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 275 of 447 · 20 per page

• From The Golden Ass (Metamorphoses) (2)

  There was an old man somewhat bald, with long and gray haire, one of the number of those that go from door to door, throughout all the villages, bearing the Image of the goddesse Syria, and playing with Cimbals to get the almes of good and charitable folks, this old man came hastely towards the cryer, and demanded where I was bred: Marry (quoth he) in Cappadocia: Then he enquired what age I was of, the cryer answered as a Mathematician, which disposed to me my Planets, that I was five yeares old, and willed the old man to looke in my mouth: For I would not willingly (quoth he) incur the penalty of the law Cornelia, in selling a free Citizen for a servile slave, buy a Gods name this faire beast to ride home on, and about in the countrey: But this curious buier did never stint to question of my qualities, and at length he demanded whether I were gentle or no: Gentle (quoth the crier) as gentle as a Lambe, tractable to all use, he will never bite, he will never kicke, but you would rather thinke that under the shape of an Asse there were some well advised man, which verely you may easily conject, for if you would thrust your nose in his taile you shall perceive how patient he is: Thus the cryer mocked the old man, but he perceiving his taunts and jests, waxed very angry saying, Away doting cryer, I pray the omnipotent and omniparent goddesse Syria, Saint Sabod, Bellona, with her mother Idea, and Venus, with Adonis, to strike out both thine eies, that with taunting mocks hast scoffed me in this sort: Dost thou thinke that I will put a goddesse upon the backe of any fierce beast, whereby her divine Image should be throwne downe on the ground, and so I poore miser should be compelled (tearing my haire) to looke for some Physition to helpe her? When I heard him speake thus, I thought with my selfe sodainly to leap upon him like a mad Asse, to the intent he should not buy me, but incontinently there came another Marchant that prevented my thought, and offered 17 Pence for me, then my Master was glad and received the money, and delivered me to my new Master who was called Phelibus, and he caried his new servant home, and before he came to his house, he called out his daughters saying, Behold my daughters, what a gentle servant I have bought for you: then they were marvailous glad, and comming out pratling and shouting for joy, thought verely that he had brought home a fit and conveniable servant for their purpose, but when they perceived that it was an Asse, they began to provoke him, saying that he had not bought a servant for his Maidens, but rather an Asse for himselfe.

• From Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition (2004)

  37 meaning is the tangible expression of honor in the form of gifts, spoils, or a particular prize (or geras). Kleos, usually translated “glory” or “fame,” means what is spoken aloud about one. Agamemnon dishonors Achilles because of a loss of timē he himself suffered when he had to return his concubine Chryseis to her father. Agamemnon thus tries to restore his own lost timē by taking Achilles’s geras, Briseis. Achilles responds by declaring that he will no longer fi ght and threatening to return home. Given the assumptions of Achilles’s culture, his reaction is not excessive; Agamemnon has removed Achilles’s motivation for fi ghting. In Homeric society, a warrior’s sense of worth is largely determined by how others perceive him. Agamemnon has done more than dishonor Achilles; he has called Achilles’s whole worth into question. These concepts— timē, kleos , and the warrior’s motivation for fi ghting— resonate throughout the rest of the epic. From Books II through XVIII, Achilles refrains from battle; the Greeks are ever harder pressed by the Trojans, led by their greatest warrior, Hector. The Greek leaders realize that they must do something to change their situation. Agamemnon selects three men to ask Achilles to accept Agamemnon’s apology and lavish gifts and to return to battle. The three go to Achilles’s tent, but he rejects their pleas forcefully. Achilles’s mother, Thetis, a goddess, has informed him he has two possible fates: to win kleos by dying at Troy or to return home and live a long, inglorious life. Achilles says that he will sail home and counsels others to do so. He fi nally agrees not to leave but says that he will not fi ght until the Trojans reach the Greeks’ ships. In Book XVI, Achilles’s dearest friend, Patroclus, goes into battle in Achilles’s place. Patroclus goes into battle wearing Achilles’s armor and is slain by Hector. His death is the crucial turning point of the Iliad. After Patroclus’s death in Book XVI and the fi ght over his body in Book XVII, the focus of the narrative and of Achilles’s character both change. The question of whether the Iliad and the Odyssey are unifi ed wholes created by one supreme poetic genius is often called the Homeric Question.

• From Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition (2004)

  23 it. David grows angry and says the rich man deserves death; Nathan responds “You are the man,” and predicts evils to come in David’s family. David admits his guilt, and Nathan predicts that the baby Bathsheba is carrying will die. What are we to make of this story about Israel’s most famous king? There are several obvious possibilities. Perhaps because David’s crimes were remembered by the tradition, the author “had” to include them. However, the author could have tried to explain these traditional details away. Instead, the author stresses the cruelty and deceit of David’s actions. Perhaps the author is concerned to remind us that the legitimacy of the king does not depend on his own ethical behavior. David is God’s anointed, but he is fallible and even, at times, evil. Perhaps such stories serve as reminders of the dangers inherent in even a good king’s rule. The only fully obvious conclusion is that the Deuteronomistic History presents a multifaceted view of kingship. It is worth remembering that the books of the Deuteronomistic History were written ex post facto, to explain not what went right in the monarchy so much as what went wrong. The idea that God rewards good behavior and punishes bad underlies a conception of the nature of good and bad fortune, often called the Deuteronomistic Theology . In this worldview, good fortune is evidence of righteousness, while bad fortune is evidence that one did wrong. Therefore, when the conquest of Judah imposed calamity on the whole people, the question arose, what have we done wrong to deserve this? The Deuteronomistic History’s presentation of the development of the monarchy attempts to answer this question. According to the Deuteronomistic History, what did go wrong? Most important, the people tended to fall into idolatry and to worship other gods. One fascinating point here is that the other gods are not denied or seen as meaningless. Even in the Ten Commandments, the prohibition on having any other god before God does not necessarily imply monotheism. Turning to other gods is seen as breaking the treaty’s requirement of loyalty to one’s overlord/suzerain. ■ 24 Lecture 4: The Deuteronomistic History 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Kings. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, especially chapters 4–6. ———, World of Biblical Literature, chapter 3 (“The Literary Character of the Bible”). Gottwald, Hebrew Bible. 1. Why do you think the writer(s) of the Deuteronomistic History chose to include stories that showed their own cultural heroes (such as David) in a bad light? 2. Can you think of any modern works of literature (or fi lm) that adhere to the Deuteronomistic Theology by implying that good fortune is evidence of righteousness and bad fortune, of wickedness? Essential Reading Supplementary Reading Questions to Consider

• From Collected Essays (1998)

  I fe lt that if that was the way Norman fe lt about me, he should have told me so. He had said that I was inca pable of saying "F--you" to the reader. My first temptation was to send him a cablegram which would disabuse him of that notion, at least insofar as one reader was concerned. But then I thought, No, I would be cool about it, and fa il to react as he so clearly wanted me to. Also, I must say, his judgment of myself seemed so wide of the mark and so childish that it was hard to stay angry. I wondered what in the world was going on in his mind. Did he really suppose that he had now become the builder and destroyer of reputations, And of my reputation? We met in the Actors' Studio one afternoon, after a per fo rmance of The Deer Pa rk-which I deliberately arrived too late to see, since I really did not know how I was going to react to Norman, and didn't want to betray myself by clob bering his play. When the discussion ended, I stood, again on the edge of the crowd around him, waiting. Over someone's shoulder, our eyes met, and Norman smiled. "We've got something to talk about," I told him. "I figured that," he said, smiling. We went to a bar, and sat opposite each other. I was relieved to discover that I was not angry, not even (as fa r as I could tell ) at the bottom of my heart. But, "Why did you write those things about me?" "Well, I'll tell you about that," he said-Norman has sev eral accents, and I think this was his Texas one-"1 sort of figured you had it coming to you." "Why?" "Well, I think there's some truth in it." "Well, if you fe lt that way, why didn't you ever say so-to me?" 282 NOBODY KNOWS MY NAME "Well, I figured if this was going to break up our friendship, something else would come along to break it up just as fa st." I couldn't disagree with that. "You're the only one I kind of regret hitting so hard," he said, with a gr in. "I think I-probably-wouldn't say it quite that way now." With this, I had to be content. We sat fo r perhaps an hour, talking of other things and, again, I was struck by his stance: leaning on the table, shoulders hunched, seeming, really, to roll like a boxer's, and his hands moving as though he were dealing with a sparring partner. And we were talking of phys ical courage, and the necessity of never letting another guy get the better of you. I laughed. "Norman, I can't go through the world the way you do because I haven't got your shoulders."

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  CHRYSOSTOM. This, it was said by them of old time, shews that it was long ago that they had received this precept. He says this that He might rouse His sluggish hearers to proceed to more sublime precepts, as a teacher might say to an indolent boy, Know you not how long time you have spent already in merely learning to spell? In that, I say unto you, mark the authority of the legislator, none of the old Prophets spoke thus; but rather, Thus saith the Lord. They as servants repeated the commands of their Lord; He as a Son declared the will of His Father, which was also His own. They preached to their fellow servants; Ha as master ordained a law for his slaves. AUGUSTINE. (de Civ. Dei, ix. 4.) There are two different opinions among philosophers concerning the passions of the mind: the Stoics do not allow that any passion is incident to the wise man; the Peripatetics affirm that they are incident to the wise man but in a moderate degree and subject to reason; as, for example, when mercy is shewn in such a manner that justice is preserved. But in the Christian rule we do not enquire whether the mind is first affected with anger or with sorrow, but whence. PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. He who is angry without cause shall be judged; but he who is angry with cause shall not be judged. For if there were no anger, neither teaching would profit, nor judgments hold, nor crimes be controlled. So that he who on just cause is not angry, is in sin; for an unreasonable patience sows vices, breeds carelessness, and invites the good as well as the bad to do evil. JEROME. Some copies add here the words, without cause; but by the true readingc the precept is made unconditional, and anger altogether forbidden. For when we are told to pray for them that persecute us, all occasion of anger is taken away. The words without cause then must be erased, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Yet that anger which arises from just cause is indeed not anger, but a sentence of judgment. For anger properly means a feeling of passion; but he whose anger arises from just cause does not suffer any passion, and is rightly said to sentence, not to be angry with. AUGUSTINE. (Retract. i. 19.) This also we affirm should be taken into consideration, what is being angry with a brother; for he is not angry with a brother who is angry at his offence. He then it is who is angry without cause, who is angry with his brother, and not with the offence.

• From Collected Essays (1998)

  It is that moment when no other human being is real tor you, nor are you real tor yourself. This devil has no need of any dogma-though he can use them all-nor does he need any historical justification, history being so largely his invention. He docs not levitate beds, or t()ol around with little girls: JVe do. The mindless and hysterical banality of the evil presented in The Exorcist is the most terrifying thing about the film. The Americans should certainly know more about evil than that; if they pretend otherwise, they are lying, and any black man, and not only blacks-many, many others, including white children-can call them on this lie; he who has been treated as the devil recognizes the devil when they meet. At the end of The Exorcist, the demon-racked little girl murderess kisses the Holy Father, and she remembers nothing: she is departi ng 57 2 THE DEVIL FINDS WORK with her mother, who will, presumably, soon make another film. The grapes of wrath are stored in the cotton fields and migrant shacks and ghettoes of this nation, and in the schools and prisons, and in the eyes and hearts and perceptions of the wretched everywhere, and in the ruined earth ofVietnam, and in the orphans and the widows, and in the old men, seeing visions, and in the young men, dreaming dreams: these have already kissed the bloody cross and will not bow down before it again: and have tl xgotten nothing. St. Paul de Vence July 29 , 1975 OTHER ESSAYS Contents Smaller Than Life (Review: Th ere Wa s Once a Slave: The Heroic Story of Frederick Dozt._qlass, by Shirley Graham; July 19, 1947) . 577 History as Nightmare (Review: Lonc(y Cmsndc, by Chester Himes; October 25, 1947) 579 The Image of the Negro (Review: Albert Sears, by Millen Brand; Kingsblood Royal, by Sinclair Lewis; The Pat!J of Thunder, by Peter Abrahams; God is fo r White Follls, by Will Thomas; QJttJlity, by Cid Ricketts Sumner; April 1948) . 582 Lockridge: 'The American Myth' (Review: Raimrce County, by Ross Lockridge, Jr.; April 10, 1948) . 588 Preservation of Innocence (Summer 1949). 594 The Negro at Home and Abroad (Review: No Grew Pastztres, by Roi Ottley; November 27, 1951) 601 The Crusade of Indignation (Review: N(qroes 1m the March, by Daniel Guerin; Goodbye to Uncle To m, by J. C. furnas; July 7, 1956). 6o6 Sermons and Blues (Review: Selected Po ems of Ln n.qston Hughes; March 29, 1959). 614 On Catfish Row: Pm;gy and Bess in the Movies (September 1959) . 616 They Can't Turn Back (August 1960) . 622 The Dangerous Road Before Martin Luther King (February 1961) 638 The New Lost Generation (July 1961) 659 The Creative Process (1962) 669 Color (December 1962). 673 A Talk to Teachers (December 21, 1963) 678 "This Nettle, Danger ... " (February 1964) 687 Nothing Personal (1964) 692 Words of a Native Son (December 1964) .

• From Collected Essays (1998)

  Y ct, I have reason to reflect-one always does, when forced to take a long look back. I remember many people who helped me in indescribable ways, all those years ago, when I was the pop eyed, tongue-tied kid, in my memory sitting in a corner, on the floor. I was having a rough time in the Village, where the bulk of the populace, egged on by the cops, thought it was great fun to bounce tables and chairs off my head, and I soon stopped talking about my "constitutional" rights. I am, I sup pose, a surv1vor. A survivor of what? In those years, I was told, when I be came terrified, vehement, or lachrymose: It takes time, Jimmy. INTRODUCTION TO "NOTES .. 8I3 It takes time. I agree: I still agree: though it certainly didn't take much time for some of the people I knew then-in the Fifties-to turn tail, to decide to make it, and drape them selves in the American fl ag. A wretched and despicable band of cowards, whom I once trusted with my life-friends like these! But we will discuss all that another day. When I was told, it takes time, when I was young, I was being told it will take time before a Black person can be treated as a human being here, but it will happen. We will help to make it happen. We promise you. Sixty years of one man's life is a long time to deliver on a promise, especially considering all the lives preceding and sur rounding my own. What has happened, in the time of my time, is the record of my ancestors. No promise was kept with them, no promise was kept with me, nor can I counsel those coming after me, nor my global kinsmen, to believe a word uttered by my mor ally bankrupt and desperately dishonest countrymen. aAnd, ''says Doris Lessing, in her preface to African Stories, awhile the cruelties of the white man toward the black man are among the heaviest counts in the indictment against humanity, colour prejudice is not our original fault, but only one aspect of the atrophy of the imagination that prevents us from seeing our selves in every creature that breathes under the sun." Amen. En avant. I8 April 1984 Amherst, Massachusetts Freaks and the American Ideal of Manhood T o BE ANDROGYNOUS, Webster's informs us, is to have both male and female characteristics. This means that there is a man in eve!)' woman and a woman in eve!)' man. Sometimes this is recognized only when the chips are, bru tally, down-when there is no longer any way to avoid this recognition. But love between a man and a woman, or love benveen any t\Vo human beings, would not be possible did we not have available to us the spiritual resources of both sexes. To be androgynous does not imply both male and female sexual equipment, which is the state, uncommon, of the her maphrodite.

• From Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption (2014)

  They said he was being arrested for raping another man, but they were throwing questions at him about the murder of Ronda Morrison. Walter vehemently denied both allegations. When it became clear that the officers would get no help from Walter in making a case against him, they locked him up and proceeded with their investigation. — When Monroe County District Attorney Ted Pearson first heard his investigators’ evidence against Walter McMillian, he must have been disappointed. Ralph Myers’s story of the crime was pretty far-fetched; his knack for dramatic embellishment made even the most basic allegations unnecessarily complicated. Here’s Myers’s account of the murder of Ronda Morrison: On the day of the murder, Myers was getting gas when Walter McMillian saw him at the gas station and forced him at gunpoint to get in Walter’s truck and drive to Monroeville. Myers didn’t really know Walter before that day. Once in the truck, Walter told Myers he needed him to drive because Walter’s arm was hurt. Myers protested but had no choice. Walter directed Myers to drive him to Jackson Cleaners in downtown Monroeville and instructed him to wait in the truck while McMillian went inside alone. After waiting a long time, Myers drove down the street to a grocery store to buy cigarettes. He returned ten minutes later. After another long wait, Myers finally saw McMillian emerge from the store and return to the truck. Upon entering the truck, he admitted that he had killed the store clerk. Myers then drove McMillian back to the gas station so that Myers could retrieve his vehicle. Before Myers left, Walter threatened to kill him if he ever told anyone what he had seen or done. In summary, an African American man planning a robbery-murder in the heart of Monroeville in the middle of the day stops at a gas station and randomly selects a white man to become his accomplice by asking him to drive him to and from the crime scene because his arm is injured, even though he had been able to drive himself to the gas station where he encountered Myers and to drive his truck home after returning Myers to the gas station. Law enforcement officers knew that Myers’s story would be very difficult to prove, so they arrested Walter for sodomy, which served to shock the community and further demonize McMillian; it also gave police an opportunity to bring Walter’s truck to the jail for Bill Hooks, a jailhouse informant, to see. Bill Hooks was a young black man with a reputation as a jailhouse snitch. He had been in the county jail for several days on burglary charges when McMillian was arrested. Hooks was promised release from jail and reward money if he could connect McMillian’s truck to the Morrison murder.

• From Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition (2004)

  38 Lecture 7: Homer—The Iliad Achilles no longer cares about timē or kleos; he is concerned entirely with revenge. Books XVIII through XXIII focus on Achilles’s return to battle. He is fueled by a desperate desire for vengeance against Hector. The two meet in single combat, and Achilles slays Hector. Achilles’s desire for vengeance continues in his savage mistreatment of Hector’s corpse. Book XXIV provides the resolution of the Iliad through a meeting between Achilles and Hector’s father, Priam. Priam comes to Achilles’s tent to ransom the body of his son. Achilles agrees to return the body, and the Iliad ends with the funeral of Hector. Within this basic plotline, one of the most important themes is the human condition, or what it means to be mortal, and the paradox of kleos aphthiton, “imperishable glory.” Imperishable glory is the only kind of meaningful immortality available to Homeric warriors. The existence of the psyche after death, in the underworld, is vague and unsubstantial. This view of the afterlife does not offer consolation for bodily death. Only kleos provides any kind of signifi cant immortality; the Homeric warrior lives on in what others say about him after he is dead. This is similar to the view of mortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh . But the Iliadic picture of kleos is more limited than the picture given in Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh could fi nd his own version of kleos in the walls of Uruk, but the Iliad’s heroes can gain kleos only on the battle fi eld, by losing their own lives or causing someone else to lose his. Thus, the only available form of immortality in the Iliad depends not on any lasting human achievement but on death and killing. We must accept not only our own deaths but also the deaths of those we love. The latter part of the Iliad addresses this problem through Achilles’s reaction to Patroclus’s death. In Books XVIII through XXIII, Achilles is consumed with desire for vengeance and utterly refuses to accept Patroclus’s death. He puts his own life on hold by refusing to eat, sleep, bathe, or engage in sexual relations. He is described in terms that are usually applied to dead warriors, not to living ones. He utterly rejects Hector’s suggestion that whichever of them kills the other should treat the dead body with respect. He dishonors Hector by dragging his body around the walls of Troy.

• From Collected Essays (1998)

  I came fr om a long line of miserable, incontestably inferior, rice-eating, chicken-stealing, hog-swill ing niggers-who had acquired these skills in their flight fr om bondage-who still refused to come to heel, and who would not be saved. If two and two make four, then it is a very simple matter to recognize that people unable to be responsible for their own children, and who care so little about each other, arc unlikely instruments for the salvation of the people whom they permit themselves the luxury of despising as inferior to themselves. Even in the case of Korea, we, the blacks at least, knew why our children were there: they had been sent there to be used, in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons, as the blacks had been so widely dispersed out of Mrica-an incalculable investment of raw material in what was not yet known as the common market. CHAPTER TWO 543 Each time the black discontent erupts within the continen tal limits of the United States-erupts, that is, to the extent of demanding a "police action"-the Republic claims "out side" interference. It is simply not conceivable that American blacks can be so unhappy (or so bright, or so brave) as seri ously to menace the only social order that they know; a social order, moreover, in which they have achieved, or have been given-let's hear both points of view, please!-the highest standard ofliving of any black people in the world. Apart fr om pointing out that the black suicide rate began to rise impres sively about a quarter of a century ago, we will not otherwise challenge this moving article of faith. Unluckily, Americans remain at the mercy of this misapprehension when attempting to deal with the world. They do not know how their slaves endured, nor how they endure, nor do they know what their slaves know about them-they do not dare to know it: and what they dare not know about Little Black Samba is precisely what they do not dare to know about the world by which they are surrounded.

• From Collected Essays (1998)

  This proved to be true during even the bloodiest of the worker-industrial clashes: white workers opted for being white first and workers second-and, in the land of the fr ee and the home of the brave, who said that they had to remain workers? It was easy enough to turn the white worker against the black worker by threatening to put the black man in the white man's job, at a lower salary. Once the white worker had fallen into this trap, the rest was child's play: the black was locked out of the unions, the unions and big THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE business got in bed together and, whenever there was trouble in the ghetto, white America, as one man, cried, What does the Negro want? Billy clubs, tear gas, guns and cold-blooded murder imposed a sullen order, and a grateful Republic went back to sleep. This has been the American pattern for all of the years that I have been on earth, and, of course, for generations before that, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that this leop ard has changed his spots. Nixon was elected, after all, re ceived his "mandate," by means of the Omnibus Crime Bill and the "Safe Streets Act" ("safe streets" meaning keep the n igger in his place) and his crony, the late and much lamented Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who was responsible for the Attica slaughter, passed the Hitlerian "No-Knock Stop and Frisk Law," which brought every black person in New York a little closer to the madhouse and the grave. The Nixon career was stopped by Watergate, God be praised, and by the interven tion of a black man, thank our ancestors; but Attorney Gen eral John Mitchell had already corralled several thousands of us, black and white, in a ballpark. The United States is full of ballparks. My black vote, which has not yet purchased my autonomy, may yet, if I choose to use it, keep me out of the ballpark long enough to figure out some other move. Or for the children to make a move. Or for aid to come fr om somewhere. My vote will probably not get me a job or a home or help me through school or prevent another Vietnam or a third World War, but it may keep me here long enough for me to see, and use, the turning of the tide-for the tide has got to turn. And, since I am not the only black man to think this way, if Carter is re-elected, it will be by means of the black vote, and it will not be a vote for Carter. It will be a coldly calculated risk, a means of buying time. Perhaps only black people realize this, but we are dying, here, out of all proportion to our numbers, and with no re spect to age, dying in the streets, in the madhouse, in the tenement, on the roof, in jail and in the Army.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. But as none is empty who has the Holy Spirit, so none is a fool who has the knowledge of Christ; and if Racha signifies ‘empty,’ it is one and the same thing, as far as the meaning of the word goes, to say Racha, or ‘thou fool.’ But there is a difference in the meaning of the speaker; for Racha was a word in common use among the Jews, not expressing wrath or hate, but rather in a light careless way expressing confident familiarity, not anger. But you will perhaps say, if Racha is not an expression of wrath, how is it then a sin? Because it is said for contention, not for edification; and if we ought not to speak even good words but for the sake of edification, how much more not such as are in themselves bad? AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) Here we have three arraignments, the judgment, the council, and hell-fire, being different stages ascending from the lesser to the greater. For in the judgment there is yet opportunity for defence; to the council belongs the respite of the sentence, what time the judges confer among themselves what sentence ought to be inflicted; in the third, hell-fire, condemnation is certain, and the punishment fixed. Hence is seen what a difference is between the righteousness of the Pharisees and Christ; in the first, murder subjects a man to judgment; in the second, anger alone, which is the least of the three degrees of sin. RABANUS. The Saviour here names the torments of hell, Gehenna, a name thought to be derived from a valley consecrate to idols near Jerusalem, and filled of old with dead bodies, and defiled by Josiah, as we read in the Book of Kings. CHRYSOSTOM. This is the first mention of hell, though the kingdom of Heaven had been mentioned some time before, which shews that the gifts of the one comes of His love, the condemnation of the other of our sloth. Many thinking this a punishment too severe for a mere word, say that this was said figuratively. But I fear that if we thus cheat ourselves with words here, we shall suffer punishment in deed there. Think not then this too heavy a punishment, when so many sufferings and sins have their beginning in a word; a little word has often begotten a murder, and overturned whole cities. And yet it is not to be thought a little word that denies a brother reason and understanding by which we are men, and differ from the brutes. PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. In danger of the council; that is, (according to the interpretation given by the Apostles in their Constitutions,) in danger of being one of that Council which condemned Christe. HILARY. Or, he who reproaches with emptiness one full of the Holy Spirit, will he arraigned in the assembly of the Saints, and by their sentence will be punished for an affront against that Holy Spirit Himself.

• From Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition (2004)

  342 Lecture 51: Sister Juana Inés de la Cruz Sister Juana Inés de la Cruz Lecture 51 In this lecture, we turn to the work of Mexican writer Sister Juana Inés de la Cruz. In Molière’s 1662 comedy, L’Ecole des femmes, A School for Wives, a character mocks women’s desire for education. “She has no need, whatever she may think, of writing table, paper, pen, or ink.” T he Enlightenment was not confi ned to Europe, nor was it a thoroughly masculine enterprise. The voice of women can be heard—in countries far from France or England—and in an occupation the least resembling the public intellectual. Sor Juana, a Mexican nun, claims for herself and other women the right to pursue an intellectual life, despite her recognition that such a pursuit may well con fl ict not only with her religious devotions but also with the social roles assigned to women. In this lecture, we will study Sor Juana’s “Reply to Sor Filotea de la Cruz” (1691), a text written in response to her bishop’s suggestion that she focus her learning on religious matters rather than on philosophical commentaries and other secular forms, such as lyric poetry and drama. Sor Juana’s insistence that she can be both the bride of Christ and a scholar prefi gures the determination of many women, even into the 21 st century, who confront a similar tension between their gender and their desire for knowledge. What kind of life could an intellectual woman expect to lead in the 17th and 18 th centuries? The 17 th-century Mexican composer, poetess, dramatist, philosopher, feminist, and Catholic nun, Sister Juana Inés de la Cruz, represents both the ful fi llment of, and the exception to, her culture’s expectations. All models of what constitutes excellence in literature (as in life) were drawn from classical traditions that speci fi cally excluded women. Some exceptions existed, however: Restoration playwright Aphra Behn, or novelist Eliza Haywood, or feminist philosopher Mary Astell. Sister Juana Inés was born in 1648, the daughter of a Spanish gentleman and an illiterate mother. She learned to read and write at age 3, read everything she could from her grandfather’s library, and when she found that the most desirable books were in Latin, mastered the language. Juana went to her

• From Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition (2004)

  126 Lecture 19: Virgil The epic ends when Aeneas kills Turnus in single combat. The wounded Turnus admits defeat and begs for mercy, invoking the memory of Anchises and asking for pity for his own father. He concludes, “Lavinia is your wife; do not go further in your hatred.” Aeneas hesitates, but then notices on Turnus’s shoulder the belt of a young man, Pallas, who had been under Aeneas’s protection and whom Turnus had killed. Saying, “Pallas strikes this blow,” Aeneas kills Turnus. The Aeneid ends with the soul of Turnus fl eeing to the underworld. This fi nal scene raises two crucial questions of interpretation: Was Aeneas justifi ed in killing Turnus, and what implications does our assessment of Aeneas’s actions have for our reading of the entire Aeneid? One view is that Aeneas would be wrong not to kill Turnus. To leave Pallas unavenged would be to fail in pietas toward Pallas and his father. Aeneas’s hesitation indicates magnanimity and humanity, but it is anachronistic to expect him to spare Turnus, who would have served as a focal point for Aeneas’s enemies. Aeneas acts through anger, but justifi ed anger is not perceived negatively in this context. The end of the Aeneid, therefore, shows Aeneas acting appropriately for a leader and is positive. But another view is that killing Turnus represents Aeneas’s crucial failure to embody the ideals set out throughout the Aeneid. Turnus’s invocation of Anchises’s memory has two implications. It reminds the reader of the last time Anchises appeared in the epic, in the underworld journey of Book VI. There, Anchises advised the future Romans to “spare the defeated/submissive and battle down the proud.” By killing Turnus, Aeneas disregards Anchises’s advice. In hesitating, Aeneas is subordinating his private desire for vengeance to the public good. Aeneas kills Turnus out of private emotion, when he is overcome by anger, grief, and desire for vengeance. The end of the Aeneid, therefore, shows Aeneas acting inappropriately for a leader and is negative. These questions have implications for our overall understanding of the epic. Virgil’s portrayal of Aeneas can be read as a commentary on Augustus’s leadership. It is overly simplistic to ask, “Is the Aeneid pro-Augustan propaganda?” But the text can be read in radically different ways, as supporting or protesting against the political program of Augustus.

• From Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition (2004)

  363 the ruling class in Ireland, he speaks for the whole country in this pamphlet. Ireland was a colony of England and depended entirely on England for its political, social, and economic prosperity. It was, however, in English interest to keep Ireland weak, given its natural alliance with France because of its large Roman Catholic population. England controlled the Irish parliament, and absentee landlords owned most of the land; the Irish were passive in the face of this historical oppression. A Modest Proposal is an attack both on the English for exploiting the Irish and on the Irish for allowing themselves to be exploited. It also parodies the useful projects proposed for improving the situation. Rhetorically, Swift asks the reader to accept the consequences of a premise apparently accepted by both the English and the Irish: that thousands of people can starve to death each year and no one seems to mind. The rational and eminently sensible narrator proposes a way of making economic and social sense out of this horror. Swift’s savage rage is contained within the persona of this shrewd businessman who advocates cannibalism. The title of the essay informs the reader of the style of writing: modest, familiar, and plausible. The speaker proposes to resolve the problem of so many starving children with a sensible plan. The reader is fooled into anticipating a logical and sensible solution. When the speaker offers his actual thesis, the horror of his proposal is both undermined and, paradoxically, intensifi ed by the modest tone that he adopts. With precision and relentless logic, the speaker lays out his plan as if he were speaking of livestock—and how, after all, Swift suggests, can we claim to think of them as anything more than animals, given the way they are treated? Swift’s proposal ends with a list of reasonable suggestions to alleviate the suffering of the Irish. Swift’s satire condemns the English for their economic greed and inhumanity and the Irish for their passivity—and, of course, the satire eventually must include the reader who can stand to read about such a solution but who is not driven by outrage to act to improve another’s misery. ■ 364 Lecture 54: Jonathan Swift Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’ s Travels and Other Writings, Clement Hawes, ed. Carol Houlihan Flynn, The Body in Swift and Defoe. Victoria Glendinning, Jonathan Swift: A Portrait. 1. Contrast Gulliver’s voyages with those undertaken by Candide and his companions. 2. How does Swift’s representation of Enlightenment values contrast with that of his contemporaries, such as Pope? Essential Reading Supplementary Reading Questions to Consider

• From Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition (2004)

  365 Voltaire Lecture 55 The French philosopher, poet, novelist, playwright and frequent satirist of political and religious authorities, Voltaire, insisted that the task of the intellectual must be, “Écrasez l’infâme”—“Crush infamy!” F rench philosophe, poet, novelist, playwright, and frequent satirist of the political and religious authorities, V oltaire (1694–1778) insisted that the task of the intellectual must be to “ Écrasez l’infâme ”— “Crush infamy!” For V oltaire, infamy consisted of all forms of intolerance, and despite imprisonment and exile, he spent much of his life resisting the tyranny of religious and political repression. No single work or collection of texts can do justice to the range of V oltaire’s literary and philosophical achievements or to manner in which his endless social commentary in his letters, pamphlets, satiric dialogues, and tales helped to shape the central ideas of the Enlightenment. In this lecture, we will use one text, Candide; or, The Optimist (1759), to demonstrate the particular combination of wit, satire, and narrative skill that V oltaire employed to expose those self-deceiving dogmas, including the formal philosophy of optimism, that protect us from the knowledge of evil, especially of the evil that is the product of human cruelty and complacency. The son of a minor bureaucrat, V oltaire was born in 1694 and grew up in a bourgeois milieu; he was educated by the Jesuits and took up the practice of law. He soon abandoned law for literature. He spent 11 months in the Bastille when he was in his early 20s for his satiric verses about the aristocracy. His imprisonment did not deter him from publishing works critical of social injustice and political inequality. Although his business speculations made him a rich man, his wealth did not protect him from further imprisonment. Finally, in 1726, V oltaire left France and spent three years in exile, mostly in England. His Philosophical Letters, originally called the English Letters, published in 1734, was the result of this time in England. After its publication, V oltaire was condemned by the Parliament of Paris as offensive to politics and

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Objection 3: Further, just as people are more earnest in doing deeds of fortitude on account of anger, so are they on account of sorrow or desire; wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that wild beasts are incited to face danger through sorrow or pain, and adulterous persons dare many things for the sake of desire. Now fortitude employs neither sorrow nor desire for its action. Therefore in like manner it should not employ anger. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that “anger helps the brave.” I answer that, As stated above ([3295]FS, Q[24], A[2]), concerning anger and the other passions there was a difference of opinion between the Peripatetics and the Stoics. For the Stoics excluded anger and all other passions of the soul from the mind of a wise or good man: whereas the Peripatetics, of whom Aristotle was the chief, ascribed to virtuous men both anger and the other passions of the soul albeit modified by reason. And possibly they differed not in reality but in their way of speaking. For the Peripatetics, as stated above ([3296]FS, Q[24], A[2]), gave the name of passions to all the movements of the sensitive appetite, however they may comport themselves. And since the sensitive appetite is moved by the command of reason, so that it may cooperate by rendering action more prompt, they held that virtuous persons should employ both anger and the other passions of the soul, modified according to the dictate of reason. On the other hand, the Stoics gave the name of passions to certain immoderate emotions of the sensitive appetite, wherefore they called them sicknesses or diseases, and for this reason severed them altogether from virtue. Accordingly the brave man employs moderate anger for his action, but not immoderate anger. Reply to Objection 1: Anger that is moderated in accordance with reason is subject to the command of reason: so that man uses it at his will, which would not be the case were it immoderate. Reply to Objection 2: Reason employs anger for its action, not as seeking its assistance, but because it uses the sensitive appetite as an instrument, just as it uses the members of the body. Nor is it unbecoming for the instrument to be more imperfect than the principal agent, even as the hammer is more imperfect than the smith. Moreover, Seneca was a follower of the Stoics, and the above words were aimed by him directly at Aristotle.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  THAT SIN IS POSSIBLE IN THE DEMONS, AND HOWTHAT sin of the will is in the demons is clear from the authority of Scripture. For it is said (1 Jo. 3:8) that the devil sinneth from the beginning; and (Jo. 8:44) it is said that the devil is a liar, and the father of lies, and that he was a murderer from the beginning: and (Wis. 2:24) that by the envy of the devil, death came into the world. If anyone chose to follow the opinions of the Platonists, he would easily explain these authorities. For they assert that demons have a body composed of air: and so, since they have a body united to them, there can be a faculty of sense in them. Hence they ascribe to them passions which in us are a cause of sin, namely anger, hate and the like, wherefore Apuleius says that they are passive in mind. Moreover, independently of their being united to bodies, as the Platonists aver, perhaps yet another kind of knowledge might be assigned to them besides that of the intellect. For, according to Plato, the sensitive soul also is incorruptible: so that it must have an operation in which the body does not concur. Consequently, nothing prevents the operation of the sensitive soul, and therefore the passions, from being in an intellectual substance, even though it be not united to a body. Hence the same source of sin is seated in them as in us. But both of these explanations are impossible. For it has been proved above that with the exception of human souls no other intellectual substances are united to bodies.—And that the operations of the sensitive soul are impossible apart from a body, is clear from the fact, that when a sensorial organ is destroyed, the one operation of the sense is destroyed: thus sight ceases with the loss of an eye. For this reason as soon as the organ of touch is destroyed, the animal must die, for it cannot live without it. In order to solve the question proposed, then, we must observe that, just as there is order among active causes, so too is there in final causes: so that, to wit, the secondary end depends on the principal end, even as the secondary agent depends on the principal agent. Now, a fault occurs in active causes when the secondary agent strays from the order of the principal agent; just as, when the tibia fails to accomplish the movement commanded by the appetitive power through being crooked, the result is a limping gait. In the same way, therefore, in final causes also, when the secondary end is not subordinate to the principal end, there is sin in the will, the object of which is the good and the end.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  GREGORY. (ut sup.) As it is necessary that the good should grow better by contumely, so are the reprobate made worse by kindness. On hearing our Lord’s words, the Jews again blaspheme: Then said the Jews unto Him, Now we know Thou hast a devil. ORIGEN. (tom. xx. 32, 33.) Those who believe the Holy Scriptures, understand that what men do contrary to right reason, is not done without the operation of devils. Thus the Jews thought that Jesus had spoken by the influence of the devil, when He said, If a man keep My saying, he shall never see death. And this idea they laboured under, because they did not know the power of God. For here He was speaking of that death of enmity to reason (ἐχθρὸν τῷ λόγῳ), by which sinners perish:whereas they understand Him of that death which is common to all; and therefore blame Him for so speaking, when it was certain that Abraham and the Prophets were dead: Abraham is dead, and the Prophets; and Thou sayest, If a man keep My saying, he shall never taste of death. Shall never taste of death, they say, instead of, shall not see death; though between tasting and seeing death there is a difference. Like careless hearers, they mistake what our Lord said. For as our Lord, in that He is the true bread, is good to taste; in that He is wisdom, is beautiful to behold; in like manner His adversary death is both to be tasted and seen. When then a man stands by Christ’s help in the spiritual place pointed out to him, (ἐν τῷ δεικνυ μένω νοητῷ τόπῳ) he shall not taste of death if he preserves that state: according to Matthew, There he those standing HERE. which shall not taste of death. (Matt. 16:28) But when a man hears Christ’s words and keeps them, he shall not see death. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lv. 1) Again, they have recourse to the vainglorious argument of their descent: Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, winch is dead? They might have said, Art Thou greater than God, whose words they are dead who heard? But they do not say this, because they thought Him inferior even to Abraham. ORIGEN. (tom. xx. 33.) For they do not see that not Abraham only, but every one born of woman, is less than He who was born of a Virgin. Now were the Jews right in saying that Abraham was dead? for he heard the word of Christ, and kept it, as did also the Prophets, who, they say, were dead. For they kept the word of the Son of God, when the word of the Lord came to Hosea, Isaiah, or Jeremiah; if any one else kept the word, surely those Prophets did. They utter a lie then when they say, We know that Thou hast a devil; and when they say, Abraham is dead, and the Prophets.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AUGUSTINE. He is angry even also now, and still is unwilling to enter. When then the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in, His father will go out at the fit time that all Israel also may be saved, as it follows, therefore came his father out and entreated him. (Rom. 11:26.) For there shall he at some time an open calling of the Jews to the salvation of the Gospel. Which manifestation of calling he calls the going out of the father to entreat the elder son. Next the answer of the elder son involves two questions; for it follows, And he answering said to his father, Lo these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment. With respect to the commandment not transgressed, it at once occurs, that it was not spoken of every command, but of that most essential one, that is, that he was seen to worship no other God but one, the Creator of all. Nor is that son to be understood to represent all Israelites, but those who have never turned from God to idols. For although he might desire earthly things, yet sought he them from God alone, though in common with sinners. Hence it is said, I was as a least before thee, and I am always with thee. (Ps. 7, 22.) But who is the kid which he never received to make merry upon? for it follows, Thou never gavest me a kid, &c. Under the name of a kid the sinner may be signified. AMBROSE. The Jew requires a kid, the Christian a lamb, and therefore is Barabbas released to them, to us a lamb is sacrificed. Which thing also is seen in the kid, because the Jews have lost the ancient rite of sacrifice. Or they who seek for a kid wait for Antichrist. AUGUSTINE. But I do not see the object of this interpretation, for it is very absurd for him to whom it is afterwards said, Thou art ever with me, to have wished for this from his father, i. e. to believe in Antichrist. Nor altogether can we rightly understand any of the Jews who are to believe in Antichrist to be that son.