Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Fourteen — Genesis 9

{Which when Ham the father of Canaan had seen, namely that his father's nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without.}

LatineEnglish

{Which when Ham the father of Canaan had seen, namely that his father's nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without.}¹

Quod cum vidisset Cham pater Chanaan, verenda scilicet patris sui esse nudata, nuntiavit duobus fratribus suis foras.

QUEMADMODUM statim post ortum Mundi in duobus illis fratribus Cain et Abel genus humanum divisum est in duas quasi societates et communitates hominum — alteram bonorum imitantium Abel, alteram improborum quorum princeps et magister fuit Cain (unde originem traxerunt duae civitates, altera Dei, altera Diaboli, multum a B. Augustino celebratae): ita quoque statim post Diluvium eadem hominum divisio ac separatio renovata est in duobus filiis Noë, Cham et Sem. Quae quidem hominum varietas, licet ex propriis eorum studiis, moribus, factis meritisque oriatur, occultissimo tamen et aequissimo Dei iudicio etiam ordinatur, et ad maiorem ipsius gloriam dirigitur. Nimirum, ut praeclare disputat Paulus, in magna domo non solum sunt vasa aurea et argentea, sed etiam lignea ac fictilia, et quaedam quidem in honorem, quaedam autem in contumeliam: et in his illustris fit declaratio partim iustitiae, partim misericordiae divinae: adversus enim vasa contumeliae aptata in interitum, ostendit Deus iustitiam et potentiam suam; adversus autem vasa honoris praeparata in gloriam, demonstrat divitias bonitatis et misericordiae suae. Cuius rei specimen quoddam hoc loco datur in duobus filiis Noë.

Just as, immediately after the rise of the World, in those two brothers Cain and Abel the human race was divided into two as it were societies and communities of men — one of the good, imitating Abel, the other of the wicked, whose chief and master was Cain (whence took their origin the two cities, one of God, the other of the Devil, much celebrated by St. Augustine): so too, immediately after the Flood, the same division and separation of men was renewed in the two sons of Noah, Cham and Sem. And this variety of men, although it arises from their own pursuits, characters, deeds, and merits, is nevertheless also ordered by the most hidden and most just judgment of God, and directed to His greater glory. Namely, as Paul excellently argues, in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earthenware, and some indeed unto honor, some unto contumely: and in these is made an illustrious declaration partly of justice, partly of the divine mercy: for against the vessels of contumely, fitted unto destruction, God shows His justice and power; but toward the vessels of honor, prepared unto glory, He demonstrates the riches of His goodness and mercy. Of which thing a certain specimen is given in this place, in the two sons of Noah.²

VERUM illud quaestionem habet non tacitam a Patribus, cur Moses, narraturus impudentiam (sed verius dixerim impietatem) Cham adversus patrem suum Noë, non satis habuit eum pro ipsius nomine Cham nominasse, sed adiunxit nomen filii eius Chanaan, dicens, Cham pater Chanaan: quid enim attinebat commemorari filium ipsius Cham, et hunc praecipue filium qui aliorum erat minimus natu? Solvitur quaestio allatis tribus causis cur id factum sit. Primam causam tradunt Ambrosius et Theodoretus: aiunt significasse Mosen maximam fuisse inter patrem et filium improbitatis et impietatis similitudinem; neque Cham tam natura quam vitiis et sceleribus simillimum sui genuisse filium Chanaan; neque hunc Chanaan tam paternae naturae quam impietatis et pravitatis expressam imaginem retulisse. Ergo quia Cham dissimilis fuit patris sui suorumque fratrum, non illius filius nec frater horum nominatur: quoniam vero expressissimam suae malitiae imaginem effinxit generando filium Chanaan, idcirco nominatur proprie pater Chanaan. Altera fuit causa, quod maledictio et poena propter scelus Cham infligenda ei erat in filio eius Chanaan, indeque ad posteritatem eius — gentem dico Chananaeorum — [derivanda]…

But this has a question not passed over in silence by the Fathers: why Moses, about to narrate the impudence (but I should more truly say the impiety) of Cham against his father Noah, was not content to have named him by his own name Cham, but added the name of his son Chanaan, saying, “Cham the father of Chanaan”: for what did it matter to mention the son of Cham, and this son especially, who was the youngest in birth of the others? The question is resolved by three causes brought forward why this was done. The first cause Ambrose and Theodoret hand down: they say that Moses signified that there was the greatest likeness of wickedness and impiety between father and son; and that Cham begot a son, Chanaan, most like himself not so much in nature as in vices and crimes; and that this Chanaan reproduced the express image not so much of his father's nature as of his impiety and depravity. Therefore, because Cham was unlike his own father and his brothers, he is named neither his [father's] son nor the brother of these; but because he fashioned the most express image of his own malice by begetting his son Chanaan, therefore he is properly named “father of Chanaan.” The second cause was that the curse and penalty for Cham's crime was to be inflicted on him in his son Chanaan, and thence [to be derived] to his posterity — I mean the nation of the Canaanites…³

…nanaeorum, derivanda. Ut hoc igitur indicaret Moses, et ad id considerandum eorum qui haec legerent animos adverteret, consulto nominando Cham appellavit eum patrem Chanaan.

…the Canaanites. In order, therefore, that Moses might indicate this, and turn the minds of those who would read these things to considering it, designedly in naming Cham he called him the father of Chanaan.⁴

TERTIA causa traditur ab Hebraeis, eaque breviter ad hunc modum commemorat Theodoretus. Quidam, inquit, Hebraeus aiebat primum omnium Chanaan verenda avi sui vidisse, suoque narrasse patri non sine Noë irrisione atque illusione. Debuerat autem Cham, similiter ut fratres eius fecerunt, non modo ad spectandum patrem non accedere, sed etiam graviter filium obiurgare. At enim et ipse quoque videre voluit, et quod viderat etiam fratribus renuntiare. Et huic interpretationi fidem facit quod proxime subiecit Moses: Suscitatus a somno suo Noë cognovit quaecunque fecerat ei filius suus iunior. Quis erat iste filius iunior? non Cham, quippe qui generationis ordine inter Sem et Iaphet medius erat. Verum quoniam avi non tantum nepotes, sed omnes etiam qui longa serie ex his nascuntur filios appellare solent, idcirco scriptura significat Chanaan, nepotem Noë minimum, cognitum esse a Noë sceleris eius auctorem fuisse. Cuius rei magnum et illud est argumentum, quod Noë maledictionem suam, et quasi admissi sceleris supplicium, in Chanaan potissimum contulit. Sic Hebraei referente Theodoreto.

The third cause is handed down by the Hebrews, and Theodoret briefly recounts it in this manner: “A certain Hebrew,” he says, “used to say that Chanaan first of all saw the nakedness of his grandfather, and told it to his father, not without mockery and derision of Noah. But Cham ought, similarly as his brothers did, not only not to approach to look at his father, but even gravely to rebuke his son. But in fact he himself also wished to see, and to report what he had seen to his brothers as well.” And to this interpretation credence is given by what Moses next subjoined: “Noah, roused from his sleep, knew whatever his younger son had done to him.” Who was that younger son? Not Cham, since he was, in the order of generation, the middle one between Sem and Iaphet. But because grandfathers are wont to call not only grandsons, but all who in a long series are born from them, their “sons,” therefore scripture signifies that Chanaan, the youngest grandson of Noah, was known by Noah to have been the author of that crime. Of which thing this too is a great argument: that Noah laid his curse, and as it were the punishment of the crime committed, chiefly upon Chanaan. So the Hebrews, as Theodoret reports.⁵

SEQUITUR: Verenda scilicet patris sui esse nudata. Sic appellantur partes humani corporis naturaliter destinatae ac servientes generationi prolis, quod prae ceteris omnibus membris magno hominem ratione utentem pudore afficiant: sed cur maxime propter illas partes erubescimus? Videlicet propter obscenos earum motus quibus animus ad res turpes et flagitiosas incitatur, et propter inobedientiam earundem erga rationem (minus enim quam ceterae partes obsequuntur rationi, nec eius imperio quasi freno coerceri et regi facile possunt). Hac autem partium inobedientia praecipue punita est inobedientia primorum hominum erga Deum: nam qui Deo parere noluerunt, iusto Dei iudicio factum est ut ipsi inferiores suas partes, servitio rationis addictas, non tantum inobsequentes sed etiam rebelles ac vehementer repugnantes sentirent. Nudi erant primi nostri parentes, non tamen, priusquam peccarent, erubescebant; quod partes illae corporis omnino essent subiectae rationi, nec ullo turpi et pudendo motu concitarentur: at ubi peccarunt adversus Dei legem, protinus earum partium inobedientiam experti sunt; cumque turpes earum motus verecundarentur nec tamen possent comprimere, cum id maxime vellent, ficulneis subligaculis nuditatem et turpitudinem suam quamprimum operire studuerunt.

There follows: “Namely, that his father's nakedness was uncovered.” Thus are called the parts of the human body naturally destined and serving for the generation of offspring, because beyond all the other members they affect man, using great reason, with shame: but why do we blush most on account of those parts? Namely, on account of their obscene motions by which the mind is incited to base and shameful things, and on account of their disobedience toward reason (for they obey reason less than the other parts, and cannot easily be restrained and ruled by its command as by a bridle). And by this disobedience of the parts was especially punished the disobedience of the first men toward God: for those who would not obey God, by the just judgment of God it came about that they should feel their own lower parts — assigned to the service of reason — not only unobedient but even rebellious and vehemently resisting. Naked were our first parents, yet, before they sinned, they did not blush, because those parts of the body were wholly subject to reason and were not stirred by any base and shameful motion: but when they sinned against God's law, immediately they experienced the disobedience of those parts; and since they were ashamed of their base motions and yet could not repress them, though they most wished it, they hastened to cover their nakedness and baseness as soon as possible with girdles of fig-leaves.⁶

AUDIAT lector quid in hanc sententiam scribat Augustinus: Merito, inquit, huius libidinis nos maxime pudet, merito et ipsa membra, quae suo quodam illa iure non ad arbitrium nostrum movet, pudenda dicuntur, qualia ante peccatum hominis non fuerunt. Nam ut scriptum est, Nudi erant, et non erubescebant: non quod eis sua nuditas esset incognita, sed quia turpis non erat illis nuditas: nondum enim libido membra illa praeter arbitrium commoverat; nondum, ad hominis inobedientiam redarguendam, sua inobedientia caro quodammodo [testimonium perhibebat]…

Let the reader hear what Augustine writes to this purport: “Rightly are we most ashamed of this lust, rightly too are those very members — which it moves by a certain right of its own, not according to our will — called pudenda [shameful], such as they were not before man's sin. For as it is written, They were naked, and were not ashamed: not that their nakedness was unknown to them, but because their nakedness was not base to them; for not yet had lust moved those members beyond their will; not yet, to convict man's disobedience, did the flesh by its own disobedience in a certain way [bear witness]…⁷

…caro quodammodo testimonium perhibebat: nudi erant corpore, sed induti gratia Dei, qua praestabatur eis ut membra eorum voluntati repugnare nescirent. Pudet igitur huius libidinis humanam naturam, et merito pudet: in eius quippe inobedientia, qua genitalia membra solis suis motibus subdidit et potestati voluntatis eripuit, satis ostenditur quid sit illius primi hominis inobedientiae retributum: quod in ea parte corporis maxime oportuit apparere, qua generatur ipsa natura, quae illo primo et magno in deterius est mutata peccato. A cuius nexu nullus eruitur, nisi id quod in communem perniciem omnium perpetratum est, et Dei iustitia vindicatum, Dei gratia in singulis expietur. Sic Augustinus. Est autem earum partium pudor adeo naturalis homini, ut earum aspectu et aversentur omnes, et si casu illae patuerint aliorum oculis, erubescat. Ex hoc, inquit Augustinus, gentes usque adeo tenent insitum pudenda velare, ut etiam barbari illas corporis partes nec in balneis nudas habebant, sed cum earum tegumentis lavantur. Per opacas quoque Indiae solitudines cum quidam nudi philosophentur (unde Gymnosophistae nominantur), adhibent tamen genitalibus tegumenta, quibus per cetera membrorum carent.

…the flesh in a certain way bore witness: they were naked in body, but clothed with the grace of God, by which it was granted them that their members knew not how to resist their will. Human nature, therefore, is ashamed of this lust, and rightly ashamed: for in its disobedience, by which it subjected the genital members to their own motions alone and snatched them from the power of the will, it is sufficiently shown what was the retribution of that first man's disobedience — which it was most fitting should appear in that part of the body by which the very nature is generated, which was changed for the worse by that first and great sin. From whose bond no one is rescued, unless that which was perpetrated unto the common destruction of all, and vindicated by God's justice, be expiated in individuals by God's grace.” So Augustine. And the shame of those parts is so natural to man that all both turn away from the sight of them, and if by chance they are exposed to others' eyes, he blushes. “From this,” says Augustine, “the nations so hold it implanted to veil the shameful parts, that even barbarians did not have those parts of the body naked even in the baths, but bathe with coverings of them. And through the shady solitudes of India too, when certain men philosophize naked (whence they are called Gymnosophists), they nevertheless apply coverings to the genitals, which they lack over the rest of the members.”⁸

SED cur istarum partium pudet, non potius quam aliarum, etiam cum illae irrationali et vitioso motu concitantur? Exempli causa, cum ira excandescimus, igneo rubore inflammatur vultus, eminent oculi, distorquetur os, praepeditur lingua, sermo confusus est, immoderatus gressus; nec tamen propter haec, quae tam vitiose fiunt, ita erubescimus, ut propter aspectum vel motum etiam minime vitiosum illarum partium. Eius rei causam tradit B. Augustinus libro 14 de Civitate Dei capite 19: quod ira aliique motus membrorum aliis affectionibus, tametsi vitiosi sint, fere tamen pendent ex imperio voluntatis; at vero istarum partium motus, tametsi vitio careant, voluntatis tamen imperio nec reguntur nec moventur. Quod autem irae opera, inquit Augustinus, aliarumque affectionum in quibusque dictis et factis non sic abscondit verecundia, ut opera libidinis quae fiunt genitalibus membris, quid causae est, nisi quia in ceteris membra corporis non ipsae affectiones tam movent, quam eis consentiens voluntas, quae in usu eorum omnino dominatur? Nam qui verbum dicit iratus vel etiam aliquem percutit, non posset hoc facere nisi lingua et manus iubente voluntate moverentur: quae membra, etiam cum ira nulla est, eadem voluntate moventur. At vero genitalia libido iuri suo mancipavit, ut moveri non valeant si ipsa defuerit, et nisi ipsa vel ultro vel excitata surrexerit. Hoc est quod pudet, hoc intuentium oculos erubescendo devitat: magisque fert homo spectantium multitudinem quando iniuste irascitur homini, quam unius aspectum quando iuste miscetur uxori. Sic Augustinus.

But why are we ashamed of those parts, rather than of others, even when those [others] are stirred by an irrational and faulty motion? For example, when we glow with anger, the face is inflamed with a fiery redness, the eyes bulge, the mouth is distorted, the tongue is hindered, the speech is confused, the gait immoderate; and yet, on account of these things, which are done so faultily, we do not blush as on account of the sight or motion — even the least faulty — of those parts. The cause of this St. Augustine hands down in book 14 of the City of God, chapter 19: that anger and the other motions of the members with other affections, although they be faulty, yet generally depend on the command of the will; but the motions of those parts, although they lack fault, are nevertheless neither ruled nor moved by the command of the will. “But that shame does not so hide the works of anger and of the other affections in any words and deeds, as the works of lust which are done by the genital members — what is the cause, unless that in the others the members of the body are not so moved by the affections themselves as by the will consenting to them, which entirely dominates in the use of them? For he who speaks a word in anger, or even strikes someone, could not do this unless the tongue and hand were moved at the will's command — which members, even when there is no anger, are moved by the same will. But the genitals lust has made subject to its own right, so that they cannot be moved if it be absent, and unless it, either spontaneously or aroused, has risen. This is what shames [a man], this he avoids by blushing from the eyes of beholders: and a man bears more the multitude of spectators when he is unjustly angry at a man, than the sight of one when he is justly united to his wife.” So Augustine.⁹

EX hac causa exstitit illud pudendum (nec minus metuendum quam pudendum), nec nisi morte finiendum, carnis et spiritus dissidium et bellum: de quo Paulus, Caro, inquit, concupiscit adversus spiritum, spiritus autem adversus carnem; haec enim sibi invicem adversantur, ut non quaecunque vultis illa faciatis. Hinc illa eiusdem miseranda querela et lamentabilis exclamatio: Video aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem [legi mentis meae]…

From this cause arose that shameful (and no less to-be-feared than shameful), and not to be ended except by death, discord and war of the flesh and the spirit: of which Paul [speaks]: “The flesh,” he says, “lusts against the spirit, but the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another, so that you do not the things that you would.” Hence that pitiable complaint and lamentable exclamation of the same: “I see another law in my members fighting against [the law of my mind]…¹⁰

…legi mentis meae, et captivantem me in lege peccati quae est in membris meis. Infelix ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? Non est silendum, pro illo Verenda patris sui, in Hebraeo esse nuditatem, quae vox crebro usurpatur Levitici 18, ubi pro ea Latina lectio habet vocem hanc, turpitudo. Considera igitur quam honeste ac pudice lingua Hebraea inhonestas ac pudendas corporis nostri partes appellet. Vidit igitur Cham verenda patris sui — neque casu vidit, imprudenter in eum incurrens aspectum, sed substitit ad videndum, sciens et volens aspexit, otiose et attente spectavit, impudenter irrisit. O hominem nequam, in quem vetus illud verbum recte dicatur, Mala mens, malus animus.

…the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin which is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” It is not to be passed over in silence that, in place of that “his father's nakedness,” in the Hebrew it is “nakedness” — a word frequently used in Leviticus 18, where for it the Latin reading has this word, “baseness” [turpitudo]. Consider, therefore, how honorably and modestly the Hebrew tongue names the unseemly and shameful parts of our body. Cham, therefore, saw his father's nakedness — and he did not see it by chance, imprudently running upon the sight of him, but he stopped to look, knowingly and willingly gazed, leisurely and attentively beheld, impudently mocked. O worthless man, against whom that old saying may rightly be applied: “An evil mind, an evil disposition.”¹¹

BEROSUS Annianus hanc historiam narrans multa de suo addidit: Cham, inquit, Noë filius fuit magicae et veneficae arti studens, unde Zoroaster nomen consecutus est. Is patrem Noë oderat, quod non solum ab eo minus ceteris fratribus diligeretur, verum etiam despiceretur; sed praecipua odii causa erat dissimilitudo studiorum et morum. Itaque nactus opportunitatem, cum Noë temulentus iaceret, eius virilia manibus comprehendens taciteque submurmurans, carmine magico illusit patri, cumque sterilem, non secus ac si esset castratus, efficit. Quocirca post id temporis Noë nullam feminam potuit fecundare. Haec ille.

Berosus Annianus, narrating this history, added much of his own: “Cham,” he says, “the son of Noah, was devoted to the magic and poisoning art, whence he got the name Zoroaster. He hated his father Noah, because he was not only less loved by him than his other brothers, but even despised; but the chief cause of the hatred was the dissimilarity of pursuits and characters. And so, having got an opportunity, when Noah lay drunk, grasping his virile parts with his hands and softly muttering, by a magic charm he mocked his father, and made him sterile, just as if he had been castrated. Wherefore after that time Noah could make no woman fruitful.” Thus he.¹²

APUD Cassianum Serenus Abbas in Collatione 8 cap. 21 tradit Magicarum superstitionum et praestigiarum primos auctores et magistros fuisse malos Angelos quondam cum mulieribus mixtos: earum vero artium studiosissimum et peritissimum fuisse Cham filium Noë, qui eas artes, ne diluvio perirent, diversorum metallorum laminis et durissimis lapidibus insculptas conservavit, et post diluvium eas docuit posteros suos et per orbem disseminavit. Horum similia scribit auctor Historiae Scholasticae: Ninus, inquit, vicit Cham, qui adhuc vivebat et regnabat apud Bactrianos (vel ut placet aliis, in Thracia), et appellabatur Zoroaster, inventor Magicae artis; qui et hanc et septem liberales artes in quatuordecim columnis scripsit, septem aeneis et septem latericiis, contra duplex orbis excidium quod futurum audierat, alterum per aquam, alterum vero per ignem. Ninus autem libros eius combussit. Sic ibi. Quae si vera sunt, nemini mirum videri debet Cham tam ingratum, impudentem et impium fuisse adversus patrem suum Noë; cuius videlicet animus non tantum humanis flagitiis contaminatus, sed etiam diabolicis magicarum artium fallaciis et erroribus corruptissimus erat.

In Cassian, Abbot Serenus, in the eighth Conference, chapter 21, relates that the first authors and masters of magical superstitions and tricks were the evil Angels once mingled with women: and that the most studious and most skilled of those arts was Cham the son of Noah, who, lest those arts should perish in the flood, preserved them engraved on plates of various metals and on the hardest stones, and after the flood taught them to his posterity and disseminated them through the world. Similar things the author of the Scholastic History writes: “Ninus,” he says, “conquered Cham, who still lived and reigned among the Bactrians (or, as it pleases others, in Thrace), and was called Zoroaster, the inventor of the Magic art; who wrote both this and the seven liberal arts on fourteen columns, seven of bronze and seven of brick, against the twofold destruction of the world which he had heard would come, one by water, the other by fire. But Ninus burned his books.” So there. If these things are true, it ought to seem strange to no one that Cham was so ungrateful, impudent, and impious toward his father Noah; whose mind, namely, was not only contaminated with human crimes, but even most corrupted with the diabolical deceits and errors of the magic arts.¹³

Et nunciavit duobus fratribus suis foras. Mosis hoc loco scelus Cham describentis singula verba magnam habent emphasim, vel potius singula graves quaedam circumstantiae sunt, quibus id peccatum vehementer exaggeratur. Primo, non alienus quispiam, sed proprius filius adversus patrem peccavit; deinde adversus patrem sanctissimum virum Deoque carissimum, summaque reverentia et veneratione dignum, et cuius virtutum domesticis eruditus exemplis bonum amare et malum quodlibet (nedum tantum scelus) odisse et aversari [debuerat]…

“And he told it to his two brethren without.” In Moses here describing the crime of Cham, the individual words have great emphasis — or rather, the individual [words] are certain grave circumstances by which that sin is vehemently aggravated. First, not some stranger, but his own son sinned against his father; next, against a father a most holy man and most dear to God, worthy of the highest reverence and veneration, and by whose domestic examples of virtues, being instructed, he ought to have loved good and to have hated and shunned any evil whatever (not to say so great a crime)…¹⁴

…debuerat. His accessit summum ingrati animi crimen, quod non semel tantum ab illo per generationem spiritum vitae et usuram lucis acceperat, sed propter eum maxime a diluvii exitio servatus fuerat. Illud quoque auget flagitium, quod a Mose appellatur pater Chanaan: cum enim iam pater esset, merito timere debuit ne, qualem se gereret ipse erga patrem suum, talem quoque filium suum erga se experiretur; nec illum a peccando retardavit primum illud naturae legis praeceptum, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris. Adiice quod nuditatem et turpitudinem patris sciens et libens aspexit cum contemptu, irrisit, divulgavit, et fratres suos ad eius irrisionem provocavit. Videsne quanta in uno facto sint crimina?

…he ought [to have shunned it]. To this was added the highest crime of an ungrateful mind: that not only once had he received from him, through generation, the breath of life and the enjoyment of light, but on his account especially he had been saved from the destruction of the flood. This too increases the crime, that he is called by Moses “father of Chanaan”: for since he was now a father, he ought rightly to have feared lest, as he behaved toward his own father, so he might experience his own son toward himself; nor did that first precept of the natural law restrain him from sinning, “What you do not wish to be done to you, do not to another.” Add that he knowingly and willingly looked upon his father's nakedness and baseness with contempt, mocked it, divulged it, and provoked his brothers to mock it. Do you see how many crimes there are in one deed?¹⁵

SED cur tantopere Cham tam foedo et turpi paternae nuditatis spectaculo laetatus est? Nimirum improbus erat, ideoque rebus improbis gaudebat, et aliorum erratis tanquam criminum suorum solatiis delectabatur. Omnis improbus, inquit Ambrosius, quia ipse devius disciplinae est, aliorum lapsus non solum pro sui erroris solatio accipit, quod consortes invenerit culpae, verum etiam improbo laetatur affectu, tanquam sua ipse delicta correxerit. Mala mens ergo laetatur praeter propositum quippiam alicui accidisse sapienti: cum utique corporis lapsus in vitio esse non debeat, etiamsi lapsus putetur, nisi animus quoque inclinetur ad culpam. Etenim venialia iudicanda sunt huiusmodi errata, non odio prosequenda, non habenda ludibrio. Sed mens, ut dixi, improba, cum putat errasse sapientem, insultandum arbitratur ei cuius sibi putat mores esse contrarios, eoque laetandum sibi, quod iusto viro nec eruditio ipsius profuerit, nec iustitia suffragata sit, nec ea quae secundum corpus sunt habuerint prosperos cursus.

But why did Cham rejoice so greatly in so foul and base a spectacle of his father's nakedness? Doubtless he was wicked, and therefore rejoiced in wicked things, and was delighted by the errors of others as by the consolations of his own crimes. “Every wicked man,” says Ambrose, “because he himself is straying from discipline, not only takes the falls of others as a consolation for his own error — that he has found partners of his fault — but even rejoices with a wicked affection, as if he himself had corrected his own faults. The evil mind, therefore, rejoices that something has happened to some wise man beyond [his] purpose: although surely a fall of the body ought not to be reckoned a vice, even if it be thought a fall, unless the mind too be inclined to fault. For errors of this kind are to be judged venial, not to be pursued with hatred, not to be held in mockery. But the mind, as I said, being wicked, when it thinks a wise man has erred, judges that he is to be insulted whose character it thinks contrary to its own, and that it is to rejoice that to a just man neither his erudition profited, nor justice favored him, nor the things which are according to the body had prosperous courses.”¹⁶

HUC etiam spectat quod in Oratione de Invidia scriptum reliquit Basilius: Quemadmodum, inquit, vultures ad male olentia feruntur, amoena vero prata et suaveolentia loca praetervolant; et muscae quod sanum et integrum est praetereunt, ad morbida et ulcerosa se conferunt: sic invidi ea quae in vita clara sunt et gloriose gesta non respiciunt, at ea quae vilia sunt attendunt; si quid erratum sit (qualia humana multa contingunt) id publicant, et inde homines cognosci volunt. Sicut etiam imperiti pictores a nare distorta, vel a cica[trice]…

To this also pertains what Basil left written in the Oration On Envy: “Just as,” he says, “vultures are borne toward ill-smelling things, but fly past pleasant meadows and sweet-smelling places; and flies pass by what is sound and whole and betake themselves to the diseased and ulcerous: so the envious do not regard the things which in life are illustrious and gloriously done, but attend to the things which are mean; if anything has been done amiss (such as many human things happen to be), they publish it, and from that wish men to be known. Just as also unskilled painters, from a distorted nose, or from a sca[r]…¹⁷

…trice, vel alio quopiam vitio quod vel natura vel morbo interdum accidit, formas eorum qui picti sunt significant, et inde eos cognosci volunt.

…or from some other fault which sometimes happens by nature or by disease, represent the forms of those who are painted, and from that wish them to be recognized.”¹⁸

Translator’s notes

Gen 9:22 (lemma). Margin: v. 22. ↩
§137. As Cain and Abel split mankind into two ‘cities’ (Augustine), so Cham and Sem renew the division after the flood — God's hidden justice and mercy (Paul's vessels of honor/contumely). Margins: “How ancient the division of men into good and bad is, and whence it takes its origin”; Rom. (9); 2 Tim. 2. ↩
§138. Q: why ‘Cham father of Chanaan’? Three causes; the first (Ambrose, Theodoret): father and son were alike in wickedness; the second: the curse would pass through Chanaan to the Canaanites. Margins: “Why here he is called Cham the father of Chanaan — three causes”; Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 30; Theodoret, q. 17 on Genesis. Continues on p. 367. ↩
§138 (cont.). [The second cause concluded — to point readers toward the coming curse of Canaan.] ↩
§139. The third cause (the Hebrews, via Theodoret): Chanaan first saw and reported the nakedness — supported by ‘his younger son’ (the curse fell chiefly on Chanaan). Margin: Theodoret. ↩
§140. Why these are the ‘shameful parts’: their disobedience to reason mirrors and punishes man's disobedience to God (Eden's loss of innocence). Margins: “Why those parts especially are called pudenda, and whence that shame arose”; Gen. 3. ↩
§141. Augustine on the ‘shameful members’: before sin they were not base; lust now moves them beyond the will, witnessing the first disobedience. Margins: Augustine, City of God bk. 14, chs. 17, 20; Gen. 3. Continues on p. 368. ↩
§141 (cont.). Augustine: the implanted shame is universal — even barbarians and the naked Gymnosophists of India cover these parts. ↩
§142. Why these parts shame us more than the (faulty) workings of anger: anger's motions obey the will, but these defy it (Augustine, City of God 14.19). Margins: “Why these members shame us rather than the others”; Augustine, City of God ch. 19. ↩
§143. The shameful, deadly ‘war of flesh and spirit’ (Gal 5; Rom 7's lament). Margin: Gal. 5. Continues on p. 369. ↩
§143 (cont.). The Hebrew ‘nakedness’ (cf. Lev 18); Cham looked deliberately, knowingly, and mockingly — ‘an evil mind, an evil disposition.’ ↩
§144. Berosus's fictional addition: Cham (= Zoroaster), a magician, hated and magically ‘castrated’ his drunken father. Margin: Berosus Annianus. ↩
§145. Cham as the preserver and spreader of magic (Cassian; the Scholastic History — Cham/Zoroaster's fourteen columns, burnt by Ninus). Margins: Cassian; Gen. 6; “Cham a Magus, and the same as Zoroaster”; Scholastic History on Genesis, ch. 39. ↩
§146. The circumstances aggravating Cham's sin begin (his own son; against so holy a father). Continues on p. 370. ↩
§146 (cont.). Further aggravations: ingratitude to the father who gave him life and saved him; he was himself a father; he broke the Golden Rule; he gazed, mocked, divulged, and incited. ↩
§147. Why Cham rejoiced: the wicked delight in others' falls (Ambrose) — as if a partner in fault excused their own. Margins: “Why the wicked greatly rejoice in the fall of the good”; Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 30. ↩
§148. Basil (On Envy): the envious are like vultures and flies, drawn to others' faults; like bad painters fixing on a blemish. Margin: Basil. Continues on p. 371. ↩
§148 (cont.). [The running head misprints ‘374’ for 371.] Basil's image concluded — the envious make others known by a single blemish. ↩