For the Stoics held that the soul's passions cannot be in a wise or virtuous man: whereas the Peripatetics, who were founded by Aristotle, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) , maintained that the passions are compatible with moral virtue, if they be reduced to the mean.
 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1274). copy citation

add
Author Thomas Aquinas
Source Summa Theologica
Topic passion virtue
Date 1274
Language English
Reference
Note Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Weblink http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17897/pg17897-images.html

Context

“Dei xiv, 6) : "If the will is perverse, these movements," viz. the passions, "are perverse also: but if it is upright, they are not only blameless, but even praiseworthy." But nothing praiseworthy is incompatible with moral virtue. Therefore moral virtue does not exclude the passions, but is consistent with them.
I answer that, The Stoics and Peripatetics disagreed on this point, as Augustine relates (De Civ. Dei ix, 4). For the Stoics held that the soul's passions cannot be in a wise or virtuous man: whereas the Peripatetics, who were founded by Aristotle, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) , maintained that the passions are compatible with moral virtue, if they be reduced to the mean. This difference, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei ix, 4) , was one of words rather than of opinions. Because the Stoics, through not discriminating between the intellective appetite, i.e. the will, and the sensitive appetite, which is divided into irascible and concupiscible, did not, as the Peripatetics did, distinguish the passions from the other affections of the human soul, in the point of their being movements of the sensitive appetite, whereas the other emotions of the soul, which are not passions, are movements of the intellective appetite or will; but only in the point of the passions being, as they maintained, any emotions in disaccord with reason.” source