Pride As Defense

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 2 of 14 · 20 per page

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  Wanting Luther to become his successor at Wittenberg, he suggested that he study for a doctorate in theology. Decades later Luther recalled the conversation, describing to his own students how he and Staupitz sat under the pear tree in the courtyard of the monastery at Wittenberg (the tree was still there when he told the story). Luther said he did not want to become a doctor, as he believed that he would not live very long — a gloomy reference to his relentless mortification of the flesh. Staupitz, however, knew just how to puncture Luther’s morbid grandiosity: God had need of clever people, whether on earth or in heaven, he replied. Luther obeyed, and finished his doctoral studies in 1512, throwing a celebration to which he invited the entire monastery at Erfurt as well as guests from Wittenberg. Doctoral celebrations were major events with processions through the town followed by a banquet — one fabled celebration involved a hundred guests and thirty-five guilders spent on the food alone, with drinking and dancing afterwards attended by ‘honourable’ women. Luther's celebration would not have been in the same league, but the invitation to the Erfurt monks begins with the usual pieties, although it also opens with an unconventional excusing of his failure to make the customary statements about his unworthiness since this ‘would make him seem to be taking pride in or seeking praise for his humility’. He continues that ‘God knows, and my conscience also knows, how worthy and how suitable I am for this display of fame and honour’, by which he meant that God and his conscience knew how unworthy and unsuitable he truly was. Of course the remark can also be read literally to express his pride in what he himself described as his occasion of ‘pomp’.” Staupitz had joked that getting a doctorate would give Luther work to do — a comment that was wonderfully ambiguous in German between ‘will give you a real job to do’ and ‘will really cause you bother’ — and he turned out to be right.* The ‘real bother’ was that several Erfurt Augustinians had been offended that he had pursued his studies at Wittenberg, and not Erfurt, where he had first matricu- lated. They tried to get the doctorate declared void and have him fined, on the grounds that he had broken the oath taken when he became a student at Erfurt that he would follow no other university. Luther replied that he had not actually sworn such an oath — it had 70 MARTIN LUTHER been overlooked — but the damage had been done.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  Luther insisted later, in a letter to his Nuremberg humanist friend Christoph Scheurl, that he never intended them to be published or read more widely beyond a small circle; and some scholars have taken this as evidence that he did not arrange for them to be printed. But Luther was also explaining why he had omitted to send Scheurl a copy, as he should have done, so his statement is hardly conclusive evidence. When he sent the theses to Johannes Lang in Erfurt, he did not ask his friend to restrict circulation to a small circle. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Luther, even though he later insisted that ‘the Word did it all’, may have helped things along a little. Certainly it strains credulity that he should have arranged for the theses to be copied out laboriously by hand so many times to send them to his various friends.® His letter to Lang, dated with some significance as St Martin’s Day, 11 November, seethes with emotion, announcing that he is sure the theses would not please ‘your theologians’ and defending himself against any accusations of pride and temerity.* Penned by an unknown German professor in an intellectual back- water, the most amazing part of the story ‘is how the Ninety-Five Theses spread so fast. It was indeed, as Luther wrote to Lang, ‘unprece- dented’. In just two months they were known all over Germany, and were already being met with refutations. In Augsburg the cathedral preacher Urbanus Rhegius remarked that Luther’s ‘disputation note’ was available everywhere. In Hamburg, Albert Kranz had received them by early December; in Alsace, Conrad Pellican remembered getting them in early 1518; Erasmus sent them to Thomas More on 5 March 1518. In Eichstatt in late 1517, Bishop Gabriel von Eyb was discussing a copy with Johannes Eck, a friend of Luther. Luther himself recalled, exaggerating perhaps a little, ‘they ran through the whole of Germany in just a fortnight’.” WITTENBERG 97 When writing to the bishop of Brandenburg a few months later, he denied that the theses were theological truth and insisted that they were no more than propositions designed to be debated, but he was soon engaged in defending them vigorously.* Within six months, he had published his Sermon on Indulgences and Grace, which went through twenty-five printings between 1518 and 1520.

• From Holy Ghost Girl (2012)

  his eyes and peered through the spotlights. “Well, that’s not an amen, but bless God, I’ll take it. When the devil wins one battle you got to believe there will be another battle, one you can win with God’s help. Amen?” “CERTAINLY!” Brother Terrell paced the platform and his words picked up speed as he moved. “You got to fast and pray until you’ve put on the whole armor of God. Then you got to go back out and win the next battle. Because there will be a next one and a next one until righteousness triumphs over evil, hallelujah.” He took out his handkerchief and mopped the sweat off his brow. “Ain’t that right?” “CERTAINLY!” Brother Terrell started to laugh. “Well, Certainly, whoever you are, come on up here. I want to get a good look at a man who ain’t afraid to speak up when the devil is looking him in the face.” A small man stood up on the left side of the tent and walked toward Brother Terrell. He wore a plaid sports jacket, dark pants, and a white shirt, all of which were at least two sizes too big. His short gray hair stuck up like pinfeathers. Brother Terrell left the platform and met him in front of the prayer ramp with his hand outstretched. He grabbed the little man around the shoulders and began to drag him back and forth in front of the audience. Certainly’s jacket flapped around him as they walked. People began to turn from the white robes and back toward Brother Terrell. “Bless God, they’s some people will stand with you no matter who or what is standing against you . . . ain’t that right?” The man blanched when Brother Terrell stuck the microphone in his face. “Yes, sir, I . . . I . . . guess that’s right.” “They’s some people won’t back down when the devil takes a pitchfork after ’em. Ain’t that right too?” “Yes, sir, Brother Terrell.” Certainly seemed to grow more confident with each step. “Some people when you ask ’em to say amen, they don’t just say amen. They say . . .” Brother Terrell turned toward the man beside him. “What was it you said?” The man hesitated, then took the microphone, leaned back as far as he could, and whipped his body forward as the word shot out of his mouth. “CERTAINLY!”

• From What Are Biblical Values? (2019)

  But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. SLAVERY AS A CHRISTIAN IDEAL It is not only in the later epistles that we find slavery or a slavelike attitude commended. Jesus himself is reported to have said: You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. (Mark 10:42–45) Paul tells the Philippians: Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave. (2:5–7) Paul claims that although he is free, he has made himself a slave to all (1 Corinthians 9:19) and often introduces himself as the slave of Christ (Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:10; Philippians 1:10).45 Paul’s use of slavery as a metaphor is complex. Sometimes slavery refers to servitude to the Law, from which Christians have been delivered (Romans 8:12–17, 21–23). But often it means that he and his fellow Christians are slaves to Christ. To be a slave of Christ was not unambiguously humbling. For a leader like Paul, the title “slave of Christ” “established his authority as Christ’s agent and spokesperson.”46 Indeed, in the biblical and Near Eastern tradition, high-ranking officials were often called c ebed , “slave or servant,” of the king. Nonetheless, for most people the metaphor attached a high value to humility, to emptying oneself, as Christ is said to have done in Philippians 2. This is the aspect of Christianity that later drew the disdain of Nietzsche for a “slave religion.” Whatever we make of the spiritual value of humility, which no doubt is admirable, the idealization of slavelike humility did not contribute to agitation for the liberation of slaves. It is often argued that “taking a stand in favor of abolishing slavery in Greek and Roman antiquity would not have occurred to anyone. Slavery was part and parcel of the whole political-economic religious structure. The only way even of imagining a society without slavery would have been to imagine a different society.”47 And yet we are told that the Essenes, who lived in Judea in the time of Jesus, had no slaves, because they regarded slavery as unjust. Whether that report is historically accurate or not, it shows that it was possible to conceive of a society without slaves in the time of Jesus, but that vision was not shared by the New Testament writers.

• From Middlesex (2002)

  had applied, and of the broken F key, which stuck. On that newfan- gled but soon-to-be obsolete machine I wrote not so much like a kid from the Midwest as a minister's daughter from Shropshire. I still have a copy of my psychological narrative somewhere. Luce pub- lished it in his collected works, omitting my name. "I would like to tell of my life," it runs at one point, "and of the experiences that make myriad my joys and sorrows upon this planet we call Earth." In de- scribing my mother, I say, "Her beauty is the kind which seems to be thrown into relief by grief?' A few pages on there comes the subhead- ing "Calumnies Caustic and Catty by Callie." Half the time I wrote like bad George Eliot, the other half like bad Salinger. "If there's one thing I hate it's television." Not true: I loved television! But on that Smith Corona I quickly discovered that telling the truth wasn't nearly as much fun as making things up. I also knew that I was writing for an audience— Dr. Luce— and that if I seemed normal enough, he might send me back home. This explains the passages about my love of cats ("feline affection"), the pie recipes, and my deep feelings for nature. Luce ate it all up. It's true; I have to give credit where credit's due. Luce was the first person to encourage my writing. Every night he read through what I had typed up during the day. He didn't know, of course, that I was making up most of what I wrote, pretending to be the ail-American daughter my parents wanted me to be. I fictional- ized early "sex play" and later crushes on boys; I transferred my feel- ing for the Object onto Jerome and it was amazing how it worked: the tiniest bit of truth made credible the greatest lies. Luce was interested in the gender giveaways of my prose, of course. He measured my jouissance against my linearity. He picked up on my Victorian flourishes, my antique diction, my girls' school pro- priety. These all weighed heavily in his final assessment. There was also the diagnostic tool of pornography. One after- noon when I arrived for my session with Dr. Luce, there was a movie projector in his office. A screen had been set up before the bookcase, and the blinds drawn. In syrupy light Luce was feeding the celluloid through the sprocket wheel. "Are you going to show me my dad's movie again? From when I was little?" "Today I've got something a little different," said Luce. I took up my customary position on the chaise, my arms folded 418 behind me on the cowhide. Dr. Luce switched off the lights and soon the movie began. It was about a pizza delivery girl. The tide was, in fact, Annie De- livers to Tour Door. In the first scene, Annie, wearing cutoffs and a

• From Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011)

  believe that this is what you are judging, while in fact your evaluation is dominated by your impressions of the energy and competence of its current executives. Because substitution occurs automatically, you often do not know the origin of a judgment that you (your System 2) endorse and adopt. If it is the only one that comes to mind, it may be subjectively undistinguishable from valid judgments that you make with expert confidence. This is why subjective confidence is not a good diagnostic of accuracy: judgments that answer the wrong question can also be made with high confidence. You may be asking, Why didn’t Gary Klein and I come up immediately with the idea of evaluating an expert’s intuition by assessing the regularity of the environment and the expert’s learning history—mostly setting aside the expert’s confidence? And what did we think the answer could be? These are good questions because the contours of the solution were apparent from the beginning. We knew at the outset that fireground commanders and pediatric nurses would end up on one side of the boundary of valid intuitions and that the specialties studied by Meehl would be on the other, along with stock pickers and pundits. It is difficult to reconstruct what it was that took us years, long hours of discussion, endless exchanges of drafts and hundreds of e-mails negotiating over words, and more than once almost giving up. But this is what always happens when a project ends reasonably well: once you understand the main conclusion, it seems it was always obvious. As the title of our article suggests, Klein and I disagreed less than we had expected and accepted joint solutions of almost all the substantive issues that were raised. However, we also found that our early differences were more than an intellectual disagreement. We had different attitudes, emotions, and tastes, and those changed remarkably little over the years. This is most obvious in the facts that we find amusing and interesting. Klein still winces when the word bias is mentioned, and he still enjoys stories in which algorithms or formal procedures lead to obviously absurd decisions. I tend to view the occasional failures of algorithms as opportunities to improve them. On the other hand, I find more pleasure than Klein does in the come-uppance of arrogant experts who claim intuitive powers in zero-validity situations. In the long run, however, finding as much intellectual agreement as we did is surely more important than the persistent emotional differences that remained. Speaking of Expert Intuition “How much expertise does she have in this particular task? How much practice has she had?” “Does he really believe that the environment of start-ups is sufficiently regular to justify an intuition that goes against the base rates?” “She is very confident in her decision, but subjective confidence is a poor index of the accuracy of a judgment.” “Did he really have an opportunity to learn? How quick and how clear was the feedback he received on his judgments?”

• From Detransition, Baby (2021)

  He has put the women at a big table by the kitchen, and has been bringing out all sorts of delicate Italian desserts special for them, all of which taste to Reese like York Peppermint Patties dressed up in pretension, although the other less aggressively anointed women note for each other many other complex flavors, none of which are peppermint. Finally, the Empress of Dry Cleaning announces, “Okay, I can’t wait any longer. I have to know everything.” She is trying to be excited and bubbly, socially proper for some kind of impromptu baby shower, but the phrasing suggests a note of concern. Katrina explains with much less of a sales pitch than Reese was expecting. It’s not exactly like Reese wants Katrina to lie to her friends, but she doesn’t even try to soft-pedal it. Reese’s sense of her own gender does not allow her to make sports analogies, but like, Katrina is doing the thing where the guy who throws the ball does so with no spin whatsoever. What is Katrina doing? She has to know this is a weird thing to tell her friends. That she had an affair with her employee, who turned out to be hiding that he was a former transsexual woman, which is why he mistakenly thought he was sterile, and now Katrina is going to raise the baby with him and his ex-girlfriend, another transsexual. Katrina’s friends’ smiles have dimmed, and the creases of worry between their eyes have deepened. “It’s not as weird as it sounds,” Reese says, trying to make her voice bright. “Yes, it is,” Katrina says, “but that’s okay; that’s what I want to express. That, yes, it’s like, not how most people get pregnant, or how most people raise a family. But we’ve thought it through. It’s exciting. I’m excited not to do the heteronormative thing.” And suddenly Reese gets what is happening. That word “heteronormative” reveals the game to her. She thought that she was the one coming out. But no, Katrina is coming out as queer to her friends. That’s why she’s being so aggressive about it. This is the path of the baby queers. The borderline confrontational assertion: This is what I am, got a problem with it? It is delivered with all the zealotry of the recent convert, who has yet to be bludgeoned into weariness and compromise for her ways, who believes that the new religion holds the answers lacking in her old one. Even more revelatory to Reese: Katrina is defiantly excited! She thinks this queerness makes her interesting! Katrina’s friends trade discreet but doubtful expressions. They are still a few steps behind. “So the man”—Kathy tries—“the father, I mean, he is a man?” “What?” Katrina says. “She means is he coming or going?” clarifies the Empress of Dry Cleaning, then adds for Reese’s benefit, “No offense.”

• From Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011)

  Amos and I set out to examine whether I was the only fool or a member of a majority of fools, by testing whether researchers selected for mathematical expertise would make similar mistakes. We developed a questionnaire that described realistic research situations, including replications of successful experiments. It asked the researchers to choose sample sizes, to assess the risks of failure to which their decisions exposed them, and to provide advice to hypothetical graduate students planning their research. Amos collected the responses of a group of sophisticated participants (including authors of two statistical textbooks) at a meeting of the Society of Mathematical Psychology. The results were straightforward: I was not the only fool. Every one of the mistakes I had made was shared by a large majority of our respondents. It was evident that even the experts paid insufficient attention to sample size. Amos and I called our first joint article “Belief in the Law of Small Numbers.” We explained, tongue-in-cheek, that “intuitions about random sampling appear to satisfy the law of small numbers, which asserts that the law of large numbers applies to small numbers as well.” We also included a strongly worded recommendation that researchers regard their “statistical intuitions with proper suspicion and replace impression formation by computation whenever possible.” A Bias of Confidence Over Doubt In a telephone poll of 300 seniors, 60% support the president. If you had to summarize the message of this sentence in exactly three words, what would they be? Almost certainly you would choose “elderly support president.” These words provide the gist of the story. The omitted details of the poll, that it was done on the phone with a sample of 300, are of no interest in themselves; they provide background information that attracts little attention. Your summary would be the same if the sample size had been different. Of course, a completely absurd number would draw your attention (“a telephone poll of 6 [or 60 million] elderly voters...”). Unless you are a professional, however, you may not react very differently to a sample of 150 and to a sample of 3,000. That is the meaning of the statement that “people are not adequately sensitive to sample size.” The message about the poll contains information of two kinds: the story and the source of the story. Naturally, you focus on the story rather than on the reliability of the results. When the reliability is obviously low, however, the

• From Augustine: Philosopher and Saint (2005)

  1 Corinthians 1:24), this means philosophy seeks the reality of Wisdom but does not know its name. Joining the Heretics: Manichaeanism Soon after reading Cicero, Augustine turns to the Christian Scriptures but quickly rejects them because he is too proud to understand their humble words (3:5.9). The Manichaeans (3:6.10–7.12 and 5:10.18–20) • The Manichaean heretics were the opposite of the pagan philosophers: They knew the right names (e.g., Christ) but knew nothing of the reality. • The Manichaeans were materialists, believing that even God was a material, visible thing (i.e., the light of the heavens). • The Manichaeans were rationalists, criticizing the Catholics for insisting on the importance of faith. • The Manichaeans were dualists, thinking that everything that existed was made up either of the Good Stuff (divine light) or the Bad Stuff (dark, evil, (cid:191) lthy matter). They thought this contempt for the material or bodily side of life made them more spiritual. They thought of the human soul as a fragment of divine light trapped in a (cid:191) lthy body after the cosmic battle that began the world. • Augustine’s attraction to Manichaeanism had a lot to do with the fact that he was (according to his own self-portrait) a smart, “snot-nosed” kid (3:12.21). Catholic Teaching: Ambrose Ambition takes Augustine to Milan and Ambrose (5:13.23). Ambrose teaches Augustine a nonliteral interpretation of the Scriptures, which helps him understand why the Manichaeans are wrong about the Catholics (5:14.24–25). 13 14 modsiW rof hcraeS ehT—snoissefnoC :3 erutceL Milan was a center of Christian Platonism. Platonist Vision: In Then Up (“Confessions” 7) On the brink of his conversion, Augustine was struggling with three interrelated problems: • Trying to see a nonbodily substance (7:1.1). • Striving to understand the omnipresence of God (7:1.2). • Asking where evil comes from (unde malum) (7:5.7). Augustine suffers from his intellectual questions (7:7.11). Augustine encounters “the books of the Platonists” (7:9.13–15). Augustine (cid:191) nally glimpses the divine Truth (7:10.16). • Grace: God is his guide. • Inward turn: The nature of the soul is his clue (for the soul is incorporeal, like God). • Looking upward: He sees God above his own mind, the light by which his mind’s eye sees. • Dazzled eyes: He can’t keep looking that way for long, because the glory of God is too bright for his mind’s eye to gaze at. What Augustine learned from his moment of Platonist vision: • Truth (i.e., God) is incorporeal and omnipresent (7:10.16). • All that God created is good (7:13.19–15.21). • Evil is not a form of being but the corruption of a thing’s being (7:11.17–12.18). • Evil comes from corruption of will (7:16.22). But a moment of Platonist philosophical vision was not enough. This is where Christianity comes in. See Lecture 5. (cid:374)

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

  In their early history the sons of Zebedee misunderstood the difference between the law and the gospel, when, in an outburst of holy indignation against a Samaritan village which refused to receive Jesus, they were ready, like Elijah of old, to call consuming fire from heaven.572 But when, some years afterwards, John went to Samaria to confirm the new converts, he called down upon them the fire of divine life and light, the gift of the Holy Spirit.573 The same mistaken zeal for his Master was at the bottom of his intolerance towards those who performed a good work in the name of Christ, but outside of the apostolic circle.574 The desire of the two brothers, in which their mother shared, for the highest positions in the Messianic kingdom, likewise reveals both their strength and their weakness, a noble ambition to be near Christ, though it be near the fire and the sword, yet an ambition that was not free from selfishness and pride, which deserved the rebuke of our Lord, who held up before them the prospect of the baptism of blood.575

• From The City of God

  Why is it, then, that when the Christian faith is pressed upon you, you forget, or pretend to ignore, what you habitually discuss or teach? Why is it that you refuse to be Christians, on the ground that you hold opinions which, in fact, you yourselves demolish? Is it not because Christ came in lowliness, and ye are proud? The precise nature of the resurrection bodies of the saints may sometimes occasion discussion among those who are best read in the Christian Scriptures; yet there is not among us the smallest doubt that they shall be everlasting, and of a nature exemplified in the instance of Christ's risen body. But whatever be their nature, since we maintain that they shall be absolutely incorruptible and immortal, and shall offer no hindrance to the soul's contemplation, by which it is fixed in God, and as you say that among the celestials the bodies of the eternally blessed are eternal, why do you maintain that, in order to blessedness, every body must be escaped from? Why do you thus seek such a plausible reason for escaping from the Christian faith, if not because, as I again say, Christ is humble and ye proud? Are ye ashamed to be corrected? This is the vice of the proud. It is, forsooth, a degradation for learned men to pass from the school of Plato to the discipleship of Christ, who by His Spirit taught a fisherman to think and to say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. " [432]The old saint Simplicianus, afterwards bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening passage of the holy gospel, entitled, According to John, should be written in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches in the most conspicuous place. But the proud scorn to take God for their Master, because "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. " [433]So that, with these miserable creatures, it is not enough that they are sick, but they boast of their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which could heal them. And, doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more disastrous fall.

• From The City of God

  Chapter 13. --That in Adam's Sin an Evil Will Preceded the Evil Act. Our first parents fell into open disobedience because already they were secretly corrupted; for the evil act had never been done had not an evil will preceded it. And what is the origin of our evil will but pride? For "pride is the beginning of sin. " [729]And what is pride but the craving for undue exaltation? And this is undue exaltation, when the soul abandons Him to whom it ought to cleave as its end, and becomes a kind of end to itself. This happens when it becomes its own satisfaction. And it does so when it falls away from that unchangeable good which ought to satisfy it more than itself. This falling away is spontaneous; for if the will had remained steadfast in the love of that higher and changeless good by which it was illumined to intelligence and kindled into love, it would not have turned away to find satisfaction in itself, and so become frigid and benighted; the woman would not have believed the serpent spoke the truth, nor would the man have preferred the request of his wife to the command of God, nor have supposed that it was a venial trangression to cleave to the partner of his life even in a partnership of sin. The wicked deed, then,--that is to say, the trangression of eating the forbidden fruit,--was committed by persons who were already wicked. That "evil fruit" [730] could be brought forth only by "a corrupt tree. "But that the tree was evil was not the result of nature; for certainly it could become so only by the vice of the will, and vice is contrary to nature. Now, nature could not have been depraved by vice had it not been made out of nothing. Consequently, that it is a nature, this is because it is made by God; but that it falls away from Him, this is because it is made out of nothing. But man did not so fall away [731] as to become absolutely nothing; but being turned towards himself, his being became more contracted than it was when he clave to Him who supremely is. Accordingly, to exist in himself, that is, to be his own satisfaction after abandoning God, is not quite to become a nonentity, but to approximate to that. And therefore the holy Scriptures designate the proud by another name, "self-pleasers. "For it is good to have the heart lifted up, yet not to one's self, for this is proud, but to the Lord, for this is obedient, and can be the act only of the humble. There is, therefore, something in humility which, strangely enough, exalts the heart, and something in pride which debases it. This seems, indeed, to be contradictory, that loftiness should debase and lowliness exalt. But pious humility enables us to submit to what is above us; and nothing is more exalted above us than God; and therefore humility, by making us subject to God, exalts us. But pride, being a defect of nature, by the very act of refusing subjection and revolting from Him who is supreme, falls to a low condition; and then comes to pass what is written:"Thou castedst them down when they lifted up themselves. " [732]For he does not say, "when they had been lifted up," as if first they were exalted, and then afterwards cast down; but "when they lifted up themselves" even then they were cast down,--that is to say, the very lifting up was already a fall. And therefore it is that humility is specially recommended to the city of God as it sojourns in this world, and is specially exhibited in the city of God, and in the person of Christ its King; while the contrary vice of pride, according to the testimony of the sacred writings, specially rules his adversary the devil. And certainly this is the great difference which distinguishes the two cities of which we speak, the one being the society of the godly men, the other of the ungodly, each associated with the angels that adhere to their party, and the one guided and fashioned by love of self, the other by love of God.

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

  vedvias, ov, Ep. and Ion. νεηνίης. ew, 6: (vedy, véos):—a young man, youth, in Hom. (only in Od.) always with ἀνήρ, venvin ἀνδρὶ ἐοικώς Od. 10. 278; ἄνδρες κοιμήσαντο venviar 14. 5243 so, παῖς νεηνίης Hat. τ. 61., 7-993 γαμβρὸς v. Pind. O. 7.4; τέκτονες Id. N. 3.8; but alone in Att., like νεανίσκος, Soph. O.C. 335, El. 750, Eur., etc.; cf. veavio- Kos. 2. often with the sense of a youth in character, i.e. either in good sense, impetuous, brave, active, Eur. Ion 1041, cf. Ar. Vesp. 1333; Xen. Cyr. 1. 3, 6, Dem. 329. 23; or in bad sense, hot-headed, wilful, headstrong, Eur. Supp. 580; ev μὲν τοίνυν τοῦτο... πολίτευμα ae 38 994 as masc. Adj. youthful, νεανίαι τὰς ὄψεις Lys. 118. 33. 2. of things, etc., new, young’, fresh, v. πόνος Eur. Hel. 209; veaviais ὥμοισι 10. 1562; v. θώρακα καὶ βραχίονα Id. H. F. 1095; ἄρτος Ar. Lys. 1208; ν. λόγοι rash, wilful words, Eur. Alc. 679.—With a fem. Subst. ; cf. Lob. Paral. 268. [In Ar. Vesp. 1069, to avoid the synizesis of vea— in νεανιῶν, Dind, reads νανιῶν, and Ib. 1067 vavinnv for veavixnyv,—forms justified by νῆνις, νῆ for νεᾶνις, véd.] vedvieta, v. sub veaveia, vedvieupa, τό, a youthful, i.e. a spirited or (in bad sense) a wanton act or word, Plat. Rep. 390 A, Lys. ap. Poll. 2. 2, Luc., ete. vedvievopar, fut. —edcouar Dem. 416. 23: aor. ἐνεανιευσάμην Id. :— Pass., v. infr.: Dep. To be a νεανίας or youth, Poll. 2.20; cf. νεανι- σκεύομαι. II. in usage, always, ¢o act like a hot-headed youth, to act wilfully or wantonly, to brawl, swagger, Ar. Fr.653; ν. εἴς τινα to behave so towards another, Isocr. 398 C, Hyperid. Eux. 37; ἐν τοῖς λό- yous Plat. Gorg. 482 C: ο. Adj. neut., τοιοῦτον ν. to make such youth- ful promises, Dem. 401. 24; οὐδ᾽ ἐνεανιεύσατο τοιοῦτον οὐδέν Id. 536. 26; νεανιευσάμενος εἰπεῖν with youthful insolence, Plut. Cic. 1 :—c. inf. to undertake with youthful spirit, 1d. Demosth. 3 :—Pass., ἐφ᾽ ἅπασι τοῖς ἑαυτῷ νενεανιευμένοις to all his wanton acts, Dem. 520. 28; τὰ νεανιευθέντα Plut. Mar. 29.—The Act. only in Hesych. vedvifw, =foreg., Plut. Flamin. 20, Poll. 4. 136. vedvikéw, to be youthful, Eupol. Anu. 26.

• From The City of God

  Chapter 24. --Of the One Only True Principle Which Alone Purifies and Renews Human Nature. Accordingly, when we speak of God, we do not affirm two or three principles, no more than we are at liberty to affirm two or three gods; although, speaking of each, of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost, we confess that each is God:and yet we do not say, as the Sabellian heretics say, that the Father is the same as the Son, and the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; but we say that the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son is neither the Father nor the Son. It was therefore truly said that man is cleansed only by a Principle, although the Platonists erred in speaking in the plural of principles. But Porphyry, being under the dominion of these envious powers, whose influence he was at once ashamed of and afraid to throw off, refused to recognize that Christ is the Principle by whose incarnation we are purified. Indeed he despised Him, because of the flesh itself which He assumed, that He might offer a sacrifice for our purification,--a great mystery, unintelligible to Porphyry's pride, which that true and benignant Redeemer brought low by His humility, manifesting Himself to mortals by the mortality which He assumed, and which the malignant and deceitful mediators are proud of wanting, promising, as the boon of immortals, a deceptive assistance to wretched men. Thus the good and true Mediator showed that it is sin which is evil, and not the substance or nature of flesh; for this, together with the human soul, could without sin be both assumed and retained, and laid down in death, and changed to something better by resurrection. He showed also that death itself, although the punishment of sin, was submitted to by Him for our sakes without sin, and must not be evaded by sin on our part, but rather, if opportunity serves, be borne for righteousness' sake. For he was able to expiate sins by dying, because He both died, and not for sin of His own. But He has not been recognized by Porphyry as the Principle, otherwise he would have recognized Him as the Purifier. The Principle is neither the flesh nor the human soul in Christ but the Word by which all things were made. The flesh, therefore, does not by its own virtue purify, but by virtue of the Word by which it was assumed, when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. " [420]For speaking mystically of eating His flesh, when those who did not understand Him were offended and went away, saying, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it? " He answered to the rest who remained, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. " [421]The Principle, therefore, having assumed a human soul and flesh, cleanses the soul and flesh of believers. Therefore, when the Jews asked Him who He was, He answered that He was the Principle. [422]And this we carnal and feeble men, liable to sin, and involved in the darkness of ignorance, could not possibly understand, unless we were cleansed and healed by Him, both by means of what we were, and of what we were not. For we were men, but we were not righteous; whereas in His incarnation there was a human nature, but it was righteous, and not sinful. This is the mediation whereby a hand is stretched to the lapsed and fallen; this is the seed "ordained by angels," by whose ministry the law also was given enjoining the worship of one God, and promising that this Mediator should come. [420] John i. 14. [421] John vi. 60-64. [422] John viii. 25; or "the beginning," following a different reading from ours.

• From Augustine: A New Biography (2005)

  Augustine had been a writer long before he became a cleric. He wrote his first book at Carthage during his Manichee days: The Beautiful and the Fitting, philosophy and esthetics in a traditional mode under Manichean influence. It would be a valuable document of cultural history even if, or rather especially if, it had been the only thing to survive from this eccentric African intellectual. (That Augustine would always have been spoken of in the same breath as Apuleius.) Augustine tells us he wrote it to impress, dedicating it to a famous rhetorician at Rome. The writing of it is presented to us in the Confessions narrative with no reference to Augustine’s choice shortly afterward to move to Rome to pursue his career, but the idea of making himself known beyond Carthage was surely part of his ambition for the fame that Augustine would later achieve, using similar tactics, beyond all that he could have dreamed of as a young man. When writing about his first book in the Confessions, he reproached himself for his worldly ambition, even as, with the Confessions, he was carrying out an ecclesiastical version of the same social climbing. The other literary products of his rhetorical career in Africa and Italy were speeches, very likely written down and distributed to discerning readers. When we know that he delivered grand public orations in honor of the consul or the emperor at Milan, for example, we should expect that the politesse of the profession and the time assumed that these would be written down, commented on favorably, and handed about as cultural tokens. We have a dozen or so such speeches from the fourth century and they give the best idea what these might have been like: polished, elaborate, exaggerated, allusive to the point of obscurity (for those not in the know), and highly professional.248

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

  βρένθος, 6, an unknown water-bird, of stately bearing, Arist. H. A. 9. I, 16; but Ib. 11, 5 (with v. 1. BpivOos) some kind of singing-bird. If. a haughty carriage, arrogance, Ath. 611 E; (cf. σκώπτω, σκώψ). βρενθύομαι [Ὁ]. Dep., only used in pres. and impf. to bear oneself haughtily, to hold one’s head high, to cock up one’s nose (a sort of slang word), Hemst. Luc. D. Mort. 10. 8), ὑπὸ φρονήματος Ar. Pax 26, cf. Nub. 362, Plat. Symp. 221 B; πρός τινα Ar. Lys. 887; Bp. ἐπί τινι to plume oneself on .. , Ath. 625 B; ἐβρενθύετο Liban. βρέξις, ews, ἡ, (Bpéxw) =Bpoxn, a wetting, Xen. Eq. 5, 9. Βρετᾶνικός or Βρεττανικός, 7, dv, British, νῆσοι Arist. Mund. 3, 12. βρέτας, τό, gen. βρέτεος : pl., nom. and acc. Bpérea Aesch. Supp. 4.63, but Bpérn Theb. 95, 185, etc.; gen. βρετέων Ib. 97, Supp. 430: Ep. dat. Bperdeoow Nicand. ap. Ath. 684 D:—a wooden image of a god, Id. Eum. 80, 242, 258, 409, Eur. Alc. 974, Ar. Eq. 31, etc.; of a man, Epigr. Gr. 958 :—in Prose, Strabo 385. 2. in Anaxandr. Acd. 1, a mere image, of a blockhead, i Βρέττιος, a, ov, Bruttian, yA@ooa Bp., i.e. barbarous, Ar. Fr. 719. βρεφικός, ἡ, dv, childish, Philo 2. 84, and later. βρέφιον, τό, Dim. of βρέφος, Byz. βρεφόθεν, Ady. from a child, Eust. 14. 20, etc. βρεφο-κομέω, to nurse children, Eust. 565. 40. βρεφοκτονία, ἡ, child-murder, Manass. βρεφο-κτόνος, ov, child-murdering, Lyc. 220. βρέφος, cos, τό, the babe in the womb, like ἔμβρυον, Lat. foetus, βρέφος 294 ἡμίονον κυέουσαν, of a mare, Il. 23. 266. 11. the new-born babe, Simon. 44.15 Bgk., Pind. O. 6. 55, Aesch. Ag. 1096; νέον βρέφος Eur. Bacch. 289; but never in Soph.:—of beasts, a foal, whelp, cub, etc., Hdt. 3. 153, Opp. H. 5. 464, etc.:—é« Bpépeos from babyhood, Anth. P. 9. 567, etc. (Cf. Skt. garbhas (foetus, pullus), from the Root grabh (concipere); Zd. garewa (foetus); Slavon. Zrébe (pullus):—on the inter- change of 6 and y, v. B B. 1.) βρεφο-τρόφος, ov, rearing infants, Manass. Chron. 4032: -τροφέω, Tzetz.: -τροφεῖον, τό, a foundling or orphan hospital, Eccl. βρεφύλλιον, τό, Dim. of βρέφος, Luc. Fugit. 19, etc. ἢ Bpehadys, es, (εἶδος) childish, Philo 1. 394, Clem. Al. 123, etc. βρέχμα, 76, = βρεχμός, Alciphro. βρεχμός, ὃ, -- βρέγμα, the top of the head, ll. 5. 580.

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

  πέρπερος. ov, (cf. Lat. perperus, perperam) vainglorious, braggart, like ἀλαζών, Polyb. 32. 6, 5., 40.6, 2, Sext. Emp. M. 1. 54, Arr. Epict. 3. 2, 14 :—hence περπερεύομαι, Dep. to boast or vaunt oneself, τ Ep. Cor. 13. 4, M. Anton. 5. 5., Eust. Opusc. 224. 83 ; cf. ἐμπ-- :---περπερεία, ἡ, idle boasting, vaunting, Clem. Al. 251, Eust. Opusc. 228, 12; so περπερότης, ητος, 7, Pseudo-Chrys,—Late words, II. 5 πέρρα, ἡ, a Copt. word in Lyc, 1428, -- ἥλιος, πέρραμος ——- πετάλειον. πέρραμος, ὁ, -- βασιλεύς, Hesych. ; Aeol. for Πρίαμος, E. M. 665. 39, Anecd. Oxon. 2. 275, etc. méppoxos, ov, Acol. for mepioxos,=tmépoxos, τινι Sappho 93 :— περρέχω = ὑπερέχω in Hesych. :—v. Ahr. D, Acol. p. 56. περσέα, ἡ, Lat. persea, a kind of Egyptian tree with the fruit growing from the stem, Hipp. 633. 30, Theophr, H. P. 4. 2, 5 (v. Schneid. Ind.), Strab. 822, etc. :—poét. also περσεία, Nic. Al. 99 (περσαία in Diod. 1. 34, is prob. corrupt). The fruit was called πέρσειον or πέρσιον, τό, Theophr. H. P. 2. 2, 10; pl. πέρσεια, Clearch. ap. Ath. 649 A. περσέ-πολις, poét. also περσέπτολις, ews, 6, 7, (πέρθω) destroyer of cities; epith. of Pallas, Lamprocl. ap. Ar. Nub. 967; 6 π. στρατός Aesch, Pers. 65 (parodied by Eupol. Map. 1); 7. Τρώων Poéta ap. Heliod. 3. 2, cf. Call. Lav. Pall. 43. 11. Persepolis, the ancient capital of Persia, and burialplace of her kings, Strab. 729 sq., Arr. An. 7. 1. Περσεύς, gen. éws, Ion. éos (Hdt., Pind.), Ep. jos, 6, Perseus, son of Zeus and Danaé, one of the most famous Grecian heroes, 1]. 14. 320, Hes., etc.:—Adj. Περσεῖος, a, ον, Eur. Hel. 1464; Ep. Περσήιος, Theocr. 24. 72 :—Patron. Περσείδης, ov. 6, Thuc. 1. 9, etc.; Ep. —ydbdys, 1]. Ig. 116, 123. II. a fish, Ael. N. A. 3. 28; in Hesych. πέρ- cos. III. a constellation, Arat. 249, 484. Περσεφόνη. 7, Ep. Περσεφόνεια Il. and Od., while the common form first appears in ἢ. Hom. Cer. 56, Hes. Th. 913, (cf. Πηνελόπη, --ὀπειαλ ; also Φερσεφόνη, Simon. 125, Pind. O. 14. 30, Inscr. Att. in Ο 1. 538, 800 b, etc. ; Φερσεφονείη Ὁ. 1. 4588 ;--Περσέφασσα, Aesch. Cho. 490, Soph., etc.; Φερσέφασσα, Id. Ant. 894, Eur. Hel. 175; Φερσέφαττα Ar. Thesm. 287, Ran. 671 ; Φερρέφαττα Plat. Crat. 404 C, cf. Meineke Epicr. Xop. 1 :—Persephoné, daughter of Zeus and Demeter, Il. 14. 326, Hes. Th. 912; (but of Cronos and Rhea, ἢ. Hom. Cer. 60): Hades carried her off, and as his consort she continued to reign in the lower world, see ἢ. Hom. Cer.:—her temple is called Φερρεφάττιον, τό, Dem. 1259.5; —-etov, A.B. 314. Cf. Κόρα. Her identity with the Lat. Pro- serpina is doubtful, v. Corssen Lat. Spr. 1. 243. Tleponts, idos, ἡ, sprung from Perseus, name of Alemena, Eur. H. F. 801 ; called Περσήϊον αἷμα in Theocr. 24. 72. II. a name of Hecaté, Ap. Rh. 4. 1020.

• From The Things They Carried (1990)

  Eight ropes altogether. I had four, Azar had four. Each rope was hooked up to a homemade noisemaker out in front of Jorgenson's bunker—eight ammo cans filled with rifle cartridges. Simple devices, but they worked. I waited a moment, and then, very gently, I gave all four of my ropes a little tug. Delicate, nothing loud. If you weren't listening, listening hard, you might've missed it. But Jorgenson was listening. At the first low rattle, his silhouette seemed to freeze. Another rattle: Azar this time. We kept at it for ten minutes, staggering the rhythm—noise, silence, noise—gradually building the tension. Squinting down at Jorgenson's position, I felt a swell of immense power. It was a feeling the VC must have. Like a puppeteer. Yank on the ropes, watch the silly wooden soldier jump and twitch. One by one, in sequence, I tugged on each of the ropes, and the sounds came flowing back at me with a soft, indefinite formlessness: a rattlesnake, maybe, or the creak of a trap door, or footsteps in the attic—whatever you made of it. In a way I wanted to stop myself. It was cruel, I knew that, but right and wrong were somewhere else. I heard myself chuckle. And then presently I came unattached from the natural world. I felt the hinges go. Eyes closed, I seemed to rise up out of my own body and float through the dark down to Jorgenson's position. I was invisible; I had no shape, no substance; I weighed less than nothing. I just drifted. It was imagination, of course, but for a long while I hovered there over Bobby Jorgenson's bunker. As if through dark glass I could see him lying flat in his circle of sandbags, silent and scared, listening, telling himself it was all a trick of the dark. Muscles tight, ears tight—I could see it. Now, at this instant, he'd glance up at the sky, hoping for a moon or a few stars. But no moon, no stars. He'd start talking to himself. He'd try to bring the night into focus, willing coherence, but the effort would only cause distortions. Out beyond the wire, the paddies would seem to swirl and sway; the trees would take human form; clumps of grass would glide through the night like sappers. Funhouse country: trick mirrors and curvatures and pop-up monsters. "Take it easy," he'd murmur, "easy, easy, easy," but it wouldn't get any easier. I could actually see it. I was down there with him, inside him. I was part of the night. I was the land itself—everything, everywhere—the fireflies and paddies, the midnight rustlings, the cool phosphorescent shimmer of evil—I was atrocity —I was jungle fire, jungle drums—I was the blind stare in the eyes of all those poor, dead, dumbfuck ex-pals of mine—all the pale young corpses, Lee Strunk and Kiowa and Curt Lemon—I was the beast on their lips—I was Nam—the horror, the war.

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

  κομπαστικός, ή, ov, braggart, Poll. 9. 146. Adv. πκῶς, Ib. 147. κομπέω, (κόμπος) to ring, clash, κόμπει χαλκὸς ἐπὶ στήθεσσι φα- ewos Il. 12. 151; κ΄. χύτραν, λυπάδα to ring a pot to see if it be sound, Diog. L. 6. 30 (as restored from Eust. 896, 61 for σκοποῦμεν). cf. 2. 78 :—cf. κόμπος. II. metaph., like κομπάζω, to utter high- sounding words, speak big, boast, brag, vaunt, Lat. crepo, Ti κομπέω παρὰ καιρόν; Pind.P.10.4; κ. ἄλλως Hdt.5.41; ws σὺ κομπεῖς Eur. Or. 571; 6. acc. cogn., x. μῦθον to speak a boastful speech, Soph. Aj. 770; ὑψηλ᾽ ἐκόμπεις Ib. 1230. 2. c. acc. to boast of, x. γάμους Aesch. Pr. 947:—Pass., ὁπλῖται, ὅσοιπερ κομποῦνται are boasted of, Thuc. 6. 7. 8. c. acc. et inf. to boast that . , Eur. ΕἸ. 815; so, κ΄. ὅπως .. to boast how .. , Soph. O. C. 1149.—Like inoue rare in Prose. κομπ-ηγόρος, ον, speaking boast fully, Hesych. κομπηρός, a, dv, boastful, only in Adv. —p@s, Schol. Basil. ad Greg. Naz. ; Comp. ποτέρως, Tzetz. κομπισμός, 6, a shaking on an instrument; with the voice, it was μελισμός; both together, τερετισμός, Manuel. Bryenn. p. 480 ed. Wall. κομπο-λᾶκέω, to talk big, be an empty braggart, Ar. Ran. 961; 3 in Tzetz., κομπολᾶκυθέω :—also κομπο-λακύθης or -λάκῦθος, ov, 6, a big-boaster, Ar. Ach. 589, 1182, perth. with a play on Lamachus. κομπο-λογέω, 70 speak boastfully, Justin. M.: -λόγημα, τό, -λογία, ἡ, Byz. κομπο-ποιέω, to act vauntingly, Epiphan. κομπορ- ρήμων, ov, speaking boastfully; Adv. --οημόνως :—Subst. κομ- πορρημοσύνη, ἡ, boastful speaking, Byz. κόμπος, 6, a noise, din, clash, esp. such as is caused by the collision of two hard bodies, as of a boar’s tusks when he whets them, ὑπαὶ δέ τε κόμπος ὀδόντων γίγνεται Il. 11. 417., 12. 149; the stamping of dancers’ feet, πολὺς δ᾽ ὑπὸ κόμπος ὄρωρεν Od. 8. 380; the ringing of metal, Eur. Rhes. 3845 cf. κομπέω. II. metaph. a boast, vaunt, ὃ κόμπος οὐ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ Aesch. Theb. 425, cf. 473, Ag. 613; ov πεπλασμένος ὁ K., ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν εἰρημένος Id. Pr. 1031; τ Ζεὺς γὰρ μεγάλης γλώσσης κόμπους ὑπερεχθαίρει Soph. Ant. 127; κ. πάρεστι, 1. 6. J am proud of the deed, Id. Aj. 96; rare in Prose, ὅρα μὴ μάτην κ. ὃ λόγος εἰρημένος εἴη Hdt. 7. 103 3 οὐ λόγων .. κ. τάδε, μᾶλλον ἢ ἔργων. - ἀλήθεια Thuc. 2. 41; kK. καὶ ἀλαζονεία eschint 87. 36; in Com., κ. κενοὶ nate Alex. “Acwr. 1. 9. 2. rarely in good sense, praise, Pind. I. 1. 60., 5 (4). 30. κομπός, ἀν, ΞΞρχὴ κεῖσ. Eur. Phoen. 600; κομπὸς λόγος E. M.527.47. On the accent, v. Arcad. 67. 2. κομπο-φἄκελορ-ρήμων, ov, gen. ovos, pomp-bundle-worded, derisive epith. of Aeschylus in Ar. Ran. 839, because of his long compound words :---κομποφακελλορρημοσύνη, ἡ, Jo. Lyd. de Mag. 3. 7. etc. :-— Kopptdadys, es, (εἶδος) like gum, gummy, Theophr.C. P. 5. 10, 2. Φ 829 κομπόω, = κομπέω, Dio C. 43. 22, in Pass.

• From The City of God

  41 Lecture 2 Transcript—Who Was Augustine of Hippo? role, and once that was over, his decks had been cleared to begin writing The City of God in late 411 or 412, and he kept at it, although often distracted by other work, until he completed the whole thing 15 years later, in 426 or 427. The last few years of his life were just as busy as the earlier ones, and he kept on writing, teaching, and even occasionally preaching up to a few weeks before his death on August 28, 430, with the Vandals besieging Hippo. And it is here, in his dealings with the Donatists and the Pelagians and his overall practice in the office of Bishop, where his critics find warrant for their charge that he is a fundamentally antidemocratic thinker; in fact, an authoritarian who gave the highest moral and theological imprimatur for the practices of coercion popular in the Middle Ages. And we will see again in these lectures, as in the accusations of his metaphysical anti-worldliness and his moral- psychological promotion of a guilt morality, that his reputed political authoritarianism is vastly overdrawn. In fact, in his role as a leader of the Latin Christian churches, he was anything but authoritarian. As a Bishop, he was more than just a religious leader; he was a political actor and a judicial figure, as well. Moreover, he became, as the historian Peter Brown has put it, a sort of one-man brain trust for the churches of Africa. Although his labors earned him great respect and veneration from others, he continued teaching what was effectively an anti-authoritarian vision of the Gospel, one that was quite suspicious of figures such as he was becoming. And he wasn’t afraid of attacking himself in this way. In one sermon, he said, and this is a quote: Don’t even think of regarding as canonical scripture any debate, or written account of a debate by anyone. If I have said something reasonable, then follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimonies, then follow, not me, but the divine scripture. I get angrier with that fan of mine who takes my book as