¹ On the history of and contemporary interest in original sin, see A. Gaudel, “Péché originel,” Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 12/1. 275–624; Gross, Julius, Geschichie des Erbsündendogmas: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Problems vom Ursprung des Übels (4 vols.; Munich, 1960–1972)Google Scholar; Rondet, Henri, Le péché originel dans la tradition patristique et théologique (Paris, 1967)Google Scholar; Baumann, Urs, Erbsünde? Ihr traditionelles Verständnis in der Krise heutiger Theologie (Ökumenische Forschungen 2/2; Freiburg, 1970)Google Scholar; Lukken, G. M., Original Sin in the Roman Liturgy (Leiden, 1973)Google Scholar; and Vandervelde, G., Original Sin: Two Major Trends in Contemporary Roman Catholic Reinterpretation (Amsterdam, 1975).Google Scholar

² Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos (1687; reprint ed., Westmead, 1967)Google Scholar. Although the first brief philosophical section of this work was directed by Martini at Muslim Averroists, the overall anti-Jewish emphasis of the book is evident in its author's opening statement (prooemium §§ 2–3, p. 2): “Deinde cum juxta sententiam Senecae, ‘nulla pestis sit efficacior ad nocendum quam familiaris inimicus’: nullus autem inimicus Christianae fidei magis sit familiaris, magisque nobis inevitabilis, quam Judaeus … hujusmodi pugionem … talem tamen, qualem scivero, atque potuero principaliter contra Judaeos; deinde contra Saracenos, et alios quosdam verae fidei adversarios fabricabo.”

³ Ibid., 3.2.6, pp. 579–89.

⁴ lbid., 3.2.6.6, p. 587: “Dixit R. Benjamin, Amorem mundi dedit in cordibus ipsorum. Dixit R. Nehemias, ‘Cuncta fecit pulcra in tempore suo (Eccles. 3 v. 11,’ sicut dictum est” (Gen. 1 v. 31), “Et vidit Deus totum quod fecerat, et ecce bonum valde.' ‘Et ecce bonum,’ hoc est, figmentum bonum. ‘Valde,’ hoc est, figmentum malum. Et nunquid figmentum malum est bonum valde? Non nisi ex consequenti: nisi enim figmentum malum fuisset, non aedificasset homo domum, nec duxisset uxorem, nec procreasset filios; quia sic dicit Salomoh (Eccles. 4 v. 4), ‘Quia ipsa est aemulatio viri, vel cujuslibet a proximo suo.’”

⁵ Qoh. Rab. 3.11.3, whence the version the text above.

⁶ Gen. Rab. 9 (on 1:31); Midr. Tehillim 9.1. For confirmation of the regular use which Raymond Martini made of these midrashic collections, see Lieberman, Saul, Shkiin: A Few Words on Some Jewish Legends, Customs, and Literary Sources Found in Karaite and Christian Works [Hebrew] (2d ed., Jerusalem, 1970) 85–86, 88.Google Scholar

⁷ Pugio 3.2.6.1, p. 579: “‘Originale peccatum’ itaque dicitur apud nos ‘fomes peccati,’ scilicet ‘concupiscentia,’ vel ‘concupiscibilitas,’ quae quandoque dicitur ‘lex membrorum,’ quandoque ‘languor naturae,’ quandoque ‘tyrranus, qui est in membris nostris,’ quandoque ‘lex carnis.’”

⁸ 5:12–19.

⁹ 7:7–ll, 24–25. All biblical quotations have been taken from the NEB.

¹⁰ Cf. Deut 30:11–14; Schechter, Solomon, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York, 1910) 185–89Google Scholar; Moore, George Foot, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (2 vols.; 1927–1930Google Scholar; reprint ed., New York, 1971) 1. 474–76, 479; and especially Tennant, F. R., The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin (1903; reprint ed., New York, 1968) 160–68. Tennant points out that even the idea that all men inherit Adam's punishment of mortality originated only among the Amora im of the third century.Google Scholar

¹¹ See, e.g., Hirsch, Samson Raphael, trans, and comment., Der Pentateuch übersetzt und erläutert (Frankfurt, 1867) 1.Google Scholar 84–85 (ad Gen 3:19); Montefiore, C. G., Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays (London, 1914) 135–38Google Scholar; Baeck, Leo, The Essence of Judaism (rev. ed.; ed. Howe, Irving, trans. Victor Grubenwieser and Leonard Pearl; New York, 1948) 161Google Scholar; and Epstein, Isidore, The Faith of Judaism: An Interpretation for Our Times (London, 1954) 220, 292.Google Scholar

¹² For descriptions of the notion of yeṣer ha-ra, see Porter, Frank Chamberlin, “The Yeçer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin,” in Biblical and Semitic Studies (New York, 1901) 91–156Google Scholar; Tennant, The Sources, 168–76; Schechter, Some Aspects, chaps. 15–16; Moore, Judaism, 1. 468–93; Norman Williams, Powell, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin: A Historical and Critical Study (London, 1927) 59–74Google Scholar; and Urbach, Ephraim E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Abrahams, Israel (2 vols.; Jerusalem, 1975) 1. 471–77.Google Scholar

¹³ B.Qidd. 30b; Ber. 61a; 'Abot R. Nat. A, chap. 16.

¹⁴ Exod. Rab. 41.12; b. Sank 103a; Num. Rab. 17.6.

¹⁵ See the statements of R. Isaac, R. Asi, and Rava in b. Sukk. 52.

¹⁶ B. Sanh. 45a; Sipra, Aḥarei § 9 (on 13:9).

¹⁷ B. Sabb. 105b. cf. the statement of R. Meir in Song Rab. 2.4.1 and also Exod. Rab. 41.12.

¹⁸ B. B. Bat. 16a; Sukk. 52b.

¹⁹ B. Sukk. 52b; Sanh. 105a; Qidd. 30b; cf. B. Bat. 16a.

²⁰ B. Sukk. 52b; Qidd. 16a; Sanh. 43b; Lev. Rab. 34a.

²¹ M. 'Abot 4.1; cf. Taylor, Charles, ed., Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (rev. ed.; New York, 1969) 63–64 and n. 2.Google Scholar

²² Goldin, Judah, trans., The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Yale Judaica Series 10; New Haven, 1955) chap. 16, p. 85.Google Scholar

²³ Sipre Deut. 32 (on 6:5).

²⁴ B. Sanh. 107b.

²⁵ B. Yoma 69b; cf. Sanh. 64a.

²⁶ See above, n. 7.

²⁷ Augustine De continentia 3.8 (PL 40. 354); because Martini has copied this reference, as well as his definition of original sin, from Peter Lombard's Sententiae (2.30.8), he joined Peter Lombard in incorrectly attributing the Augustinian statement to a tract entitled De baptismo parvulorum. On the centrality of Augustine in the history of Catholic teaching on original sin, see, e.g., Gaudel, “Péché originel,” 371, who dubs Augustine the “docteur de péché originel et de la grâce”; Turmel, J., “Le dogme du péché originel dans saint Augustine,” Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses 6 (1901) 425–26Google Scholar; Williams, The Ideas, 319; and Gross, Geschichte, 1. 375: “Augustinus ist somit im Vollsinn des Wortes der Vater des Erbsündendogmas.”

²⁸ On Martini's first theological treatise, the Explanario symboli apostolorum, see Cavallera, F., “L' ‘Explanatio simboli apostolorum’ de Raymond Martin, O.P.,” in Studia mediaevalia in honorem admodum reverendi paths Raymundi Josephi Martin (Bruges, 1948) 201–20Google Scholar; Berthier, André, “Un maître orientaliste du xiii^e siècle: Raymond Martin O.P.,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 6 (1936) 299Google Scholar; and Tomás, and Artau, Joaquín Carreras y, Historia de la filosofia español: Filosofia cristiana de los siglos xiii al xv (2 vols.; Madrid, 1939–1943) 1. 153–54.Google Scholar

²⁹ Berthier, “Un maître,” 299–304; Aquinas, Thomas, Liber de veritate catholice fidei contra errores infidelium, ed. Marc, Peter et al. (3 vols.; Tours, 1961–1967) 1.Google Scholar 3, 60–73; Murphy, Thomas, “The Date and Purpose of the Contra Gentiles,” HeyJ 10 (1969) 405–15.Google Scholar

³⁰ DCD 14.11.

³¹ Contra Julianum Pelagianum 6.10.28 (PL 44. 838).

³² DCD 13.6,13; 14.11.

³³ DCD 13.13 (4. 144–45); 14.15.

³⁴ DCD 14.4.

³⁵ Liber de veritate (Summa contra gentiles) 4.50.

³⁶ De malo 4.2 (Vivès 13. 418), emphasis mine; see also ST 1–2.81.2.

³⁷ ST 1–2.82.1, ad 1–2; 1–2.83.3.

³⁸ De malo 4.2 (Vivès 13.419).

³⁹ See Keating, Charles J., The Effects of Original Sin in the Scholastic Tradition from St. Thomas Aquinas to William Ockham (Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology 2/120; Washington, 1959) 52–53Google Scholar; cf. Gaudel, “Péché originel,” 471; and Lottin, O., “Le péché originel chez Albert le Grand, Bonaventure et Thomas d'Aquin,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 12 (1940) 314.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ST 1–2.82.1; 1–2.89.5.

⁴¹ Cf. Kors, J.-B., La justice primitive et le péché originel d'après S. Thomas: Les sources-la doctrine (Bibliothèque thomiste 2; Paris, 1930) 98–99, 154, 158; see also Gaudel, “Péché originel,” 478–84; and Keating, The Effects, 49, 52–54.Google Scholar

⁴² DCD 13.3.

⁴³ DCD 13.14 (4. 180–81); cf. De peccatorum meritis et remissione 3.7.14, and Contra Julianum Pelagianum 3.18.35.

⁴⁴ Opus imperfectum contra Julianum 2.42; De nuptiis et concupiscentia 2.21.36.

⁴⁵ De nuptiis et concupiscentia, 2.5.15 (PL 44. 444); cf. De peccatorum meritis et remissione 2.9.11. The exact function of concupiscence in Augustine's thought on original sin is hard to determine; at times it seems as if concupiscence is identified with the original sin in every individual, while elsewhere a distinction is drawn between a state of culpability for Adam's lust or reatus concupiscentiae, equated with original sin, and concupiscence itself, the punishment (in itself sinful as well) for original sin and the agent of its transmission from one generation to the next. Modern views on the subject often divide along party lines, Protestant theologians arguing that Augustine identified original sin with sexual passion and Catholics stressing the distinction between reatus concupiscentiae and concupiscentia. See, e.g., Turmel, “Le dogme,” Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses 7 (1902) 129–35Google Scholar; Donau, F., “La pensée de Saint Augustin sur la nature du péché originel,” Revue apologetique 34 (1922) 414–25Google Scholar, 486–95; Williams, The Ideas, 365ff.; Gaudel, “Péché originel,” 396–98; and Hans Staffner, “Die Lehre des Hl. Augustinus über das Wesen der Erbsünde,” ZKTh 79 (1957) 385–416. Yet even though, as all will agree Augustine maintained, the physical act of sexual intercourse transmits original sin, the guilt of original sin is essentially that of the soul (DCD 13.13, 14.15), and Augustine was constantly troubled by the problem of how original sin entered the soul of a newly born person. He never decided conclusively between the answers of traducianism and creationism; each had its shortcomings, although the exigencies of the Pelagian controversy often induced Augustine to espouse the former over the latter. See especially Turmel, “Le dogme,” 7. 135–46; Rondet, Le péché originel, 161–67; and Gross, Geschichte, 1. 334–46.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ ST 1.118.2 (15. 152–53); “Et ideo haereticum est dicere quod is anima intellectiva traducatur cum semine.” For Aquinas' dissatisfaction with such explanations of human solidarity, see Liber de veritate 4.51–52; ST 1–2.81.1

⁴⁷ Liber de veritate 4.52.

⁴⁸ ST 1–2.81.1 (26. 10–11).

⁴⁹ Ibid., ad 2; 1–2.81.3, ad 2; 1–2.81.4.

⁵⁰ ST 1–2.17.9; 1–2.83.1, c. and ad 1.

⁵¹ Opus imperfectum contra Julianum 4.104 (PL 45. 1401); cf. also DCD 12.1, 224; and De libero arbitrio 2.20.54.

⁵² De nuptiis et concupiscentia 2.34.57 (PL 44. 471).

⁵³ DCD 13.27; 14.1, 16–19, 22–26.

⁵⁴ See the elaborate description in DCD 22.22, as well as the illustrative treatment Augustine's “Psychology of Fallen Man” by Deane, Herbert A., The Political and social Ideas of St. Augustine (New York, 1963) 39–77.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ ST 1–2.85.3–6.

⁵⁶ Keating, The Effects, 70.

⁵⁷ ST 1–2.85.1; 1.100.1

⁵⁸ ST 1–2.81.1; 1–2.85.1 (26.80–81). Aquinas ascribes this auctoritas to Bede's commentary on Luke, but it is therein nowhere to be found; see the editorial comment of T. C. O'Brien, 80, n. f.

⁵⁹ ST 1–2.85.1; 1.100.1.

⁶⁰ See O'Brien's comments in ST 26. 157.

⁶¹ ST 1.95; 1.97, passim.

⁶² ST 1–2.87.7 (27. 34–37). On the notion of pure nature–without original justice or original sin–see Keating, The Effects, 15ff.; Kors, La justice, 162; Gaudel, “Péché originel,” 484; and O'Brien's comments in ST 26. 150–51.

⁶³ See 'Abot R. Nat. B, chap. 42; and Pugio 3.2.7.3, p. 593, quoting the gloss of Rashi on Isa 5:1ff.: “‘Et elapidavit illam’ a figmento malo donec comedit de ligno, et tune intravit in ipsum figmentum malum. … ‘Et ascendet spina, et vepres,’ id est, praevalebit in eo figmentum malum, et in generationibus ejus post.eum ad faciendum opera incomposita, et inordinata.” While this gloss appears as Rashi's only here in the Pugio, see on Martini's general credibility in his citation of rabbinic sources, Lieberman, Saul, “Raymund Martini and His Alleged Forgeries,” Historia Judaica 5 (1943) 87–102Google Scholar, and idem, Shkiin, 43–98. Specifically with regard to Martini's use of Rashi, see Ch. Merchavya, “Regarding the Rashi Commentary to ‘Ḥelek’ [Hebrew],” Tarbiz 33 (1964) 259–86Google Scholar, and idem, “Additional Information Concerning the Rashi Commentary to Ḥelek [Hebrew],” Tarbiz 35 (1966) 278–94.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ ST 1.93.2; 1–2.94, passim.

⁶⁵ Troeltsch, Ernst, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, trans. Wyon, Olive (2 vols.; Glencoe, 1931) 266Google Scholar; see also Southern, R. W., Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford, 1970) 49ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Deane, The Political and Social Ideas, 62; for general discussions of this patristic outlook, see 78–153; and Troeltsch, Social Teaching, 100ff.

⁶⁷ ST 1–2.82.3, ad 1; 1–2.94.2; 2–2.154.2; 3.18.2

⁶⁸ ST 1–2.89.5

⁶⁹ ST 1.92.1, ad 2; 1.96.4.

⁷⁰ De regimine principum (De regno) § 1, in Aquinas, Thomas, Selected Political Writings, ed. d'Entreves, A. P., trans. J. G. Dawson (Oxford, 1959) 8–9.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. Gigongiari, Dino, ed., The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas: Representative Selections (New York, 1953) viii–xiGoogle Scholar; Lachance, Louis, L'humanisme politique de Saint Thomas d'Aquin: Individu et état (Paris, 1965)Google Scholar; Markus, R. A., Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine (Cambridge, 1970) 211–30.Google Scholar

⁷² ST 2–2.66.2; see also 2–2.66.1.

⁷³ ST 2–2.77'.4 (38. 228–29).

⁷⁴ Jarrett, Bede, Social Theories of the Middle Ages, 1200–1500 (London, 1926)Google Scholar chaps. 5–6; Schlatter, Richard, Private Property: The History of an Idea (London, 1951) 33–55Google Scholar; McGovern, John F., “The Rise of the New Economic Attitudes-Economic Humanism, Economic Nationalism—during the Later Middle Ages and the Renaissance, A.d. 1200–1500,” Traditio 26 (1970)Google Scholar; Baldwin, John W., “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price: Romanists, Canonists, and Theologians in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 49 (1959) 63–67Google Scholar, 75–79; de Roover, Raymond, “The Concept of the Just Price: Theory and Economic Policy,” Journal of Economic History 18 (1958) 418–34Google Scholar, and idem, San Bernadino of Siena and Sant' Antonio of Florence: The Two Great Economic Thinkers of the Middle Ages (Boston, 1967)Google Scholar passim.

⁷⁵ Gilby, Thomas, The Political Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Chicago, 1958) 155.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ For a description of this mentality, see Gierke, Otto, Political Theories of the Middle Age, trans. Maitland, Frederic William (1900; reprint ed., Boston, 1958) 1–30Google Scholar; and Chroust, Anton-Herman, “The Corporate Idea and the Body Politic in the Middle Ages,” Review of Politics 9 (1947) 423–52.Google Scholar And on the increasing prevalence of such sentiments from the time of Gregory VII, see Tellenbach, Church, State and Christian Society, 126–61; Ladner, Gerhart B., “Aspects of Medieval Thought on Church and State,” Review of Politics 9 (1947) 403–22Google Scholar; and idem, “The Concepts of ‘Ecclesia’ and ‘Christianitas’ and Their Relationship to the Ideal of Papal ‘Plenitudo Potestatis’ from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII,” in Sacerdozio e regno da Gregorio VII a Bonifacio VIII (Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 18; Rome, 1954 49–57Google Scholar; Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (2d ed.; New York, 1962) chaps. 9–10Google Scholar, 13; Tierney, Brian, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (1955; reprint ed., Cambridge, 1968) 37–46Google Scholar; and Watt, J. A., “The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: The Contribution of the Canonists,” Traditio 20 (1964) 279, 312–15.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ On the ecumenical nature and the breadth of the legislation of the Fourth Lateran Council, see Foreville, Raymonde, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV (Paris, 1965) 245–57, 287–306.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Bévenot, Maurice, “The Inquisition and Its Antecedents,” HeyJ 7 (1966) 257–68Google Scholar, 381–93; 8 (1967) 52–69; and Ullmann, Walter, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London, 1972) 253–54.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Rex pacificus, Gregory IX's bull of promulgation for the Decretales, in Ripoll, Thomas, ed., Bullarium Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum (8 vols.; Rome, 1729–1740) 1. 69: “Volentes, igitur, ut hac tantum compilatione universi utantur in judiciis, et in scholis, districtius prohibemus, ne quis presumat aliam facere absque auctoritate Sedis Apostolice speciali.”Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Such indeed was Thomas Aquinas' primary objective; see the prologue to the ST; and cf. Grabmann, Martin, Introduction to the Theological Summa of St. Thomas, trans. Zybura, John S. (St. Louis, 1930) 70Google Scholar; and Chenu, M.-D., Toward Understanding Saint Thomas, trans. A. M. Landry and D. Hugh (Chicago, 1964) 299.Google Scholar

⁸¹ On the various activities of the mendicants, see Hinebusch, William A., A History of the Dominican Order (2 vols.; Staten Island, NY, 1966–1973)Google Scholar; and Moorman, John, A History of the Franciscan Order from Its Origins to the Year 1519 (Oxford, 1968).Google Scholar

⁸² Armstrong, Edward A., Saint Francis: Nature Mystic (Berkeley, 1973) 5–17Google Scholar; Little, Lester K., Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca, 1978) 207ff.; Moorman, History, 40–45, 216–25; Hinnebusch, History, 1. 400ff.Google Scholar

⁸³ For specific examples, see Little, Lester K., “Saint Louis’ Involvement ith the Friars,” CH 33 (1964) 125–48Google Scholar; or Cohen, Martin A., “Reflections on the Text and Context of the Disputation of Barcelona,” HUCA 35 (1964) 181ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Goff, Jacques le, “Apostolat mendiant et fait urbain dans la France médiévale: L'implantation des ordres meridiants,” Annales 23 (1968) 335–52Google Scholar, and idem, “Ordres mendiants et urbanisation dans la France médiévale,” Annales 25 (1970) 924–46Google Scholar; Rosenwein, Barbara H. and Little, Lester K., “Social Meaning in the Monastic and Mendicant Spiritualities,” Past and Present 63 (1974) 16–32Google Scholar; Freed, John B., The Friars and German Society in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1977); Little, Religious Poverty, chaps. 10–12.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ On the friars' concern with the Jews, see my doctoral dissertation, “Mendicants, the Medieval Church, and the Jews: Dominican and Franciscan Attitudes towards the Jews in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries” (Cornell University, 1978). Pages 172–243 deal specifically with Raymond Martini and the significance of his anti-Jewish polemic.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ibid., 195–209; Bonfil, R., “The Nature of Judaism in Raymundus Martini's Pugio fidei,” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 40 (1971) 360–75.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Pugio, prooemium §§ 5–9, pp. 2–4.

⁸⁸ Höllhuber, Ivo, Geschichte der Philosophie im spanischen Kulturbereich (Munich, 1967) 27–31.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ On the condemnations of Averroism and the accompanying opposition to Aquinas see Gilson, Etienne, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York, 1955) 402–27Google Scholar, 725–49; Callus, Daniel A., The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Orford (Oxford, 1955)Google Scholar; and Mandonnet, Pierre, Siger de Brabant et l'Averroisme latin au xiii^e siècle (2d ed.; 2 vols.; Louvain, 1908–1911) 1. 80–112, 196–251, passim. Specifically, with regard to original sin, see Gross, Geschichte, 3. 302–13.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See the Latin version of Lull's contemporary biography in Peers, E. Allison, ed., A Life of Ramon Lull (London, 1927) 52.Google Scholar

⁹¹ On Spanish Averroism, see Pelayo, Marcelino Menendez y, Historia de los heterodoxos españoles (2d ed.; 7 vols.; Madrid, 1911–1932) 3. 244–55.Google Scholar

⁹² Aquinas, In II Sent., 44.1.2, ad 5 (Vives, 7. 528), trans, in Bigongiari, The Political Ideas, xi.