Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that outward pain is greater than interior sorrow of the heart. Because outward pain arises from a cause repugnant to the well-being of the body in which is life: whereas interior sorrow is caused by some evil in the imagination. Since, therefore, life is loved more than an imagined good, it seems that, according to what has been said above (Article 6), outward pain is greater than interior sorrow.

Objection 2: Further, the reality moves more than its likeness does. But outward pain arises from the real conjunction of some contrary; whereas inward sorrow arises from the apprehended likeness of a contrary. Therefore outward pain is greater than inward sorrow.

Objection 3: Further, a cause is known by its effect. But outward pain has more striking effects: since man dies sooner of outward pain than of interior sorrow. Therefore outward pain is greater and is shunned more than interior sorrow.

On the contrary, it is written (Ecclus. 25:17): "The sadness of the heart is every wound , and the wickedness of a woman is all evil." Therefore, just as the wickedness of a woman surpasses all other wickedness, as the text implies; so sadness of the heart surpasses every outward wound.

I answer that, Interior and exterior pain agree in one point and differ in two. They agree in this, that each is a movement of the appetitive power, as stated above (Article 1). But they differ in respect of those two things which are requisite for pain and pleasure; namely, in respect of the cause, which is a conjoined good or evil; and in respect of the apprehension. For the cause of outward pain is a conjoined evil repugnant to the body; while the cause of inward pain is a conjoined evil repugnant to the appetite. Again, outward pain arises from an apprehension of sense, chiefly of touch; while inward pain arises from an interior apprehension, of the imagination or of the reason.

If then we compare the cause of inward pain to the cause of outward pain, the former belongs, of itself, to the appetite to which both these pains belong: while the latter belongs to the appetite directly. Because inward pain arises from something being repugnant to the appetite itself, while outward pain arises from something being repugnant to the appetite, through being repugnant to the body. Now, that which is of itself is always prior to that which is by reason of another. Wherefore, from this point of view, inward pain surpasses outward pain. In like manner also on the part of apprehension: because the apprehension of reason and imagination is of a higher order than the apprehension of the sense of touch. Consequently inward pain is, simply and of itself, more keen than outward pain: a sign whereof is that one willingly undergoes outward pain in order to avoid inward pain: and in so far as outward pain is not repugnant to the interior appetite, it becomes in a manner pleasant and agreeable by way of inward joy. Sometimes, however, outward pain is accompanied by inward pain, and then the pain is increased. Because inward pain is not only greater than outward pain, it is also more universal: since whatever is repugnant to the body, can be repugnant to the interior appetite; and whatever is apprehended by sense may be apprehended by imagination and reason, but not conversely. Hence in the passage quoted above it is said expressively: "Sadness of the heart is every wound," because even the pains of outward wounds are comprised in the interior sorrows of the heart.

Reply to Objection 1: Inward pain can also arise from things that are destructive of life. And then the comparison of inward to outward pain must not be taken in reference to the various evils that cause pain; but in regard to the various ways in which this cause of pain is compared to the appetite.

Reply to Objection 2: Inward pain is not caused by the apprehended likeness of a thing: for a man is not inwardly pained by the apprehended likeness itself, but by the thing which the likeness represents. And this thing is all the more perfectly apprehended by means of its likeness, as this likeness is more immaterial and abstract. Consequently inward pain is, of itself, greater, as being caused by a greater evil, forasmuch as evil is better known by an inward apprehension.

Reply to Objection 3: Bodily changes are more liable to be caused by outward pain, both from the fact that outward pain is caused by a corruptive conjoined corporally, which is a necessary condition of the sense of touch; and from the fact that the outward sense is more material than the inward sense, just as the sensitive appetite is more material than the intellective. For this reason, as stated above (Question 22, Article 3; Question 31, Article 5), the body undergoes a greater change from the movement of the sensitive appetite: and, in like manner, from outward than from inward pain.

Articulus 7

Argumentum 1

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolor exterior sit maior quam dolor cordis interior. Dolor enim exterior causatur ex causa repugnante bonae consistentiae corporis, in quo est vita, dolor autem interior causatur ex aliqua imaginatione mali. Cum ergo vita magis ametur quam imaginatum bonum, videtur, secundum praedicta, quod dolor exterior sit maior quam dolor interior.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, res magis movet quam rei similitudo. Sed dolor exterior provenit ex reali coniunctione alicuius contrarii, dolor autem interior ex similitudine contrarii apprehensa.

Ergo maior est dolor exterior quam dolor interior.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, causa ex effectu cognoscitur. Sed dolor exterior habet fortiores effectus, facilius enim homo moritur propter dolores exteriores quam propter dolorem interiorem. Ergo exterior dolor est maior, et magis fugitur, quam dolor interior.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. XXV, omnis plaga tristitia cordis est, et omnis malitia nequitia mulieris.

Ergo, sicut nequitia mulieris alias nequitias superat, ut ibi intenditur; ita tristitia cordis omnem plagam exteriorem excedit.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod dolor interior et exterior in uno conveniunt, et in duobus differunt. Conveniunt quidem in hoc, quod uterque est motus appetitivae virtutis, ut supra dictum est.

Differunt autem secundum illa duo quae ad tristitiam et delectationem requiruntur, scilicet secundum causam, quae est bonum vel malum coniunctum; et secundum apprehensionem. Causa enim doloris exterioris est malum coniunctum quod repugnat corpori, causa autem interioris doloris est malum coniunctum quod repugnat appetitui. Dolor etiam exterior sequitur apprehensionem sensus, et specialiter tactus, dolor autem interior sequitur apprehensionem interiorem, imaginationis scilicet vel etiam rationis. Si ergo comparatur causa interioris doloris ad causam exterioris, una per se pertinet ad appetitum, cuius est uterque dolor, alia vero per aliud. Nam dolor interior est ex hoc quod aliquid repugnat ipsi appetitui, exterior autem dolor, ex hoc quod repugnat appetitui quia repugnat corpori. Semper autem quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per aliud. Unde ex parte ista, dolor interior praeeminet dolori exteriori. Similiter etiam ex parte apprehensionis. Nam apprehensio rationis et imaginationis altior est quam apprehensio sensu tactus. Unde simpliciter et per se loquendo, dolor interior potior est quam dolor exterior.

Cuius signum est, quod etiam dolores exteriores aliquis voluntarie suscipit, ut evitet interiorem dolorem. Et inquantum non repugnat dolor exterior interiori appetitui, fit quodammodo delectabilis et iucundus interiori gaudio.

Quandoque tamen dolor exterior est cum interiori dolore, et tunc dolor augetur. Non solum enim interior dolor est maior quam exterior, sed etiam universalior. Quidquid enim est repugnans corpori, potest esse repugnans interiori appetitui; et quidquid apprehenditur sensu, potest apprehendi imaginatione et ratione; sed non convertitur.

Et ideo signanter in auctoritate adducta dicitur, omnis plaga tristitia cordis est, quia etiam dolores exteriorum plagarum sub interiori cordis tristitia comprehenduntur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dolor interior potest etiam esse de his quae contrariantur vitae. Et sic comparatio doloris interioris ad exteriorem non est accipienda secundum diversa mala quae sunt causa doloris, sed secundum diversam comparationem huius causae doloris ad appetitum.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod tristitia interior non procedit ex similitudine rei apprehensa, sicut ex causa, non enim homo tristatur interius de ipsa similitudine apprehensa, sed de re cuius est similitudo. Quae quidem res tanto perfectius apprehenditur per aliquam similitudinem, quanto similitudo est magis immaterialis et abstracta. Et ideo dolor interior, per se loquendo, est maior, tanquam de maiori malo existens; propter hoc quod interiori apprehensione magis cognoscitur malum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod immutationes corporales magis causantur ex dolore exteriori, tum quia causa doloris exterioris est corrumpens coniunctum corporaliter, quod exigit apprehensio tactus. Tum etiam quia sensus exterior est magis corporalis quam sensus interior, sicut et appetitus sensitivus quam intellectivus.

Et propter hoc, ut supra dictum est, ex motu appetitus sensitivi magis corpus immutatur. Et similiter ex dolore exteriori, magis quam ex dolore interiori.