{And drinking of the wine, he was made drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent.} — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

{And drinking of the wine, he was made drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent.}¹

Bibensque vinum inebriatus est, et nudatus iacuit in tabernaculo suo.

CUM hoc factum Noë vel insigne intemperantiae eius peccatum, vel errorem imprudentiae, vel certe probrum quoddam et dedecus famae eius continere videatur, cur id Moses memoriae prodere, et literis semper mansuris consignare, commendare immortalitati voluit? Primum, ut ex [hoc etiam appareat]…

Since this deed of Noah seems to contain either a notable sin of his intemperance, or an error of imprudence, or certainly a kind of disgrace and dishonor to his fame, why did Moses wish to hand it down to memory, and to consign it to letters that would always remain, and to commend it to immortality? First, that from [this too it may appear]…²

…hoc etiam appareat quanta sit sacrae historiae simplicitas et sinceritas, nihil dissimulantis, sed omnia, mala aeque ac bona, integre atque incorrupte narrantis. Deinde, in exemplum et documentum eorum qui haec lecturi erant, ut ex aliis periculum facerent quod sibi ex usu esset: nimirum, ut vitia et mala in quae sanctissimos et sapientissimos viros cernerent esse prolapsos, tanto ipsi maiore studio et diligentia caverent et fugerent, quanto se illis virtute ac prudentia inferiores agnoscerent. Ad haec, ut doceret quantum in potatione vini, vel per intemperantiam vel per imprudentiam, periculum et damnum sit ebrietatis. Namque illud verissime dictum est a Salomone: Luxuriosa res vinum, et tumultuosa ebrietas — innumerabilium nempe malorum parens simul et altrix. Sed illud in primis Mosi propositum fuit, indicare primam originem damnationis gentis Chananaeorum, contumeliam scilicet patris eorum Cham, qua is parentem suum Noë, propter ebrietatem nudatis pudendis iacentem, affecit.

…this too it may appear how great is the simplicity and sincerity of sacred history, which dissembles nothing, but narrates all things, evil as well as good, wholly and incorruptly. Next, for the example and instruction of those who were to read these things, that they might from others take warning of what would be of use to themselves: namely, that the vices and evils into which they perceived the most holy and most wise men to have fallen, they themselves might so much the more, with the greater zeal and diligence, beware and flee, by how much they acknowledged themselves inferior to those in virtue and prudence. Besides, to teach how great a danger and harm of drunkenness there is in the drinking of wine, whether through intemperance or through imprudence. For most truly was it said by Solomon: “Wine is a luxurious thing, and drunkenness tumultuous” — the parent and at once the nurse of innumerable evils. But this above all was Moses's purpose: to indicate the first origin of the damnation of the nation of the Canaanites — namely, the insult of their father Cham, with which he treated his parent Noah, lying with his nakedness uncovered on account of drunkenness.³

At enim, quomodo Noë, vir nempe temperantissimus et sanctissimus, in tam turpem et probrosam temulentiam lapsus est? Equidem possum quinque causas eius lapsus afferre. Primum enim vini potentiam ignorabat, nunquam antea potum vini expertus, nec eam ex iis qui bibissent cognitam habebat: ergo per imprudentiam, vino deceptus et captus est. Deinde, per sexcentos annos assueverat aquam bibere nunquam degustato vino; primus igitur vini potus eum, ut insuetum, animo et mente conturbavit. Ratione enim et experimentis constat facilius inebriari minime suetos vino. Ad haec, largius bibit ignarus debitae mensurae, ratus parem in potu aquae atque vini esse vim. Quarta causa ebrietatis fuit ingravescens iam aetas et annosa, sexcentos videlicet supergressa annos. Athenaeus libro decimo testem laudat Aristotelem, qui in libro de ebrietate scribit vinum modice decoctum potu minus inebriare, quod eius vis coctura fiat imbecillior. Idem praeterea tradit seniores inebriari citissime, ob paucitatem ac debilitatem sui caloris, ab eo qui accedit ex vino facile devicti. Quam ego causam puto cur non similiter atque Noë filii eius inebriati sint: nam eos quoque bibisse vinum non est dubitandum; sed aetatis robore ac vigore praevalentes adversus vinum, vim eius frangere ac superare potuerunt.

But how did Noah, a man most temperate and most holy, fall into so foul and shameful a drunkenness? Indeed I can bring forward five causes of his fall. First, he was ignorant of the power of wine, never before having experienced the drinking of wine, nor having it known from those who had drunk: therefore through imprudence he was deceived and captured by the wine. Next, for six hundred years he had been accustomed to drink water, never having tasted wine; therefore the first drinking of wine, as [he was] unaccustomed, disturbed his soul and mind. For by reason and experiments it is established that those least accustomed to wine are more easily made drunk. Besides, he drank too freely, ignorant of the due measure, thinking that there was equal force in the drinking of water and of wine. The fourth cause of the drunkenness was his now growing and aged years, having namely passed six hundred years. Athenaeus, in the tenth book, cites Aristotle as a witness, who in the book On Drunkenness writes that wine moderately boiled makes one less drunk in drinking, because its force is made weaker by the boiling. The same also relates that older people are made drunk most quickly, easily overcome by the heat which comes from the wine, on account of the fewness and weakness of their own heat. Which cause I think is why Noah's sons were not made drunk as Noah was: for that they too drank wine is not to be doubted; but, prevailing by the strength and vigor of [their] age against the wine, they could break and overcome its force.⁴

RESTAT quinta causa ebrietatis Noë; haec est, ignoratio modi quo bibendum est vinum: non enim bibendum est merum, sed multa aqua permistum ac dilutum: quod veteres per aenigma significarunt, fabulati altrices et educatrices Bacchi fuisse Nymphas. Narrat item Athenaeus morem fuisse apud veteres iuxta Bacchum aram Nymphis exstruere, quo significabatur bibituros vinum admiscendae aquae memores esse debere. Idem scribit laudatam fuisse apud antiquos eam vini et aquae mixtionem ac temperationem in qua tanto plus aquae esset quam vini, quantum quinque excedunt duo: atque inde natum fuisse proverbium (Bibe quinque et duo); nisi fortasse [eo significabatur]…

There remains the fifth cause of Noah's drunkenness; this is, ignorance of the manner in which wine is to be drunk: for it is not to be drunk neat, but mixed and diluted with much water — which the ancients signified by a riddle, fabling that the nurses and rearers of Bacchus were the Nymphs. Athenaeus also relates that it was the custom among the ancients to build beside Bacchus an altar to the Nymphs, by which it was signified that those about to drink wine ought to be mindful of mixing in water. The same writes that there was praised among the ancients that mixture and tempering of wine and water in which there was as much more water than wine as five exceeds two: and that thence arose the proverb (“Drink five and two”); unless perhaps [by it was signified]…⁵

…eo significabatur, pro duobus cyathis vini exhauriendos esse quinque cyathos aquae. Nominat praeterea Palamedem augurem et vatem in primis celebrem, qui vaticinatus est feliciter navigaturos ex Graecis illos qui tres aquae cyathos cum uno vini bibissent.

…by it was signified that for two cyathi of wine, five cyathi of water were to be drained. He names besides Palamedes, an augur and seer among the most celebrated, who prophesied that those of the Greeks would sail prosperously who had drunk three cyathi of water with one of wine.⁶

Ex his igitur palam est quomodo Noë per imprudentiam inciderit in ebrietatem. Sed audi quae ad confirmationem eorum quae diximus breviter scribit Theodoretus quaestione 65 in Genesim: Ab inexperientia, inquit, profecta est ebrietas Noë, non ab intemperantia. Nam ille primus hominum, compressis uvis, ignorans non solum quantum esset bibendum, sed etiam quomodo, nempe aqua temperatum, incidit in ebrietatem. Quod vero nudatus est, nihil novi pertulit. Etenim etiam nunc quidam dormientes nudantur, somno sensum eripiente: cum vero etiam somno accedit ebrietas, multo magis cognoscendi facultas deperditur.

From these things, therefore, it is plain how Noah through imprudence fell into drunkenness. But hear what Theodoret briefly writes, in question 65 on Genesis, in confirmation of what we have said: “From inexperience,” he says, “Noah's drunkenness proceeded, not from intemperance. For he, the first of men, having pressed grapes, ignorant not only of how much was to be drunk, but also of how — namely, tempered with water — fell into drunkenness. But that he was uncovered, he suffered nothing new. For even now some are uncovered while sleeping, sleep taking away sensation: but when drunkenness too is added to sleep, much more is the faculty of perceiving lost.”⁷

CETERUM ex supradictis tria licet colligere. Primum quidem, ebrietatem Noë excusandam esse ab omni peccato. Tunc enim peccatum est ebrietas, cum est voluntaria: voluntariam dico non per se, sed in causa ipsius. Nam cum tam turpis et perniciosa sit ebrietas, cui obsecro voluntaria et optabilis esse potest? Sed immoderatus vini potus, qui causa ebrietatis est, per se optatus et electus est. Praeoptant enim qui vino indulgent brevi illa bibendi dulcedine et voluptate frui, quam ebrietatis malo vacare: itaque scientes ac volentes id faciunt, unde secuturum esse ebrietatis vitium et mala non ignorant. Ebrietatem porro Noë fuisse prorsus involuntariam, ut quae profecta sit ex ignorantia plane excusabili, ex superiori disputatione nostra manifestum est. Chrysostomus homilia 29 id probat, ebrietatem Noë non ex intemperantia sed ex ignorantia accidisse, quod nunquam postea in eam relapsus est: neque enim id tacuisset et scriptura, sicut hanc unam eius temulentiam non siluit.

But from the aforesaid three things may be gathered. First indeed, that Noah's drunkenness is to be excused from all sin. For drunkenness is then a sin, when it is voluntary: I call it voluntary not in itself, but in its cause. For since drunkenness is so foul and pernicious, to whom, I beseech, can it be voluntary and desirable? But the immoderate drinking of wine, which is the cause of drunkenness, is in itself desired and chosen. For those who indulge in wine prefer to enjoy that brief sweetness and pleasure of drinking, rather than to be free from the evil of drunkenness: and so they do it knowingly and willingly, whence they are not ignorant that the vice and evils of drunkenness will follow. But that Noah's drunkenness was wholly involuntary, as proceeding from a plainly excusable ignorance, is manifest from our foregoing disputation. Chrysostom, in homily 29, proves this — that Noah's drunkenness happened not from intemperance but from ignorance — because he never afterward relapsed into it: for scripture would not have been silent about that, just as it was not silent about this one drunkenness of his.⁸

HINC quoque illud patet, ante diluvium vini potum non fuisse in usu apud homines: nam si fuisset, multi tunc immoderato eius potu in temulentiam incidissent. Sunt enim omni tempore plerique mortalium cibi, potus, aliarumque voluptatum incontinentes. Noë igitur vel per se, vel aliorum exemplo, potentiam vini et effectus eius cognitos habuisset; simul et cognovisset quomodo quaque mensura bibendum esset, ne temulentiam afferret. Cum igitur vir esset temperantissimus, nunquam ex bibendo vino lapsus esset in ebrietatem. Quod autem diximus, ante diluvium non esse homines usos potu vini, ut manifestum certumque usurpat Hieronymus, tum alibi, tum libro primo adversus Iovinianum, ita scribens: Christus, inquit, Ego sum Alpha et Omega; et ante diluvium quidem nec fuit usus carnium, nec repudium uxorum, nec circumcisio, nec potus vini. Postquam autem Christus venit in fine temporum, et O revolvit ad A et extremitatem retraxit ad principium, nec repudium nobis dare permittitur, nec circumcidimur, nec comedimus carnes, nec bibimus vinum, dicente Apostolo: Bonum est vinum non bibere, et carnes non comedere. Vinum igitur cum carnibus post diluvium dedicatum est. Sic ille.

Hence too this is plain: that before the flood the drinking of wine was not in use among men: for if it had been, many then would have fallen into drunkenness by its immoderate drinking. For at all times most mortals are incontinent of food, drink, and other pleasures. Noah, therefore, either of himself, or by the example of others, would have had the power of wine and its effects known to him, and at the same time would have known how and in what measure it was to be drunk, lest it bring drunkenness. Since, therefore, he was a most temperate man, he would never from drinking wine have fallen into drunkenness. And that we have said — that before the flood men did not use the drinking of wine — Jerome takes as manifest and certain, both elsewhere and in the first book against Jovinian, writing thus: “Christ,” he says, “I am Alpha and Omega; and before the flood indeed there was neither the eating of flesh, nor the repudiation of wives, nor circumcision, nor the drinking of wine. But after Christ came in the end of times, and turned the Omega to the Alpha and drew back the end to the beginning, neither is it permitted us to give repudiation [divorce], nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh, nor drink wine — the Apostle saying: It is good not to drink wine, and not to eat flesh. Wine, therefore, together with flesh, was dedicated [first used] after the flood.” So he.⁹

ILLUD denique observandum hoc loco est, ebrietatem semper esse malam, et magnum quidem esse malum, etiam cum sine culpa contingit: nam si aliquando caret crimine, nunquam tamen vacat damno vel corporis vel rei familiaris vel famae suae vel alienae: et ut alia desint, illud nunquam abest, confusio animi, perturbatio mentis, et quasi brevis quaedam insania. Vere dixit Chrysostomus ebrietatem voluntarium esse daemonem, quin etiam detestabiliorem et odiosiorem daemone. Saepe enim daemoniacum hominem cum videmus, miseratione afficimur et condolemus; contra vero, invisos et exosos habemus ebrios, indignamur illis, nec ulla misericordia sed maximo potius dignos supplicio iudicamus. Cur hoc? quia qui a daemone agitatur involuntarie facit quicquid facit, etiam si recalcitret, si rumpat vestem, si obscena loquatur, si percutiat ac feriat, nihilominus venia dignus est. At qui ebrius est, de his quae facit non videtur dignus venia, sed vituperatur et accusatur non ab inimicis et alienis tantum, sed a vicinis, familiaribus et amicis, quia sponte ac sua voluntate in id se vitium demersit ipse, et ebrietatis tyrannidi se ipsum dedidit. Nec minus Ethnicis hominibus quam Christianis damnata semper et execrata fuit ebrietas.

Finally it is to be observed in this place that drunkenness is always an evil, and indeed a great evil, even when it happens without fault: for if it sometimes lacks crime, yet it is never free from harm — whether of the body, of one's estate, of one's own reputation or another's; and though other [harms] be absent, this is never absent: the confusion of soul, the perturbation of mind, and as it were a certain brief madness. Truly Chrysostom said that drunkenness is a voluntary demon — nay, even more detestable and more hateful than a demon. For often, when we see a demoniac man, we are moved with pity and condole with him; but on the contrary, we hold the drunken as hateful and odious, we are indignant at them, and judge them worthy of no mercy, but rather of the greatest punishment. Why this? because he who is driven by a demon does involuntarily whatever he does — even if he kicks back, if he tears his garment, if he speaks obscenities, if he strikes and beats — nonetheless he is worthy of pardon. But he who is drunk, for the things he does, does not seem worthy of pardon, but is blamed and accused not only by enemies and strangers, but by neighbors, intimates, and friends, because of his own accord and by his own will he plunged himself into that vice, and gave himself up to the tyranny of drunkenness. And no less among the heathen than among Christians was drunkenness always condemned and execrated.¹⁰

MULTA et praeclara reperiet lector apud Athenaeum libro decimo huius rei et exempla et documenta. Ego unius Plinii paucula quaedam verba, sed plane aurea, hic apponam. Loquitur ille de temulentis: Alii, inquit, mortifera loquuntur, redituras que per iugulum voces non continent, quam multis ita interemptis. Vulgoque veritas iam attributa vino est. Interea ut optime cedat, Solem orientem non vident, ac minus diu vivunt. Hinc pallor, et gena pendula, oculorum ulcera, tremula manus labantesque pedes, et (quasi praesens poena) furiales somni, et inquies nocturna. Praemiumque summum ebrietatis, libido portentosa ac iucundum nefas. Postera die ex ore halitus foetidi, ac fere rerum omnium oblivio, morsque memoriae. Rapere se ita vitam praedicant, cum priorem diem quotidie perdant, illi vero et venientem. Sic Plinius.

Many and excellent examples and proofs of this matter the reader will find in Athenaeus, book ten. I will here set down a few words of Pliny alone, but plainly golden. He speaks of the drunken: “Some,” he says, “utter deadly things, and do not contain words that will return through their own throat — how many being thus slain! And commonly truth is now attributed to wine. Meanwhile, granting it turn out best, they do not see the rising Sun, and they live a shorter time. Hence pallor, and drooping cheeks, ulcers of the eyes, trembling hand and tottering feet, and (as a present penalty) furious dreams and nocturnal unrest. And the highest reward of drunkenness, monstrous lust and a delightful crime. The next day, a stench from the mouth, and forgetfulness of nearly all things, and the death of memory. They boast that they thus seize life, whereas they daily lose the preceding day, and these men the coming one too.” So Pliny.¹¹

SED me casus Noë ingenti admiratione simul et commiseratione afficit. Bibensque vinum (scribit de eo Moses) inebriatus est. Ac ne putaret quispiam vocabulo ebrietatis significari hoc loco, ut saepe alias in sacris litteris, largam et copiosam vini potationem quae hilaritatem afferat, non auferat mentem, nec rationis ac sensuum integritatem laedat: protinus adiecit, Et nudatus est in tabernaculo suo: haud dubie indicans tali Noë fuisse oppressum ebrietate, ut mentis compos non esset, et idcirco suae ipsum nuditatis ac turpitudinis minime puderet. O turpe, O miserandum simul et aversandum spectaculum! Ergo Noë — sexcentorum annorum aevo summe reverendus ac venerabilis, alterque humani generis parens, nec sobrietatis tantum ac temperantiae, verum consummatissimae virtutis et sanctimoniae praeconio laudatus a Mose — prostratus humi iacet foedissima corporis nuditate, similisque amenti, nec ab alienis sed a proprio filio irrisus [atque illusus]…

But the case of Noah affects me with great admiration and at the same time commiseration. “And drinking of the wine” (Moses writes of him) “he was made drunk.” And lest anyone should think that by the word “drunkenness” is signified in this place — as often elsewhere in the sacred letters — a large and copious drinking of wine which brings cheerfulness, [but] does not take away the mind, nor harm the integrity of reason and the senses: he at once added, “And he was uncovered in his tent”: doubtless indicating that Noah was oppressed by such drunkenness that he was not master of his mind, and therefore was not at all ashamed of his own nakedness and baseness. O foul, O pitiable and at the same time abhorrent spectacle! So Noah — in his six hundred years of age supremely to be revered and venerable, and a second parent of the human race, praised by Moses with the proclamation not only of sobriety and temperance but of the most consummate virtue and holiness — lies prostrate on the ground in the most foul nakedness of body, like a madman, mocked [and made sport of] not by strangers but by his own son…¹²

…atque illusus contumelioseque tractatus. Verum perpendamus quae deinceps sequuntur.

…and made sport of, and treated contumeliously. But let us weigh what follows next.¹³

Translator’s notes

Gen 9:21 (lemma). Margin: v. 21. ↩
§128. Why did Moses record Noah's drunkenness and shameful nakedness? Margin: “Why Moses narrated the drunkenness of Noah and his shameful nakedness.” Continues on p. 363. ↩
§128 (cont.). Four reasons Moses recorded it: Scripture's candor; a warning from even holy men's falls; the danger of drink (Prov. 20); and to mark the first cause of the Canaanites' damnation. Margin: Prov. 20. ↩
§129. Five causes of Noah's drunkenness: ignorance of wine's strength; his 600-year water habit; drinking too freely; old age (Athenaeus/Aristotle: the old are most quickly drunk — so his sons were not). Margins: “Five causes why Noah, made drunk, fell”; Athenaeus; “Old age more liable to drunkenness”; Aristotle. ↩
§130. The fifth cause: ignorance of mixing wine with water (the Nymphs nursed Bacchus; the ancients' 5:2 water-to-wine and the proverb ‘Drink five and two’). Margin: Athenaeus. Continues on p. 364. ↩
§130 (cont.). The proverb's meaning (5 of water to 2 of wine); Palamedes' prophecy on the 3:1 ratio for safe sailing. ↩
§131. Theodoret (q. 65): Noah's drunkenness was from inexperience, not intemperance; his uncovering was nothing new (sleep, with drink, removes awareness). Margin: Theodoret. ↩
§132. First conclusion: Noah's drunkenness was sinless, being involuntary (from excusable ignorance); Chrysostom — he never relapsed. Margins: “That Noah's drunkenness was free of sin”; Chrysostom. ↩
§133. Second conclusion: before the flood wine was not in use (else many would have been drunk); Jerome (Against Jovinian): like flesh, divorce, circumcision, wine came only after the flood. Margins: “That before the flood the drinking of wine was not in use”; St. Jerome; Apoc. 1; Rom. 14. ↩
§134. Drunkenness is always an evil — Chrysostom: ‘a voluntary demon,’ worse than a demon (the demoniac deserves pity, the drunkard blame). Margins: “On the evil and harm of drunkenness”; “Drunkenness, according to Chrysostom, a voluntary demon.” ↩
§135. Pliny's ‘golden’ passage on the wretchedness of drunkards. Margins: “Pliny, bk. 14 ch. 22, an excellent saying on the evil of drunkenness”; Athenaeus. ↩
§136. The pathos of Noah's fall: ‘was made drunk’ + ‘uncovered’ = true loss of mind; this venerable patriarch lies prostrate, mocked by his own son. Margin: “The indignity of Noah's case is heightened.” Continues on p. 366. ↩
§136 (cont.). [The running head misprints ‘365’ for 366.] ↩