Edition Hide
De Virginibus Velandis

IV.

[1] Quatenus autem et de scripturis adversus veritatem argumentari consuetudo est, statim opponitur nobis nullam mentionem virginum ab apostolo factam, ubi de velamine praefinit, sed tantum mulieres nominatas, cum, si voluisset et virgines tegi, de virginibus quoque cum mulieribus nominatis pronuntiasset, 'quomodo illic', inquit, 'ubi de nuptiis tractat, quid observandum sit etiam de virginibus declarat'; itaque non contineri eas lege velandi capitis ut non nominatas in hac lege, immo ex hoc velari, qua non iubentur, quae neo nominantur. [2] Sed et nos eandem argumentationem retorquemus. Qui enim sciebat in alias utriusque generis facere mentionem -- virginis dico et mulieris, id est non virginis -- ex causa distinctionis, in his, in quibus non nominat virginem, non faciens distinctionem ostendit condicionis communionem. [3] Ceterum potuit hic quoque constituere differentiam inter virginem et mulierem, sicut alibi dicit: Divisa est mulier et virgo. Igitur quas non divisit tacendo, in altera uniit. Nec tamen quia illic divisa est et mulier et virgo, hic quoque patrocinabitur illa divisio, ut quidam volunt. [4] Quanta enim alibi dicta non valent, ubi dicta scilicet non sunt! nisi si eadem sit causa quae alibi, ut sufficiat semel dictum. Illa autem causa virginis et mulieris longe divisa est ab hac specie. Divisa est, inquit, mulier et virgo. Quare? quoniam innupta, id est virgo, cogitat ea, quae, sunt domini, ut sit sancta et corpore et spiritu, nupta autem, id est non virgo, cogitat quomodo placeat viro. [5] Haec erit interpretatio divisionis illius, nullum habens locum in isto capitulo, in quo neque de nuptiis neque de animo et cogitatu muliebri et virginis pronuntiatum, sed de capite velando. Cuius nullam volens esse disceptationem spiritus sanctus uno nomine mulieris etiam virginem intelligi voluit, quam proprie non nominando a muliere non separavit et non separando coniunxit ei, a qua non separavit. [6] Novum est nunc ergo principali vocabulo uti et cetera nihilominus in eo vocabulo intelligi, ubi nulla est necessitas singillatim distinguendae universitatis? Naturaliter compendium sermonis et gratum et necessarium est, quoniam sermo laciniosus et onerosus et vanus est. Sic et generalibus vocabulis contenti sumus comprehendentibus in se specialium intellectum. [7] Ergo iam de vocabulo ipso. Naturale vocabulum est femina, naturalis vocabuli generale mulier, generalis etiam speciale virgo vel nupta vel vidua vel quot etiam aetatis nomina accedunt. Subiectum est igitur generali speciale, quia generale prius est, ut subcessivum antecessivo et portionale universali: in ipso intelligitur, cui subicitur, et in ipso significatur, quia in ipso continetur. [8] Sic nec manus nec pes nec ullum membrorum desiderat nominari corpore nominato; et si mundum dixeris, illic erit et caelum et quae in eo, sol et luna et sidera et astra, et terra et freta et omnis census elementorum. Omnia dixeris, cum id dixeris, quod ex omnibus constat. Sic et mulierem nominando quicquid est mulieris nominavit.

Translation Hide
On the Veiling of Virgins

Chapter IV.--Of the Argument Drawn from 1 Cor. XI. 5-16.

But in so far as it is the custom to argue even from the Scriptures in opposition to truth, there is immediately urged against us the fact that "no mention of virgins is made by the apostle where he is prescribing about the veil, but that women' only are named; whereas, if he had willed virgins as well to be covered, he would have pronounced concerning virgins' also together with the women' named; just as," says (our opponent), "in that passage where he is treating of marriage, ¹ he declares likewise with regard to virgins' what observance is to be followed." And accordingly (it is urged) that "they are not comprised in the law of veiling the head, as not being named in this law; nay rather, that this is the origin of their being unveiled, inasmuch as they who are not named are not bidden."

But we withal retort the self-same line of argument. For he who knew elsewhere how to make mention of each sex--of virgin I mean, and woman, that is, not-virgin--for distinction's sake; in these (passages), in which he does not name a virgin, points out (by not making the distinction) community of condition. Otherwise he could here also have marked the difference between virgin and woman, just as elsewhere he says, "Divided is the woman and the virgin." ² Therefore those whom, by passing them over in silence, he has not divided, he has included in the other species.

Nor yet, because in that case "divided is both woman and virgin," will this division exert its patronizing influence in the present case as well, as some will have it. For how many sayings, uttered on another occasion, have no weight--in cases, to wit, where they are not uttered--unless the subject-matter be the same as on the other occasion, so that the one utterance may suffice! But the former case of virgin and woman is widely "divided" from the present question. "Divided," he says, "is the woman and the virgin." Why? Inasmuch as "the unmarried," that is, the virgin, "is anxious about those (things) which are the Lord's, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but the married," that is, the not-virgin, "is anxious how she may please her husband." This will be the interpretation of that "division," having no place in this passage (now under consideration); in which pronouncement is made neither about marriage, nor about the mind and the thought of woman and of virgin, but about the veiling of the head. Of which (veiling) the Holy Spirit, willing that there should be no distinction, willed that by the one name of woman should likewise be understood the virgin; whom, by not specially naming, He has not separated from the woman, and, by not separating, has conjoined to her from whom He has not separated her.

Is it now, then, a "novelty" to use the primary word, and nevertheless to have the other (subordinate divisions) understood in that word, in cases where there is no necessity for individually distinguishing the (various parts of the) universal whole? Naturally, a compendious style of speech is both pleasing and necessary; inasmuch as diffuse speech is both tiresome and vain. So, too, we are content with general words, which comprehend in themselves the understanding of the specialties. Proceed we, then, to the word itself. The word (expressing the) natural (distinction) is female. Of the natural word, the general word is woman. Of the general, again, the special is virgin, or wife, or widow, or whatever other names, even of the successive stages of life, are added hereto. Subject, therefore, the special is to the general (because the general is prior); and the succedent to the antecedent, and the partial to the universal: (each) is implied in the word itself to which it is subject; and is signified in it, because contained in it. Thus neither hand, nor foot, nor any one of the members, requires to be signified when the body is named. And if you say the universe, therein will be both the heaven and the things that are in it,--sun and moon, and constellations and stars,--and the earth and the seas, and everything that goes to make up the list of elements. You will have named all, when you have named that which is made up of all. So, too, by naming woman, he has named whatever is woman's.