SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IIa - XLVI-XLVIII

Index

Question 46.1 Anger
Question 46.2
Question 46.3
Question 46.4
Question 46.5
Question 46.6
Question 46.7
Question 46.8

Question 47.1 Causes of anger
Question 47.2
Question 47.3
Question 47.4

Question 48.1 Effects of anger
Question 48.2
Question 48.3
Question 48.4

LatinEnglish
q. 46 pr. Deinde considerandum est de ira. Et primo, de ira secundum se; secundo, de causa factiva irae, et remedio eius; tertio, de effectu eius. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum ira sit passio specialis. Secundo, utrum obiectum irae sit bonum, an malum. Tertio, utrum ira sit in concupiscibili. Quarto, utrum ira sit cum ratione. Quinto, utrum ira sit naturalior quam concupiscentia. Sexto, utrum ira sit gravior quam odium. Septimo, utrum ira solum sit ad illos ad quos est iustitia. Octavo, de speciebus irae. Question 46. Anger, in itself Is anger a special passion? Is the object of anger good or evil? Is anger in the concupiscible faculty? Is anger accompanied by an act of reason? Is anger more natural than desire? Is anger more grievous than hatred? Is anger only towards those with whom we have a relation of justice? The species of anger
q. 46 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira non sit passio specialis. Ab ira enim denominatur potentia irascibilis. Sed huius potentiae non est una tantum passio, sed multae. Ergo ira non est una passio specialis. Objection 1. It would seem that anger is not a special passion. For the irascible power takes its name from anger [ira]. But there are several passions in this power, not only one. Therefore anger is not one special passion.
q. 46 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, cuilibet passioni speciali est aliquid contrarium; ut patet inducenti per singula. Sed irae non est aliqua passio contraria, ut supra dictum est. Ergo ira non est passio specialis. Objection 2. Further, to every special passion there is a contrary passion; as is evident by going through them one by one. But no passion is contrary to anger, as stated above (Question 23, Article 3). Therefore anger is not a special passion.
q. 46 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, una specialis passio non includit aliam. Sed ira includit multas passiones, est enim cum tristitia, et cum delectatione, et cum spe, ut patet per philosophum, in II Rhetoric. Ergo ira non est passio specialis. Objection 3. Further, one special passion does not include another. But anger includes several passions: since it accompanies sorrow, pleasure, and hope, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 2). Therefore anger is not a special passion.
q. 46 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Damascenus ponit iram specialem passionem. Et similiter Tullius, IV de Tusculanis quaest. On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) calls anger a special passion: and so does Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 7).
q. 46 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid dicitur generale dupliciter. Uno modo, per praedicationem, sicut animal est generale ad omnia animalia. Alio modo, per causam, sicut sol est causa generalis omnium quae generantur in his inferioribus, secundum Dionysium, in IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sicut enim genus continet multas differentias potestate, secundum similitudinem materiae; ita causa agens continet multos effectus secundum virtutem activam. Contingit autem aliquem effectum ex concursu diversarum causarum produci, et quia omnis causa aliquo modo in effectu manet, potest etiam dici, tertio modo, quod effectus ex congregatione multarum causarum productus, habet quandam generalitatem, inquantum continet multas causas quodammodo in actu. Primo ergo modo, ira non est passio generalis, sed condivisa aliis passionibus, ut supra dictum est. Similiter autem nec secundo modo. Non est enim causa aliarum passionum, sed per hunc modum potest dici generalis passio amor, ut patet per Augustinum, in XIV libro de Civ. Dei; amor enim est prima radix omnium passionum, ut supra dictum est. Sed tertio modo potest ira dici passio generalis, inquantum ex concursu multarum passionum causatur. Non enim insurgit motus irae nisi propter aliquam tristitiam illatam et nisi adsit desiderium et spes ulciscendi, quia, ut philosophus dicit in II Rhetoric., iratus habet spem puniendi; appetit enim vindictam ut sibi possibilem. Unde si fuerit multum excellens persona quae nocumentum intulit, non sequitur ira, sed solum tristitia, ut Avicenna dicit, in libro de anima. I answer that, A thing is said to be general in two ways. First, by predication; thus "animal" is general in respect of all animals. Secondly, by causality; thus the sun is the general cause of all things generated here below, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Because just as a genus contains potentially many differences, according to a likeness of matter; so an efficient cause contains many effects according to its active power. Now it happens that an effect is produced by the concurrence of various causes; and since every cause remains somewhat in its effect, we may say that, in yet a third way, an effect which is due to the concurrence of several causes, has a certain generality, inasmuch as several causes are, in a fashion, actually existing therein. Accordingly in the first way, anger is not a general passion but is condivided with the other passions, as stated above (Question 23, Article 4). In like manner, neither is it in the second way: since it is not a cause of the other passions. But in this way, love may be called a general passion, as Augustine declares (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9), because love is the primary root of all the other passions, as stated above (Question 27, Article 4). But, in a third way, anger may be called a general passion, inasmuch as it is caused by a concurrence of several passions. Because the movement of anger does not arise save on account of some pain inflicted, and unless there be desire and hope of revenge: for, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2), "the angry man hopes to punish; since he craves for revenge as being possible." Consequently if the person, who inflicted the injury, excel very much, anger does not ensue, but only sorrow, as Avicenna states (De Anima iv, 6).
q. 46 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, vis irascibilis denominatur ab ira, non quia omnis motus huius potentiae sit ira, sed quia ad iram terminantur omnes motus huius potentiae; et inter alios eius motus, iste est manifestior. Reply to Objection 1. The irascible power takes its name from "ira" [anger], not because every movement of that power is one of anger; but because all its movements terminate in anger; and because, of all these movements, anger is the most patent.
q. 46 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ex hoc ipso quod ira causatur ex contrariis passionibus, scilicet a spe, quae est boni, et a tristitia, quae est mali, includit in seipsa contrarietatem, et ideo non habet contrarium extra se. Sicut etiam in mediis coloribus non invenitur contrarietas, nisi quae est simplicium colorum, ex quibus causantur. Reply to Objection 2. From the very fact that anger is caused by contrary passions, i.e. by hope, which is of good, and by sorrow, which is of evil, it includes in itself contrariety: and consequently it has no contrary outside itself. Thus also in mixed colors there is no contrariety, except that of the simple colors from which they are made.
q. 46 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ira includit multas passiones, non quidem sicut genus species, sed magis secundum continentiam causae et effectus. Reply to Objection 3. Anger includes several passions, not indeed as a genus includes several species; but rather according to the inclusion of cause and effect.
q. 46 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod obiectum irae sit malum. Dicit enim Gregorius Nyssenus quod ira est quasi armigera concupiscentiae, inquantum scilicet impugnat id quod concupiscentiam impedit. Sed omne impedimentum habet rationem mali. Ergo ira respicit malum tanquam obiectum. Objection 1. It would seem that the object of anger is evil. For Gregory of Nyssa says [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.] that anger is "the sword-bearer of desire," inasmuch, to wit, as it assails whatever obstacle stands in the way of desire. But an obstacle has the character of evil. Therefore anger regards evil as its object.
q. 46 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, ira et odium conveniunt in effectu, utriusque enim est inferre nocumentum alteri. Sed odium respicit malum tanquam obiectum, ut supra dictum est. Ergo etiam et ira. Objection 2. Further, anger and hatred agree in their effect, since each seeks to inflict harm on another. But hatred regards evil as its object, as stated above (Question 29, Article 1). Therefore anger does also.
q. 46 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, ira causatur ex tristitia, unde philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod ira operatur cum tristitia. Sed tristitiae obiectum est malum. Ergo et irae. Objection 3. Further, anger arises from sorrow; wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 6) that "anger acts with sorrow." But evil is the object of sorrow. Therefore it is also the object of anger.
q. 46 a. 2 s. c. 1 Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in II Confess., quod ira appetit vindictam. Sed appetitus vindictae est appetitus boni, cum vindicta ad iustitiam pertineat. Ergo obiectum irae est bonum. On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. ii, 6) that "anger craves for revenge." But the desire for revenge is a desire for something good: since revenge belongs to justice. Therefore the object of anger is good.
q. 46 a. 2 s. c. 2 Praeterea, ira semper est cum spe, unde et delectationem causat, ut dicit philosophus, in II Rhetoric. Sed spei et delectationis obiectum est bonum. Ergo et irae. Moreover, anger is always accompanied by hope, wherefore it causes pleasure, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2). But the object of hope and of pleasure is good. Therefore good is also the object of anger.
q. 46 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod motus appetitivae virtutis sequitur actum virtutis apprehensivae. Vis autem apprehensiva dupliciter aliquid apprehendit, uno modo, per modum incomplexi, sicut cum intelligimus quid est homo; alio modo, per modum complexi, sicut cum intelligimus album inesse homini. Unde utroque modo vis appetitiva potest tendere in bonum et malum. Per modum quidem simplicis et incomplexi, cum appetitus simpliciter sequitur vel inhaeret bono, vel refugit malum. Et tales motus sunt desiderium et spes, delectatio et tristitia, et alia huiusmodi. Per modum autem complexi, sicut cum appetitus fertur in hoc quod aliquod bonum vel malum insit vel fiat circa alterum, vel tendendo in hoc, vel refugiendo ab hoc. Sicut manifeste apparet in amore et odio, amamus enim aliquem, inquantum volumus ei inesse aliquod bonum; odimus autem aliquem, inquantum volumus ei inesse aliquod malum. Et similiter est in ira, quicumque enim irascitur, quaerit vindicari de aliquo. Et sic motus irae tendit in duo, scilicet in ipsam vindictam, quam appetit et sperat sicut quoddam bonum, unde et de ipsa delectatur, tendit etiam in illum de quo quaerit vindictam, sicut in contrarium et nocivum, quod pertinet ad rationem mali. Est tamen duplex differentia attendenda circa hoc, irae ad odium et ad amorem. Quarum prima est, quod ira semper respicit duo obiecta, amor vero et odium quandoque respiciunt unum obiectum tantum, sicut cum dicitur aliquis amare vinum vel aliquid huiusmodi, aut etiam odire. Secunda est, quia utrumque obiectorum quod respicit amor, est bonum, vult enim amans bonum alicui, tanquam sibi convenienti. Utrumque vero eorum quae respicit odium, habet rationem mali, vult enim odiens malum alicui, tamquam cuidam inconvenienti. Sed ira respicit unum obiectum secundum rationem boni, scilicet vindictam, quam appetit, et aliud secundum rationem mali, scilicet hominem nocivum, de quo vult vindicari. Et ideo est passio quodammodo composita ex contrariis passionibus. I answer that, The movement of the appetitive power follows an act of the apprehensive power. Now the apprehensive power apprehends a thing in two ways. First, by way of an incomplex object, as when we understand what a man is; secondly, by way of a complex object, as when we understand that whiteness is in a man. Consequently in each of these ways the appetitive power can tend to both good and evil: by way of a simple and incomplex object, when the appetite simply follows and adheres to good, or recoils from evil: and such movements are desire, hope, pleasure, sorrow, and so forth: by way of a complex object, as when the appetite is concerned with some good or evil being in, or being done to, another, either seeking this or recoiling from it. This is evident in the case of love and hatred: for we love someone, in so far as we wish some good to be in him; and we hate someone, in so far as we wish some evil to be in him. It is the same with anger; for when a man is angry, he wishes to be avenged on someone. Hence the movement of anger has a twofold tendency: viz. to vengeance itself, which it desires and hopes for as being a good, wherefore it takes pleasure in it; and to the person on whom it seeks vengeance, as to something contrary and hurtful, which bears the character of evil. We must, however, observe a twofold difference in this respect, between anger on the one side, and hatred and love on the other. The first difference is that anger always regards two objects: whereas love and hatred sometimes regard but one object, as when a man is said to love wine or something of the kind, or to hate it. The second difference is, that both the objects of love are good: since the lover wishes good to someone, as to something agreeable to himself: while both the objects of hatred bear the character of evil: for the man who hates, wishes evil to someone, as to something disagreeable to him. Whereas anger regards one object under the aspect of evil, viz. the noxious person, on whom it seeks to be avenged. Consequently it is a passion somewhat made up of contrary passions.
q. 46 a. 2 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
q. 46 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira sit in concupiscibili. Dicit enim Tullius, in IV de Tusculanis quaest., quod ira est libido quaedam. Sed libido est in concupiscibili. Ergo et ira. Objection 1. It would seem that anger is in the concupiscible faculty. For Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that anger is a kind of "desire." But desire is in the concupiscible faculty. Therefore anger is too.
q. 46 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in regula, quod ira crescit in odium. Et Tullius dicit, in eodem libro, quod odium est ira inveterata. Sed odium est in concupiscibili, sicut amor. Ergo ira est in concupiscibili. Objection 2. Further, Augustine says in his Rule, that "anger grows into hatred": and Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that "hatred is inveterate anger." But hatred, like love, is a concupiscible passion. Therefore anger is in the concupiscible faculty.
q. 46 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, Damascenus et Gregorius Nyssenus dicunt quod ira componitur ex tristitia et desiderio. Sed utrumque horum est in concupiscibili. Ergo ira est in concupiscibili. Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.] say that "anger is made up of sorrow and desire." Both of these are in the concupiscible faculty. Therefore anger is a concupiscible passion.
q. 46 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, vis concupiscibilis est alia ab irascibili. Si igitur ira esset in concupiscibili, non denominaretur ab ea vis irascibilis. On the contrary, The concupiscible is distinct from the irascible faculty. If, therefore, anger were in the concupiscible power, the irascible would not take its name from it.
q. 46 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, passiones irascibilis in hoc differunt a passionibus concupiscibilis, quod obiecta passionum concupiscibilis sunt bonum et malum absolute; obiecta autem passionum irascibilis sunt bonum et malum cum quadam elevatione vel arduitate. Dictum est autem quod ira respicit duo obiecta, scilicet vindictam, quam appetit; et eum de quo vindictam quaerit. Et circa utrumque quandam arduitatem ira requirit, non enim insurgit motus irae, nisi aliqua magnitudine circa utrumque existente; quaecumque enim nihil sunt, aut modica valde nullo digna aestimamus, ut dicit philosophus, in II Rhetoric. Unde manifestum est quod ira non est in concupiscibili, sed in irascibili. I answer that, As stated above (Question 23, Article 1), the passions of the irascible part differ from the passions of the concupiscible faculty, in that the objects of the concupiscible passions are good and evil absolutely considered, whereas the objects of the irascible passions are good and evil in a certain elevation or arduousness. Now it has been stated (2) that anger regards two objects: viz. the vengeance that it seeks; and the person on whom it seeks vengeance; and in respect of both, anger requires a certain arduousness: for the movement of anger does not arise, unless there be some magnitude about both these objects; since "we make no ado about things that are naught or very minute," as the Philosopher observes (Rhet. ii, 2). It is therefore evident that anger is not in the concupiscible, but in the irascible faculty.
q. 46 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Tullius libidinem nominat appetitum cuiuscumque boni futuri non habita discretione ardui vel non ardui. Et secundum hoc, ponit iram sub libidine, inquantum est appetitus vindictae. Sic autem libido communis est ad irascibilem et concupiscibilem. Reply to Objection 1. Cicero gives the name of desire to any kind of craving for a future good, without discriminating between that which is arduous and that which is not. Accordingly he reckons anger as a kind of desire, inasmuch as it is a desire of vengeance. In this sense, however, desire is common to the irascible and concupiscible faculties.
q. 46 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ira dicitur crescere in odium, non quod eadem numero passio quae prius fuit ira, postmodum fiat odium per quandam inveterationem, sed per quandam causalitatem. Ira enim, per diuturnitatem, causat odium. Reply to Objection 2. Anger is said to grow into hatred, not as though the same passion which at first was anger, afterwards becomes hatred by becoming inveterate; but by a process of causality. For anger when it lasts a long time engenders hatred.
q. 46 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ira dicitur componi ex tristitia et desiderio, non sicut ex partibus, sed sicut ex causis. Dictum est autem supra quod passiones concupiscibilis sunt causae passionum irascibilis. Reply to Objection 3. Anger is said to be composed of sorrow and desire, not as though they were its parts, but because they are its causes: and it has been said above (Question 25, Article 2) that the concupiscible passions are the causes of the irascible passions.
q. 46 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira non sit cum ratione. Ira enim, cum sit passio quaedam, est in appetitu sensitivo. Sed appetitus sensitivus non sequitur rationis apprehensionem, sed sensitivae partis. Ergo ira non est cum ratione. Objection 1. It would seem that anger does not require an act of reason. For, since anger is a passion, it is in the sensitive appetite. But the sensitive appetite follows an apprehension, not of reason, but of the sensitive faculty. Therefore anger does not require an act of reason.
q. 46 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, animalia bruta carent ratione. Et tamen in eis invenitur ira. Ergo ira non est cum ratione. Objection 2. Further, dumb animals are devoid of reason: and yet they are seen to be angry. Therefore anger does not require an act of reason.
q. 46 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, ebrietas ligat rationem. Adiuvat autem ad iram. Ergo ira non est cum ratione. Objection 3. Further, drunkenness fetters the reason; whereas it is conducive to anger. Therefore anger does not require an act of reason.
q. 46 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod ira consequitur rationem aliqualiter. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger listens to reason somewhat."
q. 46 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ira est appetitus vindictae. Haec autem collationem importat poenae infligendae ad nocumentum sibi illatum, unde, in VII Ethic., dicit philosophus quod syllogizans quoniam oportet talem oppugnare, irascitur confestim. Conferre autem et syllogizare est rationis. Et ideo ira est quodammodo cum ratione. I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), anger is a desire for vengeance. Now vengeance implies a comparison between the punishment to be inflicted and the hurt done; wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger, as if it had drawn the inference that it ought to quarrel with such a person, is therefore immediately exasperated." Now to compare and to draw an inference is an act of reason. Therefore anger, in a fashion, requires an act of reason.
q. 46 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod motus appetitivae virtutis potest esse cum ratione dupliciter. Uno modo, cum ratione praecipiente, et sic voluntas est cum ratione; unde et dicitur appetitus rationalis. Alio modo, cum ratione denuntiante, et sic ira est cum ratione. Dicit enim philosophus, in libro de Problemat., quod ira est cum ratione, non sicut praecipiente ratione, sed ut manifestante iniuriam. Appetitus enim sensitivus immediate rationi non obedit, sed mediante voluntate. Reply to Objection 1. The movement of the appetitive power may follow an act of reason in two ways. In the first way, it follows the reason in so far as the reason commands: and thus the will follows reason, wherefore it is called the rational appetite. In another way, it follows reason in so far as the reason denounces, and thus anger follows reason. For the Philosopher says (De Problem. xxviii, 3) that "anger follows reason, not in obedience to reason's command, but as a result of reason's denouncing the injury." Because the sensitive appetite is subject to the reason, not immediately but through the will.
q. 46 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod bruta animalia habent instinctum naturalem ex divina ratione eis inditum, per quem habent motus interiores et exteriores similes motibus rationis, sicut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. Dumb animals have a natural instinct imparted to them by the Divine Reason, in virtue of which they are gifted with movements, both internal and external, like unto rational movements, as stated above (Question 40, Article 3).
q. 46 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in VII Ethic., ira audit aliqualiter rationem, sicut nuntiantem quod iniuriatum est ei, sed non perfecte audit, quia non observat regulam rationis in rependendo vindictam. Ad iram ergo requiritur aliquis actus rationis; et additur impedimentum rationis. Unde philosophus dicit, in libro de Problemat., quod illi qui sunt multum ebrii, tanquam nihil habentes de iudicio rationis, non irascuntur, sed quando sunt parum ebrii, irascuntur, tanquam habentes iudicium rationis, sed impeditum. Reply to Objection 3. As stated in Ethic. vii, 6, "anger listens somewhat to reason" in so far as reason denounces the injury inflicted, "but listens not perfectly," because it does not observe the rule of reason as to the measure of vengeance. Anger, therefore, requires an act of reason; and yet proves a hindrance to reason. Wherefore the Philosopher says (De Problem. iii, 2,27) that whose who are very drunk, so as to be incapable of the use of reason, do not get angry: but those who are slightly drunk, do get angry, through being still able, though hampered, to form a judgment of reason.
q. 46 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira non sit naturalior quam concupiscentia. Proprium enim hominis dicitur quod sit animal mansuetum natura. Sed mansuetudo opponitur irae, ut dicit philosophus, in II Rhetoric. Ergo ira non est naturalior quam concupiscentia, sed omnino videtur esse contra hominis naturam. Objection 1. It would seem that anger is not more natural than desire. Because it is proper to man to be by nature a gentle animal. But "gentleness is contrary to anger," as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 3). Therefore anger is no more natural than desire, in fact it seems to be altogether unnatural to man.
q. 46 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, ratio contra naturam dividitur, ea enim quae secundum rationem agunt, non dicimus secundum naturam agere. Sed ira est cum ratione, concupiscentia autem sine ratione, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Ergo concupiscentia est naturalior quam ira. Objection 2. Further, reason is contrasted with nature: since those things that act according to reason, are not said to act according to nature. Now "anger requires an act of reason, but desire does not," as stated in Ethic. vii, 6. Therefore desire is more natural than anger.
q. 46 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, ira est appetitus vindictae, concupiscentia autem maxime est appetitus delectabilium secundum tactum, scilicet ciborum et venereorum. Haec autem sunt magis naturalia homini quam vindicta. Ergo concupiscentia est naturalior quam ira. Objection 3. Further, anger is a craving for vengeance: while desire is a craving for those things especially which are pleasant to the touch, viz. for pleasures of the table and for sexual pleasures. But these things are more natural to man than vengeance. Therefore desire is more natural than anger.
q. 46 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod ira est naturalior quam concupiscentia. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger is more natural than desire."
q. 46 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod naturale dicitur illud quod causatur a natura, ut patet in II Physic. Unde utrum aliqua passio sit magis vel minus naturalis, considerari non potest nisi ex causa sua. Causa autem passionis, ut supra dictum est, dupliciter accipi potest, uno modo, ex parte obiecti; alio modo, ex parte subiecti. Si ergo consideretur causa irae et concupiscentiae ex parte obiecti, sic concupiscentia, et maxime ciborum et venereorum, naturalior est quam ira, inquantum ista sunt magis naturalia quam vindicta. Si autem consideretur causa irae ex parte subiecti, sic quodammodo ira est naturalior, et quodammodo concupiscentia. Potest enim natura alicuius hominis considerari vel secundum naturam generis, vel secundum naturam speciei, vel secundum complexionem propriam individui. Si igitur consideretur natura generis, quae est natura huius hominis inquantum est animal; sic naturalior est concupiscentia quam ira, quia ex ipsa natura communi habet homo quandam inclinationem ad appetendum ea quae sunt conservativa vitae, vel secundum speciem vel secundum individuum. Si autem consideremus naturam hominis ex parte speciei, scilicet inquantum est rationalis; sic ira est magis naturalis homini quam concupiscentia, inquantum ira est cum ratione magis quam concupiscentia. Unde philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod humanius est punire, quod pertinet ad iram, quam mansuetum esse, unumquodque enim naturaliter insurgit contra contraria et nociva. Si vero consideretur natura huius individui secundum propriam complexionem, sic ira naturalior est quam concupiscentia, quia scilicet habitudinem naturalem ad irascendum, quae est ex complexione, magis de facili sequitur ira, quam concupiscentia vel aliqua alia passio. Est enim homo dispositus ad irascendum, secundum quod habet cholericam complexionem, cholera autem, inter alios humores, citius movetur; assimilatur enim igni. Et ideo magis est in promptu ut ille qui est dispositus secundum naturalem complexionem ad iram, irascatur; quam de eo qui est dispositus ad concupiscendum, quod concupiscat. Et propter hoc philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod ira magis traducitur a parentibus in filios, quam concupiscentia. I answer that, By "natural" we mean that which is caused by nature, as stated in Phys. ii, 1. Consequently the question as to whether a particular passion is more or less natural cannot be decided without reference to the cause of that passion. Now the cause of a passion, as stated above (Question 36, Article 2), may be considered in two ways: first, on the part of the object; secondly, on the part of the subject. If then we consider the cause of anger and of desire, on the part of the object, thus desire, especially of pleasures of the table, and of sexual pleasures, is more natural than anger; in so far as these pleasures are more natural to man than vengeance. If, however, we consider the cause of anger on the part of the subject, thus anger, in a manner, is more natural; and, in a manner, desire is more natural. Because the nature of an individual man may be considered either as to the generic, or as to the specific nature, or again as to the particular temperament of the individual. If then we consider the generic nature, i.e. the nature of this man considered as an animal; thus desire is more natural than anger; because it is from this very generic nature that man is inclined to desire those things which tend to preserve in him the life both of the species and of the individual. If, however, we consider the specific nature, i.e. the nature of this man as a rational being; then anger is more natural to man than desire, in so far as anger follows reason more than desire does. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "revenge" which pertains to anger "is more natural to man than meekness": for it is natural to everything to rise up against things contrary and hurtful. And if we consider the nature of the individual, in respect of his particular temperament, thus anger is more natural than desire; for the reason that anger is prone to ensue from the natural tendency to anger, more than desire, or any other passion, is to ensue from a natural tendency to desire, which tendencies result from a man's individual temperament. Because disposition to anger is due to a bilious temperament; and of all the humors, the bile moves quickest; for it is like fire. Consequently he that is temperamentally disposed to anger is sooner incensed with anger, than he that is temperamentally disposed to desire, is inflamed with desire: and for this reason the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that a disposition to anger is more liable to be transmitted from parent to child, than a disposition to desire.
q. 46 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in homine considerari potest et naturalis complexio ex parte corporis, quae est temperata; et ipsa ratio. Ex parte igitur complexionis corporalis, naturaliter homo, secundum suam speciem, est non habens superexcellentiam neque irae neque alicuius alterius passionis, propter temperamentum suae complexionis. Alia vero animalia, secundum quod recedunt ab hac qualitate complexionis ad dispositionem alicuius complexionis extremae, secundum hoc etiam naturaliter disponuntur ad excessum alicuius passionis, ut leo ad audaciam, canis ad iram, lepus ad timorem, et sic de aliis. Ex parte vero rationis, est naturale homini et irasci et mansuetum esse, secundum quod ratio quodammodo causat iram, inquantum nuntiat causam irae; et quodammodo sedat iram, inquantum iratus non totaliter audit imperium rationis, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. We may consider in man both the natural temperament on the part of the body, and the reason. On the part of the bodily temperament, a man, considered specifically, does not naturally excel others either in anger or in any other passion, on account of the moderation of his temperament. But other animals, for as much as their temperament recedes from this moderation and approaches to an extreme disposition, are naturally disposed to some excess of passion, such as the lion in daring, the hound in anger, the hare in fear, and so forth. On the part of reason, however, it is natural to man, both to be angry and to be gentle: in so far as reason somewhat causes anger, by denouncing the injury which causes anger; and somewhat appeases anger, in so far as the angry man "does not listen perfectly to the command of reason," as stated above (4, ad 3).
q. 46 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ipsa ratio pertinet ad naturam hominis. Unde ex hoc ipso quod ira est cum ratione, sequitur quod secundum aliquem modum sit homini naturalis. Reply to Objection 2. Reason itself belongs to the nature of man: wherefore from the very fact that anger requires an act of reason, it follows that it is, in a manner, natural to man.
q. 46 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de ira et concupiscentia, ex parte obiecti. Reply to Objection 3. This argument regards anger and desire on the part of the object.
q. 46 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira sit gravior quam odium. Dicitur enim Prov. XXVII, quod ira non habet misericordiam, nec erumpens furor. Odium autem quandoque habet misericordiam. Ergo ira est gravior quam odium. Objection 1. It would seem that anger is more grievous than hatred. For it is written (Proverbs 27:4) that "anger hath no mercy, nor fury when it breaketh forth." But hatred sometimes has mercy. Therefore anger is more grievous than hatred.
q. 46 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, maius est pati malum et de malo dolere, quam simpliciter pati. Sed illi qui habet aliquem odio, sufficit quod ille quem odit, patiatur malum, irato autem non sufficit, sed quaerit quod cognoscat illud et de illo doleat, ut dicit philosophus, in II Rhetoric. Ergo ira est gravior quam odium. Objection 2. Further, it is worse to suffer evil and to grieve for it, than merely to suffer it. But when a man hates, he is contented if the object of his hatred suffer evil: whereas the angry man is not satisfied unless the object of his anger know it and be aggrieved thereby, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4). Therefore, anger is more grievous than hatred.
q. 46 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, quanto ad constitutionem alicuius plura concurrunt, tanto videtur esse stabilius, sicut habitus permanentior est qui ex pluribus actibus causatur. Sed ira causatur ex concursu plurium passionum, ut supra dictum est, non autem odium. Ergo ira est stabilior et gravior quam odium. Objection 3. Further, a thing seems to be so much the more firm according as more things concur to set it up: thus a habit is all the more settled through being caused by several acts. But anger is caused by the concurrence of several passions, as stated above (Article 1): whereas hatred is not. Therefore anger is more settled and more grievous than hatred.
q. 46 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in regula, odium comparat trabi, iram vero festucae. On the contrary, Augustine, in his Rule, compares hatred to "a beam," but anger to "a mote."
q. 46 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod species passionis, et ratio ipsius, ex obiecto pensatur. Est autem obiectum irae et odii idem subiecto, nam sicut odiens appetit malum ei quem odit, ita iratus ei contra quem irascitur. Sed non eadem ratione, sed odiens appetit malum inimici, inquantum est malum; iratus autem appetit malum eius contra quem irascitur, non inquantum est malum, sed inquantum habet quandam rationem boni, scilicet prout aestimat illud esse iustum, inquantum est vindicativum. Unde etiam supra dictum est quod odium est per applicationem mali ad malum; ira autem per applicationem boni ad malum. Manifestum est autem quod appetere malum sub ratione iusti, minus habet de ratione mali quam velle malum alicuius simpliciter. Velle enim malum alicuius sub ratione iusti, potest esse etiam secundum virtutem iustitiae, si praecepto rationis obtemperetur, sed ira in hoc solum deficit, quod non obedit rationis praecepto in ulciscendo. Unde manifestum est quod odium est multo deterius et gravius quam ira. I answer that, The species and nature of a passion are taken from its object. Now the object of anger is the same in substance as the object of hatred; since, just as the hater wishes evil to him whom he hates, so does the angry man wish evil to him with whom he is angry. But there is a difference of aspect: for the hater wishes evil to his enemy, as evil, whereas the angry man wishes evil to him with whom he is angry, not as evil but in so far as it has an aspect of good, that is, in so far as he reckons it as just, since it is a means of vengeance. Wherefore also it has been said above (Article 2) that hatred implies application of evil to evil, whereas anger denotes application of good to evil. Now it is evident that to seek evil under the aspect of justice, is a lesser evil, than simply to seek evil to someone. Because to wish evil to someone under the aspect of justice, may be according to the virtue of justice, if it be in conformity with the order of reason; and anger fails only in this, that it does not obey the precept of reason in taking vengeance. Consequently it is evident that hatred is far worse and graver than anger.
q. 46 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in ira et odio duo possunt considerari, scilicet ipsum quod desideratur, et intensio desiderii. Quantum igitur ad id quod desideratur, ira habet magis misericordiam quam odium. Quia enim odium appetit malum alterius secundum se, nulla mensura mali satiatur, ea enim quae secundum se appetuntur, sine mensura appetuntur, ut philosophus dicit I Politic., sicut avarus divitias. Unde dicitur Eccli. XII, inimicus si invenerit tempus, non satiabitur sanguine. Sed ira non appetit malum nisi sub ratione iusti vindicativi. Unde quando malum illatum excedit mensuram iustitiae, secundum aestimationem irascentis, tunc miseretur. Unde philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod iratus, si fiant multa, miserebitur, odiens autem pro nullo. Quantum vero ad intensionem desiderii, ira magis excludit misericordiam quam odium, quia motus irae est impetuosior, propter cholerae inflammationem. Unde statim subditur, impetum concitati spiritus ferre quis poterit? Reply to Objection 1. In anger and hatred two points may be considered: namely, the thing desired, and the intensity of the desire. As to the thing desired, anger has more mercy than hatred has. For since hatred desires another's evil for evil's sake, it is satisfied with no particular measure of evil: because those things that are desired for their own sake, are desired without measure, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 3), instancing a miser with regard to riches. Hence it is written (Sirach 12:16): "An enemy . . . if he find an opportunity, will not be satisfied with blood." Anger, on the other hand, seeks evil only under the aspect of a just means of vengeance. Consequently when the evil inflicted goes beyond the measure of justice according to the estimate of the angry man, then he has mercy. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "the angry man is appeased if many evils befall, whereas the hater is never appeased." As to the intensity of the desire, anger excludes mercy more than hatred does; because the movement of anger is more impetuous, through the heating of the bile. Hence the passage quoted continues: "Who can bear the violence of one provoked?"
q. 46 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, iratus appetit malum alicuius, inquantum habet rationem iusti vindicativi. Vindicta autem fit per illationem poenae. Est autem de ratione poenae quod sit contraria voluntati, et quod sit afflictiva, et quod pro aliqua culpa inferatur. Et ideo iratus hoc appetit, ut ille cui nocumentum infert, percipiat, et doleat, et quod cognoscat propter iniuriam illatam sibi hoc provenire. Sed odiens de hoc nihil curat, quia appetit malum alterius inquantum huiusmodi. Non est autem verum quod id de quo quis tristatur, sit peius, iniustitia enim et imprudentia, cum sint mala, quia tamen sunt voluntaria, non contristant eos quibus insunt, ut dicit philosophus, in II Rhetoric. Reply to Objection 2. As stated above, an angry man wishes evil to someone, in so far as this evil is a means of just vengeance. Now vengeance is wrought by the infliction of a punishment: and the nature of punishment consists in being contrary to the will, painful, and inflicted for some fault. Consequently an angry man desires this, that the person whom he is hurting, may feel it and be in pain, and know that this has befallen him on account of the harm he has done the other. The hater, on the other hand, cares not for all this, since he desires another's evil as such. It is not true, however, that an evil is worse through giving pain: because "injustice and imprudence, although evil," yet, being voluntary, "do not grieve those in whom they are," as the Philosopher observes (Rhet. ii, 4).
q. 46 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod id quod ex pluribus causis causatur, tunc est stabilius, quando causae accipiuntur unius rationis, sed una causa potest praevalere multis aliis. Odium autem provenit ex permanentiori causa quam ira. Nam ira provenit ex aliqua commotione animi propter laesionem illatam, sed odium procedit ex aliqua dispositione hominis, secundum quam reputat sibi contrarium et nocivum id quod odit. Et ideo sicut passio citius transit quam dispositio vel habitus, ita ira citius transit quam odium; quamvis etiam odium sit passio ex tali dispositione proveniens. Et propter hoc philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod odium est magis insanabile quam ira. Reply to Objection 3. That which proceeds from several causes, is more settled when these causes are of one kind: but it may be that one cause prevails over many others. Now hatred ensues from a more lasting cause than anger does. Because anger arises from an emotion of the soul due to the wrong inflicted; whereas hatred ensues from a disposition in a man, by reason of which he considers that which he hates to be contrary and hurtful to him. Consequently, as passion is more transitory than disposition or habit, so anger is less lasting than hatred; although hatred itself is a passion ensuing from this disposition. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "hatred is more incurable than anger."
q. 46 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira non solum sit ad illos ad quos est iustitia. Non enim est iustitia hominis ad res irrationales. Sed tamen homo quandoque irascitur rebus irrationalibus, puta cum scriptor ex ira proiicit pennam, vel eques percutit equum. Ergo ira non solum est ad illos ad quos est iustitia. Objection 1. It would seem that anger is not only towards those to whom one has an obligation of justice. For there is no justice between man and irrational beings. And yet sometimes one is angry with irrational beings; thus, out of anger, a writer throws away his pen, or a rider strikes his horse. Therefore anger is not only towards those to whom one has an obligation of justice.
q. 46 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, non est iustitia hominis ad seipsum, nec ad ea quae sui ipsius sunt, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Sed homo quandoque sibi ipsi irascitur, sicut poenitens propter peccatum, unde dicitur in Psalmo IV, irascimini, et nolite peccare. Ergo ira non solum est ad quos est iustitia. Objection 2. Further, "there is no justice towards oneself . . . nor is there justice towards one's own" (Ethic. v, 6). But sometimes a man is angry with himself; for instance, a penitent, on account of his sin; hence it is written (Psalm 4:5): "Be ye angry and sin not." Therefore anger is not only towards those with whom one has a relation of justice.
q. 46 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, iustitia et iniustitia potest esse alicuius ad totum aliquod genus, vel ad totam aliquam communitatem, puta cum civitas aliquem laesit. Sed ira non est ad aliquod genus, sed solum ad aliquod singularium, ut dicit philosophus, in II Rhetoric. Ergo ira non proprie est ad quos est iustitia et iniustitia. Objection 3. Further, justice and injustice can be of one man towards an entire class, or a whole community: for instance, when the state injures an individual. But anger is not towards a class but only towards an individual, as the Philosopher states (Rhet. ii, 4). Therefore properly speaking, anger is not towards those with whom one is in relation of justice or injustice.
q. 46 a. 7 s. c. Sed contrarium accipi potest a philosopho in II Rhetoric. The contrary, however, may be gathered from the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 2,3).
q. 46 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ira appetit malum, inquantum habet rationem iusti vindicativi. Et ideo ad eosdem est ira, ad quos est iustitia et iniustitia. Nam inferre vindictam ad iustitiam pertinet, laedere autem aliquem pertinet ad iniustitiam. Unde tam ex parte causae, quae est laesio illata ab altero; quam etiam ex parte vindictae, quam appetit iratus; manifestum est quod ad eosdem pertinet ira, ad quos iustitia et iniustitia. I answer that, As stated above (Article 6), anger desires evil as being a means of just vengeance. Consequently, anger is towards those to whom we are just or unjust: since vengeance is an act of justice, and wrong-doing is an act of injustice. Therefore both on the part of the cause, viz. the harm done by another, and on the part of the vengeance sought by the angry man, it is evident that anger concerns those to whom one is just or unjust.
q. 46 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ira, quamvis sit cum ratione, potest tamen etiam esse in brutis animalibus, quae ratione carent, inquantum naturali instinctu per imaginationem moventur ad aliquid simile operibus rationis. Sic igitur, cum in homine sit et ratio et imaginatio, dupliciter in homine potest motus irae insurgere. Uno modo, ex sola imaginatione nuntiante laesionem. Et sic insurgit aliquis motus irae etiam ad res irrationales et inanimatas, secundum similitudinem illius motus qui est in animalibus contra quodlibet nocivum. Alio modo, ex ratione nuntiante laesionem. Et sic, ut philosophus dicit II Rhetoric., nullo modo potest esse ira ad res insensibiles, neque ad mortuos. Tum quia non dolent, quod maxime quaerunt irati in eis quibus irascuntur. Tum etiam quia non est ad eos vindicta, cum eorum non sit iniuriam facere. Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (4, ad 2), anger, though it follows an act of reason, can nevertheless be in dumb animals that are devoid of reason, in so far as through their natural instinct they are moved by their imagination to something like rational action. Since then in man there is both reason and imagination, the movement of anger can be aroused in man in two ways. First, when only his imagination denounces the injury: and, in this way, man is aroused to a movement of anger even against irrational and inanimate beings, which movement is like that which occurs in animals against anything that injures them. Secondly, by the reason denouncing the injury: and thus, according to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 3), "it is impossible to be angry with insensible things, or with the dead": both because they feel no pain, which is, above all, what the angry man seeks in those with whom he is angry: and because there is no question of vengeance on them, since they can do us no harm.
q. 46 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit in V Ethic., quaedam metaphorica iustitia et iniustitia est hominis ad seipsum, inquantum scilicet ratio regit irascibilem et concupiscibilem. Et secundum hoc etiam homo dicitur de seipso vindictam facere, et per consequens sibi ipsi irasci. Proprie autem et per se, non contingit aliquem sibi ipsi irasci. Reply to Objection 2. As the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 11), "metaphorically speaking there is a certain justice and injustice between a man and himself," in so far as the reason rules the irascible and concupiscible parts of the soul. And in this sense a man is said to be avenged on himself, and consequently, to be angry with himself. But properly, and in accordance with the nature of things, a man is never angry with himself.
q. 46 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod philosophus, in II Rhetoric., assignat unam differentiam inter odium et iram, quod odium potest esse ad aliquod genus, sicut habemus odio omne latronum genus, sed ira non est nisi ad aliquod singulare. Cuius ratio est, quia odium causatur ex hoc quod qualitas alicuius rei apprehenditur ut dissonans nostrae dispositioni, et hoc potest esse vel in universali, vel in particulari. Sed ira causatur ex hoc quod aliquis nos laesit per suum actum. Actus autem omnes sunt singularium. Et ideo ira semper est circa aliquod singulare. Cum autem tota civitas nos laeserit, tota civitas computatur sicut unum singulare. Reply to Objection 3. The Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 4) assigns as one difference between hatred and anger, that "hatred may be felt towards a class, as we hate the entire class of thieves; whereas anger is directed only towards an individual." The reason is that hatred arises from our considering a quality as disagreeing with our disposition; and this may refer to a thing in general or in particular. Anger, on the other hand, ensues from someone having injured us by his action. Now all actions are the deeds of individuals: and consequently anger is always pointed at an individual. When the whole state hurts us, the whole state is reckoned as one individual [Cf. 29, 6].
q. 46 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Damascenus inconvenienter assignet tres species irae, scilicet fel, maniam et furorem. Nullius enim generis species diversificantur secundum aliquod accidens. Sed ista tria diversificantur secundum aliquod accidens, principium enim motus irae fel vocatur; ira autem permanens dicitur mania; furor autem est ira observans tempus in vindictam. Ergo non sunt diversae species irae. Objection 1. It would seem that Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) unsuitably assigns three species of anger--"wrath," "ill-will" and "rancor." For no genus derives its specific differences from accidents. But these three are diversified in respect of an accident: because "the beginning of the movement of anger is called wrath cholos, if anger continue it is called ill-will menis; while rancor kotos is anger waiting for an opportunity of vengeance." Therefore these are not different species of anger.
q. 46 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, Tullius, in IV de Tusculanis quaest., dicit quod excandescentia Graece dicitur thymosis; et est ira modo nascens et modo desistens. Thymosis autem secundum Damascenum, est idem quod furor. Non ergo furor tempus quaerit ad vindictam, sed tempore deficit. Objection 2. Further, Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that "excandescentia [irascibility] is what the Greeks call thymosis, and is a kind of anger that arises and subsides intermittently"; while according to Damascene thymosis, is the same as the Greek kotos [rancor]. Therefore kotos does not bide its time for taking vengeance, but in course of time spends itself.
q. 46 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, Gregorius, XXI Moral., ponit tres gradus irae, scilicet iram sine voce, et iram cum voce, et iram cum verbo expresso, secundum illa tria quae dominus ponit Matth. V, qui irascitur fratri suo, ubi tangitur ira sine voce; et postea subdit, qui dixerit fratri suo, raca, ubi tangitur ira cum voce, sed necdum pleno verbo formata; et postea dicit, qui autem dixerit fratri suo, fatue, ubi expletur vox perfectione sermonis. Ergo insufficienter divisit Damascenus iram, nihil ponens ex parte vocis. Objection 3. Further, Gregory (Moral. xxi, 4) gives three degrees of anger, namely, "anger without utterance, anger with utterance, and anger with perfection of speech," corresponding to the three degrees mentioned by Our Lord (Matthew 5:22): "Whosoever is angry with his brother" [thus implying "anger without utterance"], and then, "whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca'" [implying "anger with utterance yet without full expression"], and lastly, "whosoever shall say 'Thou fool'" [where we have "perfection of speech"]. Therefore Damascene's division is imperfect, since it takes no account of utterance.
q. 46 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est auctoritas Damasceni et Gregorii Nysseni. On the contrary, stands the authority of Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxi.].
q. 46 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod tres species irae quas Damascenus ponit, et etiam Gregorius Nyssenus, sumuntur secundum ea quae dant irae aliquod augmentum. Quod quidem contingit tripliciter. Uno modo, ex facilitate ipsius motus, et talem iram vocat fel, quia cito accenditur. Alio modo, ex parte tristitiae causantis iram, quae diu in memoria manet, et haec pertinet ad maniam, quae a manendo dicitur. Tertio, ex parte eius quod iratus appetit, scilicet vindictae, et haec pertinet ad furorem, qui nunquam quiescit donec puniat. Unde philosophus, in IV Ethic., quosdam irascentium vocat acutos, quia cito irascuntur; quosdam amaros, quia diu retinent iram; quosdam difficiles, quia nunquam quiescunt nisi puniant. I answer that, The species of anger given by Damascene and Gregory of Nyssa are taken from those things which give increase to anger. This happens in three ways. First from facility of the movement itself, and he calls this kind of anger cholos [bile] because it quickly aroused. Secondly, on the part of the grief that causes anger, and which dwells some time in the memory; this belongs to menis [ill-will] which is derived from menein [to dwell]. Thirdly, on the part of that which the angry man seeks, viz. vengeance; and this pertains to kotos [rancor] which never rests until it is avenged [Ephesians 4:31: "Let all bitterness and anger and indignation . . . be put away from you."]. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5) calls some angry persons akrocholoi [choleric], because they are easily angered; some he calls pikroi [bitter], because they retain their anger for a long time; and some he calls chalepoi [ill-tempered], because they never rest until they have retaliated [Cf. II-II, 158, 5].
q. 46 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnia illa per quae ira recipit aliquam perfectionem, non omnino per accidens se habent ad iram. Et ideo nihil prohibet secundum ea species irae assignari. Reply to Objection 1. All those things which give anger some kind of perfection are not altogether accidental to anger; and consequently nothing prevents them from causing a certain specific difference thereof.
q. 46 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod excandescentia, quam Tullius ponit, magis videtur pertinere ad primam speciem irae, quae perficitur secundum velocitatem irae, quam ad furorem. Nihil autem prohibet ut thymosis Graece, quod Latine furor dicitur, utrumque importet, et velocitatem ad irascendum et firmitatem propositi ad puniendum. Reply to Objection 2. Irascibility, which Cicero mentions, seems to pertain to the first species of anger, which consists in a certain quickness of temper, rather than to rancor [furor]. And there is no reason why the Greek thymosis, which is denoted by the Latin "furor," should not signify both quickness to anger, and firmness of purpose in being avenged.
q. 46 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod gradus illi irae distinguuntur secundum effectum irae, non autem secundum diversam perfectionem ipsius motus irae. Reply to Objection 3. These degrees are distinguished according to various effects of anger; and not according to degrees of perfection in the very movement of anger.
q. 47 pr. Deinde considerandum est de causa effectiva irae, et de remediis eius. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum semper motivum irae sit aliquid factum contra eum qui irascitur. Secundo, utrum sola parvipensio vel despectio sit motivum irae. Tertio, de causa irae ex parte irascentis. Quarto, de causa irae ex parte eius contra quem aliquis irascitur. Question 47. The cause that provokes anger, and the remedies of anger Is the motive of anger always something done against the one who is angry? Is slight or contempt the sole motive of anger? The cause of anger on the part of the angry person The cause of anger on the part of the person with whom one is angry
q. 47 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non semper aliquis irascatur propter aliquid contra se factum. Homo enim, peccando, nihil contra Deum facere potest, dicitur enim Iob XXXV, si multiplicatae fuerint iniquitates tuae, quid facies contra illum? Dicitur tamen Deus irasci contra homines propter peccata; secundum illud Psalmi CV, iratus est furore dominus in populum suum. Ergo non semper aliquis irascitur propter aliquid contra se factum. Objection 1. It would seem that the motive of anger is not always something done against the one who is angry. Because man, by sinning, can do nothing against God; since it is written (Job 35:6): "If thy iniquities be multiplied, what shalt thou do against Him?" And yet God is spoken of as being angry with man on account of sin, according to Psalm 105:40: "The Lord was exceedingly angry with His people." Therefore it is not always on account of something done against him, that a man is angry.
q. 47 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, ira est appetitus vindictae. Sed aliquis appetit vindictam facere etiam de his quae contra alios fiunt. Ergo non semper motivum irae est aliquid contra nos factum. Objection 2. Further, anger is a desire for vengeance. But one may desire vengeance for things done against others. Therefore we are not always angry on account of something done against us.
q. 47 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., homines irascuntur praecipue contra eos qui despiciunt ea circa quae ipsi maxime student, sicut qui student in philosophia, irascuntur contra eos qui philosophiam despiciunt, et simile est in aliis. Sed despicere philosophiam non est nocere ipsi studenti. Non ergo semper irascimur propter id quod contra nos fit. Objection 3. Further, as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) man is angry especially with those "who despise what he takes a great interest in; thus men who study philosophy are angry with those who despise philosophy," and so forth. But contempt of philosophy does not harm the philosopher. Therefore it is not always a harm done to us that makes us angry.
q. 47 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, ille qui tacet contra contumeliantem, magis ipsum ad iram provocat, ut dicit Chrysostomus. Sed in hoc contra ipsum nihil agit, quod tacet. Ergo non semper ira alicuius provocatur propter aliquid quod contra ipsum fit. Objection 4. Further, he that holds his tongue when another insults him, provokes him to greater anger, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. xxii, in Ep. ad Rom.). But by holding his tongue he does the other no harm. Therefore a man is not always provoked to anger by something done against him.
q. 47 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod ira fit semper ex his quae ad seipsum. Inimicitia autem et sine his quae ad ipsum, si enim putemus talem esse odimus. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that "anger is always due to something done to oneself: whereas hatred may arise without anything being done to us, for we hate a man simply because we think him such."
q. 47 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ira est appetitus nocendi alteri sub ratione iusti vindicativi. Vindicta autem locum non habet nisi ubi praecessit iniuria. Nec iniuria omnis ad vindictam provocat, sed illa sola quae ad eum pertinet qui appetit vindictam, sicut enim unumquodque naturaliter appetit proprium bonum, ita etiam naturaliter repellit proprium malum. Iniuria autem ab aliquo facta non pertinet ad aliquem, nisi aliquid fecerit quod aliquo modo sit contra ipsum. Unde sequitur quod motivum irae alicuius semper sit aliquid contra ipsum factum. I answer that, As stated above (Question 46, Article 6), anger is the desire to hurt another for the purpose of just vengeance. Now unless some injury has been done, there is no question of vengeance: nor does any injury provoke one to vengeance, but only that which is done to the person who seeks vengeance: for just as everything naturally seeks its own good, so does it naturally repel its own evil. But injury done by anyone does not affect a man unless in some way it be something done against him. Consequently the motive of a man's anger is always something done against him.
q. 47 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ira non dicitur in Deo secundum passionem animi, sed secundum iudicium iustitiae, prout vult vindictam facere de peccato. Peccator enim, peccando, Deo nihil nocere effective potest, tamen ex parte sua dupliciter contra Deum agit. Primo quidem, inquantum eum in suis mandatis contemnit. Secundo, inquantum nocumentum aliquod infert alicui, vel sibi vel alteri, quod ad Deum pertinet, prout ille cui nocumentum infertur, sub Dei providentia et tutela continetur. Reply to Objection 1. We speak of anger in God, not as of a passion of the soul but as of judgment of justice, inasmuch as He wills to take vengeance on sin. Because the sinner, by sinning, cannot do God any actual harm: but so far as he himself is concerned, he acts against God in two ways. First, in so far as he despises God in His commandments. Secondly, in so far as he harms himself or another; which injury redounds to God, inasmuch as the person injured is an object of God's providence and protection.
q. 47 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod irascimur contra illos qui aliis nocent et vindictam appetimus, inquantum illi quibus nocetur, aliquo modo ad nos pertinent, vel per aliquam affinitatem, vel per amicitiam, vel saltem per communionem naturae. Reply to Objection 2. If we are angry with those who harm others, and seek to be avenged on them, it is because those who are injured belong in some way to us: either by some kinship or friendship, or at least because of the nature we have in common.
q. 47 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod id in quo maxime studemus, reputamus esse bonum nostrum. Et ideo, cum illud despicitur, reputamus nos quoque despici, et arbitramur nos laesos. Reply to Objection 3. When we take a very great interest in a thing, we look upon it as our own good; so that if anyone despise it, it seems as though we ourselves were despised and injured.
q. 47 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod tunc aliquis tacens ad iram provocat iniuriantem, quando videtur ex contemptu tacere, quasi parvipendat alterius iram. Ipsa autem parvipensio quidam actus est. Reply to Objection 4. Silence provokes the insulter to anger when he thinks it is due to contempt, as though his anger were slighted: and a slight is an action.
q. 47 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sola parvipensio vel despectio sit motivum irae. Dicit enim Damascenus quod iniuriam passi, vel aestimantes pati, irascimur. Sed homo potest iniuriam pati etiam absque despectu vel parvipensione. Ergo non sola parvipensio est irae motivum. Objection 1. It would seem that slight or contempt is not the sole motive of anger. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) that we are angry "when we suffer, or think that we are suffering, an injury." But one may suffer an injury without being despised or slighted. Therefore a slight is not the only motive of anger.
q. 47 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, eiusdem est appetere honorem, et contristari de parvipensione. Sed bruta animalia non appetunt honorem. Ergo non contristantur de parvipensione. Et tamen in eis provocatur ira propter hoc quod vulnerantur, ut dicit philosophus, in III Ethic. Ergo non sola parvipensio videtur esse motivum irae. Objection 2. Further, desire for honor and grief for a slight belong to the same subject. But dumb animals do not desire honor. Therefore they are not grieved by being slighted. And yet "they are roused to anger, when wounded," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8). Therefore a slight is not the sole motive of anger.
q. 47 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus, in II Rhetoric., ponit multas alias causas irae, puta oblivionem, et exultationem in infortuniis, denuntiationem malorum, impedimentum consequendae propriae voluntatis. Non ergo sola parvipensio est provocativum irae. Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 2) gives many other causes of anger, for instance, "being forgotten by others; that others should rejoice in our misfortunes; that they should make known our evils; being hindered from doing as we like." Therefore being slighted is not the only motive for being angry.
q. 47 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod ira est appetitus cum tristitia punitionis, propter apparentem parvipensionem non convenienter factam. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that anger is "a desire, with sorrow, for vengeance, on account of a seeming slight done unbecomingly."
q. 47 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod omnes causae irae reducuntur ad parvipensionem. Sunt enim tres species parvipensionis, ut dicitur in II Rhetoric., scilicet despectus, epereasmus, idest impedimentum voluntatis implendae, et contumeliatio, et ad haec tria omnia motiva irae reducuntur. Cuius ratio potest accipi duplex. Prima est, quia ira appetit nocumentum alterius, inquantum habet rationem iusti vindicativi, et ideo intantum quaerit vindictam, inquantum videtur esse iusta. Iusta autem vindicta non fit nisi de eo quod est iniuste factum, et ideo provocativum ad iram semper est aliquid sub ratione iniusti. Unde dicit philosophus, in II Rhetoric., quod si homines putaverint eos qui laeserunt, esse iuste passos, non irascuntur, non enim fit ira ad iustum. Contingit autem tripliciter nocumentum alicui inferri, scilicet ex ignorantia, ex passione, et ex electione. Tunc autem aliquis maxime iniustum facit, quando ex electione vel industria, vel ex certa malitia nocumentum infert, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Et ideo maxime irascimur contra illos quos putamus ex industria nobis nocuisse. Si enim putemus aliquos vel per ignorantiam, vel ex passione nobis intulisse iniuriam, vel non irascimur contra eos, vel multo minus, agere enim aliquid ex ignorantia vel ex passione, diminuit rationem iniuriae, et est quodammodo provocativum misericordiae et veniae. Illi autem qui ex industria nocumentum inferunt, ex contemptu peccare videntur, et ideo contra eos maxime irascimur. Unde philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod his qui propter iram aliquid fecerunt, aut non irascimur, aut minus irascimur, non enim propter parvipensionem videntur egisse. Secunda ratio est, quia parvipensio excellentiae hominis opponitur, quae enim homines putant nullo digna esse, parvipendunt, ut dicitur in II Rhetoric. Ex omnibus autem bonis nostris aliquam excellentiam quaerimus. Et ideo quodcumque nocumentum nobis inferatur, inquantum excellentiae derogat, videtur ad parvipensionem pertinere. I answer that, All the causes of anger are reduced to slight. For slight is of three kinds, as stated in Rhet. ii, 2, viz. "contempt," "despiteful treatment," i.e. hindering one from doing one's will, and "insolence": and all motives of anger are reduced to these three. Two reasons may be assigned for this. First, because anger seeks another's hurt as being a means of just vengeance: wherefore it seeks vengeance in so far as it seems just. Now just vengeance is taken only for that which is done unjustly; hence that which provokes anger is always something considered in the light of an injustice. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "men are not angry--if they think they have wronged some one and are suffering justly on that account; because there is no anger at what is just." Now injury is done to another in three ways: namely, through ignorance, through passion, and through choice. Then, most of all, a man does an injustice, when he does an injury from choice, on purpose, or from deliberate malice, as stated in Ethic. v, 8. Wherefore we are most of all angry with those who, in our opinion, have hurt us on purpose. For if we think that some one has done us an injury through ignorance or through passion, either we are not angry with them at all, or very much less: since to do anything through ignorance or through passion takes away from the notion of injury, and to a certain extent calls for mercy and forgiveness. Those, on the other hand, who do an injury on purpose, seem to sin from contempt; wherefore we are angry with them most of all. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "we are either not angry at all, or not very angry with those who have acted through anger, because they do not seem to have acted slightingly." The second reason is because a slight is opposed to a man's excellence: because "men think little of things that are not worth much ado" (Rhet. ii, 2). Now we seek for some kind of excellence from all our goods. Consequently whatever injury is inflicted on us, in so far as it is derogatory to our excellence, seems to savor of a slight.
q. 47 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex quacumque alia causa aliquis iniuriam patiatur quam ex contemptu, illa causa minuit rationem iniuriae. Sed solus contemptus, vel parvipensio, rationem irae auget. Et ideo est per se causa irascendi. Reply to Objection 1. Any other cause, besides contempt, through which a man suffers an injury, takes away from the notion of injury: contempt or slight alone adds to the motive of anger, and consequently is of itself the cause of anger.
q. 47 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet animal brutum non appetat honorem sub ratione honoris, appetit tamen naturaliter quandam excellentiam, et irascitur contra ea quae illi excellentiae derogant. Reply to Objection 2. Although a dumb animal does not seek honor as such, yet it naturally seeks a certain superiority, and is angry with anything derogatory thereto.
q. 47 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnes illae causae ad quandam parvipensionem reducuntur. Oblivio enim parvipensionis est evidens signum, ea enim quae magna aestimamus, magis memoriae infigimus. Similiter ex quadam parvipensione est quod aliquis non vereatur contristare aliquem, denuntiando sibi aliqua tristia. Qui etiam in infortuniis alicuius hilaritatis signa ostendit, videtur parum curare de bono vel malo eius. Similiter etiam qui impedit aliquem a sui propositi assecutione, non propter aliquam utilitatem sibi inde provenientem, non videtur multum curare de amicitia eius. Et ideo omnia talia, inquantum sunt signa contemptus, sunt provocativa irae. Reply to Objection 3. Each of those causes amounts to some kind of slight. Thus forgetfulness is a clear sign of slight esteem, for the more we think of a thing the more is it fixed in our memory. Again if a man does not hesitate by his remarks to give pain to another, this seems to show that he thinks little of him: and those too who show signs of hilarity when another is in misfortune, seem to care little about his good or evil. Again he that hinders another from carrying out his will, without deriving thereby any profit to himself, seems not to care much for his friendship. Consequently all those things, in so far as they are signs of contempt, provoke anger.
q. 47 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod excellentia alicuius non sit causa quod facilius irascatur. Dicit enim philosophus, in II Rhetoric., quod maxime aliqui irascuntur cum tristantur, ut infirmi, et egentes, et qui non habent id quod concupiscunt. Sed omnia ista ad defectum pertinere videntur. Ergo magis facit pronum ad iram defectus quam excellentia. Objection 1. It would seem that a man's excellence is not the cause of his being more easily angry. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "some are angry especially when they are grieved, for instance, the sick, the poor, and those who are disappointed." But these things seem to pertain to defect. Therefore defect rather than excellence makes one prone to anger.
q. 47 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit ibidem quod tunc aliqui maxime irascuntur, quando in eis despicitur id de quo potest esse suspicio quod vel non insit eis, vel quod insit eis debiliter, sed cum putant se multum excellere in illis in quibus despiciuntur, non curant. Sed praedicta suspicio ex defectu provenit. Ergo defectus est magis causa quod aliquis irascatur, quam excellentia. Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "some are very much inclined to be angry when they are despised for some failing or weakness of the existence of which there are grounds for suspicion; but if they think they excel in those points, they do not trouble." But a suspicion of this kind is due to some defect. Therefore defect rather than excellence is a cause of a man being angry.
q. 47 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, ea quae ad excellentiam pertinent, maxime faciunt homines iucundos et bonae spei esse. Sed philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod in ludo, in risu, in festo, in prosperitate, in consummatione operum, in delectatione non turpi, et in spe optima, homines non irascuntur. Ergo excellentia non est causa irae. Objection 3. Further, whatever savors of excellence makes a man agreeable and hopeful. But the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "men are not angry when they play, make jokes, or take part in a feast, nor when they are prosperous or successful, nor in moderate pleasures and well-founded hope." Therefore excellence is not a cause of anger.
q. 47 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in eodem libro, dicit quod homines propter excellentiam indignantur. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 9) that excellence makes men prone to anger.
q. 47 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod causa irae in eo qui irascitur, dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, secundum habitudinem ad motivum irae. Et sic excellentia est causa ut aliquis de facili irascatur. Est enim motivum irae iniusta parvipensio, ut dictum est. Constat autem quod quanto aliquis est excellentior, iniustius parvipenditur in hoc in quo excellit. Et ideo illi qui sunt in aliqua excellentia, maxime irascuntur, si parvipendantur, puta si dives parvipenditur in pecunia, et rhetor in loquendo, et sic de aliis. Alio modo potest considerari causa irae in eo qui irascitur, ex parte dispositionis quae in eo relinquitur ex tali motivo. Manifestum est autem quod nihil movet ad iram, nisi nocumentum quod contristat. Ea autem quae ad defectum pertinent, maxime sunt contristantia, quia homines defectibus subiacentes facilius laeduntur. Et ista est causa quare homines qui sunt infirmi, vel in aliis defectibus, facilius irascuntur, quia facilius contristantur. I answer that, The cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be taken in two ways. First in respect of the motive of anger: and thus excellence is the cause of a man being easily angered. Because the motive of anger is an unjust slight, as stated above (Article 2). Now it is evident that the more excellent a man is, the more unjust is a slight offered him in the matter in which he excels. Consequently those who excel in any matter, are most of all angry, if they be slighted in that matter; for instance, a wealthy man in his riches, or an orator in his eloquence, and so forth. Secondly, the cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be considered on the part of the disposition produced in him by the motive aforesaid. Now it is evident that nothing moves a man to anger except a hurt that grieves him: while whatever savors of defect is above all a cause of grief; since men who suffer from some defect are more easily hurt. And this is why men who are weak, or subject to some other defect, are more easily angered, since they are more easily grieved.
q. 47 a. 3 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum. This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
q. 47 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui despicitur in eo in quo manifeste multum excellit, non reputat se aliquam iacturam pati, et ideo non contristatur, et ex hac parte minus irascitur. Sed ex alia parte, inquantum indignius despicitur, habet maiorem rationem irascendi. Nisi forte reputet se non invideri vel subsannari propter despectum; sed propter ignorantiam, vel propter aliud huiusmodi. Reply to Objection 2. If a man be despised in a matter in which he evidently excels greatly, he does not consider himself the loser thereby, and therefore is not grieved: and in this respect he is less angered. But in another respect, in so far as he is more undeservedly despised, he has more reason for being angry: unless perhaps he thinks that he is envied or insulted not through contempt but through ignorance, or some other like cause.
q. 47 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnia illa impediunt iram, inquantum impediunt tristitiam. Sed ex alia parte, nata sunt provocare iram, secundum quod faciunt hominem inconvenientius despici. Reply to Objection 3. All these things hinder anger in so far as they hinder sorrow. But in another respect they are naturally apt to provoke anger, because they make it more unseemly to insult anyone.
q. 47 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod defectus alicuius non sit causa ut contra ipsum facilius irascamur. Dicit enim philosophus, in II Rhetoric., quod his qui confitentur et poenitent et humiliantur, non irascimur, sed magis ad eos mitescimus. Unde et canes non mordent eos qui resident. Sed haec pertinent ad parvitatem et defectum. Ergo parvitas alicuius est causa ut ei minus irascamur. Objection 1. It would seem that a person's defect is not a reason for being more easily angry with him. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "we are not angry with those who confess and repent and humble themselves; on the contrary, we are gentle with them. Wherefore dogs bite not those who sit down." But these things savor of littleness and defect. Therefore littleness of a person is a reason for being less angry with him.
q. 47 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus est maior defectus quam mortis. Sed ad mortuos desinit ira. Ergo defectus alicuius non est causa provocativa irae contra ipsum. Objection 2. Further, there is no greater defect than death. But anger ceases at the sight of death. Therefore defect of a person does not provoke anger against him.
q. 47 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullus aestimat aliquem parvum ex hoc quod est sibi amicus. Sed ad amicos, si nos offenderint, vel si non iuverint, magis offendimur, unde dicitur in Psalmo LIV, si inimicus meus maledixisset mihi, sustinuissem utique. Ergo defectus alicuius non est causa ut contra ipsum facilius irascamur. Objection 3. Further, no one thinks little of a man through his being friendly towards him. But we are more angry with friends, if they offend us or refuse to help us; hence it is written (Psalm 54:13): "If my enemy had reviled me I would verily have borne with it." Therefore a person's defect is not a reason for being more easily angry with him.
q. 47 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod dives irascitur contra pauperem, si eum despiciat; et principans contra subiectum. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "the rich man is angry with the poor man, if the latter despise him; and in like manner the prince is angry with his subject."
q. 47 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, indigna despectio est maxime provocativa irae. Defectus igitur vel parvitas eius contra quem irascimur, facit ad augmentum irae, inquantum auget indignam despectionem. Sicut enim quanto aliquis est maior, tanto indignius despicitur; ita quanto aliquis est minor, tanto indignius despicit. Et ideo nobiles irascuntur si despiciantur a rusticis, vel sapientes ab insipientibus, vel domini a servis. Si vero parvitas vel defectus diminuat despectionem indignam, talis parvitas non auget, sed diminuit iram. Et hoc modo illi qui poenitent de iniuriis factis, et confitentur se male fecisse, et humiliantur et veniam petunt, mitigant iram, secundum illud Prov. XV, responsio mollis frangit iram, inquantum scilicet tales videntur non despicere, sed magis magnipendere eos quibus se humiliant. I answer that, As stated above (2,3) unmerited contempt more than anything else is a provocative of anger. Consequently deficiency or littleness in the person with whom we are angry, tends to increase our anger, in so far as it adds to the unmeritedness of being despised. For just as the higher a man's position is, the more undeservedly he is despised; so the lower it is, the less reason he has for despising. Thus a nobleman is angry if he be insulted by a peasant; a wise man, if by a fool; a master, if by a servant. If, however, the littleness or deficiency lessens the unmerited contempt, then it does not increase but lessens anger. In this way those who repent of their ill-deeds, and confess that they have done wrong, who humble themselves and ask pardon, mitigate anger, according to Proverbs 15:1: "A mild answer breaketh wrath": because, to wit, they seem not to despise, but rather to think much of those before whom they humble themselves.
q. 47 a. 4 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum. This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
q. 47 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod duplex est causa quare ad mortuos cessat ira. Una, quia non possunt dolere et sentire, quod maxime quaerunt irati in his quibus irascuntur. Alio modo, quia iam videntur ad ultimum malorum pervenisse. Unde etiam ad quoscumque graviter laesos cessat ira, inquantum eorum malum excedit mensuram iustae retributionis. Reply to Objection 2. There are two reasons why anger ceases at the sight of death. One is because the dead are incapable of sorrow and sensation; and this is chiefly what the angry seek in those with whom they are angered. Another reason is because the dead seem to have attained to the limit of evils. Hence anger ceases in regard to all who are grievously hurt, in so far as this hurt surpasses the measure of just retaliation.
q. 47 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam despectio quae est ab amicis, videtur esse magis indigna. Et ideo ex simili causa magis irascimur contra eos, si despiciant, vel nocendo vel non iuvando, sicut et contra minores. Reply to Objection 3. To be despised by one's friends seems also a greater indignity. Consequently if they despise us by hurting or by failing to help, we are angry with them for the same reason for which we are angry with those who are beneath us.
q. 48 pr. Deinde considerandum est de effectibus irae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum ira causet delectationem. Secundo, utrum maxime causet fervorem in corde. Tertio, utrum maxime impediat rationis usum. Quarto, utrum causet taciturnitatem. Question 48. The effects of anger Does anger cause pleasure? Does it cause heat in the heart above all? Does it hinder the use of reason above all? Does it cause taciturnity?
q. 48 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira non causet delectationem. Tristitia enim delectationem excludit. Sed ira est semper cum tristitia, quia, ut dicitur in VII Ethic., omnis qui facit aliquid per iram, facit tristatus. Ergo ira non causat delectationem. Objection 1. It would seem that anger does not cause pleasure. Because sorrow excludes pleasure. But anger is never without sorrow, since, as stated in Ethic. vii, 6, "everyone that acts from anger, acts with pain." Therefore anger does not cause pleasure.
q. 48 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod punitio quietat impetum irae, delectationem pro tristitia faciens, ex quo potest accipi quod delectatio irato provenit ex punitione, punitio autem excludit iram. Ergo, adveniente delectatione, ira tollitur. Non est ergo effectus delectationi coniunctus. Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "vengeance makes anger to cease, because it substitutes pleasure for pain": whence we may gather that the angry man derives pleasure from vengeance, and that vengeance quells his anger. Therefore on the advent of pleasure, anger departs: and consequently anger is not an effect united with pleasure.
q. 48 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, nullus effectus impedit causam suam, cum sit suae causae conformis. Sed delectationes impediunt iram, ut dicitur in II Rhetoric. Ergo delectatio non est effectus irae. Objection 3. Further, no effect hinders its cause, since it is conformed to its cause. But pleasure hinders anger as stated in Rhet. ii, 3. Therefore pleasure is not an effect of anger.
q. 48 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod philosophus, in eodem libro, inducit proverbium, quod ira multo dulcior melle distillante in pectoribus virorum crescit. On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5) quotes the saying that anger is "Sweet to the soul as honey to the taste" (Iliad, xviii, 109 [trl. Pope]).
q. 48 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit in VII Ethic., delectationes, maxime sensibiles et corporales, sunt medicinae quaedam contra tristitiam, et ideo quanto per delectationem contra maiorem tristitiam vel anxietatem remedium praestatur, tanto delectatio magis percipitur; sicut patet quod quando aliquis sitit, delectabilior fit ei potus. Manifestum est autem ex praedictis quod motus irae insurgit ex aliqua illata iniuria contristante; cui quidem tristitiae remedium adhibetur per vindictam. Et ideo ad praesentiam vindictae delectatio sequitur, et tanto maior, quanto maior fuit tristitia. Si igitur vindicta fuerit praesens realiter, fit perfecta delectatio, quae totaliter excludit tristitiam, et per hoc quietat motum irae. Sed antequam vindicta sit praesens realiter, fit irascenti praesens dupliciter. Uno modo, per spem, quia nullus irascitur nisi sperans vindictam, ut supra dictum est. Alio modo, secundum continuam cogitationem. Unicuique enim concupiscenti est delectabile immorari in cogitatione eorum quae concupiscit, propter quod etiam imaginationes somniorum sunt delectabiles. Et ideo, cum iratus multum in animo suo cogitet de vindicta, ex hoc delectatur. Tamen delectatio non est perfecta, quae tollat tristitiam, et per consequens iram. I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14), pleasures, chiefly sensible and bodily pleasures, are remedies against sorrow: and therefore the greater the sorrow or anxiety, the more sensible are we to the pleasure which heals it, as is evident in the case of thirst which increases the pleasure of drink. Now it is clear from what has been said (47, A1,3), that the movement of anger arises from a wrong done that causes sorrow, for which sorrow vengeance is sought as a remedy. Consequently as soon as vengeance is present, pleasure ensues, and so much the greater according as the sorrow was greater. Therefore if vengeance be really present, perfect pleasure ensues, entirely excluding sorrow, so that the movement of anger ceases. But before vengeance is really present, it becomes present to the angry man in two ways: in one way, by hope; because none is angry except he hopes for vengeance, as stated above (Question 46, Article 1); in another way, by thinking of it continually, for to everyone that desires a thing it is pleasant to dwell on the thought of what he desires; wherefore the imaginings of dreams are pleasant. Accordingly an angry man takes pleasure in thinking much about vengeance. This pleasure, however, is not perfect, so as to banish sorrow and consequently anger.
q. 48 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non de eodem iratus tristatur et gaudet, sed tristatur de illata iniuria, delectatur autem de vindicta cogitata et sperata. Unde tristitia se habet ad iram sicut principium, sed delectatio sicut effectus vel terminus. Reply to Objection 1. The angry man does not grieve and rejoice at the same thing; he grieves for the wrong done, while he takes pleasure in the thought and hope of vengeance. Consequently sorrow is to anger as its beginning; while pleasure is the effect or terminus of anger.
q. 48 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de delectatione quae causatur ex reali praesentia vindictae, quae totaliter tollit iram. Reply to Objection 2. This argument holds in regard to pleasure caused by the real presence of vengeance, which banishes anger altogether.
q. 48 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod delectationes praecedentes impediunt ne sequatur tristitia; et per consequens impediunt iram. Sed delectatio de vindicta consequitur ipsam. Reply to Objection 3. Pleasure that precedes hinders sorrow from ensuing, and consequently is a hindrance to anger. But pleasure felt in taking vengeance follows from anger.
q. 48 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fervor non sit maxime effectus irae. Fervor enim, sicut supra dictum est, pertinet ad amorem. Sed amor, sicut supra dictum est, principium est et causa omnium passionum. Cum ergo causa sit potior effectu, videtur quod ira non faciat maxime fervorem. Objection 1. It would seem that heat is not above all the effect of anger. For fervor, as stated above (28, 5; 37, 2), belongs to love. But love, as above stated, is the beginning and cause of all the passions. Since then the cause is more powerful than its effect, it seems that anger is not the chief cause of fervor.
q. 48 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, illa quae de se excitant fervorem, per temporis assiduitatem magis augentur, sicut amor diuturnitate convalescit. Sed ira per tractum temporis debilitatur, dicit enim philosophus, in II Rhetoric., quod tempus quietat iram. Ergo ira non proprie causat fervorem. Objection 2. Further, those things which, of themselves, arouse fervor, increase as time goes on; thus love grows stronger the longer it lasts. But in course of time anger grows weaker; for the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that "time puts an end to anger." Therefore fervor is not the proper effect of anger.
q. 48 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, fervor additus fervori, augmentat fervorem. Sed maior ira superveniens facit iram mitescere, ut philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric. Ergo ira non causat fervorem. Objection 3. Further, fervor added to fervor produces greater fervor. But "the addition of a greater anger banishes already existing anger," as the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3). Therefore anger does not cause fervor.
q. 48 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, quod ira est fervor eius qui circa cor est sanguinis, ex evaporatione fellis fiens. On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) that "anger is fervor of the blood around the heart, resulting from an exhalation of the bile."
q. 48 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, corporalis transmutatio quae est in passionibus animae, proportionatur motui appetitus. Manifestum est autem quod quilibet appetitus, etiam naturalis, fortius tendit in id quod est sibi contrarium, si fuerit praesens, unde videmus quod aqua calefacta magis congelatur, quasi frigido vehementius in calidum agente. Motus autem appetitivus irae causatur ex aliqua iniuria illata, sicut ex quodam contrario iniacente. Et ideo appetitus potissime tendit ad repellendum iniuriam per appetitum vindictae, et ex hoc sequitur magna vehementia et impetuositas in motu irae. Et quia motus irae non est per modum retractionis, cui proportionatur frigus; sed magis per modum insecutionis, cui proportionatur calor; consequenter fit motus irae causativus cuiusdam fervoris sanguinis et spirituum circa cor, quod est instrumentum passionum animae. Et exinde est quod, propter magnam perturbationem cordis quae est in ira, maxime apparent in iratis indicia quaedam in exterioribus membris. Ut enim Gregorius dicit, in V Moral., irae suae stimulis accensum cor palpitat, corpus tremit, lingua se praepedit, facies ignescit, exasperantur oculi, et nequaquam recognoscuntur noti, ore quidem clamorem format, sed sensus quid loquatur, ignorat. I answer that, As stated above (Question 44, Article 1), the bodily transmutation that occurs in the passions of the soul is proportionate to the movement of the appetite. Now it is evident that every appetite, even the natural appetite, tends with greater force to repel that which is contrary to it, if it be present: hence we see that hot water freezes harder, as though the cold acted with greater force on the hot object. Since then the appetitive movement of anger is caused by some injury inflicted, as by a contrary that is present; it follows that the appetite tends with great force to repel the injury by the desire of vengeance; and hence ensues great vehemence and impetuosity in the movement of anger. And because the movement of anger is not one of recoil, which corresponds to the action of cold, but one of prosecution, which corresponds to the action of heat, the result is that the movement of anger produces fervor of the blood and vital spirits around the heart, which is the instrument of the soul's passions. And hence it is that, on account of the heart being so disturbed by anger, those chiefly who are angry betray signs thereof in their outer members. For, as Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) "the heart that is inflamed with the stings of its own anger beats quick, the body trembles, the tongue stammers, the countenance takes fire, the eyes grow fierce, they that are well known are not recognized. With the mouth indeed he shapes a sound, but the understanding knows not what it says."
q. 48 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod amor ipse non ita sentitur, nisi cum eum prodit indigentia, ut Augustinus dicit, in X de Trin. Et ideo quando homo patitur detrimentum amatae excellentiae propter iniuriam illatam, magis sentitur amor; et ideo ferventius cor mutatur ad removendum impedimentum rei amatae; ut sic fervor ipse amoris per iram crescat, et magis sentiatur. Et tamen fervor qui consequitur calorem, alia ratione pertinet ad amorem, et ad iram. Nam fervor amoris est cum quadam dulcedine et lenitate, est enim in bonum amatum. Et ideo assimilatur calori aeris et sanguinis, propter quod, sanguinei sunt magis amativi; et dicitur quod cogit amare iecur, in quo fit quaedam generatio sanguinis. Fervor autem irae est cum amaritudine, ad consumendum, quia tendit ad punitionem contrarii. Unde assimilatur calori ignis et cholerae, et propter hoc Damascenus dicit quod procedit ex evaporatione fellis, et fellea nominatur. Reply to Objection 1. "Love itself is not felt so keenly as in the absence of the beloved," as Augustine observes (De Trin. x, 12). Consequently when a man suffers from a hurt done to the excellence that he loves, he feels his love thereof the more: the result being that his heart is moved with greater heat to remove the hindrance to the object of his love; so that anger increases the fervor of love and makes it to be felt more. Nevertheless, the fervor arising from heat differs according as it is to be referred to love or to anger. Because the fervor of love has a certain sweetness and gentleness; for it tends to the good that one loves: whence it is likened to the warmth of the air and of the blood. For this reason sanguine temperaments are more inclined to love; and hence the saying that "love springs from the liver," because of the blood being formed there. On the other hand, the fervor of anger has a certain bitterness with a tendency to destroy, for it seeks to be avenged on the contrary evil: whence it is likened to the heat of fire and of the bile, and for this reason Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 16) that it "results from an exhalation of the bile whence it takes its name chole."
q. 48 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod omne illud cuius causa per tempus diminuitur, necesse est quod tempore debilitetur. Manifestum est autem quod memoria tempore diminuitur, quae enim antiqua sunt, a memoria de facili excidunt. Ira autem causatur ex memoria iniuriae illatae. Et ideo causa irae per tempus paulatim diminuitur, quousque totaliter tollatur. Maior etiam videtur iniuria quando primo sentitur; et paulatim diminuitur eius aestimatio, secundum quod magis receditur a praesenti sensu iniuriae. Et similiter etiam est de amore, si amoris causa remaneat in sola memoria, unde philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic., quod si diuturna fiat amici absentia, videtur amicitiae oblivionem facere. Sed in praesentia amici, semper per tempus multiplicatur causa amicitiae, et ideo amicitia crescit. Et similiter esset de ira, si continue multiplicaretur causa ipsius. Tamen hoc ipsum quod ira cito consumitur, attestatur vehementi fervori ipsius. Sicut enim ignis magnus cito extinguitur, consumpta materia; ita etiam ira, propter suam vehementiam, cito deficit. Reply to Objection 2. Time, of necessity, weakens all those things, the causes of which are impaired by time. Now it is evident that memory is weakened by time; for things which happened long ago easily slip from our memory. But anger is caused by the memory of a wrong done. Consequently the cause of anger is impaired little by little as time goes on, until at length it vanishes altogether. Moreover a wrong seems greater when it is first felt; and our estimate thereof is gradually lessened the further the sense of present wrong recedes into the past. The same applies to love, so long as the cause of love is in the memory alone; wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 5) that "if a friend's absence lasts long, it seems to make men forget their friendship." But in the presence of a friend, the cause of friendship is continually being multiplied by time: wherefore the friendship increases: and the same would apply to anger, were its cause continually multiplied. Nevertheless the very fact that anger soon spends itself proves the strength of its fervor: for as a great fire is soon spent having burnt up all the fuel; so too anger, by reason of its vehemence, soon dies away.
q. 48 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnis virtus divisa in plures partes, diminuitur. Et ideo quando aliquis iratus alicui, irascitur postmodum alteri, ex hoc ipso diminuitur ira ad primum. Et praecipue si ad secundum fuerit maior ira, nam iniuria quae excitavit iram ad primum, videbitur, comparatione secundae iniuriae, quae aestimatur maior, esse parva vel nulla. Reply to Objection 3. Every power that is divided in itself is weakened. Consequently if a man being already angry with one, becomes angry with another, by this very fact his anger with the former is weakened. Especially is this so if his anger in the second case be greater: because the wrong done which aroused his former anger, will, in comparison with the second wrong, which is reckoned greater, seem to be of little or no account.
q. 48 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira non impediat rationem. Illud enim quod est cum ratione, non videtur esse rationis impedimentum. Sed ira est cum ratione, ut dicitur in VII Ethic. Ergo ira non impedit rationem. Objection 1. It would seem that anger does not hinder the use of reason. Because that which presupposes an act of reason, does not seem to hinder the use of reason. But "anger listens to reason," as stated in Ethic. vii, 6. Therefore anger does not hinder reason.
q. 48 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quanto magis impeditur ratio, tanto diminuitur manifestatio. Sed philosophus dicit in VII Ethic., quod iracundus non est insidiator, sed manifestus. Ergo ira non videtur impedire usum rationis, sicut concupiscentia; quae est insidiosa, ut ibidem dicitur. Objection 2. Further, the more the reason is hindered, the less does a man show his thoughts. But the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "an angry man is not cunning but is open." Therefore anger does not seem to hinder the use of reason, as desire does; for desire is cunning, as he also states (Ethic. vii, 6.).
q. 48 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, iudicium rationis evidentius fit ex adiunctione contrarii, quia contraria iuxta se posita magis elucescunt. Sed ex hoc etiam crescit ira, dicit enim philosophus, in II Rhetoric., quod magis homines irascuntur, si contraria praeexistunt, sicut honorati si dehonorentur; et sic de aliis. Ergo ex eodem et ira crescit, et iudicium rationis adiuvatur. Non ergo ira impedit iudicium rationis. Objection 3. Further, the judgment of reason becomes more evident by juxtaposition of the contrary: because contraries stand out more clearly when placed beside one another. But this also increases anger: for the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that "men are more angry if they receive unwonted treatment; for instance, honorable men, if they be dishonored": and so forth. Therefore the same cause increases anger, and facilitates the judgment of reason. Therefore anger does not hinder the judgment of reason.
q. 48 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in V Moral., quod ira intelligentiae lucem subtrahit, cum mentem permovendo confundit. On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) that anger "withdraws the light of understanding, while by agitating it troubles the mind."
q. 48 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod mens vel ratio quamvis non utatur organo corporali in suo proprio actu; tamen, quia indiget ad sui actum quibusdam viribus sensitivis, quorum actus impediuntur corpore perturbato; necesse est quod perturbationes corporales etiam iudicium rationis impediant, sicut patet in ebrietate et somno. Dictum est autem quod ira maxime facit perturbationem corporalem circa cor, ita ut etiam usque ad exteriora membra derivetur. Unde ira, inter ceteras passiones, manifestius impedit iudicium rationis; secundum illud Psalmi XXX, conturbatus est in ira oculus meus. I answer that, Although the mind or reason makes no use of a bodily organ in its proper act, yet, since it needs certain sensitive powers for the execution of its act, the acts of which powers are hindered when the body is disturbed, it follows of necessity that any disturbance in the body hinders even the judgment of reason; as is clear in the case of drunkenness or sleep. Now it has been stated (2) that anger, above all, causes a bodily disturbance in the region of the heart, so much as to effect even the outward members. Consequently, of all the passions, anger is the most manifest obstacle to the judgment of reason, according to Psalm 30:10: "My eye is troubled with wrath."
q. 48 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod a ratione est principium irae, quantum ad motum appetitivum, qui est formalis in ira. Sed perfectum iudicium rationis passio irae praeoccupat quasi non perfecte rationem audiens, propter commotionem caloris velociter impellentis, quae est materialis in ira. Et quantum ad hoc, impedit iudicium rationis. Reply to Objection 1. The beginning of anger is in the reason, as regards the appetitive movement, which is the formal element of anger. But the passion of anger forestalls the perfect judgment of reason, as though it listened but imperfectly to reason, on account of the commotion of the heat urging to instant action, which commotion is the material element of anger. In this respect it hinders the judgment of reason.
q. 48 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod iracundus dicitur esse manifestus, non quia manifestum sit sibi quid facere debeat, sed quia manifeste operatur, non quaerens aliquam occultationem. Quod partim contingit propter impedimentum rationis, quae non potest discernere quid sit occultandum et quid manifestandum, nec etiam excogitare occultandi vias. Partim vero est ex ampliatione cordis, quae pertinet ad magnanimitatem, quam facit ira, unde et de magnanimo philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod est manifestus oditor et amator et manifeste dicit et operatur. Concupiscentia autem dicitur esse latens et insidiosa, quia, ut plurimum, delectabilia quae concupiscuntur, habent turpitudinem quandam et mollitiem, in quibus homo vult latere. In his autem quae sunt virilitatis et excellentiae, cuiusmodi sunt vindictae, quaerit homo manifestus esse. Reply to Objection 2. An angry man is said to be open, not because it is clear to him what he ought to do, but because he acts openly, without thought of hiding himself. This is due partly to the reason being hindered, so as not to discern what should be hidden and what done openly, nor to devise the means of hiding; and partly to the dilatation of the heart which pertains to magnanimity which is an effect of anger: wherefore the Philosopher says of the magnanimous man (Ethic. iv, 3) that "he is open in his hatreds and his friendships . . . and speaks and acts openly." Desire, on the other hand, is said to lie low and to be cunning, because, in many cases, the pleasurable things that are desired, savor of shame and voluptuousness, wherein man wishes not to be seen. But in those things that savor of manliness and excellence, such as matters of vengeance, man seeks to be in the open.
q. 48 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, motus irae a ratione incipit, et ideo secundum idem appositio contrarii ad contrarium adiuvat iudicium rationis, et auget iram. Cum enim aliquis habet honorem vel divitias, et postea incurrit alicuius detrimentum, illud detrimentum apparet maius, tum propter vicinitatem contrarii; tum quia erat inopinatum. Et ideo causat maiorem tristitiam, sicut etiam magna bona ex inopinato venientia, causant maiorem delectationem. Et secundum augmentum tristitiae praecedentis, consequenter augetur et ira. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (ad 1), the movement of anger begins in the reason, wherefore the juxtaposition of one contrary with another facilitates the judgment of reason, on the same grounds as it increases anger. For when a man who is possessed of honor or wealth, suffers a loss therein, the loss seems all the greater, both on account of the contrast, and because it was unforeseen. Consequently it causes greater grief: just as a great good, through being received unexpectedly, causes greater delight. And in proportion to the increase of the grief that precedes, anger is increased also.
q. 48 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ira non causet taciturnitatem. Taciturnitas enim locutioni opponitur. Sed per crementum irae usque ad locutionem pervenitur, ut patet per gradus irae quos dominus assignat, Matth. V, dicens, qui irascitur fratri suo; et, qui dixerit fratri suo, raca; et, qui dixerit fratri suo, fatue. Ergo ira non causat taciturnitatem. Objection 1. It would seem that anger does not cause taciturnity. Because taciturnity is opposed to speech. But increase in anger conduces to speech; as is evident from the degrees of anger laid down by Our Lord (Matthew 5:22): where He says: "Whosoever is angry with his brother"; and " . . . whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca'"; and " . . . whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Thou fool.'" Therefore anger does not cause taciturnity.
q. 48 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, ex hoc quod custodia rationis deficit, contingit quod homo prorumpat ad verba inordinata, unde dicitur Prov. XXV, sicut urbs patens et absque murorum ambitu, ita vir qui non potest cohibere in loquendo spiritum suum. Sed ira maxime impedit iudicium rationis, ut dictum est. Ergo facit maxime profluere in verba inordinata. Non ergo causat taciturnitatem. Objection 2. Further, through failing to obey reason, man sometimes breaks out into unbecoming words: hence it is written (Proverbs 25:28): "As a city that lieth open and is not compassed with walls, so is a man that cannot refrain his own spirit in speaking." But anger, above all, hinders the judgment of reason, as stated above (Article 3). Consequently above all it makes one break out into unbecoming words. Therefore it does not cause taciturnity.
q. 48 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Matth. XII dicitur, ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. Sed per iram cor maxime perturbatur, ut dictum est. Ergo maxime causat locutionem. Non ergo causat taciturnitatem. Objection 3. Further, it is written (Matthew 12:34): "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." But anger, above all, causes a disturbance in the heart, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore above all it conduces to speech. Therefore it does not cause taciturnity.
q. 48 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in V Moral., quod ira per silentium clausa, intra mentem vehementius aestuat. On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) that "when anger does not vent itself outwardly by the lips, inwardly it burns the more fiercely."
q. 48 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ira, sicut iam dictum est, et cum ratione est, et impedit rationem. Et ex utraque parte, potest taciturnitatem causare. Ex parte quidem rationis, quando iudicium rationis intantum viget quod, etsi non cohibeat affectum ab inordinato appetitu vindictae, cohibet tamen linguam ab inordinata locutione. Unde Gregorius, in V Moral., dicit, aliquando ira perturbato animo, quasi ex iudicio, silentium indicit. Ex parte vero impedimenti rationis, quia, sicut dictum est, perturbatio irae usque ad exteriora membra perducitur; et maxime ad illa membra in quibus expressius relucet vestigium cordis, sicut in oculis et in facie et in lingua; unde, sicut dictum est, lingua se praepedit, facies ignescit, exasperantur oculi. Potest ergo esse tanta perturbatio irae, quod omnino impediatur lingua ab usu loquendi. Et tunc sequitur taciturnitas. I answer that, As stated above (3; 46, 4), anger both follows an act of reason, and hinders the reason: and in both respects it may cause taciturnity. On the part of the reason, when the judgment of reason prevails so far, that although it does not curb the appetite in its inordinate desire for vengeance, yet it curbs the tongue from unbridled speech. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 30): "Sometimes when the mind is disturbed, anger, as if in judgment, commands silence." On the part of the impediment to reason because, as stated above (Article 2), the disturbance of anger reaches to the outward members, and chiefly to those members which reflect more distinctly the emotions of the heart, such as the eyes, face and tongue; wherefore, as observed above (Article 2), "the tongue stammers, the countenance takes fire, the eyes grow fierce." Consequently anger may cause such a disturbance, that the tongue is altogether deprived of speech; and taciturnity is the result.
q. 48 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod augmentum irae quandoque est usque ad impediendum rationem a cohibitione linguae. Quandoque autem ultra procedit, usque ad impediendum motum linguae, et aliorum membrorum exteriorum. Reply to Objection 1. Anger sometimes goes so far as to hinder the reason from curbing the tongue: but sometimes it goes yet farther, so as to paralyze the tongue and other outward members.
q. 48 a. 4 ad 2 Et per hoc etiam patet solutio ad secundum. And this suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.
q. 48 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod perturbatio cordis quandoque potest superabundare usque ad hoc, quod per inordinatum motum cordis impediatur motus exteriorum membrorum. Et tunc causatur taciturnitas, et immobilitas exteriorum membrorum, et quandoque etiam mors. Si autem non fuerit tanta perturbatio, tunc ex abundantia perturbationis cordis, sequitur oris locutio. Reply to Objection 3. The disturbance of the heart may sometimes superabound to the extend that the movements of the outward members are hindered by the inordinate movement of the heart. Thence ensue taciturnity and immobility of the outward members; and sometimes even death. If, however, the disturbance be not so great, then "out of the abundance of the heart" thus disturbed, the mouth proceeds to speak.




THE LOGIC MUSEUM II