Chapter 27
Wiliam of Ockham Chapter 27 .
[lobn XXII) And if it be asked whether that fordship was exclusive or common, it seems it must be said that, if at the time of the blessing spoken of above only Adam had been formed and not Eve (as the order of sacred Scripture indicates evidently, since that blessing was given to Adam when he was outside Paradise, but Eve was formed when Adam was put into the garden, as is clear in Genesis, chapters
1 and 2) — it seems that before Eve was formed the lordship of temporal things was exclusive to Adam, not common. Indeed it could not have been common, since at that time he was alone, and in respect of one who has never had any fellows nothing can be called common. This seems to be said explicitly in Ecclesiasticus 17[:1], where tt is said: "Ged created man from the earth and made him according to his own likeness... He gave him power over things upon the earth and put fear of him upon ail flesh, and he dominated the beasts and birds." From this it is clear that he dominated by himself. And from this it follows that for that time he had lordship by himself, because according to Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, chapter 12, "From 'lordship' [domintun] is derived 'lord' [donsinus], 'dominating,' and 'dominator. " Accordingly, since it is said of Adam by himself that he dominated the beasts and birds, it follows that he was lord by himself. And that Eve had not then been formed is clear, because immediately after these words, "And he dominated the beasts and birds," it continues, "He created from him a helper like himself." Damascene also seems to be of this opinion in Book 1, last chapter, where, speaking of our first parent, he says: "The creator made this human being as a male, appointed and gave to him his own divine grace, and through this put him in communion with himself. Accordingly he made him dominator,' prophetic namer of the animals, as of his own gifts" - another reading has: "as of his own slaves."
Tt continues: "He made from him his own helper," ete.
{Ockham] Now that it has been shown, according to the attacked, that in the state of innocence our first parents had lordship and ownership of temporal things, here he asks what kind of lordship they had, that is whether exclusive or common. And he determines
? Substituting daminatoren for dominator.
The Work ofNinety Days that Adam at first had exclusive lordship over all temporal things.
He proves this by the argument: Lordship belonging to one by himself, whu has never had fellows, is exciusive lordship. But Adam had lordship before Eve was formed; he proves this by texts from Ecclesiasticus 17, and John Damascene. Therefore Adam had exclusive lordship of temporal things.
But the attackers say that the foregoing words contain two errors chiefly: the first is that the blessing, "Increase," etc., was given to Adam outside Paradise before the creation of Eve; the second is that Adam had exclusive lordship of temporal things before Eve was formed.
That the first must be regarded as erroneous they try to show by means of a passage from Genesis 1, For there it is written thus: "God created man in his own likeness; in God's likeness he made him, male and female he created them, And God blessed them, saying, 'Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subject it. Have lordship over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air
. and over all living things that move upon the earth.'" It is quite clear from these words that God made them male and female, and to these he gave the blessing; and thus all the clauses of the blessing are expressed in the plural, not in the singular. The blessing was therefore given after Eve was formed. And that this was fitting is proved by an argument: A commandment about the multiplication of offspring is included in that blessing; but offspring could not be multiplied by ¢ man without a woman; therefore it was fitting that the commandment be imposed after the woman was formed, and so the blessing was not given before Eve was formed.
The second error, they say, is that before Eve was formed Adam had exclusive lordship of tempora! things. To support this they say that it must be known that lordship is not called "preprium" [exclusive} because it belongs in fact to one by himself: for then, if all the monks of an abbey were to die or be killed except one, he by himself would have exclusive lordship of ali the goods of the abbey and would then have to be regarded as its owner, which must be reckoned altogether false. Lordship is therefore not called exclusive because it belongs in fact to one by himself Rather, it is called exclusive when it is appropriated to one person in such a way that it cannot belong to anyone else without his gift, sale, bequest, or Wilkam of Ockham some other human contract by which lordship of a thing is transferred to someone cise, or at least by some act of his or by his death. For this reason, if someone founded a monastery and gave it many goods, the first to be made monk in that monastery would not have exclusive lordship of those goods and should not then be regarded as its owner: because without his donation, sale or any other human contract by which lordship of a thing is transferred to someone else, and without any act of his or his death, if another becomes monk in the same monastery, the second has some kind of lordship of the same things, just like the first.
From this they conclude that, if Adam had some kind of lordship of temporal things (not the kind men now have) before Eve was formed, he did not on this account have exclusive lordship of those things. Because lordship of things is not exclusive to someone if it can come to another without any gift, sale or other human grant by which lordship of a thing is transferred to another, and without his act or death. But lordship of temporal things could come to Eve without any grant of Adam's, or his act or death: indeed in the state of innocence it would never have come to her by his grant, because in the state of innocence one person would never have transferred lordship of anything from himself to another, but anyone, whenever he found something suitable to his use, or, also, to his comfort, would have taken it without any grant by another.
Adam therefore did not have exclusive lordship before Eve was made.
This argument is confirmed: Adam ought not to have been deprived of any exclusive lordship without his fault; but when Eve was formed she had ijordship of all things just as Adam did; therefore, when Eve was formed, Adam did not then have exclusive lordship, and consequently he did not have exclusive lordship before Eve was formed, because if he had had it, when Eve was formed he would have been deprived of this exclusive lordship without any fault of his. Thus, therefore, they say that even if lordship of things had been given to Adam before Eve was formed, nevertheless he did not then have exclusive lordship, because that lordship was not given to him for himself alone, but for himself and the woman to be formed from him and all their posterity, and it did not pertain to him to confer any lordship upon Eve when she was formed.
The Work ofNinety Days a The support which the attacked brings for his assertions will be answered in the comments upon the letter.
[On the letter] Ir seems it must be said: Although here he does not at all seem to speak assertively, afterwards he manifestly asserts it. At the time of the blessing spoken of abeve: that is, "Increase and multiply," etc., because he had not previously mentioned any other blessing. OnlyAdam had been formed: They say that this is erroneous, as has been shown above.
As the order of sacred Scripture indicates evidenily. Here they note two things. First, that here he manifestly asserts what he seemed before to put forward not as an assertion but conditionally: for to say that the order of Scripture indicates something evidently is to hold to it firmly, if the speaker does not doubt the truth of Scripture. Second, they note that what he says is plainiy false, since the order of Scripture does not indicate this, and the words of Scripwre plainly show the opposite, as clearly appears by the words of the blessing mentioned above.
If it be said that the order of Scripture indicates that the blessing was given before Eve was formed because [1] in Scripture it is put before the description of the way Eve was formed (because the blessing is put in Genesis 1, while the formation of Eve is described in chapter 2); also, because [2] the blessing was given before the commandment about eating all the trees of Paradise and before the commandment about not eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but that commandment was given to Adam alone before Eve was formed, and therefore the blessing was given before Eve was formed: To the first of these they say that, just as the blessing is put in the text before the description of the way Eve was formed, so also, before the description of the way Eve was formed, it is said, "Male and female he created them," yet it is certain that the Lord created no woman before Eve, because she was the first woman created by God. And therefore, just as before the description of the way Eve was formed it is said by anticipation that God created the female, so it is said by anticipation that God blessed the male -— and the female. To the second it seems to some that it must be said that the blessing was not piven before the commandment about eating, etc., though lordship was given previously, because it seems to them that that lordship was
C1G1R Aan COUR LARNERAMAR TSE OFS a A eRmn , Hilliam of Ockham merely a natural or concreated power of effectively using and governing the things of which they had lordship, and thus Adam had this sort of lordship from the beginning. Accordingly, it seems to them that when the Lord said, "Dominate the fish of the sea," etc., this was more a commandment concerning the exercise of lordship than a conferring of lordship, just as when he said, ""Multiply," he did not confer the power to multiply offspring, but gave a commandment concerning the exercise of a power previously conferred. And thus, whatever may be true of the time of conferring lordship, it is certain that the blessing was given after Eve was formed.
Since that blessing was given to Adam when he was outside Paradise:
They say that this lacks all trueh. For the blessing was not given before the commandment about eating, and yet that commandment was given when Adam was in Paradise. It is no objection that the blessing is spoken of before that commandment, because, as has been shown above and will be shown more fully below, the order of the text does not always follow the order of events. ft seems that before Eve was formed the lordship of temporal things mas exclusive to Adan, not common: This does not follow from the foregoing, even if he had lordship before. indeed it could not have been common, etc.: Here they say that something is called common because it is to be communicated. Thus the gloss, dist.
1, says, "Say common things, that is, to be communicated in time of need."
In another sense, what in fact belongs to many is called common.
That jordship was common in the first way even if we suppose thar Adam had lordship before Eve was formed, because it was to be communicated to Eve (not by Adam but by God) and Adam could not appropriate it to himself; and therefore it was common, that is, to be communicated. And outside the time of need, "common" in this sense is distinguished from "exclusive," according as lordship is divided into common and exclusive. Whether in fact and actuality it belongs to many or not is inessential; but if, outside the time of need, some lordship is to be communicated (not by a human contract of the one who has lordship), it is called common, according as common is distinguished from exclusive.
In respect of one mho has never had any fellows nothing can be called common: This is false of what is called common because it is to be communicated. Thus, just as something can be called common
The Work ofNinety Days which belongs to one who in fact has no fellows, as is clear if only one monk were to survive from a monastery, who would not on this account be the owner, so something can be called common in respect of one who in fact has never had fellows — and this because it is to be communicated to others, and when others have come he cannot appropriate it to himself.
He gave him power, namely to use at will and to rule or manage.
And he dominated the beasts, etc., that is, had power to manage at wili the beasts and birds of the air. From this it is clear that he dominated by himself. They say here that he was then the only actual dominator in fact; bur from this it does not follow that he then had exclusive lordship. For exclusive lordship implies that the thing in which there is exclusive lordship is not to be communicated to another outside the time of nced except by the grant of whoever has the exclusive lordship. And therefore in the state of innocence there would have been no exclusive lordship. But it seems to some that Adam was not a dominator then because what is said there in Ecclesiasticus is said by anticipation.
And from this it follows that for that time he had lordship by himself:
They say that even if it were conceded that at that time he alone had lordship in actuality, it does not follew that he had exclusive lordship, just as it does not follow from this that he was the owner; just as it does not follow, "One monk alone has in fact (when the others are dead) lordship of the things of a particular monastery, therefore he is the owner." Since it is said ofAdam by himself that he dominated the beasts and birds, it follows that he was lord by himself:
He argues badly, they say, because something is often said in one place of one person alone yet is not on that account denied of others. Of Jesus alone it is said in Matthew 21[:17], "Leaving them, he went forth out of the city to Bethany," but it does net follow here that he went out of the city by himself alone without his disciples. And there are countless examples of this, in which something is said of one alone yet is not on that account demied of others.
And that Eve had not then been formed is clear, because immediately after these words, "And he dominated the beasts and birds," it continues,
"He created from him a helper like himself": Here they say that he argues badly, because he argues on the basis of the vale, "This is written later, therefore it was done later," to which there are infinite
Wilkam of Ockham counter-instances. For the written order dees not always follow the order of events, as they show evidently by the text of Ecclesiasticus
{17:1~5} quoted above. It is written there: "God created man from the earth and made him according to his own likeness. And again he tumed to him end clothed him in strength like himself. He gave him the number of the days and the time, and gave him power over things upon the earth and put fear of him upon all flesh, and he dominated the beasts and birds. He created from him a helper like himself; likewise tongue, eyes, ears and heart he gave them." It is certain that in these words the Wise Man by no means keeps to the order of events in every respect. For first he tells us that God gave man the number of the days and time, before he mentions woman; yet it is certain that Eve was formed before Adam had the number of the days, because she was formed on the same day as Adam was created. Thus the order of Scripture does not always follow the order of events. This is evidently shown also from 1 Machabees 3(:1-3], where we read: "Then there rose up Judas, called Machabeus, his son, in his place; and all his brothers helped him, and all who had joined themselves to his father, and Israel fought the battle joyfully. And he increased the glory of his people and put on a breastplate like a giant and girt himself with warlike armor in battles and protected the camp with his sword."
Here it is certain that the order of events is not followed in every respect, for Israel did not fight joyfully first and afterwards Judas arm himself. It is certain therefore that in the Scriptures the order of events is not always kept. And therefore from the fact that after the words, "And he dominated the beasts and birds of the sky," it adds, "He created from him a helper like himself," it cannot be proved that before Eve was formed Adam had jordship of things — though some concede this, saying, however, that that lordship was not to be regarded as exclusive, because he did not receive it only for himself but also in some way for others.
Daniascene also seems to be ofthis apinion: They say that Damascene was not of this opinion. Accordingly he made him dominator, prophetic namer of the animals, as of his own gifts: They say that this was said by anticipation. Bur some concede that he had lordship then, but it was not exclusive lordship but common, that is to be communicated and in no way appropriated. He made from him his own helper: