Passive anger[ edit ] Passive anger can be expressed in the following ways: Evasivenesssuch as turning one's back in a crisis, avoiding conflict, not arguing back, becoming phobic. Defeatismsuch as setting yourself and others up for failurechoosing unreliable people to depend on, being accident proneunderachievingsexual impotenceexpressing frustration at insignificant things but ignoring serious ones. Obsessive behaviorsuch as needing to be inordinately clean and tidy, making a habit of constantly checking things, over-dieting or overeating, demanding that all jobs be done perfectly.
Nonetheless the performer uses these words as synonyms in respect to Achilles: This ancient observation—pointing out that anger has as vigorous a cohort of synonyms as the fig—provides a background question for this study.
Or should we look more carefully? Should we examine anger more closely than we do figs? We can join critics, ancient and modern, in acknowledging that an understanding of anger is crucial to any reading of the Homeric texts.
How surely do we know that to which we have so readily agreed? For all our certainty about Homeric anger, our studies have produced only a few substantial works devoted to analyzing this important concept. Indeed, the semantics of the entire range of anger terms in Homer remains obscure, despite a number of promising excursions into this area of study.
Schmidt discussed the Greek synonyms for anger in Synonymik der griechischen Sprache.
Table 1 groups the Homeric words as they are cited by Schmidt. As the title indicates, his treatise is primarily concerned with divine anger. In his first chapter, Irmscher ambitiously sets out to cover thirteen words for anger.
Indeed, Irmscher exhibits some problems of method, especially in his neglect of the oral-poetic character of Homeric diction. Thus, although he acknowledges the traditional nature of Homeric poetry, we do not see the necessary attention to issues of context and diction in traditional poetics.
To proceed in his manner, admittedly, makes the lexicographical work more straightforward, as a variety of Homeric words can be readily cataloged and then included in a single analysis. Do all the words that Irmscher cites really belong together? Indeed, we cannot grasp the relationship of these words, one to another, without a close study of Homeric traditional usage, as revealed through a detailed review of Homeric poetics as it relates to each term.
To proceed otherwise neglects our most important resource in the understanding of Homeric poetry, the traditional use of context and diction through its customary practice in these poems.
That Homeric narrative is intimately bound up with a complex poetics must simply never be ignored. In his work on the lexicon for anger in Greek,Considine carefully considers the lexical variety of Homeric diction, especially in opening and exploring the semantic field, all the while capably demonstrating that adequate analysis requires a detailed study of context.
One needs to add, however, that in Homeric poetry, context is more than a paraphrase of the immediate narrative moment in which the term occurs. The author is concerned with five words: Instead, one passage is juxtaposed with another in a manner that depends on the associative skills of the researcher.
A cultural historian may, with understandable dismay, balk at the suggestion that a full-scale formulaic analysis is in order before anyone may venture into the terrain of Homeric narrative. Yet it is precisely this problem that will be encountered by those who, trying to put the Greeks in context, take the words for granted in the interest of a seemingly more important enterprise.
It will have become clear … that in Homeric society a lordly wrath is not a private state of emotions. Indeed, the reader will notice that missing from this book is an extended analysis of the literature on anger in the ancient world after the early Greek period.
Fortunately, as this book went to press an important book on ancient anger appeared, one that provides just such an extended analysis.Anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong.
Anger can be a good thing. It can give you a way to express negative feelings, for example, or motivate you to find solutions to problems. But excessive anger can cause problems.
The difference between human anger and holy wrath TOPICS: Higher form of feelings - seeking to awaken people instead of punishing them - human anger lingers, divine “anger” disappears when its purpose fulfilled - holy wrath an expression of unconditional love - Jesus was an instrument of holy wrath - being on the path to Christhood does .
Anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong. Anger can be a good thing. It can give you a way to express negative feelings, for example, or motivate you to find solutions to problems.
But excessive anger can cause problems.
Among Muellner’s findings (Muellner ), I single out as relevant to my work in this book the following conclusions about mênis as a word for anger in Homeric narrative: first, mênis is avoided in contexts when one speaks of one’s own anger; second, in the Iliad the noun mênis refers exclusively among mortals to Achilles; and third, there is a complex .
Leonard Muellner, The Anger of Achilles: Mênis in Greek Epic Acknowledgments Introduction: Approaching Anger 1. Mênis and Cosmic Status in the Hierarchy of Peers 2.
Mênis and the Social Order 3. Anger is used as a protective mechanism to cover up fear, hurt or sadness. Anger becomes the predominant feeling behaviorally, cognitively, and physiologically when a person makes the conscious choice to take action to immediately stop the threatening behavior of another outside force.