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 226 of 253 · 20 per page

• From Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (1989)

  A nd then Nietzsche took this attack a st age further and tried to break out of the wh o le form of thought he defined as 'moral', i.e., all forms whi ch involve the rejection of the sup po sedly "lower" in us, of our will to power, a nd to come to a more total self-af fir m ;:ation, a yea-sa ying to what one i s. Enlightenment naturalism also frequ ent l y portra y ed rel igious mo ralit i es o f the "higher" not only as the sourc e of self-r e pr es s ion but als o as t h e Ethics of Inarticulacy • 7 I ju st i fi c a tio n of social oppression, as the supposed carriers of the "higher", be t h e y p ri es ts or aristocrats, exercise their natural right to rule the " lower u o r d e rs fo r the latter's own good. Neo-Nietzschean thinkers have extended th i s c riti q ue an d tried to show ho w various forms of socia l exclusion and d o m in at i on are built into the very de fi n itions by which a h yp ergo o d pe rs p e cti ve is constituted, as certain models of religious order excluded and d o m in a ted w omen, 31 as ideals and disciplines of rational c ontrol excluded a n d do m in ated the lower classes (as well as women again), 32 as definitions of h eal th and fulfilment exclude and marginalize dissidents, 33 as other notions o f ci v i li z ation exclude subje ct rac e s , 34 and so on. Of cou rse, the argument is complicated by the fact that all of these a tt ac ks, with the exception of Foucault's, are overtly (and, in fact, I believe Fo uc a ult's are as well, though unadmittedly) committed to their own rival hy p ergoods, generally in the range of our third example above, connected to the principle of universal and equal respect. But this doe s n't reduce the p erplexity and uncertainty we feel here. It seems that at least some of the h ypergoods espoused so passionatel y must be illusory, the projection of le s s admirable interests or desires. Why then shouldn't all of them be so? So indeed they might be.

• From Disrupted: My Misadventure in the Start-Up Bubble (2014)

  I sit in the Tesla that’s on display outside the auditorium, dreaming that my HubSpot options might someday be worth enough that I can buy a car like this. I figured Cranium would be setting up dinners for the HubSpot gang. But… nothing. No email from Cranium, no invitations to get together. Just like with my first day at HubSpot, I’ve been flown out here to attend this show then left to myself, with no instructions, no socializing. Cut loose, I spend my evenings catching up with friends in San Francisco. I do some shopping in Union Square. I have breakfast with a tech CMO from the East Coast and lunch with a PR exec from a company in the Valley. Torrential rains strike on the night of the Green Day concert, but thousands of people go anyway. Many of them stay even after the sound system blows out and Green Day’s Billie Joe Armstrong tries to carry on as an acoustic show, with no microphone. I stay in my hotel and gaze out my window at the rain-blurred lights down below, marveling at all the money and evil sloshing around down there. One hundred and forty thousand salespeople have hit San Francisco, armed with expense accounts and determined to have the time of their lives. They will sleep with their clients. They will sleep with their colleagues. Hookers have flown in from all over the country for this. Tinder and Grindr and the Craigslist “casual encounters” listings are packed with out-of-towners looking to hook up. The strip bars and S&M clubs are booming. Dreamforce turns out to be a four-day orgy worthy of Caligula, a triumph of vulgarity and wasteful spending, with free booze and endless shrimp cocktail and a rate of STD transmission that probably rivals Fleet Week. Gazing down on this mess is like looking into the pit of Mordor. So many lost souls! These glorified car salesmen, these people whose jobs involve coercion and manipulation, whose lives revolve around making their numbers. Every month, every quarter, every year: sell, sell, sell! These are the people who took the Internet, one of the most wonderful and profound inventions of all time, and polluted it with advertising and turned it into a way to sell stuff. No wonder these zombies need to take a week off in San Francisco once a year, with some Deepak Chopra and maybe an eight ball of coke and a Canadian hooker to make the whole thing seem worthwhile. Dreamforce is only part of Benioff’s mad campaign of megalomaniacal self-aggrandizement. Five months from now, in April 2014, Benioff will announce plans to make Salesforce.com the anchor tenant for a new skyscraper that is already under construction in San Francisco. Salesforce.com will commit $560 million to help finish work on the one-thousand-foot glass-and-steel skyscraper, which will become the company’s headquarters and be named the Salesforce Tower. When it opens in 2018, it will be the tallest building in the city, dwarfing everything around it.

• From Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (1989)

  Victorian piety and sentimentality seemed to have captured the Romantic spirit. For those who saw this whole world as spiritually hollow and flat, Romanticism could appear as integral to what they rejected as instrumental ism was. It merely o ffered trivialized, ersatz , or inauthentic meanings to compens ate for a meaningless world. For those who hungered after som e purer, deeper, o r stronger moral source that the world of disengaged reason c ouldn't provide, the expression of simply personal emotio n or the celebration of routinized fulfilments was a traves ty . And so the modernists as heirs to t h e Romantics turned against what they saw as Romanticism. The breach w it h th eir world had to be more th o r oughgoing . They couldn't turn for sola c e to merely subjective feeling or to the confidence that the world emanate s fr om the spirit. 2 That is why many of the path-breaking modernist writers had l ess in common with the stance of the great Romantics than with that of a Baudelaire, whose stance seeks the epiphan y no longer in a fallen nature bu t some how beyond or outside it. And that is why they frequently foun d Epiphanies of Modernism • 459 themselves in sympathy with the Nietzschean a ppe al to the heroic virtues, against what they saw as the comfortable, flabby humanitarianism of their time. 3 Hulme, who drew from both these sources, attacked Romanticism for its denial of original sin; he correctly saw the origins of this denial in Rousseau and in the doctrines of nature as source , and wanted to repudiate the one with the other. Romanticism was just "spilt religion"; 4 its error w a s to have elided religion and nature, where they should have been kept strictly apart, It failed "to realize that there is an absolute, and not a relative, difference between humanism (whi ch we can take to be the highest expression of the vital) and the religiou s spiri t. The divine is not life at its intense s t. It c ontains in a way an almost anti-vital element". 5 To take this st an c e was to reje ct what I called earlier the epiphanies of being. This can produce a p oetics which strips the aura from things. Early Eliot is a striking example, precisely under the influence of Baudelaire and T. E. Hulme. But we see a parallel development in rather different terms with Thomas Mann, t hi s time under a Schopenha uerian influence. Hans Castorp's epiph any i n the "Snow" passage of The Magic Mountain shows how the harmonious beauties of the sunlit classical world are built on the horrors of old age, decay, and human sacrifice.

• From The Diary of a Young Girl (The Definitive Edition) (2020)

  I don’t mean to imply that women should stop having children; on the contrary, nature intended them to, and that’s the way it should be. What I condemn are our system of values and the men who don’t acknowledge how great, difficult, but ultimately beautiful women’s share in society is. I agree completely with Paul de Kruif, the author of this book, when he says that men must learn that birth is no longer thought of as inevitable and unavoidable in those parts of the world we consider civthzed. It’s easy for men to talk -- they don’t and never will have to bear the woes that women do! I believe that in the course of the next century the notion that it’s a woman’s duty to have children will change and make way for the respect and admiration of all women, who bear their burdens without complaint or a lot of pompous words! Yours, Anne M. Frank FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1944 Dearest Kitty, New problems: Mrs. van D. is at her wit’s end. She’s talking about getting shot, being thrown in prison, being hanged and suicide. She’s jealous that Peter confides in me and not in her, offended that Dussel doesn’t respond sufficiently to her flirtations and afraid her husband’s going to squander all the fur-coat money on tobacco. She quarrels, curses, cries, feels sorry for herself, laughs and starts allover again. What on earth can you do with such a silly, sniveling specimen of humanity? Nobody takes her seriously, she has no strength of character, she complains to one and all, and you should see how she walks around: von hinten Lyzeum, yon vorne Museum.* [Acts like a schoolgirl, looks like a frump.] Even worse, Peter’s becoming insolent, Mr. van Daan irritable and Mother cynical. Yes, everyone’s in quite a state! There’s only one rule you need to remember: laugh at everything and forget everybody else! It sounds egotistical, but it’s actually the only cure for those suffering from self-pity. Mr. Kugler’s supposed to spend four weeks in Alkmaar on a work detail. He’s trying to get out of it with a doctor’s certificate and a letter from Opekta. Mr. Kleiman’s hoping his stomach will be operated on soon. Starting at eleven last night, all private phones were cut off. Yours, Anne M. Frank FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1944 Dearest Kitty, Nothing special going on here. The British have begun their all-out attack on Cherbourg. According to Pim and Mr. van Oaan, we’re sure to be liberated before October 10. The Russians are taking part in the campaign; yesterday they started their offensive near Vitebsk, exactly three years to the day that the Germans invaded Russia. Bep’s spirits have sunk lower than ever. We’re nearly out of potatoes; from now on, we’re going to count them out for each person, then everyone can do what they want with them. Starting Monday, Miep’s taking a week of vacation. Mr. Kleiman’s doctors haven’t found anything on the X rays.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Jerome, who lived a monk at Bethlehem, was at first decidedly favorable to the synergistic theory of the Greek fathers, but at the same time agreed with Ambrose and Augustine in the doctrine of the absolutely universal corruption of sin.1724 But from an enthusiastic admirer of Origen he had been changed to a bitter enemy. The doctrine of Pelagius concerning free will and the moral ability of human nature he attributed to the influence of Origen and Rufinus; and he took as a personal insult an attack of Pelagius on some of his writings.1725 He therefore wrote against him, though from wounded pride and contempt he did not even mention his name; first in a letter answering inquiries of a certain Ctesiphon at Rome (415);1726 then more at length in a dialogue of three books against the Pelagians, written towards the end of the year 415, and soon after the acquittal of Pelagius by the synod of Jerusalem.1727 Yet in this treatise and elsewhere Jerome himself teaches the freedom of the will, and only a conditional predestination of divine foreknowledge, and thus, with all his personal bitterness against the Pelagians, stands on Semi-Pelagian ground, though Augustine eulogizes the dialogue.1728 A young Spanish ecclesiastic, Paul Orosius, was at that time living with Jerome for the sake of more extended study, and had been sent to him by Augustine with letters relating to the Origenistic and Pelagian controversy. At a diocesan synod, convoked by the bishop John of Jerusalem in June, 415,1729 this Orosius appeared against Pelagius, and gave information that a council at Carthage had condemned Coelestius, and that Augustine had written against his errors. Pelagius answered with evasion and disparagement: "What matters Augustine to me?" Orosius gave his opinion, that a man who presumed to speak contumeliously of the bishop to whom the whole North African church owed her restoration (alluding apparently to the settlement of the Donatist controversies), deserved to be excluded from the communion of the whole church. John, who was a great admirer of the condemned Origen, and made little account of the authority of Augustine, declared: "I am Augustine,"1730 and undertook the defence of the accused. He permitted Pelagius, although only a monk and layman, to take his seat among the presbyters.1731 Nor did he find fault with Pelagius’ assertion, that man can easily keep the commandments of God, and become free from sin, after the latter had conceded, in a very indefinite manner, that for this the help of God is necessary. Pelagius had the advantage of understanding both languages, while John spoke only Greek, Orosius only Latin, and the interpreter often translated inaccurately. After much discussion it was resolved, that the matter should be laid before the Roman bishop, Innocent, since both parties in the controversy belonged to the Western church. Meanwhile these should refrain from all further attacks on each other. A second Palestinian council resulted still more favorably to Pelagius.

• From The Diary of a Young Girl (The Definitive Edition) (2020)

  Yours, Anne THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1943 Dearest Kitty, Mrs. van D. has a new nickname -- we’ve started calling her Mrs. Beaverbrook. Of course, that doesn’t mean anything to you, so let me explain. A certain Mr. Beaverbrook often talks on the English radio about what he considers to be the far too lenient bombardment of Germany. Mrs. van Daan, who always contradicts everyone, including Churchill and the news reports, is in complete agreement with Mr. Beaverbrook. So we thought it would be a good idea for her to be married to him, and since she was flattered by the notion, we’ve decided to call her Mrs. Beaverbrook from now on. We’re getting a new warehouse employee, since the old one is being sent to Germany. That’s bad for him but good for us because the new one won’t be famthar with the building. We’re still afraid of the men who work in the warehouse. Gandhi is eating again. The black market is doing a booming business. If we had enough money to pay the ridiculous prices, we could stuff ourselves silly. Our greengrocer buys potatoes from the “Wehrmacht” and brings them in sacks to the private office.

• From The Great Transformation (2006)

  In The Laws, his last work, Plato described another utopian polis in which the old worship remained important. He denied that there was any conflict between reason and traditional Greek piety. There were no compelling proofs for the existence of the Olympian daimones, but it was irrational and unintelligent to deny the ancient myths, because like fairy tales, they contained a modicum of truth. Plato wanted to reform the cult. He insisted that the Olympians could not be influenced by sacrifice or prayer, but that people should express their gratitude to these intermediaries with the ineffable, divine world. 101 Hester, Zeus, and Athena must have their shrines on the acropolis of his ideal city. Its agora would be surrounded by temples, and the festivals, processions, sacrifices, and prayers must all be carried out punctiliously. The most important deities of his imaginary city were Apollo and Helios, who had long been identified with the sun, and could easily be integrated with Plato’s cosmic theology. Plato tried to merge old and new. During the festivals of his polis, gods and daimones would dance unseen beside the human celebrants. Indeed, the purpose of these rituals was precisely “to share [the gods’] holidays.” 102 The festival involved orgiazein, a word used to describe the ecstatic mystery celebrations. 103 The sacrifices could not propitiate the Olympians, but they could still lift the spirit and give humans intimations of transcendence. Nevertheless, despite Plato’s approval of the old religion, he considered it inferior to philosophy. It could not bring true enlightenment: the forms could only be apprehended through the reasoning powers of the mind, not in the insights of myth or the sacred drama of ritual. Traditional religion had been downgraded; mythos had become subservient to Plato’s mystical logos. There was a sinister directive in The Laws that took Plato even further away from the Axial Age. 104 His imaginary city was a theocracy. The first duty of the polis was to inculcate “the right thoughts about the gods, and then to live accordingly: well or not well.” 105 Correct belief came first; ethical behavior only second. Orthodox theology was the essential prerequisite for morality. “No one who believes in gods as the law directs ever voluntarily commits an unholy act or lets any lawless word pass his lips.” 106 None of the Axial thinkers had placed any great emphasis on metaphysics. Some even regarded this type of speculation as misguided. Ethical action came first; compassionate action, not orthodoxy, enabled human beings to apprehend the sacred.

• From The Diary of a Young Girl (The Definitive Edition) (2020)

  One person goes to get some newspapers; another, the knives (keeping the best for himself, of course); the third, the potatoes; and the fourth, the water. Mr. Dussel begins. He may not always peel them very well, but he does peel nonstop glancing left and right to see if everyone is doing it the way he does. No, they’re not! “Look, Anne, I am taking peeler in my hand like so and going from the top to bottom! Nein, not so . . . but so!” “I think my way is easier, Mr. Dussel,” I say tentatively. “But this is best way, Anne. This you can take from me. Of course, it is no matter, you do the way you want.” We go on peeling. I glance at Dussel out of the corner of my eye. Lost in thought, he shakes his head (over me, no doubt), but says no more. I keep on peeling. Then I look at Father, on the other side of me. To Father, peeling potatoes is not a chore, but precision work. When he reads, he has a deep wrinkle in the back of his head. But when he’s preparing potatoes, beans or vegetables, he seems to be totally absorbed in his task. He puts on his potato-peeling face, and when it’s set in that particular way, it would be impossible for him to turn out anything less than a perfectly peeled potato. I keep on working. I glance up for a second, but that’s all the time I need. Mrs. van D. is trying to attract Dussel’s attention. She starts by looking in his direction, but Dussel pretends not to notice. She winks, but Dussel goes on peeling. She laughs, but Dussel still doesn’t look up. Then Mother laughs too, but Dussel pays them no mind. Having failed to achieve her goal, Mrs. van D. is obliged to change tactics. There’s a brief silence. Then she says, “Putti, why don’t you put on an apron? Otherwise, I’ll have to spend all day tomorrow trying to get the spots out of your suit!” “I’m not getting it dirty.” Another brief silence. “Putti, why don’t you sit down?’ “I’m fine this way. I like standing up!” Silence. “Putti, look out, du spritzt schon!”.* [*Now you’re splashing!] “I know, Mommy, but I’m being careful.” Mrs. van D. casts about for another topic. “Tell me, Putti, why aren’t the British carrying out any bombing raids today?” “Because the weather’s bad, Kerli!” “But yesterday it was such nice weather and they weren’t flying then either.” “Let’s drop the subject.” “Why? Can’t a person talk about that or offer an opinion?’ “Well, why in the world not?” “Oh, be quiet, Mammichen!”* [*Mommy] “Mr. Frank always answers his wife.” Mr. van D. is trying to control himself. This remark always rubs him the wrong way, but Mrs. van D.’s not one to quit: “Oh, there’s never going to be an invasion!” Mr. van D.

• From Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (1989)

  2.8. The English version is q u oted in Charles Russell, Poets , Prophets and Revolutionaries (Ox ford: Oxford University Press, 198 5), p. 9 1. 37. Marinetti, as qu oted in Russell, Poets, pp. 9 1-92.. Point 4 of the "Manifesto del Futurismo" reads in part: "Noi affermiamo che la magnificenza del m ondosi e arrichita di una belleza nuova: la belleza della velocita ... un automobile ruggente, ... e piu hello della Vittoria di Samotracia"; in II Futurismo ital iano, ed. Gherarducci, p. 2. 7 . 3 8. From a Futurist manifesto of 1910, quoted in II Futurismo italiano, ed. Gherarducci, p . 93. 39. From Breton's "Deux manifestes Dada" , quoted in ibid., p. 12.6. 40. Andre Breton, "Second Manifeste du Surrealisme" (1930) , in Manifestes d u Surrealisme (Paris: Gallimard, 1973), p. 9 2.; translatio n quoted in Russell, Poets, p. 13 3. 41. From the "Man i feste d u Surrealisme" (192.4), in Manifestes, p. 34; transla tion quoted in Russell, Poets, p. 142.. In the "Second Manifeste", Breton talks about "ces produits de l'activite ps y chique, aussi distraits que possible de la volonte de signifier, aussi alleges que possibles des idees de responsabilite toujours pretes a agir comme £reins , aussi independants que possibl e de tou t ce qui n'est pas l a vi e passive de /'intelligence"; Manifestes, p. 1 2.1 . 42. . From Breton's "Manifeste du Surrealisme't, Manifestes, p. 40; translation qu oted in Russell, Poets, pp. 142.-143. 4 3. Andre Breton, from the "Second Manifeste " , Manifestes , p. 12. 1 n; tran slat ion quoted in Russell, Poets, p. 1 33. 44. In f act, the Futurists' p o litical views were rather repellent from the beginning . Here are some quotes from the founding Manifesto: 9. Noi v oglia mo gl orifica re la gue rra -sol a ig i ene d el mo ndo -i l militarism o, il p atr ioti smo, ii ge sto distru ttore dei lib ertari , le be ll e idee p er cu i si muore e ii dis pr ezz o d e lla do nna. 1 0. Noi v og liamo dis trugg er e i m usei, le b ib il otecche, le acca dem ie d'ogni specie, e co mba ttere contro ii moralism o, ii f emmin i sm o e c o ntr o o gni vil t a oppo rt uni stica o ut ilitar ia. Notes to Pages 471-473 · 5 87 9. We will glori f y war-the world's only hygiene-militarism, patrio tism, the destructive gesture of freedom -bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for women. 10 . We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or u tilitarian coward ice. JI Futurismo italiano, ed. Gherarducci, p.

• From The Great Transformation (2006)

  Throughout the Xunzi, we find an insistent plea for yu wei, disciplined, conscious effort. Xunzi had learned from his visit to Qin that if they tried hard enough, human beings could turn their society around. But they must take responsibility for themselves. Heaven was not a god who intervened in the affairs of the world. It was no use relying on Heaven for help, or trying to bend Heaven’s will by consulting oracles. Xunzi hated these old manipulative superstitions. Heaven was nature itself; the Way of Heaven could be seen in the order and regularity of the heavenly bodies and the succession of the seasons. Heaven’s Way was entirely separate from human beings. It could give them no guidance or help, but it had made available the resources they needed to find their own path. This was the mission of the junzi. It was pointless to contemplate the Way of Heaven and neglect human affairs, as Zhuangzi had done. It was wrong to withdraw from society. Civilization was a magnificent achievement; it had given human beings divine status, and made them equal partners with Heaven and Earth. “Is it better to obey Heaven and sing hymns to it,” Xunzi asked, “or to grasp the mandate of Heaven and make use of it?” Was it better to yearn for Heaven, like the Daoists, or to make use of the resources that Heaven had provided and “bring them to completion”?18 If we concentrated on Heaven and neglected what man could do, Xunzi insisted again and again, “we fail to understand the nature of things.”19 But this involved hard, dedicated effort. Xunzi had learned from the Legalists that people needed to be reformed. Unlike Mencius, he believed that human nature was not good but evil. Everybody, he said, “is born with feelings of envy and hate, and if he indulges these, they will lead him into violence and crime, and all sense of loyalty and good faith will disappear.”20 He used the same imagery as the Legalists: “A warped piece of wood must wait until it has been laid against the straightening board, steamed and forced into shape, before it can become straight.”21 But if he worked hard enough, anybody could become a sage. He could not achieve this alone; first he must find a teacher and submit himself to the rites (li): only then would he be able to observe the dictates of courtesy and humility, obey the rules of society and achieve order.22 It was no good doing what came naturally, like Yangists and Daoists. Goodness was the result of conscious endeavor. The junzi used artifice to redirect his passions into constructive channels. This would not warp human nature, but bring out its full potential.

• From Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence (2014)

  Should Christians have behaved more compassionately? asked Captain John Underhill, a veteran of the Thirty Years’ War. He answered his rhetorical question with a decided negative: God supported the English, “so we had sufficient light for our proceedings.” 21 Thirty years later, when Europeans were recoiling from the violence in the Thirty Years’ War, some Puritans had begun to question the validity of these Indian campaigns. 22 After the murder of an Indian convert to Christianity in 1675, the Plymouth authorities, on very shaky evidence, pinned the blame on Metacom, chief of the Wampanoag, whom the English called “King Philip.” When they executed three of his aides, Metacom with his Indian allies promptly devastated fifty out of the ninety English towns in Plymouth and Rhode Island; by the spring of 1676 the Indian armies were within ten miles of Boston. In the autumn the war turned in the colonists’ favor. Yet they were facing a hard winter and the Narragansetts on Rhode Island had food and supplies. Accusing them—again on dubious grounds—of aiding Metacom, the English militia attacked and looted the village, massacred its inhabitants—most of them noncombatant refugees—and burned the settlement to the ground. The war continued with atrocities on both sides—Indian warriors scalped their prisoners alive; the English disemboweled and quartered theirs—but in the summer of 1676, both sides abandoned the struggle. Almost half the prewar Indian population had been eliminated: 1,250 were killed in battle, 625 died of wounds, and 3,000 died of disease in captivity. The colonies, however, suffered only about 800 casualties, a mere 1.6 percent of the total English population of 50,000. The Puritan establishment believed that God had used the Indians to punish the colonists for their backsliding from godly ways and for the decline in church attendance and were therefore unconcerned about the Indian casualties. But many of the colonists were now less convinced of the morality of all-out warfare. This time a vocal minority spoke out against the war. The Quakers, who had first arrived in Boston in 1656 and had themselves been the victims of Puritan intolerance, vigorously condemned the atrocities. John Easton, governor of Rhode Island, accused the Puritans of Plymouth of arrogance and overconfidence in provocatively expanding their settlements and mischievously playing the tribes off against one another. John Eliot, a missionary to the Indians, argued that this had not been a war of self- defense; the real aggressors were the Plymouth authorities who had fudged evidence and treated the Indians with rough justice. As in Virginia, flagging piety meant that gradually more rational and naturalistic arguments would replace theological ones in their politics. 23 As is often the case, a general decline in religious fervor tends to inspire a revival from some dissatisfied element of society. By the early eighteenth century, worship had become more formal in the colonies and elegant churches transformed the skylines of New York and Boston.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Under Innocent, England comes, if possible, into greater prominence in the history of the papacy than during the controversy in the reign of Alexander III., a generation before. Then the English actors were Henry II. and Thomas à Becket. Now they are Henry’s son John and Becket’s successor Stephen Langton. The pope was victorious, inflicting the deepest humiliation upon the English king; but he afterwards lost the advantage he had gained by supporting John against his barons and denouncing the Magna Charta of English popular rights. The controversy forms one of the most interesting episodes of English history. John, surnamed Sansterre or Lackland, 1167–1216, succeeded his brother Richard I. on the throne, 1199. A man of decided ability and rapid in action but of ignoble spirit, low morals, and despotic temper, he brought upon his realm such disgrace as England before or since has not suffered. His reign was a succession of wrongs and insults to the English people and the English church. John had joined Richard in a revolt against their father, sought to displace his brother on the throne during his captivity after the Third Crusade, and was generally believed by contemporaries to have put to death his brother Geoffrey’s son, Arthur of Brittany, who would have been Richard’s successor if the law of primogeniture had been followed. He lost Normandy, Anjou, Maine, and Aquitaine to the English. Perjury was no barrier to the accomplishment of his plans. He set aside one wife and was faithless to another. No woman was too well born to be safe against his advances. He plundered churches and convents to pay his debts and satisfy his avarice, and yet he never undertook a journey without hanging charms around his neck.198 Innocent came into collision with John over the selection of a successor to Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury, who died 1205.199 The monks of Canterbury, exercising an ancient privilege, chose Reginald one of their number. With the king’s support, a minority proceeded to another election and chose the king’s nominee, John de Grey, bishop of Norwich. John was recognized by the suffragan-bishops and put into possession by the king. An appeal was made by both parties to Rome, Reginald appearing there in person. After a delay of a year, Innocent set aside both elections and ordered the Canterbury monks, present in Rome, to proceed to the choice of another candidate. The choice fell upon Stephen Langton, cardinal of Chrysogonus. Born on English soil, Stephen was a man of indisputable learning and moral worth. He had studied in Paris and won by his merits prebends in the cathedral churches of Paris and York. The metropolitan dignity could have been intrusted to no shoulders more worthy of wearing it.200 While he has no title to saintship like à Becket, or to theological genius like Anselm, Langton will always occupy a place among the foremost of England’s primates as a faithful administrator and the advocate of English popular liberties.

• From The Diary of a Young Girl (The Definitive Edition) (2020)

  He’s an obnoxious boy who lies around on his bed all day, only rousing himself to do a little carpentry work before returning to his nap. What a dope! Mama gave me another one of her dreadful sermons this morning. We take the opposite view of everything. Daddy’s a sweetheart; he may get mad at me, but it never lasts longer than five minutes. It’s a beautiful day outside, nice and hot, and in spite of everything, we make the most of the weather by lounging on the folding bed in the attic. Yours, Anne COMMENT ADDED BY ANNE ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1942: Mr. van Daan has been as nice as pie to me recently. I’ve said nothina, but have been enjoyina it while it lasts. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1942 Dearest Kitty, Mr. and Mrs. van Daan have had a terrible fight. I’ve never seen anything like it, since Mother and Father wouldn’t dream of shouting at each other like that. The argument was based on something so trivial it didn’t seem worth wasting a single word on it. Oh well, to each his own. Of course, it’s very difficult for Peter, who gets caught in the middle, but no one takes Peter seriously anymore, since he’s hypersensitive and lazy. Yesterday he was beside himself with worry because his tongue was blue instead of pink. This rare phenomenon disappeared as quickly as it came. Today he’s walking around with a heavy scarf on because he’s got a stiff neck. His Highness has been complaining of lumbago too. Aches and pains in his heart, kidneys and lungs are also par for the course. He’s an absolute hypochondriac! (That’s the right word, isn’t it?) Mother and Mrs. van Daan aren’t getting along very well. There are enough reasons for the friction. To give you one small example, Mrs. van D. has removed all but three of her sheets from our communal linen closet. She’s assuming that Mother’s can be used for both families. She’ll be in for a nasty surprise when she discovers that Mother has followed her lead. Furthermore, Mrs. van D. is ticked off because we’re using her china instead of ours. She’s still trying to find out what we’ve done with our plates; they’re a lot closer than she thinks, since they’re packed in cardboard boxes in the attic, behind a load of Opekta advertising material. As long as we’re in hiding, the plates will remain out of her reach. Since I’m always having accidents, it’s just as well! Yesterday I broke one of Mrs. van D.’s soup bowls. “Oh!” she angrily exclaimed. “Can’t you be more careful? That was my last one.” Please bear in mind, Kitty, that the two ladies speak abominable Dutch (I don’t dare comment on the gentlemen: they’d be highly insulted). If you were to hear their bungled attempts, you’d laugh your head off. We’ve given up pointing out their errors, since correcting them doesn’t help anyway. Whenever I quote Mother or Mrs.

• From The Diary of a Young Girl (The Definitive Edition) (2020)

  They say she can’t stand me, but I don’t care, since I don’t like her much either. Henny Mets is a nice girl with a cheerful disposition, except that she talks in a loud voice and is really childish when we’re playing outdoors. Unfortunately, Henny has a girlfriend named Beppy who’s a bad influence on her because she’s dirty and vulgar. J.R. - I could write a whole book about her. J. is a detestable, sneaky, stuck-up, two-faced gossip who thinks she’s so grown-up. She’s really got Jacque under her spell, and that’s a shame. J. is easily offended, bursts into tears at the slightest thing and, to top it all off, is a terrible show-off. Miss J. always has to be right. She’s very rich, and has a closet full of the most adorable dresses that are way too old for her. She thinks she’s gorgeous, but she’s not. J. and I can’t stand each other. Ilse Wagner is a nice girl with a cheerful disposition, but she’s extremely fInicky and can spend hours moaning and groaning about something. Ilse likes me a lot. She’s very smart, but lazy. Hanneli Goslar, or Lies as she’s called at school, is a bit on the strange side. She’s usually shy -- outspoken at horne, but reserved around other people. She blabs whatever you tell her to her mother. But she says what she thinks, and lately I’ve corne to appreciate her a great deal. Nannie van Praag-Sigaar is small, funny and sensible. I think she’s nice. She’s pretty smart. There isn’t much else you can say about Nannie. Eefje de Jong is, in my opinion, terrific. Though she’s only twelve, she’s quite the lady. She acts as if I were a baby. She’s also very helpful, and I like her. G.Z. is the prettiest girl in our class. She has a nice face, but is kind of dumb. I think they’re going to hold her back a year, but of course I haven’t told her that. COMMENT ADDED BY ANNE AT A LATER DATE: To my areat surprise, G.Z. wasn’t held back a year after all. And sitting next to G.Z. is the last of us twelve girls, me. There’s a lot to be said about the boys, or maybe not so much after all. Maurice Coster is one of my many admirers, but pretty much of a pest. Sallie Springer has a filthy mind, and rumor has it that he’s gone all the way. Still, I think he’s terrific, because he’s very funny. Emiel Bonewit is G.Z.’s admirer, but she doesn’t care. He’s pretty boring. Rob Cohen used to be in love with me too, but I can’t stand him anymore. He’s an obnoxious, two-faced, lying, sniveling little goof who has an awfully high opinion of himself. Max van de Velde is a farm boy from Medemblik, but eminently suitable, as Margot would say.

• From The Great Transformation (2006)

  There is much in this text that is distasteful and elitist. There would, for example, be genetic engineering in Plato’s utopian city: less able citizens would be discouraged from procreation; defective infants would be discreetly disposed of, and the more promising taken from their parents and brought up in state nurseries in a segregated sector of the polis. The most gifted would be subjected to a long, arduous education, which would culminate in their ascent from the cave. At the end of their initiation into enlightened civic life, they would see the Good for themselves and thereby attain an inner stability that would bring peace and justice to the republic. Thus, for you and for us, the city will be governed, not like the majority of cities nowadays, by people who fight over shadows and struggle against one another in order to rule—as if that were a great good—but by people who are awake rather than dreaming, for the truth is surely this: A city whose prospective rulers are least eager to rule must of necessity be most free from civil war. 92 Plato almost certainly did not regard his imaginary republic as a blueprint for an actual state and probably used it simply to stimulate discussion, but the inherent cruelty of his utopia departed from the compassionate ethos of the Axial Age. The Republic was authoritarian. It imposed its vision on others—an expedient that the Buddha, for example, would have found “unskillful.” Plato had no time for the humanities. He looked askance at traditional Greek education, with its emphasis on poetry and music, because he believed that the arts aroused irrational emotion. Plato’s republic would not encourage personal relationships: sex was simply a means to the end of breeding genetically acceptable citizens. And Plato wanted to ban tragedy from his ideal polis. In the fourth century, new tragedies continued to attract large audiences from all over Attica, 93 but Athenians looked back with nostalgia to the great days of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides and still hankered after their tragic insight. 94 But Plato turned his back on tragedy. He distrusted its pessimism, its negative appraisal of human potential, and believed that its skeptical view of the gods could induce a fatal nihilism. To sympathize with the tragic heroes was implicitly to condone their bleak valuation of life, and thus to encourage inconsolable grief and ungovernable rage. Tragedy had the power to “maim” even the souls of the virtuous citizens and make the lives of those exposed to it “worse and more wretched.” Above all, tragedy tapped a natural tendency to sorrow and could inspire an “emotional surrender.” 95 Grief for oneself and pity for others must be controlled and held in check. Indeed, to sympathize with others and share their suffering, as the chorus directed the audience to do, dangerously undermined the moderation and self-control of the good man.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Soon after the synod, Alexander was again driven into exile by the Roman republic. He died at Cività Castellana, Aug. 30, 1181, having reigned longer than any pope before or after him, except Sylvester I., 314–385, Adrian I., 772–795, Pius VII., 1800–1823, Pius IX., 1846–1878, and Leo XIII., 1878–1903. When Alexander’s remains were being carried to Rome for burial, the populace insulted his memory by pelting the coffin with stones and mud.147 Alexander had with signal constancy and devotion to the Gregorian principles maintained the conflict with Barbarossa. He supported Thomas à Becket in his memorable conflict with Henry II. In 1181 he laid the interdict upon Scotland because of the refusal of its king, William, to acknowledge the canonical election of John to the see of St. Andrews. Upon Louis VII. of France he conferred the Red Rose for the support he had received from that sovereign in the days of his early exile. He presided over the Third Lateran Council and prepared the way for the crusade against the Cathari and Albigenses. His aged and feeble successor, Lucius III., was elected, Sept. 1, 1181, by the cardinals alone. The Romans, deprived of their former share in the election, treated him with barbarous cruelty; they captured twenty or twenty-six of his partisans at Tusculum, blinded them, except one, crowned them with paper mitres inscribed with the names of cardinals, mounted them on asses, and forced the priest whom they had spared to lead them in this condition to "Lucius, the wicked simoniac." He died in exile at Verona where he held an important synod. It is a remarkable fact that some of the greatest popes—as Gregory VII., Urban II., Innocent II., Eugene III., Adrian IV., Alexander III., and three of his successors—could not secure the loyalty of their own subjects, and were besieged in Rome or compelled to flee. Adrian IV. said to his countryman and friend, John of Salisbury, "Rome is not the mother, but the stepmother of the Churches." The Romans were always fluctuating between memories of the old republic and memories of the empire; now setting up a consul, a senator, a tribune; now welcoming the German emperor as the true Augustus Caesar; now loyal to the pope, now driving him into exile, and ever selling themselves to the highest bidder. The papal court was very consistent in its principles and aims, but as to the choice of means for its end it was subject to the same charge of avarice and venality, whether at Rome or in exile. Even Thomas Becket, the staunchest adherent of Alexander III., indignantly rebuked the cardinals for their love of gold. Emperor Frederick survived his great rival nearly ten years, and died by drowning in a little river of Asia Minor, 1190, while marching on the third crusade.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  In the pseudo-Clementine Homilies the name of Simon represents among other heresies also the free gospel of Paul, who is assailed as a false apostle and hated rebel against the authority of the Mosaic law. The same charges which the Judaizers brought against Paul, are here brought by Peter against Simon Magus, especially the assertion that one may be saved by grace alone. His boasted vision of Christ by which he professed to have been converted, is traced to a deceptive vision of the devil. The very words of Paul against Peter at Antioch, that he was "self-condemned" (Gal. 2:11), are quoted as an accusation against God. In one word, Simon Magus is, in part at least, a malignant Judaizing caricature of the apostle of the Gentiles. 2. The Peter of the Papacy. The orthodox version of the Peter-legend, as we find it partly in patristic notices of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius, partly in apocryphal productions,305 retains the general story of a conflict of Peter with Simon Magus in Antioch and Rome, but extracts from it its anti- Pauline poison, associates Paul at the end of his life with Peter as the joint, though secondary, founder of the Roman church, and honors both with the martyr’s crown in the Neronian persecution on the same day (the 29th of June), and in the same year or a year apart, but in different localities and in a different manner.306 Peter was crucified like his Master (though head-downwards 307), either on the hill of Janiculum (where the church S. Pietro in Montorio stands), or more probably on the Vatican hill (the scene of the Neronian circus and persecution);308 Paul, being a Roman citizen, was beheaded

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Instead of contemporaneous, reliable history we have a series of intellectual movements and literary fictions. Divine revelation gives way to subjective visions and delusions, inspiration is replaced by development, truth by a mixture of truth and error. The apostolic literature is put on a par with the controversial literature of the Nicene age, which resulted in the Nicene orthodoxy, or with the literature of the Reformation period, which led to the formation of the Protestant system of doctrine. History never repeats itself, yet the same laws and tendencies reappear in ever-changing forms. This modern criticism is a remarkable renewal of the views held by heretical schools in the second century. The Ebionite author of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and the Gnostic Marcion likewise assumed an irreconcilable antagonism between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, with this difference, that the former opposed Paul as the arch-heretic and defamer of Peter, while Marcion (about 140) regarded Paul as the only true apostle, and the older apostles as Jewish perverters of Christianity; consequently he rejected the whole Old Testament and such books of the New Testament as he considered Judaizing, retaining in his canon only a mutilated Gospel of Luke and ton of the Pauline Epistles (excluding the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews). In the eyes of modern criticism these wild heretics are better historians of the apostolic age than the author of the Acts of the Apostles. The Gnostic heresy, with all its destructive tendency, had an important mission as a propelling force in the ancient church and left its effects upon patristic theology. So also this modern gnosticism must be allowed to have done great service to biblical and historical learning by removing old prejudices, opening new avenues of thought, bringing to light the immense fermentation of the first century, stimulating research, and compelling an entire scientific reconstruction of the history of the origin of Christianity and the church. The result will be a deeper and fuller knowledge, not to the weakening but to the strengthening of our faith. Reaction. There is considerable difference among the scholars of this higher criticism, and while some pupils of Baur (e.g. Strauss, Volkmar) have gone even beyond his positions, others make concessions to the traditional views. A most important change took place in Baur’s own mind as regards the conversion of Paul, which he confessed at last, shortly before his death (1860), to be to him an insolvable psychological problem amounting to a miracle. Ritschl, Holtzmann, Lipsius, Pfleiderer, and especially Reuss, Weizsäcker, and Keim (who are as free from orthodox prejudices as the most advanced critics) have modified and corrected many of the extreme views of the Tübingen school.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  (6) Good reasons can be given for the omission of Peter’s conduct prior to the Council of Clermont by the earliest writers. The Crusade was a holy and heroic movement. The writers were interested in magnifying the part taken by the chivalry of Europe. Some of them were with Peter in the camp, and they found him heady, fanatical, impracticable, and worse. He probably was spurned by the counts and princes. Many of the writers were chaplains of these chieftains, -Raymund, Baldwin, Tancred, Bohemund. The lawlessness of Peter’s bands has been referred to. The defeat at Nicaea robbed Peter of all glory and position he might otherwise have had with the main army when it reached Asia.382 In Antioch he brought upon himself disgrace for attempting flight, being caught in the act by Tancred and Bohemund. The Gesta gives a detailed account of this treachery, and Guibert383 compares his flight to an angel falling from heaven. It is probably with reference to it that Ekkehard says, "Many call him hypocrite."384 Strange to say, Albert of Aachen and William of Tyre omit all reference to his treacherous flight.385 It is not improbable that, after the experiences they had of the Hermit in the camp, and the disregard and perhaps the contempt in which he was held by the princes, after his inglorious campaign to Constantinople and Nicaea, the early writers had not the heart to mention his services prior to the council. Far better for the glory of the cause that those experiences should pass into eternal forgetfulness. Why should legend then come to be attached to his memory? Why should not Adhemar have been chosen for the honor which was put upon this unknown monk who made so many mistakes and occupied so subordinate a position in the main crusading army? Why stain the origin of so glorious a movement by making Peter with his infirmities and ignoble birth responsible for the inception of the Crusade? It would seem as if the theory were more probable that the things which led the great Crusaders to disparage, if not to ridicule, Peter induced the earlier writers to ignore his meritorious activity prior to the Council of Clermont. After the lapse of time, when the memory of his follies was not so fresh, the real services of Peter were again recognized. For these reasons the older portrait of Peter has been regarded as the true one in all its essential features. § 51. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. 1099–1187.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  But this is said of the beast, i.e., the Roman empire, which is throughout clearly distinguished from the seven heads, i.e., the emperors. In Daniel, too, the beast is collective. Moreover, a distinction must be made between the death of one ruler (Nero) and the deadly wound which thereby was inflicted on the beast or the empire, but from which it recovered (under Vespasian). § 38. The Jewish War and the Destruction of Jerusalem. A.D. 70. "And as He went forth out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto Him, Master, behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings! And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down."—Mark 13:1,2. Sources. Josephus: Bell. Jud., in 7 books; and Vita, c. 4–74. The history of the Jewish war was written by him as eye-witness about A.D. 75. English translations by W. Whiston, in Works of Jos., and by Rob. Traill, ed. by Isaac Taylor, new ed., Lond., 1862. German translations by Gfrsörer and W. Hoffmann, Stuttgart, 1836; and Paret, Stuttg., 1855; French translations by Arnauld d’andilly, 1667, Joachim Gillet, 1756, and Abbé Glaire, 1846. Rabbinical traditions in Derenbourg: Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu’à Adrien. Paris, 1867 (first part of his L’Histoire et la géographie de la Palestine d’après les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques), pp. 255–295. Tacitus: Hist., II. 4; V. 1–13. A mere fragment, full of errors and insults towards the vanquished Jews. The fifth book, except this fragment, is lost. While Josephus, the Jew, is filled with admiration for the power and greatness of Rome, Tacitus, the heathen, treats Jews and Christians with scorn and contempt, and prefers to derive his information from hostile Egyptians and popular prejudice rather than from the Scriptures, and Philo, and Josephus. Sulpicius Severus: Chronicon, II. 30 (p. 84, ed. Halm). Short. Literature. Milman: The History of the Jews, Books XIV.-XVII. (New York ed., vol. II., 219 sqq.). Ewald: Geschichte des Folkes Israel, VI. 705–753 (second ed.). Grätz: Geschichte der Juden, III. 336–414. Hitzig: Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II. 594–629. Lewin: The Siege of Jerusalem by Titus. With the Journal of a recent Visit in the Holy City, and a general Sketch of the Topography of Jerusalem from the Earliest Times down to the Siege. London, 1863. Count de Champagny: Rome et la Judie au temps de la chute de Néron (ans 66–72 après Jésus-Christ), 2. éd., Paris, 1865. T. I., pp. 195–254; T. II., pp. 55– 200. Charles Merivale: History of the Romans under the Empire, ch. LIX. (vol. VI., 415 sqq., 4th ed., New York, 1866). De Saulcy: Les derniers jours de Jérusalem. Paris, 1866. E. Renan: L’Antechrist (ch. X.-XX., pp. 226–551). Paris, second ed., 1873. Emil Schürer: Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte (Leipzig, 1874), pp. 323–350. He also gives the literature. A. Hausrath: Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Part III., second ed., Heidelberg, 1875, pp. 424 487. Alfred J.