Carolus Delarue, O.S.B., Monitum ad Origenis libros in Canticum canticorum

Notice.

Origen twice undertook to explain the Song of Songs in tomes. First indeed, when he was still a young man, that is, not before the thirty-seventh year of his age (inasmuch as he only began to explain the Scriptures at this time), he published a small tome, a segment of which is even now extant in the seventh chapter of the Philocalia; afterwards, however, while he was staying at Athens during the reign of Gordian around the 55th year of his age, 240 of Christ, he began another far more copious commentary on that book of Solomon, which he distributed into ten tomes. The first five he worked out at Athens, the remaining ones at Caesarea, as Eusebius testifies in Ecclesiastical History book VI, chapter 32. That the following commentary represents the prologue of this work, and the first three tomes with part of the fourth, there is now no room for doubting. "For whatever things" (says Pearson in Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii, pages 110 and 111) "can be said of any work to be ascribed to Origen, belong above all to this one. Nor is it any wonder, since, as Jerome formerly observed, whereas Origen surpassed all men in his other books, in the Song of Songs he surpassed himself. For first, there is an ancient mark of Origenian works prefixed to several manuscripts in Peterhouse at Cambridge: The discourse of Origen is recognized by the abundance of authorities. Now nowhere is this mark more manifest than in this work: in which the author always digresses, and adduces passages of Holy Scripture from everywhere and draws them to his purpose. Secondly, Origen everywhere pursues tropological interpretations, as all Christians note, and even Porphyry himself. And throughout this whole work he perpetually pursues three senses, the historical, the tropological, and the anagogical, nor does he otherwise expound the remaining passages of Scripture which he adduces in passing: so that here Origen plainly surpasses himself. Thirdly, no one ever praised his own previously written works so many times as Origen. For as often as he cites a passage of Scripture in passing, he is wont to refer the reader to his own expositions. The same thing he frequently performed in this work: for he cites his homilies on Exodus and Judges once, on Numbers four times; his explanations on Leviticus, and his commentaries on the New Testament. Fourthly, it is Origen's custom to interpret Hebrew proper names, and from their interpretations to fish out tropological senses. Nowhere does he do this more frequently than in these tomes. In the prologue he says: Israel was named on account of the contemplation of divine things. Zareth, a strange descent. Deborah, a bee (as in homily 5 on Judges). Barach, a flashing (as in the same homily). Solomon, peaceable. In the first book, Eden, delights. In the second, Cedar, blackness, or darkness. Jerusalem, vision of peace (as in homily 21 on Joshua, concerning Jerusalem we have frequently said that it is interpreted vision of peace). Abdimelech, servant of kings. Mambre, vision. Cherubim, fullness of the knowledge of God (as in homily 2 on Ezekiel). Engaddi, eye of my temptation (as in homily 2 on the Song translated by Jerome). In the third, Bethel, house of God. Now whoever weighs those wonderful theorems which the author deduces from those interpretations will certainly attribute these commentaries to no one except Origen. Fifthly, certain peculiar opinions have been attributed to Origen, especially concerning the soul and the angels, from which the Latins chiefly shrank in horror. And these are propounded everywhere in this work. Finally, Origen in his tomes, when he applies himself to explaining the mystical sense, often turns to God in prayer, that illuminated by the grace of God he may perceive those great mysteries, as he calls them. Which happens here quite often. If therefore we look at the matter of the book and the manner of treating it, all things savour of Origen alone. Besides, there are also other things which altogether convince us that these commentaries belong to none other than Origen. Two homilies of Adamantius on the Song of Songs were faithfully translated by Jerome, and dedicated to Pope Damasus, and acknowledged by Rufinus. Now their sentiments are thoroughly similar and akin to these which are contained in this work, so that both appear to have been forged on the same anvil; as the most learned Huet observed, who collected not a few passages, and could have collected many more. But a splendid fragment of Origen, which is extant even now in Greek at the end of the Philocalia, ἐκ τοῦ βʹ τόμου τῶν εἰς τὸ ᾆσμα τῶν ᾀσμάτων, excerpted from the second tome of the commentaries on the Song of Songs, removes every scruple. For to this Greek fragment the Latin words which we have in the second book of this work plainly correspond. For although the former part of the fragment is set forth more freely there, yet the latter is rendered more closely, and in the former part itself those words of the fragment, οὕτω δὲ καὶ μήποτε σκληρύνει Κύριος τὴν καρδίαν Φαραώ, are better expounded by that old translator than by Tarin the recent translator. Tarin translates thus: thus the Lord never hardens the heart of Pharaoh, which is foreign to the mind of Adamantius. The old translator: according to these things therefore perhaps God is also said to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh. Rightly, for μήποτε, a word often used by Origen, does not signify never, but perhaps. For under that formula of speech Adamantius is wont almost everywhere to propound his expositions hesitantly." Altogether learnedly does Pearson say these things, to which I add this one point, namely that in Procopius's epitome on the Song of Songs there are extant in great number other Greek fragments drawn from Origen's commentaries on this book of Scripture, which likewise correspond accurately enough to the Latin words of the work now in question. It is therefore most certain that that work is by Origen himself, not by some Latin author. That it was not by a Greek, Erasmus indeed inferred even from this, that in the prologue the author cites the Greeks as foreigners in these words: when among the Greeks, who seem learned and wise; but Erasmus behaves quite unskilfully and foolishly here, as Pearson observed in Vindiciae epist. S. Ignatii, page 107 and following. "For Origen cites the Greeks as foreigners not to his tongue, or his race, but to his religion; nor does he here oppose the Greeks to the Latins, but to the Christians. For thus it follows: it would not therefore be wonderful if among us also, where the more numerous the simpler are, the more numerous also the more unskilled seem to be. Which words certainly pertain not to the Latins only, but to the assemblies of all Christians; and besides they recall to us Origen, who speaks almost everywhere of simplicity and unskilfulness, and most frequently opposes the Greeks to the Christians. Somewhat better," continues Pearson, "does Raynaud the Jesuit urge this objection: The author himself twice professes himself a Latin when treating of logic in the division of philosophy. For there the Latins are expressly opposed to the Greeks: The general disciplines by which one arrives at the knowledge of things are three, which (the Greeks) called ethics, physics, and theoretics (we can call these moral, natural, and contemplative). Some indeed (among the Greeks) placed logic also (which we can call rational) in the fourth number. Yet the author does not here profess himself a Latin. For those words which we have enclosed in brackets belong to the translator, not to the author. For since he had first rendered the Greek terms in Latin letters indeed, but in Greek words, lest perhaps they should not be understood by the Latins, or lest he himself should seem not to have understood them, he wished to translate the same terms again in Latin; which is very familiar to the ancient translators. Moreover, that the passage itself was written by Origen even this proves, that Jerome on Ecclesiastes follows it, as he was wont to do, then above all when Origenian matters had not yet become so displeasing. For treating of the three books of Solomon, and observing their order and arguments with Origen, he says: Not far from this order of doctrines

do the philosophers also instruct their followers, so that first they teach ethics, then expound physics, and whomsoever they perceive to have made progress in these, they lead right up to theology. Which passage if Henri de Valois had had in mind, he would never have put forward that observation in his annotations on Eusebius: Certainly in the books of Jerome you will never find theologiam said, but in Greek θεολογίαν. Nor, if he had reflected that Jerome in epistle 155 wished to express this passage of Origen, would he immediately have preferred the reading of the Memmian codex to the common one, or said that the latter exhibits theoricen without sense. The words of Jerome are: philosophers are wont to divide their disputations into physics, ethics, and logic; so also the divine utterances either dispute concerning nature, as in Genesis and Ecclesiastes; or concerning morals, as in Proverbs and scattered throughout all the books; or concerning logic, in place of which our authors claim theoretics for themselves, as in the Song of Songs and in the Gospels. Since anyone understands that these things are sought from Origen, who can refuse to accept theoricen there, who knows that it is so defined by Origen: That is called contemplative whereby, having stepped beyond visible things, we contemplate something of divine and heavenly things, and behold them with the mind alone? These things therefore are altogether Origen's, and from him Jerome drew them."

But that the author is Latin, says Erasmus, is clear from the interpretation of amor, charitas, dilectio and cupido. "By no means," says the same Englishman. "For the author does not hand down the interpretation of these four words, but the translator only employs them to express the two words which the author compares with each other, namely ἔρως and ἀγάπη. And he translates ἔρως either as amor or as cupido; ἀγάπη either as dilectio or as charitas. Origen indeed had collected passages of Scripture according to his custom, in order to show that ἀγάπη signifies the same thing for the sacred writers as ἔρως among others. Now to explain these passages the translator found it necessary to add dilectio to charitas, because the author often used the verb ἀγαπᾷν, such as does not correspond to a verb from charitas in Latin. These things appear clearly enough from the passage itself: Now it seems to me that divine Scripture, wishing to beware lest some slip should arise for the readers under the name of love (amor), for the sake of all the weaker ones called that which among the wise of the world is called desire (cupido) or love (amor), by the more honourable word charity (charitas) or affection (dilectio). For example, as when it said concerning Isaac: And he took Rebecca, and she became his wife, and he loved her, ἀγαπᾷν is rightly translated diligere, and ἀγάπη of old was rendered no less dilectio than charitas. The ancient Glossaries: dilectio, ἀγάπη. Ἀγάπη, dilectio. Tertullian concerning the agapae of the ancient Christians: Our supper shows its reason from its name: it is called that which affection (dilectio) is among the Greeks. And just as he subjoined dilectio to charitas, so also he subjoined cupido to amor. The ancient Glossary: ἔρως, amor, cupido. Which Jerome had done before him in the first homily: let him be kindled with spiritual desire (cupidine) or love (amore). Now just as these things by no means betray a Latin author, so they show rather that Origen himself was the author, who in those writings which we possess so frequently uses ἔρως in divine matters: and whom in this very matter, as he is wont, St. Gregory of Nyssa imitates in his first homily on the Song of Songs: Ἐπειδὰν τοίνυν σοφία ἐστὶν ἡ λαλοῦσα, Ἀγάπησον ὅσον δύνασαι ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας τε καὶ δυνάμεως, ἐπιθύμησον ὅσον χωρεῖς· προστίθημι δὲ θαῤῥῶν τοῖς ῥήμασι τούτοις καὶ τὸ, Ἐράσθητι. Since therefore it is wisdom that speaks, love as much as you can with your whole heart and whole strength; desire as much as you can hold: and I boldly add to these words also this: Be enamoured. Plainly as in the Hieronymian version of the first homily of Origen: And that I may say something more boldly, let him be kindled with spiritual desire and love."

It can also be objected that it was written by Jerome in the prologue to his translation of the two homilies on the Song, that Origen in ten tomes discussed the Septuagint translators, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the fifth edition magnificently and openly; and since this does not appear in the following commentary, it follows hence that the work is different from the ten tomes. But one must know that Rufinus is the translator of this writing, as we learn from Cassiodorus, who in the book On Divine Readings, chapter 5, has these words: On the Song of Songs the same St. Jerome, an eminent enricher of the Latin tongue, provided for us the exposition of Origen in two homilies by his own commendable translation, as he was accustomed. Which likewise Rufinus, a most eloquent translator, casting aside certain passages, unfolded more broadly in three books right up to that precept which says: catch for us the little foxes that destroy the vines. For although these things were obscurely said by Cassiodorus, yet this very work shows it sufficiently, in that it ends at that verse, catch for us the little foxes that destroy the vines. Moreover, it was customary for Rufinus to pervert all things and recast them at pleasure, so much so that he abridged the tomes on the Epistle to the Romans to half their size. It is no wonder, therefore, if he at all events expunged from Origen's commentary on the Song of Songs the variant readings of the ancient translators of Sacred Scripture. For that readings of this sort were in the original text of this commentary is clear from the surviving Greek fragments which the Epitome of Procopius exhibits, for instance from the fragment on Song of Songs 1:13, and from the fragment on Song 2:5.

For the rest, concerning this commentary see more in Huet's Origeniana, book III, chapter 2, section 3, number 7.

Prologue of Origen on the Song of Songs.

Rufinus being the translator.