SEVENTH DISPUTATION. How great a part of the Ark was submerged in the waters, when the waters were at their highest increase — that is, when they exceeded the highest mountains by fifteen cubits — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

SEVENTH DISPUTATION. How great a part of the Ark was submerged in the waters, when the waters were at their highest increase — that is, when they exceeded the highest mountains by fifteen cubits.

SEPTIMA DISPUTATIO. Quanta pars Arcae demersa fuerit aquis, cum aquae in summo erant incremento, id est, cum altissimos montes quindecim cubitis excedebant.

HANC quaestionem a nullo memini Patrum attingi. Primum qui eam videtur attigisse, reperi Hugonem Sancti Victoris: postea vero satis curiose et subtiliter eam exagitarunt ex Hebraeis Rabbi Salomon, de nostris autem Lyranus, Paulus Burgensis, Tostatus, Carthusianus, aliique. Nobis eam quaestionem nec omnino intactam praeteriri, nec nisi strictim et quasi obiter tractari oportere visum est. QUID ergo de posita quaestione tradit Hugo? Is libro primo de Arca morali, capite tertio, cum divisisset Arcam in quinque mansiones — infimam, quae appellatur Stercoraria, et huic proxima, quae nominatur Cibaria — significat eas duas mansiones fuisse aquis demersas; primam vero aquis superstantem facit tertiam Arcae mansionem, in qua fera et indomita animalia collocat. Infimae porro mansioni quatuor cubitos altitudinis, alteri vero quae super hac proxima erat quinque cubitos assignat. Ex quo intelligitur Hugonem sensisse, ex triginta cubitis altitudinis totius Arcae, novem inferiores fuisse aquis demersos: ita ut Arca novem cubitis intra aquam esset, uno autem et viginti cubitis extra et supra aquas. Sic ex Hugone.

This question I do not remember being touched by any of the Fathers. The first who seems to have touched it, I find to be Hugh of St. Victor: but afterward, among the Hebrews, Rabbi Solomon, and of ours, Lyra, Paul of Burgos, Tostatus, the Carthusian, and others, agitated it rather curiously and subtly. To us it has seemed that this question ought neither to be passed over altogether untouched, nor to be treated except briefly and, as it were, in passing. What, then, does Hugh hand down about the question proposed? He, in the first book On the Moral Ark, chapter three, when he had divided the Ark into five dwellings — the lowest, which is called the Dung-deck (Stercoraria), and the one next to this, which is named the Food-deck (Cibaria) — signifies that those two dwellings were submerged in the waters; but he makes the third dwelling of the Ark (in which he places the wild and untamed animals) to be standing above the waters. To the lowest dwelling he assigns four cubits of height, but to the other which was next above this, five cubits. From which it is understood that Hugh thought that, of the thirty cubits of the whole Ark's height, the nine lower ones were submerged in the waters: so that the Ark was nine cubits within the water, but twenty-one cubits outside and above the waters. So [much] from Hugh.¹

VERUM diversa est Lyrani sententia. Siquidem is, in octavum caput Geneseos, super illa verba: Prima die mensis decimi apparuerunt cacumina montium, de supra dicta quaestione disputans, primo sumit et ponit quaedam, iudicio ipsius certa sibique (ut putat ipse) ab omnibus concedenda. Et primo quidem ait Arcam non intrasse quindecim cubitis aquas diluvii, cum erant aquae in summo incremento: cum enim aquae non excederent montes plus quindecim cubitis, si totidem cubitis Arca intrasset aquas, utique fundo suo contigisset montes; non igitur mota fuisset, sed in illis semper resedis[set]…

But different is Lyra's opinion. For he, on the eighth chapter of Genesis, upon those words, “On the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains appeared,” disputing about the aforesaid question, first assumes and lays down certain things, by his own judgment certain, and (as he thinks) to be conceded by all. And first he says that the Ark did not enter fifteen cubits into the waters of the flood, when the waters were at their highest increase: for since the waters did not exceed the mountains by more than fifteen cubits, if the Ark had entered the waters by as many cubits, it would surely have touched the mountains with its bottom; it would not, therefore, have been moved, but would always have rested upon them…²

…sed in illis semper resedisset. DEINDE affirmat tantum praecise Arcam demersam fuisse aquis, quantum aqua excedebat montes, quando Arca primo requievit super montes. Tertio loco sumit decrementum aquarum (ex quo primum illae coeperunt decrescere usque ad id temporis quo apparuerunt cacumina montium) esse factum septuaginta diebus: tot enim dies intercessisse eo patet, quod aquae coeperunt diminui post centum quinquaginta dies ab initio diluvii (ut supra dictum est), id est, vigesimo die mensis septimi; hinc autem usque ad primum diem mensis decimi numerantur dies septuaginta. QUARTO loco sumit diminutionem aquarum quotidie factam esse aequaliter, ita ut per singulos dies tantundem aquae decreverit. Et hoc sit verisimile, quia causae decrementi aquarum eodem modo et aequaliter per omnes eos dies se se habuerunt: causas dico, et ventum a Deo missum, et occlusionem fontium abyssi et cataractarum caeli, atque prohibitionem pluviae.

…but would always have rested upon them. Next he affirms that the Ark was submerged in the waters precisely as much as the water exceeded the mountains, when the Ark first rested upon the mountains. In the third place he assumes that the decrease of the waters (from when they first began to decrease up to that time at which the tops of the mountains appeared) was made in seventy days: for that so many days intervened is plain from this, that the waters began to diminish after a hundred and fifty days from the beginning of the flood (as was said above), that is, on the twentieth day of the seventh month; and from this up to the first day of the tenth month seventy days are counted. In the fourth place he assumes that the diminution of the waters was made equally each day, so that on each day the same amount of water decreased. And this is probable, because the causes of the decrease of the waters held themselves in the same way and equally through all those days: I mean the causes — both the wind sent by God, and the closing of the fountains of the deep and the cataracts of heaven, and the restraining of the rain.³

Ex his concluditur: si per septuaginta dies diminutae sunt aquae quindecim cubitis, si illos septuaginta dies distribuas per quindecim cubitos, fore ut cuilibet cubito decrementi obveniant dies quatuor et dimidium diei superque sexta pars diei, ut aquae uno fere cubito decreverint singulis quatuor diebus. Quoniam autem a vigesimo die septimi mensis quo coeperunt diminui aquae (ut dictum est) usque ad vigesimam septimam diem eiusdem mensis quo Arca requievit super montes, fluxerunt octo dies, efficitur ex supra dicta computatione per octo illos dies decrevisse aquas duobus fere cubitis. Si igitur tunc Arca, fundo suo contingens montes, requievit, necesse est eam fuisse intra aquas paulo plus tredecim cubitis. Tanta igitur fuit demersio Arcae in aquas diluvii, cum illae summum habuerunt incrementum et cum per illas ferebatur Arca.

From these it is concluded: if in seventy days the waters were diminished by fifteen cubits, if you distribute those seventy days over the fifteen cubits, it will come about that to each cubit of the decrease there fall four days and a half of a day, and besides a sixth part of a day — so that the waters decreased about one cubit every four days. And since from the twentieth day of the seventh month, on which the waters began to diminish (as was said), up to the twenty-seventh day of the same month, on which the Ark rested upon the mountains, eight days passed, it comes about, from the aforesaid computation, that during those eight days the waters decreased by about two cubits. If, therefore, the Ark then rested, touching the mountains with its bottom, it must have been within the waters a little more than thirteen cubits. So great, then, was the submersion of the Ark in the waters of the flood, when they had their highest increase and when the Ark was borne by them.⁴

HAEC fere Lyranus, cuius supputatio procedit secundum lectionem Latinam et Graecam, quae habet Arcam requievisse super montes vigesimo septimo die septimi mensis. Quomodo autem respondendum sit quaestioni propositae secundum lectionem Hebraicam (quae habet requievisse Arcam decimo septimo die mensis septimi), et quid praeterea dicendum sit secundum eos qui centum quinquaginta dies (post quos incoepit decrementum aquarum) separant a quadraginta diebus pluviae, et septimum mensem quo requievit Arca computant ab initio diluvii, non autem ab initio anni: videre licet apud Lyranum et Tostatum; nam mihi, utilia consectanti, rebus istis magis curiosis quam utilibus tractandis immorari nec libet nec licet.

Thus, roughly, Lyra — whose computation proceeds according to the Latin and Greek reading, which has that the Ark rested upon the mountains on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh month. But how the proposed question is to be answered according to the Hebrew reading (which has that the Ark rested on the seventeenth day of the seventh month), and what besides is to be said according to those who separate the hundred and fifty days (after which the decrease of the waters began) from the forty days of rain, and compute the seventh month in which the Ark rested from the beginning of the flood, and not from the beginning of the year: one may see in Lyra and Tostatus; for to me, pursuing useful things, it is neither pleasing nor permitted to linger in treating these matters, which are more curious than useful.⁵

AC supradicta quidem Lyrani ratiocinatio et argumentatio, ut quae rebus maxime dubiis et incertis nitatur, nec vera est, nec verisimilis: ponit enim tria Lyranus quae sunt obscurae veritatis, aut etiam manifestae falsitatis. Etenim primo sumit, quacumque mota est Arca, semper esse motam super montes altissimos totius orbis, id est, per aquam quae quindecim tantum cubitis excederet terram: at id nec verum est, nec simile vero. Credibile enim admodum sit Arcam motam esse et super loca pla[na]…

And the aforesaid reasoning and argument of Lyra, as resting on most doubtful and uncertain things, is neither true nor probable: for Lyra lays down three things which are of obscure truth, or even of manifest falsity. For first he assumes that, wherever the Ark was moved, it was always moved over the highest mountains of the whole world — that is, through water which exceeded the earth by only fifteen cubits: but this is neither true nor like the truth. For it is very credible that the Ark was moved both over le[vel] places…⁶

…et super valles et colles et montes, tam excelsos quam humiles: quocirca aquae per quas ferebatur Arca, nonnumquam quindecim tantum cubitis, plerumque tamen pluribus, id est, viginti, quinquaginta, centum, et eo amplius, terram excedebant. Hoc posito, rationem Lyrani labascere et corruere necesse est.

…and over valleys and hills and mountains, both high and low: wherefore the waters through which the Ark was borne sometimes exceeded the earth by only fifteen cubits, but mostly by more — that is, by twenty, fifty, a hundred, and more. This being laid down, Lyra's reasoning must necessarily totter and collapse.⁷

DEINDE ponit Lyranus montem Armeniae super quem requievit Arca fuisse altissimum totius orbis, saltem negative, ut altiorem habuerit nullum. Sed enim Geographi montes Armeniae celsissimos omnium minime faciunt: nam etsi mons Taurus longitudine et amplitudine aliisque nonnullis rebus ceteros montes antecellat, altitudine tamen non paucis habetur inferior. Quid quod non constat Arcam resedisse super celsissimo eius montis iugo? Fortasse enim in aliqua eius parte humiliori resedit.

Next, Lyra lays down that the mountain of Armenia on which the Ark rested was the highest of the whole world — at least negatively, [in the sense] that it had none higher. But the Geographers by no means make the mountains of Armenia the highest of all: for although Mount Taurus surpasses the other mountains in length and breadth and some other respects, yet in height it is held inferior to not a few. What of this: that it is not certain that the Ark settled upon the highest ridge of that mountain? For perhaps it settled on some lower part of it.⁸

ILLUD praeterea non modo incertum est, verum etiam opinionem Lyrani demolitur et funditus evertit. Ait ille decrementum aquarum quotidie factum esse aequaliter. Hoc incertum est; quin etiam verisimilius est decrementum aquarum inaequaliter esse factum. Quanto enim plus aquae erat ab initio, tanto plus in ea fuit resistentiae adversus causam siccantem et consumentem: magis vero ac magis procedente aquarum decremento, pariter etiam magis magisque debilitabatur resistentia aquae, et vis causae siccantis valentior et efficacior erat.

Besides, this is not only uncertain, but even demolishes and utterly overturns Lyra's opinion. He says that the decrease of the waters was made equally each day. This is uncertain; nay, it is more probable that the decrease of the waters was made unequally. For the more water there was at the beginning, the more resistance there was in it against the drying and consuming cause: but as the decrease of the waters proceeded more and more, equally also the resistance of the water was more and more weakened, and the force of the drying cause was the stronger and more effective.⁹

DEINDE, si quarto quoque die (secundum Lyranum) decrescebat uno cubito aqua, ergo non decrescebat aequaliter quantum ad quantitatem aquae: siquidem extremus ac supremus cubitus aquae (id est, decimus quintus altitudinis super montes) plus aquae continebat quam decimus quartus, et hic quam decimus tertius, et sic deinceps usque ad ultimum; et hoc quidem Physiologiae et Mathematicae doctrinae peritus facile intelliget et credet. Aquae enim diluvii totam terram operiebant in orbem ac circumdabant: circulus autem corporis globosi, quo remotior a centro est, eo amplior et maior est; tanto autem minor, quanto propinquior. Quapropter supremus cubitus aquarum diluvii, in orbem sumptus, multo plus aquae continebat quam decimus quartus et deinceps alii. Ergo ratio Lyrani se ipsam destruit, contrarium efficiens et concludens eius quod intendit Lyranus. Nam si uno cubito per quatriduum decrescebant aquae, cum illi cubiti (prout superiores erant aut inferiores) plus minusve continerent aquae, necesse est in dies singulos inaequabile fuisse decrementum aquarum, et quotidie minorem factam esse diminutionem. Sed pergamus ad alia.

Next, if every fourth day (according to Lyra) the water decreased by one cubit, then it did not decrease equally as regards the quantity of water: since the outermost and highest cubit of water (that is, the fifteenth of the height above the mountains) contained more water than the fourteenth, and this than the thirteenth, and so on down to the last; and this, indeed, one skilled in the doctrine of Physiology and Mathematics will easily understand and believe. For the waters of the flood covered and surrounded the whole earth in a sphere: and the circumference of a spherical body, the farther it is from the center, the wider and greater it is; but the smaller, the nearer [to the center]. Wherefore the highest cubit of the waters of the flood, taken in a sphere, contained much more water than the fourteenth and the others following. Therefore Lyra's reasoning destroys itself, effecting and concluding the contrary of what Lyra intends. For if the waters decreased by one cubit every four days, since those cubits (according as they were higher or lower) contained more or less water, it is necessary that the decrease of the waters was unequal on each day, and that the diminution was made smaller daily. But let us pass on to other matters.¹⁰

Cumque transissent quadraginta dies, aperiens fenestram Noë Arcae quam fecerat, etc. QUADRAGINTA dies quos hic memorat Moses computandi sunt a primo die decimi mensis quo apparuerunt cacumina montium, et finiuntur undecimo die mensis undecimi. Ergo quod hic dicitur de apertione fenestrae et emissione corvi, factum est duodecimo die mensis undecimi: licet Caietanus, nescio quam lectionem Hebraicam hoc loco secutus, incertum esse dicat quanto tempore post illos quadraginta dies Noë fecerit quod hic memoratur.

“And when forty days had passed, Noah, opening the window of the Ark which he had made,” etc. The forty days which Moses here mentions are to be computed from the first day of the tenth month, on which the tops of the mountains appeared, and they end on the eleventh day of the eleventh month. Therefore what is here said about the opening of the window and the sending-out of the raven was done on the twelfth day of the eleventh month: although Cajetan, following I know not what Hebrew reading in this place, says that it is uncertain how long after those forty days Noah did what is here mentioned.¹¹

VOCABULUM fenestra, Graece θυρίδα habent libri vetustiores Graeci, licet in aliis (ut apud Chrysostomum hom. 27 in Genesim) Graece sit θύραν, id est, ostium vel ianua. Sanctus Hieronymus, cum haberet ipse ostium, monuit Hebraice legi fenestram. B. Ambrosius capite 17 libri De Noë et Arca primo legit ostium, deinde habet fenestram. Caietanus putat hic primum mentionem fieri fenestrae Arcae, quam supra omiserat Moses cap. 6 in descriptione Arcae: nam pro eo quod ibi Latina translatio habet, Fenestram in arca facies, Caietanus legerat eo loco lucernam in arca facies; siquidem Hebraea vox quae inibi est, Sohar, proprie significat lucem (et quidem magnam, uti est meridiana), et inde transfertur ad significandum id quod praebet lucem, sive fundendo eam ex se (ut facit lucerna) sive eam transmittendo (ut fenestra).

The word “window” — the older Greek books have, in Greek, θυρίδα (a window); although in others (as in Chrysostom, hom. 27 on Genesis) the Greek is θύραν, that is, a door or gate. St. Jerome, although he himself had “door,” advised that in Hebrew “window” is read. St. Ambrose, in chapter 17 of the book On Noah and the Ark, first reads “door,” then has “window.” Cajetan thinks that here, for the first time, mention is made of the window of the Ark, which Moses had above omitted in chapter 6, in the description of the Ark: for in place of what the Latin translation there has, “Thou shalt make a window in the ark,” Cajetan had read in that place, “Thou shalt make a lamp (lucerna) in the ark”; since the Hebrew word which is there, “Sohar,” properly signifies light (and indeed a great one, such as is the noonday), and thence is transferred to signify that which provides light, whether by pouring it out from itself (as a lamp does) or by transmitting it (as a window).¹²

SED hoc loco non est illa vox Sohar, sed est vocabulum chalon, non significans proprie quamcumque fenestram, sed (ut putat Oleaster) rimulam potius aut fissuram seu foramen: id quod ille declarat ex aliquot scripturae locis. Et sane hoc videtur indicare quod sequitur, quam fecerat: quasi de novo fecerit fissuram vel rimam per quam prospiceret an diluvium cessasset. Nam portam inferiorem quam Dominus clauserat non ausus esset Noë aperire, ne aquae intrarent in Arcam; fenestra vero Arcae erat in parte superiori, per quam videre non poterat nisi caelum versus, nisi forte ad eam conscenderet. Sic Oleaster. Quamvis mox subdat etiam de fenestra posse intelligi. Et melius sane: nam frangere tabulam aut partem aliquam Arcae non ausus esset Noë, veritus ne tanta illa vis aquarum, aperta sibi via, in Arcam magno impetu irrumperet.

But in this place there is not that word “Sohar,” but the word “chalon,” not properly signifying any window whatever, but (as Oleaster thinks) rather a little chink or fissure or aperture: which he declares from several passages of scripture. And indeed this seems to be indicated by what follows, “which he had made”: as if he made anew a fissure or chink through which he might look out whether the flood had ceased. For the lower door which the Lord had closed, Noah would not have dared to open, lest the waters should enter the Ark; but the window of the Ark was in the upper part, through which he could not see except toward the sky, unless perhaps he climbed up to it. So Oleaster. Although he soon adds that it can be understood also of a window. And better indeed: for to break a board or some part of the Ark, Noah would not have dared, fearing lest that so great force of waters, a way being opened for it, should burst into the Ark with great impetus.¹³

SED cur per illam fenestram non ipsemet Noë suis oculis prospexit utrum cessasset diluvium, sed ad id explorandum dimisit corvum et columbam? Chrysostomus significat timore illius horrendi diluvii non esse ausum Noë per fenestram aspicere. Namque ea ipsa verba super quibus disputamus explanans: Ecce, inquit, iustus ille nondum per se audet videre, sed corvum mittit, et per illum discere vult an bona aliqua rerum mutatio sit exspectanda. Tostatus vero causam refert ad situm fenestrae et ad eius parvitatem. Erat enim fenestra in suprema parte Arcae, et perexigua, ita ut per eam caput et corpus efferre non posset; praesertim vero propter curvitatem et crassitudinem laterum Arcae: quo fiebat ut superiora (id est, caelum et astra) suspicere posset, inferiora vero (id est, aquam et terram) despicere non posset. Vel quamvis per fenestram Noë potuisset supra subtusque prospicere, non tamen longinqua et remota loca, de quibus (utrum aquis siccata essent) per illas aves explorare voluit.

But why did Noah not himself look out through that window with his own eyes whether the flood had ceased, but, to explore this, sent out the raven and the dove? Chrysostom signifies that, from fear of that horrible flood, Noah did not dare to look out through the window. For, explaining those very words about which we dispute: “Behold,” he says, “that just man does not yet dare to see for himself, but sends the raven, and through it wishes to learn whether any good change of things is to be expected.” But Tostatus refers the cause to the situation of the window and to its smallness. For the window was in the uppermost part of the Ark, and very small, so that he could not put out his head and body through it; but especially on account of the curvature and thickness of the sides of the Ark: whereby it came about that he could look up at the things above (that is, the sky and the stars), but could not look down at the things below (that is, the water and the earth). Or, although Noah could look out above and below through the window, yet not the far and remote places, about which — whether they were dried of the waters — he wished to explore by means of those birds.¹⁴

Translator’s notes

§58. The submersion question; Hugh of St. Victor: the Ark sat 9 cubits deep, 21 above water. Margins: Rabbi Solomon; Paul of Burgos; Gen. 6. ↩
§59. Lyra's premises begin (the Ark drew less than 15 cubits). Margin: Lyra. Continues on p. 357. ↩
§60–61. Lyra's third and fourth premises (a 70-day decrease, falling equally each day). ↩
§62. Lyra's conclusion: the Ark drew ~13 cubits at the flood's peak. Margin: “The Ark was submerged nearly thirteen cubits in the waters (according to Lyra).” ↩
Pererius declines to pursue the alternative reckonings as ‘more curious than useful.’ Margin: Tostatus. ↩
§63. Pererius begins refuting Lyra (the Ark did not always float only 15 cubits above land). Margin: “Lyra is refuted.” Continues on p. 358. ↩
The Ark floated over varied terrain, so the water's depth above land varied (not always 15 cubits). ↩
§64. Second refutation: the Armenian mountain was not the world's highest, nor necessarily its summit. ↩
§65. Third refutation: the decrease was not equal each day (the drying force grew as the water lessened). ↩
§66. A geometrical refutation: the outer (higher) spherical cubits hold more water, so equal cubit-drops mean unequal daily decreases. ↩
§67. Gen. 8:6: dating the opening of the window. Margins: Gen. 8, v. 6; Cajetan on Gen. ch. 8. ↩
§68. ‘Window’ vs. ‘door’ vs. ‘lamp’ (Sohar): the textual/lexical variants. Margins: Chrysostom; Jerome, On the Hebrew Traditions in Genesis; Ambrose; Cajetan. Continues on p. 360. ↩
§68 (cont.). The Hebrew ‘chalon’ (Oleaster: a chink rather than a window). ↩
§69. Why Noah used birds, not his own eyes (Chrysostom: fear; Tostatus: the small high window). Margins: Chrysostom, hom. 26 on Genesis; Tostatus. ↩