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 Obj. 2: As stated above, an angry man wishes evil to someone, insofar 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). 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum ira solum sit ad illos ad quos est iustitia Whether anger is only towards those to whom one has an obligation of justice? 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. 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. Obj. 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 (Ps 4:5): Be ye angry and sin not. Therefore anger is not only towards those with whom one has a relation of justice. 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. Obj. 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. Sed contrarium accipi potest a philosopho in II Rhetoric. The contrary, however, may be gathered from the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 2,3). 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 (A6), 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. 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 Obj. 1: As stated above (A4, ad 2), anger, though it follows an act of reason, can nevertheless be in dumb animals that are devoid of reason, insofar 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. Second, 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. 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 Obj. 2: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 11), metaphorically speaking there is a certain justice and injustice between a man and himself, insofar 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. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum Damascenus convenienter assignet tres species irae, scilicet fel, maniam et furorem Whether Damascene suitably assigns three species of anger: namely, wrath, ill-will, and rancor? 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. 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. Obj. 2: Further, Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv, 9) that 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}. Therefore {kotos} does not bide its time for taking vengeance, but in course of time spends itself. 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. Obj. 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 (Matt 5:22): Whosoever is angry with his brother, and then, whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca’, and lastly, whosoever shall say ‘Thou fool’. Therefore Damascene’s division is imperfect, since it takes no account of utterance. 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. 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} because it quickly aroused. Second, on the part of the grief that causes anger, and which dwells some time in the memory; this belongs to {menis} which is derived from {menein}. Third, on the part of that which the angry man seeks, viz., vengeance; and this pertains to {kotos} which never rests until it is avenged. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5) calls some angry persons {akrocholoi}, because they are easily angered; some he calls {pikroi}, because they retain their anger for a long time; and some he calls {chalepoi}, because they never rest until they have retaliated. 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 Obj. 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. 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 Obj. 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. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod gradus illi irae distinguuntur secundum effectum irae, non autem secundum diversam perfectionem ipsius motus irae. Reply Obj. 3: These degrees are distinguished according to various effects of anger; and not according to degrees of perfection in the very movement of anger. Quaestio 47 Question 47 De causa effectiva irae, et de remediis eius Of the Cause That Provokes Anger, and of the Remedies Deinde considerandum est de causa effectiva irae, et de remediis eius. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider the cause that provokes anger, and its remedies. Under this head there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum semper motivum irae sit aliquid factum contra eum qui irascitur. (1) Whether the motive of anger is always something done against the one who is angry? Secundo, utrum sola parvipensio vel despectio sit motivum irae. (2) Whether slight or contempt is the sole motive of anger? Tertio, de causa irae ex parte irascentis. (3) Of the cause of anger on the part of the angry person; Quarto, de causa irae ex parte eius contra quem aliquis irascitur. (4) Of the cause of anger on the part of the person with whom one is angry. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum semper aliquis irascatur propter aliquid contra se factum Whether the motive of anger is always something done against the one who is angry? 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 Ps. 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. 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. Obj. 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. 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. Obj. 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. 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. Obj. 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. 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.