§8Horum certe omnium contraria efficiunt, ne vir caput velet, scilicet quia non sit naturaliter consecutus ambitionem capillorum, quia radi sive tonderi non sit turpe illi, quia non propter illum. angeli exorbitarint, quia gloria et imago dei sit, quia caput eius Christus.
Certainly the contraries of all these things effect that a man should not veil his head, namely because he has not naturally obtained the redundancy of hair, because to be shorn or shaved is not shameful to him, because the angels did not go astray on his account, because he is the glory and image of God, and because his head is Christ.
Itaque cum de viro et muliere apostolus tractet cur illam oporteat velari, illum vero non, apparet cur et virginis silentium fecerit, eadem ratione scilicet virginem in muliere intellegendam sinens, qua et puerum ut in viro deputandum non nominavit, totum ordinem utriusque sexus propriis vocabulis complexus, mulieris et viri. Sic etiam Adam adhuc integer vir in Genesi est cognominatus: Vocabitur, inquit, mulier, quia de viro suo sumpta est. Sic vir Adam ante nuptiarum congressum, quemadmodum et Eva mulier.
Therefore, when the apostle treats of the man and the woman, why she ought to be veiled but he indeed not, it is apparent why he also kept silence about the virgin, namely leaving the virgin to be understood in the woman by the same reason by which he did not name the boy as one to be reckoned in the man, having embraced the whole order of each sex by their own proper words, "woman" and "man." Thus also Adam, while still an intact man, was named in Genesis: "She shall be called," he says, "woman, because she was taken from her man." Thus Adam was a man before the marital intercourse, just as Eve was a woman.
De utraque parte satis ad universam speciem cuiusque sexus apostolus pronuntiavit, et breviter et plene tam instructa definitione, Omnis, inquit, mulier. Quid est omnis, nisi omnis generis, omnis ordinis, omnis condicionis, omnis dignitatis, omnis aetatis? siquidem omne totum est et integrum et nulla sui parte defectum.
On both sides the apostle has pronounced sufficiently for the universal species of each sex, both briefly and fully with such an instructed definition: "Every," he says, "woman." What is "every" except of every kind, of every order, of every condition, of every dignity, of every age? If indeed "every" is whole and intact and lacking in no part of itself.
Pars autem mulieris et virgo est.
And a virgin is a part of the woman.
Aeque et de viro non velando, Omnis, inquit. Ecce duo diversa nomina, vir et mulier. Omnis uterque. Duae leges obnoxiae invicem, hinc velandi, inde nudandi.
Equally also concerning the man not to be veiled, he says, "Every." Behold two different names, "man" and "woman." Each is "every." Two laws mutually subject, on this side of veiling, on that side of laying bare.
Igitur si eo, quod dictum sit omnis vir, commune est nomen viri etiam nondum viri, masculi investis, commune autem cum sit nomen secundum naturam, communis est et lex non velandi eius qui inter viros virgo est, secundum disciplinam, cur non praeiudicatum sit proinde et mulierem virginem omnem muliere nominata contineri consortio nominis, ut contineatur et communione legis? Si virgo mulier non est, nec vir investis est.
Therefore, if by that which was said, "every man," the name of man is common also to him who is not yet a man, the unclad male, and since the name is common according to nature, the law of not veiling is also common to him who is a virgin among men according to discipline, why has it not been priorly judged likewise that every virgin woman is contained in the name of "woman" when it is nominated, by the partnership of the name, so that she may also be contained in the community of the law? If a virgin is not a woman, neither is the unclad one a man.
Si non operitur virgo, quia mulier non sit, operiatur investis, quia vir non sit.
If the virgin is not covered because she is not a woman, let the unclad one be covered because he is not a man.
Eiusdem virginitatis aequa sit venia.
Let there be an equal indulgence of the same virginity.
Sicut virgines non coguntur velari, ita pueri non iubeantur revelari.
Just as virgins are not forced to be veiled, so let boys not be ordered to be unveiled.
Cur ex parte definitionem apostoli agnoscimus absolutam circa omnem virum, nec retractamus quare non et puerum nominarit, ex parte autem praevaricamur, aeque absoluta ea circa omnem mulierem? Si quis, inquit, contentiosus est, nos talem consuetudinem non habemus, neque ecclesia dei. Ostendit contentionem aliquam de ista specie fuisse ad quam extinguendam toto compendio usus est, neque virginem nominans, ut ostenderet dubitandum de velanda non esse, et omnem nominans mulierem, cum nominasset virginem.
Why do we acknowledge the apostle’s definition as absolute on one part concerning every man, nor re-examine why he did not also name the boy, but on the other part we prevaricate, where it is equally absolute concerning every woman? "If anyone," he says, "is contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God." He shows that there was some contention about this matter, for the extinguishing of which he used a total compendium, not naming the virgin so that he might show that there was no doubt about her being veiled, and naming "every woman," which was as if he had named the virgin.
Sic et ipsi Corinthii intellexerunt.
Thus also the Corinthians themselves understood it.
Hodie denique virgines suas Corinthii velant.
Finally, today the Corinthians veil their virgins.
Quid docuerint apostoli qui didicerunt approbant.
What the apostles taught, those who learned approve.