Abstract
As we know, the sacred books of the three religions are not characterized by a gender-friendly approach. In the very beginning of the Old Testament we find the tale of the Fall of Man, where the serpent tempts Eve, who in turn tempts Adam to commit the original sin: to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Eve’s guilt is taken for granted, and rarely discussed. The question of Eve’s guilt was first taken up in Augustine’s De Genesi ad Litteram, and was then later further systematized in Peter Lombard’s Sentences. Isotta Nogarola was a pioneer in taking this discussion beyond university walls, to the intellectual Veronese circles. When Isotta Nogarola pleads for Eve’s case in her Dialogue on the Equal or Unequal Sin of Adam and Eve, she may not be the first to defend Eve, but she has the merit of being a woman who is pleading for a woman’s case. We examine the background of this discussion in Isotta, focusing especially on the scholastic antecedents to this debate. Although most of the quotations cited by Isotta are attributed to early Christian and pagan authors—sources that are typical of humanistic literature—we will demonstrate that many of them are in fact taken from scholastic sources discussing original sin, which are the true immediate sources of Isotta’s dialogue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
About Angela, see Parker (2002).
- 2.
Cf. Guarino Veronese, ed. 1915, Isotta Nogarola’s ep. 703, pp. 304–305 and Isotta Nogarola, ep. 704, pp. 305–306.
- 3.
“[…] te adeo virili animo et opinari et praedicare solebam, ut nihil accidere posset quod non forti et invicto ferres pectore. Nunc autem sic demissam abiectam et vere mulierem tete ostentas, ut nihil magnifico de te sensui meo respondere te cernam” (Guarino Veronese, ed. 1915, ep. 705, p. 306). All translations are ours, unless otherwise noted.
- 4.
“et in muliere virum faciam opus est” (Guarino Veronese, ed. 1915, ep. 705, p. 307).
- 5.
See Lauro Quirini, Ep. LIII (in Nogarola, ed. 1886, p. 9).
- 6.
This topic will be later reappraised by numerous treatises in the Venetian humanist circle. See Ardissino (2016).
- 7.
“Vale et ne timeas et aude multa, quia plurima optime didicisti et doctissime scribis” (Nogarola, ed. 1886, p. 197, ll. 15–17).
- 8.
“Haec ut tuae voluntati morem gererem, scripsi […] sed tu pro tua humanitate, si quid inepte scriptum invenies […]” (Nogarola, ed. 1886, p. 191, l. 2 and ll. 18–19, our emphasis).
- 9.
“‘Fragilitas autem mulieris non fuit peccati causa, sed inordinatus appetitus […]’ quod procedit, ut scribis, ex superbia” (Nogarola, ed. 1886, p. 201, ll. 3–6, our emphasis).
- 10.
“De facilitate consensus viri dictis mulieris volo sexus illius deceptiones ad te scribens silentio praeterire […]” (Nogarola, ed. 1886, p. 214, ll. 2–4, our emphasis).
- 11.
About dialogue and letter writing as a female practice in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see Smarr (2008, pp. 130–153).
- 12.
Thomas Aquinas, S.Th. I-II, q. 71, a. 6, arg. 2: “Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de duabus animabus, peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi quod iustitia vetat.” Peter of Poitiers, Sententiae II, c. 12 (ed. 1950, p. 63): “Et iterum: ‘Peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi quod iustitia vetat’.” Bandinus, De creatione mundi et de lapsu hominis, d. 35, 1065A: “Peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi, quod iustitia vetat: Ambrosius quoque ait: Quid est peccatum nisi praevaricatio legis divinae, et coelestium inobedientia praeceptorum?”
- 13.
The use of florilegia was very common by that time. For further information see Muñoz et al. (2013). We have not found the particular florilegia used by Isotta.
- 14.
Abelard says that they will only be saved by sacraments. Grellard (2020) has long discussed on this topic and on Bandinelli’s later development. We would like to thank Prof. Grellard for kindly letting us read his manuscript copy.
- 15.
“‘Quis plus peccavit, Adam vel Eva?’ Ex quo manifeste animadverti potest quis eorum plus peccaverit, Adam scilicet vel Eva. Plus enim videtur peccasse mulier, quae voluit usurpare divinitatis aequalitatem, et nimia praesumptione elata, credidit ita esse futurum. Adam vero nec illud credidit, et de poenitentia et Dei misericordia cogitavit, dum uxori morem gerens, eius persuasioni consensit, nolens eam contristare et a se alienatam relinquere, ne periret, arbitratus illud esse veniale, non mortale delictum” (ed. 1971–1981, p. 442).
- 16.
“Augustinus, Super Genesim: Postquam enim mulier seducta manducavit eique dedit ut simul ederent, noluit eam contristare, quam credebat sine suo solatio contabescere, et a se alienatam omnino interire: non quidem carnali victus concupiscentia, quam nondum senserat, sed amicabili quadam benevolentia, qua plerumque fit ut offendatur Deus ne offendatur amicus” (ed. 1971–1981, p. 443).
- 17.
“Ex his datur intelligi quod mulier plus peccaverit, in qua maioris tumoris praesumptio fuit. Quare etiam in se et in proximum et in Deum peccavit; vir autem tantum in se et in Deum.—Ex poena etiam plus peccasse probatur mulier. Inde etiam colligitur quod mulier plus peccaverit, quia gravius punita est, cui dictum fuit: In dolore paries filios etc.” (ed. 1971–1981, p. 443; emphasis in bold in the edition).
- 18.
The reading “parvi intellectus” appears in the PL edition (PL 211: 1012C), however, in the 1950 edition, it reads “seducta” (p. 133).
- 19.
Thomas Aquinas, Super Sent. II, d. 22, q. 1, a. 3, arg. 1: “Uterque enim elationis vitio peccavit. Sed elatio illa non fuit nisi in hoc quod Dei similitudinem perverse appetierunt. Ergo videtur quod uterque idem appetit, et aequaliter peccaverunt.”
- 20.
Thomas Aquinas, Super Sent. II, d. 22, q. 1, a. 3, arg. 2: “Praeterea, infirmitas peccatum excusat. Sed mulier infirmior fuit viro, propter quod Diabolus, ut dictum est supra, eam primo aggressus est. Ergo videtur quod ipsa minus peccaverit.”
- 21.
Thomas Aquinas, Super Sent. II, d. 22, q. 1, a. 3, arg. 3: “Praeterea, propter hoc peccatum Daemonis gravius judicatur quam peccatum hominis, quod eminentiorem cognitionem de Deo habebat. Sed vir magis erat praeditus spirituali mente quam mulier, ut in littera dicitur. Ergo videtur quod ipse gravius peccaverit.”
- 22.
Thomas Aquinas, Super Sent. II, d. 22, q. 1, a. 3, arg. 4: “Praeterea, regimen mulieris ad virum pertinebat; unde et supra dictum est quod per virum ad mulierem praeceptum delatum est. Ergo videtur quod etiam peccatum mulieris viro imputandum sit, et magis aggravandum.”
- 23.
Thomas Aquinas, Super Sent. II, d. 22, q. 1, a. 3, arg. 5: “Praeterea, peccare ex consideratione misericordiae divinae, videtur esse peccatum praesumptionis, quae est species peccati in spiritum sanctum, quod est gravissimum. Cum ergo vir peccaverit cogitans de Dei misericordia, ut in littera dicitur, videtur quod ipse gravius peccaverit quam mulier.”
- 24.
Bonaventure, Comm. in Lib. Sent. II, d. 22, c. 4, q. 3, resp.: “quia peccatum viri fuit causa transfusionis peccati in posteros” (ed. 1885, p. 520).
- 25.
Bonaventure, Comm. in Lib. Sent. II, d. 22, c. 4, q. 3, resp.: “quia peccatum mulieris fuit occassio peccati viri et ita per consequens omnium aliorum” (ed. 1885, p. 520).
- 26.
Bonaventure, Comm. in Lib. Sent. II, d. 22, c. 4, q. 3, resp.: “ex parte peccantis, gravius peccasse dicitur vir quam mulier, tum propter donorum praecellentiam, tum etiam propter status praesidentiam quia mulieri quodam modo praelatus erat” (ed. 1885, pp. 520–521).
- 27.
Bonaventure, Comm. in Lib. Sent. II, d. 22, c. 4, q. 3, resp.: “ex parte peccati, gravius peccavit mulier quam vir, tum propter impietatem in Deum, tum propter iniquitatem in proximum” (ed. 1885, p. 521).
- 28.
Bonaventure, Comm. in Lib. Sent. II, d. 22, c. 4, q. 3, resp.: “Quod autem dicit Augustinus, quod pari fasta 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” (ed. 1885, pp. 520–521).
- 29.
See the statement of the three argumentative topics in Sect. 21.2.
- 30.
“Eva ignorans inconstansque peccavit, ex quo tibi levius peccasse videtur. Ignorantia eorum praesertim quae scire debemus nos non excusat, quia scriptum est: Si quis ignorat, ignorabitur. Oculos quos culpa claudit poena aperit. Qui stultus est in culpa sapiens erit in poena; praesertim quum error peccantis negligentia occurrit” (ed. 1886, p. 192, ll. 11–18, our emphasis).
- 31.
Peter Abelard, Confessio Fidei Universis VI.2 (ed. 1986, p. 135, ll. 2–4): “Multa quoque per ignorantiam facta culpe sunt adscribenda, maxime cum per negligentiam nostrum contingit nos ignorare quod nobis necessarium erat prenosse.”
- 32.
“Ita licet Eva ignoranter peccaverit quia eius ignorantia ex precedenti culpa, elatione videlicet, processit, excusationem sui peccati minime pretendere potuit.”
- 33.
“Nescio etiam, quonam pacto tu, quae per tot annorum cursus ab Eva distas, ipsius sensum damnas, cuius scientiam in paradiso a summo omnium rerum opifice divinitus creatam serpentem astutissimum praesentem timuisse scribis, quia non fuit ausus in verba persuasionis prorumpere, sed sub interrogatione eam alloquutus est” (ed. 1886, p. 193, ll. 3–10).
- 34.
“Eva ignorans inconstansque peccavit, ex quo tibi gravius peccasse videtur, quia ignorantia eorum quas scire debemus nos non excusat […]. Concedo, quum haec ignorantia crassa fuerit vel affectata, sed ignorantia Eva a natura fuit insita, cuius naturae ipse deus est auctor et conditor. Nam in pluribus hoc videtur, quia qui plus ignorat minus peccat, ut puer sene, rusticus nobili” (ed. 1886, p. 198, l. 11–p. 199, l. 1, our emphasis).
- 35.
“multo minus peccavit Eva debilis et ignorans secundum naturam” (ed. 1886, p. 208, ll. 15–16, our emphasis).
- 36.
“Nam in angelo non fuit per ignorantiam excusatio, sicut in muliere” (ed. 1886, p. 203, ll. 16–17).
- 37.
See the fallacy mentioned in Sect. 21.4, (3).
- 38.
A study about Isotta’s dialogue’s subversive character is to be found in Ebbersmeyer (2004).
- 39.
References
Primary Sources
Albert the Great. (1894). Alberti Magni Commentarii in II Sententiarum (S. C. A. Borgnet, Ed.). In Opera omnia 27. L. Vives.
Ambrose. (1896). De paradiso (K. Schenkl, Ed.). In Sancti Abrosii opera (Vol. 1). Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 32/1. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Augustine. (1891). De utilitate credendi. De duabus animabus. Contra Fortunatum. Contra Adimantum. Contra Epistulam Fundamenti. Contra Faustum (J. Zycha, Ed.). Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 25/1. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Augustine. (1894). De Genesi ad litteram Liber imperfectus. De Genesi ad litteram. Locutiones in Heptateuchum (J. Zycha, Ed.). Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 28/1. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Augustine. (1985). Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum. Commonitorium Orosii et sancti Aurelii Augustini contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas (K. D. Daur, Ed.). Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 49. Brepols.
Bandinus. (1855). De creatione mundi et de lapsu hominis (J.-P. Migne, Ed.). Patrologia Latina, 192.
Bonaventure. (1885). Commentarium in Libros Sententiarum. In Opera omnia II. Ed. Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi) prope Florentiam.
Guarino Veronese. (1915). Epistolario di Guarino Veronese, Vol. II (R. Sabbadini, Ed.). PIMS.
Hilary of Poitiers. (1980). De trinitate (P. Smulders, Ed.). Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 62A. Brepols.
Isotta Nogarola. (1886). De pari aut impari Evæ atque Adæ peccato (E. Abel, Ed.). In Isotae Nogarolae Veronensis opera quae supersunt omnia; accedunt Angelae et Zeneverae Nogarolae epistolae et carmina (Vol. 2). Apud Gerold et socios/Apud Fridericum Kilian.
Isotta Nogarola. (2004). Complete writings. Letterbook. Dialogue on Adam and Eve. Orations (M. L. King & D. Robin, Trans.). The University of Chicago Press.
Isotta Nogarola. (2013). ¿Quién pecó más, Adán o Eva? (J. Aguilar González, Trans.). ArCiBel Editores.
Peter Abelard. (1986). Confessio fidei ‘Universis’ (C. Burnett, Ed.). In C. Burnett, Peter Abelard, Confessio fidei ‘Universis’: A critical edition of Abelard’s reply to accusations of heresy. Medieval Studies, 48, 111–138.
Peter Abelard. (2001). Scito te ipsum (R. Ilgner, Ed.). Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 190. Brepols.
Peter Lombard. (1971–1981). Sententiae in IV libris distinctae. Spicilegium bonaventurianum, 4. Ed. Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas.
Peter of Poitiers. (1950). Sententiae, Vol. II (P. S. Moore, J. N. Garvin, & M. Dulong, Eds.). University of Notre Dame.
Roland Bandinelli. (1969). Sententiae Rolandi Bononiensis magistri (A. Gietl, Ed.). In Die Sentenzen Rolands nachmals Papstes Alexander III. Brill/Rodopi. (Original work published 1891)
Thomas of Argentina. (1585). Commentaria in IIII. Libros Sententiarvm. Apud A Orerium.
Thomas Aquinas. (2019). Opera omnia. Corpus Thomisticum. Retrieved from https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/iopera.html
Secondary Sources
Ardissino, E. (2016). La coppia e la colpa. Adamo ed Eva nella Venezia della prima età moderna. In F. Bondi, P. Gervasi, S. Pezzini, & M. Urbaniak (Eds.), 2: Ricerche e Riflessioni sul Tema della Coppia (pp. 7–21). Maria Pacini Fazzi Editore.
Burke, P. (1989). The Renaissance dialogue. Renaissance Studies, 3(1), 1–12.
Ebbersmeyer, S. (2004). Zwischen Imitation und Subversion. Der Dialog Über die gleiche bzw. ungleiche Sünde Adam und Evas von Isotta Nogarola (1418–1466). In B. Guthmüller & W. G. Müller (Eds.), Dialog und Gesprächskultur in Der Renaissance. Harrassowitz Verlag.
Garin, E. (1958). Documenti scolastici del XIV e XV secolo. In E. Garin (Ed.), ll pensiero pedagogico dell’Umanesimo (pp. 91–124). Coedizioni Giuntine Sansoni.
Grellard, C. (2020). Que m’est-il permis d’ignorer? La foi, l’ignorance et les limites acceptables de l’hétérodoxie. In C. Grellard, P. Hoffmann, & L. Lavaud (Eds.), Genèses antiques et médiévales de la foi. Collection des Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité EAA, 206. Institut des études augustiniennes/Brepols.
Jansen, S. L. (2008). Debating women, politics, and power in early modern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
Jardine, L. (1983). Isotta Nogarola: Women humanists – Education for what? History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 12(4), 231–244.
King, M. L. (1978). The religious retreat of Isotta Nogarola (1418–1466): Sexism and its consequences in the fifteenth century. Signs, 3(4), 807–822.
King, M. L. (1991). Women of the Renaissance. University of Chicago Press.
King, M. L. & Robin, D. (2004). Isotta Nogarola: Complete writings. Letterbook. Dialogue on Adam and Eve. Orations. The University of Chicago Press.
Lottin, O. (1933). Le problème de l’ignorantia iuris de Gratien à Saint Thomas d’Aquin. Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 5, 345–368.
Muñoz, M. J., Cañizares, P., & Martín, C. (Eds.). (2013). The compilation of knowledge in the Middle Ages. FIDEM.
Parker, H. N. (2002). Angela Nogarola (ca. 1400) and Isotta Nogarola (1418–1466): Thieves of language. In L. J. Churchill, P. R. Brown, & J. E. Jeffrey (Eds.), Women writing Latin: From Roman antiquity to early modern Europe, vol. 3. Early modern women writing Latin (pp. 11–30). Routledge.
Roseman, P. W. (2004). Peter Lombard. Oxford University Press.
Smarr, J. L. (2008). Joining the conversation. Dialogues by Renaissance women. University of Michigan Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Borelli, M., Buffon, V.A., Jakubecki, N.G. (2021). The Fruit of Knowledge: To Bite or not to Bite? Isotta Nogarola on Eve’s Sin and Its Scholastic Sources. In: Chouinard, I., McConaughey, Z., Medeiros Ramos, A., Noël, R. (eds) Women's Perspectives on Ancient and Medieval Philosophy. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73190-8_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73190-8_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73189-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73190-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)