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 VI. Whether that rib was necessary to the integrity of Adam's body, or superfluous

LatineEnglish

QUESTION VI. Whether that rib was necessary to the integrity of Adam's body, or superfluous.1

QVAESTIO VI. An illa costa fuerit necessaria integritati corpori Adae, an superuacanea.

CONTROVERSVM est, An illa costa detracta Adamo fuerit ex costis necessariis integritati corporis humani: tradunt enim Physiologi & Medici corpus nostrum vigintiquatuor costis, duodenis vtrouis in latere, esse constructum & coagmentatum. An verò fuerit illa costa redundans & superuacanea, verbi gratia, vt Adam in sinistro latere tredecim costas habuerit: vtrouis autem modo dicatur, videtur res absurda. Si enim illa costa fuit ex necessariis costis, ergo post eius detractionem Adam fuit mutilus, mancus & imperfectus; sin autem superuacanea erat, ergo Adam creatus est monstrosus & deformis, habens scilicet vno latere plures costas quàm altero, quod erat insigne quid ad deformitatem, nó minus certè quàm si factus esset biceps, aut tripes, aut vtraque vel alterutra manu senos habens digitos. Hugo de S. Victore non modò facilem explicatu putauit hanc quaestionem, sed etiam perquàm leuem & futilem. Hoc, inquit, quaerere friuolum est: quia nec dentes puerorum qui posteà [mutantur...]
It is controverted whether the rib removed from Adam was one of the ribs necessary to the integrity of the human body: for the physiologists and physicians teach that our body is constructed and framed of twenty-four ribs, twelve on either side. Or whether that rib was redundant and superfluous — for example, that Adam had thirteen ribs on the left side: but said in either way, the thing seems absurd. For if that rib was among the necessary ribs, then after its removal Adam was mutilated, maimed, and imperfect; but if it was superfluous, then Adam was created monstrous and deformed, having, namely, more ribs on one side than on the other — which was a notable thing toward deformity, no less certainly than if he had been made two-headed, or three-footed, or having six fingers on each or on one of his hands. Hugh of St. Victor thought this question not only easy to explain, but even quite slight and futile. “It is frivolous,” he says, “to ask this: because neither are children's teeth which are afterward [changed...] [continues]2
[...quia nec dentes puerorum qui posteà] mutantur dicuntur superflui, nec ipsimet, quamuis nondum habeás iustum naturae augmentum, diminuti iudicantur. Sed profectò maiorem esse, Hugonis opinione, quaestionis huius difficultatem, ex his quae mox disputabimus satis intelligemus. EST igitur communis Theologorum sententia, costam illam partim fuisse superuacaneam Adae, partim necessariam. Superuacaneam quidem, si consideretur Adam vt singularis quidam homo & persona particularis: si enim iusto costarum numero supererat illa costa, ad integritatem scilicet corporis Adae minimè pertinens. Sin autem consideretur Adam vt erat primus homo futurúsque principium totius generis humani, & ex quo formanda erat Eua, necessaria fuit illa costa, non quidem simpliciter nec secundùm naturalem ordinem & rationem (potuit enim aliundè formari Eua), sed tantummodo secundùm Dei electionem & ordinationem, qui ex Adami costa corpus Euae [fabricare...]
[...because neither are children's teeth which are afterward] changed called superfluous, nor are they themselves, although they do not yet have the just increase of nature, judged diminished.” But assuredly that the difficulty of this question is greater than in Hugh's opinion, we shall sufficiently understand from the things we shall presently dispute. It is therefore the common opinion of the Theologians that that rib was partly superfluous to Adam, partly necessary. Superfluous, indeed, if Adam be considered as a certain singular man and particular person: for that rib was over and above the just number of ribs, pertaining, namely, not at all to the integrity of Adam's body. But if Adam be considered as he was the first man and the future principle of the whole human race, and from whom Eve was to be formed, that rib was necessary — not, indeed, simply, nor according to natural order and reason (for Eve could have been formed from elsewhere), but only according to the choice and ordination of God, who had determined to fashion the body of Eve from Adam's rib.3
[...qui ex Adami costa corpus Euae fabricare] constituerat. Hanc sententiam idam Theologi confirmant, vel potius declarant atque illustrant, exemplo seminis virilis, quod quidem homini, vt est quoddam indiuiduum, superuacaneum est, at generandae proli necessarium est. SED enim responsio haec non exsoluit penitus difficultaté. Saltem concedere habeant illi, Adamum, vt erat persona quaedam particularis, fuisse monstrosum, quippe qui plures vno latere costas haberet quàm fert natura corporis humani: hoc autem videtur absurdum.
[...who had determined to fashion the body of Eve from Adam's rib]. The Theologians confirm this opinion — or rather declare and illustrate it — by the example of the male seed, which to a man, as he is a certain individual, is superfluous, but for generating offspring is necessary. But this response does not entirely loose the difficulty. At the least, they must concede that Adam, as he was a certain particular person, was monstrous, since he would have more ribs on one side than the nature of the human body bears: and this seems absurd.4
Neque absurditatem eleuat aut minuit, quod ex illa costa superflua generanda esset Eua. Non enim si Adam factus esset biceps aut tripes, quamuis ex altero illorum capitum, aut ex vno illorum trium pedum voluisset Deus Euam facere, non fuisset tamen propterea Adam non monstrosus. Nec iuuat istorum opinionem allatum seminis exemplum: siquidem longè diuersa ratio est seminis atque illius costae. Etenim semen naturaliter generatur in homine, & per se datum est à natura ad generationem hominis, nec est pars integralis hominis, nec propter ipsum dicitur homo aliqua ratione monstrosus: Illa ve-[rò...]
Nor does it raise or lessen the absurdity that Eve was to be generated from that superfluous rib. For if Adam had been made two-headed or three-footed, although God had willed to make Eve from one of those heads, or from one of those three feet, Adam would nevertheless not on that account fail to be monstrous. Nor does the adduced example of the seed help their opinion: since the reckoning of the seed and of that rib is far different. For the seed is naturally generated in man, and is of itself given by nature for the generation of man, nor is it an integral part of man, nor is a man called monstrous in any respect on its account: but that ri[b...] [continues]5
[...Illa ve]rò costa praeter naturam erat Adae, nec per se referebatur ad formationem mulieris, sed ex sola Dei electione, qui tamen vt ex costa sic ex alia qualibet materia Euam procreare potuisset. ERGO, probabilius dici posset (sequendo hanc opinionem) costam illam simpliciter fuisse superuacuam Adae secundùm eius naturam, & si in eo permansisset, proculdubio Adamum deformem ac monstrosum reddidisset. Nam vt quaeque res optimè fieri apta est, sic fit natura, vt Aristoteles disputat in libro 2. Physicorum text. 78. & vt quaeque res fit à natura, sic ea optimè fieri apta est: natura autem vel nunquam vel rarissimè, & tunc non nisi per accidens & per errorem & defectum virtutis generantis, plures costas facit quàm humani corporis constitutio & constructio postulat. Erat igitur superflua illa costa Adae. Nec tamen deformem reddidit Adam, quia latebat sub carne decenter cum reliquis costis composita & concinnata, [vt...]
[...but that ri]b was beyond nature for Adam, nor was it of itself referred to the formation of the woman, but by the sole choice of God — who, however, could have procreated Eve as from a rib, so from any other matter whatever. Therefore it could more probably be said (following this opinion) that that rib was simply superfluous to Adam according to his nature, and that, had it remained in him, it would doubtless have rendered Adam deformed and monstrous. For as each thing is apt to be made best, so nature makes it (as Aristotle disputes in the second book of the Physics, text 78); and as each thing is made by nature, so it is apt to be made best: but nature either never, or very rarely — and then only by accident and by error and defect of the generative power — makes more ribs than the constitution and construction of the human body demands. That rib, therefore, was superfluous to Adam. Yet it did not render Adam deformed, because it lay hidden beneath the flesh, decently composed and arranged with the other ribs, [so that...] [continues]6
[...vt] nullum redderet aspectum deformitatis, & quia breuissimo tempore eam gessit Adam, eaque detracta, deinceps per totam vitam iustum costarum numerum habuit, nulla ratione dici potest Adam fuisse monstrosus & praeter naturam hominis à Deo creatus, siquidem coelum etiam primò factum est imperfectum, videlicet sine astris & motu proprio: & lux Solis primo creata est informis & imperfecta: quin etiam mundus ipse cùm primò est conditus, erat vsquequaque tenebrosus, incompositus, & inordinatus. His adde, quod illa costa non fuit Adamo superfluè generata per errorem naturae, sed Dei voluntate & consilio, in formationem corporis muliebris ad necessarias Adae costas adiuncta. Et hac quidem ratione si communis haec Theologorum sententia explicetur, satis probabiliter teneri & facile defendi potest.
[...so that] it gave no appearance of deformity; and because Adam bore it for a very short time, and, it being removed, thereafter through his whole life had the just number of ribs, in no way can it be said that Adam was created monstrous and beyond the nature of man — since the heaven too was at first made imperfect, namely without stars and proper motion; and the light of the Sun was at first created formless and imperfect; nay, even the world itself, when first founded, was everywhere dark, uncomposed, and disordered. Add to these that that rib was not generated superfluously in Adam by an error of nature, but by the will and counsel of God, joined to Adam's necessary ribs for the formation of the woman's body. And by this reasoning, if this common opinion of the Theologians is explained, it can be held with sufficient probability and easily defended.7
CATHARINVS hoc loco propensior est in sententiam cuiusdam Doctoris, cuius nomen ipse tacet, affirmantis costam illam non fuisse superuacaneam Adae, sed fuisse vnam de costis ei necessariis, qua tamen detracta non remansit mutilus & mancus Adam, quia in locum costae detractae mox alia costa ei similis suffecta est, ita vt nec antè Adam habuerit costam aliquam superfluam, nec posteà caruerit aliqua de necessariis. Licèt enim Scriptura dicat, locum illius costae detractae impleuisse Deum carne, non est tamen intelligendum [solam...]
Catharinus in this place is more inclined to the opinion of a certain Doctor, whose name he himself is silent about, affirming that that rib was not superfluous to Adam, but was one of the ribs necessary to him — which, however, being removed, Adam did not remain mutilated and maimed, because in the place of the removed rib another rib similar to it was soon supplied; so that Adam neither beforehand had any superfluous rib, nor afterward lacked any of the necessary ones. For although Scripture says that God filled the place of that removed rib with flesh, it is nevertheless not to be understood [that only flesh...] [continues]8
[...non est tamen intelligendum] solam carnem esse substitutam, sed costam carne vestitam & contectam; certi tamen cuiusdam mysterij, quod nos suprà indicauimus, significandi causa, maluit Scriptura supplemétum illud appellare carnem quàm costam. Nam etiam Scriptura narrat, Deum sumpsisse ex Adamo costam vnde formaret Euam, nullum de carne verbú faciens, cùm tamé ex illis verbis Adami, Os ex ossibus meis, & caro ex carne mea, dubitari non possit quin simul cum costa caro etiam sumpta fuerit. Quod si animum aduertamus ad Scripturam Hebraicam, planè intelligemus id quod paulò supra monuimus, eo loco non significari [pro...]
[...it is nevertheless not to be understood] that only flesh was substituted, but a rib clothed and covered with flesh; yet for the sake of signifying a certain mystery, which we indicated above, Scripture preferred to call that supplement “flesh” rather than “rib.” For Scripture also narrates that God took from Adam a rib whence He might form Eve, making no word of flesh — although from those words of Adam, “Bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” it cannot be doubted that, together with the rib, flesh too was taken. But if we attend to the Hebrew Scripture, we shall plainly understand what we noted a little above: that in that place it is not signified [that for the rib...] [continues]9
[...eo loco non significari pro] costa suffectam esse carnem, sed carnem Adae ob detractionem costae hiátem & interruptam esse repletam, vel, vt est in Hebraeo, esse clausam & continuatam; quali autem re sit clausa & continuata, non exprimitur in Scriptura. Fuisse autem costam vnde facta est Eua ex necessariis costis Adae ad naturalem corporis eius constitutionem & integritatem pertinentibus, hunc in modum licet argumentari: Si fuisset illa costa superflua Adamo & extra naturam eius, non posset verè dici Euá esse formatá ex Adamo, nec verò dixisset Adam, Euam fuisse os de ossibus eius: costa enim illa non erat naturale & propriú eius os, sed quantum ad eum pertinebat, praeter naturam & per accidens & ad breuissimum tempus ei fuerat inditum. Certè ad significandam coniunctionem arctissimam Adami & Euae, & mulieris ex viro naturalem originem & dependentiam, congruentius & conuenientius erat formari Euam ex costa quae esset pars naturalis & neces-[saria...]
[...that in that place it is not signified that for the rib] flesh was substituted, but that the flesh of Adam, gaping and interrupted because of the removal of the rib, was filled up — or, as it is in the Hebrew, was closed and made continuous; but by what thing it is closed and made continuous is not expressed in Scripture. And that the rib whence Eve was made was one of Adam's necessary ribs, pertaining to the natural constitution and integrity of his body, may be argued in this way: If that rib had been superfluous to Adam and beyond his nature, it could not truly be said that Eve was formed from Adam, nor indeed would Adam have said that Eve was bone of his bones: for that rib was not his natural and proper bone, but, as far as concerned him, had been put in him beyond nature and by accident and for a very short time. Certainly, to signify the closest conjunction of Adam and Eve, and the woman's natural origin and dependence from the man, it was more congruous and fitting that Eve be formed from a rib which was a natural and neces[sary part...] [continues]10
[...pars naturalis & neces]saria Adamo, quàm quae esset superuacua & praeter naturam eius. AT enimuero, Tostatus q. 393. super c. 13. Gen. eam opinioné (ne quis recens putet esse huius téporis inuemtú) refellit his argumentis: Absurdú videri costam illá, si primo fuit de necessariis costis Adę & ad integritatem eius pertinens, ablatam fuisse Adamo, & in eius vicem repositá esse aliam costá, quae non fuerat ex primęua corporis Adami integritate. Sed leue est argumentú: breuissimo enim tépore priorem illam costam habuit Adam, & quę in eius locú successit & per totam vitá in Adamo permansit, similis eius omnino fuit, & vtriusque idem fuit opifex Deus; neutraq́; naturali modo, sed per omnipotentiá Dei supernaturali ratione facta & Adamo inserta est. Sanè quod de posteriori costa Tostatus opponit, idem aduersus eú posset obiici de carne quam Deus in locum costae detractae suffecit: ea siquidem ab initio non fuerat in Adamo, nec ad integritatem eius quicquam pertinebat. Nec verò firmum est alterum eiusdem Tostati argumentum: In [resurrectione...]
[...a natural and neces]sary part to Adam, than one which was superfluous and beyond his nature. But indeed, Tostatus (question 393 on chapter 13 of Genesis) refutes that opinion — lest anyone think it a recent invention of this time — with these arguments: that it seems absurd that that rib, if it was first among Adam's necessary ribs and pertaining to his integrity, was taken away from Adam, and in its stead another rib placed which had not been part of Adam's primeval bodily integrity. But the argument is light: for Adam had that prior rib for a very short time, and the one which succeeded in its place and remained in Adam through his whole life was entirely similar to it, and God was the maker of both — neither made in a natural manner, but by the omnipotence of God made and inserted in Adam by a supernatural manner. Indeed, what Tostatus objects concerning the later rib, the same could be objected against him concerning the flesh which God supplied in place of the removed rib: for that too was not in Adam from the beginning, nor did it pertain anything to his integrity. Nor indeed is the other argument of the same Tostatus firm: In [the resurrection...] [continues]11
[...In] resurrectione, inquit, vtri, Adamóne, an Euae redderetur ea costa quae detracta est Adamo, & ex qua formata est Eua, siquidem illa fuisset de costis Adamo necessariis? nam neque neutri reddéda est, nec vtrique reddi potest. Vtri igitur redderetur? Videtur quidem Adamo reddenda, quia ab initio fuit Adami vt pars eius integralis: contrà, videtur reddenda Euae, quod ex illa principaliter formata sit Eua. At si costa illa fuit Adamo superuacanea, nihil incommodi sequetur: non enim [Adamo...]
[...In] the resurrection, he says, to which of the two — Adam or Eve — would that rib be restored which was removed from Adam, and from which Eve was formed, if it had been among Adam's necessary ribs? For it must be restored to neither, and cannot be restored to both. To which, then, would it be restored? It seems indeed that it should be restored to Adam, because from the beginning it was Adam's as his integral part; on the contrary, it seems it should be restored to Eve, because Eve was principally formed from it. But if that rib was superfluous to Adam, no inconvenience will follow: for not [to Adam...] [continues]12
[...non enim Adamo] ad cuius integritatem minimè pertinebat, sed Euae cuius corpus ex illa formatum est, restituetur. Verùm facilis est huius argumentationis dissolutio: quae quidem valida esset, si loco eius costae quae detracta est, non esset alia planè aequiualens suffecta: cùm autem simul vt illa dempta est, altera sit eiusdem rationis subdita, inualidum est argumentum: dicimus enim costam illam in resurrectione, non Adamo, quippe qui loco eius alteram habuit, sed Euae cuius ex ea corpus conflatum est, esse reddendam. Si enim Tostatus contendat, quicquid vllo tempore fuit pars integralis alicuius, id totum in [resurrectione...]
[...for not to Adam], to whose integrity it pertained least, but to Eve, whose body was formed from it, will it be restored. But the dissolution of this argument is easy: it would indeed be valid, if in place of the rib that was removed no other quite equivalent had been supplied; but since, as soon as it was taken away, another of the same kind was put under it, the argument is invalid: for we say that that rib, in the resurrection, is to be restored not to Adam — who had another in its place — but to Eve, whose body was formed from it. For if Tostatus should contend that whatever at any time was an integral part of anyone, that whole, in [the resurrection...] [continues]13
[...id totum in] resurrectione reddi ei debere; resurgeret profectò corpus hominis enorme & monstrosum: quippe certum est partes carnis per totum vitae tempus, ab ortu scilicet vsque ad obitum, continenter fluere & deperdi, earúmque in locum alias & alias subinde per nutritionem aggenerari. Mihi quidem haec sententia, quae tantopere displicuit Tostato, valdè placet, nec aliud in ea praeter grauem aliquem & nobilem Auctorem desidero.
[...that whole, in] the resurrection, must be restored to him, then surely the human body would rise enormous and monstrous: for it is certain that the parts of the flesh, throughout the whole time of life — namely from birth even to death — continually flow and are lost, and in their place others and others are successively generated by nutrition. To me, indeed, this opinion, which so greatly displeased Tostatus, is very pleasing; nor do I desire anything in it except some grave and noble Author.14

Translator’s notes

  1. Sixth question of the disputation. ↩
  2. Decorated initial 'C.' The dilemma: the body has 24 ribs (12 a side). If Adam's removed rib was necessary, he was left maimed; if superfluous (e.g. a 13th on the left), he was created deformed/monstrous (like being two-headed or six-fingered). Hugh of St Victor calls the question frivolous (the analogy of children's milk-teeth begins). ↩
  3. End of Hugh's quote (milk-teeth: not 'superfluous'). Pererius: the difficulty is greater than Hugh allows. The common Theological view: the rib was partly superfluous (to Adam as an individual — a rib above the normal count), partly necessary (to Adam as head of the race and source of Eve — necessary not by nature but by God's free ordination). Marginal gloss: 'Prima opinio. illam costam fuisse Adamo superfluam.' ↩
  4. The Theologians illustrate the 'partly superfluous, partly necessary' view by the male seed (superfluous to the individual, necessary for offspring). Pererius objects (SED): this still leaves Adam, as an individual, monstrous (more ribs on one side) — which is absurd. Marginal gloss: 'Excutitur opinio.' Page breaks at catchword 'Neque' (signature OO 3). ↩
  5. Pererius presses the objection: making Eve from the superfluous part would not save Adam from being monstrous (a two-headed man is monstrous even if Eve came from one head). The Theologians' seed-analogy fails: the seed is natural and not an integral part, whereas the extra rib was beyond nature. ↩
  6. The defense of the 'superfluous rib' view: it was beyond Adam's nature, retained by God's free choice; had it stayed, Adam would have been deformed (nature, per Aristotle Phys. 2, makes things best, and produces extra ribs only by error). Yet hidden under the flesh it caused no visible deformity. Marginal gloss: 'Probabilior interpretatio firmiorúsque defensio supradictae opinionis.' ↩
  7. Adam not monstrous: the rib was hidden, borne briefly, then removed (leaving the normal count); and creation's other works were first made imperfect (heaven without stars, the Sun's light formless, the world dark and disordered); and the rib came by God's counsel, not nature's error. So defended, the common view holds. ↩
  8. The second opinion (Catharinus, following an unnamed Doctor): the rib WAS one of the necessary ribs, but God at once supplied a similar rib in its place — so Adam was never either deficient or excessive. Scripture's 'filled with flesh' is not to be taken as 'flesh only.' Marginal gloss: 'Altera opinio, fuisse illam costam ex necessariis costis Adae.' Page breaks at catchword 'solam.' ↩
  9. Reply: 'flesh' substituted means a rib clothed in flesh, not flesh alone; Scripture says 'flesh' (not 'rib') for a mystery's sake. As with the rib, so flesh was taken too ('flesh of my flesh'). The Hebrew clarifies the sense. Marginal gloss: 'Euam non ex nuda costa, sed etiam ex carne Adae esse factam.' ↩
  10. The Hebrew means Adam's gaping flesh was 'closed/made continuous,' not 'flesh substituted for the rib.' An argument that the rib was necessary: if superfluous, Eve could not truly be 'formed from Adam' nor 'bone of his bones'; and a necessary rib better signifies the close Adam–Eve bond. Marginal gloss: 'Egregia Argumentatio.' ↩
  11. Tostatus (quaest. 393 on Gen 13) objects: absurd that a necessary rib was swapped for a non-original one. Pererius rebuts: brief tenure, an identical replacement, both made supernaturally by the same God — and Tostatus' own point rebounds on the substituted flesh. A second Tostatus argument (the resurrection) is also weak. Marginal gloss: 'Tostati Argumentatio discutitur, contra praedictam opinionem.' ↩
  12. Tostatus' resurrection argument: if the rib was Adam's necessary part, whose is it at the resurrection? — owed to neither, restorable to both impossible; owed to Adam (his integral part) yet to Eve (formed principally from it). On the 'superfluous' view no such problem arises. Page breaks at catchword 'Adamo.' ↩
  13. Pererius answers the resurrection dilemma: the rib is restored to Eve (her body came from it), not Adam (who received a replacement). The dilemma would bite only if no equivalent rib had been supplied. ↩
  14. Tostatus' principle (every former part restored at the resurrection) would make the risen body monstrous, since flesh is continually lost and replaced by nutrition. Pererius endorses the 'necessary rib + replacement' view warmly — his only reservation is that it lacks a weighty patristic authority. ↩