Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Four — the creation of the first human beings

CHAPTER 2, VERSES 7 and 8. And so the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul

LatineEnglish

CHAPTER 2, VERSES 7 and 8. And so the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.1

CAP. 2. VERS. 7. et 8. Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae, et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae, et factus est homo in animam viventem.

Above, Moses had already said, says Rupert in chapter 10 of book 2 of On the Trinity, that God created man, but he had not said how and whence he made him. He had said that he created them male and female, but he had not said that he made the woman from the man. If, therefore, he had said nothing further about their creation, perhaps we should have supposed that they were created at the same time and, suddenly arising, presented to each other a mutual sight: just as, for example, about the sun and moon there is still among the learned a diverse opinion—some saying that God, when he created the moon, immediately showed it ful[l]2

SUPRA iam dixerat Moses, inquit Rupertus capite 10. libri 2. de Trinitate, quia creavit Deus hominem, sed non dixerat quomodo et unde fecit eum. Dixerat quod masculum et foeminam creavit eos, sed non dixerat quod foeminam fecit de masculo. Si igitur nihil amplius de creatione eorum dixisset, forté opinati essemus simul eos esse creatos et repentè exortos sibi mutuos praebuisse conspectus: sicut, verbi gratia, de sole et luna hodiéque inter doctos diversa sententia est, alijs dicentibus quòd lunam creans Deus statim plenam osten-

[immediately showed it ful]l, set opposite the sun in the half of the sky, while others assert the contrary, that, as he made both at once, so he also joined them, so that little by little the moon emerged from its conjunction with the sun with an increase of borrowed light. But a doubt of this kind is removed by the historical narrative of Moses, which begins thus, And so the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth. For here the male alone must be understood, because a little later he will say that the woman was formed from the male.3

[statim plenam] ostenderit, soli oppositam dimidia parte caeli, alijs contra asserentibus quod utrumque ut simul fecit, ita et coniunxerit, ut paulatim luna de coniunctione solis emergeret cum incremento mutuati luminis. Sed sublata est huiusmodi dubitatio historica Mosis narratione, quae sic inchoatur, Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae. Solum namque masculum hic intelligi oportet, quia paulò post de masculo foeminam esse formatam dicet.

Atque hoc modo Rupertus: quae hoc loco scribit Moses de formatione hominis, cum iis quae suprà de eiusdem conditione dixerat putat esse connectenda. Sed nos hoc ipsum plenius et distinctius dicamus. Supra Moses, enarrans opus sexti diei, summatim memoraverat creationem hominis, ea duntaxat ratione qua homo pertinebat ad opus sexti diei, quo scilicet die tam homo quàm animalia terrestria procreata sunt. Absoluta igitur sex illorum dierum historia, de integro Moses creationem hominis (tam viri quàm foeminae) subtiliter, distinctè et accuratè describendam suscipit: tum quòd in generatione hominis multa sanè praeclara, eximia et singularia observanda et admiranda sint; tum quòd propter hominem praecipuè scriptio huius libri à Mose suscepta esset.
And thus Rupert: what Moses here writes about the formation of man, he thinks must be connected with what he had said above about his constitution. But let us say this very thing more fully and distinctly. Above, Moses, in narrating the work of the sixth day, had summarily mentioned the creation of man—only in that respect in which man pertained to the work of the sixth day, on which day, namely, both man and the terrestrial animals were procreated. The history of those six days, therefore, being completed, Moses undertakes anew to describe the creation of man (both of the male and of the female) subtly, distinctly, and accurately: both because in the generation of man many notable, excellent, and singular things are to be observed and admired; and because the writing of this book was undertaken by Moses chiefly for man's sake.4
QUEMADMODUM autem caeterarum omnium rerum naturalium, ita hominis quoque quatuor sunt causae: Materia, Forma, Finis, et Efficiens: quas omnes Moses generationem hominis describens indicavit. Efficientem quidem dicens, Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem; Materiam, cum subdit, De limo terrae; Formam, cum addit, Inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae; denique Finem, dicens, Factus est homo in animam viventem. Quanquam formam simul et finem hominis significantiùs et expressiùs supra declaravit cùm dixit Factum esse hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei. Siquidem ea est germana et propria forma hominis quae Dei similitudinem et imaginem gerit: haec autem est anima rationalis. Finis autem hominis is est, ut, Dei gratia adiutus omníque studio et diligentia sua contendens, quàm maximè fieri potest similis fiat Deo; quod non nisi per visionem Dei beatificam nobis contingit, quemadmodum dilectus Iesu discipulus docuit nos dicens, Scimus quoniam, cùm apparuerit, similes ei erimus, et videbimus eum sicuti est.
And just as of all other natural things, so of man too there are four causes: the Material, the Formal, the Final, and the Efficient: all of which Moses indicated in describing the generation of man. The Efficient, indeed, saying, And so the Lord God formed man; the Material, when he adds, Of the slime of the earth; the Formal, when he adds, He breathed into his face the breath of life; and finally the Final, saying, And man became a living soul. Although he had declared the form and the end of man more significantly and expressly above, when he said that man was made to the image and likeness of God. For that is the genuine and proper form of man which bears the likeness and image of God: and this is the rational soul. And the end of man is this: that, aided by the grace of God and striving with all his zeal and diligence, he may become as much as possible like to God; which happens to us only through the beatific vision of God, as the beloved disciple of Jesus taught us, saying, We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him, and we shall see him as he is.5
OBSERVANDA est varietas lectionum huius loci. Namque ad verbum Hebraicè et Chaldaicè sic est: Finxit Deus hominem pulverem è terra. Septuaginta Interpretes ita verterunt: Formavit Deus hominem, pulverem accipiens è terra: scilicet apertiùs explicantes sententiam lectionis Hebraicae. Hoc enim significat hominem esse factum pulverem de terra, id est factum esse pulvereum, sumpto pulvere ex ipsa terra. Dicitur autem homo pulvis è terra, quia primus homo ex pulvere et ex terra formatus est: atque hoc spectavit Paulus prioris epistolae ad Corinth. capite decimoquinto, cùm
The variety of readings of this place is to be noted. For word for word, in Hebrew and Chaldaic, it is thus: God fashioned man, dust from the earth. The Seventy Interpreters rendered it thus: God formed man, taking dust from the earth—evidently explaining more openly the sense of the Hebrew reading. For this signifies that man was made dust from the earth, that is, was made dusty, dust being taken from the earth itself. And man is called dust from the earth because the first man was formed from dust and from earth: and to this Paul looked, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen, when6
cùm dixit, Primus homo de terra terrenus: quibus verbis vocis Hebraeae אדם Adam vim et notionem verbis Graecis exposuit. Adam enim nomen ductum est ex אדמה Adama, id est terra, quòd ex terra corpus primi hominis confectum sit à Deo. Quocirca Graecè, tam à Mercurio Trismegisto quàm à priscis poëtis, homo appellatus est γηγενής, id est Terrigena, quasi è terra generatus. Et in cap. 7. libri Sapientiae primus homo duobus epithetis insignitur: nominatur enim γηγενὴς καὶ πρωτόπλαστος. Latini etiam poëtae appellare solent homines Terrigenas, nisi fortè putet quispiam ad fabulam Deucalionis et Pyrrhae eos allusisse.
when he said, The first man, of the earth, earthy: by which words he set forth in Greek the force and notion of the Hebrew word אדם Adam. For the name Adam is derived from אדמה Adama, that is, earth, because the body of the first man was made from earth by God. Wherefore in Greek, both by Mercurius Trismegistus and by the ancient poets, man was called γηγενής (gēgenēs), that is, Earth-born, as it were generated from the earth. And in chapter 7 of the book of Wisdom the first man is marked with two epithets: for he is named γηγενὴς καὶ πρωτόπλαστος (earth-born and first-formed). The Latin poets too are wont to call men Earth-born (Terrigenae)—unless perhaps someone should think that they alluded to the fable of Deucalion and Pyrrha.7
PRO verbo, Formavit, Hebraicè est ויצר vajzer, propriè significans fingere, quod est figulorum. Sanctus Augustinus libro 13. de Civitate Dei capite 24., lectionem huius loci excutiens et expendens, ita locum hunc citat et declarat: Formavit Deus hominem pulverem de terra (quae quidem ad verbum, ut diximus, est lectio Hebraica). Subiungit Augustinus:
For the word He formed, in Hebrew it is ויצר vayyitser, properly signifying 'to fashion,' which belongs to potters. St. Augustine, in book 13 of the City of God, chapter 24, examining and weighing the reading of this place, cites and declares it thus: God formed man, dust from the earth (which indeed, word for word, as we said, is the Hebrew reading). Augustine subjoins:8

Some, thinking this should be interpreted more fully, said, God fashioned man of the slime of the earth: because it had been said above, A fountain ascended from the earth and watered all the face of the earth; so that from this 'slime' might seem to be understood, namely something concreted of moisture and earth. For where this is said, there immediately follows, God formed man, dust from the earth, as the Greek codices have it, whence Scripture itself was translated into the Latin tongue.9

Hoc quidem plenius interpretandum putantes, dixerunt, Finxit Deus hominem de limo terrae: quoniam superiùs dictum fuerat, Fons ascendebat de terra et irrigabat omnem faciem terrae; ut ex hoc limus intelligendus videretur, humore scilicet terráque concretus. Ubi enim hoc dictum est, continuo sequitur, Formavit Deus hominem pulverem de terra, sicut Graeci codices habent, unde in Latinam linguam Scriptura ipsa conversa est.

Verùm Graeci codices qui nunc extant non sic habent ut citat eos Augustinus, sed eo modo quo suprà memoravimus, Formavit Deus hominem pulverem accipiens de terra, vel, pulvere sumpto de terra. Desideratur igitur in citatione Augustini, si nostri codices veri sunt, illud participium Accipiens. Subdit verò Augustinus:
But the Greek codices that now exist do not have it as Augustine cites them, but in that manner which we mentioned above, God formed man, taking dust from the earth, or, dust having been taken from the earth. There is therefore lacking, in Augustine's citation (if our codices are correct), that participle 'Taking.' And Augustine adds:10

But whether one wishes to say 'formed' or 'fashioned'—what in Greek is said ἔπλασεν (eplasen)—makes no difference to the matter: yet it is more properly called 'fashioned.' But the ambiguity seemed to be avoided by those who preferred to say 'formed': because in the Latin tongue that usage has more prevailed, that those are said 'to fashion' (fingere) who put something together with a lying pretense. Thus Augustine.11

Sive autem formavit sive finxit quis dicere voluerit, quod Graecè dicitur ἔπλασεν, ad rem nihil interest: magis tamen propriè dicitur, finxit. Sed ambiguitas visa est devitanda iis qui, formavit, dicere maluerunt: eo quòd in Latina lingua illud magis obtinuit consuetudo, ut ij dicantur fingere qui aliquid mendacio simulante componunt. Haec Augustinus.

PRO illo de limo terrae, Hebraicè est עפר Aphar, significans pulverem et terram: nec quemlibet pulverem, sed valdè tenuem ac minutum, ut ex multis Scripturae locis licèt cognoscere; veluti in secundo Regum 23. capit., Comminuit, inquit, in pulverem; et Geneseos 13., Si quis potest hominum numerare pulverem terrae. Nec tantùm significat terrae pulverem, sed etiam auri et argenti vel cuiuscúque alterius rei: nam in Exodi 32. capite dicitur Moses pulverem vituli aurei proiecisse in torrentem. Inducit igitur hoc loco Moses Deum quasi quendam figulum, pulverem unde facturus erat hominem collegisse et praeparasse, et ex eo fecisse hominem: quemadmodum figulus, vas aliquod ficturus, comparat materiam ex luto vel argilla. Noster interpres, non pulverem sed limum vertens, declarare voluit materiam ex qua formatum est corpus hominis non fuisse purum
For that, of the slime of the earth, in Hebrew it is עפר Aphar, signifying dust and earth: and not any dust, but a very fine and minute one, as may be known from many places of Scripture; as in 2 Kings 23, He ground it, he says, to dust; and Genesis 13, If any man can number the dust of the earth. Nor does it signify only the dust of earth, but also of gold and silver or of any other thing: for in Exodus 32 Moses is said to have thrown the dust of the golden calf into the torrent. Moses, therefore, here introduces God as a kind of potter, who collected and prepared the dust from which he was to make man, and from it made man: just as a potter, about to make some vessel, procures his material from mud or clay. And our translator [the Vulgate], rendering not 'dust' but 'slime,' wished to declare that the material from which man's body was formed was not pure12
[non fuisse] purum pulverem, quippe qui nimium tenuis et dissipabilis sit, nec sua vi solidum aliquod in corpus compingi queat, sed fuisse pulverem mistum cum aqua, vel terram limosam ac coenosam, quali nempè uti solent figuli. ATQUE huius nostrae originis contemplatio subinde nos admonere deberet nostrae fragilis et caducae ac brevi periturae conditionis naturae: quocirca eius rei frequens nobis recordatio in Sacris litteris renovatur atque inculcatur. Hoc ipsum more suo diserté ac piè tractans Rupertus, in capite 20. libri 2. de Trinitate:
[was not] pure dust, since that is too fine and dissipable, and cannot by its own force be compacted into any solid body, but was dust mixed with water, or muddy and miry earth, such as potters use. And the contemplation of this our origin ought continually to admonish us of our fragile and perishable and soon-to-perish natural condition: wherefore frequent remembrance of this thing is renewed and inculcated for us in Holy Scripture. Treating this very matter eloquently and piously, after his manner, Rupert, in chapter 20 of book 2 of On the Trinity:13

Two things, he says, were said by Moses, which it is worth the while to mark carefully: namely that God formed man, and formed him not from just anywhere, but from the slime of the earth. For weighing this, as was fitting, holy Men have called this their very Creator the Potter (Plastes), and themselves slime, in an elegant confession and tearful exclamation: And now, O Lord (says Isaiah in chapter sixty-four), Thou art our Father, and we are slime; and thou art our fashioner, and we all are the works of thy hands. And in Jeremiah, chapter 18, the same our potter God speaks: Cannot I do with you, O house of Israel, as this potter? Behold, as the slime is in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand. For he had shown him the potter making his work upon the wheel: and the vessel which he was making of slime with his hands was broken, and, turning, he made it into another vessel, as it had pleased him to make it. Hence the same Isaiah says above: Woe to him who contradicts his fashioner, a potsherd of the earthen pots. Knowing these things and the like, that heavenly jurist Paul says, to the Romans 9: O man, who art thou that repliest to God? Can the thing fashioned say to him who fashioned it, Why hast thou made me thus? Or has not the potter power to make of the same lump one vessel indeed unto honor, but another unto dishonor? And so we too, when we read that God formed man of the slime of the earth, must not discuss why he did so, but each of us ought rather to fear about himself, lest the vessel which he himself made be broken in his hands, and, this one cast away, he make another vessel as it shall please him.' Thus Rupert.14

Duo, inquit, à Mose dicta sunt, quae diligenter advertere operae pretium est: quia videlicet formavit Deus hominem, et non undecunque, sed de limo terrae formavit. Hoc namque, sicut dignum erat, perpendentes Homines sancti, hunc ipsum creatorem suum Plastem, seipsos autem lutum appellaverunt, eleganti confessione et lacrymosa declamatione: Et nunc, Domine (inquit Isaias capite sexagesimoquarto), Tu Pater noster es, et nos lutum, et fictor noster, et opera manuum tuarum omnes nos. Et apud Hieremiam capite 18. loquitur idem plastes noster Deus: Nunquid sicut figulus iste non potero vobis facere, domus Israël? Ecce sicut lutum in manu figuli, ita vos in manu mea. Ostenderat enim illi figulum facientem opus suum super rotam: et dissipatum est, inquit, vas quod ipse faciebat è luto manibus suis, conversúsque fecit illud vas alterum, sicut placuerat in oculis eius ut faceret. Hinc idem qui suprà dicit Isaias: Vae qui contradicit fictori suo, testa de samijs terrae. Haec et illis similia sciens ille iurisperitus caelestis Paulus ait ad Rom. 9.: O homo, tu quis es qui respondeas Deo? nunquid potest figmentum dicere ei qui se finxit, Quare me fecisti sic? aut nunquid non habet potestatem figulus facere de eodem luto aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud verò in contumeliam? Itaque et nos, cùm legimus quia formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae, non discutiendum nobis est cur ita fecerit, sed potius illud timendum unicuique nostrum de se ipso, ne vas quod fecit ipse dissipetur in manibus eius, et hoc abiecto faciat aliud vas sicut placuerit in oculis eius. Sic Rupertus.

POST haec autem ponit hanc quaestionem Rupertus:
After this, moreover, Rupert poses this question:15

Yet (he says) one may soberly ask—that is, marvel—why God, when he could have rebuilt the ruins of the Angels with new Angels created by himself, and created just as many as had fallen and raised them to heaven, so that all the populace and all the nobility of the heavenly country might be of one kind: why, I say, he made men of another nature or condition to set in the place of the Angels, and did not make all, or many, at once, but fashioned only one from the earth, from whom the rest should be propagated?16

Attamen (inquit) sobriè quaerere, id est mirari, licet, cur Deus, cùm posset ruinas Angelorum novis à se creatis Angelis reaedificare, et totidem quot ceciderunt creare et in caelum levare, ut unius generis esset plebs cuncta omnísque nobilitas caelestis patriae: cur, inquam, homines alterius naturae vel conditionis fecerit quos reponeret pro Angelis, et non cunctos aut multos simul, sed unum tantummodo de terra plasmaverit, de quo propagarentur caeteri?

Ad hanc Ruperti quaestionem ita responderi potest, hominem primò et principaliter non esse creatum ad reparandas Angelorum ruinas: nam etsi nullus cecidisset Angelus, nihilominus tamen creatus esset homo, quippe qui rerum omnium corporalium sit praestantissimus, qui si deesset mundo, nequaquam is completus et absolutus censeri posset. Non enim homo duntaxat est species quaedam rerum naturalium, uti sunt variae species stirpium et animalium, sed est principalis quidam gradus naturae. Sunt enim tres
To this question of Rupert it may be answered thus: that man was not first and principally created to repair the ruins of the Angels; for even if no Angel had fallen, man would nonetheless have been created, since he is the most excellent of all corporeal things, and if he were lacking to the world, the world could by no means be deemed complete and finished. For man is not merely some one species of natural things, as are the various species of plants and animals, but is a certain principal grade of nature. For there are three17
[Sunt enim tres] generales et principales gradus naturae: unus et primus ac summus, naturae penitus incorporeae; alter infimus, naturae tantum corporeae; tertius medium dignitatis locum tenens, ex utroque mistus et quasi temperatus: quod genus unus duntaxat homo et constituit et implet, partim corporeus, partim incorporeus. Cur autem è terra primum hominem Deus finxerit, eadem ratio fuit qua finxit è terra omnes terrestres animantes. Namque in corporis humani compositione et temperatione ex materia elementari, plus terrae inest quàm cuiusque aliorum elementorum; et cùm humanum corpus corrumpitur, in terram resolvitur; denique ex terra victum et vestitum capit, et in terra vitam degit.
[For there are three] general and principal grades of nature: one, the first and highest, of a wholly incorporeal nature; another, the lowest, of a merely corporeal nature; the third, holding the middle place of dignity, mixed and as it were tempered from both: which kind man alone both constitutes and fills, being partly corporeal, partly incorporeal. And why God formed the first man from earth—the same reason held by which he formed from earth all the terrestrial living things. For in the composition and tempering of the human body from elemental matter, there is more earth than of any of the other elements; and when the human body is corrupted, it is dissolved into earth; finally, from earth it takes its food and clothing, and on earth it passes its life.18
HANC porro ex terra originem hominis etiam prisci poëtae apud Gentiles quodammodo intellexerunt. Ovidius certè in 1. libro Metamorphoseos antiquissimorum Theologorum de generatione et origine hominis sententiam his versibus expressit:
This earthen origin of man even the ancient poets among the Gentiles understood in a certain manner. Ovid, certainly, in the first book of the Metamorphoses, expressed the opinion of the most ancient theologians on the generation and origin of man in these verses:19

Man was born: whether that artificer of things made him from divine seed, the origin of a better world; or whether the new-made earth, lately sundered from the high aether, still kept seeds of its kindred heaven. This earth the son of Iapetus, mixing it with the waters of the river, fashioned into the likeness of the gods who govern all things. So the earth, which but now had been rude and without image, being changed, put on the unknown shapes of man.20

Natus homo est: sive hunc divino semine fecit Ille opifex rerum, mundi melioris origo; Sive recens tellus seductáque nuper ab alto Aethere, cognati retinebat semina caeli. Quam satus Iapeto, mistam fluvialibus undis, Finxit in effigiem moderantum cuncta deorum. Sic, modo quae fuerat rudis et sine imagine, tellus Induit ignotas hominis conversa figuras.

FINXERUNT enim veteres illi poëtae Prometheum compegisse corpus hominis ex terra, igném autem caelestem à Diis furatum esse, quem pro anima in corpus humanum indidit: ad quod alludens Poëta dixit,
For those ancient poets feigned that Prometheus compacted the body of man from earth, and stole celestial fire from the gods, which he put into the human body in place of a soul: alluding to which the Poet said,21

Fiery is the vigor in those seeds, and their origin is celestial, ——22

Igneus est ollis vigor, et caelestis origo Seminibus, ——

Graeci autem Promethea vocant providentem, sagacem et sapientem. Lucretius quoque libro quinto, philosophiam Epicuri pertractans, homines ab initio è terra generatos esse confirmat. Non est dissimulandus error Avicennae, in tantá progressi veritatis inscitiam, ut arbitraretur hominem etiam naturaliter hodiéque ex terra generari posse. Verùm nos eius opinionem multis argumentis confutavimus in libro octavo eius operis quod de Principiis et affectionibus rerum naturalium ante tredecim annos evulgavimus.
And the Greeks call Prometheus 'the provident, sagacious, and wise.' Lucretius too, in the fifth book, treating the philosophy of Epicurus, affirms that men were generated from the earth in the beginning. Nor is the error of Avicenna to be concealed, who, in so great an ignorance of advanced truth, supposed that man could even now be naturally generated from the earth. But we refuted his opinion with many arguments in the eighth book of that work which, On the Principles and Affections of natural things, we published thirteen years ago.23
CUM autem dicitur corpus primi hominis è terra formatum, id quidem potest duobus modis intelligi. Vel Deum pro materia corporis formandi terram duntaxat sumpsisse, vel terram cum aqua mistam, in qua ipse tamen posteà formas et qualitates caeterorum duorum elementorum (aëris inquam et ignis) produxerit: corpus enim Adae, non minus quàm omnium nostrûm corpora, ex quatuor elementis constabat. Vel intelligi potest Deum pro materia corporis accepisse misturam quatuor elementorum, eam tamen nominari vocabu-
Now when the body of the first man is said to have been formed from earth, this can indeed be understood in two ways. Either that God took, as the material for forming the body, earth only, or earth mixed with water, in which, however, he afterward brought forth the forms and qualities of the other two elements (I mean air and fire): for the body of Adam, no less than the bodies of all of us, consisted of four elements. Or it can be understood that God took, as the material of the body, a mixture of the four elements, which is nevertheless named by the word24
[eam tamen nominari] vocabulo limi, id est, terrae et aquae, quòd haec duo in compositione et temperatione corporis humani secundùm molem caeteris praecellant, sintque ipsis sensibus magis conspicua; at reliqua duo occultiora sunt, et sicut mole sunt minora, ita sunt potentia et efficacitate maiora. Hac enim ratione mistio reducitur ad quandam aequabilitatem, cum quorum elementorum minor est vis, eorum maior est in compositione materiae portio; quorum autem efficacior est potestas agendi, eorum minor est in mistione moles. Caietanus annotavit rectè dici in Scriptura Hebraica hominem esse factum ex pulvere, quo videlicet significetur non esse coagmentatum corpus hominis ex crassa et impura terrá, sed ex tenui et pura, qualis nimirum vocabulo pulveris denotatur. Cùm enim corpus hominis esse oporteat probè mistum et exquisitè temperatum, et item excelsum et erectum, ad utrúmque magna terrae tenuitate opus fuit, ut ea cum caeteris elementis benè permisceri ac temperari posset, neve ipsa crassitudine et gravitate sua obstaret corporis rectitudini, quam efficit multus et efficax calor materiam sursum attrahendo: quae si nimis crassa et ponderosa esset, vel non in sublime trahi, vel in excelso loco aegrè et cum periculo corporis teneri posset.
[which is nevertheless named] by the word 'slime,' that is, of earth and water, because these two excel the rest in mass in the composition and tempering of the human body, and are more conspicuous to the senses themselves; whereas the other two are more hidden, and, as they are smaller in mass, so they are greater in power and efficacy. For by this means the mixture is reduced to a certain equality: since, of those elements whose force is less, the portion of matter is greater in the composition; but of those whose power of acting is more efficacious, the mass is less in the mixture. Cajetan noted that it is rightly said in the Hebrew Scripture that man was made from dust, whereby, namely, it is signified that the body of man was not compacted from coarse and impure earth, but from fine and pure—such as is denoted by the word 'dust.' For since the body of man must be well mixed and exquisitely tempered, and likewise lofty and erect, for both a great fineness of earth was needed, so that it could be well mingled and tempered with the other elements, and might not, by its own coarseness and heaviness, obstruct the erectness of the body—which much and efficacious heat produces by drawing the matter upward; for if it were too coarse and heavy, it could either not be drawn aloft, or be held in a lofty place only with difficulty and danger to the body.25
SUNT qui putant praeter quatuor elementa aliquid etiam ex quinta essentia (id est, ex natura caelesti) venire in compositionem humani corporis; et hoc sensent velut medium quoddam vinculum, per quod incorporeus et immortalis animus cum terreno ac mortali corpore copuletur atque colligetur: aliter enim, si res esset, nulla videretur esse proportio et convenientia inter corpus et animam rationalem. Et illam quidem materiam caelestem existimant isti secum ferre animum, cùm per mortem è corpore demigrare cogitur, et in ea poenas apud inferos luere sceleribus suis promeritas. Illam porrò materiam vocabulo nescio cuius lucis appellant et adornant. Verùm haec, ut falsa et sanae doctrinae contraria, damnant Theologi; Philosophi verò etiam derident ut pueriles nugas et aniles fabulas. Cum enim caelestis substantia sit planè incorruptibilis, nihil ex ea decerpi et desecari, neque cum aliis elementis permisceri, aut in rei patibilis et mortalis compositione adhiberi potest: siquidem mistio non fit (auctore Aristotele) nisi alteratis et corruptis aliquatenus his quae miscentur. Appellat quidem Aristoteles libro secundo de Generatione Animalium cap. 3. spiritum et calorem qui est in animantibus caelestem, non tamen natura ipsa, sed quadam proportione et similitudine: habet enim proprietates quasdam et effectus calori syderum ratione quadam respondentes.
There are those who think that, besides the four elements, something also from the fifth essence (that is, from the celestial nature) enters into the composition of the human body; and they thought this to be, as it were, a certain middle bond, by which the incorporeal and immortal soul is coupled and bound together with the earthly and mortal body: for otherwise, were it so, there would seem to be no proportion and agreement between the body and the rational soul. And that celestial material these men think the soul carries with it, when it is compelled by death to depart from the body, and in it to pay, among the powers below, the penalties deserved by its crimes. And that material they call and adorn by the name of some 'light' or other. But these things the Theologians condemn as false and contrary to sound doctrine; while the Philosophers even deride them as childish trifles and old-wives' tales. For since the celestial substance is plainly incorruptible, nothing can be plucked and cut from it, nor mingled with the other elements, nor employed in the composition of a passible and mortal thing: since a mixture does not come about (on Aristotle's authority) unless the things mixed are to some extent altered and corrupted. Aristotle indeed, in the second book On the Generation of Animals, ch. 3, calls the spirit and heat which is in living things 'celestial'—yet not by its nature itself, but by a certain proportion and likeness: for it has certain properties and effects corresponding, by a certain analogy, to the heat of the stars.26

Translator’s notes

  1. Section lemma (Gen 2:7), set centered in italic, opening the second creation-account of man. ↩
  2. Rupert of Deutz, De sancta Trinitate et operibus eius, book 2, ch. 10 (block-quote, continues onto p. 401). Page breaks at 'osten-' (ostenderit). ↩
  3. Page header: 'IN GENESIM, LIB. IIII. 401.' Conclusion of the Rupert (De Trinitate 2.10) quotation: the sun/moon parallel, resolved by Moses' detailed narrative. ↩
  4. Pererius closes the Rupert quote and explains the structure: ch. 1 mentioned man's creation summarily (under the sixth day); ch. 2 re-describes it in detail. ↩
  5. Margins: 'Quatuor causae hominis indicantur à Mose'; '1. Ioan. 3.' The four Aristotelian causes mapped onto Gen 2:7 (efficient = God; material = slime; formal = breath of life / rational soul; final = the living soul, i.e. likeness to God). 1 John 3:2. ↩
  6. Margin: 'Varietas lectionum.' The textual variants (Hebrew/Chaldaic 'dust from the earth'; LXX 'taking dust from the earth'), given only in Latin rendering — no Hebrew or Greek script printed. 1 Cor 15:47 ('the first man, of the earth, earthy'). Page breaks at 'cùm'; signature 'E E'. RESUME next batch at PDF 443 with 'cùm [dixit]...'. ↩
  7. Page header: 'COMMENTARIORVM 402.' 'Primus homo de terra terrenus' = 1 Cor 15:47. Glyphs magnified and verified: Hebrew אדם (Adam) and אדמה (Adamah, 'ground'); Greek γηγενής (earth-born) and πρωτόπλαστος (first-formed), the double epithet of Wisdom 7:1. ↩
  8. Glyph magnified and verified: Hebrew ויצר (vayyitser, 'and he formed,' from the potter's root yatsar). Augustine, De civitate Dei 13.24. Introduces the Augustine block-quote. ↩
  9. Augustine, De civitate Dei 13.24. The 'fountain' is Gen 2:6; the slime (limus) understood as earth concreted with moisture. ↩
  10. Pererius notes that the extant LXX has the participle 'taking' (λαβών), absent from Augustine's citation. ↩
  11. Augustine, De civitate Dei 13.24. Greek glyph magnified and verified: ἔπλασεν ('he molded/formed,' from πλάσσω — the verb of Gen 2:7 LXX). The Latin pun: fingere = both 'to fashion' and 'to feign.' ↩
  12. Glyph magnified and verified: Hebrew עפר (ʿaphar, 'dust'). 2 Kings 23:6 (Josiah); Gen 13:16; Exod 32:20 (the golden calf). God as potter; the Vulgate's 'limus' (slime) vs. the Hebrew 'aphar' (dust). Page breaks; catchword 'purum' (= purum pulverem). ↩
  13. Page header: 'IN GENESIM, LIB. IIII. 403.' Slime = dust mixed with water (potters' material); the reminder of human mortality. Introduces the Rupert (De Trinitate 2.20) block-quote. ↩
  14. Rupert of Deutz, De Trinitate 2.20. The chain of potter-texts: Isa 64:8; Jer 18:6 (the potter's wheel); Isa 45:9; Rom 9:20–21 ('vessels of honor and dishonor'). ↩
  15. Margin: 'Quaestio Ruperti.' Introduces Rupert's question (why God made man rather than simply replacing the fallen Angels). ↩
  16. Rupert's question (De Trinitate 2.20): why a new and earthly race rather than more Angels, and why from a single man. ↩
  17. Pererius's answer: man was made for his own sake (the noblest of corporeal beings), not merely to fill the angelic ranks. Page breaks; catchword 'genera' (= generales gradus, on p. 404). ↩
  18. Page header: 'COMMENTARIORVM 404.' The three grades of nature (incorporeal / corporeal / the human mean); why man was formed from earth (predominance of earth in the body). ↩
  19. Margin: 'Originem hominis è terra etiam Gentibus fuisse notam.' Introduces the Ovid (Metamorphoses 1) verses. ↩
  20. Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.78–88 (with vv. 87–88 added beyond the earlier citation on p. 360). 'Son of Iapetus' = Prometheus. ↩
  21. Margin: 'De Prometheo, poëtarum figmentum.' The Prometheus myth (body of clay, soul of stolen fire). Introduces the Virgil line. ↩
  22. Virgil, Aeneid 6.730–731 (margin 'Virgilius libr. 6. Aeneid.'). ↩
  23. Margin: 'Error Avicennae.' The 'Prometheus = providence' etymology; Lucretius 5 (Epicurean spontaneous generation); Avicenna's error (spontaneous generation of man), refuted in Pererius's own De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis et affectionibus, bk. 8. ↩
  24. Margin: 'Duobus modis intelligi posse hominem è terra factum.' Two readings of 'from the earth' (earth/water only, with air & fire added; or a full four-element mixture named from its dominant part). Page breaks; catchword 'vocabu' (= vocabulo limi). ↩
  25. Page header: 'IN GENESIM, LIB. IIII. 405.' Margin: 'Caietanus in Genesim.' The slime named from earth and water (greater mass, though air and fire are greater in power); the fineness of the earth required for a well-tempered, erect body. ↩
  26. Margin: 'An in compositionem corporis humani veniat aliquid ex natura caelesti.' The Platonist/astral 'fifth essence' in the body (the luminous vehicle of the soul) refuted: the incorruptible heavens cannot enter a mortal mixture (Aristotle's doctrine of mixture); Aristotle, De generatione animalium 2.3 calls vital heat 'celestial' only by analogy. Section ends; catchword 'DISPV' (= Disputatio); signature 'EE 3'. RESUME next batch at PDF 447 with a new Disputatio. ↩