Lactantius not a fair example—Commentaries on the Biblical account of creation—Date and delivery of Basil’s Hexaemeron—The Hexaemeron of Ambrose—Basil’s medieval influence—Science and religion—Scientific curiosity of Basil’s audience—Allusions to amusements—Conflicts with Greek science—Agreement with Greek science—Qualification of the Scriptural account of creation—The four elements and four qualities—Enthusiasm for nature as God’s work—Sin and nature—Habits of animals—Marvels of nature—Spontaneous generation—Lack of scientific scepticism—Sun worship and astrology—Permanence of species—Final impression from the Hexaemeron—The Medicine Chest of Epiphanius—Gems in the high priest’s breastplate—Some other gems—The so-called Physiologus; problem of its origin—Does the title apply to any one particular treatise?—And to what sort of a treatise?—Medieval art shows almost no symbolic influence of the Physiologus—Physiologus was more natural scientist than allegorist.
Lactantius not a fair example.
The opposition of early Christian thought to natural science has been rather unduly exaggerated. For instance, Lactantius, one of the least favorable to Greek philosophy and natural science of the fathers, should hardly be cited as typical of early Christian attitude in such matters. Nor does his opposition impress one as weighty.[2060] He ridicules the theory of the Antipodes,[2061] which he perhaps understands none too well, asking if anyone can be so inept as to think that there are men whose feet are above their heads, although he knows very well that Greek science teaches that all weights fall towards the center of the earth, and that consequently if the feet are nearer the center of the earth that they must be below the head. He continues, however, to insist that the philosophers are either very stupid, or just joking, or arguing for the sake of arguing, and he declares that he could show by many arguments that the heaven cannot possibly be lower than the earth—which no one has asserted except himself—if it were not already time to close his third book and begin the fourth. Apparently Lactantius is the one who is arguing for the sake of arguing, or just joking, or else very stupid, and I fear it is the last. But other Christian fathers were less dense, and we already have heard the cultured pagan Plutarch scoff at the notion of a spherical earth and of antipodes. We may grant, however, that the ecclesiastical writers of the Roman Empire and early medieval period normally treat of spiritual rather than material themes and discuss them in a religious rather than a scientific manner.
Commentaries on the Biblical account of creation.
But in the commentaries upon the books of the Bible which the fathers multiplied so voluminously it was necessary for them, if they began their labors with Genesis, to deal at the very start in the first verses of the first book of the Bible with an explanation of nature which at several points was in disagreement with the accepted theories of Greek philosophy and ancient science. Such comment upon the opening verses of Genesis sometimes developed into a separate treatise called Hexaemeron from the works of the six days of creation which it discussed. Of the various treatises of this type the Hexaemeron of Basil[2062] seems to have been both the best[2063] and the most influential, and will be considered by us as an example of Christian attitude towards the natural science and, to some extent, the superstition of the ancient world.
Date and delivery of Basil’s Hexaemeron.
Basil died on the first day of January, 379 A. D., and was born about 329. When or where the nine homilies which compose his Hexaemeron were preached is not known, but from an allusion to his bodily infirmity in the seventh homily and his forgetfulness the next day in Homily VIII we might infer that it was late in life. To all appearances these sermons were taken down and have reached us just as they were delivered to the people, to whose daily life Basil frequently adverts. The sermons were delivered early in the morning before the artisans in the audience went to their work and again at the close of the day and before the evening meal, since Basil sometimes speaks of the approach of darkness surprising him and of its consequently being time to stop.[2064] One of the surest indications either that the sermons were delivered extemporaneously, or that Basil was repeating with variations to suit the occasion and present audience sermons which he had delivered so often as to have practically memorized, occurs in the eighth homily where he starts to discuss land animals, forgetting that the last day he did not get to birds, but is presently brought to a realization of his omission by the actions of his audience and, after a pause and an apology, makes a fresh start upon birds. The Hexaemeron was highly praised by Basil’s contemporaries and was regarded as the best of his works by later Byzantine literary collectors and critics.
The Hexaemeron of Ambrose.
Basil’s work, however, was not the first of its kind, as Hippolytus and Origen, at least, are known to have earlier composed similar treatises, and still earlier in the treatise of Theophilus To Autolycus we find a few chapters[2065] devoted to the six days of creation. In one of his letters Jerome states that “Ambrose recently so compiled the Hexaemeron of Origen that he rather followed the views of Hippolytus and Basil.”[2066] This Latin work of Ambrose is extant and seems to me to follow Basil very closely. At times the order of presentation is slightly varied and the work of Ambrose is longer, but this is due to its more verbose rhetoric and greater indulgence in Biblical quotation, and not to the introduction of new ideas. The Benedictine editors of Ambrose admit that he has taken a great deal from Basil but deny that he has servilely imitated him.[2067] But a striking instance of such servile imitation is seen in Ambrose’s duplicating even Basil’s mistake in omitting to discuss birds and then apologizing for it, reminding one of the Chinese workman who made all the new dinner plates with a crack and a toothpick stuck in it, like the old broken plate which he had been given as a model. It is true that Ambrose does not first discuss land animals for a page as Basil did, but makes his apology more immediately. The opening words of the eighth sermon in the twelfth chapter of his fifth book are, “And after he had remained silent for a moment, again resuming his discourse, he said....” Then comes his apology, expressed in different terms from Basil’s and to the effect that in his previous discourse upon fishes he became so immersed in the depths of the sea as to forget all about birds. Thus the incident which in Basil had every appearance of a natural mistake, in Ambrose has all the earmarks of an affected imitation. It is barely possible, however, that Origen made the original mistake and that Basil and Ambrose have both imitated him in it. On the other hand, we are told that the Hexaemerons of Origen and Basil differed fundamentally in this respect, that Origen indulged to a great extent in allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic account of creation,[2068] while Basil declares that he “takes all in the literal sense,” is “not ashamed of the Gospel,” and “admits the common sense of the Scriptures.”[2069]
Basil’s medieval influence.