Chapter 11
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
The defect in government when a useless and carelessruler is promoted #28 Ecclesiastes 10:16-19 A useless and careless ruler is unworthy to rule #29-34 Ecclesiastes 10:20
Do not speak in secret against the carnal and lazy ruler #35-37 Two Questions 34 Chapter 11 Ecclesiastes 11:1-10 Remedy against the vanity of security arising from a lack of justice in punishment #1 Ecclesiastes 11:1-7 Challenge to good from a consideration of reward #2-15 Ecclesiastes 11:8-10 Ecclesiastes recalls us from evil by a consideration of future punishment #16-19 Chapter 12 The second section of Part III:
Ecclesiastes 12:1-8 Punishment which is unmixed affliction #1 Ecclesiastes 12:1-2 Punishment as affliction described in a general way #2-9 Ecclesiastes 12:3-7 Punishment as affliction described in particular #10
Ecclesiastes 12:3-5b Troubles that precede death Ecclesiastes 12:3-4 The weakening of the members #11-17 Ecclesiastes 12:5ab The four signs of the debility of the body in old age #18-22
INTRODUCTION
Ecclesiastes 12:5c The troubles accompanying death #23 Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 The troubles that come after death #24-30
Ecclesiastes 12:3-7 Spiritual interpretations of these verses #31 Ecclesiastes 12:3-5b The state of the Church before the judgment
#32 Ecclesiastes 12:3-4a The lessening of faith #33-36 Ecclesiastes 12:4b-5a The spread of error #37-40 Ecclesiastes 12:5b The way in which error will be multiplied
#41-44 Ecclesiastes 12:5c The judgment itself #45-46 Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 What follows judgment #47-52 Ecclesiastes 12:8
The conclusion of the triple proof #53-54 The Epilogue:
Ecclesiastes 12:9-14 #55 Ecclesiastes 12:9-10 The skill of the writer #56-57 Ecclesiastes 12:11
The authority of the words or teaching #58 Ecclesiastes 12:12
He warns about curiosity in the listeners #59-60 Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 The high point of his words #61-63
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
ABBREVIATIONS
ACW Ancient Christian Writers CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Douay Version The Holy Bible Translated from the Latin
Vulgate . . . The Douay Version of The Old Testa ment; The Confraternity Edition of The New Tes tament. New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1950.
FC Fathers of the Church.
Hugh of St. Cher Hugonis de Sancto Cher . . . Tomus Tertius in Libros Proverbiorum, Ecclesiastae, Canticorum,
Sapientiae, Ecclesiastici. Venice: Nicolas Pezzana, 1732.
LCL Loeb Classical Library NAB New American Bible NRSV New Revised Standard Version Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae Opera Omnia. Studio et Cura
PP. Collegii a S. Bonaventura (Ad Claras Aquas). Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1882-1902. There are nine volumes of text and one volume of indices. The volume number is first given and then the page num-ber, e. g.,
5:24.
PG Patrologias Cursus Completus. Series Graeca.
Ed. J. P. Migne.
PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina.
Ed. J. P. Migne.
QuarEd The editors who produced the text and the notes of Bonaventure's Opera Omnia 6, which con tains the text of Bonaventure's Commentary on
INTRODUCTION
Ecclesiastes (Commentarius in librum Ecclesiastae).
SBOp Sancti Bernardi Opera I-VIII. Ed. J. Leclercq and H. M. Rochais with the assistance of C. H.
Talbot for Volumes I-II. Rome: Editiones Cisterciensis, 1957-1977.
Vulgate Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem.
Adiuvantibus B. Fischer, I. Gribomont (†), H. F.
D. Sparks, W. Thiele recensuit et brevi apparatu critico instruxit Robertus Weber (†) editionem quartam emendatam cum sociis B. Fischer, H.
I. Frede. H. F. D. Sparks, W. Thiele praeparavit Roger Gryson. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969. 4th ed. 1994.
WAE The Works of Aristotle. Volumes 1-12. Trans lated into English under the Editorship of W.
D. Ross. London: Oxford University Press, 1928.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Franciscan Institute gratefully acknowledges generous funding from the Academy of American Franciscan
History; the OFM Province of St. John the Baptist; the OFM Province of the Sacred Heart in Saint Louis; and the OFM General Definitorium in Rome, Italy. The two translators of this volume also owe a debt of gratitude to Sr.
Margaret Carney, O.S.F., director of the Franciscan Institute; Fr. Zachary Hayes, O.F.M., general editor of the Bonaventure Texts in Translation Series; to Dr. Jean
François Godet-Calogeras, managing editor of the BTTS; to Sr. Roberta McKelvie, O.S.F., managing editor of Franciscan Institute Publications; and to Ms. Noel H.
Riggs, executive administrative assistant.
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
ON ECCLESIASTES
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1. Blessed is the man,1 whose trust is in the name of the Lord and has no regard for vanities and lying follies.2 For, as Blessed Dionysius says: Good is above all else desirable.3 Now good is twofold, namely, temporal and eternal, according to what 2 Corinthians 4:18 says: The things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal.4 Good stirs up in us a twofold love or desire, namely,
1The Latin reads vir ("man"), not homo ("human being").
2Psalm 39:5.
3On p. 3 n. 1 QuarEd state that Dionysius suggests this is his De divinis nominibus, chapter 4 n. 4, 10, 31. See PG 3:698-699, 706-707,
751 where Bonaventure's exact wording does not occur.
4On p. 3 n. 2 QuarEd refer to Augustine's treatments of this twofold love. See Book XI, chapter 15, n. 19-20 of his De Genesi ad litteram and On Genesis, Introductions, Translation and Notes by Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine I/13 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2002),
439-440. See further question 36 n. 1 in Eighty-Three Different Questions, translated by David L. Mosher, FC 70 (Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 67-69, esp. 68: "However, the poison of charity is the hope of getting and holding onto temporal things. The nourishment of charity is the lessening of covetousness, the perfection of charity, the absence of covetousness." Also see Book
XIV chapter 28 in The City of God Books VIII-XVI, translated by Gerald G. Walsh and Grace Monahan, FC 14 (New York: Fathers of the Church,
Inc., 1952), 410: "What we see, then, is that two societies have issued from two kinds of love. Worldly society has flowered from a selfish love which dared to despise even God, whereas the communion of saints is
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
of love or inordinate desire with the result that charity becomes love returning to what is eternal while inordinate desire to what is earthly. And since the concord and disharmony of actions follow upon the concord and difference of desires and since the unity of a city consists in the concord between laws and behavior, a twofold city arises from this twofold love, that is, the city of the heavenly
Jerusalem and the city of Babylon.5 The foundation of the first city is ordered charity whereas the foundation of the second is perverse inordinate desire. Therefore, the heavenly city, since it is founded on charity, which raises one up to eternal things, is at peace in eternal things and finds blessedness in them. But the city of Babylon, which is weighed down by inordinate desire to earthly things, finds blessedness in these earthly things. – And so it is clear from the preceding that just as there is a twofold good, a twofold love, and a twofold city, so too is there a twofold blessedness, namely, a true blessedness in what is eternal and a false blessedness in what is temporal and earthly.
Psalm 143:15 states: They have called the people blessed, who have these things, etc.6 – The love of charity and inorrooted in a love of God that is ready to trample on self." The editors also state that Augustine, who calls libido ("inordinate desire") cupiditas
("covetousness"), defines libido in his book De mendacio, chapter 7 n.
10: "A desire of the mind, by which some temporal goods are put before eternal goods." See PL 40:496 and Saint Augustine: Treaties on Various
Subjects, ed. Roy J. Deferrari, FC 16 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1952), 69.
5On p. 3 n. 3 QuarEd refer to Book XV, chapters 1-2 of Augustine's City of God. See The City of God (FC 14), pp. 413-417. They also refer to Augustine's exposition of Psalm 64, n. 1-2. See Expositions of the Psalms
51-72. Translation and notes by Maria Boulding The Works of Saint Augustine III/17 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001), 264-267, esp. n. 2 on 265: "Babylon signifies 'confusion,' and Jerusalem 'vision of peace.'
You need to study the city of confusion now, in order to understand the vision of peace; you must endure the one, and yearn for the other."
6Psalm 143:15 continues: ". . . .But blessed are the people whose God is the Lord."
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
dinate desire are so opposed to one another that they cannot exist together. About these two forms of blessedness
Matthew 6:24 says: No person can serve two masters. So if people want to be blessed, it is necessary that they love future goods and despise present goods. Therefore, the Holy
Spirit through the Psalmist describes the blessed man by means of this twofold action: From the love of heavenly things, which makes him blessed, since he says: Blessed is the man, whose trust is in the name of the Lord and from the contemning of earthly things, since he states: And has no regard for vanities and lying follies. Truly, blessed is the man, whose trust is in the name of the Lord.
2. Now the Lord alone makes one blessed. Nor is there any other name under heaven that makes one blessed.7
For the Lord alone is blessed in essence. 1 Timothy 6:1415 reads: Keep the commandment without stain, blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This coming he in his own time will make manifest, who is the Blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. Therefore, blessedness and power belong alone to God by essence, but our blessedness comes through participation. What we participate in has its origin in the one who is blessed by essence. Consequently, we are blessed by participating in the source of blessedness, that is, God.
For Revelation 19:9 says: Blessed are they who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. For first God communicates blessedness to the Lamb through a marriage contract, and subsequently to all who are called by the Lamb.
3. Further, only God has abundance. For in a special way Proverbs 3:15-16 speaks of Wisdom, who is God: She is
7On p. 3 n. 5 QuarEd rightly indicate that Bonaventure is alluding to Acts 4:12: "For there is no other name under heaven given to men and women by which we must be saved."
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
more precious than all riches. And all the things that are desired are not to be compared to her. Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left hand riches and glory. But our blessedness consists in acquiring all good things.
Therefore, God alone has an abundance of all things. This is inferred from what follows right afterwards in Proverbs 3:18: She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her, and the person who shall retain her is blessed. Wisdom
7:11 states: All good things came to me together with her, etc.8
4. God alone has the quiet of not changing, because all other things change, while God does not change. James
1:17 reads: With whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration. But our blessedness consists in the tranquil possession of accumulated goods because there can be no blessedness without tranquility. But since perfect tranquility exists in God alone, we can find peace and be blessed only in God. For this reason Revelation 14:13 has: Blessed are the dead, who from now on die in the Lord. Yes, says the Spirit, let them rest from their labors.
5. Moreover, God alone has the immortality of eternity, as it is stated in 1 Timothy 6:16: Who alone has immortality and dwells in light inaccessible.9 But our blessedness consists in an unending duration of good possessed, for a state of life that can come to an end is not blessed, but subject
8Wisdom 7:11 concludes: ". . . and innumerable riches through her hands." On p. 3 n. 7 QuarEd indicate that Bonaventure's discussion of blessedness builds upon that of Boethius. See Book III, second preface of Boethius, The Theological Tractates and The Consolation of Philosophy, trans. S. J. Tester, LCL (London: Heineman/Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1973), 233: Blessedness or happiness "is that state which is perfect since all goods are gathered together in it."
9The Vulgate reads habitans ("dwelling") while Bonaventure has habitat ("dwells").
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
to misery. Wherefore, since one cannot have interminability except from the source of immortality, one is blessed in God alone. So it is said in Psalm 83:5: Blessed are those who dwell in your house, O Lord. They will praise you forever and ever, because they will have everlasting joy. Isaiah
35:10 states: They will come into Zion with praise, and everlasting joy will be upon their heads.10 They will obtain joy and gladness. Therefore, Blessed is the man, whose trust is in the name of the Lord.
6. But people who put their trust in the world are not blessed. Rather they are in fact vain. For they have regard for vanities and lying follies. Their trust vanishes, according to what Jeremiah 2:5 states: Your fathers have gone far from me and have gone11 after vanity and have become vain. They have gone after vanity, that is, after the world.
– For the world with its own is vain because it does not provide support for the person who leans on it. For Isaiah
30:7 reads: Egypt will provide assistance to no purpose and in vain, in that it gives no support to the person who leans upon it. For it is a bunch of reeds, and those who lean on it will cut both hands, because the world and all that belongs to the world weaken and make sick all who trust in them and render them unfit for every good work. Thus, it is said that the hand is cut. In desperation the Prophet in Psalm 59:13 asks the Lord for help against the things of the world: Give us help from trouble, since vain is human salvation.
7. The world is also vain because it does not provide abundance for the one who possesses it. For Ecclesiastes 5:9 says:
10On p. 4 n. 4 QuarEd accurately indicate that the Vulgate reads caput ("head") while Bonaventure has capita ("heads").
11On p. 4 n. 5 QuarEd correctly mention that the Vulgate reads ambulaverunt ("have walked") while Bonaventure has abierunt ("have gone").
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
A covetous person will not be satisfied with money. The reason for this is that all earthly things are vain, and what is vain does not satisfy. Thus, it is said in Sirach 34:1-2:
The hopes of a man who is void of understanding are vain and deceitful. . . .The person who gives heed to lying visions is like the person who catches at a shadow and follows after the wind. So just as the wind does not satisfy the belly, nor shadows fill it, neither do temporal things since they are but shadows of the eternal things for which the soul has been created.
8. The world is also vain because it does not give rest to the laborer. So the person who works for earthly goods works in vain. Ecclesiastes 2:22-23 reads: For what profit do people have from all the labors . . . by which they labor12 under the sun? All their days are full of labors13 and miseries. Even at night they do not rest in mind. And is this not vanity? It is vanity because people labor in vain, because they do not rest. This world cannot give rest, because it does not endure, but is always in motion. Therefore, whoever clings to it must be in motion. Thus, it is said in Psalm
11:9: The wicked walk about in motion.
9. It is also vain because it does not give fruit to the person who loves it. So Ecclesiastes 5:9 says: The person who loves riches will reap no fruit from them. And so this also is vanity. Such a person reaps not fruit, but rather damnation, for by gaining the world that person loses God and loses himself, and this in accord with what Matthew 16:26 states: For what does it profit people if they gain the whole world and suffer the loss of their own souls?
12The Vulgate does not read laborat ("labor").
13The Vulgate reads eius doloribus ("their sorrows") while Bonaventure simply has laboribus ("labors").
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
10. By gaining the world, men and women suffer the loss of their souls. – For the world, by offering a false exaltation, lifts one up to pride and through this makes a person pass away according to what Job 11:12 has: A vain man is lifted up into pride and thinks himself born free like a wild ass' colt. For when a person is lifted up to vain things, that person is lifted up to vain pride, according to what Job
30:22 reads: You have lifted me up and set me as it were upon the wind, and you have mightily dashed me. – Also by offering a false sweetness, the world stirs up voluptuousness, just as wine by its sweetness draws one to gluttony and thence to voluptuousness. So 3 Esdras 3:18-19 has:
Wine, which overcomes all who drink it, leads astray the mind. Also it makes vain the mind of king and orphan,14 and this by inciting the mind to voluptuousness, according to what Ephesians 5:18 states: Be not drunk with wine wherein is voluptuousness. The world drew Solomon to this vanity. Ecclesiastes 2:1 says: I said. . . .I will go and abound in delights and enjoy good things. And I saw that this also was vanity.
11. The world also offers a false abundance by which it stirs up greed and thus makes the human heart vain, according to Proverbs 21:6: The person who gathers treasures by a lying tongue is vain and foolish. Greed not only makes men and women vain, but also takes away their heart. For Sirach 10:10 says of the avaricious that they throw away their innards,15 since according to what Truth says in Matthew 6:21: Where your treasure is, there is your heart.
But since their treasure is outside, so too is their heart outside.
14Bonaventure has slightly adapted the text to make his point. See Vulgate, 1915.
15Sirach 10:10 reads: "There is no more wicked thing than to love money, for such a person puts even his own soul up for sale, because while he lives, he has thrown away his innards."
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
12. The world also offers a false wisdom and so entices one to curiosity,16 and by this makes one vain. Thus, the Apostle uses a Psalm to say in 1 Corinthians 3:20: The Lord knows17 the thoughts of the wise that they are vain.18
For as Jeremiah 10:14 states: Every human being has become a fool because of their knowledge. This is human wisdom that does not recognize what is useful, but what is passing. And so the Lord makes this wisdom stupid, as stated in 1 Corinthians 1:20: God has made the wisdom of this world stupid. Stupid wisdom is vain because it is wrong. Sirach 34:5 says: Deceitful divinations and lying omens and the dreams of evildoers are vanity.
13. From this fourfold interior vanity of the heart, a person is lessened exteriorly in a fourfold way. For first, the vanity of pride makes a person barren, according to Sirach
6:2-3: Extol not yourself in the thoughts of your soul like a bull, lest your strength be quashed by folly. . . .And you be left as a dry tree in the wilderness. And so is the vain person left without the fruit of good works. About this person
Jeremiah 10:15 reads: Their works are vain and worthy of 16On "curiosity" in Bonaventure, see Charles Carpenter, Theology as the Road to Holiness in St. Bonaventure, Theological Inquiries (New
York: Paulist Press, 1999), 144-147 (Curiositas: enemy of the gifts). See further Etienne Gilson, The Philosophy of St. Bonaventure (Paterson:
St. Anthony Guild Press, 1965), 408: "Curiosity consists in the desire to know what is hidden simply because we do not know it, to see what is beautiful for its beauty merely, and to seize what we like simply to have it for ourselves. Curiosity thus necessarily implies avarice, and this is what ruined the first man – the passion to know simply for the sake of knowing, to see for the sake of seeing, and to take what he coveted."
17The Vulgate reads novit ("knows") while Bonaventure has scit ("knows"). Psalm 93:11 reads scit ("knows").
18Paul is referring to Psalm 93:11. The Vulgate, however, reads cogitationes hominum ("the thoughts of men and women"). Paul and Bonaventure have cogitationes sapientium ("the thoughts of the wise").
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
ridicule. In the time of their visitation they will perish.19 – The vanity of avarice keeps a person full of business and addicted to much labor, according to Ecclesiastes 4:7-8: In my considerations I found yet another vanity under the sun. There is but one, and he has not a second . . . and yet he ceases not to labor. Neither are his eyes satisfied with riches. For riches are the strange gods, of which Jeremiah
16:13 speaks: You shall serve . . . strange gods, who will not give you rest day and night.20 – The vanity of voluptuousness makes people attentive to their appearances because the voluptuous are accustomed to use external adornments. Speaking for them, Wisdom 2:8 says: Let us crown ourselves with roses, before they wither away. And this is indeed a vanity, for Proverbs 31:30 states: Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain. It is vain because all the glory and the beauty of flesh is like the flower of the field.21 – The vanity of earthly wisdom makes a person a vain babbler.
For when the heart is in error, the mouth speaks vanities.
1 Timothy 1:5-8 says: The end of the commandment is charity, from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith. From which things some, going astray, have turned aside unto vain babbling . . . understanding neither the things they say nor the things they affirm. And because they have been corrupted and deceived by worldly wisdom, they want to seduce others by vain words. Thus,
Titus 1:10-11 reads: There are many disobedient, vain talkers, and seducers, especially those who are of the circumcision, who must be reproved. – Hence, vanity of the heart flows from vanity of exterior things, and from this arises vanity of exterior works.
19On p. 5 n. 3 QuarEd correctly indicate that Bonaventure has adjusted the first part of Jeremiah 10:15 which reads: "They are vain things and a work worthy of ridicule. . . ."
20The Vulgate has "day and night" modifying "you shall serve."
21Bonaventure is referring to Isaiah 40:6. On p. 5 n. 5 QuarEd also refer to 1 Peter 1:24, which cites Isaiah 40:6.
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
14. So from all this it follows that there is a triple vanity, namely, of change, evil, and punishment.22 And Hugh of St. Victor says of these: "The first is natural and appropriate. The second is culpable, because perverse. The third is a punishment and wretched."23 As has been seen, each of these comes from the other. Whoever wants to escape from the vanity of wretchedness24 should run from the vanity of guilt. And whoever wants to escape from this should not think of the vanity of changing nature, but hope and cling to the divine and so become blessed. Therefore, blessed is the man whose trust is in the name of the Lord.25
15. Therefore, since it is the duty of the wise to teach how a person may reach beatitude, this was the main concern and value of the work of wise Solomon. But as it is clear from what has been said, one who wants to reach beatitude must of necessity love what is eternal and despise what is present, and further, know how to live in a becoming manner in the midst of a depraved generation.26 So he wrote three books, namely, Proverbs in which he teaches a 22For more clarity on this threefold division see Bonaventure's commentary on Ecclesiastes 1:13-15 (#30-35), the questions that immediately follow, and the notes thereon. In brief, it was medieval theology that between the first sin of apostasy committed by our first parents and the final punishment of eternal fire, there are sins and punishments for sin.
23See Homily 1 of Hugh of St. Victor's In Salomonis Ecclesiasten Homiliae XIX in PL 175:119A. Hugh of St. Victor, however, describes the three vanities as: change, curiosity or greed, and mortality. Hugh says that the first "is natural and appropriate or congruous."
24Miseria has many meanings: wretchedness, misery, unhappiness, distress, unhappy condition. It might also be used in contrast to beatitudo ("blessedness").
25Psalm 39:5.
26On p. 5 n. 8 QuarEd rightly indicate that Bonaventure is alluding to Philippians 2:15: "So as to be blameless and guileless children of God without blemish in the midst of a depraved and perverse generation."
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
son how to live wisely in this world; Ecclesiastes, in whichhe teaches a contempt for present realities; and The Songof
Songs, in which he teaches the love of what is heavenly, especially, of the Bridegroom himself.27
ON THE FOURFOLD CAUSE OF THIS BOOK
16. Therefore, it is clear what the aim of the book of Ecclesiastes is. And since "the aim necessarily affects whatever relates to the aim"28 and since the aim of the book is the contempt of the present realities, Ecclesiastes discusses these not from the point of view of their attraction, but from the point of view of despising them. They attract by seeming to be good, but are despised in as far as they are vanities. So it follows from this that the matter of this book is the vanities of the present realities or, expressed better, such things in so far as they are vanities. For he proves that vanity is like a passion for objects. He first proposes, second proves, and third concludes. He moves from per27On p. 5 n. 8 QuarEd point to Jerome's Commentarius in Ecclesiasten and the similar comments he makes about Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Songs in his exposition of Ecclesiastes 1:1. See
Commentarivs in Ecclesiasten, ed. M. Adriaen in S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera, Pars I: Opera Exegetica, CCSL lxxii (Turnhout: Brepols, 1959),
250. See further the Sixth Collation n. 24-25 in St. Bonaventure's Collations on the Six Days, trans. José de Vinck, The Works of Bonaventure V (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1970), 104: "And such is blessedness. And so, the first of these virtues are political, the second are for cleansing, and the third, for the soul already cleansed.
The political virtues consist in action, the cleansing in contemplation, and those for the soul already cleansed, is the vision of light. 25. And, as Origen writes, it is with these that Solomon is concerned; with the political, in Proverbs, with the cleansing, in Ecclesiastes, and with those for the soul already cleansed, in the Song of Songs."
28On p. 5 n. 9 QuarEd refer to Book II, chapter 9 of Aristotle's Physica.
See WAE, vol. 2, 199b as a general reference.
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
suasion to proof about the triple vanity, which was discussed above, namely, of nature, guilt, and misery.29
From this his method of proceeding or form is clear.
Compared to other books his method of proceeding is singular, for he proceeds as a preacher, weighing the various opinions of the wise and foolish, so that from the opinions of many the one truth may be clear in the minds of his audience.
From what has been said one can draw the conclusion of what the efficient cause is. For in this book pleasures, riches, honors, and curiosities are taught as vanities to be despised. And a person would not be believed about the contempt of such things unless that person has some experience. Thus, a poor person with no possessions would not be believed about despising riches since that person has no experience and therefore knows nothing.30 So the author of this book had to be a person with experience of all these things, that is, a person who was powerful, rich, voluptuous, and curious or wise. We have not read or heard of anyone who so excelled in all these as Solomon. So he was more suitable than all others to be the author of this book. – Wherefore, the material, formal, efficient, and final causes of this book are clear. But particular questions can be raised about each of these four causes.
29See #12 above where Bonaventure first mentions the vanities of change, evil, and punishment and then in reverse order the vanities of misery, guilt, and changing nature.
30On p. 6 n. 2 QuarEd suggest that Bonaventure is alluding to Sirach 34:10: "The person who has no experience knows little."
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
Questions 1
I. ON THE PURPOSE OF ECCLESIASTES
First, about the purpose. For it is said that the purpose of the book is contempt of the world. Now that this is correct is proven by:
1. James 4:4 where it says: The friendship of this world is an enemy to God.31 Now it is good to despise everything inimical to God.
2. Furthermore, 1 John 2:5 reads: Love not the world, nor the things that are in the world.
But against this:
1. To praise a work is to give praise to the worker,32 and so to despise a work reflects back on the worker. So the person who despises the world, despises God. For either the world was not made by God or it is not to be despised.
2. Likewise, Proverbs 16:4 states: The Lord made all things for himself. Therefore, all things are directed towards God.
But something directed towards its goal should not be despised, but rather accepted and loved. Therefore, this world, with all that is in it, is to be loved.
I reply: It should be said, as Augustine and Hugh hold,33 that this world is like a ring given by the bridegroom to 31On p. 6 n. 3 QuarEd correctly mention that the Vulgate reads inimica est Dei ("is an enemy of God") whereas Bonaventure reads inimica est
Deo ("is an enemy to God").
32On p. 6 n. 5 QuarEd allude to Sirach 9:24: "Works will be praised ecause of the hand of their makers."
33On p. 6 n. 7 QuarEd draw their readers' attention to Hugh of St.
Victor's Soliloquium de Arrha animae where he suggests a distinction between chaste and adulterous love. See, e.g., PL 176:961B-962A. See
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
the soul itself. Now the bride can love the ring given her by her husband in two ways, namely, with a chaste or an adulterous love. The love is chaste when she loves the ring as a memento of her husband and on account of her love for her husband. The love is adulterous when the ring is loved more than the husband, and the husband cannot regard such love as good. For just as there is a twofold love, so too there is a twofold hatred or contempt, because
"as soon as one of two things that are opposites is mentioned, the other is implied."34 Contempt for a ring by treating it as a poor and ugly gift reflects on the husband, but contempt of a ring by regarding it as almost nothing compared to the love of a husband, gives glory to the husband.
This contempt is referred to in The Song of Songs 8:7: If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he
Soliloquy on the Earnest Money of the Soul, trans. Kevin Herbert, Mediaeval Philosophical Texts in Translation 9 (Milwaukee: Marquette
University Press, 1956), 24-25: "What a singular gift was given you, one not granted to all but only to those who are loved and are worthy to be loved by Him. . . .Yet, consider what you have done, my Soul. You have deserted your Lover and have squandered your affections on others. You have lost your probity, defiled your beauty, wasted your substance. . . .You have forgotten your Espoused and have failed to respond rightly to His great generosity. You have become a harlot. . . ."
The editors also cite Augustine's Sermon 85 c. 5, n. 6. See Sermons, trans. and notes by Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine III/1
(Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1995), 389: "But if you forsake the one who made you and love the things he made, by forsaking the one who made you, you become an adulterer. . . .The soul which forsakes the creator for love of the creature is an adulteress. There is nothing more chaste than love of him, nothing more delightful; once you forsake him, my soul, and embrace the other, you become unclean." Nowhere in this rich note do the editors give the source for Bonaventure's use of the ring.
34On p. 6 n. 8 QuarEd cite Book V, chapter 1 of Aristotle's Ethica nicomachea: "It often follows that if one of two things that are opposites is mentioned in various ways, the other is also said. So if there is a law against something, there was also some wrong." See WAE, vol. 9, 1129a.
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
will despise it as nothing. It is of such contempt that we are speaking, and so the matter is clear.
II. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ECCLESIASTES
The question now is of the subject matter, and our position is that it deals with vanity. But against this: 1. All knowledge is about what is good and true,35 but vanity drives out goodness and truth. Therefore, there is no knowledge of vanity.
2. Moreover, it seems that there is no vanity in things, because Genesis 1:31 says: God saw all the things that God had made, and they were very good.36 So if all are very good, then nothing is vain.
3. Furthermore, something vain and useless is not directed to a purpose. For example, someone who washes himself to make the sun lose its power acts in vain, because these two things are not directed one to the other. But all creatures tend in their own way to the highest good. For Dionysius37 and Boethius38 maintain that all things de35 On p. 6 n. 10 QuarEd write: "Cfr. Aristot., I. Poster. C. 2." See Book
I, n. 2 of Aristotle's Analytica posteriora in WAE, vol. 1, 71b.
36 This objection is implied by Jerome, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, 1:2. See CCSL lxxii, 252.
37 On p. 6 n. 12 QuarEd suggest De divinis nominibus, chapter 4 n. 4, 10, 31 and PG 3:698-699, 706-707, 751. See, e.g., PG 3:707: "Therefore, the beautiful and the good are desirable and lovable by all things and are loved by all things."
38 See especially Book III, n. 9 of The Consolation of Philosophy in LCL, 285: "That is why it is rightly held that the chief or cardinal cause of all things sought after is goodness. Now the cause for which a thing is sought is seen to be most greatly desired, as for example if a man wanted to ride for the sake of his health, he does not so much desire the motion of riding, but the effect, health. Therefore, since all things are sought after for the sake of good, they are not so much desired by all as the good itself."
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
sire good. And also the Philosopher39 says this. Therefore, there is nothing vain to be found in all things.
4. Besides, if vanity is found and knowledge is based on this vanity as on a foundation, the knowledge itself is vain and what is based upon it is also vain. Therefore, this knowledge is vain.
I reply. One way of understanding the preceding points is to say that vanity can be spoken of in two ways. Vanity can be taken in itself40 and as such it has no truth or good.
But such a thing does not exist in the world. Or vanity can be used in comparison with its starting point, namely, nothing. Used in this way, vanity is not opposed to good, for good and vanity are one and the same thing. In this second way, vanity is good, because it is from good and leads to good. It is vain, because it comes from nothing and, if left to itself, tends toward nothing. Understood in this second way, vanity has goodness and can be the subject of knowledge. And therefore, there can be knowledge and teaching about such vanity. And in this way all the objections can be solved since they proceed as if they were dealing with vanity in itself.
But this solution is not valid since Ecclesiastes is not dealing with things from the viewpoint that they come from nothing. Rather he focuses on things as they are de39See Book I n. 1 of Aristotle's Ethica nicomachea in WAE, vol. 9,
1094a: "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." See also
Book II, n. 6 of his Physica in WAE, vol. 2, 197b: "This implies that what is naturally the means to an end is 'in vain', when it does not effect the end towards which it was the natural means – for it would be absurd for a man to say that he had bathed in vain because the sun was not eclipsed, since the one was not done with a view to the other."
40The Latin is simpliciter.
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
sired by human beings. And therefore, he deals with the vanity of wrongdoing, which is a privation. So there has to be another solution.
Another way of dealing with the subject is to say that just as truth is used with three meanings, so too is its opposite, vanity, as explained in the rule above.41 Truth is used in one way as interchangeable with being, as when it is said that every being is true. And so vanity, its opposite, is called non-being, as when we say that a fantasy is a non-being.
Truth is used in another way when besides referring to being, it indicates the relation of a thing to its function and purpose.42 So we say true wine to indicate a wine that truly functions as a wine should. Also we say true person to refer to a person who behaves in a way befitting a human being, and that is the practice of virtue. Vanity, then, is the lack of being ordered to a purpose, and thus all sins and abuses are vanities.
Truth is also used to refer to being that has no element of non-being within nor any potential to become nonbeing. So we say that to have true being a thing has un41See Question 1, Reply: "As soon as one of two things that are opposites is mentioned, the other is implied."
42Bonaventure's multivalent operatio is translated here by "function,"
"behaves," and "practice." On p. 7 n. 2 QuarEd cite Book IV text. 54
(last chapter) of Aristotle's Meterologia: "All things are related to their purpose. All things that can achieve their purpose truly exist, as an eye it sees. But an eye that cannot see exists in an equivocal sense, as if it is dead, etc." See WAE, vol. 3, 390a: "What a thing is is always determined by its function: a thing really is itself when it can perform its function; an eye, for instance, when it can see. When a thing cannot do so it is that thing only in name, like a dead eye or one made of stone.
. . ."
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
changeable being. And in this way vanity is the opposite of the true in that it is changeable and transmutable. So every creature is vain, because it was subjected to vanity,43 that is, mutability.
So the aforementioned vanity can be spoken of in three ways. One is its lack of being in itself. Another is its lack of a purpose in being. The third is its lack of being unchangeable. Of the first way there is no knowledge or teaching, unless it happens to exist in something that can cause it and in this way be known and taught. And in this it is not vanity. But in as far as it is vain, there is knowledge of it neither in itself nor through something accidental.44 In the second way there is no knowledge in itself, but through something accidental. For just as medical art is the knowledge of the healthy and the sick, that is, in the Philosopher's view, of the healthy in themselves and the sick through something accidental, so too knowledge of guilt or sin is theoretical and is based on the nature of virtue.45 In the 43On p. 7 n. 3 QuarEd helpfully refer to Romans 8:20: "For creation was made sub-ject to vanity. . . ." The editors also refer to Book I, d. 8, p.
1, a. 1, q. of Bonaventure's Sentence Commentary.
44Bonaventure is using the philosophical distinction between per se and per accidens. On p. 7 n. 4 QuarEd cite Book I, n. 2 of Aristotle's
Analytica posteriora: "What does not exist cannot be known, for example, that a diameter is symmetrical." See WAE, vol. 1, 71b: "We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is. . . .The premises must be true: for that which is non-existent cannot be known – we cannot know, e.g., that the diagonal of a square is commensurate with its side."
45On p. 7 n. 5 QuarEd cite Book VI, n. 5 of Aristotle's Topica where he is discussing the definition of medicine, health, and sickness: "For medicine indeed deals with health in itself, but with sickness through something accidental. For it is foreign for medicine to produce sickness in itself." See WAE, vol. 1, 143a: "It is only, however, in some cases that what has been said corresponds to the actual state of things: in some it
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
third way, namely, about the changeableness of creatures, knowledge is in itself, as is clear from the movement of the sun, the planets, and other objects.
So in this book the author deals with the vanity of mutability or of nature, since it is beautiful and suitable. He also treats the vanity of guilt or sin.46 But he does not deal with the other vanity, that is, of total privation, because there is no knowledge or teaching about it.
1. So about the first objection that all knowledge is about good and truth. Truth exists in itself, but vanity can exist only by reason of the truth. And the person who knows true principles also knows false principles. It is the same with the healthy and the sick person, and this is to be applied to the objection.47
2,3,4. The second, third, and fourth objections claim that creatures are not vain, because they are very good and have a purpose. This is answered by pointing out that they does not, e.g., all those terms which are not used essentially in relation to both things: as medicine is said to deal with the production of disease and health; for it is said essentially to do the latter, but the former only by accident: for it is absolutely alien to medicine to produce disease."
46Culpa in Latin has a wide range of meanings: guilt, fault, blame, wrongdoing, error.
47On p. 7 n. 6 QuarEd cite Book I, text. 85 (c. 5) of Aristotle's De Anima: "It suffices to know one part of contraries to be able to make a judgment about its opposite. From what is straight we know what is oblique. One rule is the judge of both. But what is oblique does not enable us to distinguish either itself nor judge what is straight." See
WAE, vol. 3, 411a: "If we must construct the soul out of the elements, there is no necessity to suppose that all the elements enter into its construction; one element in each pair of contraries will suffice to enable it to know both that element itself and its contrary. By means of the straight line we know both itself and the curved – the carpenter's rule enables us to test both – but what is curved does not enable us to distinguish either itself or the straight."
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
are not called vanities because they lack good or a purpose, but because they lack unchangeable existence. And so every vain creature is not so vain that it has no truth and goodness.48 And therefore, there is knowledge and teaching about creatures that is true.
III. THE METHOD USED BY ECCLESIASTES49
When we ask about his method in this book, it is said that he acts and speaks through different people, namely, the foolish and the wise.
But:1: As expressed in Sirach 20:22: A parable coming out of a fool's mouth will be rejected. Therefore, an opinion stated by a fool is not to be heeded. So if the opinions in sacred writ are to be heeded, fools should not utter them.
2. Likewise, what he says in the name of fools and carnal people is to be rejected. But it is not clear when he is speaking in his own name or in the name of another. Therefore, one does not know what is to be heeded in this book and what is to be rejected. So the teaching of this book leads to error. But since canonical books should purge error, this book should be taken from the canon.
I reply: 1. There are two ways of saying something in the name of a foolish or carnal person: either to approve or to rebuke and show that the statement is vain. The first way is not fitting for the knowledge of the truth, but the second way is fitting. For example, if a person wants to reject an error, he first explains it and then subsequently disproves it. Ecclesiastes speaks in the second way, not in 48Jerome in his Commentarius in Ecclesiasten 1:2 answers this objection: "So in this way we can also say that the sky, the earth . . . are indeed good in themselves, but compared to God, they are nothing."
See CCSL lxxii, 252.
49Although Bonaventure does not explicitly say so, he is dealing with the formal cause.
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
the first. And so the book is not to be rejected, but commended, because it rejects what is to be rejected.
2. This objection states that it is not clear when the author is speaking in his own name. It is to be said in reply that one side of an argument is not known until the argument has been resolved, because only in the solution do we find out what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected. Thus, I say that Ecclesiastes continues with his argument until the end of the book where he gives his solution when he says in 12:13-14: Let us all together hear the conclusion of the discourse. Fear God . . . and know that God will bring you to judgment for every error. . . .50 In this con-clusion Ecclesiastes condemns every opinion of the foolish, the carnal, and the worldly. So in this last statement he is speaking in his own name, but what he rejects is spoken in the name of others. Hence the book cannot be understood without paying attention to all of it.
IV. THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE BOOK
Finally, a question can be asked about the efficient cause of the book, and it has been said that the efficient cause was Solomon. But it seems that it would not be appropriate for him to be the author for the following reasons:
1. Solomon was a sinner and carnal. But when a carnal person preaches spirituality, the result is scandal rather than edification. Therefore, this book causes more scandal than edification.
2. Furthermore, Psalm 49:16 states: But to the sinner God has said: Why do you declare my justices?51 Therefore, if 50Bonaventure's major adaptation of Ecclesiastes 12:14 is to read te
("you") which is not in the Vulgate.
51Psalm 49:16 concludes: ". . . and take my covenant in your mouth?"
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
Solomon was a sinner, he sinned by speaking of divine justice.
3. Moreover, a good author inspires trust, and the authority of such a person52 strengthens what is said while a bad author inspires no trust. But the books of Sacred Scripture ought to generate trust. Wherefore, etc.
I reply. 1. It is to be said in reply to this that, according to Jerome, the Jews hold that Solomon wrote this book while doing penance.53 Since God does not reject, but accepts penitents, Solomon was not in a state to be condemned when he wrote this book. One can give another response. The Holy Spirit speaks what is true and good not only through good people, but also through evil people.
For the Lord himself says in the Gospel: Do what they say, but do not do what they do.54 The Spirit most clearly proph52Literally, locus ab auctoritate. On p. 8 n. 4 QuarEd cite Book II of Boethius' De Differentiis Topicis. See PL 1190C: "The maxim is: one should not contradict what is thought to be right by all or by many or by the wise." The editors also cite Petrus Hispanus (d. 1277). See
Tractatus V. 36 de loco ab auctoritate in Peter of Spain, Tractatus, called afterwards Summule logicales, ed. L. M. de Rijk, Philosophical Texts and Studies 22 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1972), 75-76: "Authority, as understood here, is the judgment of the wise person in that person's area of expertise. Hence this topic is normally referred to as the judgment of fact. . . .The maxim is: All experts are to be trusted in their area of expertise." See the English translation of Tractatus V. 36 by Francis P. Dinneen in Peter of Spain, Language in Dispute, Amsterdam
Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 39 (Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1990), 36: "Authority, as taken here, is the judgement of an expert in his field. So this Topic is commonly called the Topic from Judgement of Fact. . . .The Maxim: all experts are trustworthy in their own field."
53See Jerome's commentary on Ecclesiastes 1:12 in CCSL lxxii, 258:
"The Jews say this book was written by Solomon when doing penance because overconfident in his wisdom and riches, he offended God through women."
54Bonaventure seems to give a paraphrase of Matthew 23:3: "All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do, but do not act according to their works, for they say and do not act."
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY
esied through Balaam,55 and so the Spirit said many good things also through carnal Solomon.
2. To the second objection that he was a sinner, it should be pointed out that the gift of wisdom was given to him among others in a most special way. And because one should not hide the talent given by the Lord,56 he had to teach the people of the Lord in both the spoken and the written word, especially since he was appointed to rule them. So he did not sin by teaching, but by not acting rightly.
3. To the objection that the book is not to be trusted because its author is not worthy of trust, I answer: Just as we believe the Prophets, who spoke not from themselves, but from the Holy Spirit, so we also believe that all the books of Scripture were written at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, the goodness of an author does not inspire greater or less trust. The trust depends on the Spirit speaking through the author. It is clear to us from 1
Kings 3:5-9 that Solomon was filled with the spirit of wisdom, and so the Church accepts his books without hesitation.
JEROME'S PROLOGUE TO HIS COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES57
I recall when, almost five years ago, I was in Rome and read Ecclesiastes to holy Blesilla, so that I might move her to despise the world and to regard all that is in the world as nothing. She asked me to write a small commen tary explaining obscure passages, so that when I was gone she could understand what she read. She was taken away by a sudden death while I was making preparations for 55See Numbers 23-24.
56See Matthew 25:14-30.
57See CCSL lxxii, 249. Bonaventure's quotation is verbatim.
ST. BONAVENTURE'S COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
this work. I did not merit, Paula and Eustochium, to have such a companion and I was struck dumb from such a loss. Now living in Bethlehem, a small town, I offer you what I have written in her memory. I give you a brief warning that I have not followed any authority, but, working from the Hebrew text, I have followed the usage of the translators of the Septuagint only in those things that do not differ greatly from the Jews. Meanwhile I have made of use of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion so as not to deter a reader by excessive novelty. Nor against my conscience have I followed the currents of opinion which have abandoned the fountain of truth.
EXPOSITION OF THIS PROLOGUE
St. Jerome wrote this Prologue, first, to give the reason for his work, and secondly, to determine the method of translation: I give you a brief warning.
Concerning his first point he makes three observations.
First, he says why he began this work, namely, at the request of saintly Blesilla. Second, he touches on what prevented him from continuing, namely, her death: a sudden death. Third, what moved him to finish it, namely, her memory and the request of Paula and Eustochium: now living in Bethlehem.
I give you a brief warning. Jerome here speaks of his method in translating. First, he states that his method is that of not agreeing nor differing totally from others.
Rather, he imitated them when he could do so with profit.
Second, he adds the reason, namely, not to deter a reader by excessive novelty. This is the reason why he followed others in some points so as to avoid excessive novelty. But he did not follow them all the time, so as not to betray the truth.