Peter Abelard - An Exposition On The Six-Day Work (Corpus Christianorum in Translation)

Peter Abelard
An exposition on the Six-day Work

CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM
IN TRANSLATION
8
CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM
Continuatio Mediaeualis
XV
PETRI ABAELARDI
EXPOSITIO IN HEXAMERON
EDITA A
Mary Romig (†)
auxilium praestante
David LUSCOMBE
TURNHOUT
BREPOLS H PUBLISHERS
PETER ABELARD
An exposition on the Six-day Work
Introduction, translation and notes by
Wanda zemler-Cizewski
F
H

© 2011, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
D/2011/0095/45
ISBN 978-2-503-53511-1
Printed on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents
Preface 7
Introduction 9
The Author 9
Summary 12
Relationship to Other Works 17
Manuscripts and Editions 18
Bibliography 20
Abbreviations 20
Primary Sources 20
Secondary Works 25
An exposition on the Six-day Work 29

Preface 31
Exposition 33
Concerning the work of the first day 34
Concerning the second [day] 47
Concerning the third [day] 58
Concerning the fourth [day] 62
Concerning the fifth [day] 70
Concerning the sixth [day] 75
Moral 93
Allegory 95
Continuation 97

Table of Contents

Indices
Index of scripture references 123
Index of non-biblical sources 125
Index of names 128
Index of subjects 129


Preface
During my first year at the Pontifical Institute and the Centre

for Medieval Studies in the University of Toronto, I discovered
to my delight that Peter Abelard had commented on the begin-
ning of Genesis at the request of his beloved Heloise, and that
the text, which survived in a mere handful of manuscripts, had
not yet been critically edited. It was, I thought, the ideal doctoral
dissertation project. I soon learned, to my chagrin, that I was not
the only person to have formed that impression, and that at the
University of Southern California, Mary F. Romig was already
well on her way with an edition that she would submit, in 1981,
as part of her work toward the doctorate. Like every disserta-
tion, however, her work was in need of some revisions, which she
could not undertake at the time. The task passed into the hands
of Charles Burnett and David Luscombe at the University of
Sheffield; their edition was published as volume 15 in the Corpus
christianorum continuatio medievalis series, part 5 of the works of
Peter Abelard.
Meanwhile, my interest in the Expositio in hexaemeron
broadened to include works by other twelfth-century authors of
hexaemeral treatises; it became part of the research presented in
my doctoral dissertation, entitled “The Doctrine of Creation in
the First Half of the Twelfth Century: Selected Authors,” and
completed in 1983 under the direction of Brian Stock. When,
at last, the critical edition of Abelard’s commentary was pub-
lished in 2004, I took the opportunity to return to my earlier

Preface
e nthusiasm, and was able to begin work on the present transla-

tion in the spring of 2008, during a sabbatical term supported
by Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
I am indebted to many friends and colleagues for their
encouragement and support. In Toronto, Brian Stock not only
directed my dissertation, but also introduced me to other Abe-
lard scholars, including Constant Mews, David Luscombe, and
Eileen Kearney. I owe an enormous debt to David Luscombe for
his willingness to read the draft manuscript of my translation and
to offer suggestions for improvements. My work would not have
been possible without recourse to his expert knowledge of the
text. Finally, I should like to thank the community of scholars
at Marquette University, in the Department of Theology, at the
Haggerty Museum of Art and in the Raynor Memorial Library,
for their collegiality and support throughout the years. Most of
all, I have to thank John David Zemler, my husband and best of
colleagues.
Wanda Zemler-Cizewski
Marquette University
January, 2011

INTRODUCTION
The Author
The outline of Peter Abelard’s personal and professional career to

around 1130 can be pieced together from evidence in the autobio-
graphical Historia calamitatum and his subsequent correspond-
ence with Heloise. In the Historia calamitatum, he informs the
reader of his origins in Le Pallet, Brittany, from a family belonging
to the military aristocracy, and sketches his early career as a free-
lance knight of Minerva in the schools of dialectic and theology at
Melun, Paris, and Laon. He describes the scandal of his affair with
Heloise, his conversion, and the series of disasters that befell him
and his theological works in his new role as a Benedictine monk of
St. Denis in Paris, as the hermit of the Paraclete, and subsequently
as abbot of St. Gildas in his native land. References in the writings
of friends, former students, and enemies to his teaching activity in
and around Paris, and the condemnations for heresy – in 1121 at
the synod of Soissons, and in 1140 at the council of Sens – help fill
the gaps and complete the picture up to Abelard’s death in 1142.1
1
Peter Abelard, Historia calamitatum, ed. J. Monfrin (3rd ed. Paris, 1967),
ed. J. T. Muckle, Abelard’s letter of Consolation to a Friend, Historia calamitatum,
in Mediaeval Studies, 12, 1950, pp. 163-213, and John of Salisbury, Metalogi-
con 2: 17, 3: prol., 3: 1, ed. C. C. J. Webb (Oxford, 1929), pp. 92, 119, and 123; see
Peter Dronke, Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Testimonies, W. P. Ker Memorial
Lecture 26 (Glasgow, 1976), pp. 7-14; John Benton, “A Reconsideration of the
Authenticity of the Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise,” in Petrus Abaelar-
dus (1079-1142): Person, Werk, und Wirkung, TriererTheologische Studien 38, ed
R. Thomas, et al. (Trier, 1980), pp. 41-52.

Introduction
From the evidence supplied by these twelfth-century

sources, it appears that Abelard began his career as a student
and master of logic during the first decade of the twelfth cen-
tury and continued in that profession until about 1117. His
first theological work, a commentary on the prophet Ezechiel,
was produced around 1114 at Laon, and seems to have been
reworked in a second edition at Paris, but no manuscript ver-
sion has survived.
Abelard’s extant theological works were for the most part
composed between 1118 and 1140. His oeuvre falls into several
distinct groups. First, there are the works on logic, principally
the Dialectica, edited by L. M. de Rijk.2 Second, there is the
series of theologiae, beginning with the treatise De unitate et
trinitate divina, or the Theologia ‘summi boni’, written at some
time between Abelard’s entry into St. Denis and his condemna-
tion at Soissons, or 1118 to 1120. He revised the treatise repeat-
edly, and developed it into a series of longer and more complex
versions. In modern printings, these are the Theologia christi-
ana and the Theologia scholarium or Introductio ad theologiam.
The first redactions of the Theologia christiana were probably
started a few years after the condemnation at Soissons of the
original Theologia ‘summi boni’, and can be dated from 1122 to
1127.3 In 1125, Abelard was elected abbot of St. Gildas de Ruys
in Brittany, where he could not have found the leisure to begin
any new theological projects, although he may have carried on
with some of the work he had begun earlier. Between his flight
from St. Gildas in 1132, and his reappearance in Paris in the mid
1130’s, he seems to have wandered France and Brittany, with the
convent of the Paraclete as a home base. From around 1135 to
1139, and the beginning of Bernard of Clairvaux’s action against
him, he was intensely active, teaching, writing, and revising
his theological treatises. The revised Theologia christiana and
extant versions of the Theologia scholarium date from this
2
Abelard, Dialectica, ed. L. M. De Rijk, Petrus Abelardus. Dialectica
(Assen, 1970).
3
C. J. Mews, “On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard,” in AHDLMA, 52,
1985, pp. 73-134.

Introduction
period, together with more or less final versions of other major

works, including the Sic et Non, the commentary on Romans,
and the Scito te ipsum, or Ethics.
A third group of theological writings comprises works writ-
ten for Heloise and her community after they had been estab-
lished at the Paraclete, around 1129.4 These include not only the
letters and a Rule, the Problemata and various sermons, but also
the Expositio in hexaemeron and the Hymnarius paraclitensis,
with its hexaemeral theme.
The Expositio in hexaemeron contains only one explicit refer-
ence to an earlier work, when Abelard omits detailed discussion
of the terms bonum, malum, and indifferens, because he treated
them in sufficient detail in the “second Collatio.” As Van den
Eynde has shown, the Collationes are the Dialogus inter philoso-
phum, Judaeum et Christianum, believed formerly by scholars to
have been written at Cluny in the final year of Abelard’s life.5 Were
that the case, we would be looking at the somewhat improbable
conclusion that the hexaemeral commentary requested by
Heloise was Abelard’s last piece of writing, left incomplete in the
manuscripts because of sickness and death. E. Buytaert, however,
argued for a much earlier date of the Collationes or Dialogus, sug-
gesting that the condemnation of a theologia mentioned in the
Dialogus is not the condemnation of the Theologia scholarium
at Sens in 1140, but the condemnation of the Theologia ‘summi
boni’ at Soissons in 1121, since the latter theologia might plausibly
be said to have “grown more glorious” in its subsequent redac-
tions.6 The composition of the Dialogus would, in that case, be
datable to the 1130’s or the height of Abelard’s theological teach-
ing career. The Expositio in hexaemeron would, accordingly, also
have belonged to that period.
4
D. Van den Eynde, “Chronologie des écrits d’Abélard à Héloise,” Antonia-
num, 37, 1962, pp. 347-349.
5
Van den Eynde, ibid.
6
E. M. Buytaert, “Abelard’s Expositio in hexaemeron,” in Antonianum, 43,
1968, 163-194.

Introduction
Summary
In his prologue, Abelard addresses Heloise and her spiritual

daughters as his intended readers, explaining that at her request,
he has undertaken the difficult task of commenting on the lit-
eral sense of Genesis. He cites passages from Origen and Jer-
ome to show that in the Hebrew tradition, the hexaemeral work
described at the beginning of Genesis, together with the vision-
ary material at the beginning and end of Ezechiel and all the
contents of the Song of Songs, were considered to be extremely
demanding, and suitable only for mature minds to ponder. More-
over, literal interpretation of the hexaemeral text presented so
many difficulties that among commentators working in the Latin
language, Abelard asserts, only Augustine ever attempted to
expound the historical sense. Abelard is willing to venture upon
an interpretation with the expectation that his work will raise
more questions than it answers; Heloise, accordingly, is asked to
support his labors with her prayers, so that he may discover the
true sense of the text.7
Abelard announces at the beginning of his commentary
that he will offer historical, moral, and mystical interpretations,
but intends to ground his reading primarily in history, or the
“truth of things done.” He then offers an accessus ad auctorem8
in the manner current among cathedral school interpreters of
ancient texts: the prophetic author is identified as Moses; the
author’s intention is to entice the newly liberated Israelites into
knowledge and service of God, their Creator; the subject mat-
ter or m
ateria of the text is, in a suitable pun, the material world
itself, as it is created and set in order over the course of six days.
Finally, the author’s method of treatment is the simplest type
of historical narrative, beginning at the beginning of things and
tracing their natural order. The authorial intention of Moses, in
7
Compare Epistola II (III) and Epistola VI (VII), ed. J. T. Muckle, in The
Personal Letters between Abelard and Heloise, in Mediaeval Studies, 15, 1953 pp.
6 and 253, Hymnarius Paraclitensis, ed. J. Szövérffy, vol. 2, pp. 9, 81, and 169.
8
E. A. Quain, “The Medieval Accessus ad auctorem,” in Traditio 3, 1945, pp.
215-264.

Introduction
turn, resembles the intention ascribed to God in creation, since

he is understood to create so as to give the rational creature some
knowledge of himself, and to begin in a figural sense to speak
to the rational creature with the creation of light, by which the
material creature is disclosed to view, and to continue speaking
with the created works disclosed by the morning light of each
new day.
Abelard devotes more time to interpreting the first day than
he does to any of the others. His comments on the first day,
understood as the “one day” in which God created all things,
include some of his most complex and difficult speculation on
the order and composition of the material creature. The influ-
ence of Augustine’s Genesis commentaries can be seen in his
figurative interpretations of the relationship between the light
of morning and evening on each day, while that of Calcidius’
commentary on Plato’s Timaeus is evident in his discussion of
the natures of the four elements and their origin as hyle or prime
matter. Use of these sources, together with Abelard’s interest
throughout the commentary in the emergence of those regular
processes that we identify as “nature” suggest an unmistakable
kinship with the hexaemeral commentary by his teacher, Thi-
erry of Chartres, the related work of Clarembald of Arras, and
some aspects of William of Conches’ cosmological writing.9
Abelard ascribes the ordered relationship among the elements
to the will of God in the beginning of his work. Commenting on
the creation of the firmament, he reviews and critiques several opin-
ions offered by patristic sources as to the nature of the upper waters
and the force that keeps them fixed outside their natural sphere,
above both air and fire. In his opinion, the upper waters are a very
fine, light vapor, supported by the upper atmosphere of air and fire,
but enclosing them within itself much as the casing of a football
9
Thierry of Chartres, Tractatus de sex dierum operibus, ed. N. M.
Häring in Commentaries on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres, Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts, 20, Toronto, 1971, pp. 555-575, Cla-
rembald of Arras, Tractatulus super librum Genesis, ed. N. M. Häring in
Life and Works of Clarembald of Arras, A Twelfth-Century Master of the School
of Chartres, Studies and Texts 10, Toronto, 1965, pp. 225-249; William of
Conches, Philosophia, ed. G. Maurach and H. Telle, Pretoria, 1980.

Introduction
encloses and is supported by the air within. Because the placement

of the upper waters over the elements of air and fire is contrary to the
order that we perceive as natural, he concludes that the force or vis
naturae by which these waters are kept in their place is implanted in
the creature by the will of God. In evidence, he quotes from Plato’s
Timaeus to show that it is by God’s will that all natural powers were
first instituted and to God’s will that all are subject. Nevertheless,
he also entertains the more naturalistic explanation that a powerful
wind projected the upper waters into place, where they froze into
an immobility from which they would not fall.
In his somewhat cursory remarks on the third day, Abelard
devotes his attention to the origin of the natural process by which
seeds germinate, and to the diversity of climate and soil that pro-
duces variety in vegetation and crops around the world. Once
again, he holds that the will of God in creating is the sole force
behind the earth’s ability on that day to germinate and produce
vegetation where no seeds had been sown. On the other hand, he
reflects that a naturalistic explanation for the spontaneous gen-
eration of vegetation might be that the newly created earth had
somehow been endowed with greater powers for producing new
life than it has at the present time.
The luminaries of heaven were created on the fourth day, and
Abelard devotes most of his comments on that day’s work to the
question whether these creatures are somehow sentient and there-
fore moved by living spirits, as Augustine and other patristic sources
seem to have thought. Abelard finds the notion plausible, but does
not venture to resolve the question with an opinion of his own.
He is by no means as reticent on the topic of astrology, which he
introduces because the text states that the stars are created to serve
as signs of days and seasons.10 Abelard condemns the use of astrology
for predicting future contingents as diabolical, and vigorously sati-
rizes the claims of its practitioners. Nonetheless, he concedes that
the movements of the stars can rightly be interpreted by experts to
10
See M.-T. D’Alverny, “Abélard et l’astrologie,” in Pierre Abélard-Pierre le
Vénérable, pp. 611-630.

Introduction
predict future events in nature such as changes in climate and in the

seasons for planting and harvest.
Abelard’s comments on the creation of aquatic animals and
birds on the fifth day include an original reflection on the origin
of sentient life from water as a prefiguring of the regeneration of
humankind through the waters of baptism. He makes the connec-
tion among the Spirit’s movement over the waters on the first day,
warming them with its love as a bird warms its’ egg, and the pro-
duction of living things from water, together with the use of water
for sacramental cleansing from sin. Moreover, he suggests that the
Benedictine Rule permits consumption of the meat of animals
produced from water, namely fish and fowl, because the element is
lighter than earth, from which the land animals, whose meat is for-
bidden in the Rule, were created. Finally, in comparing the creation
of creeping things from water and from earth on the fifth and sixth
days, he adverts again to the question whether the stars are sentient
beings, and if so, whether they are a kind of reptile or creeping
thing, since they move through the heavens without using feet.
The principal subject of Abelard’s comments on the sixth day
is the creation of human beings to the image and likeness of God.
Following Augustine, Abelard identifies human likeness to God
with the imaging of the Trinity in the human soul. His ascrip-
tion of power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and goodness
to the Holy Spirit11 comes into play as he imagines a conversation
among the three divine Persons in which Power invites Wisdom
and Goodness to share in this unique creative act. However,
Abelard distinguishes between the image and the likeness of God
in the human creature, arguing at length that the man is created
to the image, and the woman to the likeness of God, so that in
several ways, the male of the human species is more like God that
the female. Nevertheless, both share in dominion over the other
living things of the earth, and in the duty of procreation. That
human beings are instructed from the beginning of their creation
to “be fruitful and multiply,” is seen as explicit condemnation
11
See, eg., Abelard, Theologia summi boni 1, 10; Theologia christiana 1, 12;
Theologia scholarium 1, 73.

Introduction
both of those who condemn marriage, and those who engage in

homosexual intercourse.
Commenting on the general blessing of all creatures on the
seventh day, Abelard asserts that all were created good in the
beginning, and that even now those creatures that seem either
defective or immature are good insofar as they are represented
in the original creation that God blessed and called “very good,”
but also intended at the present time by the divine providence
that governs all things. Having concluded the historical or literal
interpretation of the text, Abelard then offers brief moral and
mystical readings of the hexaemeral work. In so doing, he used
the tripartite interpretation introduced by Gregory the Great
and described in detail by Hugh of St. Victor in the Didascalicon,
rather than the four senses of Scripture first described by John
Cassian.12 Abelard’s moral and allegorical interpretations are
brief and not especially original: the former draws on Augustine’s
Confessiones XIII, and the latter is derived from Augustine’s De
Genesi contra Manichaeos I, xxiii.
Abelard returns to the literal sense of the text in a continua-
tion beginning with Genesis 2, 4, and ending at Genesis 2, 25 in
the longest extant version. In all the surviving manuscripts, the
text appears to break off before reaching a conclusion; it is pos-
sible, judging from Abelard’s discussion of the trees of knowledge
and of good and evil, that he intended to continue the commen-
tary up to the temptation and expulsion from the garden.
In his commentary on the creation of the woman from
Adam’s rib, Abelard notes that the sleep into which God plunged
Adam was not the ordinary kind, but must rather have been like
that induced by medical practitioners when they wish to oper-
ate. This is not his only reference to contemporary medical lore.
Commenting on the creation of the firmament, he mentions that
when phlebotomists wish to draw blood, they insert and light
a small wick in the flask used for their purpose, so as to attract
the moist humor of blood with the heat of fire. Similarly, he is
12
Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, Epistula missoria 3, PL 75, 513;
Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon 5, 2.

Introduction
aware that medicinal herbs must be planted and harvested at the

right season and under the right conditions. His examples may
represent instances of medical practice familiar to Heloise, who
was a product of the Benedictine tradition, or may reflect his
familiarity with the state of the art in cathedral school lectures.13
Commenting on the trees of life and of knowledge, Abelard con-
siders the possibility that the tree of knowledge was a fig tree, so that
when Jesus told Nathanael that he “saw [him] under the fig tree”
(John 1, 48) he was referring to the omniscience of the divine Word,
whereby he knew every human being. Among the “Hebrews,” how-
ever, the tree of knowledge is believed to have been the grape vine,
and to have grown side by side with and supported by the tree of
life, much as an elm tree may support a vine. Hence, the forbidden
fruit may have been the grape, which, in its fermented form, can
both sharpen and dull the wits, depending on quantities consumed.
Abelard’s occasional references to Jewish beliefs and interpreta-
tions of the text appear to derive for the most part from Jerome’s
writings. Sometimes Abelard uses the term “Hebrews” or “Hebrew
truth,” usually when explaining alternative translations or pecu-
liarities of the Hebrew language. On rare occasions, he makes a
pejorative reference to the beliefs of “the Jews,” most notably when
taking them to task for failing to accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
He makes no explicit reference to contemporary Jewish sources,
but may have had access to some rabbinic material; his interpreta-
tion of the tree of knowledge as a vine, for instance, is not to be
found in the Christian sources, but is known in Jewish tradition.14
Relationship to Other Works
The Expositio refers explicitly to the “second Collatio,” but includes

a number of additional passages and turns of phrase that establish
links with other works by Abelard. For example, the salutation to
13
Compare Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon 2, 26; see C. H. Haskins,
Studies in the History of Medieval Science, Cambridge, Mass., 1927, p. 374.
14
See, eg., The Torah, A Modern Commentary, ed. G. Plaut, Union of Amer-
ican Hebrew Congregations, New York, 1981, p. 42.

Introduction
Heloise and the reference to her supplications on Abelard’s behalf

are reminiscent of similar expressions in the letters, sermons, and
Hymnarius paraclitensis. According to Luscombe and Buytaert,
points of contact with the later theologiae and the Sic et Non are
also to be observed, especially where Abelard discusses the persons
of the Trinity in terms of power, wisdom, and goodness.15
In terms of overall content, the Expositio is closely linked to
the first part of the Hymnarius Paraclitenis, where Abelard’s
cycle of hymns for matins, lauds, and vespers, including the well-
known “O quanta qualia,” derives its theme from the literal,
moral, and allegorical interpretations of the hexaemeral week.16
Manuscripts and Editions
The Expositio survives in four manuscripts, all of the twelfth

century. These are known by the following sigla:
A Avranches, Bibliothèque municipale 135, fols. 75-90v.
K Copenhagen, Det kongelige Bibliothek, e don. var. 138
quarto, fols. 9-16v, 19-25v.
P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 17251, fols. 33v-46.
V Vatican, Biblioteca apostolica, Vat. Lat. 4214, fols. 1-30.
The Paris manuscript includes an incomplete commentary
on the hexaemeron that closely follows the Expositio text. Of the
four manuscripts, KPV include the text of the commentary from
Genesis 1, 1 to 2, 25, but A, lacking a final gathering, ends at Gen-
esis 2, 16. The shortest version of the text is found in K, and the
longest in V, which is distinguished by extra passages not found
in the other three. Consequently, Luscombe concludes that K
represents an earlier version of the commentary, distinct from
the later version on which APV appear to depend.17 Although
brief and full of errors, manuscript K represents an intriguing
15
Petri Abaelardi Opera Theologica: Expositio in Hexaemeron, ed. M. Romig
and D. Luscombe, CCM 15, pp. LXXI-LXXIV.
16
For tables of contents and motifs, see Hymnarius Paraclitensis, vol. 1, pp.
60-63.
17
Expositio in Hexaemeron, CCM 15, p. XLVIII.

Introduction
link between the French monastic schools of the twelfth cen-

tury and Christian culture in Scandinavia. The text of Abelard’s
work is part of a codex from the Cistercian monastery of Her-
revad in the diocese of Lund, together with other material on the
Pentateuch, the twelve minor prophets, and Isaiah. It cannot be
determined whether this material was known to Anders Sunesen
when he wrote his Hexaemeron in verse in the later twelfth cen-
tury, although there are some points of contact between his work
and Abelard’s Expositio.
The first printed edition was published in 1717 by Martène
and Durand, using the defective A. Their work was adapted, with
a few changes, by Cousin, whose version was printed in Migne’s
Patrologia latina 178, 731-784. In 1892, Haureau published the
missing final section from P, and in a 1968 article, E. Buytaert
offered a preliminary description of the relationships among the
four manuscripts, including a full text of the concluding section
absent from A.18
Mary Romig’s 1981 doctoral dissertation represents the first
attempt at a critical edition of the Expositio, although she was
unable to continue preparation of the text for publication. Her
work was revised by David Luscombe and published in 2004 in
the Corpus christianorum continuatio medievalis series vol. 15; it is
on their edition that the present translation is based.
18
Expositio in Hexaemeron, CCM 15, pp. XXX-XXXI.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations
AHDLMA Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen

âge, Paris, 1926-
BGPMA Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittel-
alters, Munster i. w., 1928-
BGPTMA Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theo-
logie des Mittelalters, Munster i. W., 1928-
CCL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout,
1953-
CCM Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis,
Turnhout, 1954-
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum,
Vienna, 1866-
PG Patrologia graeca, ed. J. P. Migne, Paris.
PL Patrologia latina, ed. J. P. Migne, Paris.
Primary Sources
Peter Abelard, Petri Abaelardi Opera, PL 178.

—, Petri Abaelardi Opera, ed. V. Cousin, 2 vols, Paris, 1849; 1859.
—, Ouvrages inédits d’Abélard pour server à l’histoire de la philosophie scolastique
en France, ed. V. Cousin, Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire
de la France, 2ème série. Histoire des Lettres et des Sciences, Paris, 1836.
—, Carmen ad Astralabium, ed. J. M. A. Rubingh-Boscher, Peter Abe-
lard. Carmen ad Astralabium, Groningen, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
—, Collationes, ed. and trans. J. Marenbon and G. Orlandi, Oxford

Medieval Texts, Oxford, 2001.
—, Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. E. M. Buytaert,
Petri Abaelardi Opera theologica, I, CCM 11, 1969.
—, Dialectica, ed. L. M. de Rijk, Petrus Abaelardus. Dialectica, Assen, 1970.
—, Epistolae, ed. J. T. Muckle, The Personal Letters between Abelard and
Heloise, in Mediaeval Studies, 15 (1953), pp. 47-94 (letters 2-5; part of 6);
ed, Muckle, The letter of Heloise on the Religious Life and Abelard’s
First Reply, in Mediaeval Studies, 17 (1955), pp. 240-81 (letters 6-7);
T. P. McLaughlin, Abelard’s Rule for Religious Women, in Mediaeval
Studies, 18 (1956), pp. 241-292 (letter 8); ed. E. R. Smits, Peter Abelard.
Letters IX-XIV, Groningen, 1983.
—, Ethica, ed. D. E. Luscombe, Peter Abelard’s Ethics. An Edition with
English Translation, Oxford Medieval Texts, Oxford, 1971.
—, Expositio in hexaemeron, ed. M. Romig and D. Luscombe; Abbre-
viatio Petri Abaelardi expositio in hexaemeron, ed. C. Burnett and
D. Luscombe, in Petri Abaelardi opera theologica V, CCM 15, 2004.
—, Historia calamitatum, ed. J. Monfrin, Abélard. Historia calamitatum,
Paris, 1959 (2nd ed. 1967); ed. J. T. Muckle, Abelard’s Letter of Consolation
to a Friend, Historia calamitatum, in Mediaeval Studies, 12 (1950), pp. 163-
213.
—, Hymnarius Paraclitensis, ed. J. Szövérffy, Peter Abelard’s Hymnarius
Paraclitensis. An annotated edition with introduction, 2 vols, Albany,
N. Y. and Brookline, Mass., 1975.
—, Introductiones parvulorum, ed. M. Dal Pra, Pietro Abelardo – Scritti
di Logica, Nuova Biblioteca Filosofica, Serie III, 2nd ed., Florence, 1969.
—, Logica ‘Ingredientibus,’ BGPTMA, XXI, Hefte 1-3, 1919-27; II. Die
Logica ‘Nostrorum petitioni sociorum,’ ed. B. Geyer, in BGPTMA, XXI,
Heft 4, 1933 (2nd ed. 1973).
—, Sic et Non, ed. B. Boyer and R. McKeon, Peter Abelard. Sic et Non,
Chicago, 1976, 1977.
—, Theologia christiana, ed. E. M. Buytaert, Petri Abaelardi Opera theolo-
gica, II, CCM 12, 1969, pp. 5-372.
—, Theologia ‘Scholarium,’ Recensiones breviores, ed. E. M. Buytaert, Petri
Abaelardi Opera theologica, II, CCM 12, 1969, pp. 373-451.
—, Theologia ‘Scholarium,’ ed. E. M. Buytaert and C. J. Mews, Petri
Abaelardi Opera theologica, III, CCM 13, 1987, pp. 309-549.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
—, Theologia ‘Summi boni,’ ed. E. M. Buytaert and C. J. Mews, Petri

Abaelardi Opera theologica, III, CCM 13, 1987, pp. 83-201.
—, Tractatus de intellectibus, ed. L. U. Ulivi, La Psicologia di Abaelardo e il
“Tractatus de intellectibus,” Rome, 1976.
Adelard of Bath, Quaestiones naturales, ed. and trans. C. Burnett, Adelard
of Bath, Conversations with his Nephew: On the Same and the Different,
Questions on Natural Science, and On Birds,��
Cambridge Medieval Clas-
sics 9, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 81-235.
Ambrose of Milan, Hexaemeron, ed. C. Schenkl, Sancti Ambrosii Opera,
CSEL 32, I, Vienna, 1897; PL 14, 123-274.
Andreas Sunesen, Hexaemeron, ed. M. C. Gertz, Andreae Sunonis filii
archiepiscopi Lundensis Hexaëmeron libri duodecim, Copenhagen, 1892;
new ed. by S. Ebbesen and L. B. Mortensen, in Corpus Philosophorum
Danicorum Medii Aevi XI, 1-2, Copenhagen, 1985, 1988.
Anon., De generibus et speciebus (attr. Abael.), ed. V. Cousin, Ouvrages in-
édits d’Abélard pour server à l’histoire de la scolastique en France, Collec-
tion des documents inédits sur l’histoire de la France, 2ème série. Histoire
des Lettres et des Sciences, Paris, 1836.
Apuleius, De deo Socratis, ed. P. Thomas, Apulei Platonici Madaurensis de
philosophia libri, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Leipzig, 1908.
Aristotle, Categoriae, ed. L. Minio-Paluello, Aristoteles Latinus, I, 1-5:
Categoriae vel Praedicamenta. Translatio Boethii ..., Bruges-Paris, 1961.
—, De interpretatione, ed. L. Minio-Paluello, De interpretatio
vel Periermeneias. Translatio Boethii. Specimina Translationum
Recentiorum. Aristotelis Latinus, II, 1, Bruges, 1965.
Augustine of Hippo, Confessionum libri XIII, ed. L. Verheijen,
CCL 27, 1981.
—, De civitate Dei, ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb, CCL 47-48, 1955.
—, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim, ed. J. Zycha, CSEL 28, Sect. III,
Pars 1 (potius 2), 1894, pp. 1-456; PL 34, 219-246.
—, De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber, ed. J. Zycha, CSEL 28, Sect. III,
Pars 1 (potius 2), 1894, pp. 456-503.; PL 34, 245-486.
—, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, PL 34, 173-220.
—, De immortalitate animae, PL 32, 1021-1034.
—, De trinitate, ed. W. J. Mountain and F. Glorie, CCL 50-50A, 1968.
—, Enchiridion, ed. E. Evans, CCL 46, 1969.
—, Retractationum libri II, ed. A. Muntzenbecher, CCL 57, 1984.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Basil of Cesarea, Homiliae in Hexaemeron, PG 29, 3-208 [see also Eusthatius].

Bede, De natura rerum, ed. C. W. Jones, in Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars I,
Opera didascalica, CCL 123A, 1975.
—, Expositio Actuum Apostolorum, ed. D. Hurst, CCL 121, 1983.
—, Liber quatuor in principium Geneseos usque ad nativitatem Isaac et eie-
ctionem Ismahelis adnotationum, ed. C. W. Jones, in Bedae Venerabilis
Opera, Pars II, Opera exegetica, I, CCL 118A, 1967.
Benedict, St., Regula, ed. and trans. A. de Vogüé and J. Neufville, La
Règle de Saint Benoît, 6 vols, Sources chrétiennes 181-86, Paris, 1971-1972.
Bernard of Chartres, Glosae super Platonem, ed. P. E. Dutton, The Glosae
super Platonem of Bernard of Chartres, Studies and Texts 107, Toronto,
1991.
Bernard Silvestris, Cosmographia, ed. P. Dronke, Leiden, 1978.
Boethius, Opera, PL 63-64.
—, In Isagogen Porphyrii commenta (edition prima, edition secunda), ed.
S. Brandt, CSEL 48, 1906.
—, Philosophiae consolation, ed. L. Bieler, CCL 94, 1957.
Calcidius, Commentarius, see Plato, Timaeus.
Cicero, De natura deorum, ed. O. Plasberg; rev. W. Ax, Bibliotheca Teub-
neriana. Repr. Stuttgart, 1961.
—, Somnium Scipionis, in Macrobius Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis,
ed. J. Willis, Leipzig, 1963.
Clarembald of Arras. Tractatulus super librum Genesis, ed. N. M. Häring,
in Life and Works of Clarembald of Arras, A Twelfth-Century Master of
the School of Chartres, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies
and Texts 10, Toronto, 1965.
Eusthatius, Latina versio homiliarum Basilii, ed. E. Amand de Mendieta
and S. Y. Rudberg, Eusthatius Ancienne version latin des neuf homélies
sur l’Hexaéméron de Basile de Césarée in Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 66 (V. Reihe, Band 11), Berlin,
1958; PL 53, 867-966.
Gregory the Great, Dialogi, ed. A. de Vogüé, trans. P. Antin, Sources
chrétiennes 251, 260, 265 (1978, 1979, 1980).
—, Homiliae in Euangelia, PL 76, 1075-1342.
—, Moralia in Job, PL 76, 9-782.
Hermann of Carinthia, De Essentiis, ed. C. S. F. Burnett, Leiden, 1982.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis christianae fidei, PL 176, 173-618.

—, Didascalicon de studio legend, ed. C. H. Buttimer, Catholic University
Press, Washington, 1939.
Isidore of Seville, Quaestiones in Genesim, PL 83, 207-288.
—, De ordine creaturarum, PL 83, 913-954.
—, Sententiarum libri III, PL 83, 537-738.
—, Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX, ed. W. M. Lindsay, 2 vols, Scrip-
torum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Oxford, 1911 (Repr. 1962).
Jerome, Adversus Iovinianum, PL 23, 221-352.
—, Commentarium in Hezechielem libri XIV, ed. F. Glorie, S. Hieronimi
presbyteri Opera, Pars 1, Opera exegetica 4, CCL 75, 1964.
—, Epistolae, ed. I. Hilberg, S. Eusebii Hieronimi opera (Sect. 1, Partes i-iii),
CSEL 54, 1910-1918.
—, Hebraeicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos, ed. P. Antin, CCL 72, 1959.
—, Liber de situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum, PL 23, 903-976.
John of Salisbury, Metalogicon, ed. J. B. Hall and K. S. B. Keats-Rohan,
Joannis Sarisberiensis Metalogicon, CCM 98, 1991.
John the Scot, Periphyseon, ed. E. A. Jeauneau, Iohannis Scotti seu Eriuge-
nae Periphyseon, libri I-V, CCM 161-5, 1996-2003; PL 122.
Josephus, Opera, ed. G. Dindorfius, Flavius Josephi Opera, Graece et Latine,
2 vols, Paris, 1845-1847.
Missale Romanum, Tours, 1922.
Origen, In Canticum canticorum libri quattuor, ed. D. A. B. Caillau and
G. Guillon in Origenis opera, vol, 4, Paris, 1892, pp. 355-546.
Ovid, Metamorphoses, ed. W. S. Anderson, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorpho-
ses, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Leipzig, 1977.
Plato, Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus, ed. J. H.
Waszink, Plato Latinus 4, London, 1962.
Pliny, Naturalis historia, ed. C. Mayhoff, C. Plinii Secundii Naturalis
Historiae libri XXXVII, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Leipzig, 1933-37.
Porphyry, Isagoge, ed. L. Minio-Paluello, Aristoteles Latinus, I, 6-7,
Categoriarum suppelementa, Bruges-Paris, 1966.
Priscian, Institutionum grammaticarum libri XVIII, ed. M. Hertz, in
Grammatici Latini, ed. H. Kiel, II-III, Leipzig, 1855-159.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sallust, Historiarum Reliquiae, ed. B. Maurenbrecher, C. Sallustii Cri-

spi Historiarum Reliquiae, fasc. II: Fragmenta, Bibliotheca Teubneriana,
Leipzig, 1893.
Thierry of Chartres, Commentaires on Boethius by Thierry of Chartres and
his School, ed. N. M. Häring, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
Studies and Texts 20, Toronto, 1971.
Virgil, Opera, ed. R. A. B. Mynors, P. Vergilii Maronis Opera, Scriptorum
Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Oxford, 1969.
William of Conches, Glosae super Platonem, ed. E. Jeauneau, Paris, 1965.
—, Philosophia mundi. Ed. G. Maurach and H. Telle, Wilhelm von Con-
ches “Philosophia,” Pretoria, 1980; PL 172, 39-102.
Secondary Works
Ch. Burnett, Hermann of Carinthia, in A History of Twelfth-Century

Western Philosophy, ed. P. Dronke, pp. 386-404.
E. M. Buytaert (ed.), Peter Abelard, Louvain, 1971.
—, Abelard’s Expositio in Hexaemeron, in Antonianum, 43, 1968, pp. 163-181.
M.-D. Chenu, La Théologie au douzième siècle, Études de philosophie
médiévale 45, Paris, 1957.
W. Cizewski, The Doctrine of Creation in the First Half of the Twelfth Cen-
tury, Ph. D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1983.
M.-T. D’Alverny, Abélard et l’astrologie, in Pierre Abélard - Pierre le
R. C. Dales, A Twelfth-Century Concept of the Natural Order, in Viator, 9,
1978, pp. 179-192.
P. Dronke (ed.), A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy,
Cambridge, 1988.
—, Thierry of Chartres, in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy,
ed. P. Dronke, pp. 358-85.
—, La Filosofia della Natura nel Medioevo. Atti del Terzo Congresso Interna-
zionale di Filosofia Medioevale. Passo della Mendola (Trento) - 31 agosto -
5 settembre 1964, Milan, 1966.
T. Gregory, Anima mundi. La Filosofia di Guglielmo di Conches e la
Scuola di Chartres, Firenze, 1955.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
—, Abélard et Platon, in Peter Abelard, ed. E. M. Buytaert, pp. 38-64.

—, Ratio et Natura chez Abélard, in Pierre Abélard - Pierre le Vénérable,
pp. 569-581.
—, The Platonic Inheritance, in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philo-
sophy, ed. P. Dronke, pp. 54-80.
N. M. Häring, Die vierzehn Capitula Haeresum Petri Abaelardi, in
Cîteaux, XXXI, 1980, pp. 35-52.
Ch. H. Haskins, Studies in the History of Science, Cambridge, Mass., 1927.
R. Heyder, Auctoritas scripturae: Schriftauslegung und Theologieverständnis
Peter Abelards unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der “Expositio in
Hexaemeron,” BGPTMA N.F. Bd. 74 (2010).
J. Jolivet, Éléments du concept de nature chez Abélard, in La Filosofia della
Natura nel Medioevo, pp. 297-304.
—, Notes de lexicographie abélardienne, in Pierre Abélard - Pierre le Vénéra-
ble, pp. 531-545.
E. Kearney, Peter Abelard as Biblical Commentator: A Study of the Expo-
sitio in Hexaemeron, in Petrus Abaelardus (1079-1142): Person, Werk,
und Wirkung, ed. R. Thomas, Trier, 1980, pp. 199-210.
A. Landgraf, Écrits théologiques de l’École d’Abélard, Spicilegium sacrum
lovaniense 14, Louvain, 1934.
M. Lapidge, The Stoic Inheritance, in A History of Twelfth-Century Western
Philosophy, ed. P. Dronke, pp. 81-112, at pp. 99-112.
D. E. Luscombe, Nature in the Thought of Peter Abelard, in La Filosofia
della Natura nel Medioevo, pp. 314-319.
C. J. Mews, The Lists of Heresies Imputed to Peter Abelard, in RB, XCV,
1985, pp. 73-110.
—, On dating the works of Peter Abelard, AHDLMA 52, 1985, pp. 73-134.
—, In Search of a Name and its Significance: A Twelfth-Century Anecdote
about Thierry and Peter Abelard, in Traditio, 44, 1988, pp. 171-200.
Pierre Abélard - Pierre le Vénérable. Les courants philosophiques, littéraires et
artistiques en Occident au milieu du XIIe siècle. Abbaye de Cluny, 2 au 9
juillet 1972. Colloques internationaux de Centre National de la Recher-
che Scientifique, No. 546, Paris, 1975.
M. Foster Romig, A Critical Edition of Peter Abelard’s Expositio in
Hexaemeron, Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Southern California,
Berkeley, 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Somfai, The Transmission and Reception of Plato’s “Timaeus” and Chal-

cidius’ “Commentary” during the Carolingian Renaissance, Ph. D. Dis-
sertation, University of Cambridge, 1998.
A. Speer, Die entdeckte Natur. Untersuchungen zu Begründungsversuchen
einer “scientia naturalis” im 12, Jahrhundert, Studien und Texte zur
Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 45 Leiden, 1995.
F. Stegmüller, Repertorium biblicum medii aevi, 11 vols, Madrid, 1940-
1980.
B. Stock, Myth and Science in the Twelfth Century: A Study of Bernard Sil-
vester, Princeton, N. J., 1972.
R. Thomas (ed.), Petrus Abaelardus (1079-1142): Person, Werk, und
Wirkung, Trier, 1980.
D. van den Eynde, Chronologie des écrits d’Abélard à Héloise, in, Antonia-
num, 37, 1962, pp. 337-49.
W. Wetherbee, Philosophy, Cosmology, and the Twelfth-Century
Renaissance, in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed.
P. Dronke, pp. 21-53.

AN EXPOSITION ON THE
SIX-DAY WORK
PREFACE
1 There are three places in the Old Testament which experts 3

in Sacred Scripture consider to be among the more difficult to
understand: namely, the beginning of Genesis according to the
historical sense of the divine work, and the Song of Songs, and
the prophecy of Ezechiel, especially in the first vision about the
animals and the wheels, and in the last about the city built upon
a hill. 2 Hence they say that among the Hebrews it is custom-
ary that because of their extreme difficulty interpretation of the
aforesaid Scriptures was to be entrusted only to the mature judg-
ment of older persons, as Origen also notes in his first homily
on the Song of Songs saying: “They say also that it is maintained
among the Hebrews that unless one has attained the age of per-
fect maturity, he is not permitted to take this book in hand. But
we have learned from them that it is their tradition that all scrip-
tures are handed on by teachers to their sons, that four books are
reserved for the last, that is, the beginning of Genesis, where the
creation of the world is described, and the beginning of Ezechiel
the prophet where there is mention of the cherubim, as well as
the end, including the construction of the temple, and this Song
of Songs.”a 3 Hence also there is Jerome’s statement in the pro-
logue to his exposition on Ezechiel: “Let me begin Ezechiel the
prophet, the difficulty of which is demonstrated by a tradition
of the Hebrews. For unless one of them has attained the age of
priestly ministry, that is, thirty years, he is not allowed to read the 4
beginning of Genesis, nor the Song of Songs, nor the beginning
a
Origen, In Canticum canticorum, praef. (PG 13, 63D-64A).

AN EXPOSITION ON THE SIX-DAY WORK
and end of this volume, so that the mature season of human nature
may reach perfect knowledge and mystical understanding.”a
4 And so by pleading you demand and by demanding you plead,
sister Heloise, once dear in the world, now most dear in Christ, that I
might look into the interpretation of these texts, so much the more zeal-
ously, the more difficult their meaning is known to be, and especially
that I should explain this for you and your spiritual daughters. Hence
also I ask you, who ask, that you who compel me to this by asking, obtain
strength for me by your prayer to God. And since, as they say, one should
begin from the beginning, may your prayers help me so much the more
in the beginning of Genesis, the more difficult it is known to be than
most other [texts], as the very rarity of its interpretation testifies.
5 For while many have made numerous moral or mystical
interpretations of Genesis, the penetrating genius of the most
blessed Augustine alone among us [Latin authors] has attempted
to expound the historical interpretation here. He recognized that
it was so difficult that he put forward what he said therein more
by way of opinion than by way of confident assertion, or more by
seeking hesitantly, than by defining confidently, as though he were
following the Aristotelian advice, “Perhaps,” he said, “it may be dif-
5 ficult to pronounce confidently on such matters, unless they be fre-
quently examined. But it will not be useless to question particular
things.”b 6 And as the aforesaid Teacher stated in the second of his
twelve books of Retractations, when he was going to reconsider the
[treatise] on Genesis according to the letter, “In that work more
things are sought than discovered, and of those that are discovered
few are certain, in fact the rest are set down as if they were yet to
be found out.”c 7 But because things said in this work also seem so
obscure to you that the very interpretation seems to require inter-
preting, you urgently requested our opinion on interpretation of the
aforesaid beginning of Genesis. In fact you must know that I now
begin that interpretation in such a way, at the insistence of your
pleas, that when you see me fail, you may expect that apostolic excuse
from me, “I am made a fool, you compel me to it” (II Cor. 12, 11).
End of prologue.
a
Jerome, In Ezech., prol. (CCL 75, pp. 3-4).
b
Boethius, In categorias Aristotelis II (PL 64, 238D).
c
Augustine, Retractationes 2, 24 (CCL 57, p. 109).

EXPOSITION
8 Scrutinizing the immense abyss of profundity, Genesis by a

threefold interpretation, namely historical, moral, and mystical, let
us invoke the same Spirit at whose dictation these words were writ-
ten, so that the one who bestowed words upon the prophet may
open their sense for us. First, therefore, as far as he permits, or rather
grants, let us plant the truth of things done as the root of history.a
9 Now the prophet, wishing to entice a carnal people to divine 6
worship, to whom as if to an as yet rough and undisciplined peo-
ple the principles of the older testament were to be conveyed,
first taught them to obey God as the creator and ruler of all
things, namely with the excellence of his corporeal works in the
supremely good creation and arrangement of the world. Each of
which, in fact, he traced with a careful narrative from the very
beginning of the world to his own time.
10 Hence also we properly designate as his material, this very
thing which we called the creation and arrangement of the world,
that is, those very things which divine grace has worked out in
the creation or arrangement of the world. 11 Indeed the apostle
said in regard to the fact that this work leads us to recognition
of the maker, The invisible things of God are seen by the intellect
from the beginning of the world through the things that were made,
etc. (Rom. 1, 20) For whoever wishes to understand about any
maker whether he is good or expert in his craft ought to con-
sider not him, but his work. So also God, who is invisible and
incomprehensible in himself, confers on us the first knowledge
a
Cf. Abelard, TChr II, 126: triplici expositio, Hymnarius 2, 3-4: triplex intel-
ligentia (ed. Szoverffy, pp. 19-20; PL 178, 1775D-1776A).

of himself from the magnitude of his works, since all human

knowledge arises from the senses.a 12 Carefully attentive to that
fact, Moses decided to write this Old Testament in five books,
according to the five senses, for that carnal and sensual people
unprepared for spiritual understanding, taking his beginning
from this very beginning of divine creation, and in so doing fol-
lowing the natural order. Hence we properly designate this same
[divine] work as the prophet’s matter.b
7 13 His intention, in fact, is what we have already mentioned,
namely by the telling or teaching of these things to entice an as
yet carnal people to the worship of God at least through his vis-
ible works, so that indeed we may understand from these things
how much obedience we owe to God who both created us in his
image and, lodging us in paradise, placed us in authority over
other creatures, as if everything were created for our sake, as
has been written, Thou hast placed all things under his feet, etc.
(Ps. 8, 8). 14 [God] did not abandon us without his favors even
when we were cast out of paradise after sin, but never ceased to
invite us with the utmost solicitude to forgiveness, sometimes by
attracting through gentleness, sometimes by instructing with the
law, sometimes by reinforcing with miracles, sometimes by deter-
ring with threats, sometimes by enticing with promises. In fact,
as we have mentioned, Moses, setting all this forth by a careful
narrative from the beginning of the world to his own day, began
as follows.
Concerning the work of the first day
15 In the beginning God created heaven and

earth. Under the names of heaven and earth in this passage I
consider the four elements to be understood, from which in the
a
Cf. Abelard, TSum III, 2 (67) (CCM 13 ll. 854-855).
b
Abelard employs the accessus ad auctorem to introduce the author’s inten-
tion, material, and method of treatment; see E. A. Quain, “The Medieval Accessus
ad auctorem,” Traditio 3 (1945) 215-64.

EXPOSITION, 11-20
sense of a material origin it is certain that all other bodies are

composed. In fact, [the prophet] names the two lighter elements,
namely fire as well as air, heaven. He generally calls the other two,
which are heavier, earth. 16 Heaven, of course, we call both the 8
aerial, as in “birds of the heavens,” and the aetherial, which is fire.
Hence it is not inappropriate that air as well as fire should be
named heaven here. For it is certain that the aetherial heaven, inso-
far as it is pure fire, is usually called heaven in the proper sense. It
deserves the name of heaven, from the fact that the purer fire is,
the lighter is its nature; as mentioned, it is understood to be set
down here for the two lighter elements, namely fire and air, just as
by contrast he identifies earth itself as well as the water adhering
to it with earth, whose nature is most heavy and weighty. Thus
[the prophet] declares in advance that in the beginning God made
these four elements as the [material] principles of other bodies.
17 And so he says In the beginning, as if to say, “before
he enumerates all those other things which follow,” 18 and
about the completion also of these things he afterwards adds,
Hence were completed the heavens, etc. So he says in
the beginning of the sequence of works, as if he were saying, “in
the beginning of the world”, that is, before [God] was to make
any of these things which are of the world. 19 For the angels,
since they are incorporeal by nature, are not included among
earthly creatures, as are human beings, of whom the Philosopher
remarks in book two of the Topics: “The world,” he says, “is gov-
erned by providence. But human beings are part of the world.
Hence providence governs human affairs.”a 20 But In the
beginning he created this, can also be understood thus, as
if it were said that the very things that we call the elements were
the original cause of the other bodies that were to be made from 9
them. Hence also the elements are rightly named, as it were, “ali-
mentary,” because all the rest draw their being from them, just
as living things are held to live and subsist through the nourish-
ment (alimenta) of food.
a
Boethius, De diff. top. II (PL 64, 1188C).

21 But it is properly said in regard to the elements that he

created rather than that he formed, because what is properly
said to be created is brought from non-being to being as if it did
not have pre-existing matter nor previously subsisted in any state
of nature. But when something is made from pre-existing matter
by the addition of form, it is rightly said to be formed, as is the
case where it is stated in what follows, Then he formed the
human being from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2, 7).
And again, Therefore when all the living things were
formed from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2, 19). For when
preexisting matter is indicated, as for example when it is stated in
advance about the dust that it would be formed into some shape,
then it is most correctly said to be formed.
Lest perhaps it trouble someone that several philosophers
have also considered the four elements to be the matter which
they have called hyle, one should know that this is said by the
philosophers not as regards the act of existence but as regards
the ordering of nature, that is, they place every genus before
species as its matter, just as animal comes before human.
Granted that in the very creation of the human being, through
the act of existence, the nature of animal scarcely precedes
human nature—that is, since we do not believe that that which
10 is human was animal before it was human, nor that it was ever
right for an animal or any genus to exist except in some species
of its own—so also the corporeal nature which they call hyle
they set down as the matter of individual elements, from which
indeed they say singulars are constituted with the forms of sin-
gular elements taken up as if from matter. But I suppose that
the corporeal substance is called hyle, that is silva [or wood],
especially because the wooden material in which we most
often work presents itself as highly tractable for being shaped.
So also we recognize corporeal substance to be most receptive
to a succession of forms or qualities, because it does not cease
to be changed not only by accidental but even by substantial
[forms] and to be varied by species, so that what was once
inanimate then may be animate, and the reverse. And what is
now one [species], dissolved by death, changes into another

EXPOSITION, 21-24
species, and by a continuous flowing forth or flowing back

physical nature does not cease to be varied and to be changed
through species. That does not happen to incorporeal things.
For the essence of a quality does not change into diverse spe-
cies, so that it is now white, ceases to be that, and may be black
or something else, or might acquire parts through something
flowing into or flowing out of it, nor would the fact of white-
ness ever have previously existed somehow as something other
than white, and when it ceased to be white, it would not retain
the status of an essence. Hence, so much the less variable and
mobile some accidents are than substances, so much the more
truly they would attribute true being to them.a
22 But the earth was empty and void. Because that
treatise, by which, as we said, the prophet intended to draw
us to the worship of God, tends especially towards the crea-
tion of the human being [who was] to be formed from the
earth and to be returned to the earth, he turns his pen to the 11
earthly work, omitting the creation of the celestial and supe-
rior nature, that is, the angelic, lest perhaps if he were to pur-
sue it and demonstrate its excellence to the praise of its creator,
he would attract us less to the love of a God who might appear
to prefer another nature to our own. 23 Beginning, therefore,
with the fact that the earth stood empty and void at its crea-
tion, he explains how afterward the divine work took thought
for its emptiness and vacuity with the works of the subsequent
days. The earth was called empty of fruit, which it had not
yet produced; it was void of inhabitants, not only of human
beings, but also of all other kinds of living things, since no
dwelling place as yet contained living things, whether earthly
or aquatic, both of which, as we have said, are included under
the term earth. Hence, as [we have] explained, he names earth
this lower region of the world consisting of the heavy elements.
24 And it should be noted that when he says, but the earth
was empty and void, he [subtly] implies by the addition
a
Cf. Plato, Timaeus 50E, Calcidius, Comm. 123, 268, 318, 344 (ed. Waszink,
pp. 167, 273, 314, 336).

of that adversative conjunction “but” that this was not to be

understood of the heavens, since the angels who are said in a
sense to be the inhabitants of heaven are evidently understood
to be created either before heaven or together with heaven, so
that even though the prophet does not describe their creation,
he touches on it in passing, lest anything appear to have been
omitted from his account of the divine works.
25 And there were shadows over the face of the
abyss. He calls the abyss, that is, the depth, all that confused
mass of the elements that are not yet distinct as they would be
12 afterward. In fact a number of philosophers or poets call this con-
fused mass chaos, for what is deep is less evident and open to sight.
26 And so that mass of elements not yet divided into ordered
parts so that it could be open to our knowledge or sight, even if a
human being had been created, is called the abyss. The Face, in
fact, by which everyone is recognized, is set down for knowledge.
Hence “the face” of the abyss was obscured by shadows, that is,
knowledge of that mass was hampered by its own confusedness,
so that it did not present itself visibly to anyone nor was any of its
usefulness evident to the praise of the Creator.
27 And the Spirit of the Lord moved upon the
waters. The Hebrew has “hovered over the face of the
waters.” One translation in fact has “brooded upon the waters,”
and another has “moved upon the waters,” just as it appears in the
one we have here to hand, and it occurs to us to explain first. 28 As
far as we can tell, therefore, that fluid and unstable mass, not yet
established in a fixed arrangement of its parts, is actually included
under the name of waters. Over this, accordingly, the Spirit of
the Lord hovered, because, so that it might be set in order,
divine grace was arranging it in subjection to its command, lest in
fact it should continue to be empty or void or shadowy or fluid. 29
For what is the Spirit of God understood to be if not his goodness,
by participation in which all things are good? To be sure, because
13 the goodness of God was not yet revealed in that confusion of the
elements, it is said rather to move over them than in them, because
it had not yet wrought in them that whence it might present

EXPOSITION, 24-34
something useful. 30 Hence he does not say in appreciation of this

work “God saw that it was good,” as [he says] on the excellence of
the other works. [The prophet] attentively says, hovered over
the waters rather than “was,” as if showing that [the Spirit]
had a kind of movement upon those things, so that it might lead
them from shadows unto light, not that it had a permanent place
in things which it did not intend to leave in this disorder.
31 As we said, there is also another translation, And the
Spirit of the Lord brooded over the waters, namely
in the manner of a bird which sits on an egg, so as to warm and
vivify it. Hence also we rightly call the Spirit life-giver. But that
confused mass is rightly compared to an egg not yet vivified or
formed, in which as in an egg, containing in itself four parts, four
elements are comprehended. 32 In fact there is the outer shell
on the egg, then the inner web, that is a kind of cartilage adher-
ing to the shell, and afterward the white, then the middle of the
egg, like its pith. That middle part of the egg, which we call the
yolk, is rather like the earth in the world, the white is like water
adhering to the earth, the membrane like air, the shell like fire. It
is well known that the chick is formed and brought forth from
the yolk and the white. 33 And this book records that from earth
or from water all living things were produced or formed. Hence
just as the bird sitting on the egg, and applying itself to it with the
utmost affection, warms it with its heat so that thence, as was said,
the chick is formed and vivified so also divine goodness, which is 14
understood to be the Holy Spirit, both is properly called the love of
God which, poured into the hearts of believers, makes them fervent
unto God, and also somehow makes warm by its heat that as yet
fluid and unstable mass [of the material elements] said to preexist as
waters so that from then on it might produce living things, because
it subjected it to itself, that is to say, in its power, so that from then
on it might form the human being and other living things like the
chick from the egg and might give life to what was formed.
34 In fact it should be noted that when we say the spirit
of the Lord moved upon the waters, the Hebrew has
“ruauh” for “spirit,” which can mean wind as well as spirit; and

where we say moved upon the waters, in Hebrew it is “was

hovering over the face of the waters,” as we also mentioned above,
and subsequently it is described elsewhere in the [writings of the]
same prophet as flying, when it is said: like an eagle urging its
young to fly and flying over them (Deut. 32, 11). 35 And so because
God’s wind is said just then to fly, that is, to blow over the face
of the waters, it is perhaps as if it were said according to the letter
that just then a wind sent into the waters by God tossed upward
their upper part, which in any mass of water is always known to
be lighter, so that in fact they would afterward be established in
a suspended form. 36 For when [God] later says, Let there
be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and then,
Let the waters that were below the firmament be
divided from those that were above, he implies that
they were already divided, but were not yet established. Nor
should you marvel that the wind sent by the Lord into the waters
should in this place be called the Spirit of God by Moses, since
the prophet has the same thing elsewhere as if idiomatically: In
15 the Spirit of your fury the waters are gathered (Ex. 15, 10). 37 And
again: Your Spirit blew and parted the waters for them (Ex. 15, 10).
Nor is it surprising that a wind sent by the Lord should be called
Spirit, when an evil spirit which he sometimes permits to rage is
called an evil spirit of the Lord, as we read in [the case of] Saul (cf.
I Reg. 16, 14-15). 38 But the wind that was sent into the waters,
and lifting them up so that they covered the whole world, rightly
prefigures the type of our regeneration through water and the
Spirit. For the Holy Spirit gives this element preeminence in rank
over the others, and makes it superior to them, when it bestows
on it the benefits of its grace, so that the sins of any human beings
whatever are so covered over or washed away by the sprinkling of
baptismal water that no bodily penance remains at all.
39 But even if one were to trace this to the natural order of the
elements – as one might say that water is surrounded by air, or
that the heavens go around the air, and the Spirit at that time hov-
ered over the waters in such a way that it moved around them as
if by its swift lightness – it would appear that here also the natural

EXPOSITION, 34-45
order of things agreed with the thought except perhaps that, when
Spirit is said of air, of the Lord is added, which is not ever
said of earth or the other elements. But perhaps the prophet wrote
this the more carefully the more perfectly he understood both
the actual event and the mystical sense. 40 Hence “the Spirit of
the Lord moved over the waters” is as if to say “the wind blew on
them,” offering the type of the Holy Spirit who would make the
waters of baptism fecund by his grace and would somehow breathe
into them this benefit. 41 Consequently, since the prophet had
previously made explicit mention of heaven and earth, saying He
created heaven and earth, and in this had plainly included
the two elements, namely fire and earth - especially since one usu- 16
ally understands by the name of heaven and earth none other than
the terrestrial element and the igneous, from which the outer
sphere of the world is [made], that is aether, which is properly
called heaven – he also subsequently takes care to mention explic-
itly the two others, namely water and air. 42 While he did not say
plainly that they were created then, like the former, even though,
as we said, these also are included in their names, he took care now
to single them out clearly so that he might carefully announce that
the whole structure of the world is founded in these four.
43 And God said Let there be light. This utterance of
God is the Word of the Father, which we understand to be his
coeternal wisdom, in which originally everything is arranged
before being put into effect, as it is written, Who made [the hea-
vens in his intellect] (Ps. 135, 5), he made, I say, the things that were
to be, arranging before putting the work into effect. 44 Hence
just as it is the word of his mouth, so it is called the word of his
heart, according to that [text]: They conversed heart to heart (Ps.
11, 3). When therefore, regarding the various creations of things,
the prophet says first God said and immediately links its effect
to what is said, saying, and so it was made, he shows that
God created all things in his Word, that is in his wisdom, that is,
nothing suddenly or hastily, but everything reasonably and provi-
dently. 45 Of him the psalmist also said, He spoke, and they were
made, (Ps. 32, 9) that is, with reason or providence leading the

17 way he made or arranged all things. Elsewhere, too, showing more

openly that this Word is not an audible and transitory word but
intelligible and permanent, he said: He made the heavens in his
intellect, (Ps. 135, 5) that is, resolving upon them by reason within
himself before completing them by [his] work, as if the creation
of all things were twofold: one at first in the decree of divine prov-
idence, the other in the work.
46 The philosophers add that just as there are two creations,
there are two worlds, namely one intelligible, the other sentient.
Nor does this conflict with Gospel teaching if we are attentive
to the truth of the thought rather than to the peculiarity of the
words; indeed, it is written in the Gospel about this same Word
of God: What was made was life in him (John 1, 3-4). 47 But that
the philosophers also call the concept of divine providence a
world in itself appears to many to differ from the usage of ecclesi-
astical language. Hence Augustine stated in his first Retractation:
“It displeases me that I said that the philosophers, not endowed
with true piety, shone forth with the light of virtue, and that I
commended the two worlds, one sentient, the other intelligible,
as if the Lord also wished to indicate this, because he did not say:
‘My kingdom is not of the world,’ but My kingdom is not of this
world (John 18, 36)”.a 48 And again: “And Plato was not in fact
mistaken in this, because he said that there is an intelligible world,
18 if we do pay attention in this matter to the thing itself, not a word
which is very unusual in ecclesiastical usage. For he named that
intelligible world the very reason by which God made the world.
If one denies this, it follows that one says that God made what
he made irrationally.”b 49 Likewise, On the City of God, book 16,
carefully describing this interior speech of God, and this intel-
lectual, not audible word he says: “God’s speech before his act is
the immutable reason for this act of his; it does not have a sound
bursting forth and passing away, but has a force which remains
everlasting and acts in time.”c
a
Augustine, Retractationes I, 3 (CCL 57, p. 12).
b
Augustine, Retractationes I, 3 (CCL 57, pp. 2-13).
c
Augustine, De Civitate Dei XVI, 6 (CCL 48, p. 507).

EXPOSITION, 45-54
50 And so when it is said: God said: Let there be light,

and there was light, it is as if to say that he first arranged it
in the word of his mind, that is, decreed by his own reason that
it was to be made, and then afterward completed the work. In
fact, we understand that light by which he removed the aforesaid
shadows of the abyss to be the distinction itself of the works that
follow, through which indeed that commingled mass, which did
not as yet present itself to sight, nor could have been recognized
by anyone as apt for use, nor yet could be perceived as having a
purpose for its creation, was reduced to such order that it might
appear entirely suitable for these.
51 And there was light. This is, God completed by works
what he had arranged in the word of his mind, so that in fact
that disorder which we call darkness was removed by the light
of the distinctions that follow. Nor should it be forgotten that
previously in the creation of heaven and earth it was not writ-
ten: God spoke and so it was made, just as we see written in 19
what follows work by work; but at first God was, as it were,
silent, and after the creation of light began to speak. 52 And
rightly so. For the Lord says Let there be, as if commanding,
and the creature subject to him obeys, no matter how irrational
or brute it may be, as if it heard and understood the command,
just as Jeremiah also mentions, saying: He completed the earth
and filled it with cattle. He called it and it heard with a shud-
der. But the stars gave forth the light in their custody and they
rejoiced. They were called and they said, ‘We are here,’ and shone
forth with joy (Bar. 3, 32-35).
53 How, in fact, would words of command have fittingly been
spoken when matter was not yet created, nor any existing thing
to which orders might be given? Moreover, on the first occa-
sion when the work of God had come into the light, the prophet
represented well that utterance of God, this is, his Word, of
whom it is written: He was the true light who enlightens every
human being, etc. (John 1, 9). 54 For God somehow first began
to speak to human beings and to reveal himself through the light
of his works, just as the apostle clearly taught, saying: For his

invisible things are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being
understood through the things that are made, etc. (Rom. 1, 20).
55 And so while that as yet confused mixture offered itself nei-
ther to human sight nor to knowledge, nor appeared apt for any
use, whether to angel or to human being (if one had by then been
created), God is shown to have been somehow silent, because he
had not yet done anything in it on account of which he could
say something, that is, instruct human reason and offer some
knowledge of his excellence.
20 56 In fact it should be noted that in this same beginning of
Genesis the prophet carefully expresses the foundation of our
faith about the unity and trinity of God. For when he said: the
Spirit of the Lord, he clearly designates the person of the
Holy Spirit and of the Father from whom that same Spirit (as
blessed Augustine mentions)a principally proceeds. Indeed, in that
he adds: God said, he clearly portrays the speech of that same
God, that is, his Word who is the Son, together with the Father
himself. And as a matter of fact no one in their right mind can be
so stupid as to suppose that this is corporeal speech, since the deity
is not corporeal nor does he have corporeal speech, nor yet was
there anyone present to whom he should have spoken corporeally.
57 But where we say: God made, for the word God the
Hebrew has “Elohim”, which shows the plurality of the divine per-
sons. “El” in fact is the singular, which is translated God; “Elo-
him” is actually plural, by which we understand the diversity of
Persons, each one of whom is God. 58 But it is prudently said,
“Elohim created”, not “they created”, so that in fact a singular
verb refers to a plural name; since it is implied that in those three
Persons we ought to understand not three creators, but only one.
59 And so when [the prophet] said “Elohim created”, in which
he taught that all three divine Persons worked together equally,
he established right away that the works of the Trinity are undi-
vided. But when afterwards, as we said, he distinguished the per-
sons of the Father, the Spirit, and the Word, he defined that in
which the Trinity consists.
a
Augustine, De trinitate XV, 27 (CCL 50A, 503).

EXPOSITION, 54-66
60 In fact it should be noted that where we say: Let there 21

be light, and there was light, the Hebrew has: “Be
light, and it was light”; and similarly in the rest of what fol-
lows, wherever we have: God said: let there be this, and
so it was made, in Hebrew it is: “Be” this, “and so it was.”
61 By these words, perhaps, the swiftness of the divine work
is expressed. For when something comes into being which did
not yet exist, there can be some delay in making it be. When, to
be sure, the expression is “be”, and “it was”, it shows that there
was no intervening delay.
62 And God saw the light, that it was good. When
it is said in the case of individual works of God after their
completion that God saw that it was good, it is as if to say, “he
knew nothing was done there by mistake that needed to be cor-
rected”; he also signified something was perfect by comparison
with prior imperfection. God highly approved of the light, that
is, the differentiation of works, because by it he displayed for us
the praise of his excellence, since praise of the work redounds
to the maker. 63 Hence also in regard to those things which
he made for the sake of the human being, when it is said that
he saw that they were good, I believe it is in no way to be bet-
ter understood than that he arranged them so that he actually
makes us see that they are good, just as he also says to Abra-
ham: Now I know that you fear God (Gen. 22, 12), that is, “I have
made it known.” 64 Hence he is not said to approve the work
of the second day, namely in the raising of the upper waters,
since that work, of which we in no wise perceive the reason and
advantage, does not make us praise him.
65 And He divided light from darkness. That is, he
divided by his work the completed from the incomplete, and the
distinct from the disordered. But where [Moses] said above: And 22
God said: let there be, and there was light, he showed
that the light was made at God’s command. 66 But when he says
here: And he divided light from darkness, he shows that
this differentiation of the works (which he calls light) was made
by [God], so that he is understood to be the creator as well as the

shaper of matter and that all praise as much for the creation of
matter as for the formation of works is attributed to him.
67 And he named light day and darkness night.
That is, he made them worthy of the name, so that the completed
differentiation of the works is actually called day by a simile, and
that confusion which came before, and was called darkness above,
is called night.
68 And it was evening and morning day one. Here
the totality of all the completed works of God is called day one,
first retained in the mind and afterward finished in the six-day
work. But evening of this entire time, which is here called day
one, names the entirety of that work of God in so far as it was
first concealed in his mind before it was brought forth into the
light through completion. 69 And again that same work is named
morning in so far as it afterward presented itself visibly in the
completed work. And so the [prophet] calls the concept in the
divine mind for planning future works evening; but names morn-
ing the actual working out of that concept and the effect of the
divine arrangement finished in six days. 70 And so when it is
said: And it was evening and morning day one, it is as
if to say, “it is the same work which first lay hidden in the mind
of God as if in twilight, and which afterward bursts forth to the
23 light through completion of the works.” That is to say, “just as he
first conceived it in mind, so afterward he completed it in works,”
according to what is written: What was made, was life in him.
(John 1, 3-4). For God brought forth each particular thing as
though from his secret hiding place, when he displayed through
the work what he previously conceived in his mind; and the work
did not differ from the concept, when what was decided in his
mind was completed in the work.
71 Since, therefore, he embraces as much in the evening as in
the morning the sum total of the divine works, namely the con-
cepts in the mind as well as the things displayed in the work, as
we said, it is rightly called day one, rather than the “first day”,
for, since it includes all the works, there is no day of works with
respect to which “first” can here be said. Indeed the unity of this

EXPOSITION, 66-77
day demonstrates the great harmony and fittingness of the divine

works, namely in the sum total of so many different works. 72 In
fact, the prophet himself declares in what follows that this one
great day is all the time of that divine work, saying: These are the
generations of heaven and earth when they were created, on the day
when the Lord made heaven and earth and every growing thing of
the fields, etc.(Gen. 2, 4-5) 73 In fact when he says in what fol-
lows “the second day” or “the third”, etc. he understands the first
day [to be] when heaven and earth are created, as it was said: In
the beginning God created heaven and earth, but not
when light was created or divided from the darkness. 74 For in
fact in regard to the works that are to be ascribed to the first day,
only the creation of heaven and earth pertains to the work of the
first day; it is with respect to the first day that we may speak of a
second or third day, so that In the beginning he created
may be [understood] as if to say, “on the first day”, that is, before
the works that follow. In fact it was necessary for matter to be
created before being formed. 75 However, if someone were to
refer the statement: And it was evening and morning day 24
one, to the work only of the first day, just as in fact it is on the
remaining days about their work, there is no objection. For God
first knew in thought, as it were in the evening, both matter itself
and what materialized from it, before he brought [them] forth in
the morning through creation.
Concerning the second [day]
76 God also said. Certainly, it should be noted that in

these divine utterances, our translation sometimes has God also
said, sometimes Indeed God said, or moreover, or fur-
thermore, which is the same, sometimes as above, And God
said, when the Hebrew truth everywhere has “and God said.” 77
Indeed, according to our explanation above the Hebrew truth is
especially fitting at this point, so that here namely it should say,
“and God said,” rather than God also said. As we have said,

the differentiation of all the subsequent works is understood in

the light that was made; the conjunction also should not be sup-
posed to signify some kind of increase here. The work of this day
and of all the other days is already included in the making of light.
78 The Hebrew and he said distinguishes light was made and
continues what was said before. That is to say, light was made
and the former confusion was given definition as God said. And so
it was made at the command of his utterance, thereby differentiat-
ing what was happening both now and afterward. And God said,
etc. refers to the first act of differentiation now. 79 God said, that
is, in his coeternal Word, as it had already been determined. He
arranged it beforehand in the providence of his wisdom before
carrying out the work.
25 80 Let a firmament be made in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the
waters. Firmament he calls the aerial together with the aeth-
erial heaven, in regard to which it is said: And the waters
which are above the heavens, which now lie between each
of them, between these lower waters or the earth and those upper
waters. 81 At any rate it is called firmament because it supports
the fluid nature of the upper waters by its permanent interposi-
tion, lest they flow down and sink back. Hence also Jerome says:
“The word Samaym in Hebrew, that is, the heavens, namely the
aetherial and the aerial, which Moses here names firmament, is
derived from waters, that is, it is so named for the fact that it
establishes the waters above in such a way that they should not
flow lower down”.a
82 Now it may be asked how fire and air are able to support the
substance of water, which is heavier. But really these waters can
be so fine and so thin, and the mass of fire and air that underlie
it can be so great that it can be supported by them, just as wood
and some stones can be supported by water, even though they
are of an earthy and heavier nature. 83 For who does not know
that even though it is lighter than the waters, air adjacent to them
nevertheless suspends and supports them as vapor drawn from
a
Cf. Jerome, Epist. LXIX ad Oceanum, 6 (CSEL 54, i, p. 689).

EXPOSITION, 77-91
an exhalation of the earth, before they condense into droplets?

84 If therefore those upper waters are finer and less corpulent than
these water vapors, why could they not be permanently supported
by fire together with air, just as these more corpulent waters are
suspended even now by air alone? 85 For it is obvious that both
dense clouds and the enormous bodies of dragons or of birds are 26
supported by air. 86 Nor does any believer doubt that human
bodies, even though they are of an earthy nature, will be so fine
and so light after the resurrection that not only will they be able
to exist above the heavens, but also that they may be moved with-
out delay wherever the spirit wills. 87 Furthermore, who does not
know that when air is enclosed in a football the encompassing skin
of the football is supported and upheld on all sides, even though
[the air] itself is certainly lighter than the skin? On the contrary, it
can even support the weight of any number of bodies as long as it
can be kept enclosed within [the ball].
88 So also the accumulation and cluster of air and fire,
enclosed within the thickness of the waters, is not prevented in
any way by its lightness from supporting and sustaining them,
nor can that surrounding water, which encircles the fire and air
on all sides, sink down in any way until fire and air yield to it at
some point, because the place of one body cannot be occupied
by another unless the former were to be withdrawn from that
place. 89 But in fact air as well as fire are enclosed on all sides by
encompassing waters, lest perhaps they could fly away, and on all
sides they are covered by waters, because in every sphere what is
on the outside is higher [than what is on the inside]. 90 But so
that they may contain and enclose it, there must be some weight
involved, and so moderately that it can be supported by them. It
is indeed certain, as was stated, that there are only two heavy ele-
ments, namely earth and water, and earth is heavier than water.
Hence, so that the weight should be more moderate, water, which
can more easily be supported by the lighter [elements], ought to
be placed above them rather than earth.
91 Finally, who can reasonably deny that in those bodies
which are constituted from the four elements, whether ani-
mate or inanimate, these four elements are so joined to

27 each other that a number of particles of the lighter elements

support some particles of the heavier ones? 92 For the lower
parts of any large body do not lack an admixture of the ele-
ments of fire or air deep within, just as the upper parts in turn
are not devoid of water and earth; but the upper as well as the
lower parts of this body consist of the four elements, joined
to each other by a kind of harmonious natural moderation,
according to what is said to God: “You who bind the elements
by number.”a Well then what is surprising if in the composi-
tion of the world the water which is heavier than they are could
be put above fire and air, and even be supported by them?
93 But some have claimed that those upper waters were hard-
ened to the solidity of ice, and into crystal. If indeed that is the
case, the more solid they are, the more powerfully do they keep
fire and air enclosed lest they drift up somewhere else, and so
much the more strongly are they supported by them; it is perhaps
not even necessary for [the waters] to be supported by them, now
that they are not fluid but in crystalline solidity. 94 Hence Jose-
phus [states] in book one of the Antiquities: “On the second day
he established heaven over all, and distinguishing it from the rest,
he ordered it to be established in itself, and fixing around it a crys-
tal, he made it suitable to be moist and rainy for the benefit which
comes from the rains of the earth.”b 95 Jerome [states in his letter]
to Oceanus, about the husband of one wife: “In between heaven
and earth a middle firmament is extended and according to the
etymology of the Hebrew word heaven, that is ‘samaym,’ the word
is derived from waters; and the waters which are above
28 the heavens were divided unto the praises of the Lord. Hence
also Ezechiel: A crystal was seen extended over the cherubim, that is
the compact and denser waters (cf. Ez. 1, 22; 10, 1).”c 96 Bede, On
the Nature of Things: “The heaven of the upper circle contains
the angelic virtues. Going out to us, these assume aetherial bodies,
so that they can be like human beings even in eating, and they set
a
Boethius, Philos. consolatio III, met. IX, 10 (CCL 94, p. 52).
b
Josephus, Antiquit. I, 1, cf. Dindorfius, ed., I, p. 4.
c
Jerome, Ep. LXIX ad Oceanum, 6 (CSEL 54, i, p. 689).

EXPOSITION, 91-102
them aside when they return there. God tempered this [heaven]
with glacial waters, lest it set fire to the lower elements. Hence,
the lower heaven is called the firmament on account of its sup-
port of the upper waters.”a 97 And again: “Some assert that the
waters placed over the firmament, lower indeed than the spiritual
heavens but above all corporeal creatures, were reserved for the
inundation of the flood, others in fact more correctly affirm that
they are poised to temper the fire of the stars.”b
98 In fact, blessed Augustine, setting aside those conjectures
about the upper waters, namely whether they be frozen or not, or
what sort of use they had in themselves, said: “Truly, what kinds
of waters were there, or for what use they were reserved, the Crea-
tor himself knows; nevertheless there is no doubt that they are
there, by the testimony of Scripture.”c Well then, it would appear
the height of arrogance for us to settle a question that so great a
teacher abandoned as if unsure of himself. 99 That some actu-
ally take the view that [the waters] were established and reserved
for the inundation of the flood, so that overflowing thence, they 29
would cover the earth with their abundance, proves to be entirely
frivolous. 100 For when the psalmist living long after the flood
said: And let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name
of the Lord, (Ps. 148, 4-5) it certainly confirms that they exist there
now just as before. For he does not actually say “that were” but
that are. But if some part were fallen thence, the firmament would
not have been placed under that part; it did not uphold them to
prevent them overflowing later.
101 Moreover it is well known, as Genesis relates, that the
flood occurred out of an abundance of rain and also when the
springs of the great abysses burst. When these were afterward
sealed up and the rains halted, the deluge itself ceased. 102 But
it is held to be certain that the rains do not arise from anywhere
except the exhalation of the earth, namely when the sun warming
them to the point of evaporation attracts the waters, as fine as
a
Bede, De natura rerum VII (CCL 123A, pp. 197-198).
b
Bede, De natura rerum VIII (CCL 123A, pp. 198-199).
c
Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram II, 5 (CSEL 28, iii, 2, p. 39).

smoke, rising up out of the warmth of the earth. Consequently

that abundance of waters which was in the deluge had its origin
not from above but from below. 103 Where also at the time when
the flood subsided it is added not only that the rains were stopped
but also that the fountains were sealed, it is clearly indicated that
all that abundance of waters in the flood was from nowhere else
than the lower waters, which were gathered together on the third
day so that dry land might appear. 104 When in fact it is said that
the floodgates of heaven were opened in the deluge and there was
rain, [the prophet] refers to the aerial heaven, whence rain falls,
not the aetherial. In fact, by saying floodgates, not narrow open-
ings, he implies the abundance of the rain, as if the air retained
nothing by way of cloud or evaporated water anywhere.
105 And so with the water falling from above as rain, and
bursting forth from the openings of the earth, the earth must
30 necessarily have been covered everywhere by waters, just as it
was on the third day, before these same lower waters were gath-
ered in one place so that dry land might appear. Hence what use
that suspension of the waters might have, when it is not defined
with a reliable opinion by the saints, I consider most difficult
to explain. 106 Nevertheless, the opinion that seems the more
probable to us, is that they were established for the purpose pri-
marily of tempering the heat of the upper fire, lest that burn-
ing upper heat absorb either the very clouds or the lower waters
in their entirety, since the power of fire is naturally attractive of
moisture. Hence also when phlebotomists wish to draw blood
with the application of a small vessel they insert fire by means of
an enclosed wick so that they attract the [moist] humor of blood
with the heat of fire.
107 And it should be noted that where we say Let there be
a firmament in the midst of the waters, the Hebrew
has: “Let there be an extension below the waters,” this is a divid-
ing wall by which each is separated from the other in perpetuity
lest they touch each other further, just as it is written: Extending
the heavens like a skin, who covers their high places with waters.
(Ps. 103, 2-3) And elsewhere: Gathering the waters of the sea as in
a flask (Ps. 32, 7). 108 Hence that extension by which the upper

EXPOSITION, 102-114
and lower waters are separated, like a kind of skin lying between,
encloses the lower waters as if in a flask, and suspends and sup-
ports the upper waters like a firmament.
109 But when [Moses] says: He divided the waters
that were below the firmament, etc. it seems as if he
were saying “he divided [waters] that were already divided.”
For he does not say: “which now are under the firmament and
which [are] above,” but “which” at that time already were.
110 Thence it is clear that since the first day the waters had
already been established over the aether, whether cast up into 31
that place by a burst of wind as we said, or made there in their
very creation and wrapped around the entire world, not lifted
up to that place from the lower regions by any wind. 111 And
so when it is now said “on the second day the waters that were
above were divided from those which were below”, that sepa-
ration through the interposition of the firmament means that
they were so established on the second day that they could not
overflow any further. For although they were already there on
the first day they were nevertheless not yet established there
so that they could not overflow; that was done on the second
day, on which the firmament is said to be made.
112 Nevertheless where we have He divided the waters
which were below the firmament, the Hebrew does
not have were because the substantive verb is rarely or never
used, and it was customary to make statements without this
verb, for example when it says “blessed man” for “blessed is
the man.” That is what it has here as if it were said, “he divided
the waters below the firmament from those above the firma-
ment.” 113 At any rate if “they are” is understood, which is the
present [tense of the] verb, it is as if the prophet says: Then
He divided what [is] now under the firmament, etc. because
in the time of the prophet who speaks, both the firmament
had already existed for a long time, and the separation of the
waters by its interposition was just [the same] as at present.
114 But if anyone were to ask how much time passed before
they were established, wishing to know what that first day was
before the second, he should bear in mind that those six days

in which the world was completed ought not to be measured

32 according to those which we now have by the illumination of
the sun, especially since the sun had not yet been created on
those first three days. 115 When therefore we reckon days in
these works of God and we say that there was morning
and evening one day, we do not interpret day or evening or
morning according to our days as we now know them, but we
distinguish one day from another according to the differentia-
tion of works, in other words the first of God’s works which he
had previously achieved is called the first day. So he was able to
enlighten us with what he knew as the apostle said: For his invi-
sible things, etc. (Rom. 1, 20)116 For even if the unformed matter
created on the first day were less than sufficient for knowledge or
praise of the Creator, as long as it remained in that disorder or
formlessness, nevertheless understanding that the disorder of the
first creation was afterward to be formed and distinguished into
the embellishment of the world which we now use and which is
necessary to us, we henceforth praise God; it was called the first
day with good reason, because thence the beginning of human
knowledge of God began. 117 In fact it was necessary for heaven
and earth, that is, matter for what was to come, to be prepared
in the elements before it was formed in the works that follow.
Accordingly [the prophet] calls the first creation of matter in the
elements the first day, as we have already mentioned above. As
regards the evening as well as the morning of this day, and like-
wise of the rest, we have already spoken.
118 But so that we may now return to what was interrupted,
not omitted – let the reader know that we inserted this – when
he hears one day or another named by the prophet, he should not
understand those intervals of time which we now take as our days,
but trace the difference among days back to the difference among
works, however long the delay in their sequence or their produc-
33 tion. Let no one therefore marvel when he hears that on the sec-
ond day waters are set over heavens already in existence, as if there
were some delay between their existence and their establishment,
since in fact they were established there straight away after they

EXPOSITION, 114-123
came into existence. 119 And so when it is now said, Let there
be a firmament or He divided the waters which were,
etc., that founding or dividing of theirs is so to be understood, that
without delay after they came into existence they were so stabi-
lized and established into an indissoluble crystal-like ice through
the interposition of aether and air lest they overflow to the lower,
even though the watery elements have a certain weightiness by
nature, and according to the philosophers all heavy things are car-
ried toward earth by their own inclination.
120 And perhaps someone may ask at this point, if, as it is
said, those upper waters were hardened into ice positioned over
fire, by what force of nature was that done? To which in the first
place I answer that, when we now seek or assign a force of nature
or natural causes in any outcomes of things, in nowise do we do
it according to that first work of God in the disposition of the
world, where the will of God alone had the power of nature in
those [things] then to be created or arranged; but only after the
work of God completed in six days. 121 We usually identify a
force of nature in the aftermath, when those things are in fact
already so prepared that their constitution or preparation would
be enough to do anything without miracles. Hence we say that
those things which occur though miracles are rather against or
beyond nature than according to nature, since that former pre- 34
paration of things could not suffice for doing it, unless God were
to confer some new power on these things, just as he was also
doing in those six days, where his will alone worked as the force
of nature in each thing to be made. 122 If indeed he were also to
work now as he did then, we would say at once that this is against
nature, as for instance if the earth were spontaneously to produce
plants without any sowing [of seed], or [to produce] beasts out
of itself, or if water were to form birds. 123 Hence we call nature
the force of things bestowed on them since that former prepa-
ration, sufficient thenceforth for something to be born, that
is, to be made. Let no one, therefore, ask through what nature
[God] hardened into ice those upper waters established over fire,
or even extended them above, when at that time his will alone,

as was said, obtained the force of nature.a 124 In his Timaeus

Plato also professed that [the will of God] was more powerful
than all their nature in the creation or preservation of things,
namely where he introduces God speaking to the sidereal
deities, when he says: “Truly you are by no means immortal
nor entirely indissoluble, but you will never be dissolved nor
will you undergo the necessity of death, because my will is a
bond more powerful and more vigorous for the preservation
of eternity than those vital bonds from which your eternity is
joined together and composed.”b
125 It may perhaps also be said with some probability that the
wind that projected [the waters] upward bound them by the chilli-
ness of its blast into ice, so that the firmament was made on the sec-
ond day; the waters being solidified then in this way, having been
there before they were so made solid. 126 For that they already
were there before they were solidified in this way, is clearly implied,
35 as we recalled above when it is said Which were rather than
“which are”. But the Hebrew, as in fact has already been stated,
does not have “they were”, so much the less calling it into question.
127 And it was so done. That is, this separation of the
waters was established in perpetuity so that those upper waters
might never sink back to these lower ones. Indeed, I believe that
this was said lest someone might think that the rains fall from
those upper waters, and that the upper waters had been suspended
for this purpose, as was the opinion also of Josephus, which we
mentioned above.
128 And he called. That is, through this he brought about
the reason why the firmament would afterward be called heaven
by us, since of course we now refer to the aerial as well as the aeth-
erial heaven, as if [naming] the upper parts of the world by com-
parison with our dwelling-place.
a
See R. C. Dales, “A Twelfth-Century Concept of the Natural Order,” in
Viator 9 (1978) 179-192; T. Gregory, “Ratio et Natura chez Abelard,” in Pierre
Abelard – Pierre le Venerable, 569–581; D. E. Luscombe, “Nature in the Thought
of Peter Abelard,” in La Filosofia della Natura nel Medioevo, pp. 314-319.
b
Plato, Timaeus 41B (ed. Wazinck, p. 35).

EXPOSITION, 123-135
129 But when in Hebrew it has for heaven “samaym” which is

a word derived, as mentioned, from waters, “samaym” appears to
be rightly used to express the separation of waters or suspension
and confirmation of those upper [waters].
130 And it was evening. As we learned above that evening
and morning are a concept in the divine mind and an effect of
the [divine] work, so it is to be understood in this passage as well
as the rest. 131 When therefore it is said of this work or of the
rest: There was evening and morning one day, it is as if
to say the completion of this work, which is designated by this
day, is brought forward to the morning in just the same way as
it had been in the evening, that is the visible work is completed
just as it was first planned in the divine mind, and the meaning
of each work is the same in the last words as in the earlier as if the
end were retraced to the beginning. 132 In fact the same is true 36
as regards the sense when it states before each work, God said:
let this be made, and it was made; which is supplied at the
end, when it is said that on this day there was evening and
morning one day, that is the completion of this work is just as
God had earlier planned it.
133 In fact it should be noted, as indeed we mentioned above,
that it is not said thus of this day as [it is] of the rest: And God
saw that it was good; that is, God did not approve the
work of this day in the same way as [the work] of the rest, the
reason for which in fact we have already given, that is since God
has not yet made us see what good or use there is in the place-
ment of those upper waters. 134 But the separation of waters
did not appear worthy of praise either, since the divided waters
were not so located and established that they might endure, and
there was need for the creation of things to come. For the lower
waters were as yet to be gathered into one place, so that dry land
might appear. 135 Nor finally did the prophet wish to commend
that physical suspension of the upper waters so that they might
enclose the whole world, foreseeing that a future baptism in
waters that would overwhelm any number of sins was prefigured
in these superior waters.

Concerning the third [day]
136 God then said: Let the waters be gathered. God

prepared the lower region of the earth, in which he would create
and settle humankind, to the extent necessary for us, namely by
removing the overflowing waters from the surface of the earth
and by embellishing the earth itself with grasses and trees.
37 137 Which are under heaven. He says this to differentiate
them from those that are suspended above heaven, that is, the
firmament.
138 In one place. This is so that they should not now cover
the earth, but receding into one part of the earth, they would
expose the other suitable for habitation.
139 And it was so done. That is, with the waters receding
to one side, land was uncovered on the other, just as it is writ-
ten, Who founded the earth over the waters (Ps. 135, 6). 140 For
it is as though some globe were so situated in water that one
part of it rises above the surface; thus the globe of the earth sits
on the waters so that the sea comes into contact with it on one
side, and pours itself through its veins, whence springs or rivers
are born for us. In fact the water of this sea now gathered into
one is made deeper than before when it was spread out, unless
perhaps what is sent in through the veins of the earth diminish
its depth.
141 And he called. That is, he made the earth uncovered by
water worthy to be called dry, that is, firm land. For even when
the waters spread over it receded the earth was muddy, but it was
now made dry, when the waters had receded.
142 And the gathering together of the waters.
That is, the interconnections of those [waters] separated into
various locations. For among the Hebrews all bodies of water
whether salty or fresh are said to be called sea. 143 And note that
when [the prophet] announces the work of the second day: And
God made a firmament, and divided the waters, etc.
afterward he adds: And it was so done. But he has not made
this comment for the gathering of waters that has now taken

EXPOSITION, 136-149
place. 144 For he did not first say, “the waters were gathered” so
that he might afterward add, and it was so done; but he said
only that it was so done. For if he had added it was so done 38
here just as there, he would appear to imply that just as that sus-
pension of the waters was perpetual, so also was this gathering of
them. That would not be true at all, since the same waters then
drawn aside into one place so that dry land might appear, were to
be brought back in the flood so that they might cover it.
145 And he saw. That is, he made the gathering [of the
waters] in such a way, that he made it appear to be good and nec-
essary for what was afterward to be done.
146 Let the earth germinate. That is, let it first con-
ceive in itself what it shall afterward bring forth, just as a birth
is brought forth into the light from a conception. Indeed con-
cerning that birth he adds at once: And it brought forth.
What is interposed, And it was so done, pertains only to
the concept of germination. What he adds right away, And it
brought forth is as if to say “and soon it produced shoots.”
147 And note that when things are said to be procreated or born
from the earth or from the waters, it is not so to be understood
that they consist in only one element, but the names are derived
from the prevailing [element], just as they also are traced back to
the one from which they were produced.
148 Green grass. The ones that cling to the earth by the
roots, and have to live and grow from the moisture of the water,
are rightly added to the aforesaid ordering of earth and water over
the course of one day. It should be noted, in fact, that to some
it seems to be suggested that the world was adorned with these
[grasses] in the springtime, by this fact especially, that we might
see that a spring mildness is necessary for these things to be born
from the earth or to survive. 149 But really I do not see on what
grounds the world could have this mildness, which we now experi-
ence in spring, when the sun, from whose approach mildness now
occurs, was not yet created; rather on this day on which the earth
brought these forth there appears to have been a colder climate 39
than on those wintry days which the sun warms at least a little

bit. 150 And so there is some question whence, according to the

nature of things, the earth could germinate or sustain these things
at that time. But, as we have already mentioned above, the will of
God alone functioned as the force of nature in those works of the
first six days, when even nature itself was being created; that is, a
kind of force was being conferred on those things that were then
coming into existence, whence afterward they themselves would
be sufficient for their own multiplication whether the outcomes
be the result of spreading or of births. 151 In fact, as was said, we
now call nature nothing other than a force and faculty that was
then given to those works, whence they would suffice to achieve
these things that result from them later.
152 Perhaps some natural reason can also be offered as to why
the earth could produce these [things], namely because the new-
ness of the earth then would have had greater powers for pro-
ducing or conserving plants than afterward; and it would have
received this especially from its extreme wetness, which the abun-
dance of the waters gave it before they were gathered together,
and for conserving them it would have profited from the heat of
the sun that was to be created on the next day, perhaps as soon as
it was created producing a springtime mildness by its warmth in
some parts of the earth, [but] not, I think, everywhere. 153 For all
regions are never equally hot or cold at the same time, nor do the
things which get born or become green [do so] at the same time,
nor do their fruits reach ripeness at the same time everywhere,
nor do the same grasses or trees sprout in all parts of the earth.
154 If, therefore, the earth brought forth every kind of grass or
40 tree on this day, when in six days God had finished his work, and
spring mildness could not be present in all the earth, what need
was there that it should happen in spring, except perhaps in that
part of the earth where it would have been spring? In fact, they
could afterward have been transferred and transplanted from
that region to other parts of the earth. 155 But a perpetual spring
mildness is believed to exist in paradise, and there perhaps the
earth could produce and preserve everything simultaneously,
where both a soil suitable for everything and the very mildness

EXPOSITION, 149-163
of the heavens might coincide. 156 But we know many [things]

are born from the earth, of which some desire a hot land, others a
cold, others a temperate; and so it might be that at whatever time
the earth germinated, it produced different [things] in different
places. Nor does mildness seem so necessary for the production
of plants as [it is] for the ripening of fruits. But scripture makes
no mention of fruit in this place, only of fruit-bearing plants. 157
But we believe that in paradise, where the human being was to
be settled, fruit was produced simultaneously together with the
trees to the extent that it was necessary for the human being.
Hence also scripture records that they transgressed in [regard
to] the fruit of the forbidden tree, and that the fruit of the other
trees was granted to them as their necessary food. 158 But there
is no objection, if in various lands in proportion to their quality
and the variety of the heavens’ mild temperatures, various plants
might bring forth their fruit at the same time, or the same plants
exist, in some lands with fruit, in others without fruit, until the
coming of milder temperatures, as happens every day, since we
see that not all lands bring forth the same fruits at the same rate.
159 And bringing forth seed. Whether so that as soon as
[it is] born it might have its seed as if it had attained to maturity,
or it was created so that it be apt for having seed.
160 And apple-bearing trees. That is, fruit-bearing trees,
whether bearing apples, that is, their fruit, as soon as they were
brought forth, or not at once. Obviously, apple is usually under-
stood to stand in general for the fruit of every tree.
161 According to their kind. This is, according to the 41
fixed quality of their nature so that in fact because of the variety of
grasses or trees, rather than that of the earth, they bear a variety of
fruit and not the same.
162 Having seed. This is, when rooted it will adhere to the
earth, having the power of its propagation in itself, whether by
seed, or by grafting of branches, or by planting.
163 And note that when he says apple-bearing tree, only
of fruit-bearing trees not of [trees] without fruit, he appears to say
that they were created then; and so not all trees were created then,

but some [were created] afterward, just as it is believed about

thorns and thistles, produced from the earth after sin as a punish-
ment for the human being. 164 But it would seem reasonable, if
someone were to say that those trees also which now are without
fruit were first created fruit-bearing, although they afterward
became barren on account of human sin, or that the fruit or apple
of the tree stands for any use of the wood, since trees without fruit
have many uses, even if they do not produce any fruit as food.
165 And because it is not a customary expression to say that
apple is understood for any sort of usage as is fruit, so when it
was first named apple-bearing afterward as if by way of expla-
nation he added fruit-bearing, that is having all sorts of uses.
For the same explanatory purpose when he first says so it was
done at once he adds and the earth brought forth
grass, etc.
Concerning the fourth [day]
42 166 Let there be lights. The lights were made between

the creation of plants now finished and that of the animals yet to
be done, so that the plants might be encouraged and benefit from
their warmth, and the animals have solace by their light, lest they
wander as if blind in the darkness, and so that they might pick out
their food.
167 In the firmament of heaven. Intransitively in so far
as the heaven named most recently is from the waters between
which it is placed, as stated, and it is called firmament from the
waters which it supports above.
168 And let them divide. [The prophet] explains what
uses they may have: First, to differentiate the times of day and
night by their illumination. In fact it is daytime in so far as it is
illumined by the sun, just as night [time is] is lit by the moon and
stars, or lacks the illumination of the sun.
169 Unto signs. Not [those] which it is meaningless to
observe, as in auspices and auguries, but unto certain kinds of

EXPOSITION, 163-177
atural displays of future or present events. In fact, sailors are

n
in the habit of recognizing to what parts of the world they are
traveling by observing the stars, and they obtain much informa-
tion about changing seasons from the sun and moon or the stars,
when they seem to be now one color or warmth, now another, or
in some other way appear different to our sight.
170 And times. This is, the computation of time, as days or
years, which are added right away as examples. For we calculate
days and number [them] according to the motion and course of
the sun from east to west, and we usually calculate years according 43
to its revolutions and sometimes [those] of the other planets, so
that in fact we may say that as many of their revolutions as there
are to the same point, so many years there are of the sun or of Sat-
urn or of the other planets.
171 And let them shine, as in one place “let them be”, and in
another place “let them cast light”, on the earth, namely where it
is necessary, thence casting forth their light.
172 And he made. In regard to those which he previously said
were to divide day and night [the prophet] explains how it was
done, when [God] instituted the sun to illumine day time and the
moon and stars to illumine the night.
173 A greater luminary. Namely the sun, not so much by
the size of its orb as by the power of its illumination in relation to
our sense who receive thence the greater light.
174 Let it preside over the day. Namely as if causing that
same day-time by its illumination, or by conferring light on it, as
moon and stars do on the night.
175 A lesser luminary. He names the moon, as if second
to the sun in effect for shedding light. Because it is closer to the
earth than the stars, it has a greater power for giving light to us
than the stars; even if some of those farther away from us are
believed to have a greater splendor or size.
176 And stars, you may supply [the words] he likewise made,
so that they might preside over the night. These also, namely the
stars, [are set] in the firmament like the sun and moon.
177 That they might shine. That [phrase] refers gener-
ally to the stars as much as to the sun and moon. Otherwise it

would not be clear how he is saying that they preside over day
and night, when in fact the stars have to preside over the night
only, not the day.
44 178 In regard to the planets which are said to be carried
against the firmament, it is no small question, whether they are
living things, as it seems to the philosophers, their bodies being
governed by some kind of spirits which bestow this motion upon
them, or whether they hold this course immovably by the sole will
and decree of God. 179 Indeed the philosophers add that these
as well as the whole world itself are living things, and they do not
hesitate to argue that they are a kind of rational animal, immortal
and impassible, saying that every motion in bodies begins from
the soul, and no body is moved anywhere except by it. They even
wish to fill the world in this way with living things, so that every
single part of the world has its own living things: this lower and
denser air, [is inhabited by] demons all the way up to the moon,
the upper part of the world, however, which we are accustomed to
name the aetherial heaven, [is inhabited by] planets or the other
stars. 180 In fact, blessed Augustine, mentioning this opinion in
book 8 On the City of God, spoke thus of the Platonists: “They say
there is a threefold division of all living things, in which there is
a rational soul, into gods, human beings, and demons. The home
of the gods is in heaven, of human beings on earth, of demons
in the air.” 181 Further: “Demons have immortality of bodies in
common with the gods, but passions of the soul in common with
human beings.”a And a little further on, referring to a description
of demons taken from the sayings of Apuleius, a Platonist, he says:
“Briefly defining demons, Apuleius states that they are a kind of
living thing with a passible soul, a rational mind, an aerial body,
45 an eternal lifespan.”b
182 From these sayings of the philosophers – especially,
in fact, [those] of the Platonists – it is clear that the heavens
and also the air are adorned with their own living things. Of
these they name [the inhabitants of] the latter demons, that
a
Augustine, De civitate Dei VIII, 14 (CCL 47, pp. 230-321).
b
Augustine, De civitate Dei VIII, 16 (CCL 47, p. 233).

EXPOSITION, 177-186
is rational, immortal, and passible living things, the [inhab-

itants of the] former however they call gods, that is rational,
immortal, and impassible living things, as are all the stars,
not only the planets, but indeed each and every star. 183 In
fact, that planets are not only gods but even gods of gods, as
if they were more excellent than the rest of the stars and had
greater power, they claim Plato said, especially where, so they
say, he invites the planets to the creation of the human being,
so that through some power of theirs the human body, into
which God would infuse a soul, was formed from earth. 184
But while they believe that all of the gods are good, neverthe-
less they distinguish between some demons that are good and
some that are evil, as is also [true] of human beings. Hence the
Greeks call the former calodaemones, the latter cacodaemones.
For they know nothing about the fall of the devil, but they
believe that, like human beings or other living things, demons also
were created with bodies. Hence they distinguish the bodies of all
rational animals according to the region or part of the world
which they inhabit, so that some of these are terrestrial, like
human beings, others aerial or aetherial, like demons or gods.a
185 And so it is well known, according to Plato’s opinion or 46
that of the Platonists, that the stars themselves are living things,
and some kinds of souls inhabit those stellar bodies which we
see, by which they are able to be moved or agitated. 186 Blessed
Augustine, never really presuming to refute that opinion, says in
the Enchiridion that it was as yet uncertain to him whether the
sun and moon belonged to the company of angels, or whether
in fact some of the angelic spirits were assigned to those sidereal
bodies, so that drawing them and leading them around they bring
very great benefits to human needs. But he suggests in the first
book of the Retractationes that reason is less able to approach the
question whether the world is some kind of living thing, which
contains in itself both these and other living things.b
a
Augustine, De civitate Dei IX, 1 (CCL 47, p. 249); Calcidius, Comm. 134
(ed. Waszink, p. 175, l. 7).
b
Plato, Timaeus 30BC, 37CD (ed. Waszink, p. 23, ll. 8-9, 27, l. 23).

187 We may now bring to bear supporting statements of his,

suitably gathered from both of his works. Accordingly, he said in
the Enchiridion chapter 25: “Whether the archangels be named
virtues, and what difference there is between thrones, whether
dominions or principalities or powers, (Col. 1, 16) let them tell
who are able, if in the end they can prove what they say. I myself
confess that I do not know these things. But neither do I know
for certain whether the sun, moon and stars belong to the same
company, although a number of luminous bodies appear to lack
sense or intelligence.”a 188 Again in Retractationes 1: “That the
world is a living thing, as Plato with many other philosophers
opined, I have not been able to trace with certain reason, nor did
I know I could be persuaded by the authority of divine scripture.
Hence I branded it a bold statement when I also said in the book
Concerning the Immortality of the Soul that such a thing can be
47 accepted, not because I assert that this is false, but because I do
not understand that it is true that the world is a living thing.”b 189
The Apostle also appears to recognize both celestial animals,
which the philosophers call gods, and aerial animals, which
they call demons. (cf. Eph. 6, 12)
190 If, therefore, as it appeared to the philosophers and the
saints did not subsequently presume to deny, some kind of spirits
guide those celestial bodies of the stars, which are able to move or
to agitate them, the solution to the proposed question about the
motion of the planets is easy. 191 But if they have their ordered
and stable motion from elsewhere, it is enough to attribute this
to the divine will, which, as was stated, functions as the force of
nature in the primordial causes, and according to Plato is more
powerful in all that is to be made than the natural faculty itself of
created things.
192 There are some who so exalt and extol the teaching of
astronomy and the very power of the stars that they claim to fore-
tell even future contingents from these things, and assert that by
a
Augustine, Enchiridion LVIII (CCL 46, pp. 80-81).
b
Augustine, Retractationes I, ix, 4 (CCL 57, p. 35); Augustine De immortali-
tate animae XV (PL 32, 1033).

EXPOSITION, 187-198
this art they make judgments concerning things that the philoso-
phers profess [to be] unknown by nature; as if indeed these very
stars were signs not only of natural occurrences in the future, as
we have said, but also of future contingents, as they falsely claim.
193 In fact future natural events are those that have some natu-
ral cause for their occurrence, so that they have to happen as a
result of what came before, as if by their certain natural causes,
and thus they are connected to them, so that the latter event can
scarcely or never be prevented from happening when the former
events preceded it: as the future dissolution of death in the next
moment after draining poison, or rain after thunder, or sterility
of the earth after extreme drought or excessive rain. 48
194 In fact, future contingents are those which so equally
have the potential to be and not to be, that there is no antecedent
cause in the nature of things whence they are compelled either to
happen or not to happen, nor can it be known in advance from
anything whether they have to happen or not, as [for example]
my being about to read today, and whatever consists in the power
of our will as much to do as to omit. 195 Certain future events are
therefore natural, and somehow predetermined in their occur-
rence, since their causes can be known in advance from a kind of
natural connection to the preceding events, and by this they are
already said to be known in nature, like all things that are present
or in the past. 196 When now for instance in the present the
stars themselves might be equal or not equal, and it is not known
to us which of these it is now, Boethius asserts that it is known
by nature since in fact there is already such an order in the very
stars that it can bestow knowledge of itself, because it is naturally
known or determined.a 197 For even a voice or sound is said to
be naturally audible in itself, even if no one is present who is able
to hear it, and a field was fit for cultivation before there was a
human being who could cultivate it. 198 In fact future contin-
gents of nature are also said to be unknown, since of course they
cannot be known in advance from any action or arrangement of
a
Boethius, In librum Aristoteles de interpret. Commentarii prima editio I, 9,
secunda editio III, 9 (PL 64, 334A, 489A, 491A).

nature. Hence I marvel that some profess that by astronomy they

know, and are able even to judge concerning these things, and
to be as it were diviners of such things. But since astronomy is
a branch of physics, that is, of natural philosophy, how are they
able to investigate by it what the very philosophers of nature
assert to be unknown, that is, impossible to predict from any
nature of things?
49 199 In fact we deny that any future natural events
whatsoever can be known through it, just as they cannot
[be known] through medicine. For medical [practitioners]
can foretell much about the sick according to the make-up of
bodies, whether for example they can make a recovery or are
not likely to do so. 200 So also experts in the stars, who know
their natures, know why they are warm or cold, dry or moist
or temperate; and by astronomy they learn those parts of the
heavens which are called their houses, where they will be when
they most strongly exercise their powers; they can know much
in advance about coming natural events, whether for example
in the coming season there will be increased drought or rain,
whether [it will be] hot or cold. This is valid in many ways not
only for prudent cultivation of the earth, but also for the meas-
urement of medications. 201 Hence also the philosophers pre-
sumed to call these planets gods, and to profess [that they are]
some kind of rulers of the earth; for example, in that accord-
ing to their natures and qualities this situation of ours varies
greatly, as we said, so that sometimes barrenness, sometimes
abundance results thence, sometimes it is time to plant in moist
places, sometimes in dry, sometimes warm or moist are to be
provided in medications or other things.
202 But in regard to future contingents which, as we said,
are also unknown by [their very] nature, whoever promises any
certitude through the evidence of astronomy is to be considered
not so much astronomical as diabolical. We can easily convict
them of knowing nothing about it. 203 For if we were to ask
about anything that is to be done, which it is equally in our
power to do or to leave undone, they dare make no judgment

EXPOSITION, 198-208
in the matter from any proof of their art, knowing that if they
were to say one thing, we would turn ourselves to the other. 204 50
In fact they say that if someone other than ourselves were to ask
them the same thing about us, and that not for the sake of test-
ing them but with the sincere intention of inquiring into the
truth, then they promise they will tell the truth. Who does not
see what a mockery is to be expected? 205 For if they have cer-
titude by their art concerning events about which they are con-
sulted, what does it matter who asks them about it, or even with
what intention? Or why can they not even discern in regard to
intention, which, since it is present has already a settled out-
come, but promise certitude in regard to the future which is
entirely uncertain?
206 From this I judge it to be obvious that if at some point
it happens that they tell the truth in such things, they do not
offer this out of their so-called art but instructed through dia-
bolical conjecture. For just as we, seeing the preparation of
some things, may predict what outcome will proceed thence
more from surmise than from certainty, so also the devil whom
they consult induces them in this divination to pronounce
truly many uncertain things. When they have made accurate
predictions about some things they are believed to be prescient
about all the rest. 207 Often too by diabolical promptings they
report the presence of things that are absent or past, nor do
they lie, which is held to be a marvel by the inexperienced, who
do not notice that it is the devil who reports what he already
knows by discernment so that he might be believed also about
future things themselves. And so no one should ascribe such
divinations to the art of prediction but rather to diabolical
machination.a
208 And thus when it is said of the stars, and let them
be as signs, of future events, that is, it does not refer to future
contingents, namely, casual or fortuitous events, which Aristotle 51
a
M.-T. d’Alverny, “Abélard et l’astrologie,” in Pierre Abélard – Pierre le

states can go either way,a but to future natural events, as has

been said; just as study of the astronomical discipline took its
beginning especially from this, or by its authority proved out-
standingly useful in this place especially, and Moses himself,
highly skilled in the knowledge of the Egyptians, is believed to
have been trained in it.
Concerning the fifth [day]
209 Creeping things having life. In his Exameron

Ambrose [states] concerning the fifth day: “We know the gen-
era of snakes are called creeping things in that they creep over the
earth, but much more all that swims has either the species or the
nature of a reptile. For when they swim over the water, they creep
with their whole bodies, whence they are drawn over what one
might call the ridge of the water. Hence also David said: There is
the sea large and spacious; there the creeping things of which there
is no number (Ps. 103, 25). 210 Indeed even when most of them
have feet and the ability to walk insofar as they are amphibious,
and live either in the water or on the earth, as do seals, crocodiles,
[and] river horses, which are called hippopotami, in that they are
generated in the Nile river, nevertheless when they are in deep
water they neither walk nor swim, nor do they use the motion of
the foot for walking, but like an oar for creeping.”b 211 In fact, it
is clear from these words of Ambrose that all fish are also grouped
together with creeping things, since they move themselves with-
out the tread of feet.
212 Having Life is said to distinguish them from the life
given to plants, which if they are said to have some kind of
soul, that is life, nevertheless do not have [the ability] to live of
52 themselves, like those which live by inhaling and exhaling, but
affixed to the earth they have only the moisture of the earth
a
Aristotle, De interpretation 9, tr. Boethius (ed. Minio-Paluello, p. 17,
ll. 15-16).
b
Ambrose, Exameron V, i, 4 (CSEL 32, I, pp. 142-143).

EXPOSITION, 208-217
mounting into them to provide life. Such therefore is living

things, this is living in themselves, as was stated, enduring,
not from the absorption of the earth’s humors. 213 And fowl.
From which it is clear that fish as well as birds created from
water have bodies of the same nature, and their meat does not
administer as much energy for lechery to human bodies as the
meats of terrestrial animals, which are of the same nature as
our bodies. Hence the Rule of blessed Benedict does not pro-
hibit the former meats to monks in the same way as the latter,
namely when it requires abstinence only from the flesh of four-
footed animals, not [from that] of birds.a Indeed the passage
that follows shows that the Lord singled out these only by
his blessing as if unto our food.
214 Over the earth, under the firmament of
heaven. That [the prophet] says over the earth under
the firmament of heaven appears to refer not only to
fowl but also to creeping things. If in fact the stars also
are believed [to be] living things, then since they move about
without feet they would be included with creeping things as well
as the fish. But since they are in no sense under the firmament,
it is clear that they are excluded since it says under the fir-
mament of heaven. 215 Such therefore is creeping thing
and fowl, as if it were said “an animal apt for creeping or flying
over the earth,” that is, such that it does not touch the earth.
For afterward when [the prophet] says creeping things of
the earth rather than “over the earth”, at once he carefully
distinguishes the former from the latter kind of creeping thing.
216 A number of aquatic birds are said to have feet attached to
their posteriors in such a way that they cannot walk with them,
but only swim, just as fish [do] with their fins, which as a result
we believe are to be called creeping rather than walking [things].
217 Since they never appear to go out onto land there is no small 53
question as to their eggs, how they warm them, or whether sup-
ported by the waters themselves the eggs of such [birds] like
those of fish also are able somehow to quicken through a warmth
a
Benedict, Rule 39.

of their own. 218 When he says under the firmament of

heaven, it seems it is to be understood intransitively, as if [to
say] under the firmament which is heaven, as when it is said,
“the city of Rome”, “the river of Tiber”, “creature of salt”, “body
or essence of stone”. But this firmament, as stated above, is so
named because, interposed between the waters, it so establishes
the upper waters by supporting them that they cannot flow back
down to the lower or even touch them. 219 What is mixed with
the waters of the clouds is therefore not in the proper sense
called firmament, but the higher one that is absolutely empty of
waters. In fact birds cannot fly through the firmament, because
their bodies cannot be supported by air without the [added]
density of waters.
220 And he created, namely from the same waters.
221. He puts soul for the whole living thing, consisting in
both body and soul, namely comprehending the whole by the
name of a part, according to what he also says elsewhere: Give me
the souls, take the rest for yourself. (Gen. 46, 27) And again, Jacob
went down into Egypt in [all] seventy souls. (Act. 7, 14-15)
222 Living. You should understand that this means [living]
in itself, not from the earth, like plants affixed by the roots to the
earth.
223 And moving, namely for the difference from other
animals which the earth, which is a heavier element than water,
afterward brought forth. Hence also those [who] are brought
forth from the waters are naturally more mobile and agile, since
of course they consist of a lighter element. 224 And note what
54 he said above concerning plants, that the earth has germinated
and brought them forth. With regard to animals in fact it is only
said that water or earth should produce them, not that it should
germinate, so that it might actually suggest that, not fixed to the
earth by the roots, they do not receive thence vegetative growth,
as plants do.
225 Which the waters brought forth according
to their kinds. Construe thus: he created every soul, that is,
every living thing, thus according to [their] kinds, as if

EXPOSITION, 217-231
he were saying “every”, I would say, “according to their kind, not

according to number”. For in fact not every individual of these
species, but each particular species of birds as well as fish, was
then created. 226 Hence also what follows, when he says that
God rested from all his work, is not about individuals belonging
to species being multiplied, but about the natures of the species
being now prepared for whatever was subsequently to be pro-
created thence.
227 Which they brought forth, that is, the waters were
already prepared for their production, whether sweet, as [are] the
rivers, or salt, as [are] the seas.
228 And he saw. Note that in the works of this day it is
never said in repetition of their creation: And so it was done,
as above on the second day. Or when he stated first: And he
created the firmament, etc., then added And so it was
done, as if implying by this that the separation of the waters
was to endure thus in perpetuity. So also in the creation of the
human being after he has said: God created the human
being etc., he added: and so it was done. 229 Therefore
everywhere when he says: so it was done, a kind of per-
sistence of the work is signified, so that they are actually to
endure just as they were made; it seems that cannot be rightly
said of the species of birds, since in fact several species among 55
them have at some time become absolutely extinct, as one
may read about the phoenix, and perhaps this happened to
several others, birds as well as fish, which pertain to the work
of this day.
230 And he blessed. God is recorded as having blessed only
these living things produced from water in the same way that
he afterward blessed human beings when they were created, as
if these animals, which were generated from that element from
which human beings were also to be regenerated, approximated
somewhat to the dignity of human beings. 231 Hence also in the
Ark, it does not seem unjust that birds held second place after
human beings, because in fact they were made from that element
which in the sacrament of baptism would be most necessary for

our salvation. 232 Rightly, therefore, God’s benediction began

from the aquatic creatures, since from this element, as has been
mentioned, the blessing of our salvation was to have its beginning
in the perfect remission of sins. Such therefore is: he blessed
them as if he were saying “now at this moment he provided a
symbol of the sanctification of those to be born again from water,
or of their multiplication by contrast with the circumcised.” 233
In fact although circumcision is said to have the same effect as
baptism upon the remission of sins, it could not have had this
efficacy among as many as those in whom the grace of baptism
has remained; for none except males were circumcised, and
only Jews or proselytes.
234 Saying, that is, deciding within himself what he would
afterwards show us.
235 Grow and multiply, this is, receive increase through
the number of individuals, not by the diversity of species. 236
For it is not so to be understood as if they afterwards grew in
56 themselves, until they came to the perfect age at which they were
able to reproduce, since the creation of such should be believed
to have been perfect at once, otherwise it would have had to be
drawn out a long time, until it might reach perfection. But if we
also take it as referring to birds it does not easily appear whence
they were to receive nourishment.
237 Fill, that is, be fruitful with as many as are enough for
this.
238 The waters of the sea, even though all the fresh
waters also have both fish and birds. But it is well known that
the whole body of the waters, as much the salt as the fresh, is
called sea, and all waters came forth from the sea. 239 Where
also he says: living and moving thing, namely in regard to
those living things that are produced from water, it appears very
much more to go with the sacrament of baptism in which liber-
ated from sin and as it were raised from the dead we begin to be
born through the life-giving Spirit and to live in God, and we
are moved forward from the old Adam into the new and we are
transformed into members of Christ.

EXPOSITION, 231-244
240 And note that only on these animals actually created

from water, and afterward on human beings, and lastly on the
seventh day, is God described as bestowing a blessing, with the
blessing of human beings set in the middle as if the other two
converged on it. 241 In fact, the blessing of the human being
begins with baptism, with the full remission of sins received
there, and then having advanced to the Sabbath of heavenly
bliss, it is consummated, so that hence also it may well be said
that the living and moving thing is brought up higher
from the waters. In baptism to be sure we begin to live, so that
moved forward thence unto the aforementioned Sabbath we
may likewise rest. 57
Concerning the sixth [day]
242 Living thing. This is a living [thing] living from itself,

not drawing life from the earth, as by contrast plants do, although
it is [created] from the earth. Living, he says, in its kind,
because even if those animals which were created in former times
were now to fail in themselves, and not now survive in the same
numbers as they were formerly created, nevertheless they would
somehow always live in their kind, because although individu-
als perish, the genus or species does not become extinct. Hence
they live in [their] kind, that is in their species [in] which they
were first created, even if they do not now live in themselves, just
as also it is said concerning some tyrant now dead, that he lives in
his sons. 243 And note that when he says living thing about
these [creatures] which the earth produced, he has not added
“moving” as he did before in regard to those which water brought
forth, because since the element of water is lighter than earth, it
follows that animals produced from water have an easier motion,
and their bodies can more readily be moved and be agitated by
their soul, as we have already mentioned above.
244 Cattle, that is domestic quadrupeds, as it were placed
under our yoke and dominion.

245 Creeping things of the earth. It has to be added

in this way of course to differentiate [them] from the aforesaid
creeping things of the water.
246 Beasts, namely wild, as feral, or any that are remote from
our [human] society.
247 And he made. He said at first, it was so made, that
is, that the earth produced animals according to corporeal sub-
stance. But afterward the Lord made this by way of completion; as
58 if he completed [them] by giving them vital spirit from water, as
it seems to some, or from other elements less corpulent or heavy,
but instead light and mobile. 248 God is not said to have blessed
the beasts as he blessed the fish and birds, because the serpent who
was to be accursed was one of the beasts then [created]. He blessed
the human being even though he would sin, and [God] called the
earth, not [the human being], accursed on account of him.
249 Let us make the human being. With all the rest
either created or arranged for the sake of the human being, he
created us last, and established [us] as the goal of his creation. To
us as end and cause of his creation all the rest tended, since all of
them existed for our sake. 250 Hence it was necessary for us not
to be created unless the others, over which we ought to preside, or
which were necessary to us as food, or were at least fitting for the
glorification of God, [were] first created and prepared for us, lest
perhaps we could put forward some need as an excuse for our sin,
and could have been recalled from offense of God so much the
more, the greater we had cause to love the one, who set us over
all, or even after the fall have been moved more swiftly to peni-
tence, deploring the fact that we had offended the one to whom
we owed so much. When he says as if speaking by some kind of
deliberation, let us make, it clearly implies the excellence of our
creation.
251 But why does it say in the plural: Let us make the
human being to our image, if there is absolutely no plural-
ity in God, who alone is said in what follows to have created the
human being to his image with these words: And God cre-
ated the human being to his image, to the image of

EXPOSITION, 245-258
God created he him? Let the Jews say, if they can, or let them
confess with us that in one essence of divinity there is a plurality
of persons rather than of things. 252 Diligently considering this, 59
the prophet said in the plural for the distinction of persons, let
us make, but for signaling the unity of God he actually added
in the singular, and God created the human being, etc.
253 Thus [it is] as if someone talking to himself set up himself
and his reason as if they were two [distinct persons], since he
made reference to the latter, like Boethius in the book On the
Consolation of Philosophy or Augustine in the book Of Solilo-
quies. And so God the Father says as if inviting to the creation
of the human being his wisdom together with his goodness, this
is the Son and the Holy Spirit: Let us make him thus and so,
so that he should be our image and likeness. 254 How excellent
this particular creation is and how far superior to the others
described above, is in fact expressed in these words, [spoken] as
if conferring together in some sort of council for the making of
something great when he says: Let us make. Such an expres-
sion is not used in the other creations, but only that this or that
should be, or that the earth or water should produce this or that.
255 But since human being is the shared name of both the man
and the woman, since both are a rational mortal animal, hence also
in what follows where it says God created the human being
at once there is added Male and female created he them;
we understand that the man was created in the image of God, but
the woman [was created in] the likeness. 256 Indeed the apos-
tle says concerning the man: Truly he ought not to veil his head,
because he is the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11, 7), that is his
more glorious and precious likeness. 257 For there is a difference
between image and likeness because likeness to something can be
said to exist because there is a kind of conformity with it, whence
something can be said to be similar to it. But an image refers only
to the express likeness, like the statues of men which more per-
fectly represent them limb by limb. 258 And so because the man 60
is more worthy than the woman and consequently more like God,
he is called his image, but the woman is [his] likeness, since she

as well as the man imitates God through reason and immortality

of the soul. But the man has this in addition by which he is made
more like God, [namely] the fact that just as everything has being
from God, so from one man by bodily descent both the woman
and the whole human race has its beginning.
259 But if one should wish to consider this image or likeness
of God, according to which the human being is said [to be made],
more diligently and more precisely in terms of the distinction of the
[divine] persons, one will see that same human being has acquired
the highest likeness as much to the Father as to the Son or to the
Holy Spirit from his very creation. 260 It is certain, in fact, that
to God the Father, who has being of himself and not of another,
according to this property of his, that which pertains to divine
power is especially ascribed, just as also to the Son, who is called his
wisdom, that which is wisdom; and to the Holy Spirit, who is called
their mutual love and properly named charity, that which pertains
to the goodness of divine grace is allotted especially.
261 And so as stated, the human being was made to the like-
ness of each particular person [of the Trinity] in terms of the
dignity of the soul, since surpassing other living things through
power, wisdom, and love, he is made more like God. In fact on
61 that account the human soul by the power of its proper nature is
stronger than all other souls, because it alone is created immortal
and free of defect. 262 It alone, moreover, is capable of reason
and wisdom and partakes of divine love. For what cannot recog-
nize God through reason cannot love him. 263 And these three
are common to the woman as well as the man, whence both are
said to be made in the likeness of God, when it says in what fol-
lows: On the day on which God created the human
being he created him in the likeness of God; male
and female created he them.
264 While therefore both, according to the aforesaid, have
likeness to the divine persons, nevertheless the man, in that he
holds the greater likeness to them, is said to be created not only
in the likeness but also in the image. For as the other [divine]
persons have being from the Father, so [also] in the human

EXPOSITION, 258-272
c reation the woman, created from the man, has being thence, not
the man from the woman. 265 Through wisdom also or reason
we taught above that the man surpassed the woman, and he is
shown to be wiser in this, that he could not be seduced by the
serpent. 266 It is not to be doubted that God is loved more by
him, who could not believe that he begrudged him or said any-
thing deceitful to him or burst forth in falsehood as the woman
did who was seduced.
267 From these [characteristics] therefore it is clear that the
man created in the beginning received not only the likeness but
also the image of the divine persons from their cooperation in
his creation, because he was created more like them in these.
Hence it is rightly said of the man: in our image, this is in the
express likeness, and concerning the woman it is added only in
the likeness.
268 And let him rule over the fishes. Not indeed that
God set [one] human being over another human being, but only
over insensible or irrational creatures, so that he might receive 62
into his power and dominate the [creatures] which lack reason
and sense, just as afterward it says there: And let him have
dominion over the fishes of the sea, etc. 269 But power
and dominion over these are said to be conferred on the human
being in such a way that he should arrange all this according
to his discretion, and make use of them altogether as he might
choose so long as he himself was subject to the will of his creator.
270 It is not easy to say in detail for what purposes, if he were
always to remain in paradise, he had all these things at that time,
having virtually everything necessary at hand, and sufficient food
granted to him from the fruits of the trees or from grasses, espe-
cially since not all living things could come into contact with
him. 271 For even if we overlook beasts and birds, who would
think great whales or fishes of the sea could reach that place and
even live [there]? And what sort of dominion could he exer-
cise over those he would never see, nor even know where they
were, nor perhaps know whether they existed? 272 How besides
could he dominate or preside over the whole earth, as it is said,

being always enclosed in the one place of paradise, with all the
other parts of the world unknown because not yet seen? Or
since he says afterward, Increase and multiply and fill
the earth; how would it ever happen, if enclosed in such a lit-
tle part of the world they would not yet go out into the various
regions of the world?
273 Accordingly there is no reason [that] the whole future
multitude of human beings should always dwell in that one place
of paradise even if they had not sinned, but they were to be dis-
persed thence, throughout the world, as also from the Ark, to find
63 nothing punitive anywhere since the earth would not have been
stricken with any curse for sin from God.
274 All the same, we believe that the first human beings were
located in paradise, because the mildness of that place, which the
Lord had planted from the beginning, was extremely abundant
with fruit, when these or the rest had not yet been propagated
throughout the world. 275 But nor should it be doubted as regards
the tree of life, that it could be multiplied on earth through plan-
ting before the cursing of the earth. Then humankind could have
ruled and held dominion everywhere on the whole earth, and the
other living things be useful to us in many ways, perhaps after-
ward also granted to us as food, just as the Lord granted to Noah
after the flood. 276 They could also bring the human being no
slight pleasure according to the various senses, when they soothe
the ears with song, or with the beauty of form delight the eyes, or
refresh the sense of smell with sweetness of odors; or by whatso-
ever manner, their various natures rightly understood, may excite
us the more unto love and praise of the Creator, according to
what the psalmist says of him: You delight me, O Lord, in your
works, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. (Ps. 91, 5)
277 There are [some], perhaps, to whom such questions
appear to be frivolous and not to be reasonably proposed, for
who in fact would ask about some event that never took place
and say: what would happen if it was like that? For what rea-
son is there, they say, to enquire if what neither has to happen
nor to exist would be like this? 278 And so they say that God,

EXPOSITION, 272-284
foreknowing future events, had granted to humankind, that

we might have dominion through reason over the other living
things, and that we might restrain them and oppress them, even
though [they were] more robust in body; so that in fact by the
[faculty of] reason granted to us the human being might love 64
him so much the more, the more we would recognize how much
we had received from him in this.
279 When he says: The fowl of the heavens, this is the
birds, of heaven is added not to differentiate some kind of fly-
ing thing, but to show through what part of the world they have
to fly, just as it is also said: the fish of the sea, or we are accus-
tomed to say the stars of heaven, not to differentiate some [from
others] but rather to express their proper place. 280 This word
heaven therefore here, including both the aerial and the aethe-
rial, names whatever is contained between the lower waters up
to the higher.
281 And the beasts. Because he distinguished above
between beasts and cattle here he includes both by the name
of beasts.
282 Of all the earth. Note that when permission is here
granted to the human being to govern the earth itself as much as
the beasts that are on the earth, nevertheless it is not granted to us
in the same way as above to govern the sea itself as much the fish
of the sea, or heaven itself as much the flying things of heaven.
For the sea or the sky are not in our power in the same way as the
earth, on which we dwell and [on which] we build our houses,
and which we prepare for our use by cultivating [it].
283 Creeping things which move upon the earth.
That is in this lower part of the world, perhaps to differenti-
ate [them] from celestial living things, that is the stars which, as
it has seemed to the philosophers, are alive and are to be called
creeping things in their motion rather than walking things,
since they lack feet.
284 In his image. Obviously he created the man first in
such a way that he might be his image, as we have explained.
Directly after it is said: Let us make the human being 65

in our image, there is added: God created the human

being in his image, this is, of God, not of another thing,
just as immediately after there is appended, in the image
of God created he them, lest in fact since our is put
before, he might be understood to be made not only in the
image of God, but in fact also in [that] of some other, with
whom [God] might appear to have spoken when he said: let
us make the human being. 285 And note that when [the
prophet] says here: In the image of God he created him,
and afterward adds: Male and female created he them,
and does not repeat: in the image of God when he says in the
plural them, as he did when he said him, he clearly implies that
it is to be understood only of the man that he was created in the
image of God. 286 For it can be seen that the added phrase: in
the image of God created he him ought to be understood
differently from the words: in his image. To be sure, the Son,
who is from the Father alone, is called the image of God, since
the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and the Son. 287
And so the man is created in the image of God, because in this
especially he has likeness with the Son of God, since just as the
latter is in fact begotten of the Father alone, so the former in
fact has being created by God alone, not assumed from some liv-
ing thing the way the woman was taken from the man, and was
formed from his rib.
288 Male and female, that is, those who would suffice
for the propagation of the human race. In regard to that propa-
gation he says afterward: Increase and multiply. When he
says them, using the masculine gender for the man as well as the
woman, it is done on account of the dignity of the male sex. We
observe that such is the case even up to the present day, so that
where one man is together with many women, when we speak of
them, using a plural adjective applying to all of them together, we
put it into the masculine gender, as we would if we were to say of
66 them that they are good or white.
289 And he blessed, this is he was already arranging a bet-
ter state, immortal and incorruptible, for their future life. But the

EXPOSITION, 284-293
prophet said this, anticipating their future fall, lest someone per-
haps despair of heaven when hearing later of their expulsion from
the earthly paradise.
290 Increase and multiply. Just as he is shown above
to have said to the aquatic animals: Increase and multiply
and fill the waters of the sea, so also he is described
as saying to created human beings: Increase and multi-
ply and fill the earth, in such a way that this utterance
like that one is understood in fact [to occur] not through the
speaking of a word, but through the disposition of the divine
work, especially since no language had yet been formed and
no names had yet been given by Adam, as he is later he said to
have done. 291 Hence in fact that utterance of God, just like
the one previously mentioned, seems not so much to be derived
from the utterance of words as from a divine disposition, when
God actually decided within himself to make them in such a
way that they might increase and be multiplied, that is, achieve
the increase of multiplication through the union of male and
female, which he already distinguished above as if they were
created male and female for this [purpose]. 292 In consequence
he clearly implies how far removed from the creation of God
and the institution of nature is that abominable intercourse of
sodomites, by which they merely pollute each other, gaining
no profit of offspring. Also condemned through this passage
are those especially who condemn marriage, since the conjugal
state was immediately sanctified with the Lord’s authority at
the creation of the first human beings.
293 And fill the earth. As blessed Jerome observes,
the sense of the words is to be considered. To be sure, mar-
riage fills the earth, virginity [fills] paradise.a The earth is 67
filled by human beings, not that human beings live in all
parts of the world but that, to the extent that it is enough
and agrees with divine providence, human beings may mul-
tiply on earth.
a
Jerome, Adversus Iovinianum I, 16 (PL 23, 235C).

294 With living things that move upon the earth.

What he adds, which move upon the earth, can appear
to have been added for the exclusion both of the celestial living
things, according to that opinion of the philosophers by which
they call the stars gods, that is, rational, immortal, impassible liv-
ing things, and [of the living things] of the air, that is demons.
295 Behold I have given. As if he were saying, “in the
present time or place,” because after the flood the Lord gave human-
kind permission to eat meat also. But since we may now observe a
number of beasts or birds for whom the eating of meat is necessary,
how were only grasses and trees now granted as food to these as well
as to human beings, as if these would suffice for them at first, and
they would not need meat except after the sin of the human being,
with the result actually that the penalty coming out of the sin of the
human being would redound also on these, over whom the human
being had to rule and govern, so that in fact one kind of living
things would be handed over to another kind as prey and [as] food?
296 And perhaps there are none of these animals among us which
now need meats as food, for which in certain parts of the world suf-
ficient food cannot be found in grasses or trees. 297 And note how
much he wishes the human being to obey him in all things, since he
does not wish him to eat so that he might live, except by obedience,
and not to touch anything without his permission in any necessity
whatsoever, not even for the support of life. From which he clearly
implies that the whole of human life consists in nothing except obe-
dience to God, and that he ought to live solely for this.
68 298 To you and to all the living things of earth.
Namely some [things] to you, others to them, or some equally to
you and to them. For it does not seem that all food is suitable for
either human beings or those [animals], although before sin no
edible thing would have been noxious to the human race or per-
haps unfitting. But if we suppose that everything was suitable for
human beings, it is not to be believed that we agree to this in regard
to animals, to the extent that the tree of life was also granted to
them as well as all the other things, unless perhaps someone would
have it that they, too, like the human being had a remedy thence

EXPOSITION, 294-303
against death and decrepitude, and we never read that the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden to them, as after-
ward it is said to be forbidden to human beings. 299 For it is not
clear how this permission was granted from among all the trees to
human beings and the other animals, if that forbidden tree was
never granted to human beings or to [the animals]. 300 And note
that those trees that are called barren could offer nourishment to a
number of animals at least in leaves or flowers or bark.
301 And notice that when he makes provision in regard both
to food for the human being and for the animals, and he grants
earthly food to all equally, it clearly implies that human beings
were also created mortal, and that they were made in animal and
not spiritual bodies, and that food was necessary to human beings
then as now lest they be dissolved by death. Hence that animal
state of life, in which the human being was actually created, does
not deserve to be praised by comparison with that spiritual life to
which he was to be transferred. 302 For it is not said also concern-
ing the creation of the human being as it is said concerning the
other living things, that God saw that it was good, because
that life ought not to be commended in the human being which
he was not created to attain, but from which he was to cross over 69
to a far better. In fact it can be praised in general with the rest,
because by comparison with the others even this mortal state of
the human being is to be commended as excellent and the best,
when finally by comparison to what was to come, it is not to be
judged worthy of praise to the extent that it might be called the
best, that is, very good, in itself.
303 And so it was done. This would appear to refer not
only to the creation of the human being or to the work of day six,
but to all of the prior work in its entirety. That includes every-
thing at once, since bursting forth in the praise of them he says:
all that he made, as much namely in regard to the creation
of heaven and earth as in regard to light, the additional works and
in the completed creation of the human being. To [the human
being], indeed, all things look as if to [their] end, that is, the final
cause of the others, since they were created or arranged for the sake

of the human being: the human being, to be sure, not for them,
but for the glorification of God alone. 304 When therefore they
come into the hands of the human being on account of their uses,
they have completed their course as if [arriving] at a kind of goal
and predetermined end of a race. But the human being has to get
to God, and in the vision of Him have rest on the true Sabbath.
305 And note that [the prophet] does not say: “he saw that
they were all very good,” as was said above on the various works:
he saw that it was good, but he specifies thus: God saw
all that he had made, and afterward not repeating he saw,
he adds, And they were very good. For this is not said
according to what we have explained in regard to singulars: God
saw that it was good, this is he makes us see this and under-
70 stand it from their manifest utility; it could be said about all that
he saw that it was all good on account of the work, except for the
second day in regard to the suspension of the waters, the use of
which, as we said, we are not yet able to demonstrate. 306 What
is said therefore: He saw everything and it was very
good, is as if he judged by his perfect knowledge that nothing
in them was to be corrected, but that he created all things so
good, as good as they should be created, that in their situation
it would not be fitting to have anything better added, as in the
opinion of Plato also, to the effect that the world, created by an
all-powerful and not envious God could not be improved in any
way.a 307 Considering which, Moses also asserts that everything
was created very good although we may believe that it was not
granted even to him to give a reason for everything. Not singu-
lars in themselves, however, but everything altogether is said to
be very good because, as blessed Augustine also notes, particu-
lars in themselves are good, but everything together is very good;
because things [that] considered in themselves might appear to
be worth little or nothing, in the sum total of everything are very
necessary.b Hence it is said: Great are the works of the Lord, exqui-
site his decrees in all things. (Ps. 110, 2)
a
Plato, Timaeus 29D-30A (ed. Waszink, p. 22).
b
Augustine, Enchiridion X (PL 40, 236).

EXPOSITION, 303-313
308 When it says very good it may perhaps move some

[to ask] what we should say about certain poisonous animals or
plants, or about certain other things which are considered to be
entirely superfluous, or finally about those apostate angels who
were made evil through pride right away at the beginning of their
creation. But because that was by their own malice, and they did
not receive it in their creation; they were by no means created evil
by God but were corrupted by their own selves through pride. 309
And so because even those spirits were created good and without 71
sin, but did not persevere as such, it cannot on their account be
denied that the works of God were good, since he created them
also as good spirits, namely in the very nature of a spiritual sub-
stance, which they themselves tarnished by the fall of pride, but
did not destroy.
310 And so all the works of God are good, and every creature
is to be called good, because it did not receive any sin or evil in the
very origin of its creation, but God bestowed on each as much as
was right, so that each particular creature was made by him not
only good, but truly even the best, that is, very good, not only then,
when they were first created, but in fact even daily when they are
procreated or multiplied by being born from those primordial
causes. 311 For even if an infant when he is born is not yet called
a good man - this pertains to morals - nevertheless he is a good
creature. So also a colt when it is born, although it is not yet a good
horse and suitable for use, nevertheless is a good creature, and has
received as much as was right for it in its very creation by God,
who never does or permits anything to happen without reason,
even when young [creatures] are produced abortive or born defec-
tive. 312 As regards the twigs of plants which appear to be super-
fluous, and must often be trimmed by us, as also [we trim] our
hair and fingernails, or as regards the poisonous [creatures] which
we mentioned, perhaps it seems sufficient as a solution, that he
said they were very good then, namely before human sin, not
now, and now after sin they are turned on us in punishment.
313 It is in fact clear that had the human being not sinned,
no danger would have menaced us from poison, nor would we
have been tormented by anything, but all those animals however

s avage, however cruel, would be as gentle to us as if domesticated,

in all things subject to our dominion, as long as we ourselves
72 were subject through obedience to our Creator who subjected
these to us. 314 When we afterward neglected this, many of these
[creatures] became dangerous and were even permitted to have
the power to kill us, so that miserable as a result we might now
realize how much we lost by not obeying God, when we deserved
to have these in our power as long as we were ourselves subject
to that highest power, from whom we had ourselves received
[the power] to dominate these. 315 Those whom reason ought
to restrain from sin and teach in advance what should be feared,
irrational creatures, insensible also, now made dangerous to us,
clearly teach how much has been lost, as if feeling by a kind of
divine power that they now owe no subjection to the human
being, after we failed to be subject to God, as if they owe us noth-
ing except on account of God. 316 Hence also these [creatures],
even lacking reason and sense, plainly instruct our foolishness,
lest we obey some of them in what they presume to do against
God, although we owe nothing to anyone except for the sake of
God and God should be our end in all that we do.
317 And so no one is to be accused of disobedience, nor even
to be accused, wherever offense against God, which alone makes
anyone guilty, is feared. Should anyone swear to someone to do
what he might require of him, and then stands by his oath, as long
as he has not realized that what he swore he would do would be an
offense to God, is like ourselves, learning from those who, as we
have said, have no reason, do not accept our dominion over them
and seem to understand that we have rejected God’s. 318 When
they kill us or torment us, thereby executing divine judgment and
inflicting due punishment, we falsely accuse these works of God
as if they were evil, because they have become sources of pain for
us on account of what we deserve. Otherwise we might question
both the very penalty which is just, and God as well as any just
judge, when he punishes the guilty and does what he ought. None
of the works of God are therefore to be called evil, although many,
73 as is just, may be dangerous and harmful, or when sometimes
the just have to perish [these creatures] set them free from the

EXPOSITION, 313-324
sufferings of this life, or purify them by some affliction. 319 But

neither is anything to be called superfluous in creatures, although
they may sometimes aggravate us very much, because by virtue of
[their] various benefits those which are scarcely good for one, are
adaptable to another, as sharp twigs which would harm the fruit
of the vine if they were to remain on it, are not useless for starting
a fire or for other necessities. Finally, the more this life is regarded
as more dangerous or more penitential, the more ardently is
sought that which exists free from all these.
320 But what [is] actually good in itself and properly speaking,
without qualification, or what is to be called evil or indifferent, is suf-
ficiently defined in our second Collation as far as I am concerned.a
321 In regard to creatures, however, there is no small question
as to whether in fact, as it seems to some, whatever is, and is not a
creator, may be called a creature, or whether only substances, but
not their accidents, are to be called creatures, or even whether some-
thing such as sitting [is a creature]. For when someone happens to
sit, we do not say that something is which previously was not, or that
something perishes which previously had been in [one] standing.
322 And it was evening. As on the other days [the
prophet] so brings their works to a conclusion that nothing fur-
ther is to be understood which might pertain to the works of
this particular day, so also concerning this day it appears that it
should be understood in such a way that in fact nothing beyond
what is mentioned is said to pertain to the works of this day, but
once the first parents were created, the whole work of this day 74
was completed. 323 Hence it is not necessary for us to profess
that all that is added in what follows concerning prohibition
of the tree or transgression of the precept, and concerning the
expulsion from paradise or the imposition of names by Adam,
or anything else that might have happened, was done on day six;
especially since it is uncertain for how long a space of time those
parents remained in paradise, so that all this, namely, which they
are afterwards said to have done there, they could have done
before their expulsion. 324 For that they could have remained
a
Abelard, Collationes II, 199-222 (ed. Marenbon and Orlandi, pp. 202-227).

for many years or days in paradise before their sin, appears to be

supported by authority as much as reason, as we will afterwards
describe in its place.
325 The sixth day. For the prophet to have related that
God completed his work in six days is not without its mystery, as
the perfection of the number itself actually confirms the perfec-
tion of the works. In fact this number, which is called the sen-
arius, occurs first among those numbers that are called perfect.
For there are reckoned to be three distinct kinds of numbers
according to the reckoning of their parts, with some in fact called
perfect, others abundant, others diminished. 326 The perfect
are actually those of which the sum of the parts is equal to the
whole. For example: the senarius has the ternary as its middle
part, the third binary, the sixth unity. So when these [are] added
up when you say one, two, three this alone makes up the senarius.
327 Those numbers are called abundant of which the sum of the
parts exceeds the [numbers] themselves, such as the twelfth. Of
the [twelfth], indeed, the senarius is the middle part, the quater-
nary the third, the ternary the fourth, the binary the sixth, unity
75 twelve. All of these joined together make the sixteenth, which
number is obviously greater than twelve. 328 The diminished
are those of which the parts reckoned and added together cannot
reach the sum of the whole, such as eight. Indeed this number has
as its middle part quaternary, the quarter binary, the octave one,
which all added together make seven, which it is obviously less
than eight.a
329 And so they were completed. That is, because
the elements, as has been stated, were created and arranged and
adorned with stars, plants, and animals, and so they were not just
finished in their creation but were also perfected in their arrange-
ment. 330 Their adornment he calls not only the things that are
in them, but even the things that are [made] out of them, not
spiritual to be sure but corporeal substances, which pertain to
the praise of the world, especially through the fact that they take
a
Calcidius, Comm. 14 (ed. Waszink, pp. 65-66).

EXPOSITION, 324-334
their beginning from this: All their ornament, namely of

the heavens – such as stars – as much as [the ornament] of the
earth or water, as are the plants or animals.
331 Which he made, that is on the six previous days. But
how then did he complete his work and not on the sixth day, if
he then did nothing? Here we understand the seventh day [to be]
all future ages of time, in which created species did not cease to
multiply in a certain number of individuals from their existing
nature, according to that truth: My Father works until now, and I
also work, (John 5, 17) as if he were saying: “Just as he has not yet
ceased to work, namely by daily multiplying what was made in
the beginning, so also likewise I do not [cease] to cooperate as his
coeternal wisdom, by whom he made all things.”
332 And he rested, namely by ceasing, as [the prophet] 76
at once explains, from [work on] the species which he created,
not from the number of things to be multiplied in them. In
fact none of those species were afterwards to perish, so that the
nature already prepared in itself would be insufficient to replen-
ish it, as is also true of the multiplication of individuals of the
species. For even if we suppose that the phoenix were a [single]
species, or that some species of grasses or flowers sometimes die
out, yet nature is already so prepared by the primordial causes
that it has the capacity to restore them. 333 And so it is well said:
What he had completed, namely in the species, not what
he was to multiply in the number of individuals. For although
the mule was not created among the species of animals, or the
many worms afterward generated out of some rotten or decom-
posing thing, however in the same aforementioned species they
had their seed-bed and a kind of force of their future creation.
And granted that souls in fact are not propagated from souls by
transmission, because in fact the species of the soul had already
been created, their daily multiplication is not impeded [when]
God is said to have rested from all, etc. 334 Certainly Eccle-
siastes was looking to this diversity of species, not the mul-
tiplication of individuals, when he said What is it that was?
The same thing that will be. Nothing is new under the sun, nor

is anyone able to say: this is new. Again: I have learned that

all the works that God has made endure forever. We cannot
add or take away anything that God made, so that he is to be
feared. What was made, the same endures. The things to come
already have been; he restores that which has passed. (Eccle. 1,
9-10; 3, 14-15.)
335 He blessed and sanctified, that is, he preferred [it]
77 to the other days and established [it] in celebration.
336 And he ceased. That it says he ceased, is an explana-
tion of the fact that [the prophet] said he rested, lest perhaps
we might think that he rested from his labor.
337 He created in the word, so that he might make
in the work according to that text: He spoke, and they
were made. And note that it is not said of the seventh day
as it is said of the other days, “that the evening and morn-
ing were the seventh day.” For God is not recorded on [that
day] as on the other days as having made something, but only
as having rested, nor are the works of multiplication which
would happen daily until the end of the world completed on
this seventh day.
338 Because we have followed the foregoing [text] as well as
we have been able according to the root of history and the truth
of what was done, it is good for us also to examine it in the light
of a moral and then a mystical interpretation. 339 An interpre-
tation is called moral in so far as the things said are so applied
to the edification of morals, that there are in us or have to be
done by us good [things] which are necessary to salvation, as
when we instruct our reader with our interpretation in regard
to faith, hope, and charity or good works. 340 On the other
hand an interpretation is called mystical when we teach that
those [things] that were to be consummated from the time of
grace through Christ were prefigured or those events in future
history which were shown in advance.a
a
Cf. Gregory the Great, Moralium in Iob, epist. missoria 3 (PL 75,
513BD).

EXPOSITION, 334-345
Moral
341 That mixture of heaven and earth first created in mat- 78

ter and not yet brought to a fixed differentiation of parts is the
human being consisting of a higher and a lower substance, that is,
of the soul and the body; but as yet somehow shapeless and with
morals unformed, with the flesh not yet subject to the spirit as
it ought [to be], or rather ruling over the spirit and thus confus-
ing and disturbing the natural order, until divine grace changes
and forms this animal man into a spiritual one just as afterwards
it brought order to that brute and confused mass of the elements.
342 It is on this mixture, which is again figuratively represented
by the fluid element of water, that the Spirit broods, when divine
goodness sets out to make a spiritual man from an as yet animal
man; and thus somehow he warms that mixture in the manner
of a nesting bird, so that he might somehow produce from it a
chick, when he prepares to reform the still old human being into
a new one. 343 This in fact he first achieves by inspiring the light
of faith, afterward hope, then charity, finally by bringing him to
perfection in the works of charity, so that he lives not only for
himself but also for others, and is not merely good in himself, but
also makes others good, as much by the example of [his] works or
benefits bestowed as by the instruction of preaching.
344 And so the creation of light is the illumination of faith
after the Holy Spirit, inspiring those whom he wills, begins the
spiritual construction of the soul from this foundation, without
which, as the apostle states, it is impossible to please God. (Hebr.
11, 6) Hence also the prophet rightly mentions that light was cre-
ated immediately after the creation of heaven and earth. 345 But 79
after faith follows hope, which now somehow lifts up the human
being, who, drawn by various desires, had been sinking downward
through concupiscence to earthly things, from the earthly to the
heavenly ones, and in these his soul originally chasing after many
[things] becomes firm and steady, and survives like an anchored
ship all sorts of storms of adversity, and is strengthened by the
desire for heavenly things to undergo or to undertake anything.

This is rightly represented in that suspension of the upper

waters completed on the second day, firmly established by the
interposition of heaven above.
346 On the third day, with the waters receding or subsid-
ing through certain channels in the earth, the earth was dried
and became arid, because a soul inflamed by the fire of charity,
when it subordinates the flesh to the spirit, somehow becomes
arid, dried by this heat, without the flood or the desires of carnal
appetites, so that now these have become desert places, through
which the devil passes without finding a place of rest for his sug-
gestions, because such a soul is not drawn to consent through
desires. But so that such a soul may be further perfected through
works, first the earth produces plants, afterward the stars placed
in the firmament provide [their] light.
347 And so the earth made dry, as stated, produces plants,
when any soul displays the charity which glows inwardly in the
[outward] evidence of corporeal works. Were it to grow up into
such perfection, that it could also edify and illuminate others
by the word of preaching, there would be luminaries in heaven;
that is, the words of one preaching in the Church, that were
80 to give light to the lesser and as it were still earthly [souls], and
this is let them illumine the earth. 348 Not only by day,
but even by night, because preaching is needed by weak souls as
much in prosperity as in adversity, lest by the one they become
puffed up or by the other they become crushed. Indeed, to that
kind of luminaries, edifying others not only by example but also
by word, the apostle said: Among whom you will shine like lights,
(Phil. 2, 15) and the Truth himself: You are the light of the world
(Matt. 5, 14). 349 Therefore through the perfect man, building up
others, sometimes with the light of works, at other times by the
instruction of preaching, this world brings forth living things on
every side, birds as well as land animals or reptiles, that is the triple
order of believers, namely the celibate, the rulers, and the married.
350 Finally, that human being created outside of paradise is
transferred into paradise, when he who in this life by the grace
of God was fruitful with so much goodness, is transferred to the

EXPOSITION, 345-354
heavenly fatherland from this [place of] exile for [his] merits,
attaining first to the Sabbath, then to the octave.a
Allegory
351 That sextet of days by which the world was brought to

perfection and also adorned portrays the six ages of the world.
The first age of the world is in a sense its infancy, from Adam up
to Noah; there is a second [age] up to Abraham, which is child-
hood; next a third up to David, like adolescence; afterward a
fourth up to the Babylonian captivity, like youth, that is, the
virile age; thence a fifth up to Christ, like old age; finally a sixth
up to the end of time, like the age of senility or decrepitude.
352 And so that confused and as yet indistinct mass of ele- 81
ments rightly represents the first uncultivated and rough age of
the world, without law and discipline, which is called the infancy
of the world. And it is rightly called infancy, being as yet incapable
of forming the words of God from the teaching of the law, just as
infants are not yet able to speak. This age is erased by the flood, just
as the memory of things done in infancy is erased by forgetfulness.
353 The second age is not erased by the flood, since anyone
is able to remember those things which one did in childhood. In
this age the Ark preserved the faithful in the flood, and like the
firmament placed between the waters, guarded them unharmed
from the waters raining down from above and the from the flood
waters below.
354 In the third age the law was given, which held back the
ancient people through fear of punishments from a flood of car-
nal desire, just as the earth was freed on the third day from the
lower waters and germinating immediately it produced earthly
offspring in grass and trees; because the ancient people, desiring
earthly rather than heavenly [things], received the promise of the
earthly, and adhering especially to the earthly with [their] desires,
a
Cf. Augustine, Confessiones XIII, 12-17 (CCL 27, pp. 248-253).

it was a kind of earthly generation, both depending entirely on

the earth, and basing its life in earthly [things].
355 On the fourth day the luminaries [that were] created signify
the light of the prophets after the law, speaking much more openly
concerning Christ than the law had done before, just as Daniel
says: Many will pass away, and knowledge will be multiplied, (Dan.
82 12, 4) as much in men, for instance Samuel [and], Nathan, as in
women, for instance Anna. 356 For the time of the prophets prop-
erly begins from the time of Samuel, as is diligently explained in the
Acts of the Apostles where it is written: And all the prophets from
Samuel and successively, etc. (Acts 3, 24), and Bede bears witness too
when expounding that passage, saying: “Although the patriarchs
and holy men of former times prophesied much concerning the
sayings and deeds of Christ, nevertheless the time of the prophets
properly [speaking], of those I say who clearly wrote about Christ
and the mystery of the Church, took its beginning from Samuel,
and endured up to the end of the Babylonian captivity.”a
357 The fifth age like the maturity of the world depicts the
absence of former goods, since the patriarchs and the prophets
had passed away, and the anointing had been transferred to a
foreign race, nor now was sacrifice celebrated with the ritual of
former times, which also the Babylonian captivity took away.
358 Indeed with the world now languishing in this old age, the
saviour was sent who was to revive the old human being, was to
preach baptism. In that baptism, indeed, human beings putting
off the old and putting on the new, as scripture states: All who
were baptized, you have put on Christ, (Gal. 3, 27) were like the liv-
ing things brought forth from the waters.
359 In the sixth age the human being [who was] made new
is placed in paradise, because only after the passion of the Lord
is such access to heaven opened to human beings, where first a
Sabbath is celebrated in the soul, afterward an octave in the body
united with the soul. Hence also it was said to the robber: Today
you will be with me in paradise, (Luke 23, 43) so that it might be
shown that in this age alone heaven is opened to human beings.
a
Cf. Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos I, xxiii (PL 34, 190-191).

CONTINUATION
360 These Generations, as if saying: “I blessed.” he ceased, 83

because those generations were the ones, not others [resulting]
afterward from some new preparation of nature yet to come.
361 The generations of heaven and earth, that is the
species of things made in matter from the elements first signified
by heaven and earth, as we mentioned.
362 When they were created, that is when they, namely
the generations, were first made, before this seventh day after
which they daily multiply.
363 On the day, that is, in that time-period of the six prece-
ding days.
364 On which the Lord made heaven and earth.
In Hebrew the order is altered thus: “on which the Lord made
earth and heaven,” although at the beginning it was the other
way around, because he created heaven and earth. Hence a
certain difference of meaning is implied by this inversion
of order for understanding the aforesaid generations. 365 It
understands living things by earth and heaven, [and] plants by
sprouts and grasses. For living things because they receive life
not from moisture, as plants do, but from breath, according to
Gregory [the Great]’s distinction among three vital spirits, are
signified by earth and heaven [in] this passage, seeing that in
their body they consist of a corporeal and heavy substance, and
in their soul they consist of a spiritual and light [substance].a
a
Gregory the Great, Dialogi IV, 3 (ed. Vogüé, III, pp. 22-25); cf. Hom.
In evangelia II, 29 (PL 76, 1214AB).

366 And because bodies are formed before spirits are infused,
[the prophet] has rightly referred here to earth before heaven.
Where he also appears to mention the stars, if he includes eve-
rything made from the elements, some kind of spirits also dwell
in these, so that they can be numbered among the living things,
84 just as the philosophers assert; and blessed Augustine professed
himself to be so unsure [about it] that he said he did not know
whether the sun and moon pertain to the society of the angels,
as we also mentioned above.
367 The sprouts of the field, that is, as yet wild and not
yet cultivated by human beings or planted as now, or with some
kind of attention from a human custodian.
368 There arose on the earth, that is, [then] as now dis-
persed over the entire earth it produced fruitfulness, originating
also from the moisture of the rain.
369 Of the region for which [the word] in Hebrew is field
as above, as if he were saying, the [land was] as yet uncultivated
and not enriched by propagation and a supply of rain as now. 370
Hence also it is added: For not, that is, rain was not yet made,
from which then also as now this growth takes place throughout
the whole world, with the human being then as now cultivating
[it], since the human being who was to work the earth was not
present then. 371 This he adds at once, saying, And there was
no human being. He does not say simply there was no one,
since [the human being] was also included above among the gen-
erations of heaven and earth and shown to have been made, but
he was not present to work the earth, because he did not yet
need to undertake the laborious [work of] cultivation, which he
subsequently received as the penalty for sin and in which he now
engages everywhere on earth.
372 But a spring. Lest perhaps someone were to ask
whence, therefore, the plants received the moisture by which
they were nourished or preserved when there was no rain, he
answers that from the deep a thin stream of water, rising in the
manner of a spring, irrigated those parts of the world in which
plants were dispersed. 373 And note that while he is called

CONTINUATION, 366-379
only God, but not “Lord” throughout the seven days above,
here however, when the generations of heaven and earth are
described as complete, he is called not only “God” but also 85
“Lord,” and after that the word “Lord” frequently designates
him. 374 Indeed the name Lord is not appropriate unless
there were some among the creatures over which he might exer-
cise dominion and rule, and not only some creatures but all
together. Hence it seems fitting to apply such [a title] to him
only after the completion of all.
375 He formed therefore. This has regard to what was
set out previously concerning the creation of human beings
on the sixth day, when it is said: And God created the
human being, etc. There indeed it is set out in advance that
the human being, male as well as female, was created, but the
manner of creation was not expressed. 376 This [the prophet]
here diligently discloses, namely by teaching that the body
of the man was first formed from the slime of the earth, and
then the soul was infused, the woman in fact was not created
separately, but was taken from the man as the sequel teaches.
377 Continuation: I said that the human being was created,
but I did not express the mode of creation; hence I shall do so
now. And this is what he does now, saying: He formed the
human being, that is, he composed the human body into
that shape which we have now.
378 From the slime of the earth, that is, from earth
[that was] moist and somehow compacted, not liquid, and so he
infused the soul into a body already created. Hence [the prophet]
clearly implies that the human soul is different from the other
souls by the very manner of its creation. In fact in the creation of
the other living things, it was said that earth or water produced
them, souls as well as bodies. 379 Hence it is indicated that their
souls are also [made] from the same elements, like some fine-
ness or subtlety of theirs, on account of which subtlety, namely,
those souls also are called spirit, just as the wind, too, is sometimes
called spirit, by contrast with earth and water, which are grosser
and more corpulent substances.

86 380 [The prophet] carefully chooses his words when he

says that the human being is “formed” from the earth, rather
than “created.” For where something is made from matter with
form super-added to it, it is properly said to be “formed.” Isi-
dore Etymologies book 11, chapter 1: “The human being is so
named, because he is made from humus, just as it also says in
Genesis: And God created the human being from the
slime of the earth. However, the whole man is not prop-
erly named from either substance, that is, from the association
of soul and body, for properly [speaking] human [is derived]
from humus.” Also: “But the human being is twofold, interior
and exterior; the interior human being is the soul, the exte-
rior human being is the body.” Again: “The soul of the human
being is not the human being, but the body, which is made from
humus, that alone is the human being.”a 381 Bede On Genesis
book 2 [states]: “And he called their names Adam, on
the day on which they were created; Adam means
human being so it can apply to either sex. Hence it is rightly
said: He called the name of them Adam, that is, human
being. Just as human being in Latin is from humus, so among
the Hebrews Adam is named from earth. Hence [the name
Adam] may also be interpreted earthy or red earth. Moreover,
among the Greeks human being has another etymology; for he
is called anthropos, from the [fact] that he ought to look above
and to raise the eyes of his mind to observe celestial things.”b
382 He breathed the breath of life, that is, as if from
himself, not from any primordial matter, he gave a soul to the
body already formed, so that the soul should actually receive its
being from God alone as its beginning, not from some other pri-
mordial cause. 383 The breath of life, he says, to distinguish
87 [it] from a puff of wind which is also called breath but does not
give life, just as the soul, too, is often called breath, according to
that [passage in] Isaiah: I made every breath. (Isa. 57, 16) Hence
also the soul is rightly compared to a puff [of air] or breath,
a
Isidore, Etymolog. XI, i, 4-6.
b
Bede, In Genesim II, v, 2 (CCL 118A, pp. 92-93).

because it is especially [evident] whether it is in the body or not

by exhalation or inhalation, since life cannot be maintained in
living things without these.
384 Into his face. Breath, I say, was [blown] into his
face, that is, [the face] of the human being, so that in fact only
that soul, not [those] of the other living beings, should have con-
sciousness or knowledge through reason. Face, in fact, signifies
the knowledge by which everyone is recognized.
385 And it was done, that is, the human being was thus
completed. Into a living soul, that is, through such a soul as
lives forever, since it has no defect.
386 A paradise of pleasure, that is a delectable garden, so
that the human being might notice how much he owed to God
not only from the dignity of his creation but also in fact from
the amenity and the delightfulness of the place selected from out
of the whole world for him to be situated. Indeed, it is written
concerning this place that “many would have it that the loca-
tion of paradise is in the eastern part of the globe of the earth,
although with a great distance intervening, whether of ocean
or of lands, hidden away from all regions that the human race
now inhabits. 387 Hence also the waters of the flood, which cov-
ered the entire surface of our globe most deeply, were not able
to reach it.”a That appears especially to be the case from the fact
that Enoch, transferred into paradise before the flood, could not
have been drowned. 388 Jerome [states in his] Hebrew questions
on Genesis: “A paradise from the beginning. Hence it was
most clearly shown that before God created heaven and earth, 88
he first founded paradise. And it reads in Hebrew: ‘but the Lord
God planted a paradise in Eden from the beginning.’”b 389 Isi-
dore [states in] book 14 chapter 3 of the Etymologies in regard to
Asia, where paradise is located: “Paradise is a place established
in eastern parts, the name of which translated from Greek into
Latin is garden. Moreover it is called Eden in Hebrew, which in
our language means delights. One joined to the other, this makes
a
Bede, In Genesim I, ii, 8 (CCL 118A, p. 46).
b
Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos II, 8 (CCL 72, p. 4).

a garden of delights. 390 For it is planted with every kind of

wood and fruit bearing trees, including even the tree of life. The
air there is not cold, nor hot, but perpetually temperate. A foun-
tain springing forth from the middle of it waters the whole grove,
and divides into four rivers at the start of their course. After sin,
access to this place was closed off. For it is surrounded on all sides
by a fiery stockade, that is, encircled with a wall of fire, so that its
flames reach almost up to heaven. 391 Moreover cherubim, that
is a garrison of angels, is stationed [there] to keep off evil spirits
above the fiery stockade, so that the flames drive men away and
angels [banish] evil angels, lest access to paradise be opened to
any carnal or spiritual transgressor.”a
392 When in fact [the prophet] says, from the beginning,
that is, of the planting, he implies that this came before other
plantings, so that it might have something more delightful about
it than other places, when the human being was introduced into
it, so much the more lovingly was it prepared in advance, the more
time was spent on its preparation.
393 He placed the human being whom he had
formed, that is, the man whose formation was already described.
Actually, the man was made outside of paradise from the slime
of the earth, then transferred into paradise. But the woman, who
was created in paradise from the man, nevertheless got both the
89 man and herself thrown out of paradise, just as the sequel clearly
relates. Hence it is evidently implied that salvation pertains not so
much to place as to morals, since the woman was created in a bet-
ter place but behaved worse when tempted.
394 And it produced. The prophet gives the reason why
he said of pleasure: beautiful to see and sweet to eat,
so that he might enjoy seeing it and be refreshed by the sweetness
of its taste.
395 And the tree of life. When he said every tree, why
is it that he says even in regard to those two trees, as if the same
were not true of all trees, that they were delectable to sight and
to taste, especially since it is written in what follows concerning
a
Isidore, Etymolog. XIV, iii, 2-4.

the tree upon which the transgression was made, that the woman
saw that it was a good tree and delectable? 396 But perhaps it is
also said not because of the difference in the trees, but because
of the difference in the place where he established and brought
together these two trees, that is, in the middle of paradise, not
on the circumference like the others. For when he had said that
the earth in paradise should bring forth the other trees as well
as these, he did not make any distinction as to how they were
to be placed, or in what relationship they were to stand. Which
he now does, when he describes these in the middle, the others
around the circumference. 397 The tree of life names the one
which was created as if for a medicine and granted to the human
beings for the preservation of life and integrity of the body with-
out the defects of old age. Hence also in what follows it was
written about them after sin and expulsion from paradise: lest
perhaps they take from the tree of life and live for-
ever. And again: He stationed cherubim before the
gates of paradise, to guard the way of the tree of
life. 398 For they had the other trees for daily food to support
life and refresh the body, not as health-giving medicine. Indeed, 90
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is [so] named, not
from what it received in its creation, but from what followed for
those first parents as a result of what they did by transgressing.
For, by this they learned from actual experience, what a differ-
ence there was between the good of the delectable life that they
had before, and the evil of the penalty which they incurred, like
the difference between rest and hard work.
399 And the tree of knowledge, in the middle of
paradise together with the tree of life, so that when the human
being saw that access was granted to the latter tree, which
was better and more necessary to him, he would be especially
restrained from trespassing on the other, if not through love
of God, at least so as to retain so great a benefit constituted
in the tree of life. But what kind of tree it was on which they
trespassed, there is no definite scriptural authority. 400 But
it seems to some to be the fig, particularly since these [first]
parents are said afterward to have made themselves aprons of

fig leaves. Hence also some wish to interpret what the Lord
answered when Nathanael asked whence he knew him, saying:
I saw you when you were under the fig tree, (John 1, 48) as if the
Lord were saying: You did not first come to my attention now,
whom I knew by foreknowledge from the beginning as exist-
ing in the first parents through [their] seed. Likewise also the
apostle says Levi was in the loins of Abraham (Cf. Hebr. 7, 5).
401 But the Hebrews assert that this tree of the knowledge
of good and evil was the vine, and that it was set next to the tree
of life in the middle of paradise in the same way that we now
often see a vine supported by an elm, and clinging to it as if in one
body. Hence they even call the vine the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, in that the wine produced from its fruit taken
moderately or immoderately, gives the human being knowledge
91 of good or evil, that is it makes him sense what is good or bad,
when it either sharpens his mind or confuses it. 402 Hence also
they think of the grape as its fruit, in which the fathers of old
were deceived, according to those words of the prophet: Our
fathers have eaten sour grapes, that is, the fruit by which we incur
the sourness of penalty. At once establishing this, he says: And
the children’s teeth are set on edge (Jer. 31, 29; Ez. 18, 2), that is,
the penalty endured, transmitted to posterity. The fact that after
eating of this tree they at once felt the promptings of lust would
seem consistent with that opinion. 403 Indeed, it is well known
that this fruit or the wine pressed from it is warm in nature, and
that it is highly conducive to lechery, according to that saying of
the apostle: Do not be drunk with wine, in which there is lustful-
ness. (Eph. 5, 18) Insofar as there resulted from it that movement
of lustfulness in those first human beings, because of which,
feeling ashamed, they concealed their genitalia, that tree seems
fittingly to have been called the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil. 404 Finally, the taste of this tree, in which Adam by
trespassing, condemned to punishment his descendants as well
as himself, his posterity afterward so abhorred or determined to
avoid that before the flood no one is believed to have touched
wine, as if mindful of the penalty which he had incurred from

contact with the forbidden fruit. After the flood, Noah, who
planted a vineyard as if he had forgotten the aforementioned
trespass, is described as drunk with wine and at once his disgrace
became evident when he uncovered his genitalia. 405 So also it
happened with the first parents, who after the offending taste of
the forbidden tree, are reported to have been naked and soon to
have been ashamed of their nakedness and at once to have has-
tened to cover their private parts, just as also in the story of Noah
two of his sons took care to do, while the third was laughing at
his father (Cf. Gen. 9, 20-24).
406 And a river. Also as a part of the description of the
amenity of the place, the pleasure of a river as well as trees would
delight the inhabitants.
407 From the place of pleasure, that is, from that same 92
paradise, not flowing in from outside, but rising from within para-
dise itself, so that it is shown to contain within itself all that is
necessary, not receiving [anything] from elsewhere.
408 To irrigate, and for conferring lasting freshness on it,
so that no rain would be necessary there.
409 Thence, namely from the place where it bubbled up
flowing forth from the earth, or from that same paradise when it
flowed outward, although in paradise itself it was like one river.
410 Into four fountainheads, that is, this was a sep-
aration into the sources of four rivers. For where this separa-
tion begins, thence the rivers have to be distinguished, because
before this separation all that water, running through one
channel, should be called one river or one fountainhead and
source of those rivers.
411 The name of the one, namely of the source of those
four. For just as any river of the four has to be distinguished from
its source so also it derives its name from its source, because up to
the beginning of its separation the entire river is named this or
that until it enters the sea.
412 That is it. The relative pronoun that, since it is in the
masculine gender grammatically, has to be related to the name of
Phison, not to the former one, namely the one source.

413 All the land. It says for the greater part, since no
river can go all the way around any land, since it cannot flow out
through that region by which it flowed in.
414 Evilat, that is, India, which has this name because after
the flood it was occupied by Evila son of Iectan, son of Heber,
hence the Hebrews. Pliny states that the regions of India are
93 richer in veins of gold than any other lands.a
415 Bdellium is an aromatic tree, black in color; its sap clear,
bitter to taste, of a good odor, but more fragrant than wine when
poured out.
416 Onyx, a precious stone so named because it has in itself
a mixture of color similar to human fingernails. For the Greeks
call nails “onichen.” The older translation has carbuncle and
green stone for these. The carbuncle is a stone the color of fire,
which lights up the darkness of the night. Prassine [signifies] a
greenish aspect. Hence also it derives its name from “leek”, which
is called “prasson” by the Greeks.
417 When [the prophet] continues with the praise of each
one of the rivers flowing from paradise it seems to redound to
the praise of this place, as if [the river] draws from its birthplace
[the fact] that it is abundant in these goods. And note that to the
greater fame of these rivers he distinguishes them not only by
their names but also by the geographical locations to which they
penetrate, so that they are further commended by their usefulness
where [they are] especially known. 418 When he refers to these
rivers as the one or second or third or fourth, this is not accord-
ing to the order of their positions, but rather it appears accord-
ing to the order of the narrative, lest perhaps someone might say
that they have this order in their aforesaid separation, so that
one is separated into its riverbed before another from that source
whence they were born.
94 419 That is the Euphrates. He does not describe this one
like the others in terms of the places through which it flows since,
as they say, it was closer and better known to the Jewish people.
These rivers are best known to the people through [whose lands]
a
Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, xxi, 80 (ed. Mayhoff, p. 464).

they flowed. In the case of two of them, their names changed

long ago. Gion is, in fact, the one that is now called the Nile. But
the one that was called Phison they now name the Ganges. Two,
indeed, the Tigris and the Euphrates, retain their ancient names.
420 But one might wonder why it is said in regard to these rivers,
that the sources of some are known, others simply unknown, and
therefore it cannot be taken literally that they branch out from
a single source, when it is rather to be believed, seeing that the
location in paradise, which is divided into four bodies of water, as
the most faithful scripture testifies, is remote from human knowl-
edge. 421 But those rivers whose sources are said to be known, are
cited as being somewhere under the earth, and after traversing
vast regions bursting forth at other places, where they are known
as if in their sources. For who does not know that it is usual for
some channels of water to do this? 422 In this way they offer an
explanation for what Boethius says in these words concerning the
Tigris and Euphrates in book 5 of the Consolation:
Among the crags of the Achaemenian cliffs, where turned in flight
The fighting Parthian’s arrows pierce his pursuers’ breast.
The Tigris and Euphrates rise from one spring.a
423 In the Etymologies, book 13, Isidore [states]: “It is called

Gion because by the spread of its flooding it irrigates the land
of Egypt. For Ge in Greek means earth in Latin. Among the
Egyptians this is called Nile on account of the slime it carries 95
which produces fertile earth; hence also it is called Nilus, as if
Nianomon. For formerly, the Nile was called Melo in Latin.
424 Ganges, which the Scriptures name Phison, proceeds
towards the regions of India. But it is called Phison, which
means crowd, because it is filled with ten great rivers joining it
and becoming one. But it is called Ganges from king Gangara
of India. But it is related of the Nile that it sometimes rises
and spills out over the lands of the east. 425 The Tigris, river
of Mesopotamia, proceeding opposite Assyria, after many
windings flows into the Dead Sea. But it is called by this name
a
Boethius, Philosophiae consol. V, met. I, 1-3 (CCL 94, p. 90).

on account of the speed of its current, similar to the tiger, an

extremely dangerous beast. 426 Euphrates, a river of Meso-
potamia most abundantly filled with gems, flows through the
middle of Babylon. Here it receives its name from fruits or
from abundance; for in Hebrew Euphrata means fertility. And
it even irrigates Mesopotamia in certain locations in the same
way that the Nile does Alexandria. But Sallust, a most reliable
authority, asserts that the Tigris and Euphrates rise from one
source in Armenia, then, flowing in different directions, are
widely separated with a distance of many miles between them.
Nevertheless, the land which is surrounded by them, is called
Mesopotamia. Hence Jerome noted that it was to be under-
stood differently in regard to the rivers of Paradise.”a 427 Bede
On the Nature of Things: “Egypt uses the Nile river instead of
rain, because the heat of the sun repels mist and clouds. For in
the month of May, when the estuaries, through which it flows
into the sea, are blocked up by a gusting wind, waves cast up
96 sand dunes, little by little swelling and impelled backward, it
irrigates the plains of Egypt. But when the wind ceases, and
the sand dunes rupture, it returns within its banks.”b
428 Then he took, evidently because the setting of paradise
was so delectable and pleasant. The man was rightly made outside
paradise and thence transferred into paradise, so that he might
desire the delightfulness of paradise so much the more, and exert
himself so much the more to keep it the more he saw that it sur-
passed that outlying land where he was created.
429 So that he should cultivate [it], that is, to culti-
vate paradise itself and by obedient service maintain it for himself,
lest of course he were to lose it [by being] expelled through trans-
gression.
430 But [the prophet] at once introduces the topic of the
precept that he was required to obey there, when he says: And
he commanded him. He does not say “them” in the plural,
but him in the singular, referring to the man alone whom he
a
Isidore, Etymolog. XIII, xxi, 7-10.
b
Bede, De natura rerum XLIII (CCL 123A, p. 227).

said was transferred into paradise, although the woman later

says that God had given this command to her as well as the
man, saying: Of the fruit of the tree which is in the
middle of the garden God commanded us that we
should not eat. 431 Hence it is to be understood that when
the Lord forbade that tree to the man in this place, he spoke to
the human species jointly in him, not directing that utterance
to that particular person, but generally to human nature, that
is, absolutely forbidding that any one of human nature presume
[to do] it. So also when a priest blessing any water present to
hand says: “Who walked over you on foot, who turned you into
wine,”a what he says is addressed to the element of water, not to
the water actually present.
432 But how is it true that God placed the human being in 97
paradise in order that he cultivate it and maintain it for him-
self when the consequence was in no wise that the man main-
tained it for himself? In fact there are two ways in which we say
that something is done in such a way that as a result something
else should happen or be done: namely, sometimes by inten-
tion, sometimes by consequent effect. For example, if I were
to say about someone that he went out to war to kill, or went
out to be killed, just as the former is understood to be done by
him with the intention that he might kill another, so the lat-
ter is done in such a way that it might happen as a consequence
that another killed him. 433 But in fact when we say that God
placed the human being in paradise to maintain it for himself,
it does not mean that since he had this intention he did not
know what would happen in the future nor the way in which
it would subsequently happen. So therefore that he might
cultivate, etc. is to be understood as if to say that by plac-
ing him there, he appointed him the cultivator and custodian of
that place, namely by commanding him that he should cultivate
and maintain it for himself. Indeed, he would have cultivated it
with enjoyment by doing something like pruning the trees or
vegetation, rather than with the hardship of fatigue.
a
Missale Rom., Benedictio fontis, Sabbato sancto.

434 And it can be asked, if this precept was audible, in what

language would it have been uttered which Adam could have
understood, when he is afterward described as having invented
language, when he gave names to the animals that were led to
him? But we know that many things in Scripture are often related
outside of the order of deeds done, by digression or anticipation.
435 For see above on the sixth day with the woman as well as
the man already created, but an account of the manner of their
creation is not yet [given], that creation is later repeated and
narrated as carefully and completely, as if it happened only then
and not before.
98 436 And so just as for things made earlier, there is later a repe-
tition because the way in which they were made had been left out,
so also it is not out of the question that a number of things are
related here by anticipation out of sequence, so that Adam may
have devised words for speaking before he heard the precept of the
Lord in the very words which he had himself devised, so that he
might understand them and speaking himself might later say in
these words: This now, bone of my bones, etc. and in these
words the serpent also might speak with the woman, or the woman
with the serpent; and again the Lord himself in rebuke of sin with
Adam and Eve, or they with the Lord. 437 From which it follows
that those who think those first parents lived for some years in
paradise before sin, although they did not conceive any children
there, have no little reason in support. 438 For a short space of
time, were we to omit all the rest, could not suffice for the inven-
tion of one language, and not only the invention of the names
which alone is mentioned here, is contained in these utterances
which are said to be spoken in paradise; rather on the contrary not
one of the names of things living on earth or of the birds, which
Adam is said to have assigned, is contained in these speeches.
439 But apart from the reasons which we mentioned, the
authority of Malachi the prophet appears to teach that they
might have lived innocently in paradise for several years, a posi-
tion with which blessed Augustine strongly agrees. 440 Hence
the same teacher, bringing to bear the words of that prophet,

states in book 20 of The City of God, chapter 27: “we should

explain the meaning of the text: As in the days of old and as in for-
mer times (Mal. 3, 4). Perhaps it refers to that time, when the first
human beings were in paradise. 441 For at that time, being pure
and undamaged by any stain and weakness of sin, they offered
themselves to God as the purest sacrifice. For the rest of the time 99
they were sent away for the sin they had committed, and human
nature, except for one mediator and after the washing of regen-
eration was condemned in them – even children while still small,
as it is written: no one is clean of sin, not even an infant who has
lived only one day on earth (Job 14, 4). 442 But if it is answered
that even these can rightly be said to offer sacrifice in justice, who
offer them in faith – for the just man lives by faith (Rom. 1, 17) –
although he would deceive himself if he said that he does not have
sin, and therefore let him not say that he lives by faith – surely
no one will say this time of faith is the same as at the end of time,
when they will be purified by the fire of the last judgment, who
offer in justice? 443 And with that, since we must believe that
after such cleansing the just will have no sin, then certainly only
that time, to the extent that freedom from sin is attainable, is to
be compared to the time when the first human beings lived in
completely innocent happiness in paradise before their transgres-
sion. This, therefore, is the right interpretation of what is signi-
fied by the words: As in the days of old and as in former times. 444
For he says through Isaiah, after the promise of a new heaven
and a new earth, among the other things which are described
there about the blessedness of the saints, through allegories and
riddles (our concern to avoid lengthy explanations prevents us
from suitably explaining these): As in the day(s) of the tree of life
will be the days of my people (Is. 65, 22). 445 But who has stud-
ied the sacred text and does not know where God planted the 100
tree of life, from the food of which those human beings were sev-
ered, when their own iniquity cast them out of paradise, [and]
the same tree was encircled and guarded by terrible flames? 446
What if someone were to contend that those days of the tree
of life which the prophet Isaiah mentioned are the days of the

Church at present, and Christ himself is the tree of life propheti-

cally speaking, because he himself is the wisdom of God, of which
Solomon said: It is a tree of life to all who embrace it (Prov. 3, 18),
and that the first human beings did not spend any years in para-
dise, since they were cast out so swiftly that they conceived no
children there, and therefore that time cannot be understood
to refer to the text: as in the days of old and as in former years? I
would rather not discuss all of that question at length, so that at
least some of the truth about these matters may be plainly estab-
lished. 447 In fact I see another meaning, which prevents us from
believing that the pristine days and former years of carnal sacri-
fices had been promised to us through the prophet as a great gift.
For the sacrificial victims that were required as offerings by the
old law from among each kind of cattle, which were immaculate
and without any flaw whatever, signified holy persons, of which
only one, Christ, is found entirely without any sin.”a
448 But so that we may strive to satisfy those also who would
have it that the first parents spent no more than a day in paradise,
perhaps the Lord used there not the spoken word but some signs,
101 whose interpretation he could easily inspire in the human being.
For it is believed that the serpent spoke to the woman not in
words but by hissing, and that the first parents were characterized
by such sagacity that they were able to recognize their disposition
from the hiss of the snake or the cries of birds. 449 If we assume
this, we do not have to say that Adam invented language in para-
dise, but that the prophet related by anticipation what happened
outside paradise.
450 Of every. Only what follows: But from the tree of
knowledge, etc., appears to pertain to the command. From
every tree appears to be a concession rather than a command,
for they would not be culpable, if they did not eat from all the
other trees, when they were in paradise. Hence also the woman,
responding to the serpent (Gen. 3, 3), stated that she received a
command only about the tree that is in the middle of the garden.
a
Augustine, De civitate Dei XX, 26 (CCL 48, pp. 749-50).

451 In whatever. He exhorts him to obedience with the

threat of punishment, saying that on whatever day he touches
that forbidden tree, after the death of his soul, that is, after sin-
ning he would suffer death of his body and as it were, suffer a dou-
ble death, or ‘dying you will die and so shall your posterity.’
452 But perhaps you ask why he forbade something which
he knew they would transgress, something in which there would
have been no sin had there not been a command? Who will not
see that he was almost seeking an opportunity for them to do
something for which as transgressors they could be punished or
proven guilty, deserve to be condemned? But I say: what if before
the human being sinned he sought an opportunity to make him 102
better after sin, by seeking him through himself and redeeming
him by his own death, and by showing us so great a love, that as he
himself says: Greater love has no man (John 15, 13)? 453 For in fact
from this supreme love shown to us, we love God so much the
more, the more we have greater cause to love him. By loving him
more after sin, we are made better, and by his mercy our wick-
edness is turned into the highest good for ourselves. 454 In fact
one woman is now worth more to God, and appears more pleas-
ing to him through merit than might many thousands of men, if
they had persevered forever without sin. For if there were no fight
[against] adversity, where would be the crown of victory? 455 This
is what he who blesses the Paschal candle is carefully thinking as
he exclaims over the mercy of God: “O wondrous condescension
of your affection for us, O immeasurable love of charity: so that
you might redeem a slave you sent a son. O certainly necessary sin
of Adam which was erased by the death of Christ, O happy fault,
that merited such and so great a redeemer.”a
456 But if you were also to object that no human being would
have sinned if those first human beings had not sinned or if they
had received no command to obey, no reason or authority can
support you. For who does not know that from just parents very 103
bad [children] are born, or the opposite? 457 What would have
made their descendants better equipped to resist sin than those
a
Exsultet, Missale Rom., Benedictio cerei, Sabbato sancto.

whose particular or special maker was God himself? Finally who

does not know that we are able to recognize by the natural law
of reason without having received any precept that in which we
can offend God or sin? 458 For Cain, and all those who existed
before the law, were not ignorant [as to] what would please or
displease God, when avoiding the latter they sought the former,
or doing the contrary incurred guilt. Hence it is by no means to
be conceded that they [would have] remained immune to sin if
they had received no command to obey, when even without a
command they could sin against conscience.
459 You may also say that so minor and reparable a sin as the
tasting of that fruit, ought not be punished with so great a penalty,
engulfing all later children, when greater sins are daily commit-
ted and require minimal satisfaction. 460 To which I reply that
in the first sin even though [it was] relatively slight, the human
being needed to experience how much graver faults displease God
which he does not punish with corporeal and transitory penalties,
but with perpetual and very severe ones as well, not with those
very light [ones] which, as blessed Augustine states, unbaptized
infants endure.a
461 And he said. As if he were saying: “he said not only
104 what has gone before, but also what follows,” although he said the
former differently by speaking through an angel, here by deciding
within himself.
462 For the man to be alone: that is, for one man to
remain alone without the company of a woman.
463 Let us make, he speaks in the plural at the creation of
the woman just as [he spoke] above at the creation of both the
man and the woman, when he says: Let us make the human
being in our image and likeness.
464 For him, namely for the man [who was] already created.
Ahelper, for that [task] especially which God was previously
shown saying to them: Be fruitful and multiply.
465 Like unto himself, that is, of the same species as the
man, since the woman also, as has been said, is called “human.”
a
Augustine, Enchiridion XCIII (CCL 46, p. 99).

466 Therefore when they were formed. That

therefore is so to be read that when all the living
things of the earth had been formed, etc., therefore,
namely because they had already been formed, God brought
them to Adam. And when all the fowl – add had been
formed – not, however, from the earth, but, as was said
above, from the waters.
467 He brought them. If animals one by one or birds two
by two or seven by seven went into the Ark, it is no wonder that
paradise could hold one single animal from each species.
468 To Adam. In this place the Hebrew name Adam first
occurs for us, which is the common name as much of the man
as of the woman, with the same meaning among the Hebrews
as human, the name the species [has] among the Latins. Hence
also in what follows it is said: This is the book of the
generations of Adam. On the day on which God
created the human being, in the likeness of God
made he him. Male and female created he them, and
blessed them: And he called their name Adam on the
day on which they were created. (Gen. 5, 1-2) 469 So
although it is said, He brought them to Adam, it is uncer- 105
tain whether they were led to the man only or to both the man
and the woman, who were described by the prophet as having
already been created on the sixth day, although at that point
he did not describe the manner of their creation as he did later.
470 Josephus [states] in book 1 of the Antiquities: “Adam in the
Hebrew tongue signifies ruddy, because he was made from mois-
tened red earth. For such is virgin soil and true.”a 471 Bede, on
Genesis book 2: “And he called their names Adam, on
the day on which they were made. Adam is translated
as human being so that it can be applied to either sex. Hence it
is rightly said: He called their name Adam, that is, human
being. Just as [the name] human being is derived in Latin from
humus, so among the Hebrews [the name] Adam [is derived]
a
Josephus, Antiq. I, i (ed. Dindorfius I, p. 5).

from earth. Hence also it can be interpreted earthy or red earth.”a

472 Again: “There is another mystery in the name of Adam. For
it has four letters, from which the four regions of the globe take
their beginning when they are named in Greek, so that the name
of the protoplast mystically contains in itself all the regions of the
world, through whose progeny all the world was to be filled.”b
473 So that he might see, first no doubt by inspecting
their natures, afterward devising words for defining them. We do
not believe that the part of days as we reckon them from dawn
until afternoon, when they were rebuked by the Lord and after-
ward evicted, would have sufficed to bring this to completion.
474 But why is it that only the beasts of the earth and the
birds are said to have been led to Adam so that he might give them
names, and not the fish also or the trees or the other non-sentient
things to which he is said to have given [names]? 475 I do not
106 believe it is because he gave names only to these, but that it has
especially to do with commending divine power that they were
gathered and led to him in this manner; and perhaps because only
these living things, and not fishes, were to be to be dedicated in
sacrifice to the Lord, they were worthy to be led up so as to receive
names from Adam so that they might act out a type of Christ.
476 For every. Construe thus: Every name which Adam
called, that is, assigned, the living things, that was its
name, in the Hebrew language that is, which is said to be the
mother and origin of the others.
477 And he named. As they were led up to be named by him.
All living things. Since it was said above only in regard
to the beasts of the earth and the birds that they were led up so
that they might be named, how is it said here of Adam that he
named all living things, and how is there soon added, and
the universe, etc., although these are not among the living
things? But perhaps so that it should not be generally under-
stood that it says all living things, as if by way of definition
there is added and the universe, as if to say, “all this, to be
a
Bede, In Genesim II, v, 2 (CCL 118A, p. 92).
b
Bede, In Genesim II, v, 2 (CCL 118A, p. 93).

sure, which follows.” 478 In Hebrew for what is called living

things, there is “quadrupeds,” that is domestic animals. And
where there is added beasts of the earth, or fields, this des-
ignates the forest animals, as they are wild.
479 Adam truly. After [the prophet] spoke of the imposi-
tion of names, he returned to what he had interrupted, the crea-
tion of the woman from where it was written above: And God
said: it is not good for the man to be alone, let us
make for him, etc. We can be surprised as to why the prophet
put off telling this until here, in order to insert [the story] of the 107
imposition of names. But perhaps he decided to insert this digres-
sion before he described the creation of the woman so as to suggest
that names were assigned by the man alone, and not by the woman.
480 And note that when he says: Adam did not find a helper,
etc., he makes this name Adam, which is common to both man
and woman, as it were proper to the man who was already created,
from that connected [phrase]: Ahelper like unto himself, a
helper, as we said, for the propagation of the human species.
481 Like unto himself. Namely of the same species, as we
mentioned above. Although he is speaking of the woman, never-
theless he does not say “helper-ess” but helper, since in fact we
often use the masculine gender without distinction for either sex,
like “horse” when we say, “all things that whinny are horses.”
482 And so he plunged him [into a deep sleep]. I do not
believe this was the normal and natural sleep of humankind, but
the kind which renders a man unconscious, so that he might incur
no sensation of pain from the removal of the rib, just as medical
doctors usually do to those on whom they wish to operate.
483 One of the ribs. He decided to form the woman from
the side of the man, not from a higher or a lower part, so that
before sin he saw her as a kind of partner and companion, not as a
superior or a subordinate. For after sin she was handed over into
the power and dominion of the man.
484 Flesh for it, namely the rib, not restoring another
rib for him. This is not to be believed of other men, so that the
number of each man’s ribs, as some surmise, is not equal to those
of women. 485 And so he decided to work in that first man in such 108

a way namely that he did not restore the rib but substituted flesh
for the rib, so that he might especially learn through this, when he
felt the place that lacked the rib, and felt somewhat weakened in
strength, so that a woman might be made from him, how impor-
tant to God the woman also is whom he decided to create at some
detriment or loss to the man or to the strength of his bone struc-
ture. Hence also the man would love her the more, because he rec-
ognized that she was not created through herself but out of him.
486 And he brought her. When it is said, he brought
her, it appears that the Lord created the woman in some place
apart, whence he afterward brought her. Or it is said he
brought her when he handed her over into marriage and con-
joined her unto a wife.
487 And Adam said. This is the first prophecy by which
Adam, fully awake, recognized what was made from his rib while
he was asleep. Whether he said it by an audible word, perhaps with
words of the Hebrew language that had already been devised, or
he conceived it by an intelligible mental word, is uncertain.
488 This, now, is bone, as if [to say] already existing in her-
self and separate from my person.
489 Of my flesh, although nothing was said above about
flesh of Adam being extracted to form the woman. Hence we are
to understand that flesh adhered to the rib which would turn into
the flesh of the woman.
490 If perhaps one were to ask whether only what was taken
from Adam turned into the body of the woman, or whether
something was super-added from the elements to make the whole
mass of [her] body complete, just as we believe in regard to the
growth of children, the former opinion certainly and only the
last part of question is supported by reason. 491 And notice that
109 Adam recognized that only bodily things were derived from his
body, clearly indicating that the soul cannot be transposed, nor
can a soul ever be propagated from a soul, but souls are indivi-
dually infused into our created bodies, just as was stated above
in regard to Adam. Hence, only bodies are able to be generated
by derivation from other bodies, since some part of the latter is a
kind of seed-bed for the former. But souls, since they are entirely

simple things, have no parts as regards the extent of their essence;

nothing can be derived from them by way of a share in the crea-
tion of some other [soul].
492 Nevertheless, some parental souls appear to be causes
of the souls of children. For just as the bodies of those who are
conceived derive [their] shape or features from the bodies of
their parents, so also the souls of the former [appear to derive
from] from the souls of the latter. For just as the souls of parents
are rational or brutish, so also the souls of children are naturally
similar, and delight in the same nourishment, and often human
children also imitate their parents in conduct, just as they do
in bodily features. 493 Hence, as has been said, some parental
souls appear to be the natural causes and some kind of source
for the souls of [their] children just as certain qualities also,
which are known to pertain to the incorporeal nature, [appear
to be the causes] of other qualities which they bring in, and are
in a position somehow to generate naturally just as the weak-
ness of one [brings on] the weakness of another, or paleness in
an offspring as if born from itself, not by derivation, however,
but by some natural force and faculty for producing it.
494 Wo-man, because [she is taken] from man, so that
she should be joined to the man by name as well as by nature,
her name as well as her being coming from the man, both names 110
showing how much those who are joined together should love
each other. 495 In Hebrew the man is called ‘is’, hence the woman
is called ‘issa’. The Latin translation does imitate the Hebrew deri-
vation as best it can, with virago, from vir, instead of femina, the
usual word [for woman], even though in current usage not every
woman would be called virago, but only those who are virile, that
is, strong-minded.
496 For which reason. So far, these words could be as
much those of Adam himself as of the prophet writing. Conti-
nuation: because she who was to become the wife of Adam was
so conjoined to him as much by the substance assumed from him
as by the derivation of [her] name, the man shall leave, etc.
497 That is, whoever are to be born from these first parents, as
a result of what the Lord did in them, ought to cling to their

wives with such affectionate love, that they place the care of their
[wives] before the care of their own parents, providing in all
things with a greater solicitude for the former than for the latter.
498 And they shall be two. That is, they shall be so
equal between themselves that in the use of the flesh granted
against fornication, neither takes precedence over the other, but
in this the woman may have as much power over the body of the
man as the man has over the body of the woman. 499 And note
that it does not say, ‘he leaves,’ but he shall leave. For Adam,
who until then was alone out of all men, did not have a father
except God, and a mother except the earth, neither of which
were to be left on account of his wife. And the two shall be
111 in one flesh, is as if to say: “they shall be so united and equal
in their use of carnal pleasure,” that in asking for what is due they
shall be entirely equal in power.
500 But since the apostle states that in these words of Adam the
great sacrament of Christ and the Church is prefigured (Cf. Eph. 5,
32), it should be asked whether when Adam uttered these words
he understood this sacrament, namely that the Son of God was to
be incarnate and was to be joined to the Church as if to his spouse?
This not credible, since this incarnation appears to have happened
for no other reason than for the reparation of humankind after the
fall, or for our redemption. It is certainly not to be believed that
Adam would have foreseen that fall. But if Adam did not under-
stand the sacrament [expressed] in his words, nevertheless the
Holy Spirit who spoke through him was by no means unaware of it.
501 But they were. It clearly shows that the condition of
humankind was more worthy and better before sin than after,
when they could incur no passion of shame in regard to their
nudity or in regard to the sight of their genitalia, whence now
after sin we are especially embarrassed, although we have the gre-
atest pleasure in the use of such members, so that the more ple-
asurable is this voluptuousness of the flesh, the more intense is
the feeling of embarrassment.
502 Clearly now after sin there is embarrassment, since in fact
no one now is stimulated to intercourse except after the manner
of beasts, that is, solely for the sake of carnal pleasure and not with
any regard to God.

INDICES
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE
REFERENCES
Genesis 110, 2 86
2, 4-5 47 135, 5 41, 42
2, 7 36 135, 6 58
2, 19 36 148, 4-5 51
3, 3 112
5, 1-2 115 Proverbs
22, 12 45 3, 18 112
46, 27 72
Ecclesiastes
Exodus 1, 9-10 92
15, 10 40 3, 14-15 92
Deuteronomy Isaiah
32, 11 40 57, 16 100
65, 22 111
I Kings
16, 14-15 40 Jeremiah
31, 29 104
Job
14, 4 111 Baruch
3, 32-35 43
Psalms
8, 8 34 Ezechiel
11, 3 41 1, 22 50
32, 7 52 10, 1 50
32, 9 41 18, 2 104
91, 5 80
103, 2-3 52 Daniel
103, 25 70 12, 4 96

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Malachai I Corinthians
3, 4 111 11, 7 77
Matthew Galatians
5, 14 94 3, 27 96
Luke Ephesians
23, 43 96 5, 18 104
5, 32 120
John 6, 12 66
1, 3-4 42, 46
1, 9 43 Philippians
1, 48 104 2, 15 94
5, 17 91
15, 13 113 Colossians
18, 36 42 1, 16 66
Acts of the Apostles Hebrews

3, 24 96 11, 6 93
7, 14-15 72
Romans
1, 17 111
1, 20 33, 44, 54

INDEX OF
NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES
Abelard
Collationes (ed. Marenbon and Orlandi)
II, 199-222 89
Hymnarius (ed. Szövérffy; PL 178)
2, 3-4 33
Theologia christiana (ed. Buytaert, CCM 12)
II, 126 33
Theologia “Summi boni” (ed. Buytaert and Mews, CCM 13)
III, 2 34
Ambrose
Hexaemeron (CSEL 32; PL 14)
V, 1, 4 70
Aristotle
De interpretatione (tr. Boethius; ed Minio-Paluello)
9 70
Augustine
Confessiones (CCL 27)
XIII, 12-17 70
De civitate Dei (CCL 47-48)
VIII, 14 64
VIII, 16 64
IX, 1 65
XVI, 6 42
XX, 26 112
De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (CSEL 28; PL 34)
I, 6 44
II, 5 51

INDEX OF NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES
De Genesi contra Manichaeos (PL 34)

I, xxiii, 35-39 96
Retractationum libri II (CCL 57)
I, 3 42
1, xi, 4 66
2, 24 32
Bede
De natura rerum (CCL 123A; PL 90)
VII 51
VIII 51
XLIII 108
In Genesim (CCL 118A)
II, v, 2 100, 106
Benedict
Regula (ed. De Vogüé)
39 71
Boethius
De differetiis topicis (PL 64)
II 35
In categorias Aristotelis (PL 64)
II 32
In librum Aristotelis de interpretatio (PL 64)
Secunda editio
III, 9 67
Philosophiae consolatio (CCL 94)
III, met. IX, 10 50
V, met. I, 1-3 107
Gregory the Great

Dialogi (ed. De Vogüé)
IV, 3 97
Homiliae in evangilia (PL 76)
II, 29 97
Moralia in Iob (PL 75)
Ep. missoria 92
Isidore
Etymologiae (PL 83)
XI, i, 4-6 100
XIII, xii, 7-10 108
XIV, iii, 2-4 102

INDEX OF NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES
Jerome
Adversus Iovinianum (PL 23)
I, 16 83
Epistula LXXIX ad Oceanum (CSEL 54)
6 48, 50
Hebraeicae quaestiones in libro geneseos (CCL 72)
II, 8 101
In Ezechielem (CCL 75)
Prol. 32
Josephus
Antiquitates Iudaicae (ed. Dindorfius)
I, 1 50, 115
Missale Romanum
Benedictio fontis, Sabbato sancto 109
Exsultet, Benedictio cerei, Sabbato sancto 113
Origen
In Canticum canticorum (PG 13)
Praef. 31
Plato
Timaeus (Ed. Wazink)
29D-30A 86
30BC 65
41B 56
50E 37
Calcidius: Commentarius in Timaeum (ed. Wazink)
14 90
123 37
134 65
Pliny
Naturalis historia (ed. Mayhoff )
VI, xxi, 80 106

INDEX OF NAMES
Abelard 9-19, 33, 34, 89 Isidore 100, 102, 108

Ambrose 70
Jerome 12, 32, 48, 50,
Andreas Sunonis (suneson) 19
83, 101
Aristotle 32, 70
John Cassian 16
Augustine 12, 13, 14, 15, 32,
John of Salisbury 9
42, 44, 51, 64, 65, 66,
Josephus 50, 115
86, 95, 96
Luscombe, d. 18, 56n.
Bede 51, 100, 101, 108, 116
Benedict 15, 71 Mews, C. J. 10
Benton, J. 9 Monfrin, J. 9
Bernard of Clairvaux 10 Muckle, J. T. 9, 12
Boethius 32, 35, 50, 52, 67, 107
Buytaert, E. 11, 18, 19 Origen 12, 31
Calcidius 13, 37, 65, 90 Plato 13, 14, 37, 56, 65, 86
Clarenbald of Arras 13 Pliny 106
Cousin, V. 19 Romig, M. F. 19
D’alverny, M.-T. 14, 69n. Szövérffy, J. 12, 33n.
De rijk, L. M. 10
Dronke, P. 9 Thierry of Chartres 13
Thomas, R. 9
Gregory the Great 16, 92, 97
Van den Eynde, d. 11
Heloise 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 32
Hugh of st. Victor 16, 17 William of Conches 13
128
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Air 13, 14, 35, 39, 48, 49, 52 Euphrates 106, 107, 108
Allegory 95 Evening 46, 54, 56, 89
Angels 35, 38, 44, 50, 65, 66, 87,
98, 102, 114 Fig 17, 103, 104
Animals 62, 65, 66, 70, Fire 13, 14, 35, 39, 48, 49,
71, 75, 76, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 52, 102
91, 94, 110 Firmament 13, 48, 50, 51, 52, 56,
Astrologers, astrology 14, 66, 58, 62, 72, 73
67-69 Fish 15, 70, 71, 73, 76, 79,
81, 116
Baptism 40, 41, 57, 73-75 Football 13, 49
Beasts 55, 76, 79, 84, 116 Fruit 37, 60, 61, 62, 114
Birds 15, 35, 49, 55, 70, 71,
73, 74, 76, 79, 81, 84, Ganges 107
94, 110, 112, 116 God (vid. Creator)
Gods 64, 65, 66, 68, 84
Chaos 38 Grass 59, 60, 91, 97
Clouds 49, 52
Creator 12, 33, 38, 51, 54, 55, Heaven 34, 35, 41, 42, 47,
56, 73, 76, 85, 86, 98, 99 50-52, 53, 56, 58, 61,
Crocodile 70 64, 81, 91, 97
Hebrew, Hebrews 17, 31, 39,
Darkness 43, 45, 47 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52,
Demons 64, 65, 66, 68, 84 53, 56, 57, 58, 101, 104,
Dragons 49 106,
Hippopotamus 70
Earth 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, Hyle 36
47, 50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62,
64, 70, 72, 75, India 106, 107
129
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Jews 17, 74, 77 Shadows 38, 43

Soul 64, 65, 72, 94, 99, 100,
Man 15, 53, 77-79, 81, 82, 99, 101, 118, 119
102, 108, 109, 111, 114, Spirits 14, 87, 97, 98, 99
115, 117, 118, 119, 120 Stars 14, 15, 51, 62-64, 67,
Moral, morals 12, 32, 33, 92, 69, 90, 91, 98
93-95, 102 Sun 51, 62, 63, 65, 97
Morning 46, 54, 56
Mule 91 Tigris 107, 108
Trees 16, 17, 60, 61, 62, 84,
Night 46, 62 85, 89, 102-105, 111-113
Nile 70, 107, 108 Trinity 15, 44, 77, 78, 82
Paradise 34, 60, 61, 79, 80, Vine 17, 104

89, 96, 101, 102, 108, 111
Phlebotomy 16, 52 Water, waters 13-15, 35,
Phoenix 91 38, 39, 40, 45, 48,
49-59, 70-76, 94,
Rain 50, 51, 52, 97 97, 101
Reptiles 70, 94 Woman 15, 16, 77, 78,
79, 82, 99, 102,
Sea 52, 58, 74, 79, 81 109, 110, 113-115,
Serpent, snake 70, 76, 110, 112 117-120
130

Peter Abelard - An Exposition On The Six-Day Work (Corpus Christianorum in Translation)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peter Abelard - An Exposition On The Six-Day Work (Corpus Christianorum in Translation)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

﻿

Mary Romig (†)

Introduction, translation and notes by

© 2011, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

Printed on acid-free paper.

An exposition on the Six-day Work 29

During my first year at the Pontifical Institute and the Centre

e­ nthusiasm, and was able to begin work on the present transla-

The outline of Peter Abelard’s personal and professional career to

From the evidence supplied by these twelfth-century

period, together with more or less final versions of other major

In his prologue, Abelard addresses Heloise and her spiritual

turn, ­resembles the intention ascribed to God in creation, since

encloses and is supported by the air within. Because the placement

predict future events in nature such as changes in climate and in the

both of those who condemn marriage, and those who engage in

aware that medicinal herbs must be planted and harvested at the

Relationship to Other Works

The Expositio refers explicitly to the “second Collatio,” but ­includes

Heloise and the reference to her supplications on Abelard’s behalf

Manuscripts and Editions

The Expositio survives in four manuscripts, all of the twelfth

link between the French monastic schools of the twelfth cen-

AHDLMA Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen

Peter Abelard, Petri Abaelardi Opera, PL 178.

—, Collationes, ed. and trans. J. Marenbon and G. Orlandi, Oxford

—, Theologia ‘Summi boni,’ ed. E. M. Buytaert and C. J. Mews, Petri

Basil of Cesarea, Homiliae in Hexaemeron, PG 29, 3-208 [see also Eusthatius].

Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis christianae fidei, PL 176, 173-618.

Sallust, Historiarum Reliquiae, ed. B. Maurenbrecher, C. Sallustii Cri-

Ch. Burnett, Hermann of Carinthia, in A History of Twelfth-Century

—, Abélard et Platon, in Peter Abelard, ed. E. M. Buytaert, pp. 38-64.

A. Somfai, The Transmission and Reception of Plato’s “Timaeus” and Chal-

1 There are three places in the Old Testament which experts 3

8 Scrutinizing the immense abyss of profundity, Genesis by a

of himself from the magnitude of his works, since all human

Concerning the work of the first day

15 In the beginning God created heaven and

sense of a ­material origin it is certain that all other bodies are

21 But it is properly said in regard to the elements that he

species, and by a continuous flowing forth or flowing back

of that adversative conjunction “but” that this was not to be

something useful. 30 Hence he does not say in appreciation of this

where we say moved upon the waters, in Hebrew it is “was

17 way he made or arranged all things. Elsewhere, too, showing more

50 And so when it is said: God said: Let there be light,

60 In fact it should be noted that where we say: Let there 21

day demonstrates the great harmony and fittingness of the divine

Concerning the second [day]

76 God also said. Certainly, it should be noted that in

the differentiation of all the subsequent works is understood in

an exhalation of the earth, before they condense into droplets?

27 each other that a number of particles of the lighter elements

smoke, rising up out of the warmth of the earth. Consequently

in which the world was completed ought not to be measured

as was said, obtained the force of ­nature.a 124 In his Timaeus

129 But when in Hebrew it has for heaven “samaym” which is

Concerning the third [day]

136 God then said: Let the waters be gathered. God

bit. 150 And so there is some question whence, according to the

of the heavens might coincide. 156 But we know many [things]

but some [were created] afterward, just as it is believed about

An exposition on the Six-day Work 29

e nthusiasm, and was able to begin work on the present transla-

turn, resembles the intention ascribed to God in creation, since

The Expositio refers explicitly to the “second Collatio,” but includes

sense of a material origin it is certain that all other bodies are

as was said, obtained the force of nature.a 124 In his Timaeus

atural displays of future or present events. In fact, sailors are

is rational, immortal, and passible living things, the [inhab-

s avage, however cruel, would be as gentle to us as if domesticated,