title: Expositio de tabernaculo

source_edition: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 196, coll. 211B–255

source_text:
## TRACTATUS PRIMUS.

## PROLOGUS.

[0211B]

Rogatus ab amicis aliqua in explanationem tabernaculi scribere, timui, fateor, eorum petitioni satisfacere, ne viderer in eo ipso Patrum auctoritati derogasse. Dat tamen tentandi ausum ipse, qui vulgatam expositionem edidit, dum inter exponendum adjungit. Haec, inquit, de re difficillima prout nobis intellexisse visi sumus, strictim explicare curavimus, parati veriora in his discere, si quis nos docere voluerit. In quibus tamen omnibus patet allegoriae sensus perlucidus. Ecce quam fidenter de allegoriae sensu proponit, qui tamen litterae expositionem sub ambiguitate praemisit. Qui igitur certitudinis suae testimonium allegoricae expositioni tam fidenter dat, historicae denegat, patenter innuit, quod in illa sua [0211C] expositione nec sibi ipsi satisfecerit. Quid me arguis, vel cogis credere illi in quo nec ipse credit sibi? Sed, ut verum fatear, illos quos jam constat summae veritatis contemplationi assistere, timeo magis offendere, quam propitios reddere si cognitam veritatem dubitavero quasi ob reverentiae eorum gratiam in commune proferre. Attendamus quam multa, quam magna, quam profunda cum omni diligentia pertractaverunt, quam multa historice, quam multa allegorice, quam multa tropologice miranda ratione exposuerunt, et tunc desinet esse mirum si alicui loco minus sufficientem expositionem reliquerunt. Non est ergo magnum, vel mirum si in uno aliquo aliquid possumus addere, quod ad majorem evidentiam, vel planiorem intelligentiam possit proficere. [0211D] Haec propter illos dicta sunt, qui nil acceptant nisi quod ab antiquissimis patribus acceperunt. Sed qui assidue producit novos fructus ad recreationem hominis exterioris, nunquam credendus est nullos de caetero [0212B] scientiae profectus impertiri, ad innovandos sensus hominis interioris? Ubi ergo illud est, quaeso, pertransibunt plurimi, et abundabit scientia? Nemo itaque mihi, obsecro, indignetur, si de messe Domini remanentes spicas, et quae messorum manus effugere poterant collegero, et esurientibus atque petentibus libenter eroganero.

## CAPUT PRIMUM. *De fabricatione arcae.*

Praecepturus Dominus Moysi de constructione tabernaculi, primo omnium instruxit eum de arca fabricanda, ut ex eo ipso innueret quod quaedam dignitatis praerogativa longe praecederet caetera omnia, quae in tabernaculo erant facienda. Quae autem dicuntur de ejus materia vel mensura seu fabricandi modo satis [0212C] patent, et expositione non indigent. Quatuor circulos per quatuor angulos fieri praecipit: sed quomodo hoc intelligendum sit consequenter ostendit: *Duo,* inquit, *sint in latere uno, et duo in altero [n: (Exod. XXV)]*. Erant itaque non usquequaque in angulis, sed juxta angulos: duo in latere uno, et duo juxta angulos in latere opposito. Dubitari potest quid de propitiatorio sentire oporteat, eo quod auctor ipsum seorsum describat. Sed nihil aliud intelligo propitiatorium nisi arcae ipsius operculum, tabulam videlicet quamdam de auro purissimo ex integro factam: unde et habebat cum arca tam in longitudine, quam in latitudine unam per omnia eamdemque mensuram. Sed, ne super hoc tibi aliquid ambiguitatis remaneat, audi quid de arca, audi quid de propitiatorio Scriptura [0212D] ipsa proponat. Nam de arca scribitur: *In qua pones testimonium quod dabo tibi [n: (ibid.)]*, et longe post de propitiatorio: *Coram,* inquit, *propitiatorio quo tegitur testimonium ubi loquar tibi [n: (Exod. XXX)]* Testimonium [0213A] quod in arca ponitur quomodo, quaeso, propitiatorio tegitur, nisi quia non aliud est ejus operculum, et aliud propitiatorium! Sed dignitatis ejus excellentia innuitur in eo ipso quod separatim describitur. De ipso propitiatorio Divinitatis responsa juxta divinae propitiationis modum, modo dabantur, modo non dabantur. Merito ergo propitiatorii nomen accepit in quo Dominus propitiationis suae praerogativam exhibere, vel ostendere consuevit. Intelligendum est autem quod corona illa aurea quae arcae suprema ambiebat ubi et affixa erat, totum illud propitiatorium intra se includebat, et se altius erigendo spissitudini ejus supereminebat.

## CAPUT II. *De factura duorum cherubin.*

[0213B]De cherubin dicit quod mutuo se respiciant. Corpore quidem ad exterius tabernaculum versi erant; sed versis vultibus in eam partem intendebant qua arca de sub alis eorum in medio stabat. Illi duo cherubin qui in templo Salomonis erant, ad horum absque dubio similitudinem facti fuerant. Quod itaque de illis legimus, de istis et aeque intelligimus, quod cherubin unus tangebat ala sua parietem unum, et alius ala sua tangebat parietem alium [n: (II Paral. III)]; aliis autem alis in medio tangebant se vicissim. Sicut itaque illi de templo, sic nec isti super arcam et propitiatorium stare poterant, quia nonnisi bicubitum et semissem longitudinis arca habebat. In illis vero cherubin extensio conjunctarum alarum decem cubitos, in istis quinque cubitos tenebant. Quod igitur de istis dicitur [0213C] quod essent super arcam testimonii, non sic debet intelligi quasi ipsi arcae insisterent, sed quod ipsi arcae toto corpore supereminerent.

## CAPUT III. *De formatione mensae.*

Ut autem de forma mensae breviter dicam quod sentio, videtur mihi esse quasi arca sine fundo; ita tamen ut superior superficies intelligatur omnino plana et inferioribus immobiliter affixa. Ejecturam vero quamdam auream suprema mensae ambientem habebat: quam et auctor ipse propter similitudinem labium vocat: cui et corona quatuor digitorum altitudinis adhaerebat. Erat autem ipsa variis caelaturis ornata; et prout caelaturae varietas exigebat, [0213D] crebris intercisionibus perforata: unde et interrasilis dicta. Hinc erat et alia superposita quasi virgula quaedam rotunda et plana, sive ex pluribus velut virgulis perplexa, et primae illi ob firmitatem et decorem conjuncta; imo ita omnino unita, ut ambae viderentur esse una. Haec de mensa sufficiunt: nam caetera per se satis nota sunt.

## CAPUT IV. *De factura candelabri.*

Nunc de candelabro videndum est; circa id maxime unde dubitari potest. Scyphi ejus in modum nucis describuntur. Scyphus autem medietatem sphaerae habere videtur. Habet itaque rotunditatem concavam et vacuam et a superioribus praecisam. Nux vero ab imo se dilatando in ventrem distenditur: [0214A] a superioribus autem paulatim se acuendo ad unum punctum in summitate colligitur. Scyphus itaque habet rotunditatem sphaericam, sed praecisam, et concavitatem vacuam; nux autem rotunditatem oblongam, nec tamen vacuam vel praecisam. Quoniam igitur duo habebat communia cum scypho (vacuam scilicet concavitatem cum rotunditatis praecisione) scyphum, non nucem vocat: et quia solum habebat commune cum nuce (rotunditatem scilicet oblongam) non nucem nominat, nucis tamen similitudinem habere denuntiat. Habebant itaque ornatum hujusmodi tam hastile quam omnes sex calami, primo rotunditatem velut nucis oblongam, sed praecisam; postea rotunditatem sphaericam, quam vocat sphaerulam; et post duo haec adjuncta sibi habebat [0214B] florem in modum lilii. Itaque hastile primo ad primum scyphum quasi in ipsum deficiebat: et iterum velut de medio floris cum duobus hinc inde calamis emergebat. Eodem modo intelligendum est loco secundo, et tertio. Similem vero ornatum excepta ad junctione calamorum habebat in summo. Habes autem ex similitudine hastilis quid intelligendum sit de calamis.

Notandum vero quod sphaerula dicitur esse sub duobus calamis per tria loca hastilis. Radices namque calamorum florem lilii non tam habebant sub se quam circa se, sphaerulam autem omnino habebant sub se. Ecce de candelabro; nunc videndum est de tabernaculo.

## CAPUT V. *De modo et mensura cortinarum.*

[0214C]Notandum in primis quod quidam quasi pro auctoritate recipiunt, quidquid in Josepho de istis scripta reperiunt. Putant enim eum (utpote Judaeum) tabernaculum vidisse, et eo ipso tam vera quam nota scripsisse. Mihi autem secundum testimonia Scripturarum luce clarius constat quod tabernaculum nunquam viderit. Nam quae, quaeso, Scriptura, vel saltem fingit ipsum reportatum de loco ubi illud Jeremias ex divino responso abscondit? Libenter recipiatur Josephus in his quae per experientiam novit, vel ex authenticis scripturis colligit. Nam ubi aliter sentit, confidenter ei Exodum praefero, vel quoscunque libros in canone reperio. Verba itaque auctoris in medium proferamus: et ex ipsis inquantum Dominus [0214D] dederit, quid de tabernaculi constructione vel erectione sentiendum sit eliciamus. Praecipit ergo fieri cortinas decem, viginti octo cubitorum longitudinis et quatuor cubitorum latitudinis. Ait itaque de his cortinis: *Quinque cortinae sibi jungentur mutuo, et aliae quinque nexu simili cohaerebunt [n: (Exod. XXVI)]*. Ex quinque igitur cortinis facienda erat cortina una, et ex quinque aliis cortina alia. De his magnis cortinis intelligitur quod sequitur: *Ansulas hyacinthinas in lateribus, ac summitatibus facies cortinarum, ut possint invicem copulari.* Ecce dicitur quod ansulas habeant in omni parte; nec tamen dicitur quod sint in summitatibus, sed tantum quod habeant in utroque latere. Sed tacendo de uno, quod determinat, de alio dat auctor intelligere, ut [0215A] secundum modum laterum fiant et ansulae summitatum. *Quinquagenas,* inquit, *ansulas cortina habebit in utraque parte, ita insertas, ut ansa contra ansam veniat, et altera alteri possit aptari.* Quod dictum est ansam ansae coaptandam, intelligendum est in conjunctis lateribus. Nam quid de reliquorum laterum ansis sentiendum sit, melius videbitur in sequentibus. Sequitur: *Facies et quinquaginta circulos aureos, quibus cortinarum vela jungenda sunt: ut unum tabernaculum fiat.* De eodem in sequentibus legitur: *Unde et quinquaginta fudit circulos aureos, qui morderent cortinarum ansas.* Ex his intelligi datur quod circuli denticulos quosdam inhaerentes haberent, qui ansulas per circulos trajectas mordiciis apprehenderent: sicque duo vela in unum constringerent. [0215B] Ecce de cortinis.

## CAPUT VI. *De factura sagorum.*

*Facies et saga cilicina undecim ad operiendum tectum tabernaculi. Longitudo sagi unius habebit triginta cubitos, et latitudo quatuor. Aequa erit mensura sagorum omnium, e quibus quinque junges seorsum: et sex sibi mutuo copulabis, ita ut sextum sagum in fronte tecti duplices [n: (Exod. XXVI)]*. Duo hic dicunt notari: et quod debeat duplicari, et quod duplicatum debet esse in fronte tabernaculi. Duplicetur itaque non pars sagi tantum; sed ipsum sagum a summo usque ad summum, ut sic plicatum et duplicatum teneat, triginta cubitos in longitudine, et duos tantum in latitudine. Sequitur: *Facies et quinquaginta [0215C] ansas in ora sagi unius, ut conjungi cum altero queat: quinquaginta ansas in ora sagi alterius, ut cum altero copuletur. Quinquaginta fibulas aeneas quibus jungantur ansae, unum ex omnibus operimentum fiat.* Quod dicitur de fibulis sagorum, vel ansulis conjunctorum laterum, intelligi per omnia debet juxta similitudinem cortinarum. De ansis extremitatum tacet, quia juxta praemissam similitudinem posse intelligi praevidet. Habet itaque operimentum cortinarum cubitos viginti octo sagorum, triginta juxta dimensionem unam. Item cortinarum quadraginta, sagorum vero quadraginta duorum juxta dimensionem aliam. Ecce de factura utriusque operimenti, et statim adjungit unde intelligi possit quomodo [0215D] unum superducendum sit alteri: *Quod autem superfuerit in sagis quae parantur tecto, id est unum sagum quod amplius est, ex medietate ejus operies posteriora tabernaculi: et cubitus ex una parte pendebit; et alter ex altera: qui plus est in sagorum longitudine utrumque latus tabernaculi protegens.* Consideremus interim haec ac si tentandi, vel ostendendi gratia in plano alterum superponeretur alteri, ut postmodum plenius intelligatur quomodo sibi coaptari debeant in erectione tabernaculi. Copula itaque cortinarum primo sic extendatur, ut exterius latus primae cortinae sit ad Orientem, decimae vero ad Occidentem. Summitates autem earum hinc inde sint, ille ad Austrum, iste ad Aquilonem. Huic ergo velo cortinarum superducatur velum sagorum ita ut [0216A] unum ad alterum aequiformiter se habeat ab omni parte, et videbis superpositum circumquaque cortinas uno cubito excedere. Haec superductio sagum duplicatum ad Orientem habeat. Nam tabernaculum ad illam partem frontem habebat. Si igitur saga cortinis conferas et singula singulis compares, videbis unum sagum numero superesse. Si vero consideres quantum utrumque velum se possit extendere, videbis in sagorum copula solam sagi medietatem superabundare: si positionem attendas, videbis illam medietatem postrema tabernaculi operire; non quod tota illa medietas extremitatem tabernaculi transeat, sed quod dicta extremitas contra medium illius medietatis jaceat, et operimenti more aequam illius partem utrinque habeat. Dicit ergo: *Quod autem [0216B] superfuerit in sagis,* etc. Littera sic legatur: Ex medietate autem ejus quod superfuerit in satis quae parantur tecto, id est sagum unum. Nam undecimum sagum ibi est supra numerum cortinarum: ex medietate, inquam, illius undecimi sagi operies posteriora tabernaculi. Caetera satis patent.

Notandum quam congruo ordine agit de omni tabernaculi parte, prius de ejus fronte, ubi jubet sagum duplicare, postea de posteriori ejus extremitate, quam jubet ex undecimi sagi medietate operire. Tertio de utroque ejus latere, ubi dicit utrinque cubitum unum ex sagorum superabundantia dependere. Si quis autem dicit quia dicta medietas intantum posteriora operit inquantum extrema cortinarum excedit, et sic intelligi debere contendit: nec sic quidem, vel [0216C] juxta hunc intellectum oportet concedere totam illam medietatem in ejusmodi usum cedere, quamvis dicat ex illa medietate id fieri oportere. Nam qui dicit Evam ex costa factam, verum dicit; et qui dicit Evam ex viro factam, nihilominus verum dicit; nec tamen tota viri substantia, sicut costa in ejusmodi facturam cessit. Si cui vero quod dictum est satisfacere non potest, et contendat totam illam medietatem extrema cortinarum transire debere, et idcirco in fronte tabernaculi tam saga quam cortinas ab una linea incipere, melius censeo alieno intellectui cedere quam contentionibus deservire.

## CAPUT VII. *De gemino operimento arietinarum pellium.*

[0216D]Sequitur: *Facies et operimentum aliud tecto de pellibus arietum rubricatis, et super hoc rursum aliud operimentum de hyacinthinis pellibus [n: (Exod. XXVI)]*. Quod operimentum hyacinthinum sit supra operimentum rubricatum invenio, quod autem haec duo sint supra tectum cilicinum in auctore non invenio. Sed sunt qui putant eumdem ordinem servandum in erectione qui servatur in descriptione. Sed videant ne forte ratio ista omnino sit nulla. Nam prius describuntur cortinae, posterius tabulae, et tamen in erigendo prior est erectio tabularum quam extensio cortinarum. Ego autem magis credo auctorem propter similitudinem facturae descriptionem sagorum descriptioni cortinarum adnectere. Frequens est in Scriptura sacra indeterminatum relinquere, quando [0217A] facile est quid eligendum sit ex ratione colligere. Asperioris autem naturae est sagum cilicinum; mollioris vero pelles arietum. Pellium ergo mollitie, sagorum asperitas intercluditur, ne crebra asperitatis confricatione cortinarum teneritudo attereretur. Arietinum operimentum geminatur, ut si primum per medium sagorum humectaretur, secundum siccum permaneret, ita ut nullam injuriam cortinarum teneritudo sentiret, vel sentire potuisset. Sunt qui putant arietina operimenta a summis non descendere: et hoc unde probetur vellem audire. Nam si verum est, non poterant cortinae vel post unam nimiae tempestatis pluviam in sua pulchritudine perdurare. Sed et illud constat quod supremum tabernaculi planam, non cristatam superficiem habebat: [0217B] et quomodo (secundum quod quidam scribunt) propter sui decorem stuporem aspicientibus ingerebat, si in ea tantum parte hujusmodi decorem habebat qua videri non poterat? Sed et illud audire vellem, quomodo ejusmodi operimentum ibi in summis inhaerebat.

## CAPUT VIII. *De modo et mensura tabularum.*

Sequitur: *Facies et tabulas stantes tabernaculi de ligno setim, quae singulae denos cubitos in longitudine habeant et in latitudine singulos, ac semissem [n: (Exod. XXVI)]*. Ecce de tabularum mensura; et adnectitur statim de earum incastratura. Duo autem sunt incastraturae genera. Primum ubi unum tabulae latus cavatur, alterum acuitur; et sic una tabula alteri infigitur. Sed hujusmodi incastratura in partem neutram [0217C] reddit superficiem planam. Est et aliud genus incastraturae quod sit in utroque latere. Nam hinc fit quaedam praecisura lateris usque ad medietatem tabulae ex parte interiori; illinc identidem, sed a parte exteriori: et tabularum incisura incisurae inseritur ut totus paries una tabula videatur, et superficies utrinque perplana reddatur. De hujusmodi incastratura intelligitur quod sequitur: *In lateribus tabulae duae incastraturae fiant, quibus tabula alteri tabulae connectatur.* Erant autem viginti tabulae cum quadraginta basibus in latere australi: totidem vero et ejusdem mensurae in latere aquilonari. In occidentali autem parte, octo tabulae cum decem et sex basibus erant. Nam singulae tabulae duas bases argenteas [0217D] suppositas habebant. Sunt qui tradunt angulares tabulas hinc inde dimidium tantummodo cubitum habere. sed unde hoc probetur, non possunt ostendere. Sed parum, ut mihi videtur, attendunt generalem sententiam quam in principio descriptionis legunt: *Facies,* inquit, *et tabulas stantes tabernaculis de lignis setim, quae singulae denos cubitos in longitudine habeant, et in latitudine singulos ac semissem.* Si singulae habent cubitum et semissem in latitudine, ergo et angulares tabulae. An forte quia de eis separatim agitur, recte singularem mensuram habere dicuntur? Imo tanto magis diffitendum; quoniam cum de eis seorsum agit, in nullo earum mensuram a generali regula excipit. Cui istud quod de tabulis diximus non sufficit: audiat quid auctor [0218A] longe post de basibus dicit. Fuerunt praeterea centum talenta argenti e quibus conflatae sunt bases sanctuarii, et introitus ubi velum pendet. Centum bases factae sunt de talentis centum singulis talentis per bases singulas supputatis. Si angulares tabulae tertiam tantummodo partem latitudinis habuerunt, quomodo cum reliquis pares bases acceperunt? Sed dicunt tabernaculum solummodo decem cubitos latitudinis tenere: et inde colligunt quod jam dictum est de angularium tabularum latitudine. Quod tabernaculum triginta cubitos longitudinis habeat, unde probetur invenio. Quod autem decem cubitos tantum latitudinis teneat, unde probetur non invenio. Dicam tamen quid inde soleat animum pulsare, unde hoc possumus magis conjicere quam probare. [0218B] Credimus illud Salomonis templum juxta modum suum ad hujus tabernaculi similitudinem factum. Juxta ergo similitudinis rationem erit tabernaculi longitudo tripla ad latitudinem. Juxta similitudinis rationem erit longitudo interioris domus aequalis ad latitudinem, subdupla vero ad exterioris domus longitudinem. Possumus tamen et illud quod de tabernaculi latitudine conjicimus, et ipsum quod generaliter de tabularum mensura legimus inconcussum tenere, si dicamus angulares tabulas decimum cubitum qui sex tabulis superest ex medietate cubiti hinc inde implere, et uno cubito utrobique excedere. Nam inde procul dubio tabernaculum robustius stabat, et impulsum ventorum validius tolerabat. Talem credo dispositionem designare voluit qui dixit: [0218C] *Ad occidentalem vero plagam tabernaculi facies sex tabulas; et rursum, alias duas quae in angulis erigantur post tabernaculum;* et rursus, alias de eisdem fecit sex tabulas, et duas alias per singulos angulos tabernaculi retro. Respectu enim parietum hinc inde dicuntur retro, vel post tabernaculum esse. Nam si parietibus a latere tantum jungantur, non erit cujus respectu retro, vel post tergum dicantur. Erit itaque, juxta hoc quod dictum est, occidentalis frons tabernaculi decem cubitorum latitudinis interius, et duodecim cubitorum latitudinis exterius. Vide ne forte hoc sit quod Ezechiel intelligi voluit, cum in templi descriptione inter caetera adnectit (et mensus est frontes sex cubitos latitudinis hinc, et [0218D] sex cubitos latitudinis inde) latitudinem tabernaculi [n: (Ezech. IV)]. Istud suo loco plenius exposuimus. Sed illud hic tantum attendendum quod latitudo tabernaculi dicitur duplicatus senarius.

Et notandum quod tantum habuit orientalis pars templi circa portam interius, quantum tota latitudo occidentalis partis tabernaculi exterius. Est autem indubitanter tenendum juxta lectionem Exodi, quod quinque vectes essent per omnes tres parietes tabernaculi: unus circa summum tabularum, alius circa imum, tertius circa medium, quartus inter medium et summum, quintus inter medium et imum. Nam illa quorumdam de quinque cubitorum vectibus sententia videtur tam frivola, auctoritati vero tam contraria, ut nec videatur refellenda.

## CAPUT IX. *De erectione tabernaculi.*

[0219A]

Restat adhuc et illa de tabernaculo dicere quae addenda sunt de ejusdem erectione. Prius ergo erigebantur tabulae super bases; postea per circulos inducebantur parietum vectes. Deinde inserebatur vectis ille qui ad continendos parietes per medias tabulas secundum librum de angulo in angulum ibat, ubi in introitu tabernaculi velum dependebat. Post haec injecti funes per transversum tabernaculi fortiter extendebantur, et ad paxillos eminus a tabernaculo fixos firmiter adnectebantur. Sicque fiebat ut et tabernaculum ipsum contra violentiam ventorum firmum et inconcussum continerent, et operimentum ipsius supportarent, ne in superioribus ventrem [0219B] faceret; et inundantium pluviarum aquas colligeret, ne vicissim ex incremento collectionis ipse sinus, et ex incremento ipsius sinus collectio aquarum cresceret, donec tandem ponderis nimietas operimentum omnino disrumperet, vel avulsum ad se introrsum et deorsum traheret. In occidentali vero plaga funes ab interiori parte aduncati per parietum summitatem ad inferiora oblique descendebant, et ad paxillos firmiter annexi tabernaculum ab ea parte continebant. Similiter ab orientali plaga debemus intelligere funes a dicto vecte, et ab extremitatibus parietum descendere et a paxillis protensos ab ea parte tabernaculum continere. Qui tabernaculum quasi infantiae pannis involvunt, ad quos usus paxillos [0219C] habeat invenire non possunt, cum tamen de his in hunc modum legunt si volunt: *Cuncta vasa tabernaculi in omnes usus et caeremonias; tam paxillos ejus quam atrii ex aere facies [n: (Exod. XXVII)]*.

## CAPUT X. *De superductione operimentorum.*

Tabernaculo erecto et funibus distenso, juxta praedictum modum, superducendum est primo velum decem cortinarum, ita ut prima habeat latus exterius ad Orientem; ultima vero earum latus exterius habeat ad Occidentem. Juxta eam itaque dimensionem qua dictum est superius totum velum quadraginta cubitos habere, uno solummodo cubito descendat a fronte, triginta vero expandantur in tabernaculi longitudine; reliqui autem novem cubiti [0219D] oblique per funes descendant a posteriori par te. Juxta eam vero dimensionem qua viginti octo cubitos habuit, decem medii cubiti expandantur in tabernaculi latitudine; novam autem hinc, et novem inde in utriusque lateris descensione. Tunc vero funibus ad primos paxillos e regione frontium hinc inde annexis; et postea per primas laterum ansas inductis, et iterum ad alium paxillum aduncatis; et sic vicissim, modo ad ansas, modo ad paxillos funibus aptatis atque constrictis, velum super distentos primitus funes distendatur, ita ut quoddam quasi appendicium per tres tabernaculi partes fecisse videatur. In illis vero ansis quas orientale latus in fronte gerebat, injectum funem habeat per quem debeat velum ab ea parte extendi, ne ulla vi ventorum possit [0220A] laedi, vel aliqua distensione a debito tenore deflecti. Super hoc velum extendatur operimentum rubricatum, super quod et illud operimentum hyacintinarum pellium. In supremo debemus velum sagorum superducere, ita ut videatur in omni parte cortinarum velum cubito uno excedere, sicque ut duplicatum sagum totum habeat in fronte. Et sicut de velo cortinarum docuimus, sic et hoc velum, et juxta eamdem similitudinem ad paxillos astringere et extendere debemus. Ecce jam palam est intelligere quomodo sagum duplicetur in fronte, quomodo posteriora tabernaculi tegantur ex undecimi sagi medietate, quomodo cubitus unus pendeat ab utroque latere. Ecce quomodo dicta cortinarum distensio, velut quoddam appendicium per tres tabernaculi [0220B] partes efficiat: quod quidem sacerdotibus ad induendas, vel deponendas sacras vestes, vel alios ejusmodi usus deservire poterat, in quo et illi qui tabernaculum intrare non audebant, tabernaculi decorem perpendere valebant. Ad quid enim decor dependentium cortinarum, ad quid aurum annulorum, ad quid deauratio vectium, ad quid exterior deauratio tabularum, si sic totum involvitur ut a nemine videatur, si sic totum involvitur ut ad nullos usus, ad nullam utilitatem habeatur? Ad quid aliud velum juxta cortinarum similitudinem in introitu tabernaculi fieri oportuit, si reductio cortinarum totum introitum clausit? Cum solum sextum sagum per Moysen jubeantur duplicari in fronte, cur et aliud [0220C] juxta quosdam, duplicatur similiter in posteriori parte? Sed si illa eorum reductio ibi fiat, ubi in fronte sextum sagum dependet, utique ipsum sextum sagum ibi non modo duplicatur, sed ad minus triplicatur, At si contra tres cubitos infimos qui dependenti sagorum velo supersunt, reductio reductioni superducitur, ut sextum sagum duplicetur, et ipsa superductio, ut propter praeceptum consistere valeat, vinculis alligatur, proculdubio jam non erit unde a sacerdotibus intretur. Quae de duobus velis sequuntur satis per se patent et expositione non indigent.

## CAPUT XI. *Descriptio altaris holocausti.*

De altari holocausti sequitur, quod in hunc modum describitur: *Facies et altare de lignis setim, [0220D] quod habebit quinque cubitos in longitudine: et totidem in latitudine, id est quadrum, et tres cubitos in altitudine. Cornua autem per quatuor angulos ex ipso erunt [n: (Exod. XXVII)]*. Hoc altare quatuor tantummodo parietes habebat. Nam in superioribus apertum erat: et, sicut in sequentibus legitur, non solidum, sed inane et cavum intrinsecus erat. Haec omnia satis sunt aperta. Sed quae de craticula sequuntur, valde sunt perplexa, et eo diligentius discutienda. Dico itaque prius quid mihi videtur; inde et postea conabor idipsum litterae ipsius auctoritate probare. Primo igitur duae aeneae virgae tantae grossitudinis, ut superposita holocausta et ligna supportare valeant, ducantur ab uno latere in aliud latus altaris; ita ut capita eorum prope [0221A] angulos exterius appareant, annulosque quatuor aeneos insertos habeant. Debent autem inseri ita ut una altaris medietas sit supra, alia vero infra. Ab his autem debent emergere introrsum quatuor aenei stipites quasi quatuor craticulae pedes. Duo scilicet hinc, et juxta latus unum; duo vero inde, juxta latus oppositum. In horum utique summitate debet fieri craticula, juxta videlicet librum in modum retis aenea. Fiat autem ad eam altitudinem, ut ipsa, et altare sibi respondeant ad unam aequalitatem. Erant itaque primo dictae illae virgae quasi craticulae bases, quatuor vero stipites quasi ipsius pedes. Haec autem omnia sibi invicem ita inseri et conjungi debent ut quasi unum corpus efficiant, et nec ab invicem nec ab altari avelli queant. Erant [0221B] autem duo ostiola in posteriori pariete, in superiori videlicet altaris medietate. Unum pendebat a latere uno, et alterum ab altero, et clausa contingebant se in medio. Altaris vero arula nihil aliud erat quam tabula quaedam aenea aliquantulum spissa. Nec arula per aditum dictorum ostiorum inferebatur, et super craticulae bases, et super ostium limen imponebatur; terra tamen prius tota illa altaris inferior medietas usque ad situm craticulae implebatur. Per hunc aditum ligna ingerebantur, unde ignis nutriebatur, per eumdem aditum cineres extrahebantur. Idcirco autem altare ipsum mediotenus terra implebatur, ut firmiter inter sacrificandum acret, et hoc ipsum ad illud Dominicum praeceptum stacederet: *Altare de terra facietis mihi [n: (Exod. XX)]*. Craticula [0221C] vero ipsi altari pro superiori superficie erat, ubi holocaustum imponi et igne supposito cremari consueverat. Inani itaque suspicione laborant, qui sine gradibus, vel aliqua sublevatione in altari sacrificari posse non putant. Nam tres tantummodo cubitos altitudinis habebat. Nunc autem illud considerare debemus utrum Scriptura ipsa concordet his quae de craticula jam diximus. De craticula sic legitur: *Craticulamque in modum retis aeneam,* ubi subauditur facies, *per cujus quatuor angulos erunt quatuor annuli aenei, quos pones subter arulam altaris.*

Nota quod annuli erant in craticulae angulis, et subter arulam altaris. Et additur: *Eritque craticula usque ad altaris medium.* Si usque ad altaris medium, [0221D] ergo vel ab imo sursum, vel a summo deorsum usque ad ejus medium. Conferamus cum hoc loco, quod longe in sequentibus de eadem craticula legitur cum dicitur: *Craticulamque ejus in modum retis fecit aeneam; et subter eam in altaris medio arulam, fusis quatuor annulis per totidem retiaculi summitates [n: (Exod. XXXVIII)]*. Si arula subter craticulam et in medio altaris erat, ergo craticula superiorem altaris medietatem tenebat, alioquin, ipsa subter arulam erat.

Notandum quod bases juxta aliquid de craticula erant, juxta aliquid de craticula non erant. Juxta aliquid videntur de craticula non esse; quia craticulae non solent bases habere. Juxta aliquid tamen de ipsa erant, quia eis insidebat. Recte [0222A] ergo de arula dicitur, quod subter craticulam esset, quamvis super bases jaceret: *Fusis,* inquit, *quatuor annulis per totidem retiaculi summitates.* Quandoque summitas idem sonat quod extremitas. Erant ergo aut in extremitatibus superioribus, aut inferioribus. Sed hoc ipsum determinatur ex eo quod in prima descriptione dicitur: *Per cujus quatuor angulos erunt quatuor annuli aenei, quos pones subter arulam altaris.* Si arula subter craticulam et annuli subter arulam erant: ergo in inferioribus summitatibus erant. Nam si in superioribus summitatibus essent, ut annulos arula sub se haberet, etiam craticulae summum, et sic totam craticulam sub se habere oporteret. Et nota quia si annuli subter craticulam, et in angulis ejus erant, ergo [0222B] aliquid craticulae subter arulam erat ubi anguli esse, unde et annuli dependere potuissent, ut sub ipsa essent. Erant itaque ubi bases subter craticulam jacentes et stipites in altum surgentes angulos faciebant, quia de basium extremitatibus dependebant. Subter arulam ergo annuli erant, non quod super illos jaceret, sed quod situ superiorem locum teneret. Restat nunc solum illud quaerere utrum iidem annuli sint et altaris et craticulae. Audiamus itaque quid ad jam dicta addatur in prima descriptione: *Facies et vectes altaris de lignis setim duos, quos operies laminis aeneis, et induces per circulos.* Erunt ex utroque latere altaris ad portandum. Si vectes sunt in utroque latere altaris, ergo et circuli per quos sunt et vectes inducendi. Habet [0222C] itaque et craticula annulos, et altare circulos. Sed nunquid sunt alii, et alii istius circuli, et illius annuli? Cum his itaque quae dicuntur in hac descriptione, conferamus illa, si placet, quae de eodem explicantur in recapitulatione: *Fusis,* inquit, *quatuor annulis per totidem retiaculi summitates ad immittendos vectes ad portandum: quos et ipsos fecit de lignis setim, et operuit laminis aeneis, induxitque incirculos qui in lateribus altaris eminebant [n: (ibid.)]*. Certe, ut audis, vectes ad immittendum in craticulae annulis fecit, quos, inquit, et ipsos in circulos altaris induxit. Certe craticula intra altare erat, cui arula in medio altaris subter erat. Sed nunquid annuli qui ex craticulae summitatibus dependebant similiter intra [0222D] altare erant? Quomodo ergo iidem ipsi vectes poterant immitti in annulis, qui interius latebant, et induci in circulis qui in lateribus altaris exterius eminebant? Sed quis hoc dicat? Oportet ergo esse eosdem ipsos et craticulae annulos et altaris circulos; et in ipsis vectes eosdem ipsos, et non alios et alios. Oportet ergo ut et ipsius craticulae summitates per medios parietes exterius appareant, ex quibus circuli dependebant, qui in altaris lateribus eminebant. Ecce quod de altari, vel ejus craticula superius diximus, litterae ipsius auctoritate probavimus. Sed quod de ostiolorum aditu dictum est, non tam manifesta auctoritate quam manifesta ratione colligi potest, sicut superius jam ex parte monstratum est.

## TRACTATUS SECUNDUS. De templo Salomonis ad litteram.

[0223]

[0223A]Descriptio templi Salomonis secundum librum Regum ex magna parte satis est aperta; in quibusdam autem locis multum perplexa et nimis obscura. Compellor autem quorumdam instantia, quibus libenter deservio, ubi in his explanatione opus est, dicere quod sentio. Tempus igitur aedificationis in primis exprimitur cum dicitur: *Factum est quadringentesimo et octogesimo anno egressionis filiorum Israel de terra Aegypti, in anno quarto mense Zio, ipse est mensis secundus, regis Salomonis super Israel, aedificare coepit domum Domino [n: (III Reg. VI)]*. Ad id quod dicit in anno quarto in construendo advertendum est: *Regis Salomonis super Israel.* Nam quod dicitur *mense Zio ipse est mensis secundus,* interpositio est. Hoc ipsum in Paralipomenon planius exprimitur, [0223B] ubi legitur: *Coepit autem aedificare mense secundo anno quarto regni sui [n: (II Paral. III)]*. Mensura templi determinatur, in eo quod sequitur. Domus autem quam aedificabat rex Salomon Domino, habebat sexaginta cubitos in longitudine et viginti cubitos in latitudine et triginta cubitos altitudine. Quod dicitur triginta cubitos altitudinis habere, vel debemus de prima mansione sub primo coenaculo intelligere. Nam tota altitudo domus pro certo centum viginti cubitos habebat, sicut liber Paralipomenon in haec verba declarat: *Porro altitudo centum viginti cubitorum erat.* Et quod coenacula habuerit idem liber in sequentibus ostendit: *Coenacula quoque texit auro.*

Notandum autem quod de mensura ista longitudinis [0223C] et latitudinis templi quam modo describit, intra parietes sumpta, sicut ex his quae de cherubin in sequentibus dicuntur manifesta ratio convincit. Mensuram porticus describit, cum adjungit: *Et porticus erat ante templum viginti cubitorum longitudinis, juxta mensuram latitudinis templi, et habebat decem cubitos latitudinis ante faciem templi.* Sequitur: *Fecitque in templo fenestras obliquas.* Hoc est interius latiores, et exterius strictiores. Erant autem tria deambulacra forinsecus parietibus adjacentia: unum in uno contra templi inferiora, secundum priori superpositum contra coenaculum primum, tertium secundo superpositum contra coenaculum secundum. Tabulata autem quae ista deambulacra [0223D] tegebant, subsequenter auctor describit, cum in haec verba subjungit: *Et aedificavit super parietem templi tabulata per gyrum in parietibus domus per circuitum templi et oraculi.* Has templo adjacentes coaedificationes lateraliter adjacebant; imo illi quasi pro lateribus erant: *Et fecit,* inquit, *latera. Tabulatum quod subter erat quinque cubitos habebat latitudinis. Et medium tabulatum sex cubitorum latitudinis. Et [0224A] tertium tabulatum septem habens cubitos latitudinis* Ecce de mensura. Additur adhuc et de modo: *Trabes autem posuit in domo per circuitum forinsecus ut non haererent muris templi.* Quod dicit ut non haererent muris templi de tabulatis, non de trabibus debet intelligi. Trabes namque contra pavimentum primi coenaculi muris appositae erant, quarum extremitates ex alia parte columnae excipiebant. Super has trabes stratum ligneum erat, quod primum deambulacrum quinque cubitorum latitudinis tegebat; ipsum tamen ligneum stratum seu tabulatum non usquequaque ad murum pertingebat. Juxta quod dixi de primo potest intelligi quid sentiendum sit de secundo et tertio, nisi quod singulorum mensura ab invicem differebat, secundum quod liber determinat. [0224B] Tabulatum quod supremum septem cubitorum latitudinis deambulacrum tegebat, tecto ipsius templi respondebat. Quoniam ergo paries templi trabes cum superpositis tabulatis portabat, idcirco dicit quod super parietem templi tabulata aedificavit.

Notandum autem quam convenienter unaquaeque mansio templi circa se deambulatoria habebat, ubi etiam tempore pluviae deambulandi, vel potius orandi gratia convenire poterant qui templum intrare non audebant. Quomodo autem, vel unde ab imo in medium, vel a medio latere in supremum ascenderetur, paucis interpositis satis aperte determinatur.

Sequitur: *Domus autem cum aedificaretur, lapidibus dedolatis atque perfectis aedificata est.* Quando aliquid satis pro modo consuetudinis dolatum subtilius [0224C] adhuc supra consuetudinem dolatur, quasi de eo quod dolatum est, dedolatum efficitur. Vel dedolatum, quasi de omni parte dolatum. Nam omnes lapides illius templi per omnes sex superficies erant dolati. Attende quam ordinate in sua descriptione procedit: nam ab exterioribus incipiens, post descriptionem laterum, de templi muro agit qui postea primo occurrit. Sed mirandum valde quod dicit, cum postea subjungit: *Et malleus, et securis, et omne ferramentum, non sunt audita in domo cum aedificaretur.* Et quidem de lapideo opere, hoc satis possumus intelligere. Nam omnes lapides simul, et omnia ligna erant alias dolata et cum summa diligentia perpolita. Sed sunt qui putant sine ejusmodi [0224D] instrumentis talem fabricam nullo modo posse erigi et ex tam multiplici materia in unum conjungi. Nam, ut de caeteris taceatur, quomodo sine alicujus generis malleo, aureo, argenteo, vel ligneo, vel alio aliquo clavi illi fortiter affigerentur, de quibus Scriptura in sequentibus loquitur. An forte cujusmodi mallei excipiuntur, determinatur in eo quod dicitur: *Et omne ferramentum non sunt audita in [0225A] domo cum aedificaretur?* Sed ut dicam quod sentio, non est mirum si in Salomonis operibus invenimus quod rectius mirari quam perscrutari possimus.

Sequitur: *Ostium lateris medii in pariete erat domus dexterae: et per cocleam ascendebant in medium coenaculum, et a medio in tertium.* Ecce hic habemus quod superius jam duximus. Nam in his verbis describitur quomodo, vel qua de infimo latere in medium latus ascenderetur et intraretur. *Ostium,* inquit, *lateris medii,* quod latus sex cubitorum erat, et inter infimum et supremum medium locum tenebat; *in pariete erat dexterae ipsius domus.* Quod dicit dexterae, legatur substantive; quantum ad id quod addit domus, transitive. Ecce qua et ubi intrabatur, sed quomodo illuc ascendebatur: *Et per [0225B] cocleam ascendebant in medium coenaculum.* Nota quam artificiose unum aperte dicit et alterum tacite innuit. Ostium medii lateris determinavit, et de ostio medii coenaculi tacuit. E converso autem de via ascensionis in medium coenaculum loquitur; de via ascensionis in medium latus tacite praeterisse videtur. Sed utrobique quod tacet de uno, dat idem intelligi ex eo quod dicit de altero. Una via ascensionis ad utrumque serviebat, et ad tringinta ascensionis cubitum introitus ad utrumque patebat. Haec via in pariete, id est in ipso muro in dextera quidem, hoc est australi parte erat, quae in girum gradatim ducta ad superiora ferebat: unde eam Scriptura cocleam, qualem etiam usus vitem vocat. Juxta id autem quod dictum enim de via et ostio [0225C] medii lateris, intelligere possumus quid de tertio sentire debeamus. Quod autem dicitur coenaculum medium, et tertium, non sic est intelligendum quasi ibi fuerit triplex coenaculum, sed quod illud de quo prius agit sit medium trium mansionum, et quod id de quo secundo loco agitur, locum teneat supremum, et tertium. In duobus coenaculis erat triplex tabulatum, utriusque videlicet pavimentum, et totius domus tectum, quae quidam putant in hoc loco dici triplex coenaculum. Sed si sic auctor sensisset, non utique dixisset: *Et per cocleam ascendebant in medium coenaculum et a medio in tertium.* Quin potius diceret: Et per cocleam ascendebant in primum coenaculum et a primo in medium, et a medio in [0225D] tertium. Sed nec recte dicitur ascendi in tabulatum, sed ad tabulatum.

Sequitur: *Et aedificavit domum, et consummavit eam.* Quamvis, inquit, esset fabrica grandis, et modus fabricandi mirabilis, ubi non est auditus malleus et securis; nihilominus tamen aedificavit et consummavit. Ab exterioribus incipiens, postquam egit de lateralibus extremis, adnectit statim et de extremitatibus supremis: *Texit quoque domum laquearibus cedrinis.* Quod de supremis laquearibus hoc dictum sit, ostenditur in eo quod dictum est: *Texit.* Additur adhuc de his quae erant in superiorum extremis: *Et aedificavit tabulatum super omnem domum quinque cubitis altitudinis.* Tectum domus, juxta morem Palaestinorum, creditur [0226A] fuisse planum. Quantum videtur ad hoc, haec tabulata quinque cubitorum altitudinis in supremorum extremitatibus per circuitum fabricata erant, ut a fortuito casu defenderent eos qui in superioribus deambularent. De tecto autem ipsius domus intelligitur, quod statim adjungitur: *Et operuit domum lignis cedrinis.* Descriptis templi exterioribus antequam de interioribus agat, ipsum opus ex divino responso mirabiliter commendat atque magnificat. In quo quidem lectores suos multum per omnem modum attentos et benevolos reddit, ne cui forte otiosum videatur quod singula quaeque tam diligenter describit.

Adjungit ergo auctor, et dicit: *Et factus est sermo Domini ad Salomonem dicens: Domus haec quam [0226B] aedificas si ambulaveris in praeceptis meis, et judicia mea feceris, et custodieris omnia mandata mea gradiens per ea, firmabo sermonem meum tibi quem locutus sum ad David patrem tuum, et habitabo in medio filiorum Israel, et non derelinquam populum meum Israel.* Haec omnia per se satis patent, et nostra expositione non indigent. Addo tamen et illud quod forte Salomon hoc Divinitatis responsum inter operandum accepit, et bono incoepto divina benevolentia benigno favore occurrit: et quo ordine sunt impleta, eodem et scripta.

Sequitur: *Igitur aedificavit Salomon domum et consummavit eam.* Hoc superius jam dixerat: sed ecce idem repetit, postquam ex divino responso ostendit cujus dignitatis et auctoritatis domus merito [0226C] fuerit, quam Dominus se velle inhabitare praedixit, ac si apertius dixisset: Opus quod tantae dignitatis fuit aedificavit et consummavit. Forte ista templi commendatio, et ad hoc poterit valere, ut legentium quilibet non me audeat arguere, ex eo quod viderit me obscuriora quaeque cum tanta diligentia discutere et explanare. Superius descripsit templi exteriora, nunc incipit describere ejus interiora: *Et aedificavit parietes domus intrinsecus tabulatis cedrinis.* Unus idemque paries marmoreus erat extrinsecus, et tabulis coopertus intrinsecus; nec in parte tantum, sed totus. Hoc est quod aperte determinatur, in eo quod subjungitur: *A pavimento domus usque ad summitatem parietum, et usque ad [0226D] laquearia operuit lignis intrinsecus.* Operuit itaque lignis parietes per omnia usque ad summa laquearia. Et texit pavimentum domus tabulis abiegnis. Ecce differentiam pavimenti atque parietis: illud tegitur tabulis abiegnis, iste cedrinis. Post ista describit tabulatum quod dividebat exterius templum a Sanctis sanctorum: *Aedificavitque viginti cubitorum ad posteriorem partem templi tabulata cedrina a pavimento usque ad superiora et fecit interiorem domum oraculi in sanctum sanctorum.*

## TRACTATUS SECUNDUS. De templo Salomonis ad litteram. (cont.)

Notandum quod ista tabulata dicuntur erecta a pavimento usque ad superiora, non autem usque ad laquearia. Nam usque ad laquearia plusquam viginti cubiti altitudinis erant: infima siquidem mansio templi, ut superius dictum est, triginta cubitos altitudinis [0227A] tenebat: *Et fecit,* inquit, *interiorem domum oraculi in Sanctum sanctorum.* Proprie dicitur oraculum, divinum responsum homini a Deo per semetipsum, seu per angelum, seu per hominem factum: unde et dicimus oracula prophetarum. Oraculum etiam dicitur propitiatorium, vel locus ille templi ubi responsa dabantur, et unde audiebantur, juxta quod in Exodo legitur: *Duos quoque cherubin aureos, et productiles facies ex utraque parte oraculi [n: (Exod. XXV)]*. De hoc sane loco Moysi a Domino dicitur: *Inde praecipiam, et loquar ad te: Super propitiatorio scilicet, ac medio duorum Cherubin [n: (ibid.)]*. Aliquando per oraculum tota domus illa interior intelligitur, in qua locus ille continebatur. Hoc autem loco nomen oraculi secundum primam [0227B] acceptionem debet intelligi. Nam eo quod maxime dedicata fuerat in id genus officii, recte dicitur domus oraculi.

Sequitur, in quo utriusque domus longitudo determinatur: *Porro quadraginta cubitorum erat ipsum templum pro foribus oraculi.* Si templum exterius quadraginta cubitos habuit, ergo interiori domui viginti cubitorum longitudo remansit: nam templum sexaginta cubitos longitudinis tenuit. Hic oraculi nomine, domum interiorem oportet intelligere. Quod pro foribus dicitur, idem est ac si ante fores dicatur. Sententiam quam superius posuerat repetit, ut addat: *Et cedro omnis domus intrinsecus vestiebatur, habens tornaturas, et juncturas suas fabrefactas, et coelaturas eminentes. Omnia cedrinis tabulis vestiebantur: [0227C] nec omnino lapis apparere poterat in pariete.* De his quae hic proponuntur, dicam quod mihi videtur. Quod in sequentibus legitur de laminis aureis, idem intelligo de tabulis istis: quod istae sicut illae erant aequilaterae, opere quadro ad regulam factae, in quibus secundum librum erant tornaturae in modum circuli torno circumductae, et intra circulos coelata cherubin et palmae. Haec autem tabulata erant in hunc modum conjuncta. Inter postes muro intrinsecus adhaerentes, et ab invicem aequa mensura distantes, trabeculae quaedam hinc inde postibus affixae, a pavimento usque ad laquearia ordinatae erant, quae descriptas tabulas a superiori et inferiori parte excipiebant: nam earum incastraturis ipsae tabulae insertae et clavis affixae erant. Hae ergo [0227D] trabeculae junctae vocantur; quoniam tabulata parietum ex ipsis in unam compagem jungebantur. Juxta eamdem formam et similibus lignis quibus tabulae erant compactae a superiori et inferiori parte, intellige etiam junctas in utroque latere. In istis autem juncturis artificiosa quaedam concatenatio, nodosaque plectarum perplexio coelata erat, sicut liber Paralipomenon, si bene recolo, in his verbis commemorat: *Sculpsitque in ea* (hoc est in domo) *palmas: et quasi catenulas se invicem complectentes [n: (II Paral. III)]*.

Sequitur: *Oraculum autem in medio domus in interiori parte fecerat, ut poneretur ibi arca foederis Domini.* Per oraculum hoc loco locum illum in quo [0228A] arca inter cherubin media stabat intelligere debemus: nam domus interior non fuit in medio exterioris domus, nec esse potuit in medio sui ipsius. In eo autem quod dicit in medio domus, per domum hoc loco totum templum oportet intelligere, et in eo quod addit, in interiori parte, per interiorem partem, interiorem domum debemus accipere. Subsequenter autem oraculum, pro tota domo interiori ponitur, in eo quod statim adjungitur: *Porro oraculum habebat viginti cubitos longitudinis et viginti cubitos latitudinis, et viginti cubitos altitudinis: et operuit illud, atque vestivit auro purissimo.* Quod viginti cubitos altitudinis dixit, de illo pariete intelligi voluit, qui specialiter pro oraculo factus fuit: de quo et superius mentionem fecit. [0228B] Forte aliquis aestimabit, quod primum coenaculum eo loci demissius fuerit. Sed in medium ducimus quod in Paralipomenon legimus citius fortassis elucescet quod quaerimus. Nam postquam de interiori domo, et duobus cherubin egit, statim adjungit: *Fecit quoque velum ex hyacintho, purpura, coccino et bisso; et intexuit ei cherubin.* Quis dubitet intelligendum esse de hoc velo quod legitur in Evangelio: *Et scissum est velum templi a summo usque deorsum? [n: (Marc. V.)]* In hoc autem omnes doctores, et Scripturarum expositores consentiunt, quoniam ad hoc scissum est velum, ut paterent ea quae erant intra Sancta sanctorum. Ubi ergo, obsecro, hoc velum pendebat, quod sancta et Sancta sanctorum ab invicem dividebat. Si dicimus quia ante [0228C] parietem appensum fuerit, quid ejus scissio profuit si ipso scisso paries integer remansit? Tenenda itaque est absque ambiguo quod dictum velum contra illos decem cubitos in superioribus pendebat, qui parietem viginti cubitorum altitudinis excedebat, et in ea parte sanctum a Sanctis sanctorum dividebat. Ut autem melius intelligatur quod de situ arce, seu duorum cherubin dicere volumus, veniat in medium quod de his in Paralipomenon in hunc modum legimus: *Et intulerunt sacerdotes arcam foederis Domini in locum suum, id est, ad oraculum templi, in Sancta sanctorum subter alas cherubin, ita ut cherubin expanderent alas suas super locum in quo posita erat arca, et ipsam arcam tegerent cum vestibus [0228D] suis.* Vectium autem quibus portabatur arca, quia paululum longiores erant, capita patebant ante oraculum. Si vero quis paululum fuisset extrinsecus, eos videre non poterat.

Notandum itaque quid de arcae vectibus hoc in loco legis, qui secundum lectionem Exodi semper erant in arcae circulis, et nunquam extrahebantur ab eis. Dicitur itaque de his vectibus qui arcae circulis inserti erant, quod eorum capita extra oraculum propius existentibus parebant: nam a paululum remotis videri non poterant. Ex his itaque datur intelligi quod vectes, qui arcam portabant, ex una parte super summitatem parietis viginti cubitorum altitudinis jacebant; ita ut eorum capita extrinsecus apparerent: quae quidem capita dictum [0229A] velum in id loci descendens ab exteriore parte velabat. Qui igitur juxta parietem stabant, inter summitatem parietis et extremitatem veli apparentia videre poterant; remotiores vero propter interpositionem veli videre non poterant. In hanc sententiam concurrere videtur quod de eisdem vectibus in hoc eodem libro in sequentibus legitur: *Cumque eminerent vectes, et apparerent summitates eorum foris sanctuarium ante oraculum, non apparebant ultra extrinsecus.* Et hoc item loco habemus, quod summitates vectium ex eminenti loco apparebant foris sanctuarium et ante oraculum. Nota quod dicitur cum additur: Non apparebant ultra extrinsecus. Prius ostenditur quod extrinsecus apparebant; postea dicitur quod ultra extrinsecus [0229B] non apparebant. Novus et inusitatus dicendi modus, ultra extrinsecus. Locus qui ante oraculum parieti adhaerebat extrinsecus quidem erat: cujus operatione quaelibet remotior ultra extrinsecus dici poterat. Quantum ergo summitates vectium de solum adjacenti loco videri poterant, dicitur quod ultra extrinsecus non apparebant. Ex his facile est perpendere, quod oportuit esse, quod vectes exciperet ab interiori parte. Sed quantum quomodo id fieri potuit facile perpenditur, legentium conjecturae relinquitur. In eo quod dicitur, quod altare de cedro vestivit, notatur quod prima ejus factura de lapide fuerit. Ea vero quae de duobus cherubin sequuntur, tam sunt aperta, ut non egeant expositione aliqua: *Et in ingressu oraculi fecit ostiola de lignis olivarum, [0229C] postesque angulorum quinque, et duo ostia de lignis olivarum.* Contra usum nostrae consuetudinis tam in ingressu oraculi quam in ingressu templi duo ostia erant: et utrobique unum ab interiori, alterum ab exteriori parte altrinsecus pendebat, et utrumque ex duobus ostiolis, hoc est ex duabus valvis conjunctum erat. Non enim valvarum more unum ostiolum pendebat ex parte una, et aliud ex parte altera; sed duo ostiola aurea quadam concatenatione in unum ostium ita erant conjuncta, ut invicem complicata medietatem introitus tenerent, explicata vero totum ostium clauderent.

Notandum quod postes ita dolantur quandoque, ut habeant angulos quatuor, aliquando ut habeant [0229D] angulos quinque, aliquando autem habent senos, vel septenos, seu etiam octonos. Factura igitur operis exprimitur, in eo quod dicitur: *Postesque angulorum quinque.* Est autem intelligendum hos postes ante oraculi introitum erectos tantum a pariete distare quantum ostium plicatum se poterat extendere, tantum vero inter unum et alterum spatii interesse quantum ostium explicatum poterat claudere. Interstitium vero quod inter postes et parietes erat, tam a superiori parte quam ab utroque latere tabulatum texebat. Unum ex ostiis pendebat de poste ex parte ista; alterum autem de pariete, sed ex parte alia. Bene autem prius dicitur, quod fecerit ostiola, postea quod fecerit ostia, quantum ex quatuor ostiolis duo ostia sunt facta. [0230A] Superfluum vero videtur quod expressio materiae reperitur. Ecce habemus de ingressu oraculi: videamus nunc quid dicatur de introitu templi: *Fecitque in introitu templi postes de lignis olivarum quadrangulos, et duo ostia de lignis abiegnis altrinsecus.* In superioribus habuimus postes quinqueangulos, hic habemus postes quadrangulos. Ibi describuntur ostia de lignis olivarum, hic vero de lignis abiegnis; quod vero dicit altrinsecus, intelligendum est tam de istis, quam de illis. Nam utrobique duo ostia erant, et utrobique unum ex parte australi, et alterum eorum ex parte aquilonari pendebat, ita ut unum eorum affigeretur ex parte interiori; alterum vero ex parte exteriori. Tam illis quam istis convenit quod de istis adjungit: *Et [0230B] utrumque ostium duplex erat, et se invicem tenens aperiebatur.* Utrobique utrumque ostium duplex erat; quoniam utrumque ex duobus ostiolis, hoc est, duabus valvis, sicut de interioribus jam docui, compositum fuerat. Valvae autem non hinc inde pendentes, sed se invicem tenentes aperiebantur, et in aperiendo vel claudendo modo invicem plicabantur, modo explicabantur.

## TRACTATUS SECUNDUS. De templo Salomonis ad litteram. (cont.)

Nota quod in introitu portae hinc inde solent in ipso muro fieri quaedam ejecturae, ad quas ostium utrobique reverberatur cum introitus clauditur. Sed quantum in hoc templo omnia intrinsecus operiebantur ligno, in loco hujusmodi ejecturarum erant duo postes ex parte interiori et duo alii ex parte exteriori. Unusquisque autem, ut dicitur, quadrangulus [0230C] erat, prout ratio operis in eo loci, seu etiam ratio mysterii exigebat. His quae hoc loco de ostiis legimus, simile est quod in descriptione templi apud Ezechielem invenimus: *Et duo ostia,* inquit, *erant in templo, et in sanctuario; et in duobus ostiis ex utraque parte bina erant ostiola, quae in se invicem plicabantur. Bina enim ostiola erant ex utraque parte ostiorum.* Quod in sequentibus dicit de muro interiori atrii, intelligendum est et de muro templi: sed de eo dicitur, de quo minus videretur: *Et aedificavit,* inquit, *atrium interius tribus ordinibus lapidum politorum, et uno ordine lignorum cedri.* In praecipuis aedificiis temporis nostri superficiales tantum lapides tam interiores quam exteriores solent poliri: [0230D] sed media inter hos minoribus lapidibus et minime politis solent repleri. Sed in operibus Salomonis tam illi qui medium tenebant, quam illi qui interius exteriusque apparebant, perpoliti erant, ita ut essent ibi tres ordines lapidum politorum quo quidem superficialium, tertius interjacentium; quartus vero ordo erat de ligno, quoniam omnia intus vestiebantur cedro. Expletis quae de templi aedificatione dicturus, erat, repetit quae in descriptionis exordio praemiserat. Repetit namque, et dicit quo tempore aedificatio fuerit inchoata, ut addat quo tempore fuerit consummata, et inferat quanto tempore fuerit perfecta: *Anno quarto fundata est domus Domini: in mense zio, et in anno undecimo mense bul, ipse est octavus, perfecta est domus in omni opere suo, et in [0231A] universis utensilibus. Aedificavitque eam annis septem.* Expleta descriptione templi, addit de domo quam Salomon fecit sibi, adjungens et de domo saltus Libani. De domo regia latius agit; de domo saltus Libani solummodo mentionem facit: *Domum autem suam aedificavit Salomon, decem et tribus annis et ad perfectum usque perduxit.* Ecce de tempore, et facta de domo saltus Libani interpositione: adjungit de regiae domus modo et magnitudine. Nam quod ad ea quae de domo regia praemiserat, adjunxit: aedificavit quoque domum saltus Libani, interpositio fuit: non enim de domo saltus Libani intelligi debet, quod de domus mensura adnectit, cum dicit: *Centum cubitorum longitudinis, et quinquaginta cubitorum latitudinis, et triginta cubitorum altitudinis, [0231B] et quatuor deambulacra inter columnas cedrinas.* In domo autem saltus Libani arma reponebantur, sicut in sequentibus legitur: *Fecit quoque rex Salomon ducenta scuta de auro, et trecentas peltas ex auro probato. Posuitque ea rex in domo saltus Libani [n: (III Reg. X)]*. Unde et idem locus armamentarium dicebatur. Hinc est quod de dictis armis in Paralipomenon scribitur: *Posuitque ea rex in armamentario, quod erat consitum nemore [n: (II Paralip. IX)]*.

Nota quod locus ille nemore consitus dicitur, unde et pro nonnulla similitudine saltus Libani vocabatur. Ecce de armamentario: nunc consideremus ea quae dicuntur de regia domo. Patet de mensura, videamus quae dicuntur de ipsius factura. Sicut ex sequentibus colligitur: triplex ordo columnarum ibi [0231C] erat, quorum unusquisque quindecim columnas habebat. Unus ordo totam domum a fronte in frontem in duas medietates dividebat. Alius autem ordo in gemina distinguebat medietatem unam; tertius vero in totidem medietatem aliam. In hunc igitur modum erant ibi quatuor deambulacra triplici columnarum ordine distincta. Unde adhuc addit: *Ligna quippe cedrina exciderat in columnas: et tabulatis cedrinis vestivit totam cameram.* Dicendo cameram, satis compendiose exprimit facturam operis a superiori parte. Ex eo namque notatur quod inter columnas ipsas laquearia non erant plana, sed arcuata. Nam cameron idem sonat Graece quod curvum, vel convexum Latine. Tota itaque superincumbens [0231D] devexitas cedrinis tabulis vestiebatur, quae quadraginta et quinque columnis sustentabatur. Unus autem ordo habebat columnas decem et quinque contra se invicem positas. Ex hoc loco habemus quod superius de ordinibus columnarum et deambulacris jam diximus. Attende quam argute factura porticus exprimitur, in eo quod porticus columnarum nominatur, ex eo videlicet quod ab exteriori parte muro carens columnis distinguebatur. Quod post majorem porticum, de caeteris duabus subsequenter adjungitur, sic intelligendum videtur, quod una earum erat in fronte majoris porticus ex parte una, et alia simili modo ex parte altera, in qua erat tribunal, hoc est sedes judiciaria. De domo filiae Pharaonis breviter mentionem facit, ubi et de praemissis [0232A] aedificiis tam reginae quam regis generalem sententiam subjungit, cum dicit: *Omnia lapidibus pretiosis, qui ad normam quamdam atque mensuram tam intrinsecus quam extrinsecus serrati erant, a fundamento usque summitatem parietum [n: (III Reg. VII)]*. Lapides aedificiis tam intrinsecus, quam extrinsecus serrati dicuntur, quando superficiales lapides tam ex parte interiori quam ex parte exteriori ita ordinantur ut juncturae superpositorum non concurrant cum juncturis suppositorum.

Sed nota quod dicitur: Ad normam quamdam atque mensuram. Serrantur autem ad unam mensuram, quando junctura superiorum semper, occurrerit contra medium inferiorum. Sed qui prius dixerat quod serrati erant tam intrinsecus, quam extrinsecus [0232B] quid est quod adhuc adjungit, et intrinsecus usque ad atrium majus. Sed quod prius dicitur intrinsecus, intelligendum est pro superficie interiori, quod secundo repetitur intrinsecus, intelligendum est pro intimo ipsius muri: nam lapides qui latebant intrinsecus serrati erant cum lapidibus qui hinc inde apparebant extrinsecus: *Fundamenta autem de lapidibus pretiosis, de lapidibus magnis, decem, sive octo cubitorum: et desuper lapides pretiosi aequalis mensurae secti erant.* Sicut in fundamento, licet in superioribus, non potuerit omnes usquequaque esse ejusdem mensurae, alioquin scriptor invenitur sibi ipsi contrarius esse. Sed qui erant ejusdem facturae et formae, erant et ejusdem mensurae: et qui habebant positionem consimilem, etiam habebant mensuram [0232C] aequalem.

Sequitur: *Similiterque cedro.* Similiter, inquit, erat de cedro: nam ad modum lapidum de cedro, etiam fiebat conformis operatio. In eo quod superius dixerat: atque ad Urium, scilicet majus, non satis intelligitur utrum ipsum atrium a praemissa generali sententia excludatur, aut includatur; sed determinatur in eo quod hic adjungitur: *Et atrium majus rotundum trium ordinum de lapidibus sectis, ut unius ordinis de dolata cedro.* Idem dixerat longe superius de interiori atrio domus Domini: quod hic dicitur de his aedificiis, sed hoc loco repetitur pro similitudine operis. Inde est quod sequitur: *Nec non et in atrio domus Domini.* Non in quolibet: *Sed interiori, [0232D] et porticu domus Domini.* Ea quae de columnis aereis dicuntur videntur multum obscura; et nisi subtiliter discernantur, ex ipsa nominum aequivocatione valde confusa. Dicitur itaque de his columnis: *Et fixit duas columnas aeris, decem et octavo cubitorum altitudinis; et linea duodecim cubitorum ambiebat columnam utramque.* Ecce hic, decimo octavo cubitos altitudinis dicuntur habere columnae, in Paralipomenon autem leguntur hahere cubitos trigesimo quinto [n: (II Paral. III)]. Sed quod hoc loco de columnae altitudine dicitur, de solo stylo intelligitur quod inter basim et capitellum erigitur. Columnae autem nomen quandoque strictius, quandoque vero largius accipitur. Secundum id autem quod largius accipitur, quatuor membra habere videtur. Primo basim, [0233A] secundo stylum quod super basim in altum erigitur, tertio epistylium quod supra stylum ponitur, quarto capitellum quod super epistylium in summis locatur. Columnae itaque nomine quandoque totum hoc intelligimus; quandoque solum stylum, sicut et hoc loco uti jam diximus. Nomen etiam capitelli, modis solet pluribus accipi. Nam modo ponitur pro epistylio, modo pro eo quod superponitur ipsi epistylio, modo pro utroque pariter accepto. Sed epistylium dici non solet nisi quod stylo inhaeret, unde et nomen accepit. Nam epistylium idem sonat quod super. Inde epistylium, quod ponatur supra stylum. In hac autem descriptione, cum legitur caput columnae, oportet diversis in locis diverso modo accipere. Nam modo ponitur pro capitello, modo pro [0233B] epistylio modo pro ipsius styli supremo. Hujusmodi aequivocationes solent sensum legentium confundere, eorum videlicet qui nesciunt, vel negligunt ea quae legunt subtili examinatione discutere. Quoniam quae de capitellis dicuntur, valde perplexa videntur, dicam prius quid mihi videtur inter secundum quod potui de hoc libro, vel libro Paralipomenon, colligere, et sic revertar ad expositionem litterae. Epistylium in imo quatuor cubitos latitudinis, tres autem cubitos altitudinis habebat, et in modum lilii fabricatum erat. Flos lilii a rotunditate inchoatur, et paulatim ad superiora dilatatur; in summis autem tot latera quot folia habere videtur. Ecce de ejus mensura, ejusdemque factura.

## TRACTATUS SECUNDUS. De templo Salomonis ad litteram. (cont.)

Secundum capitellum quinque cubitorum altitudinis [0233C] esse describitur, et tot laterum quot epistylium esse videtur, ut ex eo ipso epistylio melius congrueret, et ipsa congruentia compositionem ornaret. Ab eadem autem quantitate, in quam desinit primum, solet inchoari capitellum secundum et per omne latus oblique ascendendo saepe usque ad ejus medium dilatari, superior autem ejus medietas solet sursum directe et perpendiculariter erigi. Ex aliis itaque perpendimus quid de his sentire debeamus. In hujus autem secundi capitelli medio ubi operis factura variabatur, quaedam ejectura in modum circuli insculpta erat, quae totum capitellum, usquequaque cingebat, qualis in epistylio fieri solet in ea parte qua stylo adhaeret. Unum autem hujusmodi circulum, ut dictum est habebat in medio, et [0233D] juxta eamdem similitudinem alium habebat in imo ubi adhaerebat ipsi epistylio. Sed quoniam hos circulos Scriptura vocat funiculos, intelligimus quod ita essent coelati, ut velut in modum triplicis funiculi viderentur esse contorti. Erat etiam contra superiorem ejusdem capitelli medietatem quaedam operis factura in modum retis ex aere concatenata: quae eam undique ambiebat, et ab ejus summitate usque contra primum funiculum dependebat; ubi et centum malogranata appensa, et circa eumdem funiculum per gyrum ordinata erant. Erant autem et huic retiaculo alia centum interposita, et in medio ipsius per gyrum ordinata, ita ut eorum ambitus totum retiaculum in septena versuum [0234A] distingueret, et velut in aequa divideret. Nihil aliud hoc loco dicimus unum retiaculi versiculum, nisi unum ordinem connexionum vel concatenationum unius ordinis foramina distinguentium. Quale retiaculum in capitello ordinavimus contra medietatem superiorem, tale cum tot malogranatis taliter ordinatis intellige et ipsum habere contra medietatem inferiorem. Ecce super istis jam dixi secundum quod potui de ipsa Scriptura colligere; sed nunc redeamus ad expositionem litterae: *Duo quoque capitella fecit: quae ponerentur super capita columnarum fusilia ex aere.* Nota quod descriptionem suam ab illo capitello, incipit, quod in hoc opere supremum locum tenuit: *Quinque cubitorum altitudinis capitellum unum, et quinque cubitorum altitudinis [0234B] capitellum alterum.* Ecce de mensura.

Sequitur: *Et quasi in modum retis, et catenarum invicem miro opere contextarum.* Haec capitella quae catenulas habebant, epistyliis secundum Paralipomenon, superposita erant. Legitur namque ibi: *Fecit columnas duas, et epistylia, et capita, et quasi quaedam retiacula quae capita regerent super epistylia [n: (II Paral. III)]*. Ecce de retiaculis dicit, quod tegerent capita quae erant super epistylia. Et nota quod quae ibi capita, hinc dicuntur capitella. Hic autem auctor capita pro epistyliis posuit, cum dicit: *Duo quoque capitella fecit, quae ponerentur super capita,* id est *super epistylia columnarum.* Non autem intelligendum est de his capitellis, quod ea sculpserit in modum retis. Paralipomenon autem [0234C] liber scribit dictas catenulas capitellis superpositas, non insculptas: *Et fecit,* inquit, *quasi catenulas in oraculo, et superposuit eas capitibus columnarum.* Paulo post vero dicitur in descriptione ista, quod haec capitella fuerint contra retiacula. Sed quod ibi catenulae, vel retiacula dicuntur superposita, hic expressius, et magis proprie notantur contraposita. Additur adhuc de his capitellis, vel retiaculis: *Utrumque capitelium columnarum fusile erat. Septena versuum retiacula in capitello uno, et septena retiacula in capitello altero.* Ecce secundum quod superius jam diximus ex his verbis manifeste colligitur, quod retiacula in utroque capitello septenis versibus distinguebantur. Planius forsitan esset, si septenorum versuum, non septena versuum [0234D] retiacula dixisset. Sed nota quod solum unum ordinem concatenationum capitello circumductum dici velit retiaculum, sicuti quantulamcunque panni abscissuram dicimus pannum. Sed non multum curandum quid, quibus verbis dicatur, dummodo sensus auctoris veraciter intelligatur

Sequitur: *Et perfecit columnas, et duos ordines per circuitum retiaculorum singulorum, ut tegerent capitella quae erant super summitatem malogranatorum.* Sicut superius jam diximus in utroque capitello erant retiacula duo, et bis septem versus in utroque retiaculo, ita ut unus ordo septem versuum esset supra centum malogranata interposita; alius autem ordo, septem similiter versuum esset supra [0235A] centum malogranata, iu uno appensa. Bene ergo dicitur: *Perfecte duos ordines per circuitum retiaculorum singulorum.* Quoniam unumquodque habebat duos ordines septenorum versuum. Erant autem ista retiacula septenorum versuum ita ordinata, ut tegerent capitella: nam ante ipsa capitella pendebant, et ea per circuitum ambiebant. Quod autem adjungitur: *Quae erant super summitatem malogranatorum,* referendum est non tam ad capitella quam ad retiacula. Quae, inquit, retiacula singula erant super summitatem malogranatorum, quoniam utriusque retiaculi superior medietas erat super summitatem malogranatorum interpositorum, inferior autem medietas erat super summitatem mologranatorum appensorum.

[0235B]Sequitur: *Eodem modo fecit capitello secundo.* Quomodo, inquit, fecit capitello quod operatus est primo, eo modo fecit et capitello quod operatus est secundo. Respectu enim operationis, sive descriptionis, vult illud dici primum; istud secundum. Ecce de capitellis, nunc addit de epistyliis: *Capitella autem quae erant super capita columnarum, quasi opere lilii fabricata erant in porticu, quatuor cubitorum [n: (III Reg. VI)]*. Compendiose satis eorum tam facturam, quam mensuram describit. Capitella autem, inquit, id est, epistylia quae erant super capita columnarum, id est, super summitatem utriusque styli, quasi opere lilii fabricata erant, ecce de factura; in porticu, ecce de loco; quatuor cubitorum, ecce de mensura. Nota quod epistylia [0235C] vocat hic capitella. Item notandum, quod superius per capita columnarum voluit intelligi epistylia; hic autem per capita columnarum vult intelligi stylorum suprema. In fine autem hujus libri hoc capitellum, vel potius epistylium tres cubitos altitudinis habere describitur, unde et illud quod hoc loco de ejus mensura legitur, de ejus latitudine recte intelligitur. Erat itaque quatuor cubitorum latitudinis circa inferiora, hoc est, paulo largior quam columna, in modum vero lilii dilatabatur erga superiora.

Sequitur: *Et rursum alia capitella in summitate columnarum desuper, juxta mensuram columnae contra retiacula.* In hoc quod modo dicit, redit ad capitella quae prius descripsit. Quod enim dicit, et rursum [0235D] alia, intelligendum est esse alia, non a quatuor praedictis, sed duobus novissime descriptis. Sed, ne modo fiat dubitatio aliqua, determinatur ex eo quod dicitur, contra retiacula. Nam quod dicitur in summitate columnarum desuper, si quis de tertio pari capitellorum intelligere voluerit, profecto ordinatio eorum contra dicta retiacula non erit. Quod vero dicit capita facta juxta mensuram columnae, non sic oportet intelligere, quasi utrorumque grossitudo esset ejusdem mensurae. Ista assignatio non est aequalitatis, sed proportionalitatis. Quod enim capitellorum mensuram, juxta mensuram columnae assignat, idem est ac si dicat: Talis erat mensura capitellorum, qualem exigebat magnitudo columnarum. De capitellis igitur et retiaculis breviter [0236A] repetit, ut de malogranatis competentius adjungat, de quibus hucusque nil dixerat: *Malogranatorum autem ducenti ordines erant in circuitu capitelli secundi [n: (III Reg. VII)]*. Si ordinem positionis attendas, primo supra stillim [stylum?] ponebatur epistylium, secundo loco illud capitellum quod habebat in duobus retiaculis ducentos ordines malogranatorum. Juxta hanc considerationem epistylium recte dicitur capitellum primum; illud vero de quo modo loquitur, secundum: *Malogranatorum,* inquit, *ducenti ordines erant in circuitu capitelli secundi.* Ubi nulla pluralitas est, ordo esse non potest. Ubicunque itaque est ordo, non possunt esse minus quam duo. Ubi ergo ducenti ordines malogranatorum fuerunt, non minus quam quadringenta esse potuerunt. Longe inferius de his [0236B] malogranatis iterum legimus: *Duo versus malogranatorum in retiaculis singulis.* Hic dicuntur esse in circuitu capitelli sed modus determinatur ibi; quoniam in retiaculis erat, quae capitellum ambiebant. Sed non video quomodo in retiaculis esse potuissent, nisi interposita vel appensa fuissent. Sed ex Paralipomenon habemus quod centum fuissent interposita: unde et constat quod reliqua fuissent appensa: *Fecit,* inquit, *malogranata centum quae catenulis interposuit [n: (II Paralip. III)]*. Si ergo centum malogranata uni retiaculo interposita ita fuerunt circa capitellum ordinata, ut quodlibet unum haberet e regione subter se aliud appensum, profecto unum retiaculum continuit ordines centum. Unum autem capitellum habebat ut diximus, retiacula duo: et [0236C] juxta dictum modum erant centum ordines in uno, et centum in alio, et impletur quod dicitur. Malogranatorum autem ducenti ordines erant in circuitu capitelli secundi. Quod autem paucis interpositis subjungit, et super capita columnarum opus in modum lilii posuit, repetitio est sententiae quam superius in his verbis praemisit: *Capitella autem quae erant super capita columnarum, quasi opere lilii fabricata erant.*

Et notandum quidem quam sit auctori familiare eamdem sententiam repetere. Post ista vas quoddam describit, quod et mare vocat, in quo sacerdotes manus et pedes lavabant, quando in templo ministraturi erant: *Fecit quoque mare fusile, decem [0236D] cubitorum a labio usque ad labium, rotundum in circuitu: quinque cubitorum altitudo ejus.* Haec omnia satis sunt aperta. Sed quod statim adnectitur, omnino impossibile videtur. Et resticula triginta cubitorum cingebat illud per circuitum. Si enim vas aliquod rotundum habeat decem cubitos de uno latere in latus oppositum, impossibile est ut illud cingat resticula triginta cubitorum. Sed haec quaestio melius in sequentibus solvitur, sicut suo loco dicetur. Circa superiora ut dicitur, resticula triginta cubitorum ipsum cingebat; inferius autem ubi resticula decem cubitorum ambiri poterat, delectabiles quasdam et jocosas caelaturas habebat, hoc est quod statim adjungit cum dicit: *Et sculptura subter labium circuibat illud decem cubitis ambiens mare. Duo ordines [0237A] sculpturarum striatarum erant fusiles.* Quae dicuntur satis patent, et expositione non indigent: *Grossitudo autem luteris trium unciarum erat.* Per grossitudinem spissitudinem debemus intelligere; per luterem, hic idem quod mare.

## TRACTATUS SECUNDUS. De templo Salomonis ad litteram. (cont.)

Sequitur: *Labium ejus quasi labium calicis, et folium repandi lilii.* Ex hac descriptione intelligitur quod ejus labium ad exteriora reflectebatur: unde et illa mensura subter labium sumpta intelligitur quae superius in his verbis describitur: *Et resticula, tringinta cubitorum cingebat illud per circuitum.* Nam et illa mensura, decem cubitorum, non est sumpta subter labium: sed ubi ibi legitur a labio usque ad labium: *Duo millia batos capiebat, et tria millia metretas.* De his mensuris melius videtur supersederi [0237B] quam aliquid dicere; quoniam sub eisdem nominibus apud diversos diversae intelliguntur mensurae. In sequentibus quaedam vasa describuntur, in quibus holocausta lavabantur quae liber iste luteres vocat, Paralipomenon conchas nominat. De his conchis ibi in hunc modum legimus: *Fecit quoque conchas decem et posuit quinque a dextris, et quinque a sinistris, ut lavarent in eis omnia quae in holocausto oblaturi erant [n: (II Paral. IV)]*. In hoc libro prius luterum bases quam luteres describit, cum dicit: *Et fecit bases decem aereas quatuor cubitorum longitudinis bases singulas, et quatuor cubitorum latitudinis, et trium cubitorum altitudinis.* Quoniam obscurum est quod de basium mensura dicitur, dico prius quod mihi inde videtur; postea littera explanabitur. [0237C] Sed, ut melius intelligatur quid inde sentimus, singula quasi membratim tractemus. Primo itaque ponantur duae tabulae aereae ex majore sui parte perforatae quatuor cubitorum, tam in longitudine quam in latitudine. Una habeat foramen quadratum aequilaterum, altera rotundum, ita ut quadrati latus non excedat diametrum alterius. Tabula vero cum foramine quadro jaceat in imo. Supra hanc autem circa ejus foramen erigantur quatuor tabulae, tam primae tabulae quam sibi invicem per quatuor angulos foraminis firmiter conjunctae: et teneant tres cubitos in altitudine. Per quatuor autem angulos jacentis tabulae juxta erectarum juncturam erigantur columnae aereae habentes tres cubitos in altitudine. [0237D] Tabula autem cum rotundo foramine tam tabulis erectis, quam columnis debet ita superjacere, ut omnia jungat superius, sicut prima tabula omnia in unum conjungit inferius. Super foramen autem supremae tabulae, quaedam quasi hemisphaerii concavitas debet collocari: formam habens per omnia quasi pelvis inversae. Summitas namque hujus hemisphaerii in planam quamdam rotunditatem deficiebat, quae cubitum et dimidium quaquaversum tenebat, cui luter insidebat. Circa vero basium superiora, per quatuor partes sustentacula quaedam, quae Scriptura humerulos vocat, exibant: quae ventres luteris ab omni parte excipiebant et sustinebant. Quod de rotis et earum axi dicitur satis apertum videtur, sed nunc ad litterae expositionem [0238A] revertamur. Dicitur itaque de his basibus: *Et ipsum opus basium interrasile erat.* Hoc dicitur pro ea parte in qua erant caelaturae. Unum est genus caelaturae in quo cujuslibet corporis lineamenta superficietenus circumscribuntur; aliud in quo tota corporis imago membratim formatur, et campus qui caelaturis interjacet cavatur, et in parte vel funditus abraditur. Itaque ad distinctionem alterius generis caelaturae, dictum est opus basium interrasile.

Sequitur: *Et sculpturae inter juncturas, et inter coronulas et plectas, et leones, et boves, et cherubin; et in juncturis similiter desuper.* Quatuor latera tabulae in imo suppositae juncturas vocat: quorum unumquodque duas hinc inde columnas, et adhaerentem [0238B] tabulam erectam in unum conjungebant; juncturae autem desuper, latera supremae tabulae dicuntur: quibus a superioribus similiter in unum jungebantur, quibus singulis sculpturae inesse describuntur. In basibus autem columnare per latera, in tabulis illis quae per quadrum stabant erectae, coronulae erant insculptae, similiter et plectae velut vimina quaedam, invicem artificiose perplexae. Inter has itaque plectas ubi in se invicem in modum circuli replicabantur similiter et inter coronulas et plectas insculpti perhibentur et leones, et boves, et cherubin: *Et subter leones et boves quasi lora ex aere dependentia, et quatuor rotae per bases singulas, et axes aerei.* Omnia ista satis aperta. Et quod adjungitur de humerulis patet ex ante jam dictis: *Et per quatuor [0238C] partes quasi humeruli subter luterem fusiles contra se invicem respectantes.* Plana sunt ista, sed quae de luteris factura adjunguntur, subobscura videntur: *Os quoque luteris intrinsecus erat in capitis summitate, et quod foris apparebat, unius cubiti erat totum rotundum, pariterque habebat unum cubitum et dimidium.* Cogita facturam ipsius luteris quasi formam rotundam pixidis operculum non habentis. Caput ejus, superiora ipsius; summitas capitis ambitus foraminis. Summitas autem capitis, id est, margo ipsius foraminis, adhaerentem sibi teretem quamdam concavitatem in modum fistulae factam cingebat atque conglutinabat: quam liberos luteris vocat, quia per ipsum sibi infusa transigebat. Hujus autem proceritas semis cubitum [0238D] tenebat, dimidius vero cubitus in ventrem descendebat, unus autem cubitus exterius apparebat. Dicitur itaque quia os luteris in capitis ejus summitate intrinsecus erat quoniam ejusmodi, quam diximus fistulam, marginis supremum intra se concludebat. His de luteris factura interpositis ad basium descriptionem redit, cum adjungit: *In angulis autem columnarum variae coelaturae erant; et media inter columna quadrata, non rotunda.* Erant itaque caelaturae non solum in coronulis basium, sed etiam in angulis earum qui jacebant extra circulum. Intercolumna vocat tabulas superius dictas, inter quatuor columnas per quadrum erectas. Si autem subjecta tabula rotundum foramen [0239A] haberet, et circa ipsum rotunda concavitas in altum ascenderet, profecto intercolumna non fuissent quadrata sed rotunda.

Sequitur: *Quatuor quoque rotae quae per quatuor angulos basis erant, cohaerebant subter basim.* Nam axes quibus superpositae bases incumbebant, ab uno basium latere transeuntes, et utrinque excedentes, et rotis injecti, rotas ad invicem copulabant. Ea quae de basibus, vel luteribus in sequentibus adjunguntur, ex ante jam dictis perspicua videntur. In fine descriptionis columnarum superius descriptarum iterum mentionem facit, ubi et aliquid interserit quod prius non dixit: *Et perfecit omne opus regis Salomonis in templo Domini: columnas duas et funiculos capitellorum super capita columnarum [0239B] duos, et retiacula duo, ut operirent duos funiculos qui erant super capita columnarum.* Usque modo de funiculis capitellorum nullam mentionem fecit, nunc duos super capita columnarum esse definit. Funiculos capitellorum eos vocat, quoniam capitellis inerant. Sed quod dicitur fecisse super capita columnarum funiculos duos, potest in dubium venire, an fecerit in singulis singulos, an potius in singulis duos. Sed hoc ipsum determinatur ex eo quod de retiaculis adjungitur: *Et retiacula duo, ut operirent duos funiculos qui erant super capita columnarum.* Habemus ex superius positis atque expositis, quod duo retiacula erant in singulis capitellis. Quod ergo dicit duo retiacula, referendum [0239C] est ad singula capitella. Singulorum capitellorum vero retiacula, duos funiculos operire non possent, si duo in singulis non fuissent. Quid adhuc fecerit, adjungit cum dicit: *Et malogranata quadringenta in duobus retiaculis.* Sciendum pro certo quod hoc loco legendum sit, quadringenta non quadraginta, secundum quod habent codices multi vitio scriptorum depravati. Quod facile convincitur ex eo quod superius legitur ubi dicitur: *Malogranatorum autem ducenti ordines erant in circuitu capitelli secundi.* Cui ista attestatio non sufficit, per Hebraeos, Hebraicam veritatem consulat, et quod dicimus verum esse inveniet. Adhuc autem additur de his malogranatis, quomodo ordinata erant in retiaculis singulis: *Duo versus malogranatorum in retiaculis [0239D] singulis, ad operiendos funiculos capitellorum, qui erant super capita columnarum.* Concinit huic lectioni quod in Paralipomenon legitur, ubi de malogranatis, vel retiaculis scribitur: *Malogranata quoque quadringenta; et retiacula duo, ita ut bini ordines malogranatorum singulis retiaculis jungerentur, quae protegerent epistylia et capita columnarum.*

Nota quod unus dicit versus, alius ordines vocat. Secundum quod superius legimus, et exposuimus, ducenti ordines malogranatorum erant in retiaculis duobus, centum videlicet in retiaculo uno, et centum in alio. Centum itaque ordines erant in singulis secundum lectionem illam; duo in singulis secundum lectionem istam. Absque dubio centum [0240A] erant secundum considerationem unam; et duo secundum considerationem aliam. Si secundum unam dimensionem attendas, invenies ibi duos centenarios; si secundum aliam cogites, invenies ibi centum binarios. Quod superius dixerat de retiaculis, idem repetit de malogranatis. De utrisque namque dicit quod funiculos operirent: unde intelligitur usquequo retiacula descenderent, quae malogranata de suis extremitatibus dependentia contra funiculos haberent. Ex superioribus, ut jam ostendimus, datur intelligi quod in uno capitello fuerunt duo retiacula, et duo tantum funiculi. Potuit ergo unus ordo malogranatorum unius retiaculi operire unum funiculum, et unus similiter ordo alterius retiaculi operire alterum. Quid est ergo quod dicitur quod [0240B] in retiaculis singulis erant duo versus vel ordines malogranatorum ad operiendos funiculos capitellorum? Sed in hoc notatur quod decor operis, vel ratio significationis non sinebat ut primus ordo haberet contra se funiculum: et idcirco in singulis retiaculis est additus ordo secundus ut posset anteponi eo loci, quo ratio poscebat poni funiculum. Primus itaque ordo malogranatorum in singulis retiaculis septena, ut superius diximus, versuum retiacula distinguebat; secundus autem antepositus funiculis illos intuentium aspectibus obnubilabat. Haec de rebus obscurioribus prout potui digessi. Si quis me non tam falsitatis, quam prolixitatis arguat, sciat me malle videri sciolis prolixior quam simplicioribus [0240C] obscurior. Sed quod dictum est a me forsitan nimis prolixe, quilibet peritior habet in potestate ad compendium revocare.

## TRACTATUS SECUNDUS. De templo Salomonis ad litteram. (cont.)

Notandum quod de mensura basium nihil dicitur: sed de eo quod in hoc libro, vel in Paralipomenon legitur, quam sit facile deprehenditur. Secundum hunc enim librum stylus ipse decem et octo cubitos habebat; duo autem capitella octo cubitos tenebant. Secundum Paralipomenon vero tota columna habebat cubitos triginta quinque, unde et constat ipsius basim novem cubitos habere. In principio descriptionis hujus legitur quod templum triginta cubitos altitudinis habebat. Si ergo altitudo porticus, altitudini templi respondebat, quomodo columnas triginta quinque cubitorum altitudinis [0240D] capere poterat? Ex mutua igitur dictorum collatione manifeste colligitur, quod in porticum gradibus ascendebatur, et quod eo loci quo columnae stabant, terra quidem porticus ipsius pavimento quinque cubitis demissior erat. Nunc ea quae de dictis retiaculis, vel malogranatis in fine Jeremiae leguntur, in medium ducantur, ne forte alicui his quae superius dicta sunt dissonare videantur: *Et retiacula,* inquit, *et malogranata centum retiaculis circumdabantur. Et retiacula, et malogranata nonaginta et sex dependentia. Et omnia malogranata centum retiaculis circumdabantur [n: (Jer. LII)]*. Sicut superius dictum est, in uno retiaculo erant centum malogranata in medio ipsius interposita, et centum in uno dependentia. Ex qua autem factum sit occasione, ut non [0241A] fuerint ibi plus quam nonaginta sex dependentia tempore Jeremiae, fateor me nescire. Secundum quod hic intelligi dedit, unum retiaculum ex centum retiaculis compositum fuit, unum ordinem concatenationum circumtexentium unum ordinem foraminum, vult intelligi unum retiaculum. Si a summo deorsum numeres, quatuordecim foramina in uno ordine invenies. Si numeres per circuitum, invenies in ordine uno foramina centum. Erant ergo ibi quatuordecim retiacula secundum considerationem unam: et centum secundum considerationem aliam. Septem [0242A] versuum retiacula erant usque ad malogranata in medio interposita. Unde et dicit: *Et retiacula, et malogranata centum retiaculis circumdabantur.* Et erant alia septem versuum retiacula usque ad malogranata in imis dependentia. Unde et adjungit: *Et retiacula, et malogranata nonaginta sex dependentia.* Utrum autem in inferiora malogranata in extremis foraminibus, an sub ipsis dependerent, dubitari potuit; sed determinatur in eo quod generalem sententiam subjungit, cum dicit: *Et omnia malogranata centum retiaculis circumdabantur.*

## TRACTATUS TERTIUS. De concordia temporum regum conregnantium super Judam et super Israel. Ad beatum Bernardum abbatem Claraevallensem.

[0241]

[0241B]In his, quae in libro Regum de diuturnitate vevaria successione regnantium dicuntur, multa, ut dicis, contrarietas inesse videtur: unde et numerorum computatio vitio scriptorum corrupta putatur. Unde et antequam de his juxta petitionem tuam aliquid scriberem, per Judaeos Judaeorum scripta consului, et tam eorum scripta quam nostra in unam sententiam concurrere didici. Constat itaque apud me quod in his nulla contrarietas sit quamvis et ipsis hucusque veritas ipsa latuerit. Absit ut credam quod in divinis Scripturis veritas uspiam adeo oberraverit, ut omnino recuperari non possit! In primis itaque sciendum quod, cum legitur rex aliquis tot vel tot annos regnasse, non sic semper oportet intelligere, quasi [0241C] ultimum regni sui annum quisque ita compleverit, ut ad ejus completionem nulla diminutio superfuerit. Sed si ille annus qui inter successorem et praedecessorem dividebatur neutri illorum ascriberetur, de collectionis summa pars magna veritati detraheretur. Satis itaque congrue et compendiose ad devitandas minutias annum duobus communem Scriptura illi attribuit, qui majorem illius anni partem obtinuit. Item, si diligenter attendimus, inveniemus pro certo frequens fuisse illis temporibus, quod in nostris saepe actitari videmus. Videmus saepe quod reges filios suos, dum adhuc vivunt, coronant, ut subditorum contradictionem et rebellionem praeveniant. Hoc apud reges Israel frequens erat, timentes ne per aliquam rebellionem regnum eorum [0241D] ad domum David rediret. Ex hoc quidem in Sciptura, quamvis ubique aperte non dicatur, invenitur tamen in ea unde suis in locis facile convincatur.

Et notandum quod tempora congregantium quandoque attribuuntur soli patri, quandoque filio soli, quandoque tam filio quam patri. Sunt enim qui quamvis filios suos jam coronaverint, nullo modo dum vivunt regiam potestatem eos exercere velint. Merito ergo ejusmodi tempus regnandi attribuitur [0242B] soli patri. Sunt qui post filiorum coronationem modo propter corporis, modo propter mentis infirmitatem otio vacant, luxui deserviunt, et negotia regni per omnia filiis committunt. Nonne haec tempora regnandi rectius ascribuntur filio quam patri? Sed quando regni negotia communiter tractabant, et contra rebelles modo simul, modo separatim regnum defensabant (sicut et Romani imperatores suis temporibus fecisse leguntur), nonne haec regnandi tempora utrisque merito ascribuntur? Ecce Hieroboam rex Israel dicitur regnasse viginti duos annos, et filius ejus Nadab annos duos. Si vero duo isti dicantur viginti sex annos regnando implevisse, quod de duorum regnorum collatione dicitur nullo modo poterit stare. Nam si Asa, rex Juda, regnavit [0242C] regis Hieroboam anno vigesimo, quomodo potuit Nadab, ut legitur regnare regni Asa anno secundo, et Baasa tertio? Sed si intelligamus Asa regnum inchoasse, in vicesimi anni fine, ita ut annus qui est Hieroboam vigesimus primus, sit regi Asa primus, et qui est Hieroboam vigesimus secundus, et regi Asa secundus, idem sit Nadab regnandi initium, et annus primus, ita ut annum unum regnet cum patre, majorem vero partem anni sequentis sine patre; si, inquam, sic velis accipere, videbis in omnibus nil contrarietatis inesse.

Item dicitur quod Baasa qui Nadab occidit, tertio anno regni Asa regnare incipiens, viginti quatuor annis regnavit. Intelligitur igitur quod Baasa usque ad vigesimum septimum annum regis Asa duraverit, [0242D] quamvis eum nonnisi ex majori parte compleverit. Quomodo ergo dicitur Hela filius Baasa vigesimo sexto anno regni regis Asa regnare coepisse, et duobus annis regnasse, nisi quia vigesimum sextum regis Asa, et primam vigesimi septimi anni partem cum patre, et posteriorem ejusdem anni partem regnavit sine patre. Nam in fine ipsius anni vigesimi septimi Zamri eum occidit, et pro ipso septem diebus regnavit. Legitur autem quod cum [0243A] exercitus audisset rebellasse Zamri et occidisse regem, fecit sibi regem omnis Israel Zamri. Constat ergo quod idem annus fuerit Zamri regnandi primus, qui fuit regi Asa vigesimus octavus. Quid ergo est quod legitur de ipso, quod regnaverit regni Asa anno trigesimo primo? Sed scimus quod rebellante Thebni media pars populi sequebatur unum, et media pars alium. Quod ergo dicitur regnasse anno Asa trigesimo primo intelligitur de eo tempore dictum, quando mortuo jam Thebni coepit regnare in toto. Scriptura autem dicit quod duodecim annis regnavit. Si igitur annus Asa vigesimus octavus fuit Zamri regnandi primus, constat quod annus Asa trigesimus nonus fuit isti in regno duodecimus. Quomodo ergo constat, quod Achab [0243B] filius ipsius Zamri regnaverit, ut legitur, anno Asa trigesimo octavo, nisi quod absque dubio duobus annis regnavit Achab cum patre suo? Concinit autem huic sententiae, quod Josaphat filius regis Asa quarto anno regni Achab dicitur regnasse. Idem siquidem annus qui fuit Asa quadragesimus primus exstitit Achab in regno quartus. Refert autem Scriptura quod rex Asa mortuus sit regni sui anno quadragesimo primo, et regnaverit Josaphat filius ejus pro eo. Regnavit vero Achab annis viginti duobus, unde et idem annus in regno fuit Josaphat decimus octavus, qui Achab exstitit vigesimus secundus, et ultimus. Sed Ochozias filius Achab regnavit anno, ut legitur, regni Josaphat decimo [0243C] septimo, et frater Ochoziae Joram anno ejusdem decimo octavo, prior videlicet anno patris sui penultimo, alter autem ejusdem ultimo anno. Quomodo ergo verum fuit quod Ochozias duobus annis, vel pro patre quomodo regnavit, si frater ejus ultimo patris eorum anno regnare coepit? Sed hinc intelligi datur, quod unum annum in regno egit cum patre, alium vero cum fratre. Intelligitur quod idem Ochozias in fine penultimi anni patris sui regnum a patre accepit, et majorem sequentis anni partem, cum patre exegit. Idem autem annus, ut diximus, qui fuit Achab ultimus, fuit regi Judae Josaphat decimus octavus. Perpenditur ergo quod in fine ejusdem decimi octavi anni, post mortem patris Ochozias per lapsum confractus, et, Elia prophetante, [0243D] de vita desperatus, fratrem in regnum asciverit, et cum eo alium annum languendo exegit. Sed si Joram filius Achab et frater Ochoziae, ut de eo legitur, regnavit anno decimo nono Josaphat regis Judae, quid est quod paulo post dictus est regnasse, secundo anno Joram filii ejusdem Josaphat regis Judae? An forte idem annus erat filio secundus, qui erat patri decimus octavus. Et potuit quidem esse, quod pro aliqua infirmitate seu alia aliqua causa instigante, pater tunc temporis filium coronasset, quamvis exercendi regiam potestatem per aliqua tempora omnino non permisit.

Notandum namque quod, cum Joram filius Achab dicitur regnasse secundo anno alterius Joram, non dicitur regis Joram, nec dicitur anno secundo regni [0244A] ejus, nihil tale Scriptura dicit, sicut superius per caeteros dicere consuevit, sed de morte Ochoziae mentionem faciens adjecit. Et regnavit Joram frater ejus pro eo anno secundo Joram filii Josaphat regis Judae. Si filius Achab secundo anno filii Josaphat regnavit, quomodo verum est quod e converso dicitur, filius Josaphat quinto anno Joram filii Achab regnaverit, nisi quod datur intelligi quod ab eo tempore patre concedente et ordinante regia potestate pro parte usus sit, et regni negotia simul cum patre tractaverit? Hinc est quod conregnantium tempora ab eodem anno quinto ascribuntur tam filio quam patri: nam retroacta attribuuntur patri soli. Annus autem ille qui fuit filio Achab quintus, fuit Josaphat qui viginti quinque annis regnavit [0244B] vigesimus tertius. Vis autem ex ipsa Scriptura apertius nosse quod ille annus fuerit tribus communis? Anno quinto, inquit, Joram filii Achab regis Israel, et Josaphat regis Juda, regnavit Joram filius Josaphat regis Juda. Ecce idem annus dicitur esse Josaphat regis, qui ejus filio fuit primus, et filio Achab quintus, non quod fuerit quintus Josaphat regis, sed quod fuerit ei cum caeteris communis. Annis itaque tribus regnaverunt simul pater et filius. In eamdem sententiam videtur concurrere quod filius Josaphat dicitur octo annis regnasse. Nam post mortem patris non potuit regnare tot annis, quinto siquidem anno post mortem Josaphat, Jehu tam Ahaziam filium filii Josaphat, quam Joram [0244C] filium Achab occidit. In regno autem Judae, iste filius Josaphat invenitur primus patri conregnasse.

Notandum quod idem annus Joram regi Judae fuit octavus, qui fuit Joram regi Israel duodecimus. Quomodo ergo dicitur quod Ahazias filius Joram regis Judae pro patre, et uno anno regnaverit, si idem annus patri et filio, et regi Israel ultimus fuit? Sub eodem namque tempore, sicut jam dictum est, Ahazias et rex Israel ab Jehu interfectus est. Sed potuit filius majori anni parte regnasse cum patre, reliqua sine patre. Et quoniam in regno supervixit patri suo, dicitur regnasse pro eo. Ex his itaque quae dicta sunt manifestum erit, ut credo, quam falsa sit quorumdam opinio (ne dicam assertio) qui mota falsa quaestione solutionis gratia dicunt filium Josaphat viginti annis regnasse. Non enim viginti [0244D] annis pater regnare potuit, si filius ejus qui regnavit pro eo octavo patris sui anno, vel modico post, ab Jehu occisus fuit. Constat quod Jehu, ut dictum est, Joram filium Achab occiderit, qui duodecim annis regnavit, et postea de eodem Jehu dicitur quod undecimo anno Joram filii Achab, et regis Ahaziae super Judam, in Jezrael venerit, et Jezabel interfecerit. Quid igitur est quod illud quidem quod Jehu prius fecit, dicitur fecisse anno Joram regis Israel duodecimo, et quod posterius fecit, dicitur fecisse anno ejusdem regis undecimo. Sed miranda ratione innuit quod diversis respectibus unus et idem annus fuerit illi undecimus et duodecimus. Nam undecim annis per se solus [0245A] regnavit, unum vero in regno cum fratre exegit.

## TRACTATUS TERTIUS. De concordia temporum regum conregnantium super Judam et super Israel. Ad beatum Bernardum abbatem Claraevallensem. (cont.)

Notandum vero quod similem positionem hoc loco invenimus, qualem superius denotavimus. Ibi legitur: Anno quinto Joram filii Achab regis Israel, et Josaphat regis Juda, regnavit Joram filius Josaphat regis Juda. Hic autem dicitur: Anno undecimo Joram filii Achab, et regis Ahaziae super Judam, venit Jehu in Jezrael. Ibi quintus annus Joram filii Achab dicitur esse tam Josaphat quam ipsius, cum tamen fuerit soli Joram in regno quintus. Hic annus undecimus ejusdem Joram dicitur esse tam Ahaziae quam ipsius, cum tamen fuerit soli Joram in regno undecimus. Jehu super Israel decem octo annis regnavit, cujus septimus Joas filius Ahaziae super Judam regnare incoepit, et quadraginta annis regnavit. [0245B] Idem autem annus fuit Joas vigesimus secundus, qui et Jehu ultimus. Joas vero filius Jehu vigesimo tertio anno Joas regnare incoepit, et decem septem annis regnavit. Idem ergo annus fuit Joas ultimus, qui et Joas regis Judae trigesimus nonus. Quomodo ergo scribitur quod Joas filius Joachas trigesimo septimo Joas regis Judae anno regnavit, nisi quod Joachas filium suum triennio ante mortem suam regem constituit? Mortuo autem Joachas filius ejus Joas anno quadragesimo, et ultimo Joas regis Judae regnavit solus, unde et Amasiae filio ejusdem regis Judae invenitur esse annus regnandi primus, qui filio Joas dicitur esse secundus. In anno, ait Scriptura, secundo Joas filii Joachas regis Israel regnavit Amasias filius Joas regis Judae.

[0245C]Notandum quod conregnandi tempora soli patri attribuuntur, unde et regiam potestatem ante mortem patris filius minime exercuisse colligitur. Joas rex Israel sexdecim annis dicitur regnasse, cujus anno secundo regnavit Amasias rex Judae. Annus igitur qui fuit Joas decimus sextus, et ultimus, fuit Amasiae decimus quintus. Quomodo ergo Jeroboam filius Joas regis Israel decimo quinto anno Amasiae regnavit, ut Scriptura dicit, nisi quod ultimo patris sui anno patri conregnavit? Idem annus, ut diximus, fuit Joas regi decimus sextus, et ultimus qui et Amasiae regi Judae decimus quintus. Annis igitur quatuordecim post mortem Joas, Amasias regnavit, de quo legitur, quod annis viginti novem regnaverit. [0245D] Quid est ergo quod Amasias post mortem Joas dicitur viginti quinque annos vixisse, qui tamen post ejusdem mortem non invenitur secundum Scripturam nisi quatuordecim annis regnasse? Sed intelligi datur quod post vigesimum nonum regni sui annum seu propter infirmitatem, seu alia aliqua de causa vacaret sibi, et filio coronato committeret negotia regni. Hinc est quod Azarias qui Zozias filius Amasiae vigesimo septimo anno Jerobam regis Israel regnasse dicitur, sicut in sequentibus legitur: Anno vigesimo, inquit, Jeroboam regis Israel, regnavit Azarias filius Amasiae regis Judae, ut superius jam diximus, idem annus fuit regi Jeroboam in regno primus, qui patri ipsius fuit in regno, et [0246A] vita ultimus. Inter primum autem et vigesimum septimum annum invenies annos viginti quinque, quibus Amasias regi Joas dicitur supervixisse. Ab eo ergo tempore coepit Azarias filius Amasiae non sola sicut ipsius patris permissione, sed jure haereditario regiam potestatem exercere. Sicut superius dictum est decimo quinto anno Amasiae, regis Judae, coepit Jeroboam super Israel regnare. Idem ergo annus fuit Jeroboam in regno decimus quintus qui Amasiae exstitit vigesimus nonus. Et si Azarias filius Amasiae statim post vigesimum nonum patris annum a patre regnum suscepit, profecto idem annus et Azariae vigesimus sextus, et Jeroboam in regno quadragesimus primus et ultimus fuit. Nam idem Jeroboam quadraginta et uno, et Azarias quinquagesimis [0246B] duobus annis regnavit. Quid est ergo quod Zacharias filius Jeroboam trigesimo octavo anno Azariae ut legitur regnare incoepit? Nunquid a vigesimo septimo anno Azariae usque ad trigesimum octavum ejus annum regnum Israel sine rege permansit? Potest utique in dubium venire, an propter aetatem, an propter rebellionem vel ob aliam causam non potuerit eatenus in regno patris praevalere. Quod anno trigesimo octavo Azariae regis Judae dicitur Zacharias filius Jeroboam regnasse, sic oportet intelligere quod trigesimo octavo quidem anno regnare coepit, et sex mensibus, non tam ejusdem quam sequentis anni regnavit, et post eum Sellum mense uno qui eum occidit. Post hos Manahen eodem trigesimo nono regnare incipiens, minorem [0246C] ejusdem anni partem in regno transegit. Nam, si majorem anni illius partem transegisset, Scriptura ei pro more non tantum decem, sed undecim annos ascriberet. Quae de Phaceia, vel Phacee dicuntur, satis aperta videntur. Joathan filius Oziae decimus sextus ( *sic* ) annos regnasse describitur, et tamen Osee rex Israel vigesimo ejus anno regnare perhibetur: unde intelligi datur eum in regno viginti annis vixisse, sed a decimo sexto anno filium suum regem constituisse, et quod qualicunque de causa in regno adeo meruit exaltari, ut tempora conregnandi potius ascriberentur filio quam patri. Anno secundo Phacee qui viginti annis regnavit, Joathan rex Judae regnare coepit. Idem ergo annus fuit Joathan decimus [0246D] sextus, qui et Phacee decimus septimus. Anno autem decimo septimo Phacee coepit Achab filius Joathan regnare, sed ut intelligi datur in ejusdem anni fine: nam si toto anni illius tempore vel majore ejusdem anni parte regnasset, non video cur annus ille Achab non ascriberetur, sicut et caeteri qui sequuntur. Idem ergo annus fuit Achab tertius, qui Phacee quem Osee occidit fuit vigesimus. Idem nihilominus fuit Achab quartus, qui patris ejus dicitur esse vigesimus. Regnavit itaque Osee anno Achab quarto. Quid ergo est quod in sequentibus dicitur regnare ejusdem Achab anno duodecimo? An forte sicut Zamri contigit, ab eo tempore quo Phacee interfecto regnum sibi praeripuit usque ad duodecimum [0247A] regis Achab annum multis rebellantibus praevalere non potuit? Unde contigisse videtur, quod ei subsequentia non autem praecedentia tempora in regno [0248A] ascriberentur, alioquin decimus octavus ( *sic* ) annis potius quam novem regnasse diceretur.

*[0247]Summaria declaratio duarum tabularum sequentium ad agnoscendam contradictionem, et concordiam temporum regum conregnantium super Judam et Israel.*

[0247A]In sequentibus duas tabulas adjeci, in quibus continentur ea quae superius digessi. In prima continentur ea quae quaestionem movere, vel contrarietatem inferre videntur. In secunda tabula eadem ipsa disposita sunt eo ordine, ut singula quae quaestionem movebant videantur ex ea posse intelligi sine expositione. In prima tabula, et in primo ipsius ordine habes ordinata a summo usque deorsum nomina regum in Juda regnantium. Et in secundo ordine, [0247B] quot annis regnaverit unusquisque eorum. In tertio ordine habes reges Israelitici regni. Et in quarto tempora regnandi. In numeris, qui quibusdam regibus subscribuntur, notatur quoto anno regni ipsius, [0248A] qui superscribitur, regnare coeperunt qui econtra de regione scribuntur. In secunda tabula, in prima ejus fronte ordinatur series temporum ab exordio schismatis usque ad tempora primae captivitatis. In secundo ordine continetur series temporum regum Juda ordine sibi succedentium. In tertio ordine est palam videre, quando contigit filios patribus conregnasse. Quod de regibus Juda eorumque filiis docet ordo secundus et tertius, hoc de regibus Israel docet [0248B] ordo quartus et quintus. In quibus et illud perpendi potest, quod quaedam conregnandi tempora attribuuntur solis filiis, quaedam solis patribus, quaedam vero tam filiis quam patribus.

## *Ex hac prima tabula habes ea quae faciunt et inferunt contrarietatem temporum regum super conregnantium Judam et Israel.*

[0247]

*Nomina regum Juda.* | *Numerus temporum regnantium in Juda.* | *Nomina regum Israel.* | *Numerus temporum regnorum regum in Israel.*
Roboam. | xvii | Jeroboam. | xxii
Abia. | iii | xviii
Asa. | xli | xx
Anno ii | Nadab. | ii
Tertio. | Baasa. | xxiv
xxvi | Hela. | ii
xxvii | Zambri. | diebus vii
xxxi | Ambri. | xii
xxxviii | Achab. | xxii
Josaphat. | xxv | iv
xvii | Ochozias. | ii
xviii | Joram. | xii
Joram. | viii | v
ii | Joram.
Ahazias. | i | xii
Athalia. | vi | Jehu. | xxviii
Joas. | xl | vii
xxiii | Joaz. | xvii
xxxvii | Joas. | xvi
Amasias. | xxix | ii
xv | Jeroboam. | xli
Ozias. | Lii | xxvii
xxxviii | Zacharias. | vi mensibus
xxxix | Sellum. | i mense
xxxix | Manahen. | x
l | Phaceia. | li
lii | Phacee. | xx
Joathan. | xvi | ii
Achaz. | xvi | xvii
xii | Osee. | ix
Ezechias. | iii
iv | vii
vi | ix

## *Ex hac secunda tabula habetur concordia temporum regum conregnantium super Judam et super Israel.*

[0249]

*Primus ordo, temporum ab exordio schismatis usque ad tempora primae captivitatis* | *Secundus ordo, temporum regum Juda ordine sibi succedentium.* | *Tertius ordo, temporis in quo contigit filios regum Juda patribus conregnasse.* | *Quartus ordo, temporum regum Israel juxta ordinem sibi succedentium.* | *Quintus ordo, in quo contingit filios regum Israel patribus conregnasse*
i | i Roboam. | i. Jeroboam
ii | ii | ii
iii | iii | iii
iv | iv | iv
v | v | v
vi | vi | vi
vii | vii | vii
viii | viii | viii
ix | ix | ix
x | x | x
xi | xi | xi
xii | xii | xii
xiii | xiii | xiii
xiv | xiv | xiv
xv | xv | xv
xvi | xvi | xvi
xvii | xvii | xvii
viii | i. Abia. | xviii
xix | ii | xix
xx | iii. Asa | xx
xxi | i | xxi
xxii | ii | xxii
xxiii | iii | ii. Idem solus | i. Nadab cum patre Baasa
xxiv | iv | i
xxv | v | ii
xxvi | vi | iii
xxvii | vii | iv
xxviii | viii | v
xxix | ix | vi
xxx | x | vii
xxxi | xi | viii
xxxii | xii | ix
xxxiii | xiii | x
xxxiv | xiv | xi
xxxv | xv | xii
xxxvi | xvi | xiii
xxxvii | xvii | xiv
xxxviii | xviii | xv
xxxix | xix | xvi
xl | xx | xvii
xli | xxi | xviii
xlii | xxii | xix
xliii | xxiii | xx
xliv | xxiv | xxi
xlv | xxv | xxii
xlvi | xxvi | xxiii
xlvii | xxvii | xxxiii S. | i Hela
xlviii | xxviii | i Ambri, in parte. | i Zambrid. vii.
xlix | xxix | ii
l | xxx | iii
li | xxxi | iv Ambri in toto.
lii | xxxii | v
liii | xxxiii | vi
liv | xxxiv | vii
lv | xxxv | viii
lvi | xxxvi | ix
lvii | xxxvii | x
lviii | xxxviii | xi
lix | xxxix | xii
lx | xl | iii | i. Achas cum patre.
lxi | xli Josaphat. | iv. Solus. | ii
lxii | i | v
lxiii | ii | vi
lxiv | iii | vii
lxv | iv | viii
lxvi | v | ix
lxvii | vi | x
lxviii | vii | xi

[0251]

lxix | viii | xii
lxx | ix | xiii
lxxi | x | xiv
lxxii | xi | xv
lxxiii | xii | xvi
lxxiv | xii | xvii
lxxv | xiv | xviii
lxxvi | xv | Joram. | xix | Ochozias.
lxxvii | xvi | xx | Joram
lxxviii | xvii | xxi. S. | cum fratre.
lxxix | xviii | xxii | i. Joram solus.
lxxx | xix | i | ii
lxxxi | xx | iii
lxxxii | xxi | i Joram. | ii | iv
lxxxiii | xxii | ii | iv | v
lxxxiv | xxiii | iii | v | vi
lxxxv | xxiv | vi | vii
lxxxvi | xxv | vii | viii
lxxxvii | iv | viii | ix
lxxxxiii | v | ix | x
lxxxix | vi | x | xi
xc | vii | xi
xci | viii S. | i Ahazias. | xii
xcii | i Athalia. | i. Hieu.
xciii | ii | ii
xciv | iii | iii
xcv | iv | iv
xcvi | v | v
xcvii | vi | vi
xcviii | i Joas. | vii
xcix | ii | viii
c. | iii | ix
ci | iv | x
cii | v | xi
cii | vi | xii
civ | vii | xiii
cv | viii | xiv
cvi | ix | xv
cvii | x | xvi
cviii | xi | xvii
cix | xii | xviii
cx | xiii | xix
cxi | xiv | xx
cxii | xv | xxi
cxiii | xvii | xxii
cxiv | xvii | xxiii
cxv | xviii | xxiv
cxvi | xix | xxv
cxvii | xx | xxvi
cxviii | xxi | xxvii
cxix | xxii | xxviii
cxx | xxiii | i. Joas.
cxxi | xxiv | ii
cxxii | xxv | iii
cxxiii | xxvi | iv
cxxiv | xxvii | v
cxxv | xxviii | vi
cxxvi | xxix | vii
cxxvii | xxx | viii
cxxviii | xxxi | ix
cxxix | xxxii | x
cxxx | xxxiii | xi
cxxxi | xxxiv | xii
cxxxii | xxxv | xiii
cxxxiii | xxxvi | xiv
cxxxiv | xxxvii | xv Joas.
cxxx | xxxviii | xvi
cxxxvi | xxxix | xvii
cxxxvii | xl | i Joas. solus.
cxxxviii | i Amasias | ii
cxxxix | ii | iii
cxl | iii | iv

[0253]

cxli | iv | v
cxlii | v | vi
cxliii | vi | vii
cxliv | vii | viii
cxlv | viii | ix
cxlvi | ix | x
cxlvii | x | ix
cxlviii | xi | x
cxlix | xii | xi
cl | xiii | xii
cli | xiv | xiii
clii | xv. | i | xiv
cliii | xvi | ii | xv | Jeroboam cum patre solus.
cliv | xvii | iii | xvi
clv | xviii | iv | ii
clvi | xix | v | iii
clvii | xx | vi | iv
clviii | xxi | vii | v
clix. | xxii | viii | vi
clx | xxiii | ix | vii
clxi | xxiv | x | viii
clxii | xxv | xi | ix
clxiii | xxvi | xii | x
clxiv | xxvii | xiii | xi
clxv | xxviii | xiv | xii
clxvi | xxix | xv | xiii
clxvii | i Ozias qui et Azarias | xvi | xiv
clxviii | ii | xvii | xv
clxix | iii | xviii | xvi
clxx | iv | xix | xvii
clxxi | v | xx | xviii
clxxii | vi | xxi | xix
clxxiii | vii | xxii | xx
clxxiv | viii | xxiii | xxi
clxxv | ix | xxiv | xxii
clxxvi | x | xxiii
clxxvii | xi | xxiv
clxxviii | xii Ozias, mortuo | xxv
clxxix | xiii patre | xxvi
clxxx | xiv | xxvii
clxxxi | xv | xxviii
clxxxii | xvi | xxix
clxxxiii | xvii | xxx
clxxxiv | xviii | xxxi
clxxxv | xix | xxxii
clxxxvi | xx | xxxiii
clxxxvii | xxi | xxxiv
clxxxviii | xxii | xxxv
clxxxix | xxiii | xxxvi
cxc | xxiv | xxxvii
cxci | xxv | xxxviii
cxcii | xxvi | xxxix
cxciii | xxvii | xl
cxciv | xxviii | xli
cxcv | xxxix
cxcvi | xxx
cxcvii | xxxi
cxcviii | xxxii
cxcix | xxxiii
cc | xxxiv
cci | xxxv
ccii | xxxvi
cciii | xxxvii
cciv | xxxviii | Zacharias
ccv | xxxix | vi Men. | Sellum i Men. | Manahen.
ccvi | xl | i
ccvii | xli | ii
ccviii | xlii | iii
ccix | xliii | iv
ccx | xliv | v
ccxi | xlv | vi
ccxii | xlvi | vii

[0255]

ccxiii | xlvii | viii
ccxiv | xlviii | ix
ccxv | xlix | i Phaceia
ccxvi | l | ii
ccxvii | li | i Phacee
ccxviii | lii | ii
ccxix | i Joathan. | iii
ccxx | ii | iv
ccxxi | iii | v
ccxxii | iv | vi
ccxxiii | v | vii
ccxxiv | vi | viii
ccxxv | vii | ix
ccxxvi | viii | x.
ccxxvii | ix | xi
ccxxviii | x | xii
ccxxix | xi | xiii
ccxxx | xii | xiv
ccxxxi | xiii | xv.
ccxxxii | xiv | xvi
ccxxxiii | xv | xvii
ccxxviv | xvi | Achaz. | xviii
ccxxxv | i | xix
ccxxxvi | ii | xx
ccxxxvii | iii | Osee
ccxxxviii | xx | iv
ccxxxix | v
ccxl | vi
ccxli | vii
ccxlii | viii
ccxliii | ix
ccxliv | x
ccxlv | xi
ccxlvi | xii | Osee
ccxlvii | xiii | i
ccxlviii | xiv | Ezechias. | ii
ccxlix | xv | i | iii
ccl | xvi | iv
ccli | ii | v
cclii | iii | vi
ccliii | iv | vii
ccliv | v | viii
cclv | vi | ix.

english:
## TREATISE ONE.

## PROLOGUE.

[0211B]

Being asked by friends to write something toward the explanation of the tabernacle, I was afraid, I confess, to satisfy their request, lest in that very thing I should seem to have derogated from the authority of the Fathers. Yet he himself who published the common exposition gives me the boldness to attempt it, when in the midst of expounding he adds. These things, he says, upon a most difficult matter we have taken care to set out briefly, according as we seemed to ourselves to have understood them, ready to learn truer things in these matters if anyone should be willing to teach us. In all of which, nevertheless, the sense of the allegory stands wholly clear. See how confidently he puts forward the sense of the allegory, who nevertheless had prefaced the exposition of the letter under an ambiguity. He therefore who so confidently gives the testimony of his own certainty to the allegorical exposition, and denies it to the historical, plainly intimates that in that [0211C] exposition of his he did not satisfy even himself. Why do you reproach me, or force me to believe him in a thing wherein he does not himself believe himself? But, that I may confess the truth, those who, it is now agreed, stand present at the contemplation of the highest truth — these I fear rather to offend than to render favorable, if I should hesitate to bring forth into common use a truth I have come to know, as though for the sake of reverence toward them. Let us consider how many things, how great, how deep, they handled with all diligence; how many things they expounded historically, how many allegorically, how many tropologically, with wonderful reasoning; and then it will cease to be a wonder if in some one place they left an exposition less than sufficient. It is therefore no great thing, nor any wonder, if in some one point we can add something that may avail toward greater evidence or plainer understanding. [0211D] These things have been said on account of those who accept nothing except what they have received from the most ancient fathers. But is he who unceasingly brings forth new fruits for the refreshment of the outward man never to be believed to impart no further [0212B] advances of knowledge, for the renewing of the senses of the inward man? Where then, I ask, is that word, "many shall pass over, and knowledge shall abound"? Let no one, therefore, I beseech, be indignant with me if I gather from the Lord's harvest the ears that remain, and those that could escape the hands of the reapers, and gladly dispense them [sic: *eroganero*] to the hungry and to those who ask.

## CHAPTER ONE. *On the making of the ark.*

When the Lord was about to give Moses commandment concerning the construction of the tabernacle, first of all he instructed him about the making of the ark, so that by that very thing he might intimate that a certain prerogative of dignity set it far before all the rest that were to be made in the tabernacle. But the things that are said of its material or its measure or the manner of making it are plain enough [0212C] and need no exposition. He commands four circles to be made at the four corners; but how this is to be understood he shows next: *Let two,* he says, *be on the one side, and two on the other [n: (Exod. XXV)]*. They were therefore not altogether at the corners, but beside the corners: two on the one side, and two beside the corners on the opposite side. It can be doubted what one ought to think about the propitiatory, in that the author describes it separately. But I understand the propitiatory to be nothing other than the lid of the ark itself, namely a certain plate made of the purest gold out of one piece: whence also it had with the ark, both in length and in breadth, one and the same measure throughout. But, that no ambiguity upon this may remain to you, hear what Scripture [0212D] itself sets forth of the ark, and what of the propitiatory. For of the ark it is written: *In which thou shalt put the testimony that I will give thee [n: (ibid.)]*, and far afterward of the propitiatory: *Before,* he says, *the propitiatory wherewith the testimony is covered, where I will speak to thee [n: (Exod. XXX)]* The testimony [0213A] that is placed in the ark, how, I ask, is it covered by the propitiatory, unless because its lid is not one thing and the propitiatory another! But the excellence of its dignity is intimated in this very thing, that it is described separately. From the propitiatory itself the answers of the Godhead, according to the measure of the divine propitiation, were now given, now not given. Rightly therefore did it receive the name of propitiatory, in which the Lord was accustomed to exhibit or to display the prerogative of his propitiation. But it is to be understood that that golden crown which ran round the top of the ark, where also it was fastened, enclosed that whole propitiatory within itself, and, raising itself higher, stood above the thickness of it.

## CHAPTER II. *On the fashioning of the two cherubim.*

[0213B]Of the cherubim he says that they look upon one another. In body indeed they were turned toward the outer tabernacle; but with faces turned they looked toward that part where the ark stood in the midst, beneath their wings. Those two cherubim that were in the temple of Solomon had without doubt been made after the likeness of these. What therefore we read of those, we equally understand of these: that the one cherub touched with his wing the one wall, and the other with his wing touched the other wall [n: (II Paral. III)]; but with their other wings they touched one another in the midst. Just as therefore those of the temple, so neither could these stand upon the ark and the propitiatory, because the ark had only two cubits and a half of length. But in those cherubim the extension of the joined wings held ten cubits, in these five cubits. What therefore is said of these, [0213C] that they were above the ark of the testimony, ought not to be so understood as though they stood upon the ark itself, but that they rose above the ark itself with their whole body.

## CHAPTER III. *On the forming of the table.*

But that I may say briefly what I think concerning the form of the table: it seems to me to be like an ark without a bottom; yet so that the upper surface be understood to be wholly flat and immovably fastened to the parts beneath. It had, moreover, a certain golden projection running round the top of the table, which the author himself, on account of the likeness, calls a lip; and to this there adhered a crown four fingers in height. And it was adorned with various carvings; and, as the variety of the carving required, [0213D] pierced with frequent cuttings: whence also it is called *interrasilis*. Upon this there was also another set above it, like a certain little rod, round and flat, or as it were interwoven of several little rods, and joined to that first for firmness and for beauty; nay, so wholly made one with it that both seemed to be one. These things suffice concerning the table: for the rest are of themselves well enough known.

## CHAPTER IV. *On the fashioning of the candlestick.*

Now we must look at the candlestick, and chiefly at that in it about which there can be doubt. Its cups are described after the manner of a nut. Now a cup seems to have the half of a sphere. It has therefore a roundness hollow and empty and cut off above. But a nut, widening itself from below, is stretched out into a belly; [0214A] and from above, sharpening itself little by little, is gathered to a single point at the summit. A cup, therefore, has a spherical roundness, but cut off, and an empty concavity; a nut, however, an oblong roundness, and yet not empty nor cut off. Since therefore it had two things in common with a cup (namely an empty concavity together with the cutting off of the roundness), he calls it a cup, not a nut; and because it had only one thing in common with a nut (namely the oblong roundness), he does not name it a nut, yet declares that it has the likeness of a nut. Both the shaft, therefore, and all the six branches had an ornament of this kind: first a roundness oblong like a nut's, but cut off; then a spherical roundness, which he calls a little sphere; and after these two joined to it, it had [0214B] a flower after the manner of a lily. And so the shaft first ran down to the first cup as though failing into it; and again it emerged, as it were, out of the middle of the flower, with two branches on either side. In the same manner it is to be understood in the second place and in the third. But at the top it had a like ornament, except for the [sic: *ad junctione*] of the branches. And you have, from the likeness of the shaft, what is to be understood of the branches.

But it is to be noted that a little sphere is said to be under two branches in three places of the shaft. For the roots of the branches had the lily-flower not so much under them as about them, but the little sphere they had wholly under them. So much for the candlestick; now we must look at the tabernacle.

## CHAPTER V. *On the manner and measure of the curtains.*

[0214C]It is to be noted first of all that some receive as though for authority whatever they find written in Josephus about these things. For they think that he (being a Jew) saw the tabernacle, and by that very fact wrote what was as true as it was known. But to me, according to the testimonies of the Scriptures, it is clearer than light that he never saw the tabernacle. For what Scripture, I ask, so much as pretends that it was brought back from the place where Jeremiah hid it by divine answer? Let Josephus be gladly received in those things which he knew by experience, or gathers out of authentic writings. For where he thinks otherwise, I confidently prefer Exodus to him, or whatever books I find in the canon. Let us therefore bring the words of the author into the midst, and out of them, so far as the Lord [0214D] shall grant, let us draw out what is to be thought concerning the construction or the erection of the tabernacle. He commands, then, that ten curtains be made, of twenty-eight cubits in length and four cubits in breadth. He says therefore of these curtains: *Five curtains shall be joined one to another, and the other five shall cleave together with a like coupling [n: (Exod. XXVI)]*. Out of five curtains, therefore, one curtain was to be made, and out of the other five another curtain. Of these great curtains is understood what follows: *Thou shalt make loops of violet in the sides and the tops of the curtains, that they may be coupled one to another.* See, it is said that they have loops in every part; nor yet is it said that they are at the tops, but only that they have them on either side. But by keeping silence about the one thing which he determines, the author gives us to understand of the other, that [0215A] the loops of the tops too are made after the manner of the sides. *Fifty loops apiece,* he says, *shall the curtain have on either part, so set in that loop may come against loop, and the one may be fitted to the other.* What is said, that loop is to be fitted to loop, is to be understood of the joined sides. For what is to be thought of the loops of the remaining sides will be better seen in what follows. There follows: *Thou shalt make also fifty golden circles, wherewith the veils of the curtains are to be joined, that one tabernacle may be made.* Of the same it is read in what follows: *Whence also he cast fifty golden circles, which should bite the loops of the curtains.* From these it is given us to understand that the circles had certain little teeth clinging to them, which should catch with their bites the loops passed through the circles, and so bind the two veils into one. [0215B] So much for the curtains.

## CHAPTER VI. *On the making of the hair-cloths.*

*Thou shalt make also eleven hair-cloths of goats' hair to cover the roof of the tabernacle. The length of one hair-cloth shall have thirty cubits, and the breadth four. The measure of all the hair-cloths shall be equal, of which thou shalt join five apart, and shalt couple six one to another, so that thou double the sixth hair-cloth at the front of the roof [n: (Exod. XXVI)]*. Two things, they say, are here to be noted: both that it ought to be doubled, and that when doubled it ought to be at the front of the tabernacle. Let there be doubled, therefore, not a part of the hair-cloth only, but the hair-cloth itself from end to end, so that thus folded and doubled it may hold thirty cubits in length and only two in breadth. There follows: *Thou shalt make also fifty [0215C] loops in the edge of one hair-cloth, that it may be joined with the other; and fifty loops in the edge of the other hair-cloth, that it may be coupled with the other. Fifty buckles of brass, wherewith the loops may be joined, that one covering be made of them all.* What is said of the buckles of the hair-cloths, or of the loops of the joined sides, ought in all things to be understood after the likeness of the curtains. Of the loops of the extremities he keeps silence, because he foresees that they can be understood by the likeness already set out. The covering of the curtains, then, has twenty-eight cubits, that of the hair-cloths thirty, according to the one dimension. Likewise that of the curtains forty, but that of the hair-cloths forty-two, according to the other dimension. So much for the making of each covering; and at once he adds that from which it can be understood how [0215D] the one is to be drawn over the other: *But that which shall be over in the hair-cloths that are prepared for the roof, that is, the one hair-cloth that is more than the rest, out of the half of it thou shalt cover the back parts of the tabernacle; and a cubit shall hang on the one part, and another on the other: that which is more in the length of the hair-cloths, covering both sides of the tabernacle.* Let us for the present consider these things as if, for the sake of trial or of showing, the one were laid upon the other on level ground, so that afterward it may be more fully understood how they ought to be fitted together in the erection of the tabernacle. Let the coupling of the curtains, then, first be so spread out that the outer side of the first curtain be toward the East, and that of the tenth toward the West. And let their tops be on either hand, the one toward the South, the other toward the North. Over this veil of curtains, therefore, let the veil of hair-cloths be drawn, so that [0216A] the one may stand to the other uniformly on every part; and you will see that the one laid over exceeds the curtains all round by one cubit. Let this over-drawing have the doubled hair-cloth toward the East. For the tabernacle had its front toward that quarter. If therefore you compare the hair-cloths with the curtains and match them one by one, you will see that one hair-cloth is over in number. But if you consider how far each veil can stretch itself, you will see that in the coupling of the hair-cloths the half of one hair-cloth alone is over and above; if you attend to the position, you will see that that half covers the hindmost parts of the tabernacle — not that that whole half passes beyond the end of the tabernacle, but that the said end lies over against the middle of that half, and, after the fashion of a covering, has an equal portion of it on either hand. He says therefore: *But that which [0216B] shall be over in the hair-cloths,* etc. Let the letter be read thus: But out of the half of that which shall be over in enough which are prepared for the roof, that is, one hair-cloth. For the eleventh hair-cloth is there above the number of the curtains: out of the half, I say, of that eleventh hair-cloth thou shalt cover the back parts of the tabernacle. The rest are plain enough.

It is to be noted in how fitting an order he treats of every part of the tabernacle: first of its front, where he bids the hair-cloth be doubled; afterward of its hinder end, which he bids be covered out of the half of the eleventh hair-cloth. Third, of each of its sides, where he says that on either hand one cubit hangs down out of the overplus of the hair-cloths. But if anyone says that the said half covers the back parts just so far as it exceeds the ends of the curtains, and contends that it must so be understood: not even so, nor [0216C] according to this understanding, must it be granted that that whole half passes over into a use of this kind, although he says that this must be done out of that half. For he who says that Eve was made out of a rib says truly; and he who says that Eve was made out of the man says no less truly; and yet the whole substance of the man did not, as the rib did, pass over into a making of this kind. But if what has been said cannot satisfy anyone, and he contends that that whole half must pass beyond the ends of the curtains, and that therefore at the front of the tabernacle both the hair-cloths and the curtains begin from one line, I judge it better to yield to another's understanding than to be a servant of contentions.

## CHAPTER VII. *On the twofold covering of rams' skins.*

[0216D]There follows: *Thou shalt make also another covering for the roof of rams' skins dyed red, and over this again another covering of violet skins [n: (Exod. XXVI)]*. That the violet covering is above the red-dyed covering I do find; but that these two are above the goats'-hair roof I do not find in the author. But there are those who think that the same order is to be kept in the erection which is kept in the description. But let them see whether this reasoning be not perhaps altogether nothing. For first the curtains are described, afterward the boards; and yet in the raising, the erection of the boards comes before the spreading of the curtains. But I rather believe that the author, on account of the likeness of their making, attaches the description of the hair-cloths to the description of the curtains. It is frequent in Holy Scripture to leave a thing undetermined, when [0217A] it is easy to gather from reason what is to be chosen. Now the goats'-hair cloth is of a rougher nature, but rams' skins of a softer. By the softness of the skins, therefore, the roughness of the hair-cloths is shut off, lest by the frequent chafing of that roughness the delicacy of the curtains should be worn away. The rams'-skin covering is doubled, so that if the first were made wet through the midst of the hair-cloths, the second might remain dry, in such wise that the delicacy of the curtains should feel no harm, nor could have felt any. There are those who think that the rams'-skin coverings do not come down from the top; and whence this may be proved I should like to hear. For if it is true, the curtains could not have endured in their beauty even after one rain of an excessive storm. But this too is agreed, that the top of the tabernacle had a flat surface, not a ridged one; [0217B] and how (according to what some write) did it strike amazement into beholders by reason of its beauty, if it had beauty of this kind only in that part where it could not be seen? And this too I should like to hear: how a covering of this kind clung there at the top.

## CHAPTER VIII. *On the manner and measure of the boards.*

There follows: *Thou shalt make also the standing boards of the tabernacle of setim wood, which severally shall have ten cubits in length and in breadth one apiece, and a half [n: (Exod. XXVI)]*. So much for the measure of the boards; and at once something is attached concerning their mortising. Now there are two kinds of mortising. The first, where one side of the board is hollowed and the other sharpened, and thus one board is fixed into another. But mortising of this kind makes the surface flat on neither [0217C] part. There is also another kind of mortising, which is on both sides. For on this hand a certain cutting-away of the side is made as far as the middle of the board on the inner part; on that hand likewise, but from the outer part; and the cutting of the boards is set into the cutting, so that the whole wall may seem one board, and the surface on either hand be rendered wholly flat. Of mortising of this kind is understood what follows: *In the sides of the board let there be made two mortisings, whereby board may be connected to board.* Now there were twenty boards with forty bases on the southern side, and as many, and of the same measure, on the northern side. But on the western part there were eight boards with sixteen bases. For each board had two silver bases [0217D] set under it. There are those who hand down that the corner boards on either hand have only half a cubit. But whence this may be proved they cannot show. But they attend too little, as it seems to me, to the general statement which they read at the beginning of the description: *Thou shalt make,* he says, *also the standing boards for the tabernacles of setim woods, which severally shall have ten cubits in length, and in breadth one apiece and a half.* If each has a cubit and a half in breadth, then the corner boards also. Or is it perhaps that, because they are treated of separately, they are rightly said to have a measure of their own? Nay, so much the more is it to be denied; since when he treats of them apart, in nothing does he except their measure from the general rule. To whom that which we have said of the boards is not enough, let him hear what the author [0218A] says far afterward of the bases. There were besides a hundred talents of silver, out of which were cast the bases of the sanctuary, and of the entrance where the veil hangs. A hundred bases were made of the hundred talents, one talent being reckoned to each base. If the corner boards had only a third part of the breadth, how did they receive bases equal with the rest? But they say that the tabernacle holds only ten cubits of breadth, and thence they gather what has already been said of the breadth of the corner boards. That the tabernacle has thirty cubits of length, whence it may be proved I do find. But that it holds only ten cubits of breadth, whence it may be proved I do not find. Yet I will say what is wont to strike the mind on that head, whence we can conjecture this rather than prove it. [0218B] We believe that that temple of Solomon was made, after its own measure, after the likeness of this tabernacle. According to the reasoning of the likeness, therefore, the length of the tabernacle will be triple to the breadth. According to the reasoning of the likeness the length of the inner house will be equal to its breadth, but half of the length of the outer house. Yet we can hold unshaken both that which we conjecture of the breadth of the tabernacle and that which we read generally of the measure of the boards, if we say that the corner boards fill up, with half a cubit on either hand, the tenth cubit which is left over above the six boards, and exceed by one cubit on either side. For thence, beyond doubt, the tabernacle stood the more sturdily, and bore the driving of the winds the more stoutly. Such an arrangement, I believe, he wished to designate who said: [0218C] *But toward the western quarter of the tabernacle thou shalt make six boards; and again, two others, which shall be set up at the corners behind the tabernacle;* and again, of the same he made six boards, and two others at each corner of the tabernacle behind. For in respect of the walls on either hand they are said to be behind, or after the tabernacle. For if they are joined to the walls only from the side, there will be nothing in respect of which they may be called behind, or at the back. According to what has been said, therefore, the western front of the tabernacle will be of ten cubits of breadth within, and of twelve cubits of breadth without. See whether perhaps this be what Ezekiel wished to be understood, when in the description of the temple he attaches, among the rest (and he measured the fronts, six cubits of breadth on this hand, and [0218D] six cubits of breadth on that), the breadth of the tabernacle [n: (Ezech. IV)]. This we have expounded more fully in its own place. But here only this is to be attended to, that the breadth of the tabernacle is called a doubled six.

And it is to be noted that the eastern part of the temple had as much within, about the gate, as the whole breadth of the western part of the tabernacle without. But it is to be held beyond doubt, according to the reading of Exodus, that there were five bars through all three walls of the tabernacle: one about the top of the boards, another about the bottom, a third about the middle, a fourth between the middle and the top, a fifth between the middle and the bottom. For that opinion of certain men about bars of five cubits seems so frivolous, and so contrary to authority, that it does not even seem to need refuting.

## CHAPTER IX. *On the erection of the tabernacle.*

[0219A]

It remains still to say those things about the tabernacle which are to be added concerning the erection of it. First, then, the boards were raised upon the bases; afterward the bars of the walls were drawn in through the circles. Then was inserted that bar which, for the holding together of the walls, went through the middle of the boards, according to the book, from corner to corner, where at the entrance of the tabernacle the veil hung down. After these, cords thrown over were stretched strongly across the tabernacle, and were firmly fastened to pegs fixed at a distance from the tabernacle. And so it came about that they both held the tabernacle itself firm and unshaken against the violence of the winds, and bore up its covering, lest in the upper parts it should make a belly [0219B] and gather the waters of overflowing rains; lest in turn, by the increase of the gathering, the hollow itself, and by the increase of that hollow, the gathering of the waters should grow, until at last the excess of the weight should altogether burst the covering, or, tearing it away, drag it inward and downward to itself. But on the western quarter the cords, hooked from the inner part, came down slantwise over the top of the walls to the lower parts, and, being firmly fastened to pegs, held the tabernacle on that side. Likewise on the eastern quarter we ought to understand that cords come down from the said bar and from the ends of the walls, and, stretched out from the pegs, hold the tabernacle on that side. Those who wrap the tabernacle as it were in the swaddling-clothes of infancy cannot find to what uses it has pegs, [0219C] although about these they read in this manner, if they will: *All the vessels of the tabernacle for all uses and ceremonies; both its pegs and those of the court thou shalt make of brass [n: (Exod. XXVII)]*.

## CHAPTER X. *On the drawing over of the coverings.*

The tabernacle being erected and stretched out with cords, according to the manner aforesaid, first the veil of the ten curtains is to be drawn over, so that the first may have its outer side toward the East, and the last of them may have its outer side toward the West. According to that dimension, then, by which it was said above that the whole veil has forty cubits, let it come down from the front by one cubit only, and let thirty be spread out along the length of the tabernacle; but let the remaining nine cubits [0219D] come down slantwise by the cords from the hinder [sic: *par te*]. But according to that dimension by which it had twenty-eight cubits, let the ten middle cubits be spread out along the breadth of the tabernacle; but a new one on this hand, and nine on that, in the descent of either side. Then indeed, the cords being fastened to the first pegs over against the fronts on either hand, and afterward drawn in through the first loops of the sides, and again hooked to another peg — and so by turns, the cords being fitted and drawn tight now to the loops, now to the pegs — let the veil be stretched over the cords first stretched out, so that it may seem to have made a kind of appendage along three parts of the tabernacle. But in those loops which the eastern side bore at the front, let it have a cord thrown in, by which the veil ought to be stretched on that part, lest it be able to be harmed by any force of the winds [0220A] or turned aside by any stretching from its due course. Over this veil let the red-dyed covering be stretched, and over that the covering of violet skins also. At the top we ought to draw over the veil of hair-cloths, so that the veil of curtains may be seen to be exceeded by one cubit on every part, and so that it may have the whole doubled hair-cloth at the front. And as we have taught concerning the veil of curtains, so this veil also, and after the same likeness, we ought to bind fast to the pegs and to stretch out. See, it is now plain to understand how the hair-cloth is doubled at the front, how the back parts of the tabernacle are covered out of the half of the eleventh hair-cloth, how one cubit hangs down on either side. See how the said stretching of the curtains makes, as it were, a kind of appendage along three parts [0220B] of the tabernacle: which indeed could serve the priests for putting on or laying aside the sacred vestments, or for other uses of that kind, and in which even those who did not dare to enter the tabernacle were able to weigh the beauty of the tabernacle. For to what end the beauty of the hanging curtains, to what end the gold of the rings, to what end the gilding of the bars, to what end the outward gilding of the boards, if the whole is so wrapped up that it is seen by no one, if the whole is so wrapped up that it is put to no uses, to no usefulness? To what end had another veil, after the likeness of the curtains, to be made at the entrance of the tabernacle, if the drawing back of the curtains closed the whole entrance? Since through Moses the sixth hair-cloth alone is bidden to be doubled at the front, why is another also, [0220C] according to certain men, likewise doubled at the hinder part? But if that drawing back of theirs is made there where the sixth hair-cloth hangs down at the front, then surely that sixth hair-cloth is there not merely doubled but at the least tripled, But if, over against the three lowest cubits which are left over above the hanging veil of hair-cloths, a drawing back is drawn over a drawing back, so that the sixth hair-cloth may be doubled, and that over-drawing, that it may be able to hold for the sake of the precept, is bound with fastenings, then beyond doubt there will now be no place by which the priests may enter. The things that follow concerning the two veils are plain enough of themselves and need no exposition.

## CHAPTER XI. *Description of the altar of holocaust.*

There follows concerning the altar of holocaust, which is described in this manner: *Thou shalt make also an altar of setim woods, [0220D] which shall have five cubits in length, and as many in breadth, that is, foursquare, and three cubits in height. And the horns at the four corners shall be of the same [n: (Exod. XXVII)]*. This altar had only four walls. For above it was open; and, as is read in what follows, it was not solid, but empty and hollow within. All these things are plain enough. But the things that follow about the grate are very intricate, and are for that reason to be examined the more diligently. I say therefore first what seems to me; and thereafter I shall try to prove that same thing by the authority of the letter itself. First, then, let two rods of brass, of such thickness as to be able to bear up the holocausts and the wood laid upon them, be carried from the one side of the altar to the other, so that their heads may appear outside near [0221A] the corners, and may have four brazen rings set into them. And they ought to be set in so that the one half of the altar be above and the other below. And from these there ought to rise inward four brazen posts, as it were four feet of the grate: two, namely, on this hand and beside the one side; two on that, beside the opposite side. Upon the top of these, certainly, the grate ought to be made, of brass, in the manner of a net, according to the book. And let it be made at such a height that it and the altar answer one another to one equality. Those rods first spoken of were therefore as it were the bases of the grate, and the four posts as it were its feet. And all these ought to be so set into one another and joined together that they make as it were one body, and can be torn away neither from one another nor from the altar. And there were [0221B] two little doors in the hinder wall, namely in the upper half of the altar. The one hung from the one side, and the other from the other, and when shut they touched each other in the midst. But the hearth of the altar was nothing else than a certain brazen plate, somewhat thick. Nor was the hearth brought in through the approach of the said doors, and laid upon the bases of the grate and upon the threshold of the door; yet first that whole lower half of the altar was filled with earth up to the place of the grate. Through this approach the wood was brought in, whereby the fire was fed; through the same approach the ashes were drawn out. And the altar itself was filled with earth up to the middle for this reason: that it might firmly stand [sic: *acret*] during the sacrificing, and that this very thing might accord [sic: *stacederet*] with that command of the Lord: *You shall make me an altar of earth [n: (Exod. XX)]*. But the grate [0221C] was to the altar itself in place of an upper surface, where the holocaust was wont to be laid on and, fire being set beneath, to be burned. With an empty suspicion, therefore, do they labor who think that sacrifice could not be made upon the altar without steps or some raising up. For it had only three cubits of height. But now we ought to consider whether Scripture itself agrees with those things which we have already said of the grate. Of the grate it is read thus: *And a grate of brass in the manner of a net,* where "thou shalt make" is understood, *through whose four corners there shall be four brazen rings, which thou shalt place beneath the hearth of the altar.*

Note that the rings were at the corners of the grate, and beneath the hearth of the altar. And it is added: *And the grate shall be as far as the middle of the altar.* If as far as the middle of the altar, [0221D] then either from the bottom upward, or from the top downward, as far as its middle. Let us compare with this place what is read far afterward of the same grate, when it is said: *And its grate he made of brass in the manner of a net; and beneath it, in the middle of the altar, the hearth, four rings being cast at as many tops of the network [n: (Exod. XXXVIII)]*. If the hearth was beneath the grate and in the middle of the altar, then the grate held the upper half of the altar; otherwise, it was itself beneath the hearth.

It is to be noted that in one respect the bases were of the grate, and in another respect were not of the grate. In one respect they seem not to be of the grate, because grates are not wont to have bases. Yet in another respect they were of it, because it sat upon them. Rightly [0222A] therefore is it said of the hearth that it was beneath the grate, although it lay upon the bases: *Four rings being cast,* he says, *at as many tops of the network.* Sometimes "top" means the same as "extremity." They were therefore either at the upper extremities or at the lower. But this very thing is determined from what is said in the first description: *Through whose four corners there shall be four brazen rings, which thou shalt place beneath the hearth of the altar.* If the hearth was beneath the grate and the rings beneath the hearth, then they were at the lower tops. For if they were at the upper tops, then, in order that the hearth might have the rings beneath it, it would have to have the top of the grate also, and so the whole grate, beneath it. And note that if the rings were beneath the grate and at its corners, then [0222B] something of the grate was beneath the hearth, where the corners could be, and whence the rings could hang down, so that they might be under it. They were, therefore, where the bases lying beneath the grate and the posts rising on high made corners, because they hung from the extremities of the bases. The rings, therefore, were beneath the hearth — not because it lay upon them, but because by position it held the higher place. It remains now only to ask this: whether the same rings are both the altar's and the grate's. Let us hear, then, what is added to the things already said in the first description: *Thou shalt make also two bars for the altar of setim woods, which thou shalt cover with plates of brass, and shalt draw in through the circles.* They shall be on either side of the altar, for carrying it. If the bars are on either side of the altar, then the circles also, through which the bars too are to be drawn. The grate, therefore, [0222C] has rings, and the altar circles. But are the circles of the one and the rings of the other different, each from each? With these things, then, which are said in this description, let us compare, if it please, those which are set out about the same in the recapitulation: *Four rings being cast,* he says, *at as many tops of the network, for putting in the bars for carrying it: which bars he also made of setim woods, and covered with plates of brass, and drew them [sic: incirculos] which stood out on the sides of the altar [n: (ibid.)]*. Certainly, as you hear, he made bars for putting into the rings of the grate, which same, he says, he also drew into the circles of the altar. Certainly the grate was within the altar, beneath which, in the middle of the altar, was the hearth. But were the rings that hung from the tops of the grate likewise within [0222D] the altar? How, then, could those same bars be put into the rings that lay hidden within, and be drawn into the circles that stood out without on the sides of the altar? But who would say this? It must be, therefore, that the rings of the grate and the circles of the altar are the very same, and that in them are the very same bars, and not different ones. It must be, therefore, that the tops of the grate itself also appear outwardly through the middle of the walls, from which hung the circles that stood out on the sides of the altar. See: what we said above of the altar, or of its grate, we have proved by the authority of the letter itself. But what has been said of the approach of the little doors can be gathered not so much by manifest authority as by manifest reason, as has already been in part shown above.

## TREATISE TWO. On the temple of Solomon, according to the letter.

[0223]

[0223A]The description of the temple of Solomon according to the book of Kings is for the greatest part plain enough; but in certain places very intricate and exceedingly obscure. But I am compelled by the insistence of certain men, whom I gladly serve, to say what I think, where in these matters there is need of explanation. The time of the building, then, is first of all expressed when it is said: *It came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year of the going out of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, in the fourth year, in the month Zio, that is the second month, of Solomon's reign over Israel, that he began to build a house to the Lord [n: (III Reg. VI)]*. To that which he says, in the fourth year, one must in the construing attend: *Of Solomon's reign over Israel.* For what is said, *in the month Zio, that is the second month,* is an interposition. This same thing is more plainly expressed in Paralipomenon, [0223B] where it is read: *And he began to build in the second month, in the fourth year of his reign [n: (II Paral. III)]*. The measure of the temple is determined in what follows. Now the house which king Solomon built to the Lord had sixty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and thirty cubits in height. That it is said to have thirty cubits of height, we must understand either of the first storey beneath the first upper room. For the whole height of the house had for a certainty a hundred and twenty cubits, as the book of Paralipomenon declares in these words: *Moreover the height was of a hundred and twenty cubits.* And that it had upper rooms the same book shows in what follows: *The upper rooms also he overlaid with gold.*

But it is to be noted that this measure of the length [0223C] and breadth of the temple which he now describes is taken within the walls, as manifest reason proves from those things which are said of the cherubim in what follows. He describes the measure of the porch when he adds: *And there was a porch before the temple of twenty cubits in length, according to the measure of the breadth of the temple, and it had ten cubits of breadth before the face of the temple.* There follows: *And he made in the temple oblique windows.* That is, wider within and narrower without. Now there were three walkways lying alongside the walls without: one in the one place over against the lower parts of the temple; the second set above the former, over against the first upper room; the third set above the second, over against the second upper room. But the boardings which covered these walkways [0223D] the author describes next, when he subjoins in these words: *And he built upon the wall of the temple boardings round about, in the walls of the house round about the temple and the oracle.* These buildings lying alongside the temple lay alongside it at the sides; nay rather, they were to it as sides: *And he made,* he says, *sides. The boarding that was beneath had five cubits of breadth. And the middle boarding six cubits of breadth. And [0224A] the third boarding having seven cubits of breadth* So much for the measure. There is added still something of the manner: *And he laid beams in the house round about without, that they might not cleave to the walls of the temple.* What he says, that they might not cleave to the walls of the temple, ought to be understood of the boardings, not of the beams. For the beams were set against the walls over against the floor of the first upper room, and columns received their ends on the other part. Upon these beams there was a wooden flooring, which covered the first walkway of five cubits' breadth; yet that wooden flooring, or boarding, did not reach all the way to the wall. According to what I have said of the first, it can be understood what is to be thought of the second and the third, save that the measure of each differed from the others, according as the book determines. [0224B] The boarding which covered the topmost walkway of seven cubits' breadth answered to the roof of the temple itself. Since therefore the wall of the temple bore the beams with the boardings laid upon them, for that reason he says that he built the boardings upon the wall of the temple.

But it is to be noted how fittingly each storey of the temple had walkways about it, where even in time of rain those who did not dare to enter the temple could come together for the sake of walking, or rather of praying. But how, or from what point, one might ascend from the lowest to the middle, or from the middle side to the topmost, is determined plainly enough after a few things interposed.

There follows: *And the house, when it was in building, was built of stones hewn smooth and finished.* When something hewn well enough after the common manner is still more finely [0224C] hewn beyond the common manner, then out of what has been hewn there is made, as it were, a thing hewn away. Or "hewn away," as it were hewn on every part. For all the stones of that temple were hewn on all six surfaces. Mark how orderly he proceeds in his description: for beginning from the outer parts, after the description of the sides he treats of the wall of the temple, which comes first thereafter. But greatly to be wondered at is what he says, when afterward he subjoins: *And hammer and axe and every tool of iron were not heard in the house when it was in building.* And indeed of the work in stone we can well enough understand this. For all the stones together, and all the timbers, had been hewn elsewhere and polished with the utmost diligence. But there are those who think that without instruments of this kind [0224D] such a fabric could in no way be raised, and joined into one out of material so manifold. For, to be silent about the rest, how without a hammer of some sort — of gold, of silver, or of wood, or of some other thing — could those nails be firmly fixed of which Scripture speaks in what follows. Or is it perhaps determined what sort of hammers are excepted, in that it is said: *And every tool of iron were not heard in [0225A] the house when it was in building?* But that I may say what I think: it is no wonder if in Solomon's works we find something which we may more rightly wonder at than search into.

There follows: *The door of the middle side was in the wall of the house on the right: and by a winding stair they went up to the middle upper room, and from the middle to the third.* See, here we have what we already drew out above. For in these words it is described how, or by what way, one might ascend and enter from the lowest side into the middle side. *The door,* he says, *of the middle side* — which side was of six cubits, and held the middle place between the lowest and the topmost — *was in the wall of the right of the house itself.* What he says, of the right, let it be read substantively; as to that which he adds, of the house, transitively. See by what way and where the entrance was; but how the ascent thither was made: *And by [0225B] a winding stair they went up to the middle upper room.* Note how skillfully he says the one openly and intimates the other silently. He determined the door of the middle side, and kept silence about the door of the middle upper room. But conversely he speaks of the way of ascent into the middle upper room; the way of ascent into the middle side he seems to have passed over in silence. But in both cases, what he keeps silent about the one he gives to be understood from what he says about the other. One way of ascent served for both, and at the [sic: *tringinta*] cubit of ascent the entrance lay open to both. This way was in the wall, that is, in the stonework itself, and on the right indeed, that is, on the southern part; and being led round step by step it bore upward: whence Scripture calls it a *coclea*, such as common usage also calls a *vitis*. But according to that which, indeed, [was] said of the way and the door [0225C] of the middle side, we can understand what we ought to think of the third. But that an upper room is called the middle and the third is not so to be understood as though there were there a threefold upper room, but that the one of which he first treats is the middle of the three storeys, and that the one which is treated of in the second place holds the topmost place, and the third. In the two upper rooms there was a threefold boarding, namely the floor of each and the roof of the whole house, which some think is called in this place a threefold upper room. But if the author had thought so, he would surely not have said: *And by a winding stair they went up to the middle upper room, and from the middle to the third.* But rather he would have said: And by a winding stair they went up to the first upper room, and from the first to the middle, and from the middle to [0225D] the third. But neither is it rightly said that one ascends into a boarding, but to a boarding.

There follows: *And he built the house and finished it.* Although, he says, the fabric was great and the manner of building wonderful, where hammer and axe were not heard, nevertheless he built and finished it. Beginning from the outer parts, after he had treated of the side extremities he at once attaches something also of the topmost extremities: *He covered also the house with ceilings of cedar.* That this is said of the topmost ceilings is shown in that it is said: *He covered.* There is added still something of those things which were at the ends of the upper parts: *And he built a boarding over the whole house, of five cubits in height.* The roof of the house, after the custom of the Palestinians, is believed [0226A] to have been flat. So far as appears to this point, these boardings of five cubits' height were built round about at the extremities of the topmost parts, that they might guard from a chance fall those who walked in the upper places. But of the roof of the house itself is understood what is at once added: *And he covered the house with timbers of cedar.* The outer parts of the temple being described, before he treats of the inner parts, he wonderfully commends and magnifies the work itself out of the divine answer. In which indeed he renders his readers greatly attentive and well-disposed in every way, lest to anyone it should perhaps seem idle that he describes each several thing so diligently.

The author therefore adds and says: *And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, saying: This house which [0226B] thou buildest — if thou shalt walk in my precepts, and do my judgments, and keep all my commandments, walking in them, I will confirm my word to thee which I spoke to David thy father, and I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel, and I will not forsake my people Israel.* All these things are plain enough of themselves, and need no exposition of ours. Yet I add this also, that perhaps Solomon received this answer of the Godhead in the midst of his working, and the divine good will met the good beginning with kindly favor; and in what order they were fulfilled, in that same order they were also written.

There follows: *Therefore Solomon built the house and finished it.* This he had already said above; but behold, he repeats the same, after he has shown out of the divine answer of what dignity and authority the house deservedly [0226C] was, which the Lord foretold that he willed to inhabit — as if he had said more openly: The work which was of so great dignity, he built and finished. Perhaps this commendation of the temple may avail for this also: that no one of those who read may dare to reproach me because he has seen me examine and explain with so great diligence each of the more obscure matters. Above he described the outer parts of the temple; now he begins to describe its inner parts: *And he built the walls of the house within with boardings of cedar.* One and the same wall was of marble without, and covered with boards within; and not in part only, but wholly. This is what is plainly determined in what is subjoined: *From the floor of the house to the top of the walls, and to the [0226D] ceilings, he covered it with timber within.* He covered the walls, therefore, with timber throughout, up to the topmost ceilings. And he covered the floor of the house with boards of fir. See the difference between the floor and the wall: the one is covered with boards of fir, the other with boards of cedar. After these he describes the boarding which divided the outer temple from the Holy of Holies: *And he built boardings of cedar of twenty cubits at the hinder part of the temple, from the floor up to the upper parts, and he made the inner house of the oracle into the holy of holies.*

## TREATISE TWO. On the temple of Solomon, according to the letter. (cont.)

It is to be noted that these boardings are said to be raised from the floor up to the upper parts, but not up to the ceilings. For up to the ceilings there were more than twenty cubits of height: for the lowest storey of the temple, as was said above, held thirty cubits [0227A] of height: *And he made,* he says, *the inner house of the oracle into the Holy of Holies.* Properly an oracle is called a divine answer made to man by God himself, or by an angel, or by a man: whence also we speak of the oracles of the prophets. An oracle is also the name given to the propitiatory, or to that place of the temple where answers were given and whence they were heard, according to what is read in Exodus: *Thou shalt make also two cherubim of gold, and of beaten work, on either part of the oracle [n: (Exod. XXV)]*. Of this place indeed it is said to Moses by the Lord: *Thence will I command, and will speak to thee: namely, above the propitiatory, and in the midst of the two Cherubim [n: (ibid.)]*. Sometimes by the oracle that whole inner house is understood, in which that place was contained. But in this place the name of oracle ought to be understood according to the first [0227B] acceptation. For because it had been especially dedicated to that kind of office, it is rightly called the house of the oracle.

There follows that in which the length of each house is determined: *Moreover the temple itself was of forty cubits before the doors of the oracle.* If the outer temple had forty cubits, then a length of twenty cubits remained to the inner house: for the temple held sixty cubits of length. Here by the name of oracle we must understand the inner house. What is said, before the doors, is the same as if it were said, in front of the doors. He repeats the statement which he had set down above, that he may add: *And the whole house within was clothed with cedar, having its turnings and its joinings skillfully wrought, and carvings standing out. All things were clothed with boards of cedar: [0227C] nor could any stone at all appear in the wall.* Of the things here set forth I will say what seems to me. What is read in what follows about the golden plates, the same I understand of these boards: that these, like those, were equal-sided, made in square work by the rule, in which, according to the book, there were turnings drawn round in the manner of a circle by the lathe, and within the circles cherubim and palm-trees carved. And these boardings were joined together in this manner. Between the posts cleaving to the wall within, and standing apart from one another by an equal measure, certain little beams, fastened on either hand to the posts, were set in order from the floor up to the ceilings, which received the boards described from the upper and from the lower part: for the boards themselves were set into their mortisings and fixed with nails. These little beams, therefore, [0227D] are called joinings, because the boardings of the walls were joined by them into one frame. After the same form, and with like timbers by which the boards were fastened together at the upper and lower part, understand joinings also on either side. And in these joinings a certain skillful chaining, and a knotted interweaving of braids, was carved, as the book of Paralipomenon, if I remember well, records in these words: *And he carved in it* (that is, in the house) *palm-trees, and as it were little chains embracing one another [n: (II Paral. III)]*.

There follows: *And he had made the oracle in the midst of the house, in the inner part, that the ark of the covenant of the Lord might be placed there.* By the oracle in this place we ought to understand that place in which [0228A] the ark stood in the midst between the cherubim: for the inner house was not in the midst of the outer house, nor could it be in the midst of itself. But in that he says, in the midst of the house, by the house in this place we must understand the whole temple; and in that he adds, in the inner part, by the inner part we ought to take the inner house. But next the oracle is put for the whole inner house, in that which is at once added: *Moreover the oracle had twenty cubits of length, and twenty cubits of breadth, and twenty cubits of height: and he covered it and clothed it with purest gold.* In that he said twenty cubits of height, he wished it to be understood of that wall which was made especially for the oracle, of which he made mention above also. [0228B] Perhaps someone will judge that in that place the first upper room was set lower. But we bring into the midst what we read in Paralipomenon; perhaps what we seek will more quickly shine out. For after he had treated of the inner house and of the two cherubim, he at once adds: *He made also a veil of violet, purple, scarlet and fine linen; and wove into it cherubim.* Who would doubt that of this veil is to be understood what is read in the Gospel: *And the veil of the temple was rent from the top even to the bottom? [n: (Marc. V.)]* And in this all the doctors and expounders of the Scriptures agree, that the veil was rent to this end, that the things which were within the Holy of Holies might lie open. Where, then, I beseech, did this veil hang, which divided the holy place and the Holy of Holies from one another. If we say that it was hung before [0228C] the wall, what did its rending profit, if, when it was rent, the wall remained entire? It is therefore to be held without ambiguity that the said veil hung above, over against those ten cubits by which it exceeded the wall of twenty cubits' height, and in that part divided the holy place from the Holy of Holies. But that what we wish to say of the position of the ark, or of the two cherubim, may be the better understood, let there come into the midst what we read of these in Paralipomenon in this manner: *And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord into its place, that is, to the oracle of the temple, into the Holy of Holies, beneath the wings of the cherubim, so that the cherubim spread their wings over the place in which the ark was set, and covered the ark itself with their [0228D] vestures.* But of the bars by which the ark was carried, because they were a little longer, the heads lay open before the oracle. But if anyone had been a little way outside, he could not see them.

It is to be noted, then, what you read in this place of the bars of the ark, which, according to the reading of Exodus, were always in the circles of the ark and were never drawn out of them. It is said, then, of these bars, which were set into the circles of the ark, that their heads appeared outside the oracle to those standing nearer: for by those a little removed they could not be seen. From these things, then, it is given us to understand that the bars which carried the ark lay on the one part upon the top of the wall of twenty cubits' height, so that their heads appeared without: which heads indeed the said [0229A] veil, coming down to that place, covered from the outer part. Those, therefore, who stood beside the wall could see the things that appeared between the top of the wall and the edge of the veil; but those farther off could not see them, because of the veil set between. To this opinion there seems to agree what is read of the same bars in this same book in what follows: *And when the bars stood out, and their tops appeared outside the sanctuary before the oracle, they did not appear beyond, outside.* And in this place likewise we have that the tops of the bars appeared from a high place outside the sanctuary and before the oracle. Note what is said when it is added: They did not appear beyond, outside. First it is shown that they appeared outside; afterward it is said that beyond, outside, [0229B] they did not appear. A new and unwonted manner of speaking: beyond, outside. The place which before the oracle clung to the wall was indeed outside: by whose operation any place farther off could be called beyond, outside. Inasmuch, therefore, as the tops of the bars could be seen from only the adjoining place, it is said that beyond, outside, they did not appear. From these things it is easy to weigh that there had to be something to receive the bars on the inner part. But how far, how this could have been done is easily weighed, is left to the conjecture of readers. In that it is said that he clothed the altar with cedar, it is noted that its first making was of stone. But the things which follow about the two cherubim are so plain that they need no exposition at all: *And at the entrance of the oracle he made little doors of olive wood, [0229C] and posts of five corners, and two doors of olive wood.* Contrary to the use of our custom, both at the entrance of the oracle and at the entrance of the temple there were two doors: and in both places the one hung from the inner, the other from the outer part, on either hand; and each was joined together out of two little doors, that is, out of two leaves. For not after the manner of leaves did one little door hang on the one part and another on the other; but the two little doors were so joined into one door by a certain golden chaining that, folded together upon one another, they held half of the entrance, but unfolded they closed the whole doorway.

It is to be noted that posts are sometimes so hewn that they have four corners, sometimes that they have [0229D] five corners; but sometimes they have six apiece, or seven, or even eight. The making of the work, therefore, is expressed in that it is said: *And posts of five corners.* But it is to be understood that these posts, raised before the entrance of the oracle, stood as far from the wall as the folded door could stretch itself, and that there was as much space between the one and the other as the unfolded door could close. But the interval which was between the posts and the walls, a boarding covered, both from the upper part and on either side. One of the doors hung from the post on this part; but the other from the wall, and on the other part. And rightly is it said first that he made little doors, afterward that he made doors, in so far as out of four little doors two doors were made. [0230A] But it seems superfluous that a specification of the material is found. See, we have what concerns the entrance of the oracle; let us now see what is said of the entrance of the temple: *And he made at the entrance of the temple posts of olive wood, four-cornered, and two doors of fir wood on either hand.* In what went before we had posts of five corners; here we have posts of four corners. There the doors are described as of olive wood, but here as of fir wood; but what he says, on either hand, is to be understood both of these and of those. For in both places there were two doors, and in both places the one hung on the southern part and the other of them on the northern part, so that one of them was fastened on the inner part, and the other on the outer part. What he adds of these fits both those and these: *And [0230B] each door was double, and, holding one another, was opened.* In both places each door was double, since each had been composed out of two little doors, that is, of two leaves, as I have already taught concerning the inner ones. And the leaves were opened not by hanging on either hand, but by holding one another; and in opening or in shutting they were now folded together upon one another, now unfolded.

## TREATISE TWO. On the temple of Solomon, according to the letter. (cont.)

Note that at the entrance of a gate there are wont to be made, on either hand in the wall itself, certain projections, against which the door strikes back on either side when the entrance is shut. But in so far as in this temple all things within were covered with wood, in the place of projections of this kind there were two posts on the inner part and two others on the outer part. And each one, as is said, was four-cornered, [0230C] according as the reason of the work in that place, or even the reason of the mystery, required. Like to the things we read in this place about the doors is what we find in the description of the temple in Ezekiel: *And there were two doors,* he says, *in the temple and in the sanctuary; and in the two doors on either part there were two little doors apiece, which were folded one upon the other. For there were two little doors apiece on either part of the doors.* What he says in what follows about the inner wall of the court is to be understood of the wall of the temple also; but it is said of that of which it would less appear: *And he built,* he says, *the inner court with three rows of polished stones, and with one row of timbers of cedar.* In the chief buildings of our time only the surface stones, both the inner and the outer, are wont to be polished; [0230D] but the middle parts between these are wont to be filled up with smaller stones, and those not polished at all. But in the works of Solomon both those which held the middle and those which appeared within and without were thoroughly polished, so that there were there three rows of polished stones, whereby indeed of the surface ones, the third of those lying between; but the fourth row was of wood, since all things within were clothed with cedar. The things which he was about to say, concerning the building of the temple, being finished, he repeats what he had set out at the beginning of the description. For he repeats and says at what time the building was begun, that he may add at what time it was finished, and may bring in in how much time it was completed: *In the fourth year the house of the Lord was founded, in the month zio; and in the eleventh year, in the month bul, that is the eighth, the house was finished in all its work and in [0231A] all its furnishings. And he built it in seven years.* The description of the temple being finished, he adds something about the house which Solomon made for himself, attaching also something about the house of the forest of Lebanon. Of the royal house he treats more at large; of the house of the forest of Lebanon he only makes mention: *And Solomon built his own house in thirteen years, and brought it through to completion.* So much for the time; and an interposition having been made about the house of the forest of Lebanon, he attaches something about the manner and greatness of the royal house. For what he added to the things he had set out before about the royal house — he built also the house of the forest of Lebanon — was an interposition: for what he attaches about the measure of the house is not to be understood of the house of the forest of Lebanon, when he says: *Of a hundred cubits in length, and fifty cubits in breadth, and thirty cubits in height, [0231B] and four walkways between the cedar columns.* But in the house of the forest of Lebanon arms were laid up, as is read in what follows: *King Solomon made also two hundred shields of gold, and three hundred bucklers of proved gold. And the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon [n: (III Reg. X)]*. Whence also that same place was called an armoury. Hence it is that of the said arms it is written in Paralipomenon: *And the king put them in the armoury, which was planted with a grove [n: (II Paralip. IX)]*.

Note that that place is said to be planted with a grove, whence also, for some likeness, it was called the forest of Lebanon. So much for the armoury; now let us consider those things which are said of the royal house. What concerns the measure is plain; let us see what is said of its making. As is gathered from what follows: there was there [0231C] a threefold row of columns, each of which had fifteen columns. One row divided the whole house from front to front into two halves. But another row parted the one half into two; and the third the other half into as many. In this manner, therefore, there were there four walkways parted by a threefold row of columns. Whence he still adds: *For he had cut cedar timbers into columns, and with boardings of cedar he clothed the whole vault.* By saying vault, he expresses compendiously enough the making of the work from the upper part. For from this it is noted that between the columns themselves the ceilings were not flat, but arched. For *cameron* in Greek means the same as curved, or convex, in Latin. The whole overhanging [0231D] curve, therefore, was clothed with boards of cedar, and was upheld by forty-five columns. But one row had fifteen columns set over against one another. From this place we have what we have already said above of the rows of columns and of the walkways. Mark how shrewdly the making of the porch is expressed, in that it is called a porch of columns, namely because, lacking a wall on the outer part, it was parted by columns. What is attached next, after the greater porch, about the other two, seems to be so understood: that one of them was at the front of the greater porch on the one part, and the other in like manner on the other part, in which was the tribunal, that is, the judgment seat. Of the house of Pharaoh's daughter he makes brief mention, where also he subjoins a general statement about the aforesaid [0232A] buildings, both of the queen and of the king, when he says: *All of precious stones, which were sawn to a certain rule and measure, both within and without, from the foundation to the top of the walls [n: (III Reg. VII)]*. Stones are said to be sawn for buildings both within and without, when the surface stones, both on the inner part and on the outer part, are so set in order that the joints of those laid above do not fall together with the joints of those laid beneath.

But note what is said: To a certain rule and measure. And they are sawn to one measure when the joint of the upper ones always, falls over against the middle of the lower ones. But he who had said before that they were sawn both within and without [0232B] — what is it that he still adds, and within, as far as the greater court. But what is first said, within, is to be understood of the inner surface; what is a second time repeated, within, is to be understood of the innermost part of the wall itself: for the stones that lay hidden within were sawn together with the stones that appeared on either hand without: *And the foundations of precious stones, of great stones, of ten or eight cubits; and above, precious stones of equal measure had been cut.* As in the foundation, though in the upper parts, they could not all throughout be of the same measure; otherwise the writer is found to be contrary to himself. But those which were of the same making and form were also of the same measure; and those which had a like position had also an equal [0232C] measure.

There follows: *And in like manner with cedar.* In like manner, he says, was it with the cedar: for after the manner of the stones a conformable working was done in cedar also. In that which he had said above — and [sic: *ad Urium*], namely the greater — it is not sufficiently understood whether that court is excluded from the aforesaid general statement or included; but it is determined in that which is here attached: *And the greater court round, of three rows of cut stones, as of one row of hewn cedar.* The same he had said far above of the inner court of the house of the Lord: what is here said of these buildings, but in this place is repeated for the likeness of the work. Hence it is that there follows: *And also in the court of the house of the Lord.* Not in any whatsoever: *But in the inner one, [0232D] and in the porch of the house of the Lord.* The things that are said of the brazen columns seem very obscure, and, unless they be finely distinguished, greatly confused by the very equivocation of the names. It is said, then, of these columns: *And he set up two columns of brass, of ten and eighth cubits in height; and a line of twelve cubits went round each column.* See, here the columns are said to have eighteenth cubits of height; but in Paralipomenon they are read to have [sic: *hahere*] thirty-fifth cubits [n: (II Paral. III)]. But what is said in this place of the height of the column is understood of the *stylus* alone, which is raised between the base and the capital. But the name of column is sometimes taken more strictly, sometimes more largely. And according as it is taken more largely, it seems to have four members. First the base; [0233A] second the *stylus*, which is raised on high above the base; third the *epistylium*, which is set above the *stylus*; fourth the capital, which is placed above the *epistylium* at the top. By the name of column, therefore, we sometimes understand this whole; sometimes the *stylus* alone, as in this place too, as we have already said. The name of capital, too, is wont to be taken in several ways. For now it is put for the *epistylium*, now for that which is set above the *epistylium* itself, now for both taken together alike. But nothing is wont to be called *epistylium* except what cleaves to the *stylus*, whence also it received its name. For *epistylium* means the same as "above." Thence *epistylium*, because it is set above the *stylus*. But in this description, when we read the head of the column, we must take it in different ways in different places. For now it is put for the capital, now for the [0233B] *epistylium*, now for the top of the *stylus* itself. Equivocations of this kind are wont to confuse the understanding of readers, namely of those who know not how, or neglect, to examine by fine scrutiny the things they read. Since the things that are said of the capitals seem very intricate, I will say first what seems to me, among, according to that which I have been able to gather from this book or from the book of Paralipomenon, and so I shall return to the exposition of the letter. The *epistylium* had at the bottom four cubits of breadth, but three cubits of height, and was fashioned after the manner of a lily. The flower of the lily begins from a roundness, and little by little widens toward the upper parts; and at the top it seems to have as many sides as it has leaves. So much for its measure and its making.

## SECOND TREATISE. On the temple of Solomon, according to the letter. (cont.)

The second capital is described as being five cubits in height, [0233C] and is seen to have as many sides as the *epistylium*, so that it might the better agree with that very *epistylium*, and that the agreement itself might adorn the composition. Now the second capital is regularly begun from the same measure in which the first leaves off, and, rising obliquely along every side, is often widened as far as its middle; but its upper half is regularly raised straight upward and perpendicularly. From other instances, then, we weigh what we ought to judge concerning these. Now in the middle of this second capital, where the workmanship changed, a certain projection was carved in the manner of a circle, which girded the whole capital, on every side — such as is regularly made on the *epistylium* in that part where it clings to the *stylus*. One such circle, as has been said, it had in the middle, and [0233D] after the same likeness it had another at the bottom, where it clung to the *epistylium* itself. But since Scripture calls these circles cords, we understand that they were so engraved that they seemed to be twisted as it were in the manner of a threefold cord. There was also, over against the upper half of the same capital, a certain piece of workmanship chained together out of bronze in the manner of a net, which encircled it on every side and hung down from its summit as far as over against the first cord; where a hundred pomegranates too were hung, and were set in order round about that same cord in a circuit. But there were also another hundred set between in this net, and set in order in a circuit in the middle of it, so that their circuit marked off the whole net into sevens of rows [0234A] and divided it as it were into equal parts. By one little row of the net we mean nothing else in this place than one order of the joinings or chainings that mark off the openings of a single order. Such a net as we have arranged upon the capital over against the upper half, understand that it has such a one also, with as many pomegranates ordered in the same way, over against the lower half. See, on these matters I have now said what I could gather from Scripture itself; but now let us return to the exposition of the letter: *Two capitals also he made, which should be set upon the heads of the columns, molten out of bronze.* Note that he begins his description from that capital which held the highest place in this work: *One capital of five cubits in height, and* [0234B] *the other capital of five cubits in height.* See, concerning the measure.

There follows: *And as it were in the manner of a net, and of chains woven one into another with wondrous work.* These capitals, which had the little chains, were set upon the *epistylia*, according to Paralipomenon. For it is read there: *He made two columns, and *epistylia*, and heads, and as it were certain nets which should rule the heads upon the *epistylia* [n: (II Paral. III)]*. See, he says of the nets that they covered the heads which were upon the *epistylia*. And note that what are there heads are here called capitals. But this author has put heads for *epistylia* when he says: *Two capitals also he made, which should be set upon the heads,* that is, *upon the *epistylia* of the columns.* But it is not to be understood of these capitals that he carved them in the manner of a net. The book of Paralipomenon, however, [0234C] writes that the said little chains were set upon the capitals, not carved into them: *And he made,* he says, *as it were little chains in the oracle, and set them upon the heads of the columns.* But a little after it is said in this description that these capitals were over against the nets. But what are there said to be little chains, or nets, set upon them, are here more expressly and more properly noted as set over against. There is further added concerning these capitals, or nets: *Each [sic: capitelium] of the columns was of molten work. Sevens of rows of nets on the one capital, and seven nets on the other capital.* See, according to what we have already said above, it is plainly gathered from these words that the nets on each capital were marked off by sevens of rows. It would perhaps be plainer if he had said "nets of seven rows" rather than [0234D] "sevens of rows of nets." But note that he means a single order of chainings led round the capital to be called a net, just as we call any scrap of cloth, however small, cloth. But there is no great need to care what is said in what words, provided the author's sense be truly understood

There follows: *And he finished the columns, and two orders round about each of the nets, that they might cover the capitals which were above the top of the pomegranates.* As we have already said above, on each capital there were two nets, and twice seven rows in each net, so that one order of seven rows was above the hundred pomegranates set between; and another order, likewise of seven rows, was above [0235A] the hundred pomegranates hung [sic: *iu*] one. Rightly therefore is it said: *Perfectly two orders round about each of the nets.* Since each one had two orders of seven rows. Now these nets of seven rows were so ordered that they covered the capitals: for they hung before the capitals themselves, and encircled them round about. But what is added — *which were above the top of the pomegranates* — is to be referred not so much to the capitals as to the nets. Which, he says, each of the nets was above the top of the pomegranates, since the upper half of each net was above the top of the pomegranates set between, but the lower half was above the top of the [sic: *mologranatorum*] that were hung.

[0235B]There follows: *In the same manner he made the second capital.* In what manner, he says, he made the capital which he wrought first, in that manner he made also the capital which he wrought second. For in respect of the working, or of the description, he means the one to be called first, the other second. See, concerning the capitals; now he adds concerning the *epistylia*: *But the capitals which were upon the heads of the columns were fashioned as it were with the work of the lily in the porch, of four cubits [n: (III Reg. VI)]*. Compendiously enough does he describe both their workmanship and their measure. But the capitals, he says — that is, the *epistylia* — which were upon the heads of the columns, that is, upon the top of each *stylus*, were fashioned as it were with the work of the lily: see, concerning the workmanship; in the porch: see, concerning the place; of four cubits: see, concerning the measure. Note that here he calls the *epistylia* [0235C] capitals. Likewise it is to be noted that above, by "the heads of the columns" he meant *epistylia* to be understood; but here, by "the heads of the columns" he means the tops of the *styli* to be understood. But at the end of this book this capital, or rather *epistylium*, is described as having three cubits in height; whence what is read in this place concerning its measure is rightly understood of its breadth. It was therefore four cubits in breadth about its lower parts, that is, a little wider than the column; but toward the upper parts it widened in the manner of a lily.

There follows: *And again other capitals on the top of the columns above, according to the measure of the column, over against the nets.* In what he now says, he returns to the capitals which he described earlier. For when he says "and again [0235D] others," they are to be understood to be other, not than the four aforesaid, but than the two last described. But, lest any doubt now arise, it is determined by what is said, over against the nets. For as to what is said, on the top of the columns above — if anyone should wish to understand it of a third pair of capitals, assuredly their arrangement will not be over against the said nets. But when he says that the heads were made according to the measure of the column, it is not to be so understood, as though the thickness of both were of the same measure. This assignment is not one of equality, but of proportionality. For that he assigns the measure of the capitals according to the measure of the column is the same as if he should say: Such was the measure of the capitals as the greatness of the columns required. Of the capitals therefore and the nets he briefly [0236A] repeats himself, that he may more fittingly add concerning the pomegranates, of which he had thus far said nothing: *But there were two hundred orders of pomegranates round about the second capital [n: (III Reg. VII)]*. If you attend to the order of position, in the first place the *epistylium* was set above the *stillim* [stylum?], in the second place that capital which had, in two nets, two hundred orders of pomegranates. According to this consideration the *epistylium* is rightly called the first capital; but that of which he now speaks, the second: *Of pomegranates,* he says, *there were two hundred orders round about the second capital.* Where there is no plurality, there can be no order. Wherever therefore there is an order, there cannot be fewer than two. Where therefore there were two hundred orders of pomegranates, there could not have been fewer than four hundred. Far below we read again concerning these [0236B] pomegranates: *Two rows of pomegranates in each of the nets.* Here they are said to be round about the capital, but the manner is determined there; since it was in the nets, which encircled the capital. But I do not see how they could have been in the nets, unless they had been set between or hung. But from Paralipomenon we have that a hundred had been set between; whence it is also established that the rest had been hung: *He made,* he says, *a hundred pomegranates, which he set between the little chains [n: (II Paralip. III)]*. If therefore the hundred pomegranates set between in one net were so ordered about the capital that any one of them had, directly beneath it, another hung, assuredly one net contained a hundred orders. But one capital had, as we have said, two nets; and [0236C] according to the manner stated there were a hundred orders in the one and a hundred in the other, and what is said is fulfilled. But there were two hundred orders of pomegranates round about the second capital. But what he subjoins, with a few things set between — and upon the heads of the columns he placed work in the manner of a lily — is a repetition of the sentence which he set forth above in these words: *But the capitals which were upon the heads of the columns were fashioned as it were with the work of the lily.*

And indeed it is to be noted how familiar it is to the author to repeat the same sentence. After these things he describes a certain vessel, which he also calls a sea, in which the priests washed their hands and feet when they were about to minister in the temple: *He made also a molten sea, of ten [0236D] cubits from brim to brim, round in compass: five cubits was the height of it.* All these things are plain enough. But what is immediately attached seems altogether impossible. And a little cord of thirty cubits girded it round about. For if any round vessel has ten cubits from one side to the opposite side, it is impossible that a little cord of thirty cubits should gird it. But this question is better solved in what follows, as will be said in its own place. About the upper parts, as is said, a little cord of thirty cubits girded it; but lower down, where it could be encircled by a little cord of ten cubits, it had certain delightful and playful engravings — this is what he immediately adds when he says: *And a carving beneath the brim went round about it, encompassing the sea for ten cubits. Two orders [0237A] of fluted carvings were of molten work.* What is said is plain enough and needs no exposition: *But the thickness of the laver was of three inches.* By grossness we ought to understand thickness; by laver, here the same as sea.

## SECOND TREATISE. On the temple of Solomon, according to the letter. (cont.)

There follows: *Its brim was like the brim of a cup, and the leaf of a lily turned outward.* From this description it is understood that its brim was bent back toward the outer parts; whence also that measure is understood to have been taken beneath the brim which is described above in these words: *And a little cord, of [sic: tringinta] cubits, girded it round about.* For that measure too, of ten cubits, is not taken beneath the brim, but where it is read there, from brim to brim: *It held two thousand baths, and three thousand metretae.* Concerning these measures it seems better to forbear [0237B] than to say anything, since under the same names different measures are understood by different writers. In what follows certain vessels are described, in which the holocausts were washed, which this book calls lavers, and which Paralipomenon names basins. Concerning these basins we read there in this manner: *He made also ten basins, and set five on the right hand and five on the left, that they might wash in them all the things which they were about to offer in holocaust [n: (II Paral. IV)]*. In this book he describes the bases of the lavers before the lavers, when he says: *And he made ten bases of bronze, each base of four cubits in length, and of four cubits in breadth, and of three cubits in height.* Since what is said concerning the measure of the bases is obscure, I say first what seems to me about it; afterwards the letter will be explained. [0237C] But, that what we judge about it may be the better understood, let us treat the several matters as it were limb by limb. First, then, let there be set two bronze plates of four cubits, pierced through in the greater part of themselves, as much in length as in breadth. Let the one have a square opening of equal sides, the other a round one, so that the side of the square does not exceed the diameter of the other. But let the plate with the square opening lie at the bottom. And above this, about its opening, let four plates be raised, firmly joined both to the first plate and to one another at the four corners of the opening; and let them hold three cubits in height. And at the four corners of the plate that lies below, beside the joining of those raised, let bronze columns be raised having three cubits in height. [0237D] But the plate with the round opening ought so to lie upon both the raised plates and the columns that it joins all things together above, as the first plate joins all into one below. And above the opening of the uppermost plate there ought to be placed a certain hollow as it were of a hemisphere, having in every respect the form as it were of a basin turned upside down. For the summit of this hemisphere fell away into a certain flat roundness, which held a cubit and a half every way, upon which the laver sat. But about the upper parts of the bases there came forth, on four sides, certain supports, which Scripture calls little shoulders, which received and upheld the bellies of the laver on every side. What is said of the wheels and of their axle seems plain enough; but now let us return to the exposition [0238A] of the letter. It is said, then, concerning these bases: *And the work of the bases itself was chased.* This is said with respect to that part in which the engravings were. There is one kind of engraving in which the outlines of any body are traced round only on the surface; another in which the whole image of the body is formed limb by limb, and the field which lies between the engravings is hollowed out, and is scraped away in part or utterly. And so, to distinguish it from the other kind of engraving, the work of the bases has been called chased.

There follows: *And carvings between the joinings, and between the little crowns and the plaits, and lions, and oxen, and cherubim; and in the joinings likewise above.* He calls the four sides of the plate set underneath at the bottom joinings, each of which joined into one the two columns on either side and the adjoining [0238B] plate set upright; but the joinings above are called the sides of the uppermost plate, by which they were likewise joined into one from above; and carvings are described as being in each of these. But in the bases the columnar part along the sides, on those plates which stood raised foursquare, had little crowns carved on it, and likewise plaits, as it were certain withies, artfully interwoven one with another. Between these plaits, then, where they folded back one into another in the manner of a circle, and likewise between the little crowns and the plaits, there are said to have been carved also lions, and oxen, and cherubim: *And beneath the lions and the oxen, as it were thongs of bronze hanging down, and four wheels for each base, and bronze axles.* All these things are plain enough. And what is added concerning the little shoulders is clear from what has been said before: *And on the four [0238C] sides as it were little shoulders of molten work beneath the laver, looking one toward another.* These things are plain, but what is added concerning the workmanship of the laver seems somewhat obscure: *The mouth also of the laver was within, at the top of the head; and what appeared outside was of one cubit, all round, and it likewise had one cubit and a half.* Think of the workmanship of the laver itself as the round form of a box having no lid. Its head, its upper parts; the top of the head, the circuit of the opening. But the top of the head, that is, the edge of the opening itself, girded and cemented to itself a certain smooth hollow clinging to it, made in the manner of a pipe, which he calls the [sic: *liberos*] of the laver, because through it what was poured in passed through into it. But the length of this held half a cubit; [0238D] half a cubit indeed descended into the belly, while one cubit appeared outside. It is said, then, that the mouth of the laver was within, at the top of its head, since a pipe of the kind we have described enclosed within itself the uppermost part of the edge. These things concerning the workmanship of the laver being interposed, he returns to the description of the bases, when he adds: *But in the corners of the columns were various engravings; and the middle spaces between the columns were square, not round.* There were therefore engravings not only in the little crowns of the bases, but also in those corners of theirs which lay outside the circle. He calls intercolumns the plates spoken of above, raised foursquare between the four columns. But if the plate set underneath had a round opening, [0239A] and a round hollow rose on high about it, assuredly the intercolumns would not have been square but round.

There follows: *The four wheels also, which were at the four corners of the base, clung together beneath the base.* For the axles upon which the bases set above rested, passing from one side of the bases and projecting on either hand, and thrust into the wheels, coupled the wheels one to another. The things which are added in what follows concerning the bases or the lavers seem clear from what has already been said before. At the end of the description he makes mention again of the columns described above, where he also inserts something which he had not said before: *And he finished all the work of king Solomon in the temple of the Lord: two columns, and the cords of the capitals upon the heads of the columns, [0239B] two of them, and two nets, that they might cover the two cords which were upon the heads of the columns.* Until now he has made no mention of the cords of the capitals; now he determines that there were two upon the heads of the columns. He calls them cords of the capitals, since they were in the capitals. But as to its being said that he made two cords upon the heads of the columns, it can come into doubt whether he made one on each, or rather two on each. But this very thing is determined by what is added concerning the nets: *And two nets, that they might cover the two cords which were upon the heads of the columns.* We have, from what has been set down and expounded above, that there were two nets on each capital. What therefore he says — two nets — is to be referred [0239C] to each capital. But the nets of each capital could not cover two cords, if there had not been two on each. What further he made, he adds when he says: *And four hundred pomegranates in the two nets.* It is to be known for certain that in this place four hundred is to be read, not forty, as many codices have it, corrupted by the fault of the scribes. This is easily proved from what is read above, where it is said: *But there were two hundred orders of pomegranates round about the second capital.* He for whom this attestation does not suffice, let him consult the Hebrew truth by means of the Hebrews, and he will find that what we say is true. But it is further added concerning these pomegranates, how they were ordered in each of the nets: *Two rows of pomegranates in each [0239D] of the nets, to cover the cords of the capitals, which were upon the heads of the columns.* There accords with this reading what is read in Paralipomenon, where it is written concerning the pomegranates or the nets: *Four hundred pomegranates also; and two nets, so that two orders of pomegranates apiece were joined to each of the nets, which should protect the *epistylia* and the heads of the columns.*

Note that the one says rows, the other calls them orders. According to what we have read above and expounded, there were two hundred orders of pomegranates in the two nets, namely a hundred in the one net and a hundred in the other. There were therefore a hundred orders in each according to that reading; two in each according to this reading. Without doubt there were a hundred [0240A] according to one consideration, and two according to another consideration. If you attend according to one dimension, you will find there two hundreds; if you consider according to the other, you will find there a hundred pairs. What he had said above concerning the nets, the same he repeats concerning the pomegranates. For of both he says that they covered the cords; whence it is understood how far the nets descended, which had the pomegranates hanging from their extremities over against the cords. From what has gone before, as we have already shown, it is given to understand that on one capital there were two nets, and only two cords. One order of pomegranates of the one net, therefore, could cover one cord, and likewise one order of the other net could cover the other. What then is it that is said, that [0240B] in each of the nets there were two rows or orders of pomegranates to cover the cords of the capitals? But in this it is noted that the comeliness of the work, or the reason of its signification, did not allow the first order to have a cord over against it; and therefore in each of the nets a second order was added, that it might be set before it in that place where reason demanded that a cord be placed. The first order of pomegranates in each of the nets, then, marked off the nets, as we said above, into sevens of rows; but the second, set before the cords, veiled them from the eyes of those who looked on. These things concerning the more obscure matters I have set out as I was able. If anyone should charge me not so much with falsity as with prolixity, let him know that I had rather seem too prolix to the smatterers than too obscure [0240C] to the simpler sort. But what has been said by me perhaps too prolixly, anyone more skilled has it in his power to recall to a compendium.

## SECOND TREATISE. On the temple of Solomon, according to the letter. (cont.)

It is to be noted that nothing is said concerning the measure of the bases; but from what is read in this book, or in Paralipomenon, how great it is, is easily discovered. For according to this book the *stylus* itself had eighteen cubits, and the two capitals held eight cubits. But according to Paralipomenon the whole column had thirty-five cubits, whence it is also established that its base had nine cubits. At the beginning of this description it is read that the temple had thirty cubits in height. If therefore the height of the porch answered to the height of the temple, how could columns of thirty-five cubits in height [0240D] be contained in it? From the mutual comparison of these statements, therefore, it is plainly gathered that one went up into the porch by steps, and that in that place where the columns stood, the ground was five cubits lower than the pavement of the porch itself. Now let those things be brought into the midst which are read at the end of Jeremiah concerning the said nets, or pomegranates, lest perchance they seem to someone to be at odds with what has been said above: *And nets,* he says, *and the pomegranates were surrounded by a hundred nets. And nets, and ninety and six pomegranates hanging. And all the pomegranates were surrounded by a hundred nets [n: (Jer. LII)]*. As has been said above, in one net there were a hundred pomegranates set between in the middle of it, and a hundred hanging in the one. But from what occasion it came about that there were not [0241A] more than ninety-six hanging there in the time of Jeremiah, I confess I do not know. According to what he has here given to be understood, one net was composed of a hundred nets; he means one order of chainings weaving round one order of openings to be understood as one net. If you count from the top downward, you will find fourteen openings in one order. If you count round about, you will find a hundred openings in one order. There were therefore fourteen nets there according to one consideration, and a hundred according to another consideration. There were nets of seven [0242A] rows as far as the pomegranates set between in the middle. Whence he also says: *And nets, and the pomegranates were surrounded by a hundred nets.* And there were other nets of seven rows as far as the pomegranates hanging at the lowest parts. Whence he also adds: *And nets, and ninety-six pomegranates hanging.* But whether the lower pomegranates hung in the outermost openings, or beneath them, could be doubted; but it is determined by his subjoining the general statement, when he says: *And all the pomegranates were surrounded by a hundred nets.*

## THIRD TREATISE. On the harmony of the times of the kings reigning together over Juda and over Israel. To the blessed Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux.

[0241]

[0241B]In those things which are said in the book of Kings concerning the length, [sic: *vevaria*] succession of those who reign, much contrariety, as you say, seems to be present; whence also the reckoning of the numbers is thought to be corrupted by the fault of the scribes. Whence also, before I should write anything on these matters according to your request, I consulted the writings of the Jews by means of the Jews, and I learned that both their writings and ours run together into one meaning. It is established with me, then, that there is no contrariety in these things, although the truth itself has hitherto lain hidden even from them. Far be it from me to believe that in the divine Scriptures the truth has anywhere so gone astray that it cannot be recovered at all! First of all, then, it is to be known that when it is read that some king reigned so many or so many years, it must not always be so understood as though [0241C] each one so completed the last year of his reign that no shortfall remained to its completion. But if that year which was divided between the successor and the predecessor were ascribed to neither of them, a great part would be taken away from the truth of the sum of the reckoning. Quite fittingly, then, and compendiously, to avoid trifling fractions, Scripture attributes a year common to two to him who obtained the greater part of that year. Likewise, if we attend diligently, we shall find for certain that what we often see done in our own times was frequent in those times. We often see that kings crown their sons while they are still alive, in order to forestall the contradiction and rebellion of their subjects. This was frequent among the kings of Israel, since they feared lest through some rebellion their kingdom [0241D] should return to the house of David. Concerning this, indeed, although it is not everywhere openly said in [sic: *Sciptura*], yet there is found in it that from which it may easily be proved in its own places.

And it is to be noted that the times of those gathering together are sometimes attributed to the father alone, sometimes to the son alone, sometimes to both son and father. For there are those who, although they have already crowned their sons, in no way wish them to exercise royal power while they themselves live. Deservedly therefore is such a time of reigning attributed [0242B] to the father alone. There are those who, after the crowning of their sons, now because of an infirmity of body, now of mind, give themselves over to leisure, are slaves to luxury, and commit the affairs of the kingdom in all things to their sons. Are not these times of reigning more rightly ascribed to the son than to the father? But when they handled the affairs of the kingdom in common, and defended the kingdom against rebels now together, now separately (as the Roman emperors also are read to have done in their times), are not these times of reigning deservedly ascribed to both? See: Hieroboam, king of Israel, is said to have reigned twenty-two years, and his son Nadab two years. But if these two are said to have filled out twenty-six years in reigning, what is said about the comparison of the two kingdoms will in no way be able to stand. For if Asa, king of Juda, reigned [0242C] in the twentieth year of king Hieroboam, how could Nadab reign, as is read, in the second year of the reign of Asa, and Baasa in the third? But if we understand that Asa began his reign at the end of the twentieth year, so that the year which is Hieroboam's twenty-first is the first for king Asa, and that which is Hieroboam's twenty-second is also the second for king Asa, and the same is the beginning of Nadab's reigning and his first year, so that he reigns one year with his father but the greater part of the following year without his father — if, I say, you are willing so to take it, you will see that in all this there is nothing of contrariety.

Likewise it is said that Baasa, who slew Nadab, beginning to reign in the third year of the reign of Asa, reigned twenty-four years. It is understood therefore that Baasa lasted until the twenty-seventh year of king Asa, [0242D] although he completed it only in its greater part. How then is Hela, son of Baasa, said to have begun to reign in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of king Asa, and to have reigned two years, unless because he reigned the twenty-sixth year of king Asa and the first part of the twenty-seventh year with his father, and the latter part of the same year without his father. For at the end of that twenty-seventh year Zamri slew him, and reigned in his stead seven days. But it is read that, when [0243A] the army had heard that Zamri had rebelled and had slain the king, all Israel made Zamri king over itself. It is established therefore that the same year was Zamri's first of reigning which was king Asa's twenty-eighth. What then is it that is read of him, that he reigned in the thirty-first year of the reign of Asa? But we know that, when Thebni rebelled, half the people followed the one and half the other. What therefore is said, that he reigned in the thirty-first year of Asa, is understood to be said of that time when, Thebni being now dead, he began to reign over the whole. But Scripture says that he reigned twelve years. If therefore Asa's twenty-eighth year was Zamri's first of reigning, it is established that Asa's thirty-ninth year was this man's twelfth in the kingdom. How then is it established that Achab, [0243B] the son of that same Zamri, reigned, as is read, in the thirty-eighth year of Asa, unless because without doubt Achab reigned two years with his father? And there accords with this judgment the fact that Josaphat, son of king Asa, is said to have reigned in the fourth year of the reign of Achab. For the same year which was Asa's forty-first proved to be Achab's fourth in the kingdom. But Scripture relates that king Asa died in the forty-first year of his reign, and that Josaphat his son reigned in his stead. But Achab reigned twenty-two years, whence also the same year was Josaphat's eighteenth in the kingdom which proved to be Achab's twenty-second and last. But Ochozias, son of Achab, reigned, as is read, in the seventeenth [0243C] year of the reign of Josaphat, and Ochozias' brother Joram in the eighteenth year of the same — the former, that is, in the next-to-last year of his father, and the other in that same father's last year. How then was it true that Ochozias reigned two years, or how did he reign in his father's stead, if his brother began to reign in the last year of their father? But from this it is given to understand that he passed one year in the kingdom with his father, and the other with his brother. It is understood that this same Ochozias received the kingdom from his father at the end of his father's next-to-last year, and passed the greater part of the following year with his father. But the same year, as we have said, which was Achab's last, was the eighteenth of Josaphat, king of Juda. It is weighed therefore that at the end of that same eighteenth year, after his father's death, Ochozias, broken by a fall and, at Elias' prophesying, [0243D] despaired of life, took his brother into the kingdom, and passed another year with him in sickness. But if Joram, son of Achab and brother of Ochozias, reigned, as is read of him, in the nineteenth year of Josaphat king of Juda, what is it that a little after he is said to have reigned in the second year of Joram, son of the same Josaphat king of Juda? Or was perhaps the same year the son's second which was the father's eighteenth. And indeed it could have been that, on account of some infirmity or some other cause urging it, the father at that time had crowned his son, although he did not at all permit him for some seasons to exercise royal power.

For it is to be noted that, when Joram son of Achab is said to have reigned in the second year of the other Joram, he is not called king Joram, nor is it said in the second year of his reign; [0244A] Scripture says nothing of the kind, as it was accustomed to say above in the case of the rest, but, making mention of the death of Ochozias, it added. And Joram his brother reigned in his stead in the second year of Joram, son of Josaphat king of Juda. If the son of Achab reigned in the second year of the son of Josaphat, how is that true which is said conversely, that the son of Josaphat reigned in the fifth year of Joram son of Achab, unless it is given to understand that from that time, his father granting and appointing it, he used the royal power in part, and handled the affairs of the kingdom together with his father? Hence it is that the times of those reigning together are ascribed from that same fifth year both to the son and to the father; for the times passed before are attributed to the father alone. But that year which was the fifth of the son of Achab was, of Josaphat — who reigned twenty-five years — [0244B] the twenty-third. But do you wish to know more openly from Scripture itself that that year was common to three? In the fifth year, he says, of Joram son of Achab king of Israel, and of Josaphat king of Juda, reigned Joram son of Josaphat king of Juda. See, the same year is said to be of king Josaphat which was his son's first and Achab's son's fifth — not because it was king Josaphat's fifth, but because it was common to him with the rest. For three years, then, father and son reigned together. There seems to run together into the same judgment the fact that the son of Josaphat is said to have reigned eight years. For after his father's death he could not reign so many years, since indeed in the fifth year after the death of Josaphat, Jehu slew both Ahazias, the son of Josaphat's son, and Joram [0244C] son of Achab. But in the kingdom of Juda this son of Josaphat is found to be the first to have reigned together with his father.

It is to be noted that the same year was the eighth of Joram king of Juda which was the twelfth of Joram king of Israel. How then is it said that Ahazias, son of Joram king of Juda, reigned in his father's stead, and for one year, if the same year was the last for the father and for the son and for the king of Israel? For at the same time, as has already been said, Ahazias and the king of Israel were slain by Jehu. But the son could have reigned for the greater part of the year with his father, and for the remainder without his father. And since he survived his father in the kingdom, he is said to have reigned in his stead. From these things, then, which have been said it will be manifest, as I believe, how false is the opinion (not to say the assertion) of certain men who, a false question having been raised, say for the sake of a solution that the son of Josaphat reigned twenty years. For the father could not have reigned twenty [0244D] years, if his son who reigned in his stead was slain by Jehu in the eighth year of his father, or a little after. It is established that Jehu, as has been said, slew Joram son of Achab, who reigned twelve years; and afterwards it is said of the same Jehu that in the eleventh year of Joram son of Achab, and of king Ahazias over Juda, he came into Jezrael and slew Jezabel. What then is it that what Jehu did first, he is said to have done in the twelfth year of Joram king of Israel, and what he did afterwards, he is said to have done in the eleventh year of the same king. But by a wonderful reasoning he intimates that in different respects one and the same year was for him the eleventh and the twelfth. For eleven years he reigned [0245A] by himself alone, but one he passed in the kingdom with his brother.

## THIRD TREATISE. On the harmony of the times of the kings reigning together over Juda and over Israel. To the blessed Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux. (cont.)

But it is to be noted that we find in this place a construction like that which we noted above. There it is read: In the fifth year of Joram son of Achab king of Israel, and of Josaphat king of Juda, reigned Joram son of Josaphat king of Juda. But here it is said: In the eleventh year of Joram son of Achab, and of king Ahazias over Juda, Jehu came into Jezrael. There the fifth year of Joram son of Achab is said to be of Josaphat as much as of himself, although it was the fifth in the kingdom for Joram alone. Here the eleventh year of the same Joram is said to be of Ahazias as much as of himself, although it was the eleventh in the kingdom for Joram alone. Jehu reigned over Israel ten and eight years, in whose seventh year Joas son of Ahazias began to reign over Juda, and reigned forty years. [0245B] But the same year was Joas' twenty-second which was also Jehu's last. But Joas, son of Jehu, began to reign in the twenty-third year of Joas, and reigned ten and seven years. The same year therefore was Joas' last which was also the thirty-ninth of Joas king of Juda. How then is it written that Joas son of Joachas reigned in the thirty-seventh year of Joas king of Juda, unless because Joachas made his son king three years before his own death? But when Joachas was dead, his son Joas reigned alone in the fortieth and last year of Joas king of Juda; whence also for Amasias, son of that same king of Juda, that is found to be the first year of reigning which is said to be the second for Joas the son. In the second year, says Scripture, of Joas son of Joachas king of Israel, reigned Amasias son of Joas king of Juda.

[0245C]It is to be noted that the times of reigning together are attributed to the father alone, whence it is also gathered that the son by no means exercised royal power before his father's death. Joas king of Israel is said to have reigned sixteen years, in whose second year Amasias king of Juda reigned. The year therefore which was Joas' sixteenth and last was Amasias' fifteenth. How then did Jeroboam, son of Joas king of Israel, reign in the fifteenth year of Amasias, as Scripture says, unless because in his father's last year he reigned together with his father? The same year, as we have said, was for king Joas the sixteenth and last, which was also for Amasias king of Juda the fifteenth. For fourteen years therefore after the death of Joas, Amasias reigned, of whom it is read that he reigned twenty-nine years. [0245D] What then is it that Amasias is said to have lived twenty-five years after the death of Joas, who nevertheless is not found, according to Scripture, to have reigned after that man's death except for fourteen years? But it is given to understand that after the twenty-ninth year of his reign, whether because of infirmity or for some other cause, he was at leisure for himself, and committed the affairs of the kingdom to his crowned son. Hence it is that Azarias, who is Zozias, son of Amasias, is said to have reigned in the twenty-seventh year of [sic: *Jerobam*] king of Israel, as is read in what follows: In the twentieth year, he says, of Jeroboam king of Israel, reigned Azarias son of Amasias king of Juda, as we have already said above, the same year was the first in the kingdom for king Jeroboam which for his own father was the last in the kingdom and [0246A] in life. But between the first and the twenty-seventh year you will find twenty-five years, in which Amasias is said to have survived king Joas. From that time therefore Azarias son of Amasias began to exercise royal power, not by his father's permission alone, but by hereditary right. As has been said above, in the fifteenth year of Amasias, king of Juda, Jeroboam began to reign over Israel. The same year therefore was Jeroboam's fifteenth in the kingdom which proved to be Amasias' twenty-ninth. And if Azarias son of Amasias received the kingdom from his father immediately after his father's twenty-ninth year, assuredly the same year was both Azarias' twenty-sixth and Jeroboam's forty-first and last in the kingdom. For the same Jeroboam reigned forty and one, and Azarias fifty [0246B] and two years. What then is it that Zacharias son of Jeroboam began to reign, as is read, in the thirty-eighth year of Azarias? Did the kingdom of Israel remain without a king from the twenty-seventh year of Azarias until his thirty-eighth year? It can indeed come into doubt whether on account of age, or on account of rebellion, or for some other cause, he was unable until then to prevail in his father's kingdom. That in the thirty-eighth year of Azarias king of Juda Zacharias son of Jeroboam is said to have reigned must be so understood: that in the thirty-eighth year indeed he began to reign, and reigned six months, not so much of that year as of the following one; and after him Sellum, who slew him, for one month. After these, Manahen, beginning to reign in that same thirty-ninth year, passed the lesser [0246C] part of that same year in the kingdom. For if he had passed the greater part of that year, Scripture would, after its manner, have ascribed to him not ten years only, but eleven. The things which are said of Phaceia, or of Phacee, seem plain enough. Joathan son of Ozias is described as having reigned sixteenth ( *sic* ) years, and yet Osee king of Israel is declared to reign in his twentieth year: whence it is given to understand that he lived twenty years in the kingdom, but that from the sixteenth year he made his son king, and that for whatever cause he so deserved to be exalted in the kingdom that the times of reigning together were ascribed rather to the son than to the father. In the second year of Phacee, who reigned twenty years, Joathan king of Juda began to reign. The same year therefore was Joathan's sixteenth, [0246D] which was also Phacee's seventeenth. But in the seventeenth year of Phacee, Achab son of Joathan began to reign, but, as it is given to understand, at the end of that same year: for if he had reigned for the whole time of that year, or for the greater part of that same year, I do not see why that year would not be ascribed to Achab, as are the rest that follow. The same year therefore was Achab's third which was the twentieth of Phacee, whom Osee slew. The same was nonetheless Achab's fourth, which is said to be his father's twentieth. Osee therefore reigned in the fourth year of Achab. What then is it that in what follows he is said to reign in the twelfth year of that same Achab? Or was it perhaps, as befell Zamri, that from the time when, Phacee being slain, he snatched the kingdom for himself, until the twelfth [0247A] year of king Achab he could not prevail, many rebelling against him? Whence it seems to have come about that the times in the kingdom which followed, but not those which preceded, were ascribed to him; [0248A] otherwise he would be said to have reigned eighteenth ( *sic* ) years rather than nine.

*[0247]A summary declaration of the two following tables, for the recognizing of the contradiction and the harmony of the times of the kings reigning together over Juda and Israel.*

[0247A]In what follows I have added two tables, in which are contained the things I have set out above. In the first are contained those things which seem to raise a question, or to bring in a contrariety. In the second table these same things are arranged in such an order that each of the things which raised a question may seem able to be understood from it without exposition. In the first table, and in its first order, you have arranged from the top downward the names of the kings reigning in Juda. And in the second order, [0247B] how many years each of them reigned. In the third order you have the kings of the Israelite kingdom. And in the fourth, the times of their reigning. In the numbers which are written beneath certain kings, it is noted in what year of the reign of him [0248A] who is written above, those began to reign who are written opposite on the other side. In the second table, at its first front, is set in order the series of the times from the beginning of the schism until the times of the first captivity. In the second order is contained the series of the times of the kings of Juda succeeding one another in order. In the third order it is open to see when it befell that sons reigned together with their fathers. What the second and third orders teach concerning the kings of Juda and their sons, this the fourth and fifth orders teach [0248B] concerning the kings of Israel. In which this too can be weighed, that certain times of reigning together are attributed to the sons alone, certain to the fathers alone, and certain to both sons and fathers.

## *From this first table you have those things which make and bring in the contrariety of the times of the kings reigning together over Juda and Israel.*

[0247]

*The names of the kings of Juda.* | *The number of the times of those reigning in Juda.* | *The names of the kings of Israel.* | *The number of the times of the reigns of the kings in Israel.*
Roboam. | xvii | Jeroboam. | xxii
Abia. | iii | xviii
Asa. | xli | xx
In year ii | Nadab. | ii
In the third. | Baasa. | xxiv
xxvi | Hela. | ii
xxvii | Zambri. | vii days
xxxi | Ambri. | xii
xxxviii | Achab. | xxii
Josaphat. | xxv | iv
xvii | Ochozias. | ii
xviii | Joram. | xii
Joram. | viii | v
ii | Joram.
Ahazias. | i | xii
Athalia. | vi | Jehu. | xxviii
Joas. | xl | vii
xxiii | Joaz. | xvii
xxxvii | Joas. | xvi
Amasias. | xxix | ii
xv | Jeroboam. | xli
Ozias. | Lii | xxvii
xxxviii | Zacharias. | vi months
xxxix | Sellum. | i month
xxxix | Manahen. | x
l | Phaceia. | li
lii | Phacee. | xx
Joathan. | xvi | ii
Achaz. | xvi | xvii
xii | Osee. | ix
Ezechias. | iii
iv | vii
vi | ix

## *From this second table is had the harmony of the times of the kings reigning together over Juda and over Israel.*

[0249]

*The first order, of the times from the beginning of the schism until the times of the first captivity* | *The second order, of the times of the kings of Juda succeeding one another in order.* | *The third order, of the time in which it befell that the sons of the kings of Juda reigned together with their fathers.* | *The fourth order, of the times of the kings of Israel according to the order in which they succeeded one another.* | *The fifth order, in which it befalls that the sons of the kings of Israel reigned together with their fathers*
i | i Roboam. | i. Jeroboam
ii | ii | ii
iii | iii | iii
iv | iv | iv
v | v | v
vi | vi | vi
vii | vii | vii
viii | viii | viii
ix | ix | ix
x | x | x
xi | xi | xi
xii | xii | xii
xiii | xiii | xiii
xiv | xiv | xiv
xv | xv | xv
xvi | xvi | xvi
xvii | xvii | xvii
viii | i. Abia. | xviii
xix | ii | xix
xx | iii. Asa | xx
xxi | i | xxi
xxii | ii | xxii
xxiii | iii | ii. The same alone | i. Nadab with his father Baasa
xxiv | iv | i
xxv | v | ii
xxvi | vi | iii
xxvii | vii | iv
xxviii | viii | v
xxix | ix | vi
xxx | x | vii
xxxi | xi | viii
xxxii | xii | ix
xxxiii | xiii | x
xxxiv | xiv | xi
xxxv | xv | xii
xxxvi | xvi | xiii
xxxvii | xvii | xiv
xxxviii | xviii | xv
xxxix | xix | xvi
xl | xx | xvii
xli | xxi | xviii
xlii | xxii | xix
xliii | xxiii | xx
xliv | xxiv | xxi
xlv | xxv | xxii
xlvi | xxvi | xxiii
xlvii | xxvii | xxxiii S. | i Hela
xlviii | xxviii | i Ambri, in part. | i [sic: *Zambrid.*] vii.
xlix | xxix | ii
l | xxx | iii
li | xxxi | iv Ambri in whole.
lii | xxxii | v
liii | xxxiii | vi
liv | xxxiv | vii
lv | xxxv | viii
lvi | xxxvi | ix
lvii | xxxvii | x
lviii | xxxviii | xi
lix | xxxix | xii
lx | xl | iii | i. Achas with his father.
lxi | xli Josaphat. | iv. Alone. | ii
lxii | i | v
lxiii | ii | vi
lxiv | iii | vii
lxv | iv | viii
lxvi | v | ix
lxvii | vi | x
lxviii | vii | xi

[0251]

lxix | viii | xii
lxx | ix | xiii
lxxi | x | xiv
lxxii | xi | xv
lxxiii | xii | xvi
lxxiv | xii | xvii
lxxv | xiv | xviii
lxxvi | xv | Joram. | xix | Ochozias.
lxxvii | xvi | xx | Joram
lxxviii | xvii | xxi. S. | with his brother.
lxxix | xviii | xxii | i. Joram alone.
lxxx | xix | i | ii
lxxxi | xx | iii
lxxxii | xxi | i Joram. | ii | iv
lxxxiii | xxii | ii | iv | v
lxxxiv | xxiii | iii | v | vi
lxxxv | xxiv | vi | vii
lxxxvi | xxv | vii | viii
lxxxvii | iv | viii | ix
lxxxxiii | v | ix | x
lxxxix | vi | x | xi
xc | vii | xi
xci | viii S. | i Ahazias. | xii
xcii | i Athalia. | i. Hieu.
xciii | ii | ii
xciv | iii | iii
xcv | iv | iv
xcvi | v | v
xcvii | vi | vi
xcviii | i Joas. | vii
xcix | ii | viii
c. | iii | ix
ci | iv | x
cii | v | xi
cii | vi | xii
civ | vii | xiii
cv | viii | xiv
cvi | ix | xv
cvii | x | xvi
cviii | xi | xvii
cix | xii | xviii
cx | xiii | xix
cxi | xiv | xx
cxii | xv | xxi
cxiii | xvii | xxii
cxiv | xvii | xxiii
cxv | xviii | xxiv
cxvi | xix | xxv
cxvii | xx | xxvi
cxviii | xxi | xxvii
cxix | xxii | xxviii
cxx | xxiii | i. Joas.
cxxi | xxiv | ii
cxxii | xxv | iii
cxxiii | xxvi | iv
cxxiv | xxvii | v
cxxv | xxviii | vi
cxxvi | xxix | vii
cxxvii | xxx | viii
cxxviii | xxxi | ix
cxxix | xxxii | x
cxxx | xxxiii | xi
cxxxi | xxxiv | xii
cxxxii | xxxv | xiii
cxxxiii | xxxvi | xiv
cxxxiv | xxxvii | xv Joas.
cxxx | xxxviii | xvi
cxxxvi | xxxix | xvii
cxxxvii | xl | i Joas. alone.
cxxxviii | i Amasias | ii
cxxxix | ii | iii
cxl | iii | iv

[0253]

cxli | iv | v
cxlii | v | vi
cxliii | vi | vii
cxliv | vii | viii
cxlv | viii | ix
cxlvi | ix | x
cxlvii | x | ix
cxlviii | xi | x
cxlix | xii | xi
cl | xiii | xii
cli | xiv | xiii
clii | xv. | i | xiv
cliii | xvi | ii | xv | Jeroboam with his father alone.
cliv | xvii | iii | xvi
clv | xviii | iv | ii
clvi | xix | v | iii
clvii | xx | vi | iv
clviii | xxi | vii | v
clix. | xxii | viii | vi
clx | xxiii | ix | vii
clxi | xxiv | x | viii
clxii | xxv | xi | ix
clxiii | xxvi | xii | x
clxiv | xxvii | xiii | xi
clxv | xxviii | xiv | xii
clxvi | xxix | xv | xiii
clxvii | i Ozias who is also Azarias | xvi | xiv
clxviii | ii | xvii | xv
clxix | iii | xviii | xvi
clxx | iv | xix | xvii
clxxi | v | xx | xviii
clxxii | vi | xxi | xix
clxxiii | vii | xxii | xx
clxxiv | viii | xxiii | xxi
clxxv | ix | xxiv | xxii
clxxvi | x | xxiii
clxxvii | xi | xxiv
clxxviii | xii Ozias, on the death | xxv
clxxix | xiii of his father | xxvi
clxxx | xiv | xxvii
clxxxi | xv | xxviii
clxxxii | xvi | xxix
clxxxiii | xvii | xxx
clxxxiv | xviii | xxxi
clxxxv | xix | xxxii
clxxxvi | xx | xxxiii
clxxxvii | xxi | xxxiv
clxxxviii | xxii | xxxv
clxxxix | xxiii | xxxvi
cxc | xxiv | xxxvii
cxci | xxv | xxxviii
cxcii | xxvi | xxxix
cxciii | xxvii | xl
cxciv | xxviii | xli
cxcv | xxxix
cxcvi | xxx
cxcvii | xxxi
cxcviii | xxxii
cxcix | xxxiii
cc | xxxiv
cci | xxxv
ccii | xxxvi
cciii | xxxvii
cciv | xxxviii | Zacharias
ccv | xxxix | vi months. | Sellum i month. | Manahen.
ccvi | xl | i
ccvii | xli | ii
ccviii | xlii | iii
ccix | xliii | iv
ccx | xliv | v
ccxi | xlv | vi
ccxii | xlvi | vii

[0255]

ccxiii | xlvii | viii
ccxiv | xlviii | ix
ccxv | xlix | i Phaceia
ccxvi | l | ii
ccxvii | li | i Phacee
ccxviii | lii | ii
ccxix | i Joathan. | iii
ccxx | ii | iv
ccxxi | iii | v
ccxxii | iv | vi
ccxxiii | v | vii
ccxxiv | vi | viii
ccxxv | vii | ix
ccxxvi | viii | x.
ccxxvii | ix | xi
ccxxviii | x | xii
ccxxix | xi | xiii
ccxxx | xii | xiv
ccxxxi | xiii | xv.
ccxxxii | xiv | xvi
ccxxxiii | xv | xvii
ccxviv | xvi | Achaz. | xviii
ccxxxv | i | xix
ccxxxvi | ii | xx
ccxxxvii | iii | Osee
ccxxxviii | xx | iv
ccxxxix | v
ccxl | vi
ccxli | vii
ccxlii | viii
ccxliii | ix
ccxliv | x
ccxlv | xi
ccxlvi | xii | Osee
ccxlvii | xiii | i
ccxlviii | xiv | Ezechias. | ii
ccxlix | xv | i | iii
ccl | xvi | iv
ccli | ii | v
cclii | iii | vi
ccliii | iv | vii
ccliv | v | viii
cclv | vi | ix.