About Censorship
Since, time and again, it has been proved, in this country of free institutions, that the great majority of our fellow-countrymen consider the only Censorship that now obtains amongst us, namely the Censorship of Plays, a bulwark3 for the preservation4 of their comfort and sensibility against the spiritual researches and speculations5 of bolder and too active spirits — it has become time to consider whether we should not seriously extend a principle, so grateful to the majority, to all our institutions.
For no one can deny that in practice the Censorship of Drama works with a smooth swiftness — a lack of delay and friction7 unexampled in any public office. No troublesome publicity8 and tedious postponement9 for the purpose of appeal mar10 its efficiency. It is neither hampered11 by the Law nor by the slow process of popular election. Welcomed by the overwhelming majority of the public; objected to only by such persons as suffer from it, and a negligible faction12, who, wedded13 pedantically14 to liberty of the subject, are resentful of summary powers vested in a single person responsible only to his own ‘conscience’— it is amazingly, triumphantly15, successful.
Why, then, in a democratic State, is so valuable a protector of the will, the interests, and pleasure of the majority not bestowed16 on other branches of the public being? Opponents of the Censorship of Plays have been led by the absence of such other Censorships to conclude that this Office is an archaic17 survival, persisting into times that have outgrown18 it. They have been known to allege19 that the reason of its survival is simply the fact that Dramatic Authors, whose reputation and means of livelihood20 it threatens, have ever been few in number and poorly organised — that the reason, in short, is the helplessness and weakness of the interests concerned. We must all combat with force such an aspersion21 on our Legislature. Can it even for a second be supposed that a State which gives trial by Jury to the meanest, poorest, most helpless of its citizens, and concedes to the greatest criminals the right of appeal, could have debarred a body of reputable men from the ordinary rights of citizenship22 for so cynical23 a reason as that their numbers were small, their interests unjoined, their protests feeble? Such a supposition were intolerable! We do not in this country deprive a class of citizens of their ordinary rights, we do not place their produce under the irresponsible control of one not amenable24 to Law, by any sort of political accident! That would indeed be to laugh at Justice in this Kingdom! That would indeed be cynical and unsound! We must never admit that there is no basic Justice controlling the edifice25 of our Civic26 Rights. We do, we must, conclude that a just and well-considered principle underlies27 this despotic Institution; for surely, else, it would not be suffered to survive for a single moment! Pom! Pom!
If, then, the Censorship of Plays be just, beneficent, and based on a well-considered principle, we must rightly inquire what good and logical reason there is for the absence of Censorship in other departments of the national life. If Censorship of the Drama be in the real interests of the people, or at all events in what the Censor1 for the time being conceives to be their interest — then Censorships of Art, Literature, Religion, Science, and Politics are in the interests of the people, unless it can be proved that there exists essential difference between the Drama and these other branches of the public being. Let us consider whether there is any such essential difference.
It is fact, beyond dispute, that every year numbers of books appear which strain the average reader’s intelligence and sensibilities to an unendurable extent; books whose speculations are totally unsuited to normal thinking powers; books which contain views of morality divergent from the customary, and discussions of themes unsuited to the young person; books which, in fine, provide the greater Public with no pleasure whatsoever28, and, either by harrowing their feelings or offending their good taste, cause them real pain.
It is true that, precisely29 as in the case of Plays, the Public are protected by a vigilant30 and critical Press from works of this description; that, further, they are protected by the commercial instinct of the Libraries, who will not stock an article which may offend their customers — just as, in the case of Plays, the Public are protected by the common-sense of theatrical31 Managers; that, finally, they are protected by the Police and the Common Law of the land. But despite all these protections, it is no uncommon32 thing for an average citizen to purchase one of these disturbing or dubious33 books. Has he, on discovering its true nature, the right to call on the bookseller to refund34 its value? He has not. And thus he runs a danger obviated35 in the case of the Drama which has the protection of a prudential Censorship. For this reason alone, how much better, then, that there should exist a paternal36 authority (some, no doubt, will call it grand-maternal — but sneers37 must not be confounded with argument) to suppress these books before appearance, and safeguard us from the danger of buying and possibly reading undesirable38 or painful literature!
A specious39 reason, however, is advanced for exempting40 Literature from the Censorship accorded to Plays. He — it is said — who attends the performance of a play, attends it in public, where his feelings may be harrowed and his taste offended, cheek by jowl with boys, or women of all ages; it may even chance that he has taken to this entertainment his wife, or the young persons of his household. He — on the other hand — who reads a book, reads it in privacy. True; but the wielder41 of this argument has clasped his fingers round a two-edged blade. The very fact that the book has no mixed audience removes from Literature an element which is ever the greatest check on licentiousness42 in Drama. No manager of a theatre,— a man of the world engaged in the acquisition of his livelihood, unless guaranteed by the license43 of the Censor, dare risk the presentment before a mixed audience of that which might cause an ‘emeute’ among his clients. It has, indeed, always been observed that the theatrical manager, almost without exception, thoughtfully recoils45 from the responsibility that would be thrust on him by the abolition46 of the Censorship. The fear of the mixed audience is ever suspended above his head. No such fear threatens the publisher, who displays his wares47 to one man at a time. And for this very reason of the mixed audience; perpetually and perversely48 cited to the contrary by such as have no firm grasp of this matter, there is a greater necessity for a Censorship on Literature than for one on Plays.
Further, if there were but a Censorship of Literature, no matter how dubious the books that were allowed to pass, the conscience of no reader need ever be troubled. For, that the perfect rest of the public conscience is the first result of Censorship, is proved to certainty by the protected Drama, since many dubious plays are yearly put before the play-going Public without tending in any way to disturb a complacency engendered49 by the security from harm guaranteed by this beneficent, if despotic, Institution. Pundits50 who, to the discomfort51 of the populace, foster this exemption52 of Literature from discipline, cling to the old-fashioned notion that ulcers53 should be encouraged to discharge themselves upon the surface, instead of being quietly and decently driven into the system and allowed to fester there.
The remaining plea for exempting Literature from Censorship, put forward by unreflecting persons: That it would require too many Censors2 — besides being unworthy, is, on the face of it, erroneous. Special tests have never been thought necessary in appointing Examiners of Plays. They would, indeed, not only be unnecessary, but positively55 dangerous, seeing that the essential function of Censorship is protection of the ordinary prejudices and forms of thought. There would, then, be no difficulty in securing tomorrow as many Censors of Literature as might be necessary (say twenty or thirty); since all that would be required of each one of them would be that he should secretly exercise, in his uncontrolled discretion56, his individual taste. In a word, this Free Literature of ours protects advancing thought and speculation6; and those who believe in civic freedom subject only to Common Law, and espouse57 the cause of free literature, are championing a system which is essentially58 undemocratic, essentially inimical to the will of the majority, who have certainly no desire for any such things as advancing thought and speculation. Such persons, indeed, merely hold the faith that the People, as a whole, unprotected by the despotic judgments60 of single persons, have enough strength and wisdom to know what is and what is not harmful to themselves. They put their trust in a Public Press and a Common Law, which deriving61 from the Conscience of the Country, is openly administered and within the reach of all. How absurd, how inadequate62 this all is we see from the existence of the Censorship on Drama.
Having observed that there is no reason whatever for the exemption of Literature, let us now turn to the case of Art. Every picture hung in a gallery, every statue placed on a pedestal, is exposed to the public stare of a mixed company. Why, then, have we no Censorship to protect us from the possibility of encountering works that bring blushes to the cheek of the young person? The reason cannot be that the proprietors63 of Galleries are more worthy54 of trust than the managers of Theatres; this would be to make an odious64 distinction which those very Managers who uphold the Censorship of Plays would be the first to resent. It is true that Societies of artists and the proprietors of Galleries are subject to the prosecution65 of the Law if they offend against the ordinary standards of public decency66; but precisely the same liability attaches to theatrical managers and proprietors of Theatres, in whose case it has been found necessary and beneficial to add the Censorship. And in this connection let it once more be noted67 how much more easily the ordinary standards of public decency can be assessed by a single person responsible to no one, than by the clumsy (if more open) process of public protest. What, then, in the light of the proved justice and efficiency of the Censorship of Drama, is the reason for the absence of the Censorship of Art? The more closely the matter is regarded, the more plain it is, that there is none! At any moment we may have to look upon some painting, or contemplate68 some statue, as tragic69, heart-rending, and dubiously70 delicate in theme as that censured71 play “The Cenci,” by one Shelley; as dangerous to prejudice, and suggestive of new thought as the censured “Ghosts,” by one Ibsen. Let us protest against this peril72 suspended over our heads, and demand the immediate73 appointment of a single person not selected for any pretentiously74 artistic75 feelings, but endowed with summary powers of prohibiting the exhibition, in public galleries or places, of such works as he shall deem, in his uncontrolled discretion, unsuited to average intelligence or sensibility. Let us demand it in the interest, not only of the young person, but of those whole sections of the community which cannot be expected to take an interest in Art, and to whom the purpose, speculations, and achievements of great artists, working not only for today but for tomorrow, must naturally be dark riddles76. Let us even require that this official should be empowered to order the destruction of the works which he has deemed unsuited to average intelligence and sensibility, lest their creators should, by private sale, make a profit out of them, such as, in the nature of the case, Dramatic Authors are debarred from making out of plays which, having been censured, cannot be played for money. Let us ask this with confidence; for it is not compatible with common justice that there should be any favouring of Painter over Playwright77. They are both artists — let them both be measured by the same last!
But let us now consider the case of Science. It will not, indeed cannot, be contended that the investigations78 of scientific men, whether committed to writing or to speech, are always suited to the taste and capacities of our general public. There was, for example, the well-known doctrine79 of Evolution, the teachings of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russet Wallace, who gathered up certain facts, hitherto but vaguely80 known, into presentments, irreverent and startling, which, at the time, profoundly disturbed every normal mind. Not only did religion, as then accepted, suffer in this cataclysm82, but our taste and feeling were inexpressibly shocked by the discovery, so emphasised by Thomas Henry Huxley, of Man’s descent from Apes. It was felt, and is felt by many to this day, that the advancement83 of that theory grossly and dangerously violated every canon of decency. What pain, then, might have been averted84, what far-reaching consequences and incalculable subversion85 of primitive86 faiths checked, if some judicious87 Censor of scientific thought had existed in those days to demand, in accordance with his private estimate of the will and temper of the majority, the suppression of the doctrine of Evolution.
Innumerable investigations of scientists on subjects such as the date of the world’s creation, have from time to time been summarised and inconsiderately sprung on a Public shocked and startled by the revelation that facts which they were accustomed to revere81 were conspicuously88 at fault. So, too, in the range of medicine, it would be difficult to cite any radical89 discovery (such as the preventive power of vaccination), whose unchecked publication has not violated the prejudices and disturbed the immediate comfort of the common mind. Had these discoveries been judiciously90 suppressed, or pared away to suit what a Censorship conceived to be the popular palate of the time, all this disturbance91 and discomfort might have been avoided.
It will doubtless be contended (for there are no such violent opponents of Censorship as those who are threatened with the same) that to compare a momentous92 disclosure, such as the doctrine of Evolution, to a mere59 drama, were unprofitable. The answer to this ungenerous contention93 is fortunately plain. Had a judicious Censorship existed over our scientific matters, such as for two hundred years has existed over our Drama, scientific discoveries would have been no more disturbing and momentous than those which we are accustomed to see made on our nicely pruned94 and tutored stage. For not only would the more dangerous and penetrating95 scientific truths have been carefully destroyed at birth, but scientists, aware that the results of investigations offensive to accepted notions would be suppressed, would long have ceased to waste their time in search of a knowledge repugnant to average intelligence, and thus foredoomed, and have occupied themselves with services more agreeable to the public taste, such as the rediscovery of truths already known and published.
Indissolubly connected with the desirability of a Censorship of Science, is the need for Religious Censorship. For in this, assuredly not the least important department of the nation’s life, we are witnessing week by week and year by year, what in the light of the security guaranteed by the Censorship of Drama, we are justified96 in terming an alarming spectacle. Thousands of men are licensed97 to proclaim from their pulpits, Sunday after Sunday, their individual beliefs, quite regardless of the settled convictions of the masses of their congregations. It is true, indeed, that the vast majority of sermons (like the vast majority of plays) are, and will always be, harmonious98 with the feelings — of the average citizen; for neither priest nor playwright have customarily any such peculiar99 gift of spiritual daring as might render them unsafe mentors100 of their fellows; and there is not wanting the deterrent101 of common-sense to keep them in bounds. Yet it can hardly be denied that there spring up at times men — like John Wesley or General Booth — of such incurable102 temperament104 as to be capable of abusing their freedom by the promulgation105 of doctrine or procedure, divergent from the current traditions of religion. Nor must it be forgotten that sermons, like plays, are addressed to a mixed audience of families, and that the spiritual teachings of a lifetime may be destroyed by ten minutes of uncensored pronouncement from a pulpit, the while parents are sitting, not, as in a theatre vested with the right of protest, but dumb and excoriated106 to the soul, watching their children, perhaps of tender age, eagerly drinking in words at variance107 with that which they themselves have been at such pains to instil108.
If a set of Censors — for it would, as in the case of Literature, indubitably require more than one (perhaps one hundred and eighty, but, for reasons already given, there should be no difficulty whatever in procuring109 them) endowed with the swift powers conferred by freedom from the dull tedium110 of responsibility, and not remarkable111 for religious temperament, were appointed, to whom all sermons and public addresses on religious subjects must be submitted before delivery, and whose duty after perusal112 should be to excise113 all portions not conformable to their private ideas of what was at the moment suitable to the Public’s ears, we should be far on the road toward that proper preservation of the status quo so desirable if the faiths and ethical114 standards of the less exuberantly115 spiritual masses are to be maintained in their full bloom. As things now stand, the nation has absolutely nothing to safeguard it against religious progress.
We have seen, then, that Censorship is at least as necessary over Literature, Art, Science, and Religion as it is over our Drama. We have now to call attention to the crowning need — the want of a Censorship in Politics.
If Censorship be based on justice, if it be proved to serve the Public and to be successful in its lonely vigil over Drama, it should, and logically must be, extended to all parallel cases; it cannot, it dare not, stop short at — Politics. For, precisely in this supreme116 branch of the public life are we most menaced by the rule and license of the leading spirit. To appreciate this fact, we need only examine the Constitution of the House of Commons. Six hundred and seventy persons chosen from a population numbering four and forty millions, must necessarily, whatever their individual defects, be citizens of more than average enterprise, resource, and resolution. They are elected for a period that may last five years. Many of them are ambitious; some uncompromising; not a few enthusiastically eager to do something for their country; filled with designs and aspirations117 for national or social betterment, with which the masses, sunk in the immediate pursuits of life, can in the nature of things have little sympathy. And yet we find these men licensed to pour forth118 at pleasure, before mixed audiences, checked only by Common Law and Common Sense political utterances120 which may have the gravest, the most terrific consequences; utterances which may at any moment let loose revolution, or plunge121 the country into war; which often, as a fact, excite an utter detestation, terror, and mistrust; or shock the most sacred domestic and proprietary122 convictions in the breasts of vast majorities of their fellow-countrymen! And we incur103 this appalling123 risk for the want of a single, or at the most, a handful of Censors, invested with a simple but limitless discretion to excise or to suppress entirely124 such political utterances as may seem to their private judgments calculated to cause pain or moral disturbance in the average man. The masses, it is true, have their protection and remedy against injudicious or inflammatory politicians in the Law and the so-called democratic process of election; but we have seen that theatre audiences have also the protection of the Law, and the remedy of boycott125, and that in their case, this protection and this remedy are not deemed enough. What, then, shall we say of the case of Politics, where the dangers attending inflammatory or subversive126 utterance119 are greater a million fold, and the remedy a thousand times less expeditious127?
Our Legislators have laid down Censorship as the basic principle of Justice underlying128 the civic rights of dramatists. Then, let “Censorship for all” be their motto, and this country no longer be ridden and destroyed by free Institutions! Let them not only establish forthwith Censorships of Literature, Art, Science, and Religion, but also place themselves beneath the regimen with which they have calmly fettered129 Dramatic Authors. They cannot deem it becoming to their regard for justice, to their honour; to their sense of humour, to recoil44 from a restriction130 which, in a parallel case they have imposed on others. It is an old and homely131 saying that good officers never place their men in positions they would not themselves be willing to fill. And we are not entitled to believe that our Legislators, having set Dramatic Authors where they have been set, will — now that their duty is made plain — for a moment hesitate to step down and stand alongside.
But if by any chance they should recoil, and thus make answer: “We are ready at all times to submit to the Law and the People’s will, and to bow to their demands, but we cannot and must not be asked to place our calling, our duty, and our honour beneath the irresponsible rule of an arbitrary autocrat132, however sympathetic with the generality he may chance to be!” Then, we would ask: “Sirs, did you ever hear of that great saying: ‘Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you!’” For it is but fair presumption133 that the Dramatists, whom our Legislators have placed in bondage134 to a despot, are, no less than those Legislators, proud of their calling, conscious of their duty, and jealous of their honour.
1909.
收听单词发音 |
1
censor
|
|
| n./vt.审查，审查员；删改 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
censors
|
|
| 删剪（书籍、电影等中被认为犯忌、违反道德或政治上危险的内容）( censor的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
bulwark
|
|
| n.堡垒，保障，防御 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
speculations
|
|
| n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 )；思考；投机活动；推断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
friction
|
|
| n.摩擦，摩擦力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
publicity
|
|
| n.众所周知，闻名；宣传，广告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
postponement
|
|
| n.推迟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
mar
|
|
| vt.破坏，毁坏，弄糟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
hampered
|
|
| 妨碍，束缚，限制( hamper的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
faction
|
|
| n.宗派，小集团；派别；派系斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
wedded
|
|
| adj.正式结婚的；渴望…的，执著于…的v.嫁，娶，（与…）结婚( wed的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
pedantically
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
15
triumphantly
|
|
| ad.得意洋洋地；得胜地；成功地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
archaic
|
|
| adj.(语言、词汇等)古代的，已不通用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
outgrown
|
|
| 长[发展] 得超过（某物）的范围( outgrow的过去分词 )； 长[发展]得不能再要（某物）； 长得比…快； 生长速度超过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
allege
|
|
| vt.宣称，申述，主张，断言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
livelihood
|
|
| n.生计，谋生之道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
aspersion
|
|
| n.诽谤，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
cynical
|
|
| adj.(对人性或动机)怀疑的，不信世道向善的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
amenable
|
|
| adj.经得起检验的；顺从的；对负有义务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
edifice
|
|
| n.宏伟的建筑物(如宫殿，教室) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
civic
|
|
| adj.城市的，都市的，市民的，公民的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
underlies
|
|
| v.位于或存在于（某物）之下( underlie的第三人称单数 )；构成…的基础（或起因），引起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
vigilant
|
|
| adj.警觉的，警戒的，警惕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
theatrical
|
|
| adj.剧场的，演戏的；做戏似的，做作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
uncommon
|
|
| adj.罕见的，非凡的，不平常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
dubious
|
|
| adj.怀疑的，无把握的；有问题的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
refund
|
|
| v.退还，偿还；n.归还，偿还额，退款 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
obviated
|
|
| v.避免，消除（贫困、不方便等）( obviate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
36
paternal
|
|
| adj.父亲的，像父亲的，父系的，父方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
sneers
|
|
| 讥笑的表情（言语）( sneer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
undesirable
|
|
| adj.不受欢迎的，不良的，不合意的，讨厌的；n.不受欢迎的人，不良分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
exempting
|
|
| 使免除[豁免]( exempt的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
wielder
|
|
| 行使者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
licentiousness
|
|
| n.放肆，无法无天 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
recoil
|
|
| vi.退却，退缩，畏缩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
recoils
|
|
| n.（尤指枪炮的）反冲，后坐力( recoil的名词复数 )v.畏缩( recoil的第三人称单数 )；退缩；报应；返回 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
wares
|
|
| n. 货物, 商品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
perversely
|
|
| adv. 倔强地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
engendered
|
|
| v.产生（某形势或状况），造成，引起( engender的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
pundits
|
|
| n.某一学科的权威，专家( pundit的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
discomfort
|
|
| n.不舒服，不安，难过，困难，不方便 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
exemption
|
|
| n.豁免，免税额，免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
ulcers
|
|
| n.溃疡( ulcer的名词复数 )；腐烂物；道德败坏；腐败 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
espouse
|
|
| v.支持，赞成，嫁娶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
judgments
|
|
| 判断( judgment的名词复数 )； 鉴定； 评价； 审判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
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： |
|
|
|
|
62
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
proprietors
|
|
| n.所有人，业主( proprietor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
decency
|
|
| n.体面，得体，合宜，正派，庄重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
contemplate
|
|
| vt.盘算，计议；周密考虑；注视，凝视 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
tragic
|
|
| adj.悲剧的，悲剧性的，悲惨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
dubiously
|
|
| adv.可疑地，怀疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
censured
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
pretentiously
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
artistic
|
|
| adj.艺术(家)的，美术(家)的；善于艺术创作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
riddles
|
|
| n.谜（语）( riddle的名词复数 )；猜不透的难题，难解之谜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
playwright
|
|
| n.剧作家，编写剧本的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
investigations
|
|
| （正式的）调查( investigation的名词复数 )； 侦查； 科学研究； 学术研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
vaguely
|
|
| adv.含糊地，暖昧地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
revere
|
|
| vt.尊崇，崇敬，敬畏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
cataclysm
|
|
| n.洪水，剧变，大灾难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
advancement
|
|
| n.前进，促进，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
averted
|
|
| 防止，避免( avert的过去式和过去分词 )； 转移 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
subversion
|
|
| n.颠覆，破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
conspicuously
|
|
| ad.明显地，惹人注目地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
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： |
|
|
|
|
90
judiciously
|
|
| adv.明断地，明智而审慎地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
momentous
|
|
| adj.重要的，重大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
pruned
|
|
| v.修剪（树木等）( prune的过去式和过去分词 )；精简某事物，除去某事物多余的部分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
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： |
|
|
|
|
96
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
licensed
|
|
| adj.得到许可的v.许可，颁发执照(license的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
harmonious
|
|
| adj.和睦的，调和的，和谐的，协调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
mentors
|
|
| n.（无经验之人的）有经验可信赖的顾问( mentor的名词复数 )v.（无经验之人的）有经验可信赖的顾问( mentor的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
deterrent
|
|
| n.阻碍物，制止物；adj.威慑的，遏制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
incurable
|
|
| adj.不能医治的，不能矫正的，无救的；n.不治的病人，无救的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
incur
|
|
| vt.招致，蒙受，遭遇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
temperament
|
|
| n.气质，性格，性情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
promulgation
|
|
| n.颁布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
excoriated
|
|
| v.擦伤( excoriate的过去式和过去分词 )；擦破（皮肤）；剥（皮）；严厉指责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
variance
|
|
| n.矛盾，不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
instil
|
|
| v.逐渐灌输 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
tedium
|
|
| n.单调；烦闷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
perusal
|
|
| n.细读，熟读；目测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
excise
|
|
| n.(国产)货物税；vt.切除，删去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
ethical
|
|
| adj.伦理的，道德的，合乎道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
exuberantly
|
|
| adv.兴高采烈地，活跃地，愉快地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
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： |
|
|
|
|
118
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
utterance
|
|
| n.用言语表达，话语，言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
utterances
|
|
| n.发声( utterance的名词复数 )；说话方式；语调；言论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
plunge
|
|
| v.跳入，(使)投入，(使)陷入；猛冲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
proprietary
|
|
| n.所有权，所有的；独占的；业主 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
appalling
|
|
| adj.骇人听闻的，令人震惊的，可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
boycott
|
|
| n./v.(联合)抵制，拒绝参与 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
subversive
|
|
| adj.颠覆性的，破坏性的；n.破坏份子，危险份子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
expeditious
|
|
| adj.迅速的，敏捷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
underlying
|
|
| adj.在下面的，含蓄的，潜在的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
fettered
|
|
| v.给…上脚镣，束缚( fetter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
homely
|
|
| adj.家常的，简朴的；不漂亮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
autocrat
|
|
| n.独裁者；专横的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
presumption
|
|
| n.推测，可能性，冒昧，放肆，[法律]推定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
bondage
|
|
| n.奴役，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |