Dist. 22, Divisio Textus
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 22
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII.
De hominis transgressione.
Hic videtur diligenter investigandum etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra egit Magister de lapsu hominis in comparatione ad diabolum tentantem; in hac vero parte agit quantum ad hominem transgredientem. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes duas. In prima determinat de peccato primorum parentum quantum ad genus. In secunda vero, quantum ad radicem, utrum p. 515 scilicet fuerit ex industria, an ex ignorantia, ibi: His autem opponi solet hoc modo.
Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima determinat de genere primi peccati generaliter. In secunda vero de genere peccati viri et mulieris specialiter, ibi: Et talis quidem elatio in mente mulieris etc. In tertia vero inquirit, quis eorum peccaverit magis graviter, ibi: Ex quo manifeste animadverti potest etc. Quaelibet autem harum partium dividi potest in duas. Nam in qualibet primo determinat veritatem, et secundo removet dubitationem. — Secunda vero pars principalis, in qua determinat de peccato quantum ad radicem, dividitur in partes tres. In prima inquirit, utrum peccatum illud ex ignorantia processerit et per illam excusari habeat. In secunda vero quaerit, unde processerit primi peccati malitia, ibi: Solet etiam quaeri, cum sine vitio esset natura etc. In tertia vero inquirit, cum peccatum illud fuerit a voluntate, utrum primo ante voluerit, quam peccaverit, ibi: Si vero quaeritur, utrum voluntas peccatum illud praecesserit etc. Subdivisiones partium et intellectus satis apparent. Primo enim Magister determinat de ipsa culpa primorum parentum in se; secundo vero, prout comparari habet ad radicem ignorantiae.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam huius partis circa duo incidit hic quaestio.
Primo igitur quaeritur de culpa primorum parentum in se quantum ad inordinationem affectus.
Secundo vero quaeritur in comparatione ad ignorantiam intellectus.
Et circa primum quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur, quo genere peccati mulier peccaverit.
Secundo, utrum quod mulier appetiit vir cupierit.
Tertio vero quaeritur, quis horum gravius peccaverit.
---
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXII.
On the transgression of man.
Here it seems that diligent investigation must be made, etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master treated of the fall of man in his relation to the devil who tempted; but in this part he treats of man as transgressing. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first he determines about the sin of the first parents as to its kind. In the second, as to its root — namely whether p. 515 it proceeded from deliberateness or from ignorance — at the place: But this is wont to be objected in the following way.
The first part has three sections. In the first he determines about the kind of the first sin generally. In the second about the kind of the sin of the man and of the woman specifically, at: And such indeed was the elation in the mind of the woman etc. In the third he inquires which of them sinned the more gravely, at: From which it can be plainly observed etc. Now each of these sections can be divided into two. For in each he first determines the truth, and secondly removes the doubt. — The second principal part, however, in which he determines about the sin as to its root, is divided into three sections. In the first he inquires whether that sin proceeded from ignorance and is to be excused on that account. In the second he asks whence the malice of the first sin proceeded, at: It is also wont to be asked, since the nature was without vice etc. In the third he inquires, since that sin was from the will, whether the will preceded before he sinned, at: But if it is asked whether the will preceded that sin etc. The subdivisions of the parts and their sense are sufficiently evident. For first the Master determines about the fault of the first parents in itself; secondly, insofar as it has to be compared to the root of ignorance.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of this part a question arises here on two heads.
First, then, it is asked about the fault of the first parents in itself, as to the disorder of the affection.
Second it is asked in comparison to the ignorance of the intellect.
And about the first three things are asked.
First it is asked by what kind of sin the woman sinned.
Second, whether the man desired what the woman craved.
Third it is asked which of them sinned the more gravely.
---