Among the systems of ancient philosophy, Epicureanism is remarkable2 for the completeness with which its doctrines3 were worked out by their first author, and for the fidelity5 with which they were handed down to the latest generation of his disciples7. For a period of more than five hundred years, nothing was added to, and nothing was taken away from, the original teaching of Epicurus. In this, as in other respects, it offers a striking contrast to the system which we last reviewed. In our sketch8 of the Stoic9 philosophy, we had to notice the continual process of development through which it passed, from its commencement to its close. There is a marked difference between the earlier and the later heads of the school at Athens—between these, as a class, and the Stoics10 of the Roman empire—and, finally, even between two Stoics who stood so near to one another as Epictêtus and Marcus Aurelius. This contrast cannot be due to external circumstances, for the two systems were exactly coeval11, and were exposed, during their whole lifetime, to the action of precisely12 the same environment. The cause must be sought for in the character of the philosophies themselves, and of the minds which were naturally most amenable13 to their respective influence. Stoicism retained enough of the Socratic spirit to foster a love of enquiry for its own sake, and an indisposition to accept any authority without a searching examination of its claims to obedience15 or respect. The learner was submitted54 to a thorough training in dialectics; while the ideal of life set before him was not a state of rest, but of intense and unremitting toil16. Whatever particular conclusions he might carry away with him from the class-room were insignificant18 in comparison with the principle that he must be prepared to demonstrate them for himself with that self-assurance happily likened by Zeno to the feeling experienced when the clenched19 fist is held within the grasp of the other hand. Epicurus, on the contrary, did not encourage independent thought among his disciples; nor, with one exception hereafter to be noticed, did his teaching ever attract any very original or powerful intellect. From the first a standard of orthodoxy was erected20; and, to facilitate their retention21, the leading tenets of the school were drawn22 up in a series of articles which its adherents23 were advised to learn by heart. Hence, as Mr. Wallace observes,108 while the other chief sects24 among which philosophy was divided—the Academicians, the Peripatetics, and the Stoics—drew their appellation27, not from their first founder28, but from the locality where his lectures had been delivered, the Epicureans alone continued to bear the name of a master whom they regarded with religious veneration29. Hence, also, we must add with Zeller,109 and notwithstanding the doubt expressed by Mr. Wallace,110 on the subject, that our acquaintance with the system so faithfully adhered to may be regarded as exceptionally full and accurate. The excerpts32 from Epicurus himself, preserved by Diogenes Laertius, the poem of Lucretius, the criticisms of Cicero, Plutarch, and others, and the fragments of Epicurean literature recovered from the Herculanean papyri, agree so well where they cover the same ground, that they may be fairly trusted to supplement each other’s deficiencies; and a further confirmation33, if any was needed, is obtained by consulting the older sources, whence Epicurus borrowed most of his philosophy.
55
It may safely be assumed that the prejudices once entertained against Epicureanism are now extinct. Whatever may have been the speculative34 opinions of its founder, he had as good a right to them as the Apostles had to theirs; nor did he stand further aloof35 from the popular religion of any age than Aristotle, who has generally been in high favour with theologians. His practical teaching was directed towards the constant inculcation of virtue36; nor was it belied37 by the conduct either of himself or of his disciples, even judged by the standard of the schools to which they were most opposed. And some of his physical theories, once rejected as self-evidently absurd, are now proved to be in harmony with the sober conclusions of modern science. At any rate, it is not in this quarter, as our readers will doubtless have already perceived, that the old prejudices, if they still exist, are likely to find an echo. Just now, indeed, the danger is not that Epicurus should be depreciated38, but that his merits should obtain far more than their proper meed of recognition. It seems to be forgotten that what was best in his physics he borrowed from others, and that what he added was of less than no value; that he was ignorant or careless of demonstrated truths; that his avowed39 principles of belief were inconsistent with any truth rising above the level of vulgar apprehension40; and finally, that in his system scientific interests were utterly41 subordinated to practical interests.
In the face of such facts, to say, as Mr. Froude does, that Epicureanism was ‘the creed42 of the men of science’ in the time of Julius Caesar111—an assertion directly contradicted by Lange112—is perhaps only of a piece with Mr. Froude’s usual inaccuracy when writing about ancient history; but such declarations as that of Mr. Frederic Pollock, that the Epicurean system56 ‘was a genuine attempt at a scientific explanation of the world; and was in its day the solitary43 protest against the contempt of physics which prevailed in the other post-Aristotelian schools;’113 of Prof. Trezza, that the Epicurean school ‘summed up in itself the most scientific elements of Greek antiquity;’114 of Dr. Woltjer, that ‘with respect to the laws and principles of science, the Epicureans came nearest of all the ancients to the science of our own time;’115 and finally, of M. Ernest Renan, that Epicureanism was ‘the great scientific school of antiquity,’116 are absolutely amazing. The eminent44 French critic just quoted has elsewhere observed, with perfect justice, that the scientific spirit is the negation45 of the supernatural; and perhaps he argues that the negation of the supernatural must, reciprocally, be the scientific spirit. But this is only true when such a negation is arrived at inductively, after a disinterested46 survey of the facts. Epicurus started with the denial of supernatural interference as a practical postulate47, and then hunted about for whatever explanations of natural phenomena48 would suit his foregone conclusion. Moreover, an enquirer49 really animated50 by the scientific spirit studies the facts for their own sake; he studies them as they actually are, not resting content with alternative explanations; and he studies them to the fullest extent of which his powers are capable. Epicurus, on the contrary, declares that physics would not be worth attending to if the mind could be set free from religious terrors in any other manner;117 he will not let himself be tied down to any one theory if there are others equally inconsistent with divine agency to be had;118 and when his demands in this respect are satisfied, that is, when the appearances vulgarly ascribed to supernatural causation have been provided with natural causes, he leaves off.
To get rid of superstitious51 beliefs was, no doubt, a highly meritorious52 achievement, but it had been far more effectually57 performed by the great pre-Socratic thinkers, Heracleitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus. These men or their followers53 had, besides, got hold of a most important principle—the vital principle of all science—which was the reign54 of law, the universality and indefeasibility of physical causation. Now, Epicurus expressly refused to accept such a doctrine4, declaring that it was even worse than believing in the gods, since they could be propitiated55, whereas fate could not.119 Again, Greek physical philosophy, under the guidance of Plato, had been tending more and more to seek for its foundation in mathematics. Mathematical reasoning was seen to be the type of all demonstration56; and the best hopes of progress were staked on the extension of mathematical methods to every field of enquiry in turn. How much might be done by following up this clue was quickly seen not only in the triumphs of geometry, but in the brilliant astronomical57 discoveries by which the shape of the earth, the phases of the moon, and the cause of eclipses were finally cleared up and placed altogether outside the sphere of conjecture58. Nor was a knowledge of these truths confined to specialists: they were familiar alike to the older Academy, to the Peripatetic26, and to the Stoic schools; so that, with the exception of those who doubted every proposition, we may assume them to have been then, as now, the common property of all educated men. Epicurus, on the other hand, seems to have known nothing of mathematics, or only enough to dispute their validity, for we are told that his disciple6 Polyaenus, who had previously59 been eminent in that department, was persuaded, on joining the school, to reject the whole of geometry as untrue;120 while, in astronomy, he pronounced the heavenly bodies to be no larger than they appear to our senses, denied the existence of Antipodes, and put the crudest guesses of early philosophy on the same footing with the best-authenticated results of later observation. It is no wonder, then, that during the whole58 continuance of his school no man of science ever accepted its teaching, with the single exception of Asclepiades, who was perhaps a Democritean rather than a disciple of the Garden, and who, at any rate, as a physiologist60, would not be brought into contact with its more flagrant absurdities61.
In order to understand how so vigorous an intellect could go so wildly astray, we must glance at his personal history, and at the manner in which his system seems to have been gradually built up.
II.
Epicurus was born 341 B.C., about the same time as Zeno the Stoic. Unlike all the other philosophers of his age, he was of Athenian parentage; that is to say, he belonged to a race of exclusively practical tendencies, and marked by a singular inaptitude or distaste for physical enquiries. His father, a poor colonist63 in Samos, was, apparently64, not able to give him a very regular education. At eighteen he was sent to Athens, but was shortly afterwards obliged to rejoin his family, who were driven from Samos in 322, along with the other Athenian settlers, by a political revolution, and had taken refuge in Colophon, on the Asiatic coast. In the course of his wanderings, the future philosopher came across some public lecturers, who seem to have instructed him in the physics of Democritus, and perhaps also in the scepticism of Pyrrho; but of such a steady discipline as Plato passed through during his ten years’ intercourse65 with Socrates, Aristotle during his twenty years’ studies under Plato, and Zeno during his similarly protracted66 attendance at the various schools of Athens, there is no trace whatever. Epicurus always described himself as self-taught, meaning that his knowledge had been acquired by reading instead of by listening; and we find in him the advantages as well as the defects common to self-taught men in all ages—considerable freshness and freedom from scholastic67 prejudices, along with a59 certain narrowness of sympathies, incompleteness of information, inaptitude for abstract reasoning, and last, but not least, an enormous opinion of his own abilities, joined to an overweening contempt for those with whose opinions he did not agree. After teaching for some time in Mitylênê, Epicurus established himself as the head of a school in Athens, where he bought a house and garden. In the latter he lectured and gathered round him a band of devoted68 friends, among whom women were included, and who were wont69 to assemble for purposes of social recreation not less than of philosophic70 discipline. Just before his death, which occurred in the year 270, he declared in a letter to his friend and destined71 successor Hermarchus, that the recollection of his philosophical72 achievements had been such a source of pleasure as to overcome the agonies of disease, and to make the last day the happiest of his life.121 For the rest, Epicurus secluded73 himself, on principle, from the world, and few echoes of his teaching seem to have passed beyond the circle of his immediate74 adherents. Thus, whatever opportunities might otherwise have offered themselves of profiting by adverse75 criticism were completely lost.122
Epicureanism was essentially76 a practical philosophy. The physical, theological, and logical portions of the system were reasoned out with exclusive reference to its ethical78 end, and their absolute subordination to it was never allowed to be forgotten. It is therefore with the moral theory of Epicurus that we must begin.
From the time of Socrates on, the majority of Greeks, had they been asked what was the ultimate object of endeavour, or what made life worth living, would have answered, pleasure. But among professional philosophers such a definition of the60 supreme79 good met with little favour. Seeing very clearly that the standard of conduct must be social, and convinced that it must at the same time include the highest good of the individual, they found it impossible to believe that the two could be reconciled by encouraging each citizen in the unrestricted pursuit of his own private gratifications. Nor had such an idea as the greatest happiness of the greatest number ever risen above their horizon; although, from the necessities of life itself, they unconsciously assumed it in all their political discussions. The desire for pleasure was, however, too powerful a motive80 to be safely disregarded. Accordingly we find Socrates frequently appealing to it when no other argument was likely to be equally efficacious, Plato striving to make the private satisfaction of his citizens coincide with the demands of public duty, and Aristotle maintaining that this coincidence must spontaneously result from the consolidation81 of moral habits; the true test of a virtuous82 disposition14 being, in his opinion, the pleasure which accompanies its exercise. One of the companions of Socrates, Aristippus the Cyrenaean, a man who had cut himself loose from every political and domestic obligation, and who was remarkable for the versatility83 with which he adapted himself to the most varying circumstances, went still further. He boldly declared that pleasure was the sole end worth seeking, and on the strength of this doctrine came forward as the founder of a new philosophical school. According to his system, the summum bonum was not the total amount of enjoyment84 secured in a lifetime, but the greatest single enjoyment that could be secured at any moment; and this principle was associated with an idealistic theory of perception, apparently suggested by Protagoras, but carrying his views much further. Our knowledge, said Aristippus, is strictly85 limited to phenomena; we are conscious of nothing beyond our own feelings; and we have no right to assume the existence of any objects by which they are caused. The study of natural61 science is therefore waste of time; our whole energies should be devoted to the interests of practical life.123 Thus Greek humanism seemed to have found its appropriate sequel in hedonism, which, as an ethical theory, might quote in its favour both the dictates86 of immediate feeling and the sanction of public opinion.
The Cyrenaic school ended, curiously87 enough, in pessimism88. The doctrine that pleasure is the only good, and the doctrine that life yields a preponderance of painful over pleasurable feelings, are severally compatible with a preference of existence to non-existence; when united, as they were by Hêgêsias, a Cyrenaic professor, they logically lead to suicide; and we are told that the public authorities of Alexandria were obliged to order the discontinuance of his lectures, so great was their effect in promoting self-destruction.124
Meanwhile, hedonism had been temporarily taken up by Plato, and developed into the earliest known form of utilitarianism. In his Protagoras, he endeavours to show that every virtue has for its object either to secure a greater pleasure by the sacrifice of a lesser90 pleasure, or to avoid a greater pain by the endurance of a lesser pain; nothing being taken into account but the interests of the individual agent concerned. Plato afterwards discarded the theory sketched91 in the Protagoras for a higher and more generous, if less distinctly formulated92 morality; but while ceasing to be a hedonist he remained a utilitarian89; that is to say, he insisted on judging actions by their tendency to promote the general welfare, not by the sentiments which they excite in the mind of a conventional spectator.
The idea of virtue as a hedonistic calculus93, abandoned by its first originator, and apparently neglected by his immediate successors, was taken up by Epicurus; for that the latter borrowed it from Plato seems to be proved by the exact62 resemblance of their language;125 and M. Guyau is quite mistaken when he represents his hero as the founder of utilitarian morality.126 It was not enough, however, to appropriate the cast-off ideas of Plato; it was necessary to meet the arguments by which Plato had been led to think that pleasure was not the supreme good, and to doubt whether it was, as such, a good at all. The most natural course would have been to begin by exhibiting the hedonistic ideal in a more favourable94 light. Sensual gratifications, from their remarkable intensity95, had long been the accepted types of pleasurable feeling, and from their animal character, as well as from other obvious reasons, had frequently been used to excite a prejudice against it. On the other hand, Plato himself, and Aristotle still more, had brought into prominence96 the superiority, simply as pleasures, of those intellectual activities which they considered to be, even apart from all pleasure, the highest good. But Epicurus refused to avail himself of this opportunity for effecting a compromise with the opposite school, boldly declaring that he for his part could not conceive any pleasures apart from those received through the five senses, among which he, characteristically enough, included aesthetic98 enjoyments99. The obvious significance of his words has been explained away, and they have been asserted to contain only the very harmless proposition that our animal nature is the basis, the condition, of our spiritual nature.127 But, if this were the true explanation, it would be possible to point out what other pleasures were recognised by Epicurus. These, if they existed at all, must have belonged to the mind as such. Now, we have it on Cicero’s authority that, while admitting the existence of mental feelings, both pleasurable and painful, he reduced them to an extension and reflection of bodily feelings, mental happiness properly consisting in the assurance of63 prolonged and painless sensual gratification. This is something very different from saying that the highest spiritual enjoyments are conditioned by the healthy activity of the bodily organs, or that they cannot be appreciated if the animal appetites are starved. It amounts to saying that there are no specific and positive pleasures apart from the five senses as exercised either in reality or in imagination.128 And even without the evidence of Cicero, we can see that some such conclusion necessarily followed from the principles elsewhere laid down by Epicurus. To a Greek, the mental pleasures, par17 excellence100, were those derived101 from friendship and from intellectual activity. But our philosopher, while warmly panegyrising friendship, recommends it not for the direct pleasure which it affords, but for the pain and danger which it prevents;129 while his restriction102 of scientific studies to the office of dispelling103 superstitious fears seems meant for a direct protest against Aristotle’s opinion, that the highest pleasure is derived from those studies. Equally significant is his outspoken104 contempt for literary culture.130 In this respect, he offers a marked contrast to Aristippus, who, when asked by some one what good his son would get by education, answered, ‘This much, at least, that when he is at the play he will not sit like a stone upon a stone,’131 the customary attitude, it would seem, of an ordinary Athenian auditor105.
It appears, then, that the popular identification of an Epicurean with a sensualist has something to say in its favour. Nevertheless, we have no reason to think that Epicurus was anything but perfectly106 sincere when he repudiated107 the charge of being a mere108 sensualist.132 But the impulse which lifted him above sensualism was not derived from his own original philosophy. It was due to the inspiration of Plato; and nothing testifies more to Plato’s moral greatness than that the64 doctrine most opposed to his own idealism should have been raised from the dust by the example of its flight. We proceed to show how the peculiar109 form assumed by Epicureanism was determined110 by the pressure brought to bear on its original germ two generations before.
It had been urged against hedonism that pleasure is a process, a movement; whereas the supreme good must be a completed product—an end in which we can rest. Against sensual enjoyments in particular, it had been urged that they are caused by the satisfaction of appetite, and, as such, must result in a mere negative condition, marking the zero point of pleasurable sentiency. Finally, much stress had been laid on the anti-social and suicidal consequences of that selfish grasping at power to which habits of unlimited112 self-indulgence must infallibly lead. The form given to hedonism by Epicurus is a reaction against these criticisms, a modification113 imposed on it for the purpose of evading114 their force. He seems to admit that bodily satisfaction is rather the removal of a want, and consequently of a pain, than a source of positive pleasure. But the resulting condition of liberation from uneasiness is, according to him, all that we can desire; and by extending the same principle to every other good, he indirectly115 brings back the mental felicity which at first sight his system threatened either to exclude or to reduce to a mere shadow of sensual enjoyment. For, in calculating the elements of unhappiness, we have to deal, not only with present discomfort116, but also, and to a far greater extent, with the apprehension of future evil. We dread117 the loss of worldly goods, of friends, of reputation, of life itself. We are continually exposed to pain, both from violence and from disease. We are haunted by visions of divine vengeance118, both here and hereafter. To get rid of all such terrors, to possess our souls in peace, is the highest good—a permanent, as distinguished119 from a transient state of consciousness—and the proper business of philosophy is to show us how that consummation may be attained121.65 Thus we are brought back to that blissful self-contemplation of mind which Aristotle had already declared to be the goal of all endeavour and the sole happiness of God.
But Epicurus could only borrow the leading principle of his opponents at the expense of an enormous inconsistency. It was long ago pointed122 out by the Academicians—and the objection has never been answered—that pleasure and mere painlessness cannot both be the highest good, although the one may be an indispensable condition of the other. To confound the means with the end was, indeed, a common fault of Greek philosophy; and the Stoics also were guilty of it when they defined self-preservation123 to be the natural object of every creature, and yet attached a higher value to the instruments than to the aims of that activity. In Epicureanism, however, the change of front was more open, and was attempted under the eyes of acute and vigilant124 enemies. If the total absence of pain involves a pleasurable state of consciousness, we have a right to ask for a definition or description of it, and this, so far as can be made out, our philosopher never pretended to supply. Of course, a modern psychologist can point out that the functions of respiration125, circulation, secretion126, and absorption are constantly going on, and that, in their normal activity, they give rise to a vast sum of pleasurable consciousness, which far more than makes up in volume for what it wants in acuteness. But, whatever his recent interpreters may say,133 Epicurus nowhere alludes128 to this diffused129 feeling of vitality130; had he recognised it, his enumeration131 of the positive sensations, apart from which the good is inconceivable, would have seemed as incomplete to him as it does to us. If, on the other hand, the complete removal of pain introduces us to a state of consciousness, which, without being positively132 pleasurable, has a positive value of some kind, we ought to be told wherein it differs from the ideals of the spiritualist school;66 while, if it has no positive value at all, we ought equally to be told wherein it differs from the unconsciousness of sleep or of death.
III.
We have now to see how, granting Epicurus his conception of painlessness as the supreme good, he proceeds to evolve from it a whole ethical, theological, and physical system. For reasons already mentioned, the ethical development must be studied first. We shall therefore begin with an analysis of the particular virtues133. Temperance, as the great self-regarding duty, obviously takes precedence of the others. In dealing134 with this branch of his subject, there was nothing to prevent Epicurus from profiting by the labours of his predecessors135, and more especially of the naturalistic school from Prodicus down. So far as moderation is concerned, there need be little difference between a theory of conduct based exclusively on the interests of the individual, and a theory which regards him chiefly as a portion of some larger whole. Accordingly, we find that our philosopher, in his praises of frugality136, closely approximated to the Cynic and Stoic standards—so much so, indeed, that his expressions on the subject are repeatedly quoted by Seneca as the best that could be found. Perhaps the Roman moralist valued them less for their own sake than as being, to some extent, the admissions of an opponent. But, in truth, he was only reclaiming138 what the principles of his own sect25 had originally inspired. To be content with the barest necessaries was a part of that Nature-worship against which Greek humanism, with its hedonistic and idealistic offshoots, had begun by vigorously protesting. Hence many passages in Lucretius express exactly the same sentiments as those which are most characteristic of Latin literature at a time when it is completely dominated by Stoic influences.
It is another Cynic trait in Epicurus that he should67 address himself to a much wider audience than the Sophists, or even than Socrates and his spiritualistic successors. This circumstance suggested a new argument in favour of temperance. His philosophy being intended for the use of all mankind without exception, was bound to show that happiness is within the reach of the poor as well as of the rich; and this could not be did it depend, to any appreciable140 extent, on indulgences which wealth alone can purchase. And even the rich will not enjoy complete tranquillity141 unless they are taught that the loss of fortune is not to be feared, since their appetites can be easily satisfied without it. Thus the pains arising from excess, though doubtless not forgotten, seem to have been the least important motive to restraint in his teaching. The precepts143 of Epicurus are only too faithfully followed in the southern countries for whose benefit they were first framed. It is a matter of common observation, that the extreme frugality of the Italians, by leaving them satisfied with the barest sufficiency, deprives them of a most valuable spur to exertion144, and allows a vast fund of possible energy to moulder145 away in listless apathy146, or to consume itself more rapidly in sordid147 vice148. Moreover, as economists149 have long since pointed out, where the standard of comfort is high, there will be a large available margin150 to fall back upon in periods of distress151; while where it is low, the limit of subsistence will be always dangerously near.
The enemies of hedonism had taken a malicious152 satisfaction in identifying it with voluptuous153 indulgence, and had scornfully asked if that could be the supreme good and proper object of virtuous endeavour, the enjoyment of which was habitually154 associated with secresy and shame. It was, perhaps, to screen his system from such reproaches that Epicurus went a long way towards the extreme limit of asceticism155, and hinted at the advisability of complete abstinence from that which, although natural, is not necessary to self68-preservation, and involves a serious drain on the vital energies.134 In this respect, he was not followed by Lucretius, who has no objection to the satisfaction of animal instinct, so long as it is not accompanied by personal passion.135 Neither the Greek moralist nor the Roman poet could foresee what a great part in the history of civilisation156 chivalrous157 devotion to a beloved object was destined to play, although the uses of idealised desire had already revealed themselves to Plato’s penetrating158 gaze.
With regard to those more refined aspects of temperance, in which it appears as a restraint exercised by reason over anger, pity, and grief, Epicurus and his followers refused to go all lengths with the Stoics in their effort to extirpate159 emotion altogether. But here they seem not to have proceeded on any fixed160 principle, except that of contradicting the opposite school. That the sage139 will feel pity, and sometimes shed tears,136 is a sentiment from which few are now likely to dissent161; yet the absolute impassivity at which Stoicism aimed seems still more consistent with a philosophy whose ideal was complete exemption162 from pain; while in practice it would be rather easier to attain120 than the power of feeling quite happy on the rack, which the accomplished163 Epicurean was expected to possess.137
Next to Temperance comes Fortitude164; and with it the difficulties of reconciling Epicureanism with the ordinary morality are considerably165 increased. The old conception of this virtue was willingness to face pain and death on behalf of a noble cause,138 which would be generally understood to mean the salvation166 of family, friends, and fatherland; and the ultimate sanction of such self-devotion was found in the pressure of public opinion. Idealistic philosophy, taking still higher ground, not69 only refused to balance the fear of pain and death against the fear of infamy167 or the hope of applause, but added public opinion to the considerations which a good man in the discharge of his duty would, if necessary, despise. Epicurus also inculcated disregard for reputation, except when it might lead to inconveniences of a tangible168 description;139 but he had nothing beyond the calculations of self-interest to put in its place. A modern utilitarian is bound to undergo loss and suffering in his own person for the prevention of greater loss and suffering elsewhere; an egoistic hedonist cannot consistently be brave, except for the sake of his own future security. The method by which Epicurus reconciled interest with courage was to minimise the importance of whatever injuries could be inflicted169 by external circumstances; just as in his theory of Temperance he had minimised the importance of bodily pleasures. How he disposed of death will best be seen in connexion with his physical philosophy. Pain he encountered by emphasising, or rather immensely exaggerating, the mind’s power of annulling170 external sensation by concentrating its whole attention on remembered or anticipated pleasures, or else on the certainty that present suffering must come to an end, and to a more speedy end in proportion to its greater severity. We are to hold a fire in our hand, partly by thinking of the frosty Caucasus, partly by the comforting reflection that the pain of a burn, being intense, will not be of long duration; while, at worst, like the Stoics, we have the resource of suicide as a last refuge from intolerable suffering.140
With the Epicurean theory of Justice, the distortion, already sufficiently171 obvious, is carried still further; although we must frankly172 admit that it includes some aper?us strikingly in advance of all that had hitherto been written on the subject. Justice, according to our philosopher, is neither an internal balance of the soul’s faculties173, nor a rule imposed by the will70 of the stronger, but a mutual174 agreement to abstain175 from aggressions, varying from time to time with the varying interests of society, and always determined by considerations of general utility.141 This is excellent: we miss, indeed, the Stoic idea of a common humanity, embracing, underlying176, and transcending177 all particular contracts; but we have, in exchange, the idea of a general interest equivalent to the sum of private interests, together with the means necessary for their joint178 preservation; and we have also the form under which the notion of justice originates, though not the measure of its ultimate expansion, which is regard for the general interest, even when we are not bound by any contract to observe it. But when we go on to ask why contracts should be adhered to, Epicurus has no reason to offer beyond dread of punishment. His words, as translated by Mr. Wallace, are:—‘Injustice180 is not in itself a bad thing, but only in the fear arising from anxiety on the part of the wrong-doer that he will not always escape punishment.’142 This was evidently meant for a direct contradiction of Plato’s assertion, that, apart from its penal181 consequences, injustice is a disease of the soul, involving more mischief182 to the perpetrator than to the victim. Mr. Wallace, however, takes a different view of his author’s meaning. According to him,
If we interpret this doctrine, after the example of some of the ancients, to mean that any wrong-doing would be innocent and good, supposing it escaped detection, we shall probably be misconstruing Epicurus. What he seems to allude127 to is rather the case of strictly legal enactments183, where, previously to law, the action need not have been particularly moral or immoral184; where, in fact, the common agreement has established a rule which is not completely in harmony with the ‘justice of nature.’ In short, Epicurus is protesting against the conception of injustice, which makes it consist in disobedience to political and social rules, imposed and enforced by public and authoritative185 sanctions. He is protesting, in other words, against the claims of the State upon the citizens for their complete obedience;71 against the old ideas of the divine sanctity and majesty186 of law as law; against theories like that maintained by contemporaries of Socrates, that there could be no such thing as an unjust law.143
Epicurus was assuredly not a master of language, but had he meant all that is here put into his mouth, he would hardly have been at a loss for words to say it. Remembering that the Κ?ριαι δ?ξαι constituted a sort of creed drawn up by the master himself for his disciples to learn by heart,144 and that the incriminated passage is one of the articles in that creed, we need only look at the context to make certain that it has been entirely187 misread by his apologist.145 In the three preceding articles, we are told that justice is by nature a contract for the prevention of aggressions, that it does not exist among animals which are unable, nor among tribes of men which are either unable or unwilling188 to enter into such an agreement, and—with reiterated189 emphasis—that, apart from contracts, it has no original existence (o?κ ?ν τ? καθ’ ?αυτ? δικαιοσ?νη). There is nothing at all about a true as distinguished from a false justice; there is no allusion190 whatever to the theories of any ‘contemporaries of Socrates;’ the polemic191 reference, if any, is to Plato, and to Plato alone. Then comes the declaration quoted above, to the effect that injustice is not an evil in itself, but only an evil through the dread of punishment which it produces. Now, by injustice, Epicurus must simply mean the opposite of what he defined justice to be in the preceding paragraph—that is, a breach192 of the agreement not to hurt one another (μ? βλ?πτειν ?λλ?λου?). The authority of the State is evidently conceived, not as superseding193, but as enforcing agreements. The succeeding article still further confirms the view rejected by Mr. Wallace. Epicurus tells us that no man who stealthily evades the contract to abstain from mutual aggressions can be sure of escaping detection. This is72 evidently added to show that, apart from any mystical sanctions, fear of punishment is quite enough to deter111 a prudent195 man from committing crimes. And we can see that no other deterrent196 was recognised by Lucretius, when, in evident reference to his master’s words, he mentions the fears of those who offend—not against mere conventional rules, but against human rights in general—as the great safeguard of justice.146
We may, indeed, fairly ask what guarantee against wrong-doing of any kind could be supplied by a system which made the supreme good of each individual consist in his immunity197 from pain and fear, except that very pain or fear which he was above all things to avoid? The wise man might reasonably give his assent198 to enactments intended for the common good of all men, including himself among the number; but when his concrete interest as a private citizen came into collision with his abstract interests as a social unit, one does not see how the quarrel was to be decided199 on Epicurean principles, except by striking a balance between the pains respectively resulting from justice and injustice. Here, Epicurus, in his anxiety to show that hedonism, rightly understood, led to the same results as the accepted systems of morality, over-estimated the policy of honesty. There are cases in which the wrong-doer may count on immunity from danger with more confidence than when entering on such ordinary enterprises as a sea-voyage or a commercial speculation200; there are even cases where a single crime might free him from what else would be a lifelong dread. And, at worst, he can fall back on the Epicurean arguments proving that neither physical pain nor death is to be feared, while the threats of divine vengeance are a baseless dream.147
The radical201 selfishness of Epicureanism comes out still more distinctly in its attitude towards political activity. Not only does it systematically203 discourage mere personal ambition73—the desire of possessing political power for the furtherance of one’s own ends—but it passes a like condemnation204 on disinterested efforts to improve the condition of the people by legislation; while the general rule laid down for the wise man in his capacity of citizen is passive obedience to the established authorities, to be departed from only when the exigencies205 of self-defence require it. On this Mr. Wallace observes that ‘political life, which in all ages has been impossible for those who had not wealth, and who were unwilling to mix themselves with vile206 and impure207 associates, was not to the mind of Epicurus.’148 No authority is quoted to prove that the abstention recommended by Epicurus was dictated208 by purist sentiments of any kind; nor can we readily admit that it is impossible to record a vote, to canvass209 at an election, or even to address a public meeting, without fulfilling one or other of the conditions specified210 by Mr. Wallace; and we know by the example of Littré that it is possible for a poor man to take a rather prominent part in public life, without the slightest sacrifice of personal dignity.149 It must also be remembered that Epicurus was not speaking for himself alone; he was giving practical advice to all whom it might concern—advice of which he thought, aeque pauperibus prodest, locupletibus aeque; so that when Mr. Wallace adds that, ‘above all, it is not the business of a philosopher to become a political partisan211, and spend his life in an atmosphere of avaricious212 and malignant213 passions,’150 we must observe that Epicureanism was not designed to make philosophers, but perfect men. The real question is whether it would serve the public interest were all who endeavour to shape their lives by the precepts of philosophy to withdraw themselves74 entirely from participation214 in the affairs of their country. And, having regard to the general character of the system now under consideration, we may not uncharitably surmise215 that the motive for abstention which it supplied was selfish love of ease far more than unwillingness216 to be mixed up with the dirty work of politics.
Epicureanism allotted217 a far larger place to friendship than to all the other social virtues put together; and the disciple was taught to look to it not only for the satisfaction of his altruistic218 impulses, but for the crowning happiness of his life. The egoistic basis of the system was, indeed, made sufficiently prominent even here; utility and pleasure, which Aristotle had excluded from the notion of true friendship, being declared its proper ends. All the conditions of a disinterested attachment219 were, however, brought back by a circuitous220 process. It was argued that the full value of friendship could not be reaped except by those whose affection for each other went to the extent of complete self-devotion; but the Epicureans were less successful in showing how this happy condition could be realised consistently with the study of his own interest by each individual. As a matter of fact, it was realised; and the members of this school became remarkable, above all others, for the tenderness and fidelity of their personal attachments221. But we may suspect that formal precepts had little to do with the result. Estrangement222 from the popular creed, when still uncommon223, has always a tendency to draw the dissidents together;151 and where other ties, whether religious, domestic, or patriotic224, are neglected, the ordinary instincts of human nature are likely to show themselves with all the more energy in the only remaining form of union. Moreover, the cheerful, contented225, abstemious226, unambitious characters who would be the most readily75 attracted to the Epicurean brotherhood227 supplied the very materials that most readily unite in placid228 and enduring attachments. A tolerably strict standard of orthodoxy provided against theoretical dissensions: nor were the new converts likely to possess either daring or originality229 enough to excite controversies230 where they did not already exist.
IV.
After eliminating all the sources of misery231 due to folly232 and vice, Epicurus had still to deal with what, in his opinion, were the most formidable obstacles to human happiness, dread of the divine anger and dread of death, either in itself, or as the entrance on another life. To meet these, he compiled, for we can hardly say constructed, an elaborate system of physical philosophy, having for its object to show that Nature is entirely governed by mechanical causes, and that the soul perishes with the body. We have already mentioned that for science as such and apart from its ethical applications he neither cared nor pretended to care in the least. It seems, therefore, rather surprising that he could not manage, like the Sceptics before him, to get rid of supernaturalism by a somewhat more expeditious233 method. The explanation seems to be that to give some account of natural phenomena had become, in his time, a necessity for every one aspiring234 to found a philosophical system. A brilliant example had been set by Plato and Aristotle, of whom the former, too, had apparently yielded to the popular demand rather than followed the bent235 of his own genius, in turning aside from ethics236 to physics; and Zeno had similarly included the whole of knowledge in his teaching. The old Greek curiosity respecting the causes of things was still alive; and a similar curiosity was doubtless awakening237 among those populations to whom Greek civilisation had been carried by colonisation, commerce, and conquest. Now, those scientific speculations238 are always the76 most popular which can be shown to have some bearing on religious belief, either in the way of confirmation or of opposition239, according as faith or doubt happens to be most in the ascendent. Fifty years ago, among ourselves, no work on natural philosophy could hope for a large circulation unless it was filled with teleological240 applications. At present, liberal opinions are gaining ground; and those treatises241 are most eagerly studied which tend to prove that everything in Nature can be best explained through the agency of mechanical causation. At neither period is it the facts themselves which have excited most attention, but their possible bearing on our own interests. Among the contemporaries of Epicurus, the two currents of thought that in more recent times have enjoyed an alternate triumph, seem to have co-existed as forces of about equal strength. The old superstitions243 were rejected by all thinking men; and the only question was by what new faith they should be replaced. Poets and philosophers had alike laboured to bring about a religious reformation by exhibiting the popular mythology244 in its grotesque245 deformity, and by constructing systems in which pure monotheism was more or less distinctly proclaimed. But it suited the purpose, perhaps it gratified the vanity of Epicurus to talk as if the work of deliverance still remained to be done, as if men were still groaning246 under the incubus247 of superstitions which he alone could teach them to shake off. He seems, indeed, to have confounded the old and the new faiths under a common opprobrium248, and to have assumed that the popular religion was mainly supported by Stoic arguments, or that the Stoic optimism was not less productive of superstitious terrors than the gloomy polytheism which it was designed to supersede249.152
Again, while attacking the belief in human immortality250, Epicurus seems to direct his blows against the metaphysical reasonings of Plato,153 as well as against the indistinct forebod77ings of primitive251 imagination. The consequences of this two-edged polemic are very remarkable. In reading Lucretius, we are surprised at the total absence of criticisms like those brought to bear on Greek mythology with such formidable effect, first by Plato and, long afterwards, by Lucian. There is a much more modern tone about his invectives, and they seem aimed at an enemy familiar to ourselves. One would suppose that the advent252 of Catholicism had been revealed in a prophetic vision to the poet, and that this, rather than the religion of his own times, was the object of his wrath253 and dread; or else that some child of the Renaissance254 was seeking for a freer utterance255 of his own revolt against all theology, under the disguise of a dead language and of a warfare256 with long-discredited gods. For this reason, Christians257 have always regarded him, with perfect justice, as a dangerous enemy; while rationalists of the fiercer type have accepted his splendid denunciations as the appropriate expression of their own most cherished feelings.
The explanation of this anomaly is, we believe, to be found in the fact that Catholicism did, to a great extent, actually spring from a continuation of those widely different tendencies which Epicurus confounded in a common assault. It had an intellectual basis in the Platonic259 and Stoic philosophies, and a popular basis in the revival260 of those manifold superstitions which, underlying the brilliant civilisations of Greece and Rome, were always ready to break out with renewed violence when their restraining pressure was removed. The revival of which we speak was powerfully aided from without. The same movement that was carrying Hellenic culture into Asia was bringing Oriental delusions261 by a sort of back current into the Western world. Nor was this all. The relaxation263 of all political bonds, together with the indifference264 of the educated classes, besides allowing a rank undergrowth of popular beliefs to spring up unchecked, surrendered the regulation of those beliefs into the hands of a78 profession which it had hitherto been the policy of every ancient republic to keep under rigid265 restraint—the accredited266 or informal ministers of religion.154 Now, the chief characteristic of a priestly order has always and everywhere been insatiable avarice267. When forbidden to acquire wealth in their individual capacity, they grasp at it all the more eagerly in their corporate268 capacity. And, as the Epicureans probably perceived, there is no engine which they can use so effectually for the gratification of this passion as the belief in a future life. What they have to tell about this is often described by themselves and their supporters as a message of joy to the weary and afflicted269. But under their treatment it is very far from being a consolatory270 belief. Dark shades and lurid271 lights predominate considerably in their pictures of the world beyond the grave; and here, as we shall presently show, they are aided by an irresistible272 instinct of human nature. On this subject, also, they can speak with unlimited confidence; for, while their other statements about the supernatural are liable to be contradicted by experience, the abode273 of souls is a bourne from which no traveller returns to disprove the accuracy of their statements.
That such a tendency was at work some time before the age of Epicurus is shown by the following passage from Plato’s Republic:—
Mendicant274 prophets go to rich men’s doors and persuade them that they have a power committed to them of making atonement for their sins or those of their fathers by sacrifices or charms.... And they produce a host of books ... according to which they perform their ritual, and persuade not only individuals but whole cities, that expiations and atonements for sin may be made by sacrifices and amusements which fill a vacant hour,155 and are equally at79 the service of the living and the dead; the latter sort they call mysteries, and they redeem275 us from the pains of hell, but if we neglect them no one knows what awaits us.156
Let us now pass over fourteen centuries and see to what results the doctrine taught by Plato himself led when it had entered into an alliance with the superstitions which he denounced. Our illustration shall be taken from a sainted hero of the Catholic Church. In a sermon preached before Pope Nicholas II. at Arezzo, the famous Hildebrand, afterwards Gregory VII., relates the following story:—
In one of the provinces of Germany there died, about ten years ago, a certain count, who had been rich and powerful, and, what is astonishing for one of that class, he was, according to the judgment276 of man, pure in faith and innocent in his life. Some time after his death, a holy man descended277 in spirit to hell, and beheld278 the count standing30 on the topmost rung of a ladder. He tells us that this ladder stood unconsumed amid the crackling flames around; and that it had been placed there to receive the family of the aforesaid count. There was, moreover, the black and frightful279 abyss out of which rose the fatal ladder. It was so ordered that the last comer took his stand at the top of the ladder, and when the rest of the family arrived he went down one step, and all below him did likewise.
As the last of the same family who died came and took his place, age after age, on this ladder, it followed inevitably280 that they all successively reached the depth of hell. The holy man who beheld this thing, asked the reason of this terrible damnation, and especially how it was that the seigneur whom he had known and who had lived a life of justice and well-doing should be thus punished. And he heard a voice saying,80 ‘It is because of certain lands belonging to the church of Metz, which were taken from the blessed Stephen by one of this man’s ancestors, from whom he was the tenth in descent, and for this cause all these men have sinned by the same avarice and are subjected to the same punishment in eternal fire.’157
In view of such facts as these, we cannot blame the Epicureans if they regarded the doctrine of future retribution as anything but a consolatory or ennobling belief, and if they deemed that to extirpate it was to cut out a mischievous282 delusion262 by the roots:—
Et merito: nam si certain finem esse viderent
Aerumnarum homines aliqua ratione valerent
Relligionibus, atque minis obsistere vatum:
Nunc ratio nulla ‘st restandi, nulla facultas,
Aeternas quoniam poenas in morte timendum.’158
And it is no wonder that the words of their great poet should read like a prophetic exposure of the terrors with which the religious revival, based on a coalition283 of philosophy and superstition242, was shortly to overspread the whole horizon of human life.
So strong, however, was the theological reaction against Greek rationalism that Epicurus himself came under its influence. Instead of denying the existence of the gods altogether, or leaving it uncertain like Protagoras, he asserted it in the most emphatic284 manner. Their interference with Nature was all that he cared to dispute. The egoistic character of his whole system comes out once more in his conception of them as beings too much absorbed in their own placid enjoyments to be troubled with the work of creation and providence285. He was, indeed, only repeating aloud what had long been whispered in the free-thinking circles of Athenian society. That the gods were indifferent to human interests81 was a heresy286 indignantly denounced by Aeschylus,159 maintained by Aristodêmus, the friend of Socrates, and singled out as a fit subject for punishment by Plato. Nor was the theology of Aristotle’s Metaphysics practically distinguishable from such a doctrine. Although essential to the continued existence of the cosmos287, considered as a system of movements, the Prime Mover communicates the required impulse by the mere fact of his existence, and apparently without any consciousness of the effect he is producing. Active beneficence had, in truth, even less to do with the ideal of Aristotle than with the ideal of Epicurus, and each philosopher constructed a god after his own image; the one absorbed in perpetual thought, the other, or more properly the others, in perpetual enjoyment; for the Epicurean deities288 were necessarily conceived as a plurality, that they might not be without the pleasure of friendly conversation. Nevertheless, the part assigned by Aristotle to his god permitted him to offer a much stronger proof of the divine existence and attributes than was possible to Epicurus, who had nothing better to adduce than the universal belief of mankind,—an argument obviously proving too much, since it told, if anything, more powerfully for the interference than for the bare reality of supernatural agents.
Our philosopher appears to more advantage as a critic than as a religious dogmatist. He meets the Stoic belief in Providence by pointing out the undeniable prevalence of evils which omnipotent289 benevolence290 could not be supposed to tolerate; the Stoic optimism, with its doctrine, still a popular one, that all things were created for the good of man, by a reference to the glaring defects which, on that hypothesis, would vitiate the arrangements of Nature; the Stoic appeal to omens291 and prophecies by showing the purely292 accidental character of their fulfilment.160 But he trusts most of all to a radically293 different explanation of the world, an explanation82 which everywhere substitutes mechanical causation for design. Only one among the older systems—the atomism of Democritus—had consistently carried out such a conception of Nature, and this, accordingly, Epicurus adopts in its main outlines.
V.
It is generally assumed by the German critics that the atomic theory was peculiarly fitted to serve as a basis for the individualistic ethics of Epicureanism. To this we can hardly agree. The insignificance294 and powerlessness of the atoms, except when aggregated295 together in enormous numbers, would seem to be naturally more favourable to a system where the community went for everything and the individual for nothing; nor does the general acceptance of atomism by modern science seem to be accompanied by any relaxation of the social sentiment in its professors. Had the Stoics followed Democritus and Epicurus Heracleitus—at least a conceivable hypothesis—some equally cogent297 reason would doubtless have been forthcoming to indicate the appropriateness of their choice.161 As it is, we have no evidence that Epicurus saw anything more in the atomic theory than a convenient explanation of the world on purely mechanical principles.
The division of matter into minute and indestructible particles served admirably to account for the gradual formation and disappearance299 of bodies without necessitating300 the help of a creator. But the infinities301 assumed as a condition of atomism were of even greater importance. Where time and space are unlimited, the quantity of matter must be equally unlimited, otherwise, being composed of loose particles, it would long since have been dissipated and lost in the83 surrounding void. Now, given infinite time and space, and infinite atoms capable of combining with one another in various ways, all possible combinations must already have been tried, not once or twice, but infinitely302 often. Of such combinations, that which best fulfils the conditions of mechanical stability will last the longest, and, without being designed, will present all the characters of design. And this, according to Epicurus, is how the actual frame of things comes to be what it is. Nor was it only the world as a whole that he explained by the theory of a single happy accident occurring after a multitude of fortuitous experiments. The same process repeats itself on a smaller scale in the production of particular compounds. All sorts of living bodies were originally throw up from the earth’s bosom303, but many of them instantly perished, not being provided with the means of nutrition, propagation, or self-defence. In like manner we are enabled to recall a particular thought at pleasure, because innumerable images are continually passing through the mind, none of which comes into the foreground of consciousness until attention is fixed on it; though how we come to distinguish it from the rest is not explained. So also, only those societies survived and became civilised where contracts were faithfully observed. All kinds of wild beasts have at different times been employed in war, just as horses and elephants are now, but on trial were found unmanageable and given up.162
It will be seen that what has been singled out as an anticipation304 of the Darwinian theory was only one application of a very comprehensive method for eliminating design from the universe. But of what is most original and essential in Darwinism, that is, the modifiability of specific forms by the summing up of spontaneous variations in a given direction, the Epicureans had not the slightest suspicion. And wherever they or their master have, in other respects, made some84 approach to the truths of modern science, it may fairly be explained on their own principle as a single lucky guess out of many false guesses.
The modern doctrine of evolution, while relying largely on the fertility of multiplied chances, is not obliged to assume such an enormous number of simultaneous coincidences as Epicurus. The ascription of certain definite attractions and repulsions to the ultimate particles of matter would alone restrict their possible modes of aggregation305 within comparatively narrow limits. Then, again, the world seems to have been built up by successive stages, at each of which some new force or combination of forces came into play, a firm basis having been already secured for whatever variations they were capable of producing. Thus the solar system is a state of equilibrium306 resulting from the action of two very simple forces, gravitation and heat. On the surface of the earth, cohesion307 and chemical affinity308 have been superadded. When a fresh equilibrium had resulted from their joint energy, the more complex conditions of life found free scope for their exercise. The transformations309 of living species were similarly effected by variation on variation. And, finally, in one species, the satisfaction of its animal wants set free those more refined impulses by which, after many experiments, civilisation has been built up. Obviously the total sum of adaptations necessary to constitute our actual world will have the probabilities of its occurrence enormously increased if we suppose the more general conditions to be established prior to, and in complete independence of, the less general, instead of limiting ourselves, like the ancient atomists, to one vast simultaneous shuffle312 of all the material and dynamical elements involved.
Returning to Epicurus, we have next to consider how he obtained the various motions required to bring his atoms into those infinite combinations of which our world is only the most recent. The conception of matter naturally endowed with capacities for moving in all directions indifferently was unknown to ancient physics, as was also that of mutual attraction and85 repulsion. Democritus supposed that the atoms all gravitated downward through infinite space, but with different velocities313, so that the lighter314 were perpetually overtaken and driven upwards315 by the heavier, the result of these collisions and pressures being a vortex whence the world as we see it has proceeded.163 While the atomism of Democritus was, as a theory of matter, the greatest contribution ever made to physical science by pure speculation, as a theory of motion it was open to at least three insuperable objections. Passing over the difficulty of a perpetual movement through space in one direction only, there remained the self-contradictory316 assumption that an infinite number of atoms all moving together in that one direction could find any unoccupied space to fall into.164 Secondly317, astronomical discoveries, establishing as they did the sphericity of the earth, had for ever disproved the crude theory that unsupported bodies fall downward in parallel straight lines. Even granting that the astronomers318, in the absence of complete empirical verification, could not prove their whole contention319, they could at any rate prove enough of it to destroy the notion of parallel descent; for the varying elevation320 of the pole-star demonstrated the curvature of the earth’s surface so far as it was accessible to observation, thus showing that, within the limits of experience, gravitation acted along convergent321 lines. Finally, Aristotle had pointed out that the observed differences in the velocity322 of falling bodies were due to the atmospheric323 resistance, and that, consequently, they would all move at the same rate in such an absolute vacuum as atomism assumed.165 Of these objections Epicurus ignored the first two, except, apparently, to the extent of refusing to believe in the antipodes. The third he acknowledged, and set himself to evade194 it by a hypothesis striking at the root of all scientific86 reasoning. The atoms, he tells us, suffer a slight deflection from the line of perpendicular324 descent, sufficient to bring them into collision with one another; and from this collision proceeds the variety of movement necessary to throw them into all sorts of accidental combinations. Our own free will, says Lucretius, furnishes an example of such a deflection whenever we swerve325 aside from the direction in which an original impulse is carrying us.166 That the irregularity thus introduced into Nature interfered326 with the law of universal causation was an additional recommendation of it in the eyes of Epicurus, who, as we have already mentioned, hated the physical necessity of the philosophers even more than he hated the watchful327 interfering328 providence of the theologians. But, apparently, neither he nor his disciples saw that in discarding the invariable sequence of phenomena, they annulled329, to the same extent, the possibility of human foresight330 and adaptation of means to ends. There was no reason why the deflection, having once occurred, should not be repeated infinitely often, each time producing effects of incalculable extent. And a further inconsequence of the system is that it afterwards accounts for human choice by a mechanism331 which has nothing to do with free-will.167
The Epicurean cosmology need not delay us long. It is completely independent of the atomic theory, which had only been introduced to explain the indestructibility of matter, and, later on, the mechanism of sensation. In describing how the world was first formed, Epicurus falls back on the old Ionian meteorology. He assumes the existence of matter in different states of diffusion332, and segregates333 fluid from solid, light from heavy, hot from cold, by the familiar device of a rapid vortical movement.168 For the rest, as we have already noticed, Epicurus gives an impartial334 welcome to the most conflicting theories of his predecessors, provided only that they dispense335 with the aid of supernatural intervention336; as will87 be seen by the following summary, which we quote from Zeller:—
Possibly the world may move, and possibly it may be at rest. Possibly it may be round, or else it may be triangular337, or have any other shape. Possibly the sun and the stars may be extinguished at setting, and be lighted afresh at their rising: it is, however, equally possible that they may only disappear under the earth and reappear again, or that their rising and setting is due to yet other causes. Possibly the waxing and waning338 of the moon may be caused by the moon’s revolving339; or it may be due to the atmospheric change, or to an actual increase or decrease in the moon’s size, or to some other cause. Possibly the moon may shine with borrowed light, or it may shine with its own, experience supplying us with instances of bodies which give their own light, and of others which have their light borrowed. From these and such like statements it appears that questions of natural science in themselves have no value for Epicurus. Whilst granting that only one natural explanation of phenomena is generally possible, yet in any particular case it is perfectly indifferent which explanation is adopted.169
This was the creed professed340 by ‘the great scientific school of antiquity,’ and this was its way of protesting ‘against the contempt of physics which prevailed’ among the Stoics!
So far as he can be said to have studied science at all, the motive of Epicurus was hatred341 for religion far more than love for natural law. He seems, indeed, to have preserved that aversion for Nature which is so characteristic of the earlier Greek Humanists. He seems to have imagined that by refusing to tie himself down to any one explanation of external phenomena, he could diminish their hold over the mind of man. For when he departs from his usual attitude of suspense342 and reserve, it is to declare dogmatically that the heavenly bodies are no larger than they appear to our senses, and perhaps smaller than they sometimes appear.170 The only88 arguments adduced on behalf of this outrageous343 assertion were that if their superficial extension was altered by transmission, their colour would be altered to a still greater degree; and the alleged344 fact that flames look the same size at all distances.171 It is evident that neither Epicurus nor Lucretius, who, as usual, transcribes345 him with perfect good faith, could ever have looked at one lamp-flame through another, or they would have seen that the laws of linear perspective are not suspended in the case of self-luminous346 bodies—a fact which does not tell much for that accurate observation supposed to have been fostered by their philosophy.172 The truth is, that Epicurus disliked the oppressive notion of a sun several times larger than the earth, and was determined not to tolerate it, be the consequences to fact and logic77 what they might.
VI.
The Epicurean philosophy of external Nature was used as an instrument for destroying the uncomfortable belief in Divine Providence. The Epicurean philosophy of mind was used to destroy the still more uncomfortable belief in man’s immortality. As opinions then stood, the task was a comparatively easy one. In our discussion of Stoicism, we observed that the spiritualism of Plato and Aristotle was far before their age, and was not accepted or even understood by their countrymen for a long time to come. Moreover, Aristotle did not agree with his master in thinking that the personal eternity347 of the soul followed from its immateriality. The belief of the Stoics in a prolongation of individual existence until the destruction of all created things by fire, was, even in that very limited form, inconsistent with their avowed materialism348, and had absolutely no influence on their practical89 convictions. Thus Plato’s arguments were alone worth considering. For Epicurus, the whole question was virtually settled by the principle, which he held in common with the Stoics, that nothing exists but matter, its attributes, and its relations. He accepted, it is true, the duality of soul and body, agreeing, in this respect also, with the Stoics and the earlier physicists349; and the familiar antithesis350 of flesh and spirit is a survival of his favourite phraseology;173 but this very term ‘flesh’ was employed to cover the assumption that the body to which he applied351 it differed not in substance but in composition from its animating352 principle. The latter, a rather complex aggregate296, consists proximately of four distinct elements, imagined, apparently, for the purpose of explaining its various functions, and, in the last analysis, of very fine and mobile atoms.174 When so much had been granted, it naturally followed that the soul was only held together by the body, and was immediately dissolved on being separated from it—a conclusion still further strengthened by the manifest dependence311 of psychic353 on corporeal354 activities throughout the period of their joint existence. Thus all terrors arising from the apprehension of future torments355 were summarily dispelled356.
The simple dread of death, considered as a final annihilation of our existence, remained to be dealt with. There was no part of his philosophy on which Epicurus laid so much stress; he regarded it as setting the seal on those convictions, a firm grasp of which was essential to the security of human happiness. Nothing else seemed difficult, if once the worst enemy of our tranquillity had been overcome. His argument is summed up in the concise357 formula: when we are, death is not; when death is, we are not; therefore death is nothing to us.175 The pleasures of life will be no loss, for we shall not feel the want of them. The sorrow of our dearest friends will be indifferent to us in the absence of all consciousness90 whatever. To the consideration that, however calmly we may face our own annihilation, the loss of those whom we love remains358 as terrible as ever, Lucretius replies that we need not mourn for them, since they do not feel any pain at their own extinction359.176
There must, one would suppose, be some force in the Epicurean philosophy of death, for it has been endorsed360 by no less a thinker and observer than Shakspeare. To make the great dramatist responsible for every opinion uttered by one or other of his characters would, of course, be absurd; but when we find personages so different in other respects as Claudio, Hamlet, and Macbeth, agreeing in the sentiment that, apart from the prospect361 of a future judgment, there is nothing to appal362 us in the thought of death, we cannot avoid the inference that he is here making them the mouthpiece of his own convictions, even, as in Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, at the expense of every dramatic propriety363. Nevertheless, the answer of humanity to such sophisms will always be that of Homer’s Achilles, ‘μ? δ? μοι θ?νατ?ν γε παρα?δα’—‘Talk me not fair of death!’ A very simple process of reasoning will make this clear. The love of life necessarily involves a constant use of precautions against its loss. The certainty of death means the certainty that these precautions shall one day prove unavailing; the consciousness of its near approach means the consciousness that they have actually failed. In both cases the result must be a sense of baffled or arrested effort, more or less feeble when it is imagined, more or less acute when it it is realised. But this diversion of the conscious energies from their accustomed channel, this turning back of the feelings on themselves, constitutes the essence of all emotion; and where the object of the arrested energies was to avert364 a danger, it constitutes the emotion of fear. Thus, by an inevitable365 law, the love of life has for its reverse side the dread of death. Now the love of life is guaranteed by the survival of the fittest; it must last as long as the human race, for91 without it the race could not last at all. If, as Epicurus urged, the supreme desirability of pleasure is proved by its being the universal object of pursuit among all species of animals,177 the supreme hatefulness of death is proved by an analogous366 experience; and we may be sure that, even if pessimism became the accepted faith, the darkened prospect would lead to no relaxation of our grasp on life. A similar mode of reasoning applies to the sorrow and anguish367, mortis comites et funeris atri, from which the benevolent368 Roman poet would fain relieve us. For, among a social species, the instinct for preserving others is second only to the instinct of self-preservation, and frequently rises superior to it. Accordingly, the loss of those whom we love causes, and must always cause us, a double distress. There is, first, the simple pain due to the eternal loss of their society, a pain of which Lucretius takes no account. And, secondly, there is the arrest of all helpful activity on their behalf, the continual impulse to do something for them, coupled with the chilling consciousness that it is too late, that nothing more can be done. So strong, indeed, is this latter feeling that it often causes the loss of those whose existence was a burden to themselves and others, to be keenly felt, if only the survivors369 were accustomed, as a matter of duty, to care for them and to struggle against the disease from which they suffered. Philosophy may help to fill up the blanks thus created, by directing our thoughts to objects of perennial370 interest, and she may legitimately371 discourage the affectation or the fostering of affliction; but the blanks themselves she cannot explain away, without forfeiting372 all claim on our allegiance as the ultimate and incorruptible arbitress of truth.
We are now in a position to understand how far Epicurus was justified373 in regarding the expectation of immortality as a source of dread rather than of consolation374. In this respect also, the survival of the fittest has determined that human92 nature shall not look forward with satisfaction to the termination of its earthly existence. Were any race of men once persuaded that death is the passage to a happier world, it would speedily be replaced by competitors holding a belief better adapted to the conditions of terrestrial duration. Hence, practically speaking, the effect of religious dogmas has been to make death rather more dreaded375 than it would have been without their aid; and, as already observed, their natural tendency has been powerfully stimulated376 by the cupidity377 of their professional expositors. The hope of heaven, to exist at all, must be checked by a considerably stronger apprehension of hell. There is a saying in America that the immortality of the soul is too good to be true. We suspect that the immortality in which most religious Americans still believe hardly deserves such a compliment; but it accurately378 expresses the incredulity with which a genuine message of salvation would be received by most men; and this explains why Universalism, with the few who have accepted it, is but the transition stage to a total rejection379 of any life beyond the grave. No doubt, in the first flush of fanaticism380, the assurance of an easy admission to paradise may do much to win acceptance for the religion which offers it; but when such a religion ceases to make new conquests, its followers must either modify their convictions, or die out under the competition of others by whom mortal life is not held so cheap.
We must add, that while Epicurus was right in regarding the beliefs entertained about a future life as a source of painful anxiety, he was only justified in this opinion by the deeper truth, which he ignored, that they are simply the natural dread of death under another form.178 The most appalling381 pictures of damnation would, taken by themselves, probably add but little to human misery. The alarming effect even of earthly punishments is found to depend on their certainty much more93 than on their severity; and the certainty of suffering what nobody has ever experienced must be small indeed. Besides, the class most interested in enlarging on the dark side of immortality are also interested in showing that its dangers may be bought off at a comparatively trifling382 cost. What Epicurus said about the inexorable fate of the physicists might here be turned against himself. He removed terrors which there was a possibility of exorcising, and substituted a prospect of annihilation whence there was no escape.179
It is, after all, very questionable383 whether human happiness would be increased by suppressing the thought of death as something to be feared. George Eliot, in her Legend of Jubal, certainly expresses the contrary opinion.180 The finest edge of enjoyment would be taken off if we forgot its essentially transitory character. The free man may, in Spinoza’s words, think of nothing less than of death; but he cannot prevent the sunken shadow from throwing all his thoughts of life into higher and more luminous relief. The ideal enjoyment afforded by literature would lose much of its zest384 were we to discard all sympathy with the fears and sorrows on which our mortal condition has enabled it so largely to draw—the lacrimae rerum, which Lucretius himself has turned to such admirable account. And the whole treasure of happiness due to mutual affection must gain by our remembrance that the time granted for its exercise is always limited, and may at any moment be brought to an end—or rather, such an94 effect might be looked for were this remembrance more constantly present to our minds.
Lucretius dwells much on the dread of death as a source of vice and crime. He tells us that men plunge385 into all sorts of mad distractions386 or unscrupulous schemes of avarice and ambition in their anxiety to escape either from its haunting presence, or from the poverty and disrepute which they have learned to associate with it.181 Critics are disposed to think that the poet, in his anxiety to make a point, is putting a wrong interpretation387 on the facts. Yet it should be remembered that Lucretius was a profound observer, and that his teaching, in this respect, may be heard repeated from London pulpits at the present day. The truth seems to be, not that he went too far, but that he did not go far enough. What he decries388 as a spur to vicious energy is, in reality, a spur to all energy. Every passion, good or bad, is compressed and intensified389 by the contracting limits of mortality; and the thought of death impels390 men either to wring391 the last drop of enjoyment from their lives, or to take refuge from their perishing individualities in the relative endurance of collective enterprises and impersonal392 aims.
Let none suppose that the foregoing remarks are meant either to express any sympathy with a cowardly shrinking from death, or to intimate that the doctrine of evolution tends to reverse the noblest lessons of ancient wisdom. In holding that death is rightly regarded as an evil, and that it must always continue to be so regarded, we do not imply that it is necessarily the greatest of all evils for any given individual. It is not, as Spinoza has shown, by arguing away our emotions, but by confronting them with still stronger emotions, that they are, if necessary, to be overcome.182 The social feelings may be trusted to conquer the instinct of self-preservation, and, by a self-acting adjustment, to work with more intensity in proportion to the strength of its resistance. The dearer95 our lives are to us, the greater will be the glory of renouncing393 them, that others may be better secured in the enjoyment of theirs. Aristotle is much truer, as well as more human, than Epicurus, when he observes that ‘the more completely virtuous and happy a man is, the more will he be grieved to die; for to such a one life is worth most, and he will consciously be renouncing the greatest goods, and that is grievous. Nevertheless, he remains brave, nay394, even the braver for that very reason, because he prefers the glory of a warrior395 to every other good.’183 Nor need we fear that a race of cowards will be the fittest to survive, when we remember what an advantage that state has in the struggle for existence, the lives of whose citizens are most unrestrictedly held at its disposal. But their devotion would be without merit and without meaning, were not the loss of existence felt to be an evil, and its prolongation cherished as a gain.
VII.
Next to its bearing on the question of immortality, the Epicurean psychology396 is most interesting as a contribution to the theory of cognition. Epicurus holds that all our knowledge is derived from experience, and all our experience, directly or indirectly, from the presentations of sense. So far he says no more than would be admitted by the Stoics, by Aristotle, and indeed by every Greek philosopher except Plato. There is, therefore, no necessary connexion between his views in this respect and his theory of ethics, since others had combined the same views with a very different standard of action. It is in discussing the vexed397 question of what constitutes the ultimate criterion of truth that he shows to most disadvantage in comparison with the more intellectual96 schools. He seems to have considered that sensation supplies not only the matter but the form of knowledge; or rather, he seems to have missed the distinction between matter and form altogether. What the senses tell us, he says, is always true, although we may draw erroneous inferences from their statements.184 But this only amounts to the identical proposition that we feel what we feel; for it cannot be pretended that the order of our sensations invariably corresponds to the actual order of things in themselves. Even confining ourselves to individual sensations, or single groups of sensations, there are some that do not always correspond to the same objective reality, and others that do not correspond to any reality at all; while, conversely, the same object produces a multitude of different sensations according to the subjective399 conditions under which it affects us. To escape from this difficulty, Epicurus has recourse to a singularly crude theory of perception, borrowed from Empedocles and the older atomists. What we are conscious of is, in each instance, not the object itself, but an image composed of fine atoms thrown off from the surfaces of bodies and brought into contact with the organs of sense. Our perception corresponds accurately to an external image, but the image itself is often very unlike the object whence it originally proceeded. Sometimes it suffers a considerable change in travelling through the atmosphere. For instance, when a square tower, seen at a great distance, produces the impression of roundness, this is because the sharp angles of its image have been rubbed off on the way to our eyes. Sometimes the image continues to wander about after its original has ceased to exist, and that is why the dead seem to revisit us in our dreams. And sometimes the images of different objects coalesce400 as they are floating about, thus producing the appearance of impossible monsters, such as centaurs401 and chimaeras.185
97
It was with the help of this theory that Epicurus explained and defended the current belief in the existence of gods. The divine inhabitants of the intermundia, or empty spaces separating world from world, are, like all other beings, composed of atoms, and are continually throwing off fine images, some of which make their way unaltered to our earth and reveal themselves to the senses, particularly during sleep, when we are most alive to the subtlest impressions on our perceptive402 organs. With the usual irrationality404 of a theologian, Epicurus remained blind to the fact that gods who were constantly throwing off even the very thinnest films could not possibly survive through all eternity. Neither did he explain how images larger than the pupil of the eye could pass through its aperture405 while preserving their original proportions unaltered.
We have seen how Epicurus erected the senses into ultimate arbiters406 of truth. By so doing, however, he only pushed the old difficulty a step further back. Granting that our perceptions faithfully correspond to certain external images, how can we be sure that these images are themselves copies of a solid and permanent reality? And how are we to determine the validity of general notions representing not some single object but entire classes of objects? The second question may be most conveniently answered first. Epicurus holds that perception is only a finer sort of sensation. General notions are material images of a very delicate texture407 formed, apparently, on the principle of composition-photographs by the coalescence408 of many individual images thrown off from objects possessing a greater or less degree of resemblance to one another.186 Thought is produced by the contact of such images with the soul, itself, it will be remembered, a material substance.
The rules for distinguishing between truth and falsehood98 are given in the famous Epicurean Canon. On receiving an image into the mind, we associate it with similar images formerly409 impressed on us by some real object. If the association or anticipation (πρ?ληψι?) is confirmed or not contradicted by subsequent experience, it is true; false, if contradicted or not confirmed.187 The stress laid on absence of contradictory evidence illustrates411 the great part played by such notions as possibility, negation, and freedom in the Epicurean system. In ethics this class of conceptions is represented by painlessness, conceived first as the condition, and finally as the essence of happiness; in physics by the infinite void, the inane412 profundum of which Lucretius speaks with almost religious unction; and in logic by the absence of contradiction considered as a proof of reality. Here, perhaps, we may detect the Parmenidean absolute under a new form; only, by a curious reversal, what Parmenides himself strove altogether to expel from thought has become its supreme object and content.188
The Epicurean philosophy of life and mind is completed by a sketch of human progress from its earliest beginnings to the complete establishment of civilisation. Here our principal authority is Lucretius; and no part of his great poem has attracted so much attention and admiration413 in recent times as that in which he so vividly414 places before us the condition of primitive men with all its miseries415, and the slow steps whereby family life, civil society, religion, industry, and science arose out of the original chaos416 and war of all against each. But it seems likely that here, as elsewhere, Lucretius did no more than copy and colour the outlines already traced by his master’s hand.189 How far Epicurus himself is to be credited with this brilliant forecast of modern researches into the history of civilisation, is a more difficult question. When we99 consider that the most important parts of his philosophy were compiled from older systems, and that the additions made by himself do not indicate any great capacity for original research, we are forced to conclude that, here also, he is indebted to some authority whose name has not been preserved. The development of civilisation out of barbarism seems, indeed, to have been a standing doctrine of Greek Humanism, just as the opposite doctrine of degeneracy was characteristic of the naturalistic school. It is implied in the discourse417 of Protagoras reported by Plato, and also, although less fully31, in the introduction to the History of Thucydides. Plato and Aristotle trace back the intellectual and social progress of mankind to very rude beginnings; while both writers assume that it was effected without any supernatural aid—a point marked to the exclusive credit of Epicurus by M. Guyau.190 The old notion of a golden age, accepted as it was by so powerful a school as Stoicism, must have been the chief obstacle to a belief in progress; but the Prometheus of Aeschylus, with its vivid picture of the miseries suffered by primitive men through their ignorance of the useful arts, shows that a truer conception had already gained ground quite independently of philosophic theories. That the primitive state was one of lawless violence was declared by another dramatic poet, Critias, who has also much to say about the civilising function of religion;191 and shortly before the time of Epicurus the same view was put forward by Euphorion, in a passage of which, as it will probably be new to many of our readers, we subjoin a translation:—
There was a time when mortals lived like brutes418
In caves and unsunned hollows of the earth,
For neither house nor city flanked with towers
Had then been reared: no ploughshare cut the clod
To make it yield a bounteous419 harvest, nor
Were the vines ranked and trimmed with pruning-knives,
But fruitless births the sterile420 earth did bear.
100
Men on each other fed with mutual slaughter421,
For Law was feeble, Violence enthroned,
And to the strong the weaker fell a prey422.
But soon as Time that bears and nurtures423 all
Wrought424 out another change in human life,—
Whether some rapt Promethean utterance,
Or strong Necessity, or Nature’s teaching
Through long experience, their deliverance brought,—
Holy Dêmêter’s fruit it gave them; the sweet spring
Of Bacchus they discovered, and the earth,
Unsown before, was ploughed with oxen; cities then
They girt with towers and sheltering houses raised,
And turned their savage425 life to civil ways;
And after that Law bade entomb the dead
And measure out to each his share of dust,
Nor leave unburied and exposed to sight
Ghastly reminders426 of their former feasts.192
The merit of having worked up these loose materials into a connected sketch was, no doubt, considerable; but, according to Zeller, there is reason for attributing it to Theophrastus or even to Democritus rather than to Epicurus.193 On the other hand, the purely mechanical manner in which Lucretius supposes every invention to have been suggested by some accidental occurrence or natural phenomenon, is quite in the style of Epicurus, and reminds us of the method by which he is known to have explained every operation of the human mind.194
VIII.
We have already repeatedly alluded427 to the only man of genius whom Epicureanism ever counted among its disciples. It is time that we should determine with more precision the actual relation in which he stood to the master whom, with a touching428 survival of religious sentiment, he revered429 as a saviour430 and a god.
Lucretius has been called Rome’s only great speculative genius. This is, of course, absurd. A talent for lucid431 ex101position does not constitute speculative genius, especially when it is unaccompanied by any ability to criticise432 the opinions expounded433. The author of the De Rerum Natura probably had a lawyer’s education. He certainly exhibits great forensic434 skill in speaking from his brief. But Cicero and Seneca showed the same skill on a much more extensive scale; and the former in particular was immensely superior to Lucretius in knowledge and argumentative power. Besides, the poet, who was certainly not disposed to hide his light under a bushel, and who exalts435 his own artistic436 excellences437 in no measured terms, never professes438 to be anything but a humble439 interpreter of truths first revealed to his Greek instructor’s vivid intellect. It has, indeed, been claimed for Lucretius that he teaches a higher wisdom than his acknowledged guide.195 This assertion is, however, not borne out by a careful comparison between the two.196 In both there is the same theory of the universe, of man, and of the relations connecting them with one another. The idea of Nature in Lucretius shows no advance over the same idea in Epicurus. To each it expresses, not, as with the Stoics, a unifying440 power, a design by which all things work together for the best, but simply the conditions of a permanent mechanical aggregation. When Lucretius speaks of foedera Naturai, he means, not what we understand by laws of nature, that is, uniformities of causation underlying all phenomenal differences, to understand which is an exaltation of human dignity through the added power of prevision and control which it bestows441, but rather the limiting possibilities of existence, the barriers against which human hopes and aspirations442 dash themselves in vain—an objective logic which guards us against fallacies instead of enabling us to arrive at positive conclusions. We have here the pervadingly negative character of Epicureanism,102 though probably presented with something of Roman solemnity and sternness. The idea of individuality, with which Lucretius has also been credited, occupies but a small place in his exposition, and seems to have interested him only as a particular aspect of the atomic theory. The ultimate particles of matter must be divided into unlike groups of units, for otherwise we could not explain the unlikenesses exhibited by sensible objects. This is neither the original Greek idea, that every man has his own life to lead, irrespective of public opinion or arbitrary convention; nor is it the modern delight in Nature’s inexhaustible variety as opposed to the poverty of human invention, or to the restrictions444 of fashionable taste. Nor can we admit that Lucretius developed Epicurean philosophy in the direction of increased attention to the external world. The poet was, no doubt, a consummate445 observer, and he used his observations with wonderful felicity for the elucidation446 and enforcement of his philosophical reasoning; but in this respect he has been equalled or surpassed by other poets who either knew nothing of systematic202 philosophy, or, like Dante, were educated in a system as unlike as possible to that of Epicurus. There is, therefore, every reason for assuming that he saw and described phenomena not by virtue of his scientific training, but by virtue of his artistic endowment. And the same may be said of the other points in which he is credited with improvements on his master’s doctrine. There is, no doubt, a strong consciousness of unity97, of individuality, and of law running through his poem. But it is under the form of intuitions or contemplations, not under the form of speculative ideas that they are to be found. And, as will be presently shown, it is not as attributes of Nature but as attributes of life that they present themselves to his imagination.
In ethics, the dependence of Lucretius on his master is not less close than in physics. There is the same inconsistent presentation of pleasure conceived under its intensest aspect,103 and then of mere relief from pain, as the highest good;197 the same dissuasion447 from sensuality, not as in itself degrading, but as involving disagreeable consequences;198 the same inculcation of frugal137 and simple living as a source of happiness; the same association of justice with the dread of detection and punishment;199 the same preference—particularly surprising in a Roman—of quiet obedience to political power;200 finally, the same rejection, for the same reason, of divine providence and of human immortality, along with the same attempt to prove that death is a matter of indifference to us, enforced with greater passion and wealth of illustration, but with no real addition to the philosophy of the subject.201
Nevertheless, after all has been said, we are conscious of a great change in passing from the Greek moralist to the Roman poet. We seem to be breathing a new atmosphere, to find the old ideas informed with an unwonted life, to feel ourselves in the presence of one who has a power of stamping his convictions on us not ordinarily possessed448 by the mere imitative disciple. The explanation of this difference, we think, lies in the fact that Lucretius has so manipulated the Epicurean doctrines as to convert them from a system into a picture; and that he has saturated449 this picture with an emotional tone entirely wanting to the spirit of Epicureanism as it was originally designed. It is with the latter element that we may most conveniently begin.
104
Attention has already been called to the fact that Epicurus, although himself indifferent to physical science, was obliged, by the demands of the age, to give it a place, and a very large place, in his philosophy. Now it was to this very side of Epicureanism that the fresh intellect of Rome most eagerly attached itself. It is a great mistake to suppose that the Romans, or rather the ancient Italians, were indifferent to speculations about the nature of things. No one has given more eloquent450 expression to the enthusiasm excited by such enquiries than Virgil. Seneca devoted a volume to physical questions, and regretted that worldly distractions should prevent them from being studied with the assiduity they deserved. The elder Pliny lost his life in observing the eruption451 of Vesuvius. It was probably the imperial despotism, with its repeated persecutions of the ‘Mathematicians,’ which alone prevented Italy from entering on the great scientific career for which she was predestined in after ages. At any rate, a spirit of active curiosity was displaying itself during the last days of the republic, and we are told that nearly all the Roman Epicureans applied themselves particularly to the physical side of their master’s doctrine.202 Most of all was Lucretius distinguished by a veritable passion for science, which haunted him even in his dreams.203 Hence, while Epicurus regarded the knowledge of Nature simply as a means for overthrowing453 religion, with his disciple the speculative interest seems to precede every other consideration, and religion is only introduced afterwards as an obstacle to be removed from the enquirer’s path. How far his natural genius might have carried the poet in this direction, had he fallen into better hands, we cannot tell. As it was, the gift of what seemed a complete and infallible interpretation of physical phenomena relieved him from the necessity of independent investigation454, and induced him to accept the most preposterous455 conclusions as demonstrated truths. But we can see how105 he is drawn by an elective affinity to that early Greek thought whence Epicurus derived whatever was of any real value in his philosophy.
It has been doubted, we think with insufficient456 reason, that Lucretius was acquainted at first hand with Empedocles.204 But, by whatever channel it reached him, the enthusiasm of Empedocles and the Eleates lives in his verse no less truly than the inspiration of Aeolian music in the song of his younger contemporary, Catullus. The atomic theory, with its wonderful revelations of invisible activity and unbroken continuity underlying the abrupt457 revolutions of phenomenal existence, had been the direct product of those earliest struggles towards a deeper vision into the mysteries of cosmic life; and so Lucretius was enabled through his grasp of the theory itself to recover the very spirit and passion from which it sprang.205
But the enthusiasm for science, however noble in itself, would not alone have sufficed to mould the Epicurean philosophy into a true work of art. The De Rerum Natura is the greatest of all didactic poems, because it is something more than didactic. Far more truly than any of its Latin successors, it may claim comparison with the epic1 and dramatic masterpieces of Greece and Christian258 Europe; and that too not by virtue of any detached passages, however splendid, but by virtue of its composition as a whole. The explanation of this extraordinary success is to be sought in the circumstance that the central interest whence Lucretius works out in all directions is vital rather than merely scientific. The true heroine of his epic is not Nature but universal life—human life in the first instance, then the life of all the lower animals, and even of plants as well. Not only does he bring before us every stage of man’s existence from its first to its last hour106 with a comprehensiveness, a fidelity, and a daring unparalleled in literature; but he exhibits with equal power of portrayal458 the towered elephants carrying confusion into the ranks of war, or girdling their own native India with a rampart of ivory tusks459; the horse with an eagerness for the race that outruns even the impulse of his own swift limbs, or fiercely neighing with distended460 nostrils461 on the battlefield; the dog snuffing an imaginary scent281, or barking at strange faces in his dreams; the cow sorrowing after her lost heifer; the placid and laborious462 ox; the flock of pasturing sheep seen far off, like a white spot on some green hill; the tremulous kids and sportive lambs; the new-fledged birds filling all the grove463 with their fresh songs; the dove with her neck-feathers shifting from ruby-red to sky-blue and emerald-green; the rookery clamouring for wind or rain; the sea birds screaming over the salt waves in search of prey; the snake sloughing464 its skin; the scaly465 fishes cleaving466 their way through the yielding stream; the bee winging its flight from flower to flower; the gnat467 whose light touch on our faces passes unperceived; the grass refreshed with dew; the trees bursting into sudden life from the young earth, or growing, flourishing, and covering themselves with fruit, dependent, like animals, on heat and moisture for their increase, and glad like them:—all these helping468 to illustrate410 with unequalled variety, movement, and picturesqueness469 the central idea which Lucretius carries always in his mind.
The keynote of the whole poem is struck in its opening lines. When Venus is addressed as Nature’s sole guide and ruler, this, from the poet’s own point of view, is not true of Nature as a whole, but it is eminently470 true of life, whether we identify Venus with the passion through which living things are continually regenerated471, or with the pleasure which is their perpetual motive and their only good. And it is equally appropriate, equally characteristic of a consummate artist, that the interest of the work should culminate472 in a description of107 this same passion, no longer as the source of life, but as its last outcome and full flower, yet also, when pushed to excess, the illusion by which it is most utterly disappointed and undone473; and that the whole should conclude with a description of death, not as exemplified in any individual tragedy, but in such havoc474 as was wrought by the famous plague at Athens on man and beast alike. Again, it is by the orderly sequence of vital phenomena that Lucretius proves his first great principle, the everlasting475 duration and changelessness of matter. If something can come out of nothing, he asks us, why is the production of all living things attached to certain conditions of place and season and parentage, according to their several kinds? Or if a decrease in the total sum of existence be possible, whence comes the inexhaustible supply of materials needed for the continual regeneration, growth, and nourishment477 of animal life? It is because our senses cannot detect the particles of matter by whose withdrawal478 visible objects gradually waste away that the existence of extremely minute atoms is assumed; and, so far, there is also a reference to inorganic479 bodies; but the porosity480 of matter is proved by the interstitial absorption of food and the searching penetration481 of cold; while the necessity of a vacuum is established by the ability of fish to move through the opposing stream. The generic482 differences supposed to exist among the atoms are inferred from the distinctions separating not only one animal species from another, but each individual from all others of the same species. The deflection of the atoms from the line of perpendicular descent is established by the existence of human free-will. So also, the analysis which distinguishes three determinate elements in the composition of the soul finds its justification483 in the diverse characters of animals—the fierceness of the lion, the placidity484 of the ox, and the timorousness485 of the deer—qualities arising from the preponderance of a fiery486, an a?rial, and a windy ingredient in the animating principle of each respectively. Finally, by another organic108 illustration, the atoms in general are spoken of as semina rerum—seeds of things.
At the same time Lucretius is resolved that no false analogy shall obscure the distinction between life and the conditions of life. It is for attempting, as he supposes, to efface487 this distinction that he so sharply criticises the earlier Greek thinkers. He scoffs488 at Heracleitus for imagining that all forms of existence can be deduced from the single element of fire. The idea of evolution and transformation310 seems, under some of its aspects, utterly alien to our poet. His intimacy489 with the world of living forms had accustomed him to view Nature as a vast assemblage of fixed types which might be broken up and reconstructed, but which by no possibility could pass into one another. Yet this rigid retention of characteristic differences in form permits a certain play and variety of movement, an individual spontaneity for which no law can be prescribed. The foedera Naturai, as Prof. Sellar aptly observes, are opposed to the foedera fati.206 And109 this is just what might be expected from a philosophy based on the contemplation of life. For, while there is no capriciousness at all about the structure of animals, there is apparently a great deal of capriciousness about their actions. On the other hand, the Stoics, who derived their physics in great part from Heracleitus, came nearer than Lucretius to the standpoint of modern science. With them, as with the most advanced thinkers now, it is the foedera Naturai—the uniformities of co-existence—which are liable to exception and modification, while the foedera fati—the laws of causation—are necessary and absolute.
In like manner, Lucretius rejects the theory that living bodies are made up of the four elements, much as he admires110 its author, Empedocles. It seemed to him a blind confusion of the inorganic with the organic, the complex harmonies of life needing a much more subtle explanation than was afforded by such a crude intermixture of warring principles. If the theory of Anaxagoras fares no better in his hands, it is for the converse398 reason. He looks on it as an attempt to carry back purely vital phenomena into the inorganic world, to read into the ultimate molecules490 of matter what no analysis can make them yield—that is, something with properties like those of the tissues out of which animal bodies are composed.
Thus, while the atomic theory enables Lucretius to account for the dependent and perishable491 nature of life, the same theory enables him to bring out by contrast its positive and distinguishing characteristics. The bulk, the flexibility492, the complexity493, and the sensibility of animal bodies are opposed to the extreme minuteness, the absolute hardness, the simplicity494, and the unconsciousness of the primordial495 substances which build them up.
On passing from the ultimate elements of matter to those immense aggregates496 which surpass man in size and complexity as much as the atoms fall below him, but on whose energies his dependence is no less helpless and complete—the infinite worlds typified for us by this one system wherein we dwell, with its solid earthly nucleus497 surrounded by rolling orbs498 of light—Lucretius still carries with him the analogies of life; but in proportion to the magnitude and remoteness of the objects examined, his grasp seems to grow less firm and his touch less sure. In marked contrast to Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, he argues passionately499 against the ascription of a beneficent purpose to the constitution of the world; but his reasonings are based solely500 on its imperfect adaptation to the necessities of human existence. With equal vigour501 he maintains, apparently against Aristotle, that the present system has had a beginning; against both Aristotle and Plato that, in common with all systems, it will have an end—a perfectly true con111clusion, but evidently based on nothing stronger than the analogies of vital phenomena. And everywhere the subjective standpoint, making man the universal measure, is equally marked. Because our knowledge of history does not go far back, we cannot be far removed from its absolute beginning; and the history of the human race must measure the duration of the visible world. The earth is conceived as a mother bringing forth298 every species of living creature from her teeming502 bosom; and not only that, but a nursing mother feeding her young offspring with abundant streams of milk—an unexpected adaptation from the myth of a golden age. If we no longer witness such wonderful displays of fertility, the same elastic503 method is invoked504 to explain their cessation. The world, like other animals, is growing old and effete505. The exhaustion506 of Italian agriculture is adduced as a sign of the world’s decrepitude507 with no less confidence than the freshness of Italian poetry as a sign of its youth. The vast process of cosmic change, with its infinite cycles of aggregation and dissolution, does but repeat on an overwhelming scale the familiar sequences of birth and death in animal species. Even the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies and the phases of the moon may, it is argued, result from a similar succession of perishing individuals, although we take them for different appearances of a single unalterable sphere.207
A similar vein508 of thought runs through the moral and religious philosophy of Lucretius. If we look on him as a reformer, we shall say that his object was to free life from the delusions with which it had been disfigured by ignorance and passion. If we look on him as an artist, we shall say that he instinctively509 sought to represent life in the pure and perfect beauty of its naked form. If we look on him as a poet, we shall say that he exhibits all the objects of false belief no longer in the independence of their fancied reality, but in their place among other vital phenomena, and in due subordination112 to the human consciousness whose power, even when it is bound by them, they reveal. But while the first alternative leaves him in the position of a mere imitator or expositor who brings home no lessons that Epicurus had not already enforced with far greater success, the other two, and above all the last, restore him to the position of an original genius, who, instead of deriving510 his intuitions from the Epicurean system, adopts just so much of that system as is necessary to give them coherence511 and shape. It may, no doubt, be urged, that were life reduced to the simple expression, the state of almost vegetative repose512, demanded by Lucretius, denuded513 of love, of ambition, of artistic luxury, of that aspiration443 towards belief in and union with some central soul of things, which all religions, more or less distinctly embody514, its value for imaginative purposes would be destroyed; and that the deepest lesson taught by his poem would not be how to enjoy existence with the greatest intensity, but how to abandon it with the least regret. Now it is just here that the wonderful power of poetry comes in, and does for once, under the form of a general exposition, what it has to do again and again under the easier conditions of individual presentation. For poetry is essentially tragic515, and almost always excites the activity of our imagination, not by giving it the assured possession of realities, but by the strain resulting from their actual or their expected eclipse. If Homer and the Attic516 tragedians show us what is life, and what are the goods of life, it is not through experience of the things themselves, but through the form of the void and the outline of the shadow which their removal or obscuration has produced. So also in the universal tragedy of the Roman poet, where the actors are not persons, but ideas. Every belief is felt with more poignant517 intensity at the moment of its overthrow452, and the world of illusion is compensated518 for intellectual extinction by imaginative persistence519 as a conscious creation, a memory, or a dream. There is no mythological520 picture so splendidly painted as those in which Lucretius has shown us Mavors113 pillowed on the lap of Venus, or led before us the Idaean mother in her triumphal car. No redeemer, credited with supernatural powers, has ever enjoyed such an apotheosis521 as that bestowed522 by his worshipper on the apostle of unbelief. Nowhere have the terrible and mysterious suggestions of mortality been marshalled with such effect as in the argument showing that death no more admits of experience than of escape. What love-inspired poet has ever followed the storm and stress of passion with such tenderness of sympathy or such audacity523 of disclosure, as he to whom its objects were disrobed of their divinity, for whom its fancied satisfaction was but the kindling524 to insaner effort of a fatally unquenchable desire? Instead of being ‘compelled to teach a truth he would not learn,’ Lucretius was enabled by the spirit of his own incomparable art to seize and fix for ever, in bold reversal of light and shade, those visions on which the killing525 light of truth had long before him already dawned.
The De Rerum Natura is the greatest of Roman poems, because it is just the one work where the abstract genius of Rome met with a subject combining an abstract form with the interest and inspiration of concrete reality; where negation works with a greater power than assertion; where the satire526 is directed against follies527 more wide-spread and enduring than any others; where the teaching in some most essential points can never be superseded528; and where dependence on a Greek model left the poet free to contribute from his own imagination those elements to which the poetic529 value of his work is entirely due. By a curious coincidence, the great poet of mediaeval Italy attained success by the employment of a somewhat similar method. Dante represented, it is true, in their victorious530 combination, three influences against which Lucretius waged an unrelenting warfare—religion, the idealising love of woman, and the spiritualistic philosophy of Greece. Nevertheless, they resemble each other in this important particular, that both have taken an114 abstract theory of the world as the mould into which the burning metal of their imaginative conceptions is poured. Dante, however, had a power of individual presentation which Lucretius either lacked or had no opportunity of exercising; and therefore he approaches nearer to that supreme creativeness which only two races, the Greek and the English, have hitherto displayed on a very extended scale.
IX.
Returning once more to Epicurus, we have now to sum up the characteristic excellences and defects of his philosophy. The revival of the atomic theory showed unquestionable courage and insight. Outside the school of Democritus, it was, so far as we know, accepted by no other thinker. Plato never mentions it. Aristotle examined and rejected it. The opponents of Epicurus himself treated it as a self-evident absurdity531.208 Only Marcus Aurelius seems to have contemplated532 the possibility of its truth.209. But while to have maintained the right theory in the face of such universal opposition was a proof of no common discernment, we must remember that appropriating the discoveries of others, even when those discoveries are in danger of being lost through neglect, is a very different thing from making discoveries for one’s self. No portion of the glory due to Leucippus and Democritus should be diverted to their arrogant533 successor. And it must also be remembered that the Athenian philosopher, by his theory of deflection, not only spoiled the original hypothesis, but even made it a little ridiculous.
The second service of Epicurus was entirely to banish534 the idea of supernatural interference from the study of natural phenomena. This also was a difficult enterprise in the face of that overwhelming theological reaction begun by Socrates, continued by Plato, and carried to grotesque con115sequences by the Stoics; but, here again, there can be no question of attributing any originality to the philosopher of the Garden. That there either were no gods at all, or that if there were they never meddled535 with the world, was a common enough opinion in Plato’s time; and even Aristotle’s doctrine of a Prime Mover excludes the notion of creation, providence, and miracles altogether. On the other hand, the Epicurean theory of idle gods was irrational403 in itself, and kept the door open for a return of superstitious beliefs.
The next and perhaps the most important point in favour of Epicureanism is its theory of pleasure as the end of action. Plato had left his idea of the good undefined; Aristotle had defined his in such a manner as to shut out the vast majority of mankind from its pursuit; the Stoics had revolted every instinct by altogether discarding pleasure as an end, and putting a purely formal and hollow perfection in its place. It must further be admitted that Epicurus, in tracing back justice to the two ideas of interest and contract, had hold of a true and fertile principle. Nevertheless, although ethics is his strongest ground, his usual ill-luck pursues him even here. It is where he is most original that he goes most astray. By reducing pleasure, as an end of action, to the mere removal of pain, he alters earlier systems of hedonism for the worse; and plays the game of pessimism by making it appear that, on the whole, death must be preferable to life, since it is what life can never be—a state of absolute repose. And by making self-interest, in the sense of seeking nothing but one’s own pleasure or the means to it, the only rule of action, he endangers the very foundations of society. At best, the selfish system, as Coleridge has beautifully observed, ‘stands in a similar relation to the law of conscience or universal selfless reason, as the dial to the sun which indicates its path by intercepting536 its radiance.’210 Nor is the indication so certain as Coleridge admitted. A time may come when116 self-sacrifice shall be unnecessary for the public welfare, but we are not within a measurable distance of it as yet.
No word of commendation can be pronounced on the Epicurean psychology and logic. They are both bad in themselves, and inconsistent with the rest of the system. Were all knowledge derived from sense-impressions—especially if those impressions were what Epicurus imagined them to be—the atomic theory could never have been discovered or even conceived, nor could an ideal of happiness have been thought out. In its theory of human progress, Epicureanism once more shows to advantage; although in denying all inventiveness to man, and making him the passive recipient537 of external impressions, it differs widely from the modern school which it is commonly supposed to have anticipated. And we may reasonably suspect that, here as elsewhere, earlier systems embodied538 sounder views on the same subject.
The qualities which enabled Epicurus to compete successfully with much greater thinkers than himself as the founder of a lasting476 sect, were practical rather than theoretical. Others before him had taught that happiness was the end of life; none, like him, had cultivated the art of happiness, and pointed out the fittest methods for attaining539 it. The idea of such an art was a real and important addition to the resources of civilisation. No mistake is greater than to suppose that pleasure is lost by being made an object of pursuit. To single out the most agreeable course among many alternatives, and, when once found, steadily540 to pursue it, is an aptitude62 like any other, and is capable of being brought to a high degree of perfection by assiduous attention and self-discipline.211 No doubt the capacity for enjoyment117 is impaired541 by excessive self-consciousness, but the same is true of every other accomplishment542 during the earlier stages of its acquisition. It is only the beginner who is troubled by taking too much thought about his own proficiency543; when practice has become a second nature, the professor of hedonism reaps his harvest of delight without wasting a thought on his own efforts, or allowing the phantom544 of pleasure in the abstract to allure545 him away from its particular and present realisation. And, granting that happiness as such can be made an object of cultivation546, Epicurus was perfectly right in teaching that the removal of pain is its most essential condition, faulty as was (from a speculative point of view) his confusion of the condition with the thing itself. If the professed pleasure-seekers of modern society often fail in the business of their lives, it is from neglecting this salutary principle, especially where it takes the form of attention to the requirements of health. In assigning a high importance to friendship, he was equally well inspired. Congenial society is not only the most satisfying of enjoyments in itself, but also that which can be most easily combined with every other enjoyment. It is also true, although a truth felt rather than perceived by our philosopher, that speculative agreement, especially when speculation takes the form of dissent from received opinions, greatly increases the affection of friends for one another. And as theology is the subject on which unforced agreement seems most difficult, to eliminate its influence altogether was a valuable though purely negative contribution to unanimity547 of thought and feeling in the hedonistic sect.
An attempt has recently been made by M. Guyau to trace the influence of Epicurus on modern philosophy. We cannot but think the method of this able and lucid writer a thoroughly118 mistaken one. Assuming the recognition of self-interest as the sole or paramount548 instinct in human nature, to be the essence of what Epicurus taught, M. Guyau, without more ado, sets down every modern thinker who agrees with him on this one point as his disciple, and then adds to the number all who hold that pleasure is the end of action; thus making out a pretty long list of famous names among the more recent continuators of his tradition. A more extended study of ancient philosophy would have shown the French critic that moralists who, in other respects, were most opposed to Epicurus, agreed with him in holding that every man naturally and necessarily makes his own interest the supreme test of right conduct; and that only with the definition of welfare did their divergence549 begin. On the other hand, the selfish systems of modern times differ entirely from Epicureanism in their conception of happiness. With Hobbes, for instance, whom M. Guyau classes as an Epicurean, the ideal is not painlessness but power; the desires are, according to his view, naturally infinite, and are held in check, not by philosophical precepts but by mutual restraint; while, in deducing the special virtues, his standard is not the good of each individual, but the good of the whole—in other words, he is, to that extent, a Stoic rather than an Epicurean. La Rochefoucauld, who is offered as another example of the same tendency, was not a moralist at all; and as a psychologist he differs essentially from Epicurus in regarding vanity as always and everywhere the great motive to virtue. Had the Athenian sage believed this he would have despaired of making men happy; for disregard of public opinion, within the limits of personal safety, was, with him, one of the first conditions of a tranquil142 existence. Nor would he have been less averse550 from the system of Helvétius, another of his supposed disciples. The principal originality of Helvétius was to insist that the passions, instead of being discouraged—as all previous moralists, Epicurus among the number, had advised—should be119 deliberately551 stimulated by the promise of unlimited indulgence to those who distinguished themselves by important public services. Of Spinoza we need say nothing, for M. Guyau admits that he was quite as much inspired by Stoic as by Epicurean ideas. At the same time, the combination of these two ethical systems would have been much better illustrated552 by modern English utilitarianism, which M. Guyau regards as a development of Epicureanism alone. The greatest happiness of the greatest number is not an individual or self-interested, but a universal end, having, as Mill has shown, for its ultimate sanction the love of humanity as a whole, which is an essentially Stoic sentiment. It may be added that utilitarianism has no sympathy with the particular theory of pleasure, whether sensual or negative, adopted by Epicurus. In giving a high, or even the highest place to intellectual enjoyments, it agrees with the estimate of Plato and Aristotle, to which he was so steadily opposed. And in duly appreciating the positive side of all enjoyments, it returns to the earlier hedonism from which he stood so far apart.
The distinctive553 features of Epicureanism have, in truth, never been copied, nor are they ever likely to be copied, by any modern system. It arose, as we have seen, from a combination of circumstances which will hardly be repeated in the future history of thought. As the heat and pressure of molten granite554 turn sandstone into slate179, so also the mighty555 systems of Plato and Aristotle, coming into contact with the irreligious, sensual, empirical, and sceptical side of Attic thought, forced it to assume that sort of laminated texture which characterises the theoretical philosophy of Epicurus. And, at the very same moment, the disappearance of all patriotism556 and public spirit from Athenian life allowed the older elements of Athenian character, its amiable557 egoism, its love of frugal gratifications, its aversion from purely speculative interests, to create a new and looser bond of social union among those who were indifferent to the vulgar objects of ambition, but whom the austerer doctrines of Stoicism had failed to attract.
点击收听单词发音
1 epic | |
n.史诗,叙事诗;adj.史诗般的,壮丽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 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: |
|
|
4 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 fidelity | |
n.忠诚,忠实;精确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 disciple | |
n.信徒,门徒,追随者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 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: |
|
|
8 sketch | |
n.草图;梗概;素描;v.素描;概述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 stoic | |
n.坚忍克己之人,禁欲主义者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 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: |
|
|
11 coeval | |
adj.同时代的;n.同时代的人或事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 amenable | |
adj.经得起检验的;顺从的;对负有义务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 disposition | |
n.性情,性格;意向,倾向;排列,部署 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 toil | |
vi.辛劳工作,艰难地行动;n.苦工,难事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 par | |
n.标准,票面价值,平均数量;adj.票面的,平常的,标准的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 insignificant | |
adj.无关紧要的,可忽略的,无意义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 clenched | |
v.紧握,抓紧,咬紧( clench的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 ERECTED | |
adj. 直立的,竖立的,笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立,建立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 retention | |
n.保留,保持,保持力,记忆力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 adherents | |
n.支持者,拥护者( adherent的名词复数 );党羽;徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 sects | |
n.宗派,教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 sect | |
n.派别,宗教,学派,派系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 peripatetic | |
adj.漫游的,逍遥派的,巡回的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 appellation | |
n.名称,称呼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 Founder | |
n.创始者,缔造者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 veneration | |
n.尊敬,崇拜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 excerpts | |
n.摘录,摘要( excerpt的名词复数 );节选(音乐,电影)片段 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 confirmation | |
n.证实,确认,批准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 speculative | |
adj.思索性的,暝想性的,推理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 aloof | |
adj.远离的;冷淡的,漠不关心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 belied | |
v.掩饰( belie的过去式和过去分词 );证明(或显示)…为虚假;辜负;就…扯谎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 depreciated | |
v.贬值,跌价,减价( depreciate的过去式和过去分词 );贬低,蔑视,轻视 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 avowed | |
adj.公开声明的,承认的v.公开声明,承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 apprehension | |
n.理解,领悟;逮捕,拘捕;忧虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 creed | |
n.信条;信念,纲领 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 solitary | |
adj.孤独的,独立的,荒凉的;n.隐士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 eminent | |
adj.显赫的,杰出的,有名的,优良的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 negation | |
n.否定;否认 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 disinterested | |
adj.不关心的,不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 postulate | |
n.假定,基本条件;vt.要求,假定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 phenomena | |
n.现象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 enquirer | |
寻问者,追究者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 animated | |
adj.生气勃勃的,活跃的,愉快的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 superstitious | |
adj.迷信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 meritorious | |
adj.值得赞赏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 followers | |
追随者( follower的名词复数 ); 用户; 契据的附面; 从动件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 propitiated | |
v.劝解,抚慰,使息怒( propitiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 demonstration | |
n.表明,示范,论证,示威 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 astronomical | |
adj.天文学的,(数字)极大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 conjecture | |
n./v.推测,猜测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 physiologist | |
n.生理学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 absurdities | |
n.极端无理性( absurdity的名词复数 );荒谬;谬论;荒谬的行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 aptitude | |
n.(学习方面的)才能,资质,天资 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 colonist | |
n.殖民者,移民 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 intercourse | |
n.性交;交流,交往,交际 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 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: |
|
|
67 scholastic | |
adj.学校的,学院的,学术上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 wont | |
adj.习惯于;v.习惯;n.习惯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 philosophic | |
adj.哲学的,贤明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 destined | |
adj.命中注定的;(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 philosophical | |
adj.哲学家的,哲学上的,达观的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 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: |
|
|
74 immediate | |
adj.立即的;直接的,最接近的;紧靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 adverse | |
adj.不利的;有害的;敌对的,不友好的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 ethical | |
adj.伦理的,道德的,合乎道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 consolidation | |
n.合并,巩固 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 virtuous | |
adj.有品德的,善良的,贞洁的,有效力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 versatility | |
n.多才多艺,多样性,多功能 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 enjoyment | |
n.乐趣;享有;享用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 dictates | |
n.命令,规定,要求( dictate的名词复数 )v.大声讲或读( dictate的第三人称单数 );口授;支配;摆布 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 curiously | |
adv.有求知欲地;好问地;奇特地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 pessimism | |
n.悲观者,悲观主义者,厌世者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 utilitarian | |
adj.实用的,功利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 lesser | |
adj.次要的,较小的;adv.较小地,较少地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 sketched | |
v.草拟(sketch的过去式与过去分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 formulated | |
v.构想出( formulate的过去式和过去分词 );规划;确切地阐述;用公式表示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 calculus | |
n.微积分;结石 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 favourable | |
adj.赞成的,称赞的,有利的,良好的,顺利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 intensity | |
n.强烈,剧烈;强度;烈度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 prominence | |
n.突出;显著;杰出;重要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 unity | |
n.团结,联合,统一;和睦,协调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 aesthetic | |
adj.美学的,审美的,有美感 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 enjoyments | |
愉快( enjoyment的名词复数 ); 令人愉快的事物; 享有; 享受 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 excellence | |
n.优秀,杰出,(pl.)优点,美德 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 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: |
|
|
102 restriction | |
n.限制,约束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 dispelling | |
v.驱散,赶跑( dispel的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 outspoken | |
adj.直言无讳的,坦率的,坦白无隐的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 auditor | |
n.审计员,旁听着 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 repudiated | |
v.(正式地)否认( repudiate的过去式和过去分词 );拒绝接受;拒绝与…往来;拒不履行(法律义务) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 deter | |
vt.阻止,使不敢,吓住 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 unlimited | |
adj.无限的,不受控制的,无条件的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 modification | |
n.修改,改进,缓和,减轻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 evading | |
逃避( evade的现在分词 ); 避开; 回避; 想不出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 indirectly | |
adv.间接地,不直接了当地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 discomfort | |
n.不舒服,不安,难过,困难,不方便 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 dread | |
vt.担忧,忧虑;惧怕,不敢;n.担忧,畏惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 vengeance | |
n.报复,报仇,复仇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 attain | |
vt.达到,获得,完成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 preservation | |
n.保护,维护,保存,保留,保持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 vigilant | |
adj.警觉的,警戒的,警惕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 respiration | |
n.呼吸作用;一次呼吸;植物光合作用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 secretion | |
n.分泌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 allude | |
v.提及,暗指 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 alludes | |
提及,暗指( allude的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 diffused | |
散布的,普及的,扩散的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 vitality | |
n.活力,生命力,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 enumeration | |
n.计数,列举;细目;详表;点查 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 positively | |
adv.明确地,断然,坚决地;实在,确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 virtues | |
美德( virtue的名词复数 ); 德行; 优点; 长处 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 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: |
|
|
136 frugality | |
n.节约,节俭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 frugal | |
adj.节俭的,节约的,少量的,微量的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 reclaiming | |
v.开拓( reclaim的现在分词 );要求收回;从废料中回收(有用的材料);挽救 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 sage | |
n.圣人,哲人;adj.贤明的,明智的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 appreciable | |
adj.明显的,可见的,可估量的,可觉察的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 tranquillity | |
n. 平静, 安静 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 tranquil | |
adj. 安静的, 宁静的, 稳定的, 不变的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 precepts | |
n.规诫,戒律,箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 exertion | |
n.尽力,努力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 moulder | |
v.腐朽,崩碎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 apathy | |
n.漠不关心,无动于衷;冷淡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 sordid | |
adj.肮脏的,不干净的,卑鄙的,暗淡的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 vice | |
n.坏事;恶习;[pl.]台钳,老虎钳;adj.副的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 economists | |
n.经济学家,经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 margin | |
n.页边空白;差额;余地,余裕;边,边缘 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 distress | |
n.苦恼,痛苦,不舒适;不幸;vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 malicious | |
adj.有恶意的,心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 voluptuous | |
adj.肉欲的,骄奢淫逸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 habitually | |
ad.习惯地,通常地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 asceticism | |
n.禁欲主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 civilisation | |
n.文明,文化,开化,教化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 chivalrous | |
adj.武士精神的;对女人彬彬有礼的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 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: |
|
|
159 extirpate | |
v.除尽,灭绝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 dissent | |
n./v.不同意,持异议 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 exemption | |
n.豁免,免税额,免除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 fortitude | |
n.坚忍不拔;刚毅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 considerably | |
adv.极大地;相当大地;在很大程度上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 salvation | |
n.(尤指基督)救世,超度,拯救,解困 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 infamy | |
n.声名狼藉,出丑,恶行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 tangible | |
adj.有形的,可触摸的,确凿的,实际的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 inflicted | |
把…强加给,使承受,遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 annulling | |
v.宣告无效( annul的现在分词 );取消;使消失;抹去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 frankly | |
adv.坦白地,直率地;坦率地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 faculties | |
n.能力( faculty的名词复数 );全体教职员;技巧;院 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 abstain | |
v.自制,戒绝,弃权,避免 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 underlying | |
adj.在下面的,含蓄的,潜在的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 transcending | |
超出或超越(经验、信念、描写能力等)的范围( transcend的现在分词 ); 优于或胜过… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 joint | |
adj.联合的,共同的;n.关节,接合处;v.连接,贴合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 slate | |
n.板岩,石板,石片,石板色,候选人名单;adj.暗蓝灰色的,含板岩的;vt.用石板覆盖,痛打,提名,预订 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 penal | |
adj.刑罚的;刑法上的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 mischief | |
n.损害,伤害,危害;恶作剧,捣蛋,胡闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 enactments | |
n.演出( enactment的名词复数 );展现;规定;通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 immoral | |
adj.不道德的,淫荡的,荒淫的,有伤风化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 authoritative | |
adj.有权威的,可相信的;命令式的;官方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 majesty | |
n.雄伟,壮丽,庄严,威严;最高权威,王权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 unwilling | |
adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 reiterated | |
反复地说,重申( reiterate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 allusion | |
n.暗示,间接提示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 polemic | |
n.争论,论战 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 breach | |
n.违反,不履行;破裂;vt.冲破,攻破 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 superseding | |
取代,接替( supersede的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 evade | |
vt.逃避,回避;避开,躲避 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 prudent | |
adj.谨慎的,有远见的,精打细算的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 deterrent | |
n.阻碍物,制止物;adj.威慑的,遏制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 immunity | |
n.优惠;免除;豁免,豁免权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 assent | |
v.批准,认可;n.批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 speculation | |
n.思索,沉思;猜测;投机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 radical | |
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 systematic | |
adj.有系统的,有计划的,有方法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 systematically | |
adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 condemnation | |
n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 exigencies | |
n.急切需要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 vile | |
adj.卑鄙的,可耻的,邪恶的;坏透的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 impure | |
adj.不纯净的,不洁的;不道德的,下流的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 dictated | |
v.大声讲或读( dictate的过去式和过去分词 );口授;支配;摆布 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 canvass | |
v.招徕顾客,兜售;游说;详细检查,讨论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 specified | |
adj.特定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 partisan | |
adj.党派性的;游击队的;n.游击队员;党徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 avaricious | |
adj.贪婪的,贪心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 malignant | |
adj.恶性的,致命的;恶意的,恶毒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 participation | |
n.参与,参加,分享 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 surmise | |
v./n.猜想,推测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 unwillingness | |
n. 不愿意,不情愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 allotted | |
分配,拨给,摊派( allot的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 altruistic | |
adj.无私的,为他人着想的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 attachment | |
n.附属物,附件;依恋;依附 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 circuitous | |
adj.迂回的路的,迂曲的,绕行的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 attachments | |
n.(用电子邮件发送的)附件( attachment的名词复数 );附着;连接;附属物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 estrangement | |
n.疏远,失和,不和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 uncommon | |
adj.罕见的,非凡的,不平常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 patriotic | |
adj.爱国的,有爱国心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 contented | |
adj.满意的,安心的,知足的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 abstemious | |
adj.有节制的,节俭的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 brotherhood | |
n.兄弟般的关系,手中情谊 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 placid | |
adj.安静的,平和的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 originality | |
n.创造力,独创性;新颖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 controversies | |
争论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 misery | |
n.痛苦,苦恼,苦难;悲惨的境遇,贫苦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 expeditious | |
adj.迅速的,敏捷的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 aspiring | |
adj.有志气的;有抱负的;高耸的v.渴望;追求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 bent | |
n.爱好,癖好;adj.弯的;决心的,一心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 awakening | |
n.觉醒,醒悟 adj.觉醒中的;唤醒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 speculations | |
n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 );思考;投机活动;推断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 teleological | |
adj.目的论的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 treatises | |
n.专题著作,专题论文,专著( treatise的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 superstition | |
n.迷信,迷信行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 superstitions | |
迷信,迷信行为( superstition的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 mythology | |
n.神话,神话学,神话集 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 grotesque | |
adj.怪诞的,丑陋的;n.怪诞的图案,怪人(物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 groaning | |
adj. 呜咽的, 呻吟的 动词groan的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 incubus | |
n.负担;恶梦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 opprobrium | |
n.耻辱,责难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 supersede | |
v.替代;充任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 immortality | |
n.不死,不朽 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 primitive | |
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 advent | |
n.(重要事件等的)到来,来临 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 wrath | |
n.愤怒,愤慨,暴怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 renaissance | |
n.复活,复兴,文艺复兴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 utterance | |
n.用言语表达,话语,言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 warfare | |
n.战争(状态);斗争;冲突 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 platonic | |
adj.精神的;柏拉图(哲学)的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 revival | |
n.复兴,复苏,(精力、活力等的)重振 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 delusions | |
n.欺骗( delusion的名词复数 );谬见;错觉;妄想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 delusion | |
n.谬见,欺骗,幻觉,迷惑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 relaxation | |
n.松弛,放松;休息;消遣;娱乐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 indifference | |
n.不感兴趣,不关心,冷淡,不在乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 rigid | |
adj.严格的,死板的;刚硬的,僵硬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 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: |
|
|
267 avarice | |
n.贪婪;贪心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 corporate | |
adj.共同的,全体的;公司的,企业的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 afflicted | |
使受痛苦,折磨( afflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 consolatory | |
adj.慰问的,可藉慰的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 lurid | |
adj.可怕的;血红的;苍白的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 irresistible | |
adj.非常诱人的,无法拒绝的,无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 abode | |
n.住处,住所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 mendicant | |
n.乞丐;adj.行乞的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 redeem | |
v.买回,赎回,挽回,恢复,履行(诺言等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 descended | |
a.为...后裔的,出身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 beheld | |
v.看,注视( behold的过去式和过去分词 );瞧;看呀;(叙述中用于引出某人意外的出现)哎哟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 frightful | |
adj.可怕的;讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 inevitably | |
adv.不可避免地;必然发生地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 scent | |
n.气味,香味,香水,线索,嗅觉;v.嗅,发觉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 mischievous | |
adj.调皮的,恶作剧的,有害的,伤人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 coalition | |
n.结合体,同盟,结合,联合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 emphatic | |
adj.强调的,着重的;无可置疑的,明显的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 heresy | |
n.异端邪说;异教 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 cosmos | |
n.宇宙;秩序,和谐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 deities | |
n.神,女神( deity的名词复数 );神祗;神灵;神明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 omnipotent | |
adj.全能的,万能的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 benevolence | |
n.慈悲,捐助 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 omens | |
n.前兆,预兆( omen的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 radically | |
ad.根本地,本质地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 insignificance | |
n.不重要;无价值;无意义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 aggregated | |
a.聚合的,合计的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 aggregate | |
adj.总计的,集合的;n.总数;v.合计;集合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 cogent | |
adj.强有力的,有说服力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 disappearance | |
n.消失,消散,失踪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 necessitating | |
使…成为必要,需要( necessitate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 infinities | |
n.无穷大( infinity的名词复数 );无限远的点;无法计算的量;无限大的量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 infinitely | |
adv.无限地,无穷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 bosom | |
n.胸,胸部;胸怀;内心;adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 anticipation | |
n.预期,预料,期望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 aggregation | |
n.聚合,组合;凝聚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 equilibrium | |
n.平衡,均衡,相称,均势,平静 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 cohesion | |
n.团结,凝结力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 affinity | |
n.亲和力,密切关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 transformations | |
n.变化( transformation的名词复数 );转换;转换;变换 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 transformation | |
n.变化;改造;转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 dependence | |
n.依靠,依赖;信任,信赖;隶属 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 shuffle | |
n.拖著脚走,洗纸牌;v.拖曳,慢吞吞地走 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 velocities | |
n.速度( velocity的名词复数 );高速,快速 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 lighter | |
n.打火机,点火器;驳船;v.用驳船运送;light的比较级 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 upwards | |
adv.向上,在更高处...以上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 contradictory | |
adj.反驳的,反对的,抗辩的;n.正反对,矛盾对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 secondly | |
adv.第二,其次 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 astronomers | |
n.天文学者,天文学家( astronomer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 contention | |
n.争论,争辩,论战;论点,主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 elevation | |
n.高度;海拔;高地;上升;提高 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 convergent | |
adj.会聚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 velocity | |
n.速度,速率 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 atmospheric | |
adj.大气的,空气的;大气层的;大气所引起的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 perpendicular | |
adj.垂直的,直立的;n.垂直线,垂直的位置 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 swerve | |
v.突然转向,背离;n.转向,弯曲,背离 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 interfered | |
v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 );调停;妨碍;干涉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 watchful | |
adj.注意的,警惕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
328 interfering | |
adj. 妨碍的 动词interfere的现在分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
329 annulled | |
v.宣告无效( annul的过去式和过去分词 );取消;使消失;抹去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
330 foresight | |
n.先见之明,深谋远虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
331 mechanism | |
n.机械装置;机构,结构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
332 diffusion | |
n.流布;普及;散漫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
333 segregates | |
(使)分开( segregate的第三人称单数 ); 分离; 隔离; 隔离并区别对待(不同种族、宗教或性别的人) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
334 impartial | |
adj.(in,to)公正的,无偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
335 dispense | |
vt.分配,分发;配(药),发(药);实施 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
336 intervention | |
n.介入,干涉,干预 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
337 triangular | |
adj.三角(形)的,三者间的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
338 waning | |
adj.(月亮)渐亏的,逐渐减弱或变小的n.月亏v.衰落( wane的现在分词 );(月)亏;变小;变暗淡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
339 revolving | |
adj.旋转的,轮转式的;循环的v.(使)旋转( revolve的现在分词 );细想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
340 professed | |
公开声称的,伪称的,已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
341 hatred | |
n.憎恶,憎恨,仇恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
342 suspense | |
n.(对可能发生的事)紧张感,担心,挂虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
343 outrageous | |
adj.无理的,令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
344 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
345 transcribes | |
(用不同的录音手段)转录( transcribe的第三人称单数 ); 改编(乐曲)(以适应他种乐器或声部); 抄写; 用音标标出(声音) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
346 luminous | |
adj.发光的,发亮的;光明的;明白易懂的;有启发的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
347 eternity | |
n.不朽,来世;永恒,无穷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
348 materialism | |
n.[哲]唯物主义,唯物论;物质至上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
349 physicists | |
物理学家( physicist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
350 antithesis | |
n.对立;相对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
351 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
352 animating | |
v.使有生气( animate的现在分词 );驱动;使栩栩如生地动作;赋予…以生命 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
353 psychic | |
n.对超自然力敏感的人;adj.有超自然力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
354 corporeal | |
adj.肉体的,身体的;物质的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
355 torments | |
(肉体或精神上的)折磨,痛苦( torment的名词复数 ); 造成痛苦的事物[人] | |
参考例句: |
|
|
356 dispelled | |
v.驱散,赶跑( dispel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
357 concise | |
adj.简洁的,简明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
358 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
359 extinction | |
n.熄灭,消亡,消灭,灭绝,绝种 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
360 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: |
|
|
361 prospect | |
n.前景,前途;景色,视野 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
362 appal | |
vt.使胆寒,使惊骇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
363 propriety | |
n.正当行为;正当;适当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
364 avert | |
v.防止,避免;转移(目光、注意力等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
365 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
366 analogous | |
adj.相似的;类似的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
367 anguish | |
n.(尤指心灵上的)极度痛苦,烦恼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
368 benevolent | |
adj.仁慈的,乐善好施的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
369 survivors | |
幸存者,残存者,生还者( survivor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
370 perennial | |
adj.终年的;长久的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
371 legitimately | |
ad.合法地;正当地,合理地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
372 forfeiting | |
(因违反协议、犯规、受罚等)丧失,失去( forfeit的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
373 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
374 consolation | |
n.安慰,慰问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
375 dreaded | |
adj.令人畏惧的;害怕的v.害怕,恐惧,担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
376 stimulated | |
a.刺激的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
377 cupidity | |
n.贪心,贪财 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
378 accurately | |
adv.准确地,精确地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
379 rejection | |
n.拒绝,被拒,抛弃,被弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
380 fanaticism | |
n.狂热,盲信 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
381 appalling | |
adj.骇人听闻的,令人震惊的,可怕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
382 trifling | |
adj.微不足道的;没什么价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
383 questionable | |
adj.可疑的,有问题的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
384 zest | |
n.乐趣;滋味,风味;兴趣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
385 plunge | |
v.跳入,(使)投入,(使)陷入;猛冲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
386 distractions | |
n.使人分心的事[人]( distraction的名词复数 );娱乐,消遣;心烦意乱;精神错乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
387 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
388 decries | |
v.公开反对,谴责( decry的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
389 intensified | |
v.(使)增强, (使)加剧( intensify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
390 impels | |
v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
391 wring | |
n.扭绞;v.拧,绞出,扭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
392 impersonal | |
adj.无个人感情的,与个人无关的,非人称的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
393 renouncing | |
v.声明放弃( renounce的现在分词 );宣布放弃;宣布与…决裂;宣布摒弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
394 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
395 warrior | |
n.勇士,武士,斗士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
396 psychology | |
n.心理,心理学,心理状态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
397 vexed | |
adj.争论不休的;(指问题等)棘手的;争论不休的问题;烦恼的v.使烦恼( vex的过去式和过去分词 );使苦恼;使生气;详细讨论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
398 converse | |
vi.谈话,谈天,闲聊;adv.相反的,相反 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
399 subjective | |
a.主观(上)的,个人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
400 coalesce | |
v.联合,结合,合并 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
401 centaurs | |
n.(希腊神话中)半人半马怪物( centaur的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
402 perceptive | |
adj.知觉的,有洞察力的,感知的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
403 irrational | |
adj.无理性的,失去理性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
404 irrationality | |
n. 不合理,无理性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
405 aperture | |
n.孔,隙,窄的缺口 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
406 arbiters | |
仲裁人,裁决者( arbiter的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
407 texture | |
n.(织物)质地;(材料)构造;结构;肌理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
408 coalescence | |
n.合并,联合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
409 formerly | |
adv.从前,以前 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
410 illustrate | |
v.举例说明,阐明;图解,加插图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
411 illustrates | |
给…加插图( illustrate的第三人称单数 ); 说明; 表明; (用示例、图画等)说明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
412 inane | |
adj.空虚的,愚蠢的,空洞的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
413 admiration | |
n.钦佩,赞美,羡慕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
414 vividly | |
adv.清楚地,鲜明地,生动地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
415 miseries | |
n.痛苦( misery的名词复数 );痛苦的事;穷困;常发牢骚的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
416 chaos | |
n.混乱,无秩序 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
417 discourse | |
n.论文,演说;谈话;话语;vi.讲述,著述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
418 brutes | |
兽( brute的名词复数 ); 畜生; 残酷无情的人; 兽性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
419 bounteous | |
adj.丰富的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
420 sterile | |
adj.不毛的,不孕的,无菌的,枯燥的,贫瘠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
421 slaughter | |
n.屠杀,屠宰;vt.屠杀,宰杀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
422 prey | |
n.被掠食者,牺牲者,掠食;v.捕食,掠夺,折磨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
423 nurtures | |
教养,培育( nurture的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
424 wrought | |
v.引起;以…原料制作;运转;adj.制造的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
425 savage | |
adj.野蛮的;凶恶的,残暴的;n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
426 reminders | |
n.令人回忆起…的东西( reminder的名词复数 );提醒…的东西;(告知该做某事的)通知单;提示信 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
427 alluded | |
提及,暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
428 touching | |
adj.动人的,使人感伤的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
429 revered | |
v.崇敬,尊崇,敬畏( revere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
430 saviour | |
n.拯救者,救星 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
431 lucid | |
adj.明白易懂的,清晰的,头脑清楚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
432 criticise | |
v.批评,评论;非难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
433 expounded | |
论述,详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
434 forensic | |
adj.法庭的,雄辩的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
435 exalts | |
赞扬( exalt的第三人称单数 ); 歌颂; 提升; 提拔 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
436 artistic | |
adj.艺术(家)的,美术(家)的;善于艺术创作的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
437 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: |
|
|
438 professes | |
声称( profess的第三人称单数 ); 宣称; 公开表明; 信奉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
439 humble | |
adj.谦卑的,恭顺的;地位低下的;v.降低,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
440 unifying | |
使联合( unify的现在分词 ); 使相同; 使一致; 统一 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
441 bestows | |
赠给,授予( bestow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
442 aspirations | |
强烈的愿望( aspiration的名词复数 ); 志向; 发送气音; 发 h 音 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
443 aspiration | |
n.志向,志趣抱负;渴望;(语)送气音;吸出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
444 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
445 consummate | |
adj.完美的;v.成婚;使完美 [反]baffle | |
参考例句: |
|
|
446 elucidation | |
n.说明,阐明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
447 dissuasion | |
n.劝止;谏言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
448 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
449 saturated | |
a.饱和的,充满的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
450 eloquent | |
adj.雄辩的,口才流利的;明白显示出的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
451 eruption | |
n.火山爆发;(战争等)爆发;(疾病等)发作 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
452 overthrow | |
v.推翻,打倒,颠覆;n.推翻,瓦解,颠覆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
453 overthrowing | |
v.打倒,推翻( overthrow的现在分词 );使终止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
454 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
455 preposterous | |
adj.荒谬的,可笑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
456 insufficient | |
adj.(for,of)不足的,不够的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
457 abrupt | |
adj.突然的,意外的;唐突的,鲁莽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
458 portrayal | |
n.饰演;描画 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
459 tusks | |
n.(象等动物的)长牙( tusk的名词复数 );獠牙;尖形物;尖头 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
460 distended | |
v.(使)膨胀,肿胀( distend的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
461 nostrils | |
鼻孔( nostril的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
462 laborious | |
adj.吃力的,努力的,不流畅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
463 grove | |
n.林子,小树林,园林 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
464 sloughing | |
v.使蜕下或脱落( slough的现在分词 );舍弃;除掉;摒弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
465 scaly | |
adj.鱼鳞状的;干燥粗糙的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
466 cleaving | |
v.劈开,剁开,割开( cleave的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
467 gnat | |
v.对小事斤斤计较,琐事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
468 helping | |
n.食物的一份&adj.帮助人的,辅助的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
469 picturesqueness | |
参考例句: |
|
|
470 eminently | |
adv.突出地;显著地;不寻常地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
471 regenerated | |
v.新生,再生( regenerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
472 culminate | |
v.到绝顶,达于极点,达到高潮 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
473 undone | |
a.未做完的,未完成的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
474 havoc | |
n.大破坏,浩劫,大混乱,大杂乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
475 everlasting | |
adj.永恒的,持久的,无止境的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
476 lasting | |
adj.永久的,永恒的;vbl.持续,维持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
477 nourishment | |
n.食物,营养品;营养情况 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
478 withdrawal | |
n.取回,提款;撤退,撤军;收回,撤销 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
479 inorganic | |
adj.无生物的;无机的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
480 porosity | |
n.多孔性,有孔性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
481 penetration | |
n.穿透,穿人,渗透 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
482 generic | |
adj.一般的,普通的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
483 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
484 placidity | |
n.平静,安静,温和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
485 timorousness | |
n.羞怯,胆怯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
486 fiery | |
adj.燃烧着的,火红的;暴躁的;激烈的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
487 efface | |
v.擦掉,抹去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
488 scoffs | |
嘲笑,嘲弄( scoff的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
489 intimacy | |
n.熟悉,亲密,密切关系,亲昵的言行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
490 molecules | |
分子( molecule的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
491 perishable | |
adj.(尤指食物)易腐的,易坏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
492 flexibility | |
n.柔韧性,弹性,(光的)折射性,灵活性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
493 complexity | |
n.复杂(性),复杂的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
494 simplicity | |
n.简单,简易;朴素;直率,单纯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
495 primordial | |
adj.原始的;最初的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
496 aggregates | |
数( aggregate的名词复数 ); 总计; 骨料; 集料(可成混凝土或修路等用的) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
497 nucleus | |
n.核,核心,原子核 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
498 orbs | |
abbr.off-reservation boarding school 在校寄宿学校n.球,天体,圆形物( orb的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
499 passionately | |
ad.热烈地,激烈地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
500 solely | |
adv.仅仅,唯一地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
501 vigour | |
(=vigor)n.智力,体力,精力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
502 teeming | |
adj.丰富的v.充满( teem的现在分词 );到处都是;(指水、雨等)暴降;倾注 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
503 elastic | |
n.橡皮圈,松紧带;adj.有弹性的;灵活的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
504 invoked | |
v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 );行使(权利等);祈求救助;恳求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
505 effete | |
adj.无生产力的,虚弱的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
506 exhaustion | |
n.耗尽枯竭,疲惫,筋疲力尽,竭尽,详尽无遗的论述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
507 decrepitude | |
n.衰老;破旧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
508 vein | |
n.血管,静脉;叶脉,纹理;情绪;vt.使成脉络 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
509 instinctively | |
adv.本能地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
510 deriving | |
v.得到( derive的现在分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
511 coherence | |
n.紧凑;连贯;一致性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
512 repose | |
v.(使)休息;n.安息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
513 denuded | |
adj.[医]变光的,裸露的v.使赤裸( denude的过去式和过去分词 );剥光覆盖物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
514 embody | |
vt.具体表达,使具体化;包含,收录 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
515 tragic | |
adj.悲剧的,悲剧性的,悲惨的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
516 attic | |
n.顶楼,屋顶室 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
517 poignant | |
adj.令人痛苦的,辛酸的,惨痛的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
518 compensated | |
补偿,报酬( compensate的过去式和过去分词 ); 给(某人)赔偿(或赔款) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
519 persistence | |
n.坚持,持续,存留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
520 mythological | |
adj.神话的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
521 apotheosis | |
n.神圣之理想;美化;颂扬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
522 bestowed | |
赠给,授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
523 audacity | |
n.大胆,卤莽,无礼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
524 kindling | |
n. 点火, 可燃物 动词kindle的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
525 killing | |
n.巨额利润;突然赚大钱,发大财 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
526 satire | |
n.讽刺,讽刺文学,讽刺作品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
527 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: |
|
|
528 superseded | |
[医]被代替的,废弃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
529 poetic | |
adj.富有诗意的,有诗人气质的,善于抒情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
530 victorious | |
adj.胜利的,得胜的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
531 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
532 contemplated | |
adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
533 arrogant | |
adj.傲慢的,自大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
534 banish | |
vt.放逐,驱逐;消除,排除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
535 meddled | |
v.干涉,干预(他人事务)( meddle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
536 intercepting | |
截取(技术),截接 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
537 recipient | |
a.接受的,感受性强的 n.接受者,感受者,容器 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
538 embodied | |
v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
539 attaining | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的现在分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
540 steadily | |
adv.稳定地;不变地;持续地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
541 impaired | |
adj.受损的;出毛病的;有(身体或智力)缺陷的v.损害,削弱( impair的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
542 accomplishment | |
n.完成,成就,(pl.)造诣,技能 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
543 proficiency | |
n.精通,熟练,精练 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
544 phantom | |
n.幻影,虚位,幽灵;adj.错觉的,幻影的,幽灵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
545 allure | |
n.诱惑力,魅力;vt.诱惑,引诱,吸引 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
546 cultivation | |
n.耕作,培养,栽培(法),养成 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
547 unanimity | |
n.全体一致,一致同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
548 paramount | |
a.最重要的,最高权力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
549 divergence | |
n.分歧,岔开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
550 averse | |
adj.厌恶的;反对的,不乐意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
551 deliberately | |
adv.审慎地;蓄意地;故意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
552 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: |
|
|
553 distinctive | |
adj.特别的,有特色的,与众不同的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
554 granite | |
adj.花岗岩,花岗石 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
555 mighty | |
adj.强有力的;巨大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
556 patriotism | |
n.爱国精神,爱国心,爱国主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
557 amiable | |
adj.和蔼可亲的,友善的,亲切的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |