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 IV. Whether the curse of the serpent is to be referred to the real serpent or to the devil

LatineEnglish

QUESTION IV. Whether the curse of the serpent is to be referred to the real serpent or to the devil.1

QUAESTIO IIII. Utrum maledictio serpentis, ad verum serpentem an ad diabolum referenda sit.

Restat quarta de serpente tractanda quaestio, utrum maledictio & poena, qua Deus serpentem punivit dicens: Super pectus tuum gradieris, & terram comedes: Inimicitias ponam inter
There remains the fourth question to be treated concerning the serpent: whether the curse and penalty by which God punished the serpent, saying, 'Upon your breast you shall go, and you shall eat earth: I will put enmities between'2
...inter te & mulierem: semen tuum, & semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, & tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius: utrum, inquam, haec maledictio, qua Deus perstrinxit serpentem, pertineat ad verum serpentem, ut ipsa verba prae se ferunt, an ut figurate dicta accipienda sit, & sub nomine ac similitudine serpentis, ad diabolum qui per serpentem scelus illud molitus est referenda.
...between you and the woman: your seed, and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel': whether, I say, this curse, by which God censured the serpent, pertains to the real serpent, as the words themselves bear on their face, or whether it is to be taken as said figuratively, and, under the name and likeness of the serpent, to be referred to the devil, who through the serpent contrived that crime.3
Tres invenio Auctorum sententias. Moses enim Barcepha lib. de Paradiso, cap. 27. secutus Ephraem & complures alios Auctores arbitratur, maledictionem illam & poenam vere pertinuisse ad ipsum serpentem, licet ipse nullum patrasset scelus, sed eius flagitii auctor fuisset diabolus, nec serpens libero esset arbitrio, quasi in potestate eius fuisset vel dare se, vel non dare diabolo ad scelus illud exequendum. Probatur haec sententia eo maxime argumento, quod narratio Mosis historica sit: quemadmodum verba eius secundum propriam significationem, & ut ipsa per se sonant, intelligenda atque interpretanda sunt. Moses autem in tota hac narratione solius meminit serpentis, nullum de diabolo verbum faciens. Si obiicias istis, serpentem fuisse animal rationis expers, & idcirco nec potuisse peccare, nec puniri debuisse, aut certe magis diabolum qui princeps eius peccati auctor fuerat: Iosephus fortasse responderet, serpentem illum nec loquendi nec intelligendi facultate caruisse: ob idque tam peccati quam supplicii capacem esse potuisse. Verum, hoc ut maxime absurdum, supra explosum est.
I find three opinions of the Authors. For Moses Bar Cepha, in the book On Paradise, chapter 27, following Ephraem and very many other Authors, judges that that curse and penalty truly pertained to the serpent itself, although it itself had committed no crime, but the devil had been the author of its outrage, and the serpent was not of free will, as if it had been in its power either to give or not to give itself to the devil for executing that crime. This opinion is proved chiefly by this argument, that the narration of Moses is historical; accordingly, his words are to be understood and interpreted according to their proper signification and as they sound of themselves. And Moses in this whole narration mentions only the serpent, making no word of the devil. If you object to these men that the serpent was an animal devoid of reason, and therefore could not have sinned, nor ought to have been punished—or rather the devil, who had been the chief author of its sin—Josephus would perhaps answer that that serpent lacked neither the faculty of speaking nor of understanding, and that on that account it could have been capable both of sin and of punishment. But this, as most absurd, has been hissed off above.4
Barcepha vero cum Auctoribus ab ipso citatis respondet, licet non peccaverit serpens, eum tamen iuste quatuor de causis fuisse punitum. Primo, Deus serpentem detestatus est, ut hoc ipsum Satanae molestum accideret, qui eo usus fuerat tanquam instrumento: velut si quis musicum instrumentum confringat, quo afficiat dolore eum qui illo ad canendum utebatur: aut equum abscissis pedibus prosternat, ut sessori noceat, vel navem subvertat, ut qui ea vehitur naufragio pereat: ita Deus maledictis feriit serpentem, quo diabolum qui per eum locutus fuerat, dolore angeret: quemadmodum etiam legionem daemonum afflixit, porcos perdendo. Etenim simul atque Satanas conspexit anguem pedibus amissis humi volutari, acerbo dolore excruciatus est. Praeterea, ideo quoque maledixit serpenti, quod is homini peccandi causa vel occasio extitisset: sicut lege divina (ut est in Levitico cap. 20.) sancitum fuerat, ut iumentum cum quo quispiam coiisset, lapidibus obrueretur atque interficeretur.
But Bar Cepha, with the Authors cited by him, answers that, although the serpent did not sin, it was nonetheless justly punished for four causes. First, God detested the serpent, so that this very thing might fall out grievous to Satan, who had used it as an instrument: just as if someone should break a musical instrument, to afflict with grief the one who used it for singing; or lay low a horse with its feet cut off, to harm its rider; or sink a ship, so that he who is carried in it perishes by shipwreck: so God struck the serpent with curses, that he might torment with grief the devil who had spoken through it—just as he also afflicted the legion of demons by destroying the swine. For as soon as Satan saw the snake rolling on the ground with its feet lost, he was tortured with bitter grief. Besides, he cursed the serpent for this reason too, because it had been the cause or occasion of man's sinning: just as by the divine law (as it is in Leviticus, chapter 20) it had been sanctioned that a beast with which someone had lain be overwhelmed with stones and killed.5
Deinde, ita Deus maledixit serpenti propter Satanam, ut maledixit terrae propter Adamum, & ad eundem modum iumenta volucresque propter hominum peccata diluvio periere, quae non deliquerant tamen: quin etiam animantes quotidie, licet insontes, pro delictis hominum mactabantur in sacrificiis. David quoque 2. Reg. cap. 1. maledixit montibus Gelboe, propterea quod in illis ceciderant Saul
Next, God cursed the serpent on account of Satan in the same way as he cursed the earth on account of Adam; and in the same manner the beasts of burden and the birds perished in the flood on account of men's sins, though they had not transgressed; nay, living creatures were daily, though innocent, slaughtered in sacrifices for the offenses of men. David too, in 2 Kings (2 Samuel), chapter 1, cursed the mountains of Gilboa, because on them had fallen Saul6
Saul & Ionathas a Philistaeis interfecti. Quid quod hac etiam de causa serpenti maledicere voluit Deus, quo Adam & Eva videntes quantam sustineret ex divina maledictione serpens ille mulctam, pedibus orbus, ac super ventrem proreptans, animadverterent atque intelligerent in quam gravem ipsi cecidissent errorem, quantumque flagitium admisissent serpenti obtemperantes, ac proinde magno in posterum continerentur metu. Si quis obiiceret istis, serpentem illum naturaliter ambulasse supra pectus suum, non igitur fuisse id velut admissi sceleris poenam, responderent ipsi serpentem illum antea non super pectus suum, sed pedibus esse ingressum, quibus postea propter illud scelus sit mulctatus.
Saul and Jonathan slain by the Philistines. What of this—that God wished to curse the serpent for this cause too, that Adam and Eve, seeing how great a penalty that serpent bore from the divine curse—deprived of feet, and creeping forward upon its belly—might observe and understand into how grave an error they had fallen, and how great an outrage they had committed by obeying the serpent, and so be held in great fear thereafter. If someone should object to these men that the serpent naturally walked upon its breast, and that therefore this was not, as it were, a penalty for a committed crime, they would answer that that serpent had formerly gone not upon its breast, but with feet, of which it was afterward deprived on account of that crime.7
Ephraem igitur, & item Barcepha, aliique censuerunt, anguem illum fuisse antea de genere bestiarum quadrupedum, sed quia fuit Satanae organum, & idcirco inhaesit ipsi divina execratio, ex bestia pedibus ingrediente, factum est reptile animal prono ventre prorepens: sicut etiam Satan quia praevaricatus fuerat, ex Angelo evasit daemonium, & uxor Loth retro contra Dei praeceptum respectans, ex muliere transmutata est in statuam salis. Nec incredibile videri debet serpentem illum aliquando praeditum fuisse pedibus, cum Plinius lib. 11. cap. 46. tradit visas serpentes anserinis pedibus, nec id portenti loco memorat.
Ephraem, then, and likewise Bar Cepha and others, judged that that snake was formerly of the genus of four-footed beasts, but that, because it was Satan's instrument, and therefore the divine execration clung to it, from a beast walking on feet it became a reptile creeping forward on its prone belly: just as Satan too, because he had transgressed, turned from an Angel into a demon, and Lot's wife, looking back against God's command, was transmuted from a woman into a statue of salt. Nor ought it to seem incredible that that serpent was once endowed with feet, since Pliny, in book 11, chapter 46, reports that serpents have been seen with goose-feet, and does not mention it in the place of a portent.8
Verum enim vero dicet aliquis, cur saltem non simul cum serpente etiam ipsum Satanam execratus est Deus? Respondent illi, ideo Deum non maledixisse Satanae, ne Adamus & Eva animadverterent spiritum aliquem incorporeum fuisse intra serpentem, eoque in graviores multo raperentur errores: neque enim adhuc sciebant aliquid esse praeter Deum, quod oculis cerni non posset. Ad haec, propter Hebraeorum quoque imbecillitatem, noluit Moses spiritum qui intra serpentem latuerat prodere: ne scilicet illi adversariam Deo potestatem esse ullam opinarentur, quae maioribus freta viribus posset aliquid invito agere Deo, vel certe eius consiliis obsistere, & quae designaverat ipsi, ne ad exitum finemque perducerentur, impedire. Haec isti. Quam etiam opinionem secutus est Tostatus super cap. 13. libri Gen. 688. quaest.
But, in very truth, someone will say: why did not God execrate Satan himself together with the serpent, at least? They answer that God did not curse Satan, lest Adam and Eve should perceive that some incorporeal spirit was within the serpent, and thereby be carried into far graver errors; for they did not yet know that there was anything besides God that could not be discerned by the eyes. To this, on account of the weakness of the Hebrews too, Moses did not wish to disclose the spirit that had lurked within the serpent: lest, namely, they should suppose there was some power adverse to God, which, relying on greater strength, could do something against God's will, or at least resist his counsels, and hinder the things he had appointed from being carried through to their issue and end. Thus these men. And Tostatus, on the 13th chapter of the book of Genesis, question 688, followed this opinion too.9
Verum haec sententia fortissimo refellitur argumento. Nam ut demus illum serpentem, quia organum is fuerat Satanae ad scelus illud patrandum, ita fuisse a Deo mulctatum, nulla tamen ratio erat, ut omne genus serpentum qui & tunc erant, & deinceps omni tempore procreandi erant, eadem poena plecterentur, cum nec eius sceleris fuissent participes, nec ex eo qui sceleris perficiendi organum fuerat, progenerati essent. Adiice, quod Deus propter peccatum, quae naturalia sunt, nec daemoni nec homini ademit, nedum serpenti. Quod si serpens ille suapte natura carebat pedibus, quomodo consentaneum est fuisse id in poenam ei inflictum, quod antea in eo erat secundum naturam? Tostatus respondet licet ea naturaliter conven-
But this opinion is refuted by a most forcible argument. For though we grant that that serpent, because it had been Satan's instrument for committing that crime, was thus punished by God, yet there was no reason why the whole genus of serpents—both those that then existed and those that were thereafter to be procreated in every age—should be smitten with the same penalty, since they had neither been partakers of that crime nor been begotten from the one which had been the instrument of accomplishing the crime. Add that God, on account of sin, took away what is natural neither from the demon nor from man, much less from the serpent. And if that serpent by its own nature lacked feet, how is it consonant that this was inflicted on it as a penalty, which was previously in it according to nature? Tostatus answers that, although these things naturally bel[onged]...10
...venirent serpenti, attamen eo dicta fuisse illi, ut Deus quodammodo satisfaceret mulieri pro damno quod a serpente ipsa acceperat: putabat enim mulier illa Dei maledicta non esse naturalia serpenti, sed irrogata ei esse tanquam sceleris poenas & supplicia. Sed hoc valde frivolum ac futile responsum est, tantoque Tostati ingenio minime dignum. Ecquis enim inducat in animum credere, Deum voluisse satisfactionem dare mulieri, quae tam stulte, superbe, & iniuriose in ipsum peccaverat? Et qualis obsecro istiusmodi fuisset satisfactio, inanis nempe fucata & ficta, quaeque non veritate, sed falsa mulieris opinione niteretur. Quod si serpens cum accessit ad mulierem non habebat pedes, iam igitur antea mulier viderat naturale serpenti esse pedibus carere: nec profecto ea simulatio Adamum naturae animalium scientissimum latere potuisset. Quamobrem ridiculum ei videri potuisset, id pro supplicio imponi serpenti, quod ei natura tribuisset.
...belonged to the serpent naturally, yet they were said to it for this reason, that God might in some manner make satisfaction to the woman for the harm she herself had received from the serpent; for that woman thought that God's curses were not natural to the serpent, but were imposed on it as penalties and punishments of its crime. But this is a very frivolous and futile answer, and by no means worthy of so great a genius as Tostatus's. For who could bring himself to believe that God wished to make satisfaction to the woman, who had sinned against him so foolishly, proudly, and injuriously? And of what sort, I pray, would such a satisfaction have been—empty, indeed, painted, and feigned, and which would rest not on truth, but on the false opinion of the woman? And if the serpent, when it approached the woman, did not have feet, then the woman had already before seen that it was natural to a serpent to lack feet; nor indeed could that pretense have escaped Adam, most knowing of the nature of animals. Wherefore it could have seemed ridiculous to her, that that be imposed on the serpent as a punishment which nature had given to it.11

The second opinion was that of Didymus, who was the teacher of Blessed Jerome, who, as he is cited in Lippomani's Catena, reported this: Some, from the fact that the serpent was cursed, have judged that the serpent was once lofty of face and erect of body—not noticing that God had not made that one alone, of the genus of serpents, upright and going on feet. But because the devil, about to address the woman, reared it up, therefore it was commanded that it should fall onto its breast and belly. Didymus, therefore, thought that that serpent really lacked feet, but was for the time in which man was to be deceived, by the demon's work, reared up, and went lofty and high; and that therefore God said to it, 'Upon your breast you shall go': as if he said, although the devil has reared you up and made you go with lofty body, yet you shall return to your former nature.12

Secunda opinio fuit Didymi, qui magister fuit B. Hieronymi, qui ut in Catena Lippomani citatur, haec prodidit: Quidam ex eo quod serpens maledictus est, arbitrati sunt, sublimen ore & erectum corpore aliquando fuisse serpentem: non animadvertentes quod non illum solum ex genere serpentum Deus rectum & pedibus ingredientem fecisset. Verum quoniam eum diabolus allocuturus mulierem erexit, ideo iussus est ut in pectus & in ventrem caderet. Putavit igitur Didymus serpentem illum revera caruisse pedibus, fuisse tamen ad tempus quo deciperetur homo opera daemonis erectum, & arduus & sublimis ingrederetur: ideoque dixisse illi Deum, super pectus tuum gradieris: quasi diceret, licet diabolus te erexerit & celso corpore ingredi fecerit, redibis tamen ad tuam pristinam naturam.

Non assentior Didymo, quod enim dicit, nullius probatae auctoritatis aut verisimilis coniecturae fundamento fulcitur. Nec sane fuisset poena serpenti redire ad naturalem sui corporis habitum & motum. Quid quod si daemon serpentem erexisset, exacta tentatione ad naturalem statum suum rediisset serpens, & ita comparuisset coram Deo? quocirca illa Dei maledictio minime conveniens ei fuisset. Denique non potuisset id fugere Adamum: siquidem is noverat naturas & proprietates animalium, & cum ad illum deducta sunt animalia, serpentem humi reptantem viderat.
I do not assent to Didymus, for what he says is propped on the foundation of no approved authority or probable conjecture. Nor indeed would it have been a penalty for the serpent to return to the natural condition and motion of its body. What of this—that, if the demon had reared up the serpent, the temptation accomplished, the serpent would have returned to its natural state, and so have appeared before God? Wherefore that curse of God would have been by no means fitting to it. Finally, this could not have escaped Adam, since he knew the natures and properties of the animals, and when the animals were led to him, he had seen the serpent creeping on the ground.13
Tertia sententia primae opinioni plane contraria, plurimorum est Doctorum. Augustini lib. 2. de Genesi contra Manichaeos, cap. 17. & 18. & lib. 11. de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 36. Bedae item, Ruperti, Hugonis de S. Victore, Caietani, aliorumque complurium super hoc loco Geneseos, qui ea maledicta quae Deus in serpentem dixit, non ad verum serpentem, sed sub illius vocabulo & figura ad solum diabolum pertinere arbitrantur. Etenim diabolus, serpens dicitur propter causas a nobis supra expositas. Dicitur maledictus inter bestias terrae, quia damnatus est aeternis poenis, & quicquid in
The third opinion, plainly contrary to the first, is that of very many of the learned. It is that of Augustine (book 2 On Genesis against the Manichees, chapters 17 and 18, and book 11 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 36), likewise of Bede, Rupert, Hugh of St. Victor, Cajetan, and very many others on this place of Genesis, who judge that those curses which God spoke against the serpent pertain not to the real serpent, but, under its name and figure, to the devil alone. For the devil is called a 'serpent' for the causes set forth by us above. He is called 'cursed among the beasts of the earth,' because he is condemned to eternal punishments; and whatever in14
...bestiis corporaliter cernitur obscoenum, fraudulentum, aut truculentum, id multo magis in daemone spiritualiter reperitur. Super pectus & ventrem graditur daemon, quia duabus viis adoritur seducere homines, per superbiam scilicet quae figuratur pectore, & libidinem quae adumbratur ventre. Vel quia in pectore est irascibilis, in ventre concupiscibilis: quos appetitus commovet & incendit daemon, ut hominem ad gravissima flagitia rapiat. Vel secundum Gregorium, lib. 21. Moralium, cap. 2. per ventrem significatur executio operis luxuriae; per pectus autem, eius cogitatio & desiderium: daemon enim quos non potest ad luxuriae effectum perducere, interna nititur cogitatione polluere.
...beasts is discerned bodily as obscene, fraudulent, or savage, that is found much more in the demon spiritually. The demon goes upon its breast and belly, because it sets about to seduce men by two ways—namely by pride, which is figured by the breast, and by lust, which is shadowed forth by the belly. Or because in the breast is the irascible, in the belly the concupiscible appetite: which appetites the demon stirs up and inflames, to snatch man away to the gravest outrages. Or, according to Gregory, in book 21 of the Morals, chapter 2, by the belly is signified the execution of the work of lust; but by the breast, its thought and desire: for the demon strives to pollute by inner thought those whom it cannot lead to the effect of lust.15

The same Gregory, in the third part of the Pastoral Care, Admonition 20, explains the aforesaid words thus: Whence also to the crafty enemy, who opened the first man's sense to the desire of the apple, and bound it in the snare of sin, it is said by the divine voice: 'You shall creep upon your breast and belly': as if it were said to him openly, 'By thought and gluttony you shall have dominion over human hearts.' That lust follows those given to gluttony, the Prophet testifies, who, while he narrates open things, announces hidden ones, saying, 'The prince of cooks destroyed the walls of Jerusalem.' For the prince of cooks is the belly, to which great care of service is paid by the cooks, that it may be delightfully filled with food. But the walls of Jerusalem are the virtues of the soul raised to the desire of supernal peace. The prince of cooks, therefore, casts down the walls of Jerusalem, because, while the belly is distended by gluttony, the virtues of the soul are destroyed through lust. Thus Gregory.16

Idem Gregorius in tertia parte curae pastoralis, Admonitione 20. praedicta verba sic explanat: Unde & hosti callido, qui primi hominis sensum in concupiscentiam pomi aperuit, & in peccati laqueo strinxit, divina voce dicitur: Pectore ac ventre repes: ac si ei aperte diceretur, Cogitatione & ingluvie super humana corda dominaberis. Quia gulae deditos luxuria sequitur, Propheta testatur, qui dum aperta narrat, occulta denunciat, dicens, Princeps coquorum destruxit muros Hierusalem. Princeps namque coquorum venter est, cui magna cura obsequium a coquis impenditur, ut ipse delectabiliter cibis impleatur. Muri autem Hierusalem, virtutes sunt animae ad desiderium supernae pacis elevatae. Coquorum igitur princeps muros Hierusalem deiicit, quia dum venter ingluvie extenditur, virtutes animae per luxuriam destruuntur. Haec Gregorius.

Illud, Terram comedes cunctis diebus vitae tuae, significat homines terrenis cupiditatibus affixos, qui sunt velut esca diaboli quam ille avidissime captat, simulque indicat quantopere diabolus hominum perniciem esuriat, ut recte S. Petrus illud in eum dixerit, Tanquam leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret. Audi quid in eandem sententiam scribat sanctus Gregorius explanans illum versiculum psalmi centesimi primi, qui numeratur quartus inter psalmos de poenitentia, Et terrae eius miserebuntur. Per terram, inquit Gregorius, peccatores accipimus: unde serpenti a Domino dictum est, Terram comedes omnibus diebus vitae tuae. Antiquus enim hostis terram comedit, quia peccatores quoque in ventrem suae malitiae abscondit: iisque hominum perditionem desiderans, quodammodo reficitur, dum pravis eorum operationibus delectatur. Illud autem, Cunctis diebus vitae tuae, designat omne tempus huius vitae usque ad consummationem saeculi, quo tempore permissum est daemoni homines tentare, decipere, ac perdere: quod ille pro vita & magna voluptate habet. Quamobrem daemones rogabant Christum ne mitteret eos in abyssum, & alii dicebant ei:
That phrase, 'You shall eat earth all the days of your life,' signifies men fixed on earthly desires, who are, as it were, the food of the devil, which he most greedily snatches at; and at the same time it indicates how greatly the devil hungers for the ruin of men, so that St. Peter rightly said that of him: 'Like a roaring lion he goes about, seeking whom he may devour.' Hear what, to the same purport, holy Gregory writes, explaining that little verse of the hundred-and-first Psalm, which is numbered the fourth among the penitential psalms, 'And they shall have pity on its earth.' By 'earth,' says Gregory, we understand sinners: whence it was said to the serpent by the Lord, 'You shall eat earth all the days of your life.' For the ancient enemy eats earth, because he hides sinners too in the belly of his malice; and, desiring the perdition of men through them, he is in a manner refreshed, while he is delighted by their depraved deeds. But that phrase, 'All the days of your life,' designates the whole time of this life until the consummation of the age, in which time it is permitted to the demon to tempt, deceive, and ruin men—which he holds for his life and great pleasure. Wherefore the demons begged Christ not to send them into the abyss, and others said to him:17

'You have come here before the time to torment us.' I will not omit—that is, I will not here pass over in silence—how Rupert interprets the aforesaid words, in book 3 On the Trinity and its Works, chapter 18. What does it mean, says Rupert, that it was said to the serpent, 'Upon your breast you shall go'? Surely, before the demon had spoken through it, it walked on feet, with its breast raised from the ground; but afterward, its feet being taken away, it began to go upon its breast, using its scales and ribs for feet and legs, and with pressed18

Venisti huc ante tempus torquere nos. Non omittam, ut quemadmodum supradicta verba Rupertus libro 3. de Trinitate & operibus eius, cap. 18. interpretetur, hic silentio praeteream. Quid sibi vult, inquit Rupertus, quod dictum est serpenti, Super pectus tuum gradieris? num, priusquam daemon per eum locutus esset, pedibus ambulabat pectore a terra sublato: postea vero, ademptis pedibus, super pectus gradi coepit, squamis suis & costis pro pedibus & cruribus utens, & presso

...with pressed [belly], creeping in its going? Had not God, before he made man, brought forth the beasts of burden of the earth and the wild beasts, and all the reptiles—among which without doubt were serpents? How, then, is that inflicted on it as a penalty which had previously been bestowed on it by nature? Therefore, under the name of the serpent which the devil invaded, the devil himself is struck by those curses: and he who in pride desired to become like the Most High is, on account of his malice, judged to be made penally like to the lowest creature which he himself corrupted. Therefore this is the sense of that curse: Just as this reptile, whose cunning you have abused, goes upon its breast and presses itself into the earth, so you, though you are a rational spirit, will always burden your reason with grievous folly, and wherever you turn yourself, you will always bend your intention downward and press it down with contrary deeds. For by envying you emptied out the merit of man; but by this deed you opened a place for the grace of God, which you will envy the more, since man becomes higher above himself by as much as the grace of God is greater than the merits of any creature. While you willingly oppose God, you unwillingly cooperate with God; and in a wondrous manner, when you intend evils, you do goods; and while, like a little hammer, you wickedly beat the gold of God, by beating you extend it the more to glory. 'You shall eat earth and not heaven'—that is, not those whose conversation is in the heavens, but those who are wise in earthly things shall be your food. A bad workman and a worthless servant, yet useful to God, you will console the weariness of your wrath by the devouring of such men. Thus Rupert.19

...& presso repens incessu? Nonne antequam Deus hominem fecisset, produxerat iumenta terrae & bestias, omniaque reptilia, in quibus proculdubio erant serpentes? Quomodo igitur pro poena infertur illi, quod fuerat illi prius a natura tributum? Igitur sub nomine serpentis quem invasit diabolus, ipse illis maledictis percutitur: Et qui superbia similis Altissimo fieri concupivit, propter malitiam suam, infima creatura quam ipse vitiavit, iudicatur fieri poenaliter similis. Ergo illius maledictionis hic est intellectus: Sicut hoc reptile cuius calliditate abusus es, super pectus suum graditur, & se ipsum in terram premit: sic tu cum sis rationalis spiritus, rationem tuam semper gravi fatuitate onerabis, & quocumque te verteris, semper intentionem tuam deorsum conferes & factis premes contrariis. Invidendo enim evacuasti meritum hominis: sed hoc facto gratiae Dei locum aperuisti, cui amplius invidebis, dum homo seipso tanto fit altior, quanto gratia Dei cuiusque creaturae meritis est maior. Dum Deo volens adversaris, Deo nolens cooperaris: & miro modo cum mala intendis, bona facis: & dum, quasi malleolus, aurum Dei nequiter affligis, affligendo magis etiam extendis ad gloriam. Terram comedes & non coelum, hoc est, non quorum conversatio in coelis est, sed qui terrena sapiunt, illi cibus tuus erunt. Malus operarius & nequam servus, Deo tamen utilis, fatigationem iracundiae tuae talium devoratione consolaberis. Sic Rupertus.

Ex eo autem quod sequitur Inimicitias ponam inter te & mulierem, argumentatur Hugo, Evam egisse poenitentiam de suo peccato & fuisse salvam. Nam si deinceps Eva fuit inimica diabolo, ergo fuit grata & amica Deo. At enim, parum est firma haec argumentatio: hic enim per mulierem non sola intelligitur Eva, sed omne genus mulierum deinceps omnibus saeculis futurum: sicut per serpentem non ille unus duntaxat, sed universum genus serpentum intelligi debet.
But from what follows—'I will put enmities between you and the woman'—Hugh argues that Eve did penance for her sin and was saved. For if Eve was thereafter an enemy to the devil, then she was pleasing and a friend to God. But this argumentation is not very firm: for here by 'the woman' is understood not Eve alone, but the whole race of women that was thereafter to be in all ages; just as by 'the serpent' not that one alone, but the entire race of serpents, ought to be understood.20
Per semen autem serpentis, quidam interpretantur minores diabolos qui Luciferum in peccando secuti sunt, alii, homines malos intelligunt diaboli discipulos, alumnos, & administros. Quapropter de Iudaeis dixit Dominus, Vos ex patre diabolo estis, & desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Semen autem mulieris, significat eius progeniem tam masculinam quam femininam: futuri enim erant inter viros & feminas permulti, qui cum diabolo fortiter dimicando eum debellaturi erant, & gloriosissima de eo parta victoria triumphaturi.
By the 'seed of the serpent,' some interpret the lesser devils who followed Lucifer in sinning; others understand evil men, the devil's disciples, foster-children, and ministers. Wherefore the Lord said of the Jews, 'You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you wish to do.' But the 'seed of the woman' signifies her offspring, both male and female: for there were to be among men and women very many who, by bravely fighting with the devil, were to vanquish him, and to triumph with a most glorious victory won over him.21
Illud Tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius, significat diabolum propterea dici calcaneo hominis, quae est ultima pars corporis, insidiari, quia in primis cupit vitiare intentionem hominis, & bonum actionum finem, eoque spectat omnis eius tentatio & oppugnatio, ut hominem retrahat ab ultimi finis adeptione. Et quamvis per totam vitam insidietur homini, id tamen in extremo vitae potissimum facit: quo quidem tempore & callidius insidiatur, & instantius premit ac vexat, & potentius infestat hominem. Ponam hic quae in eandem sententiam, hunc ipsum Geneseos locum tractans, scribit S. Gregorius in 1. caput Iob, super illis verbis, Ne forte peccaverint filii mei, & benedixerint Deum in cordibus suis: Cum antiquus hostis, inquit, neque in exordio inten-
That phrase, 'You shall lie in wait for his heel,' signifies that the devil is said to lie in wait for the heel of man—which is the last part of the body—because he chiefly desires to corrupt man's intention and the good end of his actions; and to this all his temptation and assault are directed, that he may draw man back from the attainment of his ultimate end. And although he lies in wait for man throughout his whole life, he does this most of all at the end of life; at which time, indeed, he lies in wait more craftily, and presses and harasses more insistently, and assails man more powerfully. I will set down here what, to the same purport, treating this very place of Genesis, St. Gregory writes on the first chapter of Job, upon those words, 'Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts': When the ancient enemy, he says, neither at the outset of [our] inten[tion]...22

...of our intention, nor intercepts on the way of action, he stretches harder snares at the end, which he besieges the more wickedly the more he sees that this alone has remained to him for deceiving. For the Prophet had beheld these snares set against his own end, when he said, 'They will watch my heel.' For since in the heel is the end of the body, what is signified by it but the term of action? Whether, then, malign spirits, or any depraved men, the followers of their pride, watch the heel, when they desire to corrupt the end of a good action. Whence it is also said to that serpent, 'She will watch your head, and you her heel.' For to watch the head of the serpent is to look upon his suggestion at its beginning, and with the careful hand of consideration to root it utterly out from the entrance of the heart. Yet he, when he is caught at the beginning, sets about to strike the heel: because, even if by suggestion he does not strike the first intention, he aims to deceive at the end. But if once the heart is corrupted in its intention, the middle and the term of the following action are securely possessed by the crafty enemy, since he sees the whole tree bearing fruit for himself, which he has corrupted at the root with the tooth of his venom. Thus Gregory.23

...tionis ferit, neque in itinere actionis intercipit, duriores in fine laqueos tendit, quem tanto nequius obsidet, quanto solum sibi remansisse ad decipiendum videt. Hos namque fini suo laqueos oppositos Propheta conspexerat, cum dicebat, Ipsi calcaneum meum observabunt. Quia enim in calcaneo finis est corporis, quid per hunc nisi terminus signatur actionis? sive ergo maligni spiritus, sive pravi quique homines illorum superbiae sequaces, calcaneum observant, cum actionis bonae finem vitiare desiderant. Unde & eidem serpenti dicitur, Ipsa tuum observabit caput, & tu calcaneum eius. Caput namque serpentis observare est initio suggestionis eius aspicere, & manu solicita considerationis a cordis aditu funditus exstirpare. Qui tamen cum ab initio deprehenditur, percutere calcaneum molitur: quia & si suggestione primam intentionem non percutit, decipere in fine tendit. Si autem semel cor in intentione corrumpitur, sequentis actionis medietas & terminus ab hoste callido secure possidetur, quoniam totam sibi arborem fructus ferre conspicit, quam veneni dente in radice vitiavit. Haec Gregorius.

Sequitur Et ipsa conteret caput tuum. Hoc multi referunt ad beatam Virginem, quae ut nullus fuit hominum (uno excepto Domino nostro) gratior & amicior Deo, ita nullus fuit inimicior & invisior diabolo. Ipsa proculdubio, ut verbis utar Bernardi quae sunt in Homilia eius secunda, super Missus est, caput contrivit venenatum, quae omnimodam maligni serpentis suggestionem tam de carnis illecebra, quam de mentis superbia deduxit ad nihilum. Cuius mulieris semen Christus fuit. Et recte: solus namque hominum ex femina tantum sine virili commixtione generatus est. Et hic contrivit caput serpentis (nam Hebraice illud pronomen Ipse, non ad mulierem sed ad semen refertur); caput autem diaboli, fuit peccati & mortis potestas, quam ille in omnes habebat: & hanc Christus contrivit atque destruxit.
There follows, 'And she shall crush your head.' This many refer to the Blessed Virgin, who, as no one of human beings (with our Lord alone excepted) was more pleasing and dear to God, so no one was more hostile and more hateful to the devil. She without doubt—to use the words of Bernard which are in his second Homily on 'Missus est'—crushed the venomous head, who brought to nothing every kind of the malign serpent's suggestion, both of the flesh's enticement and of the mind's pride. The seed of this woman was Christ. And rightly: for he alone of human beings was generated from a woman only, without male intercourse. And he it was who crushed the head of the serpent (for in Hebrew that pronoun 'he' refers not to the woman but to the seed); and the head of the devil was the power of sin and death which he had over all: and this Christ crushed and destroyed.24
Proditum est a multis, iam hoc loco & in ipso mundi exordio coeptum esse praedicari Evangelium de Messia venturo mundi Salvatore, & diabolici imperii eversore, atque ob eam causam in Apocalypsi appellari agnum occisum ab origine mundi, quia scilicet pretiosissima eius mors iam inde a mundi origine significari, & vim suam exerere, ac salutarem effectum habere coepit. Addunt praeterea Doctores, hoc mysterium cognovisse Adamum, & in Christum venturum qui peccati sui expiator, & totius humani generis redemptor futurus erat, credidisse, seque eius gratia & futurae passionis eius efficacia a peccato suo liberatum iri speravit.
It has been reported by many that already in this place, and in the very beginning of the world, the Gospel began to be preached concerning the Messiah to come, the Savior of the world and the overthrower of the diabolical empire; and that for that cause he is called in the Apocalypse 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,' because, namely, his most precious death began to be signified from the very origin of the world, and to exert its power, and to have its salutary effect. The Doctors add, moreover, that Adam knew this mystery, and believed in Christ to come, who was to be the expiator of his sin and the redeemer of the whole human race, and hoped that he himself would be freed from his sin by his grace and the efficacy of his future passion.25
Atque haec est multorum sententia, & divinae maledictionis serpentis interpretatio. Quam nos, ut allegoricam & mysticam, maxime, ut historicam vero, non omnino probamus: & ut ex parte libenter amplectimur, sic usquequaque non sequimur. Etenim Deus maledixit serpenti qui cernebatur ab Eva & Adamo, & maledixit ei comparando eum cum bestiis terrae: Maledictus, inquit, es inter omnia animantia & bestias terrae: diabolus autem nec visus est primis homini-
And this is the opinion of many, and their interpretation of the divine curse of the serpent. Which we, as allegorical and mystical, most of all approve; but as historical, not altogether: and as we gladly embrace it in part, so we do not follow it in every respect. For God cursed the serpent which was seen by Eve and Adam, and cursed it by comparing it with the beasts of the earth: 'Cursed,' he says, 'are you among all living things and the beasts of the earth'; but the devil was neither seen by the first human be[ings]...26
...hominibus, nec in eum illi sed in serpentem erroris sui culpam reiecerunt. Et nimis durum ac violentum est, diabolum cum bestiis terrae comparari: nec sane Deus maledicens diabolo, praecise ac simpliciter appellasset serpentem. Quanquam Hugo Sancti Victoris propterea dicit Deum maledicentem diabolo, vocabulo serpentis perpetuo eum appellasse, quia is figuram & speciem serpentis induerat. Ut si quis, inquit, quo posset aliquid ex monasterio furari, monachalem habitum indueret, qui cum illo habitu deprehensus a iudice damnaretur, & diceret iudex ministris, suspendite istum monachum, propter habitum scilicet monachalem quem sibi ille circumdederat, & cum quo deprehensus & ad iudicem adductus fuerat. Sed ridiculum est exemplum. Et vero, secundum Hugonem Deus haec per irrisionem dixisset diabolo appellans eum serpentem, nec id mysterium Adamus aut certe Eva intellexissent.
...beings, nor did they cast the blame of their error upon him, but upon the serpent. And it is too harsh and violent for the devil to be compared with the beasts of the earth; nor indeed would God, in cursing the devil, have called him precisely and simply a 'serpent.' Although Hugh of St. Victor says that God, in cursing the devil, called him perpetually by the word 'serpent' for this reason, because he had put on the figure and appearance of a serpent. As if someone, he says, in order to steal something from a monastery, should put on a monk's habit, and, caught in that habit, should be condemned by a judge, and the judge should say to his ministers, 'Hang that monk'—on account of the monk's habit, namely, which that man had wrapped around himself, and with which he had been caught and brought to the judge. But the example is ridiculous. And indeed, according to Hugh, God would have said these things to the devil by way of mockery, calling him a serpent—and neither Adam nor certainly Eve would have understood that mystery.27
Restat quarta sententia, quae nobis similior vero, id est, narrationi Mosis aptior atque congruentior videtur. Arbitramur illam serpentis maledictionem secundum historicum sensum ad verum serpentem pertinuisse, secundum autem sensum mysticum, a Deo tamen principaliter intentum (& cum ea maledicta in serpentem pronunciavit, & cum ea scriptis a Mose prodita immortali posteritatis memoriae commendari voluit), ad diabolum esse referendam. Etenim ad scelus illud perficiendum, & diabolus princeps eius sceleris auctor, & serpens tanquam diaboli organum convenerunt.
There remains the fourth opinion, which seems to us more like the truth—that is, more fitting and congruent with the narration of Moses. We judge that that curse of the serpent, according to the historical sense, pertained to the real serpent; but according to the mystical sense—principally intended by God, however (both when he pronounced that curse against the serpent, and when he willed it, set down in writing by Moses, to be commended to the immortal memory of posterity)—is to be referred to the devil. For to accomplish that crime there came together both the devil, the chief author of the crime, and the serpent, as the devil's instrument.28
Sed quia solus serpens cernebatur & audiebatur, daemon autem qui intra serpentem latens maleficium illud operatus est sensum omnem fugiebat, idcirco maledicta illa historico modo de serpente pronunciata sunt, & de eo intelligi debent, de diabolo autem figurate & μυσικῶς. Exempli causa, ut rem hanc alia re simili confirmemus, scriptum est in libro Numerorum capitulo vigesimoprimo, ad sanandos lethales morsus serpentium a quibus percussi fuerant Hebraei, Mosen Dei iussu serpentem aeneum in sublime elatum Hebraeis cernendum proposuisse: cuius illi aspectu, tanto illo malo liberabantur. Illa igitur narratio, secundum historicum & litteralem sensum ad serpentem aeneum pertinet, secundum sensum allegoricum & mysticum, principaliter ad Christum Dominum referenda est, sicut ipse Dominus apud Ioannem capite tertio indicavit, factum illud ad sese, ut illustrem suae passionis & mortis imaginem, applicans.
But because the serpent alone was seen and heard, while the demon, lurking within the serpent, who wrought that evil deed, escaped all the senses, therefore those curses were pronounced in the historical mode concerning the serpent, and ought to be understood of it; but of the devil figuratively and μυσικῶς (mystically). For example, that we may confirm this matter by another like it: it is written in the book of Numbers, chapter twenty-one, that, to heal the lethal bites of the serpents by which the Hebrews had been struck, Moses, by God's command, set up a bronze serpent, raised on high, for the Hebrews to look upon; by the sight of which they were freed from so great an evil. That narration, therefore, according to the historical and literal sense pertains to the bronze serpent; according to the allegorical and mystical sense, it is to be referred principally to Christ the Lord, as the Lord himself indicated in John, chapter three, applying that deed to himself as a distinguished image of his passion and death.29
Quod autem illa maledictio serpentis de vero serpente intelligi debeat, ex his manifestum fit quae supra disputavimus, cum tertiam opinionem confutaremus. Cum enim haec narratio Mosis, non minus quam superiores omnes historica sit, eam secundum propriam verborum quibus describitur significationem intelligere & interpretari necesse est. Nec sane hoc Lectori erit difficile creditu. Illud tamen videbitur arduum ad explicandum, & ad persuadendum diffi-
But that that curse of the serpent ought to be understood of the real serpent becomes manifest from those things which we disputed above, when we were confuting the third opinion. For since this narration of Moses is no less historical than all the preceding ones, it is necessary to understand and interpret it according to the proper signification of the words by which it is described. Nor indeed will this be difficult for the Reader to believe. Yet that will seem hard to explain, and dif[ficult] to persuade...30
...difficile: cum enim, quae Deus dixit serpenti ei maledicens, fuissent in eo ante illam tentationem, quin etiam sint ei naturalia, quomodo supplicii & poenarum loco ei potuerunt aut debuerunt infligi? nulla enim propter illam maledictionem nova vel serpenti, vel diabolo accessit poena. De serpente quidem iam diximus: idemque in diabolo manifestum est: quippe ab initio diabolus propter peccatum suum aeternis damnatus est inferni suppliciis, ex eoque tempore nullam amplius meretur novam poenam, sicut nec Beati novam gloriam essentialem mereri possunt. Utrique enim iam sunt in termino, ad quem pervenerunt, nec bene nec male merendi potentes sunt.
...difficult: for since the things which God said to the serpent in cursing it had been in it before that temptation—nay, are even natural to it—how could or ought they to have been inflicted on it in the place of punishment and penalties? For on account of that curse no new penalty accrued either to the serpent or to the devil. Concerning the serpent we have already spoken; and the same is manifest in the devil: for from the beginning the devil, on account of his sin, was condemned to the eternal punishments of hell, and from that time he merits no new penalty any more, just as neither can the Blessed merit new essential glory. For both are already at the term to which they have arrived, and are capable of meriting neither well nor ill.31
Quod si daemon propter illam tentationem Evae novam meruisset poenam, simili profecto ratione propter innumerabiles tentationes quibus quotidie homines decipit ac perdit, novis quotidie poenis innumerabilibus mulctaretur. Declarare igitur quemadmodum ea quae serpenti dicta sunt, & fuerint ei naturalia, & nihilominus tamen ut poenas sceleris ac supplicium eidem sint illata, hoc opus, hic labor est. Verum & hoc expedire, quantum nempe rei obscuritas, & nostrae fert facultatis tenuitas, enitemur.
But if the demon had merited a new penalty on account of that temptation of Eve, then assuredly, by a like reasoning, on account of the innumerable temptations by which he daily deceives and ruins men, he would be smitten daily with new and innumerable penalties. To declare, therefore, how the things that were said to the serpent both were natural to it, and nevertheless were inflicted on it as penalties and punishment of the crime—'this is the task, this the labor.' But we will strive to accomplish this too, as far, namely, as the obscurity of the matter and the slenderness of our faculty allows.32
Sciendum igitur est, maledicta illa serpentis, simpliciter & absolute loquendo, fuisse naturalia serpenti, ut saepe dictum est: quodammodo tamen post illam tentationem & peccatum primorum hominum fuisse ei tanquam poenas & supplicium: non quidem habito ad serpentem respectu, qui nullam ex illis poenam sensit, sed habito respectu ad hominem. Nam quae antea fuerant serpenti naturalia, post peccatum, eidem fuere apud homines ad magnum dedecus, opprobrium, odium, & execrationem: qui enim antea non fuisset homini propter ista invisus & execrabilis, post peccatum infamis, exosus, & abominabilis extitit.
It must be known, therefore, that those curses of the serpent, simply and absolutely speaking, were natural to the serpent, as has often been said; yet in a certain manner, after that temptation and the sin of the first human beings, they were to it as penalties and punishment—not, indeed, with respect had to the serpent, which felt none of those as a penalty, but with respect had to man. For the things which had previously been natural to the serpent, after sin became to it, among men, a matter of great disgrace, reproach, hatred, and execration: for the serpent which previously would not have been hateful and execrable to man on account of those things, after sin came to be infamous, odious, and abominable.33
Est quidem, ut inter alia animalia, sic inter hominem & serpentem naturalis & vehemens quaedam antipathia, uterque enim alterum naturaliter odit & aversatur, sed ea singulari providentia & potentia Dei cohibebatur ante peccatum, cohibenda pariter omni tempore quo status ille felicissimus innocentiae permansisset: cohibebatur, ne erumperet in actum secundum, id est, in mutuum odium, & nocendi studium atque conatum: quo fiebat, ut id temporis nec homo serpentem exhorresceret, nec serpens insidiis hominem appeteret. At post peccatum amissa originali iustitia, sublataque singulari providentia & protectione Dei, naturalis illa serpentis & hominis antipathia relicta est libera, ut in actum prodiret: ex quo factum est, ut postea naturaliter homo serpentem horreat, non secus quam ovis lupum, pullus miluum, & mus felem: & ipse serpens naturali quodam instinctu hominem odio & insidiis persequatur. Haec igitur quae naturalia quidem per se sunt, sed ante peccatum tamen singulari munere Dei repressa tenebantur, post peccatum soluta & naturae suae permissa sunt. Est autem quaedam velut poena & supplicium serpentis, ut ex illo tempore eum homo super-
There is indeed, as between other animals, so between man and the serpent, a certain natural and vehement antipathy, for each naturally hates and shuns the other; but this was restrained, before sin, by the singular providence and power of God, and was to be restrained equally for all the time in which that most happy state of innocence should have endured: it was restrained, lest it break out into a second act—that is, into mutual hatred and the zeal and endeavor of harming; whereby it came about that at that time neither did man shudder at the serpent, nor did the serpent assail man with snares. But after sin, original justice being lost, and that singular providence and protection of God being taken away, that natural antipathy of the serpent and of man was left free to come forth into act: from which it came about that afterward man naturally shudders at the serpent, just as the sheep at the wolf, the chick at the kite, and the mouse at the cat; and the serpent itself, by a certain natural instinct, pursues man with hatred and snares. These things, then, which are indeed natural in themselves, but before sin were held repressed by the singular gift of God, after sin were loosed and left to their own nature. And it is a sort of penalty and punishment of the serpent, that from that time man, over...34
...per alia animalia oderit, aversetur, abominetur, & quoquo modo laedere ac perimere conetur. Potest hoc, exemplo mortis quae propter peccatum homini accidit, declarari & confirmari. Mors enim naturalis est homini, & quidem naturalis erat etiam ante peccatum; homo enim naturaliter mortalis est: verum eximio & admirabili beneficio Deus in statu innocentiae mortem ab homine propulsabat & arcebat, ita ut, si nunquam homo peccasset, nunquam mortuus fuisset. Propter peccatum autem spoliatus homo iustitia originali, & illa singulari protectione Dei destitutus, suaeque permissus naturae, in mortem incurrit. Itaque factum est, ut licet mors naturalis sit homini propter peccatum, tamen, ut eius poenam & supplicium, homini eam contigisse, in sacris litteris proditum & testatum reperiamus.
...above the other animals, hates it, shuns it, abominates it, and in every way strives to injure and destroy it. This can be declared and confirmed by the example of death, which befell man on account of sin. For death is natural to man, and was indeed natural even before sin; for man is naturally mortal: but by an excellent and admirable benefit God, in the state of innocence, drove off and warded death away from man, so that, if man had never sinned, he would never have died. But on account of sin, man, despoiled of original justice and deprived of that singular protection of God, and left to his own nature, ran into death. And so it came about that, although death is natural to man, yet—on account of sin—we find it reported and attested in the sacred Letters that it befell man as his penalty and punishment.35
Voluit igitur Deus supplicium esse serpenti, quod prius erat natura: quemadmodum arcus coelestis fuerat ante diluvium, & fit naturaliter, Deus tamen eum, nunquam in posterum futuri diluvii, signum esse voluit. Eadem quoque fuit natura serpenti post peccatum quae antea fuerat: sed cuius forma sumpta est & accommodata ad maleficium, damnata est ad supplicium, pronunciatio ad dedecus & opprobrium, eo quod naturale prius erat, nec, si peccatum non fuisset, infame & execrabile visum esset. Atque haec fuit damnatio, ut cuius natura est ad fraudem adhibita, confirmata esset ad dedecus, ut esset ei turpe talem esse, cui talem esse prius naturale ac decorum fuerat: Deo volente, ut quod ipse antea serpentis naturam fecerat, deinceps instituto suo, cuius consilio omnis obsequitur natura, idem probro & supplicio esset.
God willed, therefore, that that should be a punishment to the serpent which previously was nature: just as the heavenly bow had existed before the flood, and comes about naturally, yet God willed it to be a sign that there would never be a flood in time to come. The same too was the serpent's nature after sin as had been before; but whose form was taken and accommodated to the evil deed, it was condemned to punishment, and the pronouncement was to disgrace and reproach—because it was previously natural, and, if sin had not occurred, would not have seemed infamous and execrable. And this was the condemnation: that that whose nature had been employed for fraud should be confirmed unto disgrace, so that it should be shameful for it to be such, to which to be such had previously been natural and seemly: God willing that what he himself had previously made the serpent's nature should thereafter, by his own decree—to whose counsel all nature submits—be the same thing for reproach and punishment.36
Nihil igitur damni serpenti accidit: tantum infame iussum est esse, quod si non esset iussum, fuisset naturale. Nam ut venerabilis & amabilis est crux Domini, in qua genus humanum est redemptum: sic maledictus & abominabilis est serpens, per quem fraus & perditio humani generis perpetrata est. Nec sane opus erat serpenti novo supplicio, satis enim ei superque malorum est: vivit humi reptando per terram, & cum labore, corpus trahendo movetur: in locis desertis & obscuris & abominatis habitat, & pessimis hominibus ad maleficia inservit: tantum erant haec demonstranda, divinoque decreto ad ipsius dedecus & execrationem referenda. Quemadmodum igitur, quod maledictione serpentis continetur, licet ei naturale sit, nihilominus tamen ad eius poenam & supplicium quodammodo pertineat, ex his quae brevissime docuimus, facile, ut opinor, lector intelliget.
No harm, therefore, befell the serpent: only it was commanded to be infamous, which, if it had not been commanded, would have been natural. For as the cross of the Lord is venerable and lovable, on which the human race was redeemed, so the serpent, through which the fraud and ruin of the human race was perpetrated, is cursed and abominable. Nor indeed was there need of a new punishment for the serpent, for it has enough and more than enough of evils: it lives creeping on the ground over the earth, and with labor is moved by dragging its body; it dwells in deserted and dark and abominable places, and serves the worst of men for their evil deeds: only these things were to be demonstrated, and by the divine decree referred to its disgrace and execration. How, therefore, that which is contained in the serpent's curse, although it be natural to it, nonetheless in some way pertains to its penalty and punishment, the reader will easily understand, as I think, from the things we have very briefly taught.37

Translator’s notes

  1. Fourth (and final) question of the disputation on the serpent. The roman numeral is printed 'IIII.' ↩
  2. Opening of QUAESTIO IIII, citing the curse of Gen. 3:14-15. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'inter'). ↩
  3. Completion of the statement of QUAESTIO IIII (catchword 'inter'): does the curse (Gen. 3:14-15) literally concern the serpent, or figuratively the devil? ↩
  4. Marginal glosses: 'Prima opinio Barcephae, Ephraem & aliorum, pertinere ad solum serpentem'; 'Ioseph. lib. 1. Antiquit. cap. 1.' First opinion (Moses Bar Cepha, De Paradiso c.27, following Ephraem): the curse literally fell on the serpent, though innocent (the devil being author); proven by the historical character of Moses' narrative. Josephus's rationale (the serpent had speech/understanding) is recalled and dismissed as already refuted. ↩
  5. Marginal glosses: 'Quatuor causae cur Deus secundum Barcepham, maledixerit serpenti, licet is nihil peccasset' (Four causes why, according to Bar Cepha, God cursed the serpent though it had not sinned); 'Matth. 8.' Bar Cepha's first two causes: (1) to grieve Satan who used it as an instrument (broken-instrument / lamed-horse / sunk-ship analogies; cf. the swine of Matt. 8); (2) as cause/occasion of man's sin (cf. Lev. 20:15-16, the beast stoned). ↩
  6. Bar Cepha's third and fourth causes: (3) the curse on the serpent parallels the curse on the earth for Adam, the animals perishing in the Flood, and the (innocent) sacrificial victims; (4) David's curse on Mt. Gilboa (2 Sam. 1:21). Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'Saul'). Running footer: 'Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1. III'. ↩
  7. Continuation (catchword 'Saul' from the previous page) of Bar Cepha's four causes: (3) David's curse on Gilboa where Saul and Jonathan fell (2 Sam. 1:21); (4) the curse instructs Adam and Eve (the serpent was once footed and lost its feet for the crime, so it is a real penalty). ↩
  8. Marginal glosses: 'Genes. 19.' (Lot's wife, Gen. 19:26); 'Serpentes auctore Plinio aliquando visas anserinis pedibus' (Serpents, on Pliny's authority, sometimes seen with goose-feet). Ephraem/Bar Cepha: the serpent was a footed quadruped that became a belly-creeper (parallels: Satan from Angel to demon, Lot's wife to salt); Pliny (NH XI.46) on goose-footed serpents as no prodigy. ↩
  9. Why God did not openly curse Satan: lest Adam and Eve grasp an incorporeal spirit and fall into worse errors, and (for the Hebrews' weakness) lest they imagine a power rivaling God. Tostatus (on Gen., q.688) follows this. ↩
  10. Marginal gloss: 'Confutatio primae opinionis' (Confutation of the first opinion). Pererius's refutation: the whole innocent serpent-species should not share the penalty; God does not strip the natural for sin; and crawling, if natural, cannot be a penalty. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'conven' = convenirent). ↩
  11. Pererius's refutation continued (catchword 'conven' = convenirent): Tostatus's notion of God 'making satisfaction' to the sinful Eve is frivolous and feigned; and Eve and Adam would have known the serpent naturally lacked feet, making the supposed 'penalty' absurd. ↩
  12. Marginal gloss: 'Secunda opinio fuit Didymi' (The second opinion was Didymus's). Opinion 2 (Didymus the Blind, teacher of Jerome, via Lippomani's Catena): the serpent really lacked feet, but the devil reared it up to deceive Eve; the curse means it returns to its former lowly nature. ↩
  13. Marginal gloss: 'Refellitur Didymus' (Didymus is refuted). Pererius's refutation: returning to its natural state is no penalty; the serpent would have reverted after the temptation anyway; and Adam already knew the serpent crawls. ↩
  14. Marginal glosses: 'Tertia opinio Augustini & aliorum, maledictionem serpentis ad solum diabolum pertinere'; 'Augustin.'; 'Beda in Hexameron.'; 'Rupertus lib. 3. de operibus Trinit. c. 18.'; 'Hugo de S. Victore.' Opinion 3 (Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos II.17-18 and De Genesi ad litteram XI.36; Bede, Rupert, Hugh of St. Victor, Cajetan): the curse refers to the devil alone. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'bestiis'). ↩
  15. Marginal gloss: 'Quid significet super pectus, & super ventrem gradi' (What 'to go upon the breast and upon the belly' signifies). Spiritual reading of the curse: breast = pride / the irascible appetite / lustful thought; belly = lust / the concupiscible appetite / the execution of lust (Gregory, Moralia XXI.2). ↩
  16. Marginal gloss: '4. Reg. 25.' (2 Kings 25:8-10, Nebuzaradan, 'prince of cooks,' destroying Jerusalem's walls). Gregory the Great, Regula Pastoralis III, Admonition 20, allegorizing the curse: breast/belly = thought/gluttony; gluttony (the 'prince of cooks') destroys the soul's virtues (the 'walls of Jerusalem'). ↩
  17. Marginal glosses: 'Quid sit, Terram comedes cunctis diebus vitae tuae'; '1. Petri 5.' (1 Pet. 5:8, the roaring lion); 'Matthaei 8.' 'You shall eat earth' = earthly-minded sinners as the devil's food; 'all the days of your life' = until the end of the age (Gregory on Ps. 101[102]; the demons of Matt. 8). Sentence continues on the next page (the Gerasene demons' words). ↩
  18. The Gerasene demons' cry (Matt. 8:29, 'before the time'). Then Rupert (De sancta Trinitate III.18) begins his literal reading: the serpent once walked upright but, its feet removed, crept on scales and ribs. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword '& presso' = & presso ventre). ↩
  19. Conclusion of Rupert's quotation (catchword '& presso'): the curse, literally fitting no real serpent (which always crawled), refers to the devil—made penally like the lowest creature, and even his malice turned by God to good (the 'little hammer' beating God's gold to glory). ↩
  20. Hugh of St. Victor's inference from Gen. 3:15 (that Eve repented and was saved); Pererius judges it weak, since 'the woman' = all womankind and 'the serpent' = all serpents (the demons/their followers). ↩
  21. Marginal glosses: 'Quid sit semen mulieris, & semen serpentis' (What the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent are); 'Ioan. 8.' (John 8:44). 'Seed of the serpent' = lesser demons or evil men (the devil's followers); 'seed of the woman' = her offspring (male and female) who will conquer the devil. ↩
  22. Marginal gloss: 'Quid sit serpentem insidiari calcaneo hominis' (What it is for the serpent to lie in wait for man's heel). 'You shall lie in wait for his heel' = the devil attacks man's end (the final intention and end of life), especially at death. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob (on Job 1:5), is quoted; sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'tionis' = intentionis). Running footer: 'Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1. KKK'. ↩
  23. Marginal gloss: 'Psal. 55.' (Ps. 55[56]:7, 'they will watch my heel'). Conclusion of Gregory the Great's exposition (Moralia in Iob, on Job 1:5) of the heel/head imagery of Gen. 3:15: the devil attacks the end of a good action; one must crush his 'head' (the first suggestion) at the outset. (Catchword 'tionis' = intentionis from the previous page.) ↩
  24. Marginal gloss: 'Quid sit conterere caput serpentis' (What it is to crush the serpent's head). On Gen. 3:15b: the Marian reading (Bernard, Homilia II super Missus est) and the Christological one—the woman's 'seed' is Christ. Pererius notes that the Hebrew pronoun (ipse/hu') refers to the seed (Christ), not the woman; the serpent's 'head' = the power of sin and death. ↩
  25. Marginal glosses: 'Evangelium Christi ab exordio mundi manifestari coepit. Apoc. 13.' (The Gospel of Christ began to be manifested from the world's beginning; Apoc. 13:8, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world); 'Adam credidit in Christum ut mundi Redemptorem' (Adam believed in Christ as the world's Redeemer). The protoevangelium as the first preaching of the Gospel; Adam's faith in the coming Redeemer. ↩
  26. Marginal gloss: 'Refellitur tertia opinio' (The third opinion is refuted). Pererius approves the allegorical reading but denies it as the literal/historical sense: God cursed the visible serpent, comparing it to beasts—but the devil was unseen. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'homini'). ↩
  27. Continuation (catchword 'homini') of the refutation of the third (purely figurative) opinion: it is too harsh to compare the devil with beasts; Hugh of St. Victor's 'monk's habit' analogy (the devil called 'serpent' because clothed in serpent-form) is dismissed as ridiculous, since then God would be merely mocking, unintelligibly to Adam and Eve. ↩
  28. Marginal gloss: 'Quarta sententia, quae prae ceteris placet Auctori' (The fourth opinion, which pleases the Author above the others). Pererius's adopted view: the curse pertains literally to the real serpent, but mystically (and as principally intended by God) to the devil—both having concurred in the crime (the devil as author, the serpent as instrument). ↩
  29. GLYPH verified by magnification: Greek μυσικῶς (= μυστικῶς, mystikōs, 'mystically')—paired with Latin 'figurate' ('figuratively') and echoing 'sensum mysticum' on this same page; the τ of μυστικῶς is dropped/ligatured in the print. The bronze-serpent typology (Num. 21:8-9) as a parallel: literally the bronze serpent, mystically Christ (John 3:14). ↩
  30. The curse must be understood of the real serpent, since Moses' narrative is historical throughout. A difficulty is raised (how the curse, natural to the serpent, can be a penalty), continued on the next page (catchword 'diffi' = difficile). Running footer: 'KKK 2'. ↩
  31. The difficulty stated (catchword 'diffi'): since the curse-conditions were natural to the serpent (and the devil already eternally damned), no new penalty was added—just as the Blessed merit no new essential glory, both being at their final term. ↩
  32. The difficulty sharpened (else the devil would earn new penalties daily for each temptation). 'Hoc opus, hic labor est' echoes Virgil, Aeneid VI.129. Pererius undertakes the explanation. ↩
  33. Marginal gloss: 'Quemadmodum maledictio illa serpentis fuerit ei in poenam & supplicium' (How that curse of the serpent was a penalty and punishment to it). The resolution: the curse-conditions, natural in themselves, became a 'penalty' only relative to man—the serpent becoming hateful and abominable to him after the Fall. ↩
  34. Marginal gloss: 'Naturalis antipathia inter hominem, & serpentem' (The natural antipathy between man and the serpent). The natural man-serpent antipathy (like sheep/wolf, chick/kite, mouse/cat), restrained by God's providence in innocence, was let loose after the Fall. Sentence continues on the next page (catchword 'per'). ↩
  35. Continuation (catchword 'per'). The parallel of death: natural to man, yet—after the loss of original justice—it befell him as a penalty, exactly as the serpent's natural conditions became its 'penalty.' ↩
  36. Marginal gloss: 'Genesis 9.' (the rainbow as a sign, Gen. 9:13). The rainbow analogy: a natural thing made a divine sign; so the serpent's natural form, used for fraud, was by God's decree turned to its disgrace and 'punishment.' ↩
  37. The serpent suffered no real harm—only its natural form was decreed 'infamous,' as the Cross (the instrument of redemption) is venerable while the serpent (the instrument of ruin) is abominable. It needed no new penalty, already creeping in desert places and serving wicked men. This concludes QUAESTIO IIII. ↩