutability321 of natural species. They had existed unchanged from all eternity322, or had sprung up by spontaneous generation from the earth’s bosom323 in their present form. The solitary324 dissentient was Anaximander, who conjectured326 that man was descended from an aquatic animal.24 Strange to say, this lucky guess has not yet been quoted as an argument against the Ascidian pedigree. It is chiefly the enemies of Darwinism who are eager to find it anticipated in Empedocles or Lucretius. By a curious inversion327 of traditionalism, it is fancied that a modern discovery can be upset by showing that somebody said something of the kind more than two thousand years ago. Unfortunately authority has not the negative value of disproving the principles which it supports. We must be content to accept the truths brought to light by observation and reasoning, even at the risk of finding ourselves in humiliating agreement with a philosopher of antiquity.25
32
Passing from life to mind, we find Empedocles teaching an even more pronounced materialism than Parmenides, inasmuch as it is stated in language of superior precision. Our souls are, according to him, made up of elements like those which constitute the external world, each of these being perceived by a corresponding portion of the same substances within ourselves—fire by fire, water by water, and so on with the rest. It is a mistake to suppose that speculation begins from a subjective standpoint, that men start with a clear consciousness of their own personality, and proceed to construct an objective universe after the same pattern. Doubtless they are too prone328 to personify the blind forces of Nature, and Empedocles himself has just supplied us with an example of this tendency, but they err6 still more by reading outward experience into their own souls, by materialising the processes of consciousness, and resolving human personality into a loose confederacy of inorganic329 units. Even Plato, who did more than anyone else towards distinguishing between mind and body, ended by laying down his psychology on the lines of an astronomical330 system. Meanwhile, to have separated the perception of an object from the object itself, in ever so slight a degree, was an important gain to thought.33 We must not omit to notice a hypothesis by which Empedocles sought to elucidate331 the mechanism of sensation, and which was subsequently adopted by the atomic school; indeed, as will presently be shown, we have reason to believe that the whole atomic theory was developed out of it. He held that emanations were being continually thrown off from the surfaces of bodies, and that they penetrated332 into the organs of sense through fine passages or pores. This may seem a crude guess, but it is at any rate much more scientific than Aristotle’s explanation. According to the latter, possibilities of feeling are converted into actualities by the presence of an object. In other words, we feel when and because we do; a safe assertion, but hardly an addition to our positive knowledge of the subject.
We have seen how Greek thought had arrived at a perfectly just conception of the process by which all physical transformations are effected. The whole extended universe is an aggregate333 of bodies, while each single body is formed by a combination of everlasting elements, and is destroyed by their separation. But if Empedocles was right, if these primary substances were no other than the fire, air, water, and earth of everyday experience, what became of the Heracleitean law, confirmed by common observation, that, so far from remaining unaltered, they were continually passing into one another? To this question the atomic theory gave an answer so conclusive334, that, although ignored or contemned335 by later schools, it was revived with the great revival336 of science in the sixteenth century, was successfully employed in the explanation of every order of phenomena, and still remains the basis of all physical enquiry. The undulatory theory of light, the law of universal gravitation, and the laws of chemical combination can only be expressed in terms implying the existence of atoms; the laws of gaseous diffusion337, and of thermodynamics generally, can only be understood with their help; and the latest develop34ments of chemistry have tended still further to establish their reality, as well as to elucidate their remarkable338 properties. In the absence of sufficient information, it is difficult to determine by what steps this admirable hypothesis was evolved. Yet, even without external evidence, we may fairly conjecture325 that, sooner or later, some philosopher, possessed339 of a high generalising faculty340, would infer that if bodies are continually throwing off a flux of infinitesimal particles from their surfaces, they must be similarly subdivided341 all through; and that if the organs of sense are honeycombed with imperceptible pores, such may also be the universal constitution of matter.26 Now, according to Aristotle, Leucippus, the founder of atomism, did actually use the second of these arguments, and employed it in particular to prove the existence of indivisible solids.27 Other considerations equally obvious suggested themselves from another quarter. If all change was expressible in terms of matter and motion, then gradual change implied interstitial motion, which again involved the necessity of fine pores to serve as channels for the incoming and outgoing molecular342 streams. Nor, as was supposed, could motion of any kind be conceived without a vacuum, the second great postulate343 of the atomic theory. Here its advocates directly joined issue with Parmenides. The chief of the Eleatic school had, as we have seen, presented being under the form of a homogeneous sphere, absolutely continuous but limited in extent. Space dissociated from matter was to him, as afterwards to Aristotle, non-existent and impossible. It was, he exclaimed, inconceivable, nonsensical. Unhappily inconceivability is about the worst negative criterion of truth ever yet invented. His challenge was now35 taken up by the Atomists, who boldly affirmed that if non-being meant empty space, it was just as conceivable and just as necessary as being. A further stimulus344 may have been received from the Pythagorean school, whose doctrines had, just at this time, been systematised and committed to writing by Philolaus, its most eminent345 disciple. The hard saying that all things were made out of number might be explained and confirmed if the integers were interpreted as material atoms.
It will have been observed that, so far, the merit of originating atomism has been attributed to Leucippus, instead of to the more celebrated Democritus, with whose name it is usually associated. The two were fast friends, and seem always to have worked together in perfect harmony. But Leucippus, although next to nothing is known of his life, was apparently346 the older man, and from him, so far as we can make out, emanated347 the great idea, which his brilliant coadjutor carried into every department of enquiry, and set forth in works which are a loss to literature as well as to science, for the poetic splendour of their style was not less remarkable than the encyclopaedic range of their contents. Democritus was born at Abdêra, a Thracian city, 470 B.C., a year before Socrates, and lived to a very advanced age—more than a hundred, according to some accounts. However this may be, he was probably, like most of his great countrymen, possessed of immense vitality. His early manhood was spent in Eastern travel, and he was not a little proud of the numerous countries which he had visited, and the learned men with whom he had conversed348. His time was mostly occupied in observing Nature, and in studying mathematics; the sages193 of Asia and Egypt may have acquainted him with many useful scientific facts, but we have seen that his philosophy was derived from purely Hellenic sources. A few fragments of his numerous writings still survive—the relics349 of an intellectual Ozymandias. In them are briefly350 shadowed forth the conceptions which Lucretius, or at least his modern36 English interpreters, have made familiar to all educated men and women. Everything is the result of mechanical causation. Infinite worlds are formed by the collision of infinite atoms falling for ever downward through infinite space. No place is left for supernatural agency; nor are the unaided operations of Nature disguised under Olympian appellations351. Democritus goes even further than Epicurus in his rejection352 of the popular mythology353. His system provides no interstellar refuge for abdicated354 gods. He attributed a kind of objective existence to the apparitions355 seen in sleep, and even a considerable influence for good or for evil, but denied that they were immortal. The old belief in a Divine Power had arisen from their activity and from meteorological phenomena of an alarming kind, but was destitute of any stronger foundation. For his own part, he looked on the fiery spherical atoms as a universal reason or soul of the world, without, however, assigning to them the distinct and commanding position occupied by a somewhat analogous principle in the system which we now proceed to examine, and with which our survey of early Greek thought will most fitly terminate.
V.
Reasons have already been suggested for placing Anaxagoras last in order among the physical philosophers, notwithstanding his priority in point of age to more than one of them. He was born, according to the most credible accounts, 500 B.C., at Clazomenae, an Ionian city, and settled in Athens when twenty years of age. There he spent much the greater part of a long life, illustrating356 the type of character which Euripides—expressly referring, as is supposed, to the Ionian sage—has described in the following choric lines:
37
‘Happy is he who has learned
To search out the secret of things,
Not to the townsmen’s bane,
Neither for aught that brings
An unrighteous gain.
But the ageless order he sees
Of nature that cannot die,
And the causes whence it springs,
And the how and the why.
Never have thoughts like these
To a deed of dishonour357 been turned.’28
The dishonour was for the townsmen who, in an outbreak of insane fanaticism, drove the blameless truthseeker from his adopted home. Anaxagoras was the intimate companion of Pericles, and Pericles had made many enemies by his domestic as well as by his foreign policy. A coalition358 of harassed359 interests and offended prejudices was formed against him. A cry arose that religion and the constitution were in danger. The Athenians had too much good sense to dismiss their great democratic Minister, but they permitted the illustrious statesman’s political opponents to strike at him through his friends.29 Aspasia was saved only by the tears of her lover. Pheidias, the grandest, most spiritual-minded artist of all time, was arrested on a charge of impiety360, and died in a prison of the city whose temples were adorned361 with the imperishable monuments of his religious inspiration. A decree against ‘astronomers and atheists’ was so evidently aimed at Anaxagoras that the philosopher retired362 to Lampsacus, where he died at the age of seventy-two, universally admired and revered363. Altars dedicated to Reason and Truth were erected364 in his honour, and for centuries his memory continued to be celebrated by an annual feast.30 His whole existence had been devoted365 to science. When asked what made life worth living, he answered, ‘The contemplation of the heavens and of the universal cosmic order.’ The reply was like a title-page to his works. We can see that specialisation was38 beginning, that the positive sciences were separating themselves from general theories about Nature, and could be cultivated independently of them. A single individual might, indeed, combine philosophy of the most comprehensive kind with a detailed366 enquiry into some particular order of phenomena, but he could do this without bringing the two studies into any immediate connexion with each other. Such seems to have been the case with Anaxagoras. He was a professional astronomer and also the author of a modified atomic hypothesis. This, from its greater complexity367, seems more likely to have been suggested by the purely quantitative conception of Leucippus than to have preceded it in the order of evolution. Democritus, and probably his teacher also, drew a very sharp distinction between what were afterwards called the primary and secondary qualities of matter. Extension and resistance alone had a real existence in Nature, while the attributes corresponding to our special sensations, such as temperature, taste, and colour, were only subjectively368, or, as he expressed it, conventionally true. Anaxagoras affirmed no less strongly than his younger contemporaries that the sum of being can neither be increased nor diminished, that all things arise and perish by combination and division, and that bodies are formed out of indestructible elements; like the Atomists, again, he regarded these elementary substances as infinite in number and inconceivably minute; only he considered them as qualitatively369 distinct, and as resembling on an infinitesimal scale the highest compounds that they build up. Not only were gold, iron, and the other metals formed of homogeneous particles, but such substances as flesh, bone, and blood were, according to him, equally simple, equally decomposable370, into molecules371 of like nature with themselves. Thus, as Aristotle well observes, he reversed the method of Empedocles, and taught that earth, air, fire, and water were really the most complex of all bodies, since they supplied39 nourishment to the living tissues, and therefore must contain within themselves the multitudinous variety of units by whose aggregation372 individualised organic substance is made up.31 Furthermore, our philosopher held that originally this intermixture had been still more thoroughgoing, all possible qualities being simultaneously present in the smallest particles of matter. The resulting state of chaotic373 confusion lasted until Nous, or Reason, came and segregated374 the heterogeneous375 elements by a process of continuous differentiation leading up to the present arrangement of things. Both Plato and Aristotle have commended Anaxagoras for introducing into speculation the conception of Reason as a cosmic world-ordering power; both have censured376 him for making so little use of his own great thought, for attributing almost everything to secondary, material, mechanical causes; for not everywhere applying the teleological method; in fact, for not anticipating the Bridgewater Treatises377 and proving that the world is constructed on a plan of perfect wisdom and goodness. Less fortunate than the Athenians, we cannot purchase the work of Anaxagoras on Nature at an orchestral book-stall for the moderate price of a drachma; but we know enough about its contents to correct the somewhat petulant378 and superficial criticism of a school perhaps less in sympathy than we are with its author’s method of research. Evidently the Clazomenian philosopher did not mean by Reason an ethical force, a power which makes for human happiness or virtue379, nor yet a reflecting intelligence, a designer adapting means to ends. To all appearances the Nous was not a spirit in the sense which we attach, or which Aristotle attached to the term. It was, according to Anaxagoras, the subtlest and purest of all things, totally unmixed with other substances, and therefore able to control and bring them into order. This is not how men speak of an immaterial inextended consciousness. The truth is that no40 amount of physical science could create, although it might lead towards a spiritualistic philosophy. Spiritualism first arose from the sophistic negation of an external world, from the exclusive study of man, from the Socratic search after general definitions. Yet, if Nous originally meant intelligence, how could it lose this primary signification and become identified with a mere mode of matter? The answer is, that Anaxagoras, whose whole life was spent in tracing out the order of Nature, would instinctively380 think of his own intelligence as a discriminating381, identifying faculty; would, consequently, conceive its objective counterpart under the form of a differentiating382 and integrating power. All preceding thinkers had represented their supreme being under material conditions, either as one element singly or as a sum total where elemental differences were merged383. Anaxagoras differed from them chiefly by the very sharp distinction drawn between his informing principle and the rest of Nature. The absolute intermixture of qualities which he presupposes bears a very strong resemblance both to the Sphairos of Empedocles and to the fiery consummation of Heracleitus, it may even have been suggested by them. Only, what with them was the highest form of existence becomes with him the lowest; thought is asserting itself more and more, and interpreting the law of evolution in accordance with its own imperious demands.
A world where ordering reason was not only raised to supreme power, but also jealously secluded384 from all communion with lower forms of existence, meant to popular imagination a world from which divinity had been withdrawn385. The astronomical teaching of Anaxagoras was well calculated to increase a not unfounded alarm. Underlying386 the local tribal387 mythology of Athens and of Greece generally, was an older, deeper Nature-worship, chiefly directed towards those heavenly luminaries which shone so graciously on all men, and to which all men yielded, or were supposed to yield,41 grateful homage388 in return. Securus judicat orbis terrarum. Every Athenian citizen from Nicias to Strepsiades would feel his own belief strengthened by such a universal concurrence389 of authority. Two generations later, Plato held fast to the same conviction, severely390 denouncing its impugners, whom he would, if possible, have silenced with the heaviest penalties. To Aristotle, also, the heavenly bodies were something far more precious and perfect than anything in our sublunary sphere, something to be spoken of only in language of enthusiastic and passionate love. At a far later period Marcus Aurelius could refer to them as visible gods;32 and just before the final extinction391 of Paganism highly-educated men still offered up their orisons in silence and secresy to the moon.33 Judge, then, with what horror an orthodox public received Anaxagoras’s announcement that the moon shone only by reflected light, that she was an earthy body, and that her surface was intersected with mountains and ravines, besides being partially built over. The bright Selênê, the Queen of Heaven, the most interesting and sympathetic of goddesses, whose phases so vividly392 recalled the course of human life, who was firmly believed to bring fine weather at her return and to take it away at her departure, was degraded into a cold, dark, senseless clod.34 Democritus observed that all this had been known a long time in the Eastern countries where he had travelled.C Possibly; but fathers of families could not have been more disturbed if it had been a brand-new discovery. The sun, too, they were told, was a red-hot stone larger than Peloponnesus—a somewhat unwieldy size even for a Homeric god. Socrates, little as he cared about physical investigations generally, took this theory very seriously to heart, and42 attempted to show by a series of distinctions that sun-heat and fire-heat were essentially different from each other. A duller people than the Athenians would probably have shown far less suspicion of scientific innovations. Men who were accustomed to anticipate the arguments of an orator133 before they were half out of his mouth, with whom the extraction of reluctant admissions by cross-examination was habitually used as a weapon of attack and defence in the public law courts and practised as a game in private circles—who were perpetually on their guard against insidious393 attacks from foreign and domestic foes—had minds ready trained to the work of an inquisitorial priesthood. An Athenian, moreover, had mythology at his fingers’ ends; he was accustomed to see its leading incidents placed before him on the stage not only with intense realism, but with a systematic adaptation to the demands of common experience and a careful concatenation of cause and effect, which gave his belief in them all the force of a rational conviction while retaining all the charm of a supernatural creed. Then, again, the constitution of Athens, less than that of any other Greek State, could be worked without the devoted, self-denying co-operation of her citizens, and in their minds sense of duty was inseparably associated with religious belief, based in its turn on mythological traditions. A great poet has said, and said truly, that Athens was ‘on the will of man as on a mount of diamond set,’ but the crystallising force which gave that collective human will such clearness and keenness and tenacity395 was faith in the protecting presence of a diviner Will at whose withdrawal396 it would have crumbled397 into dust. Lastly, the Athenians had no genius for natural science; none of them were ever distinguished as savants. They looked on the new knowledge much as Swift looked on it two thousand years afterwards. It was, they thought, a miserable398 trifling waste of time, not productive of any practical good, breeding conceit in young men, and quite unworthy of receiving any attention from orators399, soldiers, and43 statesmen. Pericles, indeed, thought differently, but Pericles was as much beyond his age when he talked about Nature with Anaxagoras as when he charged Aspasia with the government of his household and the entertainment of his guests.
These reflections are offered, not in excuse but in explanation of Athenian intolerance, a phenomenon for the rest unparalleled in ancient Greece. We cannot say that men were then, or ever have been, logically obliged to choose between atheism400 and superstition162. If instead of using Nous as a half-contemptuous nickname for the Clazomenian stranger,D his contemporaries had taken the trouble to understand what Nous really meant, they might have found in it the possibility of a deep religious significance; they might have identified it with all that was best and purest in their own guardian401 goddess Athênê; have recognised it as the very foundation of their own most characteristic excellences402. But vast spiritual revolutions are not so easily accomplished; and when, before the lapse of many years, Nous was again presented to the Athenian people, this time actually personified as an Athenian citizen, it was again misunderstood, again rejected, and became the occasion for a display of the same persecuting403 spirit, unhappily pushed to a more fatal extreme.
Under such unfavourable auspices404 did philosophy find a home in Athens. The great maritime405 capital had drawn to itself every other species of intellectual eminence406, and this could not fail to follow with the rest. But philosophy, although hitherto identified with mathematical and physical science, held unexhausted possibilities of development in reserve. According to a well-known legend, Thales once fell into a tank while absorbed in gazing at the stars. An old woman advised him to look at the tank in future, for there he would see the water and the stars as well. Others after him had got into similar difficulties, and might seek to evade them by a similar artifice. While busied with the study of44 cosmic evolution, they had stumbled unawares on some perplexing mental problems. Why do the senses suggest beliefs so much at variance407 with those arrived at by abstract reasoning? Why should reason be more trustworthy than sense? Why are the foremost Hellenic thinkers so hopelessly disagreed? What is the criterion of truth? Of what use are conclusions which cannot command universal assent408? Or, granting that truth is discoverable, how can it be communicated to others? Such were some of the questions now beginning urgently to press for a solution. ‘I sought for myself,’ said Heracleitus in his oracular style. His successors had to do even more—to seek not only for themselves but for others; to study the beliefs, habits, and aptitudes409 of their hearers with profound sagacity, in order to win admission for the lessons they were striving to impart. And when a systematic investigation55 of human nature had once begun, it could not stop short with a mere analysis of the intellectual faculties; what a man did was after all so very much more important than what he knew, was, in truth, that which alone gave his knowledge any practical value whatever. Moral distinctions, too, were beginning to grow uncertain. When every other traditional belief had been shaken to its foundations, when men were taught to doubt the evidence of their own senses, it was not to be expected that the conventional laws of conduct, at no time very exact or consistent, would continue to be accepted on the authority of ancient usage. Thus, every kind of determining influences, internal and external, conspired410 to divert philosophy from the path which it had hitherto pursued, and to change it from an objective, theoretical study into an introspective, dialectic, practical discipline.
VI.
And now, looking back at the whole course of early Greek thought, presenting as it does a gradual development and an45 organic unity which prove it to be truly a native growth, a spontaneous product of the Greek mind, let us take one step further and enquire411 whether before the birth of pure speculation, or parallel with but apart from its rudimentary efforts, there were not certain tendencies displayed in the other great departments of intellectual activity, fixed forms as it were in which the Hellenic genius was compelled to work, which reproduce themselves in philosophy and determine its distinguishing characteristics. Although the materials for a complete Greek ethology are no longer extant, it can be shown that such tendencies did actually exist.
It is a familiar fact, first brought to light by Lessing, and generalised by him into a law of all good literary composition, that Homer always throws his descriptions into a narrative form. We are not told what a hero wore, but how he put on his armour412; when attention is drawn to a particular object we are made acquainted with its origin and past history; even the reliefs on a shield are invested with life and movement. Homer was not impelled413 to adopt this method either by conscious reflection or by a profound poetic instinct. At a certain stage of intellectual development, every Greek would find it far easier to arrange the data of experience in successive than in contemporaneous order; the one is fixed, the other admits of indefinite variation. Pictorial414 and plastic art also begin with serial415 presentations, and only arrive at the construction of large centralised groups much later on. We have next to observe that, while Greek reflection at first followed the order of time, it turned by preference not to present or future, but to past time. Nothing in Hellenic literature reminds us of Hebrew prophecy. To a Greek all distinct prevision was merged in the gloom of coming death or the glory of anticipated fame. Of course, at every great crisis of the national fortunes much curiosity prevailed among the vulgar as to what course events would take; but it was sedulously416 discouraged by the noblest minds. Herodotus and46 Sophocles look on even divine predictions as purposely ambiguous and misleading. Pindar often dwells on the hopeless uncertainty of life.35 Thucydides treats all vaticination as utterly delusive417. So, when a belief in the soul’s separate existence first obtained acceptance among the Greeks, it interested them far less as a pledge of never-ending life and progress hereafter, than as involving a possible revelation of past history, of the wondrous418 adventures which each individual had passed through before assuming his present form. Hence the peculiar force of Pindar’s congratulation to the partaker in the Eleusinian mysteries; after death he knows not only ‘the end of life,’ but also ‘its god-given beginning.’36 Even the present was not intelligible419 until it had been projected back into the past, or interpreted by the light of some ancient tale. Sappho, in her famous ode to Aphroditê, recalls the incidents of a former passion precisely similar to the unrequited love which now agitates420 her heart, and describes at length how the goddess then came to her relief as she is now implored421 to come again. Modern critics have spoken of this curious literary artifice as a sign of delicacy422 and reserve. We may be sure that Sappho was an utter stranger to such feelings; she ran her thoughts into a predetermined mould just as a bee builds its wax into hexagonal cells. Curtius, the German historian, has surmised423 with much plausibility that the entire legend of Troy owes its origin to this habit of throwing back contemporary events into a distant past. According to his view, the characters and scenes recorded by Homer, although unhistorical as they now stand, had really a place in the Achaean colonisation of Asia Minor424.37 But, apart from any disguised allusions425, old stories had an inexhaustible charm for the Greek imagination. Even during the stirring events of the Peloponnesian war, elderly Athenian47 citizens in their hours of relaxation426 talked of nothing but mythology.38 When a knowledge of reading became universally diffused427, and books could be had at a moderate price, ancient legends seem to have been the favourite literature of the lower classes, just as among ourselves in Caxton’s time. Still more must the same taste have prevailed a century earlier. A student who opens Pindar’s epinician odes for the first time is surprised to find so little about the victorious combatants and the struggles in which they took part, so much about mythical adventures seemingly unconnected with the ostensible428 subject of the poem. Furthermore, we find that genealogies429 were the framework by which these distant recollections were held together. Most noble families traced their descent back to a god or to a god-like hero. The entire interval430 separating the historical period from the heroic age was filled up with more or less fictitious pedigrees. A man’s ancestry431 was much the most important part of his biography. It is likely that Herodotus had just as enthusiastic an admiration as we can have for Leonidas. Yet one fancies that a historian of later date would have shown his appreciation432 of the Spartan433 king in a rather different fashion. We should have been told something about the hero’s personal appearance, and perhaps some characteristic incidents from his earlier career would have been related. Not so with Herodotus. He pauses in the story of Thermopylae to give us the genealogy434 of Leonidas up to Heraclês; no more and no less. That was the highest compliment he could pay, and it is repeated for Pausanias, the victor of Plataea.39 The genealogical method was capable of wide extension, and could be applied to other than human or animal relationships. Hesiod’s Theogony is a genealogy of heaven and earth, and all that in them is. According to Aeschylus, gain is bred from gain, slaughter435 from slaughter, woe436 from woe. Insolence437 bears a child like unto herself, and this in turn gives birth to48 a still more fatal progeny438.40 The same poet terminates his enumeration439 of the flaming signals that sped the message of victory from Troy to Argos, by describing the last beacon440 as ‘not ungrandsired by the Idaean fire.’41 Now, when the Greek genius had begun to move in any direction, it rushed forward without pausing until arrested by an impassable limit, and then turned back to retraverse at leisure the whole interval separating that limit from its point of departure. Thus, the ascending441 lines of ancestry were followed up until they led to a common father of all; every series of outrages442 was traced through successive reprisals443 back to an initial crime; and more generally every event was affiliated to a preceding event, until the whole chain had been attached to an ultimate self-existing cause. Hence the records of origination, invention, spontaneity were long sought after with an eagerness which threw almost every other interest into the shade. ‘Glory be to the inventor,’ sings Pindar, in his address to victorious Corinth; ‘whence came the graces of the dithyrambic hymn444, who first set the double eagle on the temples of the gods?’42 The Prometheus of Aeschylus tells how civilisation began, and the trilogy to which it belongs was probably intended to show how the supremacy of Zeus was first established and secured. A great part of the Agamemnon deals with events long anterior445 to the opening of the drama, but connected as ultimate causes with the terrible catastrophe which it represents. In the Eumenides we see how the family, as it now exists, was first constituted by the substitution of paternal446 for maternal447 headship, and also how the worship of the Avenging448 Goddesses was first introduced into Athens, as well as how the Areopagite tribunal was founded. It is very probable that Sophocles’s earliest work, the Triptolemus, represented the origin of agriculture under a dramatic form; and if the same poet’s later pieces, as well as all those of Euripides,49 stand on quite different ground, occupied as they are with subjects of contemporaneous, or rather of eternal interest, we must regard this as a proof that the whole current of Greek thought had taken a new direction, corresponding to that simultaneously impressed on philosophy by Socrates and the Sophists. We may note further that the Aeginetan sculptures, executed soon after Salamis, though evidently intended to commemorate449 that victory, represent a conflict waged long before by the tutelary450 heroes of Aegina against an Asiatic foe394. We may also see in our own British Museum how the birth of Athênê was recorded in a marble group on one pediment of the Parthenon, and the foundation of her chosen city on the other. The very temple which these majestic451 sculptures once adorned was a petrified452 memorial of antiquity, and, by the mere form of its architecture, must have carried back men’s thoughts to the earliest Hellenic habitation, the simple structure in which a gabled roof was supported by cross-beams on a row of upright wooden posts.
Turning back once more from art and literature to philosophy, is it not abundantly clear that if the Greeks speculated at all, they must at first have speculated according to some such method as that which history proves them to have actually followed? They must have begun by fixing their thoughts, as Thales and his successors did, on the world’s remotest past; they must have sought for a first cause of things, and conceived it, not as any spiritual power, but as a kind of natural ancestor homogeneous with the forms which issued from it, although greater and more comprehensive than they were; in short, as an elemental body—water, air, fire, or, more vaguely453, as an infinite substance. Did not the steady concatenation of cause and effect resemble the unrolling of a heroic genealogy? And did not the reabsorption of every individual existence in a larger whole translate into more general terms that subordination of personal to family and civic454 glory which is the diapason of Pindar’s music?
50
Nor was this all. Before philosophising, the Greeks did not think only in the order of time; they learned at a very early period to think also in the order of space, their favourite idea of a limit being made especially prominent here. Homer’s geographical455 notions, however erroneous, are, for his age, singularly well defined. Aeschylus has a wide knowledge of the earth’s surface, and exhibits it with perhaps unnecessary readiness. Pindar delights to follow his mythological heroes about on their travels. The same tendency found still freer scope when prose literature began. Hecataeus, one of the earliest prose-writers, was great both as a genealogist456 and as a geographer457; and in this respect also Herodotus carried out on a great scale the enquiries most habitually pursued by his countrymen. Now, it will be remembered that we have had occasion to characterise early Ionian speculation as being, to a great extent, cosmography. The element from which it deduced all things was, in fact, that which was supposed to lie outside and embrace the rest. The geographical limit was conceived as a genealogical ancestor. Thus, the studies which men like Hecataeus carried on separately, were combined, or rather confused, in a single bold generalisation by Anaximenes and Heracleitus.
Yet, however much may be accounted for by these considerations, they still leave something unexplained. Why should one thinker after another so unhesitatingly assume that the order of Nature as we know it has issued not merely from a different but from an exactly opposite condition, from universal confusion and chaos? Their experience was far too limited to tell them anything about those vast cosmic changes which we know by incontrovertible evidence to have already occurred, and to be again in course of preparation. We can only answer this question by bringing into view what may be called the negative moment of Greek thought. The science of contraries is one, says Aristotle, and it certainly was so to his countrymen. Not only did they delight51 to bring together the extremes of weal and woe, of pride and abasement458, of security and disaster, but whatever they most loved and clung to in reality seemed to interest their imagination most powerfully by its removal, its reversal, or its overthrow459. The Athenians were peculiarly intolerant of regal government and of feminine interference in politics. In Athenian tragedy the principal actors are kings and royal ladies. The Athenian matrons occupied a position of exceptional dignity and seclusion460. They are brought upon the comic stage to be covered with the coarsest ridicule, and also to interfere71 decisively in the conduct of public affairs. Aristophanes was profoundly religious himself, and wrote for a people whose religion, as we have seen, was pushed to the extreme of bigotry461. Yet he shows as little respect for the gods as for the wives and sisters of his audience. To take a more general example still, the whole Greek tragic462 drama is based on the idea of family kinship, and that institution was made most interesting to Greek spectators by the violation463 of its eternal sanctities, by unnatural464 hatred465, and still more unnatural love; or by a fatal misconception which causes the hands of innocent persons, more especially of tender women, to be armed against their nearest and dearest relatives in utter unconsciousness of the awful guilt466 about to be incurred467. By an extension of the same psychological law to abstract speculation we are enabled to understand how an early Greek philosopher who had come to look on Nature as a cosmos, an orderly whole, consisting of diverse but connected and interdependent parts, could not properly grasp such a conception until he had substituted for it one of a precisely opposite character, out of which he reconstructed it by a process of gradual evolution. And if it is asked how in the first place did he come by the idea of a cosmos, our answer must be that he found it in Greek life, in societies distinguished by a many-sided but harmonious development of concurrent functions, and by52 voluntary obedience to an impersonal law. Thus, then, the circle is complete; we have returned to our point of departure, and again recognise in Greek philosophy a systematised expression of the Greek national genius.
We must now bring this long and complicated, but it is hoped not uninteresting, study to a close. We have accompanied philosophy to a point where it enters on a new field, and embraces themes sufficiently important to form the subject of a separate chapter. The contributions made by its first cultivators to our positive knowledge have already been summarised. It remains to mention that there was nothing of a truly transcendental character about their speculations. Whatever extension we may give to that terrible bugbear, the Unknowable, they did not trespass468 on its domain469. Heracleitus and his compeers, while penetrating far beyond the horizon of their age and country, kept very nearly within the limits of a possible experience. They confused some conceptions which we have learned to distinguish, and separated others which we have learned to combine; but they were the lineal progenitors470 of our highest scientific thought; and they first broke ground on a path where we must continue to advance, if the cosmos which they won for us is not to be let lapse into chaos and darkness again.
点击收听单词发音
1 simultaneously | |
adv.同时发生地,同时进行地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 faculties | |
n.能力( faculty的名词复数 );全体教职员;技巧;院 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 wields | |
手持着使用(武器、工具等)( wield的第三人称单数 ); 具有; 运用(权力); 施加(影响) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 precarious | |
adj.不安定的,靠不住的;根据不足的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 Mediterranean | |
adj.地中海的;地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 err | |
vi.犯错误,出差错 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 prodigies | |
n.奇才,天才(尤指神童)( prodigy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 civilisation | |
n.文明,文化,开化,教化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 elasticity | |
n.弹性,伸缩力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 refinement | |
n.文雅;高尚;精美;精制;精炼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 disinterested | |
adj.不关心的,不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 lapse | |
n.过失,流逝,失效,抛弃信仰,间隔;vi.堕落,停止,失效,流逝;vt.使失效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 excellence | |
n.优秀,杰出,(pl.)优点,美德 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 diplomacy | |
n.外交;外交手腕,交际手腕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 fidelity | |
n.忠诚,忠实;精确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 paramount | |
a.最重要的,最高权力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 dexterous | |
adj.灵敏的;灵巧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 windings | |
(道路、河流等)蜿蜒的,弯曲的( winding的名词复数 ); 缠绕( wind的现在分词 ); 卷绕; 转动(把手) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 evade | |
vt.逃避,回避;避开,躲避 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 meditations | |
默想( meditation的名词复数 ); 默念; 沉思; 冥想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 enigmas | |
n.难于理解的问题、人、物、情况等,奥秘( enigma的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 fervid | |
adj.热情的;炽热的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 eloquence | |
n.雄辩;口才,修辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 renaissance | |
n.复活,复兴,文艺复兴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 versatility | |
n.多才多艺,多样性,多功能 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 sarcasm | |
n.讥讽,讽刺,嘲弄,反话 (adj.sarcastic) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 infinity | |
n.无限,无穷,大量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 restriction | |
n.限制,约束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 animated | |
adj.生气勃勃的,活跃的,愉快的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 unity | |
n.团结,联合,统一;和睦,协调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 mediate | |
vi.调解,斡旋;vt.经调解解决;经斡旋促成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 configuration | |
n.结构,布局,形态,(计算机)配置 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 exquisite | |
adj.精美的;敏锐的;剧烈的,感觉强烈的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 necessitating | |
使…成为必要,需要( necessitate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 supremacy | |
n.至上;至高权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 impersonal | |
adj.无个人感情的,与个人无关的,非人称的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 magistrates | |
地方法官,治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 orb | |
n.太阳;星球;v.弄圆;成球形 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 harmonious | |
adj.和睦的,调和的,和谐的,协调的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 memorable | |
adj.值得回忆的,难忘的,特别的,显著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 speculation | |
n.思索,沉思;猜测;投机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 speculations | |
n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 );思考;投机活动;推断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 colonists | |
n.殖民地开拓者,移民,殖民地居民( colonist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 modifications | |
n.缓和( modification的名词复数 );限制;更改;改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 modification | |
n.修改,改进,缓和,减轻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 ethical | |
adj.伦理的,道德的,合乎道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 philosophic | |
adj.哲学的,贤明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 philosophical | |
adj.哲学家的,哲学上的,达观的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 mooted | |
adj.未决定的,有争议的,有疑问的v.提出…供讨论( moot的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 investigations | |
(正式的)调查( investigation的名词复数 ); 侦查; 科学研究; 学术研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 phenomena | |
n.现象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 depreciate | |
v.降价,贬值,折旧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 lyric | |
n.抒情诗,歌词;adj.抒情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 sculptors | |
雕刻家,雕塑家( sculptor的名词复数 ); [天]玉夫座 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 transcended | |
超出或超越(经验、信念、描写能力等)的范围( transcend的过去式和过去分词 ); 优于或胜过… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 differentiation | |
n.区别,区分 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 attenuated | |
v.(使)变细( attenuate的过去式和过去分词 );(使)变薄;(使)变小;减弱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 surmise | |
v./n.猜想,推测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 descended | |
a.为...后裔的,出身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 aquatic | |
adj.水生的,水栖的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 anticipations | |
预期( anticipation的名词复数 ); 预测; (信托财产收益的)预支; 预期的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 anticipation | |
n.预期,预料,期望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 confirmation | |
n.证实,确认,批准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 cosmos | |
n.宇宙;秩序,和谐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 vindictive | |
adj.有报仇心的,怀恨的,惩罚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 celestial | |
adj.天体的;天上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 luminaries | |
n.杰出人物,名人(luminary的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 fiery | |
adj.燃烧着的,火红的;暴躁的;激烈的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 negation | |
n.否定;否认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 poetic | |
adj.富有诗意的,有诗人气质的,善于抒情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 dedicated | |
adj.一心一意的;献身的;热诚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 trifling | |
adj.微不足道的;没什么价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 disciple | |
n.信徒,门徒,追随者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 primitive | |
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 originality | |
n.创造力,独创性;新颖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 systematic | |
adj.有系统的,有计划的,有方法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 affiliated | |
adj. 附属的, 有关连的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 sifted | |
v.筛( sift的过去式和过去分词 );筛滤;细查;详审 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 destitute | |
adj.缺乏的;穷困的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 truthful | |
adj.真实的,说实话的,诚实的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 qualified | |
adj.合格的,有资格的,胜任的,有限制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 astronomer | |
n.天文学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 uncertainty | |
n.易变,靠不住,不确知,不确定的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 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: |
|
|
100 ferment | |
vt.使发酵;n./vt.(使)激动,(使)动乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 atheist | |
n.无神论者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 credible | |
adj.可信任的,可靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 consistency | |
n.一贯性,前后一致,稳定性;(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 isolated | |
adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 obsolete | |
adj.已废弃的,过时的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 superseded | |
[医]被代替的,废弃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 attainments | |
成就,造诣; 获得( attainment的名词复数 ); 达到; 造诣; 成就 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 penetrating | |
adj.(声音)响亮的,尖锐的adj.(气味)刺激的adj.(思想)敏锐的,有洞察力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 influx | |
n.流入,注入 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 flux | |
n.流动;不断的改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 wedded | |
adj.正式结婚的;渴望…的,执著于…的v.嫁,娶,(与…)结婚( wed的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 immortal | |
adj.不朽的;永生的,不死的;神的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 expenditure | |
n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出;使用,消耗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 pervading | |
v.遍及,弥漫( pervade的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 illustrate | |
v.举例说明,阐明;图解,加插图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 vitality | |
n.活力,生命力,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 component | |
n.组成部分,成分,元件;adj.组成的,合成的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 varied | |
adj.多样的,多变化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 predecessor | |
n.前辈,前任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 predecessors | |
n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 );前辈;(被取代的)原有事物;前身 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 primal | |
adj.原始的;最重要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 tangible | |
adj.有形的,可触摸的,确凿的,实际的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 mythical | |
adj.神话的;虚构的;想像的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 accretions | |
n.堆积( accretion的名词复数 );连生;添加生长;吸积 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 nucleus | |
n.核,核心,原子核 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 plausibility | |
n. 似有道理, 能言善辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 antitheses | |
n.对照,对立的,对比法;对立( antithesis的名词复数 );对立面;对照;对偶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 dispensed | |
v.分配( dispense的过去式和过去分词 );施与;配(药) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 mechanism | |
n.机械装置;机构,结构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 contortions | |
n.扭歪,弯曲;扭曲,弄歪,歪曲( contortion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 orator | |
n.演说者,演讲者,雄辩家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 oratory | |
n.演讲术;词藻华丽的言辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 quantitative | |
adj.数量的,定量的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 exterior | |
adj.外部的,外在的;表面的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 delightfulness | |
n.delightful(令人高兴的,使人愉快的,给人快乐的,讨人喜欢的)的变形 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 bestowed | |
赠给,授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 bestow | |
v.把…赠与,把…授予;花费 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 habitual | |
adj.习惯性的;通常的,惯常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 habitually | |
ad.习惯地,通常地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 multiplication | |
n.增加,增多,倍增;增殖,繁殖;乘法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 alpine | |
adj.高山的;n.高山植物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 reverence | |
n.敬畏,尊敬,尊严;Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称;v.尊敬,敬畏,崇敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 distinctive | |
adj.特别的,有特色的,与众不同的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 entrusted | |
v.委托,托付( entrust的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 accomplishment | |
n.完成,成就,(pl.)造诣,技能 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 shrine | |
n.圣地,神龛,庙;v.将...置于神龛内,把...奉为神圣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 poetical | |
adj.似诗人的;诗一般的;韵文的;富有诗意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 sage | |
n.圣人,哲人;adj.贤明的,明智的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 favourable | |
adj.赞成的,称赞的,有利的,良好的,顺利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 Founder | |
n.创始者,缔造者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 awakened | |
v.(使)醒( awaken的过去式和过去分词 );(使)觉醒;弄醒;(使)意识到 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 feudal | |
adj.封建的,封地的,领地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 fanaticism | |
n.狂热,盲信 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 superstition | |
n.迷信,迷信行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 superstitions | |
迷信,迷信行为( superstition的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 incapable | |
adj.无能力的,不能做某事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 discords | |
不和(discord的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 protracted | |
adj.拖延的;延长的v.拖延“protract”的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 attentive | |
adj.注意的,专心的;关心(别人)的,殷勤的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 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: |
|
|
170 deception | |
n.欺骗,欺诈;骗局,诡计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 deities | |
n.神,女神( deity的名词复数 );神祗;神灵;神明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 omnipotent | |
adj.全能的,万能的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 heresies | |
n.异端邪说,异教( heresy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 promulgated | |
v.宣扬(某事物)( promulgate的过去式和过去分词 );传播;公布;颁布(法令、新法律等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 molested | |
v.骚扰( molest的过去式和过去分词 );干扰;调戏;猥亵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 engrossed | |
adj.全神贯注的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 admiration | |
n.钦佩,赞美,羡慕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 idols | |
偶像( idol的名词复数 ); 受崇拜的人或物; 受到热爱和崇拜的人或物; 神像 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 primordial | |
adj.原始的;最初的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 diverged | |
分开( diverge的过去式和过去分词 ); 偏离; 分歧; 分道扬镳 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 passionate | |
adj.热情的,热烈的,激昂的,易动情的,易怒的,性情暴躁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 fickle | |
adj.(爱情或友谊上)易变的,不坚定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 vault | |
n.拱形圆顶,地窖,地下室 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 antiquity | |
n.古老;高龄;古物,古迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 mythological | |
adj.神话的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 elimination | |
n.排除,消除,消灭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 inflict | |
vt.(on)把…强加给,使遭受,使承担 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 fictitious | |
adj.虚构的,假设的;空头的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 embodied | |
v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 sages | |
n.圣人( sage的名词复数 );智者;哲人;鼠尾草(可用作调料) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 delusion | |
n.谬见,欺骗,幻觉,迷惑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 antithesis | |
n.对立;相对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 condensation | |
n.压缩,浓缩;凝结的水珠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 constraint | |
n.(on)约束,限制;限制(或约束)性的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 mighty | |
adj.强有力的;巨大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 abiding | |
adj.永久的,持久的,不变的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 abide | |
vi.遵守;坚持;vt.忍受 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 everlasting | |
adj.永恒的,持久的,无止境的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 circumscribe | |
v.在...周围划线,限制,约束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 spherical | |
adj.球形的;球面的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 materialist | |
n. 唯物主义者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 materialism | |
n.[哲]唯物主义,唯物论;物质至上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 preponderating | |
v.超过,胜过( preponderate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 psychology | |
n.心理,心理学,心理状态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 paradoxes | |
n.似非而是的隽语,看似矛盾而实际却可能正确的说法( paradox的名词复数 );用于语言文学中的上述隽语;有矛盾特点的人[事物,情况] | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 ridicule | |
v.讥讽,挖苦;n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 sundry | |
adj.各式各样的,种种的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 infinitely | |
adv.无限地,无穷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 entities | |
实体对像; 实体,独立存在体,实际存在物( entity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 ingenuity | |
n.别出心裁;善于发明创造 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 catastrophe | |
n.大灾难,大祸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 illustrated | |
adj. 有插图的,列举的 动词illustrate的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 demonstration | |
n.表明,示范,论证,示威 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 fleeting | |
adj.短暂的,飞逝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 adversaries | |
n.对手,敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 wrested | |
(用力)拧( wrest的过去式和过去分词 ); 费力取得; (从…)攫取; ( 从… ) 强行取去… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 artifice | |
n.妙计,高明的手段;狡诈,诡计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 subtlety | |
n.微妙,敏锐,精巧;微妙之处,细微的区别 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 imperturbable | |
adj.镇静的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 tranquillity | |
n. 平静, 安静 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 stoics | |
禁欲主义者,恬淡寡欲的人,不以苦乐为意的人( stoic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 indifference | |
n.不感兴趣,不关心,冷淡,不在乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 stationary | |
adj.固定的,静止不动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 partially | |
adv.部分地,从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 inflexible | |
adj.不可改变的,不受影响的,不屈服的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 analogous | |
adj.相似的;类似的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 antagonism | |
n.对抗,敌对,对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 irreconcilable | |
adj.(指人)难和解的,势不两立的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 inverted | |
adj.反向的,倒转的v.使倒置,使反转( invert的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 arrant | |
adj.极端的;最大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 deliberately | |
adv.审慎地;蓄意地;故意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 follies | |
罪恶,时事讽刺剧; 愚蠢,蠢笨,愚蠢的行为、思想或做法( folly的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 mawkish | |
adj.多愁善感的的;无味的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 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: |
|
|
243 instructors | |
指导者,教师( instructor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 herd | |
n.兽群,牧群;vt.使集中,把…赶在一起 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 aristocrat | |
n.贵族,有贵族气派的人,上层人物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 glut | |
n.存货过多,供过于求;v.狼吞虎咽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 intensified | |
v.(使)增强, (使)加剧( intensify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 transformation | |
n.变化;改造;转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 abolition | |
n.废除,取消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 strife | |
n.争吵,冲突,倾轧,竞争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 blasphemy | |
n.亵渎,渎神 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 embodying | |
v.表现( embody的现在分词 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 enveloped | |
v.包围,笼罩,包住( envelop的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 kindled | |
(使某物)燃烧,着火( kindle的过去式和过去分词 ); 激起(感情等); 发亮,放光 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 converse | |
vi.谈话,谈天,闲聊;adv.相反的,相反 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 remarkably | |
ad.不同寻常地,相当地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 conflagration | |
n.建筑物或森林大火 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 forestalled | |
v.先发制人,预先阻止( forestall的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 picturesque | |
adj.美丽如画的,(语言)生动的,绘声绘色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 hovers | |
鸟( hover的第三人称单数 ); 靠近(某事物); (人)徘徊; 犹豫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 transgress | |
vt.违反,逾越 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 binds | |
v.约束( bind的第三人称单数 );装订;捆绑;(用长布条)缠绕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 concurrent | |
adj.同时发生的,一致的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 transformations | |
n.变化( transformation的名词复数 );转换;转换;变换 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 recurring | |
adj.往复的,再次发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 corrosive | |
adj.腐蚀性的;有害的;恶毒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 solvent | |
n.溶剂;adj.有偿付能力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 vessel | |
n.船舶;容器,器皿;管,导管,血管 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 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: |
|
|
272 speculative | |
adj.思索性的,暝想性的,推理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 extremity | |
n.末端,尽头;尽力;终极;极度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 luminous | |
adj.发光的,发亮的;光明的;明白易懂的;有启发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 prominence | |
n.突出;显著;杰出;重要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 prospect | |
n.前景,前途;景色,视野 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 mediating | |
调停,调解,斡旋( mediate的现在分词 ); 居间促成; 影响…的发生; 使…可能发生 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 celebrated | |
adj.有名的,声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 doctrines | |
n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 );教义;学说;(政府政策的)正式声明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 subjective | |
a.主观(上)的,个人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 panegyric | |
n.颂词,颂扬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 enthusiast | |
n.热心人,热衷者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 creed | |
n.信条;信念,纲领 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 confession | |
n.自白,供认,承认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 endorsed | |
vt.& vi.endorse的过去式或过去分词形式v.赞同( endorse的过去式和过去分词 );在(尤指支票的)背面签字;在(文件的)背面写评论;在广告上说本人使用并赞同某产品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 extols | |
v.赞颂,赞扬,赞美( extol的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 virgin | |
n.处女,未婚女子;adj.未经使用的;未经开发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 aspire | |
vi.(to,after)渴望,追求,有志于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 victoriously | |
adv.获胜地,胜利地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 victorious | |
adj.胜利的,得胜的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 satire | |
n.讽刺,讽刺文学,讽刺作品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 colossal | |
adj.异常的,庞大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 conceit | |
n.自负,自高自大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 grotesque | |
adj.怪诞的,丑陋的;n.怪诞的图案,怪人(物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 professed | |
公开声称的,伪称的,已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 divination | |
n.占卜,预测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 reconciliation | |
n.和解,和谐,一致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 curiously | |
adv.有求知欲地;好问地;奇特地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 eclecticism | |
n.折衷主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 gaseous | |
adj.气体的,气态的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 enumerate | |
v.列举,计算,枚举,数 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 repulsive | |
adj.排斥的,使人反感的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 asunder | |
adj.分离的,化为碎片 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 dominion | |
n.统治,管辖,支配权;领土,版图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 vicissitude | |
n.变化,变迁,荣枯,盛衰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 consolidated | |
a.联合的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 disintegrating | |
v.(使)破裂[分裂,粉碎],(使)崩溃( disintegrate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 chaos | |
n.混乱,无秩序 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 allusion | |
n.暗示,间接提示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 teleological | |
adj.目的论的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 procuring | |
v.(努力)取得, (设法)获得( procure的现在分词 );拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 nourishment | |
n.食物,营养品;营养情况 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 unifying | |
使联合( unify的现在分词 ); 使相同; 使一致; 统一 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 centaurs | |
n.(希腊神话中)半人半马怪物( centaur的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 immutability | |
n.不变(性) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 eternity | |
n.不朽,来世;永恒,无穷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 bosom | |
n.胸,胸部;胸怀;内心;adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 solitary | |
adj.孤独的,独立的,荒凉的;n.隐士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 conjecture | |
n./v.推测,猜测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 conjectured | |
推测,猜测,猜想( conjecture的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 inversion | |
n.反向,倒转,倒置 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
328 prone | |
adj.(to)易于…的,很可能…的;俯卧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
329 inorganic | |
adj.无生物的;无机的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
330 astronomical | |
adj.天文学的,(数字)极大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
331 elucidate | |
v.阐明,说明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
332 penetrated | |
adj. 击穿的,鞭辟入里的 动词penetrate的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
333 aggregate | |
adj.总计的,集合的;n.总数;v.合计;集合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
334 conclusive | |
adj.最后的,结论的;确凿的,消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
335 contemned | |
v.侮辱,蔑视( contemn的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
336 revival | |
n.复兴,复苏,(精力、活力等的)重振 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
337 diffusion | |
n.流布;普及;散漫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
338 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
339 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
340 faculty | |
n.才能;学院,系;(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
341 subdivided | |
再分,细分( subdivide的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
342 molecular | |
adj.分子的;克分子的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
343 postulate | |
n.假定,基本条件;vt.要求,假定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
344 stimulus | |
n.刺激,刺激物,促进因素,引起兴奋的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
345 eminent | |
adj.显赫的,杰出的,有名的,优良的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
346 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
347 emanated | |
v.从…处传出,传出( emanate的过去式和过去分词 );产生,表现,显示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
348 conversed | |
v.交谈,谈话( converse的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
349 relics | |
[pl.]n.遗物,遗迹,遗产;遗体,尸骸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
350 briefly | |
adv.简单地,简短地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
351 appellations | |
n.名称,称号( appellation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
352 rejection | |
n.拒绝,被拒,抛弃,被弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
353 mythology | |
n.神话,神话学,神话集 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
354 abdicated | |
放弃(职责、权力等)( abdicate的过去式和过去分词 ); 退位,逊位 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
355 apparitions | |
n.特异景象( apparition的名词复数 );幽灵;鬼;(特异景象等的)出现 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
356 illustrating | |
给…加插图( illustrate的现在分词 ); 说明; 表明; (用示例、图画等)说明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
357 dishonour | |
n./vt.拒付(支票、汇票、票据等);vt.凌辱,使丢脸;n.不名誉,耻辱,不光彩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
358 coalition | |
n.结合体,同盟,结合,联合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
359 harassed | |
adj. 疲倦的,厌烦的 动词harass的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
360 impiety | |
n.不敬;不孝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
361 adorned | |
[计]被修饰的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
362 retired | |
adj.隐退的,退休的,退役的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
363 revered | |
v.崇敬,尊崇,敬畏( revere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
364 ERECTED | |
adj. 直立的,竖立的,笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立,建立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
365 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
366 detailed | |
adj.详细的,详尽的,极注意细节的,完全的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
367 complexity | |
n.复杂(性),复杂的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
368 subjectively | |
主观地; 臆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
369 qualitatively | |
质量上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
370 decomposable | |
可分解的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
371 molecules | |
分子( molecule的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
372 aggregation | |
n.聚合,组合;凝聚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
373 chaotic | |
adj.混沌的,一片混乱的,一团糟的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
374 segregated | |
分开的; 被隔离的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
375 heterogeneous | |
adj.庞杂的;异类的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
376 censured | |
v.指责,非难,谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
377 treatises | |
n.专题著作,专题论文,专著( treatise的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
378 petulant | |
adj.性急的,暴躁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
379 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
380 instinctively | |
adv.本能地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
381 discriminating | |
a.有辨别能力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
382 differentiating | |
[计] 微分的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
383 merged | |
(使)混合( merge的过去式和过去分词 ); 相融; 融入; 渐渐消失在某物中 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
384 secluded | |
adj.与世隔绝的;隐退的;偏僻的v.使隔开,使隐退( seclude的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
385 withdrawn | |
vt.收回;使退出;vi.撤退,退出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
386 underlying | |
adj.在下面的,含蓄的,潜在的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
387 tribal | |
adj.部族的,种族的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
388 homage | |
n.尊敬,敬意,崇敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
389 concurrence | |
n.同意;并发 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
390 severely | |
adv.严格地;严厉地;非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
391 extinction | |
n.熄灭,消亡,消灭,灭绝,绝种 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
392 vividly | |
adv.清楚地,鲜明地,生动地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
393 insidious | |
adj.阴险的,隐匿的,暗中为害的,(疾病)不知不觉之间加剧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
394 foe | |
n.敌人,仇敌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
395 tenacity | |
n.坚韧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
396 withdrawal | |
n.取回,提款;撤退,撤军;收回,撤销 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
397 crumbled | |
(把…)弄碎, (使)碎成细屑( crumble的过去式和过去分词 ); 衰落; 坍塌; 损坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
398 miserable | |
adj.悲惨的,痛苦的;可怜的,糟糕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
399 orators | |
n.演说者,演讲家( orator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
400 atheism | |
n.无神论,不信神 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
401 guardian | |
n.监护人;守卫者,保护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
402 excellences | |
n.卓越( excellence的名词复数 );(只用于所修饰的名词后)杰出的;卓越的;出类拔萃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
403 persecuting | |
(尤指宗教或政治信仰的)迫害(~sb. for sth.)( persecute的现在分词 ); 烦扰,困扰或骚扰某人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
404 auspices | |
n.资助,赞助 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
405 maritime | |
adj.海的,海事的,航海的,近海的,沿海的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
406 eminence | |
n.卓越,显赫;高地,高处;名家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
407 variance | |
n.矛盾,不同 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
408 assent | |
v.批准,认可;n.批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
409 aptitudes | |
(学习方面的)才能,资质,天资( aptitude的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
410 conspired | |
密谋( conspire的过去式和过去分词 ); 搞阴谋; (事件等)巧合; 共同导致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
411 enquire | |
v.打听,询问;调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
412 armour | |
(=armor)n.盔甲;装甲部队 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
413 impelled | |
v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
414 pictorial | |
adj.绘画的;图片的;n.画报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
415 serial | |
n.连本影片,连本电视节目;adj.连续的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
416 sedulously | |
ad.孜孜不倦地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
417 delusive | |
adj.欺骗的,妄想的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
418 wondrous | |
adj.令人惊奇的,奇妙的;adv.惊人地;异乎寻常地;令人惊叹地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
419 intelligible | |
adj.可理解的,明白易懂的,清楚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
420 agitates | |
搅动( agitate的第三人称单数 ); 激怒; 使焦虑不安; (尤指为法律、社会状况的改变而)激烈争论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
421 implored | |
恳求或乞求(某人)( implore的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
422 delicacy | |
n.精致,细微,微妙,精良;美味,佳肴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
423 surmised | |
v.臆测,推断( surmise的过去式和过去分词 );揣测;猜想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
424 minor | |
adj.较小(少)的,较次要的;n.辅修学科;vi.辅修 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
425 allusions | |
暗指,间接提到( allusion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
426 relaxation | |
n.松弛,放松;休息;消遣;娱乐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
427 diffused | |
散布的,普及的,扩散的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
428 ostensible | |
adj.(指理由)表面的,假装的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
429 genealogies | |
n.系谱,家系,宗谱( genealogy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
430 interval | |
n.间隔,间距;幕间休息,中场休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
431 ancestry | |
n.祖先,家世 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
432 appreciation | |
n.评价;欣赏;感谢;领会,理解;价格上涨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
433 spartan | |
adj.简朴的,刻苦的;n.斯巴达;斯巴达式的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
434 genealogy | |
n.家系,宗谱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
435 slaughter | |
n.屠杀,屠宰;vt.屠杀,宰杀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
436 woe | |
n.悲哀,苦痛,不幸,困难;int.用来表达悲伤或惊慌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
437 insolence | |
n.傲慢;无礼;厚颜;傲慢的态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
438 progeny | |
n.后代,子孙;结果 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
439 enumeration | |
n.计数,列举;细目;详表;点查 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
440 beacon | |
n.烽火,(警告用的)闪火灯,灯塔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
441 ascending | |
adj.上升的,向上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
442 outrages | |
引起…的义愤,激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
443 reprisals | |
n.报复(行为)( reprisal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
444 hymn | |
n.赞美诗,圣歌,颂歌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
445 anterior | |
adj.较早的;在前的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
446 paternal | |
adj.父亲的,像父亲的,父系的,父方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
447 maternal | |
adj.母亲的,母亲般的,母系的,母方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
448 avenging | |
adj.报仇的,复仇的v.为…复仇,报…之仇( avenge的现在分词 );为…报复 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
449 commemorate | |
vt.纪念,庆祝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
450 tutelary | |
adj.保护的;守护的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
451 majestic | |
adj.雄伟的,壮丽的,庄严的,威严的,崇高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
452 petrified | |
adj.惊呆的;目瞪口呆的v.使吓呆,使惊呆;变僵硬;使石化(petrify的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
453 vaguely | |
adv.含糊地,暖昧地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
454 civic | |
adj.城市的,都市的,市民的,公民的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
455 geographical | |
adj.地理的;地区(性)的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
456 genealogist | |
系谱学者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
457 geographer | |
n.地理学者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
458 abasement | |
n.滥用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
459 overthrow | |
v.推翻,打倒,颠覆;n.推翻,瓦解,颠覆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
460 seclusion | |
n.隐遁,隔离 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
461 bigotry | |
n.偏见,偏执,持偏见的行为[态度]等 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
462 tragic | |
adj.悲剧的,悲剧性的,悲惨的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
463 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
464 unnatural | |
adj.不自然的;反常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
465 hatred | |
n.憎恶,憎恨,仇恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
466 guilt | |
n.犯罪;内疚;过失,罪责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
467 incurred | |
[医]招致的,遭受的; incur的过去式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
468 trespass | |
n./v.侵犯,闯入私人领地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
469 domain | |
n.(活动等)领域,范围;领地,势力范围 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
470 progenitors | |
n.祖先( progenitor的名词复数 );先驱;前辈;原本 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |