Ecclesiastes 1

This entire book is divided into three parts: into the title or proem and the treatise, which begins there: "Vanity of vanities" etc.; and the epilogue, which begins there: "And since Ecclesiastes was most wise."

In the title the efficient cause is made manifest, in the treatise the material and formal causes, in the epilogue the final cause.

In the title, therefore, the author is made manifest with respect to wisdom, with respect to goodness, and with respect to royal power.

By reason of wisdom he says: "The words of Ecclesiastes," supply: what follows are the words of Ecclesiastes; because Ecclesiastes means "preacher," and one cannot be a preacher unless he is wise, because it is said in Proverbs twenty-six: "As if a thorn should grow in the hand of a drunkard, so unfitting is a parable in the mouth of fools"; whence Proverbs seventeen: "Eloquent words do not befit a fool."

With respect to goodness it is made manifest when it says: "Son of David." For David was holy, and sons by imitation are holy; whence in Scripture it is a name of kindness and gentleness: Matthew fifteen: "Have mercy on me, Son of David."

With respect to royal power, when it says: "King of Jerusalem," because Jerusalem was the most noble city and the capital of the whole kingdom, below: "I, Ecclesiastes, was king of Israel in Jerusalem," because there he chiefly dwelt.

Here a question arises: since Solomon composed three books, why is it that he prefixes a title to the book of Proverbs and to this one, in which his name is expressed, but does not prefix one in the Song of Songs?

I respond: it must be said that in the book of Proverbs Solomon himself is introduced speaking as a wise man to a disciple, whence he calls his hearer "son": similarly here he is introduced as a man who has experienced various things; but in the Song of Songs it is the bride and bridegroom who speak. Lest therefore it should seem that they were the words of Solomon to his wife, but rather they are of Christ to the Church, he does not prefix his name there. But here, because he was for the most part speaking in his own person, and in the book of Proverbs, therefore he prefixes a title in which his name is specified and disclosed.

Likewise it is asked why in the book of Proverbs he says "parables," but here he says "words."

If you say that there he speaks parabolically and figuratively, but here openly: then I ask, why here and there he employs a different manner of proceeding.

I respond: it must be said that there is a certain mode of speaking that is proper and open, and another that is parabolic: and this latter is twofold: one through parables and open similitudes, another through hidden and profound ones. Since therefore Solomon in the book of Proverbs speaks to the little ones and the unlearned, he therefore speaks parabolically and openly: but since in Ecclesiastes he speaks to those who are advancing, therefore openly and properly: but in the Song of Songs, since he speaks to the perfect, whose food is solid food, therefore parabolically and hiddenly.

The question is: why in the title of Proverbs does he call himself by his own name, but here he calls himself Ecclesiastes?

I respond: it must be said that, as Jerome says, Solomon had three names, which indeed suited him according to the threefold scripture which he produced. For he was called Solomon, called Ecclesiastes, and Jedidiah. Solomon, the peaceful one, because he possessed the entire kingdom in peace: whence he also handed down the teaching of proverbs to all. Ecclesiastes, the preacher, because he speaks in the persons of various people. Jedidiah means the same as beloved of the Lord.

Therefore he calls himself Ecclesiastes, because in this book he brings forward the opinions of various persons and accordingly persuades in diverse ways. He was called Jedidiah in the title of the Psalm Eructavit, which is about him according to the literal sense.

Likewise it is asked: why here does he call himself "son of David" and "king of Jerusalem," but in Proverbs he calls himself "king of Israel"?

I respond: one reason is taken from the side of the author, because, according to what the Hebrews believe, this book was written by Solomon when he was doing penance and humbling himself. And therefore in Proverbs he does not name himself from another, but rather manifests the power of his entire kingdom: here however he humbles himself: therefore, naming himself from another, he indicates not the whole power but a part.

Another reason was from the side of the work, because in Proverbs he leads to the knowledge of things to be done, but here to the contempt of present things. And because very many are those who wish more to be wise than to despise present things: therefore there he calls himself king of Israel, but here king of Jerusalem, because despisers of the world are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, who do not have here an abiding city, but seek the future one.

And from this the solution to that question which can be raised is clear: why here he does not express the end, as in Proverbs. Because the end of Proverbs is wisdom, which attracts one to listen: the end of this book is contempt of the world, about which few wish to hear.

From these things it is clear why he said "words," why he said "Ecclesiastes," why "of the son of David," why "king of Jerusalem," and why he also did not add anything about the usefulness of the teaching of this book, as in Proverbs.

Concerning the efficient cause: it has been said that the efficient cause was Solomon. That it is not fitting, however, for such a person to be the author, appears from the following:

Because he was a sinner and carnal: but when a carnal man preaches spirituality, he causes scandal rather than edification: therefore this book is more apt to generate scandal than edification.

Likewise, in the Psalm it is said: "But to the sinner God said: Why do you declare my justices?" Therefore if Solomon was a sinner, then he was sinning by declaring the divine justice.

Furthermore, a good author produces credibility, whence the argument from authority has its force; therefore a bad author produces no credibility: but the books of Sacred Scripture are for generating faith.

To this it must be responded that, as Jerome says, according to the tradition of the Hebrews, this book was written by Solomon while doing penance: and because God does not reject the penitent, but rather accepts them, accordingly Solomon was not in a blameworthy state when he wrote this book.

It can also be responded otherwise, that the Holy Spirit speaks true and good things not only through the good, but indeed also through the wicked: whence the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "Do what they say, but do not do what they do": whence also through Balaam he prophesied most expressly, and so also through Solomon, even though carnal, he said many good things.

As to what is objected, therefore, that he was sinning: it must be responded that to him the gift of wisdom was entrusted most especially among all others: and because he was bound not to hide the talent of the Lord, he was obliged to teach the people of the Lord both by word and by writing, especially since he was appointed to their governance. Whence he was not sinning in this, that he taught, but in this, that he did not duly dispose himself.

As to what is objected, that the book is not to be believed, since the author is not worthy of credence: I respond: just as we believe the Prophets, that they spoke not of themselves but through the Holy Spirit: so also in all the books of Scripture, that they were produced at the dictation of the Holy Spirit: whence the goodness of the person does not contribute to greater or lesser credibility, presupposing that he spoke through the Spirit. And because it is established for us that Solomon was filled with the spirit of wisdom, as is clear from 3 Kings 3; therefore the Church without doubt receives his books.

Solomon, who here appears as Ecclesiastes, that is, who preaches what is appropriate for the church, is the son of David. He came after Saul, whose rule was destroyed and terminated. Solomon is son of this king David in two ways.… The first is according to nature and lineage; the second is according to his teaching. One has to understand Paul in this [second] way when he says, "For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." David thus was Solomon's father in both respects: according to nature—Solomon was his heir and "David begot Solomon"—but he was also his father in terms of instruction. David was wise as only few are—especially wise regarding God.…But Solomon also became wise in a way that few achieve: he became wise through the wisdom [he received] and through his human lineage. According to both ways Solomon thus was the son of David. But especially in terms of his words as Ecclesiastes is he the son of David, not so much according to nature as according to instruction. For the sons of the wise beget wise people, since they are wise themselves. But someone who is father of a son according to nature does not necessarily become a father again. Many were sons and did not become fathers. The sons according to the Spirit, however, become fathers themselves.

Question: [Are the] words of Ecclesiastes said by the author personally?Answer: Actually the Spirit is the author of the divinely inspired Scriptures. The Spirit inspires so that words are expressed, but the wise man is also involved. For the Spirit has not himself invisibly written the letter and put down the text, but he breathes it into the soul. Either the real author is Solomon, or some [other] wise men have written it. Maybe we should opt for the latter so that nobody may say that the speaker talks about himself.

The church is [the assembly] of pure souls. It is the true knowledge of the ages and worlds and about their judgment and provision. Ecclesiastes is Christ, the author of that knowledge. Or, Ecclesiastes is one who, having purified the soul by moral contemplation, leads his or her soul to the contemplation of the physical [world].

These words speaks Solomon, the son of David the king and prophet, to the whole Church of God, a prince most honoured, and a prophet most wise above all men. How vain and fruitless are the affairs of men, and all pursuits that occupy man! For there is not one who can tell of any profit attaching to those things which men who creep on earth strive by body and soul to attain to, in servitude all the while to what is transient, and undesirous of considering anything heavenly with the noble eye of the soul. And the life of men wears away, as day by day, and in the periods of hours and years, and the determinate courses of the sun, some are ever coming, and others passing away. And the matter is like the transit of torrents as they fall into the measureless deep of the sea with a mighty noise. And all things that have been constituted by God for the sake of men abide the same: as, for instance, I that man is born of earth, and departs to earth again; that the earth itself continues stable; that the sun accomplishes its circuit about it perfectly, and rolls round to the same mark again; and that the winds in like manner, and the mighty rivers which flow into the sea, and the breezes that beat upon it, all act without forcing it to pass beyond its limits, and without themselves also violating their appointed laws. And these things, indeed, as bearing upon the good of this life of ours, are established thus fittingly. But those things which are of men's devising, whether words or deeds, have no measure. And there is a plenteous multitude of words, but there is no profit from random and foolish talking. But the race of men is naturally insatiate in its thirst both for speaking and for hearing what is spoken; and it is man's habit, too, to desire to look with idle eyes on all that happens. What can occur afterwards, or what can be wrought by men which has not been done already? What new thing is there worthy of mention, of which there has never yet been experience? For I think there is nothing which one may call new, or which, on considering it, one shall discover to be strange or unknown to those of old. But as former things are buried in oblivion, so also things that are now subsistent will in the course of time vanish utterly from the knowledge of those who shall come after us. And I speak not these things unadvisedly, as acting now the preacher. But all these things were carefully pondered by me when entrusted with the kingdom of the Hebrews in Jerusalem. And I examined diligently, and considered discreetly, the nature of all that is on earth, and I perceived it to be most various; and I saw that to man it is given to labour upon earth, ever carried about by all different occasions of toil, and with no result of his work. And all things here below are full of the spirit of strangeness and abomination, so that it is not possible for one to retrieve them now; nay, rather it is not possible for one at all to conceive what utter vanity has taken possession of all human affairs. For once. on a time I communed with myself, and thought that then I was wiser in this than all that were before me, and I was expert in understanding parables and the natures of things. But I learned that I gave myself to such pursuits to no purpose, and that if wisdom follows knowledge, so troubles attend on wisdom.

Before us for exposition lies Ecclesiastes, which requires labor in spiritual interpretation quite as great as the benefit to be obtained. The thoughts of Proverbs [have] already prepared the mind by exercise.… Then for those who have developed to the more advanced stages of learning there comes the ascent toward this truly sublime and Godinspired work of Scripture [i.e., the book of Ecclesiastes]. If then the exercise in expressions [from the book of Proverbs] which prepares us for these lessons is so painful and difficult to understand, how great an effort must be envisaged in these lofty thoughts which now lie before us for interpretation?… Nevertheless, since it is also one of the Master's commands that we must search the Scriptures, there is an absolute necessity, even if our mind falls short of the truth, failing to match the greatness of the ideas, that we should still ensure by all the zeal for the Word of which we are capable that we do not appear to disregard the Lord's command. Let us therefore search the Scripture lying before us to the best of our ability. For surely he who has given the command to search the Scriptures will also give us the ability to do so, as it is written, "The Lord will give a word to those who preach good news with great power."

Now the teaching of this book looks exclusively to the conduct of the church and gives instruction in those things by which one would achieve the life of virtue. For the object of what is said here is to raise the mind above sensation, to persuade it to abandon all that seems to be great and splendid in the world of existence, to catch a glimpse through the eyes of the soul of those things which are unattainable by sense perception, and to conceive a desire for those things to which sense does not attain. Perhaps the title of the book also envisages the one who leads the church (ekkl&#;sia). For the true Ecclesiast [is] he who collects into one body what has been scattered and assembles (ekkl&#;siazon) into one whole those who have been led astray in many ways by various deceits. Who else would he be but the true King of Israel, the Son of God, to whom Nathanael said, "You are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel"? If therefore these are words of the King of Israel, and this same one is also the Son of God, as the gospel says, then the same one is called Ecclesiast (Assembler). Perhaps we may not unreasonably give this sense to the expression used in the title, so that we may learn by this that the meaning of these words has reference to him who established the church forever through the gospel message. Words, it says, of the Ecclesiast, the Son of David. And Matthew so names him at the beginning of his gospel, calling the Lord "Son of David."

[The book of] Ecclesiastes is offered for our examination because it is especially useful and valuable for contemplation. When [the book of] Proverbs has exercised our minds by its obscure words, wise sayings, riddles and various twists of words as contained in the introduction, we find an ascent for those persons who have advanced to more perfect lessons with regard to this lofty, divinely inspired book. If a toilsome, arduous meditation on Proverbs prepares us for these lessons, how much more laborious and difficult must it be to now examine such sublime matters proposed for our contemplation!… Since one of the divine precepts bids us to search the Scriptures, it is indeed necessary that once our minds have pursued the truth even though we failed to attain the nobility of its thoughts, we are not perceived as despising the Lord's command in our effort to discharge our duty worthily. Therefore let us examine the Scripture before us as best we can, for he [God] who has bidden us to search will bestow the power [to preach]. As it is written, "The Lord will give a word to those who preach it with much power."

The teaching of Ecclesiastes pertains only to suitable behavior in the church, that is, how to direct a person in virtue. This book aims to elevate our minds above the senses, to abandon great, brilliant and noble appearances, to transcend the senses and to attain what transcends them.Perhaps this inscription refers to the leader of the church [ekklēsia]. The true Ecclesiastes [ekklēsiastes, Christ] gathers into one assembly those persons who often have been scattered and frequently deceived. Who could he be except the true king of Israel to whom Nathaniel said, "You are the son of God and the king of Israel"? If these words pertain to the king of Israel, the Son of God, as the Gospel says, then he is called Ecclesiastes. We will not deviate from the inscription's meaning provided that we learn about him who firmly establishes the church through the Gospel and to whom these words apply. "The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David": thus Matthew begins his gospel with the name David and calls him Lord.

Solomon is here given the Greek name Ecclesiastes [Heb Qōhelet], for he gathers the assembly [qāhāl], that is, the church. But we can call him the Preacher because he speaks to the people and his word is directed not only to one person but to everyone.

"The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David, King in Jerusalem." The Scriptures state very clearly that Solomon was known by three names: 'Peace-making', that is 'Solomon'; 'Yedidia', that is 'beloved of Yahweh'; and the name used here 'Qoheleth', that is Ecclesiastes. He is called Ecclesiastes in Greek because he gathered together a crowd of people, "a congregation", which we can call a demagogue because he spoke to the people and his sermon was not addressed specifically to one man but more usually to all men. Moreover he is called 'peace-making' and 'beloved of Yahweh' because there was peace during his reign and the Lord loved him. For also Psalms 44, and 71, are known by titles connected with love and peace-making. Although these psalms pertain to Christ and the Church they exhibit Solomon's joy and strength, and according to tradition were composed concerning Solomon.

He also produced an equal number of titles to the three volumes: "Proverbs", "Ecclesiastes", and "Song of Songs". He teaches for children in "Proverbs" and gives instruction in the form of maxims almost with a sense of duty, and his sermons here are repeated continually to his son. In "Ecclesiastes" he teaches a man of mature age that he should not think anything in the world to be perpetual, but that all things that we perceive are in fact vain and fleeting. In "Song of Songs" he embraces an elderly man in the covenant, who has already been prepared in spurning his times. For unless we first abandon our moral failings and renounce the pomposity of our world, and prepare ourselves so we are ready for the arrival of Christ, we will not be able to say: "let him kiss me from the kiss of his mouth" [Cant. 1,1.]. Philosophers educate their followers in a manner similar to this type of instruction: first of all they teach ethics, then explain physics, and then anyone whom they see to excel in these first two they then go on to teach theology. Moreover even this should be examined more closely because Solomon is named differently in the three books. In "Proverbs" for example he is thus named: "The Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, King of Israel." [Prov. 1,1.] But in Ecclesiastes: "The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David, King of Jerusalem. "'Israel' in fact is unnecessary here because it is not found in the Greek or Latin manuscripts. But in "Song of Songs" he is neither named 'son of David', not 'King of Israel' or 'King of Jerusalem', but only as "The Song of Songs of Solomon". This is just as the Proverbs and the crude arrangement pertain to the twelve tribes and to the whole of Israel. And although the contempt of the world only comes to city-dwellers, these are the inhabitants of Jerusalem, therefore Solomon intends "Song of Songs" particularly for those who desire spiritual enlightenment. To those readers just embarking on their education paternal honour and the authority of the king are claimed in their own merit, but to those who have completed their learning, and in the case where the disciple has been enlightened not by fear, but by love, his own name suffices. Then, he is equal to his teacher and he is unaware that he is a king. This is the case here. But in a more spiritual understanding Solomon was peace making and beloved of the Lord God, and Ecclesiastes can be seen as our Christ too, who destroying the inner wall and expelling evil from his flesh, makes each of them one, saying - "I give you my peace, I relinquish my peace to you" [John 14, 27.], about which the Lord says to his disciples "This is my chosen son whom I love: listen to him" [Matt. 3, 17.], and that is he who is father of the Church. Speaking by no means to the Synagogue of the Jews but to the crowd of people the King of Jerusalem (that which was built out of the living rocks, not that about which he says "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill prophets" [Matth. 23, 37.], and "Look, let your empty house be left for us" [Matth. 23, 38.]), but that by which it is forbidden to swear because it is the city of a great king. This is the son of David, to whom the blind cried out in the Gospel: "pity us, son of David"; and the whole crowd sang out in unison: "Hosanna to the son of David". Then there is the fact that the word of God does not come to him as is the case with Jeremiah and the other prophets, but on account of his being rich, being a king, holding power, his wisdom and his other virtues, he speaks to the men of the church himself, and he speaks words to the apostles about which Psalm 18.5 tells us: "their sound went out to the whole world and their words went to the ends of the earth". Some scholars think wrongly, therefore, that we are tempted into desire and luxury by this book, when it teaches quite to the contrary: everything we perceive in the world is vain; nor is it fitting for us to seek those things eagerly which perish while we possess them.

But we can also investigate these things before we even come to the very body of the book, such as why Solomon, who seems to have served the will of the Holy Spirit in those three books is called in Proverbs "Solomon, the Son of David, who ruled in Israel," but in the second book "Solomon" is not written, but it reads, "the words of Ecclesiastes, the son of David, king of Israel in Jerusalem." To be sure he writes that he is "Son of David" just as in the first book and also "king of Israel." But there he wrote "Proverbs" but here "words" and called himself "Ecclesiastes," when he had called himself "Solomon" there. And although there he mentioned only the country over which he reigned, here he both mentioned the nation and designated the place of his kingdom as "Jerusalem." …I do not think that anyone can doubt that Solomon in rather many respects bears the type of Christ, either because he is named "Man of Peace" or because "the Queen of the South came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon." This is also the case because he is called "the son of David" and reigns in Israel and because he rules over those kings, on whose behalf he himself is called "king of kings." And again the true "Ecclesiastes" is that very one "who although he was in the form of God, humbled himself, taking on the form of a servant" in order to gather an ecclesial body, for Ecclesiastes is called from his gathering a congregation.… Therefore in the first book of Proverbs, when he sets us in moral disciplines, he is said to be "king in Israel" but not yet in Jerusalem because, although we are said to be Israel because of our faith, we nonetheless have not yet arrived to this point so that we seem to have come to the heavenly Jerusalem. But when we will have made progress and will have arrived there so that we will share in the church of the firstborn, which is in heaven, and we know from the ancient and natural reasons we have discussed that the heavenly Jerusalem is our heavenly mother, then already Christ himself will be made our "Ecclesiastes" and will be said to reign not only "in Israel" but also "in Jerusalem."

David, who had experienced those very glances which are dangerous for a man, aptly says that the person is blessed whose every hope is in the name of God. For such a one does not have regard to vanities and follies who always strives toward Christ and always looks upon Christ with his inner eyes. For this reason David turned to God again and said, "Turn away my eyes, that they may not see vanity." The circus is vanity, because it is totally without profit; horse racing is vanity, because it is counterfeit as regards salvation; the theater is vanity, every game is vanity. "All things are vanity!" as Ecclesiastes said, all things that are in this world. Accordingly, let the person who wishes to be saved ascend above the world, let him seek the Word who is with God, let him flee from this world and depart from the earth. For a man cannot comprehend that which exists and exists always, unless he has first fled from here.

By this perversity of the soul, due to sin and punishment, the whole corporeal creation becomes, as Solomon says: "Vanity of them that are vain, all is vanity. What advantage has man in all his labor which he does under the sun?" Not for nothing does he say, "of them that are vain," for if you take away vain persons who pursue that which is last as if it were first, matter will not be vanity but will show its own beauty in its own way, a low type of beauty, of course, but not deceptive. When man fell away from the unity of God the multitude of temporal forms was distributed among his carnal senses, and his sensibilities were multiplied by the changeful variety. So abundance became laborious, and his needs, if one may say so, became abundant, for he pursues one thing after another, and nothing remains permanently with him. So what with his corn and wine and oil, his needs are so multiplied that he cannot find the one thing needful, a single and unchangeable nature, seeking which he would not err and attaining which he would cease from grief and pain. For then he would have as a consequence the redemption of his body, which no longer would be corrupted. As it is, the corruption of the body burdens the soul, and its earthly habitation forces it to think of many things; for the humble beauty of material objects is hurried along in the order in which one thing succeeds another. The reason why corporeal beauty is the lowest beauty is that its parts cannot all exist simultaneously. Some things give place and others succeed them, and all together complete the number of temporal forms and make of them a single beauty.

Wisdom and love are the principal fruits. And that which is most opposed to them is vanity. For this reason, the Canticle speaks of a loving wisdom. No one, indeed, can say that the words of the Canticle are without wisdom and love, nor that they are not far removed from vanity. Wherefore before this book there comes Ecclesiastes where vanity is shown in these words: "Vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!" This proposition is true and is proved by the whole book. It is fitting, then, to pass over from all things into truth, so that there be no other pleasure than in God.

Again, civil war is the temptation of the world. Indeed, every creature is a trap. Hence the saying: Vanity of vanities! All things are vanity! What profit has man from all the labor which he toils at under the sun? Vain and worthless is anything of which nothing remains to man after death: wherefore all things are vanity. The Psalm reads: Turn away my eyes from seeing what is vain.

Here begins the treatise: and because "the end imposes necessity upon those things which are ordered to the end," since the end of this book is the contempt of all things and the fear of God alone, therefore in all things he intends to show vanity. And because he proceeds as a preacher by persuading and proving, therefore this treatise has three parts: because first he proposes what he intends to prove, namely that there is vanity in all things; second he proves it, there: "What more does man have from his labor," etc.; third he concludes it as proven near the end: "Vanity of vanities," etc.

He therefore proposes a threefold vanity in things, namely of penality, of iniquity, of mutability. As to the vanity of penality: "Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes," that is, he proposed. Concerning this, below in the second chapter: "All his days are full of labors, nor does his mind rest at night: and is this not vanity?" As to the vanity of iniquity he says again: "Vanity of vanities"; whence Jeremiah 10: "Their works are vain and worthy of ridicule: in the day of their visitation they shall perish."

As to the vanity of mutability he says: "and all is vanity," because all things are subject to mutability; Romans 8: "The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly"; and below in the third chapter: "All things are subject to vanity, and all go to one place." Therefore it is not a repetition of words when he says "vanity" three times, but a wondrous distinction of intelligible things.

And it should be noted that this threefold vanity follows in sequence, and one arises from another: because the vanity of iniquity arises from the vanity of mutability, although that is not the whole cause; but the vanity of penality arises from the vanity of iniquity. He therefore arranges these vanities in a reverse resolutory order, and pursues them in the opposite order in what follows. And because that twofold vanity has its origin from another vanity, but the third does not, therefore he says "vanity of vanities" twice, and afterwards only "vanity."

It should also be noted that this threefold vanity is found in man, because he is the one upon whom falls punishment and fault: and on account of this it is said in the Psalm: "Every living man is altogether vanity." For there is in him the vanity of nature, the vanity of fault, and the vanity of punishment. Concerning the vanity of nature, in the Psalm: "Man is made like unto vanity; his days pass away like a shadow." Concerning the vanity of fault, likewise in the Psalm: "The Lord knows the thoughts of men, that they are vain." Concerning the vanity of punishment, Job 14: "Man born of a woman, living for a short time, is filled with many miseries."

It should also be noted that Solomon himself speaks of himself as if of another, just as John, in the twenty-first chapter: "This is that disciple who bears witness concerning these things"; and similarly Moses. Now a threefold reason can be assigned for this: one is on the part of the first efficient cause, because the Holy Spirit himself is the author of Scripture, not Solomon or another; therefore, when he is introduced in sacred Scripture, Scripture ought to speak of him as if of another, just as Balaam said in Numbers, the twenty-fourth chapter: "The hearer of the words of God said," etc.

Another reason is taken from the part of the immediate efficient cause: because Scripture shuns all pride and displays humility; and therefore no teacher in it ought to speak of himself as of himself, but for the sake of humility, as if of another. The third reason: when Scripture intimates great and wondrous things, it ought to show them as if from afar; whence Hugh says: "This manner of speaking, as often as it is employed in Scripture, is done either for the sake of humility or of wonder. For we ought both to remove great things from ourselves on account of humility, and to show wondrous things as if from afar on account of wonder." An example is found in Paul and John.

Concerning the purpose of the book of Ecclesiastes: it is said that the purpose of the book is contempt of the world. That it is so determined, is proved by that which is said in James 4: "The friendship of this world is enmity with God": but everything that is hostile to God, it is good to despise. Likewise, 1 John 2: "Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world."

But on the contrary: Praise of the work redounds to the craftsman, therefore contempt of the work also redounds to the same, therefore whoever despises the world despises God: therefore either this world was not made by God, or it is not to be despised. Likewise, Proverbs 16: "The Lord has made all things for himself," therefore all things are ordered to God; but what is ordered to an end is not to be despised, but to be accepted and loved: therefore this world, and the things that are in it, are to be loved.

I respond: it must be said that, as Augustine and Hugh maintain, this world is like a certain ring given by the bridegroom to the soul itself: but the bride can love the ring bestowed upon her by the bridegroom in two ways, namely, with chaste love and with adulterous love. Chaste love is that by which she loves the ring in memory of the bridegroom and on account of love for the bridegroom: adulterous, that by which she loves the ring more than the bridegroom: and the bridegroom cannot but regard this as evil. For just as love is twofold, so hatred or contempt is twofold, because "as often as one of the opposites is spoken of, so also the other." Contempt of the ring, as though it were a small and worthless gift, redounds to the bridegroom: but contempt of the ring, as though it be reckoned as nothing in comparison with the love of the bridegroom, this is to the glory of the bridegroom: and concerning this contempt it is said in Song of Songs, the last chapter: "If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he shall despise it as nothing." Of this contempt is the discourse here: and thus the objections are resolved.

Concerning the subject matter of the book of Ecclesiastes: it is said that here the treatment is of vanity.

But on the contrary: Every science treats of the good and the true: but the vain is deprived of goodness and truth: therefore there is no science of it. Furthermore, it seems that there is no vanity in things, because it is said in Genesis 1: "God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good": therefore if all things are very good, nothing is vain. Furthermore, that is vain and futile which is not ordered to an end, just as, if someone were to bathe himself so that the sun might be eclipsed, he would labor in vain, because the former is not orderable to the latter: but all creatures tend toward the highest good in their own way, as Dionysius says, and Boethius, that all things desire the good, and also the Philosopher: therefore nothing vain is found among all things. Furthermore, if vanity is found, and this science is founded upon it as upon its subject: and what is founded upon the vain is vain: therefore this science is vain.

I respond: for the understanding of the foregoing, it can be said in one way thus, that vain is said in two ways: in one way absolutely, and thus it deprives of the true and the good, and such a thing does not exist in the universe. In another way something is vain by comparison to its initial origin, because it is from nothing: and thus it is not incompatible with the good; indeed one and the same thing is both good and vain: but good, because from the good and toward the good; vain, because from nothing and left to itself it tends toward nothing; and such vanity possesses goodness subject to knowledge, and therefore concerning such there can be knowledge and doctrine. And by this all objections can be resolved, because they proceed as if they were about the vain absolutely.

But this solution does not resolve the matter, because Ecclesiastes does not treat of things insofar as they are from nothing, but rather insofar as they are desired by men: and moreover it treats of the vanity of fault, which is a privation: therefore it is necessary to speak otherwise.

One must therefore respond otherwise and say that just as the true is said in three ways, so also the vain, which is opposed to it, by the rule stated above. In one way the true is said insofar as it is convertible with being, and thus it is said that every being is true; and thus the vain, opposed to the true, is called non-being, just as we say that a chimera is a non-being.

In another way the true is said insofar as beyond entity it adds an ordering to operation and end, just as true wine is said to be that which has the true operation of wine, so a true man is one who has the operation proper to man, and this is the operation of virtue; and thus the vain is said through privation of ordering to an end, and thus all sins and abuses are vain.

In another way the true is said insofar as it adds above being a freedom from admixture with non-being, which in no way has potency toward that: and thus that is said to have true being which has immutable being: and in this way the vain, opposed to the true, is that which is mutable and changeable. And thus every creature is vain, because subject to vanity, that is, to mutability.

Thus therefore, with the vain being said in three ways: in one way through privation of being absolutely, in another way through privation of ordered being, in a third way through privation of unchangeable being: concerning the first, there is in no way knowledge or doctrine, unless perhaps it has being in a cause and according to that can be known and taught: and thus it is not vain: but insofar as it is vain, there is knowledge of it neither per se nor per accidens.

Concerning the second way, there is no knowledge per se, but per accidens. For just as medicine is the knowledge of the healthy and the sick, of the healthy indeed per se, but of the sick per accidens, as the Philosopher holds; so concerning fault or sin there is theoretical knowledge, but by reason of virtue.

Concerning the third way, namely concerning the mutability of the creature, there is knowledge per se, as is evident concerning the motion of the sun and the spheres and other things.

In this book, therefore, the subject treated is the vanity of mutability or of nature, because it is fair and fitting, and the vanity of fault: the other vanity, namely that of total privation, is not treated, because of that there is neither knowledge nor doctrine.

To the first objection, therefore, that every science concerns the good and the true: this is true per se, but there can also be science of the vain by reason of the true; and he who knows true principles also knows false ones: and it is similar with the sick and the healthy, and likewise in the matter at hand.

To the objection that creatures are not vain, because they are very good and ordered to an end: it must be answered that they are not called vain through a defect of goodness or order, but through a defect of immutable being: and thus every creature is vain, yet it is not so vain that it lacks truth and goodness; and therefore knowledge and doctrine concerning it is true.

Nor would I (now) willingly spare from my Bible something in itself so anti-religious as the nihilism of Ecclesiastes. We get there a clear, cold picture of man's life without God. That statement is itself part of God's word. We need to have heard it. Even to have assimilated Ecclesiastes and no other book in the Bible would be to have advanced further towards truth than some men do.

There is a difference between vanities; there are those that are especially so, and others that are not.…Question: [Does Ecclesiastes speak] about one and the same [kind of vanity]? Answer: About both, about the things that are just vanity as well as about those that are a vanity of vanities. Both the things that most clearly belong to the sphere of vanity and the less obvious vanities are altogether vain in comparison with actual truth. The newborn, the little child and the boy are imperfect. Of course, they are imperfect in comparison with an adolescent, and they are all imperfect in comparison with a man.… Question: Does he not mean by "vanity of vanities" the visible and the perceivable? Answer: Yes, but the layperson and the astronomer do not perceive the sun in the same way. The perception of the sun by an astronomer and by a scientist is far inferior to the seeing of the invisible God and it is inferior to the knowledge that comes from God.

To those who have entered into the church of the mind and marvel in contemplation of what has come into being, the text says, Do not think that this is the ultimate end or that these are the promises that have been stored up for you. For all these things are [only] vanity of vanities before the knowledge of one's God. For, just as it is futile for medicine [to seek] a final cure, so is it useless [to seek] after knowledge of the Holy Trinity in the ideas of the [present] ages and worlds.

The insubstantial is deemed "futile," that which has existence only in the utterance of the word. No substantial object is simultaneously indicated when the term is used, but it is a kind of idle and empty sound, expressed by syllables in the form of a word, striking the ear at random without meaning, the sort of word people make up for a joke but which means nothing. This then is one sort of futility. Another sense of "futility" is the pointlessness of things done earnestly to no purpose, like the sandcastles children build, and shooting arrows at stars, and chasing the winds, and racing against one's own shadow and trying to step on its head, and anything else of the same kind which we find done pointlessly. All these activities are included in the meaning of "futility." … [And] so also "futility of futilities" indicates the absolute extreme of what is futile.

Vanity may be described as something which lacks existence but exists only in the utterance of this word. The reality behind the word is nonexistent; only the letters transmit a useless, empty sound. These meaningless sounds randomly strike the ear as in a game when we create names which lack meaning. This is one form of vanity. Another refers to persons who zealously accumulate objects with no goal in mind. For example, children's sand buildings, the shooting at stars with arrows, trapping the wind and racing with one's shadow while trying to reach its head. If we take another example, we see that they all fall under the term "vanity." Often human custom calls vanity the looking towards a goal and the pursuit of something profitable; should a person do something contrary or foolish, he invests his energy to no avail. This is too is called vanity.… [And] so "vanity of vanities" demonstrates the incomparable excess of vanity.

If everything that God made is very good, then how can everything be vanity—and not only vanity, but even vanity of vanities? As one song in the Song of Songs is shown to excel above all songs, so also is the magnitude of vanity demonstrated by the expression "vanity of vanities."

"Vanity of vanities" said Ecclesiastes", Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." If all things that God made are truly good then how can all things be considered vanity, and not only vanity, but even vanity of vanities? Just as Song of Songs means a song that stands out from amongst all songs, so we see that in "vanity of vanities" the degree of vanity is shown. It is also written similarly in Psalm 38.6: "Nevertheless every living man is vanity." If living man is vanity then a dead man must be vanity of vanities. We read in Exodus that Moses' face is glorified so much that the children of Israel are not able to see him [Cfr Ex. 34, 30-35.]. Paul the apostle said that his glory was not really glory when compared to the glory of righteousness: "For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth." [II Cor. 3, 10.] We are therefore able to say that even we in this respect, heaven, earth, the seas and all things that are contained within its compass can be said to be good in themselves, but compared to God they are nothing. And if I look at the candle in a lamp and am content with its light, then afterwards when the sun has risen I cannot discern anymore what was once bright; I will also see the light of the stars by the light of the setting sun, so in looking at the world and the multitudinous varieties of nature I am amazed at the greatness of the world, but I also remember that all things will pass away and the world will grow old, and that only God is that which has always been. On account of this realisation I am compelled to say, not once but twice: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. Instead of "vanity of vanities" the Hebrew text reads 'abal abalim' which all manuscripts excepting that of the Septuagint translate similarly in Greek as "atmos atmidon "or" atmon "which we are able to translate as 'a breath' and 'a light wind which is quickly dispersed'. In this way it is shown to be vain and in no way universal by this phrase. For those things which seem to be temporal, in fact are; but those which do not are eternal. Or since that which will give rise to vanity has been exposed, he groans and is anxious and awaits the revelation of the sons of God, and "now we know in part, and we prophesy in part" [I Cor. 13, 9.]. All things are and will be vain, until we find that which is complete and perfect.

What is vanity of mind? It is the being busied about vain things. And what are those vain things, but all things in the present life? Of them the Preacher says, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." But a person will say, If they be vain and vanity, for what purpose were they made? If they are God's works, how are they vain? And great is the dispute concerning these things. But listen, beloved: it is not the works of God that he calls vain; God forbid! The heaven is not vain, the earth is not vain—God forbid!—nor the sun, nor the moon and stars, nor our own body. No, all these are "very good." But what is vain? Let us hear the Preacher himself, what he says: "I planted vineyards, I got men singers and women singers, I made pools of water, I had great possessions of herds and flocks, I gathered me also silver and gold, and I saw that these are vanity."

Let us see what is the "vanity" to which the creation was subjected. My own opinion is, that this is nothing else than the possession of bodies, for even though the stars are composed of ether they are nevertheless material. This, it seems to me, is the reason why Solomon arraigns the whole bodily universe as being in a way burdensome and as impeding the activity of spirits, thus: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, said the Preacher; all is vanity." "For," he adds, "I looked and I saw all things that are under the sun, and behold, all is vanity."

What is that vanity, if not devotion to riches and the pursuit of worldly pleasures? This is confirmed through Solomon, who says, "Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity." Therefore, dearly beloved, let no one put his confidence in the vanity of this world. That vanity, as you see, is something standing with insecure footing. Devotion to it is short-lived and empty, and its beauty is like smoke in a wind. The comeliness of its countenance is like that which you see when you look on the beauty of that vine which had its early summer blossoms in well-constituted abundance yet cannot bring forth the actual fruit of the promised grape harvest. While it brings forth too much, it incurs the reproach of perpetual sterility.

So this is what the rich should do: not be haughty in their ideas, nor set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on the living God, who bestows all things on us abundantly for our enjoyment; that is what they must do. But what are they to do with what they have? Let me tell you what: "Let them be rich in good works, let them be easy givers." After all, they have the wherewithal. Poverty is difficult and grim. "Let them be easy givers"; they have the wherewithal. Let them share, that is, take some notice of their fellow mortals. "Let them share, let them store up for themselves a good foundation for the future." "You see," he says, "just because I say 'Let them be easy givers, let them share,' it doesn't mean I want them looted, want them stripped naked, want them left empty. I am teaching them how to make a profit, when I point out, 'Let them store up for themselves.' I'm not telling them to do this so that they can lose it; I'm showing them where to transfer the account. 'Let them store up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they lay hold of true life.' " So this one is a false life; let them lay hold of true life. After all, "Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity. What is this great abundance for man in all his toil, at which he toils under the sun?" So true life is to be laid hold of, our investments are to be transferred to the place of true life, so that we may find there what we give here. The one who transforms us also transforms those investments.

If it is a vain thing to do good works for the sake of human praise, how much more vain for the sake of getting money, or increasing it, or retaining it, and any other temporal advantage, which comes unto us from without? Since "all things are vanity: what is man's abundance, with all his toil, wherein he labors under the sun?" For our temporal welfare itself finally we ought not to do our good works but rather for the sake of that everlasting welfare which we hope for, where we may enjoy an unchangeable good, which we shall have from God, nay, what God himself is unto us. For if God's saints were to do good works for the sake of this temporal welfare, never would the martyrs of Christ achieve a good work.

Again, civil war is the temptation of the world. Indeed, every creature is a trap. Hence the saying: Vanity of vanities! All things are vanity! What profit has man from all the labor which he toils at under the sun? Vain and worthless is anything of which nothing remains to man after death: wherefore all things are vanity. The Psalm reads: Turn away my eyes from seeing what is vain.

Above he proposed what he intends to prove; here he begins to prove it. And just as a threefold vanity was proposed to exist in things, so also a threefold vanity is proved to exist. Whence this part has three parts. For first he shows there to be in things the vanity of mutability; second, the vanity of iniquity; third, the vanity of punishment. "The first is natural and fitting, as Hugh says; the second is culpable, because perverse; the third is penal and miserable."

Now mutability in things is considered in two ways: in one way by reason of change, in another way in comparison to the measure of a definite time.

Therefore mutability is first shown in the existence of creatures. And because creatures have a threefold being, namely in the Word, by reason of exemplarity; in the universe, by mode of materiality; in the human mind, by mode of abstraction—the first being is unfailing and immutable, whence it has no vanity; but in the others there is vanity.

Therefore, as to the rational creature, namely man, he shows there to be mutability, from which one can be delivered by no labor; on account of which he says: "What more does man have from all his labor, with which he labors under the sun?" Supply: except vanity and mutability, as if to say: nothing. Concerning this labor it is said in Job 5: "A bird is born to fly, and man to labor"; and Genesis 3: "Cursed is the earth in your work; in labor you shall eat from it all the days of your life."

Here a question arises concerning what he says: "What more does man have," etc.

This seems to be a heretical opinion and to agree with that which says that "vain is" everyone "who serves God."

Likewise in the Psalm it is said: "The patience of the poor shall not perish in the end": therefore something remains.

Likewise Proverbs chapter twelve: "He who works his land shall be satisfied with bread": therefore it is good to work and to labor.

I respond: as Hugh says, emphasis must be placed on this, that he says: "In which he labors under the sun": "for it is the same as if he were to say: under time."

On account of which it should be noted that certain things come to be with time, such as those whose origin time did not precede, as the angelic nature and prime matter. Certain things come to be in time, which began after the origin of time but do not have their setting in time, such as the soul of Peter. Certain things come to be in time and under time, which begin after the origin of time and are terminated in time, of which kind are mutable things. And such things are twofold: for some come to be for time and under time, and such things pass away in act and in fruit; some for eternity, and such things pass away in act but remain in root and in fruit, because the good will remains to be rewarded for eternity.

When therefore he says that man has nothing but vanity from all his labor with which he labors under the sun: this is understood insofar as labor is under time with respect to act and intention; and then it has no place among good things.

Those who are rich in things that are valued in the realm of the natural do not gain anything. They do not gain longevity. Rich and poor are in the same situation: they go through life quickly and do not stay for a long time. Thus "from all the toil at which they toil under the sun" one does not gain anything, no increase in natural qualities. But the one who toils and strives for things that lead to the eternal and to the invisible gains something: A human being becomes a god, an uncertain human being becomes a strong one, a coward becomes courageous.

"What profit is there for a man in exchange for all his toil, which he toils under the sun?" After the general opinion that all things are vain Solomon begins to explain with regard to mankind: because men exert themselves in vain in the toil of the world, amassing wealth, teaching children, working their way towards glory, constructing buildings, and then are taken away in the midst of their work by sudden death, they hear the words: "Thou fool, this night your soul shall be required of you, then whose will be those things that you have amassed?" [Luc. 12, 20.] Just as they make nothing for themselves in exchange for all this toil, so they return naked to the earth from whence they were taken.

By the will of God, therefore, the earth remains immovable. "The earth stands forever," according to Ecclesiastes, yet it is moved and nods according to the will of God. It does not therefore continue to exist because based on its own foundations. It does not stay stable because of its own props. The Lord established it by the support of his will, because "in his hand are all the ends of the earth." The simplicity of this faith is worth all the proffered proofs.

And that he has nothing more than vanity, he shows when he adds: "A generation passes away, and a generation comes." Therefore there is change and succession both in man and in his works. Sirach 14: "Some things are generated, and others are cast down; so is the generation of flesh and blood: one ends, and another is born," according to what is said in James 4: "What is your life but a vapor appearing for a little while"? But when they are corrupted, they do not pass into nothing, but into something, because into earth; whence it was said to Adam: "You are dust, and to dust you shall return." Therefore he adds: "But the earth stands forever," as it were the matter into which dissolution takes place. Psalm: "Who founded the earth upon its stability"; and Proverbs 8: "When he was weighing the foundations of the earth."

Likewise, there is a question concerning what he says: "The earth stands forever."

To the contrary: Matthew twenty-four: "Heaven and earth shall pass away": therefore the earth does not stand.

Likewise, Apocalypse twenty-one: "I saw a new heaven and a new earth," therefore the earth grows old: therefore it does not stand.

I respond: it must be said that "the earth standing" is twofold: either with respect to substance, or with respect to figure or disposition; I say that the earth stands forever with respect to substance, but passes away with respect to figure: First Corinthians seven: "The figure of this world passes away." But men are generated and corrupted with respect to substance, so that they are rightly called not "men" but "the dead."

Or "eternal" is said in multiple ways: in one way, that which does not have an end prescribed in Scripture: thus the land of promise was given to the children of Israel as an eternal possession. In another way, that which has an end, but not in time: thus "time" is said to be eternal. In the third way, that whose signification is never ended. In the fourth way, that whose substance is never ended. In the fifth way, that whose substance neither ends nor began.

In this last way, God alone; in the fourth way it applies to the earth with respect to substance, in the third way with respect to signification, in the first two ways with respect to figure.

The sun has existed since it was created and will exist and be one and the same as long as God wants it. But if I say … that humankind remains forever, I do not mean one and the same human being but the whole succession of generations. The same is true for other mortal beings and plants.… One generation goes and one generation comes. The generation that goes is destroyed by death; the one that comes is the one that is born.

What good does the possessor of many acres gain in the end, except that the foolish person thinks his own that which never belongs to him? Seemingly, in his greed he is ignorant that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof," and that "God is king of all the earth." It is the passion of having which gives people a false title of lordship over that which can never belong to them. "The earth," says the wise Preacher, "abides for ever," ministering to every generation, first one, then another, that is born upon it. People, though they are so little even their own masters, because they are brought into life without knowing it by their Maker's will and before they wish are withdrawn from it, nevertheless in their excessive vanity think that they are life's lords and think that they, now born, now dying, rule that which remains continually.

"A generation goes, a generation comes, but the earth remains forever." While some men die, others are born, and those you had seen, are not seen anymore, and you then see those who have not been before. What is more vain than this vanity, than that the earth remains, which was made on account of mankind? And that man himself, the master of the earth, should be suddenly returned to the dust? Another meaning of this is: the first generation of Jews dies and a generation formed from all peoples takes its place; but the earth however will remain for so long as the Synagogue's influence slips away, and the Church becomes more powerful. For when it was predicted that the Gospel would be known all around the world, then, it was said, would be the end. When the end is approaching, it is true, the sky and the earth will pass away. Solomon very precisely does not say the earth remains "through the ages" [Hier.. "in saeculis"] but "through that age" [Hier.. "in saeculo"]. More precisely we praise the Lord not in one age, but throughout the ages.

In the allegorical sense, the sun signifies Christ. "The sun rises and the sun goes down." It rises in the nativity, it goes down in death; it orbits through noon in the ascension; it is inclined to the north in the judgment.

Ecclesiastes shows these four when he says: "The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north." Marvelous was the origin: how the supersubstantial radiation was united to humanity in the womb, came forth from the womb; how He dwelled in the world, alive, shining and inflaming; how in death He condescended to die; how later He rose from the nether world, first into [His] body and then into heaven; and how He shall come back for the judgment. There was a marvelous duration of eternity in the union of the Godhead with humanity. For it is impossible to have a greater separation, short of the denial of God's existence: since it would be easier to separate an angel from its essence. The breadth of charity came about in death; the marvelous sublimity of power, in the ascension; the marvelous depth of wisdom will come about in the judgment. These are wondrous [realities] by which the soul is placed, so to speak, outside of itself.

Here secondly he shows mutability in the celestial nature, as is evident in the sun, which never rests, but when it rises, it tends toward setting, whence it does not remain in its rising. Therefore he says: "The sun rises and sets," so that it does not remain in the place of rising nor even in the place of setting; thence he adds: "And it returns to its place." Nor does it remain there, whence he also adds: "And there being born again it circles through the south." Nor does it remain even in the middle place; therefore he adds: "And it bends toward the north."

This can be explained with respect to the diurnal motion, or also the annual. With respect to the diurnal, Hugh says: "The sun rises daily, when it is presented to human sight. It sets when, descending to the lower parts, it withdraws itself from our eyes. It returns to its place, because, driven by the rotation beneath, it again returns to its place. But rising again it circles through the south, because by an oblique course it ascends from the east to the meridian line; then it turns toward the north, because, descending toward the west, it again inclines toward the north by an oblique progression."

With respect to the annual motion, thus: "The sun rises when through the vernal equinox it ascends to our pole. It sets when, passing through the autumnal equinox, it descends to the lower regions. It circles through the south when it lingers in the winter signs. It turns toward the north when it revolves in the summer signs, which are nearer to the northern pole." And thus the sun does not stand still by nature, but only by miracle, as is read in Joshua 10: "Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and moon, over the valley of Ajalon."

Spiritually, this sun is Christ, concerning whom Malachi four: "The Sun of Justice shall rise upon you who fear my name." This sun rises in the nativity to illuminate: Isaiah sixty: "Arise, be illuminated, Jerusalem": and John one: "He was the true light, which illuminates every man." This sun sets in the passion to redeem: Amos eight: "The sun shall set at midday," that is, in the vehement love of charity. This sun returns to its place in the ascension: Luke nineteen: "A certain man went into a far country." This sun circles through the south, that is, in the fervent love of the Saints: Song of Songs one: "Show me, O you whom my soul loves, where you feed, where you lie down at midday": and John fourteen: "If anyone loves me," afterwards: "We will come to him and make our abode with him." This sun turns to the north in the final judgment: Jeremiah one: "From the north shall all evil be spread."

Likewise it is asked, since other luminaries likewise rise, why he speaks more of the sun than of others.

I respond: it must be said that once mutability has been established in the sun, which is the noblest and most luminous among the heavenly bodies, it is sufficiently given to be understood in the others.

Likewise, he seems to proceed in a disordered manner, because he says that it sets before he says that it circles through the south: for it circles before it sets.

I respond: it must be said that he does not arrange them according to progression, but according to dimensions or the limits of dimensions. Therefore, because east and west are opposites, they are immediately ordered together; likewise, because south and north are opposites, they are similarly placed immediately in the manner of a cross.

But there is a doubt about what he says: "It returns to its place," because in the firmament no one place of the sun is more its place than another.

If you say that it returns to the place from which it began its course: this is manifestly false, because the sun is always moved by its own motion either ascending or descending; therefore it never returns to the same place.

Likewise, what does he mean when he says: "Turning toward the north." For if the sun is moved by diurnal motion with the motion of the firmament, and the firmament moves uniformly and similarly, then it does not turn more toward the arctic pole than toward the antarctic, or conversely.

If you say that this is understood of its proper motion: but the sun according to its proper motion ascends and descends in the zodiac, and when it ascends, it approaches the north; when it descends, it draws near to the south; therefore it does not turn more toward the north than toward the south.

I respond: it must be said that one can speak of the motion of the sun as diurnal and annual. If we speak of the annual motion, it is true that the sun returns to its place, because it began to move from there. But if we understand this of the diurnal motion, it does not return to its place from which it began to move according to the truth, but according to our estimation, since it does not make a sphere but a spiral.

To the second it must similarly be said that if we speak of the annual motion, it holds true according to the four seasons, as was said above, because it rises in spring, sets in autumn, circles through the south in winter, and turns toward the north in summer. But if you understand this of the diurnal motion, this does not hold true except according to our estimation. For we see the firmament moving, and we imagine its poles to the right and to the left; but it is not so, rather one pole is as if above our heads, namely the northern; the other as if beneath our feet. When therefore the sun revolves according to the poles of the firmament, it does not go directly above our heads and beneath our feet, but as if transversally; and because we see according to the level plane, it seems to us that by day it inclines toward the south and by night toward the north.

And Solomon says: The sun ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place. Arising he goeth there towards the south and wheeleth round in his circuit, and the wind goeth on its circuits. He also, in what he says, agrees with Moses and David, namely, that the sun proceeding from the east ascends to the south, and by making a circuit through the north, causes the tropics, and completes the great circle of the year in his passage through the air; for this is what the expression the wind goeth on means, as if he said, in the air.

By the blessed Solomon then, when in the book of Ecclesiastes, a book attested [to be inspired], and not rejected [from the canon] he says: The sun ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place; arising there he goeth to the south, and wheeling in his circuits, wheels towards the north; the wind goeth and turneth about in its circuits. Behold then the sun running his course in the south, and wheeling round to the north, and be instructed.

The sun of righteousness rises in the soul. The beginning of its rise is preparatory. It is a preparatory enlightenment. But when it circles around the whole soul and enlightens it altogether so that nothing is outside the light any more, then the soul is in perfect enlightenment. For often it sets in order to rise again. Sunset and sunrise are in accordance with its progress. And sunset and sunrise are united with respect to its location. The second enlightenment means sunset with respect to the previous enlightenment, but it means sunrise with respect to the enlightenment now beginning.

"The sun rises and the sun sets, then it rushes to its place, where it rises again." The sun itself, which is given as light for mankind, shows the orbit of the world by its rising and it setting every day. After the sun has soaked its burning orb in the ocean, it returns by routes unknown to me to that place whence it had come; and when the period of night is over, it again bursts out quickly from its bed. In place of "rushes to its place" though, because we are following the Vulgate version, the Hebrew reads ""soeph"" which Aquila interpreted as "eispnei" in Greek, that is "pants [Hier.. "aspirat"]"; Symmachus and Theodotion write '"returns"' because the sun clearly turns around to its original place and it aspires to return there, from whence it had come earlier. But all of this is explained so that he can teach that with the passage of time and the rising and the setting of the stars man's age slips away and perishes, yet he does not know this for certain. Another meaning of this is: the sun of righteousness, in whose wings lies reason, rises from those who fear and sets midday in the false prophets. But when it has risen it takes us to its place. Where is that? Evidently it means to the Lord himself, for it happens that he raises us from the earth to heaven, saying, "when the son of man is lifted up, he will lift up all things to him". [John 12, 32.] Nor is it surprising that the son lifts up men to himself, when even the Lord himself lifts up to his son: "for no one", he says "comes to me except the Father, who sent me, draw him". [John 6, 44.] That sun therefore, which we have said sets for some and rises for other, and once set for Jacob the patriarch as he was leaving the Holy Land, rose again for him when he entered the promised land from Syria. When Lot too left Sodom and came to the city, which he was commanded to hasten to, he climbed a mountain and the sun came out above Segor [Cfr. Gen. 28, 11; 32, 31.].

The great sun, when compared with the Sun of righteousness, is vanity.

Ecclesiastes shows these four when he says: "The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north." Marvelous was the origin: how the supersubstantial radiation was united to humanity in the womb, came forth from the womb; how He dwelled in the world, alive, shining and inflaming; how in death He condescended to die; how later He rose from the nether world, first into [His] body and then into heaven; and how He shall come back for the judgment. There was a marvelous duration of eternity in the union of the Godhead with humanity. For it is impossible to have a greater separation, short of the denial of God's existence: since it would be easier to separate an angel from its essence. The breadth of charity came about in death; the marvelous sublimity of power, in the ascension; the marvelous depth of wisdom will come about in the judgment. These are wondrous [realities] by which the soul is placed, so to speak, outside of itself.

Here is touched upon the mutability in elemental nature, and first with respect to air. With respect to air, he touches upon the mutability in spirit or in wind, which is either the motion of air according to some philosophers, or according to Aristotle the motion of vapor in the air, by whose motion the air is also moved. On account of which he says: "Surveying all things, the spirit goes about in a circuit," that is, the wind circuits by surveying all things. "Spirit" is said to mean "wind": Exodus 15: "Your spirit blew, O Lord, and the sea covered them"; and in the Psalm: "Fire, hail, snow, ice, the spirit of storms."

This "goes about in a circuit," because it arises from the four regions of the earth: Zechariah 2: "Flee from the land of the north, for I have scattered you to the four winds of heaven"; and Ezekiel 37: "Come from the four winds, O spirit." For there are four principal winds and eight collateral ones.

And "it returns to its circuits," because the wind ceases when that vapor comes to rest and returns to the earth whence it arose. And because that cause is hidden, therefore it is said in the Psalm: "Who brings forth winds from his treasuries," that is, from hidden places.

Or, as the Gloss explains, this can be understood of the sun with respect to the annual motion, which surveys all things and returns in the circles of the zodiac; and the sun is called "spirit" because it is the principle and cause of all life, whence it causes all other things to breathe.

Spiritually, this surveying spirit is the Holy Spirit, who is therefore said to survey, because he makes us search all things: First Corinthians two: "The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

He is said to go in a circuit, because he makes us go around: whence Wisdom chapter seven: "The spirit of wisdom is mobile"; likewise also going around, because he makes us consider the circuit of misery: Job chapter one: "Naked I came forth from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." Likewise the circuit of grace, concerning which John chapter sixteen: "I came forth from the Father and came into the world, and again I leave the world and go to the Father." Likewise of glory, Ezekiel chapter one: "This was the appearance of splendor round about, and this was the likeness of the glory of the Lord." The Spirit of God makes one consider this: Second Corinthians chapter three: "We with unveiled face shall behold the glory of the Lord."

This circuit consists in the consideration that all things are from God and unto God. And Dionysius says that the Angels are moved circularly around the throne.

"It goes to the South and rotates to the North; turning, revolving, the wind goes and returns upon its circuits." From this we are able to believe that the sun approaches the meridian quarter in the time of winter, and in the summer is near to the Great Bear, and does not commence its movements in the equinox of autumn, but when the west wind is blowing in the time of spring, when all things give birth. But he actually says "turning, revolving, the wind goes and returns upon its circuits" as if he calls the sun itself a breath, like an animal that breathes and lives, completing its annual orbit in its course, just like the poet Vergil says: "Meanwhile the sun flies around the great year" [Aeneid 3.284] and elsewhere [Vergil Georg. 2. 402.] "and the year flies through its own footsteps" or that bright sphere of the moon and Titan's star: "The breath nourishes within: and the intelligence stirs the whole mass infused through the limbs, and mingles itself with the mighty body" [Vergil Aeneid, 6. 726-7.]. He is not speaking about the annual course of the sun, but its daily path. For it proceeds sidelong and towards the North, and thus turns to the East. Another meaning of this verse is: when the sun moves to the South it is closer to the Earth; when it moves to the North it is raised to higher orbits. Perhaps therefore it moves to those parts, which are compressed together by the cold of atmospheric disturbances, and of winter. Severe heat indeed blazes out from the North above the Earth, and that sun is closer to righteousness than those men who in fact live in the Northern region, and who are deprived of summer's heat. The sun then moves far away and turns by its circuits to the place whence it set out. For when it has subdued all things to it and illuminated all things with its rays, let there be the first restoration and "God may be all in all". [I Cor. 15, 28.] Symmachus interpreted this phrase saying, 'it goes to the meridian, and turns around to the North; turning the wind goes, and the wind returns by those routes by which it had come around'.

According to the narrative he calls the sun wind, due to the speed of its movement.

On that passage of Ecclesiastes: "To the place whence the rivers go forth, they return:" Bernard says that "the origin of fountains is the sea; the origin of virtues and knowledge is Christ." He says therefore: "To the place whence the rivers go forth," namely of graces, "they return, that they may flow again." For just as a fountain has no duration unless it maintains a continuous connection with its source, nor indeed does light, so the grace of the Holy Spirit cannot flourish in the soul except through its return to its original principle.

It is written in Ecclesiastes: "All rivers go to the sea, yet never does the sea become full. To the place where they go, the rivers keep on going:" and it is the same with all the spiritual meanings that flow from divine Scripture. The spiritual meanings are called rivers — and also those men who understand in a spiritual manner — because they have their origin from the Scriptures and are confirmed by the Scriptures, and because, from these spiritual meanings, other meanings are derived.

Here mutability is touched upon with respect to visible elemental nature, namely water, because there is no stability there: for all waters move toward the sea; whence he says: "All the rivers enter into the sea," namely the great ocean, concerning which it is said in Job thirty-eight: "Who shut up the sea with doors, when it burst forth, as if proceeding from a womb"? And this motion is not terminated, because the sea is not filled: therefore he adds: "And the sea does not overflow." And because this seems wonderful, therefore he gives the cause of this: "To the place whence they go forth, the rivers return," not so that they may rest there, but "so that they may flow again." The rivers go forth secretly, they return openly, because they go forth through subterranean channels and certain filtrations. And thus all things are carried in a circuit and are subject to vanity. Hugh: "Behold how all things are carried in a circuit and are subject to vanity: and we know that a circle has no end: those things therefore that run in a circuit run indeed, but do not arrive at an end. What rest therefore can be hoped for, where there can be no stability? And therefore it is said of the impious: 'The head of their circuit'; and again: 'The impious walk in a circuit'; and again: 'My God, make them like a wheel.'"

Spiritually, these are the rivers of graces, concerning which John chapter seven: "He who believes in me, as the Scripture says, rivers shall flow from his belly."

The sea, from which the rivers have their origin, is the immensity of divine generosity, which is neither increased nor diminished: "For great is our Lord and great is his power, and of his wisdom there is no number."

To this sea the rivers of thanksgiving return, so that they may flow again: John chapter four: "Whoever drinks of this water which I shall give him, it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto eternal life." From this they go forth: James chapter one: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above." And just as rivers cease to exist and dry up when they cease to flow and are still, so also with the gifts of graces: the Psalm: "You broke open fountains and torrents," through generosity; "you dried up the rivers of Ethan," through the severity of judgment.

It is asked about what he says: "The rivers go forth from the sea."

Against: The sea is bitter, and rivers are sweet; but contraries do not have their origin from one principle, nor one from another; therefore neither does the sea come from rivers, nor rivers from the sea.

I respond: it must be said that all water by nature is sweet or tasteless, as the Philosopher says; but it becomes bitter accidentally, either through the evaporation of the subtle parts, with the earthly parts remaining, or through the admixture of earthly parts. Conversely, that water, just as it was accidentally made bitter, can return to sweetness through refinement, as is shown by the experiment of an earthen vessel placed in the sea. Since therefore rivers, even though they return to the sea in great abundance, nevertheless flow out secretly and underground and through a certain filtration, the water is refined and turned to sweetness.

As to the objection, then, that one of two contraries does not have its origin from the other: it must be said that water is not contrary to water; and if it has a contrary disposition, it has this not by nature but by accident, as is evident in hot and cold water. Nor is the origin of rivers from the sea by reason of property, because sweetness is prior by nature in water, but with respect to outflow, as the drawing of wine from a cask: because that place contains an abundance of waters, from which emanation ceaselessly occurs.

The waters that the earth drank on the first day were not salty. Even if these waters were like the deep on the surface of the earth, they were not yet seas. For it was in the seas that these waters, which were not salty before being gathered together, became salty. When they were sent throughout the entire earth for the earth to drink they were sweet, but when they were gathered into seas on the third day, they became salty, lest they become stagnant due to their being gathered together, and so that they might receive the rivers that enter into them without increasing. For the quantity that a sea requires for nourishment is the measure of the rivers that flow down into it. Rivers flow down into seas lest the heat of the sun dry them up. The saltiness [of the seas] then swallows up [the rivers] lest they increase, rise up and cover the earth. Thus the rivers turn into nothing, as it were, because the saltiness of the sea swallows them up.

As for the sea, if I had felt no wonder at its size, I should have felt it for its stillness, at the way it stands free within its proper limits. If its stillness had not moved my admiration, its size must have done. Since both aspects move me, I shall praise the power involved in both. What binding force brought the sea together? What causes it to swell yet stay in position, as if in awe of the land its neighbor? How can it take in all rivers and stay the same through sheer excess of quantity?—I know no other explanation. Why does so great an element have sand as its frontier? Can natural philosophers, with their futile cleverness, give any account of it, when they actually take the sea's vast measurements with pint size pots of their own ideas? Or shall I give you the short answer from Scripture, the one more credible, more real, than their long arguments? "He made his command a boundary for the face of the waters." This command is what binds the elemental water. What makes it carry the sailor in his little boat with a little wind—do you not find it a marvelous sight, does not your mind stand amazed at it?—to bind land and sea with business and commerce and unify for humanity such very different things? What springs do the first springs have? Look for them and see if you, a man, can discover or track one down. Who parted plains and hills with rivers and gave them free course? How do we get a miracle from opposites—from a sea that does not get out and rivers that do not stand still? What feeds the waters, what different kinds of food do they get? Some are nourished with rain, others drink with their roots—if I may use a rich metaphor to describe the richness of God.

You, whose period of struggle is short, do not become more lifeless than the earth, do not become more unthinking than the insensible, for you are endowed with thought and directed by reason toward life. Instead, as the apostle says, "Continue in the things you have learned and been convinced of," in that steadfast and immoveable stability, since this also is one of the divine commands, that you "be steadfast and immoveable." Let your sobriety abide unshaken, your faith firm, your love constant, your stability in every good thing unmoved, so that the earth in you may stand to eternity. But if any one, yearning for greater possessions and letting his desire become as boundless as a sea, has an insatiable greed for the streams of gain flowing in from every side, let him treat his disease by looking at the real sea. For … the sea does not exceed its boundary with the innumerable streams of water flowing into it but remains at the same volume, just as though it were receiving no new water from streams. In the same way human nature too, restricted by specific limits in the enjoyment of what comes to it, cannot enlarge its appetite to match the extent of its acquisitions; while the intake is endless, the capacity for enjoyment is kept within its set limit.

The sea is a receptacle for water which tends to flow everywhere; water never ceases to flow while the sea never grows larger. What is the goal of the water's course which always fills the unquenchable sea? What is this influx of water which never fills the ever-constant sea? Ecclesiastes speaks like this that he may explain the insubstantiality of our frenzied pursuits which result from elements constituting man's existence. If the sun's course consists in this, it too has no limit; neither is there any succession between day and night, and the earth is condemned to remain ever unmoved. The rivers also labor in vain, for they are consumed by the insatiable sea which receives this constant inflow to no avail. If this is true, what about man who is subject to such elements? Why are we astonished at the rise and fall of a generation which follows a natural course because a generation of men always succeeds the one before it and so forth? What does Ecclesiastes cry out to the church? That you, oh man, who contemplate the universe, should understand your own nature. The wonders you behold in heaven or on earth, the sun or sea, should help explain your human nature. Sunrise and sunset resemble our human nature because they both have in common the one course [circle] of life. When we come into existence, we later return to our natural place. Once our life sets, our light passes under the earth which then lays hold of it.

The time of your struggle is short. Do not be more inanimate than the earth nor more foolish than [beasts] which lack feeling, for you are endowed with reason and the capacity to administer. Rather, as the Apostle says, "Continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of" in steadfastness and constant stability. Since these words refer to the divine commands, "be steadfast and unmovable," allow temperance to abide in your life along with firm faith, constant love and stability in every kind of beauty, that you may resemble the earth's eternal stability. If anyone is greedy like the ocean with its expansive, boundedness desire which the inflow of waters cannot satisfy, let one be cured of his illness by looking upon the ocean. In this way he will not transgress his own bounds in the multitude of waters but will retain the same fullness without the addition of more water. In similar fashion pleasures arising from human nature with its present limit cannot expand its gluttonous appetite to keep pace with their great number; rather, the influx [of pleasures] does not cease even though our capacity for enjoyment is limited.

"All torrents flow into the sea but the sea is not filled. To the place from which the torrents come, there they return to go." Some men believe that the fresh waters that flow into the sea are either dried up by the burning sun above, or are feed for the salt-thirsty sea. Here our Ecclesiastes, the creator of the very waters, says that they return to the heads of the springs by means of hidden passages, and always boil out from their deep channels into their springs. The Hebrews believed that the rivers or sea had more significance in the metaphor of man, because they return to the earth, whence they originated. They are also called torrents not rivers because they flow that much more forcefully, yet the earth however is not filled with a great number of dead men. More precisely if we go down to the deeper parts, the turbid waters return to the sea where they used to remain. And unless I am mistaken, apart from the additions to the text, nowhere is the word 'torrent' found in a good context. For "you will drink those with the torrent of your desire" [Psalms 35, 9.], although "of desire" is written in an addition. On the contrary the Saviour was taken to the brook Cedron [John 18,1.], and Elisha at the time of persecution hid away in the brook of Chorat, which even dried up. But the sea is not filled up completely, in the same manner as the bloodthirsty daughters in Proverbs [Prov. 30, 15.].

Therefore incline to him of whom the psalmist says, "He has not taken his soul in vain." To speak now of the troubles of this life, the person has taken his soul in vain who is constructing the things of the world and building the things of the body. We arise each day to eat and drink; yet no one is filled so that he does not hunger and thirst after a short time. Daily we seek profit, and to greed there is set no limit. "The eye will not be satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing." He that loves silver will not be satisfied with silver. There is no limit to toil, and there is no profit in abundance. We desire each day to know what is new, and what is knowledge itself but our daily sorrow and abasement?

Above, the vanity in things was determined according to the being which they have in the universe: here vanity is determined according to the being which they have in the human intellect: and vanity is shown in them in three ways: first, because they are not evident; second, because they do not satisfy; third, because they do not endure. They are not evident for interpreting or teaching; they do not satisfy so as to refresh and quiet the learner; they do not endure for remembering. And these three correspond to a threefold power in us: the interpretive, the cognitive, and the memorative.

First, therefore, it is noted that they are not evident for explaining; thus he says: "All things are difficult," namely for discovering their reason; whence Wisdom 9: "With difficulty we estimate the things that are on earth, and we find with labor the things that are before us"; below in chapter 8: "I understood that man can find no reason for the works of God"; and therefore, because they are difficult, "man cannot explain them in speech": Job 38: "Who shall declare the reason of the heavens"? Sirach 43: "We shall say much and shall fall short in words: the consummation of words is he himself."

Here in the second place it is touched upon that they do not fill so as to refresh the learner; and because we learn most by two senses, namely sight and hearing, he shows that in neither is there satiety; and therefore he says: "The eye is not satisfied with seeing": Proverbs twenty-seven: "For the eyes of men are insatiable." "Nor is the ear filled with hearing," since there is an itching to hear new and curious things: Second Timothy four: "They will heap up to themselves teachers according to their own desires, having itching ears." And the reason for this is that that in which there is true satiety, neither has the eye seen nor has the ear perceived: First Corinthians two: "Neither has the eye seen, nor has the ear heard."

It is asked concerning what he says: "All things are difficult."

On the contrary: There are many things whose knowledge is common to us and to brutes; therefore it is not difficult for man to know what a beast knows.

Likewise, there are certain things in which it does not happen to err, as in the knowledge of sensible things, because the sense is not deceived regarding its proper object, and of intelligible principles, such as axioms, and such things are easy to know.

Likewise, what does he mean when he says: "Man cannot explain them in speech"? It is easier for man to speak than for any creature to operate easily; therefore if it is easy for any creature to operate, then it is easy for man to explain its operation.

I respond: it must be said that there is knowing incompletely, as when something is known according to its accidents, or according to some operation. There is again knowing perfectly, and he knows perfectly who fully knows the substance, power, and operation, and the causes and reasons of these. And because power is hidden, and substance is remote from the senses, therefore all things are difficult for us.

As to the objection that we know some things in common with brute animals, this is true in a certain way, as that this is bitter; but a brute animal knows nothing fully.

Similarly the second is clear: because insofar as something is sensible, it is manifest.

Through this the following is also clear: because to "say" something and to "explain" it differ: for to "explain" is to draw out hidden reasons that are inwardly wrapped up; and no one can do this unless he understands; and this is arduous and belongs to few.

Likewise, there is a question about what he says: "The eye is not satisfied with seeing."

It is asked why he does not adduce the other senses, since it is similarly possible to know through them.

Likewise, what does he mean when he says: "Is not satisfied"? For one is said to be "satisfied" when he no longer desires more of what he was desiring; but it sometimes happens that a man does not want to see or hear more, but rather to rest.

Likewise, if it is not satisfied, then their desire never rests; therefore since a desire that has no rest is frustrated of its end, and every such thing is vain, therefore the desire of sight is vain.

I respond: it must be said that he mentions only these two senses because he speaks of the senses insofar as they are a way into knowledge and are referred to sensual delight. And the word by which we recognize all things is twofold: namely the divine word and the human word. The divine word is every creature, because it speaks God: this word the eye perceives. The human word is the uttered voice, and this the ear perceives.

Or because knowledge is twofold: through discovery and teaching; for the first regards sight, while the second regards hearing.

As to the objection about satisfaction: I say that he speaks of the satisfaction of these insofar as they are organs of the heart and of the will or appetite; and because the heart is not satisfied, neither are these two senses. Hence Hugh: "All beauty, all delight, all sweetness of created things can affect the human heart, but cannot satisfy it—only that sweetness alone, for which it was made, can satisfy it."

As to the objection about being frustrated: this is false, because it is terminated elsewhere.

As to the objection that one does not want more: this is because one grows weary and is disgusted, not because one is satisfied.

If moreover we consider the delight, we shall perceive the union of God and the soul. For every sense seeks its fitting sensible object with desire, finds it with joy, and returns to it without weariness, because the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled with hearing. In this manner also, the sense of our heart, whether it be the beautiful, the harmonious, the fragrant, the sweet, or the soothing, ought to seek with desire, find with joy, and return to without ceasing.

"All things are full of toil, man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled with hearing. "It is difficult to know not just about physics but also about ethics. And discourse is not able to explain the natural causes of things, nor to see those things that are hidden, (as the scope of this work demands); nor, once you have begun to learn is it possible to arrive at the greatest understanding by listening alone. For if we now look in the mirror in mystery and in part know and in part prophesy, consequently discourse will not be able to explain what it does not know; nor is the eye able to see where it is blind; nor are the ears filled by what they do not hear. At the same time this must be noted, that all words are wearying and are learnt with great difficulty, contrary to those who idly make prayers that an acquaintance with the Scriptures will come to them.

All writings, both of secular and of divine wisdom, yield instruction when effort is applied.

There are some people who want to twist even a famous passage in the book of Solomon, called Ecclesiastes, into a defense of these recurring cycles of universal dissolution and re-evocation of the past: "What is it that has been? The same thing that shall be. What is it that has been done? The same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is anyone able to say, 'Behold, this is new,' for it has already gone before in the ages that were before us." But here Solomon was speaking either of things he had just been discussing—the succession of generations, the revolution of the sun, the course of rivers—or, at any rate, of those creatures in general that come to life and die. For example, there were people before us, they are with us now, and they shall come after us. And the same is true of animals and plants. Even monstrosities that are abnormal at birth, different as they are among themselves and, in certain cases, unique, nevertheless, inasmuch as they come under the heading of prodigies and monsters, have existed before and will exist again. Consequently, it is nothing new or even of recent date that a monster should be born under the sun. However, there are some who interpret the words to mean that what Solomon had in mind was that, in the predestination of God, everything is already a fact and, in that sense, there is nothing new under the sun.Far be it from us Christians, however, to believe that these words of Solomon refer to those cycles by which, as these philosophers suppose, the same periods of time and sequence of events will be repeated. For example, the philosopher Plato having taught in a certain age at the school of Athens called the Academy, even so, through innumerable ages of the past at long but definite intervals, this same Plato and the same city, the same school and the same disciples all existed and will all exist again and again through innumerable ages of the future. Far be it from us, I say, to believe this. For Christ died once for our sins; and "having risen from the dead, dies now no more, death shall no longer have dominion over him." And we after the resurrection "shall ever be with the Lord," to whom we say, as the holy psalmist reminds us, "You, Oh Lord, will preserve us: and keep us from this generation forever." And the verse that follows, I think, may be suitably applied to these philosophers: "The wicked walk round about." These words do not mean that their life will repeatedly recur in cycle after cycle as they think but that here and now the way of their errors, that is, their false doctrine, goes around in circles.

The times of origin consist in the first seven days; the times of symbolism, in the span between the beginning of the world and Christ, when a new time begins, although Solomon said: "Nothing is new under the sun" — which is true in the order of nature, but this is above nature. The times of grace then come later. Moses began from the times of origin, and he was bound to do so, for Scripture, like a germinating soil, had to bring forth the seeds at first, then the symbolic trees, and finally the fruit.

And that one cannot be refreshed in these earthly things, he shows, because the eye and ear wish to perceive new things; but nothing remains in newness; therefore the ear and eye are filled by nothing. He supposes the major premise, and it is made manifest in Acts seventeen: "The Athenians spent their time in nothing else but either saying or hearing something new"; but here he proposes the minor, because nothing has newness, neither with respect to being nor with respect to becoming. Therefore he says: "What is it that has been?" He asks and he himself responds: "The same that shall be"; therefore by simple conversion: what shall be has been. Similarly it follows: "What is it that has been done?" He responds: "The same that is to be done"; therefore by simple conversion: what is to be done has been done. And from this he concludes: "Nothing is new under the sun, nor can anyone say: Behold this is recent"; therefore neither to say nor to hear anything new. And he repeats the proof: "For they have already gone before in the ages that were before us": Second Peter three: "Since our fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they are."

Likewise, there is a question about what he says: "Nothing is new under the sun."

The contrary seems to be the case: Jeremiah thirty-one: "The Lord will make a new thing upon the earth."

Likewise, Apocalypse twenty-one: "I saw a new heaven and a new earth."

Likewise, from this statement the error seems to be confirmed that there is a circulation in things according to procession, such that the same things exist which formerly existed, and this through the following text: it has "already preceded in the ages that were before us"; and thus that error seems to be verified which posits that after the great year, which contains fifteen thousand years, all things are renewed.

I respond: it must be said that there is an operation of creation, of conservation, of reparation, and of glorification. Each of these operations is above nature, and therefore will not be under the sun or under time, but above it, except for propagation; hence he understands only of this.

On this it should be noted that he calls "new" that whose likeness has not preceded; and thus there is nothing new according to propagation, because there always like comes from like. But the objector objects as if he were speaking of the numerically same thing; and that is impossible to understand in this way, because if every form that is corrupted and generated again differs numerically, it cannot be understood of the numerically same thing.

Now just as we pick out and exaggerate the pleasure of eating to produce gluttony, so we pick out this natural pleasantness of change and twist it into a demand for absolute novelty. This demand is entirely our workmanship. If we neglect our duty, men will be not only contented but transported by the mixed novelty and familiarity of snowdrops this January, sunrise this morning, plum pudding this Christmas. Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeed hopscotch as regularly as autumn follows summer. Only by our incessant efforts is the demand for infinite, or unrhythmical, change kept up.

Let none of those listening think that there is a longwinded and meaningless repetition of words in the distinction between what has come to be and what has been made. The text points out in each of the expressions the difference between the soul and the flesh. The soul has come to be, and the body has been made. It is not because the words have two different meanings that the text uses this distinction of terminology for each of the things referred to. But [it does so] to enable you to reckon what is advantageous in each case. The soul came to be in the beginning the same as it will again appear hereafter, when it has been purified. The body shaped by the hands of God was made what the resurrection of the dead in due time will reveal it to be. For such as you may see it after the resurrection of the dead, just such it was made at the first. The resurrection of the dead is nothing but the complete restoration of the original state.

Let no one listening to these words think that much talk and the repetition of words is vanity by the distinction between what is and what had been, for they demonstrate the difference between body and soul. Although the meaning of terms does not differ that much, the text does make a distinction to clearly manifest the difference for you. The soul existed right from the beginning; it had been purified in the past and will appear in the future. God fashioned the human body and will show the resurrection at the proper time, for that which comes after the resurrection was indeed fashioned first. The resurrection is nothing other than the restoration [apokatastasis.] of all things to their original state.

"The thing that has been, it is that which will be. And that which is done is that which shall be done. And there is no new thing under the sun." It seems to me that he now speaks generally about those things that he enumerated above: about generation after generation, the globe of the earth, the rising and setting of the sun, the course of rivers, the vastness of the ocean and all things which we learn either through thought or through sight or hearing, because there is nothing in nature that has not been before. For from the beginning of the world men have been born and have died, and the earth stood level above the waters and the sun lay in its origin. And lest I should go on to list more things, it is left to God as creator to fly with the birds, to swim with the fish, and walk with the creatures of the earth and slide with snakes. And the comic [Terence Eunuchus, prol. 41.] said something similar to this: "Nothing has been said, which has not been said before", about which my teacher Donatus, when he was lecturing about this verse, said: "Let them die, who have said our words before us." [Donatus Comm. in Terent. Eun.] Then if is possible to say nothing new in discourse, how great the creation of the world must have been, which has been complete right from the start, that God was able to rest from his work on the seventh day! Read also in another book: "If everything that is done under the sun has already been done is past centuries, and man was already made when the sun was made: then man existed before he came under the sun." [Origines peri Archon III 5, 3.] But he is excluded, because by this reasoning even packhorses, gnats, and each insect and large animal is said to have been made before the sky. Unless however he should reply that talking comes from the consequences of speaking not about other animals but about the man Ecclesiastes, for he says "there is nothing new under the sun about which one can say 'look this is new!' But he does not speak of animals but of man alone, because if he means animals to be new, then he refutes his own opinion that nothing is new under the sun.

It is probably in this way that, so far as our weakness allows, we shall maintain a reverent belief about God, neither asserting that his creatures were unbegotten and coeternal with him nor that he turned to the work of creation to do good when he had done nothing good before. For the saying that is written, "In wisdom you have made all things," is a true one. And certainly if "all things have been made in wisdom," then since wisdom has always existed, there have always existed in wisdom, by a prefiguration and preformation, those things which afterwards have received substantial existence. This is, I believe, the thought and meaning of Solomon when he says in Ecclesiastes, "What is it that has been made? The same that is to be. And what is it that has been created? The same that is destined to be created. And there is nothing fresh under the sun. If one should speak of anything and say, Behold, this is new: it already has been, in the ages that were before us." If then particular things which are "under the sun" have already existed in the ages which were before us—since "there is nothing fresh under the sun"—then all universal categories have forever existed, and some would say even individual things; but either way, it is clear that God did not begin to create after spending a period in idleness.

We say that not then for the first time did God begin to work when he made this visible world; but as, after its destruction, there will be another world, so also we believe that others existed before the present came into being. And both of these positions will be confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture. For that there will be another world after this is taught by Isaiah, who says, "There will be new heavens, and a new earth, which I shall make to abide in my sight, says the Lord." And that before this world others also existed is shown by Ecclesiastes, in the words "What is that which has been? Even that which shall be. And what is that which has been created? Even this which is to be created: and there is nothing altogether new under the sun. Who shall speak and declare, Lo, this is new? It has already been in the ages which have been before us." By these testimonies it is established both that there were ages before our own and that there will be others after it. It is not, however, to be supposed that several worlds existed at once but that, after the end of this present world, others will take their beginning.

He shows that nothing remains in newness, neither with respect to being nor with respect to becoming. Therefore he says: "What is it that has been?" He asks and he himself responds: "The same that shall be." Similarly it follows: "What is it that has been done?" He responds: "The same that is to be done." And from this he concludes: "Nothing is new under the sun, nor can anyone say: Behold this is recent"; therefore neither to say nor to hear anything new. And he repeats the proof: "For they have already gone before in the ages that were before us": Second Peter three: "Since our fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they are."

On this it should be noted that he calls "new" that whose likeness has not preceded; and thus there is nothing new according to propagation, because there always like comes from like.

"Is there anything whereof it may be said, see this is new? It has already been for ages, which were before us. "Symmachus translated this more clearly: "Do you think there is a man who is able to say: look this is new, it has already been done before because it was before us." But he agrees with his predecessors that there is nothing new in the world, and that there is none that is able to live and say: 'look this is new', since everything that he thought he had shown to be new, already existed in former times. But we ought not to think that the signs, prodigies and the many deeds which are done for the first time by God's judgement in the world today, have already been done before in former ages, or that it was Epicurus who found this, asserting that these same things were done in innumerable periods and in these places and by these same men. Besides, both Judas betrayed "repeatedly" and Christ "often" suffered for us; and other things which have been done and will be done, are continually repeated in these times. But it could be said too, that those things, which will be done have already been done, decided out of foreknowledge and the predestination of God. For those who have been chosen in Christ before the constitution of the world existed already in previous times.

In the third place it is touched upon here that things do not endure so as to be remembered, because all things are delivered to oblivion; whence he says: "There is no remembrance of former things," namely among us who come after: Wisdom two: "Our name shall receive oblivion through time, and no one shall have remembrance of our works." And so it is in things past and in things future; whence he adds: "But neither indeed shall there be remembrance of those things that are to come hereafter among those who shall be in the last time," that is: later generations shall not be mindful of former things, and this on account of time, which brings on oblivion; below in chapter two: "Future times shall cover all things with oblivion."

Likewise, there is a question about what he says: "There is no remembrance of former things."

On the contrary: It is said in the Psalm: "I remembered your works, O Lord."

I respond: to this some say that it is understood of evil things, not of good things.

But this is still false, because many evil things are also in memory.

And therefore it must be said that this proposition is not to be understood as universally true, but as true in most cases, because there is more forgetfulness than remembrance; nevertheless, very many of the things that have been done are in our memory.

If oblivion has overtaken things which were, do not be surprised; for those that now are will also be veiled in oblivion. When our nature inclined to evil we became forgetful of the good; when we are set free again for the good, evil in turn will be veiled in oblivion. For I think this is the meaning of the text, in which he says, "There is no memory for the first, and indeed for those who come last there will be no memory of them." It is as if he were saying that the memory of events which followed our blessed state at the beginning, through which humanity has come to be among evils, will be obliterated by what again supervenes at the end. For "there will be no memory of them with those who have come to be at the last." That means, the final restoration will make the memory of evil things utterly vanish in our nature, in Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory forever and ever.

If they are swallowed up in oblivion, do not wonder because the present will suffer the same fate. Because nature tends towards evil, we are forgetful of the good; but when enjoyment of the good returns, oblivion envelopes evil. We have no remembrance of the first and last things which is as though he said that the events which introduced evil after man's original blessed state will erase the memory the last things. No such memory will exist in the future; the last state [hē eschatē katastasis] will utterly destroy the memory of evil deeds in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

"There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after." In the same way as the past is concealed for us in forgetfulness, thus it is with those things which are either done now, or will be done. And because of this those men who have yet to be born, will not be able to know these things, and will live life in silence, and will be obscured as if they never existed, and that verse will be fulfilled, which says, "vanity of vanities, all is vanity", for even the Seraphim, the first and last, cover up their feet on account of the appearance of God. The Septuagint is similar here: "There is no memory of former things, and even of things which are to come, there will be no memory for them with those who will come after." That is observed from the Gospel because those who were first in time are first "before all others". [Cfr Matth. 20, 16.] And because God who is benevolent and forgiving remembers all things no matter how insignificant, he will not give as much glory to those who deserve to be first on account of their faults, as he will give to those who humbly wanted to be first. And so it says consequently: "there is no memory of the wise more than of the fool for ever." [Eccl. 2, 16.]

Here from the consideration of the mutability of things he reproves his own curiosity. And first he manifests his curiosity; second, he reproves his curiosity on account of vanity, in the second chapter.

First he manifests his curiosity, first indeed in the works of prudence or philosophy; second, of the curiosity of opulence or mechanical art, at: "I magnified my works."

Therefore the suitability of the one considering is noted, when he says: "I, Ecclesiastes": because in him there was wisdom, therefore he calls himself Ecclesiastes, that is, a preacher; there was also power, whence he says: "I was king"; there was also peace, whence he adds: "in Jerusalem," which is interpreted as "vision of peace": Ecclesiasticus forty-seven: "Solomon reigned in days of peace": First Chronicles twenty-two: "The son who shall be born to you shall be a peaceful man"; and because he possessed this, therefore nothing held him back from consideration.

We have learned who the Ecclesiast is, he who unites what has gone astray and has been scattered abroad, and makes it all one church and one flock, that none may be deaf to the shepherd's kindly voice, which gives life to all. For "the words which I speak," he says, "are spirit and are life." This is the one who calls himself Ecclesiast, just as he calls himself "Physician," and "Life," and "Resurrection," and "Light," and "Way," and "Door," and "Truth," and all the names of his love for humankind. … What does the Ecclesiast say? "I have become King over Israel in Jerusalem." When is this? Surely when "he was set up as king by him on Mount Zion, his holy mountain, proclaiming the Lord's commandment." To him the Lord said, "You are my Son," and "Today I have begotten you." He says that today he has begotten the Maker of all, the Father of the ages, so that by applying a temporal term to the moment of his birth, the text might demonstrate not his existence before the ages but his fleshly birth in time, for the salvation of humankind.

We now learn the identity of Ecclesiastes who gathers into one what is scattered and dispersed. He makes one flock and church in order that everyone may hear the Shepherd's lovely voice who bestows life to all. "The words that I speak are spirit and life." [Christ] calls himself Ecclesiastes that he might be doctor, life, resurrection, light, way, gate, truth and any other benevolent name for humankind. What does he say? "I have been king over Israel in Jerusalem." At what time? Was it not when God set up a king in holy Mount Zion to proclaim his precepts? Of him the Lord says "You are my son; today I have begotten you." The Maker of all things, the eternal Father, said that he begot him today. Thus this temporal name does not refer to [Christ's] eternal essence but to a birth through the flesh in time for man's salvation.

"I, Ecclesiastes, was King over Israel in Jerusalem. "Until now the preface has spoken only generally about all arguments; but here he returns to the subject of himself, and reveals who he was, and how he knew and experienced all things. The Hebrews say that Solomon, who was doing repentance, wrote this book, and who, having put his trust in wisdom and riches, failed God because of his wives.

Here curiosity itself is touched upon, because he wished to know all things and to investigate them subtly. Therefore he says: "And I proposed in my mind to seek," namely from another, "and to investigate wisely," by myself; and this is curiosity; Romans twelve: "Not to be wise more than it behooves one to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety"; whence Proverbs twenty-five: "You have found honey; eat what is sufficient for you, lest perhaps being sated you vomit it up." "Concerning all things that are done under the sun." Behold, a greater curiosity, because concerning all things: Ecclesiasticus three: "Do not search into superfluous things in many ways, and do not be curious about his many works; for many things beyond the understanding of men have been shown to you."

"This most wretched occupation." Here the severity of divine judgment is touched upon: because by divine judgment, on account of the sin of the first parent, it came about that our rational faculty so readily indulges itself in the knowledge of earthly things. On account of which he says: "This most wretched occupation," because it is not only blameworthy but also penal; "God gave to the sons of men," that is, he permitted it to be given; or by reason of its penal character he gave it in a just manner; "that they might be occupied in it," and thereby be forgetful of their salvation.

Whence it should be noted that there is an evil occupation, which is from weakness: concerning this, Ecclesiasticus forty: "A great occupation is created for all men, and a heavy yoke upon the sons of Adam, from the day of their going out of their mother's womb even to the day of their burial into the mother of all."

There is a worse occupation, which is from ignorance, concerning which Job three: "Let darkness and the shadow of death obscure it; let a mist occupy it, and let it be wrapped in bitterness."

The third is from curiosity, and this is the worst, and of this he speaks here.

And it should be noted that "occupation, as Hugh says, is a distraction of the mind which turns away and distracts and ensnares the soul, so that it cannot think about the things that pertain to salvation." Curiosity, however, is the lustful prostitution of the human intellect, indiscriminately embracing any truth whatsoever and committing adultery with it, because the First Truth alone is the spouse.

But here it is asked concerning what he says: "This most wretched occupation."

Against: This is sin: therefore God gave sin.

If you say: "He gave," that is, He permitted it to be given; but similarly He permitted stealing: therefore it would be rightly said that God steals.

I respond: "Sins that are midway between the first apostasy and the final punishment are both punishment and fault"; but some express more the character of fault, and some more the character of punishment: those which express more the character of punishment are attributed to the just judgment of God, and such is occupation and blindness of this kind.

I thoughtfully examined and wisely learned the nature of everything on earth. I discovered that it was all very complex, because human beings are allowed to toil away on earth, wallowing about uselessly in various kinds of pretentious effort at various times.

These are the things which the true Ecclesiast recounts as he teaches, so I believe, the great mystery of salvation, the reason why God was revealed in flesh. "I gave my heart," he says, "to enquiring into and investigating by wisdom all that had come about under the heaven." This is the reason for the Lord's fleshly coming to dwell with humankind, to give his heart to investigating in his own wisdom what has come about under the heaven. What is above the heaven had no need of investigation, just as there is no need of a medical attendant for what is not in the grip of illness. So because the evils were on earth—for the creeping animal, the serpent which "crawls on its breast and on its belly," makes the earth its food, eating nothing from heaven; as it crawls on trodden ground it always looks at what treads on it, "watching for the traveler's heel" and injecting its venom into those who have lost "the power to tread upon serpents"—for this reason he gave his "heart to enquiring into and investigating all that has come about under the heaven."

I think that the true Ecclesiastes next teaches about the great mystery of salvation when God manifested himself in the flesh. "I applied my heart to seek out and examine by wisdom all things done under heaven." The reason for our Lord's dwelling with men is to give his heart over in wisdom to consider his actions done under the sun. For man is not allowed to consider what lies above heaven just as healthy persons do not require doctors. Evil belongs to the earth. A snake is a reptile which crawls on its belly, eats earth instead of food from heaven, crawls on anything trampled down and is always on the prowl. It watches for man's heel and injects poison in those who have lost the power to tread on serpents. For this reason Ecclesiastes gives his heart over to careful consideration of every activity done under heaven.

"I applied my mind to seek and probe by wisdom all that happens beneath the sky - it is a sorry task that God has given to the sons of man with which to be concerned." Aquila, the Septuagint, and Theodotion have all translated the Hebrew word "anian "similarly as "peristasmon", which the interpreter expressed as "occupied" in Latin [Hier.. "in distentionem".], because the mind of man is torn asunder when occupied by several anxieties. But Symmachus uses the Greek word "ascholian", which means business [Hier.. "occupationem".]. Since therefore in this book it is more often called either "occupationem", or "distentionem", or whatever else we have called it, they all refer to the higher senses. Ecclesiastes therefore set his mind first of all to the acquisition of wisdom, and pursuing this beyond what is allowed, wanted to know the causes and reasoning why children are easily snatched by the Devil; why the righteous and the wicked are equally punished in shipwrecks; and whether these events happen as a result of fate, or by the decree of God. And if by fate, where is providence? If by decree, where is God's justice? With such desire to know these things, he said, I understand the great care and torturing anxiety experienced in many things, which was given to man by God, in order that he might desire to know that which he is not allowed to know. But the cause is inborn first, and God then gives vexation. For it is written similarly in the epistles to the Romans: ""On account of what did God give them up to the suffering of dishonour?"" [Rom. 1, 6.] then again he says: ""On account of what did He give them up to uncleanness, so that they did what was not allowed"". [Rom. 1, 28.] And then: ""On account of which God gave them up to desire for their uncleanness"". [Rom. 1, 24.] And to the Thessalonians: ""And for this cause God will send them strong delusion."" [II Thess. 2, 10.] But the causes why they succumb were revealed earlier: either by the suffering of dishonour, or by vile affections, or by the longing in their heart, or whatever it is they do to receive strong delusion. In this way and because of their effectiveness God gave this wicked 'occupation' to man, with which to be concerned, because he did these things first voluntarily and entirely of his own will.

We read in Scripture concerning the striving after temporal things, "All is vanity and presumption of spirit," but presumption of spirit means audacity and pride. Usually also the proud are said to have great spirits, and rightly, inasmuch as the wind also is called spirit. And hence it is written, "Fire, hail, snow, ice, spirit of tempest." But, indeed, who does not know that the proud are spoken of as puffed up, as if swelled out with wind? And hence also that expression of the apostle, "Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies." And "the poor in spirit" are rightly understood here, as meaning the humble and God-fearing, that is, those who have not the spirit which puffs up. Nor ought blessedness to begin at any other point whatever, if indeed it is to attain unto the highest wisdom. "But the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"; for, on the other hand also, "pride" is entitled "the beginning of all sin." Let the proud, therefore, seek after and love the kingdoms of the earth, but "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Here is touched upon the discovered vanity, because he profited nothing more, except that in his consideration he found vanity. And therefore he says: "I saw all things that are done under the sun," that is, I considered all things. "And behold, all is vanity," that is, vanity openly appears in them, because, as the Apostle says in Romans 8, "the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly"; and not only vanity, but indeed also "affliction of spirit."

"I have seen everything," says Ecclesiastes. I have reviewed in my mind all human things, wealth, luxury, power, glory that is not stable, wisdom that eludes us more often than it is mastered; again pleasure, again wisdom, often returning full circle to the same things, delights of the belly, orchards, numbers of slaves, a multitude of possessions, male and female table servants, singing men and singing women, arms, henchmen, nations at one's feet, revenues flowing in, the pride of royalty, all life's superfluities and necessities, in which I surpassed all the kings who were before me. And after all this what is his judgment? "All is vanity of vanities, all is vanity and vexation of spirit," that is, a kind of irrational impulse of soul and distraction of man who has been condemned to this perhaps because of the original fall. But "hear all the conclusion of my discourse," he says; "fear God." Through this he ceases from perplexity. And this alone is your gain from life here, to be brought through the confusion of things that are seen and unstable to things which are firm and immovable.

He came, then, to enquire by his own wisdom what has come about under the sun, what the confusion is of things here on earth, how being became the slave of nonbeing, how the unreal dominates being. And he saw that evil distress God gave to the sons of man, for them to be distressed with. This does not mean, as one might assume at first glance, that it is devout to think that God gave evil distress to people, for then the responsibility for ills would be laid on him.… What the more devout understanding is disposed to think is this: that the good gift of God, that is, freedom of action, became a means to sin through the sinful use humankind made of it. For unfettered free will is good by nature, and nobody would reckon among good things anything that was constrained by the yoke of necessity. But that free impulse of the mind rushing unschooled toward the choice of evil became a source of distress for the soul, as it was dragged down from the sublime and honorable toward the urges of the natural passions.… [Therefore] a correct understanding does not conclude that anything bad has been put in human nature by God but blames our capacity to choose, which is in itself a good thing. [It is] a gift of God granted to our nature, but through folly it has become a force tipping the balance the opposite way.

Ecclesiastes has come to search through his own wisdom those actions done under the sun, their confusion, why things are subject to nonexistence and how that which is insubstantial prevails against being. He knew that "God has given to the sons of men an evil trouble to be vexed with." This is not a pious deed we can readily understand because God has given an evil to the sons of men in order to trouble them; and so one may attribute the cause of evil to God.… A more pious understanding suggests that God bestows upon man the gift of free will which he abused and then became an instrument for sin. This free will is good and subject to no one, while anything subject to necessity should not be counted as good. But any impulse coming from the mind is free; it distracts the soul to choose evil and pulls it down to passion from the lofty honors it had received.… An accurate understanding of these verses does not mean that human nature lacks anything unbecoming from God; rather, they censure our power of free choice which in itself is good and a gift bestowed by God to human nature. But as a result of indiscretion, free will inclines towards the opposite way.

"I have seen all the deeds done underneath the sun, and behold all is futile and a vexation of the spirit." We are compelled here by necessity to examine the Hebrew words more closely than we wish. It is also not possible to know the real meaning of the text, unless we learn it through studying the original Hebrew words. Aquila and Theodotion translate "routh "as the Greek "nomen", Symmachus has "boskesin". The Septuagint does not express the Hebrew meaning, but the Syriac, as shown in the Greek word "proairesin". Therefore either "nome", or "boskesis", is the noun coming from "vexation." "Proairesis "sounds more like 'will' than 'vexation'. Every single man however is said to do what he "wishes", and what seems right to him; and men are borne with different dispositions (i.e. good and wicked) of their own free will. And all things under the sun are vain, when we displease each other by doing what is the greatest good and greatest evil. A Hebrew, who was instructing me as I read the Holy Scriptures, said to me that above the word "routh" was written ""it means rather suffering and wickedness in this place than vexation and will"", and the meaning does not come from the evil which is contrary to good, but from that which is written in the Gospel: ""Sufficient to the day is its wickedness."" [Matth. 6, 34.] The Greeks call this more significantly "kakouchian", so the verse essentially means: "I have considered all things, which are done in the world, and I discovered nothing except vanity and wickedness, that is distress of the soul, by which the spirit is afflicted in contrary thoughts.

So, following the teachings of these blessed saints, we utterly renounce these corruptible and perishable things of life, wherein may be found nothing stable or constant, or that continues in one stay. But all things are vanity and vexation of spirit, and many are the changes that they bring in a moment, for they are slighter than dreams and a shadow, or the breeze that blows the air. Small and short-lived is their charm, that is after all no charm, but illusion and deception of the wickedness of the world; which world we have been taught to love not at all but rather to hate with all our heart. Yes, and truly it is worthy of hatred and abhorrence; for whatsoever gifts it gives to its friends, these in turn in passion it takes away and shall hand over its victims, stripped of all good things, clad in the garment of shame, and bound under heavy burdens, to eternal tribulation. And those again whom it exalts, it quickly abases to the utmost wretchedness, making them a footstool and a laughing stock for their enemies. Such are its charms, such its bounties.

This then is the "vanity" to which the creation was subjected, and above all that creation which is certainly the greatest thing in this world and which holds a distinguished preeminence by reason of its function. That is, the sun, moon and stars are said to have been subjected to vanity, because they were clothed with bodies and set to perform the task of giving light to the human race. And this creation, Scripture says, was subjected to vanity "not of its own will." For it did not undertake a service to vanity by the exercise of free will but in obedience to the wish of him who was subjecting it, because he who subjected it promised those who were being given over unwillingly to vanity that on the fulfillment of their splendid work of service they should be delivered from this bondage of corruption and vanity, when the time of redemption "of the glory of the sons of God" should have come. Having received this hope, and looking for the fulfillment of this promise, the entire creation now in the meantime "groans together" with us (for it even has sympathy with those whom it serves) and "is in pain together," while in patience it hopes for what has been promised.

He is upright in heart who does not have his mind inclined to excess or to deficiency but directs his endeavors toward the mean of virtue. He who has turned aside from valor to something less becomes crooked through cowardice, but he who has strained on to greater things inclines toward temerity. Therefore the Scripture calls those "crooked" who go astray from the middle way by excess or by deficiency. For, as a line becomes crooked when its straightforward direction is deflected, now convexly, now concavely, so also a heart becomes crooked when it is at one time exalted through boastfulness, at another dejected through afflictions and humiliations. Wherefore Ecclesiastes says, "The crooked will not be kept straight."

But because not all see this, and because they thus labor in vain and do not perceive their affliction: to this tacit question he responds saying: "The perverse are corrected with difficulty": whence Proverbs 18: "A fool does not receive words of prudence, unless you say those things which revolve in his heart." "And the number of fools is infinite," namely on account of their multitude: and to consider this is not only vanity, but indeed also affliction: whence it is said in the Psalm: "I saw the transgressors, and I pined away"; and again: "My zeal has made me pine away." Man is perverted through evil thought: Wisdom 1: "Perverse thoughts separate from God: but proven virtue corrects the foolish." Through evil affection: Proverbs 17: "He who is of a perverse heart shall not find good, and he who turns his tongue shall fall into evil." Through evil speech: Proverbs 10: "The lips of the just consider what is pleasing, and the mouth of the wicked, perverse things"; Proverbs 2: "That you may be delivered from the man who speaks perverse things." Through wicked action: Proverbs 2: "They rejoice when they have done evil, and exult in the worst things"; Isaiah 1: "Cease to act perversely."

Likewise, there is a question concerning what he says: "The perverse are corrected with difficulty": because it is easy for someone to become perverted; but perversion is against nature; therefore, if it is most easy to return to nature, since vice is against nature, it is most easy to be corrected.

I respond: the reason is taken both from the side of the evil work, because "good exists in one way, but evil in every way"; and from the side of the operating power, which is rendered weak through fault, and therefore cannot engage in strenuous work; and from the side of the opposition of good to evil according to privation, because it is most easy to recede from a habit to privation, but difficult, or altogether impossible, to return.

The number by which God numbers the saints displays a certain and determined spiritual order, as it is said, "He numbers the multitudes of stars; and calls them all by name." … Now, if David says, the understanding of God is without number, it is not as though it were unworthy of God's essence that it cannot be numbered, or because the nature of such a number cannot be comprehended. For, just as the word invisible has two meanings: first, when applied to something that by its very nature is invisible (e.g., God), and second, when applied to something that may be visible yet is not normally seen, like the ocean floor because it is hidden under waters; similarly, "innumerable" has two meanings: what cannot be numbered by nature and what cannot be numbered for some other reason.

"A twisted thing cannot be made straight, and what is not there cannot be numbered. "Whoever is wicked cannot be corrected, unless he was corrected beforehand. Anything that is already correct will receive embellishment; and that which is deviated will receive correction. A man is not called wrong unless he has been diverted from the correct path. This is contrary to the heretics, who entertained certain characteristics, which do not seem to be sane. And since what is missing is lacking, it cannot be numbered. Besides, only the firstborn of Israel were counted. The women, slaves, children and the people from Egypt, although of a great number, were largely overlooked, being referred to as a reduction from the army, without a number. The meaning of this can also be: such wickedness is done in the sphere of the world that the world is scarcely able to return to its completely good condition; nor is it able to regain easily its order and complete state, in which it was first created. Another meaning of this is: when all men have been restored to goodness through repentance, only the devil will remain in his wickedness. For all things which are done under the sun are done by his will and in the spirit of malevolence, while sins are piled on sins at his instigation. Then it can also mean: so great is the number of deviants and of those who have been taken away from God's flock by the devil that it is impossible to count them.

Here he similarly shows his curiosity in the consideration of moral matters. For first is noted his transition from natural things to moral matters; second, the discovery of affliction; third, the turning to the enjoyment of delightful things; fourth, the return to the consideration of evils.

First, therefore, his transition to considering moral matters is intimated, and this after he had considered the natures of things. On account of which he says: "I have spoken in my heart," namely through thought, "saying: Behold, I have become great," in fame, "and I have surpassed all in wisdom who were before me in Jerusalem"; Third Kings, chapter four: "And the wisdom of Solomon surpassed the wisdom of all the Orientals and the Egyptians, and he was wiser than all men"; Ecclesiasticus, chapter forty-seven: "He was instructed in his youth, and was filled with wisdom as with a river." And he had this knowledge partly through revelation; whence he says: "My mind has contemplated many things wisely," namely illuminated by God; and partly also through his own diligence; whence he adds: "And I have learned"; Proverbs, chapter four: "I was a tender son of my father and an only one in the sight of my mother, and he taught me"; Proverbs, the last chapter: "The vision with which his mother instructed him."

Considering therefore that he had this wisdom in the investigation of natural things, because "he discoursed from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop," according to what is said in Third Kings, chapter four, he wished to transfer himself to moral matters.

Therefore it is written in Ecclesiastes, "And I added wisdom above all who were before me in Jerusalem; and my heart saw many things; and besides, I knew wisdom and knowledge, parables and understanding. And this also is the choice of the spirit, because in abundance of wisdom is abundance of knowledge." He who is conversant with all kinds of wisdom will be preeminently reliant upon knowledge. Now it is written, "Abundance of the knowledge of wisdom will give life to him who is of it." And again, what is said is confirmed more clearly by this saying, "All things are in the sight of those who understand"—all things, both hellenic and barbarian; but the one or the other is not all. "They are right to those who wish to receive understanding. Choose instruction, and not silver, and knowledge above tested gold," and prefer also sense to pure gold;"for wisdom is better than precious stones, and no precious thing is worth it."

What is the way back for the wanderer, and the way of escape from evil, and toward good, we learn next. For he "who has had experience like us in all things, without sin," speaks to us from our own condition. "He took our weaknesses upon him," and through these very weaknesses of our nature he shows us the way out of the reach of evil. Now note, please, that Wisdom speaks to us through Solomon himself after the flesh, and speaks about those things by which we may most readily be led to despise the things which are pursued by people.

We next learn about the return of a person who has erred and the change from evil to enjoyment of the good. He [Christ] who has been tempted in all things and is without sin holds converse with us in our human nature. He who assumed our weakness showed us a way out of evil through the infirmities of his human nature. "Instruct me in the Wisdom [Christ] according to the Solomon who was in the flesh which held converse with us." Once familiar with it, we are able to pass judgment on what men pursue.

"I said to myself: here I have acquired great wisdom, more than any of my predecessors over Jerusalem, and my mind has had much experience with wisdom and knowledge." Solomon was not greater than Abraham and Moses, and other saints, but than those who were before him in Jerusalem. We read in the book of Kings that Solomon was very wise, and he claimed this wisdom to have been given by God before all others. [Cfr III Reg. 3, 5 sqq] It was then the eye of his heart that saw great wisdom and knowledge in the world, since he does not say "I spoke much wisdom and knowledge" but "my heart saw much wisdom and knowledge." For indeed we are not able to speak out all those things which we feel.

Whence he says: "And I gave my heart to know prudence," with respect to things to be done, "and learning," with respect to things to be known, "and errors," against prudence, "and folly," against learning; because nothing is known perfectly unless its opposite is known. And it is useful to know these things when they are investigated in the proper manner; whence Proverbs, chapter eight: "Receive instruction and not money; choose learning rather than gold."

Here the discovery of spiritual affliction in the consideration thereof is touched upon: because the better a man knows good and evil, the more he is afflicted when he errs. On account of which he says: "And I knew that in these things also there was labor and affliction of spirit," that is, in the knowledge of useful things: "labor," namely in acquiring; Psalm: "I thought that I might know this, it is labor before me"; "affliction of spirit," after acquisition, either on account of the detestation of fault, or because it is an occasion of pride and impatience, since "knowledge puffs up."

It is Solomon who speaks these words. This Solomon was the third king of Israel, after King Saul and David, the chosen of the Lord. He succeeded his father on the throne and was proclaimed king when the power of the Israelites had already reached its height; he did not go on wearing his people out with war and fighting but lived in peace as far as lay in his power, making it his task not to acquire what did not belong to him but to enjoy what he already had in abundance.… Such is the order he adopts in his account, that first in the early years of his life he devotes his time to education and does not take the easy course in the face of the hard work such study involves but uses the choice of his spirit, that is, his natural impulse, for the accumulation of knowledge, even though his goal was achieved by hard work. And thus, when he has matured in wisdom, he does not merely theoretically observe the passionate and irrational deception of mankind in the matter of bodily enjoyments but through the actual experience of each of the things they pursue recognizes their futility.

Solomon is the one speaking here, the third king of Israel whom the Lord had chosen after Saul and David. He received the kingship from his father and extended his rule which brought him renown among the Israelites. Solomon no longer subjected peoples through battle; by conducting himself peacefully and with full authority, he did not devote his energy towards anything not belonging to him.… He claimed to know the efforts needed to attain pleasure and accomplished everything which he had enumerated, an experience which taught him that vanity is the common end of men's pursuits. Ecclesiastes sets forth the order in his narrative when during his youth he first had leisure for personal training, for attention to such labors does not indicate laxity. But the Spirit uses free will, a movement proper to our nature, to increase knowledge if a person is to succeed in his endeavors. Thus wisdom grows not by considering reason which closely regards passion and unreason when it comes to that deception arising from corporeal enjoyment; rather it is knowledge about vanity through experience of these endeavors.

"I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this, too, is a vexation of the spirit." Contrary abstract ideas are understood by looking at contrary facts; and " wisdom is the first to be lacking in foolishness" [Horat. Epist.I, 1,41-42.], but it is not possible to be lacking in foolishness, unless one has understood it. Many dangerous things are also created from foolishness, so that while we try to avoid them, we are actually instructed in wisdom. Solomon wanted to know wisdom and knowledge with equal enthusiasm, and equally madness and folly, so that whilst seeking some things and shunning others, his true wisdom might be proved. But in this too, as in other things, he said he found great difficulties and was not able to grasp the exact truth of matters. What I have said above about "vexation of the spirit" or "suffering of the soul", as it is more often written in this book, should be sufficient to understand the rest of this verse.

People are accustomed to set a high value on the knowledge of earthly and celestial things. But they are certainly better who prefer the knowledge of themselves to this knowledge. And a mind to which even its own weakness is known is more deserving of praise than one that … is ignorant of the course by which it must proceed to reach its own true health and strength. But one who has been aroused by the warmth of the Holy Spirit … has already awakened to God. In his love for [God, such a person] has already felt his own unworthiness and is willing but is not yet strong enough to come to him. And through the light received from [God, this person] takes heed to himself and finds that his own defilement cannot mingle with his purity. [This person] feels it sweet to weep and to beseech God that he may again and again have pity until he has cast off all his misery. [This person also prays] with confidence as having already received the free gift of salvation through his only Savior and enlightener of humankind. For one who so acts and laments, knowledge does not puff up because charity edifies. He has preferred the one knowledge to the other knowledge; he has preferred to know his own weakness more than to know the walls of the world, the foundations of the earth, and the heights of the heavens. And by acquiring this knowledge he has acquired sorrow, the sorrow arising from his wandering away from the desire of his own true country, and from its founder, his own blessed God.

It is evident, then, that the oldness of the letter, in the absence of the newness of the spirit, instead of freeing us from sin, rather makes us guilty by the knowledge of sin. [Thus] it is written in another part of Scripture, "He that increases knowledge, increases sorrow." [It is] not that the law is itself evil, but because the commandment has its good in the demonstration of the letter, not in the assistance of the spirit. And if this commandment is kept from the fear of punishment and not from the love of righteousness, it is kept in a servile manner, not freely, and therefore it is not kept at all. For no fruit is good which does not grow from the root of love.

Third, gratuitous knowledge is called the knowledge of the Saints, because it has a zeal for all holiness.

Whence in the book of Ecclesiastes: "In much wisdom there will be indignation; he who adds knowledge adds sorrow." A man knowing his own defects has the sorrow of compunction for himself, the sorrow of compassion for his neighbors, and the sorrow of zeal for the honor of God.

"Because in much wisdom there is much indignation," either of contrition, against fault, or of impatience from pride, because great clerics, when they do not have what they want, are most easily indignant: whence it is said in Job thirty-two that Elihu was indignant, and this because he considered himself wise. And therefore it follows: "He who adds knowledge adds also sorrow," because an impatient man sustains many sorrows, since there is no one for whom all things turn out according to his wish. And with this exposition agrees another translation of Jerome: "I knew that in these things there was a feeding on wind," and therefore rightly there is labor and affliction of spirit. Whence Hugh: "Curiosity drove it to inquiry, pride to ostentation: and therefore it was fitting that labor should press down the swollen, and occupation dissipate the curious."

It can also be understood of the affliction of contrition, because even where there is much wisdom, there is much indignation against sin: Jeremiah thirty-one: "After you showed me, I struck my thigh." "And he who adds knowledge adds also sorrow," namely of penance: Job last chapter: "Now my eye sees you: therefore I reprove myself and do penance in dust and ashes."

"For with much wisdom comes much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases pain." The more a man seeks wisdom, the more he finds himself in vice and far from those virtues, which he is seeking. For those who are powerful suffer torments more gravely [Cfr Sap. 6, 7.], and more is demanded of the man, to whom more is entrusted. Because of this he increases his pain who increases his knowledge, and is saddened by grief according to God, and suffers beyond his offences. The apostle said concerning this: "and who is there, who gladdens me, unless he is saddened by me?" [II Cor. 2, 2.] Unless perchance, and this must be understood, that a wise man would suffer so much for his wisdom, in secret and deep in his flank, nor would he show himself to prosper in intelligence, as light is to seeing; but rather through certain torments and intolerable toil, and through perpetual meditation and enthusiasm.