Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 225. READING CREATION: EARLY MEDIEVAL VIEWS ON GENESIS AND PLATO’S TIMAEUS WO. The Book of Genesis: opera aperta or Christian classic Creation is generally considered a distinguishing feature of Christian- ity. When unpacking this concept, however, one soon notices how it displays an intrinsically loaded character. Ranging from medieval cos- mological debates to modern discussions on intelligent design, creation is more than a foundational tenet of the Christian religion. Centuries of reading Genesis have produced endless subtexts, suggesting on the one hand ever new possibilities of ‘reading creation’, while on the other hand contemplating their plausibility. The sheer diversity of these sub- texts makes clear to us that creation somehow both anchors and con- firms the uniqueness of the Christian world view. Creation accounts can be of an exegetical nature, for example, as shown by the various attempts to discriminate between the literary depiction of biblical cre- ation and the epic strife of the gods in the Gilgamesh. 1 Or they may have a cosmological purpose, as when biblical creation is used to crit- icize contemporary science, with modern creationist accounts enforc- ing the former correspondence between the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. 2 In contemporary neo-orthodox theology, finally, a 1 Cf. A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels: A Translation and Interpretation of the Gilgamesh Epic and Related Babylonian and Assyrian documents, Chicago 2 . 2 On the medieval use of this trope and its demise, see W. Otten, ‘Nature and Scripture: Demise of a Medieval Analogy’, Harvard Theological Review () – . The twelfth century was in many ways the high point of this trope, but while its importance declined, the way the Bible was read philologically in tandem with nature clearly stimulated scientific scholarship, see P. Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science, Cambridge . On present day creation debates, see K. Doyle Smout (ed.), The Creation/Evolution Controversy: A Battle for Cultural Power, Westport, CT ; J.A. Moore, From Genesis to Genetics: The Case of Evolution and Creationism, Berkeley ; Robert T. Pennock (ed.), Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Cambridge, MA .
Transcript
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 225.
READING CREATION: EARLY MEDIEVALVIEWS ON GENESIS AND PLATO’S TIMAEUS
W!""#$!#% O&&#%
'. The Book of Genesis: opera aperta or Christian classic
Creation is generally considered a distinguishing feature of Christian-ity. When unpacking this concept, however, one soon notices how itdisplays an intrinsically loaded character. Ranging from medieval cos-mological debates to modern discussions on intelligent design, creationis more than a foundational tenet of the Christian religion. Centuriesof reading Genesis have produced endless subtexts, suggesting on theone hand ever new possibilities of ‘reading creation’, while on the otherhand contemplating their plausibility. The sheer diversity of these sub-texts makes clear to us that creation somehow both anchors and con-firms the uniqueness of the Christian world view. Creation accountscan be of an exegetical nature, for example, as shown by the variousattempts to discriminate between the literary depiction of biblical cre-ation and the epic strife of the gods in the Gilgamesh.1 Or they mayhave a cosmological purpose, as when biblical creation is used to crit-icize contemporary science, with modern creationist accounts enforc-ing the former correspondence between the Book of Nature and theBook of Scripture.2 In contemporary neo-orthodox theology, finally, a
1 Cf. A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels: A Translation andInterpretation of the Gilgamesh Epic and Related Babylonian and Assyrian documents, Chicago'()(2.
2 On the medieval use of this trope and its demise, see W. Otten, ‘Nature andScripture: Demise of a Medieval Analogy’, Harvard Theological Review ** ('((+) ,+-–,*). The twelfth century was in many ways the high point of this trope, but while itsimportance declined, the way the Bible was read philologically in tandem with natureclearly stimulated scientific scholarship, see P. Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism and theRise of Natural Science, Cambridge '((*. On present day creation debates, see K. DoyleSmout (ed.), The Creation/Evolution Controversy: A Battle for Cultural Power, Westport, CT'((*; J.A. Moore, From Genesis to Genetics: The Case of Evolution and Creationism, Berkeley,..,; Robert T. Pennock (ed.), Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical,Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Cambridge, MA ,..,.
,,/ 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 226.
renewed polemical impulse puts the creation story in opposition tonatural theology.3 With a literary term from Umberto Eco, one isinclined to consider Genesis an opera aperta.4
The wide range of contemporary readings forms a radical contrastwith the reading developed long ago by Augustine of Hippo. The lat-ter’s chief aim, borne out especially in his anti-Manichaean writings,was to develop an orthodox reading of Genesis corresponding with asound philosophy of creation.5 While he lacks the aggressive tone withwhich contemporary neo-orthodox theologians heighten the stakes fordivine transcendence, he also di2ers from the pre-biblical speculationfound in Origen or the cosmic allegories of Philo and Ambrose. Choos-ing his own intellectual path, Augustine wanted to overcome intellec-tual strife by absorbing all cosmological disagreements into a new andoverhauled Christian reading of Genesis.6 It was to be literal ratherthan allegorical, conforming simultaneously to standards of scientificsoundness and theological truth. For Augustine, then, Genesis was notso much an opera aperta but rather a Christian classic, as defined byDavid Tracy.7 Although the soteriological focus characteristic of ref-ormation exegesis is still absent, Augustine is much less speculativelyinclined than his Platonic predecessors. As he aimed to find a balancebetween an appropriate anthropological focus and sound cosmology,
3 See esp. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III.': ‘The Work of Creation’. For a briefdiscussion of Barth’s covenantal and Christological reading of creation, see P. Fulljames,God and Creation in Intercultural Perspective: Dialogue Between the Theologies of Barth, Dickson,Pobee, Nyamiti and Pannenberg, Frankfurt am Mein '((3, ''–3+.
4 See U. Eco, The Open Work (transl. A. Cancogni), Cambridge '(*(, ): ‘A work ofart, therefore, is a complete and closed form in its uniqueness as a balanced organicwhole, while at the same time constituting an open product on account of its suscepti-bility to countless di2erent interpretations which do not impinge on its unadulterablespecificity. Hence, every reception of a work of art is both an interpretation and a perfor-mance of it, because in every reception the work takes on a fresh perspective for itself ’.
5 See e.g. Augustine’s De natura boni, dated around ).) and often seen as the last ofhis anti-Manichaean works, in which he connects his belief in a good and providentialGod with an orthodox exposition of creatio ex nihilo. Augustine’s disenchantment withManichaeism resulting from his rejection of their leader Faustus as a flawed scientist isdescribed in Confessions V.3–- (transl. R.S. Pine-Co4n), Harmondsworth '(/', (,–((.
6 Augustine’s interest in creation cannot be separated entirely from his developmentof a more pessimistic anthropology in his anti-Pelagian phase, as he had been drivenbefore by a similar opposition to gnosticism. See E. Pagels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent,New York '(**, (*–'+..
7 David Tracy has defined classics as ‘those texts, events, images, persons, ritualsand symbols which are assumed to disclose permanent possibilities of meaning andtruth’. See his The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism, NewYork '(*', /*, see further '.-–''+.
the opening chapters of Genesis made him erect certain boundaries bywhich to rule out unbridled speculation. His was not a natural theology,therefore, but an ultra-natural theology.
Yet creation also had sacramental meaning for Augustine, as earlyChristian theology sees an overlap of the doctrinal and the material,the symbolic and the liturgical. The story of creation does not just tellus about the world but informs us also about the community, i.e., thechurch, that was to live and enjoy that world. Just as the spirit of Godgraced the primal waters of creation, so for Tertullian it also inspiredthe waters of baptism.8 If it is indeed true that Christianity’s resound-ing cosmological grammar penetrated even the innermost recesses ofits sacramental mysteries, this reflects Genesis’ collective appropria-tion in the world of the Christian churches. Cosmos and commu-nity had become linked by a unique text which was itself taking onsacramental meaning. From Tertullian’s De baptismo onwards, throughthe early Christian Hexaemeron-tradition and the cosmological exegesisof the early Middle Ages, the opening narrative of Genesis has fea-tured prominently in the definition of Christian self-identity. With theclericalization of the church after the Gregorian reform and the con-comitant professionalization of theological training, however, the bondbetween liturgical celebration and sacramental definition grew increas-ingly tenuous.9 In a movement that may reflect a similar reification oflanguage, attempts to arrive at a universally accepted interpretation ofcreation also ended in failure, as we will concentrate especially on thislatter development. How it unfolded to peak in a disjointed and ‘dual’reading of Genesis will be the subject of the following sections.
,. Concept and process: the Platonic grammar of early medieval creation
It is tempting to trace the fault-lines of this ‘dual’ reading of creation,divided into a cosmological and a sacramental one, back to the histor-ical di2erences between Platonism and Christianity. I shall briefly dis-cuss the presuppositions of each system’s approach to the origin of the
8 In De baptismo IV Tertullian describes as the primary principle of baptism ‘thatthe Spirit of God, who hovered over (the waters) from the beginning, would continueto linger over the waters of the baptized.’ Cf. P. Cramer, Baptism and Change in the EarlyMiddle Ages c. !""–c. ##$", Cambridge '((3, +,–/3.
9 See Cramer, Baptism and Change, ,,'–,// (The twelfth century, or falling short).
,,* 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 228.
world to bring out how these two model interpretations of the world’sorigin are profoundly at odds with each other.
In explaining the origin of the world, the crucial problem for Platon-ism is how to overcome the tension between the One and the Many.Plato’s works present us with various solutions. In the Parmenides (') thetranscendence of the One is such that it is ultimately declared irrec-oncilable with the concept of Being. With the One transcending theworld, Being marks the transition to the lower world of pluriformity.With the noetic world rising far above the material world of humans,animals and plants, Proclean Neoplatonism turned the realm of tran-scendence into a complete spiritualized hierarchy. As an alternativesolution, Plato’s Timaeus (,) presents us with the image of a craftsmanwho creates a world in which plurality is key, matter the stu2 fromwhich it is made, while the soul acts as its principle of life. This solutionmost resembles the Christian view of creation in the eyes of twelfth-century philosophers and theologians.
With the Good, the True, and the Just seen as valid descriptionsof divine transcendence, Plato’s theory of Forms allows for a certaindegree of equivocation. Reflecting the polysemy of the Cratylus (3),Plato’s theory of Forms was preserved in the sixth-century theory ofDivine Names developed by Dionysius the Areopagite, which wasadopted by Eriugena in his ninth-century Periphyseon.10 While remainingimportant on the level of linguistic predication and mystical theology,however, the tension between apophatic and kataphatic theology soonafter ceased to influence medieval creation theories.
There seems to be an inherent contradiction between the grammarof Platonism, in the three forms listed above, and the Christian read-ing of Genesis. Is not the idea of creatio ex nihilo in sharp contrast withthe Timaean formation of the world out of the four material elements:fire, water, earth, and air? Informing the creation of heaven and earth,and of all other aspects of the material world, the latter view appearspremised on the acceptance of an essential correspondence betweenmacro- and microcosm. If heaven and earth are made of the four ele-ments, so human beings must be also. With the Timaeus serving as themain vehicle for medieval views of creation due to Calcidius’ Latin
10 On the unique position of Eriugena as mixing Augustine’s and Dionysius’ notionof Forms, see St. Gersh, ‘Cratylus mediaevalis—Ontology and Polysemy in MedievalPlatonism (to ca. ',..)’, in: J. Marenbon (ed.), Poetry and Philosophy in the Middle Ages: AFestschrift for Peter Dronke, Leiden ,..', -(–(*, esp. *+–**.
translation and commentary, and the cosmos increasingly regarded asan animal, or a living organism with a soul, the analogy between theworld and humanity slowly began to lose much of its threat. Perhapsit could even have a desirable e2ect. For with humanity embeddedin the whole of creation, the entire world—from the upper air to thenetherworld—suddenly appears to bathe in divine light.11 If we accepta Trinitarian view of the creator, moreover, allowing for a plurality ofdivine persons, the problem of the Platonic demiurge as a separatedeity can be largely overcome. Again the creation of humanity is thetest case which must prove the claim of cosmic continuity. Using theplural to bring out the contribution of all of three divine persons, Gen-esis purposely states: ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness …’12
Through these and other harmonizing attempts, some of the prob-lems that had plagued the interpretation of Genesis before suddenlyevaporated. In the ninth century, John the Scot Eriugena seemed stillclose to the patristic tradition, as his Periphyseon advocates a double cre-ation of humanity. Dating back to Philo and mediated through Gre-gory of Nyssa, his interpretation of the Hebrew parallellismus membrorumof Gen ':,- (‘Let us make man in our image and likeness,’ followedby ‘man and woman he created them’) displays an ontological hierar-chy of the sexes. God first created an archetypal, if not androgynoushuman being, only to counteract on the disastrous e2ects of the fallby substituting Adam and Eve as physical human beings. While theirgendered bodies testify to humanity’s sinful state, they also allow for thenew option of physical procreation.13 Somehow or other, the problem ofarriving at a perfect number of souls to save them all no longer puzzlestwelfth-century commentators.14 Replacing it in the twelfth century as
11 Alan of Lille’s famous stanza: ‘Omnis mundi creatura / quasi liber et pictura/ nobis est et speculum’ is often taken as representative of this sacramental view ofnature. For a more critical approach to this stanza in light of the entire poem, seeOtten, ‘Nature and Scripture’.
12 So Peter Abelard, whose Expositio in Hexaemeron (PL '-*), -/.C–D posits that aninternal discussion between the three divine persons preceded humanity’s creation.
13 In this way, procreation became a ‘merciful afterthought’ in Gregory’s view. SeeP. Brown, Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, ,*+–3.), esp. ,(). Eriugena basically adopted Gregory’s position, although he no longerheld that an actual spiritual creation preceded the creation of historical humanity basedon the di2erence between ante et post peccatum. His famous comment ‘homo melior estquam sexus’ (Periphyseon II +3)A) indicates that the adjectives male and female do notapply to human nature, but only to its division. This division will ultimately be undoneby the undivided human nature of the risen Christ.
14 It famously plagued Christian thinkers from Augustine’s City of God to Anselm of
,3. 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 230.
the age’s central concern is the underlying question how best to expressthe continuity of macro- and microcosm through an integral concept ofcreation.
3. Allegorizing creation
To explain the increasing complexity of early-medieval creation, wesometimes find the following view. Throughout the early Middle Ages,Genesis apparently functioned as the norm describing the world’s ori-gin. When in the twelfth century the Timaeus is studied anew withfresh energy, it elicits a scientific response, thereby tempting Chris-tian thinkers to embrace unorthodox viewpoints. The latent tendencytowards intellectual subversion is strengthened by the use of hermeticsources like the Asclepius, as a result of which the concept of biblical cre-ation loses ground fast. Shedding excessive fideism, allegory makes theinterpretation of creation palatable for the scientifically minded, pre-venting them at the same time from sliding into heterodoxy.
According to this schematized perspective,15 the allegorical escapecan only last as long as natural science is an underdeveloped discipline.With intellectuals beginning to take a natural science approach tocreation, the allegorical reading of Genesis loses much of its attraction.The demise of allegory and the surrender of exegetical cosmology tonatural science thus go hand in hand. With science involving recourseto reason, the literal reading of Genesis cannot fail to gain priority, eventhough in a sacramental countermove, Hugh of St. Victor and othersengage in literal exegesis precisely to keep a strong focus on humansalvation by linking creation and restoration.16
Although there is truth to the above scenario, and interest in lit-eral exegesis certainly spreads in the twelfth century, it is by no meansclear that the debate on orthodoxy and heresy goes back to the di2er-ence between Christianity and Platonism, or to that between faith and
Canterbury’s Why God Became Man, leading to all sorts of speculations about humanbeings taking the place of fallen angels in the City of God, and especially about thequestion how many human beings could be accommodated.
15 Centring on the idea that twelfth-century scholars were primarily interested inChristianizing Plato, H. Fichtenau dwells on the intrinsic contradiction of Platonismand Christianity in his Heretics and Scholars in the Middle Ages, #"""–#!"" (transl. D. Kaiser),University Park, USA '((*, '-,–'(/ (The Philosophical Myth: Platonists).
science.17 Such reconstructions seem too influenced by the modernistdebate, forcing theology and exegesis to retire increasingly to the faith-camp. To come to a more nuanced perspective, three further argu-ments relating to the theme of ‘reading creation’ must be brought tobear on the discussion, circling around the hermeneutical relationshipof faith, allegory and science. The first will lead us back to Augustine, aswe will distinguish medieval allegory from allegory in the early church(§)). The second focuses on the literal reading of Genesis as expressinga mindset that is as much scientific as it is literary, for which we willturn to Thierry of Chartres and William of Conches (§+). The precar-ious balance between myth and science in Hugh of St. Victor will bethe subject of some concluding remarks (§/).
). Augustine and Eriugena on enchanted creation
a. Augustine
Proceeding from a Manichaean to a Platonic perspective, Augustinewas preoccupied with Genesis for most of his life, as he faced the ques-tion how all things could come from a single, immaterial God. Throughthe exegesis of Ambrose, he adopted the view of an immaterial God.Even when mapping out his interior quest for the self in his Confes-sions, Augustine still informs us at length about his evolving views ofcreation. Surprisingly, he ends his convoluted conversion story with anextensive eulogy of the creator, as he clearly regards the quest for self-understanding and the understanding of creation as closely intertwined.
Written around the same time, Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine devel-ops essential guidelines for Christian exegesis. Recalibrating earlyChristian allegory, Augustine transports his revised method into theMiddle Ages. David Dawson has summarized the twist of Augustinianallegory as follows:
Ancient allegorical readings of Scripture have often been regarded asthe means by which interpreters translated the unique images and sto-ries of the Bible into the abstractions of classical metaphysics and ethics,but Augustine’s recommendations concerning how to interpret Scripturesuggest that nonliteral translation ought to move in the opposite direc-
17 For a more nuanced view of both science and exegesis in the twelfth century, seeP. Dronke, Fabula: Explorations into the Uses of Myth in Medieval Platonism, Leiden '(*+.
,3, 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 232.
tion. Rather than dissolving scriptural language into non-scriptural cate-gories, allegorical reading should enable the Bible to refashion personalexperience and cultural ideals by reformulating them in a distinctivelybiblical idiom.18
Developing the right view of creation could be seen as one of the so-called cultural ideals mentioned by Dawson. In contrast to Ambrose,Augustine sees allegory as a way to increase biblical influence ratherthan restating it philosophically. His is not an allegory in the conven-tional Platonic sense, as the readers are invited to commit to the largerdynamic of the biblical text rather than accepting a specific interpre-tation. This strategy may explain also why we do not find the samefocus on the creation of humanity in Augustine, with its gender divisionreflective of a psychological hierarchy of mind (nous) and senses (aisthe-sis).19 As a result of Augustine’s biblical expansionism, the creation storysoon burgeons into a veritable meta-story, revealing and anchoring thebeing and belonging of God and the world.
Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram reflects the same holistic approach.Rather than containing a mere literal commentary, its structure in-volves a careful word-for-word explanation. In his profound respectfor biblical idiom, Augustine considers no biblical words redundant.Reflecting the interdependence of cosmological and anthropologicalexplanation in Genesis’ ultra-natural theology, the work is divided intotwo main parts. Books I–IV concentrate on the six days of creation,after which the seventh day marks a day of rest. Books V–XI dealwith concrete creation, Adam and Eve, paradise and the first sin.Book V forms a transition and book XII deals with St. Paul’s visionof paradise.20
Augustine regards the creation of heaven and earth as the directwork of God and a true creatio ex nihilo. Taking great pains to givea meaningful reading of the opening sentence: ‘In principio creavitDeus caelum et terram’, his exegetical sensitivity carries his cosmology
18 See D. Dawson, ‘Sign Theory, Allegorical Reading, and the Motions of the Soul inDe doctrina christiana’, in: D. Arnold and P. Bright Kannengiesser, De doctrina christiana—aClassic of Western Culture, Notre Dame '((+, ',3.
19 Eriugena takes this Philonic interpretation from Ambrose’s De paradiso. See Johan-nes Scottus Eriugena, Periphyseon IV *'+C–D (ed. E. Jeauneau with a transl. by J.J.O’Meara, Dublin '((+), '-)–'-+.
20 See for the work’s plan Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, vol. ', '*–,+(ed. and transl. by P. Agaësse and A. Solignac [Bibliothèque augustinienne )*], Paris'(-,).
‘praeter allegoricam significationem’ (I.'.,) back to Genesis as a liter-ary rather than a literal text. Thus he asks the interesting question whyGod did not say: ‘Let there be heaven and earth’ in the same way ashe said: ‘Let there be light.’ Apparently, the opening sentence carriesspecial importance, as the totality of heaven and earth must containall spiritual and corporeal reality. God’s creation of heaven and earth‘in principio’ signals that their immanence in the Word is to be distin-guished from their material existence evoked by God’s speaking (‘DixitDeus: fiat’). Only by turning towards God as the Word, clinging to thiseternal Form, did creatures receive their own perfect form. Underliningthe importance of the Trinity, Genesis points occasionally to the work-ing of the Spirit, as it hovers above the waters, or informs the goodnessof creation proclaimed by God (‘uidit deus quia bonum est’).21
Of key importance in the creation of heaven and earth are the rationesaeternae. These eternal reasons reveal how God’s act of speech throughcertain intelligible locutions produces temporal creation.22 More thanthe historical interpretation of paradise or of the creation of Adam inGod’s image, his view of rationes aeternae seals the connection betweenthe eternal God, and the material world of growth and corruptionexisting in time. As a biblical exegete Augustine remained firmly inter-ested in connecting divine transcendence with created immanence,even if it took him beyond conventional allegory.
b. Eriugena
Augustine’s rationes aeternae were adopted as causae primordiales by Johan-nes Scottus Eriugena in the ninth century. Eriugena’s Periphyseon main-tains the connection between the eternal Word and the divine attri-butes, just as it upholds the di2erence between divine transcendenceand the material world. Fusing Augustine’s Forms in the divine mindwith Dionysius’ Divine Names or processions, however, Eriugena devel-
21 The above paragraph reflects a summary of Augustine’s arguments from De Genesiad litteram I.I., to I.VI.', (BA )*), *)–(*.
22 See Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram I.IX.'-, BA )*, '.): ‘Sed multum est ac di4cil-limum capere, quomodo dicatur Deo non temporaliter iubente neque id temporaliteraudiente creatura, quae contemplatione ueritatis omnia tempora excedit, sed intellectu-aliter sibimet inpressas ab incommutabili Dei sapientia rationes, tamquam intellegibileslocutiones, in ea, quae infra sunt, transmittente fieri temporales motus in rebus tempo-ralibus uel formandis uel administrandis.’
,3) 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 234.
ops his own fourfold theory of nature as a Platonic synthesis of sorts.23
Natura is divided into four forms. These are (') that which creates andis not created (natura creans et non creata) or God, (,) that which createsand is created (natura creans et creata) or the primordial causes, (3) thatwhich is created and does not create (natura non creans et creata) or spatio-temporal creation, and ()) that which does not create and is not created(natura non creans et non creata) or God as final cause. Each form has asingle book of the Periphyseon devoted to it, with the debate about thelast form requiring two books.
With Eriugena’s speculations closely linked to Genesis, some inter-preters have regarded the Periphyseon as an extended Hexaemeron.24 Whilethat may be too sweeping a conclusion, Eriugena is keenly aware of thedi2erences between various exegetical methods. Halfway the third bookhe states that he will first engage in a literal interpretation of Genesisonly thereafter to resort to allegory.25 His literal interpretation, whichfollows Basil of Caesarea’s Homilies on the Hexaemeron, continues untilhe embarks on his exegesis of the sixth day at the beginning of bookIV. Thus the introduction of allegory coincides with a remarkable tran-sition in his narrative, as he changes from creation to return. Overrid-ing theme in Eriugena’s exegesis of the sixth day is the paradise story,with its dramatic turn of events for humanity. In conformity with thePhilonic line of interpretation found in Gregory of Nyssa and Ambrose,Eriugena considers the ‘second’ creation story of Gen , a mere elabo-ration of Gen ':,-b (man and woman he created them). Set apart fromGod’s archetypal creation of humanity in his own image, humanity’sgender division is now implicitly linked to humanity’s fallen state.
By recounting the paradise story under the aegis of return, however,Eriugena’s exegesis acquires an unusual eschatological dimension. Asthe reading of creation becomes now geared towards humanity’s actualaccomplishment of the return, the balance of cosmology and anthro-pology tilts towards the anthropological. Eriugena’s radical view thatAdam’s creation rather than his fall serves as the starting-point for cos-mic return separates him from the more linear cosmic views of Augus-
23 See Gersh, ‘Cratylus mediaevalis’, *+–** on the fusion of the Augustinian-Boe-thian and the Dionysian tradition in Eriugena.
24 So, famously, Guy-H. Allard, ‘La structure littéraire de la composition du Dedivisione naturae’, in: J.J. O’Meara and L. Bieler (eds), The Mind of Eriugena, Dublin '(-3,')-–'+-.
25 See Johannes Scottus Eriugena, Periphyseon III /(3C (ed. I.P. Sheldon-Williamswith a transl. by J.J. O’Meara, Dublin '(*'), '(/.
tine.26 Reflecting a unique brand of medieval idealism, Eriugena goes sofar as to consider humanity’s physical creation the material reflection ofits prior status in the divine mind as primordial cause.27 As allegoricalinterpretation is ideally suited to bring out this deeper level, the Periphy-seon’s theory of nature gravitates ultimately to the realms of metaphysicsand theology.
+. Twelfth-century thought about creation:changing dynamics of a Christian-Platonic world view
a. Introduction
Moving into the twelfth century, we encounter the following situa-tion. Due to the impact of Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, biblical exe-gesis had taken over in most intellectual endeavours, as early medievaltheology is largely co-extensive with biblical interpretation. DespiteAugustine’s overall exegetical influence, his De Genesi ad litteram was nei-ther the sole nor the major source of information for speculation aboutcreation. There seem to be two reasons for this. Firstly, the concept ofcreation developed into an important locus in the developing genre ofearly scholastic theology. Thought about creation now had to fit in withone’s entire theological construct, the salvific purpose of which Abelardfittingly described as the summary knowledge of faith, love and thesacraments.28 Secondly, the focus of studying Genesis had shifted. Inthe twelfth century the primary purpose of reading Genesis was to testand exemplify ideas that one had developed otherwise, serving more asa meta-physical end-goal than a biblical starting-point.
Given the age’s heightened interest in the sciences of the quadriviumalongside the trivium, moreover, the Timaeus played more into the sen-sitivity of the twelfth century than Genesis. William of Conches, for
26 On the interrelatedness of procession and return, and the awkward coincidenceof humanity’s status ante and post peccatum to which it leads, see W. Otten, ‘The Dialecticof the Return in Eriugena’s Periphyseon’, Harvard Theological Review *) ('((') 3((–),'.
27 Eriugena’s famous definition to this e2ect is found in Periphyseon IV -/*B (ed.Jeauneau), /): ‘Possumus ergo hominem definire sic: Homo est notio quaedam intellec-tualis, in mente diuina aeternaliter facta.’
28 See Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘Scholarium’ I.' (ed. Buytaert and Mews [CCCM '3],Turnhout '(*-), 3'*: ‘Tria sunt, ut arbitror, in quibus humanae salutis summa consistit,fides videlicet, caritas et sacramenta.’
,3/ 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 236.
example, was motivated by a strong desire to grasp nature’s underly-ing structure as well as to understand its organic harmony, even thoughhis general aim was to praise the creator by understanding creation.The definition he used described philosophy as ‘the true comprehen-sion of the things that are and are not seen and those that are and areseen’.29 Reminiscent of Origen’s approach in the Peri Archon, Williamassociates true being, i.e., the true being of nature, specifically withthe existence of things unseen, for which the Timaeus provided twelfth-century scholars with a rewarding source. While throughout the MiddleAges the proof text from Romans ':,. (‘Invisibilia enim ipsius, a crea-tura mundi, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur’) had legiti-mated the study of nature as an avenue to God, the surplus value of theTimaeus was to see God’s invisible traits reflected in the arrangementof visible creation. Even Plato respected the proper interdependence ofcosmology and anthropology by putting requisite stress on salvation.As Abelard notes, the famous cross in Timaeus 3/ B-C, the letter chithrough which the World Soul keeps the motion of the cosmos undercontrol, mystically points to the passion of the cross of the Lord (cf. alsoVan den Berg, this volume, §)).30
b. Thierry of Chartres
While Genesis and the Timaeus were initially read in tandem, we seethe latter work encroach on the reading of Genesis in such worksas Thierry of Chartres’ Tractatus de sex dierum operibus (d. '').s) andWilliam’s Dragmaticon Philosophiae (d. ''))–'')(). Thierry’s treatise o2ersan interpretation of Genesis secundum phisicam et ad litteram.31 He wantsto explain the causes from which the world drew its existence and thetemporal order according to which they unfolded secundum phisicam. Inthe six days of creation four worldly causes were operative, namely
29 See William of Conches, Philosophia I, I §) (ed. Maurach, Pretoria '(*.), '*:‘eorum quae sunt et non videntur, et eorum quae sunt et videntur vera comprehensio’.William derived this definition from the proëmium to Boethius’ De arithmetica.
30 See Abelard, Theologia Christiana II.'/ (ed. Buytaert [CCCM ',], Turnhout '(/(),')..
31 See Thierry of Chartres, Tractatus de sex dierum operibus ', in: N.M. Häring (ed.),Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and His School, Toronto '(-', +++: ‘De septemdiebus et sex operum distinctionibus primam Geneseos partem secundum phisicam etad litteram ego expositurus, inprimis de intentione auctoris et de libri utilitate paucapremittam.’ For a longer analysis of this section, see Otten, ‘Nature and Scripture’,,-,–,-/.
an e4cient cause (i.e., God), a formal cause (i.e., divine wisdom), afinal cause (i.e., divine benignity) and a material cause (i.e., the fourelements). Taking his cue from the first words of Scripture (‘In principiocreavit Deus celum et terra’), Thierry describes how God as e4cientcause (‘Deus’) first created the material elements (‘celum et terra’). Theformal cause features in the Genesis-phrase ‘And God said,’ with God’sact of speech referring to the ordering principle of divine wisdom.Divine benignity acts as the final cause, as seen in the recurrent phrase‘And God saw that it was good’, with God’s vision of creation mirroring hislove.
Thierry’s distinction between the e4cient, formal and final causeallows him to integrate the Christian notion of the Trinity with hisphysical exegesis.32 The Father represents creative power, the Son isthat wisdom which brings order out of chaos, and the Spirit is divinebenignity, as God created out of love. Seeing the four elements (fire,water, earth and air) jointly as material cause, Thierry mitigates thedivide between creator and creation by intimating that the world some-how contributed to its own generation (see also Dillon’s reply to VanWoudenberg, this volume). His repeated insistence that God createdheaven and earth, i.e., fashioned the four elements, attempts to securedivine transcendence by salvaging the creatio ex nihilo idea.33
With the four elements now in place, creation can actually unfoldfrom just these. By explaining creation not as dependent on a singledivine act, but as a gradual development from secondary causes—an innovation probably introduced by Bernard of Chartres34—Thierrybreaks rank with the tradition of Augustinian Genesis interpretations.35
32 Thierry says so much in Tractatus 3. +)–+/ (ed. Häring), ++/–++-: ‘Nam Paterest e4ciens causa Filius uero formalis Spiritus sanctus finalis quatuor uero elementamaterialis. Ex quibus quatuor causis uniuersa corporea substantia habet subsistere.’
33 In Tractatus 3. +.–+) (ed. Häring), ++/, Thierry sees matter as a joint product ofthe Trinity: ‘In materia igitur que est quatuor elementa operatur summa Trinitas ipsammateriam creando in hoc quod est e4ciens causa: creatam informando et disponendoin eo quod est formalis causa: informatam et dispositam diligendo et gubernando in eoquod est finalis causa.’
34 For Bernard’s so-called use of the formae nativae as mediating between the absoluteideas and matter, see Bernard of Chartres, Glosae super Platonem (ed. by Paul E. Dutton,Toronto '(('), -.–(/. Bernard may have been Thierry’s older brother.
35 See Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram I. XV.,( (BA )*), ',.: ‘Non quia informismateria formatis rebus tempore prior est, cum sit utrumque simul concreatum (Sir'*:'), … formatam quippe creauit materiam …’ Augustine compares God’s creationof formed matter with human speech. Just as one emits the sound and the specificpronouncement of a word simultaneously, so God created matter and form together.
,3* 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 238.
Just as the first day in Genesis brought on the next, the generation ofone thing led naturally to another. On the first ‘day’, which Thierrycalls the first ‘integral revolution of heaven’,36 God created not onlythe four material elements, but also light, which originates from thehighest element of fire. As fire warmed the highest part of the lowerelement, it illumined the air. Having generated light, the heat of firenext began to warm the third element, i.e., water. As the water surfaceevaporated and ascended into the air, it turned into clouds. DepictingGod as putting the firmament ‘firmly’ in the middle of the waters onthe second day, Genesis describes the physical process of air settling inbetween the evaporated waters and those below.37
Due to its author’s innovative approach, Thierry’s work poses as ascientific showpiece in the modern, anti-fideist sense. But the question iswhether such a conclusion is warranted. Rather than rejecting allegor-ical interpretation, Thierry’s literal approach reveals his great respectfor the authority of the Genesis text. Peter Dronke has argued that theTractatus brings out how the physical ‘unfolding’ of the universe closelymatches the explicatio of human speech in verbal language.38 Referencesto the laws of physics neither demythologize Genesis nor disqualify thestudy of creation as a way to reach God. On the contrary, an essentialaspect of Thierry’s teaching is his view that knowledge of God is taughtthrough God’s works.
c. William of Conches
As they both depended on literal support, literary and scientific inter-ests could actually go hand in hand. What Thierry did for Genesis,
For the relative positions on creation of the Chartrians Thierry and William of Conchesas well as of Hugh of St. Victor, see Charlotte Gross, ‘Twelfth-Century Concepts ofTime: Three Reinterpretations of Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation Simul’, Journal of theHistory of Philosophy ,3 ('(*+) 3,+–33*. Gross considers the Chartrian view of time as theduration of cosmic disposition an innovation, which she contrasts with Hugh’s view oftime as a sequence of historical events, ordained by God and e2ected for humanity’srestoration (3,-).
36 See Thierry, Tractatus ). +*–+( (ed. Häring), ++-: ‘Dies naturalis est spacium inquo una celi integra conuersio ab ortu ad ortum perficitur.’
37 See Thierry, Tractatus *. )–/ (ed. Häring), ++*: ‘Et tunc aer aptus fuit ut FIRMA-MENTUM appellaretur quasi firme sustinens superiorem aquam et inferiorem conti-nens: utramque ab altera intransgressibiliter determinans.’
38 See P. Dronke, ‘Thierry of Chartres’, in: P. Dronke (ed.), A History of Twelfth-CenturyPhilosophy, Cambridge '(**, 3-).
William of Conches’ Glosae super Platonem did for the Timaeus. As hisGlosae explain in more detail, Plato’s Republic had already dealt withpositive justice, after which the Timaeus concentrated on natural justice,that is, on the creation of the world. Hence this was to be William’scentral theme also.39
William’s preference for the gloss di2ers from Thierry’s preferencefor literal commentary. Whereas a commentary collects the true mean-ings of the text (in unum colligere), the aim of glossing a text is to focuson the letter or continuation of the text (continuatio litterae) alongside itsmeaning, in a clear attempt not to separate them. In a gloss one mustexpound the words of the text in such a way as if the tongue of the doc-tor himself (scil. Plato) were uttering them.40 For these masters, Plato’sstatus was comparable to Vergil, Cicero, and Moses. When Williamfaces the di4culty that Platonic philosophy harbours also unchristianclaims, he jokes that one cannot expect a pagan to do everythingright.41
Two brief examples help to demonstrate the similarity between Wil-liam’s and Thierry’s interest in the right physical interpretations. Thefirst focuses on his view of chaos, the second on the waters above thefirmament. When William’s Dragmaticon Philosophiae, written after theGlosae, speaks about creation, he comments on it as a joint product ofcreated nature and a transcendent creator. William limits God’s directactivity to three feats: his creation of the elements and the human soulsout of nothing, Christ’s birth from a virgin, and the resurrection ofthe dead. God first created a big body, which the philosophers calledchaos, as all the elements in it were mixed. With God removed fromthe scene, we enter the realm of opus naturae, where nature holds sway.Nature fashioned something rude and mixed first, only thereafter toform and shape it. The end of the Dragmaticon’s first book states thefollowing:
39 See William of Conches, Glosae super Platonem 3 (ed. Jeauneau, Paris '(/+), +(.40 See Glosae super Platonem '. (ed. Jeauneau), /-: ‘Commentum enim, solam senten-
tiam exsequens, de continuatione vel expositione litere nichil agit. Glosa vero omnia illaexequitur. Unde dicitur glosa id est lingua. Ita enim aperte debet exponere ac si linguadoctoris videatur docere.’
41 William is aware of the discrepancies separating Plato from scriptural truth, butcan use this disadvantage to the philosopher’s favour. Thus he exclaims: ‘Sed quidmirum si achademicus (i.e., Plato) alicubi achademice loquatur? Si enim ubique benediceret, achademicus non esset.’ See Glosae super Platonem ''( (ed. Jeauneau), ,'.–,''.
,). 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 240.
Therefore, because nature and the craftsmen were unable to come upto the Creator’s work, the Creator determined to come down to theirstandard. For, if this were not so, it would be thought to be a weaknessin nature whenever things were created mixed by her. Or, as others say,God created mixed things to show how much confusion of things waspossible if his own love were not ordering them.42
God’s act of condescension here is surprising and not easy to explain,especially since in his earlier chaos-theory William had deliberatelyrefuted the idea that God ordered the elements to manifest his power.Obviously, God can do anything, even create a calf out of a tree trunk(cf. Tieleman, this volume, §3),43 but the question is why he shouldchoose to do so? Here it becomes manifest that it is not God’s power,but his love depending on his will that orders creation. For William,the creator’s love ‘naturally’ translates into the harmonious arrange-ment of creation. Radiating a beauty that is inclusive and near-divine,William conceptualizes creation increasingly in terms of harmony andsymmetry. His purpose in doing so is to bring out nature’s own inherentprinciples, for it is ultimately natura operans which accomplishes all this.For William, moreover, nature’s arrangement is as much an aesthetic asa regulated physiological a2air.
Sharing Thierry’s literary sensitivity, William directs his scientificapproach especially to the things unseen. The waters above the firma-ment form an interesting case in point. Far from arbitrarily assumingdivine error, as when Peter Abelard laconically stated that even Godwas at a loss about them,44 William used the invisibility of the suprace-lestial waters to inspect the laws of physical causality more closely.Rejecting Bede’s solution that these waters were frozen, as the firma-ment would have collapsed under the weight of the ice, his alterna-tive solution is to see them as evaporated waters, that is, as plain air.45
42 See William of Conches, Dragmaticon Philosophiae I.-.) (ed. Ronca [CCCM '+,],Turnhout '((-), 3': ‘Quia igitur natura et artifex non poterant ad operationem cre-atoris ascendere, uoluit creator ad illorum operationem condescendere. Si enim hocnon esset, debilitas naturae putaretur, quociens ab ea aliqua mixta crearentur. Vel, utalii dicunt, mixtim creavit ut significaret quanta confusio rerum esse posset, nisi suadilectio res ordinaret.’ For the English translation, see I. Ronca and M. Curr (transl.),William of Conches: A Dialogue on Natural Philosophy, Notre Dame '((-, '*.
43 See William of Conches, Philosophia II, II §+ (ed. Maurach), )3.44 This is why God did not say on the second day that he saw that it was good. See
Abelard, Expositio in Hexaemeron (PL '-*), -).A.45 See Philosophia II, I–II (ed. Maurach), )'–)). William’s discussion of the waters
above the firmament derives from his larger discussion of the four elements, as thesupracelestial waters are located in the region of the upper air or aether, which consists
Following the Timaeus rather than Genesis, William pursues his ownexplanations and analogies in like fashion, as he concentrates on theintrinsic aesthetics of nature’s modus operandi. Favouring the explorationof natura operans, he regards this intermediate level between God’s primeact of creation from nothing (opus creatoris) and the ordinary handiworkof human beings (opus artificis) as God’s ordering love in cosmologicaldisguise.46
/. Conclusion: the precarious balance of myth and science
Both Thierry of Chartres and William of Conches initially came totheir material as teachers of the liberal arts, who stood in a traditionof expounding the texts of a respected master, be it Moses or Plato.In line with the exegetical turn brought about by Augustine, whohimself had been thoroughly trained in the liberal arts, they aimed atdesigning their own ‘ultra-natural’ theology by integrating the physicsof Genesis with the metaphysics of the Timaeus. Yet to conclude fromtheir respective methods, i.e., the literal approach and the gloss, thatthey should be seen as forerunners of a modern scientific outlook belieshow they nowhere depart from the method of textual interpretation.While their rejection of allegory may echo Augustine’s approach toGenesis, their literary sensitivity keeps them close to the programmeof the known poets of the age, as Bernard Silvestris and Alan of Lillelikewise recast the universe’s genesis as an imaginative process involvingphilosophical and theological recreation.
Rather than drawing them into heresy, the unique combination ofbiblical physics and Platonic metaphysics allowed Thierry and Williamto draw parallels, notice analogies and make new connections in theirown creative way. In this respect their approach, even if not allegorical,is in full conformity with the practice of integumentum, a rhetorical strat-egy whereby one seizes on a text’s poetic and philosophical polyvalence
of fire. He rejects the literal interpretation of Gen ':- that God separated the watersabove the firmament from those below the firmament as contra rationem, see PhilosophiaII, I §3. See also H. Rodnite Lemay, ‘Science and Theology at Chartres: the Case ofthe Supracelestial Waters’, The British Journal for the History of Science '. ('(--) ,,/–,3/.
46 For a fuller analysis of William’s philosophy, see W. Otten, ‘Plato and the FabulousCosmology of William of Conches’, in: J. Spruyt and M. Kardaun (eds), The WingedChariot: Collected Essays on Plato and Platonism in Honour of L.M. de Rijk, Leiden ,..., '*+–,.3.
,), 0!""#$!#% 1&&#%
Van Kooten. Proef 1. 1-9-2004:18.31, page 242.
to pry it open and unveil a kernel of underlying Christian truth, ratherthan foreshadowing thirteenth-century natural science.47
Such a conclusion about the vitality and creativity of this methodinevitably brings up the question why this kind of associative think-ing ultimately went out of style. In my view this is primarily due tothe growing disconnection between exegesis and the liberal arts, caus-ing the Platonizing thought of the twelfth century to disintegrate andsubstituting it with the more orthodox and standardized approach ofscholasticism. Without deep roots in rhetorical practice, the role of alle-gory changes from habitual intellectual practice to positive exegesis,as allegory lays the foundation for a mystical super-structure. As anexample we may look to Hugh of St. Victor’s theological summa Desacramentis, which introduces a sharp division between the so-called opuscreationis and the opus restaurationis. Pagan writings may be read to findout about creation, but only scripture discloses the work of restoration.While Hugh reveals himself in other respects a master of the literalsense, for him the authority of the Bible di2ers radically from all otherauctoritates, which is not unlike how theology distances itself from philos-ophy and the arts. With the main purpose of the letter of the Bible asunderlying a higher, spiritual reading, their joint goal is now to instructus about the mysteries of the faith (sacramenta fidei), with knowledge ofcreation taking second place.48
Once theology and the liberal arts went their separate ways, thedivergence between scientific interpretation and biblical exegesis wasa by-product that soon followed. Predating this divergence, Augustinehad studied Genesis for both reasons, as for him the world’s beginning(initium mundi) was inherently related to its inherent beauty (exornatio),giving him ample reason to praise the creator. Taking the initium-sidemore or less for granted while concentrating increasingly on a read-ing of the Timaeus, twelfth-century scientists favoured explaining the
47 See the analysis of William of Conches and Thierry of Chartres in A. Speer, Dieentdeckte Natur: Untersuchungen zu Begründungsversuchen einer ‘scientia naturalis’ im #!. Jahrhun-dert, Leiden '((+, '3.–,**.
48 See Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, prol. cap. , (PL '-/), '*3A–B: ‘Materiadiuinarum Scripturarum omnium, sunt opera restaurationis humanae. Duo enim suntopera in quibus uniuersa continentur quae facta sunt. Primum est opus conditionis.Secundum est opus restaurationis … Ergo opus conditionis est creatio mundi cumomnibus elementis suis. Opus restaurationis est incarnatio Verbi cum omnibus sacra-mentis suis; siue iis quae praecesserunt ab initio saeculi, siue iis quae subsequunturusque ad finem mundi.’
exornatio mundi.49 Although it never was the intent of these scientists toconfine the reading of Genesis to the initium-side, from the acceptanceof a basic crack in the canon of the classics other problems inevitablyfollowed. Thus Thierry’s position that the spontaneous transition frominanimate to animate nature does not require the intervention of a cre-ator at all (see also Dillon’s reply to Van Woudenberg, this volume),50 orthe idea that human bodies are formed from the four elements couldeasily give rise to charges of heresy. On the latter point William interest-ingly attributes the weaker state of woman to the fact that she is madefrom less-balanced clay.51
With the ongoing development of science along Aristotelian lines inthe thirteenth century, not only do we see how the tension between sci-ence and exegesis results in separation, but especially how the isolationof theology becomes a fact, as it severs not just its intrinsic ties withscience, but especially its organic ties with myth.
49 See B. Stock, Myth and Science in the Twelfth Century: A Study of Bernard Silvester,Princeton '(-,, ,--. As Stock argues convincingly, although the point cannot be pur-sued here, the idea of exornatio is closely tied to the morality of the cosmos.
50 See P. Dronke, ‘Thierry of Chartres’, 3-+, who argues that Thierry goes furthereven than William of Conches.
51 This is William’s non-literal interpretation of Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib. Seehis Philosophia I, XIII §),–)3 (ed. Maurach), 3-–3*.
