Alio modo consideratur ira secundum quod est in ore. Et sic ex ira duplex inordinatio procedit. Una quidem secundum hoc quod homo in modo loquendi iram suam demonstrat, sicut dictum est de eo qui dicit fratri suo, raca. Et sic ponitur clamor, per quem intelligitur inordinata et confusa locutio. Alia autem est inordinatio secundum quod aliquis prorumpit in verba iniuriosa. Quae quidem si sint contra Deum, erit blasphemia; si autem contra proximum, contumelia. Second, anger may be considered, as expressed in words: and thus a twofold disorder arises from anger. One is when a man manifests his anger in his manner of speech, as stated above (A. 5, ad 3) of the man who says to his brother, Raca: and this refers to clamor, which denotes disorderly and confused speech. The other disorder is when a man breaks out into injurious words, and if these be against God, it is blasphemy, if against one’s neighbor, it is contumely. Tertio modo consideratur ira secundum quod procedit usque ad factum. Et sic ex ira oriuntur rixae, per quas intelliguntur omnia nocumenta quae facto proximis inferuntur ex ira. Third, anger may be considered as proceeding to deeds; and thus anger gives rise to quarrels, by which we are to understand all manner of injuries inflicted on one’s neighbor through anger. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod blasphemia in quam aliquis prorumpit deliberata mente, procedit ex superbia hominis contra Deum se erigentis, quia, ut dicitur Eccli. X, initium superbiae hominis apostatare a Deo; idest, recedere a veneratione eius est prima superbiae pars, et ex hoc oritur blasphemia. Sed blasphemia in quam aliquis prorumpit ex commotione animi, procedit ex ira. Reply Obj. 1: The blasphemy into which a man breaks out deliberately proceeds from pride, whereby a man lifts himself up against God: since, according to Ecclus. 10:14, the beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God, i.e., to fall away from reverence for Him is the first part of pride; and this gives rise to blasphemy. But the blasphemy into which a man breaks out through a disturbance of the mind, proceeds from anger. Ad secundum dicendum quod odium, etsi aliquando nascatur ex ira, tamen habet aliquam priorem causam ex qua directius oritur, scilicet tristitiam, sicut e contrario amor nascitur ex delectatione. Ex tristitia autem illata quandoque in iram, quandoque in odium aliquis movetur. Unde convenientius fuit quod odium poneretur oriri ex acedia quam ex ira. Reply Obj. 2: Although hatred sometimes arises from anger, it has a previous cause, from which it arises more directly, namely displeasure, even as, on the other hand, love is born of pleasure. Now through displeasure, a man is moved sometimes to anger, sometimes to hatred. Wherefore it was fitting to reckon that hatred arises from sloth rather than from anger. Ad tertium dicendum quod tumor mentis non accipitur hic pro superbia, sed pro quodam conatu sive audacia hominis intentantis vindictam. Audacia autem est vitium fortitudini oppositum. Reply Obj. 3: Swelling of the mind is not taken here as identical with pride, but for a certain effort or daring attempt to take vengeance; and daring is a vice opposed to fortitude. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum sit aliquod vitium oppositum iracundiae, proveniens ex defectu irae Whether there is a vice opposed to anger, resulting from lack of anger? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit aliquod vitium oppositum iracundiae, proveniens ex defectu irae. Nihil enim est vitiosum per quod homo Deo similatur. Sed per hoc quod homo omnino est sine ira, similatur Deo, qui cum tranquillitate iudicat. Ergo non videtur quod sit vitiosum omnino ira carere. Objection 1: It would seem that there is not a vice opposed to anger, resulting from lack of anger. For no vice makes us like to God. Now by being entirely without anger, a man becomes like to God, Who judges with tranquillity (Wis 12:18). Therefore seemingly it is not a vice to be altogether without anger. Praeterea, defectus eius quod ad nihil est utile, non est vitiosus. Sed motus irae ad nihil est utilis, ut probat Seneca in libro quem fecit de ira. Ergo videtur quod defectus irae non sit vitiosus. Obj. 2: Further, it is not a vice to lack what is altogether useless. But the movement of anger is useful for no purpose, as Seneca proves in the book he wrote on anger (De Ira i, 9, seqq.). Therefore it seems that lack of anger is not a vice. Praeterea, malum hominis, secundum Dionysium, est praeter rationem esse. Sed, subtracto omni motu irae, adhuc remanet integrum iudicium rationis. Ergo nullus defectus irae vitium causat. Obj. 3: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), man’s evil is to be without reason. Now the judgment of reason remains unimpaired, if all movement of anger be done away. Therefore no lack of anger amounts to a vice. Sed contra est quod Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., qui cum causa non irascitur, peccat. Patientia enim irrationabilis vitia seminat, negligentiam nutrit, et non solum malos, sed etiam bonos invitat ad malum. On the contrary, Chrysostom says: He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do wrong. Respondeo dicendum quod ira dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo, simplex motus voluntatis quo aliquis non ex passione, sed ex iudicio rationis poenam infligit. Et sic defectus irae absque dubio est peccatum. Et hoc modo ira accipitur in verbis Chrysostomi, qui dicit ibidem, iracundia quae cum causa est, non est iracundia, sed iudicium. Iracundia enim proprie intelligitur commotio passionis, qui autem cum causa irascitur, ira illius non est ex passione. Ideo iudicare dicitur, non irasci. Alio modo accipitur ira pro motu appetitus sensitivi, qui est cum passione et transmutatione corporali. Et hic quidem motus ex necessitate consequitur in homine ad simplicem motum voluntatis, quia naturaliter appetitus inferior sequitur motum appetitus superioris, nisi aliquid repugnet. Et ideo non potest totaliter deficere motus irae in appetitu sensitivo, nisi per subtractionem vel debilitatem voluntarii motus. Et ideo ex consequenti etiam defectus passionis irae vitiosus est, sicut et defectus voluntarii motus ad puniendum secundum iudicium rationis. I answer that, Anger may be understood in two ways. In one way, as a simple movement of the will, whereby one inflicts punishment, not through passion, but in virtue of a judgment of the reason: and thus without doubt lack of anger is a sin. This is the sense in which anger is taken in the saying of Chrysostom, for he says (Hom. xi in Matth.): Anger, when it has a cause, is not anger but judgment. For anger, properly speaking, denotes a movement of passion: and when a man is angry with reason, his anger is no longer from passion: wherefore he is said to judge, not to be angry. In another way anger is taken for a movement of the sensitive appetite, which is with passion resulting from a bodily transmutation. This movement is a necessary sequel, in man, to the movement of his will, since the lower appetite necessarily follows the movement of the higher appetite, unless there be an obstacle. Hence the movement of anger in the sensitive appetite cannot be lacking altogether, unless the movement of the will be altogether lacking or weak. Consequently lack of the passion of anger is also a vice, even as the lack of movement in the will directed to punishment by the judgment of reason. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ille qui totaliter non irascitur cum debet irasci, imitatur quidem Deum quantum ad carentiam passionis, non autem quantum ad hoc quod Deus ex iudicio punit. Reply Obj. 1: He that is entirely without anger when he ought to be angry, imitates God as to lack of passion, but not as to God’s punishing by judgment. Ad secundum dicendum quod passio irae utilis est, sicut et omnes alii motus appetitus sensitivi, ad hoc quod homo promptius exequatur id quod ratio dictat. Alioquin, frustra esset in homine appetitus sensitivus, cum tamen natura nihil faciat frustra. Reply Obj. 2: The passion of anger, like all other movements of the sensitive appetite, is useful, as being conducive to the more prompt execution of reason’s dictate: else, the sensitive appetite in man would be to no purpose, whereas nature does nothing without purpose. Ad tertium dicendum quod in eo qui ordinate agit, iudicium rationis non solum est causa simplicis motus voluntatis, sed etiam passionis appetitus sensitivi, ut dictum est, et ideo, sicut remotio effectus est signum remotionis causae, ita etiam remotio irae est signum remotionis iudicii rationis. Reply Obj. 3: When a man acts inordinately, the judgment of his reason is cause not only of the simple movement of the will but also of the passion in the sensitive appetite, as stated above. Wherefore just as the removal of the effect is a sign that the cause is removed, so the lack of anger is a sign that the judgment of reason is lacking. Quaestio 159 Question 159 De crudelitate Cruelty Deinde considerandum est de crudelitate. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. We must now consider cruelty, under which head there are two points of inquiry: Primo, utrum crudelitas opponatur clementiae. (1) Whether cruelty is opposed to clemency? Secundo, de comparatione eius ad saevitiam vel feritatem. (2) Of its comparison with savagery or brutality. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum crudelitas opponatur clementiae Whether cruelty is opposed to clemency? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod crudelitas non opponatur clementiae. Dicit enim Seneca, in II de Clement., quod illi vocantur crudeles qui excedunt modum in puniendo, quod contrariatur iustitiae. Clementia autem non ponitur pars iustitiae, sed temperantiae. Ergo crudelitas non videtur opponi clementiae. Objection 1: It would seem that cruelty is not opposed to clemency. For Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4) that those are said to be cruel who exceed in punishing, which is contrary to justice. Now clemency is reckoned a part, not of justice but of temperance. Therefore apparently cruelty is not opposed to clemency. Praeterea, Ierem. VI dicitur, crudelis est, et non miserebitur, et sic videtur quod crudelitas opponatur misericordiae. Sed misericordia non est idem clementiae, ut supra dictum est. Ergo crudelitas non opponitur clementiae. Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Jer 6:23): They are cruel, and will have no mercy; so that cruelty would seem opposed to mercy. Now mercy is not the same as clemency, as stated above (Q. 157, A. 4, ad 3). Therefore cruelty is not opposed to clemency. Praeterea, clementia consideratur circa inflictionem poenarum, ut dictum est. Sed crudelitas consideratur etiam in subtractione beneficiorum, secundum illud Proverb. XI, qui crudelis est, propinquos abiicit. Ergo crudelitas non opponitur clementiae. Obj. 3: Further, clemency is concerned with the infliction of punishment, as stated above (Q. 157, A. 1): whereas cruelty applies to the withdrawal of beneficence, according to Prov. 11:17, But he that is cruel casteth off even his own kindred. Therefore cruelty is not opposed to clemency. Sed contra est quod dicit Seneca, in II de Clement., quod opponitur clementiae crudelitas, quae nihil aliud est quam atrocitas animi in exigendis poenis. On the contrary, Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4) that the opposite of clemency is cruelty, which is nothing else but hardness of heart in exacting punishment. Respondeo dicendum quod nomen crudelitatis a cruditate sumptum esse videtur. Sicut autem ea quae sunt decocta et digesta, solent habere suavem et dulcem saporem; ita illa quae sunt cruda, habent horribilem et asperum saporem. Dictum est autem supra quod clementia importat quandam animi lenitatem sive dulcedinem, per quam aliquis est diminutivus poenarum. Unde directe crudelitas clementiae opponitur. I answer that, Cruelty apparently takes its name from cruditas (rawness). Now just as things when cooked and prepared are wont to have an agreeable and sweet savor, so when raw they have a disagreeable and bitter taste. Now it has been stated above (Q. 157, A. 3, ad 1; A. 4, ad 3) that clemency denotes a certain smoothness or sweetness of soul, whereby one is inclined to mitigate punishment. Hence cruelty is directly opposed to clemency. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut diminutio poenarum quae est secundum rationem, pertinet ad epieikeiam, sed ipsa dulcedo affectus ex qua homo ad hoc inclinatur, pertinet ad clementiam; ita etiam superexcessus poenarum, quantum ad id quod exterius agitur, pertinet ad iniustitiam; sed quantum ad austeritatem animi per quam aliquis fit promptus ad poenas augendas, pertinet ad crudelitatem. Reply Obj. 1: Just as it belongs to equity to mitigate punishment according to reason, while the sweetness of soul which inclines one to this belongs to clemency: so too, excess in punishing, as regards the external action, belongs to injustice; but as regards the hardness of heart, which makes one ready to increase punishment, belongs to cruelty. Ad secundum dicendum quod misericordia et clementia conveniunt in hoc quod utraque refugit et abhorret miseriam alienam, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam ad misericordiam pertinet miseriae subvenire per beneficii collationem, ad clementiam autem pertinet miseriam diminuere per subtractionem poenarum. Et quia crudelitas superabundantiam in exigendis poenis importat, directius opponitur clementiae quam misericordiae. Tamen, propter similitudinem harum virtutum, accipitur quandoque crudelitas pro immisericordia. Reply Obj. 2: Mercy and clemency concur in this, that both shun and recoil from another’s unhappiness, but in different ways. For it belongs to mercy to relieve another’s unhappiness by a beneficent action, while it belongs to clemency to mitigate another’s unhappiness by the cessation of punishment. And since cruelty denotes excess in exacting punishment, it is more directly opposed to clemency than to mercy; yet on account of the mutual likeness of these virtues, cruelty is sometimes taken for mercilessness. Ad tertium dicendum quod crudelitas ibi accipitur pro immisericordia, ad quam pertinet beneficia non largiri. Quamvis etiam dici possit quod ipsa beneficii subtractio quaedam poena est. Reply Obj. 3: Cruelty is there taken for mercilessness, which is lack of beneficence. We may also reply that withdrawal of beneficence is in itself a punishment. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum crudelitas a saevitia sive feritate differat Whether cruelty differs from savagery or brutality? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod crudelitas a saevitia sive feritate non differat. Uni enim virtuti, ex una parte, unum vitium videtur esse oppositum. Sed clementiae per superabundantiam opponitur et crudelitas et saevitia. Ergo videtur quod saevitia et crudelitas sint idem. Objection 1: It would seem that cruelty differs not from savagery or brutality. For seemingly one vice is opposed in one way to one virtue. Now both savagery and cruelty are opposed to clemency by way of excess. Therefore it would seem that savagery and cruelty are the same. Praeterea, Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., quod severus dicitur quasi saevus et verus, quia sine pietate tenet iustitiam, et sic saevitia videtur excludere remissionem poenarum in iudiciis, quod pertinet ad pietatem. Hoc autem dictum est ad crudelitatem pertinere. Ergo crudelitas est idem quod saevitia. Obj. 2: Further, Isidore says (Etym. x) that severity is as it were savagery with verity, because it holds to justice without attending to piety: so that savagery would seem to exclude that mitigation of punishment in delivering judgment which is demanded by piety. Now this has been stated to belong to cruelty (A. 1, ad 1). Therefore cruelty is the same as savagery. Praeterea, sicut virtuti opponitur aliquod vitium in excessu, ita etiam et in defectu, quod quidem contrariatur et virtuti, quae est in medio, et vitio quod est in excessu. Sed idem vitium ad defectum pertinens opponitur et crudelitati et saevitiae, videlicet remissio vel dissolutio, dicit enim Gregorius, XX Moral., sit amor, sed non emolliens, sit rigor, sed non exasperans. Sit zelus, sed non immoderate saeviens, sit pietas, sed non plus quam expediat parcens. Ergo saevitia est idem crudelitati. Obj. 3: Further, just as there is a vice opposed to a virtue by way of excess, so is there a vice opposed to it by way of deficiency, which latter is opposed both to the virtue which is the mean, and to the vice which is in excess. Now the same vice pertaining to deficiency is opposed to both cruelty and savagery, namely remission or laxity. For Gregory says (Moral. xx, 5): Let there be love, but not that which enervates, let there be severity, but without fury, let there be zeal without unseemly savagery, let there be piety without undue clemency. Therefore savagery is the same as cruelty. Sed contra est quod Seneca dicit, in II de Clement., quod ille qui non laesus, nec peccatori irascitur, non dicitur crudelis, sed ferus sive saevus. On the contrary, Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4) that a man who is angry without being hurt, or with one who has not offended him, is not said to be cruel, but to be brutal or savage.