TENTH DISPUTATION. What was the form of the structure of the Ark, according to various authors — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

TENTH DISPUTATION. What was the form of the structure of the Ark, according to various authors.¹

DECIMA DISPUTATIO. Qualis fuerit forma structurae Arcae secundum varios Auctores.

Restat ut per aliquot quaestiones disputemus qualis fuerit figura Arcae sive ratio structurae eius, varias Doctorum super ea re opiniones recensentes atque discutientes. Quarum prima nobis obvia sit Origenis opinio, existimantis Arcam in basi fuisse longam trecentos cubitos latamque quinquaginta, a basi vero surgentia latera semper magis ac magis inter se tam secundum longitudinem quam secundum latitudinem fuisse arctata et coangustata, donec ad extremum non plus uno cubito inter se distarent, ut supremum culmen quadratum fuerit aequilaterum, continens extrema quatuor latera arcae singula unius tantum cubiti. Cui opinationi videtur fides astrui ex translatione Septuaginta Interpretum, quae hoc loco sic habet: Colligens facies arcam, et in cubito consummabis eam; illud colligens significare videtur arcam ab imo debuisse semper colligi, id est coarctari magis ac magis in angustum, ita ut summitas totius arcae tam secundum longitudinem quam latitudinem non esset maior uno cubito.

It remains for us to dispute, through several questions, what was the figure of the Ark, or the plan of its structure, reviewing and discussing the various opinions of the Doctors on the matter. Of which let the first to meet us be the opinion of Origen, who thinks the Ark was in its base three hundred cubits long and fifty broad, but that the sides rising from the base were drawn in and narrowed toward one another more and more, both in length and in breadth, until at the end they were no more than one cubit apart, so that the topmost peak was an equilateral square, its four outer sides each only one cubit. To which opinion credit seems to be built up from the translation of the Septuagint translators, which in this place has thus: ‘Gathering, thou shalt make the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it’; that ‘gathering’ seems to signify that the ark ought, from the bottom, to be always ‘gathered,’ that is, narrowed more and more to a point, so that the summit of the whole ark, both in length and in breadth, was no greater than one cubit.²

Sed praestat audire Origenem suam ipsum propriis verbis opinionem enarrantem. In secunda igitur homilia super hoc sextum caput Geneseos ad hunc modum scribit Origenes: Quam arcam ego puto, quantum ex his quae describuntur apparet, quatuor angulis ex uno consurgentibus, eisdemque paulatim usque ad summum in angustum contractis, in spatium unius cubiti fuisse collectam. Sic enim refertur, quod in fundamentis eius trecenti cubiti in longitudine, in latitudine vero quinquaginta, triginta autem in altitudine sint positi; sed collectam fuisse eam in cacumen angustum, ita ut in cacumine unus fuerit cubitus longitudinis et latitudinis eius. Et paulo post, quibusdam interpositis: Veruntamen, inquit, quantum ad necessitatem pluviarum et diluvii spectat, nulla potuit tam conveniens et congrua Arcae species dari, quam ut e summo, velut e tecto quodam, in angustum culmine educto, diffunderet imbrium ruinas, et ima in aquas quadrata stabilitate consistens, nec impulsu ventorum, nec impetu fluctuum, nec inquietudine animalium quae intrinsecus erant, inclinari posset aut mergi. Sic Origenes.

But it is better to hear Origen himself narrating his own opinion in his own words. In the second homily on this sixth chapter of Genesis, then, Origen writes in this manner: ‘Which ark I think — so far as appears from what is described — was, with its four corners rising from one, and gradually drawn in to a point at the top, gathered into a space of one cubit. For it is so reported, that in its foundations three hundred cubits are set in length, but fifty in breadth, and thirty in height; but that it was gathered into a narrow peak, so that in the peak there was one cubit of its length and breadth.’ And a little after, certain things interposed: ‘Yet,’ he says, ‘as regards the necessity of the rains and the Flood, no shape of the Ark could have been given so suitable and congruous as that it should, from the top, as from a kind of roof, with the ridge drawn into a point, shed off the downpours of rains, and, resting below in the waters with a square stability, could be tilted or sunk neither by the push of the winds, nor by the onset of the waves, nor by the restlessness of the animals which were within.’ Thus Origen.³

Itaque secundum Origenem figura Arcae talis fuit qualis est pyramis abscisso vertice, si planum sectionis non quadratum sed altera parte sexies longius designetur. Et hanc descriptionem Origenis pleno assensu approbarunt Beda, Rupertus, Tostatus aliique permulti. Nos formam Arcae secundum Origenem hic lectori spectandam subiecimus.

And so, according to Origen, the figure of the Ark was such as is a pyramid with the apex cut off, if the plane of the section be drawn not square, but six times longer on one side. And this description of Origen Bede, Rupert, Tostatus, and very many others approved with full assent. We have here subjoined the form of the Ark according to Origen for the reader to behold.⁴

Forma Arcae secundum Origenem. AB, Longitudo 300 Cub.; AC, Latitudo 50 Cub.; DE, Altitudo 30 Cub.; EF, Magnitudo tecti 1 Cub.

The form of the Ark according to Origen. AB, length, 300 cubits; AC, breadth, 50 cubits; DE, height, 30 cubits; EF, size of the top, 1 cubit. [The original prints a woodcut of the truncated-pyramid Ark here.]⁵

Hugo tamen refragatur Origeni, in libro primo De Morali Arca capite tertio adversus eum ita disputans: Sententiae Origenis plura refragari videntur. Primo, quod haec forma ad natandum non videtur esse idonea; constat namque tantae molis machinam, tot tantisque onustam animalibus et cibariis, nequaquam ita potuisse supernatare venientibus aquis ut non ex magna parte sui deorsum premeretur, cuius rei experimentum capere possumus in navibus magna gestantibus onera. Si ergo, ut dicitur, statim ab imo contrahi coepit, ita ut intumescentes fluctus latera hinc inde inclinantia non repellerent sed exciperet, et non tam aqua arcam quam arca aquas portaret, quomodo fieri poterat ut non tota statim ad ima descenderet? Sic Hugo contra Origenem.

Hugh, however, opposes Origen, in the first book On the Moral Ark, ch. 3, disputing against him thus: ‘Several things seem to oppose the opinion of Origen. First, that this form does not seem suitable for floating; for it is plain that a machine of so great a mass, laden with so many and so great animals and provisions, could by no means so float on the coming waters as not to be pressed down for a great part of itself — of which we can take proof in ships bearing great loads. If, then, as is said, it began to be drawn in straightway from the bottom, so that the swelling waves, the sides leaning this way and that, would not repel them but receive them, and not so much would the water bear the ark as the ark the waters, how could it come about that it did not all at once descend to the depths?’ Thus Hugh against Origen.⁶

At enim vero, praeter rationem instabilitatis arcae et periculi submersionis, quam bene urget Hugo adversus Origenem, magnis insuper incommodis premitur istiusmodi forma et descriptio Arcae. Nam qualem, obsecro, habet convenientiam eiusmodi descriptio cum figura arcae, qualem figuram habebat illa Noë? Cacuminis etiam eius quadrati designatio et aspectu deformis foedaque est, et inutilis operi atque inhabilis usui propter quem fabricata est arca. Sane ipsa ratio pyramidis modum fabricationis habet impeditum ac difficilem, et ad tot tantorumque animalium habitationem perquam incommodum.

But in truth, besides the consideration of the ark’s instability and the danger of submersion, which Hugh well urges against Origen, this form and description of the Ark is moreover burdened with great inconveniences. For what agreement, I ask, has such a description with the figure of an ark, such a figure as that of Noah had? The very designation of its square peak is both deformed and foul to look at, and useless for the work and unsuited to the use for which the ark was built. Indeed, the very plan of a pyramid has a mode of building hindered and difficult, and very inconvenient for the habitation of so many and so great animals.⁷

Navigationi porro et annuae commorationi in aquis quam futura esset ea descriptio inepta, forma navigiorum ostendit, in quibus semper id quod est contractum vergit in carinam; quae vero latiora sunt, in apertum prodeunt et in altum surgunt supra aquas extantia. Sed illud maius fuisset incommodum, quod ex capacitate Arcae quam supra descripsimus, quadringentorum quinquaginta mille cubitorum, vix tertia pars secundum hanc descriptionem Origenis existeret. Ergo, dum formam Arcae ad depellendos imbrium defluxus accommodare voluit Origenes, ad evitandos impetus ventorum et illisiones fluctuum ac procellarum infirmissimam maximeque naufragiis obnoxiam, et ad capienda quae in Arca esse oportebat angustissimam atque incommodissimam reddidit.

How unfit that description would be for navigation and a year’s sojourn in the waters, the form of ships shows, in which what is drawn in always inclines toward the keel, but the broader parts come out into the open and rise high above the waters. But this would have been a greater inconvenience: that of the capacity of the Ark which we described above — four hundred and fifty thousand cubits — scarcely a third part would exist according to this description of Origen. Therefore, while Origen wished to accommodate the form of the Ark to shedding the runoff of the rains, he made it, for avoiding the onsets of winds and the dashings of waves and storms, most weak and most liable to shipwreck, and for taking in what had to be in the Ark, most narrow and most inconvenient.⁸

Hugo Arcam putat fuisse compositam duabus ex partibus, quarum altera inferior erat quindecim cubitis alta, continens tres mansiones: infimam loco sentinae, mediam continendis cibariis, supremam ad habitationem animalium saevorum et immitium. Altera pars Arcae superior erat, similiter alta quindecim cubitis, quam ipse appellat tectum Arcae superpositum priori parti, intra quod erant homines, aves et terrestres animantes mansuetae; sed latera huius superioris partis sive tecti paulatim fastigiabantur tandemque definebant in cacumen quadratum unius cubiti. Hugo igitur eo differt ab Origene, quod hic statim a fundo Arcae latera eius coarctat et fastigiat, ille vero Arcae latera a basi recta excitat per quindecim cubitos, exinde autem ea constringit et acuminat. Verum haec sententia Hugonis, quam ruditer hic adumbravimus, expressius lectori ex verbis eius cognoscenda est.

Hugh thinks the Ark was composed of two parts: of which the one, the lower, was fifteen cubits high, containing three lodgings — the lowest in place of a bilge, the middle for holding food, the highest for the habitation of the wild and untamed animals. The other part of the Ark was the upper, likewise fifteen cubits high, which he himself calls the ‘roof’ of the Ark, set upon the former part, within which were men, birds, and the tame land animals; but the sides of this upper part, or roof, were gradually brought to a point and at last ended in a square peak of one cubit. Hugh, then, differs from Origen in this: that the latter draws in and points the Ark’s sides straightway from the bottom of the Ark, but the former raises the Ark’s sides straight from the base for fifteen cubits, and from there constricts and tapers them. But this opinion of Hugh, which we have here roughly sketched, must be learned by the reader more expressly from his own words.⁹

In primo igitur de Morali Arca capite tertio hoc modo scribit Hugo: Videtur nobis quod in ipsa Arca parietes in quatuor partibus fuerint erecti, quibus tectum superpositum in cacumine suo ad mensuram unius cubiti contrahitur. Cuius autem altitudinis fuerint parietes ipsi, hoc auctoritas non dicit; sed tamen, quantum coniicimus, altitudo parietum usque ad fundum quartae mansionis extendebatur. Et quibusdam interiectis: Si quaeratur, inquit, utrum aequalis fuerit altitudo singularum mansionum nec ne, nos quidem ex auctoritate probare non possumus quid sentiendum sit; interim tantum quod auctoritati contrarium non sit nobis concedi postulamus. Volumus enim sic distinguere: ut primae mansioni demus altitudinem quatuor cubitorum, secundae quinque cubitorum, tertiae sex, quartae septem, quintae octo; et sic altitudo parietum quindecim habebat cubitos, et quindecim altitudo tecti. Haec Hugo; cuius sententiam de forma Arcae subiecta hic figura repraesentat.

In the first book On the Moral Ark, ch. 3, then, Hugh writes in this manner: ‘It seems to us that in the Ark itself walls were erected on the four sides, upon which a roof, set above, is drawn in at its peak to the measure of one cubit. But of what height the walls themselves were, this the authority does not say; yet, so far as we conjecture, the height of the walls extended up to the floor of the fourth lodging.’ And, certain things interposed: ‘If it be asked,’ he says, ‘whether the height of the several lodgings was equal or not, we indeed cannot prove from authority what is to be held; meanwhile we ask only this much to be granted us, that it not be contrary to authority. For we wish to distinguish thus: that to the first lodging we give a height of four cubits, to the second of five cubits, to the third six, to the fourth seven, to the fifth eight; and thus the height of the walls had fifteen cubits, and fifteen the height of the roof.’ Thus Hugh; whose opinion about the form of the Ark the figure here subjoined represents.¹⁰

Forma Arcae secundum Hugonem. AB, Altitudo Arcae 15 Cub.; BC, Altitudo Tecti 15 Cub.

The form of the Ark according to Hugh. AB, height of the Ark, 15 cubits; BC, height of the roof, 15 cubits. [The original prints a woodcut here.]¹¹

Sed ego hanc opinionem Hugonis multis de causis minime probare possum. Ac primo quidem videtur eo loco non solum diversa sed etiam contraria dicere. Namque ex supradictis verbis apparet Hugonem extendere tectum arcae usque ad fundum quartae mansionis, et intra ipsum constituisse quartam et quintam mansionem; at idem paulo superius dixerat superpositum fuisse tectum, quod erat quintae et supremae mansioni in qua homo morabatur contiguum. Deinde, si tectum incipiebat a fundo quartae mansionis, id est a tecto tertiae, ergo quarta et ultima mansio fuissent sub tecto; quomodo igitur duae illae mansiones erant inter se distinctae, cum sub eodem tecto essent? mansiones enim in Arca distinguebantur et separabantur inter se diversis tectis sive contignationibus interpositis. Nisi spatium illud quod erat intra tectum tricameratum fuisse dicat, id est tribus domiciliis distinctum, uno mitium animalium, altero avium, tertio hominum; verum sic non erant quinque mansiones, sed tres tantum inferiores, et quarta erat tricamerata.

But I, for many reasons, can by no means approve this opinion of Hugh. And first, indeed, he seems in that place to say not only diverse but even contrary things. For from the aforesaid words it appears that Hugh extends the roof of the ark up to the floor of the fourth lodging, and within it has set the fourth and fifth lodging; but the same had said a little above that the roof was set on top, which was contiguous to the fifth and highest lodging, in which the man dwelt. Next, if the roof began from the floor of the fourth lodging — that is, from the roof of the third — then the fourth and last lodging would have been under the roof; how, then, were those two lodgings distinguished from each other, since they were under the same roof? For the lodgings in the Ark were distinguished and separated from one another by different roofs or floorings interposed. Unless he say that that space which was within the roof was three-chambered, that is distinguished into three dwellings — one of the tame animals, another of the birds, a third of the men; but thus there were not five lodgings, but only three lower, and the fourth was three-chambered.¹²

Praeterea Hugo praetermisit dicere quemadmodum se habuerint latera sive parietes tecti, an statim a fundo quartae mansionis inclinari et coarctari inciperent, an aliquanto spatio recti surgerent postea inclinarentur, an denique per totos quindecim cubitos recti essent et post hanc altitudinem inciperet fastigium tecti; hoc enim declarare permagni referebat ad cognoscendam eius opinionem de forma arcae. Nam si putavit parietes tecti statim coepisse coarctari, fecit deformem arcae speciem, scilicet proportione longitudinis eius et latitudinis tali tecto turpem aspectu, hoc est perpusilla et quasi nana; fecit insuper domicilium hominum incommodissimum, quod ponit intra tectum, propter angustias laterum semper magis ac magis vergentium in acumen. Praeterquam quod hac constitutione tecti ferme tertiam partem detrahit capacitatis quadringentorum quinquaginta millium cubitorum, quam supra tribuimus capacitati Arcae. Si autem voluit parietes tecti primo fuisse aliquatenus rectos, deinde vero inclinatos, hoc dicitur gratis, cum huius varietatis neque necessitatem neque utilitatem usumve aliquem ostendat, neque praecise doceat quatenus recti fuerint parietes et unde coeperint inclinari. Quod si censuit parietes tecti totis quindecim cubitis fuisse rectos, sane tanta tecti altitudo, proportione corporis Arcae et secundum artem vitiosa, et operi fuisset inutilis; quo enim tam excelsum et amplum tectum opus fuit? Quid plura, cum ipsa pyramidalis constructio, etiam super basi solida, perplexi operis ac magni laboris sit; si super dimidio Arcae collocetur, multo magis operosa et ardua fuerit. Implana namque dissimilium corporum et inter se discordantium commissura, nisi robustis colligationibus crebrisque transversariis et prismatum fulturis validissime distineatur, pars inferior pondere violentiaque testudinis tota protrudetur; ut taceam eiusmodi catenationes multo plus oneris atque impedimenti navigio exhibere quam bonam vectorum ac vecturae partem.

Moreover, Hugh omitted to say how the sides or walls of the roof behaved — whether they began to lean in and be drawn together straightway from the floor of the fourth lodging, or rose straight for some space and were afterward inclined, or, finally, were straight through the whole fifteen cubits and after that height the gable of the roof began; for to declare this mattered greatly for knowing his opinion about the form of the ark. For if he thought the roof-walls began at once to be drawn in, he made a deformed shape of the ark — namely, in proportion to its length and breadth, ugly in aspect with such a roof, that is, very tiny and as it were dwarfish; he made besides a most inconvenient dwelling for the men, which he puts within the roof, because of the narrowness of the sides ever more and more verging to a point. Besides that, by this constitution of the roof he cuts off nearly a third part of the capacity of four hundred and fifty thousand cubits, which we assigned above to the Ark’s capacity. But if he wished the roof-walls to have been at first somewhat straight, and then inclined, this is said gratuitously, since he shows neither the necessity nor the utility nor any use of this variety, nor precisely teaches how far the walls were straight and whence they began to incline. But if he judged the roof-walls to have been straight through the whole fifteen cubits, then so great a height of roof, in proportion to the body of the Ark, both faulty by the rules of the art and useless for the work; for to what end was so lofty and ample a roof needed? What more, when the very pyramidal construction, even on a solid base, is a work of intricacy and great labor? — if it be placed on half the Ark, it would be much more laborious and hard. For the uneven joining of dissimilar bodies discordant among themselves, unless it be most firmly held together by strong bindings and frequent cross-pieces and the props of the prisms, the lower part, by the weight and violence of the vault, will be wholly thrust out; to say nothing of the fact that such chainings present much more load and impediment to the vessel than a good portion of cargo and freight.¹³

Explanans Caietanus illa verba huius sexti capitis, Et in cubito consummabis summitatem eius, significat ea figura fuisse Arcam ut latera eius in supremo adeo coarctarentur secundum latitudinem ut, licet totam Arcae longitudinem ipsa retineret, attamen secundum latitudinem non amplius uno cubito inter se distarent. Cur autem suprema laterum Arcae non omnino et in totum fuerint inter se iuncta, sed relictum fuerit intervallum unius cubiti latitudinis, eam reddit ipse causam: quo scilicet ea ratione maior esset interior arcae capacitas. Caietanus igitur (ut designationem eius Mathematico more declarem) arcam Noë ea corporis specie figurat quod a Geometris Prisma nominatur, cuius duo ex opposito plana parallela super minoribus basis lateribus sint trigona, verticibus abscissis, latitudine cubitali, reliqua vero tria plana parallelogramma.

Cajetan, explaining those words of this sixth chapter, ‘And in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it,’ signifies that the Ark was of such a figure that its sides at the top were so drawn in according to the breadth that, although it kept the whole length of the Ark, yet in breadth they were no more than one cubit apart. And why the tops of the Ark’s sides were not altogether and wholly joined together, but an interval of one cubit’s breadth was left, he gives this cause: namely, that in this way the interior capacity of the ark would be greater. Cajetan, then (to declare his design in the mathematical manner), figures the ark of Noah in that bodily shape which by the Geometers is named a ‘prism,’ of which two opposite parallel planes, upon the smaller sides of the base, are triangles with their apices cut off, of a cubit’s breadth, but the remaining three planes parallelograms.¹⁴

Ponam hic verba Caietani, ut ex his liquido cognoscat lector et iudicet (subobscure enim loquitur Caietanus) an ea sit quam dixi eius sententia. Exponens igitur illa verba, Et in cubito consummabis summitatem eius, sive ut ipse legit ex Hebraeo, Ad brachium perficies eam superne: Non de fenestra, inquit, sed de arca est sermo, quod suprema pars Arcae unius tantum brachii esse debebat, tum ut pluviales aquae hinc inde laberentur, tum ut Arca non flecteretur gravedine summitatis. Sed hoc potest dupliciter intelligi. Primo, ut summitas Arcae fuerit quadrata, hoc est secundum singula quatuor latera unius cubiti; et hic sensus valde dissonat tum a superficie pendula Arcae foris, tum a capacitate Arcae intus. Nam surgente linea altitudinis triginta cubitorum in medio Arcae, secante in medio lineam longitudinis trecentorum et lineam latitudinis quinquaginta cubitorum, constat quod linea ducta ab extremo semilongitudinis usque ad summitatem lineae altitudinis esset plusquam centum quinquaginta cubitorum, ut patet; et maior adhuc esset linea ducta ab angulo Arcae ad eandem summitatem, ut patet. Exsistentibus igitur lineis ductis a quatuor Arcae angulis ad summitatem lineae altitudinis in medio tam longis, et ipsa linea altitudinis exsistente tam parva, manifeste apparet quod minime pendula, immo fere plana fuisset foris arca. Et hinc etiam apparet quod Arca fuisset intus minime capacitatis; nam linea tam a quatuor angulis quam ab extremis longitudinis Arcae ducta ad summitatem tam brevis lineae in medio, fuissent adeo propinquae pavimento Arcae ut valde modicum spatium vacuum intercepissent, ut patet. Alter itaque sensus est, quod suprema pars Arcae fuit unius cubiti secundum latitudinem duntaxat; secundum longitudinem fuit quantum erat longa arca, scilicet trecentorum cubitorum; et quia sic verificatur littera et cessant omnia absurda, ideo hic sensus amplectendus est. Foveturque ex eo quod constat arcae supremae parti ideo decretum fuisse cubitum, ut capacior esset Arca intus; nisi enim maioris capacitatis ratio fuisset habita, decretum fuisset ut tabulae per longitudinem Arcae versus altitudinem ad concludendam summitatem utrinque consurgentes sese in summitate tangerent absque cubito. Non est itaque forma Arcae nostro accommodanda figmento, sed quo foris magis pendula sit et intus magis capax, eo verius intelligitur littera. Atque haec quidem Caietanus. Cuius descriptionem arcae refert, ut in plano potuit exprimi, subiecta figura.

I will here set down Cajetan’s words, that from them the reader may clearly recognize and judge (for Cajetan speaks somewhat obscurely) whether his opinion is that which I have stated. Expounding, then, those words, ‘And in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it,’ or, as he reads from the Hebrew, ‘To an arm’s length shalt thou finish it above’: ‘The discourse,’ he says, ‘is not about the window, but about the ark — that the topmost part of the Ark was to be of one arm only, both that the rain-waters might slide off this way and that, and that the Ark might not be bent by the weight of the top. But this can be understood in two ways. First, that the top of the Ark was square, that is, of one cubit on each of the four sides; and this sense strongly disagrees both with the sloping surface of the Ark without and with the capacity of the Ark within. For, with the line of height of thirty cubits rising in the middle of the Ark, cutting in the middle the line of length of three hundred and the line of breadth of fifty cubits, it is plain that the line drawn from the end of the half-length up to the top of the line of height would be more than a hundred and fifty cubits, as is evident; and the line drawn from the corner of the Ark to the same top would be greater still, as is evident. Since, then, the lines drawn from the four corners of the Ark to the top of the line of height in the middle are so long, and the line of height itself is so small, it manifestly appears that the ark would have been by no means sloping, but rather nearly flat, on the outside. And hence too it appears that the Ark would have been of very little capacity within; for the lines drawn both from the four corners and from the ends of the Ark’s length to the top of so short a line in the middle would have been so near the floor of the Ark that they would have enclosed a very scanty empty space, as is evident. The other sense, therefore, is that the topmost part of the Ark was of one cubit in breadth only; in length it was as long as the ark was, namely three hundred cubits; and because thus the text is verified and all absurdities cease, therefore this sense is to be embraced. And it is favored by this: that it is clear that a cubit was decreed for the top part of the ark in order that the Ark might be more capacious within; for, unless account had been taken of greater capacity, it would have been decreed that the boards rising along the length of the Ark toward the height, to close the top, should touch one another at the top, on both sides, without a cubit. The form of the Ark, then, is not to be accommodated to our fancy; but the more sloping it is without and the more capacious within, the more truly is the text understood.’ And so much, indeed, Cajetan. Whose description of the ark, as it could be expressed in a plane, the figure subjoined represents.¹⁵

Forma Arcae secundum Caietanum. AB, Latitudo tecti 1 Cub.

The form of the Ark according to Cajetan. AB, breadth of the roof, 1 cubit. [The original prints a woodcut here.]¹⁶

Verum non satis liquet quemadmodum Caietanus imaginatus sit latera Arcae. Aut enim existimavit latera statim ab imo et basi arcae angustari coepisse secundum latitudinem donec in summo non plus uno cubito latitudinis inter se distarent; sed hac ratione nihil ferme differt Caietanus ab Origene, et magna ex parte minuit arcae capacitatem a nobis supra descriptam; quamvis enim fastigium arcae nihil contraheretur secundum longitudinem arcae sed tantum secundum latitudinem, nihilominus tamen etiam sic plurimum capacitatis deperdidisset arca. Aut putavit Caietanus latera a basi recta surrexisse usque ad trigesimum cubitum altitudinis, atque ibi fuisse lateribus impositum fastigium cuius latera totam arcae longitudinem implerent, in supremo autem non amplius uno cubito secundum latitudinem inter se distarent; at enim declarare eum oportebat quantae altitudinis fuisse existimaret illud fastigium sive tectum arcae. Nec latitudo unius cubiti relicta in vertice fastigii inter eius latera quicquam conferre potuit ad maiorem arcae capacitatem, ut ipse putavit; siquidem totum fastigium erat supra tectum supremi cenaculi sive habitationis hominum, infra quod tectum usque ad basim arcae tota capacitas Arcae continebatur.

But it is not sufficiently clear how Cajetan imagined the sides of the Ark. For either he thought the sides began to narrow straightway from the bottom and base of the ark, according to breadth, until at the top they were no more than one cubit of breadth apart from one another; but by this reckoning Cajetan differs little from Origen, and in great part diminishes the capacity of the ark described by us above; for although the gable of the ark were not drawn in according to the length of the ark, but only according to the breadth, nevertheless even so the ark would have lost very much of its capacity. Or Cajetan thought the sides rose straight from the base up to the thirtieth cubit of height, and that there a gable was set upon the sides, whose sides filled the whole length of the ark, but at the top were no more than one cubit apart in breadth; but he ought to have declared of what height he judged that gable, or roof, of the ark to be. Nor could the breadth of one cubit left at the apex of the gable, between its sides, contribute anything to the greater capacity of the ark, as he thought; since the whole gable was above the roof of the highest deck, or men’s habitation, below which roof, down to the base of the ark, the whole capacity of the Ark was contained.¹⁷

Lyranus super hoc sextum caput Geneseos de structura Arcae duo reliquit scripta, ex quibus, quemadmodum ipse formam Arcae imaginatus sit, facile possit intelligi. Nam primo latera Arcae recta facit usque ad trigesimum cubitum, et interiorem Arcae capacitatem in tres mansiones distinguit; infimam facit loco sentinae, quam appellat ipse stercorariam; mediam destinat conservationi alimentorum, sed facit eam bicameratam, ut separatim condita fuerint olera et herbae et seorsim fruges atque fructus; tertiam et supremam constituit tricameratam, ut in medio fuerit domicilium hominum atque avium, in duobus autem extremis cetera animalia, in uno saeva, in altero mansueta. Audiat lector Lyranum, quod breviter dixit paulo distinctius explicantem. Nam explanans illa verba, Cenacula et tristega facies in ea: Videtur, inquit, quod in arca erant tres mansiones, ascendendo una super alteram, et infima vocabatur sentina vel stercoraria, quia illuc defluebant faeces, et ea fuisse dicitur simplex et absque aliqua interclusione; media autem vocabatur apotheca, quia ibi reposita erant victualia, et dicitur fuisse bicamerata, quia aliqua animalia vivunt herbis et alia fructibus, et ideo in una distinctione erant herbae et in alia fructus; superior autem mansio, quia erat maior, distincta erat duabus interclusionibus, et sic erant ibi tria spatia, medium erat pro hominibus et avibus, duo vero lateralia pro animalibus mitibus et immitibus. Aliqui faciunt istas quinque mansiones absque ulla distinctione media, scilicet unam super aliam secundum longitudinem et latitudinem arcae. Sciendum tamen quod quadratura huius Arcae non potest bene figurari in plano, sed figuratur unum latus secundum longitudinem et alia tria latera supponenda...

Lyra, on this sixth chapter of Genesis, left two writings about the structure of the Ark, from which it can easily be understood how he himself imagined the form of the Ark. For first he makes the sides of the Ark straight up to the thirtieth cubit, and distinguishes the interior capacity of the Ark into three lodgings; the lowest he makes in place of a bilge, which he himself calls the ‘dung-part’; the middle he destines to the preservation of food, but makes it two-chambered, so that the greens and herbs were stored separately, and apart the grains and fruits; the third and highest he constitutes three-chambered, so that in the middle was the dwelling of men and birds, but in the two ends the other animals, in the one the wild, in the other the tame. Let the reader hear Lyra, explaining a little more distinctly what he said briefly. For, explaining those words, ‘Upper-rooms and three-storied shalt thou make in it’: ‘It seems,’ he says, ‘that in the ark there were three lodgings, ascending one above another, and the lowest was called the bilge or dung-part, because thither the dregs flowed down, and it is said to have been simple and without any partition; the middle was called the storeroom, because there the provisions were laid up, and it is said to have been two-chambered, because some animals live on herbs and others on fruits, and therefore in one section were the herbs and in the other the fruits; but the upper lodging, because it was larger, was distinguished by two partitions, and thus there were three spaces there — the middle was for men and birds, but the two lateral ones for the gentle and the untamed animals. Some make those lodgings five without any middle distinction, namely one above another according to the length and breadth of the ark. It must be known, however, that the squaring of this Ark cannot well be figured on a plane, but one side is figured according to the length, and the other three sides must be supplied…’¹⁸

...sunt secundum imaginationem. Veruntamen prior expositio magis consonat litterae in Hebraico et in Latino. Sic ibi Lyranus. Ad hoc putat Lyranus lateribus arcae fuisse impositum tectum ita fastigiatum ut omnia eius latera definerent in culmen quadratum cubitale, ad eum nempe modum quo fastigium Arcae descripsit Origenes. Hoc de tecto Arcae, exponens illud Et in cubito consummabis summitatem eius, his verbis declarat Lyranus: Ab angulis Arcae superioribus tectum procedebat sese constringendo, ita quod in summitate latera non distabant nisi per cubitum, et hoc erat ut pluvia descendens super tectum extra Arcam deflueret facilius, et ut arca inter impetus undarum staret firmius. Atque haec est de forma Arcae Lyrani sententia, quam exprimit subscripta figura.

…by the imagination. Yet the former exposition agrees better with the text in the Hebrew and in the Latin.’ So there Lyra. Besides this, Lyra thinks that upon the sides of the ark a roof was set, so gabled that all its sides ended in a square peak of a cubit — namely, in that manner in which Origen described the gable of the Ark. This about the roof of the Ark, expounding that ‘And in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it,’ Lyra declares in these words: ‘From the upper corners of the Ark the roof proceeded, constricting itself, so that at the top the sides were no more than a cubit apart; and this was so that the rain descending on the roof might flow off outside the Ark more easily, and that the ark, amid the onslaughts of the waves, might stand more firmly.’ And this is Lyra’s opinion about the form of the Ark, which the figure written below expresses.¹⁹

Forma Arcae secundum Lyranum. TECTUM. ANIMALIA MITIA / HOMINES ET AVES / ANIMALIA SAEVA. HERBARUM / APOTHECA / FRUCTUUM. SENTINA.

The form of the Ark according to Lyra. ROOF. — TAME ANIMALS / MEN AND BIRDS / WILD ANIMALS. — STOREROOM of HERBS / of FRUITS. — BILGE. [The original prints a woodcut here.]²⁰

Ceterum in hac Lyrani descriptione formae Arcae duo reprehendi aut certe desiderari possunt. Nam nec indicavit quantae altitudinis fuerit tectum superne claudens et contegens Arcam (potuit enim variis modis fieri, vel excelsius vel humilius), nec aperuit causam cur fastigium et culmen arcae relictum fuerit quadratum, cum nullam eius rei appareat esse potuisse vel necessitatem vel utilitatem; quin immo videtur longe opportunius futurum fuisse magisque accommodatum ad faciliorem per tectum arcae imbrium delapsum atque defluxum, si omnino acuminatum fuisset.

But in this description of the form of the Ark by Lyra, two things can be censured, or at least found wanting. For he neither indicated how high the roof was that closed and covered the Ark above (for it could be made in various ways, either higher or lower), nor disclosed the cause why the gable and peak of the ark was left square, since no necessity or utility of this appears to have been possible — nay, rather, it seems it would have been far more opportune and better suited to an easier sliding and runoff of the rains through the roof of the ark, if it had been altogether pointed.²¹

Ioan. Buteo, qui in arcae structura subtiliter explicanda satis diligens et accuratus fuit, de tecto arcae ita sentit: Mosen, cum dixit summitatem arcae in cubito consummari debere, significasse his verbis tectum arcae faciendum esse altitudinis unius cubiti, ita ut is cubitus esset altitudo mediana culminis arcae per totam longitudinem cubitorum trecentorum; quae quidem altitudo longioris etiam tractus profluvio satis esse potuisset, praesertim in planitie levigata et bitumine lubricata. Verba Buteonis haec sunt: Arcam in cubito perfici intelligo prae ceteris omnibus, ut cubitus iste sit altitudo mediana culminis per totam longitudinem cubi-...

John Buteo, who in subtly explaining the structure of the ark was diligent and accurate enough, thinks thus about the roof of the ark: that Moses, when he said the top of the ark was to be finished ‘in a cubit,’ signified by these words that the roof of the ark was to be made one cubit high, so that that cubit was the median height of the ridge of the ark, throughout the whole length of three hundred cubits; which height could indeed have sufficed for the runoff even of a longer span, especially on a smooth surface slicked with bitumen. The words of Buteo are these: ‘I understand the Ark to be finished “in a cubit,” before all the rest, in this way: that that cubit is the median height of the ridge throughout the whole length of cubi-…’²²

nem cubitorum trecentorum praeter ἐκφοράς: quae quidem altitudo longioris etiam tractus profluvio satis erat in planitie praesertim levigata, asphaltoque lubricata. Etenim Vitruvius ipse, in solo rivi [?], quo per canales structiles aqua ducitur, libramenta fieri statuit fastigiata ducentesima tantum parte longitudinis. In hac autem positione tecti, fastigium cubitale rationem Vitruvii octuplo superat. Praeterid etiam quod caelestis aqua deciduis undique guttis seipsam propellens, facilius multo labitur quam quae rivo vel canali procedit. Ad hunc igitur quem dixi modum constituta summitate unius altitudine cubiti, nulla relinquitur in culmine latitudo, quam omnes, quos hucusque legerim ista disputantes, cubitalem esse voluerunt. Hic autem orthographum gemina frontis secundum latum et altum arcae disposui: ubi linea BA fastigium cubitale designat. Sic ille.

…the ridge throughout the whole length of three hundred cubits, apart from the eaves (ἐκφοράς): which height was indeed sufficient for the runoff even of a longer span, especially on a smooth surface and one slicked with bitumen (asphalt). For Vitruvius himself, in the bed of a watercourse [?] along which water is conducted through built channels, lays down that the gradients (libramenta) be made sloping by only a two-hundredth part of the length. But in this arrangement of the roof, a one-cubit ridge exceeds Vitruvius's ratio eightfold. Besides, rainwater (caelestis aqua), driving itself along by drops falling on every side, flows down far more easily than water that proceeds along a watercourse or channel. In this way, then, which I have described — with the top set at a height of one cubit — no breadth is left at the ridge, that breadth which all whom I have hitherto read disputing these matters wished to be a cubit. And here I have laid out an orthographic drawing of the twin face [front elevation] of the ark according to its breadth and height, where the line BA designates the cubital ridge. So he [Buteo].²³

Tectum arcae iuxta Buteonem. ALTUM UNO TANTUM CUBITO. A — B.

[Diagram in original: “The roof of the ark according to Buteo” — a low triangular ridge labelled “High by one cubit only,” with the ridge-line marked A–B.]²⁴

IDEM porro omnia quattuor arcae latera a basi usque ad supremum, id est, trigesimum cubitum altitudinis, recta excitat: quibus tectum (quale proxime descriptum est) superponit. Interiorem autem arcae capacitatem sive spatium quatuor in partes secundum totam longitudinem et latitudinem arcae dividit, diversis contignationibus et tabulatis interpositis, separatas inter se eodem prorsus modo atque nos supra disputatione septima quatuor fecimus coenacula seu partes arcae. Atque haec Buteonis sententia videtur nobis, quam ceterae omnes superius expositae, vero propior atque probabilior. Formam autem arcae quae praeter ceteras probatur nobis, quae hic subiicitur figura, demonstrat.

The same author, moreover, raises all four sides of the ark straight up from the base to the topmost point — that is, to the thirtieth cubit of height — and upon these he sets the roof (such as was just described). The interior capacity or space of the ark he divides into four parts, throughout the whole length and breadth of the ark, by interposing various framings (contignationes) and floorings (tabulata) — parts separated from one another in exactly the same way as we, above in the seventh disputation, made four stories (coenacula) or parts of the ark. And this opinion of Buteo seems to us nearer the truth and more probable than all the others set forth above. The figure subjoined here shows the form of the ark which, beyond the rest, we approve.²⁵

Forma arcae secundum Buteonem. BA, ALTITUDO TECTI UNIUS CUBITI. HOMINES ET AVES, 9 CUBITOR. CIBARIA, 8 CUB. ANIMALIA, 9 CUB. RECEPTACULUM SORDIUM, 4 CUB.

[Diagram in original: “The form of the ark according to Buteo” — a rectangular hull capped by the one-cubit ridge (BA), its interior divided into four decks: “Men and birds, 9 cubits / Food (cibaria), 8 cubits / Animals, 9 cubits / Receptacle for filth (sordium), 4 cubits” — totalling the 30 cubits of height.]²⁶

VERUM historica et litteralis eorum quae de arca scripsit Moses explanatio, adhuc tractata est. Sequitur altera pars huius libri, in qua mystica quoque eiusdem arcae multiplex interpretatio pertractanda est.

But thus far the historical and literal explanation of what Moses wrote about the ark has been treated. There follows the second part of this book, in which the manifold mystical interpretation of the same ark is also to be treated.²⁷

Translator’s notes

Heading of the Tenth Disputation of Book X. ↩
§64 (continues on p. 217): Origen’s view — the Ark tapered from base (300×50) to a 1-cubit square top, like a truncated pyramid; supported by the LXX ‘gathering thou shalt make the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it.’ Margin: Origen. ↩
§64 (continued from p. 216): Origen’s own words (homily 2 on Gen 6) — the four corners drawn up to a 1-cubit top; best for shedding the rains and resting stably in the water. ↩
§65: so Origen’s Ark is like a truncated pyramid with an oblong (6:1) base; approved by Bede, Rupert, Tostatus, and many. Margins: Bede; Rupert; Tostatus. ↩
Legend of the woodcut diagram of the Ark according to Origen (a truncated pyramid). [The original prints a diagram here; only its legend is given.] ↩
§66: Hugh opposes Origen — such a tapering shape would not float, but sink under its load (as ships do). Margin: ‘Hugh against Origen.’ ↩
§67: besides instability, the pyramidal shape is unlike the real Ark’s figure, ugly, useless, and hard to build. ↩
§68: ships show the tapering shape is unfit for floating and a year’s voyage; and it would yield barely a third of the 450,000-cubit capacity. ↩
§69 (continues on p. 219): Hugh’s own view — a hull 15 cubits high (3 lodgings) topped by a 15-cubit pyramidal roof (men, birds, tame beasts), tapering to a 1-cubit top. Margin: ‘What the figure of the Ark was according to Hugh.’ ↩
§69 (continued from p. 218): Hugh’s own words — walls to the floor of the fourth lodging; the five lodgings ascending 4,5,6,7,8 cubits (=15 of wall) plus 15 of roof. ↩
Legend of the woodcut diagram of the Ark according to Hugh (a straight-sided hull with a tall pyramidal roof). [Diagram in the original.] ↩
§70: Pererius rejects Hugh — he says both diverse and contradictory things (roof from the fourth floor vs. above the fifth lodging), and the fourth and fifth lodgings under one roof would not be distinct. ↩
§71: further objections — Hugh leaves it unclear how the roof-walls behaved (immediately tapering would be deformed and cramp the men’s quarters and cut a third of the capacity; straight for 15 cubits would be uselessly tall); a half-Ark pyramid is laborious and structurally precarious. ↩
§72 (continues on p. 221): Cajetan’s view — the sides drawn in at the top only in breadth, to a 1-cubit ridge running the full length (a prism); the cubit left for greater capacity. Margin: ‘What Cajetan thought of the form of the Ark.’ ↩
§72 (continued from p. 220): Cajetan’s own (somewhat obscure) words, weighing the two readings of ‘in a cubit thou shalt finish it’ — a square cubit top (rejected, since the Ark would be flat outside and uncramped inside) vs. a 1-cubit-wide ridge running the whole length (accepted, ‘to make the Ark more capacious within’). ↩
Legend of the woodcut diagram of the Ark according to Cajetan (a ridged prism). [Diagram in the original.] ↩
§(against Cajetan): it is unclear how Cajetan imagined the sides — if drawn in from the bottom, he differs little from Origen and loses much capacity; if straight to 30 cubits with a ridged roof above, he should have stated the roof’s height (and the 1-cubit ridge adds nothing to capacity). Margin: ‘A remark on Cajetan.’ ↩
§73 (continues on p. 223): Lyra’s view — sides straight to 30 cubits; three lodgings (bilge/dung; a two-chambered food-store; a three-chambered top: men & birds in the middle, beasts at the two ends). ↩
§73 (continued from p. 222): the close of Lyra; and Lyra’s roof, tapering like Origen’s to a 1-cubit square top, with diagram. ↩
Legend of the woodcut diagram of the Ark according to Lyra (a hull with labeled compartments and a tapering roof). [Diagram in the original.] ↩
§74: two faults in Lyra’s description — he did not say how high the roof was, nor why the peak was left square (a pure point would shed rain better). Margin: ‘Lyra’s opinion examined.’ ↩
§75 (continues on p. 224): Buteo’s view of the roof — a low ridge only one cubit high at the middle, running the whole 300-cubit length; enough to shed rain, especially on a smooth, bitumen-slicked surface. Margin: John Buteo, On the Ark of Noah. ↩
§75 (concl.): completes Buteo's quotation begun on p. 223. ‘ἐκφοράς’ (ekphoras) = the projecting eaves. Buteo cites Vitruvius (De arch. bk. 8) on the slope of aqueduct channels (1/200); a one-cubit ridge over the 150-cubit half-length far exceeds that. Margin: Vitruvius. ↩
Woodcut; reproduced here as a caption only. ↩
§76 [section number inferred; not legible in OCR]. Buteo raises vertical walls to 30 cubits, caps them with the one-cubit ridge-roof, and divides the interior into four decks — the arrangement Pererius himself endorses. ↩
Woodcut; reproduced here as a caption only. The four decks 9+8+9+4 = 30 cubits. ↩
Transition closing the literal part of Liber X and opening the mystical part. ↩