2. 3. 4. To the objection that creatures are not vain, because they are very good and ordered to an end: it must be answered that they are not called vain through a defect of goodness or order, but through a defect of immutable being: and thus every creature is vain, yet it is not so vain that it lacks truth and goodness; and therefore knowledge and doctrine concerning it is true.
Question III. On the method of treatment in the same.
Likewise, there is a question concerning the method of treatment: for it has been said that he acts and speaks in diverse persons, namely that of the fool and that of the wise man.
But: 1. As it is said in Sirach 20, a parable from the mouth of a fool will be rejected: therefore a statement made in the person of a fool is not to be heeded: therefore if the meaning of the sacred books is to be heeded, he ought not to speak in the person of a fool.
2. Likewise, what he says in the person of the fool and the carnal man is to be rejected: but it is not known, when he speaks,
whether he says this in his own person or in another's: therefore it is not known what in this book is to be held and what is to be rejected: therefore this science is a path to error. But canonical books ought to purge error: therefore this book should be removed from the canon.
I respond: it must be said that to speak something in the person of a fool or a carnal man is twofold: either to approve it, or to reject it and show it to be vain. In the first way it does not befit the science of truth: in the second way it does, just as if someone wished to refute an error and first set it forth, then afterward destroyed it. And he speaks in this way, not in the first; and therefore he is not to be condemned, but rather to be commended, because he rejects what is to be rejected.
2. To the objection that it is not known when he speaks in his own person: it must be said that the other side of a disputation cannot be known until one arrives at the judgment and at the determination, because in the resolution it is known what is chosen and what is rejected. Thus I say that Ecclesiastes proceeds as if disputing up to the end of the book, and at the end gives his judgment, when he says: Let us all hear together the end of the discourse: Fear God, and know that for every fault God will bring you to judgment. In which word he condemns all the opinions of the foolish, the carnal, and the worldly. Whence what accords with that judgment he says in his own person, and what disagrees he says in the person of others: and therefore this book cannot be understood unless it is heard in its entirety.
Question IV. On the efficient cause of the same.
It can also be asked lastly concerning the efficient cause) and it has been said that the efficient cause was Solomon. That it is not fitting, however, for such a person to be the author, appears from the following:
1. Because he was a sinner and carnal: but when a carnal man preaches spirituality, he causes scandal rather than edification: therefore this book is more apt to generate scandal than edification.
2. Likewise, in the Psalm it is said: But to the sinner God said: Why do you declare my justices? Therefore if Solomon was a sinner, then he was sinning by declaring the divine justice.
3. Furthermore, a good author produces credibility, whence the argument from authority has its force; therefore a bad author produces no credibility: but the books of Sacred Scripture are for generating faith: therefore, etc.
To this it must be responded that, as Jerome says, according to the tradition of the Hebrews, this book was written by Solomon while doing penance: and because God does not reject the penitent, but rather accepts them, accordingly Solomon was not in a blameworthy state when he wrote this book.
It can also be responded otherwise, that the Holy Spirit speaks true and good things not only through the good, but indeed also through the wicked: whence the Lord himself says in the Gospel: Do what they say, but do not do what they do: whence also through Balaam he prophesied most expressly, and so also through Solomon, even though carnal, he said many good things.
2. As to what is objected, therefore, that he was sinning: it must be responded that to him the gift of wisdom was entrusted most especially among all others: and because he was bound not to hide the talent of the Lord, he was obliged to teach the people of the Lord both by word and by writing, especially since he was appointed to their governance. Whence he was not sinning in this, that he taught, but in this, that he did not duly dispose himself.
3. As to what is objected, that the book is not to be believed, since the author is not worthy of credence: I respond: just as we believe the Prophets, that they spoke not of themselves but through the Holy Spirit: so also in all the books of Scripture, that they were produced at the dictation of the Holy Spirit: whence the goodness of the person does not contribute to greater or lesser credibility, presupposing that he spoke through the Spirit. And because it is established for us that Solomon was filled with the spirit of wisdom, as is clear from 3 Kings 3; therefore the Church without doubt receives his books.
Prologue of the Commentary of St. Jerome on Ecclesiastes.
I remember that about five years before this, when I was still at Rome and was reading Ecclesiastes to holy Blesilla, in order to provoke her to contempt of this world, and so that she might consider everything she beheld in the world to be as nothing, I was asked by her to explain the obscure passages after the manner of a brief commentary, so that she might be able to understand what she was reading without my presence. And so, since at the very outset of our work she was taken away by sudden death, and we did not deserve, O Paula and Eustochium, to have such a companion in our life, I was struck dumb, stricken by so great a wound: now, situated in Bethlehem, that is, in a more venerable city, I render what I owe both to her memory and to you: briefly noting this, that I have followed no one's authority, but translating from the Hebrew, I have rather adapted myself to the usage of the Seventy Interpreters, at least in those passages which did not differ greatly from the Hebrew. From time to time I have also recalled Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion, so that I might neither deter the reader's zeal by excessive novelty, nor again, against my conscience, pursue the rivulets of opinions while abandoning the fountain of truth.
Exposition of this Prologue.
Saint Jerome prefixes a Proem to this book, in which he first makes known the motive for translating. Second, he determines the manner of the translation.
At the words: Briefly noting this.
The first part has three parts. First he states what moved him to begin, namely the intercession of holy Blesilla. — Second, he touches upon what hindered him so as to cause delay, namely her death, at the words: And so, since at the outset, etc. — Third, what moved him to complete the work, namely both her memory and the intercession of Eustochium and Paula, at the words: Now, situated in Bethlehem, etc.
Briefly noting this. Here the manner of translating is touched upon, and first the manner is set forth, namely that he neither entirely agrees with others nor entirely differs,
but rather, in those matters where he was able to do so fittingly, he imitated them. Second, the reason is subjoined, namely at the words : So that neither by excessive novelty, etc. And the reason is that he followed them in some matters, lest he should seem to introduce excessive novelty; yet did not follow them entirely, lest he should abandon the truth.