Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Five — the state of innocence

He brought them to Adam, that he might see what he would call them

LatineEnglish

He brought them to Adam, that he might see what he would call them.1

Adduxit ea ad Adam, vt videret quid vocaret ea.

INE causa profecto Caietanus contra Patrum atque omnium Interpretum sententiam censuit, non reuera fuisse animalia adducta ad Adamú, sed intellectuali tantú quodam modo fuisse intellectui eius à Deo repraesentata, vt ea considerans, & conuenienter singuloru naturis imponens eis nomina, nullú esse in eis agnosceret congruens sibi ad vitae societatem & prolis generationé adiutoriú. Nam Moses, inquit Caietanus, Deum adduxisse narrat animalia ad Adamum, vt videret quo modo ea vocaret: manifestum autem est non fuisse opus Adamo visione corporali animalium ad ponenda eis nomina. Talis enim visio nihil ad impositionem nominum conferre poterat: sed opus fuisse visione intellectuali, sine qua talis nominum impositio rectè fieri non poterat. Non igitur corporaliter sed intellectualiter animalia esse ad Adamum adducta intelligere oportet. Verútamen, hoc tam leui argumento à tam recepta probatáq; Patrum & Theologorum senténtia discedere voluisse, nimis profectò puerile fuit, & tanto Caietani ingenio plane alienum atque indignum. Namque illud, Vt videret quid vocaret ea, referri potest ad ipsum Deum, vt in Deo dictum sit phrasi Hebraica non infrequenti sacris litteris, vt manifestum est legéti primum & vndecimum caput Geneseos, & tertium caput Exodi aliáq; nónnulla Scripturae loca, hic breuitatis studio praetermissa. Potest etiá referri ad Adamú, & intelligi tam de visione intellectuali quàm corporali: haec enim excitabat & determinabat generalem scientiá animalium quae erat in intellectu Adami, ad singulas animalium species quarum cernebat indiuidua propriè ac distinctè contemplandas, & aspectus illorum animalium summa voluptate Adami animum perfundebat, quae per scientiam infusam ratione ipsa percepta & cognita habebat, eadem sensibus experientiáque recognoscentis.
Without cause, indeed, Cajetan, against the opinion of the Fathers and of all Interpreters, judged that the animals were not really brought to Adam, but were only in a certain intellectual manner represented to his intellect by God, so that, considering them and suitably imposing names on them according to the natures of each, he might recognize none among them congruent to him as a helper for the society of life and the generation of offspring. “For Moses,” says Cajetan, “narrates that God brought the animals to Adam, that he might see how he would call them: but it is manifest that Adam had no need of a corporeal vision of the animals for imposing names on them. For such a vision could contribute nothing to the imposition of names; but he had need of an intellectual vision, without which such an imposition of names could not rightly be made. It must therefore be understood that the animals were brought to Adam not corporeally, but intellectually.” But to have wished to depart, by so light an argument, from so received and approved an opinion of the Fathers and Theologians was surely too puerile, and plainly alien to and unworthy of so great a talent as Cajetan's. For that, “That he might see what he would call them,” can be referred to God Himself, so that it is said of God by a Hebrew idiom not infrequent in the sacred letters — as is manifest to one reading the first and eleventh chapters of Genesis, and the third chapter of Exodus, and some other places of Scripture, here omitted for brevity's sake. It can also be referred to Adam, and be understood both of an intellectual and of a corporeal vision: for the latter excited and determined the general knowledge of the animals, which was in Adam's intellect, to the contemplating properly and distinctly of the individual species of animals whose individuals he beheld; and the sight of those animals suffused Adam's mind with the highest pleasure — that [knowledge] which he had perceived and known by infused knowledge through reason itself, recognizing the same by the senses and by experience.2
SED quomodo adducta sunt animalia ad Adamum? non sanè sua spóte, nec instinctu ductuque naturae ad eum iuisse satis indicat Scriptura, cùm inquit ea fuisse à Deo adducta ad Adamum. Nec verò credendú est ea ratione fuisse à Deo illuc acta, vt pastor oues suas agit: non enim breui tempore, cum toto orbe sparsa essent, ad Adamú duci potuissent; nec item putandum, vehementi aliquo ventó ex locis vbi erant abrepta ad Paradisum in quo erat Adamus delata esse, quemadmodú de coturnicibus legitur libro Numer. c. 11. quippe neque id sine exitio terrestriú animalium fieri potuisset, nec vnius flatu venti: siquidem non vno in loco erant animalia, sed per omnes terrarum oras dispersa: necesse igitur fuisset ad ea deferenda omnes ventos cócurrere, [quo...]
But in what manner were the animals brought to Adam? That they did not go to him of their own accord, nor by the instinct and guidance of nature, Scripture sufficiently indicates, when it says that they were brought to Adam by God. Nor indeed is it to be believed that they were driven there by God in the way a shepherd drives his sheep; for, scattered as they were over the whole world, they could not have been led to Adam in a short time; nor, likewise, is it to be thought that, snatched by some vehement wind from the places where they were, they were carried to the Paradise in which Adam was — as is read of the quails in the book of Numbers, chapter 11 — since this could not have been done without the destruction of the land-animals, nor by the blast of one wind: for the animals were not in one place, but dispersed through all the shores of the lands; it would therefore have been necessary, for carrying them, that all the winds concur, [so that...] [continues]3
[...quo]circa ex contrariis mundi partibus flantes venti se inuicem impediuissent. Probanda igitur S. Augustini opinio, id vel ad ministeriú Angelorú, vel ad interioré instinctum & impulsum quo illuc rapiebátur à Deo, referentis. Finxit enim in illis Deus, hoc est, in ea facultate animae sentientis quam hodie Philosophi appellát aestimatiuam, visum quoddam à Graecis dictum φάντασμα, ræpresentans cuíque animalium conueniés illi esse ire ad eum locum vbi erat Adam, eiusq́ue imperio & voluntati subiici. Narrat Moses venisse ad Adamum animalia terrestria & aues, videlicet cuiuslibet speciei duo indiuidua, [marem dico & foeminá...]
[...so that] the winds blowing from the contrary parts of the world would have impeded one another. Therefore the opinion of St. Augustine is to be approved, who refers this either to the ministry of Angels, or to an interior instinct and impulse by which they were drawn there by God. For God fashioned in them — that is, in that faculty of the sentient soul which today the Philosophers call the “estimative” — a certain image, called by the Greeks φάντασμα (phantasm), representing to each of the animals that it was fitting for it to go to the place where Adam was, and to be subjected to his command and will. Moses narrates that there came to Adam the land-animals and the birds, namely two individuals of each species, [I mean a male and a female...] [continues]4
[...marem dico & foeminá]: tum quia sub qualibet specie ea est inter eius indiuidua principalis differentia quae spectatur in sexu; tum quia ex his liquidò cognoscere poterat Adam nullum sibi de toto genere animalium idoneum ad id quod quaerebatur adiutorium esse posse. SED cur non ad eum etiam pisces adducti sunt? An quia non eam habent cum homine conuenientiam, & velut consuetudinem quam habent caetera animalia? An quia in his certú erat nullum esse posse idoneum Adamo adiutorium, propter nimis diuersam corporis conformationem & figuram? An potiùs quia extra aquam positi confestim interiissent, nisi Deus illos singulari aliquo miraculo conseruare voluisset? Denique, adducta sunt ad Adamum animalia, vt is imponeret eis nomina tanquam seruis, quorum famulatu & obsequio vsurus erat: id quod non ferè in piscibus euenturum erat. Nam quod ait super hoc loco Catharinus, propterea non esse pisces adductos ad [Adamum...]
[...I mean a male and a female]: both because under any species there is, among its individuals, that principal difference which is seen in sex; and because from these Adam could clearly know that none, from the whole genus of animals, could be a fit helper for him for what was sought. But why were the fishes not also brought to him? Was it because they do not have that agreement, and as it were familiarity, with man which the other animals have? Or because in these it was certain that none could be a fit helper for Adam, on account of the too-diverse conformation and figure of the body? Or rather because, placed out of water, they would at once have perished, unless God had willed to preserve them by some singular miracle? Finally, the animals were brought to Adam that he might impose names on them as on servants, of whose service and obedience he was to make use — which would not generally come about in the case of fishes. For what Catharinus says on this place, that the fishes were not brought to [Adam...] [continues]5
[...propterea non esse pisces adductos ad Adamum], quòd facile is potuisset naturam & vires eorum ex terrestribus animantibus cognoscere, parum consultè & scienter dictum est. Exigua enim est inter pisces & terrestres animantes conuenientia & similitudo; multaque vtrique generi dissimilia & propriae ac distinctae cognitionis sunt. Nec ducta sunt animalia ad Adamum vt eorum cognitionem tunc primum acciperet (hanc enim à Deo ingeneratam indirámque sibi acceperat), sed vt singulis animantibus nomina imponeret, eáq; ratione linguam qua posteri eius vsuri erant conderet atque locupletaret. Tostatus super 13. caput Geneseos quaestione 318. negat in animantibus quae ductae sunt ad Adamum fuisse eas quae putri ex materia gignuntur; nimirum propter abiectam & sordidam istiusmodi animantium conditionem, & quod in his ferè non est distinctio maris & foeminae, nec vis generandi.
[...that the fishes were not brought to Adam], because he could easily have known their nature and powers from the land-animals — was said with little counsel and knowledge. For there is slight agreement and likeness between fishes and land-animals; and many things in each genus are dissimilar and of a proper and distinct knowledge. Nor were the animals brought to Adam that he might then first receive knowledge of them (for he had received this, ingenerated and infused into him, from God), but that he might impose names on the individual animals, and by that means found and enrich the language which his posterity would use. Tostatus, on the thirteenth chapter of Genesis, question 318, denies that among the living things which were brought to Adam were those which are generated from putrid matter — namely, on account of the abject and sordid condition of such creatures, and because in these there is generally no distinction of male and female, nor power of generating.6
VERVM roget quispiá, cur Deus adduxit animalia ad Adamum? Equidem videor mihi quatuor eius rei causas satis idoneas & probabiles afferre posse. Principió, voluit Deus ante Adamum sisti & oculis eius subiici animalia, vt ex eorum aspectu & contemplatione atque comparatione cum sua ipsius natura perspicuè agnosceret quantum illis differret ac praestaret ipse, quantóq; plura & excelletiora dona accepisset à Deo, ob eamq́ue causam ad laudes Dei celebrandas gratiásque perpetuò ei agendas vehementius incitaretur. Deinde, quia Deus fecerat hominem cunctorú animalium princi-[pem...]
But someone may ask, why did God bring the animals to Adam? I, indeed, seem to myself able to bring forward four sufficiently fit and probable causes of this thing. First, God willed the animals to be set before Adam and subjected to his eyes, so that, from their sight and contemplation and comparison with his own nature, he might clearly recognize how much he himself differed from and excelled them, and how many more and more excellent gifts he had received from God; and for that cause be more vehemently incited to celebrate the praises of God and perpetually to give Him thanks. Then, because God had made man the prince [of all the animals...] [continues]7
[...cunctorú animalium princi]pem ac dominum, voluit vt cognosceret ipse seruos suos, & animalia velut obsequium & seruitutem ei sponderent. Adhaec, vt imponendo nomina animalibus conderet augerétque linguam qua mox generandi homines vsuri erant; & verò vsi fuissent ea lingua omnes homines omníque aeuo, si in eo statu permansissent. His accedit, vt ea ratione pernotesceret omnibus quanta scientiae praestantia Deus Adamum donauisset atque decorasset. Ad extremum, vt cernens in singulis animalium speciebus esse marem ac foeminam, idem quoque in humana specie fieri oportere intelligeret, necessitatémque creandi mulierem futuram sibi ad generationem prolis adiutricem planè perspiceret, & (vt placet Catharino) ardentiùs procreationem eius experet, ac vehementiùs religiosa precatione à Deo postularet.
[...prince] and lord of all the animals, He willed that he himself should recognize his servants, and that the animals should, as it were, pledge obedience and servitude to him. Besides, that by imposing names on the animals he might found and augment the language which the men soon to be generated would use; and indeed all men would have used that language, and in every age, had they remained in that state. To this is added, that by that means it might become well known to all how great an excellence of knowledge God had bestowed upon Adam and adorned him with. Finally, that, seeing in the individual species of animals that there is a male and a female, he might understand that the same ought to come about in the human species too, and might clearly perceive the necessity of creating a woman to be his helper for the generation of offspring, and (as it pleases Catharinus) might more ardently desire her procreation, and more vehemently ask it from God by religious prayer.8

Translator’s notes

  1. Sub-lemma (Gen 2:19b). ↩
  2. Decorated initial 'I.' Cajetan held (against all the Fathers) that the animals were only 'intellectually' shown to Adam, not really brought, since a bodily sight contributes nothing to naming. Pererius rejects this as puerile: 'that he might see' can refer to God (a Hebrew idiom) or to Adam — and bodily sight did serve, by quickening his infused general knowledge to contemplate each species, with delight. Marginal gloss: 'An reuera ducta sint animalia ad Adamum: in quo refellitur Caietanus.' ↩
  3. How were the animals brought? Not of their own accord (Scripture says God brought them); not driven like sheep (too scattered for a short time); not by a wind (as the quails, Num 11) — that would destroy land-animals and need all the winds at once. Marginal gloss: 'Quomodo animalia ducta sint ad Adamum.' ↩
  4. The winds would cancel out; so (with Augustine, de Gen. ad lit. 9.14) the animals were brought either by angelic ministry or by a God-given inner impulse — God impressing on their 'estimative' faculty an image (Gk. φάντασμα) prompting them to go to Adam. GLYPH verified by magnification: φάντασμα. Marginal gloss: 'Augustinus lib. 9. de Gen. ad litteram cap. 14.' ↩
  5. Two of each kind (male/female) — sex being the species' chief individual difference, and showing Adam no beast could be his helper. Why no fishes? They lack man's familiarity; are too unlike to help; would die out of water; and were not named as serviceable 'servants' as the others were. Marginal gloss: 'Cur pisces nó sint ducti ad Adamum.' ↩
  6. Catharinus' reason (Adam could infer fish from land-animals) is faulted — the two are quite unlike. The animals were brought not to teach Adam (his knowledge was infused) but for him to name them and so found the language of his posterity. Tostatus (Gen 13, q.318) excludes the vermin born of putrefaction (base, sexless, non-generating). ↩
  7. Pererius' four reasons God brought the animals (1st-2nd here): (1) so Adam, comparing them with himself, would see his own superiority and gifts and be moved to praise God; (2) because God had made man their prince/lord (continues). Marginal gloss: 'Quatuor causae cur animalia ducta sint ad Adamum.' ↩
  8. The remaining two of the four reasons: (3) so Adam, lord of the animals, might recognize his 'servants' and found the (single, universal) language of his descendants, and his great knowledge be made manifest; (4) so that, seeing the sexes in the beasts, he would perceive his own need of a wife and ardently pray for her (Catharinus). Marginal gloss: 'Catharinus in Genesim.' ↩