NINTH DISPUTATION. On the magnitude of the flood: whether, when Moses said that in the time of the flood all the mountains which are under the whole heaven were covered with waters, this is to be understood of the starry heaven or of the airy [heaven], and of all the mountains, with absolutely none excepted — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

NINTH DISPUTATION. On the magnitude of the flood: whether, when Moses said that in the time of the flood all the mountains which are under the whole heaven were covered with waters, this is to be understood of the starry heaven or of the airy [heaven], and of all the mountains, with absolutely none excepted.

NONA DISPUTATIO. De magnitudine diluvii: utrum, cum dixit Moses tempore diluvii omnes montes qui sub universo caelo sunt fuisse aquis opertos, intelligendum id sit de caelo sidereo an de aëreo, et de cunctis montibus, nullo prorsus excepto.

NON potuit expressius declarari magnitudo diluvii Noëtici, quam est a Mose declarata illis verbis: Et aquae praevaluerunt nimis super terra; opertique sunt omnes montes excelsi sub universo caelo. Quindecim cubitis altior fuit aqua super montes quos operuerat. Non sine causa, inquit Chrysostomus, haec de magnitudine et altitudine illius diluvii narrat divina Scriptura, sed ut discamus non solum homines et reptilia submersa esse diluvio, sed et volucres caeli et quaecunque in montibus degunt animalia: ut quod Deus multo ante facturum se interminatus fuerat, id fecisse eum postea nec quicquam praetermisisse intelligeretur. Ob hanc igitur causam describit tantam diluvii super omnes montes terrae altitudinem, quo scilicet nullum animal evasisse sciatur, sed omnia cum homine (propter quem facta erant) deleta esse.

The magnitude of Noah's flood could not be more expressly declared than it has been declared by Moses in those words: “And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth; and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it had covered.” “Not without cause,” says Chrysostom, “does divine Scripture narrate these things about the magnitude and height of that flood, but that we may learn that not only men and reptiles were submerged by the flood, but also the birds of the air, and whatever animals live in the mountains: so that it might be understood that what God had long before threatened that he would do, this he did afterward, and omitted nothing.” For this cause, therefore, it describes so great a height of the flood above all the mountains of the earth, namely so that it may be known that no animal escaped, but that all, together with man (for whose sake they had been made), were destroyed.¹

VERUM illa verba Mosis, quibus ait Omnes montes qui sub universo caelo sunt opertos esse diluvio, nonnullas habent dubitationes. Et primo quidem loco in dubium vocari potest, cum dixit Moses omnes montes qui sub caelo sunt fuisse sub aquis, de quo caelo loquatur, utrum de syder[eo] an de aër[eo]…

But those words of Moses, in which he says that all the mountains which are under the whole heaven were covered by the flood, have some doubts. And in the first place it can be called into doubt — when Moses said that all the mountains which are under heaven were under the waters — of which heaven he speaks, whether of the star[ry] or of the air[y]…²

…de quo caelo loquatur, utrum de sidereo an de aëreo. Caietanus arbitratur locutum esse Mosen non de sidereo sed de aëreo caelo, vel potius de ea parte aëris quam Philosophi mediam regionem aëris appellant, ubi generantur imbres. Loquendo enim de caelo sidereo, vane atque inepte diceretur, omnes montes qui sub caelo sunt: quis enim de hoc posset ambigere? Neque enim mons aliquis esse potest qui non sit sub caelo astrifero, quin etiam intra lunae orbis ambitum contineatur. De caelo autem aëreo non ita est: sunt enim aliqui montes altiores media regione aëris, quos fuisse diluvii aquis opertos non est necesse fateri. Certe a multis creditur montem Paradisi terrestris intactum fuisse diluvio.

…of which heaven he speaks, whether of the starry or of the airy. Cajetan thinks that Moses spoke not of the starry but of the airy heaven, or rather of that part of the air which the Philosophers call the middle region of the air, where rains are generated. For, speaking of the starry heaven, it would be said vainly and ineptly, “all the mountains which are under heaven”: for who could be in doubt about this? For there can be no mountain that is not under the star-bearing heaven, nay, that is not even contained within the compass of the moon's orb. But concerning the airy heaven it is not so: for there are some mountains higher than the middle region of the air, which it is not necessary to confess were covered by the waters of the flood. Certainly it is believed by many that the mountain of the earthly Paradise was untouched by the flood.³

Nec propterea tamen vel homines vel animalia in illis montibus servari potuerunt a diluvio: homines enim illius temporis nec ante crediderunt venturum esse diluvium, et ubi venit, brevi cessaturum speraverunt. Postea vero, perdurante diluvio, cum effugium eius petendo montes quaerere voluerunt, aquis supra modum auctis oppressi et suffocati sunt. Idemque de animalibus existimare consentaneum est, quae initio diluvii in latebras se abdiderunt, in quibus, maiorem in modum augescentibus aquis, obruta interierunt.

Nor, however, on that account could either men or animals be preserved from the flood on those mountains: for the men of that time neither believed beforehand that the flood would come, and when it came, hoped that it would soon cease. But afterward, the flood continuing, when they wished to seek an escape from it by making for the mountains, they were overwhelmed and suffocated by the waters, increased beyond measure. And it is reasonable to think the same of the animals, which at the beginning of the flood hid themselves in lurking-places, in which, the waters increasing in great measure, they were overwhelmed and perished.

VERUM praestat ut hanc sententiam Caietani ex verbis eius hic adscriptis clarissime lector perspiciat. Apparet, inquit, quod Moses non loquitur de omnibus montibus excelsis simpliciter et absolute, sed de illis tantum qui sunt sub caelo, hoc est, sub regione aëris in qua generantur pluviae et reliqua huiusmodi. Constat enim appellatione caelorum in sacra Scriptura intelligi quandoque aërem, iuxta illud: Volucres caeli. Constat etiam quod Moses non vane adiunxit de montibus illud, qui sunt sub universo caelo. Sciebat enim nullos esse montes qui non sint sub corporibus caelestibus: sed hoc adiecit ad differentiam montium qui sunt non tantum supra aliquam partem caeli, sed supra totum caelum, hoc est, supra totum caelum aëreum tegens nos nubibus. Quo fit ut non adversetur sacra Scriptura exceptio cacuminum montium supereminentium universo caelo in quo generantur pluviae et alia huiusmodi. Attestatur quoque huic sensui communis exceptio montis in quo est paradisus terrestris, ubi Henoch erat tempore diluvii, adhuc ibidem vivens.

But it is better that the reader most clearly perceive this opinion of Cajetan from his words here appended. “It appears,” he says, “that Moses does not speak of all the high mountains simply and absolutely, but only of those which are under heaven — that is, under the region of the air in which rains and the rest of this kind are generated. For it is established that by the appellation ‘heavens’ in sacred Scripture the air is sometimes understood, according to that [phrase]: ‘The birds of heaven.’ It is established also that Moses not vainly added, concerning the mountains, that [phrase] ‘which are under the whole heaven.’ For he knew that there are no mountains which are not under the celestial bodies; but he added this for the distinction of mountains which are not only above some part of the heaven, but above the whole heaven — that is, above the whole airy heaven that covers us with clouds. Whence it comes about that the exception of the peaks of mountains rising above the whole heaven (in which rains and other such things are generated) does not contradict sacred Scripture. To this sense the common exception of the mountain in which is the earthly Paradise also bears witness — where Enoch was at the time of the flood, still living there.”⁴

Nec propterea salvati sunt homines aliqui in cacuminibus talium montium: quoniam, ut Dominus dixit in Evangelio, homines illius temporis non credebant diluvium futurum; et, ingruentibus repente tam ingentibus aquis subter et supra, ruentibusque ex montibus immensis aquis in praeceps, impediebatur accessus ad tantam illorum montium celsitudinem. Et eo magis, quod illi, non credentes diluvium, exspectabant multos dies serenitatem, infra quos dies tanta exuberantia aquarum multiplicata est ut impossibilis fuerit accessus ad cacumina illorum montium; et multo minus potuerunt adire cacumina illa animalia, quoniam commune est eis secundum praesentium dispositionem moveri. Ac per hoc, in principio tantae pluviae credibile est quaesisse ea latebras protegentes; postea vero, continuatis maximis pluviis, prohibita esse ab egressu. Sic Caietanus. SED in Caietani verbis quaedam sunt nec vera nec similia veris. Verun[tamen]…

“Nor on that account were any men saved on the peaks of such mountains: because, as the Lord said in the Gospel, the men of that time did not believe the flood would come; and, so vast waters suddenly assailing both below and above, and immense waters rushing headlong from the mountains, access to so great a height of those mountains was hindered. And the more so, because they, not believing in the flood, awaited fair weather for many days, within which days so great an exuberance of waters was multiplied that access to the peaks of those mountains was impossible; and much less could the animals reach those peaks, since it is common to them to move according to the disposition of present circumstances. And through this, at the beginning of so great a rain it is credible that they sought sheltering hiding-places; but afterward, the greatest rains continuing, they were prevented from going out.” So Cajetan. But in Cajetan's words there are some things neither true nor like the truth. Never[theless]…⁵

Veruntamen aliorum falsitas ex sequentium quaestionum explicatione notescet: nunc satis fuerit illud unum refellere, quod est quasi fundamentum ceterorum. Ait Caietanus illud, Sub universo caelo, interpretandum esse de caelo aëreo, id est, de media regione aëris. Hoc nempe nullam habet verisimilitudinem. Scio non solum in sacris litteris, verum etiam apud Latinos scriptores et in sermone vulgari, caelum saepe dici pro aëre: verum pro aëre simpliciter et indefinite sumpto, non autem definite ac signate pro media regione aëris; praesertim cum dicitur, Omnia quae sub caelo sunt. Quis enim de caelo aëreo, et non potius de sydereo, intelligat quod Dominus dixit apud Iob: Omnia quae sub caelo sunt, mea sunt; et quod dixit Lucas, in die Pentecostes fuisse Hierosolymis homines ex omni natione quae sub caelo est; et quod dixit Paulus fuisse iam illo tempore praedicatum Evangelium in universa creatura quae sub caelo est? Idem enim est dicere, Omnia quae sub caelo sunt, atque dicere, Omnia quae intra caeli ambitum continentur: hoc autem quis de ambitu caeli aërei seu mediae regionis aëris, et non potius de ambitu caeli syderei, interpretetur? Nam quod dicit Caietanus de quibusdam montibus mediam regionem aëris excedentibus, deinceps examinandum est.

Nevertheless, the falsity of the others will become known from the explanation of the following questions: now it will be enough to refute that one point which is, as it were, the foundation of the rest. Cajetan says that the phrase “under the whole heaven” must be interpreted of the airy heaven — that is, of the middle region of the air. This indeed has no probability. I know that not only in the sacred writings, but also among Latin writers and in common speech, “heaven” is often said for “air”: but for “air” taken simply and indefinitely, not definitely and specifically for the middle region of the air; especially when it is said, “All things that are under heaven.” For who would understand of the airy heaven, and not rather of the starry, what the Lord said in Job: “All things that are under heaven are mine”; and what Luke said, that on the day of Pentecost there were at Jerusalem men of every nation that is under heaven; and what Paul said, that the Gospel had already at that time been preached in every creature that is under heaven (Col. 1)? For it is the same to say, “All things that are under heaven,” as to say, “All things that are contained within the compass of heaven”: and who would interpret this of the compass of the airy heaven, or middle region of the air, and not rather of the compass of the starry heaven? But what Cajetan says about certain mountains exceeding the middle region of the air must be examined next.⁶

UTRUM IGITUR montes aliqui sive loca aliqua in omni terrarum orbe fuerint quae diluvii aquis non sint operta, inquirendum est. Non defuerunt qui dicerent nonnullos montes — quorum scilicet altitudo excedit locum generationis imbrium sive mediam regionem aëris (quales esse Olympum, Athon et Atlantem a multis proditum est) — non fuisse opertos diluvio. Idque sic illi argumentabantur: Diluvium praecipue factum est propter pluvias; non igitur potuisse diluvium increscere et ascendere supra locum ubi generantur pluviae: quem locum cum illorum montium vertices transcendant, eos montes non fuisse diluvio tactos necesse est. Tradunt autem veteres in tantum verticem suum extolli Olympum, ut summa eius caelum accolae vocent: in cacumine eius reliquias sacrificiorum nec dissari ventis nec dilui pluviis, sed, volvente altero anno, ut relictae fuerunt, ita plane reperiri.

Whether, then, there were any mountains or any places in the whole world which were not covered by the waters of the flood, must be inquired into. There have not been wanting those who said that some mountains — whose height, that is, exceeds the place of the generation of rains, or the middle region of the air (such as Olympus, Athos, and Atlas, as is reported by many, are) — were not covered by the flood. And they argued thus: the flood came about chiefly on account of the rains; the flood, therefore, could not increase and ascend above the place where the rains are generated; and since the peaks of those mountains rise above that place, those mountains must necessarily not have been touched by the flood. The ancients relate that Olympus raises its peak so high that the inhabitants call its summit “heaven”; [and] that on its top the remains of sacrifices are neither scattered by the winds nor washed away by rains, but, with the next year coming round, are found exactly as they were left.⁷

SIMILIA traduntur de Atho monte Macedoniae, cuius celsitudinis illud praeterea est argumentum, quod e Macedonia, Solstitii tempore, umbram iaciat usque in forum Myrini, quod est oppidum in Lemno, distans nempe sex et octoginta millibus passuum. Iam vero Atlantem ferunt ultra nubila caput efferre, et usque in viciniam Lunaris circuli attolli. Plutarchus certe in Paulo Aemilio scribit Xenagoram, vi ac ratione atque instrumentis Mathematicis summam Olympi montis altitudinem ad perpendiculum esse mensum, et decem stadiorum reperisse, hoc est, mille ducentorum et quinquaginta passuum. Addit inibi Plutarchus multos existimare nec ullius montis altitudinem nec ullius maris profunditatem decem stadiis maiorem esse. At enim Plinius affirmate scribit altitudinem montis Casii, qui est in Syria Antiochena, per directum esse quatuor mille pas[suum]…

Similar things are related of Mount Athos in Macedonia, of whose loftiness this also is a proof: that from Macedonia, at the time of the Solstice, it casts a shadow as far as the forum of Myrina, which is a town in Lemnos, distant indeed eighty-six thousand paces. And they say that Atlas raises its head beyond the clouds, and is lifted up to the very neighborhood of the lunar circle. Plutarch certainly, in [the life of] Paulus Aemilius, writes that Xenagoras measured the highest height of Mount Olympus by plumb-line — by force and reason and mathematical instruments — and found it to be ten stadia, that is, one thousand two hundred and fifty paces. Plutarch adds there that many think that neither the height of any mountain nor the depth of any sea is greater than ten stadia. But Pliny writes affirmatively that the height of Mount Casius, which is in Antiochene Syria, is, in a straight line, four thousand pa[ces]…⁸

…montis Casii, qui est in Syria Antiochena, per directum esse quatuor mille passuum. HANC istorum argumentationem et obiectionem, qua volunt efficere Noëticum diluvium non fuisse omnino generale, et commemorat B. Augustinus et obiter diluit. Sic enim scribit libro decimo quinto de Civitate Dei, capite vigesimo septimo: Opinantur quidam tam magnum fieri non potuisse diluvium, ut altissimos montes quindecim cubitis aqua crescendo transcenderet, propter Olympi verticem montis, supra quem perhibentur nubes non posse conscendere, ut non ibi sit aer iste crassior ubi venti, nebulae imbresque gignuntur: nec attendunt omnium elementorum crassissimam terram ibi esse potuisse. An forte negent esse hanc terram verticem montis? Cur igitur usque ad illa caeli spatia terris exaltari licuisse, et aquis exaltari non licuisse contendunt? cum isti mensores et pensores elementorum aquas terris perhibeant superiores atque leviores. Quid itaque rationis afferunt, quare terra gravior et inferior locum caeli tranquillioris invaserit per volumina tot annorum, et aqua levior ac superior non permissa sit hoc facere saltem ad tempus exiguum? Sic Augustinus.

…of Mount Casius, which is in Antiochene Syria, is, in a straight line, four thousand paces. This argumentation and objection of theirs, by which they wish to make out that Noah's flood was not entirely general, St. Augustine both records and refutes in passing. For he writes thus in book 15 of The City of God, chapter 27: “Some think that so great a flood could not have come about that the water, by growing, transcended the highest mountains by fifteen cubits — on account of the peak of Mount Olympus, above which clouds are said not to be able to climb, [so] that this thicker air is not there, where winds, mists, and rains are produced: and they do not consider that the densest of all the elements, the earth, could be there. Or do they perhaps deny that this peak of the mountain is earth? Why, then, do they contend that it was permitted for lands to be raised up to those spaces of heaven, but not permitted for waters to be raised up? — when these measurers and weighers of the elements declare that waters are higher and lighter than lands. What reason, therefore, do they bring, why the earth, heavier and lower, has invaded the place of the calmer heaven through the rolling of so many years, and the water, lighter and higher, was not permitted to do this even for a short time?” So Augustine.⁹

ERGO B. Augustini adversus istos ratio et argumentatio hanc vim habet: Si terra quae est in vertice montis Olympi potuit extolli supra locum ubi generantur et unde cadunt imbres, cur non similiter supra eum locum evehi potuit aqua diluvii, quae sua natura levior est quam terra, et supra eam collocari debet? Sed illi responderent propriam esse causam quare id non potuerit evenire in aqua diluvii: quippe quod praecipue factum et auctum sit ex imbribus; quamobrem nullo modo potuisse ipsum supra locum aëris ubi generantur imbres attolli.

Therefore the reasoning and argument of St. Augustine against them has this force: If the earth which is on the peak of Mount Olympus could be raised above the place where rains are generated and whence they fall, why could not the water of the flood likewise be carried above that place — water which is by its nature lighter than earth, and ought to be placed above it? But they would answer that there is a special cause why this could not happen in the water of the flood: namely, because it was chiefly made and increased from rains; wherefore it could in no way be raised above the place of the air where rains are generated.¹⁰

PROMPTA igitur, meo iudicio, atque firma refellendi istos ratio est, negare verum esse quod de illis montibus traditum est: sed primum ex fabulosis Poëtarum figmentis id profectum esse; tum, ut alia multa, temere vulgo creditum, cui ea quae mirabiliora videntur faciliora creditu sunt. Ludovicus Vives, civis meus, explanans eum locum B. Augustini quem proxime posui, fabulosum esse quod de celsitudine montis Olympi traditum est, firmat testimonio Philadelphii, qui se eum montem ascendisse dixit, ut rem tantam exploraret, et falsum esse comperisse. Deinde, quae de istiusmodi montibus scribunt veteres, minime cohaerent inter se, sed sunt plane contraria. Aiunt enim vertices illorum montium celsiores esse media regione aëris, ergo supremam illi regionem aëris attingunt: at eam regionem quinquaginta milliaribus a terris distare Mathematicorum demonstrationibus constat; nullius porro montis altitudo per directum quatuor milliaria excedit.

There is, therefore, in my judgment, a ready and firm reason for refuting them: to deny that what is reported about those mountains is true; but [to say] that, first, it proceeded from the fabulous fictions of the Poets; then, like many other things, was rashly believed by the common people, to whom the things that seem more wonderful are easier to believe. Ludovicus Vives, my fellow-citizen, explaining that passage of St. Augustine which I just set down, confirms that what is reported about the loftiness of Mount Olympus is fabulous, by the testimony of Philadelphius, who said that he had ascended that mountain to explore so great a matter, and had found it to be false. Next, the things which the ancients write about mountains of this kind by no means cohere among themselves, but are plainly contradictory. For they say that the peaks of those mountains are higher than the middle region of the air — therefore they reach the highest region of the air; but that that region is distant from the earth by fifty miles is established by the demonstrations of the Mathematicians; whereas the height of no mountain exceeds, straight up, four miles.¹¹

DICUNT praeterea supremam montis Athos incolere homines, saluberrimam et longissimam vitam degentes. In summo, inquit Solinus, (montis Atho) oppidum Acroton fuit, in quo dimidio longior quam in aliis terris incolentium aetas prorogabatur. Et hoc verum esse alio argumento patet. Narrat…

They say, besides, that men inhabit the summit of Mount Athos, leading a most healthful and very long life. “On the summit [of Mount Athos],” says Solinus, “there was a town Acroton, in which the age of the inhabitants was prolonged half as long again as in other lands.” And that this is true is plain from another argument. [Aelian] relates…¹²

Narrat Aelianus Platonem, medicis consulentibus ut, relicto insalubri Academiae loco, valetudinis causa in Lyceum transmigraret, recusasse, dicentem: Ego ne ad superiora quidem Atho loca, quae saluberrima sunt, transmigrarem, ut diutius viverem. Erat igitur in fastigio montis Atho aer saluberrimus. At vero, si mons ille attigisset mediam regionem aëris, vel etiam supremam, fuisset non solum insalubris, sed etiam inhabitabilis homini: siquidem media regio valde frigida, humida et nebulosa est; suprema vero, propter viciniam elementi ignis et propter caeli vertiginem, est admodum calens et sicca atque volubilis: quamobrem ne brevi quidem tempore illic vivere homines, ne dum salubriter et diu vivere potuissent. Illud quoque affirmant, apicem Atlantis semper niveo opertum esse: est igitur vertex Atlantis infra locum ubi generantur et unde cadunt nives; hanc autem esse mediam regionem aëris (qui locus etiam natalis est imbrium) ex primo libro Meteorologicorum manifestum est.

Aelian relates that Plato, when the physicians advised him to migrate, for the sake of health, from the unhealthful place of the Academy to the Lyceum, refused, saying: “I would not migrate even to the higher places of Athos, which are most healthful, in order to live longer.” There was therefore on the height of Mount Athos a most healthful air. But if that mountain had reached the middle region of the air, or even the highest, it would have been not only unhealthful, but even uninhabitable for man: since the middle region is very cold, moist, and foggy; but the highest, on account of the nearness of the element of fire and on account of the whirling of the heaven, is exceedingly hot and dry and ever-turning: wherefore men could not have lived there even for a short time, much less lived healthfully and long. They also affirm that the peak of Atlas is always covered with snow: therefore the summit of Atlas is below the place where snows are generated and whence they fall; and that this is the middle region of the air (which place is also the birthplace of rains) is manifest from the first book of the Meteorology.¹³

QUID plura? Cum divina scriptura, adhibito duplici signo universalitatis, dicat omnes montes qui sunt sub universo caelo opertos esse aquis diluvii, quis ausit excipere aliquos montes? Generales enim divinae Scripturae sententias non licet restringere, nec diminuere earum veritatem adhibitis exceptionibus, nisi illae ipsae exceptiones ex aliis eiusdem Scripturae locis colligi possint, aut nisi eas adhibere necessaria et evidens ratio cogat. Alioquin omnium generalium sententiarum divinae Scripturae veritas dubia et incerta redderetur, cum pro cuiuslibet arbitrio variae illae exceptionibus essent obnoxiae. Ecce tibi: si ex illa generali sententia de montibus diluvio opertis excipere velis aliquos montes, similiter alius exciperet insulas, dicens, cum Scriptura inquit universam terram esse inundatam, id tantum de continente terra esse intelligendum; et alius diceret nec de universa terra continente accipiendum esse, sed de ea tantum quae ante diluvium habitabatur ab hominibus: et sic efficeretur diluvium illud Noëticum non fuisse generale totius orbis terrae.

What more? Since divine scripture, with a double sign of universality applied, says that all the mountains which are under the whole heaven were covered by the waters of the flood, who would dare to except any mountains? For the general statements of divine Scripture may not be restricted, nor their truth diminished by applying exceptions, unless those very exceptions can be gathered from other places of the same Scripture, or unless a necessary and evident reason compels [us] to apply them. Otherwise, the truth of all the general statements of divine Scripture would be rendered doubtful and uncertain, since they would be subject to various exceptions at anyone's pleasure. Behold: if from that general statement about the mountains covered by the flood you wished to except some mountains, similarly another would except the islands, saying that, when Scripture says the whole earth was inundated, that is to be understood only of the continental land; and another would say that it is not to be taken even of the whole continental land, but only of that which before the flood was inhabited by men: and so it would be made out that that flood of Noah was not general over the whole world.¹⁴

Translator’s notes

§43. The Flood fifteen cubits above the mountains (Chrysostom). Margins: Gen. 7, vv. 19–20; Chrysostom, hom. 25; Gen. 6. ↩
§44 begins. Continues on p. 313. ↩
§44. Cajetan: ‘under heaven’ means under the airy (rain-)region — so peaks above it (e.g. Paradise's mountain) need not have been covered. Margin: “Cajetan thinks the peaks of some mountains were not covered by the flood-waters.” ↩
Cajetan's own words (the ‘under the whole heaven’ qualification; the mountain of Paradise as the standing exception). Margin: Gen. 5. ↩
§45 begins. Cajetan's account concluded; Pererius signals a critique. Margins: Matt. 24; Luke 17; “Cajetan is refuted.” Continues on p. 314. ↩
§45 (concl.). Pererius refutes Cajetan's ‘under heaven = the airy region’ reading. Margins: Job 41; Col. 4. ↩
§46. The objection from the ‘unflooded’ high peaks. Margins: Solinus, chs. 14, 20, 27; “The height of Olympus.” ↩
The heights of Athos and Atlas; Plutarch and Pliny on measured mountain-heights. Margins: “The loftiness of Mt. Athos and of Atlas”; Plutarch; Pliny, bk. 5, ch. 22. Continues on p. 315. ↩
§47. Augustine's refutation: if earth (the peak) can rise that high, so can the lighter water. Margins: “Mount Casius”; Augustine. ↩
The objectors' rejoinder (the flood-water, being from rain, cannot rise above the rain-region). ↩
§48. Pererius's reply: the tale is a poetic fable (Vives, citing Philadelphius); and the ancients contradict themselves. Margins: “That there is no mountain that exceeds the middle region of the air”; Ludovicus Vives on Augustine; Solinus. ↩
§49. Margin: Solinus, ch. 16. Continues on p. 316. ↩
§49 (cont.). The healthful air of Athos's summit (Aelian's Plato anecdote) disproves that it reaches the cold middle air; Atlas's snow likewise. Margins: Aelian, Varia Historia; “A noble example of Plato's contempt of [long] life”; Aristotle. ↩
§50. The decisive argument: the ‘double sign of universality’ forbids excepting any mountain — else the universality could be whittled away at will. ↩