Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de effectibus irae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We must now consider the effects of anger: under which head there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum ira causet delectationem. | (1) Whether anger causes pleasure? |
| Secundo, utrum maxime causet fervorem in corde. | (2) Whether above all it causes heat in the heart? |
| Tertio, utrum maxime impediat rationis usum. | (3) Whether above all it hinders the use of reason? |
| Quarto, utrum causet taciturnitatem. | (4) Whether it causes taciturnity? |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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]). |
| 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 (Question [47], Articles [1],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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| 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 (Question [28], Article [5]; Question [37], Article [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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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." |
| 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." |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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}." |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| 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. |
| 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.). |
| 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. |
| 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." |
| 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 (Article [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 Ps. 30:10: "My eye is troubled with wrath." |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 48 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| 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 (Mt. 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. |
| 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 (Prov. 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. |
| 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 (Mt. 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. |
| 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." |
| 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 (Article [3]; Question [46], Article [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. |
| 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. |
| Et per hoc etiam patet solutio ad secundum. | And this suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection. |
| 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. |