Ecclesiastes

Three things must be premised here in the customary manner: first, what and how great is the authority of this book, and who is its author; second, what is its matter, what its method, what its end and scope; third, what is its division, how many members and parts it has.

I. On the Authority and Author of This Book

The question is therefore posed first: what and how great is the authority of this book, and who and what kind is its author? I answer: The authority of this book is Canonical of Holy Scripture; for the Hebrews, equally with the Greeks and Latins, have always held this book in the Canon of the books of Holy Scripture, nor has there ever been any doubt about this matter; hence it has always been reckoned among the protocanonical books, as Canonical of the first class. This is evident from the Apostolic Canon, the last canon, from the Council of Laodicea and the Third Council of Carthage, and the Florentine and Tridentine Councils, Session IV; from St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome in the Galeatine Prologue, Innocent I, Gelasius and others who compiled the catalogue of Canonical books. I except a few heretics, whom Philastrius lists without naming in heresy 132, and James Christopol. in the Preface to the Song of Songs, and some Jews who, as St. Jerome testifies at the end of his Commentary, thought this book favored the sect of the Epicureans, and was written by Solomon when he indulged in Venus and the belly, whom Theodore of Mopsuestia followed, an apostate monk and master of Nestorius, who, seeing the vanity of the world, and especially the luxury which he as a monk had despised and as an apostate had resumed, condemned in this book, said that Solomon composed Ecclesiastes "when he had not received the grace of Prophecy, but only that grace of wisdom, which is another," as is related in the Fifth Synod of Constantinople, Action 4. These therefore objected to Ecclesiastes on four counts: first, that it seems to condemn the creatures of God, which are good, as vain, in chapter I; second, that in the same chapter it seems to teach the eternity of the world, when it says: "Nothing new under the sun"; and: "The earth standeth for ever"; third, that in chapter II it says: "There is nothing better than to eat and drink," which plainly seems to be beastly, Epicurean and voluptuous; and that Epicurus fell into this, Clement of Alexandria testifies, book V of the Stromata: "Hence," he says, "the mind of Epicurus was struck by this saying, when he did not understand it: Vanity of vanities" etc.; fourth, in chapter III, 19, it seems suspect of the mortality of the soul, when it says: "One death is of man and of beasts."

But I shall answer to each of those points in their respective places, and shall demonstrate that Solomon's mind was far otherwise. The frenzied Martin Luther, likewise unfrocked, who, driven by his evil genius, dared to utter, nay to rave, in convivial discourse: "The author of Ecclesiastes seemed to him to ride without spurs and boots, only in slippers, Ecclesiastes is like the Talmud patched together from various books. Moreover, the sayings of Solomon which he would pour forth reclining at table were taken from the mouth of the speaker, and afterwards arranged into books:"-namely, a drunken man and constant oarsman of cups measured Solomon by his own wit; for he himself was accustomed to dictate and write only when well drunk, and as if inebriated, and therefore his writings are insipid, full of vomit, profligacy, filth, abuse and invective, so that he seems to have studied not in books but in cups, and to have composed them between drinks, nay to have belched and vomited them forth. Whence our Andreas Frusius rightly sang of him:

The Bibles that are thine, Luther, are Bacchic cups; Thy pharmacy is thy library.

The author therefore of this Canonical book, first and primary, is the Holy Spirit, who suggested and inspired these things to Solomon; Solomon indeed spoke the same, then wrote them, or dictated them to his scribe to write: just as David his father both sang the Psalms with his voice and wrote them with his pen, and handed them down to posterity; for each taught the people both by living voice and by writing. Thus the Doctors and Interpreters hold everywhere. And this is evident, first, from the very beginning of the book: "The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David, king of Jerusalem," which words are not the title of the book, but the very beginning of the book itself, and its first part; second, this same thing is evident from chapter XII, where Solomon speaking of himself in the third person, plainly asserts: "Ecclesiastes, when he was most wise, taught the people, and declared the things that he had done: he sought out useful words, and wrote down most correct sayings;"-what could be clearer? third, because Solomon speaks of himself throughout here in the first person, saying:

"I Ecclesiastes have been king, I saw, I considered, I spoke, I reckoned, I turned, I converted, I considered," etc. Therefore Rabbi Moses Kimchi is mistaken in his treatise On Holy Scripture, and certain Hebrews, especially the Talmudic ones, whom Eugubinus cites and follows in chapter I of Genesis, and whom Melchior Canus cites, in book II of De Locis, chapter XI, who think that Solomon uttered these his teachings and parables only by word of mouth, which afterwards, worn smooth by the mouth of the common people and preserved in their memory, after many centuries Isaias collected and wrote down, so that he might commit them to writing for posterity; they err, I say, as I showed in Proverbs chapter XV, 1. Why Solomon here calls himself Ecclesiastes, I shall say in chapter I, 1. Meanwhile hear in passing St. Gregory of Nyssa here, homily 1, recounting three causes of this name: the first is, because he teaches ecclesiastical things, which pertain to the salvation of the soul; the second, because he gathers the Church into one assembly, so that it might hear this his sermon, by which he instructs it in piety; the third, because he represents Christ, who is the true Ecclesiastes, that is, the founder, teacher, governor, and preacher of the Church; a fourth St. Gregory Thaumaturgus adds, chapter I, 1, that he teaches the whole Church.

Moreover the Hebrews, as St. Jerome testifies, whom some moderns follow, hand down that Solomon wrote this book as a penitent, namely when he repented of his luxury and idolatry, and thus from this book they prove that he repented. For this book seems to be a symbol of penitence, in that in it he accuses the vanity of luxury and of all the world's pleasures, especially in that, having three hundred concubines and seven hundred wives, that is in all a thousand, he seems to renounce and condemn them, saying in chapter VII, 29: "One man of a thousand I found, a woman of all I found not;" and verse 27: "I found the woman more bitter than death, who is the hunter's snare." Moreover he seems to condemn his idolatry, in that he says: "Vanity of vanities, and all things are vanity;" for idols in Scripture are called vain and vanity, because since they are nothing but statues and images of gold or silver, they have nothing of true divinity, nothing of spirit, nothing of life and power. Our Pineda adds that Solomon, after his repentance, in order to testify to it, first wrote Ecclesiastes, then Proverbs, and finally in the last place the Song of Songs.

But this tradition is uncertain and doubtful. Whence Bellarmine, book I of De Verbo Dei, chapter V, whom others follow, think that Solomon wrote these three books before his fall: first, because he himself makes no mention of his fall in them, indeed he asserts the contrary expressly, when in chapter II he says that wisdom persevered with him up to that age: "And I surpassed, he says, in riches all who were before me in Jerusalem: and wisdom also persevered with me;" secondly, because he gives no indication whatsoever of idolatry or of his repentance: that by "vanity of vanities" he does not understand idols and idolatry is clear from what follows throughout the book, where, explaining this generic vanity through its species, he shows it to be situated in riches, delights, honors, songs, drinks, etc. Nor does he mention an idol or idolatry anywhere, which nevertheless he ought to have done, if he had truly repented of it, so that he might abolish its scandal and the evil example which he had given to his subjects. For he himself was the first of the kings of Israel to introduce idols into Judea, which afterwards endured in it for three hundred years until King Josiah, who removed them; and Solomon was the origin and instigator of this evil. Did he not therefore have to destroy them, detest them, and make them hateful to all, if he had truly repented? For thus after idolatry was born in Israel, in order to turn all away from it, Baruch thunders against the vanity of idols, chapter VI; Isaias, chapter XLI and following; and all the other Prophets to a man. Thirdly, because if Solomon already had a thousand concubines, he was certainly wholly enervated, carnal and effeminate, so that he would not be capable of the Holy Spirit, nor could he meditate and utter such lofty things about the vanity of the world, about the fear of God, about eternity, as he does here. "For it is not right that a wicked man be the interpreter of divinity," says Philo in the book Who is the Heir of Divine Things. Finally Ecclesiasticus chapter XLVII, in narrating the deeds of Solomon, recounts his writings first, his fall afterwards. Josephus does the same, book VIII of Antiquities, chapter II.

But the Chaldean Paraphrast thinks that Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, when from the oracle of God, III Kings XI, 12 and 29, he learned that his kingdom, so rich, happy and glorious, would fall and be divided by the schism of Jeroboam, who under Roboam the son of Solomon divided ten tribes from two and drew them to himself, and constituted the kingdom of Israel divided from the kingdom of Judah, over which Roboam presided. Therefore he thinks that Solomon here laments the vanity of his kingdom to be declared through schism. Hear him from the Complutensian interpretation (for in the Royal Bibles these are lacking in Chaldean) chapter I, 2: "When Solomon king of Israel foresaw by the spirit of divination that the kingdom of Roboam his son would be divided with Jeroboam son of Nabat, and that desolation was impending over Jerusalem and the temple, and that the people of Israel would be led into captivity, he said: Vanity of vanities is this world. Vanity of vanities is all that which I and my father have labored upon," etc.

But this oracle concerning the schism of Solomon's kingdom happened after his fall. For it was a punishment of his luxury and idolatry justly decreed by God. Wherefore those things which stand in the way of the former opinion of the Hebrews, who think this book was written by Solomon after his fall, also serve this opinion of the Chaldeans. Add that no mention of the future schism is made in the whole book.

II. Concerning the Matter, Style and Method

It is asked secondly, what is the matter of this book, what is its style, what is its method? I answer: The argument of Ecclesiastes is, says St. Gregory Thaumaturgus here at the beginning of his Paraphrase, to show "how vain and useless are all the affairs and studies of men, which are undertaken in human matters," so that he may lead men away from sensible things to those which do not fall under sense, says the Nyssene, namely to heavenly and spiritual things, says St. Bernard, sermon 1 in the Canticles. "Let us think," says St. Jerome, "that nothing in the affairs of the world is perpetual, but all things which we see are fleeting and brief." And in this sense the apex of virtue consists. Wherefore St. Chrysostom, homily 3 to the People: "Virtue," he says, "is to despise all human things, and to think of the future at all hours, to aspire to nothing of present things, but to know that all human things are shadow, and dream, and if anything more worthless than these. Virtue makes a man as it were dead to the affairs of this life, and to things harmful indeed to the soul's salvation as dead in action to lack, but to spiritual things alone to live and to work."

Moreover the ancients distinguished the three books of Solomon thus by matter and argument, so that in Proverbs they thought Ethics to be treated, in Ecclesiastes Physics, in the Canticles Theology. Thus Origen, Prologue in the Canticles; St. Basil, homily 1 in Proverbs; St. Ambrose, in Psalm. XXXVI; St. Jerome here, and in the epistle to Paulinus: "Solomon," he says, "peaceful and beloved by the Lord, corrects morals (namely in Proverbs), teaches nature (in Ecclesiastes), joins the Church and Christ (in the Canticles)." There is added Olympiodorus and other Fathers at the beginning of the Chain in Proverbs, who divide the three books of Solomon into three kinds of things, namely: into Ethics, Physics and Hyperphysics. Their reason was, that in Ecclesiastes Solomon describes the changes, circuits and vicissitudes of the heavens, sun, elements, air, sea, earth, winds, which is the object of Physics, namely body generative and corruptible. But Olympiodorus, touching the matter with a fine point in a few words at the beginning of the Chain of Proverbs, answers that "Ecclesiastes, with natural things lightly touched upon by reason, sets before the eyes the vanity of the present life." Which are almost the same words of Didymus at the beginning of the Chain in Ecclesiastes: "Ecclesiastes," he says, "is in this, that adhering to the contemplation of natural things, it uncovers the vanity of the present life." And the Chain of the Greeks in Proverbs at the beginning asserts, "Ecclesiastes by preaching gently provokes to the contemplation of the universe, and treats those things which make for the soul somewhat advanced in the study of virtues."

Let it therefore be fixed that this book is ethical; for it touches Physics in order to Ethics, namely so that from the motion, change, and destruction of natural things, it may teach their vanity; and consequently that men likewise are vain, who aspire to them, and vain are their studies, futile and foolish their counsels, empty and foolish their labors, by which they toil throughout their whole life accumulating wealth, or wines, or villas, or delights, or honors, forgetful of their end and true happiness. For this consists in the fear of God, obedience and worship. Whence Lyra thinks the argument of Ecclesiastes to be, to assign the ultimate end of man and the highest good, in which man's happiness is situated. Since indeed on this matter there have been very diverse opinions, which M. Varro recounts, in the book On Ends, namely two hundred opinions and sentences of philosophers: for Epicurus thought happiness to be situated in pleasure, others in health, others in honor, others in knowledge, others in riches, others in friends, etc. Solomon teaches that all these have erred from the mark and truth, and that true happiness is situated in the contempt of vanity and the world, and in truth, that is in true wisdom and the knowledge and worship of God, which consists in the study of law and virtue, namely in piety, temperance, modesty, humility, patience in adversities, almsgiving, resignation and hope in God's providence, and his religion and observance. These are the things which throughout this whole book Solomon treats, inculcates and commends.

But truly God, before other Prophets, chose and constituted Solomon alone as the herald of this vanity of the world, because he himself, having experienced all the pleasures and joys of the world of all goods, found mere vanity in all things. Lest anyone should say, and object to him: You assert wonderful things concerning the vanity of all creatures; I do not know whether the matter is as you say, for many things have not happened to me, indeed many I do not even know; Solomon comes forward: I have experienced all things and as it were handled them with my hands, and by experience I have learned that in all things there is no true joy, but mere vanity, shadow and deception. Wherefore, reviewing individual things in order, he adds that individual things are vain. Whence the Nyssene says: "In Ecclesiastes there is an orderly confession of the whole life of Solomon and a narration of all his works."

Hence George Ederus, in the Biblical Economy, book II, calls this book the Soliloquy of Solomon, because in it Solomon alone speaks of sublime matters, such as are the Soliloquies of St. Augustine, Thomas à Kempis, St. Bonaventure and others, in which the soul converses alone with itself or with God.

As to order and method, the order of Solomon's books is this: In Proverbs he instructs the boy, and teaches him the first and common rudiments of ethics and of more honest morals. In Ecclesiastes he instructs the advancing youth, and leads him from earthly vanity to heavenly truth. In the Canticles he teaches the perfect man to unite himself to God, so that he may wholly cleave to Him through love and contemplation, and rest in Him. Thus hold Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, St. Gregory in the Preface to the Canticles, and others throughout. Hear the Author of the Greek Catena, at the beginning of Proverbs: "Proverbs," he says, "pertain to man making his first entrance upon the way of spiritual life; Ecclesiastes to the soul making some progress in the study of virtues; the Canticles to the state of the soul already perfected in virtues." Hear also more clearly St. Bernard, sermon 1 on the Canticles: "Then since there are two evils," he says, "which either alone or especially war against the soul, namely vain love of the world and excessive love of self, those two books Ecclesiastes and Proverbs are known to stand against each pestilence: the one with the hoe of discipline cutting away all perverse things in morals and superfluous things of the flesh, the other with the light of reason in all the glory of the world shrewdly detecting the deceit of vanity, and truly separating it from solid truth. Finally, before all human studies and worldly desires, it is set forth to fear God and to keep His commandments." And after some remarks: "Therefore, with the two evils driven out by the reading of the two books, one approaches fittingly to this sacred and contemplative discourse (of the Canticles), which, since it is the fruit of both, is to be given only to sober minds and ears. Otherwise, before the flesh is tamed and enslaved to the spirit by the studies of discipline, before the pomp and burden of the world are despised and cast off, the holy reading is unworthily presumed upon by the impure." Therefore, according to the mind of St. Bernard, in Ecclesiastes vain love of the world is driven out, in Proverbs excessive love of self, in the Canticles chaste love of God is prescribed. Wherefore Solomon uses here a manly, keen, vehement and truly royal style, such as befitted both the matter and the author.

Paphnutius the Abbot, in Cassian, Collation III, chapter VI, accommodates the three books of Solomon to a threefold renunciation by degrees in this way: "The first is," he says, "by which we bodily despise all riches and the faculties of the world; the second, by which we reject morals and vices, and the former affections of mind and flesh; the third, by which, drawing our mind away from all present and visible things, we contemplate only future things, and desire those which are invisible: that these three may be perfected together, we read that the Lord also commanded Abraham, when He said: Go forth out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house. First He said: Go forth out of thy land, that is, from the faculties of this world and from earthly riches; secondly, from thy kindred, that is, from the conversation and morals and vices which from our birth cling to us, as it were by a certain affinity and blood relationship; thirdly, from thy father's house, that is, from all memory of this world, which occurs to the sight of our eyes." And at the end of the chapter: "To these three renunciations the three books of Solomon are properly adapted. For Proverbs are suited to the first renunciation, by which carnal desires and earthly vices are cut away; to the second renunciation Ecclesiastes, where all things that are done under the sun are pronounced vanity; to the third, the Song of Songs, in which the mind, transcending all visible things, is now joined to the Word of God in the contemplation of heavenly things." St. Jerome has something similar in his letter to Paulinus, whose words I recited at the beginning of Proverbs.

Allegorically, Blessed Peter Damian, sermon 1 On the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, adapts these three names of Solomon and his three books to Christ, saying: "The Son of the King and King, not only the Son of God but also God, Solomon, that is the peaceful one, is to us in this exile; Ecclesiastes, that is the preacher, will be in judgment; Idida, that is the glorious one, will be in the kingdom; in exile lovable, in judgment terrible, in the kingdom admirable: in exile merciful, in judgment just, in the kingdom glorious. See, however, if He is not everywhere king: in exile the rector of morals, in judgment the discerner of merits, in the kingdom the distributor of rewards, and at the same time consider that not Ecclesiastes, not Idida, but Solomon is foreknown to accomplish so glorious a work."

St. Gregory of Nazianzus holds, in Poem 33, and Damascenus, in book IV On the Faith, chapter XVIII, that Ecclesiastes, equally as Proverbs and the Song of Songs, was written in Hebrew verse and meter. Hear Nazianzus: "Five meters consist of Job, David, three of Solomon, the Preaching (Ecclesiastes), and the distinguished Songs, the sacred Proverbs." Yet, since in Ecclesiastes Solomon acts as a preacher, others better judge that he wrote it not in meter, but in prose. For this is a perpetual sermon, and one that is stirred up and sharp concerning the vanity of the world, in which he stirs up all the affections, so that he might represent it to the reader vividly and persuade him. Wherefore in it he uses frequent and piercing interrogations, contentious exclamations, and other rhetorical figures. Yet from time to time he intermixes songs, or as it were songs, such as that one: "Vanity of vanities, and all things are vanity: A time to keep silence, and a time to speak, etc. Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is all man." Add that all things can be said to be songs and meters in a general sense, namely because they are indeed full of meaning, acute and witty, as much as they are brief and neat. For which reason St. Jerome, in the Preface to Job, asserts that in Holy Scripture, especially Hebrew, there is "a certain sweet rhythm, and one freed from the tinkling numbers of feet." Thus all measured speech can be called meter and song.

To this pertains the fact that this book is filled with elegant parables, similitudes, enigmas, which resound with something prophetic and divine, and signify more than they show at first sight. Thus Seneca, commending his Lucilius from a similar style, in epistle 59: "You speak," he says, "as much as you wish, and you signify more than you speak. This is a sign of a greater matter: it appears also that your mind has nothing superfluous, nothing swollen."

Finally, Prophets are called seers and poets, and therefore their prophecy can be called meter and song. Solomon, however, was a Prophet, and he produced true and properly so-called prophecies, as I showed in Proverbs XXX, 1. Although in Ecclesiastes one can scarcely find any such. What therefore St. Augustine says, in book XVII of the City of God, chapter XX: "That Solomon prophesied in his three books," either take synecdochically, namely that in certain parts of this threefold volume of his he prophesied properly, namely Proverbs XXX, 1 and 2, and in the Song of Songs, where there is perpetual prophecy concerning Christ and the Church; or take it broadly, that he prophesied for revealing the words of God, explaining the will of God, dictating divine sentences and canonical books. For thus all canonical Scripture is called prophecy by St. Peter, second epistle, chapter I, verse 20. Finally, the Chaldean holds that Solomon here truly prophesied concerning the future schism of Jeroboam; for thus it has from the Complutensian edition: "The words of the prophecy which the Preacher prophesied; he is Solomon, son of David, king," etc. From the interpretation moreover of Costus: "The words of the presage, which the preacher Solomon, son of David, king of Jerusalem, foretold. With the spirit of divination, King Solomon of Israel foresaw that the kingdom of Roboam his son would be divided with Jeroboam son of Nabat, and the desolation impending upon Jerusalem and the temple, and the people of Israel would be led into captivity," etc. Therefore Ecclesiastes, as it is higher, more perfect and more sublime than Proverbs, so also it is more obscure and more difficult than those.

Wherefore Philastrius asserts that "Ecclesiastes, though written indeed in few sentences, contains nevertheless the whole treasure of heavenly knowledge for those seeking it." And St. Ambrose, in the book On Tobias, chapter XIII, commands that one should adhere to this book, so that he who is a good master for all things might be so.

The end and purpose of this book is to teach true wisdom, namely that by which we distinguish vanity from truth: that is, so that we may know that all things which display themselves on earth, allure and flatter are vain; but that those things which are in heaven are true and solid, so that from this unequal knowledge we may rise to contempt of the world, as being vain, and to love and desire of heaven and God, as being true and solid. For so great is the appearance and form of vanity in this external world, so great the allurement, so great the deception, that the mind of men, unless it were taught by God and Solomon, would vanish away in it, and would take falsehoods for truths, and would be consumed by vain desires and sins, and like smoke would waste away into the second death. This deception and mask of the vanity of all things, therefore, Solomon here exposes, and teaches that earthly and vain things are to be despised, and that heavenly things are to be sought as true, in which true wisdom consists. Thus St. Augustine judges, in book XX of the City of God, chapter III: "In this vanity," he says, "to which it seemed good to him to devote this entire book for the purpose of impressing it upon us, not surely for any other reason, than that we might desire that life which has no vanity under this sun, but truth under Him who made this sun. In this vanity, therefore, would not man, by the just and right judgment of God, become like the same vanity and vanish away? Yet in the days of his vanity it matters greatly whether he resists or obeys truth, and whether he is devoid of true piety or a partaker of it: not for the sake of acquiring the goods of this life or avoiding its evils by vanishing away in transient things, but on account of the future judgment, by which there will be to the good goods, and to the evil evils that shall remain without end." Then he adds thus: "Finally, this wise man concluded this book with these words, that he might say: Fear God, and keep His commandments, because this is all man; because God will bring all this work into judgment in every hidden thing, whether good or evil. What could be said more true and more salutary? Fear God," he says, "and keep His commandments, because this is all man. Whoever indeed is this, is surely a keeper of the commandments of God: for he who is not this, is nothing. For he is not reformed to the image of truth, remaining in the likeness of vanity." Thus far St. Augustine.

Whence St. Jerome wrote a commentary on Ecclesiastes to Blaesilla, the firstborn daughter of St. Paula, with this purpose, that he might persuade her to contempt of this world. Hear him in the preface of the Commentary: "I remember that about five years ago, when I was still in Rome, and was reading Ecclesiastes to holy Blaesilla, in order to provoke her to contempt of this world, and to make her think that everything she saw in the world was as nothing, I was asked by her to explain in the manner of a brief commentary whatever obscure passages there were, so that she could understand what she was reading without me. And so, since she was suddenly taken away by death at the beginning of our work, and we did not deserve, O Paula and Eustochium, to have such a companion in our life, and I was then struck dumb by so great a wound, now being placed in Bethlehem, that is, in a more austere city, I render to her memory and to you what I owe."

Moreover, by the frequent preaching of this vanity of the world, St. Jerome drew St. Paulinus, Pammachius, St. Paula, and the Roman nobility to contempt of the world and to withdrawal into Bethlehem. Therefore, Solomon in this book calls the reader away from vanity, that is, from the love of the world, and leads him to the love of God: for God Himself is truth itself, being itself, solidity itself, stability itself, eternity itself. Whence St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the book On the Life of Moses, treating of the vision of God exhibited to Moses in the burning bush, defines truth to be God Himself. For thus he says: "For this is (as I think) the definition of truth, the firm understanding of Him who is; for falsehood is a certain phantasmal comprehension concerning that which is not, as if that which is not subsisted; but truth is the firm understanding of that which truly is, which by its nature is; for long spaces of time it is necessary to meditate with a higher mind in quiet, so that you may firmly understand what it is that truly is, which by its nature is; what is not, which only seems to be, since by itself and by its nature it does not subsist at all. The vision of Moses illustrates the same thing. For it seems to me that the great Moses learned in that vision that nothing of those things which are either comprehended by sense or perceived by mind, except the supreme essence, which is the cause of all things and on which all things depend, truly subsists. For in none of the others can independence be perceived, so that it could be without participation in true Being. Only that same thing always remains the same, never increases, never decreases, equally immutable toward all change, both toward the worse and toward the better; for neither worse nor evil is there, nor can better be found. Wherefore only it needs nothing else, and all things need only it; only it all things desire, only it all things participate in, and those things which participate in it, through participation both are and are well. But that which is participated in is never diminished. That, therefore, is surely what truly is, and the understanding of this true Being, to which Moses then came."

Finally, Alcuin, the teacher of Charlemagne, in his Preface to Ecclesiastes, says that he wrote a commentary on the same book in order to fortify those extracted from the monastery for ecclesiastical duties—namely Onias the priest, that is the Bishop, Candidus the presbyter, and Nathanael the deacon—against the vanities of the world; and that the most wise Solomon composed this entire book concerning the vain possession of riches in the delights of this age, which he exhorts them always to have as their master in their hands.

III. On the Division of the Book

It is asked, thirdly, what is the division of this book, and how many parts does it have? Hugo of St. Victor, and after him Richard of St. Victor, in book III on the Apocalypse, part II, chapter VII, hold that there are three books as parts, by which a threefold vanity of man is described: the first of mutability, the second of mortality, the third of curiosity; or, as St. Bonaventure holds, the vanity of nature, of fault, and of misery.

But I say that there are two primary parts of Ecclesiastes. The first is from chapter I to chapter VII, in which he shows that all things of the sublunary world, which vain men esteem as great, are empty and vain, and therefore that the happiness which is placed in them is vain. The latter extends from chapter VII to the end, in which, having set aside vanity, he demonstrates that truth and true happiness are situated in virtue and in the fear and worship of God. Therefore in the very first chapter he refutes those who measured the highest good by knowledge; in the second and third chapters likewise he reproves those who, like Epicureans, placed the end of goods in pleasure; in the fourth chapter, those who placed it in honors; in the fifth and sixth he confutes those who placed happiness in riches and wealth. Therefore this first portion of six chapters is occupied in refuting the views of others; the other part of the same number of chapters is devoted to confirming his own opinion. Therefore chapter VII discusses three kinds of goods, namely of the soul, of the body, and of fortune, and concerning the contrary evils. He shows clearly what the use of all these is, and how all things of ours depend upon divine providence. From this point to the end of the book he preaches concerning living piously and justly, so that we may finally be joined to God and enjoy eternal happiness.

Moreover, in these passages he establishes many axioms of life, according to truth and true prudence, such as these: that human knowledge does not make man happy; that life is brief and subject to a thousand changes; that human errors and customs in succeeding ages return and circulate as if in a circle, and have been common to all ages; that there is nothing new under the sun; that pleasure produces foolishness and fools; that happiness is not situated in dominion, in a wife and excellent children, in a longer life or funeral pomp; and therefore that it is not to be sought in the present life, but in the future and eternal life; that virtue excels riches, strength and other gifts of the body; that one must think upon God's judgment and providence; that happiness is prepared by obedience to divine law, by works of mercy, by mortification of desires, by gentleness and peace of soul; that a prince is to be honored; that a prince ought to be just, sober, mild, master of his desires, honoring the wise and the good, generous, and one who provides abundantly for his subjects concerning food and other comforts of life, since he knows himself to be mortal and of the same nature and lot as his subjects; that one must think upon approaching old age and death; finally, that he is wise and happy who has this everywhere premeditated and observes it: "Fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is all man."

Again, divide this book with Lyran more minutely thus through individual chapters, so that in it almost as many, namely ten vanities are enumerated: namely in the first chapter, immoderate zeal for knowledge; in the second, appetite for delights; in the third, desire for a longer life; in the fourth and fifth, ambition for dominion and dignity; in part of the fifth and in the sixth entirely, desire for riches; in the seventh, the art of divination and foreknowledge of future things; in the eighth, pursuit of praise and fame; in the ninth, pursuit of fortune; in part of the ninth and in the tenth entirely, bodily strength; in the eleventh and twelfth, a specimen of the flower of youth.

Interpreters Who Have Commented Upon Ecclesiastes

There are very many interpreters who have written commentaries on Ecclesiastes, both ancient and modern. Fabianus Justinianus counts up to sixty in the end of his universal Index, where he compiled a catalogue of interpreters of Holy Scripture. I shall here review the more illustrious ones, whose works I have used and been helped by, just as St. Jerome is accustomed to review at the beginning of his Commentaries Origen, Didymus, Apollinarius, etc., whom he will follow throughout his entire work, so that it is not necessary to mention them repeatedly: for it is indeed a mark of humility to acknowledge whence you have made progress; of fairness, to render to each what is his own; of gratitude, to repay benefit with benefit, and to reflect back praise to both the doctrine and the teacher. For this reason, when I cite the opinions of authors, I often use their very own words, so that it may be clear to the reader that they are theirs, not mine. Pliny does this excellently, in the Preface to Vespasian: "Truly," he says, "it is the mark of a servile and unfortunate mind to prefer to be caught in theft rather than to repay a loan, especially when interest accrues from the debt." St. Basil does this even more excellently, in his first letter to Gregory of Nazianzus: "Nor indeed," he says, "ought one to be ashamed of learning, nor malicious in teaching: what you have safely learned from another ought by no means to be kept hidden; such as wicked women are accustomed to do, who, having obtained children from others, present them to their husbands as their own, feigning to be the father. But it is fitting to reveal the author himself with grateful remembrance, and to acknowledge the true parent of his knowledge."

First therefore after the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the Syriac version, is the Chaldean Paraphrast, who is thought to have been Joseph the Blind. For just as Onkelos translated the Pentateuch, and Jonathan the Prophets, so Joseph the Blind translated the books of Solomon and the other Hagiographa, namely Job, the Psalms, the Kings, Ruth from Hebrew into Chaldean, quite genuinely and consistently with the Latin Vulgate, by which means he is useful; for although he renders the sense of the Hebrew word faithfully, yet because he was a Jew after Christ, he judaizes from this, and twists many things toward Jewish Synagogue and superstition, and here and there mixes in Rabbinic fables: Arias Montanus cut out many of these and purged them in the Chaldean Paraphrase, which he attached to the Royal Bibles, but not all.

Second in time, but first in dignity, is St. Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, known by the surname Thaumaturgus on account of the glory of his miracles, who explained Ecclesiastes through a "very brief and admirable" paraphrase, as Suidas says. For with his divine wisdom, eloquence, acuteness, and novelty he wonderfully teaches, soothes, pricks and stimulates the reader.

Third is R. Haccados, whom Galatinus cites throughout in his book On the Mysteries of Faith; but he is rather allegorical than literal, and his allegories are not unlike dreams.

Fourth is St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, brother of St. Basil, who composed eight learned and erudite homilies on Ecclesiastes, in which he himself treats Ecclesiastes, and as a Christian orator stimulates the reader to contempt of the vanity of the world.

Fifth is St. Jerome, who, in his manner, adhering to the letter, clearly renders its genuine first sense, then attaches the mystical sense: deservedly celebrated as the phoenix of his age and the greatest teacher in explaining Holy Scripture, by the praise of the entire Church. Note: St. Jerome translated Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and the Song of Songs twice: first, by correcting the old and ancient Latin Vulgate edition according to the Septuagint version from which it had come: for which reason he translated the Greeks of the Septuagint into Latin, and thus restored the old edition to his purity; second, by translating those same books directly from Hebrew into Latin. That this is so St. Jerome himself teaches here in the Preface; and explicitly in book II Against Rufinus, where he says thus: "Solomon's books also, which I had formerly translated into Latin according to the Septuagint with obeli and asterisks added, translating them from Hebrew and dedicating them to the holy Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, I subscribed at the end of my little preface in these words: if anyone indeed prefers the edition of the Septuagint Interpreters, he has it now from us corrected." Therefore St. Jerome's first version was made from Greek, the second from Hebrew by the command of Pope Damasus, which the Church therefore received, and it is our Latin Vulgate edition. Both exist in the Commentary of St. Jerome, in which however he does not interpret the latter version, either out of modesty, or because it was new; but the former from the Septuagint as the old and Vulgate edition at that time, which differs considerably from the latter, namely from the modern Vulgate, and therefore the Commentary of St. Jerome does little to elucidate the modern Vulgate. Furthermore, St. Jerome in the latter accommodates himself to the Septuagint, where it does not differ from the Hebrew at all or little: otherwise he follows Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, but above all the Hebrew truth, whose true and genuine sense, as he clearly represents it, he sometimes expresses not word for word, but sense for sense, as it were paraphrastically: for this is the duty of a faithful and genuine interpreter, as we shall see in their proper places.

Sixth is Olympiodorus, partly a paraphrast, partly a scholiast, partly a commentator, who briefly but usefully explained Ecclesiastes: for he explains it in such a way as to stir the reader to virtue and piety.

The seventh is Salonius, son of Eucherius, and disciple of Salvian, in the year of the Lord 470, who explains Ecclesiastes mystically and briefly. Albinus, or Alcuin, disciple of Bede and master of Rabanus, does the same. The Commentary of Salonius on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes exists entirely word for word in Honorius Augustodunensis the presbyter, who, as Trithemius and Bellarmine testify, flourished in the year of the Lord 1220; except that the beginning of the book is transposed. For those things which Salonius places at the beginning of Ecclesiastes concerning the three names of Solomon, Honorius places at the beginning of Proverbs. Again, a few things at the end of Proverbs which Salonius places, Honorius shortens and omits. The rest, as I have said, are the same word for word. Moreover, Salonius is published in volume V of the Library of the Fathers; Honorius, however, in the twelfth volume or century, according to the Cologne edition.

The eighth is Hugh of St. Victor, who from St. Gregory (for manuscripts of his Commentary on Ecclesiastes exist in the monastery of Cava) composed homily 19 on Ecclesiastes, in which he discusses flowingly and acutely the sentences of the first four chapters individually, indeed individual words, and draws out and produces the honey of sacred ethics for the conforming of morals. Hugh was a man of outstanding learning, eloquence and piety, Abbot of the monastery of St. Victor (whence he was called of St. Victor) in Paris, companion and intimate of St. Bernard, the light of his age, having so emulated the doctrine and phrasing of St. Augustine that he was called "the tongue of Augustine." When he was dying and the Holy Eucharist was brought to him, because of nausea of the stomach he could not receive it, and adoring it he said: "Let the Son ascend to the Father, and the servant to his Lord." And so it came to pass.

The ninth is St. Bonaventure, who treats Ecclesiastes scholastically.

The tenth is Hugh of Caro, the first Cardinal from the Order of St. Dominic, who, touching the letter in passing, devotes himself to the mystical sense, and in investigating it is acute, keen and copious.

The eleventh is Nicholas of Lyra, who, not being precisely skilled in Hebrew, follows the Rabbis in many places, especially Rabbi Solomon, as he himself confesses at the end of the book Differences of the Old and New Testament. These were followed by Dionysius the Carthusian, Cardinal Cajetan, who, trusting too much in his two Rabbis in the Old Testament and Erasmus in the New, publishes a new version of theirs and explains it anew by his own ingenuity, often departing from the Vulgate and the Fathers. Likewise Francis Titelmans, a learned and pious man, John Ferus, Gerard Morinus, Jerome Osorio, John Campensis, Isidore Clarius, Francis Vatable, and from our Society John Lorinus briefly but accurately; and John Pineda, who explained Ecclesiastes as fully as he did completely. I shall extract the essence from all these, make a collection of honey, and methodically present it to the reader to be drawn in a few clear points after my manner; and I shall add not a few things from myself, which the eternal wisdom of the Father shall deign to suggest to me.

Title Page