SO FAR it was the domain of psychologists to study and investigate the impact of emotions on human life. Now, historians, extending the borders of history, are making attempts to analyze the role of emotions in the formation of history and its progress. However, emotions are studied in their historical perspective to see how they change their meaning and perception in different historical periods.
Anger is one such emotion. Every individual expresses his anger to show his despair, helplessness, and some time his authority over others. Whenever, an individual becomes angry, it is indicated not only from the movement of his body and the expression of his face but the language that he speaks.
Anger is also used as a tool to control the weaker classes of society. On the one hand it is advised that the elite classes should show their anger to their servants in order to instil awe and fear in them. On the other hand, the lower classes are expected to control their anger in spite of the injustice and exploitation of their superiors.
Historians of the Annals school are exploring new territories in historical studies. One such historian will write the history of emotions. Barbara Rosen Wein has published a book ‘The Anger’s past: the Social uses of emotion in the Middles Ages’ It is a collection of articles written by eminent historians on the various aspects of anger in the past. These articles deal with how anger related to the various classes and how these classes showed their anger in their particular circumstances. For example, the anger of the priestly class was associated with religion, while rulers, nobles, and feudal lords possessing power and authority behaved autocratically using anger as a tool to control their subjects. Peasants and poor people suppressed their anger against the authorities, kept silence and endured all hardships.
Anger had many features in the medieval period. One of them was to abuse and curse in a state of anger. The nature of the curse indicated the social and religious status of the individual. In the case of a religious man he sought the help of God to destroy or eliminate the adversary or enemy: for example, his curses contained these sentences: “ May the Lord toss their bodies as bait to the birds of sky and the beasts of the land. May they be damned with the devil and angles in hell and may they burn in eternal fire.” Whenever, God’s help was sought to destroy or to harm a person, it indicated two things: one that the person cursing was very weak and had no power to take revenge against his enemy, therefore, he needed divine help to fulfill his wish. Secondly, he did not want to take the responsibility of someone’s calamity and wished to make God responsible for the catastrophe on his enemy.
Contrary to religious curses, secular ones were different. In this case, the opponents were abused in such terms that were regarded socially challenging. For example, to call anybody a bastard was to challenge his ancestry and to humiliate his social status. In other cases, those who had the authority accused their subordinates of being lazy, stupid, illiterate, and uncultured rogues. Rulers in normal circumstances remained composed but showed their anger towards rebels, criminals, and recalcitrant nobles. It was tradition that whenever a royal edict was issued it would mention that in case of disobedience, royal wrath would not spare anyone. Both in the East as well as in the West manuals known as the ‘mirrors of princes’ were written for the rulers instructing them on how to behave in different circumstances. It is advised that rulers should maintain a balance in their kindness and anger. In case of imbalance there would be chaos and anarchy.
For example in Indian history Jalaluddin Khilji is criticized by contemporary historians for being too kind to rebels and criminals resulting in weakness of his rule. On the other hand, Balban and Alauddin were too strict and rendered severe punishment to rebels and criminals. The result was that after their death, their successors allowed unlimited freedom that ultimately led to the collapse of their dynasties. Both extremes proved disastrous for rulers.
In the medieval period, peasants were regarded as uncultured and savages, therefore, their anger was judged in the light of their social status. It was not a positive or just anger but an anger that created riot, disorder, and lawlessness. Contemporary historians condemned their revolts as a result of irrational anger. In 1233 Pope Gregory ix proclaimed a crusade against the rebellion of peasants in Bremen calling them wild beasts. The rebellions of peasants were judged by ruling classes not as a result of exploitation but from disobedience of authority.
Paul Freedman, writing on “Peasant’s Anger in the Middle Ages” observes that: “Peasants’ anger was not portrayed as a response to injustice, much less as a purposeful social movement. Rage was potentially inherent in the essentially low nature of the peasantry that could erupt if the rustics were not held firmly in check. Cold, calculated anger, either for revenge or in defense of honour, was considered generally impossible for peasants.”In a hierarchical society, the rebellion of peasants was looked upon because the right to fight a battle was the privilege of knights while the duty of peasants was to labour and work. Their anger and subsequent rebellions were regarded as violation of tradition and therefore should be crushed without mercy.
Marc Bloch, a French historian traces the causes of the emotional states of the medieval people and argues that the reason of their anger was that they did not get nutritious food. Secondly, they did not have any sense of cleanliness. These two elements made them emotional in their daily life. Besides these, there was fear of authority, epidemics, famines, incidents of violence and torture that contributed to a sense of insecurity in them.
The change in Europe occurred as a result of the Renaissance which initiated, in the words of Norbert Elias, “a process of civilization”. In the changed environment, it became a virtue to control anger and behave like a gentleman. In the modern age, the nature of anger has further changed as a result of thedemocratization of society. Now, not people but rulers are afraid of people’s anger.
