Pride

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 93 of 174 · 20 per page

• From Blue Like Jazz (2003)

  “Anarchy!” Tony confirmed in sort of a laugh. “Sometimes I think, you know, if there were not cops, I would be fine, and I probably would. I was taught right from wrong when I was a kid. But the truth is, I drive completely different when there is a cop behind me than when there isn’t.” And what Tony and I were talking about is true. It is hard for us to admit we have a sin nature because we live in this system of checks and balances. If we get caught, we will be punished. But that doesn’t make us good people; it only makes us subdued. Just think about the Congress and Senate and even the president. The genius of the American system is not freedom; the genius of the American system is checks and balances. Nobody gets all the power. Everybody is watching everybody else. It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse. Earlier that afternoon, the afternoon I got together with Tony, my friend Andrew the Protester and I went downtown to protest a visit by the president. I felt that Bush was blindly supporting the World Bank and, to some degree, felt the administration was responsible for what was happening in Argentina. Andrew and I made signs and showed up a few hours early. Thousands of people had already gathered, most of them protesting our policy toward Iraq. Andrew and I took pictures of ourselves in front of the cops, loads of cops, all in riot gear like storm troopers from Star Wars. Andrew’s sign said “Stop America’s Terroism”—he spelled terrorism wrong. I felt empowered in the sea of people, most of whom were also carrying signs and chanting against corporations who were making slaves of Third World labor; and the Republican Party, who gives those corporations so much power and freedom. I felt so far from my upbringing, from my narrow former self, the me who was taught the Republicans give a crap about the cause of Christ. I felt a long way from the pre-me, the pawn-Christian who was a Republican because my family was Republican, not because I had prayed and asked God to enlighten me about issues concerning the entire world rather than just America. When the president finally showed, things got heated. The police mounted horses and charged them into the crowd to push us back. We shouted, in unison, that a horse is not a weapon, but they didn’t listen. The president’s limo turned the corner so quickly I thought he might come tumbling out, and his car was followed by a caravan of shiny black vans and Suburbans. They shuttled him around to a back door where we watched through a chain-link fence as he stepped out of his limousine, shook hands with dignitaries, and entered the building amid a swarm of secret service agents. I was holding my sign very high in case he looked our way.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  " You see, however," said Geburon, " that they con- demn everything that is bad, and even that Diogenes trampled on Plato's coverlet because he thought it too rich and curious ; and to show that he despised and wished to trample under foot Plato's vainglory and ava- rice, ' I trample,' said he, ' on the pride of Plato.' " " You do not tell all," replied Saffredent ; " you for- get that Plato at once retorted upon him, ' Thou tram- plest on it, indeed, but with still more pride.' In fact, it was only through a certain arrogance that Diogenes despised elegance." " In truth," said Parlamente, " it is impossible to over- come ourselves by ourselves ; nor can one think to do so without prodigious pride, the vice of all others the most to be feared, since it rears itself upon the ruins of all the rest." 314 THE HEPTAMEROX OF THE \Ncid ^i, " Did I not read to you this morning," said Oisille, "that those who believed themselves wiser than others, and who came by the light of reason to know a God, the creator of all things, for having been vain thereof, and not having attributed this glory to Him to whom it be- longed, and for having imagined that they had acquired this knowledge by their own labours, became more igno- rant and less reasonable — I will not say than other men,- but than the very brutes ? In fact, their minds having run astray, they ascribed to themselves what belongs to God alone, and manifested their errors by the disorders of their lives, forgetting their very sex, and abusing it, as St. Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans." " There is not one of us," said Parlamente, " but recog- nizes, on reading that epistle, that outward sins are the fruits of inward unbelief, the more dangerous to eradicate the more it is covered by virtue and miracles." " We men," said Hircan, " are nearer to salvation than women, for as they do not hide their fruits they easily know their roots. But you women, who dare not produce yours, and who do so many acts that are fair m appearance, hardly know the root of pride, that grows under so goodly a covering." " I own," said Longarine, " that if God's word does not show us by faith the leprosy of unbelief that is hid- den in our hearts, God does us a great grace when He suffers us to commit a visible fault, which manifests our hidden disposition. Blessed are they whom faith has so humbled that they have no need of outward acts to make them conscious of the weakness and corruption of their natures." "Do let us consider, I beseech you," said Simontault, "what a course our conversation has taken. From an instance of extreme folly we have come to philosophy Fourth day.] QUEEN OF NA VARRE. 315

• From Speak, Memory (1966)

  In Berlin and Paris, the two capitals of exile, Russians formed compact colonies, with a coefficient of culture that greatly surpassed the cultural mean of the necessarily more diluted foreign communities among which they were placed. Within those colonies they kept to themselves. I have in view, of course, Russian intellectuals, mostly belonging to democratic groups, and not the flashier kind of person who “was, you know, adviser to the Tsar or something” that American clubwomen immediately think of whenever “White Russians” are mentioned. Life in those settlements was so full and intense that these Russian “intelligentï” (a word that had more socially idealistic and less highbrow connotations than “intellectuals” as used in America) had neither time nor reason to seek ties beyond their own circle. Today, in a new and beloved world, where I have learned to feel at home as easily as I have ceased barring my sevens, extroverts and cosmopolitans to whom I happen to mention these past matters think I am jesting, or accuse me of snobbery in reverse, when I maintain that in the course of almost one-fifth of a century spent in Western Europe I have not had, among the sprinkling of Germans and Frenchmen I knew (mostly landladies and literary people), more than two good friends all told.

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

  The difference, says St. Gregory, in his Commentary on Ezechiel, between a sacrifice and a holocaust is, that, whereas every holocaust is a sacrifice, every sacrifice is not a holocaust, In a sacrifice a part of the victim was immolated; but in a holocaust the entire offering was consumed.” When, therefore, a man vows one thing to God, and does not vow another, he offers a sacrifice. When, however, he dedicates to the Almighty all that he has, all that he takes pleasure in, and his entire life, he is offering a holocaust.” This he does, most perfectly, by the three religious vows. Hence, it is clear that the name of religious is strictly applied, according to the very meaning of the word, to those who pay their vows as a holocaust to God. According to the Levitical law the offering of sacrifice was ordained for the atonement of sin. Again, in Psalm Iv., immediately after the verse, “the things you say in your hearts, be sorry for them upon your beds,” we read, “offer up the sacrifice of justice,” that is to say (as the Gloss explains), “perform works of justice after your lamentations of penitence.” Since, then, a holocaust is a perfect sacrifice, a man who makes the religious vows, (thereby offering, of his own will, a holocaust to God), makes perfect satisfaction for his sins. Hence we see, that the religious life, is not only the perfection of charity, but likewise the perfection of penitence, since, however heinous may be the sins committed by a man, he cannot be enjoined, as a penance for them, to go into religion; for the religious state transcends all satisfaction. We see (in Gratian, 33, Quest. II. cap. Admonere, that Astulplus, who had killed his wife, was advised to go into a monastery as the easiest and best course to pursue; for, if he remained in the world, a very severe penance would be imposed upon him. The vow which, of all the three religious vows, belongs most peculiarly to the religious life, is that of obedience. This is clear for several reasons. First, because, by obedience man sacrifices to God his own will; by chastity, on the other hand, he offers his body, and by poverty his external possessions. Now, since the body is worth more than material goods the vow of chastity is superior in merit to that of poverty, but the vow of obedience is of more value than either of the other two. Secondly, because it is by his own will that a man makes use either of his body or his goods: therefore, he who sacrifices his own will, sacrifices everything else that he has. Again, the vow of obedience is more universal than is that of either poverty or chastity, and hence it includes them both. This is the reason why Samuel preferred obedience to all other offerings and sacrifices, saying, “Obedience is better than sacrifices” (1 Kings xv. 22). CHAPTER XII

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  The only author whom I know to have discussed the question whether the 'pure Ego,' per se , can be an object of regard, is Herr Horwicz, in his extremely able and acute Psychologische Analysen . He too says that all self-regard is regard for certain objective things. He disposes so well of one kind of objection that I must conclude by quoting a part of his own words: First, the objection: "The fact is indubitable that one's own children always pass for the prettiest and brightest, the wine from one's own cellar for the best—at least for its price,—one's own house and horses for the finest. With what tender admiration do we con over our own little deed of benevolence! our own frailties and misdemeanors, how ready we are to acquit ourselves for them, when we notice them at all, on the ground of 'extenuating circumstances'! How much more really comic are our own jokes than those of others, which, unlike ours, will not bear being repeated ten or twelve times over! How eloquent, striking, powerful, our own speeches are! How appropriate our own address! In short, how much more intelligent, soulful, better, is everything about us than in anyone else. The sad chapter of artists' and authors' conceit and vanity belongs here. "The prevalence of this obvious preference which we feel for everything of our own is indeed striking. Does it not look as if our dear Ego must first lend its color and flavor to anything in order to make it please us? . . . Is it not the simplest explanation for all these phenomena, so consistent among themselves, to suppose that the Ego, the self, which forms the origin and centre of our thinking life, is at the same time the original and central object of our life of feeling, and the ground both of whatever special ideas and of whatever special feelings ensue?" Herr Horwicz goes on to refer to what we have already noticed, that various things which disgust us in others do not disgust us at all in ourselves. "To most of us even the bodily warmth of another, for example the chair warm from another's sitting, is felt unpleasantly, whereas there is nothing disagreeable in the warmth of the chair in which we have been sitting ourselves." After some further remarks, he replies to these facts and reasonings as follows: "We may with confidence affirm that our own possessions in most cases please us better [not because they are ours], but simply because we know them better, 'realize' them more intimately, feel them more deeply. We learn to appreciate what is ours in all its details and shadings, whilst the goods of others appear to us in coarse outlines and rude averages.

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  But no sooner does he get excited than his whole body becomes 'animated,' and he moves his head and trunk, in particular, as if these also were organs with which he meant to belabor the keys."[143] Man is born with a tendency to do more things than he has ready-made arrangements for in his nerve-centres. Most of the performances of other animals are automatic. But in him the number of them is so enormous, that most of them must be the fruit of painful study. If practice did not make perfect, nor habit economize the expense of nervous and muscular energy, he would therefore be in a sorry plight. As Dr. Maudsley says:[144] "If an act became no easier after being done several times, if the careful direction of consciousness were necessary to its accomplishment on each occasion, it is evident that the whole activity of a lifetime might be confined to one or two deeds—that no progress could take place in development. A man might be occupied all day in dressing and un-dressing himself; the attitude of his body would absorb all his attention and energy; the washing of his hands or the fastening of a button would be as difficult to him on each occasion as to the child on its first trial; and he would, furthermore, be completely exhausted by his exertions. Think of the pains necessary to teach a child to stand, of the many efforts which it must make, and of the ease with which it at last stands, unconscious of any effort. For while secondarily automatic acts are accomplished with comparatively little weariness—in this regard approaching the organic movements, or the original reflex movements—the conscious effort of the will soon produces exhaustion. A spinal cord without . . . memory would simply be an idiotic spinal cord . . . It is impossible for an individual to realize how much he owes to its automatic agency until disease has impaired its functions." The next result is that habit diminishes the conscious attention with which our acts are performed.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  Once again we come to this idea of solemnity and of dignity and of gravity and of weight. (iii) Still another use of semnos and semnotes is that they occur very frequently on sepulchral inscriptions. They are favourite words used in describing and paying tribute to those who have lived well and nobly and who are gone to their rest. Here then is still another great series of meanings which these words possess. Here is another atmosphere in which they moved. They are used to express all the majesty of royalty and of kingship. They are used to express all the weight and the dignity and the solemnity of speech at its highest and its best and its most moving. They are used to express all that is lovely and all that demands respect in life. No greater tribute can be paid to one who has passed on than to say he was semnos and lived with semnotēs, that on his life there was the royal dignity and the kingly majesty of goodness. Aristotle, the greatest of the Greek ethical writers, and one of the great ethical teachers of all time, has much to say about the man who is semnos and the quality of semnotēs. In the Nicomachean Ethics he talks of ‘the greatsouled man’. He says that it is characteristic of such a man ‘never to ask help from others, or only with reluctance, but to render aid willingly; and to be haughty towards men of position and fortune, but courteous towards those of moderate station, because it is difficult and distinguished (semnos) to be superior to the great, but easy to outdo the lowly, and to adopt a high manner (semnunesthai, the verb from semnos) with the former is not ill-bred, but it is vulgar to lord it over humble people’ (Nicomachean Ethics 1124b 21). The man who is semnos knows the time for dignity. Aristotle says that if a man’s desires are weak and not evil in any event, there is nothing to be proud of (semnos) in resisting them (ibid. 1146a 15). Aristotle had a habit of defining every virtue as the mean, the happy medium, between two extremes. On the one hand there is an extreme of excess of a quality, on the other hand there is the extreme of defect of a quality, and in the middle there is the happy medium. So Aristotle defines that which is semnos as the mean between areskeia and authadia. Areskeia is the characteristic of the man who is so eager to please that he is like a fawning dog; authadia is the characteristic of the man who thinks so little of pleasing that he is like an ill-mannered boor. Semnos is the word which describes the man who carries himself towards other men with a combination of dignified independence and kindly consideration.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  Aristotle says that if a man’s desires are weak and not evil in any event, there is nothing to be proud of (semnos) in resisting them (ibid. 1146a 15). Aristotle had a habit of defining every virtue as the mean, the happy medium, between two extremes. On the one hand there is an extreme of excess of a quality, on the other hand there is the extreme of defect of a quality, and in the middle there is the happy medium. So Aristotle defines that which is semnos as the mean between areskeia and authadia. Areskeia is the characteristic of the man who is so eager to please that he is like a fawning dog; authadia is the characteristic of the man who thinks so little of pleasing that he is like an ill-mannered boor. Semnos is the word which describes the man who carries himself towards other men with a combination of dignified independence and kindly consideration. He is the man who, as Aristotle said, is ‘kindly and lovely in his gravity’ (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1391a 28). He said that the man who was semnos was the man who was dignified without being heavily pompous. When Plutarch was describing the great commander Nicias, he said of him that the ‘dignity (semnotēs) of Nicias was not of the harsh and offensive sort, but was blended with much circumspection’ (Plutarch, Nicias 2). In this dignified gravity there was no arrogance; it was dignity and courtesy combined. It is easy to see what a great quality this word semnos describes. It describes the divinity of the gods; it describes the Furies, the Erinyes who are the agents of divine justice; it describes the royalty of all true kingliness; it describes that which is stately and dignified in words and speech and conduct; it describes the characteristic of the man who carries himself with the perfect blend of dignity and courtesy, independence and humility to his fellow men. R. C. Trench says that the man who is semnos ‘has a grace and dignity not lent to him from earth, but which he owes to that higher citizenship which is also his’. The Latin word for this dignity is gravitas, and Tertullian writes: ‘Ubi metus in Deum, ibi gravitas honesta,’ ‘Where there is fear towards God, there is honourable dignity’ (Tertullian, De Praescriptione 43). Clement of Alexandria summed it up when he said that a Christian man is semnos because his life is turned to the divine (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7.35.6). This Christian kingliness and majesty and dignity come to a man when his face is turned to God, for then the reflection of God shines in him.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  In this matter it seems that Paul’s thought developed. In his very early letters he thought rather of the individual congregations. So, for instance, he speaks of the ‘ekklēsia of the Thessalonians’ (I Thess. 1.1; II Thess. 1.2). But later he speaks of the ‘ekklēsia of God which is at Corinth’ (I Cor. 1.2). Paul came to think of the Church, not in terms of separate congregations, but in terms of one great universal Church of which each congregation was a part. Sir William Ramsay saw in the Roman Empire a foreshadowing of this which may well have affected the thought of Paul. Any group of Roman citizens, meeting anywhere throughout the world, was a conventus civium Romanorum, ‘an assembly of Roman citizens’. Wherever they might be meeting they were part of the great conception of Rome. They had no meaning apart from Rome; they were part of a great unity. And any citizen coming into that town was automatically and without introduction a member of the group. Such a group might be separated from Rome in space, but in spirit they were part of it. That is precisely the Pauline conception of the Church. A man must be a member of a local congregation, within a certain given communion; but if his thought stops there he is far away from the true conception of the Church. The Church is the universal whole of which his little congregation forms a part, and the important thing is, not that he is a member of such and such a congregation, or even of such and such a communion, but that he is a member of the Church of God. To take an army parallel— a man might be proud to be a soldier in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; but that regiment was part of the Eighth Army, and that would bring to him an even greater pride; and that army was part of the army of his native country, which ought to be his greatest pride of all. It is good to be proud of a congregation; it is good to remember the tradition of a denomination. It is best of all to be conscious of being a member of the Church of God. In the NT the Church is set before us in three relationships. (i) It is sometimes—not often—described in human terms. So, for instance, Paul speaks of the Church of the Thessalonians (I Thess. 1.1; II Thess. 1.2). In a sense the Church is composed of men and belongs to men; men are the bricks out of which the edifice of the Church is built. It is worth noting that in all the NT the word Church is never used to describe a ‘building’. It always describes a body of men and women who have given their hearts to God. (ii) Far more frequently it is described in divine terms. By far the commonest description is the ‘Church of God’ (I Cor. 1.2; II Cor. 1.1; Gal.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  In Wisdom 19.6 it is said that every part of the new creation will minister to the several commandments (epitagai) of God. Clearly, then, this word epitagē has in it all the majesty of divine command. But it is in the Greek of the papyri that the word gains its characteristic sense. There it is used for an order or an injunction, but especially for a divine command. Isias dedicates an altar to the mother of the gods, according to the epitagē, the commandment, of Cybele, which has come to him direct in a dream. Varius Pollio erects a pillar to the honour of the gods in obedience to the epitagē, the command, of God. Epitagē becomes the word of the divine command. Here then are two great truths. (i) The preacher’s message is a divine command. When he is really preaching, he is speaking for God. He is bringing to men, not his own opinions, but the direct commands of God. (ii) The preacher’s commission is from God. Paul was supremely conscious that his task as a missionary to the Gentiles, his office as an apostle to the Church, came to him by the royal command, the epitagē, of God. Paul has another way of saying that. Often he speaks of himself as an apostle by the thelēma, the will, of God. (I Cor. 1.1; II Cor. 1.1; Eph. 1.1; Col. 1.1). He speaks of himself as separated by God for his task from his mother’s womb (Gal. 1.15). He speaks of necessity being laid upon him to preach (I Cor. 9.16). Paul always felt, not that he had chosen Christ, but that Christ had chosen him. He always thought of himself as a man who held the King’s commission. For Paul, the ministry was not a profession; it was a vocation. It was not a trade; it was a calling. He came to it, not because he had chosen it as a career, but because God had chosen and called him to it. Robert Robinson, the great Cambridge Baptist minister, had an experience of conversion. After it there were many who wished him to enter the ministry of the Church. He said: ‘Lord, accomplish Thy will in all I have to say. But God forbid that I should run before I am sent.’ The word epitagē enshrines the fact that no man may dare to contemplate the work of the ministry unless he is truly aware that he has received the King’s commission to it. ERITHEIA THE WRONG KIND OF AMBITION Eritheia is a word whose meaning degenerated, and the story of its degeneration is in itself a grim commentary on human nature. In the NT it is used seven times, and always of a fault which ruins Church work.

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

  THREE things are to be noted in this Gospel. Firstly, the great pride of the Pharisee, “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself.” Secondly, the true humility of the publican, “The publican standing afar off.” Thirdly, the great justice of God in His house, “This man went down to his house justified,” &c. I. On the first head, it is to be noted, that the pride of the Pharisee was seen in three ways. (1) Because candidly he was thinking himself just, “I am not as other men are;” as if he alone was just. (2) Because he despised others, “I thank Thee that I am not as other men are;” despising all, he alone thought he possessed what he did not. (3) Because he arrogantly boasted of his own good deeds, “I fast twice in the week.” Gloss., “He who went up to pray does not pray, but praises himself.” There are three acts of pride, as the Gloss. says, which thus begins, “There are four kinds of fear,” &c. II. On the second head, it is to be noted, that the humility of the publican appears in three things. (1) He was standing a long way off, as if unworthy to enter the temple of God: “Standing afar off.” (2) That he judged himself unworthy even to see the temple: “Would not so much as lift up his eyes to heaven,” &c. (3) Because he judged himself to be a sinner, and was asserting this: “Smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.” These are three acts of humility, Gloss., “He did not dare to draw near that God should draw near unto him”—the first; “He does not regard that he should be regarded”—the second; “He knows that God does not know him”—the third. III. On the third head, it is to be noted, that the justice of Christ appears in three ways in this Gospel—(1) in the justification of the humble publican; (2) in the condemnation of the proud Pharisee; (3) in the exaltation of the humble over the proud. Of the first, “This man went down to his house justified.” Of the second, “Rather than the other.” Gloss., “That is, before him in comparison with him; or more than he.” Gloss., “The heart is exalted before a fall, which applies to the Pharisee; and it is humbled before grace, which applies to the publican.” Of the third, “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” Gloss., “The controversy is placed between the publican and Pharisee: afterwards the sentence of the Judge is recorded, that we should avoid pride; that we should hold to humility, which exalts a man to eternal glory.” Job 22:29, Vulg., “He that hath been humbled shall be in glory.” To which glory may we, &c. HOMILY XXIII TRUE AND FALSE CONFIDENCE TWELFTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY.—(FROM THE EPISTLE)“Such trust have we through Christ to God-ward.”—2 Cor. 3:4.

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

  4. To the objection that “science puffs up,” we reply that it certainly does so, unless it is accompanied by charity. Thus, the Gloss says: “Knowledge alone puffs up, and again: “Add charity to your knowledge, and your knowledge will be useful.” Hence to those who practise works of mercy, learning will not be very dangerous. But if we are to avoid knowledge because it leads to pride, we ought, on the same grounds, to desist from any good work. For, St. Augustine says, “Pride insinuates itself into good actions, in order to render them worthless.” 5. To the argument, founded on the example of St. Benedict, we reply that this Saint did not forego study from a dread of learning, but from fear of the effects of a worldly life and society. Thus, St. Gregory tells us that “being in Rome, St. Benedict applied himself to liberal studies, and to literature; but perceiving that many of those around him fell into sin, he withdrew the foot with which he had stepped out into the world, fearing lest, if he attained to worldly learning, he might likewise fall into the abyss of sin.” Therefore, they are worthy of all praise who abandon the life of worldly students and retire into a monastery, where they may prosecute their studies. 6. To the last objection proposed, we reply that idle and inordinate curiosity is a danger attendant not only on study, but on all other mental occupation; and that superfluous anxiety, which is engendered by curiosity, is reprehensible. But in the words of St. Paul (2 Tim. iii,), quoted as an argument against religious, the Apostle, as the Gloss points out, rebukes those who, from an undue desire for material gain, entangle themselves in their neighbours’ concerns. To speak of study of Holy Scripture as a life of idleness is flatly to contradict the Gloss. For, on the words of Ps. cxviii, “My eyes have fainted,” the commentary says: “As he is not idle who only studies the word of God, neither can he who performs manual labour be more justly accused of sloth, than he who is occupied with the study of divinity. Such learning is the greatest of all work; and Mary, who listened to our Lord, is preferred before Martha, who ministered to Him.” CHAPTER 5 Attacks Brought Against Religious on Account of Their Systematic Method of PreachingWE Will now proceed to examine the objections brought against religious, on the score of their methodical and carefully prepared manner of preaching. St. Paul says, “not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void” (1 Cor. i. 17). This the Gloss understands to mean, “not with eloquence or tropes of language. For the preaching of Christ does not need pompous words, lest it should proceed rather from the cunning of human wisdom than from truth.” It is, therefore, alleged that because religious preach with fluency and eloquence, they must be false apostles.

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

  I admire Gerda Arnoldsen with enthusiasm, but I am not at all inclined to delve deep enough into myself to fathom whether and to what extent the high dowry, which was whispered in a rather cynical way in my ear at the very first introduction, to this one Enthusiasm contributed. I love her, but it makes my happiness and pride all the greater that in becoming my own I am at the same time attracting a significant inflow of capital to our firm. I'm closing, dear mother, this letter, which has become far too long considering the fact that in a few days we'll be able to discuss my happiness verbally. I wish you a pleasant and relaxing bathing holiday and ask you to send my warmest regards to all of us. With faithful love , your obedient son T. Eighth Chapter In fact, there was a lively and festive high summer in the Buddenbrooks' house this year. At the end of July Thomas returned to Mengstrasse and, like the other gentlemen who were busy on business in the city, visited his family a few times by the sea, while Christian had taken a perfect vacation there, for he was complaining about one vague pain in the left leg, which Doctor Grabow had absolutely no idea what to do with, and which Christian therefore thought about all the more carefully... "It's not pain . . . you can't call it that," he explained with an effort, running his hand up and down his leg, wrinkling his large nose, and letting his eyes wander. "It's an agony, a constant, quiet, disturbing agony all over the leg . . . and on the left side, on the side where that Heart sits... Strange... I think it's strange! What do you think about that, Tom...” "Yes, yes..." said Tom. "You now have rest and sea baths..." And then Christian went down to the sea to tell stories to the bathing party that made the beach echo with laughter, or to the Kursaal to play roulette with Peter Döhlmann, Uncle Justus, Doctor Gieseke and some Hamburg suitiers. And Consul Buddenbrook and Tony, as always when one was in Travemünde, visited the old Schwarzkopfs in the front row... "Good'n Dag ook, Ma'm' Grünlich!" said the pilot commander, talking flat with joy. »Well, weetens still want? It's been a long time, hey, that's a damn nice tie... And Morten, you've been a doctor in Breslau for a long time, and hey, hey, hey, he's also a very stately doctor, that boy..." Then Mrs.

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

  7. The fact that the assumption of poor garments for hypocritical purposes is a great sin does not prove that poverty of apparel is itself more sinful than extravagance of attire. For poverty of clothing is not as closely connected with hypocrisy as splendour of attire is related to pride and luxury. Ostentation in dress leads of itself and directly to pride and luxury. It is therefore in itself culpable. But meanness of attire does not of itself directly tend to hypocrisy. Hypocrisy results from the abuse of a humble fashion of dress, just as it may result from the abuse of any other good work. Now the more excellent a work is, the more reprehensible is its abuse. Therefore the heinousness of hypocrisy is a testimony in favour of poverty of apparel and of the other external penitential works of which hypocrisy is the abuse. We do not mean, however, that hypocrisy is absolutely speaking the greatest of sins. For unbelief, whereby a man lies against God, is a more heinous crime than dissimulation, whereby he lies against himself. 8. It is not credible that our Lord Jesus Christ should have been clad in costly clothing. For He commended St. John in that he was not clothed soft garments. The Pharisees laid great stress on exterior sanctity. They accused Christ Himself of being a glutton, a wine bibber, and a friend of publicans; so would they have accused the Baptist had he worn soft garments. Thesoldiers who mocked our Lord would not have clothed Him in a purple garment as a mark of sovereignty, if His own tunic had been woven with silk and gold. The soldiers who cast lots for His seamless coat did so, not because it was of costly material, but for the sake of their own profit. For, had it been divided, it would have been of no use to any of them. This alone suffices to prove that His garment was not valuable. Had it been of rich material, they would have divided it. But, as the Gloss says, our Lord’s seamless coat was a figure of the unity of the Church.

• From The Triumph of Christianity (2018)

  < 28 < Lecture 4  Christianity in the Roman World: An Overview yIt deeply mattered that people believed in one God, that Christ was his son, that he died for the sins of the world, and that he was raised from the dead. ySoon other beliefs became important too. Christianity came to emphasize proper teaching, unlike any other religion in antiquity. `A second major difference came in religious ethics. yOn the whole, ancient pagans were no more immoral than modern Christians. But their bases for ethics were almost never religious. Pagan cults did not insist on certain ethical codes or rules of behavior. They insisted on cultic practices. yEthics were a matter of social order, government, and, if anyone wanted to think deeply about them, philosophy. yChristians probably inherited their insistence on proper ethical behavior from Jews, whose law included not only requirements for worshiping God but also for living in community together. yChristians early on developed strict ethical codes that needed to be followed to maintain a right standing with God, and many of their authors took pride in their rigorous ethics. `Scripture presented a third major difference. yJews also were distinctive in having a sacred book. Christians originally accepted that book and began to interpret it in new ways. yAdditionally, some of their own writings came to be considered as sacred authorities for how to believe and how to act. yThese writings eventually became the New Testament. `Community was the fourth major difference. yPagan cultic practices happened periodically but not regularly, and they did not involve what we might think of as fellowship: regular community gatherings to meet, talk, share, encourage, and support.

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

  ORIGEN. But why was she lowly and cast down, who carried in her womb the Son of God? Consider that lowliness, which in the Scriptures is particularly praised as one of the virtues, is called by the philosophers “modestia.” And we also may paraphrase it, that state of mind in which a man instead of being puffed up, casts himself down. BEDE. But she, whose humility is regarded, is rightly called blessed by all; as it follows, For, behold, from henceforth all shall call me blessed. ATHANASIUS. For if as the Prophet says, Blessed are they who have seed in Sion, and kinsfolk in Jerusalem, (Isa. 31:9. apud LXX.) how great should be the celebration of the divine and ever holy Virgin Mary, who was made according to the flesh, the Mother of the Word? GREEK EXPOSITOR. (Metaphrastes.) She does not call herself blessed from vain glory, for what room is there for pride in her who named herself the handmaid of the Lord? But, touched by the Holy Spirit, she foretold those things which were to come. BEDE. For it was fitting, that as by the pride of our first parent death came into the world, so by the lowliness of Mary should be opened the entrance into life. THEOPHYLACT. And therefore she says, all generations, not only Elisabeth, but also every nation that believed. 1:4949. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. THEOPHYLACT. The Virgin shews that not for her own virtue is she to be pronounced blessed, but she assigns the cause, saying, For he that is mighty hath magnified me. AUGUSTINE. (sup.) What great things hath He done unto thee? I believe that a creature thou gavest birth to the Creator, a servant thou broughtest forth the Lord, that through thee God redeemed the world, through thee He restored it to life. TITUS BOSTRENSIS. But where are the great things, if they be not that I still a virgin conceive (by the will of God) overcoming nature? I have been accounted worthy, without being joined to a husband, to be made a mother, not a mother of any one, but of the only-begotten Saviour. BEDE. But this has reference to the beginning of the hymn, where it is said, My soul doth magnify the Lord. For that soul can alone magnify the Lord with due praise, for whom he deigus to do mighty things. TITUS BOSTRENSIS. But she says, that is mighty, that if men should disbelieve the work of her conception, namely, that while yet a virgin, she conceived, she might throw back the miracles upon the power of the Worker. Nor because the only-begotten Son has come to a woman is He thereby defiled, for holy is his name.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  1.21,24). And they used the words of Pompey, who, when he conquered Jerusalem, was guilty of the same sacrilege. ‘When the sinful man waxed proud (huperēphaneuesthai, the corresponding verb), he cast down fenced walls with a battering-ram, and thou didst not prevent him. The heathen went up against thine altar; they trampled it down with their sandals in their pride’ (Psalms of Solomon 2.1, 2). ‘The adversary wrought insolence and his heart was alien from God’ (Psalms of Solomon 17.15). ‘Let God destroy all those who work iniquity with insolence’ (Psalms of Solomon 4.28). Huperēphania is the spirit which despises men and lifts itself arrogantly against God. No wonder Theophylact called huperēphania the acropolis kakōn, the peak of evils. This pride can come from pride in birth, from pride in wealth, from pride in knowledge, from aristocratic pride, from intellectual pride, from spiritual pride. It is described by Trench as ‘human nature in battle array against God’. There remains one thing to note. We have already studied the word alazōn which describes the boaster, the man who shouts his claims and pretensions so that all can hear. But huperēphania is worse that that, for the seat of huperēphania is in the heart. The blustering, boasting alazōn is plain for all to see; but the huperēphanos is the man who might well go about the world with downcast eyes and folded hands and with outward quietness, but with a silent contempt within his heart for his fellow-men; the huperēphanos is the man who might walk in outward humility, but in inward pride. His basic sin is that he has forgotten that he is a creature and that God is the Creator; for the huperēphanos has erected an altar to himself within his own heart, and worships there. HUPOGRAMMOS THE PERFECT PATTERN There is only one example of the word hupogrammos in the NT, but it is an example with a vivid picture behind it. Peter says of Jesus that ‘He left us an example (hupogrammos) that we should follow in his steps’ (I Pet. 2.21). The word hupogrammos is a word which comes from Greek primary education. It is a word which has to do with the way in which Greek boys were taught to write. The common writing material in NT times was papyrus, which was a kind of paper made of the pith of the bulrush which grew mainly on the banks of the Nile. It was by no means a cheap material. It was usually manufactured in sheets which measured ten by eight inches. The sheets varied in quality and in price. The cheapest sheets were about fourpence; and the dearest slightly more than a shilling. Obviously papyrus was far too expensive a substance for boys to practise writing on. So, then, the schoolboy’s exercise book was usually the wax tablet.

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

  It is more seemly for a religious to fight with spiritual weapons, than with sword and shield. But there are already in existence several military orders. It is therefore expedient that an order should be founded for the purposes of spiritual warfare. The religious of such an order ought, principally to preach the gospel, according to the exhortation of St, Paul, “Labour like a good soldier of Christ” (2 Tim ii. 3), “by preaching the gospel against the enemies of the Faith,” as the Gloss explains. It is essential that they who labour for the salvation of souls should be remarkable both for learning, and for sanctity of life. It is not easy to find enough priests with such a reputation to take charge of all the parishes throughout the world: neither is it possible, among secular priests, to carry out the statute of the Council of Lateran, which enjoins that there should be teachers of theology in every metropolitan church. This desire of the Church is, however, through the mercy of God, being carried out through the instrumentality of religious. In the words of Isaiah (xi. 9), “The earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord.” Thus, it is highly expedient that a religious order should be founded, in which the brethren are learned and addicted to study, and at the same time have leisure to help secular priests who are not so well adapted to teach theology. The advantage of such orders is further proved by the beneficial results produced by their labours. For in many parts of the world, heresy has been destroyed; many infidels have been converted; careless Christians have been instructed in the law of God; and many have been brought to penance by the efforts of religious. Hence anyone who condemns such orders as useless is clearly sinning against the Holy Spirit, by envy of the grace whereby God co-operates in the labours of these men. Again, in XXV. quaest. I, we read the following words: “No one can, either safely or rightly, pass rash judgments either on the Divine constitutions or on the decrees of the Holy See.” Since, therefore, certain religious Orders, as is proved by their very name (for, as St. Augustine puts it in his book The Christian Life, “no one is called by a name without a cause”), have been established, by the Apostolic See for the purposes of which we have spoken, anyone who condemns them does, by so doing, himself incur condemnation. 6. We must now proceed to our final task that of answering the objections of our opponents.

• From Four Days to Glory: Wrestling with the Soul of the American Heartland (2005)

  Dan LeClere dealt with his depression and got past it, and he dealt with his family dynamic and never let it slow his drive. He suffered with fairly good humor his week of inordinate attention in Des Moines, but the fact of the matter is, he was relieved to get out, get through the great homecoming in one piece, get back to his family’s land and maybe just not really talk much for a while. He never wrestled for any reason other than the love of it and an epic winner’s urge, which makes him more like his father than he would be likely to admit. Jay loves to use the doubts of total strangers as motivation for him to be what he wants to be as a wrestler, which isn’t the same as saying he ever actually listens to the criticism. He uses it, is all. He is aware of most everything. He’s a wired, plugged-in high school senior. But Jay has made peace with two very basic facts that seem to have accompanied his life in sports: Most of the time people have no idea what he’s actually up to; and when he is the subject of public interest, it is often for the purpose of someone explaining that he isn’t really as good as people make him out to be. It only matters as much as he needs it to matter. If the ultimate honor is working hard at something for no reason other than to master it, Jay figures, then wrestlers really are better than other athletes, because their suffering is so removed from the everyday world. They sweat and cry alone, with their teammates and their coaches, and even in the heart of the wrestling universe they really only are brought out for full inspection a few times in a year. The rest is just work. And that is what makes it so great, and what makes them special. And maybe they need to know that, and to be reminded of it—that there is a nobility in the idea of laying it all out there, every day, in a little box of a room with crappy ventilation, losing fluids, denying themselves the simple pleasures of food and drink, subjecting their bodies to real pain and full exhaustion, and then dragging their wilted, diminished selves off the mat, showering, going home and falling into bed in order to get up and do it all again tomorrow. There is supposed to be a cosmic reward in that. Jay and Dan long ago came to believe that the reward was always there to be savored. The reward is yet to come; it renews itself in their blood and their ache. They are champions and gods, and they will start all over again in college, as nothings. They will have to prove everything again. The day after it all ends, it begins itself anew. That’s not a warning. It’s the good news.

• From Little Women (1868)

  Daisy and Demi had now arrived at years of discretion, for in this fast age babies of three or four assert their rights, and get them, too, which is more than many of their elders do. If there ever were a pair of twins in danger of being utterly spoiled by adoration, it was these prattling Brookes. Of course they were the most remarkable children ever born, as will be shown when I mention that they walked at eight months, talked fluently at twelve months, and at two years they took their places at table, and behaved with a propriety which charmed all beholders. At three, Daisy demanded a 'needler', and actually made a bag with four stitches in it. She likewise set up housekeeping in the sideboard, and managed a microscopic cooking stove with a skill that brought tears of pride to Hannah's eyes, while Demi learned his letters with his grandfather, who invented a new mode of teaching the alphabet by forming letters with his arms and legs, thus uniting gymnastics for head and heels. The boy early developed a mechanical genius which delighted his father and distracted his mother, for he tried to imitate every machine he saw, and kept the nursery in a chaotic condition, with his 'sewinsheen', a mysterious structure of string, chairs, clothespins, and spools, for wheels to go 'wound and wound'. Also a basket hung over the back of a chair, in which he vainly tried to hoist his too confiding sister, who, with feminine devotion, allowed her little head to be bumped till rescued, when the young inventor indignantly remarked, "Why, Marmar, dat's my lellywaiter, and me's trying to pull her up." Though utterly unlike in character, the twins got on remarkably well together, and seldom quarreled more than thrice a day. Of course, Demi tyrannized over Daisy, and gallantly defended her from every other aggressor, while Daisy made a galley slave of herself, and adored her brother as the one perfect being in the world. A rosy, chubby, sunshiny little soul was Daisy, who found her way to everybody's heart, and nestled there. One of the captivating children, who seem made to be kissed and cuddled, adorned and adored like little goddesses, and produced for general approval on all festive occasions. Her small virtues were so sweet that she would have been quite angelic if a few small naughtinesses had not kept her delightfully human. It was all fair weather in her world, and every morning she scrambled up to the window in her little nightgown to look out, and say, no matter whether it rained or shone, "Oh, pitty day, oh, pitty day!" Everyone was a friend, and she offered kisses to a stranger so confidingly that the most inveterate bachelor relented, and baby-lovers became faithful worshipers. "Me loves evvybody," she once said, opening her arms, with her spoon in one hand, and her mug in the other, as if eager to embrace and nourish the whole world.