Imagine a wife who is angry with her husband.
Perhaps he has not carried his family duties: He had to go home to pick up the kids, and once again he bailed at the last minute to have another drink with his work colleagues. And again.

~

“How of her who says.
‘Now, now, I learn what horrors I intend: But passion overmastereth sober thought?’

It is because the very gratification of her passion and the taking of vengeance on her husband she regards as more profitable than the saving of her children.
"Yes, but she is deceived."
Show her clearly that she is deceived, and she will not do it; but so long as you do not show it, what else has she to follow but that which appears to her to be true?
Nothing.
Why, then, are you angry with her, because the poor woman has gone astray in the greatest matters, and has been transformed from a human being into a viper?
Why do you not, if anything, rather pity her? As we pity the blind and the halt, why do we not pity those who have been made blind and halt in their governing faculties?

Whoever, then, bears this clearly in mind, that the measure of man's every action is the impression of his senses (now this impression may be formed rightly or wrongly; if rightly, the man is blameless; if wrongly, the man himself pays the penalty; for it is impossible that the man who has gone astray, is one person, while the man who suffers is another),—whoever remembers this, I say, will not be enraged at anyone, will not be angry with anyone, will not revile anyone, will not blame, nor hate, nor take offence at anyone.
So you conclude that such great and terrible things have their origin in this—the impression of one's senses?
In this and nothing else.”

~

This is not a simple text.

Let me try to give you my interpretation:

According to Epictetus' Stoic philosophy, anger is often seen as an irrational response that stems from misjudgments or distorted perceptions of reality; yet Epictetus suggests that the woman was wrong to be angry mainly because she was acting on the basis of a misperception of what was best for her situation. Epictetus criticises the woman not only for being angry, but also for acting on the basis of a misconception of what would be beneficial for her.

She mistakenly believes that it is best to punish her husband, thus prioritising her emotional response, her relief through anger, even if it harms her children, reflecting a false understanding of the priorities and consequences of her actions.

When we recognise this, we should show compassion to this woman because her misjudgement has led her to this excessive anger. So it would be unreasonable for us to allow ourselves to succumb to anger.

Do you follow me?