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

And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Virago, because she was taken from man. CHAPTER 2, VERSE 23

LatineEnglish

And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Virago, because she was taken from man. CHAPTER 2, VERSE 23.1

Dixítque Adam: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, & caro de carne mea: haec vocabitur Virago, quoniam de viro sumpta est. CAPITE 2. VERS. 23.

EXPERRECTVS Adam, spiritu prophetico quo in illo somno & ecstasi fuerat afflatus, nec modò viderat rem quae tunc in ipso gesta fuerat, sed abditissimum etiam & diuinum eius rei mysteriú, erupit in eam quá posuimus sententiam, quamq́; hoc loco explanaturi sumus. Pro illo, Nunc, alij legút Semel: vox Hebraea propriè significat, Hac vice. Sed cur dixit Adam, Hoc núc os ex ossibus meis? Audiat lector absurdissimam Thalmudistarum interpretationem, quam apud solum equidem legi Tostatum, in Commentariis eius super caput 13. libri Geneseos, quaestion. 404. Dixerunt illi, Adam habuisse alteram vxorem ante Euam, cui nomen erat Lilis, & cum ea fuisse per centum triginta annos, nec eo tempore genuisse ex ea homines aliquos, sed generasse tamen daemones.
Adam, awakened, by the prophetic spirit with which in that sleep and ecstasy he had been inspired, had seen not only the thing which was then done in him, but also the most hidden and divine mystery of that matter, and burst forth into that sentence which we have set down, and which we are here about to explain. For “Now,” others read “Once” (Semel): the Hebrew word properly signifies “This time.” But why did Adam say, “This now is bone of my bones”? Let the reader hear the most absurd interpretation of the Talmudists, which I have read only in Tostatus, in his Commentaries on chapter 13 of the book of Genesis, question 404. They said that Adam had another wife before Eve, whose name was Lilis (Lilith), and that he was with her for a hundred and thirty years, and in that time begot no men from her, but yet generated demons.2
Quis non rideat has Iudaeorum nugas, figmenta, & deliraméta, vel etiam aduersus diuinam Scripturam blasphemias? Nullam enim cum Adamo fuisse mulierem ante procreationem Euae, manifestum facit narratio Mosis, indicans necessarium fuisse generari Euam, quòd nullum esset Adamo adiutorium simile ipsi: non [fuisset...]
Who would not laugh at these trifles, figments, and ravings of the Jews — or even blasphemies against divine Scripture? For that there was no woman with Adam before the procreation of Eve, the narration of Moses makes manifest, indicating that it was necessary that Eve be generated, because there was no helper like to Adam himself: there would not [have been...] [continues]3
[...non] fuisset autem opus generatione Euae, si Adam aliam priorem habuisset vxorem. Deinde statim vt Paradiso eiectus est Adam, cognouit vxorem suam Euam, ex eáque suscepit duos liberos, priorem quidem Cain, posteriorem autem Abel, vt traditur in quarto capite libri Geneseos: falsum igitur est, Adam per centum triginta annos non attigisse Euam. Iam verò cuius est amentiae daemones putare ex Adamo & illa priori vxore generatos esse? Ex viro enim & foemina non nisi homo generari potest; daemon autem cùm sit incorporeus, certè carnem & ossa non habeat, & diuersae speciei sit, quinetiam generis [diuersi...]
[...there would not] have been any need of the generation of Eve, if Adam had had another prior wife. Then, as soon as Adam was cast out of Paradise, he knew his wife Eve, and from her received two children — the elder, indeed, Cain, but the later, Abel — as is delivered in the fourth chapter of the book of Genesis: it is false, therefore, that Adam for a hundred and thirty years did not touch Eve. Now, of what madness is it to think that demons were generated from Adam and that prior wife? For from man and woman nothing but a man can be generated; but the demon, since it is incorporeal, certainly has no flesh and bones, and is of a different species — nay, of a different gen[us...] [continues]4
[...quinetiam generis diuersi] atque homo, generationem & originem ex hominibus habere nullo modo potest. ERGO illud Nunc dupliciter potest accipi: primò vt referatur ad animalia quae Deus adduxit ad Adam, in quibus nullum ille reperit sui simile. Illud enim, Os ex ossibus meis, & caro ex carne mea, denotat similitudinem speciei ex materiae corporis humani similitudine petitam. Cùm autem Adam vidit mulierem sibi secundùm naturam similem, dixit, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis: quasi diceret, Domine Deus, quae prius ad me adduxisti animalia non erant mihi similia, haec autem mulier quam nunc ad me adduxisti est planè similis mei. Potest etiam illud Nunc referri ad formationem primae mulieris ex costa Adami, vt sit hic sensus: Haec mulier nunc, id est, hac prima vice, sic formata est, ex viro scilicet: nam quae deinceps futurae sunt mulieres, earum nulla sic generabitur, sed per naturalem tantùm generationem [ex mare...]
[...nay, of a different gen]us than man, and can in no way have generation and origin from men. Therefore that “Now” can be taken in two ways: first, that it be referred to the animals which God led to Adam, among which he found none like himself. For that, “Bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” denotes a likeness of species, sought from the likeness of the matter of the human body. But when Adam saw a woman like to himself according to nature, he said, “This now is bone of my bones”: as if he said, Lord God, the animals which Thou earlier didst lead to me were not like me, but this woman whom Thou hast now led to me is plainly like me. That “Now” can also be referred to the formation of the first woman from Adam's rib, so that this be the sense: This woman now — that is, on this first occasion — was thus formed, namely from a man: for of the women who shall hereafter exist, none will be so generated, but only by natural generation [from male...] [continues]5
[...sed per naturalem tantùm generationem ex mare] & foemina. Illud autem, Ex ossibus meis, pluraliter dictum est pro Ex osse meo, non enim Adae nisi os vnum est ablatum; sed abusus numeri pluralis pro singulari, & vicissim singularis pro plurali, frequens est in Scriptura.
[...but only by natural generation from male] and female. But that, “Of my bones,” is said in the plural for “Of my bone,” for only one bone was taken from Adam; but the use of the plural number for the singular, and in turn of the singular for the plural, is frequent in Scripture.6

But hear how Cajetan, persisting in his commentary and opinion which we expounded above, interprets these words: “Manifestly,” he says, “Moses by these words indicated at once the woman's nature and her production. For any woman, since she is a damaged man, is bone of virile bones, and flesh of virile flesh. For the virile seed intends to produce a man; but a defect intervening, since it is not able to make a whole man, it makes a damaged man — that is, a woman: wherefore the woman is bone of the intended bones of the man, and flesh of the intended virile flesh. It is said in the plural, ‘of bones,’ that it may be signified that the least of virile strength is preserved in the woman. It is said in the singular, ‘Of my flesh,’ that it may be signified that, although the woman's flesh is more imperfect than the man's, yet her carnal affection is not less — nay rather, so much the greater as it is joined to a lesser strength of body.”7

VERVM audi quemadmodum Caietanus, suae quam supra exposuimus insistens commentationi ac sententiae, haec verba interpretetur: Manifestè, inquit, Moses his verbis mulieris naturam simul & productionem indicauit. Mulier enim qualibet, cum sit vir laesus, est os de ossibus virilibus, & caro de carne virili. Intendit enim virile semen producere virum: sed defectu interueniente, cùm non valeat facere virum integrum, facit virum laesum, hoc est, mulierem: quare mulier est os de ossibus viri intentis, & caro de carne virili intenta. Dicitur autem pluraliter, ex ossibus, vt significetur minimum virilis roboris seruari in muliere. Dicitur autem singulariter, De carne mea, vt significetur, quamuis imperfectior sit caro mulieris quàm viri, non tamen minorem esse carnalem eius affectum, immo verò tanto maiorem quanto minori corporis robori coniunctus est.

Verùm haec, praeter falsitatem & absurditatem sententiae vnde fluxerunt, etiam ipsa tam obscura, perplexa, dura, & violenta eorum tractatio, meras esse nugas & Caietani figmenta declarat. CIRCA illa verba, Haec vocabitur virago, quia de viro sumpta est, sciédum est consonantiam & conuenientiam huius denominationis mulieris ex viro cum re ipsa quae gesta est — quia mulier scilicet de viro [sumpta...]
But these things, besides the falsity and absurdity of the opinion whence they flowed, even their very treatment — so obscure, perplexed, hard, and violent — declares them to be mere trifles and figments of Cajetan. Concerning those words, “She shall be called Virago, because she was taken from man,” it must be known that the consonance and agreement of this derivation of “woman” from “man” with the very thing that was done — because the woman, namely, was taken from man — [continues]8
[...quia mulier scilicet de viro sumpta est], in sola Hebraea lingua manifestè cerni. In ea quippe vir dicitur אִישׁ Is; mulier verò vnius duntaxat litterae adiectione appellatur אִשָּׁה Issah, vt sicut mulier sumpta est ex viro, ita nomen mulieris ex viri nomine ductum sit: velut si Latinè mulier diceretur Vira, quod ex viro sumpta sit. Nam Virago, quod nomen in sua versione posuit Hieronymus, in vsu Latinae linguae nó significat simpliciter & praecisè mulierem, sed mulierem fortem, prudentem, magnanimam, virilíque animo & virtute praeditam. Nec benè Pagninus in sua tráslatione posuit Virissam: nam si nomen fingere libebat, satius erat po-[nere...]
[...because the woman, namely, was taken from man], is manifestly seen in the Hebrew tongue alone. For in it the man is called אִישׁ (Is); but the woman, by the addition of only one letter, is named אִשָּׁה (Issah) — so that, just as the woman was taken from the man, so the name of the woman is derived from the name of the man: as if in Latin the woman were called “Vira,” because she was taken from “vir.” For “Virago,” which name Jerome put in his version, in the usage of the Latin language does not simply and precisely signify a woman, but a woman who is strong, prudent, magnanimous, and endowed with a virile spirit and virtue. Nor did Pagninus do well to put “Virissa” in his translation: for if he wished to coin a name, it was better to pu[t...] [continues]9
[...satius erat po]nere Vira quàm Virissa. Symmachus autem pulchrè voluit etymologiam Hebraicá etiam in Graeco aemulari; nam vt refert Hieronymus in lib. de Traditionibus Hebraicis in Genesim, ita vertit: Ipsa vocabitur ἀνδρίς, quòd ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς sumpta sit. Porró, Theodotion aliam etymologiam suspicatus est dicens: Haec vocabitur Assumptio, quia ex viro sumpta est. Potest enim vox Issah, secundùm varietatem accentus, etiam significare assumptionem. Sic ferè Hieronymus. Sed periti linguae Hebraeae negant vsquam reperiri vocem Issa significare assumptionem. At verò LXX. Interpretes qui hoc loco transtulerunt, Ipsa vocabitur γυνή, quia ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς sumpta est, nullam denominationis foeminae ex viro rationem aperuerunt. Sapienter autem huiusmodi nomen mulieri est impositum, vt mulierum quaeque disceret ex sui nominis notione ac significatione, quátopere virum obseruare ac reuereri deberet, nimirum vt suae principium & seminariú substantiae.
[...it was better to pu]t “Vira” than “Virissa.” But Symmachus beautifully wished to emulate the Hebrew etymology even in Greek; for, as Jerome reports in the book On Hebrew Traditions on Genesis, he thus rendered: “She shall be called ἀνδρίς (andris), because she was taken ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς (from the man).” Furthermore, Theodotion suspected another etymology, saying: “She shall be called Assumption, because she was taken from man.” For the word “Issah,” according to a variety of accent, can also signify “assumption.” So, nearly, Jerome. But those skilled in the Hebrew tongue deny that the word “Issa” is anywhere found to signify “assumption.” But the Seventy Interpreters, who translated this place “She shall be called γυνή (gynē, woman), because she was taken ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς (from the man),” opened no reason of the woman's derivation from the man. But wisely was such a name imposed upon the woman, that each of women might learn, from the notion and signification of her name, how greatly she ought to observe and revere the man — namely, as the principle and seedbed of her substance.10

Translator’s notes

  1. Lemma (Gen 2:23), Adam's first words on seeing Eve. ↩
  2. Decorated initial 'E.' Adam, by prophetic ecstasy, saw the deed and its mystery and uttered the verse. 'Now' (Heb. 'this time'; some read Semel, 'once'). The 'most absurd' Talmudic legend (via Tostatus, Gen 13 q.404): Adam's first wife Lilith, 130 years, begetting only demons. Marginal gloss: 'Absurda Thalmudistarum opinio.' ↩
  3. Pererius derides the Lilith legend as Jewish trifling, even blasphemy: Moses' narrative shows no woman was with Adam before Eve (Eve was needed precisely because no fit helper existed). Page breaks at catchword 'non fuisset.' ↩
  4. The Lilith tale refuted: Eve would be needless had Adam a prior wife; and after the expulsion Adam knew Eve and begot Cain and Abel (Gen 4), so the '130 years' claim is false. And demons cannot be begotten of man and woman (only a man can be), the demon being incorporeal, of another species. ↩
  5. Two senses of 'Now' (hoc nunc): (1) contrasting Eve with the animals just paraded — they were unlike Adam, she is like him ('bone of my bones' = likeness of species); (2) 'on this first occasion' — Eve uniquely formed from a man, all later women being by ordinary generation from male and female. ↩
  6. 'Of my bones' (plural) stands for 'of my bone' (one rib only taken) — the plural-for-singular idiom being common in Scripture. ↩
  7. Cajetan block-quote (his allegorical reading of Gen 2:23): woman as the 'damaged man' (vir laesus) of failed male seed; 'of bones' (plural) = the least virile strength kept in her; 'of my flesh' (singular) = her flesh weaker but her carnal appetite stronger. Marginal gloss: 'Caietani commentitia interpretatio.' ↩
  8. Pererius dismisses Cajetan's reading as obscure, forced trifling. Turns to the etymology of 'Virago, because taken from vir': the woman-from-man wordplay. Page breaks at catchword 'sumpta.' Marginal gloss: 'Denominationem mulieris ex viro, in sola Hebraea lingua cerni.' ↩
  9. The woman-from-man pun survives only in Hebrew: man = אִישׁ (ish), woman = אִשָּׁה (ishshah), differing by one added letter. Latin 'Vira' from 'vir' would capture it. Jerome's 'Virago' means a manly/heroic woman, not just 'woman'; Pagninus' coinage 'Virissa' is faulted ('Vira' better). GLYPHS verified by magnification: אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה. Marginal gloss: 'Denominationem mulieris ex viro, in sola Hebraea lingua cerni.' ↩
  10. The versions on the pun: Symmachus coined Greek ἀνδρίς from ἀνήρ/ἀνδρός (matching Hebrew); Theodotion read 'Assumption' (Issah by accent = 'taking'), which Hebrew experts reject; the LXX's γυνή loses the derivation entirely. The name teaches the woman to revere the man as her source. GLYPHS verified: ἀνδρίς (Symmachus), ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς (×2), γυνή (LXX). Marginal gloss: 'Symmachus.' ↩