Silver Stein Cosmogony Silvestris

8/6/2019 Silver Stein Cosmogony Silvestris

1/26

The Fabulous Cosmogony of Bernardus SilvestrisAuthor(s): Theodore SilversteinSource: Modern Philology, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Nov., 1948), pp. 92-116Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/434621 .

Accessed: 16/07/2011 10:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Modern Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/434621?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/434621?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/26

THE FABULOUS COSMOGONY OF BERNARDUS SILVESTRISTHEODORE SILVERSTEIN

IF AMOUSn his time as a poet whosepleasing verses taught by examplemany succeeding literary genera-tions, Bernardus Silvestris of Tours,twelfth-century author of the De mundiuniversitate,' seems to have caused noqualms among his Christian contemporar-ies with respect to the orthodoxy of hisideas. But this has not been the case inmodern times. The authors of the Histoirelitteraire de la France were the first tothrow up hands in horror at one of his"impieties";2 and, if the later critics haveborne his supposed doctrinal failings withgreater equanimity, they have gone evenfurther in marking out his deviationsfrom the orthodox line. By wide agree-ment among themselves they have seenthe De mundi as expressing either panthe-ism3 or a paganism that has little or noChristianity in it at all.4

1Ed. Barach and Wrobel ("Bibliotheca philoso-phorum mediae aetatis, " No. 1 [Innsbruck, 18761).2 XII, 270.aSee, e.g., Victor Cousin, Ouvrages inedits d'Abe-lard (Paris, 1836), "Introduction," p. cxxix, whichmakes Bernardus a precursor of Giordano Bruno; andDe mundi ("Einleitung," pp. xvii-xviii), which rejectsthis view but speaks with approval of Bernardus'

Scheinpantheismus. See also A. Clerval, Les Ecoles deChartres au moyen dge du Ve au X VIe sikcle (Paris,1895), pp. 260-61. In his Histoire de la philosophiemdi'vale, De Wulf shifts in successive editions be-tween pantheism and monism: cf., e.g., 2d. ed., p. 233,and 5th ed., I, 203. But see n. 6 below. For theoriesthat the entire Chartrian school, to which Bernardusis related, are pantheistic in tendency, see also Cler-val, pp. 253 if.; B. Haur6au, Notices et extraits de quel-ques mss. latins de la Bibliothbque nationale (Paris,1890), I, 70, and Haurdau, Histoire de la philosophiescolastique (Paris, 1872), I, 403; W. Jansen, Der Kom-mentar des Clarenbaldus von Arras zu Boethius De Tri-nitate (Breslau, 1926), p. 93; and B. Geyer, Die pa-tristische und scholastische Philosophie (Ueberweg's"Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie" [11th ed.;Berlin, 1928], Vol. II), pp. 234 f.

4 R. L. Poole (Illustrations of the history of medievalthought and learning [1st ed.; London, 18841, pp. 117-

Against this current, Professor Gilson,now twenty years ago, set forth an ar-ticle5 in which he demonstrated the errorsof the paganist views and at the sametime alleged, against the charge of pan-theism, that the De mundi, in fact, con-tains the elements of a dualistic philoso-phy, if not of an even wider pluralism.The force of his demonstration was suchthat of his two positions the second re-18) describes the De mundi as having "an entirelypagan complexion," and this view is reflected in HelenWaddell's magnificent eulogy of Bernardus in Thewandering scholar (7th rev. ed.; London, 1934), pp.115-22, and in Raby, History of Christian-Latin poetry(Oxford, 1927), p. 297. Lynn Thorndike (A history ofmagic and experimental science, II [1923], 102) like-wise accepts Poole's judgment, though with some cor-rection: "The characterization by Dr. Poole ... is es-sentially true, although occasionally some utteranceindicates that the writer is acquainted with Christian-ity and no true pagan." Poole himself, in the secondedition of his work (London, 1920), p. 148, while cor-recting the earlier confusion of Bernardus Silvestriswith the chancellor Bernard de Chartres, likewisemodified his view of the De mundi to a form morenearly parallel to the earlier judgment of Barach("Einleitung," p. xv): ". .. er ist durchaus

abhnngigvon Platon und steckt ganz drinnen in dem Mythicis-mus der antiken Weltanschauung .... Von anderenPhilosophemen und den positiven Offenbarungslehrennimmt er nur das auf, was ihm mit dem Platonismusvereinbar zu sein scheint. Die Substanz des Christen-thums, der Offenbarungsinhalt und die theologischenVorstellungen kommen in seinen Gedankenentwick-lungen gewdhnlich gar nicht in Betracht; einmal, wosie ausdrucklich herbeigezogen werden, aber mit demauf die innere Freiheit von dem Bestimmtwerdendurch dieselben schliessen lassenden, skeptisch ank-lingenden Beisatz: si theologis fidem praebeas argu-mentis." See also K. Werner's account of Bernardus'"freiweltliche Tendenz" in "Wilhelms von AuvergneVerhailtniss zu den Platonikern des xii. Jahrhunderts,"Sitzungsberichte der kaiserl. Akad. der Wissensch.,philos.-hist. Kl., LXXIV (1873), 134. See also H. Reu-ter, Geschichte der religiosen Aufkldrung im Mittelalter(Berlin, 1875), II, 4 ff.; T. O. Wedel, The mediaevalattitude toward astrology ("Yale studies in English,"Vol. LX [19201), p. 35; and Friedrich von Bezold, DasFortleben der antiken Gbtter im mittelalterlichen Hu-manismus (Bonn and Leipzig, 1922), p. 78; but see alsop. 79, which anticipates Thorndike's view.6 "La Cosmogonie de Bernardus Silvestris," Archi-ves d'histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen dge, III(1928), 5-24.

[MODERNHILOLOGY,ovember, 948] 92


3/26

THE FABULOUSOSMOGONYFBERNARDUSILVESTRIS 93mains without serious challenge to thepresent day, and the first-reasserting theessential Christian character of the Demundi-has only recently been called intoquestion.6 The question is raised by E. R.Curtius, who now finds in the De mundistrong traces of an oriental Geschlechts-mysteriumand largely on this ground at-tacks the entire Gilson interpretation, to-gether with its tendentious effort, as itseems to him, to reclaim Bernardus fororthodoxy.7The present paper proposes to recon-sider these views. It proceeds on the basisthat Gilson's theory of the De mundi'sChristianity is essentially correct, thoughit differs in important details from his in-terpretation. It does not, however, assentto the view that there is in Bernardus any-thing like a genuine dualism or pluralism.For the Geschlecht theory, as Curtiusstates this, it finds but little evidence andoffers, instead, an alternative explanationfor some of those features which the Ger-man critic has sought to derive fromheterodox oriental tradition.

But the implications of this paper gobeyond the discussion of such views.Modern criticism, breathing the thin at-mosphere of post-Reformation polemics,has sometimes tended to concentrate its

energies too narrowly (and unhistorically)on questions affecting Bernardus' ortho-doxy orheterodoxy. His ideas andmethods,however, have a far wider interest, both inthemselves and for the oblique light whichthey shed on other related writings in theirday; for, despite the earlier judgment ofReginald Lane Poole,8 the De mundi doesnot stand indifferent to twelfth-centurycontroversy. On the contrary, the morecarefully the text is read, the more fully itdiscloses how Bernardus reflects in evensmall matters the current intellectual con-cerns of his time and place. Nor has jus-tice been done to the book as a work of theimagination, whose poetry resides notonly in metrical excellencies and the sur-faces of rhetorical ornament. In the dif-ficult and dangerousrealm of cosmologicalspeculation, Bernardus' poetic fabula of-fers an example of the high use of meta-phor for subjects whose treatment in moreprosaic discourse brought trouble to suchof his fellow-philosophersas Peter Abdlardand Guillaume de Conches.

Together with Gilson's and Curtius'views of the meaning of the De mundi, allthese considerations will be touched on inthe present article, but only as they ap-pear in the course of the main discussion,which centers largely on the interpreta-tion of three of the key principles ofBernardus' cosmogony-Hyle, Natura,and Noys. The essay as a whole is in-tended to be suggestive rather than com-plete at any point, a prelude to the fullerstudy which alone can establish the pre-cise character, philosophic and poetic, ofthis remarkable twelfth-century work.9And, first, it will be useful to considersome of the difficulties in the text whichhave produced vague, erroneous,or piece-meal interpretations in the past and stillremain as obstacles to understanding.

6 In his interpretation of the De mundi, written tenyears after Gilson, Paul Shorey, Platonism, ancientand modern (Berkeley, Calif., 1938), p. 106, appearsto swallow whole the pantheist-mystic-paganist views.But this does not seem so much to challenge Gilson asto be unaware of him. De Wulf ([6th ed., 19341, I,191) finally accepts Gilson's view.7 "Zur Literar~isthetik des Mittelalters. II," re-printed from Zeitschr. f. rom. Philol., LVIII, esp. 185-90. P. 189: "Bernardus Silvestris lisst sich nicht ftirdie Orthodoxie retten." But Gilson is concerned notwith the De mundi's orthodoxy but with only itsChristianity. It should be added that Curtius' positionalso leads him to query (pp. 188-89) the rather mildconclusions of Hans Liebeschuttz, "KosmologischeMotive in der Blldungswelt der Frtihscholastik," Vor-trdge der Bibliothek Warburg, 1923-24, ed. Saxl (Leip-zig and Berlin, 1926), p. 139, with its emphasis on themere literary significance of Bernardus as "einen ge-bildeten Dichter ..., der auseinanderstrebende Ge-danken der gelehrten Uberlieferung in der spitantikenKunstform zusammenfasst."

8 (1st ed.), p. 117., The writer has in preparation such a study as partof a larger work on the art and philosophy of Bernar-dus.


4/26

94 THEODORE SILVERSTEINII

These difficulties are foreshadowed atthe very beginning of the De mundi in thebreviarium which serves as introductionand summary.10Its secular language isthat of the natural philosopher and itsfabula, except for a reference to the an-gelic hierarchy, has an entirely non-Chris-tian look. In Book i, called "Megacos-mus," the breviarium tells us, Naturacomplains to Noys (= vo0i) of the con-fusion of Primal Matter, or Hyle, andprays Noys to make the universe morebeautiful than it is. Noys consents andout of Chaos separates the four elements,establishes the nine angelic hierarchies,sets the stars in the firmament, arrangesthe constellations, beneath these celestialsigns starts the planets moving in theirorbits, and disposes the four cardinalwinds in opposition to one another. Earthis then established in the center and filledwith animals, and this brings Book i to anend.In Book ii, called "Microcosmus,"Noys glories in the adornment of theworld and promises to complete the workwith the formation of Man. Noys ordersUrania, queen of heaven, to seek outPhysis, who is expert in all things. Naturafollows Urania in a tour of the heavensuntil they reach a lovely land in theearthly sphere, where Physis dwells withher daughters, Theorica and Practica.Noys suddenly appears and, after assign-ing to Urania, Physis, and Natura theirparts, moves them to form Man. With theremnants of the elements Physis carriesout this task, beginning with the head andproceeding member by member until thework is completed.The pagan appearance of all this is fur-ther sharpened in the main body of thework, not only by the addition of otherallegorical figures from secular sources--

Entelechia (World Soul) and Imarmene(Law of Fate) as ministers to Noys, theseven planetary princes (Oyarses)" fromSaturn to Moon and their superior namedPantomorphos,12 together with the Fatescalled Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos-butalso by a poetry based largely on Ovid andVirgil'3and echoing the rhetorical elegan-cies of classical tradition. The work, inshort, is the production of a humanist,such as might be expected from a teacherof poetry like Bernardus in a flourishingtwelfth-century school of literary studies.

But humanism is not paganism, and,though many readers of the De mundihave failed to look for the Christianitybeneath-sometimes even on-its pol-ished surface, Professor Gilson has not.He reminds the paganist critics that theDe mundi is a kind of in Hexaemeron,whose justification of Genesis with Plato'sTimaeus-typical in the twelfth centuryof the methods of the school of Chartres,whose influence it reflects-is also notunknown to the long preceding line ofChristian commentary, in which biblicaltext and Platonic philosophy were joinedin similar attempts to elucidate creation.14This view brings Bernardus' work close toa book called De sex dierum operibus byThierry, the Chartrian master to whomthe De mundi is dedicated.15And through-out the De mundi are to be found beyondfurther question, as it seems to the presentwriter, the intended parallels, consistent

o10 p. 5-6, 11.[161-52. The lines are misnumbered.

11See n. 23 below.12Ibid.13Sandys, History of classical scholarship (3d ed.,1921), I, 535, sees the influence also of Lucan; andPoole (1st ed.), p. 118, that of Lucretius. See nn. 39and 118 below.14Gilson, esp. pp. 7-9, 11-12, 23-24. For a system-atic account of this tradition in the hands of the

Chartrians, see J. M. Parent, La Doctrine de la crea-tion dans l'dcole de Chartres ("Publications de l'institutd'6tudes m6di6vales d'Ottawa," Vol. VIII [19381).

16Ed. Barach, p. 5. For the text of Thierry, seeHaur6au, Notices et extraits, I, 52-70; and Jansen, pp.106*-12*; cf. also Gilson, pp. 8, 23-24, and n. 1; andParent, passim.


5/26

THE FABULOUS COSMOGONYOF BERNARDUS SILVESTRIS 95with the in Hexaemeron radition, to chap-ter 1 of Genesis.16The restoration, however, of the Demundi to the Christians, which was theend of Gilson's study, is only the begin-ning of its fuller interpretation, and thedifficulties are not confined to its human-ism alone. The work is a satura,composedof alternating verse and prose, like the Denuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii of Mar-tianus Capella, which was one of its majorsources. As in this source, but with greaterintellectual subtlety, Bernardus weavesphilosophical statement, didactic sum-mary, metaphor, and fabulous action intoa complex narrative fabric. The fable it-self requires careful attention, since it ismore than a pretty piece of poetic inven-tion. Within the drama of its action aresometimes symbolized significant qualifi-cations of the more direct metaphoricaland philosophical statements of ideas."7Moreover, if Bernardus' humanist verseis occasionally beautiful and always clear,his prose is frequently neither. It is terse,often more heightened than the poetryitself, without the orderly march of rea-soned statement, and a tissue, besides, offragments and reminiscences from manysources.8 Such a prose as this requiresphrase-by-phrase, sometimes word-by-word, investigation before it will yield upits meaning. Confronted by it, Poole oncesimply called it "concise to obscurity" andrefrained from further exegesis."9

There remains the barrier of thesources. Of Gilson's study it has recentlybeen claimed20 that it is based not only onan objective analysis of the text but alsoon an investigation of the sources. Butthis is not entirely correct. His aim ispolemical, limited to the simple Christianvindication of Bernardus and achievedwithout significant contribution of newsources or a full use of those alreadyknown. For his purpose it was enough toconcentrate on the Chalcidian Timaeusand Genesis, with some reference to Ovidand Virgil,21 Augustinian tradition, Ma-crobius, a little of John the Scot,22 nd in ageneral way Thierry of Chartres and somepoints from current philosophical discus-sion. Together with Martianus andBoethius, this represents little advanceover previous scholarship, and in one re-spect it is a retrogression: it ignores theHermetic book known as the LatinAsclepius, whose important influence23

16Genesis 1:2 -De mundi, pp. 9-10.1:3 -10-ibid., pp. 11-12.1: 14-18-ibid., pp. 17-20.1:11 and 20-26-ibid., pp. 20-29.1:26-27-ibid., pp. 33 ff.Cf. also Gilson, p. 8.17See, e.g., the discussion of Natura, below, Sec. IV.18 The demonstration of this must await a detailed

treatment, but some indications for two of the sourcesappear below in nn. 23 and 25.19Poole (1st ed.), p. 118. Cf. Barach, "Einleitung,"p. xvi: "Die Sprache ist kriftig und gediegen, oft vonrathselhafter Kiirze und Dunkelheit. Ein verworrenes,eigenthtimlich durch seine Phantastik reizendesDurcheinander von Begriffen, Bildern, Intuitionen

und empirischen Vorstellungen macht es hiufig unge-mein schwerig, aus dem bunten Mosaik der Darstel-lung den eigentlichen philosophischen Kern heraus-zuziehen."20 By Parent, p. 17.21 Gilson, pp. 6, 16. Cf. Sandys (3d ed.), I, 535. Seealso n. 119.22Gilson, pp. 10, n. 4; 21, n. 1. But these are verymeager. Gilson does not note the Scotist reminiscencein De mundi ii. 5 (Barach, pp. 40 ff.)-the mansion"summi et superessentialis Dei." Cf. LiebeschUitz, pp.133, n. 103; 136, n. 107. The possible effect of theninth-century philosopher, whether direct or indirect,

on such details as Bernardus' "emanationist" lan-guage (De mundi, p. 13, 11. 167 if.), his vestigial useof the "metaphysics of light" (p. 41; cf. C. Baeumker,Witelo ["Beitrage z. Geschichte d. Philos. u. Theol. d.mittelalt., Vol. III, No. 2 (Miinster, 1902)], s.v. "Licht-metaphysic"), and his conception of some aspects ofhuman psychology (see n. 35 below) suggest a fargreater influence, which needs to be more fully studied.For some indication of the knowledge and use of Johnthe Scot among the Chartrians, besides Liebeschiitz,see R. de Vaux, Notes et textes sur l'avicennisme latinaux confins des xiie-xiiie siecles ("Bibliothique tho-miste," Vol. XX [Paris, 1934]), pp. 69, 89, n. 3; cf.also Jacquin, "L'Influence doctrinale de J. Scot au de-but du xiiie si~cle," Revue des sciences philosophiques ettheologiques, 1910, pp. 104-6.23The clue to this influence appears in the terms"Oyarses" ( = obaLdpx77s) and "Pantomorphos" (=7ravrT6lop~os), which Bernardus uses to designate the


6/26

96 THEODORE ILVERSTEINforms the base for Curtius' attack, er-roneous as this may be, on the in Hexae-merontheory.24

Even limited investigation has demon-strated to the present writer that an ade-quate list of the sources will be very muchlarger than this. It will have to add to theHermetic strain a twelfth-century Latinfabrication, De vi principiis rerum,25 ndto the scriptural sources the Book of Wis-dom and Ecclesiasticus, together with

their commentary tradition as repre-sented, for example, by passages in Hugoof St. Victor.28For astronomy and astrol-ogy, which play a decisive role in Ber-nardus' cosmos, it will include a trace ofPtolemy, probably by way of the Arabicwriter Albumazar, whose Miius intro-ductorium was translated by Bernardus'friend, Hermann of Carinthia, and usedby this author in his own philosophicaltreatise De essenciis27and a somewhat

various planetary chiefs (Barach, p. 38, 11.90, 91, 97,98; p. 41, 1. 46; p. 42, 1. 76; and p. 44, 1. 131). Cf.Asclepius, ed. A. D. Nock, in Corpus Hermeticum, ed.Nock and tr. A.-J. Festugitre ("Collection des uni-versitis de France publi6e sous le patronage de l'As-sociation Guillaume Bud6" [Paris, 1945]), II, 319,11.3 ff., and "Introduction," II, 267 f. These connec-tions with Bernardus were observed in 1922 by VonBezold, pp. 78 and 105, n. 233; and by Liebeschitz,pp. 133, and 137-38, n. 109a. Curtius (p. 190) alsowould derive Hyle and Imarmene, two other figuresin the De mundi, from this source; cf. Liebeschtitz,p. 137, n. 107, where other indications of relationshipare also given. But for Hyle see below, Sec. III. Theuse by Bernardus of the Asclepius is, in fact, so ex-tensive that Ferguson, Hermetica, ed. Scott-Ferguson,IV (1936), xlvi, somewhat incautiously describes theentire De mundi as a cento with a good deal of thisHermetic work patched in. See also Raby, History ofsecular Latin poetry (Oxford, 1934), II, 12, and n. 1.

24Pp. 189-90.25Professor McKeon directed Ferguson's attention(Hermetica, Vol. IV) to the fact that Archbishop Brad-wardine in his fourteenth-century De causa Dei quotesfrom a work ascribed to Hermes, and these quotationsalso appear (though without indication of their source)in the De mundi. This work, which Ferguson was un-able to identify, the present writer has discovered tobe the De vi principiis. Evidence of its employmentby Bernardus is given below in Secs. IV and V, but afuller discussion will appear in a separate article which

is now in preparation. The treatise, as yet unpub-lished, survives in three manuscripts, of which twohave been available in photostat to the writer: MS.Digby 67, fols. 69-78, and MS. Bodleian 464, fols.191-202. See Thorndike and Kibre, A catalogue of in-cipits of mediaeval scientific writings in Latin ("Publi-cations of the Mediaeval Academy," No. 29 [1937]),s.v. "Hermes." A brief account of its contents, butwithout recognition of its influence on Bernardus orBradwardine, occurs in Thorndike, II, 222-23.Thorndike's dating and indications of sources andcharacter require reconsideration. It is worth remark-ing that one of Bernardus' passages passionatelypraised by Helen Waddell for its "prose [which] is theprose of Shelley's Defence of Poetry" (pp. 118-19),contains a considerable chunk chopped straight outof this obscure work: cf. Hermetica, ed. Scott-Fergu-son, IV, xlvi; De mundi (p. 13, 11. 152-67); and MSDigby 67, fol. 69v, and MS. Bodl. 464, fol. 191v.

26See Sec. V, below.27 Here an indication is to be found in what Ber-nardus says of the moon: "Unde quia ex alieno lumine

lumen efficitur, planetam solis eam Ptolomaeus Mem-phiticus appellavit" (p. 46, 11.214-15). That the moonowes its light to the sun is, of course, a commonplace,but the term planeta solis is not. It appears to echothe phrase stella solis, which occurs in Hermann ofCarinthia's Albumazar, in a larger passage purportingto give the views of Ptolomy (Naples, Bibl. naz., MSC.viii.50, fol. 25v): "Praeter quod apud ueteres lunasolis stella nuncupata est ... ." For an account ofthis work see C. H. Haskins, Studies in the history ofmediaeval science ("Harvard historical studies," Vol.XXVII [2d ed., 1927]), pp. 45-47. Albumazar mayalso be involved in the famous lines of the De mundii. 3. 33-58 [p. 16]) describing the events of history pre-figured in the stars, among them the birth of Christ:"Exemplar specimenque Dei virguncula ChristumParturit et verum saecula numen habent."The tradition of the Star of Bethlehem early generatedastrological comment, such as is found in Bernardus'chief source, Chalcidius cxxvi (Platonis Timaeus inter-prete Chalcidio cum eiusdem commentario, ed. Wrobel[Leipzig, 1876], p. 191). For other instances see, e.g.,Wedel, pp. 17 ff., and Thorndike, I, 372, 386, 396,443-44, 457-58, 464, 47 ff., 506, 518-19. For discus-sions during and after Bernardus' time, see Thorndike,II, 988, "General Index," s.v. "Christ." The currency,however, of Albumazar's treatment, with its scientificemphasis and its appearance in the De essenciis ofHermann of Carinthia suggest the special significanceof the inclusion of this theme by Bernardus: Maius

introductorium, Book vi (Naples, MS C.viii.50, fol.34) and De essentiis, ed. P. Manuel Alonso (Santan-der: Pontifica universitas Comillensis, 1946), p. 29:"Hanc quidem Ihesu Christi historiam cum sanctipatres amplissime describant, inter cetera quibus infi-delium pertinaciam amplissime confutant, egregiumhoc preteritum est, forsan hactenus incongnitum eis,nec enim, ut poeta docet, omnia possumus omnes,quod ex Hermete et Astalio persarum astrologis Abu-mazar in astrologie tractatu interserit a nobis in eodemlibro in hec verba translatum: Oritur, inquit, in primovirginis decano, in lingua eorum sethos sarzama, quodprout arabes interpretantur adre nedesa, apud nossignificat virgo munda, supra solium auleatum, manugeminas aristas tenens, puerum nutriens et uire pas-cens in regione cui nomen hebrea, puerum autemnominatum ihesum. Quem, opinor, ex hac lectione in-structi, visa stella eius, magi cognoverunto .. ." Seealso Haskins, p. 481.


7/26

THEFABULOUSOSMOGONYFBERNARDUSILVESTRIS 97larger section of Firmicus Maternus,though Bernardus may have known thiswork only indirectly.28To the Chalcidianaccount of the formation and nature ofMan, which is the foundation of this sub-ject in Book ii of the De mundi, it will addespecially psychology fromseveralsources,but these disclosing in part their Arabicprovenience as well as the Platonist modi-fication which they underwent at thehands of the Chartrian philosophers. Thispsychology centers about the subject ofthe three postsensory faculties of the soulknown as the "internal senses"--imagina-

tion, reason, and memory-representingan original Aristotelian classification andlocalized in the brain by Galen.29Trans-mitted through Arabic medical lore to theWest, this classification appears in suchwriters of Chartrian connection as Adelardof Bath,30 Guillaume de Conches,31andThierry.32 Bernardus' interest is shownfrom its occurrence in his Aeneid com-mentary as well as in the De mundi;33andhis terminology and descriptive details

28 Through De vi principiis, which quotes Firmicusextensively; see below, Secs. IV and V. Wedel (pp.33 f.) suggests Firmicus as a source on the basis ofDe mundi ii. 10. 27-32:"Bruta patenter habent tardos animalia sensus,Cernua deiectis vultibus ora ferunt.Sed maiestatem mentis testante figuraTollet homo sanctum solus ad astra caput,Ut caeli leges indeflexosque meatusExemplar vitae possit habere suae ... "which parallels Firmicus, Matheseos viii. 1-9 (ed.Kroll, Skutsch, and Ziegler, II [Leipzig, 1913], 281 if.).But this theme is one of the widest commonplaces inWestern literature from Ovid on: see, e.g., AugustineDe gen. contra Manich. i. 17. 27 (Migne, Patr. Lat.,XXXIV, 187), De gen. ad litt. vi. 12. 22 (Migne,XXXIV, 318); Lactantius De opificio Dei 8 (Operaomnia, ed. Brandt and Laubmann, in Corpus scrip-torumnecclesiasticorum latinorum, Vol. XXVII [18931,27); Cassiodorus De anima cap. ix (Migne LXX,1295); Isidore Etymologiae xi. 1. 5 (ed. Lindsay [Ox-ford; 1911] ii. [A5]); Macrobius Somn. Scip. i. 14;Boethius De cons. philosoph. v. m. 5. 8-15 (Loeb ed.,p. 398); Bede In hexaem. 1 (Migne, XCI. 29); Ab6lardIn hexaem. (Migne, CLXXVIII, 775); Guillaume deConches Tertia philosophia (ed. Carmelo Ottaviano,Un brano inedito della "Philosophia" di Guglielmo diConches ["Collezione di testi filosofici inediti e rari,"No. I (Napoli, 1935)], p. 21). For the ancients see OvidMet. i. 83-86, and the references in M. Schedler, DiePhilosophie des Macrobius und ihr Einfluss auf dieWissenschaft des christlichen Mittelalters ("Beitrigezur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie desMittelalters," Vol. XIII, Heft 1 [Miinster, 1916]),p. 27, n. 4. However, that Bernardus' use of thetheme in its astrological setting has a peculiar timeli-ness can be seen from its current appearance in a simi-lar setting in the Liber cursuum planetarum capitisquedraconis of Raymond of Marseilles (still unpublished):Oxford, MS Corpus Christi 243, fol. 54, col. 2 ff.,which quotes both Ovid and Boethius, and adds fur-ther: "Qui quanta beatitudine deus hominis naturamdocauerit ignorantes non solum quicquam de celestibusscire contempnunt sed etiam si quos scire nouerintabhorrent et fugiunt et abhominabiles diiudicant, hostales si fortuitu saluari contigerit non ut homines deussed ut iumenta saluabit."

29 See H. A. Wolfson, "The internal senses in Latin,Arabic, and Hebrew philosophic texts," Harvard theo-logical review, XXVIII (1935), 69-133.aoDe eodem et diuerso, ed. H. Willner ("Beitrigezur Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalt.," Vol. IV, Heft 1

[Miinster, 1903]), pp. 32 f.; and Quaestiones naturales,ed. M. Muiller ("Beitr~ge," Vol. XXXI, Heft 2[1934]), pp. 22-23.31Philosophia mundi iv. 24 (Migne, CLXXII, 95);Dragmaticon philosophiae ( = Dialogus de substantiisphysicis confectus a Wilhelmo aneponymo philosopho,industria Guil. Grataroli [Argentorati, 1567]), pp.276 f.; and Boethius comm., Paris MS Lat. 14380,fol. 67-67v. See H. Flatten, Die Philosophie des Wil-helm von Conches (Inauguraldiss., Koblenz, 1929), pp.167-68. These critics all emphasize Guillaume's debtto Constantinus Afer, eleventh-century translator of

Arabic medicine; and Clerval (p. 240) indicates thatChartres in the twelfth century had numerous Arabicmedical texts, which are still extant: MSS 160 and171; cf. Cat. gen. des mss. d. depart., Chartres, XI(1890), 83 and 90. But none of the critics discussesadequately the philosophical treatment of this sub-ject by the Chartrians, or the possible influence ofChalcidius (cccxxvii-viii, ed. Wrobel, pp. 351-52, andits discussion of ingenium), John the Scot (see n. 35),or the Liber de causis on this development (Liber decausis, ed. Bardenhewer, Ueber das reine Gute [Frei-burg-im-Breisgau, 1882], esp. sec. 5, pp. 168-69).Gerard of Cremona's translation, which is the onlysurviving Latin text of this last work (Bardenhewer,pp. 135 if.) is too late for our purposes. But there issome evidence that another form from the Arabic wasknown in the West (E. Degen, Welches sind die Bezie-hungen Alberts des Grossen "Liber de .causis" zuraTro~xwLXL.. . [Inauguraldiss., Munich, 19021; cf.E. R. Dodds, Proclus, the elements of theology [Oxford,1933], p. xxx and n. 4), and some such text is quotedby Guillaume de Conches in his Boethius commen-tary, where significantly it is correctly ascribed toProclus (Paris, MS Lat. 14380, fol. 68, col. 1; see alsonn. 34 and 35 below).

32The commentary "Librum hunc," in Jansen,p. 7*, 11. 5 if. For the ascription of this work toThierry, see Jansen, p. 3*, and Parent, p. 30, n. 1,et passim.33 Commentum Bernardi Silvestris super sex librosEneidos Virgilii, ed. W. Riedel (Greifswald, 1924),p. 11, 11.7-10; p. 16, 11.1-2; p. 46, 1. 8; p. 47, 11.2-5;p. 48, 11.1 ff.; p. 65, 11.20-21; p. 81, 1. 33-p. 82, 1. 2.


8/26

98 THEODORE SILVERSTEINsuggest the further influence of a schooltradition that seems to have accumulatedcontributions, among others, from Isidoreof Seville, Fulgentius, possibly Apuleius,34and John the Scot.35Nor will the list end here. BetweenBernardus and his classical and post-classical sources lie the intermediaries ofcommentary traditions-especially onMartianus and Boethius-some of whoseresults he certainly knew.36 This is par-

ticularly true for mythology, which cameto him embellished, in method and con-tent, by the labors of a line of Westernmythographers.37Beyond all this and containing ele-ments essential to correct interpretation,lie influences of yet another sort-notspecific texts which Bernardus may haveemployed directly but general currents ofcontemporary interest, betraying a pre-occupation with particular problems andmethods of dealing with them, which pro-vide the context of Bernardus' ideas andgive them that twelfth-century individ-uality which becomes apparent to carefulreading everywhere in the De mundi.38

IIIExactly such a context surrounds the

cosmological conception that we have nowto interpret. This is the principle of Hyle,or primal matter.Hyle first appears in the opening poemof the De mundi, in a passage which is atissue of Ovidian reminiscence and thetechnical language of philosophy:

34The chief element in this tradition centers aboutthe conception of the first of the internal senses, phan-tasia ( = SpavTraaa), or imaginatio, and the Chartrianuse for this of the term ingenium; cf. Adelard of Bath,Quaestiones naturales, ed. Muller, p. 22; Guillaume deConches, Boethius commentary, Paris, MS Lat.14380, fol. 67; and Bernardus Silvestris, Commentumsuper . . . Eneidos, ed. Riedel, p. 81. The influence ofIsidore appears in Guillaume's description: "uis natu-ralis ad cito percipiendi aliquid." Cf. Etymologiae, ed.Lindsay, x. 122; Hugo of St. Victor, Didascalicon, ed.C. H. Buttimer ("Catholic University of America,studies in medieval and Renaissance Latin," Vol. X[1939]), cap. vii, p. 57, and cap. xi, p. 60; and John ofSalisbury, Metalogicon, ed. C. C. J. Webb (Oxford,1929), i. 11, p. 28, and n. 27. For Apuleius and ingeni-um as dealt with in the Chartrian school traditionsee John of Salisbury, Metalogicon, ed. Webb, i. 11,p. 29. Cf. Apuleius, De dogmate Platonis philosophi ii.3. The reference is not noted by Webb. For another ofBernardus' debts to Apuleius (i.e., to De mundo etccelo) see Sandys (3d ed.), I, 535. The relationship ofBernardus and the Chartrians with Fulgentius is sug-gested by the two following facts: (1) Virgiliana con-tinentia (ed. R. Helm [Leipzig, 1898], p. 97) allegorizesthe four Hesperides as signifying, respectively, studi-um, intellectus, memoria, and facundia. But Guillaumede Conches takes over the Hesperides from Fulgentiusand substitutes for the first three items the three in-ternal senses: ingenium, ratio, memoria, facundia(Boethius com. Paris, MS Lat. 14380, fol. 92v), andBernardus Silvestris follows Guillaume's example:Comment. super . . . Eneidos, Riedel, p. 58. (2) Ingeni-um, or imaginatio, or virtus speculatrix, in Bernardus,described as vis inveniendi (Comment. [Riedel, p. 81]),is connected with the "Pythagorean" theory of cogni-tion, simniles cum similibus (see Chalcidius li [Wrobel,pp. 119 f.]; and Hugo of St. Victor Didascalicon [But-timer, p. 5]). And this view he also found in anotherallegory of the intellectual processes in FulgentiusMitologiarum liber (ed. Helm, pp. 26-27), in whichthe sixth Muse, Erato, stands for inventio, which is de-scribed in terms which make it relevant to the"Pythagorean" theory: "ut aliquid simile et de suoinueniat. .... sextum est inuenire de tuo simile .The entire subject of the internal senses among theChartrians will be treated more fully elsewhere.

36Cf. De mundi ii. 13. 124-25, and De div. nat.,esp. i. 11; ii. 1 and 23; iii. 1 and 12; iv. 11.36For example, Bernardus' term for the WorldSoul, entelechia, evidently goes back to Martianus ii.213 (Dick, p. 78), which says that "Aristoteles per

caeli quoque culmina Entelechiam scrupulosius re-quirebat" (see Liebeschiltz, p. 138, n. 109a). In Aris-totle and Chalcidius (ccxxii [Wrobel, pp. 258 ff.]) theterm is not connected with the anima mundi, and Dun-chad's gloss of Martianus reflects this position: "sum-ma partem animae" (Annotationes in Marcianum, ed.C. E. Lutz ["Publications of the Mediaeval Acade-my," No. 34 (1939)1, "Appendix," p. 234). But Johnthe Scot (Annotationes [Lutz, p. 74]) interprets theword as "originem animae," and in the twelfth cen-tury Hugo of St. Victor (Didascalicon, cap. i [Butti-mer, p. 4]) seems to distinguish between anima (man'ssoul) and entelechia (world soul) in a way that antici-pates Bernardus and indicates that the De mundi's useis in accord with a current practice (ii. 11. 2 [Barach,p. 56]). As to Boethius, the present writer has found,what must be reserved for demonstration elsewhere,an extensive relationship between Bernardus' Aeneidcommentary and the Boethius of Guillaume de Con-ches. See, e.g., their accounts of Orpheus: Bernardus(Riedel, pp. 53 f.) and Guillaume, Paris, MS Lat.14380, fols. 85--85v.

37 See below, Sec. V.38 A more fundamental barrier than all those thusfar enumerated is the state of the published text of theDe mundi. Aside from its errors, the Barach editionis based on only two manuscripts (Vienna 526 andMunich 23434; cf. Barach, p. 5). Thorndike (II, 101,n. 2) enumerates 20 manuscripts, and there are verymany more.


9/26

THE FABULOUSCOSMOGONYFBERNARDUSSILVESTRIS 99Silvarigens, nforme haos,concretiopugnax,Discolorusiaevultus,sibidissonamassa,Turbida emperiem,ormam udis,his-pida cultumOptat... .39

Bernardus' use of the terms informechaos,hyle, and silva as synonyms for primalmatter indicates the influence of his basicsource, Chalcidius: "post enim chaos,quem Graeci hylen, nos silvam voca-mus."40 The further equivalence of usiafor silva is not Chalcidian, but John theScot had equated usia with essentia; andessentia, in turn, for Chalcidius is synony-mous with silva.41Most of this is observedby Gilson, but only to draw the moral forthe paganist critics whom he is refuting,that the appearance of such Platonic de-tail in a commentator on Genesis needcause no surprise, since "Depuis le tempsde saint Augustin et ses commentaires surla Genese,on admettait volontiers que lesexpressions dont use la Bible: terraautemerat inanis et vacua (Gen., i, 2) signifientexactement le chaos primitif du Timee."421To the Chalcidian conception, however,Bernardus adds other traits, which bearthe marks of its treatment in WesternChristian tradition, and one of which re-flects a recurringcrux. This was the ques-tion whether at the moment of creationprimal matter was made formless and theform later added, or whether matter was

created already formed.43 The problemarose from the fact that, according toGenesis, the making of the world was amatter of six days and that, among somecommentators, the creation of the earth atthe beginning of the process came to beequated with the creation of primal mat-ter. Augustine appears to have answeredthe second of the questions in the affirma-tive: "Non quia informis materia formatisrebus tempore prior est, cum sit utrumquesimul concreatum... formatam quippecreavit materiam."44 But the discussiondid not end here. Papias,45for example,sought to distinguish between creatioandformatio; and in the twelfth century, un-der the influence of a fresh philosophicenergy, the question grew active again, inthe attempt both to deal precisely withthe nature of chaos itself and to reconcilewhat may be called the simul and theantisimul views of creation. The questionwas hardly settled in Bernardus' time, butsome of the main lines of the solution werebeing drawn up.46 Their simplest state-ment may be found in a writer like Hugoof St. Victor.47 Original creatio, Hugostates, was not of completely formed mat-ter, nor was chaos at that moment ab-solute. In its primal state it possessed aforma confusionis, that is, it was matter

9 . 1. 18 ft. (Barach, p. 7). The entire poem sug-gests, in language and manner, not merely Metamor-phoses i. 1-20 ff. but also the brief passage in the Arsamatoria ii. 467 ff. Cf., e.g., Bernardus: "Quando fluitrefluitque sibi contraria moles," with Ars am.: "Primafuit rerum confusa sine ordine moles." Curtius (p. 185,n. 4) calls the phrase veteri tumultu in the De mundi(v. 21) "claudianisch." For the technical terminologysee P. Duhem, Le Systime du monde, III (Paris, 1915),68; see also H. Flatten, "Die materia primordialis inder Schule von Chartres," Archiv fiir Geschichte derPhilosophie, XL (1931), 58-65.

40 cXXiii (Wrobel, p. 188).41 De div. nat. i. 14, 15, and 24 (Migne, CLVIII,463, 464, 470). Cf. Gilson, p. 10, n.4.42Gilson, p. 11.

43 See M. Baumgartner, Die Philosophie des Alanusde Insulis im Zusammenhange mit den Anschauungendes 12. Jahrhunderts dargestellt ("Beitrage zur Gesch.d. Philos. d. Mittelalt.," Vol. II, Heft 4 [1896]), pp.71 ff.

44 De gen. ad litt. i. 15. 29 (Migne, XXXIV, 257);also iv. 24. 53 (Migne, XXXIV, 319).45Bibl. nat., MS 11531, fol. 145v: "autem habetdistantiam inter creationem et formationem, quiaoriginaliter secundum materiae substantiam simulcuncta creata sunt, secundum distinctionem rerumvero per sex dierum alternationem formata sunt"(cited by Baumgartner, p. 72, n. 3). Cf. Isidore of Sev-ille, Diff. ii. 11. 27 ff. (Migne, LXXXIII, 74).46 For some indication of the development, seePeter Lombard Sent. ii. 12. 2 (Migne, CXCII, 675),and Thomas' treatment of the subject, Summa theol.

i. 66. 1.47 See esp. De sacramentis i. 1. 2 and 4 (Migne,CLXXVI, 187 and 189), and Annotationes elucida-toriae in Pentateuchon, chap. iv (Migne, CLXXV, 33).


10/26

100 THEODORE SILVERSTEINcontaining the qualities of the elementsbut not yet defined or set in order. Thesucceeding days of genesis then witnessthe process of formatio, in which primalmatter becomes organized into the worldthat we know, in which, that is, hylepassesfrom forma confusionis to forma disposi-tionis.48With this account in view, furtherclarification is now possible of the char-acter of primal matter in the De mundi.Like Chalcidius, Bernardus distinguishesbetween the terms hyle-silvaand materia.49Hyle-silva is apparently neither corporealnor incorporealbut is capable of receivingforms or qualities."5 It is, in part, theequivalent of the Platonic receptacle;thus, using the figurative language of hisfabula as a parallel to philosophic state-ment, Bernardus at one point describes itas generationis uterus."5Materia, on theother hand, is a corpus. It is what resultswhen hyle is fully formed.52 And, thoughBernardus does not use Hugo's phrase, itis plain that materiais, in his view, matterin forma dispositionis. Hyle itself, how-ever, though in its primal state indigensforma,53 is not conceived to be whollyformless but rather to have, in Hugo'swords, a forma confusionis. This is appar-ent from its being qualified by Bernardusas the equivalent of the Platonic principlediversitas64 and, in the opening poem al-ready quoted in part above, as somehowcontaining within it, though in chaoticfashion, the qualities of the elements:Ut quidab aeternoprimae undamina ausae,Ingenitae ites germanaque ellafatigant,Quando luitrefluitque ibi contrariamoles,Fortuitiselementamodis ncerta eruntur... .5

If further indication is needed to bringthe point home, it may be found in Na-tura's request of Noys, that sets the nar-rative action going, "ut mundus pulcriusexpoliatur";56 or in her Platonic dialectshe asks that chaos be shaped to the im-age, not of a form, but of a betterform:"melioris imagine formae."57Of primal matter Hugo of St. Victorhad written: "Creataest . .. informis,nonex toto carens forma; sed ad compara-tionem sequentis pulchritudinis et ordinis,informis potest dici."58This states a viewnot otherwise unknown at the time, inlanguage which provides a perfect parallelto Bernardus. It reassures us that he isnot merely a Christian, as Gilson has ade-quately proved, but a twelfth-centuryChristian, touching on current problemsbeneath the cover of his Platonic fable,and that we may expect to find in his workother testimony to his contemporaneity.Now it is also from Bernardus' concep-tion of hyle that the question arises of hisalleged dualism. Professor Gilson's casefor the dualistic theory rests on the factthat the De mundi nowhere mentions theChristian doctrine of God's creation ofmatter ex nihilo and that the two irre-ducible principles of Bernardus' universeappear to be God and primal matter.59But Gilson is not quite comfortable withhis own case. The subject of the De mundiis, as he observes,60not the creation butthe ordering of the universe, that is, itsdispositio or ornatus: ornatus elementorumis Bernardus' phrase."6Whatever his viewof creation, this is conceived as anterior tothe conditions described in the De mundi,

48Migne, CLXXVI, 189D.49 ii. 13. 5-13 ft. (Barach, p. 61).soIbid., and i. 2. 47 ff. (Barach, pp. 10 f.).5sBarach, p. 10, 1. 48.52 ii. 13. 10-13 (Barach, p. 61).53 Ibid., 5.54Ibid., 4-5. 65 . 1. 23-26 (Barach, pp. 7-8).

56 "Breviarium," 19-20 (Barach, p. 5).57 i. 1. 9 (Barach, p. 7). Barach misreads imaginemfor imagine. Is there an echo in this phrase also ofOvid Metam. i. 21: "Hanc deus et melior litem naturadiremit"?58 Annotat. eluc. in Pent., chap. v (Migne, CLXXV,34).59 Gilson, pp. 19-20. 6o P. 7.61 "Breviarium," 32-33 (Barach, p. 6).


11/26

THEFABULOUSOSMOGONYFBERNARDUSILVESTRIS 101hence beyond the intended scope of thework. His failure to discuss the originalcreation of matter, therefore, can produceonly an argument from silence, which ishere no argument at all. There is withinthe text some further evidence of a morepositive sort, but this, Gilson implies, isimperfect.It is this evidence, such as it is, thatrequires re-examination.The only two passages in the De mundiwhich seem to bear directly on the ques-tion occur in Book ii, one in section 11, theother in section 13. Of these, the passagein section 13 is most conveniently exam-ined first. In order to clarify its meaning,it is here set side by side with parallelstatements from Thierry of Chartres,whom nobody has ever been tempted tocall a dualist and whose view that Godcreated matter ex nihilo is stated ex-plicitly elsewhere in his work.62

BERNARDUSErantigiturduorerumprincipia,unitas etdiversum. Diversum longe retro antiquissi-mum. Unitas non inceperat: implex, ntacta,solitaria,ex se in se permanens,nfinibilisetaeterna. Unitas deus. diversum non aliud

quamhyle eaque ndigens orma.Primiparensigiturdivinitasdiversitatem xcoluit, imitavitinterminam, iguravit nformem, xplicuitob-volutamhylenadelementa, lementaad usias,usias ad qualitates,qualitateset usias ad ma-teriam circumscribens.63THIERRY

Sunt igitursecundumPlatonemduorerumprincipia .., id est Deus . .., et quasi posi-ta ex adversomateria.... Inter haec autemquasiinter extremasunt formaererumet ac-tualia; formaenamquererum a Deo quasi aprimodescenduntprincipio; ormis vero sub-suntactualia;actualibusverosubsunt .. ma-teria.Nemotamenaestimet,quodPlatomate-

riam coaeternam sse voluerit, icet Deum etmateriamrerumprincipiaconstituerit, mmoa Deo descenderevoluit materiam.Ubiqueenim magistrum uumsequitur Pythagoram,qui unitatemet binariumduo rerumprincipiaconstituit,unitatemDeum appellans,per bi-narium materiamdesignans.Quoniamergobinariusab unitatedescendit,constat,quoni-ammateriama Deo descendere oluit .. .64Omnemalteritatemunitas praecedit,quo-niamunitaspraeceditbinarium,quodest prin-cipiumomnisalteritatis.... Cumigitur uni-tas omnem creaturampraecedit, aeternamesse necesseest. At aeternumnihil est aliudquam divinitas; unitas igitur ipsa divinitasest.65

The relation in language and ideas be-tween the Thierry and Bernardus pas-sages is evident. Both describe the two op-posed principles out of which the world isformed, deriving them from the Timaeus.66Both abandon the Platonic principle idemas something independent and, under theterm unitas, identify it with God.67Andboth equate diversitas (alteritas, binarius)with hyle (materia).But from these pointsforward the passages appear to divergesignificantly. Of Thierry's strong state-ment of the dependence of materia (alteri-tas) on God (unitas) there is nothing in thequotation from the De mundi. If Ber-nardus is to be called a dualist, it mightwell be on the ground of this fact.But before we come to any such conclu-sion it is necessary to examine the contextof each of the works in question. Thierry'sentire emphasis is to save Plato for Chris-tianity from the implications of plural-ism.6"Unitas and alteritasare treated, notfor their operation as opposed formative

62 De sex dierum operibus, in Jansen, p. 106*, 11. 14-15 and 21-23 (= Hauriau, Not. et extr., I, 52-53).Cf. "Librum hunc," in Jansen, p. 22*, 11.18-21.63 ii. 13. 1-10 (Barach, p. 61).

64 "Librum hunc," in Jansen, p. 12*, 11.5-18.65 De sex dierum operibus, in Jansen, p. 108*, 11.

9-19 (= Haur~au, Not. et extr., I, 63).66 Esp. 34B-37C, and Commentary, xxvii ff.(Wrobel, pp. 31-35, and 92 ff.). Cf. Boethius, De cons.

philos., v, pr. 6, esp. 31-34 (ed. Loeb, p. 400), whoselanguage Thierry also in part reflects.67 See Parent, pp. 35-40, and esp. 38.68 Ibid., pp. 41-42.


12/26

102 THEODOREILVERSTEINprinciples but primarily in terms of de-pendence. This explains why Thierry sub-stitutes for the language of the Timaeus--idem and diversum-the Pythagoreannumber terminology-unitas and binarius-which he found reported in the Chal-cidius commentary,69since this substitu-tion provides a metaphor more useful forThierry's immediate monistic emphasis.The passage thus becomes an account, asit were, of origins, of the origin of the uni-verse in God.Bernardus' purpose is quite different.His passage is a restatement in brief tech-nical language of all that Book i of the Demundi has been discussing in the guiselargely of fabula. It is an account, as wehave seen, not of origins but of ornatus,creation is excluded from its purview, andthe phrase duo rerum principia is herebeing used to describe unitas and diversumwith respect not primarily to any inde-pendent eternity which they may havebut to their basic qualities as principles inthe ordering of things. The entire empha-sis is on the progress of the formativeprocess, as the words in the passage showwhich describe the detailed transforma-tion of hyle into materia. In this contextBernardus had no need to discuss the ulti-mate principles of creation; henceThierry's monistic emphasis does notappear.

But even in such a context Bernardusdoes pause to give the reader a hint, verybrief but unmistakable, that he is nogenuine dualist. Unitas, or God, he tellsus, "non inceperat: simplex, intacta, soli-taria, . . . infinibilis et aeterna," but hyleis merely "antiquissimum." (Elsewhere,in the metaphor of his fable, Bernardushad spoken of hyle as naturae vultus anti-

quissimus.)70 This can mean one thingonly: that Bernardus does not believe inthe absolute eternity of matter. And ifmatter is not eternal, it cannot be inter-preted as an independent principle in adualistic system but must be seen as aris-ing from another principle which is an-terior to it.That Bernardus does conceive hyle tobe so dependent is proved beyond doubtby the second of the two passages in theDe mundi which we have to re-examine.71Here is described the speculum Providen-tiae, in which Urania sees the living exem-plars of things and the simulacra of theseexemplars, of which the actual universe isan image :7 the sky with its stars, planets,signs, and elementorumamicitia mediator;the walking, swimming, flying creatures,all genera and species. The speculum itselfis a figure for the mind of God, mensaeterna, and the exemplars represent thearchetypal ideas. Two other principlesbe-sides ideae are also reflected in the specu-lum: entelechiaand hyle (silva). All threeappear in Platonic pluralism to be inde-pendent of the demiurge-God, but in theChristian modification of John the Scotideae and hyle had already been drawninto the Godhead and placed in menteDei,the Second Person of the Trinity, Who, inthe analogous language of the Chartrians,is also the Archetype of the world.73 n theDe mundi the appearance of entelechiaamong this company rather than with theThird Person of the Trinity presents aspecial point of interest, to which it will benecessary to return later. At the momentwe have chiefly to observe how unam-

69 ccxcv (Wrobel, p. 324): "Numenius ex Pythago-rae magisterio Stoicorum hoc de initiis dogma refel-lens Pythagorae dogmate, cui concinere dicit dogmaPlatonicum, ait Pythagoran deum quidem singulari-tatis nominasse, siluam uero duitatis."

70 i. 2. 47-48 (Barach, p. 10).71ii. 11. 19-44 (Barach, p. 57).72See n. 148 below.73 E.g., Guillaume de Conches, In Timeum (Paris,Bibl. nat., MS 14065), fol. 56v: "Hec eadem a Platone

dicitur archetipus mundus, quia omnia continet quein mundo sunt .. ." (cited by Parent, p. 50). Cf. Johnthe Scot, De div. nat. iii. 3, and ii. 21; and Tertia philo-sophia, ed. Ottaviano, p. 40, 1. 22.


13/26

THEFABULOUS OSMOGONYFBERNARDUSILVESTRIS 103biguously Bernardus here states his viewof the origin of hyle in God.A further problem, related to the termantiquissimum, is not so certainly solved.It is suggested by Gilson's doubt74whetherBernardus, like others of his contemporar-ies, may have believed in the eternity ofmatter and yet found this consistent witha belief in creation. Among the Chartrians,Guillaume de Conches dealt quite fullywith this subject.75The core of his analy-sis lies in the distinction which he makes,renewed from Boethius, between the na-ture of time and of eternity, which isunchanging, and in the doctrine, which heinsists on, that the world was created notin temporebut cum tempore.With such adoctrine temporal creation and the eter-nity of matter are indeed not mutuallyexclusive, since every principle anterior totime in the mind of God might properly bedescribed as "eternal." But more thanthis. In several well-known passages of theDe divisione naturae,76John the Scot hadshown how the archetypal principles ofthe universe might be at once both createdand eternal, eternal but not entirely co-eternal: sed non omnino coaeterna is theScotist phrase-for this is the status onlyof the Son and the Spirit with respect toGod the Father. In the twelfth centurythe Scotist word, non coaeterna, appearswith similar use in Thierry, who applies it,as we have seen, specifically to matter,which in his view has also been created exnihilo.So far as Bernardusis concerned, Gilsonseems to have found no positive reply tothese questions in the De mundi, and it istrue that the evidence there is scanty. Buta tentative answer may be discovered, byimplication at least, since Bernardus em-phasizes, though in other connections,both the unchanging nature of eternity in

its distinction from time and the doctrinefound in Guillaume of time and creation:"Aequaeva namque generatione," Ber-nardus tells us, "mundus et tempus quibusinnascuntur principiis. .. .""77n the lightof such hints as these, together with hisconception of the origin of hyle in God, wemay conjecture that Bernardus' full viewof creation and the eternity of matterwould not have been very unlike Thierry'sand Guillaume's. It is probable, therefore,that his term antiquissimum for hyle isalso to be read as a kind of paraphrase,imperfect but marking with added sharp-ness the distinction, of the Scotist formulacoaeternased non omnino coaeterna.Not every aspect of Bernardus' concep-tion of hyle has been exhausted by thepresent discussion.78But the main line ofhis thought is approximately clear, andhis position with respect to dualism be-yond doubt. On this matter ProfessorGil-son's view can no longer stand, though hisarticle remains a useful counter to thosewho have tried to read pantheism into theDe mundi-an interpretation refuted in-directly by other critics in studies of thisquestion as it arises among the largergroup of Chartrian cosmologists."7The fact is that the Chartrians gen-erally, and Bernardus among them, inseeking to adjust the Christian universe tothe world of philosophy, found themselvescomposing a number of divergent views,which, as we shall shortly see, broughtwith them difficulties from both direc-tions. This gave rise to problems whichthe Chartrians never really solved. Nordid Bernardus solve them, though he

74P. 20. 75Parent, pp. 99-106.76 i. 21 and 23; iii. 3, 5, 12, 14, and 15.

77 . 4. 91 ff. (Barach, pp. 31-32). Cf. Chalcidius,xxiii (Wrobel, p. 89): "par enim et aequaeuum natalenaturae ac temporis."78There remain, among other matters, the rela-tionship between Hyle and evil (see De mundi i. 2.

23 if. and 70 if.), and the fabulous personification ofHyle (see Curtius, pp. 186, and below, Sec. V andnn. 119 and 120).79See, e.g., Parent, pp. 82-90.


14/26

104 THEODORE SILVERSTEINmade the attempt with various devices.Of these the most striking and originalwas not philosophy at all, but fabula--afabula ultimately involving the entiregraded hierarchyof his cosmic personagesbut centered on the dominant figure ofNoys, whose position in Bernardus' uni-verse is the key to his answer to thedilemma.Before we can see how he has used thisfigure in his solution, however, it is neces-sary to establish her sources and char-acter, together with those of the relatedfigure of Natura. And this will be thepurpose of the next two sections.

IVBesides Hyle, the four chief fabulousfigures of Bernardus' cosmos are Noys,Natura, Urania, and Physis; and of thesethe first two are the most important for hisideas. Natura has been particularly in-triguing to the critics, since, in the role

which she plays here, she has seemed aphenomenon new to medieval literature.80Gilson finds nothing like her in Chalcidiusand is obliged to go back to Pliny for asuggestion.8' In the course of the followingaccount, however, it will appear that theDidascalicon of Hugo of St. Victor con-tains some parallels and that chief amongher actual sources is the twelfth-century"Hermetic" book, De vi principiis rerum.

Natura's most comprehensive title isartifex, a word that Bernardus drew, inthe sense in which he uses it,82 directlyfrom De vi principiis, which took it, alongwith some astrological views of the cosmicscheme, from the Matheseos of the fourth-century Latin writer, Firmicus Mater-nus.83 What the title means for Bernardusbecomes apparent only during the prog-ress of the narrative, which serves as anexpanding commentary on her signifi-cance. And in order to follow this prog-ress, we shall have to prepare Hugo andthe De vi principiis as a viaticum.In the Didascalicon Hugo quotes threedefinitions, stating that nature is

1. illudarchetypum xemplar erumomni-um, quod in mente divina est, cuius rationeomnia formata sunt, ... unius cuiusquereiprimordialemausamsuam,a quanon solumesse sed etiamtalis esse habeat.2. proprium esse uniuscuiusquerei....Naturaunamquamqueem informanspropriadifferentiadicitur.3. ignis artifex[= ignisaethereus], x qua-dam vi procedens n res sensibilesprocrean-das.84

If the second definition, which simplydescribes the nature of created thingsthemselves, be assimilated to either defini-tion of natura as a cosmic power, thesedistinctions will be found in the twofoldaccount in the De vi principiis, but withsome significant differences. Here Naturais defined (Hugo, definition 1) as "vigorquidam universalis et specialis," operatingsuccessive,because "unaqueque res ab aliain suo genere nascitur,"85but this is given

80 See, e.g., E. Faral, "Le Roman de la rose et lapens~e francaise au xiiie siecle," Revue des deux mondes,September 15, 1916, esp. p. 449. J. Huizinga, Ueberdie Verkniipfung des Poetischen mit dem Theologischenbei Alanus de Insulis ("Mededeelingen der konnink-lijke akademie van wetenschappen," Lett. deel. 74.B, 6 [Amsterdam, 1932]), pp. 40 ff., and Curtius,pp. 180 ff., throw important light on the personifica-tion of Natura, which, because of its limits, the pres-ent article largely neglects. They cite some usefulliterary parallels, especially Claudian, De raptu Pro-serpinae i. 237 ff. But their analyses, as far as Bernar-dus is concerned, are sketchy and, in the case of Cur-tius, limited by failure fully to investigate the sourcesand vitiated in part by his Geschlecht theory, which heattempts to apply to Natura, as he does to Noys (seeSec. V below).81 ilson, pp. 21-22, and p. 22, n. 1.

82 As distinguished from the term ignis artifex inHugo of St. Victor (see n. 84). Artifex is also Pliny'sword (Naturalis historia ii. 68), as Gilson points out;but see discussion in n. 98 and the passage in the textto which it refers. See also the use of this word forthe Sapientia in Book of Wisdom 7:21, and Sec. V andn. 127 below; and see also Macrobius vi. 63.83See n. 98.84 Cap. x (Buttimer, p. 18).8s MS Digby 67, fol. 69 and 69v, and MS Bodl. 464,fol. 191 and 191v.


15/26

THE FABULOUSCOSMOGONYFBERNARDUSSILVESTRIS 105a specifically astronomical turn, distinctfrom the quality of ethereal fire in theDidascalicon.86She is identified further asthe principle (Hugo, definition 1) which"unicuique rei non solum esse sed etiamtale esse constituit."87 And once again theDe vi principiis makes a distinction: nowbetween Natura and Noys (who does notoccur in the Didascalicon) which splitsHugo's first definition in two. Noys, itstates, is called qualificans;Natura, whichis born of Noys, merely inserts these quali-ties into the world of generation as anoperating, not an originating, power andhence is properly called qualificata.88Withthis conception, as is apparent, her partlyastronomical working as vigor quidam isalso connected. Within such limits onlydoes she contrive that each thing "nonsolum esse sed talis esse habeat." Noys,on the other hand, as a separate principle,is the prime source of qualities in the uni-verse. Hugo's phrase "archetypum . . .quod in mente divina est," describing na-ture, may thus be seen as appropriate tothe Noys of De vi principiis-and this isin accord with the Chartrian doctrine ofmens Dei as archetype of the world.Bernardus' conception of Natura fol-lows generally the lines of De vi principiis,making the distinction between her andNoys and suggesting her subordinatefunction by describing her as Noys'sdaughter."9All of Book i of the De mundienforces this view. It is, as we have seen,9"a parallel by fabula to Bernardus' philo-sophical account of how God shapes non-

corporeal hyle into materia,which is body.Natura plays a part that somehow con-nects her with the corporeal end of theprocess of fashioning bodies: "Praecedithyle, natura sequitur elementans ... .",1But the work as a whole, including theentire world of generation save Man, isdirectly attributed to the ordering ac-tivity of Noys.The term vigor quidam of the De viprincipiis is not applied by Bernardus toNatura, since this also suggests in hiscosmogony something of the character ofEntelechia. Entelechia is missing from theDe vi principiis; what would otherwise beamong her qualities seem assimilated toits conception of Natura. In the De mundi,however, Entelechia has an important roleand, though associated with Natura as aminister of Noys, is treated by Bernardusas a wholly separate figure.92 But if theterm vigorquidamfor Natura does not ap-pear in the De mundi, the astronomicaloperation does. Natura elementans s oncedescribed as "caelum stellaeque signiferopervagantes, quod elementa commoveantad ingenitas actiones.9""Here she is beingdefined not so much by identification withthe astronomical heavens as in terms ofher operating function.Thus Bernardus' Natura, like that ofDe vi principiis, is evidently to be under-stood as both the intermediary to Noys inthe shaping of bodies and the celestialprinciple by which they operate, movingthrough genera and species. Curtius has

86This is characteristic of the work throughout,but see MS Digby 67, fol. 74v:"n[U]t in Libro electionis[i.e., by Zahel ben Bischrl confirmatur planetarum etsignorum nature in naturalibus operantur. Statushuius nature est effectus precedentis cause, in celes-tium corporum qualitate consistens divina disposi-tione. Hec quidam qualitas a philosophis Natura dici-tur" (cf. also n. 98).87 MS Digby 67, fol. 69, and MS Bodl. 464, fol. 191.88 MS Digby, fol. 69-69v; MS Bodl., fol. 191-191v.89i. 2. 3-4 (Barach, p. 9).soAbove, Sec. III.

9 i. 4. 49-50 (Barach, p. 30). In line with his ten-dentious interpretation, Curtius (p. 189) says of Na-tura: ". .. zugleich ist sie mit Hyle (= materia, von'mater') identisch." But this is hardly the case in theDe mundi, though, as artifex and elementans, Natura isconnected with the process of embodying Hyle bymeans of the signacula of the elements, which are thesource of Hyle's fertility (see nn. 94 and 148).92 i. 2. 180 if. (Barach, p. 14) and i. 4. 120-26 (Ba-rach, p. 32). Huizinga (p. 41) has seen the connection

of Natura with World Soul in various conceptionswhich reached the twelfth century, but without mak-ing the further distinction necessary for Bernardus.93i. 4. 56-59 (Barach, pp. 30-31).


16/26

106 THEODORE SILVERSTEINpointed out the obvious connection ofNatura with generation, a function whichin the physical sense is really lodged inHyle. It is the celestial principle whichmust be kept primarily in mind whenNatura is called by her other title: matergenerationis.94As we move into Book ii of the Demundi, the character of Natura's actionshifts perceptibly in the direction of thesecond of her two functions. The greatworld is complete, and we now beginafresh with the forming of Man. Natura isno longer the heavens themselves. Nordoes she engage in the fashioning of Man'sbody; this is the work of Physis, just asUrania's task is to furnish soul.95 Na-tura's is a kind of joiner's work, parallel-ing in the Microcosm the operating pat-terns of the Macrocosm: "Utrorumquecorporis et animae formativa concretio decaelestis ordinis aemulatione."96 t is quitein accord with this view that Bernardusgives us the incident in which Noys in-structs the cosmic sisters in each of theirparts, showing each, as it were, her appro-priate textbook: to Urania the SpeculumProvidentiae, to Physis the imperfectLiber Recordationis. But to Natura, whomust emulate the order of the heavens, itis the work which especially treats thissubject-the Tabula Fati.97 Here lies im-plicit the entire relation between Micro-cosm and Macrocosm, which is a majortenet of Bernardus' philosophy: betweenMan and the courses of the stars that areFate. This philosophy itself Bernardusbuilt of many materials, but its particularapplication to the figures of Natura andMan he owed ultimately to the astrologi-

cal interest of Firmicus Maternus and im-mediately, again, to the De vi principiis,where Nature's operating activity in thisrespect also emulates the pattern of theheavens: "Nec ergo quis dubitat quod percelestia corpora terrenis corporibus illediuinus igniculus diuina lege diffunditur.S... Omnis substantia humani corporis adistius numeris [i.e., the patterns of theheavens] pertinet potestatem .... Sic adomnifariam mundi imitationem hominemartifex natura composuit."98And now, having seen the conception ofNatura which a progressthrough the nar-rative of the De mundi unfolds, we dis-cover in retrospect the full significance ofher celestial journey, undertaken with theguidance of Urania as a preliminary toMan's formation. The Heavenly Journeyhad long been a convention of cosmologi-cal fiction, and to an elegant poet likeBernardus-who was fond of the set de-scriptive pieces on trees, mountains, birds,animals, fishes, which furnished models tohis literary contemporaries-this conven-tion provided an opportunity to multiplymetaphorical decor. But he is also tooserious an artist to let this interfere withthe march of his ideas. We are to forgetfor the moment, as he has forgotten-evi-dently with intention-that in Book i hehad once identified Natura with the heav-ens. This is a fresh start and the sky a newexperience for Natura. Throughout thejourney she behaves a little like a naivegirl."99 eaven, the place of fate and soul,and Paradise, the home of Man's peculiarbody, are Urania's and Physis' realms, re-spectively, and in them these two figuresmove about like the experienced womenthey are. Natura, on the contrary, evi-94ii. 9. 31-32 (Barach, p. 53). The emphasis on fer-tility, which Curtius finds in Natura, is, in fact, large-ly stated by Bernardus in connection with Hyle. See,e.g., esp. i. 2. 69-99 (Barach, p. 11).

95ii. 11. 1-6 (Barach, p. 56).9 Ibid.7 Ibid., 16-18 and 46 ff. (Barach, pp. 57-58).

98 MS Digby 67, fols. 75v-76. Cf. Firmicus Mater-nus Matheseos i. 5. 9; iv. 1. 1; and iii. 1. 16 (ed. Krolland Skutsch, I, 16-17, 197, and 96).9 See especially her reaction to Saturn, ii. 5. 56-58(Barach, p. 42): "Natura senis crudelitatem exhorruitet, ne sacros oculos foedo violaret obtutu, faciem suamvirginea pavitatione devertit."


17/26

THE FABULOUS COSMOGONYOF BERNARDUS SILVESTRIS 107dently knows little as yet of soul and bodybut learns from her wiser sisters, so thatshe may performher final task: the joiningof human soul and body in accordwith thecelestial pattern. The journey is thus forher a necessary initiation and confirms forus the special astronomical-astrologicalemphasis with which Bernardus hasnamed her artifex.For in its largest sense the title wouldhave been more appropriate to Noys.

VNoys is the chief shaping and vivifyingagency of Bernardus' universe. In a phraseborrowed whole from De vi principiis,Noys is called "fons luminis, seminarium

vitae, bonum bonitatis divinae, plenitudoscientiae quae mens altissimi nomina-tur."100As mens Dei, Dei ratio profundiusexquisita,t'0Noys represents that qualityof God which Christians had long dis-cerned in the beauty and order of theworld-God's wisdom. As the vivifyingagency, Noys provides the world spiritusthrough Entelechia, who is sometimesminister to Noys and sometimes spiritusitself.102As providentiaDei Noys especiallycontrives the formation of the heavens,the stars and the planets, whose orderedmovements in time prefigure (Bernardus'words are praesignat, praeiacet, and arebased on Chalcidiusa03)hat actual work-ing-out of temporal events which we callFate. Hence the special relationship be-tween Noys and the figure Imarmene, orFate, and the particular association ofNoys with the upper heavens.104 Behind

all this it is easy to find the discourse ofChalcidius on mens Dei, which is Provi-dence, and that which follows as Fate,05oand undoubtedly a reference also toBoethius, whose discourse on these sub-jects provided a textbook to the entireMiddle Ages.106 The strong astronomicalimplications of this aspect of Noys, likethose already discovered in Natura, recallthe fact that in De vi principiis Noys "lexastrorum dicitur, que est equa et perpetuamotuum eorum dispositio que mundimachinam efficit et moderatur."'07

Now in the figure of Noys of the Demundi Professor Gilson has seen the Sec-ond Person of the Trinity. Macrobius, hepoints out,l08 makes vovs the thoughtproduced by God, but in Chalcidius it hasalready become the mind of God Himself.In the De mundi the process has gone astep further: Noys is, in fact, VerbumDei,the Son of God. This identification is thekey to Gilson's interpretation of Ber-nardus' Christianity. And many circum-stances might be added in support of thisanalysis. Thus in Bernardus' time andamong his group, as we have seen,1'9theorder and beauty of the world were takento be a reflection of an ideal model, in-tegrated in the Godhead and identifiedwith Verbum Dei: Archetypus mundi, asGuillaume de Conches names Him. Andthe term vovswas sometimes directly as-sociated with this conception. A strikinginstance occurs in a twelfth-century textof an anonymous Boethius commentary:"Vois, d est mens et Filius Dei, quem exse Deus Pater genuit.... ,,110 If, then,

100 i. 2. 150-52 (Barach, p. 13). Cf. MS Digby, fol.69v; and MS Bodl., fol. 191v. Cf. Hermetica (ed. Scott-Ferguson) iv, p. xlvi, for other borrowings.101i. 2. 6, 14, and 152-53 (Barach, pp. 9 and 13);i. 3. 18 (Barach, p. 15).102 i. 2 (Barach, esp. p. 14), and i. 4 (Barach, esp.p. 32).103 . 2. 36 and 38 (Barach, p. 16). Cf. Chalcidiuscxxv and cxxx (Wrobel, pp. 189 and 194). See n. 27above.104 i. 3. 17-18, et passim.

105cxliii ff. (Wrobel, pp. 203 ff.).o106De cons. philos., iv. 6 ff. and v.

107 MS Digby, fol. 69, and MS Bodl., fol. 191.10s Gilson, p. 12.109Above, Sec. III and n. 73.110 Saeculi noni auctoris in Boetii Consolationem

philosophiae commentarius, ed. E. T. Silk ("Papers andmonographs of the American Academy in Rome,"Vol. IX [1935]), p. 181, 11.7-8, on De cons. philos., iii.m. 9. 13. The passage is incorrectly punctuated by the


18/26

108 THEODORE SILVERSTEINBernardus has used Noys for the Son ofGod, this is not a matter which need dis-turb anyone.

But the question remains as to whetherhe has, in fact, so used the term.In the De mundi, as with all the otherchief figures in the cosmic hierarchy-Entelechia, Natura, Urania, Physis, The-orica, Practica-Noys is obviously a fe-male. She addresses her daughter Natura,for example, as "tu natura, uteri meibeata fecunditas."'ll There is, of course,no distinction of sex in God, even though,as the commentators remind us, we areaccustomed to speak of the Second Personas a male, since the male is superior to thefemale. But in a fabula this is beside thepoint.112 More relevant is the inescapablefact that the Second Person of the Trinitydoes appear in the De mundi, but in a dif-ferent place and a different form fromNoys.Noys's place in the universe is with thehierarchy of angels called Thrones, belowthe Seraphim and Cherubim."3 Now,when all the Macrocosm has been formedand after Natura's constant associationduring this formation with her mother

Noys, she undertakes, as we have seen,her long tour of the heavens with Urania.But first they go to make obeisance toGod (as in De vi principiis, called Tuga-ton"14),whose mansion is set beyond thelimits of the physical universe. From thismansion there shines forth an eternallight, out of which issues a second, andfrom these two together a third. Uniformand similar in the equality of their bright-ness, these three lights together illuminateall things and return to mingle again inthe fountain of their source. To this three-fold majesty, cuidam trinae maiestati, inwhose presence Natura now is for the firsttime, she comes to make her prayer.115This is the Trinity. That the paganistcritics missed the significance of thisbright figure can be explained only bywhat Bernardus says of the light itself,that it confuses the sight of the beholder."116But it has also slightly confused ProfessorGilson, since its second light, Filius Dei,is, in the fabula of the De mundi, surelynot the same as the female figure of Noys,Natura's mother, who is obviously else-where at the moment.That Noys is a female has been ob-served before now, but only Curtius hasused this fact to launch a radical attackditor, hence the comma between mens and et is hereremoved for the sake of the sense. Cf. also p. 157, 1. 9:"voDs,d est mens diuina scilicet uerbum Patris"; and

p. 158, 1. 2: "et PvoD,d est mens diuina." The manu-scripts of this work are twelfth century, but Silk hastried to attribute it to John the Scot ("Introduction,"pp. xxvii-l). See, however, P. Courcelle, "Etudecritique sur les commentaires de Boece," Archivesd'hist. doctr. et litt. du m. a., XII (1939), 21 ft.111. 2. 3-4 (Barach, p. 9).

112 MOSt of the words which name the personages inBernardus are, of course, grammatically feminine, andsuch terms have produced a host of female figures inthe history of allegory. But voNDtself is grammaticallymasculine.113 i. 3. 13-18 (Barach, p. 15):"Ad sensum perfecta cherub propiusque magisqueCernit in arcanis consiliisque Dei.

Quam secus ardescit seraphin, sed civibus illisEt Deus est ardor et sacer ardor amor.Pura Throni legio quibus insidet ille profundusSpiritus et sensus mensque profunda noys."Curtius (p. 186) misses the entire point of these linesand says merely: "Zwischen den Cherubim und Sera-

phim thront Noys."

114 I.e., rb ya06v (ii. 5. 24 [Barach, p. 411). Bernar-dus found this term in Macrobius In somn. Scip. i. 2(ed. Eyssenhardt [Leipzig, 18683, p. 471): "cum adsummum et principem omnium Deum, qui apud grae-cos rdyab6v, qui Trparov af tov nuncupatur." And itsapplication to the Christian God was not otherwiseunknown in the Middle Ages; cf. Rodulfus Tortarius(cited by Curtius, p. 187, n. 1) and Saeculi noni auc-toris ... comment., ed. Silk, p. 158, 11.1-2, and p. 181,11. 5-6. In a section of De vi principiis, which Bernar-dus quotes (see above, beginning of Sec. V and n. 100),the term appears in a hierarchy of Tugaton, Noys, andNatura that parallels that of the De mundi. PaulShorey (p. 106) speaks of Tugaton as "a supremedivinity ... who occupies the height nearest to God."But this misunderstands Bernardus' Latin, whichreads: "Tugaton suprema divinitas habitatrix in-sistit." Tugaton is God.

115ii. 5. 33-36.116ii. 5. 26-29: "Ea igitur lux inaccessibilis inten-dentis reverberat oculos, aciem praeconfundit, ut quialumen se defendit a lumine, splendorem ex se videascaliginem peperisse."


19/26

THE FABULOUS COSMOGONYOF BERNARDUS SILVESTRIS 109on Gilson's Christian interpretation. Thecosmos of the De mundi, Curtius tells us,'17is the work of female goddesses in a gener-ative hierarchy. Bernardus, moreover,had read the Latin Asclepius, which Gil-son overlooked and which contains strongtraces of Geschlecht.Hence he is really aheterodox thinker who introduces sex intohis universe, derived from the subter-ranean stream of some oriental Hermetictradition.Now Geschlecht lays its part, of course,in Bernardus' natural philosophy; and itmay be, as other critics have long sincerecognized, that he speaks of love with apositiveness reflecting a literary view thatwas to become fashionable among certainother writers of his time. It is also truethat he borrowedmuch from the Asclepius,and among the borrowings may have beena little of its attitude toward love.118Butheterodoxy, whatever that term is con-ceived by Curtius to mean, is a differentmatter. Bernardus' universe is, to be sure,a world of generation, as Natura is mater

generationis; but these are ancient andhonorable terms, not otherwise unknownto Western tradition. Chalcidius itselfcontains the germ of the De mundi's gen-erative theory in two separate passages, ofwhich the first, drawn on also by Hugo ofSt. Victor and Guillaume de Conches, isrelated directly to Natura:Omnia enim quae sunt uel dei operasuntuel naturaeuel naturam mitantis hominisar-tificis. Operumnaturaliumorigo et initiumseminasunt, quaefacta conprehendunturelterraeuisceribusad frugisarboreae erealisueprouentum,uel genitalium membrorum e-cunditateconceptumanimaliumgermenado-lentium.... Ut igitur illis quae lege naturaeprocreanturundamenta unt semina,ita eo-rum quae deus instituit fundamenta suntcausae,quaesuntperspicuae iuinaeprouiden-tiae.119The second passage, of equal importancefor the De mundi, is associated with Hyle:ex natura quidem propriaprimo materiamnuncupans,et item similequiddammollisce-dentis materiae, n quaminprimuntur igna-cula,et rerumreceptaculum,t interdumma-trem atque nutriculum totius generatio-nis ... 120And Bernardus' other major source, Ma-crobius, clearly conceives artifexnatuira obe mater generationis in a passage (Insonzn.Scip. i. 63) which describes her con-trol of the procreation of Man: "Uerum

117Esp. pp. 188-90.118See n. 23 above. Curtius (p. 188) calls attentionto the passage on Man and sex toward the end of theDe mundi (ii. 14. 159-66), and especially the use of theterm mentula. But this in itself is hardly an indicationof the cult of Geschlecht as a heterodox cosmologicalprinciple, or entirely out of line with older Christiantradition; see Lactantius De opificio Dei, 12-13, in

Opera omnia, ed. Brandt and Laubmann (Corpusscript. eccles. Lat., Vol. XXVII [1893]), pp. 43-48. Cf.Isidore Etymnologiae xi. 1. 102 ff. The "paganism"which appears in the outspoken nature of Bernardus'words may have been suggested in part by Asclepius,sec. 21 (ed. Nock, II, 322, 11.13-14), but the languageof the passage as a whole and the emphasis on joy arealso Ovidian. See Raby, History of secular Latinpoetry, II, 13, and cf. John of Garland, who followsBernardus at this point and uses both the motif andthe "frank" word mentula: Integumenta Ovidii, vss.415-16 and 73 (ed. Ghisalberti ["Testi e documentiinediti o rari," Vol. II (Messina and Milan, 1933)],pp. 68 and 41). Lucretius (De rerum nat. esp. iv.1034 ff.) is also strikingly suggestive for this passagein the De mundi. Against Poole, Sandys ([3d. ed.],I, 535 and n. 3) denies the influence of Lucretius; butthe subject may still reward investigation. Bernardus'two genii (who are, of course, the tutelary spirits ofmarriage) belong with the other genii in the De mundi,whose sources and character Curtius (pp. 193-94) hassought to distinguish, but unsuccessfully; see also

Huizinga, p. 139. The closest parallel known to thepresent writer occurs in Censorinus, De die natali liber,3. 3: "Nonnulli binos genios in his duntaxat domibusquae essent maritae colendos putaverunt" (ed. Jahn[Berlin, 1845], p. 7, 11. 7-9). In this text also, as inBernardus, the emphasis is on the numerical patternsand astronomy of the world's order. The entire subjectof the genii in the De mundi will be treated separatelyelsewhere.119xxiii (Wrobel, pp. 88-89). Cf. Hugo of St. Vic-tor Didascalicon i. 9 (Buttimer, p. 16); and Guillaumede Conches, Dragmaticon, pp. 31 f. (cited by Flatten,Die Philosophie des Wilhelm von Conches, p. 123,n. 688).120 cccviii (Wrobel, p. 336). Cf. De mundi i. 2. 94-

99 (Barach, p. 11). Cf. the personification of Earth( = Hyle) in Theodulfus of Orl6ans (ninth century) asmother of all created things, nursing an infant andfilling a basket with fruit: Carmina iv. iii.


20/26

110 THEODORE SILVERSTEINsemine semel intra formandi hominis mo-netam locato hoc primum artifex naturamolitur. ...." As forsubterraneanHermeticinfluences, the only other text of this sortthat Bernardus can be shown to have read-the De vi principiis rerum-says simplythat Natura is bornof Noys ;121this is, how-ever, a bare word, the terms causa (Tuga-ton), noys, and natura of its hierarchy areplainunfigurativeabstractions, andthereisnot the slightest trace of Geschlechtn Cur-tius' sense in the entire book, whose chiefconcern, like Bernardus', is astronomical.Finally, so far as Noys herself is con-cerned, if Gilson's equating her withFilius Dei is not found satisfactory and,instead, a sex symbol must be made of her,it does not seem very helpful to look forher in a work like the Latin Asclepius,where as a cosmological figure Nous(Noys) does not appear at all.Whatever else Noys may be, she is noheterodox Geschlechtsfigur.Nor is she theVerbum Dei. She is a separate fabulousconstruction, characterized by certainqualities recognizably analogous to thoseof Filius Dei, since she is, as it were, Hisfigurative representative in the physicalworld of the De mundi. The distinction iscrucial, as will appear in the next sectionof this paper.Noys is, in fact, a composite of two re-lated figures and derives from two sepa-rate literary sources: the first is the femalefigureof Sapientia in the Solomonic litera-ture of the Bible, that is, the Book of Wis-dom and the related sections of Ec-clesiasticus; the second is the figure ofMinerva, goddess of wisdom, from manysources but especially Martianus Capella.The evidence is clear and extensive; onlyenough of it need be stated here to estab-lish the point.

The passages in the Book of Wisdomcenter chiefly about chapters 7-9, where

Sapientia appears as the formative agencyof the universe: "omnium enim artifexS. . Sapientia."'122Because of this functionit is she who grants knowledge as to the"dispositionem orbis terrarum,et virtuteselementorum . . . Naturas animalium, etiras bestium ... Vim ventorum, et cogita-tiones hominum."123 It is she who "dis-ponit omnia suaviter."24Using this lastphrase as a theme for elaboration, Hugoof St. Victor makes the entire Wisdompassage relevant to the De mundi in anaccount which is full of suggestion forBernardus' cosmogony.125 As in the Demundi, the Book of Wisdom refers toSapientia's special relation to the heavensand the courses of the stars: "initium etconsummationem et medietatem tem-porum.... Anni cursus, et stellarum dis-positiones."26And this, in turn, leads toSapientia's foreknowledge of events, atrait which connects her with God'sProvidence: "Et quaecumque sunt ab-sconsa et improvisa didici, omnium enimartifex docuit me Sapientia."27But the two circumstances that deserveparticular scrutiny, the one strongly sug-gestive, the other conclusive of the use byBernardus of the Book of Wisdom, arethese:

1. In Book i, after completing her pre-liminary work of world-formation, Noyslooks about and "bona vidit quae fecissetomnia Deique visibus placitura."'128Gilsonfinds in this a reference to Genesis, whereGod sees "cuncta quae fecerat, et erantvalde bona."29But it happens that Ber-

121MS Digby, fol. 69; MS Bodl., fol. 191.

1227:21.1237:17 and 20.1248:1.125 In Salomonis ecclesiasten homiliae xix (Migne,CLXXV, 114 ff.), and especially homily xi (Migne,col. 183 ff.).126 7:18-19. If Geschlecht is necessary for Noysthere is a hint even for this in Wisd. 7:12, where Sa-

pientia is called horum omnium mater.127 7:21.128i. 2. 127-28 (Barach, p. 12).129Gilson, p. 12.


21/26

THE FABULOUS COSMOGONY OF BERNARDUS SILVESTRIS 111nardus is also quoting the Latin Asclepiushere: "[Natura] mundum per quattuorelementa ... perducit, cuncta dei visi-bus placitura,"'30and that he has mingledtogether in his sentence the language ofboth these texts. There is, however, a fur-ther consideration. In Genesis, God Him-self both forms the world and sees its goodresult; but, in the other two, God's agentachieves the formation: in Asclepius it isNatura, in the De mundi God's more im-mediate minister, Noys. Now this last dis-tinction occurs in a passage in Wisdom,chapter 9, which parallels all these anduses, besides, the verb placitura as foundin Asclepius and the De mundi. There'"'Sapientia, like Noys, God's minister in thed:sposition of things, is said to know"quid esset placitum oculis tuis [i.e.,oculis Dei]." Bernardus' statement thusappears to be a composite, not of two, butof three, sources, with Wisdom as the linkbetween the others.

2. The second and conclusive circum-stance has to do with Noys's place in theworld, which is, as we earlier observed,among the angelic hierarchies by theThrones. Of the Thrones the commenta-tors say that God "in ipsis sedens, per eossubjecta omnia judicando disponit."'32The comments show the influence, in lan-guage and idea, of Wisdom, chapter 9,which describes how God on his throne"disponit orbem terrarum in aequitate etjustitia."'33 And it is precisely here thatSapientia also is said to have her place atthis seat of order and judgment, identifiedin the tradition of the celestial hierarchywith the angelic Thrones.'34This view is

further amplified in Ecclesiasticus, chap-ter 24: "Ego [Sapientia]in altissimis habi-tavi, et thronus meus in columna nu-bis."'13 It now becomes clear why Ber-nardus has put Noys's sedes with theangelic Thrones in the upper heavens,where, like Sapientia, she also "omnia dis-ponit suaviter."The connection of Noys with Sapientiais thus patent, but it is equally so withMinerva. For this relationship the basictext is the opening poem in Book vi ofMartianus Capella, though Bernardushad other suggestions as well. The poem'36is an invocation to Pallas-Minerva, inwhich her attributes and traits are enu-merated. She is rerumsapientia, aetheriusfomes, mens et sollertia fati, ingeniummundi, prudentia sacra Tonantis, rationisapex, sapientia [quae] regat orbem, and,most striking of all, diuumquehominumquesacer NUS [='ois]. In view of her char-acter as aetheriusfomes, mens et sollertiafati, we may add to this the story, notfound in Martianus but elaborated inWestern tradition by the allegorizingmythographers, which related her throughPrometheus to Providence."'7But perhaps the most important ele-ment is yet to be quoted from Martianus:

7rrasn numeris-the reference, a com-monplace in all the lore about the goddess,to 7 as Minerva's number. In the philoso-phy of numbers, the Pythagorean pat-terns which

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	beate-fricke
View:	223 times
Download:	1 times

Silver Stein Cosmogony Silvestris

Documents