There is so near an affinity betwixt _anger_ and _cruelty_, that many people confound them; as if _cruelty_ were only the _execution_ of _anger_ in the payment of a _revenge_: which holds in some cases, but not in others. There are a sort of men that take delight in the spilling of human blood, and in the death of those that never did them any injury, nor were ever so much suspected for it; as Apollodorus, Phalaris, Sinis, Procrustus, and others, that burnt men alive; whom we cannot so properly call _angry_ as _brutal_, for _anger_ does necessarily presuppose an injury, either _done_, or _conceived_, or _feared_, but the other takes _pleasure_ in _tormenting_, without so much as pretending any _provocation_ to it, and _kills_ merely for _killing sake_. The _original_ of this _cruelty_ perhaps was _anger_, which by frequent _exercise_ and _custom_, has lost all sense of _humanity_ and _mercy_, and they that are thus affected are so far from the countenance and appearance of men in _anger_, that they will _laugh_, _rejoice_, and _entertain themselves_ with the most _horrid spectacles_, as _racks_, _jails_, _gibbets_, several sorts of _chains_ and _punishments_, _dilaceration_ of _members_, _stigmatizing_, and _wild beasts_, with other exquisite inventions of torture; and yet, at last the cruelty itself is more horrid and odious than the means by which it works. It is a bestial madness to _love_ mischief; beside, that it is _womanish_ to _rage_ and _tear_. A generous beast will scorn to do it when he has any thing at his mercy. It is a vice for wolves and tigers, and no less _abominable_ to the _world_ than _dangerous_ to itself.