{Upon those words, Genesis ch. 11: Let us there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech. And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded; and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.} — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

{Upon those words, Genesis ch. 11: Let us there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech. And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded; and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.}¹

Super illis verbis, Genes. cap. 11: Confundamus ibi linguam eorum, ut non audiat unusquisque vocem proximi sui. Atque ita divisit eos Dominus ex illo loco in universas terras, et cessaverunt aedificare civitatem. Et idcirco vocatum est nomen eius Babel, quia ibi confusum est labium universae terrae, et inde dispersit eos Dominus super faciem cunctarum regionum.

IUXTA profecto tam impiae illorum hominum superbiae atque inobedientiae haec fuit poena, conveniensque culpae supplicium. Nam „quia dominatio imperantis in lingua est“ (inquit Augustinus), „ibi damnata est superbia, ut non intelligeretur iubens homini, qui noluit intelligere ut obediret Deo iubenti. Sic illa conspiratio dissoluta est, cum quisque ab eo quem non intelligebat abscederet…“

Suited indeed to so impious a pride and disobedience of those men was this punishment, and a fitting penalty of the fault. For „because the dominion of one commanding is in the tongue“ (says Augustine), „there pride was condemned, that the one commanding might not be understood by man, who would not understand so as to obey God commanding. So that conspiracy was dissolved, when each withdrew from him whom he did not understand…“²

„…nec se nisi cum quo loqui poterat aggregaret: et per linguas divisae sunt gentes, dispersaeque per terras sicut Deo placuit, qui hoc modis occultis nobisque incomprehensibilibus fecit.“ Linguarum igitur oborta repente confusio (ait Cassianus) sacrilegos ausus hominum nefandosque compescuit. „Permansisset enim ibi contra Deum consensus hominum noxius, nisi eos, dispensatione Dei, repugnans inter se diversitas linguae per dissonantiam vocis in meliorem statum proficere compulisset; et quos ad excidium sui animaverat perniciosa consensio, ad salutem revocasset bona utilisque discordia, incipientes scilicet humanam fragilitatem, intercedente divisione, sentire, quam per noxiam conspirationem elati ante nesciebant.“

„…nor did each join himself except with him with whom he could speak: and by tongues the nations were divided, and dispersed through the lands as it pleased God, who did this by hidden ways incomprehensible to us.“ The confusion of tongues, then, suddenly arisen (says Cassian), checked the sacrilegious and nefarious daring of men. „For the noxious agreement of men against God would have remained there, had not the diversity of tongue, conflicting among themselves, by the discordance of voice, by the dispensation of God, compelled them to advance to a better state; and a good and useful discord recalled to salvation those whom a pernicious agreement had inspired toward their own destruction — those, namely, beginning to perceive human frailty (the division intervening), which, being puffed up by a noxious conspiracy, they had not known before.“³

ERGO homines illi, quia unitate linguae et unanimi omnium consensu abusi sunt ut contra Dei voluntatem aedificium illud extruere conarentur (ne scilicet disiungerentur invicem atque dissiparentur, et ut aeternam sui memoriam famamque relinquerent), idcirco Deus, unitatem linguae eorum varie admodum discindens, aedificationem illius civitatis et turris (quam tanto illi studio conatuque susceperant) omittere coëgit; et cum, propter diversitatem linguae, inter se non intelligerent, invicem dissociari eos et in varias terrae partes disperdi necesse fuit. Fecit etiam ut, pro celebritate nominis et famae quam expetebant, immortale dedecus et infamiam consequerentur. Namque illius loci nomen esse voluit Babel, significans confusionem, idque omni aevo apud omnes manere, ut locus ipse suo nomine tam probrosae ac miserae illorum hominum confusionis memoriam perpetuo custodiret.

Therefore those men, because they had abused the unity of tongue and the unanimous consent of all, to attempt against the will of God to build that edifice (namely, that they might not be disjoined and scattered from one another, and that they might leave an eternal memory and fame of themselves), therefore God, dividing the unity of their tongue in very various ways, compelled them to give up the building of that city and tower (which they had undertaken with so much zeal and endeavor); and since, on account of the diversity of tongue, they did not understand one another, it was necessary that they be dissociated from one another and scattered into the various parts of the earth. He also brought it about that, in place of the celebrity of name and fame which they sought, they obtained immortal disgrace and infamy. For He willed the name of that place to be Babel, signifying confusion, and that this should remain in every age among all, that the place itself by its name might perpetually keep the memory of so shameful and wretched a confusion of those men.⁴

ATQUE huius quidem rei historia duo nobis utilia praebet documenta. Alterum est quam sint contrariarum rerum contrarii effectus — humilitatis, inquam, et superbiae, pietatis atque impietatis, audaciae et modestiae. Audi B. Gregorium, qui, explanans historiam descensus Spiritus sancti in Apostolos quam narrat B. Lucas (quemadmodum Spiritus sanctus in linguis igneis apparuerit Christi discipulis omniumque linguarum scientia dederit, quo miraculo praesignabatur sanctam Ecclesiam, eodem illo Spiritu repletam, omnium gentium voce locuturam), ad hunc modum scribit: „Qui contra Deum turrim aedificare conati sunt, communionem unius linguae perdiderunt. In iis autem qui Deum humiliter metuebant, linguae omnes unitae sunt. Hic ergo humilitas unitatem meruit, illic superbia confusionem.“

And the history of this matter furnishes us two useful lessons. The one is how contrary are the effects of contrary things — of humility, I mean, and pride, of piety and impiety, of audacity and modesty. Hear Blessed Gregory, who, explaining the history of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles which Blessed Luke narrates (how the Holy Spirit appeared in fiery tongues to the disciples of Christ and gave them the knowledge of all tongues, by which miracle was prefigured that the holy Church, filled with that same Spirit, would speak with the voice of all nations), writes in this manner: „Those who tried to build a tower against God lost the communion of one tongue. But in those who humbly feared God, all tongues were united. Here, then, humility merited unity, there pride confusion.“⁵

ALTERUM documentum quod ex hoc loco elicitur, attenta consideratione animi perpendendum est et in memoria semper habendum: ut perniciosa est inter probos viros discordia, ita (ac magis etiam) malorum hominum conspirationem et concordiam esse perniciosam. Hoc nempe figurata oratione insinuavit Dominus apud Iob, cum de Leviathan (qui figuram gerit Diaboli et improborum hominum qui sunt eius membra) dixit: „Membra carnium eius cohae[rentia]…“

The other lesson, which is drawn from this place, must be weighed with attentive consideration of mind and always held in memory: that, just as discord among good men is pernicious, so (and even more) the conspiracy and concord of evil men is pernicious. This indeed the Lord insinuated in figurative speech in Job, when of Leviathan (who bears the figure of the Devil and of wicked men, who are his members) He said: „The members of his flesh cleav[ing together]…“⁶

…[cohae]rentia sibi. Quando enim homines improbi, qui membra sunt Diaboli, in perversis operibus suscipiendis aut peragendis a principio usque ad finem usquequaque inter se concordant, tunc membra Leviathan sibi invicem esse cohaerentia recte dicuntur.

…cleaving together. For when wicked men, who are members of the Devil, in undertaking or carrying through perverse works agree among themselves on every side from beginning to end, then the members of Leviathan are rightly said to be cleaving to one another.⁷

REPROBORUM hominum unitas (inquit Gregorius) bonorum vitam tanto durius praepedit, quanto ei se per collectionem durior opponit. Hanc unitatem reproborum perniciosam sibi Paulus conspiciens, cum in medio Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum esset, dixit: „De spe et resurrectione mortuorum ego iudicor.“ Qua voce vehementer percussa, protinus contra se invicem audientium turba dissiluit; et dum in duas partes tumultuantium multitudo scinditur, Paulo via ereptionis aperitur: quia quem turba persequentium unita constrinxerat, divisa laxabat. Eripiuntur ergo iusti dum dividuntur iniusti; et electorum vota ad perfectum perveniunt, dum reproborum agmina per discordiam confunduntur. Hoc bene maris rubri scissione designatur: nam dum in duas partes unda dividitur, ab electo populo ad terram promissionis tenditur; sic dum malorum unitas scinditur, bonae mentes ad hoc quod appetunt perducuntur. Si malorum unitas noxia non fuisset, nequaquam divina providentia eorum qui superbissimo animo civitatem et turrim aedificabant linguas in tanta diversitate dissipasset. Si malorum unitas noxia non fuisset, de sancta Ecclesia hostibus Propheta non diceret: „Praecipita, Domine, et divide linguas eorum.“ Haec Gregorius.

„The unity of reprobate men (says Gregory) impedes the life of the good so much the more harshly, as the harder it opposes itself to it by combination. Paul, perceiving this unity of the reprobate to be pernicious to himself, when he was in the midst of the Pharisees and Sadducees, said: ‘Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am judged.’ At which word, vehemently struck, the crowd of hearers immediately leaped apart against one another; and while the multitude of the tumultuous is split into two parts, a way of escape is opened to Paul: because the divided crowd loosed him whom the united crowd of persecutors had bound fast. The just, then, are rescued while the unjust are divided; and the desires of the elect come to fulfillment while the ranks of the reprobate are confounded by discord. This is well signified by the dividing of the Red Sea: for while the wave is divided into two parts, the elect people is brought toward the land of promise; so while the unity of the evil is split, good minds are led to that which they seek. Had the unity of the evil not been harmful, divine providence would by no means have scattered, into so great a diversity, the tongues of those who with most proud spirit were building the city and tower. Had the unity of the evil not been harmful, the Prophet would not say, of the holy Church against its enemies: ‘Cast down, O Lord, and divide their tongues.’“ So Gregory.⁸

HOC etiam spectans et sequens beatissimus patriarcha Iacob, sceleratam et exitialem duorum filiorum suorum Simeonis et Levi conspirationem et concordiam ad necem Sichimitis tam atrociter et crudeliter inferendam non solum detestatus est, verum etiam iusta et utili dissociationis et dispersionis eorum poena mulctavit. „Dividam eos in Iacob,“ dixit ille, „et dispergam eos in Israel.“ Ergo iis qui magnae alicui hominum multitudini et societati praesunt, duae in primis res spectandae et curandae sunt: ut et bonorum dissidia tollant discordiaque conglutinent; nec minori etiam studio ac diligentia eos qui in malum conspirant et concordant inter se, quamprimum et quam maxime fieri possit, dissocient atque invicem distrahant.

Looking to and following this, the most blessed patriarch Jacob not only detested the wicked and deadly conspiracy and concord of his two sons Simeon and Levi for inflicting so atrociously and cruelly the slaughter of the Sichemites, but even punished it with a just and useful penalty of their dissociation and dispersion. „I will divide them in Jacob,“ said he, „and will scatter them in Israel.“ Therefore for those who preside over some great multitude and society of men, two things in particular must be looked to and cared for: that they both take away the dissensions of the good and glue together their discords; and with no less zeal and diligence dissociate and draw apart from one another, as soon and as much as can possibly be done, those who conspire and agree among themselves toward evil.⁹

VERUM nonnulla de supradictis verbis cursim exponamus. „Ecce unus est populus et unum est labium omnibus: coeperuntque hoc facere, nec desistent a cogitationibus suis donec eas opere compleant.“ Significatur his verbis duplex unitas qua illi homines confisi ausi sunt tantum opus aggredi. Altera fuit unitas communitatis et societatis popularis: nam licet amplissima esset eorum multitudo, unius tamen populi idem cupientis et perficere conantis communione atque unitate continebatur. Altera erat unitas labii, id est linguae, propter quam, cum omnes inter se intelligerent aliique alios proposita designati operis utilitate et gloria incredibiliter incitarent, nihil profecto attentassent illi quod non facile perficerent ac praestarent. „Si in tanta concordia et linguae unitate“ (ait Chrysostomus) „in tantam inciderunt insaniam, ubi processu temporis maiorem in modum eorum aucta esset multitudo et roborata potentia, sine dubio deteriora tentassent. Nihil enim impetum et ardorem…“

But let us briefly expound some of the aforesaid words. „Behold, it is one people, and all have one language: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs till they accomplish them in deed.“ By these words is signified a double unity, trusting in which those men dared to undertake so great a work. The one was the unity of community and popular society: for although their multitude was very great, yet it was held together by the communion and unity of one people desiring the same thing and striving to accomplish it. The other was the unity of lip, that is, of tongue, on account of which, since all understood one another, and one incited another incredibly by the proposed advantage and glory of the designed work, they would assuredly have attempted nothing which they would not easily accomplish and perform. „If in so great a concord and unity of tongue“ (says Chrysostom) „they fell into so great a madness, then, when in process of time their multitude had been increased to a greater degree and their power strengthened, they would without doubt have attempted worse things. For nothing could have retarded or quenched their force and ardor…“¹⁰

„…eorum retardare ac restinguere potuisset; quaecunque designassent animo et votis concepissent, ad effectum perduxissent.“ Ut igitur eorum insaniae non solum ad praesens, sed etiam in posterum occurrat Deus, duas res quarum fiducia efferuntur demolitur: unitatem linguae eorum discindendo, et communionem popularem dissolvendo, variasque in gentes et populos divisam in diversas terrae partes dissipando.

„…their force and ardor; whatever they had designed in mind and conceived in their wishes, they would have brought to effect.“ Therefore, that God may meet their madness not only for the present but also for the future, He demolishes the two things in whose confidence they are puffed up: by cutting apart the unity of their tongue, and by dissolving their popular communion, and by scattering it — divided into various nations and peoples — into the various parts of the earth.¹¹

ILLUD „Non desistent a cogitationibus suis donec eas opere compleant“ significat: Nisi homines illi divinitus fuissent impediti, certissime designatum atque inceptum opus ad exitum fuisse perducturos. Noverat igitur Deus, et certissime noverat, non solum quod illi facturi erant, sed etiam quid fuissent facturi nisi essent impediti. Deus enim, propter infinitam intellectus sui perspicacitatem, non solum quae simpliciter aliquando futura sunt cognoscit, sed etiam conditionaliter futura, id est quae hac vel illa circumstantia et conditione posita essent futura. Quapropter Davidi dixit, si remaneret ipse Ceilae, futurum ut et Saul eo veniret et Ceilani eum dederent Sauli. Dixit etiam Ezechieli se non mittere eum ad gentem longinquam profundique sermonis et ignotae linguae; quod si ad eam gentem ipsum mitteret, fore tamen ut illa ipsum audiret et monita eius perciperet. Quo etiam spectat quod in Evangelio Dominus dixit, si miracula facta ab ipso in Capharnaum et Corozain essent facta apud Tyrios et Sidonios, futurum fuisse ut illi in cinere et cilicio paenitentiam agerent.

That „They will not leave off from their designs till they accomplish them in deed“ signifies: Unless those men had been divinely hindered, they would most certainly have brought the designed and begun work to its end. God knew, therefore — and knew most certainly — not only what they were going to do, but also what they would have done had they not been hindered. For God, on account of the infinite perspicacity of His intellect, knows not only the things that are simply at some time to be, but also things conditionally future, that is, the things that, this or that circumstance and condition being posited, would be. Wherefore He said to David that, if he himself should remain at Ceila, it would come to pass that Saul too would come thither and the men of Ceila would give him up to Saul. He also said to Ezekiel that He was not sending him to a far-off nation of deep speech and unknown tongue; but that, if He should send him to that nation, it would nevertheless come to pass that it would hear him and receive his admonitions. To this also looks what the Lord said in the Gospel: that, if the miracles done by Him in Capharnaum and Corozain had been done among the Tyrians and Sidonians, it would have come to pass that they would do penance in ashes and sackcloth.¹²

HINC etiam apparet aedificatores illius turris non voluisse eam usque ad caeli viciniam, vel supra diluvii Noëtici altitudinem, extollere: id enim, quia nulla arte nullisque hominum viribus fieri poterat, etiamsi a Deo non fuissent impediti, efficere nequaquam potuissent. At hoc loco Deus significat eos, nisi impedirentur, opus ab ipsis designatum atque inceptum perfecturos et absoluturos fuisse.

Hence it also appears that the builders of that tower did not will to raise it up to the neighborhood of heaven, or above the height of the Noachic flood: for that, because it could be done by no art and no human strength, even had they not been hindered by God, they could by no means have effected. But in this place God signifies that they, unless hindered, would have completed and finished the work designed and begun by them.¹³

DEUM porro impedivisse ne illorum hominum aedificatio ultra procederet magno illis bono fuit, ne scilicet eorum superbia et impietas magis ac magis cresceret et, vehementius corroborata, prorsus insanabilis esset graviorique digna supplicio: siquidem sinere Deum mala hominum consilia et conatus feliciter procedere, et quicquid illi agere voluerint sine impedimento perficere, omnia denique illis ex animi sententia votoque succedere, certissimum est divinae indignationis argumentum et gravissimi genus supplicii. Illud enim recte dictum est a Salomone Proverb. 1: „Prosperitas stultorum perdet illos.“ Contra vero obstare ne quod quispiam male cogitat et cupit efficere et assequi possit, maximum est benignitatis divinae beneficium. Etenim verissimum est quod posterioris libri Machabaeorum capite sexto legimus: „Multo tempore non sinere peccatoribus ex sententia agere, sed statim ultiones adhibere, magni beneficii est indicium.“ Quocirca B. Paulus, ut gravissimum poenae ac vindictae divinae genus adversus homines impios, commemorat illud: „Tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis eorum.“

Moreover, that God hindered the building of those men from proceeding further was a great good to them — namely, lest their pride and impiety should grow more and more and, more vehemently strengthened, become utterly incurable and worthy of a graver punishment. For to let men's evil designs and endeavors proceed prosperously, and to accomplish without hindrance whatever they wished to do, and in short for everything to succeed for them according to their mind's purpose and wish, is a most certain proof of divine indignation and a kind of gravest punishment. For it was rightly said by Solomon, Proverbs 1: „The prosperity of fools shall destroy them.“ But, on the contrary, to stand in the way, that one may not be able to effect and obtain what he evilly thinks and desires, is the greatest benefit of divine kindness. For most true is what we read in the latter book of Maccabees, chapter six: „Not to suffer sinners to act according to their purpose for a long time, but to apply punishments at once, is a token of great benefit.“ Wherefore Blessed Paul, as the gravest kind of divine punishment and vengeance against impious men, mentions that: „God gave them up to the desires of their heart.“¹⁴

DAVID etiam cecinit de Hebraeis qui caeleste manna fastidiose respuentes carnes in deserto concupiverunt easque, a Deo cupiditati eorum indulgente, abundanter acceperunt: „Et manducaverunt,“ inquit, „et saturati sunt nimis, et desiderium eorum attulit eis; non sunt fraudati a desiderio suo.“ Sed attende quod mox subdit: „Adhuc,“ inquit, „escae eorum erant in ore ipsorum, et ira Dei descendit super eos.“

David too sang of the Hebrews who, fastidiously rejecting the heavenly manna, coveted flesh in the desert and received it abundantly, God indulging their craving: „And they ate,“ he says, „and were filled exceedingly, and He gave them their desire; they were not defrauded of their longing.“ But attend to what he presently adds: „As yet,“ he says, „their meat was in their mouth, and the wrath of God came down upon them.“¹⁵

SCITUM quoque est quod hac de re scriptum reliquit Philo: „Insignis poena et vindicta impietatis est,“ ait ille, „connivere Deum atque etiam indulgere peccantibus, nec solum longam eis impunitatem, verum magnam diuturnamque prosperitatem concedere. Hoc insipientes non damnum sed lucrum, non supplicium sed beneficium arbitrantur, et fortunatos iudicant quorum omnia consilia et vota, qualiacumque illa sint, optatos ipsis exitus et successus habent. Cum tamen desperatae animae indicium sit peccare absque ullo impedimento et prosperos maleficiorum successus habere. Nam quisquis non est plane insanabilis praeoptaverit se consilio potius mentis destitui quam in male agendo solertem et prudentem ac felicem esse. Nam cohibitio maximum morbum arcet, iniustitiam, quae, si adsit licentia peccandi, vitari non potest. Ac stulti quidem fortunam Tyrannorum suspiciunt, quibus non alia est quodlibet agendi lex et regula quam propria ipsorum libido: quam, quia nullo obsistente prout volunt explere possunt, fortunati iudicantur. Sed profecto lugenda magis et gemenda illorum est conditio. Nimirum inopia et infirmitas malis prodest, bonis vero potentia cum prospectu…“

Well known too is what Philo left written on this matter: „A signal punishment and vengeance of impiety is it,“ says he, „that God connives at and even indulges sinners, and grants them not only a long impunity but a great and lasting prosperity. This the foolish reckon not loss but gain, not punishment but benefit, and judge those fortunate whose every design and wish, of whatever sort they be, have the desired issues and successes for them. Whereas it is a token of a desperate soul to sin without any hindrance and to have prosperous successes of misdeeds. For whoever is not plainly incurable would rather be destitute of the counsel of the mind than be clever, prudent, and successful in doing evil. For restraint wards off the greatest disease, injustice, which, if license of sinning be present, cannot be avoided. And fools indeed look up to the fortune of Tyrants, who have no other law and rule of doing whatever they please than their own lust, which, because, with none resisting, they can fulfill as they will, they are judged fortunate. But assuredly their condition is rather to be mourned and bewailed. For want and weakness profit the evil, but power with prospect [the good]…“¹⁶

MAGNUM… et maius quam plerique putant malum est humanum animum, per se indomitum et ad flagitia ruentem, sine freno ac rectore sinere: cum is, etiam habenis et scutica et prudenti rectore adhibitis, aegre tamen coerceri queat. Quamobrem oraculum propitii Dei, plenum benignitate, spem egregiam ostentat disciplinae amatoribus, quod sic est editum: „Non dimittam te neque deseram.“ Nam laxatis animae vinculis quibus illa, velut constricta, in bono tenebatur, maxima sequitur calamitas, a Deo deseri. Cave igitur, quoties videris quempiam quicquid ei libuerit inoffense et expedite facientem, mireris eum tanquam fortunatum; sed potius ut infelicem miserare, cui scilicet virtutum sterilitas, vitiorum autem ubertas perpetuo contigit. Hactenus ex Philone.

„A great… and greater than most think, evil is it to leave the human soul — of itself untamed and rushing to disgraceful deeds — without bridle and ruler: since it, even when reins and whip and a prudent ruler are employed, can yet hardly be restrained. Wherefore the oracle of a propitious God, full of kindness, shows forth an excellent hope to the lovers of discipline, which was thus given: ‘I will not let thee go, neither will I forsake thee.’ For when the bonds of the soul are loosed, by which it was held as it were bound in the good, the greatest calamity follows — to be forsaken by God. Beware, therefore, whenever you see anyone doing whatever pleases him without obstacle and readily, of admiring him as fortunate; but rather pity him as unhappy, to whom, namely, a barrenness of virtues but an abundance of vices has perpetually befallen.“ Thus far from Philo.¹⁷

ILLUD autem „Ut non audiat unusquisque vocem proximi sui“ non est sic accipiendum, quasi nullus illorum hominum audierit alium loquentem: nam si id eis accidisset, fuissent proculdubio surdi; itaque non sola linguae confusio, verum praeterea surditas eis contigisset. Ergo significatur illis verbis non simplex auditio, sed auditio cum eorum quae alii loquebantur intellectu coniuncta. Audiebant illi sonos vocum, sed earum vim et significationem non intelligebant. Neque illud „Ut non audiat unusquisque vocem proximi sui“ significat in illa multitudine hominum neminem fuisse qui alium ullum intelligeret, sed quot erant numero homines, totidem fuisse diversas eorum linguas. Si enim hoc factum esset, omnes invicem dissociati fuissent, nullaque…

But that „That they may not understand one another's speech“ is not to be taken as if none of those men heard another speaking: for if that had happened to them, they would doubtless have been deaf; and so not only confusion of tongue but also deafness would have befallen them. Therefore by those words is signified not simple hearing, but hearing joined with the understanding of what the others were saying. They heard the sounds of the voices, but did not understand their force and meaning. Nor does that „That they may not understand one another's speech“ signify that in that multitude of men there was no one who understood any other, but that as many men as there were in number, so many were their diverse tongues. For if this had been done, all would have been dissociated from one another, and no…¹⁸

…nullaque fieri potuisset hominum societas aut communitas, quod erat certissimum humani generis exitium. Nulla enim civitas, nulla domus, nulla familia, nulla hominum coniunctio effici et constare potuisset. Adde quod id fuisset contrarium Dei consilio et proposito. Deus enim ob eam causam diversitatem linguarum induxit, ut homines illi segregari invicem cogerentur et in varias terrae partes dispergi, quo totus orbis terrarum habitatoribus cultoribusque completus plenior, cultior, fecundior et ornatior existeret. At si nullus hominum alterum hominem loquentem intellexisset, nullus cum alio homine congregari potuisset. Non igitur quod intendebat Deus ad effectum potuisset adduci.

…and no society or community of men could have come to be — which was the most certain destruction of the human race. For no city, no household, no family, no conjunction of men could have been made and stood. Add that this would have been contrary to God's counsel and purpose. For God for this cause introduced the diversity of tongues, that those men might be compelled to be segregated from one another and dispersed into the various parts of the earth, that the whole world, filled with inhabitants and cultivators, might be fuller, more cultivated, more fruitful, and more adorned. But if no man had understood another man speaking, none could have gathered with another man. Therefore what God intended could not have been brought to effect.¹⁹

ERGO quod hoc loco dictum est, nullum eorum hominum intellexisse vocem proximi sui, non de singulis hominibus accipiendum est, sed de certa quadam multitudine hominum. Exempli causa: qui unius erant familiae propriam habuere linguam, qua inter se loquebantur et intelligebant; et quia pro diversitate familiarum etiam linguarum diversitas exstitit, hinc factum est ut, quot tunc erant hominum familiae, totidem essent linguae; et qui eiusdem erant familiae, quoniam invicem quae loquebantur intelligebant, inter se congregati et consociati sunt. Quoniam vero qui ex aliis familiis erant eorum linguas non intelligebant, idcirco ab illis omnibus dissociari eos et separatim vivere necesse fuit. Omnino, quia superiori capite decimo Moses recensuit duos et septuaginta posteros trium filiorum Noë, quorum quilibet propriam reliquit familiam et gentem, ex eo permulti existimarunt unam illam omnium hominum linguam quae fuerat ante aedificationem turris Babel in duas et septuaginta linguas esse divisam. Verum de hoc paulo infra dicemus.

Therefore what is here said, that none of those men understood the speech of his neighbor, is not to be taken of individual men, but of a certain multitude of men. For example: those who were of one family had their own tongue, by which they spoke among themselves and understood one another; and because, according to the diversity of families, a diversity of tongues also arose, hence it came about that, as many families of men as there then were, so many were the tongues; and those who were of the same family, since they understood among themselves what they spoke, gathered and associated among themselves. But since those who were of other families did not understand their tongues, therefore it was necessary that they be dissociated from all those and live separately. Altogether, because in the foregoing tenth chapter Moses reviewed the seventy-two descendants of the three sons of Noah, each of whom left his own family and nation, from this very many have judged that that one tongue of all men which had been before the building of the tower of Babel was divided into seventy-two tongues. But of this we shall speak a little below.²⁰

NEC videtur id non elici posse ex iis quae supra capite decimo prodita sunt. Legimus enim de filiis Iaphet ita scribentem Mosem: „Ab his divisae sunt insulae gentium in regionibus suis, unusquisque secundum linguam suam et familiam suam in nationibus suis.“ Et item de filiis Cham: „Hi sunt filii Cham in cognationibus et linguis et generationibus terrisque et gentibus suis.“ Denique de filiis quoque Sem: „Isti sunt filii Sem secundum cognationes et linguas et regiones in gentibus suis.“ Apparet igitur ex hac narratione Mosis, pro varietate familiarum et cognationum, varias quoque fuisse linguas, diversasque gentes et nationes exstitisse.

Nor does it seem that this cannot be drawn from the things set forth above in the tenth chapter. For we read Moses writing thus of the sons of Japheth: „By these were the islands of the Gentiles divided in their regions, every one according to his tongue and his family in their nations.“ And likewise of the sons of Cham: „These are the sons of Cham in their kindreds and tongues and generations and lands and nations.“ Finally of the sons of Sem too: „These are the sons of Sem according to their kindreds and tongues and regions in their nations.“ It appears, therefore, from this narrative of Moses, that according to the variety of families and kindreds, the tongues too were various, and that diverse peoples and nations arose.²¹

VERUM redeo ad id quod a primo dicere institui de confusione linguae. Reputet secum lector diligenterque consideret, cum tanta illa linguae confusio hominibus illis accidit, qui animus eis, quae mens, qui sensus fuerit. Credo equidem, cum inter se coeperunt non intelligere, ira primum eos et indignatione esse affectos, quod alii se derideri et illudi ab aliis putarent. Deinde similes evasisse amentibus atque furentibus puto. Verum postea, cum serio agi cognoverunt et rem ipsam, uti erat, compertam habue[runt]…

But I return to what I first set about saying concerning the confusion of tongue. Let the reader reckon with himself and diligently consider what mind, what disposition, what feeling those men had when so great a confusion of tongue befell them. I believe indeed that, when they began not to understand one another, they were affected first with anger and indignation, because some thought themselves derided and mocked by others. Then I think they became like the demented and raving. But afterward, when they recognized that the matter was in earnest and held the thing itself, as it was, ascertained…²²

…habuerunt, neque id aliter quam Dei voluntate et potestate fieri potuisse intellexerunt, divinam suae impietatis ac superbiae vindictam agnoscentes, incredibili eos confusione animi et stupore simul ac pavore perculsos et obrutos esse non est dubitandum.

…and understood that it could be done in no other way than by the will and power of God, recognizing the divine vengeance of their impiety and pride, it is not to be doubted that they were stricken and overwhelmed with an incredible confusion of mind and with stupor and at once dread.²³

SIMILE quiddam, sed in re tamen longe dissimili, sanctis Christi discipulis contigit in die Pentecostes. Hoc enim die linguarum omnium diversitas repente divino munere illis tributa est, ita ut unusquisque sanctorum discipulorum alios omnes cuiuscunque gentis et linguae essent loquentes intelligeret, et alii omnes, quamvis diversissimis uterentur linguis, quemlibet illorum discipulorum Domini quasi sua lingua loquentem planissime intelligerent. Itaque tunc diversissimae linguae in unius hominis os (ut ita loquar) congregatae sunt; olim vero una omnium hominum lingua in plurimas et diversissimas linguas discissa est. Tunc omnes quemlibet discipulorum Domini loquentem intelligebant; olim nemo alterius linguam intelligere poterat. Utrumque sane maximum fuit divinae potentiae miraculum. Verum diversus utriusque fuit exitus et effectus. Per illud enim, qui congregati uno loco erant, in omnes terrae plagas dispersi sunt; per hoc autem, qui dispersi omnibus terris erant, in unam fidei communionem unamque Ecclesiae societatem congregati sunt.

Something similar, but in a matter far dissimilar, happened to the holy disciples of Christ on the day of Pentecost. For on this day the diversity of all tongues was suddenly bestowed on them by a divine gift, so that each of the holy disciples understood all others speaking, of whatever nation and tongue they were, and all the others, although they used the most diverse tongues, understood most plainly any one of those disciples of the Lord speaking as if in his own tongue. And so then the most diverse tongues were gathered, so to speak, into the mouth of one man; but of old the one tongue of all men was cut up into very many and most diverse tongues. Then all understood any one of the Lord's disciples speaking; of old no one could understand another's tongue. Each indeed was a very great miracle of the divine power. But the issue and effect of each was diverse. For by the former, those who were gathered in one place were dispersed into all the regions of the earth; but by the latter, those who were dispersed through all lands were gathered into one communion of faith and one society of the Church.²⁴

Translator’s notes

Gen 11:7–9 (verse lemma, for Disputation 7). ↩
§88. Disp. 7. The punishment fit their impious pride. Augustine (City of God 16.4): since ‘the dominion of one commanding is in the tongue,’ pride was condemned there — the commander not understood, because man would not understand so as to obey God's command; thus the conspiracy dissolved, each withdrawing from whom he did not understand (continues p. 507). Margin: Augustine, City of God bk. 16 ch. 4. ↩
§88 (concl.). Augustine (cont.): each joined only those he could understand; so the nations were divided by tongues and dispersed as God pleased, by hidden ways. Cassian (Conferences): the sudden confusion checked men's sacrilegious daring — the noxious agreement against God would have lasted, had not the diversity of tongue compelled them toward a better state; a good and useful discord recalled to salvation those whom a pernicious unity had driven toward ruin, now perceiving (in the division) the human frailty their proud conspiracy had hidden. Margin: Cassian, Conference 8 ch. 25. ↩
§89. So because they abused their one tongue and unanimous consent to build against God's will (to stay together and win eternal fame), God divided their tongue, forcing them to abandon the work; not understanding one another, they had to be dissociated and scattered over the earth. And instead of the fame they sought, they got immortal disgrace: God willed the place named ‘Babel’ (confusion), to keep forever the memory of their shameful, wretched confusion. ↩
§90. The first of two moral lessons: how contrary are the effects of contrary things (humility vs. pride, piety vs. impiety). Gregory (homily 30 on the Gospels, on Pentecost, Acts 2): those who tried to build a tower against God lost the communion of one tongue; in those who humbly feared God, all tongues were united — ‘here humility merited unity, there pride confusion.’ Margins: two moral lessons; Gregory, homily 30 on the Gospels; Acts 2. ↩
§91. The second lesson: as discord among good men is pernicious, so (even more) is the conspiracy and concord of evil men. The Lord hinted this figuratively in Job, of Leviathan (a figure of the Devil and the wicked, his members): ‘The members of his flesh cleaving together…’ (continues next batch). Margin: Job 41. ↩
§91 (concl.). Completing the Job 41 figure: when wicked men (the Devil's ‘members’) agree wholly in perverse works, then ‘the members of Leviathan’ are rightly said to cleave together. ↩
§92. Gregory (Morals bk. 34): the reprobate's unity harms the good the more it combines. Paul split the Pharisees and Sadducees by crying ‘concerning the resurrection I am judged’ (Acts 23) — the divided crowd freed whom the united would have bound; the just are rescued as the unjust divide (figured by the Red Sea, Exod 14). Had the wicked's unity not been harmful, God would not have scattered the tongues of the proud builders, nor would the Prophet pray ‘divide their tongues’ (Ps 54). Margins: Gregory, Morals bk. 34; Acts 23; Exod 14; Ps 54. ↩
§93. So Jacob detested the deadly conspiracy of Simeon and Levi against the Sichemites, punishing it with a useful dispersion: ‘I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel’ (Gen 49). Hence rulers must do two things: heal the good's dissensions, and as quickly as possible break up those who conspire toward evil. Margin: Gen 49. ↩
§94. Gen 11:6 exposition: a double unity emboldened them — (1) the unity of community/popular society (one people desiring the same), (2) the unity of tongue (all understanding one another, inciting each other). Chrysostom: if in such concord and one tongue they fell into such madness, with greater numbers and power they would have attempted worse (continues p. 509). Margin: Chrysostom on Genesis homily 30. ↩
§94 (concl.). Chrysostom: whatever they designed they would have achieved. So, to meet their madness for present and future, God demolishes the two grounds of their confidence — cutting the unity of tongue and dissolving the popular union, scattering them divided into nations over the earth. ↩
§95. ‘They will not leave off till they accomplish it’ means: but for God's hindrance they would have finished. So God knew not only what they would do but what they would have done unhindered — for His infinite intellect knows even conditional futures (what would be under given conditions): e.g. David at Ceila (Saul would come, the men would hand him over, 1 Sam 23); Ezekiel (a far nation would have heard him, Ezek 3); the Gospel (Tyre and Sidon would have repented had Capharnaum's miracles been done there, Mt 11). Margins: the infinite perspicacity of the divine intellect; 1 Sam 23; Ezek 3; Mt 11. ↩
§96. Hence the builders did not aim at heaven or above the flood's height — impossible by any human art, hinder or not. But God signifies that, unhindered, they would have finished the work they had designed and begun. ↩
§97. God's hindering was a great good — lest their pride grow incurable and deserve graver punishment. To let the wicked's designs prosper unhindered is a sure sign of God's indignation, a grave punishment (Prov 1, ‘the prosperity of fools shall destroy them’); to thwart their evil aims is God's great kindness (2 Macc 6, ‘not to let sinners act long but to punish at once is a token of great benefit’; Paul: ‘God gave them up to their heart's desires,’ Rom 1) (continues p. 510). Margins: that the wicked's success is most unhappy for them; Prov 1; 2 Macc 6; Rom 1. ↩
§97 (concl.). David's example (Ps 78/77): the Hebrews who scorned the manna and craved flesh got it abundantly — ‘they ate and were filled… not defrauded of their longing’ — yet ‘while the meat was in their mouth, the wrath of God came down upon them.’ Margin: Ps 77. ↩
§98. Philo: a signal punishment of impiety is that God connives at sinners, granting long impunity and prosperity — which fools take for gain and call such men fortunate, though to sin unhindered and prosper in misdeeds is a mark of a desperate soul. One not incurable would rather lack counsel than be clever and successful in evil; restraint wards off injustice, unavoidable if sinning is licensed. Fools admire tyrants (whose only law is their lust), but their state is to be mourned. Margins: Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues; that the wicked's prosperity in this life is most unhappy. ↩
§99. Philo (cont.): it is a great evil to leave the untamed soul without bridle (it is hard to restrain even with reins, whip, and a prudent ruler). Hence God's kind oracle to disciples: ‘I will not let thee go nor forsake thee’ (Josh 1) — for when the soul's restraining bonds are loosed, the worst calamity follows: to be forsaken by God. So do not admire one who does whatever he pleases unobstructed as ‘fortunate,’ but pity him as unhappy, barren of virtues and abounding in vices. Margin: Josh 1. ↩
§100. ‘That they may not understand one another's speech’ is not that none heard another (that would be deafness, not just confusion of tongue), but hearing without understanding — they heard the sounds but not the meaning. Nor that each man had his own distinct tongue (else all would be dissociated, and no…) (continues p. 511). ↩
§100 (concl.). …no human society could exist (no city, household, family) — the ruin of mankind, and contrary to God's purpose: He introduced the diversity of tongues so they would split into groups and spread to fill and cultivate the whole earth. Had no one understood any other, none could gather — and God's intent would fail. ↩
§101. So ‘none understood his neighbor's speech’ is not of individuals but of groups: those of one family shared a tongue (and gathered together), but did not understand other families' tongues (so were dissociated). Since Gen 10 listed 72 descendants of Noah's three sons, each leaving a family/nation, many hold the one tongue was divided into 72 (treated below). ↩
§102. This can be drawn from Gen 10: of Japheth's sons ‘by these were the islands divided… each according to his tongue and family’; of Cham's ‘in their kindreds and tongues’; of Sem's ‘according to their kindreds and tongues and regions.’ So tongues varied with families, and diverse nations arose. ↩
§103. Pererius returns to the confusion: imagine the men's state of mind. At first, anger and indignation (each thinking himself mocked); then like madmen; but afterward, recognizing it was in earnest… (continues p. 512). Margin: when the division of tongues was made, how great was the men's perturbation and confusion. ↩
§103 (concl.). …and understood it was God's doing — the vengeance of their impiety and pride — they were doubtless stricken and overwhelmed with incredible confusion of mind, stupor, and dread. ↩
§104. A like (yet contrary) thing happened to Christ's disciples at Pentecost: the gift of all tongues, so each understood all and all understood each (Acts 2) — the diverse tongues gathered into one mouth, vs. Babel's one tongue cut into many. Both great miracles, but opposite in effect: Babel scattered the gathered over the earth; Pentecost gathered the scattered into one communion of faith and one Church. Margins: Acts 2; a comparison of what happened at Babel with what happened at Pentecost regarding the variety of tongues. ↩