This little question I set down only for St. Chrysostom’s sake. For (Hom. 23 on Ephesians) he says it was carried ἐν ἀμφορεῦσι — that is, as his interpreter renders it, “in jars.” But that it was a pole or lever [vectis / palanga], and that there were two men who carried that cluster on the pole, both the Hebrew and the Latin text express. For, first, the very instrument of carrying is expressly called a “lever” or “pole” — or, as the Hebrew could be rendered, a “staff”; in Philo (δοκός, On Moses bk. 1); and in the Seventy, ἀναφορεύς. And hence it appears there sticks in Chrysostom’s text a corruption, which must be emended to ἐν ἀναφορεῦσι — that is, “on poles or levers.” Nor does any of these names prove there were two bearers. For one man could have set the staff on one of his shoulders, and so carried the cluster hanging from it behind his back — as we sometimes see certain travelers carry a cloak or the like; or indeed set two staves likewise on his shoulder, joined behind, and from these the knitted cluster be carried — especially since in the Seventy we read (as I said) not ἀναφορέα [pole, sing.], but ἀναφορεῖς [poles, pl.]. But in the Hebrew the number of the two staves or poles is thus denoted: “they bore it on a pole, on two,” or “between two.” Now it could have happened that either these two were not always the same, or the load went round [by turns], or they were indeed the same, but not Caleb and Joshua — [but] any others. The former [that they took turns] could seem gatherable from the excessive fatigue of two, if they were always poling [it]. For from the pole, or that staff, hung the branch cut from the vine, and with it the cluster, huge and heavy. For it was not carried only to show its taste (for so any one or two grapes would have sufficed), but was carried most of all to show the wondrous richness and fertility of that land — which would not have been done if one [cluster] of the usual size were carried. But when such a one is brought as is very rare elsewhere, or is at least told of as something like a portent, how blessed could this land seem? Attus Navius, in Cicero (On Divination bk. 1) — when, on account of poverty, he pastured swine as a boy, and had lost one of them — is said to have vowed, if he recovered it, to give to the god the largest grape that was in the vineyard; and at length he found a grape of marvelous size, which seemed divinely offered. When I had come, in years past, from Nuremberg to Forchheim, I saw in the house of my host, the Reverend Dean of that Church, the image of a grape[-cluster] which, because it was rather large, seemed in those parts worthy to be painted for a memorial. But if there were a region where such clusters grew, and were of a little better taste, who would not be astonished at that region’s richness? This is the lure that drew the Gauls into Italy, as is written by Pliny (bk. 12, ch. 1). But of the size of vines and grapes [see] more in David de Pomis (in Tsemach [David], under the word “Sambation,” and in Dies Caniculares, coll. 21); Maiolus; [and] the Peruvian letter of Fr. James Torrensis, published here in the year 1603: “In Ica,” he says (p. 4), “the clusters are so large that they yield more of the best and sweetest wine than two or three in Europe.” Strabo (bk. 2, in Margiana; bk. 15, in Carmania) tells of two-cubit clusters. Euphorus and Metrophanes, in Stephanus (On Cities), report—
(col. 156)
—that in Eucarpia, a town of Asia Minor, clusters so huge arise that single [ones] are a just load for single carts, and that sometimes, [while carrying only] the load of one, the cart has broken and collapsed. Pliny too (bk. 14, ch. 1) praises “finger-grapes,” which are drawn out with the very long berries of dates; and others larger, swollen like an udder, the pregnant “bumastos.” And there are those who write that in inner Africa the clusters exceed the size of an infant boy. Once the Rector of this College of Mainz, Hermann Thyraeus, sent a cluster which had grown in the domestic garden, and was 6 or 7 pounds [in weight], to the most Reverend and Illustrious Lord Abbot of Fulda, Balthasar, then in exile in his “Patmos.” The Illustrious N. Raducilius (Epistle 3): “The Turkish captain ordered to be given us clusters of Rhodian grape, which were of such size that they stretched out to three parts of an ell; and the single grape-berries [were] such as plums are wont to be among us” (p. 204). It seemed, then, that reason demanded that all should carry [it] by turns; and this Philo teaches and writes (On Moses bk. 1): “[bearing] a cluster… having lifted it from the middle on a carrying-pole, whose ends they set on two young men, one in front, the other behind, the foremost being relieved in turn.” But, on the contrary, it rather seems the same [two] were always the bearers. Because other fruits too were brought from that same land, of remarkable size, beauty, and goodness — pomegranates and figs; perhaps also more than these, like olives, and [things] resembling palm[-dates]. For the wheat and barley were already reaped (v. 21). So there could be a load for each; and since they went secretly, and could not mingle much in talk with unworthy [men], they could not always buy the necessaries for food — so that, as their means allowed, they had to carry something with them from these [fruits] for the following days. And thus there were always some little bundles [to spare] for all. Then, those who had grown accustomed to carrying the one load seemed to continue it more conveniently and easily than others — especially in bearing the grape, because a fixed manner of walking had to be used, lest by too much shaking, in those hotter places, the berries should fall. And these two I think were Caleb and Joshua: first, because they were closest joined to each other, and most alike in morals, and therefore more gladly and easily joined themselves in some work. Then, this was a load a little more troublesome than the rest; and men of great virtue take this on more willingly than others. Third, the look of this grape had greater force to commend that land than [that] of the other fruits; whereas the other explorers were now of such a mind that they wished to praise it not, as was fitting, sincerely and grandly, but only meanly and coldly. For these things [were done] at the very return of the explorers, when they were already brooding in mind the murmuring, and the sedition that followed after. Fourth, it could be that those others would not even carry the pomegranates and figs, but these two carried all those [things] in their bosom, and in little sacks or baskets, which they had brought with them either for carrying provisions, or at last for this very use. Fifth, St. Chrysostom asserts (Hom. 24 on Ephesians), saying that the truly heavenly fruit was brought to Christ, not by Caleb and Joshua — who, namely, once carried the earthly [fruit]. Lastly, there fits very well the allegory handed down by Rupert (on Num. ch. 13 [37]): that Christ the Lord is the grape full of the sacred juice of His own blood, and is borne on the pole of the cross, [and] is crowned [pressed] by the Jews; but by Joshua and Caleb He is borne as by a figure, and ought to be carried by all good men. And indeed [Isaiah…]
(col. 157)
…[And indeed at] Isaiah 11, v. 1, Christ the Lord is called by the Rabbis “the cluster” [botrus], as Lyra notes there. St. Augustine (on the 2nd [feria] of Pentecost, sermon 2): “The wineskins were new; new wine was awaited from heaven — for that great cluster was already trodden and glorified.” And on Psalm 8, expounding the title “for the winepresses,” he says: “The Lord is called a cluster of grapes, whom — hung on wood from the land of promise — those who were sent ahead by the people brought as it were CRUCIFIED.” I add two or three little inquiries connected to this. The first: Did perhaps several clusters hang on that pole? For if that branch had only a single cluster, the land would not be sufficiently praised thereby — because what the size of the grape displayed here, elsewhere a multitude of grapes on the same branch might make up for. But if [there were] several, why were they not left [on it], so that all might be the more astonished at the sight? I think there were indeed several grapes on that branch, but only one was brought — and that, first, because a single one would give load enough; second, because a place could be shown of the others that had been picked, so that from that one present [cluster] enough of belief and astonishment might be gathered; third, because it was not a whole branch, but rather a single little shoot of a branch, as the Hebrew word indicates, by which a “cutting” or “little segment” is meant. The second: Why was this cutting or little segment of the branch taken, and not the grape alone? Abulensis thinks it was done for the sake of protection from the sun. But it can be added that it was also for greater adornment and freshness. For it happens, I know not how, that fruits brought with their leaves and little twigs please more — for example, cherries and apples; so much so that sometimes even at table, among the more refined, the grapes themselves are brought in with leaves set under them. The third: Did they sin by plucking those grapes, apples, and figs from others’ vines and trees? Abulensis (q. 38) answers no — and rightly, not only because it was a trivial matter, but also because the right to those lands already belonged to the Israelites; and so they could, without any fault and by fullest right, explore, and do what pertained to that end, and sharpen and stir themselves to seize them.