This comparison is the more important, because American slavery has been defended on the ground of God’s permitting Hebrew slavery.
The inquiry1 now arises, What kind of slavery was it that was permitted among the Hebrews? for in different nations very different systems have been called by the general name of slavery.
That the patriarchal state of servitude which existed in the time of Abraham was a very different thing from American slavery, a few graphic2 incidents in the scripture3 narrative4 show; for we read that when the angels came to visit Abraham, although he had three hundred servants born in his house, it is said that Abraham hasted, and took a calf5, and killed it, and gave it to a young man to dress; and that he told Sarah to take three measures of meal and knead it into cakes; and that, when all was done, he himself set it before his guests.
From various other incidents which appear in the patriarchal narrative, it would seem that these servants bore more the relation of the members of a Scotch6 clan7 to their feudal8 lord than that of an American slave to his master;—thus it seems that if Abraham had died without children, his head servant would have been his heir.—Gen. 15:3.
Of what species, then, was the slavery which God permitted among the Hebrews? By what laws was it regulated?
In the New Testament9 the whole Hebrew system of administration is spoken of as a relatively10 imperfect one, and as superseded11 by the Christian12 dispensation.—Heb. 8:13.
We are taught thus to regard the Hebrew system as an educational system, by which a debased, half-civilized race, which had been degraded by slavery in its worst form among the Egyptians, was gradually elevated to refinement13 and humanity.
As they went from the land of Egypt, it would appear that the most disgusting personal habits, the most unheard-of and unnatural14 impurities15, prevailed among them; so that it was necessary to make laws with relation to things of which Christianity has banished17 the very name from the earth.
Beside all this, polygamy, war and slavery, were the universal custom of nations.
It is represented in the New Testament that God, in educating this people, proceeded in the same gradual manner in which a wise father would proceed with a family of children.
He selected a few of the most vital points of evil practice, and forbade them by positive statute19, under rigorous penalties.
The worship of any other god was, by the Jewish law, constituted high treason, and rigorously punished with death.
As the knowledge of the true God and religious instruction could not then, as now, be afforded by printing and books, one day in the week had to be set apart for preserving in the minds of the people a sense of His being, and their obligations to Him. The devoting of this day to any other purpose was also punished with death; and the reason is obvious, that its sacredness was the principal means relied on for preserving the allegiance of the nation to their king and God, and its desecration21, of course, led directly to high treason against the head of the state.
With regard to many other practices which prevailed among the Jews, as among other 116heathen nations, we find the Divine Being taking the same course which wise human legislators have taken.
When Lycurgus wished to banish16 money and its attendant luxuries from Sparta, he did not forbid it by direct statute-law, but he instituted a currency so clumsy and uncomfortable that, as we are informed by Rollin, it took a cart and pair of oxen to carry home the price of a very moderate estate.
In the same manner the Divine Being surrounded the customs of polygamy, war, blood-revenge and slavery, with regulations which gradually and certainly tended to abolish them entirely22.
No one would pretend that the laws which God established in relation to polygamy, cities of refuge, &c., have any application to Christian nations now.
The following summary of some of these laws of the Mosaic23 code is given by Dr. C. E. Stowe, Professor of Biblical Literature in Andover Theological Seminary:
1. It commanded a Hebrew, even though a married man, with wife and children living, to take the childless widow of a deceased brother, and beget24 children with her.—Deut. 25:5–10.
2. The Hebrews, under certain restrictions25, were allowed to make concubines, or wives for a limited time, of women taken in war.—Deut. 21:10–19.
3. A Hebrew who already had a wife was allowed to take another also, provided he still continued his intercourse26 with the first as her husband, and treated her kindly27 and affectionately.—Exodus 21:9–11.
4. By the Mosaic law, the nearest relative of a murdered Hebrew could pursue and slay28 the murderer, unless he could escape to the city of refuge; and the same permission was given in case of accidental homicide.—Num. 35:9–39.
5. The Israelites were commanded to exterminate29 the Canaanites, men, women and children.—Deut. 9:12; 20:16–18.
Any one, or all, of the above practices, can be justified30 by the Mosaic law, as well as the practice of slave-holding.
Each of these laws, although in its time it was an ameliorating law, designed to take the place of some barbarous abuse, and to be a connecting link by which some higher state of society might be introduced, belongs confessedly to that system which St. Paul says made nothing perfect. They are a part of the commandment which he says was annulled31 for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, and which, in the time which he wrote, was waxing old, and ready to vanish away. And Christ himself says, with regard to certain permissions of this system, that they were given on account of the “hardness of their hearts,”—because the attempt to enforce a more stringent32 system at that time, owing to human depravity, would have only produced greater abuses.
The following view of the Hebrew laws of slavery is compiled from Barnes’ work on slavery, and from Professor Stowe’s manuscript lectures.
The legislation commenced by making the great and common source of slavery—kidnapping—a capital crime.
The enactment34 is as follows: “He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”—Exodus 21:16.
The sources from which slaves were to be obtained were thus reduced to two: first, the voluntary sale of an individual by himself, which certainly does not come under the designation of involuntary servitude; second, the appropriation35 of captives taken in war, and the buying from the heathen.
With regard to the servitude of the Hebrew by a voluntary sale of himself, such servitude, by the statute-law of the land, came to an end once in seven years; so that the worst that could be made of it was that it was a voluntary contract to labor36 for a certain time.
With regard to the servants bought of the heathen, or of foreigners in the land, there was a statute by which their servitude was annulled once in fifty years.
It has been supposed, from a disconnected view of one particular passage in the Mosaic code, that God directly countenanced37 the treating of a slave, who was a stranger and foreigner, with more rigor20 and severity than a Hebrew slave. That this was not the case will appear from the following enactments38, which have express reference to strangers:
The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.—Lev. 19:34.
Thou shalt neither vex39 a stranger nor oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.—Exodus 22:21.
Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger.—Exodus 23:9.
The Lord your God regardeth not persons. He doth execute the judgment40 of the fatherless and the widow, and loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment; love ye therefore the stranger.—Deut. 10:17–19.
Judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.—Deut. 1:16.
Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger.—Deut. 27:19.
Instead of making slavery an oppressive institution with regard to the stranger, it was made by God a system within which heathen were adopted into the Jewish state, educated and instructed in the worship of the true God, and in due time emancipated41.
In the first place, they were protected by law from personal violence. The loss of an eye or a tooth, through the violence of his master, took the slave out of that master’s 117power entirely, and gave him his liberty. Then, further than this, if a master’s conduct towards a slave was such as to induce him to run away, it was enjoined42 that nobody should assist in retaking him, and that he should dwell wherever he chose in the land, without molestation43. Third, the law secured to the slave a very considerable portion of time, which was to be at his own disposal. Every seventh year was to be at his own disposal.—Lev. 25:4–6. Every seventh day was, of course, secured to him.—Ex. 20:10.
The servant had the privilege of attending the three great national festivals, when all the males of the nation were required to appear before God in Jerusalem.—Ex. 34:23.
Each of these festivals, it is computed44, took up about three weeks.
The slave also was to be a guest in the family festivals. In Deut. 12:12, it is said, “Ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and the Levite that is within your gates.”
Dr. Barnes estimates that the whole amount of time which a servant could have to himself would amount to about twenty-three years out of fifty, or nearly one-half his time.
Again, the servant was placed on an exact equality with his master in all that concerned his religious relations.
Now, if we recollect45 that in the time of Moses the God and the king of the nation were one and the same person, and that the civil and religious relation were one and the same, it will appear that the slave and his master stood on an equality in their civil relation with regard to the state.
Thus, in Deuteronomy 29, is described a solemn national convocation, which took place before the death of Moses, when the whole nation were called upon, after a solemn review of their national history, to renew their constitutional oath of allegiance to their supreme46 Magistrate47 and Lord.
On this occasion, Moses addressed them thus:—“Ye stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water; that thou shouldest enter into covenant48 with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day.”
Wheeler’s Law of Slavery, p. 243.
How different is this from the cool and explicit49 declaration of South Carolina with regard to the position of the American slave:—“A slave is not generally regarded as legally capable of being within the peace of the state. He is not a citizen, and is not in that character entitled to her protection.”
In all the religious services, which, as we have seen by the constitution of the nation, were civil services, the slave and the master mingled50 on terms of strict equality. There was none of the distinction which appertains to a distinct class or caste. “There was no special service appointed for them at unusual seasons. There were no particular seats assigned to them, to keep up the idea that they were a degraded class. There was no withholding51 from them the instruction which the word of God gave about the equal rights of mankind.”
Fifthly. It was always contemplated52 that the slave would, as a matter of course, choose the Jewish religion, and the service of God, and enter willingly into all the obligations and services of the Jewish polity.
Mr. Barnes cites the words of Maimonides, to show how this was commonly understood by the Hebrews.—Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery. By Albert Barnes, p. 132.
Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant.
But he that is in the house is entered on the eighth day; and he that is bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him, unless the slave be unwilling53. For, if the master receive a grown slave, and he be unwilling, his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year. After which, should he refuse so long, it is forbidden to keep him longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers from whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other than the worship of a willing heart.—Maimon. Hilcoth Miloth, chap. I., sec. 8.
A sixth fundamental arrangement with regard to the Hebrew slave was that he could never be sold. Concerning this Mr. Barnes remarks:
A man, in certain circumstances, might be bought by a Hebrew; but when once bought, that was an end of the matter. There is not the slightest evidence that any Hebrew ever sold a slave; and any provision contemplating54 that was unknown to the constitution of the Commonwealth55. It is said of Abraham that he had “servants bought with money;” but there is no record of his having ever sold one, nor is there any account of its ever having been done by Isaac or 118Jacob. The only instance of a sale of this kind among the patriarchs is that act of the brothers of Joseph, which is held up to so strong reprobation56, by which they sold him to the Ishmaelites. Permission is given in the law of Moses to buy a servant, but none is given to sell him again; and the fact that no such permission is given is full proof that it was not contemplated. When he entered into that relation, it became certain that there could be no change, unless it was voluntary on his part (comp. Ex. 21:5,6), or unless his master gave him his freedom, until the not distant period fixed57 by law when he could be free. There is no arrangement in the law of Moses by which servants were to be taken in payment of their master’s debts, by which they were to be given as pledges, by which they were to be consigned58 to the keeping of others, or by which they were to be given away as presents. There are no instances occurring in the Jewish history in which any of these things were done. This law is positive in regard to the Hebrew servant, and the principle of the law would apply to all others. Lev. 25:42.—“They shall not be sold as bond men.” In all these respects there was a marked difference, and there was doubtless intended to be, between the estimate affixed59 to servants and to property.—Inquiry, &c., p. 133–4.
As to the practical workings of this system, as they are developed in the incidents of sacred history, they are precisely60 what we should expect from such a system of laws. For instance, we find it mentioned incidentally in the ninth chapter of the first book of Samuel, that when Saul and his servant came to see Samuel, that Samuel, in anticipation61 of his being crowned king, made a great feast for him; and in verse twenty-second the history says: “And Samuel took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlor62, and made them sit in the chiefest place.”
We read, also, in 2 Samuel 9:10, of a servant of Saul who had large estates, and twenty servants of his own.
We find, in 1 Chron. 2:34, the following incident related: “Now, Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a servant, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha, his servant, to wife.”
Does this resemble American slavery?
We find, moreover, that this connection was not considered at all disgraceful, for the son of this very daughter was enrolled63 among the valiant64 men of David’s army.—1 Chron. 2:41.
In fine, we are not surprised to discover that the institutions of Moses in effect so obliterated65 all the characteristics of slavery, that it had ceased to exist among the Jews long before the time of Christ. Mr. Barnes asks:
On what evidence would a man rely to prove that slavery existed at all in the land in the time of the later prophets of the Maccabees, or when the Saviour66 appeared? There are abundant proofs, as we shall see, that it existed in Greece and Rome; but what is the evidence that it existed in Judea? So far as I have been able to ascertain67, there are no declarations that it did to be found in the canonical68 books of the Old Testament, or in Josephus. There are no allusions69 to laws and customs which imply that it was prevalent. There are no coins or medals which suppose it. There are no facts which do not admit of an easy explanation on the supposition that slavery had ceased.—Inquiry, &c., p. 226.
Two objections have been urged to the interpretations70 which have been given of two of the enactments before quoted.
1. It is said that the enactment, “Thou shalt not return to his master the servant that has escaped,” &c., relates only to servants escaping from heathen masters to the Jewish nation.
The following remarks on this passage are from Prof. Stowe’s lectures:
Deuteronomy 23:15,16.—These words make a statute which, like every other statute, is to be strictly71 construed72. There is nothing in the language to limit its meaning; there is nothing in the connection in which it stands to limit its meaning; nor is there anything in the history of the Mosaic legislation to limit the application of this statute to the case of servants escaping from foreign masters. The assumption that it is thus limited is wholly gratuitous73, and, so far as the Bible is concerned, unsustained by any evidence whatever. It is said that it would be absurd for Moses to enact33 such a law while servitude existed among the Hebrews. It would indeed be absurd, were it the object of the Mosaic legislation to sustain and perpetuate74 slavery; but, if it were the object of Moses to limit and to restrain, and finally to extinguish slavery, this statute was admirably adapted to his purpose. That it was the object of Moses to extinguish, and not to perpetuate, slavery, is perfectly75 clear from the whole course of his legislation on the subject. Every slave was to have all the religious privileges and instruction to which his master’s children were entitled. Every seventh year released the Hebrew slave, and every fiftieth year produced universal emancipation76. If a master, by an accidental or an angry blow, deprived the slave of a tooth, the slave, by that act, was forever free. And so, by the statute in question, if the slave felt himself oppressed, he could make his escape, and, though the master was not forbidden to retake him if he could, 119every one was forbidden to aid his master in doing it. This statute, in fact, made the servitude voluntary, and that was what Moses intended.
Moses dealt with slavery precisely as he dealt with polygamy and with war: without directly prohibiting, he so restricted as to destroy it; instead of cutting down the poison-tree, he girdled it, and left it to die of itself. There is a statute in regard to military expeditions precisely analogous77 to this celebrated78 fugitive79 slave law. Had Moses designed to perpetuate a warlike spirit among the Hebrews, the statute would have been pre?minently absurd; but, if it was his design to crush it, and to render foreign wars almost impossible, the statute was exactly adapted to his purpose. It rendered foreign military service, in effect, entirely voluntary, just as the fugitive law rendered domestic servitude, in effect, voluntary.
The law may be found at length in Deuteronomy 20:5–10; and let it be carefully read and compared with the fugitive slave law already adverted81 to. Just when the men are drawn82 up ready for the expedition,—just at the moment when even the hearts of brave men are apt to fail them,—the officers are commanded to address the soldiers thus:
“What man of you is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated83 it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it.
“And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard and hath not yet eaten of it? Let him also go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it.
“And what man is there that hath betrothed84 a wife, and hath not taken her? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.”
And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, “What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted? Let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren’s heart faint, as well as his heart.”
Now, consider that the Hebrews were exclusively an agricultural people, that warlike parties necessarily consist mainly of young men, and that by this statute every man who had built a house which he had not yet lived in, and every man who had planted a vineyard from which he had not yet gathered fruit, and every man who had engaged a wife whom he had not yet married, and every one who felt timid and faint-hearted, was permitted and commanded to go home,—how many would there probably be left? Especially when the officers, instead of exciting their military ardor85 by visions of glory and of splendor86, were commanded to repeat it over and over again that they would probably die in the battle and never get home, and hold this idea up before them as if it were the only idea suitable for their purpose, how excessively absurd is the whole statute considered as a military law,—just as absurd as the Mosaic fugitive law, understood in its widest application, is, considered as a slave law!
It is clearly the object of this military law to put an end to military expeditions; for, with this law in force, such expeditions must always be entirely volunteer expeditions. Just as clearly was it the object of the fugitive slave law to put an end to compulsory87 servitude; for, with that law in force, the servitude must, in effect, be, to a great extent, voluntary,—and that is just what the legislator intended. There is no possibility of limiting the law, on account of its absurdity88, when understood in its widest sense, except by proving that the Mosaic legislation was designed to perpetuate and not to limit slavery; and this certainly cannot be proved, for it is directly contrary to the plain matter of fact.
I repeat it, then, again: there is nothing in the language of this statute, there is nothing in the connection in which it stands, there is nothing in the history of the Mosaic legislation on this subject, to limit the application of the law to the case of servants escaping from foreign masters; but every consideration, from every legitimate89 source, leads us to a conclusion directly the opposite. Such a limitation is the arbitrary, unsupported stet voluntas pro18 ratione assumption of the commentator90, and nothing else. The only shadow of a philological91 argument that I can see, for limiting the statute, is found in the use of the words to thee, in the fifteenth verse. It may be said that the pronoun thee is used in a national and not individual sense, implying an escape from some other nation to the Hebrews. But, examine the statute immediately preceding this, and observe the use of the pronoun thee in the thirteenth verse. Most obviously, the pronouns in these statutes92 are used with reference to the individuals addressed, and not in a collective or national sense exclusively; very rarely, if ever, can this sense be given to them in the way claimed by the argument referred to.
2. It is said that the proclamation, “Thou shalt proclaim liberty through the land to all the inhabitants thereof,” related only to Hebrew slaves. This assumption is based entirely on the supposition that the slave was not considered, in Hebrew law, as a person, as an inhabitant of the land, and a member of the state; but we have just proved that in the most solemn transaction of the state the hewer of wood and drawer of water is expressly designated as being just as much an actor and participator as his master; and it would be absurd to suppose that, in a statute addressed to all the inhabitants of the land, he is not included as an inhabitant.
Barnes enforces this idea by some pages of quotations93 from Jewish writers, which will fully80 satisfy any one who reads his work.
From a review, then, of all that relates to the Hebrew slave-law, it will appear that it was a very well-considered and wisely-adapted system of education and gradual emancipation. No rational man can doubt that if the same laws were enacted94 and the same practices prevailed with regard to slavery in the United States, that the system of American slavery might be considered, to all intents and purposes, practically at an end. If there is any doubt of this fact, and it is still thought that the permission of slavery among the Hebrews justifies95 American slavery, in all fairness the experiment of making the two systems alike ought to be tried, and we should then see what would be the result.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
graphic
|
|
| adj.生动的，形象的，绘画的，文字的，图表的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
scripture
|
|
| n.经文，圣书，手稿；Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》，《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
calf
|
|
| n.小牛，犊，幼仔，小牛皮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
scotch
|
|
| n.伤口，刻痕；苏格兰威士忌酒；v.粉碎，消灭，阻止；adj.苏格兰(人)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
clan
|
|
| n.氏族，部落，宗族，家族，宗派 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
feudal
|
|
| adj.封建的，封地的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
superseded
|
|
| [医]被代替的，废弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
refinement
|
|
| n.文雅；高尚；精美；精制；精炼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
unnatural
|
|
| adj.不自然的；反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
impurities
|
|
| 不纯( impurity的名词复数 )； 不洁； 淫秽； 杂质 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
banish
|
|
| vt.放逐，驱逐；消除，排除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
banished
|
|
| v.放逐，驱逐( banish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
pro
|
|
| n.赞成，赞成的意见，赞成者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
rigor
|
|
| n.严酷，严格，严厉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
desecration
|
|
| n. 亵渎神圣, 污辱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
mosaic
|
|
| n./adj.镶嵌细工的，镶嵌工艺品的，嵌花式的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
beget
|
|
| v.引起；产生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
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： |
|
|
|
|
26
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
kindly
|
|
| adj.和蔼的，温和的，爽快的；adv.温和地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
slay
|
|
| v.杀死，宰杀，杀戮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
exterminate
|
|
| v.扑灭，消灭，根绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
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： |
|
|
|
|
32
stringent
|
|
| adj.严厉的；令人信服的；银根紧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
enact
|
|
| vt.制定(法律)；上演，扮演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
enactment
|
|
| n.演出，担任…角色；制订，通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
countenanced
|
|
| v.支持，赞同，批准( countenance的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
38
enactments
|
|
| n.演出( enactment的名词复数 )；展现；规定；通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
vex
|
|
| vt.使烦恼，使苦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
emancipated
|
|
| adj.被解放的，不受约束的v.解放某人（尤指摆脱政治、法律或社会的束缚）( emancipate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
molestation
|
|
| n.骚扰，干扰，调戏；折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
computed
|
|
| adj.[医]计算的，使用计算机的v.计算，估算( compute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
recollect
|
|
| v.回忆，想起，记起，忆起，记得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
covenant
|
|
| n.盟约，契约；v.订盟约 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
mingled
|
|
| 混合，混入( mingle的过去式和过去分词 )； 混进，与…交往[联系] | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
withholding
|
|
| 扣缴税款 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
contemplated
|
|
| adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
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： |
|
|
|
|
55
commonwealth
|
|
| n.共和国，联邦，共同体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
reprobation
|
|
| n.斥责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
consigned
|
|
| v.把…置于（令人不快的境地）( consign的过去式和过去分词 )；把…托付给；把…托人代售；丟弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
affixed
|
|
| adj.[医]附着的，附着的v.附加( affix的过去式和过去分词 )；粘贴；加以；盖（印章） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
anticipation
|
|
| n.预期，预料，期望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
parlor
|
|
| n.店铺，营业室；会客室，客厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
enrolled
|
|
| adj.入学登记了的v.[亦作enrol]( enroll的过去式和过去分词 )；登记，招收，使入伍（或入会、入学等），参加，成为成员；记入名册；卷起，包起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
valiant
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，英勇的；n.勇士，勇敢的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
obliterated
|
|
| v.除去( obliterate的过去式和过去分词 )；涂去；擦掉；彻底破坏或毁灭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
saviour
|
|
| n.拯救者，救星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
canonical
|
|
| n.权威的；典型的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
allusions
|
|
| 暗指，间接提到( allusion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
interpretations
|
|
| n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 )；表演；演绎；理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
construed
|
|
| v.解释（陈述、行为等）( construe的过去式和过去分词 )；翻译，作句法分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
perpetuate
|
|
| v.使永存，使永记不忘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
emancipation
|
|
| n.（从束缚、支配下）解放 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
analogous
|
|
| adj.相似的；类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
fugitive
|
|
| adj.逃亡的，易逝的；n.逃犯，逃亡者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
adverted
|
|
| 引起注意（advert的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
dedicated
|
|
| adj.一心一意的；献身的；热诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
betrothed
|
|
| n. 已订婚者 动词betroth的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
ardor
|
|
| n.热情，狂热 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
splendor
|
|
| n.光彩；壮丽，华丽；显赫，辉煌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
compulsory
|
|
| n.强制的，必修的；规定的，义务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
commentator
|
|
| n.注释者，解说者；实况广播评论员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
philological
|
|
| adj.语言学的，文献学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
justifies
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的第三人称单数 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |