Letters 31 to 40: Origen's Works and the Death of Blesilla

There were two reasons why I wrote so small a letter: that the courier was in haste, and that I, being detained by other work, did not wish to occupy myself with this as a mere by-work (πάρεργον). You ask what that great and necessary thing might be, which excluded the duty of epistolary conversation. For some time now I have been comparing Aquila's edition with the Hebrew volumes, lest the Synagogue may perhaps have changed something out of hatred of Christ; and, to confess to a friendly mind, I find many things pertaining to the strengthening of our faith. Now, having examined precisely the Prophets, Solomon, the Psalter, and the books of Kings, I am holding Exodus, which they call Elle smoth, about to pass on to Leviticus. You see, then, that no duty ought to be set before this work.

Nevertheless, lest our courier Currentius should have run in vain, I have attached to this little discourse two letters which I had sent to your sister Paula and her pledge Eustochium, so that while you read them, and find in them something of learning as well as charm, you may think that what was written to them was written to you as well. 2. I desire that our common mother Albina be well—I speak of the body, knowing that in spirit she is well; and I beg that she be greeted through you, and refreshed by a twofold office of piety, since in one and the same person she is loved both as a Christian and as a mother.

Antiquity marvels at Marcus Terentius Varro, because he wrote such innumerable books among the Latins. The Greeks extol Chalcenterus with wondrous praises, because he composed so many books as any one of us could not copy out in his own hand from another's work. And since it is now idle to weave among the Latins a catalogue of Greek volumes, I shall recount some things about him who wrote in Latin, so that we may understand that we sleep the sleep of Epimenides, and that the zeal which they applied to the erudition of secular writings, we apply to the gathering of riches. 2. Varro thus wrote forty-five books of Antiquities: four on the life of the Roman people [lacuna] You ask to what end mention has been made of Varro and Chalcenterus? Namely, that we might come to Adamantius, our own Chalcenterus, who labored with such zeal in the toil of the sacred Scriptures that he justly received the name Adamantius. Do you wish to know how many monuments of his genius he left?

The following list shows.

He wrote thirteen books on Genesis. Two books of Mystical Homilies. Excerpts on Exodus. Excerpts on Leviticus [lacuna] Also single-volume works. Four books Περὶ Ἀρχῶν (On First Principles). Two books On the Resurrection. And two other dialogues On the Resurrection [lacuna] Do you not see that both Greeks and Latins alike have been surpassed by the labor of one man? For who could ever have read as much as he himself wrote? Now what reward did he receive for this sweat? He is condemned by Bishop Demetrius, with the exception of the priests of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia. The city of Rome agrees in his condemnation: she herself compels the senate against him, not on account of any novelty of doctrine, not on account of heresy, as rabid dogs now feign against him, but because they could not bear the glory of his eloquence and knowledge, and when he spoke, all others seemed mute.

5. Why I have written these things, and dictated them by the light of a poor lamp, in swift but incautious speech, you can understand, if you think of the Epicureans and the Aristippeans.

The blessed martyr Pamphilus, whose life Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, set forth in almost three volumes, when he wished to equal Demetrius Phalereus and Pisistratus in his zeal for a sacred Library, and sought throughout the whole world for the images of great minds—which are the true and eternal monuments—then above all pursued with special effort the books of Origen, and dedicated them to the Church of Caesarea; which, having been in part corrupted, Acacius and afterward Euzoius, priests of the same Church, attempted to restore on parchment. This man, having found many things and having left us a list of what he found, confessed—by the fact that he did not list it—that the Commentary on the hundred and twenty-sixth Psalm, and the Treatise on the letter, were not found. Not that so great and so distinguished a man (I mean Adamantius) had passed over anything, but that through the negligence of later generations it did not survive to our own memory.

I say this because, since you have asked me about the same Psalm, what is the "bread of sorrow," in the verse which says: "It is vain for you to rise before light; rise after you have sat, you who eat the bread of sorrow," I might show that I do not have what Origen thought about it from his Commentaries.

2. Whence, having recourse to the Hebrew, I found written, instead of "bread of sorrow," Leem aasabim, which Aquila translated as ἄρτον τῶν διαπονημάτων, that is, "bread of labors." Symmachus, ἄρτον κακοπαθούμενον, which is rendered "bread of hardship." The Fifth Edition, and Theodotion, who in other places agrees with the Seventy Translators, render "bread of idols." The Sixth, πλάνης, that is, "of error." And it is no wonder concerning Aquila, if he puts διαπονήματα for idols, since they are the works of men's hands, and the people is prophetically rebuked for rising at dawn in vain to go to the temple, and hastening to the sanctuary after rest, when they venerate idols with the honor due to God: according to what Ezekiel wrote, that the priests sacrifice to idols in the very temple.

And that you may be brought more fully to see that "idols" is set in the Hebrew for "sorrow," this very word, that is, ASABIM, is also written in Psalm. The Seventy also translated it "idols." For also in that place where we read, "the idols of the nations, silver and gold, the works of men's hands," in the Hebrew it is ASAREEM, which Aquila translates as "their elaborations." Whence, since the truth stands thus, not without reason do some understand by the "bread of sorrow" the sacraments of heretics, or interpret it as the labor of this miserable and toilsome life, in which we eat our bread in the sweat of our face, and among thorns and thistles the sustenance of this brief life is born.

3. You have also deigned to ask concerning the same Psalm: who are the "sons of the shaken"?

I am surprised that you have not read in Hilary's Commentaries that he interprets the "sons of the shaken" as the peoples of believers, since he thought, evidently, that the Apostles were called by that name, to whom it was commanded in the Gospels that in whatever city they entered and were not received, they should shake off the dust of their feet as a testimony against those who did not believe. Although you have shrewdly guarded against this, saying that the Apostles cannot be understood under the name of "the shaken," since it is one thing to be "shakers," another to be "the shaken": for the shakers are those who shake, but the shaken are those who are shaken off by others. And that it would be incongruous for the Apostles to be taken as "the shaken," who ought rather to be called "the shakers." What, then, shall I do?

I dare not reproach so great a man, the most eloquent of his time, who both by the merit of his confession, by the diligence of his life, and by the brilliance of his eloquence, is praised wherever the Roman name extends: except to note that it is not to be ascribed as his fault, since he was ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, and had also caught but a certain breath of Greek letters; but it is the fault of the presbyter Heliodorus, whom he used familiarly, and from whom he sought to learn things he could not understand, as to how they had been said by Origen. This man, because he could not find Origen's Commentary on this Psalm, chose rather to insinuate his own opinion than to confess his ignorance. And Hilary, having taken up this opinion, expounded it in clear speech, and pursued another's error more eloquently.

4. It remains, then, that we return again to the fountain of the Hebrew tongue, and see how it is written.

Where we have "as the sons of the shaken," there it is read, Chen bne annaurim, which Aquila translated as "as the sons of puberties." Symmachus and Theodotion: "as the sons of youth." The Sixth: ηκονες υοι, which we may render as "sharpened senses." From which it is manifest that the peoples of youthfulness are understood as the Christians, according to that example whereby God is said to stretch out his saints like a bow and arrows; as in the prophet Zechariah: "for I have bent you for myself, O Judah, as a bow". And the Savior says of himself: "He has made me as a chosen arrow. And in his quiver he has hidden me". Finally, in the following verse, except for the Seventy, who translated otherwise, both in the Hebrew and in all the Editions I have found it thus: "Blessed is the man who has filled his quiver from them"; so that, since the metaphor had once been taken from arrows, the translation might be preserved also in the matter of the quiver.

Moreover, common usage of human speech calls "the shaken" those who are vigorous, robust, and unencumbered: and the Seventy Interpreters themselves, in the book of Ezra, translated as "young men" that which is written thus: "And it came to pass from that day, half of the shaken did the work, and half of them held spears and shields and bows and breastplates; and the leaders were behind the whole house of Judah, of those building on the wall". From which we observe that in the present passage also "the shaken" is set for "adolescents" and "the pubescent": not, as he supposed, for the Apostles, who are said to be called "shaken" from the shaking off of the dust of their feet.

I have also read a certain man's book, and found in it an elegant sense, that the Jews are called "the shaken" from the temple and the law and the grace of the Lord, in the sense of "the reprobate"; and that the Apostles are their sons, who were begotten of their very seed, and are held, in the likeness of arrows, in the hand of the Lord.

5. In the following Psalm also Heliodorus erred more than our Hilarius, who, concerning that passage in which it is written, “Thou shalt eat the labours of thy fruits,” having formed various opinions, asserted that the sense stood better if it were written: that one eats the fruit of labours, and not the labours of fruits; whence a spiritual understanding ought to be sought.

And entering upon a long disputation from this occasion, he employed as much elaborateness in persuading of what he wished to be understood as falsehood always requires in order to appear true; whereas in this passage it was not the Seventy Interpreters but the Latins who were deceived by the ambiguity of the Greek word, translating καρπους as “fruits” rather than “hands”; since καρποι can also mean “hands,” which in Hebrew is put as CHAPHACE. And Symmachus and the Fifth Edition translated “of thy hands,” so as to escape the ambiguity of the earlier wording.

6. While the swift hand of the notary, as they say, was taking down these stolen labors for a little night-work, as I dictated, and I was thinking to say more, now nearly the fourth hour of the night had passed, and suddenly, roused by certain pangs of an aching stomach, I broke forth into prayer, that at least for the remaining space of the hours, sleep stealing upon me, my infirmity might be cheated.

1. “I have resolved to rouse you from sleep, and from reading rather than writing for so long a time now, by sending you little questions: not that you ought not to read as well—for by this, as by daily food, discourse is nourished and grows plump—but because the fruit of reading consists in this, that you should write. And so, since yesterday, when the courier was sent back to me, you said that you now have no letters, except those which you once dictated in the desert, which I read and copied with all eagerness; and since you further promised that you could, if I wished, dictate some by the stolen labor of your nights, I gladly accept from you as an offer what I had wished to ask even had you refused. Nor indeed do I think any conversation of our discussion would be more worthy than if we should converse together about the Scriptures: that is, that I should ask, and you should answer.

Than which life I think nothing more pleasant in this light, by which food of the soul all honey is surpassed.” How sweet, says the Prophet, are thy words unto my palate, more than honey to my mouth. “For since, as the chief orator says, we men differ from beasts in this, that we can speak, of what praise is he worthy who surpasses the rest in that very thing in which men excel beasts?”

2. “Gird yourself, therefore, and expound to me the things subjoined, preserving moderation on both sides, so that the propositions may not lack solution, nor the letter brevity. I confess to you indeed that those books of Lactantius which you gave me long ago I do not gladly read, because very many of his letters extend to a thousand lines, and rarely discuss our doctrine; whereby it happens that length breeds weariness in the reader, and whatever is brief in them is more suited to scholastics than to us, discussing meters, the situation of regions, and philosophers.

1. “What does it mean that it is written in Genesis: Whosoever shall slay Cain shall suffer sevenfold vengeance?” “If God made all things very good, why did Noah receive commands concerning clean and unclean animals, since nothing unclean can be good? And in the New Testament, after the vision shown to Peter, who said, ‘Far be it from me, Lord, for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth,’ did not the voice from heaven answer, ‘What God has cleansed, do not thou call common’?” “Why does God speak to Abraham that in the fourth generation the sons of Israel would return from Egypt, and afterward Moses writes: ‘But in the fifth generation the sons of Israel went out of the land of Egypt’”: “which, unless it be explained, seems certainly to be contradictory.” 4. “Why did Abraham receive the sign of his faith in circumcision?” 5. “Why did Isaac, a just man and dear to God, being deceived through error, bless not him whom he wished, but him whom he did not wish?”

After I received the letter of your Holiness, I immediately summoned a notary and ordered him to take dictation; and when he was prepared for the task, I had already begun mentally sketching out what I was about to utter in speech. Meanwhile I was already moving my tongue, and he his stylus, when suddenly a Hebrew intervened, bringing not a few volumes which he had received from the Synagogue, as it were to read. And straightway, “Here,” he says, “is what you asked for”; and he so hastily alarmed me, doubtful and not knowing what to do, that setting aside everything I flew to writing—which indeed I am doing even up to the present.

But since yesterday, when a deacon was sent to me, you said—as you suppose, a letter; as I feel, a Commentary—that you were expecting a brief response, desiring it for matters each of which requires the length of great volumes, ταῦτά σοι ἐσχεδίασα (I have improvised these things for you), omitting only two little questions: not that I could not have said something in reply to those also, but because they have been treated in the Latin tongue by the most eloquent men, namely our Tertullian and Novatian; and if we wished to bring forward anything new, it would need to be discussed at greater length. I certainly await what you prefer: whether you wish the opinions to be arranged for you in the brevity of a letter, or whether separate books should be composed.

For Origen also, in the fourth volume of his ἐξηγήσεων (Expositions) on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, discoursed magnificently on circumcision, and treated at length in Leviticus on clean and unclean animals; so that, even if I myself could find nothing, I might yet borrow from his springs. And to speak more truly, I have in hand Didymus’ book on the Holy Spirit, which, once translated, I desire to dedicate to you—lest you think I merely doze, you who suppose reading without the pen to be sleep. Having therefore set forth beforehand the problems which you had subjoined to your letter, I have appended what seemed right to me, asking pardon both for haste and for delay: for haste, because I wished to dictate in one night’s little lucubration the work of many days; for tardiness, because, detained by another work, I did not reply at once to the questions.

2. What does it mean that it is written in Genesis: Whosoever shall slay Cain shall suffer sevenfold vengeance?

Before we speak of the question, it seems right that, comparing the editions of the individual interpreters with the Hebrew wording itself, we should set them in order, so that the sense of Scripture may be more easily understood. Vaiomer lo adonai lochen chol orec cain sobathaim joccamo. Aquila: “And the Lord said to him: Therefore whoever shall slay Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.” Symmachus: “And the Lord said to him: Not so, but whoever shall slay Cain, the seventh, or a week, shall be avenged.” The Seventy and Theodotion: And the Lord said to him: “Not so, but whoever shall slay Cain shall pay sevenfold vengeance.” After Cain had slain his brother, being asked by the Lord, “Where is Abel your brother?” he answered insolently, “I know not: am I my brother’s keeper?” Wherefore, condemned by a curse to live groaning and trembling upon the earth, he was unwilling to beg pardon, but heaping sins upon sins, thought that so great a crime could not be forgiven even by the Lord.

Then he answered the Lord: “My punishment is greater than that I should be forgiven,” that is, I have sinned more than I deserve to be absolved. “Behold thou drivest me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face shall I be hid, and I shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth: and it shall come to pass that whosoever findeth me shall kill me.” I am cast out, he says, from thy sight, and, my conscience of crime unable to bear even the light itself, I shall hide myself so as to lie concealed. “And it shall come to pass that whosoever findeth me shall kill me”: since, from the trembling of his body and the agitation of his maddened mind, he understands himself to be one deserving to be slain.

But God, unwilling to end his torments by the shortcut of death, nor delivering him to the punishment with which he had condemned himself, said: “Not so,” that is, not as you suppose shall you die, and receive death as a remedy; but you shall live even to the seventh generation, and be tortured by the fire of your conscience, so that whoever shall slay you shall, according to a twofold understanding, either in the seventh generation, or by a sevenfold torment, set you free. Not that he who slays Cain is himself to be subjected to seven acts of vengeance, but that the slayer pays off the seven vindications which had run their course upon Cain over so long a time, by killing him who had been left alive for punishment.

3. But that what we say may become clearer, let us set forth an example from everyday custom. Let a servant speak amid blows to his master: because I have burned your house, and scattered all your substance, kill me.

And let the master answer: Not as you wish shall you die, and end your punishments by death; but you shall be kept for a long time unto life, and shall pass your days in this light so unhappily, that whoever shall kill you will confer a benefit on the slain, in freeing you from so many torments. And according to the edition of the Seventy indeed, this seems to us to be the sense.

4. But as to what Aquila rendered, “sevenfold,” and Symmachus, “a week, or the seventh, shall be avenged,” the opinion of our forebears is this: that they think Cain was slain in the seventh generation by Lamech. For Adam begot Cain, Cain begot Enoch, Enoch begot Irad, Irad begot Maviael, Maviael begot Mathusala, Mathusala begot Lamech, who, seventh from Adam, not willingly (as is written in a certain Hebrew volume) slew Cain: as he himself afterward confesses, “because I have slain a man for my wound, and a young man for my bruise: for Cain shall be avenged sevenfold: but Lamech seventy times sevenfold”.

This much, indeed, concerning Cain, that he was slain in the seventh generation by Lamech, and, according to another edition, paid the penalty of his crime by living groaning and trembling upon the earth for so many generations; nothing obscure, I think, remains.

5. Now that which you had not asked about has crept in while we were treating of something else: what are the seventy-seven vindications which are to be paid off in Lamech. They say that from Adam to Christ there are seventy-seven generations. Read the Evangelist Luke, and you will find it to be as we say.

Therefore, just as in the seventh generation Cain’s sin was resolved—for God will not avenge twice for the same thing, and he who has once received evils in his life will not suffer the same torments in death which he suffered in life—so also the sin of Lamech, that is, of the whole world and of the blood which was shed, was to be resolved by the coming of Christ: who bore the sins of the world, who washed his garment in the blood of the grape, and trod the winepress alone: who, ascending ruddy from Edom to heaven, afforded a marvel to the crying angels: “Lift up your gates, O princes, and the King of Glory shall come in”, and so forth. A certain Hebrew related to me that in the apocryphal books seventy-seven souls of Lamech’s progeny are found to have been destroyed by the flood; and that in this number vengeance was exacted upon Lamech, in that his line persisted right up to the cataclysm.

6. Others make various conjectures concerning the seven vengeances of Cain. First they assert his sin was that he did not divide rightly. Second, that he envied his brother. Third, that he acted deceitfully, saying: « Let us go out into the field ». Fourth, that he killed. Fifth, that he denied insolently, saying: « I know not, am I my brother's keeper »? Sixth, that he condemned himself, saying: « My guilt is greater than that I should be forgiven ». Seventh, that even when condemned he did not do penance, in the manner of the Ninevites and Hezekiah king of Judah: who by tears removed the death that threatened them, so that although they had been condemned, they did not perish, but by doing penance obtained the mercy of God. For they hand down that he was, by the most merciful God, for this reason deferred even to the seventh generation, that at least driven by these very evils and by the long duration of grief, he might do penance and deserve to be absolved.

7. Some interpret the number seven as full and perfect, gathering testimonies from many passages of Scripture: and they say this is the sense we touched on above, that whoever should kill Cain would free him from his immense affliction and from a punishment surpassing all torments.

8. There are also those who recall in this connection the question of Peter in the Gospel: « Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him: up to seven times? Jesus said to him: I say not to thee up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven ». And they think that death and sin kept sabbath in the seventh generation, when Enoch was taken up, « and was not found, because God translated him ». But as for the seventy and seven, they follow this exposition: that at the coming of Christ the sting of death and of sin was broken.

9. I will also set down another opinion, lest I seem to have passed anything over.

Some interpret in many ways the seventh year of remission, and the fiftieth of Jubilee, and the four hundred ninetieth, which they wish to be understood as seventy times seven: asserting that for this reason the numbers fifty and five hundred are sacred—the debtor set down in the Gospel, and the fiftieth Psalm of penitence, which is made up of seven weeks and breaks forth into the beginning of the eighth. But lest the discourse proceed too far, let it suffice to have spoken thus far on this matter, since even from what I have sprinkled here you yourself will be able to construct for yourself a vast forest of disputation: knowing that Origen composed the twelfth and thirteenth book on Genesis on this question alone.

10. When God speaks to Abraham, that in the fourth generation the children of Israel would return from Egypt: and afterward Moses writes: But in the fifth generation the children of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt? Unless this be explained, it seems to be contradictory.

When I had read this problem, I began silently to be troubled within myself, and immediately running through Genesis and Exodus, I found the passages in which these things are written, which seem to raise the question. And at first I supposed, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, that they were irreconcilable, as also are many other things. For Methuselah is written to have lived fourteen years after the flood, and yet he did not enter the ark with Noah. And though God himself spoke to Abraham: « Know for certain that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, and they shall bring them into bondage, and afflict them, and humble them four hundred years: » afterward Moses writes in Exodus: « And it came to pass, after four hundred and thirty years, that all the host of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt ».

Also Hagar carries Ishmael on her shoulders as though nursing and tender, though he is found to be about eighteen years old or more: and it would be ridiculous for so grown a youth to sit upon his mother's neck. Rehoboam, moreover, the son of Solomon, began the beginning of his reign in the forty-first year of his age, and reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years: though his father, beginning to reign in his twelfth year, reigned forty years, and could not have begotten a son in his eleventh year.

11. While I was anxiously turning over these and many similar things in my mind, he who has the key of David opened the door to me, and brought me into his chamber, and set me in the cleft of the rock: so that after the raging spirit, after the earthquake of my land, after the fire of ignorance by which I was being burned, the voice of a gentler breeze should come to me, and say: « I have found him whom my soul sought: I will hold him and not let him go ». For although Scripture seems to be contrary to itself, both statements are true, since they refer to different things. In the fourth generation the children of Israel went out of the land of Egypt: Trace back the genealogy of Levi. Levi begot Caath, Caath begot Amram, Amram begot Aaron, Aaron begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Phinehas. Caath entered Egypt with his father Levi. Again, Eleazar went out of Egypt with his father Aaron.

From Caath to Eleazar four generations are reckoned: although some wish to begin from Amram and to reach Phinehas, as we did in reaching Eleazar. But if you wish to show the differing number, how according to Exodus the children of Israel went out of the land of Egypt in the fifth generation, let the tribe and order of Judah be reckoned for you. Judah begot Phares, Phares begot Esrom, Esrom begot Aram, Aram begot Aminadab, Aminadab begot Naason, Naason begot Salmon. Phares entered Egypt with his father Judah; Naason is described as prince of the tribe of Judah in the desert; his son Salmon entered the land of promise. Count from Phares to Naason, and you will find five generations: although some (as we showed in the tribe of Levi) begin from Esrom, and reach as far as Salmon.

12. I think the problem is resolved: but if this displeases, I will come to a shorter way, and say that in the Hebrew there is no discrepancy.

For Aquila, who translates word for word not so much contentiously, as some think, but studiously, in that place where the Seventy put: « But in the fifth generation the children of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt », translated thus: Και ἐνοπλισμένοι ἀνέβησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς Αἰγύπτου, that is, « And armed, the children of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt. » Although instead of what we have called "armed," according to the ambiguity of the Greek tongue, it could be understood as "equipped" or "furnished," on account of the goods with which they despoiled the Egyptians.

13. When one thinks the curiosity is finished, a greater ardor of inquiry arises: and after the likeness of Jeremiah I am torn apart on every side and cannot bear it: why the Seventy translated "fifth generation," and Aquila "armed men." I unroll the Hebrew volume, which Paul, according to some, calls φενόλην, and, carefully attending to the very characters, I find it written thus: Vamusim alu bne israel mearez mesraim.

In the rest of the passage the interpretations do not disagree: the whole dispute is about the word AMUSIM, which is written with these letters, HETH, MEM, SIN, JOD, MEM, whether it means "five" or "armed men." And indeed we cannot deny that "five" is said by this word: but "five" in the plural number, not "fifth," as they translated it, in the singular: nor is "generation" found joined to it, which in the Hebrew tongue is called DOR: for if it were "fifth generation," their sentence would read Amesa dor. But now only AMUSIM, that is, "five," or rather "fifth," is written, so that the sense is as it were: « But in the fifth they went up, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt: » and because this seemed to be less intelligible, "generation" was added.

But that Aquila, as in other places, so especially in this one, translated properly, all Judea proclaims with one voice: and all the benches of the synagogues agree, because indeed the same word, written with the same letters, has among them different sounds and meanings. Of which, for example's sake, we put forward one, that what we say may become clear: "shepherds" and "lovers" are written with the same letters, RES, AIN, JOD, MEM: but "shepherds" is read ROIM, "lovers" REIM. Whence it happens that where Jerusalem in the Prophets is accused, along with her lovers, of the crime of fornication, there in our copies, instead of "lovers," the name of "shepherds" has been substituted.

14. I know these things are tedious to the reader, but for one disputing about Hebrew letters it is not fitting to hunt out the arguments of Aristotle, nor should a little stream of eloquence be drawn from the Tullian river: nor should the ears be soothed with the flowers of Quintilian and scholastic declamation.

A plain style, like that of everyday speech, and savoring of no midnight labor, is necessary—one which explains the matter, unfolds the sense, makes clear what is obscure, not one which flourishes with elaborate composition of words. Let others be eloquent, let them be praised as they wish, and with puffed-out cheeks weigh out their frothy words: it suffices for me to speak so as to be understood, so that in discussing the Scriptures I may imitate the simplicity of the Scriptures.

15. Why did Isaac, a just man and dear to God, deceived by error, bless not him whom he wished, but him whom he did not wish?

I put off for a little while the types, and pass over those things which our forefathers have interpreted concerning this passage, not because I do not acquiesce in their opinion, but because you ask only this: why the just man was ignorant of something, and acted contrary to his own will. To which the precise answer is: No man, except him who for our salvation deigned to put on flesh, has had full knowledge and most certain truth. For Paul knows in part, and prophesies in part, and now sees through a glass in a dark manner, and says that we know not how to pray as we ought: For when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. Samuel the prophet, joined in the Psalter with Moses, when sent to anoint the king, upon seeing Eliab, the eldest of the sons of Jesse, said: "Surely the Lord's anointed is before him".

And the Lord said unto Samuel: "Look not on his countenance, nor on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for man seeth not as God seeth. Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart". And through each succeeding one, he is described as ever ignorant, not knowing even up to David. Elisha too, who was glorified with a double Spirit, whose bones restored life to a lifeless corpse: when the Shunammite came to him on the mountain, and fell tearfully at his feet, and Gehazi forbade her, he said: "Let her alone, for her soul is in bitterness, and the Lord hath hidden it from me, and hath not told me".

There are more instances than we ought to need for teaching by examples that holy men, dear to God, knew only what was revealed to them by the Lord, and were ignorant of what had not been revealed to them; and that Zechariah and Daniel, at each vision, asked the angel and humbly begged that he would explain to them what were the things which they saw. Hence it is not surprising that Isaac too, most of all for his own advantage, did not know what he was doing, since he erred all the more at that time, wishing to bless the son given over to bloodthirsty pleasure, and him who afterward could kill his brother, passing over the one who dwelt innocently at home, and preferring to do his own will rather than God's.

I think it was of the divine dispensation that his eyes were blinded, and that though he himself said: "The voice is indeed the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau", he nevertheless did not understand that the younger son was the one who stood by, as commander, at the blessing of his brother.

16. The mystical interpretation of the martyr Hippolytus. Since, however, we have promised also to add what this signified in figure, let us set down the words of the martyr Hippolytus, from whom our Victorinus does not differ very greatly—not that he has carried out everything more fully, but that he may be able to offer the reader an occasion for a broader understanding. "Isaac bears the image of God the Father, Rebecca of the Holy Spirit, Esau of the former people, and of the devil. Jacob, of the Church or of Christ.

That Isaac grew old shows the consummation of the world; that his eyes grew dim signifies that faith perished from the world, and that the light of religion was neglected before him. That the elder son is so called is the reception of the Law by the Jews. That the father loves his food and the catching of it, means the men saved from error, whom every just man hunts by his teaching. The word of blessing is the promise, and the hope of the future kingdom, in which the saints are to reign with Christ, and celebrate the true sabbath.

Rebecca, full of the Holy Spirit, knowing what she had heard before she bore children, that the elder should serve the younger; but rather, in the form of the Holy Spirit, who knew beforehand what was to be in Christ, meditates it beforehand in Jacob: she speaks to her younger son: 'Go to the flock, and bring me thence two kids'; prefiguring the fleshly coming of the Saviour, in which he would deliver especially those who were held bound by sins: since in all the Scriptures kids are taken for sinners. That he is bidden to bring two signifies the assumption of two peoples: that they be tender and good, docile and innocent souls. The robe or garment of Esau is the faith and the Scriptures of the Hebrews, with which the people of the Gentiles is clothed. The skins that were wrapped about his arms are the sins of both peoples, which Christ, in the stretching out of his hands, nailed together with himself to the cross.

That Isaac asks Jacob why he had come so quickly, marvels at the swift faith of believers. That delightful foods are offered is the pleasing sacrifice to God, the salvation of sinners. After the eating follows the blessing, and he enjoys its fragrance: proclaiming with open voice the power of the resurrection and of the kingdom: how also his brethren shall adore him and serve him, those who believe out of Israel. Since therefore iniquity is the enemy of righteousness, Esau is stirred up to discord, and treacherously devises murder, saying in his heart: Let the days of my father's mourning draw near, and I will slay my brother Jacob.

The devil, who before had contemplated the fratricidal Jews in Cain, most plainly confesses himself in Esau, showing also the time of the fulfillment: 'Let the days of my father's mourning draw near,' he says, 'that I may slay my brother.' Wherefore Rebecca, that is, patience, announced to her husband the treachery of the brother, who, calling Jacob, commanded him to go into Mesopotamia, and thence take a wife of the family of Laban the Syrian, his mother's brother. As then Jacob, fleeing his brother's guile, journeys toward Mesopotamia, so too Christ, driven by the unbelief of the Jews, sets out into Galilee: thence to take for himself, from the Gentiles, the Church as his bride." Thus far the aforesaid man.

17. But we say that the Lord came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and did not wish to take the bread of the children and give it to dogs, and that he brought the first blessing to the people of the Jews, to whom were entrusted the oracles of God, and the promise, and the giving of the Law, and the making of the Testament; but because they refused to believe, the blessing was transferred, like Jacob, to the lesser people. Yet the elder son was not entirely despised, because when the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, then all Israel shall be saved.

When I had lately read through the Commentaries on the Song of Songs, which the Hebrews call Sir assirim, by Rheticius, bishop of Autun, who was once sent to Rome by the Emperor Constantine, under Bishop Silvester, concerning the cause of the Montenses, I marvelled greatly that so eloquent a man, besides other foolish opinions, had thought that the city of Tharsis was Tarsus, in which Paul the apostle was born, and that the gold of Ophaz signified Peter, because Cephas in the Gospel is the same as Peter. He had had, at any rate, the same word also in Ezekiel, where it is written of the four living creatures: "And the appearance of the wheels was like the appearance of Tharsis", and in Daniel, of the Lord: "And his body was like Tharsis". Which Aquila translates as chrysolite, Symmachus as hyacinth. And in the psalm: "With a vehement wind thou shalt break the ships of Tharsis".

And among the stones which are engraved with the names of the tribes in the priest's ornament, the name of the same stone is inserted, and almost all of Scripture is filled with this word. But what shall I say of Ophaz, since the aforesaid prophet Daniel, in the third year of Cyrus king of the Persians, after three weeks of fasting and mourning, says: "I lifted up mine eyes and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Ophaz". For among the Hebrews there are several kinds of gold. Hence, for distinction's sake, OPHAZ is here set down, lest anyone should think it ZAAB, which in Genesis is mentioned together with the carbuncle stone.

2. You ask, if the Tharsis stone is chrysolite, or hyacinth, as different interpreters would have it, to the likeness of which color the appearance of God is written: why then is the prophet Jonah said to wish to go to Tharsis, and why did Solomon and Jehoshaphat, in the books of Kings, have ships accustomed to carry on trade from Tharsis? To which the easy answer is that the word is a homonym, since a region of India is also so called, and the sea itself as well, because it is sky-blue, and often, struck by the sun's rays, takes on the color of the aforesaid stones, and has received its name from the color. Although Josephus, changing the letter TAU, thinks that the Greeks called it Tarsus for Tharsis.

3. There are countless things which seemed to me contemptible in his commentaries.

His style, indeed, is polished, and flows with a Gallic elegance: but what is that to the interpreter, whose profession is not that he himself should appear eloquent, but that he should make the one who is going to read understand as the very one who wrote understood?

I ask, did he not have the ten volumes of Origen? Not the other interpreters? Not surely some Hebrews he needed, so that he might either ask or read what the things he did not know meant? But he seems to have thought so poorly of posterity, that he supposed no one could judge of his errors.

4. In vain, then, do you ask me for the commentaries of this same man, since in them much more displeases me than pleases me. But if you should object, why then have I given them to others, you will hear that not all ought to be fed with the same foods. Jesus in the desert feeds more with barley loaves, fewer with wheaten. The Corinthians, among whom was heard of such fornication as is not even named among the Gentiles, are fed with milk, because they could not yet take solid food. The Ephesians, however, among whom no crime is charged, are fed by the Lord himself with heavenly bread, and recognize the mystery that had been hidden from the ages.

Nor indeed should you be swayed by the authority or age of those who have received copies from me, since even Daniel as a boy judges elders, and Amos, a herdsman of goats, inveighs against the chief priests.

So also now, my Marcella, we have seen our Blaesilla continually burning with the ardor of fevers for almost thirty days: that she might know that the delights of the body are to be cast aside, since it must shortly be furrowed by worms. To her too came the Lord Jesus, and touched her hand, and behold, rising up she ministers to Him. She smelled somewhat of negligence, and bound with the bands of riches, she lay in the tomb of the world. But Jesus groaned, and troubled in spirit, cried out saying: Blaesilla, come forth. Being called, she rose, and going out she eats with the Lord. Let the Jews threaten and swell with rage, let them seek to kill her who has been raised: let the Apostles alone glory. She knows she owes her life to Him who restored it. She knows she embraces the feet of Him whose judgment she had just before dreaded. Her body lay almost lifeless, and neighboring death was shaking her gasping limbs. Where then were the aids of her relatives?

Where were words emptier than any smoke? She owes you nothing, O ungrateful kinship, she who perished to the world, and has revived to Christ. Let him who is a Christian rejoice: he who is angry shows that he is not a Christian.

3. A widow who has been released from the marriage bond has need of nothing except to persevere. But someone is scandalized by her rather dark clothing. Let John scandalize them too, than whom among those born of women none was greater: who was called an Angel, who also baptized the Lord Himself: who was clothed with a covering of camel's hair, girded with a leather belt. Do cheaper foods displease? Nothing is cheaper than locusts.

Rather let those things scandalize Christian eyes, which paint faces and eyes with purple and certain dyes: whose plastered faces, disfigured with excessive whiteness, feign idols; from which, if by chance a drop of tears should improvidently burst forth, it flows down in a furrow: whom no number of years can teach that they are old women, who build up their crown with borrowed hair, and polish their past youth upon aged wrinkles: who finally, trembling little maidens before a flock of grandchildren, are decked out. Let the Christian woman blush, if she is compelled by the beauty of nature, if she takes care of the flesh unto concupiscence, since those who are in such a state, according to the Apostle, cannot please Christ.

4. Our widow formerly adorned herself rather fussily, and all day long sought before the mirror what she might be lacking.

Now she speaks confidently: "But we all, with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord." Then little maidservants arranged her hair, and her innocent head was confined by curling caps: now, neglecting her head, she knows it is enough for her simply that it be veiled. At that time even the hard softness of feathers seemed uncomfortable, and she could scarcely lie upon her piled-up couches. Now she rises hastily to pray, and with ringing voice, snatching the alleluia before the rest, she is first to begin praising her Lord. Her knees bend upon the bare ground, and her face, before soiled with white lead, is cleansed by frequent tears. After prayer the Psalms resound, and her weary neck, her wavering knees, and her eyes inclining to sleep, with excessive ardor of mind scarcely obtain rest. Her dark tunic is soiled the less, the more she lies upon the ground.

A cheaper slipper bestows upon the needy the price of gilded shoes. Her girdle is not adorned with gold and gems; but woolen and most pure in all simplicity: and such as can rather bind the garments together than tear them. If the scorpion envies this resolve, and with flattering speech persuades her again to eat from the forbidden tree, let the anathema be dashed against him instead of a sandal, and let it be said to him as he dies in his own dust: Get thee behind me, Satan, which is interpreted, "adversary." For he is the adversary of Christ, and Antichrist, to whom the precepts of Christ are displeasing.

5. I ask you, what have we ever done such as the Apostles did, that we should rightly be a scandal to anyone? They leave their aged father with the boat and net. The publican rises from the tax-office, and follows the Savior: a disciple wishing to return home and first announce it to his own, is forbidden by the voice of the Master.

Burial is not granted to the father: And it is a kind of piety to be impious for the Lord's sake. Because we do not wear silk garments, we are judged monks; because we are not drunk, nor loosen our mouths in laughter, we are called continent and gloomy. If a tunic is not white, at once from the crossroads comes that saying: "Impostor, and a Greek." Let them mock ever so cunningly, and parade about men stuffed with fat bellies, our Blaesilla will laugh, and will not disdain to hear the reproaches of chattering frogs, since her Lord Himself was called Beelzebub.

1. "Who will give water to my head, and to my eyes a fountain of tears, and I will weep": not, as Jeremiah says, "for the wounded of my people;" nor as Jesus wept for the misery of Jerusalem: but I will weep for holiness, mercy, innocence, chastity: I will weep that all the virtues alike have failed in the death of one. Not that she who has departed is to be mourned, but that we must the more impatiently grieve, that we have ceased to see such a one. For who could with dry eyes recall how a young woman of twenty years bore the standard of the cross with such burning faith, that she grieved more for her lost virginity than for the death of her husband? Who could pass without sobbing over her constancy in prayer, the brilliance of her speech, the tenacity of her memory, the sharpness of her mind?

If you heard her speaking Greek, you would think she did not know Latin: if her tongue turned to the Roman sound, her speech smelled of nothing foreign at all. Now indeed, what all Greece admires even in that famous Origen, in not, I will not say months, but days, she had so overcome the difficulties of the Hebrew tongue, that in learning and chanting the Psalms she vied with her mother. The humility of her clothing did not (as commonly happens in many) betray a swelling pride: but since she had cast herself down inwardly in mind, amid the attire of the maidservant virgins she reigned, because she walked more negligently. Her steps wavered from sickness, and her thin neck scarcely sustained her pale and trembling face; and yet she always held either the Prophet or the Gospel in her hands. Her face was filled with tears, sobbing seized her voice: and her stirred inward parts did not loosen her clinging tongue.

When the ardor of fevers was consuming her holy little body, and, half-lifeless, a circle of relatives surrounded her bed, she gave these last words in charge: "Pray the Lord Jesus, that He may forgive me, because I was not able to fulfill what I wished." Be assured, my Blaesilla, feeling at all times that your garments are white. The whiteness of garments is the purity of everlasting virginity. We trust to prove that what we say is true: conversion is never too late. This voice was first consecrated in the thief: "Amen I say to thee, today thou shalt be with me in Paradise". But after the burden of the flesh was cast off, and her soul flew back to its own Author, and, having long been a pilgrim, ascended to its ancient possession, the funeral rites were prepared according to custom, and, with the order of the nobles going before, a golden covering was spread over the bier.

She seemed to me then to cry out from heaven: "I do not recognize these garments: this covering is not mine: this adornment is another's."

2. But what are we doing? We who are about to forbid a mother's tears, ourselves lament. I confess my own feelings: this whole book is written with weeping. Jesus too wept for Lazarus, because he loved him. He is not the best comforter whose own groans overpower him, from whose softened inward parts broken words sweat forth amid tears. I call to witness, my Paula, Jesus, whom Blaesilla now follows; I call to witness the holy Angels, in whose company she now rejoices, that I suffer the same torments of grief which you endure: that I am a father in spirit, a foster-parent in love, and that at times I say: "Let that day perish in which I was born". And, "Woe is me, my mother, why did you bear me a man who should speak of strife to the whole earth".

And that saying: "You are righteous, O Lord, yet I will speak of your judgments with you. Why is it that the ways of sinners prosper?" And, "My feet also were almost moved, my steps had well nigh slipped. Because I was envious at the wicked, seeing the peace of sinners. And I said: How does God know? And is there knowledge in the Most High? Behold, these are the sinners, and being always at ease, they have obtained riches." But again this comes to mind: "If I say I will speak thus, behold, I should offend against the generation of your children." Does not this same wave often dash upon my mind too? Why do impious old men enjoy the riches of the world? Why is untried youth, and childhood without sin, cut down in unripe bloom?

What is the reason that often children of two or three years, still nursing at their mothers' breasts, are seized by a demon, are filled with leprosy, are devoured by jaundice, while on the contrary the impious, adulterers, murderers, the sacrilegious, vigorous and secure in their health, blaspheme against God? Especially since the injustice of the father does not redound upon the son, and the soul that sins, it alone shall die. Or if that old sentence still stands, that the sins of the fathers must be visited upon the children, it would be unjust to repay the innumerable offenses of a long-lived father upon innocent infancy. "And I said: Then have I in vain justified my heart, and washed my hands among the innocent: and I have been scourged all the day". But when I thought these things, I straightway learned with the Prophet: "And I undertook to know this: it is a labor in my sight, until I go into the sanctuary of God, and understand their last end".

"For the judgments of the Lord are a great abyss." And, "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" God is good, and all that a good being does must needs be good. The widowhood of a husband is inflicted; I lament what has happened. But because it so pleases the Lord, I will bear it with equal mind. An only son has been snatched away; hard indeed, but tolerable, because he took away who had given. If I should become blind, the reading of a friend will console me. If deaf ears also should refuse me hearing, I shall be free from vices: I shall think of nothing but the Lord. Should hard poverty threaten too, along with cold, sickness, and nakedness, I will await death at the last, and reckon the evil brief, since a better end will follow. Let us consider what that ethical Psalm proclaims: "You are righteous, O Lord, and your judgment is right".

This none can say, except one who magnifies the Lord in all that he suffers, and, imputing it to his own merit, glories in his clemency amid adversities. For the daughters of Judah rejoiced in all the judgments of the Lord. If Judah is interpreted as confession, and every believing soul is one that confesses, then it is necessary that whoever says he believes in Christ should rejoice in all the judgments of Christ. I am well: I give thanks to the Creator. I am sick, and in this I praise the will of the Lord. "For when I am weak, then am I strong"; and the power of the spirit is made perfect in the weakness of the flesh. Even the Apostle suffers something he does not wish, for which he besought the Lord thrice.

But it is said to him: "My grace is sufficient for you: for power is made perfect in weakness"; and, to humble the pride of revelations, a certain monitor of human weakness is set beside him, after the likeness of those in triumph, to whom in the chariot behind a companion clung close at every acclamation of the citizens, saying: Remember that you are a man.

3. But why should it be hard, that which must one day be suffered? And why do we grieve that anyone has died? For we were not born to this end, that we should remain forever. Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Peter, James, John, Paul the vessel of election, and above all the Son of God, dies: and do we take it amiss that someone departs from the body, who was perhaps taken away "lest wickedness should alter his understanding? For his soul was pleasing to God. Therefore he hastened to bring him out of the midst of iniquity", lest, by the long journey of life, he should wander through devious windings?

Let the dead be mourned; but let it be him whom hell receives, whom Tartarus devours, for whose punishment the eternal fire burns. As for us, whose departure a throng of Angels attends, whom Christ comes to meet, let us rather feel it a burden if we dwell longer in this tabernacle of death. For as long as we tarry here, we are pilgrims from the Lord. Let that longing, that longing possess us: "Woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged; I have dwelt among the dwellers of Cedar, my soul has long been a sojourner". If Cedar means darkness, and this world is darkness; since the light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it, let us be glad for our Blaesilla, who has passed from darkness into light, and, amid the fervor of a beginning faith, has received the crown of a work completed.

Truly, if a worldly desire—which may God avert from her own—if, while thinking on the delights of this life, an untimely death had snatched her away, she would be one to be mourned, and to be wept with every fount of tears. But now, since, Christ being propitious, nearly four months ago she washed herself, in a certain second baptism of resolve, and thereafter so lived that, having trodden the world underfoot, she thought always of the monastery, do you not fear lest the Savior say to you: Are you angry, Paula, that your daughter has become my daughter? Are you indignant at my judgment, and do you, by rebellious tears, envy the one who possesses her? For you know what I think of you, what of the rest of yours. You deny yourself food, not out of zeal for fasting, but of grief. I do not love that frugality. Such fasts are my adversaries. I receive no soul that is separated from the body against my will.

Let foolish philosophy have such martyrs as these, let it have Zeno, Cleombrotus, or Cato. My spirit rests upon none, "but upon him that is humble and quiet, and that trembles at my words". Is this what you promised me in the Monastery? That, by a habit set apart from other matrons, you seemed to yourself more religious? That mind which laments is the mind of silken garments. You are being cut off, and you are dying, and, as though you were not to come into my hands, you flee a cruel judge. Jonah too, that spirited Prophet, once fled, but in the depth of the sea he was mine. If you believed your daughter alive, you would never lament that she has passed to better things. This is what I commanded through my Apostle, that you should not be sorrowful for those who sleep, after the manner of the Gentiles. Blush, you are being outdone in compassion by a heathen woman. Better is the handmaid of the devil than mine.

She feigns that her unbelieving husband has been translated to heaven; you, either do not believe that your daughter dwells with me, or do not wish to. 3. But you say, how can you forbid me to mourn, when Jacob wept for Joseph in sackcloth, and, all his kinsmen being gathered to him, refused to be comforted, saying: "I will go down to my son mourning into hell?" And David mourned Absalom with covered head, repeating: "My son Absalom, Absalom my son: who will grant that I might die for you, my son Absalom?" And solemn mourning was shown for Moses and Aaron, and the other Saints? The answer to these is quite easy: Jacob mourned for the son whom he thought slain, to whom he himself was also to descend to the dead, saying, "I will go down to my son mourning into hell", because Christ had not yet broken open the gate of paradise, nor had his blood yet quenched that flaming sword and the whirling of the presiding Cherubim.

Whence Abraham too, although in the place of refreshment, is nevertheless written to have been in the underworld with Lazarus. And David justly wept for his parricide son, since for the other, the little one, after he could not obtain that he should live, because he knew he had not sinned, he did not weep. As for Moses and Aaron, that mourning was shown them according to the old custom, it is not to be wondered at, since even in the Acts of the Apostles, when the Gospel was already shining forth, the brethren made a great lamentation at Jerusalem for Stephen: and surely "great lamentation" is to be understood, not, as you suppose, in the expiring of the mourners, but in the pomp of the funeral and the throng of the obsequies.

Finally, of Jacob Scripture speaks thus: "And Joseph went up to bury his father, and there went up with him all the servants of Pharaoh, and the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, and all the house of Joseph, and his brethren." And a little after: "And there went up with him chariots and horsemen, and it became a very great company." And then: "And they mourned with a great and exceeding great mourning". This solemn mourning does not command long tears from the Egyptians, but shows the adornment of a funeral. In this same manner it is plain that Aaron and Moses too were mourned. I cannot sufficiently praise the mysteries of Scripture, nor marvel enough at the divine sense in words, though simple, as to what it means that Moses is mourned, while Joshua, son of Nun, a holy man, is recorded to have been buried, yet no weeping is written of him.

Surely this is because in Moses, that is, in the old Law, all were held under the sentence condemnation of Adam's sin; and consequently, as they descended to hell, tears followed, according to the Apostle who says: "And death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned". But in Jesus, that is, in the Gospel, through whom Paradise has been opened, joys follow upon death. The Jews weep even to this day, and with bare feet, rolled in ashes, lie prostrate on sackcloth. And lest anything be lacking to their superstition, by the most vain rite of the Pharisees, they take their first food of lentils; showing plainly by what food they lost their birthright. But deservedly, because, not believing in the resurrection of the Lord, they are being made ready for the coming of Antichrist. But we who have put on Christ, and have become, according to the Apostle, a royal and priestly race, ought not to be saddened over the dead.

"And Moses said," it says, "to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, who were left: You shall not uncover your heads, nor rend your garments, lest you die; and wrath come upon all the congregation". Do not, he says, rend your garments, and show Gentile mourning, lest you die. Our death is sin. And, what may perhaps seem cruel to someone, but is necessary to the faith, it is written in the same Leviticus how the high Priest is forbidden to go near his dead father, mother, brothers, or children, lest, of course, the soul, being free for the sacred rites of God and wholly occupied in his mysteries, be hindered by any affection. Is not the same thing enjoined in other words in the Gospel, that the disciple should not go back to his household? That he should not give burial to his dead father? "And he shall not go out of the sanctuary," it says, "and shall not profane the sanctification of his God, for the holy oil of the anointing of God is upon him".

Surely, after we believe in Christ, and having received the oil of his anointing, bear him within us, we ought not to go out of the temple, that is, from our Christian purpose: not to go forth outside, that is, to mingle with the unbelief of the Gentiles; but always to remain within, that is, to minister to the will of the Lord.

4. We say these things for this reason, lest ignorance of the Scriptures should afford you authority in your grief, and you should seem to err reasonably. And thus far I have spoken as though I had met some ordinary woman from the Christian crowds.

But now, since I know that you have renounced the whole world; and, having cast aside and trampled underfoot the delights of the age, you devote yourself daily to prayer, fasting, and reading; since, after the example of Abraham, you desire to go out from your land and from your kindred, so that, forsaking both the Chaldeans and Mesopotamia, you may enter the land of promise; since you have either distributed all your little substance to the poor, or given it, before your death, to your children who are already dead to the world; I marvel that you do the very things which, if done by others, would seem worthy of reproof. There returns to your memory her conversation, her caresses, her speech, her companionship; and because you are deprived of these you cannot bear it. We forgive a mother's tears, but we seek a measure in grief. If I consider you a parent, I do not blame you for mourning; if a Christian and a nun, then by these very names "mother" is excluded.

The wound is fresh, and this touch, the more soothingly it is applied, heals less than it irritates. Yet why should not that which time must assuage be overcome by reason? For Noemi too, fleeing famine into the land of Moab, lost both husband and sons. And though she was destitute of the help of her own people, Ruth, a foreigner, did not depart from her side. See how great a merit it is to have given comfort to one bereft. From her seed Christ arises. Look upon Job, how much he endured, and you will see yourself as far too delicate, while he, with eyes lifted to heaven, amid the ruins of his house, the torments of his sores, countless bereavements, and at the last the treachery of his wife, held fast unconquered patience. I know what you will answer: that this happened to him, as to a righteous man, for a trial.

Then choose for yourself which of the two you will: either you are holy, and are being tried; or you are a sinner, and complain unjustly, enduring less than you deserve. Why should I repeat ancient examples? Follow present-day ones. Holy Melania, in our own time the true nobility among Christians (with whom may the Lord grant you and me to have a part on His day), while her husband's little body was still warm and not yet buried, lost two sons at once. I am about to relate a thing incredible, but, with Christ as my witness, not false. Who would not then have thought that she would rush, like a madwoman, with hair disheveled, garments torn, tearing her breast? Not a drop of tear flowed; she stood unmoved, and, falling at the feet of Christ, as though she held Him Himself, she smiled. "More readily," she said, "shall I serve Thee, Lord, since Thou hast freed me of so great a burden." But perhaps she was outdone in other respects.

Nay rather, the very mind with which she despised those sons she afterward proved in her one remaining son, to whom, having granted all the possessions she had, with winter now coming on, she sailed for Jerusalem.

5. Spare, I beg you, spare yourself; spare your daughter, now reigning with Christ; spare at least your Eustochium, whose age is still tender and her infancy almost untried, and who is guided by you as her teacher. The devil now rages, and because he sees one of your children triumphant, grieving that he has been crushed, he seeks in the one remaining a victory which he has already lost in her who has gone before. Great is your affection toward your own, but it is impiety toward God. Abraham gladly slew his only son, and do you complain of one out of several crowned? I cannot utter without a groan what I am about to say.

When, from the midst of the funeral procession, they brought you back senseless, the people muttered among themselves: "Is not this what we so often used to say? She grieves that her daughter was killed by fastings, because she did not, from a second marriage, obtain grandchildren from her. How long will this detestable race of monks not be driven from the city? Not be overwhelmed with stones? Not be cast into the waves? They have seduced a pitiable matron, and that she did not wish to be a nun is proved by this, that no pagan woman has ever so wept for her sons." What sorrow do you suppose Christ felt at such words? How Satan must have exulted, who now, hastening to snatch away your soul, and setting before you the enticement of a pious-seeming grief, while the image of your daughter is ever before your eyes, desires to kill the mother along with the victorious daughter, and to invade the solitude of the sister left behind.

I do not say this to frighten you, but, as the Lord is my witness, as though standing before His tribunal, I address you in these words. Detestable are those tears, full of sacrilege, most full of unbelief, which have no measure, which come to the very brink of death. You wail and cry out, and, as though kindled by certain torches, as far as lies in you, you are ever your own murderer. But to such a one Jesus comes gently, and says: "Why do you weep? The girl is not dead, but sleeps". Let the bystanders mock; that is the unbelief of the Jews.

You too, if you wish to roll yourself upon your daughter's tomb, will be rebuked by the angel: "Why seek ye the living among the dead?" Which, because Mary Magdalene had done, after she recognized the voice of the Lord calling her, and, falling at His feet, she hears: "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father", that is, you do not deserve to touch Him rising again whom you think dead in the tomb.

6. What crosses do you now suppose our Blaesilla to be suffering, what torments to be bearing, that she should see Christ somewhat angry with you? She now cries out to you as you mourn: If ever you loved me, mother, if I sucked your breasts, if I was formed by your instructions, do not envy my glory; do not do this, that we should be separated forever from one another. Do you think I am alone? I have for you Mary the Mother of the Lord. I see here many whom I did not know before.

O how much better is this company. I have Anna, once prophesying in the Gospel, and, that you may rejoice the more, the labors of so many years I have attained in three months. We received one palm of chastity. Do you pity me because I have left the world? But I grieve for your lot, you who are still enclosed in the prison of the age; whom, fighting daily in the battle line, now wrath, now avarice, now lust, now the incitements of various vices drag toward ruin. If you wish to be my mother, take care to please Christ. I do not acknowledge as mother one who displeases my Lord. She says these things and many others, which I pass over in silence, and she prays the Lord for you; and for me, since I am confident of her disposition, she obtains pardon for my sins: because I admonished her, because I exhorted her, because I bore the envy of relatives, that she might be saved.

7. Therefore, as long as the spirit rules these limbs, as long as I enjoy the passage of this life, I engage, I promise, I pledge: my tongue shall resound with her, to her my labors shall be dedicated, for her my talent shall labor. There shall be no page that does not speak of Blaesilla. Wherever the monuments of my discourse shall reach, she shall journey abroad together with my little works. Virgins, widows, monks, priests shall read of her, cherished thus in my mind. The brief span of her life eternal memory shall repay. She who lives with Christ in the heavens shall also live on in the mouths of men. The present age shall pass, and the ages yet to come shall follow, which will judge without love, without envy. Between the names of Paula and Eustochium she shall be placed in the middle. Never shall she die in my books. She shall hear me speaking always with her sister, with her mother.

Physicians, whom they call surgeons, are thought cruel, and yet are wretched. For is it not a wretched thing not to feel pain at another's wounds, and to cut dead flesh with pitiless steel? Not to shudder, in the one who treats, at what the sufferer himself shudders at, and yet to be thought an enemy? Such is the nature of things, that truth is bitter, while vices are esteemed pleasing. Isaiah, as a token of future captivity, does not blush to walk naked. Jeremiah is sent from the midst of Jerusalem to the river Euphrates in Mesopotamia, that among hostile nations, where the Assyrian is, and where the camps of the Chaldeans are, he might place his girdle (περίζωμα) to be corrupted. Ezekiel is commanded first to eat bread sprinkled with human dung, then with cattle dung, made from every kind of grain, and he beholds the death of his wife with dry eyes. Amos is driven out from Samaria. Why, I ask?

Surely he is driven out because spiritual surgeons, cutting away the vices of sinners, exhort them to repentance. The Apostle Paul says: "Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" And because the sayings of the Savior seemed hard, many of His disciples went back.

2. Whence it is no wonder if we too, in detracting from vices, give offense to many. I have determined to cut the stinking nose; let him who has a wen be afraid. I wish to strip the chattering jackdaw of her plumage; let the rank crow understand it of herself. Is there not one in the city of Rome who has "nostrils maimed by an unseemly wound"? Is Onasus of Segesta alone in weighing out hollow words, swelling like bladders, with puffed-out cheeks? I say that certain persons have arrived at some dignity or other by crime, perjury, falsehood. What is that to you, who know yourself innocent?

I laugh at an advocate who needs an advocate: I mock with my nose an eloquence worth a farthing: what is that to you, who are eloquent? I wish to inveigh against money-loving priests: you who are rich, why are you angry? I desire that Vulcan, shut up, should burn with his own fires; are you his host, or his neighbor, that you strive to remove the fire from the shrines of the idol? It pleases me to laugh at ghosts, at the owl, at the horned owl, at the portents of the Nile. Whatever is said, you think said of you. Into whatever vice the point of my pen is turned, you cry out that you are meant. You summon me to law with clenched fist, and foolishly accuse, as prose, a satirical writer. Or do you think yourself handsome for this reason, that you are called by an auspicious name?

As though a grove (lucus) is not so called because it does not shine (minime luceat); and the Fates (Parcae) from the fact that they by no means spare (parcant); and the Furies are called Eumenides, kindly ones, though they are not benign; and commonly the Ethiopians are called "silvery." But if you are always angry at the description of ugly things, I shall now sing to you with Persius: "May kings and queens desire you for a son-in-law, may maidens snatch you away: whatever you tread upon, let it become a rose".

3. Yet I will give you counsel, by hiding which things you may appear more handsome. Let not the nose be seen in the face; let not the speech sound in the speaking: and thus you will be able to seem both handsome and eloquent.