LatineEnglish
NINTH DISPUTATION. On the Dove sent out after the raven: Upon those words: “He sent forth also a dove after him, to see if the waters had now ceased upon the face of the earth. And when she found not where her foot might rest, she returned to him into the Ark.”
NONA DISPUTATIO. De Columba post corvum emissa: Super illa verba: Emisit quoque columbam post eum, ut videret si iam cessassent aquae super faciem terrae. Quae cum non invenisset ubi requiesceret pes eius, reversa est ad eum in Arcam.
CUR potius Noë, ad explorandam diluvii cessationem, corvum et columbam quam alias aves emiserit, difficile est etiam divinando causam aliquam probabilem afferre. Aiunt multi aves istas longinque volare, diuque perseverare in volatu, et ex his quae offendunt aliquid rostro et ore referre. Plutarchus, in libro de solertia Animalium, narrat in his quae de diluvio Deucalionis prodita sunt etiam illud contineri, columbam a Deucalione emissam esse, quae primum regressa, manentis diluvii, iterum autem missa nec regressa, cessantis indicium fecerit: quod affert Plutarchus ad declarandam naturalem columbae solertiam. Illud, Emisit columbam post eum: illud, inquam, post eum, quod Latinus interpres dixit secutus Septuaginta Interpretes, refertur utique ad corvum; Hebraice tamen secus est, sic nimirum, emisit a se, et refertur potius ad ipsum Noë. Et sensus est: Columbam emisit a se: nam cum columba esset in Arca apud Noë, mittens eam extra Arcam, dicitur a se dimisisse.
Why Noah, to explore the cessation of the flood, sent out the raven and the dove rather than other birds, it is difficult, even by divining, to bring forward any probable cause. Many say that those birds fly far, and persevere long in flight, and bring back something in their beak and mouth from the things they meet with. Plutarch, in the book On the Cleverness of Animals, narrates that, among the things reported about the flood of Deucalion, this too is contained: that a dove was sent out by Deucalion, which, returning the first time, [gave a sign] of the flood's remaining, but, sent out again and not returning, gave a sign of its ceasing: which Plutarch brings forward to declare the natural cleverness of the dove. That phrase, “He sent out the dove after him”: that, I say, “after him,” which the Latin interpreter said, following the Septuagint Interpreters, refers, of course, to the raven; but in Hebrew it is otherwise — namely thus, “he sent out from himself” — and refers rather to Noah himself. And the sense is: “He sent out the dove from himself”: for since the dove was in the Ark with Noah, sending it out of the Ark, he is said to have sent it away from himself.1
VERUM illud affert dubitationem, quomodo columba non invenerit locum ubi pedem poneret, cum iam quadraginta diebus ante cacumina montium aquis nudata apparuissent. Haec quaestio, inquit Augustinus, videtur per recapitulationem posse dissolvi, ut ea posterius narrata intelligantur quae prius facta sunt; aut potius aquae nondum siccatae fuerant. Quibus verbis Augustinus duplicem aperit solutionem propositae dubitationis: et posterior quidem, de aquis nondum tunc siccatis (ut infra declarabitur), approbanda est; prior autem, quod hoc de columba ante montium apparitionem factum fuerit (licet posterius per recapitulationem memoratum sit a Mose), non satis videtur cum Mosis narratione consentire: quippe qui aperte dixit Noë, post quadraginta dies quam apparuerant cacumina montium, aperuisse fenestram et emisisse corvum atque columbam. Quare nullus hic locus videtur esse recapitulationi, cum rectam seriem rerum gestarum et ordinem temporum ipsa prae se ferat Mosis narratio.
But this raises a doubt: how the dove did not find a place where it might set its foot, when forty days before the tops of the mountains, stripped of the waters, had appeared. “This question,” says Augustine, “seems able to be resolved by recapitulation, so that the things narrated later may be understood [to be] those which were done earlier; or rather, the waters had not yet been dried.” By which words Augustine opens a twofold solution of the proposed doubt: and the latter indeed — about the waters not yet then dried (as will be declared below) — is to be approved; but the former — that this about the dove was done before the appearance of the mountains (although mentioned later by Moses by recapitulation) — does not seem sufficiently to agree with Moses' narrative: since he plainly said that Noah, forty days after the tops of the mountains had appeared, opened the window and sent out the raven and the dove. Wherefore there seems to be no place here for recapitulation, since Moses' narrative itself presents a right sequence of the things done and order of the times.2
CAIETANUS, cum eandem quaestionem posuisset, sic eam solvit: Solutio est, inquit, quod campestris terra erat operta aquis, ut clare subiungit litera; montana autem occupata erant ab Arca; et propterea columba non invenit ubi requiesceret pes eius. Invenisset quidem, si ad longinquos montes volasset: sed hoc non congruit columbae, eo quod volatus eius non videtur multum longus, nisi impulsus ab incommodis loci et aëris et huiusmodi. Haec igitur est solutio Caietani: sed parum firma et probabilis. Unde enim novit ille monti super quem resedit Arca non fuisse vicinos alios montes aquis detectos? Quin imo contrarium videtur credibilius, cum mons Armeniae super quem resedit Arca credatur fuisse Taurus aut alius ei cohaerens: Taurus autem longissime et latissime patet.
Cajetan, when he had posed the same question, solved it thus: “The solution is,” he says, “that the level land was covered with waters, as the text clearly subjoins; but the mountainous [land] was occupied by the Ark; and therefore the dove did not find where its foot might rest. It would have found [it], if it had flown to the distant mountains: but this does not suit the dove, because its flight does not seem very long, unless driven by the inconveniences of place and air and the like.” This, then, is Cajetan's solution: but little firm and probable. For whence did he know that, to the mountain on which the Ark settled, there were no neighboring other mountains uncovered by the waters? Nay rather, the contrary seems more credible, since the mountain of Armenia on which the Ark settled is believed to have been Taurus or another adjoining it: and Taurus extends very far and very wide.3
ILLA igitur quam supra indicavit Augustinus, et quam perspicue tradit Chrysostomus, praeferenda est solutio: licet vertices montium detecti essent et super aquas extarent, remansisse nihilominus tamen eos valde humidos, quin etiam limosos et lutulentos: quamobrem columbam (animal scilicet delicatum et munditiae amans) refugisse vestigia inibi ponere; aut si posuit (nam Iosephus scribit ea lutulentis pedibus rediisse ad Noë), continuo abscessisse.
That solution, therefore, which Augustine above indicated, and which Chrysostom clearly hands down, is to be preferred: that, although the tops of the mountains were uncovered and stood out above the waters, they nevertheless remained very moist, nay even slimy and muddy; wherefore the dove (a delicate animal, and a lover of cleanness) shrank from setting its feet there; or, if it did set them (for Josephus writes that it returned to Noah with muddy feet), immediately departed.4
SEQUITUR autem narratio Mosis de eadem columba: Expectatis autem ultra septem diebus aliis, rursum dimisit columbam ex Arca. At illa venit ad eum ad vesperam, portans ramum olivae virentibus foliis in ore suo. Quia Moses ait expectasse Noë septem alios dies priusquam iterum mitteret columbam, ex eo significari putant Lyranus et Tostatus, transactis septem diebus post illos quadraginta, esse primum emissam columbam: alioqui non diceretur expectatos fuisse alios septem dies. Quocirca secundum istos, ter septem dies numerantur a Mose post illos quadraginta. Etenim primi septem dies significantur, post quos primum missa est columba; secundi autem et tertii septem dies expresse hoc loco nominantur a Mose.
There follows the narration of Moses about the same dove: “And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove out of the Ark. And she came to him in the evening, carrying a branch of olive with green leaves in her mouth.” Because Moses says that Noah waited seven other days before he sent the dove again, from this Lyra and Tostatus think it is signified that, seven days after those forty having passed, the dove was first sent out: otherwise it would not be said that other seven days were waited. Wherefore, according to these, three [sets of] seven days are counted by Moses after those forty. For the first seven days are signified, after which the dove was first sent; but the second and third seven days are expressly named in this place by Moses.5
VERUM haec ratio non cogit nos istis assentiri. Siquidem dicuntur septem dies alii — non quidem alii a septem diebus qui praecesserint eos, sed alii ab illis quadraginta diebus qui transierant ex quo apparuerant cacumina montium. Certe Rupertus in hunc locum Mosis scribens tantum numerat bis septem dies. Secundum quam opinionem, dies quo columba tulit folia oleae virentia fuit decimus septimus mensis undecimi; at secundum Lyranum et Tostatum fuit dies vigesimus quartus. Quod autem columba rediit ad vesperam, significat eam toto die extra Arcam fuisse: cum enim reperisset arbores virentes, habuit et ubi requiesceret, et quo pasceretur, et per totum diem commoraretur. Rediit autem ad Arcam, fugiens obscuritatem et frigus nocturnum, et quia domesticum animal est et familiare homini.
But this reasoning does not compel us to assent to these. For they are called “seven other days” — not, indeed, other than the seven days which preceded them, but other than those forty days which had passed since the tops of the mountains had appeared. Certainly Rupert, writing on this passage of Moses, counts only twice-seven days. According to which opinion, the day on which the dove brought the green olive leaves was the seventeenth of the eleventh month; but according to Lyra and Tostatus it was the twenty-fourth day. And that the dove returned in the evening signifies that it was outside the Ark all day: for since it had found green trees, it had both where to rest, and whereon to feed, and to tarry all day. But it returned to the Ark, fleeing the darkness and the nightly cold, and because it is a domestic animal and familiar to man.6
PRO illo, Portans ramum olivae virentibus foliis, Graeci libri habent κάρφος, id est, festucam. Sanctus Ambrosius legit ramum, Augustinus surculum. Hebraice est: Ecce folium olivae raptum erat in ore eius. Vox (haleh)…
In place of “Carrying a branch of olive with green leaves,” the Greek books have κάρφος (karphos), that is, a [dry] twig. St. Ambrose reads “branch,” Augustine “shoot (surculus).” In Hebrew it is: “Behold, a leaf of olive, plucked, was in its mouth.” The word (haleh)…7
…(haleh) proprie significat folium, quod denotat ascendere: unde haleh dicitur folium, quia vento ascendit in altum; et licet magis convenire videatur imbecillitati rostri columbae folium ex arbore decerpere quam ramum, potuit tamen esse ramus ille perquam parvus et tener, pauculis constans foliis.
…(haleh) properly signifies a leaf, which denotes “to ascend”: whence haleh is called a leaf, because it ascends on high by the wind; and although it may seem more fitting to the weakness of the dove's beak to pluck a leaf from a tree than a branch, yet that branch could have been very small and tender, consisting of a few leaves.8
SED quomodo tunc arbor oleae folia virentia habere potuit, cum totum fere annum aquis demersa fuerit? Neque enim aut septem illis diebus quibus arbores extra aquam esse coeperant germinare aut frondescere potuerunt, neque id fecisse sub aquis credibile est. B. Ambrosius in dubio relinquit utrum illud folium virens oleae natum fuisset ante diluvium, an in ipso diluvio exortum, ita scribens: Sed utrum illud folium ante diluvium fuerit exortum, an tempore diluvii, constituendum est tibi. Si ante diluvium: vir iustus gavisus est fructum de veteri semine aliquem reservatum, et inde collegit misericordiae insigne divinae, quod iam diluvium removisset, quae fructum demonstraret cui non potuissent nocere diluvia. Si diluvii tempore natum est folium, advertit utique iustus nova semina misericordia fructificasse caelestis, ut radices arborum viverent, et quasi resumpta anima fetus germinarent vetustos, atque in assuetos partus redirent, quorum indicium praemissa folia demonstrarent. Haec ibi.
But how could the olive tree then have green leaves, when it was submerged in the waters almost the whole year? For neither in those seven days in which the trees had begun to be out of the water could they germinate or put forth leaves, nor is it credible that they did so under the waters. St. Ambrose leaves it in doubt whether that green olive leaf had grown before the flood, or arose in the flood itself, writing thus: “But whether that leaf had grown before the flood, or at the time of the flood, must be determined by you. If before the flood: the just man rejoiced that some fruit from the old seed had been reserved, and from there gathered a notable sign of divine mercy, that the flood had now withdrawn — which would show the fruit to which the floods could not have done harm. If the leaf was born at the time of the flood, the just man assuredly observed that new seeds had borne fruit by heavenly mercy, so that the roots of the trees lived, and as if with soul resumed germinated their old offspring, and returned to their accustomed births, of which the leaves sent forth showed the sign.” Thus there.9
IS proxime tamen sequenti capite pronior videtur Ambrosius ad credendum post diluvium germinasse oleam per Dei omnipotentiam. Sic enim scribit sub finem eius capitis: Nec te autem moveat quod diximus supra, folium in ramo repertum post diluvium potuisse generari: etsi sub aqua plerumque herba soleat germinare, tamen ut scrupulus omnis tollatur, quid magnum si Deo iubente uno die quo imminuta fuerit aqua, statim germinavit et terra, cum idem sit fructuum reparator et conditor, atque operis sui usum non fuerit oblitus? Denique habes et in Genesi quod iusserit ut terra herbam pabuli germinaret, et lignum fructiferum cum fructu suo: et statim eiecit terra herbam pabuli habentem semen secundum genus suum, et lignum fructiferum: et ille dies unus fuerit quo haec Deus iussit aut fecit. ergo beneficii sui Deus non immemor, memor autem nostrae iniquitatis, opus suum eiusdem qua coepit temporis quantitate reparavit. Hucusque Ambrosius.
Yet in the next chapter Ambrose seems more inclined to believe that the olive germinated after the flood by God's omnipotence. For he writes thus toward the end of that chapter: “Nor let it move you that we said above, that the leaf found on a branch could have been generated after the flood: although under water grass is wont mostly to germinate, yet, that every scruple may be removed, what great matter is it if, at God's command, on the one day on which the water was diminished, the earth at once germinated — since He is the same repairer and creator of fruits, and was not forgetful of the use of His work? In short, you have also in Genesis that He commanded the earth to germinate the herb of fodder, and the fruit-bearing tree with its fruit: and at once the earth put forth the herb of fodder, having seed according to its kind, and the fruit-bearing tree: and that was one day, on which God commanded or made these things. Therefore God, not unmindful of His benefit, but mindful of our iniquity, repaired His work in the same quantity of time in which He began it.” Thus far Ambrose.10
SED illud sit mihi verisimilius, illam oleam ante diluvium habuisse folia virentia, eaque sub aquis toto anno conservasse. est enim olea, ut tradit Plinius, ex genere earum arborum quae nunquam frondibus spoliantur, sed earum virorem perpetuo conservant. Firmare hoc possum auctoritate B. Chrysostomi, qui haec ipsa verba Mosis tractans ad hunc modum scribit: Non temere dixit Moses columbam rediisse ad vesperam: sed ut discamus eam tota die fuisse pastam invento sibi congruo cibo, ad vesperam eam rediisse ferentem ore siccum folium olivae. Animal enim est mite et nostra familiaritate gaudens: et idcirco rediit, et sicco olivae folio multa solatii iusto attulit. Sed ubi invenit folium olivae? Totum hoc factum est dispensatione divina, et quod columba invenerit et quod ore tulerit ad Noë: quamquam haec arbor semper virens est. Unde verisimile est quod cum aquae redierint, arbor haec adhuc habuerit foliorum comam. Hoc modo Chrysostomus.
But this seems to me more probable: that that olive had green leaves before the flood, and preserved them under the waters all year. For the olive, as Pliny relates, is of the kind of trees that are never stripped of their leaves, but preserve their greenness perpetually. I can confirm this by the authority of St. Chrysostom, who, treating these very words of Moses, writes in this manner: “Not without reason did Moses say that the dove returned in the evening: but that we may learn that it had fed all day, having found food suitable for it, [and] toward evening returned bearing in its mouth a dry olive leaf. For it is a gentle animal and rejoices in our familiarity: and therefore it returned, and with the dry olive leaf brought much consolation to the just man. But where did it find the olive leaf? This whole thing was done by divine dispensation, both that the dove found it and that it carried it in its mouth to Noah: although this tree is ever green. Whence it is probable that, when the waters had withdrawn, this tree still had its crown of leaves.” Thus Chrysostom.11
QUIDAM nostri saeculi scriptor annalium ex hoc loco argumentatur tempore Noë initium anni fuisse, Sole signum Leonis peragrante, id est, circa mensem Iulium: eoque tempore mundum fuisse a Deo creatum. Verum ampliorem huius opinionis expositionem simul et refutationem si nosse avet Lector, quaerat eam in priori tomo nostrorum Commentariorum in Genesim, libro primo, in explanatione Operis tertii Diei, et in Disputatione de Tempore quo creatus est mundus.
A certain writer of annals of our age argues from this passage that in the time of Noah the beginning of the year was when the Sun was passing through the sign of Leo — that is, about the month of July — and that at that time the world was created by God. But if the Reader desires to know a fuller exposition of this opinion together with its refutation, let him seek it in the first volume of our Commentaries on Genesis, in the first book, in the explanation of the Work of the Third Day, and in the Disputation On the Time at which the world was created.12
Translator’s notes
- §76. Why a dove (Plutarch's Deucalion-dove); ‘after him’ (the raven) vs. Hebrew ‘from himself’ (Noah). Margin: Plutarch. ↩
- §77. The puzzle: the dove found no foothold though the peaks had appeared 40 days earlier; Augustine's two solutions (recapitulation, or waters not yet dried). Margin: Augustine, Questions on Genesis, q. 14. ↩
- §78. Cajetan's solution (only Ararat was clear; the dove won't fly far) — Pererius finds it weak. Margin: Cajetan on Gen. ch. 8. ↩
- §79. The preferred solution: the peaks were bare but muddy, so the fastidious dove would not perch. Margins: Augustine, in the place cited; Chrysostom, hom. 26; Josephus, Antiquities bk. 1. ↩
- §80. Gen. 8:10–11; Lyra & Tostatus count three sets of seven days. Margins: Gen. 8, vv. 10–11; Lyra; Tostatus. ↩
- §81. Pererius (with Rupert) counts only two sets of seven days; the dove's evening return. Margin: Rupert, Commentaries on Genesis, bk. 4, ch. 25; Ambrose, On the Ark and Noah, ch. 17. ↩
- The textual variants on the olive ‘branch’/‘twig’/‘leaf.’ Margins: Augustine, City of God 16.12 / Against Faustus ch. 20. Continues on p. 364. ↩
- §81 (cont.). The Hebrew word for the olive ‘leaf/branch.’ Running head misprints “LIB. XII” for Lib. XIII. ↩
- §82. How the olive had green leaves after a year underwater; Ambrose's two options. Margins: “How the olive could be preserved so long underwater with green leaves, or put forth leaves in so short a time”; Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 19. ↩
- §83. Ambrose's second view: the olive sprouted after the flood by omnipotence (as on the third day of creation). Margin: ch. 20. ↩
- §84. Pererius's view: the evergreen olive (Pliny) kept its leaves underwater (Chrysostom). Margins: Pliny, bk. 16, ch. 20; Chrysostom, hom. 26 on Genesis. ↩
- Gerard Mercator's claim (the year/creation began in July, the Sun in Leo), referred to Pererius's first volume. Margin: Gerard Mercator, in the Introduction to his Annals. ↩