Another point: even the lowest person can hope to hurt the most powerful. We all have the power to cause trouble. Aristotle's definition is close to mine. He says anger is the desire to pay back suffering. It would take too long to compare our definitions. But you could argue against both of us that wild animals get angry without being hurt first. They don't think about punishing others or making them suffer. Even when they do hurt others, that's not their goal.
In the next place, no one is so low in station as not to be able to hope to inflict punishment even upon the greatest of men: we all are powerful for mischief. Aristotle's definition differs little from mine: for he declares anger to be a desire to repay suffering. It would be a long task to examine the differences between his definition and mine: it may be urged against both of them that wild beasts become angry without being excited by injury, and without any idea of punishing others or requiting them with pain: for, even though they do these things, these are not what they aim at doing.