S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

SECUNDI LIBRI

BOOK TWO

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVIII

De formatione mulieris de viro.

On the formation of woman from man.

ARTICULUS I.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE I

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 431-434.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 431-434.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

In eodem quoque paradiso etc.

In the same paradise, too, etc.

DIVISIO TEXTUS.

DIVISION OF THE TEXT

Supra egit Magister de formatione viri, hic agit de formatione mulieris de viro. Dividitur autem ista pars in partes duas; in quarum prima determinat de productione mulieris ex parte corporis; in secunda parte animae, ibi:  Quemadmodum mulieris corpus etc.

Above Master (Peter) dealt with the formation of the man, here he deals with the formation of the woman from the man.  Moreover this part of his (text) is divided into two parts; in the first of which he determines concerning the production of the woman on the part of (her) body; in the second part (of the woman on the part) of (her) soul, there (where he says):  According to the manner which the body of the woman etc..

Prima pars habet quatuor partes.  In prima parte determinat de productione corporis mulieris ex viro in comparatione ad causam finalem.  In secunda vero, in comparatione ad causam materialem, ibi:  Solet etiam quaeri, utrum de costa illa etc.  In tertia vero, in comparatione ad causam efficientem, ibi:  Illud etiam sciri oportet.  In quarta vero, in comparatione ad causam formalem, ibi:  Sed quaeritur, an ratio, quam Deus primis operibus concreavit.

The first part has four parts.  In the first (Master Peter) determines concerning the production of the body of the woman from the man in comparison to (its) final cause.  But in the second, in comparison to (its) material cause, there (where he says):  It is also customarily asked, whether the woman was made from that rib etc.  But in the third, in comparison to (its) efficient cause, there (where he says):  This also must be known.  But in the fourth, in comparison to (its) formal cause, there (where he says):  But there is asked, whether the reason, which God co-created with (His) first works.

Similiter secunda pars principalis habet quatuor particulas.  In quarum prima ponit opinionem quandam erroneam de productione animae mulieris.  In secunda vero subiungit aliam opinionem non minus falsam, ibi:  Alii autem putaverunt etc.  In tertia vero ponit veritatem catholicam, ibi:  Catholica autem Ecclesia.  In quarta et ultima falsitatem impugnat et veritatem confirmat auctoritate Hieronymi et Augustini, ibi:  Unde in Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus etc.  Et sic duo determinantur in parte ista, quorum primum est formatio mulieris quantum ad corpus;1 secundum est perfectio quantum ad animam.

Similarly the second principal part has four subparts [particulas].  In the first of which (Master Peter) posits a certain, erroneous opinion concerning the production of the soul of the woman.  But in the second he subjoins another opinion no less false, there (where he says):  But others thought, etc.  However in the third he posits the Catholic truth, there (where he says):  However the Catholic Church.  In the fourth and last he impugns the falsehood and confirms the truth with the authority of (Sts.) Jerome and Augustine, there (where he says):  Wherefore in (the book) Ecclesiastical Dogmas (there is written) etc.  And thus two (things) are determined in this part of his (text), the first of which is the formation of the woman as much as regards (her) body,1 the second is the perfection (of the woman) as much as regards (her) soul.

TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS

Ad intelligentiam huius partis circa duo incidit hic quaestio.

For an understanding of this part there falls here a question about two (things).

Primum est circa productionem corporis mulieris de2 latere viri.

The first is about the production of the body of the woman from2 the side of the man.

Secundum est circa productionem spiritus sive animae eiusdem mulieris, et per consequens omnium animarum, quae sunt in posteris.

The second is about the production of the spirit or of the soul of the same woman, and per consequens of all the souls, which are afterwards [in posteris].

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

About the first, three (questions) are asked.

Primo quaeritur, unde mulier formata fuerit.

First there is asked, from what the woman was formed.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum secundum seminalem rationem corpus mulieris in costa praecesserit.

Second there is asked, whether the body of the woman preceded in the rib according to a seminal reason.

Tertio vero quaeritur, quod sit secundum rem et essentiam ipsa ratio seminalis.

But third there is asked, what is that seminal reason according to thing and essence.

ARTICULUS I.

 

De productione corporis mulieris de latere viri.

ARTICLE I

 

On the production of the body of the woman from the side of the man.

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum fuerit productum corpus mulieris.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether the body of the woman was produced?

CIRCA PRIMUM sic proceditur et quaeritur, unde fuerit productum corpus mulieris.  Et dicit Magister in littera,3 et tractum est de secundo Genesis, quod mulier formata est de viro, et non de quacumque parte, sed de costa, ex qua mulier est de viro dormiente formata.  Et sic tria tanguntur in formatione mulieris, scilicet quod facta est de viro, et de viro dormiente, et non de quaecumque parte, sed de costa eius et osse.  —  Contra primum obiicitur sic.

ABOUT THE FIRST (the argument) is advanced thus and there is asked, from what the body of the woman was produced.  And Master (Peter) says in the text,3 and (this) is drawn from the second (chapter) of Genesis, that the woman was formed from the man, and not from any part whatsoever, but from a rib, out of which the woman was formed from the man as he slept [dormiente].  And thus three (things) are touched upon in the formation of the woman, namely, that she was made from the man, and from the man as he slept, and not from any part whatsoever, but from his rib and bone.  — Against the first it is objected thus:

1  Plures codd. cum edd. 3, 4 et Vat. omittunt quantum ad corpus.

2  Ita cod. cc et ed. 1; ceteri codd. cum aliis edd. ex, sed vide infra principium 1. quaest.

3  Hic c. 1.  —  Gen. 2, 21. seqq.

1  Several codices, together with editions 3 and 4 and the Vatican edition, omit as much as regards (her) body [quantum corpus].

2  Thus codex cc and edition 1; all the other codices, together with the other editions, have out of [ex] for from [de], but see below, the beginning of  Question 1.

3  Here in ch. 1.  —  Gen. 2:21 ff...

 

p. 432

 

1. Genesis primo:1  Fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam, masculum et feminam creavit eos.  Si ergo Deus in primari conditione masculum et feminam simul creavit, non videtur, quod mulierem de viro produxerit.

1. According to the first (chapter) of Genesis:1  God made man [hominem] to His image and similitude, male and female He created them.  If, therefore, God, at the primary foundation (of man) created male and female together [simul], it does not seem, that He produced the woman from the man.

2. Item, sexuum distinctio spectat ad perfectionem speciei;2 sed aliae species animalium, in quibus est distinctio sexuum, simul et semel productae sunt:  ergo etc.

2.  Likewise, the distinction of the sexes pertains to the perfection of the species;2 but other species of animals, in which there is a distinction of sexes, were produced at one and the same time [simul et semel]:  ergo etc..

3. Item, quod se habet per modum materialis ad alterum minus est completum, quam illud quod ex ipso producitur:  si ergo vir habet completionem respectu mulieris, non mulier de viro, sed econtra vir de muliere produci debuit.

3. Likewise, what holds itself to the other through the manner of (something) material is less complete, than that which is produced out of it:  if, therefore, the man has a completion in respect of the woman, the woman ought not have been produced from the man, but, contrariwise, the man from the woman.

Contra secundum obiicitur sic.

Against the second it is objected thus:

4. Item, somnus vel sopor est quies animalium virtutum cum intensione naturalium;3 sed in Adam non erant sensus fatigati nec virtutes animales:  ergo videtur, quod somnus ille non fuerit Adae naturalis.  Si ergo nihil debuit fieri circa Adam, nisi quod eius naturae congrueret, videtur, quod Deus in eum non debuit soporem immittere, ut de costa eius produceret mulierem.

4. Likewise, sleep [somnis] and/or deep sleep [sopor] is the rest of animal virtues with an intensification of natural (powers);3 but in Adam the senses were not wearied nor (were) the virtues animal ones:  therefore it seems, that that sleep was not natural to Adam.  If, therefore, nothing ought to have been done about Adam, except that which was congruent to his nature, it seems, that God ought not have sent a deep sleep upon him, to produce the woman from his rib.

5. Item, in separatione illius aut fuit aliqua laesio et afflictio, aut non.  Si sic:  ergo Adam ante passus est poenam, quam committeret culpam.4  Si non:  ergo ita bene potuit fieri de latere vigilantis, sicut de latere dormientis.

5. Likewise, in the separation of that (rib), either there was some lesion and affliction, or not.  If so:  therefore Adam suffered punishment [poenam] before he committed the fault.4  If not:  therefore it could have been as well done from the side of one waking, as from the side of one sleeping.

6. Item, maiori potentiae attestatur separare partem a toto ab homine vigilante sine dolore quam a dormiente:  magis igitur fuisset manifestata Dei potentia, si absque dolore produxisset mulierem de latere Adae vigilantis, quam cum produxerit5 de latere dormientis.

6. Likewise, it attests to a greater power to separate a part from the whole, from a man waking, without pain, than from one sleeping:  therefore it would have manifested God’s Power more, if He had produced the woman from the side of Adam waking, without pain, than when He produced5 (her) from the side of one sleeping.

Contra tertium obiicitur sic.

Against the third it is objected thus:

7. Sexus muliebris est infirmior quam sexus virilis per naturam:  ergo de partibus eius infirmis debuit fieri:  non ergo de osse, sed potius de carne.

7. The womanly sex [Sexus muliebris] is more infirm through nature than the manly sex [sexus virilis]:  therefore it should have been made from his infirm parts:  therefore not from (his) bone, but rather from (his) flesh.

8. Item, in textu6 postmodum subiungitur:  Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea:  ergo non tantummodo de costa Adae facta est, sed etiam de carne alia.

8. Likewise, in the text6 there is afterwards subjoined:  This, now, (is) bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh:  therefore she was not only made from the rib of Adam, but also from other flesh.

9. Item, costa illa aut erat necessaria Adae, aut superflua.  Si necessaria:  ergo debuit alia costa reddi Adae pro illa.  Si superflua:  ergo corpus Adae non fuit in prima sui productione perfecte formatum, cum ad perfectionem spectet nihil habere superfluum, nihil diminutum.  —  Item, si superflua erat:  ergo non oportebat, carnem repleri pro ea.

9. Likewise, that rib either was necessary to Adam, or superfluous.  If necessary:  therefore another rib ought to have been given back to Adam for it.  If superfluous:  therefore the body of Adam was not, in its first production, perfectly formed, since ‘having nothing superfluous, nothing diminished’ pertains to perfection.  —  Likewise, if it was superfluous:  therefore it was not necessary [non oportebat], that it be replaced by flesh [carnem repleri pro ea].

Est igitur quaestio:  quare mulier de viro? et si de viro:  quare magis de dormiente quam de vigilante? et si de dormiente:  quare magis de costa quam de carne?7

Therefore there is the question:  “For what reason (was) the woman (produced) from the man?” and if from the man:  “For what reason from a sleeping (man) rather than from one waking?” and if from one sleeping:  “For what reason (was she produced) from (his) rib rather than from (his) flesh?”7

CONCLUSIO.

 

Corpus primae mulieris formatum est de osse lateris Adae, in quo duplex est ordinis congruentia.

CONCLUSION

 

The body of the first woman was formed from bone of the side of Adam, in which there is a twofold congruence of order.

RESPONDEO:  Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod cum sapientia Dei admirabilis et laudabilis ostendatur in omnibus operibus suis, potissime tamen manifestatur in formatione creaturae rationalis.  Hoc autem clarius apparet, si consideretur ordinis congruentia, quam servavit divina sapientia, dum produxit mulierem de latere viri.  Congruum enim erat, mulierem sic de viro produci, tum propter ordinis habitudinem, quae attenditur inter virum et mulierem in humana specie; tum etiam propter ordinem et habitudinem, quae attenditur inter ea quae per virum et mulierem habent significari.

I RESPOND:  For an understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted, that since the admirable and praiseworthy Wisdom of God is shown in all His works, yet it is manifested most ably in the formation of the rational creature.  Moreover this appears more clearly, if one would consider the congruence of order, which the Divine Wisdom observed [servavit], when It produced the woman from the side of the man.  For it was congruent, that the woman be so produced from the man, both on account of the habitude of the order, which is attained between man and woman in the human species; and also on account of the order and habitude, which is attained between those which have (their) ‘being signified’ through man and woman.

Vir enim et mulier secundum suorum sexuum proprietatem et naturam sic facti sunt, ut invicem coniungerentur, et ex hoc unus in altero quietaretur et unus ab altero sustentaretur.  Quia igitur forti vinculo et singulari mulier coniungitur viro et e converso, ideo unus sexus productus est de altero.  Quia vero illa coniunctio dat viro quietationem, ideo producta est de viro dormiente.  Rursus, quia vir8 dat mulieri fortitudinem et sustentationem, hinc est, quod mulier dicitur esse facta de osse.  Et quia in omnibus his est quaedam aequalitas mutuae societatis, ideo formata est mulier de osse non quocumque, sed de costa et eius latere.  Et sic patet, quomodo modus formations respondet proprietatibus illius mutuae coniunctionis, quae est inter virum et mulierem secundum rem.9

For man and woman, according to the propriety and nature of their sexes, were so made, as to be conjoined to one another, and so that from this one might be put to rest [quietaretur] in the other and one be sustained by the other.  Therefore because the woman is conjoined to the man by a strong and singular bond, and vice versa, for that reason one sex was produced from the other.  But because that conjunction causes the man to be put to rest [dat viro quietationem], for that reason she was produced from the man as he slept.  Again, because the man8 gives the woman fortitude and sustenance, hence it is, that the woman is said to have been made “from (his) bone”.  And because in all these there is a certain equality of mutual society, for that reason the woman was formed not from any bone whatsoever, but from his rib and side.  And thus it is clear, in what manner the manner of (her) formation responds to the properties of that mutual conjunction, which is between man and woman according to thing.9

Consonat etiam nihilominus his quae significantur per mulierem et virum.  Per virum namque et mulierem significantur Deus et anima, Christus et Ecclesia, superior portio rationis et inferior.  —  Primae significationi competit formatio mulieris ex viro secundum modum praedictum.  Quia enim omnes spiritus rationales immediate producuntur a Deo tanquam a primo principio et immediato; et Deus in eis requiescit et quasi soporatur, dum deliciae suae sunt esse cum filiis hominum;10 et rationalis spiritus a divino spiritu inhabitante confor- / -tatur . . .

Nevertheless (the manner of her formation) is also consonant to those which are signified through woman and man.  Through man and woman there are indeed signified ‘God and the soul’, ‘Christ and the Church’, ‘the superior and inferior portion of reason’.  —  The formation of the woman out of the man suits the first signification according to the aforesaid manner.  For because all rational spirits are produced immediately by God as by (their) First and Immediate Principle; and God rests again and is as if lulled to sleep [quasi soporatur] in them, when His delights are to be with the sons of men;10 and (since) the rational spirit is comforted and strengthened / by the Divine . . .

1  Vers. 27:  Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam; ad imaginem Dei creavit illum, masculum etc.

2  Cfr. Aristot., X. Metaph. text. 25. (IX. c. 9.).

3  Secundum Aristot., de Somno et vigilia, c. 4. (c. 3.).

4  August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 18. n. 51:  Omnis autem poena si iusta est, peccati poena est, et supplicium nominatur.  —  Cfr. de hoc arg. August., Enarr. in Ps. 56. n. 11.

5  Codd. aa cc et ed. 1 produxit.

6  Gen. 2, 23.

7  Cfr. August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 13. n. 23.  —  Vat. supplet fuerit producta.

8  Fide cod. E supplevimus vir.

9  Cfr. August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 3. n. 5. seqq. et de Bono coniugali, c. 1. n. 1.

10  Prov. 8, 31.  —  Plures codd. cum Vat. et edd. 1, 2 conformatur; cod. M cum ed. 4 confirmatur pro confortatur.

1  Verse 27:  And God created man to His image, to the image of God did He create him, male and female etc.. [Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam; ad imaginem Dei creavit illum, masculum etc.].

2  Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. X, text 25 (Bk. IX, ch. 9).

3  According to Aristotle, On Sleeping and Waking, ch. 4 (ch. 3).

4  (St.) Augustine, On Free Will, Bk. III, ch. 18, n. 51:  Moreover every pain [poena], if it is just, is a punishment [poena] for sin, and is named a “punishment” [supplicium].  —  Cf. on this argument, (St.) Augustine, Enarrations on the Psalms, Ps. 56, n. 11.

5  Codices aa and cc and edition 1 have He produced [produxit] in the indicative.

6  Gen. 2: 23.

7  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. IX, ch. 13, n. 23.  —  The Vatican edition supplies was she produced [fuerit producta].

8  Trusting in codex E we have supplied the man [vir].

9  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. IX, ch. 3, n. 5 ff., and On the Conjugal Good, ch. 1, n. 1.

10  Prov. 8:31.  —  Several codices, together with the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 2, have is conformed [conformatur]; codex M, together with edition 1, have is confirmed [confirmatur] for is comforted [confortatur].

 

p. 433

 

confor- / -tatur et roboratur:  optima consonantia conformatur signum signato, secundum quod per virum et mulierem significatur Deus et anima.

/ by the Divine indwelling Spirit:  the sign is conformed to the signed according to the best consonance, according to which ‘God and the soul’ is signified through man and woman.

Similiter correspondet, secundum quod per virum et mulierem significatur Christus et Ecclesia.  Ecclesia enim ex Christo formatur, dum de latere Christi dormientis in cruce profluxit sanguis et aqua, ex quibus in Sacramentis Ecclesiae redundavit efficacia, per quae Sacramenta fundatur Ecclesia; et sic vir respondet Christo, dormitio respondit morti, ablatio costae aperitioni lateris.1

(The manner of her formation) corresponds similarly, according to which ‘Christ and the Church’ are signified through man and woman.  For the Church is formed out of Christ, when there flowed forth from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross the Blood and Water, the efficacy of which overflowed in the Sacraments of the Church, through which Sacraments the Church was founded; and thus man responds to Christ, the dormition responds to (His) death, the removal of the rib to the opening of (His) side.1

Concordat etiam haec formatio significationi, prout per virum et mulierem superior portio rationis et inferior habet significari.  Sicut enim vir est fortior, et mulier est infirmior, sic superior portio et inferior; et sicut mulier ex viro, sic inferior portio est ex conversione spiritus ad haec inferiora.  Dum autem ad haec inferiora convertitur, cessat a vigilantia contemplationis et quodam modo efficitur infirmior semetipso et tendit ad mollitiem mulieris; et ideo quodam modo soporari dicitur, et os ei auferri, et exinde mulier formari.2

This formation also concords with the signification, insofar as the superior and inferior portion of reason have (their) ‘being signified’ through man and woman.  For just as man is stronger, and woman is more infirm, so the superior portion and the inferior one; and just as the woman (is) out of the man, so the inferior portion is out of the conversion of the spirit towards these inferior (things).  But when it  is converted to these inferior (things), it ceases from the waking [vigilantia] of contemplation and is in a certain manner made more infirm than itself and tends towards the softness [mollitiem] of the woman; and for that reason in a certain manner he is said “to be lulled to sleep” [soporari], and the bone “to be taken from him”, and the woman “to be formed” therefrom.2

Et sic patet, quod magna fuit congruentia ordinis observata in huius formatione mulieris, sive in se, sive in significato per ipsam.  —  His visis, de facili respondetur ad obiecta.

And thus it is clear, that a great congruence of order was observed [fuit observata] in this formation of the woman, whether in itself, or in (that which was) signified through it.  —  With these seen, one easily responds to the objections.

1. Quod enim primo obiicitur de textu Genesis, dicendum, quod illud dictum est per anticipationem; praeterea, illud dictum est quantum ad productionem animae, secundum quam non est formata mulier ex viro, sed ex nihilo, sicut infra3 patebit.

1. For what is objected first from the text of Genesis, it must be said, that that has been said through anticipation; besides, that has been said as much as regards the production of the soul, according to which the woman was not formed out of the man, but out of nothing, just as will be clear below.3

2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de aliis speciebus, iam patet responsio.  Non enim est simile propter legem matrimonii, quae non ita attenditur in bestiis, sicut in hominibus.

2. To that, however, which is objected concerning other species, the response is already clear.  For it is not similar on account of the law of matrimony, which is not attained thus among beasts, just as (it is) among men.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vir est muliere perfectior; dicendum, quod materiale minus est nobile, quam illud quod ex eo producitur, secundum id quod est materiale; vir autem non fuit materia mulieris secundum se totum, sed secundum aliquid sui, scilicet secundum costam; et ideo, quamvis vir est nobilior, potuit tamen ex eius costa corpus mulieris formari.  Nam non est tanta perfectio in una costa viri, quanta est in uno4 corpore mulieris.  —  Quodsi quaeras, quare magis mulier de viro quam vir de muliere; dicendum, quod hoc aliquando futurum erat, sicut in secundo Adam, scilicet Christo; et ideo, ut perfecta essent Dei opera,5 debuit esse similiter et mulier de solo viro.  Sic enim sunt impleti, sicut dicit Anselmus,6 quatuor modi eductionis hominis in esse:  « Unus, qui est de viro et muliere, quem modo observat natura; alius, qui nec de viro nec de muliere, qui fuit in productione primi hominis; tertius, qui est de viro tantum, et hic fuit in formatione Evae; quartus, qui est de muliere tantum absque viro », et hic fuit in productione Christi de Virgine.  Tunc autem magis congruebat, mulierem educi de viro, ut ostenderetur, quod vir caput est mulieris, et quod non vir propter mulierem, sed mulier propter virum,7 et alia plura, quae prius tacta sunt.

3. To that which is objected, that man is more perfect than woman; it must be said, that the material is less noble, than that which is produced out of it, according to this that it is the material; but man was not the woman’s matter according to his whole self [se totum], but according to something of his own, namely according to (his) rib; and for that reason, though the man is more noble, yet the body of the woman could be formed from his rib.  For there is not so great a perfection in the one rib of the man, as there is in the one4 body of the woman.  —  Wherefore if you ask, “For what reason (was) the woman (formed) from the man rather than the man from the woman?”; it must be said, that this was at last to be, just as in the second Adam, namely Christ; and for that reason, so that the works of God might be perfected,5 the woman ought also to have been similarly from a man alone.  For in this manner are fulfilled, as (St.) Anselm6 says, the four manners of the eduction of man into ‘being’:  « The one, which is from a man and woman, which manner nature observes; the other, which (is) neither from man nor from woman, which was in the production of the first man; the third, which is from a man only, and this was in the formation of Eve; the fourth, which is from a woman only apart from man », and this was in the production of Christ from the Virgin.  Moreover it was more congruent at that time, that the woman be educed from the man, to show, that man is the head of woman, and that not man for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man,7 and several other (things), which have been touched upon before.

4. 5. 6. Ad illa quae obiiciuntur de soporatione, dicendum, quod ille sopor non fuit ex lassitudine, sed fuit ex divina immissione, sicut dicit textus;8 nec tamen fuit contra naturam, quia, si Adam stetisset, esset utique in illo somnus, non propter debilitatem potentiae sensitivae, sed propter vigorationem particulae vegetativae; quoniam, etsi neutram harum virium contingeret in Adam lassari, tamen, quando una cessabat ab operatione, contingebat alteram vigorari, dum tota anima circa actum unius virtutis intendit.9  Immisit autem Dominus soporem in Adam, non propter hoc, quod non posset separare costam a vigilante sine dolore et horrore, sed propter significationem et propter etiam mentis Adae sublevationem, quia, sicut dicunt Sancti, Adam in illo sopore multa praevidit.10  Unde statim, cum evigilavit, prophetice locutus est; et in . . .

4. 5. 6.  To those which are objected concerning sleeping [soporatione], it must be said, that that deep sleep was not on account of a weariness, but was on account of a Divine immission, just as the text8 says; yet it was not contrary to nature, because, if Adam had stood, there would have indeed been a sleep in him, not on account of the debility of (his) sensitive power, but on account of the strengthening of the vegetative particle (i. e. the rib); since, even if neither of these forces happened to be wearied in Adam, yet, when one ceased from operation, it happened that the other was strengthened, while the whole soul was intensified about the act of one virtue.9  Moreover God sent a deep sleep upon Adam, not on account of this, that He could not separate the rib from one waking without pain and horror, but on account of (its) signification and on account of raising the mind of Adam up, because, just as the Saints say, Adam in that deep sleep foresaw many (things).10  Wherefore as soon as, when he had woken up, he spoke prophetically, and in . . .

1  Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 56. n. 11; in Ps. 103. serm. 4. n. 6; XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 17. et in Ioan. tract. 9. n. 10, cuius verba relata sunt tom. I. pag. 2, nota 19.  Idem dicit Chrysost. in sermone, qui legitur in Breviario in festo pretiosissimi Sanguinis D. N. I. Chr. (non est in edd. recentibus).

2  Vide infra d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. et p. II. a. 1. 2, ubi haec sententia Augustini exponitur.  —  Non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 perperam separari pro soporari; dein plures codd. cum ed. 1 os eius pro os ei.

3  Art. seq. q. 3.

4  Cod. T toto.

5  Deut. 32, 4:  Dei perfecta sunt opera.

6  Libr. II. Cur Deus homo, c. 8.:  Quatuor modis potest Deus facere hominem, videlicet aut de viro et de femina, sicut assiduus usus monstrat; aut nec de viro nec de femina, sicut creavit Adam; aut de viro sine femina, sicut fecit Evam, aut de femina sine viro, quod nondum fecit.  Ut igitur hunc quoque modum probet suae subiacere potestati, et ad hoc ipsum opus dilatum esse, nihil convenientius, quam ut de femina sine viro assumat illum hominem, quem quaerimus.  —  Cod. A circa finem textus post de viro tantum subiungit absque muliere, econtra aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt ultima verba absque viro.

7  Epist. I. Cor. 11, 9:  Etenim non est creatus vir etc.  —  Paulo superius post quod vir plures codd. vel addunt etiam, vel et.

8  Gen. 2, 21:  Immisit ergo Dominus Deus soporem in Adam.  —  Paulo inferius Vat. debilitationem pro debilitatem et potentiae pro particulae.

9  Cfr. supra pag. 260, nota 1; et Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 86. m. 3.  —  Sequens textus est Gen. 2, 21.

10  August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 19. n. 36:  Ac per hoc etiam illa ecstasis, quam Deus immisit in Adam, ut soporatus obdormiret, recte intelligitur ad hoc immissa, ut et ipsius mens per ecstasim particeps fieret tanquam angelicae curiae, et intrans in sanctuarium Dei intelligeret in novissima.  Denique evigilans, tanquam prophetiae plenus, cum ad se adductam costam, mulierem suam, videret, eructavit continuo, quod magnum sacramentum commendat Apostolus (Eph. 5, 31.):  Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis etc. (Gen. 2, 23.) . . . ut hinc intelligeremus, propter ecstasim, quae praecesserat in Adam, hoc eum divinitus tanquam prophetam dicere potuisse.

1  Cf. (St.) Augustine, Enarrations on the Psalms, Ps. 56, n. 11; On Ps. 103, sermon 4, n. 6; On the City of God, Bk. XXII, ch. 17, and On the Gospel of St. John, tract 9, n. 10, the words of which were cited in Sent., Bk. I, Prooemium, p. 2, footnote 19.  (St. John) Chrysostom says the same in the sermon, which is read in the Breviarium Romanum on the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (which is not in the recent editions).

2  See below d. 24, p. I, a. 2, q. 3, and p. II, aa. 1 and 2, where this sentence of (St.) Augustine is expounded.  —  Not a few codices, together with editions 1, 2 and 3, have faultily it is said to be “separated” [separari] for he is said to be “lulled to sleep” [soporari]; next several codices, together with edition 1, have “his bone” to be taken [os eius] for the bone “to be taken from him” [os ei].

3  In the following Article, q. 3.

4  Codex T has the whole [toto].

5  Deut. 32:4:  The works of God are perfect [Dei perfecta sunt opera].

6  Cur Deus homo, Bk. II, ch. 8:  God can made man in four manners, namely, either from a man and woman, just as the customary usage shows; or neither from a man nor from a woman, just as He created Adam; or from a man without a woman, just as He made Eve, or from a woman without a man, which He had not yet done.  Therefore to proved that this manner was also subject to His Power, and that (His) work touched upon this very (thing), nothing (was) more convenient, than to assume that man [hominem], whom we seek, from a woman without a man [viro].  —  Codex A near the end of the text, after from a man only [de viro tantum], subjoins apart from woman [absque muliere], contrariwise the other codices, together with edition 1, omit the finals words apart from man [absque viro].

7  1 Cor. 11:9:  For indeed man was not created etc. [Etenim non est creatus vir etc.].  —  A little above this, after that man [quod vir], several codices either add too [etiam] or too [et].

8  Gen. 2:21:  Therefore the Lord sent a deep sleep upon Adam [Immisit ergo Dominus Deus soporem in Adam].  —  A little below this the Vatican edition has the weakening [debilitationem] for the debility [debilitatem] and the vegetative power [potentiae] for the vegetative particle (i. e. the rib) [particulae].

9  Cf. above d. 10, a. 1, q. 1, p. 260, footnote 1; and Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 86, m. 3.  —  The following text is Gen. 2:21.

10  (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. IX, ch. 19, n. 36:  And through this too that ecstasy, which God sent upon Adam, to that lulled to sleep he might fall asleep, is rightly understood (to have) been sent for this, that his mind too might become through the ecstasy a participant as in an Angelic Choir, and entering into the Sanctuary of God might understand the last things [in novissima].  Then waking, as one full of prophecy, when he saw the rib brought before him, as his wife [mulierem], he broke forth immediately (saying that), which the Apostle commends as a great sacrament (Ephesians 5:31):  This one, now, (is) bone out of my bones etc. (Gen. 2:23) . . . so that we might hence understand, that on account of the ecstasy, which had preceded in Adam, he was able to say this divinely, as a prophet.

 

p. 434

 

hoc multum ostenditur Dei potentia, qui sic potuit separare costam, ut natura non amitteret quietem suam.  —  Et ex hoc patent illa tria obiecta de sopore.  Primum enim non valet, quia ibi non erat somnus ex lassitudine.  Secundum similiter non valet, quia non est factum propter laesionem hominis occultandam.  Tertium etiam non valet, quia ita bene manifestata est Dei potentia, dum non excitavit dormientem a somno, sicut manifestata esset, si formasset eam de latere vigilantis sine dolore aliquo.

this the Power of God is shown very much, which could thus separate the rib, so that he did not loose his rest.  —  And from this those three objections concerning the deep sleep are clear.  For the first is not valid, because there was no sleep on account of weariness.  The second, similarly, is not valid, because it was not done for the sake of hiding the man’s wound.  The third is also not valid, because God’s Power is as well manifested, when He did not rouse the one sleeping from (his) sleep, as it would have been manifested, if He has formed her from the side of one waking without any pain.

7. 8. 9. Ad illa quae obiiciuntur, quod non debuit fieri de osse; dicendum, quod non tantummodo mulier facta est de osse sive de costa, sed etiam aliqua particula fuit sumta de carne Adae, sicut sequens littera1 innuit:  Hoc nunc os de osse et caro de carne mea.  Magis autem fit denominatio de osse, sive quia illa fuit pars principalior; sive quia vir mulieri confert robur, et mulier per viri consortium vigoratur, vir autem per mulieris consortium emollitur — et ideo dicitur esse caro repleta pro costa, quia vir dat fortitudinem et suscipit infirmitatem — sive etiam, quia costa illa locum carnis occupabat; non enim facta fuit in Adam, ut in eo maneret, sed ut de ea formaretur mulier.  —  Et sic patent illa tria obiecta.  Primum enim non valet, quia mulier, etsi debilis sit in se, tamen a viro habet roborari; et ideo magis dicitur esse facta de costa quam de carne.  Secundum non valet; quod enim mulier dicitur esse facta de costa, non intelligitur praecise, ita quod non de carne.  Tertium non valet, quia, si illa costa superflua erat Adae, in quantum erat individuum, erat tamen opportuna, in quantum erat mulieris principium.  Et ideo resurget in muliere, non in viro, sicut planius explicatur in quarto.2

7. 8. 9. To those which are objected, that she ought not have been made from (his) bone; it must be said, that the woman was not only made from (his) bone or from (his) rib, but (that) some particle was also taken from Adam’s flesh, just as the following text1 indicates:  This one, now, (is) bone from (my) bone and flesh from my flesh.  Moreover (her) denomination is made more from (his) bone, either because that that part was the more principal one; or because man confers strength [robur] upon woman, and woman is strengthened [vigoratur] through consort with man [per viri consortium], but man is softened [emollitur] through consort with woman. — and for that reason (his) flesh is said to have been “filled up” in place of the rib, because man gives fortitude and suscepts infirmity — or even, because that rib occupied the place of the flesh; for it was not made in Adam, to remain in him, but so that from it the woman might be formed.  —  And thus those three objections are clear.  For the first is not valid, because the woman, even if she is in herself week, yet she has (her) ‘being strengthened’ [roborari] from the man; and for that reason she is said rather to have been made “from (his) rib” than “from (his) flesh”.  The second is not valid; for, that the woman is said to be made “from (his) rib”, is not understood precisely, such that (she is) not (made) “from (his) flesh”.  The third is not valid, because, if that rib was superfluous to Adam, inasmuch as it is an individual (member), yet it was opportune, inasmuch as it was the principle of the woman.  And for that reason it shall rise in the woman, not in the man, just as is explained more plainly in the Fourth (Book).2

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Hic notandae sunt rationes congruentiae pro modo productionis Evae allatae, nec non significationes mysticae, vel a Ss. Patribus acceptae, vel ingeniose a S. Bonav. excogitatae.  S. Doctorem hic presse sequitur Petr. a Tar., qui addit:  « Differunt somnus et sopor, quia somnus est solius naturae; est enim quies animalium virtutum cum intentione [intensione] naturalium; sed sopor est etiam gratiae opus, quia sopor est quies animalium cum intentione intellectualium » (cfr. hic arg. 4.).

I. Here are to be noted the reasons of congruence cited for the manner of Eve’s production, and also the mystical significations, either accepted from the Holy Fathers, and/or ingeniously thought of by St. Bonaventure. The Seraphic Doctor is closely followed here by (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, who adds:  « Sleep [somnus] differs from deep sleep [sopor], because sleep belong to nature alone; for it is a rest of the animal virtues with an intensification of the natural (powers); but deep sleep is also a work of grace, because deep sleep is the rest of the animal (virtues) with the intensification of the intellectual (powers) » (cf. here in arg. 4.).

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 85. m. 2, q. 79. m. 1. 2.  —  S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 92. a. 1. 2. 3.  —  B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 13. q. 80. m. 3.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 3.  —  Durand., hic q. 1.  —  Dionys. Carth. de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.  —  Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 85, m. 2; q. 79, m. 1 and 2.  —  St. Thomas, here in q. 1, a. 1; Summa. , I, q. 92, aa. 1, 2 and 3.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 1; Summa., p. II, tr. 13, q. 80, m. 3.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 1, a. 1.  —  Richard of Middletown, here in a. 1, q. 1.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 1, a. 3.  —  Durandus, here in q. 1.  —  (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following qq., here in the q. sole.  —  (Gabriel) Biel, on this and the following qq., here in the q. sole.

1  Gen. 2, 23; Vulgata (cui concordant codd. I V Z ponendo ossibus):  Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro etc.

2  Dist. 44. p. I. a. 2. q. 1.

1  Gen. 2:23; the Vulgate (with which codices I V and Z are concordant in placing bones [ossibus]) reads:  This one, now, (is) bone out of my bones and flesh etc. [Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro etc.].

2  Distinction 44, p. I, a. 2, q. 1.

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup,  all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.  The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.