Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Six — the temptation and fall

QUESTION I. As to its being said that the serpent was more cunning than the beasts of the earth, whether this is to be understood of the serpent or of the devil

LatineEnglish

QUESTION I. As to its being said that the serpent was more cunning than the beasts of the earth, whether this is to be understood of the serpent or of the devil.1

QUAESTIO I. Quod dicitur serpentem fuisse callidiorem bestiis terrae, intelligendum ne sit de serpente, an de diabolo.

Primo igitur quaeritur, cum Moses dixit serpentem fuisse callidiorem omnibus bestiis terrae, intelligendum ne sit de vero serpente, an de diabolo. Et de neutro videtur vere intelligi posse: nam nec diabolus recte comparari potest cum bestiis terrae, nec verus serpens cunctis animalibus astutior est. Tres Doctorum sunt opiniones. Prima Caietani est, quam paulo supra commemoravi & refutavi, & illud Mosis dictum, & cetera quae de serpente narrantur, ad solum diabolum referentis. Verum inepta est comparatio diaboli cum bestiis terrae, cum ille natura sit incorporeus & immortalis, nec solum specie sed etiam genere differat ab animantibus; & id in quo aliqua comparantur inter se, unius esse debeat rationis: calliditas vero daemonis & bestiarum, quam diversae sint rationis, nemo non videt. Nam quod scribit Caietanus, diabolum fuisse propter peccatum ad ordinem bestiarum deiectum, & idcirco rite comparari posse cum bestiis, nullo modo videbitur doctis viris probabile: etenim daemon propter peccatum non perdidit dona sua naturalia: quantum igitur ad naturalem prudentiam & calliditatem, similiter se habet post peccatum ut antea se habebat.
First, then, it is asked: when Moses said that the serpent was more cunning than all the beasts of the earth, is this to be understood of a true serpent, or of the devil? And it seems that it can truly be understood of neither: for neither can the devil rightly be compared with the beasts of the earth, nor is a true serpent more crafty than all animals. There are three opinions of the learned. The first is Cajetan's, which I recalled and refuted a little above, who refers that saying of Moses, and the other things narrated about the serpent, to the devil alone. But the comparison of the devil with the beasts of the earth is inept, since he is by nature incorporeal and immortal, and differs from animals not only in species but even in genus; and that in which things are compared together ought to be of one kind: but how different in kind the cunning of a demon and of beasts is, everyone sees. For as to what Cajetan writes—that the devil was cast down on account of sin into the order of beasts, and can therefore rightly be compared with beasts—it will in no way seem probable to learned men: for the demon, on account of sin, did not lose his natural gifts; as far, therefore, as natural prudence and cunning are concerned, he is in the same condition after sin as he was before.2

The second opinion is Augustine's, in book 11 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 29, who says that Scripture speaks of the cunning of a true serpent, yet not in itself, but inasmuch as it was the devil's instrument for deceiving Eve. The words of Augustine are these: The serpent was called 'most crafty of all the beasts' on account of the craft of the devil, who in it and through it was working guile: just as a tongue is called prudent or crafty, by which a prudent or crafty man advises something to be prudently and craftily urged. The same things can be said of a Pen. This, says Augustine, I thought ought to be pointed out, lest anyone, supposing that animals devoid of reason have human understanding, or are suddenly changed into a rational animal, be seduced into that ridiculous and noxious opinion of the transmigration of souls—either of men into beasts, or of beasts into men. So, then, the serpent spoke to the human being, just as the ass on which Balaam sat spoke to the human being: except that the former was a diabolical work, the latter an angelic one. For good and bad Angels have certain similar works, as did Moses and Pharaoh's Magicians. Yet in these too the good Angels are more powerful, nor can the bad Angels do anything even of such works, except what God permits through the good Angels. Thus far Augustine.3

Altera opinio est Augustini, lib. 11. de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 29. aientis, Scripturam loqui de calliditate veri serpentis, non tamen per se, sed ut fuit organum diaboli ad fallendum Evam. Verba Augustini sunt haec: Astutissimus omnium bestiarum dictus est serpens propter astutiam diaboli, qui in illo & de illo agebat dolum: quemadmodum dicitur prudens vel astuta lingua, qua prudens vel astutus monet ad aliquid prudenter astuteque suadendum. Eadem dici possunt de Stylo. Hoc ideo, inquit Augustinus, commendandum putavi, ne quisquam existimans animantia rationis expertia humanum habere intellectum, vel in animal rationale repente mutari, seducatur in illam opinionem ridiculam & noxiam revolutionis animarum, vel hominum in bestias, vel in homines bestiarum. Sic ergo locutus est serpens homini, sicut asina in qua sedebat Balaam locuta est homini: nisi quod illud fuit opus diabolicum, hoc angelicum. Habent enim quaedam boni & mali Angeli opera similia, sicut Moses & Magi Pharaonis. Verum in his etiam boni Angeli potentiores sunt, nec mali Angeli etiam talium operum quicquam possunt, nisi quod per bonos Angelos permiserit Deus. Hactenus Augustinus.

Sed hanc sententiam refellit Tostatus qu. 438. super capite 13. Geneseos. Nam vel quod serpens fuerit organum diaboli, propterea ei fuit a diabolo impertita maior calliditas quam haberet na-
But Tostatus refutes this opinion, question 438 on the chapter of Genesis. For either, because the serpent was the devil's instrument, a greater cunning was for that reason imparted to it by the devil than it would have had na-4
...turaliter, vel nulla. Si nulla, ergo nulla ratio fuit cur propter diabolum diceretur callidior omnibus bestiis: sin aliqua, primum difficile est intelligere quemadmodum diabolus repente potuerit callidiorem facere serpentem: deinde daemon non posset impertiri calliditatem nisi intellectivam qualem ipse habet: cuius tamen capax natura serpentis non est, ea namque non nisi naturae rationali impertiri potest. Narratio etiam Scripturae, si quis eam bene perpendat, excludere videtur Augustini expositionem: significat enim, serpentem suapte natura fuisse callidiorem ceteris bestiis, etiam priusquam assumeretur a diabolo: quod indicat verbum illud Erat: Serpens, inquit, erat callidior cunctis animantibus.
...naturally, or none. If none, then there was no reason why, on account of the devil, it should be called more cunning than all the beasts; but if some, first it is difficult to understand how the devil could suddenly make the serpent more cunning; next, a demon could not impart cunning except an intellective one such as he himself has, of which, however, the nature of a serpent is not capable, for that can be imparted only to a rational nature. The narration of Scripture too, if one weighs it well, seems to exclude Augustine's exposition: for it signifies that the serpent was by its own nature more cunning than the other beasts, even before it was taken up by the devil—which that word 'was' indicates: 'The serpent,' it says, 'was more cunning than all the living creatures.'5
Immo vero propterea serpens potius quam aliud quodvis animal assumptus est a daemone, quod is maxime propter naturalem calliditatem congrueret & astutiae daemonis assumentis, & officio deceptionis occultae ad quod assumebatur, & fini propter quem assumebatur, nempe ut venenata diaboli persuasione corruptus homo, tanta illa qua potiebatur felicitate deturbaretur in maximam miseriam.
Nay rather, the serpent was for this reason taken up by the demon rather than any other animal, because it, on account of its natural cunning, fitted most of all both the craft of the demon taking it up, and the office of hidden deception for which it was taken up, and the end for which it was taken up—namely, that man, corrupted by the devil's venomous persuasion, might be cast down from that great felicity which he possessed into the utmost misery.6
Sententiam igitur Augustini, serpentem dictum esse callidiorem bestiis terrae, non ingenita sibi calliditate sed propter diaboli calliditatem, illa satis valide oppugnare ac demoliri videtur argumentatio: Si serpens dictus est callidior bestiis terrae propter calliditatem diaboli: aut igitur propter calliditatem quae erat in diabolo, aut propter calliditatem quam serpens accepit a diabolo: at nec serpens vere diceretur callidior omnibus bestiis propter calliditatem quae nulla ex parte in eo erat, sed erat tantum in diabolo. Nec potuit diabolus calliditatem impertiri serpenti: aut enim impertivisset calliditatem congruentem naturae serpentis, id est, sensitivam: verum haec nisi mutata natura specifica & gradu animae, & constitutione ac temperamento corporis, non potest in animalibus intrinsecus variari: aut tribuisset serpenti talem calliditatem qualem ipse habet, hoc est, intellectivam: sed huius serpens nullo modo capax esse potest. Hinc igitur concluditur, serpentem dictum non esse callidiorem bestiis terrae propter diaboli calliditatem, cuius ille fuit organum.
The opinion of Augustine, then—that the serpent was called more cunning than the beasts of the earth, not by a cunning innate to it but on account of the devil's cunning—that argumentation seems to attack and demolish strongly enough: If the serpent was called more cunning than the beasts of the earth on account of the devil's cunning, then it was either on account of the cunning that was in the devil, or on account of the cunning that the serpent received from the devil. But the serpent could not truly be called more cunning than all the beasts on account of a cunning which was in no part in it, but was only in the devil. Nor could the devil impart cunning to the serpent: for either he would have imparted a cunning suited to the serpent's nature—that is, a sensitive one; but this cannot be varied intrinsically in animals unless the specific nature and grade of the soul, and the constitution and temperament of the body, were changed; or he would have given the serpent such cunning as he himself has—that is, an intellective one; but of this a serpent can in no way be capable. Hence, therefore, it is concluded that the serpent was not called more cunning than the beasts of the earth on account of the devil's cunning, whose instrument it was.7
Tertia opinio est, quae nobis maxime placet, Mosen dixisse illud de vero serpente: eum vero appellasse astutiorem ceteris bestiis, non ut significaret per astutiam naturalem serpentis deceptam esse Evam: sed ut ostenderet non temere nec sine magna ratione divinae providentiae factum, ut diabolus ad decipiendum hominem, sese in serpentem potius quam in aliud quodvis animal insinuaret, videlicet ut intelligeretur, quam congruens astutiae daemonis ad fallendum hominem adhibitum fuerit instrumentum, & ut ex astutia serpentis & naturali inimicitia quae est inter eum & homines, coniiceretur multiplex diaboli adversus hominem astutia & odium implacabile.
The third opinion, which pleases us most, is that Moses said that of a true serpent; but that he called it more crafty than the other beasts, not to signify that Eve was deceived by the serpent's natural craft, but to show that it was not rashly nor without great reason of divine providence brought about that the devil, to deceive man, insinuated himself into a serpent rather than into any other animal—namely, that it might be understood how fitting an instrument was applied to the deceiving of man by the demon's craft, and that from the serpent's craft and the natural enmity which is between it and men, the manifold craft and implacable hatred of the devil against man might be inferred.8
Caeterum urgent nos Physiologi, opponentes nobis non pauca ex genere animalium, quae naturali solertia, prudentia, & astutia ser-
But the Natural Philosophers press us, objecting against us not a few from the kinds of animals which by natural skill, prudence, and craft far surpass the ser-9
...pentem longe superant: cuiusmodi sunt canes, lupi, & in primis vulpes. Verum nullo modo dubitandum est, serpentem esse astutiorem bestiis terrae: id enim tradit hoc loco Scriptura, & Dominus noster in Evangelio maximam discipulis suis prudentiam commendare volens, iussit eos prudentia similes esse serpentum: Estote, inquit, prudentes sicut serpentes. Sed distinguere oportet duplex genus prudentiae & calliditatis serpentum: unum est quo utuntur ad tuendam salutem vitamque, & quae sibi utilia commodaque sunt persequenda & asciscenda: alterum est quod adhibent ad insidiandum & nocendum homini.
...serpent by far: of which kind are dogs, wolves, and especially foxes. But it must by no means be doubted that the serpent is more crafty than the beasts of the earth: for Scripture hands this down in this place, and our Lord in the Gospel, wishing to commend the greatest prudence to his disciples, bade them be like serpents in prudence: 'Be,' he says, 'prudent as serpents.' But one must distinguish a twofold kind of prudence and cunning of serpents: one is that which they use for guarding their safety and life, and for pursuing and acquiring the things useful and advantageous to them; the other is that which they employ for lying in wait for and harming man.10
Prioris prudentiae & calliditatis, multa & insignia extant indicia atque argumenta. Primum argumentum calliditatis serpentis est quo utitur adversus incantatores, & pulchre describitur a Davide Psal. 57. illis verbis: Sicut aspidis surdae, & obturantis aures suas, quae non exaudiet vocem incantantium, & venefici incantantis sapienter. Nam, ut super illis verbis scribit Augustinus, sentiens carminibus incantatorum captum se iri, ne ea exaudiat serpens, alteram aurem terrae vel petrae admovet atque apprimit, alteram vero cauda obturat. Alterum argumentum vulgatum & compertum omnibus est, serpentem, cum saxo aut ferro ab homine petitur, quo tutius caput suum, unde sentit totius corporis salutem pendere, defendat atque custodiat, totum corpus in orbes circumvolvere, ut ipsum occultet & ab ictibus tueatur, reliquum corpus exponens periculo pro unius defensione capitis.
Of the former prudence and cunning, many and notable proofs and arguments exist. The first proof of the serpent's cunning is that which it uses against charmers, and it is beautifully described by David, Psalm 57, in these words: 'Like the deaf asp, and stopping up its ears, which will not hear the voice of the charmers, and of the sorcerer enchanting wisely.' For, as Augustine writes upon those words, the serpent, perceiving that it is about to be caught by the charmers' spells, lest it hear them, presses and applies one ear to the ground or a rock, and stops up the other with its tail. The second proof, common and known to all, is that the serpent, when it is attacked by a man with a stone or iron, in order more safely to defend and guard its head—on which it feels that the safety of the whole body depends—coils its whole body into rings, so as to hide the head and protect it from blows, exposing the rest of its body to danger for the defense of the one head.11
Tertium argumentum ab Epiphanio eo loco proditum, ubi adversus 37. haeresim disputat. Tradunt, inquit ille, de serpente naturalium rerum docti, eum cum siti fatigatus e latibulo procedit ad aquam ut bibat, non secum ferre venenum, sed ipsum quasi expuere ac deponere in latibulo, ne aquas veneno inficiat atque corrumpat. Quartum argumentum. Plinius libro octavo capite vigesimoseptimo, de naturali prudentia serpentis verba faciens, ita scribit: Anguis hiberno situ membrana corporis obducta, foeniculi succo impedimentum illud exuit, nitidusque vernat. Exuit autem a capite primum, nec celerius quam uno die ac nocte replicans, ut extra fiat membrana quod fuerat intus. Quintum argumentum. Quia solet serpenti visus hebescere, naturali prudentia sibi ipse comparat remedium ad clarificandam oculorum aciem. Succo enim marathri inungit oculos, ut claritatem visus recipiat, quod etiam a Plinio eodem illo loco traditum est: Serpens, ait, hiberna latebra visu obscurato marathro herba sese affricans, oculos inungit ac refovet: si vero squamae obtorpuere, spinis Iuniperi se scabit.
The third proof is brought forward by Epiphanius in that place where he disputes against the 37th heresy. Those learned in natural things relate, he says, concerning the serpent, that when, wearied by thirst, it comes forth from its lair to the water to drink, it does not carry its venom with it, but as it were spits it out and deposits it in its lair, lest it infect and corrupt the waters with the venom. The fourth proof. Pliny, in book eight, chapter twenty-seven, speaking of the natural prudence of the serpent, writes thus: The snake, its body overspread by a membrane through the winter's torpor, sheds that hindrance with the juice of fennel, and grows sleek as in spring. It sheds first from the head, rolling itself back no more quickly than in one day and night, so that what had been inside becomes outside. The fifth proof. Because the serpent's sight is wont to grow dim, by natural prudence it procures for itself a remedy for clearing the keenness of its eyes. For it anoints its eyes with the juice of fennel, that it may recover clearness of sight—which is also handed down by Pliny in that same place: The serpent, he says, in its winter lair, its sight dimmed, rubbing itself against the fennel plant, anoints and refreshes its eyes; but if its scales have grown numb, it scratches itself on the thorns of the juniper.12
Ex his apparet quanta sit naturalis prudentia & calliditas serpentis in iis rebus quae ad eius defensionem & conservationem conducunt. Quamobrem sapienter Dominus noster ad imitandam serpentis prudentiam, discipulos suos cohortatus est, & apud Hispanos vetus fertur vulgo proverbium: (Sabe mas que las culebras.) Posterioris autem astutiae serpentis qua utitur is ad insidiandum homini, multa etiam sunt indicia vulgo nota, & quotidianis experimentis comperta, atque Sacrarum litterarum testimoniis confir-
From these it appears how great is the natural prudence and cunning of the serpent in those things which conduce to its defense and conservation. Wherefore our Lord wisely exhorted his disciples to imitate the serpent's prudence; and among the Spaniards an old proverb is commonly current: 'He knows more than the snakes' (Sabe mas que las culebras). And of the latter craft of the serpent, which it uses for lying in wait for man, there are also many proofs commonly known, and ascertained by daily experiences, and confir[med] by the testimonies of the Sacred Letters...13
...confirmata. Etenim Deus maledicens serpenti dixit, Inimicitias ponam inter te & mulierem, & semen tuum, & semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, & tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. Sane hominem serpens occulte, callide, atque insidiose mordet, & morsu quidem lethali: idque facit non metu, non aliquo incommodo aut commodo suo ductus, sed naturali odio hominis, & propensissimae ad ei nocendum naturae instinctu. Quod significavit Scriptura, Genes. 49. Iacob enim patriarcha vaticinatus de tribu Dan dixit: Fiat Dan coluber in via, Cerastes in semita, mordens ungulas equi, ut cadat ascensor eius retro. Salomon quoque capite decimo, libri Ecclesiastae: Si mordeat, inquit, serpens in silentio: nihil eo minus habet qui occulte detrahit.
...confirmed. For God, cursing the serpent, said, 'I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.' Indeed the serpent bites man secretly, craftily, and treacherously, and with a lethal bite; and it does this not from fear, nor led by any disadvantage or advantage of its own, but from a natural hatred of man, and by the instinct of a nature most prone to harming him. This Scripture signified, Genesis 49: for the patriarch Jacob, prophesying about the tribe of Dan, said: 'Let Dan be a snake in the way, a horned serpent in the path, biting the horse's heels, that its rider may fall backward.' Solomon also, in the tenth chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes: 'If a serpent bite in silence,' he says, 'he is no better who detracts secretly.'14
Denique multa in divinis litteris de serpentis astutia & insidiis ad nocendum homini callide structis, variis locis traduntur. Quamvis igitur de aliis animantibus quaedam fortasse non minus serpentibus astutae habeantur: ad occulte tamen laedendum hominem sine ullo commodo suo, non aliud serpente animal callidius & insidiosius invenietur. Legenda sunt quae scribit Bonaventura in 2. sent. distinct. 21. & Hugo S. Victoris lib. 3. de bestiarum proprietatibus, 53. capite.
Finally, many things are handed down in various places in the divine Letters about the serpent's craft and the snares craftily constructed for harming man. Although, therefore, certain of the other animals are perhaps held to be no less crafty than serpents, yet for secretly injuring man without any advantage of its own, no animal will be found more cunning and treacherous than the serpent. The things which Bonaventure writes in the 2nd book of the Sentences, distinction 21, and Hugh of St. Victor in book 3 On the Properties of Beasts, chapter 53, are worth reading.15

Translator’s notes

  1. First question of the disputation on the serpent. ↩
  2. Marginal gloss: 'Prima opinio Caietani' (The first opinion, of Cajetan). Refutation of Cajetan (opinion 1 here): the incorporeal, immortal devil differs from beasts in genus, so the comparison fails; and he kept his natural cunning after sin (it was not 'lost' to make him beast-like). ↩
  3. Marginal glosses: 'Secunda opinio Augustini' (The second opinion, of Augustine); 'Exodi 7. & sequentibus' (Exodus 7ff., Moses and Pharaoh's magicians). Opinion 2 (Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram XI.29): a real serpent's cunning, spoken as the devil's instrument (the 'prudent tongue'/'pen' analogy); his warning against metempsychosis; the Balaam's-ass and Moses-vs-magicians parallels. ↩
  4. Marginal gloss: 'Argumentatio Tostati adversus Augustinum' (Tostatus's argument against Augustine). Tostatus's dilemma against Augustine begins. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'na' = naturaliter). ↩
  5. Tostatus's argument concluded: the devil could not impart natural cunning (which requires changing the serpent's nature) nor intellective cunning (of which a serpent is incapable); and 'was more cunning' (the past tense 'erat') implies a cunning prior to and independent of the devil. ↩
  6. The serpent's natural cunning is why the devil chose it: fitting his craft, the work of hidden deception, and the malicious end. ↩
  7. Full statement of Tostatus's dilemma demolishing Augustine's reading: the cunning was either the devil's own (then the serpent isn't truly 'cunning') or imparted to the serpent (impossible—neither sensitive nor intellective cunning can be transferred). ↩
  8. Marginal gloss: 'Tertia opinio Auctoris' (The third opinion, the Author's). Pererius's own view on Q.I: Moses speaks of a real serpent, and 'more cunning' signals the fittingness of the devil's choice of a serpent (its cunning and natural enmity toward man emblematizing the devil's craft and hatred). ↩
  9. Marginal gloss: 'Verum serpens vere sit callidior cunctis animantibus' (Whether the serpent is truly more cunning than all living creatures). A sub-question opens: naturalists object that other animals are cleverer than serpents. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'ser' = serpentem). ↩
  10. Marginal gloss: 'Matth. 10.' (Matthew 10:16, 'Be prudent as serpents'). Reply to the naturalists: Scripture and Christ affirm the serpent's cunning; it is twofold—self-preserving, and aggressive against man. ↩
  11. Marginal gloss: 'Quinque indicia & argumenta eximia calliditatis & prudentiae serpentum' (Five outstanding proofs and arguments of the cunning and prudence of serpents). First two proofs of the serpent's self-preserving cunning: (1) stopping its ears against charmers (Ps. 57[58]:5-6, with Augustine's explanation); (2) coiling to shield its head. ↩
  12. Proofs three through five of the serpent's self-preserving cunning: (3) vomiting out its venom before drinking, lest it poison the water (Epiphanius, Adv. haereses 37); (4) shedding its winter skin with fennel-juice, head first (Pliny, Naturalis Historia VIII.27); (5) clearing its dimmed sight with fennel-juice, scratching on juniper-thorns (Pliny). ↩
  13. Marginal gloss: 'Proverbium Hispanicum' (A Spanish proverb). The vernacular Spanish proverb is printed in italic: 'Sabe mas que las culebras' (modern orthography: 'Sabe más que las culebras')—not a Greek/Hebrew glyph, just Castilian. Transition to the serpent's aggressive cunning against man. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'confir' = confirmata). Running footer: 'Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1. HHH'. ↩
  14. Marginal gloss: 'Altera serpentis ad nocendum homini natura propensio' (The serpent's other natural propensity, for harming man). Continuation (catchword 'confir' = confirmata) of the serpent's aggressive cunning, confirmed by Gen. 3:15, Gen. 49:17 (Jacob on Dan), and Eccl. 10:11 (Solomon). ↩
  15. Marginal gloss: 'B. Bonaventura. Hugo S. Victoris.' For the serpent's secret malice toward man, no animal surpasses it; references to Bonaventure (Sent. II d.21) and Hugh of St. Victor (De bestiis et aliis rebus / De bestiarum proprietatibus III.53). ↩