Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
On the occasion of the unjust judgments and judges which he treated in chapter 3, verse 16, he passes to a certain neighboring, universal, and notable vanity and affliction of the world, namely calumny, that is, lying, violence, and fraud, which rages everywhere. For we see everywhere the poor and weak unjustly harassed and oppressed by the rich and powerful. Then in verse 2 he passes to the related topic of envy, and in verse 5 to sloth; then in verse 7 to the avarice of one who, lacking an heir, labors continually not for himself but for an uncertain successor, on which occasion in verse 9 he weaves in the disadvantages of solitude and the advantages of companionship; then in verse 13 he sets forth the vanity of kings and queens. Finally in verse 17 he prefers the obedience of fools to their sacrifices.
Hence it is clear that the arguments of this chapter are various and not connected among themselves: for he passes from one vanity to another disparate and different one, just as the same author in Proverbs, and Sirach in Ecclesiasticus, treat various disparate matters in the same chapter without connection or order.
If, however, someone wishes these to be entirely connected and reduced to one scope, let him say with Lyranus, Pineda, and others that Solomon, just as in chapter 1 he showed the vanity of sciences acquired by human industry, and in chapter 2 of delights, and in chapter 3 of longevity or the desire for a long and enduring life, so in this chapter he demonstrates the vanity of ruling and dominating, which consists in the greed and pursuit of goods and the lust for power; for he demonstrates the vanity of this by six arguments: first, that it begets tyrannies, namely the calumnies and oppressions of the poor, verse 1; second, that it begets envy, verse 4; third, that it begets sloth and avarice, to scrape together riches by fair means or foul, by which to excel others, verses 4 and following; fourth, that it begets a leonine solitude, by which one proudly despises friends and wishes to stand above all others alone, verses 7 and 8; fifth, that from this pride arises folly, verses 9 and following; sixth, from the brevity and instability of a reign, since often a king is cast down from his kingdom and a pauper is raised to the throne, verse 14. Whence he leaves to be concluded that in so great a vanity of reigning there is no tranquility of mind, nor happiness. Wherefore in verse 17 he concludes that nothing is better than piety and the worship of God: for in this consists truth and stability, and true and stable happiness.
1. I turned to other things, and I saw the calumnies that are done under the sun, and the tears of the innocent, and no one to console them: nor could they resist the violence of those by whose aid they were deprived of all help. 2. And I praised the dead more than the living: 3. and I judged him happier than both who has not yet been born, nor has seen the evils that are done under the sun. 4. Again I contemplated all
Vulgate Text: Ecclesiastes 4:1-17
1. I TURNED TO OTHER THINGS, AND I SAW THE CALUMNIES (Syriac: oppressions) THAT ARE DONE UNDER THE SUN, AND THE TEARS OF THE INNOCENT, AND NO ONE TO COMFORT THEM: NOR COULD THEY RESIST THEIR VIOLENCE, BEING DESTITUTE OF ALL HELP. 2. And I praised the dead more than the living: 3. and I judged him happier than both, who has not yet been born, nor seen the evils that are done under the sun. 4. Again I contemplated all the labors of men, and I observed that skills are exposed to the envy of one's neighbor: and in this therefore is vanity and superfluous care. 5. The fool folds his hands together and eats his own flesh, saying: 6. Better is a handful with rest, than both hands full with labor and affliction of spirit. 7. Considering, I found also another vanity under the sun: 8. there is one alone, and he has not a second, neither son nor brother, and yet he ceases not to labor, neither are his eyes satisfied with riches: neither does he reflect, saying: For whom do I labor, and defraud my soul of good things? In this also is vanity and a grievous affliction. 9. It is better therefore that two be together than one: for they have the advantage of their companionship: 10. if one falls, the other will support him: woe to him that is alone: for when he falls, he has no one to lift him up. 11. And if two sleep together, they shall warm one another: how shall one alone be warmed? 12. And if anyone prevail against one, two shall resist him: a threefold cord is not easily broken. 13. Better is a poor and wise child than an old and foolish king, who knows not how to foresee for the future. 14. Because out of prison and chains sometimes one comes forth to a kingdom: and another born a king is consumed by want. 15. I saw all the living who walk under the sun with the second young man, who shall rise up in his place. 16. The number of all the people who were before him is infinite; and those who shall come afterwards shall not rejoice in him: but this also is vanity and affliction of spirit. 17. Keep your foot when you go into the house of God, and draw near to hear. For obedience is much better than the victims of fools, who know not what evil they do.
Verse 1: I TURNED TO OTHER THINGS, AND I SAW THE CALUMNIES (Syriac: oppressions) THAT ARE DONE UNDER THE...
1. I TURNED TO OTHER THINGS, AND I SAW THE CALUMNIES (Syriac: oppressions) THAT ARE DONE UNDER THE SUN, AND THE TEARS OF THE INNOCENT, AND NO ONE TO COMFORT THEM: NOR COULD THEY RESIST THE VIOLENCE, BEING DESTITUTE OF ALL HELP. The Chaldean: and I turned, and I saw all the acts of violence that were done to the just, who are oppressed in this age under the sun, by the hand of those who afflict them, and there is no one to speak consolation to them, nor anyone to redeem them.
Calumny is properly the charge of a false crime, says Cicero in his first oration against Sallust; or it is the vexation of someone in lawsuits through fraud and frustration; or, as Nonius says, it is a malicious and lying defamation. Hence plaintiffs in court must take an oath against calumny, namely that they will say or do nothing maliciously, falsely, or fraudulently: this is verbal calumny. Real calumny, on the other hand, is when someone unjustly inflicts harm on another through violence or fraud in goods, reputation, or life, whether in court or outside of court; and in this sense calumny is taken here, and commonly in Scripture, to signify violence, fraud, treachery, circumvention, and oppression, as I noted on Proverbs 28:16. For this is what the Hebrew word asak signifies. The Septuagint translates it as "sycophancy," on which word I noted much there. This is a most harmful evil. Hence the proverb: "The bite of a sycophant is incurable." The same person is called a vexatious litigator, as it were a vicious litigant, a detractor, a calumniator — the sort who seek nothing but contentions, quarrels, and fights, about whom Pliny says in his Prologue: "Therefore we are secure even against vexatious litigators, whom Cato elegantly combined from 'vices' and 'litigators'; for what else do they do but litigate or seek lawsuits?"
The Hebrew word ascukim is both abstract and concrete, and both active and passive. Hence it signifies oppressions, the oppressed, and the oppressors — such as the malicious and captious interpretations of wills, agreements, and decrees in lawsuits, frustrations, expensive lawsuits over trivial matters, and frauds. The Arabic, taking the letter ayin for the neighboring guttural heth, and reading chasukim for ascukim (for chasak means to desire, long for, love), translates: and I turned, and I saw the desires that are done under the sun, all together, and the force derived from the hand of those who sought them, and no consoler was found for them. For the whole world is full of lusts and desires, as St. John says, Epistle 1, chapter 2, verse 16.
THAT ARE DONE UNDER THE SUN. For all provinces, cities, and villages are full of calumny, that is, of violence and fraud. Hence Jeremiah, chapter 6, verse 6: "This," he says, "is the city of visitation; all calumny is in the midst of her." See what I noted there, and Psalm 13:6: "Who devour my people as the food of bread." St. Cyprian graphically depicts the same thing in book 2, epistle 2 to Donatus: "Imagine yourself," he says, "carried up for a while to the summit of a lofty mountain: look down from there upon the faces of things lying below you, and with your eyes extended in all directions, yourself free from earthly contacts, gaze upon the tumults of the swirling world. Now you too will pity the age, and being mindful of yourself, and more grateful to God with greater joy that you have escaped, you will rejoice. Look upon the roads closed off by robbers, seas beset by pirates, wars divided everywhere with the bloody horror of camps; the world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, when individuals commit it, is a crime — it is called virtue when it is carried out publicly; not the standard of innocence but the magnitude of cruelty wins impunity for crimes." So Daniel, chapter 6, was thrown by calumny into the lions' den; St. Joseph into prison; Susanna into mortal danger, Daniel 13. Hence the Prophets everywhere complain to God about this power, dominion, and aggression of the impious against the pious — as David in Psalm 72; Habakkuk, chapter 1, verse 13; Job, chapter 21, verse 7; Jeremiah, chapter 12, verse 1. Hence the Philosopher says: "The world is a marketplace of impostors" — add also of tyrants, so that in it the poor and oppressed may say with the does that verse of Martial, book 14: "The boar is feared for his tusk, the horns defend the stag: what are we, the unwarlike does, but prey?"
AND THE TEARS OF THE INNOCENT. In Hebrew it is ascukim, that is, of the oppressed. But the Chaldean translates the Hebrew actively, of the oppressors: "I saw," he says, "by the Holy Spirit all deceivers in hell according to their works which were done under the sun, on account of the transgressions of the law, and behold the tears of those weeping over their souls." For in hell "there is weeping and gnashing of teeth," Matthew 8:12 — especially for those who harassed the innocent and drove them to tears. But this is not the subject here.
AND NO ONE TO COMFORT THEM: either because the power of the calumniators is so great that no one can or dares to oppose them; or because the inhuman and wicked character of men is such that they join with the more powerful and desert the weaker person who is falling — indeed they push him into the fall, according to that verse of Psalm 34:10: "Lord, who is like You? Rescuing the needy from the hand of those stronger than him: the destitute and poor from those who plunder him." For this is the proper work and deed of God. And Psalm 61:4: "How long do you rush upon a man? You all kill him: like a leaning wall and a fence pushed down." Such was Christ in His passion: "I looked about, and there was no helper," Isaiah chapter 63, verse 5. Therefore God takes under His protection those deserted by all, shields them, and vindicates them, according to that verse of Psalm 71:12: "He shall deliver the poor from the mighty, and the needy who had no helper"; and Psalm 10:14: "To You the poor man has been left: You will be a helper to the orphan"; and Proverbs 23:10: "Do not touch the boundaries of little ones: and do not enter the field of orphans: for their near kinsman (God, who in Hebrew is called goel, that is, redeemer and avenger, as a kinsman — for example, a brother — formerly was) is mighty: and He Himself will judge their cause against you." Symmachus translates: There is no one for them who encourages with words in calamity and alleviates the misfortune.
NOR COULD (the innocent, oppressed by the violent) RESIST THEIR VIOLENCE, BEING DESTITUTE OF (all) HELP. The Hebrew: and from the hand of those calumniating or oppressing them, strength — namely, there is none; the Chaldean: and there is no one to vindicate them from the hand of those troubling them by the strength of their hand and by power; Pagninus: and from the hand of those oppressing them with forces, there was no consoler for them; Campensis: nor was there anyone to console them, much less anyone to rescue them from the violent hands of the oppressors; another: nor do they have any force against the hand of those who afflicted them with calumny; another: and in the hand of the oppressors is power; another: and from the hand of those powerfully oppressing them, there is no consoler for them. For the voice of these oppressors is that of Wisdom 2:11: "Let our strength be the law of justice," so that whatever is permitted, and whatever we can and wish, may be held as legitimate and just — let will serve in place of reason, the sword in place of law, power in place of justice; which is the axiom of tyrants.
Verse 2: And I Praised the Dead More than the Living
2. AND I PRAISED THE DEAD MORE THAN THE LIVING. The Chaldean adds: Who still remain in tribulation.
Verse 3: And I Judged him Happier than Both, who has not yet Been Born, nor Seen the Evils that are Done...
3. AND I JUDGED HIM HAPPIER THAN BOTH, WHO HAS NOT YET BEEN BORN, NOR SEEN THE EVILS THAT ARE DONE UNDER THE SUN. Campensis: which men inflict upon men; St. Jerome: who has not yet experienced all the evils of the world; the Chaldean: for he has not seen those wicked works which are done throughout the whole world under the sun; the Tigurina: who has not yet experienced the troublesome affairs that are done under the sun.
Olympiodorus, Hugh the Cardinal, and Dionysius consider these words to be spoken from the perspective of the unlearned, who, impatient at such great oppressions of the world, desire death for themselves out of despair, so as to be freed from them. Better, St. Jerome, Alcuinus, Hugh of St. Victor, and others commonly hold that these words are spoken from the perspective of Solomon and the wise, as if to say: Those who have already departed this life are happier, and therefore more praiseworthy, inasmuch as they are exempt from all calumny — that is, from injury, fraud, and violence — than the living, to which they are always exposed, and indeed are often actually harassed and tormented by them; but happier than both are those not yet born, because they have not seen, that is, have not felt or experienced, these evils which the dead once felt and the living still feel; therefore the lot of the former is better than that of the latter, and they are more fortunate. St. Bonaventure and Titelmannus add that this maxim extends to other living people who, being themselves exempt from injuries, nevertheless grieve with a sense of compassion at the oppressions of others which they everywhere see, and are afflicted and tormented by them; for happier than these are the dead, who are touched by no sense of pain, whether of their own or another's calamity.
For the affliction of the oppressed and the violence of the oppressors greatly torments pious men. Hence Mattathias, seeing the tyranny of Antiochus against the Jews, exclaimed: "Woe is me! Why was I born to see the destruction of my people?" 1 Maccabees 2:7. So everywhere Jeremiah groans and sighs on account of the calamities of the Jews, and desires death so as not to see them, chapter 20:14; Elijah desires the same, 3 Kings 19:4; Tobias, chapter 3:6; Moses, Numbers 11:15. And St. Polycarp, seeing the imperial persecution against the Christians, exclaims: "O good God, for what times have You preserved me, that I should suffer this!" As Eusebius testifies, book 5 of the History, chapter 19.
AND I JUDGED HIM HAPPIER (not positively, inasmuch as he does not exist, and therefore is not capable of happiness; but negatively, that is, less unhappy) THAN BOTH, WHO HAS NOT YET BEEN BORN. St. Jerome refers this to souls: "Which," he says, "before they descend into our bodies, dwell among the heavenly beings, and are blessed for as long as they enjoy the heavenly Jerusalem and the angelic choir." But this is the error of Origen, from whose opinion St. Jerome speaks here, not from his own. For he himself attacks this error in many places: in epistle 8 to Demetrias, 27 to Eustochium, 59 to Avitus, and 61 to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem.
Again, Origen, in homily 7 on Numbers, St. Bonaventure, Cajetan, Titelmannus, Vatablus, and others, by "not yet born" understand the stillborn, such as little children who die without baptism and go to limbo, and there lead a happier life than the living.
But plainly and simply, understand here the one who has not yet been begotten or conceived, and has not yet existed in the nature of things. Hence the Hebrew has: who has not yet been; the Septuagint and Syriac: who has not yet been made; the Chaldean: who has not yet existed, nor was created in the age. For this person had and has no sense of pain, but will have it if born; whereas the dead have had the sense of pain, and the living still have it.
Here the living and the dead are compared with the unborn with respect to the goods and evils of nature, not of grace; for in things of grace, the living surpass the dead and the not yet born, though in those natural things they are surpassed. The sense therefore is, as if to say: If I consider the natural advantages and disadvantages that exist both in life and in death, both in one who lives and in one who has died or is not yet born, it is preferable — and I would have wished to have perished and never to have been born — than to live. For then I would have been free of all the calumnies and miseries of life, which are so great, both as I experience and see them in myself and even more in others, and which I deeply grieve over, that all the advantages and pleasures of life are not to be compared with them. In a similar sense Jeremiah says, chapter 20:14: "Cursed be the day on which I was born." See what I said at length on this subject there.
You may ask whether it is better and happier not to exist than to exist in misery? I answer first: It is better to die, indeed not to exist and to be annihilated, than to sin. For sin, especially mortal sin, is the greatest of all evils, and the supreme offense and injury to the divine majesty. It is better, then, to remove this injury to God than to give existence to this particular man, along with a life so bad and so harmful. For just as it is a good for the common and public welfare that those guilty of lese-majesty against the king be put to death, so much more is it a public good — both of God and of the entire universe — that those guilty of lese-majesty against God be destroyed and, if it were possible, annihilated. For every creature, by natural appetite, is more inclined toward the good of God, as the common good, than toward its own proper good, as a private good; and therefore it more desires to fight for the good of God than for its own; hence it strives more to avert the evil of God — namely, sin — than to preserve its own existence, and indeed it exposes its own existence to danger for the good of God. Hence the just person would prefer to be reduced to nothing rather than to have sin, because sin is worse than non-existence; for although non-existence has no good, yet equally it has no evil, while sin has no good and the greatest evil. From the perspective of God and the universe, however, it is better for the reprobate to exist even in the torments of hell than not to exist, because in them the beauty of justice and the glory of divine vengeance shines forth, which is the public good of the universe: for in them punishment corresponds to and equals the fault, and in it the majesty of divine justice and power shines forth. If the damned could attend to this, they would suffer less in their torments, and would render God's justice more commendable, says our Salmeron, volume 9, chapter 1. Let this therefore be the first axiom.
Let the second axiom be: It is preferable not to exist than to be damned and tortured in hell; hence the damned souls in hell desire to die and to be annihilated, so as to escape such great torments of hell — indeed, according to right reason, this is more desirable. For what prudent person would not prefer to perish entirely and feel nothing, rather than to feel such numerous and atrocious fires and pains of hell for all eternity, without any hope of consolation and joy? For what profit is there in existing, living, and feeling, if one exists, lives, and feels only in fire and the greatest pains? Hence that common cry and lamentation of the damned on the day of judgment, that they say to the mountains: "Fall upon us," and to the hills: "Cover us," Apocalypse 6. Christ teaches this expressly, speaking of Judas the traitor: "It would have been good (that is, better and more useful) for him," He says, "if he had not been born," Matthew 26, and Mark 14. For, as St. Jerome says in the same place: "It is much better not to subsist than to subsist badly." And the Author of the sermon to the Brothers in the desert, attributed to St. Augustine, sermon 20: "Why," he says, "would it have been better for him if he had not been born, unless because it is better to lack all existence than to lie in hell?" The same is taught there by Theophylactus, Victor of Antioch, Anselm, Bede, Lyranus, Franciscus Lucas, Barradius, and others commonly, whose axiom is: "It is preferable not to exist than to be miserable; it is preferable not to live than to live in punishment." Indeed St. Bernard, sermon 35 on the Song of Songs, and St. Thomas in IV Sentences, distinction 50, question 2, article 1, sub-question 3, assert the same.
St. Augustine seems to hold the contrary, in book 3 of On Free Will, chapters 7 and 8, whom Dionysius, Arboreus, and Titelmannus follow here. Their reasoning is that it is better to exist than not to exist: therefore it is better to exist miserably than not to exist. Because the miserable person at least has his being, which is the first and greatest good of man, and the foundation of all the rest. But this is true physically, and absolutely and simply it is better to exist than not to exist. Morally, however, and according to prudent estimation, it is better and more eligible not to exist than to have an existence devoid of all pleasure and good, and full of all pain and evil — such as the damned have in hell. For what profit is there in being that is physically good in itself, if it is wrapped and enveloped on all sides by so many evils and pains? Just as: what good is honey if it is full of gall? What good is the finest food if it is everywhere infected and corrupted by poison? Moreover, one who loves God would prefer to exist in hell rather than not to exist: because even so, by enduring punishments, he would give glory to God, and because such a person would be loved by God as a friend and son, which is the greatest good. Hence Moses desired, out of charity and love for the Jews, to be blotted out of the book of life, Exodus 32; and Paul desired to be anathema from Christ for the sake of the Jews, Romans 9. Indeed St. Anselm says: "If on one side I saw the burning of hell, and on the other the horror of sin, and I had to choose one or the other, I would prefer to leap into hell rather than commit sin."
Third axiom: The souls of children who died in original sin and dwell in the limbo of children prefer to exist rather than not to exist. The reason is that original sin is not their own proper act, nor contracted from their own act, but from another's — namely, that of Adam, the first parent. So St. Thomas, I-II, Question 83, article 1, reply 5: "It is better," he says, "for it (the soul in original sin) to exist thus according to nature than not to exist in any way at all, especially since it can escape damnation through grace." St. Augustine supports this, in book 5 Against Julian, chapter 8: "I do not say," he says, "that little children are to be punished with so great a penalty that it would be better for them not to have been born." And Lyranus: "The little ones," he says, "will have a more pleasant life than can be naturally had in this world." Scotus, in II Sentences, distinction 33, chapter 1, considers that children will have knowledge of all natural things far greater than all philosophers ever had. Marsilius, in II, Question 29, article 5, says they will love God above all things. The other scholastics teach similar things in II, distinction 33, who attribute to children only the punishment of loss, but remove the punishment of the senses; hence St. Bonaventure asserts that they live content with their lot.
Hence our Lessius gathers, in book 13 On the Divine Perfections, chapter 22, near the end, that these children will know, in some clear and distinct manner, the essence of their own soul, and also the angelic natures, although not so perfectly; and that they will always praise God for the creation of themselves and of other things. For they were created by God for this purpose, and they did not deserve to be deprived of it by any sin of their own. Yet they are not to be called blessed, even with a natural blessedness, as Pelagius asserted, because the stain of original sin prevents them from obtaining natural beatitude — on account of which they are condemned to the punishment of loss, that is, they lack the vision of God, which is the greatest punishment and misery. He adds, however, that they will conceive no grief from the loss of the beatific vision, since they did not lose it through their own fault. Thus he says: others think differently; but these matters must be discussed elsewhere.
Fourth: Many in this life are surrounded by so many diseases, prisons, torments, persecutions, and other miseries, that if you consider these in themselves and compare them nakedly with the good of life, setting aside faith and hope, it would be better for them to die than to live. For it is preferable to lack life than to have it oppressed by so many evils. For, as the Comic poet says: "Life is not living, but being well." Indeed Job, chapter 3:20, says: "Why is light given to the miserable, and life to those who are in bitterness of soul? Who wait for death and rejoice exceedingly when they have found the grave?"; and Ecclesiasticus 30:17: "Better is death than a bitter life, and eternal rest than persevering illness." So Job, overwhelmed with miseries, desired death and non-existence, chapter 3:1: "Let the day perish," he says, "on which I was born."
I say setting aside faith and hope, because faith and hope persuade a man to bravely endure all adversity out of hope for future glory, as the martyrs endured. For this glory is so great that every tribulation compared to it is slight, according to the words of the Apostle: "The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us," Romans 8:18. Indeed Christ says: "Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 5. Hence St. Francis used to say: "So great is the glory I await that every pain delights me." I add that even if God had established no reward for endurance in the future — indeed even if the soul were to perish with the body — still, for the faithful person, out of love of God and the virtue of fortitude, all tribulations would be bravely to be endured which God would send or permit to be sent, and would wish to be endured by him. The reason is that the creature must submit itself to God in all things, resign itself, and obey. For He is the supreme Lord of all, and of life and death. Moreover, the good of charity, fortitude, and conformity with the divine will is greater than the good of life, reputation, holiness, etc., which therefore must yield to the former, so that if they are taken away through adversities, the faithful person should willingly undergo them out of charity, fortitude, and obedience, on account of which all adversities are to be little esteemed and borne. Therefore the Christian philosopher should say with St. Gregory Nazianzen, epistle 64 to Philagrius: "I am tormented by disease and I rejoice — not because I am tormented, but because I am a teacher of patience to others."
Fifth: Many saints desire to die out of a spirit of piety and charity, lest they see so many offenses against God, and so many afflictions and temptations of themselves and their neighbors. So the Apostle: "Unhappy man that I am," he says, "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Romans 7:24. And: "I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ," Philippians 1. So David: "Woe is me," he says, "that my sojourning is prolonged," Psalm 119:5. So as a benefit from God it was given to Ezekiel, and to Josiah, 4 Kings 22:21, to die before seeing the evils to be inflicted on the Jews by the Chaldeans. So St. Augustine, when his Hippo was besieged by the Vandals, asked God for one of three things — either that the city be freed from the siege, or that patience be given to endure it, or that he be taken from this life — and he obtained the third, as Possidius testifies in his Life.
Mystically, Olympiodorus says: Much happier are those dead to sin and living in Christ than those who live in sin; and more blessed than the living are the dead — both the just, because they have left behind their labors; and sinners, because they were wearied here in sins and have diminished their future punishment in hell: for since they died sooner, they carried fewer sins with them. Hence Thaumaturgus translates: "Among the unjust and impious, the departed from life are better off than the survivors, and the lot of one who, destined to be wicked, has not yet been born nor reached human wickedness, would be preferred over the condition of both." And St. Ambrose on Psalm 118, octave 18, says: "The dead person is preferred to the living, because he ceases to sin; to the dead person is preferred one who was not born, because he did not know how to sin." The same author, in his book On the Faith of the Resurrection, from this passage of Solomon and a similar one of David in Psalm 119:5, and of Jeremiah chapter 15, gathers that for the faithful, death is to be desired rather than life: "If therefore," he says, "holy men flee from life, whose life, though useful to us, is nevertheless esteemed useless to themselves, what ought we to do, who can be of no use to others, and who feel this life to be a debt growing heavier with the accumulating usury of sins, burdened day by day with the weight of transgressions?" And he cites that saying of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15: "I die daily"; and that of Plato in the Phaedo: "Philosophy is the meditation on death."
The following maxims of the philosophers echo, indeed follow, Solomon. Plutarch, in his Consolation to Apollonius: "O death, come as a healing physician. For you are without doubt the only port in the world." In the same place he reports from Aristotle this saying of Silenus, celebrated as a proverb like an oracle: "Not to be born is best of all, and to be dead is far better than to live." And he adds that the divine power itself has thus revealed and testified to many. Hence among the ancients, honey was considered a symbol of death, gall of life. Seneca says: "... Death is a port of eternal placid rest."
Agria, or as others say Cydippe, the priestess of Venus, having been carried by chariot to the temple of Diana by her sons Cleobis and Biton, when she had prayed to the goddess that she give them as a reward for their piety whatever seemed best for man, found them dead in their beds in the morning, as Cicero reports in Tusculan Disputations 1. He also adds that Silenus taught King Midas, as a great gift, that not to be born is best for man, and next best to die as quickly as possible. The same response was given from the Delphic Apollo to Pindar, the chief of lyric poets — namely, that he should die, and that this was best — as Suidas and Plutarch report in the place cited. Euripides in his Bellerophon says: "I, according to the opinion commonly celebrated, say that the best thing is: not to be born a man."
Plato in his Axiochus, graphically depicting the miseries of human life, narrates that Agamedes and Trophonius, when they had built the temple of Pythian Apollo, prayed that they be given as a reward what was best; and when they had fallen asleep, they never rose again. The same happened to the priestesses of Argive Juno; hence that verse about Amphiaraus: "Jupiter with all his heart, and great Apollo, loves this man, and he did not reach the limits of a just old age."
The Causiani and many other peoples mourn those brought into the light, but proclaim the dead blessed. Hence a man, when he is born, begins life with weeping, to indicate that he is born to the miseries of life, and that he passes from the happy state which he enjoyed while not yet born to the unhappy state of being born and living. Arimnestus, when asked what the greatest good for man was, answered: "To die well," as Stobaeus reports, sermon 119, where he adds these two further sayings.
Aristotle often used to say that to depart from life was best, as from a banquet, neither thirsty nor drunk.
Aristides, surnamed the Just, when asked how long it was fitting for a man to live, said: "Just so long as he discovers that it is better to die than to live in calamities."
Gorgias the elder, when asked whether he would willingly die: "Very much so," he said, "for I depart not unwillingly, as if from a rotten and crumbling little house." So Stobaeus, sermon 125.
Bassus the elder, if anyone said there was any discomfort or fear in death, used to say this was the defect of the dying person, not of death; for death brings no discomfort to men, but frees them from all discomforts and storms of miserable fortune, as Seneca testifies, epistle 30.
More sublimely, Alfonso, king of Aragon, seeing the young Gabriel of Sorrento on his deathbed, struck with the fear of death, said: "There is no reason to fear death so greatly, since for those who die well and purely it is life, and the beginning of that life which is subject to neither pains, nor fear, nor envy, nor any miseries." So Panormitanus and Aeneas Sylvius, On the Deeds and Sayings of Alfonso.
Polyaenus used to say that one should not grieve for the dead: "Because it is better to die than to live miserably." So Maximus, sermon 35.
A certain Spartan woman, when she heard that her son had fallen in battle, said: "Let the cowardly be wept for; you, my son, shall be buried without tears, and you are truly worthy of this mother and of your fatherland." So Plutarch in his Laconic Sayings.
These sayings, to be sure, Plato and the philosophers drew from Solomon; therefore let them be returned to Solomon as the fountain of wisdom.
Verse 4: Again I Contemplated all the Labors of Men, and I Observed that Skills are Exposed to the Envy of...
4. AGAIN I CONTEMPLATED ALL THE LABORS OF MEN, AND I OBSERVED THAT SKILLS ARE EXPOSED TO THE ENVY OF ONE'S NEIGHBOR: AND IN THIS THEREFORE IS VANITY AND SUPERFLUOUS CARE — that is, evil, troublesome, anxious care, indeed the worst and supremely afflicting. For the Hebrew is reut ruach, that is, "affliction of spirit." The Septuagint: presumption of spirit; the Complutensian: choice of spirit; the Tigurina: a most troublesome affair; Campensis: the most grievous torment of the mind. See what was said on chapter 1, verse 14. The Syriac: and I saw all laborers, and all the artisans of a work, because it is the jealousy of a man from his companion, and this too is vanity and disturbance of spirit; the Arabic: and I knew all labors, and the whole strength of the arts, that envy of human nature will be to a man from his neighbor; this indeed is vain and affliction of spirit.
For "neighbor" in the Hebrew is "companion." For envy exists among equals, and men of the same craft and condition; hence "the potter envies the potter, the smith the smith, the singer the singer, the neighbor the neighbor," says Hesiod in Works and Days; see Aristotle, book 2 of the Rhetoric, chapters 10 and 11, and Plutarch, treatise On Brotherly Love. So from the beginning of the world Cain out of envy killed Abel his brother; Esau persecuted Jacob; the sons of Jacob their brother Joseph; Korah, Dathan, and Abiram their fellow tribesmen Moses and Aaron, Numbers 16; Saul persecuted David; Romulus the founder of Rome killed his brother Remus — of whom Lucan says, book 1: "The walls were first wet with a brother's blood."
For phthonos (envy) begets phonon (murder) — that is, envy begets homicide, indeed parricide, according to the words of Paul: "Full of envy and murder," Romans 1:29.
THE ENVY OF ONE'S NEIGHBOR. Envy here is understood in three ways: first, mutually, by which the proud envy one another, and compete with each other in the same art, knowledge, or office, so that each strives to surpass the other, as if to say: The labors of men, by which they contrive great things, often proceed not from truth and true virtue, but from vanity, vain pride, and envy: for this is why each person labors and exerts all the powers of mind and body in his work — to surpass his companion and tower above all others. Hence the Hebrew has: I saw all labor and every skill in work, that it is the jealousy or rivalry of a man toward his companion; the Tigurina: I saw all labor and all diligence in acting to be mutual rivalry; Pagninus: I saw all labor and all the fittingness of work, that it was the envy of each toward his neighbor; Campensis says: "By much experience I have learned that the efforts and pursuits of men tend to nothing else than that each person should harm his neighbor by whatever arts he can, and advance his own affairs. And what is this other than to torment the mind miserably with the most troublesome cares?"
Second, envy with Lorinus can be taken in the active sense. Hence the Chaldean translates: this too is vanity for the sinner (the envious one) and destruction of spirit, as if to say: I saw that the labors and skills of upright and wise men, undertaken from virtue, produce the envy of onlookers, which is a great vanity and affliction of the envious.
St. Augustine notes, however, in book 11 of his Literal Commentary on Genesis, that the inferior can at times envy the superior, because he desires to be made equal to him; and conversely, the superior can envy the inferior, when he fears lest the inferior be made equal to him, and equal match equal.
From calumny he passes to envy, either as from effect to cause — for envy causes calumny, since the envious person calumniates the deeds of another to obscure them and to highlight and exalt his own in comparison — or as from like to like: just as the more powerful oppress the weaker through calumny, that is, violence and fraud, so the envious persecute those similar and equal to themselves.
SKILLS. The Hebrew kisron means rectitude, fitness, skill. Hence St. Jerome translates it as the strength and glory of laborers; the Author of the Greek Catena as vigor and manliness; the Septuagint as the virtue of work; Pagninus as the fitness of work; Cajetan as rectitude; Campensis as effort; others as aptitude. Symmachus translates it as georgoteta, that is, vigor, eagerness, sharpness, vivacity, ease and swiftness in acting, which makes a man effective, ready, and formidable in work. For envy attacks not the base and common, but the industrious, magnanimous, and outstanding. For the brilliance of these obstructs the splendor of others and obscures it, and therefore they envy them. Hence the saying: "Jealousy seeks the heights; the strongest winds blow upon the loftiest peaks. The best things are the food of envy."
Hence Sidonius Apollinaris, book 1, epistle 4 to Gaudentius, says: "O thrice and four times blessed are you, from whose eminence is given to friends joy, to the envious punishment, to posterity glory, to the vigorous and eager an example, to the lazy and slothful an incentive." And Apuleius, book 1 of his Florida, says: "Since in a great city this type is also found — those who prefer to disparage their betters rather than imitate them, and who, despairing of resembling them, affect enmity toward them."
There exists a beautiful emblem on this subject, in which is depicted a lofty palm tree, luxuriant with branches and dates, at whose roots below frogs and serpents cluster, gnawing at it or hurling insults with their croaking; underneath is inscribed the motto: "Envy is the attendant of integrity." Hence the verse: "The palm lifts its head to the lofty sky; at its base the chattering frog and water-serpents dwell. The degenerate and the envious tongue assail the nobles, whose path is consonant with the right."
Plutarch mentions this emblem in his book On the Silence of the Oracles of Scythia. Hence the poets said, or imagined, that fortune was bound together with envy. Hear Statius, book 5 of the Silvae: "What god has bound fortune and envy together with implacable blood-kinship? Who has commanded these unjust goddesses to war eternally? Will fortune not mark any house which envy does not immediately fix with her fierce gaze and disturb its joys with her cruel hand?"
"For envy is the saw of the envious mind," says Socrates; "and the rust of the heart," says Antisthenes, according to Laertius, book 6, chapter 1, because it gnaws, eats away, and consumes the very heart. "Envy is the rottenness of the bones," says Solomon, Proverbs 14:30. "Jealousy and anger diminish days," says Ecclesiasticus 30:26. Therefore St. Augustine, sermon 15 On the Times, says: "Envy is the moth, the wasting disease, the executioner, the viper of the soul." Hence Seneca: "I would wish," he says, "that the eyes of the envious were everywhere, so that they might be tormented by everyone's happiness."
Socrates, when asked what was troublesome to good men, said: "The happiness of the wicked." And what to the wicked? "The prosperity of the good." So Antonius in the Melissa, sermon 70, page 1.
Aristotle, when asked what envy was, said: "It is the antagonist of the fortunate." In the same place, sermon 62.
Cleobulus, when asked what things should especially be guarded against, answered: "The envy of friends and the treachery of enemies."
Moreover, the ways of deflecting or overcoming envy are various. The first is given by Crates the Theban, according to Laertius, book 6, chapter 5: Do outstanding deeds, but despise glory, riches, and honors: for these three things generally produce envy. Cato the Elder used to say that those who used their fortune moderately and soberly were least targeted by envy. "For," he said, "men envy not us, but the goods that surround us. External goods are outside the man, but in the one who uses them arrogantly the vice is within the man; those who thereby bring envy upon themselves are truly the envious ones." So Plutarch in his Roman Apophthegms; and Stobaeus, sermon 36: "Riches," he says, "are pledges of injury."
Again the Comic poet prudently advises: "On account of envy, conceal your wealth"; and Cato in his Distichs: "Remember to avoid envy through excessive display: which, even if it does not harm, is still troublesome to bear." See what I said about envy on Genesis chapter 37, verses 4 and 5; Proverbs chapter 14:30; Ecclesiasticus chapter 14:8.
More brilliantly, St. Basil teaches the same in his homily On Envy, where he shows that the remedy for envy is to esteem nothing great from these fleeting goods which are the material of envy, but to regard them as vain and worthless, as they truly are. The second remedy is to yield the honor and office which rivals envy. So St. Gregory Nazianzen. When he understood that he was suffering the hatred of certain people on account of his happy success in the church, he responded: "Far be it that any strife should arise among the priests of God on my account. If the storm is because of me, take me up and cast me into the sea." So Ecclesiastical History, book 11, chapter 9. And Seneca, epistle 105: "You will escape envy," he says, "if you do not thrust yourself before men's eyes, if you do not boast of your goods, if you know how to rejoice in secret." Wisely the Author of Emblems: "Live hidden, but not from yourself. He has lived well who, being born and dying, has escaped the notice of outsiders, known to himself alone. Happy is he who has lived hidden" — lathe biosas — live secretly. "Difficult is the guarding of glory."
The third remedy is to repel and overcome the attacks of the envious not with words but with deeds; and therefore to ignore and despise their attacks, indeed to accept them as testimonies of virtue and to glory in them. For no one is envied except he who does outstanding things, who is distinguished and excellent. Hence Cicero, in the First Catilinarian, says: "Envy won by virtue should be considered glory, not envy." "For my part, among men" (says Chares), "I consider myself fortunate for as long as I am envied. I do not approve of envy" (says Euripides), "yet I would wish to be envied by others on account of my blessings."
Wisely the Philosopher says: "Shut mouths by virtue, not by fear. Do not cut out tongues, but beware of them." Again: "It is better to be envied than to be pitied," says Herodotus in his Thalia, and Pindar in the Nemean Odes, hymn 8. Hence Themistocles, while still a young man, said he had done nothing outstanding yet: for he was not yet envied. For just as the cantharis-beetles— the glorious person is tormented and exposed to plots, as if to say: Glorious deeds have this accompaniment of vanity and affliction — that they produce envy, which torments and harasses both the envious and those who are envied, since they are compelled to endure the jealousies and calumnies of the envious. Hence the saying: "Envy is poison to itself and to others." So also Olympiodorus and Hugh of St. Victor.
Therefore Pliny the Younger, book 6, epistle 17 to Restitutus, offers a wise and keen counsel for defeating envy, especially in knowledge and eloquence: "The more eloquent you are," he says, "the more you should not be envious; for he who envies is the lesser. Finally, whether you surpass, fall short of, or equal another, praise either your superior, your inferior, or your equal: your superior, because unless he is praiseworthy, you yourself cannot be praised; your inferior or equal, because it pertains to your glory that the person you surpass or equal should seem as great as possible."
Third and genuinely, take envy passively insofar as "it is vanity and affliction of spirit," as if to say: The labors and skills of energetic men, who undertake great, upright, and holy enterprises, are in themselves true virtue and glory; but nevertheless they carry with them no slight vanity and affliction — for they attract to themselves the envy of rivals, which hinders and thwarts the heroic undertakings of the generous, and afflicts, pursues, torments, and oppresses them, lest it should seem inferior to them. So St. Bonaventure, Lyranus, Hugh of St. Victor, Cajetan, Titelmannus, and others. Our translation requires this meaning, which says: "I observed that skills are exposed to the envy" of rivals, so that by them the industrious are harassed and often overturned: for "to be exposed to envy" is the same as being liable to envy — to suffer envy, to be harassed by the envious.
Finally, the sense will be complete if you add the second interpretation to the third, and take envy not only passively but also actively. So St. Jerome and, following him, Alcuinus: "I saw," he says, "all the strength and glory of laborers, and I discovered that one man's good is another man's evil, since the envious person, by another's happiness—" the cantharis-beetles infest most especially vigorous wheat and beautifully blooming roses, so envy most especially attacks good men and those advancing in virtue, and those bearing the glory of talent and character — so Antonius in the Melissa, part 1, sermon 62. Just as the sun necessarily produces a shadow, and a shadow immediately follows those who walk in the sun, so virtue produces envy, and rivalry necessarily follows those who move in glory. Hence "envy slays the little one," Job 5:2, because just as the sun does not eclipse the moon, nor the moon the earth, but conversely, the earth eclipses the moon and the moon the sun — that is, the inferior eclipses the superior — so those superior in virtue and glory do not envy inferiors, but inferiors envy superiors. Envy therefore is a sign of poverty and want — that one is inferior to the person one envies, and of a petty and small mind. "For to envy is a mark of sickness, and to rival and to disparage," says Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3. Again Plutarch, in his book On the Difference between Hatred and Envy, asserts that envy is often extinguished by the magnitude of happiness and greatness of soul: "For," he says, "it is not credible that anyone would envy Alexander or Cyrus, now lords of all." Wisely Bede says in his commentary on Proverbs: "Nothing is great in human affairs except a mind that despises great things."
Therefore St. Bernard taught that envy is to be overcome by three means — namely, first by humility, second by charity, third by authority — not so much by word as by deed. Hear the Author of his Life, book 1, near the end: "So great are the marks of sacred virtues that commend that holy man even to this day before God and before men; testimonies of holiness surround him; charisms of the Holy Spirit illuminate him; and what is greater and more difficult than all these things in human affairs, all these seem to attend him without envy. But envy is restrained from him because he is greater than all envy, inasmuch as the wickedness of the human heart often ceases to envy a man whom it cannot hope to equal; and he himself either mortifies all envy by the example of humility, or changes it for the better by the provocation of charity, or if envy is more wicked or harder, he crushes it by the weight of authority." And after some further remarks: "But he who, loving every man, never has an enemy through his virtue, sometimes nevertheless it happens that he endures one who is hostile to him gratuitously by the wickedness of another. But the charity which wholly possesses him is patient, is kind, and with wisdom conquering malice, with patience overcoming impatience, and pride with humility."
Finally, although envy produces affliction for the one who is envied, it nevertheless brings him consolation and joy. For it indicates that there is as much good in him as there is envy present; for just as the body's shadow grows in proportion as the body grows, so as virtue grows, envy grows equally. Therefore let the cause of being envied — namely, virtue and glory — soothe the affliction of envy. Hence Plutarch, in his book On Harmful Bashfulness, reproaches those who cease from outstanding works out of fear of envy: "For often, led by no less a fear of being ill spoken of than of suffering ill, some have betrayed honor, out of impatience with infamy." The same thing is represented by the allegory of Scylla and Charybdis by Annulus in his Picta Poesis, when he sings thus: "Envy, disparaging, is Scylla with her dog-monsters; but poverty, engulfing to the bottom, is vast Charybdis. He who wishes to avoid Charybdis will fall into Scylla. Biting jealousy barks; want swallows up. Choose the lesser of two evils: the wise man prefers to be envied rather than pitied."
It is therefore better to fall into Scylla, that is, into envy, than into Charybdis, that is, into misery and want, especially of virtues and merits. He calls "envied" the one who, by his riches and virtues, gives occasion for rivals to envy him, and "envious" those who envy the envied person; and therefore it is better to be needy and miserable than to be envious, but it is better to be envied than to be miserable. For more on envy, see St. Augustine, sermon 83 On the Times; Nazianzen, oration 12; St. Cyprian, treatise On Jealousy and Envy; Basil, homily On Envy; St. Chrysostom on chapter 12 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians; St. Ephrem, volume 1, page 37; St. Gregory, Moralia book 5 last chapter, and Pastoral Rule part 3, chapter 11; Blessed Antiochus, homily 55; St. Bernard, homily 13 on Psalm 90; Antonius in the Melissa, sermon 62; Maximus, sermon 54.
Verse 5: THE FOOL FOLDS HIS HANDS TOGETHER AND EATS HIS OWN FLESH (St
5. THE FOOL FOLDS HIS HANDS TOGETHER AND EATS HIS OWN FLESH (St. Ambrose reads: his own entrails) SAYING. The Chaldean: the fool goes and folds his hands together in summer and does not want to work; and in winter he will eat whatever he has, even the covering that is upon the skin of his flesh, for he sells this to buy food. St. Jerome: the fool clasps his breast with his hands; Campensis: fools sit idle with hands joined together and consume whatever they have; Vatablus: he consumes all his goods.
First, some think the envious person is depicted here: for from pain and envy he clasps and wrings his hands, and eats his own flesh, wasting away and consuming himself with jealousy, and eating out his own heart. So Thaumaturgus and John Ferus. Hence the symbol of Pythagoras: "Do not eat your heart" — that is, do not waste yourself away with cares or envy.
Second, others consider the ambitious person to be depicted here: for he proudly folds his hands, thinking that everything is owed to him while idle and inert, and that everything will fly of its own accord into his lap. For pride produces inertia: hence we see the proud are lazy and unwilling to work. So Lyranus.
Third, some think the miser is depicted here: for he tightens his hands so as to give nothing away, and out of avarice defrauds his own enjoyment, so that he grows thin and eats away his own flesh. So Hugh.
Fourth, others think the glutton and the lustful person is described here: for through gluttony and luxury, which he perpetrates with his hands, he damages his health and exhausts his flesh and strength, as Solomon teaches, Proverbs 5:11. Hence the Author of the Greek Catena says: "The impious man eats his own flesh when he satiates himself with the evils that are born from the flesh."
Fifth and genuinely, what is depicted here is the idle, lazy, and inert person, who sits torpid with folded hands, and through torpor, and the resulting destitution, wastes and consumes his flesh by hunger and starvation. For he conveniently passes from the envious person to the lazy one, because many, to avoid the bites and damages of envy, give themselves to inertia, so as to live quietly — but destitute and miserable. So St. Jerome, Campensis, Cajetan, and Titelmannus. The emblem of Scylla and Charybdis, which I recited at the end of verse 4, pertains to this. Hear St. Jerome: "The whole point of his argument is this: to show that both the one who labors and has something in the world is exposed to envy, and the one who wishes to live quietly is oppressed by want, and each is miserable — since one is endangered on account of his riches, and the other is worn out by destitution on account of his poverty."
Hence Symmachus translates: the fool is enfolded in his hands. St. Clement, book 2 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 4: "The idle man," he says, "has clasped his hands together and devoured his own flesh"; and from this he concludes: "If anyone is pressed by want because he is a glutton, or a drunkard, or given to idleness, he is not worthy of assistance, indeed he is not worthy of the Church of God." From which he gathers that alms should not be given to a lazy, voracious, and drunken widow. Symbolically, Hugh of St. Victor says: "He folds his hands as if making a pact with idleness"; Cajetan: "As if holding his hands dear, embracing them to preserve them from the labor of exercise"; Olympiodorus: "As if embracing them for pleasure, and flattering them with greetings"; and he eats his flesh, because his flesh is consumed by want. So the same Solomon depicts the lazy man clasping his hands, and threatens him with nakedness and hunger, Proverbs chapter 6, verses 9-10; chapter 18:8; chapter 19:24; chapter 24:33; and chapter 24:15.
Relevant here is the proverb of the Hebrews: "There was famine, and it did not pass through the door of the craftsman," because artisans, by working, earn the necessities of life, and thus drive away hunger. Moreover, the idle person is here called "fool" because it is the height of folly to drive oneself to hunger and wasting by idleness.
Hence St. Clement, book 2 of the Constitutions, chapter 63, by his own example and that of the elder priests, seriously exhorts younger clerics to labor: "For we too," he says, "devote ourselves to the word of the Gospel, yet we do not neglect to practice those occupations as helps to this work: for some of us are fishermen, some are tent-makers, some are farmers, so that we may never be idle."
HE EATS HIS OWN FLESH. First, the Chaldean by "flesh" understands the garments that cover the flesh, as if to say: The idle man consumes his garments by selling them to buy food. Second, better, others say he eats his flesh — that is, he is made thin and emaciated by idleness; for idleness wears away and exhausts the bodily juices, just as exercise and labor increase them and make men strong and robust: "for as much as his idleness fattens him, so much he is wasted by the ensuing starvation; therefore he eats his own flesh," says Olympiodorus. Third and best: he eats his own flesh — that is, by extreme starvation and hunger he consumes his flesh and eventually dies. It is a hyperbole. Hence Vatablus and Campensis translate: he consumes all his goods. Fourth, to eat one's flesh signifies the madness of hunger, driven by which the idle and famished attack their wives, children, and their own flesh, devouring their resources — indeed, they even bite and devour them in turn, as Job says, chapter 13:14: "Why do I tear my flesh with my teeth?" For it could have happened, says Philip the Presbyter there, that Job, from the violence of his pain, lacerated his hands or lips with his teeth, and with his strength already failing from the torments, carried his departing soul, as it were, in his hands as though bearing it forth. Similar phrases are in Job chapter 19:22, and chapter 31:31.
So the octopus is said to devour its own arms, according to Oppian, book 2, although Pliny denies and refutes this, book 9, chapter 9, and Aristotle, book 8 of the History of Animals, chapter 2. For everyone detests the idle and lazy person, and does not deign to help him. For they press upon him the law of the Apostle: "If anyone does not want to work, let him not eat," 2 Thessalonians 3:10. In a similar manner Moses says, Deuteronomy 28:53: "You shall eat the fruit of your womb, and the flesh of your sons and daughters in the distress and devastation with which your enemy will oppress you" — just as in the siege of Jerusalem, mothers maddened by hunger ate their own children. And Isaiah, chapter 9:19: "And the people," he says, "shall be as fuel for the fire: a man shall not spare his brother. He shall turn to the right and shall hunger, and he shall eat on the left and shall not be satisfied; each shall devour the flesh of his own arm: Manasseh shall devour Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh, and both together shall be against Judah."
Mystically, St. Ambrose, epistle 30 in the Roman edition (according to another edition, 36), says: "The fool folds his hands together and devours his own entrails — that is, he entangles himself in bodily affairs and devours his entrails, just as death prevails, and therefore he will not find eternal life. But the wise man, lifting up his works so that they might shine before his Father who is in heaven, did not consume but elevated his entrails, up to the grace of the resurrection. This is the glorious dance of the wise man, which David danced, and therefore by the sublimity of his spiritual dancing he ascended to the seat of Christ, so that he might see and hear the Lord saying to his Lord: 'Sit at My right hand.'"
Verse 6: SAYING: BETTER IS A HANDFUL WITH REST THAN BOTH HANDS FULL WITH LABOR AND AFFLICTION OF SPIRIT. The...
6. SAYING: BETTER IS A HANDFUL WITH REST THAN BOTH HANDS FULL WITH LABOR AND AFFLICTION OF SPIRIT. The word "saying" is not in the Hebrew, Chaldean, Greek, Syriac, or Arabic; hence Thaumaturgus, St. Jerome, Olympiodorus, Albinus, and Cajetan consider this to be an antithesis to the preceding verse, as if there the idle person who folds his hands and wastes away with hunger were described, while here the busy person is described — and that twofold: one laboring excessively, and one moderate in labor. For virtue consists in moderation, and in the mean between two extreme vices, which here are idleness and excessive labor with excessive worry: in the middle of these two lies the mean of laboring, which says: "Better is a handful with rest than both hands full with labor and affliction of spirit." Hence Thaumaturgus translates: and yet a wise and prudent man would prefer to fill one hand with ease and gentleness, than both hands with misery and the cunning and craftiness of a deceitful spirit.
This is indeed true. Hence Scripture itself teaches the same in many other places, as: "Better is a little to the just, than the great riches of sinners," Psalm 36:16. "Better is a little with the fear of the Lord, than great and insatiable treasures," Proverbs 15:16. "Better is a little with justice, than much fruit with iniquity," Proverbs 16:8. "Better is a dry morsel with joy, than a house full of sacrificial victims with strife," Proverbs 17:1. The necessities for sustenance are sufficient, so that one may be neither in poverty nor in riches — which Solomon asked of God, and indeed Apollonius of Tyana, when he said: "Grant me, O gods, to have little and to lack nothing."
But better, our translator connected this verse with the preceding one, and judged that both pertain to one and the same person — namely, the idle and lazy man — and that therefore his thoughts are expressed here by mimicry, and accordingly the word "saying" must be supplied. The idle man therefore abuses this maxim, which is often true in itself, to cloak his own laziness. So St. Bonaventure, Hugh of St. Victor, Campensis, Titelmannus, Osorius, and others.
The Hebrew literally has: good is a handful with rest, compared with the fullness of two hands (or more — for the Hebrew chaphnaim, being merely dual, signifies both two hands and more hands; it is as much plural as dual) with labor and affliction of spirit.
Note here: The fullness of a hand is a fistful, or small fist — that is, as much as one can clasp and hold with fingers folded and compressed against the hand. Hence the Hebrew word caph signifies the curved hand, as it is in a fist or handful.
For "both hands full," the Hebrew is: the fullness of chaphnaim, that is, the fullness of two (or more) palms or open hands — namely, extended hands. Therefore a single fistful is opposed to two extended hands, which hold not merely double but quadruple or more than a fistful.
Hence Symmachus translates: better is a full fistful with rest than the fullness of both hands with labor; the Septuagint, which the Syriac and Arabic follow, translates: good is the fullness of a fistful of rest, compared with the fullness of two fistfuls of labor and presumption of spirit; the Syriac: better is a full fistful with rest than full hands with labor and disturbance of spirit; the Arabic: a palm full of rest is much better than two full palms with labor and affliction of spirit.
Some explain it thus, as if to say: It is better to have twice less sustenance and even necessary expenses, if twice the rest and leisure were added, than conversely twice more food, riches, and pleasures, if an equal amount were taken away from rest and leisure. But this sense is too narrow and too arithmetical.
The genuine sense therefore is, as if to say: A fistful of flour or food — that is, a small and minimal amount of food which you can enjoy with peace — is better than both hands full of delicacies — that is, it is better than the most copious and lavish feasts, if you must acquire them with labor and affliction of spirit. Because peace of mind with modest food is better than affliction and tumult of mind with the best and most abundant food; peace of mind with hunger is better than disturbance of mind with satiety. That this is true is evident in religious, who are happier in their frugality with peace than kings and princes in their feasts with so many cares. For tranquility of mind is a good of a higher order, which far surpasses and transcends all pleasures and all bodily goods.
This is true, but from it the idle and lazy person wrongly concludes: Therefore I must abstain from all labor and affliction; therefore I must avoid a laborious life and industry, which provokes the envy of rivals — I prefer to be poor and free from envy, than to do outstanding things that would stir up envy against me. In which inference or conclusion he errs, first, because from one extreme of excessive labor he declines to the other extreme — namely, to mere idleness and sloth — when he should choose the middle course of virtue, that is, moderate labor. Hence Campensis translates: it is better to have a little with laziness than to acquire much laboriously — which is a manifest error and the dictate of sloth.
Second, because while he avoids passive envy, he falls into active envy, which is worse: for poverty drives him to covet and steal what belongs to others, to envy and seize the riches of the wealthy. Therefore, while he does not wish to become envied through labor and wealth, through laziness and want he becomes envious — which is far worse; for the lazy, because they are needy, envy the industrious their wealth and their industry alike.
Third, because idleness and sloth bring upon a man a thousand thoughts, desires, fears, and anxieties, which afflict the idle person far more than labor afflicts the busy person. Solomon teaches this, Proverbs 21:2: "Desires kill the lazy man. His hands refuse to work: all day long he covets and desires."
Fourth, because although in temporal matters it is sometimes better to have a little with rest than much with labor, in spiritual matters this is false. For if a faithful person, especially a priest or a religious, were to say: I wish to rest in my righteousness; I do not want to labor to become holier; I do not want to grow in grace, merits, and glory; I do not want to strive for perfection — he would sin gravely. Hence St. Chrysostom sharply inveighs against those who say: It suffices for me if I am saved, if I take my place in the last choir of angels in heaven; on the contrary, he says, you must strive to be carried up to the Cherubim and Seraphim.
Mystically, Olympiodorus explains this in three ways. First, the fistful, he says, is the unfailing faith which is in the Lord Jesus Christ. But two fistfuls are to be understood when someone strives to serve two masters — that is, God and mammon — and to suffer those reproaches which the Prophet recalls: "How long will you limp on both legs?" 3 Kings 1:2. It is therefore better, without any controversy, what is placed first here. Otherwise: one fistful is unity itself, which lacks matter; two fistfuls are material things, which can be divided. Moreover, duality itself is considered unclean and impure in Sacred Scripture. For the unclean animals entered Noah's ark in pairs. Therefore it is better to follow unity and lead a dutiful life with rest — that is, without the pretense of vain glory — than to be occupied with duality, that is, material things. Otherwise, we can contemplate that man was once a fistful, when God, taking dust from the earth and as it were enclosing it in a fist, formed man. Woman was also a fistful: for God, taking a rib from Adam's side with His hand, formed Eve. Therefore celibacy is better than two fistfuls — that is, than the duality and bond of marriage. For although marriage is not to be condemned, celibacy is certainly praiseworthy and free from trouble. Thus far Olympiodorus.
AND AFFLICTION OF SPIRIT. The Hebrew word reut signifies both affliction and malice. Following the latter sense, Thaumaturgus translates: the malice of a crafty spirit. And the Chaldean says: Better for a man is a fistful of food in tranquility of spirit, and free from theft and robbery, than two fistfuls filled to the brim with food, acquired by violence and extortion: for he will also one day repay these at the judgment with the greatest distress and disturbance of spirit, as if to say: It is better to have little justly earned with peace, than much unjustly gotten with plunder and tumult. For, as St. Jerome says: "Justice has rest; iniquity has labor."
But in this entire book, the word reut signifies not so much the malice of fault as that of punishment — that is, affliction, as the rest commonly translate it: for this is directly opposed to rest and tranquility.
Verses 7-8: Considering, I Found Also Another Vanity under the Sun: There is One Alone, and he has not a...
7 and 8. CONSIDERING, I FOUND ALSO ANOTHER VANITY UNDER THE SUN: THERE IS ONE ALONE, AND HE HAS NOT A SECOND, NEITHER SON NOR BROTHER, AND YET HE CEASES NOT TO LABOR, NOR ARE HIS EYES SATISFIED WITH RICHES; NOR DOES HE REFLECT, SAYING: FOR WHOM DO I LABOR, AND DEFRAUD MY SOUL OF GOOD THINGS? IN THIS ALSO IS VANITY AND A GRIEVOUS AFFLICTION. From the vanity of the lazy person wasting away with hunger, he passes to the contrary vanity of the miser wasting away in sordid parsimony, who always labors to scrape together riches, not for himself, nor for a son or brother (whom he lacks), but for an uncertain and unknown heir. This is a great vanity, hence Solomon repeatedly reiterates, hammers home, and censures it, as in chapter 2, verses 18 and following, and chapter 3, verse 22. See what was said there.
"There is one alone" — that is, he is the sole one, or alone without son and brother, that is, without a near and necessary heir. For one father multiplies himself and becomes many in his children; hence his single inheritance is divided among many children and becomes manifold. For although under Roman law, collateral relatives — such as nephews — succeed by intestacy to the goods of a deceased uncle up to and including the tenth degree, yet a testator is not obliged, when both his ascendants (such as father, grandfather, great-grandfather) and descendants (such as children and grandchildren) are lacking, to appoint as heirs blood relatives in the collateral line, as is evident from the Institutes, On Undutiful Wills, at the beginning, the verse "But a sister," and the law "brother" in the same title of the Code.
Moreover, by "one" he especially denotes the sordidly avaricious man, who hides his coins and alone frequently inspects them, lest they be stolen by anyone. Hence he allows no one to see them — like that comic character Euclio, who buried his riches at home and drove out the old woman from the house lest she be aware of his wealth. For thus he says: "Out, come on, out! By Hercules, you must get out of here! You gadabout with your prying eyes! By Hercules, I'll dig out those shameless eyes of yours, so you can't spy on what I'm doing — you wretch, who have eyes even in the back of your head!"
To this Olympiodorus adds: "He takes 'one' in this place as the person who cherishes and loves only himself, who does not even wish to have sons and brothers. For he who is held by the desire for them, although by nature he has no relatives and blood-kin, yet follows charity according to God's precepts, and considers all men, however foreign, to be in the place of sons and brothers to him, according to the saying: 'He is to orphans as a father, and to their mother as a husband.'"
Mystically, St. Ambrose, in his book On the Training of Virgins, chapter 10, explains this of Christ: "There is one," he says, "and there is no second — He of whom it was said: 'Your one teacher is Christ,' the Only-begotten Son of God, alone, first, one God, doing what He wills, not what is commanded (namely, as He is God); He is one thing with the Father, the only one without sin, alone without help (in His passion); there is no end to His labors, because He is the advocate before the Father for all, and He has taken up our infirmities, and He suffers and is weakened for us; His eye is not satisfied with riches, because in Him is the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, in whom are the treasures of heavenly mysteries. There is no end to all His people, because the people of Christ, innumerable, have no end, for whom faith in the resurrection acquires the age of eternal perpetual life." So also Salonius and Alcuinus.
But what follows does not apply to Christ: "In this also is vanity." Hence St. Ambrose applies the same to Christians who, having abandoned the one Christ, serve the vain world, as will soon be evident. Certainly this allegory seems little consonant, indeed discordant, with the letter and purpose of Solomon. Hence Hugh the Cardinal says: "This seems more an imposition than an exposition, unless it were supported by the authority of St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, out of reverence for whom I do not dare to reject it."
AND HE HAS NOT A SECOND — that is, he lacks a legitimate heir, namely a son or brother. Hence the Chaldean clearly translates: and there is no second besides him, nor even a son; nor does he have a brother to inherit his possessions.
AND YET HE CEASES NOT TO LABOR. The Hebrew, Septuagint, and Syriac: nor is there an end to all his labor; the Arabic: nor in all his labor is he confused — he is not ashamed to labor constantly like a donkey. Aquila translates telos, a word that signifies both "end" and "perfection," as if to say: He does not yet consider himself sufficiently filled with and perfected in riches, but always desires more and more; he does not yet think his affairs are concluded, nor that he has overcome the difficulties and obstacles of a fortunate lot. Campensis: no riches satisfy his desires. Indeed, he is needy who considers himself needy, and therefore does not cease to accumulate, even though he is the richest man. "He is miserable who does not judge himself most blessed, even though he rules the world," says Seneca, epistle 9. And the Comic poet: "He is not blessed who does not think himself so"; nor is he miserable who does not consider himself miserable. "Your evil," says Marcus Antoninus the Emperor, surnamed the Philosopher, in book 4 of his Life, "does not reside in another's mind, nor in any turning or change of heaven; where then? In your own opinion about evils. Therefore judge nothing to be evil, and all will be well. But if the body, which is nearest to your mind, is cut, burned, festers, and rots, let that part which must judge these things remain calm — that is, let it consider that nothing is either good or evil which can equally happen to good and bad alike: for what happens equally to one who lives according to nature is neither according to nor against nature."
NOR DOES HE REFLECT, SAYING. Campensis: nor does he ever come to his senses, to say to himself: For whom do I labor? These words are not in the Hebrew and Greek, but are implied; hence our translator and the Chaldean skillfully supplied them. This is the remarkable thoughtlessness and folly of misers — that they do not reflect on the use and fruit, indeed the vanity, of their labors and cares, by which they continually torment themselves in vain. Similar is the folly of the rich miser, who therefore hears from Christ: "Fool, this night they shall require your soul of you; and the things you have prepared, whose shall they be?" Luke 12:12.
Ecclesiasticus more clearly represents this folly, chapter 11, verses 18 and following: "There is one who grows rich by acting sparingly, and this is the portion of his reward, in that he says: I have found rest for myself, and now I shall eat of my goods alone — and he does not know that time will pass, and death draws near, and he will leave all things to others, and will die."
FOR WHOM DO I LABOR? The word "for whom" is not neuter — as if to say: for what thing, to what end, with what fruit do I labor — but masculine: for whom, namely for what person or heir; for this is what the Hebrew mi signifies. The Chaldean: for whom do I finally torment myself? Thaumaturgus: from this I would gladly have asked for what reason he wears himself out with labors.
AND I DEFRAUD MY SOUL. I defraud my enjoyment, not daring to use the riches acquired by such great labor of mine, but sparing them and keeping them for an uncertain heir. The Hebrew: and I cause my soul to fail; others: I diminish my soul; the Septuagint: I defraud my soul of good — that is, of its pleasantness and enjoyment; the Syriac: I cause my soul to lose goods; the Arabic: good; the Chaldean: and he does not say in his heart: For whom do I labor and defraud my soul of good things? I will arise and make alms from it, and I will rejoice in this age with the children of men, and in the age to come with them.
Tropologically, St. Ambrose, On the Training of Virgins, chapter 1: "Why then," he says, "do we labor for the world (and not for the one Christ) and defraud our soul with the loss of so great a good, we who ought to serve no other except this Lord?"
Misers therefore are like the Jews who, greedily collecting manna — more than they could eat — soon saw it rotting and swarming with worms, Exodus 16. The same happens to misers, whom St. James accordingly rebukes, chapter 5:2: "Your riches," he says, "have putrefied, and your garments are moth-eaten; your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust shall be a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire." See what was said there a little above. A wine-merchant from Chios sold the finest wine to others at a good price and made no small profit; he himself reserved the vinegar and flat wine for his own use. When someone chanced to ask his servant why he had run away from his master, he heard that amid an abundance of good things the master sought bad things for himself — which is what all sordid and avaricious people do, who lack what they have just as much as what they do not have. Plutarch reports this story in his book On Tranquility of Mind. Alciatus, Emblem 85, this sort of men he likens to a donkey, which, while carrying dainty provisions on its back, meanwhile feeds on thistles.
A GRIEVOUS AFFLICTION. The Septuagint: the worst distension; the Syriac: evil companionship; the Arabic: this is vain and evil confusion; Symmachus: evil occupation; Campensis: this indeed is infinitely foolish and the most grievous torment of the mind.
Verse 9: It is Better Therefore that Two be Together than One: for They have the Advantage of their...
9. IT IS BETTER THEREFORE THAT TWO BE TOGETHER THAN ONE: FOR THEY HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR COMPANIONSHIP. The Hebrew: two are better than one, for they have a good reward for their labor; Olympiodorus: for whom there is a good price; the Septuagint: two are better than one, who have a good reward in their labor; the Syriac: two are better than one, who have a good reward in their labor; the Arabic: two good ones are better than one, since they have good companionship in their labors; St. Jerome: two are better than one; St. Ambrose, epistle 17: two excellent ones are better than one; the Chaldean: two just men in a generation are better than a single one; and these indeed, disposing themselves according to the pattern of the stars, and affirming by their words that the best reward of the future life is prepared for them — for the labor by which they spent themselves to nourish their equals; Vatablus: two are happier than one alone; the Tigurina: it is better for two to live together than one alone; Campensis: therefore they judge the life of two living together to be better and more convenient than that of one alone: for companionship itself brings no small good; others: two are happier than one, as if to say: Social life is happier than solitary life.
The inferential word "therefore" is not in the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Arabic, but is implied, as the Vulgate translator skillfully noticed and therefore expressed; but it is difficult to demonstrate this inference and to draw it from the preceding statement. Omitting the various connections proposed by various authors,
I say the force and energy of the inference is this. He said in the preceding verse: "There is one alone, and he has not a second" (Hebrew sceni), for example, neither son nor brother; "and yet he ceases not to labor, nor are his eyes satisfied with riches; nor does he reflect, saying: For whom do I labor and defraud my soul of good things? In this also is vanity and a grievous affliction" — as if to say: This vanity and affliction belongs to solitude and being alone, namely that he has no heir or friend for whom to labor, and with whom to labor, to refresh himself, and to nourish and delight his soul with the goods acquired by his labor. From this he rightly infers here: "It is better therefore that two (Hebrew scenaim, which directly corresponds to sceni in the preceding verse) be together than one: for they have the advantage of their companionship" — namely, that they labor together, console and refresh each other together, and enjoy together the wealth acquired by their labor, with shared and therefore doubled joy. For "it is better therefore that two be together than one" is the antithesis of what he said: "There is one alone, and he has not a second, etc. In this also is vanity" — as if to say: Since so great is the vanity of the solitary miser who has no heir or companion, therefore it is better to be two than one, because friendly companionship is better than morose and gloomy solitude.
Oneness therefore is vanity; the duality of brothers or friends is truth, and the true pleasantness and happiness of brotherhood or friendship. For this makes life far sweeter, more useful, more honorable, and safer, and fortifies and protects a person against rivals, the plots of enemies, and all the vicissitudes and blows of adverse fortune. So St. Jerome, Bonaventure, Hugh of St. Victor, Titelmannus, and others.
Therefore this statement pertains first of all to brothers and sons, whom he named in the preceding verse, as if to say: It is better to be two brothers than one alone; it is better to be two — namely, father and son — than a father alone or a son alone, because a brother helps, consoles, and strengthens his brother in labor, and a father his son, and a son his father, and if one dies, the other is successor, defender, and heir. For the bond between brothers and between father and son is the closest of all; hence it is the root, origin, and model of all other forms of society, as I shall soon show. Hence the Chaldean translates: two just men in a generation are better than one, etc. In their labor, with which they labor to sustain their generation.
Second, it pertains to companions and friends, as if to say: It is better for two to be companions and friends together than for one to be alone without a companion and friend. The reason is that in the absence of brothers and sons, whom nature denies to many, nature itself has substituted companions and friends, whom anyone can acquire and procure for himself through services and kindnesses, as if to say: If you have no son or brother, in his place acquire for yourself a friend, so that you are not one and alone, but may enjoy and rejoice in companionship. For a friend will be to you a consolation, a benefit, and an ornament, just as if he were a brother — indeed he will take the place of a brother: for just as a brother is said to be "almost another," as Gellius says, book 12, chapter 10, so a friend is called "another self." For "a man amiable in society shall be more friendly than a brother," Proverbs 18:24.
Plutarch teaches the same from Solomon, in his book On Brotherly Love: "Most friendships," he says, "are nothing other than shadows and images of that first bond which nature has implanted in children toward parents and in brothers toward brothers; and he who does not revere and cultivate it — does he give any assurance that he is benevolent to others? Or what kind of person does he seem to you, who, while bestowing the name of brother on a companion in greetings and letters, does not think he should even walk the same road with his own brother?" He then adds that a friend is like a second brother. To this Olympiodorus adds that a generous person, by his generosity toward the poor, binds them to himself, so that he is regarded and honored by them as a brother, indeed as a father; therefore, as many poor people as he feeds, so many sons and brothers he creates for himself. So Job 29:16 says: "I was a father to the poor." Hence Cyrus used to say that the most secure treasures were riches deposited with friends, as Xenophon testifies, book 8 of the Cyropaedia.
Seneca asserts the same, book 6 of On Benefits, chapter 3, and proves it from the fact that riches kept in chests are often carried off by thieves, but friends cannot be carried off. Hence the same author, epistle 9: "It is more pleasant," he says, "to make a friend than to have one." One who does good to another makes him a friend. And Martial says clearly, book 5, epigram 43: "Whatever you give to friends is beyond the reach of fortune. The only wealth you will always possess is what you have given away."
Now let me bring each point back to the anvil.
IT IS BETTER THEREFORE THAT TWO BE TOGETHER. By "two," understand also three, four, and more: for the companionship and friendship of many is sweeter and more useful than a solitary life. So Thaumaturgus, Lyranus, and others; for it follows: "A threefold cord is not easily broken." Hence St. Jerome on chapter 5 of Matthew, verse 45: "As much as two differ from one," he says, "if they are joined by love, so much more does the fellowship of three prevail. For true charity, violated by no envy, grows in strength as much as it grows in number." Hence the Philosopher used to say: "We have never had enough friends, nor has any man." Yet he says "two" to indicate that perfect companionship and friendship can exist only between two or three — that is, between a few — according to the saying of Ecclesiasticus 6:6: "Let your peaceful friends be many, but let your counselor be one in a thousand."
Charity therefore loves all for the sake of the one God, but from all of these, friendship selects a few for itself as intimates and counselors. See Plutarch's treatise On Friendship Spread Among Many, in which he teaches that friendship for this reason withers and passes into a common and cold benevolence.
FOR THEY HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR COMPANIONSHIP. The Hebrew, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic: for they have a reward for their labor — namely, social labor, that is, companionship. Hence Antonius in the Melissa, chapter 43, reads: they have a reward in common labor; and Thaumaturgus says: "Those who have entered into a companionship of life and devote themselves to the same activities can reap the best fruits, and they double for each other the pleasure of prosperous outcomes." This reward is that two labor together pleasantly, with greater convenience and profit, like partners working in common; that they enjoy the companionship of mutual conversation, counsel, consolation, and protection; that each can leave the other as successor and heir; that what one would not dare, two dare; that what one cannot accomplish, two can. So in trade, the profit of a partnership is enormous, since by pooling the resources, industry, and commerce of two or three, a greater abundance of goods is produced, and from that a greater profit.
The Chaldean, Olympiodorus, and others by "labor" understand gifts, alms, services, and kindnesses, by which one binds another to oneself and makes a friend. For of this friendship, the reward of gifts given is great, and it brings great advantages and benefits to the giver.
Morally, learn here how great a good companionship and friendship is; for through it one person becomes as many, and operates and negotiates through many, and therefore accomplishes much and great things. This is evident in the society of citizens and soldiers in concord, which is impregnable and conquers all else, according to the saying of Homer: "Shield pressed on shield, helmet on helmet, and man on man." And in the society of religious and monks, which is so powerful that it brings about great conversions of men, cities, and provinces, and changes of morals for the better.
Hear St. Chrysostom, quoted by Maximus, homily 1 On Brotherly Love: "Nothing is comparable to concord: for one person is, as it were, multiplied. If two or ten are in concord, one is not one, but each of them becomes tenfold, and you will find one in ten and ten in one. If they have any enemies, whoever attacks one of them is as though he had rushed upon ten — thus he is captured. One may be in need, but he is not crushed by want: for the poverty is overshadowed by the greater part and number. Each of them has twenty hands and twenty eyes, and as many feet, and ten souls besides: for each uses in all things not only his own members but theirs as well. And if there were a hundred, the same would happen again. The same can happen among the Persians and at Rome, and what nature cannot do, friendship can. If therefore you have a thousand friends, or even two thousand friends, you should consider what the number amounts to. For this is the wonder — that one becomes a thousandth part. Indeed it would be more desirable for the sun to be extinguished for us than to be deprived of friends. For many who see the sun are in darkness; but those who have many friends cannot even fall into calamity; for nothing, nothing can be sweeter than friendship and charity. For what does a true friend not accomplish? What pleasure does he not bring, what usefulness, what security!" Dionysius says in the same place: "As many friends as you acquire, so many eyes you have with which to see what you wish; so many counselors with which to deliberate and foresee about what is beneficial. For the friendship of many is no different than if God were to give many souls to one who has a single body, and all of them would provide and plan for him."
Hence the Psalmist says: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!" Psalm 132. "Evil is solitude," says St. Bonaventure, "through the lack of delight, as in the miser and the proud; miserable, through the lack of consolation; laudable and honorable, through the quiet of contemplation." Moreover, Dionysius the Carthusian says: "Solomon speaks here according to the common law of nature, not according to the preeminence of grace, which transcends nature and is not bound by the common law. For anchorites, Carthusians, and monks live in solitude, and yet they lead an angelic life." Hence Abbot Moses, in Cassian, Conference 1, chapter 7, teaches that solitude should be pursued for purity of heart and contemplation, after the example of Christ, who "went out to a mountain to pray alone, and spent the night in prayer to God," Luke 6. But St. Thomas rightly notes, II-II, Question 188, article 8, that solitude and the contemplative life are only for the perfect, who are already established in virtue, are self-sufficient, and do not need the help of companions; and therefore such persons should first be trained and perfected in the social and cenobitic life. Hence St. Jerome, epistle 4 to Rusticus: "What then," he says, "do we condemn the solitary life? By no means, since we have often praised it. But we wish soldiers to go forth from this school of monasteries, whom the harsh rudiments of the desert do not frighten, who have given proof of their manner of life for a long time, who were the least of all so that they might become the first of all; whom neither hunger nor satiety has ever overcome, who rejoice in poverty; whose clothing, speech, face, and gait are a lesson in the virtues." But even these, in the midst of the Thebaid, do not lack companions and friends; indeed the society of many fortifies and strengthens individuals, so that they fill monasteries and form numerous orders like the properly ordered battle lines of God's army. Read the Lives of the Fathers, Palladius in the Lausiac History, Cassian, and similar works.
Finally, hear St. Basil, enumerating the advantages of cenobitic and social religious life in his Monastic Constitutions, chapter 19: "First," he says, "those who embrace this communion and fellowship of life return to that good which comes from nature. Indeed I call that community of life most perfect from which all private and individual ownership of any thing is excluded, and from which all dissension, all disturbance and quarrel is absent. On the contrary, everything is shared: souls, minds, bodies, and those things which we necessarily use for sustenance and nourishment. God is common, the commerce of piety is common, salvation is common, the contests are common, the labors are common, the rewards and the crowns of the contests are common — where many are one, and one is not alone but in many. What, then, can justly be compared to this way of life? What can be called more blessed? What can be more aptly conceived than this union, unity, and bond? What can be more elegantly imagined than this mutual tempering of characters and souls among themselves?" He represents the same thing vividly with a living example, when he adds: "Men coming from diverse nations and regions, through the exact similarity of their customs and discipline, have so fused together as it were into one, that in many bodies only one soul seems to dwell, and conversely many bodies are seen to be the instruments of one mind. Among these, he who is of weak bodily health has the hearts of many sharing in his infirmity. And he who is sick in soul has many at hand to cure him and to raise him up constantly. These, by equal right among themselves, are both servants and masters of one another, and with unconquered liberty they render to one another the supreme servitude — which no necessity or chance occurrence has violently brought upon them with sorrow, but which the free will of the soul has introduced with joy, since charity itself makes them, though otherwise free, subject to one another, and yet preserves their full liberty nonetheless. Such, indeed, God wished us to be when He fashioned us in the beginning and created us for this end. For this reason Christ established the society of the twelve
Apostles, through which He converted the whole world to Himself. Among the Hebrews there is a famous proverb: "O chebreta, o temutha" — that is, "either companionship or death." Having experienced this, St. Augustine thus explains his love for a friend, and his grief at his friend's death, book 4 of the Confessions, chapter 6: "I marveled," he says, "that other mortals lived, because he whom I had loved as though he would never die was dead; and I marveled even more that I, who was his other self, lived while he was dead. Well did someone say of his friend: 'The half of my soul.' For I felt that my soul and his soul had been one soul in two bodies; and therefore life was a horror to me, because I did not wish to live as half; and perhaps for this reason I feared to die, lest he should wholly die whom I had loved so greatly."
The same was learned from Solomon and taught by the philosophers, as Plato in his book On the Republic, and Aristotle, book 1 of the Politics, chapter 2, where he says: "The solitary man who needs nothing is either a god or a beast" — that is, he has either divine or bestial manners. The same author, book 3, chapter 7: "Individuals," he says, "although less good, when gathered together are nevertheless better than the best of them individually, just as happens at a dinner which, from the contributions of many, is more sumptuous than one prepared by a single person." Euripides in his Heracleidae: "A solitary hand," he says, "is weak in a fight"; and: "One man does not see all things." Hence the worn saying: "One man, no man." Plutarch asserts that what you give to a friend returns to you with interest; Socrates, according to Laertius, says a friend is more valuable than profit; Crassus, according to Maximus, sermon 6, calls it "a fruitful field." Isocrates, in his Admonition to Nicocles, requires three things especially in friendship: "Virtue as something honorable, familiarity as something pleasant, and usefulness as something necessary." And that Spartan Antalcidas, according to Plutarch in his Laconic Sayings, requires: "That a friend should speak the most pleasant things, but do the most useful."
Mystically, St. Ambrose, On the Training of Virgins, chapter 11, and in his commentary on this passage of Ecclesiastes near the end of volume 2, by "two" understands Christ and the Christian, and by "one," him who is without Christ: "Two excellent ones are better than one," he says, "because there is a reward in their labor. Where are two excellent ones better than one, except where Christ is and the one whom Christ protects? For if he who is with the Lord Jesus falls, Jesus raises him up." He then adds that Jesus does not fall but lowers Himself to death, so that He may raise both Himself and us; for He died with us so that He might warm us with the fire of charity which He came to cast upon the earth, and like Elisha might give us the warmth of life.
Symbolically, Olympiodorus says: It is better for two to be together — that is, for the body to agree with the soul and to help it in the works of virtue, so that neither the flesh may resist the spirit, nor the spirit be puffed up and grow insolent from the mortification of the flesh with vain glory. For if the body dissents from the soul, it will drag it with itself into ruin.
Verse 10: If One Falls, he will be Supported by the Other: Woe to him that is Alone: for When he Falls, he...
10. IF ONE FALLS, HE WILL BE SUPPORTED BY THE OTHER: WOE TO HIM THAT IS ALONE: FOR WHEN HE FALLS, HE HAS NO ONE TO LIFT HIM UP. In Hebrew: if they fall — one will make his companion stand. For "companion" the Septuagint translates metochon, that is, "partaker"; Aquila, hetairon, that is, "friend"; the Arabic: for if one falls, he will raise up his companion. And woe to his single soul when he falls, and there will not be another to raise him up.
IF ONE FALLS — namely, either one of the two: for then the one standing will raise up the fallen, or support the tottering one; or both: for then each will support the other when tottering toward a fall with his help, industry, and counsel, lest he slip and fall, or will lift up one already fallen. For the Hebrew iakim — that is, "will make stand" — signifies two things: first, to support one leaning toward a fall so that he does not fall; second, to raise up and restore one already fallen. A companion and friend provides both services to his friend. Again, "if he falls" signifies either the completed act, that is the falling itself, or the beginning or danger of a fall, according to the words of David, Psalm 117:43: "Being pushed, I was overturned so as to fall, and the Lord upheld me" — lest I fall into the abyss into which I was being pushed by rivals and enemies. A friend therefore will sustain his friend who is tottering, lest he fall; will raise him up if fallen; will support and strengthen him when raised, lest he fall again. All these things the Hebrew word iakim signifies.
Again, "if he falls" — understand: into the ground, a pit, water, fire, or into sickness, as the Chaldean explains; or into poverty, as Ferus; or into prison or slavery, as Rabbi Moses; or into perplexity and lack of counsel, as Olympiodorus; or into sin, as Dionysius; or into any other adversity and calamity, as St. Jerome, Thaumaturgus, Lyranus, and others. For a true friend strives to alleviate whatever misfortune his friend suffers. Hear Thaumaturgus: "For when two men devote themselves to the same task, and something adverse happens to one, he will not need to seek help from afar, for he has at hand someone to assist him. On the other hand, for a man faring badly and in need of refreshment, solitude is the greatest calamity. Companions and those who live in the same dwelling, if any storm arises, immediately calm it with mutual consolations — a double happiness indeed." Solomon shows in detail the advantages of companionship, and from many examples recounts only three by way of illustration: the first is that if one falls, the other will support him; the second: if two sleep together, they will warm each other; the third: if anyone prevails against one, two will resist him. The first consists in raising up, the second in preserving, the third in defending, says St. Bonaventure.
WOE TO HIM THAT IS ALONE: FOR WHEN HE FALLS, HE HAS NO ONE TO LIFT HIM UP. The Hebrew: woe to him who is one (that is, alone), for when he falls, he has no second to make him stand. The Chaldean, reading illu (that is, "if") instead of ilo (that is, "to him") with different vowel points, translates: for if one of them falls upon a bed and lies sick, the other will make his companion rise by his prayer. And if one innocent person is alone in his generation, in the time when he falls upon a bed and lies sick, there will not be for him in his generation a second companion to pray over him, but in his purity he will rise from his sickness.
The interjection "woe" in Scripture is noted as expressing not so much a threat or grief as the announcement of a certain punishment or inevitable disaster. Again, "if he falls" signifies an infallible fall and lapse, whether complete or just begun, as I said. For in the fragility, dangers, and misfortunes of this life, which frequently — indeed daily — befall everyone, it is impossible that one should not at some time fall into some calamity, and indeed at least into a venial fault.
Moreover, Thomas of Cantimpre, a man of great learning and experience, in book 2 of his Book of Bees, chapter 11, section 1, exhorting religious never to be without a companion — like bees, which live, work, and go out together — adds: "How true this saying is — 'Woe to him that is alone' — I know, who for thirty years have held the office of bishop in various dioceses; I who, on this point, have frequently heard of the dreadful evils, dreadful scandals, and dreadful dangers that befall religious who either travel alone on the roads or remain alone in courts — which they would never have endured, or committed, if they had a companion with them!"
HE HAS NO ONE TO LIFT HIM UP — indeed, he has many pushing him into the fall, and rejoicing, laughing, and mocking at his fall. This is litotes. For such is the condition of men that if they see someone happy and being lifted high, they applaud him; but if they see someone falling in misery, they push him further down, scorn him, and insult him, according to the saying: "Prosperity has many friends; the prosperous have many relatives. The friends of an unfortunate man are far away; more people worship the rising sun, few the setting."
The truth of this saying was recognized by tyrants, who, in order to overcome the martyrs, would separate them from one another, and press each one alone with threats, promises, and torments to deny Christ — as they separated Primus from his brother Felician, Ruffina from her sister Secunda, and Pope Cornelius from the clergy and Roman people. But in vain: for the entire people, together with their Pope, conspired in one confession of faith. Hence St. Cyprian, praising him in epistle 1 to Cornelius, says: "As much terror and dread as he (the emperor Decius, the persecutor) brought, so much fortitude and strength he found. He first attacked one man (Pope Cornelius), attempting to separate a sheep from the flock like a wolf, to separate a dove from the flying flock like a hawk: for he who does not have sufficient force against all seeks to entrap the solitude of individuals. But he was repelled by the loyalty and vigor alike of the united army," etc. And shortly after: "What a glorious spectacle that was in the eyes of God, etc., that against the battle which the enemy had attempted to wage, not individual soldiers but the entire camp at once came forth!"
From this maxim of Solomon: "Woe to him that is alone: for when he falls, he has no one to lift him up,"
In Hebrew: if they fall, one will make his companion stand. For "companion" the Septuagint translates metochon, that is, "partaker"; Aquila hetairon, that is, "friend"; the Arabic: for if one falls, he will raise up his companion. And woe to his single soul when he falls, and there will not be another to raise him up.
The Chaldean translates: for if one of them falls upon his bed and lies sick, the other will make his companion rise by his prayer. And if one innocent person is alone in his generation, when he falls upon his bed and lies sick, there will not be for him in his generation a second companion to pray over him, but in his purity he will rise from his sickness.
The interjection "woe" in Scripture is known as expressing not so much a threat or grief, as the announcement of a certain punishment or inevitable disaster. Again, "if he falls" signifies an infallible fall and lapse, whether complete or only begun, as I said. For in the fragility, dangers, and misfortunes of this life, which frequently — indeed daily — befall everyone, it is impossible that one should not at some time fall into some calamity, and indeed at least into a venial fault. Moreover, Thomas of Cantimpre, a man of great learning and experience, in book 2 of the Book of Bees, chapter 11, section 1, exhorting religious never to be without a companion, like bees which live, work, and go out together, adds: "How true this saying is — 'Woe to him that is alone' — I know, who for thirty years held the office of bishop in various dioceses. On this very point — that religious either travel alone on the roads or remain alone in courts — I have frequently heard of dreadful evils, dreadful scandals, and dreadful dangers, which they would never have endured or committed had a companion been with them!"
From this maxim of Solomon — "Woe to him that is alone: for when he falls, he has no one to lift him up" — Councils and legislators took occasion for establishing their laws.
Nigrenius, Ascetical Commentary on the Common Rules of the Society of Jesus, Rule 43.
This is the tropological solitude, which St. Bernard depicts in his sermon On the Deception of the Present Life: "They wandered, says the Prophet, Psalm 106, in the wilderness, in a waterless place; they found no way to a city to dwell in. This solitude belongs to the proud, because they consider themselves alone, they desire to be regarded as alone. One is learned — he hates a companion. One is strong or handsome — give him an equal, and he wastes away. He is solitary, but erring; he wanders in his solitude, for he cannot dwell alone upon the earth. Nor is it surprising that 'waterless' is added to this solitude, so that it says 'in the wilderness, in a waterless place.' For just as in wildernesses water tends to be lacking, and deserted places are usually also barren and arid, so impenitence accompanies pride. For a haughty heart is hard and devoid of piety, ignorant of compunction, dry from every dew of spiritual grace: because God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
Mystically, St. Gregory, Book IV, on chapter 10 of I Kings, says: "Woe to him who is alone, because if he falls, there is no one to raise him up. For he is truly alone who is abandoned by God. No one raises this fallen one, because no saint takes up one abandoned by God. Therefore every elect person ascends securely, because he is not alone. For He who speaks through us is with us; for He also promises, saying: 'Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.' Indeed He was not alone who said: 'I am not alone, but He who sent Me is with Me.' Likewise He was not alone who inquired saying: 'Do you seek a proof of Christ who speaks in Me?'"
Morally, learn again from this how great is the usefulness of companionship and friendship. Hear St. Augustine, or whoever the author is (for the style is more humble than would befit St. Augustine), in his book On Friendship, chapter 5: "Learn what usefulness friendship has, since among human affairs nothing holier is desired, nothing more difficult is found, nothing sweeter is experienced, nothing more fruitful is possessed. For it bears fruit for the present life and the future; for it displays all virtues by its sweetness, and pierces vices by its strength; it tempers adversity, arranges prosperity, so that without a friend scarcely anything among mortals can be pleasant; and a man may be compared to a beast who has no one to rejoice with him in favorable things, to grieve in sorrowful ones; to whom he may vent if his mind conceives something troublesome; to whom he may communicate if something unusually sublime or extraordinary occurs." He proves this from this maxim of Solomon: "Woe to him who is alone: because when he falls, he has no one to raise him up. He is utterly alone who is without a friend. But what happiness, what security, what delight it is to have someone with whom you dare speak as freely as with yourself? whom you do not fear to confess to if you have done wrong? before whom you are not ashamed to reveal your spiritual progress? to whom the secrets of your heart
The Eleventh Council of Toledo, as found in distinction 7, Question I, canon 13 of the divine law, decrees that another person should always assist a priest celebrating, and that "the one sacrificing should have behind him a helper of nearby comfort, so that if by some accident the one who approaches to fulfill the sacred offices is disturbed or struck to the ground, he may always have behind him one who will fearlessly carry out the role." The same thing had already been decreed before by Pope Soter, in the chapter Nullus Episcopus, De Consecratione, distinction 1. The Seventh Synod, moreover, as found in distinction 81, canon 24 In omnibus, forbids a cleric to speak with a woman alone without a companion: "Certainly, it says, no principle of religion permits one alone to approach one alone. For it is better for two to be together than one. For together the matter is conducted both more faithfully and more safely. For woe to him who is alone: because if he falls, there is no one to raise him up." Hence also the Apostles were sent by Christ in pairs to evangelize, Luke 10:1. The Lateran Council, on the status of monks, chapter Monachi, from this maxim decrees that monks should not live alone in villages, towns, or parishes, but in a community or with brethren: lest, it says, among secular people they experience the conflict of spiritual enemies. It is an ancient custom that Religious should go not alone but in pairs, which our Holy Father Urban VIII recently commanded by a decree issued on this matter. Hence St. Thomas Aquinas called a religious man alone and without a companion a solitary demon; for he is exposed to the snares, assaults, calumnies, and sinister suspicions of men and demons. A clear example is in Lot, when he abandoned the companionship of Abraham. "For behold, says St. Chrysostom, homily 35 on Genesis, when he was separated from the just man, and thought himself to be in greater abundance and plenty, and to have obtained better things and to abound, he suddenly became a slave; lacking a home, lacking even a hearth, so that you may learn how great an evil division is, and how great a good concord is; and that it is fitting not to rashly grasp at greater things, but rather to cherish humility." So indeed it happened to Lot, and so it will happen to all those who, in order to grow and shine among men, diminish other brethren in reputation and cloud them with words as with a certain mist. Why do the wretches clothe themselves with honor while stripping their brethren of honor? Why do the innocent, in order to promote themselves, undermine the good reputation of others? Why do the senseless, in order to shine alone, obscure others? They wish to shine alone, but they will not shine alone; rather, they will remain alone without light. But woe to him who is alone: because if he falls, he will have no one to raise him up. Severe but just is the decree of the Lord, whose judgments are a great deep, that those who separate themselves from their brethren not in dwelling, not in clothing, but in heart and affection, should in the time of necessity be left alone and be swallowed up by temptations: for the Lord permits that neither the examples, nor the counsels, nor the teaching of those whom they have cast off through hatred and ill will should profit them. See our Alvarez de Paz, who lists many disadvantages of the solitary life, in his treatise On the Spiritual Life, Book II, Part IV, chapter 24, and Julius you may entrust and begin to discuss plans? What then is more delightful than thus to unite the soul of another and make one out of two, so that no boasting is feared, no suspicion dreaded, nor does one corrected by the other grieve, nor does one praising the other charge or accuse him of flattery?" In particular, Thomas a Kempis, in his Theodidactus, Part I, sermon 2, lists the advantages of social and cenobitic life: "He who is of good will and seeks God will profit more among those who seek God, and will stand more firmly. There a man is more tested and exercised in virtue. There he is frequently reproached for negligence. There he is drawn to more perfect things by word and example. There he is compelled to consider and lament his own imperfection. There he is stirred by another's fervor, taught by another's humility, moved by this one's obedience, by that one's patience. There he is confounded to be found slower. There he finds those whom he fears. There he has those whom he loves, and thus profits from all. There another's correction becomes his own admonition. There another's peril becomes his own mirror. There one is another's guardian. There a man carries and is carried. There he hears and sees many things from which he may learn." He then continues the same point more fully, adding: "There the good are commended, that they may become better. There the negligent are reproved, that they may grow fervent again. There a man is not permitted to grow torpid, nor to act according to his own pleasure. There are diverse offices, and many services of charity are rendered. There everything has its time, and each one goes to his work out of obedience. There the weak is sustained by the stronger. There the healthy man, visiting the sick, rejoices to serve Christ. There when one fails, another fills his place. There sound members are solicitous for the weak. There the active labors for the one at rest, the one at rest prays for the one laboring. There a man has many praying for him, and in his last moments protecting him against the devil. There he finds as many helpers as he has companions."
Verse 11: And If Two Sleep Together, They will Warm Each Other: How shall One be Warmed Alone?
11. AND IF TWO SLEEP TOGETHER, THEY WILL WARM EACH OTHER: HOW SHALL ONE BE WARMED ALONE?
The Hebrew and the Septuagint read: if two lie together, there will be warmth for them; how shall one be warm alone? And if two rest together, they will be warmed; the Arabic: and if two sleep, there will be warmth and heat for them; and how shall one be warm alone? Campensis: if two sleep together, one will warm the other. This is what our Vulgate means by 'they will warm each other mutually'; for he who warms another with his own heat is himself warmed by the same: for he grows warm from that very heat which he preserves in the other, since joining it with another's, he increases both his own and the other's: just as two burning logs nourish the fire and mutually increase it in each other, which in one alone would languish and be extinguished. Hence the translation: if two lie together, there will be more heat for them: for one adds his own warmth to the other in turn, and thus preserves, strengthens, and virtually doubles it.
Literally therefore and physically this maxim is clear, and is understood as it sounds. For in sleep consists a great part of the health and strength of an animal. Hence it is commonly said: "Sleep nourishes equally as food," and this is evident in dormice, which grow fat by sleeping; likewise in bears, which spend a great part of winter sleeping, and then are nourished by no other food than sleep, as Pliny and Aristotle attest in the History of Animals.
Now warmth promotes sleep; therefore cold people, such as the elderly, the sick, and the naked, sleep little. Well known is the aphorism of Hippocrates, Book I, chapters 14 and 15: "One who is evidently awake is warmer on the outside, but colder on the inside; one who is sleeping, the opposite." I experience this myself daily: for at night I lie awake for many hours, because my stomach is deprived of warmth through old age and study; but those who have a warm stomach, like young people, sleep soundly through entire nights. Again the same author says: "The stomach in winter and spring is very hot by nature (for by the antiperistasis of the surrounding cold external air, the internal heat of the stomach intensifies and strengthens itself to resist the external cold), and therefore sleep is very long." See Galen, Book VI On Common Diseases, comments 4 and 5.
The sense therefore is, as if to say: If two lie together, they will warm each other more, and therefore will sleep longer; but one alone, if he is cold, will hardly grow warm and therefore will sleep little.
The Chaldean refers these words to spouses, as if Solomon here were exhorting the carnal Jews to marriage so that they might sleep better: "If a husband and wife, he says, retire to bed, they provide each other mutual warmth in winter; but how shall one person alone finally grow warm?"
Others, like Arias, refer this maxim to the weak and sick, who sleep better if they are warmed by the heat of a second person. Just as David in his old age, when he could not grow warm nor sleep, obtained both warmth and sleep through the companionship of Abishag the Shunammite.
But in general this proverb, grammatically and on the surface of the letter, speaks of any two people sleeping together, in the same bed, or blanket, or tent, or room, as soldiers sleep, and even Hungarian nobles, who, in order to be agile and strong for frequent wars with the Turks, use a bench or the floor instead of a bed: for two or more people sleeping in the same room warm not only each other but the entire room with their heat and breath. For honest and chaste people, out of propriety and modesty, do not wish to admit a companion in their bed unless they are married.
But symbolically and parabolically, this proverb about two sleeping together signifies the comfort and aid that a friend provides to a friend, especially to one who is weak and afflicted: for the symbols and causes of affliction and adversity, and consequently of fear and sadness, are night, darkness, cold, and sleeplessness; just as conversely the symbols and causes of strength, courage, and joy are day and light, likewise warmth and sleep. This is evident in the elderly and the young. For the elderly, on account of cold, are weak, fearful, and melancholy; but the young, on account of warmth, are robust, bold, and cheerful: therefore it is expedient for the young to be joined with the old, so that the former may dispel the latter's sadness with their cheerfulness, and the latter may temper the former's boldness with their own caution and prudence. This is what Thaumaturgus meant when he translated: for both by day they are festive with freedom of speech, and by night they shine with honorable gravity. For day is a symbol of happiness, night of adversity.
Again, this proverb signifies the mutual trust by which a friend, burning with cares and anxieties, deposits them in the bosom of a friend, and in him, as it were, peacefully falls asleep and rests. So St. Jerome and Lyranus.
Third, this proverb indicates the fervor by which a friend who is more sluggish is inflamed to works of charity and virtue by the example and encouragement of a friend, according to the saying: "The colder will grow warm in virtue by the example of the more fervent." So Olympiodorus. The same thing is signified by a similar proverb of Solomon, Proverbs 27:17: "Iron is sharpened by iron, and a man sharpens the face of his friend." See the commentary there.
Finally, the type of friendship is fire and warmth: for what fire does for the world, a friend does for a friend. Hence Plutarch, in his book On the Flatterer and the Friend: "Just as fire, he says, is the best of seasonings, so God, mixing friendship into life, made all things joyful, sweet, and pleasant, so that they might exist in the presence of a friend and be enjoyed together." And Cicero, in his book On Friendship: "Friendship, he says, is to human life what the sun is to the world."
Cyril puts this maxim vividly before the eyes with an elegant fable of a bee and a sparrow, in Book II of his Moral Apologues, chapter 7, titled Against the Desire for Singularity: "A bee, he says, finding a solitary sparrow, first offered a greeting and said to him: Why, my brother, do you love bitter solitude, when the companionship of friendship is so sweet? But he replied: Indeed, it does not please me at all to be tossed about in the storm of the multitude, or to be one of the crowd. Is not the sun one among the stars, and is not God one above all things? Hearing this, when the bee, proceeding subtly, had noted the pride of his singularity, she advanced argumentatively in this cause as follows: Although God, she said, is essentially one, He nevertheless rejoices in the indivisible companionship of an equal Trinitarian hypostasis. The sun, moreover, strives to make the moon, the lowest of the stars, a companion of its splendor in grandeur by the gift of light, lest it be alone. Likewise the first mobile, since it is one, by communicating the power of its primary motion, carries the other spheres with it, lest it be singular in its office; indeed the universe of the world is connected by the joint of unity of all its parts, so that none of them should in any way suffer the solitude of separation. Does not the soul, naturally a lover of companionship, immediately grieve if it should abandon its body even for a moment? When in the beginning God had created man alone, He is said to have immediately declared (Gen. 2:18): 'It is not good for man to be alone: Let Us make him a helper like himself.'" Then the bee demonstrates the same point with the example of eyes, wings, hands, and feet: "For this reason also two eyes were created, two wings, as many hands, and feet alike in duality, so that by the plurality of functions and unity of forms, all members might be provided with similar assistance. To what purpose indeed were cities built, communities gathered, and polities united by the bond of law, unless so that by a common obliging partnership, human affairs might be not only sufficient but also tranquil? Woe therefore to him who is alone: because when, tossed by the unstable foot of pride, he falls deprived of companionship, he will have no one to lift him up and help him. Indeed even domestic animals live in herds; all others too, as far as they can, observe the polity of nature; he who flees companionship is either rabid or wild. But a hermit is a companion of the gods. Having said these things, the bee left the sad lover of solitude."
Mystically, St. Jerome understands the companion to be Christ, who like Elisha brings us, dead in sin, back to life: "Unless, he says, Christ sleeps with us and rests in death, we cannot receive the warmth of eternal life." Again, our Alvarez de Paz, Book III On the Nature of Perfection, Part III, chapter 32, says: Those Religious sleep together who, lying in the bed of religion and covered with charity, are simultaneously devoted to prayer and holy occupations: for these grow warm with mutual desires and actions; but he sleeps alone who, separated in soul from others, prays or occupies himself: for he does not have near him someone joined by love, from whom he might be warmed.
Verse 12: And If Anyone Prevails Against One, Two Resist him
12. AND IF ANYONE PREVAILS AGAINST ONE, TWO RESIST HIM.
Symmachus: has prevailed over one. The Hebrew: two will stand before him, that is, against him, to oppose him in war, not only defensively but also offensively. It is a meiosis: for by 'resist' is understood: they will fight and overcome him. For just as one stronger person prevails over one less strong, so two less strong persons prevail over one stronger than either of them; because "not even Hercules against two"; and, as the Arabs say: "Two weak people are stronger than a rock." Hence the Syriac and Arabic translate: even if one is strengthened, the two rise up against him. The Complutensian Septuagint clearly: And if one is defeated, two will stand against him. St. Jerome: if a stronger enemy rises against one, the weakness of the other will be sustained by the comfort of a friend. Thaumaturgus: he acts rashly and dangerously who attacks many people surrounded by mutual protection. Here applies the Hebrew proverb in Res chelec in the Sanhedrin: "Two dry logs burn up one green one," that is: "Two weak people easily overcome one strong person, if he is alone"; because "not even Hector is a match for two."
The Chaldean understands this maxim as referring to the just, who avert the wrath of God aroused by the wicked: "When a flagitious and powerful man breaks forth, whose reprobate deeds are carried by a certain propensity to the occasion of bringing vengeance upon the world, two just men will come forth from the opposite side, who by their merits avert this impending vengeance."
But the subject here is one who resists the anger not of God, but of an enemy attacking a friend, as is clear from the words. It signifies therefore the third of the benefits of companionship and friendship, which is that a friend provides defense to a friend, when he protects and fights for him against an invader, even at the risk of his own life, according to Proverbs 18:19: "A brother who is helped by a brother is like a strong city." See the commentary there. Hence St. Leo, sermon 4 On the Fast of the Tenth Month: "The ecclesiastical soldier, he says, even if he can fight bravely in individual battles, will nevertheless fight more safely and more successfully if he stands openly in battle line against the enemy, where he does not enter the contest with his own strength alone, but under the command of an unconquered king, joined with fraternal ranks, wages a universal war. For many fight against the enemy with less danger than individuals; nor is a wound easily found where, with the shield of faith interposed, not only one's own strength but that of others also defends; so that where there is one cause for all, there may be one victory."
Hence Joab said to his brother Abishai: "If the Syrians prevail against me, you shall help me; but if the sons of Ammon prevail against you, I will help you," 2 Samuel 10:11. Indeed Seneca also, Book IV On Benefits, chapter 18: "For by what else, he says, are we safe, except that we are helped by mutual services? By this one thing life is better equipped, and by the commerce of benefits it is more fortified against sudden attacks. Make us individuals: what are we? The prey and victims of animals, and the weakest and most easily shed blood. Since for all other animals there is sufficient strength for their own protection: whatever creatures are born to roam and live a solitary life are armed: but weakness encompasses man. Neither the force of claws nor of teeth has made him fearsome to others: naked and weak, companionship fortifies him. Two things have been given which make him, though vulnerable, most powerful: reason and companionship." Hence he concludes, establishing full mastery: "And so he who, if separated, could be equal to none, gains possession of all things. Companionship gave him dominion over all animals; companionship transmitted one born on earth into the empire of an alien element, and commanded him to rule even over the sea; it repelled the assaults of diseases, provided supports for old age, gave consolation against pains; it makes us strong, because it is permitted to summon help against fortune. Take this away, and you will split the unity of the human race, by which life is sustained."
Hence it is clear that charity and friendship, although they do not impose a heroic obligation on someone to sacrifice or expose his life for the life of a friend, nevertheless do permit and even encourage the same; therefore it will be an act of generous and perfect charity and friendship, as well as of fortitude and magnanimity, if anyone does so: because then he does not so much risk his life for the life of a friend, as for so many generous virtues. For the good of these virtues is greater than that of life. So St. Thomas, II-II, Question 26, article 4; and the theologians generally there, and the master Suarez confirms it with many arguments.
Indeed even philosophers, who did not recognize Christian and supernatural virtues but only natural ones, such as civic friendship, taught the same thing, as Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics IX, chapter 8; Cicero, On Friendship; Seneca, epistle 9: "For what purpose, he says, do I procure a friend? So that I may have someone for whom I can die; so that I may have someone whom I can follow into exile, against whose death I may set myself and expend myself." Such friends among the pagans were: Pylades and Orestes, Nisus and Euryalus, Theseus and Pirithous, Damon and Pythias, Eucritus and Evephenus, Servius Terentius and Decimus Brutus, whom Valerius Maximus lists in Book IV, chapter 7, of whom one voluntarily offered himself to death for the other — something not only philosophers but also the Fathers and theologians praise, such as St. Augustine, Confessions IV, chapter 61, St. Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy III, chapter 12, St. Jerome on Micah chapter 7. But hear Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics IX, chapter 8: "It is true what is said of a good man, that he does many things for the sake of his friends and his country, even if death must be faced." And further: "Those who are accustomed to face death for others choose a certain great honor for themselves."
A THREEFOLD CORD IS NOT EASILY BROKEN.
In Hebrew, meshulash, that is, tripled. For it is a pual piel, that is, a passive participle from shillesh, that is, he tripled. As if to say: A single cord is easily broken, a double one with difficulty, a triple one more difficultly: so also a man, if he is alone, is more easily overcome by an enemy; if with a companion, with difficulty; if with two, more difficultly. The Syriac: a threefold thread is not quickly torn apart; the Arabic: a tripled thread is not suddenly torn; in Hebrew it reads: a tripled thread is not broken in haste or in speed; the Chaldean: how beautiful are three just men in a generation, among whom there is peace, like a cord of a fringe made of three strands, which is not quickly broken; or, as Costus translates, they are truly like fortifications in triple order, which can hardly be taken by storm; or, as others render it: like a chain that is twisted of three cords, which is not hastily pulled apart; St. Ambrose, epistle 17: a threefold rope is not quickly broken.
THREEFOLD, that is, manifold: for it will be broken more difficultly if it is fourfold, fivefold, sixfold, etc. Hence Symmachus translates: a threefold or fourfold cord is not quickly broken. He says 'threefold,' however, both because a cord is usually tripled, that is, woven of three threads or strands, for elegance and strength; and to indicate that the companionship of a few, such as two or three, is strong; and to point to the symbols of the number three, about which more shortly; and because 'threefold' is often triply threefold. For rope-makers first twist a cord from three threads, then triple this cord, and twist one cord from the triple, then triple the already tripled cord again; indeed they twist the thick cables, by which machines and heavy masses are supported, from small ropes repeatedly tripled.
The sense therefore is, as if to say: Just as a rope woven and twisted from many threads cannot be broken, and is so strong that it lifts and supports beams, rocks, and enormous masses on high, while individual threads of tow are thin and are immediately broken: so likewise the united strength of two or three becomes double or triple, and thus so strong that it cannot be conquered or broken. Again, just as cords, the more they are twisted and the more often they are tripled, become denser and stronger so that they cannot be broken: so the tighter the companionship of two or more persons is, and the more numerous and greater the services of love and benevolence by which it is bound and drawn tight, the more robust and impregnable it is, as is evident in a battle line properly formed and densely packed.
St. Bonaventure adds that the word 'threefold' refers to and indicates the threefold benefit of companionship already listed.
An apt example is found in Scilurus the Scythian, who, about to die, called together his 80 sons, and when they could not break a bundle of javelins as he had ordered, but could easily break each one individually: "In the same way, he said, if you remain united, you will remain strong and unconquered; if you are divided by dissensions, you will be weak and easy to conquer." So Plutarch, Apophthegmata.
Morally, the threefold cord signifies that perfect friendship consists among a few, namely between two or three: for these imitate the Most Holy Trinity, in which the highest unity and concord of three Persons exists, which among many tends to languish or vanish. So the author of the book On Friendship, in volume IV of St. Augustine, chapter 5. Hence Christ, Matthew 18: "Where, He says, two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them," just as to the three youths in the furnace of Babylon, united and constant in the faith and praise of God, there appeared "a fourth, like the Son of God," Daniel 3:92. To signify this, as Pineda rightly notes, the poets invented three Graces, because friendship seems especially to flourish and be preserved among three: for a third friend intervening tends to remove all the weariness of daily dealings with one and the same person; and also the disputes and suspicions that rather frequently arise between two friends are easily settled and composed by the intervention, encouragement, and judgment of a third.
Symbolically, first, the threefold cord is the Most Holy Trinity, says St. Paulinus, epistle 4 to Severus, which is the fountain of all companionship, friendship, and concord, and thus the first indissoluble and uncreated society and charity, and therefore most invincible, which tames and subdues all things. So St. Ambrose, epistle 17: A threefold rope, he says, is not quickly broken. For three things that are not composed cannot be broken. The Trinity of uncomposed nature cannot be broken, because God is one and simple, and whatever He is, is uncomposed." Hugo Cardinalis adds the power of the Father, the wisdom of the Son, the goodness of the Holy Spirit, by which threefold cord the devil is bound, so that he cannot harm the unwilling. St. Basil concurs, who in Book V Against Eunomius, who wished to split the Most Holy Trinity and separate the Father from the Son and the Holy Spirit: "The Trinity, he says, will not be torn apart, and is to be worshipped in one and eternal glory, bearing everywhere the same one and only divinity, unbroken, uncut, indivisible, filling all things, containing all things, existing in all things, creating, governing, sanctifying, giving life. This divine and most admirable bond is not broken, as it is written: A threefold cord shall not be broken." Furthermore, Rabbi Johannan, in Galatinus, Book VI, chapter 10: The threefold cord, he says, that is, the mystery of the one and triune God, is not quickly broken, that is, it is not easily analyzed and elucidated.
The Brahmins, or Gymnosophists, among the Indians wear a cord twisted from three others, each of which again consists of three threads, to signify the three Persons in the Holy Trinity; and to indicate that the nature and divinity is one, they bind the ends of the cord together with a single knot, as Maffaeus, Osorius, and others writing about Indian affairs report, and Perpinus, oration 8 On the Triune and One God. Moreover, I have listed many mysteries of the number three in my commentary on Amos chapter 1, verse 3.
Second, St. Jerome understands by the threefold cord the Most Holy Trinity, insofar as It fortifies and strengthens us; likewise Christ, whose companionship makes us superior to all enemies: "It is better, he says, to have Christ within oneself (as a companion) than to be exposed alone to the devil; and if the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have come, this companionship will not be quickly broken." So also Salonius.
Third, others understand the Incarnation, in which three things were joined by the tightest bond, namely the soul, the flesh, and the Word; and although in the death of Christ the first two were separated, yet the third, namely the Word, was not separated from them: and after the resurrection the threefold cord was restored as indissoluble.
Tropologically, first, St. Gregory, Moralia XXXIII, chapter 9, or according to another edition chapter 12, understands by the threefold cord the faith in the Most Holy Trinity: "Because the faith, he says, which is woven from the knowledge of the Trinity by the mouth of preachers, remains strong in the elect, but is scattered only in the heart of the reprobate." And St. Isidore on Exodus chapter 46: "A threefold cord is not broken, he says, which is the faith in the Most Holy Trinity, on which depends and by which is sustained the whole Church."
Second, St. Bernard, sermon 16 on the Song of Songs, understands by the threefold cord the three chief members of man, namely the heart, the mouth, and the hands, which, inspired by the Holy Spirit, conspire for good: "This He once bestowed upon the whole, he says, and we feel this happen daily in each of us: namely, the light of understanding is given to the heart, the word of edification to the mouth, and the work of justice to the hands. He gives us to feel faithfully, to speak forth manfully, to fulfill effectively. And this is the threefold cord that is not easily broken, for drawing souls from the prison of the devil, and pulling them after itself to the heavenly kingdoms: if you feel rightly, if you speak worthily, if you confirm it by your life."
Again, Olympiodorus understands the soul, body, and spirit, which three must be connected and bound together for the worship and service of God, as the Apostle teaches in 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
Third, St. Jerome understands faith, hope, and charity, in which true religion of God consists. So also St. Paulinus, epistle 4 to Sulpitius, where he admonishes that we should weave our works with this threefold measure. Others, on the contrary, refer it to the triple concupiscence, namely of the flesh, of the eyes, and of pride, which, when bound together, are difficult to break, and by which Eve was deceived. So St. Bernard, sermon On the Annunciation.
Fourth, the carnal Hebrews, according to Galatinus, Book II, chapter 1: The threefold cord, they say, is the most firm love between husband, wife, and offspring.
Fifth, others understand the three parts of penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, from which the cord of grace and charity is fashioned. Again, Hugo Cardinalis: The threefold cord, he says, is charity, which is woven of three parts, as it were, which are: rectitude, breadth, and fortitude of love. Breadth, so that it embraces all, even enemies, in the bosom of charity, according to Christ's word: "Love your enemies," Matthew chapter 5; fortitude, so that it does not hesitate to suffer all things and die for its God, according to the saying: "Love is strong as death," Song of Songs chapter 8.
Again, the threefold cord is charity composed of a triple cord, as it were, by which we love God for His own sake, love our neighbors for God's sake, and embrace our own salvation with love for God's sake: which therefore is not easily overcome by any temptation, and therefore it is fitting that we be joined to our neighbors by a mutual bond of love, supported by whose strength we may overcome any adversaries.
Verse 13: Better is a Poor and Wise Youth than An Old and Foolish King, who Knows not How to Look Ahead
13. BETTER IS A POOR AND WISE YOUTH THAN AN OLD AND FOOLISH KING, WHO KNOWS NOT HOW TO LOOK AHEAD.
The Talmudists in the Midrash hold that here are contrasted the geniuses, that is, the spirits and angels assigned to man by God: one good, who is indicated here by the poor and wise youth — he is called a youth because he introduces himself to a man after the 14th year of age; the other evil, who is indicated here by the old and foolish king, because he is more ancient and is present to a man from birth and reigns in him. He is called foolish because he opposes reason and wisdom; for he makes the infant think of and desire nothing but food and sensible goods: but these are the fancies of the Talmudists. Nevertheless it was formerly the opinion of many Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins that two angels, one good and one evil, are given to a man from his origin, as I have said elsewhere, and St. Jerome here reports the same from Rabbi Barachia. The same St. Jerome adds three other interpretations: the first of Thaumaturgus, as if to say: A wise man, though a youth and poor, is better than a fool, though he be a king and old, because the latter often falls from his kingdom, while the former is raised to a kingdom; the second of the Laodicean, as if to say: A wise youth who foresees the goods and evils of the future life is better than a foolish king who, not thinking of the future, takes pleasure in present and perishable things as if they were great and eternal; the third of Origen and Victorinus, as if to say: The poor and wise youth is Christ, of whom Isaiah, chapter 9, says: "A child is born to us, and a son is given to us"; the old and foolish king is the devil, who in this world from its origin rules over worldly things like a king. But this third interpretation is mystical, the second tropological, and the first literal and genuine.
Cajetan, with his usual acuteness, refers these words to the threefold cord, which, he says, if you weave it from youth, poverty, and wisdom, will be stronger than if you should triple another from kingship, old age, and folly. But this is a more subtle than solid interpretation.
I say therefore plainly and genuinely that by antithesis wisdom is here compared to and preferred over folly, even though the latter is adorned with sovereignty and old age, which the former lacks. The sense therefore is, as if to say: Wisdom and the wise man are of such great value, even if poor and young, that they surpass folly and the fool, even if the latter is a king and an elder. For wisdom is so excellent that it makes youth and poverty, which seem contemptible, commendable; while folly makes even royal and senile dignity, which are praiseworthy in themselves, blameworthy. Therefore it often happens that a poor youth is raised to a kingdom on account of his prudence, while an old and foolish king is cast down from his on account of his imprudence, as the following verse explains: for this verse and the two following pertain to that point. Wisdom therefore is like gold, which gilds bronze, tin, and other metals, and makes them golden and quasi-golden; indeed it is like the philosopher's stone, by which alchemists claim to convert bronze and other metals into gold; for in a similar way wisdom adorns and, as it were, gilds poverty and youth, which are in themselves base and unwise, indeed transmutes them into itself and its own dignity, as it, so to speak, informs and animates them, so that they appear to be wise and to be wisdom. Hence wisdom "makes the tongues of infants eloquent," Wisdom 10:21; and it makes the poor, through the fear and love of God (for this is practical and true wisdom), similar to kings, indeed to the Word and Son of God, and therefore heirs of glory and the eternal kingdom. Conversely, folly disgraces royal and senile dignity, which shines like gold, and transmutes it into base bronze or lead, as it were, since through pride, avarice, or similar impiety, it casts down foolish and impious kings to the earth, and then to hell, and makes them bellows and fuel of Gehenna.
He transitions from the vanity of solitude and the solitary man, by antithesis, to the vanity of kingship and kings, for these are by no means alone, since they abound in servants, soldiers, and followers.
Solomon alludes to himself and here tacitly depicts himself; for he was made king as a youth, namely at the age of 12, as St. Ignatius holds in epistle 3 to the Magnesians; or rather, as Pineda and others think, at the age of 18, and at that time his resources were meager, and he was, as it were, poor compared to the wealth he had in old age; but nevertheless on account of the wisdom bestowed upon him he surpassed Saul, an old and foolish king. Indeed Solomon as a wise youth surpassed even himself when old and foolish; for then through luxury and idolatry he became foolish and lost himself and his kingdom, and then God raised up the young Jeroboam to the kingdom of the ten tribes, king of Israel. But growing old, he set up golden calves and introduced idolatry into Israel, and therefore was deprived of kingdom, life, and posterity.
This maxim therefore signifies first, that the wisdom of the young and poor surpasses the kingdom of foolish elders; second, that wisdom is sharpened both by youth and by poverty: for youth possesses a keen mind and a lively and generous spirit, and therefore meditates on and hopes for great things, and undertakes great enterprises to advance and elevate itself. Such was Hermogenes who, at the age of 15, was of such wisdom and eloquence that the Emperor Antoninus used to come to hear him; hence the saying: "Hermogenes, an old man among boys." Again, youth is simple and candid, modest and humble, especially if it is of meager fortune and poor, and therefore more receptive of wisdom. Hence the Philosopher says: "Poverty is the restorer of wisdom." Thus Socrates, Diogenes, Crates, and many others despised riches in order to philosophize, and to devote themselves to wisdom more freely and unencumbered. Poverty therefore and youth sharpen wisdom. Conversely, age and wealth, especially in kings and princes, blunt wisdom; for they are the occasion of gluttony, luxury, and pride, which make a man foolish. Hence third, it signifies that kings are often rendered foolish in old age, partly because through their wealth they devoted themselves to delights, to the belly and to lust for nearly their whole lives; partly because from the long duration of their reign they become excessively secure, proud, and tyrannical, and therefore hateful to the people, who consequently not infrequently remove them from the throne and create other princes for themselves. Hence in Hebrew the word for 'foolish' is kesil, that is, vain and inconstant, who changes like the moon: for so a foolish king changes, both through various thoughts and desires, with which like the Euripus he seethes; and through various turns of fortune, which the changeableness of this life produces: such as the murmuring, seditions, and tumults of the people, which since he does not know how to foresee or neglects, and falls asleep securely and drowsily over a kingdom possessed for so many years, he is gradually stripped of it.
Examples are found: first, in Saul, who as a young and poor man was wise, and therefore was raised to the kingdom; but growing old, through presumption, arrogating to himself the right of sacrificing, he became foolish, and therefore was cast down from the kingdom. Hence he heard from God: "When you were small in your own eyes, were you not made head of the tribes of Israel?" 1 Samuel 15:17.
Second, in David, who was young and poor, namely a shepherd of sheep; but wise, innocent, and holy, he was substituted in the kingdom for Saul, who was old, proud, and foolish. The same David, however, growing old and becoming insolent, committed adultery and murder, and was nearly overthrown from his kingdom by his son Absalom. Likewise Cyrus, raised among shepherds, by his youthful skill and courage obtained for himself the kingdom of the Persians.
Third, in Solomon, who succeeded the aged David as a young man and flourished in wisdom and holiness; but having grown older, he became foolish beyond all others through luxury and idolatry.
Fourth, in Jeroboam, who as a young man, poor, a fugitive and exile, but prudent and shrewd, was made king of Israel. But growing old, he set up golden calves and introduced idolatry into Israel, and therefore was deprived of kingdom, life, and posterity.
Fifth, in Joseph, who as a wise young man, imprisoned in a dungeon, foresaw the coming famine and predicted it to the ignorant Pharaoh, and therefore, having been made ruler of Egypt, provided food for all Egypt and soon for the whole world in the famine. That the allusion here is to Joseph is clear from the following verse.
Sixth, the Chaldean sets the example in Abraham and Nimrod; for he translates thus: "Abraham, who was poor, and in whom was the spirit of wisdom from the face of the Lord, and who knew his Creator when he was three years old, and refused to serve idols, was better than the impious Nimrod, who was an old and foolish king. And because Abraham refused to serve idols, they cast him into the midst of a burning furnace of fire, and a miracle from the Ruler of the world happened to him, and He delivered him from there, and afterwards there was no knowledge in Nimrod such that he would be admonished henceforth not to serve the idols which he had formerly served." But the credibility of these things rests with the Chaldean.
Finally, this maxim signifies that it befits kings and princes to be poor, that is, lovers of poverty and of the poor, lest, if they greedily covet riches, they plunder their subjects and oppress the poor. Thus Moses, Samuel, Saul, and David were poor at the beginning of their reigns; and concerning a king God decrees in Deuteronomy 17:17: "He shall not have many wives, who would entice his heart, nor immense quantities of silver and gold." For too many women and excessive wealth ruined Solomon. Likewise poor and even farmers were Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome; Camillus, Fabius, Attilius, Cincinnatus, Scipio, its leaders and dictators, and the rest whom Valerius Maximus lists in Book IV, chapter 4. Concerning Maecenas, the friend and minister of Caesar Augustus, Dio writes in Book 20: "In private affairs he practiced the greatest frugality, and in public affairs he was most generous." Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta, decreed that princes, equally with citizens, should hate avarice and excessive wealth; for so his empire would be eternal. St. Ambrose requires the same in a Christian prince, in Book I of On the Duties of the Clergy. Indian histories report that among the Peruvians, the Inca kings, before assuming power, walk through the city for several days clothed in tattered garments, like paupers and beggars, to indicate that poverty and the poor are and will be dear to their heart and care. Similar is the inauguration of the Archduke of Carinthia. For the archduke about to be inaugurated walks in rustic attire, and when a peasant spots him from a rock, he asks who he is; the attendants reply that he is the archduke, and after some words back and forth, the peasant gives the archduke a light slap and commands him to dispense justice legitimately as a prince; the prince then gives his own garments to the peasant — which is a sign that originally no one but a farmer was chosen as archduke. So Aeneas Sylvius in his Description of Europe, and from him Peter Gregory, Book VII On the Republic, chapter 15, number 15.
WHO KNOWS NOT HOW TO LOOK AHEAD.
He shows wherein the folly of the old king lies, namely in lack of foresight; for the wisdom of a king is prudence, by which he provides for both himself and his kingdom in the future: for himself, to confirm himself in the kingdom, to restrain the movements of the people, to frustrate the attempts of foreigners coveting the kingdom, and to foresee and examine all other things harmful to him as if from a watchtower; for the kingdom, so that the food supply is sufficient, crimes and plundering are suppressed, peace between nobles and commoners is preserved, etc. Hence St. Jerome translates: who does not know how to guard against reversal; Thaumaturgus: to whom it never occurs that reversal could happen.
For 'to look ahead,' the Hebrew has hizzaher, which our Vulgate translates variously in various places, namely: to shine, to observe, to anticipate, to beware, to guard. The Septuagint sometimes translates it as: to shine, as in Daniel 12:3; sometimes to distinguish, as in Ezekiel 19:20-21; sometimes to guard, as in Psalm 18:12; sometimes to beware, as in this passage; sometimes to signal, as in Ezekiel 33:3; sometimes to pronounce, as in Ezekiel 33:9.
Properly, hizzaher means to shine: hence zohar is called brightness, splendor, radiance; from this it means to admonish oneself, to be admonished by another, and to receive another's admonition, as Pagninus, Campensis, Tigurina, and others translate (hence they render: who no longer accepts admonition); from this it means to foresee, to guard against, to be circumspect, to warn, to teach, to instruct, because salutary admonition is like a certain illumination, splendor, and flash of lightning, that is, a forewarning and foresight of the future; the same is like a ray and a certain flash of prudence and providence. For one who, grown proud through long rule, does not wish to be admonished, but despises and hates those who admonish him, often falls into the snares of rebels or enemies and is stripped of life and kingdom. Hence the Chaldean translates: and beyond this there is no knowledge that he should be admonished further; Symmachus: who does not know how to guard against reversal; the Syriac: who does not know how to beware any longer; the Arabic: he did not know that he should return to himself.
Therefore this lack of foresight in an old and foolish king is born from the long-continued happiness of reigning: for this so intoxicates him that it drives him mad; for mindful of past fortune, forgetful of future fortune, he securely broods over the uncertain present as though it were certain, and thus easily lies open to the snares of rivals and enemies, and is overwhelmed by them unexpectedly. For prosperity makes one secure and proud, so that he thinks no one can resist him: the same prosperity combined with old age makes him drowsy and negligent in providing for the future, according to the saying: "Old men are twice children"; and: "A doddering old man." For from the continual prosperity of his reign, he lives so sluggishly and securely, as if he had fixed a nail in the wheel of fortune and the happiness of his kingdom, when on the contrary there is no greater danger to a king and his kingdom than from excessive security and overconfidence: for this neglects to foresee snares, plots, tumults, wars, and other adversities threatening him and his kingdom, and therefore equally neglects to provide remedies for averting or preventing them.
Verse 14: For Out of Prison and Chains One Sometimes Goes Forth to a Kingdom; and Another Born in a Kingdom...
14. FOR OUT OF PRISON AND CHAINS ONE SOMETIMES GOES FORTH TO A KINGDOM; AND ANOTHER BORN IN A KINGDOM IS CONSUMED BY WANT.
"For," in Hebrew ki, that is, because, since. For he gives the reason why a poor but wise youth is better than an old and foolish king: namely because the former through wisdom is sometimes raised even from prison, that is, from the lowest place and condition, to a kingdom; while the latter is cast down from his kingdom and reduced to the state and life of a pauper. For 'born in a kingdom' means the same as born of a royal parent, sprung from royal blood: for this one is contrasted with the imprisoned slave, who, born of a slave father, ascends to a kingdom.
He alludes to Joseph, who from prison on account of his wisdom and foresight of the coming famine was raised to the principate of Egypt, Genesis 41. Conversely, Zedekiah, king of Judah, was captured by the Chaldeans, blinded, and led in chains to Babylon, 4 Kings 25; and Nebuchadnezzar, born in a kingdom, that is, son of a king, namely Nebuchadnezzar the elder, and confirmed in the kingdom for thirty and more years, on account of folly and pride was cast down from his kingdom and indeed from human form, and changed into a beast, Daniel 4:30. Likewise Servius Tullius, the fourth king of the Romans from Romulus, was raised from a slave (whence he was called Servius) to the kingdom. Publius Ventidius, captured by Pompey, came forth from prison as commander of the Roman army and celebrated a triumph as victor over the Parthians, as Valerius Maximus attests, Book VI, chapter 10. A similar thing happened to Gaius Marius, who celebrated a triumph over the Cimbri. Here is relevant what Heraclides writes in his book On Constitutions, in the constitution of the Cimmaeans: The Lydians, he says, when oppressed by a heavy domination, and had heard that at Cyme there was a certain outstanding man, sent an embassy and summoned him to the kingship, and having found him as a slave in the workshop of a wagon-maker, paid the price of his servitude and took him. Lucius Florus recounts similar examples in Book II, chapter 19, and Paulus Aemilius in his history of Dio. I listed more examples from Pliny on Sirach 10:28, on the passage: "Free men shall serve a wise slave." Plutarch truly says in his treatise On the Precepts of Governing the Republic: "He who does not know how to serve cannot rule."
Here is relevant that tragic day of the Saccaea among the Persians, which Dio describes thus in oration 4 On Kingship: "They take one of the captives condemned to death, place him on the king's throne, give him the same royal garments, and allow him to rule, to live, to indulge in luxury, and to use the king's concubines during those festival days, and no one prevents him from doing anything he wishes; but after this they strip him, flog him with rods, and hang him." Then he gives the reason and significance of this custom and rite, saying: "What do you think this is a sign of, and why it is done among the Persians? Is it not because very often foolish and wicked men obtain such power and title, and then, after living for some time most shamefully, are destroyed most swiftly?"
Alluding to this, Barlaam represents to King Josaphat the vanity and deception of this life in a vivid parable, in Damascene's History, chapter 14.
Moreover, the Chaldean of the Complutensian edition (for in the Royal edition these are cut off) continues to apply these words to Abraham and Nimrod: "Since, he says, Abraham went out from the province of idols, and reigned over the land of the Canaanites; and in the days of Abraham's reign, Nimrod became poor in the world." Here "reigned" means the same as became wealthy and powerful; for Abraham had an extensive household, in which he ruled like a prince; hence from it he led out 318 soldiers, with whom he routed four kings and freed Lot from their hands, Genesis chapter 14; otherwise it is certain that Abraham was not a king over the land of Canaan. Again, it is uncertain whether Nimrod became poor; for we read this nowhere. So much for the Vulgate reading.
For the Hebrew, the Septuagint and the Syriac, Arabic, Pagninus, Vatablus, and the other Hebraists do not have the word 'another.' Hence the text reads: Because from the house of prisoners he came forth to a kingdom, because even in his kingdom he was born poor; which many, applying the whole to one and the same person, translate and explain variously; but commonly thus: that by 'prison' they understand the mother's womb, as if to say: A king too, when he is born from his mother's womb, comes forth as if from prison, bound and wretched, bound by a few membranes: naked and poor like all other men. Therefore, mindful of this his condition, let him not grow insolent in his kingdom, nor proudly exalt himself above others, but conduct himself modestly lest he be cast down from the kingdom and relegated to his original nakedness and want. So Olympiodorus, Aben-Ezra, Vatablus, Osorius, and the rest.
But that this maxim is to be understood not of one and the same person, but of two opposed to each other, is clear: first, because it gives the reason for the preceding verse, namely why a poor but wise youth is better than an old and foolish king. The reason is that the former is sometimes raised to a kingdom through wisdom, while the latter is cast down from the same through folly, because he ruled imprudently, proudly, and unjustly. Second, from the Chaldean, who applies these words to two persons, namely Abraham and Nimrod, and from Symmachus, who translates: for one goes forth from prison to reign; but another, though born a king, is crushed by poverty. Third, from St. Jerome, who in his old edition from the Septuagint translates thus: because from the house of prisoners he goes forth to reign, since even in his kingdom a poor man was born, as if to say: The old but foolish king does not realize that it can happen that one of those whom he himself imprisoned might go forth from prison to a kingdom, while he himself falls from the kingdom, which he governed foolishly and unjustly.
Hence mystically St. Jerome, understanding the wise and poor youth as Christ, and the old and foolish king as the devil, explains thus: "This one (Christ) was born in the kingdom of the old man (the devil, who before Christ reigned through unbelief in the world), and therefore He says: 'If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would certainly fight for Me, that I might not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not of this world,' John 18. In the kingdom therefore of that old fool, who showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, the best youth was born from the house of the bound (of whom Jeremiah speaks in the Lamentations: 'That he might humble under his feet all the prisoners of the earth,' Lamentations 3), and He proceeded to a kingdom, and went into a far country, and against those who did not want Him to reign over them, after some time the king returned. Therefore with a prophetic spirit the Ecclesiastes saw all the living who can share in the youth who says: 'I am the life,' John chapter 14, and, dismissing the old foolish king, follow Christ. And at the same time two peoples of Israel are signified. The former, which existed at the Lord's coming, and the latter, which will accept the Antichrist in place of Christ; because the former was not entirely rejected. For the first Church was gathered from Jews and Apostles, and in the end the Jews, who will accept the Antichrist in place of Christ, will not rejoice in Christ."
Morally, learn here the vanity of kingdoms and kings, from the fact that men of the lowest lot, such as slaves and prisoners, are sometimes exalted from chains to a kingdom; while kings and the sons of kings are cast down from the throne to the condition and place of paupers. For this is the inconstancy of fortune, this is the unstable gamble of this life, this is the changeable vicissitude of kingdoms. For just as the end for merchants is often that they lose their goods, and for sailors that they are drowned: so one who administers the state for a long time is compelled to suffer some adverse event; and one suffering such a fall may, for consolation, repeat that saying of Macrobius:
Not all can be first at every time. When you have reached the highest step of glory, You will stand with difficulty, and fall sooner than you descend. I have fallen; he who follows will fall — this is the common lot.
For small intervals of time, says Polybius, place men on the highest pinnacle and reduce the same men again to extreme misery and calamity, and especially those who spend their lives in the courts of princes. For these are like the tokens customarily distributed in public councils. For just as those tokens are sometimes bronze, sometimes gold: so courtiers, according to the king's will, are now blessed, now wretched. Agesilaus, still a boy, when he was placed in a less honorable position by the chorus master in the gymnastic games, although he had been declared king, obeyed saying: "I will show that it is not places that confer dignity on men, but men on places." Seneca, On Tranquility of Mind, chapter 3: "If one has lost the offices of a citizen, he says, let him exercise those of a man"; and earlier: "A great soul has room to display itself even in a private home." And further he gives wise and prudent counsel: "Do not wait until circumstances dismiss you, but separate yourself from them." This change is useful: for, as Mantuanus says:
For many it has been profitable, from the lofty citadel of wealth or honor, To have fallen to the quiet of a moderate lot, in which, as the Poet says:
You will rejoice less, and grieve less.
And in this way the world is rendered worthless to those who seek the eternal; for deceived by the vanity of the world, they seek truth and true goods in heaven, and say with the Poet:
I have found the harbor; hope and fortune, farewell: I have nothing to do with you; sport now with others.
And they think on that saying of Seneca in the Mad Hercules:
O fortune, envious of brave men, How unequally you distribute rewards to the good!
And that of Lucretius, Book V On the Nature of Things:
For these, struck as by a thunderbolt, envy casts down from the summit, Sometimes into the despised depths of the earth.
Thus Hermias was killed while Antiochus was at his pleasures, watching and approving, as Polybius says in Book 7. Sejanus, the colleague of Tiberius, was punished by this sentence: "It is decreed that Sejanus be beheaded, his body thrown on the Gemonian stairs, and all his children killed." So Dio, in his account of Tiberius. Plautianus, nearly the colleague of the Emperor Severus, perished miserably, and his body was contemptuously thrown into the road. So Zonaras, volume II of the Annals: "Amid so many favors of fortune, mortality is not sufficiently cautious," says Curtius, Book 8.
Seneca rightly exclaims:
O fortune, deceitful with great gifts To kingdoms! On a precipice And in too much doubt you place exalted things. Never have scepters held a peaceful rest, Or a certain day for themselves.
"Great trees, says Curtius, grow for a long time, but are uprooted in one hour. Foolish is he who looks at their fruit but does not measure their height. See to it that, while you strive to reach the top, you do not fall along with the very branches you have grasped. Even a lion was sometimes food for the smallest birds, and rust consumes iron. Nothing is so firm that it is not in danger even from something weak. Therefore hold your fortune with firm hands: put reins on your happiness, and you will govern it more easily." Manilius, Book IV of the Astronomica:
Why should I count the cities overthrown and the ruins of kings? And Croesus on the pyre? And Priam a headless trunk on the shore, For whom not even Troy served as a funeral pyre? Why Xerxes, a shipwreck Greater than the sea itself? Why kings captured in battle?
Sesostris, king of Egypt, riding in a golden chariot, ordered it to be pulled by four kings whom he had conquered. One of them, constantly fixing his eyes on the wheels, was asked by Sesostris why he did this. "I marvel," he said, "that the wheel, as it turns, is now raised to the top, now brought down to the bottom." Sesostris understood that he was noting the inconstancy of fortune and human happiness: therefore, considering that the same lot could befall him, he decided that they should no longer pull his chariot. So Nicephorus, Book 18, chapter 29. Here applies that saying of Juvenal, Satire 7:
If fortune wills it, you will go from rhetorician to consul. If the same fortune wills it, you will go from consul to rhetorician.
Therefore Ausonius prudently advises:
Treat fortune with reverence, whoever you are who suddenly Have advanced from a lowly place to wealth.
I have said more on this subject in my commentary on Sirach chapter 10, almost the entire chapter.
Verse 15: I Saw all the Living who Walk under the Sun, with the Second Youth who Rises up in his Place
15. I SAW ALL THE LIVING WHO WALK UNDER THE SUN, WITH THE SECOND YOUTH WHO RISES UP IN HIS PLACE.
The Septuagint: who will stand in his place, namely in place of the old king, his father, about whom the preceding verse spoke. Hence Campensis: I saw a very great number of men following that youth who is to succeed the old man in the kingdom. Less correctly the Chaldean restricts this maxim to Rehoboam and Jeroboam: "Solomon the prophet said, he says, in the spirit of prophecy from the face of the Lord: I saw all the living, who walk in their wisdom, to refuse Rehoboam under the sun, and to divide his kingdom, that it might be given to Jeroboam. Nevertheless the heart of the tribe of Benjamin and Judah remained faithful to the youth Rehoboam my son, who was second in my kingdom, to rise up and reign in the place of his possession in Jerusalem."
He continues to show the vanity of kingdoms and kings, from the fact that subjects desert a king who is growing old, as though about to die soon, and follow his son, the youth second to the king, and therefore destined to reign after his death — they surround him, honor him, and court his favor, since they hope for greater and more lasting benefits from him. Solomon had seen this happen in his own father David, whom almost all Israel deserted in his old age, following Absalom his son, who was invading his father's kingdom, 2 Samuel 15:13. He had experienced the same himself; for the people despised him as a doddering old man and looked to his son Rehoboam, because he himself "had become abominable to his people through luxury and idolatry, and was held in contempt even by his own servants," as St. Thomas says, Book III On the Government of Princes, chapter 8.
The reason is twofold, namely novelty and hope. For all courtiers, as well as commoners, are eager for novelty; hence, weary of the long reign of their king and disgusted with his ways, and perhaps injured by him, they turn to the new and young king: especially because the old are avaricious, morose, and gloomy; while the young tend to be more generous, more spirited, and to give a greater display of great deeds at the beginning of their reign. This new king therefore appears to them as a new and beneficent Jupiter, this rising star of liberality. Hope, because those who have already been enriched by the old king hope for nothing more from him; but from the young man about to reign, they expect new and greater things. For these and other reasons the long life and power of princes is always burdensome and irksome to courtiers and the people, as we see happening before our eyes in Rome from time to time.
Note the phrase 'under the sun,' because just as the rising sun, after the long darkness of night, is most welcome to the eyes of the beholders, so also is a new king to subjects weary of an old king. Hence Pompey, when Sulla refused him a triumph, replied: "Sulla does not know that more people worship the rising sun than the setting one." Hearing this, Sulla exclaimed: "Let him triumph." So Plutarch in the Life of Pompey. Courtiers and the people therefore revolve with new princes, just as the heliotrope turns and revolves with the sun; therefore let kings and princes not trust in them. Seneca truly says: "Few worship kings; most worship kingdoms." And Timotheus, in Athenaeus, Book III: "I do not sing the old; if there are new songs, they are the same and better. Jupiter, who is young, reigns: once Saturn ruled."
Verse 16: Infinite is the Number of all the People who were before him: and Those who shall Come after will...
16. INFINITE IS THE NUMBER OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE BEFORE HIM: AND THOSE WHO SHALL COME AFTER WILL NOT REJOICE IN HIM, BUT THIS ALSO IS VANITY AND AFFLICTION OF SPIRIT.
The Hebrew reads: there is no end to all the people, to all who were before them; and also the later ones will not rejoice in him: because this also is vanity and malice of spirit; the Septuagint: presumption of spirit; the Syriac: perturbation of spirit; the Arabic: was there not confusion for all the people, and for all who preceded them; and never will posterity rejoice in him: therefore this is vain, and affliction of spirit. The Chaldean continues to apply these words to Rehoboam, whom the Israelites, disgusted by his harshness, abandoned and created Jeroboam as their king, which greatly afflicted Rehoboam. Now,
First, you may explain it plainly thus, as if to say: Infinite, that is, very great and almost innumerable was the multitude of people who followed the previous kings, who existed before this young king and his father now grown old, and flattered and applauded them; posterity also, who will be very numerous, will not see this young man, nor will they follow him as he goes with festive acclamations, horses, chariots, and carriages. Therefore there is no reason for him to exult youthfully in his kingdom and grow insolent, seeing that it will be honored and known by few, will last only a short time, and will be transferred to others. Therefore the kingdom and the young king, and his applause and triumphs, are mere vanity and affliction of spirit. If he is wise therefore, he will say to himself: Behold, I now possess the kingdom, and the whole people applauds me as king; but how many centuries have already elapsed in which there was no knowledge of me! How many thousands of men have already died without end, who knew nothing of me, neither by reputation nor by name! How great likewise will be the multitude of men in centuries to come, among whom there will be either no memory of me at all, or a very faint one, and that among very few! Why then should I be elated, as if holding something great, or why should I exult, as if blessed; when rather this great present exultation, as I weigh it, turns into affliction of spirit?
Second and more precisely, as if to say: The multitude of people was infinite, namely of all who were before them. The Hebrew reads: before their face, that is, those who, like attendants, for the sake of honor, with joy, pomp, and applause, preceded the young king and his father when formerly young. But posterity will not do this, nor will they rejoice in him in the way that a people usually delights and exults in its king, but they will either desert and disdain him, as one who is likewise now growing old, or ruling harshly and tyrannically, or from their own fickleness will consign him to oblivion, as one already dead and buried; and so they will pass on to another who has succeeded him. See therefore here the vanity of kingdom and kings: indeed "thus passes the glory of the world," like kindled tow. Hence Campensis translates: no less was the number of those who once followed this old man, when he was appointed to the kingdom; so also the power of this one who now pleases so greatly will seem burdensome to posterity; therefore that ambition too has its own vanity and weariness of spirit.
Here belongs the exposition of Titelmannus and Clarius, who hold that the second youth is the wise boy from verse 13; for in both places the Hebrew has yeled, that is, boy, young man, youth. So they explain: I saw a very great number of men following that youth who is to succeed the old and foolish king. Before this same young man also went an innumerable multitude of those who attended the old king; but afterwards his power seemed burdensome, and therefore they revolted from him. In the same manner, the new king who has been assumed in place of another, although in the beginning he has people who adhere to him with joy and applause, nevertheless after he has been confirmed in the kingdom, they will not rejoice in him, but he too will begin to seem burdensome, just like the authority and power of his predecessor. This happens, either through the fault of the successor, because he does not remain as he appeared to future subjects when he was assumed to the kingdom, but inclines toward tyranny, on account of than the former was cast down, or even more so; or through the fault of the subjects, who murmur without cause, even though the new king treats them less harshly than the former did; or since they are younger, and therefore have not experienced the tyranny of the previous king, they do not rejoice in the successor as those do who lived under the former king and suffered harshly from him. Titelmannus offers two other interpretations from the Hebrew; but since they disagree with the Vulgate, I omit them here. Consult him, if you wish.
In summary, it signifies how great is the vanity of kingdoms and kings, inasmuch as in them there is no stability and constancy, but one must be tormented by perpetual cares, fears, anxieties, suspicions, hatreds, and plots.
Moreover, Thaumaturgus explains it differently, and suggests another vanity, namely the moroseness and envy which a young king incurs on account of the people's favor with his elderly father, and with the father's counselors and courtiers, to such an extent that on account of this he is sometimes deposed from the principate or killed by poison, as we have seen happen more than once in this age. He therefore translates thus: for it sometimes happens that those who are subject to a young but wise ruler are free from sadness, at least the older ones. For it is characteristic of the old to be morose toward the younger, and even toward the manners and deeds of a younger prince, always praising the past.
Allegorically, St. Ambrose, On the Instruction of Virgins, chapters 11 and 12, reading it as a question in this way: "I saw all who live, who walk under the sun with the second youth; who will rise for him?" The second youth, he says, is Christ, who is first according to His divinity, but second according to the flesh, because He came after Adam, according to the saying: "The first man was of the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven, heavenly," 1 Corinthians 15. For who will rise for Christ, when He has risen for all, and all have risen in Him, since they have received the hope of resurrection? And shortly after: "There is no end to all His people, because the people of Christ, innumerable, has no end, for whom the faith of eternal resurrection acquires the age of perpetual life." Again, the author of the Greek Catena understands by the second youth the Antichrist, whom all the Jews will follow in place of Christ at the end of the world; likewise Adam, whom all posterity descended from him will follow. St. Jerome has the same interpretations from Victorinus and Origen.
BUT THIS ALSO IS VANITY AND AFFLICTION OF SPIRIT.
The Syriac: perturbation of spirit; others: torment of spirit. "This," namely the fickleness of the people, now walking with the father-king, now with the son, and applauding the latter; for when, having abandoned the father, the people transfer themselves to the son, they sometimes incur the anger and vengeance of the father, so as to be treated harshly by him, or punished with a heavier penalty — not to mention that this ambitious courting involves a great servitude, troubles, and weariness. So Hugo of St. Victor, Clarius, Vatablus, and others.
Second and more genuinely, "this," namely the kingdom and applause of the young king, that is, that "all the living walk with the second youth"; for this applause is a popular breeze, which quickly, whether through age and old age, or through the fickleness of the mob, or through the vice, lust, and pride of ruling, fades, withers, changes, and vanishes; and then it torments and afflicts the youth when he sees himself abandoned by his own people. Hence Symmachus translates: but this is a breeze and a feeding on wind. For the applause and acclamations of the people are nothing other than a light breeze and wind, which makes noise and passes away. So Hugo Cardinalis, Lyranus, Cajetan, Titelmannus, and others; who, however, restrict this to a youth invading his father's kingdom, as Absalom did.
Morally, learn here how great is the vanity of kingdom, royal lineage, and nobility, which Cyril accordingly illustrates with an apt fable of the hinny and the mule, Book II of his Moral Apologues, chapter 19, titled Against Those Who Are Proud of Their Lineage or Nobility: "When a hinny, he says, had met a mule, it boasted while scorning the mule, because it was sired by a better father. To this the mule, checking his armed hoof, responded with keen reasoning and said: What more does that give you, since you are a hinny? For the good or evil of birth comes from resemblance to one's parents; when therefore this resemblance is exaggerated, it seems to make no difference where you come from. For from the dragon the most precious gem draconite is produced, and from the rooster the most wicked of serpents, the basilisk, is generated. The medicinal rose is produced from a thorn, and gold is born from sulfur, and from a bright flame foul smoke is raised. But since you boast of your father, he is embarrassed to have sired you as another donkey." Then the mule demonstrates the same point with an a priori argument: "Therefore since true nobility, both in bodily and spiritual matters, is nothing other than possessed virtue, your equine strength is worth more to me than for you merely to rejoice in your lineage. Moreover, while you puff yourself up from the nobility of the flesh, you soon lose the glorified dignity of the soul through windy vice; and so from preciousness you become worthless, from light you become clouded, and from good repute you become despised and guilty; and it happens to you as with whiteness, which is darkened by silver, and is marred by the brightness of flame. But gold, the more precious it is, the heavier it is with the weight of humility; and a smaller gem is even more precious, just as the smallest of woods are the most precious, such as balsam and cinnamon. Therefore true and glorious nobility is humility, which, raising what is lowest upward, joins the mind to God, fills it with virtue, deifies it with grace, and illuminates it with wisdom. Having said these things, he fell silent. Note: A hinny is one born from a horse and a female donkey, says Sipontinus; but a mule is one born from a male donkey and a mare, as Pliny attests, Book 8, chapter 44.
Verse 17: Guard your Foot When You Enter the House of God, and Draw Near to Listen
17. GUARD YOUR FOOT WHEN YOU ENTER THE HOUSE OF GOD, AND DRAW NEAR TO LISTEN. FOR OBEDIENCE IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE SACRIFICES OF FOOLS, WHO KNOW NOT WHAT EVIL THEY DO.
Some in the Septuagint read kales, that is, good, instead of kakes, that is, evil: so the Complutensians, whom the Syriac translator follows, rendering: because they do not know how to do what is good; and the Arabic: because they do not know what is best. Here I note that the Aramaic and Syriac everywhere follow the Septuagint, and consequently the versions of both were not made from the Hebrew but from the Greek of the Septuagint. For these, writing in Greek, on account of the monarchy of the Greeks who at that time dominated everywhere and spread the Greek language throughout the world, became known to all nations that were ignorant of the Hebrew language. But here kales is incorrectly read for kakes, that is, good for evil; for the Hebrew has ra, that is, evil, as the Latin Vulgate has.
These words pertain to the beginning of the following chapter; hence Cajetan thinks that chapter 5 should begin here. He fittingly transitions from the vanity of kingdoms and kings to the truth of God, both to teach kings modesty and humility, lest they grow proud in their kingdom, but rather humbly and reverently submit their kingdom and scepter, as is fitting, to the King of kings and Lord of lords; and to admonish subjects to measure the reverence due to God by the reverence they show to kings. For if they follow the second youth with such great assembly, applause, zeal, and joy, how much more should they follow God, the King of the universe? Again, you may refer this to a new form of vanity, which is seen in sacrifices and sacred things, as if to say: So greatly does vanity thrust and insert itself into all human affairs that it even sets its foot in religion and sacrifice. For many there are who, through neglect of the law and of this my admonition, offer sacrifices to God that are unworthy and impure, because they themselves approach them unworthily and impurely, which is a great vanity, indeed a sacrilegious impiety, and therefore does not appease God, but rather provokes His offense all the more. More forced is the connection of Lyranus, who holds that here a new reason is given for contempt of a temporal kingdom, namely that God is supremely to be revered and worshipped, whereas royal power draws kings away from the fear, reverence, and worship of God.
He alludes to the rite of entering and praying in the temple. For the Hebrew priests, out of reverence for the temple, entered it with bare feet, prayed and sacrificed; hence they washed their feet before entering, for the sake of cleanliness and reverence, as I showed in Exodus 30:19. The same had already been commanded by God to Moses, that when approaching the bush in which God appeared through a flame of fire, he should remove his sandals, Exodus 3:2, and Joshua 5:16. Where Abulensis asserts that it was an older custom not to enter sacred places with shod feet, and that the Jews (even laypeople) observed this after that admonition of the angel made to Moses. Ribera teaches the same, Book II On the Temple, which should be understood of the more religious laypeople. For these, out of religious devotion, voluntarily imitated Moses and the priests, and entered the temple with bare feet, or at least having removed their leather shoes, even though no divine or human law obliged them to do so, as Josephus narrates that Berenice, the wife of Herod, entered the temple barefoot, War II, chapter 26. Hence that saying of Pythagoras: "Perform sacred rites and worship with bare feet." And Plato writes that those celebrating triumphs, in the triumph itself, crowned with foliage, with washed hands, sacrificed with bare feet. Hence also the barefoot sacred rites, which Tertullian mentions, Apology chapter 40, on which see Giraldus, syntagma 10. Moreover, the Egyptian priests sacrificed shod not with leather but with papyrus, for the sake of purity, as Herodian attests, Books II and V: Priests shod with linen. Among the Romans too it was forbidden for the Flamen to use leather shoes, as Gellius attests, Book X, chapter 15. Their reason was that it seemed impure and unworthy for dead things, that is, shoes made from the skins of dead animals, to touch holy ground. See the commentary on Exodus chapter 3, verse 2, and chapter 30:19.
Nor is this surprising; for the ancient Romans went about barefoot not only in the temple, but also at home and in the city, as the old Scholiast on Juvenal teaches, at verse 111 of Satire 1; indeed also illustrious military leaders and philosophers, such as Phocion, Germanicus, Socrates, Diogenes, and Cato of Utica, commonly went about with bare feet, both from zeal for poverty and for endurance, as Plutarch teaches in their Lives, who also writes in the Life of Lycurgus that all the young men of Sparta went without shoes, so that they might be more agile. Add also: more chaste; for the nakedness of the feet, from the cold air and the ground they tread upon, makes the feet cold, which by sympathy communicate their coldness to the other parts and members, and thus extinguish in them the ardor of lust. Hence many Religious go barefoot, both for the sake of humility and penance, and for the sake of chastity.
The sense therefore is, as if to say: When you enter the temple, see that you walk modestly, honorably, chastely, purely, and reverently, considering that you are entering a sacred place in which the divine Majesty resides, so that you may approach and hear Him: therefore guard your foot, lest it be reckless, lest anywhere it stumble against stones and obstacles, says St. Jerome and Salonius. Others say: lest you stumble on the fifteen steps by which one ascended to the temple; lest one walk proudly and pompously, lest one wander to profane or illicit things, such as curiously gazing at women, noblewomen, etc., but let the whole foot, and the mind that directs the foot, collect itself to approach the sacred rites, so as to attend entirely to them. For under 'foot' he understands by synecdoche the eyes, ears, the whole body, and mind. He names the foot above the rest, however, because it is the function of the feet to enter the temple: therefore the guarding of the feet signifies here all modesty, attention, and reverence, both external and internal, due to God in the temple. So Olympiodorus: "Guard, he says, your whole body (for by the part he signified the whole), and do not with the same faculties by which you frequent the temple of God attend theatrical shows, and obscene spectacles, and impious and profane places. Understand the same to be done concerning the other members of the human body as well." That this is the meaning is clear from what follows: "And draw near to listen," as if to say: Guard your foot so that it does not wander anywhere, but goes directly to hear God and His law, which is read and explained at the altar by the priest. Hence Campensis translates: about to enter the house of God, see diligently what you ought to do, and know that He is very near to you and hears all things.
Symbolically, the feet, as St. Gregory, St. Augustine, St. Basil, Origen, St. Jerome, and others commonly attest, signify the affections of the soul: because just as by feet one goes to a designated place, so by the affections one goes to an external work. The affections therefore are like the feet of the soul, by which it moves and advances itself to action. The sense therefore is, as if to say: About to enter the temple, guard your feet, that is, the affections of your soul, lest you turn over in your mind or desire anything unworthy of God, forbidden, or displeasing to Him; but turn all your thoughts and affections toward God, to worship, invoke, and love Him with a pure heart, affection, and desire. Hence the Chaldean translates: you, son of man, guard your feet in the time when you go to the house of the sanctuary to pray, lest you come there full of sins before the Lord, until you convert. David accordingly explains this guarding of the foot through innocence of hands and purity of heart; for he requires both in those about to enter the house of God, when in Psalm 14:1 he asks: "Lord, who shall dwell in Your tabernacle? or who shall rest on Your holy mountain?" and answers in Psalm 23:3: "The innocent in hands and clean of heart, who has not taken his soul in vain," that is, who desires no vain and perishable thing, says Theodoret: "He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his savior." And Isaiah, chapter 33:15: "He who walks in justice, he says, and speaks truth, who casts away avarice, etc., his eyes shall see the king in his beauty." See the commentary there. So Salonius: "Although, he says, we should always enter the house of God honorably and with fear and silence, nevertheless he teaches that it is not the foot of the body that is to be guarded, but the foot of the soul, that is, the step of the mind, so that in the sight of God we may pour forth pure prayers. When therefore you enter the Church, guard the step of your mind, lest you stumble on evil thoughts, so that your prayer may be directed purely." St. Gregory of Neocaesarea: "Moreover, he says, as far as the Church is concerned, take account of your life from the beginning, so that you yourself may walk uprightly." St. Jerome agrees, saying: "He gives precepts of life, and does not wish to offend those going to the Church. For it is not entering the house of God, but entering without offense, that is praiseworthy." More fully Titelmannus: "When you wish to enter the house of God, see that your feet are clean, and do not (as the Proverb says) rush in with unwashed feet, not heeding the reverence that you owe to a holy place dedicated to divine worship and specially sanctified by the divine presence." This is to guard the foot, to observe that you enter clean. Hence that saying of David: "Holiness becomes Your house, O Lord," Psalm 92:5. Cajetan translates from the Hebrew: in Your house holiness is beautiful, that is, he says, the holiness and beauty of Christians.
The a priori reason is that the temple is a place consecrated to God, and therefore the house and throne of God: therefore just as we reverence a king on his throne, so far more should we reverence God residing in the temple as in His own house. The origin of this designation, namely that the temple is and is called the house of God, was the vision shown by God to Jacob, Genesis 28:12: for Jacob "saw in his sleep a ladder standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching heaven; the angels of God also ascending and descending by it; and the Lord leaning upon the ladder, etc. And when he awoke from sleep, he said: Truly the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not. And trembling: How terrible, he said, is this place! This is none other than the house of God and the gate of heaven. And he called the name of the city Bethel," that is, house of God. The Chaldean translates: how terrible is this place! It is not a common place, but a place for which there is a will from the Lord Himself, that is, which God wished as pleasing to Himself and chose for Himself from among all places. Here applies the precept and promise made by God to Moses, Leviticus 19: "You shall fear My holy things (Hebrew: My holiness, that is, My sanctuary)." And chapter 26:11: "I will set My tabernacle in the midst of you, etc. I will walk among you, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people." And Psalm 64:5: "Holy is Your temple, wonderful in equity." And Jeremiah chapter 7, verse 2: "Hear, He says, the word of the Lord, all Judah, you who enter through these gates to worship the Lord. Make your ways and your pursuits good, and I will dwell with you in this place."
Hence some explain this passage in particular of hatred, as if to say: About to enter the temple, guard your foot, that is, the affection of your soul, from hatred; but "if your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to your brother: and then coming, you shall offer your gift," as Christ commands, Matthew chapter 5, verses 23 and 24. "For God is charity: and he who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him," as St. John says, 1 epistle 4:16. Therefore if you approach God, who is pure and unmixed charity, you must lay aside all hatred.
Morally, learn here how great a reverence is owed to sacred places. Hear St. Chrysostom, homily 15 on the Epistle to the Hebrews: "About to enter a royal court, you compose and adorn yourself in dress, and eyes, and gait, and all other things; but about to enter the temple, where there truly is a royal court, and such as the heavenly court, do you laugh? You indeed do not see them: hear nevertheless that angels are present everywhere, especially in the house of God, where they stand before the King, and all things are full of those incorporeal powers." Indeed even Seneca, Book VII of Natural Questions, chapters 30 and 31: "Aristotle says excellently that we should never be more reverent than when we deal with God. If we enter temples composed, but when about to approach the sacrifice we lower our countenance, adjust our toga, and compose ourselves to every expression of modesty, how much more should we do this when we discuss the stars, the heavenly bodies, and the nature of the Gods, lest we affirm anything rashly, impudently, or ignorantly, or knowingly lie?" For the external composure or dissolution of manners is an index of the interior, according to Sirach 19:27: "The clothing of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of a man declare what he is." See the commentary there; where among other things I noted that St. Ambrose refused to promote a certain man to the priesthood, because from his immodest and ungainly gait, he conjectured a similar immodesty and awkwardness of mind, which indeed he later detected in him.
So St. Martin, as Sulpicius attests in his Life, always prayed in the temple either kneeling or standing, never sitting, with a pale and awestruck countenance. When asked the reason, he said: "Shall I not fear, standing here before my God?" Hence he merited to be frequently visited by Peter, Paul, Agnes, Thecla, and by the Blessed Virgin herself. For in the temple, as in His house, God sits like the head of a household, to hear and heed those who approach Him reverently: therefore there He is most generous, and grants all things that are duly asked, according to the saying: "For there (in the temple, says Theodoret) the Lord commanded a blessing (an abundance of every good), and life forevermore," Psalm 132:3. Hence the same Psalmist said: "We shall be filled with the good things of Your house," Psalm 64:5. And: "But I, in the multitude of Your mercy, will enter into Your house: I will worship toward Your holy temple in Your fear," Psalm 5:8. Solomon asks for and obtains the same throughout chapter 8 of 3 Kings.
Conversely, God avenges the irreverence and injury done to the temple with the destruction of nations and cities, as for this reason He destroyed Jerusalem and the Jews. Hence Zephaniah, chapter 1, verse 9: "I will visit, He says, upon all who arrogantly enter over the threshold on that day: who fill the house of the Lord with iniquity and deceit." And Amos chapter 6, verse 1, threatens woe to "the nobles who enter pompously the house of Israel." Therefore where temples and religion are violated, there the wrath and vengeance of God certainly threatens, and the certain destruction of the city or the religion.
Anagogically, the foot signifies the ways, modes, and methods of living, which must be kept most pure so that we may enter the temple of the heavenly Jerusalem. For "there shall not enter into it anything defiled, or that works abomination, and falsehood," Revelation 21:27. If therefore you desire to enter there, if you desire to reign with Christ, restrain the affections of the soul, and direct them like the feet of the mind toward that place, by hearing and obeying the precepts of God, to whom this is more pleasing than the sacrifices of fools.
AND DRAW NEAR TO LISTEN.
From the Hebrew various translations are given. First, the Arabic: go before your neighbor to listen, as if to say: Eagerly and quickly approach the temple. Second, the Syriac and others connect these words with what follows in this way: to draw near to listen is better than the gifts of fools; which our Vulgate translates: for obedience is better than the sacrifices of fools. Third, Vatablus and Pagninus: because (God) is nearer and more inclined to hear your prayers than to receive the sacrifice that fools would give. Fourth, Campensis: and know that He (God) is very near to you and hears all things.
But our Vulgate translates better: and draw near to listen, because the Septuagint translates: and near to listening. And the Chaldean, explaining this: Apply, he says, your ear to receiving the teaching of the law from priests and wise men; for temples are built for three purposes: first, for sacrificing; second, for praying; third, for hearing the word of God. He teaches therefore that one should go to the temple more for this purpose, that we hear God, than that we be heard by God; indeed, in order to be heard by God, we must first hear God, both outwardly and inwardly speaking to our heart through holy inspirations. For by what right will God hear one who refuses to hear God Himself speaking? If you wish therefore that God hear you, first hear Him, and obey His law and commands. For 'to listen' here is taken in the perfect sense, and signifies to listen so as to obey. He hears therefore who perceives by hearing, and guards what he has heard and carries it out in deeds. For such a one has an ear that listens and obeys, as Moses says in Exodus chapter 21, verse 18, and Solomon in Proverbs chapter 25:12. Or ears to hear, as Christ says, Matthew chapter 11:15.
Our Lorinus translates the Hebrew karov, that is, draw near, as 'offer'; for thence corban is the name for an offering, because the thing to be offered draws near to the altar and to God. For the highest offering is to hear and obey God. But karav means 'to offer' in the Hiphil conjugation, not in Qal, as karov is. Add that it is not correct to say: "Offer a sacrifice in order to listen."
Mystically, Hugo Cardinalis says: 'Draw near' signifies that he who wishes to hear heavenly things must depart from earthly things.
FOR OBEDIENCE IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE SACRIFICES OF FOOLS.
The Hebrew concisely reads: and draw near, or to draw near (for the Hebrew karov is both infinitive and imperative in mood) to listen, rather than for fools to give sacrifice; which our Vulgate clearly explains by saying: "Draw near to God; for obedience (by which you hear and obey God) is much better than the sacrifices of fools." And the Syriac: to draw near to listen is better than the gifts of fools. And the Arabic: and let your sacrifice be superior to the gifts of the foolish. And clearly the Chaldean: apply your ear to receive the teaching of the law from priests and wise men, and do not (act) like fools, who offer sacrifices for sins, yet do not withdraw from the abominable works which they have, as it were, enclosed with their own hands. So also the Zurich version. Somewhat differently St. Jerome in the old edition: for above the gift of the foolish, he says, the one sacrificing joy, namely there will be, if you have heard God, as preceded, which amounts to the same thing. Campensis, however, refers these words to excessive talking and verbosity in prayer: And know, he says, that He is very near to you and hears all things: therefore beware lest you speak with Him in many words, after the manner of fools.
Moreover, "obedience is better than sacrifices, because through sacrifices the flesh of another is slain, but through obedience one's own will is slain," says St. Gregory, Moralia XXXV, chapter 10. "Therefore each person appeases God the more quickly, the more he immolates himself with the sword of God's precept, having suppressed the pride of his own will before His eyes." Therefore, as much as the will surpasses the flesh, so much does obedience surpass sacrifices. See Hieronymus Platus, Book I On the Good of the Religious State, chapter 1, and Book II, chapter 5.
Similar is the saying: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," Hosea 6:6. See the commentary there. Samuel first objected this maxim of Solomon to Saul, who had sacrificed against the will of Samuel and of God, and therefore was deprived of kingdom and life: "For obedience, he said, is better than sacrifices, and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams; because it is like the sin of divination to rebel, and like the crime of idolatry to refuse to submit," 1 Samuel 15:22. See St. Gregory there. Then David used the same in the person of Christ: "Sacrifice, he said, and oblation You did not desire, but ears You have perfected for me, etc. Then I said: Behold, I come. In the head of the book it is written of me that I should do Your will: O my God, I have willed it, and Your law is in the midst of my heart," Psalm 39:7; Hebrews 10:5, where I treated this matter at length.
WHO KNOW NOT WHAT EVIL THEY DO.
Pagninus: who do not know how to do His will, namely God's; for the Hebrew ra, that is, evil, in Chaldaic means will: for the Chaldean raa is the same as the Hebrew ratsa, that is, to will, to be pleased. Vatablus: because they know not how to do anything but evil; Campensis: whose works are displeasing to God, which they do; Clarius: they know nothing other than to do evil; Rabbi David: they do not know how to correct and amend the evil that their sacrifice contains; another: because not knowingly (but ignorantly and foolishly) they do evil. For just as the knowing and wise person does good, so the ignorant and foolish person does evil. For the Hebrew text is concise, and leaves some things to be supplied; hence it can be variously translated. Our Vulgate with the Septuagint translates best by supplying the word 'what.' The sense is, as if to say: Obedience is better than the sacrifices of fools, that is, of the impious, because these, even though they offer sacrifices that are good in themselves, nevertheless perpetrate many evils which they themselves often do not know or do not notice. For they are carried so headlong to satisfying their lusts that they do not notice how much evil is in them. Similarly, when they offer sacrifices, they commit many things ignorantly and irreverently in the offering, and above all, that being laden with sins, not repenting of them but persisting in them, they offer sacrifices contrary to the law and will of God; the result being that by their sacrifices they offend God more than they please Him. But they themselves do not notice this, and think that God is appeased by mere sacrifices: in which matter they are gravely deceived, and therefore are foolish and stupid. Many such people exist even today among Christians. Hence the Chaldean translates: therefore the Lord will not receive these with a placated spirit, since they do not know how to distinguish between good and evil. This very thing they do not know to be evil and sin, says St. Jerome: namely, to wish to amend what they have done not by obedience and good works, but by gifts and sacrifices; presuming to be justified by sacrifices alone, says Cajetan; and that in making a bad offering, zeal lacks the judgment of discernment, says Olympiodorus; and that they think they are doing well in that very matter, says the Carthusian; because they think that without obedience they can appease God with external gifts alone, says Titelmannus, for they imagine God to be like themselves and their kind, as if God were appeased by gifts and presents, as men are appeased. They are therefore ignorant of what is pleasing to God and what is displeasing, and consequently give themselves entirely to external ceremonies, caring nothing for internal purity and piety. They therefore have a perverse judgment about virtue and about God, and inflict a notable injury on both, when they think God is to be worshipped with carnal sacrifices, not to be adored in spirit and truth. Finally, Thaumaturgus applies this whole verse to the Ecclesiastes, that is, the preacher; for he translates thus: moreover, it is the duty of the Ecclesiastes above all to take account of his own life, and himself to walk uprightly; then to pray for the foolish, that henceforth, having received understanding, they may learn to avoid evil works. But this translation disagrees with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic.
From the same texts likewise disagrees, though less so, Isidorus Clarius, when he translates: guard your foot entering the house of God, who is near to listen. Do not offer the sacrifice of fools, who know nothing other than to do evil; and he explains thus, as if to say: God is very near, to hear all your words. Therefore do not speak with Him in many words, after the manner of fools, whose works are all displeasing to God, including even their sacrifices; since they have their hands full of blood, on account of robberies and murders.