Cornelius a Lapide

Leviticus XI

Table of Contents

Synopsis of the Chapter

God establishes the law concerning clean animals, which may be eaten, and unclean ones, which He forbids to be eaten. First, therefore, He decrees that only those land animals are clean which have a divided hoof and also chew the cud. Second, in verse 9, He wills that among fish only those are clean which have fins and scales. Third, in verse 23, He designates twenty unclean birds; but He decrees that locusts, because they leap, are clean. Fourth, in verse 29, He decrees that all creeping things are unclean, and that touching their carcasses causes contamination.

Vulgate Text: Leviticus 11:1-47

1. And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: 2. Say to the children of Israel: These are the animals which you shall eat of all the living things of the earth. 3. Everything that has a divided hoof and chews the cud among beasts, you shall eat. 4. But whatever chews the cud indeed, and has a hoof, but does not divide it, like the camel and the rest, you shall not eat, and you shall reckon it among the unclean. 5. The coney, which chews the cud but does not divide the hoof, is unclean. 6. The hare also: for it too chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof. 7. And the swine, which though it divides the hoof, does not chew the cud. 8. You shall not eat the flesh of these, nor shall you touch their carcasses, for they are unclean to you. 9. These are the things that are bred in the waters, and which it is lawful to eat. Everything that has fins and scales, both in the sea and in the rivers and ponds, you shall eat. 10. But whatever does not have fins and scales, of those things that move and live in the waters, shall be abominable to you, 11. and execrable: you shall not eat their flesh, and you shall avoid their carcasses. 12. All things that do not have fins and scales in the waters shall be polluted. 13. These are the birds you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: the eagle, the griffon, and the osprey, 14. the kite and the vulture according to their kind, 15. and everything of the crow kind according to their likeness, 16. the ostrich, the owl, the gull, and the hawk according to their kind; 17. the screech owl, the cormorant, and the ibis, 18. the swan, the pelican, and the purple gallinule, 19. the heron and the plover according to their kind, the hoopoe also and the bat. 20. Every winged thing that goes upon four feet shall be abominable to you. 21. But whatever walks indeed upon four feet, but has longer hind legs, by which it leaps on the ground, 22. you shall eat, such as the locust in its kind, the attacus and the ophiomachus, and the locusta, each according to its kind. 23. But whatever among winged things has only four feet shall be execrable to you; 24. and whoever touches their carcasses shall be polluted, and shall be unclean until evening; 25. and if it is necessary that someone carry anything of these dead, he shall wash his garments, and he shall be unclean until the setting of the sun. 26. Every animal that has indeed a hoof, but does not divide it, nor chews the cud, shall be unclean; and whoever touches it shall be contaminated. 27. Whatever walks upon its paws, of all animals that go on four feet, shall be unclean: whoever touches their carcasses shall be polluted until evening. 28. And whoever carries such carcasses shall wash his garments, and shall be unclean until evening: because all these are unclean to you. 29. These also shall be reckoned among polluted things, of those that move on the earth: the weasel, the mouse, and the crocodile, each according to its kind; 30. the shrew-mouse, the chameleon, the gecko, the lizard, and the mole: 31. all these are unclean. Whoever touches their carcasses shall be unclean until evening; 32. and upon whatever anything of their carcasses falls, it shall be polluted — whether a wooden vessel and a garment, or skins and haircloth; and whatever vessel is used for work shall be dipped in water, and shall be polluted until evening, and so afterward shall be clean. 33. But an earthen vessel into which anything of these falls shall be polluted, and therefore it must be broken. 34. All food which you eat, if water has been poured upon it, shall be unclean; and every liquid that is drunk from any vessel shall be unclean. 35. And whatever of such carcasses falls upon it, it shall be unclean: whether ovens or cooking pots, they shall be destroyed and shall be unclean. 36. But springs and cisterns, and every gathering of waters shall be clean. Whoever touches their carcasses shall be polluted. 37. If it falls upon seed, it shall not pollute it. 38. But if anyone pours water on the seed, and it is afterward touched by carcasses, it shall immediately be polluted. 39. If an animal which it is lawful for you to eat dies, whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening; 40. and whoever eats anything from it, or carries it, shall wash his garments, and shall be unclean until evening. 41. Everything that crawls on the ground shall be abominable, nor shall it be taken for food. 42. Whatever goes on its breast on four feet, and has many feet, or is dragged on the ground, you shall not eat, for it is abominable. 43. Do not defile your souls, nor touch anything of these, lest you be unclean. 44. For I am the Lord your God: be holy, because I am holy. Do not pollute your souls with any creeping thing that moves on the ground. 45. For I am the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that I might be your God. You shall be holy, because I am holy. 46. This is the law of animals and birds, and of every living soul that moves in the water and crawls on the ground, 47. that you may know the differences between clean and unclean, and know what to eat and what to reject.

Verse 2: These Are the Animals Which You Shall Eat

2. THESE ARE THE ANIMALS WHICH YOU SHALL EAT — which it is lawful to eat, as is clear from the Hebrew, the Chaldean, and the Septuagint.

You may ask: why did God here ordain and command this observance of foods, and this distinction of clean from unclean animals?

I reply: The first reason was, so that this unrefined people might have in these things a continual exercise of temperance, of obedience, and of religion and worship, by eating clean things and abstaining from unclean out of honor and reverence for God who so commanded, and thus they would always worship God: for, as Tertullian says, in On Jewish Foods, chapter 4: "Many kinds of food were taken away from the Jews, not so that those foods would be condemned, but so that these people would be restrained in their service of the one God; because frugality was fitting for those chosen for this purpose, and temperance of the appetite, which is always found to be close to religion, indeed (if I may say so) rather its blood-relative and kin; for luxury is the enemy of holiness."

Second, so that this people, becoming accustomed to bodily cleanliness, would be drawn further away from the uncleannesses of the idolaters, and from their unclean sacrifices and feasts.

Third, so that through these things, stirred up to purity of mind, the people would rise up and prepare themselves most purely for Christ who was to be born from them.

Fourth, because these unclean animals were tropologically symbols of the vices from which we must guard ourselves. This reason the high priest Eleazar gave to the ambassadors of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who requested that seventy-two interpreters be sent to him to translate the Sacred Scripture from Hebrew into Greek, as I said in Canon 27. The Fathers also generally assign this reason: Tertullian, or rather Novatian, in On Jewish Foods, which he wrote while still a Catholic, in which he explains at length and in detail the animals here forbidden, through the vices signified by them — I will bring his words at verse 30; Clement of Alexandria, Book 2 of the Pedagogue, chapter 10; Cyril, Book 9 Against Julian, before the end; Origen here, Homily 7; Eusebius, Book 8 of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter 3; and St. Augustine, in Against Adimantus, chapter 15. For when Adimantus, being a Manichean, attacked the Old Testament as given by an evil god, and specifically criticized this abstinence law from Matthew 15: "What enters the mouth does not defile a person," St. Augustine replies that these foods were not forbidden to the Jews because they defile the mind in themselves; but these precepts about them were set down for a carnal people, to signify human morals, and to prophesy the future discipline of the spiritual Christian people. Hence also, as St. Cyril notes in Book 14 of On Adoration, certain things are forbidden here which are not usually eaten, and which we all naturally reject and abhor, such as the gecko, the weasel, the mouse, etc.

Moreover, all these things were aptly ordained and distinguished according to nature; for the animals here deemed unclean and forbidden to eat are those which by their nature are either venomous, as are all reptiles, which always crawl on the ground, and thus absorb from the earth a sticky, foul, and noxious moisture, which they show in their skin; or which feed on unclean foods, like pigs and hoopoes, which live among dung, and storks, which eat serpents: so too bats, owls, and screech owls, which are all nourished by unclean foods; or which are of a distempered constitution, like the fish here forbidden, which are all of poor nutrition; or which are wild and rapacious, like griffons, kites, and vultures. So Pythagoras forbade his followers from eating beans, because that food causes great flatulence, and therefore distends the stomach and head, and disturbs the tranquility of the mind, says Cicero, in Book 1 of On Divination.

This uncleanness of these animals is therefore twofold: namely, the formal uncleanness already mentioned, by which the animals themselves contain something unclean and distempered in themselves; and the causal uncleanness, by which they cause a similar uncleanness in the person, because since they are of a bad constitution and of harmful and noxious nourishment, if they are eaten, they generate an imbalance of humors in the person, create diseases, and sometimes even kill.

The most important reason, however, was symbolic: that these unclean animals would signify the uncleanness of sins and vices, of which they are fitting symbols, as I have said.

Note: This uncleanness of animals was bodily and legal, which did not defile the soul (unless someone knowingly ate them against the law through disobedience), but only barred Jews from the ministry and offering of sacrifices, and from entering the Sanctuary: for he who had eaten the foods here forbidden, even unknowingly, had to abstain from these things until he had purged himself: just as leprosy barred lepers from the company of people and from all the camps.

Verse 3: Everything That Has a Divided Hoof and Chews the Cud

3. EVERYTHING THAT HAS A DIVIDED HOOF AND CHEWS THE CUD AMONG BEASTS, YOU SHALL EAT. — Therefore, for an animal to be clean, so that Jews could lawfully eat it, it had to have these two things: First, a hoof, and that divided and cloven; for those that do not have a hoof are of too moist a constitution; those that have a hoof but do not have it split, such as horses, donkeys, and camels, are of too dry and hard a temperament and nourishment, and are not suitable for feeding the human body; but those that have a hoof and divide it, such as sheep, cattle, and goats, are suitable for nourishing humans, because they are of a temperate constitution: and therefore they are considered clean. So Abulensis. Second, it had to chew the cud; for those that chew the cud have better digestion, and therefore also a better constitution: but if either of these is lacking — for instance, if an animal does not have a split hoof, or does not chew the cud — it is considered unclean. Hence he adds examples of unclean animals: the camel, the hare, the swine, etc.

Tropologically, holy animals chew the cud — that is, holy people, who store the word of God which they receive with their ears in the stomach of memory, and by frequently recalling it, as it were, to the mouth of the heart, break it down by frequent reflection. So St. Gregory on chapter 7 of the Song of Songs. St. Cyril, in Book 9 Against Julian, teaches that chewing the cud is a symbol of prudence. Those who divide the hoof are those who in action distinguish good from evil. Therefore both are required for cleanness and holiness: namely, to chew the cud on the words of God, and to fulfill them in deed. So Radulphus, Hesychius, Eusebius, Book 8 of the Preparation, chapter 3. Cyril, in Book 14 of On Adoration, who also adds another tropological meaning: the cleft hoof, he says, is a clear figure signifying that we can walk rightly in both directions — namely, with regard to ourselves and with regard to others.

To chew the cud, therefore, is a symbol of prudence: for the prudent person is thoughtful, and chewing over each thing in mind, sees what is expedient in every matter, and how to satisfy both God and even wicked people. Plutarch narrates in Laconic Sayings about Acrotatus, a prudent man, that when his parents demanded his help in an unjust matter, he refused, and when they pressed him, he said: "You raised me for justice, and handed me over to the laws of the fatherland; I shall therefore try to obey these rather than you; and since you wish me to do the best things, and the best thing for both a private citizen and much more for a ruler is what is just, I will do what you wish; but what you say, I shall decline." Thus he prudently and gently refused an unlawful thing, and at the same time satisfied the intention and will of his parents. For rumination suggests a thousand ways and means for anything, and especially for avoiding hatreds and winning the goodwill of people. The same Plutarch narrates that Aristo, hearing Cleomenes' saying — who, when asked what the duty of a good king was, had said: To do good to friends and evil to enemies — chewing it over, corrected it saying: "How much better, my friend, it would be to do good to friends, and to make enemies into friends!"

AMONG BEASTS — that is, among four-footed animals.

Verse 4: Such as the Camel

4. SUCH AS THE CAMEL — the camel is unclean because it has a hoof but does not divide it. Moses, says Cyril in Book 14 of On Adoration, gives the examples of the camel and the hare, that is, the largest and the smallest, so that we may understand that those in between, which do not chew the cud or do not divide the hoof, are unclean and forbidden.

Verse 5: The Coney

5. THE CONEY. — What kind of animal is the coney? First, Clement of Alexandria, in Book 2 of the Pedagogue, chapter 10, understands it to be the hyena. Second, Abulensis, Lyra, Cajetan, Oleaster, and other more recent authors understand it to be the rabbit.

Note: The Hebrew word saphan signifies three things: first, the coney; second, the hare; third, the hedgehog: so from Philo, St. Jerome in Hebrew Names, under Jeremiah. For saphan means either a covering, something hidden and lurking. Hence saphan is a general name, common to many timid animals that dwell in hiding places: just as many other Hebrew names for animals apply to multiple species, as Ribera demonstrates in chapter 5 of Zechariah, number 21. And this is clear from the fact that the same name is translated variously by different translators — by the Septuagint, the Chaldean, and our Vulgate — and indeed even by our Vulgate differently here than elsewhere: thus saphan here and in Deuteronomy 14:7, our translator renders as coney, as also the Septuagint translate it; elsewhere he renders it as hare, as in Proverbs 30:26; elsewhere as hedgehog, as in Psalm 103:18.

The coney, therefore, or hedgehog, is an animal about the size of medium rabbits, coming out in groups from rocky caves and feeding in Palestine near the Dead Sea, says Eucherius in his book On Hebrew Names, chapter 12, and from this perhaps it was called in Greek choerogryllos from choiros, that is, a rock, and gryllos, that is, a pig — as if you said "little pig of the rocks." So also more or less St. Jerome, or whoever is the author of the commentary on Proverbs chapter 30, for these commentaries are shown not to be by St. Jerome from the fact that at this very passage the author cites St. Jerome. They seem rather to be by the Venerable Bede, to whom Trithemius attributes them. This author therefore says thus: "The ancient translation used coney in place of little hare. This is an animal no larger than a hedgehog, having the appearance of a mouse and a bear, of which there is great abundance in the regions of Palestine, and it is accustomed always to dwell in caves of the rocks and hollows of the earth."

Hence also Origen here translates "hedgehog" in place of coney. The coney, therefore, is an animal distinct from the rabbit and the hedgehog, although Peter Serranus denies this: for why would the Septuagint and our translator call it a coney, with so obscure and unknown a word, if it were a rabbit or hedgehog? For these names and animals are very well known to us. Hence also Eucherius and St. Jerome distinguish coneys from hedgehogs or sea-urchins, which have spiny prickles all over so that they can hardly be touched, which they extend or withdraw and contract at will, and with these they load themselves with fruit in orchards, which they carry to their hiding places.

Verse 6: The Hare

6. THE HARE ALSO (is unclean), FOR IT TOO CHEWS THE CUD, BUT DOES NOT DIVIDE THE HOOF. — For the hare does not have a hoof, that is, a bony and continuous base of the feet which it could divide, but in its place it has various pointed claws. Under the hare, understand also the rabbit: for the rabbit is a small hare, as Pliny says in Book 8, chapter 85; Clement of Alexandria thinks the hare was forbidden because of lust, to which this animal is very prone. Hence it also conceives and gives birth to so many young at the same time.

For this same reason both sexes are found in many hares. Hear Gesner collecting various things from various authors in his usual fashion, in the volume On Quadrupeds, under the hare: "The four-footed hare is called in Hebrew arnebet, a word of the feminine gender, because all hares (as most learned men testify) possess both sexes. Archelaus writes of hares that both powers and both sexes are present in each individual, and that they reproduce equally without a male. That the same hare is sometimes male, sometimes female, and changes its nature, and sometimes generates like a male, sometimes gives birth like a female, Democritus teaches is manifest, in Geoponics 19, 4." And therefore by naturalists, says Donatus, the hare is said to be of uncertain sex, and to be now male, now female. The same is taught by the Fathers, whom I will cite at verse 30, at the end. This was by the law and custom of the Jews. For among the Gentiles, the hare was a delicacy and the glory of the table. Hear Martial, Book 13 of Epigrams:

Among birds the thrush, if anyone would compete by my judgment,
Among four-footed creatures the hare is the first glory.

Tropology of the Four Animals and Four Cardinal Vices

Tropologically, by these four animals are signified four vices, contrary to the four cardinal virtues. First, the hump-backed camel is a symbol of the proud and of pride, which is contrary to prudence and wisdom. For true wisdom is humble; conversely, the camel is hump-backed and stupid. The fable is well known: the camel asked Jupiter to arm him with horns, but Jupiter, mocking his stupid prayers, also cut off his ears, so that he would henceforth be not only unarmed but also deformed. Second, the timid hare signifies sloth and pusillanimity, which is opposed to fortitude and constancy. Third, the coney, which devastates and devours the fields of others, signifies injustice, the opposite of justice. Fourth, the filthy swine signifies gluttony and lust, which is opposed to temperance: one may not share even in their carcasses, that is, in evil external actions. So Hesychius.

Verse 7: And the Swine

7. AND THE SWINE (is unclean), WHICH THOUGH IT DIVIDES THE HOOF, DOES NOT CHEW THE CUD. — By "swine" understand the pig, both male and female; for this is the Hebrew chasir: for all pork was forbidden to the Jews, hence even now Jews abstain from all pork. Similarly, "sus" (swine) in Priscian and in Latin is of the common gender, and signifies both the boar and the sow; hence that verse of Virgil, Book 3 of the Georgics:

The Sabellian boar charges and sharpens its tusks.

Some ridiculously thought, according to St. Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians, that eating of swine is forbidden here because the pig, when it eats, devours in such a way that it does not recognize its master, and because when it is hungry it grunts toward its master: for this is the nature and natural music of the pig. Cicero gives a truer reason, in Book 2 of On the Nature of the Gods: "What does the pig have," he says, "besides food? To prevent it from rotting, Chrysippus says a soul was given to it in place of salt." Hence that holy Abbot, in the Lives of the Fathers, Book 6, chapter 1, number 8: "Just as," he says, "the eyes of the pig always look toward the ground, so the soul that has fallen into pleasure and the filth of luxury can scarcely look toward heaven, or think anything worthy of God."

Moreover, Plutarch errs in Book 5 of the Symposiacs, Question 5, where he teaches that the Jews abstain from pork out of reverence; for he claims they revere the pig because the pig was the teacher of sowing and plowing, especially in Egypt: for the pig, digging up the earth with its snout, impressed the trace of plowing, and showed the way for the plowshare. He similarly errs when he says that the Jews abstain from the hare "because, led by emulation of the Egyptians, they consider the speed of the hare divine, and likewise the subtlety of its sensory instruments. For the eyes of hares are so untiring that they sleep even with them open. In swiftness of sight they seem to surpass all others; led by admiration of this, the Egyptians in their sacred writings signify hearing by a painted hare." A more probable reason is what he adds: "The Jews abominate pork because they shrink from vitiligo and leprosy, which they think are contracted from eating this meat."

Others thought the pig unclean because it digs up the earth, and thus overturns seeds and the harvest; for which reason the Romans sacrificed a pig to Ceres in the month of April, with burning torches and lamps in white garments. Hear Ovid:

The first victim to Ceres was
The pig, who deserved to die because with curved
Snout it uprooted seeds and cut off the hope of the year.

And elsewhere:

Ceres first rejoiced in the blood of the pregnant sow,
Avenging her wealth with the deserved slaughter of the offender.

Finally, the Emperor Hadrian, in order to drive the Jews from their city, had a pig carved at Jerusalem, and named it Aelia after his own name. Hear Eusebius in his Chronology: "Aelia was founded by Aelius Hadrian, and on the front of its gate through which we go out toward Bethlehem, a pig was carved in marble, signifying that the Jews were subject to Roman power"; so that by this image, as if by a title, he would signify that the Jews were barred from their own city and native land, and that Jerusalem was now not Jewish but Gentile and Roman: for the Romans bore the pig on their standards on account of its unyielding strength of spirit, as Festus attests under the word "porcus." On this account the Jews begged Vitellius, who was going against the Arabs, not to lead his camp and standards, marked with the image of a pig, through Judea, as Josephus reports in Book 5 of the Jewish War, chapter 1. Finally, by this carving of a pig he signified that the Jews were the most wicked of men. For, as Florus says, and Pierius after him in Hieroglyphics 9, the pig is a symbol of men who scorn truth, of the profane, the destructive, and those who are completely turned away from God. So Baronius under the year of Christ 137.

Verse 8: You Shall Not Eat Their Flesh

8. YOU SHALL NOT EAT THEIR FLESH, NOR SHALL YOU TOUCH THEIR CARCASSES. — Hence they could not remove the fat from them, nor use it: it was otherwise with clean animals; for it was lawful to slaughter those, to touch them once slaughtered, to remove fat from them and use it, unless they were carcasses that had died spontaneously, or had been killed long ago, or had been torn by a beast: for in those cases even these were unclean and forbidden.

Verse 9: Everything That Has Fins and Scales

9. EVERYTHING THAT HAS FINS AND SCALES, BOTH IN THE SEA AND IN THE RIVERS AND PONDS, YOU SHALL EAT. — In place of "fins," the Royal Bible reads "little feathers"; hence also the Septuagint translates pterygia, that is, "wings"; Tertullian, in On Jewish Foods, reads "oars"; all these amount to the same thing: for fish that have fins bear them as little feathers and wings, so that they may swim and balance themselves in the water, just as birds do in the air. Therefore, for fish to be clean and lawful to eat, they must have two things: first, fins; second, scales, which cover almost the whole body; but if either is lacking, they are considered unclean: for fish lacking fins or scales, such as eels, are too moist, viscous, and unwholesome; for scales and fins are indicators of dryness. Hence the flesh of such fish is denser, whiter, and healthier, and therefore they are considered clean: for fish abound in moisture, and this easily harms the stomach and body human, whence those preserved with salt or dried are healthier than fresh ones.

Tropologically, scales signify the gravity of character and the firmness of good conduct in the midst of the world; fins signify senses that think of heavenly things. For fish that have fins are accustomed to leap above the waters, says St. Gregory. Those who have scales, therefore, are those who, fortified by the rigor of virtue, do not admit the appetite for worldly occupation; those who have fins are those who from time to time seek the secrecy of contemplation, and float above the waves of worldly cares, and who know how to ascend to heavenly things by leaps of the mind, so that the breeze of supreme love, as of free air, may touch them, says St. Gregory, Book V of the Morals, chapter 6, Radulphus, Bede, Cyril, Book IX Against Julian, near the end, and Tertullian or rather Novatian, in the book On Jewish Foods.

Verses 10-11: Whatever Does Not Have Fins and Scales

10 and 11. BUT WHATEVER DOES NOT HAVE FINS AND SCALES SHALL BE ABOMINABLE AND DETESTABLE TO YOU — that is to say: You shall abhor and flee from these, as from something unclean and foul. Therefore Jews sinned by acting otherwise, not because the unclean animal polluted them, but because disobedience polluted the mind, which fault was not expiated by eternal lustration: for through it only legal and bodily uncleanness was washed away, but through contrition and repentance. Hence the Maccabees preferred to suffer the most dreadful things and to undergo the most grievous martyrdom, rather than eat the pork forbidden here, 2 Maccabees 7. Hence also St. Peter so shuddered at the same, that he said, Acts 10:10: "I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

Verses 12-13: The Unclean Birds — The Eagle and the Griffon

Verses 12 and 13. THESE ARE THE THINGS AMONG BIRDS THAT YOU MUST NOT EAT, AND THAT ARE TO BE AVOIDED BY YOU: THE EAGLE, AND THE GRIFFON, AND THE OSPREY. — Moses dealt first with clean and unclean quadrupeds, verse 3; second, with fish, verse 9; third, he deals here with birds. These species of birds are translated differently and variously from the Hebrew by the Hebrews; but with our Interpreter both here and at Deuteronomy 14:12, the Chaldean and the Septuagint agree in all things, except that in place of the onocrotalus the Septuagint substitutes the pelican, about which see verse 18.

The eagle is unclean, because it is a bird pugnacious and rapacious toward other birds. Whence Cicero, hearing that in the battle of Pharsalus Pompey had fled, when Nonius said that seven eagles were still present, and that therefore there was good reason to hope: "You would advise rightly," he said, "if we had to fight against jackdaws; but now Caesar is the enemy and victor." So Plutarch in his Life of Cicero. The eagle, therefore, is forbidden to the Jews, because, as Isidore says, "he who hates the eagle, the kite, and the hawk, hates robbers and those who live by crime." Whence St. Augustine in Psalm 132 teaches that the eagle is a symbol of the demon: for he is the plunderer of souls, who goes about seeking whom he may devour. Again, by "eagle" is meant Nebuchadnezzar, and similar tyrants, as I shall say at Deuteronomy 28:49.

AND THE GRIFFON. — You will ask, whether and what a gryphon or griffon is. That griffons exist is taught among the Greeks by Herodotus, Pausanias, Ctesias, and Aelian; among the Latins by Mela, Solinus, Apuleius, and others, and they place them in Asiatic Scythia, or in the Riphean mountains. Ctesias says griffons are four-footed birds the size of a wolf, with leonine legs and claws, feathers red on the breast, blue on the neck, and black on the rest of the body, with fiery eyes. Leonicenus adds that the bird is similar to a horse; Volaterranus, that its face does not differ much from a human one. Abulensis here and John of Mandeville say that the griffon bears the appearance of an eagle in front and a lion in the rear; that it equals eight lions in size; that it is of such strength as to carry off two oxen, or a horse with its rider, into the air. And this is the popular opinion of many.

On the contrary, Pliny contends that griffons do not exist, but are fabulous, and he calls nearly insane those who assert that such birds exist. Likewise Origen, who too rashly reproaches Moses for having forbidden the Hebrews to eat griffons. Likewise Matthias Michovius and Perottus Decembrius in Asiatic Sarmatia, who says it is established by experience that no such bird is found in the north, nor in the Riphean mountains.

I say first: It is a matter of faith that griffons exist, and that they are birds, as is clear from this passage of Scripture; for the Hebrew peres signifies the griffon, as the Septuagint, the Chaldean, and our Translator render it. For peres signifies a bird having curved and enormous talons (from parsa, that is, a talon), as well as a beak. Such, therefore, is the griffon, and hence gryphus in Greek and Latin signifies hooked, curved, taloned. Hence Antiochus Gryphus, and others with hooked and aquiline noses, were called gryphi.

I say second: Griffons as described by the ancients already mentioned are fabulous; for experience establishes that no bird is found which is partly a bird and partly a lion or horse: hence the ancients, in painting griffons, joined them with the sphinx: but it is established that the sphinx is a fable.

I say third: What griffons are cannot be defined with certainty. Nevertheless, the opinion of Ulysses Aldrovandi, Book X, chapter 1, and of Goropius, is probable, namely that Moses by the griffon here signifies birds, and, as it seems, the largest species of eagle, which has the most hooked beak and talons, and is the strongest and most rapacious, whose size, strength, and rapacity seem to have given the ancients occasion for the fable.

This is proved first, because that is what peres signifies in Hebrew; again, because the griffon is placed here after the eagle and before the osprey; just as the osprey, therefore, is a species of eagle, so the griffon also seems to be.

Second, because Aristophanes places the griffon as a species of eagle, and calls it grypaieton, as if you were to say griffon-eagle; just as the osprey is called haliaeetus, as if you were to say sea-eagle. The griffon, therefore, is the grypaeetos, that is, the most rapacious eagle, which has a griffon-like, that is, a most hooked beak and talons.

Third, because Sigismund von Herberstein, ambassador of the Emperor to the Duke of Muscovy, writes that among the Muscovites there are birds similar to eagles, but much larger, which the Muscovites call kreutzet. Fourth, because certain eagles grow to an enormous size. George Fabricius narrates that in the year 1350, between Meissen and Dresden, towns of Germany, an eagle's nest was found extending across three oaks, in which the skins of calves and sheep were found, and a recently brought fawn. One chick had wings seven ells long when they were spread across, its talons were equal to the fingers of a large man, its legs larger than a lion's. Aldrovandi narrates that in Ethiopia the eagles are so large and strong that they carry off an entire ox or horse with their feet.

Paul the Venetian writes that beyond Madagascar he frequently heard from the inhabitants about a bird called the ruc, which had wings so large that its feathers were twelve paces long; and it was so strong that it could lift and carry off an elephant, and he says he thought it was a griffon: but he heard that it was two-footed, and unlike any beast: although a griffon, truly, if it is a bird and an eagle, is two-footed.

Tropologically, griffons represent greedy, unjust, and rapacious princes. "With justice removed," says St. Augustine, Book IV of the City of God, chapter 4, "what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies but small kingdoms? This evil grows so great that it holds territories, establishes seats of power, occupies cities, subjugates peoples, and more openly assumes the name of kingdom. Which is plainly accomplished not by the removal of greed, but by the addition of impunity. On this point a certain pirate, captured by Alexander the Great, responded elegantly and truthfully, when he was asked by him what he meant by infesting the sea. He with free voice said: What do you mean by infesting the whole world? But because I do it with a small ship, I am called a robber: because you do it with a great fleet, an emperor."

Nero never delegated an office to anyone without adding this: "You know what I need, and let us see to it that no one has anything." A statement more worthy of a brigand than a prince.

Flavius Vespasian, because he used to promote the most rapacious men so that he might soon condemn them once enriched, was popularly said to use his officials as sponges: because (like sponges) he would soak them when dry, and squeeze them when wet. So Suetonius.

Batto the Dalmatian, asked by Tiberius why he had so often revolted from the Romans with his people and inflicted such great losses upon them, replied: "You are the cause, since to guard your flocks you sent not dogs or shepherds, but wolves." So Dio in his Life of Augustus.

Gaius Caligula, when his grandmother Antonia admonished him to act differently in certain matters, said: "Remember that everything against everyone is permitted to me."

Louis XII, King of France, used to say, as the Annals record, "The common people and peasants are the pasture of tyrants and soldiers, but tyrants and soldiers are the pasture of devils."

Phalaris used to say: "I who have experienced both, would rather be subject to tyranny than to preside over it. For a subject, secure from other evils, fears only one tyrant; but a tyrant fears both those who lie in wait from outside, and those through whom he is preserved."

The Osprey

THE OSPREY. — In Greek haliaeetos, it is the same as the sea-eagle, so called from the sea and from fishermen; for hals is the sea, and halieuo means "I fish," and aetos is "eagle": concerning which Pliny, Book X, chapter 3, says: "The osprey is a species of eagle most renowned for the keenness of its eyes, balancing itself from on high, and when it has spotted a fish in the sea, plunging headlong upon it, and seizing it by parting the waters with its breast."

Verse 14: According to Its Kind

14. ACCORDING TO ITS KIND — according to their species, through their species: for there are many species of vultures and kites.

15. IN ITS LIKENESS — that is, according to its likeness, meaning: All birds similar to the raven or raven-like, I consider and deem unclean, and I forbid to be eaten. This will be evident at verse 19.

Verse 16: The Gull

16. THE GULL. — The gull or gavia, as Aristotle calls it, swims in the waters and flies in the air, says Hesychius, and is a predator of fish. So Oppian, in his book On Fowling, namely in the Ixeutica, that is, on bird-liming, or the art of catching birds with birdlime. Whence the proverb: "a gaping gull," for one who is rapacious and thievish. Hence also arose the fable that gulls were once men who were the first to practice hunting and marine plunder; then having been changed into birds by the gods, they fly about near cities and harbors, still remembering their former art and predation. So Oppian.

The gull is also a symbol of gluttony, whence Alciatus in his emblem on gluttony depicts the glutton thus:

With the gullet of a crane, a man is painted with swollen belly,
Who carries in his hands a gull or an onocrotalus.

Truly Juvenal, Satire 1:

There are those for whom the sole reason for living lies in the palate.

And Socrates: "Others," he says, "live to eat; I eat to live." And Seneca, Book X of the Orators: "Whatever of birds flies, whatever of fish swims, whatever of wild beasts runs, is buried in our bellies: ask now why we die suddenly? Because we live by deaths."

Hear St. Jerome Against Jovinian and in his epistle: "Licentiousness is always joined to satiety: the belly and the genitals are neighbors, and as is the order of the members, so is the order of the vices." And again: "The glutton has his heart in his belly, the lustful man in his desire, the greedy man in his gain." And again: "Hippocrates teaches in his Aphorisms that fat and obese bodies, which have fulfilled the measure of growth, unless they are quickly reduced by the removal of blood, break out into paralysis and the worst kinds of diseases. For the nature of bodies does not remain in one state, but either grows or diminishes; it cannot live otherwise, unless it is capable of growth. And Galen says that those whose life and art is fattening, can neither live long nor be healthy, and their souls, thus wrapped in excessive blood and fat as in mud, belch forth nothing refined, nothing heavenly, but always think of carnal things and the gluttony of the belly."

Hugh of St. Victor, in his treatise On the Cloister of the Soul: "Some apply an excessively scrupulous zeal," he says, "to the preparation of their food, devising infinite kinds of stews, fried dishes, and seasonings; now soft, now hard, now cold, now hot, now boiled, now roasted, now seasoned with pepper, now with garlic, now with cumin, craving like pregnant women; so that the arts, inquiries, and anxieties of the cooks are sweated out for them. These seem to worship the belly as God."

And again: "It is customary to build temples for the gods, to erect altars, to appoint ministers to serve, to sacrifice cattle, to burn incense: so for the god of the belly, the temple is the kitchen, the altar is the table, the ministers are the cooks, the sacrificed cattle are the cooked meats, the smoke of incense is the array of flavors."

Hear also Master Alanus, in his treatise On the Complaint of Nature: "This pestilence," he says, "not content with ordinary lowliness, reaches more deeply into the Prelates, who, tormenting salmon, pike, and other fish with the various martyrdoms of stewing, adulterating the office of baptism, baptize them in the sacred font of pepper, so that from such baptism they may obtain the manifold grace of flavor. At the same table, a land animal is submerged in a flood of pepper, a fish swims in pepper, a bird is bound by its stickiness; and while so many kinds of animals are imprisoned in the one dungeon of the belly, the aquatic animal marvels that the terrestrial and the aerial kind are entombed with it in the same sepulcher, and if they were given permission to exit, the width of the gate would scarcely suffice for those coming out."

Another:

He is an oarsman of cups, and a sailor of banquets.

Verse 17: The Ibis

17. THE IBIS. — The ibis is an Egyptian bird, hostile to serpents and scorpions and feeding on them, which applying salt water with the curvature of its beak, washes itself through that part by which it is most healthful to discharge the burden of food, which the Egyptians, having observed, imitated with the enema: the ibis, therefore, taught humans the enema. So Pliny, Book VIII, chapter 27, and Plutarch in his dialogue Whether Beasts Have Any Reason. Deservedly, therefore, the ibis was an unclean bird under the law.

Solinus reports that the ibis generates and conceives through the mouth. Some have thought and still think the same of the raven. But this is a fable, which Aristotle soundly refutes, Book III of the Generation of Animals, 6: for how would the seed pass from the mouth to the womb? For it would first have to pass through the stomach: but there it would be digested. The fable arose from the fact that ravens are rarely seen mating, but often seen joining their beaks.

Verse 18: The Onocrotalus

THE ONOCROTALUS. — The Septuagint translates it as pelican. Perhaps they understand the same bird. For Oppian in the Ixeutica also calls the onocrotalus the same as the pelican; and Gesner, in his book On Birds, under the onocrotalus, lists a species of the onocrotalus as congener to the pelican; since also St. Jerome, Psalm 101:7, following the Septuagint, translates the Hebrew qa'ath as pelican, and in his commentary on the same passage, asserts that the pelican is called the onocrotalus.

Furthermore, the onocrotalus is so called from onos, that is, donkey, and krotalou, that is, a rattle, because with its discordant voice it imitates a braying donkey by rattling. It is called by some "gular," from its crop, which hangs from its throat like a goiter; and in some it is so large that they swallow five-pound live fish in a single gulp; indeed, from Francisco Sanchez, Aldrovandi narrates, Ornithology Book XIX, chapter 11, that in a certain onocrotalus, when it had fallen from heaviness and was captured, a small Ethiopian boy was found. In Hebrew it is called qa'ath, from vomiting, both because it vomits up the water contained in that crop, in order to select and eat its prey from it, as Pliny testifies, Book X, chapter 47; and because it swallows shells and, when they are opened by the heat of the gullet or stomach, vomits them up again, in order to select the flesh from the oysters and devour it. Deservedly, therefore, this was an unclean bird for the Jews: and indeed Christians also abstain from it, because its flesh is tough, excremental, and of a scarcely bearable odor, especially when it is older, says Aldrovandi.

On account of other properties of this bird, however, it is taken in a good sense: for on account of its rough and mournful voice, the penitent and groaning are compared to the pelican or onocrotalus, Psalm 101:7. So also eagles, herons, and kites, on account of their diverse qualities, are taken now in a good sense, now in a bad. So Christ is compared to a lion, on account of His strength, Revelation 5:5, as is the devil, on account of his cruelty, 1 Peter 5:8. So Radulphus and Hesychius.

The Porphyrion

THE PORPHYRION. — The porphyrion is a bird having on its head something like a crest, equal in size to hens, but with longer legs; it derives its name from its color: for it has a red beak, as also red legs. Hence in Greek porphyrion, that is, purple. So Oppian in the Ixeutica, Gesner, and Aldrovandi. It gapes after the plunder of fish, says Procopius, and alone among birds drinks by biting, constantly dipping all its food in water, then bringing it to its beak with its foot as with a hand. So Pliny, Book X, chapter 46, and Aristotle, Book VIII of the History of Animals, chapter 6. Aldrovandi adds from Polemon that the porphyrion is unteachable and never becomes tame; and from Aelian and Callimachus, that it cannot bear anyone's gaze while it eats, and therefore withdraws and eats in secret. For these reasons it was considered unclean.

From another perspective, however, its chastity is wonderfully praised. Athenaeus, Book IX of the Banquet of the Wise, chapter 12, reports from Polemon that the porphyrion, when raised in homes, is a guardian of women's chastity, and reveals and exposes their adultery, detected most sagaciously, by hanging and killing itself. But how would a bird hang itself by a noose on its own? Therefore Polemon more correctly said that it does this by abstaining from food and killing itself through starvation, and from him Aldrovandi, who also adds from Tzetzes that it is so chaste that it expires at the sight of a harlot.

Verse 19: The Heron

19. THE HERON. — Aristotle, Pliny, Oppian, and others do not mention this bird: what then is the herodius or herodion?

First, St. Augustine in Psalm 103:18, understands it as the coot.

Second, Albert the Great, in his treatise On Birds, thinks it is the noblest species of eagle, which is called the golden eagle and stellaris, as if herodius were heros, that is, king and leader of birds, as it is called in Psalm 103:18.

Third, Radulphus, Lyranus, Gesner, and many others think the herodius is the falcon, and indeed the most excellent species of it, which is called the hierofalco, commonly the gerfalcon. Whence also St. Jerome in Psalm 103 says the herodius overcomes eagles and dominates them: so also the Gloss in the same place.

Fourth, Theodore Gaza in Book IX of Aristotle's History of Animals, chapter 1 and 18, and others consider it to be the heron. For the same things that Aristotle says there about the herodius, Pliny writes about the heron, Book X, chapter 60.

Fifth, it seems more probable that the herodius is the stork. So Suidas, Rabbi David, and the Hebrews generally. It is proved first, because the herodius in Hebrew is called chasida, from piety: for chesed means piety; and the piety of the stork toward its parents is celebrated everywhere. You will say: chasida also means the kite. I respond: The kite is called chasida by antiphrasis, as being by no means pious, but rapacious and voracious.

Second, because Suidas says the herodius is so called, as if heleion, that is, marshy (for hele means a marsh); and the stork dwells in marshes, and there feeds on frogs and serpents.

Third, because in Psalm 103, the herodius is called the leader of birds, namely of tame ones: and such is the stork; for although eagles and falcons surpass the stork, nevertheless their nests (which are discussed in Psalm 103:17) are unknown both to men and to other birds.

You will say: Stork also signifies a vulture or falcon. I respond: Vultures and falcons are called herodii for a certain reason, because they are strong like heroes, or because like heroes they dominate and command others.

The Charadrius

THE CHARADRIUS. — The charadrius is so called from charadrai, that is, the steep and cavernous places of riverbanks, in which it lives. So Aristotle, Book IX of the History of Animals, chapter 11. This bird is stupid, hunts mice, and is a friend of the night like the owl. Whence the proverb "imitating the charadrius," said of one who hides and flees the light; hence it was considered unclean by the Hebrews: and indeed Aristotle calls it a wicked bird.

Note on the Twenty Unclean Birds

Note: Twenty species of birds are named here as unclean, and are forbidden to be eaten, because almost all are rapacious; some also because they are light-shunning and nocturnal, such as the owl, the charadrius, and the bat; some because they are amphibious, such as the gull and the diver; some because they are filthy, such as the hoopoe, the ibis, and the night owl; some because they are beasts rather than birds, such as the ostrich; some because they are melancholic, such as the heron or stork; many are also gluttonous, whence they have a longer neck, and they search for and fish out food from the deep mud of the waters; some finally because they are excessively hot in temperament, such as the raven and the swan, whose feathers, though white and soft, have flesh that is tough, sinewy, and dark: whence its excrement is whiter. For hot birds expel their phlegm through white droppings; but they retain their bile. Cold ones do the opposite. From all this it is clear that these birds are little suited for food, and are deservedly deemed unclean by the law.

Tropology: Twenty Birds and Twenty Vices of the Powerful

Tropologically, Radulphus says: These twenty birds denote twenty vices of the powerful, and of those who have lofty spirits: first, the eagle denotes the pride of the powerful. Whence in Ezekiel 17:7, Nebuchadnezzar is compared to a great eagle with large wings; second, griffons signify the cruelty of the powerful; third, the osprey, which does not have such great strength, but is nevertheless a plunderer, signifies those violent toward the poor; fourth, the kite signifies the treachery of the powerful; fifth, the vulture, which follows camps and corpses, signifies those who are like vultures and followers of princes and courts, in order to despoil others by their aid, whom Alfonso, King of Aragon, used to call the Harpies of his court. So also Seneca, Epistle 96: "He who sits by a sick friend for the sake of an inheritance," he says, "is a vulture, waiting for the corpse."

Again, vultures are voracious and gluttonous; for, as Epiphanius writes in the Physiologus: "The vulture is more voracious than all birds: for it abstains from food for forty days, and when it finds food, it freely gorges itself for the same number of days; and so it compensates for forty days of abstinence with forty days of gluttony." Vultures, therefore, are those who, after the fast of Lent, from Easter to Pentecost, stuff and gorge themselves.

Sixth, ravens are those who feed on the deaths of others; seventh, the ostrich, which is similar to the heron in feathers but not in flight, Job 39:16, denotes hypocrites, who under the appearance of religion harm others. He who within is Nero, outwardly is Cato, says St. Jerome; he is a monster like that poetic one:

A lion in front, a dragon behind, a chimera in the middle.

Such are those

Who pretend to be Curii, but live like bacchanalians.

Diogenes, in Laertius, Book VI, chapter 2, said to a certain man who was pleased with himself because he walked about covered with a lion's skin: "Will you not stop disgracing the garments of virtue?" For he judged it unseemly that a soft man should claim for himself the garb of Hercules.

Alexander, when some were praising the frugality of Antipater, because he led an austere life, said: "On the outside, Antipater is white, but on the inside he is entirely purple"; noting the feigned parsimony of that man, who was otherwise most ambitious. So Plutarch in his Apophthegms of Kings.

Achilles in Homer, Iliad I, says thus:

He is as hateful to me as the gates of dark Hades,
Who utters one thing with his words and turns another in his mind.

The Trojan horse, fashioned by the Greeks, deceived the Trojans because it feigned the form of Minerva, Diogenes used to say: so also does the hypocrite.

Those who carry fragrant musk about with them — their soul stinks: so also hypocrites who, while displaying the greatest appearance of piety, within are most foully filthy. Rightly, therefore, are they compared to the ostrich. For, as St. Gregory says, Book VII of the Morals, chapter 1: "The ostrich has the appearance of flying, but does not have the use of flying: so hypocrisy insinuates to all who behold it an image of sanctity, but knows not how to keep the way of sanctity."

Eighth, the owl, seeing keenly by night, denotes those wise in evil. Whence St. Ambrose, in his sermon on the prophet Malachi, at the end of Volume II: "I do not want you," he says, "to be an imitator of the owl, which although it keeps vigil through the night, is nevertheless sluggish or blind by day, which with its great eyes loves the darkness of shadows, and shudders at the splendor of the sun: it is illuminated by darkness, blinded by light. That animal is a figure of heretics and Gentiles, who embrace the darkness of the devil, shudder at the light of the Savior, and with the great eyes of their disputations perceive vain things, and do not look upon eternal things. Of these the Lord says, Psalm 113: They have eyes, and they shall not see. And Psalm 81: They walk in darkness: for they are keen for superstitious things, dull for divine things."

Ninth, the gull, being amphibious, signifies soldiers, who on land are as it were dry and celibate, since they lack wives, yet wallow in the waters and flux of wanton luxury; tenth, the rapacious hawk, which, when tamed, serves its owners for plunder and robbery, signifies servants who plunder the poor at their masters' nod; eleventh, the eagle-owl signifies those who, filled with the foulest crimes, flee the light and human company; twelfth, the diver signifies those who are absorbed in the pleasures of the flesh; thirteenth, the ibis signifies those who are unjust and cruel to themselves, to their own bodies and souls; fourteenth, the swan signifies those who glory only in their garments and earthly abundance; fifteenth, the onocrotalus signifies insatiable avarice; sixteenth, the porphyrion signifies the obstinate, who accept nothing unless it is tinged with the water of their own will and pleasure; seventeenth, the stork signifies stupidity in grasping heavenly things; eighteenth, the charadrius, a chattering bird, signifies talkativeness; nineteenth, the hoopoe, simulating a groan in its song among dung, signifies the sorrow of the world; for into this, and into filth and sorrows, the delights and joy of the world end; twentieth, the bat signifies worldly knowledge, understanding only natural and earthly things. So Radulphus and St. Thomas, I-II, Question 102, article 6, reply 1.

ACCORDING TO ITS KIND — according to its species, as if to say: I forbid all species of these birds; for there are many species of hawks, as also of other birds. The Septuagint translates, "and those similar to them." For the Hebrew min also signifies likeness, and so our Translator renders it at verse 15; for one species of hawk, for example, is similar to another species of hawk.

Verse 20: Every Winged Thing That Walks on Four Feet

20. EVERY WINGED THING THAT WALKS ON FOUR FEET SHALL BE ABOMINABLE TO YOU — because four feet are a sign that it is not so much a flying creature as one that degenerates into a terrestrial animal: and therefore I want it to be considered unclean.

Verse 21: It Has Longer Hind Legs

21. IT HAS LONGER HIND LEGS BY WHICH IT LEAPS. — Because such a creature is not entirely earthly, but shows by its leaping that it has something of the fiery nature. Therefore I want it to be considered clean.

Tropologically, these are the Saints who, though situated in the flesh and in worldly pomp, do not fight according to those things, but spring back from the filth of the world, and leap forward into the thought and desire of eternity. So Hesychius and Radulphus.

Verse 22: The Locust and Its Kinds

22. SUCH AS THE LOCUST-LARVA IN ITS KIND (these are clean because they leap), AND THE ATTACUS, AND THE OPHIOMACHUS, AND THE LOCUST. — It is probable that these four are species of locusts, as most Rabbis and Catholic authors agree; Abulensis distinguishes them so that he says the locust is called and named a locust-larva when it is born; an attacus, when it begins to have wings; a locust, when it is now fully developed. Hence also the ophiomachus is not a stork, or pelican, or any other bird, since here it is said to be a four-footed creature; but it is a certain species of locust, as are the preceding ones. For the Hebrew word hargol seems to signify this. So Vatablus, Oleaster, and others: otherwise the lizard is called ophiomachus by the Greeks, because it fights with serpents; but the lizard is named and forbidden at verse 30. Furthermore, that the ophiomachus is a species of locust, just like the locust-larva and the attacus (or attelabus), Suidas and Hesychius expressly assert.

Hesychius and Aldrovandus, in his Book On Insects, chapter On Locusts, page 408, add from Aristotle, Pliny, and another eyewitness, that certain locusts fight with serpents, and from this are called ophiomaches. So also Hesychius here, who also adds tropologically that the ophiomachus signifies valiant men, who leap over the hedges of difficulties, raising their minds to heavenly things, and who fight with the infernal serpent, pondering that saying of Paul: "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, and against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places."

Hence the Egyptians, says Pierius, Hieroglyphics 28, by the ophiomachus denoted modesty, temperance, and continence: inasmuch as these virtues are opposed to wickedness. For they fight against the serpent, when they dash down the pleasure that creeps along the ground, leaping by meditation to divine things, and tasting them through affection and desire.

Note: The Jews ate locusts, as did many other nations, such as the Ethiopians, Libyans, Parthians, and other Orientals, who on that account were called akridophagoi, that is, locust-eaters, as Diodorus Siculus testifies, Book III, chapter 3, and Pliny, Book VI, chapter 30, and Jerome, Book II Against Jovinian. So St. John the Baptist ate locusts. Moreover, they ate locusts either boiled, or toasted and reduced to powder, and indeed preserved them salted and smoked for the whole year. How and what kind of nourishment the locust provides for man, Jerome Mercurialis teaches, Book II of Various Readings, chapter 20, where among other things he teaches that locusts are a dry food, which shortens life, breeds lice, and creates diseases.

Verse 23: Whatever Has Only Four Feet

23. WHATEVER AMONG WINGED THINGS HAS ONLY FOUR FEET SHALL BE DETESTABLE TO YOU. — Understand "feet" as meaning equal ones: for if it has longer hind legs by which it leaps, it will be clean, as was said at verse 21.

Verses 24-25: Whoever Touches Their Carcasses

24 and 25. And whoever touches their carcasses shall be polluted, etc.; AND IF IT IS NECESSARY THAT HE CARRY ANY OF THESE DEAD THINGS (for example, that he must remove it from the city or the road, lest it infect the air), HE SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS, etc.

Verse 26: Every Animal That Has a Hoof

26. EVERY ANIMAL THAT HAS A HOOF. — This is a recapitulation and repetition of the preceding. Whence he adds: "Whoever touches it," the carcass, or the dead body of it, as he explained in verses 24, 25, 27, "shall be contaminated:" for the Hebrews could touch living unclean animals, such as horses, camels, and donkeys, and ride upon them. So Vatablus, Abulensis, and others.

Verse 27: That Which Walks on Its Hands

27. THAT WHICH WALKS ON ITS HANDS (that is, An animal whose front feet are like hands, such as the monkey and the bear), SHALL BE UNCLEAN.

Tropologically, noted here are those who, for the sake of gain, quickly lay hands on others, even the unworthy. So Hesychius.

WHOEVER TOUCHES THEIR CARCASSES SHALL BE POLLUTED UNTIL EVENING. — For evening is the most fitting time for distinguishing and as it were obliterating uncleanness.

Evening tropologically signifies penance: "For weeping shall endure for an evening, and joy shall come in the morning." So Hesychius.

Allegorically, evening or the setting of the sun signifies the death of Christ, by which every sin and every uncleanness was removed at the evening of the world, that is, in the last age of the world. So Abulensis in chapter 22, Question 8.

Verses 29-30: The Weasel, Mouse, Crocodile, and Others

29 and 30. THESE ALSO SHALL BE COUNTED AMONG POLLUTED THINGS: THE WEASEL, AND THE MOUSE, AND THE CROCODILE, THE SHREW, AND THE CHAMELEON, AND THE STELLION, AND THE LIZARD, AND THE MOLE. — These are here forbidden to the Jews, because some nations and barbarians fed on these and similar creatures. So Stuckius, Book II of Convivial Matters, chapter 9, teaches that German soldiers formerly ate fried silkworms, Italians ate weasels, Spaniards ate domestic tortoises; and indeed even today many eat mushrooms, oysters, and shellfish, even raw, which we know are generated from putrefaction. The weasel, therefore, is here forbidden to the Jews, because it is thievish, and has the nature of a mouse, and seems to be a long mouse; and the mouse is unclean because it is earthy and fetid.

Tropologically, the mouse and the weasel signify the frauds of the poor, and fraudulent poor people. So Radulphus; whence also Cyril, Book IX Against Julian: "The weasel," he says, "and the mouse designate timid and less manly, and noisy kinds of thieves."

Therefore Brasidas, having caught a mouse in some dried figs and been bitten by it, released it, adding: "Nothing is so small that it cannot save itself, if it dares to defend itself or to avenge itself against those who inflict violence"; the witness is Plutarch in his Laconian Sayings.

The crocodile is unclean, because it is amphibious, tough, and rapacious.

Tropologically, the crocodile signifies public robbers. So Radulphus.

30. THE SHREW — is the shrew mouse, which is the size of a mouse, having the appearance of a weasel, with an oblong mouth and a slender tail, as Aetius says. The island of Britain abounds in them; it is called mygale, as if from mys, that is, mouse; and gale, that is, weasel: because it participates in both animals and is as it were composed from them, drawing equally from both the vice of voraciousness and of theft. So Hesychius and Radulphus.

Demochares, seeing a thief being led away by the Eleven: "Alas, wretch," he said, "why did you steal such a trifle, and rather something great, so that you might also have carried off others?" indicating that we should be deterred from petty thefts by the smallness and vileness of the thing, to which such great infamy is attached; for from great thefts the crime itself and the gallows sufficiently deter.

Socrates was asked, "Why do you laugh?" He replied: "I see great thieves leading a small one to the gallows, who are more worthy of hanging. The smallest sacrileges are punished, but the great ones are carried in triumphs." So says Valerius Maximus, book VII.

Zeno ordered a slave caught in theft to be beaten; and when he excused himself, saying, "it was his fate to steal," Zeno replied: "And it was your fate to be beaten." So says Laertius, book VII, chapter 1.

The Chameleon

In Greek it is called chamaeleon, as if "humble" or "little lion"; it is an animal in shape and size like a lizard, often changing color over its whole body: for it varies with the greatest ease to match the colors it sees, except for red and white. Hence the proverb: "More changeable than a chameleon," meaning a turncoat, an inconstant person, and one who adapts himself to every situation as the occasion demands.

Hence, symbolically, chameleons are those who feed on the wind of honor and the flies of pleasures. The emperor Domitian, according to Suetonius, used to amuse himself daily for two hours catching flies; so that it became a proverb: "Not even a fly," because he alone did not leave a single fly remaining. Domitian, you manage and rule the affairs of the whole world -- why then do you catch flies? How many Christians are more foolish than Domitian, who though they ought to attend to their salvation and eternity, every day not for two hours but for every hour catch flies! You pursue riches -- you pursue a fly. You pursue a wealthy and beautiful bride -- you pursue a fly. You pursue wines and delicacies -- you pursue flies, which tickle the flesh and palate but do not satisfy, which soon turned to filth and carrion, will produce stench and nausea. You pursue a prebend, you pursue an office -- you pursue a fly, a trifling thing that will soon fly away from you to your successor. You wish to be honored, to excel, to be loved, to be esteemed -- you pursue a fly; like a chameleon you chase the breeze of the crowd, you drink in the wind, you live on wind, you delight in wind. O the cares of men, O how much emptiness there is in human affairs! Wretched, blind mortals, you run like chickens without a head, without a brain, to food, to worms, to butterflies, to flies; you run to prebends, to dignities; you run to banquets, to feasts, to cups; you run to merchandise and riches, and never once do you think: And what then? Where does all this lead? What will come after this? Why am I here? Why did I receive from God a rational and immortal soul? Why do I gaze up at the sun and heaven? What place, what state will receive my soul, after all these things that will soon end? Go now, young man, dance, rejoice, get drunk, indulge your belly and your lust; but know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment, that you will go to the house of your eternity. Live therefore, not as a chameleon on flies, but as a lion on solid food, live for God, live for ETERNITY; be an eagle: "The eagle does not catch flies; do not seek the first place among jackdaws, when you can be an eagle."

Here note first: Abulensis on Deuteronomy chapter XIV holds that the chameleon does not properly change its color, but its appearance; for the color of an object placed before it cannot produce a color in it, but only its own appearance. And so the chameleon's color emits an appearance from itself, but a weak and faint one; while it receives into itself a stronger appearance of color from the object placed before it, and reflects it as if it were a mirror, so that this appears to be its own color. Others more correctly hold that the chameleon changes color through the contraction of blood and spirits: whence Aristotle says that when inflated it changes color, just as we change color in shame, fear, or joy; for when the chameleon sees the color of an object before it, it so impresses it upon its imagination that, through the dilation or contraction of blood and spirits already mentioned, it expresses the same color in its own body. See Simon Portius, in his book On Colors, which is found among the works of Aristotle.

Note second, that what Pliny and others report -- that the chameleon lives without food on air alone -- is absolutely not true: for there is no animal that lives on air without food.

Hence Theophrastus teaches that the chameleon lives on dew, and has often been found eating flies; and from this perhaps arose that common opinion that it lives on air, namely from the fact that the chameleon, being of slow digestion, lives for a long time without food, and when it does eat, it takes light and delicate food, such as dew, flies, etc. So say Augustinus Niphus, Gesnerus, and others. In the same way, what was falsely claimed about the salamander -- that it lives in fire and is not consumed by it -- arose from the fact that the salamander, because of the coldness and thickness of its skin, is not so quickly consumed by fire, and indeed sometimes, if the fire is small, extinguishes it.

Tropologically, the chameleon signifies parasites, who adapt their mouth and words to every wind, says Radulphus.

Hence Gregory of Nazianzus, writing against Julian the Apostate, compares him to a chameleon; for just as the chameleon, he says, easily changes and assumes all colors except white, so also Julian from a Christian became a pagan; and there was in him a kind of humanity, but an inhuman one, and his persuasion was nothing other than violence, and under the excuse of savagery lay probity, so that he seemed to have recourse to violence by right, since he could accomplish nothing by persuasion. Rightly Seneca in his Proverbs says: "The greatest sign of a bad mind is vacillation, and the constant tossing between the pretense of virtues and the love of vices."

Furthermore, the chameleon has a snout similar to a pig's, its tail is very long, it has hooked claws, a slower movement like a tortoise, a rough body like a crocodile; it is tall, with its mouth always gaping open, and alone among animals it is nourished by neither food nor drink, but only by air, says Pliny, book XXVIII, chapter VIII, Aristotle, book II On Animals chapter II, Solinus, and others.

The Stellion

It is an animal not unlike a lizard, though much smaller, having its back painted with certain shining spots in the manner of stars; it feeds on dew and spiders; its bite makes a person half-stupefied and affects them in various ways. No animal envies man more deceitfully than the stellion: for the skin which it sheds every year, it immediately devours, so as to snatch away from man a most effective remedy for epilepsy. Hence the stellion signifies a fraudulent person, and the crime of "stellionatus" is the name for the crime of deceit and fraud. So says Pliny, book XXX, chapter X. The saying of the stellion was that of Lysander, who, when he was blamed for doing many things by deceit, replied: "Where the lion's skin is not sufficient, there the fox's skin must be sewn on." The witness is Plutarch in his Apophthegmata.

Seven reptiles are enumerated here, because although all reptiles are unclean, as is evident from verse 41, these are more so than the rest. So says Hesychius.

Novatian on the Symbolism of Unclean Animals

But why does this law forbid these to be eaten? Besides the literal reason given in verse 29, there is a symbolic one which Novatian assigns in his book On Jewish Foods, chapter III, where he says: "Who would make the body of a weasel into food? But he reproves thefts. Who a lizard? But he hates the uncertain variety of life. Who a stellion? But he curses the stains of those who seek prey from another's death. Who a raven? But he curses crafty intentions. Who a sparrow (for so he translates what the Septuagint has as koliphas, but wrongly: for it is clear from the Hebrew, the Chaldean, and our Vulgate that it should be translated as ostrich; for the sparrow was not an unclean but a clean animal, and even suitable for purification, as is evident here in chapter XV, verse 5)? When he forbids it, he rebukes intemperance. When the owl, he hates those who flee from the light of truth. When the swan, the proud ones of haughty neck. When the plover, the overly garrulous intemperance of the tongue. When the bat, those who seek the darkness of night and also of error. So in the camel he condemns an enervated life twisted with crimes. With the pig, he reproves a life that places its good in the flesh alone. With the hare, he accuses men reformed into women." For the natural philosophers report that the hare possesses both sexes, as also does the hyena. So also Cyril, book IX Against Julian, Radulphus and Hesychius, already frequently cited.

The hare can also be a symbol of the usurer; for, as Plutarch says, the hare simultaneously gives birth and nurses another, and again conceives on top of a pregnancy: so the money-lender, before he has even conceived, gives birth. For in giving a loan, he immediately demands interest, and taking that, again lends at interest what he received as interest.

Sins and vices therefore belong to beasts, and virtually transform a man into a beast.

Boethius says excellently in book IV, prose 3: "He whom you see transformed by vices, you cannot consider a man; but that he was once a man, the remaining human appearance of his body still shows. Does a violent plunderer burn with greed for others' riches? You would call him like a wolf. Fierce and restless, does he exercise his tongue in quarrels? You would compare him to a dog. A hidden ambusher, does he rejoice in stealing by fraud? He is made equal to foxes. Intemperate in anger, does he rage? He may be believed to bear the spirit of a lion. Fearful and fleeing, does he dread what need not be feared? Let him be considered like a deer. Sluggish and stupid, does he languish? He lives as an ass. Light and inconstant, does he change his pursuits? He differs nothing from birds. Is he plunged into foul and unclean lusts? He is held by the pleasure of a filthy pig. Thus a man, having abandoned uprightness, is turned into a beast."

Verse 31: All These Reptiles Are Unclean

31. ALL THESE REPTILES ARE UNCLEAN — not only with regard to eating, but also with regard to touch, so that it was not permitted to touch them, as is evident from verses 41 and 43, and from chapter V, verse 2, where a reptile is equated with a carcass, because both are venomous.

Verse 32: Haircloth

32. HAIRCLOTH. — In Hebrew it is sac, that is, sackcloth, by which the Hebrews mean garments of coarse hair, such as those of peasants, beggars, and penitents.

IN WHATEVER IS USED FOR WORK — that is, whatever vessel we use for some task.

AND AFTERWARDS THEY SHALL BE CLEAN — that is, they will be clean; for no other washing or cleansing was needed, but at the coming of evening this legal uncleanness expired, so that they were again considered clean. This is evident from the Hebrew, the Chaldean, and the Septuagint.

Verse 33: An Earthen Vessel

33. BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL, INTO WHICH ANY OF THESE SHALL HAVE FALLEN, SHALL BE DEFILED. — In Hebrew, everything that is in it, namely in such a vessel, shall be defiled, and therefore it must be broken, because it is earthenware: for if it were wooden or metal, it would not need to be broken, but washed, as was stated in the preceding verse. We heard something similar about an earthen vessel in which the flesh of the sin offering is cooked, chapter VI, verse 28.

Verse 34: All Food

34. ALL FOOD, etc., IF WATER BE POURED UPON IT, SHALL BE UNCLEAN. — By "water," understand unclean water or water flowing from an unclean vessel; hence the Chaldean translates: water which any of these, namely the aforementioned defiled things, has touched.

Tropologically, unclean water signifies softness of soul; for this is the water of desire, which infects that with which it is mixed. Just as therefore an unclean temptation by such water kills those who are soft and weak in their cleanness, so it exercises, strengthens, and crowns those who are dry and strong. So says Radulphus.

AND EVERY LIQUID THAT IS DRUNK FROM ANY VESSEL SHALL BE UNCLEAN. — By "vessel," understand an unclean one.

Note: it is said only of liquids that they become defiled; whence it seems that dry foods, e.g. bread placed in such an unclean vessel, were not defiled: and the fitting reason is appropriate, that dry things do not receive filth as easily as moist things.

Verse 35: Whatever of These Carcasses Falls upon a Vessel

35. AND WHATEVER OF THESE CARCASSES SHALL HAVE FALLEN UPON IT (A VESSEL), IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN — namely that vessel, into which something of the carcasses has fallen.

WHETHER OVENS (in which bread is baked), OR CHYTROPODES — that is, pots having feet, such as bipods, tripods, etc., because they are earthenware and clay, according to what was said at verse 33.

Tropologically, the oven is the patience of the Martyrs; the chytropodes are the Doctors, in whom the food of sound doctrine is cooked under the fire of the operation of the Holy Spirit; because these things are of no benefit unless they avoid all unclean things. So say Hesychius and Radulphus.

Verse 36: But Springs and Cisterns Shall Be Clean

36. BUT SPRINGS AND CISTERNS AND EVERY GATHERING OF WATERS SHALL BE CLEAN. — Understand, even if something unclean has fallen into them: God so decreed on account of the necessity of water, without which man cannot live. The same reason applies to seed, as follows in verse 37, unless it had been moistened with water; for then, because it was moist, it more easily contracted filth, and therefore it was considered unclean, and had to be given to animals, because no mention of expiation is made here.

Tropologically, by the spring and seed is signified the doctrine of truth, which even when disputing or discussing about carcasses, that is, about vices, is not defiled, nor does it defile, unless the soul is watery and soft, which attracts and absorbs shameful things through consent. So says Radulphus.

Verse 40: Whoever Eats or Carries a Carcass

40. WHOEVER SHALL HAVE EATEN ANY PART OF IT (THE CARCASS), OR SHALL HAVE CARRIED IT (understand: unknowingly), SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL EVENING — for if anyone had knowingly eaten, he would have sinned gravely, and would have been worthy of punishment.

Verse 41: Everything That Creeps upon the Earth

41. EVERYTHING THAT CREEPS UPON THE EARTH SHALL BE ABOMINABLE — because it is earthy, foul, and venomous, as I said at verse 31.

Tropologically, those are reptiles and creep who neglect heaven and heavenly things, who drag their body and mind along the ground; whose every desire is earthly, whose mind is not in the heavens but in the air, whose god is the belly, or mammon, or ambition. The tropology of the following is similar.

Verse 42: Whatever Goes on Its Breast

42. WHATEVER GOES ON ALL FOURS UPON ITS BREAST (because it has short legs: whence it is necessary that in movement it lean upon its belly and the ground, as serpents do. Tropologically this signifies those given to gluttony or the vice of the gullet: so says Hesychius), AND HAS MANY FEET (like worms), OR IS DRAGGED ALONG THE GROUND (as reptiles are), YOU SHALL NOT EAT, BECAUSE IT IS ABOMINABLE.

Verse 43: Do Not Defile Your Souls

43. DO NOT DEFILE YOUR SOULS — that is, yourselves, by contracting legal uncleanness through the eating of animals forbidden here; although they could also defile their soul by sin, if namely they had knowingly eaten them against this precept.

NOR SHALL YOU TOUCH ANYTHING OF THEIRS — referring especially to the preceding creatures: for others at least could be touched; for example, they could ride upon camels, as I said at verse 26.

Hence it is clear from this law that it was not permitted for Jews to touch reptiles, so that if they knowingly touched them, they sinned.

The Jews therefore, through contact with reptiles, incurred not only legal uncleanness, as Abulensis holds, but also spiritual uncleanness, namely sin. For they violated this precept of God: "Nor shall you touch anything of theirs"; and again: "Do not defile your souls in any reptile." For God here commands that these things, as most unclean, be neither eaten nor touched: "Lest," He says, "you be unclean," namely both legally and spiritually. The reason follows.

Verse 44: Be Holy, Because I Am Holy

44. BE HOLY (that is, clean) (thus "holy" is taken for "clean" in Deuteronomy XXIII, 14, where it says: "That your camp may be holy," that is, clean), BECAUSE I AM HOLY (that is, clean) — I who detest the uncleanness of the Gentiles in their sacrifices and feasts, about which St. Augustine writes in books VI and VII of the City of God, and who wish you to imitate and represent My spiritual holiness through this bodily holiness of yours.

Note: Temperance and abstinence from forbidden foods is here called holiness, that is, purity, because forbidden foods were considered unclean, polluted, and abominable, and to defile and contaminate the one who eats them, as God here repeatedly emphasizes. Hear St. Bernard, sermon 22 on the Song of Songs: "It is customary," he says, "in Scripture for 'sanctification' to be used for continence or cleanness. And indeed, what were those so frequent sanctifications in Moses other than certain purifications of men who abstained from food, from drink, from intercourse, and similar things? But hear the Apostle: This is the will of God, he says, your sanctification, that each of you know how to possess his vessel in sanctification, and not in the passion of desire. Likewise: For God has not called us to uncleanness, but to sanctification. It is clear that he uses 'sanctification' for temperance."

Let the heretics note this, and learn here that fasting and abstinence sanctioned by the law of God and the Church are called and are holiness.

DO NOT DEFILE YOUR SOULS IN ANY REPTILE. — Let Christians hear this and understand it tropologically, that they may not defile themselves with those who crawl on the ground and with the goods that are the lowest of the earth, but may preserve their soul holy for God and for heaven.

Verse 45: I Am the Lord Who Brought You Out of Egypt

45. FOR I AM THE LORD (in Hebrew, I am Jehovah, namely in Myself through essence, and Elohim, namely for you through providence, rule, and governance), WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, THAT I MIGHT BE YOUR GOD — as if to say: I brought you out so that you might be a people set apart for Me from other nations and their rites, and especially devoted to My worship. This benefit, because it was the first, the greatest, and the foundation of all the rest, God everywhere emphasizes.