Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Fourth Part of the Book
This fourth part is most elegant and beautiful, as well as most difficult and obscure. For the three preceding parts contain clear proverbs and maxims, made perspicuous and illustrious by antitheses and similitudes; but this part contains remarkable enigmas and riddles that are arcane and extremely difficult, both because of the phrasing, which is involved and enigmatic, and because of the meaning and subject matter, which is sublime and profound. Rightly, therefore, did Solomon reserve it for the last place in the book as the most excellent, so that he might place this golden crowning piece upon his work.
Synopsis of the Chapter
Solomon, in the person of Agur, calls himself the most foolish of men, and celebrates the incomprehensible elements and works of God. Then, from verse 11, he proposes six riddles, or enigmas, through as many groups of four. The first quaternion is of four perverse generations, verse 11. The second, of the leech and four insatiable things, namely hell, the mouth of the womb, the earth, and fire, verse 15. The third, of four difficult ways, namely the way of the eagle in the sky, the way of the serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man in his youth, verse 18. The fourth, of four things that move the earth, which are a servant, a fool, and a maidservant ruling, and a hateful woman, verse 21. The fifth concerns four things smallest on earth, yet wisest, namely the ant, the hare, the locust, and the lizard, verse 24. The sixth, of four things that walk well, which are the lion, the rooster, the ram, and the king, verse 29.
Vulgate Text: Proverbs 30:1-33
1. The words of the Gatherer, the son of the Vomiter. The vision which the man with whom God is spoke, and who, strengthened by God dwelling with him, said: 2. I am the most foolish of men, and the wisdom of men is not with me. 3. I have not learned wisdom, and I do not know the knowledge of the Holy Ones. 4. Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has held the wind in his hands? Who has bound the waters as in a garment? Who has raised up all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is the name of His Son, if you know? 5. Every word of God is fire-tested; He is a shield to those who hope in Him: 6. Do not add anything to His words, lest you be reproved and found a liar. 7. Two things I have asked of you; do not deny them to me before I die. 8. Remove vanity and lying words far from me. Give me neither beggary nor riches; grant only what is necessary for my sustenance: 9. lest perhaps, being sated, I be enticed to deny, and say: Who is the Lord? or, driven by want, I steal and perjure the name of my God. 10. Do not accuse a servant to his master, lest perhaps he curse you and you fall. 11. A generation that curses its father, and does not bless its mother. 12. A generation that seems clean to itself, yet is not washed from its filth. 13. A generation whose eyes are lofty, and whose eyelids are raised on high. 14. A generation that has swords for teeth, and grinds with its molars to devour the poor from the earth, and the needy from among men. 15. The leech has two daughters, saying: Bring, bring. Three things are insatiable, and the fourth never says: Enough. 16. Hell, and the mouth of the womb, and the earth which is not satisfied with water; but fire never says: Enough. 17. The eye that mocks a father and despises the birth of its mother — let the ravens of the torrents dig it out, and let the young eagles devour it. 18. Three things are difficult for me, and the fourth I utterly do not know: 19. The way of the eagle in the sky, the way of the serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in his youth. 20. Such also is the way of an adulterous woman, who eats and, wiping her mouth, says: I have done no evil. 21. By three things the earth is moved, and the fourth it cannot bear: 22. By a servant when he reigns; by a fool when he is filled with food; 23. by a hateful woman when she is taken in marriage; and by a maidservant when she becomes heir to her mistress. 24. Four things are the smallest on earth, and yet they are wiser than the wise. 25. The ants, a feeble people, who prepare their food at harvest time. 26. The rabbit, a weak folk, who makes its bed in the rock. 27. The locust has no king, yet goes forth altogether in orderly bands. 28. The lizard supports itself with its hands, and dwells in the palaces of the king. 29. Three things walk well, and the fourth proceeds prosperously. 30. The lion, mightiest of beasts, who will not cower at the approach of anything. 31. The rooster, girded about the loins; and the ram; nor is there a king who can resist him. 32. There is one who appeared foolish after he was raised on high; for if he had understood, he would have put his hand to his mouth. 33. But he who presses the udders forcefully to draw out milk, produces butter; and he who blows the nose violently, draws blood; and he who provokes anger, produces discord.
1. THE WORDS OF THE GATHERER, THE SON OF THE VOMITER. THE VISION WHICH THE MAN WITH WHOM GOD IS SPOKE, AND WHO, STRENGTHENED BY GOD DWELLING WITH HIM, SAID.
Many take the words "gatherer," "vomiter," etc. not as common nouns but as proper names, and so in the Roman Bibles they are written with capital letters C and V; therefore from the Hebrew they translate: the words of Agur the son of Jake; the man spoke a prophecy to Ithiel and Uchal. So the Chaldean; and similarly the Syriac: the words of Agur, he says, son of Jake, who received the prophecy, and was strengthened, and said to Ithiel; Aquila renders: to Ethel, and accomplish; Theodotion: to Ethel, and I shall be able, etc. So also Vatablus, Pagninus, Baynus, Jansenius, and Aben-Ezra, who accordingly hold that these words are not Solomon's but those of Agur, who flourished in Solomon's time in wisdom, integrity, and authority, and who handed on this teaching of his to Ithiel and Uchal, his two disciples or companions, and therefore Solomon transferred his wisely spoken sayings into his own book here, or they were added to Solomon's book by some other person. They make their opinion seem probable, both because three names are accurately expressed here — father, son, and disciples — which cannot be taken as common nouns except by forcing the meaning; and because the style and language here is so dissimilar from the rest of the style and language of Proverbs; and finally because it is called a prophecy and a vision, whereas Solomon in this book acted not as a Prophet but as an instructor of the young.
Others, on the contrary, contend that all these things, just like what precedes, are not from Agur but from Solomon himself, and therefore the names Agur, Jake, Ithiel, and Uchal, which seem to be proper names, should be taken as common nouns signifying the properties and qualities belonging to Solomon, just as both our Translator and the Septuagint took and explained them as common nouns. For the Church and the Fathers attribute these words, just like the preceding, to Solomon, and cite them under the name of Solomon, not of Agur; so Bede, Lyranus, Hugo, Arboreus, Dionysius, Peltanus, and others.
I walk a middle path between both opinions, and bring both into agreement. I say, therefore, that just as in the evangelical parables of Christ the Lord and of others, there is a twofold meaning: the first is grammatical, that is, of the outer shell of the letter or of the parable; the latter is parabolic and principal, which is signified parabolically through the grammatical or outer shell of the letter, and is represented through the parable as through an image and idea similar to itself. So likewise it happens here: for this is a parable or enigma of Solomon, in which, in the grammatical sense, or in the outer shell of the parable, he alludes to a man distinguished for wisdom in his time, namely Agur, as though Agur here instructs his disciples or companions, Ithiel and Uchal, and teaches them his wisdom. Indeed Solomon introduces Agur in this chapter, and in the following chapter Lamuel, as interlocutors; just as Plato in his Dialogues, and Plutarch in his Symposia (for this too is a symposium, or banquet of Solomon's wisdom) introduce various interlocutors such as Socrates, Protagoras, Meno, etc. In the person of Agur, therefore, and of Lamuel, Solomon speaks here: for he puts on their name and persona, so as to attribute to himself the significations of the name. And it is probable that the riddles and enigmas of this chapter were dictated by Agur, but Solomon makes them his own and transcribes them into himself here; indeed he confirms them and gives them his stamp of approval and authority.
Under this grammatical sense and outer shell of the proper names Agur, Jake, Ithiel, and Uchal, he parabolically signifies hidden things, interpreting these proper names and attributing their significations to himself, as if to say: The words of Agur, that is, of Solomon, who was Agur, that is, the Gatherer; and the son of Jake, that is, of the Vomiter, because he here gathered his wisdom and condensed it into a few quaternions, and collected his mind and senses toward God, so that he might abundantly draw from His divine lights, and being full of them, might then pour them out to others with full mouth in such abundance that he seemed to vomit them forth; just as a furnace is said, not absurdly but elegantly, to vomit sparks and flames, because it copiously hurls them forth; and Virgil says: "The golden boss vomits fires," and: "He vomits forth his crimson life," Aeneid IX; and Ovid, epistle 18: "Scylla vomits and reabsorbs the waves," and in Book I of the Fasti: "Cacus vomits flames from his mouth." Just as whirlpools and springs belch and vomit forth a great rush of waters, so Solomon here vomits forth the waters of wisdom like an overflowing fountain.
Therefore, "son of the Vomiter," that is, abounding in vomiting (just as "son of iniquity" means abounding in iniquity), signifies that Solomon's mind was so illuminated and filled with divine revelations that, like one overflowing, he was compelled by a kind of vomiting to pour forth and spread before the whole world these salutary teachings, which he had learned and drawn from God with a collected spirit, as if full of new wine; just as the Apostles, having received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, as if full of new wine, belched forth the great works of God, so that they seemed to vomit them forth and to be drunk. Hence he calls this teaching a prophecy, because it was received by heavenly light, and he says leithiel, that is, through Ithiel, that is, through this, that God is with me (for itti means "with me," el means God); and Ithiel, that is, God existing and dwelling with me; Uchal, that is, "I shall be able," as if to say: Strengthened by God, I shall be able to bring forth and produce this lofty wisdom, just as in fact I do bring it forth and produce it.
Whence Cajetan, translating literally from the Hebrew and fitting it to our version, renders thus: The words of the collected one, the son of the vomiter. A prophecy, the saying of a man through "with-me-is-God," "with-me-is-God," "I shall be able." So Solomon, in Ecclesiastes I, 1, calls himself Ecclesiastes, that is, the preacher, the one who convenes and gathers and teaches the Church, or the assembly of the faithful. More plainly you may explain leithiel as: whose name is Ithiel, that is, "God is with me," that is, as our Translator renders it, with whom God is; for the initial lamed is the article of the dative case; and Ithiel is the same as "God with me."
Under this second parabolic sense, which is the genuine and literal one, lies hidden a third symbolic sense, higher and more sublime, by which Solomon rises to God and to Christ, the antitype of Solomon, whom he accordingly calls Ithiel, that is, "God is with me." For with Christ the man there was divinity and the Person of the Word; whence Christ is called by Isaiah, chapter IX, Emmanuel, that is, "God with us." Therefore Solomon here foreshadows, and through the shadow of these names obscurely represents, the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. For Agur, that is, the Gatherer, is God the Father, in whom is formally and radically every collection of wisdom and the whole gathering of the divinity and of the Holy Trinity; whence he is called the son of the Vomiter, that is, belching forth and as it were vomiting from the abundance of His majesty and glory, that is, pouring forth and begetting Ithiel, that is, the Son: for He says Ithiel, that is, "God is with me," because in Christ "all the fullness of the divinity dwells bodily," Colossians II, 9. He also pours forth and breathes Uchal, that is, the Holy Spirit: for His name and word is Uchal, that is, "I shall be able," because this Spirit is most powerful and mighty, so that no one can resist His force and efficacy. Ithiel is repeated and doubled, on account of the twofold nature in Christ, divine and human.
This, therefore, is the enigma of the Most Holy Trinity; for Solomon prudently wished to foreshadow, indeed to conceal and hide, the mystery of the Trinity from the rough and dull Jews under the wrapping of this obscure enigma, lest, if he stated it clearly, it would not be grasped by them but would be ridiculed, rejected, and perhaps blasphemed. That this is so is clear from the following verses 4 and 5, where he clearly expresses the omnipotence of the Deity, and the Most Holy Trinity, and specifically the generation of the Son, saying: "What is His name, and what is the name of His Son, if you know?" In this he followed his father David, who said in Psalm CIX: "The Lord said to my Lord (that is, God the Father to God the Son): Sit at my right hand;" whence from this passage Christ refuted the Pharisees. Now let us weigh each word individually in order.
The Words of the Gatherer. — Agur, if you consider the etymology, is a pual or passive participle of the qal conjugation, meaning gathered, collected, contracted; it can, however, be taken actively as gathering, collecting, contracting, especially when it is a noun. Some translate Agur as a stranger, a sojourner: for gur means to sojourn: so that the aleph would be heemantic and adventitious; but this etymology fits the passage less aptly.
But why is Solomon called Agur, that is, the gatherer, or the gathered and collected one? Cajetan answers first that he is called the collected one because he gathered his mind, powers, and all his senses and directed them toward God, so that he might receive the divine plantings of wisdom, which he would abundantly pour forth upon others, and, as if full of divine new wine, would vomit forth: for agar means to gather grain, winnowed free from chaff and pure, into granaries, and to store new wine in barrels.
Second, Lyranus holds that Solomon is called the gatherer because by his wisdom he gathered and united the Israelites subject to him into one kingdom and one synagogue, so that no sedition or rebellion shook his kingdom: for, as Agapetus the Deacon says in his Admonition to the Emperor Justinian, "the one pursuit of the king and of the farmer, the one concern, is to gather: the one sows grain and gathers the harvest; the other sows benefits and unites the citizens."
Third, Hugo holds that the gatherer is the same as the Ecclesiastes, namely one who calls the people to an assembly and addresses them; but these interpretations seem more foreign and remote from the mind of Solomon and from the purpose of this passage.
Fourth, and more aptly, the Hebrew Agar means to collect grain; whence Agur is called the collector of the public grain supply; hence the Arabs even now call such collectors Agori. A similar gatherer and collector of spiritual nourishment, namely of doctrine and wisdom, was Solomon, so that he might distribute it among the peoples, as he does in this book, according to that saying of Christ about the faithful servant, "whom the Lord set over his household, to give them their measure of wheat in due time," Luke XII, 42.
To this point belongs that saying of Plato in the Protagoras: "Learning, like grain, has its increases," as if to say: Just as grain, each time it comes to the bushel and is measured, is found more abundant and heaped up (as experience shows), until it reaches its just and established limit, so he who pours out learning upon others increases and augments the same.
Others come to the same point, who explain the word "of the gatherer" as referring to the fruit of hearers, by allusion to the harvest of reapers, as if to say: Just as reapers collect an ample harvest, so I Solomon, by sowing and teaching my doctrines, have gathered an ample fruit of hearers.
Fifth, and genuinely, Solomon is called the gatherer, that is, the collector and compiler, because he gathered the weighty, elegant, certain, and outstanding maxims — composed not by another but by himself — into this volume, like grains winnowed from the chaff, cleaned and pure, into a granary. He is properly called the gatherer with respect to the maxims of this chapter and the following, because those are more choice and illustrious than the rest, and because he combined and condensed them into brief quaternions, so that in few words he might signify many arcane and sublime things, just as many ears of grain from the harvest, when the chaff and stalks are threshed out, are reduced to a few grains that are packed densely into a granary; and just as many grains, when ground and the husks or bran are sifted out, are contracted into a small amount of flour or meal; or just as grapes pressed in the winepress, with the clusters, skins, and seeds rejected, yield a small quantity of excellent liquid, namely wine, which is collected and condensed into barrels. For the root agar alludes to gera, that is, to draw together, to contract, whence it signifies a gathering by which many things are contracted and condensed into few; hence iggeret is the word for a letter, because in it many things are written and compressed into few words to be delivered to friends. Whence Aben-Ezra notes that Agur, that is Solomon, here compiles and condenses illustrious maxims, each of which is four-membered, because they are composed of and consist in four things, except for the one at verse 7, which is two-membered and consists of only two things, although if you consider rightly, you will find in it too a quaternion, namely that it, like the others, consists of four things: for the first maxim too, which is completed in the first six verses, contains four things, namely the four elements: the heavens, by which name fire is understood (which comes closest to the heavens — indeed the ancients believed the sun to be fire, as I said in Sirach XLIII, 3), the wind or air, water, and earth.
Solomon, therefore, is here called Agur, that is, the gatherer, the contractor, the condenser: because he condensed and contracted all these maxims into brief and few quaternions of manifold things, whether similar or dissimilar.
Finally, "gathering" can be taken as "binding together"; for crops are gathered when they are bound into sheaves and bundles; but "binding" is the same as wrapping, tying, and hiding maxims in the coverings of parables and enigmas, and not explaining and unfolding them in plain narrative, according to that saying of Isaiah VIII, 16: "Bind up the testimony, seal the law," as if to say: Do not announce my decrees clearly to the Jews, but wrap and cover them in parables. And so "the gatherer," that is, "the binder," indicates that the following parables are riddles and enigmas.
SON OF THE VOMITER — that is, full of vomiting, so filled with delights and wines that he belches and vomits them forth. For just as when someone eats plentifully of things of much juice and substance, but condensed and contracted into a small quantity — such as porridges, the broth of a hen or a ram, pressed, distilled, and contracted into a small liquid (which they commonly call a paste or sublimate, or fifth essence), fine wines, etc. — the small quantity of these so stuffs and fills the stomach that, as the stomach breaks down, processes, and digests each item, it is distended and inflamed, and cannot contain them, but is compelled to vomit: so likewise the mind of Solomon, full, swollen, and stuffed with these condensed and richly meaningful maxims, does not so much speak them as belch and vomit them forth, on account of their abundance, density, excellence, and force, as well as the ardor and impetuosity of his spirit to express them and pour and impress them upon others.
Moreover Pliny, Book XI, chapter XXXVII, teaches that only those animals vomit which have a narrow lower belly, such as man and the dog: "Beneath," he says, "is the belly in those that have a stomach, simple in some, double in ruminants, none in those without blood: for in some the intestine beginning from the mouth is bent back by a certain path to the same place, as in the cuttlefish and the octopus. In man the belly is attached to the lowest part of the stomach, similar to that of a dog, and in these alone among animals is the lower part narrower; and therefore they alone vomit, because when it is filled, the food is pressed upward due to the narrowness, which cannot happen in those whose spacious looseness transmits the food downward." So likewise in Solomon, the lower belly of the mind, which contemplates human things, was narrower, especially because of the zeal and ardor of the higher part, in the mind, so to speak, of the belly constricting and pressing him to contemplate divine and heavenly things: therefore these straits compelled him to belch forth and, as it were, vomit these things for the good and salvation of his subjects and of all people.
Some, like Aben-Ezra and Osorius, translate "son of the vomiter" as "son of the obedient one," or "of obedience." For this is what the Hebrew bin iake means, if you derive it from iaka, that is, to hear, to obey. Whence Aben-Ezra says: Solomon is called the son of iake, that is, of David, whom the peoples hearkened to and obeyed, or rather who hearkened to and obeyed God in all things. Whence he is called by God a man after God's own heart. But our Translator and others generally derive iake from ko, that is, he vomited, so that the yod is heemantic, not radical. Therefore it should be translated: of the son of the vomiter.
Therefore the word "vomiting" signifies the overflowing of wisdom and spirit in Solomon, so that, as if unable to contain it, he was compelled to pour forth with full mouth and throat, and as it were to vomit, just as David said in Psalm XLIV: "My heart has belched forth a good word," as if to say: Because of the abundance and excellence of the divine wisdom which I have drawn from heaven, I cannot restrain it but must belch it forth and speak it with force. He alludes to the new wine of a fine vintage, which, boiling and bubbling, sends forth fiery vapors, exhalations, and bubbles through its opening, so that if you close this opening, the wine by its own heat will burst the very vessels; for the spirit of boiling wine cannot be contained in a vessel: similar was the spirit of David and Solomon, and similar is that of every apostolic and zealous man. To this belongs what Rhodiginus says, Book XXI, chapter VIII, that those were anciently called "vomiters" who spoke not from a premeditated speech but extemporaneously: "Today, he says, you may propose, but tomorrow you will hear, for I am not among the vomiters, but among those who speak carefully." But the Prophets, such as David and Solomon were, because they spoke their doctrines extemporaneously under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could be reckoned among the vomiters. The same Rhodiginus, Book XXI, chapter XLIV, says: Palaton, the painter, painted Homer vomiting, and the other Poets standing around and swallowing what he poured forth from his mouth and breast: and similarly Ovid in elegy 8 of the Amores describes him as perennially bubbling forth, and the other Poets drinking from that "fountain of genius," as Pliny calls him in Book XVII, chapter V, whose "mouths of poets are watered by the Pierian streams."
Let us add here the expositions of others who think differently. First, R. Levi: Solomon, he says, is called the gatherer, the son of the vomiter, because he had collected in himself conflicting thoughts on the gravest questions, and wished to vomit forth the burdensome and useless weight of thoughts that were not measured by the standard of truth, so as to reserve for himself those that were useful and in agreement with truth, as if to say: Solomon vomited forth vain thoughts and desires of concupiscence, so as to gather and heap up in his empty heart holy thoughts and heavenly desires.
Second, Hugo: Solomon, he says, is the son of the vomiter, that is, the son of David by Bathsheba: for Bathsheba, or as the Hebrews pronounce it, Bat-scheba, is the same as "daughter of satiety"; therefore "son of the vomiter" is the same as "son of the satiated and surfeited woman," because Solomon gorged himself with pleasures to the point of nausea and vomiting, as if to say: Fittingly was Solomon's mother called Bathsheba, that is, daughter of satiety, because she was to give birth to a son who would glut himself with all the pleasures of the world to the point of nausea and vomiting: this omen was contained in the name Bathsheba.
Third, the same Hugo: Solomon, he says, is called the son of the vomiter, that is, of David, who, to escape danger to his life, vomiting saliva, feigned madness before King Achish, 1 Samuel XXI. Whence it is fittingly added: "I am the most foolish of men," as if to say: Fittingly was I Solomon begotten by David who feigned foolishness, as a fool from a fool, so that the simulated foolishness of the father might be an omen and presage of the true foolishness of the son, when he himself worshiped idols.
Fourth, a learned man holds that the word "of the vomiter" alludes to the custom of the ancients, who at banquets, when about to deliver a judgment and bring forth their wisdom, first relieved their stomach and head, weighed down by food and wine, by vomiting, so that they might do it more clearly. Whence Plutarch in the Symposium, teaching that one should philosophize at a banquet, advises vomiting for one who wishes to speak aptly and learnedly when he feels his head heavy with wine. Agur, therefore, that is Solomon, is called the son of the vomiter, because with his head lightened and his senses freed by vomiting, he had sprung forward to teach: but this opinion seems more worthy of Epicurus than of Solomon.
Fifth, others think that by "vomiting" is denoted the severity and sharpness of these maxims, because they are satirical and attack vices and the vicious rather sharply: for this is what we commonly call "vomiting something upon someone." So Cicero, Philippic V: "In my absence, he says, he vomited forth a speech against me," that is, he delivered an invective against me. Whence the Septuagint paraphrastically translate: "My words, my son, fear, and receiving them, repent."
For these words, not rightly omitted by the Complutensian and Royal editions, are found in the Vatican codices at chapter XXIV, together with all this remaining chapter, to which nothing else corresponds except those words: "The words of the gatherer, the son of the vomiter," as is clear to anyone comparing the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts. The meaning, therefore, is as if to say: When you have received my words, O son, let the fear of God bind and gather your mind to itself and to God, so that you may repent of past sins, and thus vomit and expel them, as if to say: My words are pills or purgative medicines, which shake and prick the stomach of the mind with holy fear; and thus they elicit and provoke the vomiting of sins through repentance.
Sixth, others hold that by "vomiting" is denoted the repentance of Solomon, as if to say: I Solomon gathered for myself the riches, delights, and pleasures of the whole world; but having experienced the vanity of all things, I grew weary of them, and nauseated, I rejected and as it were vomited them forth, and doing penance, I condemned my former life, and said: "I am the most foolish of men." So R. Solomon, R. Levi, Arboreus, and our Pineda, Book VIII on the Affairs of Solomon, chapter I, section 6. Hence, just as the force of vomiting provokes tears (see what Pliny says, that vomiting relieves the stomach but harms the eyes; so repentance provoked tears in Solomon). Wherefore on the tablets of Elvira, recently discovered, it is read inscribed in the language of the Mozarabs concerning Solomon: "And he wept for his sin with vehement weeping, and it was forgiven him," as Pineda cites, although others doubt the authenticity of those tablets.
The same authors add that Solomon, having lost the spirit of prophecy through his sins, recovered it through repentance, and therefore added: "The vision which the man with whom God is spoke." These things they say not improbably, yet uncertainly: for concerning Solomon's repentance and salvation nothing certain can be established, since whatever arguments are brought forward by many to prove either side are either ambiguous or uncertain. God therefore willed that both should be uncertain to men, so that He might strike holy fear into them, and by pious dread keep them always in suspense through the doubtful and terrible example of Solomon.
Allegorically, the son of the vomiter, namely of Solomon, was Christ the Lord, the true Solomon, who after his fashion taught the Gospel, indeed belched forth parables, and spoke to the crowds only in parables, "so that what was spoken through the prophet David in Psalm LXXVII, 2, might be fulfilled, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world," Matthew XIII, 35.
THE VISION WHICH THE MAN WITH WHOM GOD IS SPOKE. — In Hebrew: the burden, the saying of the man to Ithiel. Burden, in Hebrew massa, is the name for a threatening and burdensome prophecy, which is placed by God as a heavy burden on the shoulders of the peoples, as I said on Isaiah XIII, 1; from there it is extended to any prophecy, even a favorable and joyful one. For this is called a burden because, as St. Augustine, Book XVII of The City of God, chapter XX, expressly asserts, "Solomon prophesied in his three books." So also Theophylactus, Book II on Faith, and Psellus, Preface to the Song of Songs. Finally the Chaldean Paraphrast thus begins Ecclesiastes: Words of prophecy which Ecclesiastes prophesied. He is Solomon the son of David.
Again, they are called a burden because they propose the chastisement of concupiscence through the law and discipline of God, which is certainly a great burden to man in his corrupted nature, especially because it threatens those who violate it with severe punishments, both in this life and in hell.
Hence, for "which he spoke," the Hebrew has neum, that is, a sure and indubitable saying, to be believed with sure faith, like a prophecy revealed by God, which St. Paul, 1 Timothy I, 15, translates and calls pistos ho logos, that is, a faithful, or sure and certain word. Whence, just as the prophets and Paul, so also Solomon, about to say things certain and indubitable, indeed oracles of God, prefixes the word neum, as if to say: What I am about to say is most certain and worthy of all belief, because it is an oracle of God.
WITH WHOM GOD IS, AND WHO, WITH GOD DWELLING WITH HIM. — In Hebrew: leithiel leithiel, that is, through "God-with-me," through "God-with-me," by which doubling Solomon signifies that he received an abundant illumination from God, so that, full of God and most powerfully inspired by God, he might belch forth and as it were vomit these oracles of God. Again, that they were revealed to him by God not once, but again and again, while God simultaneously urged him to bring them forth and belch them forth. The Septuagint paraphrastically translate: This the man says to those who believe in God, and I rest; and the Arabic: This man speaks these words to those who are with God.
2. I AM THE MOST FOOLISH OF MEN, AND THE WISDOM OF MEN IS NOT WITH ME.
For "most foolish," the Hebrew has baar, that is, slow, stupid, stolid, brutish, animal-like, one who like a beast wanders here and there, and cannot govern himself by his own reason, but needs a guide and director. For baar is derived from beir, that is, a beast, animal, brute, so called from grazing; therefore baar is one who has the sense of a beast, who leads an animal life, who reflects the manners of a brute. Therefore the Hebrew literally has: Because slow am I more than any man (that is, more than all men), and the understanding of men is not mine; the Septuagint: for I am the most foolish of all men, and the prudence of men is not in me; the Syriac: because I am the most destitute of thoughts; Vatablus: I am indeed more stupid than anyone else; Baynus: since I am more foolish than anyone, and no human understanding is mine. The Hebrew begins with ki, that is, because, for, since, as the Septuagint translates, as if to say: Therefore I do not speak here in my own person, but in the person of Agur, and I introduce him as speaking, strengthened by God, because when I consider myself thoroughly, I see myself to be dull, witless, infantile, and tongue-tied. Our Translator, however, omitted the word "because," since the Hebrew ki often is redundant as a pleonasm, and merely begins the discourse, as if to say: Indeed I am dull, and I acknowledge myself to be stupid compared to other men.
First, the Rabbis cited by Lyranus, Arboreus, Pineda, and others at verse 1, hold that these are the words of Solomon grieving and repenting over his luxury and idolatry, as if he here accuses himself, that although he had been endowed with the highest wisdom by God, yet he cast himself down to such folly that, wallowing among his concubines like a pig, in his eagerness to please them he worshiped their gods, that is, stone and golden statues, as if to say: I accuse myself that, when I should have been wiser than all others, I was more foolish than all, and when I should have worshiped the one God, I worshiped idols — indeed I became the leader and master of idolatry for the whole people. But it may seem surprising to anyone, if Solomon here repents, why he does not name the public and scandalous sin of idolatry of which he repents, and specifically retract and condemn it, so as to remove and take away the scandal he had given to the people: for true repentance commands and requires this. Whence Lyranus refutes this opinion of the Rabbis, and together with Abulensis and others, holds that Solomon died unrepentant in idolatry and is damned. Because, they say, if he had repented, he would have had to destroy the temples of idols he had built; but he did not do this, because they stood until Josiah, who overthrew them, 4 Kings XXIII. But more on this elsewhere.
Second, R. Solomon holds that Solomon calls himself foolish because, trusting in his own wisdom, contrary to the precept of God who said, Deuteronomy IV, 2: "You shall not add to the word which I speak to you, nor take away from it," which Solomon cites here at verse 6, he had added or removed much from the words of Moses. But in this matter you are more foolish and stupid than Solomon, R. Solomon: for it is established that Solomon dictated these parables at the instigation of God, and that he neither added anything contrary to them nor took away anything necessary from the law of Moses, but rather explained and impressed it.
Third, R. Levi thinks that Solomon calls himself foolish because he did not have knowledge of the celestial spheres, and therefore adds by way of explanation: "Who has ascended into heaven and descended?" Hence the same author says of Ecclesiastes, that is, of himself, chapter XII, 10: "He sought useful words," so that a voice from heaven might answer him, which however he did not obtain. Again, Solomon requested to be made equal to the greatest Prophets in working miracles, so as to rule over all the elements. But it was impious for him to demand this, though it was permitted to others, such as Moses, who ascended into heaven and descended; Aaron, who restrained the spirit, according to the passage: "And standing between the dead and the living, he prayed for the people, and the plague ceased" in the rebellion of Korah, whom the earth swallowed alive, and the plague raged against the rest of the people, Numbers XVI, 48; Elijah, who restrained the waters with his garments, 4 Kings II, 14; Joshua, who established the boundaries of the earth, when the sun stood fixed at Gibeon, Joshua X, 13. But these explanations, just like those of R. Solomon, are foolish and stupid.
Fourth, the Author of the Greek Catena, from the Septuagint, translates thus: now I make an end: for I am the most foolish of all mortals, nor does any human prudence exist in me; and he explains it thus, as if to say: In the future I shall cease to hand on to you moral doctrine and to exhort you further to it, because I am the most foolish of mortals, that is, since God has illuminated me with divine wisdom, I have lost all human prudence, and true wisdom infused in me by God has removed from me all knowledge that is falsely so called.
To this is added the exposition of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, oration 29, after the beginning: "'I am the most foolish of men': Solomon signifies, he says, that he has no prudence of his own, but is inspired by a divine and more perfect wisdom. Indeed, Paul too, when he said, Galatians II: 'I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me,' was not speaking of himself as though dead, but as of one who was leading a life more excellent than the common dead are wont to lead, inasmuch as he was a partaker of true life, bounded by no end of death."
Fifth and genuinely, Solomon, although the wisest of mortals, nevertheless calls himself the most foolish out of modesty and a love of humility, because, thinking humbly of himself, he recognized himself as such on his own merits, and rightly ascribed all his wisdom not to himself but to God, from whom he had received it as infused, and to whom it belonged. In a similar sense St. Paul (as also St. Francis), although most holy, calls himself the first of sinners, 1 Timothy I, verse 15. For the humble estimation of oneself values one's own things as small and those of others as great. The meaning, therefore, is: "I am the most foolish of men," that is, I seem to be so to myself, when I look at myself and what I have from myself, setting aside God's illumination; when I deeply weigh and penetrate the smallness of my wisdom, and compare it both with my own ignorance and with divine wisdom, I seem to myself to be the most ignorant, indeed an abyss of ignorance and foolishness, and that all others, whose ignorance is not so apparent to me, are far wiser than I, especially in practical wisdom and in the knowledge of self and of God. Whence the Hebrews think that Solomon, conscious of his idolatry and sins, said these things in repentance, though Lyranus refutes them.
In sum, by these words Solomon wishes to teach us that true wisdom consists especially in the knowledge of oneself, of one's own misery and foolishness, and in a humble estimation and opinion of oneself. So Socrates, when asked what he knew, answered: "This one thing I know, that I know nothing." Indeed another, asked the same thing, answered and added that he did not even know this, namely that he knew nothing. So St. Augustine used to say: "Lord, that I may know You, that I may know myself"; for in these two things the height of practical wisdom consists. And St. Francis said: "Lord, who are You? Who am I? You are the abyss of wisdom, of being, and of every good; I am the abyss of folly, of nothingness, of sins, and of every evil." That this is the meaning is clear from the fact that he immediately adds the immense wisdom and power of God in the creation and governance of all things, at which he is astonished and says: "Who has ascended into heaven, etc.; what is His name, and what is the name of His Son, if you know?"
3. I HAVE NOT LEARNED WISDOM, AND I DO NOT KNOW THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY ONES.
The Hebrew seems to say the opposite: for it has: And I know the knowledge of the Holy Ones, and so some Latin codices read, and Bede, who explains it thus, as if to say: I possess wisdom not human and acquired by study, but divine and implanted in me from heaven; and, as Vatablus says, "I am without human arts, but versed in divine things." Whence the Septuagint translates: God taught me wisdom, and I have known the knowledge of the Holy Ones. So also the Arabic.
But "not" must be carried over from the first half of the verse, and it should be read negatively with the Roman editions: And I have not known the knowledge of the Holy Ones; for the first negation is often extended to all following parts of the sentence among the Hebrews by zeugma, as in Psalm CXLII, 7: "Do not turn your face from me, and (may I not) be (become) like those who descend into the pit," that is, do not turn your face from me, nor make me like the dead. Psalm XLIII, 19: "Our heart has not turned back, and (you have not) turned our steps from your way." Psalm I, 5; Psalm IX, 19; Proverbs XXIV, 28, in the Hebrew, and often elsewhere.
Now some explain it thus, as if to say: When I consider the difficulty of what I am about to say, I hesitate and am as it were stunned; for I see my ignorance and my unfitness to explain these things, and I acknowledge myself to be most foolish, because I lack human wisdom, which is acquired by teaching and learning; I also lack divine knowledge, which God infuses into the Saints: for I have not learned wisdom by my own efforts or acquired it by study, nor have I drawn so much from heaven as is required for the things that remain to be stated; but I profess that my wisdom is far inferior and unequal to the wisdom of the Saints, both in quality and quantity, such as the holy Prophets possessed. But you may more plainly explain it in the way I said at verse 2, as if to say: As far as I am concerned, I seem to myself, from myself and from the powers of my mind and nature, to be the most foolish of mortals: for although from the wisdom infused in me from heaven I am the wisest of all, yet this is entirely a gift of God; therefore I do not claim it for myself, nor consider it my own, but I return and refer it entirely to God its author, to whom it wholly belongs. It remains, therefore, that from myself I seem to be the most foolish of two-footed beings and of men.
Mystically, St. Jerome, Book II Against Pelagius, and St. Augustine, epistle 49, hold that Solomon here speaks in the person of Christ; therefore Christ calls Himself the most foolish, both because He took upon Himself our follies, desires, and sins to be atoned for and expiated in Himself; and because the wisdom of Christ seems to the world to be foolishness: for Christ taught by word and example that the poor, the mourning, the hungry, those suffering persecution, etc. are blessed, all of which seem to worldly people to be foolish. Whence Christ says, Psalm LXVIII, 6: "O God, You know my foolishness"; and Paul, 1 Corinthians I, 23: "But we, he says, preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a scandal, but to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; because the foolishness of God is wiser than men." This is what Solomon says here: "And the wisdom of men is not with me."
4. WHO HAS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN AND DESCENDED? WHO HAS HELD THE WIND IN HIS HANDS? WHO HAS BOUND THE WATERS AS IN A GARMENT? WHO HAS RAISED UP ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH? WHAT IS HIS NAME, AND WHAT IS THE NAME OF HIS SON, IF YOU KNOW?
The Syriac prefixes: Tell me, who has ascended, etc.
WHO HAS HELD THE WIND IN HIS HANDS? — In Hebrew: Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Pagninus: in his veils; the Septuagint: in his bosom; the Chaldean: Who has held the wind in his fists? Aquila: Who has gathered the spirit in his palms? Symmachus: Who has gathered the winds in his fists?
WHO HAS BOUND THE WATERS AS IN A GARMENT? — The Chaldean: as in a cloak; the Syriac: in a handkerchief; the Septuagint: Who has turned the waters into a garment? or, as the Author of the Greek Catena reads: Who has gathered all the water, as if enclosed within a garment, into one?
WHO HAS RAISED UP ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH? — In Hebrew: Who has established all the ends of the earth? The Septuagint: Who has held all the extremities of the earth? The Chaldean: Who has established the boundaries of the earth? The Syriac: Who has appointed the strong things of the earth? The Author of the Greek Catena: Who has obtained dominion over every summit of the earth?
First, the Rabbis cited by Lyranus explain all these things of Moses: "Who has ascended into heaven and descended?" as if to say: Who has been equal or similar to Moses, who climbed Mount Sinai, close to heaven, and there, having conversed with God, brought His law down to us upon descending? "Who has held the wind in his hands?" Who had the air and winds subject to him, so that, like Moses striking them with his rod, he could bring forth gnats and mosquitoes that filled all Egypt? "Who has bound the waters as in a garment?" as Moses did, dividing the waters of the Red Sea so that the people of Israel might cross, for whom the waters were as a wall on the right and on the left, Exodus chapter XIV. "Who has raised up all the ends of the earth?" as Moses did, who in the erection of the tabernacle, by his merits, sent terror upon all the nations of Canaan, so that through Joshua he might settle the Hebrews there and they might firmly possess all its regions, according to Deuteronomy II, 25: "Today I will begin to send the terror and dread of you upon the peoples." "What is His name?" as if to say: If it is said that some other person than Moses existed who performed similar wonders, let it be declared who he was and what his name was. And if the answer is that he has died and his name has been given to oblivion, let it be declared "what is the name of his son?" — what his genealogy was, and the lineage of his sons and grandsons, through whom his fame was transmitted to us; and since no such person can be found or named, it remains that we conclude no one has existed equal or similar to Moses; and therefore, since Moses from the mouth of God in Deuteronomy chapter XVII, 16 and following, forbade the king of Israel to multiply horses, gold, silver, wives, etc., and yet I Solomon have done the contrary, hence it is clear that I was the most foolish of men, as I said. These are the Rabbis' views.
But Lyranus rightly refutes all these things. For no mention of Moses is made here, nor did Moses ascend into heaven and descend from it, nor did he hand over to the Hebrews all the boundaries of the earth, but only a small portion of the land, namely Canaan, etc. Therefore these and the rest belong to God alone, as will be clear from similar passages of Scripture which I shall cite shortly.
I say, therefore, that Solomon rises from his own foolishness and weakness to admire the immense power and wisdom of God, so as to show that, compared with God, he is the most foolish and stupid, and that in these two things true wisdom consists, namely that you may know who you are and who God is, and say with St. Augustine: "Lord, that I may know You, that I may know myself" — namely, that I may know myself to be the most foolish, the weakest, the most wretched, having nothing of knowledge, being, or virtue from myself; but whatever I have, it is entirely from the gift of God. And then that I may know You to be the most wise, the most powerful, the most good, and therefore the Being of beings, namely that You are the immense and uncreated ocean of being, in which there is the infinite amplitude of every kind of being, from which individual created beings beg and draw their small measure of existence, according to that word: "I am who I am," Exodus III, 14. See what I said there.
Moreover, Solomon poses these things interrogatively: "Who has ascended?" etc., both because he here presents his riddles and enigmas, and these are usually proposed in the form of questions; and because Scripture is accustomed not to narrate affirmatively the infinite wisdom and power of God, which is incomprehensible and inexpressible, but rather to contemplate and admire it by questioning: for thus Isaiah asks about it, chapter XL, 12: "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and weighed the heavens with his palm? Who has balanced the mass of the earth with three fingers, and weighed the mountains and hills in a scale? Who has aided the spirit of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor and shown Him? Behold, the nations are as a drop from a bucket, and are reckoned as the turning of a balance." Similarly Sirach, chapter I, 2, asks: "The sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of eternity — who has numbered them? The height of heaven, and the breadth of the earth, and the depth of the abyss — who has measured them? The wisdom of God preceding all things — who has searched it out? The root of wisdom — to whom has it been revealed, and who has known its subtleties?" By these maxims man is admonished to recognize, by comparison with God, both his own foolishness and his weakness, and to attribute all wisdom to God alone, who alone can do all things and knows all things perfectly.
So also Job, chapter XXVIII, 20: "Whence, then, he says, does wisdom come? And where is the place of understanding? It is hidden from the eyes of all the living, and even from the birds of the sky it is concealed. Destruction and death have said: With our ears we have heard its fame. God understands its way, and He knows its place: for He looks upon the ends of the world, and sees all things that are under heaven. He who gave weight to the winds, and weighed the waters by measure."
Therefore Solomon here briefly touches upon the whole work of the creation and governance of the universe, to show from it the incomprehensible wisdom and power of God, which marvelously shines forth in it, so that from it we may gradually rise to contemplate and admire the far greater abyss of wisdom and power that lies hidden in God Himself. For he here celebrates the work of the creation of the heavens and the elements, under which he understands the rest of the mixed bodies that are composed of the elements; for under the heavens he comprehends fire, under the spirit air, under water and earth the element of each. The meaning, therefore, is as if to say: I have professed myself to be the most foolish and empty of wisdom, when I compare my ignorance with the immense wisdom of God. For considering this, I do not see why I or anyone else should esteem himself wise or claim any wisdom for himself.
For is there anyone who has ascended into heaven, so as to arrange in order the ranks, motions, and stars of the heavens there, and then descended to earth to narrate the same to men? Is there anyone who "has held the wind in his hands," that is, the air and the many and most powerful winds, which blow through seas and lands, and overthrow and flatten trees, ships, towers, fortresses, and cities? Is there anyone who has bound the waters, both those in the sea and those in the air, in their channels and clouds as in a garment? Is there anyone who "has raised up," that is, erected, established, and made firm "all the ends of the earth," that is, the whole world? Is it not God alone, who can do all these things and has done them? For He Himself ascended the heavens, surpassing all things, surveying all things, however high, as Amos says: "Who builds His ascent in heaven," Amos IX; and the Psalmist: "Who ascends above the heaven of heavens to the east," Psalm LXVII. He it is who descended, because as Job says: "He looks upon the ends of the world, and sees all things that are under heaven." He it is who holds the wind in His hands; and the one whose course and force no one, however powerful or ingenious, can restrain by any devices or obstacles — He restrains and holds it in the hand of His omnipotence, sending forth winds from His treasuries when He wills, who, as Job has it: "He gave weight to the winds." He it is who bound "the waters as in a garment." Because, as the Psalmist says: "Gathering the waters of the sea as in a wineskin," Psalm XXXII. Therefore God alone is the lord, maker, creator, and governor of the heavens, winds, waters, and earth — invisible and immense, who dwells in unapproachable light. Whence, questioning about Him in His usual manner, he adds: "What is His name, and what is the name of His Son, if you know?" God's proper name is hidden, incomprehensible, and ineffable; much more hidden is the name of His Son. He alludes to the name Jehovah, which is ineffable, according to Exodus VI, 3: "My name Adonai (in Hebrew, Jehovah) I did not make known to them." See what I said there. I shall soon weigh each word thoroughly.
Allegorically, St. Augustine, epistle 49 to Deogratias, in his response to his fifth question, teaches that Solomon here, against the modern Jews, teaches that God is not one in person as He is one in essence, but in one essence has two, indeed three, persons; and then concerning the Son of God, namely Christ incarnate, he mystically expounds this whole passage thus: "In a certain place in Proverbs it is said: 'Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the winds in his bosom?' etc. Of these two things which I mentioned at the end, one he referred to the Father: 'What is His name?' — because of what he had said: 'God taught me wisdom'; and the other clearly to the Son, when he says: 'What is the name of His Son?' — because of the rest which is more properly understood of the Son, namely: 'Who has ascended into heaven and descended?' which Paul comments on thus: 'He who descended is the same who also ascended above all the heavens.'" He then proceeds to adapt the rest to the same person: "'Who has gathered the winds in his bosom?' that is, the souls of believers in the hidden and the secret, to whom it will be said: 'For you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.' 'Who has turned water into a garment,' so that it might be said: 'As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ?' 'Who has held the ends of the earth?' — He who said to His disciples: 'You shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth.'"
Who has ascended into heaven and descended? — Cajetan translates: Who, after the manner of one ascending and descending, turns the celestial spheres? For since these, he says, seem to be carried upward from east to south and to ascend, but from south to west to set and as it were descend, God too, as their mover, seems to ascend and descend together with them. But this meaning seems too narrow and foreign. More aptly and fully, Lyranus and others consider this ascent and descent of God to signify God's total governance, by which He rules and governs both things above and things below, as if to say: God alone is omniscient and omnipotent, who not by change of place (for He is everywhere and immense), but by His wisdom and operation, as it were ascends into heaven and descends, when He works in celestial and sublunary creatures, in the highest as well as the lowest: when, that is, above He most wisely establishes, orders, adorns with stars, moves, rules, and governs the heavens, and below in the air, earth, and sea, creates, feeds, preserves, and makes fruitful all animate as well as inanimate things, etc. He alludes to Deuteronomy XXXIII, 26: "The rider of heaven is your helper; in His magnificence the clouds run; His dwelling is on high, and beneath are the everlasting arms;" and to Amos IX, 6: "Who builds His ascent in heaven." See the comments at both places.
But allegorically, properly Christ descended from heaven when through the incarnation He lowered Himself into the womb of the Virgin and to the earth; and from there He ascended when after the resurrection He gloriously ascended into heaven before the Apostles, according to that saying of Christ, John III, 13: "No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven;" and that of Paul, Ephesians IV, 9: "But that He ascended, what is it except that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth (into the underworld)? He who descended is the same who also ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things."
WHO HAS HELD THE WIND IN HIS HANDS? — Bede takes "spirit" to mean any spirit whatsoever, namely angels, demons, souls, as if to say: God alone is the one who holds all these spirits in His hand, that is, by His power — He restrains, rules, and moderates them, so that they do nothing except what He Himself wills, that is, decrees or permits. Others better take "spirit" to mean the wind, as the Septuagint and Symmachus translate. For the agility, subtlety, contrariety, force, and impetus of the winds are marvelous, so much so that they shake mountains and cities. Whence Scripture is accustomed to commend God's wisdom and power from the fact that He walks upon the wings of the winds, that is, He rules them, indeed dominates them as if riding upon them, and presides as their charioteer. Hence the poets also fable that Aeolus presides over the winds and bridles them, and shuts them up in caves and caverns as in prisons. Therefore the Septuagint translates: Who gathers the winds in his bosom? In Hebrew: in his fists, as if to say: God shuts up and encloses the winds — so agile, subtle, and elusive, as well as impetuous and roaring, that no one can resist them — in His fist, so that at a nod, opening His hand, He may send them wherever He pleases, and closing it, may suppress and calm them. The phrase "in his bosom" signifies that the winds are among the secrets of God. For why does the south wind blow from the south, the north wind from the north, the east wind from the east, and the west wind from the west? Why does the typhoon whirl things in a circle? Why is the prester like lightning, so that it moves houses from their place and transports them elsewhere? etc. Natural philosophers cannot give plain and adequate natural causes that satisfy the mind; but this belongs to the secrets of God, who as lord of the winds moves, directs, turns, changes, restrains, and calms them at will. Just as, therefore, we hide secrets in our bosom, so God hides the winds as it were in His bosom, that is, He reserves and contains them in the mystery of His power and wisdom.
Mystically, Christ the Lord held the wind in His hands and bound the waters as in a garment when He commanded the winds and the sea and there was a great calm, Matthew VIII, and when, treading the waves of the sea with His feet, He walked upon them, Matthew XIV.
WHO HAS RAISED UP ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH? — First, Bede takes the "ends of the earth" to mean animals, plants, nations, and all things that are enclosed within the boundaries of the earth, as if to say: Who preserves, nourishes, and makes fruitful all animate as well as inanimate things, so that as some wither and die, others are continually born and succeed them in an unbroken series? Surely none other than God.
Second, others better take the "ends of the earth" to mean the boundaries by which the earth holds back the waves and surges of the sea, so that it rises above them, according to Genesis I, 9: "Let the waters be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear."
Third, and best, you may take this as referring to the immobility of the earth: for this is what the Hebrew hekim means, that is, He established, He made to stand, as if to say: Who has so stabilized the earth, hanging as it were in the air, that it cannot be moved from its place by any force of winds, floods, or other things, but stands immovable, and indeed is the center of the whole universe, which gives all things their position and immobility? Surely none other than God accomplishes this. He alludes to Job XXXVIII, 4: "Where were you when I was laying the foundations of the earth? etc. Who set its measures, if you know? Or who stretched the line upon it? Upon what were its bases made firm? Or who laid its cornerstone?" And to Psalm CIV, 5: "Who founded the earth upon its stability; it shall not be moved forever and ever." For God established the earth at the center of the universe, so that all the orbs of the elements and of the heavens, which surround it, might find their terminus and stand firm in it. Again, God established boundaries for the earth itself, namely that from the east it should be bounded by the Eastern Sea and India; from the west by the Western Sea and Italy, Gaul, and Germany; from the north by the Frozen Sea and Norway; from the south by the Southern Sea and Africa, etc.
WHAT IS HIS NAME, AND WHAT IS THE NAME OF HIS SON, IF YOU KNOW? — This too is a riddle or enigma, as if to say: Tell me, you who esteem yourself wise and claim wisdom for yourself, what is the name of Him who, as I said, created the heavens, the wind, the waters, and the earth, and established, moderates, and governs each in its proper place? You will say His name is God. But what does this name God mean? What essence does it signify? What is this essence of His, of what kind and how great? Surely you cannot comprehend it. Confess therefore that you do not comprehend even the name of God, much less the name of His Son; whence he says: "If you know?" as if to say: You know imperfectly; you do not know perfectly.
He alludes to the tetragrammaton name, which was unknown to the Hebrews because it was ineffable. For they saw it written in the Scriptures in four consonant letters, namely YHWH, and did not know with what vowels and with what sound it should be pronounced — whether Jehovah, or Jeheve, or Jehu, or Jaho, or in what other way; but those who did know, as initiates and sharers in the mysteries, such as the high priests and experts in the law, out of reverence did not pronounce it, nor did they teach others how it should be pronounced; and therefore the Jews, whenever YHWH occurred, read Adonai in its place, that is, Lord. Therefore God signified not only that the highest reverence is owed to His name, and that it is to be venerated with a chaste and mystical silence, but also that the thing signified by the name, namely the essence of God, is incomprehensible, as I said on Exodus VI, 3. Therefore we know the name of God imperfectly and as it were through a shadow; but fully and properly we do not know it. For we do not know God except through relation and reference to creatures, for example, that God is He who created, preserves, rules, and governs the heaven, the earth, and all things that are in them; and just as we do not perfectly know the creatures, so much less do we know God the Creator, and still much less what God is in Himself, of what essence and how great a majesty in Himself; but least of all do we know the Most Holy Trinity and the plurality of persons in Him, namely that God is not only God, but also the Father begetting the Son, and together with Him breathing forth the Holy Spirit.
Whence St. Thomas, Part I, Question XIII, articles 1 and following, citing this passage from Proverbs, teaches that no name is given that perfectly signifies and represents the nature of God. In the same place Francis Suarez and Gabriel Vasquez say: There is no name that adequately expresses the nature of God, much less the nature and property of the Son of God: "For who shall declare His generation?" Isaiah LIII, 8. The reason given by St. Thomas is that we cannot see and know God in Himself, but only ascend in our minds from creatures, by degrees, to their Author and God the Creator. But creatures are infinitely distant from God, and represent Him more imperfectly than a shadow represents the sun. Therefore all names given to God from creatures signify and represent the nature of God only imperfectly and thinly; and most thinly of all, the Most Holy Trinity.
Hence St. Dionysius, chapter I of The Divine Names: "Of God, he says, there is neither name nor opinion," which St. Thomas explains at the cited Question, article 1: "God, he says, is said not to have a name and to be above naming, because His essence is above what we understand of God and signify by voice." Hence Cicero, Tusculan Disputations I, and from him St. Augustine, City of God XXII, chapter XX, thus defines God: "God is a certain mind, free and unbound, separated from every mortal composition, perceiving and moving all things, and endowed with eternal motion." But hear St. Dionysius: "When the theologians understood this, they praised the divinity both as being without a name and as having every name: as being without a name, as when they say that the divinity itself, in one of the mystical visions of the symbolic divine demonstration, rebuked the one who asked: 'What is your name?' and, as if drawing him away from all knowledge of God's name, said: 'Why do you ask my name, which is wonderful?' Is not this name truly and plainly wonderful, which surpasses every name, which is without a name, which rises above every name that is named either in this age or in the age to come, as if placed upon a foundation?" So also Trismegistus, speaking of the ineffable majesty of God, said that God is anonumon, that is, nameless and unnameable.
Is not Solomon, therefore, right when, considering himself before God and in the presence of God, he says: "I am the most foolish of men, and the wisdom of men is not with me"? Tertullian indeed, Book III Against Marcion, near the middle, says "that the name of God is as it were the natural name of divinity"; because, as St. Justin says in his Exposition of the Faith: "If you wish to understand the divine essence, you will have expressed it by the name of God." But nevertheless St. Augustine, on Psalm LXXXV: "You ask, he says, what God is? What the eye has not seen, nor has it entered into the heart of man: why do you seek for it to ascend to the tongue, when it has not ascended into the heart?" Indeed Plato also, from Trismegistus, as St. Cyril testifies, Book I Against Julian, and Nazianzen, oration 2 on Theology: "To understand God, he says, is difficult; but to speak of Him is impossible." And St. Athanasius in his epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, past the middle: "When we hear, he says, the word God, we understand that nothing other than the very incomprehensible substance of God is signified." For, as St. Augustine says, sermon 1 on the Words of the Apostle: "God surpasses all things: if you seek greatness, He is greater; if beauty, more beautiful; if sweetness, sweeter; if splendor, more radiant; if justice, more just; if strength, stronger; if piety, more merciful." And Gregory of Nyssa, in his book to Ablabius: "What is utterly infinite is defined by nothing; but infinity by every reckoning escapes definition." Wherefore Evagrius, hearing some people disputing curiously about God and the Most Holy Trinity, "replied that the divinity should by no means be defined; and therefore what is ineffable should be prayed to only with the prayer of silence." So Socrates, Book VI of the Tripartite History, chapter XXX. And Attalus, the martyr, when asked by the tyrant "what name God had," answered: "Those who are many are distinguished by names; but He who is one has no need of a name." So Eusebius, Book VI of the History, chapter III.
God can, therefore, be thought of, but cannot be plainly named. For, as Sixtus the Pythagorean says in his Maxims, number 45: "All the time in which you do not think of God, consider that as lost." The same was said by St. Dominic, and from his teaching by St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor.
WHO HAS BOUND THE WATERS AS IN A GARMENT? — First, Cajetan takes "waters" to mean rains, springs, and rivers: for rains seem to drip from heaven, just as a wet cloth drips drops. Some hold the same view, according to Aristotle, about springs and rivers, namely that just as a cloth placed upon a jug absorbs the liquid from the jug to moisten itself, and thus draws it up, and then outside the jug releases it in drops; so likewise the earth, although higher than the sea, because it is spongy and porous, absorbs and draws waters from the sea, and by soaking them up raises them, and then through springs and rivers at certain places distills and releases them.
Second, others better take "waters" to mean the waters above, which are gathered in dark clouds as in a black garment, so that they hide from us the sun, the stars, and the moon; but when this garment of clouds is opened and as it were torn apart by God, the waters break forth in rains and showers. This is what Job says, chapter XXVI, 8: "He binds up the waters in His clouds, so that they do not break forth all at once downward."
Third, and best, you may take "waters" to mean the waters of the sea, of lakes, and of rivers, about which the Psalmist sings, Psalm XXXII, 7: "Gathering the waters of the sea as in a wineskin," because He gathered them into one place so that the dry land might appear, setting a boundary for them so that they would not cross it nor turn back to cover the earth. Whence the Lord also, commending His wisdom and power to humble Job, says among other things, Job XXXVIII, 8: "Who shut up the sea with doors, when it burst forth as if coming from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment, and wrapped it in darkness as in swaddling clothes? I surrounded it with my boundaries, and set a bar and doors, and said: Thus far shall you come, and no further, and here you shall break your swelling waves." Whence the Author of the Greek Catena explains thus, as if to say: Who by his wisdom and power has given stability and constancy to the fluid and inconstant nature and condition of things? Surely God alone.
See St. Augustine, book On the Knowledge of the True Life, chapter XVIII, and sermon 38 On the Words of the Lord, and book XV On the Trinity, chapter II, where among other things he says: "The supereminence of the Deity exceeds not only the capacity of our ordinary speech, but even the capacity of our understanding; for God is more truly thought than spoken, and more truly is than is thought. Moreover it is no small part of knowledge if, before we can know what God is, we can know what He is not." Hear Arnobius, book III Against the Gentiles: "Whatever you say about God, whatever you conceive by the silent thought of the mind, passes into and is corrupted by human understanding; nor does it bear the mark of its proper meaning, when it is expressed in our words, which are composed for human affairs. The one surest judgment of man concerning the nature of God is if you know and feel that nothing can be drawn forth about Him in mortal speech." The same author, book VIII: "I will speak, he says, as I feel; he who thinks he knows the greatness of God diminishes it; he who does not wish to diminish it does not know it." Wherefore the Egyptians in their Hieroglyphics painted a crocodile and a stork lacking a tongue, to signify that God is ineffable. Simonides, when asked by Hiero what God was, requested the space of one day to respond, then two, then four, and thereafter always demanded double, denying that any was sufficient: "For the longer I consider, he said, the more obscure the matter seems," as Cicero reports, book I of On the Nature of the Gods.
AND WHAT IS THE NAME OF HIS SON? of sins, sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high; having been made so much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they: for to which of the angels did He ever say: 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You'?" Hebrews 1:3. Our Salazar takes "name" to mean person: for by a name one person is distinguished and recognized from another, as if to say: "What is the name," that is, what is the person of God the Father, "and what is the name," that is, what is the person "of the Son," by which namely the Son is distinguished from the Father? For the essence and all other things are undivided, and the same in the Father and the Son. More subtly and precisely Bartholomew Torres, and from him our Molina, Part I, Question XI, article 2, disputation 2, member 3, at the beginning, responds that there are two relative names proper to the Son of God, one the name of Son, the other the name of Word; and that this second name was more hidden in the Old Testament, and that the Wise Man inquires about it as about something hidden, which was afterward most openly revealed in the New Testament through St. John, when he said: "In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was made flesh." Whence St. Ignatius, epistle 8 to the Philippians: "One, he says, is the Son, the Word, God: what is His name, and what the name of His Son, that we may know." For which our version translates: if you know.
Moreover, the Septuagint translates 'son' as 'sons' in the plural, because they wished to hide the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity from the unbelieving Jews; or certainly for 'sons' one should read 'son' in the singular, for thus constantly read the Hebrew, the Chaldean, the Vulgate, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the rest, and one codex of the Septuagint cited by Caraffa in his notes on the Vatican Septuagint, indeed also St. Augustine, epistle 49.
He mentions only the Son, not the Holy Spirit, partly lest by the multitude of so many persons in the Most Holy Trinity he should confuse and offend the unlearned Jews; partly because here the discussion concerns the wisdom of God, and this is appropriated to the Son; partly because through the Word God created heaven and all things: "For by the Word of the Lord the heavens were established," Psalm XXXII, 6; and the Son is the notional and personal Word of God the Father; and finally because the Son was promised to the Jews as the coming Messiah and redeemer. Hence he notes the twofold generation of the Son, divine and human, and His twofold name: for insofar as He is God, He is called the Word; insofar as He is man, He is called Jesus Christ, as if to say: Do you know what the Word is, and who Jesus Christ is, indeed that the Word is Jesus Christ? Hence he tacitly foreshadows His incarnation, passion, and ascension through the symbols of the eagle, the serpent, the ship, and the virgin, verse 19, as we shall see there.
Add that the Holy Spirit is here symbolically noted, when he says: "Who has held the wind in his hands?" For spirit, that is, wind, is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, who in the form of a mighty wind and fiery tongues descended upon the Apostles at Pentecost, Acts II. Whence it is said of Him in Genesis 1:2: "And the Spirit of God moved over the waters." For the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son
Undivided, who therefore cannot be separated from the Father and the Son either in essence, or in operation, or in any other way. "The same, says St. Augustine, book I of On Christian Doctrine, chapter V, is the eternity of the Three, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. From the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the concord of unity and equality. And all three are one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, all connected because of the Holy Spirit."
5 and 6. EVERY WORD OF GOD IS FIRE-TESTED, HE IS A SHIELD TO THOSE WHO HOPE IN HIM: DO NOT ADD ANYTHING TO HIS WORDS, LEST YOU BE REPROVED AND FOUND A LIAR.
You may ask first, how these verses cohere with the preceding ones? The answer is that since Solomon made mention of the Son of God, that is, the eternal Word, he then weaves in how the Word who from eternity was with God, in time proceeded to men through the words of Sacred Scripture, the law, and the Prophets, to announce to us the will of God the Father and the way to happiness. For these words proceed from the Word of God, as a ray from the sun, water from a fountain, heat from fire. Again, because he had celebrated the wisdom of God shining forth in the heavens and the elements; now he celebrates the same insofar as it communicated itself to men through the fiery word, by which He protects those who hope in Him: for it was for man's sake that He created heaven and all other things. In a similar way Solomon, chapter VIII, verse 27, when he had said that God's wisdom established the heavens, made firm the ether above, balanced the springs of waters, and weighed the foundations of the earth, then of the same wisdom descending to men he adds, verse 31: "And my delight was to be with the children of men; now therefore, children, hear me." So also Baruch, chapter III, when after a long inquiry into the origin and place of wisdom, at last, verse 32, he had assigned it, saying: "He who knows all things has known it, and found it out by His prudence, He who prepared the earth for all time, and filled it with cattle and four-footed beasts, He who sends forth the light, and it goes"; he adds verse 37: "He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men." Similarly Job, chapter XXVIII, after the words cited above, in which he asserts wisdom to be natural and proper to God, adds verse 26: "When He made a decree for the rain, and a way for the sounding storms, then He saw it, and declared it, and prepared it, and searched it out. And He said to man: Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding." Similarly does Ecclesiasticus XXIV; for when, verse 5, Wisdom had said: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before all creation; I made an unfailing light to rise in the heavens," etc.; it adds verse 12: "Then the Creator of all things commanded and said to me, etc. Dwell in Jacob, and take your inheritance in Israel, and send down your roots in my chosen ones." By all of which God signifies that He chose men, namely the faithful and the saints, as the end and aim, indeed as the dwelling and temple of Wisdom, so that He might fill them with the knowledge, fear, and love of God, and thus lead them to salvation and glory: and for this reason He created the heavens, the elements, and all other things, so that from these man might recognize, love, and worship God and His wisdom, power, and goodness, and serve and obey Him in all things, and thus be rewarded by Him with the prize of eternal happiness. The same does Solomon here.
You may ask second, why is the word of God called fire-tested? I answer: Fire-tested, that is, smelted, refined, and pure; for this is what the Hebrew tserupha and the Greek pepyromenon mean. Whence Symmachus and St. Jerome, Psalm XVII, 31, translate: the word of God is proved. For he alludes to chemical vessels in which gold and silver are purified by smelting out the dross through fire, so that they become pure and bright. For this is what tserupha means. Whence Sarepta was the name of a city of the Sidonians, because in it there were frequent smelting workshops for refining metals. The meaning therefore is, as if to say: The words of God, both His precepts and His promises, are so true, pure, sincere, and certain, just as if they were gold refined by fire, smelted, and purged of all dross. For in a similar way, indeed far more so, the words of God are refined and pure from all contagion not only of falsehood, fraud, and pretense, but also of vanity and superfluity, so that there is nothing lacking or superfluous in the divine utterances, nothing that can be reproved, and therefore it follows: "Do not add anything to His words, lest you be reproved." Whence the law of God is called "immaculate," in Greek amomos, that is, irreproachable; in Hebrew temima, that is, whole, blameless, perfect, Psalm XVIII, 8.
Wherefore God (for it pertains to God, not to the word, since 'word' in Hebrew is feminine gender, but 'God' is masculine) "is a shield to those who hope in Him," because He truly, wholly, certainly, and safely fulfills the love, aid, and protection He promised to those who keep His precepts and hope in Him, and does not allow those who hope in Him to be frustrated in their hope, just as He actually provided to David, who hoped in Him, a wonderful deliverance from Saul's persecution, and likewise the kingdom and its perpetual propagation to his descendants, as He had promised. That this is the meaning is clear from Psalm XVII, 31, where the same words in Hebrew are found as here. There the Septuagint translates: the words of the Lord tested by fire, is the protector of all who hope in Him; Symmachus: the speech of the Lord is proven. So also St. Jerome, where St. Basil says: "He calls the words tested by fire proven, truthful, and free from falsehood." So also Theodoret, Euthymius, and others in the same place. And more clearly Psalm XI, 7: "The words of the Lord, they say, are pure words, like silver tested by fire, proven upon the earth, purified seven times." For 'shield' in Hebrew is magen, meaning buckler, shield; the Septuagint translates hyperaspizei, that is, He will protect, He will defend, He will vigorously guard: whence hyperaspizon means one who shields another's side with a shield — an armor-bearer, attendant, bodyguard, protector, helper, defender. Such is God to the faithful one who hopes in Him and calls upon Him, because with His power and faithfulness He preserves, guards, and defends His suppliant as though holding a shield before him. This meaning is the most proper and genuine.
Second, however, St. Ambrose on Psalm CXVIII, 140, on those words: "Your word is exceedingly fire-tested": "Fire-tested, he says, because it kindles its hearers with the fire of zeal and charity. What fire, then, did the Lord scatter in the New Testament? That which would inflame the hidden affections of minds with the ardor of divine knowledge, that would increase the fervor of faith and devotion, that would kindle the desire of virtue." And shortly after: "Good, he says, is the fire that knows how to warm but does not know how to burn except sins alone. By this fire that apostolic gold is proved; by this fire that silver of character or works is tested; by this fire those precious stones are illuminated, while hay and stubble are consumed. Therefore this fire cleanses the soul, it consumes error." And again below: "By this fire the bush was burning and was not consumed; for the divine word burns to correct the conscience of the sinner; it does not burn to destroy." See what follows, where he teaches that this fire powerfully accomplishes three things, namely to purge, to illuminate, and to inflame. Cassiodorus adds, on Psalm XVII, 31: "The words of the Lord tested by fire, as if he should say: By the flame of faith the heavenly law is examined, when the divine words are sought out with the desire of knowing. So also Jeremiah the Prophet summed up the words of the Lord with a wonderful definition, saying in chapter XXIII, 29: 'Are not my words like fire, says the Lord, and like an axe that cuts the rock?'" Our version translates 'axe' as 'hammer.'
Third, St. Jerome on Psalm XVII, verse 31, holds that the words of God are called fire-tested "not because they themselves, he says, have been tested by fire, or because they had been defiled; but because he who receives them, they make him like pure gold purified through fire. For what are the chaff to the wheat?" Jeremiah XXIII, 28. "What are the dross to the silver?" says St. Augustine in the Conference of the third day against the Donatists. Therefore the words of God are called fire-tested in this sense, because like fire they chastise, refine, and cleanse from the soul its dross, that is, its desires and vices: hence they are called arrows, because they strike, torment, and wound the heart. Whence Origen on Psalm XXXVII, on those words: "For your arrows are fixed in me": "He who speaks, therefore, he says, the words of the Lord, hurls arrows, and when he speaks reproving and chastising, with the dart of correction he pierces the heart of the hearer." More forcefully and elegantly St. Augustine on Psalm VII, on those words: "The arrows of the Mighty One are sharp, with coals," etc., speaks thus: "The sharp arrows of the Mighty One are the words of God. Behold they are hurled and they pierce through hearts; but when hearts have been pierced through by the arrows of the word of God, love is awakened, not destruction procured; the Lord knows how to shoot for love, and no one shoots more beautifully for love than he who shoots with the word," etc.
Finally, whatever fire accomplishes, the word of God accomplishes. Consider therefore the properties and characteristics of fire, especially in smelting and purifying metals such as gold and silver, and mystically attribute these to the word of God, namely Sacred Scripture, the law, divine inspiration, and the promises of God. Whence Didymus on Psalm XVII, 31: "The words of God, he says, are called fire-tested, because they so kindle the mind that they consume the chaff of earthly things and thoughts." The Author of the Greek Catena here says: "All the words of God are fire-tested; for they consume with their fire everything thorny and weedy, and openly reveal what is clean and purified, and are sufficient for obtaining salvation." Again, fire denotes the efficacy and subtlety of the word of God, which penetrates, breathes upon, purifies, illuminates, and sets aflame the innermost parts of the soul, according to the words of Paul: "For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart," Hebrews chapter IV, 12.
Similar are the preachers of the word of God who burn with zeal, who, kindled by the word of God, like fiery beings breathe nothing but heavenly fires, by which they illuminate, purify, kindle, and inflame their hearers. Moreover, just as fire refining gold and silver renders them most excellent and most precious: so also the word of God, refining the affections of the soul, renders them most outstanding and of the highest worth before God and men, namely heavenly and divine, according to the promise concerning Christ, Malachi III, 2: "For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap; and He shall sit refining and cleansing silver, and He shall purge the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and like silver, and they shall offer to the Lord sacrifices in righteousness." Where I said more on this subject.
Tropologically St. Augustine on Psalm XVII, 31: "He holds that the words of God are called fire-tested: Because, he says, they are proved by the fire of tribulation. He is the protector of all who hope in Him, as if to say: And all who hope not in themselves but in Him are not consumed by the same tribulation; for hope follows faith." Rufinus on the same Psalm: "The way of God is undefiled, he says, His words are proved in tribulation: His hope is certain and firm, who protects those hoping in Him, lest they fail in temptation. Let us therefore hold this way, and we shall be purified; let us keep His words, and we shall not err; let us fix our hope in Him and we shall walk securely under His protection." And St. Gregory, book IV of the Morals, chapter XXVII: "The word of the Lord, he says, is called silver tested by fire, because the word of God, if it is fixed in the heart, is proved by tribulations." Hence it is said of Joseph, Psalm CIV, 20: "The word of the Lord set him on fire," as if to say: The oracle of God through dreams, and the study of the divine law, was the cause that Joseph was compelled and proved by the fire of tribulation, since on account of it, having been sold by his envious brothers, he served thirteen years in Egypt, until in his thirtieth year, freed from prison by Pharaoh, he became the prince of Egypt.
HE IS A SHIELD TO ALL WHO HOPE IN HIM,
This is what St. Paul says: "In all things taking up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the fiery darts of the evil one," Ephesians chapter VI, 16. So Salonius says: "Every word of divine authority is therefore called a fiery shield, because it both kindles with the fire of charity the hearts of the elect who place their hope in God, and illuminates them with the knowledge of truth, and consumes and purges the filth of vices that it finds in them, and defends them from the snares of enemies and from all adversities."
DO NOT ADD ANYTHING TO HIS WORDS, cies and delusions they thrust upon people as the word of God; who therefore, as falsifiers of Sacred Scripture, will be judged and condemned by God. For, as St. Chrysostom says, homily 20 on Matthew: "Do not add to the words of God, etc.; whoever has dared to do this thinks himself wiser than God, and begins to be a false witness, because he says what neither ear has heard nor eye has seen." Since therefore by later writers, by the Apostles, and by the Church certain things have been said, written, and preached to God's people that were not expressed in the earlier words of God, nothing has been added to the words of God, because those things too that have come later are the words of God. When interpreters explain the words of God, they add nothing to the words of God, since they do not wish their explanations to be received as the word of God, except insofar as they accord and agree with the word of God; nor do they add their own things as though the words of God were not sufficient, but because they are not understood by all. So Jansenius. I have said more on this maxim at Deuteronomy IV, 2; Apocalypse XXII, 18; Galatians I, 8.
7. TWO THINGS I HAVE ASKED OF YOU, DO NOT DENY ME BEFORE I DIE,
8. REMOVE VANITY AND LYING WORDS FAR FROM ME; GIVE ME NEITHER BEGGARY NOR RICHES, GRANT ME ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR MY SUSTENANCE,
He passes from the intellect to the affections. He has told how much wisdom accomplishes in heaven and in the whole world, and from whom it should be sought, namely from the word of God; now he shows its use and practice, namely what one who has obtained wisdom should ordinarily ask for in order to lead life rightly, for which purpose wisdom is sought, and for which the word of God has been given. He demonstrates this by his own example, saying: "Two things I have asked of You," etc. Some consider these two things to be, first:
As Solomon did when through pleasures and concubines he apostatized from God to the gods of the Gentiles. "Or compelled by want I may steal, and forswear the name of my God," namely by denying the theft when I am put under oath; but this is to fall into deadly words of falsehood: for poverty often drives one to lying.
Thus Lyranus, whom hear: "Two things I have asked of You, Lord: vanity, which is attached to prosperous fortune; and words of falsehood, which are frequently joined to adversity, remove far from me; and he repeats the same in other words: Beggary and riches give me not, etc. And so under the example of riches and poverty Solomon here prays, and admonishes us to pray, that we be neither exalted by prosperity and led into the vanity of pride and the neglect of God along with the worship of idols; nor cast down by adversity into dishonesty and lies, among which the greatest is to forswear the name of God, that is, to make God a witness of falsehood.
"Vanity and words of falsehood remove far from me;" the second: "Beggary and riches give me not." By vanity, however, Pagninus understands a vain, that is, an idle word; the Author of the Greek Chain, a foolish word, namely foolish talk; the Chaldean, detraction, because a detractor is like a cenotaph, that is, an empty tomb, which outwardly represents someone's burial, but inwardly lacks a buried body, and is empty and void. For thus a detractor fabricates and says many things which outwardly harm another's reputation, but inwardly, in fact, that is in truth, they are lacking, and are empty, vain, and false. Others by vanity understand vain opinions, errors, and heresies, as if the Wise Man wished to be preserved from these; for these two things are to be desired: first, that we think rightly about God; second, that we use riches and poverty rightly, lest in either we offend God.
Again our Salazar, by vanity, or a vain word, considers that a violated promise is indicated, meaning: Remove far from me the violation of a given word or pledged faith, and falsehood; for both are crimes unworthy of a prince, and therefore should be far from him, so that not even the remotest suspicion of it may fall upon him. Hence Cassiodorus in his Variae: "The majesty of a king," he says, "ought to have the authority of a divine being, and his word should hold the place of an oracle; for if he lies even once and betrays trust, no one will believe him afterward. Here applies the proverb of the Syrians and Arabs, Cent. 2, num. 49: 'He who is known for truthfulness, even his lie is accepted; and he who is known for lying, even his truth is not accepted,' meaning: Opinion has such force that the one who usually speaks truly, we believe even when he lies; but the one who lies more often, even when he speaks the truth, is not believed. This is what liars, traitors, and perjurers gain: that they lose their reputation and trust, nor are they believed even when they speak the truth and swear;" and num. 48: "Abandon falsehood when you see it will profit you, for it will harm you. And it is yours to cling to truth when you see it will harm you, because it will profit you;" and Cent. 2, num. 72: "Truth is magnificence (that is, magnificent), but falsehood is baseness. Truth is health, falsehood is infirmity," that is, weak and feeble, because it vanishes before the light of truth.
Hence some translate the Hebrew שאו scau, that is, vanity, as irruption, assault, rashness, precipitance (for the root שאה signifies to rush in with violence and to cast down headlong), meaning: lest, insolent and swollen with riches, I rush upon the throne of God, and arrogantly say with Lucifer: Who is the Lord? Who shall rule over me? I am like the Most High, indeed God in my kingdom, as Pharaoh said, Exodus v, 2; and the king of Tyre, Ezekiel xxviii, 2: "I am God," he says, "and I sit in the seat of God in the heart of the sea." Thus St. Basil explains this passage in his Longer Rules, question 20: "Solomon," he says, "here defined riches as abundance; but want as the utmost lack of things necessary for life, namely from the fact that he says necessary things, declaring a middle ground between destitution and abundance of things necessary for use."
And St. Ambrose on Psalm 118, octonary 8: "For he says, the two greatest temptations Solomon declared and asked to be able to exclude in his prayer, saying: But riches and poverty give me not, but appoint for me what is needed, and what may abound, lest being filled I become a liar, and say: Who sees me? or being poor I steal and forswear the name of God. Can you therefore despise those temptations which Solomon feared, who sought and obtained wisdom? He was rich, he feared being exalted; he dreaded becoming poor, lest through the necessity of poverty he might not maintain the grace of abstinence." He proves it with examples: "How many who seemed to be holy have fallen from the height of their heart? How many, cast down by some necessity, could not be content in their injury, who had been strengthened by the exercise of virtues? Rare is a Job found on earth, who lost both riches and children, and was furrowed with wounds of the body, while worms flowed over his entire body; yet he could not be separated from the love of God."
And St. Bernard, sermon 2 on Palm Sunday: "Although," he says, "adversity slays many, yet prosperity exalts far more, as it is written: A thousand shall fall at your side, namely the left side, by which adversity is signified; and ten thousand, that is far more, at your right hand, in which prosperity is designated. vain; apostasy itself is also vanity, that is, vain pride and the haughtiness by which one scorns God,
Finally because there is danger on both sides, the Wise Man prays and says: Riches and poverty give me not, lest perhaps either riches exalt me to pride, or poverty cast me down to impatience."
Similar was the wish of Catherine, Queen of England, wife of Henry VIII, who afterward being unjustly repudiated by him led a life very similar to martyrdom, of whom Sanders thus writes, book I On the English Schism: Catherine was most accustomed to say among her own people that she would choose neither the harshest nor the gentlest fortune, if the option were given, since each has its own temptations and dangers; but rather a middle and temperate one: if however one of the two extremes had to be chosen, she would prefer the saddest to the most flattering; for the unfortunate rarely lack consolation, while the most fortunate nearly always lack sense.
From Solomon, Plato and the Philosophers learned and received this opinion; for Plato, in book III of the Laws: "In whatever assembly of men," he says, "there is neither want nor wealth, there the most just morals will be present; for there neither insult nor injury has place." An example is in Sparta, from which Lycurgus removed both wealth and poverty, and therefore had the best and most just citizens.
St. Basil, in his treatise On Reading the Books of the Gentiles, cites the maxim of Theognis who says: I desire not riches, not great things; but let small things be present, / so that I may live happy and free from evils.
Similar is the wish of Socrates in Plato at the end of the Phaedrus: "O dear Pan," he says, "and all you gods who dwell in this place, grant me to become beautiful within, and that whatever I have outwardly may be friendly to what is within; and may I consider only the wise man to be rich. And may I have only so much gold as no one other than a temperate man could carry or bear."
For, as St. Ambrose says in book VI of the Hexaemeron, chapter viii, citing this maxim of Solomon: "The temptations of the world are to be fled and avoided, lest the poor man despair, lest the wealthy man become insolent."
Maximus, book XIII, cites St. Chrysostom saying: "Rich is not he who possesses much, but he who needs not much;" and Philo: "A good man needing few things is on a certain boundary between death and immortal nature. For he needs indeed because of his mortal body, but not much because of his soul longing for immortality." Democritus: "Fortune sets a sumptuous table; temperance, one that is sufficient." Finally the Apostle, 1 Timothy vi, 6: "Godliness with contentment," he says, "is great gain," that is, with a mind sufficient to itself and content with its own things, however modest. Where I have said more on this matter.
You will say: Solomon was a most wealthy king; but a king need not fear poverty, since a king must necessarily abound in riches. Some respond with Jansenius that these are the words of Agur, not of Solomon; but I have refuted this at verse 1. Others better judge that Solomon here assumes the person of any private and common man, to teach him the manner of praying, namely to ask for necessary food, so as to be free both from abundance and from want. For this seems more consonant and suited to the greater part of mankind, and to their common, less perfect life. For few who are perfect fear neither riches nor poverty, but say with Paul: "I know how to be abased, I know how to abound (everywhere and in all things I have been instructed), both to be full and to be hungry, to abound and to suffer want," Philippians iv, 12; and with the Psalmist: "Prove me, O Lord (with want and affliction), and test me: burn my reins and my heart," Psalm xxv, 2. This is true; whence St. Chrysostom, homily 18 on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and St. Ambrose on Psalm 118, octonary 8, say these words of Solomon are suited to men of the Old Testament, because they were imperfect.
Yet this maxim can also be taken as spoken in the person of King Solomon, both because a king can fall from his throne and kingdom and become a private citizen, as happened to Mithridates, Tigranes, Antiochus, Dejotarus, Perseus, Ptolemy, Cleopatra, and other kings conquered by the Romans; and because a king is often poorer than a private citizen, for although he has great wealth, yet he has greater expenses for officials, cities, buildings, and wars, so that the royal resources are not sufficient for them, as we see today with our own eyes in some kingdoms: for those riches should be valued which are free from the burden of expenses. Therefore a merchant having a hundred thousand gold pieces free and clear is often richer than a king who annually collects fifteen million, but all committed to paying debts, war expenses, and other costs of the kingdom. Hence at times necessity compels kings to steal and plunder, not florins or gold coins, but entire cities, provinces, and kingdoms, when they either invade what belongs to others, or plunder their own subjects through taxes or governors and soldiers.
You will say secondly: Solomon here seems to blame and condemn the poverty of Religious and the mendicant Orders. I answer: By no means, but he prescribes a way of living suited to his own age, which was fitting for the Jews, and indeed for the greater part of Christians, which is to live moderately, so that necessities are at hand and superfluities absent; for this manner suits the common run of mankind and is salutary. But Christ added to this a more perfect kind of life, when He encouraged Evangelical poverty both by example and by word. Whence He Himself says: "But I am a beggar and poor," Psalm xxxix, 15. And: "Foxes have dens, and the birds of the sky have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head," Matthew viii, 20.
Now this poverty of Christ is far different from the poverty which Solomon deprecates: for this latter is involuntary and forced, such as that of beggars; but Christ's is voluntary and free, which the Apostles and Religious freely take upon themselves after Christ's example, both from zeal for humility and to draw their affections away from riches and earthly things, and to transfer them entirely to God and divine things. Thus St. Thomas answers, III part., Question XL, art. 3, ad 1. Wherefore Christ says Matthew v: "Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." See Hieronymus Platus, book I On the Good of the Religious State, chapter ix, and book II, chapter viii. Bellarmine adds, book II On Monks, chapter xiv, that Solomon speaks of begging that is exposed to danger; but such is not the case with Religious, who know for certain that nothing will be lacking to them, because Christ promised them a hundredfold in this life, Matthew xix. Indeed it seems, he says, that Religious literally ask for what the Wise Man asks: for they do not want riches, and therefore they leave them behind; nor however do they want dangerous begging, by which they might die of hunger; and therefore they say: "Grant only what is necessary for my sustenance."
Mystically, St. Jerome on Ecclesiastes chapter II, and St. Bernard, sermon 68 on the Song of Songs, take these words about spiritual riches and spiritual begging, namely about the excess and deficiency of wisdom, virtues, consolations, and graces. Hear the latter: "Pernicious is poverty, the want of merits; but presumption of spirit is deceptive riches; and therefore: Riches and poverty give me not, Lord, says the Wise Man." Hear also St. Jerome: "Not only temporal joy, but also spiritual joy, is a temptation for the one who possesses it, so that I sometimes need an angel to correct me and an angel of Satan to buffet me, lest I be lifted up thereby. Whence Solomon also says: Riches and poverty give me not."
GRANT ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR MY SUSTENANCE.
St. Ambrose on Psalm 118, octonary 8: "But appoint for me what is needed, and what may abound," that is, establish for me the necessities of life not narrowly and sparingly, but generously and abundantly, although others think it should be read, "nor may they abound:" for the antithesis seems to require this, for he asks for sufficiency, he deprecates excess: sufficiency, I say, for nature, not for greed; for nothing can suffice for greed, even if it possessed the whole world, such as luxury is.
Admirably St. Augustine, sermon 15 On Various Subjects, chapter xv: "These," he says, "are called unjust riches, not because gold and silver are unjust; but because it is unjust to consider those things riches which do not remove want. For each one will burn with want the more, the more he loves and possesses greater riches. How then are they riches, when as they grow, want grows, which the more ample they become for their lovers, do not remove hunger but inflame desire? Do you think him rich who would need less if he had less?" He proves it with examples: "For we have seen some who, when they had a small sum of money, were content with small profits; but after the true substance of gold and silver began to abound for them, yet still false riches, when you offer them a small amount, they now refuse: you think they are now satisfied; but it is false. For more money does not close the jaws of greed, but widens them; does not irrigate, but kindles; they reject the cup, because they thirst for the river."
Cajetan notes on III part., Question XL, art. 3, that Solomon here places necessities as a middle ground between riches and poverty, so that he who has only necessities should be reckoned neither rich nor poor, but in between the two: and therefore a Religious, who is poor and professes poverty, ought to lack not only superfluities, but also sometimes necessities: for he who is truly poor not infrequently needs these.
The same thing that Solomon here prays for, St. Francis wished for and obtained for his host in the village of Tyfi, five miles from Mount Alverna. For when he had been kindly received in hospitality by him, he blessed his house, and foretold that to his posterity, from generation to generation, God would give neither riches nor poverty, but what was necessary for a comfortable life and sustenance. The memory of this ancient prophecy is still fresh in that place: that house is called St. Francis's, and is open to all passing Franciscans for lodging, and is hospitable and generous, as Luke Wadding narrates in the Annals of the Friars Minor, year of Christ 1215, number 11.
"Having therefore, as the Apostle says, food and covering, let us be content with these," 1 Timothy vi, 8. Where St. Jerome admirably exclaims in this manner: "We were born naked, and naked we shall die; whatever is found here, will be left here. It is not ours, what is not always ours. Therefore as pilgrims let us be content with sufficient use: let us acquire those riches which we can carry with us to our heavenly homeland. Having food, etc. He had said sufficiency before; whatever is more than these, let it be ascribed to vice." So says St. Jerome.
9. LEST PERHAPS BEING FILLED I BE DRAWN TO DENY, AND SAY: WHO IS THE LORD? OR COMPELLED BY NECESSITY I STEAL, AND FORSWEAR THE NAME OF MY GOD.
He gives the reason why he deprecates riches, because they produce abundance of things, gluttony, and satiety, which begets pride, which gradually swelling grows so much that it denies God and every divine power, and says: Who is the Lord to take away my riches? or to forbid me to use and enjoy them at will for every kind of gluttony and luxury? For this is the reason why the rich and the pleasure-seekers deny God, namely because they wish to indulge their desires and passions freely without fear of punishment and vengeance; and because they know that God forbids those things and threatens them with the most grievous punishments in hell, hence to shake off fear of Him, and to feast and live in luxury freely, they say: There is no God, there is no divine power, there is no providence that sees me, judges me, condemns me, punishes me. For this is the cause of atheism, why pleasure-seekers become atheists, according to Psalm xiii, 1: "The fool has said in his heart: There is no God." He adds the reason: "They are corrupt and have become abominable in their pursuits," meaning: Because they have corrupted their pursuits, that is, their thoughts, actions, and morals, therefore they have denied God, lest they should dread His vengeance.
The second reason is that the greedy and those desirous of wealth love and worship their riches as an idol; for they always think about acquiring, preserving, and increasing them, and devote all their affections, pursuits, and labors to them, obey their desire for them in all things, and place in them all good and their ultimate end: therefore on account of them they neglect the worship of God, violate His commandments, and finally deny His providence. Whence greed is called by the Apostle "the service of idols," Ephesians v, 5. See there St. Chrysostom, homily 18, and homily 6 on the Epistle to the Romans, where he teaches that the greedy are truly idolaters, because they have fashioned for themselves in their mind an idol of gold, and sacrifice to it both body and soul.
The third reason is that one crime leads to another, and a lesser one impels to a greater, whereby it happens that a rich man growing in pride, greed, gluttony, injustice, and every crime, finally falls into heresy, atheism, and idolatry, as Solomon fell, and in this century we have seen many so fallen. For this is God's just vengeance, by which He punishes one crime with another, and finally allows the wicked to rush into atheism or idolatry; for the wicked know that idols are of stone and wood, and have no power to avenge themselves and punish the wicked: therefore they prefer to serve them, so as to go unpunished, rather than the true God, who is a most fierce avenger of crimes.
This is what Ephraim says in Hosea chapter xii, 8: "I have become rich: I have found an idol for myself: all my labors shall not find in me the iniquity that I have sinned," meaning: I have fashioned for myself an idol which in all my work and labor will bind me to no laws, and therefore will convict me of no crime, and will punish me with no penalties.
Hence St. Ambrose, book II of the Offices, chapter vii: "Greed," he says, "is closely allied to treachery;" and St. Augustine, book V of the City of God, teaches that men were once converted from idols to the worship of God by poverty, and grew in it through poverty, but through riches they relapse from faith into faithlessness. An example is in the Hebrews, who feasting and being full revolted from God, and fabricated for themselves the idol of a golden calf, according to Exodus xxxii, 4 and 6: "The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play, saying: These are your gods, O Israel, who led you out of the land of Egypt;" and Deuteronomy xxxii, 15: "The beloved grew fat and kicked: grown fat, grown thick, he forsook God who made him, and departed from God his savior. They provoked Him with strange gods."
Similarly the glutton and the lustful man has his gluttony and lust for an idol, according to Philippians iii, 19: "Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly." For, as Tertullian elegantly says, Against the Psychics: "Their God is their belly, and their lung is the temple, the stomach the altar, the priest is the cook, whose whole charity boils in pots, whose whole faith burns in kitchens, whose whole hope lies in dishes."
Morally, learn here that riches, although in themselves neither good nor evil, but indifferent, are yet for many an occasion and enticement to pride, gluttony, lust, injustice, and impiety, and this because of the concupiscence innate to man for these things.
Whence Antonius in the Melissa, Part I, chapter xxxi, cites maxims of the Fathers and wise men about these things. Of St. Chrysostom: "The poor man does not desire necessities as much as the rich man desires superfluities; nor again does the poor man have as much power or ability to practice wickedness as the rich man. If anyone is superior to desire, he is conquered by money; nor does he often conquer desire, but has received from nature that it troubles him little: for not all are similarly given to luxury. The root of all evils is the love of money: for the desire for riches leads to perjury, theft, robbery, fornication, envy, murder, hatred of brothers, war, greed, pretense, and flattery." Of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "To possess a little honestly is far better than to possess much dishonestly. No satiety of gaining ever arises, but what is acquired from time to time becomes the material and fuel of greater desire." Of Clement: "The best riches are the want of desires." Of Philo: "The glory of riches lies not in purses, but in rendering aid to the needy." Of Nilus: "Do not wish to grow rich so that you may be generous to the poor: for God commands the just man to show mercy from what he has."
Of Plutarch: "As trailing garments hinder bodies, so excessive riches hinder souls. A noble horse is not judged by costly trappings, but by its natural excellence; nor is a man honest who possesses riches of great price, but he who has a noble soul." Of Democritus: "An unceasing desire for riches is present in all men: for what is not acquired torments, what is acquired wearies with cares, and what is lost overwhelms with sadness. Natural riches consist of bread, water, and a ready covering for the body; but superfluous riches bring infinite torment of desire to the soul." Of Eusebius: "Riches spread a veil, as it were, over many evils." Of Chilon: "What is opulence? A treasure of evils, provisions for calamity, the supply of wickedness." Of Christ Himself: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," Matthew xix, 24; of St. Paul: "The root of all evils is desire," in Greek φιλαργυρία, that is, the love of money, 1 Timothy vi, 10.
Maximus moreover, sermon 12, among very many others cites the maxim of Lucian: Born into the light naked am I, naked I shall depart: / Why do I toil in vain, seeing that funerals are naked?
And he adds: Aristides, surnamed the Just, when a certain rich man reproached him with his poverty: "For me," he said, "poverty will bring nothing evil to see, but for you riches will bring not a few troubles." When Hiero was reproached because, though he had taught many the art of rhetoric, he himself was in want: "But," he said, "I did not teach them to grow rich, nor to pursue money." Musonius: "We shall condemn the treasures of Croesus and Cyrus as liable to extreme poverty; but we believe only the wise man to be truly rich, as one who can find everywhere as much as need demands." Xenophon the philosopher: "He used to say that poverty is a self-taught philosophy: for what the latter persuades by word, the former compels by deed. The covering of many evils is opulence." The same man "used to say that a rich and ignorant man is filth plated with silver. Even if you were the master of ten thousand cubits of earth, when dead you will be of only three or four: there are some who do not live in this present life, but prepare with great effort, as if they were going to lead another life, not this present one."
Again Antonius in the Melissa, chapters xxxiii and xxxiv, cites that saying of St. Basil: "Rejoice, O man, in your want, because the blessings of Lazarus will follow you. Gold is a snare for souls, a hook of death, the bait of sin. He is poor who needs many things; and insatiable desire makes men needy of many things. Just as wine already drunk provides drunkards with ever greater occasion for drinking; so also men recently enriched, when they possess much, desire more, nourishing the disease from the very increase of things, and their pursuit turns against them. Whatever you see, whatever you imagine, is gold. This is your dream when sleeping, and your thought when waking: for as those who are delirious with madness do not see things themselves, but imagine what their emotion suggests to them; so a mind held captive by greed sees nothing but gold and silver, and indeed gold presents itself to you more pleasantly than the sun.
Finally the philosopher Secundus, when asked by the Emperor Hadrian: "What are riches?" answered: "A weight of gold, a minister of cares, insatiable envy, an unfulfillable desire, a hateful concupiscence. What is poverty? A hateful gift, the mother of health, the removal of cares, the discoverer of wisdom, happiness without anxiety."
But the reason why he deprecates poverty, Solomon adds, saying: "Lest compelled by want I steal, and forswear the name of my God:" for poverty, to enrich itself, is prone to theft, and to cover the theft it lies, and that the lie may be believed it adds an oath, and perjures itself. Hence we see poor men and beggars given to theft, swearing every third word and often perjuring themselves.
To this point belong the maxims of the wise which Maximus recounts, sermon 12. Of Crato: "There is no greater calamity in life than poverty." And of Simonides, who when asked whether riches or wisdom were more to be desired: "I do not know," he said; "yet I see the wise frequenting the doors of the rich." And of Theognis: Not in vain do all worship and venerate you, O Wealth: / For it is easy for you to bring no light evil. And of Euripides in the Danae: "O gold! the most beautiful happiness for men." Of Aristotle: "Poverty needs many things, insatiable desire needs all things." Of Democritus: "If you do not desire many things, even a few will seem many: for a small appetite makes poverty equal to wealth."
Of Sixtus, not the Pope (as Rufinus supposed), but the Pythagorean, maxim 90: "Be content with moderate things." Of St. Cyprian, book V, letter 2: "While we insatiably desire much, we lose everything."
10. DO NOT ACCUSE (the Syriac, do not betray) A SERVANT TO HIS MASTER, LEST PERHAPS HE CURSE YOU, AND YOU FALL.
First, the Rabbis, and among them Baynus, limit this maxim to a slave of Gentiles, who fled to the children of Israel to become a proselyte, converted from paganism to Judaism; whom they therefore judge should not be returned to his Gentile master, but should be given freedom among the Jews; and they take in this sense Deuteronomy chapter xxiii, 15: "You shall not hand over a servant to his master, who has fled to you; he shall dwell with you in the place that pleases him, and shall rest in one of your cities: do not sadden him."
Secondly, better and more fully Lyranus, Hugo, Jansenius, Arboreus, and others take this as referring to any servant, whom he forbids to be accused before his master rashly and without grave cause, especially out of talkativeness or hatred, in order to harm him and afflict him through his master. For this is cruelty, and this is what the Hebrew אלטון talscen signifies, that is, he tongued, he reported with the tongue, from the root לשון lascon, that is, tongue: and thus we commonly say that talkative people and detractors have a tongue longer than is fitting. For otherwise the law commands, Deuteronomy xxii, that a straying ox or sheep be returned to its master, how much more a servant? For who would not want this done for himself? Who would not want to know the faults of his own servants? It serves the advantage of both, if a servant transgresses, that the master should know.
He gives the reason for this precept: "Lest perhaps he curse you, and you fall or transgress." Lest he curse, that is, lest he pray evil upon you, lest he execrate you, meaning: The curse of the poor and powerless who has been unjustly injured is no less to be feared than the strength and riches of the wealthy: for the powerless, and widows, and orphans, and all who are destitute of human help, have God as their avenger, especially when they cry out to Him, and commend their injury to Him with a heart deeply wounded: whereupon God, hearing them, will allow you who have unjustly accused them to fall into a similar evil, and to be similarly afflicted. Whence Ecclesiasticus, following Solomon as usual, chapter iv, 3: "Do not afflict the heart of the needy," he says, "and do not leave those who seek occasion to curse you behind your back: for the prayer of one who curses you in the bitterness of his soul will be heard; and He who made him will hear him."
For lest you fall, very aptly you may translate with the Chaldean, lest you be convicted, meaning: Do not rashly accuse a servant before his master, lest the servant, accused by you, curse you, that is, speak ill of you, and likewise accuse you, and reveal some hidden crime, on account of which you may be convicted, condemned, and punished: for such is the character of servants. This sense is very apt. By analogy you may say the same of any subject or inferior. Do not rashly accuse a subject before a superior, lest he likewise speak ill of you, and accuse you and convict you: whence Vatablus also translates, lest perhaps he curse you, and you sin, meaning: "Lest after you have sinned, a curse befall you," as a hysteron proteron.
This maxim teaches that no one, however vile, is to be despised or harmed, because no one is so base that he cannot avenge himself and in turn harm the one who harms him. Whence the saying: "A dog on his own turf, and a beggar in his own place, can do a great deal." How many masters have been slain by servants, how many princes by cobblers!
Mystically Bede says: "Everyone," he says, "who commits sin is the slave of sin. He therefore hands him over to his master, who persuades anyone who is sinning and wishes to repent, by his exhortation or example to repeat past offenses." So also the Author of the Greek Chain.
11, 12, 13 AND 14. A GENERATION THAT CURSES ITS FATHER, AND DOES NOT BLESS ITS MOTHER. A GENERATION THAT SEEMS CLEAN TO ITSELF, AND YET IS NOT WASHED FROM ITS FILTH. A GENERATION WHOSE EYES ARE LOFTY, AND WHOSE EYELIDS ARE RAISED ON HIGH. A GENERATION THAT HAS SWORDS FOR TEETH, AND DEVOURS WITH ITS MOLARS, TO EAT UP THE NEEDY FROM THE EARTH, AND THE POOR FROM AMONG MEN.
Those therefore who strive to weave this maxim into the preceding one seek a knot in a bulrush, and rather weaken and obscure it than illuminate it. This maxim therefore, like the others, stands illustrious on its own. For from here begin the six riddles and enigmas, each of which has four members and is enclosed in a group of four.
The Hebrew דור dor, that is, generation, signifies three things: first, the age of a man; second, a century; third, a kind of men. Hence this maxim is explained in three ways.
First, of the four ages of man, namely childhood, adolescence, youth, and mature age: for the first maxim suits childhood, because children are wont to quarrel with their parents; the second suits adolescence, because adolescents seem guileless and pure, yet on account of their boiling blood are prone to anger, quarrels, and lusts; the third suits youth, because young men are spirited and bold, and therefore aspire to lofty things, and sometimes to things beyond their strength; the fourth suits mature age, because men, to support wives, children, and family, not infrequently plunder others, especially the needy and poor. They judge, therefore, that this is a symbol of the four ages of human life. But this interpretation seems far-fetched and inappropriate.
Secondly, others by dor understand a century, as if this denotes four ages of the world, in which four principal crimes flourished. For in the first age before Abraham, idolatry prevailed; in the second, after Abraham up to Christ, Judaism and the hypocrisy of the Jews prevailed; in the third, after Christ, heresy prevailed up to the times of St. Gregory; in the fourth, after St. Gregory, the wickedness, oppressions, and tyrannies of Christians have prevailed and still prevail. The first generation therefore denotes idolaters: for they tear their father, that is God, and their mother, that is the Church, with curses; the second generation denotes the Jews, who because they wash their flesh outwardly with certain external washings and baptisms, claim cleanliness for themselves, while yet they by no means lay aside the filth of the soul: the third generation represents the heretics, whom pride, arrogance, and the elation of mind, departing from the true faith, drove into such disparate sects; the fourth generation refers to bad Christians, who, alien to all mercy and gentleness, put on iron hearts and exercise cruelty against their neighbors. But this interpretation is mystical rather than literal; as a mystical interpretation, however, it is not unsuitable, indeed it is fitting.
Thirdly and genuinely, dor here, as elsewhere, signifies the kind and condition of various men, whose four principal vices are here described, namely first, ingratitude and impiety toward parents; second, hypocrisy and feigned holiness; third, pride and haughtiness; fourth, injury, violence, and oppression of the poor: for these four most greatly agitate and disturb the whole world, and are especially hateful to God, and therefore Solomon sets them before each person, so that they may guard against them. The generation therefore, namely the depraved, perverse, and impious one, is fourfold.
Whence the Septuagint clearly translate, an evil son, or as the Author of the Greek Chain: "An evil offspring and progeny curses its father, and does not bless its mother. An evil offspring and progeny judges itself just; and yet does not wash the filth of its origin. An evil offspring bears lofty eyes before it, and raises itself up with its eyelids. An evil offspring has teeth like swords, and molars like shears (or two-pronged forks, double-axes, adzes; for the word τομίς signifies all these), cutting so as to devour, and to consume from the earth the weak and humble, and to remove the poor from among men."
The first generation therefore, that is, kind, says Jansenius, is of those who through the highest ingratitude sin against those to whom the greatest gratitude is owed. A generation, he says, understand there is, that is, there is a certain kind of men, and there are some who even pray evil upon their own father, or speak ill of him; and similarly do not bless their mother, as they should, but on the contrary curse her. The second kind is of those who falsely claim holiness for themselves: "A generation," he says, "that seems clean to itself, though it is not washed from its filth," that is, there are those who think themselves clean, though they have not washed away their impurities: which happens either because they are ignorant of their impurities and vices, or because they do not care about them.
The third kind is of those who are so puffed up with pride that they openly display it even in their very face and outward bearing, and are unable to conceal it in their soul: "A generation," he says, "whose eyes are lofty, and whose eyelids are raised on high," by the very bearing of their eyes declaring that they seek lofty things, and despise everyone compared to themselves.
The fourth kind is of those who are so cruel that they imitate wild beasts, and as it were eat human flesh with their teeth, whom he describes, saying: "A generation that has swords for teeth," that is, whose teeth are like swords; by which nothing else is signified than that some are so cruelly savage against others, to destroy them either in deed or in word, or to plunder their goods and flay them, that they seem in the manner of wild beasts to cut them apart and chew them with their teeth, and crush them with their molars.
Our translator in the Hebrew reads, מאכלות meachelot, that is, devouring, or his chewing molars, that is, he devours with his molars: but with other vowel points they read, מאכלות maachalot, that is, knives, whence they translate, he has knives for molars, that is, he has molar teeth so sharp that they seem to be not so much teeth as the sharpest knives. It is a metaphor, meaning: They devour and despoil the poor so cruelly, as if like wild beasts they were tearing them apart with teeth like knives and cutting them to pieces. This fourth kind is worse than the other three, and indeed the worst and most savage of all, and therefore is placed in the fourth and last position as the summit and peak of malice. So in the following groups of four, what is placed in the fourth position is the highest in them.
That this is the meaning is clear, both from the very words of each saying in this group of four, and from what follows; for he explains the fourth generation of the greedy and robbers, when he immediately adds: "The leech has two daughters, saying: Give, give." But he continues the first, namely of those impious toward parents, when immediately after the leech, as if returning to the head of the four generations, he adds in verse 17: "The eye that mocks its father, and despises the birth of its mother, let the ravens of the torrent pluck it out." Then he pursues the second generation of hypocrites, in verses 18, 19, 20, especially when he names: "The way of a man in his youth;" and adds: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman who eats, and wiping her mouth, says: I have done no evil." Finally he weaves the third, the generation lofty with pride, in verses 21 and 22, giving examples of it: "By three things," he says, "the earth is moved, and a fourth it cannot bear: by a servant when he reigns: by a fool when he is filled with food: by a hateful woman when she is taken in marriage: and by a handmaid when she is heir to her mistress."
In a similar scheme, St. Augustine, or whoever the author is (for some ascribe it to St. Cyprian, others to Climacus, others to others), in the treatise On the Twelve Abuses, tome IX, elegantly arranged the abuses and vices of individual generations, or states, through their antitheses: "The first degree of abuse," he says, "is if a wise man and preacher has no good works, who neglects to fulfill in deeds what he teaches in words; the second, if an old man is found without piety; the third, if a youth is caught without obedience; the fourth, a rich man without almsgiving; the fifth, a woman without chastity; the sixth, a lord without virtue; the seventh, a quarrelsome Christian; the eighth, a proud poor man; the ninth, an unjust king; the tenth, a negligent bishop; the eleventh, a people without discipline; the twelfth, a nation without law." Which he then pursues individually at length.
Note on verse 12: "Is not washed from its filth." Our translator with the Hebrew reads מצאתו mittsoato, that is, from its filth; but the Septuagint with a different vowel pointing read, מצאתו mitseato, that is, from its exit: whence they translate, it has not washed its exit, or, as the Author of the Greek Chain, it has not washed the filth of its origin. It alludes to the afterbirth and filth with which infants are covered when they are born, as they come forth from the mother's womb into the light, from which midwives immediately wash them, according to Ezekiel xvi, 4: "On the day of your birth your navel cord was not cut, and you were not washed with water for your health, nor salted with salt."
By the filth of one's exit, understand the concupiscence innate and proper to each person. For some draw from their parents a choleric temperament, and are inclined to anger; others a sanguine one, and are inclined to lust; others a phlegmatic one, and are inclined to laziness; others a melancholic one, and are inclined to sadness. Moreover it is difficult for each person to overcome his own temperament and the concupiscence that dwells in it, because it is as it were inborn and connatural to each; whence very few, even holy men, so mortify it that it does not sprout again, according to the saying: You may drive out nature with a pitchfork, yet it will always return.
Hence it is considered a great thing, and almost a miracle, what we read in the Life of St. Ignatius, founder of the Society of Jesus, that he, though choleric by nature, so thoroughly subdued his nature and choler that he appeared calm and phlegmatic.
Others refer this passage to illegitimate children; for the lust, levity, and vices of the parents not infrequently cling to them so firmly that from this alone you can recognize them as illegitimate. The reason is that the intemperance and lust of the parents infects the seed, from which the begotten children contract the vices implanted by their parents: and even if they sometimes correct them for a time, yet given the occasion or temptation they relapse into them. Whence the Septuagint translate, and has not washed its exit, meaning: Even if an illegitimate child sometimes lives rightly, yet he cannot wash away the paternal stain and ingrained vice which he contracted from his father at his birth, without falling back into it.
Whence Baldus in the final chapter On the Transfer of Bishops, near the middle: "An illegitimate child," he says, "who has been legitimized, or ennobled by some means, is like a sick person healed from a wound, of which some scar always remains." And clearly the Wise Man, chapter iv, 6: "For children born from unlawful unions," he says, "are witnesses of wickedness against their parents when they are questioned."
The philosophers learned the same from Solomon. Whence Plutarch, treatise On Nobility: "Absurd," he says, "is the calumny of the sophists against nobility, who do not consider things that are common and well known to all, namely that for the sake of breeding offspring, noble horses and dogs are raised; likewise the best seeds of the vine, olive, and other trees: but they think that nothing contributes to the future succession of noble lineage for man, and that a barbarian or Greek origin matters equally. Nor do they believe that certain hidden principles and seeds of virtue are communicated to children in generation, as the virtue of Ulysses to Telemachus, of whom Homer, using a most famous expression, said: Your father's virtue was instilled in you, as if asserting that the goods of paternal virtue flow together into a few drops of seed."
Xenophon on the writings of Theognis: "He indicated," he says, "that neither a man, nor anything else would be good, unless born from good parents. We seek noble rams, donkeys, and horses, O Cyrnus, and everyone wishes to obtain these animals from good stock." Aristotle, book III of the Politics, chapter vi, teaches that a city should be constituted from noble and freeborn men, and gives the reason that from them proceed noble men who bring distinction to the city. "Furthermore," he says, "it is reasonable that those born from better parents are better; for the virtue of the stock is nobility."
Finally the third generation of those who walk with lofty brows, some attribute to worldly nobility and nobles, who with haughty eyes, and swollen with pride, look down upon commoners, as the Brahmins do among the Indians, who to this very day are so puffed up with their lineage that they do not deign to speak with, eat with, or dwell with commoners. And the Nairs near Calicut, who like nobles do not allow themselves to be touched by a commoner, but if by chance someone touches them, they punish him with club or sword, as Osorius testifies, book I On the Deeds of Emmanuel.
Sallust in the Jugurtha: "Although virtue, glory, and other things desirable for good men abounded in Metellus," he says, "yet there was in him a contemptuous spirit and pride, the common vice of nobility." Cicero, speech 7 against Verres: "Hardly any of the noble men," he says, "favors our industry; by no services of ours can we attract their goodwill: as if separated by nature and birth, they differ from us in mind and will, just as in blood."
Plutarch in the Moralia illustrates this with the analogy of two birds, namely the spinax and the horus: "Between the agathalli," he says, "and the acanthides (so he calls these little birds), there is so great a hatred that if their blood is mixed by force, it immediately separates and flies apart: so between patricians and plebeians, even if they sometimes unite and conspire for practical purposes, the natural hatred persists all the same."
But this haughtiness is not the nature of true nobility, but a vice. For true nobility is modesty and humility of soul. Whence Diogenes, when asked: "Which men are the most noble?" answered: "Those who despise riches, glory, pleasure, and finally life, and conquer their opposites: poverty, infamy, pain, and death." Demosthenes: "It especially befits the noble and honorable," he says, "to persevere in having beauty in their face, temperance in their soul, fortitude in both, and grace in their words." So Stobaeus, sermon 89.
Aristotle, in the Politics book VI, chapter v: "It belongs to gracious and intelligent nobles," he says, "to take in the needy, and providing opportunity, to direct them to useful endeavors." More sublimely St. Basil in Maximus, sermon 63: "We cannot," he says, "call our fathers and ancestors noble; for the law of truth requires each one's own praises: for a horse is not swift because it was born from the swiftest; but just as each of the other animals is judged in itself, so a man's praises are attested by each one's own illustrious deeds." And St. Gregory Nazianzen in the same place: Be ashamed of an evil reputation: let not an evil lineage / Disturb you: your lineage has long since rotted. / Either begin your lineage, or bring it to its end, / So that you are either good, or born from the good.
St. Chrysostom: "Not the nobility of ancestors, but the virtue of the soul is wont to make one noble and splendid." Gregory of Nyssa: "Noble bearing and the gravity of pride have a kinship with a brick;" or, as Antonius cites in the Melissa, Part II, chapter lxxiv: "The nobility of birth and proud haughtiness have a kinship with earthen bricks," namely because all men in Adam draw their origin from mud, like bricks: for from adamah, that is earth and mud, the first man was formed, and thence was called Adam, as if man from humus.
15, 16. THE LEECH HAS TWO DAUGHTERS SAYING: GIVE, GIVE. THREE THINGS ARE INSATIABLE, AND A FOURTH THAT NEVER SAYS: ENOUGH: HELL, AND THE MOUTH OF THE WOMB, AND THE EARTH THAT IS NOT SATISFIED WITH WATER: AND FIRE NEVER SAYS: ENOUGH.
Some distinguish verse 15 from the two following, and consequently judge that here there are two riddles, one of the leech, another of the three or four insatiable things; but others connect these three verses, so as to propose one and the same riddle. To make this more clear,
It is asked first what the Hebrew עלוקה aluka signifies, which our translator renders as leech?
First, Aben-Ezra takes the Hebrew aluka, that is, leech, by metathesis for מקולה akula, that is, depravity, crookedness, perversity: for the root עקל akal signifies to be depraved, crooked, perverse; whence some think that by this word the crocodile is indicated, which is crooked, savage, and perverse, and therefore says: Give, give, because some things it swallows and devours in one gulp, others it chews gradually and grinds with its teeth. Now the crocodile is a symbol of death, because death like a crocodile rages against all, and consumes some indeed by a swift end, others by a slow disease and wasting.
Secondly, R. Saadia and others in Pagninus's Lexicon translate aluka as privation, meaning: "Privation has two daughters: Give, Give." That is, death deprives some of life in the mother's womb, others after birth from the womb.
Thirdly, others in R. Solomon consider aluka to be a synonym of שאול sheol, that is, of hell and descent: its two daughters are gehenna and the garden of delights, of which the one with continual cries claims the wicked for itself, the other the just. For in Solomon's time all, even the just, after death descended to the underworld, awaiting Christ, who by the price of His death would open heaven to them; thus for the just, the limbo of the fathers was like a garden of delights. But all these are Rabbinic fictions.
For fourthly, the Septuagint, the Chaldean, our translator, Symmachus, and others consistently and everywhere translate aluka as leech, or hirudo. Whence the Arabs also (whose language is akin to Hebrew) call the leech aleka, and the Germans, English, and Belgians echel.
It is asked secondly, what this leech or hirudo is, and who are its daughters? I suppose that by the two daughters there is an allusion to the two mouths of the leech, with which it is endowed because of its enormous eagerness for sucking, so as to suck more and satisfy its greed. Whence Pliny, book XXXII, chapter x: "Therefore," he says, "they cut off the sucking mouths with forceps." Indeed Berchorius from St. Isidore says the mouth of the leech is distinguished by three quasi-corners, so that it may cut the flesh in three parts and suck the blood. Therefore the two daughters are here metaphorically called the double mouth and the double eagerness for sucking. For properly a leech does not reproduce, nor has daughters, but is born from muddy water just like slugs; although Aldrovandus questions whether it might sometimes emit eggs from which it hatches daughters. The double mouth of the leech is a sign that it has a double sense of taste, because blood tastes most sweet to it: for thus Aristotle from the fact that serpents have a forked tongue, concludes that they have a double sense of taste. Indeed Andreas Vesalius, the distinguished Anatomist, asserts that the leech has a tube in its mouth, with which it pierces the skin, to draw the blood it thirsts for. Others give the leech a forked and tubular tongue, which it drives deep into the flesh. Aldrovandus, in the volume On Insects, chapter On the leech, says it has a mouth like a sting, and indeed three-pronged, with which it inflicts a three-pronged wound on the flesh.
Now first, Bede, Hugo, Lyranus, and Salonius by the leech understand the devil, who, they say, "is always inflamed with the thirst of sinning and persuading to sin." Hence his two daughters are the two special enticements of the human race, namely lust and love of money. For just as the leech sucks not good but corrupt blood: so the devil thirsts for none but these evil desires, to arouse them in man. Others by the leech understand avarice, others concupiscence. But all these are mystical interpretations.
Secondly, physically some by these leeches, or four insatiable things, understand the generation of things: for hell or the state of the dead represents the corruption and death of things; the mouth of the womb, their generation and origin, both of which continue and will continue until the end of the world, and are never satisfied. The remaining two elements, namely earth and fire, represent the things through which generation and corruption occur, namely through earth, as it continually receives moisture and water into itself, and through fire, which heats all things, always acts, and agitates, fertilizes, and changes everything on earth. But these are symbols of a physical matter, not ethical, which is what Solomon has principally in view here.
I say therefore that these three verses aim at the same thing, and therefore there are not two, but one and the same riddle of the leech and the four insatiable things, and consequently the leech denotes the four insatiable things, so that the leech is the same as insatiability, or unfillable greed: for the idea and symbol of this is the leech, according to that saying of Horace: The leech that will not release the skin until it is full of blood.
That this is so is clear first, because both the Hebrew and the Latin in the same verse 15 comprehend both the daughters of the leech and the three, indeed four, insatiable things; secondly, because the Hebrew signifies this, and the Septuagint clearly proves it: for thus they translate: the leech had three very beloved daughters, and those three did not satisfy her, and the fourth could not say: Enough. This is the riddle, and they immediately add its solution in equal numbers by saying: "Three things are insatiable, and the fourth never says: Enough: Hell, the love of woman, and earth not saturated with water, but fire also and water never say: Enough." And the Arabic clearly: "The leech has three lovely daughters, loving them with the highest love, and these three it has not satisfied, and to the fourth it has not given sufficiency to say: Enough for me; and they are: Hell, and the love of woman, and hard earth that is not sated with rain; and water and fire never said: Enough."
The same will be the sense in the Latin Vulgate, if you count the leech among the number: for she with her two daughters will be the third, and so the three leeches precisely correspond to the three insatiable things, and are in reality the same with them. From all this it is entirely clear that the four insatiable things are the same as the two daughters of the leech: for those four are designated first by the number two, then by three, and finally by four, meaning: Two things are insatiable, and never say: Enough, but say: Give, give; indeed three things are insatiable, indeed four. For here and in the following groups of four there is a gradation, and such a manner of speaking as is found in Amos, who used similar groups of four in describing the crimes of many nations, when he says: "For three crimes, and for four," Amos chapter 1, meaning: There are three crimes, indeed four, on account of which I will not relent or spare.
So also in Proverbs vi, where we have: "Six things the Lord hates, and a seventh His soul detests;" in Hebrew it is not a seventh, but seven, meaning: There are six, indeed seven things that the Lord hates, and His soul detests. Whence for what we have, "and the fourth never says: Enough," in Hebrew it is, and (Vatablus, indeed) four never say: Enough.
Therefore the two daughters of the leech saying: "Give, give;" or, as it is in Hebrew, da, da, are the first two insatiable things, namely hell and the mouth of the womb: these two are called the two daughters of the leech, because just as the leech has two mouths which cannot be sated with blood, so hell and the mouth of the womb are like two mouths that are never satisfied, according to the saying: Hell insatiably opens its hollow throat.
Hence hell in Hebrew is called שאול sheol, because it always demands: for שאל shaal means to demand; in Latin it is called Orcus, because it urges all to death, says Festus, to swallow them after death.
Therefore hell, that is, death, perdition, and the state of the dead, says Jansenius (I cite his words because they are clear, concise, and solid), is like a mouth devouring all things, and is never satisfied, so that it always in fact says: Give, and its name can rightly be called אנהב an hab, as it is in Hebrew, that is, give. Similarly also the mouth of the womb, because the desire of a woman always longs for union with a man, so that in fact it says: "Give," and its name too can be called hab, that is, give. For the desire of a woman is insatiable, according to the saying of the Poet: Wearied indeed, but not satisfied, she withdrew.
The Hebrew does not have mouth of the womb, but closure of the womb or uterus, that is, an impeded, contracted, and barren womb, to signify the insatiable desire of a barren woman, whose womb the Lord has closed so she cannot bear: for she is more eager for intercourse than others, both on account of the desire for offspring, and because fertile and pregnant women naturally do not desire intercourse since their womb is like a full stomach, as physicians teach; but the womb of barren women is not expanded by conception, and remains empty. Therefore the two aforementioned daughters of the leech are from among the four insatiable things. The third insatiable thing is the earth, which is not easily saturated with water, which it always absorbs, especially sandy soil. The fourth is fire, which by the addition of wood is not extinguished, but is always more and more kindled, and always consumes and devours more and more.
But beneath this physical literal sense, and beneath this bark of the letter, lies a notable ethical symbol, which must now be investigated.
It is asked therefore thirdly, what the leech with its two daughters, or the four insatiable things, namely hell, the mouth of the womb, the earth that is not satisfied with water, and fire, signify ethically and symbolically?
I answer first: The leech ethically signifies concupiscence, whose two, indeed three and four insatiable daughters, are the four primary vices, or vicious desires, namely anger, lust, avarice, and ambition, from which four, as from roots, the other desires and vices arise. Whence St. Augustine, City of God, book XIV, chapter xv: "Lust," he says, "is the general term for all desire. For there is the lust for vengeance, which is called anger; there is the lust for possessing, which is called avarice; there is the lust or appetite for pleasurable things, which is called luxury; there is the lust for glory and domination, which is called vainglory or ambition."
The first therefore is anger and envy, or the desire for vengeance and harm, which is rightly signified by hell, horrible and dark, because it desires death; nor can it be satisfied even by death itself, but is always aroused to another's evil and destruction, gnawing all things, destroying all things. The second is the concupiscence of the flesh, rightly designated by the mouth of the womb, because it is most vigorous there, as was said: for lust in either sex is not extinguished, nor satisfied by its very indulgence, but its desire is more excited by use.
The third is "the concupiscence of the eyes," as John calls it, 1 John ii, as Paul calls it φιλαργυρία (Colossians iii), namely avarice, which is compared to the earth, because it is entirely earthly, clinging only to earthly things, and in its likeness is never satisfied with riches, just as the earth, especially sandy soil, although it has received much water into itself, is always ready to receive more. Whence the miser is compared to one with dropsy, and that saying is applied to him: The more waters are drunk, the more they are thirsted for.
The fourth is the desire for glory, which is pride, and is rightly likened to fire, because, just as fire always seeks heights, so also does pride; and just as fire devours all things, so pride desires to subject all things to itself, and is not satisfied even with all things subject to it, always seeking further: as was evident in Alexander, who, when after subjecting the world to himself he heard philosophers disputing about other worlds, is said to have groaned, as if grieving that only one was subject to him.
To this may be added Anastasius of Nicaea in the Questions on Sacred Scripture, Question XLI, who following the Septuagint: "The leech," he says, "that is, sin, has three beloved daughters: fornication, envy, and idolatry."
To this belongs that saying of St. Augustine (or whoever the author is: for the style argues that he is not St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo), in the Book of Salutary Instructions, chapter XLIX: "Three things in this world are worse than every evil: the soul of a sinner persevering in sin, which is blacker than a raven, and the evil angels who seize it, and hell into which it is led. For there are no things worse than these three. For the same soul, trembling with fear of the future judgment and inspecting its own putrefaction, says: My wounds have putrefied and are corrupted because of my foolishness. Again three things than which there are none better in this world: the soul of a saint persevering in good works, which is more beautiful than the sun, and the holy Angels who receive it, and paradise into which it is led, and the expectation of the heavenly kingdom. Than these three there are none better in this world. For the holy Angels delight the soul with a spiritual canticle, as the Psalmist says: Blessed is he whom You have chosen and taken to Yourself, O Lord, he shall dwell in Your tabernacles. We shall be filled with the good things of Your house: holy is Your temple, wonderful in equity. These things, dearest brother, let us meditate upon."
Hence the leech is an apt symbol of concupiscence: first, because just as it wallows in muddy water and intensely thirsts for blood, so concupiscence is entirely carnal and earthly, and rolls in flesh and blood, and desires nothing but carnal things. Secondly, both are insatiable, and do not tolerate any delay of their appetites, but satisfy them as quickly and frequently as possible. Thirdly, both are soft and delicate. Fourthly, the leech does not touch pure blood, but putrid and corrupt blood, and delights in it; so also concupiscence rejoices only in depraved desires, thoughts, and deeds — for example, the angry man thinks of nothing but the injuries done to him: he interprets even honestly done things maliciously as done out of hatred; he seeks ways of revenge, etc.; the glutton thinks of nothing but his belly and its sordidness; the lustful man of nothing but filthy lust, etc.
Fifthly, leeches by sucking blood finally drain and kill a person. There is a kind of leech which the Germans call rossegel after the horse, because nine of them can kill a horse; so concupiscence drains the powers of body and soul, and is for man the cause of both present and eternal death. Sixthly, the leech clings tenaciously to the body, whence it is called hirudo from haerendo (clinging) — though the vowel quantity disagrees, for hirudo has a short first syllable, haereo a long one — says Pontanus: so concupiscence clings most tenaciously to the soul, so that you would more easily knock a tooth from your mouth than concupiscence from your soul.
Seventhly, the leech is venomous, whence surgeons are accustomed first to soak it in fresh water, so that it may deposit its venom in it, as Galen testifies, volume V, class 6, chapter 1: so concupiscence is a poison for the soul, infecting, corrupting, and destroying it.
Eighthly, the leech has a tube in its mouth with which it pierces the skin: so concupiscence has a sting with which it wounds the conscience. Ninthly, the leech is generated in spring by the warmth of air and water, and this by the provident counsel of God and nature, to meet the blood that at the same time and for the same reason is abundant and boiling, and by sucking to diminish it, lest it cause inflammations, fevers, and diseases: so in spring, on account of the fervent blood, the concupiscence of anger, gluttony, lust, pride, etc. blazes up.
Tenthly, the leech moves by crawling, like a reptile, namely now extending, now contracting its tail toward its head: concupiscence crawls on the ground, while it pursues earthly things, and around them now extends itself, now contracts and wraps itself up.
Eleventhly, when leeches cling to the flesh, the more they are pulled, the more firmly they hold on until they burst; furthermore they drink up corrupt blood, and thus by healing others they kill themselves, says Aldrovandus. Concupiscence does the same, especially that of envy and anger, which while it bites others, heals them of their vices, and wastes and consumes itself with malice.
Twelfthly, the leech is intolerant of smoke, whence to remove it they apply smoke, which when it senses, it departs willingly, says Aldrovandus: so concupiscence is restrained by the smoke of God's wrath and of hell, where the fire and smoke of torments ascends forever and ever, as Isaiah testifies, chapter xxx, verse 33, and St. John, Apocalypse xiv, 11. For when anyone meditates seriously upon these things, he restrains concupiscence: for he says to himself: "Beware of the little that delights, to avoid the eternal that torments."
Thirteenthly, the leech has two daughters saying: Give, give, that is, two mouths constantly sucking: so concupiscence has two functions, namely to indulge itself and to harm others; to love itself and to hate others; to retain its own and to seize what belongs to others; to satiate itself and to harm and drain others.
Fourteenthly, St. Isidore, book XII of the Origins, chapter v: "The leech," he says, "wherever it has attached itself, draws blood, and when it is soaked with too much gore, it vomits what it has drawn, to suck fresh blood again:" so desire, when it has obtained what it coveted, rejects it with nausea, and seeks new pleasures, just as when gluttons vomit delicacies and wines to gorge themselves with new ones.
Fifteenthly, Galen in the cited passage teaches that leeches, enticed by the delights of blood, when they cling more tenaciously, can be pulled off by sprinkling salt or ashes, for then they fall off willingly: so right reason and wisdom, whose symbol is salt, and the memory of ashes (that is, of death) extinguish the thirst of desire. All these things which I have said about concupiscence in general, you may apply and appropriate, with the name changed, to any particular desire, such as anger, gluttony, lust, avarice, pride, etc.
Finally, the leech has a mouth in the shape of a triangle, which inflicts a triangular wound, as is evident to the eye: so concupiscence inflicts three wounds, namely on the body, the soul, and the mind.
Moreover, to desire or concupiscence is opposed charity, namely to the love of the flesh, the love of God, which is much more insatiable, because it is satisfied by no boundaries, no merits, no advances, no labors, no dangers, no torments, but always desires to suffer and do greater things for God, its most beloved. Charity therefore is a leech, which always says: Give, give labors and sufferings, virtues and merits, souls and peoples, whom I may lead to the worship and salvation of God. It is likewise more capacious than hell, more fertile than the mouth of the womb, more thirsting than sandy earth, more burning than fire, according to Song of Songs viii, 6: "Love is strong as death, jealousy is hard as hell; its lamps are lamps of fire and flames. Many waters cannot extinguish charity, nor will rivers overwhelm it; if a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he will despise it as nothing."
Such was the insatiable charity of St. Paul, of which I have said more in the Preface to his Epistles, and in the Preface to the Acts of the Apostles. Such likewise was the charity of St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Ignatius, and St. Francis Xavier.
Therefore the first leech is anger, both because of the analogies already reviewed; and because it draws blood inwardly to itself from all parts, and inflames it: whence in angry people the extremities grow pale. "For in those who pant for revenge, the blood so boils around the heart that it seems to bubble and seethe as if by the force of fire," says St. Basil, homily On Anger; and because "anger is the mother of murder, and the drinker of murder," says St. Chrysostom on Matthew chapter vi. Again, anger among the four insatiable things is rightly compared to hell, both because it is the cause of injuries and killings which send men to the grave and hell, according to the saying of Christ: "Whoever says (to his neighbor against whom he is angry): Fool, shall be guilty of the fire of hell," Matthew v, 22; and because anger is like the fire of hell, so that an angry man seems to be a demon of hell burning with fury, as Nazianzen says in his poem On Anger, and St. Basil, homily On Anger: "Just as," he says, "he who has charity has God in himself: so he who has hatred and anger contains a demon in himself."
Hear also Seneca, book II On Anger: "Such as," he says, "the poets imagined the infernal monsters, girded with serpents and breathing fire; such as the most hideous furies that come forth from hell to stir up wars and tear apart peace; such as the three-headed Cerberus vomiting flames — so let us picture anger to ourselves."
Moreover, just as the fire of hell burns but does not give light, and therefore is most burning but most dark, as St. Basil testifies on Psalm xxviii: so anger inflames the mind but darkens reason, so that a man does not see what he is doing.
Moreover some by hell understand gluttony, because this, first, is insatiable like hell; secondly, it wastes bodies, makes them putrid and consumes them, like the tomb and hell: whence Nazianzen in his poem On the Various Kinds of Life: "I do not go to a feast," he says, "lest I return home late and carry back my belly like a tomb while still alive." See St. Chrysostom, homily 26 on Matthew.
Secondly, lust is a leech, because it consumes the best blood (for such is seed) and the noblest spirits, and makes a man pale, sallow, and bloodless. Whence Theocritus, Idyll 2: Alas! cruel love, glutted with our blood, / Clinging to the skin's surface as if a leech had sucked it.
Again lust is denoted by the mouth of the womb, especially of a harlot, which it insatiably craves, as Bede, Hugo, Arboreus, Cajetan, Jansenius, and others note. Hence the Septuagint for the mouth of the womb translate, the love of a woman. Whence also St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, reading from the Septuagint, the love of a woman, says thus: "Here it is not said of a prostitute, not of an adulteress; but the love of a woman is generally accused, which is always insatiable, which when extinguished is kindled again, and after abundance is again in want, and effeminates the manly spirit, and apart from the passion it endures, does not allow one to think of anything else, nor is it extinguished by its very indulgence, but is inflamed more immoderately and vehemently."
Thirdly, by the leech you may understand avarice; for this is the third daughter, as the Septuagint translate, of the leech, that is, of desire; for the leech does not cease to suck until it has filled itself completely with blood; then indeed it stops sucking and falls off. Whence Pliny: "They fall off from satiety, by the very weight of the blood drawn out." But the miser's desire is satisfied by no wealth; rather the more he has, the more he desires, according to the saying: The more waters are drunk, the more they are thirsted for.
Again, the miser among the four insatiable things is like the earth, especially dry and sandy earth, which is not satisfied with water, but immediately absorbs and soaks up even copious rain, so as to dry out at once and thirst for new showers: for thus the miser, even if he acquires enormous wealth, absorbs it like sand and thirsts for more. And just as sand, although watered, bears no fruit, so neither does the miser, although abounding in wealth, which he locks away in his chest and does not distribute to the needy. Therefore riches perish in him and with him, just as water perishes when it waters sand.
Whence St. Chrysostom compares the miser to one with dropsy, homily 15 on the First Epistle to the Corinthians: "Rightly," he says, "someone said that misers are dropsical: for just as those who carry much water in their body thirst more, so also misers who carry much money about desire more. The reason is: neither do the former have water in the places where it is needed, nor do the latter have riches in the affections and thoughts where they are needed." St. Chrysostom asserts that dropsical persons use water because in them the water that should cool the stomach and vital organs is drawn to the extremities, to settle between the flesh and skin, whereby the vital organs, deprived of the refreshment of water, burn with heat and thirst constantly: so also avarice, the greater wealth it has, the greater it craves, and thirsts as if burning.
Whence St. Chrysostom, in his homily On Lazarus, says the miser burns and thirsts more than the rich man Dives in hell, who asked for a drop of water to cool his flaming tongue, Luke xvi. The same, homily 28 on Matthew, compares the desire of misers with the burning and thirst of those suffering from fever.
Wherefore Cyril, book III of the Moral Apologues, chapter viii, entitled On the cause and cure of insatiable avarice, physically and elegantly assigns the a priori reason for this opinion, drawn from the same dropsy, through the apologue of the dropsical fox and the weasel physician: The fox, he says, languishing, filthy with the burden of dropsy, was seeking a remedy and a physician to restore its health. But when it had met a weasel and knew its skill, it immediately proposed to it the plaintive question of its illness: I remember, it said, how once by your tooth you rescued my life from the snare of death, as if newly born; therefore now beset by the dangers of a grave and lethal disease, trusting in your former services, I have recourse to the counsel of your sagacity. To which the weasel not ungratefully replied: Whether I have ever been of help, I do not know; but if I received a kindness, I always remember it. Set forth your disease then: because, if I can understand it, I will gladly provide an equal mode of cure. Then the fox giving thanks said: I suffer, my sister, from the illness of an unquenchable thirst, in which I especially wonder at these two things: one is that the more I drink, the more I thirst; the other is that while my vital parts have wasted away, outwardly only the skin has swollen.
To which the teacher replied: I certainly thought, sister, that with your great art of cunning you were somewhat educated in medical matters; but I see you are totally ignorant of Hippocratic science. She then assigns the true cause of the dropsy from the principles of Physics and Medicine, and its cure: "For your illness is not, as you think, thirst, but hunger of the limbs; because in you the flame of temperate heat, relaxed below its proper level, the digestion of the liver becomes weaker, and then it produces water instead of blood, and your limbs are deprived of their proper nourishment, and the dried out vital members, starving, desire blood instead of food. But you, erring in this judgment, thinking the hunger of appetite to be bodily thirst, while you offer liquid instead of food, you further weaken the digestive faculty. For this reason, dearest, even if you drank the Danube dry, you would by no means quench this thirst, but rather increase it, since according to Galen's opinion, liquid does not substantially moisten the organs of the flesh."
Then she adapts all these things to avarice, which is a spiritual but true and genuine dropsy: "For," she says, "when in the soul of the miser, through the excessive fire of desire, the proportion of charity is corrupted, and the digestive power of choice goes astray; the substantial blood of moisture being lost, a thirsting aridity immediately flows into the mind. But when the blinded appetite of the mind desires the fleeting temporal goods, as it were drink instead of food, and in place of substantial and eternal goods a perverted concern offers the cup of money, the thirst of great desire is kindled. Because by worldly riches the aridity of the spirit is not diminished, but increased. For they inflame the desire with all the graver eagerness in proportion as they deceive with the appearance of good; because when a solid good is desired and only an apparent one is given, the solid substance of goodness being by no means found, the desire is more vehemently inflamed. For nature provokes desires that lie about what is desired. Therefore if the world were the possession of a soul whose desire keeps growing, rapacious avarice would thirst all the more, and as the substance of the mind wastes away, only the skin of vain glory would swell outwardly.
Therefore just as the miser, if he extinguishes desire by the generosity of charity, is satisfied: so the dropsical person, strengthened by natural heat, if he quickly moistens his dry members, is soon cured."
Finally, just as the leech bursts from the plunder of harmful blood which it sucks, and kills itself: so also the miser often disgorges the wealth he has plundered, together with his soul, as I have shown from the same Cyril, chapter 1, 22.
Fourthly, the leech, or the daughter of the leech, is ambition, because it like a leech sucks and draws to itself all the senses, blood, spirits, and powers of both soul and body; for it summons all to itself, to devise and execute the ways and means by which it may attain the honors it seeks. This therefore above the other three is insatiable; whence of it above the other three it is said: "And the fourth that never says: Enough."
For enough in Hebrew is הון hon, that is, it is sufficient, also substance, wealth, riches, as Cajetan and Aben-Ezra translate, meaning: Fire by burning acquires no wealth, but rather destroys all and annihilates every substance. Such is ambition, which is satisfied by no honor, because honor has no subject and substance, but immediately passes away and vanishes into nothing. The Septuagint translate hon in this place, as our translator, enough; but elsewhere they translate it as glory, possession, substance, rest (which fits this passage, because neither fire nor the ambitious man has any rest), power, abundance, price, because all these things belong not to fire, nor to any other created thing, but to God alone. God therefore is our hon, that is, our sufficiency, substance, abundance and fullness of all good, and therefore He is called Shaddai, the horn of plenty.
Again the leech, when it draws its tail to its mouth, swells; but when it extends its mouth further, it thins out and becomes slender: so the ambitious man, having obtained an honor, swells up; but when he aspires to a greater one, he becomes humble, lowly, and suppliant.
Hence again ambition among the four insatiable things is aptly compared to fire, because of its fiery force: because like fire, first, it strives upward, to ascend the lofty heights of honors; secondly, the more honors and magistracies it has obtained, the more fiercely it is inflamed, to seek more and greater ones, and to climb higher; thirdly, just as fire enclosed in the earth shakes it and stirs up earthquakes: so the ambitious man who lies on the ground moves all things, disturbs everyone, shakes everything, to obtain the dignities he covets; fourthly, just as fire by its subtlety and efficacy insinuates itself into all things and devours them: so also ambition subtly inserting itself into all actions, incorporates, unites, and ignites them for itself.
Whence Climacus in Antonius's Melissa, Part II, chapter lxxiv: "When I fast," he says, "I am desirous of vainglory; I hide myself to be unknown, and like a prudent man again I seek glory; splendidly dressed, I am conquered by it; covered in cheap clothing, again I desire glory; speaking I am conquered, silent I am again vanquished: however you throw this thistle, its thorn stands upright."
Wherefore Theopompus wisely rejected the highest honors offered to him by the Pylians, saying: "Time itself augments moderate honors, but abolishes excessive ones," teaching that it is the mark of a lofty soul to spurn the highest things, and that in all things moderation is best. Moreover he also acutely observed that things which suddenly grow tall are not long-lasting, such as beets and gourds; but those which increase gradually, like the oak and the box tree, endure for ages. So Plutarch in the Laconian Sayings.
The ambitious therefore are raised on high, that they may fall with a heavier crash, says Philistion.
Now Solomon has set before our eyes the great evil of these four capital desires, namely their insatiable unfillability, to deter us from them and teach us that they must be mortified and cut away: for why should we devote ourselves to vengeance, lust, avarice, and ambition, which do not satisfy, but always more keenly irritate, tear, and torment the soul? Let us therefore renounce these things, and we shall obtain a wonderful peace, satisfaction, and joy of soul in our God, and we shall say with the Psalmist: "In peace in the selfsame I will sleep and rest."
Secondly, specifically and adequately by the leech with two, indeed three and four insatiable daughters, you may rightly understand avarice, which was just mentioned in the fourth depraved generation, verse 14, so that through these four insatiable things the insatiable condition, character, and morals of the greedy and robbers may be declared. Whence in a similar manner in the following verses Solomon pursues the three former depraved generations, and specifically the first, of children who curse their parents, in the next verse, saying: "The eye that mocks its father, etc., let the ravens dig it out."
Thus Cajetan: Avarice, he says, is a leech, because the latter sucks blood, the former sucks wealth and in turn the lifeblood of the poor. It has two mouths, namely force and fraud: for what breaks through skin and flesh with pain is force; but what sucks blood not copiously, but thinly and gradually, and leaves no trace of a wound, is enormous fraud. Similarly the two mouths, or two daughters, of avarice are to retain one's own and to seize what belongs to others; or to sell justice and to sell favor, says Cajetan, as greedy judges, prefects, and governors of provinces do, whom therefore people commonly call leeches, and they satiate them with gifts, so that, full of them, they may not wring money from them by evil arts.
Wherefore the Emperor Tiberius, since he judged that they should not easily be changed, and that successors should hardly be given except when they had died, used an apologue of this kind, as Josephus testifies, book XVIII of the Jewish Antiquities, chapter viii: Flies, swarming in crowds, had covered the wounds of a certain injured man. A certain passer-by, taking pity on him, offered his help in driving away the flies; for he thought that because of his weakness he could not drive them off himself. The wounded man begged him to leave him as he was. When the other marveled at what reason he had for not wanting to be freed from this annoyance, he replied: "On the contrary, if these are driven away, I shall suffer greater annoyance and torment; for other fresh and hungry flies will succeed these, which will completely destroy me, already in a bad state; but these that now sit on me already suck my blood somewhat more gently, since they are almost sated.
So then, said Tiberius, I too wish to look out for the provincials, lest they be excessively harassed and fleeced by the plundering of many governors; which would certainly happen if those governors were frequently changed, with the fear of soon departing added to their innate greed: I prefer therefore to leave those enriched by plunder in place, rather than substitute new ones." Tiberius borrowed this apologue from Aesop. For he, speaking before the Samians when he was defending a certain tribune of the people who was charged with a capital offense for embezzlement, brought forward a similar apologue for his defense about a fox that had fallen into a pit and prevented a hedgehog from driving away the dog-flies by which it was besieged, as Aristotle relates, book II of the Rhetoric, xx.
The apologue will be more elegant and more forceful if for flies you substitute leeches.
Again avarice is aptly compared to the four insatiable things, namely hell, the mouth of the womb, the earth that is not satisfied with water (the Septuagint add, and water; they double the word water to denote the insatiable thirst for wealth in the miser), and fire. To hell, for the reasons I recited a little earlier from St. Chrysostom; to the mouth of the womb, because the desire for gold is as great as that for sexual pleasure. St. Bernard adds, On Conversion to Clerics, chapter xiv: "Hearts will not be satisfied with gold," he says, "before bodies are satisfied with air." Why the miser is compared to the earth that is not satisfied with water, I said a little earlier. He is likewise compared to fire. For, as St. Basil says, homily 21 on various passages of Scripture: "The evil of avarice knows not how to stand still, but is like the nature of fire. For fire, once it has reached the conflagration, hastens to consume all material, and cannot cease before the material has given out. But what can restrain the miser? He is more vehement than fire: he occupies all things by continuously extending his boundaries, and seizes for himself what belongs to his neighbor. Soon when he gets another neighbor, he snatches what is his as well. He does not rejoice in what he possesses, but is tormented by what he lacks, and does not enjoy what he has amassed, but torments himself more with the desire of obtaining more." He uses the same analogy in homilies 6 and 7 On Rich Misers, and oration 15 On Avarice. And so just as fire, the more fuel it has, the more strength it acquires to rage more violently; and the more it devours, the more insatiably it gorges: so also the miser, the more wealth he heaps up, the more eagerly he strives to heap up still more.
Thirdly, St. Chrysostom, homily 49 On Slander: The leech, he says, is slander, which eagerly drinks the corrupt humor, that is, the vicious morals of one's neighbor, and offers them to others to drink: its two daughters are detraction and insult. Everyone, says Chrysostom, turns away from the slanderer, as from one who smells of mud, like the leech, which feeds on foul blood; and the scarab beetle, which feeds on dung, that is, they are nourished by the evils of others."
Pliny adds, book XXXII, chapter x: "Sometimes leeches from their bite leave their mouths attached, which causes incurable wounds, as happened to Messalinus, one of the consular patricians, when he had applied them to his knees." Which some apply to superiors when they more bitingly castigate the faults of their subjects: for they fix wounds deep in the souls of their subjects, and therefore make them incurable, being deeply stored in the mind.
Wherefore just as physicians temper and dilute the venom of leeches with fresh water, and then apply them to the body: so superiors should mitigate and sweeten the harshness of correction with the gentle bowels of charity and with mild words.
Fourthly, St. Bernard in the Declamations, on the words: "Behold we have left all things," near the beginning: The leech, he says, is self-will, its daughters are avarice and ambition: "Avarice," he says, "and the appetite for praise are opposed to each other; for what the one gathers, the other scatters: but these so dissimilar evils have sprung from one root, namely self-will; for of this leech there are two insatiable daughters, crying: Give, give; since neither is the mind satisfied with vanity, nor the body with pleasure, as it is written: The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing. Flee this leech, and you have left all things." Indeed self-will even infects, vitiates, and corrupts the good works to which it clings. Whence St. Bernard, sermon 71 on the Song of Songs, weighing those words of Isaiah chapter lviii: "Behold in the day of your fast your own will is found," exclaims: "Self-will is a great evil, by which it happens that your good things are not good for you."
You will ask fourthly, how do the Rabbis, Cabalists, and the like explain the daughters of the leech, or the four insatiable things, namely hell, the mouth of the womb, the earth that is not satisfied with water, and fire?
I answer first, Aben-Ezra, whom Baynus follows, refers these four to the four depraved generations reviewed a little earlier, as if the punishment of each is here assigned. For the first generation of children who curse their parents is consigned to hell, that is, to death and the grave; that is, it is punished with a shorter life: for he who neglects those through whom life was given to him, on account of his contempt for this benefit, ought to be deprived of it. For the second, unclean generation, that is, illegitimate and bastard children, "the constriction of the womb," that is, barrenness is threatened. For it is fitting that a degenerate planting should wither with sterility and barrenness, according to Wisdom iv, 3: "Bastard shoots will not put down deep roots."
But the third generation of children, who grow insolent with the glory of their birth, is chastised with poverty. This is indicated by the words and the earth that is not satisfied with water, namely dry and thirsty earth, and therefore yielding no fruits. And so these are punished with a scarcity of crops, that is, with poverty: for poverty depresses the pride and haughtiness of the arrogant.
The fourth generation of the greedy, who devour the poor and humble, is consigned to fire, namely to hell, so that those for whom the needy serve as food may themselves also become the fuel and kindling of the eternal fire. But these interpretations seem far-fetched and alien.
Secondly, others refer these four to the four elements, which are satisfied and filled by no action, conversion, or mixture. But air is missing here: for neither hell, which is in the earth, nor the mouth of the womb, which is likewise earthly, can represent it. Again, others think these four denote the four complexions of humors in the body. For some are choleric, and hell represents them; others are phlegmatic, and the mouth of the womb represents them, both because the woman is phlegmatic, and because her seed is watery; others are sanguine, who are red like fire; others are melancholic, who are dark like earth: for melancholy is above all an earthly disposition that weighs down the soul and presses it downward. Therefore just as parched earth drinks up the rains, so also sadness is nourished and fostered by tears. Likewise, just as earth once soaked with water dries out again, and thirsts for water again and again: so also deeper sadness is never sated with tears, but drinking up the former ones, intensely thirsts for others after others.
Thirdly, some cut these four into pairs, and combine them in this way. Hell and the mouth of the womb represent the birth and destruction of men: for the mouth of the womb signifies birth, hell destruction, meaning: Every man who is born of woman enters and goes to the grave; the earth that is not filled with water signifies the trees, herbs, and plants that it produces: all of which finally dry up and become fuel for fire. So that by these four he may indicate the vanity of all things, namely that all things after they have arisen perish, and become fuel either for hell or for fire, as at the end of the world all things will be burned by the fire of the conflagration. This is what Ecclesiasticus chapter xxxiii, 15 says: "Against evil there is good, and against death there is life: so also against the just man there is the sinner. And so look upon all the works of the Most High, two and two, and one against one."
Upon this physical sense the ethical aptly rests, meaning: The mouth of the womb, that is lust, leads men to hell; the earth that is not filled with water, that is avarice, likewise leads men to the fire of hell. Wherefore St. Chrysostom compares fornication and the harlot to hell: for thus he says, tract. 86 on John: "The female sex is reckless, and similar to hell, and its desire is likened to hell: it ceases when it has stripped the lover of all his possessions; indeed not even then, but rather it reviles and insults him as he lies prostrate." Therefore both the harlot and hell never say: "Enough." Whence St. Augustine, tract. 107 On the Times: "Scripture," he says, "rightly joins hell and the love of woman. The house of the harlot will hold the fire of hell. For hell the house of the harlot is substituted, because it repels no one and draws to itself everyone who enters." And St. Jerome exclaims: "O lust, you infernal fire, whose fuel is gluttony, whose flame is pride, whose spark is wicked conversations, whose smoke is infamy, whose end is hell!"
Similarly, according to the second combination of earth with fire, the same Chrysostom compares the miser to the fire of hell, homily 29 on Matthew: "The miser," he says, "springing upon all like death, swallowing all like hell, is the common enemy of the human race, since he would wish no man to exist, so that he might possess all things." Hence St. Luke, chapter xvi, narrating the torments of the rich man Dives and the miser, says: "Lifting up his eyes, while he was in torments, he saw Lazarus, etc. He was in torments (says Chrysostom) and had only his eyes free, so that he could see another's riches; therefore his eyes are left free, that he may be tormented more, because he did not have what another held: the riches of others are the torments of those who are in poverty."
Fourthly, others judge that these four combined denote both the mutual conflict of vices, and the rivalry and envy of the vicious; for against hell, that is anger, there often resists the mouth of the womb, that is lust and the love of women; earth without water, that is avarice, resists fire, that is ambition, because it does not wish to give gifts and spend its wealth to obtain the honors that ambition suggests. Again, while someone like fire seeks some wealthy dignity, immediately earth rises up, that is, some miser, and not just one, but ten, who seek the same thing, indeed buy and purchase it.
But all these interpretations are partly cabalistic, partly forced, and therefore more alien to the four insatiable things; wherefore what I reviewed in the third question seems apt and genuine.
17. THE EYE THAT MOCKS ITS FATHER, AND DESPISES THE BIRTH OF ITS MOTHER, LET THE RAVENS OF THE TORRENTS DIG IT OUT, AND LET THE YOUNG OF THE EAGLE DEVOUR IT.
For birth in Hebrew is יקהת yikkehath, that is, obedience; others, doctrine; others, expectation; Aben-Ezra translates, companionship, meaning: He who despises the companionship and fellowship of his mother; R. Solomon and Cajetan translate, wrinkles; the Septuagint and the Syriac, old age.
By birth some understand a brother born of the same mother, meaning: Just as it is a crime to despise one's mother, so also a brother, because a brother is the offspring of the same mother; and therefore he who despises his brother, despises also his mother, who bore and begot him along with himself: for a son is the image of his mother, and represents her as an idea and mirror. What therefore is more wicked than to despise a brother, that is, to despise one's mother? than to abandon, despise, and pursue with hatred a brother formed in the same womb, nourished and begotten? But it is better to take "birth" properly as the labors and pains of childbirth, which the mother endured in great number and extreme bitterness when she conceived her son, carried him in her womb for nine months, and gave birth; for he who despises these is the most ungrateful and faithless of mortals. The a priori reason is that parents are the principle and cause of their children, from whom the children have received their entire being, their whole nature, and everything they possess. Therefore parents are to their children like God the Creator, and they act in His place on earth, and are certain living images of God, indeed earthly gods and divinities, as Plato says; therefore the dignity of parents can never be sufficiently esteemed by their children, nor repaid by any services or benefits, because everything they give back was received from their parents, and therefore belongs more to the parents than to the children. Hence Herodes in Stobaeus, Sermon 79 (who cites Xenophon, Musonius, Aristoxenus, Socrates, Plato, and others on this matter): "So that we may have readily at hand the duties by which we are bound toward our parents, we must always revolve in our mind this summary statement: that parents are images of the gods for us, and by Jupiter are household gods, authors of benefits, kinsmen, creditors, masters, and most constant friends; for they are the surest images of the gods, and reflect their likeness to us better than any art or skill could express, since they are like domestic gods, patrons, and intimate to us." Hence he concludes that "children ought to consider themselves as born in their father's house as in a kind of temple, and as priests consecrated by nature itself to attend to the worship of their parents." Those who harm their parents, therefore, are not merely monstrous parricides of their parents, but also offend against nature and God Himself, since they violate His living images.
LET THE RAVENS OF THE TORRENTS DIG IT OUT. — For ravens, being dry, hot, and thirsty, are accustomed to dwell near torrents, so that they may frequently wash themselves in the waters, moisten themselves, drink, and cool themselves. The meaning is, as if to say: A son who mocks his parents deserves to be hanged, to go to the gibbet, to be nailed to the gallows, so that there he may be plucked of his eyes and devoured by ravens, according to that saying of Horace: "You shall not feed the ravens on the cross." Hence it is commonly said: "Go to the ravens," that is, go to the gibbet, where you may feed the ravens; for he who is impious and cruel toward his parents will be far more impious and savage toward strangers; hence we see that children who are inhuman toward their parents turn out to be thieves, murderers, traitors, robbers, etc. Therefore an eye that is impious and savage toward parents deserves to be dug out and devoured by impious and savage ravens.
You will ask why, above all other birds and beasts, he names ravens and eagles. I respond: first, because ravens attack the eyes and tear them with their beaks — either because these are the most delicious food for them, or from malice, or from the idea that their savagery might not be seen — they gouge out the eyes so that they may then freely prey upon the blinded and sightless bodies.
Both naturalists, such as Aelian, book II On Animals, chapter 11, and experience itself teach this about the raven. Hence Catullus: Let the raven with black gullet devour the gouged-out eyes, The dogs the entrails, the wolves the remaining limbs. Indeed, the raven, fighting with the donkey and the bull — enemies stronger than itself — uses cunning to overcome them; for beating them with its wings, it attacks their eyes, and thus easily overcomes them once blinded and sightless. Hear Aristotle, book IX, History of Animals, chapter 1: "The raven is an enemy to the bull and the donkey, for it flies at them and strikes and tears their eyes." Isidore likewise, book XII of Origins, chapter VII, teaches that ravens first gouge out the eyes of carcasses. Hence also that saying of Aristophanes in the Birds: "The raven, coming upon the perjurer, flying secretly, will strike out his eye." Some give the reason that ravens, seeing their own image in the eyes or pupils as if in a mirror, are inflamed with envy and anger, as though they perceived other adversaries of themselves; and hence they are called in Greek coraces from piercing the pupils: for korax is said from kora, that is, "pupil." So they say.
Second, because ravens and eagles, on account of their dryness, heat, sinews, and strength, live longer than other birds, as attested by Pliny, book VII, chapter VIII, Aristotle, and others. Justly, therefore, a son impious toward the givers of his life is given over to long-lived ravens to be destroyed, so that they may take from him his longevity and dispatch him, as one unworthy of life, by a swift death. Albertus Magnus, and from him Aldrovandus, report that the raven lives one hundred and eight years.
Third, because ravens are inhuman toward their chicks, just as the chicks are toward their parents: fittingly, therefore, they are the torturers and executioners of impious children. Hear St. Gregory, book XXX of Morals, chapter VIII: "The raven (as is reported) plainly pretends not to provide food to its hatched chicks until they turn black with feathers, and allows them to suffer from starvation until its own likeness is seen in them through the blackness of their plumage." St. Augustine and other Fathers assert the same regarding those words of Psalm 146: "Who gives the beasts their food, and to the young ravens that call upon Him." They add that the chicks are fed by flies and gnats flying past; Cassiodorus adds, also by heavenly dew. Aristotle further adds, book VI, History of Animals, chapter VI: "The raven," he says, "expels its chicks from the nest;" for it forces them to leave when they can barely fly and to seek food for themselves, lest it be compelled to feed them; indeed, it does not allow them to remain in its territory if it is too confined, lest they steal its food, as Aristotle expressly teaches, book IX, History of Animals, chapter XXXI. Hence Aelian and Pliny say that an abundance of ravens hovering over fields is a sign of the land's fertility: for where
The Hebrew is "ravens of the torrent," or "of the valley." Vahat signifies a torrent and the bed of a torrent, through which a torrent rushes during rainy weather, but which at other times is dry; it is established that it also denotes any valley whatsoever. there is an abundance of grain, ravens allow more ravens to dwell. To this belongs the fable of Aesop: "The raven," he says, "when sick, said to his mother: Mother, pray to God and do not lament. To whom his mother replied: And who indeed, O my son, will have pity on you? For whose flesh have you not eaten?" The fable signifies that those who have many enemies in life will find no friend in time of need.
Fourth, because raven chicks that are cruel toward their parents beget similar chicks, which they in turn experience as equally cruel and savage toward themselves: in like manner, children who are impious toward their parents beget children similar to themselves, whom they consequently find equally impious and cruel toward them — partly from wicked upbringing and wicked example, partly by God's just vengeance — especially in old age, according to the saying: "Bad ravens, bad egg." Indeed, raven chicks, on account of their voracity and savagery, when food runs short, attack, tear apart, and devour their raven parents. Hence that saying of Philes, On the Endowments of Animals: The wicked raven, nourishing wicked offspring, Which he himself (hatching eggs) brought forth for the sake of his kind, When even a brief time of hunger presses, Offers himself as food to his young in place of nourishment. Aelian likewise, book II, chapter XXIX, teaches that ravens are abandoned by their chicks in old age and consumed by hunger, because they themselves had abandoned their chicks in the nest. The same author, book III, chapter XIV, says that raven chicks, out of voracity and gluttony, do not even spare their parents, but kill and devour them; therefore, as those guilty of the most grievous parricide, they deserve to be sewn into a leather sack, says Aldrovandus in his work on the Raven. Our Nicolaus Causinus, book VI of Historical Parables, chapter XLIX: Ravens, he says, remember that when they were chicks they were abandoned by their parents and exposed to hunger, and so they devour their parents when worn out by old age. Raven chicks, therefore, signify avengers of parental negligence. Hence Solomon here tacitly warns parents to raise their children piously, if they wish to find them pious toward themselves; for if they raise them impiously and in a raven-like manner, they will find them impious and raven-like toward themselves, so that they avenge and repay the impiety of their parents by the law of retaliation.
Fifth, because the raven is a foul, thieving, black, most rapacious, and ill-omened bird; hence it is called by St. Jerome "the most hideous of birds": therefore by the very fact that those impious toward their parents are compared to, indeed delivered over to, the raven, it is signified that nothing is more abominable, nothing more contemptible, nothing more impious. Hence the raven is called in Greek korax from koros, that is, "black"; or from kara, that is, "head," because it has a large head; or from kora, that is, "pupil," because it attacks the eyes; or, as Rhodiginus says, book VII, chapter V: from the continual movement of the pupil. Suidas derives it from krozein, that is, to croak or caw, because their voice is a croaking; for they repeat "coras" or "cras." Likewise Varro teaches that the Latin corvus is related to the verb crocio; Isidore, however, book XII of Origins, chapter VII, thinks ravens are so called from the voice of the heart, because they indeed utter a voice from their breast, and croaking it forth they cry out, and betrayed by their own voice they are caught. Others derive the Latin corvus and the Greek korax from the Hebrew oreb, or goreb, which, like saccus, cornu, and certain other names, seems to have been transferred from the Hebrew language to most other languages. The raven is called goreb because it has a mixed color between bright and dark; or because it reflects the darkness of evening and flies at evening: for ereb or gereb is "evening"; or, as others say, oreb is derived from Arab, that is, Arabia, and Arabi, that is, an Arab, because like the Arabs it plunders and robs. Indeed some derive the verb rapio by aphaeresis from oreb; hence in German the raven is called raab, in Belgian rave.
Hence the raven is fittingly a symbol of demons, who are likewise dark, malicious, rapacious, impious, and who blind and gouge out the eyes of men; hence demons have often appeared in the form of ravens, and still appear so. Thus Bede here takes ravens to mean demons, as if to say: Demons will assail children who are impious toward their parents, and will carry them off to hell, where, like fierce ravens, they will pierce with their beaks and strip the flesh from the eyes with which they mocked their parents.
Mystically, St. Gregory, book XVIII of Morals, chapter XIX: "The eye that mocks, etc. For the perverse," he says, "when they criticize the divine judgments, mock their father. And all heretics, when they despise the preaching of holy Church, despise the birth of their mother. But the ravens come from the torrents, when true preachers proceed from the streams of sacred books to the defense of holy Church; they are also rightly called ravens, because they in no way boast of the light of justice, but through the grace of humility confess the blackness of sins in themselves; these ravens, indeed, gouge out the eye of the mocker, because the prathey overcome the intent of wicked and obstinate men. Tropologically, our Alvarez de Paz, book V, part III, chapter VI, On the Extermination of Evil: Who, he says, mocks his father? He who, swollen with pride, does not obey his superior; and who despises the birth, that is, the labor of giving birth or the travail of his mother? He who, to satisfy his own will by not obeying, overthrows religious discipline. This man deserves to be driven to the cross, indeed to be destined for eternal punishments, where demons — like ravens in the blackness of sin and like eagles in rapacity — may gouge out his eyes so that he cannot see the Sun of justice, and tear apart all his goods as if they were flesh. Is not a thief, if he steals something of great value, driven to the cross according to the statutes of the law, or hung upon the gallows? But he who does not obey his superiors is a thief and a usurper of something of great value, namely of the will consecrated to God. And therefore St. Bonaventure says: "You gave yourself to your superior for the sake of the Lord and for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and you are no longer your own, but belong to him to whom you sold yourself; and therefore you may do nothing with yourself without his will."
For he is the master of your will, and the handling of another's property against the owner's will is theft; but a thief does not approach heaven." So says St. Bonaventure, treatise On the Interior Man, chapter II. Solomon adds: "And let the young eagles devour him." R. Solomon and Aben-Ezra hold that eagles are dutiful toward their chicks and toward their parents, and therefore it is just that children impious toward their parents be delivered to them for devouring, so that dutiful birds may avenge impiety. However, there are also some eagles that are inhuman and savage toward their chicks and parents; hence that saying about the eagle in Aristotle, book I, History of Animals, chapter XXXI: "She lays three, and casts two from the nest, and raises one;" and book IX, chapter XXXII: "Eagles," he says, "feed their chicks until they are able to fly, then expel them from the nest; afterwards they banish them from the entire region that the parents themselves inhabit." Therefore, for the same reasons I have already stated that impious children are delivered to ravens, they are also delivered to eagles.
An apt example of this maxim is recorded by Gregory of Tours, an eyewitness, concerning Meroveus, who, eager for revolution and greedy for the kingdom, rebelling against his father King Chilperic of the Franks, was tonsured by him and confined in a monastery. Fleeing from there to Tours to the church of St. Martin, he was benevolently received by Gregory of Tours, and there received this omen like a thunderbolt, which Gregory himself recounts in these words, book V of the History of France, chapter XIV: "Meroveus was speaking many accusations against his father and stepmother; and since these were partly true, I believe it was not pleasing to God that these things should be spread abroad by a son, as I learned from what followed. For one day, having been invited to his banquet, while we were sitting together, he humbly asked that something be read for the instruction of his soul. And I, having opened the book of Solomon, seized upon the verse that first presented itself, which contained this: The eye that has looked defiantly upon a father, let the ravens of the valleys dig it out. When he also did not understand, I considered that this verse had been prepared by the Lord," and in accordance with it the unhappy end of Meroveus came about. For he was deprived of the light of his eyes and of his life by his father Chilperic, as a raven by a raven, as attested by Paulus Aemilius in his Life of Chilperic; where he also adds that like was repaid to Chilperic with like, when he was slain by his raven-like wife Fredegonde.
18 and 19. Three things are difficult (in Hebrew, hidden or wonderful, as Aquila translates, and so St. Ambrose reads, On the Death of Valentinian; the Chaldean, hidden; the Septuagint, three things are impossible for me to understand; Vatablus, three things are excellent and beyond my comprehension) for me, and the fourth I utterly do not know: THE WAY OF THE EAGLE IN THE SKY (Septuagint, the traces of a flying eagle), THE WAY OF THE SERPENT UPON A ROCK (erroneously many codices read, upon the earth), THE WAY OF A SHIP IN THE MIDST OF THE SEA (Hebrew, in the heart of the sea; Septuagint, the paths of a sailing ship), AND THE WAY OF A MAN IN HIS YOUTH.
Franciscus Lucas suspects in his Notes here that the Septuagint originally translated en neanidi, that is, "in a young woman," which was later corrupted to en neoteti, that is, "in youth," and from that perhaps was derived the "in adolescentia" (in youth) that many codices of the Vulgate have. For this change and slip is both closer and therefore easier and more likely than from alma, that is, "young woman," to almut, that is, "youth." And this reading contains a sublime meaning, difficult indeed impossible to perceive, namely the Incarnation of the Word in a virgin, so that Solomon, though otherwise most wise, rightly said of it: "And the fourth I utterly do not know," since the knowledge of "the way of a man in his youth," from daily use and experience, seems to be easy, or certainly not so difficult. Both readings, therefore, are supported by weighty authorities, and consequently both must be explained.
The former reading: "And the way of a man in his youth," first suggests this plain and plausible sense, concerning the fickleness of youth and the wandering instability of young people, on account of the fervor of their age and blood, as if to say: Just as the way of the eagle, serpent, and ship are oblique and winding, and are discovered with difficulty because no trace of them remains: so also the way, that is, the manner of life that one follows in one's youth, is understood with difficulty; for so unstable is the way of a man in his youth, so does a young man twist himself in all directions at every hour, and is now carried here, now there, that it is difficult to comprehend it and to observe where he is heading and in what things he has been engaged.
He means the furtive and clandestine love affairs, and the congress that a man has with an unmarried girl, no one being aware except the lovers, while in the meantime she is considered a virgin. by these things and elements, the wandering way of an unstable mind is graphically depicted and, as it were, represented in an image: a mind that now wanders in the desire for worldly glory, now in the desire for earthly things, now in the desire for lusts and sensual pleasures, in which, as in waters, men wallow and are submerged. Again, this riddle of the eagle, serpent, and ship signifies wisdom, counsel, and every higher doctrine and thought — which, like the eagle, flies over young people and youth as through the mobile air, so that it leaves no trace of itself; prudence, which the serpent with its cunning represents, creeps and glides through the same age as over a rock, so that it leaves no signs behind; watchfulness, constancy, good resolutions, and every virtue likewise pass through that age like a ship cutting through the sea, which impresses no mark upon the sea. So that all these things signify that nothing adheres firmly in youth in the manner of a habit, but everything runs through it and slips away, so that from the fact that you see a young man today as upright, chaste, sober, etc., you cannot determine whether he will be the same tomorrow; you likewise do not know what he conceals in his mind, what affections, loves, or hatreds he hides in his soul; just as an adulteress studiously conceals her adulterous loves. Hence it is added concerning her: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman," etc. Therefore St. Chrysostom, Homily 84 on Matthew, asserts that our life, being unstable, fluctuates more than the Ocean and Charybdis: "The waves of youth," he says, "succeed those of childhood, and are more violently tossed by the winds of desire, like the Aegean Sea, and this age is especially deprived of correction, not only because it is beaten by greater waves of disturbance, but also because the tutor and teacher are then withdrawn." See Aristotle, book VIII of Ethics, chapter III, where he describes this fickleness of youth; from which he concludes that no certain indication of talent, character, or future morals in later life can be drawn from it. For, as Homer says, Iliad III: "The minds of the young are always wavering."
To this Pineda adds, book III of On the Affairs of Solomon, chapter II: These four things, he says, are most similar to one another, and represent the image of the last, that is, the fourth. For the ways and movements of the first three — namely the eagle, the serpent, and the ship — are tortuous and oblique, and are twisted now this way, now that, from moment to moment: especially the ship in the midst of the sea, assailed by contrary winds, driven by rapid waves, which either impede the straight course or plunge the ship — that is, youth — into destruction. For that is what "in the midst of the sea" signifies according to some. But if wisdom comes to a young man, it will be like a rudder for directing the course and overcoming the waves, since it is said to have been for Solomon like a shore, against which the proudest waves of the sea are dashed and broken — that is, the disturbances of youth and the onslaughts of the most rapid passions. Hear Scripture: "God gave Solomon wisdom and exceedingly great prudence, and breadth of heart, like the sand that is on the seashore," 3 Kings IV, 29. For Solomon began to reign in his youth after the death of his father David, at the age of 18, as Pineda teaches there, and at the beginning of his reign he asked for and obtained wisdom from God, 3 Kings III, 11.
Second, others conversely consider that by these three, indeed four things, there is noted the admirable virtue and vigor of youth, and of a well-instructed, courageous, and energetic young man in the manner of a man (for this is what the Hebrew gaber means), as if to say: It is a thing worthy of admiration that the eagle, heavy in body mass, lifts itself through the air on wings alone and flies aloft; that the serpent, lacking feet, glides and runs most swiftly over rocks and stones, indeed suddenly climbs high cliffs, trees, and houses without ladders or nails; that a ship laden with great cargo floats upon the sea like a fish, and turns itself in every direction at the helmsman's will, and even struggles against winds, storms, and waves by plowing through them, and subdues them by treading upon them: but more admirable still is the way of gaber, that is, of a man — namely the mature and upright conduct of a manly and noble young man who in his youth overcomes his years by precocious virtue and outruns his age. For he is like, indeed he surpasses, the nobility of the eagle, the serpent, the ship, and the helmsman: for a young man living in the flesh and mastering the flesh, while meditating on heavenly things and having his conversation in heaven, is an eagle despising the earth and soaring on high. The same young man, conducting himself prudently and circumspectly in all things, though he has not yet learned prudence through experience, is like a cunning serpent, which, smooth and lacking feet, with the agility implanted by nature, skillfully flees, runs over rocks, and climbs cliffs. The same young man, cautiously avoiding or bravely overcoming the temptations of the flesh and the world, is like a ship driven by a skilled helmsman, which overcomes storms and waves either by plowing through them or by struggling against them, and is carried directly into port.
Third, our Salazar thinks that by these four things is designated the swift course of youth and of age and its pleasures, as if to say: The eagle is carried most swiftly through the lightest region of the air, the serpent glides most smoothly over the earth, the ship rushes most softly yet most rapidly through the waters of the sea; but far more swiftly and gently is a man carried, glides, and rushes from youth to other ages of life: because a young man does not pay sufficient attention to how much time passes from him, and so youth flees him while he is unaware and, as it were, occupied with other things.
With a similar figure, the Sage, chapter V, verse 10, compares the swift passing of human life to a ship crossing the water and a bird cutting through the air, as also Job, chapter IX, verse 26, and others compare it to a serpent fleeing over rocks. Hence the Chaldeans, by the serpent coiled into a circle and biting its own tail, represented the year always fleeing, revolving, and returning in a circle; as Horus Apollo testifies in his work on the Serpent. Again, just as it is difficult, indeed impossible, for the eagle, the serpent, or the ship to retrace and return by exactly the same path: so it is extremely difficult for a young man to abandon the path of pleasures he has entered upon, to take up the path of virtue, and to turn himself to better ways. For what else is a young man puffed up with desire for glory, but an eagle soaring on high? What is a young man eagerly pursuing earthly and passing goods, but a serpent creeping along the ground? What, finally, is a young man dissolving in delights and pleasures, but a ship rushing through the waters?
Mystically, Isidore of Pelusium, book I, epistle 416: "Three things," he says, "I cannot comprehend with the intellect, and the fourth I utterly do not know, says Solomon: the way of a flying eagle; but this is the divine nature of the Son, which no human mind can comprehend. And Your footsteps shall not be known, says the divine Spirit in the Psalms. Moses too saw this Eagle, covering the people in the desert with His wings. And the way of the serpent on the rock. Crooked and winding are the ways of that serpent who whispered the transgression of the commandment to us, which are indeed sins, and they found no way in the rock; but the rock is Christ, who when He put on flesh remained free from all change. For He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth. The way of the ship in the midst of the sea, that is, of the divine Incarnation bringing salvation to all; which, like a ship, traversed the abyss of death, and recalled our race from it, but the path of death itself was by no means found in the underworld. The way of a man in youth. By youth in this place he understands the resurrection from the dead, when corruption will be changed, and nature will grow young again to a state free from all corruption and destruction. Seek this state for yourself."
Less fittingly does Isidore in the same place apply these four things to the devil and his temptations. More fittingly the Author of the Greek Catena: "By the eagle," he says, "understand Christ; by the traces of the eagle, His incomprehensible descent from heaven and His ascent back to the same; by the paths of the ship, His wonderful emergence from the virgin mother; by the way of the serpent, finally, the diabolical forces and operations of temptations."
The latter reading: "And the way of a man in a young woman," that is, alma, meaning a virgin, as the Hebrew and Chaldean have, is first explained by our Gaspar Sanchez on Isaiah VII, 14, as if to say: You will more easily find the way of the eagle in the air, and the way of the serpent on rocks, and the way of the ship in the sea, than the way of men to the door of that virgin who never offers herself to be seen by men, indeed who shuns and flees them, and therefore is alma, that is, "hidden." Again, just as after the passage of the eagle, serpent, and ship, no trace of their passage remains in the air, rock, or sea: so in a virgin, whose mind is an unblemished and pure thought, no affection or memory of a man fixes any traces of itself; but all these things immediately slip away and vanish. By this is signified that the best safeguard of virginity is, first, a firm and constant devotion to it; second, the avoidance of men, so that she hides and conceals herself at home: for wanton young men will not be able to deceive her who shuns and dreads the sight and conversation of all men as if they were serpents.
Second, conversely, Jansenius considers that these words correspond to that second generation, of which he spoke in verse 12: "A generation that seems clean to itself, and is not washed from its filth." Namely, there is a certain generation which, though impure and unchaste, nevertheless puts on a show of chastity and unblemished purity; and this is the deflowered virgin who gives herself freely, and the married woman who admits an adulterer: for each one strives to cover and conceal her crime. And so he says: Just as in the air, rock, and water, the eagle, serpent, and ship leave no clear marks of their journey: so also the entry of a man to a virgin usually leaves no visible trace, because of the excessive care taken to conceal what cannot be revealed without mortal danger. Therefore, according to this sense, the Hebrew alma does not mean an uncorrupted young woman, but a virgin — that is, not one who is currently a virgin, but one who was before the encounter, indeed who was found to be a virgin at the very moment of the encounter.
Third, others explain it in such a way that Solomon urges parents to maintain a vigilant and strict watch over their virgin daughters, because, just as the entry and passage of the eagle, serpent, and ship through air, rocks, and sea is most gentle and smooth, so much so that it is not perceived: so likewise the entry of a man to a virgin is most gentle and most secret, so that it deceives even all parents. Again, just as the approach of a man to a virgin is hidden, so also is the departure: for it leaves no trace of itself in the man; and in the virgin, although some think that the trace remains of the membrane that was ruptured, which before the union covered the virginal secret and was the seal of virginity, yet others deny this, such as the physician Franciscus Vallesius, as I showed at Deuteronomy XXII, 17 and 18.
Beneath this humble and lowly bark of the letter and its grammatical sense, Solomon had in view something higher, namely the Incarnation and nativity of the divine Word in the Blessed Virgin; for this is what the Hebrew alma signifies, to whom gaber entered, that is, the man Christ, announced by the Archangel Gabriel, so named because he announced gaber el, that is, the God-man, namely the incarnate Word. For this was a wonderful, difficult, and incomprehensible mystery, indeed the great secret of all ages, according to that saying of Jeremiah XXXI, 22: "The Lord has created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man;" and Isaiah, chapter VII, 14, presents to King Ahaz this greatest sign of signs, saying: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son;" and chapter LIII, 8: "Who shall declare His generation?" Therefore that which
The Blessed Virgin, fulfilling this prophecy of her ancestor Solomon, having received the message from Gabriel, said in wonder: "How shall this be done, since I know not man?" And the Angel answered her that this would be the work not of man, but of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit," he said, "shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you." The very same thing Solomon first prophesies here, and, astonished at so sublime a mystery, confesses that he plainly does not know its manner: hence he is called a prophet by the Fathers, and indeed he called himself a prophet in this chapter, verse 1, when he called this speech of his a "vision," that is, an oracle and prophecy. For the Hebrew word gaber, that is, "a strong man," properly applies to no child or young person, but to Christ alone at His birth, both because of the fortitude of His divinity, and because from the instant of His conception He was entirely perfect in His soul: for it does not seem to be without mystery that it is not said: "The way of a youth or young man in a young woman," as according to that former literal sense it seemed it should be said, but "the way of a man." Certainly this cannot more truly apply to anyone other than to Christ and His virgin mother.
According to this sense, the remaining three ways are rightly understood as having been adduced so that by their example that fourth way, more wonderful than the others, might be better understood and noticed — namely that, just as a bird flies through the air, a serpent creeps over a rock, a ship passes through the sea without any corruption of the air, rock, or water, or any sign of division being left: so also that way of a man takes place without the injury or corruption of the virgin. Thus the ancient Rabbis explained this passage concerning Christ incarnate in the Virgin, and among them R. Haccados, that is, "the Holy One," in Galatinus, book VII, On the Secrets of the Faith, chapter XV, Lyranus, Jansenius, Francisco Suarez, III part, Question XXVIII, article 1, disputation 5, section 1, and others.
Therefore Solomon here foreshadows "the way of a man in a virgin," that is, the Incarnation of the Word in her, with three similar but enigmatic comparisons, namely through the way of the eagle in the sky, the way of the serpent on the rock, the way of the ship in the sea: from which you may gather that Christ is the eagle, the serpent, the ship; and the Blessed Virgin is the sky, the rock, the sea. That Christ is the eagle, the king of birds, is clear from the analogies between them. Hear St. Ambrose, treatise on Proverbs chapter XXX, toward the end: "The eagle is understood to be Christ, who by His flight descended to earth; this kind of animal is not nourished unless the chastity of the mother is first proved, so that with open eyes it gazes upon the whole sun without blinking: for this animal is compared to the Savior because, when He wished to seize something, He did not walk the earth with footsteps, but chose an exalted place: so also Christ, suspended on the high cross, with thundering noise and terrible flight made His assault upon the underworld, and seizing the saints, returned to the heights above." That Christ is likewise the serpent, who took upon Himself the form of a sinner but was free from the venom of sin — indeed He expiated it with His blood — is clear from John III, 14: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but may have eternal life." That Christ is the ship of heavenly merchandise, which carries all the faithful and saints through the sea of this world to the port of eternal salvation, St. Ambrose teaches in the same place: "Christ," he says, "is the ship in which the souls of all believers embark, which, so that it may be borne more firmly among the waves, is fashioned from wood and fastened with iron: and this is Christ on the cross; but he says the ship leaves no trace, because the true and efficacious Word of God penetrates through the ear to the innermost parts without injury, and with man assumed, the Word is born among men without any diminution of Himself, and the Virgin Mary gives birth without corruption. Therefore the ship passes through the sea, and no traces remain in the waves, because Christ came from heaven, is conceived through the ear, is carried in the womb, and the Virgin Mary remained after she gave birth the same as she was before she had conceived the Word through the ear and carried Him in her womb."
That the Blessed Virgin is the sky is clear, because in her as on a heavenly throne adorned with every beauty and grace, God dwelt for nine months — namely the divine Word (for where God is, there is heaven: where the Pope is, there is Rome, say the canonists) — who, like an eagle, flew most swiftly and sublimely to her when she said: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word," and at the same instant of time descended from the bosom of the Father into her, assumed flesh from her flesh, and gave Himself a body. That the Blessed Virgin is the rock of limpid purity, fortitude, and constancy is manifest. That she is likewise the sea of wisdom and virtues the Fathers teach. Hence Mary, or as the Hebrews pronounce it, Miram, or Mariam, means the same as "the depth of the sea," as some hold; although there are many other and truer etymologies of her name. Here I open for you, O reader, a wide field both for running forth into the praises of the Blessed Virgin, and for contemplating and admiring the manner of the Incarnation of the Word in the Virgin. For consider here the endowments of the eagle, the serpent, and the ship, and attribute them to Christ; then weigh the endowments of the sky, the rock or cliff, and the sea, and attribute them to the Blessed Virgin, and you will see that a true abyss of wisdom lies hidden in this enigma.
Mystically, Lyranus understands by the way of the eagle in the sky, the ascension of Christ into heaven; by the way of the serpent upon the rock, His resurrection: for just as He hung on the cross like a serpent, in the resurrection He rose from the sealed tomb, so that on the sealed stone placed above no trace of the resurrection appeared; by the way of the ship in the midst of the sea, His life in this stormy and turbulent world, in which He was exposed among the Jews to various tempests, always wandering unstably from one place to another. For all these ways, just as the way of His conception and birth, exceed the grasp of man.
Anastasius of Nicæa applies these things to Christ differently in his Questions on Sacred Scripture, Question XLIII; for he says thus: Who will understand and comprehend in his mind "the way of a flying eagle in the sky," that is, the ascension of Christ; "the way of the serpent upon the earth," namely the trace of sin in the body of Christ; "and the paths of the ship through the sea," namely of the Church, since in this life as in a sea she is steered by hope in Christ through the cross; "and the ways of a man in his youth," namely of Him who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin? "For behold, a man, the Orient is His name," Zechariah VI, 12.
The third emblem of the way of the ship he attributes to Christ thus: "By the ship we should understand the Church, equally situated on the sea of this world, which is wearied by frequent blasts of wind, that is, by the blows and lashes of temptations; which the turbid waves, that is, the power of this age, strive to dash upon the rocks; which, although often troubled by the waves of the billows, can nevertheless never suffer shipwreck, because on its mast, that is, on the cross, Christ is raised up; in the stern the Father sits as helmsman; the Paraclete Spirit guards the prow. Twelve rowers steer this ship through the narrow straits of this world into port, that is, the twelve Apostles and a like number of Prophets."
He then adds that this ship overcomes all rocks, storms, pirates, and gusts of wind: "But what he says about the ways of a sailing ship properly signifies that in time of persecution it absolutely cannot be seized in a wonderful way; because it is made alive through destruction and rich through losses, and for this reason it is compared in many places to the sun or the moon, which even if struck is not moved, or if moved, rises again;" that is, the moon receding from the sun is diminished in light and orb; then approaching again, it increases once more and, as it were, rises again.
Then he continues with the fourth emblem of the man in his youth concerning Christ: "This man is Christ our Lord; this is the man whose ways cannot be known in His youth. For who could estimate in his mind how great the works were that He performed when, according to His humanity, He dwelt on earth, what paths of virtues He trod, what ways of benefits toward the human race He entered upon?"
More elegantly, more fully, and at greater length, St. Ambrose treats this entire enigma as referring to Christ, in his treatise on Proverbs chapter XXX, or On Solomon, which is found at the end of volume II, where by the way of the eagle in the sky he understands Christ's descent to earth and into the Virgin's womb, and again His same ascension into heaven; by the way of the serpent on the rock, Christ's immunity (for He is the rock) from sin and from the servitude of the devil; by the way of the ship in the sea, both Christ's Incarnation, and His cross, and His Church; by the way of a man in his youth, Christ's life and conduct in this world. But hear the man himself: He attributes the first emblem of the eagle to Christ thus: "As if indeed it were easy for an eagle, suspended in the heights by the swift elevation of its wings, to leave manifest traces of its flight and passage, or to mark its way in the void and fix the line of its flight in the fluid air. By the eagle in this place we must understand the Lord. For although after His passion and resurrection our Lord ascended into heaven in the presence of the Apostles, yet what man's understanding is so lofty or so great that it could be explained how that great Majesty deigned to come from heaven, or to return? since we are permitted to know only this: that He came and that He returned. For who can know how the Word came into the Virgin, so that she suddenly conceived, so that the virgin birth poured forth so blessed an offspring, so that God put on man, whom the whole world can neither sustain nor contain? This is what Solomon says: that the traces of the flying eagle, that is, of Christ the Lord coming to earth and returning to heaven, cannot be comprehended or recounted."
He applies the second emblem of the serpent on the rock to Christ thus: "We must not doubt that this rock is Christ our Lord; and the serpent, from its very name — because it is the most cunning of all beasts that are upon the earth — appears to be the devil; who is called a serpent because he creeps secretly and subtly insinuates himself to test the senses of man. This serpent therefore could impress no traces of his malice in the body of man which the Almighty Lord had put on, although he dared to attempt it often." And in the appendix he teaches that the serpent seduced Adam and Eve because, being made from dust, they were dusty and earthly; but not Christ, because He was from the rock and was rock-like. "He was able," he says, "to approach Him for tempting; but Christ did not comply, and the words of the devil He contemned: therefore the serpent left no trace on the rock." Tropologically, by this fourfold way understand the chariot of the four virtues, by which we go, indeed are drawn, to eternal happiness. Namely, by the way of the eagle in the sky is signified prudence: for the eagle is its symbol, since it possesses a marvelous keenness of sight for seeing and foreseeing, just as it belongs to prudence to foresee and look ahead at all things advantageous or harmful to action. By the way of the ship in the sea is signified fortitude, by which we advance bravely against the waves and storms of the temptations of this world. By the way of a man in his youth is signified temperance, by which we moderate the passions and desires of youth. By the way of the serpent on the rock is signified justice, which renders to each his own: just as the serpent creeping over the rock takes nothing from it, but leaves all that is its own. If you wish, therefore, to go to heaven, take up the way of virtue: by this way went all the Saints, Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, and Confessors.
But come, let us inquire of the saints about the right way. Tell us, Abraham, tell us, Isaac, tell us, Jacob, by what shortcut did you attain heaven? "By faith we dwelt in the land as in a foreign country, in tents, confessing that we are pilgrims and strangers upon the earth: for we were looking for a city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God," Hebrews XI. Tell us, Moses; tell us, Prophets, Hermits; tell us, eagles, indeed earthly angels: "We went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute, distressed, afflicted; wandering in deserts, in mountains, in caves, and in holes of the earth. We chose to be afflicted with the people of God rather than to have the passing pleasure of sin: esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of the Egyptians; for we looked to the reward." Same place. Tell us, St. Paul, what way did you enter when caught up into heaven? "Brothers, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God," Ephesians II. "I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ," Philippians I. "Our conversation is in heaven. The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us," Romans VIII, 18; "for that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation works for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory," II Corinthians IV. Tell us, St. Sebastian: "He has set me as a mark for the arrow, He has directed the sons of His quiver at me," Lamentations III: the shafts of heaven penetrated me more deeply than the shafts of weapons. Tell us, St. Francis: "Brothers, we have promised great things, greater things have been promised to us: let us keep the former, let us aspire to the latter. Pleasure is brief, punishment perpetual; the suffering is small, the glory infinite; the calling is of many, the election of few, the reward is of all." So great is the glory I await that every pain, every poverty, every leanness, every labor, every weakness, every temptation, every cross delights me. Tell us, St. Lawrence, what way led you to the heavenly city? "You have tried me by fire, and iniquity has not been found in me," Psalm XVI, 3. So was my heart fixed on God, on heaven, that tried by fire, roasted, scorched, I would sooner spend my soul than lose heaven. Tell us,
St. Agnes: "I passed through the foulness of the flesh and the threats of the tyrant on an unstained and unbent path: and behold, I come to You, whom I loved, whom I sought, whom I always desired. I am joined in heaven to Him whom I loved on earth with all my devotion." St. Ambrose, Sermon 90. Tell us, Maccabees, ancient and unconquered company of brothers and Martyrs: "You indeed, most wicked man, destroy us in this present life; but the King of the world will raise us up, who have died for His laws, in the resurrection of eternal life. These things I possess from heaven, but now I despise them for the sake of God's laws, because I hope to receive them back from Him," II Maccabees VII. Tell us, mother, tell us, heroic woman: "I do not know how you appeared in my womb: but indeed the Creator of the world, who formed the birth of man and discovered the origin of all things, will in His mercy give you back both spirit and life, as you now despise yourselves for the sake of His laws. My son, have pity on me, who bore you in my womb for nine months, gave you milk for three years, nourished you, and brought you to this age. I beg you, my child, to look up to heaven, and not to fear this executioner; but, made worthy of your brothers, become their companion, who, having endured a brief pain, have been made heirs under the covenant of eternal life, and accept death so that in that mercy I may receive you with your brothers," same place. Let us follow them, let us imitate them, let us arm ourselves with them, if war, if temptation, if weakness, if melancholy presses upon us, so that we may constantly dwell in the suburbs of heaven, in the courts of our God. Begin to be, O soul, what you are going to be; you are destined as a companion of the Angels, live like an angel; most eagerly your guardian angel, all the Saints, so great a company of dear ones awaits you; run, hasten, make speed; the Blessed Virgin, your mother, awaits you; Christ the Lord, your delight, awaits you; God the Father awaits you, to endow you, predestined from eternity, as a daughter with His inheritance; God the Son awaits you, to rush into your embraces and kisses as those of a most sweet bride; the Holy Spirit awaits you as a most welcome friend, to clothe and adorn you with all glory, all grace, all beauty. Why do you delay? From this sea and soil, from this mire fly up to heaven. Go forth, O soul, from the tent of your body, that standing at the door you may see the glory of the Lord passing by: as you fly from this prison to heaven, the Blessed Virgin, Mother of the Lord, will come to meet you, accompanied by choirs of virgins; she will embrace you, she will receive you as her own, she will applaud you with all her company; when all the Angels, admiring your glory, will exclaim: "Who is this that comes up from the desert, abounding in delights, leaning upon her beloved?" Song of Songs VIII, 5; when all the daughters of Sion will gaze upon you most joyfully, will greet you, and will proclaim you most blessed; when all the sons of God will rejoice; when those 144 thousand before the throne and the elders, holding harps, will sing a new song, and you, triumphant, will lead the chorus: "Let us sing to the Lord, for He is gloriously magnified: the horse and its rider He has cast into the sea," Exodus XV; when the Bridegroom Himself with myriads of Saints will come to meet you: "Arise, come, hasten, my beloved, my beautiful one, my dove. Already the winter has passed, the rain has gone and departed. Come from Lebanon; come, you shall be crowned," Song of Songs II, 10. Then He will wipe away every tear from your eyes; then labor and pain, temptation, hardship, humiliation, penance, bile, phlegm, melancholy will be no more. Then for the crown of thorns He will place upon your head one gleaming with gold and gems; then He will kiss you with the kiss of His mouth; then He will give you "a crown instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of the spirit of grief," Isaiah LXI, 3. Then, secure and exultant, you will fly into the embraces of the Bridegroom, and with jubilation you will say: "I found Him whom my soul loves, I held Him, and I will not let Him go. Rejoicing I will rejoice in the Lord, because He has clothed me with the garments of salvation and has surrounded me with the robe of gladness, and as a bride He has adorned me with a crown," same place, verse 10. Let us meditate on these things most frequently, let us constantly dwell here with the Saints, with the angels; here let our heart be, here our tongue, here all our ways and prayers, so that after this brief and empty life, after a few years — would that after a few days and hours, would that on this very day and hour — we may be received into the company of all the Saints in heaven, and may enjoy Him who is our love, our end and desire, our God, blessed forever. Amen.
20. SUCH ALSO IS THE WAY OF AN ADULTEROUS WOMAN, WHO EATS AND, WIPING HER MOUTH, SAYS: I HAVE DONE NO EVIL.
Mystically, Anastasius of Nicæa, in Question XLIII already cited, takes the adulteress to mean the Church gathered from the idolatrous nations: "Such," he says, "is the manner of life of the Church believing in Christ; which, having committed fornication with idols, renouncing them and the devil, when she has washed away her sins and received forgiveness, says she has done no evil." So also Isidore of Pelusium, book I, epistle 417. More elegantly and lucidly, St. Ambrose, treatise on Ecclesiastes chapter III, Sermon 1 on almsgiving, which is found at the end of volume II: "I believe Solomon said this about the soul washed through baptism: such is the wicked way of the harlot woman, who when she has washed herself says she has done nothing wrong, which was plainly said about her who, after she has been washed at the font of the Savior, does not remember the vices of her sins, takes up the virtue of preaching, and washing away her stains with living water, is not held back from evangelizing by the consciousness of sin, but by the warmth of faith is impelled. For she says she has done nothing of wickedness, while she becomes a messenger of truth, and by forgetfulness denies her unchastity, while by devotion she preaches chastity." He adds the reason: "For this is the power of Christ the Lord, that a sinner who has washed himself in His wave, renewed again as a virgin, does not remember what he did before, but bears the innocence of infancy with a reborn nativity, and becomes a faithful virgin of Christ, he who had been an adulterer through the corruption of sin." St. Ambrose has similar, indeed identical things in Sermon 42 among the common sermons, and in the treatise on Proverbs chapter XXX, or on Solomon.
21, 22, and 23. By (the Chaldean, on account of) THREE THINGS THE EARTH IS MOVED, AND THE FOURTH IT CANNOT BEAR: BY A SERVANT WHEN HE REIGNS: BY A FOOL WHEN HE IS FILLED WITH FOOD: BY A HATEFUL WOMAN WHEN SHE IS TAKEN IN MARRIAGE: AND BY A MAIDSERVANT WHEN SHE IS HEIR TO HER MISTRESS.
This is the fourth riddle, or as it were the fourth enigma of four intolerable things. By the hateful woman, understand one who is morose, irascible, quarrelsome, headstrong, proud, and incontinent, who by her arrogance, anger, impatience, and bad morals makes herself hateful, so that she is an object of hatred and horror to her husband and the whole household; whereas on the contrary a good wife should be lovable and should win everyone's affection by her modesty and grace. For "is moved" the Hebrew is nirgeza, that is, is moved, trembles, roars: for ragaz, both in its letters and in its signification, alludes to ragas and raas, that is, to tremble, to quake, to be disturbed, to fear, to be angry, and it is said both of animate and inanimate things. Hence the Septuagint translates nirgeza and ragaz variously as: to be provoked to anger, to be exasperated, to be irritated, to be troubled and disturbed, to fear, to be saddened, to be wearied, to be anxious, to be shaken, to be astonished. Vatablus here translates: the earth is nauseated; the Chaldean: it is moved; the Syriac: under three things the earth totters. It alludes to an earthquake, by which the earth is shaken, roars, and trembles because of the air and winds enclosed within it, which, clashing with one another beneath the earth, shake it — otherwise immovable — so as to overthrow houses, towers, and temples, and at times seem to tear the earth from its center, which some philosophers believe actually happens in earthquakes, as I shall show at Ecclesiastes I, 4. The same occurs in the household and the commonwealth of the earth, that is, of the earth's inhabitants, for it is the movement and disturbance not so much of bodies as of minds of the men and members of the household,
"Such," Hebrew sic, refers to what he had said about the four wonderful things. when a servant rules a master, a fool rules a wise man, a wife rules her husband, a maidservant rules her mistress: for these, swollen with pride, gaping with desire, blinded by imprudence, puffed up by their new lot and dignity, cannot contain themselves and grow insolent, overturning and perverting everything, mixing all things topsy-turvy; therefore they stir up commotions, seditions, and tumults in the household or the commonwealth, so that it seems to be torn from its foundations and, as it were, thrown off its center: for all, indignant at their powerless, unjust, tyrannical, and arrogant domination, groan and gnash their teeth, and as if raging against furies with torches of fury ablaze, they rage and are furious: hence ragez means the same as commotion, terror, trembling, anger, and fury. desire, which when armed with power and authority rages against all with impunity and equal arrogance: therefore then the house or kingdom is not governed by equitable reason but by uncontrolled and unbridled desire: for this rules the servant who rules the house or kingdom; but all subjects, because they are rational men, wish to be governed by human reason, not by passion: for this is the human way of governing men; if it is done otherwise, not reason but desire governs the house or commonwealth, and therefore it is not a principate but a tyranny, which all hate, and on account of which they grow angry and rebel, in order to vindicate their freedom.
The first reason is that it seems unworthy and contrary to nature for a master to be subjected to a servant; for a wise man, whose part it was to rule, to be ruled by a fool; for a husband to serve his wife, a mistress to serve her maidservant: for it is proper to servants, because of their servile nature and character, to serve, and for masters and mistresses to rule, as Aristotle teaches, book I of Politics, chapter IV; therefore if it is done otherwise, nature seems to be inverted and the world to be turned upside down.
The second reason is that servants, fools, women, and maidservants, when they rule, cannot contain themselves or their lot and fortune; but as if deranged in mind they leap forth and transgress all boundaries, and as if insane they run riot, and therefore commit many unworthy things and injuries to others, by which they stir up everyone against themselves, according to the saying: Nothing is harsher than a lowly man when he rises to the heights. Hence Plato, book VI of the Laws: "On the other hand it is said," he says, "that nothing in a servile soul is sound, and that nothing should be entrusted to the class of servants, which the wisest of poets (Homer) also attests to us, when he speaks of Jupiter thus: Jupiter takes away half the mind of those who are subjected to the lot of servitude."
Likewise, a fool if he is filled with food, that is, with delicacies and wines, is intolerable, both because he is a fool and because his folly is sharpened by satiety and wine. "For the twin offspring of satiety is wantonness," says Philo: as we see in well-fed calves, whose frisky leaping and gestures are imitated by sated and drunken fools; under "satiety" is understood wealth and riches, which it is incongruous for a fool to possess, since they do not befit one who cannot use them rightly, but are owed to the wise man who knows their right use. For, as was said above, "what profit is it to a fool to have riches, when he cannot buy wisdom?" Nor is this matter merely absurd in itself, but from it a great disturbance arises on earth, because fools abusing riches commit many things insolently, despising others and inflicting injuries, and through these things stirring others to indignation and jealousy. An example is Nabal, the husband of Abigail, whose name is placed here for a fool: for nabal in Hebrew means a fool.
The third reason is that servants, fools, women, and maidservants when ruling are not guided by reason but by passion and they rebel, in order to vindicate their freedom. Hear St. Augustine, book IV of The City of God, chapter III: "Accordingly, a just man, even if he serves, is free; but a wicked man, even if he reigns, is a slave: and not of one master, but — which is worse — of as many masters as he has vices, about which vices the divine Scripture says: By whom a man is overcome, by the same he is also held in bondage." Finally, servants, says the Author of the Greek Catena, bring nothing suitable for administering a kingdom, such as humility, knowledge, experience, and other such things. The servant Jeroboam certainly reigned, but he committed such great evils as none before or after him, as the outcome of events demonstrated. A similar example was the servant Eutropius, who under the Emperor Arcadius administered the empire with such arrogance and insolence that, attacked by the furious people who sought his death, he fled to the asylum of the church, where he was barely saved by the speech of St. Chrysostom, as I narrated above from Baronius and others.
Moreover, it is plainly intolerable, as the Septuagint translates, when a maidservant has cast out her mistress, so that the maid may invade the bed, throne, rights, wealth, and kingdom of the mistress she has expelled — as Hagar despised her mistress Sarah and invaded her place, and for this reason was expelled from the house by Abraham at God's command, Genesis XVI.
This parable, therefore, teaches that all these things are thrown into turmoil in the world because empire, dominion, abundance of goods, and honor fall to those who ought to be subject and governed, and who ought to be pressed by want and held in contempt. And this also happens within ourselves: for the earth of our heart is moved because the carnal desire, which ought to serve the spirit, commands reason; because too much indulgence in satiety is given to the foolish and brutish part; because the hateful flesh is held in excessive honor, and what ought to be a maidservant wants to rule. So Jansenius, Baynus, and others.
Allegorically, the Author of the Greek Catena takes these four things as sin, or the guilt of four ages succeeding one another in order: namely, the age of Noah's flood, of Sodom, of the Egyptians, and of the Jews. Therefore guilt, he says, which is by nature a slave and makes one a slave, has long since reigned in the mortal body of men: once indeed at the time of the universal flood, and then in the age of the Sodomites who could not modestly bear the fertility of their land, and who out of sheer wantonness offered violence to foreigners and strangers. Then again under hateful Egypt: for Egypt, having obtained a good man, namely Joseph, proved ungrateful. For Joseph distributed a measure of grain to all so that they would not perish from famine, and strove to benefit all: but drunken with pride, Egypt most wretchedly harassed and oppressed the children of Israel, who had deserved no such thing, with the greatest injury and insult. And the maidservant who expelled her mistress is the earthly Jerusalem, which because of the frequent captivities it suffered among the nations was called the slave or maidservant of all; but this one expelled her mistress, namely the sacred flesh of Christ God, having become a deicide and a murderer of the Lord.
Moreover, what another author in the same place explains thus — by three things, that is, by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the earth is moved and governed; but the fourth it cannot bear, for in the divine there is no quaternity but only a Trinity, whose glory and majesty all creation cannot endure; so that the Sage might teach us these mysteries, he says: "Three things are what the earth cannot bear" — this explanation, I say, does not adhere to the literal sense, indeed it contradicts it, and is therefore incongruous, insipid, and unworthy, so that it is amazing that the same should be found in Anastasius of Nicæa, Question XLV; for who would dare compare the Most Holy Trinity to a servant, a fool, and a maidservant ruling over their masters?
Tropologically, by these four things understand the animal and brutish concupiscence, rebellious and dominant over reason and mind, which is fourfold: for the carnal appetite, which ought to have served, commands reason and the body, which in itself is like a brute: whatever it demands is stuffed in to the point of satiety, and the hateful flesh is held in excessive honor, and sensuality, while it snatches away nearly all time for its own pleasures, seems to become the heir of reason — that is, of its mistress. By these four things the earth of our heart is disturbed, which, when it is flooded with some heavenly light, cannot endure it as most unworthy.
This is what Philo says, in his book On the Creation of the World: "Reason, ensnared by concupiscence, from a queen becomes a subject, from a mistress a slave, from a citizen an exile, from immortal a mortal." For just as between wife and husband, because of inequality and dissimilarity, there are constant quarrels; so also between concupiscence and reason, or mind and spirit, for the same reason there are continual wars. For what is more unequal than reason and concupiscence? The latter is earthly, base, indeed akin to brutes; the former is spiritual, noble, and touching the very Angels by kinship; the latter is utterly poor and needy, the former rich and abundant; the character of the former is sometimes rigid and angry, sometimes soft and effeminate, sometimes haughty and proud, sometimes humble and dejected — which is always dissimilar not only to its spouse but even to itself: whereas the character of reason is severe and grave, combined with sweetness. Therefore in such great dissimilarity of character, and of condition there can be no agreement. From this it is clear how great the constancy and strength of reason must be for restraining and curbing the movements of concupiscence: for if concupiscence finds reason insufficiently strong and vigorous, it behaves toward it like a defiant wife toward a weak and soft husband. So Salazar. Hence Thalassius to Paulinus: "Just as," he says, "it is absurd for a good master to be subject to a wicked servant, so it is absurd for the mind to be a slave of the corruptible body." Cicero saw the same thing, book II of On Duties, whose words St. Ambrose recounts, book I of On Duties, chapter XXVII: "There is," he says, "in the souls of all something soft, lowly, humble, and in a way enervated and languid: if there were nothing else, nothing would be more deformed than man: but at hand is the mistress of all, the queen — reason — which, striving and progressing further, becomes perfect virtue. In order that this may command that part of the soul which ought to obey, the man must see to it, as a master with a servant, as a general with a soldier, as a parent with a child."
Symbolically, our Salazar attributes these four things to prelates and princes: for like the rest, these five riddles contain something obscure and enigmatic, as if to say: "By three things the earth is moved," that is, the commonwealth is shaken and totters; "and the fourth it cannot bear," namely three things shake it, the fourth completely overturns it. "By a servant when he reigns," namely by a prince who is a slave of his own desires: for such a one cannot maintain the commonwealth and administer it justly. For neither purple, nor a diadem, nor a scepter, nor a crowd of servants, nor a parade of horses and chariots makes a prince and king; but, as Seneca says, Tragedy 2: A king is he who has laid aside fears And the evils of a cruel heart, Whom neither powerless ambition Nor the never-stable favor Of the headlong populace moves. A king is he who fears nothing; This kingdom each man gives to himself.
The reason is that the governance of a kingdom is referred to that which reigns in the king and governs him: for what rules the king himself and drives his will, that, as it were a fortiori, governs the kingdom. If, therefore, reason and virtue, whose office it is to ordain all things wisely and justly, commands in the king, then reason and virtue certainly rule the kingdom; but if, conversely, desire and vices hold sway in the prince and enslave him to themselves, then desire and vices certainly govern the kingdom, etc.
24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. FOUR THINGS ARE THE SMALLEST ON EARTH, AND THEY ARE WISER THAN THE WISE: THE ANTS, A FEEBLE PEOPLE, WHO PREPARE THEIR FOOD IN THE HARVEST: THE RABBIT, A WEAK FOLK, WHO MAKES ITS BED IN THE ROCK: THE LOCUST HAS NO KING, AND GOES FORTH IN BANDS: THE LIZARD GRASPS WITH ITS HANDS AND DWELLS IN THE PALACES OF KINGS.
Furthermore, hares and rabbits are wise, that is, clever at fleeing dogs and hiding themselves in their burrows. Hence Aristotle, book I, History of Animals, chapter 1: "Some animals," he says, "are ingenious and timid, such as deer, hares, and rabbits;" for fear makes them cautious, clever, and provident, so that they may escape the evil they fear. Hence they also lie hidden during the four coldest months and eat nothing during that time, says the same author, book VIII, chapter XV. Hence also the hare, as Pliny says, is the hairiest of animals, has a very large heart, as do other timid creatures, and sleeps with its eyes open, since eating it makes people drowsy and fearful. The hare is called in Greek lagos from lagnos, that is, lustful, sensual, fertile: for such is the hare, being at once male and female, and producing very many offspring, and that frequently. In Hebrew it is called arnebet from arab, that is, to lie in ambush, and rana, that is, to make noise, because hunters and those lying in ambush pursue it with shouting and noise, and with the howling of crowds and dogs, according to that saying of Horace, Satire II, 4: The wise man will pursue the shoulders of the fertile hare; for its shoulders and meat are extremely delicate. In Latin it is called lepus, whose etymology Varro gives, book III of On Agriculture, chapter XII: "Lucius Aelius," he says, "thought the hare was called so from its swiftness, because it was light-footed; I think it comes from an ancient Greek word, because the Aeolian Boeotians called it leporin." So also Gellius, book I, chapter XVIII.
THE LOCUST HAS NO KING. — In Hebrew, there is no king for the locust, and it goes forth dividing the whole of itself, that is, dividing all its bands and battle lines — that is, wholly distributed into its cohorts and phalanxes; Pagninus, and it goes forth all united; the Chaldean, and they all gather into one; the Syriac, they all gather as one; the Septuagint, in order; Symmachus, and as a counting-stone all together, that is, it goes forth in order, as counting-stones are placed in order for calculation; Aben-Ezra, the locust goes forth in a cluster, gathered in troops; others, it goes forth armed; the Arabic, in its army is its command.
THE LIZARD GRASPS WITH ITS HANDS. — In Hebrew it is scemamith, which first, the Arabic, R. Solomon, R. Levi, Mercerus, and others translate as the spider: for this works a web as if with hands; hence it is a symbol of labor, and it also dwells in the houses of kings. Hence the Chaldean translates: the spider makes coverings with its hands, and though easily caught, dwells in the fortifications of kings; Aquila: catching or handling with hands; others: grasping from both sides with hands; Vatablus: the spider will grasp each side; R. Levi and R. David: the spider cards with its feet, as wool and threads are carded when they are combed, and by combing are cleansed of impurities. Second, Aben-Ezra, Pagninus, Jansenius, and others translate it as the monkey. For this word in sound and meaning resembles the word scemamith: the monkey also uses its feet as hands, and sometimes walks upright on two feet like a man, gracefully and elegantly, and beautifully imitates the manners and gestures of man: and therefore, because of the dexterity of its intelligence and its imitation of human prudence, it is a recreation and a delight for kings. Third, our Vulgate translates it as the stellio (lizard). So also the Septuagint, who translate it as kalabotes (corruptly read as salabotes in the Complutensian and Royal editions), or askalabotes, from askalos, that is, circle, because it is distinguished and variegated with certain golden circles like stars; hence it is called stellio (from stella, star); or, as others say, because it walks in a circle and progresses in a circular manner. It is a small animal resembling a lizard, about which I spoke at Leviticus XI, 30. See also Pliny, book XXX, chapter X, and Aristotle in the History of Animals. In Hebrew it is called scemamith from scamam, that is, to marvel, to be astonished, because when it sees men it stops and, as it were, stands amazed; or because it captures men in amazement by its markings and gestures.
This is the fifth riddle, or enigma of the four smallest creatures: "Four things," he says, "are the smallest on earth," that is, among the smaller animals of the earth, which nevertheless "are wiser than the wise," that is, which by natural instinct perform certain works of wisdom more than those who profess the name of wise, or more than men who are truly capable of wisdom: because they look out for themselves as if they were acting from some wisdom, and because they teach us wisdom: hence they can also be called "wiser than the wise" because by their remarkable activity they teach the wise wisdom, and are not taught by them. Again, because among all other animals they are the wiser, that is, the more sagacious and clever. So Jansenius, Baynus, and others.
Solomon therefore teaches here that we should imitate the wisdom
The meaning is that the lizard (French: lézard), which grasps and handles things, e.g. flies, only with its hands, nevertheless dwells in royal palaces. The mention of hands pertains to its hunting.
Shaphan here means a mouse. of the four smallest creatures: by which he signifies, first, that wisdom does not consist in bodily bulk, nor in strength, nor in beauty, nor in any other thing, but in cleverness and clever action, by which each one provides for itself the things necessary for life, which can be seen in these four tiny creatures. Second, he teaches us to admire God's wisdom and power in the smallest things; for, as St. Augustine says, the wisdom of God shines forth more in a small bee, ant, gnat, or fly than in the sky: not only because the former is alive while the sky is inanimate, but also because in the gnat, for example, there are eyes, a heart, a stomach, and all the other members that are in other animals, and yet the human eye cannot distinguish these by sight, which God and nature have in reality distinguished. Hence the Poet: The great God Himself shines forth most in the smallest things. Third, he teaches that nothing should be despised on account of its smallness or weakness, since the small often surpass the great in talent, wisdom, sharpness, spirit, and virtue. "Nature is nowhere greater than in the smallest things," says Pliny, book XI, chapter II. Likewise, virtue is nowhere more displayed than in the smallest things. And Aristotle, book IX, History of Animals, chapter VII: "In general," he says, "the reasoning of brutes reflects a great likeness to human life, and in the smaller kind you will see the principles of intelligence more than in the larger." Tertullian, book I Against Marcion, chapter XIV: "The smallest animals," he says, "the greatest Craftsman has by design enlarged with talents or virtues, thus teaching that greatness is proved in moderation, just as virtue in weakness according to the Apostle. Imitate (if you can) the structures of the bee, the dwellings of the ant, the webs of the spider, the threads of the silkworm." And St. Jerome, on these words of the divine Psalmist: "The earth is filled with Your possession," Psalm CIV, verse 24, says: "And indeed all the works of the Lord are full of wisdom; for when we see the ant knowing when winter comes and storing up food for itself; and again the gnat, so tiny, having eyes, a belly, and all the members just as we have, etc., are not these things worthy of admiration and full of wisdom, since the nature of things is nowhere more wonderful than in the smallest? Hence Solomon too, the wisest of kings, was especially amazed at this class of the smallest creatures: Four things, he says, are the smallest on earth, and they are wiser than the wise — the ants, a feeble people."
This wisdom shines forth, first, in the fact that among ants there is no king, as there is among bees, and consequently they have no leader, but each acts by its own instinct and impulse. Bees, therefore, have a monarchy; ants have a democracy and a republic. Second, this republic is like a military camp. Hence ants build cities, as it were, underground in the manner of camps, with such cleverness, proportion, measurement, and distribution that Simon Majolus, Bishop of Vulture, as he himself writes in his Dog Days, colloquy 7, admired them more greatly than the architecture of Naples or any other most beautiful city. Third, ants divide their cities into three, as it were, quarters: in one they live and eat communally, in another they store their food as in a granary or barn, in the third they bury their dead, says Plutarch — a remarkable proof indeed of love, benevolence, and goodness. Aelian, book VI, On Animals, chapter XLIII, adds a fourth, namely the gynæceum, where the females give birth. Fourth, ants march in troops, but in wonderful order, cunning, and peace; for the unburdened do not plunder the laden, nor steal anything from them, but each gathers for itself. "Some," says Aelian, book II, chapter XXV, "go out to collect grains, others return carrying their loads, and with the greatest honor and modesty (let the faithful and religious imitate this!), some yield the way to others" — especially the unburdened to those carrying loads. And elsewhere again: "Ants above all, industrious and hardworking creatures, are possessed by such zeal for labor, and that without any excuse or pretext — such as the lazy are wont to use — that they do not even cease from their work at night, provided the moon is full; nor indeed do they put forward excuses for idleness and avoidance of labor, as men do," etc. Describing more precisely the works of each, after he had described the art and use of their caverns, he adds: "They designate a third section for heaps of grain," though they learned no such thing from Ischomachus and Socrates, experts in household management. And when they set out as if to forage, the older ones lead them just like army commanders; when they reach the grain fields, the younger ones stand beneath the stalks, while the commanders climb up and throw down the cut ears to those below; these, standing around, pull apart the husks and sheaths and extract the enclosed grains; and they need no instrument for threshing, nor men for winnowing, nor winds for cleansing the grain from chaff — from the crops that men plow and sow, they prepare their food, enjoying the fruits of human labor.
This is what Virgil admires, and sings of them thus in the Aeneid IV: The dark column goes across the fields, and through the grass They convey their plunder on a narrow path: some thrust Great grains with straining shoulders, some marshal the columns And punish delays: every path seethes with work.
Fifth, ants have a certain knowledge of celestial things, and often look up at the sky, and sense winds and rains in advance; hence they then keep themselves at home. Therefore Aelian, book I, chapter XXII, asserts that they are skilled in astrology; Pliny, book XI, chapter XXX, attributes to them a prophetic presentiment. Sixth, ants, when they grow old and succumb to the burden (for then they put forth wings, as a man grows gray hair), depart from the administration of the republic, and fly to an elevated place, as Albertus Magnus attests, book XXVI — as if despising earthly things, toward heavenly ones. I said more about the industry of ants at chapter VI, verse 8.
Again, the largest animals tremble and quake at the smallest, as the elephant at the mouse, the lion at the rooster, the crocodile at the ichneumon, the donkey at the goldfinch, says Aldrovandus, book V of Ornithology. Solomon therefore indicates that the small and the weak should not be despised, nor should they cast themselves aside and lay down hope of a better lot; because if anyone is endowed with prudence and wisdom, it can happen, and often does happen, that a poor man provides abundantly for the necessities of life, and a wanderer or stranger builds for himself a house and a comfortable dwelling, and the unwarlike follows the camp and military service, and finally a commoner and one of low birth discharges the most honorable offices of the commonwealth, and holds a place among courtiers and the great men of the kingdom. That these things are not difficult, Solomon demonstrates by the example of the four animals. Therefore R. Ben-Azai wisely says in Pirke Avoth, chapter IV: "Never despise any man, or make light of any thing, however insignificant it may seem to you; for every thing has its place and use, just as every man has his time."
Now let us examine this emblem more closely and in detail. I say, therefore, that it is threefold, namely ethical, economic, and political, and that it represents a threefold wisdom — namely ethical, economic, and political — so as to instruct men of every state and order.
Ethical, because it teaches each private individual the prudence to order his life rightly, so that he may become an honest and upright man; economic, because it instructs the husband or master in how to govern his household properly, so that he may become a good paterfamilias; political, because it educates both citizens in how they ought to live politically, and magistrates in how they should politically govern the commonwealth, so that citizens and governors may become upright. Let us consider each one.
In the ethical sense, so Cajetan, Baynus, and Jansenius take it. Solomon teaches us here, they say, to imitate the industry and labors of the ant, so that by these we may procure sustenance for body and soul; for this is the first concern of prudence. But no animal does this more seasonably, more sagaciously, or more diligently than the ant. Hence to the ant Solomon sent his sluggards, chapter VI, verse 6, saying: "Go to the ant, O sluggard." But here, besides industry, he also mentions weakness, saying: "a feeble people," lest anyone rashly allege bodily weakness, as though because of it he could not attend to the necessities of life — signifying that relentless labor conquers all things, if it is undertaken at the opportune time, as the ant "prepares in the harvest, or in summer, its food for itself."
The second part of wisdom is that we should provide for ourselves a comfortable dwelling. The second little animal teaches this: "the rabbit, a weak folk." For the rabbit, or coney, chooses for itself a bed and dwelling in a rock or in rocky caverns, that is, in a safer and less accessible place, so that
And, as St. Fulgentius says, Sermon 1 On the Epiphany: "Who is this King of the Jews? Poor and rich, humble and sublime, who is carried as a little child and adored as God; little in the manger, immense in heaven; worthless in swaddling clothes, precious in the stars." "Grace is a companion of the small," says St. Gregory Nazianzen. The Author of the Hilaria sings of the small: Such is the nature of little ones, that in body Their spirit is ten feet taller than them. For the small are keen and magnanimous, and their slight body cannot contain their spirits. Claudian, on the Alan people: Whom nature had fashioned short in frame but huge in spirit, And had infected their eyes with monstrous wrath. No part of the body is free from wounds, and the glory Of their disfigured faces shines all the more boastfully. And Statius, Thebaid I: But Tydeus' spirit does not fall below his strength, And poured through all his limbs, A greater virtue reigned in his small body. From Homer, Virgil says of the same: Fierce in mind, small in body he was. Xantippus the Lacedæmonian, of short stature, is thus praised by Silius Italicus: A vigor, wondrous to behold, vivid in his small limbs, And by his effort he could overcome great frames.
What is tinier than a carbuncle? What is shorter than a diamond? What is more diminutive than a hyacinth? And yet nothing nobler or more precious than these is found. Finally, look around the world, and you will see that almost all things on earth are valued more for their virtue than for their size. Edgar, King of Britain, when he was despised on account of his small stature by Kinald, King of the Scots, challenged him to a duel and forced him to beg pardon, as Fulgosus narrates, book III, On Contempt of Oneself. Persius, the smaller he is, the more elegant; the less weight he has, the more authority he obtains. Hence Martial says of him: Persius is mentioned more often in one book Than the light Marsus in his entire Amazonid. Small men who were thrice great include Philip of Macedon, Xantippus the Lacedæmonian, Ulysses, and Agesilaus — strong in spirit and in body; but above all, St. Paul. On the other hand, the Satirist mocks "the long neck of the weakling." See what I said about the small at Ecclesiasticus XI, 3, and Zechariah IV, 10, and the Prolegomena to the Minor Prophets.
Finally, there is the famous enigma: "What is the greatest in the smallest? It is the Word abbreviated, as Isaiah says, chapter X, and incarnate — namely, the infant Word, the wise child, the nursing God, lying in the manger like a little rabbit, like an ant, a locust, a lizard in a cave, where the great Lord and exceedingly praiseworthy became a little child and exceedingly lovable, allow them to live a life of leisure, just as the ant compels all its household members to work.
Let him learn from the rabbit how to beget and raise offspring. For the rabbit is most fertile, and every single month produces an abundance of young, so that the female is always pregnant. Moreover, it spurns none of its young, but nurses and nourishes them all; hence out of love for them it wears itself out and exhausts itself, and greatly shortens its own life. Besides this, for the sake of its young it digs beneath houses and cliffs, excavating deep burrows inaccessible to other animals, in which it may safely and comfortably shelter them. In short, it looks after them in all things, cherishes, and protects them like a kind and loving mother. The rabbit, therefore, is a type of household management, and of a good father and mother of a family, who raise their offspring with care, and procure and provide both bodily and spiritual nourishment and comforts.
Let him learn from the locust to cultivate peace with household members and neighbors, indeed to bring about reconciliation, so that there may be no quarrel among them, no rivalry, no hatred, but all may strive for the good of the family, and in ordered ranks like locusts may converge upon it and work together: thus he will make both his household and the commonwealth invincible and unconquerable.
Let him learn from the lizard that frequents royal palaces and courts their favor, to show deference to princes and magistrates, to offer them his services, and to win their good will for himself; thus he will support the magistrate and prince, and in turn will be supported and promoted by him. Therefore, by the example of the lizard he encourages men of lowly and humble condition not to lose heart, nor to cease aspiring to the highest honors, as if it were entirely impossible.
Politically, these things pertain to the commonwealth and its prince: for the host of ants, rabbits, and locusts is set forth as representing a people or nation, not a single animal. The commonwealth is therefore taught that it must see to it that all in the state are diligent and industrious; next, that it should choose a suitable location for itself and fortify it so as to dwell securely; then, that it should preserve harmony among its citizens, by which it may be strong and fortified against all enemies. Lastly, that the citizens should be on good terms with their head and prince, and in turn the prince should be diligent and watchful, which the spider teaches well by weaving its web — for this reason it can be understood to be said to dwell in the palaces of kings, to teach kings diligence. The same thing the lizard teaches, constantly laboring and creeping with its hands.
Hence our Salazar aptly interprets these four animals as four classes of men who compose, foster, and advance the commonwealth: namely, by the ants gathering grain, he understands farmers, who prepare crops and food for the commonwealth. Whence Plato in the Phaedo, establishing the Pythagorean metempsychosis, that is, the transmigration of souls after death into other bodies and animals whose habits they imitated in life, asserts that the souls of farmers migrate into ants, because while they lived they imitated their labor by tilling the fields.
In domestic terms, these four signify as many duties of the head of a household, of which the first is to manage and increase the family estate with diligence; the second, to beget and properly raise offspring; the third, both to promote peace among the household members and to make and cultivate the same with neighbors; the fourth, to show due honor and obedience to magistrates. Let the head of the household therefore learn from the ants to provide for his family, and accordingly employ all who are in it in useful labor, nor allow anyone idle in
By the rabbit he understands citizens in cities, dwelling as it were in their burrows, and tending to the city and its civil offices and trades; by the locusts he understands soldiers, who defend the city and commonwealth from enemies: for the armies, ranks, battle lines, and phalanxes of locusts display a certain military character, indeed their very form resembles helmeted soldiers. Hence locusts wage war against serpents and kill them. "A serpent," says Pliny, Book XI, chapter 89, "they kill one by one when they please, seizing its jaws with their bite." By the lizard he understands courtiers; for the lizard frequents the doors and hinges of courts. From the lizard, therefore, let courtiers learn the art of conducting themselves and conversing, so as to win the favor of all; likewise let them imitate its ingenuity and cunning, so as to guard themselves against rivals and dangers. Moreover, let them employ its force and effectiveness; for, as Galen says in his book On Theriac to Piso, chapter 9: "There are many things that show their power merely by being looked at, like the lizard; which if scorpions behold, they become motionless, and finally die." And Philes says: "The destroyer, the thief scorpion, [fears] the lizard," that is, fears or hates it.
Aristotle, Book IX of the History of Animals, chapter 1, and Pliny, Book XI, chapter 26, report that there is war between the spider and the lizard, and that spiders are devoured by the lizard; Pliny also adds that lizards have in some way the nature of chameleons, living on dew alone, apart from spiders. Aristotle adds that the lizard feeds on spiders and catches them by a marvelous trick; for it creeps up to their webs and plucks and shakes them; then the spiders, excited by the motion, fly toward them as if they were about to catch flies, and thus are attacked and devoured by the lurking lizards: in the same way, prudent courtiers should cautiously and bravely oppose themselves to spiders and scorpions, that is, to the venomous words, machinations, counsels, and actions of factious men, and scatter and disrupt them.
But let them beware of the lizard's envy, by which it devours the skin it sheds, so as to snatch from man the remedy for epilepsy that it contains, as Pliny testifies, Book XXX, chapter 10; let them beware of its wiles and deceits: for from the lizard, deceit and fraud are called the crime of "stellionatus" [fraud]. For in courts there flourishes envy, deceit, and fraud, when whoever is more powerful supplants the weaker, and undermines and overturns his counsels and requests by marvelous arts; and snatches offices for himself alone, nor if he is honored with new and greater ones does he yield the old to others, but like the lizard he usurps and devours everything for himself, so that he becomes a gulf and whirlpool of benefices and offices.
Ants and locusts, therefore, are a type of the commonwealth, or of democracy and popular government, which consists chiefly in equality and mutual union; whence the seven Wise Men of Greece passed judgment on it as follows, according to Plutarch in their Banquet. "First, Solon said: 'It seems to me that a city will be most blessed and will preserve its popular government, in which the citizens drag into court and punish the author of an injury no less readily when they themselves are uninjured than when one of them has been harmed.' Second, Bias said that the best popular form of commonwealth is one in which all fear the law as they would a tyrant. Thales said: where neither the excessively rich nor the poor are citizens. Anacharsis: that one in which, while all other things are held equal, a better condition is assigned to virtue and a worse to vice. Fifth, Cleobulus declared that the people will best do their duty if citizens fear reproof more than the law. Sixth, Pittacus: where the wicked are not permitted to hold office, but the good are. Then Chilo, turning, said: 'That commonwealth is best in which the laws are heeded most, and orators least.' Finally, the last of all, Periander, judged concerning their sayings that it seemed to him that by all these pronouncements they were recommending that form of popular government which most closely resembles the governance of the best men in a city."
Mystically, Hugh says these four animals denote four classes of men in whom wisdom excels: namely, by ants are signified monks, by rabbits doctors, by locusts anchorites, by the lizard simple Christians; and then he applies each one individually.
But St. Gregory, Book XXI of the Morals, chapter 12, applies the emblem of the locust to the Gentiles: "The locust has no king: Because, he says, the abandoned heathen nation long stood alien from divine governance, yet afterward, once organized against the opposing spirits, it advanced to the battle of the faith."
The same Gregory, Book VI, chapter 5, says thus about the lizard: "The lizard supports itself with its hands, etc., for often birds which their feathers raise to flight dwell in thornbushes; and the lizard which has no feathers for flying, supporting itself with its hands, holds the king's building. Because indeed often the most ingenious men, while they grow torpid with negligence, remain in wicked actions, and the simple whom no feather of wit assists, the virtue of their work raises to obtain the rewards of the eternal kingdom. The lizard, then, which supports itself with its hands, dwells in royal buildings: because the simple man, through his intention of right action, arrives where the clever man by no means ascends."
Oh, how many and how beautiful and great animals inhabit the caverns of the earth, and hide in dreadful dens, and do not care to approach the royal dwellings! But the lizard, a lowly little creature, because it supports itself with its hands, because indeed it strives to climb to every height, has received a place of rest in the royal house. Thus many weighty men, renowned for outstanding learning, eloquence, and skill in governance, lie low, and because of their indolence remain in a certain obscurity of life and in a kind of abyss of imperfections; while yet the lizard, that is, an ignorant and contemptible man, who despises worldly things and diligently devotes himself to every virtue, obtains the citadel of the Lord, that is, perfection. He who has dexterity for handling the affairs of the world neglects the business of his salvation, on which depends being an inhabitant of the king's house, that is, of the heavenly fatherland and purity of life.
Cassian, Conference X, chapter 10, reading from the Septuagint "hedgehog" instead of "rabbit," understands by it Christians and Religious striving for perfection, who dwell in the rock, that is, in Christ, meditating on His passion. Of whom it is said in Psalm 104: "The high mountains are for the deer, the rock is a refuge for the hedgehogs. Because, he says, whoever perseveres in simplicity and innocence, is harmful or troublesome to no one, but content with his simplicity alone, only desires to be protected from the prey of those lying in ambush, as if made a spiritual hedgehog, may be shielded by the constant veil of that Evangelical rock, that is, the memory of the Lord's passion, and fortified by the unceasing meditation of the aforesaid verse, may avoid the snares of the attacking enemy. Concerning these spiritual hedgehogs it is also said in Proverbs: 'And the hedgehog nation, a feeble people, who made their houses in the rocks.' And truly, what is weaker than a Christian? What is more infirm than a monk, for whom not only is no vengeance for injuries at hand, but not even the slightest and most silent inner stirring is permitted to sprout?"
Tropologically, the smallest, that is, the plainly humble, obtain wisdom; for in humility consists true wisdom. Hence four species of each are enumerated here, which our Alvarez de Paz, following Bede, pursues thus in Book IV, Part I, chapter 7, On Humility: Ants, he says, are small in body but great in strength, which carry burdens twice their size, and are called a feeble people because compared with larger animals they seem weak. They love hiding places, and go out only for some necessity. In summer they prepare food, and store it in pantry cells they have made; they cut it with their bite so it will not grow again; when moistened, they bring it out in clear weather lest it rot; they labor nights and days, and help one another so that they may become richer by mutual aid. O great wisdom of tiny creatures, which the humble person has drawn not from the ants, but from God Himself, the teacher of the humble; he is small in outward appearance: for he does not resist evil; indeed if anyone strikes him on the right cheek, he offers the other also; he does not care to be praised by men; but he is great in virtue, who trusting in God undertakes arduous and difficult things, if called to them, without any trepidation. He gladly remains hidden, but if the glory of God and the benefit of his neighbors requires it, he does not fear to go out in public and speak among the great of this world. While life lasts, which is granted him as his summer, because he considers himself poor, he lays up merits by which he may grow rich in the winter of death. From his merits he cuts away all that is superfluous and serves vain ostentation, lest the shoot of empty glory sprout. If the works he has done have any imperfections, he presents them to the sun of justice to be consumed. He always labors, because he never considers himself sufficiently perfect. And he does not shrink from being helped by others, because in right deeds he seeks no honor for himself. Does not this one seem to you wiser than the wise of the world, to whom such great industry in gathering merits has been given? The second species, a higher one, is that of the rabbits, or hares, who are so humble that, wholly distrusting their own strength, they flee to the rock, that is, they fix all their hopes in Christ, and in Him they become strong and magnanimous. Such was David saying, 2 Kings 22:2: "The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my savior; my God is my mighty one, I will hope in Him." Every humble person proclaims these same words: To me fleeing, You, O Lord, are the rock on which I stand; to me trembling, You are the most fortified citadel, by whose protecting walls I am surrounded and defended; to me imploring help, You are the liberator, by whose unconquered power I am snatched from the claws of the lions that pursue me. If I am weak and powerless, I care not, because You are my strong one; if I am left alone, it matters not, because You are my hope; if enemies hurl fiery darts at me, I am eager and secure, because You are my shield; if they rush upon me in a sudden assault, I easily put them to flight, because You are in my hand in place of sword and lance.
The third species is that of locusts proceeding in troops, in order, quietly and harmoniously. Such is the congregation of the humble, of whom each one, since he does not consider himself self-sufficient, seeks the help of his brethren, and strives to be united with them by the bond of charity. It is as if they have no king, because not taught by fear of a Prelate, but by love of the brethren and knowledge of their own neediness, they keep peace with others and depart from all discord and singularity. They go out in humble troops, because although they are not equal in spiritual pursuits, but one excels more and another less in the gift of divine intimacy, yet in bodily labor and in the outward observance of discipline no one withdraws himself, but all live together as if they were equal in merits. Hence also St. Augustine, in his exposition 2 on Psalm 148, understands by locusts the just, either because of their multitude, or because they have passed from place to place. The humble, therefore, are like locusts in this: that they are clean animals, in this that they leap from earthly things to heavenly desires, in this that not oppressed by fear of some superior, but prompted by knowledge of their own weakness, they proceed not as wanderers but joined to others.
The fourth species is the lizard, which is a lowly reptile, like a lizard. This is the humble person, who from a low estimation of himself sits in the lowest place, but shines with his virtues as with certain little stars. This one, therefore, although he can do little, although he knows nothing, has nevertheless learned this: to laugh at the world, to flee its honors and dignities, and to reckon the friendship and intimacy of God as the highest honor (as it truly is). To attain this he supports himself with his hands, and with the utmost efforts and desires strives to obtain this true honor, this true glory. It is clear from these things that humility is true wisdom, since it teaches how to gain heavenly riches, to reside in the safest dwelling, namely in the protection of God, to love fraternity, and to discern true honor from false. The humble are truly the least of the earth, because they do not wish to be great on earth, so that they may have greatness in heaven; but they are wiser than the wise, because they know that supreme point of virtue, and aspire to it, which the vainly wise ignore. Humility, finally, is not only the true, but the only wisdom, which He Himself (as we have already said) coming into the world taught His faithful, saying: "Come to me, and learn from Me because I am meek and humble of heart," Matthew 11:28.
Such a lizard was Paul the Simple, St. Francis, St. Bonaventure, and the like. For the lizard is simple and humble, but industrious and hardworking, who will precede the learned idle and vain person in heaven.
Finally, all these things belong above all to Christ alone: for Christ is the ant through His diligence, prudence, and providence, by which He looks after His faithful and the Church in all things profitable for salvation. He is the rabbit through His fruitfulness, by which He regenerates all nations through His blood in baptism, and places them in the lofty clefts of the rock, that is, in the sacred wounds of His passion, so that they may be safe and secure from every assault of enemies. He is the locust through the harmony and order by which He unites peoples contrary to one another in one Church as brothers in an orderly fashion, indeed He really unites and incorporates them to Himself in the Eucharist. He is the lizard through grace, by which He wins and subdues the hearts of all to Himself. Whence some think the lizard represents Christ as a little child in the Nativity: for as the lizard supports itself with its hands, so little children support themselves and crawl with their hands and feet; and as the lizard dwells in the courts of kings, so Christ dwells in the court of the Most Holy Trinity, as "the only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father," John 1; indeed, as man, raised by the merit of His humility and passion, He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God.
29, 30 and 31. Three things there are that walk well, and a fourth that proceeds prosperously: the lion, the mightiest of beasts, that cowers before the approach of none: the rooster, girded about its loins: and the ram, nor is there a king who can resist him.
THE LION, MIGHTIEST OF BEASTS, etc. — In Hebrew: the lion, strong or mighty among animals, and he does not turn back from the face of any; the Septuagint: the lion's cub, stronger than beasts, which does not turn away nor shrink from any beast; Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion: which does not shrink from the face of anyone; Vatablus: these three walk well, indeed four walk handsomely: the lion who is a hero among beasts, and does not flee from anyone's sight; the hunting dog, the ram, and king Alkum. So also Pagninus: Three things, he says, have the best gait, and four the best manner of walking: the lion, strong among animals, who does not turn back from the face of any; the greyhound girded about the loins, or the ram, and king Alkum with him; the Syriac: the lion's cub is neither put to flight nor turned back by anyone; the rooster that walks among the hens; the ram that walks first before the flocks, and the king who speaks among the peoples.
For "the rooster girded about its loins," the Hebrew is זרזיר zarzir motnaim, that is, the zarzir of the shoulders, meaning girded about the loins. By which some understand an animal that tightens, constricts, and as it were girds its loins, such as the bee and wasp; also the ant. Others understand an animal that has slender and therefore agile loins, such as the greyhound, or hunting and coursing dog, which is called zarzir, that is, tearer, from the root זרר bazer, that is, tore apart, rent, because by its strength it tears and rends the animals it hunts in order to devour them. But our Translator most rightly renders it "rooster": for this bird is preeminent among birds in its gait; for it walks erect, composedly, nobly, regally, as if with loins girded for the march, indeed for battle. Whence also the Chaldean renders it: and the rooster among the hens, girded; the Septuagint: and the rooster mounting the hens briskly; Aquila and Theodotion: and the rooster girded about the back; Symmachus: and the rooster girded about the loins.
For "ram" the Hebrew is תיש thais, that is, he-goat or ram: for each walks nobly and goes before and leads the flock, according to the saying: "The leader of the flock is the he-goat himself." Whence the Arabic: and the ram that goes before the flock. NOR IS THERE A KING (some wrongly read "a thing") WHO CAN RESIST HIM. — In Hebrew: and king alkum with him. Whence Vatablus and Pagninus take alkum as the proper name of a king illustrious in that time; indeed some think Solomon calls himself Alkum, because he surpassed all kings of all ages in wealth, strength, prosperity, and glory, so that no one could stand before him, that is, equal or resist him. Marinus in his Lexicon suspects that alkum is the name of a certain animal, so called from its bodily strength, against which no other animal dares to rise: which is also for this reason adorned with the name of king, and perhaps, he says, it is a description of a lion, but of another species different from others. Others render alkum as "elk," which is commonly called the great beast, whose hoof cures epilepsy. The rest take alkum as a common noun, compounded from al kum, that is, "not to stand" or "not to rise": whence they translate: and none to rise against him, that is, a strong king, against whom no one dares to rise. The Chaldean: the king who stands and speaks in the house of his people; the Septuagint: and the king who delivers an oration to the nation.
They read עמו ammo, that is, "in the nation" or "people": now they read עמו immo, that is, "with him"; the Arabic: and the king who leads peoples after him, or who espouses, that is, joins, peoples to himself. From this it is clear that the fourth thing that walks well is the king. Whence Lyranus, Dionysius, Clarius, Jansenius, and others think an error has crept into the Vulgate, and that the words should be rearranged thus: "And the king, nor is there anyone who resists him." But most old codices, and especially those corrected at Rome, consistently have: nor is there a king who resists him. Which words, to conform them to the Hebrew, Septuagint, Chaldean, and the other interpreters, are to be explained thus, namely: Nor is there a king, that is, one having anyone who resists him, that is, himself: for the king is the fourth that walks magnificently and regally above the other three, so that no one wishes or is able to resist him. Or, with Francisco Lucas in his notes here, the word "king" as an absolute case (in the way the Hebrews use their nouns) is put by antiptosis for the dative "to the king," namely: Nor is there for the king anyone who resists him, that is, nor is there anyone who resists the king: for the "him" is redundant in Hebrew; which is the same as if you said: and the king, nor is there anyone who resists him; or, as the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Septuagint have it: and the king, nor is there anyone who stands or rises before him, that is, against him. For otherwise it would be absurdly said of the ram or the rooster: "Nor is there a king who resists him"; for what king is so unwarlike that he cannot resist a ram or a rooster? Therefore this clause stands by itself, and assigns the fourth well-walking thing, namely the king, who for this reason is joined to the three other well-walking creatures, namely the lion, rooster, and ram, so that he may set before himself for imitation the outstanding qualities that are seen in those animals. Let us now trace the meanings and sense of these four. For this is the sixth riddle of those that walk well.
First, the Hebrews think that by these four things that walk prosperously are hieroglyphically signified the four monarchies and their prosperity and magnificence: namely, by the lion is denoted the monarchy of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, which Jeremiah compared to a lion, chapter 4:7, saying: "The lion has come up from his lair, and the plunderer of nations has raised himself." For Nebuchadnezzar, accumulating victories upon victories and nations upon nations, walked as a lion whom no one could resist. By the rooster, or, as the Hebrews translate, the hunting dog, they understand the monarchy of the Persians; for this began with Cyrus, who, as an infant exposed by his grandfather Astyages, is said to have been nursed by a dog, and devoted himself eagerly to hunting wild beasts with dogs, according to Xenophon: for hunting in Greek is called κύρα, whence Cyrus. By the ram or he-goat they understand the monarchy of the Greeks, because this began with Alexander the Great, whom Daniel, chapter 8:21, compares to a he-goat, saying: "Moreover the he-goat of the goats is the king of the Greeks." I assigned the reasons for this in that place. Finally, by "the king with whom none rises," as they translate from the Hebrew, they understand the empire of the Romans, who, after expelling Tarquin the Proud, the last king, administered the Republic through consuls and the senate with such prosperity that it ascended to the highest pinnacle of empire.
But these interpretations, although not unfittingly stated, nevertheless seem far-fetched: especially since in the time of Solomon, who wrote these things, the monarchy of the Chaldeans did not yet exist, much less those of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans; for he preceded all these ages. Indeed, at that time Rome did not yet exist: for it was founded under Jotham king of Judah, 228 years after Solomon.
Here belongs the exposition of Rabbi Solomon, who explains these five emblems or groups of four, which have been set forth from verse 15 to this point, in terms of the same four monarchies. Hear him: Allegorically, he says, these five parts, each consisting of groups of four, are explained in terms of the four kingdoms, because their rule was established against the Israelites on account of the same people's sins, by which they had violated the divine law contained in five books, and therefore five times mention was made of them. "Hell": the Babylonian kingdom is indicated by hell, according to what is said of Nebuchadnezzar: "Who enlarged his soul like hell," Habakkuk 2:7. "The mouth of the womb," the constriction of the womb, that is, the empire of the Medes, since during that tempest the Israelites could not bear offspring, as those words testify: "Couriers were sent by the king to kill and destroy all the Jews," Esther 3:13. "The earth that is not satisfied with water," that is, the kingdom of the Greeks, for which it was never enough to enact laws and decrees of destruction against the Israelites. "Fire," that is, the kingdom of Esau, which, inflamed with anger, produced conflagrations for the Israelite nation, so that on the same day it ordered women and their infants to be removed from their midst.
"The way of the eagle in the sky" — this is Babylon, a great eagle spreading its wings wide. "The way of the serpent" — this is the Mede. "The way of a ship in the midst of the sea" — these things pertain to the Greeks, who were the swiftest at making laws. "The way of a man in his youth" — these are the Persians or Romans, who declared that there would never be an end to their empire. "Such is the way of an adulterous woman" — this is the calamity whose author was the Israelite nation itself, which departing from God embraced the superstitious worship of idols, and as a result experienced these punishments falling upon itself; for it boasted: "I have bound myself with no crime"; to which in turn came the response from God: "Therefore you are subject to My judgment, because you affirm that you are free of crime."
"The earth is moved," that is, the Israelite land, "by a slave." This pertains to Nebuchadnezzar, who was the servant of Merodach-Baladan and served him as secretary. "By a fool when he has been satiated": this is Ahasuerus, who for a period of 180 days displayed royal feasts. "By a hateful woman": this is to be referred to the Greeks. "By a maidservant when she becomes heir to her mistress": this is to be referred to the posterity of Esau, whom it was right to serve Jacob, although the matter turned out otherwise. "The ants are a feeble people," that is, Zerubbabel, as those words testify: "Behold the land of the Chaldeans, such a people there was not," Isaiah 23:13. "It prepares its food in harvest" — he once gave divine honor to Nebuchadnezzar through the time of Merodach-Baladan, who writing letters to Hezekiah said: "Health to Hezekiah, health to the city of Jerusalem, health to the great God Nebuchadnezzar." Therefore the one who was his secretary was perhaps absent that day, and when he returned and became aware of what had been done, he said: "You call him the great God and write him last?" And so running after the messenger, he brought him back. Wherefore on account of such running he was elevated to the kingdom. He therefore prepared food for himself in the time of harvest, imitating the ant.
"The rabbit, a feeble nation": these are the Medes and Persians, who indeed placed their den on the rock, because they built the temple of Jerusalem. "The lizard with its hands": the Romans, the posterity of Esau, are indicated, according to the saying: "But the hands of Esau," Genesis 27. "It dwells in the buildings of the king": for the Romans, having entered the temple of Jerusalem, destroyed it to the ground. "The strong lion": this is Nebuchadnezzar, according to the saying: "The lion has come up from his lair," Jeremiah 4. "The rooster girded about the loins": these are the Medes and Persians, who conspiring together and girding their loins killed Belshazzar and snatched the kingdom from him. "The ram": these are the Greeks, who are called by such a name, according to the saying: "Moreover the he-goat of the goats is the king of the Greeks," Daniel 8:21. "Nor is there a king": these things pertain to the Persians, who said of themselves: "I am, and there is no other besides me," Isaiah 47:8 and 10; for no one dared to set his strength against them; as alkum signifies, "no one could resist him."
Thus far Rabbi Solomon, word for word. But these interpretations are partly foreign, partly false — as that by Esau and the Idumeans he means the Romans, as if Julius Caesar and the Romans were descended from the Idumeans, which is a great ignorance and calumny of history; partly uncertain and fabulous, as his claim that Merodach-Baladan was a servant of Nebuchadnezzar, when between the two more than a hundred years intervened; for Baladan reigned under Hezekiah king of Judah, but Nebuchadnezzar under Jehoiakim, who was the fifth king after Hezekiah.
Second, others think that by these four things walking prosperously, that is, well as far as human happiness goes, but wrongly and wickedly as regards future and divine happiness, are denoted four vices of kings: namely, by the lion is indicated royal pride, anger, and cruelty, according to the saying in chapter 20:2: "As the roaring of a lion, so is the terror of the king." By the rooster is denoted royal lust: for the rooster is a lustful animal. Whence the Septuagint translates: the rooster mounting the hens briskly; or, as Salazar says, the rooster denotes forgetfulness and failure of memory, which must be counted among the chief vices of kings. For nothing, he says, is more customary for princes and kings than to forget the services and merits of their subjects; for the proud manners of kings are such that they think everything is owed to them and believe themselves bound by no obligations: hence forgetfulness and failure of memory, which the rooster denotes. For they say that it is more forgetful than other animals; hence the common proverb among our people: "The memory of a rooster"; and the Physiognomists say that those whose heads with compressed temples resemble roosters have a very unstable memory. By the ram is suggested the imprudence, stubbornness, and stupidity of kings: for nothing is more stupid than a sheep and ram. Finally, their injustice and tyranny is meant when it says: "Nor is there anyone who resists him," that is, the king does everything at his pleasure, whatever pleases him is equally permitted, there is no one who opposes him.
Third, and genuinely: Just as Solomon from verse 11 onward set forth five emblems or groups of four — first, of four perverse generations; second, of four insatiable things; third, of four things difficult to know; fourth, of four intolerable things; fifth, of four smallest but wisest creatures, by which, as by physical symbols, he represents something ethical and moral — so also here he sets forth a sixth emblem of things that walk well, by which he physically signifies that these four, namely the lion, the rooster, the ram, and the king, walk well and prosperously, that is, honorably, composedly, gracefully, becomingly, firmly as well as prudently, readily, courageously, powerfully, effectively, and prosperously; so much so that nothing of the same or similar kind dares to equal, oppose, or resist any of them; for a good and prosperous gait in walking denotes both propriety and composure, both beauty and elegance, both foresight, both agility, both firmness, both strength and effectiveness, both success and prosperity of gait.
For the lion walks with erect neck, its mane nobly spread, waving its tail like a lance, with a magnificent stride like the king of beasts, so that the other animals cannot endure to look at it as it walks with steady eyes, but immediately scatter and hide in their lairs. The rooster likewise walks with head held high and crests erect; it fights with other roosters for love of glory, sings in victory, showing itself a prince; it rouses men from bed by its song and announces that daylight has come; it attends the hens with marital affection, defending them. The rooster is said to be "girded about the loins" because it is ready for marching and fighting, since through the strength of its loins it is prompt for battle and for procreation. Finally, the rooster in its yard dominates the hens and chicks, and suffers no rival, but alone in its yard and dunghill, as they commonly say, it rules. The ram likewise, being the largest in the whole flock, armed with horns, walks composedly and courageously, indeed goes before and leads the entire flock, so that all the sheep eagerly follow it as their prince, especially because they love its gentleness and clemency. The king, finally, in royal attire and bearing, crowned with scepter, purple, and diadem, walks regally attended by a splendid array and procession of courtiers, bodyguards, soldiers, caparisoned horses, gilded chariots, and carriages, so that no one dares to compare himself to him or oppose him. These are the physical meanings.
Under this physical figure, Solomon represents ethically and morally what a king ought to be and what his manner of walking and proceeding should be, when he compares him to the gait of the lion, the rooster, and the ram — namely, that the king should imitate the fortitude of the lion, so that no one can resist him; now by antithesis he adds that some foolish and stupid men, when they are elevated to a kingdom or other dignities, betray their stupidity by foolish speaking, acting, or commanding: wherefore they have foolishly accepted a kingdom or dignity, for which they knew themselves to be unfit and unsuitable because of their stupidity or imprudence, or inexperience and incompetence; for in governing they betrayed and made public their stupidity, previously hidden and unknown to others, by ruling foolishly; and therefore from their kingdom or dignity they brought upon themselves nothing but disgrace and infamy. king. Thus his progress in all things will be good and prosperous, as long as he displays in his words propriety, in his actions grace, in correcting gentleness, in punishing severity, in guarding watchfulness, in providing diligence, in commanding prudence, in governing equity.
Ethically, let each person in the republic and kingdom of his own soul walk forthrightly like the lion, wisely like the rooster, temperately like the ram, justly like the king. Here, then, are noted the four cardinal virtues, namely fortitude, prudence, temperance, and justice, by which, as by four wheels, the lives and courses of pious men proceed most excellently, hastening toward eternal happiness. In the lion, who doubts that fortitude is indicated, which easily despises all things of this world, whether prosperous or adverse, fearing nothing and not swerving from its established course whatever may happen, as this mortal life is subject to many inconveniences? The one girded about the loins, whatever animal it may be (our Translator takes it as the rooster), signifies continence, by which we restrain carnal affections, being all the more fit and able for the heavenly course the less we loosen the reins to the allurements of the flesh. In the ram or he-goat, which is the leader of the flock and seems in some way to govern the rest of the common herd, we can not unreasonably understand prudence; which virtue, since it rightly manages all things and takes account of the future, greatly assists the spiritual course. In the king, finally, with whom no one can contend, or against whom no one can rise, we embrace justice, the queen of all virtues; which weighs all things with such equity, such just measure and balance, that no one, however otherwise alien to virtue, can accuse or condemn justice. For since it renders to each what is his own, it deserves well of all and ill of none. Just as a king, whom no one can resist, who fears no one, who yields to no one's prayers or threats: so justice, when it is sincere and complete, does not allow itself to be bent by prayers, tears, promises, or terrors. So Baynus, Jansenius, and others. Now let us examine each point in particular and more minutely.
The four virtues here foreshadowed correspond to the four Cherubim that attend the chariot of God's providence and glory in Ezekiel 1, which have the face and appearance of four animals, namely the lion, the ox, the eagle, and the man, to which the same number of Solomon's animals here equally correspond: to the lion corresponds the lion, to the ox the ram, to the eagle the rooster, to the man the king; see what was said on Ezekiel 1, at the end of the chapter, Question 3. Seneca splendidly sums up the duties of a king in the Octavia in these few words: To take counsel for the fatherland, to spare the afflicted, To abstain from savage slaughter, to give time to anger, To give the world rest, and his own age peace.
THE LION, MIGHTIEST OF BEASTS, WILL COWER BEFORE THE APPROACH OF NONE.
Second, the lion does not cower before the approach of any bear, leopard, tiger, wolf, or other wild beast, but strikes fear and terror into them all: so the king, by his wisdom and strength, should make himself fearless and steadfast, so as to strike awe and dread into all. Whence Aben-Ezra explains the phrase "nor is there a king who resists him" thus, namely: The king walks with a prosperous step when no one rises to wage war, and affairs succeed happily, because adhering to the path of justice, he has no adversary or enemy, as Solomon had none in his kingdom — whom some think is indicated here by the name Alkum, as if by a riddle, as I have said.
Third, Aristotle, Book IX of the History of Animals, chapter 45: "The lion," he says, "when it is observed, never flees; but if forced to yield to a multitude of hunters, it retreats gradually and step by step, frequently stopping and looking back. But when it has reached cover, it withdraws with the swiftest flight possible, until it comes to open ground, and then again it walks slowly." So the king, if at some point pressed and overwhelmed by wars or adversities he is forced to yield, should do so honorably, steadfastly, and with dignity, lest an ignominious flight brand the royal majesty with the mark of timidity and pusillanimity, as Agapetus the Deacon advises Justinian: "For just as hunters sit still when a lion halts and looks back: so also when a prince acts steadfastly, the assaults of his opponents are broken."
Fourth, Aristotle, Book II of the History of Animals, chapter 1: "Lions," he says, "walk step by step, so that the left foot and paw does not pass the right, but follows it in the manner of camels": so the king should put left things after right things, that is, shameful things after honorable ones, improvident after prudent, doubtful after certain, transitory after eternal, human after divine; and should prefer the right, that is, the wiser and better men in governing, to the left, that is, the less good and less wise.
Fifth, St. Gregory Nazianzen in his poem On Human Virtue asserts that the lion sweeps away and obliterates the tracks of its feet with its tail, lest hunters be able to see them and pursue it: so the king should cover and conceal his plans, lest they be detected and overthrown by his adversaries. For secrecy is of the greatest importance in governance.
Sixth, Pliny, Book VIII, chapter 16, gives these praises of the lion's nobility: "Nobility is most revealed in danger: not only in the fact that it scorns weapons and long protects itself by terror alone, and protests as if being forced; and it rises up not as if compelled by danger, but as if angered by madness. That is the nobler sign of spirit: however great the force of dogs and hunters pressing upon it, it yields contemptuously and with resistance in the open fields, where it can be seen." So the king should be intrepid in dangers, and let his spirit be sharpened by them, so that he may sharpen others to courage as well; for "virtue grows when tossed by adversity" — virtue, that is, which is true and heroic. Elegantly and wisely R. Judah says in the Pirke Avoth, that is, in the Apophthegms of the Fathers: "You ought to be bold as a leopard, brisk and swift of foot as a deer; like the eagle, the royal and solar bird, penetrating all things by its bodily agility; finally, in the manner of the lion, vigorous and warlike, strong and magnanimous, to carry out the will of God and of your father."
There exists in our Jacobus Pontanus, volume III of the Progymnasmata, Part I, chapter 14, whose title is Leontarchia, or the Principality of the Lion among Beasts, a notable dissertation on this subject, and a contest between the lion and the elephant for primacy; in which all the other animals adjudge the case to the lion and worship him as their prince, whence finally the elephant does the same, confesses himself conquered by the lion, and voluntarily submits to him.
THE ROOSTER, GIRDED ABOUT ITS LOINS.
Again, the rooster exulting in its song struts proudly, strikes terror into the lion, the fiercest of all animals, by its mere appearance, exercises sovereignty in whatever house it occupies, and distinguishes the three-hour watches, as if knowledgeable of the stars, says Aldrovandus at the beginning of Book XIV of his Ornithology. Now let us arrange each of these points and many others in detail, and apply them to the king and the Prelate.
First, in the rooster there is a marvelous love toward the hens and chicks, a marvelous care for them, so that it fights for them even to the death: let the king have a similar care for his kingdom and subjects, so as to spend his life for them if need be. Hear Aldrovandus, Book XIV of his Ornithology: The rooster, he says, is the model of the best head of a household: for it not only presents itself as a watchful guardian of its own, and in the morning while there is time invites them to their daily labor; but it is the first to spring forth, showing by deed rather than by voice what is to be done; it sweeps everything, explores everything, inspects everything, and as soon as it has found some food, it calls the hens and chicks to feed; meanwhile it stands by like a certain father and presiding host, inviting them to feast, always having this one care: that his family may have something to eat. Meanwhile it inquires whether anything may be found nearby, and having found it, again summons its family with a loud voice. They come running at once. It carries itself loftily, looking around on all sides to see whether anything hostile appears anywhere, goes around the whole troop, and in passing sometimes takes one grain for itself, not without an invitation for its own to follow it. Moreover, the jealousy and love of the rooster toward the hens subject to it, says Rhodiginus, rouses the rooster so many times at night, and therefore it sings, to testify by its song that it is present: in like manner, let zeal and love for the kingdom make a worthy king and prince ever watchful.
Second, the rooster possesses a marvelous and, so to speak, prophetic genius, industry, and cleverness. Let the king imitate this. Hear Pliny, Book X, chapter 21: "Roosters," he says, "feel something close to glory, and these our watchmen of the night, which nature produced to rouse mortals to their work and break their sleep, know the stars and distinguish the three-hour watches during the day by their song. They go to bed with the sun, and at the fourth military watch recall men to their cares and labor. They do not allow the sunrise to steal upon the unwary, and announce the coming day with their song, and their song itself with the flapping of their sides. They rule over their own kind, and exercise sovereignty in whatever house they are. This too is produced by their fighting among themselves, as if they understand that the spurs on their legs are weapons born for this purpose."
Aelian also writes that roosters rejoice not only at the rising of the sun, but also at the rising of the moon, where he says: "They say that the rooster at the rising of the moon, as if inspired by a certain divine spirit, goes into a frenzy and leaps for joy. But the rising sun never deceives it: then, straining with the most powerful voice, it strives to outdo itself more and more by singing." So Aelian, Book IV, chapter 29. Hence that saying in Job 38:36: "Who gave the rooster understanding?" For the rooster's song wisely distinguishes day and night, just as if it were endowed with intellect.
Third, the magnanimity of the rooster is marvelous, especially in duel and combat: let the king put this on. Hear Aldrovandus in the passage cited: The rooster's greatest praise, he says, lies in a spirit more than regal, so much so that Oppian was not afraid to call it the most warlike of all birds: whose spirit is so exalted, whose constancy of soul is so great, that it would rather not merely undergo the dangers to its life — which to all animals is most dear — but even lose it, than endure another's rule and yoke even for a single moment of time. Themistocles knew this, our ancestors knew this, who by instituting annual and solemn fights of roosters with solemn rite, wished us to be perpetual imitators of roosters. They say indeed that not only the lion trembles at their song, but also the basilisk; whether this is true, as it matters little, so it is certain that no animal carries its crested head and erect, scythe-shaped tail with greater and loftier spirit, or enters a contest in which it frequently dies before it yields to its adversary. Wherefore it was rightly and deservedly held sacred to Mars, the god of wars and battles, and proverbially called ἄρεως νεοττός, that is, "the chick of Mars," as if greatly inclined to wars and battles.
Moreover, in combat roosters employ a marvelous art and gestures: for when they fight, by the guidance of nature they strike the ground, raise the feathers around their neck, and vibrate their tail feathers upward and downward as much as they can, meanwhile leaping up so as to strike the enemy all the more with their spurs, which they recognize as weapons born on their legs for this purpose, as Pliny testifies. From such a contest there is a common proverb: "The rooster leaps in" — said of one who, once defeated, renews the contest, which is indeed most fierce to behold in the rooster. Whence St. Augustine said: "When behold, before the doors we noticed roosters entering an exceedingly fierce fight." And a little later he describes the combat thus: "So that in the roosters themselves one could see heads thrust intently forward, combs inflated, vehement blows, the most cautious evasions, and in every movement of animals devoid of reason nothing ungraceful: for indeed another reason above was governing all things; finally the very law itself — for the victor, a proud song, and limbs gathered into a kind of circle, as if into the haughtiness of domination."
But most learnedly Angelo Poliziano embraced the same contest in these brief verses in his Rusticus: And they seek sovereignty for themselves by war; for they thrust Beaks against opposing beaks, and sharpen their rage with frequent assaults. They blaze with spirit, and kick heel against hostile heel, And dash breast against opposing body. The victor, exulting, attests his triumph with song, and Insulting the conquered enemy, treads on the cowering one with cruel foot: The vanquished is silent, seeks hiding places, and groans At bearing a proud master: the rest of the flock rightly attends its king.
Aelian, Book IV, chapter 29: "But if, he says, the palm falls to it, it immediately sings in victory, and proclaims itself prince, etc. It alone among birds looks up at the sky, frequently raising its scythe-shaped tail aloft." And Pliny: "If it has won a victory from the contest, then with the prominence of its eyes, its neck held erect, and the exertion of its song, it is insolently carried away and triumphs; it is remarkable." Wherefore Miltiades spurred the Athenians to battle against the Persians by presenting the spectacle of roosters dueling. "For, says Philo, having beheld in brute animals such patience and tenacious struggle, fighting to the death, they seized their arms with unconquered hearts and undertook that expedition, as if about to fight with great slaughter of the enemy, scorning death and wounds, so that at least they might lie unburied on the free soil of their fatherland. For nothing excites men to perform great deeds more than a victory of the inferior, greater than could have been hoped for."
Diogenes Laertius likewise reports that Socrates added courage to the general Iphicrates, when he showed him the roosters of the barber Midas fighting against those of Callias with feathers and beak. Here belongs the maxim of Pythagoras: "Nourish a rooster, but do not sacrifice it," that is, maintain soldiers for the protection of the city, but do not employ them in sacred matters.
Fourth, the rooster is a terror to the lion; indeed Pliny, Book XXIX, chapter 14, reports that those who have been anointed with the broth of a rooster are not touched by lions and panthers, especially if garlic is mixed with it. Again, the asp, the monkey, and the basilisk fear the rooster: so let the king be fearsome to evildoers.
Fifth, the rooster is a solar animal and has a marvelous sympathy with the sun: for it frequently greets and greets again the sun hastening to all corners of the world — at its rising, setting, and noon — with a most vocal cry and the clapping of its wings in the manner of one congratulating. Again, the rooster is a symbol of vigilance; whence it foretells rains and storms: it especially presages them when, shortly after sunset, or in the first hours of the night, right from the evening twilight, it breaks out unusually into a hoarse crowing, tirelessly and not without the motion of its wings. "Roosters," says Aelian, "and other domestic birds, clapping and crowing with the beating of their wings and making noise with a certain sound of their own, announce a storm." We have elsewhere assigned the reason for this, namely that the south wind, together with the moist air, gradually fills and stuffs the vocal organs with much phlegm: and roosters, sensing this movement, easily grow hoarse from this state of the sky and body. Moreover, to relieve themselves of this burdensome load by the help of voice and motion, they are stimulated to sing in an unusual way. Add, if you will, the dilation of the larynx through the moist state of the air, which tends to make the voice deeper and thus hoarse and clanging. So let the king sagaciously foresee and address coming dangers of famine, war, sedition, etc.
Sixth, the rooster has keen sight and a sharp keenness of eye. Proof of this is that with only one eye raised upward it always watches the rapacious birds, its most hostile enemies, lest they suddenly snatch some chick or hen or itself from the yard; while with the other it most diligently searches out every smallest thing even in places that are poorly lit. So let the king with one eye look toward heaven and God, lest anywhere he offend Him and lie open to the devil's plundering; with the other let him survey his kingdom, to provide for his subjects in all things: but so that the first eye governs the second, namely that the care of religion and the worship of God direct the care of earthly things. For right reason dictates that lower things must be governed by higher, earthly by heavenly, human by divine.
Seventh, the rooster is most excited and walks most pompously at the rising of the moon: for then, says Aelian, as if inspired by a certain divine spirit, it exults and rejoices; wherefore it seems to be governed by the moon, and to subject and conform itself to it in all things: whence according to the moon's motion and phases it repeats and renews its song. So let the king accommodate himself to human changeability, whose symbol is the moon, and as it were submit himself to it, so that according to the change of affairs and times, he may alter his plans, edicts, actions, and pursuits, and adapt them accordingly.
Eighth, St. Augustine, Book I of On Order, reports that roosters do not rush into battle except to protect the hens subject to them and the yard entrusted to them. Roosters therefore teach the king not to wage war to invade what belongs to others, but to recover or defend what is his own from others who have invaded it. Whence Varro reports that the more noble roosters do not initiate a fight, nor attack the enemy first, but bravely resist those who attack them.
AND THE RAM.
Let us here add other qualities of the ram for the king to imitate. First, Plutarch, Book II of the Table Talk, Question 7, reports that a raging elephant, upon seeing a ram, is released from its madness and becomes tame. Aelian adds that the elephant shudders at the ram's horns, and that for this reason the Romans put to flight the elephants of Pyrrhus, king of the Epirotes, by placing rams in their path. Aldrovandus teaches the same at greater length in his work on the Elephant: so the king calms the anger and tumults of his subjects by his gentleness and the cheerfulness of his countenance. In this let him imitate God; for, as St. Bernard says, "The tranquil God tranquilizes all things, and to behold one who is calm is to become calm."
Second, Albertus Magnus writes that if the horns of a ram are buried at the root of a fig tree, the fruit on it ripens more quickly. And Antonius Mizaldus commands that a fig tree, lest it lose its fruit, be buried around the roots with the horns of a ram, according to Aldrovandus in his treatise On the Sheep: so a good king, by his fortitude mixed with clemency, makes his subjects fruitful and enriches them.
Third, well known is the antipathy, hatred, and war of the ram with the wolf, which lasts even after death, especially in the skin, wool, and strings. Whence Pythagoras is the authority that if the skin of a ram is placed next to that of a wolf, the wool of the ram's skin will fall off; strings made from the sinews of rams mixed with strings from the sinews of wolves produce no sound. Oppian writes that if you make a drum from wolf skin, when struck among others it alone will resound while the ram-skin ones and all others that were previously sonorous fall silent. Albert writes, Book I of the History of Animals, chapter 38, that if you bury a cord made from the intestine of a wolf in the ground, you will prevent sheep from crossing that spot, even if driven with a stick. Well known is the saying of Alciato: All others fall silent, and the sheepskin will be mute, If drums made of wolf skin sound. Let the king imitate this antipathy with heretics, whom Christ compares to ravening wolves, and similar plagues of the commonwealth, so as to pursue and exterminate them everywhere.
[continued from previous page] alone will resound while the ram-skin ones and all others that were previously sonorous fall silent. Albert writes, Book I of the History of Animals, chapter 38, that if you bury a cord made from the intestine of a wolf in the ground, you will prevent sheep from crossing that spot, even if driven with a stick.
Fourth, the Egyptians attributed the horns of a ram to Jupiter Ammon. Whence in imitation of him the ancient pagans carved the same horns on their tombs: for the Egyptians wondrously venerated Ammon as a health-giving god of salvation. Indeed the ancients, covered with the skin of a ram and sleeping on it, would seek oracles from dreams, as Aldrovandus teaches from Pausanias and Virgil in his work On the Sheep: for the ram is a symbol of divine mercy, gentleness, benevolence, and beneficence. Let the king imitate this.
Fifth, the ram was a symbol of heroes. Ammianus celebrates the ensign of King Sapor, fashioned from a golden figure of a ram's head. This ensign of the military, and as it were of a certain brotherhood of his own, was adopted in the most recent memory (says Pierius Valerianus, Hieroglyphics 10, chapter 26) by Charles, the most valiant Duke of Burgundy, grandfather of Emperor Charles V, who placed a golden ram's head on each member as a badge, and called the brotherhood by the name of the ram's head: they commonly called it the Order of the Golden Fleece (l'ordine del Tosone), because that expression designated a ram's head in the native tongue. One can find a coin of the Emperor Gallienus, on which a ram is seen expressed with the added inscription "Jovi cons. Aug." Sebastian Eritius depicts another coin of Antinous, a large Greek bronze piece made by a certain excellent sculptor, with letters of this kind: ΑΝΤΙΝΟΟΣ ΗΡΩΣ, that is, "Antinous the Hero": it shows on the other side a ram most beautifully expressed with certain letters that, however, being eroded by the ravages of time, cannot be read. This coin, he says, was struck by the Greeks in honor and memory after the death of Antinous, and perhaps to flatter the Emperor Hadrian, for whom he was a favorite, who everywhere in the world erected statues to him. Let the king emulate these heroes, so that he himself may be the ram of rams and the hero of heroes, that is, the leader and chief of heroes for generously undertaking every heroic deed.
Sixth, the sheep and the ram are a symbol of patience and martyrdom, since they harm no one and tolerate those who harm them, according to the words of the Christian poet: This will be the one aim: to benefit all, to harm None, and to love the good, and to tolerate the wicked. Likewise this other saying: To help all, and to harm none, Is the supreme rule of the Christian life. Just as Cicero also "says that a good man is one who benefits all and harms none, unless provoked by injury." Elsewhere is added, from Claudian to Hadrian, "a mind ignorant of harming." Finally the same author depicts a sheep, or lamb, which a wolf holds seized in its jaws, with the words: It becomes sweeter: While the just one is oppressed, the victim becomes more pleasing to heaven; So too does the lamb become sweeter by the wolf's bite.
Hence St. Augustine calls the Apostles the rams of the Lord's flock, who went before it on the way to heaven through the sacrifice of martyrdom. Let the king and every Prelate imitate their patience, fortitude, and zeal. For what I have said about the king, with only the name changed, apply to any prince, Bishop, Prelate, Pastor, rector, indeed to any private person.
Allegorically, these four most excellently befit Christ, who is the lion of the tribe of Judah, the King of kings and Lord of lords, whom therefore no one can resist; who as a watchful rooster keeps vigil and rouses sinners to awake from the sleep of sin, crying out: "Rise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead." He is also signified by that ram which was caught by its horns among the thorns, and was sacrificed for Isaac, that is, for the faithful and the elect, Genesis 22. He finally is the ram, indeed the shepherd who goes before the sheep and lays down His life for them, John chapter 10. So St. Augustine, Book XII Against Faustus, chapter 42, who reads and explains this maxim thus: "The lion's cub, stronger than beasts of burden, that is, the little one stronger than the great; did He not ascend, reclining on the cross, when with bowed head He gave up His spirit? Did He not sleep as a lion? Because in death itself He was not conquered, but conquered; and as a lion's cub? For He died from that from which He was also born," that is, Christ dying is called a lion's cub because from the beginning He was born for death and destined for death.
So also the Author of the Greek Catena attributes these four to Christ.
Thus St. Ephrem, in the Encomium of St. Basil, compares him to a ram: "I once saw a ram," he says, "which had a beautiful fleece, and horns endowed with reason, speaking divinely, to which I, approaching more closely with great anxiety, gradually took a small thread from it. This wise and faithful one is Basil. For Basil was truly the course of virtues, the book of praises, the life of miracles; who walking in the flesh proceeded in the spirit; a beryl (a gem consisting of beryl), the plectrum of the mystical lyre, delighting the region of the holy Angels, the certain lamb of his mother, illuminating the field and the sacrifice of the Holy Spirit, leaping with desire and love, and plucking the flower from the deepest root of the most precious cross; the manger of sacred doctrines, the tongue of words, the beautiful parchment of divine wisdom, which received from heaven the divine impressions of the elements."
Tropologically, St. Gregory (whom Bede and Salonius follow in their usual manner), Book XXX of the Morals, chapter 3, or according to another edition chapter 5, understands by the lion Christ, by the rooster the doctors and preachers, by the ram the priests: "He Himself," he says, "is set forth here as the lion, of whom it is written: The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, who is the mightiest of beasts, because in Him that which is the weakness of God is stronger than men; who cowers before the approach of none. For He says: The prince of this world comes, and in Me he has nothing. The rooster girded about the loins, that is, the holy preachers announcing the true morning amid the darkness of this night. Who are girded about the loins, because they restrain the flux of luxury from their members: for in the loins is lust. Whence also the Lord says to them: Let your loins be girded. And the ram, nor is there a king who resists him. Whom else do we understand by the ram in this place, but the first order of priests within the Church? Of whom it is written: Bring to the Lord the sons of rams; who by their examples draw the people walking behind them, like a flock of sheep following. No king suffices to resist at all those who live spiritually and rightly, because no persecutor is able to impede their intention; for they know both how to run anxiously toward Him whom they desire, and to arrive by dying. Therefore the lion is placed first, the rooster second, the ram third. For Christ appeared, then the holy preachers, the Apostles, and then finally the spiritual fathers placed over the Churches, namely from among the sheep of the flocks, because they are the teachers of the following groups."
He then adds that the fourth, which walks prosperously, that is, successfully as far as temporal things are concerned, but not well, indeed most wretchedly, as regards spiritual things, is the fool elevated on high, namely the Antichrist, of whom in the following verse. But all the rest more correctly think that the fourth, walking well and prosperously (for these are one and the same thing; for in Hebrew there is the same word מטיבי metibe for both), is the king, as I have said.
32. There is he who appeared foolish after he was elevated on high; for if he had understood, he would have placed his hand upon his mouth.
But "there is" is the correct reading, as the Vatican codices and the rest of the corrected manuscripts read. In Hebrew it is: if you have acted foolishly in exalting yourself, and if you have devised, put your hand to your mouth, that is, place it and be silent: where the first אם im, that is "if," in Hebrew idiom is negating, meaning "do not." Whence the Chaldean translates: do not exalt yourself, do not be foolish, or: do not, being raised on high, act freely and foolishly, or speak, as fools are wont to do; which our Translator clearly renders: there is he who appeared foolish after he was elevated on high. The Hebrew נבל nabal means to become foolish, also to fall, flow away, and wither; and it is said of herbs and flowers, so that it agrees in meaning, as in letters and sound, with נפל naphal, that is, to fall, to sink. Whence Pagninus translates: if you fell when you were exalting yourself; if you have devised, put your hand to your mouth; others: You were silent after you were exalted, etc. The Septuagint: if you poured yourself out, or lavished yourself in joy, and extended your hand with a fist, you will be dishonored; R. David translates thus: if you fell, or became foolish, it was in exalting yourself: if you were wise, it was because you placed your hand upon your mouth. The speech of Agur is directed to his disciples Ithiel and Uchal, says Aben-Ezra, as is clear from what was said at verse 1. But under these take any reader or listener, namely: If you have incurred the reputation and mark of folly, the cause was your pride, because you exalted and advertised yourself above others: for folly and infamy alike are the companions of pride; but if you have acquired the name and honor of wisdom, the cause was your modesty, humility, and silence, by which you placed your hand upon your mouth, lest you babble anything foolish: "For if the fool is silent, he will be considered wise," as Solomon says, Proverbs 17:28.
Again the same R. David explains it thus, namely: If you have fallen from your station, rank, and honor, and have been cast down into the lowest vileness and poverty, do not despair; but think and act wisely, so as to place your hand upon your mouth, that is, so that you may labor with your hands, and by this labor provide yourself food to put into your mouth.
Second, Vatablus translates: if you have done anything foolishly by exalting yourself, or if you have devised anything wicked in your mind (for this is זמות zamotha), put your hand upon your mouth, that is, at least restrain your mouth immediately, lest the wickedness break forth and create danger to your life, or your wealth and reputation. R. Levi agrees: If you are wise, he says, put your hand upon your mouth, that is, keep silent and conceal the secret entrusted to you with mouth closed; for many have destroyed themselves and others by revealing a secret. Or put your hand upon your mouth, that is, silently and wisely consider by what means you may amend, correct, and restore what you foolishly did or said.
Third, the Syriac translates: do not indulge in desires (as fools do), lest you be loaded with reproaches, nor unjustly place your hand to your mouth, so as to revile, calumniate, or falsely accuse someone, and to join to your mouth, that is, to harsh words, even harsher blows. Further interpretations of the Hebrews can be read in R. Solomon and Aben-Ezra, which, since they seem scarcely probable or apt, I deliberately omit.
Fourth, Cajetan renders it: you were silent when you were exalted, and if you considered, put your hand to your mouth, as if it were an oracle about the future, which he explains in his own manner thus: It is an apostrophe, he says, to the Roman Republic: with a fist, you will be dishonored. By which some think he is predicting the future, that precisely when it had been raised to its greatest height, it would fall the more basely cast down and relapse into its ancient subjection to kings, when the Caesars would seize power and usurp perpetual dictatorship for themselves. And this is what it means: If you considered your hand to your mouth: for the hand to the mouth is the execution of the mouth's command, by which words the office of dictator is indicated, whose authority over the Republic was so great that whatever he said was immediately carried out, namely: It will come to pass some day that, with the Roman Republic and Senate falling, all hands will be directed to the mouth of one, that is, to the command of Caesar; or that their hands, that is, their armies, will be directed to the mouth and knowledge of one Emperor. But this version and interpretation is novel, far-fetched, and forced.
But you will more easily draw the Septuagint version to the Vulgate and accommodate it to it. For it is a single one-part maxim, not two-part; otherwise the word "if" would be repeated. The sense, therefore, is as follows: If, O prince, having been raised on high, you have poured yourself out in the manner of fools, jesting lightly with your subjects, mocking them, teasing them, beating them, and as it were fighting playfully, you will be dishonored: that is, if you have petulantly vexed your subjects with words or blows, they will dishonor and despise you, and will repay you in kind, and similarly assail you with words and blows. This is the same sense as the Vulgate. Whence follows:
Fifth, others more plausibly explain it thus, namely: If perchance, being a fool and ignorant of affairs, you have been raised to dignities or governance, do not suddenly rush into new things, new edicts, and new undertakings; but deliberate maturely by placing your hand upon your mouth, that is, by being silent and deliberating with yourself what needs to be done; for from mature deliberation follows mature execution and governance. But all these interpretations depart far from the Vulgate version.
Sixth, therefore, according to the Vulgate the plain and genuine sense is this. Solomon had said in the preceding verse that a wise king is like a lion, a rooster, and a ram, so that no one can resist him; now by antithesis he adds that some foolish and stupid men, when they are elevated to a kingdom or other dignities, betray their folly by speaking, acting, or commanding foolishly: wherefore they have foolishly accepted a kingdom or dignity, for which they knew themselves to be unfit and unsuitable because of their folly or imprudence, or inexperience and incompetence; for in governing they have betrayed and made public their folly, previously hidden and unknown to others, by ruling foolishly; and therefore from their kingdom or dignity they have brought upon themselves nothing but disgrace and infamy. "For if he had understood," that is, if he had been intelligent and wise, "he would have placed his hand upon his mouth," that is, he would not have consented to, nor accepted, the kingdom or dignity to which he was being elected or called, as being conscious of his own ineptitude and folly. Again, having accepted the kingdom, he would have been silent, that is, he would have proceeded silently, quietly, and modestly, lest by rashly and foolishly acting, speaking, or commanding, he should betray his folly.
In sum, this maxim indicates that the garrulousness and biting wittiness of an imprudent person brings much harm both to the speaker himself and to his hearers, inasmuch as it stirs them to anger, quarrels, brawls, and bloodshed, as the following verse explains. That the following verse belongs here is clear from the Hebrew, which instead of "moreover," has "for," as if it gives the reason for this saying and verse.
Moreover the Septuagint departs in another direction; for they translate: if you have poured yourself out in joy and extended your hands with a fist, you will be dishonored.
Solomon warns kings not to be either too indulgent, or too severe and rigid; but between the two to temper affability with gravity toward their subjects, namely: If, O prince, you have poured yourself out in merriment, so that you have been too festive and familiar with your subjects, you will be dishonored by them, because they will abuse your leniency and treat you as equals treat an equal, not as subjects treat a king; but if on the other hand you have extended your hands with a fist, that is, if you have dealt severely and combatively with them, using force and violence against them, hurling threats, declaring fights, you will similarly be dishonored. For subjects, in order to defend themselves and repel force and injury, do not fear to attack, violate, and harm their princes. To this interpretation they also draw the Vulgate version, supplying much that is missing.
33. But he who presses the udders hard to draw out milk, produces butter; and he who blows his nose violently, draws out blood; and he who provokes anger, produces discord.
From this it is clear, first, that Bede, Lyranus, Hugh, and others less correctly refer both preceding half-verses to the udders, namely: "He who presses the udders hard, produces butter; and he who blows them violently, draws out blood." For it is evident from the Hebrew and the Septuagint that the first pressing refers to the udders, and the second to the nostrils; for whoever blows mucus from the nose too much, finally instead of mucus produces blood. Also wrongly Baynus reads "skin bag" instead of "udders," on the ground that butter is not milked from udders, but is produced from milk beaten in a skin bag. For all Latin codices have "udders." For from udders, butter is milked together with milk; for butter is mixed with milk, and is as it were its fat and richness, which in a wooden churn is separated from the milk by frequent shaking, thickened, and becomes butter. Finally, Lyranus wrongly understands "fat" by "butter," namely: He who milks and presses the udders too hard, finally when the milk runs out, squeezes out the very fat and richness of the udders; for although this is true and apt, nevertheless butter does not mean fat.
Now first, Cajetan understands by the pressing and blowing the dictatorship, of which he also explained the preceding verse, which was the ruin of Roman liberty, when Julius Caesar usurped for himself the perpetual dictatorship, that is, the dominion of the city and the world. For the word "because," he says, gives the reason for the preceding verse. The reason indeed why Rome both lost value and fell from liberty was the dictatorship; and since the dictatorship sometimes produced good effects and sometimes bad, therefore one and the same action is brought forward as sometimes producing good and sometimes evil: for the pressing of milk is found to produce something good, namely butter, since from pressed milk butter results; again, pressing is found to be the producer of evil: for the pressing of the nose produces blood. And hence in the third place he applies this to his point by saying that the pressing of furies produces strife. For literally the pressing of the furies of Caesar and Pompey produced a quarrel that had to be settled by war, with the loss of Roman liberty. But this explanation, as I said on the preceding verse, seems forced and far-fetched.
Second, others understand this pressing and blowing of a man upon himself, namely: He who presses the udders too hard to draw out milk, produces butter, that is, he who too vehemently drives and goads his own genius, disposition, and nature, whether toward learning and study, or toward fasting, penances, vigils, etc., or toward anything else by forcing his constitution, this one produces butter, that is, he sucks out every vigor, strength, and power of nature, so that from vigorous it becomes exhausted, from cheerful gloomy, from benign irritable and contentious. But this meaning seems rather foreign to Solomon's purpose.
Third, others more aptly refer the pressing of milk to those who are of an easy and benign nature; and the blowing of the nostrils to those who are of a harsh and choleric disposition, namely: Just as he who presses the udders too hard, along with the milk squeezes out butter, that is, all the richness and fat: so he who presses the benign and gentle too much, and drives or rebukes them too harshly, squeezes out all their strength, spirit, and vigor, and causes them to become fainthearted and despair. But he who drives and reproves the harsh and choleric too much, draws out blood, that is, provokes their anger and ferocity.
Fourth, others refer milk to friends and blood to enemies, namely: Just as he who presses and shakes milk too much produces butter: so he who is importunate and drives his friends with excessive requests or complaints, squeezes out all favor from them, so that he becomes hateful and detested by them; but he who more sharply pursues and reproves his enemies, stirs up their anger and fury against himself.
Fifth, Jansenius refers both milk and butter, as well as nostrils and blood, to the same thing, namely to anger and contention. The Sage speaks, he says, of a twofold vehement pressing, one of milk from the udders, the other of mucus from the nostrils. And to these he compares a third, because the pressing out of anger produces discord, namely: Just as by the pressing of milk butter is simultaneously produced, and just as by the blowing of the nostrils, if it is forceful, blood is often produced as well: so if anyone does not restrain his thoughts and conceived wrath, but through his folly milks it out and expresses it in angry and threatening words, always wishing to pursue his right; or rather, he who by importunate words provokes the anger of others will simultaneously produce and stir up discord and contention against others. This parable therefore warns that anger must be suppressed and the hand placed upon the mouth when one is agitated by evil or proud thoughts. The Hebraists also tend this way, who understand the milk not in the udder, but shaken in a skin to produce butter, namely: Just as liquid and soft milk, long and vigorously shaken in a skin, finally hardens and thickens into butter: so also the gentle and benign, if they are more vehemently harassed by a superior or anyone else, rebuked or beaten, harden, become indignant, and are exasperated. This exposition corresponds very well to the Hebrew.
Sixth, our Salazar refers both milk and blood to excessively harsh reproof, and to the excessive exaction of taxes and tributes, namely: Just as he who presses the same udders more vehemently, once the milk is exhausted, forces out blood: so also a prince who restrains his subjects with excessive severity and presses them with more laws than is sufficient, does not persuade them to good morals and a just manner of living, but stirs up their anger and fury against himself, and sharpens their impatient spirits to think of wars and seditions. In like manner this maxim warns that tributes must be exacted from subjects very sparingly; subjects are to be milked like udders, not blown dry and exhausted: for when they see themselves being drained, they think of seditions.
Here belongs the response of Alexander the Great as reported by Plutarch in the Apophthegms, who when someone suggested to him that he should impose greater taxes on his people said: "I hate the gardener who tears up vegetables by the root." And that of the Emperor Tiberius as reported by Maximus, sermon 13: "It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear the flock, not to flay it." So he says, in his usual elegant and ingenious manner: except that it is not quite apt to understand by the expression of butter the expression of fat, that is, of fortunes from subjects: for butter and fat are different things.
Again, the good of milk and its outstanding fruit is that when churned it produces butter. For butter is the flower, juice, and richness of milk: wherefore butter is a symbol and omen not of a bad thing, but of a good thing and name.
Seventh, therefore, plainly and genuinely, milk pertains to the virtue of modesty and gentleness, blood to the vice of pride and harshness. For the Hebrew כי ki, that is, "because," indicates that here the reason is given for what I said in the preceding verse, namely that the fool elevated on high betrays his folly by speaking, acting, and commanding foolishly and proudly. Whence Solomon does not apply the first parable of milk and butter, but leaves it, as obvious and easy, for the reader to apply; but the second, of the nose and blood, he does apply, because it serves his purpose, namely to prove the folly of the elevated fool. The sense therefore is: Just as he who, pulling strongly at the udders, milks out milk, and from it, vigorously churning, produces butter: so he who speaks modestly, sweetly, and gently, and firmly and steadfastly adheres to this gentle manner of speaking, especially if he is a king and prince, when he commands or requests something of greater weight, wins over his hearers and subjects, and feeds and refreshes them as with mild and sweet butter, and in turn from them draws out and obtains butter, that is, richness, favor, sweetness, love, services, and tributes.
On the other hand, just as he who blows his nose more harshly, once the dirt and mucus have been expelled, draws forth blood — for when nature has no more phlegm to supply to the one blowing, being exhausted it supplies the one pressing with the blood that remains: so likewise he who utters foul, that is, proud, angry, threatening, insulting words, begets contentions, quarrels, and brawls; and especially a king and prince who vexes and goads the people with harsh commands, burdens, threats, and punishments stirs them to rebellion, sedition, and bloodshed, so that the indignant populace finally rages against the prince's own household, and ravages and devastates everything with blood and fire.
This maxim therefore warns kings, and any others whatsoever, to win the good will of their subjects, household members, and all others by commanding, acting, and speaking modestly, gently, and mildly; and to avoid their ill will, inasmuch as it brings dissension, strife, and utter ruin to both sides. Wherefore a king, and anyone else who is hard and cruel toward subjects and others, is foolish and senseless; but he who is affable and benign toward them, is wise both for himself and for the whole people.
That this is the meaning is clear, first, from the Septuagint when they translate: milk the milk, and there will be butter: but if you squeeze the nostrils, blood will come out. Which words sufficiently indicate that milk and butter refer to one thing, namely to the modesty and sweetness of words, and the nostrils and blood to another, namely to the harshness and cruelty of speaking, acting, and commanding. Therefore the same thing is said here as in chapter 15:1: "A soft answer breaks anger, a harsh word stirs up fury."
Second, the same is clear from the Hebrew, where in the third member, namely in the application of the parable, אפים appaim, that is, "angers," corresponds both in name and in meaning to אף aph, that is, "nose," from which blood is drawn, of which the second member spoke: but it clearly differs from חמאה chema, that is, "butter," which was named in the first member.
Third, because St. Gregory the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen, Bede, the Author of the Greek Catena, the Gloss, Jansenius, Baynus, and others distinguish and contrast these things in the same way. Wherefore St. Gregory, adhering to this exposition in Book II of the Morals, chapter 1, mystically explains it thus: "He who presses the udders hard to draw out milk, produces butter, etc. For we press the udders hard when we weigh the words of Sacred Scripture with subtle understanding; and by this pressing, while we seek milk, we find butter, because while we seek to be nourished even by a light understanding, we are anointed by the abundance of inner richness; yet this must not be done excessively or always, lest while milk is sought from the udders, blood should follow. For often when some words of Sacred Scripture are examined more than they should be, people fall into a carnal understanding. For he draws out blood who blows too violently, because what is felt from an excessive probing of the spirit becomes carnal." Here belongs the saying of St. Gregory Nazianzen, oration 1: "Milk the milk," he says, "and there will be butter, that is, search diligently, and perhaps in these things you will find something richer."
Moreover, this maxim is general, and therefore can be applied in various ways: to teachers who are harsh with their students and punish their mistakes with bloody blows; to confessors who constrain penitents with excessive penances and precepts; to superiors who strangle their subjects with excessive rules, reproofs, and excessively rigid discipline, to whom the saying applies: "If you squeeze too hard, it bursts forth"; for these drive their subjects either to despair or to fury and rebellion, and are the cause or occasion of many sins, such as murmuring, backbiting, disobedience, conspiracies, etc. To officers who are too harsh with soldiers; to tax collectors who exact and drain excessive taxes; to magistrates who rage against citizens, etc. Whence Dionysius says: "By these things, he says, we are taught that we must not ask anything from another too importunately, nor disturb one who is of good will too immoderately, or reprove too harshly, lest he be exasperated and deny everything that was asked, and thus the bowels of piety, which we express by the name of butter, be torn from him, and he lose the life of the soul (which is the grace of God)."
Hence Seneca says: Ask nothing that you would refuse; refuse nothing that you would ask. And also: Patience too often injured becomes fury. And: A good spirit injured anew is angered far more grievously.
Whence St. Gregory, in his letter to Augustine, Bishop of the English, as found in distinction IV, final chapter, prescribing for ecclesiastics that they should begin the fast of Lent from Quinquagesima Sunday, makes an exception for laypeople and seculars, who on that Sunday and the two following days are accustomed to celebrate Carnival and gorge themselves on wine and meat: "Nor can they be turned from such a custom, he says, and therefore they must be left with indulgence to their own inclinations, lest perchance they become worse if they are prohibited from such a custom; for as Solomon says: He who blows too much draws out blood." So says St. Gregory.
Finally, examples of this maxim are found in Julius Caesar, who, squeezing the Senate with excessive arrogance, not even rising for the senators who saluted him; and claiming for himself perpetual dictatorship, the name of Emperor, the surname of Father of the Fatherland, royal power, a statue among the kings, a platform in the orchestra, indeed a golden seat in the Senate House, temples, altars, images, a couch for sacred feasts, a priest, etc., drew upon himself the wrath and envy of all, with the result that sixty senators conspiring to murder him, he was stabbed with 23 wounds in the Senate and slain as a tyrant and oppressor of the fatherland, as Suetonius narrates at length in his Life, chapters 76 and following.
And in Gaius Caligula, who, since he raged against all, indulging his lust, plundering, extorting, and slaughtering at will, when warned by his grandmother Antonia to act more moderately, as if it were a small thing not to obey, said: "Remember that all things are permitted to me and against all; let them hate, provided they fear." Enraged at the crowd that opposed him, he exclaimed: "Would that the Roman people had a single neck," so that he might cut it off with one blow. Smiling at Cassius Chaerea, a tribune and member of his household, and asked the reason, he said: "I laugh because your head is in my hand, so that I may take it from you at will"; wherefore, forestalled by that same man, he was struck with a sword and slain.
And in Nero, who, proscribing, plundering, and killing senators, was judged by them an enemy of the fatherland, and fleeing lest he be seized by his pursuers, was forced to kill himself by driving a dagger into his own breast. So Suetonius in his lives of Caligula and Nero. Daily examples anyone can see and note in provinces, cities, and congregations over which preside men who are imprudent, proud, inhuman, avaricious, rigid, and cruel, who by their harshness provoke upon themselves the anger and seditions of their subjects. Well known is the history of Rehoboam, who, threatening to drain the people with taxes and burdens, permanently turned ten tribes away from himself and the house of David, and lost the kingdom of Israel, 3 Kings 12.