Картинки: средневековые УЗИ, МРТ, рентген: XIV-XV века

Текст: доклад Умберто Эко "Эмбрионы без царствия небесного", прочитанный в 2008 году в Болонье и др.

"

"

"

"

St. Thomas Aquinas did discuss Mary's physiology fully, but on the subject of menstruation was both ambiguous and seemingly contradictory. On the one hand, he says that in the conception of Christ the Virgin provided no ordinary menstrual blood since that kind "gets tainted with lust inasmuch as by sexual intercourse the blood is drawn to a place apt for conception." On the other, elsewhere he states that Mary, like any mother, was required to "furnish . . . the matter, which is menstrual blood," though not the seed normally needed for conception. My reading of these ambiguities is that Thomas, no supporter of the Immaculate Conception, probably assumed that the Virgin menstruated, but was anxious to deny that she had any sexual desires or the need for a menstruum since, as per the text at note 17 above, this seed was released only during active lust and/or orgasm: Summa Theologiae 52:26-29, 52-55 (3a, qu. 31, art. 5, and 3a, qu. 32, art. 4); see also Aquinas, Scriptum super libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi (Paris, 1929-1947), 3:168 (dist. 4, qu. 2, art. 1). Still, because tradition held so firmly that menstruation had begun only with the fall, it may be that he believed that Mary had menses without need for a period, the logic being that if her body was free from sin and therefore incorruptible, her menses (presumably like Eve's in the Garden) would have remained forever pure, fresh, and sensitive to form, thus obviating the need for monthly replacement. There is, however, no easy solution, since even the one suggested would result in the creation only of males.

