title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt:
Quo genere peccati mulier peccaverit
By what kind of sin the woman sinned

source_text:
<!-- page 515 -->

### Articulus I. *De culpa primorum parentum quoad inordinationem affectus.*
### Quaestio I. *Quo genere peccati mulier peccaverit.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod mulier peccaverit peccato superbiae.

1. Ecclesiastici decimo[^1]: *Initium omnis peccati superbia.* Et iterum Ecclesiastici vigesimo quinto: *A muliere initium peccati*: ergo mulier peccavit peccato superbiae.

Item, Augustinus in libro de Virginitate[^2]: «Diabolus in caelo voluit esse sicut Deus; cadens autem persuasit homini similitudinem suae voluntatis»: ergo si persuasit mulieri, et mulier persuadenti consensit, peccavit igitur peccato superbiae.

Item, hoc videtur ratione. Impossibile erat, hominem deordinari in potentia inferiori, nisi prius deordinaretur in superiori: ergo non poterat prius inordinate converti ad bonum inferius vel exterius, quam converteretur ad bonum superius; sed converti inordinate ad bonum superius hoc est superbia[^3]: ergo primum peccatum mulieris non potuit esse nisi superbia.

Item, mulier voluit manducare pomum: hoc non fuit propter famem vel appetitum delectandi in cibo, cum nulla esset in gustu eius deordinatio: igitur hoc fuit, quia aliquid spirituale per illius cibi comestionem intendebat; hoc autem non erat nisi esse sicut Deus, quod diabolus promiserat[^4]: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:**
2. Videtur, quod primum peccatum mulieris fuerit inobedientia: primo, quia hoc innuit textus Genesis tertio[^5]: *Quis indicavit tibi, quod nudus esses, nisi quia de ligno, de quo praeceperam tibi, ut non comederes, comedisti?* —

<!-- page 516 -->

Secundo, quia hoc confirmat Apostolus ad Romanos quinto[^6]: *Sicut per unius inobedientiam peccatores constituti sunt multi etc.* Et iterum: *Per unius inobedientiam mors intravit in mundum.* — Postremo hoc expressius declarat Augustinus de Vera Religione[^7], ubi ait: *Adam propter transgressionem inobedientiae de paradiso eiectus est.* — Si ergo primum peccatum hominis fuit inobedientia, non ergo videtur, quod fuerit superbia.

3. Item, quod primum peccatum fuerit gula, videtur: primo per hoc quod innuit textus, Genesis tertio[^8]: *Vidit igitur mulier lignum, quod esset ad vescendum suave.* — Secundo hoc confirmat Evangelium, quia Christus primo fuit tentatus a diabolo de gula, sicut legitur Matthaei quarto[^9]: *Dic, ut lapides isti* etc.; sed eo ordine tentationis tentavit primum hominem, quo tentavit Christum, sicut Sancti dicunt. — Postremo hoc expressius declarat Ambrosius[^10] in illo hymno: *Quando pomi noxialis morte morsu corruit.* — Si igitur peccatum primum fuit gula: ergo non fuit superbia, cum sint diversa peccatorum genera, et unum et idem simul et semel in diversis generibus esse non possit.

4. Item, videtur, quod primum peccatum mulieris fuerit avaritia: primo, per textum Genesis tertio[^11]: *Eritis sicut dii, scientes bonum et malum.* Hoc promisit diabolus, et hoc primo cecidit in mulieris appetitum; sed appetere multitudinem scientiae plus quam oportet, hoc est avaritiae, sicut dicit Gregorius. — Deinde, hoc confirmat Apostolus, primae ad Timotheum ultimo[^12]: *Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas*; sed peccatum mulieris omnium aliorum peccatorum radix fuit. — Postremo, hoc ipsum expresse declarat Glossa super illud Psalmi[^13]: *Quae non rapui, tunc* etc., ubi dicit, quod «Eva tunc voluit rapere divinitatem». Si ergo rapina est peccatum avaritiae, primum peccatum Evae fuit in genere avaritiae: ergo non fuit in genere superbiae.

5. Item, videtur, quod primum peccatum fuerit infidelitas: primo, quia hoc insinuat textus, Genesis tertio[^14], ubi dixit mulier: *Ne forte moriamur*; dubitavit ergo de verbo Dei. Si ergo dubitare de eo quod debemus credere, hoc est infidelitatis, peccatum infidelitatis primo commisit. — Secundo, hoc confirmat Evangelium, Lucae primo[^15]: *Beata, quae credidisti*; dictum est Virgini Mariae. Si ergo salus respondet per oppositum praevaricationi, et haec incepit a fide Mariae, videtur, quod illa inceperit ab infidelitate Evae. — Postremo, hoc expressius declarat Magister, et habitum est in distinctione praecedenti[^16], in progressu tentationis, ubi dicit, quod mulier, cum dubitavit, «ab affirmante recessit et neganti appropinquavit»; sed hoc non fuit sine culpa infidelitatis: ergo infidelitas fuit primum mulieris peccatum: non ergo primo peccavit peccato superbiae.

Si forte tu dicas, quod pluribus generibus peccatorum simul et semel peccaverit; hoc non videtur possibile, cum simul et semel non possit se pluribus conversionibus et aversionibus deordinare; et quidquid de hoc sit, planum est, quod esse primum peccatum uni soli convenire potest, cum per superabundantiam dici habeat[^17].

> **Conclusio.** Peccatum mulieris inchoatum fuit in superbia, progressum habuit in quadam avaritia, consummationem habuit in gula et inobedientia.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut innuit textus[^18] et expresse dicit Apostolus, principale peccatum hominis, per quod lapsus est, fuit inobedientia, et per quod derivatur mors in omnes posteros. Unde et ad hoc diabolus ipsum inducere intendebat: quod patet per principium suae interrogationis: *Cur praecepit vobis Deus*[^19] etc. — Sed quoniam «nemo operatur ad malum aspiciens nec appetit malum nisi sub specie boni»; ideo clare deprehendens diabolus, quod non posset mulierem in peccatum praecipitare, nisi proponeret aliquod appetibile; illa in tentando proposuit fallaciter, ad quae omnis homo secundum veritatem tendit naturaliter.

<!-- page 517 -->

Naturaliter enim omnis homo beatitudinem appetit[^20], quae est bonum gloriosum et copiosum et deliciosum; ideo omnis homo naturaliter appetit excellentiam et sufficientiam et laetitiam; et in ordinato appetitu eorum consistit iustitia, in immoderato vero consistit culpa. Nam superbia non est aliud quam immoderatus appetitus excellentiae; avaritia non est aliud quam immoderatus appetitus sufficientiae; gula non est aliud quam immoderatus appetitus cibi reficientis suaviter.

Considerans igitur diabolus, hanc esse viam ad praecipitandam mulierem in culpam, primo, promisit dignitatis excellentiam: *Eritis sicut dii.* Secundo, subiunxit cognitionis abundantiam: *Scientes bonum et malum.* Postremo, praetendit suavitatis experientiam, cum ostendit lignum pulcrum visu et ad vescendum suave. Quoniam igitur mulier diabolicae suggestioni consensit, ideo primo, in appetendo esse sicut Deus, fuit superba. Deinde, in appetendo scire bonum et malum, quod non oportebat, et scire plus quam oportebat, fuit avara. Postremo, in experiendo suavitatem ligni vetiti fuit gulosa; et in hoc fuit transgressionis rea et culpa inobedientiae involuta. — Et sic patet, quod peccatum mulieris inchoatum fuit in superbia, progressum habuit in avaritia, consummationem habuit in gula[^21]. — Patet etiam, quod inordinata fuit quantum ad triplicem potentiam, scilicet quantum ad irascibilem, dum appetiit alta; quantum ad rationalem, dum appetiit scire occulta; quantum ad concupiscibilem, dum voluit degustare suavia. Unde ex illo peccato pullulaverunt radices omnium peccatorum.

**Ad argumenta:** Ex his igitur patet responsio ad quaesita. Rationes enim ostendentes, quod primum peccatum fuit superbia, verum concludunt, quia ab illo fuit inchoatio. Rationes similiter ostendentes, quod fuerit inobedientia, gula et avaritia, verum concludunt, licet non fuerit ibi avaritia proprie dicta, secundum quod dicitur esse appetitus pecuniae; fuit tamen avaritia, secundum quod est appetitus sufficientiae, et in ipsa fuit peccati progressus; sed in peccato gulae et inobedientiae fuit consummatio, in actu videlicet comedendi. Gula enim erat, in quantum in illo cibo inordinate delectari volebat; sed inobedientia, cum in actu ipsius comestionis contra divinum imperium faciebat. Et hoc expresse dicit Gregorius in quadam homilia[^22], ubi ostendit, quod tribus peccatorum generibus tentavit diabolus Christum, sicut prius tentaverat mulierem, et in illis tribus a Christo deiectus est, sicut per illa tria mulierem deiecerat. — Nec est inconveniens, plura genera peccatorum secundum progressum concurrere ad unum flagitium perpetrandum. Facillimum enim est de peccato in peccatum ruere, sicut contingit de motu unius virtutis ad motum alterius ascendere.

Ad illud igitur solum restat respondere, quod obiectum est de infidelitate; non enim concedendum est, mulierem peccato infidelitatis peccasse, nisi infidelitas accipiatur valde large. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod mulier dixit *forte*; dici potest, quod *forte* est ibi nota eventus, non dubitationis. — Sed quia Magister[^23] dicit expresse, quod est nota dubitationis; ideo aliter potest dici, quod revera mulier non dubitavit, verum esse quod Dominus dixerat; sed de hoc dubitavit, qualiter Dominus intelligebat, utrum scilicet intelligeret de morte corporali, vel spirituali, vel alio quocumque modo; et illa dubitatio nec fuit poena nec fuit culpa, sed quaedam nescientia, quae diabolo tentanti praebuit viam[^24]. — Nec cogit illud quod obiicit de fide beatae Mariae; nam, etsi fides in conceptione Filii Dei non modicum tenuerit locum, habuit tamen humilitatis usum praeambulum, ratione cuius dicitur Virgo Deo placuisse, sicut ipsa dicit: *Respexit Deus humilitatem ancillae suae*[^25]. Nec oportet etiam, omnino per eundem ordinem respondere reparationem destructioni; immo frequenter est e contrario, sicut via resolutionis et compositionis oppositis modis habent terminari et inchoari[^26]; sic et in proposito potest intelligi.

english:
### Article I. *On the fault of the first parents as to the disorder of affection.*
### Question I. *By what kind of sin the woman sinned.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the woman sinned by the sin of pride.

1. Ecclesiasticus, chapter ten[^1]: *Pride is the beginning of all sin.* And again Ecclesiasticus, chapter twenty-five: *From the woman came the beginning of sin*: therefore the woman sinned by the sin of pride.

Likewise, Augustine in the book *On Virginity*[^2]: "The devil in heaven willed to be as God; but falling, he persuaded man to the likeness of his own will": therefore if he persuaded the woman, and the woman consented to the persuader, she therefore sinned by the sin of pride.

Likewise, this seems [so] by reason. It was impossible for man to be disordered in a lower power unless he were first disordered in the higher: therefore he could not be inordinately turned to a lower or exterior good before he were turned to the higher good; but to be inordinately turned to the higher good — this is pride[^3]: therefore the first sin of the woman could be none other than pride.

Likewise, the woman willed to eat the apple: this was not on account of hunger or the appetite of taking delight in the food, since there was no disorder in her taste: therefore this was because she intended something spiritual through the eating of that food; but this was nothing other than to be as God, which the devil had promised[^4]: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
2. It seems that the first sin of the woman was disobedience: first, because the text intimates this, Genesis chapter three[^5]: *Who told you that you were naked, unless because you have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?* —

Secondly, because the Apostle confirms this, to the Romans chapter five[^6]: *As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners etc.* And again: *By the disobedience of one death entered into the world.* — Lastly Augustine declares this more expressly in *On True Religion*[^7], where he says: *Adam on account of the transgression of disobedience was cast out of paradise.* — If then the first sin of man was disobedience, it does not then seem that it was pride.

3. Likewise, that the first sin was gluttony seems [so]: first by this, that the text intimates it, Genesis chapter three[^8]: *The woman therefore saw the tree, that it was sweet to eat.* — Secondly the Gospel confirms this, because Christ was first tempted by the devil concerning gluttony, as is read in Matthew chapter four[^9]: *Say, that these stones* etc.; but in the same order of temptation by which he tempted Christ he tempted the first man, as the Saints say. — Lastly Ambrose declares this more expressly[^10] in that hymn: *When by the deadly bite of the apple he fell into death.* — If therefore the first sin was gluttony: then it was not pride, since the kinds of sins are diverse, and one and the same [sin] cannot be in diverse kinds at one and the same time.

4. Likewise, it seems that the first sin of the woman was avarice: first, by the text of Genesis chapter three[^11]: *You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.* This the devil promised, and this first fell into the appetite of the woman; but to desire a multitude of knowledge more than is fitting — this belongs to avarice, as Gregory says. — Then, the Apostle confirms this, in the first to Timothy, the last chapter[^12]: *The root of all evils is cupidity*; but the sin of the woman was the root of all the other sins. — Lastly, the Gloss declares this very thing expressly upon that [verse] of the Psalm[^13]: *What I took not away, then* etc., where it says that "Eve then willed to seize divinity." If then rapine is a sin of avarice, the first sin of Eve was in the genus of avarice: therefore it was not in the genus of pride.

5. Likewise, it seems that the first sin was unbelief: first, because the text insinuates this, Genesis chapter three[^14], where the woman said: *Lest perhaps we die*; she therefore doubted concerning the word of God. If then to doubt concerning that which we ought to believe is a matter of unbelief, she first committed the sin of unbelief. — Secondly, the Gospel confirms this, Luke chapter one[^15]: *Blessed are you who have believed*; this was said to the Virgin Mary. If then salvation answers by opposition to transgression, and this [salvation] began from the faith of Mary, it seems that that [transgression] began from the unbelief of Eve. — Lastly, the Master declares this more expressly, and it was set down in the preceding distinction[^16], in [treating of] the progress of the temptation, where he says that the woman, when she doubted, "receded from the one affirming and approached the one denying"; but this was not without the fault of unbelief: therefore unbelief was the first sin of the woman: therefore she did not first sin by the sin of pride.

If perhaps you should say that she sinned by several kinds of sins at one and the same time; this does not seem possible, since at one and the same time she cannot disorder herself by several turnings-toward and turnings-away; and whatever be the case of this, it is plain that being the first sin can belong to one alone, since it must be said [to be such] by superabundance[^17].

> **Conclusion.** The sin of the woman was begun in pride, had its progress in a certain avarice, [and] had its consummation in gluttony and disobedience.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the text intimates[^18] and the Apostle expressly says, the principal sin of man, by which he fell, was disobedience, and by which death is derived to all his posterity. Hence to this also the devil intended to lead him: which is clear from the beginning of his interrogation: *Why has God commanded you*[^19] etc. — But since "no one works toward evil while looking [at it], nor desires evil except under the appearance of good"; therefore the devil, clearly perceiving that he could not cast the woman down into sin unless he set before her something desirable, set before her deceitfully, in tempting, those things toward which every man according to truth naturally tends.

For every man naturally desires beatitude[^20], which is a glorious and copious and delightful good; therefore every man naturally desires excellence and sufficiency and gladness; and in the ordinate appetite of these consists justice, but in the immoderate [appetite] consists fault. For pride is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of excellence; avarice is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of sufficiency; gluttony is nothing other than the immoderate appetite of food refreshing sweetly.

The devil therefore, considering this to be the way to cast the woman down into fault, first promised the excellence of dignity: *You shall be as gods.* Secondly, he subjoined the abundance of knowledge: *Knowing good and evil.* Lastly, he held forth the experience of sweetness, when he showed the tree fair to sight and sweet to eat. Since therefore the woman consented to the diabolical suggestion, therefore first, in desiring to be as God, she was proud. Then, in desiring to know good and evil, which she ought not, and to know more than she ought, she was avaricious. Lastly, in experiencing the sweetness of the forbidden tree she was gluttonous; and in this she was guilty of transgression and involved in the fault of disobedience. — And so it is clear that the sin of the woman was begun in pride, had its progress in avarice, [and] had its consummation in gluttony[^21]. — It is also clear that she was disordered as to the threefold power, namely as to the irascible, while she desired lofty things; as to the rational, while she desired to know hidden things; as to the concupiscible, while she willed to taste sweet things. Hence from that sin the roots of all sins sprang forth.

**To the arguments:** From these things, then, the response to what was asked is clear. For the reasons showing that the first sin was pride conclude truly, because from it was the beginning. The reasons likewise showing that it was disobedience, gluttony, and avarice conclude truly, although there was not there avarice properly so called, according as it is said to be the appetite of money; yet there was avarice, according as it is the appetite of sufficiency, and in it was the progress of the sin; but in the sin of gluttony and disobedience was the consummation, namely in the act of eating. For it was gluttony, inasmuch as she willed to take inordinate delight in that food; but disobedience, when in the very act of eating she acted against the divine command. And this Gregory expressly says in a certain homily[^22], where he shows that by three kinds of sins the devil tempted Christ, as he had earlier tempted the woman, and in those three was cast off by Christ, as by those three he had cast down the woman. — Nor is it inconsistent that several kinds of sins should, according to a progression, concur to the perpetrating of one crime. For it is most easy to rush from sin into sin, as it happens to ascend from the motion of one power to the motion of another.

To that alone, then, it remains to respond which was objected concerning unbelief; for it is not to be granted that the woman sinned by the sin of unbelief, unless unbelief be taken very broadly. — As to what is objected, that the woman said *perhaps*; it can be said that *perhaps* is there a mark of the event, not of doubt. — But since the Master[^23] says expressly that it is a mark of doubt; therefore it can be said otherwise, that in truth the woman did not doubt that what the Lord had said was true; but she doubted concerning this, in what way the Lord understood [it], namely whether he understood [it] of bodily death, or spiritual, or in some other way; and that doubt was neither punishment nor fault, but a certain not-knowing, which afforded a way to the devil tempting[^24]. — Nor does that compel [otherwise] which is objected concerning the faith of blessed Mary; for, although faith held no small place in the conception of the Son of God, it nevertheless had as a preamble the exercise of humility, by reason of which the Virgin is said to have pleased God, as she herself says: *God has regarded the humility of his handmaid*[^25]. Nor is it even necessary to respond to the destruction by the same order entirely in the reparation; rather it is frequently the contrary, just as the way of resolution and of composition have to be terminated and begun in opposite modes[^26]; so too in the matter at hand it can be understood.

la: Vers. 1-5, ubi in Vulgata post *peccati* additur *est.* — Seq. text. est loc. cit. v. 33, qui in Vulg. sic sonat: *A muliere initium factum est peccati.*

en: Verses 1–5, where in the Vulgate *est* is added after *peccati.* — The following text is from the same place, v. 33, which in the Vulgate reads thus: *From the woman the beginning of sin was made.*

la: Cap. 31. n. 31, sententialiter. Verba, quae ibi leguntur, haec sunt: *Est periculosa superbia, quae amplius amplioribus insidiatur. Hanc sequitur invidentia tanquam filia pedissequa; eam quippe superbia continue parit nec unquam est sine tali prole atque comite. Quibus duobus malis, hoc est superbia et invidentia, diabolus est.*

en: [De sancta virginitate] c. 31, n. 31, in substance. The words read there are these: *Dangerous is pride, which lays its snares the more for the greater. Envy follows it as a daughter-attendant; for pride continually begets it, nor is it ever without such offspring and companion. By these two evils, that is pride and envy, [there] is the devil.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 21. a. 3. q. 1. et infra d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. — Circa fin. corp. — In codd. et edd. 1, 2 legitur sic: *Impossibile erat, hominem deordinari in potentia superiori, nisi prius deordinaretur in inferiori: ergo non poterat prius inordinate converti ad bonum interius vel exterius, quam converteretur ad bonum inferius; sed converti inordinate ad bonum inferius hoc est superbia: ergo etc.* Lectio nequam.

en: Cf. above, d. 21, a. 3, q. 1, and below, d. 31, a. 1, q. 2. — Near the end of the body. — In the codices and editions 1, 2 it is read thus: *"It was impossible for man to be disordered in a higher power unless he were first disordered in the lower: therefore he could not be inordinately turned to an interior or exterior good before he were turned to the lower good; but to be inordinately turned to the lower good — this is pride: therefore etc."* A worthless reading.

la: Gen. 3, 5: *Et eritis sicut dii.*

en: Gen. 3:5: *And you shall be as gods.*

la: Vers. 11 Vulgata: *Quis enim indicavit... nisi quod ex ligno... tibi, ne comederes, comedisti?*

en: Verse 11, Vulgate: *Who indeed told [you]... unless [that you ate] from the tree... [of which I commanded] you, that you should not eat, [and] you have eaten?*

la: Vers. 19: *Sicut enim per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores* etc. Seq. textus est ibid. v. 12: *Sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors* etc.

en: Verse 19: *For as by the disobedience of one man [many were made] sinners* etc. The following text is from the same place, v. 12: *As by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death* etc.

la: Cap. 20. n. 38: *Est autem vitium primum animae rationalis voluntas ea faciendi, quae vetat summa et intima veritas. Ita homo de paradiso in hoc saeculum expulsus est.*

en: [On True Religion] c. 20, n. 38: *Now the first vice of the rational soul is the will to do those things which the supreme and inmost truth forbids. Thus man was expelled from paradise into this world.*

la: Vers. 6: *Vidit igitur mulier, quod bonum esset lignum ad vescendum.*

en: Verse 6: *The woman therefore saw that the tree was good to eat.*

la: Vers. 3. — De ordine tentationis Christi cfr. Ambros., IV. super Luc. n. 33; Gregor., in Evang. homil. 16. n. 2. seq.

en: Verse 3. — On the order of the temptation of Christ cf. Ambrose, *On Luke* IV, n. 33; Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels* 16, n. 2 f.

la: Hymnus «Pange lingua gloriosi», qui in Breviario Romano habetur pro Dominica Passionis ad Matutinum; nunc Venantio Fortunato tribuitur. Vide eius Opera miscell. II. c. 2. (Migne, Patrol. lat. tom. 88.), ubi versus hic allegatus sic exhibetur: *Quando pomi noxialis / Morsu in mortem corruit.*

en: The hymn "Pange lingua gloriosi," which in the Roman Breviary is set for Passion Sunday at Matins; now attributed to Venantius Fortunatus. See his *Opera miscellanea* II, c. 2 (Migne, *Patrologia Latina* tom. 88), where the verse here cited is given thus: *When by the bite of the deadly apple he fell into death.*

la: Vers. 5. — Gregorius, qui hic citatur, in Evang. hom. 16. n. 2. sic ait: *Et ex provectu avaritiae tentavit, cum diceret: Scientes bonum et malum. Avaritia enim non solum pecuniae est, sed etiam altitudinis. Recte enim avaritia dicitur, cum supra modum sublimitas ambitur* etc. Cfr. August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 13. 10.

en: Verse 5. — Gregory, who is here cited, in *Homilies on the Gospels* 16, n. 2 says thus: *And he tempted by the advancement of avarice, when he said: Knowing good and evil. For avarice is not only of money, but also of loftiness. For it is rightly called avarice when sublimity is sought beyond measure* etc. Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis to the Letter* XI, c. 13, 10.

la: Vers. 68, 5. — Glossam, quae sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in hunc locum, serm. 1. n. 9, vide apud Lyranum.

en: Verse 68:5. — The Gloss, which is taken from Augustine, *Enarrations* on this place, sermon 1, n. 9, see in Lyranus.

la: Vers. 3. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Verse 3. — Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Vers. 43. — Petr., Chrysol., serm. 142. n. 1, de Annuntiatione: *Audistis agi [Angelum cum muliere], ut homo cursibus eisdem, quibus dilapsus fuerat ad mortem, rediret ad vitam.* — Non pauci codd., ut F H K T aa ee, paulo inferius omittunt *Evae.*

en: Verse 43. — Peter Chrysologus, sermon 142, n. 1, on the Annunciation: *You have heard that [the Angel dealt with the woman], so that by the same courses by which man had slipped down to death, he might return to life.* — Not a few codices, like F H K T aa ee, a little below omit *Evae.*

la: Cap. 5., circa med., ubi agitur de progressu tentationis. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 post *declarat* subiungunt *in littera.*

en: [Distinction XXI] c. 5, near the middle, where the progress of the temptation is treated. — Codex cc and edition 1 after *declarat* add *in littera.*

la: Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.): *Nam quod est secundum superabundantiam uni soli inest.* — Haec obiectio incid. tangitur in lit. Magistri, d. XXXIII. c. 2. et in Comment. ibid. dub. 1. — Aliquanto superius pro *peccaverit* plures codd., inter quos s T Y aa ee cum edd. 1, 2, 3, *peccavit.*

en: Aristotle, *Topics* V, c. 3 (c. 5): *For what is according to superabundance belongs to one alone.* — This objection is touched incidentally in the text of the Master, d. XXXIII, c. 2, and in the Commentary there, dub. 1. — Somewhat above, for *peccaverit* several codices, among them s T Y aa ee with editions 1, 2, 3, read *peccavit.*

la: Gen. 3, 11. Cfr. hic arg. 2, quo loco et verba Apostoli exhibentur. — Mox codd. K P T V aa ee cum edd. 1, 2 *inobedientiae*, cod. Q *peccatum inobedientiae* pro *inobedientia.*

en: Gen. 3:11. Cf. here arg. 2, in which place the words of the Apostle are also given. — Soon after, codices K P T V aa ee with editions 1, 2 [read] *inobedientiae*; codex Q [reads] *peccatum inobedientiae* for *inobedientia.*

la: Gen. 3, 1. — Textus seq. est Dionysii, de Div. Nom. c. 4. §§ 19. et 31. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 804, nota 6. et pag. 823, nota 7. — Paulo inferius pro *illa in tentando* Vat. *illam tentando*, et dein pro *fallaciter* multi codd. cum ed. 2 *faciliter.*

en: Gen. 3:1. — The following text is from Dionysius, *On the Divine Names* c. 4, §§ 19 and 31. Cf. tom. I, p. 804, note 6, and p. 823, note 7. — A little below, for *illa in tentando* the Vatican edition reads *illam tentando*, and then for *fallaciter* many codices with edition 2 read *faciliter.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 1. seqq. et VII. Polit. c. 13. (c. 12.); August., X. Confess. c. 20. n. 29. seqq; I. de Lib. Arb. c. 14. n. 30; I. de Morib. eccles. cathol. c. 3. n. 4; XIII. de Trin. c. 3. n. 6. seqq; X. de Civ. Dei, c. 1; Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 2.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Ethics* I, c. 1 ff. and *Politics* VII, c. 13 (c. 12); Augustine, *Confessions* X, c. 20, n. 29 ff.; *On Free Will* I, c. 14, n. 30; *On the Morals of the Catholic Church* I, c. 3, n. 4; *On the Trinity* XIII, c. 3, n. 6 ff.; *On the City of God* X, c. 1; Boethius, *Consolation [of Philosophy]* III, prose 2.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. et d. XXI. c. 5.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1, and d. XXI, c. 5.

la: In Evang. homil. 16. n. 2. seq.

en: [Gregory,] *Homilies on the Gospels* 16, n. 2 f.

la: Dist. XXI. c. 5.

en: Distinction XXI, c. 5.

la: Cfr. infra a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. below, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 496, nota 2. et Ambros., IV. super Luc. n. 58. (in Brev. Romano, feria 6. infra hebdom. 3. Quadrag.).

en: Cf. above, p. 496, note 2, and Ambrose, *On Luke* IV, n. 58 (in the Roman Breviary, Friday within the third week of Lent). ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Pro dilucidatione huius quaestionis servire potest quod supra d. 8. a. 1. q. 1. 2. et a. 2. q. 1. dictum est de peccato superbiae, commisso ab angelis lapsis. In substantia doctrinae doctores communius consentiunt. Attamen Scot. (I. Sent. d. 21. q. 2. n. 2, et Report. hic q. unica) censet, peccatum Adae non fuisse immoderatum amorem sui (sicut fuit in daemonibus), sed immoderatum amorem amicitiae uxoris; aliter autem iudicandum esse de peccato Evae. — Quoad solut. ad obiect. notandum est, etiam S. Thomam (hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 1.) excusare protoparentes a peccato infidelitatis.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 104. m. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. II. q. 163. a. 1; de Malo q. 7. a. 7. ad 12. 13. — B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 14. q. 87. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Biel, de hac et seq. q., hic q. 1.

**III.** De sequente quaest. praecise pauci antiqui explicite tractant, sed hoc loco solvunt simile dubium, scil. utrum protoparentes appetierint esse aequales Deo. Tamen de hac quaestione agunt: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** For the elucidation of this question, what was said above (d. 8, a. 1, q. 1 and 2, and a. 2, q. 1) concerning the sin of pride committed by the fallen angels can serve. In the substance of the doctrine the doctors more commonly agree. Nevertheless Scotus (I Sent., d. 21, q. 2, n. 2, and *Reportata*, here, the single question) holds that the sin of Adam was not an immoderate love of self (as it was in the demons), but an immoderate love of friendship for his wife; but [that] it must be judged otherwise concerning the sin of Eve. — As to the solution to the objection, it is to be noted that St. Thomas also (here, q. 1, a. 1, ad 1) excuses the first parents from the sin of unbelief.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 104, m. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; *Summa* I-II, q. 163, a. 1; *de Malo* q. 7, a. 7, ad 12, 13. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1; *Summa* p. II, tr. 14, q. 87, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 1. — Biel, on this and the following question, here q. 1.

**III.** Concerning the following question precisely, few of the ancients treat [it] explicitly, but in this place they solve a similar doubt, namely whether the first parents desired to be equal to God. Yet on this question treat: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, m. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF crops (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p51{5,6,7}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines ~36172–36418) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. PDF-priority for the Respondeo / Solutio / scholion / footers per Vol II override (this region cascade-shatters badly: the q1 opener block and the page footers were unreadable in raw and were re-set from the column bands).
- **Alignment confirmed.** q1 opener = *Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod mulier peccaverit peccato superbiae* under running head `DIST. XXII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`; matches TRACTATIO sub-question 1 *Primo quaeritur, quo genere peccati mulier peccaverit* (verified in d22-divisio Notes). Next boundary = QUAESTIO II *Utrum id quod mulier appetiit, vir etiam concupierit* (p.518, raw ~36418).
- **Page-split map (printed pp. 515–517; PDF +22 = pp. 537–539):**
  - p.515: ARTICULUS I centered header + *De culpa primorum parentum quoad inordinationem affectus.* + QUAESTIO I header + *Quo genere peccati mulier peccaverit.* + superbia args (1: Eccli.10 + Aug. de Virginitate + ratione + diabolus promiserat) + Sed contra 2 opener (inobedientia, Gen 3,11). Footers p.515 ¹–⁵ → [^1]–[^5].
  - p.516: inobedientia cont. (Rom, de Vera Rel.) + gula arg 3 (Gen 3,6 / Matt 4,3 / Hymnus) + avaritia arg 4 (Gregorius Gen 3,5 / ad Tim / Psalm 68,5) + infidelitas arg 5 (Gen 3,3 / Luc 1 / d.21) + *Si forte tu dicas* (superabundantia) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo opener. Footers p.516 ¹–¹³ → [^6]–[^18].
  - p.517: Respondeo cont. (beatitudo / triple appetite / triplex potentia) + Conclusio-recap + Ad argumenta (avaritia/gula/inobedientia distinction, Gregorius homily) + solutio to infidelitas obj. + SCHOLION I+II+III. Footers p.517 ¹–⁸ → [^19]–[^26]. Quire signature `f` sits in the p.516/517 footer band.
- **Apparatus: 26 entries**, renumbered continuously (p.515 ¹–⁵ → [^1]–[^5]; p.516 ¹–¹³ → [^6]–[^18]; p.517 ¹–⁸ → [^19]–[^26]). ~13 entries on the dense p.516.
- **Hand-offs.** Received from **d22-divisio**: the p.515 page-footer sequence (Eccli.10, Aug. de Virginitate / Gregor.-substance, Cfr. supra d.21, Gen 3,5, Gen 3,11) — picked up here as native [^1]–[^5]. Forwarded to **d22-a1-q2**: **NONE** — q1 closes cleanly on p.517 with SCHOLION I+II+III; QUAESTIO II opens fresh on p.518 (raw ~36418) with its own *Secundo quaeritur, utrum quod mulier appetiit, vir etiam concupierit. Et quod non, videtur.* and its own p.518 footers begin afresh. (Scholion III here points ahead to q2 commentators — a forward pointer in the roll, not a footer hand-off.)
- **`has_scholion: true`** — q1 carries its own three scholia: I (Scotus/S.Thom. on amor sui vs amor amicitiae uxoris + infidelitas), II (commentator-roll for q1), III (commentator-roll for the following q2). Not a sibling-pointer case.
- **`[?]` flags: NONE.** All 26 anchors and the three scholia crisp at 450 dpi. The cascade-shattered OCR opener (running head `DIST. XXII. ART. I. OUAEST. I.`, garbled superscripts) was resolved against the PDF column bands and the +22 offset; the infidelitas-arg markers (footers ⁹/¹⁰/¹¹ on p.516) and the Respondeo markers (p.517 ¹–⁸) were placed from the legible R-column crops.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 518 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum id quod mulier appetiit, vir etiam concupierit.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum quod mulier appetiit vir etiam concupierit. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Primae ad Timotheum secundo[^1]: *Vir non est seductus, sed mulier*; sed si Adam voluisset esse sicut Deus, quemadmodum mulier, utique circumventus fuisset: si ergo circumventus vel seductus non est, id quod mulier appetiit, non concupivit.

2. Item, Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram[^2]: «Non arbitror, virum, si iam spirituali mente praeditus erat, credere quod diabolus promittebat»: si ergo Adam gratiam habuit, patet etc.

3. Item, si Adam appetiit esse sicut Deus: cum adhuc multo minorem haberet similitudinem quam lucifer; videtur, quod gravius peccavit Adam quam lucifer: ergo si peccatum luciferi fuit irremissibile, et peccatum hominis fuisset irremissibile; quod supra[^3] improbatum est.

4. Item, si Adam appetiit esse sicut Deus: aut ergo suggerente muliere, aut suggerente serpente. Non suggerente serpente, quia ipse Adam non conqueritur de serpente, sed de muliere, Genesis tertio[^4]: *Mulier, quam dedisti mihi* etc. Si suggerente muliere: ergo sicut mulier decepta fuit a serpente, ita vir a muliere. Sicut igitur mulier dixit: *Serpens seduxit me*, ita vir dixisset: *Mulier decepit me*; sed hoc non dixit, sed dixit: *Mulier dedit mihi* etc. — Quodsi tu dicas, quod ita fuit, quamvis Scriptura non exprimat; hoc simpliciter apparet improbabile; nam si mulier dixisset: *Comede, quia eris sicut Deus*; cum ipsa comedisset, et absque dubio non esset sicut Deus; nulla ratione videtur probabile, quod vir ei credidisset.

**Sed contra:**
1. Super illud Psalmi[^5]: *Superbi* etc., Glossa: «Nisi homo suggestione serpentis ut Deus esse voluisset, non letalis culpae transisset ad nos haereditas». Si tu dicas, hoc esse dictum quantum ad mulierem; obiicitur de viro per illud quod dicit Gregorius in Moralibus[^6], et habetur in Glossa, Iob quadragesimo primo: «Per se accipere divinitatem Adam credidit, et immortalitatis gloriam amisit»: ergo Adam idem quod mulier appetiit.

2. Item, super illud ad Philippenses secundo[^7]: *Non rapinam arbitratus est*, Glossa: «Non usurpavit quod suum non erat, scilicet aequalitatem Dei, sicut diabolus fecit et primus homo»: ergo primus homo voluit esse sicut Deus, et hoc voluit mulier: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod primus homo stat ibi pro muliere; contra: super illud Psalmi: *Quae non rapui* etc., «Adam et Eva voluerunt rapere divinitatem, et amiserunt felicitatem»: ecce expresse dicitur de utroque.

3. Item, hoc videtur ratione. Maiorem assimilationem habebat vir ad Deum quam mulier: ergo si similitudo est mater falsitatis[^8], videtur, quod multo magis credibile fuit, virum appetere esse sicut Deus quam mulierem.

4. Item, multo sapientior erat lucifer, quam esset homo primus: ergo si cum tota sua sapientia lucifer voluit esse sicut Deus, nec sapientia impedivit superbiam; multo minus videtur, quod hoc sapientia impediret humana. Si ergo hoc mulier appetiit, non est improbabile, quod vir concupierit[^9], maxime cum Glossae et auctoritates videantur hoc dicere.

> **Conclusio.** Adam, cum peccavit, non appetiit esse sicut Deus, quemadmodum mulier.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quia ista est quaestio facti, circa quam non potest homo multum efficaciter ratiocinari, et Scriptura non determinat ex-

<!-- page 519 -->

presse, et Sancti super hoc loquuntur varie; ideo sunt hic opiniones diversae.

Quidam enim propter auctoritates inductas dicunt, quod Adam idem ipsum, quod mulier appetiit, concupivit, sed non credidit, sicut mulier; et propter hoc factus est superbus, sed tamen non dicitur fuisse seductus. Appetere enim potest aliquis aliquid, et tamen non credere ad hoc pervenire; multa quidem cupimus, ad quae non speramus nos perventuros, quia non quid possit, sed quid velit, attendit ambitionis flagitium. — Et istam positionem sustinendo respondent ad rationes ad utramque partem.

Sed quia verbis beati Augustini haec opinio non consonat, immo expresse videtur sentire contrarium, sicut patet ex auctoritatibus eius inductis in littera[^10]; nec videtur esse credibile, quod vir appeteret aliquid, ad quod crederet se non posse pervenire, cum ante illud peccatum valde ordinatus esset: ideo est alia positio, quod vir in appetibili et principali motivo non fuit conformis mulieri transgrediendo, licet esset ei conformis in transgressione mandati divini. Uterque enim inobediens fuit; sed aliter vir quam mulier ad inobedientiae culpam prolapsus est. Non enim vir pomum comedit propter appetitum *excellentiae* in sui ad Deum assimilatione[^11], nec propter appetitum *sufficientiae* in multorum cognitione, nec propter appetitum *suavitatis* in cibi degustatione, sicut fecit mulier. — Fuit tamen in viro quaedam *superbia*, quaedam *avaritia* et quaedam *lascivia*, per quas perductus est ad inobedientiam.

Quodam enim modo superbivit, dum se nimis magni pretii esse apud Deum aestimavit; et tanti, ut propter comestionem illius cibi non incurreret gravitatem alicuius supplicii, sed de facili consequeretur veniam de offensa. — Fuit etiam quaedam *avaritia*, dum curiose scire voluit, quid sibi eveniret, dum cibum vetitum degustaret. — Fuit etiam quaedam *lascivia*, non carnalis delectationis, sed cuiusdam amicabilis affectionis, qua frequenter fit, ut offendatur Deus, ne contristetur proximus; hoc autem fecit Adam, dum comedere voluit, ne suas delicias contristaret, hoc est, ne mulierem offenderet. Unde et Dominus ipsum arguit, quod obedivit voci mulieris[^12]; et per hoc perductus est ad inobedientiam et transgressionem mandati Dei. Et haec tria trahuntur ex verbis Augustini super Genesim ad litteram, quae adducit Magister in littera[^13]. Primo enim dicit, quod «non est putandum, quod homo deiiceretur, nisi praecessisset in eo quaedam elatio comprimenda». Et iterum dicit: «Voluit Adam lignum vetitum experiri, cum non videret mulierem mortuam, esca illa percepta». Et iterum: «Noluit eam contristare, quam credebat sine solatio contabescere et a se alienatam interire».

Concedendum est igitur, quod Adam non appetiit esse sicut Deus, quemadmodum mulier, sicut ostendunt rationes ad hoc inductae. — Si autem dicatur alicubi appetiisse esse sicut Deus, hoc potest esse dictum triplici ratione: aut quia divinum contempsit imperium, et voluntatem suam divinae praetulit iussioni, et se sibi tanquam Deo subiicere et ex hoc Deo aequiparari voluit[^14]. — Aut dictum est, quia mulier de illo sumta, appetiit sicut Deus esse, et per synecdochem quod est partis attribuitur toti. Unde Sancti, quod appetiit alter, frequenter loquuntur synecdochice et attribuunt utrique. — Aut potest hoc tertio modo dictum intelligi, quia ipse, cum esset mulieri praepositus, ipsam non compescuit, unde sibi imputatur culpa mulieris. Mulier autem intelligenda est appetiisse esse sicut Deus, non per omnimodam aequalitatem, sed per quandam sublimationem in dignitate supra humanum modum; quam[^15] cum vir non compescuit, immo potius eius voluntati paruit, sibi peccatum mulieris imputatur, et voluisse esse sicut Deus refertur.

**Ad argumenta:**
*Ad 1 et 2.* Et sic patet responsio ad auctoritates, quae prius inductae sunt; et per hanc viam determinari possunt, si quae aliae circa istam materiam consimiles inveniantur.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod maiorem assimilationem habebat vir quam mulier; dicendum, quod etsi maiorem haberet assimilationem, habebat tamen praecellentiam virtutis et cognitionis respectu mulieris, quae duo non patiebantur, hominem ita trahi a modica similitudine, sicut mulierem.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus erat sapientior homine; dicendum, quod verum est de cognitione *innata*, non tamen verum est de cognitione *gratuita*. Creditur enim a doctoribus, quod primus homo ante lapsum habuit gratiam, sicut melius ostendetur infra[^16]; de lucifero vero creditur, quod gratiam gratum facientem non habuit, sicut determinatum fuit supra[^17].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the man also desired that which the woman desired.*

Secondly it is asked whether the man also desired that which the woman desired. And that he did not [desire it] seems [so].

1. First to Timothy, chapter two[^1]: *The man was not seduced, but the woman*; but if Adam had willed to be as God, in the manner that the woman [did], he would surely have been circumvented: if therefore he was not circumvented or seduced, he did not desire that which the woman desired.

2. Likewise, Augustine *On Genesis to the Letter*[^2]: "I do not think that the man, if he was already endowed with a spiritual mind, believed what the devil was promising": if therefore Adam had grace, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, if Adam desired to be as God: since he yet had a much lesser likeness [to God] than Lucifer, it seems that Adam sinned more grievously than Lucifer: therefore if the sin of Lucifer was irremissible, the sin of man too would have been irremissible; which above[^3] has been disproved.

4. Likewise, if Adam desired to be as God: then [it was] either at the suggestion of the woman, or at the suggestion of the serpent. Not at the suggestion of the serpent, because Adam himself does not complain of the serpent, but of the woman, Genesis chapter three[^4]: *The woman, whom you gave me* etc. If at the suggestion of the woman: then as the woman was deceived by the serpent, so [was] the man by the woman. As therefore the woman said: *The serpent seduced me*, so the man would have said: *The woman deceived me*; but he did not say this, but said: *The woman gave me* etc. — But if you should say that it was so, although Scripture does not express it; this plainly appears improbable; for if the woman had said: *Eat, because you shall be as God*; when she herself had eaten, and without doubt was not as God; in no way does it seem probable that the man would have believed her.

**On the contrary:**
1. Upon that [verse] of the Psalm[^5]: *The proud* etc., the Gloss [says]: "Unless man, by the suggestion of the serpent, had willed to be as God, the inheritance of a deadly fault would not have passed to us." If you should say that this was said with respect to the woman; the objection is raised concerning the man through that which Gregory says in the *Morals*[^6], and which is found in the Gloss, on Job chapter forty-one: "Adam believed that he received divinity by himself, and lost the glory of immortality": therefore Adam desired the same thing that the woman [did].

2. Likewise, upon that [verse] to the Philippians, chapter two[^7]: *He did not count [it] robbery*, the Gloss [says]: "He did not usurp what was not his own, namely equality with God, as the devil did and the first man": therefore the first man willed to be as God, and the woman willed this: therefore etc. If you should say that "the first man" stands there for the woman; on the contrary: upon that [verse] of the Psalm: *What I took not away* etc., "Adam and Eve willed to seize divinity, and lost felicity": behold, it is said expressly of both.

3. Likewise, this seems [so] by reason. The man had a greater likeness to God than the woman: therefore if likeness is the mother of falsehood[^8], it seems that it was much more credible that the man should desire to be as God than the woman.

4. Likewise, Lucifer was much wiser than the first man was: therefore if with all his wisdom Lucifer willed to be as God, nor did wisdom impede [his] pride; much less does it seem that human wisdom would impede this. If therefore the woman desired this, it is not improbable that the man desired [it][^9], especially since the Glosses and the authorities seem to say this.

> **Conclusion.** Adam, when he sinned, did not desire to be as God, in the manner that the woman [did].

**I respond:** It must be said that, since this is a question of fact, concerning which man cannot reason very effectively, and Scripture does not determine [it] ex-

pressly, and the Saints speak variously upon this; therefore there are here diverse opinions.

For some, on account of the authorities adduced, say that Adam desired the very same thing that the woman desired, but did not believe [it], as the woman [did]; and on account of this he was made proud, but nevertheless is not said to have been seduced. For someone can desire something, and yet not believe that he will attain to it; for indeed we desire many things which we do not hope to attain, because the wickedness of ambition attends not to what may be possible, but to what it wills. — And in sustaining this position they respond to the reasons on both sides.

But since this opinion does not accord with the words of blessed Augustine — rather, it seems expressly to hold the contrary, as is clear from his authorities adduced in the text[^10]; nor does it seem credible that the man should desire something to which he believed he could not attain, since before that sin he was very well-ordered: therefore there is another position, that the man, in the desirable [object] and the principal motive, was not conformed to the woman in transgressing, although he was conformed to her in the transgression of the divine command. For each was disobedient; but the man fell into the fault of disobedience otherwise than the woman. For the man did not eat the apple on account of the appetite of *excellence* in his being made like to God[^11], nor on account of the appetite of *sufficiency* in the knowledge of many things, nor on account of the appetite of *sweetness* in the tasting of the food, as the woman did. — Yet there was in the man a certain *pride*, a certain *avarice*, and a certain *lasciviousness*, by which he was led to disobedience.

For in a certain way he was proud, while he esteemed himself to be of too great a price before God; and of such [great price], that on account of the eating of that food he would not incur the gravity of any punishment, but would easily obtain pardon for the offense. — There was also a certain *avarice*, while he curiously willed to know what would happen to him, when he should taste the forbidden food. — There was also a certain *lasciviousness*, not of carnal delight, but of a certain friendly affection, by which it frequently happens that God is offended, lest the neighbor be saddened; and this Adam did, while he willed to eat, lest he should sadden his delight, that is, lest he should offend the woman. Hence also the Lord rebuked him, that he obeyed the voice of the woman[^12]; and through this he was led to disobedience and the transgression of the command of God. And these three are drawn from the words of Augustine *On Genesis to the Letter*, which the Master adduces in the text[^13]. For first he says that "it is not to be thought that man would be cast down, unless there had preceded in him a certain elation needing to be repressed." And again he says: "Adam willed to try the forbidden tree, since he did not see the woman dead, that food having been taken." And again: "He was unwilling to sadden her, whom he believed would waste away without solace and would perish, alienated from him."

It must therefore be granted that Adam did not desire to be as God, in the manner that the woman [did], as the reasons adduced for this show. — But if it be said somewhere that he desired to be as God, this can be said for a threefold reason: either because he contemned the divine command, and preferred his own will to the divine injunction, and willed to subject himself to himself as to God and from this to be made equal to God[^14]. — Or it was said because the woman, taken from him, desired to be as God, and by synecdoche that which belongs to the part is attributed to the whole. Hence the Saints, [as to] what the one desired, frequently speak by synecdoche and attribute [it] to both. — Or this can be understood as said in a third way, because he himself, since he was set over the woman, did not restrain her, whence the fault of the woman is imputed to him. But the woman is to be understood to have desired to be as God, not by an entire equality, but by a certain exaltation in dignity above the human mode; which[^15] when the man did not restrain, but rather obeyed her will, the sin of the woman is imputed to him, and he is reported to have willed to be as God.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1 and 2.* And so the response to the authorities which were adduced before is clear; and by this way [those things] can be determined, if any others similar concerning this matter be found.

*To 3.* To that, then, which is objected, that the man had a greater likeness than the woman; it must be said that, although he had a greater likeness, he nevertheless had a preeminence of virtue and of knowledge with respect to the woman, which two [things] did not allow [him], man, to be drawn from a slight likeness as [was] the woman.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that the Angel was wiser than man; it must be said that this is true of *innate* knowledge, yet it is not true of *gratuitous* knowledge. For it is believed by the doctors that the first man before the fall had grace, as will be better shown below[^16]; but of Lucifer it is believed that he did not have sanctifying grace, as was determined above[^17].

---

la: Vers. 14.

en: Verse 14.

la: Libr. XI. c. 42. n. 60. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: [On Genesis to the Letter] Bk. XI, c. 42, n. 60. — Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Dist. 21. a. 3. q. 2. — In multis codd. ut F K T W aa etc. et edd. 1, 2, omittitur *et* ante *peccatum hominis.* Aliquanto superius pro *cum adhuc* Vat. cum pluribus codd. *cum ad hoc.*

en: Distinction 21, a. 3, q. 2. — In many codices like F K T W aa etc. and editions 1, 2, *et* is omitted before *peccatum hominis.* Somewhat above, for *cum adhuc* the Vatican edition with many codices [reads] *cum ad hoc.*

la: Vers. 12. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 13: *Serpens decepit me.*

en: Verse 12. — The following text is from the same place, v. 13: *The serpent deceived me.*

la: Psalm. 118, 51. — Glossa est ex Ambrosii expositione in hunc Ps. serm. 7. n. 8, et ibi locus hic cit. sic sonat: *Nam nisi homo, serpentis persuasione deceptus, sicut Deus esse voluisset... nunquam feralis culpae ad nos transisset haereditas.*

en: Psalm 118:51. — The Gloss is from Ambrose's exposition on this Psalm, sermon 7, n. 8, and there the place here cited reads thus: *For unless man, deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, had willed to be as God... never would the inheritance of a deadly fault have passed to us.*

la: Libr. XIX. c. 1. n. 2. in exposit. Iob 28, 21: *Cumque [primi homines] similitudinem divinitatis appetunt, immortalitatis munera perdiderunt.* Libr. XXXIV. c. 21. n. 40. in exposit. Iob 41, 24. similiter de lapsu angelorum loquitur. — Pro *Per se accipere* cod. cc et ed. 1 *Posse accipere.*

en: [Morals] Bk. XIX, c. 1, n. 2, in the exposition of Job 28:21: *And when [the first parents] desire the likeness of divinity, they lost the gifts of immortality.* Bk. XXXIV, c. 21, n. 40, in the exposition of Job 41:24, speaks similarly of the fall of the angels. — For *Per se accipere* codex cc and edition 1 [read] *Posse accipere.*

la: Vers. 6. — De Glossa allata in hunc textum nec non in sequentem (Ps. 68, 5.) cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. et Lyranus locc. citt.

en: Verse 6. — On the Gloss adduced upon this text and also upon the following (Ps. 68:5) cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1, and Lyranus in the places cited.

la: Aristot., I. Elench. c. 6. (c. 7.): *Deceptio quidem ex similitudine.* Sub alio respectu August., II. Soliloq. c. 7. n. 13: *Nonne similitudinem veritatis matrem, et dissimilitudinem falsitatis esse fatendum est?*

en: Aristotle, *On Sophistical Refutations* I, c. 6 (c. 7): *Deception indeed [arises] from likeness.* Under another aspect Augustine, *Soliloquies* II, c. 7, n. 13: *Must it not be confessed that likeness is the mother of truth, and unlikeness [the mother] of falsehood?*

la: Plurimi codd. et edd., etiam Vat., verbo *concupierit* inepte praefigunt *non.* Nostram lectionem defendunt codd. N et T (a secunda manu).

en: Very many codices and editions, even the Vatican, ineptly prefix *non* to the word *concupierit.* Codices N and T (by a second hand) defend our reading.

la: Hic c. 3. seq.

en: Here c. 3 f.

la: Ita Vat. cum ceteris edd. et plurimis codd. sed cod. F minus recte *assimilationem.*

en: So the Vatican edition with the other editions and most codices; but codex F, less correctly, [reads] *assimilationem.*

la: Gen. 3, 17: *Adae vero dixit: Quia audisti vocem uxoris tuae et comedisti de ligno, ex quo praeceperam tibi, ne comederes* etc.

en: Gen. 3:17: *But to Adam he said: Because you have hearkened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you that you should not eat* etc.

la: Hic c. 1. 3. 4. — In tertio textuum hic allatorum Vat. cum Magistro vocabulo *solatio* praefigit *suo.*

en: Here c. 1, 3, 4. — In the third of the texts here adduced, the Vatican edition with the Master prefixes *suo* to the word *solatio.*

la: Paulo ante substituto ex codd. et edd. 1, 2 *subiicere* pro *subiecit*, quod in Vat. legitur, hic cum Vat. retinuimus *voluit*, cuius loco fere omnes codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 incongrue exhibent *velle.* — Vox *synecdoche*, quae mox occurrit, derivatur a Graecis verbis σύν i. e. *cum* sive *simul* et ἐκδέχομαι i. e. *accipio*, significat illam figuram rhetoricam, in qua nomen partis ad totum, aut nomen totius ad partem transfertur. Cfr. August., III. de Doctr. christ. c. 35. n. 50. — De re ipsa cfr. infra pag. 528, nota 1.

en: A little before, *subiicere* having been substituted from the codices and editions 1, 2 for *subiecit*, which is read in the Vatican edition, here with the Vatican we have retained *voluit*, in place of which almost all the codices with editions 1, 2, 3 incongruously give *velle.* — The word *synecdoche*, which occurs soon after, is derived from the Greek words σύν, i.e. *with* or *together*, and ἐκδέχομαι, i.e. *I take*, [and] signifies that rhetorical figure in which the name of a part is transferred to the whole, or the name of the whole to a part. Cf. Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* III, c. 35, n. 50. — On the matter itself cf. below, p. 528, note 1.

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd. *quod.*

en: The Vatican edition with many codices [reads] *quod.*

la: Dist. 29. a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo ante pro *habuit gratiam* Vat. *habuerit gratiam gratum facientem.*

en: Distinction 29, a. 2, q. 1. — A little before, for *habuit gratiam* the Vatican edition [reads] *habuerit gratiam gratum facientem.*

la: Dist. 4. a. 1. q. 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Distinction 4, a. 1, q. 2. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF crops (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p51{8,9}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines ~36418–36560) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. PDF-priority for the Respondeo / Solutio / footers per Vol II override — the raw OCR cascade-shatters the two-column body and footers badly (`utruni`, `appe-`/`tiit` splits, footer fragmentation), so the body and all 17 footers were re-set from the column bands. Read order: p.518 L (top→footer), p.518 R (top→footer); p.519 L, p.519 R.
- **Alignment confirmed.** q2 opener = *Secundo quaeritur, utrum quod mulier appetiit vir etiam concupierit. Et quod non, videtur.* under running head `DIST. XXII. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`; matches TRACTATIO sub-question 2 *Secundo, utrum quod mulier appetiit vir cupierit* (verified in d22-divisio Notes). Next boundary = QUAESTIO III *Quis gravius peccaverit, utrum vir, an mulier* (p.520, raw ~36560).
- **Page-split map (printed pp. 518–519; PDF +22 = pp. 540–541):**
  - p.518: tail of a1-q1 SCHOLION II/III in the L-top header band (already in a1-q1, NOT repeated here); QUAESTIO II centered header + title; *Secundo quaeritur…* + arg 1 (1 Tim 2,14) + arg 2 (Aug. de Gen. ad lit.) + arg 3 (gravius/lucifer, refers to supra d.21) + arg 4 (suggestione mulieris/serpentis, Gen 3 *Mulier quam dedisti*); Sed contra 1 (Ps. 118 Glossa + Gregor. Moral. Iob 41) + Sed contra 2 (Phil 2 Glossa + Ps 68 *Quae non rapui*) + Sed contra 3 (similitudo mater falsitatis) + Sed contra 4 (lucifer sapientior); CONCLUSIO; Respondeo opener (quaestio facti). Footers p.518 ¹–⁹ → [^1]–[^9].
  - p.519: Respondeo cont. (opinio 1 / opinio 2; triplex peccatum superbia-avaritia-lascivia; Augustinus super Genesim trio); Concedendum-conclusio + Corollarium (triplex ratio of "appetiit esse sicut Deus": contempt / synecdoche / non-restraint of woman); Solutio obiectorum: Ad 1+2, Ad 3, Ad 4 (innata vs gratuita cognitio). Footers p.519 ¹–⁸ → [^10]–[^17].
- **Apparatus: 17 entries**, renumbered continuously (p.518 ¹–⁹ → [^1]–[^9]; p.519 ¹–⁸ → [^10]–[^17]).
- **Hand-offs.** Received from **d22-a1-q1**: NONE — q1 closed cleanly on p.517 with its SCHOLION I+II+III; QUAESTIO II opens fresh on p.518 with its own footer block (¹ begins afresh). a1-q1 SCHOLION III is a *forward commentator-roll pointer* listing the q2 commentators (Alex. Hal., B. Albert, Richard. a Med., Aegid. R.) — a roll forward-pointer, NOT a footer hand-off. Forwarded to **d22-a1-q3**: NONE — q2 closes on p.519 with *Ad 4* (… determinatum fuit supra); QUAESTIO III opens fresh on p.520 (raw ~36560, `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` running head, *Tertio quaeritur, quis eorum gravius peccaverit*) with its own footers.
- **`has_scholion: false`** — q2 has no scholion block of its own. The commentator-roll for this question is carried by the sibling a1-q1 SCHOLION III (forward-pointer per Vol II Override §5: a quaestio with no scholion is normal when the article's q1 scholion covers it). No own SCHOLION header appears between the q2 *Ad 4* and the QUAESTIO III header on p.520.
- **`[?]` flags: NONE.** All 17 anchors crisp at 450 dpi. The cascade-shattered OCR (running head `DIST. XXII. ART. I. nUAEST. II.`, `appe-`/`tiit` line splits, garbled superscripts) was resolved against the column bands; the Sed-contra marker spacing (Ps/Phil/ratione/sapientior) and the Respondeo markers (p.519 ¹–⁸) were placed from the legible R-column crops. The footnote-5 synecdoche/Aristotle text on p.519 (note [^14]) was confirmed continuous across the L-footer / R-footer band split.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 520 -->

### Quaestio III. *Quis gravius peccaverit, utrum vir, an mulier.*

Tertio quaeritur, quis eorum gravius peccaverit, utrum vir, aut mulier. Et quod vir gravius peccaverit, videtur.

1. Gravius est peccatum, ubi maior est ingratitudo; sed ubi maiora sunt dona, ibi maior est ingratitudo in peccando; sed Adam praecellebat mulierem in naturalibus datis et gratuitis: ergo cum peccavit, magis ingratus fuit: ergo etc.

2. Item, tanto maius est peccatum, quanto peccans est in altiori gradu constitutus; gravius enim peccat praelatus quam subditus eodem genere peccati; sed vir erat caput *mulieris*[^1] et ei praepositus: ergo videtur, quod peccaverit gravius.

3. Item, tanto gravior est culpa, quanto ibi maior est contemptus; sed maior est contemptus in transgressione mandati immediate suscepti a Domino, quam mediante alio: si ergo mandatum per virum pervenerat ad mulierem[^2], videtur, quod magis contempserit vir quam mulier: ergo etc.

4. Item, tanto gravior est culpa, quanto maior est ibi laesio et corruptio, quia peccatum de se corruptio est; sed peccatum Adae magis fuit corruptivum quam peccatum Evae, quia ex peccato Adae fuit totius posteritatis corruptio, secundum quod dicitur ad Romanos quinto[^3]: *Per unius inobedientiam peccatores constituti sunt multi*: ergo etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Augustinus super Genesim, et Magister refert in littera[^4]: « Peccaverunt in impari sexu pari fastu »; sed ubi est par fastus, ibi est par transgressio: ergo non videtur, quod magis peccaverit vir quam mulier.

2. Item, sicut in bonis quod similius est meliori est melius, ita quod similius est peiori est peius, per se loquendo[^5]; sed peccatum Evae similius fuit peccato luciferi quam peccatum Adae propter maiorem elationem superbiae: ergo maius fuit peccatum Evae quam Adae.

3. Item, tanto gravior est culpa, quanto maiori digna est poena; sed mulier magis fuit punita quam vir, sicut patet Genesis tertio[^6], et a Deo, qui iuste punit: ergo amplius peccavit quam vir.

4. Item, gravius peccat qui peccat in se et in alterum, quam qui peccat in se tantum; sed mulier peccavit in se et in virum, dum pertraxit eum ad peccatum, vir autem peccavit in se tantum, de peccato actuali loquendo: ergo gravius peccavit mulier quam vir[^7].

> **Conclusio.** Licet peccatum Evae respectu peccati Adae uno modo excedatur, alio modo excedat; tamen simpliciter loquendo gravius illo fuit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut praedictum fuit supra[^8], peccatum potest dici gravius alterum altero tribus modis, videlicet ingratitudine, libidine et ex consequenti corruptione. — Si igitur loquamur de maiori gravitate quantum ad ingratitudinem, gravius peccavit vir quam mulier, pro eo quod abundantiora dona suscepit; et ideo, cum beneficiorum oblitus, benefactorem suum contempsit et offendit, magis ingratus fuit et in sui ingratitudine maiori culpabilior exstitit. — Si autem loquamur de maioritate quantum ad libidinem, sic amplius peccavit mulier quam vir, pro eo quod magis improba voluntate peccavit, dum concupivit Deo assimilari; et ardentius appetiit, dum credidit, hoc se obtinere posse quod diabolus ei suggessit; et ideo propter voluntatem magis improbam mulier peccavit ex maiori libidine, et quantum ad hoc culpabilior viro fuit. — Si autem loquamur de maioritate culpae quantum ad corruptionem consequentem, distinguendum est, quia aliquid potest dici corrumpere dupliciter: aut per modum causae, aut per modum occasionis. Si per modum causae, sic, quia peccatum viri fuit causa transfusionis peccati in posteros, et ita corrupit se et alios, maior consecuta est ex peccato viri corruptio, et quantum ad hoc culpa viri dicitur fuisse gravior. Si vero per modum occasionis, sic, quia peccatum mulieris fuit occasio peccati viri et ita per consequens omnium aliorum, hoc modo mulier potest dici ceteros corrupisse, non solum posteros, sed etiam virum suum. Unde non solum peccavit in se, sed etiam in proximum. Et quantum ad hoc dici potest, in muliere gravius fuisse peccatum. — Per hanc distinctionem responderi potest ad rationes, quae ad utramque partem adducuntur, pro eo quod secundum diversa membra huius distinctionis procedunt.

<!-- page 521 -->

Aliter posset dici, et quasi in idem redit, quod peccatum potest dici gravius altero, aut pensatis conditionibus ex parte peccantis, aut pensatis conditionibus ex parte peccati. Si igitur pensemus conditiones ex parte peccantis, gravius peccasse dicitur vir quam mulier, tum propter donorum praecellentiam, tum etiam propter status praesidentiam, quia mulieri quodam modo praelatus erat. — Si autem pensantur conditiones ex parte peccati, gravius peccavit mulier quam vir, tum propter impietatem in Deum, tum propter iniquitatem in proximum. Deum enim sua ambitione exhonoravit[^9] et proximum sua suggestione deiecit. — Et secundum hoc procedunt rationes similiter ad oppositas partes.

Quod autem dicit Augustinus, quod pari fastu peccaverunt; hoc intelligitur non quantum ad interiorem affectionem, sed quantum ad exteriorem mandati transgressionem, ad quod uterque eorum aequaliter obligabatur. — Vel *par fastus* dicitur non per omnimodam aequalitatem, sed per quandam conformitatem.

Et sic ex dictis colligitur, quod peccatum Evae aliquo modo excedebat peccatum Adae, et aliquo modo e contrario. — Si autem aliquis quaerat, quod eorum magis excedebat aliud; ad hoc dicendum est, quod cum peccatum Evae excedat peccatum Adae in conditionibus, quae respiciunt peccatum essentialiter, utpote in maiori improbitate libidinis, in hoc quod et maius et magis ambivit, peccatum Evae magis excessit et gravius fuit, simpliciter loquendo. Et huius signum est, quia magis punita fuit, et si ad infernum descendisset, maiorem poenam habuisset.

Nec obstant rationes ad oppositum adductae, quia sumuntur a conditionibus peccantis, quae non faciunt peccatum gravius simpliciter, sed quodam modo.

english:
### Question III. *Which of them sinned more gravely, the man or the woman.*

Thirdly it is asked which of them sinned more gravely, the man or the woman. And that the man sinned more gravely seems to be the case.

1. A sin is graver where the ingratitude is greater; but where the gifts are greater, there the ingratitude in sinning is greater; but Adam excelled the woman in natural and gratuitous endowments: therefore when he sinned, he was more ungrateful: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a sin is the greater the higher the rank in which the sinner is constituted; for a prelate sins more gravely than a subject in the same kind of sin; but the man was the head of the *woman*[^1] and set over her: therefore it seems that he sinned more gravely.

3. Likewise, a fault is the graver the greater the contempt in it; but the contempt is greater in the transgression of a command received immediately from the Lord than through another: if therefore the command had reached the woman through the man[^2], it seems that the man showed more contempt than the woman: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, a fault is the graver the greater the injury and corruption in it, since sin of itself is corruption; but Adam's sin was more corruptive than Eve's sin, since from Adam's sin came the corruption of all posterity, according to what is said in Romans 5[^3]: *Through the disobedience of one, many were made sinners*: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine on Genesis, and the Master reports in the text[^4]: « They sinned in an unequal sex with equal pride »; but where the pride is equal, there the transgression is equal: therefore it does not seem that the man sinned more than the woman.

2. Likewise, just as among goods what is more like the better is better, so what is more like the worse is worse, speaking *per se*[^5]; but Eve's sin was more like Lucifer's sin than Adam's, on account of the greater elation of pride: therefore Eve's sin was greater than Adam's.

3. Likewise, a fault is the graver the greater the punishment it deserves; but the woman was punished more than the man, as is clear from Genesis 3[^6], and by God, who punishes justly: therefore she sinned more than the man.

4. Likewise, he sins more gravely who sins against himself and against another, than he who sins against himself alone; but the woman sinned against herself and against the man, when she drew him into sin, whereas the man sinned against himself alone, speaking of the actual sin: therefore the woman sinned more gravely than the man[^7].

> **Conclusion.** Although Eve's sin is in one way exceeded by Adam's sin, in another way it exceeds it; yet, speaking absolutely, it was graver than that one.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was stated above[^8], one sin can be called graver than another in three ways, namely by ingratitude, by lust, and consequently by corruption. — If therefore we speak of greater gravity as to ingratitude, the man sinned more gravely than the woman, in that he had received more abundant gifts; and so, when, forgetful of the benefits, he despised and offended his benefactor, he was more ungrateful and in his greater ingratitude proved more culpable. — But if we speak of the greater measure as to lust, then the woman sinned more than the man, in that she sinned with a more wicked will, when she desired to be made like to God; and she desired more ardently, when she believed that she could obtain that which the devil suggested to her; and therefore on account of the more wicked will the woman sinned out of greater lust, and as to this was more culpable than the man. — But if we speak of the greater measure of fault as to the consequent corruption, a distinction must be made, because something can be said to corrupt in two ways: either by way of cause, or by way of occasion. If by way of cause, then, since the man's sin was the cause of the transfusion of sin into his descendants, and so corrupted himself and others, a greater corruption followed from the man's sin, and as to this the man's fault is said to have been graver. But if by way of occasion, then, since the woman's sin was the occasion of the man's sin and so consequently of all the others, in this way the woman can be said to have corrupted the rest, not only her posterity, but even her own husband. Hence she sinned not only against herself, but also against her neighbor. And as to this it can be said that the sin was graver in the woman. — By this distinction a reply can be made to the reasons brought forward for both sides, in that they proceed according to the different members of this distinction.

It could be put otherwise, and it comes back to the same thing, namely that one sin can be called graver than another either by weighing the conditions on the part of the one sinning, or by weighing the conditions on the part of the sin. If therefore we weigh the conditions on the part of the one sinning, the man is said to have sinned more gravely than the woman, both on account of the excellence of his gifts and also on account of his rank of presidency, since he was in a certain way set over the woman. — But if the conditions on the part of the sin are weighed, the woman sinned more gravely than the man, both on account of the impiety against God and on account of the iniquity against her neighbor. For by her ambition she dishonored[^9] God, and by her suggestion she cast down her neighbor. — And according to this the reasons likewise proceed for the opposite sides.

As for what Augustine says, that they sinned with equal pride; this is to be understood not as to the interior affection, but as to the exterior transgression of the command, to which each of them was equally bound. — Or *equal pride* is said not by an utter equality, but by a certain conformity.

And so from what has been said it is gathered that Eve's sin in some way exceeded Adam's sin, and in some way the contrary. — But if anyone asks which of them more exceeded the other; to this it must be said that, since Eve's sin exceeds Adam's sin in the conditions which regard the sin essentially, namely in the greater wickedness of lust, in that she both desired more and desired greater things, Eve's sin exceeded more and was graver, speaking absolutely. And a sign of this is that she was punished more, and if she had descended into hell, she would have had a greater punishment.

Nor do the reasons adduced for the opposite stand in the way, since they are drawn from the conditions of the one sinning, which do not make a sin graver absolutely, but in a certain way.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 11, 3. Vide supra pag. 403, nota 10. — De *maiori* cfr. supra pag. 161, nota 4.

en: 1 Corinthians 11:3. See above, p. 403, note 10. — On *maiori* cf. above, p. 161, note 4.

la: Cfr. August., VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 17. n. 36. et hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* VIII, c. 17, n. 36, and here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Vers. 19. — Cfr. de hoc arg. infra lit. Magistri, d. XXXIII. c. 3.

en: Verse 19. — Cf. on this argument below, the text of the Master, d. XXXIII, c. 3.

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here, c. 4.

la: Secundum Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. — In *minori*, de qua vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4, codd. et ed. I post *quam* non bene suppresserunt *peccatum*.

en: According to Aristotle, *Topics* III, c. 2. — In the *minor* [premise], on which see here the text of the Master, c. 4, the codices and ed. I, after *quam*, wrongly suppressed *peccatum*.

la: Vers. 16.

en: Verse 16.

la: Hoc arg. a Magistro insinuatur hic in lit. c. 4.

en: This argument is intimated by the Master here in the text, c. 4.

en: Distinction 21, a. 3, q. 3.

la: Edd. 3, 4 et Vat. *inhonoravit*.

en: Editions 3, 4 and the Vatican edition read *inhonoravit* ["dishonored"].

latin_scholion:
**I.** S. Thom. docet, quod simpliciter gravius fuerit peccatum Evae quam peccatum Adae; quam sententiam etiam Scotus, Richard. a Med., Petr. a Tar., Aegid. R. aliique multi praeferunt. Eandem tenet cum Alexandro Hal. etiam S. Bonav., ut patet ex conclusione ultima.
**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 104. m. 4. — Scot., I. Sent. d. 21. q. 2. n. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 3; S. II. II. q. 163. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. p. II. tr. 14. q. 88. m. 3. partic. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** St. Thomas teaches that Eve's sin was absolutely graver than Adam's sin; which opinion also Scotus, Richard of Middleton, Peter of Tarentaise, Giles of Rome, and many others prefer. The same view, together with Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure also holds, as is clear from the last conclusion.
**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. II, q. 104, m. 4. — Scotus, *I Sent.* d. 21, q. 2, n. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. I, a. 3; *Summa* II-II, q. 163, a. 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5; *Summa* p. II, tr. 14, q. 88, m. 3, partic. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. I, q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 520–521 (PDF 542–543, offset +22), `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p52{0,1}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw ~36560–36658, two-column cascade-shattered). This is QUAESTIO III, the last quaestio of ARTICULUS I.

**Page-split map.** p.520 holds the videtur args 1–4, sed contra 1–4, the Conclusio, and the first part of the Respondeo (footers ¹–⁸ → [^1]–[^8]). The Respondeo continues onto p.521 (L: *Aliter posset dici…* through *…dam conformitatem*; R: *Et sic ex dictis colligitur…* through *…sed quodam modo*), followed by SCHOLION I (p.521 L) + II (p.521 R). The body page break falls mid-Respondeo: p.520 ends *…gravius peccasse dici-* / p.521 begins *-tur vir quam mulier…*.

**Cross-chunk footers.** Hand-off RECEIVED: NONE — q2 closed clean on p.519; q3 opens fresh on p.520 with its own footer block ¹–⁸. The p.521 footer sequence splits by body anchor: footer ¹ (*inhonoravit* variant) anchors to q3's Respondeo (*exhonoravit*) → captured here as [^9]; footers ² (*excusatoria*, ART II TRACTATIO *…culpae excusatio*), ³ (Vers. 13, ART II q1 arg 1), ⁴ (Gen 2,17, ART II q1 arg 2), ⁵ (Hic c. 4 seq.), ⁶ (Isidor.) all belong to **ARTICULUS II** and FORWARD to `bon-sent-II-d22-a2-q1`.

**has_scholion: true** — own SCHOLION I (S. Thom. + concurring doctors, confirming Bonaventure's last conclusion that Eve's sin was absolutely graver) + II (commentator-roll for ART I).

**[?] flags:** none.