THE AUTHOR'S OPINION. On the number of tongues, into which the first tongue that was common to all is said to have been multiplied — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

THE AUTHOR'S OPINION. On the number of tongues, into which the first tongue that was common to all is said to have been multiplied.¹

AUCTORIS SENTENTIA. De numero linguarum, in quas prima lingua quae communis erat omnium multiplicata esse dicitur.

TAM antiqua huius opinionis via, totque ac tantorum auctorum trita et nobilitata vestigiis, equidem abstrahi me non facile patiar. Sed illud tamen quod semper soleo, etiam hoc loco facere non praetermittam: ut quid hac in re certum aut incertum, quid verum aut simile vero sit, vel nullam etiam verisimilitudinem nullamque probabilitatem habeat, distincte et breviter indicem lectori. ILLUD in hac quam tractamus controversia certum est, linguas tunc inventas fuisse multas admodum et varias. Hoc enim dupliciter ex narratione Mosis elicitur: tum quod ait ille confusum fuisse labium sive linguam universae terrae (quae quidem confusio non aliunde quam ex magna novarum atque ignotarum linguarum, quae tunc repente hominibus illis contigerunt, varietate accidit); tum quia tanta fuit linguarum varietas ut, sicut narrat Moses, nemo intelligeret vocem proximi sui.

From a way of this opinion so ancient, and worn and ennobled by the footsteps of so many and so great authors, I shall not easily suffer myself to be drawn away. But that which I am always wont [to do] I shall not omit to do in this place too: that I may indicate to the reader distinctly and briefly what in this matter is certain or uncertain, what is true or like the truth, or has even no verisimilitude and no probability. This in the controversy we are treating is certain: that the tongues then found were very many and various. For this is drawn in two ways from Moses's narrative: both because he says that the lip or tongue of the whole earth was confounded (which confusion happened from nothing else than the great variety of new and unknown tongues which then suddenly befell those men); and because so great was the variety of tongues that, as Moses narrates, no one understood the speech of his neighbor.²

ILLUD quoque pro certo haberi potest, non fuisse tot linguas quot erant in illa multitudine homines, nec singulis hominibus singulas attributas esse linguas: id enim fuisset incommodissimum, et Dei consilio atque proposito (ut paulo supra disputavimus) plane contrarium. Sed est tamen prope certum ac vehementer probabile cuilibet illarum gentium et familiarum propriam et differentem ab aliis assignatam esse linguam. Hac enim ratione efficiebatur ut, qui unius erant gentis, cum propter eiusdem linguae notitiam et usum inter se intelligerent, consociati invicem et ab aliis gentibus (quarum linguas minime intelligebant) dissociati ac disiuncti, diversa peterent ad habitandum terrarum loca; atque ita totus orbis terrarum (quod intendebat Deus) habitatoribus atque cultoribus compleretur. Si cuique autem genti ac familiae sua propria et ab aliis diversa contigit lingua, hic bene concluditur quot erant eo tempore et illo in loco gentes diversae, totidem illis esse inditas linguas.

This too can be held for certain: that there were not as many tongues as there were men in that multitude, nor were single tongues attributed to single men; for that would have been most inconvenient, and plainly contrary to God's counsel and purpose (as we disputed a little above). But it is nevertheless nearly certain and very probable that to each of those nations and families a proper tongue, different from the others, was assigned. For by this means it was brought about that those who were of one nation, since on account of the knowledge and use of the same tongue they understood one another, associated together and dissociated and disjoined from the other nations (whose tongues they did not understand), should seek diverse places of the earth to dwell in; and thus the whole world (which God intended) might be filled with inhabitants and cultivators. And if to each nation and family its own tongue, diverse from the others, befell, here it is well concluded that as many diverse nations as there were at that time and in that place, just so many tongues were given to them.³

AT enim vero gentes illas certo aliquo numero definire difficillimum est. Nam quod proditum est a multis fuisse eas septuaginta duas gentes, non modo certum non est, verum etiam non parum ab historia Mosis discrepare videtur. Aiunt illi Mosem in decimo capite huius libri commemorasse in posteritate Iaphet quindecim gentes, in stirpe Cham unam et triginta, in progenie Sem viginti sex; e quibus omnibus numerus ille septuaginta duarum gentium exsistit. Sed hoc refelli potest dupliciter. Nam codices Graeci, praesertim qui Romae nuper quam emendatissimi prodierunt, in posteritate Sem numerant viginti octo gentes; ex quo fieret ut gentes de tribus illis Noë filiis ortae fuissent tunc septuaginta quatuor. Deinde, licet Graeci libri et B. Augustinus numerent octo filios Iaphet, attamen lectio Hebraica et Chaldaica, necnon et Latina nostrae editionis vulgatae, septem tantum recenset: nam octavum illum filium Elisa, quem addit Graeca translatio, nec Hebraici nec Latini codices habent; hos enim tantum septem faciunt filios Iaphet: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Iavan, Thubal, Mosoch, Thiras. Si autem posteri Iaphet fuerunt duntaxat quatuordecim, necesse est gentes illas fuisse duntaxat unam et septuaginta. Quinimo fuerunt tantum septuaginta: namque Heber et Phaleg, qui in enumeratione illarum gentium distincte ac separate memorantur, pro una tantum gente ac lingua haberi debent; neque enim illi diversas fecere gentes, nec differentes linguas habuerunt, idque Beatus Augustinus acute vidit, et libro 16 de Civitate Dei capite 11 recte nos admonuit.

But indeed to define those nations by some certain number is most difficult. For what was handed down by many — that they were seventy-two nations — is not only not certain, but even seems to disagree not a little with Moses's history. They say that Moses, in the tenth chapter of this book, recorded in the posterity of Japheth fifteen nations, in the stock of Cham thirty-one, in the progeny of Sem twenty-six; from all of which arises that number of seventy-two nations. But this can be refuted in two ways. For the Greek codices, especially those which lately came forth at Rome most corrected, number in the posterity of Sem twenty-eight nations; from which it would come about that the nations sprung from those three sons of Noah were then seventy-four. Next, although the Greek books and Blessed Augustine number eight sons of Japheth, yet the Hebrew and Chaldaic reading, and also the Latin of our Vulgate edition, reckons only seven: for that eighth son, Elisa, which the Greek translation adds, neither the Hebrew nor the Latin codices have; for these make only seven sons of Japheth — Gomer, Magog, Madai, Iavan, Thubal, Mosoch, Thiras. And if the descendants of Japheth were only fourteen, the nations must have been only seventy-one. Nay rather, they were only seventy: for Heber and Phaleg, who in the enumeration of those nations are recorded distinctly and separately, ought to be held as only one nation and tongue; for they neither made diverse nations nor had different tongues — which Blessed Augustine acutely saw, and in book 16 of the City of God, chapter 11, rightly admonished us.⁴

EX hoc praeterea septuagenario gentium numero demere oportet eos quorum posteri, in describenda progenie trium filiorum Noë, commemorantur a Mose. Hi autem in posteritate quidem Iaphet duo sunt, Gomer et Iavan; in stirpe autem Cham sunt quatuor, Chus, Mezraim et Chanaan et Regma; denique in progenie Sem sunt item quatuor, Arphaxad, Aram, Heber, Iectan. Hi omnes sunt decem, quibus detractis de illo numero septuagenario, relinquentur…

From this seventy-fold number of nations, moreover, one ought to remove those whose descendants, in the description of the progeny of the three sons of Noah, are mentioned by Moses. These, in the posterity of Japheth, are two — Gomer and Iavan; in the stock of Cham, four — Chus, Mezraim, Chanaan, and Regma; finally in the progeny of Sem, four likewise — Arphaxad, Aram, Heber, Iectan. These all are ten, which being subtracted from that seventy-fold number, there will remain…⁵

…tantum sexaginta. Esse autem illos quos dixi removendos e numero gentium quas recenset Moses, patet dupliciter: tum quod parentes non possunt per se ac separatim a suis posteris gentem ullam facere (neque enim faciunt ipsi gentem aliquam nisi per aliquem suorum filiorum; eaedem igitur gentes sunt patrum atque filiorum); tum etiam quia, si isti separatim et distincte a posteris suis numerandi sunt, ergo similiter Noë ac tres filii eius, Sem, Cham et Iaphet, separatim a suis posteris essent commemorandi, et diversas ab illis gentes fecisse eos dicendum esset: hoc si admittant isti, non iam duas et septuaginta, verum septuaginta sex linguas distinguere cogentur.

…only sixty. And that those whom I said are to be removed from the number of nations which Moses reviews is clear in two ways: both because parents cannot by themselves and separately from their descendants make any nation (for they do not make any nation except through one of their sons; the nations of the fathers and of the sons, therefore, are the same); and also because, if these are to be numbered separately and distinctly from their descendants, then similarly Noah and his three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth, would have to be mentioned separately from their descendants, and it would have to be said that they made nations diverse from them: which if these men admit, they will be compelled to distinguish not seventy-two but seventy-six tongues.⁶

IAM vero de personis illis quarum posteri, in exponenda progenie trium filiorum Noë, nulli a Mose recensentur, magna exsistit quaestio. Sunt autem isti in progenie Iaphet quinque, in Cham duo, in Sem quatuor. Quaeritur igitur utrum isti gentem aliquam ab aliis fecerint diversam necne. Si enim nullam gentem fecerunt diversam ab aliis (id quod videtur similius vero), ergo removendi sunt illi a numero gentium et familiarum; et cum illi decem fuerint, his detractis, numerus ille septuaginta duarum gentium quem supra restrinximus ad sexaginta magis etiam contrahendus erit, et ad quinquaginta redigendus. Sin autem personae illae gentem aliquam diversam ab aliis reliquerunt: primum quaero cur eam gentem Moses non memoraverit sicut aliorum (namque eadem ratio poscebat ut huius gentis similiter atque aliarum mentio et commemoratio fieret); deinde quaero utrum unam gentem fecerint an plures una? Nam cum nulla gens eorum tradatur a Mose, quicquid dicetur incertum erit et gratis dictum.

Now indeed concerning those persons whose descendants are reviewed by Moses not at all, in the setting forth of the progeny of the three sons of Noah, a great question arises. These are, in the progeny of Japheth, five; in Cham, two; in Sem, four. It is asked, therefore, whether these made any nation diverse from the others or not. For if they made no nation diverse from the others (which seems more like the truth), then they are to be removed from the number of nations and families; and since they were ten, these being subtracted, that number of seventy-two nations which we restricted above to sixty must be still more contracted, and reduced to fifty. But if those persons left some nation diverse from the others: first I ask why Moses did not mention that nation as he did the others (for the same reason demanded that mention of this nation be made similarly to the others); next I ask whether they made one nation or more than one? For since no nation of theirs is handed down by Moses, whatever is said will be uncertain and said gratuitously.⁷

VIDESNE igitur quam levi et infirmo illa de septuaginta duabus linguis sententia fulciatur et nitatur fundamento? Quanquam reor equidem in sententia Patrum qui id tradiderunt duo esse observanda et distinguenda. Alterum, quod illi, ex historia Mosis elicientes, ut certum dixerunt quot erant tunc gentes et familiae hominum, tot fuisse eis tributas linguas; alterum, quod, ut celebratum ab Hebraeis et vulgo iactatum etiam inter Christianos, non tanquam certum sed tanquam pervulgatum prodiderunt fuisse septuaginta duas gentes totidemque respondentes eis linguas. Namque hoc illi, si ad examen revocare et resecare ad vivum (ut nos fecimus) voluissent, haud dubie rem esse valde dubiam et incertam et ferme incomprehensibilem agnovissent.

Do you see, then, on how slight and weak a foundation that opinion about the seventy-two tongues is propped and rests? Although I for my part think that in the opinion of the Fathers who handed it down two things are to be observed and distinguished. The one, that they, drawing from Moses's history, said as certain that as many nations and families of men as there then were, just so many tongues were attributed to them; the other, that — as a thing celebrated by the Hebrews and commonly bandied about even among Christians — they set forth, not as certain but as widespread, that there were seventy-two nations and just as many corresponding tongues. For if they had wished to recall this to examination and to cut it to the quick (as we have done), they would doubtless have recognized the matter to be very doubtful and uncertain and almost incomprehensible.⁸

DUAE praeterea res in obscuro et incerto positae notitiam nostram latent. Altera est utrum aliqua de illis linguis processu temporis omnino perierit, deleta scilicet gente cuius illa erat propria lingua, vel per clades bellicas vel per generalem pestilentiam aliosve exitiales morbos. Namque interiisse penitus nonnullas gentes docet Plinius his verbis scribens: „Ex Asia interiisse gentes tradit Eratosthenes, Solymorum, Lelegum, Bebrycum, Colycantiorum, Trepsedorum.“ Isidorus, Arimos et Capretas, ubi sit Apamia condita a Seleuco rege.

Two things, moreover, set in obscurity and uncertainty, lie hidden from our knowledge. The one is whether any of those tongues, in process of time, has wholly perished — the nation, namely, being destroyed whose proper tongue it was — whether by the calamities of war or by general pestilence or other deadly diseases. For that some nations have utterly perished Pliny teaches, writing in these words: „Eratosthenes hands down that nations have perished out of Asia: the Solymi, the Leleges, the Bebryces, the Colycantii, the Trepsedi.“ Isidore [adds] the Arimi and Capretae, where Apamia was founded by king Seleucus.⁹

ALTERA res aeque dubia et incerta est, utrum linguae illae fuerint matrices aliarum omnium linguarum quaecunque post id temporis ad hanc usque diem in hominibus fuerunt: ita ut quae nunc sunt, et quae superioribus retro seculis usque ad illud tempus fuere unquam, vel illae ipsae linguae fuerint, vel certe ab illis ortae aut oriundae; an potius multae aliae diversis seculis institutae sint linguae ab illis omnino diversae, nec originem inde aliquo modo ducentes. Altercationem autem Iulii Scaligeri cum Cardano, de origine causisque tam multiplicis linguarum varietatis, non sine voluptate animi in eorum libris videbit lector.

The other matter, equally doubtful and uncertain, is whether those tongues were the mothers of all the other tongues whatsoever that have been among men from that time to this day: so that the tongues which now are, and those which in the foregoing ages back to that time ever were, are either those very tongues, or at least sprung or derived from them; or rather whether many other tongues, instituted in diverse ages, are wholly diverse from those and in no way drawing their origin from them. And the dispute of Julius Scaliger with Cardano, about the origin and causes of so manifold a variety of tongues, the reader will see, not without pleasure of mind, in their books.¹⁰

NONNIHIL etiam hoc loco dicendum est de eo quod Epiphanius et Suidas annotarunt, homines quasi quodam insigni epitheto a priscis illis poetis (ut Homero et Hesiodo) appellatos esse Meropes, id est habentes divisam vocem. Tripliciter enim eam appellationem interpretari licet. Primo, ut propterea dictus sit homo Merops quia solus omnium animalium habet et partitam et distinctam et quasi articulatam vocem, id est distincte expressam ac formatam et sensuum animi distincte significatricem; unde sermo et oratio propria hominis effingitur. Sic autem vim et notionem eius vocis interpretatus est Scholiastes Homeri libro primo Iliados. Deinde potest etiam intelligi voce illa Merops significari diversitatem linguarum quae inter homines sunt, primo propter superbiam et impietatem aedificatorum turris Babel a Deo invectam: ut Ethnici poetae eam vocem hauserint vel ex Mosis scriptorum lectione, vel ex antiqua fama et traditione; et in hac sententia fuisse apparet Epiphanium et Suidam.

Something, too, must be said in this place about what Epiphanius and Suidas noted: that men, as by a certain notable epithet, were called by those ancient poets (such as Homer and Hesiod) ‘Meropes,’ that is, having a divided voice. For that appellation may be interpreted in three ways. First, that man is called Merops because he alone of all animals has a voice both parted and distinct and as it were articulate — that is, distinctly expressed and formed, and distinctly signifying the senses of the mind; whence the speech and discourse proper to man is fashioned. So the Scholiast of Homer, in the first book of the Iliad, interpreted the force and notion of that word. Next, it can also be understood that by that word Merops is signified the diversity of tongues which is among men, first introduced by God on account of the pride and impiety of the builders of the tower of Babel: so that the pagan poets drew that word either from the reading of Moses's writings, or from ancient report and tradition; and it appears that Epiphanius and Suidas were of this opinion.¹¹

ILLUD praeterea existimari potest, homines dictos esse Meropes quia divisam habent vocem, id est quia unusquisque hominum habet proprium vocis sonum et modum pronuntiandi, ut in tanta hominum multitudine ne duos quidem, indiscreto vocis sono, reperire liceat: quod etiam in ore ac facie similiter observatur. Quapropter duo haec, ut magna naturae miracula, mirabundus praedicat Plinius: „Parvum dictu,“ ait, „sed immensum aestimatione: tot gentium sermones, tot linguae, tanta loquendi varietas, ut externus alieno paene non sit hominis vice. Iam in facie vultuque nostro, cum sint decem aut paulo plura membra, nullas duas in tot millibus hominum indiscretas effigies exsistere: quod ars nulla in paucis numero praestet affectando.“

It can, moreover, be thought that men are called ‘Meropes’ because they have a divided voice — that is, because each of men has his own sound of voice and manner of pronouncing, so that in so great a multitude of men not even two can be found with an indistinguishable sound of voice: which is similarly observed also in the mouth and face. Wherefore Pliny, marveling, proclaims these two as great miracles of nature: „Small to tell,“ he says, „but immense in estimation: so many speeches of nations, so many tongues, so great a variety of speaking, that to one man another is almost not in the place of a man. Again, in our face and countenance, although there are ten or a little more members, no two indistinguishable likenesses exist among so many thousands of men: which no art could achieve by striving, in a few in number.“¹²

SED Explanationi primae partis capitis undecimi, in qua versati adhuc sumus et multas de aedificatione turris Babel et confusione ac divisione linguarum disputationes tractavimus, finem denique imponemus, adiecta tantum cuiusdam Ethnicorum calumniae adversus historiam Mosis de divisione linguarum confutatione. Hanc ego calumniam, praeter unum Philonem qui commemoret, alium reperi neminem. Eam igitur exponam ipse ac refellam, prout a Philone narratur. Aiebant illi quod scripsit Moses (cum una esset omnium hominum lingua, eam repente confusam esse atque in varias linguas multiplicatam) non esse historiam nec veram gestarum rerum narrationem; esset enim id prorsus incredibile; sed esse commentum eius, ad similitudinem poeticarum fabularum ab eo confictum: simillimum quippe eius quod narrat Moses, de una omnium animalium lingua, a fabularum scriptoribus est proditum. Narratur enim olim animantium omnium eandem fuisse vocem, et quemadmodum homines inter se sermonis habent commercium, sic illas de suis rebus invicem agitasse sermones; ita ut de communibus vel privatis tam bonis quam malis invicem et condolerent et gratularentur, quasi in una republica versantes. Verum lascivientes prae bonorum praesentium copia, ut saepe fieri solet, ultra decorum proruperunt, per legatos a diis immortalitatem, a senectute immunitatem perpetuamque iuventam sibi petentes: aequum se postulare dicentes, quando id iam uni ex eorum numero (et multis sane ignobiliori), serpenti, contigisset — hunc enim, exuta senectute, denuo repubescere. Hanc eorum audaciam merita mox poena secuta est. Nam confestim ita eorum lingua variata et confusa est ut non possent se invicem intelligere propter diversitatem vocum, in quas, quae prius omnium communis fuerat lingua, divisa est. Talis videtur narratio Mosis.

But to the Explanation of the first part of the eleventh chapter — in which we have been engaged so far, and have treated many disputations about the building of the tower of Babel and the confusion and division of tongues — we shall at last put an end, only adding the refutation of a certain calumny of the pagans against Moses's history of the division of tongues. This calumny, besides Philo alone who records it, I have found no other [to mention]. I shall therefore set it forth myself and refute it, as it is narrated by Philo. They said that what Moses wrote (that, when there was one tongue of all men, it was suddenly confounded and multiplied into various tongues) is not history nor a true narration of things done — for that would be utterly incredible — but is a fiction of his, devised after the likeness of poetic fables: for [it is] very like what was handed down by the writers of fables about one tongue of all animals. For it is narrated that of old all living things had the same voice, and that, just as men have an intercourse of speech among themselves, so those carried on speeches with one another about their affairs — so that about common or private goods and ills alike they both condoled and congratulated one another, as if dwelling in one commonwealth. But, growing wanton through the abundance of present goods (as often happens), they broke out beyond decorum, seeking from the gods, by envoys, immortality, exemption from old age, and perpetual youth — saying that they asked what was fair, since this had now befallen one of their number (and one far baser than many), the serpent, who, his old age sloughed off, grew young again. A deserved punishment soon followed this their audacity. For at once their tongue was so varied and confounded that they could not understand one another, on account of the diversity of voices into which the tongue, before common to all, was divided. Such, [they say,] seems the narration of Moses.¹³

QUOD si dicas (aiebant illi) aliud esse animalia loqui inter se (hoc enim, cum sit contra naturam eorum, fabulosum esse atque incredibile manifestum est), et aliud esse omnium hominum qui illo saeculo erant unam fuisse linguam (id enim nihil habet absurdum et incredibile): contra instabant illi esse illud incredibile, repente homines illos oblitos esse linguae quam prius noverant et qua usque ad id temporis usi fuerant, et subito novis et antea ignotis linguis esse locutos. Nam quod dicunt confusionem linguae accidisse in poenam simul et remedium peccati eorum hominum, quam sit futile vel ex eo apparet, quod post divisam linguam deductasque in tot diversa terrarum loca tot gentium colonias, nihilominus terrae ac maria innumeris sceleribus et malis completa sunt. Non enim unitas linguae, sed proclivitas naturae hominum ad peccandum, flagitiorum causa est. Siquidem etiam lingua mutilati, nutibus, aspectibus aliisque corporis motibus non minus quam verbis prolatis improbam voluntatem suam significant. Huc accedit quod saepe una gens, non eadem tantum lingua verum etiam eisdem utens legibus ac moribus, ad tantam procedit malitiam ut peccatis conferri possit cum reliquis omnibus hominibus. Quid quod unitas linguae maximorum bonorum causa esse solet? Sine hac enim nec quisquam hominum ab alio homine doceri nec adiuvari, nec ulla inter homines amicitia conciliari, nec ulla societas hominum stare aut coalescere posset. Cur…

But if you say (they said) that it is one thing for animals to speak among themselves (for this, since it is against their nature, is manifestly fabulous and incredible), and another that all the men who were in that age had one tongue (for this has nothing absurd and incredible): against this they insisted that it was incredible that those men suddenly forgot the tongue which they had before known and which they had used up to that time, and suddenly spoke with new and previously unknown tongues. For as to their saying that the confusion of tongue happened as at once a punishment and a remedy of those men's sin, how futile it is appears even from this: that after the tongue was divided and so many colonies of so many nations were led off into so many diverse places of the earth, the lands and seas were nonetheless filled with innumerable crimes and evils. For not the unity of tongue, but the proclivity of men's nature to sinning, is the cause of disgraceful deeds. For even those mutilated of tongue [the dumb] signify their wicked will no less by nods, looks, and other motions of the body than by words uttered. To this is added that often one nation, using not only the same tongue but also the same laws and manners, advances to such malice that in sins it can be compared with all the rest of men. What of the fact that the unity of tongue is wont to be the cause of the greatest goods? For without it no man could be taught or helped by another man, nor any friendship be procured among men, nor any society of men stand or coalesce. Why…¹⁴

…igitur, quasi malorum causa esset lingua communis, adempta ea est hominibus, quae, ut perquam utilis humano generi, confirmari potius debuerat? Haec isti adversus historiam Mosis cavillabantur.

…then, as if the common tongue were the cause of evils, was it taken from men — which, as exceedingly useful to the human race, ought rather to have been confirmed? These things they cavilled against Moses's history.¹⁵

PHILO autem, praeter fores (ut dicere solet Aristoteles) occurrens huic calumniae, omisso vero (id est historico) Mosaicae narrationis intellectu, confert se ad Allegorias, quasi vero quae scripsit Moses de divisione ac confusione linguarum, ea nisi allegorice interpretata aliter vera esse nec a calumniis vindicari possint. Sed Philonem ipsum loquentem audiamus. „Has,“ inquit Philo, „malitiosorum hominum cavillationes seorsum redarguent, quibus promptum est ad tales quaestiones ex aperta legum scriptura sine contentione respondere: qui non sophismatibus repellunt sophismata, sed sequuntur veritatis seriem nusquam sinentem offendere et impedimenta facile dimoventem, ut veritatis sermo ex his possit evadere. Dicimus igitur istis: verbis ‘Erat universa terra labium unum, vox una’ significari magnorum malorum consonantiam, quibus civitates a civitatibus, gentes a gentibus, regiones a regionibus vicissim impetuntur; et quibus homines non tantum iniusti sunt adversus homines, verum etiam in Deum impii.“

But Philo, meeting this calumny ‘at the door’ (as Aristotle is wont to say), the true (that is, the historical) understanding of the Mosaic narration being omitted, betakes himself to Allegories — as if indeed what Moses wrote about the division and confusion of tongues could not be true otherwise, nor be vindicated from calumnies, unless interpreted allegorically. But let us hear Philo himself speaking. „These cavils of malicious men,“ says Philo, „those will separately refute who are ready to answer such questions from the open Scripture of the laws without contention: who do not repel sophisms by sophisms, but follow the series of truth, which nowhere lets [one] stumble and easily removes obstacles, that the discourse of truth may escape from these. We say, then, to these men: by the words ‘The whole earth was one lip, one voice’ is signified the consonance of great evils, by which cities are assailed by cities, nations by nations, regions by regions in turn; and by which men are not only unjust against men, but even impious toward God.“¹⁶

„CUMQUE tres sint animae nostrae partes — Mens, Cupiditas, Ira — et mentis quidem vitia (tanquam morbi) sint Imprudentia, Error, Malitia; Cupiditatis, effusa voluptatum et libidinum intemperantia; Irae, furiosi et rabidi ad nocendum impetus et conatus: si tres hae partes animae nostrae, suis quaeque vitiis instructae, ad male agendum conspirent atque concurrant, supremum homini exitium afferent. Tunc enim, tanquam in navi, nautis, vectoribus et gubernatoribus in eius perniciem per dementiam consonantibus, etiam qui perdunt una pereunt. Gravissimum enim malorum est, et paene solum insanabile, omnium animae partium ad peccandum consensus: cum, tanquam in publica pestilentia, nihil sani sit reliquum quod aegrotis mederi possit; sed et medici una cum vulgo laborant, eadem qua ceteri lue correpti.“ Haec Philo.

„And since there are three parts of our soul — Mind, Desire, Anger — and the vices of the Mind (as it were diseases) are Imprudence, Error, Malice; of Desire, the unbridled intemperance of pleasures and lusts; of Anger, the furious and rabid impulses and endeavors to harm: if these three parts of our soul, each furnished with its own vices, conspire and concur to do evil, they will bring the utmost destruction on man. For then, as in a ship, when the sailors, passengers, and helmsmen consonant through madness toward its ruin, even those who destroy perish along with it. For the gravest of evils, and almost the only incurable one, is the consent of all the parts of the soul to sinning: when, as in a public pestilence, nothing sound is left that can heal the sick; but the physicians too labor along with the common people, seized by the same plague as the rest.“ So Philo.¹⁷

VERUM nobis, ad propulsandam eam calumniam, allegoriarum perfugio non est opus. Tria itaque breviter dicemus, ex quibus quam ea calumnia inanis et plane nugatoria sit liquido intelligetur. Principio, nemini videri debet incredibile omnium eorum hominum qui primo illo post diluvium saeculo fuerunt unam fuisse linguam. Cur enim magis id videatur incredibile quam omnium, exempli gratia, Germanorum (quae amplissima natio est) unam esse linguam? Praesertim autem cum omnes illi homines progeniti essent ex tribus tantum filiis Noë, et hi viverent eo tempore atque illo in loco et inter illos homines versarentur.

But for us, to repel that calumny, there is no need of the refuge of allegories. We shall therefore say three things briefly, from which how empty and plainly trifling that calumny is will be clearly understood. First, it ought to seem incredible to no one that all those men who were in that first age after the flood had one tongue. For why should that seem more incredible than that all the Germans, for example (which is a most ample nation), have one tongue? Especially since all those men were begotten of only three sons of Noah, and these were living at that time and dwelt in that place and among those men.¹⁸

DEINDE repentinam prioris linguae oblivionem et subitam aliarum linguarum cognitionem atque usum non ex causis naturalibus contigisse illis hominibus, nec hominum voluntate, industria ac potestate accidisse dicimus, sed unius Dei (cui nihil difficile est) voluntate ac potentia, simulque Angelorum Dei iussa exsequentium ministerio. Si quis autem ne a Deo quidem ipso id fieri potuisse censet, omnemque divinis miraculis fidem abrogat, is tanquam extremae impietatis ac dementiae dimittendus est, nec tam refellendus argumentis quam meritis plectendus suppliciis.

Next, we say that the sudden oblivion of the former tongue, and the sudden knowledge and use of the other tongues, befell those men not from natural causes, nor happened by men's will, industry, and power, but by the will and power of the one God (to whom nothing is difficult), and at the same time by the ministry of the Angels of God executing His commands. But if anyone judges that this could not be done even by God Himself, and abrogates all faith in divine miracles, he is to be dismissed as of utter impiety and madness, and not so much to be refuted by arguments as to be punished with deserved penalties.¹⁹

ILLUD quoque tertio loco adiicimus, non inficiari nos linguae unitatem saepe utilem esse hominibus, contra vero diversitatem inutilem et damnosam esse. Affirmamus tamen unitatem linguae fuisse hominibus illis perniciosam. Siquidem propter unitatem linguae conspirarunt omnes in aedificationem eius civitatis et turris contra Dei voluntatem, et inibi una in societate simul omnes manere deliberaverunt; quod erat tamen contra publicum et humani generis et orbis terrae bonum. Sublato igitur unius linguae usu tantaque inducta linguarum varietate ut inter se illi non intelligerent, factum est ut et inceptum opus desererent et invicem dissociati diversas mundi partes peterent ad habitandum. Ergo illo tempore et loco et apud illos homines unius linguae confusio et divisio et iusta fuit superbiae atque impietatis eorum poena, et ingens humano generi ac terrarum orbi emolumentum atque ornamentum attulit.

This too we add in the third place: that we do not deny that the unity of tongue is often useful to men, but, on the contrary, that the diversity is useless and harmful. We affirm, nevertheless, that the unity of tongue was pernicious to those men. For, on account of the unity of tongue, all conspired in the building of that city and tower against God's will, and deliberated to remain all together there in one society — which was, however, against the public good both of the human race and of the world. The use of the one tongue being therefore taken away, and so great a variety of tongues introduced that they did not understand one another, it came about both that they deserted the begun work and that, dissociated from one another, they sought diverse parts of the world to dwell in. Therefore at that time and place and among those men the confusion and division of the one tongue was both a just punishment of their pride and impiety, and brought an immense benefit and adornment to the human race and the world.²⁰

Translator’s notes

Section heading: Pererius's own view on the number of tongues (within Disputation 10). ↩
§146. Pererius's own view: he will not lightly abandon so ancient and well-attested an opinion, but will state what is certain or uncertain. Certain: many various tongues then arose — proved twice from Moses (the ‘lip of the whole earth confounded’ = the great variety of new tongues; and ‘none understood his neighbor’). Margins: not single men had single tongues; single nations and families had their proper tongues. ↩
§147. Also certain: not a tongue per man (most inconvenient, against God's purpose, as shown), but very probably a proper tongue per nation/family — so each nation, understanding its own, gathered together and split from others, seeking diverse lands (God's aim to fill the earth). So there were as many tongues as there were then diverse nations in that place. ↩
§148. But fixing the number of nations is very hard. The ‘72’ is uncertain and seems to clash with Moses. The reckoning (15 Japheth + 31 Cham + 26 Sem) is refuted twice: (1) the corrected Greek codices (lately at Rome) give 28 for Sem → 74 total; (2) the Greek and Augustine give 8 sons of Japheth, but Hebrew/Chaldaic/Vulgate only 7 (omitting the added ‘Elisa’: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Iavan, Thubal, Mosoch, Thiras) → only 71; indeed only 70, since Heber and Phaleg (listed distinctly) made no separate nation or tongue (Augustine, City of God 16.11). Margins: whether there were 72 nations at the building of Babel; Augustine. ↩
§149. From the 70, one must also remove those whose own descendants Moses names (since a parent makes no nation apart from his sons): Japheth's 2 (Gomer, Iavan), Cham's 4 (Chus, Mezraim, Chanaan, Regma), Sem's 4 (Arphaxad, Aram, Heber, Iectan) = 10; subtracted, there remain… (continues p. 530). ↩
§149 (concl.). …only sixty. They are rightly removed: parents make no nation apart from their sons (the nations of fathers and sons are the same); and if they were counted separately, then Noah and his three sons too should be — yielding not 72 but 76 tongues. ↩
§150. A further great question: of those whose descendants Moses does NOT name (Japheth 5, Cham 2, Sem 4 = 10) — did they make distinct nations? If not (more likely), remove them too: 60 → 50. If yes, why did Moses not name them as he did the others? and did each make one nation or more? Since Moses records none, any answer is uncertain and gratuitous. ↩
§151. So the ‘72’ rests on a weak foundation. Two things to distinguish in the Fathers: (1) they rightly said, as certain (from Moses), that there were as many tongues as nations; (2) but the specific ‘72 nations and tongues’ they reported not as certain but as a widespread, Hebrew-celebrated commonplace — had they examined it closely (as Pererius has), they would have found it very doubtful and almost incomprehensible. ↩
§152. Two further obscure matters. First: whether any of those tongues perished outright with its nation, through war, plague, or disease. Some nations have utterly perished — Pliny (bk. 5 ch. 30, from Eratosthenes): the Solymi, Leleges, Bebryces, Colycantii, Trepsedi; Isidore adds the Arimi and Capretae (where Seleucus founded Apamia). Margins: whether any of those tongues perished; Pliny bk. 5 ch. 30. ↩
§153. Second obscure matter: whether those tongues were the mothers of all later tongues (so that all present and past tongues either are those or derive from them), or whether many wholly new tongues arose in later ages. The reader may pleasantly consult the dispute of Julius Scaliger with Cardano on the origin and causes of this variety. Margins: whether those tongues were the mothers of all tongues; Cardano, On Subtlety bk. 12 / On the Variety of Things bk. 17 ch. 93; Julius Scaliger against Cardano, Exercise 259. ↩
§154. On the name ‘Meropes’ (Epiphanius, Suidas: men so called by the old poets, Homer and Hesiod — ‘having a divided voice’). Three interpretations: (1) man (Merops) alone has a parted, distinct, articulate voice signifying the mind (the Homer Scholiast, Iliad bk. 1); (2) it signifies the diversity of tongues introduced at Babel for the builders' pride — the pagan poets drawing the word from Moses or ancient tradition (so Epiphanius and Suidas). Margins: Epiphanius; Suidas (under ‘Saruch’); Homer; Hesiod; why men are called μέροπες; the Scholiast. ↩
§155. (3) Or men are called ‘Meropes’ because each has his own voice and pronunciation, so that in all the multitude not two have an indistinguishable voice — as with the face. Pliny marvels at these two natural wonders: ‘so many tongues that one man is almost not a man to another; and in the face, with ten-odd features, no two indistinguishable among thousands — which no art could match.’ ↩
§156. The first part of ch. 11 closes with a refutation of a pagan calumny against Moses's history (recorded only by Philo). The calumny: that Moses's story (one tongue suddenly confounded) is not history but a fiction like the poets' fable of all animals once having one speech — they conversed as in one commonwealth, but, grown wanton, sent envoys asking the gods for immortality and perpetual youth (since the serpent renews itself by sloughing), and were punished with a confusion of voices. So, they say, is Moses's tale. Margins: a pagan calumny against this history of Moses on the division of tongues; a fable of one tongue of all animals. ↩
§157. The calumny continued: granting one human tongue is credible (unlike talking animals), it is incredible that men suddenly forgot it and spoke new tongues. And the ‘punishment-and-remedy’ claim is futile, since after the dispersion the world was still full of crimes — for not unity of tongue but man's proclivity to sin causes wickedness (even the dumb signify evil by gestures; one same-tongued, same-lawed nation can rival all others in sin). Besides, unity of tongue is the cause of the greatest goods (without it no teaching, help, friendship, or society) — why then… (continues p. 533). ↩
§157 (concl.). …why then was the common tongue taken away as if the cause of evils, when, being so useful, it ought rather to have been confirmed? Such were their cavils against Moses's history. ↩
§158. Philo meets the calumny ‘at the door’ (Aristotle's phrase) by abandoning the literal/historical sense for allegory — as if Moses could only be true and defended allegorically. Philo: some answer such cavils from the open text without sophistry, following truth's thread. He says: ‘The whole earth was one lip, one voice’ signifies the concord of great evils — by which cities, nations, regions assail one another, and men are unjust to men and impious to God. Margins: Aristotle; Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues; Gen 11. ↩
§159. Philo (cont.): the soul's three parts (Mind — with vices Imprudence, Error, Malice; Desire — intemperance of pleasures; Anger — rabid impulses to harm), if they conspire in evil, bring man's utter ruin — as in a ship whose crew madly conspire to wreck it, even the destroyers perish; the gravest, almost only incurable evil is all the soul's parts consenting to sin, as in a plague where even the physicians are stricken. ↩
§160. Pererius needs no allegory to repel the calumny; three brief points. First: that all men of the first post-flood age had one tongue is not incredible — no more than that all the Germans (a vast nation) have one tongue, especially since all sprang from only three sons of Noah, then living among them. Margin: the true repulse of the aforesaid calumny. ↩
§161. Second: the sudden forgetting of the first tongue and the sudden knowledge of the new ones came not from natural causes nor human power, but from the one God (to whom nothing is hard) and the ministry of His Angels executing His commands. Whoever thinks even God could not do this, denying all divine miracles, is to be dismissed as utterly impious and mad — punished, not refuted. ↩
§162. Third: granting that unity of tongue is often useful and diversity generally harmful, yet for THOSE men the unity was pernicious — by it all conspired to build against God and to stay together (against the world's good). So removing it and introducing variety made them abandon the work and disperse to dwell over the world. Thus, for that time and people, the confusion was both a just punishment of their pride and a great benefit and adornment to mankind and the world. (Ends the first part of Gen 11.) ↩