MELlT A ~r HEOLOGICA Vol. VII, No. 2. July-December, 195,L

Un Rarissimo Incunabulo della R. Malta Library

OFFICIUM B. MARIAE VIRG. - 1490

Un libretto in 12°, stampato su pergamena, in caratteri gotici, daI titolo: Officium bcatae Mariae Virginis, nel Catalogo per materia dell a R. JVblta l~ibrary, era registrato semplicemente come "R&re printing", e fu classificato, alcuni anni fa, secondo il sistema decimale del Dewey sotto i1 numero 094 (1). Detto numero si riferiva a "Books of great rarity but later than incuna­bula", ciee a libri stampati dopo il 1500 (2). Di esso non era indicata ne la data topic a , ne quella cronologica, e non era dato nemmeno i1 nome del tipografo.

11 volumetto apparteneva in origine al noto professore di medicina. Fra Giuseppe Zammit (+ 1740), cappellano dell'Ordille di S. Giovanni (3), cbe 10 clono alla Libl'eria dell'Infirmeria -da lui fondata nel 1687 - come si rileva dalla seguente nota autografa che si legge nel margine inferiore del f. 2r: Fr. JoS'eph Za.rmnit dOr/a dedit et donat.

Come e noto, la Libreria dell'lnfirmeria venne in seguito incorporata con la Biblioteca Pubblica (4), fondata nel 1776 sotto il Gran Maestro De Rohan.

Nell'opuscolo di A. A. Carllana (5) il volume e annoverato tra i. libri liturgici della Biblioteca, ma con la nota: sine lon"

(1) Decimal Ola.s;;ification and Relative Index - 12th ed., Forest Press, Lake> Placid Cluh, Essex Co., N.Y., 1927 - fiU cui fu compilato il Catalogo della R. Malta Library. Nell'eldizione del 1952 la classifi­cazione e modificata.

(2) Il volume,mancava del numero Id'inventario. Ora ha il numero pro­gressivo 46641.

(3) CP. Append. in Elogia ill11~trium M elitensimn q1we in umLm fasci-· c1l1um contulit Fr .• Joseph Zammit M.D., S. Ord. Hierosol. Oap­pellanu~, Melitae, 1855, p. xxxi.

(4) A. A. CARUANA, The Royal Malta Library -. Brochure - Malta, 1898; p. 5.

(5) Op. cit., p. l2, '"

66 DOM M. INGUANEZ

et anno, e non figurava nemmeTlO nell'} ndice a schedario elegli incunabuli.

Gome abbiamo Iletto, i1 volumetto era ::lassificato sotto il n. 094, assegnato a "Books of great rarity hut later than incun-ahu1a". .

11 volumetto perb~·noll El solamente un "rare printing" mu, nn incunabulo e, eli pill, un rarissimo incunabu1o, ed avrebbe dovuto essere cla ~sificato sotto il numero 093 ,che si riferiva appunto agJi incunabuli. .

Dlciamo che r Offici lUll El nn rarissimo incunabulo, percht, non ne conosciamo, almeno fin adesso, che un altro esemplare appartenente aUa Biblioteca Palatina di Parma (6). Ne da la elescrizione, ma non completa, il Reichling nel vo1. IV, n. 1292 della sua pregevole e 110tis:mna opera: Appendices ad Hainii·· C()'gil1{leri Repertorilllll Bibliographicmll \7).

:yr a evidentemente il Reichling non ebhe per le malli 1'i11-cunabulo di Parma, pel'('he Y1e11a descrizione omette, 1'1'a l'altl'o. il colophon, che gli avrebbe fornito con certezza le notizie l'elatiyf' al tipografo ea aIla data del libro - notizie che egli da corretta­mente, ma COllle particolari hihliografici aggiunti da 1ui Fitesso eel irlclusi tra parentesi.

Il Reiehling, nella elescrizione dell'incunabulo, Hi riferisce ad un altro simile esemplare, citando i1 n. 5205 del Proctor (8l. Tale citazione pero e el'ronea, perche il Proctor n. ·5205 corri­sponde ad un' ultra simile edlzione, use ita dalla stessa tipografia 11e1 149·1 per GerUl'd BalTe\velt e Frederick Egmondt (9).

Abhiamo detto che la descrizione che ela i1 Reich1ing dello Officillm di Parma non e completa, e che vi manca un e1emento

(6\ T11C.I1. 23. I,a Bihlioteca Palatina di Pa1'ma non hn un cat:alogo a stamp a degli ineunahuli che po",iede.

(7) ::\fonaehi, 1908. vnl. IV, p. 134. L'O.fficill1n, m seguito alIa segnala­",ion" dei Reiehling, e ancllP citato dal BOHATl'A H., Bibliograpilil< der Lieres d'J{eul'e,~ (Horae B.Ji.r.) Officia utc. des XT'o und XVI . . Jahl'hllnderts, 'Vien, 1924, IT. n. 11. Lo stesso esempla1'e di Pa1'ma -- ineluso pe1'o t.ra le "Horae" - si trova eitato neI recentissimo Indiee aCl1erale deali InclInaboli delle BibUoteche d'Italia, Roma, 1954, Yol. lIT, n .. 4826.

(8) R. PHOCTOR, An index to the early printed books in the Bl'itiBh MuseuII! /1'0111 the i/1.1'en ti017, of printina to the 11eal' MD, Lon)1on, 1898-1902.

(9) Cf. E. G. DUFF, Fifteenthcentllry English Books, Oxford, 1917, 181. DEwo queste notizie alla cortffiia del Big. G. D. Painter, Assist. Keep-er of Printed Books, BriUfIh l\fuseurn. .

UN RARISSIMO INCUNABULO 67 di grande impodanza, il colophon, il quale fu in seguito riportato ne11e ben note opere dell'Essling (10) € del Sander (11).

Ci piace segna1are ai bibliografi 10 8conosciuto esetnplare, ri­trovato ne11a R. Malta Ijibrary (12), di questo rarissimo "Offi­cium B. M aT1:ae V trg." dj cui diamo pnre una completa. descri-zione. .

N otiamo in fine che l' Officiurn - da cui mancano sfortu­natamente 4 fog1i (13) - e illustrato da artistiche xilografie e c1a lettere inizia1i a colori, con margini adornati di figure e cll fogliame (14).

* * * OFFICIUM B. MARIAE VIRGINIA secundum con-

snetudinem Romanae Curiae - Tmpressllm Venetiis per Toannem Hamman a1emanum de Landoia dictum Hertzog. Anno M.CCC.C.LXXXX. - 20 ff. non numer. + 128 ff. numel'. = 148 if., sign. a8, b12 c-s8; 17 lino - Membran. charact. gothicis mai. et ·minor., rubr. et nigris - In 12°.

(F. la) vacat - (F. Ib) Icon Christi cruci affixi - (F. 2a-13b) Calendarium - (Ff. 14a-16a) Oratio sancti augustini devo­tissirne dicenda . XXXIII. diebu8 gert1'bus flexis ad obtinendarn omnem gratiarn. 0 dulcissitne dornine ie8u chri8te verus deu8. - (F. 16b) Icon S. Ioannis evang. - (F. 16b-17b) Initium sancti evangelii 8~C1mdum ioannern (cap. I, 1-14) - (F. 17b-19a) Psalmus contra omnia adversa. Qui habitat (ps. 90) - (F. 29a-20a) Oratio piissima sancti gregorii qui concessit omnibus penitentibus et confess-is dicentib1"s earn genibus flexis cum quinque pater noster et qllinqlle ave maria apud imagt'nern pie­tatis: quattuordecirn rnilia annOTltm indulgentie que est talis. o Domine ie8U christe adoro te in oruCe pendentem ...... AngeZe

(10) PRINCE D'ESSLING, Etlides Sur l'art de la gravure en boi! et Ve-ni.~e, Florence, 1894-1914, 452.

(11) SANDER M., Le livres it fig1trer~ ita lien, etc., Milan, 1942, 5047. (12) La R. Malta IJihrary p08siede pure altri due rarissimi incunabuli.

Uno e il volumEo', stampalo anch'esso 8U pergamena, a Parigi: HeuTes it l"ltsage de Romc, ]497, novo 4; l'altro 'ha i1 titoIo: Prit,ilegia Ordini S .. loan. Hieros. a Summis Pontif. concessa [1495J. Cf. D. M. INGUANEZ, A. hand-lid of the Incunabu/a in the R. l1Ialta Library in Studies in Art and Literat1lll'e for BeUe da Costa G1'eene edited by D. Miner, Princeton University Press, U.S.A., 1954, p. 409-4]0, pI. 334-337.

(13) Dal .quaternione mancano i fogli r2. r4, r5, r7 corrispon'<ienti ai fogh 114, 116, 117, 119. Il quaternione s'era rilegato conftisatnente: s3 84 s5 s6 sI 82 87 ~8 = if. 128, 124, 1251 126, 121, 122, 1271 128.

(14) Vedi Tavola,

68 D .. M. INGUANEZ - UN H,ARISSIMO l~cUNABULO

dei, - rege et !Jllberna. A men. - EF. 20b) Icon Annuntiationis B. M~riae Virg., cum ;nscriptione: Incipit officium beatissime 11irY1ni8 ma:rie secundum cOl1snetudinem romane curie. Introitus - (F. 51b) Icon Davidis regis Ol'untis - (F. 52r-n7b) Septem psalmi poenitentiales et litaniae sanctorum cum orationibus .-­W. 67b) Symbolum Atanasii - (F. 70b) Icon mortem reprae­sentlll1S - (F. 71a-104a) Officium mortuorum - (F. 104b) Icon Chriflti el'uci affixi (ut in f. 1b) (F. 105a-107a) Officium s::mctae Crucis - (F. 107b) Icon Sancti Spiritus descensum l'epl'aesentanfl - (F. 108<1-112a) Canticllm sanctorum mnbrosii et allgllstini iranslllutatum in !a1/dem fjlorioge virginis ma:rie - CF. 112a) P(J.pa Si,ttllS quartus concessit cuilibet devote di­eentf infrascriptam oratiOlwnl llndecim millia annorum de vera ind.ulyentia. pm quaJibel vice. Ave sanctis8ima maria - Amen. - (F. 1.1:Jb) Officium beate marie virginis /una cum septem psa.1misl peniten/~ialibt'<;: officio mOrtuorum: sancte/crucli; et !'I&ncti,spiritus explicit :/Impra<:-sum Venetiis per Ioa.n/nem ham­man. alemanum de landoia:/dictum llertzog. Anno sa,lutis/chris­tian.e. M.CCCC.LXXXX. - F. (133a-128a) Ad COnlmemora­lionem de .\'allcfJg (Antiph. Pt orationes - F. (]28b) Insigne t:vpograp11i litt. i. h.

D. M. INGUANEZ.

Gen. 3, 15 in the Ilightof recent dIscussions

Gen. 3, 15 is generallv translated thus: "I will put en­mitv betwe~n thee 'and th; woman, and betv;'Een tlw' seed and her" seed: he (or it) shall crush tIn' head, find thou' shalt aim at his (or its) heel" '1'he passage and its liturgical application are quite familiar to the reader. But some ,vill be painfully shocked to learn that some interpreters have turned the Virgin Mary out of this text, while others do not agree on the nature of Her claim fo1' ,admission, that is to E:ay, whether she has a right t:.> ' the place of honour in this oracle ')r l:,l entitled only to an inferior posit..ion. It is, the pUl'pose of this paper to give a survey of modern opinions on tbis subject und thus to set the M11rio­logical import of Gen. 3, 15 in its ,proper perspective.

B-e~ore discussing the exegetical value, of Gen. 3, 15 it is necessary to make some preliminary remarks. The textual pro­blem, whether we should read 'he' or 'she', ipse or '£'psa, has long been settled in favour vf the M.T. and .need not ,b~ re­opened here. But we cannot pas::; over other philological pro­blems. The two verbs 'crush' and ':aim at', VIg. conieret and insidia,lier:is, are represellted in Hebrew by the same verb shut. Now to translate the same verb in the sawe context and in the same ,"erse in two difIerenf. WHyS is ,simply illogical. If we translate 'he shall crush vour head' , we must also translate 'thou shalt crush his heel' or 'another equivalent verb. For the ~me reason if we prefer 'thou "halt aim at his heel', we must neces­sarilv translate 'he shall aim at your head' The LXX have tmn~lated the Hebrew verb h.\" the saill~ verb teresei, ..... teresei,,>. Likewise Jerollle in his (luaestiones in Genesim writes: "Ip::;e servabit 'caput tuum, et tu servabis calcaneum eius" which is the I.JXX reading; and he g'oes on : "Melins habet in Hebraeo: Ipse conteret caput tuum: et tn conteres eius calca,· lleum" (PL, 24, HOU). IJater, ho'wever, Jerome changed his translation into Gonteret ..... illsidiabcris. Modern (trans1lato~'s and interpreters waver lJetwell 'crush ...... aim at' and 'aim at' ...... aim :at'. -

Of all the ,'arious renderill@S proposed by interpreters 'crush ...... crush' is' altogether unsuitable, because the serpent does not crush man's heeL 'Aml at' mav be retained in the 'second case, but not ill the' first. 'I'he t~o eneml~s' a·re not simply aiming at attacking one another, but one of' them has

i() P. P. SAYDON

actually attacked and completely overcome his opponent. The idea of biting or causing a, slight wound is inadmissible, as the serpent is poisonous, and a Lite is as mortal as the, crushing of the head. It is not expressly said that the serpent is poisonous, but since the serpent and the woman's seed are engaged in ;}, mortal duel and the serpent has no other means of overcoming its adversary unless it is poisonous, we must necessarily assume that the serpent is poisonous, and therefore a slight harmless wound is absolutely inconceivable. As the context represents the same hostile action, it requires the same meaning. But in

, order to avoid the incongruity of such renderings as 'crush and crush' or 'aim at. and aim at', we prefer to give to the second verb the meaning of a conative action instead of that of a com­plete action. Hence we propose this translation: "He will crush 'your head while YOU will endea,vour to attack him in his heel" ,. or, paraphrastiealIy : "He will overcome you by crushing your head, and you will endeavour to overcome him by trying to' bite his heel." (1) Obviously the two actions of crushing the head and biting the heel are two figures Implying te same idea of destruction expressed in different ways according to the nature of the two antagonists.

Another important problem is that regarding the value of the article prefixed to the noun ishshah 'the woman'. The article in HebTew is used: 1. when a person or thing already spoken of is mentioned again; 2. with a title understood and recognized by everyone; 3. with appelIatives to denote persons or ~hings that are unique; -1. when terms applying to whole classes are restricted to particular individuals; 5. with \vords denoting ciasseH; G. when a person or thillg, uuknown to the reader, is considered as being present to the mind of the writer. 12) Of these uses 2 anti (3 m'e obviously excluded from Gen. 3, ] 5.: No. ·1-is likewise exelllded because the name ishshah 'woman', though it ma,:, denote the whole f.ema.]e sex,. as in ]lee. 7',26, has never been restricted to any particular woman. But opinions difl'er as regards uses no. 1, 5, and 6. rrhe, majority

. of interpreters stand for no. 1 identifying the woman with Eve,

(l) This translation is given also by J. Ooppens: 'Oelle-ci t' ecraseJ'a la tcte, et tu t'efjol'ceras (mais en vain) de la rnordr6 au talon' (Ana­Zecta !'ot·aniensia Biblica et Orientalia., Ser. 1I, fasc. 16, 1950, p. 55).

(2) Gesenius-Kautzsch-Oowley~ Jlebr. Gram., §l~d-t.

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS 71

the only woman kllown from the {?ontext. Others, the Mario-10gists,' prefer no. 6 identifying the woman with the Virgin ::'IIary who, though unknown from the context, is considered to be known to the writer. Others argue for no. 5 on the grounds of the collective sense which the word ishshah has in (ch. 2. If 'the woman' in Gen. 2, g8. 2-1 denot~s the whole female sex, there is no reason why we should necessarily refer the same word, 'the woman', in 3, 1;'5 to the only woman known from the immediate context,

'rhe identificaiton of 'the woman' with the Virgin Mar:' or with the whole female sex, though in strid conformity with Grallllnar, is against the context. 'l'he whole story of the fall forms such a hOlllogeneous alld lCompact unity that any inter­pretation intro.ducing different elements in the narrative must absolutely be ruled out. The serpent converses with the woman, not with any ,voman nor \vith women in general, but with the particular one that has just been ;soiven aR a companion to Adam. Thio woman eats of the prohibited fruit and gives her husband to eat. 'rIlen .she, the woman, and her husband, con­scious of their sin, try to hide thcmselyes from God. But God summons the guihy couple before his tribunal; first he inter­rogates the man who casts the blame upon the woman whom God had given him as a compallioll. Then God interrogates this woman who tries to exculpate hel~self pleading that she had oeen deceived by the serpent. So ultimately we have a woman. that is. the woman formed out of Adam's rib, deceived by the serpent. and a serpent deceiving the woman. It is between the deceiver and the deceived woman that God is about to set an implacable hostility that will end with the eomplete defeat of the serpent-devil. Such is the consistencv a:lld homogeneity of the whole narrative that it is iIllpossibi~ to recognize in 'the WOlllall'allY other one but that a]readv known from the context. Bven in v. 16, where 'the woma~' represellts the whole female sex, it is :1gainst the first woman that the sentence of doom is directly pronounced. In support of the collective meaning of 'the ,,,oman' it has been urged that \~. 15 has a well-defined theologieal charadeI' which marks it off from the whole narrative, The theologieal Import of 3, 15 ha,s never been conteste:d, but this does not justify the intro­duction of a different meaning of 'the woman' int~ the narra­tive. Therefore viewed from a purely philologieal standpoint

72 P. P. SAYDON

(:len. 0, 15 sets before us t\VO armies drawn out for battle. On one side there IS the first woman and all her posterity, on the other the devil with aU the infernal host. Both annies are engaged in a death and life battle. But at a certain moment one of the "',,,oman's posterIty will overcome the devil and bring victory to all the children of Eve.

There is another poi nt which dese~'ves consideration. '1'he word 'seed' or posterity is said to denote mainly the male descendants, and this sense is said to be required in 3, lb. (3) If this is true, the Yirgin :\1arY is necessarily exch:ded from the woman's posterit.y. 13ut this ;'estricted use of the word 'seed' may perhaps be explained by the constitutional laws or customs of the Israelites. In the Israelite community woman had a secon,

,dary place. She had no independent social rights. Although :;he was not her husband's slave, s11e together with her husband and their children formed ODe psychic unity of which man was the head. The Israelitic cOllllllunitv was a community of men; women were not counted (Numb. 1, 2; 26, 2; 2Sam~ 24, 1-9). This also explains the reason why the word 'am 'people' denotes always the male population of Israel (4). If, therefore, the word 'seed' has assumed a, restricted meaning on account of the particular psychological conceptions of the Israelites, it follows quite logically that the 'word must retain its original llliiversal and unrestricted meaning including both males and females, when these Israelitie conceptions had not yet begun to develop. And this is the reason why in Gen. 9, 9, when the 1 sraelitie community had not yet come illto existence, the word 'your seed' denotes all the poste]"ity of Noa.h and his sons irres­pective 'of their sex. Therefore while fully agreeing that 'seed' has, in the Patriarchal families and the Israelitic conllllunitv. a mascuhne meaning, we see 110 reason for restricting the u~e of the 'seed' in pre-Patriarehal and pre-Israelitic times.

This is the literal exposition of Gen. 3,15. But the historico­literal sense does not exhaust the full meaning intended by the sacred writer. Both theologians and interpreters agree that the passage has a profound theologic81 significance. It is the first i;J..l)l1ouncemel1t of redemption which will be brought about by

&

(:3) C'oppens, op. cit., pp. 56r. . . (.4) J. Pedersen, I'l'ael, its life allJ. cultUFe, I--II, Copenhagen-London,

1926; 'po 56. . .

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS 73

one of thewoman'q posterity who will vanquish the devil a.nd take from him the possibility of ever regaining his power. What is therefore the theological meaning of this prophecy?

The theological interpretation of this prophecy, whi'ch has been aptly called the Protl)evangliv:m or the first announcement of salvation, has to some extente been influenced bv two fadors - Tradition and thee Bull Ineffabilis. Although 'lnany of the early Fathers of the Church, l';uch as Chrysostom, Augustine, .yerome, Ambrosius, and :)tbers, explained the prophecy either in a Christolo~6cal or in a natural or allegorico-moral sense, the mariological interpretation, which goes back to Irenaeus" though almost U11h11own in the West during the Middle Ages, began gradually to gain ground especially through the works of Ruperl of Deutz, Bemard, Bonaventure and later theologians, until it became almost a common doctrine in the Church and formally recognized b.v He H. Pope Pius IX in his Bull Ineffabilis. (5) Now the CJuestion of the dogmatic authority of the patristic tradition does not concern Us here. We are rather concerned with the authority of the Bull as regards the ma,riological inter­pretation of Gen. 3,15. The question is: Has the Pope authenti­cally defined the mariological senSe of Gen. 3,15? Or: Is the mariological interpretation still an open question which Catholics are free to discuss?

The history of the Bull will give the right answer . We know from official documents that a great de-al of preparatory work was done before the promUlgation of the Bull Inef/4bt7is. Commissions were appoined, discussions were held, schemata were proposed, rejected, emended. The main difficultv was exactly the value of the scriptural argument. It was universally agreed that Scripture did not provide sufficient proofs for the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. The scriptural

(5) See on the whol(', question Fr. Drewniak, Die rnariologische Deutung von Gen. 3,15 in deT Vdtp-rzeit, Bre.~lau, 1934. Tib, GaUus S.IT., Interp7'etatio m<M'ioelogica PTotoevanflelH (Gen. tl,l.'i) tempore post­patristico 11SqUI' ad Concili1lm TTidentin.1L1n, Rome, 1949. See also V. G. Berielli, L'interpl'etazione mariologica del Protovangelo (Gen. 9,15) neg7.i esegeti e teoZogi dopo la Bolla 'lneffabilis J)eus' di Pio IX (1854-1948) in "Marianum" 1951, pp. 257-91. Tib. Gallus 8.\1., InteTpretatio marialogica Protoeva-ngelii PlJsttridenti1!{J, usqUe {ld delinitionem dogmaticam Immawlatae Oonceptionis. Pars prior: Aeta.s a'lWea Bxegesis Catholicae a C01lcilio Tridentino (1545) 'l4'q1I e ad annum 1660 i ~ome, 1953,

74 P. P. SAYDON

argtiulent needed the support of tradition in order to be truly demonstrative. In other word6 the probative force of the scrip­tural argUlllent was derived from the patristic inte(["pretation thereof rather than from its exegetical value. It may be said that all the discussions centred not so much on the revelation of the. dogma as on the value of t.he scriptural and patristic evidencio. Scripture alone was considered to be insufficient and, as an argument, had to be subordinated to TraditIOn. This is the reason why the Bull ha.& placed the argument, from Scripture after the argument from Tradition, thus giving to Tradition such an amplitude as to include te scriptural argument.

:\.·remarkable feature of the Bull is the total abs.ence of any appreciation of the exegetical value of the scriptural argument. 1'his is easily explained m the light of the preliminary discus­f'ions. Some theologian:; had hoped that it dogmatic definition would give to the scriptural texts the value of positive proofs which they had not. This however has not been done. The Bull has placed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on tht~ basis of Tradition leaving to the biblical texts the exegetical value which they had before. Consequently both theologians and exegetefl ares.tilI free to rliscuss the real meaning of the first messianic prophecy and its relation to Our Lady. (6) And so we pass to the main part of our theme.

Gen. 3, 15 contains two partE! closely related to each other. 'fhe fu'st part describes a. struggle, a mortal struggle between all mankind and the devil. '1'he other part describes the issue of the struggle which is the triumph of one of the woman's posterity over the devil. Not only are the two actions - struggle and victory - distinct, but the actors are also, to some extent, different. In the nrst it is the woman with all her posterity that is in war with the devil; in the other the woman di~appears and her posterity is represented by a single individual who comes to single combat with his antagonist. These two parts or .!ldions must be kept distinct if we want to get a clear idea of the full meaning of the prophecy.

Some interpreters, whIle reta.ining the messianic meaning of the prophecy, reject it..~ mariological sense altogether. Thus Ceuppens in his M a.rio/ngia biblica (RomB, 1948) expresses his

(6) See P., Bonnetain, art. ImmaculiJe Oonception in Dictiom.iare de la Bible, Supplement, 1943, ,,233-239.

GEN. 3, 15 AN"D ItECENT DISCUSSIONS 75

opiniop in these terms: ··'The woman of Gen. 3,15 in the literal sense is Eve ~d Ji]ve alone; it cannot be proved that sheda also Mary at least in a typical sense", and concludes his demonstra­tion thus: "There is no convincing argument that the writer of Gen. 3,15 has intended the Virgin Mary either in a strictly literal sense or in a typical sense. The woman is Eve, and it is her posterity that will gain a complete victory over the devil" (pp. 19-23). His rna·in argument is the context. If Eve, he says, meets all the requirements of the context, there is no need for introducing another woman. (7) P. Heinisch in his commentary on Genesis (Bonn, 1930) excludes too the Virgin M'ary from 3,15. The woman is Eve, and her seed are all her descendants. From the New '11estament we learn that the vic­torious seed is Christ who vanquisihed the devil by his death M£fl' resurrection. De Vaux in the notes to his translation of Genesis (1951) in the Bible de Jerusalem remarks that the woman is Eve, and her seed are aU her descendants. The victor of the devil IS the Messiah. 'rhe application of the text to the Virgin Mary is based partly on the VuIgate reading ipga for ipse and partly on the parallelism Eve-Mary which recurs so Often in the writings of the FatheJ's. I may also mention with the non­mariologists W. Goosens De cooperatione irnmediata matri.s Redernptorig ad redentpfionem obiectivam. Quaestionis contru­vergae perpe1'tsatio; Pari.s-Brnges, 1939.

Considered from a purely historico.literal point of view the non-mariological interpretation of Gen. 3,15 is unquestionably right. Eve is the only woman known from the context; she hall a posterity, and one of her descendants ha6 crushed the devit's power. But this is not all that the text has to tell. Gen. 3,15 is a prophecy, and prophecies cannot be explained by the ex­clusive help of grammar and philology. Ceuppens himself recognizes the messianic character of Gen. 3,15 and admits the hermeneutical principle that prophecies cannot be understood except in the light of their fulfilment or of subsequent revela­tions. (8) Consequently all interpretation of prophecies by means of grammatical and philological subsidies is absolutely untena.ble. It follows that the non-mariological interpretation of Gen. 3,15 is philologically right, but theologically wrong.

~7) De Mariologia biblica, Rome, 1948, 19-23. (8) De Prophetii$ ¥e~~nicil in Antiquo Te'3tamento Rome 1985 pp.

nf, ' , ,

76 P. P. SA~n6N' ~".r: ~; ,"?' , , .

r :~OJhei'l'\, lllofitly tlwologinns, apply the whGle pwphecy to the Yii·g:irj,.)y[S~];Y. Rhe is 'the W0li1an' and Ohrist iHthe 'seed'. H th~.worna,n is associated with her seed in the !'-tn1gg1e,sbe cannot b~:i~)f?sociated from him in the final victory. But the Reed JI'o

Ch'i-lst, therefore'the 'woman is 'necessarilv the Virgin Marv Whl1

sr;.ar~s;wifh het son the honour of the victory over the devi-l. 'Gen. il,!.5 i" a. prEdiction of the lllcllmation, writes G. Hoberg, but the Incarnation is inconceivable wIthout. Man' (9). Card.' Billor is 'mol'e ~~plicit: Tn his Introduction to N[a~i(', mere de gra;ce b}' Jf ile THl 131'oise and I.' Bai'n,-el he \\'rites: "'l'he woman pl:,~tlicke(f ill this prop]H:'CY is Mur,\' , she alone and only she, in th(l __ pl'opE'l', immediate, historical Dnd literal sense (Paris, 1921), g~~~h~ js more 'IY-toderate : "That 'vvoman, he ~a.\'s, is principally tht; ,\.,(irgin ~ral'~' and' her seed is Christ. Eve only jointly with her. ~la~lghtE'r" (De Deo Cl'eante, n. 3(12), Among' the mariolo~ gj§!ffi:,,;'e may mention C van Croinbrl1gghe 'l'raciahlS de B, M. Virg!'!1G;' (}hent, 1913, p. 113; Hoschini J\Iariolugia, IT, p. T, 1.9~~,)~~.J.03;~ L Filograssi Dc definibilitate Assllmptionis B. M. T':'L11 G1'Cg" 1948, p. 30; etc,

''C' Tli.e;:;et'heologians ignore one fl1l1dnmental principle of het'­meneu'tfl:'s, \\'11ich' is the consideration of the context, both the 11'~;!; 'und,therelnote context, If man speaks and writes as he tlii'nlr::l: anc1" if he thinks logically coordinating his ideas, develop­ing; new, ones, subordinating and interrelating them accordin,~ to':a rlei?-'n ite pIal) j "'to have the right to say that a writer i;; 111oving' within the same rnnge of ideas unless he makes it clear tho.t Ii.~h~s· passed inioa n.ifierent sphere with a different set of i<:le~B,' T,llls)s an elefnentary hermenelltical principle baRed on sordid ~'e'a'son;an;d the Ignorance of it leads to desperate confusion. Clii\d:":$if1ot ,teies fo support hiR mariological intei'pretation of Gen~'- ;3',H3'by distinguishing between meaning and Rense or the :~1';pl:i'cat5(:in of ' the mea'ning to different objects or persons. The Ih~Al"lIlg 01' idea of 111e \-vord 'woman' is urichangeable, but tht' wor<l'l11ay be applied to lllOl;e th·m one person. No one will deny thY,'pl'inclple: ~very writer has the right to apply the word \roi¥iuh' 't.o "as ·manv ilii1'el'ei>t women as he likes Hut the reader lias'alscr!the right t~ know which woman the wiiter is speakinO'

, Q

about, If 'the wonian' is Ev'e in chapters :2 and 3 she is Eve also in 3,15 unless there are clear indications ,to th~contrary.

's'" . .: (9) Die Gljlle,~is, Freiburg i. B." 1908, p. 50.

GEN. 3, 15 AND.RECENT DISCUSSIONS 77

. 'Che identification of 'the woman' with .the Virgin ~ary iii the 'natural consequence of wrong, or at least Improven ,pl:emises. '1:'11e victorious seed is· said .to. be .Clii·ist and Ci}rist alone. but the ·seed must have the same meaning in both parts of 'the V8TI?e. therefore the seed of the woman in the first part of the verse is Christ too. But the Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ therefore the Virgin Mar." is the woman predicted in v. 15,' "',

The fallacy of the argument is apparent. The seed is not necessaril:vthe immediai;e offspring of the wO,man, therefore whether it is Christ or not, the woman is not neqessaril:v Mary. 'Mo,reovel' the identitv of the woman's seed and the victorious seed, which is deman"ded at least by the literary cont~xt, is not absolutely required by the logical context. Interpreters generally Il1sist on the identity of meaning of the word 'seed' in both 'Parts of ,the verse, but they seem to overlook certain psychological facts which recent investigation has established beyond all doubt. We know that Hebrew' mentality does not always disting~~sh between universal and individual notions. An individual is COll­sidered as a member of a group, hel~ce the Hebrew mind passes imperceptibly from the idea of the group to that of its component members, without an:v difference in the external fonn of expres­sion (10). Thus in the second part of the book of Isaiah the wonl 'Servant' or 'Servant of the Lord', sometimes has a collective mean ing denoting all the people of Israel; sometimes. especially in the Servant Son~s) it has an individual meaning denoting Olle individual of the people of IRrae1. Another example of the word 'seed' occuring in the same context with a collective and all

individual meaning is Gen. 21,12.13. Before coniplvillct with , l' ". 0 ~al'a 1 s demand to Expel Ragal' and her son Abraham )s assured

by God that it is through lsaac that he'\vill have descendants (~eed) who will be called by his' name, but Ishmae'l will become :l.great nation because he is Abraham's offspriug (seed). There JR, therefore, no contl'udictiol! in ~,dving the, word 'seed' a co11ec-

no) This fact il; recognized b~- Illany model'n Interpretc;r!;.;· see H. W. Robinson, 'l'he Hebrew Conception. of Oorporate Personality in TT'esen unci TT'e/'(/!ln dcs .17tcl/ Ti3staments (Beihef{e Z'WI' Zeit­Sl'hrift f1l1' die A.ltt. Wissell.) Berlin, 19:16, !Jp. 49-62. 0 .. ·EissfeMt, Del' Gottcsknecht ~ei IJe!lt~l'o iesaja (.f es . .i0-55) in~ Lichi:e del' irn'aelitiscllen .4nschallung VGn GCinein.';cha/t U1/.{Z Individuum, Halle (Saale), 1933. A. It .. Johnsoll, .The One and. the Mart.y in the Israelite Conception 'of God, C",rdifl.', 19,12. '

78 P. P. SAYDON

live meaning in the first part of v. 15 and an individual meaning in the second. If we admit the collective meaning in the first part of v. 15, the identification of the woman with the Virgin Mary becomes impossible. vVe are now in a position to answer to the theologians' argument in a scholastic form thus,: The victorious s(!ed is Christ, C01/(!.; the seed must have the same meaning in both parts of the verse, nego; therefore the seed of the woman in the first part of the verse is Christ, ne go conse­quentiam. But the Virgin M;ary is the Mother of Christ, cone. ant.; therefore the woman predicted in v. 15 is the Virgin Mary. ncgo cons.

~rhe argument is sometimes proposed in a different form: 'rhe woman is associated with her seed in the struggle, therefore she must be associated with it in the victory too. But the vic­torious seed is Christ, and there is no woman more dosel)' asoociated with him than his own mother, therefore the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ, has together with her Son com­pletely vanquished the devil.

The argument. though theologically sound, is exegetically unacceptable. It introduces new elements into the text. Even jf it is granted that a mother may have a share in her son's victories, we still do not know who the mother of the victorious seed is before the New Testament Revelation. Moreover the struggle is not necessarily a single action of a short duration, a battle which is fought and won by the 5ame belligerents; it ma~' take a longer time, the fighting forces may be renewed, and the woman may not outlive her seed's vict0ry.

Theologians try to corroborate their views by arguments of convenience. But as these afford ample matter for subjective speculations and are not based on S0und exegesis, we pass: them over altogether.

Some theologians try to find some sort of compromise between the literal and the lllariological interpretation. One of the latest, and unfortunately unsuccessful attempts, is that by J. F. Bonnefoy (11). Fr. Bonnefoy bases his duali6tic interpre­tation on the theory of the plurality of senses, a theory which he, following in the steps of his confrere N. Assouad, vigorously defends against the attacks of the large majority of biblical inter-

(11) Le m.ystere de Jlarie ~elon. II' Protevan.giTe et I! ApoMlYlMe; Paris, l!M9.

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS 79

preters. According to Fr. Bonnefoy there is in Gen. 3,15 a dnal literal sellse, a primary and a secondary sellse, both intended by the sacred writer and both describing a separate aspect of the drama which will soon be enacted in the history of mankind. A decisive argument for this iluality of meaning is the word 'serpent' which in ch. 3 mean!,) a natural serpent (vv. 1, 14) and the inferml serpent (vv. 4, 15). This dual sense, wr::es Fr. Bonn.efoy, runs throug'h the whole chapter and is the basis of a dual interpretation of the Protoevangelium (p. 23). Conse­quently the serpent's seed IS both the serpent's natural offspring and the devil's mora,l progeny (p. 23). Likewise the woman ;8 primarily the Virgin Mary, secondarily she is Eve (p. 50); Christ lS the woman's seed in a proper sense (pp. 37-40), but the ooed of the woman ~ Eve is all mankind (pp. ,H--47). We have, t~erefore, in v. 15 two different senses, both literal, running parallel to each other, the (,ne erawling on the earth below and the other moving in a high spiritual sphere. 'According to the one, Eve and all mankind feel a natural aversion for oorpents; they strike them on the head whenever they can, but sometimes they are bitten by them. According to the other, God has set .Ip an inexorable hostility, a permanent nh)1'al opposition between Christ and his Mother on one &ide and the devil on the other. Christ overthrew the devil's domination in the world, but the devil retaliated_ by ::;etting the ;1 ews against him and trying to thwart his work. The v;ctory of the Virgin Mary over the devil consists mainly in her pre,;ervatioll from original sin and in ,het' Lodily assumption. By the help of Christ, with whom all Chris­tians form one mystical body, Christia:1s can defeat the deVIL dlthough they too can suffer persecutions and death.

"Ve need not /liseu6s here the problem of the plurality of senses. "Ve limit ourselves to an examination of the author's theory of the plurality of senses and of the way in which the plurality of senses is applied to Gen. 3,15.

It appears that by plurality of senses the author means only or mainly the existence of a proper and a metaphorical meanin,;; of the same word. Thus he writes: "The plurality of meanings, t:specially that which arises from the double acceptation, proper and metaphorical, of the same ,vord. is a phenomenon 'Common to all languages" (p. Ill. This definition of what the author calls polysbnie is explained in a note: "J:!}ven the elementarv gram­mal'S di8tinguish between proper and metaphorical sens~". And

80 .P.. P. 8"

he illustrate:'; his definition by this e:x,ample: 'If I say: St. l\1onica is Augustine's mother in a twofold sense, because sh0 brought him forth to the world and to heaven, I am using the \vord 'brought forth' in a proper or natural sense and in a meta­phoirical or spiritual sellse'. And he concludes: "This is the lllOst common fOI'lll of polyselllie" (ibid.). I am sure nobody will lluarrel with Ft'. Bonnefoy about the existence of his particular form of polyscmie; we all use the same words in a proper and in a metaphorical sense. But this is nvt the polyscmie which Bonnefoy thinks to have discovered in Gen. 3,15. St. Monica's dual motherhood is expressly stated illoni-ca sancti A ugustini dupliciie·r matu, a statement which is further explained by the words qu·ia eum et 1Ilundo et caelo peperit. But there is nothing in Gen. 3,15 indicating that the word 'woman' has a dual mean­ing, a proper and a metaphorical one. The .dual sense of. the word 'serpent', which according to B0l111€fOY is the basis of the dual interpretation of Gen. 3,15, does not justify in any way the application of this duality of meaning to the 'woman'. The l)roper and the metaphorical meanings of the 'serpent' occur in different \contexts or, at least, in (lifferent passages, and the diversity of meanings is apparent. But there is not the least indication in the context (hat the word 'woman' has more than one sense, be it proper or metaphoricaL. B0l111efoy appeals to the context as the decisive factur of the true sense of the word 'woman' (p. 35). Now if the grammatical context requires the Itleaning, 'Eve' , the logical context demands absolntely the meaning, 'Mary'. But this is exactly the heart of the problem. Does the logical context necessarily require this meaning of the word ',volllan'? Fr. BOllnefoy states his opinioll in unequivacal terms: l'he Virgin Mary IS the woman personally and literally meant in the Protoeyangelium. His arb'11ments are those with which we have been long familiar, the authority of the Bull Inejjabilis, the autority of theologians, the liturgk~al application of Gen. 3,15 to Mary by the Churcll, and the Vulgate reading ipsa which, though a mistaken translation, contains an element of truth. But the main argument for the identification of the woman with the Virgin Mary is, according to Pr. Bonnefoy, the historico-literalcontext which mav be summarized in these words: The devil made use of a woman to induce man to sin and so lead all mankind to perdition. rrhe devil thought his victory was final. But it Was,.llOt so. God will make use of another

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS 81

woman a,nd of another man in order to restore humanity and ~verthrow the devil (pp. 25-33). This is dear enough to Us in the light of Revelation, but it is doubtful whether and in what mariner it can be deduced from God's words. Theologians are bent on reading into the biblical text more than it contains, or, as Fr. Bonnefoy himself puts it, they try to discover in a biblical text what they themselves have put (p. 86).

Simultaneously with, and independently of, Bonnefoy'~ work there appeared an article' by 'r. Gallu~ in Verbum Domini, 1949, 33--43, proposing a similar interpretation. The title Sensus allegorico-dogmaticus, sensus UUeralis Protoevangelii clearly defines the author's position. Fr. Gallus distinguishes in Gen. 3,15 a literal proper sense and a literal improper or metaphorical sense. According to the literal propel' 3enSe the woman is Eve, her posterity is all mankind, the hostility is man's natural aver­sion for serpents, the crushing of the head and the biting of the heel are fads of everyday's IO'xperience. This is exactly Bonne­foy's explanation. But in a higher sense. which Galllls call& ijmproper, the woman is the Virgin Mary, and she alone, her seed is Christ, the hostility is to be understood in a supernatural order, the crushing of the head of the serpent is the cOIl1plete overthrow of the devil's domination over the world, the crushing or biting of the heel is Christ's death and resurrection. This sense is called allegorico-dogmatic. bacause it expresses metapho­rically or allegorically the dogma of the triumph of Christ and his Holy :Mother over the devil. In another article (12) Fr. Gallus defends himself against criticism to his theory and espe­mally against the charge of intrQducing a daulity of literal' senses into the biblical text by distinguishing between the human writer's words and God's words as related by the human writer. The writer's words express the sense intended by him, but God's words may express a different sense not comprehened by the human wnter. In Gen. 3,15 the human writer is simplv referrinu God's words not expressing his own mind or his ~pinion o~ God's words. The writer's sense is man's natural aversion for serpents, but God's sense is the victory of Christ and his Mother over the devil.

I wonder whether Fr. Gallus has succeeded in convincing

(12) 8cholion ad Protoe'l!angelium (Gen. S,15) in Y (wbum Domi;ni) 19501 pp. 51-4,

82 P. P. SAYDON

an~ of hip, readers. His theory is a complete misrepresentation i)f

the notion both of inspiration and of the metaphorical sense. Ail will agree that God Illay express through the writer's words a sense deeper and wider than what the \vriter actually perceives, but in this case God's sense is only an extension of the writer'8 sense, Ilot a diffen'nt sellse. 'J'he;'e can be 110 conflict between God's 8ense and man's sense. ]f man's sense is not intended by God, it is not a scriptural sense; and if God's sense is in DO

\vay perceived by the writer. man would be only mechanicall~­instrumentall in the expression of that sense. Nor can the appli­eutioll of the word 'woman' ·to the Virgin Mar\" be caned a metaphor; it is: a wider, but still a proper, applfcation of that word. The literal sense has recently been defended froIll a purely exegetical standpoint by Fr. B. Rigaux O.F.M. Wh). "Fr. Rigaux insists on the prophetic, messianic and eschatological character of Ch-n. ;1,15. rrhe writer, whom Fr. Hig'uux together with others identifies \vith the Yahwist, is not ('(;ncerned with mere history. He is not simply narratillg past events nor slmply relating God's wordR; he is mainly teachin::; a lofty doctrine, the doctrine of univet'sal redemption by foretelling the defeat of the devil by the Messiah and its complete elimination from the kingdom of God. Conse(Juently 'the woman' cannot be. Eve except in a very limited sense as the starting-point 01' the com­mencement of that unrelenting struggle CUlminating in the complete triumph of the woman's seed over the devil. 'The woman' therefore is neither Eve nor the whole female sex, but the conqueror's mother, that is the Virgin Mary. A vulnerable poJnt in Fr. Rigaux' ,exposition of Gen. 3,15 is the lack of sufficient consideration of the fact recognized by man v modern interpreters that the Hebrew mind very often passes )mpei'cep­tibly from the general to the particular without any change in the verbal expression. He refers, it is true, to Th. Roman, Dos hebriiische Denken im VC1'yleich mit dem Griechischen, G6ttin­gen, 1952, but he seems to ignore the works of manv modem interpreters who have so clearh~ illustrated this cha~acteristic fluidity of the Hebrew thought. 'Nor does he take into account Gen. 21,12.13 where the word seed' OCCllrs in a collective sense (v. 12) and in an individual sense Cv. 131. Tt follows that even if

(12a) La. femme et son U(JlI<fqe ilflIh~ GCllPU nI, ,11-]5, ·ill Renl~ bihlilJUP ,

1954, pp. 321-48.

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS 83

we admit that the victorious seed is Christ, the son of the Virgin Mary, we are in no way justified in applying the same indivIdual sense to 'the woman' and 'her posterity' in the first part of v. 15. 'The woman' and 'her posterity' may have a more Or less general sense in the first part of the verse, but they become individualized in Mar\' and Christ in the other part of verse 15.

Another attempt "to combine the literal sense with a higher sense is the typical interpretation. Eve is the t:vpe of Mary, [tS

A:dam is the type of Christ, therefore the woman is EYe in the litera.l sense and the Virgin Mary in a typical sense. Let us hear one of the chief exponents of the typico-mariological inter­pretation : "The Holy Ghost, inspiring this oracle, has intended to IfOJ'ctell, in a hig'her senSe and under the type of the first woman, another and a blessed woman and her implacable hostility against the Jevil a),d her complete victory over it. As the diyine vVisdom foresaw from the beginning all the fuIness of this hostility in J\Iary, one may think that tIllS divine Wisdom has t~'pically foretold in tIns oracle the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mar:\,. For in her conception, unstained by any spot of sin, the mother of God has completely triumphed over the ;devil throug'h whose jealousy sin has infected all the human race. Eve and her hostility against the devil signify typically the Virgin Mary and her unlimited hostility against the devil. But this hostility would have never been complete if the Virgl!1 Mary had not been conceived w;thout the original sin. And it is thi,s spotless conception of Mary that the Holy Ghost, has intended to reveal to us in th is oracle" (13). This interpretation has found little favour with modern interpreters. Among its latest supporters one ma.y mention Fr. Sutcliil'e in his commen­tary one Genesis. After having said that Christ is the seed and ithat the vVoman is his Blessed Mother, he goes on: "This follows also from the typical reIationexisting between Eve anti ~Iary, a relationship on which the Fathers loved to dwell ana which is summed up in her title of the Second Eve. As Eve was the mother of all the hving in the physioeal order, so Mary is the Mother of all the living in the spiritual order just as Christ for an a.llalogous reason is the Second Adam havin o' in the fir:>t Ad ' b .'\. am a figure of him who was to come', (Rom. 5.14)," (14).

(13) CYorluy, Spicilegi11m dogmatico-71iblicum, T, p. 37l. (14) .4. Oatholic Oommentm'Y on Holy §criptwre, London, 1953

RLl P. P. SAYDON

It is universally agreed that the typical sense ccll1not be admitted unless it 1S ba..;ec1 upon Hol:" Scripture or Tradition. Now there is absolutel: 110 f',criptnral evidence that Eve is the iypeof Mar:'. True it is that the woman of the Apochlypse (12,1-17) has many resemblances with the woman of Gen. 3,1:'5, hut the woman of the Apocalypse is the personification of the Church. and, althOlH!,"h .John may have borrowed some elements of his d~scriptioll fro~n Gen. 3,1;5: it cannot be said with -certaint,\" that he intended to represent Mary as the fulfilment of the prophecy contained in Gen. 3,15. Some of the Fathers have seen a dose parallelism between Eve and Mary. But again it is not clear whether they intended anything more than a mere contrast hetween Bve and Marv.

The majority of interpreter~ prefer to base the mariological interpretation on the plenary sense or sensus plenior, a scriptural sellse more extensive and more comprehensive than the literal obvious sense to which it is related aR the perfect to the impel'­fect, the complete to the incomplete, the total to the partial. Accordingly (lod'R words taken in their strictl~' literal sense cannot be applied but to Bve and her posterity; but if they are viewed in the light of tllei]' theological context and subsequent revelation they acquire !1 much higher sense which makes them inapplicable to any other one except ChriRt and his Mother. But a,s the existence and nature of the 8(>n8'118 plenior has been "in recent years, and is still, the object of many lively controversies, it is, absolutel:' neceR~ar.v to give a dear idea of it in order to estimate its value as a hermeneutical principle and so to lay a solid foundation for the mariological interpretation ,vhich iR based upon it.

The senSllS pleniur may be brieflv described as a homo­geneouR and organic dew].~pment of· the literal sense. It if; therefore a literal sense more profound than the obvious literal sense and manifested to us b~T God himself, the author of Scrip­ture. rPhese two senses, the obvions and the plenary, are complementary to each other, not two different and independent senses. Indeed their greater or lesser eomprehensiveness is altogether subjeetive, not objective; it iR not the meaning which acquires a wider range of applications or is elevated to a higher sphere, but it is our knowledge of it that becomes deeper and deeper by means of suceessive revelations. The development of the literal obvious sense is, "thel'efore, the gradual unfolding of

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS 85

that recondite sense which IS intended hv God ana is contained in the human writer's words, thongh Hot'fully perceived by hilll. The literal obvious sense an.d its gradual developing lllay be COll1 pared to the development of a painting. r1'he first brush­"troke" do not as yet reveal the picture; the figure is still unrecognizable, but as the painting goes on, the figure begins to take shape until the complete picture with all its details uecOlnes visible. There is unity of plan and work between the first sketch and the las!; finishing touches. It is OIl this orgal1lc unity of revelation that the plenary sell se is based. Another fact justifying the existence of the plenary sense and illustrating its nature is the range of meaning which a word can have. Thus the word 'woman', occuring in a d·efinite context-, cannot lUean but one determinate woman, aithough it can be applied to other WOlllen wlwn it occurs in ditYerelit contexts. But the application of the sa,me word to two different women in Otle and the same cOl:text woukl. introduce that duality of liteml senses which is fiO dreaded by biblical interpreters. On the contrary, the word 'hostility' may denote any degree of mte'nsity frolD mere opposi­t ion to mortal hatred, or even an opposition bet,y-een two born enemies and between two estranged friEuds, and the writer can express any 4egree and any sort of hostility without any change in the form of his expression. ;\s it is God, the principal author of Scripture, who determines the exact meaning or shade of meaning of the words used by t.he inspired writer, it is divine revelation which ultimately determines the existence as well as the extent of the plen~ry sense in any particular pasfiage.

After these prelim inary cOllsiderati,'lls let us see whether alld to what extent can the theory of the sell811s IJlenior he applied

_ to (fen. 3 J 5 Earlier eOHllnentaton;, writing <It a, time when the l~otioll of .the 'plenar~' sense ,vas still Yague and undeveloped, sllllply mamtamed that the oracle ha" heen fulfilled in a perfect ~nanne~' only in Christ and hii'i :iYlot.her, in Eve and her posterity III an IlDperfect manner. Therefore bhe 'woman' in a perfect, .eolllplete and adequate sellSf~ is the Virtrin Man while in an imperfect, incomplete and inadequate s~1se is E~e (15).

(15) Hetzenauer, C01ll1llClItal'illS ill Libl'lI'/n {icllesis; Graz; 1910, pp. 78-82. A. Bea, IlIstitutiones biblieaf;: Ve Pentatellcho,- Rome, 1933, pp. 202r., Simon-Pra:do, Prae/eetiolles biblicae,. Vetlls Testa­mcntlll/1, Vol. I; Turill, 1934,,, pp, 53(

R6 P. P. SAYDON

At the sallle tillle another form of the explan<ltioll of Gen. 3,15 by the principle of the sen811S plenior was being developed. Fr. Murillo in his COlllluenbn on Genesis (lm4) writes: "In v. 15 God is addresf:>ing not E~-e personally, but the whole claRs of women or the whole female sex, concentrating, however, his thought on a particular WOlllan as 1.he representative of her class, an extraordinary WOlllall that call1lOt be other th<ln the Virgin Mary who, through her union with Christ and by his help, crushed victoriously the head of the infernal serpent'. And he goes 011: "Eve was only the occasion for God's promise; as she was the only woman, God seeing ill her the representative of the whole female sex. raised his thought, without changing the verbal expression, to the consideration of the whole class·of WOlllen attributing to 'the \voman' actions and qualities that are proper to the whole class" (pp. 306f). '1'his explanation was later taken up by P. De A.m broggi in an article II senso pieno del Protoc1.1all[lc/o (Gcn. 3,15) published in Senola CaU. (1932, 3-26). In other words, the word 'woman' which apparently refers to Eve, in reality denotes the female sex in general. This. is the literal sense which acquires a higher significance when it is restricted to one particular woman, the best repre8entutive of bel' claRs, a woman whom we in the light of later 'revelation identify with the Yirgin Mary. On the collective meaning of t.ht:' word 'woman' we have spoken already.

A si111ilar view has been recently propounded by 0h. Hauret (Origincs, Gcncse, J--Il!; Paris" 1950). He begins by empha­sizing the identity of the victorions seEd and Christ the Re­deemer. It is in the light of this indisputable fact that the whole oracle must be interprete·d (p.p. 191f). But who 1S the woman? III a strictlv literal sense the woman is Bve and no other but Eve, the Olily woman known from the context (pp. 183f). But although Eve repented of her sin, was restored to God's friend­ship (Wisd. 10,2) an;d so became the devil's ellemy, the manner in which the hostility betweEn the woman and the devil is declared by far surpasses Bve's hostility against the devil. vVe know from N e\v Testament revelation that God has united Christ with the Virgin Mary in the work of re;demption. If therefore Mary is closely aSRociated with Christ in the struggle against and in the victory over the devil, it is 8he who realizes in herself the inexorable hostility excited by God between the \\'oman and the serpent (pp. 193-195). Therefore the woman

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS 87

of Gen. 3,15 is both Eve and Mary; she is Eve in the strictI:' literal SEnse. but she is described with features that are appro­priate only to ~lary. rl'llUs in the woman' K posterity two person­a,O'es stand "out conspicuous]y, Ohrist the Redeemer and along-~ ,

with him the Yirgin Mary, who is designated at the beginning of the oracle. The dual meaning - Eve and Mary - of the word 'woman', does not imply a duality of literal senses, because it does not refer directly and personally to Eve, but to all women in general. Eve and Mary being included by connotation (pp. 196f).

All these interpreters agree in their generalizing and then individualizing the meaning of th0 word 'woman'. The woman. they say, is not Bve. but the whole class of women. But as neither Eve nor any woman, except the Virgin Mary, has realized the full meaning of the hostility and victory predicted by God, the word 'woman' must absolutely cOllnote some extra­ordi.nary woman that will share both in the struggle and in the final triumph with her victorious seed. The woman is Eve in a lower, incipient, germ.inal sense. it denotes the whole female sex in a higher, real, literal sense, and the Virgin Mary in its fullest literal sense.

The best exposition of this theory is .that proposed by .J. Coppens of Louvain in an article Le Protlvang£le. Un nouvel ess(Li d' exegc.se published in Ephemeride~ Theoloyicae Lova­niellses, 1950. 5~36, and separately in Analecta Lavaniensia, 1950, II, 16, 45-77. A year before in a work Les Hannonie8 d,es dell!:l~ Testaments, J. Coppens had very briefly outlined his view of the sensus plenior of Gen. 3,15 in this way: The Protoe­vangelium, viewed in the light of philology, represents a struggle between mankind and the devil and the final victory of man over the devil. But between this humano-Satanic drama and the identificatioll of the conqueror with Ohrist and the association of the Virgin Mary with Christ there exists a gulf which no tlleulogical speculation will ever succeed in bridging over. It is t!:e senS1lS plenior that hel1:s us to recognize the true conqueror of the devil. Although in the mind of the sacred writer the per­sonality of the ,conqueror and his mother are still shrouded in the literal and historico-critical sense, thev .were from the very beginning definitely determined in the mi~d of God. The COl;­

queror of the devil in the mind of God is Christ, and the woman associated with him in the struggle and in the victorv is Marv.

<ij &I" '

88 I? P. SAYDON

his blessed mother. Philology is unable to discover this sense ltl the oracle. God has purposely given us this vague prophecy of a hostility between man and Satan in order to foreshadow, to suggest and, later, to reveal the real nature of this hostility und the tru'e personality of the conqueror and his associate mother. And this iiol the fuller sense of the prophecy, intended by God, contained in the words of the human writer, though not hIlly comprehended by him and by his contemporaries. (pp. 37f).

The following year Prof. Coppens took up the problem again Lli:-;eussing it in all its aspects with an overwhelming exuberance of arguments couched in his usual attractive and persuasive style. Coppens argues forcibly for the general meaning of 'the wOlllari' basing his contention not only on the grammatical pOssibility, but also and especially on the conLext which extends far beyond the narrow limits of the first woman and her husband. Y. 15 does not belong to the strict.ly narrative parts of chapters 2 and 3. The writer's out.look grows broader and broader so as to include all mankind. And this broad and universal outlook demands absolutely an universal meaning for the word 'woman'.

J. Coppens recognizes the same universal meaning in the expression 'the v.:oman's posterity', ill spite of its prevalent individual meaning. And he makes the jmportant remark that the word 'posterity' iR always used t.o denote the male descen­dants and never the female descendants. '1.'herefore the first part of v. 15 describes a struggle between aB mankind -divided into two armies, a womell'S army (the u'uman) and a men's army (her posierit.y) and the devil. Naturaily each army haB its own leader, who not only leads his army to battle, but also tends to individualize the meaning of the word Or expression representing his respective army .

. But all of a sudden, in the second part of the verse, the outlook is narrowed down, and the struggle between mankind an:d the devil is reduced to a single combat between the woman's seed, or one among her male descendants, and the devil. This individual meanillg of the woman's. seed naturally postulates an iridividual meaning of the correlative term 'the woman'. And so the two fighting imni€.s become individualized and represented

. by their respective readers: This transition from the universal to the_par~icu.litr, ~vhi~h is stro~l~ly c011tested by most interpreters, has Its Justlficatwn III thA flUIdity of Hebrew thonaht which does not always distinguish between the idea of a gr;up' and that of

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENt DISCUSSIONS 89

its cont:ltituent members and comequently passes inwerceptibly froltl the one to the other without any diiIerence in the literary expression. Having thus established the individual meaning of 'the woman' , who is not Eve, and of 'the woman's seed', their identification with Christ and his Mother, the Virgin Mary. becomes easily comprehensible.

Therefore Mary is not represented nor in any W[1C;Y connotetl bv Bve; she is incLuded in the universal appellation 'the woman' a~ a member of the female class and as the mother of Christ, the conqueror of the devil.

Coppens concludes his article by asserting once more the mariological sense of Gen. 3,15 but expressly dissociating him­~e1f from those who think they ean deri.ve all mariological theology from this text.

A different interpretation has been proposed by Fr;. P. Bon­netain in the article IlIIlI!Ilculee Conceptioll in the Supplement to Vigouroux D1;ctionnllire de 'la Bible (1943, 240-25L1). The WOlllan is Eve, and her seed is Christ with his mystical body, the Church. Cl;trist is included in the woman's posterity as the lllOst prominent of her descendants, as the conqueror of the sel;pent-devil and the source of the help whereby the other des­cendants can resist and repel all furter attacks by the devil. But Christ's mother, owing to her inseparable union with him, is necessarily associated with her son not only in the struggle again&t the devil but also in the final victory over it. It is 'only in this way that the Virgin Mal'Y comes ill. '1'herefo1'e the reference of this oracle to the Virgin Mary is the consequence of her intimate union with Christ.

Another consequence of Mary's association with Christ is her immunity from any stain of original sin. Since both mother and son are associated together in their struggle against their eOlllmon enemy, they lllU&t be likewise as~ciated in the victor v . But Christ's .vi?tory over the devil was undoubtedly complet'e, absolute, unlImIted and perpetual, therefore Mary's victory too was complete, absolute, unlimited and perpetual. But Marv conld have never gained such a victory over the devil, if sh~ were for one instant subject to the devil throuah oriainal sin. Eve, after repenting of her sin, did not let her~elf bet> deceived again by the devil, sh~ l'~siste~ his temptations, she fought and won. But' hers w~s ~ lImIted vlCtOJ~y and by no means perpetual. Therefore the VIrgm Mal'y through her inseparable union with

90 P. P. SAYDON

Christ was not only the devil's most fOl'midable enemy. but also . his most" conspicuous victor being preserved from sin from the first instant of her conception.

So there are two lines of mariological interpretation, two different ways of finding Mary in Gen. 3,15. Theologians and the majority of interpreters see Mary signified or foreshadowed or connoted in 'the woman'; others think she is included in tl1e woman's posterity. But the important question is: Is the mariological meaning of Gen. 3,15 based upon the literal inter­pretation of the text, or is it only a theological conclusion? Ana if it is a theological conclusion, what is its value?

The strictly literal and the typical mariological interpreta­tions have already been considered as inadequate. The value of the interpretation based on the literal fuller sense depends on the notion of the sensus plellior and on its right application. Now none will deny that the general meaning of G.en. 3,]5, that is .

. the victory over the common enemy of man by one· of the woman's descendants has been' fully revealed in the N. T. and realized in the person of Christ. God foretold a victory that was achieved bv Christ rl'here is. therefore, not onlv a relation of similarity. "but also a continuity and homogeneity of revelation. 'Ve are therefore fully justified in recognizing a literal fuller sense in Gen. 3,15 which identifies the victorious seed with Christ, and his victory with redemption. The Christological meaning of Gen. 8.15 C<llUlOt be contested and has never been contested. But are we justified in extending the fuller sense to every single detail of the prophecy? In particular, can t.he word 'woman' be made to apply not only to Eve, hut also. and in a higher sense, to the Virgin Mary? Those who maintain that the woman is Eve in an imperfect sense, and Mary in a perfect sense are in reality introducing int.o the text a duality of meaings whic,h they themselves do not admit. In order to avoid the incollvenience of!1 dual meaning, Coppens gives the word 'woman', as we have seen, a general meaning, the female class. This meaning is grammatically possible, but the arguments advanced b:' the Professor of Louvain to prove its existence in 8'en .. 3,15 are not convincing. It is true that the writer's outlook becomes broader and even universal in v. 15, but it is equall \' true that this universal view of humanity arises from one part i­cD:la.r event in primev~l histor:'. .The drama of man's struggle WJth the powers of eVIl em,bmces all ages and all places, but it

GEN. 3, 15 AND RECENT DISCUSSIONS 91

originateli with Eve, the first woman, in the garden of IiJden. At the begillning it was a personal strife between Eve and the devil but as the human race increased, the strife involved all the ,~olllan's posterity and will endure till the end of the world. V. 15 has indeed a universal character, but its roots lie in the personal history of the fir:ot woman, without whom that univer­sality would have never been attained.

·'1'11erefore jf 'the wottlan' eannot denote but one particular woman, and if this particular woman is none but Eve, the Virgin l\Ia.ry can in no way be incluiled in it unless we are prepared to admit a plurality ot'literal meallings. Although the Virgin Mar? has realized in herself in the fullest senSe and highest degree the hostility f:et by God between the WOlllan and the devil, this alone does not give bel' an absolute right to be included in ~he general appellation 'woman' as the wQrthiest representative 0f the whole class. Beside 'the woman' there are others engaged in a lllortal strife with the devil. there is the woman's posterity. which, in its general meaning, may include also the Virgin Mary. In fact some intcrpl'cterr::, as we have seen, include the Virgin ::VIary in the \voman's posterity, Mary, as one of Eve's descen­aants will be the devil's enemv, but, being also united with Christ, the cOllllueror of the d~vil, at least by the bonds of common mem bersh ip of the same posterity, she will also share ill the f11lftl vietory. In other words, Mary, as well as many other lllen and women, all included in the first woman's posterity, will by the help of Christ ref'ist and defeat the elevil. So far the literal interpretation of tbe text, which describes a mortal struggle between the serpent and the woman's posterity whictl in~l'udes Christ, Mary and all the pious men 'and ,,,"omen who have during their lives victoriously resisted the devil. But the text tells us nothing about the nature find extent of these hosti­lities nor about the condition of the devil's opponents, whether they will be born enemies or ,;imply friends that will become estranged and illimical in consequence of a C)uarrel. We need absolutely further revelation in order to know whether anvone amongst the woman':" descendants has tnumphed over the devil to the same extent a& Christ himself. Such a revelation would certainly include the Virgin Mary not merely in the woman';-{ posterity, which is the literal sell se , but also in the victorious seed with which ~he,. will completely o:erthrow the devil's power on earth, and tIns lS the fuller mem1mg of t.he text. But the

· 92 P. P. SAYDON - GEN. 3, 15

N. T. revelation shows to us the Virgin Mary not as the victor of the devil, but as the Mother of Christ, who through hi); death Oil the cross has dethroned the devil alld driven him for ev.er out of the world. It is 011 the grounds of this inseparable union of the Virgin Mary with Chrisf that we associate her with her son not only in the intensity of the hostilities but also ill the fullest extent of the victory. 'i'his is not the literal exposition of the text but rather a theological conclusion which, drawn ae; it is from two revealed premises, must be considered as J

revealed doctrine and consequently the object of a dogmatic definition.

Looking back 011 this brief survey of recent discus);ions I)f Gen. 8,15 we notice that the mariological sense is almost uni­versa,uy recognized by theologians and interpreters. The nOll­

Illariologists are very few, all:d it is not always clear whether they reject all forms of mariological interpretation or only the literal interpretation. '1'he mariologists at all costs base their conclusioll8 on theological speculations and reasons of con­venience rather than on sound exegesiH. r1'he majority of inter­preters prefer a literal fuller mariological interpretation. But as both the existence and nature of the fuller or plenary seme is still a matter of dispute. its application to Gen. 3,15 lllay appear somewhat precarious. In fact sometimes the Sensus plenior is nothing else but a typical sense or an additional literal sense, both of which are exclude.d from Gen. 3,15 by the supporters of the sensus plenior. The interpretation which derives the mariological doctrine by way of theological conclusion is based on a literal exposition of the text and On N. T. revelation. on the consideration of the literary ancI theological contexts and on the words of the Bull lIleffabilis. and as sllch it affords an incontrovertible sc.riptural evidence for the revelation of thi8 most singular privilege of the Virgin Mary, Her Immac.ulate Conception.

P. P. SAYDON.

The Queenship of Our Lady in the Liturgy

.Promulgating the feast of the Queenship of Our Lady by meam; of the Encvclical letter :1 d Coeli Reginam, His Holiness Pope Pius XII h~s affirmed that he \vas not imposing a new truth to be believed in by the faithful, but only honouring Our Lady with a title which has been hers sinc,c eady times, (1,<';

witness both the Fathers of the Church and the Liturgy.

In this art.icle we h,we tc. limit ourselves to examining only the witness of the Litl11'gy in favour of the Queenship of ,the Blessed Mother of God; nevertheless, this argument alone is sufficient to show that Our Lady is truly 'Queen, not only because she is the Mother of God, hut also because through the vVill of God she has had a great part in the work of our Redemp­tion, and therefore she excels in dignity all created things and, after Her Son, has prim~cy ovet all. In fact, as the Pope says, Sacred IJiturgy is a faithful mirror of the doctrines transmitted to us by our ancestors and believed by the faithful (1), for the J.1iturgy contains all the Catholic faith, as it publicly witness as the faith of the Church. 'vVe profess the Catholic faith ;n the Liturgy not only by the celebration of the mysteries and by the admini's1iration of the Sacraments, but also bty reciting or singing the "Symbol" which may be considered to be a sort of idenlJiity card for Christians, as well as by the reading of the Scriptures which were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. For this reason, Popes and Councils many times hav~ had recourse to the Liturgy when defining a truth as revealed by God. The Fathers themselves, every time there were discus siom; on some doubtful or controverted truth, have never failed to seek light from the venerable and ancient rites of the Liturgy (2).

This ::>ho\\'s that the I-1iturgy has ever been considered a "loo]}!'> theologicus" of the first order, and the fact has often been expressed by means of the saying "legem credel1di lex sta­tnat supplicandi". The phrase is taken from the Capitula de

(1) EncycL .4d Goeli Regillam IT A.A.S., XXXXVlI (1954). (2) Encycl. Mediator Dei, A.A.S., XXXIX (1947) 540-541.

"

94 J. LUPI

(Jratia (3) attribute(! to Pope Cel€stine I b€cau·se they are gene­rully found at the end of the letter he wrote to the bishops of Gaul in 431 about the Pelagiall controversy. They are often attributed to St. Prosper of Aquitaine, a Clisciple of St. Augus­tine, but probably they were collected 111 Home by the saint about 43;:')-440 (4) and later on were recognised everywhere as giving the genuine doctrine of the Holy See. The author, writing against Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, argues that the liturgical prayers of intercession (5) witness the belief of the Church in the need of divine grace for the conver8ion of sinners and infidels. He is referring to a particular case, remarking that "obsecra­tionum sacerdotalium sacramenta, quae ab Apostolis tradita in ioto mundo et in omni Ecclesia Catholica uniformiter celebran­tur" are a proof of the rule of faith (G). Therefore, Iliturgy does not determine nor constitute in an absolute manner and of its own power the Catholic faith, but, because it is also a profession in the divine truths, and Fmbjed to the divine magisterium of the Chureh, it ean furnish arguments and is a witness of no small account as regards particular points ()f aoctrine. And if we want to distinguish and det€rmine, in a general and absolute way, the relations between faith and liturgy, we can truly say: "lex credendi leg-em stat.nat supplicandi" (7).

So understood, Liturg~· is a more powerful argument in favour of a particular ~loctrine t.han any of the most important documents of the magist.erium of the Church, for theE'e generall~,r come to the notice of only a few scholars, while the Liturgy teaches all the faithful; these documents speak, so to say, once,

(3) ])e gratia Dei "Indicullls" sell praeteritMlIm Sedis Apostoljl;c episcopoTlIrn allctoritate. Cf. 8. Prosper Aquit.anml, (!apit11la de 'gratia Dei, 8 (PL 51, 209).

(4) Cf. Portalie, art. Oelestin in D.T.C. IT, 2052-2060; M. Cappuyns, .TJ origine des capitula. pSe1ldo-cclestiens contre le semi-pelagianir~me, Uevue Benedictine, 41 (1929) 156 ff.

(5) Th", "OrationE'S 8011emnes" or "Oratio fidelium" since the 2nd century formed part of the ritual of the Mass and wa~ placed immediately before the offertory. It fell out: of use or was sup­prE'ssed ::..bout the 5th centilIX, heing maintained only in the liturgy of Good 'Friday when it immediately precedes the adoration of the Cross.

(6) Cf. P. OpPcllheim, 17l,.~tit'1lliones Sy#ematico-Historicae in Sacm7ll Lit1lruiam, vol. VII, Pr'incipia Theologiae Lihlrgicae, pars I, t.it. 11. cap. I, lHlr. 3 (.i\1ariettl, ]947).

(7) Eneyc1. .'4f ediator' Dei, A"A S., XXXIX (1947) 541.

THE QUEENSil.-;:P cn OUR LAD''! e5 and only to the mind of the l'eader8, while the I.Jiturgy i8 con­tin"Q.ally speaking to the mind as wen as to the heart of all the believers (8). It is quite evident, then, that I-iiturgy and Faith are intimately connected together: in fact, one can easily notice that variom! developments in the history of Dogma are paranelefl by corresponding' developments in the Liturgy (9). For this reason, from the earliest centuries, the Church has always shown great cai'e so that nothing, through fraud or ignorance, contrary to tlw holiness of the mysteries and to the truths of faith should 'find its way into the I~iturg~r () 0) . Indeed, heretic~ .. have ever tried either to attack and impugn the liturgical texts ,and rites of the Church, or to modify t.hem, or ev€n to propagate their heresy by meam:; of the Liturgy it8elf (1]). 1t is, therefore, to the TJiturgy of the Homan Church and to j,he liturgies of the Churche8 in commul1lon witb her that we appeal in search of a witness to justify the title of Queen for the Mother of God; and, in ;;0 doing, we are appealing to an authorit~, greater than the authority of the 11'athers, for it is the allthority 'of the Church itself: in fact, St. Thomas says: "maximam habet auctoritatem

(8) Enc~·cl. Qlla.s prilllas, A.A.S., XVII (1925) 603. (m A few examples will suJlice: At the time of the Arian heresy, doxo-

10giE'S and various conclusiom wpre added lo the psalms, hymns and canticle.", of the liturgy, and these cleary testified to the con­suhstantiability of the Three Divine Persons. Against the Pneu­matomachi, the FilioqH'~ was introduced in the Nicene Creed. During the Pdagian heresy the custom of OftE'1l repeating DellS in a{}illt()rimn became common. Against the Donatists, St. Augustine composed various hymns. to be sung in the African Church. Against the )faniehaeans. St. Leo the Great, ac('ording to the Libel' Ponti­ficalis, introduced in the Canon of the Mass the words "sanctum 'acrificium, immaculatam hostiam". Cf. Oppenheim, op. cit., pars I, tit. I, eap. n, par. 5; M. Righetti, Stenia Liturgica, vol. I, parte I, cap. Il, par. I (Ancora, 1\1ilano, ]950).

nO) OllG poud lIlf"l1tion: the letter of Pope St. Innocent I to Decentius biiJ10p of Guhbio, written in 416; the letter of Pope Leo IV (847-~55) to the abhot Honoratul>; the re:orms of Pope ~t. Pius V in 1568 and 1570. Cr. Oppellheim, op. cit., paTS I, tit,. r, cap. IY, par. L

(11) As ,.xamples of thiSl, one could mentioll: ihe faet that Paul of Ramosata changed those ]\fass collects which had referenc€6 to the divinity of Our Lord (Eusebius, H'ist. eccl., 7,30; PG 20, 713); the Anglican Book of Common Prayer; thE' changes introducekl in bre­viaries and missals in the 17th and 18th eenturies in the Gallican Church. Cr. Highetti, op. Pit., parte I, cap. Il, par. 1: Oppen-heim, op. cit" par. 2. .

96 J, LUPI

Ecclesiae consuetudo" -- the whole context shows that St. rrhomas by consuetudo means the TJiturgy, i.e., the rites, uses, and prayers of the Church (12) - "quae semper est in omni~us aemulanda, quia et ipsa doctrina Catholicorum Doctorum ab Ecclesia auctoritatem habet; unde magiR standum est auctoritati. Ecclesiae quam auctoritatl vel Augustini vel Hieronymi vel cuinscumque Doctoris" (13).

Having thus established the value of the argument from I "iturgy, we can now discuss the witnes.s of the various liturgies in favour of the Qneenship of the Bl€ssed Mother of God. During all the ageR, says His Holiness (14), the Liturgy, both in the East and in the West, has sung and is c::.ntinnally singing the praises of the Queen of Heaven. In the Eastern liturgies expres­siom; which clearly proclaim the ro;va1 dignity of the Blessed Mother of God are fairly common, and among a wealth of examples His Holiness has chosen four quotations, two from the Byzantine rite, one from the Armenian rite and one ;from the Ethiopian rite.

The Armenian Liturgy in the Matins Hymn for the feast of the Assumption of Our T-1ady, which is celebrated on the Sunday nearest the 15th August, so sings to the Blessed Mother of Glad: "0 Mother of God, todav vou have been carried to heaven on the chariots of the CIlerubi~, the Seraphim minister to yml, and the heavenly cohorts bow down before you" (15). r11h€ anaphora of Our TJady, Mary, the Mother of God, in the Ethiopian Missal says: ., 0 Mary, the centre of the whole world ...... you are greater than the many-eyed Cherubim and the six-winged Seraphim ...... Heaven and earth are altogethel' full of the glory of thy holiness" (16),

(12} Cf. Oppenheim, op. cit., par. 3. (13) 2a-2aE-, q. 10, a. ]2. (l4) Encyc1. Ad Ooeli Regirwm., I.c. (115) The canticles and hymns used in the recitation of the divine office

(but not those used during the· celebration of the Mass) are found in the Charagan, the latest edition of which was published at Constantinople in 1877. The Mechitarists of Venice in 1857 pub­lished the text. and translation of the uwdes et hymni ad ss. ilfal'ige Virginis honorem eY.C Ar'menorllm brevia-rio excerpta (Cf. D.T.C. I, 1965).

(16) The Ethiopian rite has fifteen different anaphoras, of which only one, the anapitora Ss .. 4post%1'um, is in common use, the others being used only on particular feast-days, Or fOf certain times. ln

THE QUEEN SHIP ()F OUR LADY 97

From the Byzantine rite the Pope quotes the Mana,eon (17) for the Sunday, after Christmas at Matins: "0 just and most blessed (J oseph), being of a royal prog\:!lly, amongst all you have been chosen as the spouse of the pure Queen who ineffably had to bring forth Jesus Killg'.·' He also quotes the Achatistos Hymll (18): "I say a hymn to the Mother and Queen whom I approach celebratillg with joy, that I may joyfully sing her marvels...... 0 Lady, OUr tongues cannot worthily praise thee for, having brought forth Christ the King, you have been exalted over the Seraphim ...... Hail 0 Queen of Heaven, hail, 0 Mary, Lady of us all".

We lllay also mention that the Liturgy of St. John Oh1'y­sostOIll applies to Om JJady the verse of Psalm 44: Adstitit Regina a, de:rtris t1ltS in vestitu deamato circumdaia varietate (19). In fact, during the rita of the preparation of the Off-ering (the pros!,:OInide), the celebrant cuts a\vay with the hOly limce the parts of the "holy bread" (the IJro,~plwra) marked with the letters IC. XC. NI. KA,saying: "The J...Jamb of God is sacri­ficed". After the deacon has poured warm water and wine into the chalice, the priest takes another loaf (the sfragis) and cuts a bit from it ill honour of Our Lady; taking the piece of loaf cut in honour of the All-holy 'Theotokos, he says: "In honour and memory of the blessed above all creatures, our glorious Lady Mother of God and ever virgin Mary, through whose interce~­sio~ accept 0 Ilord this sacrifice on your supra celestial altar". Tlt.el1 puttillg it near the "holy bread" to the right, he says:

the t,YllicaI editioll of the Ethiopian missal (Aslllara 1907) the anaphol'a DOll/illae /u)stmc 1lIar1ae ril'uini8 is the Jth and is found OIl pp. 53-60. Cr. 11 anssens. Inst. Litw'gicae de Titiuus ol'icntali­bus, Ill, xyi, par. 1, n. 1483.

(]7) The Jlcl!aioll is the !lame of twelve books (one for eveT~' month) that contain the ofik(s for the immovable feasts of the Byzantine

.rite. The lntest edition was, printed at the Vatican Press in 1888-1901.

(18) 1'ho Achatistos is a hymn or, Ix>tter still, an office in the Greek liturgy in honour of the B.V.M.; it is said standing, hence its name. This office is recited entire OIl the Saturday of the fi:th week in Lent, and then it i~ divided into four parts or stations, hetween which (sitting) various psalms and canticl~ are sung. Portions of this hYlllIl are also distributed oyer the first four Saturdays of Lent. Cl'. D.A.C.L., 1, 213,216; Catholic Encyclo­pedia, vol. I, page 92.

(19) Ps. 44, 10.

98 J. LUPI

A dstitit regina. a dextris tu.is in vestiiu deau,Tato circumdata varietaie (20).

In the Latin rite, too. we find the above verse of Psalm 4-1 applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In fact, the verse forms part of the introit of the Mass B. iVI. V. de Cl)nsolatione, on the Sunday following the 28th August, an{l it appears also as the verse in the 6th responsory of the Common Office of Our Lady ~in our breviaries. The title of Qu{'en is given to our Lady in various Masses of the Latin rite, chiefly in those approved for eertain places (21). But it is not to the witness of these Masses that the Pope appeals: as witnesses that even the Latin rite gives to Mary the honour of Queenship, the Pope mentions the beautiful antiphons in honour of Our Lady sung during the year at the conclusion of the divine office. i.e.. the Salve Regina (from Trinity to Advent), the Ave Regina coelorum (fro~ Puri­fication to Baster), and the Regina coeli laetare (during Easter­tide) (22). He also quotes the hymn at Lauds in the new office

(20) Cf. De ~leesttr, La divina litul'gia. del nostl'o pad'l'c 8. Giovanni (!I'iso,~tomo. p. 15; Hans.sens, op. cit., ~. xi, sec. iv, n. 782.

(21) In the Masses 0" Our Lady under the htles of Mount Carmel (16th . . .July), PerpEtual 8ul'C'our- (27th July), and Good Counsel (26th

"\:pril), we read: Regina. III undi dignissima., Maria., Virgo perpetIM, intercede pro n.ostra pa·ce et salute (Communion antiphon). In thl' Mass of Our Lady, Regina .4postD'lorllm (31s.t May), we read: Porta. coeTi et stella jllari.~ cs, Virgo Maria., Regis aetel'1li Ma.ta, et Regina nostm (Gradual), /3uscipe Ma·ter nostra, ](egina no,st/'a (Tract); Gloriosa Regina. mundi, intercede pro nobis (Communion antiphon). In the, Mass of Our Lady, Regina Sanctol'um omniu·m et Mater Puchrae Dilectionis (31st May), we read: Egredimini et videte, Hliae 81:on, nostram ReginaTll, quae laudant ast'm matutina (Introit); DellS, qui beatissimam l'irginem Jlarim1i OlnniUnL sa·lle­torulIt BegiMm ItOS vene/'uri tribtlisti (Collect); Praeposuit eam Dominus super uni·versum reglllll1l SUl/ln et dedit ei diadeina lit FilillTll SUU11l llutriret, et regnaret. Corona aurea super caput eiu<$, ~pressa signo sanctitatis, glo1'ia honori.s, et opus /ortitudinis (Gradual) ; r eni, Re.gina· nosira.,lItni, Domina, in, hOl'turn tuu m (Alleluia verse and Trad).

(22) The Salve Regina is an 11th century hymn ascribEd to either Her­mann Contractus or Peter bishop of Compostella or Adhemar bishop of Pu~'-en-Velay. It was first adopted for a liturgical purpose aNmt llH5 when Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, decree<! that it should be sung processionally on cClrtain feasts among which was the Aswmption. Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, voL XIII, PP. 400, 410; ThurstOIl, Familiar Prayers, pp. 115-145 (Burllll & OaWs, 1953).

1'HE QUEENStUP OF OUR LADY 99

for the feast of the Assumption: "Teque Reginam celebrant potenteru terra polusque", and the Antiphon for the Magnificat ill the Second Vespers of the same feast which belonged to the former office and ha~ been maintained in the new one: "Hodie Mal'ia Virgo coelos ascendit, gaudete quia hodie cum Christo regnat in aeternum" (23).

But the fact that the title of Queen is given to the Blessed Mother of God, both because she is the Mother of God and because of the part she played in our Redemption, is chiefly brought out in the liturgy of the two' feasts of the Sorrows of Our Lady. In the Tract for the feast celebrated on the Friday

The date. of composition or the .4 i·eHegina. Coeloru11l is uncextain and no internal or external evidence can prove that it antedates the 4th cen.tury. It first appears in the St. Alban's Book of the 12th century and in Munich l\IHS of the 13th century. It seems to have been introduced in the Divine Office by CIemeIllt VI ill the 14th century. Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. n, p. 149. The Regi-na Coeli is of unknown authorship and has been traced to the 12th centur~·. It iH due to the inflnence of the Franciscans, who were using it after Compline in the first half of the 13th century, that it was adopted hy the universal Church. Actually if is an n.daptation of a Christmas hymn in honour of Our Lad~' found ill 12th century 1\188 at 8eckjau and Saiut-M.air-des-foss~. Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIl pp. 718-719; Thurston, op. cit., pp. 146-15l.

(28) We could also note that the original )'~ndering of the hymn at Lauds in the Office of the B. V.M. was 0 gloriosa. Dom.i-IW, ea:ce~$a wper .5idera. It is :,tiIl ~o sung by the Benedictines. i

The office oi' the Apparition of the B.V.M. at Lourdoo (11th February) has.; !Iodic gloriosa coeli Regina. in terris apparuit (the Magnificat antiphon for 2ud VEspers).

The hymn at Lauds for the fea~rt of the Hol;v Rosary (7th Octo­ber) celebrat€s t.he five glorious mysteries, and the last V€'I'OO before the conclusion is;

Bis sena cillgunt sidera almae parenti>. verticem, throno propinqua Filii cUllctis creatis imperat;

while the hymn for second vespers, which hriaily re<'ounts all the m~'ste·rie." of the Hol~' RosaTY, says;

Ave, in triumphil:l FilIi, in ignibus Paracliti, in regn i honare et I umine, Hegina fulgens gloria.

The::;~ hymns were composed by Emtazio Sire-na and were in­cluded for the first time in the D"'i'hinican Office published in 1834.

lOO J.LUPI

preceding Palm Sunday (and in the Alle1uia verse in -votive Masses) the Church sings: "Stabat sanct!lJ Maria, coeli Regina et mundi Domina. iuxtucl'ucem Domini nostri Jesu Christi dolorosa.'· On the other hand, in the September feast the verse and responsory for the first nocturn at Matins and for both vespers is: "V. Reginu martyrulll, ora pro nobis. R. Quae juxta crucem Chl'isti constitisti".

In the Encyclical Mediator Dei the Pope not only insisted on having the faithful imbued with the spirit of the Liturgy und exercis~ng amon'g all fellow-Christians 'IW. apostolate for living the Liturgy, but he also made known his wish that the faithful should not be encouraged to do a way with the various private devotions which through the ages have become popular and in no way are opposed to the liturgy of the Church - the Pope mentions in a special way those prayers and supplications in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, among which., as all know, the Rosary is the most important (24,). 'rhese devotions, by means- of which the faithful daily honour Our Lady, furnish us altio with a proof in favour of the Queenship of the Mother of God. '

'rhe Litanv of Loreto (25) invokes our Ladv twelve times giving her the' title of Queen : eight times with reference to the dignity she enjoys in heaven (Queen of Angels, Patriarchs. Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, Queen of all saints); twice with reference to two special privileges granted to her. one with respect to the beginning and the other to the end of her life on earth (conceived without sin (26), assumed into 'heaven (27»; and twice again with referene~ to her

(24) (25)

(26)

(27).

A.A.S., XXXIX (1947) 584. ']'hen' is a great lapk of doeumental'~' evidenee concerning the origin, growth, and development of ,the Litany of J"oreto into the form in which we know if, especially as it ,vas for the first time deofillitely approved hy the Church in 1587. Cf. Qath. Enc., '1'01. IX, pp. 2137-290; Campana, Moria nel culto catta/ico, '1'01. I, sez, Ill, c. iv. (Marietti, 1933). Originall;\' granted by Pius IX to the bishop of Mechlin. it was authorised in many 'diocese" by various rescrip~ afl1:er the dt,finition of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854; ,thus it soon l.>ecame a uninrsal practice, though theore was never a decree permitting its inclusion in the Litany for the universal Church, as the Congregntioll of Rites affirmed On the 8th April, 1865.

Added by Pope" Pius XII in 1950 after the definition of the Dogma of thl;l A~tmwption of .DUI' Lady.

THE QUEENSHIP OF OUR LADY 101

beriei1ts towards us, exiled children· of Eve (Queen of the holy Rosary (28), Queen of peace ('29). Besides, In certain places, some ·religious orders also invoke her as Queen and honour of the Gannel, Queen of hermits, of monks, Queen of the World. And the fifth glorious mystery of the Rosary honours Our Lady crowned Queen of heaven and earth (30).

Christian art, too, has not lagged behind in honouring our Lady as Queen, and, since the Council of Ephesus, the B.V.M. has often been portrayed as Queen and Empress, sitting on a throne, adorned with royal symbols,crown€:d and surrounded by Angels and Saints, and ruling over all the things aud powers of nature as well as yictorions over the powers of Satan (31). 'ro cOllcillde, we must :tlso mention another testimonv for the Qneenshlp of Our Lady , often given by Popes and" bishops, followed in this by the enthusiasm of the faithful, i.e., the cro\vning of images of our Ijady - images which are given this partieular honour as they are the object of special veneration or form the centre of pilf!rimages. rrhis crowning is regulated b~' very solemn rites (3'2).

(28)

(29)

(:10)

(;3] )

m2)

Approved h~' thE' C. of n ites for the Confratel'llities of the Holy Hosar~' on the 13th .f uly 1675, though used hefOl'(> that date la Dominican breviary of 1614 contains this invocation), and ex­tended to the universal Church by Pope I.,eo XIiI by a decree of the 24th Decemher, 188:3.

A'dcIed hy Pope BpJledict XV during the First Great War (Letter to the SecrE'tary of State, 15th 1\1ay: 1917). 'I'he fifteen m~'stel'ies. as we know thrill) today, were fixed only in the 18th century, when Pope Benedict XIII rp.ndered 'their medi­tation obligatory for the gaining of the indulgences. The five glorious m~'st{,ries, a5 we know them today, are to he found in Stapelton's PromlJf'UQ7'illm Oatholic'Urtl (published in 11589 at Lou­vain). The e.arliest representation or the Virgin enthroned i8 found at Parenzo ill Istria (5th c€,ntury). Other representations are to be found in the Roman churches of S. Maria in Dominica, S. Cecilia, S. Francpsea Homana, and ill the cathedJral of Capua (all belong­ing to the Rth century), and in the church of S. Maria in Traste­vc,re (11th cent.). Later on (14th-15th cent.), 'the Virgin of the ':\fiddle Ages, ']'hrone of God and Qneenof Heaven, gave place to the }fother, the most beautiful. the sweetest, the tenderest of all women, Cf. Oath. Enc., vol, XI, p. 398: Smith':Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vo1. IT, p. '1154 (I,ondon, 1908). '

The coronaTion of imagCS! in an example of an' old and obvious symbolic sign of hono11r that has become a fixed rite: the one used today is almost exactly the or..e used by Pope Gregory XVI

] 02 J. LUPI - THE QUEENSHIP OF OUR LADY

These facts and the various indulgences (33) annexed by the Holy See to prayers to Our Lady as Queen of Heaven and earth have already ratified the exactness and convenience of the title under which the Blessed Mother of God is now being venerated by the new feast illtroduced in the Liturgy of the Church.

(33)

J. LUPI.

in 1837 to crown the image of Our Lady "SaIns Populi Romani". Since the- 17th century, the right to crown statues and pictures of the B.V.M. belongs to the Chapter of St. Peter's. Of. Oath. Enc., vol. VII, p. 670.

--er. Enchiridion Indulgentiarum (Vaticano, 1952), Oap. V, art. I, nos. 312, 324, 332, 334, 345; art. HI, no. 384; art. IV, no. 391; art. V_. nos. 394, 399, 401, 404; art. VI, no, 405; art. VII, nos. 415, 430, 431, 437.

Casus Canonico-Moralis PubliuR et Paula jam vidua, Melitenses, in America in

matrimonio civiJi copulati sunt. Quos Melitam reversos cum omnes fere incolae cognoscerent non esse catholice conjugatos, Publius, post aliquod tempus, Paulam reliquit ut Lucillam, Paulae £iliam, in facie Ecclesiae uxorem duceret. Ad Parochum igitur accedit Publius, desiderium suum ini exponit, eiqne immper dicit se Rerio dubitare utrum Lncil'la £ilia ipsins sit necne. "Bene, ait Parochus, impedimentum dnbium, impedimentum nullum; vos conjun"gam in matrimonium, at prius dispensatio ab impedimento Affinitatis te inter et Lucillam exsistente petenda est".

Casu vero urgente, Parochus ipse a praedicto impedimento Affinitatis sponsos JIispensat eosque, Ordinario incoDSlUlto, in matrimonium conjungit. QUAERITUR

1 0 Num hene argumentatus sit Parochus (a) circa dubium a Pnblio positum, (b) circa impedimentum Affinitatis.

go Nnm validum sit hoc matrimonium et quare. HO Si inyulidum, nnlD convalidari possit.

SOLUTIO Ad Inrn Valde male argnmentatus est Parochus circa

duhium a Publio positum. Dubium enim circa exsistentiam alicujus impedimenti matrimonialis esse potest vel juris vel facti, et dubium juris iterum esse potest vel juris divin i vel juris ('('clesiastici. Nunc vero, ex I'lententia Doctorum, (a) licitum est matrimonium inire cum impedimento dubio si dubium est juris idque ecClesiastici, quia in hoc casu Ecclesia supplet, vel potius quia lex ex voluntate Ecclesiae in hoc casu non obligat : "Leges enim - uit Canon 15 - etiam irritantes et inhabilitantes in dubio juris non urgent". Et quia cum hujusmodi dubio licite iniri potest matrimonium, 'I'heologi dicere solent "impedimen­tum dubium, impedimentum nullum". Parochi aut em non est, sed Ordinarii ad quem res est deferenda, si tempus suppetit, dicere de exsistentia dubii juris.

(b) Non licet tamen matrimonium inire cum impedimento dubio si dubium est juris divini aut d1lbum facti. Si primum, Ecclesia supplere non potest et proinde Sacramentum expone­retur periculo nullitatis; si secundum, constat Ipsam nolle supplere. Ordinarius tamen in hoc casu pote:st dispensare "dum-

104 A. TABONE

modo agatur de leg'ibus in quibml R. Pontifex dispensare solet (1).

In casu nostro dubium Publii est dubiwn facti et quidem circa impedimentum juris divini, a quo R. Pontifex dispensare 1I0n potest, cum agatnr de eonsanguinitate in primo gradu fineae rectae. Ergo, ut dixi superius, male argumentatus est Parochus dicenR: "Impedimentum dubium, impedimentum nullum", et adhue pejus egit Paroelnu; sponsos ill matrimonmm eonjungendo. quia ita laesit Canonem 1076 par. 3 matrimonia si milia clare prohibentem.

In Ruper male opinatus est ParoeJ1UR circa eXRistentiam impedimenti AffinitatiR Pnblium inter et l .. ucillam. Impedi­mentum enim hoc contrahitur tantum a solo viro cum consan­guineis uxoris et a sola muliere cum comangnineiR mariti, f:'1. in linea recta dirimit matrimonium in qnolibet gradu, in linea \'ero eollaterali llRque ad secundum gradum inclusive ('2). Sed cum ex nova diseipIina fundamentum istius impedimenti sit matrimonium -validmn , sive ratum tantum sive ratum et con­summatum, Publius et Lucilla nullo modo coutrahunt hoe impedimentum, cnm nullum matrimonium validum inter Pub­lium et matrem I.Jucillae unquam exstiterit (3).

Sllperius dixi "ex nova disciplina", quia ante Codicem J. C. fundamentum Affinitatis emt copula perfecta. quaecumque, modo revera per!ecta., ideoque propter hoc et Affinitas illicit a dirimebat matrimonium et quidem usque ad '2 gradum lineae collateralis inclusive. Hodie nulla Affinitas illicita exsistit.

Ad 2um Matrimonium de quo in casu non solum illicitum sed et invalidum omnino {uit. Ratio est quia inter sponsos exsis­tebat impedimentum dirimens Publicae Honestatis; hoc enim impedimentum, ex nova oeconomia, oritUr ex duplici fonte, i.e. ex matrimonio invalido et ex publico et notorio concubinatu, et dirimit matrimonium non inter pseudo-conjuges, sed intei' virum et mulieris (et vice-,;ersa) consanguineos in primo et secundo gradu lineae rectae, non vero in linea collaterali (4).

Dixi "ex nova oeconomia", quia antiquitus tale impedi­mentum oriebatur ex matrimonio rato tum valido turn invalido,

(1) Can. 15. (2) Can. 97 par 2 et 1077. (3) Can. 97 par. 1 .

.. (4) Can. 1078

yASP$ ,CANONICO-MORALI~ 105 ~

dmnmotlo tamen matrimonium invalidum non fuerit ex defectu consensus, et ex sponsalibus validis et absolute factis.

Quidquid sit, ut jam patet, Publius et l)aulu Lucillae mater vivebant in publico et notorio cOllcubinatu, "cum omnes fere incolae cognoscerent sponsos nOn esse catholice conjugatos". N ec valet ratio dicendi sponsos in matrimonio civili copulatos esse, cum matrimonium uti ,"ocant civile, inter catholicos, uti con cub in at us liucusque f!emper habitun\ sit coram Matl'e Ecclesia. Cum erg:o Lucilla sit filia P'mlae concubinae, jam patet inter Publium et LucilIam adfuisse impedimentum dirimens Publicae Honestatis )n 10. gradu lineae rectae. Ergo invali.dum est matrimonium inter praedictos, et Parochus potius ab hoc impedimento dispensationem petere debuisset. Ipse Parochus ab impedimento Publicae Honestatis sponsos dispensare non pot est , quamvis in casu urgenti, quia facultate dispensandi gaudet "solum pro casibus occult is in quibus ne loci qui,dem Ordinarius ~tdiri possit, vel 110nnisi cum periculo violationis secreti" (5).

, Ad 3um Duplici modo l1latrimonia invalida sanari possunL h.e., per simplicern convalidationem et per sanationem in radice. Prima sanatio triplici ex causa fieri solet, i.e., ob ex~istentium alicujus impedimenti quod ,dispensari potest, ob defectum con­sel"!SUS et ob defectum forruae celebrationis matrimonii. Sanatio vero in radice, quae unice a Sede Apostolica concedi potest (6), ut fiat, quatuor conditiones requirnntur: 1) ut impedimentum "it juris ecclesiastici, 2) ut ab initio datus sit verus consensus, 3) ut hic consensus adlmc perduret in utraque parte, 4) ut exsistat causa proportionate 3Tavis (7).

. Ut igitur patet. matrimonium de quo in casu hoc pUllCl modo rsanari potest, cum impedimentum J)ublicae Honestatis totaliter impedimentum sit juris eedesiaslici. Attamen, ut dispensat,io :lb

hoc impedirriellto concedi possit, provideatur oportet conditiOl1l <luae olilll apponi solebat m c:oncedenda dispensutione super Affinitate ~llicita in linea recta, oportet nempe copula,habita cum matre mulieris, Imjus nativitatem non antecedat, vel alio modo occurratur periculo ne vir propriarn filium naturalem ducat. Cum. vero in casu nostro agatur praecise de hoc periculo inter sponsos, Ecclesia non convalidat istud matrimonium et ideo pseudo-conjuges, Publius et IJucilla, quam citins separandi sunt.

(5) Can. 1045 par. 3. (6) Call. nn. (7) Cfr. Oanones 1139, 1140.

. A. TABONE.

Book Reviews

S. M. ZARB, O. P., De uberiafe sel/SUS littera.lis in Sacra Scripfura. secundum doctrinam S. Thomae flquinatis, estratto da Problenti, scelti di teologia. GontemporfLnea, (Analecta Gregoriana, LXVIII [1954J 251-273), Roma.

In these la"t years biblical scholars are aiming at a more scientific and expansive research in Hermeneutics. Many an author and tens of biblical periodicals are dedicating hundreds of pages to this branch of biblical studies. This kind of research has been urged by an acutely felt necessity of deeply investigating and understandi.ng the Word of God. whose study has achieved an intel,lsely marked improvement in the last fifty years. History, Archaeology, Philology, Btymology, Chronology and Biblical 'rheology have thrown new light on the Bible and have solved many a problem. After hard years of patient studies, the Hagio­graphers' end, way of thinking. liistorical background, etc., can now he better understood. Thus it becomes much easier to interpret the literal sense of mauy texts iu their real historical background. On the other hand, rnany other passages now yield a clearer explanation of their spiritual sense. In this way Ancient HistorJ~ and its affiliated sciences have proved themselves very efficient in elucidating the literal sense of the Holy Text, while Biblical Theology, Patrology, etc., have been of great lielp for a better understanding of the typical or spiritual sense. Summing up, it remained to go deeper in illustrating the different senses of the Sacred Writers, both by following the tl'aces of the Fathers of the Church and by takinf( into account the new light given by the biblical sciences. r.rhis is why the topic of the present day is Hermeneutics and why the Gregorian Unversity, cele­brating the fourth centenary of its foundation,pointed at Her­m:enentics to the learned speakers who gathered in the Aula Magna to commemorate the happy event.

Among the numerous professors representing the Univer­sities of the Catholic world, },falta has had its own delegates. The Royal University of Malta was wise enough to choose as its representative for the Biblical Section a scholar who undoubt­edly is an authority ill Hermeneutics. His paper "De Ubertate . sensus litteralis in Sacra Scriptura secundum doctl'inam S. Thomae Aq." ,,,:as warmly greeted by the whole audience and later published among' other lectures delivered on that occasion.

ZARB: DE UBERTATE SENSUS LITT'EItALIS 107

'rhe "De Ubertate sensus litt." is a, synthesis, so to say, of Prof. Zarb 's own articles appearing in various biblical reviews. It is in the nature of an exegesis on the Angelic Doctor's teaching on the different seDses of Holy Scripture, and it marks the richness of the literal sense according to the Doctor's studies.

The author begins with a brief introduction giving the definition of the two main Hmses of Holv Writ - the literal and the spiritual - always according to si. 'I'homas. Hence he passes in review the different names of these two senses ana t.he. threefold classification of the spiritual sens€ (sensus tropolo­gicus, allegoricus, anagogicus).

In the first part of his study, Prof. Zarb considers the exu­benll1Ce of the literal sense in relation to God as the principal author and the main object of Holy Scripture. As principal .author, God could enrich Holy vVrit in a way that., over and above the literal sense - cOIll~non to all ordinary books - the same inspired phrase or senLerwe could disclose a, spiritual sense together and simultaneously with the literal one. For the same reason, even the literal senSe in itself Can be manifold. When it it:; intended by the Hllgiographer, St. 'rholllas calls it strictly Jti.~toriGa-l; the other literal senses, however. which can be detected b" learned readers but not intended bv the Sacred \"\Triter, ar~ simply called literal. 'Phey are literal'because God meant them and, although He left them veiled to the mind of the Sacred Author, He enlightened some readers to understand their full meaning. Here Pro£. Zarb enters into the aI:gument whether in the ,<,fLme passage the literal sense may be manifold or not. He giVES his exeget:;is on his Master's teaching, arguing that St. Thomas taught that a single text might enclose in itself more than one literal Rense: the strietlv historico-literal allti other litera,z senses (the sensus plenlor, et~., of modern writers), which Blust not be llIistaken for the spiritual or similar sense'3. However, those ·who are illterested in the subject should have a look into the other studies, published by the learned Professor and quoted in the second page of the present thesis, where he had given a more complete survey of the Angelic Doctor'~ teaching.

In the second part, Pro£. Zarb considers the biblical senses in relation to the human authors of the Sacred Books. As the human author was only an instrument of the divine inspiration, it follows that whatever he intendCild (i.e. the historico-literal

108 BUONTEMPO: PROBLEMI DI DIRITTO ECCLES.

sense), what he left for others to disclose (i.e. the other literal senses) and ,'.'hat he veiled by figures (i.e. 1,11e spiritual sense) was all intended by God and cOllsequently forms the divine and biblical senses. Therefore, whatever the human author meant, firstly it is the word of God and secondly forms the basis c;f all the other senses, hidden in the historical-literal sense which the readers discover for themselves.

In the third chapter, Prof. Zal'b continues to explain the richaess of the biblical senses from other points of view. Holy Mother Church alone is in charge of the explanation of Holy Scripture; therefore, all the biblical senses - except the literal - fall under its interpretatIOn. 'rhus we have the explicit and implicit, the direct and illdn'ect sellse and also the so-called "sensus conseyuens".

In the fourth and lad part, we find the teaching of St. '1'homas on the richness of the senses of the Bible, as this is subjected to the "norma fidei et morum". Here Pro£. Zarb discusses the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor 011 the certain and probable senses. Iu the last page, he summarizes the contents of his paper.

'rhe main value of Prof. Zarb' s exposition derives from the profundity - associated with ::;0 many clear arguments - by which he reviews the teaching of his Master. We should warmly apprec~ate the valuable service he rendered ill confronting the Angelic Doctor's explanation of the biblical senses with that of modern writers. Lastly, we must thank him for having presented t,o us in a few pai;es hiS persollal views, which he had previously tested, held and defelJded in manv articles. Biblieal scholars and st~dents should read aud relish this brief hut very intt'resting paper.

GUIDO SCHE)1BRI, O.:F.1'1.

* * * A. BUON'l'EJVIPO, Pro/Ilemi di Diritto 'Ecclesiaiiticu JlIal-

ieiiG, Malta, 19M, pp. xii + 10-1:. ".4. i;e noctmnis juva.t impalleiicere clwrtis" (Persio, Sat. 5,62).

Per chi voglia serul'OIOsalllente appl'ez:zare l'opera del Ca­nonico Buontempo, e necessario che anzitutto sia non legger­mente provvisto di cognizioni giuridiche sia nel cam po del'diritto ecclesiastico come pure ij;l lluello civile.

BUONTEMPO: PROBLEMI DI DIRITTO ECCLES. 109

Il libroe stato maestrevolmente diviso in due parti; la prima tratta dello aspetto storico-politico dello svolgimento e della codificazione del tliritto concisamente dimostrandone il tl'apasso dall'Ol'dine di S. Gi~vmmi ai Gernsalemme alla' domi­nazidne ing-Iese, e del SilO rinvio a1 Diritto Canonico, e la sua, riferenza il~ materia di competenza dei Tribunali Ecclesiastici e guelli Civili; la seconda pnrte si diffonde a commentare esau­rientlemente alcuni istituti ldella Legislazione Canonica, rile­vando, con vera perspicaciae dovizia cli rilievi alcune fasi importanti del dil'itto in mm'ito alla capacitil. contrattuale e incapacita giuridicu ne11a legislazione Canonica. Interessanti e dotti sono i paragrafl che rignardano la esclaustrazione e l'incapa­cita pl'ocessuale del Monaco.

I.Ja parte percosi dire pratica del trattato SI trova raggrup­pata nelIo svolgilllento teorico e pratico ehe concerne le azioni giudiziarie, quelle puramente lega li, quelle cl' interesse pubblico e privato. I.Ja materia si chiude con uno studio, appropriato e utile, suIle eccezioni cli l1ullita, d'incompetenza, illegittimita di persona; che e corredato da una nutrita citazione di giudicati dei tribunali locali, ai quaE fanno corona le autorevoli riferenze ai proclami, al1e sentenze di autori e deIla, Curia Romana.

I/autore ha voluto rend ere un servigio a tutti gli studiosi del diritto facen,do ampia I'iferenza alle fonti e corredando quest:1 sua monografia con una vasta, taloI'a non comune, bibliografia, dalla qnale ha attinto materia preziosa per l' espletamento eli questa improba e diuturna fatica ,che gli avra fat to "tremar le vene e i polsi" nel corso della sua compulsazione.

Uno studio simile mm'ita di esse re adito da chiunque abbia a cuoi:e il patrimonio del nostro diritto, peI'che non rima,nga inappagato il conato di chi ha supnto sacrificare al dominio dello spirito le mille attrattive della materia, ribelle, caduca e restia, dove si adagia la comune schiavit11 dei neghittosi e dei superbi mai stanchi di schermirsi tra i fumi e le ramaglie delle sense infeconde e ciarliere.

A lcuni cenni b1'ografici sull' autore. Compiti gli studi teologici alIa Regia U niversita di Malta:

ordinato Sacerdote il primo setteml)l'e 1946 neJla Ohiesa Ool1e­giata di San Paolo Naufrago: vinto una borsa di. studio daI Consiglio Britannico : nell'anno scolastico 1946-47 frequento un corso di Ling11a e Letteratura inglese aH'Universita di Notting­ham"::,, Per due anni jnsegno In~ese aIle prime classi ael

110 BUONTEMPO: PROBLEMI DI DIRITTO ECCLES.

Seminario Arcivescovile di Malta...... N e1 mese di novembre 1049 inizio a Roma un corso di guattro anni al Pontificio Ateneo Lateranense: dove consegul la Licenza in Diritto Canonico il ] 8 giugno 1951, la Licenza in Diritto Civile i1 27 giugno 1953, e la I-lam'ea in "Utrogue jure" 1'8 luglio .1953 ...... Alcuni mesi dopa, con la pubblicazione delIa sua fesi di Laurea, ottenne nell'8 marzo 1054 il Diploma di Dottore in Ambo le Leggi ..... . Frequenfo pure un altro COl'SO di tre unni alIa Sacra Roman::1 Bota, dove a freguenti esercizi di prassi processuale canonica e di caUf:e di Beatificazione e di Canonizzazione, presento con immancabile esito una ventina di lavor! l-lcritti su process} reali in cause matrimoniali e eanoniche in genere, sia come Giudice ('he come Difensor del Vincolo, sia come Promotore di Gimltizia cbe come Avvocato Difensore: Supero con felicissimo esito i tre esami annuali del COl'SO, consistenti in altri lavori sCl'itti, nonche I'ultimo eRame di oItre dieci ore per iI conseguimento del Diploma di Avvocato Rotale, che ottenne col prescritto Giu­ramento dinanzi al Rev.mo. CoHegio degli Uditori Rotali nel \) ottobre 1954 ...... Approfitto pure della sua permanenza a Rom:). durante 1'anno scolastieo 1953-54 per frequentare un corso com­plementare in S. Teologia alla Pontificia Universi.ta Gregoriana pel conseguimento della. Iicenza in S. Teologia ......

La sua carriera nei settori parrocchiali fu iniziata a Notting­ham, dove fu osseguiato da un uditorio ribelle ne·Ba piazza della Citta quale "speaker" della "Catholic Evidence Guild" ..... . Varie Chiese di Malta 10 riconoscono come vivo predicatore .... .. E aRoma fu seguito con entusiasmo sia come predicatore che comeconfessore in non poche Chiese, Hpecie nella Chiesa di S. Rocco, il cui Rettore, l'Ill.mo e Rev.mo Mons. Romita., pure Aiutante di Studio ana S. Uongregazione del Concilio e Direttore del "'Monitor Ecdesiasticus", gli volle affidare un incarico di Rtndio preRso l'Ufficio di Reoazione delIa diffusissima Rivista ...... Sua Ecc.za Ill.ma e Rev.ma Mons. Arcivescovo 10 volle onorare con la dignita, di Canonico della Jnsigne Collegiata di S. Paolo Naufrago, con PossesRo del 24 luglio 1952.

Prese parte attiva come sotto-segretario e interprete di una delle principali Commissioni del Primo Congrsso lnternazionale Cattolico su Pl'oblemi di Vita Rurale, tenuto a Castelgandolfo dal 25 giugno al 2 luglio 1951...... Come letterato infin€, si aspetta ehe mandi alle stampe le sue diecine di poesie in Italiano, in lnglese e in Maltese. EDOARDO 1\f.MHU.

PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED

We acknowledge with thanks the receipt of the following: A naleeta Tertii Ordinis Regularis S. F'ranc'isti-Vol. VI, no. I),

7, 8 (1954).

A.usl'l'alasian Catholic Becord-Vol. XXXI, llO. 3, 4, (1954). Biblica: Elenchus BibliographiclIs Rl·blict£s-Vol. 35, Fase. 3, <1

(1954). Canneltts-Vol. I, no. 2 (1954). Catholic Biblical Quarterly-Vol. XVI, nos. 3,4 (1954), J)och'ina de Omnipl'aesentia Divina ill V. T.-Pars Dissertationis

ad Lauream (GuIDus SCHEMBTU, O.F.M.), Romae, 1952. De 'llbertate sensus litteralis in S. Scriptura secundum doctrmam,

S. TllOmae Aqu.inatis (S. M. ZARB, O.P.), Analecta Grego­riana, Vol. LXVIII, Roma, 1954.

m Problema del Sel/lido Literal Pleno en la Sacrada Escrit.ura (S. DEL PARA?fO, S.J.) Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 1951-.

Irish Theolo(Jical Quarterly-Vol. XXI, nOil. 8, 4 (1954). Liturgy-Vol. XXIII, nos. 3, 4 (1954). Ill/cerna.-Vol. I, nos. 10. 11. 12 (1954). Miscellanea Comillas-Vol. XXI, XXII. Problemi dt: Diritto Ecclesiastico Maltese (CAN. A. BUONTEMPO,

J.U.D.), Malta, 1954. Relations-XIVe annoe, no. 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168. Rivista del Clero ltaliano-Anno 350, Fasc. vii-xii (1954). Sales'ianmn-Anno XVI, no. 3,4 (1954). Scientia-Vol. LX. nos. 3,4 (1954). Scripture-Vol. VI, nos. 5,6 (1954). SCllola (La.) Cattolira-Anno I.JXXXn, Fase. 4, 5, 6 (1954)' Tlleological Studies-Vol. XV, nos. 2,3. Theology Digest-Vol. II, no. 3.