A DISPUTATION. Whether the animals which are now carnivorous fed, at the beginning of the world, on flesh too, or on plants alone.¹

DISPVTATIO. Vtrum animalia quae nunc sunt carniuora, in exordio mundi etiam carnibus vescerentur, an solis plantis.

“Some,” he says, “say that the animals which are now ferocious and kill other animals would, in that state, have been tame — not only toward man, but also toward other animals. But this is altogether irrational. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, so that those to which it is now natural to eat the flesh of other animals would then have lived on herbs, like lions and falcons. Nor does the Gloss of Bede say, on Genesis 1, that the trees and the herb were given to all the animals and birds for food, but to some. There would, therefore, have been a natural discord among certain animals; nor, however, on account of [this would they be withdrawn...] [continues]³

Quidam, inquit, dicunt, quòd animalia quae nunc sunt ferocia & occidunt alia animalia, in statu illo fuissent mansueta, non solùm circa hominem, sed etiam circa alia animalia. Sed hoc est omnino irrationabile. Non enim per peccatum hominis natura animalium est mutata, vt quibus nunc naturale est comedere aliorum animalium carnes, tunc vixissent de herbis, sicut Leones & falcones. Nec Glossa Bedae dicit Genes. primo, quòd ligna & herba data sunt omnibus animalibus & auibus in cibum, sed quibusdam. Fuisset ergo naturalis discordia inter quaedam animalia: nec tamen propter [hoc subtraherentur...]

[...nor, however, on account of this would they be] withdrawn from the dominion of man: just as neither now, on account of this, are they withdrawn from the Dominion of God, by whose providence this whole is dispensed. And of this providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in domestic animals: for hens are supplied as food to domestic falcons by men. Thus St. Thomas.⁴

[...nec tamen propter hoc] subtraherentur dominio hominis: sicut nec nunc propter hoc subtrahuntur Dominio Dei, cuius prouidentia hoc totum dispensatur. Et huius prouidentiae homo executor fuisset, vt etiam nunc apparet in animalibus domesticis: ministrantur enim falconibus domesticis per homines gallinae in cibum. Haec S. Thomas.

From the opinion of Blessed Thomas, Cajetan is not far; whose words on this very place of Genesis which we now treat are these: “It is a difficult question concerning the carnivorous animals and many birds, in what way it is verified that food of fruits, seeds, and herbs was provided for them, as is said in the text. The solution is, that there is no animal which cannot live on these — as the provision made by Noah for the food of all the animals at the time of the flood testifies. But Moses was silent about the provision by which God also provided for animals of this kind that they should feed on flesh: because the appetite for flesh belongs to these animals not according to the nature common to them and the rest of the animals; because he was describing the common provision; wherefore, relatively to the common nature of living things, the appetite of feeding on flesh is found as if arising from a necessity of matter; and therefore it was rightly passed over in silence by Moses.” Thus Cajetan.⁵

A SENTENTIA beati Thomae non longè abest Caietanus; cuius super hoc ipso loco Geneseos quem nunc tractamus, haec sunt verba: Difficilis quaestio est de animalibus carniuoris & volucribus multis, qua pacto verificetur quod eis sit prouisum de alimento fructuum, seminum, & herbarum, vt in textu dicitur. Solutio est, nullum esse animal quod non possit ex his viuere, vt testatur prouisio facta à Noë pro victu animalium omnium tempore diluuij. Tacuit autem Moses prouisionem qua etiam prouisum est à Deo huiusmodi animalibus vt vescantur carnibus: eo quòd appetitus carnium competit istis animalibus non secundùm naturam communem illis & reliquis animalibus: quia ipse describebat prouisionem communem; quocirca relatiuè ad communem rationem animantium, appetitus vescendi carnibus tanquam ex necessitate materiae consurgens inuenitur: & propterea meritò tacitus est à Mose. Sic Caietanus.

The other opinion, contrary to this, is: that in the state of innocence and before the flood, the animals were wont to feed not on the flesh of other animals, but only on the things which the earth produced. This Bede thought, and affirmed in the Hexameron, explaining this place which we have in hand: “It is clear,” he says, “that neither did the birds themselves live by the seizing of weaker fowls, nor did the wolf scout out ambushes around the sheepfolds, nor was the dust [of the earth] the serpent's bread; but all things harmoniously fed on green herbs and the fruits of trees.” Thus Bede.⁷

ALTERA huic contraria est sententia: in statu innocentiae & ante diluuium, animalia non carnibus aliorum animalium, sed his tantùm quae terra gignebat vesci consueuisse. Hoc sensit Beda, & affirmatè dixit in Hexameron, hunc quem in manibus habemus locum explanans: Patet, inquit, quia nec ipsa aues raptu infirmarum alitum viuebant, nec lupus insidias explorabat circum ouilia, nec serpenti puluis panis eius erat: sed vniuersa concorditer herbis virentibus ac fructibus arborum vescebantur. Haec Beda.

“He did not say, I have given you fishes for food, or cattle: for I did not create these for that use. For that primary legislation granted only the eating of fruits. For the eating of fruits was conferred upon us in common with the wild beasts and the other animals — although now it is permitted to see few of the wild beasts fed on fruits. For with what fruit, pray, would the panther sustain itself fed? what fruit would yield to the lion for food? Yet these wild beasts, for as long as they bore the yoke of the law of nature, sustained life by the eating of fruits. But God, when He had foreknown that man, after the flood, would in no way temper himself from forbidden foods, granted [him] to feed on any food. For, speaking of the animals to man, ‘All these,’ He says, ‘I have handed over to you as green herbs.’ By this indulgent concession granted to us, the animals too were each endowed with an equal liberty of eating anything with impunity. From that time the cruel lion feeds [on flesh], the vulture with gaping beak makes for carcasses. For the vulture did not have this from the beginning of its creation: for no carrion was then found whereby the vultures might nourish themselves. But not even that did nature [permit...] [continues]¹⁷

Non dixit, dedi vobis pisces in cibú aut pecora: neque enim in eú vsum haec creaui. Primaria enim illa legislatio esum tantú indulsit fructuú. Etenim nobis in cómune cú feris caterisque animalibus collatus est fructuú esus, cùm tamé núc paucas ferarú liceat videre ali fructibus. Nam quo tádem fructu pasci se pánthera sustineat? quis fructus cedat leoni in cibú? Attamé ferae istae tátisper dú iugú legis naturae passae sunt, vitá tolerabát esitatione fructuum. Hominé autem cùm pranosset Deus post diluuiú nequaquam sibi ab incócessis cibis temperaturú, cócessit quouis cibo vesci. Nam de animalibus loquens cum homine, Omnia haec, inquit, quasi olera viréntia tradidi vobis. Per hanc nobis indultam concessioné, & animalia quaeque pari libertate donata sunt quiduis impunè edédi. Ex eo tempore crudis leo vescitur, vultur hiáti rostro cadauera affectat. Neque enim vultur id habuit ab exordio suae creationis: nullum enim eatenus reperiebatur morticiniú quo se nutricarét vultures. At ne id qui-[dem sinebat natura...]

[...But not even that] did nature, persisting in its own vigor, permit. Nor did hunters then give effort to catching wild beasts, nor was that a pursuit for men, since neither did the wild beast exercise its rage with bared teeth against men, inasmuch as they were not yet flesh-eaters. Afterward there grew upon the vultures the custom of seeking food from dead carcasses; but in the beginning, both the vultures and the others which are now carnivorous had, after the manner of swans, an undifferentiated and the same way of living for all. Every animal cropped and grazed for itself only the herbs of the meadow. A certain notable instance of this thing one may see also in dogs: for when they are eager to heal themselves, you may see them again and again graze [the grass...] [continues]¹⁸

[...At ne id qui]dem sinebat natura in suo cosistens vigore. Neque tunc venatores cópiciendis feris operá dabát, neque dum id studio erat hominibus, cùm nec fera suá rabiem exertis in homines dentibus exercerent, vt quae nec dum essent crudiuora. Inoleuit deinde vulturibus cósuetudo victum quaerédi ex morticinis cadaueribus: ab initio autem & vulturibus, & aliis quae nunc sunt carniuora, cygnorum in morem indiscreta erat & eadé omnibus viuendi ratio. Pratenses tantú herbas animal omne sibi attondebat & depascebatur. Eius rei insigne quoddam & in canibus liceat videre: Dum enim studét sibi ipsis mederi, eos videas identidem depasci [gramen...]

[...you may see them again and again] graze the grass: not that grass is suitable for nourishing the dog, but because, in the matter of human training, with nature alone for teacher, the brutes flee to that which by natural instinct they perceive will be of use to them. I would have you consider with yourself, that the animals were then of such a kind (which today you see feed on raw flesh) that by the imaginative power they apprehended every herb given them for food to be suitable and healthful for them; and for that reason, content with that food, they in no way plotted against the life of others.” Thus Basil. The same was the opinion of Josephus, in the first book of the Jewish Antiquities, writing that before the sin of the first man there was no strife among the animals.¹⁹

[...eos videas identidem] depasci gramen: non quòd alendo cani gramen conueniat, sed quia circa operam humanae disciplinae, doctrice tantùm natura, ad id bruta confugiunt quod sibi naturali instinctu sentiunt vsui futurum. Velim reputes tecum, istiusmodi fuisse tum animalia (quae hodie vides cruda vesci carne) vt vi imaginatiua apprehenderint herbam omnem sibi collatam in cibum, conuenientem sibi & salubrem esse: atque ob eam causam eo cibo contenta, alia aliorum vita nequaquam insidiabantur. Haec Basilius. Idem sensit Iosephus in lib. 1. Iudaicarum antiquitatum, scribens ante primi hominis peccatum nullum fuisse inter animalia dissidium.