Genesis chapter 3, verse 2. To whom the woman answered: We eat of the fruit of the trees that are in Paradise; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, God has commanded us that we should not eat, and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

Genesis chapter 3, verse 2. To whom the woman answered: We eat of the fruit of the trees that are in Paradise; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, God has commanded us that we should not eat, and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.¹

Gen. cap. 3. vers. 2. Cui respondit mulier, De fructu lignorum quae sunt in Paradiso vescimur: de fructu vero ligni quod est in medio Paradisi, praecepit nobis Deus ne comederemus, & ne tangeremus illud, ne forte moriamur.

Ex his verbis liquido cognoscitur, fuisse inexcusabile mulieris peccatum. Ipsa nempe his verbis declarat se non peccasse tanquam divini praecepti ignaram aut oblitam: fatetur enim, sibi & marito praeceptum illud esse a Deo impositum: simul etiam indicat, non fuisse grave & durum praeceptum, nec observatu difficile. Dicit enim, una duntaxat arbore exce-

From these words it is clearly known that the woman's sin was inexcusable. For by these words she declares that she did not sin as one ignorant or forgetful of the divine precept: for she confesses that that precept was imposed by God on herself and her husband; and at the same time she indicates that the precept was not grave and harsh, nor difficult to observe. For she says that, with one tree only excep[ted]...²

...excepta, ex ceteris Paradisi arboribus quae propemodum innumerabiles erant, factam ipsis a Deo edendi potestatem. Illud Vescimur, significare videtur, eos antea solitos edere ex qualibet arbore: ex quo posset concludi, non parvo eos tempore moratos esse in Paradiso. Sed forte illud Vescimur, dictum fuit pro eo quod est, vesci possumus, vel nobis vesci licitum ac liberum est.

...one tree only excepted, the power of eating, granted to them by God, from the rest of the trees of Paradise, which were almost innumerable. That word 'We eat' seems to signify that they were previously accustomed to eat from any tree whatever: from which it could be concluded that they tarried in Paradise for no short time. But perhaps that word 'We eat' was said for this, that is, 'We are permitted to eat,' or 'it is lawful and free for us to eat.'³

Duo autem quae subdit Eva, quemadmodum intelligenda sint, nonnihil negotii facessunt interpretibus. Subdit enim, Deum praecepisse ipsis ne tangerent arborem scientiae boni & mali: quod tamen in praecepto quod Deus Adamo dedit, non est expressum. Quidam putant revera id fuisse praeceptum, sed fuisse a Mose supra praetermissum, ideoque nunc appositum: fuisse autem interdictum ipsis eius arboris tactum maioris causa cautionis, quo magis scilicet ea ratione ab esu arboris revocarentur. Sic opinatur Eugubinus.

But two things which Eve adds give the interpreters no little trouble as to how they are to be understood. For she adds that God had commanded them not to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: which, however, is not expressed in the precept that God gave to Adam. Some think that this really was commanded, but was passed over by Moses above, and therefore is now added; and that the touching of that tree was forbidden them for the sake of greater caution, namely so that by that means they might the more be recalled from eating of the tree. So Eugubinus opines.⁴

Quod nec Tostato nec mihi placet: nam & supra & infra, cum illud Dei praeceptum Moses memorat, nullam tactus, sed esus tantum interdicti mentionem facit. Neque consentaneum est existimare, Mosen illud Dei praeceptum non integrum uti fuit, sed mutilum & diminutum commemorasse; nec Deus, cum de violato praecepto hominem obiurgavit, de tactu enim, sed tantum de esu increpavit. Nec profecto in statu innocentiae opus fuit homini illa cautione: neque enim immoderate propensus erat magis ad esum arboris quam ad tactum. Quod si ob eam causam vetitus est illis tactus eius arboris, propter eandem sane interdici debuit aspectus, quippe qui Evae illecebra fuit comedendi, dicente Scriptura: Vidit mulier quod bonum esset lignum ad vescendum, & pulchrum oculis, aspectuque delectabile: & tulit de fructu illius, & comedit.

Which pleases neither Tostatus nor me: for both above and below, when Moses recounts that precept of God, he makes no mention of touching, but only of the prohibition of eating. Nor is it consonant to suppose that Moses recounted that precept of God not whole as it was, but maimed and diminished; nor did God, when he rebuked man for the violated precept, reprove him for the touching, but only for the eating. Nor indeed, in the state of innocence, did man have need of that caution: for he was not immoderately inclined more to the eating of the tree than to the touching. And if for that cause the touching of that tree was forbidden them, for the same reason surely the sight ought to have been forbidden—since it was for Eve the enticement to eating, Scripture saying: 'The woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold; and she took of its fruit, and ate.'⁵

Ambrosius libro de Adam & Eva quosdam refert dixisse, quod Eva dixit de tactu arboris, id non a Deo sed ab Adamo fuisse ei interdictum: quod tamen non est credibile. Nam probabile est quod arbitratur Caietanus & quidam alii, ipsummet Deum tam Evae quam Adamo simul praeceptum illud dedisse: quod Eva confirmat hoc loco dicens, Praecepit nobis Deus, &c. Nec Adam nomine Dei iussisset Evae ne tangeret arborem, cum id a Deo non esset iussum. Ergo & Ambrosii, & fere Theologorum sententia est, illud ne tangeremus, de suo Evam addidisse, quo magis exaggeraret praecepti gravitatem: iam enim ipsi persuasione serpentis interius corruptae praeceptum illud displicere coeperat. Sicut, inquit Caietanus, mulier prohibita a ma-

Ambrose, in the book On Adam and Eve, reports that some said that what Eve said about the touch of the tree had been forbidden her not by God but by Adam: which, however, is not credible. For it is probable, as Cajetan and certain others judge, that God himself gave that precept to Eve as well as to Adam at the same time: which Eve confirms in this place, saying, 'God has commanded us,' etc. Nor would Adam, in God's name, have ordered Eve not to touch the tree, since it had not been commanded by God. Therefore it is the opinion of Ambrose, and of nearly all the Theologians, that Eve added that 'lest we touch it' of her own, to exaggerate the more the gravity of the precept: for already, being inwardly corrupted by the serpent's persuasion, that precept had begun to displease her. Just as, says Cajetan, a woman forbidden by her hus[band]...⁶

...rito ne domum exeat, interrogata cur non domo exeat, respondet: Mihi non licet per maritum meum extra cubiculum pedem efferre, exaggerans videlicet displicens sibi praeceptum mariti. Ita Eva exaggerando divinum praeceptum, dixit non esse sibi licitum tangere fructum illius arboris: Huiusmodi autem exaggeratio, testis est internae displicentiae. Itaque iam vere diabolus in mulieris animum serpserat: primo quidem excitando in ea cupiditatem vanissimae libertatis, tum iniiciendo tantum illius prae-

...band not to leave the house, being asked why she does not go out of the house, answers: 'It is not permitted me, because of my husband, to set foot outside my chamber'—exaggerating, namely, because her husband's command displeases her. So Eve, by exaggerating the divine precept, said that it was not lawful for her even to touch the fruit of that tree: and an exaggeration of this kind is a witness of inward displeasure. And so the devil had now truly crept into the woman's mind: first, indeed, by exciting in her the desire of a most vain liberty; then by injecting so great a [weariness] of that pre[cept]...⁷

...cepti taedium & odium, ut mulier in falsam eius praecepti exaggerationem proruperit.

...weariness and hatred of that precept, that the woman burst out into a false exaggeration of it.⁸

But it is well to transcribe to this place the words of Ambrose pertaining to what we have said, from his book On Adam and Eve, or On Paradise (as it is entitled in other volumes). Thus, then, he writes in the 12th chapter of that book: In the command of God indeed there is no fault, for God said, 'Of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat'; but the fault was in the reporting of the command: for the woman added, 'Lest we touch it.' For, as far as the present reading teaches, we learn that we ought to add nothing to a command, even for caution's sake: for if you either add or subtract anything, it seems to be a kind of transgression of the command: for the pure form of the command must be kept, or the series of the testimony must be conveyed intact. Often a witness, while he adds something of his own to the series of the deeds, discolors the whole credit of the testimony by the falsehood of a part. Nothing, therefore, even that seems good, is to be added. For here, what offense, at first sight, has what the woman added, 'Neither shall you touch it at all'? For God had not said 'You shall not touch,' but 'You shall not eat'; yet nevertheless the lapse begins to have its beginning. For what she added, either she added superfluously, or by adding of her own, she understood God's command to be half-complete. The series of the present reading, therefore, teaches us that we ought neither to subtract anything from the divine commands, nor to add. For if John indicated this of his own writings—'If anyone shall add to these things,' he says, 'God will add upon him the plagues that are written in this book; and whoever shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the book of life'—how much more is nothing to be subtracted from the divine commands? Hence, then, the first transgression of the command began.⁹

Sed libet verba Ambrosii ad id quod diximus pertinentia, ex libro eius de Adam & Eva sive de Paradiso (ut in aliis voluminibus inscribitur), hunc in locum transcribere. Sic igitur ille, capite 12. eius libri scribit: In mandato quidem Dei nullum vitium est, dixit enim Deus, De fructu ligni scientiae boni & mali non comedetis: sed vitium fuit in relatione mandati: mulier enim addidit, Ne tangeremus ex eo. Etenim quantum praesens lectio docet, discimus nihil vel cautionis gratia iungere nos debere mandato: siquid enim vel addas vel detrahas, praevaricatio quaedam videtur esse mandati: Pura enim mandati forma servanda, vel testimonii series intimanda est. Plerumque testis dum aliquid ad seriem gestorum ex suo adiicit, totam testimonii fidem, partis mendacio decolorat. Nihil igitur vel quod bonum videtur addendum est. Namque hic quid offensionis habet prima specie quod addidit mulier, Neque tangetis ex eo quicquam. Non tangetis enim Deus non dixerat, sed non edetis, sed tamen lapsus incipit esse principium. Nam quae addidit, vel superfluum addidit, vel addendo de proprio, semiplenum intellexit Dei esse mandatum. Docet igitur nos praesentis series lectionis neque detrahere aliquid divinis debere mandatis, neque addere. Nam si Ioannes hoc indicavit de suis scriptis: Si quis apposuerit, inquit, ad haec, adiiciet in illum Deus plagas quae scriptae sunt in libro isto: & qui dempserit de verbis prophetiae huius, delebit Deus partem illius de libro vitae: quanto nihil divinis mandatis est detrahendum? Hinc ergo coepit praevaricatio prima esse mandati.

And very many think that this fault was not the woman's but Adam's: that Adam, while he wished to make her more cautious, so spoke to the woman as to add that God had commanded, 'You shall not touch it at all.' For we have it that Adam, not Eve, received the command from God; the woman had not yet been formed. The reading does not, indeed, set forth the very words of Adam by which he tells the woman the form and series of the command; but we understand that the series of the command passed to the woman through the man. Yet let others see what they think: for although it may seem uncertain as between the two, nevertheless the sex betrays which could the sooner err. Add that she is bound by this prejudgment, that the prior error was afterward found to be hers. For man is to the woman the author of error in one direction, not the woman to the man. Whence Paul too says: 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.' Thus Ambrose.¹⁰

Et plerique putant hoc vitium non esse mulieris, sed Adae fuisse: ita Adam dixisse mulieri, dum eam vellet facere cautiorem, ut adderet mandasse Deum: Non tangetis ex eo quicquam. Habemus enim, quia Adam non Eva mandatum acceperit a Deo, nondum mulier formata fuerat. Ipsa quidem verba Adae quibus mulieri dicit formam seriemque mandati, non prodit lectio: sed intelligimus per virum ad mulierem seriem transisse mandati. Viderint tamen alii quid sentiant: Nam etsi de duobus videatur incertum, tamen sexus prodit, qui prius potuerit errare. Adde quia praeiudicio illa constringitur, cuius & postea prior error inventus est. Utro enim mulier, non mulieri vir auctor erroris est. Unde & Paulus ait: Adam non est deceptus, mulier autem seducta in praevaricatione fuit. Haec Ambrosius.

Similiter etiam mulier de suo addit illud, Ne forte moriamur, dubitanter referens quod Deus asseveranter pronuntiaverat: quo declaravit Eva se putasse illam Dei sententiam de morte, non fuisse absolute sed comminatorie ab eo pronunciatam. De quo sic in huius loci commentario scribit Caietanus: Quanquam in his verbis mulieris prima fronte apparet manifesta diminutio divini praecepti: Deus enim asseruerat, moriendo morieris: mulier autem refert sub dubio dixisse Deum, Ne forte moriamini. Si tamen perspicacius consideretur sensus intentus, apparebit Evam inseruisse propriam interpretationem suam, referendo praeceptum Dei secundum sensum quo ipsa intellexit illud. Huiusmodi autem

Similarly too the woman adds of her own that 'Lest perhaps we die,' reporting doubtfully what God had pronounced assertively: by which Eve declared that she thought that sentence of God about death had been pronounced by him not absolutely but as a threat. Concerning which Cajetan writes thus in his commentary on this place: Although in these words of the woman a manifest diminution of the divine precept appears at first sight—for God had asserted, 'You shall die the death,' but the woman reports that God said doubtfully, 'Lest perhaps you die'—yet, if the intended sense be considered more closely, it will appear that Eve inserted her own interpretation, reporting God's precept according to the sense in which she herself understood it. And an interpretation of this kind...¹¹

...autem relatio pullulavit ex displicentia praecepti: quod enim nobis displicet, elongatur quoque a credulitate nostra: minus enim credimus quae nobis displicent. Et hinc factum est ut mulier haesitaverit, an poenam mortis Deus illi praecepto apposuisset cominandi tantum animo, an certo proposito eam infligendi. Non igitur mulier animo referendi falso divinum praeceptum, sed manifestando haesitationem suam circa sensum divini praecepti, adiunxit illud, Forte. Et hic sensus quadrat valde subiectis a serpente suggestionibus. Serpsit ergo diabolicum venenum in affectum simul & intellectum mulieris: in affectum quidem per displicentiam praecepti, unde statim prodiit exaggeratio vinculi & obligationis eius, in intellectum vero per haesitationem futurae poenae, unde prodiit relatio eius, & adverbium illud, Ne forte. Sic ex Caietano.

...this reporting sprang from displeasure with the precept: for what displeases us is also estranged from our believing; for we believe less the things that displease us. And hence it came about that the woman hesitated whether God had appended the penalty of death to that precept merely with the intent of threatening, or with the fixed purpose of inflicting it. The woman, therefore, added that 'perhaps' not with the intent of falsely reporting the divine precept, but by manifesting her hesitation concerning the sense of the divine precept. And this sense fits well with the suggestions cast in by the serpent. The diabolical venom, then, crept into the woman's affect and intellect at once: into the affect, indeed, through displeasure with the precept, whence at once came forth the exaggeration of its bond and obligation; but into the intellect through hesitation about the future penalty, whence came forth her report, and that adverb, 'Lest perhaps.' Thus from Cajetan.¹²

Rupertus tradit, Evam tribus modis pervertisse Dei verba: addendo, cum dixit, Ne tangeremus; diminuendo, cum inquit, Ne forte moriamur; mutando, cum ait, Ex ligno quod est in medio Paradisi: nam Deus dixerat, Ex ligno scientiae boni & mali: in medio namque Paradisi erat etiam arbor vitae nequaquam ipsis vetita. Sed hoc extremum non probo: nomen etiam scientiae boni & mali postea fuit ei arbori attributum, scilicet ex falso serpentis promisso, ut docuimus in tertio libro qui est de Paradiso, cum de ista eius arboris appellatione disputavimus. Verba Ruperti, in 5. capite libri 3. de Trinitate, sic habent:

Rupert hands down that Eve perverted God's words in three ways: by adding, when she said, 'Lest we touch'; by diminishing, when she says, 'Lest perhaps we die'; by changing, when she says, 'Of the tree which is in the midst of Paradise'—for God had said, 'Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'; for in the midst of Paradise was also the tree of life, by no means forbidden them. But this last I do not approve: the name 'of the knowledge of good and evil' was afterward attributed to that tree—namely, from the serpent's false promise—as we taught in the third book, which is On Paradise, when we disputed about that name of the tree. The words of Rupert, in the 5th chapter of the 3rd book On the Trinity, run thus:¹³

These words of the woman are now signs of a corrupted mind: for as far as in her lay, the woman corrupted the words of the Lord her instructor in three ways, by which, to this day, everyone who is on the devil's side strives to corrupt holy Scripture: namely by addition, diminution, and change. For she added, by saying, 'Lest we touch it'—because, namely, the Lord God had said only this, 'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat.' She diminished, in that, although God had said with a certain and affirmative declaration, 'For on whatever day you eat of it, you shall die the death,' she, wishing that to be doubtful or trivial, says, 'Lest perhaps we die.' And by change, in that, although the Lord had said, 'Of every tree of Paradise eat,' and had forbidden only the one tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she says, 'But of the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, he commanded us,' etc.—and she lied. For the tree of life too was in the midst of Paradise, which the Lord God did not forbid. Therefore she now bore it impatiently and murmured, that God, as if sparing or stingy, was reserving the precious things of the middle of Paradise, and granted the baser things, to be gathered round about, for man's food. Thus, I say, in three ways—that is, by addition, diminution, and change—the foolish woman strove to corrupt the holy precept of God. Moreover, how great a damnation it is to add anything to, or diminish from, the word of God, John testifies in the Apocalypse, when he said, 'If anyone shall add to these things, God will add upon him the plagues written in this book. If anyone shall diminish from the words of the prophecy of this book, God will take away his part from the book of life, and from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.' Therefore, truly, before the devil began to speak through the corporeal or visible serpent, he had already spoken within, of himself, to the ear of the heart, and a willing inclination or consent to carrying out the external work of sin was at hand. Accordingly the rest of what follows, thus by us...¹⁴

Haec verba mulieris, iam vitiata mentis indicia sunt: nam quantum in se erat, depravavit mulier verba praeceptoris Domini tribus modis, quibus usque hodie depravare nititur sanctam Scripturam, omnis qui est ex parte diaboli: scilicet appositione, diminutione, mutatione. Apposuit namque dicendo, Ne tangeremus illud: quia videlicet Dominus Deus hoc tantum dixerat, De ligno autem scientiae boni & mali ne comedas. Diminuit vero, quia cum certa & affirmativa enunciatione dixerit Deus, In quocumque enim die comederis ex eo, morte morieris, haec dubium vel frivolum volens esse illud, Ne forte, inquit, moriamur. Mutatione autem, quia cum dixerit Dominus, Ex omni ligno Paradisi comede, & unum solummodo interdixerit lignum scientiae boni & mali, haec ait, De ligno autem, quod est in medio Paradisi, praecepit nobis, &c. & mentita est. Nam & lignum vitae erat in medio Paradisi, quod Dominus Deus non interdixit. Ergo iam impatienter ferebat & murmurabat, quod quasi parcus vel avarus Deus pretiosa medii Paradisi reservaret, & viliora quaeque per circuitum colligenda in cibum hominis concessit. Sic, inquam, tribus modis, id est, appositione, diminutione, & mutatione, sanctum praeceptum Dei mulier stulta depravare contendit. Porro quanta damnationis sit apponere quid, vel diminuere de verbo Dei, Ioannes testatur in Apocalypsi, cum dixit, Si quis apposuerit ad haec, apponet super illum Deus plagas scriptas in libro isto. Si quis diminuerit de verbis Prophetiae libri huius, auferet Deus partem eius de libro vitae, & de civitate sancta, & de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto. Igitur veraciter, antequam per corporeum vel visibilem serpentem diabolus loqui inciperet, iam per semet ipsum intus ad aurem cordis locutus fuerat, pronamque voluntatem vel consensum ad exterius peccati opus peragendum fore praesens erat. Proinde cetera quae sequuntur, sic nobis

...are to be taken by us as the consummated work of a diabolical defilement or adultery; for before these things, as it were certain preliminary conditions had been brought about by a hidden inspiration or suggestion, with the mind taking delight. Thus far are the words of Rupert.¹⁵

...sic nobis accipienda sunt, tanquam stupri vel adulterii diabolici opus consummatum, nam ante haec veluti quaedam conditiones occulta inspiratione vel suggestione condelectante animo facta sunt. Huc usque sunt verba Ruperti.

Cui quidem non assentior, Evam ante congressum & sermonem habitum a serpente, iam fuisse interius a diabolo vitiatam, & spirituali aliquo veneno corruptam: hoc autem paulo infra apertius ostendemus.

With whom indeed I do not agree, that Eve, before the meeting and the conversation held with the serpent, had already been inwardly vitiated by the devil and corrupted by some spiritual venom: but this we shall show more openly a little below.¹⁶

Translator’s notes

The lemma: Eve's reply to the serpent (Gen. 3:2-3). ↩
Exposition of Gen. 3:2-3 begins: Eve's reply shows her sin was inexcusable (she knew and acknowledged the precept, which was neither harsh nor hard). Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'exce' = excepta). Running footer: 'Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1. LLL'. ↩
Continuation (catchword 'exce' = excepta) of Eve's reply (Gen. 3:2): all trees but one were permitted; 'we eat' (vescimur) may imply long residence in Paradise, or merely 'we may eat.' ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Cur Eva dixerit tactum arboris sibi esse interdictum, cum Deus esum tantummodo vetuerit' (Why Eve said the touch of the tree was forbidden her, though God forbade only the eating). First difficulty/opinion (Eugubinus): the touch was really forbidden (Moses having omitted it) as an extra precaution. ↩
Marginal glosses: 'Opinio Eugubini, quae refellitur' (Eugubinus's opinion, which is refuted); 'Tostatus q. 4. in 3. cap. Gen.' Pererius refutes Eugubinus: Moses elsewhere mentions only eating; the 'touch' precaution was needless in innocence; else the sight (the actual enticement, Gen. 3:6) should have been forbidden too. ↩
Marginal glosses: 'Secunda opinio' (Second opinion); 'Caietanus in Genesim.' Second opinion (Ambrose, De Paradiso; Cajetan): God gave the precept to both Adam and Eve ('God has commanded us'); Eve added 'lest we touch it' herself, exaggerating the precept's gravity out of incipient displeasure. The Cajetan analogy begins (catchword 'ma' = marito). ↩
Cajetan's analogy (a wife exaggerating her husband's ban betrays inner displeasure): Eve's exaggeration witnesses that the devil had crept into her mind, stirring desire for vain liberty. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'cepti' = praecepti). Running footer: 'LLL'. ↩
Completion of the sentence (catchword 'cepti' = praecepti): the devil's injected hatred of the precept drove Eve to her false exaggeration. ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Apoc. ult.' (Apocalypse, last chapter, Rev. 22:18-19). Ambrose, De Paradiso c.12: nothing may be added to or subtracted from God's command; Eve's addition ('lest we touch it') was the beginning of the lapse (with the warning of Rev. 22). ↩
Ambrose continued: some attribute the addition to Adam (who alone received the command, before Eve was formed); but the 'sex betrays which could sooner err' (cf. Paul, 1 Tim. 2:14, 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman'). Concludes 'Haec Ambrosius.' ↩
Eve also added 'lest perhaps we die' (doubtful) where God spoke assertively ('you shall die the death'). Cajetan: she inserted her own interpretation. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'autem'). Running footer: 'LLL 2'. ↩
Conclusion of the Cajetan analysis: the diabolical venom crept into Eve's affect (displeasure → exaggeration of the precept) and intellect (hesitation about the penalty → the doubtful 'lest perhaps'). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Tribus modis depravatur divina Scriptura, secundum Rupertum' (In three ways divine Scripture is corrupted, according to Rupert). Rupert: Eve perverted God's words by addition, diminution, and change. Pererius rejects the third point (the name 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' was applied later, from the serpent's promise; cf. his own book 3, De Paradiso). ↩
Marginal gloss: 'Apocal. 22.' (Rev. 22:18-19). Verbatim Rupert (De sancta Trinitate III.5): the threefold corruption of Scripture (addition, diminution, change), Eve's murmuring against God as 'stingy,' and the note that the devil had already spoken inwardly to Eve's heart before the serpent's outward speech. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'sic nobis'). ↩
Conclusion of Rupert's quotation (catchword 'sic nobis'): Eve's words are the consummation of a 'diabolical adultery,' the devil having first worked inwardly with delight. ↩
Pererius dissents from Rupert's claim that Eve was already inwardly corrupted by the devil before the serpent spoke (to be argued below). ↩