_How Plutarche did beate his man, and of pretie talke touching signes of
anger._
Avlus Gellius demaunding of the Philosopher Taurus, whether a wise man
could be angrie? Taurus after he had disputed much of that affection,
turned to Gellius and said: “This is mine opinion of the angrie man: but
what the Philosopher Plutarche iudgeth thereof, I thincke it not a misse
to tell thee. Plutarche had a bondman which was an vnthrift and wicked
verlet, but geuen to learning and to disputation of Philosophie, whom
vppon a time he did beate, making him to put of his coate, and to be
whipped, for what offence I know not: he began to beate him: the fellow
cryed out, that he had deserued no cause, why he ought to be so beaten.
At length in continuance of his beating, he gaue ouer his crying
complaintes, and began to vtter earneste and serious woordes, saying.
‘It was not Plutarche the Philosopher, that beate him: (he said) it was
a shame for Plutarche to be angrie, and how he had heard him many times
dispute of that vice of anger, and yet he had written a goodly booke
thereof:’ with manye such words. ‘Why, (quoth Plutarche, with gentle and
quiet debating of the matter:) thou lubbor, do I seeme to be angry with
thee? Doest thou either by my countenaunce, by my talke, by my colour,
or words, perceyue that I am angrie? Nether mine eyes be fierce, nor my
mouth troubled: I cry not out a loude: I chaufe not in rage or fume: I
speake no vnseemely woordes, whereof I take repentaunce: I tremble not.
All which be signes and tokens of anger: which pretie notes of that
vnseemely passion, ought to minister to all men, occasion to auoyde that
vice.’”