site: migne

title: In visionem Ezechielis

author: Richard of Saint Victor

languages: en la

source_edition: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 196, coll. 527A–600C

source_text:
## PROLOGUS. *Animalium et rotarum litteralis explicatio.*

[0527A]

Multis divinae Scripturae multo amplius dulcescunt, quando congruum in eis aliquem secundum litteram intellectum percipere possunt. Et tunc, ut eis videtur, spiritualis intelligentiae structura firmius [0527B] statuitur quando in historici sensus solido apte fundatur. Supervacuum enim et inane quis possit solidum aliquid fundare, vel firmiter statuere? Cum enim mystici sensus ex earum congrua rerum similitudine eruantur atque formentur, quae in littera proponuntur, quomodo nos ad spiritualem intelligentiam instruat in his duntaxat locis, ubi ipsa sibi expugnat, vel nihil nisi frivolum resonat? Scandalizantur itaque saepe potius quam aedificentur, qui ejusmodi sunt, cum hujusmodi Scripturarum loca incurrunt. Econtra autem antiqui Patres libenter accipiebant cum in hujusmodi Scripturarum loca inciderent, quae juxta litteram stare non poterant. Ex his namque quosdam, quae Scripturam sanctam recipiebant, sensus tamen allegoricos subsannabant, [0527C] ex his, inquam, absurdis litterae locis compellebant ad spiritalem intelligentiam confugere, cum negare non auderent Spiritum sanctum in quantalibet fatuitate litterae nihil inaniter scripsisse. Hinc contigisse arbitror, ut litterae expositionem in obscurioribus quibusdam locis antiqui Patres tacite praeterirent, vel paulo negligentius tractarent, qui si plenius insisterent multo perfectius procul dubio, quam aliquis ex modernis id potuissent. Sed nec illud tacite praetereo, quod quidam quasi ob reverentiam Patrum nolunt ab illis omissa attentare, ne videantur aliquid ultra majores praesumere. Sed inertiae suae ejusmodi velamen habentes, otio torpent et aliorum industriam in veritatis investigatione et inventione derident, subsannant, exsufflant. Sed qui habitat in coelis [0527D] irridebit eos, et Dominus subsannabit eos. Nos autem a Patribus pertractata cum omni aviditate suscipiamus, et ab ipsis omissa cum omni alacritate perquiramus, et sagaciter inventa cum omni liberalitate in commune proferamus, ut impleatur quod scriptum est: *Pertransibunt plurimi, et multiplex erit scientia [n: (Dan. XII)]*. Ecce mirabilem illam visionem de coelestibus animalibus, quam propheta Ezechiel vidit, B. Gregorius, secundum mysticam intelligentiam, exponit. Sed quomodo ad litteram stare valeat, non dicit. De secunda visione dicit, quod juxta litteram stare non possit. Et hoc quidem verum, sed secundum eam acceptionem, quam ipse ibi assignavit; nam si eamdem de qua hoc dicit litteram velimus [0528A] secundum aliam acceptionem discutere, fortassis, etiam juxta historicum sensum, ex ipsa poterimus congruum intellectum eruere. Certe, idem in eadem Ezechielis expositione dicit, plerumque in sacro eloquio ideo aliquid obscure dicitur, ut, dispensante mirabiliter Deo, multipliciter exponatur. Multiplex [0528B] itaque sacrae Scripturae expositio nunquam respuatur, in quantum rationi consentire, vel utilitati deservire videtur. In quantum ergo quisque in hoc gratiam accepit, nemo dubitet cum omni diligentia quaerere ea quae praecedentium Patrum sagacitas, vel ex industria praeteriit, vel magis necessariorum occupatione implicata explicare non potuit. Dico itaque libenter quod mihi videtur de illa prophetica visione: nam fortassis haec nostra qualiscunque expositio (et si non possit alienae solertiae satisfacere) poterit forte aliorum in hoc ipsum diligentiam, et quaerendi studium nonnihil adjuvare.

Ecce de animalibus dicitur [n: (Ezech. I)]: *Similitudo hominis erat in eis.* Haec profecto hominis similitudo, quantum ad litteram pertinet, ex parte erat, [0528C] et ex parte non erat, sicut subjuncta declarant. Ex parte erat, quia faciem et manus hominis habebant; et item ex parte non erat, quia pennas et pedes vitulinos, et plures facies habebant, unde et de eis additur: *Quatuor facies uni, et quatuor pennae uni.* Si coelestia animalia quatuor facies, et per quatuor partes habent, ergo contra terrestrium naturam sub eodem momento in omnem partem videre valent. Et *pedes eorum pedes recti.* Rectos pedes oportebat habere, ut possent in omnem partem, sicut ex sequentibus colligitur, sine ulla corporis conversione incedere: *Et planta pedis eorum quasi planta pedis vituli.* Vitulinam plantam dicta animalia habere describuntur, ut non ex industria, velut hominum, sed naturaliter munita intelligantur. Ut [0528D] autem possent pari modo in omnem partem incedere, oportebat formam pedum vitulinam similitudinem nonnulla ex parte excedere. In hoc autem quod dicitur, quia *scintillae* erant in eis, vel potius ex eis quasi *aeris candentis,* ostenditur quod facies igneas habebant quae ardentes scintillas spargebant. *Et facies et pennas per quatuor partes habebant.* Certe si, ut superius dictum est, quatuor facies habebant; si eas, ut hic dicitur, per quatuor partes habebant, oportet ut in singulis partibus (quantum ad litteram spectat) nonnisi solam haberent. Quatuor autem pennas habebant, ut aeque quocunque versi quaquaversum volare potuissent.

Notandum quod quatuor facies, quatuor pennas, [0529A] quatuor manus, et ejusdem numeri pedes habuere; numerum tamen pedum non videtur exprimere, eo quod nec rarum sit, nec insolitum quatuor pedes habere. Junctaeque erant pennae eorum alterius ad alterum. Incedentium itaque animalium tanta distantia erat, quanta extensarum alarum copula pati poterat. Non revertebantur cum incederent, sed unumquodque ante faciem suam gradiebatur. Cum in posterioribus dicturus sit: Ibant et revertebantur, quomodo hic dicitur quod incedentes non revertebantur? Sed vide ne forte revertebantur sub alio sensu ponatur hic, et sub alio ibi, si non facimus prophetam mentiri. Idem enim videtur hoc sonare revertebantur quod convertebantur. In sequentibus autem idem videtur sonare quod redire. [0529B] Revertentes ergo non revertebantur, quia reverti, hoc est redire, volentes non revertebantur, hoc est non retro vertebantur, quia non convertebantur. Hinc est quod longe post de rotis loquens, dicit: *Cum ambularent in quatuor partes gradiebantur, et non revertebantur ambulantes.* Certe, si per quatuor partes ibant, fuit eis necesse ire et redire. Quomodo ergo ambulantes non revertebantur, nisi quo modo per subjuncta verba determinatur? Statim namque adjungitur: *Sed ad locum ad quem ire declinabat, quae prima erat, sequebantur et caeterae, nec convertebantur.* Ecce pro eo quod prius posuit revertebantur, eamdem sententiam repetens ponit convertebantur, et determinavit quod prius obscure posuit. [0529C] Sed quid inter haec dicimus, nisi quod ad sententiam beati Gregorii recurrimus, quod, dispensante Deo, idcirco obscure ponitur, ut multipliciter exponatur? Et absque dubio ex hac obscuritate Scripturae agitur, ut quamvis fortassis una sit expositio secundum litteram, multiplex esse possit secundum mysticam intelligentiam: dicatur itaque de animalibus, non revertebantur cum incederent. Cur autem sine ulla corporis conversione ire et redire potuissent, ostenditur ex eo quod subjungitur: *Sed unumquodque ante faciem suam gradiebatur;* ac si aperte diceret: Idcirco non erat eis necesse corpus convertere cum redire vellent, quia in eam etiam partem faciem habebant Nos cum ad posteriora redire volumus corporis conversione necesse habemus, qui [0529D] solam unam faciem habemus. Sed illa revertebantur, nec retro vertebantur, sed ante faciem suam gradiebantur, illam videlicet quam ad eam partem habebant ad quam ire volebant. Sequitur:

*Similitudo vultus eorum facies hominis, et facies leonis a dextris ipsorum quatuor. Facies autem bovis a sinistris ipsorum quatuor. Et facies aquilae desuper ipsorum quatuor.* Ecce in sua descriptione quomodo quibusdam gradibus incedit. Primo dixit quod haberent quatuor facies, postea dixit quod eas haberent pro quatuor partes. Dicit modo novissime qualem, inquam, partem habuere. Si dicta animalia pro more nostro dextram et sinistram et posteriora haberent, facile esset prophetae singulas partes exprimere, et secundum eas sigillatim facies [0530A] distinguere. Sed hoc idcirco non potuit, quia omnis in eis pars anterior fuit. Fecit ergo quomodo potuit, unam faciem primo ponit, et secundum illam caeteras distinguit. Dicit ergo: *Similitudo vultus eorum facies hominis.* Quis nesciat quod vultus in nobis praecipua et principalior pars esse soleat? Dicitur itaque quia vultus, hoc est prima et principalior facies, in eis erat facies, hominis. A dextris autem illius humanae faciei ipsorum quatuor erat facies leonis. A sinistris autem ejusdem erat facies bovis.

Notandum quod de aquilina facie non dicit in qua parte et ipsa fuerit, quia ex praecedentibus hoc ipsum manifestum fuit. Illud solum dixit, de quo, si dictum non esset, dubitari potuit, quod ea utique [0530B] facies caeteris eminentior fuit. *Et facies,* inquit, *aquilae ipsorum quatuor erat desuper.* Hoc est caeteris superior. Et aves quidem solent habere, ut omnes novimus, longiora colla caeteris animalibus. *Et facies eorum, et pennae eorum extentae desuper.* Quod dicit, et facies eorum, defectiva oratio est, quasi dicat: et facies eorum in hunc modum erant, et pennae eorum extentae desuper illas facies. Nam ad hoc praemittit et facies eorum, ut competentius inferat quod de pennis dicere volebat: *Duae pennae singulorum jungebant.* Hoc idem aliis verbis superius dixerat, sed repetit, ut addat: *Et duae tegebant corpora eorum.* Non sic intelligendum est, quasi eisdem semper duabus alis corpora tegerent, [0530C] et duabus solummodo aliis volarent, cum utrumque utrisque sed vicissim facerent. Cum coram humana facie volare decrevissent, duabus illis alis quae a dextris et a sinistris ejus erant id faciebant, et eisdem ipsis in contrariam partem, hoc est coram aquilina facie, volabant, duabus vero alis corpora tegebant. Cum vero coram leonina, vel bovina facie volare voluissent, econtrario faciebant: *Et unumquodque coram facie sua ambulabat.* Videtur superius positam sententiam repetere, sed credo aliud quiddam hic ostendere. Superius docuit quia corpus idcirco non convertebant, quia in ea parte ad quam ire volebant, faciem quam sequerentur habebant, et coram ea ambulabant. Hic mihi videtur hoc dicere velle, quoniam per tot partes irent in quot [0530D] partes facies haberent. Idem est enim ac si diceret: Unumquodque eorum coram qualibet facie sua ambulabat. Huic sententiae astipulatur, quod sequitur:

*Ubi erat impetus spiritus, illuc gradiebantur, nec revertebantur cum ambularent.* Vere coram unaquaque facie sua gradiebantur, quia ubicunque erat impetus spiritus, sive ad eundum, sive ad redeundum, sive in quamlibet partem divertendum, ita illuc gradiebantur, ut non converterentur, et inter eundum et redeundum nulla corporis conversione uterentur. *Et similitudo animalium aspectus eorum quasi carbonum ignis ardentium, et quasi aspectus lampadarum.* Ecce quod superius jam diximus, quoniam igneas facies habebant, qui calorem in [0531A] modum carbonum ardentium, et lumen in modum lampadarum fundebant. Sequitur:

## PROLOGUS. *Animalium et rotarum litteralis explicatio.* (cont.)

*Haec erat visio discurrens in medio animalium. Splendor ignis, et de igne fulgur egrediens.* Ista satis patent. *Et animalia ibant, et revertebantur in similitudinem fulguris coruscantis.* Ecce quod superius jam diximus, quia animalia ibant et redibant. Sed quomodo putatis? In similitudinem fulguris coruscantis. Celeritas stupenda et solis coelestibus animalibus attribuenda. *Cumque aspicerem animalia, apparuit rota una super terram juxta animalia.* Non una sola tantum juxta omnia, sed singulae juxta singula, sicut declarant sequentia. Apparuit itaque rota una juxta singula animalia. Sed qualis? *Habens,* inquit, *quatuor facies.* Quomodo autem quatuor [0531B] facies habuerit melius ex sequentibus patebit: *Et aspectus rotarum, et opus earum, quasi visio maris.* Maris similitudinem dicuntur habere pro incredibili magnitudine. *Et una similitudo ipsarum quatuor, et aspectus earum, et opera quasi si sit rota in medio rotae.* Cogitemus quasi duae rotae essent sibi invicem insertae, et in unam operis facturam per transversum conjunctae, et tunc intelligere poterimus quomodo dicatur unaquaeque quatuor facies habere. *Per quatuor partes earum euntes ibant, et non revertebantur cum ambularent.* Hoc eodem modo de rotis dicimus quomodo superius de animalibus determinavimus. *Statura quoque erat in rotis, et altitudo, et horribilis aspectus.* Quantum mihi videtur, quoties stabant uniformiter id agebant, nec [0531C] passim in omnem se partem, ut in rotis nostris videmus, ad standum erigebant; sed ubi superius designata illa, quasi duarum rotarum factura, hinc inde per transversum inserebatur, et invicem copulabatur. Cum stare vellent unam illarum partium semper in terra figebant, alteram in altum erigebant. Facile est ergo videre quam promptum eis esset post stationem in omnem se partem pari modo sine ulla corporis conversione volvere, quae, ut dictum est, quatuor facies habuere. Possumus autem quod dicitur horribilis, et ad staturam, et ad altitudinem referre, ut intelligatur tantae magnitudinis esse, ut esset horror aspicere, unde et superius dictum est de rotis, quod aspectus earum esset quasi [0531D] visio maris. *Et totum corpus plenum oculis in circuitu ipsarum quatuor. Cumque ambularent animalia, ambulabant pariter et rotae juxta ea; et cum elevarentur animalia de terra, elevabantur simul et rotae.* Patent haec omnia, nec egent expositione nostra. *Quocunque ibat spiritus, illuc eunte spiritu, et rotae pariter elevabantur sequentes eum. Spiritus enim vitae erat in rotis.* Videtur alius esse spiritus quem rotae sequebantur, et alius qui eis inesse perhibetur. *Et similitudo super caput animalium firmamenti quasi aspectus crystalli horribilis et extenti super capita eorum desuper.* Quod dicitur quasi crystalli horribilis, dictum puto pro enormitate magnitudinis: *Sub firmamento autem pennae eorum recte alterius ad alterum. Unumquodque duabus alis [0532A] velabat corpus suum, et alterum similiter velabatur.* Quando unum aliquod illorum duabus illis alis quae a dextris et a sinistris humanae faciei erant corpus suum velabat, similiter quodlibet caeterorum faciebat. Quando autem duabus aliis alis aliquod velabatur, eadem corporis velandi forma sub eodem tempore ab aliis servabatur. Quomodo ergo quodlibet unum corpus suum velabat, similiter quodlibet alterum velabatur. Sonum quasi sonum sublimis Dei dicit, eo quod tantae magnitudinis esset, ut jure divinus dici debuisset, sicut carmen regium, vel regis digne dici debeat, quod regiam audientiam deceat.

Rursus de his rotis, vel animalibus alio loco legimus: *Rota una juxta cherub unum, et rota alia juxta cherub unum. Species autem erat rotarum quasi [0532B] visio lapidis chrysolithi, et aspectus earum similitudo una quatuor, quasi si sit rota in medio rotae. Cumque ambularent in quatuor partes gradiebantur. Non revertebantur ambulantes, sed ad locum ad quem ire declinabat quae prima erat sequebantur et caeterae nec convertebantur [n: (Ezech. X)]*. Haec omnia jam patent ex his quae superius jam dicta sunt. Sequitur:

*Et omne corpus earum et colla, et manus et pennae, et circuli plena erant oculis in circuitu quatuor rotarum, et omne corpus earum.* Quod dicit earum, intelligendum est factam relationem non ad rotas tantum, sed etiam ad animalia: nam de utrisque fuerat praemissum. Cum enim dicat earum, adnectit tamen quaedam quae conveniunt tam animalibus quam rotis, quaedam vero quae conveniunt rotis solis, quaedam [0532C] autem quae congruunt solis animalibus, nisi forte qui putet rotas habere colla, pedes et manus. Usitatius autem loqueretur, si eorum, non earum posuisset. Sed quia novissimo loco de rotis locutus fuit, secundum genus quod proximo loco posuit relationem reddidit. Tale est illud in psalmo: *Effuderunt sanguinem innocentem, sanguinem filiorum suorum, et filiarum suarum quas sacrificaverunt sculptilibus Chanaan [n: (Psal. CV)]*. Quas, non quos dixit, quamvis non ad solas filias relatio facta sit, nisi forte quis velit dicere solas filias sculptilibus sacrificatas fuisse. Sed quis hoc dicat? Quod hic dicitur, omne corpus earum, tam de rotis quam de animalibus intelligimus. Quod additur, et colla et [0532D] manus et pennae, de solis animalibus. Quod autem postea dicitur, et circuli, de solis rotis oportet intelligi, et quod novissime apponitur, in circuitu quatuor rotarum, et ad circulos tantummodo debet referri. Dicit ergo quia plena erant oculis, omne corpus earum, et colla et manus et pennae, et circuli in circuitu quatuor rotarum. Addit adhuc quaedam de rotis, quaedam autem quae conveniant animalibus solis: *Et rotas istas vocavit volubiles, audiente me.* Ecce de rotis. Et addit quod conveniat animalibus solis: *Quatuor autem facies habebat unum.* Si de solis rotis locutus fuit, quid est, vel unde quod unum dicit? Puto vel ex hoc manifestum fore eum non de solis rotis locutum fuisse. Sequitur:

[0533A] *Facies una, facies cherub et facies secunda, facies hominis, et in tertio facies leonis, et in quarto facies aquilae.* Sed ubi facies cherub legitur, in quibusdam codicibus facies vituli invenitur. Sed quamvis sit littera diversa, utrobique tamen est sententia una. Ex superioribus agnovimus quod dictorum animalium corpus in vitulum desinebat; et idcirco, si recte perpendimus, vituli facies corpori magis congruebat, in tantum ut quodam proprietatis jure haec facies descripti animalis specialiter dici valeat, vel debeat. Sed forte quis ad hoc respondeat et dicat: Sicut ad naturam vituli magis accedebat in eo quod plantas vitulinas habebat, sic ex eo quod manus, vel pennas gerebat, in uno hominis, ex alio avis proprietatem praeferebat. Sed scimus quia proprium [0533B] est hominis manus habere. Non ergo potuit vitulinas manus, quemadmodum vitulinas plantas habere. Hoc idem est de pennis intelligere. Pedes autem habere commune est tam homini quam bovi, tam aquilae quam leoni. Quid itaque est quod animal, quod quatuor facies habuit, vitulinos pedes accepit, nisi quod vitulina proprietas prae caeteris amplius aliquid sui juris in ejus corpore vindicavit, quae in illis utique membris, quae sunt aeque et aliis communia, propriae qualitatis similitudinem impressit? Propter hanc ergo proprietatis praerogativam, recte faciem vituli intelligimus, in eo quod faciem [0534A] cherub legimus. Non est autem diversum quod faciem bovis superius, hic faciem vituli invenimus. Est enim omnis vitulus bos, sed non convertitur cum bovis nomine, quo animalis species designatur.

Notandum autem quod idem positionis ordo hoc loco invenitur, qui superius exprimitur. Sed ibi facies hominis primo numeratur, eo quod sit principalior, secundum dignitatem. Hic autem facies vituli, eo quod sit principalior secundum proprietatem. Quoniam autem caeteris dignior non est facies vitulina, noluit dicere facies cherub, seu facies vituli, facies prima, sed facies una: *Facies,* inquit, *una facies cherub, et facies secunda facies hominis.* Erat ergo facies hominis facies secunda, hoc est [0534B] secundo loco ab ea quae primo est posita, et in tertio loco facies leonis, et in quarto facies aquilae.

## CAPUT PRIMUM. *Compendiosa comprehensio eorum aedificiorum quae ad unam medietatem pertinent.*

Locuturus de Ezechielis aedificio, volo prius universa summatim perstringere, ut postmodum liceat in singularum partium descriptione quanto liberius, tanto latius vacare. Habebat itaque hoc aedificium triplicem murum. Primum sexcentorum cubitorum, secundum quingentorum cubitorum, tertium vero in medio horum, et omnium minimum, in hunc modum. [0533]

[0533C]Intra Intimum autem murum erat atrium interius; inter intimum et medium, erat atrium exterius. Inter medium vero et extimum erat vulgi locus. De atrio interiori legitur: *Et mensus est atrium, longitudinem centum cubitorum, et latitudinem centum cubitorum, per quadrum [n: (Ezech. XL)]*. De secundo muro scribitur: *Per quatuor ventos mensus est illud murum ejus undique per circuitum, longitudinem quingentorum cubitorum, et latitudinem quingentorum cubitorum, dividentem inter sanctuarium, et vulgi locum [n: (Ezech. XLII)]*. De hoc sanctuario alio rursum loco scribitur: *Et erit ex omni parte sanctificatum quingentos per quingentos, quadrifariam per circuitum, [0534C] et quinquaginta cubiti in suburbana ejus per gyrum [n: (Ezech. XLV)]*. Eumdem sane locum per suburbana, et vulgi locum designat congrue satis, utpote metaphoram servans, qui in descriptionis suae initio visum aedificium civitati comparaverat. Constat itaque inter medium murum et extimum quinquaginta cubitos fuisse, si per suburbana et vulgi locum oportet unum eumdemque locum intelligere. De hoc extimo muro in ipso descriptionis exordio dicitur: *Et ecce murus forinsecus in circuitu domus undique [n: (Ezech. XL)]*.

Notandum sane quod hoc sanctificatum quod quingentos cubitos ex omni parte habere describitur, nunc aedificium, nunc sanctuarium, nunc domus [0535A] dicitur, nunc civitati assimilatur. Sane si consulas tam rationem quam Scripturam, inventes unumquemque trium horum murorum tres portas habuisse. Unam ab oriente, aliam ab aquilone, tertiam a meridie. De tribus siquidem portis atrii interioris, sive de tribus aliis atrii exterioris Scriptura multo sermone explicat. De una autem reliquarum trium breviter mentionem facit. Caeteras vero subintelligendas relinquit. Frustra namque muri interiores ab aquilone et meridie portas haberent, nisi e regione per murum extrinsecum ad illas aditus paterent. Habebant autem sex portae interiores unaquaeque porticum suam, quae omnes fabricatae erant juxta eamdem similitudinem, et ad mensuram unam, nisi quod portae atrii interioris [0535B] habebant porticus suas extrinsecus, et porticus atrii exterioris jacebant intrinsecus, et quod in gradibus septem ascendebatur in atrium exterius, et in gradibus octo in atrium interius. Ingredientibus itaque in atrium exterius prius occurrebant portae quam porticus suae. E converso autem ad ingressum atrii interioris, prius se offerebant porticus quam portae, ita ut omnes sex porticus pariter jacerent in atrio exteriore. Has autem porticus Scriptura nunc porticus, nunc vestibula nominat; et unam eamdemque porticum, nunc vestibulum, nunc vestibula vocat. In via sane orientali inter geminas porticus atrii exterioris et atrii interioris jacebat pavimentum stratum lapide, habens centum cubitos [0535C] longitudinis, et centum cubitos latitudiuis; et triginta gazophylacia in gemino latere, quindecim a meridie, et quindecim ab aquilone. Erant autem et inter alias porticus duo alia pavimenta, unum ab aquilone, et aliud in via meridiana. Haec utique duo ad prioris illius similitudinem constat habere centum cubitos in sua utique longitudine, et quindecim gazophylacia ab orientali latere. Cujus autem latitudinis fuerint, vel quae gazophylacia in alio latere habuerint, melius patebit in subsequentium partium descriptione. Horum igitur quae jam descripsimus formam taliter repraesentamus. [0535D]

## CAPUT II. *Compendiosa praelibatio eorum aedificiorum quae ad aliam medietatem pertinent.*

[0536A]

Nunc autem si totum hoc aedificium ducta linea de meridiana porta ad aquilonarem in gemina dividatur, ea quae ad unam ejus medietatem, orientalem videlicet partem, pertinent, transcurrisse videmur. Nunc igitur de occidua ejus parte aliquid breviter perstringamus; nam de his omnibus in subsequenti opere latius disseremus. Eminebat itaque templum cum vestibulo suo a parte occident eratali, situmque in atrio exteriori, cujus vestibulum ab orientali parte jungebatur atrio interiori. Per tres autem ejus partes, tres domus erant sitae: una ab occidente caeterae autem duae, una ab aquilone, et alia a meridie. [0536B] Erant autem omnes ejusdem longitudinis: nam unaquaeque earum sicut et ipsum templum extendebatur centum cubitis. Quod autem ab occidente erat aedificium separatum Scriptura appellat, ex eo, ut arbitror, quod nulli alio aedificio cohaerebat. Hujus aedificii longitudo prope medium murum extendebatur versus aquilonem et meridiem. Nam aliarum porrigebatur ab oriente in occidentem. Habebat sane domus aquilonaris porticum unam in quinquaginta cubitos porrectam, porticuique atrii interioris conjunctam. De quo loco Scriptura commemorat, cum dicit: *Ubi erat porticus juncta porticui triplici [n: (Ezech. XLII)]*. A porticu itaque aquilonaris portae atrii interioris, domus cum sua porticu occidentem versus extendebatur centum quadraginta [0536C] quinque cubitis. Nam unus murus quinque cubitorum erat, tam domui quam ejus porticui communis. Domum autem australem ad eamdem similitudinem per omnia factam intelligimus, propter illud quod scriptum invenimus: *Omnis introitus eorum et similitudines, et ostia eorum secundum ostia gazophylaciorum quae erant in via respiciente ad notum: ostium in capite viae; quae via erat ante vestibulum separatum per viam orientalem ingredientibus.* Aedificium autem separatum probatur duo vestibula habere, unum ab aquilone, et aliud a meridie, quod nos possumus ex hac eadem Scriptura convincere. Si enim in aquilonari parte vestibulum erat ante aedificium separatum, et via ante vestibulum, [0536D] et in capite viae ostium, ut sit similis introitus, et una similitudo utrobique, oportet totum hoc et australem plagam habere vestibulum et viam ante et ostium in capite viae. Habebat itaque templum ab oriente interius atrium, ab occidente aedificium separatum, ab aquilone domum unam, et a meridie domum aliam. Inter tria autem illa aedificia et templum jacebat atrium undique per circuitum. In his vero tribus aedificiis erat mansio triplex. Nam in inferioribus gazophylacia, in superioribus autem erant coenacula, et praeter haec adhuc ante ipsa solaria quaedam deambulatoria de ipsis coenaculorum parietibus eminentia, quae Graeci quidam exedras, Scriptura vero appellat ethecas. *Et mensus est,* inquit Scriptura, *ethecas in circuitu per tres partes [0537A] contra uniuscujusque limen [n: (Ezech. XLI)]*. De quibusdam autem gazophylaciis ex industria hic praeterimus, de quibus tamen sicut et de coquinis suo loco dicemus. Haec itaque pauca ad dicendorum evidentiam [0538A] summatim praelibavimus, nunc ad singulorum discussionem latius vacabimus. Horum itaque quae jam descripsimus formam hujusmodi repraesentamus. [0537]

## CAPUT III *Quomodo, vel quam multis circumstantiis mystica haec descriptio commendetur.*

[0537B]

Notandum sane in primis quis, a quo, vel quomodo, unde, vel ubi ductus sit qui haec vidit et scripsit, nobisque legenda reliquit: *Facta est,* inquit, *super me manus Domini, et adduxit me illuc. In visionibus Dei adduxit me in terram Israel [n: (Ezech. XL)]*. Propheta sane Domini erat qui ista videbat. A quo tamen ductus est, nisi per manum Domini, vel quomodo, quaeso, nisi quomodo scriptum est in visionibus Dei? Adductus est autem in terram promissionis, haud dubium ante quod de terra Babylonis, de terra ad terram tot terrarum spatiis interjectam. Quem, quaeso, non moveat, quem jure movere [0537C] non debeat quod talis a tali, taliter, tamque longe adductus est ut videret et audiret quae postea scriberet, posterisque legenda relinqueret? Quis nisi insensatus negligenter audiat, vel negligere audeat quod Scriptura sacra tot circumstantiis commendat? Sed nec ipsum tempus quidem in quo haec vidit propheta tacite praeterire voluit. Nam et hoc ipsum fortassis ad visionis ipsius commendationem pertinere praevidit: *In vicesimo et quinto anno transmigrationis nostrae, in exordio anni, decima [0538B] mensis, quartodecimo anno postquam percussa est civitas, in ipsa hac die facta est super me manus Domini, et adduxit me illuc in visionibus Dei.* Judaicae jam captivitatis multa tempora fluxerant, jamdiu sub magna afflictione filii Israel laboraverant, et tam pium quam necessarium fuit eos inter tot dura et diuturna mala magnam aliquam consolationem recipere, et divinae erga se pietatis argumenta sentire, ne inter tot calamitates penitus deficerent, et de divino adjutorio funditus desperarent. Sed quis magnum, imo supra hominem esse dubitet quod propheta Domini per manum Domini deductus in visionibus Dei videt? *Adduxit me,* inquit, *in terram Israel, et dimisit me super montem excelsum nimis, super quem erat quasi [0538C] aedificium civitatis vergentis ad austrum, et introduxit me illuc [n: (Ezech. XLIII)]*. Non negligenter praetereundum quod ostensum aedificium in monte nimis excelso dicitur constitutum. Multorum siquidem nobis intelligentiam claudimus, si haec negligenter consideramus; quod ex subsequentibus facile advertimus. In hoc sane aedificio interius atrium tenebat intimum locum; sed templum procul dubio tenebat summum. Hinc est quod in novissimis hujus descriptionis legitur, ubi dicitur: *Ista est lex domus, in summitate [0539A] montis omnes fines ejus, in circuitu sanctum sanctorum est [n: (Ezech. XLIII)]*. Domum hic pro more suo dicit templum. Mons itaque usque in id loci in quo templum constructum erat paulatim ad altiora surgebat, et ad eum locum ab omni parte inclinabat, et ibi se in planam quamdam aequalemque planitiem expandebat, quae templi structuram aequali eminentia circumquaque excipiebat. Si enim ab una qualibet parte templum altius emineret, omnis ejus finis procul dubio montis summitatem non teneret. Consideremus, si placet, prius hoc aedificium quasi in plano constitutum sit, ut forma montis aedificiorumque situs postmodum rectius intelligi possit. Ut ex superioribus colligitur medius murus quo atrium exterius cingitur ab omni latere in oppositum latus [0539B] quingentos cubitos includere comprobatur.

Ut igitur incipiamus ab oriente ex his quingentis cubitis ducentos possidebat atrium exterius, in tertio vero centenario erat atrium interius, in quarto centenario templum situm fuit, et quintum centenarium, et eo amplius post tergum reliquit. Hoc tamen secundum plane superficiei considerationem dictum sit, nam ad hanc mensuram tumor montis nonnihil adjecit, de quibus in loco suo diligentius considerare oportebit. Ex hac tamen consideratione facile advertere licet contra quem locum mons altius intumesceret, vel cujusmodi formam haberet, vel ex qua parte devexior esset. Dicitur autem recte hoc aedificium habere similitudinem civitatis, eo quod esset undique cinctum muris, firmatum portis, [0539C] multis stipatum aedificiis. *Et ecce vir, cujus erat species quasi species aeris, et funiculus lineus in manu ejus, et calamus mensurae in manu ejus. Stabat autem in porta.* Vir iste qui speciem aeris habere describitur, imaginem non terreni sed coelestis portare videtur. Coelestia ergo de coelesti, sublimia de sublimi sperare debemus, et ea quae dicit vel facit studiosa mente pertractemus. Sed quod vir iste coelestis funiculum, et calamum mensurae ad aedificium dimetiendum in manu portat, utinam ad hoc saltem apud fastidiosos auditores valeat, ut nemo nos reprehendere audeat, cum nos viderit singulorum aedificiorum situm, qualitatem et mensuram subtiliter quaerere et investigare, et cum tanta diligentia assignare et singula quaeque prout possumus, [0539D] vel Scripturae auctoritate, vel rationis attestatione probare. Sed ne forte quod hucusque dictum est ad horum commendationem minus sufficiat, audiamus adhuc quid idem vir dicat, quid de his Domini propheta praecipiat. *Et locutus est,* inquit, *ad me idem vir: Fili hominis, vide oculis tuis, et auribus tuis audi, et pone cor tuum in omnia quae ego ostendam tibi; quia, ut ostendantur tibi, adductus es huc; annuntia omnia quae tu vides domui Israel.* Situs et mensuram aedificiorum visu, ritus et modum caeremoniarum auditu percipere jubetur, et ad singula cor apponere, subtiliter intelligere, memoriter retinere, nec sibi soli tantae scientiae talenta avare retinere, sed nec illi vel illi, imo domui Israel omnia annuntiare. [0540A] Quem, obsecro, nequeat coelestis oraculi tanta contestatio attentum vel attonitum reddere, et ad horum intelligentiam desiderio inflammare? Sed ad id nunc redeamus, quod eumdem virum in porta stare audivimus, ad quem trium murorum praedictorum haec porta videatur pertinere, ex eo quod in subsequentibus adjungitur, possumus advertere.

*Et venit ad portam,* inquit, *quae respiciebat viam orientalem, et ascendit per gradus ejus.* Procul dubio alia est porta ad quam venit, et alia porta de qua venit, in qua et prius stetit. Sed luce clarius constat portam ad quam veniebat esse atrii exterioris, non atrii interioris. Hoc enim sequentia tam aperte indicant, ut nostra probatione non egeant. Sed si de aliqua atrii interioris porta ad hanc [0540B] orientalem portam, quam primo loco metitur veniret, per ejus utique gradus descendere, non autem ascendere haberet. Sed dicitur: *Ei ascendit per gradus ejus.* Sed, ne hoc de alia aliqua atrii exterioris porta possimus accipere, manifesta ratio videtur contraire. Primo enim in atrio exteriori orientalis portae mensuram accipit, et postea ad alias dimetiendas per ordinem transit. Cur, quaeso, primo loco ejus mensuras non caperet in qua primo stetisset, si hoc de alia aliqua atrii exterioris porta intelligi voluisset. Patet ergo quod extimi muri haec porta fuerit in qua primo loco stetit, de quo muro dicitur: *Ecce murus forinsecus in circuitu domus undique [n: (Ezech. XL)]*. Sed quia de hoc muro ejusque mensura adjuncto Scripturae testimonio sufficienter [0540C] superius dixisse me credo, hic eadem replicare devito: *Et in manu viri calamus mensurae sex cubitorum, et palmo [n: (ibid.)]*. Mensuram calami hoc loco definit, quod superius cum de eo loqueretur minime determinavit. Cur, quaeso, in hoc calamo ad sex cubitos palmus adjicitur, nisi quod inter metiendum ex ea parte apprehenditur atque tenetur? Quotiescunque igitur calami mensuram metientem prophetam colligere audimus, nihil aliud, quamvis quidam aliter autument, quam sex cubitos intelligere debemus. Hinc est quod thalamus calami mensuram prius habere describitur, et postea per recapitulationem de eodem scribitur. Thalami autem sex cubitorum erant hinc et inde. Multipliciter sane idipsum probari [0540D] valet, quod per seipsum satis diligens lector inveniet: *Et mensus est,* inquit, *latitudinem aedificii calamo uno, altitudinem quoque calamo uno.* Si ad totum refertur quod hic de quodam, nescio quo aedificio dicitur, totius descriptionis veritas et auctoritas evacuatur. Nonne, obsecro, multo rectius multoque convenientius est ad partem referre, quam ad totum referendo totum evacuare? Nonne magis congruum, rationique consentaneum videtur esse, credere Scripturam hoc loco cujusdam aedificii mensuras describere, quod juxta seu supra portam erat in qua virum stare, et necdum quoque recessisse commemorat? Sed nunquid quia semel Scriptura totum aedificium nominavit, hoc vocabulo deinceps partem designare non potuit, vel non debuit? [0541A] Nonne totum similiter domum nominavit, et tamen hic nomen in subsequentibus ad partem referre non timuit, cum dicit: Et erat interior domus in lateribus domus? Quid si hoc ipsum aedificii nomen invenimus ubi ita positum sit, ut omnino ad totum referri non possit? Et erant ante aedificium gazophylacia, et via ante faciem eorum juxta similitudinem gazophylaciorum quae erant in via aquilonis.

Sed vel hoc solum debet nobis in hac re fidem facere; quia, si hoc hic aedificii nomen volumus ad totum referre, omnium quae hic dicuntur, ut dictum est, convincimur fidem cassare. Puto tamen neminem esse tam improbum, neminem tam posse inveniri protervum, quem in hac parte in tam aperta [0541B] ratione nobis contraire non pudeat, qui in hac nos sententia reprehendere non erubescat, cum caetera omnia juxta nostram expositionem ad litteram posse stare perspexerit, si in tam perspicua veritate sanum intellectum non subsannaverit.

Sed haec hactenus: nunc ad litterae expositionem redeamus: *Et mensus est latitudinem aedificii calamo uno, altitudinem quoque calamo uno.* Si dixisset: Mensus est latitudinem cujusdam aedificii in eo loco quo prius stetit; si hoc, inquam, dixisset, omnem ambiguitatem tolleret. Nec tamen quia hoc non dixit veritatem abstulit, sed pro more suo obnubilavit. Sed unum ex subsequentibus [0541C] intelligi cogit, alterum ex praecedentibus innuit: nam quoniam virum qui haec metiebatur de porta qua prius steterat necdum recessisse memoratur, et loco hoc aedificium conjunctum fuisse manifeste innuitur. Quid autem illud dicimus esse quod cum dicat de latitudine et altitudine, omnino tacet de longitudine, cum naturaliter semper prior fit longitudo quam latitudo, vel altitudo?

Sed attende quam artificiose in eo quod latitudinem dixit, longitudinem non tacuit. Ubi enim longitudo et latitudo aequalis est in quamlibet partem, latitudo recte dici potest.

## CAPUT III *Quomodo, vel quam multis circumstantiis mystica haec descriptio commendetur.* (cont.)

Tacendo ergo quod prius dicere debuit, eamdem esse longitudinem et latitudinem satis argute [0541D] ostendit. Quod autem de hac una porta dicimus, hoc de duabus reliquis extimi muri portis recte intelligimus, quamvis Scriptura manifeste id non dicat, sed magis subintelligendum relinquat. Neque enim oportuit in his eum diutius morari quae per se poterant satis subintelligi. Utrum autem haec aedificia in janitorum vel excubiarum ministeria deputanda sint, incertum habemus; nos tamen ea quasi ad excubiarum officia supra portas locamus, secundum quod scriptum invenimus: *Super muros tuos, Hierusalem, constitui custodes, tota die et nocte non tacebunt laudare nomen Domini [n: (Isa. LXII)]*.

Horum itaque quae diximus tale exemplar formamus: [0542A]

[0542B]Notandum sane quod alia translatio non aedificium, sed murum habet, ad quem sensum, qui litteram nostram applicare voluerit, ab omni se quaestione absolvit, cum latitudinem ad muri spissitudinem referre possit.

*Et venit ad portam quae respicit viam orientalem, et ascendit per gradus ejus.* Quia orientalis est porta ad quam venit, recte et orientalis esse creditur illa de qua venit. Nam si de alia aliqua veniret, tanto rectius quanto directius ad [0542C] aliam, hoc est ad ante positam properaret.

Post hanc portam orientalem de quo modo loquitur aquilonaris, et meridiana atrii exterioris, et tunc demum tres aliae portae atrii interioris nominatim exprimuntur: unde hanc atrii exterioris esse, quamvis id Scriptura tacuerit, indubitanter colligitur.

Hanc portam gradus habere Scriptura commemorat, quot tamen habuerit aperte nusquam determinat. Sed quia octo habere leguntur simul omnes tres atrii interioris, et septem duae aliae atrii exterioris, admonemur de similibus similia aestimare, et idcirco credimus eam ad exteriorum similitudinem septem gradus habere.

*Et ascendit,* inquit, *per gradus ejus, et mensus est [0542D] limen portae calamo uno, latitudinem, id est limen unum calamo uno in latitudine, et thalamum uno calamo in longum, et uno calamo in latum, et inter thalamos quinque cubitos.*

## CAPUT IV. *Collectis hinc inde Scripturae testimoniis, hoc hic de una porticu astruitur quod de caeteris omnibus jure intelligatur.*

Quoniam ad portarum, seu etiam porticuum descriptionem ex ordine jam venimus, et multa de eis tam obscure prolata, tam ambigue dicta invenimus, libet tam ex hoc quam ex aliis Scripturae locis hoc hic de una portica astruere, quod oporteat de caeteris aliis omnibus indubitanter intelligere. Erant [0543A] enim omnes sex per omnia similis facturae, ejusdemque mensurae, nihilque aliud, si bene recolo, habebant dissimile, nisi quod interiorum portarum porticus jacebant extrinsecus, exteriorum vero jacebant intrinsecus, et quod illorum ascensus in octo, istorum autem erat in septem gradibus. Quod autem omnes has sex porticus ejusdem mensurae esse dicimus, non nostra auctoritate, sed Scripturae attestatione probamus. Post hujus portae dimensiones de qua modo loquitur de aquilonari porta statim subinfertur:

*Portam quoque quae respiciebat viam aquilonis atrii exterioris mensus est, tam in longitudine quam in latitudine, et thalamos ejus tres hinc, et tres inde, et frontem ejus, et vestibulum ejus secundum [0543B] mensuram portae prioris.* Similiter de australi porta scribitur: *Et ecce porta quae respiciebat ad austrum, et mensus est frontem ejus, et vestibulum ejus juxta mensuras superiores, et fenestras ejus, et vestibula in circuitu sicut fenestras caeteras.* Haec sane sententia in omnium sex porticuum descriptione semper repetitur, unde una omnium eademque mensura esse convincitur. Unumquodque igitur horum vestibulorum seu porticuum multipliciter divisum erat. Unde et Scriptura saepe unam eamdemque porticum, modo singulariter pro toto vestibulum, modo pluraliter pro partibus vestibula vocat. Principaliter tamen unaquaeque porticus in tria dividebatur, unde et in sequentibus una illarum [0543C] triplex nominatur, quae sententia quidem ad omnes juxta praedictam rationem jure refertur:

*Ubi erat,* inquit, *porticus juncta porticui triplici.* De toto itaque videamus prius, et postea de partibus. Frontes itaque exteriorum porticuum respiciebant versus atrium interius, sicut e converso interiorum respiciebant versus atrium exterius. Harum frontium mensura describitur cum dicitur: *Et fecit frontes per sexaginta cubitos.* Haec erat mensura longitudinis omnium porticuum, seu vestibulorum, cum tamen per haec nomina intelligimus non partem, sed totum. Hujus itaque orientalis portae porticus frontem habebat versus occidentem, cujus longitudo extendebatur versus aquilonem et meridiem. [0543D] Extendebatur autem sexaginta cubitis juxta mensuram frontis. Latitudo vero ab oriente in occidentem dilatabatur quinquaginta cubitis. Unde est illud: *et ante faciem portae quae pertingebat usque ad faciem vestibuli portae interioris quinquaginta cubitos.* Habebat sane haec porticus sicut caeterae portam in fronte, hoc est in introitu atrii contra portam muri. Alioquin frustra in muro aditus pateret extrinsecus, si ex opposito in fronte vestibuli obstrueretur intrinsecus. Habebat itaque vestibulum portam contra portam, in muro unam, in fronte aliam. Ad utriusque itaque distinctionem vocetur una porta muri, alia dicatur porta vestibuli. Portam itaque interiorem hoc loco dicit portam vestibuli, non portam interioris atrii. Nam inter exteriorem [0544A] et illam (excepto eo quod muri occupabant) erant ducenti cubiti. Faciem autem portae dicit locum qui erat ante portam exteriorem, sed retro portam interiorem. Faciem vero vestibuli portae interioris, dicit latus illud quod vestibulum habebat ad portam interiorem. Unde manifeste colligitur quod antedicta mensura intra parietes sumebatur.

Bene ergo dicitur: *Et ante faciem portae quae pertingebat usque ad faciem vestibuli portae interioris quinquaginta cubitos.* Si quis autem id quod diximus de hujus vestibuli fronte sive de ejus longitudine velit in aliam partem accipere, et longitudinem ipsius non ab aquilone in meridiem, sed ab oriente in occidentem velit extendere, omnino non poterit [0544B] stare, et frivolum duco in tam aperta re frustra laborare. Haec autem porticus sicut unaquaeque aliarum in tria principaliter dividitur. Unde, ut dictum est, triplex porticus recte nominatur. Harum autem partium, seu porticuum quae medium tenebat nihil aliud erat nisi spatium illud seu via illa, quae inter portam et portam jacebat, a porta videlicet muri usque ad portam vestibuli, cujus latitudo erat secundum latitudinem portae decem cubitorum. Longitudo vero secundum latitudinem totius porticus quinquaginta cubitorum. Hoc autem medium, et minimum circumjacebant duo alia ejusdem mensurae, unum in uno, et aliud in alio latere, utrumque quinquaginta cubitorum in longitudine, et in latitudine cubitorum viginti quinque. Horum utique vestibulorum [0544C] in aliarum omnium portarum descriptione Scriptura mentionem facit, et nunc ea singulari, nunc plurali numero designans eorum mensuras describit. Hinc est quod de aquilonari porta legitur, quae statim post hanc subsequenter describitur:

*Portam quoque quae respiciebat viam aquilonis atrii exterioris mensus est tam in longitudine quam in latitudine, et thalamos ejus tres hinc, et tres inde, et frontem, et vestibulum ejus secundum mensuram portae prioris, qninquaginta cubitorum longitudinem ejus, et latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum.* In hoc ergo quod dicitur secundum mensuram prioris portae, constat hanc de qua modo disserimus [0544D] orientalem portam tale, hoc est tantae magnitudinis vestibulum habere. Sed ne unum tantum tale habuisse credatur, audi quid postmodum de australi porta scribitur: *Et eduxit me ad portam australem, et mensus est frontem ejus, et vestibulum ejus juxta mensuras superiores, et fenestras ejus, et vestibula in circuitu sicut fenestras caeteras quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinem, et latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum.* Quod prius dicit vestibulum, hoc refertur ad totum, ad partes autem quod repetitur vestibula: unde et ibi additur in circuitu, eo quod medio vestibulo, seu ipsi portae adjacerent per duo ejus latera. Haec itaque tria vestibula unum medium, et duo lateralia erant sibi invicem in hunc modum conjuncta, et implebant cubitos sexaginta. [0545A]

## CAPUT V. *De his quae ad unam medietatem cujuslibet porticus pertinere videntur.*

[0545B]

Sed adhuc in illis duobus lateralibus vestibulis aliae sanae subdivisiones esse probantur, quae et ipsae quidem in Scriptura vestibula nominantur. Invenio ibi vestibulum octo cubitorum, invenio et aliud quinque cubitorum. Vestibulum octo cubitorum invenio apud portam orientalem atrii exterioris ubi legitur: *Et mensus est vestibulum portae octo cubitorum.* Vestibulum quinque cubitorum latitudinis invenio apud portam australem atrii interioris. De quo scribitur: *Et mensus est vestibulum per gyrum, [0545C] longitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum, et latitudinem quinque cubitorum.* Sed superius Scripturae auctoritate probavimus quia quidquid de una qualibet harum porticuum in his quae ad mensuram pertinent, concedimus, de omnibus pariter pari ratione concedere debemus. Ergo apud omnes porticus erant vestibula octo cubitorum, similiter et apud omnes necesse est, inveniri vestibula quinque cubitorum. Sed nunc prius de situ thalamorum videamus, et tunc fortassis de istis rationem facilius inveniemus. Habet autem unaquaeque porticus sex thalamos, tres hinc, et tres inde ab utraque parte viae, quos, Scriptura docente, novimus intra ipsas porticus sitos fuisse. Porro thalami portae ad viam orientalem [0545D] tres hinc, et tres inde. Haec de numero thalamorum, et in sequentibus de situ ipsorum. *Et fenestras,* inquit, *obliquas in thalamis, et in frontibus eorum quae erant intra portam undique per circuitum.* Si fenestrae, quae in thalamis erant, intra ipsam portam erant, ergo et ipsi thalami intra portam erant. Nam portam hic pro more suo portam ipsam cum tota porticu sua appellat. Nam quod dicit aliter omnino stare non posset. Tale est illud: *Et mensus est portam a tecto thalami usque ad tectum ejus.* Similiter hic porticum sub nomine portae designat. Constat autem quia unusquisque thalamus cum margine suo octo cubitos occupabat. Nam quilibet eorum sex cubitorum erat, et marginem unius cubiti non solum ante, sed et ab utroque latere habebat, Scriptura [0546A] attestante, quae ait: *Et mensus est marginem ante thalamos cubiti unius, et cubitus unus finis utrumque. Thalami autem sex cubitorum erant hinc et inde.* Ter autem octo viginti quatuor reddunt, quibus X adjuncti XXXIV efficiunt. Idcirco autem praedictis viginti quatuor quos de tribus thalamis colligimus, adhuc alios decem cubitos adjicimus, quia quinque cubitos inter primum thalamum, et secundum, quinque vero alios inter secundum et tertium invenimus, secundum illud quod legimus: *Et inter thalamos quinque cubitos.* Erant itaque absque dubio triginta quatuor cubiti ab initio primi thalami usque ad extremitatem tertii. Debent autem esse juxta latera portae tres hinc, et tres inde. Sed vestibula quae in lateribus portae erant quae medio vestibulo decem cubitorum [0546B] hinc inde adhaerebant, non plus quam viginti quinque cubitos in latitudine tenebant. Non potuit ergo vestibulorum latitudo trium thalamorum situm capere, quem superius docuimus cubitos triginta quatuor occupare. Longitudo autem vestibulorum quia quinquaginta cubitorum erat, facile eos, et eo amplius capere poterat. Locentur itaque tres thalami in uno vestibuli latere, eo videlicet loci ubi parieti tectum videtur incumbere, ita ut parieti ipsi videantur inhaerere, imo ipsum pro uno sui pariete, et quasi pro una fronte habere ubi intelligimus fenestras illas esse de quibus Scriptura loquitur, cum dicit: *Fenestras obliquas in thalamis, et in frontibus eorum, quae erant intra portam undique per circuitum.* Exceptis enim aliis absurditatibus quae videntur [0546C] inde sequi, quas arbitror per se facile posse intelligi, non erat unde clarum lumen habere potuissent, nisi parietibus vestibuli hinc inde adhaererent, ubi fenestras haberent ut lumen reciperent. Unum igitur ex collateralibus vestibulis orientalis porticus quae medio vestibulo lateribus portarum hinc inde adhaerebant hic ponimus; ut quomodo thalami parietibus adhaererent, vel quomodo ipsum vestibulum in septem sectiones dividerent, sub oculis repraesentemus. [0546D]

## CAPUT VI. *De caeteris quae de porticu restant, ad totius descriptionis completionem.*

[0547A]

Hoc facto constat procul dubio inter duas exteriorum thalamorum extremitates triginta quatuor esse cubitos, et adhuc ab utraque parte octo cubitos superesse. Nam constat triginta quatuor et bis octo quinquaginta implere. Hoc itaque expleto, si contra laterales thalamorum margines modico prius muro subtracto, deinde columnis erectis quemadmodum in claustris videmus, quasi tot parietes usque ad medium vestibulum erigimus, unum procul dubio vestibulum in septem dividimus. Ecce quomodo situs thalamorum vestibulum unum in septem dividit; nec tamen ejusdem quantitatis omnia, sed alia majora, [0547B] alia minora relinquit. Facta itaque hac divisione, quod superius quaesivimus hic possumus invenire, vestibula videlicet alia octo cubitorum in latitudine, alia autem cubitorum quinque, utraque tamen viginti quinque cubitorum in longitudine. Nam duo illa quae inter tres thalamos erant quinque cubitos in latitudine, sed viginti quinque in longitudine habebant. Duo autem illa quae hinc inde ultra thalamos fuerant, octo cubitos in latitudine, viginti quinque autem in longitudine tenebant. Sed et illa tria in quorum extremis tres thalami siti erant, sex tamen cubitis in latum se intra parietes expandebant. Quidquid autem de uno vestibulo ab una parte viae jam diximus, totum hoc de alio ex [0547C] alia parte viae sentire debemus. Totidem enim thalamos eodem modo sitos habebat: et per totidem paresque partes per omnia divisum erat. Duo itaque vestibula hinc inde in quatuordecim subdividuntur, quibus dum medium adjungitur unius porticus juxta unamquamque portam quindecim subdivisiones numerantur. Post ista quae de porticuum divisione jam diximus, restat hic illud adhuc quaerere, quid de liminibus illis quae Scriptura commemorat sentire debeamus. Tria enim limina Scriptura manifeste designat: et unumquodque illorum portae limen esse denuntiat. Sed non potuit, sicut nec debuit una porta nisi unum limen habere, etsi unum ex his portae muri, et alterum portae vestibuli volumus assignare; restat tamen adhuc de tertio quaerere. Quaeramus [0547D] itaque prius quod horum propriae portae dicatur, et quod propriae portae non est cur portae esse asseratur. Sed nulla illarum quatuordecim subdivisionum quas superius ostendimus plusquam octo cubitos in latitudine habuit: nulla ergo illarum limen decem cubitorum latitudinis capere potuit, quarum introitus nonnisi a fronte earum juxta medium vestibulum fuit. Nulli ergo dubium illud limen proprie dici portae quod legitur decem cubitos latitudinis habuisse. Hoc utique Scriptura satis aperte innuit, cum, post descriptionem liminis decem cubitorum, statim de longitudine portae subintulit: *Et mensus est latitudinem liminis portae decem cubitorum, et longitudinem portae tredecim cubitorum.* Qui enim latitudinem portae ex latitudine liminis designaverat, restabat solam ejus [0548A] longitudinem describere quam necdum expresserat. Sed cum una porta ex una parte vestibuli contra aliam ex alia parte erigatur, ita ut una porta videatur, unaque quamplures frequentius dicatur, quid causae, quaeso, erit cur una major, altera autem minor esse credatur? Constat sane duo alia limina nonnisi sex cubitos latitudinis habuisse: quorum unum si volumus alteri portae assignare, convincimur eam alia minorem astruere. Sed si hoc Scriptura sensit, seu nos sentire voluit, cur, quaeso, post descriptionem liminis statim de longitudine non subintulit, sicut de alia fecit? Cur utriusque portae latitudo ex liminum descriptione exprimitur, et alterius tantum longitudine diligenter expressa de alterius longitudine omnino tacetur? Sed tacendo de [0548B] una, quod de altera tam diligenter expressit satis evidenter innuit, quia quod de una dixit, totum de alia intelligi voluit. Utraque itaque porta, vel si hoc melius sonat una utrinque porta limen decem cubitorum habebat, et decem cubitorum in latitudine erat et tredecim cubitos in longitudine tenebat. Restat nunc de aliis liminibus quaerere vel quorum sint, vel quae propriae portae non sunt, cur dicantur ejus esse? Sed secundum quod totam porticum portam saepe nominat, quid mirum si ipsius vocat quod intra ipsam erat? Sic sane, si sensum scriptoris cupimus intelligere, oportet procul dubio magis locutionis ejus modos notare et nosse, quam de locutionum proprietate disputare. Limina itaque ista quae sex [0548C] cubitorum esse describuntur, quia intra portam erant, portae dicantur; propriae tamen aliquorum vestibulorum quae in novissima subdivisione assignavimus esse creduntur. Manifestum est autem quod illorum quae sex cubitorum erant dici non possint si tota fronte patebant; sin autem, jam omnino limen sex cubitorum capere non poterant. Sed nec illorum esse poterant quae inter thalamos jacebant; quia quinque cubitos tantum in latitudine tenebant, et sex cubitorum limina procul dubio omnino capere non poterant. Relinquitur ergo duo illa praedicta limina illorum vestibulorum fuisse quae superius probavimus in sua latitudine octo cubitos habuisse. Nam ex his quae superius dicuntur duo illa vestibula quae ultra thalamos hinc inde locantur sexdecim [0548D] cubitos tenere convincuntur. Quae si quis velit per duo inaequalia dividere, et uni minus, alteri majus tribuere, in tantum ut alterum eorum possit etiam limen decem cubitorum capere, et in hunc modum conetur priorem illam assertionem nostram evacuare, jam profecto neutrum illorum vestibulorum octo cubitorum erit, nec jam inveniri poterit cui Scriptura illa recte aptari possit: *Et mensus est vestibulum portae octo cubitorum.* Si igitur unum istorum est octo cubitorum, profecto octo cubitorum erit et alterum. Quidquid enim ex sedecim numero uni detrahitur, procul dubio alteri relinquitur. Sed quia sufficienter, ut arbitror, de porticus descriptione jam diximus, et quae de thalamis seu liminibus hoc loco dicenda videbantur ordine prosecuti [0549A] sumus, liber hoc loco ad majorem dictorum dicendorumque evidentiam, omnium quae superius per partes prolata sunt formam in unam figuram colligere, ut intuentis animus eorum omnium locum, [0550A] situm et numerum, qualitatem, quantitatem, proportionem facile possit ex ejus contemplatione colligere. [0549]

[0549B]Sed quia difficile, seu etiam impossibile est longitudinem, et latitudinem, et altitudinem aedificiorum in plano sub eadem figura repraesentare, sufficere arbitror horum omnium quae diximus situm, locumque conformasse, et lineis proportionalibus ductis omnium eorum quasi quoddam fundamentum jecisse. Cum enim lineas proportionali commensuratione modificatas aspicimus, et per eas nihil aliud quam quaedam parietum jacta seu designata fundamenta intelligimus, facile est subintelligere ab hac linearum deductione parietes in altum surgere, ipsisque parietibus tectum incumbere. Si quis me fortassis in hac nostra expositione prolixitatis arguat, videat, obsecro, quam recte id faciat. Sed ut verum fatear malo esse subtilioribus fastidiosus, quam tardioribus obscurus, praesertim in tam obscura re, ubi pene omnia quae dicuntur [0550B] probatione indigent potius quam expositione. Sed jam ad expositionem litterae redeamus, quam ex majori jam parte in his duntaxat quae de porticibus dicuntur planam esse confidimus.

## CAPUT VII. *Expositio litterae super descriptionem orientalis portae.*

*Et mensus est,* inquit, *limen portae calamo uno, latitudinem* (id est limen unum), *calamo uno in latitudine.* Sicut superius ostendimus, quamvis hoc limen proprium portae non fuerit, idcirco tamen illud portae esse dicit, quia intra ipsam ejus porticum fuit, quam etiam saepe sub nomine portae designare consuevit. Quam autem vir ille qui portam ingreditur hoc limen primo loco, et ante thalamos metitur, [0551A] patenter, ut arbitror, Scriptura innuit quod in primo praedictorum VII vestibulorum invenitur. Sed cum prius dictum sit Mensus est limen calamo uno latitudinem, quid est quod exponendo, vel quasi corrigendo quod quasi improprie dixerat, statim subintulit, id est, limen unum in latitudine? Sed diligentius consideranti quid aliud videtur esse haec expositio, vel correctio sententiae, nisi quaedam declaratio propheticae intelligentiae, ne nos lateret quid propheta dicere voluisset? Ac si aperte dicat se limen improprie quidem portae limen appellasse, sed quoddam limen seu unum limen dicere debuisse. Quod ergo secundum aliquem modum limen hoc dici possit portae, monet per primam expositionem, quod propriae dictum non sit portae, docet per subjunctam [0551B] expositionem. Quod ergo dicitur unum, permonet et alia limina ibi esse, nec hoc proprie dici portae. Quod autem latitudinem bis ponit per inculcationem attentius commendare voluit, ne quis quod de hoc limine, et post de decem cubitorum limine dicitur ad idem limen referre velit, cum utrobique latitudinem dici invenerit. Si tamen longitudo non latitudo poneretur, fortassis magis propriae dictum videretur. Denique ubi nos habemus latitudinem lxx, teste Hieronymo, posuerunt longitudinem. Sed saepe latitudo ponitur, ut non quantitatis speciem, sed simpliciter quantitatem significare videatur. Sequitur:

*Et thalamum uno calamo in longum, et uno calamo [0551C] in latum, et inter thalamos quinque cubitos,* in quibus verbis repetendum est *mensus est.* Attende nunc quam competenti ordine incedit, et quomodo paulatim, et per partes scientiae semina spargit. Primo de limine dicit quod erat in primo vestibulo, postea de mensura thalami qui erat in secundo, deinde vero de mensura spatii quod erat inter thalamos addit, in quo jam quod plures sint ostendit, novissime autem ad ultimum vestibulum venit quod ultra omnes thalamos situm fuit, cujus limen prius, et postmodum ispius vestibuli mensuram describit, cum dicit, et limen portae juxta vestibulum portae intrinsecus calamo uno. Et mensus est vestibulum portae octo cubitorum, et frontem ejus duobus cubitis. Quod autem hoc limen item portae dicitur, eodem [0551D] hic modo quo et superius accipitur. Manifeste autem determinat ubi hoc limen fuerit, juxta illud videlicet vestibulum quod intrinsecus erat, et inter duo circumadjacentia vestibula medium jacebat. Ex hoc loco, ut arbitror, manifeste ostenditur quod frontes minimorum vestibulorum medio vestibulo jungebantur.

Notandum sane quod postquam hoc limen, quemadmodum superius, portae limen nominavit, statim per subjunctam determinationem ostendit quod portae limen proprie dictum non sit. Si enim hoc limen esse portae limen proprie dictum fuisset, procul dubio ubi esset per determinationem subjungere non oporteret. Modo autem ubi fuerit, determinatur in eo quod dicitur, *juxta vestibulum portae intrinsecus.* [0552A] Erat itaque illud limen cujus mensuram capiebat juxta illud vestibulum portae quod intrinsecus erat, et in triplici porticu medium locum tenebat. Post mensuram liminis, mensuram ipsius vestibuli adnectit, cum dicit: *Et mensus est vestibulum portae octo cubitorum, et frontem ejus duobus cubitis.* Haec utique mensura medio vestibulo convenire non poterat. Nihil aliud enim medium vestibulum erat, nisi transitus, seu via quae de porta ad portam per medium porticum patebat. Longitudinem itaque ejus secundum latitudinem totius porticus quinquaginta cubitorum esse oportuit. Latitudo autem non minor quam latitudo portarum esse potuit, quae procul dubio, ut postea liquebit, X cubitorum fuit. Liquet ergo quod praedicta mensura ejus [0552B] vestibuli erat cujus limen prius descripserat. Sed cum vestibuli mensura sumitur, quid, quaeso, est, quod cujus sit longitudinis videlicet an latitudinis non determinatur? Sed solet saepe sine determinatione relinquere quod praevidet prudentem lectorem ex aliis circumstantiis per se posse intelligere. Postquam enim constiterit duo collateralia triplicis porticus vestibula hinc inde quinquagina cubitos longitudinis, et viginti quinque cubitos latitudinis habere, palam perpendi poterit minima vestibula viginti quinque cubitorum longitudinis fuisse. Nam minima vestibula nihil aliud quam maximorum vestibulorum quasdam sectiones per transversum oportet intelligere. Latitudo itaque ultimi vestibuli [0552C] describitur in eo quod dicitur, Et mensus est vestibulum portae octo cubitorum. Illud autem notandum quod pene quidquid hucusque de mensura est disputatum, determinare videtur latitudinem minimorum vestibulorum. Ubi autem nos habemus, *et frontem ejus duobus cubitis,* Hieronymus rursus aliam litteram ponit, *et in fronte ejusdem,* seu *in marginibus duos cubitos.* Ex quibus verbis manifeste colligitur, quod illi duo cubiti hoc loco designant, qui ostio sex cubitorum unus hinc et alius inde in marginibus superesse videbantur. Nam, si constat vestibulum octo cubitos latitudinis habere, necesse est ejus ostio sex cubitorum latitudinis duos cubitos in fronte superesse. Sed in duobus cubitis frontis secundum nostram litteram forsitan dat melius intelligi illud [0552D] spatium quod supra ipsam portam fuit usque ad tabulatum supereminentis coenaculi, et secundum hoc quod dicitur ejus, non ad vestibulum, sed ad portam debet referri: nam quomodo haec sententia ad totius altitudinem complendam valeat, in sequentibus patebit. Quod autem sequitur Vestibulum portae erat intrinsecus, ad totam porticum referre debemus. Haec itaque porticus intrinsecus erat, quia intra murum cui adhaerebat sita erat. Sequitur:

*Porro thalami portae ad viam orientalem tres hinc, et tres inde.* Mensura una trium, et mensura una frontium ex utraque parte. Ecce quomodo paulatim se promovet. Thalamorum numerum determinat de quo nondum constabat, et ad unius thalami mensuram qui superius describitur trium mensura subinfertur. [0553A] Sed quia jam constat numerus thalamorum, constat aeque etiam de numero vestibulorum, sed nondum constat de mensura omnium. Situs namque thalamorum (secundum quod superius patuit) unum latus porticus in VII sectiones dividit quas Scriptura vestibula dicere consuevit, quarum ultimam jam superius vestibulum nominavit. Duo siquidem quinque cubitorum spatia tres thalami inter se incluserant, et duo alia ultra se seclusa reliquerant, et ipsi tres tria tenebant, quae omnia in septenarium redundant. Post ista limen ipsius portae describitur cum dicitur: *Et mensus est latitudinem liminis portae* X *cubitorum, et longitudinem portae* XIII *cubitorum.* Ecce limen hoc ut superiora portae limen dicitur, et tamen hic, ut in superioribus, nihil determinationis [0553B] adjungitur, et ex eo ipso innuitur quod vere et proprie portae dicatur. Quod autem vere et proprie portae dictum sit, facile convinci poterit, cum omnium vestibulorum mensura constiterit. Sed omnium sane mensura facile convincitur ex eo quod illico subinfertur: Et marginem ante thalamos cubiti unius, et cubitus unus finis utrinque. Thalami autem sex cubitorum erant hinc et inde. Quod dicit marginem cubiti unius ante thalamos fuisse, et cubitum unum finem utrinque, debemus sub eodem sensu accipere scilicet marginem cubiti unius non solum in thalamorum fronte fuisse, sed etiam in utroque latere. Nihil autem aliud intelligimus hunc marginem circa thalamum, nisi ejecturam quamdam muri, quemadmodum fieri solet vel ad sedendum, [0553C] vel ad muri firmamentum. Saepe etenim paries in inferioribus latior fundatur, et cum paululum elevatus fuerit iterum restringitur. Si igitur thalami sex cubitorum erant, et adhuc cubitum unum utrinque sicut et ante in margine usque ad finem habebant, ergo a fine usque ad finem thalamorum octo cubiti erant. Tres itaque thalami ter octo, id est XXIV, cubitos occupabant, et inter primum et secundum thalamum V cubiti, et item inter secundum et tertium alii V erant, qui superioribus adjuncti XXXIV efficiunt. Sed et ultimum vestibulum octo cubitorum legitur, qui numerus si superiori adjungitur usque ad XLII aggregationis summa extenditur. Octonarius itaque qui adhuc superest de quinquaginta primo [0553D] vestibulo remanet. Nam tota porticus a porta usque ad frontem vestibuli sicut postea legitur quinquaginta cubitos habet. Nullum ergo hujusmodi vestibularum limen X cubitorum capere potuit. Patet ergo quia proprie portae fuerit. Sed ex eo etiam, sicut superius dictum est, innuitur quod post mensuram liminis in qua et latitudo portae continetur, statim de ejus longitudine subinfertur: *Et mensus est,* inquit, *latitudinem liminis portae* X *cubitorum, et longitudinem portae* XIII *cubitorum.*

Notandum quomodo post dimensionem thalamorum, vestibulorum, liminumque eorum hujus portae describit mensuram, ex quo intelligi datur quod haec quam metitur interior porta fuerit. Vide ergo quam artificiose primae portae mensura de qua nihil [0554A] dicitur, ex hujus portae descriptione docetur. Ratio siquidem non sinit credere exteriorem portam interiore esse minorem, nec Scripturae auctoritas patitur eam esse latiorem. A lateribus namque portarum, et a lateribus medii vestibuli ubi frontes scilicet minimorum vestibulorum medio vestibulo adhaerebant, usque ad geminos hinc inde parietes totius porticus XXV cubiti erant. Vestibula namque illa quae hinc inde lateribus portarum medioque vestibulo adhaerebant, ut ex caeterarum porticuum descriptione plenius deprehenditur, XXV cubitos latitudine tantummodo habebant. Si igitur bis XXV cubitis hinc inde sumptis X cubitos (latitudinem scilicet portarum) adjungimus, procul dubio mensuram frontium totius porticus LX videlicet cubitos implemus. Si [0554B] igitur frontes hinc inde tantummodo LX cubitos habuerunt, portae plus quam X cubitos omnino habere non poterunt. Superius ostendimus quam ordinate incederet dum unum latus per partes describeret donec ad interiorem portam ex ordine veniret. Descripto uno latere, breviter subinfert unam eamdemque mensuram esse thalamorum, tam hinc quam inde, ut compendiose doceret quidquid de uno latere dicitur de alio debere intelligere. Hinc est quod in aliarum porticuum descriptionibus dum brevitati studet, unum ex collateralibus vestibulis quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinis, et viginti quinque cubitorum latitudinis diligenter describit, et de alio tacite praeteriens eadem subintelligenda relinquit.

## CAPUT VIII. *De his quae pertinent ad descriptionem totius.*

[0554C]

Post partium descriptionem, tria sub una continuatione subinferuntur, in quibus mensura totius breviter comprehenditur, atque completur. Primum pertinet ad altitudinem, secundum complectitur totius porticus longitudinem, tertium totius latitudinem. Ad altitudinem pertinet quod dicitur: *Et mensus est a tecto thalami usque ad tectum ejus latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum, portam ostium contra ostium.* Ad longitudinem pertinet quod sequitur: *Et fecit frontes per sexaginta cubitos.* Ad latitudinem quod novissime ponitur: *Et ante faciem portae quae [0554D] pertingebat usque ad faciem vestibuli portae interioris, quinquaginta cubitos.* Quomodo autem ex primo capitulo totius altitudo animadverti possit, ex novissimis hujus descriptionis plenius patebit. Per omnes autem coenacula seu solaria esse credimus, sicut in caeteris domorum porticibus, seu caeteris aedificiis pene ubique invenimus. Nihil itaque aliud intelligimus tectum thalami, nisi pavimentum solarii, ita ut idem tabulatum esset et thalami tectum, et coenaculi pavimentum, et forte secundum morem terrae Palaestinorum debemus intelligere tectum portae planum esse, non erectum. Erat itaque superius coenaculum altitudinis viginti quinque cubitorum, secundum altitudinem tecti ad tectum. Sed nota quod latitudinem posuit ubi altitudinem ponere debuit, [0555A] usus enim latitudinis nomine saepe abuti solet: nam, cum sint tres dimensionis species, longitudo, latitudo et altitudo, sic saepe latitudo ponitur ut solum spatii quantitatem, non autem aliquam dimensionis speciem determinare videatur. Latitudinem itaque hoc loco improprie posuit, quemadmodum superius ubi limina descripsit. Quod autem dicitur ostium contra ostium, defectiva oratio est, sed habentem, sive aliquid ejusmodi subaudiri potest. Mensus est itaque portam habentem in ipsis thalamis ostium contra ostium, quia ostia trium thalamorum ab uno latere erant opposita ostiis trium aliorum. Quod autem frontes ponitur in eo quod subsequenter adjungitur: *Et fecit frontes per sexaginta cubitos,* ad geminam porticus faciem refertur, unam qua ad [0555B] interiora, alia qua ad exteriora respiciebat. De interiori autem ejus fronte intelligit quod subsequenter adjungitur: *Et ad frontem atrium portae undique per circuitum.* Hoc itaque pavimentum, tria porticus latera ambiebat, sicut via altrinsecus jacens evidenter ostendit circa quod situs gazophylaciorum ordinatus fuit.

Notandum sane quod ex mensura frontium LX cubitorum intra parietes sumitur quemadmodum ex aliis locis facile colligitur, sicut ex eo loco ubi vestibulum XXV cubitorum longitudinis, et V cubitorum latitudinis describitur, sicut ibi monstrabitur. Debemus vel de mensura latitudinis sentire, intra parietes videlicet sumptam esse. In eo autem quod [0555C] dictum est, et fecit frontes per LX cubitos, determinata est totius porticus longitudo, nunc autem in eo quod subinfertur, determinatur ejus latitudo, et ante faciem portae quae pertingebat usque ad faciem vestibuli portae interioris quinquaginta cubitos. Faciem portae, interiorem muri superficiem vocat illam videlicet quam ad se habebat qui intus erat, et mensuram capiebat. Mensus est ergo ab interiori parte non ab exteriori, quia si ab exteriori mensuram caperet, tanto plus L cubitis inveniret quantum spissitudinis murus tenebat. Faciem autem vestibuli portae interioris dicit illam partem vestibuli quam ad templum habuit, et portae interiori cohaesit. In eo autem porta usque ad faciem vestibuli pertingebat, quod porticum suam usque in id loci [0555D] extendebat. Quod autem usque ad faciem vestibuli dicitur, ad duo respondere videtur, et usquequo videlicet porta pertingeret, et quousque spatium quinquaginta cubitorum se extenderet. Fecit ergo, sive mensus est ante faciem portae quae pertingebat usque ad faciem vestibuli portae interioris quinquaginta cubitos. Sequitur:

*Et fenestras obliquas in thalamis, et in frontibus eorum quae erant intra portam undique per circuitum fecit a superioribus.* In his verbis repetitur, fecit ergo fenestras obliquas, id est interius latiores, et exterius angustiores. Fecit eas in thalamis et in frontibus eorum, hoc est maxime in frontibus, quae fenestrae intra portam, hoc est intra porticum erant, quia thalami in quibus ipse fenestrae erant intra ipsam [0556A] porticum consistebant. Nam de fenestris, quae ipsorum vestibulorum non autem thalamorum fuere, curavit consequenter adjungere: *Similiter autem,* inquit, *erant et in vestibulis fenestrae per gyrum intrinsecus,* ubi et additur: *et ante frontes pictura palmarum,* quod expositione non eget.

Notandum quod dicit pluraliter in vestibulis et intrinsecus; puto autem quod ex hoc loco facile innotescat, quod totam porticum sub portae appellatione quandoque comprehendat. Quamvis enim porta decem cubitorum unum thalamum facile comprehenderet, plures tamen comprehendere minime posset ut de eo dici debuisset: Et fenestras obliquas in thalamis quae erant intra portam. Sequitur:

*Eduxit me ad atrium exterius.* Ad interiora quidem [0556B] dicitur, et tamen educitur qui porticum in qua prius erat egreditur. Educitur autem ad atrium exterius, quia erat et alius interius, *et ecce gazophylacia, et pavimentum stratum lapide in atrio undique per circuitum. Triginta gazophylacia in circuitu pavimenti.* De his interim gazophylaciis nihil aliud volumus dicere, nisi quod decem et quinque erant hinc, et decem et quinque erant inde. Pavimentum autem hoc habebat XV gazophylacia ab Aquilone, et decem et quinque a Meridie. Porticum atrii exterioris ab Oriente, porticum atrii interioris ab Occidente, unde est illud quod postea additur: *Et pavimentum in fronte portarum secundum longitudinem portarum erat inferius,* ideo autem inferius, quia portae, sive ipsa porticus [0556C] magna proceritate supra illud attollebantur sursum, et illud in imo inter illas jacebat deorsum. Ex hoc item loco patet in quam partem longitudo porticuum accipi debeat. Nam, si pavimentum erat in fronte portarum secundum longitudinem earum, constat quia longitudo porticuum erat quae se extendebat juxta pavimentum. Mensuram pavimenti deinceps determinat quam nondum expresserat: *Et mensus est latitudinem a facie portae inferioris usque ad frontem atrii interioris extrinsecus centum cubitos ad Orientem, et ad Aquilonem.* Portam inferiorem vocat portam atrii exterioris; nam in loco eminentiori erat porta atrii interioris. Aedificium siquidem supra montem excelsum nimis constitutum erat, sicut [0556D] in ipso descriptionis exordio Scriptura commemorat. Portae ergo quae erant exteriores, et ipsae inferiores, et quae erant interiores, eaedem et superiores. Per faciem itaque portae inferioris vult intelligi frontem vestibuli exterioris, per frontem atrii interioris extrinsecus faciem exteriorem superioris porticus intelligere debemus. Nam interior porticus convertebat faciem suam ad exteriora, et exterior nihilominus convertebat suam ad interiora

Notandum sane ex hoc loco quod locum in quo interiores porticus erant, nunc atrio interiori, nunc exteriori attribuat. Unde et in inferioribus de eadem porticu seu vestibulo dicet: *Et vestibulum ejus, id est atrii exterioris. Erat autem ab Oriente porta inferior, ab Occidente vero porta interior.* Quomodo [0557A] ergo mensus est a facie portae inferioris usque ad frontem atrii interioris centum cubitos ad Orientem, cum hoc sit ab Oriente in Occidentem, non ab Occidente versus Orientem? Quapropter distinctio ibi est facienda, et mensus est latitudinem a facie portae inferioris usque ad frontem interioris extrinsecus. Ibique alia sententia inchoanda, et a superioribus quidem mensus est, repetendum est ita: *Mensus est autem centum cubitos ad Orientem, et ad Aquilonem,* hoc est centum cubitos ab Occidente versus Orientem, et similiter centum cubitos a Meridie versus Aquilonem; vel quod dicit ad Orientem, et ad Aquilonem, sic intelligere possumus: Ad Orientem, id est ad orientalem plagam, mensus est centum cubitos inter portam et portam. Et ad Aquilonem, id [0557B] est aquilonarem plagam, similiter mensus est centum cubitos inter portam et portam, ita ut hoc ultimum dictum sit, per anticipationem. Jam sufficienter, ut arbitror, hucusque de unius porticus descriptione dictum est, et quod de reliquis sequitur, sine expositione pene per omnia ex praedictis facile intelligi potest. Sciat autem qui haec legerit omnia pene quae de porticibus disseruimus ex Scripturae auctoritate posse convinci, et multa a nobis etiam potuisse ampliore ratione probari, quae sponte praeterimus, dum fastidium vitamus.

## CAPUT IX. *De aquilonari et australi porticu exterioris atrii.*

[0557C]Post descriptionem ergo portae orientalis describitur mensura portae aquilonaris, in his verbis: *Portam quoque quae respiciebat viam Aquilonis atrii exterioris mensus est tam in longitudine quam in latitudine, et thalamos ejus tres hinc, et tres inde, et frontem ejus et vestibulum ejus secundum mensuram portae prioris, quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinem ejus, et latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum.* Portam hic accipit proprie quam mensus est, sicut superiorem tredecim cubitorum in longitudine, et decem cubitorum in latitudine, et thalamos ejus tres hinc, et tres inde, omnes sex cubitorum, et frontem ejus sexaginta cubitorum, et vestibulum ejus secundum mensuram portae prioris, [0557D] quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinem ejus, et latitudinem ejus viginti quinque cubitorum. Tale vestibulum nusquam ibi aperte descripsit, et tamen tale ut ex hoc loco convincitur, ibi fuit, nec solum unum, sed duo, quia unum in latere uno, et aliud in latere alio, excepto eo, quod jacebat in medio: nec idcirco minus ibi fuit quale ibi describit unum magnum vestibulum, quia partes non auferunt, sed constituunt totum. Hinc est quod, descriptis partibus prius, postea de toto subinfertur, cum dicitur: *Fenestrae autem ejus, et vestibulum, et sculpturae secundum mensuram portae quae respiciebat ad Orientem.* Ecce hic vestibulum repetitur, sed prius ponitur ad partes quod postea ad totum refertur. Quod ergo prius vestibulum, non vestibula dicit, numerum [0558A] pro numero quemadmodum in sequentibus thalamum, non thalamos ponit. Possumus tamen ex superioribus hinc et inde repetere, et ad vestibulum referre. Post haec quiddam hic additur, quod de superiori porta non legitur, quod tamen de illa etiam recte intelligitur, ad cujus mensuram ista describitur: *Et septem graduum,* inquit, *erat ascensus ejus.* Commune est utrique quod sequitur, *et vestibulum ante eam.* Omnes sane portae exteriores porticus ante se habebant. Nam interiores, sicut jam diximus, post se porticus suas habebant. Sequitur:

*Et porta atrii interioris contra portam Aquilonis.* Haec enim interior porta Aquilonis frontem habebat contra exteriorem portam aquilonarem, et dextrum latus contra prius descriptam portam orientalem. [0558B] Vel quod dicit portam atrii interioris esse contra portam Orientis et Aquilonis, possumus de diversis portis accipere, ut intelligamus quod porta atrii interioris sit contra portam Aquilonis, sicut porta atrii interioris erat contra portam Orientis, et tunc quod de porta Orientis dicit, repetitio sit ejus sententiae quam superius de eodem posuit. Quamvis autem nolit hic ejus mensuram describere, voluit tamen hic de ea breviter tangere, ut pavimenti mensuram, quod inter ipsam et exteriorem jacebat, posset congruentius subinferre: *Et mensus est,* inquit, *a porta usque ad portam centum cubitos.*

Notandum quod solam longitudinem centum cubitorum describit. Nam latitudo pavimenti quanta fuerit, vel quid de ea sentiendum sit, melius ex sequentibus [0558C] patebit. Descripta porta aquilonari, postea sequitur de porta australi: *Et eduxit me ad viam australem, et ecce porta quae respiciebat ad austrum, et mensus est frontem ejus, et vestibulum ejus juxta mensuras superiores, et fenestras, et vestibula ejus in circuitu, sicut fenestras caeteras quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinem, et latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum.*

Notandum quod dicitur secundum mensuras superiores. Nam, si ejusdem mensurae sunt omnes, quidquid in una minus dicitur, ex alterius descriptionis adjectione suppleri videtur, quod prius ponitur vestibulum, referri debet ad totum. Ad partes autem, quod repetitur vestibula, quod liquido patet ex descriptionis eorum mensura. Ad secundum enim [0558D] non autem ad primum subinfertur, quod dicitur quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinem et latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum.

Notandum in hac ultima sententia quomodo ad duo praemissa duo sunt subjuncta, et fenestras ejus, et vestibula ejus in circuitu. Ecce duo; sequuntur alia duo: Sicut fenestras caeteras quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinem, et latitudinem XXV cubitorum. Ad id quod prius praemittitur fenestras ejus, primo respondetur sicut fenestras caeteras, ad illud quod secundo praemittitur, et vestibula ejus, secundo respondetur, quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinem, et latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum. Nullum tale vestibulum videtur descripsisse [0559A] apud portam primam, nec nisi unum apud secundam. Ex hujus tamen descriptione ostenditur ibi sicut et hic plura fuisse. Sed plus quam duo talia fuisse apud singulas primae descriptionis ratio non patitur, propter illud quod de longitudinis, vel latitudinis mensura ibi legitur, de longitudine, et fecit frontes per quadraginta cubitos, de latitudine, et ante faciem portae usque ad faciem vestibuli portae interioris quinquaginta cubitos. Si autem constat duo talis magnitudinis vestibula apud omnes fuisse, relinquitur apud singulas et tertium quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinis et decem cubitorum latitudinis superesse, ut totum simul jure triplex porticus dici debeat, et praedictam mensuram possit implere. Sequitur:

[0559B] *Et in gradibus septem ascendebatur ad eam:* quod quidem legitur et apud secundam portam · *Et vestibulum,* inquit, *ante fores ejus,* non post fores sicut in portis interioribus. Sequitur:

*Et caelatae palmae erant, una hinc, et altera inde in fronte ejus.* Palmae frontium modo dicuntur caelatae, modo depietae. Sed forte utrobique intelligendum est utrumque, hoc est, ut sint caelatae et coloribus superductae. Apud superiores etiam portas de caelatura palmarum dixerat. Sed quod una hinc, et altera esset inde, non determinaverat. Sicut superius vero post descriptionem exterioris portae mentionem facit de porta interiore, ut mensuram interjacentis pavimenti possit competentius inferre: *Et porta,* inquit, *atrii interioris [0559C] in via australi, et mensus est a porta usque ad portam in via australi centum cubitos.* Notandum quod porticum per portam intelligit, et quod pavimenti solam longitudinem describit: nam ejus longitudo ex alio melius patebit.

## CAPUT X. *De tribus porticibus interioris atrii.*

Post portas exteriores, ecce describit portas interiores. Post ultimam autem quam descripsit, ad sibi proximam transit, cum dicit: *Et introduxit me in atrium interius ad portam australem, et mensus est portam juxta mensuras superiores, thalamum ejus, [0559D] et frontem ejus, et vestibulum ejus, eisdem mensuris, et fenestras ejus, et vestibulum ejus in circuitu quinquaginta cubitos longitudinis, et latitudinis viginti quinque cubitos.* Quod de portis exterioribus superius legitur, hoc de portis interioribus repetitur: et mensus est, inquit, portam juxta mensuras superiores. Quod autem thalamum, non thalamos dicit, numerum pro numero ponit. Quod autem subjunctum est, et frontem ejus, et vestibulum ejus eisdem mensuris, ad totum referri potest, et tunc in sequentibus, habentia, vel aliquid ejusmodi subaudiendum est: Et mensus est fenestras ejus, et vestibulum ejus in circuitu habenta L *cubitos longitudinis, et latitudinis* XXV *cubitos.* Fenestras ejus, hoc est vestibuli, dicit fenestras parietum [0560A] totum extrinsecus ambientium. Fenestras vero vestibulorum ejus, hoc est vestibuli, dicit fenestras parietum minima vestibula intersecantium. Nec illud debet praeteriri, quod partes totius vocat vestibula vestibuli. Si autem vestibuli, non vestibulorum legitur (nam utraque littera invenitur), ad eumdem sensum refertur, et hoc de vestibulo vestibuli unius lateris dicitur, quod de utroque intelligatur. Sciendum tamen quod ab Hieronymo non vestibuli, sed vestibulorum ponitur. Sequitur:

*Et vestibulum per gyrum longitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum, et latitudinem quinque cubitorum.* Videte quomodo in omni adhuc descriptione novi aliquid additur quod in praecedentibus non dixerat. Vestibulum quinque cubitorum latitudinis superius [0560B] nusquam descripserat, et tamen si apud hanc portam, ergo apud omnes alias erat, quia omnium unam mensuram fuisse liquido constat. Sed ubi, quaeso, hujus vestibulum nisi inter thalamos fuit? Nam spatium quinque cubitorum inter thalamos Scriptura describit. Nec unum tantummodo, sed inter tres thalamos duo in latere uno, et duo in latere alio. Quomodo igitur de vestibulo octo cubitorum legitur in descriptione prima, quod de vestibulo quinque cubitorum legitur in descriptione ista, de singulis intelligendum est per omnia. Per istud vestibulum viginti quinque cubitorum longitudinis facile probari poterit, quod mensura illa frontium quadraginta cubitorum intra parietes sumpta fuerit. Sequitur illud in quo interiores porticus [0560C] differunt a superioribus. *Et vestibulum ejus,* inquit, *ad atrium exterius.* Nam superiores respiciebant intrinsecus, et iste extrinsecus. *Et palmas,* inquit, *ejus in fronte.* Ubi subauditur habebat, sed et hoc ei cum caeteris commune erat. Sequitur:

*Et octo gradus erant quibus ascendebatur per eam.* In hoc iterum interiores a superioribus differunt, quae solummodo septem habuerunt. Post portam australem transit ad orientalem: *Et introduxit me in atrium interius per viam orientalem, et mensus est portam secundum mensuras superiores, thalamum ejus, et frontem ejus, et vestibula ejus, sicut supra, et fenestras ejus, et vestibula in circuitu longitudinem quinquaginta cubitorum, et latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum.* In hac solum descriptione vestibula pluraliter bis ponitur, [0560D] et recte quidem, quia minimorum etiam vestibulorum descriptio ex descriptione praecedenti completur. Videtur itaque in hac descriptione geminae divisionis mentionem facere in eo quod voluit vestibula bis ponere. Una siquidem porticus primo dividitur in tria vestibula. Deinde duo ex his majora subdividuntur in quatuordecim alia. Post dimensionem itaque minimorum videtur ille qui metitur accedere ad dimensionem majorum. Primum ergo referatur ad minima, secundum ad maxima, quorum illic mensura subjungitur in eo quod adnectitur, longitudinem quinquaginta cubitorum, et latitudinem viginti quinque cubitorum. Sequitur: *et vestibulum ejus, id est atrii exterioris,* id ejus, [0561A] vestibulum, inquit, est atrii exterioris, ac si aperte diceret, id ipsum vestibulum quod est ejus, id est atrii interioris, secundum aliquid recte dicitur atrii exterioris, cujus utique omnino dici non debuisset, si juxta similitudinem exteriorum porticuum intra suam portam jacuisset; sed nunc recte ejus dicitur cui inhaeret, deinde subjungitur id quod in praecedenti legitur: *Et palmae caelatae in fronte ejus hinc et inde, et in octo gradibus ascensus ejus.* Deinde ultima portarum descriptio sequitur cum dicitur:

*Et introduxit me ad portam quae respiciebat ad Aquilonem, et mensus est secundum mensuras superiores thalamum ejus, et frontem ejus, et vestibulum ejus, et fenestras ejus per circuitum longitudinem quinquaginta cubitorum, et latitudinem viginti quinque [0561B] cubitorum. Vestibulum ejus respiciebat in atrium exterius, et caelatura palmarum in fronte illius hinc et inde, et in octo gradibus ascensus ejus.* Hic quia nihil novi additur, expositio quidem superflua videtur. Sequitur: *Et per singula gazophylacia ostium in frontibus portarum. Ibi lavabant holocaustum.* Quod dicit gazophylacia, vel gazophylaciorum ostia, in frontibus portarum esse, debemus de interioribus porticibus intelligere. Nam quoniam ostia in frontibus gazophylaciorum erant, et ad pavimenta quae ante interiores porticus jacebant omnia respiciebant, recte nunc dicitur quia ostia gazophylaciorum in frontibus portarum erant. Situs ergo gazophylaciorum determinatur in eo, quod dicitur: Et per [0561C] singula gazophylacia ostium in frontibus portarum. Linea ergo qua frontes portarum terminantur protrahatur, et ab ea usque ad murum exteriorem gazophylacia ordinentur. Nam quidquid post illam fuerit, in frontibus portarum non erit. In prima omnium descriptione de gazophylaciis locutus fuit, sed per omnes alias nullam de eis mentionem facit. Cur ergo hoc quod hic de gazophylaciis dicitur, huic ultimae descriptioni adnectitur, nisi ut per hoc idem de omnibus intelligi daretur. Similiter et quod de octo mensis adnectit, de omnibus tribus interioribus portis, ut arbitror, intelligi voluit. Omnes tres interiores portae octo mensas per vestibulorum suorum latera habuere, quamvis Scriptura hoc non videatur aperte determinare. Sed videte quam argute Scriptura [0561D] in quibusdam locis quaedam tacite praeterire voluit, quae ratio quidem diligentius requisita latere non sinit. Sane de gazophylaciis dicitur: Ibi lavabant holocaustum. Sed et de mensis scribitur: *Super mensas autem carnes oblationis.* Si quis ergo putet solam orientalem portam gazophylacia habere, vel apud aquilonarem portam solummodo mensas fuisse, videat, obsecro, utrum ratio patiatur orientalem portam non habere, ubi reponi debeant quae ibi lavantur? An aquilonarem portam non habere, ubi lavari queant quae ibi reponantur? Nunquid quae ad aquilonarem portam immolantur apud orientalem lavantur, et quae ad orientalem lavantur ad aquilonarem immolantur? Nunquidnam horum neutrum ad australem portam fit, quia in ejus descriptione [0562A] de gazophylaciis mentio nulla facta fuit? Scio quidem Patres quaedam Scripturarum loca quae facile possent penetrare negligenter tamen praeterire, dum invenisse desiderarent, atque gauderent quae juxta litteram stare non possent, ut per hoc saltem convincerentur homines allegoriam recipi debere, quam illis adhuc temporibus admodum pauci vix voluissent recipere. Neminem ergo scandalizet si quid dicimus aliud, vel aliter quam in glossis invenerit. Nemo dedignetur nos remanentes spicas velle colligere, nemo miretur illis elabi aliquas potuisse, vel illos potius pauperibus eas sponte reliquisse, quibus hoc divinitus praeceptum est, quibus divinitus datum est tot voluminum horrea de Scripturarum messe replesse. Sed tu vis honorare, et [0562B] defendere veterum auctoritatem, sed nunquam verius honoramus veritatis amatores, quam quaerendo, inveniendo, docendo, defendendo, diligendo veritatem. Attende ergo non utrum dicam aliquid novum, sed verum. Parum timeo dicere aliquid diversum, dum tamen nihil dicam perversum. Sed ecce iterum ad expositionem litterae redeo, et magis quid ipsa dicere velit, quam quid alii de me dicturi sint attendo.

## CAPUT XI. *De mensis ubi immolabatur holocaustum, et de gazophylaciis cantorum.*

*Et in vestibulo portae duae mensae hinc, et duae [0562C] mensae inde, ut immoletur super eas holocaustum et pro peccato, et pro delicto.* Quid sit holocaustum pro peccato, et pro delicto, et caetera multa in hunc modum quae ad expositionem litterae pertinent, ex industria praetereo, quia in id solum interim quod alias non reperi totus intendo, quomodo, juxta litteram stare valeat, vel intelligi debeat ista prophetae tam subtilis descriptio. Sed si hoc, ut hic dicitur, mensarum officium erat, ut super eas holocaustum immolari debeat, eligat quisque quid magis oporteat sentire, an apud hanc solam portam victimas immolari debere, an alias etiam portas similes mensas in id officii habere. Si ad hanc solam immolabatur, quid fiet de victima principis qui ad solam [0562D] orientalem portam ingrediebatur, et egrediebatur? Si ad solam orientalem victimae lavantur in diebus non festis, quid fiet de victima populi, quando orientalis porta claudebatur, quae soli principi aperiebatur? Ejusmodi allegationibus possumus colligere divinam Scripturam multa ex quadam industria tacite innuere. Dixit jam quatuor mensas, duas hinc, et duas inde esse intra vestibulum. Dicit adhuc et alias quatuor esse extra vestibulum, duas similiter ad latus unum, et duas ad alterum. *Et ad latus,* inquit, *exterius, quod ascendit ostium portae quae pergit ad Aquilonem, duae mensae, et ad latus alterum ante vestibulum portae duae mensae. Quatuor mensae hinc, et quatuor mensae inde. Per latera portae octo mensae erant, super quas immolabant.* Quoniam, [0563A] ut superius dictum est, templum summitatem montis tenebat, et ab omni parte mons ipse usque ad eum locum paulatim se ad altiora erigebat, haec porta (nec mirum) unum latus altius, alterum demissius habebat. Ab uno itaque ad portam ascendebatur, ab alio ad portam descendebatur. Nam quia aquilonaris porta haec erat, sicut Scriptura ipsa determinat, templum procul dubio ab occidentali latere habebat, quod quidem latus orientali lateri altius eminebat. Orientale latus determinatur, cum dicitur: *Et ad latus exterius quod ascendit ad ostium portae quae pergit ad Aquilonem duae mensae.* Nam quod sequitur, dicitur de alio latere: *Et ad latus alterum ante vestibulum portae duae mensae.* Erant itaque, ut subinfertur, quatuor mensae hinc, et quatuor mensae inde. Quatuor [0563B] enim erant ad latus unum, duo intra vestibulum, et duo extra vestibulum. Similiter duo interius, et duo exterius ad latus alterum. Ergo per latera portae octo mensae erant super quas immolabant. Quae sequuntur satis per se patent, et expositione non indigent. *Quatuor autem mensae ad holocaustum de lapidibus quadris exstructae, longitudine cubiti unius et demidii, et latitudine cubiti unius et dimidii, et altitudine unius cubiti, super quas ponant vasa in quibus immolatur holocaustum, et victima; et labia earum palmi unius, reflexa intrinsecus per circuitum. Super mensas autem carnes oblationis.* Hucusque de mensis. Sequitur autem de quibusdam gazophylaciis, de quibus nihil dictum est in praecedentibus.

[0563C] *Et extra portam interiorem gazophylacia cantorum in atrio interiori quod erat in latere portae respicientis ad Aquilonem, et facies eorum contra viam australem, una ex latere portae orientalis quae respiciebat ad viam Aquilonis.* Mirum est quod dicitur: In atrio interiori quod erat in latere portae respicientis ad Aquilonem. Atrium namque interius non erat in latere hujus portae, sed potius ante ipsam situm fuit, quia inter tres portas interiores medium jacuit. Sed cum dicitur atrium interius, vel atrium exterius, non uniformiter hoc semper accipere debemus. Dictum est atrium interius quod centum cubitorum quaquaversum in medio locatur, et atrium exterius quo interius atrium ex omni parte cingebatur. In atrio [0563D] autem interiore nihil aliud erat nisi unum altare, caetera autem omnia porticus, gazophylacia, templum, domus, erant in atrio exteriore. Secundum aliam tamen considerationem locus in quo templum et domus illae erant quae templo per tria ejus latera coadjacebant, atrium interius dicitur, sicut in sequentibus legitur. Ibi enim gazophylacia sanctuarii erant in quibus sacerdotes carnes oblationis reponebant atque comedebant, quas tamen in atrium exterius efferre non licebat, Scriptura prohibente, quae dicit: *Iste est locus ubi coquent sacerdotes pro peccato atque delicto, ubi coquent sacrificium, ut non efferant in atrium exterius, et sanctificetur populus [n: (Ezech. XLVI)]*. Hae tamen carnes quae in exterius atrium efferri prohibebantur in praedictis gazophylaciis reponebant, [0564A] et comedebantur, sicut de ipsis legitur: *Haec sunt gazophylacia sancta in quibus vescuntur sacerdotes qui appropinquant in Sancta sanctorum ad Dominum. Ibi ponent Sancta sanctorum et oblationes pro peccato et pro delicto [n: (Ezech. XLI)]*. Alia itaque ratione dicitur atrium interius quod ante templum erat, quia, ut dictum est, in medio jacebat. Alia autem ratione illud quo templum per tria latera cingebatur, quia in ipsum per illud etiam quod proprie dictum est atrium interius intrabatur. Sic thalamus interior aula dici solet, non quod intra ipsam sit, sed quod secretiorem locum teneat, et quod per illam ad ipsum aditus pateat. Sic utique sic nullus locus secretior et ab aditu portarum nullus remotior exstitit, quam ille in quo templum constructum fuit. [0564B] Secundum hanc itaque considerationem in hujus loci comparatione potest dici atrium exterius etiam illud quod Scriptura pro more solet appellare atrium interius. Alia ergo ratione atrium interius dicitur locus in quo templum fuit, et alia ille qui medium tenuit, et altare holocausti habuit. Nihil itaque prohibet illum locum intelligere in quo templum, vel adjacentes domus fuere, in eo quod dicitur, et contra portam interiorem gazophylacia cantorum in atrio interiori, quod erat in latere portae respicientis ad Aquilonem. In hoc atrio quod praedictae portae ab occidentali latere adjacebat illud quod modo describitur gazophylacium cantorum erat, eidemque portae sive porticui lateraliter adhaerebat. De hoc gazophylacio in subsequentibus latius agitur, ipsumque, [0564C] in fallor, in his verbis describitur: *Et introduxit me in gazophylacium quod erat contra separatum aedificium, et contra aedem vergentem ad Aquilonem,* et caetera de quibus latius suo loco dicemus. Hoc autem interim de hoc gazophylacio dicendum videtur, quod ejus latitudo ab hac porta incipiebat, et versus Occidentem se expandebat. Longitudo autem ab Aquilone in Austrum se extendebat. Unde est illud quod de eisdem gazophylaciis subsequenter adjungitur, cum dicitur: Et facies eorum contra viam australem. Habebat itaque porta hujusmodi gazophylacia cantorum, ut dictum est, ab occidentali latere. Habebat et alia ab orientali latere, quae utique sita erant e regione tam orientalis quam aquilonaris [0564D] portae. Si itaque e regione portae orientalis frontem habebant ad portam Aquilonis, unde est quod eisdem subditur, una ex latere portae orientalis quae respiciebat ad viam Aquilonis? Dicit itaque quia hujusmodi gazophylaciorum una facies erat ex latere portae orientalis, quae facies respiciebat ad viam Aquilonis. Planior autem littera esset, si dictum fuisset, quorumdam facies, non quaedam facies, sive una facies eorum erat ex latere portae orientalis. Nunc autem non solum ibi una pro quorumdam facies ponitur, sed etiam facies eorum ex superioribus subauditur. Haec vero gazophylacia quae aquilonari portae ab Oriente erant ad viam, non contra viam Aquilonis faciem habebant, quia per ante ipsa in transversum ibat, et non contra ea, sicut australem viam [0565A] illa quae ab Occidente erant contracuntem habebant. Debemus autem idem de utroque latere orientalis portae intelligere, similiter vero et de uno latere australis portae. Sed solet Scriptura ex industria praeterire quae scit per se facile intelligi posse. Sequitur:

*Et dixit ad me: Hoc est gazophylacium, quod respicit ad viam meridianam, sacerdotum, qui excubant in custodiis templi. Porro gazophylacium quod respicit ad viam Aquilonis sacerdotum erit qui excubant ad ministerium altaris.* Gazophylacium quod contra viam meridianam respiciebat, vicinius templo erat, et idcirco juste illorum sacerdotum esse debebat qui in custodiis templi excubabant: nam altari servientibus dignitate praeeminebant. Commune autem [0565B] est utrisque sacerdotibus quod sequitur cum dicitur: *Isti sunt filii Sadoch qui accedunt de filiis Levi ad Dominum ut ministrent ei.*

## CAPUT XII. *De coquinis quae subter porticus fabricatae erant et de atrio interiori.*

Hoc loco considerare oportet quod ad viam orientalem hinc inde circa porticus tam exterioris quam interioris atrii quoddam adhuc spatium inter ipsas et gazophylacia vacuum remanet, sicut ex supra positis figuris oculis subjectum patet, in quibus locis coquinae illae esse poterant, de quibus Scriptura in subsequentibus commemorat, cum dicat: *Et culinae [0565C] fabricatae erant subter porticus per gyrum [n: (Ezech. XLVI)]*. Ad viam autem Aquilonis porticus exterior unum ejusdem quantitatis spatium tantummodo habebat, quod ei ab orientali latere adhaerebat. Nam ab occidentali latere gazophylacia cohaerentia habebat. Constat autem et australem porticum exterioris atrii ab orientali latere simile spatium ad idem officium habere, et gazophylacia ei ab alio latere adhaerere. De similibus ergo similia aestimamus, et idcirco duobus porticibus interioris atrii hinc inde utrum utrobique simile spatium in coquinarum officium relinquimus. Post haec gazophylacia cantorum quinquaginta cubitorum tam longitudinis quam latitudinis ordinamus, ut secundum longitudinem [0565D] eorum sic sit et latitudo eorum, sicut de quibusdam gazophylaciis legimus. Nam de longitudine omnium gazophylaciorum atrii exterioris una sententia datur, cum longe post in sequentibus dicitur: Quia longitudo erat gazophylaciorum atrii exterioris quinquaginta cubitorum. Post ista gazophylacia cantorum interjecta quadam via decem cubitorum latitudinis ordinantur hinc inde quindecim gazophylacia in via orientali, ut sint, sicut scriptum est, triginta in circuitu pavimenti. Erant autem similiter quindecim ab uno tantum latere, id est ab orientali parte tam in via aquilonari quam in via australi. Sunt vero a frontibus interiorum portarum, ut postea docebitur usque ad locum vulgi, centum quadraginta cubiti. Ex his si demus muro cubitos quinque caeteris [0566A] per quindecim aequaliter divisis, inveniemus unumquodque gazophylacium novem cubitos latitudinis tenere. Sequitur:

*Et mensus est atrium longitudine centum cubitorum, et latitudine centum cubitorum per quadrum, et altare ante faciem templi.* Ex hoc loco satis patet quod interius atrium secundum latitudinem totum illud centum cubitorum spatium tenebat, quod erat medium in illis quingentis cubitis, quos ab Aquilone in Austrum murus ille quingentorum cubitorum includebat. Sed quia orientales porticus caeteris porticibus similes per omnia mensuras habebant, ejusdemque longitudinis atrium includebant, totitemque gradibus assurgebant, constat procul dubio eorum mensuram usque ad medium centenarium se extendere, [0566B] et ab ejus initio interius atrium initium sumere. Sed quot ex illis centum cubitis versus Occidentem secundum plani considerationem dico intra se apprehenderit, nondum ex praedictis puto posse probare. Nam, licet versus illam etiam partem centum cubitos superficietenus haberet, quid tamen vel quantum de illo medio centenario ab Occiente secundum rationem plani tumor montis detraxerit, qui ibi ad eam partem attollebatur, necdum patet. Centum siquidem cubitorum linea una jacens, et alia oblique se erigens ab eodem puncto emergentes in eumdem cathetum non concurrunt, nec secundum planum aequale spatium includunt, sed haec quomodo se habeant ex sequentibus [0566C] patebunt. Et altare, inquit, ante faciem templi. Hoc idcirco hic adnectit, quia altare in hoc atrio fuit quod ante templum jacuit. De hujus mensura nihil hic dicitur, sed longe inferius subtiliter explicatur. In hoc atrio facimus aquam illam, quae de templo egrediebatur decurrere, et a dextro altaris descendere. Circa atrii vero inferiora in quatuor eam secamus, et per medias coquinas traducimus, ita ut per ante gazophylacia transeat, ut sit ubi holocaustum lavari queat, quemadmodum scriptum est: *Et per singula gazophylacia ostium in frontibus portarum, et ibi lavabant holocaustum.* Horum omnium quae diximus in novissima, et magna figura, sicut ibi videri potest, formam et exemplar latius expressimus.

## CAPUT XIII. *De quantitate vel aedificiorum quae templo adjacebant.*

[0566D]

Quia igitur de anteriori hujus aedificii parte interim quae dicenda videbantur explevimus, nunc ad occiduam ejus partem describendam stylum vertimus, et quae de praedictis ad praedicta supplenda fuerint loco suo supplebimus. Libet hic, sicut et supra, in descriptione porticuum hinc inde Scriturae testimonia in unum colligere, et describendorum aedificiorum situm, modum et ordinem ex eorum collatione astruere, et quid ex his sentiendum sit, hinc auctoritate, hinc ratione probante monstrare. Sicut superius docuimus, templum cum sua porticu [0567A] post atrium interius ab occidentali ejus latere eminebat, et per alia tria latera idem templum tres domos cum suis porticibus, interjecto tamen quodam atrio, habebat, quarum unaquaeque centum cubitos longitudinis tenebat. Nam de eo aedificio quod ad dorsum templi ab Occidente fuit, quod et separatum Scriptura vocare consuevit, ex eo quod nulli caeterorum cohaesit, legitur: *Et mensus est domus longitudinem centum cubitorum, et quod separatum erat aedificium, et parietes ejus, longitudinis centum cubitorum.* De caeteris autem aedificiis quae ex utroque latere erant subinfertur, cum dicitur: *Et mensus est longitudinem aedificii contra faciem ejus quod separatum erat ad dorsum, ethecas ex utraque parte centum cubitorum.* Dum [0567B] enim centum cubitorum longitudinis aedificium ex utraque parte mensurari dicitur, ejusdem longitudinis aedificium utrinque fuisse comprobatur. Ecce de tribus domibus; videamus nunc de earum porticibus. Quod apud aquilonare aedificium porticus esset, Scriptura manifestat, cum dicat: *Ubi erant gazophylacia in superioribus humiliora, quia supportabant porticus quae ex illis eminebant de inferioribus et de mediis aedificii.* Quod autem hoc de aquilonari aedificio, ejusque porticu dictum sit circumstantia litterae patenter ostendit, sicut postmodum in expositione litterae manifestum erit. Hanc quam praelocuti sumus porticum quinquaginta cubitorum fuisse possumus sane inde convincere, quod ejus peribolus, id est, murus qui ejus gazophylacia [0567C] quae ipsam supportabant cingebat, legitur quinquaginta cubitorum fuisse: *Et peribolus,* inquit, *exterior secundum gazophylacia, quae erant in via atrii exterioris ante gazophylacia, longitudo ejus quinquaginta cubitorum, quia longitudo erat gazophylaciorum atrii exterioris quinquaginta cubitorum.* Hujus porticus latitudo postea exprimitur in eo quod alio loco scribitur: *Secundum longitudinem eorum sic et latitudo eorum.* Illud sane ex hujus porticus gazophylaciorumque ejus descriptione consequens est, quod et ampliori ratione ex aliis itidem locis probari potest, quia aquilonare aedificium gazophylacia in suis inferioribus, coenacula in superioribus haberet. Nam frustra ejus porticus quinquaginta [0567D] cubitis a terra emineret, nisi et coenaculum post se haberet quod sibi congrua altitudine responderet. Quid enim ait Scriptura de hujus aedificii porticibus? *Propterea,* inquit, *eminebant de inferioribus et de mediis aedificii a terrae cubitis quinquaginta.* Denique horum gazophylaciorum quae in inferioribus aedificii erant comparatione, murus qui gazophylacia porticus amplectitur, peribolus exterior nominatur, eo quod atrio exteriori vicinius, imo etiam immediate conjungitur. Haec autem porticus juncta erat porticui aquilonari interioris atrii, unde et scriptum est: *Ubi erat porticus juncta porticui triplici.* Sed ab ea porticu atrii interioris si ei mensurae quam intra parietes habuit de qua sola superius locuti sumus quinque cubitos quasi pro [0568A] muri spissitudine adjicimus, procul dubio usque ad vulgi locum ducentos quindecim cubitos invenimus. Ab eo itaque loco praedicta domus cum sua porticu versus Occidentem in centum quadraginta quinque cubitos se extendebat, ultra quod usque ad eumdem vulgi locum, adhuc septuaginta cubiti supererant. In ea enim parte, sicut postmodum docebitur, qua conjunctae erant, communem parietem habebant, et idcirco non centum quinquaginta, sed tantummodo centum quadraginta quinque cubitos tenebant. Inter hoc aedificium et templum erat quoddam spatium centum cubitorum longitudinis, et quinquaginta cubitorum latitudinis. Cujus mensura determinatur cum dicitur: *In facie longitudinis centum cubitos ostii Aquilonis, et latitudinis quinquaginta cubitos.* [0568B] Quidquid autem de aquilonaris aedificii modo atque mensura diximus, totum de australi aedificio juxta eamdem similitudinem sentire debemus, quod quidem ex his quae superius jam dicta sunt satis patere putamus. Habemus jam quousque haec aedificia cum porticibus suis extendebant, sed nondum constat quantum intercapedinis includebant. Sed hoc sane, ut arbitror, palam erit, cum constiterit quomodo illud aedificium, quod separatum dicitur, inter haec duo ordinatum fuit. Habebat sane centum cubitos longitudinis et octoginta cubitos latitudinis. Nam intra parietes nonaginta cubitos longitudinis, et septuaginta latitudinis habebat et paries ipse undique per circuitum quinque cubitorum erat, sicut Scriptura demonstrat: *Et quod separatum erat aedificium, [0568C] versumque ad viam respicientem ad mare latitudinis septuaginta cubitorum. Paries autem aedificii quinque cubitorum erat latitudinis per circuitum, et longitudo ejus nonaginta cubitorum;* unde et infertur: *Et mensus est domus longitudinem centum cubitorum, et quod separatum erat aedificium et parietes ejus centum cubitorum.* Ad dorsum itaque templi prope murum qui dividebat vulgi locum situm erat, et longitudinem suam absque omni dubio in Aquilonem et Austrum extendebat. Sed latitudinem suam ab Occidente in Orientem expandebat. Quia igitur ultra praedicta aedificia altrinsecus jacentia spatium septuaginta cubitorum tantummodo fuit, necesse est ut latitudo aedificii quod octoginta cubitorum [0568D] exstitit praedictorum aedificiorum intercapedinem ex magna sui parte occupaverit. Longitudo igitur separati aedificii inter praedictas illas domos extenditur, et adhuc utrumque spatium viginti cubitorum adjicitur, propter illud, quod de eorum gazophylaciis legitur: *Et inter gazophylacia latitudinem viginti cubitorum in circuitu domus undique.*

Constat igitur inter duo aedificia quae templo adjacebant hinc inde spatium centum quadraginta cubitorum secundum planum utique inclusum fuisse. Domus autem aquilonaris sicut et australis porticum suam non contra medium, sed contra exteriorem, sive inferiorem sui partem habuit, et ab Aquilone utraque ab una et eadem linea incoepit. Nam ubi gazophylacia quae hujus domus porticum supportabant [0569A] describuntur, statim de eorum introitu adnectitur: *Et erat subter gazophylacia haec introitus ab Oriente ingredientium in ea de atrio exteriori in latitudine periboli atrii quod erat contra viam orientalem in facie aedificii separati.* Hoc atrium, cujus hoc loco mentionem facit, aquilonaris domus profecto ab Aquilone habuit, a qua domo usque ad vulgi locum, latitudinem suam in Aquilonem extendit. Non igitur contra hujus atrii latitudinem quin potius contra domum dicta gazophylacia introitum haberent nisi porticus cum sua domo ab aquilonari plaga ex uno loco inciperet. Ab aquilonari autem latere ejusdem porticus usque ad interius atrium centum cubiti erant, quorum quinquaginta ejus latitudo tenebat. Deinde interjecta quadam [0569B] deambulatione decem cubitorum latitudinis praedictum illud gazophylacium cantorum incipiebat, et se usque ad vicesimum cubitum atrii interioris extendebat. Unde constat quia ejus longitudo quinquaginta cubitorum erat. Hoc gazophylacium in subsequentibus describitur, cum dicitur: *Et induxit me in gazophylacium quod erat contra separatum aedificium, et contra aedem vergentem ad Aquilonem in facie longitudinis centum cubitos ostii Aquilonis, et latitudinis quinquaginta cubitos contra viginti cubitos atrii interioris, et contra pavimentum stratum lapide ubi erat porticus juncta porticui triplici.* Palam esse puto quomodo hoc gazophylacium contra aedificium separatum erat, vel quomodo in facie interstitii centum cubitorum longitudinis, et [0569C] quinquaginta cubitorum latitudinis erat. Quod templum et aquilonare aedificium interjacebat, si hoc gazophylacium usque ad vicesimum cubitum atrii interioris se extendebat. Palam nihilominus quomodo contra aedem vergentem ad Aquilonem erat, si a decimo cubito post illius aedis porticum incipiebat. Sed illud modo oportet considerare quod contra pavimentum atrii exterioris dicitur esse et ne aliud quam aquilonare pavimentum atrii exterioris intelligere possimus, litterae illius adjectione constringimur, in eo quod legimus: *Ubi erat porticus juncta porticui triplici.* Nam apud orientalem regionem nusquam invenimus porticum junctam porticui. Sed aquilonaris porticus atrii interioris, ut ex superioribus [0569D] patet, ab Oriente habebat gazophylacia cantorum, ab Austro interius atrium, ab Aquilone hoc de quo modo loquimur pavimentum. Patet ergo quod porticus, quae huic porticui juncta fuerat, ei procul dubio ab Occidente adhaerebat, et ex parte eam tangens, et ex majore sui relinquens, versus Aquilonem se extendebat, et hoc pavimentum ab Occidente limitabat. Ut igitur praedictum gazophylacium contra hoc pavimentum possit aliquam sui partem habere, oportet ipsum triplici porticum adhaerere, quin potius communem parietem cum ea in ipso conjunctionis loco habere. Post quem parietem si porticus aquilonaris domus incoepit, darietemque post parietem habuit, profecto gazophylacium in tantum dicto pavimento oppositum [0570A] fuit, quantum spissitudinis ejus murus habuit. Quod autem illa quam diximus deambulatio ante ipsum gazophylacium fuerit, Scriptura subsequenter ostendit, cum subjungit: *Et ante gazophylacia deambulatio decem cubitorum latitudinis.* Nec nos movere debet quod idem aedificium, modo gazophylacia, modo gazophylacium dicitur, sicut eadem porticus modo vestibula, modo vestibulum nominatur. Nam unum ad distinctiones, aliud ad totum referatur.

Notandum sane quod in eo loco ubi aquilonaris domus et ejus porticus faciebant angulum ante praedictum gazophylacium, et hunc deambulationis locum, locus quidam erat triginta cubitorum longitudinis et viginti cubitorum latitudinis, de quo quod videbitur [0570B] suo loco dicetur. Nam secundum quod ex superioribus patet, quoniam ab orientali latere ejus gazophylacii usque ad aquilonare aedificium quinquaginta cubiti tantummodo erant, ipsum quidem gazophylacium plus quam triginta cubitos latitudinis habere non poterat, ubi viginti cubitos superesse oportuit, ut constaret quod Scriptura de his gazophylaciis quae circa templum jacebant, dicit: *Et inter gazophylacia latitudinem viginti cubitorum in circuitu domus undique.* Constat autem quia ab eodem orientali latere ejusdem gazophylacii usque ad terminum sanctificati quingentorum cubitorum ducentum viginti cubiti erant, quorum triginta, ut dictum est, latitudo gazophylacii praedicti tenebat. Deinde spatium seu atrium quod inter ipsum et aedificium separatum [0570C] juxta longitudinem templi se extendebat, centum cubitos secundum praedictam Scripturae auctoritatem occupabat. Latitudo autem aedificii separati octoginta cubitos habuit, a quo loco decem cubitorum latitudo superfuit. Quorum quinque, ut postea monstrabitur, muri latitudo tenebat: nam caeteros quinque via quaedam habebat, quae inter ipsum murum et aedificium media jacebat. Sed si hi numeri in unum conveniunt, procul dubio in ducentos viginti consurgunt. Nunc est facile videre quousque templum se extendit, quod cum suo vestibulo, quemadmodum in posterioribus docebitur, centum cubitorum longitudinis fuit. Sed quia vestibulum templi sine dubio atrio interiori adhaerebat, [0570D] ab eadem linea ipsum et praescriptum gazophylacium incipiebat. Sed quia gazophylacium, ut dictum est, et ante positum atrium centum triginta cubitis usque ad aedificium separatum se extendebant, et templum cum vestibulo suo centum cubitos tantummodo tenebat, constat quia inter templum et aedificium separatum interstitium fuerit triginta cubitorum.

## CAPUT XIV. *De situ vel ratione caeterorum aedificiorum quae ad occidentalem plagam erant.*

Sed ut ad caetera quae adhuc restant describenda transeamus, ultra porticum jam saepedicti aquilonaris aedificii ab Aquilone erant decem gazophylacia [0571A] e regione ipsius porticus versus Aquilonem usque ad murum exteriorem juxta pavimenti latus ordinata, longitudinis secundum longitudinem porticus cubitorum quinquaginta. Haec sunt illa gazophylacia atrii exterioris, de quibus Scriptura similitudinem trahit, ubi ipsius porticus, seu gazophylaciorum quae sub ipsa erant longitudinem describit, cum dicit: *Et peribolus exterior secundum gazophylacia quae erant in via atrii exterioris ante gazophylacia, longitudo ejus quinquaginta cubitorum, quia longitudo erat gazophylaciorum atrii exterioris quinquaginta cubitorum.* Secundum gazophylacia, inquit, quae erant ante gazophylacia. Ante quae gazophylacia, quaeso, nisi ante ea de quibus tunc agebat, et multa jam dixerat, quae sub porticibus erant, et ipsas, ut [0571B] ibi dictum est, aquilonaris aedificii porticus supportabant? Ante porticum igitur praedictam esse describuntur, et atrii exterioris eadem ipsa gazophylacia dicuntur, ut ubi fuerint aperte determinetur. Inter haec tamen gazophylacia, et adjacentem porticum, via quaedam interjecta erat latitudinis, ut arbitror, quinque cubitorum, ubi erat introitus ad gazophylacia quae erant ante aedificium separatum. Descriptis namque gazophylaciis quae porticus supportabant, de hoc statim introitu adnectitur, cum dicitur: *Et erat subter gazophylacia haec introitus ab Oriente ingredientium in ea de atrio exteriori in latitudine periboli atrii quod erat contra viam orientalem in facie aedificii separati.* Hic sane est ille introitus de quo superius jam aliqua locuti sumus. Ab hac [0571C] via usque ad murum exterioris atrii erant nonaginta cubiti. Qui si per X gazophylacia dividantur, unumquodque eorum novem cubitorum latitudinis invenitur. Quod autem dictum est de plaga aquilonari, intelligendum est per omnia juxta eamdem similitudinem de plaga australi. Erant itaque decem gazophylacia ex parte una, et decem ex parte alia. Haec sunt viginti illa gazophylacia, ut credimus, de quibus in sequentibus legimus. Ecce in istis gazophylaciis eamdem mensuram invenimus quam in superioribus illis, quae in novem cubitos extendimus, ut sint omnia unius latitudinis, sicut sunt, et unius longitudinis. Restat nunc de illa porticu seu vestibulo aedificii separati dicere [0571D] quod inter aquilonarem domum et exteriorem murum ei adhaerebat ab Aquilone. Quam autem vestibulum habebat, Scriptura illa determinat. Quae via erat ante vestibulum separatum. Hoc itaque vestibulum, vel porticus tam longitudinis, quam latitudinis quinquaginta cubitorum erat, et sub se gazophylacia habebat, et super illa de inferioribus, et de mediis aedificiis eminebat, et a superiori ejus latere, id est ab Oriente, deambulationem, seu viam, decem cubitorum latitudinis habebat. Quod totum paucis quidem verbis Scriptura determinare videtur, ubi legitur: *Et erant ante aedificium gazophylacia, et via ante faciem eorum juxta similitudinem gazophylaciorum quae erant in via Aquilonis.* Si gazophylacia ista, et via ante posita per omnia similitudinem [0572A] habebant eorum quae ad viam aquilonis erant: ergo ista sicut et illa conjuncte sibi domui sub porticu, et simili modo adhaerebant, et quidquid de illis sibi in situ, qualitate et quantitate legimus juxta propositam similitudinis normulam ad ista accommodare debemus.

Et nota quod, quamvis alia gazophylacia ad viam Aquilonis essent, ad illa intelligenda circumstantia litterae constringit, de quibus proximo loco tractaverat, et non illa de quibus nihil dixit. Viam autem Aquilonis pro amore suo nominat viam quae ab Aquilone de porta per portam ad interiora tendebat, quae quidem via per ante situm praedictorum gazophylaciorum transibat. Sed ultra aedificium separatum decem cubitos superesse superius docuimus, [0572B] quos partim muro, partim viae interjectae superius assignavimus. Porticus itaque ipsius eodem modo ultra se ab Occidente decem cubitos habebit, si ad similitudinem aquilonaris aedificii contra exteriora domus sita fuit. Et quia ultra aquilonarem domum septuaginta cubiti ad Occidentem fuerunt, inter ipsam utique, et separatum vestibulum decem cubiti erunt, ut ad similitudinem superioris porticus teneat, et haec porticus quinquaginta cubitorum spatium, et habeat a superiori seu interiori sui parte deambulationem decem cubitorum. Ab inferiori autem seu exteriori sui parte viam quinque cubitorum esse secundum superiorem modum debemus intelligere, ut hoc vestibulum habeat gazophylaciorum suorum introitum subter se, id est ab inferiori et exteriori [0572C] sui latere ad similitudinem porticus supradictae. Sed et ut in hoc quoque utrinque una similitudo concurrat, attende ubi separatum aedificium cum hoc ejus vestibulo angulum faciat, et invenies hic quemadmodum ibi spatium quoddam triginta cubitorum longitudinis, et viginti cubitorum latitudinis. Hic est ille locus de quo longe post legitur in subsequentibus: *Et erat ibi locus vergens ad Occidentem, et dixit ad me: Iste est locus ubi coquent sacerdotes pro delicto et pro peccato, ubi coquent sacrificium ut non efferant in atrium exterius, et sanctificetur populus.* Quia autem iste coquendi locus in atrio illo fuerit, quod gazophylacia sanctuarii habuerit, Scriptura sane diligenter requisita latere non sinit. Attende [0572D] namque quid ibi praemittitur ubi iste locus describitur: *Et introduxit me,* inquit, *per ingressum qui erat ex latere portae in gazophylacia sanctuarii ad sacerdotes quae respiciebant ad Aquilonem.* Et additur: *Et erat ibi locus vergens ad Occidentem.* De his autem gazophylaciis alias legitur: *Gazophylacia Aquilonis, et gazophylacia Austri quae sunt ante aedificium separatum, haec sunt gazophylacia sancta in quibus vestiuntur sacerdotes qui appropinquant ad Dominum in Sancta sanctorum. Ibi ponent Sancta sanctorum, et oblationem pro peccato et pro delicto.* Profecto si hos, vel alios Scripturae locos diligenter discutimus, nullum alium praedictae coquinae locum invenire poterimus, nisi quem antea designavimus.

[0573A]Notandum sane quod de hoc loco dicitur, quia esset vergens ad Occidentem. Ex quibus verbis manifeste colligitur quod mons quidem post tergum templi ad inferiora vergebat, ubi aedificium separatum gestabat. Diximus jam quod designatus ille locus triginta cubitos habuerit longitudinis, et viginti cubitos latitudinis. Horum medietas triginta cubitorum longitudinis, et decem cubitorum latitudinis, quae aedificio separato adhaerebat coquinas habebat, reliquam medietatem illa scilicet decem cubitorum latitudinis deambulatio tenebat, ita ut via illa per ante faciem coquinarum transiret, et se in ea parte in atrium sanctuarii reflecteret. Juxta hanc similitudinem per omnia credimus, et illud superius designatum ejusdem magnitudini spatium [0573B] coquinas habere, et illam decem cubitorum deambulationem per ante earum faciem se in atrium sanctuarii reflectere, et ad templum respicere.

Sed quidquid de aquilonari latere diximus totum hoc de australi latere in aedificiorum situ, et modo juxta eamdem similitudinis congruentiam intelligere debemus, secundum quod de eo legimus: *Et omnis introitus eorum, et similitudines, et ostia eorum secundum ostia gazophylaciorum quae erant in via respiciente ad Notum. Ostium in capite viae, quae via erat ante vestibulum separatum per viam orientalem ingredientibus.* Habebat itaque australis plaga simile vestibulum ante aedificium separatum, similem domum, similem porticum, simile [0573C] gazophylacium juxta interius atrium. Erat itaque una extremitas praedicti gazophylacii contra viginti extremos cubitos atrii interioris, sicut superius dictum est, ex parte una, erat eodem modo et aliud contra viginti extremos cubitos atrii interioris ex parte alia, et inter illa duo interstitium cubitorum sexaginta. In hoc interstitio vestibulum templi situm erat, quod ab Oriente atrio interiori adhaerebat, ab Occidente, ut dictum est, templum adhaerens habebat.

## CAPUT XV *Quomodo, vel unde colligitur quae sit arduitas montis.*

[0573D]Sed quoniam ea quae de aedificiorum situ interim dicenda videbantur explevimus, locus postulat ut ea quae ad superiorum expletionem addenda promisimus modo vel ex parte loquamur, et sic ad expositionem litterae revertemur. Primo itaque consideremus, quot cubitos interius atrium ab Oriente in Occidentem secundum considerationem plani habeat, quod superficietenus in omnem partem absque omni ambiguo centum cubitorum erat, sed illud: *Et mensus est atrium longitudine centum cubitorum, et latitudine centum cubitorum, per quadrum.* Sed, sicut superius monstratum est, ab Aquilone versus Austrum etiam secundum planum centum cubitos hoc atrium includebat. Ducentos autem cubitos hinc, et ducentos [0574A] inde, duae porticus cum interjecto atrio tenebant, et in hunc modum ab una extremitate in aliam quingenti cubiti erant. Propter eamdem autem similitudinem, et quantitatem porticuum animadvertimus, et orientales porticus cum interjecto atrio ducentos aeque cubitos secundum planum occupare, et usque ad centenarium medium se extendere. Omnes ergo interiores porticus juxta unam similitudinem illi medio centenario, et contra ejus medium adhaerebant, et quia sexaginta cubitorum mensuram intra parietes tenebant, ab hac mensura in utroque latere viginti cubiti de illo medio centenario supererant.

Sed superius docuimus gazophylacia sanctuarii duobus porticibus interioris atrii, aquilonari [0574B] videlicet et australi, immediate adhaerere, et atrii interioris latus occidentale limitare. Unde constat atrium interius ab Oriente in Occidentem secundum rationem plani non plus quam octoginta cubitos occupare. Sed si orientalis via ab exteriori porta usque ad templi situm uniformiter ascendit, profecto pavimentum quod inter duas porticus centum cubitorum jacuit, non plus quam octoginta cubitos secundum considerationem plani obtinebit, quamvis superficietenus centum absque ambiguo habuerit.

Hinc ergo datur intelligere, parietes porticuum quemadmodum trium praedictarum domorum quinque cubitorum latitudinis esse. Nam [0574C] constat unamquamque quinquaginta cubitos tantum intra parietes habere. Haec erat causa cur superius quinque cubitos muro deputandos censuimus, caeteros quinque viae deputavimus ex illis decem quos ultra aedificium separatum esse deprehendimus.

Hoc loco sane illud admonere volumus, quod ubique pro certo, et quasi pro regula tenere debemus, quoniam sive in plano, sive in pendulo quodlibet aedificium situm sit, nihil ejus mensurae confert, vel detrahit. Quidquid enim de aedificiorum mensura Scriptura docet, etiam secundum plani considerationem accipere oportet. Quoniam ergo aquilonares porticus, seu etiam australes orientalibus [0574D] porticibus in mensura et qualitate per omnia similes fuere, oportet de interjectis pavimentis similia aestimare, et nonnisi octoginta cubitos, secundum planum occupasse. Hoc tamen inter ista et orientale et pavimentum fuit, quod iliud secundum unam dimensionem octoginta cubitos, ut dictum est, habuerit, secundum aliam vero dimensionem centum cubitos, etiam secundum planum possedit. Istorum autem mensura secundum unam dimensionem octoginta cubitorum, secundum aliam autem octoginta quinque cubitorum, juxta plani considerationem fuit. Nam haec duo pavimenta ab una et eadem linea qua et interius atrium videntur incipere ab Oriente, quinque tamen cubitis, ultra ejus terminum videntur se extendere ab Occidente, quod ex superioribus [0575A] evidentissimum est intelligere. Ad similitudinem tamen interioris atrii possunt ipsa etiam in eam partem centum cubitos superficietenus habere. Elevantur itaque a gemino latere aquilonare, et australe pavimentum, sed orientale quidem et interius atrium ab uno latere tantum. Si autem quaeritur de interiori atrio quantum ab una parte elevabatur, facile hoc et absque scrupulo a geometricae disciplinae perito deprehenditur. Absque dubio atrium, quod octoginta cubitos habuit in base, et centum in superficie sexaginta cubitis excelsius fuit in eminentiori parte. Hujus rei certissimas regulas tradere possumus, sed simplicioribus onerosi esse timemus. Dabimus interim hujus rei aliquod documentum, per quod possit quivis quantumlibet simplex [0575B] assertionis nostrae capere experimentum.

[0575C]Protrahatur cujuslibet magnitudinis linea in quinque aequas sectiones divisa, et ad singulas sectiones singulis litteris insignita. Sitque linea jacens A B C D E F. Supra hanc ad quartam sectionem, id est, super E alia linea erigatur, ita ut in nullam partem pronior inclinetur, sed hinc inde rectos, et adinvicem pares angulos efficiat, et tres mensuras praedictis sectionibus singulas singulis aequales contineat. Sitque linea super E erecta E G H K. Protrahatur adhuc tertia linea de A in K oblique elevata. Hoc [0575D] itaque facto accepto circino, si primam et tertiam lineam, id est, A F et A K aequales inveneris, assertionis nostrae fidem proprio experimento tenebis. Ponatur itaque ut unaquaeque sectio sit viginti cubitorum. Erit ergo A F, id est, prima linea cubitorum centum, et A K ejus videlicet aequalis, id est, tertia linea erit totidem cubitorum. Linea vero erecta, id est, E K, habebit cubitos sexaginta. Atrium igitur, quemadmodum dictum est, quod octoginta cubitos habuit in base, et centum cubitos in superficie absque dubio sexaginta cubitis elevatior fuit in eminentiori parte, cujus rei formam manifeste habes in triangulo A K E. Hujus autem trianguli basim, id est, lineam jacentem, ejus quae hypotemisam, id est, lineam inclinatam si quantumlibet protraxeris, [0576A] et eis cathetum, id est, lineam orthogonaliter erectam applicaveris, cujuscunque magnitudinis triangulos effeceris, tres ejus lineas eadem sibi semper proportione respondere videbis. Nam semper erit hypotemisa ad basim sexquiquarta, et basis ad cathetum sexquitertia. Ab exteriori itaque latere orientalis portae usque ad frontem vestibuli templi altitudo montis ducentis decem cubitis excrevit, si ejusdem montis arduitas in eam partem uniformiter ascendit. Quoniam igitur quaelibet porticus ab exteriori latere usque ad interius latus sexaginta cubitos tenebat, terra ab interiori latere secundum praedictum arduitatis tenorem quadraginta quinque cubitis eminentior erat. Septem autem, vel octo ascensionis gradus, de quibus superius legimus, [0576B] solam muri latitudinem, quae quinque cubitorum, vel septem pedum et semis erat tenere credimus, ita ut ad singulos pedes gradus sit, et octavus gradus aliis septem connumerari, vel non connumerari possit.

Hinc est, quod de australi porticu exteriori legitur: *Et in gradibus septem ascendebatur ad eam;* et item de australi interiori: *Et octo gradus erant quibus ascendebatur per eam.* Nunquid extra eam erant in quibus ascendebatur ad eam et intra eam erant in quibus ascendebatur per eam, ita ut latitudo quinquaginta cubitorum, quae intra parietes, erat octo gradus tantummodo habeat? quis sic sapiat? sed eis ipsis gradibus ascendebatur ad eam [0576C] et per eam quos muri latitudo tenebat. In ipsis ascendebatur per eam, quia murus de ipsa erat, et in ipsis ascendebatur ad eam, quia per ipsos ad ejus interiora aditus erat.

Nunc itaque quanta sit altitudo unius porticus ex praedictis conjicere possumus. Porta namque interior, ut legimus, tredecim cubitos altitudinis habuit, quibus si illos duos cubitos adjungimus, quos porta, ut superius dictum est, in fronte usque ad coenaculum habuit, in decimum quintum numerum summa consurgit. A tecto autem thalami, id est, a pavimento coenaculi usque ad tectum portae fuerunt, ut legitur, cubiti viginti quinque. Jungantur isti viginti quinque superioribus, [0576D] et quadraginta habemus. His omnibus et adhuc supra tectum ipsius portae quasi ad propugnacula facienda quinque cubitos adjicimus, et sic quadraginta quinque cubitos altitudinis ab interiori parte implemus. Erat autem, ut superius dictum est, quadraginta quinque cubitis demissior in exteriori latere, et secundum hoc tota ejus altitudo ab exteriori parte videtur in nonaginta cubitos consurgere. Videtur vero ab exteriori parte duo coenacula, unum autem ab interiori parte habere, et de tertio et intimo thalamo dicitur esse:

*Et mensus est portam a tecto thalami usque ad tectum ejus.* [0577] [0579]

## CAPUT XVI. *Descriptio templi ipsiusque vestibuli.*

*Et introduxit me in vestibulum templi et mensus est vestibulum quinque cubitis hinc et quinque cubitis inde.* Quod dicit hinc et inde, non circa templi, sed vestibuli portam debemus intelligere. Latitudo autem portae, ut postea legitur, decem cubitorum fuit. Unde constat quia tota longitudo vestibuli, ut postea [0580] determinatur, viginti cubitorum fuerit. Sequitur:

*Et latitudinem portae trium cubitorum hinc, et trium cubitorum inde.* Si usum loquendi consulimus, nomen portae ad triplicem sensum accommodare consuevimus. Nomine enim portae aliquando designamus ipsum ostium quod aperitur et clauditur. Aliquando ipsum hiatum seu aditum per quem transitur. Aliquando ipsum ambitum quo hiatus ipse cingitur, [0581A] ea videlicet pars muri quae ostium amplectitur, et reliquo parieti in materia vel forma ornatus causa dissimilis et supereminens cernitur. Aliter enim atque aliter intelligimus cum audimus, vel legimus portas civitatis tulit, vel in porta civitatis stetit, vel portas civitatis vario marmore et variis caelaturis ornavit. Hujusmodi aequivocatione et hoc loco sensus confunditur, nisi subtiliter discernatur. Sed constat ex sequentibus latitudinem portae decem cubitorum fuisse, et latera portae (id est utramque valvam) quinque cubitos latitudinis tenere. Quod ergo hoc loco legitur, mensus est latitudinem portae trium cubitorum hinc, et trium cubitorum inde, secundum tertiam acceptionem oportet intelligere. Mensus est itaque latitudinem portae trium cubitorum, [0581B] id est ipsum murum variis caelaturis usque in id spatii ornatum. Quem etiam sensum Scriptura ipsa videtur determinare in eo quod dicit hinc et inde. Longitudinem autem vestibuli viginti cubitorum, et latitudinem undecim cubitorum. Longitudo vestibuli juxta latitudinem templi extendebatur, et idcirco utriusque una mensura invenitur, et octo gradibus ascendebatur ad eam, hoc est ad portam, et columnae erant in frontibus una hinc et una inde. Has columnas credimus sitas hinc inde, e regione contra tres praedictos cubitos portae ubi mensus est latitudinem trium cubitorum hinc, et trium cubitorum inde. *Et introduxit me in templum, et mensus est frontes sex cubitos latitudinis hinc, et [0581C] sex cubitos altitudinis inde latitudinem tabernaculi [n: (Ezech. XLI)]*. Videant illi quomodo hunc locum de tabernaculi latitudine intelligant, qui de tabernaculi constructione disputant. Nam id hoc loco determinare non puto praesentis negotii esse. Quod autem dicitur frontes mensurasse sex cubitorum latitudinis hinc, et sex cubitorum altitudinis inde, possumus hoc modo intelligere: Primo mensus est quantum latitudinis in latere portae fuerit usque ad parietem ligneum qui latera quae postea describuntur ab interiori portae portavit. Secundum metitur non quid latitudinis ex alio latere exstiterit: nam hoc ex jam sumpta mensura perpendit, sed quid altitudinis a superioribus portae usque ad primum coenaculum fuerit; sed si explicatio valvarum decem cubitos [0581D] habuit, et latitudo templi intra parietas solummodo viginti cubitorum fuit, consequens est ut ejecturas illas hinc et inde ad quas valvae reverberabantur, quando porta claudebatur, intelligamus unius cubiti latitudinis esse, et ipsum hiatum inter ejecturas ipsas octo cubitos habere. Alioquin non possumus hinc inde sex cubitos invenire. Sequitur: *Et latitudo portae decem cubitorum et latera portae quinque cubitorum hinc, et quinque cubitorum inde.* Ecce quod de portae, seu valvarum latitudine superius diximus. Post haec longitudo et latitudo ipsius templi determinatur cum dicitur: *Et mensus est longitudinem quadraginta cubitorum, et latitudinem viginti cubitorum.* Descripta exteriori domo, ad interiorem domum transit, et quod dicitur sanctum sanctorum in [0582A] his verbis describit: *Et introgressus intrinsecus mensus est in fronte duos cubitos, et portam sex cubitorum.* Sicut in superiori descriptione primo loco mensus est latitudinem portae trium cubitorum hinc et trium cubitorum inde, sic hic primo omnium mensus est duos cubitos in fronte, eam videlicet muri partem quae ad portae ornatum videbatur pertinere.

Notandum autem quod ejusmodi ornamenti ambitus tam hujus quam superioris portae videtur eas per tres partes cingere, hoc est a superioribus, et ab utroque latere. Sed ad superiorem portam in utroque latere mensura sumitur, et quid de superioribus portae sentiendum sit tacite innuitur. Hic autem videtur qui metitur in superioribus portae [0582B] mensuram capere, et quid de utroque latere sentiri debeat innuendo ostendere, hoc esse videtur quod ibi metiri dicitur hinc et inde, hic autem in fronte. Sequitur:

*Et portam sex cubitorum, et latitudinem portae, septem cubitorum.* Si ejecturae hinc et inde circa hiatum ad quas valvae reverberabantur non unius cubiti, sicut superius, sed dimidii esse intelligantur, manifestum erit quod dicitur. Quod igitur dicit portam sex cubitorum, ipsum hiatum inter ejecturas intelligere. Quod autem adjungit, et latitudinem portae septem cubitorum, ad latitudinem valvarum oportet referre. Si enim hiatus inter ipsas ejecturas sex cubitorum fuit, et ejecturam dimidii cubiti hinc inde habuit, manifestum est quia copula valvarum [0582C] septem cubitos latitudinis tenuit. Superius dixit quid latitudinis in latere portae fuerit, sed quantum latitudinis hiatus habuerit aperte non dixit, quod tamen subintelligendum reliquit. Hic autem e converso mensuram hiatus determinavit, et quid latitudinis in utroque latere habuerit subintelligendum dedit. Nam, si hiatus ipse in sex tantum cubitos extenditur, procul dubio ab utroque latere septem cubiti latitudinis inveniuntur. Quae autem eadem latitudo in superioribus portae, et in latere fuerit superius ostendit. Quam vero hoc loco diversa fuerit, omnino non dicit. Quid ergo aliud videtur tacendo innuere, nisi quod debeamus de similibus similia aestimare? Datur ergo intelligi septem cubitos [0582D] latitudinis esse in superioribus hujus portae, sicut et in utroque latere.

Notandum sane quomodo alia aperte dicit, alia tacendo innuit. Et quomodo hunc ipsum dicendi modum alternat, et artis suae peritiam, ut sic dicam, ostentat. Nam quod primo loco aperte exprimit, hoc in sequentibus cum ad similem locum venerit tacite innuit, et e converso quod in superioribus tacendo innuerat, hoc in sequentibus manifeste determinat. Hoc est quod in caelaturis miramur, ubi nodorum perplexa texuntur. Nam quod in una perplexionum copula superponitur ut appareat, in subsequenti supponitur ut dispareat. Sequitur:

*Et mensus est longitudinem viginti cubitorum, et latitudinem viginti cubitorum ante faciem templi.* [0583A]Quam autem longitudo et latitudo interioris domus in his verbis describitur, subsequenti determinatione ostenditur, cum dicitur: *Et dixit ad me: Hoc est sanctum sanctorum.*

Notandum autem quod haec mensura longitudinis seu latitudinis, tam exterioris quam interioris domus, aequalis est illi mensurae quam de templo Salomonis legimus. Dupla vero ad illam quam de tabernaculo invenimus. Sed quoniam Scriptura hoc loco omnino de altitudine tacet, dubitari de exteriori domo potest, cuinam respondere debeat, an templo Salomonis juxta aequalitatem, an tabernaculo foederis juxta dictam proportionem. Habebit namque cubitos viginti si fuerit dupla ad mensuram tabernaculi, triginta vero si fuerit aequalis ad mensuram [0583B] praedicti templi. Sed, si dicimus triginta cubitos altitudinis usque ad primum coenaculum fuisse, oportet ut concedamus portam decem cubitorum latitudinis nimis proceram, et latitudini valde incongruam, id est viginti quatuor cubitorum altitudinem habere. Nam ex praedictis habemus sex cubitos altitudinis tantum supra portam fuisse. Si vero dicatur quod viginti cubitorum altitudo usque ad primum coenaculum fuerit, consequenter tam exterioris quam interioris domus porta altitudinem aptam et suae latitudini congruam habebit. Nam exterior decem et quatuor, interior decem et trium cubitorum erit. Ecce quomodo ex altitudine sex cubitorum quam supra portam superius sumpserat, [0583C] tam utriusque portae, quam coenaculi altitudo colligitur, quas aperte non dixerat. Quantum autem spissitudinis murus templi habuerit, determinat cum subjungit: *Et mensus est parietem domus sex cubitorum.* Sequitur: *Et latitudinem lateris quatuor cubitorum undique per circuitum domus.* Per latera ista quae modo describit, nihil aliud intelligo, quam quaedam deambulatoria intus et exterius in duobus templi lateribus per parietem ordinata, erantque ab inferioribus usque ad superiora unum post unum sibi invicem immediate conjuncta. Unde est illud quod sequitur:

*Latera autem latus ad latus, bis triginta tria.* Et forte latera inde dicta sunt, quod in solis templi lateribus, non autem in frontibus essent. Sed quoniam [0583D] viginti cubitorum solummodo altitudo sub primo templi coenaculo fuit, non plus quam tria latera capere potuit. Sicut enim in sequentibus legitur, a fundamento unius usque ad fundamentum alterius, solum sex cubitorum spatium fuit. Erant itaque tria interius ab imo usque ad coenaculum, et triginta exterius ab imo usque ad summum. Interiora autem templi in suis superioribus ejusmodi latera non habebant, sicut sequentia manifestant. Bene ergo dicitur bis triginta tria, eo quod triginta tria essent ex parte una, et triginta tria ex parte altera. Adhuc autem de horum laterum descriptione addit, cum dicit: *Et erant eminentia quae ingrederentur per parietem domus in lateribus per circuitum ut continerent, et non attingerent parietem templi.* [0584A] Trabes itaque de parietibus proeminebant, et latera supportabant; sed idcirco tabulata quae super ipsas fundata erant non usquequaque usque ad parietem pertingebant, ut videlicet visum admitterent; et intuentium obtutus ab imis usque ad superiora libere percurreret, et totum sub uno aspectu comprehendens de toto judicare potuisset. Sequitur:

## CAPUT XVI. *Descriptio templi ipsiusque vestibuli.* (cont.)

*Et platea erat in rotundum ascendens sursum per cocleam, et in coenaculum templi deferebat per gyrum. Idcirco satius erat templum in superioribus, et sic de inferioribus ascendebatur ad superiora in medium.* Hujusmodi viam gradibus ascendentem, et se in gyrum flectentem videmus quotidie in ascensionibus turrium, vel ejusmodi sublimium aedificiorum. Quod autem ait, idcirco latius erat templum [0584B] in superioribus, manifeste determinat, quod descripta latera usque ad coenaculorum suprema non usquequaque pertingebant, vel in superioribus templi omnino non erant, et idcirco, templi amplitudo ibi latior erat, ubi ejusmodi obstacula inter parietes nulla habebat. Quod autem dicitur, et sic de inferioribus ascendebatur ad superiora in medium, videtur ostendere templum hoc duo coenacula habere, et ipsum in tres mansiones dividere. In eo autem quod dicitur medium, intelligimus primum coenaculum, eo quod ipsum primum coenaculum esset medium trium mansionum. Superius latitudinem laterum descripserat in eo quod dicebat: *Et latitudinem lateris quatuor cubitorum undique per circuitum domus.* Nunc autem eorum altitudinem describit [0584C] in eo quod hic adjungit: *Et vidi in domo altitudinem, fundata latera ad mensuram calami sex cubitorum spatio.* Non dicit sex cubitorum et palmo, cum tamen mensuram calami praemiserit. Unde et ex hoc item loco notare possumus quod superius de calami mensura jam diximus, et vidi, inquit. Sed ubi ea vidit? In domo. Quemadmodum autem vidit altitudinem per circuitum fundata latera; ergo in domo erant, et secundum altitudinem domus alia supra alia fundata erant. Sequitur:

*Et latitudinem per parietem lateris forinsecus quinque cubitorum.* Videtur mihi locus idem designari in his verbis qui postea dicitur locus orationis. Erat itaque quinque cubitorum latitudinis quasi [0584D] quoddam appendicium juxta parietem primi, et infimi lateris factum, ut illic orationis gratia convenirent qui templum ingredi vel non possent, vel non auderent. Mensus est itaque quinque cubitorum latitudinem primo lateri a fine usque ad finem per omnem ejus parietem forinsecus adhaerentem. Sequitur: *Et interior domus in lateribus domus.* Hoc idcirco dicitur ne circa interiorem domum latera deesse putarentur, et inter gazophylacia latitudinem viginti cubitorum in circuitu domus undique. De his gazophylaciis nihil adhuc dixit, sed quibusdam de loco orationis interpositis, statim eorum descriptionem adnectit. *Et ostium,* inquit, *lateris ad orationem, ostium unum ad viam Aquilenis, et ostium unum ad viam australem, et latitudinem loci ad orationem [0585A] quinque cubitorum in circuitu.* Ecce de loco orationis repetit, ut addat. Nam superius ipsum locum, nec locum orationis dixerat, nec quod in circuitu, hoc est per tria latera templum ambiebat. Congregemus modo in unum quae de templi mensura audivimus, et prius de ejus latitudine videamus. Primo loco ipsum templum intra parietes, imo intra latera viginti cubitos latitudinis tenuit. Latera autem interiora hinc inde quatuor cubitorum, et parietes sex cubitorum latitudinis habuit. Horum summa in quadraginta surgit. Latera autem exteriora habuerunt similiter utrinque quatuor cubitos latitudinis, quinque vero utrobique habuit locus orationis. Quae omnia si in unum colligis, procul dubio quinquaginta octo invenis. Remanet [0586A] ergo utrinque via cubiti unius inter templum et gazophylacia, quae contra viginti cubitos atrii interioris esse superius legimus. Haec autem via sub ejectura tecti quae locum orationis operuit esse potuit, et tunc frons templi sexaginta cubitos implevit. Longitudo autem templi centum cubitorum fuisse legitur, sicut in consequentibus exprimitur, et ex praecedentibus colligitur. Nam quadraginta cubitos longitudinis intra parietes habuit ipsum templum, viginti vero sanctum sanctorum, undecim autem latitudinis templi vestibulum. Quatuor autem parietes viginti quatuor cubitos tenuere, et locus orationis cubitos quinque. Haec omnia, si in unum redigis, centenarii summam implebis. [0585]

## CAPUT XVII. *Descriptio aedificiorum quae templo adjacebant.*

[0587A]

Nunc autem de gozophylaciis illis dicendum videtur, de quibus dicitur:

*Et inter gazophylacia latitudinem viginti cubitorum in circuitu domus undique [n: (Ezech. XLI)]*.

Docuimus autem longe superius de his gazophylaciis, quae circa templum jacebant, quomodo ab invicem viginti cubitis distabant. Sed quia aedificium separatum, ut superius monstratum est, centum cubitis se inter aquilonarem et australem domum extendebat, et spatium viginti cubitorum adhuc utrinque interjacebat, patet quod inter aquilonarem et australem domum centum quadraginta [0587B] cubiti secundum planum erant, unde constat inter templum et utramque domum hunc inde quadraginta cubitos fuisse: nam caeteros sexaginta monstratum est templi latitudinem tenere.

Quomodo autem poterit quadraginta cubitorum spatium capere illud, de quo superius dictum est, quinquaginta cubitorum latitudinis atrium? Sed plane quod secundum planum locus non habuit, ei ex tumore montis accrevit. Si igitur intelligimus illud atrium quadraginta cubitos secundum planum habere, et quinquaginta in superficie, videbimus montis devexitatem in hoc loco, et in supradictis atriis eadem sibi proportione respondere. Nam eadem proportione se habent centum ad octoginta, et quinquaginta [0587C] ad quadraginta.

Post descriptionem templi adjungitur descriptio aedificii separati, et aedificium quod erat separatum versumque ad viam respicientem ad mare latitudinis septuaginta cubitorum. Paries autem aedificii quinque cubitorum latitudinis per circuitum, et longitudo nonaginta cubitorum. Ista omnia, ut arbitror, satis ex superioribus patent, et idcirco alia expositione non indigent.

Mare autem hic dicit illud quod longe post vocat magnum quod erat ab Occidente: nam aliud erat ab Oriente, quod vocat orientale.

Postquam autem dixerat hoc aedificium versum ad mare, statim infert de ejus latitudine, ut ex eo ipso innueret, secundum quam dimensionem ad mare [0587D] versum esset.

Notandum autem quod quia templum aedificium separatum, atrium adjunctum, tam aquilonare quam australe aedificium unius longitudinis erant, omnium longitudinem sub una continuatione commemorat:

*Et mensus est,* inquit, *domus* (id est templi) *longitudinem centum cubitorum, et quod separatum erat aedificium, et parietes ejus longitudinis centum cubitorum.*

*Latitudo ante faciem domus, et ejus quod erat separatum contra Orientem centum cubitorum.*

*Et mensus est longitudinem aedificii contra faciem ejus quod erat separatum ad dorsum ethecas ex utraque parte centum cubitorum.*

[0588A]Notandum sane quod latitudo illa centum cubitorum, quam metitur ante faciem domus, id est templi, possit dici latitudo, et longitudo, sed diversis respectibus. Si enim totum illud atrium consideres in quo templum situm fuit inter aquilonarem et australem domum, ab Austro in Aquilonem centum quadraginta cubitorum longitudinis erit, et centum cubitorum latitudinis contra Orientem, quemadmodum hic dicit. Si autem non totum attendas, sed unam quamlibet a quovis templi latere partem, erit, ut in sequentibus legitur, longitudinis centum cubitorum, et latitudinis quinquaginta cubitorum.

Sub sequenti autem sententia situm aedificiorum determinat. Nam aedificium superius descriptum ad dorsum templi separatum erat, et contra faciem [0588B] suam hinc inde ex utraque parte templi quoddam aedificium habebat.

*Et mensus est,* inquit, *longitudinem aedificii contra faciem ejus quod erat separatum ad dorsum ethecas ex utraque parte centum cubitorum.*

Vides certe quod ex utraque parte aedificium fuit, et utrumque ethecas habuit, et eo ipso quo ethecas mensus fuit, etiam domorum mensuras accepit.

Ante solaria quaedam intelligimus esse istas ethecas, quas, ut Hieronymus in his verbis testatur, Romae vocant solaria de coenaculorum parietibus eminentia, quae nonnulli Graecorum exedras vocant.

Recapitulatio cum additione videtur esse quod sequitur:

[0588C] *Et templum interius, et vestibula atrii, limina et fenestras obliquas, ethecas in circuitu per tres partes contra uniuscujusque limen, stratumque ligno per gyrum in circuitu.*

Patet autem cur templum interius esse dixerit, quia inter praedicta aedificia medium locum tenuit. Vestibula atrii nominat, quia atrio adjacebant.

Superius autem designaverat ethecas ex utraque parte, hic autem dicit per tres partes esse, unde constat aedificium etiam separatum ethecas habuisse. Qua ex re convincimus eamdem in tribus similitudinem esse tam in qualitate quam in quantitate. Ethecae autem, ut dicitur, contra limen unius cujusque erant, quia de ipsis coenaculis extrinsecus proeminebant. [0588D] Ne enim altiores vel demissiores ipsis coenaculis putarentur, per limina solariorum situs antesolariorum exprimuntur.

Stratum lignorum per gyrum dicit tabulatum quo ethecarum inferiora sternebantur, quae tres templi partes, ut dictum est, cingere videbantur: *Terra autem,* inquit, *usque ad fenestras erat.*

Unde convinci potest quanta devexitas montis fuerit, quandoquidem parietes aedificiorum quae ex parte templi erant, terram usque ad fenestras habebant.

Quod autem dicit cherubin, et palmas usque ad interiorem domum, hoc sanctum sanctorum fuisse, videtur determinare velle interius sanctuarium ejusmodi caelaturas non habere. Erant itaque, ut dicitur, [0589A] usque ad interiorem domum, in exteriori videlicet templo, et forinsecus, id est in vestibulo quod eadem consideratione videtur dici posse forinsecus, qua domus interior dicitur intrinsecus. Erant, inquam, in templo et in vestibulo per omnem parietem in circuitu non solum interius, sed etiam extrinsecus fabrefacta ad mensuram et cherubin, et palmae.

Sequitur:

*Et palma inter cherub et cherub, duasque facies habebat cherub.*

*Faciem hominis juxta palmam ex hac parte, et faciem leonis juxta palmam ex alia parte expressam per omnem domum in circuitu.*

*De terra usque ad superiora portae cherubin, et [0589B] palmae caelatae erant in pariete templi.*

*Limen quadrangulum, et facies sanctuarii aspectus contra aspectum altaris lignei.*

Haec omnia per se, ut arbitror, patent, et nostra expositione non indigent.

Ultima autem sententia situm altaris interioris exprimit, eo quod in medio templi contra portam sanctuarii positum fuerit. Hoc erat altare incensi. Nam illud de quo superius breviter tetigit, et de quo in sequentibus latius agit, erat altare holocausti.

Sequentibus autem verbis videtur exprimere non tantummodo modum quantitatis, sed etiam facturam [0589C] operis

Ait itaque:

*Trium cubitorum altitudo, et longitudo ejus duorum cubitorum.*

Haec ad quantitatem, sequentia referuntur ad qualitatem:

*Et anguli ejus, et longitudo ejus, et parietes ejus lignei.*

Forte idcirco de latitudine tacuit, quod longitudo et latitudo eadem fuerit, et in utramlibet partem longitudo, sicut et in utramlibet latitudo dici potuit. Videtur autem quatuor ligna per quatuor angulos erecta habere secundum altitudinem, quibus alia quatuor copulabantur tam superius quam inferius, [0589D] directa secundum longitudinem et latitudinem, quibus tabulae affigebantur, et conjungebantur in unam compagem. Angulos itaque vocat, eo qnod angulos tenerent ligna illa, quae in angulis erigebantur. Longitudinem vero nominat ligna illa quae altaris longitudinem metiebantur.

Parietes autem dicit juncturam tabularum quibus earum hiatus texebatur.

Sequitur:

*Et locutus est ad me haec est mensa coram Domino.*

Et post haec additur descriptio ostiorum tam templi quam sanctuarii:

[0590A] *Et duo ostia erant in templo, et in sanctuario.*

*Et in duobus ostiis ex utraque parte bina erant ostiola quae in se invicem plicabantur. Bina enim ostia erant ex utraque parte ostiorum.*

Puto ex hoc loco manifestum esse, quod idem nomen ponitur in diversa acceptione. Alioquin quomodo stabit, quod dicit: Bina ostia erant ex utraque parte ostiorum? Quod igitur prius dicit ostia, referendum est ad fabricam quae erat ex ligno. Quod postea dicit ostiorum, referendum est ad aditum, qui patebat in muro. Murus autem sex cubitorum spissitudinis erat, et ipsa ejus spissitudo tam in templo quam in sanctuario duo ostia tenebat. Nam unum erat in muro ex parte interiori et alterum ab [0590B] exteriori. Pendebat autem ex his duobus ostiis unum a dextris et alterum a sinistris, juxta quem modum per omnia erat et in templo Salomonis.

Hoc est quod ibi dicitur: « Et duo ostia de lignis abiegnis altrinsecus, utrumque autem ostium erat in gemina divisum [n: (III Reg. VI, 34)], » hoc est quod superius dixerat: Latera quinque cubitorum. Quod ibi dicit latera, hic dicit ostiola. Haec latera ferreis nexibus copulabantur, et cum portae aperirentur invicem plicabantur. Quemadmodum et hic dicitur, et ibi dictum est, quod se invicem tenendo aperiebantur. Idcirco autem unum ostium in duo dividebatur, et invicem plicabatur, ne muri latitudinem excederet dum aperiretur.

[0590C] *Et celata erant in ipsis ostiis templi cherubin, et sculptura palmarum sicut in parietibus quoque expressa erant.*

Ista omnia per se satis patent.

Recte autem subjungitur:

*Quamobrem erant grossiora ligna in vestibuli fronte forinsecus super quae fenestrae obliquae.*

Ibi namque grossiora ligna esse res exigebat, ubi ornatus causa digniores et excellentes caelaturas esse oportebat. Datur autem intelligi ex his verbis, parietes opertos esse lignis quemadmodum in templo Salomonis.

Sequitur:

*Et similitudo palmarum hinc atque inde in humerulis [0590D] vestibuli secundum latera domus, latitudinemque parietum.*

Patent ista:

*Et eduxit me in atrium exterius per viam ducentem ad Aquilonem, et introduxit in gazophylacium, quod erat contra separatum aedificium.*

De vestibuli fronte templi constat eum novissimo loco egisse, de quo loco videtur modo per aquilonarem portam atrii interioris in descriptum gazophylacium transire. Recte sane. Nam hoc utique gazophylacium ad praedictam decem cubitorum latitudinis deambulationem faciem habebat, quae ab eo loco incipiebat ubi sta porticus porticui aquilonaris domus [0591A] juncta erat, et ubi, ut ex hoc loco colligitur, in latere videlicet triplicis porticus aditus ad illud gazophylacium patebat:

*Et induxit me,* inquit, *in gazophylacium quod erat contra separatum aedificium, et contra aedem vergentem ad Aquilonem.*

*In facie longitudinis centum cubitos ostii Aquilonis et latitudinis quinquaginta cubitos.*

*Contra viginti cubitos atrii interioris, et contra pavimentum stratum lapide atrii exterioris, ubi erat porticus juncta porticui triplici.*

*Et ante gazophylacia deambulatio decem cubitorum latitudinis ad interiora respiciens viae cubiti unius, et ostia eorum ad Aquilonem.*

[0591B]Horum omnium descriptionem superius tam diligenter exposuimus, ut nesciamus utrum aliquid (nisi forte pro litterae expositione) ad praedicta addere debeamus. Ostium Aquilonis dicit illud ostium templi de quo superius dixerat, et ostium lateris ad orationem. Ostium unum ad Aquilonem. Nondum sane, quia quod prius quasi singulariter posuit, postea pluraliter designavit. Et induxit me, inquit, in gazophylacium, et in sequentibus, et ante gazophylacia deambulatio decem cubitorum latitudinis ad interiora respiciens viae cubiti unius. Quod autem sequitur: Et ostia earum ad Aquilonem, si earum ibi legitur, referendum est ad porticus; si vero eorum, referendum est ad gazophylacia. Nam utrobique poterit esse sententia vera.

[0591C]Sequitur:

*Ubi erant gazophylacia in superioribus humiliora.*

## CAPUT XVII. *Descriptio aedificiorum quae templo adjacebant.* (cont.)

Quia supportabant porticus quae ex illis eminebant de inferioribus et de mediis aedificii. Praemissa descriptione deambulationis, bene additur ubi erant gazophylacia; nam juxta deambulationem erant, et ei ab Aquilone adhaerebant.

Illud quoque notandum, quia pluraliter porticus dicit, quod prius porticum dixit. Sane ut his verbis facile perpenditur, tam domus quam ejus porticus in triplicem mansionem distinguebatur. Si enim aedificium habebat inferiora et media, habebat utique et suprema. Medium namque non dicitur nisi ad duo extrema. Habebat itaque domus sicut et [0591D] sua porticus gazophylacia in imo, coenaculum unum in medio, et coenaculum aliud in summo. Habebat et porticus gazophylacia in inferioribus contra gazophylacia domus, quae porticus supportabant. Erant namque porticus in horum superioribus, una contra coenaculum primum, et alia contra coenaculum secundum, quae a gazophylaciis supportabantur. Inferior porticus de interioribus aedificii eminebat, quia supra gazophylacia sita erat, quae inferioribus aedificiis respondebant. Superior porticus de mediis aedificii eminebat, quia supra primam porticum sita erat, quae mediis aedificii respondebat. Illud nunc quale sit consideremus, quod gazophylacia dicuntur esse humiliora in superioribus. Sane si arduitatem montis circa hunc locum secundum [0592A] priorem modum aestimemus, terram in uno aedificii latere ex parte templi sexaginta cubitis excelsiorem, quam in alio latere inveniemus. Sed quis nesciat, ratione id exigente, pavimenta aedificiorum in aequalem quamdam superficiem sternere oportere? Ne ergo putaremus terram ab una parte sexaginta cubitis cavatam fuisse, dicit Scriptura gazophylacia in superioribus humiliora esse, ut intelligamus unum gazophylacium divisum in plura, et singula habere pavimenta, in seipsis quidem aequalia, sed alia aliis eminentiora, et secundum ascensum montis graduum more alia supra alia elevata. Ubi ergo pavimenta elevatiora, ibi gazophylacia erant humiliora, id est minus altitudinis habentia, hoc idem intelligimus de gazophylaciis illis quae erant sub porticibus. [0592B] Hoc idem de divisione illa sex porticuum quas in septem portiones secundum latitudinem, montisque ascensum distinximus. Hoc idem de gazophylaciis, quae circa pavimenta erant sentimus. Idcirco autem hae distinctiones erant utique longae, sed parum latae. Nam gazophylacia eadem leguntur quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinis fuisse, quae tamen non plus quam novem cubitorum latitudinis videntur habere. Hae tamen gazophylaciorum divisiones non tam videntur parietibus interseptae, quam columnis distinctae, ita tamen ut has columnas (quemadmodum in claustris fieri solet) nonnullius altitudinis murus supportaret, qui pavimentorum elevationes susciperet, elevationumque degradationes dispararet. In hoc itaque gazophylacia exterioris atrii ab [0592C] istis gazophylaciis discrepabant, quod illa columnas habebant, in his vero nullae erant.

*Tristega enim,* inquit, *erant et columnas non habebant, sicut erant columnae atriorum.*

Bene autem de his porticibus additur, propterea eminebant. Quoniam supportabantur a gazophylaciis, idcirco eminebant, et subditur quidem quomodo, vel quantum eminebant a terra.

*Eminebant,* inquit, *de inferioribus, et de mediis aedificii a terra cubitis quinquaginta.*

Si ista porticuum supereminentia a terra sursum quinquaginta et quinquaginta cubitis distinguitur, tota altitudo domus centum quinquaginta cubitos [0592D] habere videtur. Inferior autem porticus non ubique a terra quinquaginta cubitis eminebat, sed in eo latere ubi terra dimissior erat. Sed quia secundum praedictam rationem terra in uno latere domus ex parte templi elevatior erat cubitis sexaginta, et primum coenaculum domus secundum descriptionem porticus eminebat, ex parte alia tantummodo cubitis quinquaginta videtur terra decem cubitis exterius eminere ex parte templi supra pavimentum primi coenaculi. Quod igitur superius legimus, quia terra usque ad fenestras erat: de fenestris primi coenaculi intelligere debemus, ita ut quibusdam gradibus ejus ostia descenderetur, quemadmodum in cellariis videmus. Ethecas autem contra superius coenaculum esse perpendimus. [0593]

[0593B]Sed quoniam gazophylacia quae sub porticibus erant cum eis ipsis domui adhaerebant, ab interiori parte parietem unum cum ipsa domo communem habebant; qui quidem gazophylaciis porticuum tanto longior erat, quanto longitudinem illorum latitudo domus superabat. Per exteriorem ergo parietem qui atrio exteriori adhaerebat, longitudo gazophylaciorum exprimitur, cum adjungitur: *Et peribolus exterior secundum gazophylacia quae erant in via atrii exterioris ante gazophylacia longitudo ejus quinquaginta cubitorum.*

Notandum sane quod non dicit porticum ipsam [0594B] quinquaginta cubitos longitudinis habere, sed peribolum ejus exteriorem, id est parietem illum quem ad exteriora habebat quinquaginta cubitorum longitudinis fuisse, ne putetur haec mensura intra parietes, quemadmodum in superioribus porticibus sumpta fuisse. Patet ergo, quod superius jam diximus, quia unum parietem cum domo communem habebat, ita ut utriusque mensurae annumerari debeat, ut constet de hujus porticus gazophylaciis, quod illis gazophylaciis legitur quae ad horum similitudinem describuntur. *Secundum longitudinem eorum,* inquit, *sic et latitudo eorum.* Generalis autem [0595A] sententia esse videtur quae subinfertur, cum dicitur: Quia longitudo erat gazophylaciorum atrii exterioris quinquaginta cubitorum. Cum enim dicatur, non eorum, sed gazophylaciorum, non videtur ad praedicta relatio facta, sed generalis sententia prolata, ut omnium gazophylaciorum exterioris atrii intelligatur longitudo una.

## CAPUT XVIII. *De caeteris quae restant usque ad finem descriptionis.*

Post descriptionem gazophylacii quod erat contra viginti cubitos atrii interioris, et contra pavimentum atrii exterioris, et post descriptionem porticus tam pavimento quam triplici porticui adhaerentis, vide quam miranda ratione repetit quod longe superius dixit. *Et longitudo,* inquit, *ante faciem templi [0595B] centum cubitorum.* Nonne hoc idem expressit, quando atrii interioris tam longitudinem quam latitudinem definivit? Sed intellexit propheta secundum praedictorum descriptionem consequens esse, longitudinem ante templum centum cubitos, secundum planum habere non posse. Sed idem iterum repetendo per inculcationem admonuit quod absque dubio aliquo modo habuit quod secundum plani considerationem omnino habere non potuit. Sequitur:

*Et erat subter gazophylacia haec introitus ab Oriente ingredientium in ea de atrio exteriori in latitudine periboli atrii quod erat contra viam orientalem in facie aedificii separati.* Quae sint gazophylacia ante gazophylacia ista, et quis sit introitus subter ista et super illa, id est inter utraque gazophylacia [0595C] superius jam diximus, et eadem replicare vitamus; atrium autem de quo hic commemorat, non solum in facie aedificii separati, sed etiam in facie aquilonaris domus, et ex majori parte erat. Sed quia aedificium separatum ab eo longius distabat, de eo maxime dicitur de quo minus videbatur. Descriptis gazophylaciis, quae sub porticibus aquilonaris domus in via Aquilonis erant, quorum similitudinem illa quae sub porticibus separati aedificii fuerant per omnia tenebant, compendiose satis eorum descriptionem ex similitudinis adjunctione subintulit, cum dicit: *Et erant ante aedificium gazophylacia, et via ante faciem eorum juxta similitudinem gazophylaciorum quae erant in via Aquilonis.* Si ista [0595D] gazophylacia per omnia eorum similitudinem habebant quae in via Aquilonis ante aquilonarem domum erant, ergo porticus supportabant quae de illis eminebant de inferioribus, et de mediis aedificii. Similiter in caeteris unam in utrisque similitudinem intelligimus, sicut superius docuimus, et eadem replicare non debemus. Unum quod superius praeteriisse videbatur, latitudinem videlicet eorum, hoc loco determinare videtur, et tam istorum quam illorum mensuram uno sermone complectitur, cum dicitur: *Secundum longitudinem eorum, sic et latitudo eorum.*

Completa descriptione omnium aedificiorum quae ad Aquilonem erant, eorum quae ad Austrum consistebant brevi sententia comprehendit, cum dicit: [0596A] *Et omnis introitus eorum, et similitudines, et ostia eorum secundum ostia gazophylaciorum, quae erant in via respiciente ad Notum.* Ostium in capite viae, quae via erat ante vestibulum separatum per viam orientalem ingredientibus. Quidquid de gazophylacio quod erat contra viginti cubitos atrii interioris diximus, quidquid de aede vergente ad Aquilonem, vel ejus porticibus, quidquid de ambulatione, vel de introitu superius docuimus, totum de his quae ad austrum erant secundum situs sui modum intelligere debemus, ut sit in istis et illis introitus secundum introitum, et similitudines secundum similitudines, et ostia secundum ostia, ut sit in omnibus per omnia utrobique similitudo una. Vide tamen quam argute unum nominatim expressit, [0596B] de quo maxime dubitari potuit. Forte enim aliquis difficile crederet quod aedificium separatum duo vestibula haberet, ne duo habendo aliarum in hoc aedium formam excederet, quod in caeteris omnibus eamdem cum eis similitudinem tenuisset. Ait ergo: *Ostium in capite viae, quae via erat ante vestibulum separatum.* Si via erat ante vestibulum separatum ex parte una, erit procul dubio, et via, et vestibulum ex parte altera, ut utrobique sit similitudo una. Illud autem palam est, quod caput viae illius ad Orientem respiciebat, quae ab atrio exteriore juxta porticum aquilonaris aedificii incipiebat. Manifesta autem sunt caetera quae sequuntur, usque ad eum locum, ubi dicitur: *Cumque complesset mensuras domus interioris, eduxit me per viam portae quae [0596C] respiciebat ad viam orientalem, et mensus est eam undique per circuitum.* Domum interiorem dicit templum quod inter caetera aedificia locum tenebat medium. Quod dicit, mensus est eam, intelligendum est aut eam interiorem domum, aut eam viam, aut eam portam. Sed quomodo mensuras domus interioris compleverat, si adhuc eam metiri oportebat? Sed quod murum dividentem inter sanctuarium, et vulgi locum hoc loco metiatur, manifestissime determinatur. Portam itaque orientalis viae exteriorem undique in eo mensurabat, quod muri ipsius hinc inde mensuras capiebat. Mensus est autem contra ventum orientalem calamo mensurae quingentos calamos in calamo mensurae [0596D] per circuitum. Et mensus est contra ventum aquilonarem quingentos calamos in calamo mensurae per gyrum. Et ad ventum australem mensus est quingentos calamos in calamo mensurae per circuitum, et ad ventum occidentalem mensus est quingentos calamos in calamo mensurae. Per quatuor ventos mensus est illud. Quid sit autem illud, uti jam dictum est, cujus mensuram accepit subjuncta determinatione ostendit, cum dicit: *Murum ejus,* inquit, *undique per circuitum longitudinem quingentorum cubitorum, et latitudinem quingentorum cubitorum dividentem inter sanctuarium, et vulgi locum.* Conturbat fortassis aliquem, quod idem murus quingentos calamos et quingentos cubitos dicitur habere, cum calamus superius legatur sex [0597A] cubitorum fuisse. Sed diversitatem calamorum intelligere nil obstat, cum manifesta prophetae sententia in hoc ipsum nos cogat. Sed si iste Scripturae locus pro diversitate calamorum ad sui testimonium minus sufficere videtur, videamus quid in sequentibus dicitur, ubi post pauca altaris mensura describitur: *Istae autem,* inquit, *mensurae altaris in cubito verissimo, qui habebat cubitum et palmum.* Quis est iste cubitus verissimus, in quo erat cubitus et palmus? Aut hoc de instrumento, id est calamo, dicitur, per quod mensuratur, aut de mensura quae instrumento sumitur. Nam perticam quidem dicimus, et illud quo mensuramus et mensuram quam accipimus. Sic palmus, sic cubitus, sic sextarius dicitur, et mensura qua mensuratur, et mensura [0597B] quae mensuratur. Si itaque hoc loco cubitum non instrumentum, sed mensuratum accipimus, quomodo erit cubitus verissimus ubi erat cubitus et palmus, hoc est plus quam cubitus? Si autem per cubitum intelligimus instrumentum, hoc est calamum, in hoc dicimus ipsum verissimum, quia habebat cubitum quo metiretur, et palmum unde inter metiendum teneretur. Potuit autem (quod et ipse credo) in sex cubitorum calamo ex ea parte qua supererat palmus, unus cubitus cum eodem palmo esse segregatus, atque aliquo signo determinatus, in quo sane metiri oportebat, quod infra pleni calami mensuram remanebat. Sicut igitur pars panis dicitur panis, et pars domus dicitur domus, sic pars calami potuit dici calamus. Octoginta autem, et [0597C] tres calami cum triente de majoribus complent quingentos de minoribus. Forte ergo ut inimicitias vitaret, imo absque dubio certi causa mysterii, ut plenum mysticumque numerum exprimeret, minores hoc loco calamos posuit et quod mystice docere oportuit, mystico numero expressit.

## CAPUT XIX. *De descriptione altaris holocausti.*

Restat adhuc de altari dicere, et ejus descriptionem explanare. *Istae autem,* inquit, *mensurae altaris in cubito verissimo qui habebat cubitum et palmum. [n: (Ezech. XLIII)]*. De hoc cubito jam superius docuimus et eadem replicare non debemus. In sinu ejus erat cubitus, et cubitus in latitudine, et definitio [0597D] usque ad labium ejus in circuitu palmi unius. Ut totius altaris mensuram breviter perstringam, erat quinque cubitorum altitudinis, et habebat usque ad extremum quarti cubiti duodecim cubitos tam longitudinis quam latitudinis. A quarto vero cubito sursum habebat ejecturam quamdam unius cubiti in omnem partem, ita ut in supremis ejus contra quintum cubitum esset altare quatuordecim cubitorum longitudinis, et quatuordecim latitudinis. Habebat ergo ejectura illa cubitum unum altitudinis, et cubitum unum latitudinis, in omnem partem extra mensuram altaris, ut de eo intelligi possit quod dicit, in sinu ejus erat cubitus, et cubitus in latitudine. Hujus autem supremi cubiti superiorem medietatem corona altaris tenebat, reliqua medietas [0598A] sub corona erat. Habebat autem corona ipsa unum palmum spissitudinis. Unde est illud: *Et definitio usque ad labium ejus in circuitu palmi unius.* Hoc loco definitio idem est quod terminatio. Erat itaque suprema extremitas altars, vel coronae, ubi altare terminabatur, vel finiebatur palmi unius scilicet spissitudinis. Erat autem adhuc circa eamdem coronae extremitatem alia quaedam parva ejectura circumquaque dependens, quam et labium vocat. Unde et dicit: *Et definitio usque ad labium ejus in circuitu palmi unius.* Vel rectius fortassis quoddam foramen, quod erat in medio altaris a summo usque in ima describitur in eo quod dicitur: *In sinu ejus erat cubitus et cubitus in latitudine.* Caetera autem quae sequuntur secundum priorem [0598B] sensum exponantur. Erat etiam sub ipso altari quaedam fossa duorum cubitorum profunditatis, quae cineres qui per illud foramen defluebant, excipiebat. Unde et addit: *Haec quoque erat fossa altaris, et de sinu terrae usque ad crepidinem novissimam duo cubiti, et latitudo unius cubiti.* Profunditatem et latitudinem describit, et de longitudine tacet; innuit tamen in eo quod duos cubitos ad crepidinem novissimam, id est ad basim altaris, terminari ostendit. Videtur itaque mihi longitudo ejus ab anteriori parte sub basi altaris incipere, et usque post tergum altaris se extendere, ita ut sanguinem qui ad basim fundebatur, excipere posset, et post tergum altaris quasi ad extrahendos influentes cineres pateret. Sequitur:

[0598C] *Et a crepidine majori usque ad crepidinem minorem quatuor cubiti, et latitudo unius cubiti.* Crepidinem possumus dicere praeruptionem, vel praecisionem alicujus planitiei, vel superficiei. Crepidinem igitur minorem vocat basim altaris quae erat cubitorum duodecim; crepidinem vero majorem vocat basim ejecturae supradictae, quae erat cubitorum quatuordecim. Erant itaque ab una usque ad aliam crepidinem quatuor cubiti, secundum ejus quod dictum est, Ariel altitudinem, et latitudo unius cubiti secundum ejectionis latitudinem. Bene autem cubitum unum seorsum, et cum determinatione posuit. Nam positio quatuor cubitorum in altum surrexit, situs vero unius cubiti se in latus deflexit, et in latum expandit. Sed a crepidine majori [0598D] incipiens, cur cubitum unum prius non posuit, qui secundum hunc ordinem prius occurrit, nisi quod majorem numerum Latinorum more prius ponere voluit? Ordinatius autem videretur posuisse, si sic voluisset dicere, et a crepidine minori usque ad crepidinem majorem quatuor cubiti, et latitudo unius cubiti. Hunc ordinem Septuaginta secuti sunt, qui sic ponunt: *A propitiatorio minori usque ad propitiatorium majus,* eosdem locos per propitiatorium et propitiatorium designantes, quos nos in crepidinibus intelligimus. Et recte quidem satis haec duo loca poterant propitiatoria dici, quia in his duobus locis solebat sanguis ad expiationem et propitiationem poni, vel effundi: *Ipse autem Ariel quatuor [0599A] cubitorum.* Ariel dicit ipsum corpus altaris, quod quatuor cubitorum altitudinis, ut dictum est, erat, cui dicta illa superius ejectura supereminebat. Quod ideo forsitan Ariel quod est *leo fortis* nominavit, quia leonis more populi victimas per illud jam dictum foramen devoravit et absorbuit. Et ab Ariel sursum cornua quatuor, per quatuor videlicet angulos altaris. *Et Ariel duodecim cubitorum in longitudine per duodecim cubitos latitudinis, quadrangulum aequis lateribus.* Hoc dictum est de corpore altaris, ut superius jam docuimus. *Et crepido quatuordecim [0600A] cubitorum longitudinis per quatuordecim cubitos latitudinis in quatuor angulis ejus.* Et de hoc item superius diximus, quod ejusmodi mensura erat circa superiora altaris. Et corona in circuitu ejus dimidii cubiti, scilicet altitudinis. Nam de spissitudine superius dictum est: *Et sinus ejus unius cubiti per circuitum.* Recole duas quas superius posuimus sententias; secundum primam erit quod modo dicitur superflua repetitio, secundum secundam erit ad altitudinem altaris complendam necessaria adjectio.

## CAPUT XX. *Terrae promissionis descriptio seu divisio, et quae portio debeatur sacerdotibus, et quae levitis.*

[0599B]

*De hoc sanctificato statim pauca adjungit quod sit sacerdotibus, et longe post in sequentibus. quasi diceret, erit in omni praedicto sanctific. aliud sanctific. in quo erit sanctuar, et templum, ita ut ipsum possit recte dici sanctificatum sanctificati, quemadmodum [0599C] dici solet sanctum sanctorum.*

*Quod dicit a mensura ista, non est referendum ad proximum tantum, sed ad totum quod superioribus versibus est comprehensum. Quod modo mensurari jubetur, est illud quod post paululum dicitur debere esse levitarum.*

[0600B] *Palam est ex posterioribus quod templum erat in sorte sacerdotum. Quod igitur dicit in ipso, referendum est ad illud mensuratum de quo praemittitur, et a mensura ista. In medio namque ejus mensurae erat templum. Sed subjuncta interpositio, et neutraliter facta relatio facit litteram obscuram.*

*Duobus istis subsequentibus versibus determinat quorum debeant esse duae illae praedictae mensurae, et in primo quidem de prima. Sanctificatum,* inquit, *de terra erit sacerdotibus, ac si diceret: Illud quod superius nominavi sanctificatum; illud, inquam, erit sacerdotibus.*

[0600C] *Haec est illa mensura quam secundo loco posuit, ubi ait: Mensurabis longitudinem viginti quinque millium, et latitudinem decem millium.*

Sanctificatum de terra longitudinem viginti quinque millia, et latitudinem decem millia. Sanctificatum erit in omni termino ejus per circuitum. Et erit ex omni parte sanctificatum quingentos per quingentos quadrifariam per circuitum, et quinquaginta cubitis in suburbana [0599C] ejus per circuitum.

Et a mensura ista mensurabis longitudinem viginti quinque millium, et latitudinem decem millium.

[0600B]Et in ipso erit templum, Sanctumque sanctorum.

Sanctificatum de terra erit sacerdotibus ministris sanctuarii, qui accedunt ad ministerium.

[0600C]Et erit eis locus in domos, et sanctuarium sanctitatis, viginti quinque autem millia longitudinis, et decem millia latitudinis erunt levitis, qui ministrant domui.

english:
## PROLOGUE. *A literal explanation of the living creatures and of the wheels.*

[0527A]

To many, the Holy Scriptures grow far sweeter when they are able to perceive in them some fitting understanding according to the letter. And then, as it seems to them, the structure of spiritual understanding is more firmly [0527B] established when it is aptly founded upon the solid ground of the historical sense. For upon the superfluous and the empty, who could found anything solid, or firmly establish it? For since the mystical senses are drawn out and formed from the fitting likeness of those things which are set forth in the letter, how shall it instruct us unto spiritual understanding in just those places where it assails itself, or sounds nothing but what is frivolous? And so men of this sort are often scandalized rather than edified, when they run upon such places of the Scriptures. But the ancient Fathers, on the contrary, gladly received it when they fell upon such places of the Scriptures as could not stand according to the letter. For from these they compelled certain men — men who received Holy Scripture, yet mocked the allegorical senses — [0527C] from these absurd places of the letter, I say, they compelled them to take refuge in spiritual understanding, since they did not dare to deny that the Holy Spirit had written nothing emptily in however great a foolishness of the letter. Hence I judge it to have come about that the ancient Fathers silently passed over the exposition of the letter in certain more obscure places, or handled it somewhat more negligently — men who, had they pressed on more fully, could without doubt have done it far more perfectly than any of the moderns. But neither do I silently pass this by, that certain men, as though out of reverence for the Fathers, are unwilling to attempt what those men left undone, lest they seem to presume something beyond their elders. But having such a veil for their own sloth, they grow numb in idleness, and deride, mock, and blow away the industry of others in the investigation and discovery of truth. But he who dwells in the heavens [0527D] shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall mock them. But let us receive with all eagerness what has been treated by the Fathers, and let us search out with all alacrity what was left undone by them, and let us bring forth for the common good, with all liberality, what has been shrewdly discovered, so that what is written may be fulfilled: *Very many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold [n: (Dan. XII)]*. Behold, that wonderful vision concerning the heavenly living creatures, which the prophet Ezekiel saw, blessed Gregory expounds according to the mystical understanding. But how it may be able to stand according to the letter, he does not say. Of the second vision he says that it cannot stand according to the letter. And this indeed is true, but according to that acceptation which he himself there assigned to it; for if we should wish to examine that same letter of which he says this [0528A] according to another acceptation, perhaps, even according to the historical sense, we shall be able to draw out of it a fitting understanding. Assuredly, the same man says, in the same exposition of Ezekiel, that for the most part in sacred speech something is said obscurely for this reason: that, God wondrously dispensing it, it may be expounded in manifold ways. Let the manifold [0528B] exposition of Holy Scripture, therefore, never be rejected, in so far as it seems to agree with reason, or to serve usefulness. In so far, then, as each has received grace in this matter, let no one hesitate to seek with all diligence those things which the sagacity of the preceding Fathers either passed over of set purpose, or, entangled in the occupation of more necessary matters, could not unfold. And so I gladly say what seems to me concerning that prophetic vision; for perhaps this exposition of ours, such as it is (even if it cannot satisfy another man's skill), may perhaps in some measure help the diligence of others in this very thing, and their zeal for inquiry.

Behold, it is said of the living creatures [n: (Ezech. I)]: *The likeness of a man was in them.* This likeness of a man, so far as pertains to the letter, in part was, [0528C] and in part was not, as the words subjoined declare. In part it was, because they had the face and the hands of a man; and again in part it was not, because they had wings and calves' feet, and several faces, whence also it is added concerning them: *Four faces to one, and four wings to one.* If the heavenly living creatures have four faces, and have them on four sides, then, contrary to the nature of earthly creatures, they are able at one and the same moment to see toward every side. And *their feet were straight feet.* It behooved them to have straight feet, so that they might be able, as is gathered from what follows, to walk toward every side without any turning of the body: *And the sole of their foot was as the sole of a calf's foot.* The said living creatures are described as having the sole of a calf, so that they may be understood to be furnished not by contrivance, as men's are, but by nature. But that [0528D] they might be able in like manner to walk toward every side, it behooved the form of their feet to exceed in some part the likeness of a calf's. But in this, that it is said that *sparks* were in them, or rather from them, as of *glowing bronze,* it is shown that they had fiery faces which scattered burning sparks. *And they had faces and wings on four sides.* Assuredly, if, as was said above, they had four faces; if they had them, as is here said, on four sides, then it must be that on each single side (so far as concerns the letter) they had none but one alone. And they had four wings, so that, turned in whatever direction alike, they might be able to fly in every direction.

It is to be noted that they had four faces, four wings, [0529A] four hands, and feet of the same number; yet he does not seem to express the number of the feet, for the reason that it is neither rare nor unusual to have four feet. And their wings were joined one to another. And so the distance between the living creatures as they walked was as great as the joining of their outstretched wings could allow. They did not turn back when they walked, but each one went before his own face. Since in what follows he is going to say, They went and returned, how is it here said that as they walked they did not turn back? But see whether perhaps "they turned back" is put here in one sense and there in another, if we are not to make the prophet lie. For "they turned back" seems to sound the same as "they turned about." But in what follows it seems to sound the same as "to go back." [0529B] Turning back, therefore, they did not turn back, because, wishing to turn back — that is, to go back — they did not turn back, that is, they were not turned to the rear, because they were not turned about. Hence it is that, speaking long afterward of the wheels, he says: *When they went, they walked toward the four sides, and they did not turn back as they walked.* Assuredly, if they went toward four sides, it was needful for them to go and to go back. How then, as they walked, did they not turn back, save in the manner determined by the words subjoined? For at once it is added: *But to the place whither the first, which was going, inclined to go, the rest also followed, and they were not turned about.* Behold: in place of what he first put, "they turned back," repeating the same sentiment he puts "they were turned about," and he determined what he had first put obscurely. [0529C] But what shall we say amid these things, save that we have recourse to the sentiment of blessed Gregory, that, God dispensing it, a thing is therefore put obscurely so that it may be expounded in manifold ways? And without doubt it is brought about by this obscurity of Scripture that, although perhaps there be one exposition according to the letter, it may be manifold according to the mystical understanding. Let it be said, therefore, of the living creatures, that they did not turn back when they walked. But why they could go and go back without any turning of the body is shown from what is subjoined: *But each one went before his own face;* as if he said openly: It was therefore not needful for them to turn the body when they wished to go back, because they had a face toward that side also We, when we wish to go back to what is behind us, must needs use a turning of the body, we who [0529D] have only one single face. But those creatures turned back, and yet were not turned to the rear, but went before their own face — that one, namely, which they had toward the side to which they wished to go. There follows:

*The likeness of their countenance was the face of a man, and the face of a lion on the right of the four of them. And the face of an ox on the left of the four of them. And the face of an eagle above the four of them.* Behold how in his description he proceeds by certain degrees. First he said that they had four faces; afterward he said that they had them for four sides. He now says lastly what sort of side, I say, they had. If the said living creatures had, after our fashion, a right side and a left and a hinder part, it would be easy for the prophet to express the several sides, and according to them to distinguish the faces [0530A] one by one. But this he could not do, because in them every side was a front side. He did, therefore, as he could: he first puts one face, and according to it distinguishes the rest. He says, then: *The likeness of their countenance was the face of a man.* Who does not know that in us the countenance is wont to be the chief and more principal part? And so it is said that the countenance — that is, the first and more principal face — in them was the face of a man. And on the right of that human face of the four of them was the face of a lion. And on the left of the same was the face of an ox.

It is to be noted that of the eagle's face he does not say on which side it too was, because from what precedes this very thing was manifest. He said only that of which, had it not been said, there could have been doubt: namely, that that [0530B] face was assuredly higher than the rest. *And the face,* he says, *of an eagle of the four of them was above.* That is, higher than the rest. And birds indeed are wont, as we all know, to have longer necks than other animals. *And their faces and their wings were stretched out above.* His saying, "and their faces," is a defective sentence, as though he said: and their faces were in this manner, and their wings stretched out above those faces. For he sets "and their faces" before it, so that he may the more fittingly bring in what he wished to say of the wings: *The two wings of each joined.* This same thing he had said above in other words, but he repeats it in order to add: *And two covered their bodies.* It is not so to be understood as if they always covered their bodies with the same two wings, [0530C] and flew with two others only, since they did both with both, but by turns. When they had determined to fly before the human face, they did it with those two wings which were on its right and on its left; and with those same ones they flew in the contrary direction, that is, before the eagle's face, but with two wings they covered their bodies. But when they wished to fly before the lion's or the ox's face, they did the contrary: *And each one walked before its own face.* He seems to repeat the sentiment set down above, but I believe he shows something else here. Above he taught that they did not turn the body for this reason, that on the side to which they wished to go they had a face which they might follow, and they walked before it. Here he seems to me to wish to say this, that they went toward as many sides as the sides [0530D] on which they had faces. For it is the same as if he said: Each one of them walked before any face of its own whatever. What follows agrees with this sentiment:

*Where the impulse of the spirit was, thither they went, nor did they turn back as they walked.* Truly they went before each one of their faces, because wherever the impulse of the spirit was — whether for going, or for going back, or for turning aside toward any side whatever — they so went thither that they were not turned about, and between going and going back they used no turning of the body. *And the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was as of burning coals of fire, and as the appearance of lamps.* Behold what we have already said above, that they had fiery faces, which poured forth heat after the [0531A] manner of burning coals, and light after the manner of lamps. There follows:

## PROLOGUE. *A literal explanation of the living creatures and of the wheels.* (cont.)

*This was the vision running about in the midst of the living creatures. A brightness of fire, and out of the fire lightning going forth.* These things are plain enough. *And the living creatures went and returned after the likeness of flashing lightning.* Behold what we have already said above, that the living creatures went and went back. But in what manner, do you suppose? After the likeness of flashing lightning. A swiftness astonishing, and to be attributed to heavenly living creatures alone. *And as I beheld the living creatures, there appeared one wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures.* Not one only beside them all, but single wheels beside single creatures, as what follows declares. And so one wheel appeared beside each single living creature. But of what sort? *Having,* he says, *four faces.* But how it had four [0531B] faces will better appear from what follows: *And the appearance of the wheels, and their work, was as the vision of the sea.* They are said to have the likeness of the sea because of their incredible magnitude. *And the four of them had one likeness, and their appearance and their works were as if a wheel were in the midst of a wheel.* Let us imagine that there were, as it were, two wheels inserted one into the other, and joined crosswise into a single fabric of one work; and then we shall be able to understand how each one is said to have four faces. *Going toward their four sides, they went, and they did not turn back as they walked.* We say this of the wheels in the same manner in which we determined it above of the living creatures. *There was also stature in the wheels, and height, and a terrible appearance.* So far as it seems to me, as often as they stood they did it uniformly, nor [0531C] did they raise themselves up to stand indiscriminately toward every side, as we see in our own wheels; but where that fabric designated above, as of two wheels, was inserted crosswise on this side and on that, and coupled one to the other — when they wished to stand, they always fixed one of those parts in the earth and raised the other on high. It is easy, therefore, to see how ready it was for them, after standing still, to roll themselves in like manner toward every side, without any turning of the body — they that, as has been said, had four faces. And we may refer the word "terrible" both to the stature and to the height, so that it may be understood to be of such magnitude that it was a horror to look upon; whence also it was said above of the wheels that their appearance was as [0531D] the vision of the sea. *And the whole body was full of eyes round about the four of them. And when the living creatures walked, the wheels also walked alongside them; and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels also were lifted up together with them.* All these things are plain, nor do they need any exposition of ours. *Whithersoever the spirit went, the spirit going thither, the wheels also were lifted up together, following it. For the spirit of life was in the wheels.* The spirit which the wheels followed seems to be one, and the spirit which is said to be in them another. *And the likeness of a firmament above the head of the living creatures, as the appearance of terrible crystal, and stretched out above their heads from above.* What is said, "as of terrible crystal," I think was said for the enormity of its magnitude: *And under the firmament their wings were straight, the one toward the other. Each one covered [0532A] his body with two wings, and the other was likewise covered.* When any one of them covered its own body with those two wings which were on the right and on the left of the human face, any one of the rest did likewise. And when any one of them was covered by the other two wings, the same manner of covering the body was observed at the same time by the others. In whatever manner, therefore, any one covered its own body, in like manner any other one was covered. He calls the sound as it were the sound of the most high God, for the reason that it was of such magnitude that it ought by right to have been called divine — just as a song may worthily be called royal, or the king's, which befits a royal audience.

Again, concerning these wheels, or the living creatures, we read in another place: *One wheel beside one cherub, and another wheel beside one cherub. And the appearance of the wheels was as [0532B] the vision of the chrysolite stone, and the aspect of them was one likeness of the four, as if a wheel were in the midst of a wheel. And when they walked, they went toward the four sides. They did not turn back as they walked, but to the place whither the first, which was going, inclined to go, the rest also followed, and they were not turned about [n: (Ezech. X)]*. All these things are already plain from what has been said above. There follows:

*And their whole body and their necks, and their hands and their wings, and the circles, were full of eyes round about the four wheels, and their whole body.* As for his saying *earum,* it is to be understood that the reference is made not to the wheels only, but also to the living creatures; for the statement had been set forth concerning both. For although he says *earum,* he nevertheless adds certain things which belong to the living creatures as much as to the wheels, certain things indeed which belong to the wheels alone, and certain things [0532C] which are fitting to the living creatures alone — unless perhaps someone should think that the wheels have necks, feet, and hands. But he would speak more customarily if he had put *eorum,* not *earum.* But because he had spoken of the wheels in the last place, he made the reference according to the gender which he had put in the nearest place. Such is that in the psalm: *They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the graven things of Chanaan [n: (Psal. CV)]*. He said *quas,* not *quos,* although the reference was not made to the daughters alone — unless perhaps someone should wish to say that the daughters alone were sacrificed to the graven things. But who would say this? What is here said, "their whole body," we understand of the wheels as much as of the living creatures. What is added, "and the necks and [0532D] the hands and the wings," of the living creatures alone. But what is said afterward, "and the circles," must be understood of the wheels alone; and what is set down last, "round about the four wheels," ought to be referred to the circles only. He says, therefore, that they were full of eyes: their whole body, and the necks and the hands and the wings, and the circles round about the four wheels. He adds still certain things concerning the wheels, and certain things which belong to the living creatures alone: *And these wheels he called whirling, in my hearing.* Behold, concerning the wheels. And he adds what belongs to the living creatures alone: *And one had four faces.* If he was speaking of the wheels alone, what is it, or whence is it, that he says *unum*? I think that from this very thing it will be manifest that he was not speaking of the wheels alone. There follows:

[0533A] *One face was the face of a cherub, and the second face the face of a man, and in the third the face of a lion, and in the fourth the face of an eagle.* But where "the face of a cherub" is read, in certain codices "the face of a calf" is found. But although the letter is different, yet in both places the sense is one. From the foregoing we have recognized that the body of the said living creatures ended in a calf; and therefore, if we weigh it rightly, the face of a calf agreed better with the body — so much so that by a certain right of propriety this face may, or ought to, be called specially that of the creature described. But perhaps someone may answer to this and say: Just as it approached more nearly to the nature of a calf in that it had calves' soles, so from the fact that it bore hands, or wings, it displayed in the one the property of a man, from the other that of a bird. But we know that it is proper [0533B] to man to have hands. It could not, therefore, have calves' hands in the way it had calves' soles. The same is to be understood of the wings. But to have feet is common to man as much as to the ox, to the eagle as much as to the lion. What then does it mean that the living creature which had four faces received calves' feet, save that the calf-property claimed for itself in its body something more than the rest of its own right, seeing that it impressed the likeness of its own quality upon those very members which are equally common to others also? Because of this prerogative of propriety, therefore, we rightly understand the face of a calf where we read the face [0534A] of a cherub. And it is not a different thing that above we find the face of an ox, and here the face of a calf. For every calf is an ox, but it is not convertible with the name of ox, by which the species of the animal is designated.

But it is to be noted that the same order of position is found in this place which is expressed above. But there the face of a man is numbered first, for the reason that it is more principal according to dignity. Here, however, the face of a calf, for the reason that it is more principal according to propriety. But because the calf's face is not more worthy than the rest, he would not say "the face of a cherub," or "the face of a calf," is "the first face," but "one face": *One face,* he says, *was the face of a cherub, and the second face the face of a man.* The face of a man, therefore, was the second face, that is, [0534B] in the second place from that which was set first; and in the third place the face of a lion, and in the fourth the face of an eagle.

## CHAPTER THE FIRST. *A summary comprehension of those buildings which belong to the one half.*

Being about to speak of Ezekiel's building, I wish first to run over the whole of it in summary, so that afterward I may be free to dwell in the description of the several parts the more amply, the more freely. This building, then, had a threefold wall. The first of six hundred cubits, the second of five hundred cubits, but the third in the middle of these, and the least of them all, in this manner. [0533]

[0533C]Within the innermost wall was the inner court; between the innermost and the middle was the outer court. But between the middle and the outermost was the place of the common people. Of the inner court we read: *And he measured the court, the length a hundred cubits, and the breadth a hundred cubits, foursquare [n: (Ezech. XL)]*. Of the second wall it is written: *By the four winds he measured it, its wall on every side round about, the length five hundred cubits, and the breadth five hundred cubits, dividing between the sanctuary and the place of the common people [n: (Ezech. XLII)]*. Of this sanctuary it is written again in another place: *And it shall be sanctified on every side five hundred by five hundred, foursquare round about, [0534C] and fifty cubits in its suburbs round about [n: (Ezech. XLV)]*. He designates one and the same place by "the suburbs" and by "the place of the common people," and fittingly enough, inasmuch as he keeps the metaphor, having at the beginning of his description likened the building he saw to a city. It is agreed, therefore, that between the middle wall and the outermost there were fifty cubits, if by "the suburbs" and "the place of the common people" one and the same place is to be understood. Of this outermost wall it is said in the very opening of the description: *And behold a wall on the outside round about the house on every side [n: (Ezech. XL)]*.

It is indeed to be noted that this sanctified place, which is described as having five hundred cubits on every side, is now called a building, now the sanctuary, now the house, [0535A] and now is likened to a city. Assuredly, if you consult reason as much as Scripture, you will find that each one of these three walls had three gates. One from the east, another from the north, a third from the south. Of the three gates of the inner court, and of the three others of the outer court, Scripture explains at much length. But of one of the remaining three it makes brief mention. The rest it leaves to be understood. For in vain would the inner walls have gates on the north and on the south, unless directly opposite, through the outer wall, approaches to them lay open. Now the six inner gates each had its own portico, all of which were built after the same likeness and to one measure — except that the gates of the inner court [0535B] had their porticoes on the outside, while the porticoes of the outer court lay on the inside; and that by seven steps one went up into the outer court, and by eight steps into the inner court. And so, for those entering into the outer court, the gates met them before their porticoes. But conversely, at the entrance of the inner court, the porticoes presented themselves before the gates, so that all six porticoes lay alike in the outer court. These porticoes Scripture names now porticoes, now porches; and one and the same portico it calls now a porch, now porches. On the eastern way, indeed, between the twin porticoes of the outer court and of the inner court, lay a pavement laid with stone, having a hundred cubits [0535C] of length and a hundred cubits of [sic: *latitudiuis*]; and thirty chambers on the twin side, fifteen on the south and fifteen on the north. And there were also two other pavements between the other porticoes, one on the north and another on the southern way. These two assuredly are agreed, after the likeness of that first one, to have a hundred cubits in their length, and fifteen chambers on the eastern side. But of what breadth they were, or what chambers they had on the other side, will better appear in the description of the parts that follow. Of these things, then, which we have now described, we represent the form in this fashion. [0535D]

## CHAPTER II. *A summary foretaste of those buildings which belong to the other half.*

[0536A]

Now if this whole building be divided into two by a line drawn from the southern gate to the northern, we seem to have run through those things which belong to the one half of it, namely the eastern part. Now, therefore, let us briefly touch on something of its western part; for concerning all these things we shall discourse more amply in the work that follows. The temple, then, with its porch, stood out on the [sic: *occident eratali*] part, and was set in the outer court, and its porch was joined on the eastern part to the inner court. And along three of its sides three houses were situated: one on the west, and the other two, one on the north and another on the south. [0536B] And all were of the same length: for each one of them, like the temple itself, extended a hundred cubits. But that which was on the west, Scripture calls the separate building, for this reason, as I judge, that it adjoined no other building. The length of this building extended near the middle wall toward the north and the south. For that of the others reached from the east to the west. The northern house, indeed, had one portico stretched out to fifty cubits, and joined to the portico of the inner court. Of which place Scripture makes mention when it says: *Where there was a portico joined to a threefold portico [n: (Ezech. XLII)]*. From the portico, then, of the northern gate of the inner court, the house with its portico extended westward a hundred and forty [0536C] five cubits. For one wall of five cubits was common both to the house and to its portico. But we understand that the southern house was made in all respects after the same likeness, because of what we find written: *All their entrance and their likenesses, and their doors according to the doors of the chambers which were on the way looking toward the south: a door at the head of the way; which way was before the separate porch, by the eastern way, for those entering.* But the separate building is proved to have two porches, one on the north and another on the south, which we can establish out of this same Scripture. For if on the northern side there was a porch before the separate building, and a way before the porch, [0536D] and at the head of the way a door, so that the entrance may be alike, and the likeness one on both sides, it must be that this whole thing, and the southern region also, has a porch, and a way before it, and a door at the head of the way. And so the temple had on the east the inner court, on the west the separate building, on the north one house, and on the south another house. And between those three buildings and the temple lay the court, on every side round about. But in these three buildings there was a threefold dwelling. For in the lower parts were chambers, but in the upper were upper rooms; and besides these, there were still, before those very upper chambers, certain walking-terraces standing out from the walls of the upper rooms themselves, which certain Greeks call *exedrae,* but Scripture calls *ethecae*. *And he measured,* says Scripture, *the ethecae round about on three sides, [0537A] over against the threshold of each one [n: (Ezech. XLI)]*. But of certain chambers we here pass over of set purpose, of which nevertheless, as also of the kitchens, we shall speak in their own place. These few things, then, we have summarily set forth beforehand for the clearness of what is to be said; [0538A] now we shall be free to dwell more amply upon the discussion of the several parts. Of these things, then, which we have now described, we represent the form in this fashion. [0537]

## CHAPTER III *In what manner, and by how many circumstances, this mystical description is commended.*

[0537B]

It is indeed to be noted first of all who he was, by whom, and in what manner, whence and whither he was led who saw these things and wrote them and left them to us to be read: *The hand of the Lord,* he says, *came upon me, and brought me thither. In the visions of God he brought me into the land of Israel [n: (Ezech. XL)]*. He who saw these things was assuredly a prophet of the Lord. Yet by whom was he led, save by the hand of the Lord; or in what manner, I ask, save as it is written, in the visions of God? And he was brought into the land of promise — there is no doubt before, that it was from the land of Babylon, from a land to a land with the spaces of so many lands lying between. Whom, I ask, would it not move; whom by right ought it [0537C] not to move, that such a man was led by such a one, in such a manner, and so far, that he might see and hear what he should afterward write and leave to those coming after to be read? Who but a senseless man would hear negligently, or dare to neglect, what Holy Scripture commends with so many circumstances? But not even the very time in which the prophet saw these things did he wish to pass over in silence. For perhaps he foresaw that this very thing pertained to the commendation of the vision itself: *In the twenty-fifth year of our transmigration, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth [0538B] of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on this very day the hand of the Lord came upon me, and brought me thither in the visions of God.* Many seasons of the Jewish captivity had already flowed by; long since had the children of Israel labored under great affliction; and it was as merciful as it was necessary that they should receive, amid so many hard and long-lasting evils, some great consolation, and should feel the proofs of the divine mercy toward them, lest amid so many calamities they should utterly fail, and should despair from the very foundation of the divine help. But who would doubt that it is a great thing, nay a thing above man, that a prophet of the Lord, led by the hand of the Lord, sees in the visions of God? *He brought me,* he says, *into the land of Israel, and set me down upon an exceeding high mountain, upon which was as it were [0538C] the building of a city inclining toward the south, and he brought me in thither [n: (Ezech. XLIII)]*. It is not to be passed over negligently that the building shown is said to have been set upon an exceeding high mountain. For we shut off from ourselves the understanding of many things if we consider these matters negligently, as we easily notice from what follows. In this building, assuredly, the inner court held the innermost place; but the temple, without doubt, held the highest. Hence it is that in the last part of this description it is read, where it is said: *This is the law of the house: on the summit [0539A] of the mountain are all its borders; round about it is the Holy of Holies [n: (Ezech. XLIII)]*. Here, after his custom, he calls the temple "the house." The mountain, then, rose little by little to higher ground as far as that place in which the temple was built, and it sloped toward that place from every side, and there spread itself out into a certain flat and even plain, which received the structure of the temple with an equal eminence on every side. For if on any one side the temple stood out higher, without doubt not all its border would hold the summit of the mountain. Let us consider first, if it please, this building as though it were set upon a level, so that the form of the mountain and the situation of the buildings may afterward be more rightly understood. As is gathered from the foregoing, the middle wall, by which the outer court is girded, is proved to enclose from every side to the opposite side [0539B] five hundred cubits.

That we may begin, then, from the east: of these five hundred cubits the outer court possessed two hundred; in the third hundred was the inner court; in the fourth hundred the temple was situated; and the fifth hundred, and beyond that, it left behind its back. Yet let this be said according to the consideration of the plain surface only, for to this measure the swelling of the mountain added not a little, concerning which it will be needful to consider more diligently in its own place. From this consideration, nevertheless, it is easy to notice at what place the mountain swelled higher, or what sort of form it had, or on which side it was more sloping. And this building is rightly said to have the likeness of a city, in that it was girded on every side with walls, made fast with gates, [0539C] and crowded with many buildings. *And behold a man whose appearance was as the appearance of brass, and a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed in his hand. And he stood in the gate.* This man, who is described as having the appearance of brass, seems to bear the image not of an earthly but of a heavenly thing. Heavenly things, therefore, we ought to hope for from the heavenly one, and sublime things from the sublime; and let us handle with a studious mind the things which he says or does. But as for this heavenly man's carrying in his hand a line and a measuring reed to measure out the building — would that it might avail at least for this among disdainful hearers, that no one dare to reprove us when he has seen us subtly seeking out and investigating the situation, the quality, and the measure of the several buildings, and with such great diligence assigning them, and proving each single thing as we can, [0539D] either by the authority of Scripture or by the attestation of reason. But lest perhaps what has been said thus far be less than enough for the commendation of these things, let us hear still what the same man says, and what the prophet of the Lord enjoins concerning them. *And the same man spoke,* he says, *to me: Son of man, see with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thy heart upon all things that I shall show thee; for thou hast been brought hither that they may be shown thee; announce all things that thou seest to the house of Israel.* He is bidden to perceive by sight the situation and the measure of the buildings, and by hearing the rite and the manner of the ceremonies; and to set his heart to each single thing, to understand subtly, to retain by memory, and not to keep greedily to himself alone the talents of so great knowledge — but neither to this man nor to that: nay rather, to announce all things to the house of Israel. [0540A] Whom, I beseech you, could so great an attestation of the heavenly oracle not render attentive or astounded, and inflame with desire toward the understanding of these things? But let us now return to this, that we have heard the same man standing in a gate. To which of the three aforesaid walls this gate may seem to belong, we can notice from what is added in what follows.

*And he came to the gate,* he says, *which looked toward the eastern way, and went up by its steps.* Without doubt the gate to which he came is one, and the gate from which he came, in which he had also first stood, is another. But it is clearer than light that the gate to which he was coming is that of the outer court, not of the inner court. For the things that follow indicate this so openly that they need no proof of ours. But if he came from some gate of the inner court to this [0540B] eastern gate, which he measures in the first place, he would assuredly have to descend by its steps, not to ascend. But it is said: *To him he went up by its steps.* But lest we should be able to take this of some other gate of the outer court, manifest reason seems to go against it. For first, in the outer court, he takes the measure of the eastern gate, and afterward passes on in order to the measuring of the others. Why, I ask, would he not take first the measures of that gate in which he had first stood, if he had wished this to be understood of some other gate of the outer court. It is plain, therefore, that this gate in which he first stood was of the outermost wall, of which wall it is said: *Behold a wall on the outside round about the house on every side [n: (Ezech. XL)]*. But since concerning this wall and its measure, with the testimony of Scripture adjoined, I believe I have sufficiently [0540C] spoken above, I here avoid repeating the same things: *And in the man's hand a measuring reed of six cubits and a palm [n: (ibid.)]*. In this place he defines the measure of the reed, which above, when he was speaking of it, he by no means determined. Why, I ask, is a palm added to six cubits in this reed, save because in the act of measuring it is grasped and held by that part? As often, then, as we hear the prophet in measuring reckon up the measure of the reed, we ought to understand nothing else — although some judge otherwise — than six cubits. Hence it is that the little chamber is described as first having the measure of a reed, and afterward it is written of the same by way of recapitulation. And the little chambers were of six cubits on this side and on that. This very thing can assuredly be proved [0540D] in many ways, which a sufficiently diligent reader will find for himself: *And he measured,* he says, *the breadth of the building with one reed, the height also with one reed.* If what is here said of a certain building, I know not which, is referred to the whole, the truth and authority of the whole description is emptied out. Is it not, I beseech you, far more right and far more fitting to refer it to a part, than by referring it to the whole to empty out the whole? Does it not seem more agreeable and more consonant with reason to believe that Scripture in this place describes the measures of a certain building which was beside or above the gate in which it records that the man was standing, and had not yet withdrawn? But could Scripture, because it once named the whole a building, not thereafter designate a part by this word, or ought it not to have done so? [0541A] Did it not likewise name the whole "the house," and yet here it did not fear in what follows to refer this name to a part, when it says: And the interior of the house was in the sides of the house? What if we find this very name of "building" set down where it can in no wise be referred to the whole? And there were chambers before the building, and a way before their face, after the likeness of the chambers which were on the northern way.

But even this alone ought to make us credited in this matter: that if we wish here to refer this name of "building" to the whole, we are convicted, as has been said, of annulling the credit of all the things that are here said. Yet I think there is no one so shameless, none so impudent can be found, that he would not be ashamed in this matter to contradict us in a reason so open, [0541B] and would not blush to reprove us in this opinion, when he has clearly seen that all the rest can stand according to the letter after our exposition — if in a truth so perspicuous he has not mocked at sound understanding.

But so much for these things: now let us return to the exposition of the letter: *And he measured the breadth of the building with one reed, the height also with one reed.* If he had said: He measured the breadth of a certain building in that place in which he first stood — if, I say, he had said this, he would have taken away all ambiguity. Yet not because he did not say this did he take away the truth, but after his custom he clouded it over. But one thing he compels to be understood from what follows, [0541C] the other he hints from what precedes: for since it is recorded that the man who was measuring these things had not yet withdrawn from the gate in which he had first stood, it is also manifestly hinted that this building was joined to that place. But what shall we say that this is, that, though he speaks of breadth and of height, he is altogether silent about length — since naturally the length always comes before the breadth or the height?

But mark how artfully, in that he said the breadth, he did not keep silent about the length. For where the length and the breadth are equal toward every side, it may rightly be called breadth.

## CHAPTER III *In what manner, and by how many circumstances, this mystical description is commended.* (cont.)

By keeping silent, therefore, about what he ought to have said first, he showed shrewdly enough [0541D] that the length and the breadth were the same. And what we say of this one gate we rightly understand of the two remaining gates of the outermost wall, although Scripture does not manifestly say it, but rather leaves it to be understood. For it was not needful for him to linger longer over things which could of themselves be sufficiently understood. But whether these buildings are to be assigned to the services of the doorkeepers or of the watches, we hold uncertain; we nevertheless place them above the gates, as though for the offices of the watches, according to what we find written: *Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen; all the day and the night they shall not be silent to praise the name of the Lord [n: (Isa. LXII)]*.

Of these things, then, which we have said, we form such a pattern: [0542A]

[0542B]It is indeed to be noted that another translation has not "building" but "wall"; and whoever shall wish to apply our letter to that sense frees himself from every question, since he can refer the breadth to the thickness of the wall.

*And he came to the gate which looks toward the eastern way, and went up by its steps.* Since the gate to which he came is the eastern one, that from which he came is rightly believed to be eastern also. For if he were coming from some other, the more directly he hastened to another — that is, to the one set opposite — the more rightly [0542C] would he do so.

After this eastern gate, of which he is now speaking, the northern and the southern of the outer court, and then at last the three other gates of the inner court, are expressed by name; whence it is gathered beyond doubt that this one is of the outer court, although Scripture has kept silent about it.

That this gate has steps Scripture records, yet how many it had it nowhere openly determines. But because all three of the inner court are read to have eight together, and the two others of the outer court seven, we are admonished to reckon like things from like; and therefore we believe that it has seven steps, after the likeness of the outer ones.

*And he went up,* he says, *by its steps, and he measured [0542D] the threshold of the gate with one reed, the breadth — that is, one threshold, one reed in breadth — and the little chamber one reed in length and one reed in breadth, and between the little chambers five cubits.*

## CHAPTER IV. *The testimonies of Scripture being gathered from this side and that, that is here established concerning one portico which may rightly be understood of all the rest.*

Since we have now come in order to the description of the gates, or also of the porticoes, and find many things concerning them so obscurely set forth and so ambiguously said, it pleases me, both from this and from other places of Scripture, to establish here concerning one portico what must be understood beyond doubt of all the others. For [0543A] all six were in all respects of like fabric and of the same measure, and, if I recall well, they had nothing else unlike, save that the porticoes of the inner gates lay on the outside, but those of the outer lay on the inside; and that the ascent of the former was by eight steps, but of the latter by seven. And that we say that all these six porticoes are of the same measure, we prove not by our own authority, but by the attestation of Scripture. After the dimensions of this gate of which he is now speaking, there is at once subjoined concerning the northern gate:

*The gate also which looked toward the northern way of the outer court he measured, as well in length as in breadth, and its little chambers, three on this side and three on that, and its front, and its porch, according to [0543B] the measure of the former gate.* Similarly it is written of the southern gate: *And behold a gate which looked toward the south, and he measured its front, and its porch, according to the measures above, and its windows, and the porches round about, like the other windows.* This same sentiment is assuredly always repeated in the description of all six porticoes, whence it is proved that the measure of them all is one and the same. Each one, then, of these porches or porticoes was divided in many ways. Whence Scripture also often calls one and the same portico now, in the singular, "porch," for the whole, and now, in the plural, "porches," for the parts. Yet each portico was principally divided into three, whence also in what follows one of them [0543C] is named "threefold," which sentiment is indeed rightly referred to them all according to the aforesaid reasoning:

*Where there was,* he says, *a portico joined to a threefold portico.* Let us therefore see first concerning the whole, and afterward concerning the parts. The fronts, then, of the outer porticoes looked toward the inner court, just as, conversely, those of the inner ones looked toward the outer court. The measure of these fronts is described when it is said: *And he made the fronts sixty cubits.* This was the measure of the length of all the porticoes or porches, when nevertheless by these names we understand not a part but the whole. The portico, then, of this eastern gate had its front toward the west, and its length extended toward the north and the south. [0543D] And it extended sixty cubits, according to the measure of the front. But the breadth was widened from the east to the west by fifty cubits. Whence is that: *and before the face of the gate, which reached to the face of the porch of the inner gate, fifty cubits.* This portico assuredly had, like the rest, a gate in its front, that is, at the entrance of the court, over against the gate of the wall. Otherwise the approach in the wall would lie open on the outside in vain, if it were blocked on the inside opposite, at the front of the porch. And so the porch had a gate over against a gate: one in the wall, another in the front. For the distinguishing of the two, then, let the one be called the gate of the wall, and the other be called the gate of the porch. In this place, then, he calls the gate of the porch the "inner gate," not the gate of the inner court. For between the outer [0544A] and that one (except for what the walls took up) there were two hundred cubits. And by the "face of the gate" he means the place which was before the outer gate, but behind the inner gate. But by the "face of the porch of the inner gate" he means that side which the porch had toward the inner gate. Whence it is manifestly gathered that the aforesaid measure was taken within the walls.

Well, then, is it said: *And before the face of the gate, which reached to the face of the porch of the inner gate, fifty cubits.* But if anyone should wish to take what we have said of the front of this porch, or of its length, in another sense, and should wish to extend its length not from the north to the south but from the east to the west, it will be altogether unable [0544B] to stand, and I count it frivolous to labor in vain in a matter so open. Now this portico, like each of the others, is principally divided into three. Whence, as has been said, it is rightly named a threefold portico. And of these parts, or porticoes, that which held the middle was nothing else but that space, or that way, which lay between gate and gate, namely from the gate of the wall as far as the gate of the porch, whose breadth was according to the breadth of the gate, ten cubits; but the length, according to the breadth of the whole portico, fifty cubits. And this middle and least one two others of the same measure lay round about, one on the one side and the other on the other, each of them fifty cubits in length and twenty-five cubits in breadth. Of these porches, assuredly, [0544C] Scripture makes mention in the description of all the other gates, and, designating them now by the singular and now by the plural number, describes their measures. Hence it is that of the northern gate it is read, which is described immediately after this one in what follows:

*The gate also which looked toward the northern way of the outer court he measured, as well in length as in breadth, and its little chambers, three on this side and three on that, and the front, and its porch, according to the measure of the former gate: its length [sic: *qninquaginta*] cubits, and its breadth twenty-five cubits.* In this, then, that it is said "according to the measure of the former gate," it is agreed that this eastern gate of which we are now discoursing [0544D] has such a porch, that is, one of such magnitude. But lest it be believed to have had only one such, hear what is afterward written of the southern gate: *And he led me out to the southern gate, and he measured its front, and its porch, according to the measures above, and its windows, and the porches round about, like the other windows: fifty cubits in length, and twenty-five cubits in breadth.* What he first calls "porch" is referred to the whole, but what is repeated, "porches," to the parts; whence also there is added "round about," because they adjoined the middle porch, or the gate itself, along its two sides. These three porches, therefore — one middle and two lateral — were joined one to another in this manner, and filled out sixty cubits. [0545A]

## CHAPTER V. *On those things which seem to pertain to one half of any portico whatever.*

[0545B]

But still, in those two side porches other sound subdivisions are shown to exist, which themselves too are indeed named porches in Scripture. I find there a porch of eight cubits, and I find another of five cubits. The porch of eight cubits I find at the eastern gate of the outer court, where it is read: *And he measured the porch of the gate, eight cubits.* The porch of five cubits in breadth I find at the southern gate of the inner court. Of which it is written: *And he measured the porch round about, [0545C] the length twenty-five cubits, and the breadth five cubits.* But above we proved by the authority of Scripture that whatever we grant concerning any one of these porticoes in the matters which pertain to measurement, we ought by an equal reasoning to grant equally concerning them all. Therefore at all the porticoes there were porches of eight cubits, and likewise at all of them it is necessary that porches of five cubits be found. But now let us first look at the position of the little chambers, and then perhaps we shall more easily find the reason concerning these. Now every portico has six little chambers, three on this side and three on that, on either side of the way, which, by Scripture's teaching, we know were situated within the porticoes themselves. Moreover the little chambers of the gate toward the eastern way, [0545D] three on this side and three on that. These things concerning the number of the little chambers, and in what follows concerning their position. *And windows,* he says, *slanting, in the little chambers and in their fronts, which were within the gate on every side round about.* If the windows which were in the little chambers were within the gate itself, then the little chambers themselves also were within the gate. For here, after his custom, he calls "gate" the gate itself together with its whole portico. For what he says could otherwise not stand at all. Of the same kind is that: *And he measured the gate from the roof of the little chamber unto the roof thereof.* Similarly here he designates the portico under the name of the gate. Now it is agreed that each single little chamber with its margin took up eight cubits. For each of them was of six cubits, and had a margin of one cubit not only in front, but also on either side, Scripture [0546A] attesting it, which says: *And he measured the margin before the little chambers of one cubit, and one cubit the boundary, both. And the little chambers were of six cubits on this side and on that.* [var: Vulg. *utrimque*, "on both sides"] Now three times eight yield twenty-four, to which 10 being added make 34. And for this reason to the aforesaid twenty-four which we gather from the three little chambers we still add another ten cubits, because we find five cubits between the first little chamber and the second, and five others between the second and the third, according to that which we read: *And between the little chambers five cubits.* And so there were beyond doubt thirty-four cubits from the beginning of the first little chamber to the end of the third. But they ought to be beside the sides of the gate, three on this side and three on that. But the porches which were at the sides of the gate, which adjoined the middle porch of ten cubits [0546B] on this side and on that, held in breadth not more than twenty-five cubits. The breadth of the porches, therefore, could not take in the position of three little chambers, which we showed above to take up thirty-four cubits. But the length of the porches, because it was of fifty cubits, could easily take them in, and more besides. Let three little chambers therefore be placed at one side of the porch, namely in that place where the roof is seen to rest upon the wall, in such a way that they may seem to cleave to the wall itself — nay rather, to have it for one wall of their own, and as it were for one front, where we understand those windows to be of which Scripture speaks when it says: *Slanting windows in the little chambers and in their fronts, which were within the gate on every side round about.* For apart from the other absurdities which seem [0546C] to follow from this, which I judge can easily be understood of themselves, there was no source from which they could have had clear light, unless they adjoined the walls of the porch on this side and on that, where they might have windows to let the light in. We therefore set down here one of the collateral porches of the eastern portico, which adjoined the middle porch at the sides of the gates on this side and on that, so that we may set before the eyes how the little chambers adjoined the walls, or how they divided the porch itself into seven sections. [0546D]

## CHAPTER VI. *On the remaining things concerning the portico, for the completion of the whole description.*

[0547A]

This being done, it is agreed beyond doubt that between the two extremities of the outer little chambers there are thirty-four cubits, and that eight cubits still remain over on either side. For it is agreed that thirty-four and twice eight fill up fifty. And so, this being completed, if over against the side margins of the little chambers — a low wall being first drawn underneath, then columns erected as we see in cloisters — we raise as it were so many walls as far as the middle porch, we without doubt divide one porch into seven. See how the position of the little chambers divides one porch into seven; and yet it does not leave them all of the same size, but some greater, [0547B] others smaller. This division therefore being made, we can find here what we sought above: namely porches, some of eight cubits in breadth, others of five cubits, yet both of twenty-five cubits in length. For those two which were between the three little chambers had five cubits in breadth, but twenty-five in length. But those two which had been beyond the little chambers on this side and on that held eight cubits in breadth, and twenty-five in length. But also those three in whose ends the three little chambers were situated spread themselves in breadth within the walls by six cubits. But whatever we have now said of one porch on one side of the way, all this we ought to think of the other on [0547C] the other side of the way. For it had just as many little chambers situated in the same way, and was divided throughout into just as many and equal parts. And so the two porches on this side and on that are subdivided into fourteen; and when the middle one is joined to them, fifteen subdivisions of one portico are counted at each several gate. After these things which we have now said concerning the division of the porticoes, it remains here still to ask what we ought to think concerning those thresholds which Scripture mentions. For Scripture plainly designates three thresholds, and declares each one of them to be the threshold of the gate. But one gate could not — just as neither ought it — have more than one threshold; and even if we are willing to assign one of these to the gate of the wall and another to the gate of the porch, it still remains to ask concerning the third. Let us therefore first ask [0547D] which of these is said to be properly the gate's, and, as for that which is not properly the gate's, why it is asserted to be the gate's. But none of those fourteen subdivisions which we showed above had more than eight cubits in breadth; none of them, therefore, could take in a threshold of ten cubits' breadth — subdivisions whose entrance was only from their front, beside the middle porch. To no one, therefore, is it doubtful that that threshold is properly called the gate's which is read to have had ten cubits of breadth. This at any rate Scripture hints plainly enough when, after the description of the threshold of ten cubits, it at once added concerning the length of the gate: *And he measured the breadth of the threshold of the gate, ten cubits; and the length of the gate, thirteen cubits.* For he who had indicated the breadth of the gate from the breadth of the threshold — it remained for him to describe its [0548A] length alone, which he had not yet expressed. But since one gate is raised on one side of the porch over against another on the other side, in such wise that it seems one gate, and quite often several are called one, what reason, I ask, will there be why the one should be believed greater and the other smaller? It is certainly agreed that the two other thresholds had only six cubits of breadth; and if we wish to assign one of them to the other gate, we are convicted of maintaining that it is smaller than the other. But if Scripture meant this, or wished us to think it, why, I ask, did it not at once add concerning the length after the description of the threshold, as it did concerning the other? Why is the breadth of each gate expressed from the description of the thresholds, and — the length of the one alone being carefully expressed — is the length of the other passed over altogether in silence? But by keeping silence concerning [0548B] the one, it hints plainly enough by what it so carefully expressed concerning the other: that what it said of the one it wished to be understood wholly of the other. And so each gate — or, if this sounds better, one gate on both sides — had a threshold of ten cubits, and was of ten cubits in breadth and held thirteen cubits in length. It now remains to ask concerning the other thresholds: whose are they, and, as for those which are not properly the gate's, why are they said to be its? But according as he often names the whole portico "gate," what wonder is it if he calls that its own which was within it? Thus assuredly, if we desire to understand the writer's meaning, we must beyond doubt rather mark and know the modes of his speech than dispute about the propriety of expressions. And so let those thresholds which are described as being of six [0548C] cubits be called the gate's, because they were within the gate; yet they are believed to be properly of certain of those porches which we assigned in the last subdivision. But it is manifest that they cannot be said to be of those which were of six cubits, if these lay open with their whole front; but if not, then they could by no means at all take in a threshold of six cubits. But neither could they be of those which lay between the little chambers, because these held only five cubits in breadth, and beyond doubt could not at all take in thresholds of six cubits. It remains, therefore, that those two aforesaid thresholds belonged to those porches which we proved above to have eight cubits in their breadth. For from those things which are said above, those two porches which are placed beyond the little chambers on this side and on that are proved to hold sixteen [0548D] cubits. And if anyone should wish to divide these into two unequal parts, and to assign less to the one and more to the other, so far that one of them might even take in a threshold of ten cubits, and should in this manner attempt to void that earlier assertion of ours — then assuredly neither of those porches will be of eight cubits, nor will there any longer be able to be found one to which that saying of Scripture can rightly be fitted: *And he measured the porch of the gate, eight cubits.* If therefore one of these is of eight cubits, assuredly the other also will be of eight cubits. For whatever is taken away from the number sixteen for the one is beyond doubt left to the other. But since we have now spoken sufficiently, as I judge, concerning the description of the portico, and have pursued in order those things which seemed to be said in this place concerning the little chambers or the thresholds, I am free [0549A] in this place, for the greater clearness of the things said and of the things to be said, to gather into one figure the form of all those which above were brought forth part by part, so that the mind of the beholder may easily be able, from the contemplation of it, to gather the place, [0550A] position and number, the quality, quantity and proportion of them all. [0549]

[0549B]But since it is difficult, or even impossible, to represent the length and the breadth and the height of buildings on a flat surface under one and the same figure, I judge it sufficient to have shaped the position and place of all these things which we have said, and, proportional lines being drawn, to have laid as it were a kind of foundation of them all. For when we look upon lines adjusted by a proportional commensuration, and understand by them nothing else than certain laid or marked-out foundations of walls, it is easy to understand besides that from this drawing out of lines walls rise on high, and that a roof rests upon those same walls. If anyone should perhaps accuse me of prolixity in this our exposition, let him see, I beg, how rightly he does so. But, that I may confess the truth, I had rather be wearisome to the more subtle than obscure to the slower, especially in so obscure a matter, where nearly all the things that are said [0550B] need proof rather than exposition. But let us now return to the exposition of the letter, which for the greater part now — at least in those things which are said concerning the porticoes — we trust to be plain.

## CHAPTER VII. *Exposition of the letter upon the description of the eastern gate.*

*And he measured,* he says, *the threshold of the gate by one reed, the breadth* (that is, one threshold), *by one reed in breadth.* As we showed above, although this threshold was not the gate's own, yet he says that it is the gate's for this reason, that it was within its portico, which also he was often accustomed to designate under the name of the gate. But how plainly, as I judge, Scripture hints that that man who enters the gate measures this threshold in the first place, and before the little chambers, [0551A] in that it is found in the first of the aforesaid VII porches. But since it was first said, He measured the threshold by one reed, the breadth, what is it that, by expounding, or as it were by correcting what he had as it were improperly said, he at once subjoined: that is, one threshold in breadth? But to one considering more diligently, what else does this exposition or correction of the sentence seem to be, save a certain declaration of the prophetic understanding, lest it should escape us what the prophet had wished to say? As if he were openly saying that he had indeed improperly called the threshold the threshold of the gate, but ought to have said "a certain threshold" or "one threshold." That therefore this threshold can in some manner be called the gate's, he advises by the first expression; that it is not properly called the gate's, he teaches by the appended [0551B] exposition. In that therefore "one" is said, it warns both that there are other thresholds there, and that this is not properly called the gate's. But in that he sets down "breadth" twice, he wished by the driving of it home to commend it more attentively, lest anyone should wish to refer what is said of this threshold, and afterward of the threshold of ten cubits, to the same threshold, when he had found "breadth" said in both places. If however "length," not "breadth," were set down, perhaps it would seem more properly said. In fine, where we have "breadth," the lxx, Jerome being witness, put "length." But often "breadth" is set down so that it seems to signify not the kind of quantity, but simply quantity. There follows:

*And the little chamber, one reed in length, and one reed [0551C] in breadth, and between the little chambers five cubits,* in which words *he measured* is to be repeated. Mark now with how fitting an order he proceeds, and how little by little and part by part he scatters the seeds of knowledge. First he speaks of the threshold which was in the first porch; afterward of the measure of the little chamber which was in the second; then indeed he adds concerning the measure of the space which was between the little chambers, in which he now shows that there are several of them; and last of all he comes to the last porch, which was situated beyond all the little chambers, whose threshold first, and afterward the measure of [sic: *ispius*] porch, he describes, when he says: and the threshold of the gate beside the porch of the gate within, one reed. And he measured the porch of the gate, eight cubits, and its front, two cubits. But that this threshold likewise is called the gate's, is here taken in the same [0551D] way as above. But he plainly determines where this threshold was: namely beside that porch which was within, and lay in the middle between the two porches lying about it. From this passage, as I judge, it is plainly shown that the fronts of the smallest porches were joined to the middle porch.

It must indeed be noted that, after he had named this threshold the threshold of the gate, just as above, he at once showed by the appended determination that it is not properly called the threshold of the gate. For if this threshold had been properly called the gate's threshold, beyond doubt it would not have been needful to subjoin by a determination where it was. But now where it was is determined in that which is said, *beside the porch of the gate within.* [0552A] And so that threshold whose measure he was taking was beside that porch of the gate which was within, and held the middle place in the triple portico. After the measure of the threshold he joins on the measure of the porch itself, when he says: *And he measured the porch of the gate, eight cubits, and its front, two cubits.* This measure at any rate could not suit the middle porch. For the middle porch was nothing else than a passage, or way, which lay open from gate to gate through the middle of the portico. And so its length, according to the breadth of the whole portico, had to be of fifty cubits. But its breadth could not be less than the breadth of the gates, which beyond doubt, as will afterward be clear, was of X cubits. It is clear therefore that the aforesaid measure was of that [0552B] porch whose threshold he had first described. But when the measure of the porch is taken, what is it, I ask, that it is not determined of which it is — of length, namely, or of breadth? But he is often wont to leave without determination what he foresees that a prudent reader can of himself understand from other circumstances. For after it has been established that the two collateral porches of the triple portico on this side and on that have [sic: *quinquagina*] cubits of length and twenty-five cubits of breadth, it will be able to be plainly weighed that the smallest porches were of twenty-five cubits in length. For it behooves us to understand the smallest porches as nothing else than certain crosswise sections of the largest porches. And so the breadth of the last porch [0552C] is described in that which is said: And he measured the porch of the gate, eight cubits. But this must be noted, that almost whatever has been disputed up to this point concerning measure seems to determine the breadth of the smallest porches. But where we have, *and its front, two cubits,* Jerome again sets down another reading: *and in the front of the same,* or *in the margins, two cubits.* From which words it is plainly gathered what those two cubits designate in this place — the two which seemed to remain over in the margins to a doorway of six cubits, one on this side and the other on that. For if it is agreed that the porch has eight cubits of breadth, it is necessary that for its doorway of six cubits' breadth two cubits remain over in the front. But in the two cubits of the front, according to our reading, he perhaps gives us better to understand that [0552D] space which was above the gate itself up to the planking of the overhanging upper chamber; and according to this, what is said, "its," ought to be referred not to the porch, but to the gate: for how this sentence avails for completing the height of the whole will appear in what follows. But what follows, The porch of the gate was within, we ought to refer to the whole portico. And so this portico was within, because it was situated within the wall to which it adjoined. There follows:

*Moreover the little chambers of the gate toward the eastern way, three on this side and three on that.* One measure of the three, and one measure of the fronts on either side. See how little by little he advances. He determines the number of the little chambers, concerning which it was not yet established; and to the measure of the one little chamber which is described above, the measure of the three is subjoined. [0553A] But because the number of the little chambers is now established, it is equally established also concerning the number of the porches; but it is not yet established concerning the measure of them all. For the position of the little chambers (according as appeared above) divides one side of the portico into VII sections, which Scripture is wont to call porches, the last of which it has already named a porch above. For the three little chambers had shut in between them two spaces of five cubits, and had left two others shut off beyond them, and the three themselves held three; all which run up into the number seven. After these things the threshold of the gate itself is described, when it is said: *And he measured the breadth of the threshold of the gate,* X *cubits, and the length of the gate,* XIII *cubits.* Behold, this threshold, like the foregoing ones, is called the threshold of the gate, and yet here, as in the foregoing, nothing of determination [0553B] is added; and from that very fact it is hinted that it is truly and properly called the gate's. But that it is truly and properly called the gate's will be able to be easily proved when the measure of all the porches has been established. But the measure of them all is indeed easily proved from that which is at once subjoined: And the margin before the little chambers of one cubit, and one cubit the boundary on both sides. And the little chambers were of six cubits on this side and on that. In that he says that there was a margin of one cubit before the little chambers, and one cubit the boundary on both sides, we ought to take it under the same sense: namely, that the margin of one cubit was not only in the front of the little chambers, but also on either side. But we understand this margin about the little chamber as nothing else than a certain projection of the wall, such as is wont to be made either for sitting on, [0553C] or for the strengthening of the wall. For often a wall is founded broader in its lower parts, and when it has been raised a little it is drawn in again. If therefore the little chambers were of six cubits, and had still one cubit on both sides, as also in front, in the margin up to the boundary, then from boundary to boundary of the little chambers there were eight cubits. And so three little chambers took up three times eight, that is XXIV, cubits; and between the first and the second little chamber there were V cubits, and likewise between the second and the third another V, which, added to the foregoing, make XXXIV. But the last porch also is read to be of eight cubits, which number, if it is added to the former, the sum of the aggregation extends up to XLII. And so the eight which still remains over out of fifty remains for the first [0553D] porch. For the whole portico from the gate to the front of the porch, as is afterward read, has fifty cubits. None of porches of this kind, therefore, could take in a threshold of X cubits. It is clear therefore that it was properly the gate's. But it is hinted also from this, as was said above, that after the measure of the threshold, in which the breadth of the gate also is contained, there is at once subjoined concerning its length: *And he measured,* he says, *the breadth of the threshold of the gate,* X *cubits, and the length of the gate,* XIII *cubits.*

It must be noted how, after the measurement of the little chambers, of the porches, and of their thresholds, he describes the measure of this gate; from which it is given to be understood that this which he measures was the inner gate. See therefore how skilfully the measure of the first gate, concerning which nothing [0554A] is said, is taught from the description of this gate. For reason does not allow us to believe that the outer gate is smaller than the inner, nor does the authority of Scripture suffer it to be broader. For from the sides of the gates, and from the sides of the middle porch — where, namely, the fronts of the smallest porches adjoined the middle porch — up to the twin walls of the whole portico on this side and on that, there were XXV cubits. For those porches which on this side and on that adjoined the sides of the gates and the middle porch, as is more fully grasped from the description of the other porticoes, had only XXV cubits in breadth. If therefore, twice XXV cubits being taken on this side and on that, we add X cubits (namely the breadth of the gates), we without doubt fill up the measure of the fronts of the whole portico, namely LX cubits. If [0554B] therefore the fronts on this side and on that had only LX cubits, the gates will not be able to have more than X cubits at all. Above we showed how orderly he proceeded while he described one side part by part until he came in order to the inner gate. One side being described, he briefly subjoins that the measure of the little chambers is one and the same, both on this side and on that, that he might teach compendiously that whatever is said of one side ought to be understood of the other. Hence it is that in the descriptions of the other porticoes, while he studies brevity, he carefully describes one of the collateral porches, of fifty cubits in length and of twenty-five cubits in breadth, and, passing over the other in silence, leaves the same things to be understood of it.

## CHAPTER VIII. *On those things which pertain to the description of the whole.*

[0554C]

After the description of the parts, three things are subjoined under one continuation, in which the measure of the whole is briefly comprehended and completed. The first pertains to the height, the second embraces the length of the whole portico, the third the breadth of the whole. To the height pertains that which is said: *And he measured from the roof of the little chamber unto the roof thereof, a breadth of twenty-five cubits, the gate, door over against door.* To the length pertains what follows: *And he made fronts of sixty cubits.* To the breadth, what is set down last: *And before the face of the gate which [0554D] reached even unto the face of the porch of the inner gate, fifty cubits.* But how from the first clause the height of the whole may be observed will appear more fully from the last parts of this description. And we believe that throughout them all there were upper chambers or lofts, as we find almost everywhere in the other porticoes of houses, or in other buildings. And so we understand the roof of the little chamber as nothing else than the floor of the loft, so that the same planking was both the roof of the little chamber and the floor of the upper chamber; and perhaps, according to the custom of the land of the Palestinians, we ought to understand that the roof of the gate was flat, not raised. And so the upper chamber above was of a height of twenty-five cubits, according to the height from roof to roof. But note that he set down "breadth" where he ought to have set down "height"; [0555A] for in his usage he is often wont to misuse the name of breadth: for since there are three kinds of dimension — length, breadth, and height — breadth is often so set down that it seems to determine only the quantity of the space, and not any kind of dimension. And so in this place he set down "breadth" improperly, just as above where he described the thresholds. But in that it is said, door over against door, the expression is defective; but "having," or something of that kind, can be supplied. And so he measured the gate having in the little chambers themselves door over against door, because the doors of the three little chambers on one side were set opposite to the doors of the three others. But in that "fronts" is set down in what is subsequently added — *And he made fronts of sixty cubits* — it is referred to the twin face of the portico: the one by which it looked toward [0555B] the inner parts, the other by which it looked toward the outer. But of its inner front he understands what is subsequently added: *And at the front, the court of the gate on every side round about.* And so this pavement went about three sides of the portico, as the way lying on both sides evidently shows, about which the position of the chambers was ordered.

It must certainly be noted that the measure of the fronts of LX cubits is taken from within the walls, as is easily gathered from other places — as from that place where a porch of XXV cubits in length and of V cubits in breadth is described, as will be shown there. We ought also to think concerning the measure of the breadth, namely, that it was taken within the walls. But in that [0555C] which was said, and he made fronts of LX cubits, the length of the whole portico was determined; but now in that which is subjoined its breadth is determined: and before the face of the gate which reached unto the face of the porch of the inner gate, fifty cubits. By "the face of the gate" he calls the inner surface of the wall, namely that which he had toward himself who was within and was taking the measure. He measured therefore from the inner side, not from the outer, because if he were taking the measure from the outer he would find so much more than L cubits as the wall held in thickness. But by "the face of the porch of the inner gate" he means that part of the porch which it had toward the temple, and which clung to the inner gate. But the gate reached unto the face of the porch in this, that it extended its portico as far as [0555D] that place. But in that it is said "unto the face of the porch," it seems to answer to two things: namely, how far the gate reached, and how far the space of fifty cubits extended itself. He made therefore, or measured, before the face of the gate which reached unto the face of the porch of the inner gate, fifty cubits. There follows:

*And slanting windows in the little chambers, and in their fronts, which were within the gate on every side round about, he made from the upper parts.* In these words it is repeated: he made, therefore, slanting windows, that is, broader within and narrower without. He made them in the little chambers and in their fronts, that is, chiefly in the fronts — which windows were within the gate, that is, within the portico, because the little chambers in which those same windows were stood within the [0556A] portico itself. For concerning the windows which were of the porches themselves and not of the little chambers, he took care to add consequently: *And likewise,* he says, *there were windows also in the porches round about within,* where also is added: *and before the fronts a painting of palm trees,* which needs no exposition.

It must be noted that he says in the plural "in the porches," and "within"; but I think that from this place it easily becomes known that he sometimes comprehends the whole portico under the appellation of the gate. For although a gate of ten cubits might easily comprehend one little chamber, yet it could by no means comprehend several, so that it should have had to be said of it: And slanting windows in the little chambers which were within the gate. There follows:

*He led me out to the outer court.* It is said toward the inner parts indeed, [0556B] and yet he is led out who goes forth from the portico in which he was before. But he is led out to the outer court, because there was another also, the inner, *and behold, chambers, and a pavement laid with stone in the court on every side round about. Thirty chambers round about the pavement.* Concerning these chambers we wish for the present to say nothing else, save that fifteen were on this side and fifteen were on that. But this pavement had XV chambers on the north, and fifteen on the south. The portico of the outer court on the east, the portico of the inner court on the west; whence is that which is afterward added: *And the pavement at the front of the gates, according to the length of the gates, was lower,* and lower for this reason, that the gates, or the portico [0556C] itself, were raised up above it with great loftiness, and it lay down below in the depth between them. From this place likewise it is clear in which direction the length of the porticoes ought to be taken. For if the pavement was at the front of the gates according to their length, it is agreed that the length of the porticoes was that which extended itself beside the pavement. Next he determines the measure of the pavement, which he had not yet expressed: *And he measured the breadth from the face of the lower gate unto the front of the inner court on the outside, a hundred cubits toward the east and toward the north.* He calls the gate of the outer court the lower gate; for the gate of the inner court was in a more eminent place. For the building had been set upon an exceedingly high mountain, as [0556D] Scripture mentions in the very beginning of the description. The gates, therefore, which were outer were themselves also lower; and those which were inner, the same were also upper. And so by "the face of the lower gate" he wishes the front of the outer porch to be understood; by "the front of the inner court on the outside" we ought to understand the outer face of the upper portico. For the inner portico turned its face toward the outer parts, and the outer none the less turned its own toward the inner parts

It must certainly be noted from this place that he attributes the place in which the inner porticoes were now to the inner court, now to the outer. Whence also in what follows he will say of the same portico or porch: *And its porch, that is, of the outer court. But on the east was the lower gate, and on the west the inner gate.* How [0557A] therefore did he measure from the face of the lower gate unto the front of the inner court a hundred cubits toward the east, since this is from east into west, not from west toward the east? Wherefore a distinction is to be made there: and he measured the breadth from the face of the lower gate unto the front of the inner on the outside. And there another sentence is to be begun, and from the foregoing "he measured" indeed is to be repeated, thus: *And he measured a hundred cubits toward the east and toward the north,* that is, a hundred cubits from the west toward the east, and likewise a hundred cubits from the south toward the north; or what he says, toward the east and toward the north, we can understand thus: Toward the east, that is, toward the eastern region, he measured a hundred cubits between gate and gate. And toward the north, that [0557B] is, the northern region, he likewise measured a hundred cubits between gate and gate, so that this last was said by anticipation. Now sufficiently, as I judge, has it been said thus far concerning the description of one portico; and what follows concerning the rest can easily be understood, almost throughout, from the aforesaid without exposition. But let him who shall have read these things know that almost all which we have discussed concerning the porticoes can be proved from the authority of Scripture, and that many things could also have been proved by us with fuller reasoning, which we willingly pass over while we avoid wearisomeness.

## CHAPTER IX. *On the northern and southern portico of the outer court.*

[0557C]After the description, therefore, of the eastern gate, the measure of the northern gate is described, in these words: *The gate also which looked toward the way of the north of the outer court he measured, both in length and in breadth; and its little chambers, three on this side and three on that; and its front and its porch, according to the measure of the former gate: fifty cubits its length, and its breadth twenty-five cubits.* Here he takes "gate" properly, which he measured, like the former, of thirteen cubits in length and of ten cubits in breadth; and its little chambers, three on this side and three on that, all of six cubits; and its front, of sixty cubits; and its porch according to the measure of the former gate, [0557D] fifty cubits its length, and its breadth twenty-five cubits. Such a porch he nowhere there described openly, and yet such a one, as is proved from this place, was there — and not one only, but two, because one was on the one side and the other on the other side, besides that one which lay in the middle; nor for that reason was there any the less there one great porch such as he describes there, because the parts do not take away the whole, but constitute it. Hence it is that, the parts being first described, afterward there is subjoined concerning the whole, when it is said: *But its windows, and the porch, and the carvings, according to the measure of the gate which looked toward the east.* Behold, here "porch" is repeated; but it is first set down with reference to the parts, and afterward is referred to the whole. In that therefore he first says "porch," not "porches," he puts number [0558A] for number, just as in what follows he sets down "little chamber," not "little chambers." We can, however, repeat from the foregoing "on this side and on that," and refer it to the porch. After these things something is added here which is not read concerning the former gate, which nevertheless is rightly understood of that one also, according to whose measure this one is described: *And of seven steps,* he says, *was its ascent.* Common to both is what follows, *and a porch before it.* All the outer gates, indeed, had their porticoes before them. For the inner ones, as we have already said, had their porticoes behind them. There follows:

*And the gate of the inner court over against the gate of the north.* For this inner gate of the north had its front over against the outer northern gate, and its right side over against the eastern gate described before. [0558B] Or, in that he says that the gate of the inner court is over against the gate of the east and of the north, we can take it of different gates, so that we understand that the gate of the inner court is over against the gate of the north, just as the gate of the inner court was over against the gate of the east; and then what he says of the gate of the east is a repetition of that sentence which he set down above concerning the same. But although he is unwilling here to describe its measure, yet he wished here to touch briefly upon it, that he might more fittingly subjoin the measure of the pavement which lay between it and the outer gate: *And he measured,* he says, *from gate to gate a hundred cubits.*

It must be noted that he describes only the length of a hundred cubits. For how great the breadth of the pavement was, or what is to be thought concerning it, will appear better [0558C] from what follows. The northern gate being described, there follows afterward concerning the southern gate: *And he led me out to the southern way, and behold a gate which looked toward the south; and he measured its front and its porch according to the foregoing measures, and its windows and its porches round about, like the other windows: fifty cubits the length, and the breadth twenty-five cubits.*

It must be noted that it is said "according to the foregoing measures." For if all are of the same measure, whatever is said less fully in one seems to be supplied from the addition of another's description. That "porch" which is set down first ought to be referred to the whole; but to the parts, that "porches" which is repeated — which is clearly plain from the measure of their description. For it is subjoined to the second, [0558D] and not to the first, that which is said, fifty cubits the length and the breadth twenty-five cubits.

It must be noted in this last sentence how to the two things premised two are subjoined: and its windows, and its porches round about. Behold two; there follow two others: Like the other windows, fifty cubits the length, and the breadth XXV cubits. To that which is first premised, "its windows," there answers first "like the other windows"; to that which is premised in the second place, "and its porches," there answers in the second place, "fifty cubits the length, and the breadth twenty-five cubits." He seems to have described no such porch [0559A] at the first gate, nor more than one at the second. Yet from the description of this one it is shown that there, as here also, there were several. But the reasoning of the first description does not suffer that there were more than two such at each of them, on account of that which is read there concerning the measure of the length or of the breadth: of the length, and he made fronts of forty cubits; of the breadth, and before the face of the gate unto the face of the porch of the inner gate, fifty cubits. But if it is agreed that there were two porches of such size at all of them, it remains that at each there is over a third also, of fifty cubits in length and of ten cubits in breadth, so that the whole together ought rightly to be called a triple portico, and may be able to fill up the aforesaid measure. There follows:

[0559B] *And by seven steps was the ascent to it:* which indeed is read also at the second gate · *And a porch,* he says, *before its doors,* not behind the doors, as in the inner gates. There follows:

*And there were carved palm trees, one on this side and another on that, on its front.* The palm trees of the fronts are now called carved, now painted [sic: *depietae*]. But perhaps in both places both are to be understood, that is, that they are carved and overlaid with colors. At the former gates also he had spoken of the carving of palm trees. But that one was on this side and another on that, he had not determined. But as above, after the description of the outer gate, he makes mention of the inner gate, that he may more fittingly bring in the measure of the pavement lying between: *And the gate,* he says, *of the inner court [0559C] in the southern way; and he measured from gate to gate in the southern way a hundred cubits.* It must be noted that he understands the portico by the gate, and that he describes only the length of the pavement: for its length will appear better from another place.

## CHAPTER X. *On the three porticoes of the inner court.*

After the outer gates, behold, he describes the inner gates. And after the last one which he described, he passes to the one nearest to it, when he says: *And he brought me into the inner court to the southern gate, and he measured the gate according to the foregoing measures, its little chamber, [0559D] and its front, and its porch, by the same measures, and its windows, and its porch round about, fifty cubits in length, and in breadth twenty-five cubits.* What is read above concerning the outer gates is repeated concerning the inner gates: and he measured, he says, the gate according to the foregoing measures. But in that he says "little chamber," not "little chambers," he puts number for number. But that which is subjoined, and its front, and its porch by the same measures, can be referred to the whole, and then in what follows "having," or something of this kind, must be understood: And he measured its windows, and its porch round about, [sic: *habenta*] L *cubits in length, and in breadth* XXV *cubits.* "Its windows," that is, the porch's, he calls the windows of the walls [0560A] surrounding the whole on the outside. But "the windows of its porches," that is, of the porch, he calls the windows of the walls cutting through the smallest porches. Nor ought this to be passed over, that he calls the parts of the whole "the porches of the porch." But if "of the porch," not "of the porches," is read (for either reading is found), it is referred to the same sense, and this is said of the porch of the porch of one side in such wise that it may be understood of both. It must be known, however, that by Jerome not "of the porch," but "of the porches" is set down. There follows:

*And the porch round about, the length of twenty-five cubits, and the breadth of five cubits.* See how in every description still something new is added which he had not said in the foregoing. A porch of five cubits in breadth he had nowhere above [0560B] described, and yet if it was at this gate, then it was at all the others, because it is clearly agreed that there was one measure of them all. But where, I ask, was the porch of this one, save between the little chambers? For Scripture describes a space of five cubits between the little chambers. And not one only, but between three little chambers two on the one side, and two on the other side. As therefore it is read in the first description concerning a porch of eight cubits, so what is read in this description concerning a porch of five cubits is to be understood of the several ones throughout. By this porch of twenty-five cubits in length it will easily be able to be proved that that measure of the fronts of forty cubits was taken within the walls. There follows that in which the inner porticoes [0560C] differ from the foregoing. *And its porch,* he says, *toward the outer court.* For the foregoing looked inward, and this one outward. *And its palm trees,* he says, *upon the front.* Where "it had" is understood; but this too was common to it with the rest. There follows:

*And there were eight steps by which it was ascended through it.* In this again the inner ones differ from the foregoing, which had only seven. After the southern gate he passes to the eastern: *And he brought me into the inner court by the eastern way, and he measured the gate according to the foregoing measures, its little chamber, and its front, and its porches, as above, and its windows, and the porches round about, the length of fifty cubits, and the breadth of twenty-five cubits.* In this description alone "porches" is set down twice in the plural, [0560D] and rightly indeed, because the description of the smallest porches also is completed out of the preceding description. And so he seems in this description to make mention of a twofold division in that he wished to set down "porches" twice. For one portico is first divided into three porches. Then two of these, the greater, are subdivided into fourteen others. And so after the measuring of the smallest, he who measures seems to proceed to the measuring of the greater. Let the first therefore be referred to the smallest, the second to the greatest, whose measure is there subjoined in that which is annexed, the length of fifty cubits, and the breadth of twenty-five cubits. There follows: *and its porch, that is, of the outer court,* that of it, [0561A] the porch, he says, is of the outer court, as if he were openly saying: that very porch which is its own, that is, of the inner court, is in some respect rightly called the outer court's — whose it ought by no means at all to have been called, if after the likeness of the outer porticoes it had lain within its own gate; but now it is rightly called that one's to which it adheres. Then there is subjoined that which is read in the preceding: *And palm trees carved upon its front on this side and on that, and its ascent by eight steps.* Then the last description of the gates follows, when it is said:

*And he brought me to the gate which looked toward the north, and he measured according to the foregoing measures its little chamber, and its front, and its porch, and its windows round about, the length of fifty cubits, and the breadth of twenty-five [0561B] cubits. Its porch looked into the outer court, and a carving of palm trees upon its front on this side and on that, and its ascent by eight steps.* Here, because nothing new is added, exposition indeed seems superfluous. There follows: *And through the several chambers a door in the fronts of the gates. There they washed the holocaust.* That he says the chambers, or the doors of the chambers, to be in the fronts of the gates, we ought to understand of the inner porticoes. For since the doors were in the fronts of the chambers, and all looked toward the pavements which lay before the inner porticoes, it is now rightly said that the doors of the chambers were in the fronts of the gates. The position therefore of the chambers is determined in that which is said: And through [0561C] the several chambers a door in the fronts of the gates. Let therefore the line by which the fronts of the gates are bounded be drawn out, and from it as far as the outer wall let the chambers be ranged. For whatever shall have been behind that line will not be in the fronts of the gates. In the first description of all he had spoken of the chambers, but throughout all the others he makes no mention of them. Why therefore is this which is here said of the chambers annexed to this last description, unless that through it the same might be given to be understood of them all. Likewise also what he annexes concerning the eight tables, he wished, as I judge, to be understood of all three inner gates. All three inner gates had eight tables along the sides of their porches, although Scripture does not seem openly to determine this. But see how shrewdly Scripture [0561D] in certain places wished to pass over certain things in silence, which reason indeed, more diligently sought out, does not suffer to lie hidden. Certainly of the chambers it is said: There they washed the holocaust. But of the tables also it is written: *And upon the tables the flesh of the oblation.* If anyone therefore thinks that the eastern gate alone has chambers, or that only at the northern gate there were tables, let him see, I beseech him, whether reason suffers that the eastern gate not have a place where the things which are washed there ought to be laid up? Or that the northern gate not have a place where the things which are laid up there may be washed? Are the things which are sacrificed at the northern gate washed at the eastern, and the things which are washed at the eastern sacrificed at the northern? Is neither of these done at the southern gate, because in its description [0562A] no mention was made of the chambers? I know indeed that the Fathers pass negligently over certain places of the Scriptures which they could easily penetrate, while they desired to have found, and rejoiced in, things which could not stand according to the letter, that by this at least men might be convinced that allegory ought to be received, which in those times still very few would scarcely have been willing to receive. Let it therefore scandalize no one if we say anything other, or otherwise, than he shall have found in the glosses. Let no one disdain that we wish to gather the ears of grain that remain; let no one wonder that some could have slipped from them, or rather that they of their own accord left them to the poor — they to whom this was divinely enjoined, to whom it was divinely given to have filled the granaries of so many volumes out of the harvest of the Scriptures. But you wish to honor and [0562B] defend the authority of the ancients; yet never do we more truly honor the lovers of truth than by seeking, finding, teaching, defending, loving the truth. Attend therefore not to whether I say something new, but something true. I little fear to say something different, so long as I say nothing perverse. But behold, I return again to the exposition of the letter, and attend rather to what it itself wishes to say than to what others will say of me.

## CHAPTER XI. *On the tables where the holocaust was sacrificed, and on the chambers of the singers.*

*And in the porch of the gate two tables on this side, and two [0562C] tables on that side, that upon them may be sacrificed the holocaust, and that for sin, and that for trespass.* What the holocaust for sin and for trespass may be, and many other things after this manner which pertain to the exposition of the letter, I deliberately pass over, because for the present I am wholly intent upon that alone which I have not found elsewhere: how this so subtle description of the prophet may be able to stand according to the letter, or ought to be understood. But if this, as is here said, was the office of the tables, that upon them the holocaust ought to be sacrificed, let each man choose what it is rather fitting to think: whether that victims ought to be sacrificed at this gate alone, or that the other gates also have like tables for that office. If sacrifice was made at this one alone, what will become of the victim of the prince, who entered in and went out by the [0562D] eastern gate alone? If at the eastern gate alone the victims are washed on days that are not feast days, what will become of the victim of the people, when the eastern gate was shut, which was opened to the prince alone? By allegations of this kind we can gather that the divine Scripture silently intimates many things out of a certain deliberateness. He has already said that there are four tables, two on this side and two on that, within the porch. He says further that there are also four others outside the porch, two likewise at the one side, and two at the other. *And at the outer side,* he says, *which the door of the gate that goes toward the north ascends, two tables, and at the other side before the porch of the gate two tables. Four tables on this side, and four tables on that side. Along the sides of the gate there were eight tables, upon which they sacrificed.* Since, [0563A] as was said above, the temple occupied the summit of the mountain, and on every side the mountain itself raised itself little by little to greater heights as far as that place, this gate (and no wonder) had one side higher, the other lower. And so from the one side one went up to the gate, from the other one went down to the gate. For because this was the northern gate, as Scripture itself determines, it had the temple beyond doubt on the western side, which side indeed rose higher than the eastern side. The eastern side is determined when it is said: *And at the outer side which ascends to the door of the gate which goes toward the north, two tables.* For what follows is said of the other side: *And at the other side before the porch of the gate two tables.* And so there were, as is subjoined, four tables on this side, and four tables on that side. For there were four [0563B] at the one side, two within the porch and two outside the porch. Likewise two within and two without at the other side. Therefore along the sides of the gate there were eight tables upon which they sacrificed. The things which follow are sufficiently plain of themselves and need no exposition. *And four tables for the holocaust built of squared stones, of the length of one cubit and a [sic: *demidii*], and of the breadth of one cubit and a half, and of the height of one cubit, upon which they may lay the vessels in which the holocaust and the victim is sacrificed; and their lips of one palm, turned back inward round about. And upon the tables the flesh of the oblation.* Thus far concerning the tables. But there follows concerning certain chambers, of which nothing has been said in the foregoing.

[0563C] *And outside the inner gate the chambers of the singers in the inner court, which was at the side of the gate that looks toward the north, and their faces over against the southern way, one from the side of the eastern gate which looked toward the way of the north.* It is a marvel that it is said: In the inner court which was at the side of the gate that looks toward the north. For the inner court was not at the side of this gate, but rather was situated before it, because it lay in the middle between the three inner gates. But when "inner court" or "outer court" is said, we ought not always to take this uniformly. That has been called the inner court which, of a hundred cubits every way, is placed in the middle; and that the outer court by which the inner court was girded on every side. But in the inner [0563D] court there was nothing else save one altar; but all the rest — porticoes, chambers, the temple, the houses — were in the outer court. Yet according to another consideration the place in which the temple was, and those houses which lay alongside the temple on its three sides, is called the inner court, as is read in what follows. For there were the chambers of the sanctuary in which the priests laid up and ate the flesh of the oblation, which nevertheless it was not lawful to carry out into the outer court, Scripture forbidding it, which says: *This is the place where the priests shall boil what is for sin and for trespass, where they shall boil the sacrifice, that they carry it not out into the outer court, and the people be sanctified [n: (Ezech. XLVI)]*. Yet these flesh-portions, which were forbidden to be carried out into the outer court, they laid up in the aforesaid chambers, [0564A] and they were eaten, as is read concerning them: *These are the holy chambers in which the priests eat who draw near into the Holy of Holies unto the Lord. There shall they lay the Holy of Holies and the oblations for sin and for trespass [n: (Ezech. XLI)]*. And so for one reason that is called the inner court which was before the temple, because, as has been said, it lay in the middle. But for another reason that by which the temple was girded on three sides, because it was entered into even through that which was properly called the inner court. So an inner little chamber is wont to be called a hall, not because it is within the hall, but because it holds a more secret place, and because through the hall the approach to it lies open. So indeed [d: so] no place was more secret, and none more remote from the entrance of the gates, than that in which the temple was built. [0564B] And so according to this consideration, in comparison with this place, even that which Scripture is wont by custom to call the inner court can be called the outer court. For one reason therefore the place in which the temple was is called the inner court, and for another that which held the middle and had the altar of holocaust. Nothing therefore forbids us to understand that place in which the temple, or the adjacent houses, were, in that which is said: and over against the inner gate the chambers of the singers in the inner court, which was at the side of the gate that looks toward the north. In this court, which lay alongside the aforesaid gate on the western side, was that chamber of the singers which is now being described, and it adhered laterally to the same gate or portico. Concerning this chamber it is treated more fully in what follows, and it is, [0564C] unless I am mistaken [sic: *in fallor*], described in these words: *And he brought me into the chamber which was over against the separate building, and over against the house looking toward the north,* and the rest, of which we shall speak more fully in its place. But for the present this seems to be said concerning this chamber, that its breadth began from this gate and spread itself toward the west. But its length extended itself from the north into the south. Whence is that which is subsequently added concerning the same chambers, when it is said: And their faces over against the southern way. And so the gate had chambers of the singers of this kind, as has been said, on the western side. It had others also on the eastern side, which assuredly were situated over against both the eastern and the northern [0564D] gate. If therefore, over against the eastern gate, they had their front toward the gate of the north, whence is that which is subjoined to the same: one from the side of the eastern gate which looked toward the way of the north? He says therefore that one face of chambers of this kind was from the side of the eastern gate, which face looked toward the way of the north. But the letter would be plainer if it had been said, "the face of certain of them," not "a certain face," or "one face of them was from the side of the eastern gate." But as it is, not only is "one" there set down for "the face of certain of them," but also "their faces" is understood from the foregoing. But these chambers, which were toward the way on the east of the northern gate, had their face not over against the way of the north, because it went crosswise before them and not over against them, as those which were on the west had the southern way [0565A] going over against them [sic: *contracuntem*]. But we ought to understand the same of both sides of the eastern gate, and likewise also of one side of the southern gate. But Scripture is wont deliberately to pass over the things which it knows can easily be understood of themselves. There follows:

*And he said to me: This is the chamber which looks toward the southern way, of the priests who keep watch in the wards of the temple. But the chamber which looks toward the way of the north shall be of the priests who keep watch for the ministry of the altar.* The chamber which looked over against the southern way was nearer to the temple, and therefore it justly ought to belong to those priests who kept watch in the wards of the temple: for in dignity they excelled those who served the altar. But common [0565B] to both sets of priests is that which follows, when it is said: *These are the sons of Sadoc, who of the sons of Levi come near to the Lord that they may minister to him.*

## CHAPTER XII. *On the kitchens which were built beneath the porticoes, and on the inner court.*

In this place it must be considered that toward the eastern way, on this side and on that, about the porticoes both of the outer and of the inner court, a certain space still remains empty between them and the chambers, as is plain, set before the eyes, from the figures placed above; in which places those kitchens could be, of which Scripture makes mention in what follows, when it says: *And kitchens [0565C] were built beneath the porticoes round about [n: (Ezech. XLVI)]*. But toward the way of the north the outer portico had only one space of the same size, which adhered to it on the eastern side. For on the western side it had chambers adjoining it. But it is agreed that the southern portico of the outer court also has a like space on the eastern side for the same office, and that chambers adhere to it on the other side. From like things therefore we judge like things, and therefore to the two porticoes of the inner court, on this side and on that, to either on both sides, we leave a like space for the office of the kitchens. After these we range the chambers of the singers, of fifty cubits both in length and in breadth, so that according to their length [0565D] so also may their breadth be, as we read concerning certain chambers. For concerning the length of all the chambers of the outer court one sentence is given, when far afterward in what follows it is said: Because the length of the chambers of the outer court was fifty cubits. After these chambers of the singers, a certain way of ten cubits in breadth being interposed, fifteen chambers are ranged on this side and on that in the eastern way, that there may be, as it is written, thirty round about the pavement. But there were likewise fifteen on one side only, that is, on the eastern part, both in the northern way and in the southern way. But there are from the fronts of the inner gates, as will afterward be taught, as far as the place of the common people, a hundred and forty cubits. Out of these, if we give five cubits to the wall, the rest [0566A] being equally divided among fifteen, we shall find that each single chamber holds nine cubits in breadth. There follows:

*And he measured the court, in length a hundred cubits, and in breadth a hundred cubits foursquare, and the altar before the face of the temple.* From this place it is sufficiently plain that the inner court, according to breadth, held that whole space of a hundred cubits which was the middle in those five hundred cubits which that wall of five hundred cubits enclosed from the north into the south. But because the eastern porticoes had measures like the other porticoes in all things, and enclosed a court of the same length, and rose by [sic: *totitem*] steps, it is agreed beyond doubt that their measure extends as far as the middle hundred, [0566B] and that from its beginning the inner court takes its beginning. But how many of those hundred cubits toward the west it took in within itself — I speak according to the consideration of the plane — I do not yet think can be proved from the aforesaid. For although toward that part also it had a hundred cubits so far as the surface goes, yet what or how much of that middle hundred, from the [sic: *Occiente*], the swelling of the mountain took away according to the reckoning of the plane — the mountain which there rose up toward that part — is not yet plain. For one line of a hundred cubits lying flat, and another raising itself obliquely, emerging from the same point, do not meet in the same cathetus, nor do they enclose an equal space according to the plane; but how these things stand, from what follows [0566C] it will be plain. And the altar, he says, before the face of the temple. This he therefore annexes here, because the altar was in this court which lay before the temple. Concerning its measure nothing is here said, but far below it is subtly explained. In this court we make that water, which went forth from the temple, to run down and to descend from the right side of the altar. But about the lower parts of the court we cut it into four, and lead it through the midst of the kitchens, so that it passes before the chambers, that there may be a place where the holocaust can be washed, according as it is written: *And through the several chambers a door in the fronts of the gates, and there they washed the holocaust.* Of all these things which we have said we have more fully expressed the form and pattern in the last and great figure, as can there be seen.

## CHAPTER XIII. *On the size or of the buildings which lay adjacent to the temple.*

[0566D]

Since therefore we have for the present completed the things which seemed to need saying concerning the front part of this building, we now turn our pen to describing its western part, and whatever of the aforesaid shall have to be supplied to the aforesaid we shall supply in its own place. It pleases me here, as also above in the description of the porticoes, to gather into one the testimonies of [sic: *Scriturae*] from this side and from that, and from their comparison to establish the position, manner, and order of the buildings to be described, and to show what is to be thought concerning them, authority proving it on the one hand, reason on the other. As we taught above, the temple with its portico [0567A] rose beyond the inner court on its western side, and on the other three sides the same temple had three houses with their porticoes, a certain court nevertheless being interposed, each one of which held a hundred cubits in length. For concerning that building which was at the back of the temple on the west, which Scripture is also wont to call "separate," from the fact that it adhered to none of the rest, it is read: *And he measured the length of the house, a hundred cubits, and that which was the separate building, and its walls, of a hundred cubits in length.* But concerning the other buildings which were on either side it is subjoined, when it is said: *And he measured the length of the building over against the face of that which was separate at the back, the ethecas on either part, of a hundred cubits.* For while [0567B] a building of a hundred cubits in length is said to be measured on either part, it is proved that there was a building of the same length on both sides. Behold, concerning the three houses; let us now see concerning their porticoes. That there was a portico at the northern building, Scripture makes manifest, when it says: *Where the chambers were lower in the upper parts, because they supported the porticoes which rose out of them from the lower and from the middle parts of the building.* But that this was said of the northern building and of its portico, the surrounding context of the letter plainly shows, as will afterward be manifest in the exposition of the letter. That this portico of which we have spoken before was of fifty cubits we can indeed prove from this, that its enclosure, that is, the wall which girded its chambers [0567C] which supported it, is read to have been of fifty cubits: *And the enclosure,* he says, *the outer one, along the chambers which were in the way of the outer court before the chambers, its length fifty cubits, because the length of the chambers of the outer court was fifty cubits.* The breadth of this portico is afterward expressed in that which is written in another place: *According to their length, so also their breadth.* This indeed follows from the description of this portico and of its chambers, which can also with fuller reasoning be proved likewise from other places: namely, that the northern building had chambers in its lower parts, upper chambers in its upper parts. For in vain would its portico rise fifty [0567D] cubits from the ground, unless it had also an upper chamber behind it which answered to it in a fitting height. For what does Scripture say concerning the porticoes of this building? *Therefore,* he says, *they rose out of the lower and out of the middle parts of the building by fifty cubits of the earth.* [var: Vulg. *a terra cubitis quinquaginta*, "from the ground, fifty cubits"] Finally, by comparison with these chambers which were in the lower parts of the building, the wall which embraces the chambers of the portico is named the outer enclosure, in that it is joined more nearly to the outer court, nay even immediately. But this portico was joined to the northern portico of the inner court, whence also it is written: *Where there was a portico joined to the triple portico.* But if, from that portico of the inner court, we add to that measure which it had within the walls — of which alone we have spoken above — five cubits as it were for [0568A] the thickness of the wall, beyond doubt we find two hundred and fifteen cubits as far as the place of the common people. And so from that place the aforesaid house with its portico extended itself toward the west into a hundred and forty-five cubits, beyond which, as far as the same place of the common people, seventy cubits still remained over. For in that part, as will afterward be taught, in which they were joined, they had a common wall, and therefore they held not a hundred and fifty, but only a hundred and forty-five cubits. Between this building and the temple there was a certain space of a hundred cubits in length and of fifty cubits in breadth. Whose measure is determined when it is said: *In the face of the length a hundred cubits of the door of the north, and of the breadth fifty cubits.* [0568B] But whatever we have said concerning the manner and measure of the northern building, the whole of it we ought to think concerning the southern building according to the same likeness, which indeed we suppose to be sufficiently plain from those things which have already been said above. We have now how far these buildings with their porticoes extended, but it is not yet agreed how much of an interval they enclosed. But this indeed, as I judge, will be manifest when it shall have been established how that building which is called separate was ranged between these two. It had indeed a hundred cubits in length and eighty cubits in breadth. For within the walls it had ninety cubits in length and seventy in breadth, and the wall itself was everywhere round about of five cubits, as Scripture shows: *And that which was the separate building, [0568C] and turned toward the way looking to the sea, of seventy cubits in breadth. But the wall of the building was of five cubits in breadth round about, and its length ninety cubits;* whence also it is inferred: *And he measured the length of the house, a hundred cubits, and that which was the separate building and its walls, a hundred cubits.* And so it was situated at the back of the temple, near the wall which divided the place of the common people, and it extended its length without any doubt into the north and the south. But it spread its breadth from the west into the east. Since therefore beyond the aforesaid buildings lying on either side there was a space of only seventy cubits, it is necessary that the breadth of the building, which was of eighty [0568D] cubits, occupied with a great part of itself the interval of the aforesaid buildings. The length therefore of the separate building is extended between those aforesaid houses, and there is still added each space of twenty cubits, on account of that which is read concerning their chambers: *And between the chambers a breadth of twenty cubits round about the house on every side.*

It is agreed therefore that between the two buildings which lay adjacent to the temple on this side and on that a space of a hundred and forty cubits was assuredly enclosed according to the plane. But the northern house, as also the southern, had its portico not over against the middle, but over against its outer, or lower, part; and on the north both began from one and the same line. For where the chambers which supported the portico of this house [0569A] are described, there is at once annexed concerning their entrance: *And beneath these chambers was the entry of those going into them from the east from the outer court, in the breadth of the enclosure of the court which was over against the eastern way, in the face of the separate building.* This court, of which he makes mention in this place, the northern house assuredly had on the north; and from that house as far as the place of the common people it extends its breadth into the north. Therefore the said chambers would have their entry not over against the breadth of this court, nay rather over against the house, unless the portico with its house began from one place on the northern quarter. But from the northern side of the same portico as far as the inner court there were a hundred cubits, of which its breadth held fifty. Then, a certain [0569B] walk of ten cubits in breadth being interposed, that aforesaid chamber of the singers began, and extended itself as far as the twentieth cubit of the inner court. Whence it is agreed that its length was of fifty cubits. This chamber is described in what follows, when it is said: *And he led me into the chamber which was over against the separate building, and over against the house looking toward the north, in the face of the length a hundred cubits of the door of the north, and of the breadth fifty cubits, over against the twenty cubits of the inner court, and over against the pavement laid with stone where there was a portico joined to the triple portico.* I think it is plain how this chamber was over against the separate building, or how it was in the face of the interval of a hundred cubits in length and [0569C] of fifty cubits in breadth. Which lay between the temple and the northern building, if this chamber extended itself as far as the twentieth cubit of the inner court. No less plain is it how it was over against the house looking toward the north, if it began from the tenth cubit after the portico of that house. But now it behooves us to consider that it is said to be over against the pavement of the outer court; and lest we be able to understand any other than the northern pavement of the outer court, we are constrained by the addition of that clause, in that which we read: *Where there was a portico joined to the triple portico.* For in the eastern region we nowhere find a portico joined to a portico. But the northern portico of the inner court, as is plain from the foregoing, [0569D] had on the east the chambers of the singers, on the south the inner court, on the north this pavement of which we now speak. It is plain therefore that the portico which had been joined to this portico beyond doubt adhered to it on the west, and, touching it in part and leaving it with the greater part of itself, extended itself toward the north and bounded this pavement on the west. In order therefore that the aforesaid chamber may be able to have some part of itself over against this pavement, it behooves it to adhere to the triple portico, nay rather to have a common wall with it in the very place of their junction. After which wall, if the portico of the northern house began, and had a wall [sic: *darietemque*] after the wall, assuredly the chamber was set over against the said pavement [0570A] by just so much as the thickness of its wall had. But that that walk of which we have spoken was before this chamber, Scripture subsequently shows, when it subjoins: *And before the chambers a walk of ten cubits in breadth.* Nor ought it to move us that the same building is called now "chambers," now "chamber," just as the same portico is named now "porches," now "porch." For let the one be referred to the distinctions, the other to the whole.

It must indeed be noted that in that place where the northern house and its portico made an angle before the aforesaid chamber and this place of the walk, there was a certain place of thirty cubits in length and of twenty cubits in breadth, concerning which what shall seem good [0570B] will be said in its own place. For according to what is plain from the foregoing, since from the eastern side of that chamber as far as the northern building there were only fifty cubits, that chamber indeed could not have more than thirty cubits in breadth, where it behooved twenty cubits to remain over, that what Scripture says concerning these chambers which lay about the temple might stand: *And between the chambers a breadth of twenty cubits round about the house on every side.* But it is agreed that from the same eastern side of the same chamber as far as the boundary of the sanctified space of five hundred cubits there were two hundred and twenty cubits, of which thirty, as has been said, the breadth of the aforesaid chamber held. Then the space or court which extended itself between it and the separate building [0570C] alongside the length of the temple occupied a hundred cubits according to the aforesaid authority of Scripture. But the breadth of the separate building had eighty cubits, from which place a breadth of ten cubits remained over. Of which five, as will afterward be shown, the breadth of the wall held: for the other five a certain way had, which lay in the middle between that wall and the building. But if these numbers come together into one, beyond doubt they rise to two hundred and twenty. Now it is easy to see how far the temple extended itself, which with its porch, according as will be taught in later places, was of a hundred cubits in length. But because the porch of the temple without doubt adhered to the inner court, [0570D] it and the aforesaid chamber began from the same line. But because the chamber, as has been said, and the court set before it extended themselves by a hundred and thirty cubits as far as the separate building, and the temple with its porch held only a hundred cubits, it is agreed that between the temple and the separate building the interval was of thirty cubits.

## CHAPTER XIV. *On the site or the plan of the remaining buildings which were toward the western quarter.*

But that we may pass on to the other things which still remain to be described: beyond the portico of the oft-mentioned northern building there were, on the north, ten chambers [0571A] over against that same portico, set in order toward the north as far as the outer wall, alongside the side of the pavement, of a length, according to the length of the portico, of fifty cubits. These are those chambers of the outer court from which Scripture draws a likeness, where it describes the length of that portico, or of the chambers which were beneath it, when it says: *And the outer enclosure, according to the chambers which were in the way of the outer court before the chambers, its length was of fifty cubits, because the length of the chambers of the outer court was of fifty cubits.* "According to the chambers," he says, "which were before the chambers." Before what chambers, I ask, save before those of which he was then treating, and of which he had already said many things — those which were beneath the porticoes, and which supported, as [0571B] was there said, the porticoes of the northern building? They are therefore described as being before the aforesaid portico, and those same chambers are called chambers of the outer court, that where they were may be openly determined. Yet between these chambers and the adjacent portico a certain way was interposed, of a breadth, as I judge, of five cubits, where was the entrance to the chambers which were before the separate building. For when the chambers which supported the porticoes have been described, concerning this entrance it is straightway subjoined, when it is said: *And beneath these chambers was an entrance from the east for those entering into them from the outer court, in the breadth of the enclosure of the court which was over against the eastern way, in the face of the separate building.* This assuredly is that entrance of which we have already said something above. From this [0571C] way as far as the wall of the outer court there were ninety cubits. And if these be divided among the X chambers, each one of them is found to be of nine cubits in breadth. But what has been said of the northern quarter is to be understood in all things, according to the same likeness, of the southern quarter. There were, therefore, ten chambers on the one side and ten on the other. These are those twenty chambers, as we believe, of which we read in what follows. Behold, in these chambers we find the same measure as in those above, which we extended to nine cubits, so that all are of one breadth, as they are, and of one length. It remains now to speak of that portico or porch of the separate building [0571D] which, between the northern house and the outer wall, adhered to it on the north. But which [way] the porch had, that Scripture determines. "Which way was before the separate porch." This porch, therefore, or portico, was of fifty cubits both in length and in breadth, and had chambers beneath itself, and rose above those of the lower and of the middle buildings, and on its upper side, that is, on the east, had a walk, or way, of ten cubits in breadth. All of which Scripture seems to determine in few words indeed, where it is read: *And before the building there were chambers, and a way before their face, according to the likeness of the chambers which were in the way of the north.* If these chambers, and the way set before them, had in all things the likeness [0572A] of those which were at the way of the north, then these, like those also, adhered to the house joined to them beneath the portico, and in like manner; and whatever we read of those, of themselves, in site, in quality and in quantity, we ought to accommodate to these according to the proposed little rule of the likeness.

And note that, although there were other chambers at the way of the north, the circumstance of the letter constrains us to understand those of which he had treated in the last place, and not those of which he said nothing. But by "the way of the north" he names, for his own love, that way which from the north went from gate through gate toward the inner parts — which way indeed passed before the site of the aforesaid chambers. But we have taught above that beyond the separate building ten cubits are left over, [0572B] which above we assigned partly to the wall, partly to the interposed way. Its portico, therefore, will in the same manner have ten cubits beyond itself on the west, if it was situated, after the likeness of the northern building, over against the outer parts of the house. And because beyond the northern house there were seventy cubits to the west, between it certainly and the separate porch there will be ten cubits, so that, after the likeness of the former portico, this portico also may hold a space of fifty cubits, and may have on its upper or inner part a walk of ten cubits. But on its lower or outer part we ought to understand, according to the former manner, that there was a way of five cubits, so that this porch may have the entrance of its chambers beneath itself, that is, on its lower and outer [0572C] side, after the likeness of the portico aforesaid. But also, that in this too one likeness may run together on both sides, attend where the separate building makes an angle with this its porch, and you will find here, just as there, a certain space of thirty cubits in length and of twenty cubits in breadth. This is that place of which, far afterward, we read in what follows: *And there was there a place turning toward the west, and he said to me: This is the place where the priests shall cook for trespass and for sin, where they shall cook the sacrifice, that they may not carry it out into the outer court, and the people be sanctified.* But that this place of cooking was in that court which had the chambers of the sanctuary, Scripture, if it be diligently questioned, assuredly does not suffer to lie hidden. For attend [0572D] to what is premised there where this place is described: *And he brought me in,* he says, *by the entrance which was at the side of the gate, into the chambers of the sanctuary belonging to the priests, which looked toward the north.* And it is added: *And there was there a place turning toward the west.* But of these chambers we read elsewhere: *The chambers of the north, and the chambers of the south, which are before the separate building — these are the holy chambers in which the priests are vested who draw near to the Lord into the Holy of holies. There they shall lay the Holy of holies, and the oblation for sin and for trespass.* Assuredly, if we diligently discuss these or other places of Scripture, we shall be able to find no other place for the aforesaid kitchen save that which we have designated before.

[0573A]It must indeed be noted what is said of this place, that it was turning toward the west. From which words it is manifestly gathered that the mountain indeed sloped downward behind the back of the temple, where it bore the separate building. We have already said that that designated place had thirty cubits of length and twenty cubits of breadth. The half of these, of thirty cubits in length and of ten cubits in breadth, which adhered to the separate building, had the kitchens; the remaining half — that, namely, of ten cubits in breadth — the walk held, so that that way passed before the face of the kitchens and bent itself back, in that part, into the court of the sanctuary. According to this likeness we believe in all things that that space designated above, of the same magnitude, [0573B] also had kitchens, and that that walk of ten cubits bent itself back, before their face, into the court of the sanctuary and looked toward the temple.

But whatever we have said of the northern side, all this we ought to understand of the southern side, in the site and manner of the buildings, according to the same congruence of likeness, in keeping with what we read of it: *And every entrance of them, and their likenesses, and their doors, according to the doors of the chambers which were in the way looking toward the south. A door at the head of the way, which way was before the separate porch, for those entering by the eastern way.* The southern quarter, therefore, had a like porch before the separate building, a like house, a like portico, a like [0573C] chamber alongside the inner court. There was, therefore, one extremity of the aforesaid chamber over against the last twenty cubits of the inner court, as was said above, on the one side; and in the same manner there was another over against the last twenty cubits of the inner court on the other side; and between those two an interval of sixty cubits. In this interval the porch of the temple was situated, which on the east adhered to the inner court, and on the west, as has been said, had the temple adhering to it.

## CHAPTER XV *How, or from what, it is gathered what the steepness of the mountain is.*

[0573D]But since we have completed those things which meanwhile seemed to be said concerning the site of the buildings, the place demands that we now speak, at least in part, of those things which we promised were to be added for the completion of the foregoing; and so we shall return to the exposition of the letter. First, therefore, let us consider how many cubits the inner court has from east to west according to the consideration of the plane — which, so far as the surface goes, was on every part, without any ambiguity, of a hundred cubits; but that: *And he measured the court, a hundred cubits in length and a hundred cubits in breadth, foursquare.* But, as was shown above, from the north toward the south also this court enclosed a hundred cubits according to the plane. But two hundred cubits on this side and two hundred [0574A] on that the two porticoes with the court interposed held, and in this manner from the one extremity to the other there were five hundred cubits. But on account of the same likeness and quantity of the porticoes we observe that the eastern porticoes also, with the court interposed, occupy equally two hundred cubits according to the plane, and extend as far as the middle hundred. All the inner porticoes, therefore, adhered according to one likeness to that middle hundred, and over against its middle; and because they held a measure of sixty cubits within the walls, from this measure there remained over, on either side, twenty cubits of that middle hundred.

But we taught above that the chambers of the sanctuary adhere immediately to two porticoes of the inner court, that is, to the northern [0574B] and to the southern, and bound the western side of the inner court. Whence it is agreed that the inner court, from east to west, according to the reckoning of the plane, occupies not more than eighty cubits. But if the eastern way ascends uniformly from the outer gate as far as the site of the temple, assuredly the pavement which lay between the two porticoes, of a hundred cubits, will obtain not more than eighty cubits according to the consideration of the plane, although so far as the surface goes it had a hundred without ambiguity.

Hence, therefore, it is given to understand that the walls of the porticoes, just as those of the three aforesaid houses, are of five cubits in breadth. For [0574C] it is agreed that each one has only fifty cubits within the walls. This was the cause why above we judged five cubits to be assigned to the wall, and assigned the other five to the way, out of those ten which we found to be beyond the separate building.

In this place indeed we wish to give that warning which everywhere we ought to hold for certain, and as it were for a rule: that whether any building whatsoever be situated on the level or on a slope, it contributes nothing to its measure, nor takes anything away. For whatever Scripture teaches concerning the measure of the buildings, it behooves us to take according to the consideration of the plane also. Since, therefore, the northern porticoes, or the southern also, were in all things like to the eastern [0574D] porticoes in measure and in quality, it behooves us to estimate the like concerning the pavements interposed, and that they occupied no more than eighty cubits according to the plane. This, however, was between these and the eastern and the pavement, that [sic: *iliud*], according to one dimension, had eighty cubits, as has been said, but according to the other dimension possessed a hundred cubits, even according to the plane. But the measure of these, according to one dimension, was of eighty cubits, and according to the other of eighty-five cubits, according to the consideration of the plane. For these two pavements seem to begin from the east from one and the same line as the inner court also, yet by five cubits they seem to extend beyond its boundary on the west — which from the foregoing [0575A] it is most evident to understand. Yet after the likeness of the inner court they too can have on that part a hundred cubits so far as the surface goes. The northern and the southern pavement, therefore, are raised from a twin side, but the eastern indeed and the inner court from one side only. But if it is asked concerning the inner court how much it was raised on the one part, this is easily and without scruple discovered by one skilled in the discipline of geometry. Without doubt the court, which had eighty cubits at the base and a hundred at the surface, was higher by sixty cubits in its more eminent part. We can deliver most certain rules of this matter, but we fear to be burdensome to the simpler sort. We shall meanwhile give some proof of this matter, by which anyone, however simple, may [0575B] grasp a trial of our assertion.

[0575C]Let a line of any magnitude be drawn out, divided into five equal sections, and marked at the several sections with several letters. And let the lying line be A B C D E F. Above this, at the fourth section, that is, upon E, let another line be erected, in such wise that it lean more to neither part, but make on this side and on that right angles, and equal to one another, and contain three measures, each of them severally equal to the aforesaid sections. And let the line erected upon E be E G H K. Let yet a third line be drawn out from A to K, obliquely raised. This [0575D] therefore being done, taking a compass, if you find the first and the third line, that is, A F and A K, equal, you will hold by your own experiment the credit of our assertion. Let it be supposed, then, that each section is of twenty cubits. A F, therefore, that is, the first line, will be of a hundred cubits; and A K, equal, namely, to it, that is, the third line, will be of just as many cubits. But the erected line, that is, E K, will have sixty cubits. The court, therefore, as has been said, which had eighty cubits at the base and a hundred cubits at the surface, was without doubt higher by sixty cubits in its more eminent part; the form of which matter you have manifestly in the triangle A K E. But this triangle's base, that is, the lying line, and of it which the hypotenuse, that is, the inclined line, if you draw them out to whatever length, [0576A] and apply to them the cathetus, that is, the line erected orthogonally, of whatsoever magnitude you make the triangles, you will see its three lines always answer to one another in the same proportion. For always the hypotenuse will be to the base *sexquiquarta*, and the base to the cathetus *sexquitertia*. From the outer side of the eastern gate, therefore, unto the front of the porch of the temple the height of the mountain grew by two hundred and ten cubits, if the steepness of the same mountain rises uniformly in that direction. Since therefore any portico whatsoever held sixty cubits from the outer side unto the inner side, the earth on the inner side, according to the aforesaid tenor of the steepness, was more eminent by forty-five cubits. But the seven or eight steps of ascent, of which we read above, [0576B] we believe to occupy the breadth of the wall alone, which was of five cubits, or of seven feet and a half, so that there is a step to each foot, and the eighth step can be numbered, or not numbered, with the other seven.

Hence it is that concerning the outer southern portico we read: *And by seven steps was the ascent to it;* and likewise concerning the inner southern: *And there were eight steps by which the ascent was through it.* Were those on which the ascent was made to it outside it, and those on which the ascent was made through it inside it, so that the breadth of fifty cubits, which was within the walls, should have only eight steps? who would think so? But the ascent was made to it [0576C] and through it by those very steps which the breadth of the wall held. On them the ascent was through it, because the wall was of it; and on them the ascent was to it, because through them there was access to its inner parts.

Now, therefore, from the aforesaid we can conjecture how great the height of one portico is. For the inner gate, as we read, had thirteen cubits of height; to which if we add those two cubits which the gate, as was said above, had in front as far as the upper chamber, the sum rises to the fifteenth number. But from the roof of the little chamber, that is, from the floor of the upper chamber, unto the roof of the gate there were, as is read, twenty-five cubits. Let these twenty-five be joined to the foregoing, [0576D] and we have forty. To all these we add yet five cubits above the roof of the gate itself, as it were for making battlements, and thus we fill up forty-five cubits of height on the inner part. But it was, as was said above, lower by forty-five cubits on the outer side; and according to this its whole height on the outer part seems to rise to ninety cubits. It seems indeed to have two upper chambers on the outer part, but one on the inner part; and of the third and innermost little chamber it is said to be:

*And he measured the gate from the roof of the little chamber unto its roof.* [0577] [0579]

## CHAPTER XVI. *A description of the temple and of its porch.*

*And he brought me into the porch of the temple, and he measured the porch, five cubits on this side and five cubits on that.* In that he says "on this side and on that," we ought to understand it not concerning the gate of the temple, but of the porch. But the breadth of the gate, as is read afterward, was of ten cubits. Whence it is agreed that the whole length of the porch, as is afterward [0580] determined, was of twenty cubits. There follows:

*And the breadth of the gate, of three cubits on this side and of three cubits on that.* If we consult the usage of speech, we are accustomed to accommodate the name of "gate" to a threefold sense. For by the name of gate we sometimes designate the door itself, which is opened and shut. Sometimes the opening itself, or the approach, through which passage is made. Sometimes the compass itself by which the opening is girt, [0581A] that is to say, that part of the wall which embraces the door, and is discerned to be unlike the rest of the wall in material or in form for the sake of ornament, and to overtop it. For we understand one thing and another when we hear or read "he carried off the gates of the city," or "he stood in the gate of the city," or "he adorned the gates of the city with varied marble and varied carvings." By an equivocation of this kind the sense is confounded in this place also, unless it be subtly discerned. But it is agreed from what follows that the breadth of the gate was of ten cubits, and that the sides of the gate (that is, either leaf) hold five cubits of breadth. That therefore which is read in this place, "he measured the breadth of the gate, of three cubits on this side and of three cubits on that," it behooves us to understand according to the third acceptation. He measured, therefore, the breadth of the gate, of three cubits, [0581B] that is, the wall itself, adorned with varied carvings up to that much of space. Which sense Scripture itself also seems to determine in that it says "on this side and on that." "But the length of the porch, of twenty cubits, and the breadth, of eleven cubits." The length of the porch extended along the breadth of the temple, and therefore one measure of both is found; "and by eight steps was the ascent to it," that is, to the gate; "and there were pillars at the fronts, one on this side and one on that." These pillars we believe to have been placed on this side and on that, over against the aforesaid three cubits of the gate, where he measured the breadth of three cubits on this side and of three cubits on that. *And he brought me into the temple, and he measured the fronts, six cubits of breadth on this side, and [0581C] six cubits of height on that, the breadth of the tabernacle [n: (Ezech. XLI)]*. [var: Vulg. reads "of breadth" in the second member also, not "of height"] Let those see how they understand this place concerning the breadth of the tabernacle, who dispute concerning the construction of the tabernacle. For to determine that in this place I do not think to be of the present business. But that he is said to have measured the fronts, of six cubits of breadth on this side and of six cubits of height on that, we can understand in this manner: First he measured how much of breadth there was in the side of the gate as far as the wooden wall which carried the sides which are afterward described, on the inner part of the gate. Secondly he measures not what breadth there was on the other side — for this he weighs from the measure already taken — but what height there was from the upper parts of the gate as far as the first upper chamber; but if the unfolding of the leaves [0581D] had ten cubits, and the breadth of the temple within the walls was of twenty cubits only, it is consequent that we understand those projections on this side and on that, against which the leaves were beaten back when the gate was shut, to be of one cubit in breadth, and the opening itself between those projections to have eight cubits. Otherwise we cannot find six cubits on this side and on that. There follows: *And the breadth of the gate, of ten cubits; and the sides of the gate, of five cubits on this side and of five cubits on that.* Behold what we said above concerning the breadth of the gate, or of the leaves. After these things the length and breadth of the temple itself is determined, when it is said: *And he measured the length, of forty cubits, and the breadth, of twenty cubits.* The outer house being described, he passes to the inner house, and describes in [0582A] these words that which is called the holy of holies: *And having entered within, he measured in the front two cubits, and the gate, of six cubits.* Just as in the former description he first of all measured the breadth of the gate, of three cubits on this side and of three cubits on that, so here first of all he measured two cubits in the front, that is to say, that part of the wall which seemed to pertain to the ornament of the gate.

But it must be noted that the compass of ornament of this kind, as well of this gate as of the former, seems to gird them on three parts, that is, from above and from either side. But at the former gate the measure is taken on either side, and what is to be thought concerning the upper parts of the gate is silently intimated. But here he who measures seems to take the measure in the upper parts of the gate, [0582B] and to show by intimating what ought to be thought of either side; this seems to be that which there he is said to measure "on this side and on that," but here "in the front." There follows:

*And the gate, of six cubits, and the breadth of the gate, of seven cubits.* If the projections on this side and on that about the opening, against which the leaves were beaten back, be understood to be not of one cubit, as above, but of half a one, what is said will be manifest. In that therefore he says the gate of six cubits, [is] to understand the opening itself between the projections. But that which he adds, "and the breadth of the gate, of seven cubits," it behooves us to refer to the breadth of the leaves. For if the opening between those projections was of six cubits, and had a projection of half a cubit on this side and on that, it is manifest that the coupling of the leaves [0582C] held seven cubits of breadth. Above he said what of breadth there was in the side of the gate, but how much of breadth the opening had he did not openly say, which nevertheless he left to be understood along with it. But here, conversely, he determined the measure of the opening, and gave to be understood along with it what of breadth it had on either side. For if the opening itself extends to six cubits only, without doubt on either side seven cubits of breadth are found. But that the same breadth was in the upper parts of the gate and in the side, he showed above. But how different it was in this place, he does not at all say. What else therefore does he seem to intimate by keeping silence, save that we ought to estimate like things of like? It is given therefore to be understood that there are seven cubits [0582D] of breadth in the upper parts of this gate, as also on either side.

It must indeed be noted how he says some things openly and intimates others by keeping silence. And how he alternates this very manner of speaking, and displays, so to say, the skill of his art. For what in the first place he expresses openly, this in what follows, when he has come to a like place, he silently intimates; and conversely, what in the foregoing he had intimated by keeping silence, this in what follows he manifestly determines. This is what we marvel at in carvings, where the intricacies of knots are woven. For what in one coupling of the interlacings is laid over that it may appear, in that which follows is laid under that it may disappear. There follows:

*And he measured the length, of twenty cubits, and the breadth, of twenty cubits, before the face of the temple.* [0583A]But how the length and breadth of the inner house is described in these words, is shown by the determination that follows, when it is said: *And he said to me: This is the holy of holies.*

But it must be noted that this measure of length or of breadth, as well of the outer as of the inner house, is equal to that measure which we read concerning the temple of Solomon. But double to that which we find concerning the tabernacle. But since Scripture in this place is altogether silent concerning the height, it can be doubted concerning the outer house to which it ought to answer: whether to the temple of Solomon according to equality, or to the tabernacle of the covenant according to the said proportion. For it will have twenty cubits if it be double to the measure of the tabernacle, but thirty if it be equal to the measure [0583B] of the aforesaid temple. But if we say that there were thirty cubits of height as far as the first upper chamber, it behooves us to concede that the gate, of ten cubits of breadth, has a height too tall and very incongruous to its breadth, that is, of twenty-four cubits. For from the aforesaid we have that there were only six cubits of height above the gate. But if it be said that the height as far as the first upper chamber was of twenty cubits, consequently the gate as well of the outer as of the inner house will have a height apt and congruous to its own breadth. For the outer will be of fourteen, the inner of thirteen cubits. Behold how from the height of six cubits which he had above taken above the gate, [0583C] the height as well of either gate as of the upper chamber is gathered, which he had not openly said. But how much of thickness the wall of the temple had, he determines when he subjoins: *And he measured the wall of the house, of six cubits.* There follows: *And the breadth of the side, of four cubits, on every part round about the house.* By these sides which he now describes I understand nothing else than certain walks arranged along the wall, within and without, on the two sides of the temple; and they were, from the lower parts as far as the upper, one after another immediately joined to one another. Whence is that which follows:

*But the sides, side to side, twice thirty-three.* And perhaps they are for this reason called sides, because they were on the sides of the temple only, and not on the fronts. But since [0583D] there was a height of twenty cubits only beneath the first upper chamber of the temple, it could not hold more than three sides. For as is read in what follows, from the foundation of the one unto the foundation of the other there was a space of six cubits only. There were therefore three within, from the bottom as far as the upper chamber, and thirty without, from the bottom as far as the top. But the inner parts of the temple in their upper portions did not have sides of this kind, as the things that follow make manifest. Well therefore is it said "twice thirty-three," in that there were thirty-three on the one side and thirty-three on the other. But he adds yet more concerning the description of these sides, when he says: *And there were projections which entered through the wall of the house, on the sides round about, that they might hold, and might not touch the wall of the temple.* [0584A] Beams, therefore, projected from the walls and supported the sides; but for this reason the plankings which were founded upon them did not everywhere reach as far as the wall, namely, that they might admit sight, and that the gaze of those looking on might run freely from the lowest parts as far as the upper, and, comprehending the whole under one view, might be able to judge of the whole. There follows:

## CHAPTER XVI. *A description of the temple and of its porch.* (cont.)

*And there was a pavement rising up in a round by a winding stair, and it carried into the upper chamber of the temple by a circuit. Therefore the temple was preferable in the upper parts, and thus from the lower parts the ascent was made to the upper into the middle.* [var: Vulg. *latius*, "wider"] A way of this kind, ascending by steps and bending itself into a circuit, we see daily in the ascents of towers, or of lofty buildings of this kind. But in that he says, "therefore the temple was wider [0584B] in the upper parts," he manifestly determines that the sides described did not everywhere reach as far as the topmost parts of the upper chambers, or were altogether not in the upper parts of the temple; and therefore the amplitude of the temple was wider there, where it had no obstacles of this kind between the walls. But that which is said, "and thus from the lower parts the ascent was made to the upper into the middle," seems to show that this temple had two upper chambers, and to divide it into three dwellings. But in that which is called "the middle," we understand the first upper chamber, in that that first upper chamber was the middle of the three dwellings. Above he had described the breadth of the sides in that he said: *And the breadth of the side, of four cubits, on every part round about the house.* But now he describes their height [0584C] in that which he here subjoins: *And I saw in the house the height, the sides founded to the measure of a reed, by a space of six cubits.* He does not say "of six cubits and a palm," although he has premised the measure of the reed. Whence from this place also we can note what we have already said above concerning the measure of the reed: "and I saw," he says. But where did he see them? In the house. But in what manner he saw the height, [so also] the sides founded round about; therefore they were in the house, and according to the height of the house they were founded one above another. There follows:

*And the breadth by the wall of the side without, of five cubits.* It seems to me that the same place is designated in these words which is afterward called the place of prayer. It was, therefore, of five cubits in breadth, as it were [0584D] a certain appendage made alongside the wall of the first and lowest side, that there might assemble there for the sake of prayer those who either could not or dared not enter the temple. He measured, therefore, a breadth of five cubits adhering to the first side from end to end along its whole wall on the outside. There follows: *And the inner house in the sides of the house.* This is said for this reason, lest the sides should be thought to be lacking about the inner house; "and between the chambers a breadth of twenty cubits round about the house on every side." Concerning these chambers he has as yet said nothing, but, certain things concerning the place of prayer being interposed, he straightway subjoins their description. *And the door,* he says, *of the side for prayer: one door toward the northern way [sic: Aquilenis], and one door toward the southern way, and the breadth of the place for prayer [0585A] of five cubits round about.* Behold, he repeats concerning the place of prayer, that he may add. For above he had neither called that place the place of prayer, nor [said] that it was round about, that is, that it encompassed the temple on three sides. Let us now gather into one the things we have heard concerning the measure of the temple, and let us first see concerning its breadth. In the first place the temple itself, within the walls, nay rather within the sides, held twenty cubits of breadth. But the inner sides on this side and on that it had of four cubits, and the walls of six cubits of breadth. The sum of these rises to forty. But the outer sides had likewise on both sides four cubits of breadth, and the place of prayer had five on either side. All which if you gather into one, without doubt you find fifty-eight. There remains [0586A] therefore on both sides a way of one cubit between the temple and the chambers, which we read above to be over against the twenty cubits of the inner court. But this way could be beneath the projection of the roof which covered the place of prayer, and then the front of the temple filled up sixty cubits. But the length of the temple is read to have been of a hundred cubits, as is expressed in what follows and is gathered from what precedes. For the temple itself had forty cubits of length within the walls, but the holy of holies twenty, and the porch eleven of the breadth of the temple. But the four walls held twenty-four cubits, and the place of prayer five cubits. All these, if you reduce them into one, you will fill up the sum of the hundred. [0585]

## CHAPTER XVII. *A description of the buildings which lay next to the temple.*

[0587A]

But now it seems that we must speak of those chambers concerning which it is said:

*And between the chambers a breadth of twenty cubits round about the house on every side [n: (Ezech. XLI)]*.

Now we taught far above concerning these chambers, which lay about the temple, how they were distant from one another by twenty cubits. But because the separate building, as was shown above, extended itself a hundred cubits between the northern and the southern house, and a space of twenty cubits still lay between on either side, it is plain that between the northern and the southern house there were a hundred and forty [0587B] cubits according to the level; whence it is agreed that between the temple and each house there were, this one thence, forty cubits: for it was shown that the remaining sixty are taken up by the breadth of the temple.

But how will a space of forty cubits be able to contain that court, of which it was said above, of fifty cubits in breadth? But plainly what the place did not have according to the level accrued to it from the swelling of the mountain. If therefore we understand that court to have forty cubits according to the level and fifty upon the surface, we shall see that the slope of the mountain in this place and in the aforesaid courts answers to itself in the same proportion. For a hundred stands to eighty in the same proportion as fifty [0587C] to forty.

After the description of the temple there is joined the description of the separate building: and the building which was separate and turned toward the way looking to the sea, of seventy cubits in breadth. But the wall of the building was of five cubits in breadth round about, and its length ninety cubits. All these things, as I judge, are sufficiently plain from what has gone before, and therefore they do not need another exposition.

But by "the sea" he here means that which far afterward he calls the great sea, which was on the west: for there was another on the east, which he calls the eastern.

But after he had said that this building was turned toward the sea, he at once brings in something concerning its breadth, that by that very thing he might hint according to which dimension it was turned toward the [0587D] sea.

But it must be noted that, because the temple, the separate building, the adjoining court, and the building both northern and southern were of one length, he records the length of them all under a single continuation:

*And he measured,* he says, *of the house* (that is, of the temple) *the length, a hundred cubits; and that which was the separate building, and its walls, of a hundred cubits in length.*

*The breadth before the face of the house, and of that which was separate toward the East, of a hundred cubits.*

*And he measured the length of the building over against the face of that which was separate at the back, the ethecae on either side, of a hundred cubits.*

[0588A]It must indeed be noted that that breadth of a hundred cubits, which he measures before the face of the house, that is of the temple, can be called both breadth and length, but in different respects. For if you consider that whole court in which the temple was situated between the northern and the southern house, from the south to the north it will be of a hundred and forty cubits in length, and of a hundred cubits in breadth toward the East, just as he here says. But if you attend not to the whole, but to any one part on whichever side of the temple, it will be, as is read in what follows, of a hundred cubits in length and of fifty cubits in breadth.

But under the following sentence he determines the site of the buildings. For the building described above was separate at the back of the temple, and over against its own face [0588B] it had, on this side and on that, on either side of the temple, a certain building.

*And he measured,* he says, *the length of the building over against the face of that which was separate at the back, the ethecae on either side, of a hundred cubits.*

You see surely that on either side there was a building, and that each had ethecae, and that by that very thing whereby he measured the ethecae he also took the measures of the houses.

We understand these ethecae to be certain fore-lofts [sic: *Ante solaria*], which, as Jerome testifies in these words, at Rome they call lofts projecting from the walls of the upper chambers, which some of the Greeks call *exedrae*.

What follows seems to be a recapitulation with an addition:

[0588C] *And the inner temple, and the porches of the court, the thresholds and the oblique windows, the ethecae round about on three sides over against the threshold of each, and paved with wood round about in a circuit.*

But it is plain why he said the temple was inner, because it held the middle place among the aforesaid buildings. He names them porches of the court, because they lay next to the court.

But above he had marked out ethecae on either side, while here he says they are on three sides; whence it is agreed that the separate building also had ethecae. From which fact we prove that there is the same likeness in the three, as much in quality as in quantity. But the ethecae, as is said, were over against the threshold of each one, because they projected outwardly from the upper chambers themselves. [0588D] For lest they should be thought higher or lower than the upper chambers themselves, the positions of the fore-lofts are expressed by the thresholds of the lofts.

By "the paving of woods round about" he means the planking with which the lower parts of the ethecae were floored, which, as has been said, seemed to gird the three sides of the temple: *But the earth,* he says, *was up to the windows.*

Whence it can be proved how great the slope of the mountain was, since the walls of the buildings which were on the temple's side had the earth up to the windows.

But in that he says cherubim and palm trees up to the inner house — this having been the holy of holies — he seems to wish to determine that the inner sanctuary did not have carvings of this kind. They were therefore, as is said, [0589A] up to the inner house, that is, in the outer temple, and outside, that is, in the porch, which by the same consideration seems able to be called "outside" by which the inner house is called "within." They were, I say, in the temple and in the porch, throughout every wall round about, not only within but also outside, wrought to measure, both the cherubim and the palm trees.

There follows:

*And a palm tree between cherub and cherub, and the cherub had two faces.*

*The face of a man beside the palm tree on this side, and the face of a lion beside the palm tree on the other side, set forth throughout all the house round about.*

*From the ground up to the upper parts of the gate cherubim and [0589B] palm trees were carved on the wall of the temple.*

*A four-square threshold, and the face of the sanctuary, sight over against sight of the wooden altar.*

All these things, as I judge, are plain of themselves, and do not need our exposition.

But the last sentence expresses the site of the inner altar, in that it was placed in the middle of the temple over against the gate of the sanctuary. This was the altar of incense. For that one which he touched on briefly above, and of which he treats more fully in what follows, was the altar of holocaust.

But by the words that follow he seems to express not only the manner of quantity, but also the fashioning [0589C] of the work

And so he says:

*Three cubits its height, and its length two cubits.*

These things are referred to quantity; the following to quality:

*And its corners, and its length, and its walls, of wood.*

Perhaps he was silent concerning the breadth for this reason, that the length and the breadth were the same, and that in whichever direction it could be called length, just as in whichever it could be called breadth. But it seems to have four timbers set upright at the four corners according to the height, to which four others were coupled both above and below, [0589D] laid out according to the length and the breadth, to which boards were fastened and joined together into a single frame. He calls them corners, therefore, for this reason that [sic: *qnod*] those timbers which were raised at the corners held the corners. But he names as "length" those timbers which measured the length of the altar.

And by "walls" he means the joining of the boards by which their gaping was covered.

There follows:

*And he spoke to me this is the table before the Lord.*

And after these things is added the description of the doors both of the temple and of the sanctuary:

[0590A] *And there were two doors in the temple and in the sanctuary.*

*And in the two doors on either side there were two little doors apiece, which folded one into the other. For there were two doors on either side of the doors.*

I think it is manifest from this place that the same noun is set down in a different acceptation. Otherwise how will it stand, that he says: "There were two doors on either side of the doors"? That which he first calls "doors," then, is to be referred to the fabric which was of wood. That which he afterward calls "of the doors" is to be referred to the entrance which lay open in the wall. But the wall was of six cubits' thickness, and that very thickness of it held two doors, as much in the temple as in the sanctuary. For one was in the wall on the inner side and the other on the [0590B] outer. And of these two doors one hung on the right and the other on the left, after which manner it was in all things also in the temple of Solomon.

This is what is said there: « And two doors of fir wood on either side, and each door was divided in twain [n: (III Reg. VI, 34)], » this is what he had said above: "Sides of five cubits." What there he calls "sides," here he calls "little doors." These sides were coupled with iron fastenings, and when the gates were opened they were folded one upon the other. Just as it is said here, so it was said there, that by holding one another they were opened. And for this reason one door was divided into two and folded together, lest it should exceed the breadth of the wall while it was being opened.

[0590C] *And there were carved on the doors themselves of the temple cherubim, and the sculpture of palm trees, just as they were set forth on the walls also.*

All these things are sufficiently plain of themselves.

But rightly is it subjoined:

*Wherefore there were thicker timbers on the front of the porch outside, over which were the oblique windows.*

For the matter required thicker timbers to be there, where for the sake of adornment there had to be worthier and excellent carvings. And it is given to be understood from these words that the walls were covered with timbers, just as in the temple of Solomon.

There follows:

*And the likeness of palm trees on this side and on that, on the little shoulders [0590D] of the porch, according to the sides of the house and the breadth of the walls.*

These things are plain:

*And he led me out into the outer court by the way leading to the north, and brought me into the chamber which was over against the separate building.*

It is agreed that he treated of the front of the porch of the temple in the last place, from which place he now seems to pass through the northern gate of the inner court into the chamber described. Rightly indeed. For this chamber certainly had its face toward the aforesaid walk of ten cubits in breadth, which began from that place where [sic: *sta*] portico was joined to the portico of the northern house, [0591A] and where, as is gathered from this place, namely on the side of the triple portico, an approach lay open to that chamber:

*And he brought me,* he says, *into the chamber which was over against the separate building, and over against the edifice verging to the north.*

*In the face of the length, a hundred cubits of the door of the north, and of the breadth, fifty cubits.*

*Over against the twenty cubits of the inner court, and over against the pavement laid with stone of the outer court, where there was a portico joined to the triple portico.*

*And before the chambers a walk of ten cubits in breadth, looking toward the inner parts, of a way of one cubit; and their doors toward the north.*

[0591B]We have expounded the description of all these things above so diligently that we do not know whether we ought to add anything (unless perhaps for the exposition of the letter) to what has been said. By "the door of the north" he means that door of the temple of which he had spoken above, and "the door of the side toward prayer. One door toward the north." Not yet indeed, because what he first set down as if in the singular, he afterward marked out in the plural. "And he brought me," he says, "into the chamber," and in what follows, "and before the chambers a walk of ten cubits in breadth, looking toward the inner parts, of a way of one cubit." But that which follows, "And their doors toward the north" — if *earum* is read there, it is to be referred to the porticoes; but if *eorum*, it is to be referred to the chambers. For in either case the sentence will be able to be true.

[0591C]There follows:

*Where the chambers were lower in the upper parts.*

## CHAPTER XVII. *A description of the buildings which lay next to the temple.* (cont.)

Because they supported the porticoes which projected from them, from the lower and from the middle parts of the building. The description of the walk having been premised, it is well added where the chambers were; for they were beside the walk, and clung to it on the north.

This too must be noted, that he says "porticoes" in the plural, which before he called "portico." Indeed, as is easily weighed by these words, both the house and its portico were divided into a threefold storey. For if the building had lower parts and middle parts, it certainly had highest parts also. For a middle is not spoken of save with reference to two extremes. And so the house had, as also [0591D] did its portico, chambers at the bottom, one upper chamber in the middle, and another upper chamber at the top. The portico too had chambers in the lower parts over against the chambers of the house, which chambers supported the porticoes. For there were porticoes in the upper parts of these, one over against the first upper chamber and another over against the second upper chamber, which were supported by the chambers. The lower portico projected from the inner parts of the building, because it was situated above the chambers, which answered to the lower parts of the buildings. The upper portico projected from the middle parts of the building, because it was situated above the first portico, which answered to the middle parts of the building. Let us now consider of what sort that is, that the chambers are said to be lower in the upper parts. Indeed, if we estimate the steepness of the mountain about this place according to [0592A] the former manner, we shall find the earth on one side of the building, on the temple's side, higher by sixty cubits than on the other side. But who would not know that, reason requiring it, the pavements of the buildings must be laid upon some level surface? Lest therefore we should think that the earth had been hollowed out on one side by sixty cubits, Scripture says that the chambers are lower in the upper parts, that we may understand one chamber divided into several, and that each has its own pavements — level indeed in themselves, but some more elevated than others, and, according to the ascent of the mountain, raised one above another after the manner of steps. Where therefore the pavements were more elevated, there the chambers were lower, that is, having less of height; and this same thing we understand of those chambers which were beneath the porticoes. [0592B] The same of that division of the six porticoes which we distinguished into seven portions according to the breadth and the ascent of the mountain. The same we judge concerning the chambers which were about the pavements. And for this reason these divisions were indeed long, but little broad. For the same chambers are read to have been of fifty cubits in length, which nevertheless seem to have not more than nine cubits in breadth. Yet these divisions of the chambers seem not so much fenced off by walls as distinguished by columns — yet so that a wall of no small height (as is wont to be done in cloisters) supported these columns, a wall which would receive the elevations of the pavements and set apart the gradations of the elevations. And so in this the chambers of the outer court differed from [0592C] these chambers, that those had columns, but in these there were none.

*For they were three-storeyed,* he says, *and had not columns, such as were the columns of the courts.*

But well is it added concerning these porticoes, "therefore they projected." Because they were supported by the chambers, therefore they projected; and it is indeed subjoined how, or how much, they projected from the earth.

*They projected,* he says, *from the lower and from the middle parts of the building, from the earth by fifty cubits.*

If this over-projection of the porticoes is marked off from the earth upward by fifty and fifty cubits, the whole height of the house seems to have a hundred and fifty [0592D] cubits. But the lower portico did not everywhere project fifty cubits from the earth, but on that side where the earth was lower. But because according to the aforesaid reckoning the earth on one side of the house, on the temple's side, was higher by sixty cubits, and the first upper chamber of the house, according to the description of the portico, projected on the other side by only fifty cubits, the earth seems to project outwardly by ten cubits on the temple's side above the pavement of the first upper chamber. What therefore we read above, that the earth was up to the windows, we ought to understand of the windows of the first upper chamber, so that one went down to its doors by certain steps, as we see in cellars. But we weigh the ethecae to be over against the higher upper chamber. [0593]

[0593B]But since the chambers which were beneath the porticoes clung, together with those very porticoes, to the house, they had on the inner side one wall common with the house itself; which wall indeed was longer than the chambers of the porticoes by as much as the breadth of the house exceeded their length. By the outer wall therefore, which clung to the outer court, the length of the chambers is expressed, when it is added: *And the outer enclosure along the chambers which were in the way of the outer court, before the chambers, its length fifty cubits.*

It must indeed be noted that he does not say that the portico itself [0594B] has fifty cubits in length, but that its outer enclosure, that is, that wall which it had toward the outer parts, was of fifty cubits in length — lest this measure be thought to have been taken within the walls, as in the porticoes above. It is plain therefore, as we have already said above, that it had one wall common with the house, so that it ought to be counted into the measure of both, so that there may be settled concerning the chambers of this portico that which is read of those chambers which are described after the likeness of these. *According to their length,* he says, *so also their breadth.* But that seems to be a general [0595A] sentence which is brought in beneath, when it is said: "That the length of the chambers of the outer court was fifty cubits." For since it is said, not "of them," but "of the chambers," a reference to the aforesaid does not seem to have been made, but a general sentence uttered, so that one length may be understood of all the chambers of the outer court.

## CHAPTER XVIII. *On the other things which remain, unto the end of the description.*

After the description of the chamber which was over against the twenty cubits of the inner court and over against the pavement of the outer court, and after the description of the portico clinging both to the pavement and to the triple portico, see with what wonderful reasoning he repeats what he said far above. *And the length,* he says, *before the face of the temple [0595B] a hundred cubits.* Did he not express this same thing when he defined both the length and the breadth of the inner court? But the prophet understood that it followed, according to the description of the aforesaid, that the length before the temple could not have a hundred cubits according to the level. But by repeating the same again he admonished by inculcation that it without doubt had in some manner what, according to the consideration of the level, it could in no wise have. There follows:

*And beneath these chambers there was an entrance from the East for those entering into them from the outer court, in the breadth of the enclosure of the court which was over against the eastern way, in the face of the separate building.* What the chambers are that are before these chambers, and what the entrance is beneath these and above those, that is, between both sets of chambers, [0595C] we have already said above, and we avoid repeating the same; but the court which he here records was not only in the face of the separate building, but also in the face of the northern house, and that for the greater part. But because the separate building stood farther off from it, it is said chiefly of that of which it seemed less. The chambers being described which were beneath the porticoes of the northern house in the way of the north — whose likeness those which had been beneath the porticoes of the separate building held in all things — he brought in their description compendiously enough by the adjoining of the likeness, when he says: *And before the building there were chambers, and a way before their face, after the likeness of the chambers which were in the way of the north.* If these [0595D] chambers had in all things the likeness of those which were in the way of the north before the northern house, then they supported the porticoes which projected from them, from the lower and from the middle parts of the building. Likewise in the rest we understand one likeness in both, as we have taught above, and we ought not to repeat the same. One thing which he seemed to have passed over above, namely their breadth, he seems in this place to determine, and he embraces in one utterance the measure both of these and of those, when it is said: *According to their length, so also their breadth.*

The description being completed of all the buildings which were toward the north, he comprehends in a brief sentence those which stood toward the south, when he says: [0596A] *And every entrance of them, and the likenesses, and their doors, according to the doors of the chambers which were in the way looking toward the south wind.* A door at the head of the way, which way was before the separate porch, for those entering by the eastern way. Whatever we have said concerning the chamber which was over against the twenty cubits of the inner court, whatever concerning the edifice verging to the north, or its porticoes, whatever we have taught above concerning the walk or the entrance, the whole of it we ought to understand of those things which were toward the south, according to the manner of their site, so that in these and in those there be entrance according to entrance, and likenesses according to likenesses, and doors according to doors, so that in all things throughout all there be on both sides one likeness. See nevertheless how shrewdly he expressed by name one thing [0596B] concerning which there could most be doubt. For perhaps someone would with difficulty believe that the separate building had two porches, lest by having two it should in this exceed the form of the other edifices, since in all the rest it had held the same likeness with them. He says therefore: *A door at the head of the way, which way was before the separate porch.* If there was a way before the separate porch on the one side, there will without doubt be both a way and a porch on the other side, so that on both sides there be one likeness. But this is plain, that the head of that way looked toward the East, which way began from the outer court beside the portico of the northern building. But manifest are the other things which follow, up to that place where it is said: *And when he had completed the measures of the inner house, he led me out by the way of the gate which [0596C] looked toward the eastern way, and he measured it on every side round about.* By "the inner house" he means the temple, which held the middle place among the other buildings. In that he says "he measured it," it must be understood either as that inner house, or as that way, or as that gate. But how had he completed the measures of the inner house, if it still had to be measured? But that he measures in this place the wall dividing between the sanctuary and the place of the common people is most manifestly determined. And so he was measuring the outer gate of the eastern way on every side in this, that he was taking the measures of that wall on this side and on that. And he measured toward the east wind with the measuring reed five hundred reeds by the measuring reed [0596D] round about. And he measured toward the north wind five hundred reeds by the measuring reed round about. And toward the south wind he measured five hundred reeds by the measuring reed round about, and toward the west wind he measured five hundred reeds by the measuring reed. By the four winds he measured it. But what that is, as has already been said, whose measure he took, he shows by a subjoined determination, when he says: *Its wall,* he says, *on every side round about, a length of five hundred cubits and a breadth of five hundred cubits, dividing between the sanctuary and the place of the common people.* It perhaps troubles someone that the same wall is said to have five hundred reeds and five hundred cubits, since the reed is read above to have been of six [0597A] cubits. But nothing hinders our understanding a diversity of reeds, since the manifest sentence of the prophet compels us to this very thing. But if this place of Scripture seems to suffice less for its own testimony as to the diversity of reeds, let us see what is said in what follows, where after a few things the measure of the altar is described: *But these,* he says, *are the measures of the altar in the truest cubit, which had a cubit and a palm.* What is this truest cubit, in which there was a cubit and a palm? Either this is said of the instrument, that is, of the reed, by which measuring is done, or of the measure which is taken by the instrument. For we call a "pole" both that with which we measure and the measure which we take. So "palm," so "cubit," so "sextarius" is said both of the measure by which measuring is done and of the measure [0597B] which is measured. If therefore in this place we take the cubit not as the instrument but as the thing measured, how will it be the truest cubit where there was a cubit and a palm, that is, more than a cubit? But if by "cubit" we understand the instrument, that is, the reed, we call it truest in this, that it had a cubit wherewith it might measure, and a palm whereby it might be held while measuring. And it could be (which I myself also believe) that in the reed of six cubits, on that part where the palm was over, one cubit together with that same palm was set apart and determined by some sign, wherewith indeed that had to be measured which remained below the measure of the full reed. As therefore a part of bread is called bread, and a part of a house is called a house, so a part of a reed could be called a reed. But eighty and [0597C] three reeds with a third of the greater fill up five hundred of the lesser. Perhaps therefore, that he might avoid enmities — nay rather, without doubt for the sake of a certain mystery, that he might express a full and mystical number — he set down in this place the lesser reeds, and what had to be taught mystically he expressed by a mystical number.

## CHAPTER XIX. *On the description of the altar of holocaust.*

It still remains to speak of the altar and to explain its description. *But these,* he says, *are the measures of the altar in the truest cubit, which had a cubit and a palm. [n: (Ezech. XLIII)]*. Concerning this cubit we have already taught above, and we ought not to repeat the same. In its bosom there was a cubit, and a cubit in breadth, and the definition [0597D] up to its lip round about, of one palm. That I may briefly run over the measure of the whole altar: it was of five cubits in height, and up to the end of the fourth cubit it had twelve cubits as much of length as of breadth. But from the fourth cubit upward it had a certain projection of one cubit on every side, so that in its topmost parts, over against the fifth cubit, the altar was of fourteen cubits in length and fourteen in breadth. That projection therefore had one cubit of height and one cubit of breadth on every side beyond the measure of the altar, so that of it may be understood what he says, "In its bosom there was a cubit, and a cubit in breadth." But the upper half of this topmost cubit the crown of the altar occupied; the remaining half [0598A] was beneath the crown. And the crown itself had one palm of thickness. Whence is that: *And the definition up to its lip round about, of one palm.* In this place "definition" is the same as "termination." And so the topmost extremity of the [sic: *altars*], or of the crown, where the altar was terminated or finished, was namely of one palm's thickness. But there was still, about that same extremity of the crown, another certain small projection hanging round on every side, which he also calls the lip. Whence also he says: *And the definition up to its lip round about, of one palm.* Or perhaps more rightly a certain opening, which was in the middle of the altar from the top down to the lowest parts, is described in that which is said: *In its bosom there was a cubit and a cubit in breadth.* But let the other things which follow be expounded according to the former [0598B] sense. There was also beneath the altar itself a certain ditch of two cubits in depth, which received the ashes that flowed down through that opening. Whence also he adds: *This too was the ditch of the altar; and from the bosom of the earth up to the last brink, two cubits, and the breadth of one cubit.* He describes the depth and the breadth, and is silent about the length; yet he hints at it in this, that he shows the two cubits to be terminated at the last brink, that is, at the base of the altar. And so its length seems to me to begin from the front part beneath the base of the altar, and to extend itself even behind the back of the altar, so that it might be able to receive the blood which was poured out at the base, and behind the back of the altar might lie open, as it were, for drawing out the ashes that flowed in. There follows:

[0598C] *And from the greater brink up to the lesser brink, four cubits, and the breadth of one cubit.* By "brink" we may mean the abrupt breaking-off, or the cutting-off, of some flat or surface. He calls the lesser brink, therefore, the base of the altar, which was of twelve cubits; but the greater brink he calls the base of the aforesaid projection, which was of fourteen cubits. And so from the one brink to the other there were four cubits, according to the height of that which was called Ariel, and the breadth of one cubit according to the breadth of the projection. But well did he set down the one cubit separately and with a determination. For the placing of the four cubits rose on high, but the situation of the one cubit bent itself to the side and spread out in breadth. But beginning from the greater brink, [0598D] why did he not first set down the one cubit, which according to this order comes first, unless because he wished, after the manner of the Latins, to set the greater number first? But he would seem to have set it down more orderly if he had wished to say thus: "and from the lesser brink up to the greater brink, four cubits, and the breadth of one cubit." This order the Seventy followed, who set it thus: *From the lesser propitiatory up to the greater propitiatory,* designating by propitiatory and propitiatory the same places which we understand in the brinks. And indeed rightly enough could these two places be called propitiatories, because in these two places the blood was wont to be placed or poured out for expiation and propitiation: *But the Ariel itself of four [0599A] cubits.* By "Ariel" he means the body itself of the altar, which was of four cubits in height, as has been said, above which the projection spoken of above rose. Which perhaps he named Ariel, that is, *strong lion*, for this reason, that after the manner of a lion it devoured and swallowed up the victims of the people through that opening already spoken of. And from the Ariel upward, four horns, namely at the four corners of the altar. *And the Ariel of twelve cubits in length by twelve cubits of breadth, four-square with equal sides.* This is said of the body of the altar, as we have already taught above. *And the brink of fourteen [0600A] cubits in length by fourteen cubits in breadth at its four corners.* And of this likewise we have said above, that a measure of this kind was about the upper parts of the altar. And a crown round about it of half a cubit, namely of height. For concerning the thickness it was said above: *And its bosom of one cubit round about.* Recall the two senses which we set down above: according to the first, what is now said will be a superfluous repetition; according to the second, it will be a necessary addition for completing the height of the altar.

## CHAPTER XX. *A description or division of the land of promise, and what portion is owed to the priests, and what to the Levites.*

[0599B]

*Concerning this sanctified place he at once adds a few things, that it is for the priests, and far afterward in what follows. as if he should say, there will be in all the aforesaid sanctified place another sanctified place, in which will be the sanctuary, and the temple, so that it may itself rightly be called the sanctified place of the sanctified place, just as [0599C] it is wont to be said, the holy of holies.*

*That he says "from this measure" is not to be referred only to what is nearest, but to the whole which is comprehended in the verses above. What is now bidden to be measured is that which a little after is said ought to be the Levites'.*

[0600B] *It is plain from what comes after that the temple was in the lot of the priests. That therefore he says "in it" is to be referred to that measured thing concerning which it is premised, "and from this measure." For in the middle of that measure was the temple. But the interposition subjoined, and the reference made in the neuter, makes the letter obscure.*

*By these two following verses he determines whose those two aforesaid measures ought to be, and in the first indeed concerning the first. The sanctified place,* he says, *of the land shall be for the priests; as if he should say: That which above I named the sanctified place — that, I say, shall be for the priests.*

[0600C] *This is that measure which he set down in the second place, where he says: Thou shalt measure a length of twenty-five thousand, and a breadth of ten thousand.*

The sanctified place of the land, a length of twenty-five thousand, and a breadth of ten thousand. It shall be sanctified in all its border round about. And on every side there shall be a sanctified place, five hundred by five hundred, four-square round about, and fifty cubits for its suburbs [0599C] round about.

And from this measure thou shalt measure a length of twenty-five thousand, and a breadth of ten thousand.

[0600B]And in it shall be the temple, and the Holy of Holies.

The sanctified place of the land shall be for the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary, who draw near to the ministry.

[0600C]And there shall be for them a place for houses, and a sanctuary of holiness; but twenty-five thousand of length and ten thousand of breadth shall be for the Levites, who minister to the house.

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0