Contempt

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 109 of 253 · 20 per page

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

  64. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65. Then the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. 67. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, 68. Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? CHRYSOSTOM. When the Chief Priests were thus assembled, this conventicle of ruffians sought to give their conspiracy the character of a legal trial. But it was entirely a scene of confusion and uproar, as what follows shews, Though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. ORIGEN. False witnesses have place when there is any good colour for their testimony. But no pretext was found which could further their falsehoods against Jesus; notwithstanding there were many desirous to do a favour to the Chief Priests. This then is a great testimony in favour of Jesus, that He had lived and taught so irreproachably, that though they were many, and crafty, and wicked, they could find no semblance of fault in Him. JEROME. At last came two false witnesses. How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord’s words were, Destroy this temple; (John 2:19.) this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, Destroy, not ‘I will destroy,’ because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves. Also they phrased it, And build it again, making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, And I will raise it up again, thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things. CHRYSOSTOM. Why did they not bring forward now His breaking the Sabbath? Because He had so often confuted them on this point. JEROME. Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest from his throne, the motion of his body shewing the emotion of his mind. And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against Thee?

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

  On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon. ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that a “schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practises the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church.” Therefore schism is not a generic sin. I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name “from being a scission of minds,” and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit. Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Col. 2:18,19: “Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.” Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy. Reply to Objection 1: The division between man and God that results from sin is not intended by the sinner: it happens beside his intention as a result of his turning inordinately to a mutable good, and so it is not schism properly so called. Reply to Objection 2: The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say “rebelliously,” since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment. But every sinner does not do this, wherefore not every sin is a schism.

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

  GLOSS. (non occ.) Pilate is said to make this answer, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? either to the message of his wife, or the petition of the people, with whom it was a custom to ask such release on the feast-day. ORIGEN. But the populace, like wild beasts that rage the open plains, would have Barabbas released to them. For this people had seditions, murders, robberies, practised by some of their own nation in act, and nourished by all of them who believe not in Jesus, inwardly in their mind. Where Jesus is not, there are strifes and fightings; where He is, there is peace and all good things. All those who are like the Jews either in doctrine or life desire Barabbas to be loosed to them; for whoso does evil, Barabbas is loosed in his body, and Jesus bound; but he that does good has Christ loosed, and Barabbas bound. Pilate sought to strike them with shame for so great injustice, What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? And not that only, but desiring to fill up the measure of their guilt. But neither do they blush that Pilate confessed Jesus to be the Christ, nor set any bounds to their impiety, They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. Thus they multiplied the sum of their wickedness, not only asking the life of a murderer, but the death of a righteous man, and that the shameful death of the cross. RABANUS. Those who were crucified being suspended on a cross, by nails driven into the wood through their hands and feet, perished by a lingering death, and lived long on the cross, not that they sought longer life, but that death was deferred to prolong their sufferings. The Jews indeed contrived this as the worst of deaths, but it had been chosen by the Lord without their privity, thereafter to place upon the foreheads of the faithful the same cross as a trophy of His victory over the Devil. JEROME. Yet even after this answer of theirs, Pilate did not at once assent, but in accordance with his wife’s suggestion, Have thou nothing to do with that just man, he answered, Why, what evil hath he done? This speech of Pilate’s acquits Jesus. But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified; that it might be fulfilled which is said in the Psalm, Many dogs have compassed me, the congregation of the wicked hath inclosed me; (Ps. 22:16.) and also that of Hieremias, Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest, they have given forth their voice against me. (Jer. 12:8.)

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

  CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. Having said before that poverty for God’s sake is the cause of every good thing, and that hunger and weeping will not be without the reward of the saints, he goes on to denounce the opposite to these as the source of condemnation and punishment. But woe unto you rich, for ye have your consolation. CHRYSOSTOM. For this expression, woe, is always said in the Scriptures to those who cannot escape from future punishment. AMBROSE. But although in the abundance of wealth many are the allurements to crime, yet many also are the incitements to virtue. Although virtue requires no support, and the offering of the poor man is more commendable than the liberality of the rich, still it is not those who possess riches, but those who know not how to use them, that are condemned by the authority of the heavenly sentence. For as that poor man is more praiseworthy who gives without grudging, so is the rich man more guilty, who ought to return thanks for what he has received, and not to hide without using it the sum which was given him for the common good. It is not therefore the money, but the heart of the possessor which is in fault. And though there be no heavier punishment than to be preserving with anxious fear what is to serve for the advantage of successors, yet since the covetous desires are fed by a certain pleasure of amassing, they who have had their consolation in the present life, have lost an eternal reward. We may here however understand by the rich man the Jewish people, or the heretics, or at least the Pharisees, who, rejoicing in an abundance of words, and a kind of hereditary pride of eloquence, have overstepped the simplicity of true faith, and gained to themselves useless treasures. BEDE. Woe to you that are full, for ye shall be hungry. That rich man clothed in purple was full, feasting sumptuously every day, but endured in hunger that dreadful “woe,” when from the finger of Lazarus, whom he had despised, he begged a drop of water.

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

  I answer that, Imprudence may be taken in two ways, first, as a privation, secondly, as a contrary. Properly speaking it is not taken as a negation, so as merely to signify the absence of prudence, for this can be without any sin. Taken as a privation, imprudence denotes lack of that prudence which a man can and ought to have, and in this sense imprudence is a sin by reason of a man’s negligence in striving to have prudence. Imprudence is taken as a contrary, in so far as the movement or act of reason is in opposition to prudence: for instance, whereas the right reason of prudence acts by taking counsel, the imprudent man despises counsel, and the same applies to the other conditions which require consideration in the act of prudence. In this way imprudence is a sin in respect of prudence considered under its proper aspect, since it is not possible for a man to act against prudence, except by infringing the rules on which the right reason of prudence depends. Wherefore, if this should happen through aversion from the Divine Law, it will be a mortal sin, as when a man acts precipitately through contempt and rejection of the Divine teaching: whereas if he act beside the Law and without contempt, and without detriment to things necessary for salvation, it will be a venial sin. Reply to Objection 1: No man desires the deformity of imprudence, but the rash man wills the act of imprudence, because he wishes to act precipitately. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 5) that “he who sins willingly against prudence is less to be commended.” Reply to Objection 2: This argument takes imprudence in the negative sense. It must be observed however that lack of prudence or of any other virtue is included in the lack of original justice which perfected the entire soul. Accordingly all such lack of virtue may be ascribed to original sin. Reply to Objection 3: Repentance restores infused prudence, and thus the lack of this prudence ceases; but acquired prudence is not restored as to the habit, although the contrary act is taken away, wherein properly speaking the sin of imprudence consists. Whether imprudence is a special sin?Objection 1: It would seem that imprudence is not a special sin. For whoever sins, acts against right reason, i.e. against prudence. But imprudence consists in acting against prudence, as stated above [2812](A[1]). Therefore imprudence is not a special sin. Objection 2: Further, prudence is more akin to moral action than knowledge is. But ignorance which is opposed to knowledge, is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. Much more therefore should imprudence be reckoned among those causes.

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

  The assailants of religious pervert their judgment about facts in two ways. They first of all declare that the good manifestly wrought by religious is evil. Thus they fulfil the words of Sirach (xi. 33), “he lies in wait, and turns good into evil; and on the elect he will lay a blot.” Then they pretend that the indifferent actions of religious are wrong. Now by condemning the good works of religious as evil, they pass judgment on themselves, and they prove that those whom they blame are highly to be commended. They condemn religious because their virtuous lives are offensive to them. St. Gregory, speaking of men of this description, says (VI Moral.), “The wicked man detracts from the reputation of the just, and he never ceases to condemn and to blame the good actions which he himself neglects to perform.” Detractors of religious, by blaming them, give the best proof of their innocence. They imitate the princes of Daniel, who said in their malice against that prophet, “We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, unless perhaps concerning the law of his God.” On these words, the Gloss observes: “O spotless life, wherein his enemies could detect no guilt, save in the law which he observes.” Now the only ground of detraction which they can find against religious, and the only reason for holding them up to contempt, is the law of God to which they are faithful. 1. They blame them on account of the poor habit which they wear. 2. They condemn them for their charity to others and for compassionately assisting their neighbours in the management of their affairs. 3. They complain that religious, who have here no abiding city, wander from city to city to preach the Word of God. 4. They find fault with them for studying. 5. They blame them for preaching in a systematic and fluent style. Now by thus condemning religious, their assailants show that they despise their poverty, their mendicancy, and their teaching, and that they are opposed to the good fruit which, by episcopal permission, they are enabled to produce in souls. CHAPTER 1 The Poverty of the Religious Habit is the First Point on Which They Are AssailedThey bring up many arguments against the religious custom of wearing a poor habit: 1. They quote the words of our Lord, “Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep” etc. (Matt. vii, 15). This warning they apply to those who wear poor clothing; and, Hence they seek to Prove that religious ought to be suspected of being fibe prophets. 2. The Gloss, on the words “Behold a pale horse (Rev. vi.), comments as follows: “The devil, finding that he cannot further his schemes against the Church either by persecution or by open heresy, sends forth false brethren who, under the disguise of the religious habit, possess the nature of roan and black horses and pervert the faith.”

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

  BEDE. (ubi sup.) The Lord proves most clearly that the chiefs of the Jews did not crucify the Son of God through ignorance, but through envy; for they understood that this was He to whom it was said, I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance. (Ps. 2:8) But these evil husbandmen strove to seize upon it by slaying Him, when the Jews crucifying Him tried to extinguish the faith which is by Him, and rather to bring forward their own righteousness which is by the Law, and to thrust it on the nations, and to imbue them with it. There follows: And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. THEOPHYLACT. That is, without Jerusalem, for the Lord was crucified out of the city. PSEUDO-JEROME. Or else, they cast Him out of the vineyard, that is, out of the people, saying Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil. (John 8:48) 1Or, as far as in them lay, they cast Him out of their own borders, and gave Him up to the Gentiles that they might receive Him. There follows, What then will the Lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy those husbandmen, and give the vineyard unto other. AUGUSTINE. (de Con. Evan. ii. 70) Matthew indeed subjoins that they answered and said, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, (Matt. 21:41) which Mark here says was not their answer, but that the Lord after putting the question, as it were answered Himself. But we may easily understand either that their answer was subjoined without the insertion of, they answered, or they said, which at the same time was implied; or else, that their answer, being the truth, was attributed to the Lord, since He also Himself gave this answer concerning them, being the Truth. THEOPHYLACT. The Lord of the vineyard then is the Father of the Son who was slain, and the Son Himself is He who was slain, who will destroy those husbandmen, by giving them up to the Romans, and who will give the people to other husbandmen, that is, to the Apostles. Read the Acts of the Apostles, and you will find three thousand, and five thousand on a sudden believing and bearing fruit to God. PSEUDO-JEROME. Or else, the vineyard is given to others, that is, to those who come from the east, and from the west, and from the south, and from the north, and who sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

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

  THEOPHYLACT. The High Priest does after the manner of the Jews; for whenever any thing intolerable or sad occurred to them, they used to rend their clothes. In order then to shew that Christ had spoken great and intolerable blasphemy, he rent his clothes. BEDE. (ubi sup.) But it was also with a higher mystery, that in the Passion of our Lord the Jewish priest rent his own clothes, that is, his ephod, whilst the garment of the Lord could not be rent, even by the soldiers, who crucified Him. For it was a figure that the Jewish priesthood was to be rent on account of the wickedness of the priests themselves. But the solid strength of the Church, which is often called the garment of her Redeemer, can never be torn asunder. THEOPHYLACT. The Jewish priesthood was to be rent from the time that they condemned Christ as guilty of death; wherefore there follows, And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. PSEUDO-JEROME. They condemned Him to be guilty of death, that by His guiltiness He might absolve our guilt. It goes on: And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands; that is, that by being spit upon He might wash the face of our soul, and by the covering of His face, might take away the veil from our hearts, and by the buffets, which were dealt upon His head, might heal the head of mankind, that is, Adam, and by the blows, by which He was smitten with the hands, His great praise might be testified by the clapping of our hands and by our lips, as it is said, O clap your hands together, all ye people. (Ps. 47:1) BEDE. (ubi sup.) By saying, Prophesy, who is he that smote thee, they mean to insult Him, because He wished to be looked upon as a prophet by the people. AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) We must understand by this, that the Lord suffered these things till morning, in the house of the High Priest, whither He had first been brought. 14:66–7266. And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the High Priest: 67. And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. 68. But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. 69. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. 70. And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilæan, and thy speech agreeth thereto.

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

  4:9–139. And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: 10. For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 11. And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 13. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season. AMBROSE. The next weapon he uses is that of boasting, which always causes the offender to fall down; for they who love to boast of the glory of their virtue descend from the stand and vantage ground of their good deeds. Hence it is said, And he led him to Jerusalem. ORIGEN. He followed evidently as a wrestler, gladly setting out to meet the temptation, and saying, as it were, Lead me where you will, and you will find me the stronger in every thing. AMBROSE. It is the fate of boasting, that while a man thinks he is climbing higher, he is by his pretension to lofty deeds brought low. Hence it follows, And he said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, throw thyself down. ATHANASIUS. (non occ.) The devil entered not into a contest with God, (for he durst not, and therefore said, If thou art the Son of God,) but he contended with man whom once he had power to deceive. AMBROSE. That is truly the devil’s language, which seeks to cast down the soul of man from the high ground of its good deeds, while he shews at the same time both his weakness and malice, for he can injure no one that does not first cast himself down. For he who forsaking heavenly things pursues earthly, rushes as it were wilfully down the self-sought precipice of a falling life. As soon then as the devil perceived his dart blunted, he who had subdued all men to his own power, began to think he had to deal with more than man. But Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, and often from the Holy Scriptures weaves his mesh for the faithful: hence it follows, It is written, He shall give, &c. ORIGEN. Whence knowest thou, Satan, that those things are written? Hast thou read the Prophets, or the oracles of God? Thou hast read them indeed, but not that thyself mightest be the better for the reading, but that from the mere letter thou mightest slay them who are friends to the letter. (2 Cor. 3:6.) Thou knowest that if thou wert to speak from His other books, thou wouldest not deceive.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  Plato uses the word alazōn to describe the ‘false and boastful words’ which can get into a young man’s mind and drive out ‘the pursuits and true words which are the best guardians and sentinels in the minds of men who are dear to the gods’ (Plato, Republic 560c). In the Gorgias Plato draws a picture of the souls of men before the judge in the afterworld, souls ‘where every act has left its smirch, where all is awry through falsehood and imposture, alazoneia, and nothing straight because of a nurture that knew not the truth’ (Plato, Gorgias 525a). Xenophon tells how Cyrus the Persian king, who knew men, defined the alazōn: ‘The name alazōn seems to apply to those who pretend that they are richer than they are, or braver than they are, and to those who promise to do what they cannot do, and that, too, when it is evident that they do this only for the sake of getting something or making some gain’ (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 2.2.12). In the Memorabilia he tells how Socrates utterly condemned such imposters. Socrates said they are found in every walk of life, but they were worst of all in politics. ‘Much the greatest rogue of all, is the man who has gulled his city into the belief that he is fit to direct it’ (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.7.5). Theophrastus has a famous character sketch of the alazōn. ‘Alazoneia’, he begins, ‘would seem to be, in fact, pretension to advantages which one does not possess’. The alazōn is the man who will stand in the market-place and talk to strangers about the argosies he has at sea and his vast trading enterprises when his bank balance is precisely tenpence! He will tell of the campaigns he served with Alexander the Great, and how he was on terms of personal intimacy with him. He will talk about the letters which the chiefs of the state write to him for help and advice. When he is living in lodgings he will pretend that the house in which his room is situated is the family mansion, and that he is thinking of selling it because it is not commodious enough for the entertaining which he has to do (Theophrastus, Characters 23). The alazōn was the braggart and the boaster out to impress men; the man with all his goods in the shop window; the man given to making extravagant claims which he can never fulfil. But we have still to see the alazōn in his most damaging and dangerous form.

• From Buddenbrooks: The Decline of a Family (1901)

  A vision of lemon rolls with truffle sausage and Strasbourg foie gras haunted her and almost for a moment shook the stony dignity of her bearing... The mourning bonnet on the smoothly parted hair, in a well-fitting black dress, the skirt of which was ruffled all the way up , she was sitting on the sofa with her arms crossed and her shoulders raised a little, and as the two gentlemen entered, she addressed an indifferent and calm remark to her brother, the senator, who could not have been responsible for abandoning her at this hour... You remained seated while the senator, who had walked to the middle of the room to meet the guests, and exchanged a correctly polite one with the Consul, then stood up in her turn, performed a measured bow to both at the same time and then, without any overzealousness, joined in word and hand when her brother asked her to be seated. Incidentally, she kept her eyes almost completely closed in unaffected indifference. As they were seated, and for the first few minutes that followed, the consul and the agent spoke in turn. Mr. Gosch kindly apologized for the disturbance with repulsively false humility, behind which everyone could see the peril lurking, but Mr. Consul Hagenström cherished the desire to tour the premises of the house, as he might reflect on it as a buyer ... And then the Consul repeated in a voice that reminded Frau Permaneder of lemon sandwiches, the same thing again in different words. Yes, indeed, the thought had occurred to him, and it quickly became a wish that he hoped to be able to fulfill for himself and his family, assuming that Herr Gosch didn't intend to make too good a deal out of it, ha, ha !... well, he do not doubt, His demeanor was free, carefree, comfortable, and urbane, which did not fail to impress Frau Permaneder, especially since he almost always addressed his words out of courtesy to her. He even agreed to explain his request in detail in an almost apologetic tone. "Space! More room!' he said. 'My house on Sandstrasse... You won't believe it, madam, and you, Senator... it's really getting too cramped for us, sometimes we can't move in it. I'm not even talking about company... save. It's effective onlytheFamily needed, Huneus', Möllendorpf's, my brother Moritz's relatives ... and we are effectively like herrings. So why - isn't it?' He spoke in a tone of slight indignation, with an expression and hand gestures that said: You'll see... I don't have to put up with it... I would be stupid ... since, thank God, there is not a lack of what is absolutely necessary to remedy the situation ... 'Now I wanted to wait,' he went on, 'I wanted to wait until Zerlina and Bob needed a house, and only then would I give them mine and think about something bigger; but . Two more years at the most... You're young - the better!

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

  BEDE. (ubi sup.) He says, to all nations, not to the Jewish nation alone, nor in the city of Jerusalem alone, but over the whole world; and he does not say a house of bulls, goats, and rams, but of prayer. THEOPHYLACT. Further, He calls the temple, a den of thieves, on account of the money gained there; for thieves always troop together for gain. Since then they sold those animals which were offered in sacrifice for the sake of gain, He called them thieves. BEDE. (ubi sup.) For they were in the temple for this purpose, either that they might persecute with corporal pains those who did not bring gifts, or spiritually kill those who did. The mind and conscience of the faithful is also the temple and the house of God, but if it puts forth perverse thoughts, to the hurt of any one, it may be said that thieves haunt it as a den; therefore the mind of the faithful becomes the den of a thief, when leaving the simplicity of holiness, it plans that which may hurt others. AUGUSTINE. (de Con. Evan. lib. ii. 67) John, however, relates this in a very different order, wherefore it is manifest that not once only, but twice, this was done by the Lord, and that the first time was related by John, this last, by all the other three. THEOPHYLACT. Which also turns to the greater condemnation of the Jews, because though the Lord did this so many times, nevertheless they did not correct their conduct. AUGUSTINE. (de Con. Evan. lib. ii. 68) In this again Mark does not keep the same order as Matthew; because however Matthew connects the facts together by this sentence, And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany, (Matt. 21:17) returning from whence in the morning, according to his relation, Christ cursed the tree, therefore it is supposed with greater probability that he rather has kept to the order of time, as to the ejection from the temple of the buyers and sellers. Mark therefore passed over what was done the first day when He entered into the temple, and on remembering it inserted it, when he had said that He found nothing on the fig tree but leaves, which was done on the second day, as both testify.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  The enemies of Socrates accused him of showing lofty disdain for his fellow men (Plato, Symposium 219c). Plato accuses Homer of depicting Achilles as displaying overwhelming contempt for gods and men (Plato, Republic 391c). The Greeks told how the new gods headed by Zeus drove the older gods from power, and Aeschylus speaks of the overweening spirit of Zeus towards the older gods (Aeschylus, Prometheus 405). Theophrastus has one of his character studies which draws the picture of the man who is huperēphanos. He begins by defining huperēphania as the spirit of the man who has contempt for everyone except himself. The man who is huperēphanos will never pay the first visit to someone else. When he walks on the streets, he never talks to anyone whom he meets, but stalks by with bent head and averted eyes, too proud even to look at other people. When he is elected to office, he declines it, on the grounds that he is too busy to serve. If he gives an entertainment, he never sits down with the guests, but orders some underling to look after them. When he writes a letter, he never says: ‘Would you do me the favour of doing such and such a thing?’ He says: ‘I want this done as quickly as possible.’ (Theophrastus, Characters 24). The man who is huperēphanos has a contempt for everyone else. As F. J. Hort has it: ‘Huperēphania is shown in overweening treatment of others.... It springs from a false view of what our relations with other persons are.’ It flaunts its greatness in the face of men. Plutarch, in his life of Pompey, describes how the pirates haunted the Mediterranean Sea, and made voyaging perilous for merchantmen, and how Pompey exterminated them. He says that in the days when the pirates held sway, they sailed in ships with gilded sails and purple awnings and silver oars, so that ‘more annoying than the fear they inspired was the flaunting extravagance of their equipment’. Their very pride was an insult to men. We can see already that huperēphania is an ugly sin; we must go on to look at it in two of its most characteristic manifestations. (i) Huperēphania and wealth were apt to go hand in hand. Riches and possessions have a way of begetting arrogance and pride.

• From The Swimming-Pool Library (1988)

  Charles was not following me. ‘It was naughty to keep back so much—though I kept thinking you would be bound to learn about all that from other people. I felt sure our friend Bill, for instance, would spill the beans.’ ‘Bill’s a pretty careful, secretive character,’ I said, my benign and contemptuous views of him appearing to me suddenly at the same time. ‘We’ll still be the most terrific friends, won’t we? I mean, it has been worth it, even if, you know …’ ‘Of course it has.’ I didn’t want to get caught up in all this today. ‘What brought you into the Club?’ ‘Oh—a meeting. Very dull, I’m afraid. And you’ve been swimming, I imagine. Gosh how I envy you,’ he unnaturally rushed on. ‘There’s nothing like it, is there? It’s one’s real element. It was a thing one missed most frightfully inside—you know.’ ‘Yes.’ ‘I must say this coffee’s quite revolting. I must get them to do something about it. Maurice you say? I’ve seen him before, of course. And now I think I’d better shuffle home. You couldn’t, my dear …?’ I gave him my arm, and we made our way slowly up to the hall. I knew that, although he came to meetings and could get the coffee changed, he valued being seen with some young thing more, as a sign that he belonged and was wanted. I felt my familiar bafflement with him, and that our meeting had not been at all as I hoped. It was so brief and profitless. ‘You won’t kind of believe me when I say this,’ he began. ‘But old Ronnie Staines has found something most frightfully interesting. Not what you’re thinking; indeed quite the opposite, by all accounts. I’m going to go and see it tomorrow after lunch. Ronnie said actually he wondered if you would come. And I think—I daren’t tell you more—that you should bring that friend of yours you’ve told me about, the Prancing Nigger buff, you know.’ ‘It’s an invitation I could normally resist—but Ronnie has promised me some pictures, which I must go soon to collect. I suppose I could do it all at once.’ It was typical of my friendship with Charles that I told him nothing about what really mattered to me while he had laid himself bare, systematically, decade by decade. ‘I was going to mention it to you: my friend James, the Firbank buff, has got into a bit of trouble with the law, picked up by a policeman who just happens to be one of Ronald’s porno models. I don’t know, I thought it might be useful to get hold of the photos.’ Charles absorbed this information with the narrowed eyes and thoughtful nod of someone beyond surprise at human duplicity; but he said nothing. ‘So I will come. But honestly Charles, I’m not on for any more bellboys-get-it-up-the-bum stuff. I’ve had it up to here with all that lately. If not to here.’

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

  But this is evidently false. For since outward worship is a sign of the inward worship, just as it is a wicked lie to affirm the contrary of what one holds inwardly of the true faith so too is it a wicked falsehood to pay outward worship to anything counter to the sentiments of one’s heart. Wherefore Augustine condemns Seneca (De Civ. Dei vi, 10) in that “his worship of idols was so much the more infamous forasmuch as the things he did dishonestly were so done by him that the people believed him to act honestly.” Reply to Objection 1: Neither in the Tabernacle or Temple of the Old Law, nor again now in the Church are images set up that the worship of latria may be paid to them, but for the purpose of signification, in order that belief in the excellence of angels and saints may be impressed and confirmed in the mind of man. It is different with the image of Christ, to which latria is due on account of His Divinity, as we shall state in the [3104]TP, Q[25], A[3]. The Replies to the Second and Third Objections are evident from what has been said above. Whether idolatry is the gravest of sins?Objection 1: It would seem that idolatry is not the gravest of sins. The worst is opposed to the best (Ethic. viii, 10). But interior worship, which consists of faith, hope and charity, is better than external worship. Therefore unbelief, despair and hatred of God, which are opposed to internal worship, are graver sins than idolatry, which is opposed to external worship. Objection 2: Further, the more a sin is against God the more grievous it is. Now, seemingly, a man acts more directly against God by blaspheming, or denying the faith, than by giving God’s worship to another, which pertains to idolatry. Therefore blasphemy and denial of the faith are more grievous sins than idolatry. Objection 3: Further, it seems that lesser evils are punished with greater evils. But the sin of idolatry was punished with the sin against nature, as stated in Rom. 1:26. Therefore the sin against nature is a graver sin than idolatry. Objection 4: Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xx, 5): “Neither do we say that you,” viz. the Manichees, “are pagans, or a sect of pagans, but that you bear a certain likeness to them since you worship many gods: and yet you are much worse than they are, for they worship things that exist, but should not be worshiped as gods, whereas you worship things that exist not at all.” Therefore the vice of heretical depravity is more grievous than idolatry.

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

  1. St. Paul says (1 Thess. ii.), “Neither have we used at any time the speech of flattery, as you know.” Now preachers who beg and live on alms are obliged to flatter those whose charity they receive. The Gloss on the words, “and leaving them, he went out” (Matt. xxi) says: “For as He was poor and flattered none, He received hospitality from no one in the city, save from Lazarus.” And yet, for this very cause, the preaching of our Lord was all the more powerful. For, as Luke tells us (xxi. 38), “the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, to hear him.” 2. Again, St. Paul says (1 Cor. iv. 11), “Even to this hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked.” On these words the Gloss makes the following comment: “Those who preach, the truth with sincerity and without flattery, and who reprove the vices of mankind are not favourably heard.” Therefore, preachers ought not to ask for alms. 3. St, Paul says: (1 Thess. ii. 5), “Neither have we taken an occasion of covetousness. God knows.” Gloss observes hereon, “The Apostle does not say: ‘I have not been covetous,’ but ‘I have neither said nor done anything that can be an occasion of covetousness.’” Preachers ought to be able to speak in like manner. Those, however, who beg become, on the contrary, an occasion of covetousness to others. 4. Again, (2 Cor. xii. 14), St. Paul says, “ I will not be burdensome unto you. I do not seek the things that are yours, but you.” Likewise (Philip. iv. 17) he writes: “Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit.” The Gloss says: “By the gift is meant the things given, such as money, food and the like; the fruit signifies the good works, and the upright intention of the giver.” True preachers then ought not to seek temporal gifts from their hearers. For this reason, the ought not to live by begging. On the words: “the farmer who labours” etc. (2 Tim. ii.), the Gloss says: “The Apostle desires the evangelist to understand that he may accept that which is needful from them for whom he labours in God, whom he cultivates as a vinedresser tends his vine, and whom he feeds as a shepherd feeds his flock For to act thus is a right; it is not beggary.” Hence we see that those who preach the Gospel have a claim to live by it; and that they are not mendicants when they do so. But this right belongs only to prelates , and, therefore, other preachers ought not to live by the Gospel.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  In the Testament of Joseph, Joseph tells how he treated his brethren: ‘My land was their land, and their counsel my counsel. And I exalted myself not among them in arrogance (alazoneia) because of my worldly glory, but I was among them as one of the least’ (Testament of Joseph 17.8). The alazōn is the teacher who struts as he teaches, and who is fascinated by his own cleverness. (ii) Their stock in trade is words. The Sophist defended himself to Epictetus that the young men came to him looking for someone to teach them. ‘To teach them to live?’ demands Epictetus. And then he answers his own question: ‘No, fool; not how to live, but how to talk; which is also the reason why he admires you’ (Epictetus, Discourses 3.23). The alazōn seeks to substitute clever words for fine deeds. (iii) Their motive is profit. The alazōn is out for what he can get. Prestige for his reputation and money for his pocket is his aim. The programme he preaches is designed to return his party to power and himself to office. The alazōn is not dead. There are still the teachers who offer worldly cleverness instead of heavenly wisdom; who spin fine words which never end in any lovely action; whose teaching is aimed at self-advancement and whose desire is profit and power. APECHEIN PAYMENT IN FULL In the NT there are certainly three, and perhaps five, extremely interesting technical usages of the word apechein. The main part of the word is the verb echein, which means ‘to have’. In Matt. 6.2, 6, 16, Jesus says of those who give alms ostentatiously, or those who pray in such a way that everyone will see them, and of those who make a parade of their fasting: ‘Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.’ (Apechousin [the present indicative of apechein] ton misthon.) This word apechein is the technical Greek word for ‘receiving payment in full’. Sometimes it is used in a general sense. Callimachus (Epigram 51) speaks of a certain Miccus, who paid all honour to his aged nurse Aeschra. He ‘cared for her in her old age with all good things, and when she died he set up her statue for future generations to see, so that the old woman has received thanks (apechei charitas) for her nursing breasts’. She received in full the grateful reward for her tender care. Callimachus (Epigram 55) has another epigram in which he speaks of a certain Aceson, who has set up a tablet to Asclepius, the god of healing, in gratitude for his wife’s recovery from illness. ‘Know, Asclepius, that thou hast received the debt (chreos apecheis) which Aceson owed thee by his vow for his wife Demodice. But if thou dost forget and demand payment again, this tablet says it will bear witness.’

• From Buddenbrooks: The Decline of a Family (1901)

  Soon after the new director had moved in, the reconstruction and refurnishing of the institution, also taking into account the most excellent hygienic and aesthetic aspects, began and everything was happily completed. The question remained, however, whether earlier, when there had been less modern comfort and a little more good nature, spirit, cheerfulness, benevolence and comfort in these rooms, the school had not been a more sympathetic and beneficial institute... As for Director Wulicke personally, he had the enigmatic, ambiguous, wayward, and jealous awfulness of the Old Testament God. He was horrible in smiling as in anger. The immense authority in his hands made him horribly capricious and unpredictable. He was capable of saying something jesting and getting dreadful when you laughed. None of his trembling creatures knew how to behave towards him. There was nothing left but to venerate him in the dust and, perhaps, by insane humility, to prevent him from crushing you in his wrath and crushing you in his great righteousness... The name that Kai had given him was used only by himself and Hanno Buddenbrook, and they were careful not to let it be spoken to their comrades, for fear of the cold, stare of incomprehension that they knew so well... No, there wasn't a point where these two got along with their comrades. Foreign to them even the kind of opposition and revenge to which the others were content, and they disregarded the usual nicknames because there was a humor in them that did not touch them and did not even make them smile. It was so cheap, so matter-of-fact and silly to call the thin Professor Hückopp "the spider" and Head Teacher Ballerstedt "cockatoo," such a pathetic indemnification for the compulsion of civil service! No, Kai Graf Mölln was a little more biting! For himself and Hanno, he had introduced the custom of only referring to the teachers by their real civil names with the addition of the word “Herr”: “Herr Ballerstedt”, “Herr Mantelsack”, “Herr Hückopp” ... This resulted in a rejection, so to speak and ironic coldness, a mocking detachment and strangeness... They spoke of the "teaching body" and amused themselves during whole pauses by imagining a real existing creature, a kind of monster of a disgusting and fantastic design underneath. And they generally spoke of the "institute" with an emphasis as if it were something like the one where Hanno's uncle Christian was... "Mr. Ballerstedt", "Mr. Mantelsack", "Mr. Hückopp" ... This resulted in a negative and ironic coldness, as it were, a mocking distance and alienation ... They spoke of the "teaching body" and, during entire pauses, amused themselves by imagining a really existing creature , to imagine a kind of monster of disgusting and fantastic design underneath. And they generally spoke of the "institute" with an emphasis as if it were something like the one where Hanno's uncle Christian was... "Mr. Ballerstedt", "Mr. Mantelsack", "Mr. Hückopp" ...

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  "Well, then, shoes on one's feet, and one's staff in his hand," said he. "Buttered bread, and bread buttered — is it not all one?" How this was received I leave you to guess. The Cordelier, perceiving that his hour was nearly out, made new efforts to divert the ladies, and gave them reason to be pleased with him. " By-and-by, ladies," he said to them, " when you are chatting with your gossips, you will ask them, ' Who is this master friar who speaks so boldly .■' He is a jovial companion, I warrant.' I tell you, ladies, be not astonished — no, be not astonished if I speak boldly, for I am of Anjou, at your service." So saying he ended his sermon, leaving his audience more disposed to laugh at his absurdities than to weep over the Passion of our Lord, the com- memoration of which they were then celebrating. His other sermons during the holidays were pretty much of the like efficacy. You know the brethren of that order do not forget to go about making their collec- tions to get them their Easter eggs, as they say. Not only have they no lack of these, but people give them besides many other things, such as linen, yarn, chitter- lings, hams, chines, and so forth. On Easter Tuesday, when he was making his exhortations to charity, of which people of his sort are no niggards, he said, " I am bound, ladies, to thank you for the charities you have bestowed on our poor convent, but I cannot help re- marking to you that you have not duly considered our wants. You have given us, for the most part, nothing but chitterlings, of which, thanks be to God, we have no scarcity, the convent being choke-full of them. What shall we do, then, with such lots of chitterlings ^ Do you know what we shall do with them } It is my advice* ladies, that you mix your hams with our chitterlings, and you will make a fine alms." Facetious sayings of a Cordelier. Second day\ QUEEN OF NA VARRE. 1 1 j Then, continuing his sermon, he contrived to intro- duce the subject of scandal. After having expatiated upon it and adduced some examples, he cried out, with warmth, " I am surprised, ladies and gentlemen of St, Martin, that you are scandalised at a thing that is less than nothing, and that you make a talk of me every- where without reason, saying, ' Who would have thought it of the father, that he should have got his landlady's daughter with child ? ' That is a thing to be astonished about, truly, A monk has got a girl with child. What a wonder ! But hark you, fair ladies, would you not have reason to be much more surprised if the girl had got the monk with child .-* "

• From Buddenbrooks: The Decline of a Family (1901)

  This resulted in a negative and ironic coldness, as it were, a mocking distance and alienation ... They spoke of the "teaching body" and, during entire pauses, amused themselves by imagining a really existing creature , to imagine a kind of monster of disgusting and fantastic design underneath. And they generally spoke of the "institute" with an emphasis as if it were something like the one where Hanno's uncle Christian was... to imagine a kind of monster of disgusting and fantastic design underneath. And they generally spoke of the "institute" with an emphasis as if it were something like the one where Hanno's uncle Christian was... to imagine a kind of monster of disgusting and fantastic design underneath. And they generally spoke of the "institute" with an emphasis as if it were something like the one where Hanno's uncle Christian was... The sight of the good Lord, who for a while left everyone terrified by pointing in different directions at the greaseproof paper that lay here and there on the tiles with a horrible growl, had put Kai in an excellent mood. He dragged Hanno with him to one of the gates through which the teachers who were arriving for the second period entered the yard, and began bowing immensely to the red-eyed, pale, and needy seminarians who were passing by to salute themselves to go to their sextans and septimans in the rear courtyards. He bent over excessively, let his arms hang down and looked up devotedly from below at the poor fellows. But when the aged arithmetic teacher, Mr. Tietge, appeared, holding some books with a trembling hand on his back, squinting in an impossible way, crooked, yellow and spitting, he said in a resonant voice: "Hello, you corpse." Then what he looked somewhere in the air with a clear and sharp gaze ..... At that moment the bell rang loudly, and immediately the students began to flock to the entrances from all sides. But Hanno didn't stop laughing; he was still laughing so hard on the stairs that his classmates who surrounded him and Kai looked him in the face coldly, alienated and even a little disgusted by so much silliness... It was quiet in the class, and everyone stood up in unison when Head Teacher Doctor Mantelsack entered. He was the Ordinary, and it was customary to have respect for the Ordinary. He closed the door behind him by crouching, craned his neck to see if everyone was standing, hung his hat on a nail, then walked briskly to the lectern, raising and lowering his head in quick succession.