Pars 3, Cap. 3
Breviloquium · Pars III: De corruptela peccati
Capitulum III. De primorum parentum transgressione.
De culpa vero primorum parentum haec tenenda sunt, quod mulier, consentiens tentationi diabolicae, appetiit scientiam et excellentiam ad modum Dei, appetiit nihilominus experiri suavitatem ligni vetiti; et tandem incidit in transgressionem praecepti. — Nec hoc contenta, offerendo fructum ligni vetiti, induxit virum, qui, nolens delicias suas contristare, mulierem non corripuit, sed potius consensum praebuit male suadenti; et oblatum pomum gustando, factus est transgressor divini mandati8.
Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia; cum a primo principio, ut supra9 dictum fuit, datus esset homini duplex sensus et appetitus respectu duplicis libri et respectu duplicis boni, ut secundum libertatem arbitrii homo posset ad utrumque converti; mulier, audita suggestione serpentis exteriori, non recurrit ad librum interiorem, qui legibilem se praebet recto iudicio rationis; sed sensum suum circa exteriorem librum tenuit et circa exterius bonum negotiari coepit. Et quia sensus eius non accessit ad verum infallibile, appetitus eius converti coepit ad bonum commutabile. Appetiit ergo quod diabolus promisit, et ideo consensit, ut faceret quod suggessit.
Appetendo igitur excellentem scientiam, erecta est in superbiam, et erecta in superbiam, hoc ipso illecta est ad gulam; ac per hoc tertio prostrata est per inobedientiam. Primum fuit in mente, secundum in sensualitate, tertium in operatione1. — Et sicut tentatio, ab inferiori incipiens, pervenit usque ad summum, quia ab auditu per appetitum venit ad consensum; sic e converso deordinatio, a superiori incipiens, pervenit usque ad imum et fecit unum peccatum consummatum, quod in humana natura omnis peccati initium est et origo malorum.
Nam mulier illecta illexit virum, qui similiter ad librum exteriorem conversus et ad bonum commutabile, nimis appretiando mulieris consortium et suae societatis solatium, nec mulierem voluit corripere nec proprias delicias contristare. Et quoniam debuit eam corripere et non corripuit, idcirco imputatur ei peccatum mulieris. Quia vero noluit suas delicias contristare, a se repellendo mulierem; incepit nimium se ipsum diligere, ac per hoc recedens a divina amicitia incidit in gulam et inobedientiam.
Fuit ergo transgressio praecepti utrique communis, licet ex alia et alia causa, quia non vir, sed mulier seducta fuit2; in utroque tamen, scilicet viro et muliere, fuit deordinatio a summo usque ad imum, quia primo in mente sive in ratione, deinde in sensualitate et postremo in opere. Ideo enim uterque prostratus fuit per inobedientiam et illectus per gulam, quia uterque erectus fuit in superbiam, mulier quidem appetendo et ambiendo quod nondum acceperat, vir nimis amando et appretiando quod iam habebat; unde mulier manducando credidit sublimari, Adam vero, existimans se aliquid magnum et Deo carum, minus graviter puniri. Nondum enim expertus fuerat rigorem divinae severitatis3. — Et sic uterque, dum inordinate se erexit supra se, cecidit miserabiliter infra se a statu innocentiae et gratiae ad statum culpae et miseriae.
---
Chapter III. On the transgression of the first parents.
Concerning the guilt of the first parents, however, these things are to be held: that the woman, consenting to the diabolical temptation, desired knowledge and excellence after the manner of God, and desired nonetheless to experience the sweetness of the forbidden tree; and at last fell into the transgression of the precept. — Nor content with this, by offering the fruit of the forbidden tree she led on the man, who, unwilling to sadden his own delights, did not rebuke the woman but rather gave consent to her who was persuading him to evil; and by tasting the apple offered him, became a transgressor of the divine command8.
Now the reason for the understanding of the foresaid is this: since, when from the first principle, as was said above9, there had been given to man a twofold sense and appetite in respect of a twofold book and in respect of a twofold good, so that according to the freedom of choice man might be able to turn to either; the woman, having heard the outward suggestion of the serpent, did not have recourse to the inner book, which offers itself legible to the right judgment of reason; but held her sense about the outer book and began to traffic about the outward good. And because her sense did not attain to the infallible truth, her appetite began to be turned to the changeable good. She desired, therefore, what the devil promised, and therefore consented, so as to do what he suggested.
Desiring, then, excellent knowledge, she was raised up into pride, and being raised up into pride, by that very fact she was enticed to gluttony; and thereby, in the third place, she was laid low through disobedience. The first was in the mind, the second in the sensuality, the third in the deed1. — And just as the temptation, beginning from the lower, arrived as far as the highest, because from the hearing it came through the appetite to consent; so conversely the disordering, beginning from the higher, arrived as far as the lowest and made one consummated sin, which in human nature is the beginning of every sin and the origin of evils.
For the woman, enticed, enticed the man, who likewise, turned to the outer book and to the changeable good, valuing too much the woman's companionship and the solace of her society, willed neither to rebuke the woman nor to sadden his own delights. And since he ought to have rebuked her and did not rebuke her, on that account the woman's sin is imputed to him. But because he was unwilling to sadden his delights by driving the woman from himself, he began to love himself too much, and thereby, withdrawing from the divine friendship, fell into gluttony and disobedience.
The transgression of the precept was therefore common to both, though from one cause and another, since it was not the man but the woman who was seduced2; yet in both, namely in the man and in the woman, there was a disordering from the highest as far as the lowest, because first in the mind or in reason, then in the sensuality, and last in the deed. For therefore each was laid low through disobedience and enticed through gluttony, because each was raised up into pride — the woman indeed by desiring and courting what she had not yet received, the man by loving and valuing too much what he already had; whence the woman by eating believed she would be exalted, but Adam, reckoning himself something great and dear to God, believed he would be punished less gravely. For he had not yet experienced the rigor of the divine severity3. — And thus each of them, while inordinately raising himself above himself, fell miserably below himself, from the state of innocence and grace to the state of guilt and misery.
---
- 8Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXII. c. 1-4, et Comment. a. 1.Cf. II Sent., the Master's text, d. XXII, c. 1-4, and the Commentary on the same, a. 1.
- 9Partis II. c. 11. — Inferius post sed edd. cum aliquot codd. addunt potius, et verbo negotiari E praemittit evagari vel (H vagari pro negotiari).Of Part II, c. 11. — Below, after sed, the editions together with some codices add potius, and to the word negotiari E prefixes evagari vel (H has vagari for negotiari).
- 1Plures codd. et edd. opere. Aliquanto inferius voci malorum A praefigit omnium, et pro illexit M N allexit.Several codices and the editions have opere. Somewhat below, before the word malorum A places omnium, and for illexit M N have allexit.
- 2Epist. I. Tim. 2, 14: Et Adam non est seductus, mulier autem seducta in praevaricatione fuit. — Inferius pro fuit in superbiam K L M P Q U V per superbiam.I Timothy 2:14: And Adam was not seduced, but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. — Below, for fuit in superbiam K L M P Q U V have per superbiam.
- 3August., XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 11. n. 2: Inexpertus divinae severitatis [Adam] in eo falli potuit, ut veniale crederet esse commissum... Etsi credendo [serpentis verbo] non sunt ambo decepti, peccando tamen ambo sunt capti et diaboli laqueis implicati. — Edd. divinae iustitiae et severitatis, quae etiam paulo ante credidit se puniendum pro puniri. Pro aliquid magnum A Q et 2 aliquem magnum. Mox plures codd., inter quos A L M S T, omittunt inordinate, et D L O Q T U in statum pro ad statum.Augustine, City of God XIV, c. 11, n. 2: "Inexperienced in the divine severity, [Adam] could be deceived in this, that he believed what was committed to be venial... Although in believing [the serpent's word] both were not deceived, yet in sinning both were taken captive and entangled in the devil's snares." — The editions read divinae iustitiae et severitatis, which also a little before have credidit se puniendum for puniri. For aliquid magnum A Q and 2 have aliquem magnum. Shortly after, several codices, among them A L M S T, omit inordinate, and D L O Q T U have in statum for ad statum. ---