The first, the gravest, the most flagrant and most vivid in our minds at the moment of these obvious shams13 is war, with the military system which it involves. Here there is no sacred legend of a divine origin to confuse the minds of the ignorant. There are legends of divine approval, it is true, but the clergy14 do not press them and they have little influence. War is a practice or institution which we clearly trace to the wild impulses and imperfect social forms of early man: even to the sheer passion of the beast that was still strong in him. No sophistry15 can obscure this bestial16 origin. We men and women of the twentieth century cling to one feature, at least, of an age on which we look back with high disdain17: an age with which we would bitterly resent any comparison in point of intelligence and feeling. We may try to gild18 it with glittering phrases about a nation’s honour, but we know, all the while, that the honour of a nation no more demands that it shall dye its hands in the blood of a sister-nation than the honour of an individual requires so barbaric a consolation19.
We maintain this sham in an age when mechanical progress has made such strides that it has turned the industry of war into our chief and most oppressive occupation. We cannot, with all our sacrifices, find the means to carry out most urgent reforms in our social life; we cannot put flesh on the bones and light in the eyes of poor children, or ease the lives of worn workers and helpless widows; because we need these, and even greater resources, to sharpen the sabre for our neighbour’s throat and enlarge the calibre of the tube that will scatter20 a hail of death. We have for years stood in such attitude confronting each other, we civilised nations, that on any day of any year the bugle21 might peal22, and the soil and seas of Europe be reddened with blood, and the pain which knows no remedy shoot through millions of homes; and now the tragedy has opened, grimmer than the dourest prophet had ever pictured it. Why have we done this? Ultimately, because man, the primeval savage23, knowing nothing of our systems of justice, laid it down that the knife or the club was the guardian24 of a man’s honour or property: proximately, because we of this highly cultivated age enthrone still one of the most ghastly shams which barbarism succeeded in enforcing on civilisation.
I have described it as a characteristic of our age that we are rising above the stream of traditions which flows from civilisation to civilisation, and are discovering that some of its sources are tainted25. Now in the case of warfare26 this scrutiny27 of the origin and course of our traditions is comparatively easy. What we have discovered is so well known, and so little disputed, that it need hardly be related. It may be useful to state, at least, that very early man was probably not a combative28 and bloodthirsty savage. He lives to-day in such lowly peoples as the Veddahs and the Yahgans, and they are generally peaceful and averse29 from brawling30. In this primitive31 man, however, there slumbered32 all the impulsive33 passion of earlier ancestors, and it was inevitable34 that a cultural rise should awaken35 it. When men became organised in tribes, when they became hunters and tillers of the soil, when they increased and wandered far afield, quarrels arose over women and hunting grounds and other necessaries, and the institution of warfare was established. Within the tribe there was already some kind of court, as a rule, before which a man could bring his neighbour for wrong-doing. For the quarrel between tribe and tribe there was no judge: the verdict lay with the heavier weapon and the stouter38 arm. Hence, the higher the intelligence of the tribe, the more deadly and widespread became the carnage. Ferocity became a useful social quality—a virtue39, indeed, the supreme40 virtue, or virtus (manliness)—and the primitive genius was expended41 in making more cruel and lacerating the barbs43 of the arrow and the spear. The administration of justice advanced, and a time came when private vengeance44, and even family feuds45, were strictly46 forbidden and regarded as crimes. But, while ten men might not go to war against ten men, ten thousand would march out, with the sonorous47 blessing48 of their priests, to the more barbaric butchery of war against ten thousand. The mind had to grow larger, the heart more human, before the reign49 of justice would be acknowledged in the relations of masses of men to each other as well as in the relations of individuals.
With the dawn of civilisation a terrible paradox50 occurred. Warfare was not abolished, but made more destructive. Again we find this a natural and intelligible51 development. Each early civilisation found itself surrounded by barbaric tribes, with which no compact of justice could be established or trusted. The great Stoic52 humanitarians54 of Rome, who preached the brotherhood55 of men and denounced violence, dared not, in the interest of civilisation, plead disarmament. There were, of course, moral sophisms in support of this plain need. The profit of aggression57, the prestige of conquering, were adorned58 with phrases akin42 to our “white man’s burden.” Yet it is true that until modern times warfare could not have been abolished without grave danger to civilisation. The crime of warfare became a crime only in these later centuries. Now that fully59 three-fourths of the race are gathered into civilised states, a compact of justice, an international tribunal with an international executive, is possible; and we are guilty, either of a base hypocrisy61 or a ghastly insensibility to our gravest interests, in refusing to set up that compulsory62 international tribunal.
No writer will be expected to discuss patiently to-day the pitiful sophistry with which, until yesterday, a few defended the retention63 of the military institution. Germany resounded64 with, and England and France and the United States echoed here and there, the pompous65 and hollow claims of its Treitschkes and Moltkes. War was a splendid moral discipline: an institution appointed by Providence66 for purging67 the race of sloth68 and materialism69, for restoring chivalry70 and brightening the shield of honour and rebuking71 selfishness. War has grimly belied72 its apologists and we need notice them no longer. It has betrayed one of the greatest nations of modern times into horrors and outrages74 which are a supreme and eternal mockery of their moral claims for it.
Others more justly claimed that war develops the virility75, the endurance, the power of men. The lesson of history, they said, is on the side of war: the great empires of the world became great by their heroism76 and sacrifices on the field of battle. Here we must distinguish carefully. It is obviously true that these empires became big, powerful, and wealthy by war; and if any nation candidly78 confesses that it relies on war to increase its territory, its power, and its wealth, its argument is unanswerable. But there is now no nation in the world that professes79 to maintain an army and a navy for the purpose of aggression and expansion. Even Germany, which undoubtedly81 did construct its massive armament for that purpose, had not the audacity82 to admit it. Defence is the justifying83 title and, in so far as it is sincere, it is a just title. If, as long as the military system lasts, an army and a navy of a certain strength are required, in the judgment85 of appointed experts, for the defence of a country and its institutions, we pay our share willingly for the maintenance of such an army and navy, and we respect our soldiers and sailors. I do not for one moment advocate the disarmament of one nation living amidst armed neighbours; and a partial disarmament, or an insufficient86 armament, is the surest provocation87 of war. My point is that, since the world has reached such a pitch of moral development that each nation now professes to arm only against the possible aggression of a neighbour, the time has come for them to agree upon the infinitely88 less costly and more reliable way of settling their possible quarrels as individuals do. Only one nation, Germany, seems to be genuinely opposed to this, not so much from native malice89 of character as from very serious domestic reasons for aggression: and a perfect opportunity now arises for effectively impressing on Germany the fact that she has come too late into the family of Great Powers for filibustering90.
As to the development of physique and endurance and discipline, it is too obvious that this could be attained91 by athletic92 contests which are at present left to voluntary interest or to the unattractive manœuvres of professional exploiters. For years I have followed professional football with keen pleasure, and I was interested when, at the outbreak of war, men cried that these footballers were the most superb material for our recruiting agents. It was perfectly93 true. Any State which is sincerely eager to develop the physique and endurance of its citizens can do it by the use of devices which will provide most enjoyable spectacles and national or international festivals instead of periodic orgies of blood and tears. The defenders95 of war must be hard pressed for argument when they plead this necessity. There is, moreover, one supreme difference between war and athletics96 as instruments of training. War destroys what it creates: athletics keeps its men among our citizens and breeders.
The truth is that the whole historical argument for war, which has had an incalculable influence in the education of Germany, is a miserable97 fallacy. The real lesson of history is that militarism has been a malignant98 cancer, transmitted from one empire to another, and, by destroying them, it has hundreds of times suspended the advance of civilisation. It is in a sense a fallacy to claim that any nation became great by war. The tribe which wins ascendancy99 over its neighbours does so because it is already more powerful, more numerous, or more fortunately situated100. Then comes the period of expansion, when, as we admit, greater power and wealth and territory are undoubtedly won by the sword. This is the seductive phase of history, leading astray men like Ruskin as well as men like Mommsen and Niebuhr. Let us admit all its glories. Moral and humanitarian53 excesses are just as mischievous101 as immoral102 excesses. As a result of this successful war and expansion, the older empires were enabled to foster art, to protect their growing culture, to civilise vast stretches of the earth that might otherwise have lain uncivilised for ages.
Most assuredly war has, in this sense, been a most valuable influence in spreading civilisation over the earth. What modern historians forget is that the conditions have totally changed. Your empire is no longer surrounded by myriads103 of barbarians104 whom you must conquer before you can civilise. Germany has been forced to colour its aggression by the stupid pretence105 that it had a higher Kultur than its neighbours, and that, in endeavouring to impose it on them, it was carrying out the “law of history.” It is a pity that science and history ever adopted the word “law.” What they mean, of course, is only a summary of the way in which things uniformly occurred in certain conditions. Now that the conditions are entirely106 changed, the laws have no application. One might suggest that we still need armies to conquer and civilise the outstanding barbaric peoples. We do not. We need an international armed force to check their aggressions, but there are other and better methods of civilising them. In any case, this plea has no relation to the vast armies and navies and the bloody107 wars we actually endure.
But it is the next and final phase of militarism which the historical apologists for war have so grossly overlooked: the phase when the best stocks of the old race are extinguished on the battlefield or enervated108 by the luxurious109 idleness which was bought by the spoils of war. Is it not proverbial how the great families which had led the invincible110 legions of Rome dwindled111 in five centuries into a sickly cluster of parasites113 or wholly disappeared? Is it not notorious that it was, in the first century of the present era, the healthier provincial114 stocks which saved Rome from destruction, or postponed115 its destruction? And do we not find, as time goes on, men from more and more distant provinces, in the end men from the barbaric fringes of the Empire, coming to lead its legions and support its falling eagles? All through Roman history war presents itself to the mind of the candid77 historian as a vampire116 living on the best blood of the people. Only a continuous supply of fresh blood and stout37 frames from the subject peoples keeps up the illusion of an “eternal Rome.” It is only the shell that lasts. The people of Rome itself and of the neighbouring plains, from which the old legionaries had come, were soon exhausted117. Italy in turn was exhausted and made desolate118. Then Gaul and Spain and Africa, and Thrace and Dacia and the more distant provinces, were sucked bloodless and resourceless; and the great shell of an empire fell with a crash under the blows of Goth and Vandal. It is a clerical myth that Roman strength was sapped by vice94. Its blood was drunk by war.
These things Niebuhr and Mommsen forgot when they proposed to Germany the splendid example of Rome; and history will have its revenge on its great interpreters by recording119 the close in tragedy of this new imperialism120 which they inspired. Other historians boldly quoted Greece—Alexander of Macedon—and the fallacy is even more piteous. Athens assuredly did not become great by war. Its most brilliant period opens after a crushing and devastating121 reverse, and its achievements were entirely due to its statesmen, its artists, and its thinkers. But from the moment when the shadow of the Macedonian empire fell on it, a blight122 came swiftly over its culture. Its glory departed for ever when it became part of a great military power. Greece, as a whole, was impoverished123 and ruined by war. Sparta itself, one of the most strenuous124 military powers that ever lived, is a classical proof that war invigorates only to destroy.
To whatever nation we turn, we learn the same lesson of history. Egypt survived the strain, owing to the constant infusion125 of foreign blood, for eight thousand years, but sank at last so exhausted that it seems almost beyond the hope of reanimation. Assyria and Babylonia were prepared for destruction by the same steady drain of their healthiest blood. The Hittites, the Lydians, the Phœnicians, the Medes, the Persians followed the same course. From the first founding of civilisation in the valley of the Nile, ten thousand years ago, war has brooded over its cities and cornfields, and has time after time blighted126 its achievements and its hopes. It is as though some god were jealous of the advance of man, and maintained on the earth this corroding127 pest to eat into the life of each successive empire, and, by destroying it, to interrupt the progress of the race.
In the history of Europe since the fall of Rome we witness the same human tragedy. I do not overlook the other evil influences, such as fiscal128 disorder129 and industrial parasitism130, which have contributed to the fall of empires, but the share of war in these tragedies was incalculable. The fate of early England, battling against invaders131 and rent by internal quarrels for centuries, is typical. The greater England of modern times, or the real greatness of modern England, was built in periods of comparative peace by merchants and manufacturers and scholars. Over the whole of Europe the vampire still brooded, fastening on each young nation that advanced beyond its fellows. The medieval republics of Italy were wrecked132 by war. Holland and Portugal, once the most promising133 powers of Europe, were exhausted by it. Not vice, not enervation134, not a dwindling135 birth-rate,—which are rather consequences than causes,—but the incessant136 exhaustion137 of their resources on the seas and the battlefield condemned138 them to decay. Italy fell back into the state of impotence which gave Austria and the Papacy their ignoble139 opportunity. Once more the advance of civilisation was checked by the jealous god of war.
It is, of course, true that warfare produced fine types of men; but for every Bayard there were ten thousand brutal140 soldiers, whose march across Europe left a broad track of rape141 and ruin. It is true that the naval142 or military successes of Venice and Genoa and Florence enabled them to raise marble palaces and to foster the art of painters and the research of scholars; but it is equally true that prosperity based on such a foundation was generally doomed143. The example of medieval Rome shows that a military basis was not essential. The peoples from whom the tribute had been wrung144 awaited their hour—the hour when the vampire had sucked the great frame weak and bloodless—and then, by the same law of might, they smote145 the oppressor. The historian who reads the whole chronicle of man is saddened even in contemplating146 a nation’s prosperity. Amidst the cries of joy and triumph and love he seems to hear the cynical147 laughter of the war-god.
I need not follow the devastation148 of war through the later history of Europe. The Thirty Years War laid Germany desolate, and postponed its cultural development for more than a century. Spain, Portugal, and Holland, which had won empire by the sword, lost it to the sword. The Ottoman Empire sank into weakness and shame. All this was due, in the first place, to what Count von Moltke calls “the institution of God”: the institution without which “the world would fall into decay and lose itself in materialism.” Even while he spoke149 Germany was prospering150 by peace as few nations had ever prospered151 before. Could there possibly be a more perverse152 reading of the lesson of history? Could there be a greater mockery conceived than to imagine God smiling on this blood-reeking Europe, or to call this a spiritual triumph over materialism? Is any man, with the present desolation of Europe before him, tempted153 to place the soldier above the artist, the scientist, or the engineer as an instrument of progress? Let us grant militarism all that it has really achieved. It remains154, in the mind of the historian, the greatest curse that mankind has endured since the primitive humans were first gathered into tribes and disputed each other’s “spheres of influence.”
Blind to this ghastly tragedy of history, we have maintained and cherished militarism until it has brought on us in turn the greatest catastrophe155 that a single year ever embraced. Probably our grandchildren, probably many a child that gazes now with wide eyes on our troops and banners, will look back on our civilisation with amazement156. They may smile at a drill-sergeant like Count von Moltke telling illiterate157 rustics158 of the glorious moral qualities which war develops in—the men who traversed Belgium! But we civilians159 will honestly puzzle them. We had the history of the world unfolded before us, and we saw this institution plainly emerging from barbarism and leaving its bloody and defacing splashes on every page of the chronicle. We traced the evolution of justice, and we saw that, as it was a mighty161 gain to men when tribunals were set up to adjudicate on the quarrels of individuals or clans162, it would be a far mightier163 gain to erect164 a tribunal for settling the quarrels of nations. Yet we took this stupid burden from the shoulders of our fathers, and we made it incalculably heavier for ourselves and our children.
I need not set out the weight of the burden in figures. When I first wrote this page I dilated165 on the seventy million sterling166 per year which we English were compelled to spend on defence: I imagined it expended on social betterment and human help—on a magnificent scheme of education, for children and adults, and so on. Then I observed—two years ago—with a shudder167 that at any moment a war might double our National Debt and compel us to find a further £40,000,000 a year to pay for our militarism. And here, within less than twelve months, we have incurred168 this monstrous169 burden, yet we linger still on the very fringe of the mighty battlefield we have to traverse. Think what the future may be if we retain militarism. In the past one hundred years, or a little more, war has cost Europe about £4,000,000,000. In one year a modern war has cost Europe more than that sum, and may cost it double. Add to this, if you can calculate it, the value of the millions of the more robust170 workers who die on the field: the appalling171 loss to productive industry: the portentous172 devastation of property. I suppose that, soberly, the total cost of this war will be something between ten and twenty thousand million sterling. What will be the cost of the next war, which may come within ten years? And what might we have done in Europe with ten thousand million sterling?
I am not, it will be observed, relying on disputed speculations173 like those of Mr. Norman Angell. I do not accept his characteristic theory; but it need not now be discussed, as our experience rather suggests that a modern war will prove so exhausting, economically, that there will be no question of substantial indemnity174 for the victor. But we must in any case add to this cost of war, for victor and vanquished175 alike, that incalculable damage which is expressed in ruined homes, ruined fortunes, and the pain of loss. This also is too vividly176 present in our minds to need comment. These sacrifices have been borne heroically. Those of us who have lost nothing can most sincerely salute177 both the men who exposed their lives in a just cause and the women who endured as women do. The soldier’s trade is an honourable178 trade while the need for it lasts, and at such a time it calls for respect and gratitude179. But how stupid and brutal in the last degree is the system that imposes these sacrifices, when we reflect that the honour or the rights of any nation could have been vindicated180 without the darkening of a single home or the loss of a single citizen.
There, of course, we have the centre of gravity of the whole discussion. If we can abolish and dispense181 with the military system, our retention of it in the twentieth century is the most appalling sham and anachronism of which we are guilty. I do not enlarge on the cost of war. No one to-day can be insensible of it or suggest that any but the most imperious needs would justify84 us in retaining it. I assume also that, after the lamentable182 behaviour of Germany, none will question that there will be wars as long as militarism lasts, and that the cost and carnage will increase prodigiously183.
The supreme point for us to realise is the comparative ease with which this greatest of reforms can be accomplished184. We have no rival schools of economists185 or moralists or philosophers darkening counsel here. We do not await a genius to discover the path for us. A plain and seriously indisputable ideal is put before us: arbitration186. A court for exercising it has already been established: the Hague Tribunal. Let the majority of people in the more powerful nations of the earth agree to submit every international difference to that or some other tribunal, and we have made an end of militarism and war.
If this seem a hasty or superficial view of a grave problem, reflect on the difficulties which a cautious or conservative thinker might allege187. He would, I fancy, on sincere consideration, admit that the chief and most serious difficulty is not a reluctance188 based on specific reasons, but a general apathy189 due to want of reflection. I am not for a moment underrating the magnitude of the effort that will be required in overcoming this apathy, in creating the general will. In this respect, indeed, the pacifist reform is peculiarly hampered190. Pessimistic people ask how we came to boast of moral progress in modern times when this military evil has become greater than ever. They do not reflect on the special conditions of the problem. In attacking almost every other evil—industrial injustice191, say, or cruel sport, or a stupid penal192 code—we have to deal only with our own nation. We can carry the reform within our own frontiers, whatever other nations do. In the case of militarism we cannot. All the Great Powers, at least, must advance simultaneously193. We have not to educate a nation, but a planet. Pacifists have at times given the impression—generally a wrong impression—that they forgot this; that they advocated disarmament or relaxation194 of armament in our own nation, whether other nations disarmed195 or no. In this way, and because many pacifists have weakly opposed or carped at England’s action in this very grave crisis, they have done harm by making humanitarianism196 seem unpractical, blindly sentimental197, and dangerous. I need not repeat that I have not the least sympathy with that sort of pacifism. The reform must be international and thoroughly198 practical.
But this large task of planting a definite conviction in the minds of the majority in many nations does not conflict with what I said about the essential clearness and simplicity199 of the reform. If you set out to attack poverty or to reform marriage, you have first to settle very serious controversies200 about the way to do it. There is no such controversy201 here. There are, it is true, a few who still have in their veins202 some of the blood of the medieval swashbuckler. They say that, while a quarrel about territory might fitly be referred to a judge, an outrage73 on our national honour must be expiated203 by blood. The idea is purely204 barbaric. As if this river of human blood were not an immeasurably greater outrage than the heated words of a nervous diplomatist, or the jibes205 of a silly journalist, or the acts of an excited crowd, or the guilt60 of a couple of assassins! As if an international court could not devise some means of appeasing206 injured honour as well as of restoring injured rights! It is dreadful materialism, they say, to put honour in the scale with money. So men said in the clubs of London a century ago in defence of the duel207, and we recognise in their pleas the lingering, more or less disguised, of a barbaric sentiment. Most of us recognise that same feature in this last apology for the duel of nations. If we can trust our individual honour to a mediocre208 magistrate209 or judge, or a still worse jury, we can certainly entrust210 our national honour to a group of the ablest and most impartial211 lawyers of the world. It is sheer distrust of justice to refuse it.
Here again history is wholly on the side of reform. Which of the great wars of the nineteenth century involved a point of honour that could not, with entire decency212, have been submitted to arbitration? Was there such a point of honour in the Napoleonic wars? The Prusso-Danish? The Prusso-Austrian? The Italian? The American Civil War? The Franco-German? The Russo-Turkish? The South African? What point was involved in any of them that could not have been settled with far greater honour to the combatants and greater regard for justice by an impartial tribunal? In most cases they were really wars of aggression and expansion, like the war in which we are engaged. We may at least ask the men who hold that medieval idea of war to have—since they boast much of their courage—the elementary courage to say so.
There is no conceivable quarrel that cannot with perfect honour be submitted to arbitration. And the ostensible213 ground of this colossal214 struggle which is now exhausting Europe—the satisfaction due to Austria for the assassination215 of the Archduke—was pre-eminently a matter for a tribunal. The frivolity216 and insincerity with which these grave issues are sometimes met are, to put it on the lowest level, costly. Speaking in a London club some time ago, I urged this substitution of arbitration for war. My opponent frivolously217 observed that he was not sure that a court of great lawyers would be cheaper than war, and there were some who quite seriously applauded. Yet Europe had then actually expended about £2,000,000,000 in the preliminary stages of its great war!
Wherever there is a considerable and deliberate reluctance to substitute arbitration for war, wherever these unsatisfactory pleas for war are put forward, we find a hypocritical concealment218 of real motives220. If we would be practical we must candidly confront these motives, and we shall find that the most persistent221 and most dangerous of them is still the desire to gain territory. The spectacle of the decay of the Ottoman Empire and the apparent helplessness of the Balkan peoples had more to do with the militarism of European Powers than they were willing to admit. That source of temptation is now renewed, and most of the Powers have, or soon will have, all the territory they can reasonably desire. The further distribution of African territory could clearly be best controlled by an international court. There remains one Power that will still feel the lust112 of territory. Germany conspicuously222 thwarted223 in Europe the advance of the pacifist reform because, as the whole world now sees, it had an aggressive territorial224 ambition. We may assume that Austria will now be cured of its lawless and costly designs, and that Germany will remain the one unsated and discontented nation. But Europe will surely have the elementary wisdom of refusing to maintain its terrible burden on that account. It will pay us better to meet the real economic need of Germany by a generous colonial deal, and then to use the power of an international polity to destroy and prevent the revival225 of militarism in that country.
We should thus remove the last serious obstacle to the reform, and the work might advance rapidly. The tribunal, as I said, exists, and has had more experience than is generally realised. The Hague Conference of 1907 established a Prize Court, with permanent salaried judges, and an Arbitration Court. A large number of very grave quarrels have since been adjusted by this tribunal, and, as Professor Schücking observes, “more than a hundred contracts between States have been concluded in which, on each occasion, two States made the Arbitration Court obligatory226.” But, largely owing to the opposition227 of Germany and the general apathy, the Court remained optional, and the Powers maintained their armies for the settlement of quarrels in the old barbaric manner. The next and last step is for all the Powers to recognise the Court as compulsory, and to furnish it with an executive (a small international army and navy) for the enforcement of its decisions. Our vast armies and navies then become superfluous228 and would be disbanded simultaneously, leaving only a small force in each country for the suppression of native aggression (with the consent of the Hague Court) and for use by the Court itself to enforce its verdicts or suppress illegal attempts to arm.
There is nothing Utopian or academic about this reform. A body of high-minded lawyers and statesmen have for years discussed the details of the scheme, and are ready to launch it whenever the various Governments are compelled by public opinion to adopt it. The immediate229 task is to create this pressure of public opinion. We may hope that, after our ghastly lesson in the price of the military method, we shall no longer be rebuffed with vapid230 phrases like: “Do not force the pace.” A business-man who talked nonsense of that kind would soon find his level. We need to conduct our national and international life on business-principles, to get rid as speedily as possible of a waste and disorder which are an outrage on the intelligence of the race. I look more confidently to business-men than to speech-making politicians and sentimental moralists for the triumph of the reform. Certain industries will, of course, be gravely dislocated, even annihilated231, by the change; and vast bodies of additional workers will, in most countries, be thrown upon a crowded labour-market. From the abstract economical point of view it is only a question of transfer. Fifty millions which were spent on military industries will now be used in enlarging other industries or creating new. In reality there will be grave confusion; but that is due to the utterly232 disorganised nature of our industrial world, which I discuss later. In any case to allege this industrial difficulty as a serious reason against disarmament is a very singular piece of folly233. The cost and trouble of adjusting this temporary dislocation would be infinitely less than the cost and trouble of a war.
We need, therefore, to persuade the public, which has borne its military yoke234 and endured the occasional lash160 of war with the placidity235 of a draught-ox—that is, candidly, how we shall appear in the social history of the future—that it may escape the yoke and the lash when it wills. Our Churches might make some atonement for a long and lamentable neglect of their duty by organising a really spirited collective campaign in this greatest of moral interests. The central educative body should, however, be quite unsectarian. I take it that an amalgamation236 of the various Peace Societies, strengthened by the adhesion of our commercial and industrial leaders, would form this central educative body. The present war would furnish it with a superb text and an unanswerable argument. It ought, in the circumstances, to capture each country in Europe more speedily than Cobden’s famous league captured England. The press would begin to assist at a certain stage of progress. Even the politicians would presently lend their oratory237; especially as their prestige, at least in this country, would hardly survive a second strain such as this war has put on it. Every agency ought to be enlisted238 in impressing upon the public that, whatever other reforms may imply, here we ask no sacrifice; we indicate a way in which the community may, when it wills, rid itself of a stupendous burden and set free enormous resources for social improvement.
Reformers are widely, and with some reason, accused of being dreamy and unpractical. Here, at least, it will be seen that it is rather the public and the opponents of reform who are dreamy, romantic, and unpractical: that the reform itself is a business proposition of the most attractive and promising character. But let us be even more practical. To forecast the future is an interesting intellectual recreation; but to close one’s mind entirely against the possibilities and dangers of the future is positive folly. Let us glance at the future.
I have not the faintest hope that the Allied239 Powers will, as they ought to do, disarm56 Germany and Austria and then disarm themselves, when the war is over. Then Germany will concentrate all its marvellous power of organisation240, dissimulation241, and intrigue242 in a dream of revanche. The appalling incompetence243 displayed by what we may call, in the broadest sense, our Intelligence Department and our War Office will return, when the temporary accession of business-ability has been withdrawn244 from it. There will be no serious inquiry245 into our scandalous indolence in the early period of the war, our complete failure to forecast the conditions of war, and our heavy somnolence246 during Germany’s feverish247 preparations, although the documents published by the French Government show that, by 1913 at least, sharp-sighted foreign representatives saw clearly that war was, to put it moderately, highly probable. In point of fact, our authorities knew that war was gravely imminent248. I happen to know, from a little breach249 of confidence, that our War Office secretly warned certain reservists in June 1914 (even before the Serajevo murder) to be ready. The men were ready, and have borne their share superbly; but our authorities had to confess that, even after nine months’ experience of the war, they were immeasurably behind Germany in the production of the two vital necessaries of a modern war—machine-guns and high-explosive shells.
Our experts will return to this comfortable somnolence. There will be no serious inquiry. Politicians and their advisers250 will escape in a cloud of thrilling emotions and enthusiastic rhetoric251. Persistent questioners, who are rudely impatient of party-discipline, will be snubbed and evaded252. Any other questioners, not of the political world, will be ignored. We shall return to British dignity and placidity. Germany will work and intrigue as it never worked and intrigued253 before. There will be grave domestic trouble in Russia and, as in the case of Turkey, German representatives will think while British representatives play. The preparations may occupy ten years or twenty years, but they will proceed. The aim will be a war with Russia neutral or friendly to Germany. If it occurs ... One has only to imagine where we should be to-day if Germany had not made the error of abandoning the Bismarckian tradition.
Behind this is a further possibility. China is just as capable as Japan of learning the use of thirteen-inch guns and maxims254. Sir Hiram Maxim255, in fact, who knows both China and the gun, quite agrees with me on that. And China has, behind that stoical and almost childlike expression it presents to Europe, an acute memory that for thirty years we have treated it with flagrant injustice. It may take decades to undo80 the evil of ages of Manchu misgovernment and organise36 the resources of the country, but the day will come when an alert and powerful nation of 500,000,000 Orientals will press against its frontiers. We may remember that the Mongol banners have before now fluttered over Moscow and reached the Mediterranean256. And the Mongols are not the only awakening257 people. We may yet see an anti-European combination from the Asiatic shore of the Pacific to the African shore of the Atlantic. These are some of the possibilities we hand on to our children if we do not in time abandon the military system.
To that pass has it brought us. We writhe258 and groan259 under the terrible burden it lays on us, and we shrink from contemplating the future; yet we might cast off the burden and rid the future of peril260 when we will. We disavow the buccaneering spirit, and protest that we arm only in defence against each other; and one wonders whether to smile or weep at the obtuseness261 which prevents us from adopting a simple and humane262 means of defence instead of this exhausting barbarism. We “humanise” war, yet cling needlessly to the whole inhuman263 business. We are teaching the backward nations to arm,—we would gladly supply them with tutors and arms at any time,—and may be thus preparing a more colossal conflict than ever. Surely the man or woman of the twenty-first century will find us an enigma264!
Let me close with a repetition of my protest against the misconstruction to which such a book as this is always exposed. I advocate no Utopian scheme, but one which some of the ablest lawyers, statesmen, and business-men in Europe have discussed for years and warmly endorsed265. I have no wish to conceal219 technical difficulties under sentimental phrases, but these men, to whom I refer, are prepared to meet the difficulties. I regard the work of the soldier as honourable and worthy266, as long as we impose the military system on each other; and at this particular juncture267 regret only that I am long past the age of bearing arms. I plead, as long as the system lasts, for unquestionable efficiency in national defence, whatever it cost. But I say that, in this military system, we are enthroning the hollowest and most ghastly sham that ever deluded268 humanity: that, when we have the courage or wisdom to strip it of its tinselled robes, we will shudder at sight of the gaunt frame of death which has ruled civilisation for so many thousand years: that nothing is wanting but the general will to dethrone this mockery of a god: and that, when we have abolished militarism and war, we shall advance along the way of social improvement with far lighter269 steps and vastly increased resources.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
sham
|
|
| n./adj.假冒(的)，虚伪(的) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
costly
|
|
| adj.昂贵的，价值高的，豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
blots
|
|
| 污渍( blot的名词复数 )； 墨水渍； 错事； 污点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
dissection
|
|
| n.分析；解剖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
kindling
|
|
| n. 点火, 可燃物 动词kindle的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
ardent
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，强烈的，烈性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
fiery
|
|
| adj.燃烧着的，火红的；暴躁的；激烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
resentment
|
|
| n.怨愤，忿恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
shams
|
|
| 假象( sham的名词复数 )； 假货； 虚假的行为（或感情、言语等）； 假装…的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
sophistry
|
|
| n.诡辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
bestial
|
|
| adj.残忍的；野蛮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
disdain
|
|
| n.鄙视，轻视；v.轻视，鄙视，不屑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
gild
|
|
| vt.给…镀金，把…漆成金色，使呈金色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
consolation
|
|
| n.安慰，慰问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
scatter
|
|
| vt.撒，驱散，散开；散布/播；vi.分散，消散 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
bugle
|
|
| n.军号，号角，喇叭；v.吹号，吹号召集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
peal
|
|
| n.钟声；v.鸣响 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
tainted
|
|
| adj.腐坏的；污染的；沾污的；感染的v.使变质( taint的过去式和过去分词 )；使污染；败坏；被污染，腐坏，败坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
scrutiny
|
|
| n.详细检查，仔细观察 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
combative
|
|
| adj.好战的；好斗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
averse
|
|
| adj.厌恶的；反对的，不乐意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
brawling
|
|
| n.争吵，喧嚷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
slumbered
|
|
| 微睡，睡眠（slumber的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
impulsive
|
|
| adj.冲动的，刺激的；有推动力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
awaken
|
|
| vi.醒，觉醒；vt.唤醒，使觉醒，唤起，激起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
organise
|
|
| vt.组织，安排，筹办 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
stouter
|
|
| 粗壮的( stout的比较级 )； 结实的； 坚固的； 坚定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
expended
|
|
| v.花费( expend的过去式和过去分词 )；使用（钱等）做某事；用光；耗尽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
akin
|
|
| adj.同族的，类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
barbs
|
|
| n.（箭头、鱼钩等的）倒钩( barb的名词复数 )；带刺的话；毕露的锋芒；钩状毛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
vengeance
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，复仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
feuds
|
|
| n.长期不和，世仇( feud的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
sonorous
|
|
| adj.响亮的，回响的；adv.圆润低沉地；感人地；n.感人，堂皇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
blessing
|
|
| n.祈神赐福；祷告；祝福，祝愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
paradox
|
|
| n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法；自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
stoic
|
|
| n.坚忍克己之人，禁欲主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
humanitarian
|
|
| n.人道主义者，博爱者，基督凡人论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
humanitarians
|
|
| n.慈善家( humanitarian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
brotherhood
|
|
| n.兄弟般的关系，手中情谊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
disarm
|
|
| v.解除武装，回复平常的编制，缓和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
adorned
|
|
| [计]被修饰的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
compulsory
|
|
| n.强制的，必修的；规定的，义务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
retention
|
|
| n.保留，保持，保持力，记忆力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
resounded
|
|
| v.（指声音等）回荡于某处( resound的过去式和过去分词 )；产生回响；（指某处）回荡着声音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
pompous
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的；夸大的；豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
purging
|
|
| 清洗； 清除； 净化； 洗炉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
sloth
|
|
| n.[动]树懒；懒惰，懒散 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
materialism
|
|
| n.［哲］唯物主义，唯物论；物质至上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
chivalry
|
|
| n.骑士气概，侠义；（男人）对女人彬彬有礼，献殷勤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
rebuking
|
|
| 责难或指责( rebuke的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
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： |
|
|
|
|
73
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
virility
|
|
| n.雄劲，丈夫气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
heroism
|
|
| n.大无畏精神，英勇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
candid
|
|
| adj.公正的，正直的；坦率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
candidly
|
|
| adv.坦率地，直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
professes
|
|
| 声称( profess的第三人称单数 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
undo
|
|
| vt.解开，松开；取消，撤销 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
audacity
|
|
| n.大胆，卤莽，无礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
justifying
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的现在分词 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
provocation
|
|
| n.激怒，刺激，挑拨，挑衅的事物，激怒的原因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
filibustering
|
|
| v.阻碍或延宕国会或其他立法机构通过提案( filibuster的现在分词 )；掠夺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
91
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： |
|
|
|
|
92
athletic
|
|
| adj.擅长运动的，强健的；活跃的，体格健壮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
athletics
|
|
| n.运动，体育，田径运动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
malignant
|
|
| adj.恶性的，致命的；恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
ascendancy
|
|
| n.统治权，支配力量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
situated
|
|
| adj.坐落在...的，处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
immoral
|
|
| adj.不道德的，淫荡的，荒淫的，有伤风化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
myriads
|
|
| n.无数，极大数量( myriad的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
barbarians
|
|
| n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 )；外国人；粗野的人；无教养的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
enervated
|
|
| adj.衰弱的，无力的v.使衰弱，使失去活力( enervate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
luxurious
|
|
| adj.精美而昂贵的；豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
invincible
|
|
| adj.不可征服的，难以制服的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
dwindled
|
|
| v.逐渐变少或变小( dwindle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
lust
|
|
| n.性(淫)欲；渴(欲)望；vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
parasites
|
|
| 寄生物( parasite的名词复数 )； 靠他人为生的人； 诸虫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
postponed
|
|
| vt.& vi.延期，缓办，（使）延迟vt.把…放在次要地位；[语]把…放在后面（或句尾）vi.（疟疾等）延缓发作（或复发） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
vampire
|
|
| n.吸血鬼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
desolate
|
|
| adj.荒凉的，荒芜的；孤独的，凄凉的；v.使荒芜，使孤寂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
recording
|
|
| n.录音，记录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
imperialism
|
|
| n.帝国主义，帝国主义政策 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
devastating
|
|
| adj.毁灭性的，令人震惊的，强有力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
blight
|
|
| n.枯萎病；造成破坏的因素；vt.破坏，摧残 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
impoverished
|
|
| adj.穷困的，无力的，用尽了的v.使（某人）贫穷( impoverish的过去式和过去分词 )；使（某物）贫瘠或恶化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
strenuous
|
|
| adj.奋发的，使劲的；紧张的；热烈的，狂热的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
infusion
|
|
| n.灌输 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
blighted
|
|
| adj.枯萎的，摧毁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
corroding
|
|
| 使腐蚀，侵蚀( corrode的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
fiscal
|
|
| adj.财政的，会计的，国库的，国库岁入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
parasitism
|
|
| n.寄生状态，寄生病；寄生性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
invaders
|
|
| 入侵者，侵略者，侵入物( invader的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
wrecked
|
|
| adj.失事的，遇难的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
enervation
|
|
| n.无活力，衰弱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
dwindling
|
|
| adj.逐渐减少的v.逐渐变少或变小( dwindle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
incessant
|
|
| adj.不停的，连续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
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： |
|
|
|
|
138
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
ignoble
|
|
| adj.不光彩的，卑鄙的；可耻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
rape
|
|
| n.抢夺，掠夺，强奸；vt.掠夺，抢夺，强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
doomed
|
|
| 命定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
wrung
|
|
| 绞( wring的过去式和过去分词 )； 握紧（尤指别人的手）； 把（湿衣服）拧干； 绞掉（水） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
smote
|
|
| v.猛打，重击，打击( smite的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
contemplating
|
|
| 深思，细想，仔细考虑( contemplate的现在分词 )； 注视，凝视； 考虑接受（发生某事的可能性）； 深思熟虑，沉思，苦思冥想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
cynical
|
|
| adj.(对人性或动机)怀疑的，不信世道向善的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
devastation
|
|
| n.毁坏；荒废；极度震惊或悲伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
prospering
|
|
| 成功，兴旺( prosper的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
prospered
|
|
| 成功，兴旺( prosper的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
perverse
|
|
| adj.刚愎的；坚持错误的，行为反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
tempted
|
|
| v.怂恿（某人）干不正当的事；冒…的险（tempt的过去分词） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
catastrophe
|
|
| n.大灾难，大祸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
amazement
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊讶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
illiterate
|
|
| adj.文盲的；无知的；n.文盲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
rustics
|
|
| n.有农村或村民特色的( rustic的名词复数 )；粗野的；不雅的；用粗糙的木材或树枝制作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
civilians
|
|
| 平民，百姓( civilian的名词复数 )； 老百姓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
lash
|
|
| v.系牢；鞭打；猛烈抨击；n.鞭打；眼睫毛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
clans
|
|
| 宗族( clan的名词复数 )； 氏族； 庞大的家族； 宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
mightier
|
|
| adj. 强有力的，强大的，巨大的 adv. 很，极其 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
erect
|
|
| n./v.树立，建立，使竖立；adj.直立的，垂直的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
dilated
|
|
| adj.加宽的，扩大的v.（使某物）扩大，膨胀，张大( dilate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
sterling
|
|
| adj.英币的(纯粹的，货真价实的)；n.英国货币(英镑) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
shudder
|
|
| v.战粟，震动，剧烈地摇晃；n.战粟，抖动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
incurred
|
|
| [医]招致的，遭受的； incur的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
robust
|
|
| adj.强壮的，强健的，粗野的，需要体力的，浓的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
appalling
|
|
| adj.骇人听闻的，令人震惊的，可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
portentous
|
|
| adj.不祥的，可怕的，装腔作势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
speculations
|
|
| n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 )；思考；投机活动；推断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
indemnity
|
|
| n.赔偿，赔款，补偿金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
vanquished
|
|
| v.征服( vanquish的过去式和过去分词 )；战胜；克服；抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
vividly
|
|
| adv.清楚地，鲜明地，生动地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
salute
|
|
| vi.行礼，致意，问候，放礼炮；vt.向…致意，迎接，赞扬；n.招呼，敬礼，礼炮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
honourable
|
|
| adj.可敬的；荣誉的，光荣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
vindicated
|
|
| v.澄清（某人/某事物）受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的过去式和过去分词 )；表明或证明（所争辩的事物）属实、正当、有效等；维护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
dispense
|
|
| vt.分配，分发；配(药)，发(药)；实施 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
lamentable
|
|
| adj.令人惋惜的，悔恨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
prodigiously
|
|
| adv.异常地，惊人地，巨大地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
arbitration
|
|
| n.调停，仲裁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
allege
|
|
| vt.宣称，申述，主张，断言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
reluctance
|
|
| n.厌恶，讨厌，勉强，不情愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
apathy
|
|
| n.漠不关心，无动于衷；冷淡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
hampered
|
|
| 妨碍，束缚，限制( hamper的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
penal
|
|
| adj.刑罚的；刑法上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
relaxation
|
|
| n.松弛，放松；休息；消遣；娱乐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
disarmed
|
|
| v.裁军( disarm的过去式和过去分词 )；使息怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
humanitarianism
|
|
| n.博爱主义；人道主义；基督凡人论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
sentimental
|
|
| adj.多愁善感的，感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
simplicity
|
|
| n.简单，简易；朴素；直率，单纯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
controversies
|
|
| 争论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
veins
|
|
| n.纹理；矿脉( vein的名词复数 )；静脉；叶脉；纹理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
expiated
|
|
| v.为（所犯罪过）接受惩罚，赎（罪）( expiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
jibes
|
|
| n.与…一致( jibe的名词复数 )；（与…）相符；相匹配v.与…一致( jibe的第三人称单数 )；（与…）相符；相匹配 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
appeasing
|
|
| 安抚，抚慰( appease的现在分词 )； 绥靖（满足另一国的要求以避免战争） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
duel
|
|
| n./v.决斗；(双方的)斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
mediocre
|
|
| adj.平常的，普通的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
entrust
|
|
| v.信赖，信托，交托 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
impartial
|
|
| adj.(in,to)公正的，无偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
decency
|
|
| n.体面，得体，合宜，正派，庄重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
ostensible
|
|
| adj.(指理由)表面的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
colossal
|
|
| adj.异常的，庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
assassination
|
|
| n.暗杀；暗杀事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
frivolity
|
|
| n.轻松的乐事，兴高采烈；轻浮的举止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
frivolously
|
|
| adv.轻浮地，愚昧地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
concealment
|
|
| n.隐藏, 掩盖，隐瞒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
conceal
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
persistent
|
|
| adj.坚持不懈的，执意的；持续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
conspicuously
|
|
| ad.明显地，惹人注目地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
thwarted
|
|
| 阻挠( thwart的过去式和过去分词 )； 使受挫折； 挫败； 横过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
revival
|
|
| n.复兴，复苏，（精力、活力等的）重振 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
obligatory
|
|
| adj.强制性的，义务的，必须的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
vapid
|
|
| adj.无味的；无生气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
annihilated
|
|
| v.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的过去式和过去分词 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
yoke
|
|
| n.轭；支配；v.给...上轭，连接，使成配偶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
placidity
|
|
| n.平静，安静，温和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
amalgamation
|
|
| n.合并，重组；；汞齐化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
oratory
|
|
| n.演讲术；词藻华丽的言辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
enlisted
|
|
| adj.应募入伍的v.（使）入伍， （使）参军( enlist的过去式和过去分词 )；获得（帮助或支持） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
organisation
|
|
| n.组织，安排，团体，有机休 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
dissimulation
|
|
| n.掩饰，虚伪，装糊涂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
intrigue
|
|
| vt.激起兴趣，迷住；vi.耍阴谋；n.阴谋，密谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
incompetence
|
|
| n.不胜任，不称职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
somnolence
|
|
| n.想睡，梦幻；欲寐；嗜睡；嗜眠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
feverish
|
|
| adj.发烧的，狂热的，兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
advisers
|
|
| 顾问，劝告者( adviser的名词复数 )； （指导大学新生学科问题等的）指导教授 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
rhetoric
|
|
| n.修辞学，浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
evaded
|
|
| 逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 )； 避开； 回避； 想不出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
intrigued
|
|
| adj.好奇的，被迷住了的v.搞阴谋诡计(intrigue的过去式)；激起…的兴趣或好奇心；“intrigue”的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
Mediterranean
|
|
| adj.地中海的；地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
awakening
|
|
| n.觉醒，醒悟 adj.觉醒中的；唤醒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
writhe
|
|
| vt.挣扎，痛苦地扭曲；vi.扭曲，翻腾，受苦；n.翻腾，苦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
groan
|
|
| vi./n.呻吟，抱怨；(发出)呻吟般的声音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
260
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
261
obtuseness
|
|
| 感觉迟钝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
262
humane
|
|
| adj.人道的，富有同情心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
263
inhuman
|
|
| adj.残忍的，不人道的，无人性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
264
enigma
|
|
| n.谜，谜一样的人或事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
265
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： |
|
|
|
|
266
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
267
juncture
|
|
| n.时刻，关键时刻，紧要关头 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
268
deluded
|
|
| v.欺骗，哄骗( delude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
269
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： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |