你可能感兴趣的试题

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature

There has arisen during this twentieth century (as it arose before, in ages which we like to call dark) a pronounced anti intellectualism, a feeling that both studies and literature are not merely vain, but also (1) untrustworthy. With people swayed by this wrong (2) that there is little use in arguing, either for history or literature, or for poetry or music, or for the arts (3) .
With others, there is still faith that any civilization worthy of the name must be (4) in a ceaseless pursuit of truth. Whether truth is (5) through study or through the arts makes no difference. Any pursuit of truth is not only (6) ; it is the foundation stone of civilization.
The (7) for and reading of history is one of those approaches to truth. It is only ones all the arts and sciences are such (8) . All have their place; all are good; and each (9) with the other. They are not airtight compartments. It is only in a few institutions, subjected to (10) misinformation, that events like the Industrial Revolution are (11) entirely to the historians, the social scientists, or the physical scientists. Only within the past hundred years have historians (12) that what people have done in literature and art is a part of their history. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin have themselves helped to (13) history.
Even at the moment, when scientific (14) becomes more and more specialized and the historian concentrates more and more fiercely on periods and (15) , it is becoming more (16) to the layman that all this is part of one whole. Even on a (n) (17) when textbooks are being written to introduce to the theoretical physicist his colleagues who are working as chemists or engineers on perhaps the same problem, the layman is far enough (18) from all this specialization to see the whole, possibly even more clearly than do the (19) . Between history, biography, the arts and sciences, and even journalism, who could draw airtight (20) Not laymen. Is not yesterday’s newspaper history, and may it not become literature