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 II. How Eve did not shudder at the serpent's approach

LatineEnglish

QUESTION II. How Eve did not shudder at the serpent's approach.1

QUAESTIO II. Quomodo Eva non exhorruit serpentis congressum.

Altera quaestio est, quomodo Eva serpentis aspectum & ad se accessum naturaliter horrificum homini, non exhorruerit. Magister Historiae scholasticae, in Historia libri Geneseos capite 21. Bonaventura in secundo distinct. 21. & Carthusianus hoc loco Bedam nominant a quo sit proditum, elegisse diabolum ad tentandum Evam genus quoddam serpentis virgineum vultum referens: ut, quia naturale est sui similibus gaudere, illius serpentis congressu non modo non perterreretur, sed etiam oblectaretur Eva. Pictores sane hanc opinionem secuti, historiam huius rei in pictura repraesentantes, muliebri vultu serpentem depingunt. Sed audi verba Magistri Historiae scholasticae. Tunc serpens, inquit, erectus est ut homo, quia postea per maledictionem Dei prostratus est, & adhuc Pharias, ut tradunt, erectus incedit. Elegit etiam quoddam genus serpentis, ut ait Beda, virgineum habens vultum, quia similia similibus applaudunt: & movit ad loquendum linguam eius, nescientis tamen: sicut per phanaticos & energumenos loquitur diabolus, nescientes quid ipsi dicant. Sic ille. Verum hanc sententiam merito deridet Lyranus: reperiri enim tale genus serpentis, adhuc inauditum, & a nullo philosophorum, aut cui fides haberi possit, traditum est: quocirca ut plane fabulosum & commentitium explodi debet.
The second question is: how did Eve not shudder at the sight and the approach to her of the serpent, naturally frightful to man? The Master of the Scholastic History, in the History on the book of Genesis, chapter 21, Bonaventure in the second book, distinction 21, and the Carthusian in this place, name Bede as the one from whom it was reported, that the devil, to tempt Eve, chose a certain kind of serpent having a maiden's countenance: so that, since it is natural to take delight in things like oneself, Eve would not only not be terrified by the meeting of that serpent, but would even be delighted. Painters indeed, following this opinion and representing the history of this matter in painting, depict the serpent with a woman's face. But hear the words of the Master of the Scholastic History. At that time, he says, the serpent was upright like a man, because afterward, by God's curse, it was laid prostrate—and the Pharian serpents, as they relate, still go about upright. He also chose, as Bede says, a certain kind of serpent having a maidenly face, because like things applaud like; and he moved its tongue to speak, though it did not know it—just as the devil speaks through fanatics and the possessed, who do not know what they themselves say. So he. But Lyra rightly derides this opinion: for that such a kind of serpent is found is hitherto unheard of, and handed down by none of the philosophers, or of any to whom credence can be given; wherefore it ought to be hissed off as plainly fabulous and made-up.2
Basilius in homilia de Paradiso (similia autem Basilio in primo libro Antiquitatum, capite primo, scribit Iosephus) Serpens, inquit, tunc non erat horrendus homini, sed mitis ac mansuetus: nec terribiliter in telluris superficie veluti natans reptabat, sed sublimis & rectus, pedibusque insistens ingrediebatur. Sic Basilius. Verum hanc sententiam supra refutavimus. Damascenus libro secundo, de Fide orthodoxa capite decimo, Serpens, ait, plus ceteris animalibus familiaris erat homini, ipsum frequenter accedens, eique placidis motibus corporis blandiens: unde per ipsum princeps mali diabolus primis nostris parentibus impietatis suae venenum instillavit.
Basil, in the homily on Paradise (and Josephus, in the first book of the Antiquities, chapter one, writes things similar to Basil): The serpent, he says, was not then frightful to man, but mild and tame; nor did it creep terribly along the surface of the earth as if swimming, but went about lofty and erect, standing upon its feet. So Basil. But we have refuted this opinion above. Damascene, in book two On the Orthodox Faith, chapter ten: The serpent, he says, was more familiar to man than the other animals, frequently approaching him and fawning on him with the placid motions of its body: whence, through it, the prince of evil, the devil, instilled the venom of his impiety into our first parents.3
Sunt qui putent aspectum serpentis non nisi post peccatum primi hominis & maledictionem ipsius serpentis, coepisse homini esse horrificum ac terrificum: post illa, scilicet, Dei verba, Inimicitias ponam inter te & mulierem, & semen tuum & semen illius, &c.
There are those who think that the sight of the serpent began to be frightful and terrifying to man only after the sin of the first man and the curse of the serpent itself—after those words, namely, of God: 'I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed,' etc.4
Mihi quidem certe, ut valde consentaneum rationi, probatur maxime quod sentit & tradit Chrysostomus, homilia 16. in Genesim, propterea serpentis aspectum & congressum non horruisse Evam, quod ante peccatum & in illo statu innocentiae omnia animalia placide atque obedienter essent homini subiecta, & sicut nihil ipsa mali poterant inferre homini, ita nec timorem aut horrorem ullum, neque enim id sine aliqua molestia homini accidisset: divino autem consilio & ratione constitutum fuerat, ut nulla poena contingeret homini ante eius culpam.
To me certainly, as very consonant with reason, what Chrysostom holds and hands down, in the 16th homily on Genesis, is most of all approved: that Eve did not shudder at the sight and meeting of the serpent because, before sin and in that state of innocence, all animals were peacefully and obediently subject to man, and just as they could inflict no evil on man, so neither any fear or horror—for that could not have happened to man without some trouble; and it had been ordained by divine counsel and reason that no penalty should befall man before his fault.5
Sed vide quo procedat curiosa & audax hominis inquisitio. Investigarunt nonnulli, &, quasi compertum & exploratum habuissent, scripto etiam prodiderunt, cuius generis & speciei fuerit serpens ille qui Evam decepit. Eugubinus in sua Cosmopoeia putat fuisse Basiliscum, ut sicut diabolus qui tentavit Evam princeps fuisse creditur daemonum, ita usus sit ut organo eo serpente qui omnium serpentum tanquam rex habetur: hunc vero esse Basiliscum, & nomen ipsum indicat, & quae de incredibili eius ad nocendum vi ac potentia Plinius libro octavo, capite vigesimoprimo, & Solinus capite trigesimo, scriptum reliquerunt. Et Plinii quidem haec sunt verba: Basiliscum Cyrenaica generat provincia, duodecim non amplius digitorum magnitudine, candida in capite macula ut quodam diademate insignem. Sibilo omnes fugat serpentes: nec flexu multiplici, ut reliqua, corpus impellit, sed celsus & erectus a medio incedens. Necat frutices non contactos modo, verum & afflatos, exurit herbas, rumpit saxa. Talis vis malo est. Creditum quondam, ex equo occiso hasta, & per eam subeunte vi, non equitem modo sed equum quoque absumptum. Atque huic tali monstro (saepe enim enectum concupivere reges videre) mustellarum virus exitio est: adeo natura nihil placuit esse sine pari. Iniciunt eas cavernis facile cognitis sola tabe: necant illa simul odore, morianturque, & natura pugnam conficiunt. Sic Plinius. Adiiciam quoque Solini verba praedictis simillima, ut animadvertat lector pleraque Solinum ex Plinio descripsisse: non res modo, sed etiam sententias ac paene verba mutuatum. Basiliscus, inquit Solinus, malum-
But see how far man's curious and bold inquiry proceeds. Some have investigated, and, as if they had it ascertained and explored, have even reported in writing of what genus and species was that serpent which deceived Eve. Eugubinus, in his Cosmopoeia, thinks it was a Basilisk: that, just as the devil who tempted Eve is believed to have been the prince of demons, so he used as his instrument that serpent which is held to be, as it were, the king of all serpents; and that this was the Basilisk, both the name itself indicates and what Pliny, in book eight, chapter twenty-one, and Solinus, in chapter thirty, left written about its incredible power and force for harming. And these indeed are Pliny's words: The province of Cyrenaica produces the Basilisk, of no more than twelve fingers' length, marked with a white spot on the head like a kind of diadem. By its hiss it puts all serpents to flight; nor does it drive its body forward with manifold winding like the rest, but goes lofty and erect, advancing on its middle. It kills shrubs not only by touch but even by its breath, scorches grasses, and bursts rocks. Such is the force of the creature. It was once believed that, a horseman having killed it with a spear, the force coming up through the spear destroyed not only the rider but also the horse. And to this monster (for kings have often desired to see one slain) the venom of weasels is destruction: so true is it that Nature was pleased that nothing be without its match. They cast the weasels into its dens, easily recognized, by their mere decay; the weasels kill it at the same time by their odor, and themselves die, and Nature finishes the fight. So Pliny. I will add also the words of Solinus, very like the foregoing, so that the reader may observe that Solinus copied most things from Pliny, borrowing not only the matter but even the opinions and almost the words. The Basilisk, says Solinus, an evil...6
...malum in terris singulare, serpens est paene ad semipedem longitudinis, alba quasi mitrula lineatus caput. Nec hominis tantum, vel aliorum animantium exitio datus, sed terrae quoque ipsius, quam polluit & exurit ubicumque ferale sortitur receptaculum. Denique extinguit herbas, necat arbores, ipsas etiam corrumpit auras, ita ut in aera nulla alitum impune transvolet infectum spiritu pestilenti. Cum movetur, media corporis parte serpit, media arduus est & excelsus. Sibilum eius etiam serpentes alii perhorrescunt, & cum acceperint, fugam quoquo possunt properant, quicquid morsu eius occiditur, non depascitur fera, non attrectat ales. Mustellis tamen vincitur, quas illinc homines inferunt cavernis in quibus delitescit. Vis tamen ne defuncto quidem deest. Denique Basilisci reliquias amplo sestertio Pergameni comparaverunt, & ut Aedem Apollinis manu insignem nec aranea intexerent nec alites involarent, cadaver eius reticulo aureo suspensum, ibidem locarunt. Haec Solinus.
...a singular evil on the earth, the serpent is of nearly half a foot in length, its head marked as if with a white little mitre. And it is given for the destruction not only of man, or of other living creatures, but of the very earth, which it pollutes and burns up wherever it obtains its baleful lodging. Finally it extinguishes grasses, kills trees, and corrupts even the very air, so that no bird of those flying may pass through the air unharmed, it being infected with a pestilent breath. When it moves, with the middle part of its body it creeps, and with the middle it is lofty and high. Other serpents too dread its hiss, and when they have caught it, they hasten to flee wherever they can; whatever is killed by its bite, no beast feeds upon, no bird touches. Yet it is overcome by weasels, which men introduce there into the caves where it lurks. Yet its force is not lacking even when it is dead. Finally, the people of Pergamum bought the remains of a basilisk for a large sum, and, so that neither spider should weave nor birds fly into the temple of Apollo, notable for its workmanship, they placed its carcass there, hung in a golden net. Thus Solinus.7
Verum non est credibile, serpentem qui Evam adortus est fuisse Basiliscum, propter corporis eius parvitatem ac deformitatem, & pestilentem non morsus tantum, sed etiam afflatus & aspectus vim ac potentiam. Quod igitur illud serpentis genus fuit? si dicam me scire, plane mentiar. Verum si conceditur in rebus tam incertis, & ab humana coniectura remotis aliquid suspicari, dicam equidem, divinando magis quam certi quicquam statuendo, fortasse illam serpentem fuisse eum, quem Philosophi ac rerum naturalium curiosi scriptores appellarunt Scytalen, quod est animal formosum & pulchrum, tanta praefulgens tergi varietate, ut squamarum nitore ac venustate detineat aspicientes: & quia reptando pigrior est, miraculo sui corporis ac pulchritudinis capiat stupentes.
But it is not credible that the serpent which assailed Eve was a Basilisk, on account of the smallness and deformity of its body, and the pestilent power and force not only of its bite but also of its breath and sight. What, then, was that kind of serpent? If I should say that I know, I plainly lie. But if it is allowed, in matters so uncertain and remote from human conjecture, to suspect something, I for my part will say—divining rather than determining anything for certain—that perhaps that serpent was the one which the Philosophers and the curious writers of natural things called the Scytale, which is a shapely and beautiful animal, glittering with such variegation of its back that it detains onlookers by the sheen and charm of its scales; and because it is rather slow in creeping, it captures by the marvel of itself those who gaze in astonishment.8
Audi Solinum capite 30. Scytale, inquit, tanta praefulget tergi varietate, ut notarum gratia videntes retardet: & quoniam reptando pigrior est, quos assequi nequit, miraculo sui capiat stupentes. Haec Solinus.
Hear Solinus, chapter 30. The Scytale, he says, glitters with such variegation of its back that it slows down those who see it by the charm of its markings; and since it is rather slow in creeping, those whom it cannot overtake it captures, astonished, by the marvel of itself. Thus Solinus.9

Translator’s notes

  1. Second question of the disputation on the serpent. ↩
  2. Marginal gloss: 'Prima opinio: fuisse illi serpenti faciem muliebrem. Petrus Comestor. Bonaventura. Dionys. Carthusianus.' (First opinion: that serpent had a woman's face.) The 'maiden-faced serpent' theory (Peter Comestor's Historia Scholastica citing Bede; Bonaventure; Denis the Carthusian)—followed by painters—is reported and then dismissed by Nicholas of Lyra as a fable (no such species exists). ↩
  3. Basil (Hom. on Paradise) and Josephus: the serpent was mild and upright—a view Pererius already refuted (the upright-walking claim). John Damascene (De Fide Orthodoxa II.10): the serpent was the most familiar of animals, through which the devil instilled his venom. ↩
  4. A view that the serpent's frightfulness began only after the curse (Gen. 3:15). ↩
  5. Marginal gloss: 'Sententia Chrysostomi quae placet Auctori' (Chrysostom's opinion, which pleases the Author). Pererius's preferred answer (Chrysostom, Hom. 16 in Gen.): in innocence all animals were subject to man and could cause neither harm nor fear, since no penalty could touch man before sin. ↩
  6. Marginal glosses: 'Serpens ille qui decepit Evam, ex quo genere serpentum fuerit'; 'Opinio Eugubini, fuisse Basiliscum, qui tentavit Evam'; 'Mira descriptio Basilisci ex Plinio & Solino'; 'Solinus pleraque sumpsit ex Plinio.' The 'basilisk' theory of Steuchus Eugubinus (Cosmopoeia), with Pliny's famous description (Naturalis Historia VIII.21) of the basilisk and the weasel. Solinus's parallel quote begins (catchword 'malum'). ↩
  7. Solinus's basilisk description (Collectanea, c.30), parallel to Pliny's. Concludes 'Haec Solinus.' ↩
  8. Marginal gloss: 'Auctoris coniectura' (The Author's conjecture). Pererius rejects the basilisk (too small, deformed, and lethal by breath/sight) and conjectures the tempting serpent may have been the 'Scytale,' a beautiful serpent that transfixes onlookers by its dazzling skin. ↩
  9. Marginal gloss: 'Pulchritudo serpentis, qui appellatur scytale, auctore Solino' (The beauty of the serpent called the scytale, on Solinus's authority). Solinus's description of the Scytale supporting Pererius's conjecture. ↩