Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
Glory does not befit a fool, but a rod. Respond to a fool sometimes foolishly, sometimes wisely. Neither an embassy nor a parable is fitting for a fool, but silence. One who repeats his folly is like a dog returning to its vomit. As a door turns on its hinge, so the sluggard in his bed. He who involves himself in a quarrel is like one who seizes a dog by the ears. He who harms a friend deceitfully says: I was only joking. When the whisperer is removed, quarrels cease. As wood is to fire, so the hot-tempered man stirs up strife. Beware the whisperer, the proud man, the enemy, even if he humbles himself. He who conceals hatred will be revealed. He who digs a pit will fall into it. A slippery mouth works ruin.
Vulgate Text: Proverbs 26:1-28
1. As snow in summer, and rain in harvest: so glory is not fitting for a fool. 2. As a bird flying to other places, and a sparrow going wherever it will: so a curse uttered without cause shall come upon someone. 3. A whip for the horse, and a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. 4. Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him. 5. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise in his own eyes. 6. He who sends a message by a foolish messenger is lame in his feet and drinks iniquity. 7. As a lame man has beautiful legs in vain: so a parable is unfitting in the mouth of fools. 8. As he who casts a stone into the heap of Mercury: so is he who gives honor to a fool. 9. As a thorn growing in the hand of a drunkard: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. 10. Judgment settles disputes: and he who imposes silence on a fool calms anger. 11. As a dog that returns to its vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly. 12. Have you seen a man wise in his own eyes? A fool has more hope than he. 13. The sluggard says: There is a lion in the road, and a lioness on the paths. 14. As a door turns on its hinge, so the sluggard in his bed. 15. The sluggard hides his hand under his arm, and it wearies him to bring it back to his mouth. 16. The sluggard considers himself wiser than seven men who speak wise sayings. 17. As one who seizes a dog by the ears, so is a passer-by who grows impatient and meddles in another's quarrel. 18. As a harmful man who shoots arrows and lances unto death: 19. so is a man who deceitfully harms his friend; and when caught, says: I was only joking. 20. When wood fails, the fire goes out: and when the whisperer is removed, quarrels cease. 21. As coals to hot embers, and wood to fire, so a hot-tempered man stirs up strife. 22. The words of a whisperer seem simple, and they reach the innermost parts of the belly. 23. As if you would adorn an earthen vessel with impure silver, so are swelling lips joined with a wicked heart. 24. An enemy is recognized by his lips, when in his heart he plots deceit. 25. When he lowers his voice, do not believe him: for seven wickednesses are in his heart. 26. He who conceals hatred deceitfully — his malice will be revealed in the assembly. 27. He who digs a pit will fall into it: and he who rolls a stone, it will return upon him. 28. A lying tongue does not love truth: and a slippery mouth works ruin.
1. AS SNOW IN SUMMER, AND RAIN IN HARVEST: SO GLORY IS NOT FITTING (others read: is unseemly) FOR A FOOL.
Symmachus and Theodotion: honor does not befit a fool; Cajetan: honor is not becoming to a fool; Vatablus: as snow is untimely in summer and rain in harvest, so the honor bestowed on a fool is untimely; the Septuagint: as dew in harvest and as rain in summer, so honor is not fitting for a fool ("is not," that is, does not befit, does not suit, as the author of the Greek Chain explains); the Arabic: as dew that falls in harvest and as rain in summer, so honor is not for a fool.
First, some explain it thus, as if to say: Just as snow falling intermittently in summer, and rain falling in harvest, does not last, nor does it satisfy the dry and thirsty land, but is immediately absorbed by it and by the heat and vanishes: so likewise glory bestowed on a fool does not last, much less does it satisfy his soul, which thirsts most eagerly for glory, but it immediately passes away and perishes, and leaves him base and inglorious. Both statements are true, but irrelevant to this passage. For it says thus: "Glory is not fitting for a fool," which is very different from saying that a fool's glory does not last, or that glory does not satisfy a fool: for many things are unseemly, and yet they do not last, nor do they satisfy fools.
Secondly, therefore, genuinely, as if to say: Just as snow in summer and rain in harvest is unseemly because it is untimely — for summer befits heat, and harvest befits dryness; but winter befits snow and rain, for these are their opportune times and congruent with nature: so likewise a fool, that is, a senseless, imprudent, vicious, and wicked man, is not befitted — that is, is dishonored — by glory, both because he is incapable of glory, and because reproach and censure are due to him, and because by praising the vicious one praises vices, and thus the zeal for wisdom and virtue is extinguished in the wise when they see the wicked preferred before themselves in the conferring of offices; indeed, the upright begin to imitate the hypocrisy, frauds, and arts of the wicked, in order to attain through them the same magistracies and dignities.
Hence Aeschines in Stobaeus, Discourse On the Republic: "Consider this," he says, "that if you confer gifts and honors on a few, and those worthy and according to the laws, you will have many striving for virtue; but if you gratify anyone who desires them, and those who have done or known nothing outstanding, you will corrupt even frugal talents." This maxim should certainly be noted by rulers.
Furthermore, glory is not fitting for a fool, not only because it is incongruous and unseemly, but also because it is harmful; for the wicked man harms himself when he abuses his glory for arrogance; he harms others when he presses down and oppresses them; and he harms the republic when he plunders it and inscribes his wickedness and vices upon it. Therefore, just as cold snow or frost, which sometimes falls at the beginning of heat and summer, kills with its cold the first flowers and budding fruits, and just as rain in harvest beats down, soaks, rots, and corrupts the ripe crops: so also honors bestowed on a fool blunt and kill in young men the first ardors of virtue, when they see that stupidity and wickedness are honored; and in mature men they corrupt the already ripe fruits of virtue, since they prefer to live for themselves and not to undertake public service, inasmuch as they see the state governed by fools — or if they do aspire to govern it, they follow the way of fools and become foolish with the foolish, and act wickedly with the wicked.
Following Solomon and the Hebrews, the Greeks forbid honor from being shown to the unworthy with this well-worn saying: "Do not wash a donkey's head with nitre." And Publilius Syrus with this maxim: "Glory in the possession of an unworthy person is in the place of ignorance." And St. Jerome to Pammachius: "On Caesar," he says, "Cicero spoke excellently: 'When he wished to adorn certain men,' he said, 'he did not honor them, but dishonored the ornaments themselves.'"
Do you want examples? Here they are. Alfonso, King of Aragon, surnamed the Wise, when a friend urged him to live in peace and pleasure and not expose himself to so many dangers, replied: "The Romans joined the temple of Honor to the temple of Virtue, into which no one was allowed to enter except through the temple of Virtue, to signify that one must strive to reach the summit of honor not by the path of pleasures, but by the path of virtue — rough and rugged though it may be." So Panormitanus, Book I On the Deeds of Alfonso. Antisthenes, when asked "what thing foretells ruin for a city," replied: "When there is no distinction between good and evil" — when, that is, neither the good are honored nor the wicked censured. For it is far worse and more unworthy to place the unfit at the helm of the republic than to put a donkey instead of a horse at the plough. So Laertius, Book VI, chapter I.
Cato the Elder used to say that "the Roman people contribute very much not only to purple but also to virtue: for just as dyers apply that color most of all which they see men take greatest delight in, so youth devotes itself especially to those studies to which the people assign honors; for honor not only nourishes the arts, but also virtue." In this way he urged the people to entrust magistracies only to those who had given proof of their virtue, and thus it would come about that very many would devote themselves to outstanding pursuits. He also said that those who defrauded virtue of its honor thereby took virtue itself away from the youth, meaning that the spirits of young men are kindled to virtue by rewards; and if you take these away, virtue itself languishes. So Plutarch in the Roman Apophthegms.
The same Cato, when seeking the censorship, seeing the other competitors as suppliants flattering the people, himself proclaimed that the people needed a stern physician and strong remedies, and therefore they should choose not the one who was most pleasant, but the one who was most inexorable. And saying this, he was elected censor ahead of all others. The people recognized their disease, and Cato prevailed more by rebuking than the others did by flattering: same source.
Augustus Caesar admonished the Roman magistrates to entrust the republic to those who had the greatest ability from practice and experience of affairs, and not to let it depend on anyone's whim. For he considered nothing more pernicious in a republic than for an inexperienced magistrate to hold power. So Xiphilinus, the abbreviator of Dio, on Augustus.
Mystically, Bede says: "This little verse warns that the honor of teaching should not be entrusted to the unlearned. For snow in summer and rains in harvest are the persecutions of unbelievers in the time of Gospel preaching, which, when they press more heavily, both impede the warmth of love in many and disfigure the fruits of good works. To these the glory bestowed on a fool is rightly declared to be similar: because if the chair of teaching is assigned to an unlearned person, the religious man) indeed lives while he is kept under the censorship of silence; but he perishes when he is opened up immoderately for speaking. to a mussel that incautiously opens itself to the sun, into which a crab first sets an ambush, and throws in a pebble so that it cannot close, and then devours its insides; then he concludes: 'The Religious man indeed lives while he is kept under the censorship of silence; but he perishes when he is opened up immoderately for speaking.'
Glory does not befit a fool, but the rod does: respond to a fool sometimes foolishly, sometimes wisely: neither an embassy nor a parable befits a fool, but silence; he who repeats folly is like a dog returning to its vomit; as a door turns on its hinge, so does a sluggard on his bed: he who meddles in a quarrel is like one who seizes a dog by the ears: he who deceitfully harms a friend says, 'I was joking': when the whisperer is removed, quarrels cease: as wood feeds fire, so an angry man stirs up strife: beware of the whisperer, the proud man, the enemy, even if he humbles himself: he who conceals hatred will be revealed: he who digs a pit will fall into it: a slippery mouth works ruin.
You may reduce the sum of all these to three headings: for first, from verse 1 to 13, he treats of the fool and folly; second, from verse 13 to 18, he treats of the sluggard and sloth; third, from verse 18 to the end, he treats of deceit and the deceitful man.
1. As snow in summer, and rain in harvest: so glory is unseemly for a fool. 2. As a bird flying to other places, and a sparrow going wherever it pleases: so a curse uttered without cause shall come upon someone. 3. A whip for the horse, and a muzzle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. 4. Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him. 5. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise in his own eyes. 6. He who sends a message by a foolish messenger is lame in his feet and drinks iniquity. 7. As a lame man has fair legs in vain: so a parable is unseemly in the mouth of fools. 8. As he who casts a stone into the heap of Mercury: so is he who gives honor to a fool. 9. As a thorn growing in the hand of a drunkard: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. 10. Judgment determines causes: and he who imposes silence on a fool mitigates anger. 11. As a dog that returns to its vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly. 12. Have you seen a man wise in his own eyes? A fool has more hope than he. 13. The sluggard says: There is a lion in the way, and a lioness in the paths. 14. As a door turns on its hinge, so the sluggard on his bed. 15. The sluggard hides his hand under his armpit, and it wearies him to bring it to his mouth. 16. The sluggard seems wiser to himself than seven men who speak wisely. 17. As he who seizes a dog by the ears, so is he who passes by impatiently and meddles in another's quarrel. 18. As a harmful man who shoots arrows and lances unto death: 19. so is the man who fraudulently harms his friend; and when he is caught, he says: I was joking. 20. When the wood fails, the fire goes out: and when the whisperer is removed, quarrels cease. 21. As coals to embers, and wood to fire, so an angry man stirs up strife. 22. The words of a whisperer seem simple, but they penetrate to the innermost parts of the belly. 23. As if you were to adorn an earthen vessel with impure silver, so are swelling lips joined with a wicked heart. 24. An enemy is understood by his lips, when in his heart he harbors deceit. 25. When he lowers his voice, do not believe him: for there are seven wickednesses in his heart. 26. He who conceals hatred fraudulently, his malice shall be revealed in the assembly. 27. He who digs a pit shall fall into it: and he who rolls a stone, it shall return upon him. 28. A lying tongue does not love truth: and a slippery mouth works ruin.
1. AS SNOW IN SUMMER, AND RAIN IN HARVEST: SO GLORY IS UNSEEMLY (others read, unbecoming) FOR A FOOL. — Symmachus and Theodotion render: honor does not befit a fool; Cajetan: honor is not beautiful for a fool; Vatablus: as snow is untimely in summer, and rain in harvest, so the honor bestowed on a fool is untimely; the Septuagint: as dew in harvest, and as rain in summer, so honor is not for a fool (is not, that is, does not befit, does not suit, as the Author of the Greek Catena explains); the Arabic: as dew which is in harvest, and as rain in summer, so honor is not for a fool.
First, some explain it thus, as if to say: As snow falling now and then in summer, and rain falling in harvest, does not last, nor satisfy the arid and thirsty earth, but is immediately absorbed by it and by the heat and vanishes: so likewise glory bestowed on a fool does not last, much less does it satisfy his soul which thirsts most for glory, but it immediately passes away and perishes, and leaves him worthless and inglorious. Both points are true, but they are irrelevant to this passage. For he says thus: 'Glory is unseemly for a fool,' which is very different from saying the fool's glory does not last, or glory does not satisfy the fool: for many things are unseemly, and yet they do not last, nor do they satisfy the foolish.
Second, therefore, in the genuine sense, as if to say: As snow in summer and rain in harvest is unbecoming, because it is inopportune — for heat befits summer, and dryness befits harvest; but snow and rain befit winter, for these are their opportune seasons and congruent with nature — so likewise glory does not befit, that is, it disgraces, a fool, that is, a senseless, imprudent, vicious, wicked man; both because he is incapable of glory, and because reproach and censure are his due, and because by praising the vicious, vices are praised, and thus the zeal for wisdom and virtue is extinguished in the wise, when they see the wicked preferred to themselves in the conferring of offices; indeed, the upright begin to imitate the hypocrisy, frauds, and arts of the wicked, in order through these to obtain their magistracies and dignities.
Hence Aeschines, as cited in Stobaeus, in the discourse On the Republic: 'Consider this,' he says, 'that if you confer gifts and honors on a few, and those who are worthy and according to the laws, you will have many striving for virtue; but if you gratify anyone who desires them, and those who have done or known nothing outstanding, you will corrupt even good talents.' This maxim is certainly noteworthy for princes.
Again, glory is unseemly for a fool, not only because it is incongruous and unbecoming, but also because it is harmful; for the wicked man harms himself when he abuses his glory for pride; he harms others when he oppresses and crushes them; and he harms the state when he plunders it and transfers his wickedness and vices to it.
Therefore, as cold snow or frost, which sometimes falls at the beginning of heat and summer, kills with its cold the first flowers and fruits just budding forth, and as rain in harvest beats down the already ripe crops, wets them, rots and corrupts them: so too honors bestowed on a fool blunt and kill in the young the first ardors of virtue, when they see foolishness and wickedness being honored; and in mature men they corrupt the already ripe fruits of virtues, since these men choose to live for themselves and not to take up public service, seeing that the state is ruled by fools; or if they do aspire to its governance, they take the path of fools and become foolish with the foolish, and act wickedly with the wicked.
Following Solomon and the Hebrews, the Greeks forbid showing honor to the unworthy with this well-worn proverb: 'Do not wash a donkey's head with lye.' And Publius Syrus with this maxim: 'Glory in the hands of the unworthy stands in place of ignorance.' And St. Jerome to Pammachius: 'Concerning Caesar,' he says, 'Cicero said excellently: When he wished to honor certain men, he did not dignify them, but rather disgraced the honors themselves.'
Do you want examples? Here they are. Alfonso, King of Aragon, surnamed the Wise, when a friend urged him to live in tranquility and pleasure and not expose himself to so many dangers, replied: 'The Romans joined the temple of honor to the temple of virtue, into which no one was permitted to enter except through the temple of virtue, to signify that one must strive toward the summit of honor not by the path of pleasures, but of virtue — that path indeed rough and rugged.' So Panormitanus, Book I of The Deeds of Alfonso. Antisthenes, when asked 'what thing portends ruin for a city,' replied: 'When there is no distinction between the good and the wicked' — namely, when neither are the good honored, nor the wicked reproached. For it is far worse and more unworthy to apply to the helm of the state than if you were to employ a donkey instead of a horse at the plow. So Laertius, Book VI, chapter 1.
Cato the Elder used to say 'that the Roman people contributed greatly not only to purple, but also to virtue: for just as dyers apply chiefly that color which they see men most delight in, so the youth devote themselves chiefly to those studies for which the people bestow honors: for honor not only nourishes the arts, but also virtue.' In this way he admonished the people to entrust magistracies only to those who had given proof of their virtue, and so it would happen that very many would apply themselves to outstanding pursuits. He also said that those who defrauded virtue of its honor were taking virtue itself away from the youth, meaning that the minds of the young are kindled to virtue by rewards; and if you take these away, virtue itself languishes. So Plutarch in the Roman Apophthegms.
The same Cato, when seeking the censorship, while he saw his other competitors being suppliant and flattering the people, declared that the people needed a stern physician and strong remedies, and therefore should elect not the one who was most pleasant, but the one who was most unsparing. And saying this, he was elected censor before all others. The people recognized their own disease, and for this reason Cato prevailed more by rebuking than the others did by flattering: same source.
Augustus Caesar admonished the Roman magistrate to entrust the republic to those who had the greatest ability through practice and experience in affairs, and not to allow it to depend on anyone's whim. For he judged that nothing was more pernicious in the republic than if a magistrate inexperienced in affairs should hold power. So Xiphilinus, the abridger of Dio, in his account of Augustus.
Mystically, Bede says: 'This verse warns that the honor of teaching should not be entrusted to the unlearned. For snow in summer, and rain in harvest, are the persecutions of unbelievers in the time of Gospel preaching, which, when they press more heavily, both hinder the warmth of love in many and spoil the fruits of good works. To these the glory conferred on a fool is rightly said to be similar: because if the chair of teaching is given to the unlearned, the Church is likewise equally harmed by this as by the persecution of unbelievers, which the calamity of the Arian tempest proved to be most true.'
2. AS A BIRD FLYING TO OTHER PLACES, AND A SPARROW GOING WHEREVER IT PLEASES: SO A CURSE UTTERED WITHOUT CAUSE SHALL COME UPON SOMEONE.
Bede, Lyranus and others prefix 'nam' (for), and instead of 'alia' (other places) read 'alta' (high places): but the Roman codices delete 'nam' and read 'alia' instead of 'alta', and this agrees better with the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek. The Hebrew literally reads thus: as a bird for wandering, and a sparrow (or swallow, as Vatablus, Pagninus, Arias, R. Solomon, R. Levi and Aben-Ezra translate) for flying: so a curse without cause shall not come.
In the Hebrew here there is a double reading: for some read לא (lo) with aleph, that is, 'it shall not come upon'; but others read לו (lo) with vav, that is, 'it shall come upon him,' so that they translate in seemingly contrary ways. Aben-Ezra connects both readings thus: Lo, he says, is written with aleph, and read without aleph with vav, to signify that the curse will fall back upon the one who uttered it, but not upon the one whom the other person had cursed.
The Regia Biblia, the Chaldean and the Septuagint read negatively, translating thus: as birds fly away and sparrows, so a vain curse (that is, one fabricated vainly and falsely) shall not come upon anyone; or, as the Author of the Greek Catena says, as birds and sparrows fly about without offending anyone, so a foolish curse attacks no one with harm. Now first, Cajetan translates and explains it thus: as it is natural for a bird to wander and for a swallow to fly: so a curse (uttered) shall not come, as if to say: A curse and calumny spoken against an innocent person without cause is like a bird flying past, because it in no way touches the innocent, but is merely a kind of beating of the air by a word that flies away.
Second, Vatablus says: as a sparrow is born to flee, and a swallow born to fly, so a curse uttered undeservedly shall not come, that is, shall not harm, as if to say: As a sparrow flees when it sees a bow or a man, so as not to be harmed, so a curse which is sent undeservedly against someone does not harm.
Third, our Salazar explains thus: Just as swallows and other birds that change regions are never overtaken by approaching winter: so too innocent and harmless men are never affected by curses, reproaches, insults, or abuse. For just as those birds, flying ahead to sunny places, free themselves from the injuries of the seasons: so too these men, taking refuge (if I may say so) in innocence and uprightness, easily avoid the insults, injuries, and reproaches inflicted upon them.
You will object: The swallow in winter changes its region, but not the sparrow, which remains in its place. The answer is:
The word 'sparrow' is often taken generally for any bird by synecdoche. Again: the sparrow in winter, even though it does not change its region, nevertheless changes its cold location for a warm one; for it dwells in warm caves and holes, where it hides itself to keep warm.
Fourth, the Chaldean translates: as a sparrow that flies, and as a bird that flies, so a curse shall not come in vain upon the one to whom it is owed; the Syriac: as a bird that flies, and a sparrow that wanders, so a curse shall not come without cause upon him, that is, upon the undeserving — namely, the innocent and blameless.
Some think there is an allusion to quarrelsome and combative birds, such as sparrows, hawks, and roosters, and that therefore curses, quarrels, and bickering are rightly compared to them, as if to say: As a quarrelsome bird, for example a sparrow flying about everywhere, shrieks and stirs up fights and battles, by which it afflicts and injures both itself and others: so likewise curses, insults, and bickering, which the cursing and quarrelsome sow everywhere, afflict both others and the cursers themselves; for insult is repaid with insult, and blow with blow.
Trees are found from whose sap, leaves, trunk, and branches birds are born, biting with their beaks anyone they encounter. So Vincent in the Mirror of Natural History, Book VIII, chapter 40; Olaus, Book XIX, chapter 16; Ortelius on Scotland and Ireland. They are not born like other birds from egg and incubation, but spontaneously from trees without any pre-existing matter capable, in others' judgment, of producing birds. Not otherwise are found some people who, like these trees, without any occasion give birth, as it were, to birds of quarrel and contention about matters that are none of their business.
Furthermore, Pierius, Hieroglyphics 24, reports that birds are incited to fighting and contending by being given garlic as food, which is cheap but sharp and biting: so by a slight and cheap thing, namely a single word, but a sharp and biting one, the quarrelsome are stirred up to brawls and disputes. Hence the saying: 'Do not eat garlic.'
But our translator renders it affirmatively: 'As a bird flying to other places, and a sparrow going wherever it pleases: so a curse uttered without cause shall come upon someone,' in Hebrew, 'shall come upon him.' So also Bede, Baynus, Jansenius and others generally. By 'curse' understand reproach, insult, and any kind of injury; for this is what 'maledictum' means in Sirach 22:30, and chapter 29, verse 9, and often elsewhere, as I explained there. Bede understands it as an imprecation of evil. of the listener. But they differ in this: it can happen that a bird flying anywhere settles in a place where nothing of any particular necessity or use awaits it; but the words we speak, scattered in any direction, do not flow away and vanish in the wind, but all return to their author, and either, if well spoken, help the speaker, or, if badly uttered, weigh him down. For the abusive shall not possess the kingdom of God.'
He then adds: 'But not without reason does he say, a curse uttered without cause. For there is a curse emitted according to the wrath of divine strictness against the wicked, such as that of Blessed Peter against Simon Magus: May your money perish with you; and those anathemas which are pronounced against apostates and heretics by Ecclesiastical censure, of which the Lord says to the same Church: Whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven,' Matthew 16.
Thus the curse of Elisha, hurled with prophetic authority against the impious boys mocking him, was efficacious, and delivered the boys to be devoured by bears, 2 Kings 2:24; such a curse, therefore, does not behave like a bird flying away, but like a sword that cuts, or rather like a thunderbolt that strikes down.
Second, 'the curse shall come upon thus,' namely 'like a bird flying past,' so that it does not touch the one against whom it is uttered, or if it touches him, it does not stick, but flies away and passes over like a bird; thus it shall come upon, so as to fly past and fly over, and so the original splendor and glory of his reputation shall immediately return.
This meaning is very apt; for the whole force resides in the words 'as' and 'so'; for it is a comparison in which the flying curse is likened to a bird flying unstably here and there, and immediately flying from one place to another; for thus the curse flies past. Therefore:
A mind conscious of right laughs at the lies of rumor.
For the Lord at last brings forth the justice of the pious as light, and their judgment as the noonday, as it says in Psalm 36:6.
Hence rightly Titus, son of Vespasian, hearing that certain people had spoken ill of him, said: 'Since I do nothing worthy for which I should suffer insult, I care nothing for lies.' And St. Augustine, in his letter to Secundinus: 'Think of Augustine whatever you like: only let my conscience not accuse me before God.'
Third, a curse rashly uttered, and cast generally as if into the air, shall come upon someone, that is, it will strike someone, will wound someone's spirit, who will then show himself injured, and hurl back curses or even blows at the one who cursed him; so that by this maxim Solomon warns the garrulous who are prone to mockery, taunts, and insults, which they hurl at anyone, to abstain from these, and not think they are cast into the air, but know that some people are struck and wounded by them, who will seek vengeance from the one who cursed. This interpretation is favored by the Syriac version: As a sparrow and a winged creature fly in the air: so a curse wanders if it roams, so as to strike and afflict this one or that one at random, like stray lightning, which strikes, blasts, and incinerates this one or that one.
From what has been said, it is clear that whether you read it affirmatively, 'it shall come upon,' or negatively, 'it shall not come upon,' it amounts to the same thing, or at least the meaning converges on the same point.
3. A WHIP FOR THE HORSE, AND A MUZZLE FOR THE DONKEY, AND A ROD FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS.
For 'muzzle' the Hebrew is meteg, that is, a bridle, restraint, rein, and strap, whether inserted in the mouth or tied around the face and neck, by which the animal is restrained and guided, so that it does not go where it pleases. Such a rein for the donkey is a strap, or a rope tied to the donkey's head. 'Camus' is a Greek word, kemos, meaning the same thing, but in various modes and forms: for 'camus' is the name for a small basket of wicker, or a small net woven of cords, which grooms place around the mouths of horses, mules, and donkeys, with barley, oats, or hay placed in it, so that the horses, mules, and donkeys do not stop on the journey to seek pasture.
Again, the 'camus' is a halter by which the mouths of horses and donkeys are tied so they do not bite, or so they do not crop sprouts. Moreover, the 'camus' is a bridle, lasso, or rope, which is tied to the neck and head of a donkey, so that it can be guided by the rider. Finally, the Septuagint, the Chaldean, and the Syriac translate the Hebrew meteg as 'goad'; for they read thus: a whip for the horse and a goad for the donkey: so a rod for a wicked nation; Lucifer renders: for a foolish nation; Aquila: for the body of a madman.
The sense therefore is, as if to say: As horses and donkeys are governed by whip and bridle, so fools must be chastised and governed by the rod, so that they walk vigorously on the straight path of virtue. However, for elegance he assigns the whip to the horse and the muzzle (that is, the bridle) to the donkey, because horses wonderfully fear the lash or whip, to the point that by merely brandishing and threatening it they are spurred to run; but donkeys, because they are wandering and stupid, need a bridle — namely a strap or rope tied to the head — so that they may be directed by the rider to walk straight, lest they turn aside or stray from the path, because being lazy they need a muzzle to be dragged along. The same animals gape after grass and pasture; therefore by bridle and halter they must be called away from it, so that, leaving off grazing, they proceed on their journey. Similarly, the fool, because he is as wandering and stupid as he is lazy, must be driven by the rod of correction to walk diligently in the pursuit of prudence and virtue. By the same rod he must be restrained from the gluttony and pleasures he craves, so that, torn away from these, he may proceed vigorously in the pursuit of virtue. Therefore the whip denotes incitement to good, the muzzle restraint from evil, both of which are necessary for the fool.
Add that donkeys in Syria and Palestine are far livelier and nobler than ours, and resemble horses and mules, and therefore need a muzzle and bridle. For this reason we read that the sons of the Judges and princes of Israel rode on donkeys. See Abdon, Judges 12:14: 'He had,' it says, 'forty sons and thirty grandsons from them, riding on seventy donkey colts.' And Christ the Lord, as the Messiah King of Israel about to be inaugurated in Jerusalem, entered it in triumph
So also Rosenmuller: As a sparrow (or any small bird) is made for wandering, and a swallow for flying, so a curse uttered without cause against someone shall not come upon him — that is, upon the one against whom it is uttered — but will quickly depart from him, like a sparrow or swallow. The reading לו, which the Masoretes command to be read, yields no sense. entered riding on a donkey on Palm Sunday, Matthew chapter 21. Here the saying of Seneca is apt: 'A noble horse is guided by the shadow of the rod; a sluggish one is not roused even by spurs.'
Others respond differently, namely that the words here are transposed by metathesis, and therefore should be restored to their proper order thus: As a muzzle, that is a bridle, befits the horse, and a whip is fitting for the donkey: so also a rod suits the back of fools. For the wantonness of horses must be checked by a bridle, while the slowness of donkeys must be incited by a whip. The fool needs both, since, like a horse, he is wanton and runs toward vices; but like a donkey, he is slow toward virtues: therefore his slowness must be spurred by the rod, and his wantonness checked by the same.
Our Salazar explains it yet differently, as if to say: Correction and punishments inflicted on a fool — if the fool is headstrong and fierce like a horse — only incite him further and make him more headlong and fierce toward vices; but if he is sluggish with torpor and inertia like a donkey, punishment only makes him more inert and sluggish.
Symbolically, Bede says: 'What does the horse represent but the proud man? And what does the donkey represent but any lustful person? And therefore it is necessary that by the divine whip the pride of the proud be humbled, and that by the weakness of the flesh, as by a muzzle, the will of the unchaste be restrained; so that those who refuse to convert willingly may be compelled by scourges to turn from vices, as the Prophet says: With bit and bridle bind their jaws, those who do not draw near to You.'
I have said more about this rod at chapter 23, verse 13, and Sirach 33:25, on those words: 'Food, and a rod, and a burden for the donkey: bread, and discipline, and work for the slave.'
4. DO NOT ANSWER A FOOL ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY, LEST YOU BECOME LIKE HIM.
In Hebrew: lest you become equal to him. For, as Plato says in the Dialogue on Love: 'The wise man stands a whole head above the fool.' The Septuagint: do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him. Instead of כאולתו (keiuvalto), that is 'according to his folly,' Cajetan and others read באולתו (beiuvalto), that is 'in his folly'; for the letters כ and ב are neighboring and related. The proverb of the Arabs is apt here: 'Be an olive alongside a thorn bush — that is, be wise alongside a fool, and of sound mind alongside a madman.'
5. ANSWER A FOOL ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY, LEST HE SEEM WISE IN HIS OWN EYES.
In Hebrew: lest he be wise in his own eyes; the Septuagint: but answer a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise to himself; the Chaldean: but speak with a fool in his wisdom, lest he think himself wise; the Syriac: address a fool according to your wisdom, etc.; St. Cyprian, in the book On the Singularity of Clerics: answer a fool against his foolishness. For the Greek κατά means not only 'according to' or 'in accordance with,' but also 'against.'
First, in general, you may reconcile and explain these two maxims, seemingly contradictory to each other, with St. Jerome, Book I on Ezekiel: 'Both,' he says, 'are harmonized according to the diversity of times and persons: the fool is despised because he does not receive wisdom; and foolish pride is beaten down by another foolishness, according to what the Apostle says in 2 Corinthians 12: "I have become foolish; you compelled me."' The meaning therefore is, as if to say: There is a time when one should not answer a fool according to his folly — namely, when, if you reply foolishly to one who speaks foolishly, you will seem to become foolish with him, or you will incur the charge of folly among the prudent. There is again a time when one should answer a fool according to his folly — namely, when he becomes insolent and imagines himself wiser than others; for then his foolish presumption must be beaten back, lest it harm him and his hearers, and this must be done by answering him according to his folly, that is, by chastising his foolishness with foolishness.
Thus we demolish the foolish questions of heretics with an equally foolish response or opposition, and expose them to the ridicule of others. The saying of Cato is apt here:
Be foolish when the time or the situation demands it: To feign foolishness at the right moment is the highest prudence.
I shall presently add examples. Thus St. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11, praises himself lavishly, because the false apostles were exalting themselves and disparaging Paul: against these, therefore, he is compelled to praise himself, in order to defend his authority against them. 'Would that you could bear with a little of my foolishness,' he says; and chapter 12, verse 11: 'I have become foolish,' he says, 'you compelled me.' For it is foolish to praise oneself; but Paul adopted this foolishness wisely, because by it he demolished the foolishness, that is, the self-praise of the false apostles.
Thus Melania the Elder, imprisoned by the prefect of Palestine in the hope of money, said: 'I am indeed the daughter of that man, and the wife of this one, who was illustrious by birth on earth; but now I am a handmaid of Christ. See that you do not stir up my people against you. For one must use pride of spirit against the foolish, as one uses dog and hawk, and in the time of their arrogance unleash it against them.' Whereupon the terrified prefect made his excuses and paid her reverence. So Palladius in the Lausiac History, chapter 117.
Therefore the pride of fools must be beaten back by the pride of the wise, so that they may be restrained from injury by fear of the world, since they do not fear Christ. For worldly people are moved by light and foolish arguments, not by solid and wise ones; just as children are excited by shadows, not realities, by an apple, not gold, by a rod, not a sword. Their foolishness, then, is knocked down by similar foolishness, and as one nail drives out another, since they neither grasp nor care for wisdom. In the same way, you will persuade a miser of whatever you wish — for example, frequent holy confession and communion — not by eternal arguments, promising him the kingdom of heaven, but by cheap and temporal arguments, promising him earthly riches; and a glutton, by promising him a fine table; a proud man, by promising him honors, etc. Therefore a prudent man will answer not according to his own wisdom, but according to their foolishness. In short: answer a fool aptly, teaching him according to his capacity; do not answer a fool by imitating his foolishness: thus he will cease to be foolish, and you will not become so.
Second, more specifically, as if to say: There is a time when one ought not to correct a fool in his foolishness — for example, when he is seething with anger or madness; for whoever corrects him then will be considered imprudent and foolish, because he does not observe the opportune time for correction. There is again a time when one ought to correct him — namely, when his folly, that is, his anger and passion, has subsided, and he is capable of correction. For just as remedies must be applied to the body, so correction must be applied to the soul only at the proper time; otherwise it will not cure the disease, but only irritate it.
The counterpart to Solomon's maxim is the proverb of the Arabs: 'Cover your merchandise with honey, and throw it into a cistern of mud — that is, win the hearts of fools with sweet speech.'
Third, and entirely in the genuine sense, as if to say: Do not speak foolishly with a fool, lest you become like him and equal to him, so that you become foolish with the foolish; for this is the reason Solomon adds — for example, when a fool babbles foolish, insane, dishonest, erroneous things, etc., take care not to babble similar things; when he assails you with reproaches and curses, take care not to hurl similar things back at him: for in that way you will make yourself like him in vice. Nevertheless answer a fool according to his folly, that is, wisely correct his senselessness, anger, buffoonery, insults, errors, etc., and refute him with reason, so that he may recognize his folly, and having recognized it, correct it, especially if there is danger that the same may infect others.
Hence Lyranus notes that the preposition 'according to' is understood differently in each case: in the first verse it signifies imitation, in the second it signifies what the situation demands, as if to say: Do not imitate the foolish sayings of a fool, lest you become foolish, that is, senseless and wicked; 'yet answer a fool according to his folly,' that is, refute his foolishness with sound and powerful arguments as his folly demands, so that it may be shown to him, and he himself may see it and amend.
Hence Cajetan, reading in the first instance beiuvalto, that is 'in his folly'; and in the second keiuvalto, that is 'according to his folly,' translates: do not answer a fool in his folly, lest you become like him; but answer a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise to himself. And Vatablus says: 'If you speak to a fool who is babbling foolish things, do not you also babble foolish things; if he assails you with reproaches, do not repay him evil for evil; yet rebuke the fool for his foolishness,' that is, 'show him his foolishness.'
So also R. Levi: Do not answer a fool. When a fool, he says, accuses you of something because of the madness with which he is afflicted, do not respond at all, since it is unseemly for you to lend your ears to his frenzied speeches. Lest you become like him, if you value his words so as to let yourself be moved or disturbed by them — that would be your own madness. Answer a fool. Answer a fool so as to recall him from the error in which he labors in matters of wisdom. Lest he seem wise to himself. When, seized by such an error, he cherishes in his mind an opinion alien to the truth, you must not resort to silence, since it is worthwhile to remove stumbling blocks from the sight of mortals as much as you can.
So also Salonius, Bede, Jansenius, Baynus, R. Solomon, Aben-Ezra and others generally. The saying of Cicero against Sallust is apt here: 'I must consider not what Sallust deserves to hear, but that I say only what I can honorably utter.' Finally, St. Cyprian, in his letter to Demetrian, holds that one should not answer a fool with silence — we should by our silence despise and suppress his foolish talk, just as passers-by check a dog's barking not by barking back, but by passing silently. Rather, one should answer him not with argument, but with sharp reproof or punishment and blows; for fools are corrected only by blows. For he writes thus:
'You who bark and rage against God, who is one and true, with sacrilegious mouth and impious words — I had often disdained you, Demetrian, thinking it better to scorn the ignorance of an erring man with silence than to provoke the insanity of a madman by speaking. Nor was I doing this without the authority of divine teaching and the Name, since it is written: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him.' He adds the reason: 'For since you often came to me more from a desire to contradict than from a wish to learn, and resounding with clamorous voices you preferred to thrust your opinions upon me rather than to hear mine patiently; it seemed pointless to engage with you, when it would be easier and simpler to beat back the raging waves of a stormy sea with shouts than to restrain your fury with discussion. Certainly it is wasted labor and no result at all to offer light to a blind man, speech to a deaf man, wisdom to a brute, since a brute cannot feel, nor a blind man admit light, nor a deaf man hear.'
The same St. Cyprian, in the treatise On the Singularity of Clerics, reads and explains the latter maxim of Solomon thus from the Septuagint: 'Such men therefore (namely fools) must be overcome not by argument, but by reproof. For against such men Solomon teaches us, saying: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him; but answer a fool against his folly, that he may not seem wise in his own eyes.'
Thus Christ, when the Jews foolishly tried to catch Him in His speech, and asked whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, after their showing Him Caesar's image on the coin, wisely answered according to their folly: 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,' Matthew 22:21. He did the same in rebuking the stupidity of the Pharisees, Matthew 23, the whole chapter; and in disputing with the dull Jews and Scribes, John chapter 5:19, and chapter 6:43, and 7:27, and chapter 8:12 and following.
And St. Paul rebuked Elymas the magician, who foolishly resisted his preaching, according to his folly, and struck him with blindness: 'O full of all deceit,' he said, 'and all fraud, child of the devil, enemy of all righteousness, you do not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord. And now behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind,' Acts 13:10.
Indeed, the devil also wisely confounded the folly of the Jewish exorcists who foolishly wished, like Paul, to cast out demons in the name of Jesus: 'Jesus I know,' he said, 'and Paul I know; but who are you? And leaping upon them, etc., he prevailed against them, so that they fled from that house naked and wounded,' Acts 19:12. The same thing happened in this age to Luther when he tried to expel a demon. So too the schoolmaster of Orthodox Antioch, when foolishly asked by Libanius the sophist, a friend of Julian the Apostate: 'What is the carpenter's son doing (for thus he mockingly called Christ the Lord)?' wisely answered his foolishness: 'He is building a coffin for Julian.' And he was a true prophet: for shortly afterwards Julian was killed and carried to the tomb in a coffin. So Theodoret, Book III of the History, chapter 18.
And Maris, Bishop of Chalcedon, reproaching Julian for his apostasy, when he was stupidly mocked by him as a blind man and heard: 'Your Galilean will not heal you,' prudently retorted according to his foolishness: 'I thank God that I am blind, so that I need not look upon you, an apostate, with my eyes.' So Sozomenus, Book V, chapter 4.
St. Basil, foolishly reproved by Demosthenes, the cook of the Arian Emperor Valens, because he believed and taught such doctrines, smiled and wisely answered the fool: 'Today we have seen an illiterate Demosthenes: your business is to attend to the seasoning of broths, for since your ears are filled with filth, you cannot hear sacred doctrines.' So Theodoret, Book IV, chapter 17.
Amusingly, but wrongly, recently in Belgium a certain Franciscan friar, mocked by an insolent heretic and struck with a slap, when the heretic foolishly objected that he should offer the other cheek to be struck — for it is written, he said: 'If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, offer him the other also,' Matthew 5:39, and you with your kind profess to be literal keepers of the Gospel — the shrewd and vigorous friar at once wisely and forcefully demolished his foolishness; for knocking him to the ground, he pummeled him with his fists, saying: It is likewise written: 'With whatever measure you measure, it shall be measured back to you.' When a third party came along and tried to separate them, he said: 'Let me be, for I am teaching this heretic to understand properly the Sacred Scriptures which he foolishly cited. For it is written: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise in his own eyes.'
6. HE WHO SENDS A MESSAGE BY A FOOLISH MESSENGER IS LAME IN HIS FEET AND DRINKS INIQUITY.
In Hebrew: cutting off feet, drinking robbery, sending words by the hand of a fool; the Regia: shortening feet; Vatablus: he cuts off feet and drinks violence, who entrusts something to a fool; the Chaldean: he who runs with his feet, drinking iniquity: such is he who sends words by the hand of a fool. The Septuagint: he brings reproach upon himself from his own ways, who sends words by a foolish messenger; Procopius: he brings reproach upon himself from his own feet, etc.; the Syriac: from under his feet he drinks iniquity, who sends a foolish messenger. For 'iniquity' the Hebrew is חמס (chamas), that is, force, robbery, violence, tyranny, iniquity, injustice, reproach, damage: it is taken both actively for the robbery that one commits, and passively for the ruin, injury, and reproach that one suffers.
Thus in Job 15:16, it is said of the wicked man: 'Who drinks iniquity like water'; and in chapter 34:7: 'He drinks mockery like water' — that is, he is spoken ill of, ridiculed, and mocked by all. For 'lame in foot,' our translator reads מקצה (mekutse), which is a passive pual participle, meaning 'cut off,' as Pagninus translates, or 'cut in the foot,' that is, lame: for he whose sinews and tendons of the knees have been cut is necessarily lame and limps. But others more vigorously, with different vowel points, read מקצה (mekatse), which is an active piel participle, meaning 'cutting off' or 'chopping off' feet, as the others already cited translate.
Note: A master and servant, a principal and agent, a sender and the one sent — namely a messenger or legate — are regarded as one in economic terms, and are counted in civil law as one and the same person, because the servant, agent, and one sent acts entirely by the commission and direction of his master, principal, and sender; therefore what one does, errs, or sins in, the other is also considered to do, err, and sin in. Hence Solomon here speaks of the sender and the messenger sent together, as if of one and the same person, even though one epithet fits one better, and the other the other. For 'lame' better fits the messenger; but 'drinking iniquity' better fits the sender; but because these two are civilly one, what fits one is attributed to the other as well.
He cuts off his own feet, drinks injury — that is, he brings all manner of harm upon himself — who sends words, that is commands, by the hand of a fool.
The meaning therefore is, as if to say: He who sends a foolish messenger to carry out his affairs will fare as if he had sent one who was lame in his feet — that is, slow, feeble, inept, and powerless: for a fool cannot carry out affairs prudently, and so he will do many things imprudently, will provoke many against himself and against the master who sent him, and will rashly say and do many things that will be attributed to the sender, so that the sender will seem to drink the copious iniquity of the messenger, and consequently will suffer the deserved penalties, reproaches, and losses of the same. For even supposing the messenger accurately reports what was entrusted to him, yet if he is cross-examined on those matters, he will not be consistent, but will waver as if limping in both directions, and will blurt out many other things and do things that will bring infamy and losses upon his master. Moreover, he will allow himself to be deceived, and to have a thousand tricks and lies imposed upon him.
Hence R. Levi says: He drinks iniquity, he says, on account of those things which the fool reports. This happens for a twofold reason: first, because the fool does not relay the messages as he was ordered; from which it will happen that responses favorable to the sender are not returned, nor those consistent with what had been proposed. And therefore the sender will appear unjust to the one to whom the embassy was sent, even though he is free of crime and fault: for this was the result of the legate's folly. Second, because the fool does not report back the responses as instructed by the one giving the answer, and therefore negotiations will be entangled with difficulties and will lack the corresponding goodwill. So says R. Levi.
Therefore 'lame in his feet' is attributed collectively to the sender and the messenger sent: properly, however, it belongs to the messenger, but is transferred to the sender, because what the one sent does, the sender is considered to do; and because the sender is considered to limp as much in mind — that is, to waver in judgment and be senseless — as in foot, who sends a fool whose mind wavers more than his foot; and because he must be lame — that is, unable to handle his own affairs — who has no one but a lame man, that is a fool, to send.
Now more vigorously others read and translate: he cuts off or chops off the feet — namely, the sender does this to the messenger he sends, as if to say, as Vatablus puts it: He who entrusts words or important business to a foolish man to deliver to another is like someone who, in order to send a person somewhere, cuts off his feet — that is, he sends someone who either will never reach the one to whom he is sent; or if he does reach him, will handle or present the matter badly; and therefore whatever mistakes or offenses he commits, the sender will be forced to swallow and devour.
Aben-Ezra and Cajetan add that he who sends a fool cuts off and chops off not only the fool's feet but also his own, because just as one who cuts off his own feet deprives himself of the ability to walk, so too one who conducts his affairs through a fool deprives himself of the ability to carry them out himself; for the fool so entangles and perverts them that they can scarcely be disentangled and restored to their original state by anyone. The same person also drinks iniquity, because the unjust deeds and actions of the fool he sends, and the reproach and penalties for them, are transferred to him as the one who sent him.
Furthermore, R. Solomon extends 'cutting off the foot' to any kind of business agents, as if to say: He who employs the services of a fool in embassies cuts off the feet of many, which he must then replace, in order to repair the business badly handled by the first legate. The same person drinks iniquity, because even friends become angry on account of the fool's embassy.
Our Salazar more subtly judges that 'cutting off the foot' signifies the punishment and regret of the sending, as if to say: The master, as punishment for having sent the fool from his service, will exact this penalty from himself for his mistake — he will cut off his own foot, that is, beat and bloody it, wishing to punish the limbs that brought him harm: for when he could have moved his own feet to get the business done, their laziness or inertia gave rise to calamity or misfortune.
The Septuagint translates: he brings reproach upon himself from his own ways, who sends words by a foolish messenger; so the Author of the Greek Catena; because a foolish legate is a reproach to the sender: for he who sends a fool is himself considered foolish, because he seems to approve the foolish words, deeds, and mistakes of the messenger he sent. Procopius says: he brings reproach upon himself from his own feet; for both the one sent and the sender limp in their feet, and much more in their mind, and therefore is mocked more than one who limps on his feet, of whom the Poet says:
Let the straight man mock the bandy-legged, the white man the Ethiopian.
Mystically, Bede says: 'He who knowingly sends a heretic to preach to the people is lame in his feet and drinking iniquity, because he has both lost the step of good works and intoxicates the interior of his mind by drinking in foolishness.'
Mystically, likewise Blessed Peter Damian, Book I, letter 18, explains this maxim concerning those who promote unworthy men to prelacies: 'He is lame in his feet and drinks iniquity, who sends words by a foolish messenger. By which words,' he says, 'what else seems to be expressed, except that the office of preaching should not be committed to one who is carnally wise, and therefore foolish? For of holy preachers it is said: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach peace, who preach good things! And so any ordainer of the Church, if he places worthy and suitable men in office, walks as if on straight feet. For through them he runs about everywhere spreading the word, and what he cannot do by himself, he strives to accomplish effectively through them. But if he presumes to ordain carnal and reprobate men, he walks lame in his feet. He is also said to drink iniquity: because when he sends the words of holy preaching through a foolish messenger, and against the Apostle's teaching hastily lays on hands, he shares in the sins of others. For even if someone speaks prudently, if he does not himself do what he says, he is not undeservedly judged lame on the spiritual journey.' So Peter Damian.
7. AS A LAME MAN HAS FAIR LEGS IN VAIN: SO A PARABLE IS UNSEEMLY IN THE MOUTH OF FOOLS.
For 'parable' the Hebrew is משל (maschal), that is, 'dominating,' meaning an illustrious, learned, weighty, sharp saying, especially an ethical one, which shapes the morals of men to prudence and virtue, such as these sayings of Solomon; see what was said at chapter 1, verse 1. The Hebrew therefore reads thus: 'The legs are lifted up from the lame man, and (that is, so is) a parable in the mouth of fools.' For 'lifted up' the Hebrew is דליו (daleiu), which is an imperative from דלה (dala), meaning 'draw up, lift up, exalt,' used ironically, as if to say: you will lift them in vain. Or rather it is an indicative meaning: the legs of the lame man are lifted up or unequal; for one of his legs is higher than the other, like one bucket being higher than the other when they draw water from a well — for one is lowered while the other is raised. 'Lifted up,' therefore, means the legs of the lame man are unequal, as Pagninus, Baynus, and others translate. Others translate: they are exhausted, that is, the legs of the lame man have withered or dried up.
First, therefore, some translate and explain from the Hebrew as if it means that a parable, that is, a wise and weighty saying, is not found in the mouth of a fool, just as a straight gait is not found in the lame: for just as the lame man limps when walking, so the fool reveals his imprudence and inconsistency when speaking. Hence the Chaldean translates: if you gave walking to the lame man, you would receive a word from the mouth of a fool. The Septuagint: better the step of legs and a parable (for this is what the Greek παροιμίαν means, as the Complutensian edition and the Author of the Greek Catena have it; others less correctly read παρανομίαν, that is, iniquity) from the mouth of fools — that is, as Symmachus clearly puts it: the legs have failed the lame man, and so has the parable in the mouth of a fool; Vatablus: the legs of the lame man have dried up, etc.
Second, others translate and explain it thus, as if to say: 'The legs have been taken away from the lame man: so are parables in the mouth of a fool,' as if to say: What a body is without legs, that is what a parable is without understanding in the mouth of a fool. Aben-Ezra approaches this, translating: will the lame man's legs lift up and rise, when he lacks feet? As if to say: 'A proverb without understanding is like a body lacking feet. Or just as the legs of the lame man are wasted, so a parable without understanding is feeble and weak.'
Third, Solomon says, as if to say: Just as to a lame man the legs of any other man seem higher than his own, so to a fool a parable and wisdom seem higher than himself, so that he cannot raise himself to it or grasp it.
Fourth, Vatablus says, as if to say: Lift up and set the lame man on his feet; still, he will not for that reason walk straight or control his steps; rather, he will immediately fall and collapse. In the same way, if a most elegant and very acute parable is placed in the mouth of a foolish and stupid man, he will not for that reason proceed in his thinking and climb from what he has received to other insights; but he will immediately waver, and slipping into more absurd things will collapse.
Fifth, and better, others translate: lifted up, that is, unequal and therefore unseemly are the legs of the lame man, and so is a parable in the mouth of fools; which our translator clearly renders: as a lame man has fair legs in vain, so a parable is unseemly in the mouth of fools — as if to say: Just as fair legs do not adorn a lame man but dishonor him, and expose him to the laughter of onlookers, because he does not know how to use them and walk straight, but abuses them in a limping gait that seems ridiculous and provokes laughter: so likewise a parable, that is, a wise and weighty saying, does not befit or adorn a fool, but disgraces him, because he does not know how to use it rightly, but ridicules it to suit his own folly, and this first of all because he utters it not at the right time and fittingly, but at an inopportune time and in an inappropriate place.
Thus Sirach explains Solomon in chapter 20, verse 22, saying: 'A parable will be rejected from the mouth of a fool; for he does not speak it in its proper time.' See what was said there.
Second, because just as a lame man cannot properly use fair legs, so a fool cannot properly use a fair parable, both because he adds something to it or takes something away, says R. Levi, and because he does not know how to apply it correctly, but unfairly and clumsily accommodates it to a subject to which it should not be applied, and in a manner in which it should not be.
Third, just as a lame man, even though he has fair legs, still walks unevenly, because one leg is shorter than the other, and therefore limps along hopping, now raising the longer foot, now lowering the shorter one: so likewise, even though some wise speech may be in the mouth of fools, it does not agree with their other words; but they walk and limp on unequal legs, as it were, since after uttering something wise, they revert to their nonsense and follies. The foolishness of the fool therefore cuts the sinews of wise speech, when after it he tacks on incoherent, inept, and disjointed things that do not hang together, and which, as they say, touch neither heaven nor earth. Therefore just as a man is monstrous whose limbs are unequal or lack proper proportion, so the speech of a fool is monstrous, whose parts are unequal and lack proper proportion.
Thus Cicero, in On Famous Orators, noting a certain man who mixed the inept with the elegant: 'His delivery,' he says, 'limped somewhat, both from a defect of voice and also from absurdities.' The Arabic proverb is apt here, Century 1, number 20: 'Do not imprison a peacock and a dove together — that is, do not be now composed, now dissolute; now grave, now light and insolent;' as fools do, who at one moment walk grave and composed in their sayings and words like peacocks, and at the next flutter about light and ridiculous like doves.
Fourth, Baynus says: A parable, that is, a learned and elegant speech in the mouth of a fool, when it disagrees with his life and actions, limps indecently. For the two legs of the soul, as it were, are speech and action; and therefore when the speech is lofty but the action base, an exceedingly unseemly limping and shameful wavering of feet occurs, to which the saying of Elijah can be applied: 'How long will you limp between two sides? If the Lord is God, follow Him; if Baal, follow him,' 3 Kings 18.
Therefore this maxim can be hurled against those in whose mouth the Gospel is always present, and who preach it to others by office, while they lead a wicked life — all of whom the Wise Man calls fools. For this holy preaching is unseemly for them, since they are neither adorned by it nor adorn it, but by the disparity of their words and deeds they dishonor it as much as they can — entirely like lame men who have fair legs indeed, but do not walk fairly with them: for they too limp on two sides, preaching God with their mouth and the world with their life. So Bede, Jansenius, and others.
Rosenmuller: the lifting of legs, the hopping, which the lame man does, and a parable, that is a sententious saying, in the mouth of fools: both provoke laughter. Maurer: loose, languid, hanging (third person plural past tense of the verb דלה) are the legs of the lame man, and a maxim in the mouth of fools is inept.
Hence aptly Blessed Peter Damian, Book I, letter 18, explains this maxim about preachers who live wickedly: 'As a lame man has fair legs in vain,' he says, 'so a parable is unseemly in the mouth of fools. He plainly leans upon fair legs who shines with the brilliance of eloquent speech; but when without good works he corrupts polished eloquence, he advances the proper structure of words without, as it were, taking a step. He has fair legs, as it were, for appearance, but they are useless for walking — one who, entangled by the gout-like snares of vices, himself shamefully limps while he invites others to walk nimbly. In the mouth of such fools, therefore, a parable is unseemly, because while they sound spiritual and live carnally, their life does not agree with their lips: so that their correct preaching does not free those who speak honorably but live dishonorably, but rather the biting conscience vehemently accuses them.'
8. AS HE WHO CASTS A STONE INTO THE HEAP OF MERCURY: SO IS HE WHO GIVES HONOR TO A FOOL.
'Fool' here should be understood both physically, that is, demented and stupid; and ethically, that is, vicious and wicked.
For 'the heap of Mercury' the Hebrew is מרגמה (margema), which derives from רגם (ragam), that is, to stone, to cast stones, or to overwhelm with stones; hence it is translated in four ways: first, a heap of stones; second, purple; third, a sling; fourth, the heap of Mercury. From this arise four versions. First, the Hebrews generally interpret margema as a heap of stones, as if to say: Just as one who throws a stone, especially a beautiful, polished, or precious one, into a common heap of stones does something useless — for one stone, even if precious, among a heap of so many stones has neither number nor value; indeed, it neither appears nor is recognized — so likewise one who gives honor to a fool does something useless; for he loses the honor by placing it in one who is unworthy, where it has neither value nor dignity: for honor has its value in a wise and virtuous person.
Again, as if to say: He who bestows a magistracy on a fool confounds and upsets the whole republic, and makes it like a heap of stones, which is nothing other than a rough and undigested mass of stones mixed and confused without law and without order: for such is the confusion of all things in a state when fools, who ought to be governed, are in charge; while the wise, whose role it is to govern, are subordinate. This heap may also be called a heap of Mercury: for since in ancient times many heaps were dedicated to Mercury, the usage seems to have spread so that any heap of stones was called Mercury's; for sacred names have often been transferred to profane things by popular usage.
Some sharpen this explanation by understanding the heap of stones as a common burial ground or place of burial for corpses; for people used to heap stones upon these: the graves and tombs of common people had a pile of stones; hence the verse of Virgil:
Under this mound of stones lies Balista buried.
Thus the sense will be, as if to say: Just as if you throw a stone into a burial ground, it does not adorn the place but is defiled by the place: so if you give honor to a fool, it does not adorn him but is defiled by him, according to the saying of Cicero which I cited at verse 1: 'When Caesar wished to adorn certain men, he did not dignify them, but rather disgraced the honors themselves.'
Others further sharpen this heap of stones more finely, and narrow it to the funereal heap of stones that was designated for this purpose: that those condemned to stoning would be overwhelmed by it; for so that those about to stone them would have stones at hand, they made a pile from which to take them. Therefore this heap was abominable to the Jews. Thus the sense will be, as if to say: Just as a stone thrown into a pile of stones for the condemned becomes abominable, so likewise the honor given to a fool becomes abominable.
Hence concerning Achan, stoned by Joshua, chapter 7, verse 26, it is said: 'And they gathered over him a great heap of stones, which remains to the present day.' The etymology of margema is relevant here: from רגם (ragam), that is, 'to stone,' as if margema were a heap of stoning.
Again, others translate margema as a heap of pearls, as if to say: Just as a precious stone loses its beauty if placed and hidden in a heap of pearls — for gems have their splendor not when heaped together but when placed in their proper location and order — so likewise honor bestowed on a fool loses its dignity, because it is placed not in its proper and fitting but in an unseemly and unbecoming place. Or, as if to say: Just as a counterfeit stone, say a fake gem mixed with other true gems and pearls, takes away their credibility and makes all of them suspect of being adulterated and counterfeit: so likewise one fool placed in a senate, congregation, or assembly of wise men brands the rest with a mark of suspicion and diminishes the reputation of their wisdom, and makes all of them suspect of foolishness and wickedness.
Moreover, one translator renders it: just as a fragment of earthenware (the Chaldean: a plate) thrown into a heap of stones is shattered, or rather breaks into a thousand pieces when it strikes the stones, so as to be completely crushed and destroyed: so too a position of dignity, if conferred on a fool, shatters and ceases to be dignity, so that no wise man would want it, because he sees it shared with a fool and already made profane and cheap by the fool.
Second, Aben-Ezra and R. Joseph understand the Hebrew margema as ארגמן (argaman), that is, purple, or רגמה (rigma), that is, splendor and glory, as if to say: Just as one acts absurdly who wraps an ordinary stone in purple, so does one who bestows honor on a fool: for he who wraps a stone in purple confers honor on it; the stone corresponds to the fool, the purple to the honor. Again, as if to say: If someone takes a stone, that is, the stone head or stone statue of a prince,
Among the Greeks there were Ἑρμαῖοι λόφοι, or Mercurial stone heaps, that is, mounds of stones piled up on public roads and crossroads to mark the way, which passing travelers frequently augmented by throwing stones in honor of Mercury. See Selden's On the Syrian Gods, section 2. — However, the genuine sense of this passage seems to us to be this: as a pebble or weight in a sling — that is, as one who places a pebble, that is a weight, in a sling so that it may be hurled from it, when he should rather have stored it in a pouch as usual: so is he who gives honor to a fool. were to clothe it in purple and set it on a throne as if to dispense justice to the people, he would do something ridiculous; for he does not dignify the stone, but disgraces the purple. So likewise one who adorns a fool with the honor of magistrate, judge, or prefect does something ridiculous, or rather harmful: for the fool cannot properly discharge this honor; but he will foolishly govern his subjects and issue foolish decisions, laws, and decrees, according to the saying: 'An ape in purple.' Therefore whoever confers a magistracy on a fool violates and contaminates the magistracy.
Third, the Septuagint translates margema as σφενδόνη, that is, a sling, by which stones spun in a circle are hurled, twisted, and flung with great force at a target. They say: He who ties a stone in a sling is like one who gives honor to a fool; the Chaldean: like a fragment of metal in a sling, etc.; the Syriac: as a stone in a sling, so is he who praises a fool; the Arabic: he who ties a stone in a sling is likened to one who gives honor to a fool. So also Vatablus, Pagninus, Baynus, R. Solomon, and R. Levi, who explains it thus, as if to say: Just as a precious stone should not be placed in a sling to be cast away, so neither should honor, that is, wisdom, be conferred on a fool, since he is unworthy of it; for wisdom is called honor, because in it consists the glory and splendor of mortals, according to chapter 3, verse 33: 'The wise shall possess glory; the exaltation of fools is their disgrace.'
For the sling is called σφενδόνη, from σφενδονεῖν, that is, from moving swiftly, because it is swiftly rotated and thrown; hence σφενδονᾶν is called τὸ σφενδονίζειν.
The meaning therefore is, as if to say: Just as one who ties a stone in a sling to be thrown acts foolishly — for a tied stone cannot be thrown — so one who gives honor to a fool acts foolishly. Or better, as if to say: Just as one who places a stone in a sling and spins it tight so that it may be hurled more powerfully and accurately, throws it away, casts it off, and loses it — for the hurled stone is cast away, vanishes, and is lost — so honor given to a fool does not last long, but is immediately cast away and lost. Or third, more aptly, as if to say: Just as one who hurls a stone from a sling at a target very often misses it and sends it off course, so one who gives honor to a fool misses the mark of honor — which is that it should be given to the wise and upright — and sends it off course, namely to the foolish, the wicked, and the unworthy.
Again, St. Ambrose, in his commentary on Psalm 104, near the end, adapts the Septuagint version thus: 'Liberty,' he says, 'befits the wise man, not the fool; since he who ties a stone in a sling is like one who gives brilliance to a fool; he wounds himself, and rather brings danger upon himself while he hurls the javelin. Moreover, just as the torment is increased and the evil is doubled by the crash of the stone, so the ruin of the fool in liberty is more violent.' The meaning of St. Ambrose is, as if to say: Just as one who spins a sling brings danger upon himself, lest by spinning the stone he strike it against his own head, so one who promotes a fool to honors creates danger for his own head, lest the people, injured by the fool, attack the one who promoted him: for the falls and errors of those promoted are usually attributed to the one who promoted them.
Again, just as a stone hurled upward with powerful force by a sling soon descends with a heavier crash and is borne downward, so a fool raised to honors falls with a heavier fall to the lowest depths, according to the saying: 'Let them be raised on high, that they may fall with a heavier crash'; for just as the stone's natural place is the lowest, so too is the fool's.
Finally, the Proverb-collector adapts it thus, as if to say: Just as one who gives a stone placed in a sling into the hands of a fool gives him weapons with which to strike others and the giver himself, so one who gives a fool a position of authority gives him a stone with which to wound others and the giver himself: for fools do not know how to use authority with moderation, but abuse it at will to the ruin of others.
Some very fittingly understand the Greek σφενδόνη, that is, 'sling,' as the bezel of a golden ring, and judge that the same is denoted by the Hebrew margema, that is, purple. For it is customary to add a small leaf of purple color to the bezel of a ring, so that the gem enclosed in the bezel is not dulled or obscured by the brightness of the gold, but retains its own splendor and sharpens it with that color. Thus the sense will be, as if to say: Just as one who sets an ordinary stone in the bezel of a golden ring acts absurdly, so does one who gives honor to a fool. So our Menochius in the Sacred Polity, Book II, chapter 11. For σφενδόνη δακτυλίου is the bezel of a ring, as Cicero interprets it in Plato, Book 21 of the Republic. And Pliny also uses 'sling' in this sense, saying: 'The transparent ones shall be enclosed in bezels; for the others, brass is placed beneath.' Now the bezel of a ring is the 'sling' — that circle of gold or other metal in which the gem of the ring is enclosed — just as the pouch of a sling encloses the stone to be hurled.
Finally, 'sling' can be understood as a purse, money-bag, and pouch made like a net; hence Macrobius says: 'Lowering his hand into a poor purse, he brought out a few coins.' For 'funda' sometimes means a net, as is clear from Virgil, Georgics 2:
And another already beats the broad river with his net, Seeking the deep, and another draws wet lines from the sea.
Where Servius says: 'Funda is a kind of net, so called from pouring.'
Consequently, by 'stone' you may understand either a counting-pebble, by which merchants calculate sums of money, or weight-stones; for in ancient times they used stones for weights, and enclosed both these and counting-pebbles in purses and money-bags. If you take it as counting-pebbles, the sense will be, as if to say: Just as a pebble is in itself of little value, but great on account of the sum it represents: so a fool who has been raised to a magistracy should be shown honor, not for his own sake, but for the sake of God and the community whose person he represents. So St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae II-II, Question 63, article 3, whose words I shall presently cite. But if you take it as weight-stones with our Salazar, the sense will be, as if to say: He who raises a foolish and unwise man to honors, that is, raises him to the magistracy or principate, to administer the state by law, acts as if he were putting weights in a purse and tying them up inside — as if to say: With him in power, there will be no place for justice; nothing will be done by law, nothing by equity. He therefore says that foolish and unwise men must be kept from the magistracy, because when they administer the republic, law and equity go into exile, and consequently merchants and trade go into exile, and the commerce on which the wealth and abundance of the state depends.
From what has been said, it is clear that σφενδόνη, that is 'sling,' has three meanings: first, a sling; second, the bezel of a ring; third, a purse and money-bag; and these three meanings all aptly suit this maxim and comparison, according to the senses I have assigned.
Fourth, our translator skillfully renders margema as 'the heap of Mercury'; for although margema generally signifies a heap of stones, in practice this word was appropriated to the heap of Mercury, as being in ancient times the most common and most famous among the Gentiles, and best known to the Jews. That this is so is shown, first, by our translator who renders it thus, and whose translation the whole Church has approved and approves. Second, because margema is the same as Mercolis מרגמה (regama), that is, the heap of Mercury (for the Hebrews call Mercury 'Mercolis'). Third, so teach the Rabbis in Sepher Amana, chapter 20 and elsewhere, and the Mirror of History, Book 24, cited by Johannes Drusius — although heterodox in faith and therefore less favorable to the Vulgate translator — in Book III, Questions, chapter 66; and in the Class of Proverbs, Book II, chapter 34. And R. Solomon says here: 'The Rabbis affirm that one who instructs an unfit disciple in the teaching of the Law is like one who throws a stone at Mercury.' So too Mercerus here (whose words I shall presently cite) testifies that the ancient Hebrews translated margema as Mercury. The same is taught by Elias in the Tisbi, R. Ishmael in the Gemara, and R. Nathan in the Lexicon of Hebrew Law.
Finally, this will become clearer from what will be said presently. Nor is it novel in Scripture for the gods of the Gentiles to be cited and their myths alluded to. For it alludes to the myth of the Titans, Judith 16:8: 'Nor did the sons of the Titans strike him (Holofernes).' And in Job, the last chapter, verse 15, for 'Horn of Antimony,' which was the name of Job's daughter, the Septuagint translates 'Horn of Amalthea,' that is, a horn of plenty, rich and abounding in the affluence of all good things. For the Poets fable that Amalthea was the she-goat that nursed Jupiter, and from her horn Jupiter therefore poured forth every good thing. So Olympiodorus and Nicetas in the same place, who wisely observes: 'When Scripture mentions the horn of plenty, or the Sirens, or the valleys of the Titans, or the Giants, it conveys only the useful meaning signified by those myths, but does not foist upon us any falsehood.' So also Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 9 on the Song of Songs.
The question is asked: what is the heap of Mercury? First, Bede, Arboreus, Hugo, Lyranus, and the Interlinear Gloss understand the heaps of Mercury as mounds or piles of stones collected to build a temple of Mercury, as if to say: He who appoints a rude and inexperienced man over the state, or assigns him the office of teaching, sins just as much as those who build temples to false idols with piled-up stones. For, just as it is idolatry to erect a shrine of Mercury, so too, says Hugo, it is a kind of idolatry to appoint a foolish man as magistrate, according to Zechariah chapter 11: 'O shepherd and idol!' Hear Bede: 'He who confers the honor of teaching on a fool, that is, a heretic, sins no less than one who venerates with vain worship the gods and shrines of the Gentiles.' But this exposition seems far-fetched and remote.
Far more alien, indeed false and erroneous, is the view of Mercerus on this passage: 'The ancient Hebrews,' he says, 'understand margema as a statue of Mercury, which was made from a great mass of stones; in which sense the Vulgate translator renders it the heap of Mercury — like the image of Christopher, which in some of our churches is seen made from a great mass of stone.' Hence he, following Bede, twists this passage against the invocation of St. Christopher and other Saints, and the veneration of their images, as if to say: Just as one acts absurdly, or rather sins against God, who adorns a statue of Mercury — such as that of Christopher — with precious stones, so too does one who honors a fool. But this is heresy. For an idol and the gods of the Gentiles are one thing; St. Christopher and the Saints of Christians and their images are quite another, as I showed at 1 Corinthians 8:4. Again, margema does not signify a statue of Mercury, but a heap of stones. Finally, that the image of St. Christopher is an image of a true Saint and Martyr, and not an emblem of any Christian fighter who carries Christ by laboring and suffering, as the heretics claim, is demonstrated at length and effectively by Johannes Molanus, Book III, On Sacred Pictures and Images.
Second, Pagninus translates: as one who ties or throws a stone into a heap of stones, etc. — that is, the difference between the honor shown to a wise man and that bestowed on a fool is the difference between a stone that is fitted into its proper place in a skillfully constructed building, and one that is randomly thrown into a pile and mound of stones — as if to say: Honor bestowed on a wise man falls most fittingly upon him, and is beautiful like a stone firmly set in its proper place; but that which is bestowed on a fool seems to resemble some rough stone randomly thrown into a heap and removed from its proper place.
Third, St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae II-II, Question 63, article 2, Hugo, and Lyranus understand the heap of Mercury as a merchant's heap — namely, small stones (for which they now use bronze coins), or counting-pebbles, by which they calculate and compute sums of money. For merchants are called 'Mercurii' (Mercury's men) from 'merchandise.' Hence Fulgentius in the Mythology: 'Every merchant,' he says, 'is called a Mercury, as one who takes care of his merchandise.' See Giraldus, section 9. Hear St. Thomas: 'Because the Gentiles attributed calculation to Mercury, the heap of Mercury is called the pile of reckoning in which a merchant sometimes puts one pebble in place of a hundred marks; so too a Prelate is honored, who is placed in the position of God and in the position of the whole community, even if he is perhaps wicked.' Lyranus has similar remarks; see him if you wish, as well as Hugo.
But our Salazar understands the stones of Mercury as the stones we use for weights to weigh all kinds of goods, as if to say: Whoever confers a magistracy or command on a foolish man is like one who takes stones — that is, the weights by which goods are customarily weighed and balanced — and does not apply them to weighing, but heaps and gathers them into a pile. That is, he brings it about that nothing is carried out precisely and according to law and justice, but as if the weights were removed and taken away, everything is done haphazardly and confusedly; or he achieves this: that just as when the weights are removed trade ceases, so also the courts shall cease and the marketplace shall fall silent.
Fourth, simply and in the genuine sense: the heap of Mercury signifies stones piled up in a mound in honor of Mercury, who was the guide of the way, to show travelers the road. The Greeks called these 'Hermaea' and 'Hermaeas,' that is, Mercurial stones, as is clear from Nicander in the Theriaca, where the Scholiast says: 'The poet calls Hermaeas the stones heaped up in honor of Mercury.' And Hesychius says: 'A Mercurial heap signifies piles of stones of Mercury, which they heaped up on roads in honor of that god.'
For the ancients used to place a statue of Mercury at crossroads or three-way intersections; when travelers arrived there, and especially merchants, whose god Mercury was, they would offer a small stone as a mark of honor. Mercury, as the presiding deity of roads, was fashioned as a roughly hewn trunk, from crude stone, in a square shape, with these Greek words inscribed: ὅδιος, that is, 'auspicious for travel'; ὁδηγός, that is, 'guide of the way'; whence ἐξόδιος, according to Hesychius, or ἐνόδιος. The Greeks therefore called these stones 'Hermai,' and the heaps were called σωρακες; the Latins call them Viacum; the most ancient Jews called them Mercolis or Mercury. They cite from the Talmudic Glosses, Treatise on Idolatry, folio 42, part 1: 'There are nations that worship a heap of stones, which they call Mercolis. And the manner of worship is this: whoever comes by throws a stone into that heap.' Hence the proverb of the ancient Hebrews, similar to this saying of Solomon, or rather identical with it, was: 'He throws a stone at Mercolis.' For Mercolis is Mercury, or rather a heap of stones sacred to Mercury.
Hence in the Hebrew Lexicon of Law it is stated: 'What is the beth (house) of Mercolis? It is the shrine of a certain idol that was called Mercelis, whose worship consisted in the throwing of stones, about which R. Israel says in the Gemara: These, he says, are the stones of the shrine of Mercolis — one on this side, another on that side, and a third lying on top of both.' The author of the Sepher Amana (that is, the Book of Truth) mentions these stones more than once, as in chapter 20 and elsewhere.
Now the reason why merchants or travelers would honor Mercury by piling up a stony heap derives from an ancient fable, which Didymus, in Book 16 on the Odyssey, narrates in Greek to this effect, and he reports Anticlides as the source. The author of the Etymologicum likewise narrates the same thing. Now the fool is aptly called a 'stone,' because, as Plautus says in The Braggart Soldier: 'Nothing is more stupid than this rock.' This proverb therefore either derives from the superstition and worship of Mercury, as if to say: Just as it is supreme madness to throw stones at the statue of Mercury as a mark of honor, because the statue of Mercury is either a stone or a piece of wood that feels nothing; so it is foolishness to bestow honor on a stupid man.
Indeed, a fool is commonly called a log, a block, and a stone in Terence's The Self-Tormentor. Or the proverb derived from piety toward the traveler, as if to say: Conferring a benefit on a fool (as regards recompense, understand) is similar to the benefit that anyone who throws a stone onto a heap for a sign and indication of the road bestows on the traveler. For it is a benefit for those who will journey later, but none of them credits the giver, because he is unknown: so too you waste your benefit — you give a benefit to a fool and a simpleton, for he does not know how to return it.
From this arose the custom among Christians of seeing stones accumulated beside crosses along roads. For the earliest Christians, in order to uproot the corrupt ancient custom, began to substitute the Cross for Mercury, and to throw stones with great reverence in memory of Mount Calvary, transforming the superstition of that most corrupt age into true piety and religion; and thus they drove away all idolatry.
The Indians and Mohammedans still retain that superstition of throwing stones, as is clear from the words which Joseph Scaliger found cited in Vincent of Beauvais, and which he himself reports in Book V of On the Correction of the Times. The words are: 'Among the peoples of India called the Zechians and Albarachuma, the ancient custom was to go about naked and shaven, howling with great wailing, to circle around the images of demons, to kiss the corners, and to throw stones into a heap that was built, as it were, as an honor to the gods. For from this comes what is said in the book of Solomon: He who throws a stone into the heap of Mercury. They did this twice a year — namely, when the sun was in the first degree of Aries, and again when it was in the first degree of Libra — that is, at the beginning of spring and autumn. This custom, therefore, having descended from the Indians to the Arabs, when Muhammad in his own time found it being celebrated at Mecca in honor of Venus, he commanded that it should remain, even though he had removed the other traces of idolatry.'
Related, if not identical, to the stone of Mercury is the superstitious stone of the Chaldeans, called mnisurim, about which Zoroaster says: 'When you see an earthly demon approaching (as you seek an answer), chant an incantation and sacrifice the stone mnisurim.' Where Psellus in his Scholia explains the matter: 'Demons flying about the earth are by nature liars. But if you wish to hear some true word from them, prepare an altar and sacrifice the stone mnisurim. For this stone has the power of summoning a greater demon, who, joined by hidden reasoning with a material spirit, whispers the truth about matters inquired into, which the spirit then conveys to the human questioner. For the very name indicates what must be used in the invocation together with the sacrifice of the stone.' So Psellus. Nicephorus has similar remarks in his commentary on Synesius' On Dreams. This was a most vain superstition of those who thought that not all demons are equally liars, but some are truthful. Moreover, the view was also erroneous that some demons are material, full of dark matter, as he says. This was therefore a magical rite of the Chaldeans.
These and more things about the heap of Mercury were learnedly collected by Laurentius Ramires in the Pentacontarchus, second-to-last chapter. The adage is apt here: 'Three-headed Mercury,' commonly said of those who are ambiguous and uncertain. For Mercury was to the Gentiles the god who indicates the way; therefore at a three-way intersection they gave him three heads, and on each inscribed where each head and each road (which the head indicated) led. There is an elegant epigram about this heap of Mercury in Alciato's emblem: 'One must go where the gods call:
At the crossroads stands a mound of stones, and above it rises A truncated image of the god, fashioned to the chest. It is the face of Mercury — traveler, hang Garlands for the god who shows you the right path. We are all at the crossroads, and on this path of life We go astray, unless God Himself shows us the way.'
Mercury was believed to be the interpreter of the gods, the chief of speech and eloquence, and the divine patron of travelers; hence his statues were placed at crossroads and three-way intersections to indicate the divergence of roads. Travelers therefore used to heap up piles of stones at the statues; for they thought God was thus honored — namely, with something that was ready at hand and easily obtained, or because the pile of stones would make the god's image more conspicuous to passers-by.
Ulpian, in his Annotations on the Oration of Demosthenes against Leptines, says that the Hermai, that is the Mercuries, were of this kind: quadrangular, bearing the figure of Mercury on the upper part, and displaying inscriptions showing the roads on the lower part. On this matter see Giraldus, section 9, and Caelius Rhodiginus, Book 28, chapter 12. The Proverb-collector discusses this under the proverbs 'Mercury on the right,' and 'Mercurial,' and 'two-faced Mercury.'
By this emblem, as by a riddle, we are admonished to pursue only those things for which God and nature make us fit, since it is the height of folly and madness to undertake and pursue anything against Minerva's will, as they say. Hence Cato, cited by Cicero, said that nature is the best guide and should be followed; and that the Giants' fighting against the gods was nothing other than resisting nature. Hence St. Paul also exhorts us to keep the lot in which God wished us to be. But since the blindness and ignorance of the human mind is so great that it is utterly ignorant of which way to go, we must have recourse with suppliant prayer and humble spirit to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, whom whoever follows does not walk in darkness; and we must continually repeat that Davidic prayer: 'Show me, O Lord, the way in which I should walk.'
Indeed, Socrates in Plato also asserts that one must proceed only by the way in which God leads us. Furthermore, the sacred mythologists understand by Mercury, once the messenger of the gods, either the Sacred Scriptures, which reveal to us the divine will, or the Prophets and Doctors who aptly announce divine oracles, from whom it is necessary to receive the orthodox way of eternal salvation; and the garlands hung declare that honor and reverence must be shown to them.
Hence Paul was called Mercury by the Lycaonians; because he was the leader of the word, Acts 14:11. For Mercury was the son of Jupiter by Maia, the messenger of the gods, and, as Orpheus sings, the angel of Jupiter, and hence called Mercury, as if 'medi-currius,' because he ran as a mediator between God and men. I have said more about Mercury at Acts 14:11.
But let us return to the heap of Mercury, which Solomon mentions here. He aptly compares one who honors a fool to a traveler who throws not just any stone, but a precious one, into the heap of Mercury. For where our text says 'he who throws a stone,' the Hebrew is צרור אבן (tseror eben), that is, a binding of a stone — that is, a stone that is customarily set in the bezel of a ring, which is done only if it is precious and gem-like. Hence Vatablus translates: as is the setting of a gem in a heap of stones, so is he who gives glory to a fool — as if to say: Just as a gem set in a ring's bezel is beautiful, but lies unbecomingly in a heap of other stones, especially of Mercury, so honor is fittingly placed in a wise man, but unfittingly in a fool.
For first, just as it is unseemly and ridiculous to adorn a stone or the stone statue of Mercury with gems, and to prostrate oneself before it and worship it, so it is unseemly and ridiculous to adorn, honor, and worship a fool, since he himself is as dull as a block or a rock. Again, just as a rock or a stone statue does not feel the ornaments and honors bestowed upon it, nor does it return thanks to those who bestow them, so neither does a fool value them for their worth, nor is he grateful to those who bestow them.
Third, just as the living Mercury was the inventor and patron of the arts of wisdom and eloquence, and therefore worthy of honor; but the statue of Mercury, being of stone and lifeless, could neither speak nor possess wisdom, and was therefore unworthy of worship and honor: so likewise the wise man, as a living Mercury, deserves honor, but the foolish man, as a counterfeit and painted Mercury who is an infant in wisdom and speech, is incapable of honor. Hence the ancients of old used to fashion the statue of Mercury maimed and truncated in hands and feet — or rather, deformed it — and they used to call stupid, dull, insipid, and foolish men 'stony and wooden Mercuries'; hence Juvenal's quip against a certain blockhead, Satire 8:
But you — Nothing but a descendant of Cecrops, most like a truncated Herma. You surpass it by no other distinction than that Its head is marble, while your image is alive.
The meaning therefore is, as if to say: He who honors a fool acts as if he were worshipping and venerating a stone statue of Mercury truncated in hands and feet; for the fool is like a stone Mercury, truncated of arms and legs, unfit and powerless for acting and speaking.
Mystically, Blessed Peter Damian, Book I, letter 8, to Alexander II, Roman Pontiff, explains this maxim concerning those who promote profit-seekers to prelacies: 'And certainly such a person,' he says, 'since for love of money he violates his own order, is undoubtedly unworthy to hold Ecclesiastical dignity. Hence Solomon also says: As he who throws a stone into the heap of Mercury, so is he who gives honor to a fool. For since among the Gentiles Mercury was called the god of petty gain or money, the heap of Mercury is a pile and mass of coins. And since the royal stamp of the mint is impressed upon a coin, what is designated by the heap of coins but the assembly of clerics who bear the image of regularity and true holiness? And what do we understand by the stone but the hard, stupid, and insensible mind of one who, since he does not believe with sure faith that God exists, places his hope in any earthly possession? Of whom it is said through the Prophet: The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. Now honor is given to this fool when someone is promoted to the summit of Ecclesiastical rank not by God, but by the genius of money.'
He then aptly adds: 'But just as a heap of coins is scattered if a stone is thrown upon it from above, so by the accession of an unworthy, or stone-like, pastor, the closely-packed order of clerics walking regularly and obeying in charity is, as it were, destroyed: for it is weighed down by the shadow of a bad pastor, and like a pile of heavenly coins is demolished by the weight of a hellish stone. Therefore Ecclesiastical honor must be denied to the fool and the foolish, lest the heap of holy Clerics, like spiritual coins, be submerged.'
The Author of the Greek Catena supports this, who reads and explains from the Septuagint thus: 'He who bestows glory on a fool is like one who ties a precious stone in a sling. For fools, anxious about increasing their wealth and piling up riches, and intent with all their mental energy on making profit, pursue every shameful thing with no regard for what is honorable or decent.'
9. AS A THORN GROWING IN THE HAND OF A DRUNKARD: SO IS A PARABLE IN THE MOUTH OF FOOLS.
The Chaldean: a thorn rises in the hand of a drunkard, and folly in the mouth of a fool. For 'grows' the Hebrew is עלה (ala), that is, 'rises,' meaning it sprouts, or is found in any manner, exists, and appears. The fool is aptly compared to a drunkard, because just as the latter, so too the former is devoid of reason, and is driven not by judgment but by imagination and desire. The parable and speech of a fool are compared to a thorn, because just as a thorn pricks, wounds, and injures.
First, some Hebrews explain it thus, as if to say: Just as there is a certain kind of thorn which, when held in the hand of a drunkard, makes him sober, so a parable in the mouth of a fool makes him wise from being foolish. They suppose this kind of thorn to be the royal thorn, with which Pliny, Book 13, chapter 24, teaches that wines were customarily flavored, because it has a cooling power, by which it inhibits and breaks the force of wine. Again, just as a thorn pricking the hand of a drunkard rouses him to wake up and shake off his drunkenness, so a weighty and devout saying in the mouth of a fool, that is, an impious man, stings him so that he may renounce his impiety. So Baynus.
Second, others translate the Hebrew חוח (choach), that is 'thorn,' as shackles and fetters, for binding criminals and captives. 'For choach means both a thorn born from the earth, and an artificial one made of iron, by which a person is pierced and a captive is bound and held,' say the lexicographers — as if to say: Just as shackles and chains befall drunkards (on account of the brawls, injuries, fights, and murders they committed while drunk), by which their combative hands are bound, so the same befall the hands of fools, who are like drunkards on account of the foolish things and foolish injuries they inflict on others.
Hence the Septuagint translates: thorns grow in the hand of the drunkard, but servitude in the hand of fools. For slaves are bound with shackles so they may not misuse their hands. So St. Ambrose, Book 2, letter 7: 'The fool's power must be cut back,' he says, 'not his freedom increased; for servitude befits him, and therefore Solomon adds: Thorns grow in the hand of the very drunken man, but servitude in the hand of the fool, because just as the former is wounded by his own cups, so the fool by his own deeds; the one by drinking ensnares himself in sin, the other by acting adjudges himself to guilt, and by his own deeds is dragged into servitude.'
Note here: the Hebrew משל (maschal) properly signifies dominion, and thence a dominating sentence, such as a parable is. The Septuagint took maschal as the dominion that resides in the master; for to this corresponds servitude in the slave — as if to say: Just as thorny shackles and fetters grow, that is, fittingly suit the hands of drunkards, so that they seem to have been born in them (for this is what 'to be born in the hand' means, by catachresis): so likewise servitude fittingly suits fools, so that they may be subjected to some master who may bind them with servitude, lest they abuse their foolish liberty and their free and untamed foolishness to their own and others' destruction.
Thus dominion is understood passively — namely, what the fool is forced to endure. Dominion could also be understood actively, as if to say: Just as a drunkard with his brawls and fights, like thorns, pierces and wounds everyone, so a slave, if he obtains dominion and can command others, crushes them with harsh servitude, and treats them tyrannically like slaves, afflicts and torments them: like a thorn he pricks, wounds, and injures them.
Third, others understand maschal, that is 'parable,' as reproach and insult, as if to say: Just as a drunkard with his insults, like thorns, attacks anyone he encounters, so also a fool hurls parables — that is, taunts and reproaches — at anyone, and with their barbs, like thorns, pricks and pierces everyone. Hence the Chaldean translates: a thorn descends into the hand of a drunkard, and folly into the mouth of a fool. With a similar phrase, Christ says, Psalm 68:12: 'I have become a parable to them,' that is, a reproach and laughingstock. And thus 'parable' is taken in the sense of reproach in Jeremiah 24:9; 2 Chronicles 7:20; Isaiah 14:4, and elsewhere.
Fourth, and in the genuine sense, as if to say: A parable in the mouth and in the person of a fool is like a thorn in the hand of a drunkard, on account of many analogies. The first is that, just as a thorn 'is born' — that is, naturally suits the hand of a drunkard, so as to seem born from it, since it is thorny, that is, prickly, harmful, combative, and quarrelsome — so a thorny parable naturally suits a fool, who like a hedgehog is thorny, that is, prickly, stinging, and wounding.
The second is that, just as a drunkard is so deceived by his drunkenness that, when he thinks he is about to pluck some flower or fruit in a garden, or handle some ordinary piece of wood, he unexpectedly falls upon a thorn, by which he is injured to the mockery of many: so it is likewise unexpected that any prudence should be found in the mouth of fools, and when it is found, it harms them more than it helps, and provokes laughter rather than veneration in others; so that the old proverb may be said of them: 'Is Saul also among the Prophets?' 1 Samuel 19:24 — especially when they criticize the vices of others, to which they themselves are equally or more liable. Seneca rightly says: 'Many, when they curse others, insult themselves.'
The third is: Just as a drunkard, handling thorns and brambles with his hand, does not feel them — although 'sentes' (brambles) are so called from 'sentire' (to feel), because even a light touch causes a sensation of pain — so a fool, that is an impious person, is not stung by a parable, that is by a weighty and devout maxim that moves to compunction; indeed, he does not perceive or feel its meanings, but remains in his stupidity and wickedness as if dull and obtuse.
The fourth and most important: Just as a drunkard with his thorns, both real and mystical (namely quarrels and brawls), pricks, wounds, and injures everyone: so likewise a fool, even though he may sometimes utter parables, that is weighty sayings, cannot utter them fittingly for the edification of others, but twists them to the purpose of stupidly and petulantly rebuking, mocking, flattering, and heaping reproaches and injuries on his hearers, or to persuade them of his own errors and vices. This is evident in unlearned men who, reading the Sacred Scriptures and preaching them to others, distort them to their own and others' destruction, as St. Peter says, 2 Peter 3:16.
Furthermore, the Author of the Greek Catena, following the Septuagint and reading 'servitude' instead of 'parable,' explains it thus: The drunkard gives himself over to constant idleness and never resolves in his heart to do anything worthy of a man, and thus leaves the hands of his soul and the entire ground of it completely thorny and uncultivated. The senseless and foolish man does not understand what, or how, or to what extent he should work: for since he is not master of his own senses, he works without reason and without discrimination, if indeed there is anything he actually works at. So he says.
Mystically, Blessed Peter Damian, Book I, letter 18, applies this maxim to preachers of wicked life: 'As a thorn growing in the hand of a drunkard,' he says, 'so is a parable in the mouth of fools. A thorn grows in the hand of the drunkard when the sting of reproof is generated in the mind of one who is drunk with love of this life. A parable in the mouth of fools is therefore like a thorn, because while they say one thing and do another, their mind is sometimes convicted within itself, and is pierced by a kind of sting of a pricking thorn. The conscience of one who lives wickedly but speaks well certainly pricks like a thorn, since in what he outwardly speaks, he is inwardly wounded by a certain goad of shame or fear.'
10. JUDGMENT DETERMINES CAUSES: AND HE WHO IMPOSES SILENCE ON A FOOL MITIGATES ANGER.
The Hebrew here seems to disagree completely; for it reads: רב מחולל כל ושכר כסיל ושכר עברים (rab mecholel col, vesocher kesil, vesocher oberim), that is: the great one creates all things, and gives a wage to the fool, and gives a wage to transgressors. This may be explained:
First, with Jansenius, as if to say: Just as God by His great power created all things, so by the same power He governs all things, and therefore feeds not only the wise but also fools and transgressors of His law as His hired servants; this is called 'giving a wage,' because He Himself nourishes them as if He owed them food as their master, just as anyone is obliged to give wages to his hired workers. Or He speaks of the wage He repays to the wicked, as Lord and Creator of all, according to their merits — inflicting, that is, upon both those who sin through foolishness or ignorance and those who willfully transgress through malice, their deserved punishments, whether in this life or the next. He gives the cause and root of God's justice and just vengeance, as if to say: God therefore rewards the good and feeds fools and the wicked, because He Himself created them by His omnipotence; whence He acquired full lordly right over them, so that He can and must govern them, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked. For it belongs to the same agent to form a work and to direct and govern what has been formed.
The simplest sense of this passage seems to us to be this: An archer who recklessly wounds everyone is like one who hires a fool and one who hires passers-by, τοὺς τύχοντας (random people). So Ewald. Less correctly Rosenmuller: the great one, that is, the powerful man, who abuses his power to exercise violence, terrifies everyone, and hires a fool and hires transgressors — he takes on every wicked man as his servant through his own audacity.
Second, R. Levi explains, as if to say: A great man, that is a prince, who engages in quarrels and dissensions, causes pain to everyone (for this is what mecholel properly means), afflicts and destroys them; yet the same man heaps rewards on fools and criminals, so as to attach them to himself as accomplices in crime. He adds other explanations, as do Aben-Ezra, R. Moses, R. Solomon, and Baynus, but these are far-fetched and remote.
Third, the Zurich Bible translates: some excellent and great man accomplishes everything by himself; but a fool hires transgressors for pay — a master does everything precisely; but he who hires a fool for pay also hires transgressors.
Fourth, more plainly and conveniently, Vatablus translates: a prince checks everyone, and gives a reward to the fool, and gives a reward to transgressors — that is, he gives to each what they have deserved; as the prince is, so too are his subjects. He calls transgressors 'rogues, the negligent, the lazy.' Note here: a prince in Hebrew is called רב (rab), that is 'great,' or properly 'much' and 'manifold,' because he alone is the equivalent of many; for he must care for and manage the affairs and welfare of many, indeed of all his subjects. Therefore he must be a man of very great and capacious talent, as well as spirit, so that he may be able to investigate, know, and direct all things.
Such was Ulysses, whom Homer accordingly calls πολύτροπον — that is, 'of many turns,' 'manifold,' 'versatile' — because he was of versatile genius and knew how to turn himself into various shapes, modes, and guises, to accommodate himself to all persons, places, and times. So Charles V was Italian with Italians, Spanish with Spaniards, Belgian with Belgians, German with Germans.
Hence again, a prince and leader in Hebrew is called אלוף (alluph), that is 'commander of a thousand,' because he must be not one and simple, but manifold and as it were a thousand in one. Hence Plato in the dialogue On Kingship: 'A wise guardian, devoted to the universal good, is one man in the place of many.'
But our translator reads the Hebrew with different vowel points, and therefore translates differently; nor is this surprising, since the Septuagint, the Chaldean, the Syriac, Theodotion, and Symmachus did the same, and support our translator. Our translator therefore, first, instead of רב (rab), that is 'great,' reads ריב (rib), that is 'judgment.' Second, מחולל (mecholel) properly means to give birth, to form, to perfect, to join together. Hence our translator renders: judgment forms, that is determines, and by determining reduces all disputed matters — that is, all causes and lawsuits — to the form of truth and justice.
Third, instead of שכר (socher), that is 'hires,' he reads שבר (socher), that is 'breaks' — as if to say: He breaks the fool, that is, the fool's jibes, and the anger and quarrels which the fool himself stirred up by them; which is the same as what our translator renders: he who imposes silence on a fool mitigates anger. Or rather, he takes שכר (socher) with sin as equivalent to socher with samech; for sin and samech have exactly the same sound, and therefore interchange; and socher with samech means 'closing' and 'stopping up' — namely, the mouth of the fool, and imposing silence upon him.
Fourth, instead of עברים (oberim), that is 'transgressors,' he reads עברות (abarot), that is 'angers,' or at least, deriving aberim from abarot, that is 'angers,' he translates 'angry men,' whose anger is mitigated by the one who imposes silence on the fool. So also Symmachus reads, who translates: he who restrains the fool stops up his anger; and Theodotion: he who bridles the impatient, bridles his anger.
The meaning is, as if to say: Just as a judge, by deciding causes and lawsuits, puts an end to them and imposes silence, so likewise a wise man composes and mitigates the anger and quarrels that a fool stirs up with his foolish wit, either partly or entirely, by shutting the fool's mouth and imposing silence — as if to say: As the judgment of a judge puts an end to lawsuits, so silence imposed on a fool by a wise man puts an end to anger and quarrels. Again, just as a judge determines a case by awarding it to the justly litigating party, and by denying it and imposing silence on the unjustly litigating party, so likewise a wise man mitigates and removes quarrels and anger by opposing the fool who unjustly and imprudently stirs them up, and commanding silence.
For by this means he defends those who are unjustly mocked and harassed by the fool, and who therefore become angry and quarrel, and declares them innocent, with the result that they lay down their anger and quarrels, being the victors in the case. This maxim therefore implies that most quarrels and disputes arise from the wickedness and sharp tongue of fools — that is, of the wicked; therefore the fool must be opposed and silence imposed on him by a judge or superior; and if this is done, lawsuits will immediately cease, and peace will be restored to all.
Hence 'a judge,' says St. Isidore, Book 18 of the Etymologies, chapter 15, 'is so called as one who pronounces law (jus dicens) for the people, or because he determines by law. To determine by law means to judge justly; and he is not a judge if there is no justice in him. An accuser is called, as it were, an ad-causator (one who brings to a cause), because he summons to a cause the one whom he accuses. The defendant (reus) is named from the thing (res) that is claimed, because although he may not be conscious of crime, he is still called the defendant as long as he is sued in court for some matter.' And shortly before: 'A quarrel (jurgium) is so called as a garbling of law (juris garrium), because those who plead a case determine by law. A lawsuit (lis) takes its name from a dispute about a boundary (limes); of which Virgil says: A boundary was set to distinguish the lawsuit over the field.' And earlier: 'A forum, the place for conducting lawsuits, is so called from speaking (fando), as if farum from fari. A cause (causa) is so called from the event (casus) from which it arises. For it is the matter and origin of a business, not yet made clear by examination and inquiry; while it is proposed, it is a cause; while it is examined, it is a judgment, as if law-speaking (juris dictio), and justice, as if the standing of law (juris status).'
The Septuagint translates: the flesh of fools is tossed by many storms (the Complutensian edition: it seethes greatly with lusts and passions); for their ecstasy (the Complutensian: their stupor) is crushed; or, as the Author of the Greek Catena puts it, since insanity and mental derangement consume them — as if to say: Since malice takes away the judgment of the mind; for the soul, fattened and made gross by wickedness, robs itself of sense and sincere judgment, so that, as if ecstatic and moved out of its mind and placed outside itself, it seems to be insane. Therefore it fluctuates greatly and is severely shaken, while it imprudently and of its own perversity thrusts and throws itself into various tangles, quarrels, sins, and dangers. So the Author of the Greek Catena.
Our Salazar takes a different view, understanding this maxim of the Septuagint as about anger, which is the supreme storm of the soul — as if to say: Just as a ship tossing on the sea, having lost its rudder, is dashed against a rock, splits open, and sinks, so also an angry man, having cast off counsel and lost his mind, crashes into many losses and troubles as if into rocks or sandbars. And so the phrase 'their ecstasy is crushed' amounts to saying: They themselves are crushed by their ecstasy and stupor.
The Chaldean translates: the flesh of the fool suffers much, and the drunkard crosses the sea; the Syriac: the flesh of the fool suffers much. The meaning of both is the same, because each follows the Septuagint, as if to say: The fool suffers many things, because like a drunkard navigating on the sea, who unskillfully contends with waves and billows, he inserts and immerses himself in the sea of discords, quarrels, and tumults of this world, and everywhere disputes, contends, and quarrels with anyone and everyone. For, as Gregory of Nazianzus says in the cited Iambic poem On Anger:
O anger, fever, house of the dread demon, Manifest stain upon the face, whirlwind of minds, Drunkenness and gadfly, bearing to the lakes of hell, Dreadful legion, manifold plague of evil.
And St. Chrysostom, Homily 29 to the People: 'Anger is a kind of drunkenness, or rather more difficult than drunkenness, and more miserable than a demon.' The same, Homily 47 on John: 'There is no difference between anger and insanity; it is a kind of brief demon, indeed worse than those vexed by a demon; for the latter deserves pardon, but the angry man deserves none, but rather countless punishments; of his own will he is carried into the abyss of perdition, and even before the future Gehenna he pays the penalty.'
Seneca demonstrates the very same thing with vivid parallels in Book I of On Anger: 'As there are certain signs of those who are raving,' he says, 'a bold and threatening countenance, a gloomy brow, a fierce face, a hurried step, restless hands, changed color, frequent and violently drawn sighs: so the same signs belong to the angry. Their eyes blaze and flash, there is much redness throughout the whole face as the blood seethes from the deepest recesses, their lips shake, their teeth are clenched, their hair bristles and stands on end, their breath is forced and hissing, there is the cracking sound of joints twisting upon themselves, groaning and bellowing, and speech broken off with words scarcely formed, and hands frequently clapped together, and the ground pounded with feet, and the whole body in agitation making great threats of anger — a face foul and terrible to see, of those who are distorting and swelling themselves.'
You will ask, where does this variety of translations come from? What is the reason that the Septuagint, the Chaldean, and our translator disagree so from the Hebrew? The answer is: the cause is the variety of Hebrew codices. For the Septuagint, in their Hebrew codices, instead of שכר (socher), which stands in the first place, reading the related בשר, by metathesis read בשר (basar), that is 'flesh'; and in the second place, instead of שכר (socher), they read שבר (shubbar), that is 'is crushed, is broken.' Finally, instead of עברים (oberim), they read עברתם (ebram), that is 'passing over,' meaning their ecstasy; or עברתם (ebratam), that is 'their anger': for anger is like an ecstasy of the soul, such that it snatches a person outside himself, so that he seems to be not in his reason, but placed outside himself in fury and madness. For 'ecstasy,' one codex has 'tarasis,' that is 'extension.'
The Chaldean similarly, in the first place, instead of socher reads basar, that is 'flesh'; and in the second place, instead of socher with sin reads schicker with shin, that is 'drunkard'; and instead of עברים (oberim), by diaeresis with different vowel points reads עבר ים (ober yam), that is 'crossing the sea.'
Therefore it is not surprising that our translator also read differently, as I showed above. From this learn how great was once the variety of Hebrew codices, and therefore that trust and faith should rather be placed in the Latin Vulgate, which is the same in all copies and is self-consistent, and which the whole Church and the unanimous consensus of twelve centuries has approved.
11. AS A DOG THAT RETURNS TO ITS VOMIT, SO IS A FOOL WHO REPEATS (the Syriac: despises) HIS FOLLY.
The Septuagint: As a dog that has returned to its own vomit becomes hateful and abominable, so too a fool who by innate malice returns to his own sin. So the Author of the Greek Catena. Aquila and Symmachus: so a madman repeating in his folly, that is, repeating his folly. For this is what this Hebraism means.
The loathsomeness of repeating folly — that is, imprudence and sin — is signified here in three ways: first, because the sinner is compared to a dog, which is a base, unclean, and shameless animal; second, because he is compared to vomit, or to a dog vomiting, which everyone abominates; third, because he is compared to a dog that swallows its vomit again, than which nothing is more detestable. St. Peter cites this maxim, 2 Peter 2, last verse, where I explained it at length.
Finally, when a dog feels its stomach burdened with food, or rather with worms, it procures vomiting by chewing a plant which is called canaria after the dog. Pliny, Book 25, chapter 8, says of it: 'Dogs discovered canaria, by which they relieve their nausea, and they chew it in our sight, but in such a way that one can never identify what it is; for it appears to have been grazed.' But they return to swallow the vomit again not from hunger, but from innate gluttony and voracity, which is so great that they crave the most disgusting thing, such as vomit is.
So a sinner, when he is stung by conscience and feels the burden and weight of sin, vomits it out through penance; but if he takes up again what he has already vomited, he does so not from desire, but from malice, as the Septuagint translates — that is, from a depraved habit of sinning, by which, for example, a drunkard accustomed to intoxicating himself is dragged to drunkenness even without thirst, when he is already full of food and drink, from his corrupt habit and practice of drinking. Therefore are almost entirely ignorant of matters, thinking they understand what they do not understand; or even if they know most things well, they nevertheless refuse to acknowledge that there are many things they do not know, which they ought to learn from others: therefore there is no hope that they will ever become wise; but "the fool will have more hope than he," that is, there is more hope that some fool, who is commonly regarded as such, will attain salvation and wisdom, than that such a person will. So Jansenius. Such were formerly the Scribes and Pharisees who, thinking themselves to be the supreme teachers of the law and truth, rejected Christ the true Teacher: and so they hardened themselves in their blindness, just as their followers, all the Jews, now harden themselves in Judaism. Such also are heretics, especially heresiarchs, and masters and ministers, who, swollen with pride, think themselves the wisest, and wish not to learn anything, but to teach everyone. Quintilian says excellently, book 1: "Nothing, he says, is worse than those who, having advanced a little beyond the first letters, have put on a false persuasion of knowledge. For they disdain to yield to those skilled in teaching, and as if by a certain right of power, with which this class of men usually swells up, imperious, and meanwhile raging, they thoroughly teach their own folly. Nor does their error harm morals any less."
That well-known saying is trite: "He who is wise in his own eyes is supremely foolish."
Moreover, "wise" and "foolish" here denote the prudent and imprudent, and consequently the upright and the wicked.
Whence secondly, you may expound this proverb thus, as if to say: There is more hope for a wicked man who acknowledges his wickedness, that he will return to virtue, than for an upright man who glories in his uprightness, that he will persevere in it. The example is in the Pharisee boasting of his own righteousness, and the Publican acknowledging his sins, whose lots and fortunes Christ accordingly exchanged saying: "This man went down to his house justified rather than the other," Luke chapter 18.
It is also the case that those who seem wise to themselves are easily deceived and destroyed by the devil; but he who acknowledges his own foolishness seeks light and a teacher, and therefore walks securely and is easily saved. Well known is the story of Heron in Cassian, Collation II, chapter 5. For because in the relaxation of fasting and silence he never acquiesced to the counsels and commands of his elders, he was allowed to be miserably deceived by the devil. For the devil persuaded him to throw himself into a very deep well, by which experiment he might prove that his merits were so great that he could no longer be subject to any danger. The wretch obeyed the counsel of the most malignant enemy, he who had refused to obey the advice of friends and the precepts of his elders, and having fallen with a great crash, in the same opinion that he had believed an angel of light, after the third day he miserably ended his life.
Similar falls of anchorites who trusted in themselves are recounted by Cassian in the same place, in the following chapter. Palladius, in the Lausiac History, chapter 31, narrates that Valens
St. Bernard, Sermon 3 On the Assumption: "He who returns, either to the vomit of a dog, will be much more hateful than before, and he will become a son of hell many times over, who after the pardon of his offenses falls again into the same filth."
Hear him, in Sermon 59 on the Song of Songs, striking fear into those who have relapsed: "You should indeed fear, he says, for grace received, more for grace lost, far more for grace recovered;" and giving suitable reasons for the first and second fear, he added concerning the third: "Now if grace, having been propitiated, should return, much more must one then fear lest perhaps a relapse should occur, according to that saying: Sin no more, lest something worse befall you. You hear that to relapse is worse than to fall! As the danger increases, so let fear increase." And St. Chrysostom, Sermon On the Fall of the First Man, tome 1: "Do not, he says, sin after pardon, do not be wounded after healing, do not be defiled after grace." And immediately giving the reasons for each: "Consider, he says, that guilt is graver after pardon, that a reopened wound hurts worse after healing, that it is more troublesome for a man to be defiled after grace." And again, weighing the perversity of these changes: "He is ungrateful to indulgence, he says, who sins after pardon; unworthy of health, who wounds himself after he has been healed; nor does he deserve to be cleansed, who defiles himself after grace." And finally, demonstrating to those who have relapsed the gravity of this: "It is grave, he says, for an instructed man to abandon the faith, graver for an absolved man to sin. Worse than a slave is he who offends his patron after having been given freedom."
Verse 12. DO YOU SEE A MAN WISE IN HIS OWN EYES? THE FOOL WILL HAVE MORE HOPE THAN HE. that is, the unlearned and inexperienced man, who allows himself to be taught, indeed desires and wishes it. This person therefore "will have hope," either in himself, or certainly in the minds of men, that is, men will have more hope for him. Whence from the Hebrew you might translate: there is more hope for a fool than for him; the Chaldean says clearly: If you see a man who is wise in his own eyes, better than him is a fool; and Vatablus: If you see a man who seems wise to himself, there is more to be hoped for from a fool than from him, namely that he will lay aside his folly, that is, his sins, and will learn wisdom, that is, virtue, through repentance and a change of morals.
The first reason is pride and self-love, which afflicts him who seems wise to himself, so that he thinks himself wiser and better than everyone, and therefore wishes to learn from no one, but to teach everyone. The second reason is that God denies His grace and light to such persons, as being proud and trusting in themselves, and so leaves them in their perfidy, blinds and hardens them, so that they become unteachable and incurable. Such were the philosophers, of whom the Apostle says, Romans 1: "Professing themselves to be wise, he says, they became fools." And Isaiah, chapter 5, verse 21: "Woe to you who are wise in your own eyes, and prudent before yourselves!" The third reason is that such persons, who seem wise to themselves, in order to please themselves with their own wisdom, despising others in comparison with themselves, either are frequently the most the anchorite wise in his own eyes, who believed that Angels dwelt with him, despised the communion of the Sacraments, and adored the devil appearing to him in the form of the Savior. The same author, chapter 105, narrates that Abraham, deceived by the devil, believed himself to have been ordained a priest by God. Many such mournful falls of saints wise in their own eyes are found in the Lives of the Fathers.
Thirdly, St. Chrysostom, Homily 39 to the People, expounds this proverb thus, as if to say: He who seems wise to himself, that is, he who is proud, is worse than a fool. Therefore pride is the greatest folly: "Great, he says, is the evil of elation; it is better to be foolish than insolent. For in the former case there is only folly and slowness of mind, but in the latter case there is a worse folly and madness combined with fury. The fool is an evil to himself alone, but the proud man is a plague to others also; from insanity this vice is born. He who is not foolish cannot be proud; but the proud man is full of folly. Hear a certain wise man who says: I saw a man who appeared to be prudent in his own eyes, but the fool has more hope than he. You see that I was not saying without reason that there is an evil worse than folly? For the fool, he says, has more hope than he. Therefore Paul also said: Do not be wise in your own eyes," Romans 12.
The Septuagint attaches to this proverb, indeed prefixes, this saying: "There is a shame that brings sin, and there is a shame that brings glory and grace," that is, one that brings glory and grace. But the Hebrew, Latin, and Chaldean texts delete it, as do even the Complutensian Septuagint; therefore it seems to have been transferred here from Ecclesiasticus chapter 4, verse 25, where I explained it.
13. THE SLUGGARD SAYS: THERE IS A LION IN THE WAY, AND A LIONESS IN THE ROADS, that is, in the ways and streets, as the Chaldean translates; therefore lest a lion attack me, I will keep myself at home, and I will sit idle and lazy. This proverb signifies the laziness of the sluggard by which he wishes to sit at home, and not go out to the works and labors necessary for himself and his family, putting forward bald excuses, namely terrors and dangers that do not exist.
For "lion" the Hebrew is שכל seachal, which our translator and the Septuagint render as "lion"; Pagninus and Vatablus render it "leopard": for they translate the same word thus in Hosea 5:14; others render it "asp": for the same translators and our translator render it thus in Psalm 90:13. The Septuagint therefore translate thus: the sluggard sent on a journey said: There is a lion in the streets, and assassins in the squares, who tear apart men and prey like lions (for hence the lion in Hebrew is called ארה ari from ארה ara, that is, he tore apart); the Syriac: the sluggard says when he is sent, etc.
This proverb is repeated here: for we heard it in chapter 22, verse 13, where I explained it. From verse 1 up to this point Solomon has dealt with folly and imprudence; now he adds some proverbs about laziness up to verse 17.
Mystically, Hugh takes the lion to mean the devil, and the lioness to mean the pleasures of the flesh, which frighten the idle and lazy away from undertaking the arduous and laborious path of virtue.
Finally, for the lazy and wicked a lion is a lion, but for the diligent and holy a lion is a dog: for it serves and obeys them as a dog does its master. To pass over other examples, John Moschus, in the Spiritual Meadow, chapter 181, narrates that a lion, meeting John the Anchorite between two narrow hedges, opened the way for him and pushed back the hedges with its back, until John had passed. Thus the lion provided an unobstructed path for the just man: after whose passage the lion itself, rising from the hedge, continued on its way.
14. AS A DOOR TURNS ON ITS HINGE, SO DOES THE SLUGGARD ON HIS BED.
In Hebrew, upon his bed; the Syriac and Vatablus: as doors roll on their hinge, so the sluggard rolls on his bed. Therefore first, Aben-Ezra explains the analogy of the door on its hinge and the sluggard in bed thus: The door, he says, constantly turns on its hinge, both when it is closed and when it is opened. In not dissimilar fashion the sluggard rolls on his bed now to this side, now to the other, and does not rise to obtain those things by which he might sustain life, and therefore it is then added: "The sluggard hides his hand under his armpit."
Secondly, the same author assigns another analogy: The hinge, he says, turns because the doors have been opened, so that each person may go forth to his work, but nevertheless the idle man still luxuriates in bed.
Thirdly, Rabbi Levi offers this: Just as, he says, a door always turns on its hinge and is never torn from it; so the idle man is too great a lover of sleep, since idleness promotes sleep.
Hugh gives a fourth: Just as, he says, a door, when it moves on its hinge, creaks: so the sluggard, when he is drawn from his laziness, creaks: that is, he murmurs, makes noise, and cries out, according to that passage of Virgil, Aeneid I: The hinge creaked on its strong bronze. And book 6: Then at last the sacred gates are thrown open, creaking on their dread-sounding hinge.
Wherefore St. Ephrem, Paraenesis 22: "The sluggard, he says, constantly grumbles and bewails himself." The same author, in his book On Virtues and Vices: "Laziness, he says, is most closely joined to murmuring; for wherever the sluggard is sent, he says: There is a lion in the way, in the middle of the streets I shall be killed. The sluggard always has excuses at the ready; if any work is assigned to him, he grumbles, and soon he also perverts others, saying: And what is the point of this? Why this or that? It is not expedient, he says, that this be done. If he is sent somewhere: Loss, he says, will come from that journey. If he is roused to chant the psalms, he becomes angry; if to the night watches, he pretends to have stomach or head pains; if you admonish him: Admonish yourself, he says, as for me, it will be as God pleases." his morsel, and idle thoughts, conversations, and actions, nevertheless he always remains fixed on the same spot, nor does he allow himself to be drawn away from it by anyone's warnings or threats. For the hinge and the essence of the sluggard's life and pleasure is idleness, torpor, and sloth, in which he places all his good and happiness; whence beyond it he does not permit himself to be led or dragged. Hence "hinge" (cardo) is said to be, as it were, the heart (cor) of the door, by which it is moved, says Servius. Hence also of Jupiter, Seneca says in the Hippolytus: And He turns the heavens on their swift hinge. Likewise, the heart of the sluggard is laziness itself: this is his hinge, this his pole, around which all his desires revolve.
Jansenius gives a fifth: just as a door hangs entirely from its hinge, and remains fixed and firm in it, and although it turns, nevertheless always rests on its hinge: so the sluggard hangs entirely from the bed of his laziness, and remains fixed in it, so that, although he turns in it and changes his scraps, his idle thoughts, conversations, and actions, he nevertheless always remains on the same spot, nor does he allow himself to be drawn away from it by anyone's warnings or threats.
Jansenius gives a sixth: just as a door remains on its hinge but does not rest, because it frequently turns, opens, and closes: so the sluggard is so given to idleness that he cannot even bear idleness idly and quietly, but turns restlessly in it: for even when he is not sleeping, and the bed is no longer needed, he turns in his bed now to this side, now to that, obstinately attached to the bed, but restless in it, though it is designed only for rest and sleep. He beautifully depicts the absurdity of laziness, by showing that the sluggard uses rest itself restlessly, and cannot abandon rest even when it begins to be troublesome.
Our Salazar gives a seventh: Just as a door, he says, is alternately closed and opened on its hinge: so also the sluggard by certain alternations wills and does not will, according to that saying of chapter 13, verse 4: "The sluggard wills and does not will," that is, now he desires labor, now he refuses it. St. Augustine learnedly described these very contrary movements of the lazy man, Sermon 22 On the Words of the Apostle, where he introduces laziness struggling with avarice in an idle man: "You have, together with avarice, the other burden of laziness, and these two most wicked burdens, fighting with each other, press you down and tear you apart. For they do not command equal things, they do not order similar things. Laziness says: Sleep; avarice says: Get up; laziness says: Do not endure cold days; avarice says: Endure even storms at sea; the one says: Rest; the other does not allow rest."
The sluggard therefore now proposes to rise from bed and return to work, now he withdraws and shuts himself in bed, like a rabbit in its burrow and a chick in its nest, when he feels cold or some other slight discomfort. Whence this saying, taken literally as it sounds, is most true of sluggards snoring in bed well into the daylight hours of winter.
Finally, just as a door on its hinge moves but makes no progress: so the lazy move many things but advance nothing, accomplish nothing, do not progress a hair's breadth in virtue, of whom David accordingly says: "The wicked walk in circles," Psalm 11, verse 9. Like beasts in a treadmill, who are always walking but never advancing: so these men clearly set before themselves their own will, as a certain center of their actions, as it were; around this center they are carried about, embracing one object after another, yet never departing from their own will; and although they always walk on the road, they never approach the homeland, which is the end of the journey: on this consult St. Bernard, treatise On Loving God, past the middle, and in his Declamations, likewise past the middle, and Sermon 12 on the Psalm "He Who Dwells."
Mystically, understand this proverb as referring to the bed of evil habit and vices, in which certain persons rest with pleasure, rolling themselves from one vice to another, and now indeed proposing to abandon their vices, but now falling back into the same ones, refusing out of laziness to seize upon the path and labors of virtue.
15. THE SLUGGARD HIDES HIS HAND UNDER HIS ARMPIT (the Septuagint and the Syriac: in his bosom); AND HE LABORS IF HE TURNS IT TO HIS MOUTH.
For "labors" Symmachus translates "becomes numb." It is a hyperbole, as if to say: The sluggard is so idle that he seems to labor and grow weary when he moves his hand to his mouth, to put food into it though he is hungry. Again, it is a gradation; for he presents three degrees of laziness. The first is in verse 13: "The sluggard says: There is a lion in the way." The second, greater one is in verse 14, that he rolls on his bed like a door on its hinge. The third and highest is that he hides his hand under his armpit and labors to bring it to his mouth. We heard this verse in chapter 19, verse 21, where I explained it. Nor is it surprising that the same verse is repeated here from time to time; for the reason is either that these sayings were collected by different people, as the present ones from chapter 25 to the end of the book were collected by the men of Hezekiah, while the preceding ones were collected by others; or because the same saying is suitable for various places and is adduced with a different end and purpose, as here it is adduced for the gradation just mentioned.
Mystically Bede says: "It is labor for the sluggard to extend his hand to his mouth, because every lazy preacher does not wish to practice what he teaches; for to extend the hand to the mouth is to make works agree with the voice of one's preaching."
16. THE SLUGGARD IS WISER IN HIS OWN EYES THAN SEVEN MEN WHO GIVE WISE COUNSEL.
In Hebrew: the sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven who render an exact judgment; the Chaldean: than seven who render an account; the Septuagint, somewhat differently: the sluggard seems wiser to himself than one who in satiety brings a message; the Syriac: the slothful man, who seems wise to himself, is better than seven who give an account.
For "counsel" the Hebrew is טעם taam, that is, taste, flavor, and thence by metaphor counsel, judgment, reason, a saying: for this is the taste and flavor of the soul and mind; also fine sayings, witticisms, charms, wit: for these are the taste and flavor of ears and hearers, just as food seasoned with salt gives flavor to the tongue and palate. "Seven," that is, many, indeed all; for the number seven is a symbol of multitude and universality. Again, precisely seven, namely the royal counselors and administrators of the kingdom. For he alludes, as Aben-Ezra rightly observes, to the seven counselors of kings formerly famous. For since God in the heavenly court has seven chief Angels as assessors, as it were, through whom as supreme princes of heaven He governs and administers all things, as is clear from Tobit 12:15; Zechariah 4:10; Revelation 1:4. Hence kings imitated the same in their earthly court, by choosing seven men, indeed princes, outstanding in wisdom, whose counsel and help they would use in administering the kingdom. That Ahasuerus, king of Persia, had seven such is clear from Esther 5:14. I said more about these seven men, both heavenly and earthly, at Revelation 1:4.
The meaning therefore is, as if to say: The sluggard seems to himself to be the wisest, and so wiser than the seven counselors of kings, who were formerly considered the wisest in the whole kingdom, because they administered the kingdom; and yet the sluggard is the most foolish, for by the comparison he is here set against seven supremely wise men, against whom none but the supremely foolish are set. For the sluggard through his idleness will lose wealth, health, fame, life, and conscience, all of which a laborious man gains, and with which he enriches and blesses himself; the latter therefore is wise, the former foolish. Whence St. Augustine, Sermon 70 On the Times: "See, he says, brothers, consider with what fervent spirit you ought to receive guests. Behold Abraham himself runs, his wife hastens, the servant hurries. There is no sluggard in the house of the wise man."
The a priori reason for this saying is that the sluggard, as I said, thinks that the highest good and happiness is idleness, rest, and sloth; which, since he sees it despised by the wise, inasmuch as they labor and toil in the pursuit of wisdom and the practice of virtues, he therefore considers them to be wretched and foolish, and himself to be wiser than all, and, as the Syriac translates, better, that is, that he is better off, that he has chosen the better lot, and is happier and more blessed than the rest, especially than princes and royal counselors, who undergo a thousand labors, cares, and pains for the welfare of the king and kingdom, to find and adopt counsels, methods, and strategies to protect both, while he himself passes his life in rest, idleness, and sloth.
The second reason is that sluggards are talkative and garrulous; for since their hands are idle, they occupy themselves with their tongue, and exercise it; therefore they seem to themselves to be eloquent, fluent, and wise, and wiser than other wise men, who are sparing and slow of speech. Whence some translate "counsel" as "witticisms" or "charms"; for in these the idle and trifling excel; for as St. Bernard says: "An idle life is the mother of trifles and the stepmother of virtues."
The third reason is that the lazy and idle are curious and censorious. For since they do nothing, they curiously observe the deeds of others, and criticize, carp at, and ridicule them; therefore they set themselves up as censors of everyone, and so they think themselves wiser than the rest: for a censor must be wiser than those he censures. This is what the Apostle says, 2 Thessalonians chapter 3, verse 11: "We hear, he says, that some among you walk disorderly, doing nothing, but being busybodies," that is, as Maximus explains, Sermon 46: "Doing no work themselves, but curiously inquiring into the works of others. For as Theophylactus says in the same place: It is the characteristic of those who do nothing to inquire into the lives of others."
Moreover the Septuagint translate: the sluggard seems wiser to himself than one who in satiety brings a message. Because instead of שבעה sceba with shin, that is, "seven," they read שבעה sebua with sin, that is, "satiety," and they translate טעם taam as "message"; for he who brings news gives flavor to the hearers, as if to say: The idle sluggard prefers to sit and starve rather than to feast and be satisfied by serving others and carrying messages, to dance and revel. For the Greek word ἀγγελία signifies both a message and the dancing and revelry of the intoxicated.
17. LIKE ONE WHO SEIZES A DOG BY THE EARS IS HE WHO PASSES BY AND BECOMES IMPATIENT AND GETS INVOLVED IN ANOTHER'S QUARREL.
From verse 13 up to this point he dealt with laziness and sloth; now until the end of the chapter he deals with impatience, anger, hatred, deceit, and fraud. In Hebrew: one who seizes a dog's ears, so is one who passes by and meddles in passing in a dispute not his own; Pagninus: so is one who passes by and becomes angry in a dispute not his own; the Chaldean: so is one who contends in a cause that is not his own; the Septuagint: as one who holds the tail of a dog, so is one who presides over another's quarrel.
All these versions agree in the same meaning and illustrate the Vulgate. The Septuagint puts "tail" instead of "ears," because the tail in dogs is very sensitive, and even when they are being friendly, they do not allow it to be touched or held. For the tail to a dog is like wings and oars, for every movement and for expressing every emotion: for angry dogs raise their tail, fearful ones lower it, those being friendly wag it, etc.
He does not forbid anyone from interposing himself in a quarrel to settle it and separate the quarrelers. For this, if done prudently, is required by charity among equals and by justice among superiors; for it is their duty to settle disputes and quarrels, and to defend the innocent against aggressors, as Moses defended the Hebrew unjustly attacked by the quarrelsome Egyptian, by killing him, because he had already been destined by God as a leader, indeed the liberator of the Hebrews from the tyranny of the Egyptians, as St. Stephen teaches, Acts 7:25.
He therefore forbids anyone from rashly, out of anger and impatience, involving himself in the quarrels of others, so as to begin quarreling with the quarrelers himself, or from a love of quarreling, as there are some quarrelsome and pugnacious people who involve themselves in any quarrels and fights, indeed seek them out and look for them, either because he favors one party and wishes to defend it, or because he hopes for some gain or advantage, or from indiscreet zeal, or from any other cause; for this is properly to involve oneself in another's quarrel, namely to quarrel with the quarreler, and this is what the word "impatient" signifies, and the Hebrew מתעבר mitabber, that is, burning with anger, becoming incensed: the root עבר abar means to pass over; for just as one who passes through fire becomes inflamed in body: so one who passes through anger, becomes inflamed and incensed in mind. He therefore, if he involves himself in a quarrel, kindles it more and provokes and stirs it up against himself. For as Nazianzen says, in Antonius's Melissa, part 2, chapter 71: "Those endowed with a great spirit (such as the irascible and quarrelsome) are accustomed to resist stubbornly and obstinately, and like a flame excited by the wind, the more it is blown, the more it is kindled." And St. Chrysostom, Homily On Gentleness, tome 5: "An angry man, he says, is a common enemy of both citizens and strangers; even though he is very slightly injured, he shouts, screams, threatens blows to those he meets, says things both fit and unfit to be said, with a stern look, a swollen face, a rabid tongue," etc. All these things are indeed canine.
Solomon therefore aptly compares such a person to one who seizes a dog by the ears; for as Jansenius rightly says, a dog is a most easily irritated animal, and nothing irritates it more than being seized by the ears, the least manageable part of dogs: those who do this rashly provoke the dog against themselves to barking, charging, and biting, when they could easily avoid it by leaving the dog alone: so one who involves himself in the disputes of others contending among themselves, in a cause that does not concern him, while seeking either to favor one party or to reproach both, easily provokes against himself the spirits already irritated and inflamed by the contention, or one of the parties, so that now either both, or one of them, begins to contend with him and rises up against him, and sometimes even injures him, when by passing by and leaving their cause untouched, he could easily escape all trouble. The proverb therefore advises that no one should readily thrust himself into the cause of others, lest he rashly provoke the enmity and hatred of others against himself.
Secondly, this comparison notes that it is a precarious and utterly perplexing thing to involve oneself in another's quarrel, just as one who holds a dog by the ears is perplexed and does not know which way to turn: for if he continues to hold, he irritates the dog more, so that the impatient animal either shakes its ears free, or turning its head bites the hand of the one holding it, or if it cannot do this, bites the knees, hips, or feet; but if he releases the dog, there is danger that the dog, irritated by him, will avenge its injury and attack and tear its captor. Similarly, one who has begun to involve himself in a quarrel is perplexed and does not know what to do: for if he pursues the quarrel, he will easily injure and be injured in it; but if he stops, he will be attacked and struck by the other quarrelers, whom he provoked against himself. This is what is commonly said: "He holds a wolf by the ears, and can neither hold it nor let it go." Suetonius attributes this to the Emperor Tiberius: "The reason for his hesitation, he says, was fear of dangers threatening on all sides, so that he often said he was holding a wolf by the ears." For a hare, because it has very long ears, can be conveniently held by them; but a wolf, because its ears are shorter in proportion to its body, cannot be held by them; nor again can so biting a beast, similar to a dog, be released from the hands without the greatest danger: in like manner, for one who involves himself in a quarrel, it is neither safe to leave it nor safe to pursue it.
Thirdly, this comparison notes that in a quarrel there is manifold danger from accidents and random blows; for just as a dog's bite is often unexpected and accidental; whence the Belgians say of one who has been injured by an uncertain author: "A dog bit him": so likewise one who gets involved in a quarrel is often wounded by a random blow not only from the enemy, but also from a friend and others who wish to settle the quarrel, and is sometimes even killed; for if he favors one of the quarrelers, he provokes the other against himself; if neither, both; if both, he exposes himself to being struck by the random blows of both. The force is in the words "another's quarrel." Just as a dog sometimes allows its own master to hold it by the ears, but not a stranger: so one who quarrels with another does not allow himself to be restrained by a stranger, with whom he has neither friendship nor anything else in common, or to be impeded in his quarrel.
Fourthly, dogs, because they are impatient, and because they have sensitive ears, are sharply pained if they are held and pressed by them, especially when they are fighting; for then the fight makes the ears stiff, and if they are compressed they hurt more sharply: so likewise those who are quarreling are of acute and delicate touch and feeling, so that when struck by a light blow or word, even by a friend who strives to settle the quarrel, they are sharply pained, and they rise up against the author of it and attack him headlong.
Finally, some think that this proverb advises that no one should admonish and reprove quarrelers in the very heat of the quarrel, since they are not in control of themselves and are incapable of admonition, but should wait until the heat of anger cools down, so that they may be restored to themselves and their senses. But there is no mention here of admonition or reproof: for it is one thing to involve oneself impatiently in a quarrel, which is what Solomon says; another thing to imprudently and untimely reprove quarrelers, which is what they say.
Again, Bede and Hugh think that one who involves himself in another's quarrel is compared not to the one holding the dog, but to the dog itself whose ears are being held, as if to say: One who involves himself in another's quarrel is like a dog whose ears are being pulled; for so he himself is pulled by the ears by the quarrelers, since he is forced to receive many insults and reproaches in his ears from them, and therefore like a dog he in turn barks at and bites them.
But the rest more aptly think that one who involves himself in a quarrel is compared not to the dog being held, but to the man holding the dog by the ears, according to the meaning assigned at the beginning, for the reasons I have added, and this is what the words say: "As one who seizes a dog, so is he who," etc.; for holding the dog is like holding the quarrel: for the dog is the image of the quarrel.
The ancient wise men, philosophers, and poets agree with Solomon. Following him especially in his usual manner, Sirach says, chapter 28, verse 10: "Keep yourself from strife, he says, and you will lessen sins; for an angry man kindles strife: for as the wood of the forest is, so the fire blazes; and as is the strength of a man, so is his anger." See what was said there. Isocrates
in Antonius's Melissa, part 2, chapter 68: "Perverse wits, he says, are accustomed to be contentious, so that they do not make an end of fighting and contention until they have received a lethal blow and are afflicted with a memorable punishment." Demosthenes, provoked by someone's insults: "I would not wish, he said, to descend with you into this kind of contest, in which the loser is better than the victor himself." So Stobaeus, Sermon 19 On Patience. Euripides in the Protesilaus: "When one of two conversing persons is indignant, he who does not oppose him is the wiser." The same in the Andromache: "From a small beginning man's tongue produces great quarrels. But the wise take care not to stir up any contention." Plautus in the Persa: "It is folly when one can be well off to prefer lawsuits." The comic poet: "Every lawsuit departs as money departs. Do not seek a lawsuit, flee it if you can. He who litigates is not his own master, but the judge's," indeed of the one litigating against him. "Do you want dogs to fight? Throw a thin bone between them." Nazianzen in his poem On His Own Affairs teaches that those who involve themselves in quarrels contract either harm or infamy: As those who have come closer to a flame's vapor, Will bear on their body the marks either of flame or of smoke.
Isidore of Pelusium, book 1, letter 361: "Why, he says, do you arm giants against yourself? Why do you provoke dogs maddened with rage, whose bites are pestilential? Why do you sharpen malicious tongues? Why do you stain your own reputation by associating yourself with those whom no person of sense would wish to employ even as slaves?" Cicero: "It is the mark of the most depraved man, he says, both to dissolve a friendship and to deceive one who would not have been harmed had he not trusted."
18 and 19. AS ONE WHO IS HARMFUL, WHO SHOOTS ARROWS AND LANCES UNTO DEATH: SO IS THE MAN WHO FRAUDULENTLY HARMS HIS FRIEND, AND WHEN HE HAS BEEN CAUGHT, SAYS: I WAS ONLY JOKING.
Symmachus for "who fraudulently harms" translates: a man of frauds; St. Jerome, Against Rufinus: "He who lays snares for his friends, when he has been seen, says: I was only joking."
"Lances unto death," that is, deadly lances. A lance is the point of a hunting spear or javelin, says Budaeus; whence in Hebrew it is חץ chets, that is, a javelin, an arrow; a lance therefore is a very long type of weapon, so called from the width of its iron, or rather from the Greek λόγχη, that is, lance, spear, says Festus; or as Isidore says: "A lance is so called because it is brandished with an equal balance (lance), that is, vibrated with an evenly weighted strap."
For "is harmful" the Hebrew is מתלהלה mitlaleah, which various translators render variously: Pagninus aptly renders it: he hides himself; the Tigurini: he wears himself out; Vatablus: he pretends to be weak and feeble; our translator: he causes labor and pain, that is, he is harmful. For the root להה laha means to labor, to suffer, to be afflicted; the Septuagint: he cures or is cured; the Chaldean: he casts himself down; the Syriac: he is haughty; Aben-Ezra: he pretends to be insane; Rabbi Levi: Just as, he says, someone pretends to be weary from labor and devoid of strength for doing harm, who, when he later finds a suitable opportunity, sends forth fiery sparks, and casts arrows and death.
For "arrows" the Hebrew is זקים zikim, which Rabbi Solomon, Aben-Ezra, Rabbi Levi, and Pagninus translate as: sparks of fire; our translator renders it: flames, in Isaiah 50:11; others translate: snares and fetters; the Chaldean: arrows. Therefore zikim means burning arrows, or firebolts and flaming missiles, such as are cast by enemies into cities or ships to set them ablaze and burn them.
From the Hebrew, therefore, you may translate word for word thus: as one who hides himself casting sparks, arrows, and death: so is a man who has defrauded his companion, and says: Was I not joking? The Tigurini: as one who wears himself out casting flames, lethal weapons, etc.; the Chaldean: as one who casts himself down and sends sharp arrows of death, so is one who fraudulently deceives his friend and says: I was only playing; the Syriac: as the haughty cast words like sharp and deadly arrows. I will soon add the Septuagint version below.
The meaning therefore is, as if to say: Just as one who secretly hurls burning arrows and deadly lances at those who fear or suspect nothing of the sort greatly harms them: so likewise one who fraudulently and secretly injures a friend harms him more than one who does so openly and publicly; and this firstly, because just as you can repel with sword and shield one who attacks you at close range with a sword; but you cannot repel one who attacks you from afar with arrows: in like manner you can avoid one who openly rushes at you, but not one who fraudulently attacks you unsuspecting, indeed unaware. Secondly, just as an enemy who hurls flaming weapons into a city, hiding himself behind walls, screens, and ramparts, ravages and destroys in secret: so also one who fraudulently injures a friend, secretly and most grievously wounds him, so that he cannot recognize, avoid, or escape him. For who would fear or guard against injury from a friend? He therefore injures inevitably, who conceals his enmity and feigns friendship; and if the injury and its author become apparent or are detected, so that he can neither hide nor excuse himself, he says: "I was joking," my intention was to jest, not to harm; I had no intention to injure, but the injury happened unexpectedly and by chance, contrary to my intention.
This proverb therefore teaches that open enemies, who harm openly, are far less harmful than concealed ones, disguised with a pretense of friendship, who harm secretly, and therefore they should be tracked down and avoided like plagues. Such are often found in the courts of princes: indeed, even familiar friends and intimate counselors of princes, but in name only, when in reality they are treacherous enemies, the most harmful traitors, inasmuch as they can scarcely be detected and guarded against.
St. Basil says excellently in Antonius's Melissa
part 2, chapter 86: "Hidden malice, he says, is more pernicious than open malice;" and Philo: "Those who lack the strength of a tyrannical nature contrive matters by cunning and treachery;" Pliny, book 18, chapter 17: "Broomrape, he says, is destructive to chickpea and bitter vetch, as darnel to wheat, an awn to barley (which is called aegilops), and dodder to lentils; and indeed all of these kill by embracing:" so the pestilential friendship of certain people is worse than enmity; Xenophon, book 5 of the Education of Cyrus: "You could not, he says, confer a greater benefit on friends in war than by seeming to be the enemy of their enemies; nor could you harm enemies in any way more than by feigning friendship with them;" Seneca, On Providence: "There are no more hidden snares, he says, than those that lurk under a pretense of duty; for one who is an open adversary you can easily avoid; and the Trojan horse therefore deceived because it counterfeited the appearance of mercy;" and Boethius, On Consolation: "No plague is more effective at doing harm than a familiar enemy;" Demonax in Antonius's Melissa: "Fewer evils, he says, befall men from enemies than from friends; for since they fear enemies, they guard against them, but they are open to friends; whence they are exposed to dangers, and are easily caught in their snares." So Antonius, part 2, chapter 25.
Moreover the Septuagint for "is harmful" translate ἰᾶσθαι, which, since it is of the middle conjugation, can be rendered actively as "he cures," or passively as "they are cured." Actively, the author of the Catena of the Greeks translates thus clearly with the Complutensians: those who with specious words set traps for their friends are not unlike itinerant doctors. For just as these charlatans cast about grand words among men, and meanwhile he who first falls into their conversation is tripped up: so those men with cunning speech ensnare their friends, and if they are caught in their fraud, they say: I was joking. Passively the Vatican edition translates: as those who are being healed cast words at men; and whoever encounters the word first will be tripped up: so all who lay snares for their friends, when they have been seen, say: Because I was joking.
The comparison is drawn from delirious patients, who are angry at the doctors treating them, and attack the first people they meet, first with words and then with blows, as if to say: Just as the delirious, hurling insults and curses at their doctors, are excused on account of their delirium: so fraudulent persons who harm others excuse themselves by saying they did it unintentionally through error. But if in a clear case they cannot pretend this, they say they did it not seriously, but as a joke.
Finally, the Vatican Scholiast renders ἰᾶσθαι as "those who are insane." Some codices read παρωμένα, that is, "growing light" (lucescentes), which the Scholiast attributes to Symmachus, just as to Aquila παρηθικοῦντα, that is, those of bad morals.
A striking example of this saying is in Trypho, who, in order to make himself king of Syria, perfidiously and wickedly killed the young king Antiochus, who had been entrusted to his care and fidelity, as well as Jonathan the brother of Judas Maccabaeus together with his sons, 1 Maccabees, chapter 12, verse 39.
20. WHEN WOOD FAILS, THE FIRE GOES OUT: AND WHEN THE WHISPERER IS REMOVED, QUARRELS CEASE.
In Hebrew: and when there is no whisperer, strife will be silent. For "whisperer" the Hebrew is נרגן nirgan, that is, a whisperer, informer, detractor, calumniator.
The meaning is clear, as if to say: Just as wood feeds fire, so that the more wood is heaped on, the more the fire grows and burns; but when the wood fails, the fire fails and dies out, as lacking fuel and nourishment: so likewise whisperers feed quarrels, so that the more they whisper and increase, the more quarrels and disputes increase; but when they cease, quarrels cease and are quiet. For a whisperer is one who sows discord between friends, by speaking ill of one to the other in turn, reporting his words and deeds, and interpreting them unfavorably and exaggerating them, indeed adding and fabricating much from himself. He therefore is the fuel and fan of hatreds and quarrels; but when he is removed, both subside and cease. Wherefore God ordained in Leviticus 19:16, saying: "There shall be no accuser nor whisperer among the people." And David, Psalm 100, verse 5: "Him who secretly detracted from his neighbor, him I persecuted." Indeed even the Emperor Titus ordered whisperers and informers to be beaten with whips and rods and deported into exile.
The Septuagint translate: in many logs it sprouts, that is, it rises and grows like a sprout gradually budding and creeping. The author of the Catena of the Greeks: fire blazes; but where there is no dissenter, strife is quiet. For "dissenter" the Greek is δίθυμος, that is, double-minded, discordant, not only passively but also actively, one who namely by his whisperings and accusations separates united spirits and, as it were, cuts them into two parts, and thus causes schism and stirs up quarrels and wars; δίθυμος therefore is a whisperer: for he is called nirgan in Hebrew. Therefore the meaning of the Septuagint is the same as the Hebrew and Vulgate reading, as if to say: Just as many logs kindle a great fire: so many δίθυμοι, that is, whisperers, stir up many quarrels. Conversely, just as when logs are removed or fail, the fire fails: so when the δίθυμος, that is, the whisperer, fails, quarrels cease. One thing therefore is δίθυμος, that is, double-minded, discordant; another is δίδυμος, that is, twin, double, doubtful, which in Hebrew is called תאום teom; whence the Apostle Thomas was so called, as being hesitant and doubtful about the faith of the resurrection of Christ, John chapter 20, verse 24. Therefore Thomas in Hebrew is the same as δίδυμος in Greek and geminus (twin) in Latin, says Angelus Caninius in On the Hebrew Names of the New Testament.
Again, δίθυμος means dissenting; for one who dissents from another has another and second mind from him, that is, another judgment, and consequently another and contrary affection, which is the cause of dissension and quarrels; therefore even if one person is laboring under anger and hatred, if nevertheless the other does not dissent from him, but agrees with and seconds him in all things as far as is permissible, immediately the former's anger and hatred against him subsides and ceases, and all quarreling will stop. And this is what the Septuagint means when they say: Where there is no δίθυμος, strife is quiet. Wherefore the Apostle repeatedly admonishes the faithful to be ὁμόψυχοι, that is, to say and think the same things, and so to cultivate peace and concord, as is clear from Romans 15; Philippians 3; 2 Corinthians 13.
Instead of δίθυμος, others read ὀξύθυμος, that is, of sharp spirit, that is, irascible, rash, quarrelsome; whence they read: Where there is no ὀξύθυμος, that is, no angry, hot-headed person, strife is quiet. For it is anger that stirs up quarrels; whence a certain codex has: But where there is θυμός, that is, anger and fury, fighting will not cease. I said more about the whisperer in Ecclesiasticus 5:16, and chapter 25, verses 15 and following.
21. AS COALS ARE TO EMBERS, AND WOOD TO FIRE: SO AN ANGRY MAN STIRS UP QUARRELS.
In Hebrew: A coal to embers, and wood to fire, and a contentious man to kindle strife; the Septuagint: A grate for coals, and wood for fire, and a malicious man for the tumult of a quarrel. So the Vatican edition; the Complutensians: and a reviler for the disturbance of a quarrel; Aquila: and a whispering man; Symmachus: a deceitful man; Theodotion: a murmuring man.
The meaning is clear, as if to say: Just as coals are powerful, indeed were born and made to increase and intensify glowing embers; and just as wood is powerful for increasing fire: so anger and an angry man is powerful, indeed seems born and made for stirring up quarrels. There are two fuels of quarreling: the first is external, namely the whisperer, whom he removed in the preceding verse; the other is internal, namely anger, which he removes here, as if to say: Remove the external fan of quarreling, namely the whisperer; remove also the internal irritant, namely anger, and you will have removed all quarreling: for anger incites the angry man to quarrel; and the quarrel of one provokes the quarrel of the opposing party. This is clear from what was said in the preceding verse, and in chapter 15, verse 18, where we heard almost the same proverb in the same terms. In Hebrew it is: a man of contentions, that is, a man inclined to contending, such as an angry man is: for anger stirs up contention, contention stirs up quarrel, quarrel stirs up fighting, blows, and slaughter. The Septuagint has ἐσχάρα, that is, a hearth; the Vatican: a grate covering and holding a hearth with coals, and wood for fire, and a malicious man for the disturbance or tumult of a quarrel; Aquila and Theodotion: for kindling strife. For "malicious" the Greek is λοίδωρος, that is, a reviler; Aquila: a whisperer; Symmachus: a deceitful person; ἐσχάρα also signifies an altar, and this is apt here, as if to say: Just as fire burns on an altar, on which victims are burned for God: so in anger a quarrel burns, by which men are slaughtered and sacrificed to Mars, indeed to the devil. Therefore anger is the altar of the devil, on which the fire is quarrel, the one sacrificing is the angry man, and the victims are the slaughter of men. The author of the Catena of the Greeks says: "A hearth, he says, is designed for coals, and wood for fire; and a reviling man is powerful for stirring up disturbances and seditions."
Again, just as coals not only kindle but also blacken and stain with their soot; and just as burning logs, if extinguished, smoke, and the coals retain as it were the marks of burning; whence they are also called brands: so likewise, besides the injuries received in a quarrel, there remains the mark of infamy, especially from the insults and reproaches hurled at you by the quarreler; which lasts for a long time, and is sometimes indelible.
Thirdly, Vatablus translates: a coal produces an ember and logs produce fire; a contentious man kindles a quarrel, as if to say: From a coal embers are easily produced, a coal is easily turned into embers, and logs into fire: so contention immediately passes into a quarrel.
22. THE WORDS OF A WHISPERER ARE AS IT WERE SIMPLE, AND THEY REACH TO THE INNERMOST PARTS OF THE BELLY.
We heard this proverb in chapter 18, verse 8, where I explained it. Aquila translates: the deceiving words of a whisperer; Symmachus: the words of murmurers spoken in passing; Theodotion: the words of the cunning man as if simple; the Septuagint: the words of flatterers are soft, and they penetrate to the innermost recesses of the bowels. For "flatterers" the Greek is κερκώπων, that is, "tailed ones," meaning those who fawn with their tail. Hear the author of the Catena of the Greeks: The word κερκώπων, that is, of the crafty or those fawning with their tail, is taken from foxes; for these hunt and capture simpler birds by no other art than this one: for by holding their tail over their eyes they pretend to sleep, and sometimes they truly do sleep, and by this pretense of sleep they lure simpler and weaker animals, and intercept those that rashly approach or fly near.
Finally the Syriac translates: the words of an angry man disturb, and they reach to the interior of the heart. For "as if simple" the Hebrew is כמתלחמים kemithlahamim, about which Rabbi Solomon says: This word, he says, is the same as kemithlachamim, that is, the words of a whisperer are like those waging war. But the Rabbis applied the same interpretation to it, and say it is the same as כמת לחם chemath lahem, that is, the words of an informer are like death to them.
Aben-Ezra thinks kemithlahamim is placed by metathesis for kemithallamim, that is, like striking or hammering things: for הלם halam means to pound, to strike; and הלמות halmuth means a hammer; whence he translates: the words of a whisperer are like blows and wounds. Finally Rabbi Levi says: The words of a whisperer are as if simple, that is, he says, as if interrupted; for they more often use the device: I will not recount everything to you, I do not lay out the whole sequence of events for you; which indeed make a powerful impression on the hearer's mind, so that he persuades himself that the things passed over in silence by the other person are far graver than those that have been narrated. So Rabbi Levi.
23. AS IF YOU WISHED TO ADORN AN EARTHEN VESSEL WITH IMPURE SILVER, SO ARE SWELLING LIPS JOINED WITH A WICKED HEART.
In Hebrew: the silver of dross spread over a potsherd, burning lips and an evil heart. For "swelling lips" the Hebrew is דולקים dolekim. Symmachus translates: inflaming lips; Aquila and Theodotion: burning lips; Pagninus: lips that kindle quarrels; Clarius: flattering lips; the Chaldean: as impure silver with which an earthen vessel is covered, so are inflamed lips with a wicked heart.
Therefore Cajetan less correctly takes the silver here as that which is purged of dross by fire in an earthen vessel, as if to say: Just as in an earthen vessel the dross is distinguished and separated from the silver by fire: so in wicked lips burning with malice, the internal malice and wickedness of the heart is betrayed and recognized. Less correctly, I say, because the Hebrews and all interpreters understand the silver here not as enclosed in the clay, but as covering the clay.
First therefore Jansenius thinks this proverb signifies the congruence of swelling lips with a wicked heart, as if to say: A worthy lid for the pot, as is commonly said, is an evil mouth for an evil heart, just as the dross of silver spread upon an earthen vessel. For a wicked mouth corresponds to and aptly matches a wicked heart, and dross is a fitting coating for a potsherd.
Secondly, Vatablus thinks their worthlessness is being noted, as if to say: Just as the dross of silver is a worthless thing, because it is spread over a worthless potsherd: so a wicked mouth that is joined and applied to a wicked heart is worthless.
Thirdly, our Salazar thinks that their weakness and fragility is being noted, as if to say: A hypocritical man, who covers a wicked heart with crafty words and a false show of probity, is similar to an earthen vessel coated with silver dross, which outwardly counterfeits the brightness of silver, but inwardly contains a potsherd and clay: which perhaps also exhibits the color of silver but by no means its firm solidity; rather it is truly fragile. In like manner a hypocritical and dissembling man displays simplicity and candor of soul through words and the rest of his conversation, but within conceals deceits and perverse affections; outwardly he appears to hold fast to what is fair and good, but he is fragile, and liable and prone to fall into every kind of malice.
Fourthly, and most genuinely, this proverb signifies the arts and frauds by which the deceitful simulate and cover up the internal malice of the heart, that is, anger, hatred, and the desire to harm, through friendly and flattering words, by which they display love and a desire to do good. Whence by "swelling lips" understand, with Clarius, fawning and flattering lips, or rather deceitful and feigned ones, which namely inwardly in the heart swell and, as the Hebrew says, burn with anger, hatred, malignity; but outwardly in the mouth swell with pretense and feigned love, but in such a way that they occasionally flash forth, and so display signs of internal hatred: for the fire of hatred latent in the heart cannot conceal itself so well that it does not sometimes burst out in bubbles and sparks of words, and in surges of anger and threats. He therefore compares this to impure silver covering an earthen vessel, in Hebrew, the silver of dross, which Aben-Ezra interprets as silver purified from dross and pure. But others generally understand silver mixed with dross, and therefore impure; or by hypallage, the dross of silver itself, namely fragments of lead, tin, or antimony: for these three are mixed with silver when it is dug impure from its mines, and they are the dross and dregs of silver, as experts in metallurgy teach, and specifically Georgius Agricola, book 9, and Pliny, book 34. Now this tin and antimony, thus dug up together with silver and impure, is customarily used to coat earthen vessels, and especially their rim, so that one putting one's mouth to it may seem to be putting one's mouth not to clay and mud, but to tin or silver. We frequently see such vessels still in use. With these, therefore, he compares swelling lips, that is, deceitful lips, flowing from a wicked heart. Therefore by this comparison is signified the deceit by which fraudulent enemies, especially whisperers, cover up their words, in order to deceive, and at the same time the detection of that deceit itself. As if to say: Just as potters sometimes apply to an earthen vessel a rim or crust of silver dross, so that it may appear handsome and at a distance seem to be silver, not earthenware: so likewise a fraudulent person, bearing hatred as a potsherd in his heart, applies to it, as it were, a rim and crust of fine-sounding words, by which he displays friendship, indeed a burning desire to help the other, in order to lead him into fraud and ruin: but just as, if you look closely at the silver rim applied to the potsherd, you will see that it is not silver, but dross and dregs of silver: so likewise if you look more closely at the words, manner of speaking, and gestures of the fraudulent person, you will detect his fraud, and that his fine-sounding words are feigned and deceitful, and that beneath them is hidden the potsherd of hatred and malevolence.
Again, just as that thin silver rim is gradually worn away and rubbed off by use, so that the nakedness of the potsherd appears: so gradually the fraudulent person in a longer conversation, or more frequent interaction, wears away the appearance of his words, and interjects and does certain things from which his potsherd, that is, his hatred and malevolence, is uncovered and laid bare; for it is difficult to conceal one's mind for a long time and not betray it in one's expression, without it bursting forth and displaying and revealing itself. Moreover, the heart of the malevolent person, which thinks of nothing but earthly things, is rightly compared to an earthen vessel, that is, a fragile one, which is easily broken both by man and by God, according to that saying: "You shall break them like a potter's vessel," Psalm 2:9. So Rabbi Solomon, Aben-Ezra, and Rabbi Levi, Isidore Clarius, and others.
That this is the genuine meaning of this saying is clear: first, because all these verses from verse 18 to the last pertain to the deceitful and whisperers, and describe their fraud and hidden hatred; secondly, because the following verse (where the apodosis is, that is, the completion and explanation of this saying) is thus explained, when it says: "The enemy is recognized by his lips, when he has plotted deceits in his heart;" thirdly, the same is clear from the Septuagint, who translate: silver given with deceit is considered as a potsherd; smooth lips (some translate: deceitful) conceal a sad heart, that is, an angry and malignant one, as some translate. Thus "sad" is taken for "angry" in Ecclesiasticus 22:27, as I showed at length in that place: "If you have opened your mouth harshly to a friend," that is, if you have spoken morosely and angrily, "do not fear; for there is reconciliation." The meaning is, as if to say: Just as silver with deceit, that is, deceitful or counterfeit silver, when namely dross of silver is given in place of silver, at first sight it deceives: for it is thought to be silver, when it is dross; but when it is inspected more closely, what it is appears, namely dross, and then it becomes worthless like a potsherd: so likewise "smooth lips," that is, the flattering and crafty lips of sycophants, "conceal a sad heart," that is, a hostile and malignant one; but when they can no longer conceal their enmity and malignity, and reveal it through taunts and gestures, immediately their deceit, flattery, and perversity is exposed and rejected, which like a potsherd dashed against stones shatters, breaks apart, and vanishes. Hence
Mystically Bede says: "What, he says, is designated by impure silver, if not corrupted knowledge? And what by an earthen vessel, if not a carnal heart? Which, when it strives to adorn itself with that false knowledge, swells against the truth in its speech, and becomes a master of error."
24. THE ENEMY IS RECOGNIZED BY HIS LIPS, WHEN HE HAS PLOTTED DECEITS IN HIS HEART.
The Chaldean adds: and in his inward parts he stores up deceit. For "is recognized" the Hebrew is יתנכר iitnacher, from the root נכר nachar, that is, to be recognized, to be known; but iitnacher in the hitpael has the contrary meaning: for it means to be unrecognized and to be unknown, namely to present and feign oneself to be other than one is, that is, to show by word or deed that one is other than one truly is: both meanings are fitting for this passage. For it is the apodosis, that is, the completion and explanation of the parable of the preceding verse, as I said there, as if to say: A false and deceitful friend, who outwardly pretends to be a friend, while in his heart he fosters hatred and enmity, feigns with his lips and speech to be other than he really is, namely that he is a friend, when in reality he is an enemy and plots deceits in his heart; whence with his words he flatters and fawns, so as to cover his hatred with feigned love; but at last from those same lips of his he is betrayed and recognized for who and what he is, namely that he is a feigned friend and a true enemy: because prudent and shrewd men easily detect the pretense and simulation from the signs.
The signs are these: first, that dissemblers who strive to conceal their hatred are accustomed to use a certain studied and exquisite softness and flattery of words, so that it plainly appears not to be genuine, but feigned and counterfeit. Whence it follows: "When he has lowered his voice, do not believe him." Secondly, because they are accustomed to be inconstant in their words. Thirdly, because they praise to the face and disparage behind the back. Fourthly, because hidden hatred cannot be so covered up that it does not occasionally bubble up and flash forth through bitter words, nods, and gestures. A fifth sign is given by the Septuagint when they translate: with his lips the enemy assents to everything, but in his heart he fashions deceits. For a false friend and flatterer assents to all the words and deeds of his friend, praising them and extolling them to the skies, whereas a true friend moderately praises what is praiseworthy, censures what is censurable, and freely admonishes his friend of his vice and error; finally, all the signs that betray a flatterer and a deceitful friend: for every flatterer is a feigned and painted friend, and a true enemy. See Plutarch, On the Differences Between a Flatterer and a Friend.
25. When he lowers his voice, do not believe him: for there are seven abominations in his heart.
"Abominations," in Hebrew תועבות toebot, that is, abominations, detestable things; the Chaldean: evils. For "lowers" the Hebrew is יחנן iechannen, that is, he makes his voice gracious; others: he gives a voice begging for pardon and praying for grace. For the root חנן chanan means to show favor, to have mercy, to pray. Whence various translators render it variously. Pagninus: when he raises his voice in prayer; Rabbi David: when he has made his voice gracious; the Tigurini: when he is kind with his voice; the Chaldean: if he entreats with his voice; the Septuagint: if he asks you with a loud voice; St. Jerome, Against Rufinus: if the enemy asks you, sparing (perhaps praying) with a loud voice.
"Lowers" therefore does not mean that he whispers softly in the ear, modestly suggests and advises, but, as if to say: When with a lowered and delicate voice, as if humble and suppliant, he seeks your favor, or asks pardon for his offenses. For a lowered voice, as an indicator of modesty and humility, is customarily gracious and pleasing, such as is that of virgins and penitents. For Solomon seems to be speaking principally about a false friend, who was once a public enemy, but, feigning repentance, has been falsely reconciled, so that he preserves his former hatred in his mind. He is not to be trusted for any reason, because seven, that is, many, abominations are in his heart, as if to say: The hatred hidden in his heart suggests to him manifold, indeed all the arts and tricks by which he may fraudulently harm you and supplant you. Others say, as if to say: Hatred is like seven abominations, because it embraces within itself all kinds of malice and arts of harming. Following Solomon, Sirach says, chapter 12, verse 10: "Never trust your enemy; and if he goes about humbled and bowed down, pay attention and guard yourself against him," etc. See what was said there.
Hugh takes the seven abominations as those of which Christ speaks, Luke 11: "And he takes seven other spirits more wicked than himself." Others understand the seven capital vices, as if to say: A hidden enemy, in order to express his hatred against you, will enlist the seven vices: pride, to bring you low; avarice, to strip you of your goods; anger, to quarrel with you; envy, to rage against your prosperity; lust, to lay snares for the chastity of your wife and daughters; gluttony, to gorge himself on your delicacies; sloth, to show himself lazy and slow to help in your time of need.
Mystically, Bede takes the deceitful enemy as a heretic: "Because, he says, when he utters the words of his preaching with feigned humility, he seduces the hearts of the innocent and the less understanding by caressing them."
The author of the Catena of the Greeks takes the enemy as Satan. Satan, he says, asks us in various ways, and provokes us to sin: for now he suggests impure and obscene things, and proposes various enticements of pleasures; now again of oil
Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers often detected the deceits of their adversaries, as is narrated in the books of Maccabees. But here "council" (concilium) should be written with a c, as is clear from the Hebrew, the Romans, the Septuagint, Symmachus, and the rest. By "council" therefore understand an assembly of judges and magistrates, also any gathering of elders or of the people, as if to say: The deceitful man conceals his hatred and deceits, and thinks they will remain secret; but let him know that they will be reported to the judges and punished by them with just penalty, and also that they will come out before the assembly of the people so that he himself will be exposed in them, and will become the talk and shame of all. For all hate fraud and the fraudulent, and consider that they should be expelled from their community and commonwealth. Well known is God's just vengeance, by which He punishes hidden frauds and crimes through public infamy and punishment, which the fraudulent most greatly dread and abhor; for they wish their disgraces to be covered and hidden. This therefore is what Christ says, Luke 12:2: "Nothing is covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known," both here often, and always in the future judgment, especially the last, in which frauds and crimes are to be laid open and proclaimed by Christ to the whole world, that is, to all Angels and men: which will be the supreme shame of the reprobate, so that they will wish and say "to the mountains: Fall upon us; and to the hills: Cover us," Revelation 6.
26. HE WHO COVERS HATRED FRAUDULENTLY, HIS MALICE WILL BE REVEALED IN THE ASSEMBLY.
In Hebrew: hatred covers itself in desolation: his malice will be manifest in the assembly; the Septuagint: he who hides enmity contrives deceit; but his sins are revealed, being well known in the assemblies; Symmachus: he who conceals hatred through trickery, his malice will be revealed in the Church; Vatablus: hatred that hides itself in solitude is usually revealed in a gathering. Hence it is clear that in the Complutensian Septuagint ἐκκαλύπτει is not correctly translated as "conceals, hides," when it should be translated contrarily as "reveals, makes manifest," as the Vatican edition, the Hebrews, Symmachus, and our translator render it. For "fraudulently" the Hebrew is במשאון bemassaon, that is, in deception, from the root נשא nasa, that is, he deceived; others: in desolation, from the root שאה seaa, that is, he laid waste; others: in obscurity, secretly: Rabbi Solomon: in dark desolation, as if to say: He who contrives frauds in darkness will be revealed in a public assembly; Rabbi Levi: in vast solitude, where the fraud is secret and known to none.
Up to this point he has described the malice of the fraudulent friend; now he adds his punishment, namely that his malice, that is, hatred and fraud, is to be publicly revealed in the assembly, and there condemned and branded with perpetual disgrace.
Some, like Dionysius, write "consilio" with an s, as if to say: Through counsel, that is, through a prudent inquiry, the fraud can be detected; just as Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers often detected the deceits of their adversaries, as is narrated in the books of Maccabees.
Finally, Cassian, Collation 5, chapter 25, takes the enemy as gluttony: "If the enemy asks you, he says, with a loud voice, do not consent to him; for there are seven abominations in his soul, that is, if the conquered spirit of gluttony begins to flatter you with its humiliation, asking in a way that, relaxing somewhat from the fervor you have begun, you give it something that exceeds the measure of temperance and the standard of just strictness, do not yield to its submission, nor, with the smiling security of the battle won, by which you seem to have become somewhat quieter from carnal enticements, return to your former laxity or past concupiscences of gluttony. For through this that spirit which you had conquered says: I will return to my house whence I went out. And the seven spirits of vices proceeding from it will immediately be fiercer against you than that passion which had been overcome in the beginning, and will soon drag you down to worse kinds of sins."
27. HE WHO DIGS A PIT (Aquila and Symmachus: διαφθοράν, that is, corruption, destruction) WILL FALL INTO IT; AND HE WHO ROLLS A STONE, IT WILL RETURN UPON HIM.
Some refer "will return" not to the stone, but to the one who rolls it, as if to say: Just as if someone hurls a stone from a high place upon someone's head, and in turn, having himself fallen from that height, strikes against that same stone and is dashed against it: so one who from the pinnacle of some dignity to which he has been raised inflicts harm on those below and subject to him, receives this reward, that being cast down from there, he is forced to suffer the same damages he inflicted on others.
But that "will return" should be referred to the stone, not to the one who rolls it, is clear from the Hebrew תשוב tascub, that is, "will return," which is feminine, and therefore agrees with אבן eben, that is, stone, likewise feminine, not with וגולל vegalel, that is, "and he who rolls," which is masculine. Whence the Septuagint translate: he who rolls a stone, rolls it down upon himself. So the author of the Catena of the Greeks. The meaning therefore is, as if to say: Just as one who digs a pit to catch boars, wolves, and other wild animals, often himself incautiously falls into the same pit; and just as one who rolls a stone upward by means of pulleys or wheels, or round beams, often by accident, when the pulleys or wheels are carelessly released, the stone rolls back upon the roller and the one who rolls it, and injures or crushes him: so likewise one who contrives deceits for another, himself falls into similar, indeed the same ones often, so that by his own fraud, which he plotted for another, he himself is caught and perishes, as Haman was hanged on the cross which he had prepared for Mordecai, and Perillus, who offered to the tyrant Phalaris a bronze bull, so that by lighting a fire beneath it he might torture men in it, was himself the first to be thrown into it and bellowed horribly. Whence Ovid in the Art of Love: And Phalaris roasted the limbs of cruel Perillus in the bull: the inventor happily inaugurated his own work. Thus Abimelech, who killed seventy brothers upon a single stone, was killed by the blow of a stone cast by a woman, Judges 9:53. I explained this proverb at length in Ecclesiasticus 27:28; therefore I will not add more here. This is what is commonly said: "Harmful to others, harmful to himself." An example exactly to the letter is in Saul, who, persecuting David as a rival for the kingdom and laying snares and pits for him, entered a cave to relieve himself, and fell into the hands of David who was hiding there, who accordingly cut off the hem of his cloak but spared his life, 1 Samuel chapter 24, verse 4 and following. So St. Isidore, on 1 Samuel chapter 17. Therefore to David and those similarly suffering deceit and fraud, you may attribute the proverb of the Arabs, Century 2, number 50: "The lot has fallen upon you, and it is your lot;" or as others more aptly translate: "The arrow aimed against you is an arrow for you," as if to say: What was brought against you is for you: you slay the enemy with his own sword. Memorable is what we read in the Life of St. Elizabeth, Queen of Portugal, that a certain servant, envying a companion the queen's favor, accused him before the king of adultery with the queen; wherefore the king ordered the workmen that whomever he sent to them first the following morning, they should immediately throw into a burning furnace. He therefore sent the accused man, but the latter first heard Mass as was his custom; meanwhile the king sent the accuser to see whether the workmen had carried out his orders. But they, treating him as the first to arrive, threw him into the furnace; therefore by the just vengeance of God he himself fell into the pit he had prepared for his innocent companion. Many such examples are found in the Lives of the Saints.
28. A LYING TONGUE DOES NOT LOVE TRUTH: AND A SLIPPERY MOUTH WORKS RUIN.
In Hebrew: A tongue of falsehood will hate its own crushing, or the one who crushes it, and a smooth mouth will cause a push, that is, it will push toward a fall, that is, it works ruin, as our translator renders it. For "slippery mouth" the Hebrew is חלק chalak, that is, divided, spread out, smooth, slippery, light, bland; Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion: λεῖον, that is, polished; the Syriac: a mouth of rejection; Vatablus: a deceitful tongue hates the one who restrains it, namely, by refuting it and convicting it through the contrary truth, as our translator, the Chaldean, and the Septuagint render it. The Hebrew word for "crushing" alludes to a nut: for just as the shell of a nut is crushed by breaking, so that the kernel may appear and be extracted, so the frauds of the deceitful are broken by refutation, so that the truth hidden beneath them, that is, the vain falsity and pretense, may appear and be detected. as if to say: Soft and fickle men, who do not love truth, but their own false praises, which the slippery mouth of flatterers instills in them: these will certainly through them experience grievous damages and ruin, just as one who walks on slippery ground often falls and tumbles into mud, rocks, and ditches.
By "slippery mouth," first, Lyranus and others understand a mouth that does not keep a secret, but blurts it out and pours it forth with slippery garrulity; whence the Septuagint translate: an uncovered mouth, that is, an open one: for this is a cause of damage and ruin for many, as if Solomon here notes and attacks two contrary vices, as if to say: Wicked is a deceitful tongue, which namely plots evil in secret, but outwardly conceals its deceits, in order to trick the adversary and overwhelm him unawares: wicked, I say, because it does not love, indeed hates, truth and true sincerity and faithfulness; equally wicked is a "slippery mouth," which namely is too open and blurts out all secrets: for this is a cause of ruin to itself and others. Neither deceitful silence nor excessive loquacity is to be praised, but one must walk the middle path of virtue, so that we neither conceal truth through deceitful silence, nor reveal secrets through garrulity, but speak the truth that can be said without harm, and keep silent about secrets that could cause harm.
Secondly, others understand by "slippery mouth" a changeable and inconstant mouth, which now asserts a thing, now denies it. Whence the Chaldean translates: a forked or divided mouth; for this is slippery like an eel, so that if you wish to hold and grasp it in its assertion, it slips away by making different and indeed contrary assertions. This drives many simple people who trust it into ruin. Whence the Septuagint translate: an open mouth creates inconstancy.
Thirdly, our Salazar by "slippery mouth," or smooth and soft, just as by "deceitful tongue," understands the mouth and tongue of a flatterer, as if to say: The flatterer, who deceives by flattering and tells many lies, hates and flees the rigid and austere lover of truth, who refutes and rejects his false flatteries; but he loves and follows soft and easygoing men, who are wonderfully delighted by his praises, though false, according to the saying of Blessed Peter Chrysologus: "Blandishments always serve vices, sweet things pander to them; but austere and strong things are friends to virtues." Such was the character of St. Augustine, who writes thus about himself, in book 9 On the Trinity: "I would prefer to be reproved by anyone rather than praised by a flatterer: for no reprover is to be feared by a lover of truth."
Fourthly, and genuinely, "a slippery mouth," that is, a flattering mouth that deceives with blandishments, and a deceitful tongue is the mouth and tongue of a deceitful person, who deceitfully conceals hatred in his heart and feigns friendship with his mouth. For he has been treating of the deceitful from verse 18 up to this point. For his flatteries like slippery oil slip into the minds of the hearers, and anoint, soothe, and deceive them. The meaning therefore is, as if to say: The lying tongue of the deceitful person hates those who uncover his deceits and reveal his true enmity: for he with his slippery, that is, flattering mouth and pretended love, seeks nothing other than through these flattering words to deceitfully work the ruin of others; but in truth he works more his own ruin.
This proverb therefore signifies two things: first, the character of the deceitful person, who loves deceits and frauds and flees from those who uncover them; second, his own damage and punishment. Or rather, it represents two damages of his: the first, that by his lies he obscures and destroys truth, sincerity, and faithfulness; the second, that by his slipperiness and smooth-speaking, like a serpent or honeyed poison gliding into the minds of men, he drives them along with himself into ruin.
Where note with Jansenius that "works ruin" can be understood either of the ruin of others against whom he contrives deceits, or of his own ruin. In the former sense the meaning will be: A lying tongue does not love truth itself, which convicts and reproves, but despite the reproof of truth, the mouth that tries to deceive with flattery and the enticements of words, continues to drive men into perdition and to lure them into evils.
In the latter sense the meaning will be: A lying tongue, or a man who delights in a lying tongue, does not love truth that uncovers and reproves falsehood, and therefore such a deceitful mouth works for itself perdition, and a headlong rush into many evils. Which meaning better fits what precedes, since for several verses the discourse has always been about the vices and punishment of a deceitful tongue designed to deceive: for he treated of its vices from verse 18 to verse 27, and of its punishment in verse 27 and this verse 28.
The Septuagint calls a slippery mouth an open mouth, that is, one open to all, accessible, amiable, flattering: "An open mouth," they say, creates ἀκαταστασίαν, that is, sedition, inconstancy, tumult, confusion, a disordered state of affairs, that is, ruin, as our translator renders it; and the Chaldean calls a slippery mouth a forked mouth, because it is divided between hatred and love: for in the heart he hides hatred, with the mouth he displays love; whence he flatters the one present, and curses the one absent. The deceitful person therefore has a double mouth, and therefore a forked one.