Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 22
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 secundo1: 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 litteram2: «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 supra3 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 tertio4: 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 Psalmi5: 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 Moralibus6, 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 secundo7: 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 falsitatis8, 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 concupierit9, 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-
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 littera10; 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 assimilatione11, 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 mulieris12; 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 littera13. 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 voluit14. — 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; quam15 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 infra16; de lucifero vero creditur, quod gratiam gratum facientem non habuit, sicut determinatum fuit supra17.
---
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 two1: 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 Letter2: "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 above3 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 three4: 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 Psalm5: 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 Morals6, 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 two7: 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 falsehood8, 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 text10; 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 God11, 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 woman12; 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 text13. 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 God14. — 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; which15 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 below16; but of Lucifer it is believed that he did not have sanctifying grace, as was determined above17.
---
- Vers. 14.Verse 14.
- Libr. XI. c. 42. n. 60. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.[On Genesis to the Letter] Bk. XI, c. 42, n. 60. — Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3.
- 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.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.
- Vers. 12. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 13: Serpens decepit me.Verse 12. — The following text is from the same place, v. 13: The serpent deceived me.
- 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.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.
- 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.[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.
- 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.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.
- 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?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?
- Plurimi codd. et edd., etiam Vat., verbo concupierit inepte praefigunt non. Nostram lectionem defendunt codd. N et T (a secunda manu).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.
- Hic c. 3. seq.Here c. 3 f.
- Ita Vat. cum ceteris edd. et plurimis codd. sed cod. F minus recte assimilationem.So the Vatican edition with the other editions and most codices; but codex F, less correctly, [reads] assimilationem.
- Gen. 3, 17: Adae vero dixit: Quia audisti vocem uxoris tuae et comedisti de ligno, ex quo praeceperam tibi, ne comederes etc.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.
- Hic c. 1. 3. 4. — In tertio textuum hic allatorum Vat. cum Magistro vocabulo solatio praefigit suo.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.
- 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.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.
- Vat. cum pluribus codd. quod.The Vatican edition with many codices [reads] quod.
- Dist. 29. a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo ante pro habuit gratiam Vat. habuerit gratiam gratum facientem.Distinction 29, a. 2, q. 1. — A little before, for habuit gratiam the Vatican edition [reads] habuerit gratiam gratum facientem.
- Dist. 4. a. 1. q. 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.Distinction 4, a. 1, q. 2. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---