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

QUESTION V. How from a rib the whole mass of the female body could be formed

LatineEnglish

QUESTION V. How from a rib the whole mass of the female body could be formed.1

QVAESTIO V. Quomodo ex costa tota moles corporis muliebris formari potuerit.

ILLVD etiam quaeritur, quo modo ex vna illa costa Adae tanta moles corporis muliebris conflari potuerit, siquidem Eua perfectam habens staturam corporis & aetatem generata est? Hugo de Sancto Victore, libro 1. de Sacramentis, & Magister sententiarum in secundo distinctione 18, atque ibi Durandus & Gabriel arbitrati sunt, costam illam Adami non per rarefactionem, nec per additionem externae materiae, sed per solam multiplicationem sui ipsius, infinita Dei virtute factam, in tantùm fuisse auctam, vt efficiendo corpori mulieris sufficeret. Namque si extrinsecus assumpta fuisset materia, & ad illam costam adiuncta, fuisset vtique materia illa maior quàm costa, ob idque veriùs diceretur Eua esse formata ex illa materia quàm ex illa costa: quod [est...]
It is also asked how from that one rib of Adam so great a mass of the female body could be wrought together, since Eve was generated having a perfect bodily stature and age. Hugh of St. Victor, in the first book On the Sacraments, and the Master of the Sentences in the second book, distinction eighteen, and there Durandus and Gabriel, thought that that rib of Adam — not by rarefaction, nor by the addition of external matter, but by the sole multiplication of itself, wrought by the infinite power of God — was so far increased that it sufficed for making the woman's body. For if matter had been taken from without, and joined to that rib, that matter would assuredly have been greater than the rib, and on that account it would more truly be said that Eve was formed from that matter than from that rib: which [is...] [continues]2
[...quod] est tamen contra Scripturam & Patrum doctrinam. VERVM hanc opinionem meritò confutat & reiicit S. Thomas prima parte, quaestione 92, non vt improbabilem modò, sed etiam vt minimè intelligibilem secúmque pugnantem. Non enim mens capere, nedum Fides admittere potest, aliquid ex minori fieri maius, nisi alterutro duorum modorum: vel per solam extensionem quantitatis, vt contingit in rarefactione; vel per accessionem & additioné nouae materiae, vt fit in accretione: extra hos duos modos, multiplicari aliquid vt ex minori fiat maius, neque credi neque fieri potest.
[...which] is nevertheless against Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers. But St. Thomas deservedly confutes and rejects this opinion, in the first part, question 92, not only as improbable, but even as scarcely intelligible and self-contradictory. For the mind cannot grasp — much less can Faith admit — that something becomes greater from smaller, except in one of two ways: either by the mere extension of quantity, as happens in rarefaction; or by the accession and addition of new matter, as happens in growth. Outside these two modes, that anything be multiplied so as to become greater from smaller can neither be believed nor done.3
Costa autem illa non fuit aucta per rarefactionem: sic enim corpus mulieris non fuisset ita plenum, densum, crassum, solidum, firmúmque, vt esse debet secundùm naturam; nec ex illa vna costa tantùm per rarefactionem amplificata potuissent fieri vigintiquatuor costae, quibus corpus muliebre constructum est, aliáque ossa foeminei corporis tantae soliditatis & firmitudinis, quanta scilicet in humano corpore ea pollere necesse est. RELINQVITVR igitur costam illam in tantam materiae molem, quanta sufficeret fabricando corpori mulieris, esse auctam non aliter quàm per additionem nouae materiae: quae quidem materia vel tunc de nihilo creata est, vt visum est B. Thomae; vel (quod magis placuit Tostato) sumpta est ex terra alióve aliquo corpore, conuersáque est in corpus mulieris. Verisimile enim est Deum in exordio mundi tantum materiae primae simul creasse, quantum sciebat satis [futurum...]
But that rib was not increased by rarefaction: for thus the woman's body would not have been so full, dense, thick, solid, and firm as it ought to be according to nature; nor from that one rib alone, amplified by rarefaction, could the twenty-four ribs have been made of which the female body is constructed, and the other bones of the female body of such solidity and firmness as must needs prevail in the human body. It remains, therefore, that that rib was increased into so great a mass of matter — as much as would suffice for fashioning the woman's body — in no other way than by the addition of new matter: which matter either was then created from nothing, as it seemed to St. Thomas; or (which pleased Tostatus more) was taken from earth or some other body, and converted into the woman's body. For it is likely that God, in the beginning of the world, created at once as much prime matter as He knew would be eno[ugh...] [continues]4
[...quantum sciebat satis futurum] omnibus operibus efficiendis quae ipse designauerat. Dupliciter autem opinari possumus materiam illam esse additá ad costam Adami, & concurrisse ad formationem corporis Euae: aut immediatè, vt ex ipsa scilicet & Adami costa compingeretur corpus Euae; aut mediatè, vt illa materia primò conuerteretur in costam Adami tantae molis, vt perficiendo mulieris corpori satis esset, & túc ex illa costa fabricaretur corpus Euae: atque hic vterque modus satis est probabilis. Nam quod Hugo de S. Victore & Magister sententiarum contra priorem modum obiiciunt, fore vt corpus mulieris verius diceretur factú ex illa materia quàm ex costa Adami, quòd materia illa longè maior esset quàm costa viri, id facilè est diluere. Propterea enim primas partes deferri costae Adami, quòd ea primò & principaliter electa & assumpta sit à Deo ad formationem corporis Euae, caetera verò materies tanquam quid adiectitium & accessorium adhibita sit. Quemadmodum multiplicatio illa quinque [panum...]
[...as much as He knew would be enough] for accomplishing all the works which He had designed. And we can opine in two ways that that matter was added to Adam's rib and concurred in the formation of Eve's body: either immediately, so that, namely, from it and Adam's rib together the body of Eve was compacted; or mediately, so that that matter was first converted into a rib of Adam of so great a mass that it would suffice for completing the woman's body, and then from that rib the body of Eve was fashioned: and each of these ways is probable enough. For as to what Hugh of St. Victor and the Master of the Sentences object against the former way — that the woman's body would more truly be said made from that matter than from Adam's rib, since that matter was far greater than the man's rib — this is easy to dissolve. For the first place is given to Adam's rib because it was first and principally chosen and assumed by God for the formation of Eve's body, while the rest of the matter was employed as something added and accessory. Just as that multiplication of the five [loaves...] [continues]5
[...Quemadmodum multiplicatio illa quinque] panum facta est à Domino per additionem materiae, quae proculdubio longè maior fuit quàm materia & substantia quinque panum, nihilominus tamen verissimè dicitur multiplicationem illam ex quinque panibus hordiaceis esse factam, quoniam illi primò & principaliter ad id destinati & adhibiti à Domino sunt.
[...Just as that multiplication of the five] loaves was done by the Lord by the addition of matter — which doubtless was far greater than the matter and substance of the five loaves — nevertheless it is most truly said that that multiplication was made from the five barley loaves, because they were first and principally destined and employed for it by the Lord.6

Translator’s notes

  1. Fifth question of the disputation. ↩
  2. Decorated initial 'I.' How one rib became a whole female body (Eve generated full-grown). One view (Hugh of St Victor, de Sacr. 1; Peter Lombard, Sent. II d.18; Durandus, Gabriel Biel): the rib was multiplied out of itself by God's infinite power, not by rarefaction or added matter — else Eve would be said made from the added matter, not the rib. Page breaks at catchword 'est.' ↩
  3. Aquinas (ST I q.92) refutes the 'self-multiplying rib' as unintelligible: a thing can grow only by rarefaction or by added matter — nothing becomes greater from smaller otherwise. Marginal gloss: 'Refellitur praedicta opinio.' ↩
  4. Not rarefaction (the body would be too thin; one rib can't yield 24 solid ribs). So the rib grew only by added matter — either created from nothing (Aquinas) or taken from earth and converted (Tostatus' preference); likely God made enough prime matter at the start for all His works. Marginal gloss: 'Costá Adami per additioné nouae materiae, sufficienté fuisse formandae mulieri.' ↩
  5. Two probable ways the added matter joined the rib: immediately (compacted together), or mediately (first becoming a larger rib, then Eve). Hugh's/Lombard's objection (the body would be 'from the matter,' not the rib) dissolved: the rib has primacy as God's first-chosen material, the rest accessory. ↩
  6. The analogy: the feeding of the five thousand (John 6) added far more matter than the loaves contained, yet is truly called a multiplication 'from the five loaves' — because they were the principal, God-chosen starting material. So too Eve 'from the rib.' Catchword 'QVAE' opens Question VI. ↩