§6Videamus nunc, si et apostolus formam vocabuli istius secundum Genesim observat, sexui deputans illud, sic mulierem vocans virginem Mariam quemadmodum et Genesis Evam.
Let us see now if the apostle also observes the form of this word according to Genesis, assigning it to the sex, calling the virgin Mary a "woman" just as Genesis also called Eve.
Scribens enim ad Galatas, Misit, inquit, deus filium suum factum ex muliere, quam utique virginem constat fuisse, licet Hebion resistat.
For writing to the Galatians, he says, "God sent his Son, made of a woman," whom it is certainly established was a virgin, even though Ebion resists.
Agnosco et angelum Gabrielem ad virginem missum.
I also acknowledge that the angel Gabriel was sent to a virgin.
Sed cum benedicit illam, inter mulieres, non inter virgines deputat: Benedicta tu inter mulieres. Sciebat et angelus mulierem etiam virginem dici.
But when he blesses her, he reckons her among women, not among virgins: "Blessed are you among women." The angel also knew that even a virgin is called a woman.
Sed et ad haec duo ingeniose quidam respondisse sibi visus est, quoniam quidem desponsata est Maria, idcirco et ab angelo et ab apostolo mulierem pronuntiatam.
But to these two points also, a certain person seemed to himself to have answered ingeniously, namely, that because Mary was betrothed, she was therefore pronounced a woman both by the angel and by the apostle.
Desponsata enim quodammodo nupta.
For a betrothed woman is, in a way, a married woman.
Tamen inter quodammodo et verum satis interest, duntaxat hoc in loco.
Yet between "in a way" and "truly" there is a sufficient difference, at least in this place.
Nam alibi ita sane habendum est.
For elsewhere indeed it must be so held.
Nunc vero, non quasi iam nuptam mulierem Mariam pronuntiaverunt, sed quasi nihilominus feminam, etiamsi non sponsam, quasi hoc a primordio dictam.
But now, they pronounced Mary a woman not as if already married, but as nonetheless a female, even if not betrothed, as having been called this from the beginning.
Illud enim praeiudicet necesse est a quo forma descendit.
For it is necessary that that from which the form descends should make the prior judgment.
Ceterum quod pertineat ad hoc capitulum, si hic desponsatae adaequatur, ut ideo mulier dicta sit Maria, non qua femina, sed qua maritata, iam ergo Christus non ex virgine natus est, quia ex desponsata, quae virgo esse desierit hoc nomine.
Besides, as pertains to this chapter, if here she is made equal to a betrothed woman, so that Mary was called a woman not as a female, but as a married woman, then therefore Christ was not born of a virgin, because he was born of a betrothed woman, who would have ceased to be a virgin by this name.
Quod si ex virgine natus est, licet et desponsata, tamen integra, agnosce mulierem etiam virginem, etiam integram dici.
But if he was born of a virgin, although also betrothed, yet intact, acknowledge that even a virgin, even an intact one, is called a woman.
Hic certe nibil prophetice dictum videri postest, ut futuram mulierem, id est nuptam, apostolus nominarit, dicendo factum ex muliere. Non enim poterat posteriorem mulierem nominare, de qua Christus nasci non habebat, id est virum passam, sed illa, quae erat praesens, quae erat virgo et mulier vocabatur post vocabuli huius proprietatem, secundum primordii formam virgini et ita universo mulierum generi defensam.
Here certainly nothing can seem to have been spoken prophetically, as if the apostle named a future woman, that is, a married one, by saying "made of a woman." For he could not name a subsequent woman, of whom Christ was not to be born, that is, one who had experienced a man, but that one who was present, who was a virgin and was called a woman according to the propriety of this word, defended according to the form of the beginning for a virgin and thus for the whole race of women.
§7Convertamur ad ipsas iam rationes recensendas per quas apostolus docet velari feminam oportere, an eaodem etiam virginibus competant, ut ex hoc quoque vocabuli communio inter virgines et non virgines constet, dum eaedem velaminis causae in utraque parte deprehenduntur.
Let us turn now to review the very reasons by which the apostle teaches that a female ought to be veiled, to see if they also apply to virgins, so that from this also the community of the word between virgins and non-virgins may be established, while the same causes of veiling are detected on both sides.
Si caput mulieris vir est, utique et virginis, de qua fit mulier illa quae nupsit, nisi si virgo tertium genus est monstruosum aliquod sui capitis.
If the head of a woman is man, surely also of a virgin, from whom that woman who has married is made, unless a virgin is a third monstrous kind of thing without its own head.
Si mulieri turpe est radi sive tonderi, utique et virgini.
If it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, surely also for a virgin.
Proinde viderit saeculum aemulum dei, si ita virgini caesum capillum decori mentitur, quamadmodum et puero permissum.
Therefore, let the world, the rival of God, see to it if it falsely claims that shorn hair is a beauty to a virgin, just as it is permitted to a boy.
Ergo eui aeque non convenit radi sive tonderi, aeque convenit operiri.
Therefore, to whom it is equally unfitting to be shorn or shaved, it is equally fitting to be covered.
Si gloria viri est mulier, quanto magis virgo, quae et gloria sibi est? Si mulier ex viro et propter virum, costa illa Adae virgo primum fuit.
If a woman is the glory of man, how much more a virgin, who is also a glory to herself? If a woman is from man and because of man, that rib of Adam was first a virgin.
Si mulier potestatem habere super caput debet, vel eo iustius virgo, ad quam pertinet quod in causa est.
If a woman ought to have authority over her head, even more justly a virgin, to whom pertains that which is the cause.
Si enim propter angelos, scilicet quos legimus a deo et caelo excidisse ob concupiscentiam feminarum, quis praesumere potest tales angelos maculata iam corpora et humanae libidinis reliquias desiderasse, ut non ad virgines potius exarserint, quarum flos etiam humanam libidinem excusat? Nam et scriptura sic suggerit: Et factum est, inquit, cum coepissent homines plures fieri super terram, et filiae natae sunt eis;
For if because of the angels, namely those whom we read fell from God and heaven because of the lust for women, who can presume that such angels desired bodies already defiled and the remnants of human lust, so as not to have burned rather for virgins, whose flower even excuses human lust?
conspicati autem filii dei filias hominum, quod pulchrae essent, acceperunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerunt. Hic enim nomen mulierum Graecum uxores sapit, quia de nuptiis mentio est.
For scripture also suggests this: "And it came to pass," it says, "when men began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, and they took for themselves wives of all whom they chose." For here the Greek name for women means wives, because mention is made of marriage.
Cum ergo filias hominum dicit, manifeste virgines portendit, quae adhuc apud parentes deputarentur (nam nuptae maritorum nuncupantur), cum potuerit dixisse uxores hominum, aeque non adulteros nominans angelos, sed marites, dum innuptas sumunt filias hominum, quas natas supra dixit, sic quoque virgines significans.
When, therefore, it says "daughters of men," it manifestly portends virgins, who would still be reckoned among their parents (for married women are called those of their husbands), whereas it could have said "wives of men," equally naming the angels not as adulterers but as husbands, while they took unmarried daughters of men, whom it said above were born, thus also signifying virgins.
Supra natas, at hic angelis nuptas.
Above as born, but here as married to angels.
Aliud eas nescio quam natas et dehinc nuptas.
I know them as nothing other than born and then married.
Debet ergo adumbrari facies tam periculosa, quae usque ad caelum scandala iaculata est, ut coram deo adsistens, cui rea est angelorum exterminatorum, ceteris quoque angelis erubescat, et malam illam aliquando libertatem capitis sui comprimat, iam nec hominum oculis offerendam.
Therefore, a face so dangerous, which has cast stumbling blocks all the way to heaven, ought to be veiled, so that standing in the presence of God, to whom it is guilty of the exterminated angels, it may also blush before the other angels, and repress that bad freedom of its head, which is no longer to be offered to the eyes of men.
Sed etsi contaminatas iam feminas angeli illi appetissent, tanto magis propter angelos virgines velari debuissent, quanto magis propter virgines angeli deliquisse potuissent.
But even if those angels had desired women already defiled, so much the more ought virgins to have been veiled because of the angels, as much as because of virgins the angels could have sinned.
Si autem et naturae praeiudicium adicit apostolus, quod honor sit mulieris redundantia capillorum, quia coma pro operimento est, utique hoc maxime virgini insigne est, quarum et ornatus ipse proprie sic est, ut concumulata in verticem ipsam capitis arcem ambitu crinium contegat.
And if the apostle also adds the prior judgment of nature, that the redundancy of hair is an honor to a woman because hair is for a covering, surely this is especially a sign for a virgin, whose very ornament is properly such that, gathered together on the crown, it covers the very citadel of the head with the circuit of her hair.