← Back to Distinction 18

Dist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 18

Textus Latinus
p. 431

Articulus I. De productione corporis mulieris de latere viri.

Quaestio I. Unde fuerit productum corpus mulieris.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, unde fuerit productum corpus mulieris. Et dicit Magister in littera, 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 quacumque parte, sed de costa eius et osse1. — Contra primum obiicitur sic.

p. 432

1. Genesis primo2: Fecit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam, masculum et feminam creavit eos. Si ergo Deus in primaria conditione masculum et feminam simul creavit, non videtur, quod mulierem de viro produxerit.

2. Item, sexuum distinctio spectat ad perfectionem speciei3; sed aliae species animalium, in quibus est distinctio sexuum, simul et semel productae sunt: 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.

*Contra secundum*** obiicitur sic.

4. Somnus vel sopor est quies animalium virtutum cum intensione naturalium4; 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.

5. Item, in separatione illius aut fuit aliqua laesio et afflictio, aut non. Si sic: ergo Adam ante passus est poenam, quam committeret culpam5. Si non: ergo ita bene potuit fieri de latere vigilantis, sicut de latere dormientis.

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 produxerit6 de latere dormientis.

*Contra tertium*** obiicitur sic.

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.

8. Item, in textu7 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.

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.

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 carne8?

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

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.

Vir enim et mulier secundum suorum sexuum proprietatem et naturam sic facti sunt, ut invicem coniungerentur, et ex hoc unus in altero sustentaretur et unus ab altero quietaretur. 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 vir9 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 formationis respondet proprietatibus illius mutuae coniunctionis, quae est inter virum et mulierem secundum rem10.

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 hominum11; et rationalis spiritus a divino spiritu inhabitante confor-

p. 433

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

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 respondet morti, ablatio costae apertioni lateris12.

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 formari13.

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.

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 infra14 patebit.

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.

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 uno15 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 opera16, debuit esse similiter et mulier de solo viro. Sic enim sunt impleti, sicut dicit Anselmus17, 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 virum18, et alia plura, quae prius tacta sunt.

4. 5. 6. Ad illa quae obiiciuntur de soporatione, dicendum, quod ille sopor non fuit ex lassitudine, sed fuit ex divina immissione, sicut dicit textus19; 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 intendit20. 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 praevidit21. Unde statim, cum evigilavit, prophetice locutus est; et in

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.

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 littera22 innuit: Hoc nunc os de osse et caro de carne mea. Magis autem fit denominatio ab 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 quarto23.

Scholion

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.).

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.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the production of woman's body from the side of man.

Question I. Whence the body of woman was produced.

Concerning the first point, the inquiry proceeds thus, and it is asked, whence the body of woman was produced. And the Master says in the text, and it is drawn from the second [chapter] of Genesis, that woman was formed from man, and not from any part whatever, but from a rib, from which woman was formed of man while he was sleeping. And thus three things are touched on in the formation of woman, namely, that she was made of man, and of man sleeping, and not from any part whatever, but from his rib and bone1. — Against the first it is objected thus.

1. Genesis 12: God made man to his own image and likeness, male and female he created them. If, then, in the primary establishment God created the male and the female simultaneously, it does not seem that he produced woman from man.

2. Likewise, the distinction of sexes pertains to the perfection of the species3; but other species of animals, in which there is distinction of sexes, were produced together and at once: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that which is related to another after the manner of something material is less complete than that which is produced from it: if therefore the man has completion in regard to the woman, then not the woman should have been produced from the man, but on the contrary the man from the woman.

*Against the second*** it is objected thus.

4. Sleep or deep-sleep is a rest of the animal powers with an intensification of the natural [powers]4; but in Adam the senses were not fatigued, nor the animal powers: therefore it seems that that sleep was not natural to Adam. If therefore nothing should have been done to Adam except what befitted his nature, it seems that God should not have sent a deep-sleep upon him in order to produce woman from his rib.

5. Likewise, in the separation of that [rib] there was either some hurt and affliction, or not. If so: then Adam suffered punishment before he committed fault5. If not: then it could equally well have been done from the side of him waking as from the side of him sleeping.

6. Likewise, it witnesses to greater power to separate a part from the whole in a man awake without pain than in one sleeping: therefore God's power would have been more manifest if he had produced woman from the side of Adam awake, without pain, than when he produced6 her from his side while sleeping.

*Against the third*** it is objected thus.

7. The female sex is by nature weaker than the male: therefore she should have been made from his weaker parts: therefore not from bone, but rather from flesh.

8. Likewise, in the text7 is subjoined afterwards: This now is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh: therefore she was made not only from a rib of Adam, but also from other flesh.

9. Likewise, that rib was either necessary to Adam, or superfluous. If necessary: then another rib should have been restored to Adam in its place. If superfluous: then Adam's body in its first production was not perfectly formed, since it pertains to perfection to have nothing superfluous, nothing diminished. — Likewise, if it was superfluous: then it was not fitting that flesh be filled in for it.

There is therefore the question: why woman from man? and if from man: why rather from sleeping than from waking? and if from sleeping: why rather from a rib than from flesh8?

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

I respond: For the understanding of what has been stated it must be noted that, since the wisdom of God is shown forth as admirable and praiseworthy in all his works, it is nevertheless made manifest most of all in the formation of the rational creature. Yet this appears more clearly if one considers the congruence of order which the divine wisdom kept when it produced woman from the side of man.

For it was fitting that woman be thus produced from man, both on account of the disposition of order which is attended to between man and woman in the human species, and also on account of the order and disposition which is attended to between those things which have to be signified through man and woman.

For man and woman according to the property and nature of their sexes were so made that they should be joined to one another, and from this the one should be sustained in the other, and the one should be quieted by the other. Since therefore by a strong and singular bond woman is joined to man and conversely, therefore one sex was produced from the other. And since that conjunction gives to man quieting, therefore she was produced from man while sleeping. Again, since the man9 gives to the woman fortitude and sustenance, hence it is that the woman is said to have been made from bone. And since in all these there is a certain equality of mutual society, therefore woman was formed not from any bone whatever, but from a rib and from his side. And thus it is clear how the manner of formation answers to the properties of that mutual conjunction which is between man and woman in their reality10.

It accords too no less with the things which are signified through woman and man. For through man and woman are signified God and the soul, Christ and the Church, the higher portion of reason and the lower. — To the first signification corresponds the formation of woman from man according to the manner stated. For since all rational spirits are immediately produced by God as by their first and immediate principle; and God rests in them and is as it were lulled to sleep, while his delights are to be with the children of men11; and the rational spirit by the divine Spirit dwelling within is con-

formed and strengthened: the sign is most fittingly conformed to the thing signified, according as through man and woman are signified God and the soul.

In like manner [the formation] corresponds [to that] according as through man and woman are signified Christ and the Church. For the Church is formed from Christ when from the side of Christ asleep on the cross flowed blood and water, from which there overflowed an efficacy into the sacraments of the Church, through which sacraments the Church is founded; and thus man answers to Christ, sleeping answers to death, removal of the rib answers to the opening of the side12.

This formation also accords with the signification, according as through man and woman are to be signified the higher portion of reason and the lower. For as the man is stronger and the woman weaker, so the higher portion and the lower; and as woman [comes] from man, so the lower portion comes from the turning of the spirit to these lower things. And while [the spirit] turns toward these lower things, it ceases from the wakefulness of contemplation and is in a certain manner made weaker than itself and inclines toward the softness of woman; and therefore in a certain manner it is said to be lulled asleep, and to have bone taken from it, and from that woman is formed13.

And thus it is clear that great was the congruence of order observed in this formation of woman, both in itself and in what is signified through her. — These things having been seen, the response is easy to the objections.

1. To what is first objected from the text of Genesis, it must be said that it was said by anticipation; furthermore, it was said with respect to the production of the soul, according to which woman was not formed from man, but from nothing, as will appear below14.

2. To what 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 so attended to in beasts as in human beings.

3. To what is objected, that the man is more perfect than the woman; it must be said that the material is less noble than that which is produced from it, with respect to that which is material; but the man was not matter of the woman according to himself as a whole, but according to something of himself, namely according to the rib; and therefore, although the man is more noble, nevertheless the body of woman could be formed from his rib. For there is not as much perfection in one rib of the man as there is in one15 body of the woman. — But if you should ask, why rather woman from man than man from woman; it must be said that this was at some time going to be, as in the second Adam, namely Christ; and therefore, that the works of God might be perfect16, woman likewise had to be from man alone. For thus were fulfilled, as Anselm says17, the four modes of bringing forth man into being: «One, which is from man and woman, which manner nature now observes; another, which is neither from man nor from woman, which was in the production of the first man; the third, which is from man only, and this was in the formation of Eve; the fourth, which is from woman only without man», and this was in the production of Christ from the Virgin. Then, however, it was more fitting that woman be brought forth from man, that it might be shown that the man is the head of the woman, and that not the man for the woman, but the woman for the man18, and many other things which were touched on earlier.

4. 5. 6. To those things which are objected concerning the inducing of sleep, it must be said that that deep-sleep was not from weariness, but was from divine sending, as the text says19; nor however was it against nature, since, if Adam had stood [in innocence], sleep would still have been in him, not on account of weakness of the sensitive power, but on account of the invigoration of the vegetative part; since, although neither of these powers happened to be wearied in Adam, nevertheless, when one ceased from its operation, it happened that the other was invigorated, while the whole soul was intent upon the act of one power20. But the Lord cast a deep-sleep upon Adam not on account of this, that he could not separate the rib from him waking without pain and horror, but on account of signification and also on account of the lifting up of Adam's mind, since, as the Saints say, Adam in that sleep foresaw many things21. Hence as soon as he awoke, he spoke prophetically; and in

this much is shown forth God's power, who was able so to separate the rib that nature did not lose its quiet. — And from this are clear those three objections concerning sleep. For the first does not hold, because there sleep was not from weariness. The second likewise does not hold, because it was not done to conceal injury to the man. The third also does not hold, because God's power is just as well manifested in his not waking the sleeper from sleep as it would have been manifested had he formed her from his side waking without any pain.

7. 8. 9. To those things which are objected, that she should not have been made from bone; it must be said that woman was made not only from bone or from a rib, but also some little particle was taken from the flesh of Adam, as the following text22 suggests: This now is bone from bone, and flesh from my flesh. The denomination is rather from bone, either because that was the principal part; or because the man confers strength on the woman, and the woman is invigorated through fellowship with the man, while the man through fellowship with the woman is softened — and therefore [the man] is said to be flesh filled in for the rib, since the man gives fortitude and receives weakness — or also because that rib occupied the place of flesh; for it was not made in Adam that it should remain in him, but that woman should be formed from it. — And thus those three objections are clear. For the first does not hold, since woman, although she is weak in herself, nevertheless has it from the man to be strengthened; and therefore she is rather said to be made from a rib than from flesh. The second does not hold; for that woman is said to be made from a rib is not understood precisely, as if not from flesh. The third does not hold, because, if that rib was superfluous to Adam, in so far as he was an individual, it was nevertheless opportune, in so far as it was the principle of woman. And therefore it will rise again in the woman, not in the man, as is more plainly explained in the fourth [book]23.

Scholion

I. Here are to be noted the reasons of congruence brought forward for the manner of Eve's production, and likewise the mystical significations either received from the holy Fathers or ingeniously thought out by St. Bonaventure. Peter of Tarentaise closely follows the holy Doctor here, and adds: «Sleep [somnus] and deep-sleep [sopor] differ, because sleep is of nature alone; for it is the rest of the animal powers with an intention [or intensification] of the natural [powers]; but deep-sleep is also a work of grace, since deep-sleep is the rest of the animal [powers] with an intention of the intellectual [powers]» (cf. argument 4 here).

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II. q. 85. m. 2, q. 79. m. 1. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1; Summa I. q. 92. a. 1. 2. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1; Summa p. II. tr. 13. q. 80. m. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — Giles of Rome (Aegidius Romanus), here q. 1. a. 3. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here, q. unica. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here, q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Ita cod. cc et ed. 1; ceteri codd. cum aliis edd. ex, sed vide infra principium 1. quaest. — Hic c. 1. — Gen. 2, 21. seqq.
    Thus codex cc and ed. 1; the other codices with the other editions [read] ex ["from which"], but see below at the opening of question 1. — Here ch. 1. — Genesis 2, 21 and following.
  2. Vers. 27: Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam; ad imaginem Dei creavit illum, masculum etc.
    Verse 27: And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him, male etc.
  3. Cfr. Aristot., X. Metaph. text. 25. (IX. c. 9.).
    Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics X, text 25 (IX, ch. 9).
  4. Secundum Aristot., de Somno et vigilia, c. 4. (c. 3.).
    According to Aristotle, On Sleep and Waking, ch. 4 (ch. 3).
  5. 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. 36. n. 11.
    Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will III, ch. 18, n. 51: Every punishment, if it is just, is the punishment of sin, and is called retribution. — Cf. on this argument Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 36, n. 11.
  6. Codd. aa cc et ed. 1 produxit.
    Codices aa, cc and ed. 1 read produxit ["he produced," indicative].
  7. Gen. 2, 23.
    Genesis 2, 23.
  8. Cfr. August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 13. n. 23. — Vat. supplet fuerit producta.
    Cf. Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter IX, ch. 13, n. 23. — The Vatican edition supplies fuerit producta ["was produced"].
  9. Fide cod. E supplevimus vir.
    On the faith of codex E we have supplied vir ["man"].
  10. Cfr. August., IX. de Gen. ad lit. c. 3. n. 5. seqq. et de Bono coniugali, c. 1. n. 1.
    Cf. Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter IX, ch. 3, n. 5 and following, and On the Good of Marriage, ch. 1, n. 1.
  11. Prov. 8, 31. — Plures codd. cum Vat. et edd. 1, 2 conformatur, cod. M cum ed. 4 confirmatur pro confortatur.
    Proverbs 8, 31. — Several codices with the Vatican edition and editions 1, 2 [read] conformatur ["is conformed"], codex M with ed. 4 [reads] confirmatur ["is confirmed"] for confortatur ["is strengthened"].
  12. Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 36. 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).
    Cf. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 36, n. 11; On Psalm 103, sermon 4, n. 6; City of God XXII, ch. 17, and Tract. on John 9, n. 10, whose words are reported in vol. I, p. 2, note 19. Chrysostom says the same in the sermon which is read in the Breviary on the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (it is not in the more recent editions).
  13. 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.
    See below dist. 24, part I, art. 2, q. 2 and part II, arts. 1 & 2, where this opinion of Augustine is expounded. — Not a few codices with editions 1, 2, 3 wrongly [read] separari ["to be separated"] for soporari ["to be lulled asleep"]; then several codices with ed. 1 [read] os eius ["his bone"] for os ei ["bone from him"].
  14. Art. seq. q. 3.
    The following article, q. 3.
  15. Cod. T toto.
    Codex T reads toto ["whole"].
  16. Deut. 32, 4: Dei perfecta sunt opera.
    Deuteronomy 32, 4: The works of God are perfect.
  17. 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.
    Cur Deus homo II, ch. 8: «In four ways can God make a human being, namely either from man and from woman, as continual use shows; or neither from man nor from woman, as he created Adam; or from man without woman, as he made Eve; or from woman without man, which he has not yet done. Therefore, that he may show that this mode too is subject to his power, and that for this very thing the work has been deferred, nothing more fitting than that from woman without man he should assume that human being whom we seek.» — Codex A near the end of the text after de viro tantum ["from man only"] adds absque muliere ["without woman"]; on the other hand some codices with ed. 1 omit the final words absque viro ["without man"].
  18. Epist. I. Cor. 11, 9: Etenim non est creatus vir etc. — Paulo superius post quod vir plures codd. vel addunt etiam, vel et.
    Epistle 1 Cor. 11, 9: For man was not created etc. — A little earlier, after quod vir ["that the man"], several codices add either etiam ["also"] or et ["and"].
  19. Gen. 2, 21: Immisit ergo Dominus Deus soporem in Adam. — Paulo inferius Vat. debilitationem pro debilitatem et potentiae pro particulae.
    Genesis 2, 21: The Lord God therefore cast a deep-sleep upon Adam. — A little further on the Vatican edition reads debilitationem for debilitatem and potentiae for particulae.
  20. Cfr. supra pag. 260, nota 1; et Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 86. m. 3. — Sequens textus est Gen. 2, 21.
    Cf. above p. 260, note 1; and Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II. q. 86. m. 3. — The following text is Genesis 2, 21.
  21. 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.
    Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter IX, ch. 19, n. 36: «And on this account that ecstasy too, which God sent upon Adam, that being put into deep-sleep he might fall asleep, is rightly understood to have been sent for this, that his mind too through the ecstasy should be made a sharer as it were of the angelic court, and entering into the sanctuary of God should understand the last things. Finally, awakening, as if full of prophecy, when he saw the rib brought to him, his wife, he immediately exclaimed that which the Apostle commends as a great sacrament (Eph. 5, 31): This now is bone from my bones etc. (Gen. 2, 23)... that we might understand from this that, on account of the ecstasy which had preceded in Adam, he could divinely say this as a prophet.»
  22. Gen. 2, 23: Vulgata, cui concordant codd. I V Z ponentes ossibus: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro etc.
    Genesis 2, 23: the Vulgate, with which agree codices I, V, Z, putting ossibus ["bones"]: "This now is bone from my bones and flesh etc."
  23. Dist. 44. p. I. a. 2. q. 1.
    Distinction 44, part I, art. 2, q. 1.
← Dist. 18, Divisio TextusDist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 2→