Anger

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 148 of 447 · 20 per page

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  Both sides had shown willingness to compromise and in the end the differences between them scarcely seemed big enough to justify the schism that resulted from the failure. But what finally kept the two sides apart was the absence of trust—on marriage, the sacraments, and other issues, the evangelicals simply did not believe that the Catholics meant what they said, or that they would keep their word. They feared that concessions would lead to their being crushed at a Church council that would be held outside Germany and set up to defeat them. 81 The result was not inevitable, but rather a narrowly missed opportunity to prevent the splitting of the Catholic Church. This was why negotiations continued for so long, with one committee succeeding another, and why Charles had been willing to countenance ever more attempts to reach agreement. Had it been left to Melanchthon—who was an irenicist, not a conservative like Luther—a deal might have been done. In early October 1530, Luther finally arrived back in Wittenberg, having spent half a year in the “desert” of Coburg, surrounded by the cawing of the jackdaws. He longed to see his companions: “Just come home!” he had written to the Augsburg delegation in mid-July. 82 He brushed off rumors of illness, and to prove his point he upbraided Katharina: “you can see for yourself the books that I’m writing.” 83 55. Lucas Cranach the Elder, Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon, 1543. Luther had indeed been remarkably creative during his exile among the birds; he had finished the translation of the Old Testament, on which he had worked for twelve long years. But much of his creativity was powered by anger and hate. As Melanchthon sought to pacify, Luther poured out A Revocation of Purgatory— ironic, of course—the Letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Mainz, and the Propositions Against the Whole School of Satan and All the Gates of Hell— all attacking Catholic theology and, when sold in Augsburg, giving him a voice at the Diet. 84 In Warning to His Dear Germans (written in October but not printed until 1531), he laid into “the shameless mouth and bloodthirsty sophist,” his old enemy Dr. Eck, and excoriated the extravagance and splendor of the Diet “that would have shamed even Lord Envy and Mr. Liar.” 85 But the very fluency of Luther’s pen sprang from the ease with which he articulated familiar rhetoric. He repeated arguments he had first developed ten years before, now clothed in bitter polemic. He was increasingly speaking to the converted, not to those wrestling with doubt.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  The phrase echoed Luther’s insistence before Worms that he had not been given a hearing, and that he had not been proved wrong by Scripture. 40. WB 3, 785, Oct. 27, 1524, 361:13–14. 41. Burnett, Karlstadt, 68, 143–47; Martin Reinhart had Karlstadt’s work published in Nuremberg but was exiled from there, getting the Dialogue finally finished in Bamberg. 42. Barge, Karlstadt, II, 18; Gerhard Westerburg, Vom Fegefewer vnd Standt der verscheyden selen eyn Christliche Meynung, Cologne 1523 [VD 16 W2215]. It opens with a dedication letter to the mayor and council of Cologne. Publication in Cologne was very important because it was the gateway to the Netherlands, and three thousand copies were reportedly sent on there. It was published in Augsburg as well. On the preaching visit, Barge, Karlstadt, II, 20–21. 43. WB 3 887, June 11, 1525, 527:2, Paul Speratus to Luther, describing the arrival of Martin Cellarius in Königsberg. See also WB 3, 756, July 4, 1524. Cornelius Hoen in the Netherlands and Franz Kolb at Wertheim had already written to Luther arguing similar sacramental positions (WS 15, 384); Luther wrote complaining of the number of people taking Karlstadt’s position in late 1524; WB 3, 793, Nov. 17, 1524 and WB 3, 802, Dec. 2, 1524; 817, Jan. 13, 1525. See Barge, Karlstadt, II, 144–296. 44. WB 3, 796, Nov. 22, 1524; 797, Nov. 23, 1524; and Gerbel reported that in Strasbourg Karlstadt was blaming Luther for his expulsion, complaining that he had been neither heard nor warned. 45. WB 3, 858, Strasbourg, April(?) 1525, 477:29–31. 46. Valentin Ickelsamer, Clag ettlicher Brieder, an alle Christen, von der großen Ungerechtigkeyt und Tyranney, so Endressen Bodenstein…vom Luther…gechicht [Augsburg] [1525] [VD 16 I 32]. Ickelsamer was a supporter of Karlstadt. 47. LW 40, 204; WS 18, 194. Luther also accuses Karlstadt of “envy and vain ambition,” and “envious hatred,” in Against the Heavenly Prophets, and, in an extended passage, accuses him of being subservient to “Frau Hulda,” or Reason, a capricious elfin figure of folklore. Natural reason, Luther argues, is “the Devil’s prostitute,” and he condemns Karlstadt as a clever sophist who cannot see the plain meaning of Scripture, “This is my body.” For his part, Karlstadt would accuse Luther of delighting in trying to make him feel “gramschaft/neyd/hass/vngnad” (anxiety, envy, hatred, and disgrace), Anzeyg, fo. E [iv] (v). 48. WS 15, 391–97, Dec. 14–15, 1525. 49. WS 15, 384, Dec. 31, 1524 (Capito to Zwingli). 50. WS 15, 394:12–17; 24; in typical fashion, Luther argued that the more Karlstadt “schwermet” (enthused) about the idea that there was no Real Presence, the stronger Luther’s conviction that he was wrong. 51. WB 3, 779, Oct. 3, 1524, 354:15. A year later, writing about Duke Georg, and echoing his earlier language, Luther compared him to Karlstadt, who along with the sacramentarians were “the sons of my womb”; WB 4, 973, Jan. 20, 1526, 18:7. This was powerful language indeed. 52. WS 18, 66:19–20. 53.

• From The Battle for God (2000)

  They did not see why that should make them less modern, though they tacitly recognized that this would mean a break with some of the old conservative aspects of premodern religion. The fundamentalist reformation of the faith meant that an activism that had hitherto been seen as irreligious was now presented as crucial. Religious Zionists and fundamentalist Christians and Muslims all insisted on the need for dynamism and revolutionary transformation in keeping with the forward thrust and pragmatic drive of modern society. This battle for God was an attempt to fill the void at the heart of a society based on scientific rationalism. Instead of reviling fundamentalists, the secularist establishment could sometimes have benefited from a long, hard look at some of their countercultures. Shukri Mustafa’s communes were a reverse image of Sadat’s Open Door policy; the charitable empires created by the Muslim Brothers and the practical measures taken by the members of the jamaat al-islamiyyah threw into harsh relief the current government’s lack of concern for the poor, a crucial value in Islam. The popularity and power of these movements showed that the people of Egypt still wanted to be religious, despite the secularist trend. So did the cult of Khomeini in Iran: as the confrontation with the regime accelerated, Khomeini took on more and more of the characteristics of the Imams, providing in his own person a Shii alternative to the despotic persona of the shah which was clearly attractive to many of the Iranians. Similarly, the Jewish yeshivot provided a contrast to the pragmatic nature of secularist education; in a society which seemed to have cast God and his Law aside, yeshiva students studied in order to have an encounter with the divine, not simply to acquire useful information, and made the study of the Torah more central to their lives than ever before. When they created these alternative societies, fundamentalists were demonstrating their disillusion with a culture which could not easily accommodate the spiritual. Because it was so embattled, this campaign to re-sacralize society became aggressive and distorted. It lacked the compassion which all faiths have insisted is essential to the religious life and to any experience of the numinous. Instead, it preached an ideology of exclusion, hatred, and even violence. But the fundamentalists did not have a monopoly on anger. Their movements had often evolved in a dialectical relationship with an aggressive secularism which showed scant respect for religion and its adherents. Secularists and fundamentalists sometimes seem trapped in an escalating spiral of hostility and recrimination.

• From The Battle for God (2000)

  An earthly reality could become a symbol of the divine, but was never itself holy; it pointed beyond itself to where reason could not go. But Kook had overridden these distinctions and created what some might call idolatry. Can an army be “holy” when it is often obliged to do terrible things, such as killing the innocent with the guilty? Traditionally, messianism had inspired people to criticize the status quo, but Kook would use it to give absolute sanction to Israeli policy. Such a vision could lead to a nihilism that denies crucial values. In making the State of Israel holy and its territorial integrity supreme, Kook had succumbed to the very temptation responsible for some of the worst nationalist atrocities of the twentieth century. Rabbi Kook the Elder’s inclusive vision, which had reached out to other faiths and to the secular world, had been lost. Kook the Younger was filled with burning hatred of Christians, of the goyim who interfered with Israeli ambitions, and of the Arabs. 87 There had been wisdom in the older vision, which had seen reason and myth as complementary though separate. There was great danger in Kook the Younger’s yoking of the two together. The Gahelet did not take this view, however. Rabbi Kook’s holistic ideology made Zionism a religion, and was just what they had been looking for. They became full-time students at Merkaz Harav, and put this obscure yeshiva on the map of Israel. They also made Kook a sort of Jewish pope, whose decrees were binding and infallible. These young men became Kook’s cadre and would become the leaders of the new fundamentalist Zionism: Moshe Levinger, Yaakov Ariel, Shlomo Aviner, Haim Drukman, Dov Lior, Zalman Melamed, Avraham Shapira, and Eliezar Waldman. In Merkaz Harav during the 1960s, they planned an offensive designed to win the nation back to God and to make the secular state realize its religious potential. Instead of the dialectical synthesis of secular and religious envisaged by Kook the Elder, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda expected an imminent takeover of the secular by the divine. For all their enthusiasm, however, the Gahelet could do no more than plan. There was nothing they could effectively do to settle the whole land or to change the heart of the nation. But in 1967, history took a hand.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  70 Melanchthon immediately set off to find Luther, while the Elector arranged for Luther’s personal physician, Matthäus Ratzeberger, to plead with him. 71 The university also became involved, and the Elector wrote personally to both Luther and Amsdorf, pressing the latter to persuade the old man to come back. In the end, Melanchthon thought better of confronting Luther and returned home. Luther’s old sparring partner the Saxon chancellor Gregor Brück had the measure of the two men: If Luther just wants to “sit on his head,” that is, turn his life’s work upside down, then he was sure that Philip would leave Wittenberg, too. He predicted that Luther would stay because he would not find it easy to sell all that property: There was the huge monastery in Wittenberg, several gardens, and other houses, too. 72 What worried the Elector and the university was that Melanchthon would leave with Luther, and that would be the end of the university. Whatever it was that made Luther decide so late in life to throw everything over, risking not only the future of the university but the entire Reformation, probably had something to do with tensions in his relationship with Melanchthon. It seems that despite all their achievements, and everything the two men had gone through together, Luther was prepared to jeopardize it all in a moment of melancholic bitterness. It is part of the appeal of the old Luther that he grouchily refused to play the tame patriarch, meekly handing on power to the next generation—and it was the tragedy of the Reformation that Luther had destroyed relations with so many of those who might have stepped into his shoes. A LTHOUGH L UTHER SPENT much time in his last years attacking friends and allies, he never forgot his true enemies, the first and greatest of whom remained the Pope. In 1538 he published a leaked memorial of advice from some cardinals about what should be discussed at the future Church council, with a biting commentary. The woodcut on the cover showed two cardinals cleaning out a church with foxtails, while the altarpiece was an image of the Pope. Foxtails stood for flattery and deceit, so the message was clear: The proposed council was nothing but a trick, and the Church really worshipped not Christ but the Pope. 1 Next, Luther personally commissioned a mock coat of arms of the papacy, remarking that the Pope “banned me and burnt me and stuck me in the behind of the Devil, so I will hang him on his own keys.” 2 As preparations began for another attempt to reconcile Catholics and Protestants at the Diet of Regensburg, Luther abandoned any residual willingness to compromise, and his polemic lost all restraint. In 1545 he produced the virulent, rambling Against the Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  Luther’s hatred of jurists was legendary. When young Martin was barely six months old, Luther said to him, “If you become a lawyer, I will hang you from a gallows” (WT 2, 1422). One wonders what brother Hans, aged nearly six at the time, who eventually became a lawyer having been intended for the ministry, would have made of this. Ironically Martin was to be destined for law. 35. Schwiebert, Luther and his Times, 594–602; Brecht, Luther, III, 235–44. 36. Greschat, Bucer, 245–49. The Kachelöfen were tiled and very effective heating systems, the heart of every German home, and they were soon made in religious propagandist forms, too, with tiles featuring antipapal cartoons. 37. Johann von Staupitz (and Johann Arndt), Zwey alte geistreiche Büchlein Doctoris Johannis von Staupitz weiland Abts zu Saltzbergk zu S. Peter Das Erste. Von der holdseligen Liebe Gottes. Das Ander. Von unserm H. Christlichen Glauben; Zu erweckung der Liebe Gottes…in allen Gottseligen Hertzen (Magdeburg, 1605 [VD 17 1:072800G]). 38. Reinitzer, Gesetz und Evangelium; Roper, “Martin Luther’s Body”; Roper, “Luther Relics,” in Jennifer Spinks and Dagmar Eichberger, eds., Religion, the Supernatural, and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe (Leiden, 2015). 39. Brown, Singing the Gospel, 1–25; Oettinger, Music as Propaganda; Veit, Das Kirchenlied . The first hymnbooks were produced in 1524; Luther wrote about forty hymns himself. 40. WT 3, 3739. 41. The emotional passage is so out of character with the factual reportage of the rest of the journal that its authenticity has been doubted; Schauerte, Dürer, 235. On the self-portraits, see Koerner, Moment of Self-Portraiture . 42. Dürer, Memoirs of Journeys, 55; 62–67. 43. Günzburg, The Fifteen Confederates (ed. and trans. Dipple), Third Confederate, around n.124, around n.120, three paras after n.119; Günzburg, Ein vermanung, fos. I iii (r); ii (v). As he writes: “Oh mother with a heart of stone, how faithless you are to your child. Do you think she is made of wood or iron, that she will not necessarily feel the burning desires of the flesh, just as you felt them…?” (Günzburg, Ein vermanung, fo. ii (r)). 44. Argula von Grumbach, “Wie eyn Christliche fraw des adels…,” in Grumbach, Schriften (ed. and trans. Matheson), 36–75. The letter also circulated in manuscript. 45. Grumbach, Eyn Antwort, (s.l.), 1524, fo. D ii (r); D ii (v). 46. Skinner, Foundations, 2, 3–19; Brady, German Histories, 221; Cargill Thompson, Studies in the Reformation (ed. Dugmore), 3–41; see, however, Kolb, Martin Luther: Confessor of the Faith, 194–95. Reluctantly, Luther did eventually move to a legal position that argued that the Electors were the equal of the emperor, and so could be resisted. He also began to see the emperor as the Pope’s agent. 47.

• From Jesus and the Disinherited (1949)

  Such—in part, at least—was the attitude of the Pharisee. No active resistance against Rome—only a terrible contempt. Obviously such an attitude is a powder keg. One nameless incident may cause to burst into flame the whole gamut of smoldering passion, leaving nothing in its wake but charred corpses, mute reminders of the tragedy of life. Jesus saw this and understood it clearly. The other major alternative is resistance. It may be argued that even nonresistance is a form of resistance, for it may be regarded as an appositive dimension of resistance. Resistance may be overt action, or it may be merely mental and moral attitudes. For the purposes of our discussion resistance is defined as the physical, overt expression of an inner attitude. Resistance in this sense finds its most dramatic manifestation in force of arms. Armed resistance is apt to be a tragic last resort in the life of the disinherited. Armed resistance has an appeal because it provides a form of expression, of activity, that releases tension and frees the oppressed from a disintegrating sense of complete impotency and helplessness. “Why can’t we do something? Something must be done!” is the recurring cry. By “something” is meant action, direct action, as over against words, subtleties, threats, and innuendoes. It is better to die fighting for freedom than to rot away in one’s chains, the argument runs. Before I’d be a slave I’d be buried in my grave, And go home to my God And be free! The longer the mood is contemplated, the more insistent the appeal. It is a form of fanaticism, to be sure, but that may not be a vote against it. In all action there is operative a fringe of irrationality. Once the mood is thoroughly established, any council of caution is interpreted as either compromise or cowardice. The fact that the ruler has available to him the power of the state and complete access to all arms is scarcely considered. Out of the deeps of the heart there swells a great and awful assurance that because the cause is just, it cannot fail. Any failure is regarded as temporary and, to the devoted, as a testing of character. This was the attitude of the Zealots of Jesus’ day. There was added appeal in their position because it called forth from the enemy organized determination and power. It is never to be forgotten that one of the ways by which men measure their own significance is to be found in the amount of power and energy other men must use in order to crush them or hold them back. This is at least one explanation of the fact that even a weak and apparently inconsequential movement becomes formidable under the pressure of great persecution. The persecution becomes a vote of confidence, which becomes, in turn, a source of inspiration, power, and validation. The Zealots knew this. Jesus knew this.

• From A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell-Scott) (1957)

  must be taken in the absol. sense of the Med. thou wilt have taken ven- geance in respect to L., Ib. 78. 2. τιμωρεῖν τινα to take vengeance on him, Soph. O. T. 140, cf. Pors. Eur. Or. 427; τινα ὑπέρ twos Lys. 138. 35 :—absol., Plat. Legg. 729 E; ὑπὲρ τῶν νόμων Ib. 907 E :—but this sense properly belongs 3. to the Med., to avenge oneself upon, exact vengeance from, visit with punishment, τινα Hdt. 3. 53., 6. 138, Soph. Ph. 1258, Eur. Hec. 756, 882, Antipho 119. 9, Thuc. I. 121, etc.; ὡς .. οὐχ ὅπως τιμωρήσαιντο, ἀλλὰ Kal ἐπαινέσαιντο τὸν Σφο- δρίαν Xen. Hell. 5. 4, 343 “Ἑαυτὸν τιμωρούμενος Self-tormentor, name of a play by Menander, cf. Xen. Cyr. 3. 1, 15 :—c. gen. rei, τιμωρεῖσθαί τινά Tivos to take vengeance on one for a thing, Hdt. 3. 145, Eur. I. T. 558, Lys. 106, 2, Plat. Symp. 213 Ὁ, etc.:—also, τ. τινὰ ἀντί τινος Hdt. 6. 135; περί τινος Lys. 139. 36:—more rarely, c. acc. rei, εἰ μή σ᾽ ἀδελφῆς αἷμα τιμωρήσεται will visit thy sister’s blood on thee, Eur. Alc. 733, cf..Cycl. 695. Ῥ. absol. to avenge oneself, seek vengeance, Hdt. 3. 49., 7.8, 2, Lys. 137. 40, Xen., etc.; ταῖς ἐσχάταις τιμωρίαις τ. to visit with the extreme penalties, Plat. Rep. 579 A; τὸ τιμωρησόμενον the probability of vengeance, Dem. 801. 25 :—the crime is sometimes added in a relat. clause, τ. εἴ τι... ἠδίκησαν Xen. An. 5. 4, 6; τ. ὅτι... Id. Cyr. 5. 3, 30 :—also, τιμωρεῖσθαι ὑπέρ Twos to exact vengeance for him, Xen. An. I. 3, 4. Tipwpypa, τό, help, aid, succour,.c. dat., τὰ Μενέλεῳ τιμωρήματα succour given to him, Hadt. 7. 169. II. an act of vengeance, τ. Tivos εἴς τινα taken by one upon another, Plut. 2. 860 A. 2. a penalty, διπλᾶ .. ἔστω τὰ τιμωρήματα τῷ ὀφλόντι Plat. Legg. 866 B, cf. Rep. 363 E. τιμώρησις, 7, a punishment, penalty, Plat. Legg. 874 Ὁ. τἱμωρητέον, verb. Adj. one must assist, Hdt. 7. 168; so in pl. τίμω- ρητέα, Thuc. 1. 86. 2. of medical assistance, Hipp. Acut. 390. II. one must visit with vengeance, punish, τινά Isocr. Antid. § 186; τι Plat. Legg. 867 Ὁ. III. τιμωρητέος, a, ov, that ought to be punished, ὑπέρ τινος Dem. 561. 2. TipwpyTyp, ἤρος, 6, an avenger, Hdt. 5. 80:—tipwpytns Lxx (2 Macc. 4. 16). Tipwpytikds, 7, dv, revengeful, opp. to συγγνωμονικός, Arist. Eth. N. 4.5.43 τὰ τιμωρητικά acts of revenge, Id. Rhet.1. 10,17. Adv. -K@s, Chrysipp. ap. Galen.

• From A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell-Scott) (1957)

  31: τάλαντα Bpioas Aesch. Pers. 346 :—but, 2. the Pass. to be laden, as early as Hom., μήκων καρπῷ βριθομένη laden with fruit, Il. 8. 307; μόροισι βρίθεται [ἡ βάτος] Aesch. Fr. 114; τῷ δ᾽ od Bpidera [ἡ τράπεζα); Eur. Fr. 470; c. gen., πέτηλα βριθόμενα σταχύων Hes. Sc. 290; συμποσίων... βρίθοντ᾽ ἀγυιαί Bacchyl. 13; βριθομένης ἀγαθῶν τραπέζης Pherecr. Incert. 34; βριθομένη χαρίτων Anth. P. 5.194; absol., ἄξονες βριθόμενοι Aesch. Theb. 154. βρίκελος, 6, a name of a tragic mask, Cratin. Sep. 11. βρτμάζω and -αίνω, = βριμάομαι, Suid., Hesych. βρϊμάομαι, (βρίμη) Dep. (mostly in compd. ἐμβριμάομαι) -----ἰο snort with anger, to be indignant, εἰ σὺ βριμήσαιο Ar. Eq. 855 ;—so (as from βριμόομαι) ἐβριμοῦτο τῷ Κύρῳ was enraged with Cyrus, Xen. Cyr. 4. 5,9. βρίμη, ἡ, strength, bulk, like βρῖθος, h. Hom. 28. 10, Ap. Rh. 4. 1677 :— α]50 -- ἀπειλή (cf. βριμάομαι), Hesych. Bptpndov, Adv. with snorting, Nonn. Jo. 11. 38. βρίμημα [7], ατος, τό, -- βρίμη, prob. 1. Anth. Plan. 4. 103. Bptpdopar, v. sub βριμάομαι. Βρτμώ, 7, (Bpiun) epith. of Hecaté or Persephoné, the grim, the terrible one, Ap. Rh. 3. 861, cf. Luc. Necyom. 20. Bptpobns, es, (εἶδος) grim, stern, Hermes in Stob. ΕΟ]. 1. 986. Bpipwors, ews, ἡ, indignation, Philodem. ap. Vol. Hercul. 1. 50. Bptc-dppatos, ον, (βρίθω) chariot-pressing, epith. of Ares, Hes. 50.441, h. Hom. 7.1. Bptropaptis, 7, name of Artemis in Crete, virgo dulcis, acc. to Solin.; gen. —ews, Strabo 479, --ἰδος, E. M. 214. 23. βρόγχια, wy, τά, the bronchial tubes, the ramifications by which the windpipe passes into the lungs, Hipp. Acut. 386, Auct. ad Herenn. 3.12: cf. βράγχια. 2. the sing. βρόγχιον, τό, = βρόγχος (v. βράγχιον 111), Galen., etc. II. also, a cartilage in the nose, Hipp. 252. 51. βρογχο-κήλη, 77, a tumor in the throat, goitre, Paul. Aeg. 6, p. 188. βρογχοκηλικός, dv, suffering from βρογχοκήλη, Diosc. 4. 120. Bpoyxos, 6, the trachea, windpipe, Hipp. Aph. 1257, Arist. Probl. 11 ΤΠ IL. a gulp, draught, Arr. Epict. 3.12, 17. (Cf. Bpayxos.) βρογχωτύρ, jpos, 6, the neck-hole in a garment, Joseph. A. J. 3.7, 4. Bpoddv, Acol. for ῥοδόν, Sappho 69 Ahr. i βρομέω. -- βρέμω. only used in pres. and impf.; of flies, to buzz, Il. τό. 642; of fire, to roar, Ap. Rh. 4. 787; of wind, Nic. Al. 609; of boiling water, Id. Fr. 1.5. βρομιάζομαι, Dep., -- Βακχεύω, from Βρόμιος, Anth. P. 9. 774. βρομιάς, άδος, 7, fem. ofsq., Antiph. Adp. 1.12 :—alarge cup, Ath. 784. Bpopros, a, ον, (βρόμος) sounding, φόρμιγέ Pind. N. 9. 18 :—noisy, boisterous, whence I. Βρόμιος, 6, as a name of Bacchus, Pind. Fr. 45, Aesch. Eum. 24, freq. in Eur. ; Βρομίου πῶμα, i.e. wine, Eur. Cycl. 123; also in Com., Ar. Thesm. 901, Telecl. Incert. 24, Alex. Moet. 2. Adj. Βρόμιος, a, ov, Bacchic. Eur. H. F. 889, etc.; B. χάρις, of the Dionysia, Ar. Nub. 311:—so Βρομιώδηπ, es, (εἶδος) Bacchic, Anth. P.11. 27:—fem. Βρομιῶτις, 50s, 77, Opp.C. 4. 340: a Bacchante, Ib. 300.

• From A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell-Scott) (1957)

  émapdopar: fut. άσομαι, Ion. ἤσομαι: pf. ἐπήρᾶμαι v. infr.: Dep.: to imprecate curses upon, Πέρσῃσι πολλὰ ἐπαρησάμενος Hdt. 3.75; ἐπ. ἐξώλειάν τινι Antipho 130. 34, Lys. 121. 4; τῶν ἱερῶν by the temples, Isocr. 73 B. 2. c. dat. only, fo curse solemnly, Plat. Legg. 931 B, etc. 3. c. acc. rei only, τίνα .. τόνδ᾽ ἐπηράσω λόγον ; what im- precation is this that thou didst utter? Soph. El. 388; τί ταῦτα ἐπήραμαι; Adv. --κῶς, Dem. 275- 7. 4. ς. inf, ἐπ. τάδε... τούτῳ ξυναμυνεῖν Eur. 1. A. ύο, cf. Plut. Sull. το. ἐπαραρίσκω: fut. ἐπάρσω: aor. -ἠρᾶρον. To fit to or upon, fasten, θύρας σταθμοῖσιν ἐπῆρσεν on or to the posts, Il. 14. 167; : ἐπὶ δὲ ζυγὸν ἤραρεν ἀμφοῖν L. Merc. 50. II. intr. in Ion. pf. ἐπάρηρα, plapf. ἐπαρήρειν, to fit tight or exactly, μία δὲ πληὶς ἐπᾶρήρει a cross-bolt was fitted therein, Il. 12. 456; part. émapnpws, via, ds, close-fitting, well fixed, ποσσὶν ἐπαρηρώς firm on his feet, Arat. 83; also émappevos, ἢ, ov, Ep. syncop. part. aor. pass. well-jitted, prepared, aonb Hes. Op. 599, 625. ἐπάράσιμος [pa], ov, abominable, Pseudo-Phocyl. 16. ἐπᾶράσσω, Att. -ττω, to dash or clap to, τὴν θύραν Plat. Prot. 314 Ὁ. II. intr. to burst in or forth, Synes. 163 Β. ἐπάρᾶτος, ov, (ἐπαράομαι) accursed, laid under a curse, ἐπ. τινα ποιεῖ- σθαι Thuc. 8. 97; ὃ ἐπάρατον ἢν μὴ οἰκεῖν which it was accursed to in- habit, Id. 2.17; τῷ δὲ ἐπάρατον τύχην [γενέσθαι] Plat. Lege. 877 A; used i in imprecations on those who violated graves, C. I. 2824. 2820, 564. ἐπάργεμος, ον, Being: a film over the eye, Arist. H. A. 9. 1, 22., 9. 34, 5. ΤΙ. metaph. dim, obscure, σήματα, θέσφατα, λόγοι Aesch. Pr. 499, Ag. 1113, Cho. 665. ἐπαργὕρόομαι, Pass. to be overlaid with silver, C. 1. 159. 14:—-metaph. of costly dinners, μὴ πολλ᾽ ἄγαν. . μηδ᾽ ἐπηργυρωμένα Mnesim. Avoroa. 1. emdpyupos, ov, overlaid with silver, Hdt. τ. 50., 9. 80. ἐπάρδευσιο, ews, 7, watering, Epicur. ap. Diog. L. το. 89. ἐπαρδεύω, =sq., Nonn. Ὁ. I, 166, Or. Sib. 5. 58. ἐπάρδω, to irrigate, Arr. An. 4.6, 11; metaph., ἐπ. ἀρεταῖς τὴν ψυχήν Luc. Anach. 26 :—in Pass., Tim. Locr. 102 B. ἐπάρήγω, fut. fw, to come to aid, help, mii Il. 23. 783, Od. 13. 201, Eur. ΕἸ. 1350, Ar. Vesp. 402: absol., viv ἐπαρῆξον Aesch. Cho. 725: οὑπαρήξων Soph. ΕἸ: 1197 5 also in Xen. Cyr. 6. 4, 18. ἐπᾶρηγών, όνος, 6, ἡ, α helper, Ap. Rh. 1. 1039, Orph. 80. ἐπάρηξιο, ews, 7, heip, aid, Eust. 52. 38. ἐπάρην [4], v. sub “πείρω. ἐπᾶρήρει, ἐπᾶρηρώς, v. sub ἐπαραρίσκω. ἐπᾶριθμέω, to count, in addition, Paus. 10. 5,8; ἐπ. ταῖς ἡμέραις τὰς πύλεις to count the cities by the days, i.e. a city a day, Aristid. 1, 223. ἐπᾶρίστερος, ov, towards the left, on the left hand, τὰ ἐπαρίστερα | II. metaph. left- |

• From A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell-Scott) (1957)

  Spiprs, εἴα, v, piercing, sharp, keen, Lat. acer, δριμὺ βέλος 1]. 11. 270; and metaph., δριμεῖα μάχη 15. 696, Hes. Sc. 261; δριμὺς χόλος Il. 18. 3223 δριμὺ μένος Od. 24. 319; ἄχος Hes. Sc. 457; 50, 5p. θυμός Aesch, Cho. 392. II. in Att. esp. of things which affect the eyes or taste, keen, pungent, acrid, of smoke, Ar. Vesp. 146; of radish, etc., opp. to γλυκύς, Xen. Mem. 1. 4, 5, cf. Plat. Com. Κανθ. 5, Arist. de An. 2. 10, 6; of smell, Ar. Pl. 694, Arist. 1. ο. 2. 9, 53 δριμέσιν ἰητρεύειν with pungent drugs, Hipp. Fract. 769 :—Adv. —éws, Anaxandr. ἫἭρακλ. 1; δριμύτερον ὄζειν Arist. Probl. 12. 7. III. metaph. also of persons, hot, bitter, fierce, ἀλάστωρ Aesch. Ag. 1501; ἀγροῖκος Ar. Eq. 808, etc. ; also keen, shrewd, Eur. Cycl. 104; ἔντονοι καὶ Sp. Plat. Theaet. 173 A; dp. καὶ δικανικός Ib. 175 D; dp. ἐν τῷ ἀποκρίνεσθαι Arist. Top. 8. 1, 17; λόγος δριμύτατος Id. Soph. Elench. 33, 5; δριμὺ βλέπειν to look bitter, Ar. Ran. 562; but also to look sharply, keenly, Plat. Rep. 519 B. δριμύσσω, to make pungent; to embitter, Nicet. Ann. 382 Ὁ. to treat severely, Eust. 201. 23. δρτμύτης, 770s, 7, acridness of humours, Hipp. Vet. Med. 15; pungency of taste, etc., Anaxipp. Ἔγκαλ. 1. 46; and in pl., Archedic. Ono. 1. 7; of smoke, Polyb. 22. 11, 20. II. metaph. keenness, vehemence, Plat. Polit. 311 A; dp. πρὸς τὰ μαθήματα Id. Rep. 535 B; heenness of wit or satire, Luc. Alex. 4. δριμυφἄγέω, (φαγεῖν) to live on acrid food, Paul. Aeg. 4. p. 131. δριμυφᾶγία, ἡ. an acrid diet, Diosc. 2. 33. Splos, τό, (v. δρῦς) a copse, wood, thicket, Spios ὕλης copse-wood, Od. 14. 353 (where the gender is undetermined) ; but Spios εὔδενδρον, ὑλῆεν Anth. P. 7. 193, 203; ἅπαν Opp. H. 4. 588; ἐν δρίει C. 1. 5430. 43: —in pl. Spia, τά, (as if from Spiov), Hes. Op. 528, Soph. Tr. 1012, Eur. Hel. 1326. Sptdos for δίφρος, Sophron ap. E. M., cf. Schif. Greg. p. 337. Spotty, 77, a bathing-tub, bath, Aesch. Ag. 1540, Cho. 999, Eum. 633; also in Nic. Al. 462, Lyc., etc.—The sense of bier (aopés), given by some Gramm., seems to have been suggested by these passages, and the form δρύτη by a supposed connexion with δρῦς. δρομάασκε, relic of an old Verb δρομάω --τρέχω, Hes. Fr. 2; but the analogous form would be δρώμασκε (Spwuaw), Lob. Phryn. 583, and the Schol. Ven. Il. 20, 227 reads φοίτασκε :—pf. δεδρόμηκε in Babr. 2. fab. 60. 8; cf. ὑπαι-δεδρύμᾶκα Sapph. 2. Io. Spopayetéw, to act as clerk of the course, Inscr. Lesb, in C. I. 2183. δρομάδην, Adv. (δρόμος) in running, Hesych. ata fe Cc2 388

• From A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell-Scott) (1957)

  θῦλαξ, ἄκος, 6, -- θύλακος, Aesop. 28. 4:---θῦλάς, άδος, ἡ, Anth.P.7. 413. θυλέομαι, Dep. ἐο offer, Poll. 1. 27 (where the Mss. θυλήσασθαι not θυηλήσασθαι), Porph. de Abst. 2. 17. θύλημα, τό, that which is offered; mostly in pl. θυλήματα, cakes, incense, etc., Ar. Pax 1040, Pherecr. Αὐτομ. 1. 5, Teleclid. Στερρ. 1, Theophr. Char, τὸ (ubi θυηλήματα). [Ὁ΄ Pherecr.1.c.; v. Meineke. ] θυλλίς, ίδος, ἡ, --θύλακος, Arcad. p. 30.12, Hesych. θῦμα, τό, (θύω) that which is slain or offered, a victim, sacrifice, offer- ing, Trag., as Aesch. Ag. 1310, Soph. Ph. 8; τὸ 0. Tod ᾿Απόλλωνος Thuc. 5. 52; θ. θύειν, θύεσθαι Plat. Polit. 290 E, Rep. 378 A, etc. :— mostly of animals, but, πάγκαρπα θ. offerings of all fruits, Soph. ΕἸ. 634, cf. Plat. Legg. 782 C; ἐπιχώρια θ., opp. to ἱερεῖα, are said by Schol. to be cakes in the form of animals, Thuc. 1. 126. II. sacri- fice, as an act, ὧδ᾽ ἣν τὰ κείνης θ. Soph. El. 573: metaph., 6. λεύσιμον the sacrifice [of Agamemnon] to be avenged by stoning [Clytaemnestra], Aesch. Ag. 1118; θύματα τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐξουσίας Hdn. 2. 13, 10. Oup-dypoucos, ov, of clownish spirit, Ar. Fr. 707. θυμαίνω, fut. ἄνῶ, (θυμός) to be wroth, angry, Hes. Sc. 262, Ar. Nub. 609; τινί at one, Ib. 1478, Eupol. Map. 21. θυμ-αλγής, és, (ἀλγέω) heart-grieving, χόλον θυμαλγέα Il. 4. 513; λώβην 9. 3873 ὕβριν Od. 23. 64; λώβης 20. 285; καμάτῳ Ib. 118; δεσμῷ 22.189; μῦθος 8. 2725; ἔπος τό. 69; λέγων θυμαλγέα ἔπεα Hat. I. 129:—opp. to, θυμηδής, θυμήρης. II. pass. inly grieving, καρδία Aesch. Ag. 1031. θὕμαλίς, v. sub τιθυμαλίς. 11. a@ sacrifice, θύμαλλος ---- θυμός. θύμαλλος, 6, an unknown Με, ΑΕ]. Ν. Α. 14. 22. θυμάλωψ [ἃ], wos, ὃ, α piece of burning wood or charcoal,a hot coal, Ar. Ach. 231 (v. sub ém(éw), Thesm. 729, Stratt. Wuy.5. (From τύφω, so that it should strictly be θυμμάλωψ : for the termin., cf. μώλωψ. αἱμάλωψ,.) θυμαρέω, Zo be well-pleased, Theocr. 26. g. Qip-apys, és, (v. sub —Hpys) suiting the heart, i.e. well-pleasing, dear, delightful, ἄλοχον Ovpapéa (Hor. placens uxor), ll. 9. 336, Od. 23. 232; σκῆπτρον θυμαρὲς ἔδωκεν Od. 17. 199 :—also neut. as Ady. in the form θυμῆρες (Vv. κεράννυμι 1. 2), Od. το. 362.—In late Ep. appears the form θυμήρης, Ap. Rh. 1.705, Mosch., etc.; as also in late Prose, Luc. Amor. 43, Hdn. 8. 5.—On the difference of accent, θυμᾶρής and θυμήρης, ν. Eust. 754. 61., 1946. 35. θυμ-άρμενος, ov, =foreg., Nic. Al. 590, Call. Dian. 167. θυμαρνόλιον, τό, a plant, -- ἱππομάραθρον, Diosc. 3. 75. θυμᾶτίδης, ov, 6, v. sub θυμίτης. θύμβρα, ἡ, (perh. from. τύφω) a bitter pungent herb, Satwreia Thymbra, savory, Eupol. A’y. 1.5, Theophr. C. P. 3. 1, 4, Diosc. 3. 45 :—so, OupBpata, ἡ, Hipp. ap. Galen. Lex. p. 482; whence θυμβραίην is re- stored for θυμβρίην in 572. 41. θυμβρ-επίδευπνος, ov, supping on bitter herbs, i.e. living poorly, Ar. Nub. 421.

• From Shunned (2018)

  If Todd is such a good friend, if he’s so worried about me, then why didn’t he come straight to me?” “I’m the spiritual head of the family. It’s appropriate for him to come to me first. You know that.” “Bullshit.” Weary of self-censorship, I thought swearing seemed an emphatic way to express my disdain. “That system doesn’t work for me anymore.” “What system?” Ross asked, his voice suddenly thin. There were tears in his eyes. We had stumbled onto a land mine. Sudden moves were risky. An implacable resolve came over me. “Headship, for one. It’s so dated and patriarchal. To think another person is responsible for me and my spiritual well-being is ridiculous. Don’t you see that, Ross?” He blanched. Behind his eyes, I could just make out an unwanted realization breaking through the surface of his mind. “Theocratic hierarchy, for another. And I don’t like putting on a happy face as we go door-to-door, condemning other people and their religions. The whole thing is veiled in kindness— just like Todd’s offer—but it’s divisive.” The more I said, the more we realized the latitude and longitude of my drift. “I feel so out of place,” I said. I blinked a tear. My eyelids were too heavy to hold up. “That settles it,” Ross said. “I’m more convinced then ever. We have to meet with Todd and Jerry.” “I don’t have to do anything.” Stumbling down the hall to our room, I slammed the door behind me and fell into bed. I heard the rattle of car keys, followed shortly by the sound of the front door creaking open. Engulfed in the comfort of darkness and cool sheets, I set my muddled mind free to float around the words just spoken. I mentally replayed the conversation, embellishing with flip imaginary comments, dumbfounded Ross couldn’t see how he had violated my trust. The whiskey had loosened my tongue, exposing realizations I’d been shaping for months. The avalanche of true feelings was an exhausting relief to express. Suddenly, out of my stupor rose an essential truth I couldn’t believe I had forgotten. This is what Witnesses do when someone is “ailing.” Just like loyal geese who temporarily abort migration to nurse and beseech a member of the flock who has fallen behind, they will blab and squawk to each other, deliberately assigning roles, a communal effort to protect and nurture. Ross was following Witness protocol, offering help that trumped all marital confidences. Who needs it? My head was filled with ideas and voices— worldly voices— Ross would never be able to hear. Perhaps it was I who had betrayed Ross. He still didn’t know I was seeing a therapist. There, in my personal sacristy, I’d been gathering the clarity and will to speak up. Ross’s action was equivalent to calling in the cavalry.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  Where once it had been Luther who had encouraged Melanchthon, and given him direction and support, now it was the younger man who was managing the older, trying to prevent the worst excesses of Luther’s temper. 65 Luther, however, was not easily managed, and the attempt had its cost in that it aroused his suspicions even about Melanchthon. In 1544, when Hermann von der Wied instituted a program of reformation in Cologne, which had been a Catholic stronghold, Luther did not at first read the draft, leaving it to Melanchthon. Amsdorf alerted Luther to an apparent lack of backbone on the issue of the Real Presence, and Luther was outraged, convinced that Melanchthon was trying to sneak a dilution of his central conviction past him. 66 In the same year, the clergy in Eperies, Hungary, wrote that they had heard that the Wittenbergers were about to moderate their stance on the Real Presence because they had abolished the elevation of the Host. Luther had retained the practice because it emphasized the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, but abolished it as a “papist practice” when Karlstadt died in 1541. He sent the Hungarians a stinging reply, insisting that in Wittenberg there was no relaxation, for “we fight constantly against it here, publicly and in private, and there is no suspicion or even the least trace of this abomination, unless the Devil is lurking in some hidden corner.” He then made dark remarks about his lieutenant, saying that he certainly had no suspicion of “Master Philip,” or any of the other Wittenbergers, “because, in public, Satan did not even dare to grumble.” 67 Just what he meant by these ominous words became all too plain a few weeks later, when Luther began to preach vigorously against the sacramentarians in their midst, and seemed to have Melanchthon in mind. 68 Shaken, Melanchthon began to think of leaving Wittenberg. Luther, he said, was utterly “outraged and inflamed” and was preaching against both him and Bucer. 69 In the summer of 1545, Luther set out to see his old friend Amsdorf, a journey he had long planned but had been forced countless times to postpone. No sooner had he arrived in Zeitz than he wrote to Katharina, telling her to sell everything and give the monastery back to the Elector. Let’s leave Wittenberg and move to Zülsdorf, where you have your farm, he wrote: “better to do it now while I’m alive, for it will have to happen then [that is, when he died].” What made the old, ill man suddenly want to leave Wittenberg? He told Katharina that he had heard bad things about Wittenberg now that he was out of town, castigating in particular the Wittenbergers’ love of indecent dancing, where women’s skirts flew up, revealing their private parts “back and front.” “My heart has grown cold,” Luther wrote.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  Luther did not make much of a knight, however. He had not found the ride from Altenstein to the Wartburg easy—he was used to traveling in wagons, not to riding and the muscular control it required. Noble life was not much to his taste, either. He tried hunting, but his instincts were all wrong: He wanted to protect the quarry. On one outing, he scooped up the hare and wrapped the injured animal in his sleeve to protect it from the dogs, but they bit right through his cloak, broke the hare’s leg, and choked it to death. Luther, ever the preacher, turned the incident into a theological metaphor. The hare was the Christian soul, attacked by the Pope and Satan. In heaven, the tables would be turned, and the noble hunters who so loved eating game would become Christ’s prey. Stuck in the castle, where he would remain for ten months, Luther evidently did not relish being a victim, incapable of fighting back. For all his distaste for hunting, he would rather be a hunter than a hare. 4 Hans von Berlepsch, the castellan, treated him well, but it was difficult to keep the secret about the mysterious guest. The wife of one of the Elector’s notaries had let Luther’s location slip, and since this rumor originated at court, it was credible. Moreover, Berlepsch was convinced that Luther’s whereabouts were already general knowledge. Not for the first time, therefore, Luther determined on a ruse to fool his enemies—and like many of his other cunning plans, this one was a little too clever. He wrote to Spalatin in mid-July 1521 enclosing another letter in his own hand, that purported to have been sent from “my quarters” in Bohemia. He asked Spalatin to “lose” it “with studied carelessness”: “I hear a rumor is being spread, my Spalatin, that Luther is living in the Wartburg near Eisenach….Strange that nobody now thinks of Bohemia,” he wrote. He “would love the ‘hog of Dresden’ ” (that is, Duke Georg) to find the letter, Luther wrote in his accompanying note. It was obvious that the letter has no point apart from where it was supposedly sent. It would have fooled nobody. Worse, for many, it would have confirmed that he was indeed in the Wartburg, the letter too eager to deny the rumor in the first line.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  Karlstadt too had argued that the letter of Scripture was worthless without the spirit, and that academic theology was not the path to truth. As he had told Müntzer in 1522: “I have said more about visions and dreams than any of the professors.” 25 These people, Luther argued, claim to be so spiritually superior, but they had not fought the Pope as he had. To underline the point, he provided a brief autobiography, including his debate at Leipzig and his appearances at Augsburg and Worms, 26 presenting himself as the sole Reformation hero while obliterating Karlstadt altogether. The Allstedtian spirits were profiting from Luther’s victories “though they have done no battle for it and risked no bloodshed to attain it. But I have had to attain it for them and, until now, at the risk of my body and my life.” 27 In a rhetorical tour de force, Luther here made the touchstone of truth his own physical existence, his preparedness to put his “body and life” on the line. He equated the evangelical movement with the narrative of his own deeds, even with his physical being. This had already been evident in the words attributed to him at Worms: “Here I stand”—his body implacably the guarantee of his truth and commitment. Karlstadt’s brush with danger, as Luther well knew, could hardly stand comparison with his own. Yet the “martyr’s crown” was important to both men. It had been the prospect of martyrdom that had impelled Karlstadt’s heightened understanding of Gelassenheit, and with it, the unfolding of his mystical theology. However, by “spirit”—so important to his understanding of how the Bible should be read—Karlstadt did not mean the spirit of violence, but the spirit of God with which the soul should seek union, through Gelassenheit, and in preparedness for martyrdom. No wonder Karlstadt was so angry by the time he met Luther at the Black Bear Inn. — W HILE Karlstadt was establishing his church at Orlamünde, matters at Allstedt were proceeding apace. In March 1524 a nearby pilgrimage chapel was burned to the ground—and if Müntzer had not been involved, he had also not disapproved, believing the pilgrimage to be godless idolatry that had to be brought to an end. In June, the atmosphere in Allstedt became tense when villagers from nearby Sangerhausen fled to the town after Catholic persecution, and as passions mounted over how the arsonists would be punished.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  The folksy humor cannot hide the barb: Jews, who have no Messiah, are no better than pigs. Yet despite his hatred, there were several aspects of Luther’s theology that were akin to Judaism, and it is perhaps this proximity that triggered the violence of his assault: He had comparatively little to say about an afterlife; his religiosity put the importance of Scripture and exegesis of the Hebrew and Greek texts center stage; he downgraded the position of Mary so that Christianity no longer contained a female divine figure; and his remarkably positive attitude toward the body placed him very close to the Jewish emphasis on fertility rather than virginity. He could remain fairly serene about the Turks, as they were so different and so far away. The Jews were similar and lived within the society he wished to reform. They, not the far more dangerous Ottomans, attracted the full force of his hatred. His anti-Semitism was propagated by many of his supporters but still went much further than most were prepared to go. In his immediate circle, Justus Jonas translated the tracts into Latin, ensuring that they could be read throughout Christendom. Even Martin Bucer, who thought that Jews should be loved above other nonbelievers, suggested that they should be made to clean privies to teach them humility when he drafted a “Jewish Ordinance” for Philip of Hesse in 1539: 40 But while Bucer wanted to ban the building of new synagogues, Luther wanted existing ones razed to the ground. At the Frankfurt Imperial Diet of 1539, Melanchthon had advocated readmitting the Jews to Brandenburg, from where they had been expelled in 1530. The Lutheran Urbanus Rhegius, whose wife had also learned Hebrew, consistently took a more tolerant line toward the Jews, interceding for a rabbi and asking the clergy of Braunschweig to oppose the expulsion of the Jewish community in 1540; while Andreas Osiander of Nuremberg bravely published a pamphlet (albeit anonymously) in which he rejected the blood libel after a ritual murder allegation surfaced in nearby Sappenfeld. 41 Luther’s old opponent Johannes Eck responded with a nearly two-hundred-page reply in which, like Luther, he repeated all the old allegations of poisoning and ritual murder. Yet even Eck argued that Jews should be tolerated, that they should be allowed to renovate existing synagogues, and that they should not be harmed, killed, or exiled. 42 Unpleasant as Eck’s diatribe was, it neither advocated the cultural annihilation contained in Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies nor displayed the phantasmagoric physicality of his Vom Schem Hamphoras . Nor was Luther’s virulence repeating earlier clichés. Medieval anti-Semitism had also often insisted on some toleration for Jews; Luther’s views were not a medieval relic but a development of it. Even more disturbing, it was not incidental to his theology, a lamentable prejudice taken over from contemporary attitudes.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  I suffered such great temptations at that time and twisted and struggled, because I saw well that this would have been the biggest coup against the papacy.” The letter may well have lent credence to the rumors that Karlstadt had gotten the idea from Luther himself. 50 In a letter to Spalatin in October 1524, Luther referred to Karlstadt as his “Absalom,” the man who stole away the hearts of the Israelites. But the term also hinted at the depths of his feeling for Karlstadt: Absalom was David’s handsome son, whose rebellion broke his father’s heart, because he was forced to act against the child he loved so much. 51 Increasingly Luther linked Müntzer and Karlstadt, but his most hostile rhetoric was reserved for Karlstadt alone, as is evident in Luther’s monumental Against the Heavenly Prophets, the first part of which was published in late 1524. The treatise articulated what Luther believed to be the indissoluble links between an emphasis on the spirit, denying the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament, destroying images, and engaging in sedition. He was determined to put as much clear water as he could between his views and any form of rebellion or violence. — F OR the rest of his life, Luther’s rhetoric about Karlstadt and Müntzer would become a fixed formula. They were Schwärmer, literally “the swarmers,” as if they were a swarm of madly buzzing bees, “enthusiasts” who claimed to be led by the spirit. “He wants to be thought the highest spirit, who has swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all,” is how Luther famously satirized Müntzer’s spiritualistic theology. 52 Time and again, Luther punctured the heightened emotionality of the Schwärmer by translating their high-flown claims into crude physical terms, using earthy reality to deride abstraction. For his part, Karlstadt became more and more adamant about the distinction between flesh and spirit. In early 1525 he wrote of how we must “choke lusts and desires through affliction and persecution which befall us and by living daily according to the will of God.” Martyrdom, achieved through Gelassenheit and spiritual humility, remained a key component of his thought.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  But it also made a clear distinction between flesh and spirit, the inner and the outer, a theme that could already be discerned in his earlier writing on the adoration of the sacrament. Images, Karlstadt now argued, “point to nothing other than to mere flesh which is of no benefit.” The Word of God, however, “is spiritual”; “Christ says that his flesh is of no avail but that the spirit is of much value and gives life.” Consequently, “you will have to admit that one learns mere carnal living and much suffering from [images] and that they cannot lead beyond the flesh.” 29 It was the indeterminacy of images, and their ability to move the emotions, that had earlier both fascinated and irritated him. Karlstadt had been the first, after all, to employ visual polemic in the service of the Reformation when he published his “wagon cartoon” to ridicule Eck. Now he wrote passionately about what was wrong with images, in language suffused with sexual rhetoric: “Our eyes make love to [images] and court them. The truth is that all who honor images, seek their help, and worship them, are whores and adulterers.” He admitted that he had been seduced himself: “my heart has been trained since my youth to give honor and respect to images and such a dreadful fear has been instilled in me of which I would gladly rid myself, but cannot. Thus I am afraid to burn a single idol.” What emerges again from these lines is a very different approach to the body and to the physical world from that of Luther, a deep mistrust of the senses that could be readily allied to sexual puritanism. Indeed, such condemnation of images would become a powerful current within Calvinist Protestantism, leading to the destruction of centuries of Christian art in churches across Europe. 30 The same treatise also included a passage on begging, with Karlstadt explaining why there should be no beggars among Christians. Just as images moved the pious to emotional identification with the sufferings of saints, and thereby distorted devotion, so beggars moved people to pity. The result was that they gave money not to those who needed it most, but to those whose plight most seized the senses. Karlstadt clearly realized the implications of abolishing begging for the university in Wittenberg; after all, it was customary for students to beg for their food and expenses. His conclusions were radical. If abolition of begging meant that students would no longer be able to study, did it matter? Children of pious parents would be better off being “sent back to their parents” and taught a useful trade, Karlstadt wrote: “How much better by far, that they learn the trade of their parents instead of begging for bread which makes them good for nothing other than to become papistical, uncouth, and untruthful priests.” These were strong words in a town so heavily dependent on the university.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  It sanctified pain and sensory deprivation, and the interrupted sleep could send the individual into a trancelike devotional state. Later, Luther was to speak with anger about the kind of seeming holiness that focused on externals, leaving consciences burdened, because it was impossible for the monks to fulfill every duty. All the monks, he recalled, thought “that we were utterly holy, from head to toe,” but in their hearts “we were full of hatred, full of fear and full of unbelief.” 21 He remembered a proverb from his youth that ran, “If you like to remain alone, then your heart will remain pure,” and he later recalled a hermit in Einsiedeln in Switzerland who would speak to nobody, for “whoever has dealings with men, to him the angels cannot come.” 22 To the older Luther, this kind of aloofness was unnatural and dangerous, as those suffering from melancholy (as he did himself) should be encouraged to eat, drink, and above all socialize with others. The later Luther is not necessarily the best interpreter of his younger self, especially since he rejected monasticism so vehemently. It is worth noting, however, that as he looked back on his life as a monk his views always focused on the same triad: In monasticism, he argued, consciences were burdened by endless religious duties; Christ was perceived as a judge; and Mary became an intercessor with Christ. Replacing Christ with Mary, in particular, distorted the true message of Christianity. As monks, Luther preached in 1523, “We believed that Christ sat in heaven in judgement, not caring about us on earth, but that he would only give us life after death (even if we had done good deeds) if the Mother had reconciled him with us….Therefore I wish that the Ave Maria would be completely rooted out because of this abuse.” 23 Moreover the pictures of God sitting in judgment that decorated medieval churches “painted how the Son fell before the Father and showed him his wounds, and St. John and Mary prayed to Christ for us at the Last Judgment, and Mary pointed Jesus to her breasts, at which he had sucked.” Such images should be removed, “because they made people imagine that they should fear our dear Savior, as if he wanted to drive us away from him and as if he would punish our sin.”