CANADIAN THESES ON MICROIflGHE

I.S.B.N.
, v.
THESES CANADIENNES'SUR MICROFICHE

-National Library of Canada Bibliotheque nationaledu Canada ’ /

Collections Developm ent Branch Direction du develpppementdes^collections

Canadian, Theses on Service des theses canadiennes 3

M icrofiche Service ’ . sur’microfiche
& ■' ' #5
O ttaw a, Canada
K 1A 0N 4 .

. . , NOTICE
The^qUality o f this microfiche is heavily dependent
upon-the quality o f-th e . originalfthesis submitted for
microfilming. Every effo rt has been made to ensure
the highest quality of reproduction possible.
AVIS
V
La qualite* de cette microfiche depend grandefnent de *
la qualite de la these soumise au microfilmage. Nous
avons to u t fait pour assurer - une qualite superieure
- de reproduction.

If pages are missing, contact the .university which S'il manque des pages, veuillez commumquer
granted the degree. " • avec I'urtiverslte q u ia confere le grade: .

Some pages may have indistinct print especially
if the original pages were typed w ith a poof typewriter
ribbon or if the university sent us a ftoor photocopy.
La qualite d'impression de certaines pages peut
laisser a desirer, surtout si les pages originates o n te te
dactylographiees a I'aide d'un ruban use ou si l'univer:
site nous* a fait parvenir une photocopie de mauvaise
qualite. • _

Previously copyrighted .materials (journal articles, Les documents qui font deja I'objet d'un droit
published tests,'etc.) a re/to t filmed. d'auteur (articles de revue, exarnens publics, etc.) ne
sont pas microfilmes. . ‘ .

v ' ■ Reproduction in0.-full or in part o f this film is gov­ La reproduction, meme partielle, de ce m icrofilm'
erned by the Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, est sOumise a la Loi canadienne sur le droit d'auteur,
c. G-30. Please read the authorization forms which SRC 1970, q. C-30. Veuillez prendre connaissance des
accompany this ttjesis. } formules d'autorisation qui accompagnent cette these.

THIS DISSERTATION •' LA THESE A ETE .

HAS. BEEN MICROFILMED MICROFILMES TELLE QUE
EXACTLY AS RECEIVED NOUS L'AVONS. REQUE

,ML—339 (r. 82/08) Canadci

 Irt' v:
"0 -3 1 5 “ I -H
'■ y fc National Library Bibliotheque natjonaie
■ Tr 'of,Canada, - du Canada ■>£:

® T • ‘

Canadian Theses Division Division des theses canadien

Ottawa, Canada
K1A0N4 ■
■. 5 9 8 7 5 - ’ “ .
- * ?’ • • . • ‘
o . ; ; ... \
PERMISSIONTO MICROFILM — AUTORISATION DE MICROFILMER

' • Please print or type — £crireen lettres mouleesou dactylographier

Full Name of Author— Norn complet de l‘auteur

G I Z £ u )5KI. j let,

Date of Birth — Date de naissance . Country of Birth — Lieu de naissance

A O oh U r ITST c w h m '■
Permanent Address— Residence fixe

-26 Sf&mo/sftL /we

mHV* \1 H

Title of Thesis— Titre de la these

'bocrne'tfJ e of atee/Tr?6 ^ in t h & / p i r s t \

. VHL F of 'T H E T k ) B E FT{ », *
SE^erere* ftc rrtfo ^ :
J .- * . * ■ i-.- ■ »■■■

University — Universite ^
v n^goNTd
Degree for which thesis was presented — Grade pour lequel cette these fut presentee

Year this degree conferred — An nee d'obtention de ce grade Nanle of Supervisor — Nonri du directeur de these i
n t£ ■' ; . , P € 0 K C , S T q QJ c ^

. Permission is hereby granted to the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF
CANADA to microfilm'This thesis and to lend dr sell copies of
the film,
The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the
thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be printed^or other*
wise reproduced without the author's written permission.
a
L'autorisation est, par la presente', accordeea ta BIBLIOTHfe-
QUE NATIONALE DU CANADA de microfilmer cette these' et de
Oreter ou de vendre des exemplairesdu film.
L’auteur.se reserve les autres droits de publication; ni la these
ni de longs extraits' de celle-ci ne doivent etre tmprimes ou
autrement reproduits sans i'autorisatiob ecdte ide I'auteur.

Signature ^
CD
 THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION

IN THE W HALF OF THE TWELFTH CEN1URY:

SELECTED AUTHORS

.-(Rupert of Deutz, Hpnorius Augustodunensis,

Peter Abelard* and Hugh of St. Victor)

by

WANDA CIZEWSKI

Centre for Medieval Studies

•//.•-'(I* :
■ rJ .

A Thesis submitted-in conformity with

'f#r the Degree- of Doctor of Philosophy
University of Toronto
’[>:9■
.

<JJ) W. .Cizewski, 1983

 '“V,

-t.&V Jtr "'.i

j(-K
THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY,
" MANUSCRIPT THESIS
AUTHORITY TO DISTRIBUTE

nOTE: The AUTHOR will sign in one of the two places indicated. .It is the
intention of the University that there he NO RESTRICTION on the distri­
bution of the publication of theses saye in exceptional cases.

(a.) Immediate publication in microform by tjhe National Library is authorized.

Author’s signature fj ..Ti .. Date

or
COVER

<b) Publication bythe National. Library is io be postponed until

/ . 19.. (normal maximum delay is two years). Meanwhile this thesis may not
be -consisted in the University Library except with written 'permission on
FRONT

each oegasioh
oedasi from me.

Auti ior.*s signature Pate ............

FACING

This restriction is authorized for reasons which seeorto me, as Head of the
Graduate DepartmSht of /.. *.... ’.......... , to be sufficient.
THESIS

Signature of Graduate Department Head

Date
HITS TWO COPI ES Of DOCTORAL

BORROWERS, undertake to give proper-credit-for any use made of the thesisv

and to obtain the consent of the author if -it-is proposedtomake
. extensive quotations, or to reproduce the thesis in whole or in parti

Signature of borrower Addreas -Date

■ - -
’ ' *

'»' /
r<JRM TO BE BOUND

1 . ' (
fl.. if
.
■
■ * , /

- . ■' ,, ■ ' ' '

& ; . • '. ' ,• 1
X
,' > f O ' 1

..... « * «

302 A ... 8
---------- ----------- ~ . , ...... .

^REVISED AUGUST 1973

 UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO '

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ..

PROGRAM OF THE FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

• FOR THE DEGREE OR DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.. •.

) ’ ' . '

of
^ '

WANDA CIZEWSKI ’

’2:00 p.m., Monday, April 25, 1983 ■ ?’"£,

■ ’•■■■ V ■.
Room 301, 65 St. George Street
:

THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE

:TWELFTH CENTURY: SELECTED AUTHORS ’

•• • • ! •

Committee- in Charge:

Professor R. Capozzi, Chairman

; Professor G. Allard, External Examiner
Professor E. Fairweather
Professor’A. Maurer
• Professor B. St.ock, Supervisor
Professor E. Synan, Internal Appraiser
Professor N. Zacour
 - 5 •- AVERAGE / \
... ■* ■ t i
EHl BOGERINE OF ORBAEIOR I.R i'HE -FXRSE HALF OF 202 . >

•EbELFEH CENEjBllY; SE11CEED ABEHCRS :‘

Cizewski, Wanda, ‘ University of Eotonto, 1983. vi,i .409
« if” ■

Director: Brian’C, Stock . •„ . *

She.'thesis is a bbmparative an'alysis and sthdy or
the principal hexaemeral treat! s’
as and related theo­

logical .texts by Rupert of Dentz,., HonoriUs Augusto-

dunensis, Peter Abelard, and’Hugh of’St, Victor,

with close attention to their sources and use of

sources, and the place'1of the. doctrine of creation in -
their theological authorship as a whole. ' -
' * ' . <v‘■
'• ’
Chapter one examines selected portions of Rupert

of Deutats De divlnis officiis ,~ De sancta Erinitate et

, i. *— * '
ooeribus eius and” his two treatises against the
■ * j - ■ "i

theologians at laon.- De voluritate Dei and De o m m -

J’ ■
' i
. • •, 4
- >, • ' • .: ' ■• ■
notentia Dei,
Chapter two examines portions of Honorius .

-Augustoduiiensis ’ Blueidarium, his ifeocosmos. his

Cognitio vitae, and selected texts from the Imago

mundi, the'Liber duodecim quaestionum, and the Libellus

octo quaestionum-. •*. ' ,

.; v ; .. ■'* -*
Chapter-three surveys portions of j?eter Abelard*s
Dialogus inter nhilosophum^ Christi-anum, et Judaeum,

before analysing ‘his Exnositjo in HexaemerOn and the;

texts on creation in his Hymnarius Paraclitensis and

three'Theologies. •
 Chapter four covers Hugh of,.St. Victor's*
Adnotationes in Genestm. the treati se- De .trihns,
rT “ . '' /.
diehus, portions of his De sacramentis legis natural!s

et scriotae. and the first six parts of j)e sacramentis

chflstianae fidei. \ / -
Each chapter "begins with ah introductory survey of
•' ■ J : •■ •'
the author’s "literary career, and concludes with a ^
«. « ' " /■ v:; ’‘ ’
discussion of the place of the doctrine of.creation

in'the general context of his workis. / At the end of-the

thesis, a general conclusion summarizes'and reviews
X40

common and contrasting elements in the four authors*

.- a > \ -

writings on creation. •
... / THE dOCfRXNE OB' CREATION */ .

IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY:

' SELECTED AUTHORS /

(Rupert of Deutz Honorius Augustodunensis,

• ’.41 ' •

Peter Abelard, andHugh*of St . Victor)

j. Father-N. Haring's edition of the treatises by Thierry of Chartres

/and Clarenbaldus of Arras on the creation and Creator of the world was

my introduction -th twelfth-century heicaemeral literature. When f 1>egah

to look for other material on creation/in the same period, I soon dis­

covered Abelard's Genesis commentary, Hugh .of St. Victor's theology of

foundation andrestoration, and other treatments of.the hexaemeron by

Honorius Augustodunensis and Rupert ./Of beutz.. Deciding to leave the

"School of Chartres" for. the tfme' being to scholars more acute' and
- ■ - a-
mature than myself, I began n^’researches into the doctrine of creation
, x'. ■ ■ i \?' ■
in the first-half of the twelfth century with a feportjon Abelard's

Expositio in Hexaemeron in the context of contemporary hexaemerhl litera-

tute:' This thesis represents the fuller and mote-detailed study "projected,
;■ .. . *
in my research report, and concentrates on a group of authors whose <,
m - - ' '

-VC/V '■ ‘ \ -/.", ; ■ :

works belong to the mainstream of the Augustinian tradition .in the -

twelfth century. It is a comparative historical study based on the best

available printed editions, and may, in its turn, serve-as a starting

point for further research into the manuscript evidence. '. '

I am indebted'to many friends, colleagues, and instructors for

v?- • ' ’ » . . .

encouragement and advice along the way." In this preface, I wish formally

to thank Dr. Robert D. Crouse of Dalhousle.University for making avail­

able to me his doctoral thesis, "Honorius Augustodunensis: De Neocosmo,"

and Father Donald Finlay of the Pontifical Institute-Library for acquir-

ing this and other unpublished materials necessary to my research.

PREFACE

ABBREVIATIONS ?
... ,/' ■'' ■
INTRODUCTION

I. RUPERT OF DEUTZ .„ '

^1, Introduction
•/ :•* '•‘ 6■ * »!
7 2.' Background: De divinis offlciis
The Trinity and Creation, 23 ■
The Liturgy of Holy Week* Creation add
Restoration, 32 ‘
Why Was the Fall Permitted?, 35
3. Hexaemeron*. .De sancta Irinitate et operibus eius
f The Trinitarian Basis of Creation, 3 8 ’
Dies unus : fne,First Rational Creature, .44
The Material (fceation, 50
Day Six: The Second Rational Creature, 60
4.7 Controversy with Laon r.
1 5. Conclusion
' Notes
v.. . • '

II. H0N0RIUS AUGUSTODUNENSIS

• * >

1. Introduction
2. Background: Elucidarium .
3. Hexaemeron: Neocosmos . '
The Hexaemeron for Beginners, 121
The Days of Creation and the Ages of World
. w • History, 130
The «"Augustinian" Hexaemeron, 132
4. The Ascent to Wisdom: Cognltio vitae
 5. Cosmological Texts , .. „ ^ ^ 153
, Imago mundi; 154 „ *’ ■■■'• * - ' '
:7 ■° •
The Liber dubdecimi quaestionum. 160 , / .
. r; The Libelltis octo quaestionum. 164 v ° - ;
Conclusion ‘ " ^ ° • ..0 . c. . 167
Notes -V- ' . . ;f. ' 0 171'
' *■ V V( <*. ' - . ';
' ^ , ’ ** <• • ^ J“ ” ’

111. PETER ABELARD , ' . ' 196.

G ' 7 * '

bl. Introduction • a » 196

.■.<* : . : ■■■ 1 . -
2. ^Background: The'Supreme Go^id ; 199
3. •The ExpositiO' in Hexaemeron .• *212.
Invisibilia Dei . . . per ea quaefacta, sunt, 212
*, The'Order of Creation, 219 7j »
.The Image and Likeness of God, 229 •
Moral and Mystical Interpretations, 245
The Hymnarium Paraclltensis. 248"
4.’ Creation in the Theologiae ' 252
The Theologia 'summi boni*, 252 ’
' The Theologia Christiana*. 257 / ^
The Revised Theologia Christiana and the * :
; Theologia scholarium, 265 - . .
5. .Conclusion •- 271
Notes • i 275"

IV. HUGH OF ST. VICTOR” 299

. 1. IntrfflWJctldn-.: s ^ 299
2.. Background: Adnotationes elucidatorlae in Genesim .302
k 3. The Ascent to God: De tribuB diebus* -< . ’ 315 o
./* • & mL
4. De sacramentis legis naturalis et scriptae 333
5. De sacramentis christianae fidei > ,, ;.340
7 .The Creation of the.World, 342
The Creator of the World, 34^
The Rational .Creature, 355 .-
" -- .\
6. Conclusion - . 361
‘ H v
Notes ' , •* 364

GENERAL CONCLUSION . ' 384

V ■■■" • '- . • . ■' 7 .. •
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . ^ V- *395
 f ? /

• •• . X

‘ . ABBREVIATIONS

AHDLMA Archives d'histolre doctrlnaleiet litteraire du noyen °

age. Paris,-1926^- , .
BeitrSge BeitrBge zur Geschichte der Philosophic und Theologie
des Mittelalters. MUnster i. W., 1891- .
a .
CCCM Corpus ehristianorua continuatio medievalis. Turnhout:
Brepols.

.CCSL : Corpus christianorum series latina. Turnhout: Brepols.

CSEL y// '; Corpus scriptorua ecclesiasticorua latinorum. Vienna,"
1866- . c i
' ' / -
Mai7 L de -1-* Monuments Germanise H&torlca: Libelli de lite. , Berlin
'7:X;-a«d
^-XxV^A; Hannover, 1826- 1 ' ‘*
mgh. ss. i Mbnumenta Germanise Histories; Scriptores. Berlin and
/ . . " Hannover, 1826- „ ^ • v
PL Patrologia Latina, i.e., Patroloata cursus completes
Series latina. Ed. Jv-P. Mignd^ Paris, 1 8 4 4 - 6 4 '

v.

vi
 Among historians of mediaeval culture, It is generally agreed that
: ■ '■ ’ ' ■ ■ ■ * ■ ■ : •

the early twelfth century was a period of profound transformation in

the economic, institutional, and intellectual life of Europe. The . '

structures of society at large were altered by a number off interrelated

' * ; "' • ■ ■ f'
factors,.including the dissolution of feudal control over! agricultural

lands, intense population growth, and the beginnings of new, republican

*•
^
‘ (
«
'
* .
■ .
j
-1 ^
"urban centres. At the same time, a series of technological advances
' ' • ’ ■- w ■ •" ' V ■ j
were achieved in agriculture and other- forms of production. Side, by

side with these social and economic changes, there we r j also several

new developments in the institutional and spiritual life of the Church.

In the aftermath, of the reform moveiaenfc and related/controversies of the'

eleventh century, the religious and erudite segjpdnt of the-population

a * ■
sought new forms for both practical action and intellectual expression.
/ ■ '

Within the institutional framework of movements/for .apostolic renewal,

the growth of new orders, and the ^Kpansion of existing schools, there .

was a. revival of learning through the exegesis of Biblical, and classical,

texts, ’
the study of the arts, £ihd systematization of Christian-doctrine,

as ancient and patristic sources ..were-read and considered in the/light

■/ ' ' ■’ . 7. .
of a new situation. „'

- M.-D, Chenu characterized the twelfth tentury as an age when

- ■. ° x» 'T“i
people "became collectively aware of their environment, and sought to
rationalize it.J'1 Indeed, one of the doctrinal problems to which'

intellectuals and educators of the period turned special attention, .was

^ '«.) . -o .1 ' ‘' .

"the^creation of the world and of human beings. In the late eleventh-

to early twelfth-century exegetical worjc of the brothers Anselm and

Ralph of Laon,»the beginning of Genesis seems to have been second .only

to the epistles of Paul as a favourite text for study, perhaps because*

it provided useful material on-which to bas,e discussions of free will

and rationality, and the relationship of human beings to Gb<F?and the

2 • ; -‘ .':T - "
created world. During the 1120s and l^Os, Hugh of St. Victor— heir

’through William of Champeaux to the Laon exegetical tradition-annotated

• 0 w - • - - . -

the Pentateuch and incorporated the doctfine of creation into, his

principal systematic works, so that it became the first part of ab

theology of foundation and*restoration. Although Peter; AbelardLs ^ .

Expositio in Hexaemeron, written for: Heloiae and the Paraclete community,

a. ■ ■ V' ' ‘ *■" ■-
does not form an integral part of his- programme of’theological specula­

tion and teaching, his, concern with the knowledge of God through

creation is a dominant theme in his three theologiae and the Romans

commentary. From a different perspective, authors like .Thierry of

Chartres and William of Conches sought a scientific understanding of

• '
the cosmos through interpretations of-the beginning of Genesis by means
a ' ■
'‘/ ••' ,,• * *
of the quadrivium and natural philosophy. using Calcidius, Maerobius, ^

aid Boethius as their principal'.sources. Other;, similarly scientific-

• *•.'*■ 4- •.'V ^.' ',
treatments of the cre'ation in thelpame period Include works by Arnold
.. %>. \ f-si ° ' " 'n" . . 4 ' "**•
of Bonneval and Hugh of Rouen, as well as a variety of anonymous cosmo-
"V * * * * J
logical’treatises and commentaries on Ggnesis or Plato'-s Timaeus.
': 4
 Mudi of this intellectual work was being dope in France, where
} V - . .* ° • ■. ' ■ o' ; ; w..’“
relaiEiwely; stable political^conditions under iouls .the Fat provided a . • *,
■* . ' '....•*
sufficiently peaceful atmosphere for the expansion of-'Cathedral schools
, V "" . .0 • . * ' . "S

in cities like-Chartres and.Paris., In.'Germany, -by contrast, the

- ’ ■■■■ . - cp ^ ‘ . . ..

imperial abbeys of Fulda,.Sorvey, and Lorsche had fallen into decline,

. . r’ ^ •-
and centres Of culture like Liege-wereexhausted by the struggle over

investitures. More intellectual" effort, generally, was pup into the ^

:-»•. ...i •• *' I -o • ', '
ecClesiological eOttfrovefsies of^the moment,,;than- into cultivation of

a broader perspective on, the nature' of thjf universe. 'In the-midst of

. • *'’•*•' • ” 'V O
. w- .■ •. ' . “ '* - -> '* % '■•*"
turmoil, however, major achievements in the theology of Creation and-
'
7 ■* ' ..B ' •**- ' 4 o .. ..

history were developed at Liege by the Benedictine md&k Rupdft, and

-‘ .. ° ' _.3~-
in >the area of Regensberg by the somewhat mysterious scholar, Honorius

Augustodunensis. Both'^these writers produced extensive treatments of'

the creation of the world and human beings, in the context of their own
''' - ° ‘ ' '‘ . ‘« ■ 1 * ^ '
distinctive programmes of authorship. , ‘ e- -*
,J ■ " *
•The purpose -of. the present'study has been to select, from the body ®
* r'‘> «, - - - ^
of available material^1a ..group. of Authors*whose writings might profitably

form the basis, for a comparative theological Study of teaching on

Q Ccj "42-- ’ 0... ; ^ * *„ ■ ... -«? <P
creation in the years from ll(J0-to JldG, or the first stage "c^>the
-
• ■/. “By? 0 .,«•f . •
'
twelfth-century intellectual renewal» r ' Of the, fOur authors selected,
' " yk‘*'■ * «s; \ ■=«
' * ’7 ■ -« '"
;Ruperfer of Beutzcand Honopius Augustodunensis. belong to ,t^e .?(&rman

imperial territories, and Sha^e a ntmiber»of concerns related to the

reform movement in those lands. Peter Abelard.ancl Hugh of St. Victor,

\ -„ ' e ViJ ??' ^ <\<it'. V
. -.-
■■' ; " *
■' . ■* - • ■.
meanwhile,, belong to the‘intellectual milled of Paris. The methods and
* -05 «, ’ ' '.• • • . . * » • *; ?
.. -'* . ' •'»*■ . a ",
doctrinal outlook of all four, however,-can be distinguished from both
* * .. ■?, ,fc< '•> a . - .

the dpgmatit: conservatism of Lading 'and the Innovative-naturalism of '

thinkers^associated with Chartres. Unlike the theologians at Laon,

these'four authors were* concerned, as educators, with more than the

. 5
magisterial glossing of Scripture. Each of them produced a consider-
. . * . ‘
able body of theological, exegetical, contemplative, and propaedeutic

works, among which he included at least one treatment of the hexaemeron,

sometimes as part of a'major systematic or historical presentation of •

doctrine. Unlike Thierry, of Chartres or William of Conches, however,

our four authors, tended to.approach the doctrine of creation through

the arts of language, and, were-‘generally more interested in textual

problems than in applying the arts of the.quadrivium to solve questions

concerning the origin and structure of the universe.**

J. I .°
The intention, throughout; this study, has been to maintain a

historical perspective. Although the four authors selected for com-

parison were all members•of roughly the same generation, their periods

of literary activity and intellectual outlooks suggest a certain

natural order of seniority among them. Rupert of Deutz (ca. 1075-1129)

■ » •

produced his principal treatments of the doctrine of creation before

1117, and belongs, through his Benedictine education and involvement in

the controversies of the reform movement, to the eleventh century as

much as to the twelfth. Honorius Augustodunensis, who shared some of -

Rupert’s opinions on clerical reform, is less easy to place, chrono­

logically, because of the paucity of information ^bout his life. We do '

know that he must have begun writing at about the same time as Rupert,’

arounjl 1100, and that his career could not have extended much after■

114,0. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) and Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141) are

slightly' younger than the other two, and made their major theological
 contributions in.the later 1120s and the 1130s. Moreover, it is clear

that Hugh, was familiar with Abelard's teachings, considered them

criticallv, and incorporated key aspects of them into his own,theologi-

-: v '■ . .:'■■■
cal works. Accordingly,*the order of the chapters that follow is

intended to reflect the"1perceived order of seniority among the authors

under consideration. ‘ "' - : "

Because each of our four authors'pfOdueed a massive literary

corpus on a variety of topics, it was necessary to proceed selectively

and. by examples in examining their work on creation. One way, to do

this would have been; to treat their-writings thematically, under a

series of headings suggested by major issues withinpthe doctrine. An

approach of this sort would, however, tend to obscure apy sense of the
* . * '
author's intellectual .development, While at '.the same time running the

risk of distorting his thought with the imposition of a framework of

ideas not necessarily inherent in his own understanding of the issues.^

Instead, it seamed better to preserve a sense of chronological progres-

sion by'presenting each item in the order in which it was produced, so

far as this could be ascertained. Finally, we have sought to indicate

the place of the doctrine of creation in the general context of^each

author's-works,\ y means of an introductory survey of his literary

career, and by further, indications, throughout the chapter, of the

.v ••• VP •-
literary and doctrinal context of the material presented..

A further reason for'adopting this type of approach, is the evident

consciousness'among the authors themselves, of their status and activity

as literary creators. This consciousness displays itself in two ways.

It is primarily to be discerned in the autobiographical statements with

which they describe their interior development as, thinkers and writers,.
, ' \ '
\

or the external eyents and Encounters that shaped their careefc^. From

fiugh of*St. Victor and Honojrius, we receive brief but significant tid-

bits in prefaces and introductory letters; in the case of Rupert and

Abelard, the autobiographical reports are detailed and extended. Nevar-

theless, all four are intensely aware of themselves as wrathrs, their \

work, and the audience-present or future.— that ^d.11, appreciate or

criticize them.

'?;t. Another, less obvious display of literary self-consciousness is to

be found in the occasional, vivid descriptions of the process of think1-

ing and writing that are found .throughout thematerial that we survey.

These descriptions often compare the writer's work with that'of the

craftsmantor architect, and are generally presented as analogies to the

Creator's, work-in the.beginning. Certainly, the metaphor is a familiar

enough item w'lthin the Augustinian tradition. Nevertheless, its use"

by these twelfth-century authors indicates an intensified consciousness

of parallels between the orderly production of words, and the ordered

construction of the universe. The human author is perceived as express­

ing his thoughts in a literary composition; the divine artificer is %

understood to have expressed his intelligible Word or wisdom in the

composition of the universe. Despite the recognized disproportions

v - * "

•' • ^ s. "~J -
between the human and the divine conception and'work, both are regarded

as carefully planned statements that may be analysed, interpreted, and

understood. *This-attitude, moreover, finds its application in each

author's accessus to the beginning of Genesis, where particular atten­

tion is given to the prophetic writer's intention, use of words, and

 J

order of presentation, because these are understood to reflect the

order in the divine composition of nature. In their'own compositions,

too, they seek to mirror the petheived realities of Creator,and

creature through the dareful use of language, and close .attention to

both the order of presentation and the capacities of;their intended

audiences.

The method .adopted for our study has, accordingly, been the analy­

sis of structure and contents in the principal hexaemeral piece and

related works on creation' by each of the four authors^under considera-

tion. Without making investigation of sources the sole purpose of our

work, we have Also sought to identify the authors' sources and to >
V. ' ' o

<5=^, indicate the ways in which these sources have been incorporated into ,

",j their thought and writings. Our study is limited, however, to a com­

parative intellectual history based on the best available printed

> " texts, and could not— for the present— be extended* into*a discussion

of all the manuscript problems around the works tha°t were examined.

In the past two decades, critical editions of almost all of

Rupert's major works have been made by the Benedictine scholar, Dorn

Hrabanus Haacke.. These include the Liber .de -divinis officiis, on the

• cycle of the liturgical year, De sancta Trinitate et operibus eius. a

massive treatment of the whole of Scripture, and'two gospel commen­

taries, the Commentaria in Johannem and De gloria et honore Filii

I*
II hominis super Mattheum. Al,l these editions appear in' the Corpus Chris-
8 A ' .
tianorum continUatio medievalis series.,. Finally, Haacke s edition of

De-victoria Verbi Dei, one of Rupert's later works on salvation history,

. • - 9
appears in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica Geistesgeschichte series.
 * * ■ ~ •a .

' ' ■' ,' '■■■ ; • *8

t •■> o'
* • # I «’
- * "

For other works by Rupert, howevei:, we have had to depend on texts

printed in Migne1s Patrologia Latina, volumes°167 tp 170. The task of

understanding Rupert's career in its contemporary context, and of

selecting works for study, has been facilitated by,two recent pieces of

research. These are Wolfgang Beinert's 1973 study of Rupert's ecciesio-

logical thought in comparison with that of Honorius Augustodunensis' and

Gerhoch of Reichersberg, and John Van Engen’s 1976 thesis on Rupert's

life and works as a theologian and controversialist at the end of the

10 ■ ••■'
j-
Gregorian reform. Both works include valuable bibliographical indica­

tions, and extended discussions of the scholarly controversies surround-

*5 *
ing Rupert's career. An earlier (1965) thesis by G. G. Bischoff

provides useful background information and documentation' concerning the

r • *

eucharistic controversy between Rupert and an anonymous opponent during

his"early career at Liege.^

The supply of critical editions and studies of the writings of

Honorius Augustodunensis is not, quite .as generous as that for-Rupert's

works. * On Honorius' career and authentic works, the standard guide

” ' ’ 12 ■ *
remains that of J. A. Endres, published in 1906, although subsequent

'investigations of the problem have been made by H. Menhardt, Eva M.

Sanford, and most recently, by V. I. J> Flint,"in a series of articles

on the career and chronology of Honorius, based on extensive study of

13
the manuscript evidence. Yves Lefevre’s 1954 edition and study of

Honorius' Elucidarium cannot be regarded as a definitive edition, since

*' < 14
it is based only on manuscripts from France and the European continent.
„ ' . * ' ■ i - ‘

It does, however, include a valuable apparatus of sources, from:which

much can be learned concerning the background of Honorius1s thought.

• * •

» - ft 0 . .

c ■ ‘
- v . ■4--— , -
An edition and study o f Honorius* hexaemeron, the Neocosmos,
I I’ was \% '°0&*1

produced as a, doctoral thesis in 1970 by Robert D. Crouse, but remains

15 ‘ '
unpublished. In addition to an introductory study of the Neocosraos.

the .thesis includes a detailed review of the scholarly debate on '

Honorius’• identity and-works. Finally, a critical edition of Honorius'

•abbreviation of John Scottus Eriugena's Periphyseon- the Clavis phvsicae,

■v . ° • 16 ''
was published by Paolo Lucentini in 19,72. Lucentini’s 1980 review

of the Influence of Eriugena in mediaeval Platonism, moreover, Includes ,

a section tracing Honorius' use of Eriugenian material, and is generously

. 17 1 *
supported with useful bibliographical notes. For Honorius' other
‘ j • * '

works| including the- encyclopedic Imago mundi; the Cognltio vitae, and

two libelli of questions on angels and human beings, we have had to 4

rely on the texts printed in the Patrologia Latina.

Peter Abelard is probably the best known, or perhaps most notorious,

- ' J>

of the four authors we have selected for study, and h,is work has

received a correspondingly thorough scholarly treatment. We shall v

limit our remarks, however, only to the material with.which we are con­

cerned in our study. Most of Abelard's systematic theology has been

I ' ' - .

critically edited. An edition of.the Theologia 'suami boni by H. Ost-

lender appeared in 1939 in the series Beitrage zur Geschichte der

Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, volume 35: 2-3.^ Follow­

ing extensive Work by E. M. Buytaert and D.' Van den-Eynde in the 1960s,

an edition of the Romans commentary and of the Theologia Christiana,

together with the shorter redactions of the Theologia scholarium. were

brought out as volumes eleven and twelve of the Corpus Chcjfetlanorum .,

continuatio medievalis series.19 Unfortunately, the;longer version of

■^ o<. '■ ''Y . .'-ii'K /-■':‘4 . *

the Thedlogia schoiariuk, or the jntroduetio ad theologiam, has not

r» ■ O

been critically edited. However, exploratory work has recently been

done by' Constant Mews on the .relationship among the theologiae. and

especially among the redactions of the Theologia scholarium. as a first

2o -
step towards preparing an editioh. Preparatory work for an edition
1• ' . ' v
of Abelard’s Expoditio in Hexaemeron was published in 1968 by E. M.

Buytaert, and includes editions of all the variant passages in the four
,21
surviving manuscripts. A complete.aedition of the work was, moreover,

made by Mary F. Romig in a 1981 doctoral thesis, but has yet tb be

22 .
prepared for publication. At about the same time, the study of

Abelard's exegetical method— initiated by Peppermiiller's investigation

of the Romans commentary— was broadened*by Eileen, Kearney in a doctoral

dissertation on Abelard's exegetical^.method in the Expositid in Hexae-

,»• '23
meron, the Problemata Heloissae. and the sermon collection. 1 .Her study
~' • •
of the Hexaemeron is, however, concerned essentially with methodological,

aspects, and leaves room for a further examination of the text from the

point of view of its context in Abelard's work as. a whole, and its

doctrinal and literary contents.

* * •

In addition to these editions and studies of Ab'elard's theological

works, criticaleditions of the two principal related works on creation

are also available. An edition of the Collationes duae, or Dialogue '

inter philosophum, Judaeum et Chrlstianum— which contains major discus-

sions oi the goods of creation and thek relationship of human.beings to

. ' 24
the Creator and created beings— was produced in 1970.by Rudolf Thomas. .;

Finally, the Hvmnarius Paraelitensis, with,its cycles of week-day hymns

on a creation theme, was edited and supplied with an introductory study

 25
by J ., SzBverffy. \
Thus, the available printed texts of Abelard's

works dealing with aspects of the doctrine of creation can be approached

with some confidence in their adequacy.

0 - - '
' Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be said for the principal

theological works of Hugh .of St. Victor. Although extensive'work on

' <> _ >
4 " ■ -’
Hugh was done in the 1950s and 1960s by Roger Baron, D. Van den Eynde.,

-and Jerome Taylor, there are critical editions available only for Hugh's
26
propaedeutic works and some of his shorter spiritual writings. The

exegetical adnotationes. and the two systematic treatises, De sacra­

mentis legis naturalis et scriptae and De sacramentis christlanae fidei

. J; ..

remain unedited, except as they are printed in volumes 175 and 176 of

the Patrologia*Latina. Although a translation was. made of De sacra­

mentis christianae fidei by Roy J . ^Deferrari, it cannot be considered

■■ -y; • y ■ >'

a totally reliable guide, since it is based only on the Patrologia

•27g>~5
''*■r" ■ '
text. Moreover, the. treatise De tribus diebus. on the knowledge of

God through creatures, has not yet been critically edited, although it

is a major source for understanding Hugh's thought on the relationship

c• BB •
■ between the rational creature and the material world.
 12

Notes

"*■ M.-D. Chenu, Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century, ed.
.and trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago, 1968), p. xvii.
■ v V

^ See Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages
(Notre Dame, Ind., 1964), p: ,77; V. I. J. Flint, "The 'School of Laon1:
A Reconsideration," Reeherches *de Theologie Ancienne et Medievale 43
(1976): 94-95. ' 1

3 ^
See, inter alia,E. Jeauneau, "Macrobe, source du platonisme ?
-chartrain." Studi Medieval! 3 ser. 1 (1960): 3-24;»Brian Stock, Myth and
Science in the Twelfth Century: A Study of Bernard Silvester (Princeton,
1972), pp. 237-62.

^ Arnold of Bonneval, De operibus sex dierum, PL 189:. 1515-16; Hugh

of Rouen, Tractatus in Hexaemeron, ed. F. Lecomte in AHDLMA 25 (1958):
227-94;' for examples of the'anonymous and largely unedited material,
see Brian Stock, "Hugh of St. Victor, Bernard Silvester and Ms. Trinity
College, Cambridge, 0.7.7," Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972): 152-73, and
the commentary on the Timaeus printed in PL 172: 245-52, under the name
hf Honorius Augustodunensis.. .

^ For a review of scholarship on Laon, and a discussion of the

type of work done there, see Flint. - ,

^ For studies and texts, see J. Parent, La doctrine de la creation

dans l'ecole de Chartres. Etude et textes, Publications de l'Institut
d'Etudes Medievales d'Ottawa, 8 (Paris/Ottawa, 1938); N. Haring, "Thierry
of Chartres: De sex dierum operibus," AHDLMA 22 (1955): 184-200; E. Jeau­
neau,. "Gloses de Guilla'ume de Conches sur Macrobe. Note sur les manu-
scrits," AHDLMA 27 (1961): 17-28; T. Gregory, Flatonismo medievale. Studi
e ricerche (Roma, 1958), and Anima mundi: la filosofia,di, Guglielmo di
Conches e la scuola di Chartres (Florence, 1955). ^
*

^ An approach of this kind is taken by Robert Javelet in his study

of the imago Dei in twelfth-century thought, Image et ressemblance au
douzieme siecle, de saint Anselme a Alain de Lille, 2 vols. (Strasbourg:
Letouzey et And, 1967); his work is saved from the distortions we have
mentioned by the use of a massive supporting apparatus of sources.

'*8 ^
Rupert of Deutz, Liber de divinis officiis, ed. H. Haacke, CCCM
7 (Turnhout, 1967); De sancta Trinitate et-operibus eius,. ed. H, Haacke,
CCCM 21-24 (Turnhout, 1971-72); Commentaria in.Johannem, ed. H. Haacke,
CCCM .9 (Turohout, 1969); De gloria et honore Filii homjnis super
Mattheum, ed*. H. Haacke, CCCM 29 (Turnhout, 1979).

9-
 Q '
De victoria Verbi Dei, ed. H. Haacke, MGH. Geistesgesehichte 5
(Weimar, 1970). ~/ •
« ’'v-. "* °
10
Wolfgang" Beinert, Die Kirche, Gottes Heil in der Welt, Beitragen
n. F., Bd. 13-(Munster i. W., 1973); John Van Engen, "Rupert of Deutz:
Monk, Theologian, and Controversialist at the End of the Gregorian
Reform," Diss. California at Los Angeles 1976.

G. G. Bischoff, "The Eucharistic Controversy between Rupert of

Deutz and His Anonymous Adversary," Diss. Princeton 1965.°

12 J. A. Endres, Honorius Augustodunensis (Munich, 1906).

o . ♦ .
13 ,
H. Menhardt, "Der Nachlass des Honorius Augustodunensis," Zeit,-
■schrift fur Deutsches Altertum und Deutsches Literatur 89 (1958): 30:
51-54: Eva M. Sanford, "Honorius. Presbyter and Scholasticus^ Speculum
23 (1948): 397-425; V. I. J. Flint, "The Career of Honorius Augustodunen­
sis: SOme Fresh Evidence Revue Benedictine 82 (1972): 63-86, and "The
Chronology of the Works of Honorius Augustodunensis," Revue Benedictine
82 (1972): 215-42.
TA . .$>
Yves Lefevre, L'Elucidarium "et les luciaires (Paris, 1954) ; sjssS
V. I. J. Flinjt, "The Original Text of the .Elucidarium of Honorius Augus­
todunensis from the Twelfth Century English Manuscripts," Scriptorium
17 (1964): 91-94.

^ Robert D. Crouse, "De Neocosmo," Diss. Harvard 1970; some of his

conclusions are published in "Intentlo Moysi: Bede, Augustine, Eriugena
and Plato in the Hexaemeron of Honorius Augustodunensis," Dionysius 2
(1978): 137-57. .' . ■
•9 <9 .

Ifi ° ’
Paolo Luqentini, La Clavia Physicae di Honorius Augustodunensis
(Rome, 1972). °

17 • * ■ ‘
Lucentini, Platonismo medievale:*contributi per la storia dell1
Eriugenismo (Florence, 1980), pp.-56-75.

18 Peter Abelard, Theologia summi boni. ed. H. Ostlender, Beitrage

-35: 2-3 (Munster i. W., 1939).

19 Peter Abelard, Opera Theologica 1: Commentaria in epistolam

Pauli ad Romanos and Apologia contra Bernardum, ed. E.,.M. Ruytaerfc,
CCCM 11 (Turnhout, 1969); Opera Theologica 2: Theologia Christiana.
Theologia scholarium, and Capitula haereses Petri Abaelardi, ed'.,E. M.
Buytaert, CCCM 12 (Turnhout, 1969); preparatory studies are published
 4
14

in Antonianum 37-44 (1962 to 1969). v

20
f *
Constant Mews, "The Development of the Theologia of Peter
Abelard,'* in Petrus Abaelardus. (1079-1142) : Person. Werk. und Wirkung,
Trierer Theologische Studien, Bd. 38, ed. R. Thomas, J." Jolivet, D. E.
Luscombe, and L. M. De Rijk (Trier, 1980), pp. 183-210.*

21
E. M. Buytaert, "Abelard's Expositio in Hexaemeron," Antonianum
43 (1968): 163-94. " ••

22 * ■^
Mary F- Romig, "A’Critical Edition of Peter Abelard's 'Expositio '
in Hexaemeron,.’" Diss. California-at Los Angeles 1981.
•* *
23 • ’
See R. Peppermiiller," Abaelards Auslegung des Romerbriefes, Bei-
trage 10-(Munster i. W., 1972); Eileen F. Kearney, "Master Peter^ Abelard,
p .. Expositor of Sacred .Scripture," Diss. Marquette 1980. .
'24 '' * «■ .*>
Peter Abelard, Dialogus inter philosophum, Judaeum et Chris-
tianum, ed. R. Thomas (Stuttgart- Bad- Cannstatt, 1970).
i
25
Hymnarius. Paraclitensis, 2 vols., ed. J. Sz5vdrffy (Albany, N.Y.,/
1975). , ' J k. " J '

26
See R. Baron, "Etude sut 1„'authenticity de 1'oeuvre de Hugues
de St.-Victor d'apres les Mss. Maz, 717, B.N. 14506 et Douai 35,9-366,"
Scriptorium 10 (1956): 182-220; "Hugues St.-Victor. Contribution a
un nouvel exameh de son oeuvre," Traditio~15 (1959): 223-97; Science et
sagesse chez Hugues de St.-Victor (Paris, x957); see also D. Van den
Eynde, "Les notulae in Genesim de Hugues de St.-Victor, source iitteraire
de la Summa sententiarum," Antonianum 35 (i960): 323-27; Essais suji la
succession et la date.des ecrits des Hugues de St.-Victor (Rome;1^960);
see also 3T. Taylor, The Origin 'and Early Life of Hugh of St. Victor: An
Evaluation of the Tradition (frotre Dame, Ind.. 1957). ' ^
Editions include R. Baron, Hugonis de Sancto Victore, opera propae-
deutica: Practica geometriae, De grammatica, Epitome Dindlmi in philoso-
phiam (Notre Dame, Ind., 1966); R. Baroq, Hugues de St.-Victor: six
opuscules spirituels (Paris, 1969); C. H. Buttimer, ed., Hugonis de f
^Sancto Victore Didascalicon de studio legendi (Washington, 1939).
V
i
27
Roy J. Defer-rari, trans., Hugh of St.. Victor on the Sacra&ents •
of the Christian Faith (Cainbridge, Mass., 1951).

J
 RUPERT OF DEUTZ^r

1. Introduction

Throughout his career, Rupert of Deutz observed and recorded, with

i ~o r
remarkable self-consciousness,_the relationship between his personal

experiences and a voluminous theological authorship. -The many autobio-

graphical passages scattered through the prefaces, of hie writings

permit us to construct an approximate chronological framework for his

early life and works, although they are insufficient to provide .complete
*i . ’ .1 *,
information about every detail. He seems to have been placed as a
2 ’ ® ■ ■
child in the monastery of St. Lawrence at Liege., ’ The abbot at that

time was Berengar, who had been appointed by the reformist bishop Henry
* _/ . '' * • ;*
to replace Wolbodo, of imperialist leanings and apparently dubious
h 3 \ ' ' ~
character. Rupert names'as his teacher Hferibrand, who became the next ‘

abbot of the community and,was famous for his' knowledge of both sacred
4 *
and classical literature._ The elegance of Rupert's own Latin style', ’

and his frequent references to .classical authors, suggest a liberal arts

education that included solid grounding in fclassical literature as well *

as Scripture and the Fathers. „ = ■

t
The years prior to bishop Henry's death were relatively peaceful,
i ''' . 'v *. v ^
occupied presumably with a regular ^pattern of divine office, asceticism^

and learning. On the accession in 1091 of the imperialist bishop

■ • '° - . . . . .af* ••
Qtbert, Wolbodo's claim to the abbacy was renewed. Berengar and a
 number of supporters, including Rupert,“Were forced-into exile, first

et the nearby abbey of St. Hubert— which was quickly drawn into the
- . 5 ' 6 ■
quarrel— and latfer at Evernigcourt, in .France. •Controversy.-and exile

continued well5into 1095,when Otbert was finally manoeuvred .by Godfrey

of Bouillon and-othei lay leaders into negotiating a settlement with

Berengar and his followers. Eventually, Berengar was reinstated abbot

of.St. Lawrence.- The settlement was, however, far from satisfactory

to ail, and-tensions between bishop and monastery continued for several

years after,/despite outward appearances of cordial cooperation

During that time, beginning perhaps as early as the exile., Rupert

experienced a crisis of vocation, which he recorded in book twelve of

-j-y - *:.v * . ..■* • , \ '
the .commentary on Hatthew, written years later'at the request of his
\ O
. .. 1 • t|

friend and patron, abbot Cuno of Siegburg. By his oWn account, he is

V '. '? °' r g
as yet."a boy or adolescent", suffering from profound depression and '

anxiety about the dangers and temptations with which he feels^himself

surrounded. He finds words for his melancholy in Ecclesiastes, and

with that author/gloomily praises the- dead as. more happy than the
* .1 ' >- ' *
living. With contemporary poli^^L upheavals in mind, he has been

a" reading the prophecies of Ezechiel, and compares his own situation to „
''-B" ’ • * -
^that of the -exiled prophet on the banks of..the river Chobar. Indeed,
a a • . ' ' A *

he adds, all Of mankind'is -in exile through the sin of Adam, like

Israel in Babylon. The parallels continue: just as the exiled prophet

saw heaven open to reveal visions of divine glory, so also Rupert's

"interior eye" was opened,'so‘that he seemed to embrace and adore, the •

/ .
‘i' ■* • , .. .
crucified Saviour. This consolation*he attributed to the Holy Spirit,
' ° » ” . -■ 9
or Paraclete, consoler of Christ's children oh earth.
 I ■: ? *' .

A series of dream-visions followed that? initial consolation. In

,the first of these, Rupert found protection and security in an invoca-

/ ■■■■*.. : ‘. • c‘"
tion.of the name of the Trinity, when-he dreamed that he was surrounded
Jfr 10 0 ■
< by enemies. Nevertheless, his depression-continued. One morning,

miserable because complete consolation would not cbme, he slept through

o ~ '’
J
the hour for,private prayer, and experienced another, more complex

vision of the Trinity. This time, it seemed to him that he was

awakened-by a huge light shining Q*

down on him,
.• then summoned by the .- ,
*■
■ ■* •?
^church bell to prayer. He got up and railed into church, where it
'v . - v

-appeared that a.solemn mass was in progress. Joining the offertory

• procession as if to beg for alms, he found himself at the steps of the

altar, where the three Persons of the Trinity", in human form, greeted

him affectionately. -Sensing the pressure of invisible enemies, Rupert

imploredthe onlookers for help. He.was urged to, cail on the name of

\the Lord Jesus,,which he did. At once the three Persons came to his

aid, lifted him u^r-from among his attackers, and raised him high up on

an open book> From there, they showed him the reliquaries of saints

op the altar, saying, "fear, not, for after this, you will be greater

than these." The Vision ended; Rupert came to his senses stark naked

ini an empty church, and scurried back to bed.^

Rupert's-depression continued, as-*di(l-the visions. Three days.*

after his experience in the church, it seemed"to him that he again

’approached and embraced the triune God. A short while later, he had

a vision of a young man of venerable appearance* who Announced to him

\ ■ “ 1 *■ 1 , ^

that he was.to die in eight years' timei Rupert took the vision

.seriously, and spent the, next seven years reading and waiting for death
 In that interval®, it seems, Rupert attained the usual age'for

ordination, but hesitated, letting younger men be ordained before him.

As he explains, herwas among those who preferred to avoid ordination

by a schismatic bishop, fearing lest*the procedure should have only the

’ ■ v 14 ■
appearance, andnot theeffective power(virtus) of piety. Bishop

Otbert's imperialist sympathies were unmistakable, dnd had provoked a

s
letter from pope Paschal II to Robert of Flanders, inviting the latter

to attack the "pseudo-clerics" of .Liege,^ In the winter of 1105 to

, '.v ‘ ’*' r ■
1106, Otbert and the citizens ofLihgeprovided a final refuge for

Henry IV, inflight from the attacks of the Gregorian party and the

rebellion of his son. The conflict climaxed and ended within the same

year, with the death of the old emperor, Otbert's swift reconciliation

to Henry V, and negotiations toward reconciliation with Rome, began in -

the autumn of 1106.^

Although the outward, political impediments to Rupert's ordination

■ " I '*
. :• V .1v-
had vanished by about the beginning of 1107, he seems still to have |

hesitated; burdened by a sense of his own unworthiness.His visions

resumed. This time, he had been reading' Augustine's De civitate Dei,

V.'ViV,.■
and began once again, in the words of Ecclesiastes, -to meditate on how

much better it is to be d^ead-than alive. He puzzled over the meaning

of his former visions, and hegan to invoke the aid of :.the Holy Spirit

since, as he explains: ,

even if there is- one .substance of Father, Son And Holy

Spirit, one divinity and (oflp) inseparable operation,
nevertheless, just as the proper work of the Father is
; the creation of man, and the proper work of the Son is
the redemption, so (also) the proper work.of the Holy
 Spirit is the illumination of that same man, the grace
Of revelations* and the distribution of all gifts.1® .

Half asleep, Rupert felt once again the threatening pressure of

invisible enemies. On this occasion, he invoked the name of the Holy

Spirit for aid. The Spirit appeared, comforting him once in the form

of ah old man with a staff, and another time as a "serene fire",

^ v..,, •■
radiating such peace and security that Rupert forgot about his adver-
. 19.
sities. , After these experiences,'he expected death to be imminent.

For three days, he relates, he wept and grieved, "thinking of his

'merits little or not at all, for they were non-existent, but depending

solely‘on faith." On the vigil of Ash Wednesday (in what year, is

not specified), he received an even more intense experience of the Holy

Spirit, which, appeared in the form of an immense,' luminous liquid globe

that poured itself into his bosom, filling him with wave after wave of
.21 °
itself. / ■_
Rupert continued to hope for death, and was disappointed, at first,

that the anticipated release did not come. Gradually, he came to recog-

nize that the consolation imparted to him would not be death, but a

;gift of understanding Scripture. He wrote poems in praise of the

Holy Spirit although, at that time, he found composition difficult.

Little by little, his love for the priestly office increased. After a .

mystical experience similar to the first, in which he embraced and

.adored the crucified Saviour, he announced his willingness to be

23 7 ' ”
ordained. Thirty days after his ordination, he underwent the last of
if i

his mystical experiences. Lying in ped at the end of the!day:, he felt

or dreamed that the "likeness of a man" impressed itself upon him "more
 20
tr . ■ 0

profoundly than any seal could mark the softest wax." After that, he
24 ’c
began to write incessantly and compulsively.

Whatever .the psychological explanation for Rupert's dream-visions

may.be, there can be little doubt concerning their importance as a

source and motivation for his authorship. Before his ordination, Rupert

seems to have written nothing more than his poems in praise of the Holy
25 “ . 26
Spirit, a libellua (nOw lost), and A poem on the exile. As he

explains; he was npt ready to treat of sacred Scripture ecclesiastico

more until he had received a legitimate apertio oris through ordination

• . 27 ■
to the priesthood.. Nevertheless, he had postponed ordination until

he was convinced that both the external, political irregularities and

• (j '
his own, interior sense of inadequacy were removed. The visions con­

vinced him of his calling and gave him a cqnfidence in his inspiration

that later permitted him to criticize and occasionally differ from his

patristic sources, as well as the courage to oppose the acknowledged

authorities and theological masters of his day. Two themes that were

to dominate his writings, namely the trinitarian foundations of creation

and history, and the insufficiency of the rational creature without

divine grace, may also be traced back to. his visionary experiences.

Rupert began his authorship with a long but unspectacular commentary

on Job, consisting principally of excerpts from Gregory's Moralia. As

Van Engen indicates, this' was a fairly common spiritual exercise in the

Benedictine tradition, and may have been .Rupert's "exegetical and theo-
-28
logical apprenticeship." It may have seemed a personally significant

choice of text for Rupert who, like Job, had endured temptation and

achieved consolation. ' ’

 The next major undertaking was a lengthy commentary on the

liturgical year, De divinis officiis, completed” in llil. According to

• \
‘ 29
his prologue, Rupert's main source was Amalarius of Metz, but he

would also be adding "his own new wine" to the sweetness of older
30
authorities. Some of that new wind'proved to be a Eucharistic doc-

trine that embroiled him in a prolonged dispute with William of St.

' 31 '
Thierry and Alger of Liege. Less controversial, but equally original,
~P» '
are his introduction and development of the themes of divine creation

and providence in relation to the Church's cycle .of liturgical celebra­

tion. These were subsequently to appear, with variations, in all his

major works. -
. •‘ik
v_ >. . .
j*.
At this pointj the sequence of events and literary activity

becomes uncertain. Rupert may have begun immediately to write the Com-

mentaria in evangelium S. Johaiinis. as a reply to his adversaries on

the eucharistic question. Alternatively, and.according to Van Engen's

thesis, 'he may have started work on’the enormous Scripture commentary,

De sancta Trinitate et opetibus eius, by way of sequel to his exposi­

tion of the liturgy, only to interrupt it with the commentary on

32 1 1
John. Rupert's own account, in the autobiographical first book of
*
his commentary on the Benedictine Rule, does’not cast much light on

chronology or the precise .nature of actions taken against him in the,

cdurse of his first controversy. He does report that he was. almost

deprived of permission to write (licentia scribendi) by those who took

’ ' 3 3 -
exception to parts of the commentary on John. Only the timely inter­

vention by Cuno of Siegburg, with a text from Hilary to support Rupert!s

case, saved the latter from a condemnation for heresy. 34

 It is evident from the dedicatory epistle of De saneta Trinitate

that Rupert completed this, his magnum opus, some time in 1117. 35

Although he says that the work was finished within three years, 36 we

cannot be sure whether that means three years including interruptions,

or three years' writing time, not including days or months spent on

other projects. Rupert's famous controversy with the theologians of

Laon was going on at about the same time that he completed the De

saneta Triniate; his two tractates De voluntate Dei and De omnipotentia

Dei may have been written immediately after‘the completion of-that,

*

massive work. In the same dedicatory epistle, Rupert recalls that he

was committed to Cuno of Siegburg's care and protection by abbot Beren—

•37 '
gar. Although it is certain that Rupert was, for a time, to be

numbered among the monks of St. Michael's, Siegburg, there is as yet no.
- 38
certainty concerning*the date of his arrival or placement there. We

know that he must have been present there in 1119, and that he was,

through the offices of Cuno, named abbot of*Deutz some time before
39 .« '•

January 6, 1120. “ He remained abbot at Deutz until his death some ten

years later, and wrote all his subsequent works at Deutz, mostly in

response to requests fro# his■friend and'patron at Siegburg.

/ «
/ ! f ' ^
/, '

/ .2, Background: De dfvinis officlis

/ From these brief considerations of Rupert's curriculum vitae, we

turn to his De divinis officiis. the work that he describes as the

40
first-fruits of his labours. Rupert's interpretations of three
 * 41'
liturgical occasions, Trinity Sunday, Easter week, and Christinas,
• ‘ ■*

include background material necessary for an understanding of his later

treatments of the hexaemeron And theological anthropology. His

treatise on„the Trinity includes discussions of the distinction between

uncreated and created natures, the cooperation of the three Persons in

creating the material world and rational beings, and an analysis of '

'passages from the beginning of Genesis, intended to prove that a know­

ledge of the Trinity was not unavailable to the Old Testament authors.

In his commentary on Holy Week, he recalls the six-day work of creation

as a typological parallel to the work of redemption. The liturgy of

Holy Saturday becomes an occasion for comparing the human being's first
<? •
“;
creation with the new creation in baptism. Because Christmas is under­

stood to be the feast that celebrates J:he Incarnation, Rupert makes it

* 1
the occasion for asking why God permitted the fall of Adam to happen.

We shall look at each of these liturgical occasions in turn. $ -

The Trinity and Creation

i ° 5
r V-
Rupert's treatise on the Trinity begins with a discussion of the

names of Father, Son, and Roly Spirit/ their propriety as a "description

of the true God,"^ the significance of the names,^ and the distinc­

tions that must be made between, these relational names and the substan­

tial names that apply to all three Persons alike.^ He then proceeds

to tackle the problems associated with confessing three Persons in one

1 45
divine nature while denying that there are three gods. In so doing, ^
■ ' i '
I •
he draws from Boethius' De Trinitate the argument that there cannot be
 24

three gods, because the three Persons are not different from one

another in any of the predicable accidents. -Indeed, the simplicity of -

the divine nature excludes subjection to accidents.

Why are there no, accidental qualities in the divine nature? The

answer will be clear, Rupe'rt asserts, once it is understood why a

created substance is.the subject of accidents. Paraphrasing Boethiusj

he continues:

It is evidently subject to accidents because, whatever

it may be, it consists^of matter and form.simultaneously,
as, for example, when the artist fashions a statue by his
craftsman's art,‘his material is a species-of brass, but
the form is any likeness.at all induced by art, as an
image of the emperor or, if he prefers, a. likeness of
Jupiter. Accordingly, what we call a statue is not
an essence , (id quod est), because it is not one »
simple thing. Thus, the brass itself, before anything
was figured in' it, is not a simple thing in itself, in
. as much as' the earth which is its matter is Very different
, from what appears under the species of brass. If you
consider the very ‘earth, as well, it is not a thing in
itself, in as much as it has this name from form. For it
is called earth because it is heavy and dry. . ,
#
Hhre the line of Boethius' argument ends; Rupert proceeds to reduce the

created substance even further, thereby introducing the problem of prime

matter:

but it (earth,) takes its being from hvle. which they call
created unformed matter. ^

Without pausing to comment'on the nature or condition of' hvle, Rupert

returns to the thread of Boethius' argument, which places human beings

r '0
in the context of all created substances:
 25

Similarly, man is not simply This or That, namely

because he consists of parts, which are soul and body;
these, joined hy a dissoluble bond, death certainly
separates.■' w ,

The mutability" pf a createcl substance depends, therefore, on its con-

stitution as a composite.of fora and matter. Only God is a simple

substance, pure form without matter, and as such neither subject of

• \
-* , . ,1 :t*
accidents’nor differentiated in his unity. ,

These considerations prepare the way for a discussion of relations

'■' t *
among Father, Son, and,*Holy Spirit, and the way in which these are* not
v 49
accidents,- although relation is one of the predicab'le accidents. In
•’ ' -t '
order to describe the generation of God from" God in a manner quite

unlike human birth, Rupert proposes to express, provisionally, the

•t * -’ ♦*
names oi|>Father,' Son, and Holy spirit with other, substantial names.

The Fath§f^may thus'be called Life, "living immortally in itself,” the',

**•' ’ ■ 50 >
Son Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit Love. Referring, perhaps, to the

teachings.of Roscelin,-who had been condemned at Soissons in 1092 for

^ i
tritheism, Rupert is at pains to point out that'his choice of words

concedes nothing to arguments by the dialectici: “

nor, therefore, do'we use the words of the dialecticians

because we think the holy Trinity is in any way to be'
subjected to .their vanity• but so that we may express
better and more advantageously by-known significations,
wpat is to be signified.51

The substantial names of-Life, Wisdom, and Love are applied pro­

visionally in place of Father,.Son, and Holy Spirit to prove or illus­

trate their eternal co-existence. Thus, for example, it would be

absurd to suppose that God ever existed without wisdom. 52■

. The inter-
 >1
\

. 26 .

6 ‘
relationship of the three Persons is further elucidated with reference
\ o.
to Proverbs 8:31* which describes Wisdom’s play before God at the
v ’
beginning of creation. The vocabulary and imagery with which Rupert

describes God’s creation are, however, drawn almost word for word from
V

Psalm 148:

o ■ 4* .

In truth, it was a lovely game for God the Father to

see in his Wisdom what he was about to make, first the
blessed court and beautiful republic of heaven, to be
distinguished by the ten orders of angels, then the
visible architecture of this world, the.spherical
* chamber of heaven, the sun and moon, the shining stars,
the upper waters, the lower waters, every abyss, snow
and hail, mountains and hills, and each open space on
earth, the sea^ and all things that are in them— whatever
fliesabovh,.whatever crawls or walks below, beasts and
all cattle, kings of the earth and all people. . . v To
see this, 1 say, before it came into beingK was a game
for God and his Wisdom— a festive game, a happy game, a
delighting game.
But truly, to rejoice at Such things, ,’to see all this
with hilarity in greatness of heart, is the Love of Wisdom
— a zealous love, a holy love— which we said'earlier is
the Holy Spirit.53 -

In this way, Rupert joins divine wisdom and love to the eternity of the
• .... 4
Father’s life prior to creation, simultaneously linking divine self-

knowledge and the mutual love of Father and Son .to divine, knowledge and

love of the creature. Moreover, his use of Psalm 148 links the whole

passage to that text's exhortation to praise the•>Creator, so that it is

indirectly implied that.human praises of God are a participation in the

divine game and love of Wisdom.

Meanwhile, Rupert h quietly suppressed “the problem usually

associadfll with Proverbs 8, namely that Wisdom is them described as a

creature, albeit the firi

• *
 27

approaches it from another angle. Having established that the divine

I —•
nature, as pure form, must be immutable, and that'creatures must be

mutable because they are composite, he goes on, in a series of argu­

ments against the Arians And Sabellians, toexpound the generation of

" 5 4
the Son. First, on the basis of his presuppositions about the divine

nature., he dismisses the notion that the Son, if generated from the divine

nature, could also be a creature and Mutable. Next, he argues for the
t* ‘'v
necessity of a divine exemplar of fecundity., .from the evident fecundity

of living creatures. Whence, he'asks, did God derive the exemplar for

giving fecundity to his creatures, if"he himself exists in arid

r '

sterility— if, creating so much, he;were not able to generate anything

from himself?"*? * c - ■

To explain how the Father generates the Son from himself without

suffering change or diminution in nature, Rupert proposes a series of

similitudes. Like his earlier arguments, these presuppose the unity of

the divine nature as pure form, and a similarity between creature and

Creator through the exemplarity of the divine Word. Although the

thought is derivative, Rupert's expression of-it displays a remarkable

originality and poetic freshness. No teacher, while transmitting his

art to others, will thereby suffer any loss in his own knowledge. No
^ /
artisan, who puts into effect in a finished work the plan or concept he

has thought out, will thereby be deprived of the initial idea in his
56
mind. Rupert continues, applying his similitudes both to the exem- *

plarity of the Word in creating and to the union of divine and human »

natures at the Incarnatioii:

 How much more, then, is the Wisdom of God— which is God,
which is the Son of God, artificer of all things, fore­
seeing all things, which “reaches from limit to limit:"— •
not horn'in such a way as to be .separated, nor ginerated
in such a way that the paternal substance is diminished?
Neither, then, when it first shone out for the composition
of the world's fabric, and founded all things visible and
invisible, nor then, when, assuming flesh in the womb of
the Virgin, it was entirely inscribed on human nature, did
the Father retain it any the less in his -heart; ndr, there­
foie, did the Word suffer extinction or diminution in his
own nature, because he transcribed all of it onto the
parchment-skin of our nature'.^

Having argued from the known fecundity of the creature for an

exemplary fecundity in the divine nature, Rupert takes the same route

again, this time in* order to demonstrate, from the known image of God

in the rational creature, how God must be three Persons^in one nature.

Just as Father, Son, and Holy Spiiit— or divine Life, Wisdom, and Love

— are one nature, so also the nature .of human being and ahgel are con-

stituted as trinities of spirit

*
or soul (spiritus
•»
vel anima), rational-
u •

ity, and love. The three are distinct, but together form one perfect

image and likeness of the Creator, leasts have a kind of spirit or

animating principle, but iack both rationality Mid e^ernpl life. All

hugian beings and angels are rational, but not all of thenf love God.
• •

Lacking^this, they not only fail to achieve the likeness to _God which

is the perfection or completion of their rational natures, but also

„ <:••
suffer a kind of distortion, oso that the* angel of light who lost the -

love of God became a prince of darkness, while' the human being without
58
love becomes evil and a child of the devil. From this analysis of
» '— '

created natures, Rupert {turns to the divine nature:

■’ If, I say, you deny any one of the three Persons, you
do not have God, because if you deny the Holy Spirit
 while confessing'father and Son, since the same Spirit
is Love, you have established that God is without love, .
that is, hostile and unfriendly to you. If you deny the
Son, since the Son of £od^is. Wisdom, you ttfive by a fan­
tastical error made yourself a brute and foolish God.

J
Rupert next proceeds fromadiscussion ,oftheincarnation and
60 » h
related problems, .to the question of Old Testament, knowledge of the
6X •
Trinity. Full knowledge ofand faith idthe Trinity was amystery

beyond the grasp of ''the infancy or*hdolesce(hee of a very carnal

62
world", in the age before the Incarnation. Moreover, the three

Persons acted through history to complete, their salvific and seUf-

disclosing works. Rupert assigns to the Father the work of creating,

humanity, to "phe Son, the redemption of humanity, and fetKthe Holy

63
Spirit, an "igniting” of the rational creature's love for God.

Not that the Father created anything without the Son and
' the Holy Spirit, or that the Son redeemed without’the
Father and the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit’illu-.
mined and cleansed by the remission of sins, without Father
and Son, but that \ in truth, the common and everywhere
'inseparable work of the highest and liiNLque divinity is such' •
>’ that, nevertheless, there is a distinction of Persons in
appropriation or order of work, which is manifest and not
to be‘ignored by any of the faithful.**4 ^ ■ '

. : , l" 'i' "

A number of Old Testament texts have traditionally*been beld to

imply a doctrine of the Trinity. Rupert mentions the threefold SanCtus

of Isaiah 6:3, but focusses his attention on the opening verses of ’

Genesis. He juxtaposes John 8:25 ("Ego principium, qui et loquor vobis

. .“) and Psalm 39:8 ("In capite lij^ri scripturn est de me . . .*') with

e beginningyof Genesis ("In principium creavit Deus caelum et terram

. .") to demonstrate .that the principium cap be none other than the
 ■r _ -

.- ^ '30
•s' <-'■ ' - . -*

Son. The Spirit moving upon the waters, in- the next part of the

Genesis text,“ is duly identified with the Holy Spirit, or third Person
65 s
of the Trinity. Next, Rupert cites Genesis 1:3 (Dixit Deus: fiat

. . .") as evidence for the Father speaking and the Son or Word spoken.

The subsequent phrase, "et Vidit Deus-quod e£se| bona,*’he understands

as a reference- to the benevolence and love of the Creator, identified

•» ~~~~ gg .
as the Holy Spirit. Reverting to a favourite similitude, he addresses

■a 4 the human artist or craftsman. Again, he stresses the link between

- . . ” * . „ . .
literary and artistic creation, and the work of the Creator. The
' . v,:

' Augustinian metaphors sustain themselves in his own*thought:

" . , '• • \ .>
i' ■•
* * - 'V ' ■ •*
,.. And so that you may* know how much that'Love of which we
speak was actively employed in the work of God, turn to
your heart, o, whoever you may be, ma|ter craftsman of
any praiseworthy work; so thaf, -£?say, you may know how
much Love— which is the Spirit— went into his work, take
„*•, / ^aote^ how much your love went* into your own work. »Cer1-
* Ikinly, you possessed your art within yqur mind'in some­
what the same way as the Word was with God .in the
* beginning. . . .“7 . , ‘■

The whole discussion is brought to a'close with' a quotation from one of

Rupert's favourite sources, Augustine1s De civitate Dei: . '

’'• • ■ - j
.. c . -

So the answer to our question 'Who?'°is 'God.' To the • -w.:

""
question 'Row?' the answer is 'by the Word.' To the ques-
tion 'Why?' we get the answer, 'because he is good.' And
this Trinity is one God,®® * " ‘
« *“* V
» .*
' * ■ ' ‘

If the benevolence and wisdom of God abe demonstrated in the

creation of the material world, then they are-all the more evident at

the creation of'■ human beings.. .The plural

- verb
: I-
;'#'*' "faciamus" in Genesis

1:26 is understood as-an expression of the plurality of Persons in the *

 ■a
'=r

, \ \ ,_ 31
'■

'69 ' : • ■■ ' '*

divine nature, as well as a sign of the unique dignity of human
' - '
■ V, <S> ^
nature.3 Although, in Rupert's scheme of.appropriations, the woick •
a. ' d-
, citation belongs principally to thefather, the cooperation of the Son

and Hdly-Spirit are necessary for the; formation of the image and like­

ness. The human being wag created £q reflect, by hiST"rationality, the ’•

i pgfsOn of the>Spn or Word, and by his imitation of divine goodness, the

benevolent love'appropriated to the Boly|Spirit, There is no doubt,,, in

■_ \ '••■■■ ■■ “ . \ ‘, ’Wtf*
Rupert's opinion, about the special dignity of-the, human cre^ture^'Ron
:
■ -„ ■ '■' p*-V- , .-I ■ -
what could such a constitution of man (homo) lack',4 except natural ’ | -

divinity?"70;_ .;V- :
• '
• ' ° -V •
e*’ *Iff ’
*, •a " ,'
1p-
J Rupert proceeds to explain why hUman beings coUld not Have *had-/

^ natural divini^; his answer was1 to ^ecOme a key. point in the later

' dispute toitVliaon. God ip able to geneifaje what Is by nature divine,

and indeed generated the Word or Soh in’his Own -nature. To create a
-' ■- .- . -
divine being is, however, impossible, .Since divinity implies a being

absolutely .distinct from allcreated being:' * I

:Nor is there any "derogation of |d^ine) Omnipotenc^ when

it is said that God could not ’create one ec[ual toftimself, ^
whp is beyond all, outside all, and other than all things,;

Just as the three Persons cooperate for the creation, of the, human
*.i' ' \ ' ' V' ',‘ ''7*‘ »
'i
j
. . •<
being, so also they work together for bis restoration. After the’fall,

access to the tree of life was denied. Rupert regards .this as an act
- *' i':
V'‘ a / ' • '
""****' . /- ' - '«•'V" v ; ^ v ■
of mercy, Since eternal sinful life would have;been eternal misery. He,

- cites, approvingly, AugPttihe'a reference to,Plotinus: "The titerciful'to

Father created mortal bodies for us;" .While the introduction of

corporeal mortaiitwJts'appropriated to the father, redemption of souls

and resurrection of bodies is appropriated to the Son. To the Holy
1
Spirit, finally, is appropriated the work of renewing'" souls and trans-
'■■'1 . - 73
forming bodies into their post-resurrection incorruptibility.

Prophetic evidence for this double work of creation and new creation is
t • '<$ . • . ■ 9

drawn from Isaiah 6:3, where the threefold Sanctus of the two seraphim
i ,• >\ _ ’ c
is understood to signify the two Testaments, praising in unison the
74
works of the tiiune God. • j.

v * \ j, ’ ■ *> ' ■*

»^ ‘ TheLfturgy of Holy Week:Creation dadRestoration

•** Rupert's .extendedcommentary on theliturgy of HolyWeek begins in

•r* ' i- , : _
book five, with an exposition of the office for Palm Sunday. After a

few preliminaries on the texts for the day, he'refers to the parallel
:■ v .‘ . « I
between creation Week ahd Holy Week, noting that Christ's saving work

began on the first day of the week,\ with the triumphal entry' into

Jerusalem. This day, Rupert continues-:; corresponds in dignity to that

< ■ ' ’ \
■
first day on which .God said, "Let there be light." 75 Pursuing the

parallel, Rupert? promises to show how each day of Holy Week corresponds
i '' * '
to a.day of the. creation week, and proceeds at first to do so. The

second -day is”liturgically of relative insignificance; Rupert compares

'this insignificances to the absence of the words of commendation, "and

God s'aw that it was good" from ^the Genesis account of the creation of

the'firmament,. He explains the absence of the commendation with

■ ■ rQ^ ' * '
r> . a “ ' J
reference to Jerome's interpretation, by which the omission is under­

stood to imply disapproval for the binary'that departs from unity.

With the third and fourth day's, however, Rupert's invention and sources
 O'

'33

/
fail, and no parallels to creation week are provided.
» 1J
For the fiftlj day, Holy Thursday, Rupert produces a rather shaky

allegorical parallel between the creation of living things from water,

and the beginning of Christ's passion. 3ust as some of the creatures

produced on the fifth day remained in the water, while others flew up

into the air, so, also the events of. the passion "partly depress us into
*^*“4 77
sorrow, and partly raise us up into ^oy." For Good Friday, the sixth

day, there is a fairly obvious parallel between the "first creation of

human beings and their restoration or new creation. The Sabbath of

78
rest, accordingly, corresponds'to Christ's "rest" in the tomb.
I) '' -
Turning to the liturgy of Holy Saturday, we should bear in mind
■r. 1--
that baptisms were customarily performed during that vigil. The first
.i - 4 , '• m ‘
lection of the evening is taken from Genesis 1. "Perhaps," says Rupert,
79
"someone may ask what it has to do with the sacrament of baptism."

For the benefit of the ignorant, he proceeds to explain, remarking that

, . a
the prophetic text is like a purse that must be shaken out, so the

contents can be revealed. Because Hoses was the first and greatest of

the prophets, the beginning of Genesis ranks among the major prophetic
1 ' .
texts examined,and studied by great, men of the Church. These, Rupert

adds, have called the text the hexaemeron, or six-day work. Having

'thus built up a sufficiently instructive background, he recalls his

purpose and returns' to the question of baptism. The text may be under­

stood to pertain to the s^pray^nt in three ways. First, the movement

of the Spirit over the w a ' t b e g i n n i n g of creation is. repeated

in a hew way with the movement of the Spirit over the waters of baptism.

>Secondly, the presence of the Trinity at the beginning of creation, as

 34

the Father speaking, the Word spoken, and the Spirit moving over the

waters, is recalled in the words of the trinitarian baptismal formula.

Finally, the Creation of human beings in the image and likeness of God
80
is spiritually repeated in regeneration through baptism.

To demonstrate more fully what is involved, Rupert inserts a dis­

cussion of the image and likeness to God, in which he posits a distinc­

tion between the image and the likeness:

0
Man was, of course, made in the image of God in that he
is rational, but (was made) in the likeness in that he was
created to be the imitator of divine goodness. For the
image of God or 'figure of his substance’, as the apostle
says, is the Son, but the goodness or love of God and of
his image is"the Holy Spirit. And so for that reason -it
is ,pot said, let us make man in Our likeness and image,
but rather, 'in our image and likeness,' because the like­
ness is not of one, but of two persons, namely Father and
Son, but the image is not-of two persons, but of one only,
namely the Father. For the Son is of the Father only, but
not the Son of the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit, however,
is not only&of the Father, but also of the Son.°l

The human being's creation in the image of God pertains, accordingly,

to therationality by which he resembles the divine Word. Likeness, 1

however, pertains to.a voluntary disposition by which the creature

imitates or participates in the Holy Spirit.as divine goodness. Else­

where, Rupert distinguishes between the substantial qualities of the

rational creature, given in creation through the Word, and-the accidental

82
qualities given in the creative activity of the Holy Spirit.< Here,

he expresses the same notion by analogy with the sculptor's art:

the image of divine goodness, by which the likeness to

God is retained, requires the will, of the creature, whereas
the rationality which is the impress of the image of God
 ■ &
35

carved into the human soul, proceeds from the Creator's

ar| a l o n e . ( .

Likeness to God was lost, in the fall, by an act of the creature's

will. It is, in turn, to be restored by an. act of the creature's will,

or willingness at least. Just as the Holy Spirit moved over the waters
i .
*
at, the beginning of creation, so also there is a-movement of the Spirit

over the waters of baptism. Rupert explains the restoration of the

likeness to God in terms of this doubte movement of the Spirit, using

. the metaphor of the cosmic egg as a link between the two. At the

beginning of creation, the Spirit first moved over the waters "like a

bird, vivifying the egg with its warmth."®^ In the sacrament of bap­

tism, the Spirit again moves over the waters, "so that by warming them,

she may regenerate into true life those who enter under her grace,

spreading her wings and drawing them up, and even carrying them on her

shoulders. And if it is necessary that she approach even more closely

to. someone,, that is, if someone is prevented from approaching the

• t
waters . . . then indeed the mother of divine grace flies to him and
85
extends her wings beyond the nest of waters." A receptive willingness

is all that is requiredTfrom the side of the creature.

Why Was the Fall Permitted?

Both the activity of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and Christ's

saving work on Good Friday presuppose a fall from which restoration was

v necessary. Why“were human beings permitted to fall? The question ■

introduces the problem of evil in a good creation and imperfection in

the work of an omnipotent Creator. It is raised in Rupert's commen
0

on Christmas, which celebrates the incarnation of the Word:

Why did God permit the fall of man to happen, since tib
could at any rate have prevented it, being omnipotent--
in any event, by keeping that tempter far away from para­
dise— and prefer instead that his incarnation be necessary
for mankind, rather than profitably to banish the serpent
from conversation with men?®®

This, responds Rupert, citing I Corinthians 1:25, is the divine foolish-$F

ness that surpasses human wisdom— which is to say, that the problem is,

humanly speaking, insoluble. It is possible, however, to achieve some

clarity concerning the issue. Rupert bases his explication on a com­

parison of the fall to the descent of Israel into Egypt. Why did God

permit a migration that would require so many, delays and so much hard

work to be reversed? One possible answer is that God had chosen and

prepared this way to demonstrate his power, or to give the nations

87
experiential knowledge of his power and wisdom.

Rupert notes that both Adam's sin and the sale of Joseph into

slavery were minor but voluntary acts by human beings. They were fore-
*
seen by God but not, as such., predestined:
&
God foresaw and predestined all these things before he
created man; the fall'of man himself, however, he foresaw
but did not predestine nor even will, so that he instead
forbade it under a threat of death. For God(both) fore­
saw and predestined only the good; the evil, however, he »
only foresaw and did not predestine, but arranged it
fittingly into its just place.®®'
< 1

Here another problem presents'itself. There would have been nosin

on Adam's part, had there not been a precept or law to be broken: "Why
 37

did God the Creator give man a precept that he foresaw would not be <
89 "
obeyed?" Again, the problem is insoluble. Rupert responds by

^beginning with the obvious statement that, hfter all, God is the V

Creator and we are the.creatures. Once the implications of creatureli-

ness*have been understood, the problem will be seen in its true light:

the creature ought to be educated by the Creator, pre­

cisely because it could not be created in such a way that
its nature would have been perfect, which is a character­
istic of the divine nature only, nor could it have known
that God is 'meek and humble of heart'■unless it were to
make progress in erudition.

Imperfection is characteristic of the creature, as perfection is charac­

teristic of God. (Nevertheless, the rational creature, constituted for

"imitation of divine goodness",,may progress through discipline toward^

perfection. A precept, Rupert explains, is the beginning of erudition

91
in every discipline. Adam was given a precept both to teach him the

cprrect humility of a learner, and also by way of a beginning in his

i:-
education. The .fall, therefore, may be understood as a refusal to be

^ducated, in that Adam rejected the first, precept of a discipline that

would have made him God-like, while attempting to seize, prematurely, a

perfect, God-like knowledge of everything.

3. Hexaemeron: De saneta Trinitate et operibus eius

We have seen how Rupert,.in his commentary on the feast of the.

Trinity, appropriated the work of creation to the Father, redemption to”

the Hon,; and regeneration to the Holy Spirit. Although the three Persons
" ' a '

' * ;

v • , ,.
are understood to cooperate in all their works, this distinction in

'their appropriations implies a gradual self-disclosjgire by the triune

God, and an increasingly intimate relationship between the Creator and

the creature. Rupert uses this notion in structuring his commentary

* '
on the Bible, De saneta Trinitate et operibus eius. As the title

suggests,- the. work may be regarded as an extended treatise on the '

Trinity, in which each of three phases in the history of the world and

human beings is treated as an illustration of t'he activities of one of

IJ;, Q2
the three Persons. Accordingly, Genesis 1 and 2 up to the fall of

Adam are treated as the work of the Father,,principally, in’cooperation

with the Son and the Holy Spirit..

\
The Trinitarian Basis of .Creation

Rupert sums up creation, in its entirety, with the words, "heaven

- 93
and earth and all of their ornament." By heaven, he understands the

invisible and incorporeal realm, ornamented with the angelic creature,

and by earth, the material creation, ornamented with various forms of’

life up to and including humanity. Creation, as such, displays a

^tripartite structure-incorporeal, corporeal, and living ornaments of

both. Whence came the'exemplar for this structure? Clearly, replies

Rupert, the exemplar of creation is the triune God himself, rather than

any ideas or forms apart from the divine nature. By divine decision,

the creature was produced in such a way that its parts would correspond

to the personal relations within the divine nature, so that the incor­

poreal realm of heaven reflects the person of the Father, and earth the
person of the Son, destined to assume "terrestrial substance" in the'

incarnation. As the Spirit is the ornament of both Father and Son, so

A} . . *
also rational creatures, including both angels and human beings, are

the jgpiament of heaven and earth, an(| correspond to the person of the
94 « •
Holy Spirit. ' C

Because of the very structure of creation,' Rupert rejects the

c.i
quest for extrinsic exemplars, and seeks instead to show how the

creature reflects the inner life of the triune Creator. He proceeds,

/ ■ v

by his customary method of juxtaposing selected texts, to show how the

three Persons worked together to produce the creature. Noting that the
Vi
name of the first book of the Pentateuch is etrHnfflCgically related to

generatio, he looks ahead to the- end of the creation story, and cites

Genesis 2:4-5 ("Istae generationes sunt caeli et terrae, quanHo creata

sunt, in die quo fecit Dominua Deus caelum et terram . . ."). The key

words^to consider are dies and generationesThe dies in question is

■ 95
identified with the Word or Son, dies ex die. The book of Genesis is
. . . ’ ' ' B
so called, Hupert explains, because'it is the account of his double

generatio, first as the Word of the Father, in the repeated "dixit Deus

fiat, et factum est," of Genesis 1-, and secondly as the son of Abraham
i» . .• •
according to his human nature, in the prophetic benediction on Abraham

and his offspring (Genesis 22:17-18).^

By recourse to John 1:3 and 8:25, the dies or Word is also identi­

fied as the principium of creation, and the Wisdom in which God created

all things. As such, the Word is the "prime and efficient cause of all
£ * 97 Having named the prime and efficient
*
creatures." cause of creation,

Rupert digresses briefly into a discussion of the material cause. This

 e?

* . i

40

jS>. . ' .
he notes, was created from nothing:
0 ’
. he created (heaven and earth), I say, and did not, as the
philosophers of the gentiles vainly suppose, have with
himself a coeternal hyld or matter, but riiiade the substance
- of heaven and earth out of nothing. If someone were to
object that toan is said to, have been created, not from
nothing, but from the earth, as It is written: 'and God
, made man in his image, in his image God created him . . .'
or again, where it says, 'God created the great sea-
monsters . . .' we reply to this, ^at properly speaking—
at least in that respect— the matter was already .created
from which these species were produced or derived, with
the names, so to speak, of* heaven and earth— as we said
earlier— signifying the universal creature both visible
‘ and invisible.9®

"The philosophers of tjie gentiles" is Rupert's customary phrase for the

Platonists, who would have been known to him indirectly 'through Augus­

tine's De civitate Dei, or directly through Macrobius or Calcidius.

$
Although, he does not use Calcidius' wofd, silva, for matter or hyle, it
» & •
is probable that here Calcidius' discussion of Tnatter is his direct or
/■ .
indirect source. 'Anticipating the general twelfth-century view of

matter* Rupert, concludes that the material cause of creation is the

universal substance of "all things visible and invisible," created out

P
v
of nothing and subsequently formed by God. „

Why was the universal substance not produced by a divine "fiat . . ."?
> ‘ P.

Rupert gives three reasons why it 'could not have been. Stylistically,
tj S

a fiat at the beginning of the creation account would have been redun­

dant, sinbe principium is the equivalent of the Word;4thus, "in prin-

cipio dixit Deus . . ." would, amount to'saying, "in his Word, God

said . . Secondly, it would have been grammatically and logically

incorrect, since fiat is in the imperative, and its use would result in

v.
the incongruity of saying that God gave orders to nothing. Finally,

the use of the word creavit for the initial creative act effectively
.■ * . - * 99
excludes the notion of a formation of pre-existent matter.

A creation ex nihilo, in the beginning, raises thb problem of j

\
mutability in the Creator.. The alternative to a mutable Creator- seems

to be coetemity of th^ wbrld with God. Rupert replies'that neither

view is correct, supporting his argument with the notion of the Word as
-r * .
exemplar: -
\ «• . • *
* *
Surely one does not practice mutability when, unwilling to
keep hidden the wisdom', elegant speech, or something of
that kind— which he certainly has secreted in his mind—
he transcribes it onto parchment with ink and pen, and
calls many to hear and .understand the useful knowledge?
Surely he is not to be taxed with the vice of a mutable. J
mind, on account of the fact that he profitably made, know- . -
able in a public audience, what he had in secret? He is
fay no means to be'charged with mutability,.but rather to
be praised for his benevolence! But indeed, the world' and -
all that heaven and earth contain^, are in a way the, f
clearest signs of God’s Wisdom, which Wisdom or Word was
in God’s heart,-‘before these things came to be, in the
same way that your wisdom or art is in your heart, before
you publish it in visible writing or some kind of work.-*-00
•v

What is the nature of this publication of divine Wisdom, called

’ ■ 9 I ■ / •

heaven and earth? Rupert moves into a discussion of the invisible "and
. ‘ i
visible parts of creation, first in order to show what was produced in

the initial- creative act of God, and secondly to distinguish this from •'

the presence and activity of the Holy ,Spirit. Heaven is the spiritual

creature, ultimately incomprehensible to both ''animal" humanity, which

,...? , . • • i '

comprehends only material, things, and "spiritual" humanity*, which may

“ * * ' ;
• 1
Imagine, * but never adequately comprehend while continuing to live

Corporeally on, earth, the'things that’pertain to the celestial realm.

 • ‘ ' ' ' 42

Referring to Psalm 113:15-1$ (^Benedict! vos a Domino, qui fecit

caelum et terram. Caelum'caeli Domino, terram autem dedit filiis

hominum."), Rupert notes that the "heaven of heavens,f which belongs to

F '
G6d is so called to distinguish it from the visible heaven, or'firma­

ment, v?hich forms part of the ornamentation of earth. Heaven is

"resplendent with the light of divine majesty" from the first moment

of its creation, unlike the corporeal substance, which was "without

6 »

form and void/’^ ^ The corporeal’substanee, although potentially full

of divine glory, did dot actually begin to reflect that glory until the

process of.ornamentation had begun. Its condition is stated in the

- 4 ' '

text, "and there were shadows on the'face of the abyss/1 This, Rupert
*

understands as a description dot only of the earth— where waters had

not yet been separated from dry land— but of the corporeal substance'in

it^ entirety, 'since neither firmament nor corporeal luminaries had yet

been produced. He continues: '

•» t ' -*> V•

And so- the utter formlessness of the creature is summarily,

and briefly described (as) both destitute and empty, as if
it were in vain created in the Principle, that is, in the
Son, except that the ’Spirit “of God moved on the waters,’
who is the third Person of the Trinity.^02 ,

- I-
The presence and activity of the Holy Spirit signal the beginning

o'f ornamentation in,the corporeal substance. ‘To explain the process,

Rupert introduces the notion of the cosmic egg, warmed and animated by

the warmth of the mother bird,- identified as the Holy Spirit or divine

love. He rejects any identification of the Spirit with a'wind or the

' ' C. U 1
element air, raised above the others within the natural order of the
•. J
elements. He rejects, equally, the identification of heaven, in the
 43

opening verse," with the element fire, thereby refusing to grant that,
'
the elements could have been produced in their * *'■ order,
natural ^ 'with
' 'fire
«
\"6>°
103 ‘ —
above air, above water and earth. Instead, he prefers to understand.

the shadows over the face of the abyss as air, shadowy through the

absence of illumination from any higher source. The cosmic egg on

I
which the Spirit broods is inchoate, indeed, and all but formless. The
*
ordering, and even the production of at least one of the elements, are

seen asconsequences of the activity of the Spirit:

f „ e* .

Why then,, since there are four elements of the world, dobs;
the writer of this sacred history express only these “two,
namely eartj^and water, by their names, and designate air -
, not by'its proper name, but by the name of shadows? ,Namely,
’because it pertained to his.intention to-say whence those
species now existing, both diverse and manifold; arose in
theidrnament of the creature, which then, was formless. For
it is established, that light shone out from those, shadows
which were theh over the face of the abyss, with Paul as .
witness, when he says, 1because God, who commanded light to
shine forth" from the shadows, illumines our hearts . °.. .1
Not, he says, in hhe shadows, but from the shadows God ■
called forth light to shine. Furthermore, the spepies.of
all the things we know were produced from earth and water.
Only fire, although it cooperates With productive’earth4and
water, nevertheless produces nothing' from itself^ ajid con­
sequently there Is, not unjustly, silence about this element
Up until the fourth day,-on which its source, namely the sun,
is’released into the firmament. For the more diligent among
«the natural philosophers testify that the sun is the source „
of aetherial fire.l^ ' - '

The natural philosophers to’whom Rupert refers are'Cicerp and Macro-

bius.^^ " It is, characteristic of Rupert's attitude toward his pagan

♦ *•: - . * • ■. .
sources, that he'will rely on them for information about the observable

properties of corporeal substance?, while turning to Biblical authors

for such non-verifiable information as the order, in which the corporeal

substance was produced *and“ornamented.. . - • .

M%
* V ^ t

>
 The opening verses of Genesis W e thus interpreted by Rupert as a

statement about the creative activity appropriated to each.Person of

the Trinity) and the condition of the creature when it»-was first pro­

duced ex nihllo. Heaven has.been excluded from discussion by the

v ■
\, . .
' '*. ’ ,■ 9
literal sense of the Genesis text; this, Rupert takes to indicate that

the spiritual realm is incomprehensible to human"beings in their present,

terrestrial (existence. garth*, meanwhile,"is defined as the visible part

of the universal substance or created unformed matter. The ordering

0 ■, * ■ K
mid formation of earth into elements in their proper place and into

species of vegetation and animal life, is understood as a gradual

process subsequent on “creation ex nihilo. ,,This process of ordering and

formation happens through a further cooperation among the Father speak-

ing, the Word spoken, and the Spirit present as divine goodness,
o , “
indicated in fhe words of commendation ’at the end-of each day's work.
, - *

Because creation as a whole i.s appropriated to the Father, it M y also

be understood as the first part of a,tripartite history, throughout

the stages of which each person of the Trinity acts in his own way on E,
* ''
the creature, until the history, as well as the structure of the world,

is shown to have a Trinitarian foundation. ' , .

Dies unns: The £irs,t Rational Creature

' . ' . ' ■* . ' . '

The first divine "fiat . .'.‘'df creation week produced light. Rupert
* •, *
begins by considering the possibility that this-light may:have been a

physical‘effect: * ‘ ,
 It seems? tb, many that?the light then made was none dt'her
thanrthe illumination of air, and (that) these shadows"
which were over the face of the abyss divided in suclit.'a '
way, by the alternation of day and night, that when, the
day-time— that is, the space of twelve hours— had passed,
the light was extinguished and shadows followed, and in
# turn, when the night-time had passed, that the light
dawned and £that) thus, throughout thethree days, day J:-
and night followed one;after the other, without those v ,
luminary bodies,?•namely1tjife sun, moon and stars.1®7 s. *
> . ?
This interpretation,he rejects on the grounds that itimpoverished and
■ 4- % " ■ -.
feducesto redundancy the work oft the.-first day: . .

! vBut by this interpretation^ this one day is th^ poorest of

■ all- the days, in fact, since all of the other days are
illustrated by a creation or formation of substances, •
(whijle) this day is dismissed with nothing but, the infused
unstable colour of some kind of accidental^ . . .

Instead, Rupert prefers to follow'the Augustinian tradition that inter-

* 10^
prets the light as intellectual illumination or angelic nature.

Havihg made his point, he proceeds to consider a series of ques-

‘ ( ' '' ‘' * HO 4
tions concerning then creation and nature of angels, paralleling these

with the creation and nature of human beings. Thd angels, he holds,,

were created outside of heaven and transferred into heaven by grace,

just as the first human being was created outside the earthly paradise

and then transferred into it,^-^ By comparison with divine nature, the

angelic nature can be considered corporeal, although it is spiritual by

comparison with corporeal human nature.

112
Rupert .attributes to the
^

angels bodies made from the "dense and moist air of the shadows over
113 1 . w
the abyss." For the pebeL angels, therefore, the consequences of
V .
their fall are-parallel to the consequences of Adam's fall:
 3
< -
M

' - 46
", ■■ '' ■ - "V\
just as a dead man's returning into earth, makes it
clear that he was.taken from earth, so also those who—
having deserted the perennial fount of light— were extin­
guished, make it clear by their darkness that; since they
had been (made) from shadows, they were made luminous not
by nature, But b^ grace.H4

Rupert-thus attributes to bQth kinds of rational creature a material

origin,, from which they are elevated through grace to spiritual glory,
‘ . ? • • • v
and into whic% they may be ignominiously returned through sin. Insofar
' ■ ■ ,
as the rational creature is endowed with a capacity for, and openness

to God, the goodness of both human beings and angels is understood to

t * V
_V
'
Be a consequence-of participation in divihe goodness, as distinct from

the merely useful goodness of material creation.

fhe Separation of light from dark is interpreted as divine judge­

ment oyer the rebel angels. "Here," Rupert notes, "people are accustomed

’to ask, how sin could”rob a good substance and light be changed to dark-
116
ness/’ His reply stresses the similarity between angels and human
v ' : V .“ . <>
beings ih relation to God:

many do not•recognize that angels, just like men, were

indeed innocent as soon as they were created, but had not ,
instantly attained consummation, and that nothing except
God rested undisturbed without ^advancing to halt at the
summit or occupy the foundation of perfection. This, I'
■say, many do not recognize, so preoccupied by the magni­
tude of the angelic name that there is no room,for them
to know that just as the spiritual?creature has a begin­
ning, so also it must make progress, and that it has being
(esse) from necessity, but begins from'will to tend to the
firmness of a good essence.

Why could the rational creature not have been created indefectible? We

have seen Rupert1s response to this problem in the Christmas-question of

118 ■ " ’ ,
De divinis officiis. Here, he repeats;that no creature perishes by
 ■ 47
o '

the will of the Creator, but only by its own choice. The Creator could

not have produced a being as immutable and impassible as himself,

except by a generation from his own nature. This God does, in the

generation of the Son. There is, however, a difference between produc­

tion by generation and production by manufacture. When God created

heaven and earth, he produced a substance of a different nature from

his own, in a manner analogous to human manufacture of houses, clothing,

or other artifacts.12^ It is the unique privilege/of the rational

i; creature to have been created with a capacity for the divine (capax
"t ^
•3v r Dei), and "to be able to attain by industry, what it does not have by
\i-fi ,,120
nature.

It is hard, Rupert admits, to say that the rational creature was

not created perfect, but it would be even harder to say that it was
121
once perfect through love of God, only to fall away in revolt. The

problem leads into a further question: "Why did a good and clement
* 122
Creator make a creature that he pre-determined to perdition?"

Rupert dismisses this as an unreasonable line of inquiry; it would be

better to ask: "Why did God permit the substance of evil spirits or men
5 ’ ■
I
to subsist, since they subsist evilly, rather than making them perish
■ • and ceases to bfe?"123 To
utterly, as the spirit of beasts perishes

.this, it is possible to reply that one who lost, through sin, the chance

to enjoy eternal glory, justly receives as his penalty an eternal

t -absence from glory, or .the consequences of his own decision. If God is
I f:

just in not utterly destroying the Substance of the vitiated creature, ^

thehfhe must also be understood justly to have condemned malice, while”

yet creating h potentially good creature.124 With Augustine, Rupert »

£ ' . ' .

' . r" “ ' ■.' ‘

\ -•'& y.: v - ' '

■ . * . ■ ■ V ■ V V '

i
understands sin as a voluntary' choice. Goodness, also, is understood

as a voluntary choice, with perfection as a consequence of effort and

education.

Because the light produced on day one is incorporeal, the evening

and morning of that day cannot be given a physical explanation.

Instead, they are related to the exemplarity of the Word in creating:

3 !

When God actually said, 'Let there be light,' it was

evening, because the sun of this utterance was hidden in
the heart of the Father— because the light of it in the
Word was life not yet exposed in act but hidden in the
meditation of him alone. But when there was light, then
it was dawn, in which also that Lucifer who fell before
the day, first shone out, and after that it was broad ^ 5
day-light, and shines before the eyes 6f us all. . . .

As in his earlier presentations of the procession of the Word, Rupert

employs a metaphor that links the notionof Christ as the illuminating,

intelligible Sun of the universe, and the Word as light and life for
0
rational creatures. Moreover, he anticipates Abelard's interpretation

of the same passage by*teaching that evening is the pre-creation

hiddenness of the Word in God, while morning and daylight are the pro­

gressively more evident disclosures* of divine Wisdom in creation.

<>
Rupert closes his commentary on the first day by adverting to the

fact that in the Latin text it is called dies unus, rather than dies

primus. He accounts for this by reference to the dies of Genesis 2:4,

0
understood as the Word or dies ex dies which is the original cause of

creation. Only that divine Day is rightly called the first. Why then,

one may ask, is the day on which the angels were created, not called
i

the second day? Rupert replies: r .■

 49

namely because that (first) day is not of the order or

of the nature of the other days, but is the original
cause /of days and of those, who, knowing the Creator
from the other days, glorify and give thanks; of those,
I say, this Day is the perpetual reward, so that they
may rest in him, sighing after the labour of those
other days— and therefore he is not placed in the order
of those other days, but over t 126
h e m .

It appears from Rupert's explanation that the Word is to be considered

the final cause of creation, towards which the rational creature strives

through-time. Progress is not only external and physical, but internal

and spiritual. To indicate the parallel between spiritual progress and

development in material creation, Rupert has identified each day of

*\ ■
creation with one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Day one,

accordingly, is identified with th^ spirit of fear, "which is the

*vliv

beginning of wisdom" (Vs. 110:10), andthe first of the seven spirits

as named in Isaiah 11:1-3. Rupert notes that the latter*text is applied

' ' /
j ,
prophetically to the incarnate Word: —^

’And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of

Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his .root.
And the Spirit of the Lprd shall rest upon himr the
spirit of wisdom, and of‘understanding, the spirit of
counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and
of godliness. And he shall be filled with the spirit
of the fear of the Lord. ' . . . the one of whom these
things were said, since he is nbt only man but also ,
God, even though he made progress according to his
humanity in 'wisdom, stature and grace' (Luke 2:52),
nevertheless, accordinga,to his divinity had no (need
to) progress; but since he was that very wisdom, he
descended from his celestial height to our depth.127

Day seven is not ptily identified with the spirit of wisdom, but is

understood to fle divine Wisdom itself, or the goal of all creation, in

128
Whose special benediction the completed work will rest.

I .
 5°

Rupert thus suggests a threefold movement in creation. From the

side of the creature, there is a development ifl the material substance

from chaos to formation, paralleled by a spiritual development from

mere being to essential goodness by participation in the Spirit. From

the side of the Creator, there is a' descent into .intimacy with the.

creature, beginning with exterior, physical formation, but moving

towards the incarnation and the subsequent interior work of the Holy

Spirit on the rational creature.

The Material Creation

Ornamentation of the perceptible and material world begins with

the production of the firmament onothe second day. Citing Romans 1:20,

"For the invisible tilings of him, from the creation of the world, are

clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: his eternal

power and also divinity: so that they are inexcusable," to show that

knowledge of the ^Creator is accessible through material creation,

Rupert calls the second day "a revelation of the Creator" and' "the day
' even to the gentiles."129
that manifested God The material creation is

thus understood to represent one aspect of divine self-disclosure, so

that knowledge and appreciation of physical phenomena may lead into

knowledge and glorification of God. With knowledge of God as the

ultimate goal, Rupert nevertheless adheres closely to the literal sense

of the Genesis text: "We seek the literal sense so that we may cling to
'
a. sure foundation of history."130 He includes detailed explanations of
131
physical phenomena "for the benefit of the Simpler folk," together

a •
*
 51

with material that he treats as basic scientific information, necessary

f.or dispelling' superstitions or clearing up misconceptions about the

132 t
remoter parts of the world. 1 '

Accordingly, he begins his discussion of the second day by explain­

ing the nature of the firmament:

The firmament is not a solid or hard thing, as is sup­

posed by the vulgar, but is air extended and rendered
subtle so that, although it is visible, nevertheless it
may more properly be called spirit than body, with Eccle­
siastes as witness, when he says of the luminaries that
move about visibly -in it: 'the spirit goes, forward sur­
veying all places round about, and returns to his circuit.’
•Since, therefore, this is not a solid but not so corpulent
as this lower part of the air, Scripture fin’ ally names the
firmament from another source, namely that which ’divides'
waters from waters.'^3 •

Noting that "great and illustrious, men” have disagreed on the interpre­

tation of tljis chapter, Rupert rejects the allegorical interpretation

by which some sources understand the "waters above" io be the holy

* t
i 13A
angels, divided from the "waters, below" or fallen angels. Instead,

he prefers the physical explanation by which the watJrs above the

firmament are corporeal waters, although he will not go sofar as to

agree with the opinion that they are frozen and crystalline. The'

nature of the upper waters, he concludes, is probably similar to that

of the waters'of primordial chaos, and similarly inaccessible to human

knowledge:. #

What if someone asks us,, in what species,' then, were

those --waters over the firmament, if they were not frozen?
Let us,,ask them, ih what species were they before the
firmament came to be? Truly, they cannot refuse to answer
that there was chaos, and a confused lump, the qualities
.of which could not be. distinguished by human sense. There-
 52

fore, since we can scarcely consider by philosophizing,

however much we wish it, the tiny crypt of this world
in which we are born-^which God, the .marvellous crafts­
man, made by carving it out of the midst of a great abyss
— let us remain silent on the nature or species of the
^waters surrounding the world, because we are not able to"
define with probability as altogether the same as these
remains of waters, which afterwards received their species
or form— so that, for example, we .might suppose they are
frozen, as was said above. One>thing we may hold for
certain, that the chamber of this world was-placed in the
midst of waters, namely because the firmament, which is
a kind of roof on all sides for this room, was made,
according to the authority of Scripture, in th,e midst of-
waters.135

Rupert proceeds to consider the space within the firmament, includ-”

ing the motions of wind, weather, and planets. Here, h^ does a little

demythologizing on the text of Psalm 103:3-4, acknowledging its mystical

sense ,as a prophecy of* the Ascension, but insisting as well on a literal

sense that applies to natural phenomena within the firmament:

For he 'makes the clouds his chariots,' and again '-walks

on the wings of the wind,' when waters from the sea, or "
from rivers and swamps, and exhalations from marshes and
the seashore are gathered up to temper the fervour of the
heavens, then returned to earth with gusts of winds
through condensed drops of rain. In this way, also, he
clearly 'makes the winds his. chariot and walks on the
wings of the wind,' 'not indeed by walking on their
limited substance, but suitably conferring assistance
when he wishes and as he wishes....136

In this context, Rupert continues, "angels" are to be understood as

5 * -
physical winds and storms, subject to divine command as servants or
x ' ■ ...

messengers within the material creation. 137 The te*t of Psalm 103:3-4

is, therefore, interpreted as an accounfc-of-d^jnejgovernance and con-

138
trol over "the accidental motion of the creature," or the movements

of wind and water, no less than over the formation of the material
 53

substance. In such governance, the Creator acts as the vigilant and

active administrator of a ,republic in which all must work for the.

common good, or the head Of a household in which,each member or nature

^ ■ ^-139
has its appointed task to perform, and no one is at leisure.

The words of commendation, "God saw that it was good," are omitted
a ?
from the’end of the second day s work. The omission, Rupert explains—

departing now from Jerome's pessimistic interpretation of the binary—

is due to the partial nature of the day's work, since, the firmament is
13 * 140
no more than an ample rOof for a structure that is as yet incomplete.

Formation will continue into the third day, with the separation of dry
t ® o
land from water, and the germination of grasses and trees. Rupert

interprets the latter development as the beginning of the plantation of

paradise. Although this ist, understood to be a distinct geographical .

locality, its beginning is the same as that of all terrestrial vegeta­

tion. Rupert interprets Genesis 2:8, "God planted a paradise of

pleasure from the beginning^" to mean "from the beginning of the orna­

mentation of e a r t h . I n so doing, he seeks to avoid the crudely

literal sense by which God wojild have "planted" paradise as a gardener

might transfer seedlings from one location to another, while at the same

time rejecting the spiritualising extreme tfyat would deny the existence,

of a physical paradise. The iLatter opinion he associates with those

who hold a theot^ of simultaneous creation, based an Ecclesiasticus

*■
18;1, "he who lives' in eternity created all things simultaneously."
- ■ i ■»
Against"these,-he musters arguments from reason and the literal sense

of the text: .-
 ■*54

on acfcount of what is written elsewhere, ’he who lives"

in eternity created all^ihings simultaneously,’ they
would have it that suddenly and without any development
mature grasses and full grown trees had stood forth
with their fruits and seeds, that at once the luminaries
in the firmament, the reptiles °f the sea, and the birds
of heaven had bubbled forth, and that man himself JJhd
suddenly walked around on his feet. This is clearly to'
depart from reason, nor does the text of the present
reading admit of any such sense.1^^-

Adhering to his" plan of paralleling days of creation with''gifts of

the Spirit, /Rupert identifies the work of the 'third day With the spirit

of knowledge, mainly because the tree of knowledge would presumably

143
have begun to sprout on that day. He identifies the work of the

fifth day, on which animals were first produced from water, with the

spirit of counsel, explaining that there is evident in these animals a

" * •
natural couhsel, by which they seek each other in mutual affection,
144
build nests, and produce offspring. The work of the fourth day.is

identified with the spirit of fortitude, becasue of the natural forti-

«
tude inherent in the sun and other lumin'aries:

for, not to speak of the moon and stars, whose powers are
one way or another known only to natural philosophers,
what peasant is there who does not know that without the
sun, the fabric of the world would have been not only
weak and destitute, but also uninhabitable by any living
thing?

As we have.seen, Rupert holds that aetherial fire would have been

9

released on the fourth day, with the sun as its source. He reports

with approbation the opinion of the physici: /-

Here it should not be overlooked, that the natural philoso­

phers are accustomed to say of this great guardian of
heaven that it is the source of.aetherial fire, the heart

7
 or mind of heaven, dnd the moderator of earth. . For
they say that the manner in which the earth is indeed •
f tempered is 'evident, go that it is most certain thatf^
’ n.°t only the earth, but heaven^itself, is tempered,by
the sun, so<i,t^t *.the extremities of it, which ere farthest
(J 'from the path of the sunlack all benefit of heat and
'- languish in a perpetual chill.

Jf the sun*s influence is so powerful, it might .b,e asked how the earth

. could have germinated before the production of that luminary., Rupert

' responds'by equating the earthly paradise and the promised land of.
* vV . ’ •. • •v
‘ Israel in a semi-allegorical passage, intended to show how both are to
. .

be* understood as- the,,proddctsof a divine word of promise. The divine*

.presence, precept, and gift-fhus enabled tshe earth to germinate bfe'forfe

■ V \ . • ■

.the production of the sun,- and with a plenitude ,that is now incon-
. • . ' 147 > - . '
ceivable. 15 -

Depending principally on Macrobius, Rupert proceeds to infoJfe his

readers of the relative sizeSvof the sun, moon, and e a r t h . H e

reports the opinion that the light of the moon is a reflection of the
O '
sun's light, cast hack without heat, but adds that other sources say

that the moon has its own light, cast from a revolving surface that is
149
half luminous and half dark. The placement of the luminaries "in

the firmament of heaven" is described and explained in terms of astro­

nomical information gathered from his principal source., Characteris­

tically, he respects the pagan authors' expertise in natural philosophy,

0, .

while deprecating their religion:

■ For, as the astronomers are rather good at proving, all

the stars are in fact fixed in the firmament and,move
c with it, except for five, which are called planets or
wandering (stars), and besides these, the two major
luminaries. If indeed these luminaries and the five
 56

stars as aforementioned— which they consecrate by,the r

names of their idols, namely Saturn, Jupiter, Mars,, Venus
and Mepcury— have their own'spheres, which are borne by a
corftrary motion, they revolve against the firmament. Of
these,, the highest sphere is Satupnrs, the lowes't sphere
is held to be that of.the moon.*-* ■
*
The Genfesis text gives as the purpose of these luminaries, the

division of corporeal day from night, and "to serve as signs and.

seasons, days and years." This Rupert explains with a series of facts
• / ,

and figures about the Hebrew or lunar year, and the Roman calendar
* V" '
based on the solar year. 151 Both computations, he notes, are useful-to
4
the Church, since the date of Easter is calculated according to the
t ' ' '
Hebrew calendar. A further purpose of the sun, moon,' and stars, accord-^
v
ing to the Genesis text, is to illumine the earth. Rupert takes this
c ' * . ‘ .#1
A'
to support his contention that the light created on day one was the

angels, and not a source of corporeal light. The sun, therefore, was

created to preside over the daytime of material creation, as the source

•of aetherial fire and so also of corporeal light.

i

»The stars, meanwhile, were created to preside over nighttime.

Rejecting as unscriptural the notion that stars possess a fatal influ­

ence, he briefly dismisses astrology as a foolishness by-w^fieh "they

i attribute almost all’the power of the Creator to the stars, so that '

they say a fatal necessity for their life and death depends on
152 •*
these." There atte-,^however, sufficient Scripture texts to permit an

hopest enjoyment by a Christian of the constellations in their varied

movements and configurations, as well as their legitimate and -practical

»
153
use by navigators on sea and land.

f . '
 The fifth and sixth days are marked by the ’production of ahimal

life, with its display of natural affective counsel, directed towards

the propagation or th<£ species. There is, at this point, a noticeable

break in Expert's foundation of sourdes. Macrobius, who hasbeen the

principal source of information on the’heavens, has little to say about

* . ' ' *
animal life. Rupert falls back oh patristic authors, principally °
\

Ambrose, and some of the later encyclopedists, including Isidore and

Bede. These tend to draw moral conclusions from the natural phenomena

they describe, and Rupert, following them, inclines to flavour his"

zoological data with moral interpretations.

The animal life produced from water and earth is distinct in

nature from both the works of the first four days, and the human beings

made? on the sixth day. Rupert distinguishes a divine production by

fiat . . .--resulting in the stable and permanent natures of firmamergt,

sea, earth, and celestial bodies— from a divine command to water and

earth, producat . . . . The latter issued in .reptiles, or beasts with

an impermanent existence— in that one generation succeeds .another—

offset by permanence in the producing nature.^Mfljeither the works of

the first four days nor the animals' have tbfe dignity of formation’by
* s
divine counsel, indicated in the faciamus . . . signalling the creation

of human*beings.
** *
The reptiJ^s and' birds produced from the waters are distinct,

moreover, in their superiority to plant life by virtue o!f sense,

although they remain inferior to human beings insofar as they lack

4>. «
reason. According to Rupert, birds are mo^e acutely sensitive than

reptiles, but cannot on that account be supposed to have reason or ,

discretion. Their sensitivity, he remarks,, may account for their use

by pagans in divination: a deplorable practice, which Rupert counters

-' . I; ' A
with some lines from the pagan Virgil:

*’ " ^\ ■ * •
Haud equidem credo, quia sit divinitus illis *
Ingeium aut fato rerum prudentia maior,
” Verum ubi tempestas et caqli mobilis humor
Mutavere vias . . .
Vertuntur species animorum et pectora motus
Nunc alios allosque concipiunt. . . .
Hinc laetae pecudes et. ovantes gutture corvi.

(Not, methinks, that thjey have wisdom from on high,

or from Fate a larger foreknowledge of things to tsbe,
but that when the weather and fitful vapours of the sky
have-turned theirrcourse . . .
the phases of their mind change, and their breasts
now conceive impulses other than.they felt. . . .
Hence that chorus of birds in the fields ,3 the gladness
of the catple, and the exulting cries of the rboks.)^^
-1’ ' . 'V ,
v i ,
lt

His discussion continues with a few remarks on the feathers and flying

abilities of birds, among which thbse with lighter bodies and longer
„ ■ ■ fS- , -
feathers reachthe highest altitudes, while the heavier-bodied, shorter-

feathered birds 'like the vulture or ostrich, fly little or not at all.^^

The question is raised., why thirds are not all of the aquatic variety,
«■ ■« V».
' . * - - s *
since they were all produced from water. Rupert considers and rejects

the possibility „that the word''"waters" might signify the mixed pool Of
•> ° - • -v—
' , f 5'
the elements, preferring instead to speculate that the waters from

•i&hich birds were produced partook of the rarefied nature of^clouds dr

“ 157 ' ••
vapour,,akin to the. element«,of air. .« ‘ " -

In intcrpreting the benediction and exhortation to "increase" and

o *■1,1 ' ** *■

multiply" (Genesis 1:22), Rupert dwells primarily on the natural affec-

tion or appetite between males and females of the species, by which"

 reproduction and the nurtfure-.of, offspring, are effected. Borrowing from
, •' V, ‘ ® Jm
0 ■ ‘ ■ ,v /<©' , '*<■
. f '
Ambrpse, he concludes with lyrical praises of the birds1 maternal ^
r "' dad natural
* ' ,l " % ■■' in song. 158
.instincts gratitude to the Creator, expressed "
't' ■ j * ' i i r ' L-'W-’0 r- .1 , . • . •
,tj ;
• / % ?A»«•-r ■
■t■;The sixth day begins^with the creation of land animals in three|

speeies; namely^cattle, reptiles, and beasts. Mere* ji,s a moral t 6 this

•‘, ’ ’ „. ° »i . V.
trinity, as Rupert will explain/ line species was destined to help, ti

. human creature", the second would seduce him, and the. third would
- •. ■*’'v: ■ _ :■■■'■. .ft
* v . '4*■ ' 159 ‘ *' ' :
1
besiege him, orice^fallenji with its ferocity. ■ The harmful effect^

of serpents' venomi together with other dangerous aspects of animal

r • . ' ’ ' .. '
life, Rupert attributes to “sin. %yen after the fallj however, there
' \ ■. >$ »
are individuals and races immune to snajte-bite; Rupert cites the example
■■'■ ■ ■' ' $
not only of saints who miraculously remained unharmed by serpents, but
4 °.; .-
also of an entire race, named in Lucan's Pharsalia, which was believed
*. ■ *: a. ■ .•„ • /■
to. have preserved a natural immunity to venomohs reptiles.J^
■>. ■ ' .xt .

v* . f . a- ! v .*
The beasts^ like the birds, are created for reproduction according

to species. Rup’
er^ notes that the Law forbade cross-breeding of dif-

ferent species among domestic.animals (Lev. 19:19)* although a descend-'

> '' J ■'Va ‘ 13 ' ' .| ■ 1 Jl
ant of Esau was reputed to have been the first to have made the experi-
■. A" • ': ''f- ' .' ■ ^ ■’ • A
ment, by cross-breeding asses with horses to produce mules. Wild
.0 . /
beasts seem not to hive heard of the prohibition, and Rupert dr^ws from
K ' ' ?■ .
Ambrose’1and Isidore a long list of illicit unions add their interesting
161 ‘
results. The inclusidh of such material suggests either that Rupert
(■
.. A
* '% "
was willing to entertain the notion of a sub-human disobedience to the
' * ■ ‘ - f t ' . c'- -
Creator, o^r, more positfy^ly, of a continuous ‘creation issuing in new

species and mutations. . '

 ' s.. 60

Day Six: The Second Rational Creature

"And God saw that itVas good, and said: Let us make man to our

image and likeness" (Genesis 1:25). The final word of commendation

before human beings were created, Rupert interprets as the Creator's

° ''= &
contemplation of his own glory^reflected iti the creature: "for what is

intended (by the text) except the glory of the blessed Trinity contem-
162
plated through his own works as if through a mirror?" The human ,

creature was afterward^ added to this existing mirror of divi.nity as

the principal and most eminent work, insofar as human na’ture would be

created by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and "ignited" by the Holy

Spirit. Like the rest of material creation, the formation of the human

being?is attributed to the Father, but undertaken with the cooperation

of all three Persons.. Treating the paradise narrative as a recapitula-

tion of what happened on the sixth day,163 Rupert first considers the •

creation of human beings in God's image and likeness, and what that

implies. Afterwards, he turns to the paradise narrative for an account

of the mode by which they were created, drawing from it further implica­

tions for human nature and society. „ 1

Playing on the words consilium and concilio, Rupert notes that the

verb faciamus indicates a work undertaken by divine counsel and design:

Clearly, a great decision (consilium) was made in that

;r council (concilio) pf wisdom, in that council of such
Persons— Father, Son a^d Holy Spirit— not so much in a
6 senate as in a soliloquy that should be venerated by us
sinners. Or do you suppose that anything that was done
or needed to be done about us, was therein jlackingtto .
them? Clearly our whole case was the centre of discus­
sion, our death or perdition was thence to be foreseen,
and thence the whole decision was-made, that each Person ^
• ’ t>

~ f ' ' ' - ft -

< ■•7 undertake "his part of the work* so that, indeed, as was
,t "already said, then the Father truly would lay the founda-
-tion,; afterwards in the fullness of time the Son would
J. ^ redeem, .and the Spirit would bring to perfection the
^ ‘ remission1of Sin and resurrection of the body, and thus
/ by the decision of the Trinity in common the wilderness
> of the ages would be reconstructed in humanity, and the
:r , foundations of generation and generation would be built

''r *'
Rupert proceeds'to discuss the foundation of human nature in terms

of the\distinctiOn between image and likeness developed in De divinis

165
officiis. ’ Once again, by way of identifying image with the Word or

Son, and likeness with the Spirit, he notes that an image is the image

of one only, while likeness is always to two orinore. The Son, accord­

ingly, is the image of the Father, while the Holy Spirit "is the likeness

of Father and Son, for he is the mutual goodness'or love of Father and
C5nn »166
S°n* . .

The human creature was made living, rational, and potentially

similar to God.^^ As such, it bears a nature comparable to that of

the angels, who were also made rational and capable of "divine holiness: *

Scripture does not say that God said., Let there be man <
in our image and likeness, and there was man,, as God said,
^ r~Let there be light, and there was light.’ Why£ Namely
because it was to be done laboriously and not suddenly, so that
the completed man might stand in the' image and likeness of
his Creator. For the angelic creature, once made, is not
now moved among those who stood firm, nor-is it restored
among those who. fell in the beginning. But man, in fact
after his first^creation was to fall, an4 by the re­
creation of a merciful (God) was to be renewed. For that
\reason, the three Persons are as if mutually urging each
offher on by saying, ’Let us make . . . .’168
«*v

The difference(between the creation of human beings and that of angels

may thus be understood to be the history by which humanity is brought

 )

, 62

to perfection through time and material existence. Both angels and

human beings share an equaldignity and are destined for equal glory as

"light" and "children of light", although the elect among humanity will

enjoy not only the heavenly, but also the earthly paradise. 169

Rupert notes that just as the fiat JLux that brought angels into
! <?"?•
being ultimately applied only to the elect and unfallen angels, so also

the full image and likeness will be found only in thbse "whom God
js=
> a
predestined to life,"and does not admit those who were afterwards

superfluously to be bora from the vitiated root (of humanity) oyer and
~ -Vs-
.

above the number of the e l e c t . H e finds support for his distinction

between image as the rational substance of the human being, and likeness

as accidentally accrued goodness, in the text of Genesis 1:27, "God

*
created nan,to his image, to his image God created him," etc. All
U
human beings are thereby understood to be created in theo image, by
'<£> , ’
virtue of their rational jaatpre, although only a few will be re-created

into the likeness to God.v

set:*
Thus, Rupert finds it necessary to explain

.that dominion over material creation, as expressed in Genesis 1:26, has

a wider reference than to humanity as God planned it in divine counsel.

• All human beings have dominion over irrational creatures by. the ration­

ality that gives them both a higher dignity of nature and the means by

which to control sub-rational creatures. Only the elect, however,

display both image and likeness.. As such, Rupert concludes, they have

a higher dignity and authority than natural humanity:

By nature men govern cattle, but by grace the men of God

govern men. Indeed, men are compared for their vice to
cattle, because ’
jwhen they were in honour they did not
understand it.’ Those, however, who glorified God for
 the'’dignity of their nature, or gave thanks, will be like
God, will be and are to be called the sons of God, as the
apostle John says.
>i-'! o
1• w .. :
Women are understood to be equally created in the image of God,

rational, and eternal. The humility enjoined on them in I Corinthians

11:7-8— where the woman is called the glory of the man, who is the

image and glory of God— refers to the order and mode in which the woman

was created from a primal male. Her status as a rational and perfectible

creature is not, therefore, in question. Accordingly, Rupert concludes

that "where man is made in the image of God, there is neither male nor'

, female so that, for example, the male should govern all the animals of
J '
172
the .earth more than the female."

The Genesis text records a threefold blessing of humanity on the

t
sixth day: "Increase and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. . . ."

Rupert interprets this blessing in accordance with his distinction

between those in the image,, and those in both iinage and likeness, now

sharpened to a distinction between the elect and the reprobate. Bless­

ings are reserved principally for the elect. Thus, the elect are called

to increase in virtue and to multiply until their number, whose exact

173
sum is known only to God, has been filled. Both the elect and the

reprobate appear to "fill the earth and subdue it." Only the elect,

however, are Understood to subdue.the earth properly and according to

the intention of the benediction:

placing God before themselves, they'courageously spurn

all earthly things. Do the reprobate also subdue the
earth to themselves, when they turn it with the plough,
or even capture it by force? In this way they clearly
subdue the earth, to some extent, but neither one~hor
 the other mode of subjection proceeds £®om God's benedic­
tion, since, on the contrary, it was said to man on account
of his sin, 'you will eat your bread in the sweat of your
brow. And warfare was invented not by the benediction of
grace, but by the monstrosity of -greed.174

- Meanwhile, the reprobate as well as the elect fill the earth by

natural reproduction. Rupert will not support the views of those who

believed"that there would have been no,human generation apart from sin,

since "sin did not bring about the nature of generation,, but corrupted

the instrument of generation, and removed honour from .gex.""*"^ He

finds evidence for the consequences of sin in the indiscriminate

manifestations of human fecundity that proceed from an irrational, and

consequently sub-human response to the promptings of carnality. Unlike

other animals, which mate according to instinct, human beings are

rational and ought, in Rupert's view, to employ their rationality as a

monitor on sexual activity. 176 The natural appetite for food is another

question, according to Rupert's interpretation of Genesis 1:29-30. Both

animals and human beings share "a natural appetite founded in the
k 177 . -
* stomach," and both must be restrained from gluttony.

Turning to Rupert's commentary on the paradise narrative, we find

that the formation de limo terrae becomes an occasion for elaborating •

on Adam's status in relation to^the angels and the animals. Rupert %

supports the view that human beings were created to replace the fallen

angels. Rejecting as impertinent the question why God chose to make

Adam from the dust of the ^arth, he continues:

Nevertheless it/ is permitted soberly, to inquire, that is, ,

to marvel, why/God— when he could have'rebuilt the ruins
of the angels with new angels, simultaneously create as
>

65

many as fell, and elevate them into heaven, so that the

whole people and all the nobility of the heavenly father­
land might have been one race*— why he made of another
nature or condition the human beings with whom he replaced
the angels, and did not (create) all or many simultaneously,
but moulded only one, from whom the rest would be propa­
gated?^®

Rupert gives no answer to his question, except to attribute the condi­

tion of human beings to the hidden decisions of God-, manifested through

Wisdom's play '.'over the earth and with the children of men" (Proverbs
179
8:31), Drawing on Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, he argues that there is no

difference between the physical condition and death of human beings,

and that of the .animals. .A human being differs from animals only in

the nature and final end of his spirit:

the spirit of animals comes to an end, for it descends

below, that is, it returns when extinct to this lower
air, but there is no. end of the human spirit, for it
returns to the one who created it.1®®

Rupert, accordingly, rejects the Platonic doctrine that human souls

A
descended from heaven by a fall. Instead, he understands the soul as

a kind of gift or talent entrusted to the creature by the Creator, and

draws from Cicero's Somnium Scipionis some lihes to support his conten-
t

tion: "Under the moon all things are mortal and decay, except the souls*
181 *
given by the gods to mankind as a gift,"

The gift or talent entrusted by God to the human being is identi­

fied With the breath of life breathed into his face (Genesis 2:7), and

as such, with the rationality of the image.RUpert argues against

traducianism, or the th,eory that humatTsouls are propagated by genera­

tion, on the grounds that it is absurd to suppose that souls■would be

 j 66

182
generated and perish with every emission of semen. Moreover, he
a .' .
understands Adam in' the paradise narrative to stand for humanity in
183
both sexes, so that the transmission of original sin to all the

descendants of Adam cannot be understood to occur through physical

%
generation alone. No alternative theory is elaborated, however.

Rupert finds evidence for human dignity- in both the rationality

'of the soul and the'upright posture qf the body:

' ". ‘ ‘ ) •'

By this saying, therefore, that God formed man from the
dust of the earth and breathed thebreath of life into
his face, the dignity of the humancondition is beautifully
i expressed— (a condition) which i§ quite different from all
the animals as much by the shape of the body as by the
vivification df the breath of God. Both are evident. The
form of the body in this living creature only, raises its
head aloft, looks into the heavens, and treading the earth
underfoot proceeds with an upright heart, and is reminded
to meditate with its eyes on the stars or celestial kingdom »
placed above. Indeed, the soul or breath which God breathed
into his face, is the inventor of many good and useful arts,
through the gift of reason which is given to him.-*-®^

Rationality was given to Adam not only for natural use, but also for

use in the task of attaining likeness to God. Departing from his

generally literal interpretation of the text, Rupert goes so far as to

interpret the tasks and precepts assigned .to Adam in paradise as the

ttorks of faith, hope, and love, by vJhich the rational soul is cultivated
185 * ' '
into likeness to God. As a creature, the first human being was not

perfect or-immutable, but received the capacity to work and make

progress, aided by grace, into a status of immutable virtue. 186

Rupert interprets the paradise narrative of the-formation of .woman

as an explanation of the mode by which the first humah being in the

image of God was made.male and female. Adam's inability to find a

 67

suitable companion for himself among the animals (Genesis 2:20) is

interpreted as jet another demonstration of the human creature's dis­

tinctive nature or condition, superior to the animals by virtue of

187
rationality. Woman, as we have seen, is equal to the man in ration­

ality and perfectibility. Nevertheless, Rupert follows the tradition

that understands her help to man as principally help in procreation.

Her production from Adam's rib is understood to indicate the indissolu­

bility of the conjugal bond, so that the separation of spouses amounts.

188
to a loss of corporeal integrity for both. Rupert takes-A keen
’* • t
pastoral interest in the maintenance and sanctity of marriage. He
re­
does, however,„also make a case for separations by mutual consent

between spouses who both seek the monastic life. Drawing his argument

from I Corinthians 7:5 ("Defraud not one another except, perhaps, by.

consent, for a time, that you may give yourself to prayer , . ."), he

argues that while man may not separate what God has joinJSl^gether,
•* ^ * e

189
God, cfr the singleminded0service of God, can certainly claim to do it,
r ’ ^ .
; , - ■

Rupert does not overlook the mystical sense of the paradise narra-
<a
’ -V?

tive, by which the formation- of woman and conjugal relations between man

and woman are understood to be a sacrament or mystery representing

relations between Christ and the Church. 190 Moreover, he regards the

innocent nudity of the primal couple as a prefiguration of the happy

innocence to which humanity is destined in the resurrection:

Surely the just will not need tunics and cloaks when they
'shine like the sun' in.the kingdom of their Father? Not
at all, but to the glory of their potter or maker each
one will be a vessel of mdrcy in that place; they will
appear with glory, to mutual sight as externally splendid
 and internally joyous— corporeally integrated and
. spiritually happy— blessed, I say, in both body and
1 soul.191 - ■'

V • *

4. Controversy with Laon

*

Rupert's dispute with the theologians at Laon has generally been

interpreted as the first great clash between monastic and early scholas-

tic theology. 192 Granting that Rupert was nothing if not a monk, as

Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux were magistri of the new theo-
! '
logical science, we would nevertheless do well to set aside categories
t
and avoid type-casting until we have understood the origins and inten-
" &
tion of Rupert's arguments. A number of factors complicated the dispute

and obscure our perception of the points at issue. Our only sources of

information, apart from Anselm's brief letter to the abbot of St.

‘
Lawrence, 193 are Rupert's reminiscences in his later commentary on the

Regula Benedicti, and the treatises De voluntate Dei and De omnipotehtia

" 194 * *
Dei. Rupert takes everything personally, tends to be vague about the

identity of his immediate opponents, and cannot, of course, be. relied

upon for a full or unbiased report of their arguments.

According to Rupert's account in the preface and first chapter of

De voluntate Dei, one of hds

-------- ---- V
associates (quidam nostrorum)
~
returned
> - * *
from Laon with a formula distinguishing between the "permitting" and

the "approving" will of God. On the basis of this distinction, he was

able to say "that God wills.evil to be, and that it was the will Jf God
<’ 195
that Adam should fall," which sounds very much like a doctrine of

pre-lapsarian double predestination. Seizing on his associate Is remarks

as an occasion for getting in touch with the "masters of the arts" at

Laon, Rupert attempts to enter into dialogue with them. He finds it

i)
incredible that they have propounded a distinction in the divine will
196
"that accuses God and does not serve the .consistency of the art," *

and proceeds with his own interpretation of the problem.

He begins'by demonstrating, with the help of texts from Romans 9,

that the notion of a divine permission of evil is unscriptural. Instead,

* ' " "
what appears to be permission must be understood ais divine patience or

benevolence, since divine forbearance with'the sinner grants the latterv

197 •
time for penitence. When God is said to hand over sinners'to the
r# * _ • , *

*desires of their hearts, it means that God leaves them to- their interior

or intellectual sin of pride, by which 'they have already rejected his

o

will, until the interior disposition expresses itself in exterior evil.

Thus, Rupert concludes, God wills neither the. interior nor the exterior
• , <*
'-' ^ ' ' ' -
sin, because he. is good, but does not free the sinner from the conse-
ti ‘ &■
198
quences of his sin, "because he is just.”

Before going on to explain how God’s justice works in this

'h
instance, Rupert interjects a series of questions, intended to reduce
■- ii ■
to absurdity the notion of a "permitting will"— if God permits ^yil,'

.does he permit it ^willingly or unwillingly? If unwillingly, then he

permits it under compulsion, and if. he is compelled, then he is not,

». *
omnipotent. Rather than speak in t^rms of a willing or unwilling

permission of evil, Rupert .prefers to speak of'a divine goodness or ^

patience leading the sinner po penitence, anti a divine wrath or justice

199 -
that awaits the impenitent.
 70

Here, Rupert intfcbduces the question how God may be said to

•"
r . jQ
harden some, if he does not will evil. Rupert replies, in accordance

with the Augustinian tradition“on original sin, that God owes nothing
i
to anyone, except the judgement and penalty due to sin, but nevertheless
o , 200
shows his gracious mercy to whotoever he will. By now, Rupert has

traced the problem of sin back to its origins, and is ready, to pose

another series of questions--if God does not Will or did not will evil,

did he not create an incontrovertible creature? If he would not,

how then can he be said not to will evil? If he could not? how then
3 ' tr
can he be called omnipotent? Moreover, one'might ask'why he gave the
c- (
■
first human beings a precept to obey, when he knew it would be disobeyed

and evil wou^d come of,it. If he knew what would result, why did he

not let the human being be free5, and not bound by a precept? Why, ..
^ ■•

•indeed, does God permit the birth of those, for whom it might have been
201
better, had they soever been bom?

Most of these problems have already been considered in the

’ 1
Christmas-question o f De divinis officiis. Here, as before, Rupert

proffers no direct answers or explanations, but warns his readers

' " “ •' i- '
against attempting to understand the incomprehensible judgements, of God,
•«v

- 202 '
or to seek to penetrate his impenetrable ways?. Explication of the
t
9

problem is to be sought along other lines,namely in the quest for a

V ® <* 1
£lear appreciation of what it means, that God is the Creator and we are

the creatures. Accordingly, Rupert takes his discussion into questions

0V , ®

about the distinction between created natures*and the divine nature.

‘ < 6 f
He begins again bjf asking why God did not create an incontrovertible

creature. If he could not, does this not imply that God is not omnipotent?
■VA•. ^ *■.
 71

No, indeed, since the only incontrovertible'■nature, "above all things, **»r
&

beyond all things, and outside all things," is God himself, Creator of
‘ ' ' * ' **
all things but himself uncreated-. Only the Persons of the Trinity may

be called incontrovertible, because only they are uncreated. 204

As before, Rupert insists that the distinction between Creator and

, ' <s

creature is to be understood in terms of a distinction between produc-

» ■»
tion by generation and production by manufacture; He uses the analogy

off human generation and human craftsmanship to illustrate his meaning:

We can get evidence for what we say from'the known image

of God, namely from man. Notice that man can both generate
naturally and manufacture voluntarily, What he generates
cannot be other than what he is himself;, whathe makes can
by no means be what he is himself. For man does not
generate other than man, (but) he manufactures^ for
example, a house which he inhabits, or a finegarment
which he wears. None of these things is thesame as (the
man) himself, but he is praised if he .has made these things
wisely or commodiously in a way worthy of himself. 205

Analogously, God is understood to have generated from.his own nature a

Son like himself, but to have manufactured the creature as a garment

'*** ..

a%d the human being as a kind of self-portrait: .

: \
None of these things ought to be or could be what the
■ maker is himself, or equal to the one to whom the maker
-gives birth. Just as a construction or painting can by
no means be what the constructor or painter is, or what
he gives birth to from his own flesh.206 >,

It should be noted that although ^Rupert speaks deprecatingly of military

and agricultural work in his commentary on Genesis**1:28, these passages^'

■ ' « , 1 J .
by contrast, present an attitude of.high regard for human technical
%
labour, make no distinctions between the intellectual and the manual
 ,r' *
i.

72

worker, and anticipate, through the4examples employed, Hugh of St:

' ■ , •
2o 'j
Victor’s catalogue of the arts in the Di-dascalicon. (Rupert’s conclu-
. •- : ■ ■- • , ■ , 'i *
sion sets a physically and spiritually active human species in the context of

a continuously active universe. Thus, the rational being is a creature

like all other created beings,-but stands 'in-a special relationship to.
. - . . -

the Creator as the'one work.of his that was made capable of attaining
• ■ ' ■. *\ "
"by industry.ttwith the help of gracedthe divinity that-it\does not have
208 / -
by nature." .('Repeating arguments from his commentary on Ithe first

day-of (creation, I-Ldpert notes that mutability-is characteristic,,of the

(
rational creature, both because of its origins in nothing,
& arid because
*\ • i
o| its potential, once created, for growth, ir&o perfection:

a mutable or changeable being was proper to angel and man,

in as much ap'-thhy are created from nothing, for as la
matter of fact,; that from which they were created, is
created from nothing. And indeed, once created, eaci of.
thpm is pure and innocent, namely so that it could mike
progress from that innocence to the summit of perfection,
or defect ijjto. the depths.^09 - 4i s
In his Genesis commentary, Rupert argued that, hard though it may

seem to"say' that the omnipotent God couf^wiot, create a being equal to
* 'A
himself, it" would be harder t.o say that the creature Was once perfect”
/ through love of God, only to fall, away in revolt*.210 Here, Rupert uses
* * 1 - & ' . . •*

« b■ n ' Q
the "same thought‘to point but that, hard though it, ma^seem to say that

the omnipotent God couldhnot create a'being equal.to'himself * it would

. be harder to say, that-God would'riot -do so .-.since fhiS'^ould hmount to

- .. . t
"-.A -2iii i
v
suspecting bi%?of envy Instead, it ,may°Lbe,asserted in fiducial
f.- .. • /. . " • ./>*

c! canfideii iaf Godfdij| wiiil^Syentually to create £ being eqijal to' ,

V ; Himse .With the incarnation of the Word, when the-divine
■ -A t : >v % ",
r ft O - * ' ^ * . l i t . '

r
 * ’ '• V 0 - •
. , *212 *
nature joined itself to- created hature in/'dhe Persbn. Thus, the*
• • , ' - ■
proof of divine omnipotence is not to be sought in the initial work of
'* <
creation, but in the event bf the Incarnation... ^

At this point, the main body of Rupert's response to the problem

ends. He continues with a sej^a of explicatory chapters, intended to

; ..rfEv
answer some of the questions raised"in the beginning of the treatise.

First, he describes the incontrovertible perfection of the God-man, in

■t v f •' . bj_3
order to1,show how divine omnipotence made a sinless creature. He

then goes on to discuss the lesser perfection bf the angelic nature,

zr?
r •
<> -v- v ’ itr

maintained in freedom from sin by divine grace, as a reward for voiun-

* 214
tarily choosing the good. From the angels; he moves on to the ques­

tion of Adam’s' chance”to begin on the way to perfection. Far from

intending'Adam's fall by giving him a precept to break, God must be

‘ *'*’*■. '
understood to' have intended rAdam's good, .in that thelife of the
215
creature is conformity to the divine command or Word. tThe insignifi­

cance'' of the precept— not to eat of the fruityof one'tree— must not be

allowed to obsfcure the meaning bf She task Involved. Obedience to the

precept required the exercise of faith, through belief‘in the truth of

r
CS .'v* ' 6
God's word, hope of a reward for-obedience, and' love of God for the
4 > * % ' * ' «-.>
' 216
benefits already granted. Thus, obedience in a small task would
■*■ ^ r k
have demonstrated the virtues of faith, hope, and love, thereby proving

A^am'^ readiness to ..undertake the ,larger tasks of life.

Rupert understands the fall itself as a consequence .of spiritual

prilfle. rising* in contempt against the Creator, followed by the concu-

• ’ ^ : *• 218
piscence that sought and. adored "a good other than God. Thus, the.
' - . .

-physical act of eating was no more than the expression of a prior,

T .. , ' ✓ ■ ■ **. .
 e r

/?>•-

• \

&
74

spiritual aversion'from the Creator- None of this can he said to have

happened by the will of God, but by what Rupert calls, a natural law:

For this is the natural law of Creator and creature,

that where the creature turns away from the love of the
higher ^Creator, by^that same aversion of his he 'sinks
and is immersed in desire for the lower things, and the
disgrace of the flesh is increased to the-same degree
that the spirit.turns away from seeking the glory and
honour of God.2,19

After the fall, human beings were denied access to tj^e tree of

life as an act of mercy, since eternal corporeal life would have left
220 • f
them as unredeemable as the demon®. . Death became the lesson in
«•-»>* 991
humility that had been rejected through the first sin. If any of
o '
the, evil done by human beings had been willed by the Creator, Rupert

continues, then the grace of redemption would not be grace, but only
v ts
'■ 1 . 222
the due«correction by-God of evils which he had himself permitted.
» • * . J •

& To conclude, Rupert takes up the question why God permitted the

birth of-those for whom it would have been better, had they never been

bom. Having already raised and answered the question in his commentary
*i'■ '-c,- " -> .

on the first day of creation, Rupert here reproduces his earlier solu-
* *
tion. First, the line of inquiry ds absurd, in that the creature is
c- ; " * * ' *
not qualified to question the decisions of the Creator. Secondly,

divine justice can be understood rightly to punish with eternal absence

from glory, those who voluntarily rejected participation invthat

223
glory Finally, Rupert considers the problem of external evils or'

corporeal afflictions, which are distinct from the internal or volun­

tarily evil disposition*to sin.* God may be understood to cause external

evil or afflictions, Including the death of the body, when he uses these
 75
: ■ ;■ ■ 1V ■ ‘ .
J
evils as the instruments of just judgement against sin, or the merciful

means of discipline by which the rational creature is recalled to the

224
Creator's will.

.De voluntate Del' apparently received no immediate, response from

Laon, but provoked a reaction at Liege' so sharp that Rupert was required

.to appear before the local archdeacon to explain his views\nd defend

himself against the charge of denying'the omnipotence of God.225

\ De

omnipotentia Dei is the record of his defence, including mutual recrimi-

nations that probably marked the course of discussion. Rupert's oppc

nents seem to have belonged principally to the secular clergy.' They

described him as an ignorant monk who-had never heard any of the masters

and had entered late into the .Study of dialectic. Tacitly conceding

his inferiority in. the field of dialectic, Rupert was nevertheless con-

vinced that he commanded an impressive armoury of texts from authorities

.that his opponents must acknowledge. He defended himself with the

authority of Scripture and Augustine, quoting at length from De civitate

Dei to support his own contention that evi,l dn the creature is not the

will of Gpd, but a consequence of the creature's mutability through its

226' '
origins in nothing. ’ Augustine and Gregory are next brought in to

show that a resistance to the will of God is ..possible, hut only through
* 227
a kind of self-destructivk struggle and restlessness. ■Towards the
I *
end of the debate, the Laon theologians are shown to have drayn support
t w v'
for their opinion ott the double will of God fromAugustine's Enchi-
228 fJ)
ridion. Rupert is not-1impressed; he simply abandons the supporting

authority -of -Augustine,and retreats to the ultimate authority of‘Scrip-

229 * ”
ture. As we have seen, his main argument depends on a rational
^distinction between created and uncreated natufres. It requires the

support of authority, therefore, less as foundation than as character

* - i 1 '
witness when under attack. At the very least, it is enough for Rupert
' I ■ I "
to know that his reasoning does nojt contradict Scripture.

i It is likely that much of the animosity displayed in the debate

had older and deeper origins in the conflict at the time of Henry IV

between rhe pro-imperialist secular clergy of Liege and the zealously

230 > -
Gregofian monks of St. Lawrence. There was, moreover,, an ongoing

rivalry in imperial lands between monks and the secular clergy over the
; '• 231 •
right to minister to the laity, and some of the remarks about

Rupert's sheltered life and general incompetence to deal with the finer

points of dialectic may‘b& regarded as ammunitioft from the broader

tr ’■

campaign to push monks .back into the cloister and out of the secular
' **• . f
sphere. These, briefly sketched, were the complicating factors. By

•the time Anselm wrote«to Rupert's abbot, the quarrel might well seem,

to an outsider,- like a childish dispute over words.

* * \
The local hearing and debate ended so inconclusi-^p^ that in the

summer of 1117, Rupert set off on his famous ride to Labn, where the

. master's death deprived.him of a confrontation with Anselm, althou'gh

- - * - •“ » |

he was ,able ,to enter into a sharp discussion with some of his students,
q . . . - ■ ;
% 232
'and finally also with William of Champeaux. After that, he seems to

have returned to Siegburg and the protection of abbot Cuno, rather than
' » « 1 lf * 233
to.Liege, where he no longer had any'defenders against his enemies.
 77

5. Conclusion

The most strikingly original aspect of Rupert's writings about

creation, is his deployment of metaphors from Scripture and patristic

edurces— chiefly AuguStine--to create images of the Creator's work and

relationship with creatures. Drawing, pethaps, on his own experience

of development as'a thinker and writer, he is fondest of images that

(
connect the notions of illumination and literary creativity, in describ­

ing the procession, and activity of the Word at creation an(Pin the

Incarnation.’ In describing the activity of the-Spirit both at the.

* '\ »
beginning of creation and in baptism, his central image is that of the
*• ^

mothering and vivifying bird, a notion that bears the implication of a

feminine or mother-like aspect in God, curiously similar to the Kabba-

listic notion of the feminine" Shekhinah as 'the divine presence or close-

'- • ■ 234 Finally,* Rupert's metaphors abo.ut
'
ness to.creatures. both the Word

and the Spirit are connected*to images of education and growth in

rational ciyatures, so that these are represented as advancing toward '

perfection both by industrious learning, and by divinely assisted

maturation. , 1 ' .. ' \.

Doctrinaliy, Rupert's teachings about creation* are founded on the

Boethiaii distinction between the divine nature as pure form without

matter or composition,- and the jbreated nature as composite, to varying

degrees, of form and matter. / This

v distinction
' ' ''is combined
> ' with' an • •
. a
Augustinian emphasis on creatio ex nihilo.'implying a tendency in created
& . . . *

natures to revert to nothingness should divine .sustenance of their being

be'removed or voluntarily rejected. From the former, Rupert develops

 78

a notion of two distinct modes of production, namely generation and

manufacture, by whichto distinguish the procession and nature of the

(7 * •

Word or Son fr.om the manufacture and nature of the created universe.
S
Thus, he is able to conceive of a universal created substance and

nature, variegated in species but distinct from the Creator's nature.

-From the latter author, Rupert develops his concept of grace, necessary

to bridge the gap between the Creator and the rational creature. Both

angels and human beings have created nature's. Nevertheless, both are
. s

open to (capax) the divine nature. This" openness to the divine belongs
9 1 , **

to the nature or constitution of the creature, but does not pertain to

. . •*'
its substance or substantial qualities. Thup, it is constitutionally
' . ’ ■' " Q
- capable of development beyond the nature given with its first creation. "

It is also free to reject that development, although with disastrous

consequences. . The unfallen angels chose openness to the divine, and o

received grace, while those who fell, Chose to close themselves tfo the '
‘ * * *>
divine, and reverted towards 'the nothingness" from which they were

produced. 'Human beings who fell in Adam, are understood to have been

offered a second chance, or the possibility1of new creation. Like the

first,„this new creation happens through the Word. Rupert thus uses

the concept' of new creation through the Word in some pf his later works

not directly concerned with the. doctrine of creation— as, for example,
a 235: ’ S ’’ i.
De victoria Verbi Dei, in which history is interpreted as the struggle
■ a '**•*
between the creative Word .and' ignorant or willful bpposlfion to it. •

Rupert interprets both creation and history.as developmental^pro-

cesses, in which the creature grows into conformity with its exemplar,

and participation in uncreated goodness. The notion that, the purpose

 ■• ,79
' * 'm ■«
* i * *
of life is the reformation or re-creation of the inner ftan into like- •
236
ness with God is a familiar enough theme of monastic theology. *

Rupert, however, brings it into’association.with an all-embracing

theory of natural and historical development, including not only the

spiritual or intellectual, but also the physical sphere. He is, there-

.(
fore, not unjustly to be described in Chenu's words as one of those

monastic preachers who envisioned a sacralized universe, and who "wished

•a
to make mankind over into a veritable monastery, joyous and active,
^ t c
*: * 237 *
living in expectation of the heavenly reward/1
’ ^; 1 ‘ “

'. ¥
 80

Notes

Rupert, Super quaedam cap^tula regulae divi Benedict! abbatis,

1 (PL 170: 477-98); Degloria et honore illii Hominis super Mattheum 1,
ed. H. Haacke, .CCCM 29 (Tumhout, 1979) , pp. 362-96; Epistola ad
Cunonem pro libro de Divinis Off!Oilseed. H. Haacke, CCCM 6 (Tumhout,
1967), pp. 1-4; De voluntate Del, praef., 1 (PL 170: 437-38); De Omni-
potentia Del, prol. (PL 170: 453-55); for the most recent biographical
study of Rupert, see John Van Engeir, "Rupert of Deutz: Monk, Theologian
and Controversialist at the End of the Gregorian Reform," Diss. Califor­
nia at Lo$ Angeles 1976.

2 ' *
Rupert, Super regulam 1 (PL 170 : 480AB)': a puerillbus annis
monachus et coenobii claustrus fui contentus, slve detentus. . . . - „
" • ' v •
. 3 '■
Ruperti chronicon S. Laurentii 44,, ed. W. Hattenbach, MCE. SS.
(in folio) 8, pp. 276-77; caveat' emptor: in Le chronicon ;saricti Lauren-
tiiLeodiensis dit de Rupert'de'Deutz:. §tude critique (Louvain, 1952) ,
H. Silvestre has shown that the chronicle*cannot be attributed to
Rupert, and has indicated a number of anachronisms that cast doubt on
its reliability.
4
- ' 4
Rtlpert, Epistola ad Cunonem pro libro de sancta Trinitate et
opefibus eius, ed. H. Haacke, CCCM 21 (Tumhout, 1971), p. 121; cf.
Rainer of.Liege, De.jneptiis idiotae libellus ad amicum, ed. W.‘ Arndt,
MGH. SS. (in folio) 20, p. 594.
5 • .
Chron. S. Laur. 44,/p.- 277.

6
f
Chroh.
... 11
S. Laur.
1F, ^
47, p. 278. " •

■ . ^ Chron. S. Laur. 50, 'p. 279; of. Van Engen's account,'pp. 126-34.
g %
p Rupert. -Super' Matt. 12. p. 367, 1. 176: puer sive ajaulescentulus
■ , • - * . - ' .*
Super Matt. 12; p. 369.

10 Super Matt. 12, p. 370, 11. 290-300.“- :

* 7 . «
Super Matt.12, pp. 37i-72.

12 Super Matt. 12-,«p. 373. J * ■*

,\ ‘

22 Super Matt. 12.,. p. 374.. c '

 M
v

81

14
.Super Matt. 12, p. 381: ubi autem a legitimo iudicio denuntia-
tum fuerit, praecisum esse Ilium vel damnatum, quidquid deinceps operari
videtur, speciem quidem pietatis. habere potest sed virtutem eius habere
non'potest. Et ego^quoque simplici oculo illos ordinatores, qui infames
erant, devitabam.

^ Ep. Leodieensum adversus Paschalem papam. ed.JJ, Sackur, MGH.

LdeL. 2, pp. 451-52. r “
16
P. Jaffe, ed‘., Blbllotheca Rerum Getmanicarum 5 (Berlin, 1896), '
pp. 508-09. c

*7 Super Matt. 12, p. 381, 1. 724.

18 0 1
Super Matt. 12,.p. 375: quoniam etsi Patris et Filii et Spiritos'
sancti una'substantia est, una divinitas et operatio inseparabilis,
tamen sicut Patris proprium est opus hominis conditio, et.filii proprium
opus redemptio, sic'proprium est opus Spiritus sancti eiusdem hominis
illuminatio revelationumque gratia et omnium gratiarum d»visio.
*
19 * .
»-Super Matt. 12. pp. 378-79.

"20
Super Matt. 12, p. 378: nihil aut parum cogitans de metitis,
quae nulla erant, sola fide nixus. . . .

21
Super Matt. 12, pp. 378-79.
- . t
^ Super Matt. 12, p. 380, 11.-655-60.

23
Super Matt, 12, pp'; 382-83.
* 24 ' *
Super Matt. 12, pp, 383-84.

25 ‘ *
Super Matt. 12, pp. 380-81;-others are printed in PL 168:
1633-36. »

26 • • •
-On the libellus. see. Van Engen, pp. 95-125; the poem,, ed.
H. Boehmer, is printed in MGH. LdeL. 3, pp. 622-4i.

■ 27 Super Matt. 12, p. 381, li. 699-705. .

28 1 *
Van Engen*s phrase; the commentary is printed in PL 168: 461-1196

A
 82

29 For Amalarius’ influence and reception in the eleventh- to

* twelfth centuries, see Reinhard Monchemeier, Amalar von Metz: sein
Leben und seine Schrifteh (Munster i. W., 1893), pp. 203-32, esp.
pp. 223-2A.

p 30 ”
Rupert, De divlnis officiis, prol., ed. H. Haacke, CCCM 7
(Tumhout, 1967), p. 6.
*

31 ■ .
Rupert, Super regulam 1 (PL 170: 489C-A97A); for documentation
and principal sources, see G. G. lischoff, "The Eucharistic Contro­
versy between Rupert of Deutz and His Anonymous Adversary," Diss.
Princeton 1965, pp. 120-80. - »
'<i <s „'
’ c ®
^ Van Engen, pp. 220-24. ^

33 See Van Engen, pp. 254-73,for attempted

“ reconstruction of
events. °
o • ’

Rupert, Super regulam 1 (PL 170i 495D-496A): ego abSens pene

fuerim judicatus quatenus omnis mihi licentia scribendi tolleretur, et
quomodo tibi velut de coble a Deo missus pro me occurrerit beatus
Hilarius, suumque librum manibus tui?, et suam sententiam quam noh
quaerebas, sed nec usquam esse sciebas, tuis ingresserit oculis . . .
(496B) . . . At illi me ex hoc diffamare coeperunt, tanquam haereti-
cum, qui dixissem non esse in canone beatum Augustinum.

35 Rupert, De sancta Trinitate et

- operibus eius. -ed. H. Haacke,
CCCM 21 (Tumhout, 1971), prol., p. 120.
36 " .' -
De Trin. et op., prol., p. 123.
fc. o ^

37 • '
De Trin. et op., prol., pp. 120-21. „

38 For discussion, see Van Engen, pp. 407-14; he disagrees with

the sequence proposed by V. !■> J. Flint in "The Date of the Arrival
of Rupert of Deutz at Siegburg," iCevue Benedictine 81 (1971): 317-19;
a consensus seems unlikely without fresh information.» 0

39 R. Knipping, Die Regesten der Erzbischofe von Koln im Mittel-

alter 2 (Bonn, 1901-13), no. 180, p. 27.

40
Rupert, Ep. ad Cunonem pro libro de divinis officiis, p. 1.

41 Trinity Sunday was introduced into

' the liturgical calendar at
' Cluny in 1091; see P. Mulhera, "Trinity, Holy, Devotion to," New Catholic
V
 Encyclopedia, 1967 ed.; Rupert's community at Liege wasfreformed to
Cluniac liturgical practice by Berengar after the return from exile
--see Rudolph of St. Trond, Gesta. Abb. Trudensis 8: 16*, ed. D. R..
Koepk^, MGH. SS. (iri folio) 10, p. 278. Rupert's may be the first
commentary'on the new feast.
42 ,’ - ' “■
Rupert, De div. offic. 11: 2, p. 371: Quod nomen Patris et
Filii et Spiritus sancti propria veri Dei descriptio sit.

43 De div. offic. 11: 3, p. 372.*

44
Dd div. offic. 11: 4, p. 372.

45 Dfe div. offic. 11: 5, p. 373.

4.6
De ,div.aoffic. 11: 6, p. 374, 11. 201-15: Videlicet accidentibus
idcirdo subiacet, quia quaecumque ilia sit, ex materia simul et ex
forma consistit, verbi-gratia veluf artifex cum fabrili arte statuam
figurat, materia eius est aeris species", forma vero quaevis inducfa per
artem effigies^scilicet ima^o imperatoris aut si maluerit simulacrum
Iouis. Ita,qiiod statuam nomindtaus, non est id'quod est, quia non unum
aut simp][um aliquid est. Sic hec ipsum aes, antequam in illo aliquid
vfiguretur,, simplum quid est ^ utpote cuius materia terra est multum ab
^ipsa differens, quae Videtur aeris specie. Ipsam quoque si consideres
terram,. i^on est id quod est, utpote quae a forma nomen hoc habet. A
Dicitur enim terra eo, quod sit gravis et sicca.
Cf. Boethius, De Trinitate, in The Theological Tractates and The
Cohsolation of Philosophy, ed. and trans.E. K. Rand and S. J. fester
(London, 1973), pp. 10-11.
47 5 4
De div.' offic. 11: 6, p. 374, M. 216-18: Suum autem esse
sumit ex hylen, quam dicunt materiam creatam. informem. Cf. Macrob'ius ,
Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis 1: 12: 10-11, ed. J. Willis (Leipzig,
1963), p. 49, 11. 25-31; Calcidius, Timaeus a Calcidio translatus com-
mentarioque instructus, 2nd ed., ed, J. H*. Waszink, Plato Latinus 4
(London, 1975), CCLXXVIII, p. 282, 11. 10-16.

48
De div. -offic. 11: 6, p. 374, 11. 216-18: Similiter homo non est
simpliciter hoc vel hoc, videlicet quia constat eat Rartibus, quae sunt
anima et corpus, quas solubili vinculo nexas proculdubio mors dissociat.
Cf. Macrobius, Comm. 1: 11: 3, p. 45, 11. 25-29.
AO * ■ '
De div. offic. 11: 7, pp. 375-76. ' * '

, ^ De div. offic. 1J: 7, p. 375, 11. 260-66: Dicimus itaque

sanctam Trinitatem esse vitam, sapientiam atque amorem. Deum
 Patrem vitam Tg|yh<yjmmortaliter in’se viventefii. Filium Dei Patris
sapientiaift eius dicimus ineffabiliter de eorde eius genitam, consub-'
staCntialem et coaetemam. Spiritum sanctum dicimus amorem Patris et
Filii, nihilominus consubstantialem et coaetemum,* Haec autem sub­
stantiae nomina sunt. r
-

^ De div. offic. 11: 7, p. 376, 11. 294-97: Nec idcirco dialec-

ticorum vocibus utimur, quod eorum vanitati sanctam Trinitatem subici-
endam ullatenus arbitremur, sed tit significanda notis significationi-
bus, melius et compendiosius, exprimamus.
Cf. Abelard's invectiye against the dialectici, Theologia 'summi
boni1 2: 3, ed. H. Ostlender. Beitrage 35: 2-3 (Munster i. W., 1939),
pp. 52-53; Abelard calls Roscelin a pseudodialectician in his letter
to the bishop of Paris (FL.17&s! 358B) ; for identification of the -
dialectici as Roscelin or his followers, see J. A. Endres, Forschung
zur Geschichte der Fruhmittelaltfirlichen Philosophie, Beitrage 17: 2-3 .
(Munster i. W., 1915), pp. 131-38. :
52
^ De div. offic. 11: 7, p. 378,\ll. 360-65.

' '53 De div. offjc. 11: 8, pp. ‘ \ Ludus' enim erat amabilis Deo
378-79:
Patri, videre in sapientia sua, quae facturus erat, primo beatam caeli
curiam pulchramque rempublicam denis angelorum ordinibus distinguendam,
deinde visibilem mundi huius architecturam, sphaericam caeli chmeram
solemque et lunam, lucida sidera, aquas superiores, aquas inferiores,
omnes abysses, nives at<que grandines, montes et colles cunctamque
terrae aream, mare et omnia, quae in eis sunt, quidquid sursum volat,
quidquid deorsum repit aut ambulat, bestias et universe pecora, reges
terrae et omnes populos. . . . Haec, inquam, videre antequain fierent,
Indus erat Deo et sapientiae eius, ludus festivus, ludus jucundus, ludus
delicibsus.
At vero de huiusmodi gaudere, haec qmnia spectare cum hilaritate
in,,cordis amplitudine, amor est sapientiae, amor studiosus, amor sanctus,
quern supra, sanctuft Spiritum esse diximus.

De div. offic. 11: 9, pp..379-81.

De div. offic. 11: 9, p. 380, 11. 446-54: Unde enim exemplar

accepit, ut fecunditatem sUis daret creaturis, si in ipso sterilitate
aridus exsfcit, si creans tarn multa, nihil de seipso generare valuit?

^ Cf. Augustine, In Johannis Evangelium tractatus CXXIV, 1: 17,

ed. D. R. Willems, in Aurelii Augustini opera 8. CCSL36 (Turnhout,
1954), p. 10: Faber facit arcam. Primo in arte habet arcam. . . . Sed
area sic est in arte, ut non ipsa area sit quae videtur oculis. In
arte irivisibiliter est, in opere visibiliter erit. Ecce facta es®Ln '
ppere; numquid destitit esse in arte? Et ilia in opere facta est, et
ilia manet quae in arte est: nam potest ilia area putrescere, et
iterun? ex ilia quae-in arte est, alia fabricari.
o ‘
.* '
•‘ ’ o '
" V '

1
 85

57 -
. De div. offic.- 11: 10, p. 382: Quanto magis ergo sapientla Dei,
quae Qeus est, quae Dei Filius est, omnium artifex, omnia prospiciens,
quae 'attingit a" fine, usque ad finem' (VJisd. of'Sol. 8: 1}, non sic
nata est, u£ efflueret, non sic genita est,.ut paternam substantiam
diminueret? ,Nec tunc, quando primum ad componendam mundi fabricam
emicuit et omnia visilia et invisibilia condidit, nec tunc, quando
in uteroVirginis camem assumens humanae natutae tota inscripta est,
nihilominus in corde suo Pater habuit, nec ideo Verbum in eis natura
deleturn aut detritum est, quia totum illud in nostrae naturae pellem
transcripsit. ** v -
CO * .
De div. offic. 11: 12, p. 384, 11. 601-03. •
59 ' *i ’
De div. offic. 11: 12, p. 384: Si, ihquam, quamlibet trium
per$onarum deneges, Deum non habes, quia si Spiritum sanctum abneges
Patrem et Filium confitens,- cum idem Spiritus amor sit, Deum sine amore,
id est host^em et inimicum tibi constituisti. Si Filium deneges, cum
Filius Dei sapientia sit, Deum tibi brutum et insipientem phantastico
errore confinxisti.
• V
^ De div. offic. 11: 13, pp. 384-85.

^ Dediv. offic. 11: 14, p. 386. r-

' s ’ v 9 (

fiO 1 , « ‘
De div. offic. 11: 14, p. 386, 1. 682: quia necdum illud
capere poterat infantia seu.iuventus mundi nimium carnalis. . . .
' ' - 4

63 De div. offic. 11: 14, p. 386, 11. 685-90.

’ 64 De div. offic. 11: 14, p. 386, 11. 690-98: nop. quia Pater ,
; ■/. absque Filio sanctoque Spiritu quidquam creaverit, aut Filius sine
Patre sanctoque Spiritu redimerit, aut Spiritus sanctus absque Patre ,
* - Filioque illustraverit et peccat'orum remissione mundaverit, sed quia
sic est communis quidem et ubique inseparabilis summae et unius
divinitatis operatio, ut tamen in groprietate vel ordine operis mani­
fests nullique fidelium ignoranda personarum sit discretio.
* .. * •

65 ~1 "
De div. offic. 11: 15; p. 367, 11. 740-46; cf. Augustine, De
Genesi Contra Manichaeos 1': 3 (PL 34: 174) ; De Genesi ad litteram
■* 1: 5, ed. J. Zycha, CSBL 28: 3:.'2 (Vienna, 1894), pp. 8-10.
; ■ W - . •,*

^ De di-v. offic. 11: 16, p. 3388; cf, Augustine, fle civitate Dei
11:'24, ed. E. Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Leipzig, 1899-1900), pp. 547.-48.

^ De div. offic. 11: 16, p. 388, 11. 763-70: Etut scias, quantum
ilia diligentia, de qua loquimur, in opere Dei profecerit, convertere
. .... -
• , > . * * *

* c " * • ' .' - •

■)
ad cor tuum, 0 quicumque es artlfex alicuitft la'udandi effector operis,
utj inquam, sqiasV quantum diligenti'a, quae est Spiritus,-eius operi
profecerit, respite, quantum in opere tuo'diligentia tua. coritulit. °
Certe in aiente tua quodammodo sic habebas artem, sicut erat in prin­
ciple Verbum apud Deum. . ° ,.
I t *
68 ^ ‘
Augustine, De civ. Dei 11: 21, p. 542, XI, 8-10: Si enim
interroges. quis omnia fecerit, respondeo:Deus. Si quaeras: per quid?
aio: per Verbum. Si quaeras: quare? responded: quia bonus. Et haec
Jlrinitas. unus est* Deus, >
69 -
De div. offic.- 11: 17, p. 389; cf. Ambrose, Hexaemeron 6:7-
(PXi 14: 272-74); Augustine, De Genesi ad- litt. 3: 19, pp. 84-86.

•' 70 De div, offic. 11: 4.7, .p, 389, 11. 820-21: Quid enim taliter .
conditio
a . • • •,
homini
..."
praeter naturalem divinitatem defuit?
'■%«* m•
’
, De div. offic.11: 17.0. 389, 11. 821-26: At vero id, quod
.per-naturam Deus sit, generare’utique Deuspotuit. Deus enim est quod
genuit, creare autem vel plasmare tale quid, cum sit omnipotens, nullo
modo potuit. 'Nec in hoc quidquam dierogaretur omnipotentiae, cum
aequale sibi, qui est ultra omnia extra omnia praeter omnia, dicitur
Deus cfe'are non potuisse. - ' ' '
72
Augustine, De civ. Del 9: 10, p. 422: Pater misericors mortalia.
nobis condidit corpora. ' \

73 De div. offic.11: 17, p. 391, 11. 876-81.

74 De div. offic.11: 17. p. 391. 11. 888-94,

' 75 De div. offic. 5: 9, pp. 158-59. ;

T ' 76' ■ ■■ ■- . - ' ' • ■■■■■■•

Dfe div. offic. 5: 11, p. 169; see Je#me.-Adversus Jovinianum
1: 16 (PL 23: 246C), and Commentaria in Zachariam 1~: 1 (PL 25: 1422A).

“ - .De div, offic. 5: 14, p. 168: partim nos deprimunt in tristitiam,

partim levant in gaudium. . . . • ‘
... n o ' - ' - ‘

De- div. offic. 6: 1, p. 187; cf. Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 3i'in

Bedae Venerabilis opera 2: 1, ed. G. W, Jones, CGSL 118A (Tumhout,
1967), p. 35. » V
79 "f
c
j De div. offic, 7: 3, p. 226, 11. 59-60: fortasse quaerat all- -
quis, quid.ad baptism! pertineat sacramentum. '
 81 o 4 °^ •‘' •.. .
De °div. .offic. 7: 4, pp. 227-28j Ad imaginjam quippe Dei,homo
factus estin eo, quod rationalis est/ ad similitudinem vero in eo,
quod divinae bdnitatis imitator conditus est. Imago/namque Dei vel
’figura substantiae eius,’ sicut; apostolus ait’ ,’'Filiuk'*'est, bonitas'
autem vel oaritas Dei et imaginis eius Spiritus sanctus est. Et
idcirco non est di.ctum: Faciamus hominem ad simflitudinem et 'imaginem
nostram, sed 'ad imaginem et^sitdlitudinem. nostrum,' quia simLlitudo
non pnius tantum sed duarum personatum scilicet. Patris et Filii est,
.imago autem non duarum personarum sed unius tantum scilicet Patris est.
Filius namque Patris tantum, non etiao Spiritus sancti Filius, Spiritus
sanctum autem non»soium‘-Patris sed et Filii Spiritus est. \

.82 J?e div. offic. 10: 6. pp. 335-36. .. . >;

o * • 1. ' ' . • ‘ - V
83 * -/ ',?•
.De. di’fr. offic.. 7: 4, p. 228: divinae bonitatls imago, ppr
quam-Dei similitudo .retinetpr, creafeurae quoque voluntatefii exigit, •
rationSlitasAutem quae impressione imaginis Dei humanse animae
insculpta est, a sola creatoris arte process-it.
ftA ° '' * ~ .. ’
De div.offic..7: 4,' p. 228, 11. 140-41; cf. Jerome; &eb‘
raiearum
quaestionum in Genesiml: 2 (PL 23; 987-89) for variations'on the/
"cosmic egg"'metaphor, see Peter Dronke, "Fables of the Cosmic Egg;" in
Fabula (Leiden. 1974); pp. .79-99'. .

85 ‘ < "‘'
• - —-
De div. offic. 7: 4, p.‘288: ipse^nunc superfertur aquis bap-
tismi, ut ingredientes sub gratiain suam confovens in veram regeneret
vitam 'expetfdens alas suas et assumens eos atque portans in humeris
suis'. Et si opus est,-ut amplius appropinquet alicui, id est si ab
aquis arceatur aliquis . . ..tunc.demum adyolat mater gratia Dei suas-
que ultra, nidum aquarum..alas-extendit. ' J3 .. '

86 De div.offic. 3: 14,- pp. 81-82: Cur Deus -lapsum hominis evenire-

permiserit, cup utique ut omnipotens impe'dire potuerit, saltern ipsum
tentatorem ab ingressu paradisi pfocul arcendo malueritque-suam ipcarna-
tionem humano generineccessariam existere quam compendia .serpentem ab
hominis collocutidne abigere.
'f •
8^ De div. offic. 3: 14, p. 85. '
DO / * ;
De div. offic. J: 14, p. 85, 11. 897-902: Haec omnia Deus/,
priusquam hominem conderet, praescivit et praedestinavit, ipsum'autem
hominis lapsum praescivit ’quidem, sed non praedestinavit neque voluit,
quinimmo sub interminatione mortis vetuit. -Nam bona sola Deus prae­
scivit et praedestinavit, tSla autem praescivit tantum, ndn^etiam
praedestinavit, sed condigna eisloca iustedeputavit. Cf. John
Scottus Eriugena. Perlphvseon 4: 5 (PL122: '807BC). ' ,
' 89 '
4 De div. offic. 3? 14, p, 85, 11. 903-05: Cum praevaricatio
nulla sit, si praecepttfii^aut lev non fuerit, curDeuS homini praeceptum
dedit, quod non esse'servandum praescivit?

90' ■ • ' N V‘ ,
De div.-offie. 3? 14, p. 85,f11. 906-10: a creatore preaturam
erudirioportuerat, qufppe quae ifca creari non potuerat, ut suapte
datura perfects esset, qued solius divinae naturae est, peque scire
posset, quia Deus ’mitis et'humilis corde’ (Matt. 11:29) est, nisi
eruditione-proficeret;. > J -'
' 91 -1? ■
. s - - De div. ..offic. 3:. 14.
85, 11. 910-11; for general background
and sources in Augustine, se,e G.' Ladner, The Idea of Reform ('Cambridge.
Hass., 1959), pp. 167-203.
t * * •'*«*
92 1
Rupert. De Trin. et op., prol., p. 126. .
98 ■ ’ ■ -
De Trin. et op. 1: 1, p.. 129,. 11. 5-10:' Duobds istis, scilicet
.caelo et terrae, postmodumadicit .tertium dicendo:, Igituj^ perfect! sunt
caeli et terra et omnis ornatus eorum (Genesis 2:i). Sane caeli nomine
invisibilis ilia sanctorum angelorum patria, terrae autem vocabulo
visibilis iste mundus designatusest. 1
■ 94 'V v■ '
' " -De Tririy et op.i:. 1. p. 129. .
95 *
■ De Trin. et op. 1: 2, p. 130; cf. Nicene creed: "lumen ex
lurnineyf;.,;';- •' "
96 i • • ■ / . ’
, De Trin. et op. 1: 2, p. 130: Recte et nobiliter liber iste
dicitur Genesis, quia cum generationibus caeli.et terrae utramque f
•eloquitur•generatiqnem unius eiusdemque Dei et hominis Christi Filii
Dei..
,/■“ 'Q7- ‘ ''' c
'De Trin. et op. 1: 3. p. 131,. ll. 85-86A: principium, quia
creaturaruin omnium pritna et efficiens causa esse probatur.
98 v
/ De Trin. et’pp. 1: 3;,j>. 131: Creavit, inquam, id est, non
ut pjfcilosophi gentilium vane putaverunt, Bibicoaevam habuit hylen sive
materiam/sed de nihilo fecit Caeli et terrae substantiam. Quod ,si x
quis obiciat hominem quoqus, cum non de nihilo, sed de terra factus sit
creatum dici, sicut scriptum est: 'Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem
suam, ad imaginem Dei creavit ilium' ; vel quod item dictum-est: 1Creavit-
que 'Deus <£ete grandia’; dicimus ad haec, r.ecte dictum, eo. dumtaxat
respectu, quia iam ipsa,, de qua, productae vel sumptae sunt species/istae, .
 89
' ■ \ ' '

1 9* * •
creata fuit materia, quibusjnominibus, scilicet caelo et.terra, ut .
supra dictpm est, significati universam creaturam visibiiem pariter*
et invisibilem. • .
Calcidius, CCLXXVlil, p. 282, 11. 10-16; Macrobius, Comm..
1: 12: 10-11, p. 49, 11. 25-31.
' 6 ’
» AQ ^ .
De Trin. et op. 1: 4, p. 132.

De Trin. et op. 1: 5-, pp. 132-33: Numquid mutabilitate utitur

quis, quando sapientiam suam nolens occultam pulchram orationem vel
quidpiam eiusmodi, quod utique in mente habet seeretum, describit in
charta per atramentum et calamum et advocat multos ut audlant etintel-
ligant utilera scientiam? Ninnquid mutabilis animi vitio dicendus" est
pro eo quia quod occultum habebat utiliter fecit, ut ito publico cogno- -
sceretur auditorio? Non utique de mutabilitate culpandus, sed de bene-
volentia collaudandus est. At vero mundus, et omnia quae caelo ac
terra continentur, quaedam clarissioa sapientiae Dei signa sunt, quae „
videlicet1sapijentia sive Verbum sic erat in cofde, Dei, priusquam ista
fierent, sicut ip'corde tuo scientia vel ars prius est quam notulis
visibilibus aut opere allquo illam significes.

De Trin. et op. 1: 7, p. 134: Creatis, inquit, et Caelo et

terra, -caelum quidem non omni omatu inane vel vacuum erat, quippe quod .
ex lumine divinae maiestatis resplenduit, sicut ad illius similitudinem
caelum istud visibile et aer solis huius refulgent lumine, verum 'terra,'
id est corpulenta substantia, "'inanis erat et vacua.'
c

102 “ / ,
De Trin. et op. 1: 7, p. 134: Itaque summatim breviterque
tota praescripta est creaturae informitas, tam ops et vacua, et frustra
esset 'in principio', id.est in Filie, creata, nisi quia Spiritus Dei
ferebatur super aquas, qui est tertia in Trinitate persona. . . .
•i •
103T . .
Thereby following the opinion of most of his contemporaries,
except William of Conches; see'M.-D. Ghenu, "Nature.ou hisfoire? Une
controverse exegetique surla creation au 12me siecle," AHDLMA 20
(1953): 25-30. ’' ' '.

104 0
4 De Trin. et op/ 1:.8, pp. 135-36: Quare autem cum quattuor
mundi elementa sint, haec duo tantum scilicet terram et aquam scriptor
sacrae huius historiae suis nominibus expressit, et aerem non proprio,
sed tenebrarum nomine signavit? Videlicet quia pertinuit ad proposltum
eius species istas in omatu creaturae, quae time erat infozmis, tam
diversas tamque multiplices nunc existentes dicere unde exortae sint. .
Constat autem quia de tenebris istis quae erant super faciem’abyssi lux
effulsit, testante Paulo cum dicit: 'Quia Deus, qui dixit de- tenebris .
lucem splendescere, illuxit in cotdibus nostris'(II Corinthians 4:6).
Non ait, in tenebris, sed 'de tenebris Deus lucem splendescere' dixit.
Poxro de' terra et aquis productae sunt species, omnium quas novimus-
 rerum. Solus ignis, licet gignentibus, terrae et aqnis cooperetur, ,
nihil t|aen ex ipso gig^iturV et proinde de hoc elemento. non iniuria
silpt«.t et usque in quantum diem, quo fons illius scilinet sol in ’
firmament© libratur, Solem enim fontem esse ignis aethereiphysici
quoquequi diligentiores fuere attestantur. / «
1%5
' ■- * ~ '»'*'/ • -
■
'
1 Macrobius^ Coma. 1: 20: 3-7, pp. 78-79; Cicero, Somnium Scipio-
nis, 4: 2 } ed. Willis, p . 159. ' \0 'V 4
" * • 'I ' ’i - 1. •

,106 See M.-D. Chenu, ’’Theology and the New Awareness of History,"
in Nature. ’Man and.Society in the Twelfth Century, ed. and, trans■
j.6'Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago,. 1968), pp. 162-201, esp.'pp. 190-91.
A ’ . * • •• ‘• ->r'
167 - * / ... - 6?

\ De Trin. at.op. 1: 10," pp. 136-37: 'Videtur enim nonnullis

lucem" tunc ease factam, non aliam quam aeris illustrationem, et tene- ,,
bras illas quae 'erant super faciem abyssi,\ sic alterha6ibus^nocte et
die divisaa, ut> peracto diurai temporis id est duodecim horarum spatio
16k exstingueretur et tenebrae 'succedetent, et1itidem trahsacto noeturni
f,temporis spatio, lux resurgeret, atque J.ta, per triduum, dies et noaC
absque luminaribus istis eorporeis, scilicet sole'et luna et stellis,
ultro sibi invlcemcesserint atque sucesserint. Cf. Ambrose, Hexaemeron
1: 9j t (PL 14: 153-54). ~
108 * *" -
.
De Trin. et on. 1; 10, p, 137, 11. 308-12j Sed hue sehsu unus ,
r, '
•hie dies-omnium ^.e^up pauperrimus est, quippe cum* singuli dierum cete-
l rorum substantiarum creatione vel formatione illustrati sint, hie diea
■non nisi accidentis cuiusdam. colore instabili iniecto dimissus sit. .. . *.
.*’• >
100 4 ' *•
Augustine, De civ.' Dei U: *9, pp.. 522,-25. V

110’, i
Rupert’a principal,,source is Augustine, De civ. Dei li: 9-15,
;f»p. 522t 35. . 1 '• ' / . , * . ■ ■ ■ ■

111 De Trin. et on. 1: 11; 6. 138.

v * «

112 De Trin. et op. 1: 11, p.*138. * t

-" «
••' ■' X, . .. .
^

113 ■ "
De Trin.“et op. 1: 11, p. 138; cf. Gregory, Moralia in Job 2: 3
(PL 75: 557).
114 « ■.
De Trin. et on. 1: 11, p. 138, 11. 369-73: Nam sicut homo
mortuus redeundo in terram palam facit quia *de terra sumpus fuit, sic
isti qui deserto perenni fonte luminis exstincti*sunt obscuritate sua
palam faciunt, quia, de tenebris cum essent, non natura, sed gratia
splendidi facti sunt.
 •i

91’

115
De Trin. et o p . 1: 13J p , 11. 440-49: ’Proinde non dictum
est: Vidit Deus terram quod jesiet bpina vel luminaria quod essent bona,
quia Videlicet bonitas capacia non Sunt. Dictum, autem est de singulis,
'vidit Deus quod esset bonum,'jid e t bona res, bona, inquanf, n s t
utilis res. Sj>la namque ratiotails creatura divinae bonitatis Kr est
spiritus Del capax est; et ijde vel angelus tantummodo bonus
absolute dicdndum est, videlicet in quantum boni Dei particeps factjus
est, i■

116
De Trin. et op. 1: 14, p 342,, 11. 489791: Hie iam cum
admiratione quaeri solet, quo:iodo benae substantiae vitium subripeke
potuerit et lux in tenebras dimutate sit?

117
De Erin, et op. 1: 14, p. 142, 11. 492-500; non recogitant
plerique angelos aeque ut homines-, sox ut creati fuerint innocentes
quidem, sed non repente summou exstitfsse, nihilque praeter Deum sine
profectibus in summo consistere vel
pleridue non recogitant, magnitpdine
nominis angelici sfc praeoccuiati ut; non vacet illis. scire, quia
spiritualis' creptura, sicut hibef inititp, sic habere debuit et pro-
fectum, et ex necessitate qui lem hapet esse, sed ex voluntate tendere
coepit ad firmitudinem bonae assfentiae.

118
De divi"offlc. 3: 14| pp. 181-83.

119 De Trin. et-op.' 1: 1$., p. 1142, .

120
De Trin. et op. 1: l i i . p. 143, ll. 530-34: Digniim vero laude
est, et curiopitati nostrae* dii;bet sufficere quod tale creaturam potuit
facere omnipotens, quae capax eiusdem factoris possit existere, et .
divinitatem quam non habet pe .naturam valea't consequi per industriam.'

121
De Trin. at -o p . If la, pp. 144-45,' 11. 587-605.

'122
De Trin. et-op. 1: 317, p. 145,, 11. 606-07t Quare Creator
bonus et clemens ilium fecit J 'quem periturum esse praescrivit?

123 i
De Trin. et op. 1: 17, p.-145, ll. 612-13.:. Quare substantiam
-malorum spirituum Deus vel hpminum*impiorum subsistere permittit,
quoniam male subsistit?

124
De Trin. et op. 1 :1 17:, p. 145, 11. 618-21 ; cf. Augustine, De
civ. Dei' 11: 17, pp^ 536-37/.
inic f
, De Trin. et op.* 1: 20, p. 15,0, 11. 798-804:
Profecto quando
dixit Deus: Fiat lux, erat vespere, quia sol dictionis-huius in corde
Patris latebat, quia in Verbo eius lux 1sta nondum in actu expbsita,
sed in meditatione solis illius abscondita- vita erat. Quandd autem
facta est lux, tunc mane factum est, in quo et lucifer ille, qui
cecidi t ante diem, primus emicuit', et exinde plenus dies est et in
oculis omnium nostrum lucet. . , . Cf. Augustine, Deciv.- Dei 11: 7,
pp. -21,, and De Genesl ad litt. 5: 18, >. 161. Rupert reverses
Augustime by identifying the morning light withsense perception, as
does !’
P eter Abelard, Exp. in Hexaemeron (PL 178: 737D);.

De Trin. et op. 1: 20, pp. 149-50, 11. 789-95: Videlicet quia

H i non de ofdine, nec de natura ceterorum dierum est, sed dierum
alls causa est, eorumque qui ex diebus ceteris creatorem cpgno-
scentes jlorificant et gratias agunt: eorum, inquam,. hie dies perpetua
3t, ,ut requiescant in eo post laborem dierum istorum respirantes*,
et ideo recte ceteris diebus in ordine non suppositus, sed superpositus

1127
De Trin. et op. 1: 21, p. 150, 11. 814-22: ’Egredietdr virga
de radice lesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet, et requiescet super
eura/Spir: .bus Domini, spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus con-
silii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae'et pietatis, et replebit eum
spiriths timoris Domini.1; . . . ille, in quem haec dicuntur, cum non
tanturn hoitoo sed ef Deus sit, licet’secundum humanitatem ’sapientia
aetate el: gratia' profecetit, attamen secundum id quod est et erat Deus
nullum p ofectum habuit; sed cum esset ipsa sapientia, de supemis suis,
ad ima niAstra descendit. *

Trin. et op. 2: 16, pp. 201-02; cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei

11: 31, ])p. 559-60.

129
De Trin. et op. 1: 30, p. 158, 11. 1130-33: Dies iste revela-
tio creatoris est; dies, inquam, iste gentilium quoque oculis Deum
manifestavit: 'Invisibilia enim eius,' inquit apostolus, 'a creatura
mundi, per ea quae facta sunt intellects cqnspieiuntur. . . .*
* ’ *
• 130
De Trin. et op. 1: -26, p. 154, 11. 965-70: -Verum hie nos
litterae sensum quaerimus, ut dertum historiae fund.amentum teneamus.
o , • ' •
4 .' : -.
131
De Trin* et op. 1: 22, p. 151, 11. 850-51: Primum ergo, quid
-vel unde sit firmamentum, propter simpliciores dicendum est.
G W • ‘

132 "
See, e.g., De Trin. et<.op. 1: 33, p. 162, 11. 1259-68," on the
Antipodes, and 1: 34, p. 163, -11. 1310-28, on the utility, of mountains
as wind-breaks.

133 ■1 ' '■

De Trin. et op. 1: 2, p. 151, 11. 852-59: Firmamentum non
solidum quid; aut durum, ut vulgo putatur, sed aer est extensus et-adeo
 93

, ' ' ■j ' r

subtilitatus ut, licet videri queat, rectius tamen spiritus dici ppssit.
quam corpus, .testante Ecclesiaste, cuft dicit de luminafibuStquae visi-
''biliterin eo feruntur: Lustrans in circuitu pergit spiritus et in
circulos suos revertitur. Hoc itaque cum solidum non sit, sed neque
ita cbrpulentum, ut haec inferior, pars aeris, aliunde tamen illud Sc^ip-
tura firmamentum nuncupavit, videlicet eo quod 'dividat aquas ab aquis.*

134 - ■ •
• De Trin. et op. 1; 23, pp. 151-52; cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei
11: 34, pp. 564-65. ' ■ ,. '

135' •
De-Trin. et op. 1: 24, pp. 152-53: Quod si a nobis quaeritur,
in qua qrgo specie aquae illae super firmamentum sunt, si congelatae
non sunt, interrogemus eos, in qua specie fuerint antequam fieret
nfirmamentum. Verum hoc respondere nequeunt, quia chaos erat, et con­
fuse moles, quails ab humanis sensibus diiudicari non potest. Igitur
criptam mundi huius eXiguam, quam in medio abyssi magnae, mirabilis
.artifex Deux excavandofecit, in qua nati sumus, cum vix attendere
possimus philosophandOj. quantum volumus, de*circummanantium aquarum
natura vel specie tacemus, quia videlicet nec istis- aquarum reliquiis,
quae postea speciem vel formam suam acceperunt, omnino similes proba-
biliter definire valemus, nec aliquid fingere dignum arbitramur, ut
verbi gratia congelatas esse, sicut iam dictum est, opinemur. Unum eat
hoc ut certum teneamus cameram huius mundi pdsitam esse in medio aquarum,
quia videlicet firmamentum, quod quasi tectum eiusdem camerae est, undi-
que ambiens auctoritate sacrae,Scripturae factum est in medio aquarum.
The -firmament had been a source of difficulty for exegetes since
the patristic period, because it contradicted the natural order of the
elements. See E. Jeauneau, "Notes sur l'ecole de Chartres," Studi .
Medieval! set.,3:-5 (1964): 847-48; for a survey of texts and interpre­
tations, see T.' Gregory, Anima mundi: la fllosofia di Guglielmo di
Conches et la scuola di Chartres (Florence. 1955). pp. 241-44.
* , O *»•
136 * '
De Trin. et op. 1: 26, p. 154, 11, 973-82: Tunc enim 'ponit
nubem ascensum suum’ et itexum 'ambulat super pennds ventorum,' quando
ad temperandum caeli fervorem aquae de mari, sive de flundnibus stag-
nisque et paludibus exhalatae glomerantur actaeque flabris-ventorum
iterum in terram per concretas pluviae guttas deferuntur. Hoc modo.
plane et 'nufoem-ponit ascensum suum et ambulat super pennas ventorum,' ’
non quidem vagahdo in circumscripta eius substantia sed .competens
auxilium conferendo, quando vult etproutvult. . . .

137 "
De Trin. et op. 1: 26, p. 155, 11. 986-93: Spiritus namque'
procellarum hie intelligendi sunt, qui tam certis effectibus faciunt
verbtun eius, et non- magis aberrant a voluntate vel arbitrio eius qua* -
rationales spiritus, quos angelos, id est nuntios dicimus. Proihde
qui facit, inquit, 'angelos suos spititus et ministros Suos ignem
urentem,1 id est qui spiritibus tempestatum sive procellarum pro
angelis -vel nuntiis suis et igne urente pro ministris suis utitur.
 De Trin. et op. 1: ‘26, p. 155, 11. 1007-10: Non enlmde
creaturae alicuius constitut^ione hie.agitur, sed de accidents motu
creaturae, scilicet caeli huius, quia videlicet spiritus isti id est
• veqti non perse ipsi creaturae sed quasi quidam,anhelitus sufflantis
naturae vel creaturae motus stmt. •

^ D&; Trin. et op. 1: 26, pp. 155-56; Media autem,J^cilicet

aqua, et qui terrae est proximus aer, nunc quidem segniusf nunc vero
rapidius feruntur: -agente Deo cuius asp&ctus nullam in rejpublica sua
naturam otiari patlfur. . . . Suntqub in amplissima mundi huius domo,
quasi, magni patris families scopae grandes cunctas aexia' corruptiones
suo quique certatim everrentes. ° .

^4? De Trin. et op. 1: 30, p. 159, 11. 1150-60; note Rupert’s

departure from the more pessimistic interpretation in De div. offic.
5: 11, where he follows Jerome. , . ■

141 De Trin. et bp. 2: 25, p. 213, 11'. 1105-06: Hoc ergo promptius
intelligi potest, quia a principio Dominus Deus paradlsum plantavit,
Idem esse ac si dlceretur: Ab initio mundanae exomationis, quando illo
iubenqe terra herbam lignbmque germinavit. » ,

^~4^ De Trin.^et op. 1: 37, p. 165, 11. 1397-1405: propter illud

quod alibi soriptum est: ’Qui vivit in aetemum creavit omnia simul,1
volunt repente et absque ullis profectibus herbam maturam et ligna
robusta cum pomLs et seminibus suis constitisse", simul luminaria in
firmamento, simul reptilia maris et volatilia caeii efferbuisse, simul
nihilominus animantia terrae;- et ipsum hominem subito in pedes obambu-
lasse.. Hoc plane a ratione dissentit, nec hulusmodi sensum praeseptis
lectionis textus admitti’t.

De Trin. et op. 1: 39, p. 167,.11. 1456-66.

144 DeTrin. et on. 1: 39, p. 167, 11. 1471-76.

14^ DeTrin. et oil. 1: 40, p. 168, II. 1490-94: Nam^ ut taceam

de luna et stellis quarum potentias paene soli utcumque noverunt
physic!, desole quis ruricula nescit, quod sine illo factura mundi
non solum infIrma et egena sed et null! viventium sit habitabilis?

146 De Trin. et^op. 1: 41, p. 168, 11. 1504-11: Hie iam prae-
^tereundum non est, quod de hoc magno praeside huius caeli eleganter
praedicare solent physici, quod sit fonp^tgnis aetherei, cor caeli sive
mens, et temperatio mundi. Nam quod mundum vere temperet, inquiunt,
ratio in aperto est, ita enim non solum terram sed ipsum qiioque"caeium
temperari sole certissimum est, ut extremitates eius, quae a vis’soils
 ' " , i ' "
longissime recesaerunt, omni careant beneficlo caloris et una frigoris
perpetuitate torp,escaht. Cf. Macrobius, Comm. Is 20: 3-7, p. 79.

147 De Trin. et bp. 1: 41, pp. 168-69, 11. 1519-54.

148 ‘
Be Trin. et op. 1: 42. pp. 169-70, 11. 1555-67; cf. Macrobius,
Comm. 1: 18-19, pp. 70-79. ' '
-149 *
De Trin. et op , 1: 42, p. 170, 11. 1565-75. ■
150‘
De' Trin. et o p . 1: 43, p. 170, 11. 1584-92; Mam quod astrono­
mic! melius expert! sunt, stellae quidem osnes praeter quinque, quas
planetas.id est erraticas dicunt, et praeter haec duo luminaria magna,
in firmamento fixae sunt et cum firmamento .feruntur. Siquidem luminaria
haec et stellae quinque, ut praedictum est, quas idolorum suorum
nominibus sacraverunt, scilicent Saturni, Iovis,Martis, Veneris atque •
Mercurii, circulos habeiit proprios, qui contrafio motu feruntur, voir
vuntur enim contra firmamentum. Hortim altior airbus Saturni, inferior
lunae circulus habetur. Cf. Macr&bius, Comm. 1: 18-19, pp. 70-79.

De Trin. et op. 1: 45, pp. 172-73; cf. Ambrose, Hexaemeron '

4: 5; 24 (PL'14: 213).
■tCO ’
De Trin. etic. 1: 47, p. 174, 11. 1744-55: dum stellis paene
omnern creatoris adscripsere potestatem,rita ut dicerent ex. earum momentis
Vitae et mortis suae fatalem pendere necessitatem. Cf. Ambrose,
Hexaemeron 4: 4„(PL 14: 206-07).
■ . ’ ’ - “ •'

•153 Dentin, et op. 1: 47 * no. 174-75. ll. 1755-75.

- '154
De Trin.
7
et op.2; 6,. pp. 190-91, 11. 222-38.

De trin. et op.1: 49, p. 176; Virgil,* Georgies 1: 415-18, 420,

ed. and traps. H.R. Fairclough (London, 1974), pp. 108-09. ■
156
' De Trin. et op. 1: 49, p. 177, 11. 1866.-72.
- ■ ' ‘
157
De Trin. et op. 1: 50, pp. 177-78, 11. 1873-1921.
158
De Trin. et op.1: 52, p. 181, 11, 2002-12; cf. Ambrose,
. Hexaemeron 5: 24 (PL 14: 254-56). *

15^ De Trin. et op. 1: 55, pp. 182-83, 11. 20,68-81.

 lin 1 ° *
-De Trin. et op. 1: 56. p. 183,; 11. 2089-98; Lucan, Pharsalia
9: 860-64. ,
1 ',r- «
De Trin. et opC 1: 57, p. 184; cf”
. Ambrose, Hexaenteron 5: 7:
.18 (PL 14; 227), and Isidore. Etymologlarum libri XX 12: 2 (PL 82: •<
433-40), ' . ‘ v ,,B ■
162 ’
De Trin. et op. 2: 1, p. 185, 11. 12-13: Quid enim propositum
est nisi sanctae Trinitatisgloriam peripsius opera quasi perspeculum
contemplari? " ^ t „
' 163* ■’ " J -•
De Trin. et op. 2:-32, p. 226, li. 1574.-75; cf. Augustine, De.
Doctrine Christiana 3: 122-25, ed.W. m ) Green, CSEL 80- (Vienna, 1963) ,
pp. 113-14‘. .■] ;■;# v «■
■ ■ e •/-- A
■ > . - .

164
De Tiin. et op. 2: 1, pp.. 185-86,, 11. 31-45: Magnum plane
consilium in illo sapientiae concilio, in illo talium personarum, ‘•
Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, non tam senatu quam soliloquio
venerando de nobispeecatoribus habitum est. An putas eorum quidquam
quae circa nos acta vel agenda ,sunt illie defuisse? Plane ibi omnis
nostra in medio causa positd est, mo.rs -vel perditio nostra quae future
erat illic perspecta est, et inde totum consilium habitum, ut unaquae-
que suam operis partem persona susciperet, ut scilicet, sicut iam -
dictum est, tunc quidem Pater conderet, postea in plenitudine temporis
Filius perditum redimere't, Spiritus sanctus remissionem peccatorum et
carnis resurrectione© perficeret, atque ita eommuni Triiiitatis consilio
reaedificarentur in homine deserta saeculorum, et fundaments generationis
et generationis’suscitarehtur. * ■
. . ■ -. * ’ ; ^ A

i j L f ’ lf iS ' " ' r 1 ' •

De div. offic. 7: 4. pp. 227-28;
' v '■ ‘ ‘ . (
166 R .. . . V
' De Trin. et op. 2; 2, p. 186, 11. 70-72; Est ergo Filius imago
Patris, sanctus autem Spiritus sioilitudo Patris et Filii, communis enim
bonitas sive caritas est Pktfi# et Filii. ■ . •, ' ,.
*• <.v . - .<? ' ‘ ~ . /
^ *•167 » -• ' »
.• De 'Trin. et op.■2a 3, p. 187, 11. 90-91; cf, De div. offic.
7: 4, pp.,227-28,rand 10:.17, pp. 389-91, on the image and likeness.
^ •

" 168 De Trin. et on. 2: 4, pp. 187-88, 11. 114-23: Hon dixit Scrip-
tpra quia dixit Deus: Fiat homo„ ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram,
et factus est vhomo, sicut dixit Deus: 'Fiat-lux, et facta .est lux.'
Quare? Videlicet quia non repent^ sed operose agendum erat, ut consum­
mate homo staret ad creatoris siuL imaginem et similitudinem. Angelica
namq^e creatura semel facta iam nec in'illis qui steterunt commovebitur,
nec in illis qui ceciderunt in antiquum restituetur. k it vero homo post
primam 'sui facturamcasurus et miserantis recreatione erat innovahdusi
 ■ ' 97
; g
. ' ‘ ' - V
Idcirco tres personae ^uasi mutuo se cohortantur dicendo: 'Faciamus.

* i69 De Trin. et o p . 2: 4, p. 188,.11. 127-39; cf.. 2: 26, p. 214, .

11,.1146-49:> Nam angelus,1qui terrenum non habet corpus, unius spiritu-
alis paradisi deliciis est contentus; homo autem,, qui ex corpore constat
et splritu, duplici paradigo' deliciabitur.

170
De Trin. et op.2: 4, p. 188, 11. 136-39i ista dictio,
'Faciamus hominem ad Imaginem et similitudinem nostram,' solos eos
ampleetitur quos praedestinavit ad vitam, nec illos admittit, qui
superflue de vitiata posttoodum radice super numerum nascituri erant.
171 . r ''
• De TrinI et op. 2: 5, p. 189, 11. 181-87: P.raesint igitur
natura homines xumentis, ipsis autem hominibus gratia praesint homines
Dei. Immo quia cum In honore essent non intellexerunt, comparentur
pro vitio suo homines iumentis: -qui autem pro dignitate naturae suae
Deum,glorificaverunt aut gratias egerunt, similes Deo sint, filii Dei.
nominetur et sint, ut Johannes apostolus ait.
-si ’«
172' V - : 1 " .
De Tritu^et op.2: 7, p. 191, 11. 257-60: ubi factus egt homo
ad imaginem Dei, non est masculus neque femina, ut Verbi gratia pkscibus
maris et volatilibus caeli cunctisque anxmatibUs terrae magis praebit-
masculus quam femina. 4

173 De Trin. et op. 2: 9, pt 192, 11.•286-90

174 ’ . /t
J
De Trin. et op. 2: 9, p. 192, 11. 296-303: electi . . 6. qui
solum,Deum sibi proponentes terrena omnia fortiter cohtemnunt. An et
reprobi terram sibi subiciunt, dum illam aratro vertunt, aut etiam ’
armts capiunt? Ita plane qualicumque mpdo terram subilciunt, sed hie- ”
vel ille subiciendi modus de benedictione Dei rion est, cum econtra
propter peccatum dictum sit homini, 'in sudore vultus tui vesceris
pane tuo.' 'Et arma non benedictionis gratia sed cupiditatis invenerit
imm&nitas.
.■ -
k'. ■ . ■*
175 •
' .
De Trin. et- op. 2: 9, p. 193, 11. 331-33; Peccatum quippe
generandi naturam non attulit, sed generationis instruments corrupit;
et generi honorem eripuit.
17ft•
° De Trin. f t on.. 2: 9, p. 193, 11. 321-35.
■ ■177 <•'!>.
De Trin. et op. 2: 10, p. 195, 11. 406-11: Natura teste ita-
que dicendo, 'ecce ded^,'.non herbam aut omne lignum digito ostendit,
sed naturalem eorum appetitum animantibus in stomacho fundavit, nec
solum animantibus, quae animantia sive.animalia notum est esse vel dici,
 sed etiam in vermiculis, quae usus publicus animantia sive animalia
nuncupare dedignatur. .
' • , ' V' • ■ ■
178» .•
rDe Trin. et op. 2s 20, p. 207, 11, 857-63: Attamen sobrie
quaecere, id est^, mirari licet, cut Deus cum posset ruinas angelorum
novis angelis reaedificare et totidem quot ceciderunt simul creare et
in caelum levare, ut unius generis esset plebs euncta,omnisque nobili-
tas' caelestis patriae, cur homines alterius naturae' vel conditionis
fecit, quos reponeret pro angelis, et non cunctos aut multos simul sed
'unum"tantummbdo plasmavit, de. quo propagarentur ceteri?
170 ' * v' •
De Trin. et op..2: 20, -p. 207, 11. 871-82; cf. De div. offict
ll: 8, pp. 378-79. A * .... • .
180 -ss' .
De Trin. et op. 2: 21. p. 208, ll. 909-^12: Nam, spiritus
. iumentorum finitur, descendit enim deorsum, id est in hunc infimum*
exstinctus revolvitur aerem: humani autem spiritus nullus est finis,
revertitur enim ad eum4qui fecit ilium. '•
1Q1
De Triri. etop.2: 21, p.. 208, 11. 919.-20; Cicero, Somn. 4, '
' p. 159; Infra autem iam nihil est nisi mortale et caducum, praeter
animos munere deorum hominum generi datos. , . 1 ... '*
182 '
De Trin. etop.2: 21. t>/209. 11. 921-46. v

De Trin. eto p .2: 21, p. 210, 11. 962-66.. ,

■ .’* * ' ’ . ■
'•TftA / :*■
De lrin. et op. 2: 22,“p. 210, 11. 978-88: Igitur hoc dictip,
quia formavit Dominus hominem delimo terrae, et inspiravit in faciem
eius spiraculum vitae, dignitas pulchre exprimitUr conditiohis humanae-, V
quae a cunctis longe divetsa sit animantibus tam fbrmatuta corporis
quam viviflcationis Dei ihspirantis. Dtrumque perspicuum est. Forma
corporis in hoc solo animante surs.y«^caput attollit, caelum intuetur
terramque calcans pedibus recto pectore incedit et sidera vel caelestia
regna supeme positis meditari commonetur oculis. Animus vero sive
spiraculum, quod inspiravit Deus in faciem eius, multarum artium bonarum
atque utilium repertor est, ex- dono rationis quod, sibi cbllatum est..
Cf. Ambrose, Hexaemeron 6s 9 (PL 14: 280-88).
 J)e trin. et op. 2: 40, p, 234, 11. 1917-22: Numquid enim
quando 'fulgebunt justi sicut'sol in regno Parris sul’ tunicis operien-
tur et pallis? Non utiqu<f, sed ad gloriam figtili vel factoris sul
quaecumque illic fuerint vasa misericordiae mutuis cum gloria conspec-
tibus parebunt, foris fulgidi et intus iucundi; corpore integri et
animo laeti; corpore, inquam,. simul et anima beati.
19Jf• * - r?
See H. Silvestr.e* "A propos de la.lettre. d'Anselme de Laon
a Heribrand defSaint-rLaurent," Recherches de Theologie Ancierlne et .
Medievale 28 (1961): 3-25, and "Notes sur fb controverse de Rupfert de
Saint-Laurent avec Aaselme de Laon et Guillaume de Champeaux," in
Saint-Laurent de Liege (Lifege. 19.68), pp. 63-80; see also J. deGhel-
linck, Le mouvement theologique du 12me siecie (Bruges, 19482), p. 127,
and M.--D. Chenuj "The Masters^of the Theological ’Science,'" in Nature.
Man and Society in .the Twelfth Century, ed. and trans.. J. TayltJr and *
L. K, Little (Chicago, 1968), pp. 270-72, Chenu's interpretation is°
oversimplified to the point of caricature.
v C " ‘
193 - ,
'. Ed. by 0. Lottin in Psychologic et morale au» 12ms, et 13me
siecles, Vol. 5: Problemes d'histoire littdraire (Louvain,1959), pp/
175-77. • . ' ' ;;
■194 ' :' ’ ' '' “ '■
u. De Voluntate Del (PL 170: 437-54);, DeOmnipotentia Dei (PL
.170: 453-78). ," “ T“ '
£95 ' •. • ■ ' . ■ ■ ■ ■ - ■»■ M
‘ De Volunt. 1 (437C):Quia Deus malum fieri vult, et quia
voluntatis Dei fpit quod Adam praevaricaturus est.
•j 1 9 6 " *■'
^ De Volunt* 1 (438A): Non ergo credimus dlcenti quod x$s -1
hujusce divisionis auctores fueritis quae et Deum accusat et artis.
constaqtiam non servat. ' , ”

197
De Volunt. 2(438B-439A).
198 . - :v'-. ' ' - .-4 ' " '
De Volunt. 2 (439A) :* derelipuit illos Reus, .Videlicet-proptef
iiterius peccatum superbiaey quod DeUsnonvult, ut faciant eiterius
secundum^desideria cordis sqi malum immunditiae, quod itidem ut-faciant
non vult.Deus, cum sit bonus.; a quo non liperat eos, cum sit Justus.
. . .is* -- ' *■, * ci ** -> ■ ' v r ■„

199 De Volunt. 3 (439BC). - . »

 Be Volunt. 4 (439D). 1 \ ,
•■■•,.r.J -■ , a ■ . • ..
-•= 20*ls>, “ • ■•* ■--> •' .
.' , De Volunt. 5 (440BC); cf. De Trin. et op. lr 17, p, 145.
•4.'
e '. -
'•"
* j-
' o -
° .■$
i
. ^ 'IS '
on'? “ .- , •• " •' , *'• ,

• De Volunt. 5 (440CD) ;.cf...De 'dlv. offic.' 3: 14,,p. 85, 11.

929-31. — ~ .- • '•r’ . .#.■
“ “ * ■ J ,, . .- ' t .•*’••
203.De Volunt.-,6 (440^4410).- -J •' „ v
•' ^ * * ... " '

204 De Volunt. 7 (441D-442B). * C * V / •'

® ^ ° -VT.”■ *
205 ^ * “■ ' *
De Volunt,^ (442ffC}T Hpruffifuae dicinws, a note imagine Dei,
scilicet ab fiomine documentum capiamus. Eqce homo et naturalltesygene-x
rare, et operari potest voluntarie...“Quod .genefat aliud *,psse bon potent
quam quoji estjip’
se; quod operatur, nullatenus essfe potest id quod es
ipse. Generat enim homo non aliud quam hominem; operatur, verbi gratia
domum qpam inhabitet-,' vel quam indpat decotam vestemv .Horum nihil hoc
ipsum est quod ipse; laudatqr autem,rsi haec operatus <sst. scite. vel
commode.sicut est dignum se. Cf. De Trin. et op. 1: 15, pp. 142-43,
11. 5Q2-29.
- • o *» , , ••
206
De Volunt. 8 (442C): Quorum omnium nihil hoc ipsum esse
debuit aut p'otuit quod est ipse qui fecit, vel compar ei qubdidem
factor gefiult. 'Sicut fabricatura, vel pictiira nullo modo idem^esse «,
potest quod est faber aut. pietor, vel quod, ille de carne sua gepuit. ■
2D7 - *- «,*«■. ‘ >
. ^ , -«.yCf. Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon 2: -2(1-27, ed.
Buftimer^(Washington, 19391, pp., '
*=>•_ 38-44. - • ” " < .

; - De Volunt. 8 (442D) : Dignum vero laude est, et curiositaffv.

nostfae debet sufficere, quod tdfrem creatutam potuit facere factqr .
dmnipotens, .quae Capax ejusdem;factoris possit existere, etdf&initatem
quam notf^habet’per naturam, valeat consequi;.per industriam, adjuvantem
habens gratia* ‘Cf. De Trin. et op. 1:15.p. 143. 11.'530-34.
' 2QQ» *'■?>' ■ ' *'• • i. ^
De Volunt. .8 (442D): Igitur. comnfutAbilem sive convertibilem
esse oportuit angelum et homihem, utpote de nihilo creatos, etqnim
illud unde creatf siint, ftde nihilo creatum est. Et rcreapus quidem uter-
que est purus, et ihnocens, sic videlicet up, dq ipsa,innocentia vel
.proficere ad summa, vel de-ficere posset ad infima. Cfv Se Trin. et op.
1: 14, p. 142, sl K 489-5o £- ’ . ' ^ ' n
■- -
• V^ ^
‘ ^ . ' °* * « # . , '• * , • '? ■ ■

2 - De Trin. %t op. 1: 16. pp.'144-45. 11. 586-605. •>

"t. 5=1 - - * . “■ % ■" 'TP

211' De Volunt . 9 (443AB). ‘

 101

- De
— Volunt. 9 (443B).
_ . . ' )

,213 De Volunt. 11 (444A-D),. ,

1214 De Volunt.*12 (44^D-445C).

215 De Volunt. 13-14 (445D-446D).

' *

216 _De_ Volunt.

_ _ _
16 (447PC).
Cl. _
.
21 7
De Volunt. 17 (447D-448B); cf. De Trin. et on. 2: 30, p. 222,
* 11. 1425-49. * • o t) '. ,

218 - • ,■
■ Cf. Peter Abelard, Ethics. ed. and trans. D. Luscombe (Oxford,
“ 1971), pp. 4-5: JNon enim Deus ex dampno sed ex contemptu «offendi potest.
•v , £ — -, ^ e ^ C x J . ,-s z * .‘

'• '219''
. >„ De Volunt. 18 (448D): Nam haec est Creatoris et creaturae lex
. naturalis, ut ubi a superioris amore Creatoris creatura sese adverterit
eadem aversione sua decidat et immergatur inferiorum concupiscentii, et
in tanturn magna sit ignominia camis, in quantum se avertit spiritus a
quaererida gloria et honorificentia Dei. • .

220 De Volunt. 20 (449D).

221 De Volunt. 21 (450BC).

"222s-' * i
•• De Volunt. 23 (451CD). X

223 De Volunt. 24 (451D-452B)t cf. De Trin. et op. 1: 17, p. 145.

224 De Volunt. 25-26 (452C-454)>

■225
p De Omnipotentia Dei, prol. (455A). _. xs

226 Augustine, DeD civ. Dei 12: 6, p. 573.

’

' - 22^ De Omnip. 9 X461C-462B)} Gregory, Moralia in Job 9: 9 (PL 75:

861AB); Augustine, De Spiritu .et littera 33: '58, ed. C. P. Urba and
J. Zvcha.- CSEL 60. pp. 155-229 (Vienna, 1913)/p. 216, 11. 18-217, 1. 6.
,. •; '■c';.r ••• ®
u ' $ *, :■, *:v ■ ■
228 De iOmnip. 26 (476B).

/
 229 De Oatiip: 2? (476C-478) * -

230 ' -‘ •• ■
See Van Engen, pp. 126-34; -the details of the quarrel are *
recorded in Chronicon sancti Huberti Andaeinensis 89-90, ed. L. Bethmann
and W. Wattenbach, MGH. SS. (in folio) 8,pp.-619-21.
■232 ■-■■■'.■■■■■■"■■■ ■ " . ■ .o' ■
.'See.O. Berliere, ’Vexercice du ministere paroissal par les
moines dans le haut moyen age," Revue Benedictine; 39LC1927): 246-50,
esp. pi 248: for Rupert’s contribution to. the debate,’see his Alter- ,
catio monachl et clerici (PL 170: 537-42), Epistola ad^Sffirardum (PL
:170: 541-42), and Quod monachis licet praedicare, ed. J. A. Endres, in
Honorius Aujuscoduaertsis (Munich. 1906). pp. 145-47.

232 Saner Begulam 1 (PL 170: 482).

233 •
.. ■ '
.. His exact whereaboutsvin the years 1117-19 are not certain,
see p-. 22, n. 38, supra. .
234 .' ■ ■ x" '
See Ludwig Blau, "Shekinah," Jewish Encyclopedia. 1905 ed.

235 ■* ,
Ed. R. Haacke, MGH. Geistesaeschichte 5 (Weimar, 1970).

236
See B. Stock, "Experience,, Praxis, Work and Planning in
Bernard of Clairvaux: Observations on. the Sertnones in Cantiea." in
The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning, ed. J. E. Murdoch and E. D.
Sylla (DordrechtV 1975) , pp-. 219-68, esp. p. 240. ,•
• o ^ %y
237 . -■' .» \
M.-D. Chenu, "Monks, Canons and Laymen in Search of the
Apostolic Life," in Nature, Man and Society, p. 212.
 HONORIUS AUGUSTODUNENSIS

- 1. Introduction

%-
During his lifetime, Honorius Augustodunensis tried to conceal
X 2
.'his identity, and he succeeded. Five hundred years of scholarship
^ ■ " >

have not uncovered his secret, nor even identified with certainty the

."imperial’hill" from which his name derives. We know.that he 'calls

' 3
himself a presbyter and scholasticus, but, we do not possess any

evidence to indicate where or when he served in these offices .> Manu-

A
scripts of his works refer to him as a solitarius or inclusus, which
r .
suggests that he may have adopted the life of a hermit in association

with some monastic foundation. Recent studies of the problem agree,

from internal evidence in the texts and on the basis of manuscript .

distribution, that he was active somewhere in southern Germany or

" 5
Austria. It has been established, as well, that some of his works—

including the Elucidarium and the Sigillum sanctae Mariae— rely*upon

<? '■ : .. * '

6
the teaching of Anselm of Canterbury. Other items, especially the

Sumaa totius. the Summa gloriae. and the last book of the Imago mundi.

contain chronological lists and summaries concerned with German

imperial■history.^ At least onp. of the controversial treatises attri­

buted to Honorius closely parallels a tractate by Rupert of Deutz, on

8
question whether monks may preach. There is no firm evidence,

however, to connect him with France, least of all with Autun, which was
 104

for a while believed to be his place of origin. Instead, the

mysterious Honorius seems to have been.a wandering scholar-monk, perhaps

G
9
Irish, -who travelled from the "royal hill" of Cashel, to Anselm's
V . ■ - '
England, to the monastic foundations of southern Germany* writing and

studying along the way. „ '

Various efforts have been made to establish a chronology for the

o . y

life and works of Honorius.^ Of these, Endres' catalogue and descrip­

tion of his literary output remains the standard, although his attempts

to identify some of Honorius' dedications with particular individuals

of the time, have resulted in the ascription to Honorius of an improbably

'’ ■ ,p ■ - * '
generous span of activity, from England around 1100 to the Regensberg of
>r ‘ -

'abbots Christian (1153) and Gregory ( 1 1 5 6 - 8 5 ) Honorius' own list of

his works in De luminanibus ecclesiae indicates that he "flourished

under Henry V," or circa 1106-25. 12 His list is generally

r ’ to
taken

represent the approximate chronological order of his authorship. Thus,

the Elucidarium represents a first and youthful attempt at systematizing

theological questions about God, man, and the afterlife, large portions

of it depend on .the teachings of Anselm, and have been shown to reflect

t

Anselm!s doctrinal positions in the treatises De processione sancti

13
Spiritus and De concordia praescientiae et praedestinationis. The

second work on Honorius-’ list, the Sigillum sanctae Mariae, is equally

dependent on theological teaching in Canterbury around 1100, if not.

14 '' /
directly on Anselm. Next on Honorius' list is th.e Inevitabile, a

study of the problem of free will written In response to a Request for

■■ ■ 15
clarification of the issue as it was treated in the Elucidarium.

After this, comes a collection of sermons entitled Speculum ecclesiae,

V•
 105
o . * t _

v e * '

and the Offendlculum, on clerical immorality. Both these works show -

affinities'with th'e teachings and concerns current in Anselm’s Canter­

bury. / ■ - r

Other works listed by Honorius are less easy to associate with a

definite time or place. Portions of ttye Summa totius, Imago mundi.. and

Summa gloria reflect German, political history and issues. .The Gemma .

animae. Sacramentarium. and Eucharisticon are concerned with the divine 5i f '■

office and sacraments, and may have been written as probably in Germany “v

as in England.^ In addition to these works, Honorius lists two guides^

to Christian education, the Cognitio vitae and the Scala coeli. The

remaining items on his. list may be described as either exegetical

pieces or excerpted and summarized versions of earlier texts. The '

exegetical pieces include his .Genesis commentary,. Neocosmos, and

expositiones on the Psalter and Song of Songs.^ De anima et de Deo is

composed of excerpts from Augustine arranged in dialogue form, .and the

r
5
Clavis physicae is an abbreviated version of John Scottus Eriugena’s
18 *
Periphvseon. The Evangelia, Refectio mentium, and Pabulum vitae,-

also listed by Honorius, are apparently lost. '

A number of items not included in Honorius* list have been printed

under his name in volume 172 of Migne's Patrologia latina. Two of

these, the De soils affectibus and De philosophia mundi. are clearly

: *
not his work. The first is stylistically incompatible with Honorius'

other writings, and the second has been identified unquestionably’as

, ’■ 19 • .
the work of William of Conches-. Some of the others , including a

catalogue of Roman pontiffs and De haeresibus— a sort of pocket guide

to standard heresies— may be classed as material added to Honorius'

 — t ■ h 106

instructive and historical summae. Other items worth noting ar'e the

treatise~De anlmae exsilio et patria, 20 which bears a close relationship '

« T ,

to Honorius* .two works on Christian education, and the two libri of

*• i ’«*
* quaestiones, which reflect his concerns both withrelations between

monastic and secular clergy,and the cosmological questions raised in

• 21
his hexaemeral piece.
* ^
, When did Honorius* authorship cease? Endres, as we have seen,

believed him to have been active until well into the 1150s. Honorius'

. own world-history,the Summa totius, chronicles events up to the year

22 ' *
1137. He is referred to in the past tense in an Annales Palidensis
> • ’ 23
entry*1for 1144: "Fuit quidam solitarius nomine Honorius. . . . " it
is probably safe to say that his active life as an author extended from

|around 1100 to the mid or late 1130s, thus roughly paralleling that of

iRupert of Deutz, Abelard, and Hugh of Et. Victor.

1 r & a
: p • .

Honorius* wide-ranging interests and encyclopedic type of writing

htfve led some historians to characterize.him as a popularizer and

24
"magpie."' Certainly, Honorius frequently declares his intention*of

writing for the simpliciores and those whd have neither the-facilities
25
nor the-time for extended studies. Unlike his contemporaries, Rupert

and Abelard, his principal aim is to educate the ignorant, rather than

to enter into controversial dialogue with the learned. Nevertheless,

the opinions presented, and the manner in which they have been organized

are neither superficial npr haphazard. Honorius* programme, as stated

” '' ' ” ■%'
in the De animae exsilio et patria. is to bring the interior man from

the exile of ignorance home to the patria of wisdom, by means of an

- education in sacred scripture and; knowledge of the physical world.

 107

This twofold programme of education is" the unifying principle in

'v • *

Honorius' authorship, from the Elucidarium to the later systematic mid

exegetical works. It is, moreover, consistent with his dependence on

. 27
.the hexaemeral writings.Of Augustine And Eriugena, whose thought he
- .A' ' *
combines, with Macrobius-on the Somnium Scipionis and Caleidius* inter­

pretation of the Timaeus, to product his own characteristic account of

the material world and .the place of human beings in it. '

2. Background: Elucidarium
' o

Honorius composed his Elucidarium in the form of a dialogue

between magister and discipulus. The preface,.written in the rhymed

prose' for which He had a predilection, self-consciously explains the

occasion and intention of the work, the reason for his choice of title,

and the sources on which he .builds. Like Anselm in his prologue to

-t
,
&
the Proslogioh. Honorius explains that his composition is the result

of frequent requests by his colleagues (condiscipuli) for answers to.

28
some of their ^questions. The discussion was at first oral, but after­

wards, "so that (hfs) labour should be of benefit not only to the

-present age," Honorius decided to^transmit the issues in question to

posterity by writing fhem down.. The title, he continues, is intended

to indicate that "the obscurities of diverse matters a¥e elucidated in

30 *
it." As for the author himself, Honorius prefers to remain anonymous,

lest envy of the writer cause neglect of a useful work. The reader is'

assured by implication, however, of the orthodoxy that he may expect to

 find, since Honorius proposes to base his work on Christ as the corner­

stone, with prophetic authority, apostolic dignity, the sagacity of

commentators, and the skilful subtlety of the masters as his four.

31
supporting pillars. In other words, he will draw on the texts of
6
both Old and Nevj Testaments, as interpreted in the exegetical tradition

of the Fathers and the teaching of 'contemporary masters.

The three books of the Elucidarium are concerned with divinity,

the Church, and the future life. As we would expect from its title,

the third book deals with questions about the resurrection* and the

rewards or punishments to be expected in the afterlife. The second

bookv however, is less a tractate on ecclesiology than a discus’

sion of

the human, condition, after Adam’s fall. It includes a series of'ques­

tions about the-possibilities for salvation open to the various orders

v; o - ' • ' - , ’
• •
6: I ' '

of society Similar in outline to Honorius' Sermo generalis on the

. . . 30
orders of society and their various duties and obligations. In the
• ■ ’ ■ *. ' ’ \
first book, Honorius responds to questions about creation and redemption,

after a minimal presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His dis-

,rv
\ussion de divinis. rebus may, therefore, be understood more in terms

of the divine work on or for crea'tures, than as an attempt to treat of

the interior life of-.the Trinity. It should be noted that the dialogue

proceeds, throughout ^ on a decidedly elementary level, dealing primarily

in concrete'problems and employing the simple or vivid imagery that

would be most0apt to "impress the very young. The condiscipuli may well
•\A-C , * .. *
-have been oblate children or novices in the initial stages of instruction.

Incanswer'to the student's first question, "What"Is God?" the

master replies': "God isaa Spiritual substance of such inestimable beauty,

 such ineffable sweetness, that the angels— who are seven times more •

beautiful than the sun— constantly, insatiably desire to contemplate

33 ^ -
him." The notions of divine beauty and brilliance are carried ▼

through into subsequent questions about the Trinity, where Honorius

borrows, from Augustinethe metaphor of fire, splendour, and warmth,

unijted in one light, to explain the unity of Father, Son, and Holy
34 "
•Spirit. Thus, the Father is to be understood as- the origin or source
' .* - ’ -

‘from which all things proceed^-as splendour and warmth proceed from

fire—-while the Son is described as his splendour, or divine wisdom,

• v • ■ . 9 ,

* and the Holy Spirit as warmth, ordivine love. Each of the three'has

• a special relationship to createdthings:

• ■ * '

For that power of divinity which effects all things by

y f* - creating, is ^called the Father; but that which contains
all things lest they be dissolved into nothing, is named
•- the Son; what vivifies and orders everything by inspira­
tion is in fact named the Spirit." 0

The discussion then turns from these fairly sophisticated notions to

'the more childlike question: "Since omnipotence ■or supreme clemency are

predicated of the Father, why is he not called mother?” A motherhood

of God is excluded because "generation proceeds principallyjfrom the

father."36 Similarly, the Son cannot be a daughter, because the son

is more like the father than iS a daughter. Nor, finally, could the

Spirit be feminine or a daughter, since the Spirit is not a child, but

37
. the mutual love of Father and Son, proceeding equally from both.

After the omnipotence and omniscience of God have been established

through a further exchange of questions and responses, the dialogue

tums to/the problem of created origins. The student asks whether it

should be believed that God led a hind of solitary life, before the

creation Of the world, since God, unlike creatures., has no beginning.

In response, the master quotes John l;3-4^("Quod factum est, in ipso

vita erat"), and proceeds to show that ever y creature was "always

visible in divine predestination," but later became visible fo the creature

itself in creation, just as a house is first planned in the mind of the •

\
architect, beforeYthe actual work of construction.38> Thus, the Creator
' 39
is prior to the creature in dignity, though not in time.

Honorius takes the traditional Augustinian position in teaching,

further, that the creation of the world was caused by the goodness jgf
• •• . "

God, pnd done in the Word or Son. Moreover, heopts for a simultaneous
40
creation, on the basis of Ecclesiasticus 18:1. This simultaneous
. ' ■ \ *
production is distinguished into parts through the device of'a.six-day

narrative of creation, understood as the distinctions among three

elements and the three divisions of creation that correspond to those

elements. He describes the significance of the six days as follows:

On the first day, therefore, he-created the day of eternity,

namely spiritual light, and every spiritual creature. On ^
the second day he separated, heaven, which is a spiritual *
' creature, from the corporeal. On the third day, sea and dry
land. On the other three days, he created the following— on
* the first day, he made the temporal day, namely sun, moon'
and stars, in the supreme element, which is fire. On the
second day, he made fish and birds in the middle element,
which is water. And indeed, he left the fish in the denser
part of the water; the birds, however, he raised up into
the finer part of water, which is air. On the third day,
he established animals and man from the lastelement, which
is earth.^

Thus, the elements are the principle of material creation, to the extent

even, of providing part of the rationale for a six-day. sequence of works

 I'. •, •

I 1 < «. ' °‘

!i ■ ■ - ’ o' '

} - •■••••' lii

I. . • . -; ‘ \ •
the student's1next question inquires into the relationship between the
* *
creature composed of elements, and the Creator: "Are the elements

“ « sensitive to God?” .The master's

o tt' answer describes a world in which

everything that exists, is somehow alive, in the sense that it is

capable of responding to the Creator:

^ God never made anything that might be insensible. For

> ^ the things that .are inanimate, are indeed insensible and
^ dead to us; to God, however, all live end all are sensi-
• % ■' tive. to thevCreator. Heaven, indeed, perceives him,
i because at his command it always circles with a ceaseless
• ‘ revolution. . . . The sun, mooh and stars perceive him,
because by serving (him) they return inerrantly to their
„ appointed places. .The earth, is sensitive to him, because
it always produces fruits and seeds at a certain time.
Rivers sense him since they always return to the place
. . whence they flow. The sea and the wind are sensitive to him;,
because they at once obey his command by becoming still. The
"dead are sensitive to him, because at his command they
rise'again. The infernal region perceives him, because'
1 . at his- command it gives back those whom it devoured. All
. brute animals understand God, because they continually
! keep the law implanted by him in them. . .
!’ ^ • .c>5.. » ■ ■
i. Honorius' source has been identified by Yves Lefeyre as Gregory's.tenth
: . . *
^ , 43
j homily on the Gospel; While Gregory speaks only of the responses i.n'
'• • ^ ' ; • - 1
natural objects to Christ's incarnate presence and miracle-working^.

power, Honorius expands the thought implied in his source to proluce a

■ ■ • , ’ ' - ■ i

, . concept of cosmic receptivity to the divine will that is not so' much

passive opennes^ to manipulation, as active obedience to a word or

(r .■ . . ',- ' .
command. The distinction between natural and supernatural processes
• J .it

is thus subsumed under ageneral creaturely obedience to theCreator.

In the section thatfollows, Honorius recapitulates bytaking up

a series of questions and^responses concerning the creation and fall

' * . ' '

! ■ 7 -
of the angels. The universe is described in terms of a royal domain:
.■II

1
 112
” 0 ►
■f'i
God, the king, first created fer himself a palace, or the kingdom of

heaven. Next,*he constructed the world as a prison, with the infernal

^ *• j\ AA *
regions as the lowest part of all, a "cesspool of "death*11 A certain'
f *
number of "elect soldiers," Including both hujgfeh beings and angels,

were predestined to serve in the palace. Of these, nine orders would

• • • 45
be angels, and a tenth would‘be humanbeings. The nine orders of

angels were constituted to correspond to three times three, in honour

.-ft . • .
of the Trinity, while the tenth order|t(of human brings, was added in
' 46 *
honour of divine unity. Both angels and human beings were created
j
for the heavenly palace, it is explained, because God wished to receive '
47
the praises of both spiritual and corporeal creatures.

The angels, according to Honorius' explanation,, vfere produced when.

God said, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3). They are by nature

spiritual fire, and contain "such knowledge that they do not need

names," but are.given names, in some instances, for the benefit of human
"48 ' '- , p■
understanding. Those who fell, were impelled by pride in theif aim

excellence, and cast down\into the "prison" or corporeal world.^ They

are neither restored nor redeemed, but remain irrecoverably fallen. In

reply to the
« student's question,
. why God did not create them in
£ • such a
c ,. - * *^
way that they could not sin, the master answers that God created them

as' he did, on account of his justice,' so that a free choice of obedience

' • 50 '' .
could be suitably rewarded. Much of this corresponds to'ttye tradi-
tional Augustiniaa^interpretation adopted and elaborated by Anselm in
51
Cur Deus homo. . For his answer to the student’s next question, however,
•» ' °

Honorius utilizes a passage in Gregory's Morelia to develop further his

; . . . » i ’ '■ - %

notion of the universe as a harmonious totality devised by God and open

 • ' .4 ■ ■ „ 113
»■ ' A. '.•.'* ’’ ' ' '>/ ' . * ..; 1 - .... 7 -V.V"
A'.:- - •
. ' .i /■
' ■
' •":■
:' ' C »Vi:"
■;
■■■■'■ V- \7v. ■
" 77.--V
, to God's creative^interventions

- Student* -When God knew..that they would be like that',

why did he ■create them?
• -Master: For-the sake of decorating his work. For just
as the-painter lays black as a ground-colour, sc^that
the *ihite or red may seem more precious, so the just - -
become more brilliant, by comparison-with the wicked.^2

Further questions are raised concerning .angelic and demonic know-

ledge and the form-in which 'they-were created. The demons or fallen

angels; have a.higher degree of knowledge than human beings, insofar as

their nature is more subtle than human nature. Thus, they are/more

skilful in all the,arts than any human-being.0 Their knowledge of future

'events is, however?, limited to what can be gathered from present or

7 ■ / ■ . ~ 53
experienced things, and to what God may reveal to them of the future.

The angels who did not fall, retained and were confirmed in their .
• :.:.7'-A. ■’ ;■ ■ " • ■-
original goodness. As Such, they are formed to be like God. Using a

metaphor that was to be adopted by Abelard in his explication of the ...

V' ■ • &' • ** 54
generation of the Son nnd the formation of God's image in man,

'Honorius describes their nature as'xap- "express .likeness of God," farmed

V ■ 5 . '
in them "as the image of wax is imprinted by the seal:" This likeness

- dbhtists in their origin as spiritual light, their incorporeal.nature,

9, * . > *•
'and their ornamentation with every beauty.- Angelic knowledge, unlike
/ "*?r ~ ^
that of^the demons;'is unlimited, since they contemplate all things' in
^ ^ ' ' . * S..

God.56 > . '- " ~

•**'’ ^ a ■*'**' -
At this point, the question of human nature is introduced. Hono,-

rius states that humanity was created as a tenth order for the sake-of
- ■ *•*
filling Che. numbej: of the elect, thereby leaving open the question,.
 -r-

■ '• ' / - . ( S ' „

whether human beings were created for their own sake, or merely as an

emergency replacement for the rebel angels Ttie human creature was,

at any rate ,> produced from a combination of spiritual and corporeal

0 1 A
substances, i£s a corporeal being, man was composed of the four elements-
r> ’ • 6 _ *’ . ' -

— hence, he may'be called microcosmos. The component'parts of this

F

microcosmos are listed in detail:

!
(He is formed) from the four elements; hence also he is
called microcosmos, that is, a lesser world. For he has
flesh; from earth, blood from watefc, breath from air, heat
from fire'. His head is roUnd in the manner of the celes­
tial. Sjphere; in it shine two eyes, like the two luminaries
in heaven; and seven openings also ornament it, like the
seven harmonies of heaven. The breast, in which breathing
and ’coughing, are found, is like the air, in which winds
and thunder are roused. The belly receives all fluids, as
the pea (receives) all rivers.‘ The feet sustain.the whole
weight of,the'body, as the earth (sustains) all things.
Frop celestial^ fire he has vision, from the upper air?
hearing, from the lower, smell, from water; taste, and
from earth’, touch. He partakes of the hardness of stones
in his bones, .the toughness of trees in his nails, the
elegance of grasses in his hair, (and) sense with the
animals.58 f”

Honorius' principal sources for this extraordinary description of homo

’• 59 ,
microcosmos are probably Calcidius. and Macrobius, although some of

it's ingredients may come from Isidore and Augustine, as well. His
: *
treatment of the spiritual part of man is, however, basically Augus-

tinian: loan's spiritual nature is formed, like the angelic nature, from

spiritual fire. Ih it are found the image and likeness of God., The ■&&

image is received in the form, while likeness resides in qualify or

quantity. 60 The image is therefore to be discerned in the three facul­

' 1

ties of the soul— memory, intelligence and will— by which it was given

a trinitarian structure.Likeness to God consists in the soul's

• ' / ’ ' 1 ' .
I■* ' 'S'"
■-V 1' : ^ ■ -- '■
0
•' - 7 ;• 1 •
 115

capacity for all virtues, by which it may grow in quality to. resemble
l" ' ' ' ' 62 ' *
God, in whom every yirtue is established. Finally, there is a -

similarity to God in the soul's capacity for knowledge and knowability,

since the soul, like God, comprehends all corporeal things, but is
,* 63
itself incomprehensible by the corporeal senses.

The, human being, composed in this way|of corporeal and spiritual

substances, was formed by the word of divine command; thus, the descrip­

tion in Genesis 2:7 of Adam's formation by God from the dust of the

earth is pot to?be taken literally, but to be understood as a way of

.9 ' 64•
indicating the fragility of human nature. Adam was produced from

the "vile matteir" of earth for the purpose of humiliating and confounds
^ .

ing thedevil, whowas to seethis"fragile, muddything" enter into ‘

the glory from which hefell.^ The name,Adam, isexplained as‘ap

^ji^ronym standing for four Greek words fpr the four climates of the

world (anathole, disis, arctos.

"■ ’ — — — mesembria). since Adam was created to *
.
■t f ' *

rule the four quarters of the world, in a kind of likeness to God, who
" 66 * - v
rules the universe. V

Aniamls are said to have been created for the twofold purpose of

providing fo£ human needs after the fall,, and demonstrating the glory
■< ‘ ' < $ * j ✓- ■’ o

of Gpd. The student is assured that God "displayed as much* diligence

^ g y
in the formation of. flies and ants, as in the creation angels.11

Pestilential creatures like flies and fleas were produced to! teach
. .Vk, " } .- ,, g g ■.
humap beings humility, while ants would sa^,,an example of industry.

In this way, all creatures are understood to -have some use, if only,

through the moral conclusions to be drawn from their natures:

 i
X
116

Great Is the delight, therefore, In considering all God's

creation, when there is .beauty in some things— as in
flotg-ersj medicine ih some— as in herbs; food in some— as
in bruits; significance in others— as in worms or birds.
.Accordingly, everything is good and everything is created
for theXsake of man.^9

The dialogue moves on to a consideration of the paradise narrative,

from the formation of Adam to the fall. It should be noted that in the

course of this discussion, the questions and answers are framed in a

way that indicates that the Genesis text had been read or was being

read by.the interlocutors. Thus, the content of the Biblical t.ext is

the Basis of the dialogue, but the text itself is not the object of

word-for-word analysis. Paradise is described as. an actual location

on earth, "a most.delightful place in the East" (locus amoenissimus in

oriehte? where the tree6 would have borne fruit to remedy hunger,

thirst, weariness, and alf kinds of infirmity. Similarly, the condition

of the..first human couple is treated as an historical part of the

initial perfections in material creation. Their physical existence is

described in terms of the qualitative differences between life before

and after the fall— before the fall,, sexual union would have been as
♦ w
unexciting as a handshake,'*'while childbirth would have occurred without

pain or filth.^ Had an infant been born before the fall, he would

have been able to walk and speak ■from the moment of, birth. 72 It is

further explained that human beings were intended to multiply in para­

dise until th§3% had filled the number of fallen angels and elect human
«
beings. One generation would have replaced another, as they do after

the fall, but the departure of the older generation— at about age ■
73
thirty— would have been by a kind of assumption, rather than death.
 The first couple were, however, seduced by the'-devil and cast out

of paradise for their transgression. It is explained that while the

' 74
devil acted out" of envy-, human sin was essentially a failure or

refusal to obey the will of G o d . T h e temptation itself is said "to

have been permitted by God "because he foreknew how 'much good was to

be produced from that sin."76 Nevertheless, the fflagister goes on to

demonstrate the enormity of the transgression by pointing out that

since the will of the Creator is greater than the whole world that he

created, the disobedience of Adam was a fault so grave that the whole
77 9
world could not re4eem it. Indeed, Adam— having shown contempt for

his Lord an<l failed in his duty of obedience— was obliged somehow to
c

provide satisfaction for his sin and to restore divine honour, in order

to fulfil the requirements of justice and free himself from the devil.

Once these Anselmian foundations have been established, the dialogue

continues into a presentation of Christ's incarnation and saving work,

* 78
drawing principally on Anselm's teaching in Cur Deus homo. This dis­

cussion takes up the rest of book one.

To conclude, let us look briefly at book two. It extends the

a '
discussion of the life and work of Christ, begun in book one, into the

present condition and existence of the Church and human society, begin­

ning with the problem of evil in the present world. Honorius follows

Augustinian-Anselmian doctrine by pointing out that all that God made,

is good— evil is therefore not a substance like God's creatures, which

are good, but instead presents itself as the absence of good, in the

same way that shadows are the absence of light. To explain, he offers
» »
a definition of creatura, natura, and factura. the three categories
into which everything that exists or is done may be distinguished:

There are three things: the creation, nature, and deeds;

the creation being the elements, nature being what is
born from them, things done being what angel or man does
or suffers. They do sins; they^suffer the penalty of
sin— these things God did not make, but permitted to
happen, as it is said: 'God did not make death' (tfisd. of
of Sol. 1:13).79 ' ‘ •

% »
Thus, sin pertains to rate factura or secondary creation of men and

angels, and is defined as a deed done by man, incited by the devil, and
80
dishonouring to God. God does not approve the existence of evil in

any part of creation, but turns its occurrence to his own praise by
81 -
subjectingitto. just penalty. Nevertheless, the penalty is compa-
* ■ . o.
tible, according to Honoriuswith divine love for creatures, since the
^ ■
Creator is free to dispose each part of his work in the place that he
'82 °
has chosen for It, whether in heaven or in hell.

At this point, the student asks, "what is free will?" The master

responds: "To be in the power of man to will and to.be able to do good
> ■ •
or evil. In paradise; man had a free, but now has a captive (will),

since he does not will.the good without the prevenient grace of God, ‘
‘83
nor can he do It, unless (grace) supports himj" The discussion con­

tinues through the complexities of human0obedience either to God or the

devil— with special reference to clerical Immorality— and questions

about predestination, original sin, and the consequences of sin. The

text of this section is peculiarly disjointed, since the discussion

moves rapidly from one topic to another. Moreover, variations among

• » ^

the manuscript readings appear to be more numerous and extensive in

this section than elsewhere. When the student eventually asks about
 119

the production of new souls, the master explains that God created

everything once and simultaneously through matter, but afterwards

distinguished everything according to species. Accordingly, souls were

created from the beginning in invisible matter (in invisibili materia),

but are daily formed according td species, and sent into the figure of

bodies, a process that pertains to the continuous creative work of

84
John 5:17 ("Pater meus usque modo operatur The student then
*
expresses astonishment that God, who created good and holy souls,.
K

should condemn them to hell when the— presumably unbaptized—-body dies.

To this, the master offers a response that seems to owe more to Macro-

bius than to Augustine:

God, from whom all goodness and holiness (exists), created

only good and holy souls, and they nathrally desired to
enter a body, as we naturally desire to live. But indeed,
when they entered that unclean and polluted vessel,, they
embraced it with such .avidity, that they loved' it mote
than God. It is Just, therefore, that God should exclude
them from his company, when they preferred that filthy
vessel, or father prison, to the love of God.85

The .master's subsequent interpretation of baptism is consistent with

this pessimistic view of the body: .1-

* ■ ' 1 e> ■ . *
In baptism, the interior and exterior man are sanctified,
btit his seed becomes unclean again through carnal appe-
Lte.®6

Thus, the transmission of original sin and the,need ,for infant baptism

are explained according to the strictest Augustinian interpretation.:

although the infant is not responsible for the carnal appetites experi­

enced by his parents, their sin is transferred to him as his share in

 ■ “ . . . . 120
1

87
the guilt of Adam. . „

It is against this sombre background that Honorius proceeds to.

discuss the states of life on earth, marriage, ecclesiastical office,

^y£nd the orders of society. Each order haa its place in the totality

of human society, but all are constrained by the fallenness of their

i

existence, the risk of damnation, and the need for divine grace.

3. Hexaemeron: Neocosmos
\

Like the Elucidarium. Honorius' Neocosmos is written for a specific

* <* '
audience. In the prologue, Honorius indicates that he has been asked

to.present the most eminent interpretation ad litteram of the hexaemeron

The request has been made on behalf of naive beginners (simplices), who

find the diversity of opinions about the six days confusing and obscure.

,, Honorius promises to follow the major authorities, and offers his work
■• “ - t ■
88 <-
as an elucidarium of the text's obscurities.
' •* ■ « '

The commentary consists of two distinct parts, the first of which

is a brief Interpretation of Genesis 1 on the”literal level, -followed

by an interpretation of the six days in terms of the six ages of world

. . o ’ *»•
♦history. As Crouse has shown, Honorius' authority for these sections

is,Bede's Hexaemeron, from which a number 6*f passages are quoted

89
verbatim. The second part is described by Honorius as a summary for

beginners of Augustine's opinion on the six days, and is presented in

the form of a second complete hexaemeron. As in the Elucidarium. the

Genesis text is the basis for Honorius' treatise, but his-method is less
 an exposition of the text than a drawing out of the implications to be
J o s
found in its structure and contents. Both sections of the work are

written in Honorius' characteristic rhyming prose.

> r

The Hexaemeron for Beginners

The first section begins with an accessus ad auctorem designed to

show "why Moses wrote about the fall of man, but suppressed the fall oij
90
the angels." It is explained that every author structures his work
*' '

with a view to"harmonious presentation, so that the material matches

the intention. Moses, too, must be understood to have tailored his

material to fit his intention, omitting the creation and fall of the

angels because these are extraneous to his intention of writing a figural

91
account of.the restoration of humanity through Christ. Thus, the
‘ '
literal sense of the text is a narrative of creation, but it must be
a

understood t § carry a second, typological meaning, since Moses "sets

down nothing except what corresponds figurally to Christ or the Church."92

For example, the opening Verses of the Genesis text, "in principio . . ."
\ . '

not only assert that all things were created in Christ, but also teach
93
that in Christ all things -ate subsequently to be restored. Similarly,

the culmination of Moses' narrative in the liberation of Israel from

Pharaoh and their entry into the promised land, signifies the culmina-

tion of salvation history, ;when.,.the Church enters its promised land, or

94
heaven. ^

It is customary in the accessus to describe an author's intentio,

95
materia, and .modus tractandi. Having dealt with the author's intentio
 122

,' and, by Implies,tlon, narrative modus traetandi, Honorius proceeds to

*
make a brief but complex statement about materia. The term is used

initially in a double sense,-both'to mean literary material, and as a

punning reference to the matter from which.the sensible world (sensilis

^ *I 11— 1 '"
mu n d p was'created. The distinctive phrase, sensilis mundi, is derived,
u '*■ ■ '** 96
directly or indirectly, from Calcidius' commentary, on ,the Timaeus. ..
■ ■ 1 : ■ . ' ' ‘ . , ■'
Honorius combines it with the Eriugenian notion of a-fall through sin

from the spiri ;ual into the material or corporeal realm of existence,
' •'
»" g \ &

in order to sh aw how Moses* treatment of material creation contains and

prefigures the history of spiritual re-creation or liberation:

But his material is this sensible world, into which man ■7

was thrust after the fall, and the advent of the only-
begotten of God into this world, maker of the world and
Hirator of humankind. ®7

H,1
-New Testament is, accordingly, to be understood as both the

continuation of the Old Testament, and the solution to the mysteries ■

related in it. This parallelism is illustrated with reference to the

opehing verses of both Testaments: ,

For this reaspn, too,-both begin from the-beginning "

(principium), since the one begins; *in the beginning
God created heaven and earth,* while the other begins,
'in the beginning was the Word.' For the Gospel of
John is placed first in the canon.®®

Both Testaments are understood.to bear witness to the consubstantiality

and coequality of the Son withr the Father. The prophet Moses describes

the Son as principle, with all things created in him, while John the

apostle speaks more precisely of the Father as principle, the Son .remain-

•... *
 123.

ing eternally and co-equally in him, and all things made through the
c
Son.,99
a
V
v ' * •» ' . - Q

Turning to the*'opening verses of the Genesis text, Honorius inter-

- prets them with reference to the Trinity and the relationship"of each

Person to created6 things. The first verse is understood to mean that

. . .

God the Father created all things— celestial and terrestrial, visible
«

‘and invisible— simultaneously in the Son.3'®®. Genesis 1:2 ("Et Spiritus

** * * 4
domini ferebatur super aquas"), is interpreted in terms.of the verb

fovebat,-or' "brooded," as an expression for the Spirit's life-giving

presence to everything*that was to be produced from the waters.3’®3'.

In this way, creation of the world is ascribed to the Father,' the

* 102-
ordering of things to the Son, and vivification to the Holy Spirit.
• t
. " A t this point, Honorius recapitulates with a literal exposition of-

* key words and phrases. The creation of.heaven and earth in principio

signifies the simultaneous (in momento) creation of all things, both

corporeal and incorporeal. Heaven is to be understood as the name for

e '

■incorporeal creation, including angels "and all spiritual beings which

* 103 ^ •
are-not visible to us." .Earth is the word for corporeal creation,
c ' ° 9
including the corporeal heavens, and all things perceptible to the

senses.^®^ .Alternatively, in principio may indicate that the credtion'

of heaven and earth was pfior in-time to the creation'of other things,

since it is described as happening first. The earth, or corporeal

creature, is said to have been "empty and void," since it was empty of

fruits and fpsid of animals. .By contrast, the upper heaven, or spiritual

realm, must be understood to have been fully populated with angels as.

soon as it was created•v'foflowing Bede, Honorius identifies the angels

 0

- 124

yith the morning stars and sons of God in Job 38:7. 105 He then

parallels their praise of God’s creative work in the beginning with

the praises of the "evening stare," or elect human beings .glorified

XQ6 ' * ‘L
in the resurrection. As we shall see, this interpretation of heaven

and its inhabitants becomes the key to Honorius' sectind or Augustinian

hexaemeron.

After these preliminaries, Honorius proceeds to describe the forma-

tion of earth, or the corporeal realm. Its condition at the moment

when it was first produced is summed up in the clause, "and there was
’ ° ^ *
darkness over the face of the abyss" (Genesis 1:2), which he understands

to signify that earth was an immense, open abyss of praters. He is

careful to note that the darkness was not a creature i but merely the

absence of light. The whole shadowy mass described in the Genesis

* N
text, thd^efore, is to be understood as the chaos or unformed matter

from which the world was shaped. The elements were not entirely
a 1
t ■

indistinct, but arranged in a kind of inverted order:

The earth was circumscribed by thd same limits as now,

but entirely covered with waters: and its appearance was
the same as it is now under the depths of the ocean.
Moreover, fire was hidden in stones and iron; air, indeed,
inhered confusedly both in earth and in water. But water
covered the whgle surface of the earth, and filled the
entire space up to heaven, joining itself to the upper
waters which were as yet abbve the heavens. It was° not
condensed, however, into the density that we know now,
but diffused in the manner of a fine c l o u d . ^08

To this'mass of elements, come the formative commands of the

Creator. Honorius points ot^t that where the text reads, "God said . °. ."

it must be understood to speak "according to our manner," or metaphorically

 of the effectiveness in the divine Word through which all things were

created. 109 Through this-Word, the physical process of ‘formation was-

effected in orderly stages. Thus, the first word of creation produced ‘

corporeal light by releasing the element of fire into the world. This

element shone out with a kind of pre-dawn gloi*} in the primordial,

waters, illundhing them as the sun now illumines air. It circled the

.earth, thereby producing the twenty-four hour day, with twelve hours

of light-on, one side of the earth, followed, by twelve hours of darkness,

- ti- - ixo
or the division between light>and'dark in the Genesis text. Both the-

commendation and the naming-of things at the end of each day are inter­

preted, following Bede, as instruction given to the rational creature,

so that-— for example— he might know with reference to light' that "all
I in- 1
things are good, tfhat he perceives through light." Moreover, the

' light that begins)and ends each day is th be figurally identified with

Christ, "who is the true light," and the source and end of all
0 . \
.. 112 ‘-
creation. 1’ O • .

- Honorius accepts-Josephus’ interpretation of the firmament as a

t - .. S
solidification of the upper watery into the crystalline density from
.• dfc * 113^. .

which the name, "crystalline heaven" is derived. The wafers above

• '* - - * ’ ■ v
the firmamdntV he continues, retain their vaporous form, while- the

waters below were condensed into their present liquid form. Thus, the

congregation of the waters and the appearance of dry land are understood
" . 'V : ” ■■ \ • '
as natural processes by which the condensation of vapour into liquid

'caused the watery areas tp shrink and retreat, leaving the hitherto
' "V;. . v
muddy lapd to dry and become apt for germination. J Once the space between

^ heaven and e.arth had been cleared of water-vapour, lire and air were
 126'

released upward, '.'freely (occupying) their proper places. But Indeed/

fire naturally filled the higher, and air the lower world, and then

everything would have been more clearly illumined by the newly-created

S '
light J ’ Honorius then closes his explanation op thC second and
* V
third days work with a summary description, drawn from Bede, of the

water cyhle^ by which rivers empty into the ocean, and water-vapour is

.drawn by the sun from the'ocean, only to descend again as rain.3’*"*

The formation and placement of the heavenly luminaries follows the

division of waters and germination of the earth. These -luminaries^, are

placed within the world below the sphere of the firmament,- with the sun
& ■ * ‘ ' 1 ‘
iii the middle Ij?rt cbe moon in the sphere of air'/ and the ^

planets in their various orbits. The stars, meanwhile,' are said to have
■w ' . ■ *y
been fixed in the firmament. At this point, Honorius breaks off his

commentary, on the text to point out how the many ternaries in the
■) • ■ ■ $
creation narrative serve to show that all' things are brought to per- \ S
r' ' ' •• ' ■' - ' $ ■
.
fection through tjhe Trinity, iIn so doing, he offers a summary of7the >

six-day work understood as a series of transformations produced in the

r _ ** \
elements: ' * *

For „the elements were perfected in three days, and in ^

three days the things that follow them were perfected.
’For indeed heaven and earth were created .in the beginning
from nothing into matter, (and) fire and air were hidden
in the earth by waters. Then, on the first day, light
shone out from fire; on the second day the heavens were
solidified from water in the form of crystal; on $he third,
earth was established and water separated from it, while
the .earth itseif was ornamented with flowers and groves.
On the$fourth day, the heavens and the, upper air were
illumined by sun, moon and stars produced from fire. 1On
the fifth day, the lower air was made fruitful with birds,
the' Water, with. fish. On the sixtfh day, the earth was #
burdened with animals produced .from it.^-^
* » £* •
 By treating air as an intermediate stage between the ^elemehts. of fire

and water, Honorius is able to speak of three principal,, elements.

These mirror the triune, nature of God by their existence as a kind of

material trinity from which corpdreal natures derive,and, on which they

are founded), Having made these points about the elements that were
^ o '

ordered oh the first three days, Honorius proceeds to describe the

completion of the material world in the final*three days.

- - In interpreting the production of the. celestial luminaries',,Hono­

rius notes-that the moon was formed from a mixture of fire and water,* .

so that the heat* of Undiluted fire should not scorch the neighbouring.,
„ ’• * - # o.'

earth! This' mixed composition *>f the moon explains both the shadows,

that appear on its surface, and its reflection of alight borrowed from
1.19 ^
the sun. „ The function of both sun and moon as "signs arid .times" is .
» , r . V **

•* \ "v- % - - ■
/explained in terms of their use to establish the date of-Easter, seasoris

of the year, and the cycles of lunar and solar yea^s. They, are under­

stood, as well, to serve as travellers' guides and. indicators; of

'••••. ion • '■
climatic changes.

The production on the fifth day of birds and reptiles.from water -

is interpreted by Honorius with „reference-to the vivifying movement ibf ;

the Spirit over the Waters on the first day: ' ,

■ '■><.’ - . • *

. - ' • ' - x ' ' ■

Here Scripture discloses, why the Spirit of Gq.d Jjrpoded vt

over the waters; doubtless, because.he wished to produce
living things from that element first, and to make fruit- •
ful all of that admixture.121

Fish and reptiles were permitted to remain in the waters, but birds were

made to fly up into the air. Because the lower air, itt which clouds and
 ; tempests are formed, is understood to be an extension of the element
1 $ * ■ 5 1, • ' i ■
'" ’ •' * ' ' '’ ! ’
t''
water, both birds and fish may- be said to‘live in the element from

which they -originated, although theyoCCupy different forms of it. The

uppei Atmosphere, or aether, is more akin £<f-the element fire. Accord-

’ ing to Honorius and his sources, it remains in perpetual light and

■■■. 1 - * ; ;.. .' ■ ■ ■ v*
tranquillity', Since only the air is obscured'bynthe earth 's shadow at

night. In the higher regions of the air^mhere it comes closest to the

aetherial fire, its winds are said occasionally tea toftw down 'spsfks1
^ ■
. ,. • o' -Cl * a $
: ,v v v ^ fy •*
from the aether, thus producing the phenomenon of falling stars. /•/■*

OnCe the three species of animais**hnidstd , feptifd's>- .and serpenta '

■■ V ■■ .>■"■■■ ■■■
— have been produced, all things necessary fOr human existence are- -;-

^present, rind the;human creature itself is produced from earth to govern

earthly creatures. The creation of the human;beipg dn the divine image

■ ' ; ?' -
, , ,
7' '*
*
si • o4 , . «:
rind likeness is understood 'to indicate that he is k "celestial - -
- . ■ ' ' ■ : ■ v '
animal," distinct from other animals by virtue of reason and intel-
; J \ ; .“ -• ; ■ 'f ■ 4 p.. ”• -• , , ;
lect.;>fMoreover, .he occupies a unique position in the udivefiS, insofar
■ "V-v '.V. . ■ '' .

,-as he participates in some aspect of every creature--and is destined to

; . ;Vv - • . " '-•-'.'If- /,'■
participate, at the-Incarnation, in the life of the Creator:, "
' -I. rfit, ,• . " v .

- And because Gbd decided to be joined to him at home time,

he gave him participation in every creaturd: namdly, tp ■
a■?: S -5 i discern with'the angels, to feel With the animals,’ to gfow
with grass and trees, to be with stones. His body whs
compacted of the .-four elements, his soul .filled with wis­
dom,- and he surpassed every corporeal creature
«- i:’
C
“ w : ■I'" V • ' 4 ' f ~ i 1 .-.-

Apart from what it says about; the first Adam as microcosmos. this . i\

passage bears theyimplication that with the unidri^of divine and human

natures in the* second Adam, a kind of cosmic -redemption was prepared.

 ,•*

* ^ 129

This is important in view of the interpretation of the fall which

follows. First, Honorius describes the first human being in terms

indicating that.he:was created in a corporeal and intellectual perfec-

-I * -- -
tion surpassing an§ human excellence found after the fall. The first
■' '
sin is understood, therefore, to have effected a deterioration in both

thje corporeal and-the spiritual condition of man. Because he is the

microcosmos at the heart of the universe, man's fall is understood, in

consequence, to haVd5'had disastrous .effects on the order of nature:

“Before sin, man had all.things in subjection; afper sin,

'. indeed," he was himself subject to all things. Before £he
crime 'of man, the earth produced nothing noxious, no
, poisonous herb, no sterile tree: afterwards, in the punish-
. ment of' man, it introduced poison into herbs, removed fruit
k., ‘ b •' from trees. Formerly, birds did hot live on prey, nor did
wild beasts mangle the lesser animals lor food, but all
. alike-ate the grasses of the earth for n o u r i s h m e n t . ^ 2 6
-. 9 ■' b
\ \
i . • ■

Proof of the peaceable vegetarian coexistence among animals before the

fall of man
•-
is found in the universal
-r*
mandate of Genesis 1:29-30 ("Ecce
.i
' ■; l '
■ '* ■„ . ' ■ ’ ‘I.''!
dedi .."), in which ^both animals, and human beings are given the ^

fruits of the earth to eat. Commenting on the final commendation,

• v, ■ " ■
' ^ ;
< * ' $1 '
Honorius paraphrases Augustine:
; '’ ' ' 'I.
'1 ' ■■ ■ ;Jf? • - f ' ' „
„

All things that God made, considered in themselves, are

\ i' individually good, but theyare very good when included
■
9 in the universal: because; although ope may seem contrary
/" to another, each particular one nevertheless proves
necessary. ^ 7 ’

1 At this poirft, it becomes impossible to-avoid the problem of eVil

in creatures created good by.God. How are the spiritually evil nature

of the devi'l,; and the corporeally evil-nature of serpents and other -

« ' ' .‘V

’ ” e, .

■ ■ •o
; - ft
poisonous or harmful beasts, to be explained? First, it is noted that

the devil was created good, but became evil by his'own- decision.
■f. I ■
1
Nevertheless, he and .other harmful beings have a useful purpose in
J
"God's republic," since they serve to punish justly the adversaries of

God. Finally, the venom of the serpent is not entirely evil, since it
128 ■ r - *
has a good medicinal use. vf

The Days of Creation and the Ages of World History

Honorius returns to the notion of a double meaning in the'Genesis

text by interpreting the significance of God's rest on the seventh day

through a comparison With the "eighth" day, or Sunday, when Christ's

resurrection took place. The seventh day of rest and consummation means
t |
that just as God is said to have completed the creation of the world on

the seventh day, so also the world's history is to expend for seven
129 • -
thousand years. Just as God rested on the seventh day from the
.V
formation of earth, so also the bodieA of the just are said to rest in

their graves, while their souls rejoice after the'labour of terrestrial

existence. The seventh day, moreover,' is to° be understood as' the day

of judgement, on which the work of the Church is completed, and itsis

rewarded with eternal rest. The "eighth" day, which is also the first,

surpasses creation week because it is to be understood as the beginning

of eternity for the saints ^^^^^^^einning of a. second octave after '

the seven thousand Vears of woSd^ftSrory. This new era, which belongs

only to the believing or elect , is unimaginable in terms Of the present

age, since in it "one day is believed to be better than a thousand"

 130
(cf. Psalm 83:11). Finally, Honorius interprets the seventh and

eighth days to imply, respectively, the seven gifts of the Spirit and

thb eight beatitudes. It may not be without significance for this

interpretation that the gifts of the Spirit are enumerated in an Old

Testament text (Isaiah 11:1-3), while the beatitudes are found in the
0
New Testament (Matt. 5:3-10). The rest on the seventh day is under­

stood,. accordingly, t© imply the soul's resting in the seven gifts of

the Holy Spirit, while the eighth day expresses the eternal rest
131
promised in the eight beatitudes.

The bridge between Honorius' first and second hexaemeron is a

summary interpretation of the seven days as the seven ages of the world,
,! i " . 132
modelled on the version in Bede's Genesis commentary. Thus, the

first day, on which light was created, parallels the first age, in which

man was placed in paradise to enjoy the eternal light of sinless exist­

ence. This day ends with the flood. The second age, paralleling the

day on which the firmament of waters was set in place, is understood

as the age in which humanity was saved from the deluge in Noah's ark.

This day, according to Honorius, ended with the destruction by fire of

1 ■ ' -s
133
Pentapolfs, or Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Wisd. of Sol. 10:6). The

third day, on which water was separated from dry land, parallels the

age in which3 the believing Abraham and his descendants were separated

from unbelievers, and. Israel Was distinguished from other nations by

the Law. The fourth age is adorned with the reigns of David and

Solomon, paralleling the production of sun and moon on the fourth day.

The animals produced on the fifth day to live partly in water and partly

in the air, are understood to be paralleled by the divided Israel,

partly exiled and partly freed from the Babylonian captivity.' This

age is said to end with the invasion of Judaea by gentiles. On the

sixth day, man was created from the earth, as ^Christ, in-the sixth age,

was born from the Virgin Mary. The animals produced on thqt day are

undeleted to parallel/the believers called by Christ to the "pastures

134
of life" and fed with his body. Evening of the sixth day is equated

with the end of the world in fire, while the dawn of the seventh day is
-• V ^

understood to be the beginning of eternity and God's rest in his, saints.

To the "day" of eternity there is, therefore, no end or evening.

•

The "Augustinian" Hexaemeron

Honorius* sedond hexaemeron is a fairly free adaptation of some of ,

the principal thoughts in Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram and Confes-

siones 12 to 13, selectively combined to produce an interpretation that

■* ■ than Augustinian. 2.36 He begins
°
is more Eriugenian in flavour by noting

that the principium in Which all things were created is to be identified

with the Son, or divine wisdom. In him, God the Father created b6th

spiritual and corporeal beings simultaneously, as.the texts of Ecclesi-

asticus 18:1 and John 1:3-4 would appear to indicate. These texts,

according to Honorius' version of the Augustinian interpretation, must

be understood to mean that "all that was subsequently, made, materially

and formally, always existed in the Word of God, causally and by pre-
137' * .
destination." Heaven and earth. therefore, axe the comprehensive

names for all creatures, of which the angelic nature was the first to

be produced.
 In oblique allusion, perhaps, to the question of a pre-existing

or co-eternal matter, Honorius notes that it should not be supposed

that any insensible nature was produced by God before the creation of

the angels, since every sensible nature is said to be more worthy than

the insensible. For this reason, the creation of angels is understood

to be implied in.the production of heaven at the beginning of creation,

since this heaven is to be identified with the heaven of heavens that

M-
is the dwelling-place of God, rather .than the corporeal heaven described
138
later on in the text. Earth, described in the Genesis text as

"formless and void," is to be understood as the corporeal creature,

v 139
causally posited in the Word -of God, but as yet unformed. When the

Spirit moves oyer the waters, his action is to be understood as the

distinction into forms of all things that God decided to create from

the mixed pool of the ' elements. 140

r
the primordial waters, ox through

Hie Genesis text treats this initial, conceptual creation as a

series of consecutive steps; it is, however, to be understood as a

simultaneous event in eternity:

' '♦

. -It should, indeedj be understood that God did not first

make the matter, and then the form,®but brought forth
everything simultaneously formed, as the song proceeds
together'with the voice. Moreover, that this or that
is said to have been made on such and such a day, is
said according to our way (of speaking)--by which it is
scarcely understood, that he is described as having made
all things simultaneously.-^l

The probleig is complicated by the difference in relation to time,

between the celestial or angelic nature, and the corporeal nature called

earth: ■
 134

For I believe that no man could knbw how much time

passed between the Creation of the angels, and that
of this world, except one to whom God revealed it; ,
especially since there was as yet no time, but (time)
began with this world, and is nothing other than the
alternation of day and night, or years, or perhaps
spring, summer, autumn and winter, or the transmuta­
tion of things from past to present, from present to
future. For all that God created in eternity is
believed to persist, although one thing may be changed
into another.1^2

/ ' i It is frivolous, honorius continues, to suppose that the angelic nature

began with the corporeal world— instead, it pre-existed the earth and ‘

was present, according to Job 38:7, at the founding of the corporeal

world. ■

The creation of light on the first day is given a quite different

„ ^ interpretation from the one proposed in Honorius' first hexaemeron,

where it was a physical effect in the ordering of the elements. Here,

the light is identified as the light produced by God for illumination

of the angelic intellect. As such, it had to be an intellectual or

spiritual light, and not corporeal, r Thus, the light produced by the

divine words, "Fiat.lux^. . ." was an\nfusion, through the Word, of

.y
divine wisdom into the angelic nature:

Therefore, God said, 'let there be light,' when he -

illumined the angels with the light of wisdom. For this
is.the brilliance of eternal light. But 'there was light,'
when they recognized that God had already made ail things
in his wisdom, which were as yet to; come: in him, they
* Were already seeing all the causes and reasons of things.
'And God saw that it was good,' namely, that they distin-
, guished the Creator from the creature, and loved, praising
the Creator,, looking down on the creature.

Just as .the light produced on the first day is spiritual and not a

corporeal effect, so also the division of light from darkness is not a

I
¥
physical alternation of corporeal light and shadow, but a division

between the formed, intelligible creature— namely, the angels— and the

unformed creature, or material world. The angels are named ''day"

because their nature is the eternal day of the heavenly and, post-
i
resurrection realm. . The corporeal creature, by contrast, is called

"night," since "every corporeal creature, if compared to the spiritual,

is rightly called shadows."145

At this point, Honorius notes that the day is called "day one" in

the text, rather than "the first day." This name expresses the eternal

nature of that day, understood as the angelic condition and the condi­

tion of the~ saints who will become equal with the angels after the

resurrection. Here, Honorius digre.sses in order to answer the question,

a
"what is the kingdom of heaven, or what reward will be given, there, to

the spirits of the blessed?"^** His answer provides the key to under­

standing how and why he is able to juxtapose two apparently contradic­

tory accounts of the beginning of creation. It is explained that the

splendours of the kingdom of heaven are not to be imagined as corporeal ,

delights, but must be understood as the spiritual beatitude found in

contemplation of God. The "day" enjoyed by the angels and to be enjoyed

by the saints, is the condition of those who experience the perpetual

■ ■ ■ - /
147 1 •
vision of God. it is said in the text /to have an evening and a

morning, which Honorius explains as a distinction between the angelic

nature or condition considered in itself, and the same nature or condi­

tion "when it bursts forth in praise of the Creator for the marvellous

creation. .
 Honorius' first hexaemeron was an interpretation of the Genesis

text from3the point of view of,;£hb human beings who are to be redeemed

or liberated; following the example of the prophetic author, he omitted

references to the angelic nature, condition, and cognition. Here,

however, his Commentary is concerned with creation as it is spiritually

perceived by the angels, or from the point of view that redeemed human
o "
beings will share with the angels after the resurrection, after libera­

tion, and after the history that Moses relates 'figurally in the Penta­

teuch. His interpretation has, accordingly, proceeded through two

stages, from the elementary— in both senses of the word— to the advanced,

or spiritual. In this arrangement”, moreover, he follows a method of

interpretation that corresponds to the multiple senses of Scripture and

the steps by which these become accessible to understanding:

Sacred Scripture conforms itself to the intellects of

Si human beings, as a mother does to the habits of children.
Or the wax to the reversed impressions of seals. For it
moves at a mother's pace with the slow, flies to the ^eights
with the capable, laughs from the secret depths at the proud,
terrifies the attentive with profundity, feeds the great
<* with truth, nourishes the small with .gentleness.*
Therefore, this (text) tells the wise that God created
all things simultaneously.in one day, .(.and) relates to the
slower ones that God completed his'work in six days: by
the capable, it is indeed scarcely" understood, that God is
said to have Created everything simultaneously in one day, r
or rather, in the wink of an eye. By the slower ones,
however, it is easily grasped-— as an apple is eaten in- ^
sections by small children— how everything is said to have
been completely created in six d a y s . 149

Having shown how interpretation of the Genesis text may move from
<) /
the simplest or .literal and material level to the more advanced and <

spiritual level, Honorius proceeds to explain the significance of the

 0
• - 137
, ' J? ' - i.
number of days’ recorded in the literal sense of the text as the days
*o _x
of creation. God is said ‘to have completed his work in six days, ’

because of the perfection implied in the number six. Since one plus

two plus three make six, six may be broken down”into unity, the binary,

and the ternary, and then reconstituted from them. The significance of

this arithmetical rule is understood to have motivated both the scjip-

tural author and the philosopher Plato in the composition of their

accounts of cosmic origins:

The most expert of philosophers, Plato, was not ignorant

of that rule: on account of that number's perfection, he
began his book thus: 'one, two, three. . . .'PO

At this point, Honorius departs from the strictly Augustinian line of

thought to develop a Pythagorean-Neoplatonic interpretation that comes

close to being a theory df emanation and return bgth in the cosmic

order and ih 'relations among the persons of the Trinity:

By unity, therefore, is understood the source and principle

of all things, God himself, who is truly said to be the
unique One from whom the binary proceeds when pthe spiritual
creature is produced from him, from which, in'turn, the
ternary is born, when the corporeal world is created. The
number is replicated when everything is shown to the intel­
ligible nature to subsist from the Father through the Son
in the Holy Spirit. The number six is consummated, there­
fore, when the threefold creature, namely spiritual, sen­
sible, and insensible, is contemplated in the threefold
Creator, namely Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Hence also
God is described as having rested on the seventh day from
his works, because God is recognized as resting in himself
apart from his creature after its perfection, and’as having
peace in himself alone.151

Having expounded the theoretical significance of the number six in

the work of creation, Honorius returns to the Genesis text, beginning

 ' , *■ ■

. *. ' 138

with the production of the firmament on the second day. When the text

reads,' "God said . . .” it i? to be interpreted as saying that he

constituted, eternally in his Word, what the creature was to be. The*’

phrase, "and it was so," signifies, in turn, the angelic cognition, by

which the angels perceived, subsisting in the Word.of God, what was as

yet to be created in material fact. Evening and morning are inter-0

preted as two aspects of the s.ame angelic cognition, namely, in its

contemplation of the creature according to its proper nature, and in

]_52 ,
itd* praise of tne~-€r^ator for his work. The same sequence of inter­

pretation applies to eaqh of the following days, except the seventh,

o " 153
which has no evening, but consists in eternal rest with the Creator.

Here, Honorius offers k third and final summary of the six days’

work, comparable to that inserted into his remarks on the fourth day,

and the interpretation of the days as ages of <worid h i s t o r y . H i s

first summary was elementary^ both in the sense that it dealt with the

material elements of the sensible world, and insofar as it was concerned

with the literal sense of the Genesis text. The second summary remains

on the material level insofar as it presents an'allegory of the days as

ages of history, occurring in the time and space of the corporeal realm,

but beginning and ending in eternity. This final summary, however,

describes creation apart from the material or corporeal, aspect, as it

is posited in the divine plan and perceived through angelic intellect:

First in seq'uence, therefore, light is posited, which even

now is Called day, and the angelic substance is disclosed,
which also is illumined by eternal wisdom. Secondly,- the
firmament is established from which this corporeal world
arises. Third, the species of sea and land, in which the
; nature of grasses and trees are formed, not in reality, but
\. ,■ ....
■* v .•

• ' •f
 potentially. Fourth, sun. and moon, together with, the
cfo* stars, are located— potentially, indeed— in the fiery
element. Fifth, birds are brought forth from the humid '
air, and swimming things' from water-—again, potentially.
'Siith, from the earth are brought forth animals together
with man, no less potentially. Because this order is '
discerned by the angelic nature— which is called'day— in
the Word of God through the number si#, the same day is
rightly described (as) repeated-six times . The Ldrd
blessed the same day as -the seventh, and rested in it,
because he sanctified the .angelic nature, filling it with
the seven-form Spirit, and maintained it to jrest in him- ■
self.155

From this ultimate reading of the days of creation, Honorius'

, ' f
makes a transition to the second creation story in the Genesis text.
<3 ' ' ' '
Genesis- 2:4 ("Istae sunt generationes caeli et terrae in die .„. .") is

interpreted as a statement about the one eternal day-described as six

— on which God created all things simultaneously. r To this eternal day,

J ' ■ -
tetaporal days are related as man is related to the Creator:

Therefore, just as man is created to the likeness of God,

so also these temporal days are said to be created to the
likeness of those six, or rather seven, remaining eternally
in the Word of God. And indeed everythinjg created in this
World is not absurdly said to be formed- ro the likeness of
the forms existing in God,15® ”' ’

After this, the Genesis te^xt is understood to have turned to the actual

production of the corporeal creature, beginning with the spring that

welled up from the,,earth' to irrigate the land (Genesis 2. :6) , the forma­

tion of Adam, and the planting of paradise. Honorius professes ignorance'

of the actual process: "On whaf day of the week, or in-what order,

whether in one day or many, everything was formed into species, is ■

unknown. Nor does he venture to estimate the length of time spent

158 ' . ■ .» .
by Adam in paradise. Instead, he concludes'by briefly contrasting
God's creative activity in the eternal and in the temporal '‘daysa
•” ^ «>
• ^
In' those eternal six days, therefore, God created every-'
thing causally,and rested on the seventh day from all his ‘
work. In these temporal days, however, he made all tem- „,
poxal and corporeal'things in reality by species and forms,
and,gave them a law for growing, enduring, and reproducing*'
themselves.*59'

•' v * . ’ «
It is in this latter sense that both the Father and the Son are "at work

until now" (John 5:17), .and will continue to work until every corporeal

'creature is transformed to a condition of perfection. 160

. ,i i/4 -
»4.^ The Ascent to Wisdom: Cognitio vitae ,

' '• . *
In his autobiographical statement in De luminaribus ecclesiae.

Honorius/lists the Cognitio vitae, a work on "God and eternal life,"

between the Neocosmos and his encyclopedic Imago muhdi.161 The work
* 1 1
has been printed in volume 40 of Migne's Patrologia latina. where it is
f ,1 43 ■ «’ *
■
attributed to Augustine. VaS contents and style are, however, so

unmistakably characteristic of Honorius, that there can be little doubt

4 * 162 n '
about its authenticity as his work. It is, in fact, a mature rework­

ing of problems and’questions treated in book one of the Elucidarium,’..

and repeats or develops much of the material found in that earlier work.

Like book one of the Elucidarium, the Cognitio vitae is described as a

treatise on the divine nature, but concerns itself primarily with the

divine work on or for creatures, and the knowledge of God that is to

be attained through the inspection of created natures. Unlike the

Eluciaridum. h9wever, the Cognitio vitae”is not„described by Honorius -

as a structure built on the authority of earlier authors; instead, the

intention throughout is'to pursue" a rational investigation in which the

f
guiding light is to be, the "intelligible structure of truth."

The treatise begins with an introductory statement about the

purpose for which rational natures were created: their purpose, is the

knowledge of. God. that leads to love of. God, ..in which there is eternal

life, or a life eternally ,blessed.164 -

. ■ Because rational investigation
t * * •
of1the divine essence i? a way of progressing towards eternal life,

deliberate ignorance is a kind of quest for death, insofar as those,who

~
remain - ’ .off
ignorant cut themselves '■ from
. ’■the blessed1
" 'life. With these,

thoughts in.mind, the author declares his willingness to brave the

. 8 ' ‘ ' »
criticisms of»the envious, in order to write a treatise that will help
■ <5, I
« 165
and instruct the slower-witted among the faithful. The rest of the
*^ * ...
work IS presented in the form-fof a dialogue between magister and
* ^ ’ * ', -
diseipulus. r-
^ ’■' ':

v S Initially, the dialogue consists of a conversation about the

difficulties encountered in seeking true knowledge of God. This leads

into a kind of exercise in negative^theology, where the master shows

how anything thht may be predicated of God must also be. criticized as

inadequate. 166 Accordingly, he concludes:;"we are able to say nothing

properly concerning God, and' indeed* we have enough trouble speaking

of him improperly and by way of parables." At this point, the

AC
student suggests that the human mind, at least, may-serve as,a mirror

of tjbe soul, in which it may contemplate the image of its Creator. The
. '•* a *
master responds, discouragingly, .by describing the limitations of human

cognition':
 All tha.t we know in created things, we know through th£%• ■
corporeal senses. And those things, indeed, that we have
learned neither by sight nor, by experience, we learn ^
through comparisons of sight or experience, as the .things
# we read about beasts or unknown men; but things that are
completely unknown tq us, have no meaning through human
comparisons, are never made known to our knowledge at all,
And so because spiritual' things are invisible to us, and ■
ate incompatible with the corporeal senses, they will v.t
never be provable to.us by any reason. Indeed, because
it is established that these things are so, but cannot be
demonstrated through parallel instances, thqy demand only
. faith of the believers.1®®

Undeterred, the student insists that th^ master ,offer some.'Account, at

least, of what'reason permits to be known concerning spiritual beings.’

The “master responds by explaining that spirituS is a term used in

Scripture in six ways. The first names God, the highest of all spirits,

as taught in John‘4:24. The second refers to angels, in the text of

' * . ' ■ ■ ■ ■ %
Psalm 103:4^ "you make the angels yourspirits."' The tliird names the

soul as spirit', whilp sthe fourth sspeaks of the* vital principle in

> V ^ W * '
beasts as spirit. Finally, wind and air may be referred to as ' r>
.• '
“169
"spirit." The latter three uses of the word are briefly defined as

follows: -t

Air is a perceptible (sensilis) but insensible (non sen-

V sibilis) spirit, that is, a spirit which we sense by
drawing it in, while it feels nothing in itself, but
offers breath to all living things under heaven. Wind )
is an aerial spirit^which, at God's command)1is agitated
by some motion, increased by watery tempests, excited by
angelic administration,'.and calmed by the same. The life
of brute beasts in a vital spirit consisting.of air and
blood, animal>;;“invisible, but sensible, having memory but
lacking intellect, and dying with the flesh, to dissipate
in air.170
$
The meaning of spiritus as Applied to human nature is defined9at greater

length, beginning with a list of qualities that distinguish the soul:

• ' ' ' t ' V ' ' ' ■ ;; ‘
 Ihe spirit, soul, is in fact an incorporeal substance,
the life of its body, invisible, ^sensible, mutable, non­
local, passible, not susceptible of quantity of measure
or quality of form ©r colour, able to remember, rational,
intellectual, and immortal.

% ■/ Vi ■ ' ■ ' j
To support his definition, the'master proceeds to explain the meaning

of each adjective mid its implications.’ Afterwards, he provides a

- ; '‘:"'V ' 4i' ' . '
similar definition of the term spiritus as applied to angels, noting in

conclusion.that ,the principal difference between angelic knowledge and

pur own lies in their foreknowledge of the causes of all things before
• * . ’ ^ ' ,
they happen, while "we seldom and with enormous effort investigate them
y ‘ til ■ 272
after.they are established in fact." Moreover, angels are held to
1 'p
be' responsible for motion in insensible and irrational bodies, so that

both the weather and the actions of animals are governed by them, as
. '\ v . . . b
173
they in turn act under divine direction. '

Finally, ^the master comes to his definition of God as spirit.

;Onceagain,he warns his student of the inaccessibility of the divine

nature to human thought and language:

Next, the highest spirit cannot properly be defined by any

definition, just as it cannot properly be thought by any
intellect. But because the intellectual mind pants some­
how to know him, let this, enigmatic^definition suffice for
the moment. The spirit, God, is invisible essence, incom­
prehensible to all creatures, essentially possessing all
life, all wisdom and all eternity simultaneously, or
/ existing as very life, wisdom, truth, justice, eternity,
containing all creation in himself like a single point.

For those who would doubt the existence of God as he is here /defined,
'f- . ' "'f ' ■ f

the master offers proof in the form Of an argument from the creation
" '• ;V C ,
and subsistence of the world, modelled oh;Anselm's presentation in the
• '
■■ , ' • m i- ■
Monologion:

Every substance subsists either through itself, or

through another'. . . . But it is established that the
world does not subsist through itself, sinde reason
would teach that it had a beginning; it consists of
parts. Everything that,.is madd"up of parts or that may
be resolved into parts,. at any rate undergoes
conjunction or resolution by something. The world,
therefore, does not subsist through itself, and there­
fore it follows that it is a creature. But creature
refers back to something, namely the Creator/; Only the
Creator exists through himself and in himself; hut every
creature subsists'through him. But if he had his being
from another, then that from which he had this would be
greater than" God, which is inappropriate to God. And
since nothing exists except the Creator and the creation,
if God did not have being of himself, then it follows of
necessity.that he would exist through the creature, which
is extremely inappropriate.1^5
1' i

After this, further,arguments are developed from the notions of good­

ness,. truth, and life, which creatures, to the extent that they have

these qualities, must have by participation in the essence, and source

■* ft
176
of goodness, truth, and life— namely, God.

The discussion then turns to the problem of finding some means of

rational ascent to the knowledge of God; it is attempted through the

J
metaphor of light that Honorius employed in a much simpler form in his

Elucidarium. The student is invited to consider the light of^the

corporeal sun, by which the world is warmed and illumined. He is then

invited to think of the brilliance of the angelic hosts, .which sur-

' ' 177
passes that of the corporeal sun by seven or a hundredfold.
O ' '

Finally, he must understand that the divine nature "dwells in inacces­

sible liight" (I Tim. 6:16}, surpassing the angels, to the same extent
-
v, 178 ‘
that thfe light of the sun surpasses that of a candle. From these
■■■ V - .v -■ .... .
'I US . . .
 preliminaries, the dialogue moves on by anticipation to describe the
o ■ '
desired goal, or the condition of the saints who contemplate God in

heaven. 179 At this point, the master is prepared to embark on a

detailed discussion of the divine nature as Father, Son, and Holy

Spirit. As in the Elucidarium, Honorius uses the metaphor of the sun's

light, splendour,and heat to explain the generation of the Son and the
i
180
procession of the Holy Spirit. Again, he explains that God is called'

Father rather than mother because "the principal .cause of offspring is

«
always in the father, and therefore (God the Father) ought rightly to
181
be called by this name of the principal sex." Moreover, the second

person of the Trinity is called^Son, rather than daughter, because of

^ i* 182
a son's greater likeness to his father than that of the daughter.

Continuing his account of the second person of the Trinity, the

master proceeds to explain how the.Son is generated as the divine Word,

0
which expresses both the divine essence and all creation. At this, the.

disciple asks, referring to John 1:3-4, "how is it said, that all that
\
was made in him, was life in him? Surely,dull stones do not live in
183
the Word of God?"- In response, the master explains how every

creature may be said to subsist in three ways, namely in God, in them­

selves, and in us: ,

In G6d (they are) immutable life, in themselves, mutable

substance, and in us, the imaginable likeness of things.
For example1, the stone in itself is a mutable substance,
because it is convertible into pebbles; in our thought, '
it is the likeness of a stone; in'the art of God it is
the interminable essence of perduring life.^84
* i '
The subsistence of the creature in-God's art is presented in the familiar

metaphor of the artist and his work:

 146

For when an artificer thinks to make a house, the house

already lives in his art; later he will construct it by
handi1" But that which the'hand erects, may fall in ruins;
that which lives in art, endures. For art, indeed, is
nothing other than the soul, and the soul is nothing other
than life— thus, the Word of God is nothing other than his
art, and (his) art is nothing other than life itself; and
in this all things endure immutably, which fail in their
mutable substance.

The discussio'n then turns to problems concerning the incarnation of, the

Word, and a series of questions about the person, procession, and

1 186
corporeal manifestations of the Holy Spirit. The series concludes

with a question about the-equality of Persons in the divine nature,

after which the dialogue -reverts to the relationship between Creator and

the creation. This time, the student's questions are concerned with the

Creator's relationship, to the creature, after it has been created, or

divine manifestations of justice and mercyrational creatures.'^

To explain the causes of evil.in a world governed by God's justice

and mercy, Honorius adopts the Augustinian definition of evil as a ^

privation of the good, adding to this the Anselmian teaching that evil

presents itself as a departure from order. 188 He continues:

/•
It pertains to right order for the /rational creature that
he reject the transitory,.seek'-the enduring, love immortal J
human beings on account of (their) soul, and— loving. God, x-
the highest good, above all things— obey his will. But
those who show contempt for the highest good, lbye the '
transitory good of the world, despise allied souls, and h
obey the desires of the flesh; these live inordinately,
and thus do evil.^-®^
® . . •

Towards the end of his explanation, he alludes to the omnipotence of

P '

God, by which all things are formed from nothing. The student takes up

this point, and asks the master to explain "whether the Universal
%. .
 147
N

creature was established from the substance of the Creator, from some

pre-existing matter, or from nothing."190 In response, the master

argues from the mutability of the creature, and the immutability neces­

sary to the Creator, for a creation of the material world out of nothing.

Nevertheless, the creature did exist in the divihe Word before its

creation, so that it is formed both from nothing, and' from the archetype
-t*

in divine wisdom:

But God produced everything in his wisdom— no substance,

indeed, existing— through no instrument into so many sub­
stances, and therefore he made all things out of nothing,
and yet somehow not out of nothing, for the visible world
proceeded from something, when it put on the forms in the
likeness of the archetype of the -world.1^1
v .

The notion that the creature existed in the mind of God before its

production in material reality, leads to the question of God’s presence

o I

to creatures as they now exist. Using the metaphor of the sun’s

illuminating presence throughout the material world, the master explains '
' 6
that the Creator exists in all creatures, since they have their being
192 The Creator's presence, however, is felt
and goodness through:him.

in different waysvby different specie's: ' a •

Angels and all living things feel God’s presence in them.

In fact, God is life, and everything that lives, lives by
life. For the angels do not live to a greater degree than
worms, even though the former are immortal, and the latter
are mortal. Nor do angels subsist to a greater degfee
than worms, even though the substance'of the formed is
immortal, and that of the latter, transitory. The celes­
tial bodies— namely, sun, moon and stars— sense God in
themselves, when they give light and subsist through him.
Trees and grasses sense God in themselves, when they grow
and subsist through him. Even stones sense God in them­
selves, when they subsist through him.193
Creatures that have become evil through disorder, also feel the

presence of God: ' - ■

Demons sense that God ds present to them, when they live

and are sentient through him; but they sense God to be
present in this, that by the just judgement of God the
evil suffer punishments. For God is justice, and wherever
justice is exercised, there God is believed to be. . . .
And let no one suppose that God detests the filth of the
world, but let him know that he execrates only the filth
of sinners, nor (let him suppose) that he can be made
dirty by anything, any more than the sun's rays can be
befouled by any uncleanness.
f

The presence of God to all creatures is further presented in' terms

of the creatures' enjoyment of good by participation, to varying

i 195 «
degrees, in God's goodness, and their imitation of God's immutable
\

eternity by the stability and regularity of their natural cycles. 196

Thus, although all things in themselves tend into nothing, they are

contained in God in such a way that they must always seek to return to
19 7 *
their given nature. In all this, the human being was placed, so to

speak, pn the border between mutability and immutability

it may be asked whether, if man had remained in paradise,

all this would have been as mutable as it is now? Without
doubt, all things, with the passage of time, as now, would
have maintained their cycles by growing, withering, being
born, and dying; he himself would have endured, in one'
state, immutable and lord of all. Because, in fact, he
became mutable by sinning, he began to fade with time and
transitory things.^?®

After further discussion of the divine presence to creatures, God's

immutability and his invisibility to corporeal natures, a description

> "
of human nature is offered by way of comparison with the angelic nature
199
to which God is visible in ways that he is not visible to us.
 149

The student has been sufficiently "impressed by the master's

account of the divine nature to forget his earlier suggestion, that the

human mind is a mirror in which the'soul may contemplate the image of

the Creator. Now, he asks;, "how can a human being be said to have been

formed in the iiqage and likeness of God, since nothing appropriate to

the likeness of God is found in a human b e i n g ? I n reply, the

master.'distinguishes between the interior and the exterior man, or the

invisible and the visible:

the invisible (man) is created to the image and likene’ss

of the invisible God, but the visible (man) is formed
according to the visible world. The invisible God is
one in substance, three in person. The interior man,■0
that is, the soul,, is created to the image o f unity,
because it is not composed of parts, like the body, but
is simple in nature hnd immortal in essence.201

.Continuing, Honorius describes the faculties of the soul by analogy

- with the persons of the Trinity, comparing the lather to memory, the
202
Son to intellect, and the Spirit to love. The loul is, moreover,
• ^
created fot likeness to the essence of God, described as light, life,
203 •
justice, goodness, and beatitude. The exterior man, by contrast, is

formed according to. the exemplar of the world, because he -is compacted

'bf the four elements. Hence, 'he is called the microcosmos, or lesser
204
“ world. The soul displays a further likeness to God in that it

govefns and fills this■microcosmos, or exterior mhn i n the samp way that

God goverh^ and fills the-universe. Nevertheless p«J^uman beings are not

unique in likeness to God, since all creatures resemble\ God in some

. way, just as human nature may be said to participate in some aspects of

I, '
'all created natures;/
 A • >

150
- O '

every creature has likeness to God through some thing,

and to the degree that each one is more excellent than
another, it is more like God. For he is, lives, perceives
and discerns through reason. Stones, therefore, attach
themselves to his likeness, because they are. Trees
approach more closely to his likenessbecause they ate
and live by growing. Some animals express his likeness
much more, because they are, live, and perdeive. Finally,
the likeness of God^shines forth especially in human*beings „
and angels, because they are, live, perceive, and discern
by reason. -05.
A-

In this way, the likeness of human beings to God is pieced in the con­
's
text of all creatures, where human nature has its place of eminence at
*
the top of the corporeal hierarchy, and in association with the celes-

tial nature of the §ngels. '<>••.

The dialogue continues into a discussion of the ways in which the
.

human soul is created for the vision of God, and the immortality
* ^* 206
required for perception of the infinite divine'nature.. At' this
« *
stage, the interlocutors are nearing the limits of what is open to

rational investigation, and approach the regions of what is apprehended

by faith alone. In a transitional.passage, they pursue the question of

/ ,
the soul's capacity for knowledge, beginning with the problem of dreams. ,
/
These are attributed to’a ^
variety of influences,: •' '

"With the sense of the body asleep, (the.soul) foresees

certain future events through riddles revealed by God.
Sometimes it suffers over realistic anxieties by the ,
devil's4 deception; sometimes it converses with angels
or Souls; sometimes it is mocked by demons.207

The soul perceives dream-visions in the way that the corporeal eye sees, ;

but cannot perceive itself or any other spiritual nature, because these

are too rarefied to be seen by the. corporeal sense. Moreover, the soul,
 \

151'

which is simple in nature, is said to be distributed throughout the •’

1*
body, in the same way that a light or sound is evenly distributed
, 208
from its source;-

If all souls have the same spiritual nature, why are some more,’

and others less, capable of learning? Using a variation on the light-

met&phor that he has employed throughout the dialogue, the master

explains:

The soul has the form of wax or of a candle. Wax is apt

for the expression of an image, if it is imprinted with a
seal; so also the candle is apt. for shining if it is lit:
The soul expresses the image of wisdom in this manner if
it is imprinted with the seal of doctrine, and receives
the light of truth if it is lit with the fire of"wisdom.
If it .neglects to present itself through study or exercise,
then it will remain like the wax without image, and like '
the unlit candle without light, in the shadows of ignorance,
without wisdom and truth. But the more that every soul'
adapts itself to doctrine, the more it will be 'capable of
knowledge.209 ,

It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged'that knowledge comes to'some of

the laziest students almost without effort^,, while other, hard-working

‘7 *
students are left— so to speak— in the dark. This, the master con- ‘

eludes, is one of the incomprehensible mysteries--of God's ways and

\ - »
judgements (cf. Rom. 11:33), and pertains to his distribution of the

Spirit.210

The student continues to pursue the question of education, by

' ° V

asking: "Since everything is taught by masters, how is it written that

there is one master in heaven (Matt. 23:9) , by whom everyone i's somehow
211
specially taught?" The master's response returns to the problem
" . s
with which the dialogue began— all our knowledge is th\ f result of sense;
 152

experience and our ability to make analogies from the, known to the*
f ^
unknown. The magistri deal in externals, but the truth that resides .

in the soul must be increased by an interior teaching. 212 This applies

* -*
in different ways to the doctrines of both faith and reason. To explain,

Honorius begins with some.examples to illustrate just how much the

# .

magister contributes* to the learning process. The passage is worth

quoting at length, for the insight it gives into his self-understanding

as an educator. First, he describes the need for sense-perception:

Many blind people know’the scriptures, but nevertheless

do not know what a book or letters might be; if their eyes
were suddenly opened, and a book placed in front of them,
they would marvel at what they were seeing, and perceive
with their sight what they could not, with hearing. Next,
if I were to say to ope of them, this letter is called A,
and this ope is named, B, presently he will have recourse
inwardly, consult the truth, and prove what he hears* to bwP
true. What, therefore, did I teach this man, who neither
before by hearing, nor4afterwards by sight could know what
a letter was, unless he were to have learned it through
truth teaching inwardly, and vision proving it outwardly?
1 merely brought forth the sounds of words; he, in fact,
recognized the words and the things signified by the words
through truth inwardly c o n s i d e r i n g . ^13

Without actual sense experience, the information imparted by the masters

does not become knowledge:

In this way, if I were to tell you many things about

elephants, you would not know’what an elephant is, unless
i you were to see him; thus, we may read many things about
David, and we know of him after a fashion as a red-haired
man of pleasant-appearance— but if he were to walk into
the room, do you think we would recognize him? Hardly !
Why? Because we cannot learn from the masters what we
cannot test through the truth, of vision. For. teachers
bring forth merely the sound of words, but hearers by the
truth inwardly teaching learn words through mind, things
through sight. . . { Therefore nothing at allfcan be said
through a man, except only the sound; but the word and the
t

153

thing itself are discerned by the truth dwelling in the

interior nan. And so the one master' is most truly pro­
claimed i by whom each one is inwardly instructed. Those
things, however, which are not seen by us— as God and
angels— are only believed to be.214

To complete ^Jiis transitory passage, the master and student .discuss

the difference^between belief that God exists, of which the devil also &

is capable (James 2:19), and belief in God, which is a tending toward

/ - - 215
God inJlove, or the faith by which the soul lives arid hope is nourished.
. . • • V ,
The concluding portions of the Cognitio vitae proceed, accordingly, to
4 ' '
discuss the matters that pertain properly to faith, rather than reason. •

Included among these are the resurrection of the body, the new.creation,,

the incorporeal' heaven, anil the beatific vision..

(v • ■ ■"
5. Cosmological Teixts

Although the Elucidarium, Neocosmos, and Cognitio vitae are

Honorius* principal treatments of the relationship between Creator and

® •

the creation, they are not his last

t,
.words on cosmological
■
questions.

In his later didactic, encyclopedid, and occasional -pieces, Honorius ■

i' *
frequently introduces passages on the creation and stnicture of the

universe, by way of background or complement to the historical, geo­

graphical, astronomical ,<?or controversial materials which are his main

concern. These passages are brief— usually no more than one or two

chapters in length.— but serve as the vehicles for a variety of informs-

tion from which we can construct an outline4of Honorfus.' views on the

order^of the universe, ,his method of presenting them, and the sources ■
behind them. Accordingly, our concern in this section will be to

provide a selective survey of some' of .the cosmological and arithropo-

v ■' I . * -• ..

logical material in7the corpus of HonqriuS’ later writings I

* r . / '

C
Imago mundi
«
Perhaps the most influential of Honorius’ works was the Imago

mundi. Certainly, it was widely circulated and translated— in part or

Old
in entirety— into most of the vernacular languages of Europe. The •

evident popularity of the work is perhaps explained by the fact that

k
it is a neat little encyclopedia, in three books, of basic geographical

and^astronomical information, times and seasons, and world history.

The contents are not particularly original, but appear, in conformity

with Honorius1 programme of authorship, to have been compiled as

V €
217
elementary instruction for beginners. Like the earlier works, the-

Imago mundi was written for the benefit of a specific audience. A

certain Christian, identified by'Endres as abbot of St. James at

2X8
Regensberg, requests from Honorius a work thaf'^j^l "describe the-

world as if in a picture. For it seems miserable to see every day

05 ,
things made for our use, and to be as ignorant of them "as if we were■
210
foolish cattle." ^
% *
Honorius responding prefatory letter gives us some interesting

indications about the type of work he intends to write, and the recep­

tion that he expects it to find. He begins by praising Christian's

study, and intimate knowledge of Scripture, humorously saying that his

. , . y * *
request for instruction from Honorius is tather like the sheep asking
 220 t jvs ^. »
the goat fair'wool.” In other words, Christian is'in no need
-Si of
theological instruction or more of the type of information to be gained

from the study of Scripture% To write the sort of book that he, requires,

, continues Honorius, will be’^to embark on the difficult and dangerous

task of compiling, information about the1corporeally visible world—

information that is apt to be criticized openly by the envious, but

then secretly read and pillaged. Nevertheless, Honorius' wish'to

teach, and instruct the many who are without bodks, will overcome his
. • - H
. v . 1 t? • . *.

reluctance. He promises to make the Imago mundi a work that reflects

. ‘ J -4 - ft . - ’%
991-
the order of the whole world -as if in a mirror.
t ’ a
The first book, which is’concerned with geographical and astro-
s , ' *

•nomical facts about the universe, begins with a definition of>the world

(mundus) and a basic description of its shape aid component parEs:

; _ 7 / . ■

The wo|£Ld'is sd called as if- to say, ‘ 'motion everywhere,'

for it is in perpetual motion. It is shaped like a round
ball, but it” is divided into elements in the likeness of
an egg. 'The egg, Indeed, is externally surrounded on all
sides by the shell; the shell contains the white; the white
contains the yolk;.and the yolk contains theo medulla.,. In
like manner, the world is surrounded on all slide's by,
heaven as a shell; heaven, indeed, contains the pure aether
as white; the"aether contains the turbid airas yolk, and
the air contains the earth as the medulla.

•. *

What Honorius omits in this description is, in a way", as significant-as

the information he imparts. He defines the world as asort of perpetual

f-
'% W \
motion machine, but' does not refer to the source of that motion. He.

:
■describes the structure of the universe by analogy with an egg, but-
. , • " 'f
unlike many of his contemporaries— who also had recourse to the metaphor

of the cosmic egg— he does not refer to the vilifying movement of the
Holy Spirit over the primordial wAters. In this way, he implicitly
' » ^ ■ " V .,i'.

excludes fro* discussion the theological material with, which his ’V .

■ *» '' ■ ^
/Audience presumably have been well'acquainted. It is a strictly
s -
• * ‘ '224 '
physical approach which6may well have found critics. ■

’ This is not tonsay tjiat Honorius omits frbm consideration the?

C:■
origin of the world as creature. In the next.chapter^ “he proceeds to
'4 ••

list the modes by which the world may he said to have .been, or lo be,
jj J ‘ ° ft'o . £■
created, thereby ^defining' the relationship0of tne sensible world, as
' ' v - . V '
creature, to God the.Creator. The firstof these modes of creation is
■f- - ■ .

the conception of die archetype in the divine mind, which Honorius

' / - /■ ft . 0 o . iv
links to the text of John 1:3-4* -The second mode1of creation is the "
* * '■

prq^uction of "this sensible world in matter according to the exemplar

2*25 n' '
of the archetype**’1 This mode i f - creation is understood to have
b " ’’’ l'1 Y •■
been expfiessed' in the. text of Ecclesiasticus 18:1. The' third mode of

creation> identified with the six-day work of Genesis/i/^Ys the forma­

tion of this wor.ld By species and forms. The fourth mode is the con­

tinuing, creation by which creatures reproduce^ themselves according t$

'. .j.'* . - *
species,, and is expressed in*the text of John 5:17. Finally, the-world

awaits, a fifth mode}of creation, by which,, it will be renewed, according

to the prophecy of Apocalypse 21:5. This account of the five-fold

creation of the world appears to be a modified version of I passage in

Bede's De rerum natura* which lifts the ,qu'adriformis ratio of the i '
“ : ' . ' '■ ;
divine operation. Honorius has added a fifth njpde of creation, na&ely
- " ' * a '' '
the new ered’tion ft the encPof time, thereby suggesting a circular

return to the eterhal source* 226 ’ * *

 c>

, • . . * ' a- 157

, A f t e r this, Honorius proceeds to discuss the elements of which

the sensible world is composed, according to their motion and properties..

He begins by noting that the word elements is derived from the meaning
- 227
of hyle, ligamenta, or the matter of which everything consists.

Matter is made up of the elements fire, air, water, and earth. These

are said to revolve with a circular motion, by which the lighter

elements are compacted into the heavier ones, and the heavier ones are

again transformed into the lighter ones. Each element is both distin­

guished from and connected to the others by.-its own peculiar qualities:
\
Each of them holds the other by its proper qualities, as
if by some sort of embrace, and mutually mingle the discord
of their nature by a pact of concord. For the dry and cold
' ' - earth is joined to cold water; the cold and moist water is
bound to mo£st air; moist and hot air is associated with
hot fire; hot and dry fire is linked to dry earth. Of
these’, the earth as heaviest finds the lowest, apd fire as9
lightest finds the highest place; the other two find the
middle place as a kind of bond of solid!ty. Of these, the
. • heavier (element) water retains the place next to earth;
^ , lighter air possesses the place after fire. To earth,
indeed, are delegated talking things, like man and beast;
* to water, the swimming.things, like fish; to air; flying
"* things like birds; to fire the radiant things like sun'and
stars.^28

iP v
'Thus, the contrary "natures of the elements combine in a harmony of

parts to make up the totality of the universe, while at the same time

^-providing, with their distinct qualities, environments suited to the

; different natures of the species t,hat were produced from them.

■' ___

From these preliminary considerations about the elements that

'
combine to make up the Vhole universe, Honorius moves t t i the particular

nature of the earth. He lists seven names for the earth— terra, tellus.

humus, arida, sicca, solum, and ops— and describes the qualities"
I .'
■ .■ : ■’ - Vi*’---- <?
associated with each. Terra is the name of the element as such, 1

derived from terendo, to be worn or crushed; tellus applies to the

m ■ , ,, ,, r,
'V
fertile areas only, by derivation from tollens fructus; humus by deriva­

tion from humor refers to swampy regions; arida refers to dry or desert

places; sicca, similarly, describes dry but not altogether infertile

regions, while solum describes the solidity of mountains, and ops the
\ 229
wealth of viidden minerals.; Subsequent chapters proceed in similar

fashion from the general nature of the earth’s surface characteristics

and circumference to particulars about its climatic zones, and the-

geography andzoology of each continent. 230 After"dealing with the

nature and inhabitants of the watery regions of the earth, Honorius

describes-the phenomena and inhabitants characteristic W the remaining

two elements, concluding book,one with a series of chapters on J^ie

"
constellations and their qualities. 231 -t
i "
■ Book three of the Imago mundi is a brief and unspectacular summary
- *i .■4f-
of world history, composed according to the traditional division into

six. ages. It begins with the fall of Sathael, the prince of archangels,

and continues into events of Honorius’ lifetime. We can omit it from

consideration because it disposes of the origins and early history of

humankind by means of-a few brief genealogical indications, without

going into detail about the creation or the fall of man. Book twois

concerned with time and its measurement, but contains two items of

importance in Honorius* cosmological teaching. The firstof these, is

his general definition of time in relation to the eternity of God and

of the angels. The eternity of God is prior to, with, and after.
fX
the world, and’superior to the eternity of the ahgels (tempora aeterna),-
 159
1

which pertains to created non-temporal things: »

Eternal times are under eternity, and these pertain to

the archetype of the world and angels; they began to be
^ before the world, an'd are with the .world, and will be
after the world.232

Earthly time is the shadow, not of eternal time, but of eternity:

It began with the world,^and will cease, with the world,

just as if a rope were stretched from east to west, which
^ is daily gathered and coiled up until everything is con­
sumed. By this, tjhe ages are extended^ under this run
all things placed in the world. By this "the life of
everyone is measured; this brings the series of days and
- ‘ years to their conclusion.233

The second item, concerning pan as .microeosmos, is tucked between

a chapter about the influence of the four elements or/ the four seasons,
« * ■,.' ■
and a definition of the year. The human body, like the seasons,, is

tempered by the dominance or absence of one or another of the elements.

Thus, the physical stages of Ijuman growth, maturation, and decay are

paralleled to the cycle of the seasons:

•a _

■ & "
The human body is tempered by these qualities (in the
seasons), hence also it is called microcosmos, that is,
the lesser world. For blood, which grows in spring, is
moist and hot, and this is vigorous in infants. Bed
choler, growing in summer, is hot and dry, and this is
abundant in adolescents. Melancholy, from black choler,
grows in autumn and is abundant in those of advanced
years. Phlegm, which pertains to winter, is dominant
in the aged.234

, - ■ <

ev
 The Liber duodecim quaestionum

The two compilations entitled Liber duodecim quaestionum and

Libellum octo quaestionum are not. listed by Honorius among his works;
*
but have been attributed to him on grounds of style and contents. 235

The Liber duodecim quaestionum is, in fact, addressed from Honorius by

236
name to one Thomas. Both compilations are concerned with the rela­

tionship between human beings and angels, and their places in the order
it , o
of creation. The occasion for the Liber duodecim quaestionum is

described as a debate between a canon regular and a monk about the .

relative worth of their orders. Because the canon claims to belong to

the order of St. Peter, while the mgak claims to be a member of the
.jra >

order of St. Michael, the problem that Hpnorius seeks to resolve is

concerned with the position of the orders of saints in heaven, in rela-

tion to the angelic hierarchy. 237 Similarly, the leading question in

the Libellus octo quaestionum is concerned with the relative value of

the angelic and human natures,. in that it asks whether human beings

would have been created if angels had not fallen, and whether the fall
* 238
of angels caused the creation of human beings. Honorius handles

both problems by proposing a series of questions and-responses about

God's purpose in creating, the order' of creation, and the consequences

for that order of the angelic and the human fall’

. From the answers to

these general questions, a solution to the initial problem is produced.

The first of Honorius’ twelve questions concerns the Creation of

all things by the Father in the Son, and the relationship of the sensible
X" ‘ c“' ° M
world (mundus sensibilis) to the airchetypp, If human beings were created
 161

for the sake of replacing the fallen angels, and the corporeal world

was created for the sake of the human beings who are to govern it, then

the creation of the universe would appear to be contingent on the fall

of the rebel angels. This, Honorius points out, contradicts the text

of John 1:3-4-, interpreted as a statement about creation in Christ. If

all created things are "life and truth"-in Christ, and God is life and

truth, then all sensible creation is to be understood as a kind of

shadow of the eternal life and truth in God. To illustrate, Honorius

A '
offers the analogy of the writer at work:

&

A treatise composed by me, and as yet not written down,

sotnehow lives in me, and I, consider it as a kind of
exemplar when I inscribe it on a writing-tablet; and that
which appears externally as. something written down, is
the shadow of the unwritten, which is hidden within. And
indeed, the exterior- (version) can be reduced to nothing,
but the* interior remains incorruptible; the intrinsic is
simpte and uniform; the extrinsic is multiple and varied
-— namely., in letters and in words, in syllables and in
cases,'in tenses, in schemata, in figures. Thus, the
universal creature conceived in the divine mind is simple,
invariable and eternal, but in itself is multiple, vari­
able, and transitory— namely, in genera, in species, and
> in individuals.239 .

In this sense, the universe is to be understood as the shadow correspond-

* . •

ing to the simultaneous creation of all things in the Son or divine wis-
240 '
dom, generated eternally by the Father. <

The next question is intended to show how the universe was arranged

and disposed in divine wisdom. Honorius describes it as an enormous

*
lute," in which various natures are placed like strings of varying .

resonances. Thus, each nature has a place of its own in the totality: »

"For spirit and body give out a deep and a higli-pitched sound, like
 162

choirs of men and boys; while they differ in nature, they harmonize
241
in the essence of good." Moreover, each order of the angels end

each corporeal nature has its own resonance, by which it produces its

own particular contribution to the praises of the. Creator. Nor are

evil natures excluded from this universal harmony, since "spirit and

bodyangel and devil, heaven and hell, fire and water, air and garth,

sweet and bitter, soft and hard, and all the rest, give a reciprocal
242
sound, in this manner."

Because each nature has its own place in the universal harmony,
k ''
no one nature can take the place of another, as Honorius sets out to
i ■ ;. ' ■ ; --■ - f ' ' .

prove with his third question. In the genera of the lower species,

birds are not produced in.place of fish, nor stones for trees. Simi­

larly, each species produces fruit or offspring according to its own

/ 'S 1
kind. It follows, therefore, that human beings mast also have their
i
proper place in the universe, just as angels have theirs:
fr
A
Accordingly, the human being was not created'in place of
the angel, but for his own sake, otherwise the worm would
have a higher dignity (than the human being), since it
would have its proper place, which man would lack. . . .
And indeed, God would have been improvident, since he
would have set one thing in place of another.243

« > .

It sedms reasonable, moreover, to suppose that even if none of the

angels had fallen, human beings would have had their own, quite adequate

place in heaven, since a fixqd number of elect human beings were to be

assumed into heaven after the fall of some of the angels, in a4dition

to"the number of human beings assumed for the sake of replacing the
. 244 • ‘
fallen angels.
'' ■ ' *
 163

The,next three questions proceed step by step to show how each

order of the human saints— created, as human beings, for their0own sake

— will correspond to an order of the angelic hierarchy, until it is

demonstrated that St. Peter, as prince of the apostles, or the highest

order of saints, would be superior to'St. Michael, prince of the order

C ' 245
of archangels— which is inferior to all but the order of angels.

Thus, the canon regular is vindicated. Moreover, a case is made for

the primacy of the successors of Peter at Rome, by virtue of.St.

Peter's superiority to the archangel, and the acknowledged primacy of

246 i -
Rome as capital city of the world. It should be noted that while

Honorius here attributes primacy to Peter on the grounds of his posi­

tion in the celestial hierarchy, he gives primacy elsewhere to the

sacerdotal office on the basis of a typological interpretation of Adam,

terrenus de munda terra creatus. In the Summa gloria, Abel and Cain,

the two sons of Adam, are types of the sacerdotal and imperial offices,

because they prefigure the clergy and people-brought forth by Christ,

the second and celestial Adam, from his spouse, thd Church. As the

priest"w^hose sacrifice is approved, Abel receives primacy over Cain,

v-
"since the Church existing here in the flesh takes precedence from'the

carnal, (and) afterwards, in spiritual rest, is indued with special

. ,,247
glory."

The remaining six questions in the Liber duodecim quaestionum

range generally over problems associated with the relationship between

angels and human beings, including angelic worship and service of the

human nature of Christ, the nine orders of the just corresponding to

the nine angelic orders, the modes of cognition in angels and the
 ■V

\ 164
£> *

I ■
glorified saints, and the nature of angelic', demonic, and human bodies.

Here, Honorius displays his■characteristic concern with the elements

as foundation of all corporeal natures by reporting the doctrine, found

in Calcidius’ commentary on the Timaeus. that angels have aetherial

■a

bodies, while demons have bodies of air, and1human beings have bodies

formed from eajrth.^^

The Libellus octo quaestionum

The Libellus octo- quaestionum takes up and develops/many of the

same issues. Arranged in the form of a dialogue between magister and

discipulus, it begins with a question from the student about the reason
249
for the creation of human beings. The master responds by pointing

out that Scripture and perceptive reason both prove that the world was

created for. the sake of human beings, so that it would be abgjj|^.to

suppose that human beings, together with the things made for them, would

not have .been created had the angels not fallen. This time, Honorius'

proof text is the opening verse of Genesis, "in the beginning, God

created heaven and earth." Each place was created to house its-own
• ' I
proper inhabitants— heaven was to be the dwelling-place of the angels,
v 250
/but earth "was,made)to be inhabitedby human beings. Moreover, the

text of Job 40:10 ("Ecce Behemoth,quem feci tecum") is understood by

Honorius to mean that God made human beings at the same time as he made
’ = '■ I-.’' ' ' *^ *
the angels. 'This simultaneous creation happens "in eternity
“ 252
through predestination," or in thedivine wisdom., The Genesis text
•7 a 9 .
may be understood, therefore, to speak of man’s creation both' through
•w
.■ . .b ’' ' .■
 165

predestination and by formation, in time:

Concerning the creation of predestination, i£ is written,

'Let us make,man to our image and likeness.f 'And God made
man to his image and likeness.1 Concerning!the creation
by formation, it is written, 'God formed man from the
dust of the earth and breathed into his face the breath
of life, and he was made into a living soul.'253 .

While spiritual and corporeal beings may be said to have been created

simultaneously in the eternity of divine wisdom, all corporeal beings

were created simultaneously in matter, when the/elemertts were produced.

I -
Afterwards', the material creature was distinguished through genera,

species, number, and form, over a period called six days, both as a
/ fc ..
sign of perfection and with reference to tl/e three elements— fire,

water, and earth— and the threefold* creature produced from them. 154

After briefly reviewing the qualities of the elements and the creatures

formed from them, Honorius concludes by noting a certain symmetry in

the creation of angels and human beings, since the angels were created
V

at the beginning of things, and human beings wereformed at the end of

255
creation to govern all. other corporeal creatures.

In, the questions that follow, Honorius continues to develop his

notion-of correspondences between the natures and destinies of angels

and human beings. The.student'§ third question takes up Honorius'

256
assertion’that angels are created from fire, asking how angels, who.
V>. . '

are spirit, may be said to have been created from something corporeal.

Honorius responds that the angelic spirit, the human soul, and the
" ' ' 257
-unformed matter of the world are all created ex nihilo. From unformed

matter, the elements are distinguished; from the elements, all bodies are
 formed in such °a way that each body is especially assigned to the
258
element most abundant in it. Thus, celestial bodies— including
<3

thpse assumed by angels when they appear visibly— are made of fire,
s ' - * * ’
while terrestrial bodies— including those of animals and human beings—

are made from earth. Birds and fish are made respectively from the
•v . 259
more rarefied and the denser forms of water. It follows that just
A _ •

as the human being may be defined as a rational soul in a body of earth,

so also the angel may be defined as an intellectual spirit clothed £n

a body of fire.^® - # >

•?
The student then asks, why human bodies^ should have been made of
•' 261
ealrth, which is "the dregs of all the elements," rather than of

fire. In response, Honorius continues to develop the notion that

^ 9
angels and human beings are the- corresponding first and last creatures
- *'
in the universe. Although all the elements, are1equal in dignity, the
. - .V-
o- ■ ’ i

.earth has a kind of primacy insofar as it is the fixed and stable

262
centre of the elements and mother (nutrix) of all animate things.

Fire, by contrast, is the uppermost circle of unstable motion, and the

destroyer of all animate beings i *except Ivhe salamander. God may there-
■_ a ' f ■
fore be said, to have given his two rational beings bodies of the first
o 263 * - ,
and the highest elements. Both of the rational creatures and their

bodies are .destined for glorification in'the new creation; both of them
... '*0-'" ■ ' •- .

can suffer a diminution of demotion through sin. The angels who felf'
"■ i ,
were cast down into the lower;air where, as daemons, they haVe aerial
■■■ ,. ■ ... •q p

bodies, while the human beingstwho sinned were cast into death by the
« * ' <*
264
second element, water. Here, it is. not clear to what sort of watery
• ( & »
death Honorius refers— he may have in mind the destruction of the first
 167

huitjan inhabitants of earth in the deluge, or may be referring to the

baptismal drowning of Adam's' legacy (cf. Rom. 6:4). The remaining

questions in the treatise proceed to deal in detail with the fall of

angels and human,-,beings, and do not contain any further material of

immediate relevance to Honorius' doctrine of'creation.

5. Conclusion. -
?•' * ■, - - :»• '

fi ' B- ^ ^ -
„Two major difficulties present themselves when we attempt to form
r i •. •

conclusions about Honorius' work. First, there is the sheeri variety of

• /' *
expository genres used by him, for audiences with quite evidently
o - **. *
varied needs and capacities. This difficulty is not made any less

acute by^the*shortage of critical editions and introductory studies for

O'
most of his works. " In consequence, the general outline’and character

of Honorius' authorship remain elusive.. Secondly, there is the fact—

by now obvious— that he continually modified his, ideas. It is not

accurate to say that he is merely inconsistent; on the contrary, he

f * iij
consistently employs a central concept or image that he gradually alters
, ■'
v r / '

or expands. As an example, let Us fake the notion of the microcosmos.

which is a key component of his thought on creation.

„ * In the Elufcidarium. Honorius introduced the notion of homo micro­

cosmos to show, how -corporeal human nature participates in some aspect

of every other, corporeal nature, from celestial.fire to theahimal,.

265 ^
vegetable, and mineral natures that inhabit*the earth. T$e notion
t*
is further developed in the Neocosmos, where the corporeal as well as
■
" «, I 'a
spiritual centrality of the human being as microcosmos makes the human

fall into sin a catastrophe that to some extent unhinges the order of

the rest of the created world,266

- while the union of divine and human

natures in Christ is seen as-a union of the Creator with all creation,

through human nature as the representative microcosmos. A further

* <£

development occurs in the Cognitio vitae.“where Honorius' descriptions

of the interior and exterior man demonstrate the double likeness of

267
human beings to both the Creator and the material creation. He
* . «/ i
continues, however,'by showing precisely where homo .microcosmos stands

among created natures: all created natures— from the lowest to the
«■ ‘ '
highest— resemble God in some way, but the human being is set at the

highest point in this created hierarchy, sharing with angels the being,
/

life, sentience,, and rational discernment that other creatures possess

to lesser degrees or hot at all. ^

In the' Imago mundi, the concept of the microcosmos has its place
<3 '

in Honorius1 treatment of times and seasons., where it is shown, by its

comppsition from the four elements, to participate in the same sort of

changes that the macrocosmos undergoes.during the cycle of the four

, >
' 268 ■
seasons. Although the concept is set aside in the libri Of quaesti-

ones— perhaps because these are.more concerned with the places and
*. ~ - '
purposes of human and" angelic natures in the universal harmony of the
" f ** 1
macrocosmos— an important aspect of it does appear in those compila-
> ’
tions, when Honorius discusses the production of all bodies from the
i ' * *
269 ' h
four elements. Finally,’ the notion of a participation by human

begins in every created kind of existence and cognition, forms the

basis for Honorius* discussion, in his Scale coeli major, of the'Tcinds

 of vision and perception enjoyed by human beings. i

There is, finally; a .third difficulty 'encountered by those who |

attempt- to form conclusions about Honorius1 thought— namelly; the

variety of his sources and the infrequency with which he actually cites
*« ’ ’ - ' m «
authorities by name.^ We know,-.-from the abbreviated version! compiled

under the title. Clavis physicae, that he .read and assimilated John
<v e - •?& * 2 7 1
Scottus Eriugena’s Periphyseon or De divisione naturae. The Clavis

physicae is one of the later pieces listed among Honorius1 works in

' * >"« '■ . • I
Pe luminaribusecclesiae. and we have .’no "references by Honorius Himself ,

tq indicate atwhat stage in his earlier work he first began to incor^

porate Eriugena's teachings ihto “his own. It seems-'certain that ^

Hpnorius1 interpretation of "Moses1 intention" in the NeocosmosV reflects

Eriugena's influence. 27| <3 .The Cognitio vitae,moreover, seems’3th depend,

• / -& , ... , '
' * ", ‘ • :

in many^places, on an Eriugenian view of Creator and creature. Nowhere

, in these works, however, is the.Irishman mentioned by name. '

-.- . ^ I ’■, ■ ■ ..
" Among the„sources that.Honorius. does mention by name, Augustine—

and especially the Augustine of De Genes1 ad litteram and the Confea-

V - “ T X J . . ■ - * ’ •

siones—ris foremost. There is, as well, at least one reference to

■ 273 ”i ■ ° ' - '° * *
s Plato,, and'clear indications from Honorius’cVocabulary that he was \

familiar"with part's of the Timaeus and- CalcidiuS1.'commentary on it,,

.'especially the passage on’silva or hv3Te. Other Platonit^material seems,

' '' * i .o' i o
as we have noted, to come'Tfrom Macrobius, whose discussions of.the 7
- ' • 1q' •’ 7 j, , ,

t," .elements may underlie that of, Hono'fius;in Imago mundi l: 3, • and whdse
f . ’ ’ - ; ( ' - r-

* ^presentation bfhthe celestial origins of the hhinau* soul t&y account for
,/v. •’ >,•.* ’ .' ■ • .*.+ * /
‘^qnprius^esS^^i^.of" the :human being as av"ceiesti«U; f.animal" in *■
- * 275 '• " * r>*i
•NebcoBmos. 3.- f Finally, Honorius is heavily indebted to Anselm fob

■* ' * • - ■ ''t° * r.. ‘ '/» *

M s teaching on<the order of creation, the 'n'fture of evil and the

fall, and his description .of the human soul as a"trinity of memory,
* ’ <p
intelligence, and will. In sum, the sources are diverse, and Honorius

is not always successful, or even interested, in harmonizing them. It

is, indeed, only"in the Cognitio vitae.thatuhe seeks to construct a

consistent 'progression through the stages of understanding. In so

doing, he produces a synthesis of Anselm andjiriugena, within few

contributions of b . is jrfm , that suggests a subtlety and originality

beyond the superficial popularizing with whiaja he is generally credited

 Notes -€
it

■ o. -

See, e.g., Elucidarium, prologjus, ed. Y. Lefevre, in L'Eluci­

darium et les lucidaires (Paris, 1954), p. 359.
2 *
Reviewed in detail by R. D. Crouse, "Honorius Augustodunensis;
De neocosmo,".Diss. Harvard 1970. chs. 1-2, pp. 1-59.'
3 " ’>j .
De luminaribus ecclesiae 4: 17 (PL 172: 232).
" '
Se§ J. A. Endres, Honorius Augustodunensis (Munich, 1906),
p. and E. M. Sanford,’"Hofvoriufe,„Presbyter and Scholasticus." Specu-
lum 23 (1948): 403-04.
' ?

5. ' ° " :” ^ •
Sanford, p. 398; for a more recent survey' of manuscript evi­
dence, see V. I. J. Flint, "The Career ofHonorius Augustodunensis:
Soma- Fresh Evidence," Revue Benedictine 82 (1972).: 63-86, and Crouse
(diss,t), p. 61, n. 2 . ' '' * .
* ^ 4' ^ , _'«• . . .
R. W. Southern, St. Anselm and His Biographer (Cambridge. 1963),
pp. 209-12; V. I. J; Flint, ''The Chronology of the Works of Honorius
Augustodunensis," RevueBenedfctine 82 (1972): 2l9-2p. . > ^
* 14 i ** ,
7 "; •••" '
Sanford, pp. 418-22; Flint, "Chronology," p. 231.
'• _ . r ■

g ~%-
z ■’■ ,
Ed. by Endres, Honorius, pp. 145,-54.
'/■ • • J* .• . - '

Southern, pp.,215-16; R. E. Reynolds, "Further Evidence for the

Irish “Origin of HonoriusV' Vivarium 7 (1969); 1-7. . „
i .

In addition to Endres' work, the more repent are Crouse (diss.),

and Flint, "Chronology," pp. 215-42.

^Endres, Honorius, p. 4. *

12 * ’•
De luminaribus ecclesiae 4: 17 (PL 172: 234): 'sub quinto
Henrico floruit. -

1.3
For discussion, see Flint; "Chronology,*' pp. 219-20.
* o '*

Flint, "Chronology," pa 220* and n. 4. - " .

* , i
Inevitablle. prologus (PL 172: 1197E).
 i
f

,■ ' 172
\ "

^ For discussion, see Flint, "Chronology," pp. 227-36?

^ The Neocosmos is edited by Crouse (diss.); since this edition

is not generally available, I refer to the text printed in PL 172:
253-68; the Expositio totius Psalterii is printed partly in PL 172:
269-312, under Honorius' name, and partly in PL 193'and 194 under the
name of Gerhoch^of Reichersberg.' Tfie Expositio in Cantica canticorum
is printed in PL 1721- 347-496. '

18
Ed. and intro., P. Lucentini, La Clavia physicae dl Honorius
Augustodunensis (Rome, 1972). ~ !

See E. Jeaiineau^"Wilhelm von Conches," Lexicon fiir Theologie *

» und Kirche. 2nd ed. . ■ »

20
PL 172; 1242-46; for analysis and discussion, see R. D.. Crouse,
"Hdnorius Augustodunensis: The Arts as Via aid patriam," in, Arts Lib.eraux
et philosophie au moyen age: Actes du quatrieme congres international de
philosophie medievale. Montreal, 2 aout - 2 septembre, 1967 (Montreal,
1969), pp. 531-39.
•r 21
Liber duodecim quaestionum (PL 172: 1177-86); Libellum octo
quaestionum (PL 172: 1185-92)
• . -• ^ *
22 " ' •» -
Summa totius (PL 172: 196D) .
y*' '

< 23
Annales Palidensis, ed. G. H. Pertz, MGH. SS. (in folio) 16,
V . p. 52. * .
i « i
* •, ,•
0/
Southern, p. 213,'. '(

25
See, e.g., prologues to Hepcosmos (PL 172: 253 B ) Imago mundi
(PL 172: 119-20), mid Cogni.tio vitae (PL 40: 1005-06).
26 * ■> ' -
De anjroae'exsilio et patria 1 (PL 172: 1243B): De hoc exsilio
ag patriam via est scientia, scientia enim in rebus physicis; sapientia
verp consideratur in divinis. . ‘

27 •
v “ 'Tracing the influeWde of John Scottus Eriugena on any twelfth-*
century author is a peculiarly difficult task, sinde— due to a suspicion
* of heresy based on a false attribution— he,is rarely cited by name?; for
some indications of his use by Honorius, see R. D.“ Crouse, "Intentio
0 ’Moysi: Bede, Augustine, Eriugena and Platp in the Hexaemeron of Honorius
I Augustodunensis," Dionysius 2 (-1978): 151-52, and P. Lucentini, Platonis-
mo medievale': contributi per la storia dell'Erlugenismo (Florence, 1980),
. , pp-w 56-75. , „
 4

173
' '
28
Elucidarium, p. 359: Saepius rogatus a condiscipulis quasdam
quaestiunculas enodare, importunitati illorum non fuit facultas negando
obviare, praesertim metuens illo elogio multari si creditym talentum
mallem in terra silendo occultari; cf. Anselm, Prosloglon, prologus,'
in S. Anselmi Carftuarensis"Archiepiscopi opera omnia 1, ed. F. S.
Schmitt (Rome, 1940), p. 7.‘
29 *
Elucidarium^ p. 359: Et ut labor meus non solum praes„enti
proficiat aetati, disputata curavi stylo transmittere posteritati. . . .

30 * •••
Elucidarium. p. 359: Titulus itaque opera, si placet,’Eluci­
darium praefiguratur, quia in eo obscuritas diversarum rerum elucidatur.
31 *
Elucidarium, p. 359: P’undamentum igitur opusculi siipra Fetram
Christum jaciatur et tota machitia quatuor firmis columnfs fulciatur:
primam columnam erigait prophetica auctoritap; secundam stabiliat apos-
tolica dignitas; tertiam roboret expositorum sagacitas; quartam figat
•magistrorum sollers subtilitas. I *
32 ''
Elucidarium 2, pp. 426-29; Sermo gefaeralis (PL 172: 861C-870D)".
'■33 * " > .
Elucidarium 1: 2, p. 361: Deus est* substantiaspiritualis tarn
inestimabilis pulchritudinis, tarn ineffabilis suavitatis, ut ahgeli,
qui solem septuplo sua yincunt pulchritudine, jugiter desiderent in eum
insatiabiliter prospicere. ■>
34 ->
Elucidarium 1: 3, pp. 362; cf. Augustine, De Svmholo 9 (PL 40:
659A). ’ ~

35
Elucidarium 1: 6 , p. 362: Ilia Itaque vis divinitatis'quae
■» omnia creando^ patrat Pater vocatur; ilia autem quae omnia continet n£
in nihilum dissolvantur Filius appellatur; quae vero omnia inspirando ’
vivificat et omat Spiritus sanctus nuncupatur.
Q •• • .
/ 36 '
Elucidarium 1: 7, p. 362: D.: Cum omnipotenti'a vel summa
dementia de Patre praedlcetur, quare non ma&er vocatur? M.: Quia ■
generatio princip&liter a patre procedit. Cf. De cognitio vitae 11'
(PL 40: 1014B). „ •’ ' ; ,
t : ■ - ,
A. * '

.Elucidarium 1: 8-9, p. 362. .*

38
,Elucidarium 1; 15, p. 363: In quo patet omnem creaturam semper 1
fuisse visibilem in Dei praedestinatione, quae postea. visibilis ipsi
creaturae apparuit in "creatione t ut artifex qui vult aomum construere
prius tractat quomodo quaeque velit disponere et machinh quae post
surgit in aedificio.prius stabat in ingenio. Cf. Augustine, Ih Johannis
 174

j \ . ' '
Ev. tractatus, 1: 9 and 1: 17, pp. 5-6 and 10; Honorius' source is
more probably Anselm, Monologion 9-11, in Opera omnia 1, ed. Schmitt,
pp. 24-26.
) '
39
Elucidarium 1: 15, p. 363: Unde dicitur Deus non esse anti-
quior suae creaturae ^empore, sed dignitate.

40 ’ ’
Elucidarium 1: 16-18* p. 364; cf^, inter alia, Augustine, Con­
fessiones 7i 12-13, ed. L. Verheijen, CCSL 27 (Tutnhout, 19^1), pp.
104-03, and De civitate Dei 11: 22, pp. 542-44. \

41 '
^ Elucidarium 1: 20, p. 364: Prima itaque die fecit diem aeter-
nit'atis, scilicet spiritualem lucem, et omnem spiritualem dT’eaturam. \
Secunda die caelum- quod spiritualem creaturam secemit a corporali.
Tertia, mare et terram. Aliis tribus diebus fecit quae infra sunt,
prima die feeit diem temporalitatis, scilicet solem et lunam et stellas
in supremo elemento, quod est ignis. ,Secunda die in medio elemento,
quod est aqua, pistes et volucres. Et pisces quidem in crassiori parte
aquae reliquit; volucres autem in tenuiorem partem aquae, quod est aer,
sustulit. Tertia die bestias et hominem de ultimo elemento, id est de
terra* condidit. - '
42
Elucidarium 1: 21, pp. 364-651 Nihil umquam fecit Deus quod
insensibile sit.. Quae enim sunt inanimate, nobis quidem sunt insensi-
bilia et. mortua; Deo autem omnia vivunt et omnia Creatorem sentiunt.
Caelum quippe eum sentit, quia ob eius jussum incessabili revolutione
semper Circuit. . . .Sol et luna et stellae eum sentiunt, quia loca
sui cursjus inerrabiiiter servando repetunt. Terra eum sentit, quia
semper certjg tempore fructus et germina producit. Elumina eum sentiunt
quia ad loca unde fluunt semper redeunt. Mare et venti eum sentiunt,
quia ei xmperanti mox quiescendo obediunt. Mortui eum septiunt, quia
ad eius imperium resurgunt. Infemus eum sentit, quia quos devorat eo
jubente reddit. Omnia bruta animalia Deum intelligent, quia legem sibi
ab eo insitam jugiter custodiunt.

- ' “ 4 fevre, L'Elucidarium, pi 109; cf. Gregory, XL Homeliarium in

Evangelia 1; 20: 2 (PL 76: 1111B). “ 7
111) I 4 i
Elucidarium 1: 23* p. 36^: carcerem . . . in, quo exitalem
lacum. .~~1 !
45' , . X
Elucidarium 1: 23-24, pp. 365-66; p £ . Gregory, Horn, in Evang.
2: 34: $-7| (PL 76: 1249-50). , • .

— Elucidarium -1: 25. p. 3.66.

^ Elucidarium X : 26, p. 366.

 175-sjt

48
Elucidarium 1 ^30, p. 366: D.: Habent nomina angeli?
CM.: Tanta scientia estin angelis, ut non indigeant nominibus.
t Tin i Cf.
Gregory, Horn, in Evang. 2: 34: 8 (PL 76: 1250CD),,.

^ Elucidarium 1: 32-34, p. 367.

^ Elucidarium 1: 45, pp. 368-69. . '

> «•
51
Cf. Anselm, Cur Deus homo 1: 7 and 2: 21, in Opera omnia 2,
ed. Schmitt, pp. 55-59, and 132.

52
Elucidarium 1: 46, p. 369: D.:* Qpm eog Deus tales praesciret
futures, quare creavit eos? M.: Propter omatum sui operis. Ut enim.
pictor nigrum colorem substernit, ut albus vel rubeus pretiosior sit,
sic collatione malorum 1usti clariores fiunt. Cf. Gregory, Moralia,in
Job 33: 14 (PL 76: 691B). • .

53 <2
Elucidarium 1: "48, p. 369; cf, Augustine, De civ. Dei 9: 21,
pp^f. 438-39.
' 54 u ■
-Peter Abelard, Theologia 'summiboni1 3: 2, ed. H. Ostlendei
BeitrSge 35: 2-3 (Munster i. W., 1939), p. 87, and Introductio adl
■theologiam 2 “(PL 178: 1073D).

^ Elucidarium 1: 54, p, 370: D.: Qualeto formam habent angeli?

M.: Quoddammodo Dei. Ut enim imago cerae imprimitur signaculo, sic *
express^ est in eis Dei similitudo. ' ,

° ^ Elucidarium 1: 56, p. 370;. cf. ^Augustine, De civ. Dei 9: 22,0

pp. 439-40.

N ^ Elucidarium 1: 57, p. 371; on p. 114, n. 4, Lefevre provides a

bibliographical survey of-pppbsing views on the question.
j/ , » •’
1 .

58 :•'°.
Elucidarium 1: 59, p. ‘371rDe quatuor elementis; unde et
microcosmus, id est minor mundusd;Lcitur. Habet enim ex terra camem,
ex aqua sahguinem, ex aere flatum, ex igne ealorem. Caput^eius est '
rotundumih caelestis spherae modum; in quo duo oculi, ut duo luminafia
in caelo, micantj quod.etiam septem foramina, ut septem caeli harmoniae,
omant. Pectus, in quo flatus et tussis1versatur,'simulat aerem, in
quo venti et tonitrua concitantur. ' Venter omnes liquotes, ut mare
omnia flumina, recipit. Pedes totum"corporis pondus, ut terra cuncta, '
sustinent. Ex caelesti igne visum, ex superlore aere auditum, ex
inferiore olfactum,_ex aqua gustum, ex terra habet.tactum. Participium
duritiae lapidum habet in osslbus, virorefi arborum in unguibus, decorem
graminum in crinibus, sensum cum animalibus,
 V

176

^ £lato, Timaeus 42E. Calcidlus CCII, pp. 38 and 221-22; Macro-

bius.Comm. 2: 12, pp. 130-33; see also Isidore, De natura rerum 9:2
(PL 83: 978A). '• ..

^ Elucidariom 1: 61, pp. 371-72.

*.
i) ^ Elucidarium 1: 61, pp. '371-72; cf.. Augustine,^ De Trinitate 9:
5, ed. W. J. Mountain and Fr. Glorie, CCSL 50: 16: 1 (Turnhout, 1968)',
p.-300— probably through Anselm, Monologion 67, p. 78.
62 t o ,
Elucidarium 1:, 61, p.-372; cf. Ambrosfe, De djgnitate conditione
• humanae 2 (PL 17: 1106AJV ,
, . ' ,, * ' a‘
63 Elucidarium 1: 61, p. 372: Et sicut Deus non potest comprehendi
ab omni creatufa, cum ipse comprehendat omnia, ita anima a nulla visibili
creatura potest comprehendi, cum ipsa omnia visibilia comprehendat. . . .

« -c ^ . Elucidarium 1 : 62,. d. 372: D.: Formavit eum manibus? M.: Jussu

tantum.- “Per haec verba innuitur nobis eius fragilis natura.
*65
Elucidarium 1: 63, p. 372: D.: Quarede tam vili materia
Creaviteum? M.: -addedecus diaboli . . . ut . . .plus confunderetur,
. cum-hie, fragilis et luteus, gloriam intraret, de qua ipse glorib^us.
necidisset. , ' ■ '
' ° ' if " ■ ' , * ' ’ * » '
*■ ■
* „ . •X “
' ....Elucidarium 1: 64, p. 372; cf. Augustine, In Johannis Ev. trac- '
tatvfe 9: 14. p. 98. 11. 15-20. ' .' ’ .
Q f .

Elucidarium 1: 66, p. 3.73: Tantam diligentiam exhibuit, Deus

in muscis et formicis formandis quam'in angelis creahdis.
. 6 8 ’ - ■ - . -

Elucidarium 1: 67, p. 373.- >

%'•
,
- o

69 * ' " -
, . . Elucidarium 1: 67, p. "373: Omnis itaque Dei creatio conside-
\ranti magna est delectatio, dunr in aliquibus sitdeeor, ut in floribus,,
in .aliquibus medicina, ut in herbis, "In quibusdam pastus, ut in\
frugibus, in quibugdam significatio, ut in vefmis vel avibus. Omnia
igitiir bona et omnia proptet hominem cre&ta. ' » o v
70 , •
Elucidarium 1: 69, p. 373;.cf. Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 2: 8-9,-
p. 46,..11. 1435-52. r* * 1 5
. • ’ ^ i ' . .■
71 , '•
Elucidarium 1: 74-75; cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litt. 9:3,
pp. 271-72. ” ' . .
 ' .177
« i
i -’
72 i
Elucidarium 1: )76, pp. 374-75.

73
Eluciidarjum Is 78, p. 375; cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litt.
9: 6 , pp. 273-74. '' ‘ '
74
Elucidarium 1: 83, p. 376.

^ Elucidarium 1: 95-99, p. 378.

^ Elucidarium 1: 84, p. 376: D.: Cur pennisit eum Deus temptari,

cum sciret eum superari? M.: Quia praescivit quanta, bona de eius
peccato esset facturus. v ’ • v
' *
' -
%\ ''' * •
• 77 •
- --Elucidarium-1: 95-99. p .378. ’ '
.■ s 8; v. ' , ' ' •' ■ " ■ •• •'
Elucidarium 1: 104-18, pp. 379-132; cf. Anselm,“Cur Deus homo
1: 19-25, pp. 84-96; see Lefevre, L*Elucidarium. pp. 122-23,'
. . . *
79 ', ' • . 1i ..
.Elucidarium 2: 2. pp. 405-06: Tria sunt: creatura, natura,
factura; creatura ut elementa; natura ut ex eis nascentiaf factura quae
angelus vel Homo facit aut patitur. .EaciunT peccata, patiuntur poenas .
’peccati; ha.ec Deus no^ fecit, sed fieri permisit, ut dicitur 'Deus
-mortem non fecit.''
80 » ' ■*
Elucidarium 2: 3, p/ 406.
81 ' •
f
Elucidarium. 2: 4, p. 406.
. " ' t

00 *;
•. Elucidarium 2: 6 , p. 407. '

„ Elucidarium 2-: 7, p. 407: In potestatehominJ&sessp^et velle

et posse bonum vel malum. Hoc in paradiso homo habuit liberum, nunc
vero captivum, quia bonum non *vult nisi gratia Dei praeveniatur nec '
potest nisi eum subsequ'atur.
. AA *’
Elucidarium 2: 34, p. 421. >
’ 't *

85 '“ • ’,
'e « ^
' Elucidarium 2: 35, p. 422": Deus, a quo omnis bonitas et omnis
sanqtitas, nonnisi bonas et sanctas creat animas et ipsae naturaliter
desiderant corpus J.ntfar<b, ut nos naturaliter, cupimus vivere. Verum-
tameri, cum intraverint illud immundum et pollutujn vasculum, tanta
aviditate illud amplectuntur, ut plus diligant quam Deum. Justurn
igitur est ut, ciim ipsae sordidum vas, immo carcerem,-quo clauduntur, .
amori Dei praeponant, eas Deus a suo consortio excludat. Cf. Macro-
bius,, Comm. 1: H: 9-12, p. ,47. > . 1

86
Elucidarium 2,: 38, p. 422: Homo in baptismate interius et>^
exterius sanctificatur, sed rursum semen eius per carnis concupiscentiam
coinquinatur, \ •. ° »- •
‘’ o *
._gy ’ ' e V' ' _ -
Elucidarium 2: 39, p. 423; cf. Augustin, De peccatorum meritis
et remissione 2: .4 (PL 44: 152D-153). .%

88 0 0
Neocosmos .(prologue), PL 172: 253B: Majorum itaque sequens
auctoritatem, pando vobis hujus textus obscuritatem. Cui vero hoc
'placeat, elucidario nostro in capite praefigurat Hexaemeron.
89 ‘ '
Crouse, "Intentio Moysi," p. 147*
' ■ r. ‘
*
^ Neocosmos 1 (253B): In primis quaeribur, cur Moy^s de lapsu
hominis scripserit, casum vero angeli reticueriti- ^
v*

91 / ’ ” *
Neocosmos 1 (253C): Intentio quippe Moysis est restaurationem
humani generis per Christum figuraliter narrare, quam intentionem omni-
mode satagit suae mateciae adaptare.

' 92 r , 1
Neocosmos 1 (253C): Intoto quoque textu suae narrationis
nihil-aliud ponitur, nisi quod Christo vel Ecclesiae figuraliter con-
gruit. 11

93- ‘
Neocosmos 1 (253C); cf. Bede, Hexaemeron ,1: 1, p. 3, 11. 25-28.

‘94’
Neocosmos 1 (254B). ,

95 '* ^ ° x. *
■ For accessus. see E. A. Qualn, "The Medieval acdessus ad
auctores."
1■ * ■ Traditio
' _ r'~" 3 (1945): 215-64.<* .

* Calcidius*CCLXVIII, p. 273, 1. 10.

97 - ' ’
Neocosmos 1 (254A): Materia autem-sua est hie sensibilis,mundus,
in quern homo post lapsum est pulsus, et adventus Deiunigeniti in hunc
mundum, mundi fabricatoris et humani generisliberatoris. Cf. Eriugena,
Periphvseon 4: 12 (PL 122: 800B). ' , ’ , ‘ -

98° x «
NeocosaOs 1 (254B): Ob quam rem etiam utrumque a principle
incipitur, cum illud, 'in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram,'
istud, ,’ih principio atat Verbum,' inchoatur. Joannis quippe eVangelium
in capone pjriinum ponitur. , •. 0'
 QQ
Neocosmos 1 (254B). . (
\
. Neocosmos1 (254B) .
• " ‘ „ , *
Neocosmos 1 (254C): 'Et Spiritus domini ferebatur super
aquas,1 vel aquas fovebat, id est cuucta de aquis procreanda animabat.
Cf. Eriugeda, Periphyseon 2: 20 (PL 1^2: 555BC).

102
' ' Neocosmos 1 (254C); cf. Elucidarium 1: 6 , p. 362.

103 *
' Neocosmos 1 (254C)'Coeli etenim;appellatione, incorporeS,
ut sunt angeli, intelliguntur, et cutfct*^ spiritualia quae a nobis non
conspiciuntur. Gf. Calcidius CCLXXVIII, p. 282, 11. 10-15.

104 Neocosmos ~1 (254C) : Terra autem vocabulo co-rporea, ut hoc

coelum et terra-, innuuntur, et cuncta quae a nobis cemuntur. Cf.
Calcidius CGLXXVI, p. 282, 11. 1CKL5. 1 0

Neocosmos .1 (255A) ; cf. -Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 1: 2, pi 4a

11.-40-45. .
»
. ' - J
106 Neocosmos 1 (255A):
y Astra vero vespertina ad laudem Condi-
toris processerunt, dum homines elect! postmodum creati sunt: qui in
morte, ut sidera, occubuerunt, et ad hoc in exortu aetemi diei ad
tongaudendum per. resurrectionem effulgebunt. Cf. Macrobius, Comm.
1: 11: 9-12, p. 47, where human souls are said to be of celestial
origin.
G fc % ' «• .' r, '
■
Neocosmos 1 (255B) : Sed haec'tetra return, imago chaos vel
’informis materia cognominatur. Cf. Calcidius CXXIII, p.- 167, 11; 6-7.

. Neocosmos 1 (255B): Terra ipsis, quibus nunc, terminis erat

circumscripta, sed tota aquis operta: et eius species tails, qualis
adhuc sub profundo maris. Porro ignis in lapidibus et ferro latebat;
aer vero et terrae et aquae mistus inhaerebat. Aqua autem universam
superficiem terrae contegebat, et totum spatium.usque ad coelum
replebat; seque aquis superioribus, quae adhuc super coelos sunt con-
jungebat. Non autem crassitudine utl nunc ^pissabatur, ^sed in modum
nebulae tenuis diffundebatur. Cf. Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 1: 2, pp. 5-6.

109 4
Neocosmos 2 (255C): Cum de Deo, ’dixit,' scrlbitur, nostro
more dicitur, et efficacia jubentis exprimitur. Dei autem dicere i
nihil est aliud, quam per verbum suum omnia condere. Cf. Bede,
Hexaemeron 1: 1: 3, p. 8, 11.168-72. . &
 i
180

Neocosmos 2 (255G) ; cf , Bede, Hexaemeron 1:' 1: 5, pp. 9-10. -

y ■ \j
Neocosmos 2 (255D): Hoc est, rationali creaturae intelligere
dedit: ijuam bona sint cuncta, quae per lucem cemit. Cf.. Bede,
Hexaemeron 1; 1: 4, p. 9, li. 195-203.,
* ' ’ ’

112 ! * •" "

Neocosmos 2 (256A): Notandum autem, quod'dies a luce incho-
atur et in lhce terminatur: quia omnia dpera Dei “a Christo, qui est lux
vera, inchoantur, et in eodem cuncta consummantur.

113 * ' ^ -
Neodosmos 2 (256B); cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:' 26-31,
ed. H. Thackeray (London, 1930), p. 15. ■
•114 '
,Neocosmos 2 (256B): Postquam Autem media spatia inter coelum
et terrain vacuaa^paruerunt, ignis et.aer, quae prius sub aquis pressa
in terris liatuerunt, congrua sibi loca libere occupaverunt. Et.ignis
quidem altipra, aer vero inferiora mundi naturaliter repleverunt, ei:
tunc luce nuper creata clarius cuncta illustrari meruerunt.* Cf. Bede,
Hexaemeron lls 1:^9, pp. 12-13<? 11. 325-33'. . •
. » ' / *
115 , *.
'Ndocosmos 2 (256C); cf. Bede, HeXaemeron Is It 9, p. 13, 11.
3-50.

116 Neocosmds 2 (256D-257A).;

11.7
Neocosmos 2 (257A): Tribus enim diebus elementa, et trfbus «
quae infra ea sunt, sunt perfects. In principio namque coelum et terra
ad materiam ex nihilo,creantur, ignis et aer in terra aquiS operiebantur.
Deinde prima die lux ab igne serenatur, secunda coelum ex aqua instar
crystalli solidatur; tertia terra“fundatur et aqua ab ea segregatur,
•ipsaque terra floribus et nemoribus condecoratur. Quarta coelum et aer
superior sole, luna et stellis’ex igne productis, illustratur. Quinta
aer inferior, avibus, aqua piscibus fecundatur. Sexta terra animalibus
ex ipsa procreatis onustatur. *.
Up V k
Neocosmos 2 (257A); cf. Elucidafrium 1: 20, p. 364.
‘ nq
Neocosmos 3 (257C).

120
Neocosmos 3 (257D); cf. Bede, Hexaemeron 1: I: 14, p. 16,
11. 451-587* f. " 1

« 121 .
Neocosmos 3 (257D-258A)-: Hie Scriptu,ra aperitur, cur Spiritus
,Dei aquas foverit; quia nimirum primum de hoc elemento voluSflr ahimantia
 181/

producere, et cuncta hulus admistione fecundare. Cf. Eriugena,' Peri-

■physeon 2: 20 (PL-122: 555C). . - .
•; ^ - ft'
122 t
„ Neocosmos 3 (258B); cf. Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 1: 15, pp. 16-17,
arid Isidore, Etvmologiarum 3: 61 (PL 82: 178D-179A).

123 •
Neocosmos 3 (258C): Qui etiam ad imaginem. et similitudinem
Dei creatus memoratur , ut coeleste animal inteliigatur: dusfratione et
ihtellectu a caeteris animantibus sequestratur. Cf.- Eriugena, Peri-
phvseon 4: 5 (PL 122: 755C), and Macrobius, Comm. 1: 11: 9-12, p. 47.
124 ■•' • « . '
Neocosmos 3 (258C): Et quia ei Dominus quandoque couniri dis-
posuit, ei participium cum Omni creatura, tribuit; scilicet descernere
cum angelis, sentire cum animantibus, crescere cum herbis et arboribus,.
esse eumlapidibus. Corpus eius de quatuor elementis compegit, animam
scientia replevit, et omni corpoMili creaturae praefecit. Cf. Eriugena,
Periphvseon 4: 6 (PL 122: 760A) . *
125
Neocosmos 3 (258D); cf. Elucidarium 1: 74-76, pp. 374-75.
0 4 "

126
Neocosmds 3 (258D): Ante peccatum homo o^aaa subjecta habuit;
post peccatum vero ipse omnibus subjacuit. Ante jreanum hominis terra o.
nil noxium, nullam herbam venenatam, nullam arborem ^terilem protulit:
quae postmodum in poenanfhominis venerum herbis intulit, fructus
arboribus abstulit'. Aveg quoque non raptu alitum vivebant, nec ferae
bestiolas ad' esum lacerabant, sed omnia communiter de herbis terrae
alimenta sumebant. " ,

12t ' ‘ se considerata,

Neocosmos 3 (259A) : Cuncta quae fecit Deus per
sunt bona singula, in universitate autem numerata aunt valde bona: quia
licet unum alteri contrarium videatur, unumquodque tamen necessarium
comprobatur. Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litt. 3: 24, p. 92.

128
Neocosmos 3 (259AB): Serpentes vero vel oaetera animalia his
similia comprobantut bona; quod justa ab hominibus exigant supplicia,
yel ad diversas medicinas sunt utilia. , ■
^ 1 .
129 Neocosmos 3 (259C): Sicut enim septimo die Deus opera huius
mundi’ consummasse scribitur, ita his mundus per septem millia annorum
extendi dicitur. ^
130 ' .
■ Neocosmos 3 (259C): qpaado finito labore post septem millia
annbrum octavum secundum inchoatur, in quo una dies melior super millia
speratur, quae'per solum Filium omnibus credentibus datur. Cf. Augustine
De libearo arbitrio 3: 265-66, ed. W. Green, CSEL 74: 6 : 3 (Vienna, 1956),
pp. 153-54, where the same verse is used to describe the awaited bliss
of heaven. •
 131 ’
Neocosmos 3 (259C).

132
Neocosmos 3 (259CD-260A); cf. Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 2: 3,
pp. 35-39; fo'r a discussion bf variations on the seven days as ages
of history, see G. Ladner, The Idea of Reform, pp. 222-338.
1 133
Neocosmos 3. (259.C) ♦
134
Neocosmos 3 (260A); cf. Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 2: 3, p. 38,
11. 1181-95. • °.
135 i *> . ’ ’
Neocosmos 3 (260A); cf. Bed!e,' Hexaemeron 1: 2: 3, p. 39,
11. 1203-24. • .j !
© . ’ - « ‘-
136* 9
See discussion in Crouse, "Intentio Moysi," pp. 150-52.
137 . .
Neocosmos 4 (260B) : Omne quod ppstmodum factum est, mat°eri-
aliter ac formabiliter, semper in Vetbo DSi. fuit causaliter ac prae- ,
destinaliter. '
-> r
13ft' - ‘
Neocosmos 4 (260C). . ’
‘ 139
Neocosmos 4 (260C): Hoc'esf corporalis creatura adhuc infor-
mata sed in Verbo Dei causaliter oosita. Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad
litt. 1: 1, pp. 4-5. - \

140 Neocosmos 4 (260C): Hoc est Spiritus Domini cuncta in formas

discrevit, quae de aquis vel per aquae commistionem fieri disposuit. .
Cf . Eriugena, Periuhvseon 3: 24 (PL 122: 690D>).

141
Neocosmos 4 (260D): Sciendum vero quod Deus nbn prius
materiam, deinde formam fecit; sed simul omnia formata protulit, sicut
cantus cum voce-simul.procedit. Porro quod hoc vel hoc, ilia vel ilia
die fecisse legitur, hoc nostro more dicitur: a quibus minime intelli-
gitur, qudd omnia simul fecisse scribitur. *Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad
litt. 1: 15, p. 21, 11. 7-19. ' |

142 ’
Neocosmos 4 (260D-261A): Nullum autem hominum scire posse ..
puto, quantum inter creationem angelo’rum et 'huius mundi tempus defluxe-'
rit, nisi cuius Deus revelaverit; praesertim cun; adhuc tempus non
fuerit, sed cum isto mundo coep’erit, et nihil aliud tempus sit 'nis:.
diei ac noctis, vel anni, ut .puta veris, aestatis, autumni, hiemis
vicissitudo; vel rerum de praeterito in praesens, de praesenti in
futurum transmutatio. Omnia enim <£uae Deus creavitin aeternum perma-o
here.credunt-ur, licet alia in alia permutentur. For discussion of- -
" »- v ,
 L 183

time, cf. Augustine. Confessiones 11: 23 (30), pp. 209-10; for the
permanence of things under mutability, cf. Mqcrobius, Comm. 2: 12:
12-13, 'p. 132. r _ ■ ,
' •> 'o' 9

Neocosmos 4 (261B); cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litt. 1: 3,

p. 7, and 4: 22, p. 121. ^

144 *" ■
Neocosmos 4 (26IB): Deux itaque dixit, ’fiat lux,1 cum
angelos luce sapientiae illustravit. Ipsa est enim candor lucis aeter-
nae.’ Facta .est autem lux, cum cognoverunt Deum omnia in sapientia jam
fecisse, quae adhuc futura erant: In quo omnes causas et rationes
rerum jam conspiciebant. ’Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum,’ scilicet'
quod Creatorem a creatura discemebant, et creaturam despicientes,
Creatorem laudantes, diligebaht.

Neocosmos 4 »(261D)-: Omnis namque corpora creatura, si 7

spiritual! comparetur, jure tenebrae appellatur.
•1 '* 4 •
146 %
■ Neocosmos 4 (262B): Quaeritur etiam quid sit. regnum coelorum,
vel quod' praemium ibi tribuaturfs^ir|tibus beatorum?
I "7 r ,
Neocosmos 4 (262C): cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litt. 4: 25, -
p . 123-, and 4: 35, p. 136. -• ' •
1/ft* • '' *' "
Neocosmos 4 (262C): Quasi vero in mane exsurgit, cum in laude^r
Creatoris pro mirabili creations erumpit.' Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad *
'litt. 4: 22, p. 121. ' •

Neocosmos 4 (262D-263A): Sacra Scriptura Se cohfoxmat hominum

intellectibus ut mater infantium moribus aut veluti cera reversis sigil-
lorum impressionibus. Matemo namque incessu cum tardis ambulat, cum
capacibus ad alta volat, altitudine superbos irridet, profunditate
attentos terret, veritate magnos pascit, affabilitate parvulos nutrit.
Haec ergo una die Deum cuncta in simul ereasse sapientibus narrat,
•haec tardioribus sax diebus Deum opera sua explevisse commemorat: a
capacibus" quipfee vix intelligitur, quod Deux una'die, imo uno ictu
oculi, omnia insimul ereasse legitur. A tardioribus autem facile
capitur, ut pomum fractum a parvulis inandltur,' quod sex diebus omnis
factura absoluta traditur,
•» ‘•' ■
- 150v ' i
Neocosmos 4 (263B): Quam regulam peritissimus philOsophorum
.Plato non ignoravit, qui ob perfectionem eiusdem numeri librum suum
sic, 'uno, duo, tres . . .' inchoavit. • Timaeus 17A. p. 7.
•151 ' ■, .
Neocosmos 4 (263B): Per. unitatem itaque ipse fons et prin-
cipium o^iuft^rerum Iteus i|telligitur , qut vere solus unus es$fe dicitur,

i
 7 .1 8 4 '
* 'r ‘■ - -• t.<
’*
•
0 - — ■ . ^ ■ j •
a quo hinarius nascitur, dum spiritualis creatura ab eo producitur,
a quo item ternarius gignitur, dum corpOreus mundus conditur, Qui
numerus replicatur, dum omnia ex Fatre per Filium in Spiritu sancto
subsistere intelligibili naturae manifestatur:” Senarius ergo numerus
consummatur, dum triplex factura, scilicet spiritualis, sensibilis,
insensibilis, a triplici factbre,Patre videlicet, et Filio et Spiritu
sancto contineri consideratur. Unde etiam septima die'Deus'ab operibus '
requievisse describitur, quia post perfectionem Deus a creatura' sua in
se requiescere, et ipse in eo solummodo requiem habere cognosCifur.
Gf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litt. -4: 2, pp. 94-98; Macrobius, Comm.
1 : 6 : 1-13, pp. 18-21. • •■ ' '' . • I
152 • \ ■
Neocosmos 5 (263CD); cf. Augustine., De Genesi ad litt. 4: 22. ‘
p. 121, 11. 16-23. . ■' ■ , . '

• 153 - ■ : ■ • ■ - ■ '
Neocosmos 5 (263D); cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litt. 4: 35. -
p. 136, 11. 17-22. . •

’ .Vl54-Cf. 257AB .and 259CD-260A. . .' V '

Neocosmos 5 (264GD): Primo itaque lux in ordine ponitur, quae ,,

dies etiam nuncupatur, et angelica substantia deelaraturf^juaeque a -\
luce aetemae sapientiae illustratur. Secundo firmamentum locatur, a;
' quo hie corporeus mundus inehoatur. Tertio species maris et terrae, £n
qua non realiter, sed potentialiter herbarum et lignorum natura -forma4
tur. Quarto sol et luna cum sideribus in igneo elemento, potentialiter
quidem, locantur. • Quinto de humido aere volatilia, de aqua vero nata-f
tilia, iterum potentialiter educuntur. Sexto.de terra animalia, cum |
homine nihilominus potentialiter, proferuntur. Qui ordo, quia ab „
angelica natura’, quae dies dicitur, in Verbo Dei per senarium numerum „
discemitur, recte idem dies sexies repetitus describitur. Quern eumdem<
septimum Dominus benedicit , et in eo.requiescit: quia angelicam* naturam
Dominus septiformi Spiritu replens sanctificat ,'Jatque earn in se
requiescere praestat. * ,

Neocosmos 5 (264D): Ergo sicut homo ad similitudinem Dei

conditur, ita etiam isti temporales dies, ad similitudinem illorum sex,
vel potius septem, in Verbo Dei aeternaliter mandntium, creati dicuntur;
et omnia, etiam in hoc mundo formate ad similitudinem formarum in Deo
consistentium, create non absurde dicuntur. C t ‘. Augustine. De Genesi
ad litt. 1: 4, p. 7. ^ *

157 '
Neocosmos 5 (265A): 'Quae autem die hebdomadae, vel quo
ordine, utrumne una die vel pluribus, cuncta in species formaverit,
ignoratur. ,

Neocosmos 5 (265AB): •tytrum Vero homo diutius in paradise

manserit, dubitatur; licet multo tempore inibi habitasse a^pjuribus
astruatur. .
 159 ■ - * ‘
' Neocosmos 5 (265B) : ;Igitur iii his aetemis sex diebus Deus
cuncta causaliter-creavit, et ab omni opete in septimo requieyit. In
istis autem temporalibus”omnia temporalis et corporalia realiter per•
species et formas-fecit; legem crescendi, permanendi, alia ex se
gignendi dedit. '

Neocosmos 5 (265B): Et haec cuncta Filius cum Fatre usque

modo opetatur: per quern adhuc omnis.corporea crdarqra iii meliorem
statum trapsformatur. •

. De luminaribus ecalesiae 4t 17 (PL 172: 232k) '. ^

* .. *♦
* 162 '■
. . See tindres, Honorius» pp. 43-45; Sanford, "Honorius," p. 424, _
n^ 142»

163 Cogaitio*vitae, nrologus (PL 40: 1005D-1007A) ; 2 (1007D):

D.: Nostra quidem tlbi non deerit oratio, tantum sit.tibi praevia dux
Veritatis ratio.
* *•' ♦
’ 164 . '
/ Cbgn. vitae., prologus (1005D) ; cf. Anselm, Monologion 69, .
pp. 79-50. 6 - . . . . . „ '

165 . ••
Cogn. vitae, prologus (1007A). . ^ •
. L-: ' ' B «

. 166 bom, vitae 3 (lfio8^)9V. ' - • '

- ' / , V <
Cogn. vitae 3-(1009A): Igitur . . . nihil de Deo proprie
loqui valeamus, saltertimproprie et per aenigmata de eoloqui satagamiis.
, Cf. Eriugena, Pferiphyseon 1: 64 (PL 122: 506A), and Abelard, Theologia
'summi botii1 2; 3, p. 5S,KL1.‘5-10. ‘
» 16S' .b
Cogn. vitae 4. (1009AB): Universa quae in rebus creatis novimus,
■ per cotpdreos. sensus cognovimus”. Et ea quidem quae nec visu nec experi-
•§■entia didicimus, pet pomparationes Visorum vel expertorum' discimus, ut
quae dCbestiis vel ignotis hominibus legimus; quae autem nobis penltus
Incognita;, per comparatioads notas non sigaificantur, nunquam prorsus
scientiae hostrae notificantur. Et ideo quia spiritualia nobis sunt'
iuvisibilial atque corporeis sensibus incomparabilia, nunquam erunt
'' nobis aliqua ratione probabiliai Quia .vero haec constat esse, sed per
similia edoceri nequeUhtyfidem tantum Credentium exigent.
' ' , ' ■ ' ’
CQgn. vitae 4 ( 1 0 Q 9 B C ) . ■ ' . -,

170 Cogn. '

vitae 4.(1Q09BC): ‘Aer est spiritus sensilis, non sensi­
bilis: id est,-quern nos .attrahendo sentimus,'Ipse nihil sentiens, •
 <3 186

cunctis tamen sub coelo viventibus spirameh exhibens. Ventus spiritus

aer est, Dei nutu, aliquo motu agitatus.,•procellis aquarum augmentatus,
per angelica ministeria excitatus, per eadem tranquillitatps. Vita
brutorum animalium est spiritus vitalis constans de aere et sanguine,
animalis, invlsibilis, sed sensibilis, memoriam habens, sed intellectu
carens, cum carne Aoriens, in aera evanescens. .

o Cogn. vitae 5 (1009CD): Anima vero spiritus est substantia

incorpdrea, corporis sui vita, invisibilis,' sensibilis, mutabilis,
illocalis, paSsibilis, nec quantitatum mensurae, nec qualitatum formae
vel coloris susceptibilis, memorialis, rationalis, intellectualis,
imortalis. • • ■. ,

172
Cogn*. vitae 6 (1010C): Sqd hoc differt inter illorum et
nostram scientiam, quod ipsi omnes causas rerum antequam eveniant
praesciunt; nos autem vix.et cum magno laBore investigamus eas, post-
quam res in actu constant. Cf. Abelard, Exp. in Hexaem. .(PL 178: 746C)
* " Ss
173 " * ' '
■ Cogn. vitae 6 (1010C).
v 174" ' .h ■ r. "
Cogn. vitae 7 (1010D): Porro -SfBagus spiritus, sicut a nullo
.intellectu valet propriej^ogitari, ita bulla definitione poterit *
proprie determinari. SaS quia intellectualis mens eum utcumque aghos-
cere anhelat, haec ;e«^gpatica definitio ei interim sufficiat. Deus
spiritus est essefitia invisibilis, omni creaturae ‘incomprehensibilis,
totam vitam, totam.sapientiam, totam aeternitatem simul essentialiter
possidens:- vel ipsa vita, ipsa sapientia, ipsa veritas, ipsa justitia,
ipsa aeternitas existens, omnem creaturam instar puncti in se coh-
tinens. .- j! *
' ' ' ■ ^ ' ’
175 ■ -
Cogn. vitae 7 (1011AB): Omnis Substantia aut per se subsistit
aut per aliud. . . . Mundum autem non per se subsistere* constat, dum
eum coepisse ratio doceat; partibusertim! constat. Omne autem quod
partibus conjungitur ve£ in partes fesolvitur, a^ aliquo utique con-
junctionem vel resolutionem patitur. Mundus ergo non per se subpistit;
et ideo sequitur quod creatura sit. Creatura autem ad aliquid, scili­
cet ad "Creatorem refe'rtur. Solusigitur Creator per se ipsum et. in se
ipse existit: omnis autem creatura per. ipsum subsistit. Si enim ab
alio esse habet, tunc id Deb majus. est a quo hoc habet; quod Deo
„inconveniens est. Et cum nihil praeter Creatorem et creaturam existat,
si Deus per se ipsum non habet esse, necessitate consequitur ut per
creaturam existat, quod inconvenientissimum est. Cf. Anselm, Monolo­
gion 3-4,, pp. 16-18. *■.

176 *■ - '
Cogn,.•vitae 7 (lOil BC); »cf. Anselm, Monologion 2, pp. 15-16;
see also Boethius, De hebdomadibus,»ed. and trang. E. K. Rand and S. J.
'Tester, in Boethius: The Theological Tractates and the Consolation of
Philosophy^ 2nd ed. (London, 1973), pp. '38-51.
 187

1 77 «■ .
Cogn. vitae 8-(1Q11D).

178 Cogn. vitae“8 (1012).

i
179 Cogn. vitae 9 (1012D-1013c}*

^88 Cogn. vitae 10 (1013CD-1Q14A); cf . Elucidarium 1: 3, p. -361.

181* * ^
Cogn. vitae '11 (1014): In patte .semper est principalis causa
prolie, et ideo a principali sexu debuit jure* lioc nomine appellari.
Cf. .Elucidarium 1.: 7, p. 362.

Cogn. vitae 11 (1014CD).; cf. Elucidarium8-9, p. 362.

183 " ' ■ - ’■ "A- * 3-
Cogn. vitae 15- (1015B) i Quomodu dicitur, 'Omne quod factum
Sit, in ipso vita fuerit'tHum lapidesqui stolidi sunt, in Verbo Dei
vivunu? Honorius* use of the distinctive term stolidus may be a
reflection of Eriugena's vocabulary in Perdphyseon 4: 5 (PL 122: 757AB)
the tern probably originates with Martianus Capella— see Eriugena,
Annotationes in Marcianum, ed. C. E. Lutz (Cambridge, Mass., 1939),
p. 93. . ’
184 > -
Cogn. vitae 15 (1Q15C): In Deo vita immutabilis, in se ipsa
substantia commutabilis, In nobis similitudo rerum impginabilis. Verbi
gratia, lapis in se ipso est substantia mutabilis, quia in calcem con-
vertibilis, in nostra cogitatione similitudo lapidis, in arte Dei.
essentia interminabilis vitae durabilis. Cf. Anselm. -Monologion 31-36,
pp. 48-55.

^ ■*’8^ Cogn. vitae 15 (1015C): Cum enim artifex domum facere cogitat
jam„domum in ipsa arte vivit,' quam postmodum manus aedificat. Sed ilia
quam manus erigit,' corruet; ilia, vero quae in arte vivit, permanep.
Nihil quippe aliud est ars quam anima, et anima nihil aliud est quam
ipsa vita: Sic Verbum Dei nihil aliud est quam ars eius,et ars nihil
aliud est quam ipsa vita; et in hac cuncta immutabiliter permanebunt,
quae in substantia sui mutabilia deficiunt.
/ • . ' '/ ■ ■ . •• • • .

186 Cogn. vitae 18 (1016BC). .

187 Cogn. vitae 20 (1017B-1018A),

188 Cogn. vitae 21 (1Q18B); Cf. Anselm, Cur Deus homo 1: 15,
pp. .73-74.
 I :* • ••• • .•18a
••

1Qft V «
Cogn. vitae 21 (1018C): Est autem rectus rationalis creaturae
ordo, ut caduca \respuat, mansura -appetat; homines in-anima immortales -
diligat, Deum summim* bonum prae omnibus amans, ejus voluntati obediat.
Sed qui ^brnmum bonum contemnunt, .caducum mundi bonum diligunt, socias
animas despiciunt, camis desideriis pbediunt, hi, inordinate vivpn
sicque malum faciunt. • ' •
190 '. ■
Cogn. vitae 22 (1018D): Itaque- ratiope probante nobis insinua
utrum universitas creaturae/ ex Creatoris substantia, an ex aliquaprae-
existente'materia, an ex nihilo sit condita. 4 . "
■
’ 191 / . '< , • *
Cogn.- vitafe 22 (1019A): Deus autem universitatem in sapientia
sua nullam quidem substantiam existenbem per nulla instrumenta in tot
sub^tantlas produxlt; fit ideo ex nihilo omnia fecit, et tamen quasi non
ex nihilo, sed ex:aliquo vlsibilis mundus pjcocessit, dum instar arche- "
typi mundi formas induit.

192 Cogn. vitae 2’

3 '(1019AB). '
a.' ^ *-®* . ‘ <r. ,
193 ’
Cogn. vitae 24 (1019D): Angeli etenim et universa viventia
Deum-sibi inesse sentiunt. .Deus quippe. vita est, et omne quod vivit,
vita vivit. Non enim angelis magis Vivit quam vermis, licet ille sit.
immortalis, iste mortalis. Nec angelus magis subsistit quam vermis,
quamvis illius spbs£an£ia«sit aeterna, istius caduta. Corpora quoque
coelesti-a, ‘scilicet sol,- luna, sidera Deum in se sentiunt, dym per eum
luceptet subsistunt.Arboreset herbal Deum in se sentiunt, dum per '
.eum crescunt et subsistuht. Lapides vero Deum sibi inesse sentiunt,
dum per eum subsistunt.. Cf. Elucidarium 1: 21, pp. 364-65. '

194
Cogn. vitae 24 (1020A),: Daemones sibi Detim adesse sentiunt, .
quod justo Dei jddicio, mala in poenis luunt. Deus enim justitia est,
et ubicunque justitia exercetur, Deus ibi esse creditur. . . . Et nemo
opinetur Deum sordes mundi abominari,"sed solus peccatorum sordes
noverit eum exsecrari,- nec eum ullo modo posse ulla re commaculari,
si-cut nec radium solis ulla immunditia sordidari. For the source of
Honorius* metaphor, see Eriugena. Periphyseon 1: 75 (PL 122: 520D-521A).
* «' • ■ 9

195 . ' *
“ Cogn. vitae 26 (1020D-1021A). . y . *

196 '■
Cogn. vitae 27 (1021B): Sed sciendum est, quod per hoc
Creator a creatura disceroitur, dum hie immutabilis, haec autem multum
instabilis cernitur; cuncta autem' aeternitatem imitantur, dum deflciendo,
et iterum recrescendo quasi ip circulis existentiae semper rotantur.
197 .•' -
- Cogn. vitae .27 (1021B): Quia enim de nihilo originem sumpse-
runt, in- nihilum recurrere, et quasi extra Deum exire cupiunt, sed quia
 exitum non inveniunt, quasi in circulos suop revoluta rursumin esse v
redeunt. Cf. Augustine, De Genesi ad litt. Is 4, pp. 7-*8 .
*

198
Cogn. vitae 2 \ (1021C): Item quaeribur, si homo in patadiso
perstitisset, utrum haec cuncta ut nunc mutabilia fuissent? Procul
dubio cuncta .cum labili tempore, Ut nunc, vices suas crescendo, defi-
ciendo,, nascendo, moriendo servarent; ipse in uno statu stabilis et
« 'dominus omnium perduraret. Qu^a vero peccando instabilis exstitit,
■:ipse cum tempore et caducis relfus labi coepit. Cf. JEriugena, Peri-
Phvseon 2; 25 (PL 122: 582-583C).
*** 1QQ
■ Cogn. vitae 31-32 (1023). “

Cogn. vitae 32 (1023B): Quaeritur . . . quomqdo homo ad

imaginem et similitudinem Dei formatus' dicatur: cum nulla convenientia*
similitudinis Dei in homine conspiciatur,

201
Cogn. vitae 32 (1023C)i Invisibilis ergo ad imaginem et
similitudinem invisibilis Dei est creates, visibilis autem secundum
visibilem mundum est formatus. Deus invisibilis eht in substantia
unitas, in personis trinitas. Interior ergo homo, id est anima, ad
imaginem unitatis es’t creata, quia .non est partibus ut corporis
composite, sed 6st simplex natura et immortalis essentia. Cf.
Eriugena, Periphyseon 4; 5 (PL 122; ’753A). ,
90.9 i
' Cogn. vitae 32 (1023C). . „
• f
203 ^
.Cogtff. vitae 32 (1023C). ' .
204
Cogn. vitae 32 (1023CD)J cf. Elucidarium 59-61. pp. 371-72.

205 ’ ‘
Cogn. vitae‘32 (1023D): Omnis quoque creatura per aliquid
similitudinem Dei habet, et quantum quaeque alter! est excellentior,
tanturn est illi similior. Ipse quippe est, vivit, sentit, per rationem
discemit. Lapides ergo.eius similitudine adjungunt, quia sunt.
Arbores magis similitudini eius appropinquant, quia sunt, et crescendo
vivunt. Quaeque animantia multo magi's eius similitudinem fexprimunt,
- quia sunt, vivunt,. et sentiunt. Porro- in hominibus et in angelis
sfmilitudo Dei maxima refulget, quia sunt, vivunt, sentiunt, et ratione
discemerunt. ^

206 Cogn. Vitae 32‘(1023D-1024A).

207
' Cogn. vitae 33 (1024A): sensibus corporis sopitis, per
vdenigmata quaedam. future Deo revelante praevidet, interdum circa
 190

verisimilia diabolo fallente anxia languet; -aliquandp angelis vel

animabus confabulatur, aliquando a daemones ludificatur.

' 208 Cogn. vitae 33 (1024AB).

209 Cogn. vitae 34 (1024C): Anlma habet foymam cerae yel candelae.
Cera habilis est ad exprimendam Imaginem, si el slgillum imprimatur;
sic candela ad lucenduin, si accendatur; in hunc modum exprimit anima
imaginem scientiae, si ei Imprimitur slgillum doctrinae; lumenque
veritatis recipit, si igne sapientiae accensa fuerit; quae si se per
studium vel exercitium habilem praebere neglexerit, sicut cera sine
imagine, et sicut candela inacCensa' sine lumine, sic in tenebris
ignorantiae sine scientia et veritate remanebit. Quanto magis autem
quaeque anima se doctrinae adaptaverit, tanto,magis capax scientae 1
erit. . , '' .
r
210 Cogn. vitae 34 (1024C).

211 .
Cogn. vitae 36 (1024D): Cum cuncta a magistris discantur,
quomodo urtus magister coelis esse scribitur (Matt. 23:9), a quo
specialiter quaeque doceantur?
212 - ■
Cogn. vitae 36 (1024D): Magistri tantum commemorando in foris
plantai et rigant, veritas autem quae in anima habitat, intus docendo
p; , r '
dat. Cf.'I Cor. 3:7.
\ *' \ ‘
213 X a '
Cogn. vitae 36 (1025AB): plerique caeci scripturas noverunt,
sed tamen quid sit liber vel litteras nesciunt; quorum oculi si subito
aperiantur, et libro coram posito quid sit quod vident, mirantur et
visu discemerunt quod auditu non potuerunt.- Porro si alicui illoruni
dixero, tails littera, Avocatur, et tails, B nominatur* mox introrsus
recurrit, veritatem consulit, et verum esse probat quod audit. Quid
ergo hunc docui, qui nec prius auditu, nee postea visu scire potuit
quid littera esset, nisi veritate intus dicente, et visu foris probante'
hanc edisceret? Ego tantum sonos verborum protuli; ipse vero verba et
res per verba jsignificatas veritate intus examinahte cognovit.
.
* * /i
214 ‘ '
Cogn. vitae 36 (1025C): Sic vos quoque, si multa vobis de
elephante dixero, nes.citis quid sit elephas, nisi eum videritis; sic
multa de David legimus, et quasi rufum hominem et pulchrum aspectu eum
novimus, qui si ad praesens- intraret, num illum agnosceremu#? Puto
minime! Quare? Quia a magistris discere nequiviffius, quod .veritate .
visus non probayimus.; Doctores etenim tantum sonos verborum proferunt;
auditbres autem veritate intus docente, verba mente, res visu discunt.
, . . Igitur nihil omnino per hominem nisi solus sonus dicitur; verba
autem et res per veritatem in interiori homine habitantem discemuntur.
Efsic verissime unus magister praedicatur, a quo quisque interius
 191

instruitur. Ea autem quae a nobis non videntur, ut Deus et angeli,

tantum esse credunturi . ' '

^ Cogn. vitae 37 (1025CD); cf. Anselm. Monologion 7, pp. ^JO-22.

^ Sanford, p. 421.

217 '
Imago mundi, prologus (PL 17_2: 119-20): Quia improbus labor,
. imo charitas vlnclt omnia, adinstructionemitaque multorum, quibus
deest copia librorum, .hie libellus edatur,” nomenque ei 'Imago mundi'
indatur, ep quod dispositio totius orbis in eo, quasi in speculo con-
spiciatur: in quo etiam nostrae amicitiae pignus posteris relinquatur.
Hie nihil autem in eo pono, nisi quod majonim commendat traditio.
' • I - ' . ’ ,

218
Endres, p. 46; the identification may not be correct— see
Flint, "Ghronology," p. 226.

'219 *
Imago mundi. prol. (119-20): Miserum enim videtur res propter
nos facta quotidie spectare, et cum jumentis inslpientibus quid sint,
penitus ignorare.
22fV * * ' f~"
. ' imago mundi. prol. (119-20): Cum jugiter lectioni ptudiosus
incumbas, ac totius Scripturae medullam sitibundus exsugas, poscis a.
.me amicissime, ut, quemadmodum vulgo dicitur,0 'Quodovis a capra
petierit lanam,' totius orbis tibi.depingam formulam, in qua sic oculum
corporis valeas reficere, sicut visum cordis 'soles in machina universi-
tatis depascere. y
221 •* w
• Imago mundi. prol. (119-20).
' •' ' t '

* 2 2 2 1 ' i 4 ' ' ■

Imago mundi 1: 1 (121A): Mundus dicitur quasi undique motus,
est enim in perpetuo motu. Huius figure-est in modum pilae rotunda.
Sed instar ovi elementis distincta. Ovum quippe exterius testa undique
ambitur, testae albumen, albumin! vitellum, vitello gutta pinguedinis
includitur. Sic mundus undique caelo, ut testa, circumdatur, caelo.
vero purus aether ut album, aetheri tuirbidus aer, ut vitellum, aeri
:terra, ut pinguedinis gutta includitur.
. 223 •
■ For variations on the metaphor of the cosmic egg, see Dronke,
Fabula. pp. 79-99. .
' J ■ ,

■ 224 ' •
See, e.g., Peter Damian, De perfectlone monachorum 23 (PL 145:
324D), and-Manegold of Lautenbach, Opusculum contra Wolfemium 8 (PL 155
157AH), for contemporary criticism of such studies.
 225 Imago mundi 1: 2 (121B): Secundo cum ad exemplar
/ archetypi,
hie sensibilis mundus in materia creatur. „ '
D
*
6' • - 4,•
Imago mundi 1:, 2 C(121B) ; cf. Bede, De rarum natura 1, -ed.
C. V.Jones, CCSL 123A (Tumhout, 1975), p. 192, 11. 1-15.

227 '
Imago mundi 1: 3 (121C)Elementa dicuntur, quasi hvle,
ligamenta, hvle autem est materia, ex quibus .constat omnia, scilicet
ignis, aer, aqua, terra.

228
Imago mundi 1: 3 (121CD): Haec singula propriis qualit'atibus,
quasi quibusdam brachiis se invicem tenent, et discordem sui naturam
concordi foedere vicissim commiscent. Nam terra arida et frigida
frigidae aquae connectitur; aqua frigida et humida* humido aeri astrin-
gitur; aer humidus et' calidus calido igni associatur ; ignis .calidus et
aridus aridae terrae copulatur. Ex his terraut puta gravissima imum,
ignis ut puta levissimus, supremurn obtinet locum, alia duo medium,
quasi quoddam soliditatis vinculum. Quorum aqua gravior, terrae
proximum, aer levior igni primum possidet locum. Dep^tantur vero
terrae, gradientia, ut homo et bestiee; aquae nataj^ya, ut pishes;
aeri volaneia ut aves, igni radiantia,-ut-sol et sj^llae. Cf. Macro-
bius, Comm. 1: 6 : 25-28, pp. 22-23; Ilmaeus 31B-j2CT pp. 23-25.

229 Imago mundi 1: 5 (122 BC). “

230 A
• ■■ Imago mundi 1: 6-37 (122C-133A). , . * •
■v • ! . •

231 Imago mundi 1; 68-140 (138-46).

232 Imago mundi 2 : 2 (145D)Tempora aetema sub aevo sunt , et

haec ad archetypum mundum et angelos pertinent,qui ahte mundum esse
coeperunt,' et cum mundo sunt et post mundum erunt.

233
Imago mundi 2: 3 (146D): Tempus autem mundi est umbra aevi.
Hoc cum mundo coepit,.et cum mundo .desinet.* Veluti si funis ab oriente
in occidentem extenderetur, qui quotidie plicando collectus, tandem
totus absumatur. Per.hoc. extenduntur saecula, sub hoc currunt universa
in hoc mundo posita. Hoc uniuscuiusque vita mensuratur. Hoc series
dierum, et annorum terminantur. , ’
* - * .

•234
Imago mundi 2: 59 (154CD): Iisdem qualitatibus est humanum
corpus temperatum, unde et micrbcosmos, id est minor mundus appellatur.
Sanguis namque qui vere crescit, est humidus et calidus, et hie viget .
in infantibus. Cholera rubea crescens in aestate est calida et sicca, -
et haec abundat in juvenibus. Melancholia'a cholera nigra crescens in
autumno in provectoribus. Phlegmata, quae hieme dominantur, -in
senibus. Cf. Isidore. De rerum.natura 9:1 (RL 83; 977D). t

233 Printed in PL 172: 1177-86 and'1185-9^; for discussion of ,’ _

dating, see Flint, "Chronology," pp. 239-40. . «

Lib. 12 qq., prologus (li7TA). ^ ^

- 237 Lib. 12 qq.. prol.",(1177AB).

238 Lib. 8 qq.. 1 (11850.°' J ^ .

239 \ ■’
~v Llh\ 12 qq. 1 (1178D-1179A): Dictamen a me composituro, et
adhuc non scriptum quoddammodo in me vivit, quod quasi exemplar}
inspicio, dum illud In tabulis scribo; et illud, quod foris scriptum
apparet, est umbra illius non scripti, quod intus latet. Et exterius ,
quidem potest redigi in nihilum,. interius autem manet incorruptum;
sed intrinsecus est simplex et uniforme, forinsecus multiplex et
varium, scilicet in Litteris et in dictionibus, et in syllabis et in
casibus, in temporibUs, in schematibus, in^figuris. Sic universe
creatura in divina mente concepta est simplex, invariabiiis et aeterna,
"in seipsum autem multiplex, variabilis*, transitoria videlicet in gene-
ribus, in speciebus , in individuis.
tv ' .

240 Lib. 12 qq. 1 (1179A).

241 ' ■
Lib. 12 qq, 2(U79BC)t Spiritus enim et corpus quasi virilis
et puerilis chorus gravem et acutum sonum reddunt; dum in natura dis­
sentient, in .essentia Jjoni convenient.

242 '“ * '

Lib, d.2 qq. 2 (1179D): Reciprocum sonum reddunt spiritus et
corpus, angelus et diabolus, coelum et infemus, ignis et aqua, aer et
terra, dulce et amarum, molle et durum, et sic caetera in hunc mqdum.

243 *
.: Lib. 12 qq. 3 (1180A); Ita et homo in universitatehabet suum
proprium locum, sicut et angelus suum proprium. Igitur homo non est
pro’angelo,~sed pro seipso creatus, alioquin majoris dignitatis vermis
esset, qui proprium haberet, quam homo, qui proprio loco careret.....
Sed et Deus improvidus esset, .qui aliquid in loco alterius poneret.
■ ’ • *. . \ !.
244 Lib. 12-qq. 3 (1180A).

245 •
Lib. 12 gq. 4-3 (1180B-1181C).

246 Lib. 12 qq.,6 (1182A):- Hinc est quo’

d Roma caput muxidi Petro "
 194

apos.tolo, non Michaeli aiichangelo,' primatum regiminis obtulit, et

unlversa eeclesia'per orbem non solum in privatis locis, sed etiam
in praecipuis urbibus episcopalem sedem Pefcrocontulit.

■ *247 ' ‘« *
Summa gloria 1: 2, ed. Dieterichj MGH. L de L 3 p. 65: cum
ecciesia hie in came existens a earnaiibus "prematur, postea in spiri-
tali quiete special! gloria induatur. • '
2d8 7
Lib. 12 00 . 11 (1183B); cf-. Calcidius CXXXII, pp. 174-75.
'- ; \ J .v■■■ t
249 Lib. 8 •qq. 1 ( 1 1 8 5 B ) '
'0 ■ ,
OCA d '. m ''
3 Lib. 8 qq. 1 (1185CD).

251 Lib. 8 oo. 1 <1185D-1186B). ‘ ‘

■ ‘ ' " ■ ’

252
Lib. 8 1 (1186B): Est autem dualis creatio hominis, una
in aetemitate per praedestinationem, altera sub temporalitate per
formationem. 's,.* .
V ',!< 1 '■ ■ > ‘ •

2"^ Lib. 8 qq.^1 (1186B): De creatipne praedestinaliter scribi\-

•tur: 'Faciamus-hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem. nostram, et fecit
Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam. * lie creatione forma-
tionis scriptum est: ’Formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae et inspira-
vit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae; at factus est dir ahimam .viventem.’

254 Lib. 8 qq. 1 (11860. ^ *«'

255 \ , g1
Lib. 8 qq. 1 (1186D): Quodautem angelus sit.principium
viarum Dei, scribitur in Job; homo vero ultima.factura Dei legitur. •
Hinc per ilium inchoatio, per- is£um vero consummation operum Dei
innuitur; cui omnis creatura reliqua subjecta. ^
2^6 ‘:* • ■ . ’ r.
3 Lib. 8 qq. 3 (11880.
a * • -
257 :• ■'»■■■■■
Lib. 8 qq. 3 (1186D): Angelici spiritus, et humanae animae,
et informis materia mundi ex nihilo create sunt.
.*. 4- 'o
, —
•258 •
Lib. 8 qq. 3 (1188D).: Corpora vero omnia ex quatuor elementis
formats „sunt, scilipet unumquodque corpus illi elemento specialiter
attribuitur, quod in eo plus abundat. ' ' .

!259 ^ib. 8 qq. 3 (II88D).

 Lib. 8 qq. 3 (1189B): Sicut enim rationalis anima corpora,
vestita dicitur homo, it'a intellectualis spiritus corpore vestitus
dicitur angelus. ° r
. . ; ; c; V*;' ; • .•;
«/■] *.
Lib. 8°qq. 4 (1189C): Sed cum terra sit infimum elementum,
et- faex omnium elementorum . . . quid rationis habet, quod Creator Deus
corpus non de igne, sed de terra sumpait? Cf. Maerobius, Comm. 1: 22:
.6-7, p. 92. \ : -
' 262 ''
Lib. 8 qq.. 4 <11890; cf. Calcidius CCLXXXtl, pp. 277-78.’

263 Lib. 8 qq. 4 (1189D).

.■ °' *-
26U' LIB. 8 qq. 4 (U90A). " ’ '^
f. • .

265 “ '• ''

Elucidarium 1: 59, pp. 371; see p. 114,an, 58, above. . ' »
• . - •• • p
,266' ' ,• . \ ‘• “ -■
Neocosmos 3 (258BC), see pp. 128-29, above.
267 •
Cogn. vitae 32 (PL 40t 1023C), see.pp. 149-50, above.- >
76R •" •*
Imago mundi 2: 59 (154CD), s^e p. 159, abbve.
269 ° ; -
See, e.g.,* Lib. 12 qq. 11 (1183B); see.p. 164, n. 248', above.

270 Scala coeli major (PL 172: 1229-40).

271 ' ' ■ -J -'

See $. 105, n. 18, above. -
272 ' * ■ ■
Neocosmos 1 *(254A): see. p. 122, above. ‘ » *
273 . •
-•Neocosmos 4 (263B);see p. 137, above.

274 PL 172: 121CD; see p.“ 157, n. 228, above.

 PETER ABELARD "
° O■
■ ■■ v ■ ■ o ' l; .

■ 1. .Introduction. -*

The outline of Peter Abelard's personal ‘end professional career

to* around 1130 is well known to us from ..the autobiographical Hlstoria

•• . ' .i . * .
calamitatum and £he subsequent correspondency with Heloise. In .the
o•' *• •
HistQria calamitatum. he informs us of his origins in Le Pallet, ("
” .f, ' ■ , -. -
Brittany,
^ from a family
* . belonging to the military.aristocracy,
- ...... and . .

' ;■'-■■■ ^‘ ' ^ . . " - - ""■& ^■

proceeds to describe;his career as a free-lance knight of Minerva, in
’'■ ,v
.'*«' ■ . - ' ’U '°
the schools' of dialectic" and theology at Melun, Paris, and Laon. His
i * ^ ’ ’ .1?
account culminates in'the scandal of his affair with Heloise, h’ is con-
a - .

version, and the various disasters that befall him and his theological

works'in his new role as a monk at St. Deftis in Parisand eventually

as the abbot of St, Gildas in his native land. References in the

writings of^friends,, former students, and enemies to his teaching

activity and the condemnations for heresy— in 1121 at the synodof

s / ' » ■ •5® •»
Sqissons,”'and in 1140 at the council of Sens— help to fill in the gaps
' - • • - . ^ ^

^and to complete the picture up tp Abelard’s death in 1142.^ From the

available documentation,’we know that Abelard was active as a student

and master of logic from around the first’decade of the twelfth century
V ■■■ ■ ^ . ■ <a
.until about. 1117*. His firstj^eplbgicai work, the Comiaentarium super
' , *-r>V*• ‘ , •• ' :% •- ■ r •- . £
Ezechielem-ptophetam. was produced around 104 at Laon and Paris, but

.
4does, not seem to have survived, ' - . *
 It is fairly' certain that Abelard’s surviving,theological works

were ;
p2^uptd"between the yeefa 1118 and 1140. The production falls, ,

into several distinct groups. First, there are the theologiae, begin-

hing .with .the treatise De unitate et t'rinxtate divina, of the Theologia ;

^ ' . . . . . . ; p

'summi boni’, written some„tiDSfe between Abelard-s entrv into St. Denis

and.his condemnation at Sbissons, or*1118 to 1120.4 The treatise was

7 ' --
' ' . - . - ’ . , ■* ■

fgyised— how many times, we do hot know— and developed into later .
• * * "**- ■ ^ e * , a ' ‘

‘■ o * ^ 'to.'*'*" p t
i .^versions printed as the’Theologia Christiana:-and Theologia scholarium
t - ‘ - to-‘ ■* ‘■ . «sr -

or Introductio ad'theologiam. The.first predictions’of the Theologia

* - • .<* 'a** ^ • -&r ”. .. -f/ . _ - . s

Christiana *(T(?hr DR) were probablystartedn few years after, the condem-.
~ " ■. • . ■ '/'<3..-. _ ■— •
•nation at^Soissons of the original Theologia. ’suinM boni*. and have been
„ rK°~ . - - ■ .o- ' ° ■

dated to tfjie years from 1122 to 1 1 2 7 . 1 1 2 5 , Abelard was elected’

?- ° :
i, . ^ " '* * •*"
.abbot of St.; Gildas de Ruys^"Brittany, where he would hardly have found ’
^ . ...a J '' 7 ■, ' ■ V : ■<%>
the peace of mind to begin-any new theological projects, although he
./‘■I; ■ ■' ’ ■' *•
!may have parried, on with ■*»
some of the work he had<•>begun
■ ,f
earlier.'
.
Between
.* o *3 .-

'■ ' ’ » - ■ " 7 ■ :"

his flight from St. Gildas in-1132v and his reappearance in Paris,in
'' °Y ■ ta '■■■.■• ’■ ^ ••.'
the mid-thirties, he seems to'have wandered from place to place, perhaps
^ ^ f _
using the Paraclete as a home^base. From aroUnd 1135 to 1139, and ther‘\.
I
beginning of Bernard’of Clairvaux's action against him, he s e e m s h a v e
’• • \ '
•> ' ‘■
been intenselyVact'ive, teaching, writing^’and revising his^theological
“ ' - ■ «- „ * ,

,trgatiares. *’The Weviied.Theologia Christiana^(TChr CT) and:,the extant

^ P ;- ■ "■ '<$ ^ i* .■ - ‘ r* * - -' i-ti ‘

versions of the Theologia scholarium-(short redactions F, H, Z, and T; .

longer redaction TSch®) date from this period,;itqgethet with mdre or

less*final versions of Other "major works, including the Sic et Non, the
The • cr \ .' ' .
■*> ;
-. ^ *V • A ... * - $
commentary on Romans f and the Ethics.'^
 A second, group -of theological writings comprises the works written '

for Heloise and-her community, after they had been established at the

Paraclete, around .1129.^ These include not only the letters and a
'' * * 6
Rule, the- Problematarand various sermons, but also the Expositio in

Hexaemeron and the Hymnarius Paraclitensis, with its hexaemeral theme.^

The precise relationship of this'group of works to the development of

the theologiae remains problematical. ■"

Turning to the Expositio in Hexaemerori, we find that it contains

one reference to an earlier work,.when Abelard omits a detailed discus­

sion of the terms bonUm, malum, and indifferens, because he has treated
■’ . ..

them in sufficient detail in the second of his collationes. As Van •

den Eynde has shown, the collationes are the Dialogus inter philosophum.

Judaeum et Christianum, generally believed to have been written at Cluny

13 •
in the final year of Abelard's life. We are-faced with the somewhat

improbable conclusion that the Hexaemeron requested by Heloise was

Abelard's last piece of writing, left incomplete in the manuscripts

because of. sickness and death. E. M. Buytaert has, however, made a

case for a much earlier date of the collationes of Dialogus. He argues

that the condemnation of a theologia referred to 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 o

~ • *•■
the lafter theologia could indeed be said to have "grown more glorious"
~ *7:. - A.0
- 14
in its subsequent redactions. The composition of -the Dialogus would,

in that case, be datable to the 1130s,.or the height of Abelard's

theological teaching career. The Hexaemeron could, accordingly, a°lso

■ ■■ > 15
have been composed in that period— around 1139, according to Buytaert.
 • Within thfe limits .bf £heinformatibn available to us, we cannot

sort out the precise chronological,relationship between'Abelard's

theologiae and his other theologies^ works, nor is it the purpose of

this Study to do so. • Nevertheless, we can attempt by means of internal

evidence in the available texts to follow #elafd's additions and

changes in the passages on 'creation within"'the theologiae. These

should indicate something about the relationship of the Wdxaetoeron. at

least, to the development of the theologiae. Because Abelard himself ,

indicates that there .-is a close connection between the discussions .of

good and evil in his Dialogus, and the meaning given to created good
•v •• ° ‘
and evils in his commentary on' the Genesis text., the Dialogus may

profitably be'regarded as an introduction or the theoretical background •

to some of his thoughts in the' Hexaemeron on questions of good and evil

■v - * '’
in creation. The hexaemeron commentary, meanwhile,.may be compared with

the hymns that were composed on the tbeme of creation week, for the sake

both of discovering possible, parallels in content, and of contrasting

Abelard's methods as an exegete and a poet. With these possibilities

in mind, we shall begin by examining the Dialogus as background to the

Hexaemeron and the hymns, and proceed after that to a study of Abelard's

thought on creation as found in the theologiae.

*
2. Background: The Supreme Good

In.the Hexaemeron commentary on Genesis 1:31 ("Vidit Deus cuncta

quae fecerat, et erant valde bona . . .")» Abelard refers to an "adequate

-a ' •
• - "$ ■ ,o -v* -
' . 7 - ¥
 * • . 200

■' o' - ■. .

definition” of the terms bonum, malum, and indifferens in his "second

X6 *
collatio." These terms are, in fact, twice discussed and defined in

the dialogue between the philosopher and the Christian, on two occasions

that mark turning points in their debate about the supreme good or man’s

„true beatitude. The dialogue is worth analysis in detail, since the ,

argument covers a number of important points in Abelard's thought about

' the relationships between Creator and creature, human brings and

material creation.

With the first collatio, Abelard dismissed the Jewish worship of

' <? ' . •

God by interpreting. it, from the philosopher's point of view, as a

'
4• • • }

literalistic adherence to tradition and a hope of reward pertaining

u'v ' ; 17 11 '
only to the present life. When the philosopher encounters the Chris­

tian in the second collatio, they are described as agreeing that the
j. p _

goal of life is moral perfection, through a discipline named ethics by

' "■* f *1g
the philosopher and divinity by the Chri»'6dan. After a brief skirmish
Ot

intended to establish the value of rational investigation over adherence

to authoritative pronouncements, they proceed to their main question,

concerning beatitude. At this point, the Christian asks whether

' +
philosophers place a value on the immortality of the soul and on the
19
beatitude ,of a future life. When the philosopher affirms that they

do, the way has been prepared for a comparison between the goods of the

present life, and the ultimate good of the afterlife,-which is elaborated

and developed as a theme of the dialogue.

At the Christian's suggestion that the beatitude of the afterlife

will be greater than that of the present life because of the absence of

suffering, the discussion turns to the problem of natural vice

I
 .*»•
' \
./ % *

•; , ,' ' 201

or natural defects, including,corporeal or intellectual deficiencies,

20
and death. Both agree that natural defects are evil, and apt to

obstruct or weaken the will of those who seek to live a virtuous life.

The philosopher, who regards virtue as its own reward, prizes the after­

life as a release of the soul from its corporeal prison, and a place or

state in which the virtuous man may enjoy the perfect equanimity that
’• ~21
he identifies as Epicurus' concept of pleasure. • The Christian, how­

ever1, holds that the afterlife is a.reward for virtues, and especially

the virtues that are pursued with disregard for bo.th the prosperity and
'22
the adversities„of the present 'life. He argues, moreover, that there
• - ' P ' * \
is a good higher than the virtues, if these are understood as the

supreme good of man. this .good, he identifies with God, whose beatitude
- 23
infinitely surpasses human beatitude or glory.

It seems that the notion of-God as the supreme.good has been

Introduced to suggest that there must be an absolute standard against

which human goods,’including the virtues, may be measured. In setting

a standard of this sort, if only by implication, Abelard's argument

24 •
resembles that of Anselm in the opening chapters of his Monologion.

Abelard does not, however, proceed to establish a hierarchy of goods

in the manner adopted by Anselm. His discussion, instead, continues

into a demonstration of the relativity of virtues and the relative

degrees to which men may bq called virtuous. In order to suggest that

there may be perfection in virtue as the supreme good of man, the

philosopher quotes Augustine. "Where charity is, what can be lacking?

' • » * " •
8 25
Where it is lacking, what can possibly be profitable?" The Christian

responds by pointing out that, as a virtue, charity does not equally

■*
 202
0
*
* i>'*•

inflame all those who have it, and cannot be perfectly achieved by all.

Augustine must therefore be understood to have meant: ". .what could

be lacking for salvation?” rather"thah . . for the perfection of

virtue."^ - a

The philosopher responds by suggesting that the supreme good of^

man might be defined as "that ‘state■of a future life in comparison only

►- ’ 27
with the goods of the present life." To elaborate, he proposes the

first set of definitions for bonum. malum, and indifferens. relating

these to thestates of man in the present life and in the afterlife.

Thus, the first state”of man is an indifferent condition, described as:

V •# . 1 ■
(the state) into which he is born while he has not yet
acquired freedom of choice by the reason awakened-in him,
so that he may be called a good man or a bad man according
to what he chooses, although he himself la a good thing or
a good substance or a good creature.28
• '< • " ,
Subsequently, a man may become good or bad 'according to his choices,

so that he is good if he ascends to. the virtues, and bad if he descends

into vice. The afterlife, similiarly, may be, understood to present.an

indifferent condition, neither blessed nor wretched, to those who have

lived indifferent lives, While presenting a good statfe to the good,/and

a bad state to those whose‘lives have been bad. ThUs, man's present
“ (
and future status as good, bad, or indifferent depends on the degree to

which he has chosen and chooses a life of virtue or vice.

• ' ••
■ ^ ^ --
After this, the dialogue digresses into a discussion of the virtues
■* . ' a .
and their definitions. During the course of this discussion, the
' ' * ' k ‘ R ” •29'*
philosopher notes that, just as there are natural vices or defects,

so also there are natural virtues, resulting from the condition ‘

of a

ft ■ c
c -
 203
- i ‘

man's body or the constitution of his nature. These, he distinguishes

from the habit or quality of virtue not present by nature but acquired

by deliberate effort;^ the end of this digression, however, the

Christian suggests that they return to the problem of the supreme good,
1 ■ '
in order to determine what this is to be called in the absolute sense,

and to determine whether the supreme good in the absolute sense is the
31
same as the supreme good of man.

The philosopher grants that the supreme good must be God, but-

continues to insist that the supreme good as well as the supreme- evil

•of man are the rewards and punishments of the afterlife. The Christian

replies that if mejrited punishment is just, then, as justice, it must

be godd, The response made by the philosopher does not meet the diffi-

culty, but instead deals at length with the problem of natural vice or
1 .• • '' ' '
natural defects. Abelard begins this -section by having the philosopher

distinguish, between the use of an adjective in the absolute, sense and

in the relative senSe. Thus-, there is a difference between saying that .

a punishment is good--because merited— and saying that punishment is a

32 *
good thing absolutely. The distinction is extended, to show that,
■ . ' . _
although every creature is a good thing because all of'God's creation

is good, “each particular creature may be more or less good by comparison

*'■ -' ■ ■■ ' ■
with others of the same kind. An evil*man or a vicious horse," for

example, may be called good creatures, but are not good-as man or
33
horse. Similarly, Lucifer may have been produced as a good creature,

but was not to become a good angel or a good spirit. It thus becomes
<1'
possible for the philosopher to argue that good .or evil qualities

inherent by nature in the good created substance are, .although relative,

 1'jtf
truly to be considered goods or evils of man. He then goes on to

conclude that the punishment that is good in relation to the- require-

,' , - 35
ments of justice, is .nevertheless"in itself evil and an affliction.

In so doing, he continues to find the supreme good and the supreme evil

of man in relative conditions, distinct from God as the supreme good,

absolutely. ^
At this, point, the Christian shifts his attention from the punish-
36
ment for'1evil to the fault that preceded„it. The philosopher concedes

that a man’s fault is certainly to be considered a worse evil than its

T • ■
• 37
just punishment. It follows, then, that the supreme evil of man

cannot be his merited punishment, but must rather be the condition- that

merited punishment. This condition, the Chi^j^^t describes ix t terms

of a man's relation to God, either through .'hate ox love:

(The supreme evil and the supreme good of man are) his
supreme hatred and supreme love of God, through which,
indeed, it is established that we displease -or please
him more who is called the supreme good properly and
simply; and both certainly follow after this life.‘3®

Once the supreme evil and the supreme good of man have’been under- .

stood in terms of a relationship to God or the supreme good, the way is

.cleared for a discussion of . the

f
reward for virtue in the afterlife.

This reward is identified by the Christian as the vision of God, which _

is both the enjoyment of the supreme good, and the source of increasing
1 ' 39
love for that good. , In the discussion that follows, the disputants

rfenge over a variety of questions intended to explicate the notion that

the supreme love of God is the supreme good of man, received in the
9 4

vision of God. The philosopher objects that it seems unfitting for .

I .'
lov.e, which is an accident; to be the supreme good of the human sub-

stance. To this, the Christian replies with an admonition, against

seeking to apply philosophical distinctions between accident and sub­

stance too strictly in questions concerning the' divine nature. Instead,

granting that love of God might be called an accident, he prefers to

introduce the notion of participation:

-■ •
Although out substance is considered to be better or
„ ' mo*e worthy than any of its accidents, nevertheless the
supreme good of man seems not incongruously to be called
. that which makes man the best and most worthy by partici­
pation ink it. Anst, that we may speak,more truly And
credibly, let us agree that God himself, who is alone
„ properly and absolutely called the supreme good, is also
the supreme, good of man; as we said, it is in fact by
•; the participation in his vision which we enjoy, that we
become truly blessed.41

To the;philosopher's next objection, that the resurrection of

bodies would aeek to be unnecessary, if the vision of God appears to

^ ■'V." . ,
the "eyes of the mind alone; and hot to the eyes of^the body," the

Christian replies that the resumption of glorified bodies contributes

p ' * ' "
not so much to the beatitude of holy souls, as to the praise of divine
"■ . A' • ■ • .

power. His reply leads into a general discussion of the divine presence

to creatures through creative and providential power, which in turn is

t> ' ... • •

used to demonstrate that the vision of God is.received not locally, but
• <> .
43
spiritually, through the effects of grace. Similarly, punishment of

the damned is understood.to be the torment of consciences in despair _

of forgiveness, rather Jthan.local' or corporeal pain.^ The difference

■ • v•N.A-, *
between the joy of the blessed and the torment of the damned depends,

therefor^, on the quality of their interior or spiritual relation to

 j
206

God, in a way that is analogous to thC\differences among animal natures

& .S'"''*
and their requirements for well-being: *' ^

Who does not experience every day such diverse animal

natures that what maintains the life of some, extinguishes
the life of others, and because of the diverse constitu­
tion of bodies, what benefits one, hinders another, as
much for animate as for inanimate things. Men die under
water, fish under the sky. It is established that sala­
manders live in fire, which brings, swift destruction to ’
other living things. Venom is the life of the serpent,
the death of man; and the same things furnish a necessary
diet for some living things and a death-dealing diet for
others.* There is absolutely nothing which could be suit­
able to all natures.^ .
*

Just as an animal’s well-being depends on its own particular source of

nourishment, so also the well-being df- the human soul depends on God as

the supreme source of goodness. Because God is present throughout the

f "4 o -

world by his creative and providential power, it should be "clear to

.all 1that location has nothing to do with the punishment of the damned,
»• 46
just as it has nothing to do with the glory of the blessed." In fact,

the Christian continues, the glory of divine power is commended by the

way in which God is able to distribute the punishment of damnation and

’ 47
the glory of beatitude equally in all places. The philosopher

remarks wryly that the Christian seems detemined to turn even”the

punishment of the daamed to the glory of divine power, but reminds him'

that they have not yet satisfactorily understood the supreme good or

the supreme evil. For this reason, he now requests the Christian to

offer a general definition of bonum, malum, and indifferens.

The Christian takes up the problem by noting that these terms are

particularly difficult to define, because they receive different meanings

V-
' V " ' .
according to their adjectival position. For example, a man may be

called "good" for his morals, a worker*"good" for his skill, and a

domestic animal "good" for whatever quality pertains to its usefulness.

The adjective "gtto'd" may even be applied to what is evil— in saying,

for example, that someone Is a "good" thief because he steals cleverly. '

The use of the adjective "good" with propositions about things, creates

further complications, sinc.e it is possible to say, "it is good that

48 *
evil exists," without meaning "evil is good.1' Having made these

preliminary qualifications, the Christian-then defines the good in

*' ' .
general as "that which, since it is suited to some use, must of neces-

sity not be an impediment’to the advantage or worth of anything."49

An evil thing would be whatever has the opposite effect, and an indif-.

fererit thing would be anything that does defer or obstruct the good.

Ultimately, the category of "indifferent" will be seen to•apply to most

created things and actions: , . '

* '

For actions are not judged good or evil except on the

. basis of the intention which is at the,root of them;
but all of them, of themselves, are indifferent.50

• At this point, the philosopher requests a pause in the discussion

to examine what the Christian has just said, and to see if these notions

can, stand as definitions of bonum, malum*, and indifferens. ^ The Chris-

tian replies with a brief statement about the problems of language in

relation to experience, one of Abelard's constant and most acutely

' •»* I
felt concerns:
■» '7

It is certainly very difficult to circumscribe almost all

things with their proper definitions, in such a manner that
 L
‘ "* v

208

they can be distinguished from all other things. . . .

We learn most of the names which apply to things from .
linguistic usage, but we are incapable of marking out
their meaning or the way in which they are to be under­
stood. We even find many things whose designations and
meanings we are not able to fix in a definition. .For
even if we are not ignorant of the natures of things,
nonetheless1, terms for them are not in ube and often the
the njind is quicker to understand than the tongue to
xpress or to.,discourse on what we feel.52
f
These careful qualifications about the use of words to describe complex

experiences, must be seen in relation to Abelard's earlier warnings *in

the Theologia 'summi boni' about the limitations 6f language for dis-

course about God. Language is an inadequate tool based on sense per­

ception, and is applied to. the divine nature and activities only by a ‘
o’ ■= ' 0 ,

kind of distorting transposition of/>#6rds from their proper to an

improper sense: s f

That, in fact, all speech of human beings is especially

adapted to the status of creatures, appears especially,
from that part of speech; without which, according to the
■* testimony of Priscian, no complete statement is possible
from that, namely, which'is called the-verb. Indeed,
this utterance is designative of time, which began with
• the world. Hence, if we attend rightly to the signifi- . „
'•'t_ cance of this part (of speech), it is right to be ^ *
restrained within the ambit of temporalities by the sense,
of every construction, that is, to be limited only to ■
those things which we wish to designate as happening tem­
porally, and 'not as subsisting eternally. Hence, when we
say, 'God is prior to the world,' or 'God ekisted before
time,' w^at true sense can there be in these words about
Q; the preexistenCe of God and the subsequent existence of
those things, if we accept these words at their human
institution, according to the mere signification of time
— so that, namely, we would,be saying that God isprior *
to the world in time, or existed, that is, was An past
time, before there was any time? It is right, therefore,
when we transfer any kind of words to the singular nature
of divinity, to limit them thereafter to a certain singular
significance or even construction, aniid of necessitate
 209

exceed them in their proper institution-through what

exceeds everything.53 r< ,

■ . ' . \ ■■ ..
In effect, the readers of the Dialogue^ are being warned: the dis-

cussion has reached- a critical point h where language must be transposed'

t *
from its everyday,use to°the special sense in jflfech it may be applied
. 4.

in statements about God. The final problem is to understand how the

definition, "what is apt ,for some pse,V<does not adequately cover the
c’
h ^ \ r 54-
concept of the good in relation to God as well as to creatures. The
.0 t* ’
definition is shown by the Christian to be inadequate because it does

not take into ac'count the intentions o,f those who appear to do good-or

evil. If the things that God lias created are good, then the evil,of .

vice or sin does not arise except from the good. 0n\the other hand,,

good may be said to arise from evil,”when those who have experienced

.ruin through sin* are improved and strengthened by humility and

, 55 ■
petiance. Every creature of God or instrun^ent of human manufacture

that can be “used for good, could also be used for evil: "what is done

is not what matters, but with what mind it is done." Good and evil
:V ■-» .
must therefore^reside in intention. The same action can be performed

by different people in such a way that, through their respective inten­

tions, one d°es it to the good, •and the other evilly.^ ‘ ,<
■
o -
At this point, it becomes possible to explain how the devil and
o ' ■ *

eVil-intentioned human beings may be said to' cooperate with God in the.
■' - — ^ v . . .
. - ’ ' if* "'
.same deed dr, conversely, how God may be said to will to happgn what-is
o • *
done by an evil- intention and suffered as an-affliction. This' is not

the same thing as to say that God wills evil, dr that those whose inten-
O ■
k
o.
tions are evil, will the good: ■ '
 210

For. even if they do or will to dp'what God wills to be

’ done, nonetheless they doinot do* it or will to do it
because th&y believe God wills it to be done; nor is
God's intention and theirs the same in the same deed; ..
and although -they will what,God wills, and their will
and Godv's can therefore be said to be the same because
they will the same, nonetheless their will is evil and
. ■■ , - God's good,, since they, will it to occur for different
reasons.58 .
" . ' ,,.v . . Z""--. ■ 'V v ‘ V- ' ' /: V ft

* be' *
- God may therefore ■- "■ to
understood \ will that a person'nf evil
.*■■ ■ ' ■‘■ft .■ s ■.•»* ■ 4 x-

intentions should ‘do things', that afflict the innocent— for the good

purpose, however, of purging their sins, and increasing their merits,"^

- . . A ’■. / A
or some other, reasonable cause imperceptible to.us. That‘God's purpose
A . • .' . (■ ■ ’

is always good and reasonable, Abelard proves with reference to the

Timaeus of Platoi
V

. ... Everything which is generated is generated from aneces-

safy cause. tor-nothing'comes about whose origin is not
' " preceded by a cause in conformity with law and reason.59

From Augustinej he draws the texts to show ,that divine providence

governs the actions not only of human tyrants,-but also of the devil,
; •* •• . -■ * ."■„ ,~a ’ ■ 6o
whose malice is used by God for the gpqffjof his saints. A good thing

is, accordingly, anythingthat is "necessary to fulfil some excellent ■

disposition of Godf' although- that disposition may be entirely hidden

_ ;• V., .. \
from US." : Similarly, a good intention-is- one that seeks to obey the.
'' ’ ' ^ - '• "
willof?God: "Whence, £he principal lesson is that of Truth which
t ’ ’ 62
should always be said in prayer to God, 'your will be done.'" „
' . •«>
By now, it should bp elear that Abelard's optimism about the' . ‘.
‘ "✓ *
creation that-was pronounced valde bona at the end of the six-day, work",

depends primarily on his belief in the goodness of the Creator and tbe-A
 ■S'

211

will of the Creator. Creation is indifferent in itself, but good

because it is the will of God. Nevertheless, creation also discloses

. i
the goodness of God, and is to be seen, according- to Romans 1:20, as

a revelation of the invisible things of the divine nature. As Abelard

teaches in his commentary oh that text,: the power, wisdom., and goodness

of God are revealed to pagans or philosophers through the creation, of

p

the world. Here, ,as in the passage from the Dialogus quoted above,

Plato is used as the example of a philosopher who. has achieved knowledge

of divine goodness through knowledge of the origins and order of

creatures:

Thus it afppears. especially from the very universe of the

-world's fabric— so marvellously made, so elegantly oraa-
mented-.-qf what power, what wisdom, and what goodness the
artificer himself might be, who both could and*would make
, from nothing6,such a work, and moderated everything so
« skilfully and reasonably that in each particular, item
nothing is done more or less than it ought to be. Whence
also Plato himself, when dealing with the origin of the
world, extolled the goodness of divine power and Wisdjom
• ? so highljy thaf’hle taught that God could in no way have
’ made a better world thanthe one he made .-^3
‘ fl 1 * y <*
* 73 . ’ “
This passage, taken together with the conclusions in the Dialogus.

suggests a circular pattern of experience and understanding: beginning

with a perception of the goodness and .order in^ creatures, we move to

recognition of thje goodness, rationality, and power of God, and so back

again to creatures, which are to be understood, even in their vicious

or defective aspects, with reference to the goodneSs, fationality, and

power of God. We shall now see whether and to what extent Abelard will

suggest or develop this pattern in his Expositio in Hexaemeron.

 3. The Expositio in Hexaemeron ■ -

' We learn from the preface of the Bxposit'io that it was undertaken

by Abelard at the request of Heloise, whose community wished to study

the "beginning of Genesis," but found Augustine's commentary too diffi-

64
cult for the purpose. Citing Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, Abelard

warns her that this is generally/considered one-of the most difficult

passages in Scripture, and is likely to raise more questions than it

answers. Nevertheless, he accepts the task with Aristotle's dictum^in

mind, that "while,it is a difficult matter to make positive statements “

abopt a problem of this sort without thorough study, it is not without

*■ -65 ■
advantage to raise questions in regard to details.” fie promises to

investigate the text in its historical, moral, and mystical senses, but

will begin with "the truth of things done," or the historical sense, as

the root of the others. To this end, he invokes the aid of the Holy

Spirit, "so that the one who gave words to the prophet, may disclose ,
^ ‘'
their meaning to us." < .

Invisibilia Dei . .t. per ea quae facta sunt t ,■

The propliet is identifiedg as 2toses , who writes with the intention

of drawing the children of Israel into knowledge and service* of God.

• ' ' ■
For a hitherto carnal and undisciplined people, knowledge’•'of God had

to be presented through- consideration of the corporeal products of the

divine artificer, and obedience taught through the perception of God

•g g ’
as the
/ creator'and disposer or arranger of all things.
' «V 'According
i to-
Abelard's interpretation, Hoses adapts his intention and'material to
the capacities of his audience by deciding to divide his work into

five books, or as many books as there are:'corporeal senses, and by

beginning with the beginning of the divine work of creation, thereby

• * 59
following the natural order of narrative. Abelard finds evidence for

the value of this method of presentation in Romans' 1:20, where Paul

also speaks of the beginning of creation as a beginning of the knowledge

of .God: .

Indeed, concerning this work leading us to’recognition of

the Worker, the Apostle says: 'The invisible things of him
are perceptible-to the intellect from the creation of the .
■world, through the things that are made, etc.* For who­
ever wishes to know about any craftsman, whether he is
good or skilful in his work, ought to consider, not him,
but his work. So also God,, who is invisible and incom­
prehensible in himself, givesbus the first knowledge of
himself from the magnitude of his works, since all human
knowing arises from the senses.7^

Thus", Moses is understood to have related the history of the world,

from creation to his own time, in a simple narrative of events, designed

to demonstrate the gOodness of the Creator and the necessity of obedience

to his will.71
•• -vA-A.:/: . A.- ,A V- ' ' . - ?

For Abelard, the opening passage of Genesis, describing day one

(dies unUs), includes the basic truths about both the material creature

and the Creator. Adopting the approach that he.has attributed to his

prophetic author, he turns his attention first to the creatlire that was

produced in the beginning, before going on to discuss the divine

attributes suggested in the words of the text. By this means, Abelard

a• ’ ■ »
is able to present a double interpretation of creation, which includes

both the naturalistic or materialistic understanding of the ({text, and

 /

n •
21*4 O

■{)

the linguistic or legieal explanation. Ignoring the tradition that

identifies the principium of creation with the Word, he interprets in

principio as an adverbial phrase of time or purpose, referring to the

*
creation of matter ex nihilo. In the "heaven and earth" that are

created in principio. he sees designated the four elements, of which

’ 72
air and fire correspond to heaven, and water and earth .to earth.

These elements are first in the sequence of things created, both tem­

porally and as principles of all other corporeal beings. Temporally,

the creation of the elements precedes the formation of material' creatures

t

from them. As the material principles of these creatures, the elements -

aret/.'thus said to be created in principio, or "as principle."73 Of the

Creator, it is said that he created (creavit) rather.than formed

(fofmavit) the elements, since the primordial act of creation was a

production of being from non-being, and not a formation of pre-existing

74
matter. The work pf formation followed that first creative act, and

culminated in the formation of man. Keepihg in mind the prophetic

author's intention in writing, Abelard points out that there is no

further'discussionof the heavens or the superior nature of the angels,

because human beings would be less drawn to the love of God if they

thought any other nature seemed to have preference in the eyes of God

to theirs.. Instead', the text continues with a description of the forma­

tion of the earth and the ljuman sphere of existence, beginning with the

original condition of the earth— "formless and void." *

The treatise--by which the prophet, as we said, intends

to draw men to the worship of God— has regard especially
to the Creation of man, who was to be formed from earth
and to live on earth.' For this reason, he turns his pen
 to the terrestrial work, passing ever the creation of
the heavenly and superior nature, that is, the angelic,
lest perhaps, should he describe it in detail and demon­
strate it's excellence to the praises of its Creator, he
would draw men less to the love of God by letting them >
see him prefer another nature to theirs.

In its first state, after having been created, the material world
'' ' X ' 1'- ' ‘
was a mass of confused and commingled'elements. This undifferentiated

mixture of elements is equated by Abelard wi^th ’the "abyss" of the text

or the "chaos" of the poets and philosophers. »That there was "darkness

oyer the face of the abyss," is understood to indicate that the material

world would then have been unintelligible to the human mind and quite

incapable of presenting any appearance of usefulness to the praise of

the Creator. 76 In relation to this formless and unintelligible creature,

the’
-rCreator reveals himself as one God, active in three Persons.

Over the "waters" which are the fluid and unstable mass" of the

elements, the Spirit of God is said to have moved (ferebatur), hovered

, 77 ,.
(volitabat), or brooded (fovebat). Abelard offers a number of inter­

pretations for the passage and its variant readings, without indicating-

A particular preference for any one of them. When the Spirit of God is

said to have moved aver the"waters, he is to be identified as divine

• .. e

' -• 78
goodness, by participation in which all things are good. Here, divine

goodness has not yet begun to work on the elements, but is said to have

moved over them, to show that he did not intend to leave the creature

in its original state of disorder. The alternative reading, by

the Spifit is said to have brooded over the waters, may be understood

as a description of the life-giving presence*of the Spirit, vivifying

* * .
and forming the elements in the same way that a bird, warming its egg,
 . . ' 216

forms and vivifies the developing chick. Here, Abelard goes into some

detail about the parallels^ between the structure of an egg and that of

the cosmos, with its four,elements: if the earth at the centre is like

the yolk (vitellum) in the middle of the egg, then the element of water

is like the white, as air is like the membrane within the shell, and
i 7Q
aetherial fire is like the shell on the outside. In this sense, the

Spirit of God is identified as divine love, vivifying- and warming the

creature at the beginning of creation, as he subsequently vivifies and

80
warms the hearts of believers to the love of God.
’ *
Since the Hebrew word for spirit, ruafr, can mean either breath

or wind, the text that refers to the Spirit of God hovering over the
* •

waters might also be understood as ,a description of the process in the

; ■ . ■<x
natural order by,which the lighter elements were stirred up in the first

phase of their ordering and arrangement. If this interpretation is

' author
' calls \
followed, then it is to be understood that the the wind

the ruafy of < W prophetically, so that the wind over thejwaters that

covered the, earth becomes a type of the Holy Spirit, through whose
* * 1 81
grace the waters of baptism are made fruitful for regeneration.

When,, the Creator Speaks, saying, "Let th^re be light, . . ." the

speech is the Word of the Father, or the divine wisdom, eoetemal with
( ’ • ' f ^ " *

the Father, in which all things were rationally and providentially

thought out before their production in material creation. Throughout

the text, the prophetic author signals the creation of each new thing

as a creation in the Word: '

And so when the prophet prefaces the diverse creations of

things to be made with, "God Said . . .’ and immediately
 adds the effect to the saying with, ’. . . and so it was,’
he shows in this way that God created everything in "the
Word, that is, in his wisdom, and nothing suddenly or rash­
ly, but everything rationally and providently.®2
J '
Having begun his interpretation of the text from a naturalistic or

materialistic perspective, Abelard has now reverted to the linguistic

or logical interpretation by which the Word ,in the divine mind produces

the being of creatures. He goes on to demonstrate, with a reference to -

Psalm 135:5 ("qui fecit coelos in intellectu , . .") that the Word is

an intelligible and permanent Word, not audible or transitory. Within

this interpretation, it is possible to speak of a double creation, first

in the plans of divine providence, then in the work or effect. Accord­

ingly r Abelard commends1the philosophic notion of two worlds, the

intelligible and the sensible, as a teaching that "does.not contradict

the discipline of the Gospel, if we give our attention more to the truth
\. gj
of the thought, than to the peculiarity of the words." Citing Augus­

tine to support his views, Abelard therefore praises the Platonic notion

of an intelligible world, since it may be identified with the rationality

84
in which God created the sensible world.
*'
The light produced by the divine fiat . . . is understood by

.Abelard as the’beginning of the process of distinction by which the

works that followed were brought to perfection. , In the light produced

by the divine Word, material creation begins to be arranged and to

•- t, . . . . o
emerge from shadowy formlessness, according to the divine plan. By .

a reference to John 1:9, Abelard identifies the first light with the

person of Christ: "The speech (dictum) of God is his Word, concerning .

~ X
whom it is written, 'He was. the true light that enlightens every man,
 218

4 85
etc.'" The divine self-diselosurg in Christ is then linked by (

Abelard with a general disclosure of the divine nature through created

J ' i’

things, since God may be said to address himself to human beings and

give them the first knowledge of himself with the first fiat o£.‘

creation:

Then for the first time, just when he had come tovthe
light of the works of God, the prophet thoroughly explained
by what light, in fact, of works God somehow first begins!
to speak to men and to manifest himself, just as the / .
Apostle clearly teaches, saying: "For the invisible things
of God are manifest to the intellect from the creation of
the world through the things that are made, etc.’ .When,
therefore, that as yet^confused mass would be presenting
itself neither to human sight, nor to human conception,
nor woul.d appear apt for any use, whether to angels or to
man, if he had by then been created, God is shown as if to'
have been silent, because he would not. have been doing the
kind of thing in it, whence.he might himself be able to say
something, that is, to instruct human reason and 'to offer
soma notion of his excellence .^6

The opening(verses of Genesis, therefore, add up to a statement by

'
implication about the doctrine of the unity and trinity of God. When

the Spirit of God is mentioned, both the person of the Spirit and the

person of the Father are implied for, following Augustine, Abelard

87
holds that the Spirit proceeds principally from the Father. Simi­

larly, in the words, dikit Deus. both the Father and the Word who is

the Son proceeding from the Father are implied. Again, Abelard stresses

that the Word is not to be taken for a corporeal word, since there is
. . . • ■ j
nothing corporeal in the divine nature. Finally, Abelard finds evidence

for both the unity and trinity of God in the very beginning of the

passage, where the plural form of the Hebrew noun for God:— Heloym—

together with a singular verb, shows that the three Persons acted as one
 • - ■ 219

88
in creating.

In this passage, Abelard.does not mention potentja in relation to

» >j, . i
t»
the Father, although in a lateb section, commenting on the creation of
■' .
man, he ascribes divine power especially to the Father:

It is established, of;coursev; £hat to God the Father, who

has being of himself and not of another, according to this-
his property, that tSrhich pertains to divine jpower be espe­
cially ascribed; just as also to the Son, who is .called his
Wisdom, what pertains to wisdom; and to. the Holy Spirit ,
who is called their. mutual Love and is properly called
Charity, that which has regard to the goodness of divine ..
grace'is attributed by appropriation.® .

The- second Person of the Trinity is consistently referred-to as the

Word "who is the Son,” or "divine wisdom." - •*

’ ' ' .... °

The Order of Creation

' A * S' ‘
‘-S.' • •* « ' - N
’ , ' , .

In his interpretation, of the six-day work of formation, Abelard

discusses a number of questions relating to the nature of material

creatures, including plants, the celestial luminaries, birds, fish,

: i
and animals. These questions, however, take second place to h-is con-
■r ' ' ’

cem with the intention of the author, and his interest in showing what

is to be learned from the text about the relationship between Creator

* and creature. Abelard's presentation of the work of day one sums up

. the. basic .premises from which this relationship, as it unfolds in the

'hfr ' - , u • • '*
^ ' • *

six-t^py work, is to be understood.

First, the divine fiat produces by its power an instantaneous and

.perfect result. .This, according to Abelard, is clearer in the original

.90
Hebrew than In the Latin text. Second, the product of the divine
command is .good and in need of no correction, as the divine *commenda­

tion ("et'Vidit Deus lueem quod esset bonam") indicates. The divine

commendation of the creature, repeated at the end of each day, is fo’r

the benefit of human beings, who are thereby invited to join in the

Creator's approval of his work, and to praise him for the useful good-
91
ness of his creatures. Third, the creation of light by "divine command

is.followed by the Creator's division of light from darkness; to show

that he 'is not only’the creator of matter, but also the one who forms

it, so that*praise for both the material creation and the work of
92
formation redounds to him alone. Finally, by giving names to light

and darkness and later t%^dry ‘land and water, the Creator is shown to

have made them worthy of a name. 93 '

4
- The whole work of formation is summed up in the one day on which

light is produced and separated from darkness. Interpreting the light

as the distinction of works by which creation emerges from the shadowy

condition of formlessness, Abelard equates the light of day one with

morning light on each successive day, so called % similitude, in so

doing, he gives his own twist to the Augustinian interpretation that

understands the work of creation as a simultaneous production,

described by the prophetic author in a series of allegorical days. The

days are, the work of formation, which proceeded by gradual developments,

according to Abelard, over a period of time, while evening and morning

of each day correspond-to the .intelligible and sensible creations from

a human point of view:

0.
'And there was, evening and morning on day. one.' Here he
calls the whole^consummation of all the works of God, day
 221

one, first retained in the mind and afterwards completed

in the work on the sixth day. 'Evening, however, of all. .
this time that he here names 'one day,' he calls all that
work of God, according as it was first hidden in his mind,
before it came out to the iight through effect. And then
he names -the very same work dawn, according as the com­
pleted work afterwards presented itself visibly. Accord­
ingly, he calls the concept of the divine mind in the dis­
position of future works, evening, but in fact calls
morning the very work of that concept and the effect of
the divine disposition, consummated in six days. . >. •
For God produces each particular thing as if from the
depths of his secret heart, when he displays by a work,
what he previously conceived in his mind; nor does the
work differ from the concept, when what the mind disposes
is completed in'the wo*rk.’^

Abelard's source for thus interpreting the distinction between evening

1 ■* *
\ >
and morning light is probably Augustine's D.e Genesi ad litteram. book

five, but his version'inverts Augustine' s by identifying "morning

95
light" with sense perception instead of the divine mind.
' ' r ■

Although the work of formation is a disclosure of the divine con-

'• .
ception of creatures, material creation does have a nature, order and’
• ' * ^
force of its own, distinct from the will of the Creator. Abelard dis­

cusses the relationship between the will of the Creator and the order

of nature at some length in his commentary on the firmament established

on the second day. After that, the idea of a force or order of nature
4 ’
becomes incorporated into his account of the unfolding material
. ‘ 96 .. - ° ■ •-
creation. °
- v , -

The nature of the fir&ament seems to contradict the observable

order, of things, by which the element of Water is heavier than air and'
97
has its place below the elements of fire "'and air. Abelard expresses

puzzlement at the notion of a layer of water above the "heavens," and

• I " .

proposes a.series of examples ythat may account for this oddity— perhaps
the firmament is water vapout; perhaps it floats above the air in the

same way that clouds, dragons', birds, or inflated skins may float;

perhaps the firmament is ice, and remains in place because of its?

qh
crystalline solidity? Citations from Josephus, Jerome, and Bede are

brought in to supplement Abelard's own conjectures, but produce, no

P9sitive statement about the firmament. Finally, he poses the question:

*
by what force Of nature' can a firmament of water endure over the upper

element of fire? ‘ The answer is sought in a consideration of the rela­

tionship between what we perceive to be the force of nature, or natural

-’ ■ Ktr-

causes, and the will of God in creating: I '

When we seek or assign,in any dispositions of these things

a force of nature or natural causes, in no way do we do it;
according to that original operation of God in tjie consti-' •
tuting of the world, where the will of God alone Had <the ^
efficacy of nature in the things then to be created or
ordered, but only-from that operation of God completed in
the six days.. Afterwards, then, we are accustomed to
think out the force of nature with those very things
already so prepared jthat the constitution or preparation
of them would suffice for doing anything, without the aid
of miracles.99 \

" ■'&. ■ ; 'V\.‘ ■ ‘ V ■ - ,

Whatwe see and identify as natural causes were established by the
■ ' ' N >
divine will in the process of forming the material world. Having once ,

established these natural causes by^his creative wiif^ God from time to

time may revers^rtiature by a new force, in order to effect ..miracles,

which are contrary to or surpass nature. T]j,us, nature has- been '

established with perceptible laws and an inherent force through which

''>!■ • 100'
things reproduce according to their own kind, but these laws and
» , •
forces are understood ultimately to be contingent on the will of God.
■ '' -i. %
 1.

i *

'' • ' \
' ■
223
' .8 ^
It is' by the will of God, (then, that the nature of the firmament

has been established and established in the way it is, or in natures

■• * '" " V - '■ ■
Ss they, are. Abelard quotes,Plato at this point, to .show that the will
tp '’ <1 ' ' « ^
of the Grpatot %s ifiore powerful than natural causes and prior to them: i

■ ' ^
In his Timaeus, he introduces ,God speaking to the "'divine .
stars, when he says, 'You are .by no means immortal, nor
entirely, indissoluble, but nevertheless you will neVer be
dissolved, nor undergo the necessity of death,, because„my
■Vt1, will is a stronger bond and npre fertile-for the preserva­
tion of eternity, than’those vital bonds by which your
eternity was‘joirfed together and composed.1^9^
\
*' ‘ J '(2^
Immediately after this, Abelard suggests another, and "more probable"

physical-explanation for the firmament— the wild"that blew on the first

■' ? ' . *. ” .i‘- -
day may have projected the waters upward with a blast so icy that they
102
froze and remained fixed in that solidity. . Nevertheless, the firma­

ment is given no commendation because, according'to Abelard’s interpre-

tation, God has not shown us what good or useful purpose it serves in
103 •
the order of nature. . . . ,

Within the continuing work of formation, the will of God takes

the place of the force of nature, but in the process also creates

nature as we know it, by conferring natural powers on the things

.. . • -o .V ' 'V , ' ■ • ’
ei* ■ 1 y
created. This is especially to be seen in the work of the third day,

when ,dry land and water were separated and the earth was made to pro-

dUce plants. How the earth could germinate and produce plants is no

small question. The answer is found only in the activity of the divine

will,working in the place of nature untiE‘it had been established, and

U
inserting the -forces of growth and development-into the creature so
. . / '’ *■ ‘ ’ 104
that these could.continue, from then on, as natur&l processed, '
*■ . V:;;- . ;,■■■
 The creation'.’of .sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day is intro-,-
ftyi ty.
° t
,; <-• «... -'•. '•,*>
r duced with a .note on their usefulness both to warm and benefit the . -

newly created plants, and to give light to the animals about to be

8 O '

created, ,Jlest they wander as if blind in the shadows, and so that

1 105
they might be able to pick out.their food." The other uses of the
'’. - ' •
* * " '” o - P’ a*’
*
,.heavenly‘luminaries are indicated in relation to human beings: they
t, °
distinguish night from day by the kinds of light they give,; and they

serve as- natural signs' of future events. ?1

ss-V ■ ° ~ , ■ »■ '
oThe question whether the planets belong to 'the angelic order of

creation is raised but left open, since Augustine mentions that possi-
106 ■ \iL' r' '•
'bility in the Enchiridion. Brief mention is. made of different types

of spirits, including both the go<jd spirits and'the evil ones that fell

‘with the devil; Abelard treats the subject in passing more, it seems,

out of respect for the authority of Augustine than out of his own
j » ’■
* ' 107 ... ,v
interests or concerns. The possibility that the world is animate •

(animal, quoddam). since it Contains all other living things, is dis­

missed as .somewhat more remote from reason than the probability that
, •• o ■’ '
■- . , . n ’

v the'planets are governed by spirit^. The question of a.world soul is

not discussed at all. As an explanation for this omission, Buytaert

suggests that "an essential point in Abelard's, doctrine., On the topic is,

that the Holy Spirit is present everywhere in the world, offering his

grace to everyone who needs ,lb discussing a period of history

when the only human beings to exist were Adam and Eve in paradise,

(there would, therefore, be do need for speaking of the omnipresence Of

the Holy Spirit. Examination of the relevant passage in the Theologia

1 ,' nr*:1
.* ‘
Vi 2 _ Q -Q -

'summi boni' on the Holy Spirit as the anima mundi. suggests another
 explanation, put forward by Mile d'Alverny. She notes that Abelard

expresses the opinion that the anima mundi of the philosophers is a ,

designation per involucrum of1the vivifying Activity of-ithe holy Spirit.

For him,: this is no more than an useful metaphor which-— 'especially if

» ■ ; \ - . ' .V - ■

• it had begun to be misinterpreted by his(;critics— could well be dropped

"'"kl , ■
-[ - *. ^«>
' in a work „that had covered the topic of the Holy. Spirit's vivifying
,110 - : * '- '
action in the commentary on Genesis 1;2;~ ■ * ■

Iito-his interpretation of the work of the fourth day,Abelard t ,,

’>■» .-- . ■ ■/ ■ y - ■ v.?v' j,c
Reiterates’firmly ;.that the order and stability of thil^lanets, like//,

everything else, is established by the will of the Creator, whether the

/ planets happen to be ruled^y-spirits pf tfot, the will pt bhe:

.;jppe^tor', ^

acting in place of the forces Of: nature, is moRlkpowerful than any X .

..K.. '. f ' ;V -
• V
^ '‘ •' • -• • «?' /X. f . V-' k^‘ ^ -- 4- ” d_ -r'
natural facultyTofithe cfeated order.' Once (again, Plato is brought in a
’“- v, .....-T;:^^ ^ _ . -?>a
to support the argument for the power of divine Vill over the creatures'
*' ■- I'll I a s. *
^

■.natural-fdedlfy/-'^ *'•/'<»’ \' . .

£ long section is devoted to-the refutation of .astrolpgyas a ,
■f ... > j . ’- ..f#/
means,of/predicting-future'contingents. In attempting .to predicts future

events contingent on human will, astrology isjlsaid-to be "diabolipal;

■ ■
-‘‘ ■ '*■ - i ' ■
*
rather than astronomical." ;The Stars'may, however, be used to pt;e-

diet*,the course of natural’0events in the future, especially .in*matters

■ ■ ’ ’ /-.■ ‘ • ■ ,-4 , ■*-’>. .si
■' : .• :
pertaining to climate and weather changes; this would be a valid under-
■ v, "
standing of their'purpose as signs. .- j ‘

The creation, of animals on th% fifth and sixtK'da^s marks .a f o ,/

further development in the establishing of nature.■” Abelard interprets ;

■- ■ iv ’■ ’-*■■ . . 51 - y
the production of birds and reptiles on the’fifth; d^y as the establish-
- 113 ■-- ■' ■ ”■P'' ■ ■
ing of species, not individuals. . Individual^..subsequently multiplied
"-•h? ..
according to the nature of the species and through the force of nature.

,When God is said to haye rested on the seventh day, his rest is to be

understood,^accordingly, as a cessation from the production of new

species. ■■ '_

Abelard notes that the blessing given' by God to the animals pro-

duced from water gives them a kind of dignity approaching that of human
•V’ /"• 4 ’ 114 ■
beingS, who are to be regenerated by the waters of baptism. Since
-J
these.animals took their origin frOm the lighter and purer element of

water, eating their flesh is not prohibited by the^Benedictine Rule.^’’

' i’ ^ . s. (1 *
The land animals, by contrast, originated in the heavier and more

corpulent element of earth.. As such, they are not only prohibited as

r. •• •_ -' .*>..• , • / • • ' . .' '

meat in the monastic rule, but also given no particular blessing other

than the general benediction bestowed by God on the'completed work.

^& '■ 1 _ 0’« t '
With this interpretation, it seems that Abelard understands the natures

of animals and their flesh to bear a spiritual significance, insofar-

\ . * * ‘
as the element in which these natures originated has a sacramental
^ •' . .’ ; ' ■*’ \ '* ' .
significance for Christian existence. Thus, the life of nature and

the sa'ctamental life oarl bound together in a complex of meanings thdfe.f

• ■/ .. . ■ ’ ; V ' 'X
represent and disclose the divine Will. X
' : 7 ; ; ■.4 ■
When Abelard xomes to his interpretation of the final commendation.
• . - ' . . n
bestowed on the completed work ("Vidit Deus huncta quae fecerat, et

e’rant yal,de bona"), he distinguishes between it and the commendation of

' V 0;• '
each particular work °n all the previous days. On the previous days,

the commendation was intended for the instruction of h}man beings,

since God "makes us see this (goodness) and understand it from the
• 11C
manifest utility of these (creatures)." When God commends the
 227

completed work, his words ape to he understood as an indication that

the final' product corresponds in every way to his intention in 9

creating:

For that reasonK what Is said, ’he saw everything and it

.was very good,1 is such that he detided that nothing in
those things perfectly known by him, was to be corrected,
but that he had created all things as well as they ought
to be created— so that, namely, it was not suitable for
them to receive anything better in their, condition,
according also to that opMioji, of Plato, by which he >
.clearly shows that the world, treated by an omnipotent
and not envious God, could in no way have been better
made. Moses, considering the same thing, asserts that
all things were created very good, although we believe
that it was not granted even to him to render an account
of everything. For he does not call each thing in it­
self, but everything taken together, extremely good,
because, as the blessed Augustine also notes, the particu­
lars are good in themselves, but everything taken together
is very good: because things that appear as little or
nothing considered in themselves, are very necessary
indeed" in the sum total. Hence it is said: 'Great are
the works of the Lord, exquisite in all his will.'117

m
If everything is indeed "very good," what are we to make of

venomous animals or poisonous snakes, the innocuous bun superfluous

things in creation, and the evil presence of the fallen angels? We

I-
,1
have already found some indication of the answer in the Dialogus. where

the Christian defined the good as "anything that is necessary to fulfil

*‘
some excellent disposition of God, although that disposition may be
118
entirely hidden from us." Here, Abelard .begins by pointing out that

the ^falien angels were never created %vil by God, but by themselves

became evil through their pride^^The goodness of the divine Work is

not to be denied on their acd<^^%|il^ they were created with a good

nature that they subsequently befoul*ea but did not destroy. 119 Abelard

$ S-

Tv
J
 228

continues:

Accordingly, all the works of G&d are good, and 'good

creature* is to be predicated of all, because they
received no sin or evil in the very origin of their
creation, but God conferred on each as much*a§ was
appropriate, so that each particular creature was to
be made not only good, but indeed the best, that is,
very good, by him, (and) not only then, when they were
fiygt created, but even every day, when they are pro­
created or multiply from those primordial causes of'
production;. > iter even if an infant when he is bom,
v may not yet he called a good man, which pertains to
morals, nevertheless he is a good creature.1^0

As human activities ate good when they proceed from an intention

» 121 d
to do the will of God, so also creation is good because it corre­

sponds to the divine intention. Thus, the infant who is not yet a

morally good man, is a good creature, and the newly hatched chick that

is not yet an animal good for some use, is already a good creature,

because it belongs to the divine work. Because God neither does nor
' , 122 "
permits anything to be done without reason, things are good insofar

as they have their place in the completed order of his work. Even

miscarriages-, according to-Abelard's interpretation, have a place in

that order, Inexplicable superfluities, like the growth Of hair and

fingernails that need to be trimmed, must also somehow be good, since

they are among the things pronounced "very good" at the end of the work
123
of formation and ordering.

Abelard's interpretation of the problem of venomous animals and

plants is based on his understanding of the human being's relationship

to material creation before and after the fall. If human beings had
y
not sinned, their dominion over material creation would have remained

5
unimpaired. They would not haye been in danger from any creature

since, by remaining in obedient subjection to the Creator, they would

have retained their divinely instituted control over creatures, or

.their proper place in the created order. Negligence in obeying

the Creator^ecame the destructive factor that made some parts of the

material creation harmful rather than good. Since everything done by

rational creatures should be done on account of or for God, the

implication seems to be that the misuse of the creature for ends other
J °
than thope which give honour to God, results in harm or pain. Such
'; . - _ ' »
harm and pain are seen as the just— and therefore good--punishments
125
for disobedience, rather than evidence of something bad in creation.

The six-day work of creation and formation is followed by a

seventh day on which God ceased to produce new species, and celebrated

what had been created by giving it his benediction and sanctification-.

This seventh day is interpreted by Abelard as the whole of time to

come, during"which divine administration of the creature continues,

126
although the addition of new species has ceased. . For the multiplica­

tion of individuals of the species, nature working through the primordial

causes established in the six days would be sufficient and would ensure

continuity of species. ^ u

The Image and Likeness of. God .

The creation of human beings is the culmination of the six-day

work. Everything that was done before their creation was done for
a• • * v
their benefit and intended to satisfy their needs, so that there would
be no shortages or necessities by which to excuse sin, and every
* 127
reason, instead, to love and praise the Creator. Abelard interprets
i
Genesis 1:26 both as a signal of the excellence of the human creature,

and as one more indication of plurality in the Creator. The plural

verbfaclamus, followed by the singular creavit. indicate a distinction

among the Persons acting as one in creating. Faeiamus further indicates

that the creation of the first human being was decided upon in a con­

versation or dialogue like. Boethius' dialogue with Philosophy, or ‘

Augustine's dialogue with Reason in the Soliloquia:

I
o<?
.*
■

In this way, God the Father, 'as if inviting them to the

creation of man, says both to Wisdom and Goodness, that
is, to the Son and the Holy Spirit: Let us make him thus
' and so, so that he may be in our image and likeness.^®'
’ .

What, then, is this image and likeness of God? Abelard's inter­

pretation is based on the parallel between "image and likeness''^atid^

"male and> female" in the text. Since homo is thecommon name of the

human species, including male and female, the paralleling of "image

and likeness" with "male and female" suggests to Abelard that a dis-*

tinction is being indicated between the male In the imige of God, and

the female”in the likeness of God. He draws support for his interpre­

tation from the text of I Corinthians 11:7, in which the man is

described as the image and glory of God.129 Through a distinction

between the meaning pf likeness (similitudo) and image (imago), the

image is showii to be nobler and more like God than the likeness. Like­

ness implies mere similarity, but image implies express likeness

•° ' . ’ . ' s '
(expressa similitudo). as in the likeness between a sculptured image
 231
r' * .

130
and the man it represents. Woman, like man, is said to resemble

God in that she is rational and has ah immortal soul. Man, however, is

more like God in that he is the.unique source of the human species— a

reference to the “production of Eve from Adam's side— in the same way

that God is the unique principle of the being of all things. 131
C .-y 1
Abelard continues With a discussion of the ways in which the like­

ness to God of both man and,wojian relates to the Persons of the Trinity.

Power is ascribed to the Father, who' alone has being of himself (a.

seipso) and not from another. Wisdom is ascribed to the Son, who is

called the wisdom of the Father. The goodness of divine grace is

ascribed to the Holy Spirit, who "is the mutual love 6f Father and Son

and properly called Charity. To each of the Persons, the human soul

bears a.likeness unique among created -things. It is like the Father

fn power because it was created immortal and without defect. Jn like-

'vt
ness to the Soxi,' it is capable of reason and wisdom, and in likeness to
** 132
the Holy Spirit, it is capable of participation in divine love. This

threefold likeness is common to both male,,and female of the human

spcies, but is stronger in the male. Abelard finds his grounds for this

assertion chiefly in the account of that fall. As noted above, the like­

ness to Ged the Father is stronger in the male, because of his uniqueness

as the source of the human species. His likeness to divine wisdom is

stronger, too, In that he was not seduced by the serpent. Moreover,

his greater likeness,to divine love Is demonstrable by contrast with

the woman's unloving willingness to believe that God might be capable

of. envy or deception in making his prohibition. 133

f*-
 Further evidence that the man, especially, was made in the image

of God, is drawn by Abelard from Genesis 1:27 ("et creavit Deus hominem

ad imaginem suam: ad imaginem Dei creavit ilium, maseulum et feminam

.. ** * '' '
creavit eos"). Abelard interprets the singular indicative pronoun of

creavit illtim as referring only to the male ad imaginem Dei, while the

plural pronoun eos includes both male and female. 134 Here Abelard

discerns a special likeness between the male p f the species, ad imaginem,

and the Son of God, Imago Dei. For that reason, the man is said also to.

have greater likeness to the Son than has the worfan.

The creature made in the image and J?keness of God and placed on

the sixth day amid the benefits of material creation was also' given,

certain functions or tasks to fulfill (Genesis,1:28-30). The first of

these functl&ns is lordship over the rest of material creation. Abelard

links this function with the rationality of human nature, noting that

human power extends only over creatures lacking that rationality:

For God did not place man over man, but only over insen-
^ sible or irrational creatures, namely so that he might
re'teive them into his power and might have lordship over “
those things which lacked reason and sense. . . .^^5

It foljpws, then, that human power does not extend to celestial beings
' * 136‘
or daemons that might inhabit the upper-air. Moreover, human power,

over material creation is limited and conditional, according to

Abelard's interpretation, because human beings were given power to

' ; x
arrange and make use of material creation'according to their will and

decisions, only to the extent that their own will remained subject to
137
that of the Creator.
 I /191
233

How were human beings to have been given dominion over thg whole
o
world if they were placed in paradise, which is only one small part of
/■I .

the world? Abelard explains that mankind was placed in paradise only

because it was a particularly temperate §nd well-supplied location in

which the human species could have its beginnings. He goes on to

suggest that the fruit,trees specially planted in paradise might not

yet have been propagated on the rest of .the earth. Had mankind not

sinned, even the tree of life might have'been multiplied for them by

plantings elsewhere on earth. Then human beings in their original

justice could have been governors of the whole world, making use of

other creatures according to their needs, -and receiving pleasure from

the sense experiences offered by the varieties of created beauty, <,all

138
of which would encourage the greater love and praise of•the, Creator.
9 1
The second human function is to "be fruitful' and multiply" (Genesis

1:28). This Abelard understands to have been enjoinedupon human beings

with a command inherent in the very disposition of the divine work,

rather than in words, like those -of the prohibition against eating the

-fruit of the tree of knowledge.

1
By its creation as male and'\tfemale,
’ (
139
the human species'1is ordered to be fruitful and multiply. For this
0 «: ’ '
reason, Abelard condemns homosexuality as a departure from the creation

of God and the institution of nature. The text of Genesis 1:28 is also

interpreted as a condemnation of those who condemn marriage, since

\

marriage was sanctioned by divine authority.at the creation of the first

. . , 140
human beings.”
' ' '1
*(Abelard interprets the final part of the divine mandate, in which

human beings and animals are given the fruits of ‘threes and grass for
 food, as “another indication that the rational creature, which receives
, . ..v-.-.
benefits from the Creator, is required in turn to offer obedience:

And note how much he wants man to obey him in all things,
since he does not will him to’eat in order to live, except
by obedience, nor without his permission'*to attain any­
thing in any kind of necessities, not even for the sustain­
ing of life.^^- v .■
** • «

The notion that human life consists in obediencw to God is related to

(

Abelard's understanding of the nature of evil and sin, described in the

Dialogus and Ethics as jcontempt or hatred for the Creator, or consciously

142
chosen disobedience to his will. • Failure to do what we ought to do

for him, or not to set aside what ought to be set aside .for him, is an
Q ' •.
offence against God*. If human existence is constituted for obedience

to him, then such failure may. also be seen as. an offence against that

existence, and a negation of'that in which" humanity consists.

0
Th§~account in the paradise narrative of the formation of the '
■y -a . . . . .

first man is interpreted by Abelard as. the expression for the mode by

which man was created on the sixth day. The prophetic author seems to

say, in effect: "I said in the context (of the sixth day) that'man

was created, but I did not express the.mode of creation; therefore I

,
so now. . . .■ ,,143
.n do •
will

The man's body is first formed frpm earth, so that the soul may

afterwards be infused into a body already prepared for.it. In this,

j
the man is distinct from other.animals, which were produced complete
*
.from the elements of water and earth. Their souls or animating prin-

.ciples are mefely rarefied extensions of the elements from which their
* '
bodies were formed., ''and may be called spirit in the same sense that a
wind, belonging to the mererarefied element of air, is sometimes
144 ' ' \
called spirit in comparison to earth or water.' ' It xs noted that

man is properlysaid to have been formed-, not created, because here

form was added to pre-existing matter and there was not a creation of,
, 145
something entirely new. Citing Isidore and Bede, Abelard points

out that the Latin and Hebrew names for man '(homo and Adam) are derived '
*
from his physical composition, originating in earth, and properly

speaking refer to the outer man, rather than to the inner man or.soul.
V . «■» ,

The Greek antKropos, by contrast, alludes to mans intellectual quali­

ties by its*derivation, according to Bede, from his quality of looking

upwards .to the heavens.

The soul of Adam, unlike his body, is nor formed -from pre-existing

material, but has its unique principle in God. As the "breath of life"

(sniraeulum vitae), the soul is distinct from mere wind, which is not
\ ’ i 146
vivifying, although it is sometimes also called "breath" (spiraculum).
k - ^
Moreover, by being breathed into* Adam's face, the soul is shown to be

that which receives knowledge through reason, a Characteristic distin-

guishing it from the souls or animating principles Of other living

> • ■ J' ■
things. The face,, Abelard explains, signifies information or notion

(notitia), since it is that by which a- person is recognizable. By this

infusion of the breath of life, the completed man became a "living

* 147
soul," since his soul could live forever when it was without defect.

. Following the thread of the Genesis narrative, Abelard considers

the original state of human beings and- the' problem of sin before turning
■» e ‘ ®

to the mode of woman's creation. He ‘draws his material for the descrip­

tion of paradise from a variety of sources. The geographical information

 1

236

’ 148
is based mainly oh descriptions by Jerome and Isidore, with some
V 149
references to Pliny for information about India, and,to Sallust for
150 ^ • •
the sources of the tigris and Euphrates. No medieval sources— as,

for example, Ehabanus Maurus--are cit^d by name?. Within his descrip­

tion of the location and arrangement of paradise, he distinguishes

between the qualities of the tree of life and tihe 'tree of knowledge.
r" ° 15.
Influenced probably by Augustine's interpretation, 1 he notes that

while the p fe e of life may have had medicinal qualities for the preser­

vation of youth and health, the tree of knowledge had no special'

.qualities in itself (a sua creatione). The knowledge attained by

eating its fruit, was experiential knowledge of the difference between

the good of the obedient life and the evil consequent on disobedience.

For Abelard, the importance of the paradise narrative is that® it

shows, once/again, the benefits bestowed by God on human beings, and

the obedience due in return. The first man was taken from earth and
'■ f *
placed in paradise so that in experiencing the delights of that place

by contrast with the lesser perfections of the outside world, he might

strive to -remain there by offering obedient service to God. Such

obedience would consist in fulfilling the task of cultivating the

153
garden and observing the-one prohibition set by the Creator.

Abelard takes the work of cultivation literally as a corporeal' task >

«assigned to Adam, hut treat's it as an activity designed as much for the

pleasure of the man, as for the sake of improving God's creatures.

" S ' *-•
Cultivation and conservation of that portion of the divine work were

given to Adam as part of his natural constitution: u, „

 So, inconsequence, (Jfehe text) 'that he should cultivate,
etc.' should be understood as if it is said that‘by h ,.
placing him there, he”constituted hip cultivator and con-
server of’that place; that is to say, by copihanding him. _
to cultivate .and conserve it for him. He would," in fact,
cultivate it by doing such wprk as pruning the trees or
plants, more with pleasure than with the labour-of
f a t i g u e . •. ■
« «’ »‘ * *
f . *
' .'a ' 9 ,
Thus; work belonged to the unfaMeg* fiumap nature .-as well as to human

,existenc^after sin,, although the fatigue associated with work was

something that came later as the effect.of sin. Moreover, it seems ■

that for Abelard,, cultivation mid conservation of,.material creation.

¥ ’ “ *
‘ ' J '•
are functions inherent in the; human'’condition on earth.;
■q <5^, * p, \
. In discussing the divine commands and prohibition, Abelard raises
’ "J'* ' ’ ' \ '
- the- question of language between God and Adam. Prohibition of the\,

fruit of the tree of knowledge was made tp the man only, byt.>was."sub­

sequently spoken of by t|ie wcdfen as applying to both of thiem."^

% '* I &
Abelard understands this to mean that the prohibition was addressed to
1' 1 o- . p

the human species in common. Nevertheless,- it was not/a command built

into human nature like the coipand tp be fruitful and/multiply. -The

question, then, is in what language the precept was g|ven, if it was

' •/ • - v ■
expressed in words— and Abelard seems to take it for granted that it
J >- t.
was given in words, whether by internal illumination j>r audibly. It

is only later that Adam is said to have invented language by giving

names to the animals. To solve .the problem, Abelard suggests that the

"prophetic author may have described the invention pf language out of

" •- * /
the order in which things happened, |.n the same Way that he first

mentions,the creation of human beings before describing it later on in

' ‘ ' L /
 Therefore; just as the thing done'previously is after­
wards taken up again on account of the omission, namely,
of itsmode, so also it,is’not improbable that here not

»
a few things are referred to by, anticipation apart from
the order of events,, so that Adam instituted yards for
speaking before he heard the precept of the'lord in
vthose words which he himself instituted, so that he
• could understand them; (words) with which he also, '
speaking afterwards said, ’Now bone of my bone, etc. '
and with which the serpent spoke to the woman, and the
wbman with the serpent. . . .^6 ^
'' ^ 1

This is a significant explanation in view of what Abelard has* to say

about language in theological statements. As we have seen, he

describes language in the Theologia ’summl boni* as something instituted

by mAn to designate those creatures of which he has formed some concep-

■ ■ • -

tion. Because’God is beyond human conception, human language applies

0 • ' *
to him only by”analogy. When we speak of God, we transfer words from

their proper sense,yas.applied to creatures, and speak, more by conjee-

‘ ' * " ‘ „ *■
•ture than by understanding. , ^hen God addresses human beings, it is'

either through qualities inherent, in human nature, such as rationality

tZ \ " ■ . ,

or‘
'masculinity andfemininity,or else by way of human language. Thus,
-• i. ''
when God directs his precepts to human,hgings in words, there is,a kind

of reversal of what happens when human beings attempt to speak of God:

the inconceivable God addresses us in language corresponding to human

thought sV that the human mind may grasp what is said. In both

instances, language is the medium ^ind filter of communication.

^ ' -■ ^ ''>' - '
. In order to explain thediscrephncies- in the Genesis nafrative,
■’ :? J '

Abelard suggeststhat the firstparents may have spent some time in,
* • • a * , ' .**
paradise. A short space of time would not have sufficed for the inven--

tion Of iangiiige or even for the invention of names (nomina) for all
 the animals: ■ * - » . x
' - U i.

. •
^
For, omitting all the rest, a short space of time could
, not have,sufficed for the invention of one language; ancL
the invention of names, which alone is recorded here, is .
not all that is contained in these words slid to have
been spoken in paradise. Rather, on the* contrary, none ^,
of the names that Adam is ajafd'^fo have given to the beasts \£Ky
of the earth or the birds o'f the air are contained in ..
thedfe speeches.^® .... , •*
J
‘ •’ ' ■ ■ V . V , if ' • ■ «■■■■;
Even without; having produced offspring there, the first i^ouple might

J^ave live'd for some years in .the garden. Abelard quotes at length a ,

passage from Augustine's De civitate 'Dei, both to support the-thought

u . 4 H

. -that human beings spent some time in paradise before the; fall, and by

v of the human species-., Thien^the

way of describing the original stat^

first parents, free of sin, "offered themselves to Qod as the* purest

5
11159 TVi the
sacrifices." +"1, time between
n 1 and
the fall J the Ipst judgement,

that purity has' vanished, and even the just who live by faith are not
* ( 5‘ ' ■ ■ (i ^
free from‘sin, but await the final state, "when those who offer sacri­

fices in righteousness will be cleansed by the fire of the last judge-

,.160 '
ment.

Adam was exhorted toobedience by the threat of death,which is

” '-i ' ’
' ’V
identified as death of the soul followed by deathof the bodyin a

twofold dying. It may be asked, Abelard says, why 6pd made a prohibi­

tion which he'knew wo.uld be transgressed, add in a matter in which

' ■ ■■ 'l;i ‘ .
‘there would not have been any sin, had there not first been a precept
i6i ■ ' :
or prohibition. Abelar|!,s response depends oh his understanding of

the redemption as a demonstration of divine love that draws human

• ■■ ' • . •
beings, in turn, into greater love for God than they would otherwise
 But I say: what if he sought an occasion before the sin
of man by which he would restore him to a better condi­
tion after sin, namely by seeking him by himself and
redeeming him by his, own death, and by showing us so
.great a love, than which, as he himself said, 'Greater
; iov“ - • ■ » ■ * • • • -:163 ■

We should now Ibve God all the more, seeing how much more reason we
' *. «
haveto love him in return for1the love he showed us even after we had

sinned. In |his why, we may be said to have been made better after sin

through the mercy shown by God, and in the new love inspired by that

mercy we ate enabled energetically fo persevere in the good. If we

recall1the conclusions arrived at in the Dialogue. we shall see that

Abplard's interpretation is based on a profound and consistent convic­

tion”about; the goodness Of the Creator. God did not and does not will

evil to be done, but does use the actions of evil-intentioned creatures

to produce hit own good effects. Thus, even sin and death become
V " 'v . *” ■ ’ **" '■ ' ' 1
the instruments of divine goodness. Abelard concludes by cheerfully

quoting the Exsultet to prove his point: "0 happy faulty that merited
v; ( j, -

such and so great a Redeemer!

The objection remains that no one might evef

o-
have sinned if those

first parents' had not sinned, or if there had not been a precept
: . t?l ' . °
against which they transgressed. Abelard responds that it is incon­

ceivable that the human species could have persisted without sin, even

if the first parents had not sinned. Sooner or later, there would have
s ' .

been some sin against the natural law,,even if there were no verbal
\ : ■ y ■ '., / :'
prohibitions: ‘y
 For who.does not know, that the worst children may be
bom “from just parents, or the converse? And whence
would their posterity have been stronger for resisting
sin than those of whom God appeared to have been the. «
personal and special author?. Who, finally, does not
know that we, by the natural law of reason;.are able
to recognize in what we may offend God or sib? For
Cain, or all those who were before the law, were not
ignorant of what would please and displease God when,
avoiding the latter they would seek the former, or, by
the contrary, would incur a penalty,-^6

This line of thought appears at first sight to contradict what precedes

it— namely, that there would not have been a transgression had there

not been a prohibition. It should, however, be noted that just as

Abelard distinguishes between divine commands given in the order of

>nature (as the command to procreate was given in masculinity and

femininity), and those given in words (the prohibition against eating

the fruit of the tree of knowledge), so also he distinguishes between

sins against the natural order, recognizable even without precepts, and ^

sins against divine law given in words. The obvious point5,of compari-
•v , •

son is Abelard's Commentary on Romans 5:13. There we find him saying

that those who lived before the Law was given to Moses, were not immune
‘, . v ' J
from sin, and suffered the penalty of sin, which is death. -‘
Among them-

selves, however, men did not impute sin— that is, lay charges gr

inflict punishment by any written law. Instead, they distinguished

between right and wrong according to natural law, and recognized sin by

that law.^ F i n a l l y , Abelard poses the question, why such a severe

penalty, affecting the entire human species, should have been imposed

for the relatively minor disobedience of eating the fruit of that tree

e
H responds that it was neCessary for human beings to experience from
the first, by a severe penalty*, how seriously displeasing disobedience
168 *
would b^ to God.
h . . .
Following the sequence of the Genesis narrative, Abelard proceeds

to interpret the account of the creation of woman. He notes that

* «

womah, like man, was created by a kind of conference within ,the Trinity,

as indicated by the faeiamus . . .in the text of Genesis 2:18. The

help to be given by the woman was, he adds, principally in fulfillment

of the precept to be fruitful and multiply. Being of the same species

(homo) as the man, she would be like him (simile sibi).169

AbelaVd treats the naming of the animals as a puzzling digression

within the account of the creation of woman. He notes that the animals

are said to have been laid to Adam, which is the Hebrew equivalent of

the Latin homo, and for that reason considers it uncertain whether the

animals were led for inspection and naming to the man only, or to both

the man and the woman together. Why were only the beasts and the birds

led to Adam, and not also fish, trees, and other created things?

Abelard answers .that it -is his belief (id credo) that thfe animals were

thus paraded before Adam not only to be named by him, but also as a

special display of divine power for his benefit. Moreover, the animals

led to Adam were those from among which the sacrificing animals were

subsequently taken, which suggests that the animals were a kind of type

of Christ, who oalso took his name from Adam."^

.The woman is said to have been- taken from the side of the man, and

not from a higher or lower part.of him. This is understood to mean that
v. .

she was to be an associate and companion of man, neither superior nor

inferior to him. That, at any rate, was the relationship intended

 ' 243

before sin; after the fall (Genesis 3:16), she was handed over "to the
171
power and lordship of the man." Abelard notes that the rib was

replaced by flesh->in the first man only, denying the notion of a

missing rib in later males of the species. He understands this to have

been done to the first man for the sake of‘impressing upon him that he

had’been somewhat reduced in his powers so that a woman might be made

for him. The woman, in turn, was to find all the more reAson for

loving the man, in this evidence of her derivation from him. 172 1No

reference is made at this point to’the Christological typology by which

the creation of woman from the side of man is compared with tfie

a creation of the Church from the wounded side of Christ. Abelard may

have intended to present this allegorical interpretation in a separate

section after the historical interpretation, but did not in fact

v - *

3 „

complete the historical commentary, as faras we can tell from the

173 f
surviving manuscripts^
■ f
Abelard gives special.attention to the prophetic~utlerances by

Adam when he awakens and sees what has been made from his rib. Whether

the prophetic words were uttered aloud or were intelligible words con­

ceived in the mind is uncertain. The words "this bone," or "now bone"

- (Genesis 2:23) are understood to mean that the man recognized in the

woman a being separate from himself and existing in her own right.

The phrase, "flesh of my flesh," suggests to Abelard that flesh as well

as bone may have.been removed from Adam for the formation of the woman’s

body, and that he was Somehow made aware of this despite his sleep. 175

Abelard notes that the man speaks only of the physical components of

■ the wotian as something transferred from himself to, her. In this, it is

 to be recognized that souls are not propagated from other souls, but

created individually. Where children so much resemble parents in

qualities of the soul that we might think that their souls were 1

generated from those of their parents,, the resemblance is not caused

by propagation itself, but by "a kind of natural force or faculty" in

176 * 1
the propagation.

The unity of nature between man and woman finds Expression in

their names also, since the woman is termed virago, or in Hebrew issa,

and the man is called vir or is. The rest of what Adam says, beginning:

"for. this reason . . ."is interpreted by Abelard as the prophetic

» b •
portion of his speech. He is described by Abelard as recognizing that

the woman, joined t& him in substance and in name, is to. be joined to

him in marriage as well. The first man, who had no parents except God,

speaks in the future tense of what should be the relationship between

each man and woman who are to be joined in marriage. Men ought to
*
.cling to their wives with such an affection of love (tanto affectu

dilectionis) that they place .concern for their wives before concern for

their parents. In carnal union, moreover, husband and wife are to be

completely eqiial, neither taking precedence over the other, so that the •

woman has as much authority over the body of the man as he has over the
v j
body of the woman. 177 •

Abelard .then asks whether Adam could have foreseen the mystery of

Christ's union with the Church, as, Paul saw that union prefigured in

the words of Adam. Since Adam would then also have had to have foreseen

the fall for whi&h Christ made reparation, Abelard considers it unlikely.

However, the validity of the prophetic utterance does not depend on the
 - ■ . 245
' ’ 1 - v

prophet’s own understanding‘of it: "Indeed, if Adam did not discern

v A* •.
— *

tjie mystery in his own words, nevertheless the Holy Spirit who spoke
I'. *
through him was by no means'ignorant of it."178

Finally, in commenting on the .Innocent nudity of the first couple,

Abelard contrasts with present conditions the better and more worthy

state of human beings before sin. In that original state, the man and

woman experienced no shame at their nudity or the sight of each other’s

genitals, but after the fall shame is intense despite the pleasure

experienced in the use of those members. It is the intention, however,

and not the act that must be at the source of such shame. Accordingly,
1 *
Abelard concludes that sexual shame is only to be explained by the fact
• * ,
that after the fall men and women are moved to physical union without

openness of the mind to God, acting brutishly and in pursuit of merely

179
Carnal, pleasure. The commentary breaks off in mid-phrase here,

leaving incomplete a sentence that seems to have been the beginning of

a discussion about the relationship between husband and wife after the

fall ("Quis enim uxorem ...").

■ • f '

* ' - * \ 1

Moral -and.Mystical Interpretations

Between his commentary on creation week and that on the paradise

narrative, Abelard inserts moral and allegorical interpretations of the

t # • - 1 ■'
180 ’
seven days. These are no more than brief sketches, based on Augus­

tine with little in the way Of original thought. In the moral inter-,

pretation, the work of each day represents a stage in the development

of a Christian. The elements in their confusion, after first having been

, o. '

‘. o' •
i ' . 4 ■_ -V. , ,■ « ^ ,
 created, represent the body and soul of a hyman being in a spiritually

unformed state, before divine grace has transformed the "animal" man

into a spiritual one. The Spirit moving over the waters is divine

goodness disposing the human being for his spiritual transformation,

warming him as a bird warms an egg in order to produce new life. In

the creation of light, we are to understand the beginning of faith

inspired by the Holy Spirit. From faith, "without which it is impos-

181
sible to please God," the rest of‘spiritual existence develops.

Hope, which draws human desires away from the terrestrial to the
i 1
heavenly and establishes the soul against adversities, is the firmament

established on the second day. Charity follows hope, and just as the

waters are divided from earth-so that the earth may produce vegetation,

so the warming influence of charity.subjects the flesh to the spirit,,

pushing back the flood of concupiscence so that good works may begin

to be produced. When the luminaries of day and night are. created, these

are to be understood as the words of one who is now able, to preach and

edify others, both in good times and bad, or by day and^by night. After
<3 •’

- this, we may recognize'in the three kinds of animals produced on the

following days, the three orders of the faithful: celibate, administra­

tors, and married couples. When at last the first human being is

created and transferred into paradise, the Christian person has com-
* 182 *
pleted his life on earth and is transferred into the heavenly patria.

In most of this, *Abelard follows book thirteen of Augustine's

183 ^ •*
Confessiones. ^ He differs from Augustine pin identifying the light

of the first day somewhat more firmly with faith, and th^r in identifying

the firmament with hope, rather than with-Scripture. To complete the

triad of theological virtues, he connects the work of the third®day

with the effects of charity in a sharper way than does Augustine.

Finally, the transfer of Adam into paradise, understood as a transfer

of the Christian ’into heaven, rounds off the picture with a neatness

that is neither found nor intended in Augustine's meditation.

The allegorical sense, by which the six days are interpreted as

the six ages- of the world, closely follows the interpretation given by

Augustine in the first book of De Genesi contra Manjchaeos.184 The

first age, from to Noah, is the confused infancy of man, washed

away in the flood. From Noah to Abraham is the childhood of man, an

age saved through the flood by faith. The waters of the flood are seen
’ ’■ 1 o .
as a parallel to the waters of the firmament. From Abraham to David
, "9 -

is the age of the law, the adolescence of man paralleled in creation

' . «'» f.
by the division of water and dry land. The luminaries of the fourth

day are said to correspond to the prophets and kings of the age from

David to the Babylonian exile. ° The fifth age, from the Babylonian

exile to Christ, is the descent into decrepit,ude. Here Abelard adds

O'
to Augustine's interpretation a note on the transition from the old age

to the new in baptism, paralleled by the creation of animals from water

on the fifth day. This piece of original,interpretation seems con­

sistent with his tendency, seen at. various points throughout the com­

mentary, to streSs the sacrament of baptists, and to find symbols of it

.£> . .
185 13 01
in the process of creation. The sixth age, from Christ to the end,.

is the age of renewal in which mankind is given access to heaven as

** tX86
the first man was transferred into the earthly paradise.
 %
The Hymnarius Paraclitensis
'4 *

Judging from the preface to the first.part of the Hymnarius Para­

clitensis . it was written, like the Expositto, at the request or

187
insistence of Heloise. The second and third parts of the hymnarius’,

intended for use on the major festivals and on saints' days, scarcely

touch the theme of creation. The first part, however, contains the
' •> •" N. ?

nocturnal and diurnal hymns for Sunday and weekdays, and is a veritable

celebration of the hexaemeron according to the literal, moral, and

allegorical senses. These hymns, in turn, are arranged, in three groups

a
188
corresponding roughly to the three senses of Scripture.

Abelard wrote three nocturnal hymns for Sunday. Of those, the

first and third— to which we shall return— are composed as praises to

God the Creator and the first stage of creation. The second is in a

way the key to all the others, since it is written in honour of the

threefold sense of Scripture, with special attention to the fruitful-

189
ness of the interpretatio moralis. Throughout the rest of the week,

the Matins hymns for each day describe the work of thdt day, in terms

unmistakably paralleling those of the Expositio. If we recall that

Abelard compared the morning light on each new day of creation to the

disclosure of the divine plan in its corporeal effects, we will

appreciate the aptness of hymns at dawn to the historical sense of the

•s. *,
hexaemeron text. The hymns for Lauds and Vespers, by contrast, follow

Abelard's allegorical and moral interpretations, respectively. Thus,

the sisters of the Paraclete began their days with a meditation on the

six ages of human history, and ended them with a consideration of the
 249

stages of .Christian existence.

' •
It would appear, from this brief survey," that the Expositio And
■ \ t ■ ■
the hymns are closely interrelated, although their chronological
190
relationship remains undetermined. '‘As theological poetry intended

for liturgical use, phe hymns have an obviously different character

. . . -v ^ •

apd purpose from those of exegetical or scientific works like the

Expositio. In his theologiae. Abelard suggests that pbetic inspiration

may be of the same kind as that of the philosopher, who produces

accounts of spiritual truth per pulcherrimam involucri figuram, and

even that of the prophet, who spieaks a truth larger than the meaning
191
towards which his words are directed. -Abelard's intention in the

hymns may, therefore, be understood as something that comes closer to

the veiled or. symbolic mode of expression in both philosophical myth^p,

and prophetic text than to any of his own exegetical analyses of the

beginning of Genesis or passages in the Timaeps. Indeed, the poet may

\ |
speak phe languages of both the prophet and- the philosopher, without

distinguishing between his sources, or identifying them, as the exegete

must. Because our space is limited, we shall demonstrate this aspect

of Abelard's method in the hvmng/ with »ref^lfe^pce only to«the first and

third nocturnal hymns for Sunday. 3 ( * . ■^

It is noticeable that the Platonic material introduced from time. ,

to time into the Expositio is generailv handled as an alternative and

' -. '\ ' * ' -
supplement,•often backed by the Authority of AUgustine, for Abelard's.

own interpretation of the Genesis text. There is, moreover, an implied

■ * 'I * Q ,

or explicit recognition of the.need for interpretation, if the philo-

sophic material is to be adapted to ecclesiastical "teaching. 192 In the

 hymns, howeVer, such qualifications are set aside, and Abelard draws
‘ y * t
freely from.both scriptural, and Platonic sources the vocabulary with
v . * .
which to frame his praises of the Creator. In the opening stanza of

the first nocturnal hymn for Sundays Abelard employs, for instance, the

.name,conditor, 'Wh^ch had teen used in hymns to the Creator since

193
Ambrose's "Ae.teme rerum conditor1." It is, moreover,? both a scrip­

tural term used in Hebrews 11:10 to describe ,God as the Creator of the

heavenly Jerusalem ("Exspectabat enim fundaments nabentem civitatem:

* 'v- , V
cuius artifex et conditor Deus"), and a term regularly used In the
* 194
Timaeus to denote the demiurge. The second stanza praises the effec­

tive power of the divine flat by which, according to the Genesis text,

all things were created, but In the third stanza Abelard adopts a

Platonic turn of phrase, praising the "omnipotent and not envious"

1§5 * ■
-^author of all things. In the fifth stanza, Abelard's choice of

wbrds clothes a Platonic thought with words"borrowed from Scripture:

Fit ergo mundus optimus Optimus erat, ab optimo. porro

Ac perfectus in omnibus invidia longe relegata est.
Fit pondere, Timaeus 29E”
mensurd, numero, Sfed omnia in mensura et numero
Nec vacillet et pondere disposuisti.
196
in quoquam ratio. W^dY.of Sol. 11:21

Abelard praises the creature,,in stanza six, frith expressions dipawn from

the Timaeus, as a work worthy of its maker, beautiful, indissoluble,"..

197
and perfectly conformed togthe exemplar In the final stanza,81-how­

ever, he adapts from Romans 11:36" his trinitarian doxology to thg

Creator:
 Sit perpes Ded gloria . ‘' Quohiam ex ipso,
Ex qup sunt,.quae sunt, omnia; et- per ipsum, et in ipso?
Ipsum cuncta sunt omnia:. ' ,*
per quern sunt-, praedicent, ; ipsi gloria' in saecula.
Ipsi semper , G v ^.g Amen. *■
in quo stmt, iubilent. - ' Romans 11:36

■- f
The third nocturnal hymn for Sunday begins with phrases taken once
; A
again from the Timaeus and ,Calcidius1s commentary on it:

In ortum .mundi sensilis Mundi sensilis explanaturus

inundus intelligibilis omnem substantiam iure
Coelo s-imul commemdrat prope omnia se
et terra.condito pertractasse quae provida
De divino 199 mens del contulerit, efficiens
iam prodit animo. .^ - j exemplum
earn ad -i— et similituinem
% „ ' intelligibilis mundi. . . .
, Calcidius CCLXVIII2t,t)

The hymn proceeds to praise the initial work of creation as described

** • ' * * n . • •
in Genesis 1:1-3, from the movement of the Spirit over the watery to

the.first fiat, productive of light. Both content and vocabulary have

-r .O ‘

a scriptural source. In th§ fourth stanza, Abelard associates the

i) • * „ w T
p r
vivifying movement of the Spirit oyer the waters with regeneration in
- • -» 201 *•
baptism, as,he does in the Expositio. Here, howg^pr, he employs a

bolder turn of phrase, by which the Spirit appears'to be somehow

• a ^ '0
/ 0
.impregnating both the lifeless, primordial waters -and the ysouls of those
■7

who are baptized. The source 'is neither strictly scriptural nor Pla-

tonic, but may perhaps be traced to some aspect of.monastic spirituality.

For example, a similar image of the Spirit is found in Rupert of Deutz's

treatise on the feast of Pentecost,-Where the opening verses of the

■ Song' of Songs are used as the vehicle for describing the Spirit as the
' , '' ~V y f ’
.force that impregnates the apostles1 souls fojj conception of new spiritual life.
 . 252-

;V\ . * *
( ? 4. Creation in the Theologiae

Abelard's Theologia 'summi boni* should more correctly be entitled

De unitate et trinitate divina. since it is essentially a treatise on

the unity and trinity Of God, similar in some ways tb Rupert^ of Deutz's
203
treatise for the feast of the Trinity. Indeed, all the theologiae

evolved as. logically constructed expositions of the’doctrine of God,

... 1
into which the work of creation and the events of salvation history

enter only as adjuncts to Abelard’s doctrine of the Persons and their

o f ■ . Q

attributes. This is nOt to say that creation is of no importance in

Abelard's theologiae:*on the contrary. the onenine verses of Genesis

. ■-1 . a
have a prominent place in Abelard's discussions,of prophetic or Old
r
Testament proofs for the .unity and trinity of God, just as the activi- .
- , ,C ' -a
ties,of the Worcl and the Spirit in relation to creatures are central y *

to Abelard's doctpine of the second and third’ Persdns of the-Trinity.

> . --o~-> '■ $ ■<
In this section, ^ge shall survey the treatment of these items in the
ft • ■-ft, ^ •
theologiae. and, although we cannot explore every detail of Abelard's

teaching about the creative and.providential activity of. the three >

Persons., we shall attempt to indicate the place of the doctrine^ of

creation in the development of his theological thought.

, f

* • a i,

The Theologia 'summi boni* , '

pa n . . a -• *

Abelard composed his first- theologia in three books. Of these,

the first is concerned with- the distinction of'three-1Persons in one

divine nature, the significance of the names of Father, Son, and Hp'ly

Spirit“, and the testimonies of both jgropbets or scriptural authors, and

philosophers, for the unity 0arid trinity of God. The seeand bopk begins
- ■ ^ ' ;"v? ' ? ■' .'■*" .
with a summa of fait^ concerning the'unity and trinity of God, .but ,3

continues into, a series of logical objections against then-doctrine. In, .

the tjjT.ird bob&.'yAbejlard responds to the objections, and then concludes ,

°ft-**’
■ ■^ 1 1 \ '
with -discussions about' the generation of the Word.and the process!
3 ■ i i> > ■ " ,
of the Holy Spirit. "f ” $ 9■ :<

• Abelard begins his treatise by ascribing power to the Upique

■ ' "!■ ■. .ft
majesty of the Father, wisdom to the Son, and the benignity or goodness
’ ’ v$:. ' ' , ■ . . ,6 '
of divine grace-to the’Holy Spirit. .These thfcee attributes are said to
’ ■ J ■ • ■V '
make up the perfection of the SupresieGood, since each one is necessary

fbt the other to be effectively good. Thus, the description of God in

' fi ; n" ' •
terms of power, wisdom, and goodness or love is.not only appropriate,

but aftso conducive to religious devotion, since fear of divine power

< ■ •■ * •6 f "
’ ' "i * 0. .• • • 2 0 4
and wisdom is tempered in the believer by love for divine goodness.
•;*. ■ -P. ; *• • . -9
The dddfrine of the Trinity was most clearly and thoroughly taught

by Christ, tSbntinuib,"Abelard, but i't was not unkown to earlier genera-

^" * ’ ' «
tions', and may be found in the traditions of both Jews and philosophers.
■ .• , - 4'. . 4
As avfi^sf example, be quotes thgaopening verse:a,of Genesis: ttIn the
y" " ■' ; ■ .i?'
beginnxtfe^lSbdicreated heaven and earth . . .," noting that in this •

passage the Hebrew word for God Is the pluril Heloym, rather than the

singular Hel. ^Clearly, this is to be interpreted as a suggestion of

' "”T r s" ; .

plurality id the divine nature. Since the accompanying verb, creavit. '
* ■v<l ► „■ •b ■ 9DR
is Singular*,, there is also a demonstrationf>of divine unity. The f

rest of the passage is given its traditional interpretation: the Spirit

r",. B * ’b . ;
of God moving over the waters is identified as the Holy Spirit, and the

speech of God indicated in/the words, "And God said, let there be . . ."
implies, both the Father speaking and the Word or Son spoken. Thus,

the beginning of Genesis is understood to show that "the Father ordered

206
(all things) by making (them) in his coeternal Wisdom." Moreover,

the words of commendation, "and God saw that it was good," are under­

stood to imply the presence of the Hply Spirit as divine goodness:

- , For what is said, 'and God saw that it was good,' is the
same as if it were said: by understanding that the work,
which he had made, was good, he loved it for the very
reason that it was -'good. And from this, it is clearly
demonstrated that he, too, is good.207 s

The whole work of creation is therefore to be Understood as the coopera-

tively undertaken activity of divine power, wisdom, and .love. Because

the artificer'is the Supreme Good and perfectly skilled, the work, also,

will be of the most excellent quality. This, Abelard continues, is

especially to be seen in the making of the first human being, where the
‘ 208
plutal verb faciamus expresses the cooperation of .the whole Trinity.
■1 K .
Before turning to philbsophieal evidence for the doctrine of the

Trinity, Abelard“surveys some of the Old Testament texts that/were to

be interpreted as prophecies or evidence for the persons of Son and

3. ■ ft ” ■ "

Holy Spirit. In chapter four, he returns to the text of Genesis to

show how the words, "and God said . . ." followed by, "and it was so

T . ." indicate that God created all things rationally, because they
• 209
were created in his Word or wisdom->. In chapter five, he brings a

number of' texts from the Psalter together with Proverbs 8 and the Beth­
el
lehem prophecy of Micah 5:2, to show that.the divine wisdom in which God

created the world existed with God before creation and became incarnate
210
in Christ. The Word cannot be a merely corporeal or transitory word,
■ ' ■' , - ■*
 ' , ' 255

because that would imply that God is composed of parts’

, and, according
211
to the Platonists, "all that is composed is by nature dissoluble."
'to '
With reference to the Spirit, Abelard notes that the Spirit of God in

Genesis 1:2 could not have been mere breath orewind, since such an

interpretation would,again imply composition or parts in the divine

212 ... c~,
nature. 1 \ .e

When helturns to the testimonies of the philosophers, Abelard

V
begins by juxtaposing the verse from Paul’s sermon on the Areopagus,

about "the God in whom we live and move and have our being" (Acts

17:28), with Homans 1:20 to show that there is a natural or rational

213
knowledge of God from created things. The first of his several

philosophical witnesses is Mercurius, or Hermes Trismegistus, whose

teachings about "a sot of the blessed god and of good will," are quoted
214 ’' ^
from the pseudo-Augustinfan Adversus quinque haereses. Afterthis,

he introduces as his principal philosophical witness Plato1s teachings

about the divine mind, or noys, as an equivalent for the copbgrpal Word'

or,Son, and the world soul or anima mundi as an equivalent for the Holy

Spirit. Plato’s teachings must;be interpreted if they are to be

correctly understood, and to that, end Abelard introduces the term

involucrum. which he derives from Macrobius' theories of philosophic

2-15
discourse. The types of discourse that proceed per pulcherrimam

involucri figuram pertain to both philosophic and prophetic utterance',

and, indeed, have a scriptural justification: "the wise man understands

* •

proverbs and parables, the words of the wise and their riddles" (Prov.
“ 216 ”
1:6). Abelard quotes at length the passage in the commentary on the

Somnium Scipionis where Macrobius teaches that philpsophers, who were

- tP- '
willing to use fables when speaking Of thfe soul or aetherial powers,

rejected such devices when speakTAg 6'f "the highest god and principle

of all things." Instead, they had recourse to similitudines and

' o 217
exempla in order to express what' surpasses human words and concepts.

Macrobius' theory becomes the foundation on which Abelardbuilds

' . _ .ez
his explication, in the last chapters of book three, for selected

aspects of Plato's teaching on the world soiil as a veiled doctrine of

the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Abelard's interpretation of Plato here and

throughout the theologiae can be seen as a kind of«exemplary exercise

in the treatment of discourse about the divine, appended to his refuta- *

tion of the dialecticians who insisted on misinterpreting Christian

theological discourse by taking it too literally. In book three^

chapterthree^ Abelard has recourse to Plato's teaching about the demi­

urge and the ideas or exemplary forms, to Bhow how the Spirit may be
■eO’, ' .’
said to proceed from both Father and Son. He associates the Spirit ..with

the effects of cooperation between demiurge and ideas:

But even»ifsomeone examines that philosophical considera­

tion of Platonic' reason, above, by which, namely, he treats
of the Creator-God iii a kind of likeness of a skilled
craftsman,, premeditating and deliberating, so to speak, on
the'things he is about to make, lest he put anything
together inappropriately, and forming each thing by reason
before work; since indeed Plaffo thought of the exemplar
forms in the divine mind in this manner— (forms) which he
called ideasaccording to which the providence of the
'S supreme artificer afterwards worked, as if according to* a
kind of exemplar— he will truly jsee that the Spirit pro­
ceeds from the Son also, since the universe of God's works
is administered from the rationality of wisdom, and thus
any concept of the divine mind comes out in t;he effect
through (its), operation. The effect, however, which pro­
ceeds from the goodness of the Creator, pertains to the
Spirit, because the Spirit himself is goodness.21?
 " C'

I ‘ 7

257
c- V “

The Holy Spirit is not, of course, a created effect— indeed, this ■

suggestion is the greatest problem about Plato's doctrine of the world

soul. There is, however, an 'explanation for the difficulty, provided

9 ' 0 ’

Plato's teaching is correctly interpreted. In chapter four, Abelard

proceeds0to show how the Spirit, who is simple “in himself, may be called

'multiple in his gifts, as he is called multiple in the seven spirits of

\

Isaiah 11:2. A distinction is to be made between the names Spiritus,

applied to the divine nature, and anima mundi, as applied to the office
•jp* . ' ‘?r ' '
of the Holy Spirit. Just as Christ i^ understood to have 'had a begin-

ning according to his human nature, so also the.Spirit has a beginning

according to his effects in created natures-. Thus, the spiritually

' •
\vivifying effects of divine grace-available to all who seek or accept

it— correspond3to Plato's notion of an animating principle or world

* ■ *
soul, even to the extent of having a beginning with the creatures on
219
whom it is effective.

,-JV

The Theologia Christiana

As we know from the Historia caiamitatum, the Theologia 'summi *

boni' was sharply attacked by Abelard's enemies, and came to a fiery

220
end. Hot long afterwards, however,jhe,began to reconstruct his work.
<5^ : p
The result, as we have it, was the first redaction of the Theologia

Christiana (TCh DR) , which retains much of the earlier work in an

221 ■ • •
amplified form. -The three books of the first theologia were expanded

into five by the insertion of a.second book defending the moral lives,

virtues, and doctrines of pagan authors as evidence for their openness

„ >. p • * . _ .

' <v . . ■ •

- «• . * • - ' .' • ’ ; • ' •' .• -

 to at least some,revelations of the mysteries of the faith, and by the;

' addition of a fifth book on the ratio of believing in one God and the

perfections of the Supreme Good. Other amplifications in this

i
theologia include an increased number of patristic authorities and
1
scriptural texts to support Abelard's arguments about the divine nature,

together with a considerably expanded collection of philosophical testi­

monies. The selection and deployment of these texts suggest, moreover,

a new emphasis in Abelard's trinitarian doctrine. As C. Mews remarks

in his article on the development of Abelard's theologiae» "one notable

feature of the Theologia Christiana was the much fuller treatment

222
Abelard gave to the Holy Spirit." Both the texts that Abelard

•chooses and the approach he takes tend to emphasize the activity of the

Holy Spirit as divine love or goodness in relation to creatures, rather

than the intra-trinitarian aspect by which the Holy Spirit is defined

as the mutual love of Father and Son. This, in turn, has a significant

bearing on his approach to the natural or philosophical knowledge of

^Jod. To illustrate, we shall select a few examples from among the

scriptural, patristic, and philosophical testimonies assembled by

; Abelard in book one.

Abelard's interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 in book one of the ,

Theologia Christiana follows that of the Theologia 'summi boni 1 almosf

word for word. When, however, he comes to the text of Genesis 1:26,
o * • **.

' "Let us make man . . . " he adds a few lines to specify what character­

ized man as the image and likeness of the Trinity:

i

But it is rightly said that man was made to the image and *
MkehesS of the Trinity— that is, to a kind of express
 259

likeness of the three Persons— since man, imitates not

only the Father by the power that he has received over
other creatures, but also the Son by reason, and the
Holy Spirit by the benignity of innocence, which he
afterwards lost through sin.223

The loss of integrity at the fall is, in this way, directly*related to

the loss „of likeness to the Holy Spirit. By implication,» it follows

that restoration of human integrity in the image and likeness of God

*
pertains especially to the work of the Holy Spirit.

In a later section, Abelard selects a passage from Augustine's

commentary on Genesis 1:2, to show how the Spirit is to be-understood ,

as divine love for the creature, present and active even at the

creature's least lovable beginnings:

A poor and needy love, loves in such a way that it is

subject to the things it loves. For that reason, when
the Spirit of God is mentioned— in whom are understood ,
God's holy benevolence and love— he is said to move
over (the primordial waters), lest God be thought to
love his future works through the necessity of indigence
rather than through the abundance of benevolence.224

From the creature's beginnings in' formless chaos, the Holy Spirit's
A

presence and activity ate manifestations of divine love and benevolence

toward it. Abelard finds further evidence for this same love and bene-

volence-in New Testament accounts of the Spirit's appearances, since

the forms of fire and dove are to be interpreted in terms of the warmth

and tenderness in divine love for creatures, and its effective produe-
225
tion of a reciprocal love. . *

Proverbs 8 is introduced by Abelard.according to its traditional

‘ ' * - i .
interpretation, as evidence for the conception of a coeternal Word in

,/
the mind of the Father. The play of Wisdom before God is, however,

associated with the goodness of tile Holy Spirit, understood especially

as divine affection for creatures:

' For Wisdom. to play before the Father and to compose every-
0 thing with him, is as if the same divine power were said
to dispose all things in wisdom for the decision of his
goodness, so that we may understand the very affection of
his goodness in that g a m e . 226 .

When Abelard begins to adduce philosophical evidence for faith in

the Trinity, he continues to internet the Platonic world soul as a

similitudo of the Holy Spirit, but places his emphasis on 'the animating
. 0 , ’

effect of the world soul as an analogue to divine goodness toward

creatures: -

But he rightly posits the Holy Spirit (or) world soul as

the life of all things, since in a way everything haS'life
in the goodness of Qpd, and the universe of things are as
if alive before God, and no things are dead, that is, hone
are useless— not even those evil things that he also dis­
poses for the best through his goodness, according to what
we note is written as much by the Evangelist as by the
Platonists, that 'what was made, was life in him'.. (John*
1:3-4), as if it were clearly said: all things made tem­
porally through him— that is, created by the same goodness
of God— somehow live perennially in that same goodness ,of
God, since everything was ordered for the best, from
eternity in divine providence through his goodness, so
* that he would have each particular thing' proceed as well
as it ought. . That (saying) of the Apostle appears not
incongruously to agree with this,'which shows that some »
of the philosophers said that 'in God we live and move and
have-our being' (Acts 17:28), as if they understood this
world soul to be God himself. 227

The involucrum of the world soul subsequently becomes Abelard's

vehicle for a description of.the twofold activity of the Spirit, both

in the creation and providential disposition of the world, and in the

 261

Spiritual regeneration of human beings. Where the philosophers are

' * 228
said to ’attribute "the force and concord of proportional numbers" to

the world soul, Abelard perceives an attribution to the Holy, Spirit, or

• ' 4

the goodness of divine grace, of harmonious concord within the uni-

229' „ v
verse. The! harmony of the celestial spheres is interpreted by
a 230
analogy with the harmony of angelic praises to God, and both are

attributed to the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Spirit may be

understood to produce by his grace the goodness and order of the

universe:

that which Plato says about the soul located by God in

the middle of the world and extended equally through all
the globe of the earthly orb, beautifully designates' the
grace of God,ooffered to all in common, to dispose all
things as healthily and justly as may be, benignly in
this his house or. temple. But with these (opinions),
,the book of Wisdom clearly accords: "Che Spirit of the
Lord fills the orb of the earth, etc.’ (Wisd. of Sol.
1:7) and also that (text) of the ’Psalmist: ’. . . and
all the jower of them by the Spirit of his mouth’ (P;

The position of. the .world. soul at the centre of the universe may be

understood, as well, to describe the presence and'activity of the Holy

Spirit in the temple at Jerusalem and in the propagation by the

apostles of the New Tes.tament message:

With this involucrum. too. namely concerning the position

of the soul located in the middle of the world— this is,
concemi£jf~fiEte'~divine grace offered to all in common—
eyen^thejdivine actions agree, since in "fact the Lord
chose Jerusalem, which is in the middle of the earth, •
when he was abmrt-to propagate his doctrine and the cult
of true religion; he constituted Jerusalem as if the head
of his kingdom, in which he first willed to build himself
a temple like a royal palace £6r the praise of his cult,
 and where he poured out the richly fruitful grace of the
Holy Spirit on his apostles, by which, through them, the
world would be spiritually vivified.^32 r

X Abelard is' well awate that the grace of the Holy Spirit as trans->
‘v1 •
mitted through the apostolic message would not have been accessible to

the pagan philosophers that he quotes. Nevertheless, he is convinced

by Romans 1:20 that the latter did not lack all knowledge of God. In

book two, his principal justification for the use of philosophical

authors in a theological work is the interpretation of Romans 1:20, by

' , ; ■
4.

which the apostle Paul is understood -to have sjiown that the gentiles

had some knowledge of the Trinity from creation. Abelard identifies

the invisibilia Dei with the Holy Spirit, because of the invisibility
-w- ' ■ —- 's|) fc
of the Spirit. The plural invisibilia is explained by reference to the

plurality of the Spirit id his seven gifts (Isaiah 11:2). Because

Christ is called the "power of God" and the "wisdom of God" in I Corin­

thians 1:24, he is identified asa sempiterna Dei virtus. The divinitas

in the text is identified, finally, as the Father, since deity and lord-
• ft-

- 233
ship are especially apt expressions for themajesty of divine power.

If the text of Romans 1:20 is not proof enough for a philosophical

knowledge of God, Abelard .continues, then further evidence can be

‘+
supplied. The evidence, as presented throughout the rest of book .

two, pertains to what might be called the theoretical and the practical

aspects o! the philosophers' relationship to God. Beginning with a

series of quotations from Romans 1, 3, and 4, Abelard shows that the

philosophers of the gentile nations led moral lives and were justified
234
by faith inGod apart from the written law. The descriptions of
ivirtues and the instructions about; morals that are found in pagan

sources provide further evidence 'for a high degree of morality among

the philosophers who,- in Abelard's view, must have had experiential

r ' ‘ ' 235
knowledge of the virtues in order to write about them. To the
•'5 • *

objection that although philosophers loved virtue, they did not neces­

sarily love God, Abelard Responds th„at they certainly recognized God

as the highest good, .origin and e^Li&ient cause, end and firial cause

of all things, so that their love of virtue is to be understood a, *

, 236 ' • > " T
love of God. - ^
. \ r

Following Augustine, Abelard cites Plato and Socrat^j^as the1 prime

' i' • •
examples of both theoretical and practical recbgnition of divine good-

ness. With quotations from the Timaeus,• he demonstrates that Plato

acknowledged the goodness of the Creator:

But when speaking gbout God, he began in this way: 'Thus,

in consequence, he, willed to make everything like himself,
.so that the nature of each could be capable of bfeatitude,'
and immediately added, 'if anyone were indeed to posit „
the will of God as the most certain origin of things,' I
would agree that he has the tight opinion.'237

From Augustine's De civitate Dei, book eight,- he then draws evidence

- \

for the ethical conduct4of the Platonists, who are said to have . ■>’
_ ‘s g - ■ 45 ■

recognized the need fqr purity of heart, before inquiry into the hidden
% 238 & . - I
causes Of things. Thus, Abelard can conclude that the intention of

the philosophers and their humility are shown in their%tesire "to do

everything correctly for the sake of God, and to attribute all good to
o,
* 239 ‘«
God, from whom they sought all things." In effect, these and the
' ' "^ - P
subsequent examples that Abelard assembles, are intended to•sffow that
 264

philosophers as well as Christians must be understood 'to have been

open to the influence of the Holy Spirit, if-the Spirit is identified

by ascription with God’s goodness and-love for creatures. The fealva-

, v • » 1
tion of philosophers may, therefore, not be doubted on Abelard's terms,

since their lives as he has interpreted them are an imitation of the

HqlyySpirit or divine gopdness, and therefore reflect to sCme degree

,a restored integrity in the image and likeness-of Go”d.

The’new material assembled 'in book five of the Theologia Christiana

0 8‘
is somewhat confused in presentation and apparently incomplete, since
'. *
the discussions of divine wisdom and benignity promised at the beginning

of the book do not in fact1 appear. Instead, the discussion revolves

around an analysis of the meaning of divine^'omnipotence, which Abelard

consistently interprets in terms of God's essentials goodness. , For

o °
example, God's power to create, as indicated in Psalm 148:5 ("Dixit et

facta sunt, mandavit et. creata sunt") , is ^inseparable from his<>will to*

create. Because God is the Supreme Good, k s will and the effects of
& . v - ftr, £j‘ V ■ V.

•.his power and will to create must have been perfectly good--thus,

Abelard argues, God pould never do anything more or better than he did,
240
because everything that was done by him, was- done for the good.
" i i b . ' *s
There follows an incomplete presentation Sf authorities and arguments
i 5- ^
„for and against this view, which Abelard does not attempt to resolve. „

The book ends with a briei discussion about the problem of attempting
- » °

to apply words like "necessary" and "possible".to God's salvific

activity on behalf of creatures, when the divine>nature is neither

*
, n
I) ~
f f l’.'V £ IJ

mutable nor bound £y any necessity.

4
 The Revised Theologia Christiana and the
^ , Theologia scholarium

In the late 1130s, Abelard evidently rewrote the Theologia chris-

• /
tiana with further additions and changes. These, however, outgrew the

original framework inherited from the Theologia 'summi boni', and even-.
■ -

tually necessitated the formulation of a completely new programme. The

result was the Theologia scholarium in its various redactions, of which

* 'i 1
the^longest (TSch) survives in six manuscripts, including one from St.
241
Victor, Paris, and was printed^as the Intrbductio ad theologjam.

Abelard constructed the new theologia, like the” original, in three

books. Of these-, the firs,t is a revised and streamlined version of the

first book of both the earlier theologiae, prefaced with a new intro-

ductpry statement about, faith, charity, and the sacraircnts. It should

be noted that the shorter redactions of the Theologia scholarium include

i. . *

only portions of the first lections,of book one, and are found in a

group of four manuscripts, to which we shall refer using Buytaert'is

242
sigla, F, H, Z, and T. The interrelationships among these four
n 0
compilations, anci their relationship to Theologia Christiana GT remain
243
problematical.

The second book is an equally streamlined version,of the second

A '
and third tfeolug Of the old Theologia 'summi boni*, including the sets

of logical objections and responses in defence of the trinitarian faith,

recast as precisely formulated explanations for the generation of the

Son and -procession of the Holy Spirit. The, third and final book con­

tains' the largest amount of new material,'although it i! based on ideas

Abelard had begun to assemble in book five of the Theologia Christiana

 (DR), towards a reasoned defence of'the unity and trinity Oij God.

Before turning to' the'. Theologia schoiarium, we should ribte an

important addition made in the later redaction of the Theologia chris

” " "Me
tiana (CT), but omitted from all the redactions of the Theologia

scholarium. In a passage on creation in the Word, paralleling book

one, chapter four, ofL-lhe Theologia ’summi boni*. Abelard at first

- . tl
wrote:* ' D

Cum igitur prOpheta in diversis rerum creationibus'

faciendis praemittit 'Dixit Deus,' et ad dictum stati^
efefectym adiungit dicens, 'et factum estita,' cuncta y $

' ' Deum condidisse in Verbo., hoe est in sapientia sua ""
• ostendit, id est omnia ratfonabliitei.

t'-i ' a -
•
In C, he altered the last phrase to read:

idlest, nihil tftfere,-sed ‘omnia.rationabiliter. ;\

’’ . . \ ’'"V- ' i; ; '

■ ’ ’ * : . - '■ »■- '■ ■ , - „ * ■ ■' ■

In T, the passage is further altered to read: . -
“ ■ ' V. * * * •* ' : *a f ’
' .• * • v •, ‘ .... *. at ■

5 id est,. nihil, subito vel tenure, sed ossaia rationa-

. - •• biliter:245 .' s.

The choice' of words exactly parallels those commentary on the

opening verses of Genesis, Where Abelard writes: . *

./ Cum igitur propheta in diversis rerum creationibu& •

faciendis praemitt.it: 'Dixit Deus,' et ad. dictilbkatafim
. effectum adjungif, 4icen's>' 'et^factumi*es£ °ita,' <«mcta
Deum. condidisse inVyerbo. hoc'esV in sapiantia sua
ostenditur, id est, nihil subito vel.temexe, sei omnia •
rationabiliter ac provide.2^ —. 1
Theologia Christiana,, liked the more ample turn" M phrase composed
. '" ‘ 1 4>- •
for his commentary,: and inserted it into the latet version of the

theologia? Perhaps it would not be wise tp draw s o rsudden or rash1 ^

. i" ■■ 247 ' ■' . ,
a conclusion,

One of the first major pieces e# new material to appear in all

■ . -r
the redactions o£ the*Theologia scholariuk 'is part of Abelard's intro-

ductory statement about faith, charity,_and the sacraments. After

defining charily as amor honestus, or that love which is directed tro

God for the sake oL-fltf^, and to the neighbour for the sake of God,'

Abelard adds a qualifying statement about the practical implications

of such love:

Indeed, nothing is to be loved r nothing at alibis. to be

done, except on account of God, so that we might constitute
j in God the end of all,things. Hence also he is called the
• - alpha and omega, that* is, the beginning and the end: that,
- .is, the principle from which all things (are), the end,
that, is, the final cause, on account of whom all things ~ ,
‘ {are). Nor ought we 'to eat, nor to sleep, nor.to take a
wife, nor do anything whatever, except on account of God.
Otherwise, we would live like;beasts, given over, to our
own pleasure only. For y/e ought to eat on account^ of .him,
so that we measure out for our body— which is his, and
■' ^ committed to us— the necessities with which to sustain it
in his service. Similarly also by sleeping we ought to
. ; restore itfso that-we m a y b e able to beawake'in his
service when it is necessary. 'Moreover, a wife should be
taken by one who is incontinent, not only for the sake of
generating sons for him,/but indeed, lest we offend him
c. - through fornication. ^48 . - •
&

"- -v;, J
The sense of this passage heaps a close, relationship tc that of ■->>

.* / . ,
-Abelard's remarks, -in the Hexaemeron commentary on Genesis 1:29 ("Ecce
.• ' . 4 ■i - ■ 4
4edi . . .") abou£ human obedience owed in grat-dtude~to God:
 And note how much he Would have man obey him in all
things, since he would not have him eat so that he might
live-, except by obedience to him, nor without his permis­
sion attain anything in any kind of necessity, not even
for the sake of sustaining life. By this he clearly
indicates that all of man's life consists in nothing but
obedience to God, and that-he ought to live only5 forv
this.249 . t.* V. 5

The new material may also cast”'some -1ight on the unfinished phrase with

which the Hexaemeron tails off— "Quis enim uxorem . , . Judging

from the passage quoted above, Abelard may have planned to say that

marriage, like all the other corporeal benefits bestowed on Adam, ought
• - -O *'■

also to be enjoyed in obedience to God, and not in the attitude that he ;

would define as a bestial egocentricity,

Another indication of close affinity between the- last theologia

and the Genesis commentary occurs in the course of Abelard's presentation

of prophetic"evidence for the doctrine,of the Trinity^ Most o’f what he­

'says in the Theologia scholarium about'Genesis 1:1-2 follows the older

" 250 ' - >
theologiae word,for word. When he comes to the text of Genesis 1:26

("Faciamus homii^em-. , ."), however, he. considerably expands the earlier

versions, inserting new material on the difference between man in the ,

4 ' ’
} • •,

image,/and woman, in the. likeness of God. The first part of this new

material appears as a marginal addition in the FH redactions, although

it is incorporated into the text of Z, T, and TSch:

L - “
when, (the prophetic author) had come to the excellent L

“ creation of man, arudently set ting, this work above the

others, and as if commending it over the others, be made
a strong distinction of the Trinity, where, jwumaiy', it is
said" by the’ Lord, .'Let us "make man . . . rather than
'Let me make . . .'— 'to our image,' he says, 'and like­
ness.' The man, indeed, (was made) to the image but the
woman to the likeness. Fot according to the Apostle, the
 : <f
. 4'

269

map is in the.image of God, and not the woman (I Cor.

11:7) . But just as. the man is the image of God, so the °
woman i s .called the image of man.- For the image is
called the express likeness of someone, although like­
ness can.be said (to exist) even if it does not much
resenible that, of which it is the likeness.
Therefore the man-is made to the image of the Trinity,.
v because to the degree that he is more" perfectly made than
the woman, he exists in greater likeness to a representa­
tion of the perfection of' the supreme good. By power man
is also the head as much of the woman as of all the other­
worldly creatures, and by wisdom more worthy, and by love
more inclined to those things in which there is perfec--,
tion.251 ^

■ - \

«■’ ■ . ■ ■
To thispassage is added, in redactions T, Z, and TSch, a passage about

the fall that parallels in content, if,not in turn of phrase, Abelard's

' * ' «
, treatment of the issue in the Expositio in Hexaemeron. Again, the man

is shown to have been better, and especially more loving, than the

woman, by the fact that he was not seduced by the serpent as the woman

was.^^ Abelard is unique.ataongVhis^contemporaries in interpreting the

text«of Genesis 1:26 to' mean that man was created to the image, and

'woman to the less perfect likeness of God. Moreover, the thought

4 O '
pleased him so much that he wrote it into stanzas, four and five of the
4 T 253 - '
Paraclete hymn for Friday vespers!

.Finally, it is worth noting that ia the Theologia scholarium. book

two, Abelard adapts his metaphor of‘seal, wax, and image— introduced
■ . . " ' 25A
in the Theologia 'summi boni 1 to describe the generation of.the Son

„ — to his later emphasis on the .work of the Holy Spirit in relation to

creatures, thereby producing a new metaphor for the reformation of <s

Christian souls into the image of the Son. - In this, the Holy Spirit,

by the distribution of his gifts,, becomes* the sealing'power that imprints

- ^ ' 1 255 * •
•the image in us, ''
 . ■, ' .. . 270
• , c-
> . ■ '

a To conclude, let us turn briefly to the third book of the Theo­

logia scholarium. If this theologia represents Abelard's mature

thought on the doctrine of the Trinity, then its third book may also

be said to contain his final discussions of the rational or natural

knowledge of God. Abelard begins by posing the question, whether human

reason can investigate the divine nature or recognize the Creator

A

through the creature, without first having receive^ some perceptible

*
256 ' ""
sign or taessage from God. Proceeding somewhat more cautiously than

in his earlier* theologiae. Abelard answers that there may perhaps have

been a primal revelation, through which the invisible Creator revealed

’ 257 "
himself in some visible form to man. Human reason, nevertheless,

has a twofold means of access to the knowledge of God. Because the

lr 5 e. *

human being is created to,the image and likeness of God, he is somehow

■ ' ■ -f
akin to God, and should be able to perceive in himself (-something* of the.

Creator whom he resembles. Reason, especially, is the power by which

such perception is achieved, since it has the property of transcending

sense and investigating what the senses cannot p e r c e i v e I f , however,

concepts are derived from sense perception into intelligibles, then

Sense experiences (sensus experimenta) may seem necessary even for the,

acquisition o f ta concept of God. In that case, the qualities of

Q . ^ 0 .u \.

creatures become.a means of access to the knowledge'of God, since the

• f * • ' '

excellence and order of creation must suggest the existence of a '

259 * ' ' * * '
Creator. As before, Abelard uses Romans 1:20 as a scriptural,proof
- ’■ '• * ; ' , * •* *
'for such-knowledge of the Creatof, as also of the natural law. ‘Reason

may perceive from creatures the nature of the Creator, and discern from

the/natures of things #hat is good or evil. As evidence to support his.

use of Romans 1:20, Abelard quotes Cicero's description in De
v 260 ^
rhetorica of the supreme rationality that governs the world,

together with Plato's teaching in the T'imaeus that all things happen-

by a lawful and rational cause, so that even the apparently fortuitous,

prodeed from the laws anS^counsels of God.^^

\ •, •
From these' arguments, Abelard .moves to the question of divine
)

unity, and a discussion of the reasons why it must be said that there
1 262 '
is one God, rather than many. His main argument here, is that

creation is too good to have been produced and directed by a committee/.

After that, he turns to the problem of three Persohs in one divine

nature. This, he discusses in terms of the divine power, wisdom, and

goodness ascribed to the three Persons, concentrating on divine omni-

' 263
potence active in rationality and goodness. The next question is

whether God could have made anything more or b'efter than he did, in
' ■ 264
creating and administering the world, ' Here, Abelard expands the

discussion sketched in book five of the Theologia Christiana about

necessity and possibility in divine activity towards creatures, con­

cluding with a basically Augustinian, explanation for the way, in Which

human.free choice remains free while yet ordered in every respect by

fe ■ . ‘

divine providence. • . ■

5. Conclusion /
■ i • * . >
’ ^ -. ''
•
> In both the Expositio in Hexaemeron and' the passages within his

theologiae that refer to the text of Genesis 1-2, Peter Abelard's

 272'

■Nt
approach to the doctrine of creation is governed by his understanding

of Romans,1:20. The natives of created things are understood as the

principal means by which to attain knowledge of thef -triune Creator, and -

* ■ " r ■
indeed can be said.to have been composed by God as a statement about

himself for our benefit: ' >

Truly, God so delights in the things of his making that

often he prefers rather to image himself in the very
natures of things he created, than to-be expressed in
the words of our composition or invention, and rejoiced
• more in the similitude of those very things, than in
the propriety of our language. . . . ^ 6 5 *

, ■ _ ‘ °
Because human language is .instituted to express concepts drawn from

human experience of creatures^ it is a step away from the primal

expression, o'f the divine Word in creatures. > lloreover, the words with

which we attempt to speak of the divine nature will always be used fpr ^- n

that purpose in an improper sense, by a transference from their “proper

use with reference to creatures, to an improper or disproportionate

♦* . a

use in statements about the Creator. In a sense, therefore, all lan-

guage about God, whether scriptural"of philosophical, is equally

distant from wha^ it seeks to describe. However, both the scriptural

and the philosophical author can attain and express some knowledge of

God through the' consideration of created natures.- Accordingly, Moses *

is understood to have prefaced the5 Law with an account of the beginnings'

and history of the world in .order-to provide some knowledge of^GOd's ’

power, wisdom, and’love through the1examination of his works. Through

. •* . . . f « *

a study of the origins of the universe,. Plato is understood to have '«

o _ ' p' • - o -

achieved a perception of’the goodness of divine pofter and wisdom from .

 which he is described as concluding that the omnipotent and not envious

God could in no way have made a better world than the one he made.
©
While scriptural and philosophic authors share in the use of lan-
'•i
guage as an inadequate means for expressing truths about God, they also

share— according to Abelard's understanding— in a. figural use of that

laqugage, by which parables and similitudines are used to convey sacred,

truths and in a way to signal the inadequacy of language for direct

expression of the divine nature. Thus, the unity and trinity of God

are subtly indicated in the beginning of Genesis by the use of a plurals

.noun and a singular verb, while the activity of the Spirit and the Word

are signalled through expressions used to describe the initial processes

of formation. Plato, in turn* is understood to have given a metaphorical

a " ■ *
« r »

account of the divine grace offered to all'in general, when he spoke'of

a world soul at the centre of the universe. , , - •

•• • • o ' * - ^ . .* ,^
s Finally, it seems that -Abelard understood both the scriptural •

authors and the philosophers to have received-inspiration fromthe i|*>ly

Spirit, and at times to have expressed a truth more profound than they

themselves could comprehend, since the Hply Spirit may make use even Of

. unworthy human instruments to convey his messages. Thus, it is pos“-

sible for a Christian to recognize, in the language of Plato and other

'pagan authors, veiled statements'about the divine nature that the

* * .. >• '

authors themselves might not have under|tood. In, interpreting the ’ '

prophetic text Of Genesis, moreover, 0Abelard begins with an invocation•

'' . . . , - 0 r v
of the.Holy Spirit, "so that the one^who gave words to the prophet’
, ;
r '266 •/ . 1 ' •'*
may disclose their^oeaning to us." Thus, the Holy Spirit— ‘who is,

divine love and"produces the, love of God— acts not only in the creation
 and ordering of the world, but alfso ini the contemplation and interpre-'

tation of the world that produce knowledge of God and obedience to his

.laws. In the Theologia Christiana. Abelard implies an openness to the

activity of the Hcrly Spirit among his pagan sources by associating

their love of virtue with love of God as the supreme source of all

good, and the end or final caiise for whom all things should be done.

Indeed, it might not be too much of an exaggeration to say that Abelard

-understands both his Old Testament and his Platonic’sources to teach

that the creation of the world is a revelation of divine .goodness-, or

love evoking or Intended to evoke.the humaft response of love expressed

! ‘ '* - ' t? ’
as obedience to the will of God. This interpretation id, in turn,

consistent with his theory of the atonement, by which Christ'S death

is understood as the supr.eme expressioh- of divine love, productive of

a new/and obedient love in all who believe. Thus, the activity of the-

incarnate Word is the ultimate and concentrated expression for what was

first disclosed through the creating and commending Word of the six-day

work, although this may only be understood and appropriated through the

activity of the Holy Spirit. '

 V*

: 2 75

■ ' , • Notes
o '
o
T - Peter Abelard, Historia calamitatum, J. Monfrin (Paris,
1967). For a review oi? scholarly debate about the authenticity of >

,the Hist, calam. and correspondence with Heloise, see Peter Dronke,
Abelard and Heloise in Medieval Testimonies, -W. P. Ker Memorial Lecture
26 (Glasgow, 1976), pp. 7-14; John Benton's revised views of the corre­
spondence are- found in "A Reconsideration of the Authenticity of the
, Correspondence of Abelard and Heloise," in Petrus Abaelardus(1079- •
_ 1142): Person, Werk. und Wirkung, Trierer Theologische Studien, Bd. 38,
ed. R. Thomas, et al. (Trier, 1980), pp. 41-52%. Abelard's letters are
printed in PL 178: 113-378.

2 •
See, inter-alia,'references in John of Salisbury, Metalogicoft '
21 17, 3: pro!, i 3: 1, ed. C. C. J. Webb (Oxford, 1929), pp. 92, 119,
123. See also William of St. .Thierry, "Guillelmi abbatis ad Gaudfridum \
< Camotensem epxscopum et Bernardum abbatem Claraevallensein," ep. 862
(PL 182:'531B); Peter the Venerable, Letters 1. ed. G. Constable (Cam­
bridge, Mass., 1967), epp.,9-10 (pp. 14-17) may be addressed to Abelard,
epp.|97-98 (pp. 257-59) describe Abelard's'arrival at Cluny, and ep. ^
115 (pp. 303-08) describes to heloise his final years0and death.
\
3 k a
Hist, calam., pp. 68-71.
' ' ( " ' • .
4 ’ , '
Peter Abelard, Theologia 'summi boni', ed, H. Ostlender, Beitrage
35: 2-3 (Munster i. W., 1939).

5 • -
Peter Abelard, Theologia Christiana and Theologia scholarium,
recensiones breviores, ed. E. M. Bi#taert, in Petri. Abaelardi opera
theologica 2, CCCM 12 (Turnhout, 1969).

6 ’ " '■ -
See the chronology of Abelard's works in Petri Abaelardi opera
theologica 1, General introduction, CCCM 11, pp. xxii-xxv; I have
adopted Buytaert's sigla for the manuscripts of the Theologia Chris­
tiana, as given in Petri Abaelardi opera theologica 2, CCCM 12, p. 70,
but for reasons that will become evident in section 4 of this chapter,
prefer to his the chronology recently suggested by C. Mews, "The Devel­
opment of the Theologia of Peter Abelard," in Petrus Abelardus, p. 186. ’
*. " 1 *
7 Hist.. calam., pp. 99-100.. . (
■8 1
The sigla for the-short redactions of the Theologia scholarium
are adopted from Buytaert, Petri Abaelatdi opera theologica 2, p. 400;
cf. Mews, pp. 189-90; the longer redaction abbreviated as TSph is
printed in PL 178: 979^1114 as Introductio ad theologlam.

/
 f

276
-■ 6
.Ujr • ■*, a

9 *’
Peter Abelard, Sic et Non, ed. B. Boyer and R. McKeon (.Chicago,
1976-77.); Ethics, ed. D. E. Luscombe (Oxford, 1971); Coimnentaria in,
epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. E., M. Buytaert, 'in Petri Abaelardi
opera theologica 1. CCCM 11 (Tumhout, 1969).

10 ■ • a #

r ^
Hist, calam., p. 100.

The correspondence and regula are printed in PL 178: 113-336;

Sermones. PL 178: 379-610; Problemata Heloissae, PL 178: 677-730;
Hymnarius- Paraclitensis, 2 vols., e'd.'J. SzSverffy (Albany, N.Y._, 1975).
Since Mary Rpmig’s "Critical Editidn of Peter Abelard’s Exposition in
Hexaemeron" (diss. Southern California *t Los Angeles 1981) is not
generally available, I refer to the text of the'Expositio in Hexaemeron
printed in PL_178: 729-88, supplemented by ^ariant readings given in
E. M. Buytaert, "Abelard's Expositio in Hexaemeron,11 Antonianum 43 •
(1968): 172-81.

^ Hexaem.. (768B).. ‘ • ^

13 «
D. Van den Eynde, "ChronoIOgie des ecritd „d’Abelard a Heloise,"
Antonianum 37 (1962): 347-49. „
. <3

14 1 ” ■ '
Buytaert, "Peter Abelard's Expositio in Hexaemeron," pp. 184-85.

^ Buytaert, p. 194.
\St

^ Hexaem. (768B). .

17 - . /
Peter Abelard, Dialogue inter philosophum, Judaeum et Christia-
num. edg R. Thomas (Stuttgart-Bad-Cannstatt, 1970), p. 6 6 , 11. 1029-31.

Dialogus, p. 88 , 11.' 1265-66.

19 Dialogus. p.* 100, 11. 1561-64. ‘ ‘

20
Dialogus. pp. 100-01.
• ' * 0

21 "J-’---
Dialogus. -
p .1 103, 11. 1647-52. . .

22
Dialogus.- pp.. 104-05, 11. 1683-87.

23
Dialogus. p. 106, 11. 1725-31.
 24
Cf. Anselm, Monologion 1-5, pp. 13-18.' *'

25
Dialogus, p. 109, 11. 1809-11; cf. Augustine, In' Johann, trac-
tatus 83: 3, p. 536, 11. 13-14. - '
■ ■ 0
. ' .j •> , ' ■ . ' * ,
26 v
DialOgus, p. 113, 11. 1921-24: Tale est utique, -quod* ait:
quid est, quod possit deesse ad salutem, sed non ad virtutum perfec-
tionem. Nemo qui'ppfe cum illa -perit, sed non omnes in ilia equantur.
' ■ \ ^

27 c «
Dialogus. p. 114, 11. 1936-38: aQuid, si°summum bonum dicamus 1
statum ilium?futurum vite comparatione tantum bonorum presentis vite?

28 • v
i Dialogus, p. 114, 11. 1943-47: Primus quippe hominis status
est, in quo nascitur, dum nondum in eo excitata ratione liberum est -
adeptus arbitrium, ut, secundum quod eligerit, bonus homo vel malus ’
•dicendt\s siti/ quamvis ipse .bona res vel bona sit substantia .sive
creatura. * .
- . •' -i.
29 - ,
Dialogus, pp. 100-01. -
' ■■ ■■ I ■ * .. ■ - .*. " • :
3^ Dialogus,t-1*P. 116. 11. fl.990-9i i Est igitur'habitus qualitas
rei non naturaliter insita, sed studio ac deliberations conquisita
et difficile mobilis.'
j •;.r .v " ,
31 Dialogus. p. 127, 11. 2292-98.

32 Dialogus. p. 129, 11, 2335-38. , ‘

* 33 Dialogus. P. 130J 11. 2358-71. ' - *

> 34 ’ -
Dialogus. p . 131, 11. 2399-2403. .

33 Dialogus. p. 131. 11..2403-07.

36 Dialogus. p. 132, *11. 2411-15. * .

3^ Dialogus. p. 132, 11. 2416-25. “ .!

38 ’ ■' - ‘ * '
Dialogus. pp. 132-33, 11. 2437-40: Summum eius odium vel summa
dilectio in Deum, per que videlicet duo ei, qui simplicitejr ac proprie'
summum bonum ^icitur, displicere amplius vel placere nos constat.
Quorum pro&ectb utrumque post hanc vitam sequitur.
 V

278

J %Q '.i- ' * * & * * * ' .

•- Dialogus, p. 133, 11. 2450-61.*,-,

40 Dialogus, p. 137, 11. 2551-56.

4^ Dialogus, p. 138, 11. 2584-91: Quamvis enim nostra substantia

quolibet accidenti suo melior censeatur autdignior, summum tamen
hominis bonum id.pon ineongrue dicendum videtur, quod ipsum hominem
participatione sui optimua^reddit atque dignissimuft; atque, ut^verius
ac probabilius „loquamur, Ipsum Deum, qui solus proprie et absolute
summum bonum dicitur, summum etiam hominis bonum -ess§ constituamus;
cuius videlicet ilia, ^Juam diximus, visionis' sue participatione, qua
fruimur, efficiinur vere beati.
■ a. . ’ -
42 . ‘
Dialogus, p. 138, 1. 2597. •

^ Dialogue, pp. 140-45, 11. 2627-2757.

44 Dialogus, p. 155, 11. 3007-14.

45 \
Dialogus, p, 156, 11. 3041-50: Quis. etiam cotidie tam diversas \
animalium non experiatur naturas, ut, quod aliorum vita construat,
aliorum extinguat et pro corporum diversa complexiode, quod uni profi-
ciat, alperi obsit, tam animatis quam ihanimatis. Homipes sub aquis,
pisces sub divo moriuntur. Salamandris in igne vivere constat, qui
maturum ceteris animantibus affert interitum. Vgpenum vita est serpen-
tis, mors hominis, et eadem aliis animantibus gusturn prebent necessari-
um, aliis mortiferum. Nichil omnino est, quod omnibus possit con-
venire nateuris.

46 -
Dialogus, pp. 158-59, 11. 3106-08: Ex quibus* omnibus liquere
iam arbitror nichil ad penam dampnatorum loci qualitatem referre, sicut
nec ad gloriam beatorum. . , .
• • 0■ •
4^ Dialogus. p. 159, 11. 3111-14. „'

4^ Dialogus. p. 160, 11. 3136-53.

49
. . Dialogus. p. 160, 11. 3153-56: Quantum mihi occurrit, bonum
simpli-citer,-id est bQnam rem dici arbitror, que, cum alicui usui sit ..
apta, nullius commodym vel dignitatem per earn impediri necesse est.

^ ^ Dialogus, p. 161, 11. 3161-65: Non enim actiones bone vel male
nisi secundum intentionis radicem iudicantur-sed otimes ex se.indifferen-
tes sunty et, si diligenter inspiciamus, nichil ad meritum conferunt.

w : ■ L °
 Dialogus, p. 161, |l. 3166-68.
'4

52 ' •
Dialogus, p. 161, 11. 3169-79: Dif ficillimum equidem est omnia
fere propriis diffinitionibus sic circumscribere, ut ab omnibus aliis
ea separari queant. . . . Pleraque nominum, quibus rebus conveniant,
ex locutioni#us'u didicimus. Que vero^sit sententia eorufn vel intel-
ligentia minime assignare sufficimus. Multa etiam raperimus, quorum
nec nominatibnem sicut nec sententias diffinitione possumus terminare.
.Et si enim rerum naturae non ignoremus, earum tamen vocabula in usu
non sunt et sepe promptior est mens ad intelligendum, quam lingua sit
4d proferendum vel ad ea, que Sentimus, diss'erendum..

53 • » ■
Theologia 'summi boni' 2: 3„ pp. 50-51: Quod vero omnis
hominum locutio ad creaturarum status maxime accomodata -eit, ex ea
praecipun parte orationis apparet sine, qua teste Prisciano nulla con-r
stat orationis perfectio, ex ea scilicet quae dicitur verbum. Haec ’
quippe dictio temporis designativa est, quod incepit a mundo. Unde
si tiuius partis significationem recte. attendamus, oportet pe^ earn
cuiusque constructionis sensum infra ambitum temporum coerci, hoc est
ad eas.res tantum inclinari quas temporaliter contingere, non aetema-
liter subsistfere volumus demonstrare. Unde cum dicimus Deum priorem •
esse mundo, sive exstitisse ante tempora: quis sensus in his verbis
verus esse potest de praecessione Dei ac successions -istorum, si haec
verba ad institutionem hominum accipiamus secundum ipsam temporis
significationem, ut - videlicet dicamus Deum secundum tempus priorem
esse mundo v&l exstitisse, hoc est in praeterito .tempore fuisse,
antequam tempus aliquod esset? Oportet itaque, cum ad singularem
divinitas naturam quascumque dictiones transferimus, eas inde quandam
.Singularem significationem seu etiaij -eonstructionem contrahere, atque
ipsas per hoc quod omnia excedit, necessario propriam institutionem
excedere. ° ■ ' " " = ‘

^ Dialogus. p. 161, 11. 3193-95.

*

Dialogus, p. 162, 11. 3200-05.

^ Dialogus. p. 163," 11. 3222-25: et nulla, credo, stmt instru-

mentavel quecunque usibus nostris sunt commodata, quibus pro inten-
tionOm qualitate tam njale uti non possumus quam bene; ad quodscilicet
nichil refert, quid fiat* sed quo animo fiat. .
* |

Dialogus, p. 163, 11. 3215-25. ’

<s

Cg t’ o V

Dialogus. pp. 164-65, 11. 3260-67: Et si enim;faciant vel

■

facere velint, quod Deus vult fiere, non tamen id faciunt vel facere
volunt, quia credant Deum id velle fieri;nec eadem intentio est in
epdem facto illorbm que Dei, et quamquamid velint, quod Deus, eadem
 que illorum et Dei voluntas ideo d i d possit, quod idem volunt; mala
jtamen eorum voluntas-est et bona Dei/'feu#scilicet id diversis de
causis vellnt f^eri. ' . .

59 " - . ° ' ’
Dialogus. p. 166, 11. 3309-11: 1Omne,' inquit, 'quod gignitur
ex aliqua causa, gignitur necessaria.^ Nichil enitt fit, cuius ortum non
legitima causa et ratio preceidat.' Timaeus 28A, p. 20, 11. 20-22v

60 ■' * - ' ■
Dialogus, pp. 168-69; Augustine, De civitate Dei 11: 17, p. 536,'
and Enchiridion ad 'Laurentium 96. ed. E. Evans, in Aurelii Augusiini-
* opera 13: 2 , CCSL 46, p. 100 .- ‘ ~ o ■ J
* 61 ' ' •*
Dialogus. p . 170,’11. 3402-05: boni vocabulum applicamus, Ut
videlicet hoc esse vel nop esse bonum dicamus, tale est, ac si diceretur
ad aliquam Dei optimam dispositionem complendam illud.necessarium esse,
et si nos omnino ‘ilia lateat dispoditio.
•: ” " . I V , ■.. '
1 « 62
.Dialogus. p . 171, 11°. 3418-21: Unde precipuum est illus •
Veyitas [documentum* quo cum oyatione semper Deo dicendum est': 'Fiat
/ voluntas tua.' ' 7 S ° ./ . . •. .' •
' ’ " *
*■ ■63 * *
7. Comm. Bom., I:-20, p. 69.: Apparet itaque maxime~ex ipsa
mundanae fabricae universitate tam mirabilitfer facta, tam decenter
omata,' quantae potentiae, quantae-sapientiae, quantae bonitatis eius-
j■ artifex sit qui tantum et tale opus de hihiio f-acere potuit et voluit
!. et tam sollerter pt ratiOnabiliter cuncta temperavitv ita ut in singu­
lis nihil plus aut 'minus quam oportuerit actum-sit.' Unde et Plato •■
ipse-"cum degenitura munda ageret, in tantum divinae potentiae ac" -
sapientiae honitatem extulit, ut adstrueret Deum nullatenus potuisse
mundum meliorem facere quam fec.erit. '" ^ .

64 . ' - .
Hexaem., praef. (731AB); references are to Origen, In canticum
canticorum, praef., ed. D. A. B. CaillaU and D. Guillon, in Orlgenis .
opera 4 (Paris, 1892), pp. 356-57; Jerome, In Ezechielem prophetam 1: 1
(PI 25: !?A) [ Augustine, Retractationes 2: 50, ed. F7 KnBll, CSEL .36
(Vienda, 1902), pp. 159-60. " ‘ . :- ‘ ”

-65 ' .i ”
Hexaem., praef. (732B): 'Fortasse,' inquit, 'difficile sit de
^juiusmodi rebus confidenter declarare, nisi saepe pertractata stmt:
duhitare autem de singulis non erit injitile.' Aristotle, Categoriae
8 B 21-24; Abelard's source would probably have been Boethius, In cate-
gorias Aristotelis 2 (PL 64: 238D). ‘ .

66 v"
' * ' :
Hexaem. (731D): Immensam igitur abyssum profunditas Geneseos
triplici perscrutantes expositione, historica, scilicet*; morali et
nystila,' ipsum invoceim& Spiritum, quo dictante, haec scripta sunt; •
. ut qui prophetae verba iargitus est, ipsenobis eorum aperiat sensum.
 281
^ . „»■ ■

Primo itaque, prout ipse- annuerit, imo dederit, rei gestae veritatem
quasi histaridam figamus radicem. , ,

^ Hexaem. (731D): ipsum invocemus Spiritum, quo dictante, haec

scripts sun-t, ut qui prophetae verba largitus est, ipse nobis.eorum
aperiat sensum. j . ' ' . * '

' * >
68r •
• Hexaem. (731-732D) : Camalem itaque populum propheta desiderans
ad,divinum cultum allicere,-cui tanquam- rudi adhuc et indisciplinato
^prioris instituta testament! fuerat traditurus, primo eos ad obediendum
Deb tanquam omnium Creatori ac dispositori monet, considetatlone videli­
cet corporaliura eius.

^ Hexaem. (733AB). '/

70 » '.
Hexaem. (732D-7-33A): De qua quidem operatione ad cognitionem
opificis nos perducente Apostolus ait? ’Invisibilia ipsius a creatura
mundl per ea quae facta sunt intellects conspiciuntur, etc.* (Rom;' '
1:26*). Quisquis enim de aliquo artifice an bonus vel sollers in
operandb sit voluerit intelligere, non"ipsum sed opera eius. conside- ,
rare debet.. Sic et Deus qui in seipso invisibilis et incomprehensi-
bilis est, ex operum suorum magnitudine primam nobis de se scientiam
■confert, cum omais- humana notitia -surgat a sensibus.

71 • , '. . .• V’'.
The commentary begins with a version of the accessus. ad
auctorem customary i n 'twelfth-century commentaries on classical authors;
for accessus*. see E..A. Quain, "The Medieval- Accessus ad auctoies." ‘ .
*Traditlo 3 (3-945): 215-64/ for a detailed analysis of Abelard's method .
here, see^E. Kearney', "Master Peter Abelardr Expositor *of Sacred Scrip­
ture," Diss. Marquette 1980, pp.,75-80. ’
k - • 1
72 * > ■ •
Hexaem. (733C): Coeli et terrae nomine hoc loco quatuor ele-
.menta comprehend! arbitror, ex quibus tanquam material! primordio
eaetera omnia corpora constat esse composita. '
' " ^ •

• 73
Hexaem. ,(733D): Haec itaque quatuor elementa tanquam caetero-
rum cotporum principia8Deum in principle fecisse praenuntiat. Cf.
Tierry of Chartres, Tractatus de septem diebus 5-6. ed. N. Haring, in
• "The* Creation and Creator of the World According ,to Thierry of Chartres
and Clarenbaldus of Arras," AHDLMA 30 (1955): 186.'
‘■ '' ■- ' ' ■ v ■" - ■'
74 ' ■= .
Hexaem. (734BC):^ Bene autem de elementis dictum est, creavit, '
potius quam formavit," quia creari proprie id dicitur, quod de non esse
ita ad esse producftur, ,ut praejacentem non habeat materiam, ijgc in ■
aliquo primitus suibsisteret naturae statu. Cf. Dialectics 3.t 2: 8 ,
ed. L.. M. De Rijk, in Petrus Abaelardus Dialectics. 2nd ed. (Assen,
1970), pp. 419.-20.

M.
•-*ra_ , ’
 '75 • •
Hexaem. (734CD)Quoniam ad hominis creationem de terra
formandi et in terra conversaturi specialiter iste spectat tractatus,
qup propheta, ut diximus, ad cultum Dei hominem allicere intendens,
ad terrena opera stylum convertit, coelestis et superioris naturae,
id est angelicae jztfeatione praeterita; ne forte, si earn perscrutaretur
et ad Creatorisrsui laudem eius excellentiafiSpstenderet, minus hominem
ad amorem Dei alliceret, qui\sibi/aliam praefetri naturam conspiceret.

- 76 .
Hexaem. (735B)_: Facies ergo tenebris obducta erat, id est
notitia illius congeriei ex prima confusione praepediebafur, ut nequa-
quam se visibilem praeberet vel aliqua eius utilitas in laudem
creatoris ad hyc appareret.

.. 77 *
•Hexaem. (735B): Hebraicum habet, 'volitabat super faciem
aquarum.' Translatio vero quaedam habet, 'fovebat aquas,1 quaedam
'ferebatur super aquas,' sicut habet praesens quam prae manibus
habemus. ’
7© " '.<3
Hexaem.
. '
■■
(735C). •
•^ ' ••' • . .
79 „ '.
Hexaem. (735D-736B); for variations on the "cosmic egg" meta­
phor, see Drohke, Fabula. pp. 79-99.v "

‘^ Hexaem/ (736A).
x .

*( I Hexaem. (735B-D). ’ •
• • t
.82
:. Hexaem. (737C): Cum igitur propheta in' diversis rerum creati-
onibUS laciendis praemittit: 'Dixit Deus,' et ad dictum statim effectum
adjpffigit; dicens: 'et factum est,' ita cuncta Deum condidisse in Verbo,
hoc est, in sapientia sua ostenditur, id est, nihil subito vel temere,
sed omnia rationabiiiter ac provide.

. ' ' r ’ -

• Hexaem. (737D),;; Quod nec ab evangelica dissidet disciplina,

,si'sententia.e yeritatein magis quam verborum attendamus proprietatem.
. y .-■■a■ H4'

. v Hexaem. .(738A)f; Item, nec. Plato quidem in hoc erravit quia

esse mundum inteJMgibilep dixit, si non vocabulum quod ecclesiasticae
eonsuetttdini?ip rd ilia jninime usitatum est, sed ipsam rem volumus
.Atfcehdeie., intelligibilem nuncupavit "ipsam. rationem
qua fecit Deus mundum. See- Augustine, Retractationes 1: 3, p. 20,
11.14-16. ’ ’
. * .■. . j

r •
■•■05 '•* o '
Hexaem., .(738D-73.9A); Praeterea dictum illud Dei, hoc est
Verbum ipsius, de quo.'scriptpm est: 'erat lux vera,quae illuminat
omnem hominem, etc.' (John,i:9)1• ' , ^
■!i
•V'

283

r gg
Hexaem. (739A): Benetunc primo propheta demonstravit, cum
.ad lucem operum Dei pervenisset, per quamquidem lucem operum Deus'
homini quoddammodo loqui et seipjsum manifestate primo ihcoepit,^
sicut et Apostolus patenter edocuit, dicensi 'Invisibilia enim ipsius
a creature mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellects conspiciuntur, etc.'
(Rom. 1:20). Dum igitur ilia adhuc confusa congeries nec visui nec-
notitiae se praeberet humanae, net alicui apta usui, vel angelo vel
homini, si jam esset creatus, appareret, quasi tacuisse"Deus ostenditur
quia nondum tale quid in ilia egerat, unde aliquid ipse loqui valeret,
hoc est humanam instruere rationem atque alfquam excellentiae suae
praebere notitiam. '
%
07
Hexaem. (739B); Augustine, De Trinitate 15: 26, p. 529,'
11. 113-15. v . • v

88
Hexaem. (739B-D).

89 “ -" '
.. . Hexaem,,. (761B): Constat quippe Deo Patri, quiaseipso non
ab alio esse habet, juxta hatic*eius proprietatem, id quod ad potentiam
pertinet. divinam specialiter^adscribi; sicut et Filio, qui eius sapien-
tia dicitur, quod sapientiae est; et Spiritui-sanctb, qui amborum amor
vocatur ef.proprie Caritas dicitur, id quod ad bonitatem divinae
gratiae spectat tanquam proprium tribuitur.

90
Hexaem. (739D).

• 91
% Hexaem. (740A)? see Bede,THexaemeron 1; 1: 4, p . 9, for.a .
possible influence: the commendation seems, according to Bede, to have
been more fos the. sake of men.than :e¥ Cod.

92
(740B).

93
Hexaem. (740C) .-
«v
.94
Hexaem. (.740CD): t factum*est vespere et mane dies unus.1
Diem
; unum hie vbcat . totam
, lorum operum Dei consummationem, prius in
iaente. fiabitam W / i n opere ppstmodum sexta die completam. Vesperam
auteta'.hulus totius temporisSgJ^^jchic unum diem appellat, totam illam
operationem Dei vocat, secundum Iquod prius in eius mehte latebat,
ariteqUam per effectum ad lucem pjrodiret. Ac fursus ipsam eamSem .
operationem mane huncjupat secunduk quod opere postmodern cOmpleta sese
yisibilem praebuit.• Divinae itAque mentis conceptum in dispositione ‘
futuri operis vesperkm&dicit, .inane vero appellat ipsam conceptus .
illius operationem et dCvinaet dispositionis effectual in sex diebus
consummatum. . . Quasi enim de sinu quodam seereti sui singula Deus'

1- < • «
 284

.producit, dum exhibet opere quod ante conceperat mente; nec a conceptu
dissidet opus,' dum quod mente disponitut opere completur. .

95
Cf* Augustine, De Genes! ad litteram 5: 18, p. 161.

UK q
See J; Jolivet, "Elements du concept de nature chez Abelard,
pp,. 301-02^, and D. E. Luscombej "Nature in the Thought of Peter
Abelard,", pp. 314-17, in La fjlpsofia della natura eel mediaevo: Pro­
ceedings of the Third- International Congress of Medieval Philosophy.
Trento, 31 Aug. - 5 Sept., 1964 (Milan, 1966),

97 1 * 1
See E. Jeauneau, "Notes sur l'ecole de Chartres," Studi
Medievali, ser. 3 : 5 (1964): 847-48, and T. Gregory, Anima mundi: la
filosofia di Guglielmo di Conches 6 lascuola di Chartres (Florence,
1955), pp. 241-44. ,
•’ • ' - . . ' •“ ’ ‘
Qg .

1 , Hexaem. (743BC); references are to:. Josephus, Jewish Antiqui­

ties 1.: 26-31, p. 15; Jerome, Ep. 69: Ad Oceanum (PL 22: 659B) ; Bede, '
De natura rerum 7-8, pp. 197-99. ' .® “

99 • ■•- ,
Hexaem. (746C): cum in aliquibus rerum effectis vim naturae '
vel causas naturales requirimus vel assignamus, id nos facere secundum
illam priorem Dei operationem in constitutione mundi, ubi so^a Dei
'voluntas naturae efficaciam habuit in illis tunc creandis vel disponen-
"dis, sed tantum ab ilia operatione Dei sex diebys ilia completa.
Deinceps vim naturae pensare solemus, tunc videlicet rebus ipsis iam
ita praeparatis, Ut ad quael’ibet sine miraculis facienda ilia eorum„
constitutio vel praeparatfo su.ffic'etet.

100 Hexaem. (746D).

101 Hexaem. (747A):* Deum in Timaeo suo loquehtem ad. sidereos

deos introducit, cum ait:Mmmprtales quidem nequaquam, nec omnino
indissolubiles, nec tamen umquam dissolvemini, nec mortis necessitatem
subibitis, quia voluntas mea maJorvest nexus et vegetatior ad aeterni-
tatis custodian, quam illi nexus, vitales ex quibus aetemitas vestra
coaugmenta atque composita est.'\ Timaeus 41BC, p. 35.

■102
Hexaem. (747B)-.

103
Hexaem. (748A).

104
Hexaem. (7.49C) .

105
Hexaem. (75lA): Inter creationem plantarum jam factam,*et
'animaliujnl faciendam, luminaria fiunt, .ut calore'ipsdrum plantae
foveanturlet proficient, et eorum luce animalia solatium habeant,
ne quasi t^aeca ;obefrent in tenebris, nt et aliments.sua eligere-~*^
posslnt. *

106
Hexaem. (753C); cf. Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentmn 58,
pp. 80-8lT| * • *•

107
Hexaem. <75 2D-75,3A).

108
Hexaem. (753CD); see Buytaeft, "Peter'Abelard's Expositio in
Hexateraeron."\p. 184.’ ;

’109
Theologia 1sumnri. boni* 1: 5-6', pp. 13-20.

110
M.lT. Vi'Alverny^ "Abelard et 1'astrologie," in Pierre Abelard
— Pierre le Venerable; Abbaye de Cluny, 2 a u 9 luillet, 1972 (Paris,
1975); pp. 620-21. Abelard seems, however,, to retract and condemn this
interpretation in Dialectics 5:1;4. pp. 558-59.
Ill
Hexaem. C753D).
112
Hexaem. (755B): De\ contingentibus vero futuris, quae, ut
diximus, naturae quoque sunt\incognita, quisquis per documentum astro-
nomiae certitudinem hliquam p^omiserit, non tam astronomicus quam'
diabolicus habettdus nst.

,113
Hexaem.

114
Hexaem. (758BC; 759AB).

115
Hexaem, (756C);VBegula S. Benedicti 39 (PL 6 6 ; 616).

,116
Hexaem. (766B); rVidit Deus quod esset bonum,’ hoc'est videre
jc'nos et intelligere fec^t ex manlfesta eorum utilitate.
.. 1
117 1 ,
Hexaem'. (766BC) ; Ouod ergo'dictum est , ’vidit cuncta et erant
de bona ,1 tale est quod nihil'in eis ab ipso perfecte cognitis corri-
censuit, sed tantum omnia honai condidit, quantum bona condi
uit, ut, nihil scilicet in conditione sua plus boni accipere ilia
rit, juxta illam quoque Platonis sententiam, qua mundum ab omnipo­
et non aemulo factum Deoyconvincit nequaquam meliorem fieri
sse. Quod.et Moyses„considerans, asserit amnia'valde bona creata,
quamms de omnibus rationem reddere nec'ipsi- etiam concessum esse creda-
mus. v\Hon tamen singula in se, sed omnia simul valde bona dicit,- quia
0

286

ut beafus quoque meminit Augustinus, bona sunt singula in se, sed

cunctajj simu! valde bona; quia quae in se considefata nihil aut parum
valereIvidentur, in tota omnium summa valde sunt necessaria. Unde
dicitui, ’Magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates eius.’
(Ps. lip:2 ) Cf . Timaeus 29E, p. 22, 1. 19.-

Ili8
j Dialogus. p. 170,. 11.. 3402-05: ad aliquam Dei optimam dispo-
sitionem complendam illud necessarium esse’ ,,et si nos omnino ilia
latest; dispositio,

110 v . . * 1
Hexaem. (766D).

120
Hexaem. (766D-767A):• Opera itaque Pei cuneta bona'sunt et ■
omnis creatura bona est praedicanda, quia nihil peceati vel mali in
ipsa suae creationis origine accipiunt, sed singulis tantum confert
Deus quantum convenit, ut non solum bonae, verum etiam optimae, id
est valde bonae, singulae ab ipso fiant creaturae. Nec solum tunc
cum primo crearentut, verum etiam quotidie cum ex illis primordialibus
causis nascendo procreantur vel mulfciplicantur.*' Etsi enim infans cum
nascitur nondum'honus homo dicatur, quod ad mores pertinet, bona tamen
est cteat^ira. ’ •

121 ’ ■
Cf. Peter Abelard, Ethics, p. 52: Bonam quippe intentionem,
hoc est, rectam in se dicimus, operationem verq non quod boni aliquid
in se suscipiat, sed quod ex bona intentions procedat.

22 9
122 . '
^Ethics, p. 31: nec enim quicquam absque rationabili causa
fieri Deus pejmittit, nec°dum facere. consentit.

123
Hex’
aeta. (767B).

124 ■»
Hexaem. (767B): Constat quippe si homo non pecasset,' nec ex
veneno illi imminere peticujLum, nec ex aliqua re cruciatum, sed omnia
illi animalia quantumcunque saeva, quantumcunque crudelia, ei mansueta
quasi domestica,' fore per omnia illids domihio subjects, quandiu ille
suo Creator! qui hoc ipsi subjeceiat per obedientiam subjectus esset.

125
Hexaem*. (767D-768A): Quae dum nos perimuht vel cruciantj
divinum in* hoc judicium exercendo ac debltam poenam inferendo, falso
in eis opera Dei quasi*mala calumniamur, quia nobis in dolorem prb
meritis nOstris’ conve'rtuntur: alioquin et poenam ipsam quae justa
est, et tam Deum quam quemlib&t judicem justurn, cum reos punit et quod
debet ‘agit, arguere possemus.

• 126 Hexaem. (769D-770A);

 287'

127
Hexaem. (760A).
1 a
Hexaem. (760C): Sic Deus Pater ad creationem hominis tam
Sapientiam quam Bonitatem, hoc est Filium et -Spiriturn sanctum quasi
invitans diqit: Faciamus eum talem et tantum,-ut imago nostra sit
vel similitU|do.

129
Hexaem. (760D-761AB).

130
Cf. discussions of imago and similitudo.in Peter Abelard,
Logica ingredientlbus: glossae super Porphvrium, ed.° B. Geyer,
BeitrSge 21: 1 (Munster i. W . , 1919), p. 21; for the Augustiniap
sources of Abelard's interpretation of imago and similitudo in.Genesis,
see LAdner, The Idea of Reform, pp. 186-^67 >

131
Hexaem. (761B).

132
Hexaem. (761BC).

133
Hexaem. (761CD).

134
Hexaem. (763D).

155 \
Hexaem. (761D-762A) : Non quidem hominem homini pxaeponlt
Deus, sed insensibilibus tantum vel irratlonabilibus creaturis, ut eas
scilicet in potestatem accipiat, et eis dominetur quae rations carent
et. sensu. . . . *

136
Hexaem. (763C),

137
Hexaem. (762A): Potestas aut dominium iii his ideo collata
homini dicuntur, quod juxta eius arbitrium haec omnia disponerentur et
pro voluntate sua eis penitus uteretur, quandiu ipse voluntati sui Con­
ditoris subjectus esset. . /3 '

138
Hexaem. (762B-D).

139
Hexaem-. (764BC).

140
Hexaem.‘(764C): Ex quo patenter insinuat, quantum a.creatione
Del et institutione naturae ilia Sodomitarum.abpminabilis commistio
recedat, qua seipsos tantum polluunt, nullum de prole frueturn reportantes*
Damnantur et ex hoc loco praeclpue danmatores nuptiarum, cum primis
hominibus creatis, ex auctoritate Domihica conjugium statim •sancitum sit.
 Hexaem. °,(765A): „ Et attende quantum sibi in omnibus hominem
vel-it obedire, cuTp nec eum comedere ut vivat nisi per obedientlam
velit,nec sine permissione !sua quidquam in quibuscunque necessariis
attingere, nec ad sustentationem etiam vitae. <•

142 •
Dialogus, p.. 132, 11. 2433-39; Ethics, p. 4, 11. 29-33.

143 ■
Hexaem. (774C) i Gontinettter dixi hominem creari,' sed modum
creationis non express!, igitur nunc faciam.

^44'Hexaem. (774D).

145 Hexaem. (774Dr-775A); Isidore’

, Etymologise 11: 1 (PL 82: 397);
Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 2: 7, pp. 44-45.

•146 Hexaem.-(7 7 5 B O . -

147 HexAem. (7750.

Hexaen>. (77^D-776A); Isidore. Etymologise 14: 3 (PL 82: 4960;

Jerome, Quaestiones in Genesim 1 (PL 23:’989). ^

149 * *' " *

Hexaem. (778D); Pliny, Haturalis historiae 6 : 22, ed. C. May-
hoff (Stuttgart, 1967), p. 467. . .... ' "7

^ Hexaem. (779BO., Sallust, "Epistola Mithridates," ed; and

trans. J. C..Rolfe,. in SalluSt (London, 1921), p. 440.
;<?• '• ’ » . ' , •" '
’151 * >
Hexaem. ( 7 7 7 k ) ; Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 8 : 15-16,
pp. 254-56, t

/ 152 - • ' - ' T j

Hexaem. (777A): Per hanc enim experimento ipso didicerunt
quid inter bonum vitae delectabills quam prius hab'ebant et inter malum
poenae quam incurrerunt distaret, quasi inter requiem et laborem.

■'Mss'
Hexaem.• (780C).
'

. ”^ 4 Hexaem. (781A): Ita ergo aecipiendum-est "'ut operaretur,

etc,' ac si diceretur quia ponendo eum ibi, constituit eum cultorem
et conservatorem illius loci, praecipiendo scilicet ei ut eutn excoleret
'ac sibi conservaretexcoleret quidem eum delectatione magis aiiqua ibi
operando,. sicut arbores ipsas vel herbas purgando, potius-quam cum
fatigationis labor.
 155 Hexaem. (780C)V ‘ - ' • ' ■
■a «■
156 *
° Hexaem. (781BC): Sicut ergo ipsa prius facta postmodum .
iterator propter intermissUm scilicet eius modum, ita et per antici­
pations nonnulla hie refe-rri extra ordinem non est improbandum, ut
prius scilicet Adam voces instituerit ad loquendum, quaft prae.ceptum
Domini audiret in illis vocibus quas ipse instituisset; ut eas intel­
ligere posset, quibus et ipse' postmodum loq'uens diceret: 'hoc nunc „
os ex ossibus meis, etc .1 quibus et serpens cum mulier loquerth^ir,
vel mulier cum serpente. . .

ic?
Theologia 'summi boni 1 2: 3, pp. 52-53: De quo (Deo) si quid
dicitur, aliqua similitudine de creaturis aH creatorem vocabula trans-
ferimus, quae quidem vocabula homines instituerunt ad creaturas desig-
nandas, quas intelligere potuerunt, cum videlicet per ilia vocabula
suos intellectus manifestare vellent. Cum itaque homo voces invenirit
ad suos intellectus manifestandos, Deum autem minime intelligere potu-
erit recte illud ineffabile bonum effari nomine est ausus. Unde
Deo nullum propriam inventionem vocabulum s a m e videtur, sed
Omnia quae de eo dicuntur, translationibus et iwabnricis aenigmatibus
involuta sunt et per similitudinem aliquam verfti^antur ex parte aliqua
inductam, ut aliquid de ilia' ineffabili maiestate suspicando potius ,
quam intelligendo degustemus.

15® Hexaem. ( 7 8 1 ^ 0 ) Non enim breve temporis spatium, ut caetera

omittamus, ad unius linguae inventionem^sufficere poterat, nec sola
inventio nomihum quae hie.tantum cpmmemoratur in his locutionibus- con-
tinentur, quae in paradiso dici memorantur; immo a contrario nullum de
nominibus animantium terrae vel Volucrum quae Adamrimposuisse dicitur,
in his locutionibus contitiehtur.

iteQ * "
Hexaem. (781D-782D); Augustine, De civitate Dei '20: 26, pp.
499-500. ' ■

Augustine, De civ, Dei 20: 26, p. 500. ■

The text- of«the Expositio in Hexaemeron printed in PL 178

ends with the quotation‘frprn Augustine; subsequent references will be
to the continuation edited by E. M. Buytaert, in "Peter Abelard's
Expositio in Hexaemeron," Text'8 : pp. 174-81. Buytaert, p. 175,
11. 1-6. , ,

16? Comm. Rom. 3: 26-27, pp. 113-18. . ■

163 v
Buytaert, p.; 175, 11. 6-10: Sed dico: quid si occasionem
quaerebat ante hominis peccatum qua melioremi eum redderet p.ost
 •s

‘O
290

peccatum, eum .scilicet per se ipsum requirendo. et propria morte

redimendo, tantamque nobis caritatem 'exhibendo qua sicut ipsemet ait:
’Maiorem dilectionem nemo habet . . .' (John 15:13) .
\ . • ’ :! '
1AA
Dialogue, pp .. 164-65, 11. 3260-72. .
.<?

Buytaert, p. 175, 11. 19-23. .. .^ ' •

J
!L66 i■ < o ^
Buytaert, p. 175, 1. 26-p. 176, 1;. 1: Quis enimignoret exiustis
parentibus pessimos nasci, vel e eonverso? Unde etiam posteri eorura
fortiOres essent ad resistehdum peccaito quam ilii quorum proprius vel
specialis auctor Deus ipse.fuisse videtur? Quis denique nesciat per
naturalem rationis legem sine praecepto aliquo accepto nos posse
cognoscere in quo Deum offendere vel peccare possemus? NoaSenim -Cain
vel omnes qui ante legetn fuerunt quid Deo placeret vel displiceret °
ignorabant, cum hoc vitantes, illud appeterent, vel e contrario penam
incurrerent. .

"167 "
Coma. Rom. 2-, 5: 13, pp. 157-58: Bene dico in omnes pertransiit
peccatum, nec illi qui ante legem fuerqpt a peccato imraunes exstiterint;
de quibus magis-videtur.. Cum adhuc nullius acriptae transgresslo eos
reos faceret usque ad legem, id est toto illo tempore antequam lex per
Moysen daretur, peccatum erat in mundo, licet non imputaretur, id est
ab hominibus, argueretur vel puniretur per aliquam legem, cum videlicet
lex nondum scripts esset sed tantum naturalis, per quam tamen boni vel
mali discretionemnonnullam habebant ex qua cognoscere peccatum possent.

Buytaert, p. 176, 11. 4-7-. / - .

169 Buytaert, p. 176,11.21-22./

Buytaert, p. 177, 1. 27 - p. 178? 1. 4. ; 1

171 .
Buytaert, p. 179, 11. 4-5: Post peccatum namque in potestatem
-et dominium viri tradita est. 1 / , ' ■*

172 ’/
Buytaert, p.. 179, 11. 8-15.

173 . ‘ -r 0
The occurrence of this interpretation in the hymn for Friday
Vespers supports our conjecture; see 27, Feria sexta ad yesperas.
st. 1, Hymnarius Paraclitensis >2.. p. 73, '

Buytaert, p.' 179, 11. 24-25:' ’Hoc os,’ tamquam per se iam
existens et a mea persona separatum.
 291

175 Buytaert,, p. 179, 111' 25-28. • \ - '

$ ;
o *• . .
V76
- • Buytaert, p. 180, 11. 9-23:, non tamen per braducem sed per
4 quamdam id efficiendi naturalem vim atque facultatem. Cf. Augustine,
De civ. Dei 12: 26, p. 611, 11. 5-19. ,,

1 1 1 ' Buytaert, p. 180, 1. 33 - p. 181, 1. 11.

178 •■ ‘ . ('■
Buytaert, p. l8i. 11^ 19-20: At vero si Adam hoc in verbis
suis sacramentum non- intellexdrit, Spiritus tamen Sanctus, qui per eum
loquebatdr, id nullatenus ignorabat. °

179 Buytaert, p. 181, 13 22-32..

/ ^ H e x a e m , (PL 178: 770C-7.73A).

;.....T. ■ 6 'rr, ■
ioi ‘ •
x Hexaem, .(771A) ; Hebrews 11:6.
,> '• ■ l\... r S •' ‘ t %

> * a •
Hexaem w,(771), ’ .

183 - , ^ ■' - ■ V ■ ■ -
Cf, Augustine, Confaesiones 13, pp. 3*44-88,* • •

o 184 ' c'

, Hexaem. (771D-773A); cf. Augustine. DeAGenesi contra Marii-
chaeos 1: .23 (PI 34: 190-93). ' ' '7f ■ ““
IOC ' , , ’
Hexaem. (772D; cf. 736A, 736D, 758BC); see R. E. Weingart,
’’Peter Abailard's Contribution to Medieval Sacramaentology," Recherches
de Theologie Ancienne et Medievale 34 (1967): 167-69. ,

186 Hexaem. (772D-773A).

^ 187 ‘ •' ' . . . .

Hymnarius Paraclitensis 1, Introduction, p. 20.

188 - ■
See. Hymnarius 1, pp. 60-63, for^tables of contents and motifs.

18Q a
>. Hymnarius 2, p. 20. • *

190 * ,*
” . 0 Neither Buytaert nor Szoverffy discusses the problem in.the
introductions to their respective editions of the material.

4 x >■' = •' > .. ■ ' ■ ■ '■

See the discussion by Dronke. Fabula, pp. 61-67, and esp.
■pp. 64-65. ;
 0

292
f

192 • » ' ' ‘• As,

See, e.g., Hexaem. (738A). • ' ... <3/

2,92 The Oxford Book of Medieval Latin Verse, ed. P, J. E. Baby

(Oxford, 1959), 9, pp. 8-11. ; - ,

1,94 Tlmaeus 29E, p. 22, 1. 17.

195
Hymnarius 2. p. 16; cf. Tiinaeus 29E. p. 22, 1. 18.

196
Hymnarius 2, p. 17.

197 •v *
Hymnarius 2, p. 18; cf. Timaeus 29, p. 21.

198 Hymnarius 2. p. 18.

Hymnarius 2, p. 21. . -

T>>
(de silva). n. 273, 11. 10-14.

201
Hexaem. (736A); Hymnarius 2, p, 22:
Aquae foy^ns vivificus <■.
• lam incumbebat-Spijritus,
■ ... Ut hinc aquae , '
iam tunc cohciperent
- * ’ Unde prolem
nunc sacram parerent ,\

202
Cf. Rupert of Deutz, De divinis officiis 10.:' 6 . p. 330.

■ 203 ' ° ‘ •'- :

Rupert of Deutz, De divinis officiis 11. pp . 368-96.

204 Theol. 's.b.* 1: 2, pp.^ 3-4.

205 Theol. 's.b.1 1: 1 , pp. 4-5. -

298 Thedl. '.s.b.* 1: 2. p. 5. 11. 5-7: cum dicitur: *J)ixit Deus :

fiat,' hoc est‘in cbaeterna sapientia sua Pater ordinavit faciendi.

207 r' .

.Theol. ’s.b.* 1: ^1, p. 5, 11.; Il-1'4: Tale est enim quod

dicitur; "vidit Deus quod esset bonum,’ ac si dicatur: intelligendo
quia opus, quod fecerat, bonum esset, amavit illud eo ipso quod bonum
erat. Ex quo et ipse bonus lfquide demonstratur. ,'

%
 200
"' X Theo-l. 's.b.1 1: 4, pv^, 1. 30 - p. 7, 1. 1: Unde etiam
Moyses.ut supra'1meminimus, cum in' diversis reriim creationibus faciendis
praemittit: 'Dixit Deus’ et ad dictum statxm effectum adiunjgLt dicens:
’et factum est ita'„: cuncta Deum coudidisse in Verbo, .hoc est in
sapientia sua, ostendit, idlest omnia rationabiliter.

210 m , 1; pp> g_9<

Theol. 's .b. ' 1 :

211' Theol; 's.b. *

Ti:
quod iunctum est,
p. 179, 11. 10- M

212
Theol. 's.b.' 1: ............................ r
ft
213
1 Theol.” 's.b.‘' 1 :

214
Theol. 's.b.' 1 :
1102). *. ..

215
Theol. ’s.b.' 1 :
pp. 6r7. Abelard derives the sense,- rathefr thanHhe ...term itself from
Macirobius: for presentations of the sArise and uses ^f involucrum, see I
M.-D..Chenu, "Involucrum: le mythe selon les theologiens^inedievaux,"
.AHDLMA 30 (1955): 75-79„ Midi, SfcOck, Myth and Science in the Twelfth
Centdry: A Study of Bernard Sylvester- (Princeton. 1972)^ pp. 45-55. ‘

's.b.' li 5, p.(3T4, llv 15:^19: Qui etiam ad scrip-' ®-

turarum bbseuritates q u a s i ad?Istebres; inquibus invepiptur Deus,'
perscrutandas invitat nos'in Proverbiis dicens: ’Sapiens animadvertet -
parabolam et interpretationem, verba sapientium et- aenigmata_eorum.'
\i . . . . * 1* © *5
"i „ • j o ' /
■ 217 **'•’ ' -v; *
Theol. 's.b.1 1: 5..p p . 14, 1. 32 - p. 15, 1. 25; Macrobius, ^
1: 2: 14, pp. 6-7: Cum de. his inquam loquuntur summo deo et mente,
nihil fabulosuni penitub attingunfc,^ sed siquid de his .adsignare conantur
quae non sermonem tahtummodo sedcogitationem quoque humanam superant,
ad similitudines et exempla confugiunt;
■?*:. ’ ■ * <2, v
„ A* 71 g • a '<■ •’r- ~
^ Theol..'s.b.* 3:.'3, pi 104-: Sed et si. quis illam pttilosophi-
cam PlatoniCae rationis considerationem;altius inspiciat> qua.videlicet
'de Deo opifice' ad similitudinem quandam spllertis artificis agit, prae-
meditantis scilicet et deliberantip ea quae facturus est, ne quid
inconvenienfer Componat, et prius singula ratione quam epere fqrmantis,
ad 'hunc. quippemodum -Plato formas exemplareB in mente divina considerat
quas ideas appellat, ad quas postmodum quasi” ad’exemplar quoddamsuigmi
artif^tis' pt^ridentia operata est 5 videbit Spirittaa’ex Filio' quoqqe“
tecteprocedere,cumex ratione sapientiae universa Dei opera adininis-
trentur et ita qupdammodo conceptus divinae mentis in.effectum per ^
operationem prodeat. Effect us autem ad Spiritum’pertinant, qui ex
bonitate copditoris eveniugf^ quia S^firitus ipse bonitas nsjt.
"«,P **1':
- 910 * a ••* ‘^ « ’ — *»- * '
J•
Theol’. 1s:b. * 3: c
4, pp. 105-07!^ -
•=• * *- . -v \

Hist, calaffi., pp, 87-89.

"■...... » ' '•« a
- . ■.-,sa> ■ . . ^ ' *■ ■ ' 'V
991 - * *«.
Strictly speaking, D ’affd R are'firstj-ahd second redactions of
the first versickirbf the Theol.chf .‘^ T h e manuscripts aye listed by
Buytaert in his General:Introduction, p ..xvi. See* also C . Hews,- "The
Development of the Theologia of'Peter!Abelard," p. 1 8 8 ; , ;"a
i- . ", .. ... ‘ *’ *
. 222 „ , ' ,-o, '■.-'A-'- •’
Mews , p . 187. ” • „ fisa.■•

223 ' "”'*J" • •n •

s ■ Theol. chr. 1: 12, p. 76: Bene autem ad imaginem ef simili-
tudinem Trinitatis, hoc estadexpressam quamdam similitudinem tritun
personarunn homo fferiVdicitur qui et Patrem per potestatem, quam in
ceteras cre&turas accepti, imitatur, et Filium per rationem et
Spiritum pet innhcentiae benignitatem, quam postmodum per. culpam
amisitv, - „ , ° ■• ' - '=
• 05 - .• J ' ... . ■ G.
| c o • . ,Jtl

’ fr* * ''o' * 16
Theol. chr. 1: 33, p. 8 6 ; De Genesl ad litteram 1: 7, p . '11,
11.; lr-7.: Egehus.afqiSe in'digei® amor ita. diligit ut rebus quas^ dillgit
subiiciatur. Propterea cum commemoraretur SpirifcusDei, in quo sancta
eius benevolentia dilectloqueintelligitur, superferrl dictus est , ne
faciendA opera sua per indigentiae necessitatem potius quam per abun- ?
dantiam benefieidntiae Deus amare pu’ taretur. .-.-s
o «3? '•'

• "Theol. chr. 1: 34, p. 861

n '. I a •
^ Theol. jGhr. It 42, p. -89: Tale est sapientiam ludere coram
Ffitre et cum ipso quncta jcomponere, ac .si dixerit ipsam livinam poten-
■tiam omnia in sapientiapjra-bpnitatis suae arbitrio dispone re, ut in
ipso ludo ipsum bonitatisj-affectum intelligamus. ..

227 i ^ ^ " •' •'

Theol. chr. 1: 72, pp. 101-02: Bene autem Spiritum sanctum
animam mundi.quasi vitam uniyersitatis pqsuit, cum in bonitate Dei
qmni^ quodaminodo vivere habeant, et universa tamquam viva sint apud
J^eum et nulla morttfa, hoc est nulla inutilia nec ipsa mala, quae etiam
optime per jjonitatem ipsius. disponu&tur, quod;'tarn apud euangelis^
tam quam apud Platonicos scriptilm' meminemus i 'Quod factum est In ipso
vita exat,',>ac si aperte dicatur: onmia temporaliter facta per ipsum,!c.
 295

hoc est per ipsam Dei bohitatem condita, in ipsa Dei bonitate quo-
’dammodo perenniter vivebant»■ cum apud divinam providentiam omnia ab
aetemo per eius bonitatem optima esset ordinata, ut tam bene singula
procedere vellet quantum oporteret. Huic non incongrue illud Apostoli
consonare videtur, quod perhibet philosophorum quosdam dixisse quod
in Deo 'vivimus movemur et sumus,' ac si hand animam mundi ipsum
intelligerent Deum. Cf. Honorius, Elucidarium 1: 21, pp. 364-65.
i o

228 * * * • • • ' ■
Theol. chr. 1: 79: „ Cui etiam philosophos. totam vim et eon-
cordiam proportionalem numerorem tribuit. . . . Cf. Timaeus 35C.-36A,
pp. 27-28.'
• <3- N
Cl. • -

• ’ 229 Theol. chr. 1: 84, pp. 106-07*

230 Theol. chr. 1: 85-86r-pp. 107-08.

231 ‘
*-■. Theol'. chr. 1: 87, p. 108: lllud quoque quod ait Plato animam
locatam esse a Deo in medietate- mundi eamque per omneffi-globum teretis
orbis aequaliter porrigi, pul'chre designat gratiam Dei, omnibus communi-
ter oblatam, cuncta, prout salubre vel aequum est, benigne in hac domo
sua seu templo disponere. His autem illud libri Sapientiae aperte
concinit: ,'Spiritus Domini replevit orbem terrarum, etc.’ atque illud
psalmistae: 'Spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum.' Cf. Timaeus 34B,
p. 26.
■S' 7
232
TheolI_chr. 1:,89, p, 109: Huic et involucre, de positione
scilicet animae in medio mundi locatae, hoc est de diviha gratia
omnibus communiter oblata, ipsa etiam divina fact^ mdJ^Lfeste concordant,
cum videlicet doctrinam suam et verae religionis’culttpn propagaturus
Dominus in mundo, Ieiusaliem, quae in medio terrae est, eligit; quam
quasi caput regni sui constitui.1;, in qua primum ad Pfagnificandum cultufn
suum aedificari sibi templum quasi regale palatium voluii;, ubi etiam
uberrimam Spiritus Sancti gratiam: epostolis -infudit, qua per eos to.tus
spiritualiter vegetaretur mundus. % . 1•

OOO
Theol. chr. 2: 13, pp. 138-39,. See T. Gregory, "Considerazioni
su ratio e natura in Abelardo." Studi Medievali ser. 3: 1.4. (1973) : 287-
300, for a useful discussion of;Abelard1s concepts of ratio and natura
in t elation to revelatio and .gratiae donum.

2 ‘
Theol. chr. 2: 20-21, pp. 141-42. “ 1
* •' ■

235 ■ ■■ ■ 1
Theol. chr. 2: 27, p. 143: Qui nequaquam, ut arbitror, tam
diligenter virtutes describerent, dum mdralia tradunt ins'tituta, nisi
eas in se' ipsis certis cognoscerent experimentis.
■ ; ■<
 /2 «' ' *;■ . . / ...5 . " ,
Theol- chr. 2: 28, pp. 143-44: Quod si id minus^idetur -
essfe ad meritu® salvationis quod dicitur 'amore virtutis,’ et non
potius 'amore/net’*’':afe;:si .yiftbtem yelaliquod bonus opus habere
possimus quod floq secundum ipsum, Dedm etc propter ipsum sit, facile
est et hotv apud philosophos reperiri, qui Summum bonum, quod Deus est,’
omnium tam principium, id est origine et yausam efficientem, quam
finem, id est'fiinalera causam eonstituunt, ut omnia scilicet bona amore
ipsius riant cuius-ex dono prevdniunt. tV
• 1 - ’.; . tj
237 ■ ■1 " '
Theol. chr. 2: 29, p. 144: Hie autem,: cum de Deo loquens sie
praemisisseti 'Itaque Rcnsequenter euncta sui.similia, prbut cuiusque
natura poterat esse capas beatitudinis, effici voluit,' adiecit statim
atque alt: ’Quam quiddm voluntatem Dei originem rerum eertissimam si
quis ponat, recte eumlputare consentiam.' Timaeus 29E, p. 22.

- Theol. chr.« 2: 31-33, pp. 144-45; ef. Augustine, De civ. Dei

8 : 3, pp. 336-57. v - . •
\ ■ \ ’ ’ -
239
Theol. chr. 2; 36. p. 147: Ex quo plurimum et eorum intentio
manifestatut et humilitas commendatur, cum et propter Deum omnia recte.
agi velint, ut hinc ei scilicet placeatur et ei omnia tribuant bona a
quo postulaht universa.•

240 ’
Theol. chr. 5: 31-32, p. 359.

241 ?
PL 178: 979-1114; see Buytaert, General Introduction, p.
xviii; cf. Mews, pp. 188-90. •

242
'See Buytaert, pp. xvi-xvii..

243 .
For a discussion of the problems, and an alternative inter­
pretation to that of Buytaert, see Mews, pp. 189-90. '

244 '
Theol* * & . b *1 Is 4, pp. 6-7; see p. 254,an. 209, above.

245 Theol. chr. 1: 18, p. 79, n. 18.

246 ■ ?
_Hexaem.
_ (737C);
? seepp. 216-17, n. 82, above. ^

247 ~
See discussion in Buytaert, "Peter Abelard's Expositio in
Hexaemeron." p. 187; he considers it "interesting" but "impossible"
to prove that the Hexaem. preceded the final form of the Theol. chr.

- 248
Theologia scholarium. recensiones breviores 14. p. 405;
Intro .v ad theol. 1 (PL 178: 983D) : Nihil igitur amandum est, nihil
.v 7'; .. ‘ ■ ' '
 297

ontnino faciendum nisi propter Deum, ut in Deo finem omnium constituamus.

Unde et ipse alpha et omega'dicitur, hoe est principium et ..finis.
Principium, quidein.supremum a quo omnia; finis, id est finalis .et supre-
ma causa, propter quem omnia. Nequfe enim comedere, nec dormire, nee
uxorem ducefe, nec omnino aliud facere nisi propter ipsum debemus. .
Alioquin bestialiter viveremus, nostris* tantum voluptatibus dediti.
Comedere autem propter ipsum debemus, hoc uno saltern ut corpori quod
suum est, ac nobis commissum, necessaria impendamus, quibus in eius ’
obsequio sustentetur. Similiter et dormiendo ipsum reficere debemus, *
ut vigilarp cum oportet in eius obsequio valeamus. Uxor quoque ab eo
qui est incontinens ducenda est, non solum propter filios ip'&i generan-
dos, verum etiam ne eum ex fomieatione offendamus^, '•
" . . ^ *r*
249 " w®*
Hexaem. (765A): ^Et attende quantum sibi in omnibus lrominem
velit obedire, cum, nec eum comedere ut .vivat nisi1 per obedientiam
velit, nec sine peraissione sua quidquam in quibuseunque necessariis
attingere, nec.ad sustehtationem etiam vitae. Ex quo patenter innuit
totam hpminis vitam nonnisi in obedientia Dei cohsistere, et ad hoc
eum Aolummodo debere vivere. .. • .
° . " *r 1 '* ■ ^

Theol. sch. 42-A5. pp. 417-18; Intro, ad theol. 1 (PL 178:

990CD)| cf..Theol. chr. 1: 9-10, pp. 75-76; Theol. ’s.b.’a I-; 2, pp. '
4-5. • .v ' '

.251
Theol, sch..45-46. p. 418; Intro, ad theol. 1 (991B): cum
ad excellentem hominis creationem ventum'esset, provide hoc opus
ceteris anteponens et quasi- prae ceter£s*rcommendans, distinctionem
patenter-Trinitatis fecerit, ubi videlicet a Domino potius dictum est
!Faciamus hominem' quam 'faciam,' 'ad imaginem,' inquit, 'et similitu-
dinem nostram': virum quidem 'ad imaginem' mulierem vero 'ad similitu-,
dinem.' Vir, quippe, iuxta Apostolum, imago est Dei (I Cor. 11:7),
non-mulier; sed sicut vir imago est Dei, ita et mulier imago dicitur
viri. Imago quippe expressa alicuius similitudo uocatur; similitudo
autem dici potest, etsi non multum id cuius similitudo est eXprimat.
Vir itaque ad imaginem Trinitatis factus est, quia quo perfectior
conditus est quam mulier, descriptae summi boni perfection! similier
existit. Qui et per potestatem tam muliefi quam ceteris murtdanis
praelatus est creaturis, et per sapientiam dignior et per amorem ad
ea.quibus perfectio est, pronior exstitit. ...

252 ..
Theol. sch. 46, pp. 418-19; Intro'*, ad theol. 1 (991C).
• . ' •:

Hymnarius *2, p. 74,

254 '
Theol. 's.b.' 3: 2, p. 87, 11. 22-31; cf. Logica.ingredien-
.bus: glossae super Porphyrium. p. 10, 11. 29-34.
 255 I n t i o . ad t h e o l. 2 (1 0 7 3 D ).

* 256 * *
Intro i ad theol'. 3 (1085D): et prime se ingerit/quaestio,
an humana etiam ratione divina celsitudo indagari potuerit, ac per
hanc a creatura sua Creator recognosci, an potius ipse Deus signo
aliquo sensibili suam ei notitiam primum exhibuerit, velut in angelo
vel in quocunque ei spiritu ptimitus apparens, sicut de primis legitur
parentibus quibus in’paradise locutus fuisse perhibetur.

257 > &

. Intro, ad theol. 3 (1085-86): Et fortas&is ita primo factum
est, ut in aliqua scilicet visibili specie Invisibilis Creator ipse
homini se revelaret. .

"258 intro, ad theol. 3 ,(1086CD). * . •

- - . . >• ”

259 Intro, ad theol. 3 (1086D). -

- '

260
Intro. ad theol. 3 .(1Q87CD); Cicero, De inventione rhetoricae
1: 34, ed. B.,M. Hubbell (London, 1949), pp. 100-02.

261
Intro. ad theol. 3 (1088A); Timaeus 28A, p. 20

262
Intro. ad theol. 3 (1089D-1091A). '.
0
263
Intro. ad theol. 3 (1091G-1093D).

264
Intro. ad theol. 3 (1093D-11O4B)

265
Theol. chr. 3: 8b, p. 198: In tantum vero in
delectatur Deusr, ut frequenter ipsid rerum naturis quas creavit, se
figurari magis quam verbis nostris quae nos confinximus aut invenimus
exptimi velit, et magis ipsa rerum similitudine quam verborum nostrorum
gaudeat proprietate. . . .

266 1
Hexaem. (731D): ipsum irivocemus Spiritum, quo dictante, haec
scripts sunt, ut qui prophetae verba largitus est, ipse nobis eorum
aperiat sensum.
 HUGH OF ST. VICTOR

1. Introduction • ■ ,

*' •» '

Unlike Rupdrq of Deutz and Peter Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor left

no account of his early life, except for a brief remark in the Didas-
. . . '1 1 V S

calicon, "Since mv childhood, 1 have been an exile." Other contemporary

and near-contemporary sources present contradictory evidence about- his

origin, and have sparked a lengthy but inconclusive scholarly debate.

» * ’■ s'"

According to a tradition based on German and Vi.ctorine sources, he was

a descendant of the counts of Blankenberg in Saxony, and connected to .

the family of Reinhard, bishop of Halberstadt. He is supposed to haye

joined the Haniersleven community of Augustinian canons regular, and

then to have travelled with his uncle, Hugh of Halberstadt, first to

< , r
? * • '

Marseilles, and afterwards to Paris, where they settled in the monastery

of St. Victor, around 1115. This version of Hugh's family background

'3
and early travels was questioned (in 1675) by Mal^lldn, who preferred

instead to place Hugh's origins in the territory of Ypres in Flanders,

< • *. ‘.
supporting his opinion with the evidence of a group of late twelfth-

century manuscripts of Hugh's works, and the statement by Robert of

Torigny, in 1154, that Hugh was a Lotharingian.^ In 1745, the German!

scholar, C. G. Derling, wrote a brief dissertation in refutation of

5’ 1 *
Mabillon. He, in turn, was criticized by F. E. Croydon, who restated

and sought to support Mabillon's views, with reference to other manuscripts

 300

from the area of Ypres, containing commemorative verses to the author.6

Ih his reviet? of the debate»' J. Taylor\pncludes by preferring the

tradition uf a • Saxon origin,^ while R. Baron, in a more recent (1963)

‘survey of the question, leans toward Mabillon's views and a Flemish

g 17
birthplace. . . .
, 6 f*

Whatever Hugh's origins may have been, it is at any rate certain

that his later life, from about 1120 to his death in” 1141, was spent

almost entirely at the abbey of St. Victor in Paris. During those

years, he was the leading master at the abbey school, and occupied
- cL - *
administrative positions of some eminence, since his signature appears
"" ‘ '*'*
on official acts %f the abbey in 1127, and the-years between 1133 and „

ll40.9 * . ' <■

As master of philosophical and theological studies at St. Victor,

Hugh produced a copious and varied body of writings, around which thlre*
• ■ ’ - j ,

has arisen a controversy somewhat like that surrounding the question of

his national origin. Part of the problem stems from the fact that much

.of his teaching survives in classroom notes, brief sententiae, and

• . ’ ■ ’
similar excerpts by his. students. In consequence, a considerable
^
effort has been made by R. Baron and D. Van den Eynde,^ and more p
^ IT '■
recently by Rudolf Goy, to establish a list of his authentic works

and of the manuscripts in which they are preserved. In this task,

their principal guide has been the Indiculum omnium scriptorum Hagistri „

Hugonis de Santo Victore que scripsit. composed in 1141 by Gilduin of

.St. Victor, and edited by J. de Ghellinck from MS. Oxford, Mertqn

12
College 49. Unfortunately, the index may not be complete, and it is

around the additional material attributable to Hugh that.the controversies

 ■ ' o 301

13 ' *
have revolved. For our purposes, however, the Indiculum suffices to
~4 1
show that Hugh's authorship included four principal groups of writings.
3 " „ * ' °

First/ there are the propaedeutic or philosophical works, including the

Didasealicon, the Epitome Dindimi In philosophiam, a Grammatica. and a

14
Practice geomefriae. Next, there are the works which pertain to

education and progress in the contemplative .life, from the treatise

De institutione novitiorum to works on contemplation including De area

J ■ •*» 7 '•.
Noe moral!. De area NOe mystica. De vanitate mundi, De meditando.

/soliloquium de Arrha animae. De laude earitatls, and De modo orandi.

15
among others. The elegant little treatise entitled De tribus diebus.

printed in Migne's Patrologia latina book seven of the Didas-

16
calicon. /falls mid-way between these^Ewo groups. Insofar as it is
r ■ .
concerned with^ surveying and classifying the visibilia of creation, it

belongs with Hugh's philosophical writings / Since,, however, its purpose

is to guide the reader into.a re^cquisition ofthe knowledge of God that

man possessed in paradise but lost through sin, the treatise might
A ' ° ’
better be regarded as one of Hugh's spiritual works.
" * • » ''

Another distinctive group comprises Hugh's adnotationes and

notulae on the Pentateuch, and other Old Testament texts ,„ as well as.a

variety of commentaries'on New Testament passages, usually on the

° 17 ' ''N. ' “
allegorical or moral levels. Finally, there are the works that may
v t ' p. /
be described as Hugh's systematic theologies, thd dialogue De sacra­

ment is legls naturalis et scriptae, or De creatione mundi. and the much

18 ' •
larger De sacramentis Christianae fidei. In addition to these, there

is the commentary on Dionysius' Celestial Hierarchy, and a series of

sermons *and letters for a variety of occasions.

 0 Further problems confront us when we attempt to establish a

chronological sequence in Hugh's authorship, for the purpose-of recon-

strutting the development of his .thought. His many works bear no date,
> ,
and the Indieulum cannot be regarded as a chronological list. Attempts

have been made by both R. Baron and D. Van den Eynde to devise, on the

basis of internal evidence and Hugh's reworking of his principal ideas,

some sort of framework for establishing the order in which Hugh's major

works were composed. Van den Eynde discerned a principal series in

which the adnotationes on the Pentateuch preceded the propaedeutic

works on the arts, and ‘the commentary on Dionysius. After this, he

placed the De tribus diebus. a series of mystical writings, the De

sacramentls dialogus. and— after a group of treatises on New Testament

•v'~ • v ..-■■■ 19 •
questions--the De sacramentls christianae fidei. His conjectures

were criticized by Baron, who— while willing to grant that chronological

to0 * • ” s' ' -
series coultf-.be established for groups of two or three works within the
1 * » - ' -i>
- ' . "p ‘ • ” •• ' v
corpus— would not agree that a general chronological table of Hugh's
/! 20
entire authorshipcould be constructed with any certainty. Although
' c '
these controversial points are not our immediate concern, they have of

necessity been taken into consideration in the course of deciding upon

the order in which to present Hugh's principal writings on the doctrine

O ' .... . . .
of creation. In the survey that follows, we shall, indeed, adhere to
t
the series formulated by Van den Eynde, since it reflects a-logical

progression from the particulars nf Hugh's exegetical notes on Genesis,

to the more genetal/question of the doctrine of creation in his major

theological work. ‘
 J
303

2. Background: Adnotationes elucidatoriae

in Genas im-

Although we cannot accept without reservations Van den Eynde's

assertion that the exegetical notes on the Pentateuch appear>t'o belong

21
to the first of "Hugh's major-publications, it is convenient and

appropriate to begin our survey of Hugh's teaching on creation by look-

'ij* .___'£», " * '*
ing at his exegelth ®f%he basic hexaemeral text, as "found in Genesis
■1 ,if '■*
1-2. Like Rupert of Deutz's hexaemeron in De sancta Trinitate <et

operibus eius. Hugh's adnotationes in Ganesim are part of a larger

programme,of exegesis, but.lend themselves to examination as a self-

contained hexaemeral treatise. .This is>to some extent/ true also of

Hugh's other hexaemeral writings, which— with the exception of De tribus

■ '’ ' ' . v
diebus— form parts Of his two major systematic presentations. Never­

theless, the hexaemeral pieces with which Hugh begins his De sacramentis

legis naturalis et scriptae' and De sacramentis christianae fidei are

less easily separated from the context of his theological system, than

are these exegetical notes. Accordingly, we shall begin with Hugh's

more strictly exegetical treatment of the hexaemeron, before dealing

with his doctrine of creation in the context of a theology of creatio

and restoratio.

^ Hugh'Is notes on Genesis are°prefaced with an exposition of Jerome's

introductory letter to Desiderius, establishing the superiority of the

original Hebrew text over the Greek Septuagint, which is described as a

mere translation that is flawed or defective in its interpretations,

22
thrbugh the influence of philosophical monotheism. In the body of

hid commentary on Genesis 1, Hugh himself does not, however, introduce

 V
» 304

' many problems .or questions associated with the meanings of Hebrew words
. ' T . ' .
or .phrases. He notes only that the Hebrew name for Genesis is Beresith.
.» Jv. , f / .
'or in principio. before ^rot^eeding to a brief aecessus concerning the
1 23 j » 4ft
author and the text. In/Genesis, Moses is understood to have written

as a historiographer, composing a history of the world from its begin-

.j ’ ' ning to the death of Jacob. Nevertheless, hia narrative is prophetical

J where it describes evenys prior to the creation of human beings, and in

I , the passage where Jacob predicts events that will occur after his death

(Genesis 49). The trustworthiness, of the prophetic passages concerned

> with past events pric/r to the creation of human beings parallels and is
• I ' . •
to be tested against the trustworthiness of Jacob's prophecies for the
24 ' , |
future. Finally, Hugh makes a brief statement concerning the prin-
! ' g

ciples. of his exegetical method: m

■■ ' _ ' * ■' . < - V

i But in this book two things especially ax6 to be noted,
| namely the truth of history and ’ the form of words,
„ since just as we perceive the truth of things through
the truth of words, so in turn-having recognized the
,,, truth , o £ things— we more easily recognize the truth of
. • words, since we progress toxthe understanding of higher
things through this same historical narrative. ^

Continuing the accesses. Hugh proceeds to discuss Moses' intention

in the book of Genesis. This has a threefold aspect, in that it is

concerned with the Creator, created matter, ^nd the formation of matter,

’ all of which are recounted "for the praise of God and for the use of

men"— specifically, the use by which it serves to elicit human adoration

Ii *->!• ■ \ .. '
: . 26 1
j ; and veneration for God. Accordingly^ the work of creation ex nihilo.

| is to be seen' as a demonstration of divine power, while the work of

j ornamentation, by which the world was made beautiful, is a demonstration

of divine wisdom. Here, Hugh notes that the key ^-distinction between.
' ’V
Christian teaching on the origins of the world, and that of the
" 2-7 • . ^
philosophers, -is that Christian authors speak of God as the unique
v' a *
principle of all. things, but the philosophers posit thrSe principles,

namely God as craftsman, matter, and the archetypal ideas. He goes

on tonote that although there is agreement.among Christian exegetes

concerning God as the unique principle of things, there is disagreement

on the mode of creation, since some authors ofct for simultaneous

r? • )

creation on the basis of Ecclesiasticus 18:1, while others take

literally the six days of Genesis 1. Hugh’s solution to the problem ‘

conforms to his.understanding of Moses[ intention in givihg an account

of God the Creator, created riatter, and its formation— namely, to

provide useful instruction in the praises of the Creator:

■ • '’ ( \ ■
For they give this account (of simultaneous creation) ’
because it is not appropriate to God to make anything
imperfect, in the manner of man*, or disordered or form­
less . But it is easy to refute these authorities.
And we can say, against this account, that God— who
could have made all things in a moment-divided his
wqrk.through Six days, not on account of his deficiency*
— there is, none— but on account ssf an instruction and •
example for rational creatures. For jusfcas he first
gave being to things, and then beautiful being, so also
to the angel and the man, to whom he gave rational being,
he would have given blessed being, and this would have
been beautiful being.28

Moreover, the development of the creature from mere being to fully

- - ■
. J: i ‘ jg

formed.and beautiful being, is paralleled-by the growth and development

of the human being from infancy to maturity. Unfortunately, some' of

.the angels did not take note of the example presented to> them in the

formation of the. material world, and, presuming too much of their

rational being, fell irrecoverably without ever attaining the perfec-
' '- ' 29 * ’ '
tion of beatified-being. , -

Next, Hugh poses' the questions'when, where, and how matter was

first produced. .*It is established, he responds J. that matter was

** 4 * *$f\
produced "in the beginning of time, before day," and that time
I o ' *
began with matter, since"it is nothing else but the succession of
31' "
mutability." 'Angels/, too,, were cheated in this •'primal moment,

according to Hugh's understanding of Ecclesiasticus 1:4 ("Prima omnium

i •• '<» «* - -'*•»’'

creata est sapientia"). Thus, he rejects the notion, favoured by

Eastern theologians, that angels were created and existed for a long

period before the production of the material world* Finally, he

describes the condition of the material world as' »t then appeared: .

it was created unformed, but not altogether lacking in

form, but it can be called formless by comparison with
the beauty and order that were to follow. ’For the e<frth
\ was in the middle, haying in itseiff:cavities and veins**
namely the receptacles of the waters, (which) flowed
around as much above the earth as belowiit. The remain-,
ing three elements were mixed into one in-the manner of
a dense cloud hoyering over the earth and over all sides
of the earth's' surface, all the way up to the highest
empyrean.32 ' /

Over the period of six days described in the Genesis text, the

material world is formed and ornamented. Hugh interprets the process

as a series of divisions,in matter, by which*each element is distirr-

guished from the others. Thus, the fiat lux' of Genesis 1 distinguished

fire from the' rest of matter and sent it

.1« into a circular orbit
. around
0 1
.• « j

the earth, somewhat as the sun would subsequently be seen to circle '

the earth. Hugh continues: „ . ’■„

 "By its, .rising,and setting it made the first three days
and nights. What; kind'of.shape it had, whether round
or long, is unknown. -That light was believed, however,
to have been,created in the place where1 the sun rises,
and„so the beginning of the first day was not preceded
by-dawn or morning, that is, the light that announces ✓
sunrise. Carefully indicating this, Scripture divides
the natural day by (its) two extreme'segments, thus: ’ ‘
'and it was evening,* it says'— which is the end of theh
created day-*-’and it was morning,'owhich is the end of-
■ night I’ Forday begins frpm sunrise and ends in sunset, •
which can be proved from the equality of the equinoctal
day .and night. - And all that space was one natural day*33

To explain the Genesis account of the second dayy Hugh has recourse

to a variety of opinions, including that of. Josephus, who held th^t the
34
firmament was established in crystalline' solidity. ' " 7 He notes that

others have attributed a fiery nature tot he firmament, while a third

opinion would have it that the watery firmament is solidified in the

formrof< ice. For his part, Hugh prefers' to think of it as water

vapour suspended in the form of smoke or cloud. The further1division

and distribution of water on the third-* day is understood to have

occurred when the cavities and veins1 in earth were drained to form the

oceans and rivers both on the sutracje of the earth, and below its

surfaces. As a result of these redistributions of the watery mass, dry

- ' 37 ’ .
^i-ajjd appeared and received theienergy to germinate.- .? "

On the fourth day, the-light vor fire released earlier was improved

in-fOrm and Splendour to become the sun. .Hugh compares this process to

the transformation of water into wine At Cana, and of the Law into

Gospel.- To justify his interpretation, he reiterates his principles of

r- ^ \ 1 - . ■ fi-: '.

exegesis, noting that just as the meaning of words allows us to Under-

stand the truth of things, so also”the things signified allow us to make

 38
conjectures concerning the truthssignified by thethings themselves.

Returning to his exposition of the work ofcreation, heconcludes his

a ■ „■ »
.remarks on the fourth day by noting that only the sun has a light Of

its -own, while all the, stars and the moon are made of "aerial matter" .
'
■
I o
39 . «
and give off a reflected light. .

On the fifth and sixth days, animals were produced, first from

water, then'from earth. Finally,- the human being was created, to become
/ . » *

the supreme terrestrial creature. In this way, God is understood to

have created and ordered all things in matter during the first three

days, and then to laave Ornamented the creation during the final three

days- ■ .. '
, - ■

After this summary'presentation of the six-day work, Hugh turns to

the littera, offearing detailed glosses on selected words and 'phrases in

the text. He begins .by noting that the coelum of Genesis 1:1 is.to be
~ ’ 40
understood in material terms, as the three upper elements. The
’ ■■ r -
.adjectives inana and vacua are applied to earth in its primal state

because it. was empty of seeds and void of sprouts,, or perhaps "empty"

oh account of its concavity-and "void" because that gap was filled only

with air and cloud. In consequence, the "shadows over the face of the

abyss" are understood to have been the cloud— composed of fire, air,(

and water— thatfilled the abyss or empty concavity that was the earth.

Finally, the cloud, abyss, and shadows all may be^understood simply as
41 ■■■ -
the absence of light. ^
•* . • r' -.d

• Using a turn of phrase that closely parallels a sententia from

Anselm's school at, Laoh, Hugh explains the movement^ of God's Spirit . <■

over the waters simply as "the divine intention, which presided like
 « " 42
an artificer over the work to be formed." The "waters" in the text

are further equated with the cloud of commingled elements, "on account
' *
of their mobility," just as "abyss" stands for the profundity of space,
43
and "shadows" for the absence of light. The position of the elements

is referred, finally, to the requirements of corporeal human nature:

It should be noted that earth and air did not move from
their prior position, as did fire and water, on account
of the fact that human nature everywhere needs earth and
air— earth, so that it may be sustained; air, so that it
may. inhale and exhale the breath by which life subsists.
It does not always need the heat of fire or the moistufe"
of water.^ ■

From these remarks on the'initial creation and ordering of the

elements, Hugh moves into a discussion of the text, Fiant luminariain

,• * *• o 4 • • ■’ - ■ •
- •' . ■■■
firmamento coeli (Genesis 1:14). These words signal the beginning of

the world's ornamentation, starting with the upper regions and ending

with the ornamentation of .earth. Just as the sun is understood to

- V ■ V •
begin, end, and measure the daytime, so also stars and moon divide the

night. The principal function of all the luminaries is tofmeasure the

passage of time; thus, their,purpose is limited to the present, cor­

poreal, and imperfect condition of humankind, before they aftain

* j'• 46 ’ ’-
eternal perfection in redemption or restoration. Although they serve

as signs of times and seasons or as travellers! guides, the celestial

luminaries may not be held to impose any necessity on human souls Or to

vitiate free will, as astronomers would appear to teach. However, Hugh

is willing to grant that the stars may exercise strong, influence on

corporeal natures./ Together with certain herbs and stones, they also

possess limited powers to,affect human soUls through their action on bodies:
 \
ft

310

Among creatures, God made three of marvellous power and

efficacy— herbs, stones, stars. For herbs cool and heat
and change the whole condition of the body; this power
they received from God in (their) creation.— Similarly,
stonhs alter the condition of bodies in various ways.
All stars, indeed, but especially the planets, have an
effectW permutation on the bodies subject to them,
with air\as medium. When, indeed, the bodies have been
affected, then— through the affinity that they have with
the souls joined to them— souls also are altered, receiv­
ing joy or sorrow and similar affections from extrinsic
(influences)* Nevertheless, these affections do not *
dominate human Souls to such an extent that our actions
follow them more than the discretion of mind, and free
choice.^? *

The contrary opinion, Hugh attributes to pagan myths of Hercules, Atlas,

Prometheus, and the^Ppke, or to the false doctrines of astrologers.

Hugh passes briefly over the creation of animals, noting that they

were created viventes and motablies— or mutable,, according to the

48
Hebrew. .Only the human being is distinct from other creatures of the
'- . . ,3 -

earth in having been created for the immutability of immortality. The,.

V;, v- ;/-v’
v// • ,:;vr.v/;-v>'j.. v W - ■ • ■...■«» • , :•
words with which the Genesis text describes the formation of the human

being are understood, moreover, to indicate a progression in the divine

' * ..
.operation.
■■■■ . '
Thus, the opening words of the text, in principio creavit.
e

denote the initial work, while the (ifiat of each successive day denotes

the informing presence and activity of the Word. Finally, the phrase,

faciamus hominem . . .implies divine counsel and demonstrates the

special dignity in which human beings were formed'. Here, Hugh intro- "

duces the possibility that the plural verb was addressed to angelic

co-workers, and proceeds to draw a moral:

■ ((
t, - 0 • ■
(Counsel was introduced) plso to make us careful, lest
» we disdain to accept counsel from both equals and inferi­
ors, since he spoke in this way to angels, by whose minis­
I' try the human body perhaps was formed.49
.*1
)
/

"311

Having said this, Hugh expresses his preference for the traditional

interpretation, by which the plural verb denotes counsel among the’

persons of the Trinity, while the singular creavit that follows, implies

the unity of the divine essence."*^ .'

In the words of the Genesis text, the human being was created to

the image and likeness of God. Hugh defines image generally as simila­

rity in outline or characteristics, and likeness as participation in

the' properties of another.^ He goes on to say that with" fcespefrt to

»

man, the image of God may be called the recognition of truth, wMle
« 9 /^
the likeness is the love-of unity. It is the soul of the human being

that was made to the image of God; its rationality is compared by Hugh
o ' .

to a mirror image of the divine. He is careful to note that while human

beings were created ad imaginem Dei/ only the Son is Imago Dei:

The Son is the image of the Father, not to the image,

because whatever the Father has, the Son also has entirely
and by.nature. Man is, indeed, the image of God in such a
way that (he' is) to the image, because he has what pertains
to God not by nature, but by participation or imitation.
Alternatively,-(he is) to the image of God, which is in ■
God, just as that of all creature^ ie in the (divine) mind.
* * •
likeness to GOd is expressed ill a variety of human characteristics. For

example, the first man was like God, in that all human beings are pro­

duced from him, as_all things come from the one God. Just as God 1

governs all men, so alsk^uman beingg were to govern all animals. Part

of this likeness was, however, lost through sin, so that human domination

of animals extends only to those of medium size, or to the domestic

beasts, since large animals like lions, and small ones like fleas, both
. 53 ' „
escape human control.
 9 312

Before proceeding to the paradise narrative in Genesis 2, Hugh

inserts an explanatory note on the'final commendation, Et erant valde

■ x ■ ■

bona (Genesis 1:31). There Are three degrees of goodness in existence:

simple goodness, which is found In any creature; extreme goodness,

y 'l- .
wh’ieh is found in the universe as a whole; the highest good, which is

God only. ^ ,

Hugh interprets the paradise narrative as a recapitulation of the

hexaemeron, although it contains a few contradictions that require .

explanation. The first of these is the apparent discrepancy-between

the six days of creation and the "one day" mentioned in Genesis 2:4.

If', however, dies is understood tostand generally for time, a simple

and probable solution is achieved, by which the text of Genesis 2:4-7

is to be read merely as an alternative description of the six-day

creation. The generationes of heaven and earth (Genesis 2:4) are

explained in terms ofboth/the active*and the passive senses of the

V ' *
word: ;'

,’Generations’ can be understood actively or passively.

Passively, thus--heaven and earth were generated, are
- those things, that is, such things— or actively, that
is, God worked on them.-^

The antequam in Gehesis 2:5 is understood as a further indication that

the passage refers to a time before the existence of either the work of

nature or the activity of a human craftsman assisting and imitating

nature. At that time, the divine operation brought everything to its

perfection,, irrigating the newly created trees and grasses with waters
■* ■■ ■ 5“6
from the abyss before rain had fallen. ~
 313

o - , ■
When he comes .to the text, Formavit igitur dominus Deus hominem.

Hugh notes that this is the first place where G0d is called the Lord,

"since only then was he truly Lord, when he had a servant, namely
•57
man." The prophetic author does not mention God's angelic servants;

this is understood to be consistent with the historiographer's intention

to deal only with visible things and events. Hoses therefore describes

in detail the formation of the human body from earth, both as a reminder

of Mortality, and as an admonition to humility1."’®. TJie human soul is

id&htifled with the breath of life breathed info the face of a body-
V "" * 1• " r- , >. .'zyi, v r .

"already, prepared jfbr it; sinee the faee',J.i. thp principal seat of the

sehses in Which the soul 'operates* and the1’place in which signs of life
; ■ ’ . ., - . ' .•

•are principally found, it ife the.most appropriate part of the body for
<3 ' i
, - ,, (\
receiving life.

Hugh's treatment of the plantation of paradise is fairly brief,

and drawn generally from Bede's account. 59 He disagrees'with*Jerome's

"

opinion that paradise was founded before the creation of heavin and

earth, and suggests instead.that it began with time, in the work of the

third day.60 Man wasxcreated outside paradise and transferred into it

as an indication that*his status there pertained to grade, rather than-

6-1 *■*
to nature. The trees, rivers, and location of paradise are, however,
v-\,a
understood literally as the geographical features of a place on-the

earth. Thus, Hugh understands the tree of life as a species of tree

with the natural.property of prolonging life, while the tree of knowledge

had no special properties of its own, hut served only to test human

willingness to obey the commands of God.

 - Hugh discusses the formation of woman at some length She was

created because Adam, who had many helpers among the animals, had no

companion like himself. The account of the oppration-by which she was
* ■ / ■■ ‘ *
produced, is treated in terms of its significance for relations between

God and man, and man and woman. Adam was considerately put to sleep,
62
"lest he see that God had wounded him." The woman, meanwhile, was _

produced from a rib, or the middle part of the man, in order to signify

her equality with him: .

' -Vr ,

it should be noted that (the material) from which the

womin was to„ be (made) was taken neither from the head
nor from*the feet of man, lest she be considered his
mistress— if from the head— or his slave'— if from the
feet. It was therefore proper that she. be derived from
the middle— that is, the rib— so that she should be
understood as a companion.^3 ,

Whether the woman was produced from the rib alone, or from extraneous

material built up over the rib, Hugh does not venture to decide. In
•> * *
his opinion, it seems probable that the matter of the rib could have

been multiplied by God in the same way that the five loaves.were
\ ' 64
\multiplied in the Gospel (Luke 9:10-17). The missing rib, finally,

was replaced with flesh rather than bone as a sign that all humanity

had its origin^n the first man, much as the scars, of the crucifixion
* 65
remained visible on the risen Christ, as signs of his saving work. ^

the relationship between husband and wife is described in Genesis

2:24 ("Quam obrem relinquet homo patrem suum, et matrem, et adhaerebit

uxori suae: et* erunt djio in came una"). Hugh makes a point of inter­

preting the special meaning of relinquere in this passage, as a relin-r

quishing of'all cama^ties other than that between husband and wife,
and a transferral of all the privileges of love from parents to wife.

Thus, the husband "also relinquishes subjection (to parents) and the

paternal tutelage from which he is emancipated; in consequence he

becomes the head' of, a' family, so that he can care forrhis own house-
66
hold." Interestingly, Hugh does not mention the traditional inter-
' --
* ■* a *

pretation of woman's help to man, namely, in fulfillment of the precept

'\ ■

to be fruitful and multiply. Instead, he ’dwells on the spiritual or

affective aspect of conjugal love and fidelit

'And the two^shall be one flesh,' that is, there will be /

such love/Setween a man and a woman, that’neither spirit
will recognize any difference between the flesh vivified
by itself, and the beloved flesh of the other, and, if
they could, would gladly inhabit one and the same /flesh.
And because they cannot achieve this unity in facf, they
achieve the union that they can, through \love or in one
flesh; in .other words, they cooperate in fhe generation
of one flesh, that is, offspring. ^

.3. The Ascent to God: De tribus diebus

Strictly speaking, De tribus diebus68 is neither an hhxaemeral

piece, nor a cosmological treatise, although it .bears affinities to

” I
both these types of.literature. It can more properly be dascribed as

a treatise on the knowledge of God through the visibilia of creation.69

Hugh's point of departure is the text ^f Romans 1:20, interpreted in

terms of the Abelardian triad, of potentia, sapientia, and benignitas as

70
equivalents for the Trinity or the invisibilia Dei. -The title of the

treatise refers to another triad and another scriptural text, namely

the first three days of creation-week in Genesis 1, prior to the

creation of celestial lumindries. However, Hugh does not actually

refer to these three flays, until the final two chapters*of the work0.
j '■
T^ere, they are given a mystical interpretation which abstracts them

•from their hexaeraeral eohgext, and turns them into a metiphor of the

rational soul's restoration to harmony with God. .

*, £> * * '9
'- tl•'•*
Hhgh begins the treatise by quoting Homans l.:20 and identifying

the invisibilia Bei with the divine .powejj, wisdom, and love(#s£*om which ,

all things proceed, in which all.things are established, and through

’
'" 7i
which all things are goyfemed. The three are ineffably one in the

divine nature, and cannot entirely be conceived as separated in their

operations on creatures. Thus, it is possible to say: "Power creates

• . ■ r~ ' ■,
wisely through goodness. Wisdom governs benignly through power. Good-
■
' ' 72
ness preserves powerfully through wisdom." Nevertheless, each of the

three invisibilia Dei is distinctly manifested by certain akpeet§ or

qualities in creatures. The, immensity of creatures, therefore, manifests

power, while elegance manifests wisdom, and..usefulness manifests goodness.

‘ ^i »
Each of these aspects of creation may be further subdivided within a.
■ p 0
catalogue“of created qualities ahd characteristics:

The immensity of the creature (is found) in multitude and

magnitude; multitude .(is) in similarities, in differences,
inAixtures. Magnitude (is) in bulk and space; bulk (is)
in mass and weight; Space is in length, and breadth, and-*
, depth, and height. The-elegance of creatures is in
situation, and motion, and species, and quality. Situa­
tion is in composition and order. Order is in- place and
time and.property. Motion is fourfold— local, natural,
animal, rational; Local (motion)'i*s forward and backwards,
to the right and tie the left, up,"and down, and around.
Natural (motion) is in growth and decay. Animal (motion,) *
< is in senses and appetites. Rational (motion) is in deeds
^hd counsels. Species is the visible form which is
discerned by the aye, as colours and the shapes of bodies.
 Quality is an interior property, which is perceived by
the othdr senses, as sweetness of sound,by the hearing
of ears, sweetness of flavour in the taste of the mouth,
fragrance of )bdour in the olfadtory sense of the nos-
trils, smoothness of'the body in the tactile sense of
hands. The usefulness of creatures consists in the
gratuitous, and the agreeable, and the convenient, and
the necessary. The gratuitousois what pleases, the
agreeable is what is fitting, the convenient is what
is profitable, and the necessary (is) that without which
a thing -could not be.^3.

Having constructed this logical framework for the analysis of created

natures,,and their characteristics, Hugh proceeds to consider each

particular aspect named in his catalogue, beginning with the visibilia

and invisibilia of creation (chapters 2 to 16) and ending with contem-

' ' . H •

plation of the invisibilia of God (chapters 17 to 27).

The first series of categories that Hugh considers are those which

pertain to or demonstrate divine power . Although the-initial act of

creation ex nihilo is. the most conspicuous instance of God's creative

power, the existence of vast multitudes of distinctive genera, species,

and individuals is a further demonstration of the Creator's potentia.

Within this multiplicity.,' there are, as well, similarities among

individuals of the same species, and differences that distinguish

individuals, species, and genera one from another.. Moreover, divine

power is to be observed in „the astonishing mixture of so vast a multi-

tude of' variegated creatures.74 Finally, the Creator's

, power is to be *

discerned in the magnitude of his works, and especially in massive

geographical features like mountains, rivers, meadows, and oceans.^

From these cursory remarks on created multitude and magnitude,

' 1 " *‘ a
Hugh moves into a consideration of the created beauty that discloses
 31fi

' "
the light of divine wisdom. Before his discussion of aspects of this

beauty under the headings of situation, motion, species, and quality,

Hugh inserts some personal comments on the Value of this; type of study:

Would that I could perceive this (^Light of divine wisdom)

as subtly, (and) describe it as competently, as' I am able
ardently to love it t For it deligtits me,"because it is
* exceedingly sweet and-joyous, to tre,at of these matters
frequently, where sense is edified by reason, and the
soul is delighted by sweetness, and affection is
excited by the desire to imitate it. . .

Contemplation of creatures is, indeed, comparable to the process of

learning to read the Scriptures, and requires a similar kind of skill

in moving from the literal andexternal to the interior and spiritual:

' ' ^
For the whole sensible world is like a kind of book written
by the finger of God--that is, created by divine power--and
each particular creature is; somewhat'like a figure, not
invented by human decision; but instituted by the divine
will to manifest the invisible things of God's wisdom'. But’
in the same way that some illiterate man,, if he saw an open
book, would notice the figures, but would not comprehend
the letters, so also the stupid and 'animal man' who 'does
hot perceive the things of God', (I Cor. 2:14), may see the
outward appearance of these visible creatures, but does not
understand the reason within. But one who is spiritual is
able also <to judge all things, namely in that he considers ‘
the beauty of the works externally, (and) inwardly con- ?
ceives how admirable is the wisdom of, the Creator. And so
there is no one to whom the works of God are not marvellous
\ — when the fool admires only their appearance, the wise
man, howeveft, through what he perceives externally, lays /
open the profound thought of divine wisdom, just as if one
man commended the colour or formation of figures, and
another praised the sense and significance in one and, the
same piece of writing. Accordingly, it.is good assiduously
to contemplate ,and admire the divine work, but (only) for
him who knows (how) to turn the beauty of corporeal things
to a spiritual use'.^
* ,* ' ,
Failure to read creatures correctly and to discern their spiritual

significance, Hugh continues, will lead to idolatry and ignorance of

 78
God. Rightly considered, however,' creatures will direct human beings

toward their Creator. ?.

- •* ... •. i>
Returning to his main argument, Hugh proceeds to discuss manifesta­

tions .of divine wisdom in the .situation of, creatures. 'Situation is said
O ' : ■
' ’ 79
to consist in composition and order, or composition and disposition.

Composition, whidhwpertains to agreeable assembly and firm or solid

cohesion, is demonstrated with reference both to the corporeal universe

and the human body, in an analogy that is reminiscent of the homo micro-
.. , —
cosmos theme in Honorius Augustodunensis,, although the term microcosmosi
\ , . ,■ ' \ ■ , ■ -, '
is not employed by Hugh. An aptly assembled body will be-neither too '
, f " * ■
meagre nor too gross in quantity, and willvhave the qualities of heat,

cold, dryness, and moisture in proper proportions.

11 ■
Such composition is
s*

found in the structure of the universe as a whole, where contrary

’ '?
elements combine to serve- the divine purpose :

What could be more contrary than water and fire? Never-!.,

theless, the prudence of God moderates them in the nature^
of things in .such a Way that not only do they not dissolve
the bond of fellowship 'common to both, but also administer
vital nourishment to all living things, so that they may
subsist.®0 , \ >

^ftailarly, the hujnan bddy is composed of various Kinds of limbs, but

all fuddti^h^lpgether in harmonious and mutual- service. Moreover, bo!th

the universe and the human, body are comgpsed for solid cohesion. In the

universe, the heavgns encircle and contain all things', while the earth

remains firmly fixed irithe centre. The earth itself contains tracts
' ' & 1
of water'underground, and rivers on the surface, by #hich the dry
■ " '• r \ / '* / I V ’* '
inferior mass is cemented together and the -surfac| is kept from crumbling
 apart through lack of'moisture. The human body, meanwhile, is a
. ' © -
>
complex fabric in which tendons bind together the joints of bones,,

marrow is diffused through the long'bones,, and veins supply'life-giving

bloojl Xo/ all parts of "the organism. Hxternsuy.y, it is covered dnd con­

tained by .the skin, and internally, it is sustained by the rigidity-of .

, ' . * " ... .
its bones. Thus-, all parts'^—both of the universe and of the~«human body
’ ’ % '■ bi
--are ordered for durability and the preservation of nature and being.

After this, Hugh turns to the disposition of things in place and

/ time, noting that divine providence' "distributes its caushs fco each-
. • : '■
particular-place, time, anything, ,so the order of things is disturbed
82* ‘ * ■ - * •* -
in•nothing." ^ Each part has its place in the totality— there are the
fl: , .. •• ' 4.
heavens above, ,and the earth below, and in these, there are-' the stats ,
*\ - , . ° v.' a ' ■*' •
planetsv wfnds, -tempests, and waters, each with their,,proper place and

function. Birds fly. in”*the air; fish swim in the water; diffefaht ,

kinds if animals, serpentsj reptiles, ,and worms fill the earth. Eadh
region, Hugh continues, is supplied with some source of wealth, whether
■ ■ j •« 1 . ,J -;
in crops or cattle, rare and precious gems, or specialized' local
. '■ \ ^ " ’v/'. : ’ *' '' • ‘ ' V
.products., Moreover,,,the things that ate most'necessary to human nature
' ',' . V i "W '
a h ; ' «*•v • 1 ‘ ‘* .a' ** ' V .. a
were placed by divine provident in the more.nccessib>le locations, while

those which cupidity father than nature seeks for ItKe sake of their
'1 * r c
beauty,-are hidden away in.the depths of the^earth. Finally, the . •
. . . • ' « *

disposition of times pertains to the orderly and useful processipn of

’3v5 . * ,

day and night, spring, summer,^Winter,, and autumn, according to which

J t
4 ^ ’ S4 8 4 i / ■ » • r:
human activity and°rest are regulateai <>;

In Hugh ^.catalogue of. created qualities and characteristics, / >

' ''1 ' ' ' •
order follows composition and disposition, -under the general heading of-
"situation." Accordingly, tie turns to the“order perceived in things

according to the- congruous disposition of their parts, or to the

ifatfinsic order of Creatures, having discussed their extrinsic order

in terns of place and tifaes. Here, his principal example..is the human
■j 'r - - *
' ' * .. .-i-. •
body, and he adds a number of details to pointsalready mentioned in

chapter'four, where the. general structure of the"human body was com-

v 85 “ •
pared to that of the universe. Just as the visible creatures of the

universe, bear an .invisible, spiritual meaning, so also the external

e •’,6^o . . . •
'
features of the human body disclose the soul*s nature and activity,

Thus, the human body is uniform above, but divided in-two below, just
• t - o . S : *

v . 1• , "r •
as reason, or the higher part of the soul,..is uniform in its contempla-
i
tionof invisible things, while the lower part of the soul is divided “

by concupiscence, which descends from hfghWr things to terrestrial

desires.t^Arms and legs are understood to indicate extension of the

soul- outward, in the intention to aet, and upward through the affection

of desires. Moreoverv the five fMgers oh each hand, .and five 'tbies^on
■V’
* ° ‘ ‘ •” , "
each foot , suggest the five senses through which the soul extends itself
■,/t 88 v
in action and desire. The instruments ofsense perception located in

the/face, are.understood to be arranged, in order of dignity, with

vision in the highest place, followed'hy5hearing, ■'smell, atfd taste,.; The

tactile sense, meanwhile, is^distributed oyer the whole body. Id con-

■ ’ ' ■°
elusion, Hugh notes how usefully the skeletal structure isplaced within

the body as a firm support, With flesh oyer bones to mitigate their

hardness, and skin over all as a tough protective covering. Finally,

the vital organs are placed safely in the'middle part of the body, lest
o.y v '7
they be crushed or collapse! . Other created bodies*, including those of.
 1V

- ■ ' '' ■ ■. 3 2 2 ’ '

1 *„•••• * *&>^
•• ' " , V
trees,, bitds, fish, and beasts, are all constructed with a similar

■care, so that each particular thing bas^been provided with the pfptee- '

tion that’its nature requires. \' /.

After discussing the order in corporeal structures, Hugh turns

briefly to the topic of motion. First, he lists the types of local

'« 5 ... '. vt& n‘ ' ,
-■ v ■ ' ‘" # ‘ ra .A
motion observable in the cycles of wind and water,- and In the regular °
;f - V M ’.' • ■ . .-V - -- V '
courses of the planets, stars, and sum.■- All these,11 he concludes,
■ --Vf t ' ■ "l i ■j. .* QO ^ \ - K’ t'l -■ ^ /' ' •
"are wonderful,, and possible only for God." ifdtnral motion displays
' ' ’ & -o-l ^ " $ r‘.
itself in the Varieties of vegetal growth, maturation, and de'cay. i...,3

Animal motion resides5 i

in sense and ajqjetlltej it-
4is expressedJin-animal
,-v. ^ y t /; • -T-tv
questings for food and othervnece|sitie's of the “appropriate" kind odd

quantity* .Fihaily, rational motion’resides in/deeds and counsel, by

' '
■ . 1, *!'" ■■■■•'• ? ■- -‘ i o'-
which, all human achievements' are produced'*. 3
■ ..r ^ «: '■
the next four chapters.,. ^9 to 12), Hugh dwells at some length

. on the category of species, or external beauty. This external, beauty j

Vp- ’ i ' '“'i' I: V«^P.
or visible form'is* perceived inV-the shapes--large, small, fate,
’ -, , '{>
' beautiful, or.Otherwise— arid variegated ebiohrs of things. First% ...

therefore, Hugh discusses the marvels of created shapes, some of which

deserve admiration for,their enhrmous size, while others are Wonderfully

“ **"■ ’ , ' °° ’ .r"
■-”* .
small: ■
- "/ A „ - ;/ //. ■
■if-- ^ "ty '.-p' | -, *« . .
’ ‘ Jf .w* ■ , 4 , ' i
°■ Vi !"■ ■ , j • *

Try to see, then, which you admire the most— the teeth
pf a boap*. or those ojf\the ijoohwofm; Jthe?.wings\df;the «
gryphon, ot those of‘the gnat? The hend of a horse,-. . '«
or that of a locust? The limbs of ah elephant, or those v
« Of a fly? The^noutpf a pig, or, tbap" of a mosquito? ,V;"v
The eagle, or the ant?” The lion, of,.the flea? The tiger,
or the tortoise? Thefe 'y<fu narvel at^'Ssagnitude, heteoyou
are> amazed at the smallneSs fof things). Enormous wisdom /
created a st^llbody--great wisdomfwhich nohegligence
subverts-. To those^lcreatures! it rgalfefeyes, which the | ,

v > f:.,-
‘ .' ,C ' ' ’
 ' eye can scarcely comprehend, and in such tiny bodies it
most amply distributed to every part the features, con­
gruent with fheir natures, so that you may see nothing
^ lacking in the smallest of all of them, which nature /
formed iri the largest.?0 I

In additfon'tej the admirable variety of sizes among creatures, there j

A. ' ■ " ' I
is the marvel of rarity. Some Creatures are rare because they seldom

occur to human .observation, while others become rare as representatives

afjd distinctive/purity or perfection according to the standards of

their genys. Sfill others are made rare by their natural habitat,, in

remote and hidden regions far from human habitation. All this, accord­

ing' to Hugh, is decreed hy. divine providence, either for the protection

of human life from remote and noxious animal species, or as a test of

' 1' ■■
’ > .,h'*r
' •‘ 4 J 4$
tbe human cupidity that seeks out precious object?, or as an incentive

by which human islowneSs of spirit may learn to toarvel. Finally, by

the placement of both good and bad Creatures as if at a distance from' -

human grasp, divine providence has arrhhged a moral lesson: r

.■.■1
' 1, " • • 'm5
so-thaf (man) may tiotiee, with what zeal he ought to ^
avoid eternal evil and seek eternal good, if he sustaipsA
; . such'great labours for the sake of attaining these tem-'A.
poral goods, and avoiding (these temporal) evils.^1

■ ; (> .A '■ --4. . ; • A,

"Last under the heading of shape, come those creature? that we

admire for their beauty, since,the very manner in which they have been
■':; y

composed, seems to indicate a special love on the Creator's part;. By

kt ' ' •

contrast with./such instances of elegance and beauty, there exist also

. Mi
the monstrous pr ridiculous beings, whose very remoteness from human

notions of propriety, excites^admiration. Once again, Hugh finds

occasiop,Q,^o\ launch into a catalogue of ,narvels: ..

 324

Why does the Crocodile not move his lower jaw when he
eats? And how can the salamander remain unharmed in
fire? Who gave the hedgehog spines, and taught him,
•rolling like a wheel, to get•all wrapped up in fallen
apples-, which he bears away, squeaking like a cart?
And (who taught) tshq ant, which, foreseeing the coming
winter, 'fills her granary with? seeds? (Who taught) the
spider, which weaves webs from her own vitals, to catch
her prey? These are witnesses to the wisdom of God.92

While eachx of the marvels cited in .^ese chapters is evidence, accord­

ing to Hugh, for the activity of divine wisdom, the ultimate marvel

^"Uies in reproduction according to genus and species, so that "even in

' so many, the one propagated likeness does not “deviate from the first,
93 ’
original form."-. Down to the smallest details of dentition, bone

structure, colour, and size, the nature of each species is preserved,

through the reproduction of one individual frdm another.

ijlptlly., Hugh turns to the elegance of colour and other sensible

qualities in creatures. His treatment of colour is brief, since, as he

points out, "vision•itself proves how much is added to the elegance of

,94 »
nature,-when it is adorned in so many ways with varied colours.’ He
'*
continues:

What is more beautiful than light, which, although it

has no colour in itself, nevertheless somehow colours,
by illuminating,, the colours of' all things? What is
more delightful to behold than the sky, when it is sefene?
It glows like a sapphire, and with a most gracious kind of
moderation exposes a glimpse of its clarity and softens
its aspect. The suit glows red as gold, the moon turns pale
as amber; some o£^£he stars shine forth with a flamelike
aspect, some spJ^KSnfe^ith a rosy light,''some indeed display
a varying radiahd^^a&fft*oev- now greenish, now white.'
What shall I shy"^^aMjpTms and precious stones? Not only
is their efficacy useful, but their appearance also is
marvellous. Look at thel earth crowned with flowers! What
a joyous spectacle it presents; how it deligfits the eye;
how it evokes emotion! We see the ruby-red roses, the

'X
 J

325

dazzlingly white lilies, the purple violets, in all of ,

which, not only their beauty but indeed their origin is
marvellous—-for liow does God1s'wisdom produce such
beauty from the dust of the earth

lii addition to these visible characteristics, created things possess,

to varying degree, qualities that delight the other senses. Thus, the

sweetness of perfumes, the softness of furs, and the melodious sound ,

of both bird sang and the music of the human voice, all pertain to the

elegance in nature that reflects divine wisdom. 96

If divine wisdom is manifested in the elegance of creation, then

divine goodness is manifested in the usefulness of things. Hugh

includes the necessary, the convenient, the agreeable, and also the

gratuitous within the category of usefulness. He gives examples of

each:

What is necessary to each thing is that without which it

could not conveniently subsist— for instance, bread and
water as food for man, wool or skins or any covering of
that sort as clothing. The convenient is that without
which life could continue, although it sometimes, delights
with more abundance— for instance, a cup of wine and a
dish of meat as food for man, fine linen and silk, or any .
other kind of softer garment as clothing. The agreeable
and congruous is that which, although it does not benefit 1
the users, is nevertheless appropriate for. use; such things
are dyes of colours, precious stones, and whatever things
of that nature may be suggested. The gratuitous is the
kind of thing that is not, in fact, suitable for use, and
yet delightful to behold. Such things, perhaps, are
certain kinds of vegetation, and animals, birds, and fish,
and similar things. '

Now it may be asked, why God created things that he foresaw would not

be necessary to human existence. Hugh explains by showing how the

usefulness in the necessary, the convenient, the agreeable, and the

Q
 326

gratuitous all serve to direct the human being to his Creator. The

huinan being, who was created for the sake of God, holds a middle place

between the Creator, who is above him, and creatures— including his own

body— which are below him. The visible order of the world, meanwhile,

is arranged in such a way that the huinan being may recognise, in these

externals, what sort of invisible good id to be sought * inwardly. Thus,

the Creator demonstrated his goodness by producing not only the neces­

sities of life, but also the luxuries:

For if he had given (us) only the necessary, he would

indeed have been good, but he would not have been rich.
When, in fact, he also adds the convenient to the
necessary, he displays the wealth of his goodness, but
when he tops off the convenient with the agreeable,
then he demonstrates the abundance of his divine godd-
ness. But when, last of all, he adds the gratuitous
and the delightful to the'agreeable, what else does he
make known, than the superabundant riches of his divine
goodness?9°

Having completed liis survey of the visibilia in which divine

power, wisdom, and goodness are manifested, Hugh proceeds to demonstrate

their worth by contrast with human works; He notes that because*of

human limitations, all human projects are deficient in some aspect, and

cites as examples the work of the scribe and of the-seamstress:

We see that the scribe forms the small figures more

rapidly, and is more inclined to sweat over the ones
that are to be given a large shape; and the more rapidly
the pen is moved along, the more deformed are the letters,
that it expresses. And in the formation of garments, *
too, those who are extremely fond of beauty, often lose
usefulness, while those who want to retain utility, can­
not have beauty. But in the works of God, multitude
does not diminish magnitude, iiipr magnitude restrict
multitude, nor do either multitude*or magnitude impede
beauty, and beauty does not remove utility, but all
 " . . . ■■ A
\ ■

'. • * \ "■ ' x

327

things are made as if they were made uniquely, so that

^ when you have examined thp.universe, you will marvel
at each particular thing.99 ■

With these remarks, the first half of the treatise is concluded.

1 ’ V,

To introduce the final section, Hugh refers again to Romans 1:20, and

the invisibilia Dei, which he will now proceed to consider. First, he

raises the question, which of the three invisibilia occurs sooner to

the mind of the (contemplative? It is his belief, that that invisibile

is first comprehended in contemplation, which is more expressly and

*
evidently declared in its visible sign or emblem (simulacrum) The -

simulacrum of invisible power, is the immensity of creatures, while

,that of invisible goodness is their.usefulness, and that of invisible

wisdom, is their elegance. Immensity pertains to the essence" of

creatures apart from form, while elegance pertains to form. The

■ y ■ ' r i .
unformed creature is-like God in that ip is, but unlike God in that it

lacks form. By contrast, the formed creature is more like God in that

it hse bothbeingandform.Thus,theelegance ofcreatures seems to

be a moreevidentsimlulacrum ofGod than is'the|x immensity More­

over, a comparison between elegance and usefulness in creatures, will

show that elegance pertains to habitus, or'quality, on account of

natural form, While usefulness pertains to act, in consequence of

utility or service for human needs. It follows that the elegance Which

resides in a natural habitus, is more evident that the usefulness which

1
must be^brought out through human institutions. 102 Accordingly,,Hugh

concludes, the first step in contemplation is to be sought in the

simulacra of divine wisdom.

T" ■ -
Hea continues: o

' ’ J

r\ • v ‘
 328

For the beginning of (our) inquiry is beautifully

entered upon, in a quest for wisdom from the very
emblem' of wisdom, since the Father is manifested
through his wisdom, not only when he sent his wisdom
into' flesh, but also when1he created the world through
his Wisdom. *®^

At* this point, Hugh-reviews the four aspects of created elegance,

namely situtation, motion, species, and quality. He goes on to note

that of these, motion is the most excellent, since in natural motion

there is not merely the image of life, but also a kind of beginning of

life-. Within the four types of motion— local, natural, animal, and

rational— the rational motion of the soul:is superior to the others

since it pertains not only to sense, but also to intelligence. Thus,

the activities of the rational soul offer the most perfect created
t - .

simulacrum of divine wisdom, and from this, Hugh dfaws further conclu-
* . '
sions with regard to the special place of the rational creature,:

For this reason, the first and principal sacrament of

wisdom, is created wisdom— that is, the rational creature,
Which, because it is in one sense visible, and in another
^ sense invisible, is madejthe gate and also the road of.
contemplation."-®^ V

It is the double, nature of the rational creature— both visible and

invisible, corporeaj. and incorporeal— together with its likeness, to

divine wisdom, that gives it something of the nature of a sacrament,

according to JEiugh's definition of sacramentum. in De saeramentis chris-

tianae fidei:
•:«3*
A sacrament is a* corporeal or material element set
before the senses without, representing by similitude
and signifying by“institution and containing by sanc-
« . tification some invisible and spiritual grace.
 p

329
v . . . -

• In the passage that follows,* Hugh describes the ways in which ration- '
b _ * •

ality becomes a place of access through which the human being enters,

first into recognition of his own invisible or spiritual nature, and

>
then into contemplation of the divine nature. He notes that the part

of us that is capable of reason, is separate from the flesh, even

though it is somehow infused into flesh and commingled with it. Because

dt--is separate from the flesh, he continues, it must have had a separate
* ■<*

origin from that of the flesh--since, indeed, it recognizes that it has

not always existed, and so must have had an origin. If the origin of

the rational part of man is not corporeal, than it is not produced,from

matter, but created ex nihilo. Since nihil cannot give itself being,
106
this rational part must have received its being frbm ahother. - Hugh
-.• h w
continues his argument, drawing on Anselm's presentation in the Mono-

logion to show how this*other must ultimately be the eternal Creator:

But that which is nothing, cannot give itself being, "11

and therefore whatever had a beginning, no doubt received
being from another. But what is not of itself, cannot
give being to others. Hence., ‘
whatever it is that gave
,. being to things, did not receive it from another/ . . .
Therefore, our own nature, instructs us that we have an
eternal Creator, to whom it is his own aid proper that he
subsist, because if he had received being from another,
he could not truly be called the first origin of things.
For, if he at some time was not, then he had a beginning
not of. himself; nor could he be. called the first, if he
received being „from another. Therefore, if he is the
-Creator, he always wasf. JfQ'reover, what is of itself,
cannot not be. For, to whatever is of itself, being and
that which it is, are sure to be the same, because it
cannot be divided or separated from itself by anything.
Therefore, one for whom being.and that*which it is, are
the same, is necessarily always, because it cannot be
separated from itself. If, therefore, being and that '
.which it is, is the same for whatever is of itself— which
did not receive being from elsewhere— it follows neces­
sarily that it always be, and that what was not given (to

■y f < ■ ' ’
/

330

it) by another, cannot he taken away by another. It *■

is necessary, therefore, that we should confess that
the one we believe to bd the Creator, can have neither
j beginning nor end. For he does not have a beginning,
because he always was; nor does he have an end, because
he never ceases. And therefore only the Creator is
eternal, and the Creator cannot but be eternal.107

From this argument for -the eternity and being of the Creator, Hugh

moves on into a .series of discussions concerning the Creator's attri-*

butes as discerned from creatures. He demonstrates divine providence

and governance of creatures from the four types of motion listed .

108 1
previously, . and then goes on to show.how the Creator is understood

to be one and immutable, by analogy with the unity of the human soul,
., ■ '«
109
as it interpenetrates and controls the body. Through an analysis
v .u
of mutability in creatures, he demonstrates that, by contrasty the

Creator— who governs^ interpenetrates, knows, and supports all things—

cannot be mutable in quantity or quality.110 Then, turning from the

ofr's activity in relation to creatures,**he considers the relation-

ships of the three Persons within the divine nature, by analogy with
• • ■ " ■ a .

the faculties of the human soul., Here, he relies on the .Augustinian

trinity of mind, intellect, and love, rather’than using the somewhat

IV - ■'1 - ,
' “ ■ 111
less suitable Abelardian triad of power, wisdom, and love. In sub-°
o B: . - ' ' ■ '
sequent chapters, he discusses the Father's love for his wisdom for
' 112 - ■ 113"
its.own sake, and the mutual lqve of Father and Son. Finally,
' £1
' i
he reverts to the Creator s relationship to creatures? through a discus­

sion of the Incarnation. His key text in this passage is Matthew,3:17

, i .

(". , .Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacpi"); understood both,

'a ' ' ■ >v ;
as a statement of the Father s love for creatures, and as an exhortation
 ■ •/;, .• 3 3 i

to the rational crd^ture to love divine wisdom. First, he shows how

the text discloses divine love» for creatures:

'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.1•

Whatever pleases me, pleases in him and through-him.
For ’he is the wisdom through whom I made all things;
in him“I eternally disposed whatever I.made temporally.
And I love each particular one of my works so much the
more, the more perfectly I ,see it agree with that primal
disposition. Do not think that he is only the mediator
in the reconciliation of men, because through him the
foundation of all creatures is made commendable and
pleasing to' my gaze. In him, I study all the works
that I make, And I cannot fail to love, what I recognize
as similajr to the one I love. He alone offends me, who
departs from his likeness.

Continuing, Hugh turns the text, into an exhortation to love the

0, <
incarnate wisdom of God:

If,, therefore, you wish to please me, be like him, hear

him. And if perhaps you haVe departed from his likeness
by doing evil, return to him by imitating him. In him,
a precept is given; in him, counsel is given— a precept,
so that you may persevere, and a counsel, so that you
may return. Would that you had clung to the precept,
but because you transgressed the precept, at least hear
the counsel, hear him! . . . He is the Creator; he is
the Redeemer-very God with me, he created you, who,
with you (Ab ) man, comes to you alone.

In the concluding segment of his treatise, Hugh begins by reviewing

the order of presentation, noting that he 'and his audience progressed

from the visible to the invisible by moving from an investigation of

■corporeal natures to the invisible rational nature. From the rational

• J
created nature of the human soul, they then proceeded to contemplation

of divine wisdom. Now, he proposes to describe the return or descent

f ' ... * : /
from divine.wisdom to t.he corporeal c r e a t u r e T h e initial progression

: V
 332

toward divine wisdom is to be understood as the order of cognition,

^ 117
which moves from the exterior, to the interior, to the divine. The
* t *
second^series, however, is described as the order .of creation or founda­

tion (conditio), since the rational creature is made in the .image of f 9

o V
* ' t
God, and is prior to the external creatures, in which it may recognize
1.18
what it has received inwardly from God. In tracing the latter series,

Hugh proposes to discover the use of contemplation: "for what does it

profit us, if we recognize in God the loftiness of majesty, "and gather

ll9
thence no usefulness for ourselves?"

What, then, does the contemplative take with him from his ascent

to intimacy with the divine secrets? "From the regions of light," Hugh
120
responds, he.will bring with himself light. . Thus, having seen

power, he will bring with himself the light of the fear of God. Having

se,en wisdom, he will carry away the light of truth. Having seen good-
* ’ . i
ness, he will bring away the, light of love. All three will haye their
; 1 * ■
:
effect: "Power excites the sluggish to love; wisdom illumines those

blinded by the shadows of ignorance; goodness inflames the frigid-with

121
the warmth of love." This threefold illumination by divine power,

wisdom, and love, Hugh describes as the daylight that illumines the eye

of the heart., in the same way that corporeal daylight illumines the

corporeal eye. It is further- identified with "the three days of

<■
invisible light," and with the .three stages of the interior life. These

stages are the fear of God, inspired by the Father’s power; truth, which
»
pertains to the Son as wisdom; and charity, .which pertains to the Holy
122
Spirit"as love. The three days and their light, finally, are based

on the first three days of creation week, understood mystically as the

 /
first three stages of Christian existence, and as the first part of

salvation history. They are completed by the remaining days, which

also bear a mystical significance, in that the sixth day is marked.by’,

^ ra
*Shrist1s death on: the cross, the seventh by his rest in “the tonfb, and
123
the octave by his resurrection.

4. De saeramentis legis naturalis et scriptae

Before turning to Hugh's principal theological work, De sacramen-

tis christianae fidei, we shall.briefly examine a portion of the

treatise De saeramentis legis'naturalis et scriptae< In structure, it

is similar to the larger De saeramentis. Both works bfegin with an

account/of creatio and the Old Law, as background to ,the resforatio

of Christ's saving work, the Christian s&craiaents, and the new law.

Unlike the larger work, however, De saeramentis legis contains no trac­

tate on the Trinity within the doctrine of creation. Indeed, it is

composed in the pedagogical form of a dialogue, and displays a sim­

plicity of style and content that might well be employed in the education -
1 124
of youth— which was, actually.., part of the programme at St. Victor.

Quite possibly, it served as an introductory survey of Biblical theology,

before the advanced course presented in De saeramentis christianae fidei.

’ < \
The dialogue begins with a question from the student: "What was
125
there, before the world came to be?" "Only God,"\tjfe master replies.

In the subsequent exchange of questions and answers,, the stqdent is

taught that God existed from eternity, and/in himself, as he is now.

 p
All things are^ in God, and Cjri'd is‘In all : Thus, the world that
» - -V J %,'■ ■ V' l{ ' ■ ' If ’ . ,

was created in principio. was created in God „ and -de nihilo. ,The

manner in Whidh the frorld was-created is then described in terms' of -a

compromise. between the theories of simultaneous and six-day, creation:

Si
w
> ‘First,, all things were .made simultaneously-lb matter, -
but* afterwards, In .what is now perdeived as' the form. ;--
,' p’f the world,^the universe was composed and ordered
. - through six. days.^ 6 . •
• . ■ • ■'* - t r ’ ' '• .'
At this point® the student raises.-a?-question that.reflects 'William of
■
f \ " v- '.■/ ■
Conches' objection to?
-'the teaching of fere omnes on-creation: -"How
■ • . ■

could there "be matter' prior, to form?"s, Again,: the master's reply-
v : ’ v^; ■ • "
takes a-position of compromise: ■ * .

That matteir was not entirely without form, but never-

; '. ■the'less it is said to have bden formless at first,
* because in its first condition it did not yet haveas
decent and as apt’a form as.it has now,128
r' o " •s

The student continues to press William of Conches' point of .view ^y

asking, "Why would God create rude matter— as if he could not*have

129 ,
created it simultaneously with form?" This time j the master's reply

takes precisely the position to which William objected— God is said to

have created the world in this manner because he wished tp show the

creature what it was of itself, and what it afterwards would receive .

from the benevolence of the Creator. The lesson was intended to 'benefit

both the angels, who were already created, and human beings,who would
130
subsequently learn of it from Scripture.

, 'The student, apparently satisfied with the master's explanation,

V
then proceed^ to inquire Into the position and qualities of primordial
matter. In response, the master describes it as resting confusedly in

the same place where it now subsists”in an ordered formation. -Earth

was in thfe middle, where i't is now, but the three .upper elements were

commingled in a murky cloud that enveloped the earth and coveted its

entire; surface. This,cloud, and the gap that was .to* become the repos17

tory Of, tip waters, are identified with the "shadows'over the face of.
*7 • 131*
the^abyss," in Genesis lj2. . ?

Having explained the condition.of the world at the initial moment

of- creation, the master Continues, in "response to the student's ques- *

;tions, with .an account of the six-day wprk of-formation. The production,

of light on. the first day is understood to have been the separation of
0 ' * •
light or ffre from among the other elements, in such a way that it. was-
'A “
faised into the .aetherial regions and revolved around the earth with
*A ■ ' V - " -v ' ' ; .•
regular points ofarising and.setting, thereby causing the evenings and.
• ■ - “^ 132 * ’■
mornings of the first three days. On the Second day, the firniament

was distinguished from the primordial mass, and set into place between

the upper and the lower waters.* To the student's question, "Can it be

believed that there arc waters over the firmament even now?" the master

responds cautiously,
4• "So ft is thought," and cites
•
the
•-
text ' of
.
Psalm
.
M . ' t * ■ " * * ' . •
*148:4^88-proof.133.:. As for the condition.of the upper waters,
* they are

suspended either as ice or— according to the opinion' preferred by °the

master— as,a kind of cloud similltllih quality to the waters of primordial

■ ■ ’• -3.' „ . . .

. . 134- -
chaos. ■>
.. “
• .... , ‘..f*'
On the third day, the waters below the firmament were condensed ■-»

apd relegated to their proper place in the abyss. Once the waters had
* * ... _ .. •. ^
been gathered into'their place, the earth was-uncovered and then clothed
 *■ .V $ ,
by God with the beginnings of vegetation. The fourth day, in tufp, 7
^ \ • • '
’ x * ' '

was marked by the creation..of luminaries in the heavens, from which the
'*
■
'■ *** '
earth Would receive light and by which the course of times and Seasons
■' * '>■ .V ”,
would be measured. Qn the fifth day, birds and fish were created from f

water,, and on the sixth, animals and man were produced from earth. 'In
■ ‘" ; vf
response to the student’s questions, the master explains that although

birds live in the air, they could npt have been' prodifeed from air,’

because that element, unlike earth, is not sufficiently corpulent for' .

• . ‘ ^ *

‘ 135 ■? ■' -•
the production of"bodies from it.« Man was created last because he
' ' V 4 ■ ■ ' - .1 '

was to be the owner and governor of the earth, and had.to have a place *
>! ■ i
; r 136-•’
prepared1
:for him, before he could take possession of lt. ;• Thus, the

master concludes, God's work of creation was completed through a

primordial act of creation before any day,'and &' six-day work divided
* '■‘ ' '' ' - .J- '
.into three days of disposition and ordering, and three days of ornamen­

tation* "The six-da'y 'period of Work is understood to indicate the

* ^ '
•
perfection in creation, by reference to the perfection of that number.

On the seventh day, God is said to have rested in the sense that he

retired completely from' his works of creation and disposition, although

' : 137
his works of propagation and governance still continue. Moreover,

''the continuing work includes the creation of new souls every day ex

nihilo, since these are not to be considered new thifigs added to the %
■ .
universe, because they existed somehow in similitudine. with the first
.' 138 * •v3,r
rational being." ,
/ il" ' - -
The discussion tufns at;, this point to the question of human

existence, and is developed, to a large extent, along similar lines

A • ''
■ '''- ' - ®
to the basic teachings oh creation in the• sententiae
^ ^ - ■- £ •.
of the school at „ v
 L a o n . T o begin his Explanation, the master points out that God, who
o ' ' " t
is. the highest, true, and perfect good, w^s from eternity so blessed in

himself and by himself, that his eternal and immutable glory and beati­

tude could neither be diminished nor increased in fullness or perfec-

14d ' L- * - '
tion. \ Nevertheless, needing nothing for himself, he chose in sheer

charitas to-create rational creatures.that would be given-the oppor­

tunity to^participate in hi,s beatitude. Of these, some were made to

remain as pure spirits,' while others—-namely, human beings— would be

*0 ' -. >
clothed with flesh and animated to life and corporeal sense. The pure
’ • ■ s*
spirits.,
were located by G</d in heaven, as angels, but the spirits which
3
had, been allied to bodies, he placed on earth. Thus, the angels were

placed in the highest regions through dignity (per dignationem). while

human beings were placed in the lowest regions by dispensation (per

dispensationem). Those who were placed in heaven would be confirmed in

their'pladfe by obedience^-and in similar fashion, those placed on earth

'v
141
could, attain heaven by obedience.

Miy did God choose to j oin spiritual beings to bodies, when a

purely spiritual existence w Duld have been, so much the more excellent

state? The, mastef explains that God willed to join the highest and the
*
lowest pajts of creation in this way, for the sake of showing how the
'’ 1 ' ' ' " :
lowest could be raised to the dignity of association with the Creator.

Continuing, he offers an interpretation of Genesis 2:7: ■

" " •- ‘ ‘ ^ .

Accordingly— as it is said— he made the body of man from

the slime, of the earth, and breathed into him a rational
soul, which he created from nothing, so that he right
"7 ^ sometime raise up (the soul), living obediently in the
body for partnership with those spirits who live without
a body— that is, the angtels— io'gether with the body, and
V ■ ■ .•
 equally exalt both to participation in his glory,
insofar as the body is glorified into spirit and in
spirit, and as much as he first descended from the.
heights through dispensation, when he created, so
much now he will raise up from the depths,through
dignity. ^ 2 ?

Unlike the angels, the human species was not created all at once, •

but had its principle in a single human being. This, the master explains,
'<1 -

was done for the sake of frustrating the devil's pridfe, since the devil's

sin consisted in the proud"desire to become a principium,other than God.

When the first man was created as principle of all humanity, he

received both the dignity of a special likeness to God, who is prin­

ciple of all things, and the* very status that the devil sought for him­

self, but failed to achieve. Moreover, the origin of humanity in a

v _ ■

single principle should indicate to all human beings that they are of
143
one and are one, and ought to love one another as one.

Continuing, the master explains that the woman was treated for the
144
sake’of helping the man in procreation. She was produced from the

man, in order to preserve the unity of the human species, and her pro-
V /
duction from the man's side was intended to show that her1status would

be that of an equal companion/ neither superior nor inferior to the

145
man. Adam,
0• meanwhile,T> was put to sleep. during the operation, lest

he should feel any pain and regard the process as a punishment. It is

explained, further, that the rib must be believed to have been multi-
146
plied in its substance, and not augmented with extraneous material.

following the order of the Genesis narrative, master and student *

. 0* 5
1
turn next to questions concerning paradise and the fall. Man is/under*

stood to fyaye been created outside paradise and then transferred into
• iKi. .
..1 - *- ‘ '
it for the sake of showing him that the benefits received from'God are
147
due ngt to nature, but to grace. His life in paradise was to be one

of obedience to the divine precepts of nature and discipline. The

precept of nature is defined as follows:

The precept of nature contains a rule, a prohibition,

and a concession; the rule of nature was the discretion
by which it was breathed into him, what was necessary to
his nature; the natural prohibition was the discretion
by which it was naturally suggested to him, what would
be harmful; the concession was the discretion Concerning
things that were in between— that is, tfie things he
could use or not use without inconvenience. If, there­
fore, man had avoided negligence through the natural
precept, divine providence would not have permitted him
to be oppressed by any violence.i^8

Obedience to the natwal precept alone would have guaranteed the preser-

vation of all natural goods, but it-would not have enabled human beings

to make progress or to merit reward. For this reason, a precept of

discipline was added, in the form of the prohibition against .eating the
' I

fruit of one of the trees. It is duly noted that, although the tree of

life had natural qualities for the preservation of life.and health,the

■' h
\

tree of knowledge had no special qualities in itself, but became the

occasion for experiential knowledge of good and evil through a human

149 ’
act of disobeidence. , •

In the discussion that follows, master and student range over a

series of detailed questions concerning the temptation and fall into

sin.'*"^ From there, the dialogue moves into a more general considera-
o
tion iof free will, justice, and the penalty for sin. These problems
»*• ‘•
serve as a point of departure for subsequent treatment of Christ's

incarnation and saving work, the natural law of the gentiles, the
 340

written law of the Jews, and the new /dispensation of Christian

existence.
/
/

5. De sacramentis ehristianae fidei

In order to understand the place of the doctrine of creation in

/ '. . 6
Hugh's^ theological System, it will be useful to survey the contents and

structure of the work as a whole. According to .its preface, De §acra-

mentis ehristianae fidei is intended for use by students at the second

J,i
151
or allegorical stage of instruction in sacred Scripture. Hugh

indicates that the treatise is a mature reworking of a number of previous

X . .
compositions, here organized for the first time into an orderly total-
' ■“
ity.^^ He advises the reader that modifications have been made in
- ' X .
many of the writings thus incorporated, and that the present work is
> \>
to be regarded as the standard by which earlier pieCeS-are" to be
*
corrected. Hugh's principles of organization reflect the purpose of

his work. He divides his summa into two volumes, the first beginning

with an account of the six-day creation, and the second beginning with

a tractate on the incarnation of the Word. These divisions in fact.

correspond to his understanding of the subject matter of sacred Scrip-

; o •

ture: o ' ‘

The subject matter of all the divine Scriptures is the

works of humanity's restoration. For there are two works
in which all that has been done is contained. The first
is the work of foundation; the second is the work of
restoration. The work of foundation is that whereby
those things which were not, came into being. The work
of restoration is that by which those things,, that'had
 #

341

been impaired were mahe better. Therefore, the work

of foundation,is the creation of the world with all
its elements. The work of restoration is the incarna­
tion of the Word with all its sacraments, whether
those which have gone before from the beginning of
time, or all those which come after, even to the end
of the world.153

Within the first volume, concerning the work of foundation in

-general, the first part is a tractate on creation-in. the form of a

commentary on-the six-day work.' The second part looks at creation from

the point of view of the causes of things, and especially the cause' of

man's creation. This section contains Hugh's adaptation and critique

of Abelard's theology, in that the causes are understood ultimately as

divine power, wisdom, and love. The third part, as a logical conse­

quence, presents Hugh's doctrine of the Trinity, based on his under­

standing of the knowledge of God through creatures. After this, Hugh

turns to questions concerning the will of God in relation to creatures,

under the five headings of divine good pleasure, divine operation,

-..« ■ ' • -I •
divine permission , divine precept;, and divine prohibition I

Having presented his basic teaching about the Creator, Hugh goes

on to discuss the two kinds of rational creature. First, he discusses

the creation of angels, their free will and their perfections. Next,

he considers the creation and nature of human beings, the fall into

sin, and the restoration in general.. From there, he goes on to con­

sider the institution of sacraments, and their meaning as part of the

work of testoration. Finally, he considers a series of questions about

faith, about the natural law, and about the written law of Israel.

There his first volume ends.

 In the second volume, Hugh is concerned with the details of" the

work of restoration. He begins with a tractate on'the Incarnation,

proceeds in a second part to discuss the Spirit and grace that are the

unity of the Church, and then devotes a series of parts to aspects of

the hierarchical Church, its sacred garments, rituals, and sacraments,

including baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist. Subsequent parts

. \
deal with other sacramental practices of the Church, marriage, vows,

virtues and vices, and the anointing of the sick. In the three final

parts, he discusses the end of human beings, the end of the world, the
f

judgement, the renewal of the world, and the life to come.

Faced with so massiy^ a programme of doctrine, we are compelled

to adopt a selective approach. In the previous sections, we surveyed

two of Hugh's treatments of the hexaemeron, as well as his handling of

the knowledge of God through creatures. In this concluding section, we

shall focus on the first six parts of. the De sacramentis ehristianae

fidei. from the creation of the world to the creation of man. We shall

concentrate on, examining the issues that Hugh considered most problems-
* ‘ . '
tical within his teaching on creation, seeking to understand the ques-
'* ■ ■ 1. «
tions that he posed, and the solutions that he suggested.

. The Creation of the World

’ •' ®
i ~ „
Jff ■ ‘'
To begin his tractate"on the six-day work, Hugh considers a problem

first noted hy Ambrose in the beginning of his sermons on the hexaemeron

— nanp3jy, the distinction between Christian faith in an omnipotent

ator who produced all things ex nihilo. and pagan philosophical

teaching about an artificer, matter, and form as three principles of
154
the universe. Thus, although he will later show how the divine

nature may be known through creatures, he begins by treating God's

creation of the world ex nihilo as an article of f?aith, rather than of

speculative knowledge.

The next problem that Hugh treats, was both a contemporary issue,

and one that had been handled with some uncertainty by Augustine in his

numerous writings on creation. On the basis of Ecclesiasticus 18:1, '

some authorities— as we have seen— were inclined- to treat the Genesis

account of a six-day work as a figurative concession to human thought

and speech, and to assert that all things were created simultaneously. 1

One way to do this, was to assert a simultaneous creation in the Word,

followed by a progressive formation in matter and form. Others,

including Hugh, inclined to take the six days literally as the work of

formation or distinction among the elements, following a simultaneous

° . ■• a.

creation of unformed matter. From among contemporary arguments for

' . C>
simultaneous creation, Hugh cites that of William of Conches, who

transferred the notion of simultaneity from the intelligible realm of

*° 1 V '■ • ’ . .*
the Word, to the corporeal nature of the elements themselves, in teach­

ing that the elements existed from -the beginning of creation where they

are now, -possessing the same substantial qualities that they have now.

Hugh quotes his^opinion and argument as follows:

Those who contend that God made all GmLngs simultaneously

.in matter and form, perhaps think'thein^sssertion is just,
because it seems unworthy for the omnipo^nt Creator to
bring his work"to perfection through intervals of time,
■. after the likeness of human infirmity, and also because
 o

tf, 344

, d ’»
certain passages of Scripture are found asserting
something like that.^

In response* Hugh puts forward the explanation that we have seen out-
157
lined in the De sacramentis legis. God, who could have made a
o O ^
simultaneous creation of matter and form, chose to. bring the material

creature to perfection in a gradual process, as a moral, lesion to

angels and human beings. They were'to be taught, by this example, that

their rational being was to be formed and elevated to perfection through

158
a conversion0in love to God.

' Although. the reason for a gradual creation has been adequately

stated, so far as Hugh is concerned, it remains for him to dhow whether

‘ 'o
or not it would have been physically possible for’matter to be produced

without form, and if not., to show the extent to which it could rightly
, . . * ‘ "ft1 * ’o
be described as formed or formless. He gives a brief statement of his.

-opinion:

certainly, I do not think that the first matter of all

things was conformed in such a way that it had ho fora
whatsoever,; because I should think that no thing could
exist, that had some being.and not any form. Neverthe­
less, (the matter) may not absurdly thus be called
unformed, which— subsisting in a kind of confusion and
commingling— did not.yet begin to have the beautiful
and agreeable disposition and fora in which we now
perceive it-.
i ,

Continuing, he presents his own account of the simultaneous creation

suggested .by Ecclesiasticus 18:1. It must be understood to mean that

±a one and the same moment of time, God created both the matter of

visible and corporeal things, and the essence of invisible things in

the angelic nature. After this moment of simultaneous creation, no new

thing t^as produced, since it was the origin both of the matter from

which bodies would be formed, and of a similitudo, in the angelic

*
nature, for the human souls which would daily be produced ex nihilo in
*
the ages to come. I60
*
Having prepared this foundation, Hugh then proceeds to discuss the

condition of primordial matter in that first moment of creation, and

'' ' . ' O'

the six-day process by which it was ordered, disposed, and ornamented.

K f'
These portions of the work are an amplified version of his earlier

hexaemeral treatises. Hugh's sources for additional material are

basically-Augustinian, mediated,^perhaps, through Bede, and modified by

•« ' * *
his own efforts toward harmonizing divergent opinions. He notes, for

example, 'that in his opinion,’ the separation of corporeal light from

darkness1 coincided exactly with the separation of the good angels from
“ L61
those evil spirits who. were falling into the darkness of sin. After

this, he adds an extended allegorical interpretation of the production'

\ - • ,
of light-, by which the .creation of light on the first day, followed by

the creation of the sun on the fourth day, is seen as a sign of events
9
in salvation history:

■- .• The^law preceded grace; discourse (preceded) spirit; thus

John preceded Christ; light (preceded) light; the midnight
oil (preceded) the sun; and Christ himself first showed
his humanity, so that he might afterwards make manifest
his divinityy'andeverywhere light precedes light: the
light which illumines sinners to justice, the light which
illumines the justified to blessedness.

. ■

These events, in turn, present spiritual examples for the individual:

Light ds first created in the heart of the sinner, when

he begins to recognize himself, so that he^may distinguish
 346

between light and darkness, and begin to call light day,

and the shadows night. . . . But after this, when he ,
begins to distinguish between light and Stiadows, and <fo
call light day, and the shadows night— that is, when he
has begun truly to condemn (his) evils by the judgement
of reason, and to choose the works of light, which are
good and praiseworthy, it -*remains for the firmament to
be made in him— that is, that he be established in a ,
good intention. . . .163

The passage goes op to describe the stages of conversion in terms of

the works of the first three days, depending'on the moral interpretation
164
of the Genesis text derived,,,from Augustine's Confessiones.

Subsequently, Hugh’s interpretation of the formative work bn each

successive day proceeds according to the patterk set by his treatment

of the first day. A physical explanation of the process, drawn from

the earlier adnotetiones on Genesis, is followed by a sacramental or

spitittial interpretation, derived from those of Augustine's De Genesi

; :' f ■
ad, litteram, De Genesi contra .Manichaeos, and the Confessiones. He
• _ 0 * o

concludes by describing the relationship between the works of-founda-

, t *

tion and the work of restoration, explaining that the sacrament of

human redemption was formed "from the beginning, in the works of

* * ' X 6 5
restoration," but is preceded in time by the works of foundation.
i *

The works of restoration are, indeed, to be discerned as the inner

'•' ■' $ .
meaning of the Genesis account of the works of foundation:

The works of foundation are those which were made in

the beginning of the world during the six days; but the
works of restoration are those which from the beginning
of the world are made? for the reparation of man, during
the six a g e s . 1 6 6
 ■ The Creator of the World

In the first, chapter of part two,,book one, Hugh considers the

«• *

creation of human beings in terms of their special relationship to the

Creator. He describes the status of human beings in relation to God

atnd the material world:

First, indeed, God the creator (opifex) made the world/

and then he made man the possessor and lord of the world,
sci that "man might govern all the rest by right of founda+
<tion, subject to him by whom he was made through free ^
will alone. Hence, it is established that the creation
, of man.was subsequent in time to the foundation of all
visible things, 'tout was (their) prior cause, because all
things were made on account of him, the one who was made '
after everything.!^

* .v '
Although the material worid was made for the sake of human beings,

human beings were made’ for the sake of God,, and thus placed in a middle
S ' *

position, to be served by creatures, and to serve God:

•> .

man was placed in the middle, so that he might both be

served, and himself serve;, and that he might receive
from both sides, and win all for himself, and that all
might redound to the good of man— both the service that
he received, and that which he rendered. For God willed
that he should be served by man, although in such a way'
that this service should aid not God, but man himself in
serving; and he willed that, the world should serve man, »
and that thence man should similarly be helped, and’that
all good.should be'man's, because all this was made on
account of man.!®®

Having.established, through these preliminaries, that human beings

are to be considered the cause of the material world, and that God is

to be considered the cause of human beings, Hugh moves on into a general

discussion of the causes in things. In the second chapter, he notes

 ; that the order and disposition of the'universe are bound together by

aseries of cduses, so that all things are interconnected by nature.

- Somecauses in natjire are themselves'the effects of prior causes, and ‘

thus a hierarchy of causality is to be discerned: ^

^ P . ^4 *'*
0 ' "* ; A 'i' '■
Some first causes are created and are the first in their
genus; others are -uncreated and are universally first...
For those which are first in their genus, are first for
something, but are not universally the first, since even
if they preced^everything that follows, they nevertheless
have something to which they are found subsequent, since
they do not precede all things. For in this universe of
.all things, with everything causally cohering, something
-is found first in such a way that“out of ail these things,
nothing, can be prior (to it), sincei it is itself, out of
all things the firAt of all, and yet it is necessary that
r^fmething be prior to‘it* because it is part of all- things
to which something' is universally prior. Truly, to
, those causes .which are universally first, .nothing
is prior, because they themselVes are .the- first,
and do not have other causes 'prior to themselves,
since they themselves are the 1causes of all
. things..-I®®
8>
What are the universally prior causes of all things? Hugh

describes them, in the third chapter, as a single being, effecting with­

out motion and generating without transference, omnipotent,,^-eternally

prior to all things', and creating of itself an<d IP account of Itself,"

Without having received the fqrm of its work or the cause of its opera-

- tions from anywhere e l s e C o n t i n u i n g , he identifies this cause as

< God, and,as the first cause of the rational creature, .which was made to
■ '/ ” > ; 171 *
| participate in divine" beatitude. In order to describe the attributes

of God; he adopts Abelard's triad of power; wisdom, and goodness,

together with-the Abelardian notion that, these three together make up

o' “ 0 - .\
the highest perfection. First, he describes, -the cooperation, of divine
 349

v i
power and will, in chapter five:

^ \ ' ' '

’ For the divine will would not haVe been perfect by

goodness alone, unless power had been equally present.,
Since that which it willed by antecedent goodness, it
subsequently fulfilled by power. In the; predestination,
therefore, of works to be created, there is goodness, .
bet in the creation of predestined works, there is
power, and in^the beatification of creatures there is
power" together with goodness.^ 2
c3 '

Next, in chapter six, he shows how power, wisdom, and will or goodness

make'up the perfection of the Trinity:

:t&-V 4
; »
For there were threei and these three were one, and
these three were .eternal, and nothing could be perfect
without these three, and with these, nothing was
diminished. For it was established thab if these
three were present, no perfection would have been lack­
ing, and if one of these three were absent, nothing
could be completed. And these three were power, wisdom, .
and will: and?these three concur for every effect, and ^
nothing is accomplished unless these be present. The
will moves, wisdom disposes, power operates. • And if you
propose a distinction among these, t£> have power €s not ,
the sane as to know, nor to know the same as to will,
and yet in God to have power, to know, and to will are
one.- -Reason distinguishes these; nature does not divide
them. And theie comes to us an undivided Trinity which
contains all things, and without it everything is nothing.
Whatever is truly said of God, or cap piously be believed , -r
of God, these three contain: power, wisdom,? and g o o d n e s s . 1 7 3

In the rest of chapter six; Hugh develops this presentation of the

Trinity by ascribing power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and good-
174 * '
ness to the Holy Spirit. He then proceeds, in subsequent chapters,
8P .
, to discuss the, meaning of these ascriptions for relations among the . *
*. ■ 4 • •
three Persons. In chapter seven, he Is careful to note the problems

that would result from attributing power, wisdom, and goodness to the
i
,-persons as exclusive properties:
 .0

’ -1 ■ •'• t ' • « • 350-

■ " ■■ »
.

' . ■ ' ■ .4 • -
- 1 ‘■ t ' ' ',
the Sog, appeared powerful not as if of himself , because
power was of the Father; nor (was) the Father wise of
^himself, because wisdom was of the Son; norj;(were) the •
,Father or the Sim good of themselves, because goodness
the Holy Spirit— and if this were said, truth >'•
■f’* I would suffer(standal, and unity division, and one in 1
i the three could not be called perfect, to whom a
property
i ^would'be lacking,
... which another
p} had singularly.
* \
? »■ ? • ' ■

Instead, power, wisdom, and goodness* or love are understood to

, » ' i i •
substantially and equally to all three -Persons. Nevertheless,'what. in.
” M '
• , (|
substance is common to all, can be distinguished in the Persons for the
* . ,i -fy. 275 ■
sake of showing how they cooperate in relation to creatures. *

Although we mtist limit our presentation by passing over Hugh's ,

' ■ ■ ■ ' - '"'fi . ■ A
discussions of the divine will and wisdom in relations among the Persons

•in relation tb; the creature, his disciission of divine power is worth
'■■■*!> ■ 1 “ a ■ . .
examining for,its critique of .what might be called Abelard's optimism
v .T>’- ., ' ' 8 • .•
about Creation. ‘Hugh interprets Abelard's opinion— or thAt of his

followers— as A .limitation of divine‘power, and cites it As follows:

. ■ ... ■■■’. * ’.. .$. ■ • '1 a' , ■ .
For they say: God. cannot make another (thing)[than he
: , ' 1,1 . makes*,-nor make better, than he makes. For if he,could ;f)
mjake anpjther thing' than he makes, then he can make what
. • . *'5 - • he does twit foresee; and if he can make whaf he does not
foresee, then God can work without providence, because
11 all, that he foresaw that he would make, he made, nor did
he make anything that he did not foresee. . . . Further,
fir; . whatever God makes, if h e ,can make it better than he.
'# • ' 5 makes, is in this very thing not well made, because he
does not indeed make what he makes, the best. "For he
. iv ' would make it better, if he were to make better, what he
1 makes. Indeed, to make and$ijot 0to will to make'better, ;
is to make badly, even on the part of one who is. making
a good thing. But this the pious mind can not bear tb
say against Go|, and on this account, it seems closer
j . (to the truth) and more logical, that he cannot make
better than he makes, who makes in such a way that he
. does not make badly,<5in that which he makes. 1^ 7

1)
 351

"The passage is a fine caricature of Abelard as fast-talking prince of

- ■' ' c
logicians, and does indeed reflect the arguments put forward in his

his commentary .on Romans 1:20, in the concluding parts of the Dialogue.
fi 178
and at some length in the Introductio ad theologiam, book three. It

should be notedf however,that Abelard generally attributes the opinion

• '
A
that God could not have made anything other or better than he made, to

Plato, and himself uses it as a way of showing that despite apparent

evils in creation, the:cooperation of divine goodness and wisdom with

divine power guarantees that: all things.twill be done in the most fitting

■manner,.: , . -

Hugh understood the "Opinion that God could not have made anything

other ethan he made, to imply that the Creator's power is equated with

the extent of his work, and that God, in consequence, is subject to the

laws of his creative work. This, he refutes by showing that’providence

cannot ever be frustrated by change in the creature, since God is not

Altered by what he makes. In answef to the opinion that God cannot

make anything better than he makes, he begins by asking in what sense j

the goodness of the creature is to be understood. , If the creature is f

so universally good that no perfection of good is lacking to itj thep.

it has become equal to the Creator, so that "what is within, is ,f

extended beyond measure, or what is highest, is restricted sunder . c

• 179
immensity." B'oth of these are impossible to the creature, presumably

because of the limitations in corporeality. If, however, the opinion

is taken to mean that the creature is as good as it ever could be.,

* o.rf- * .
then this absence, of a capacity for further goodness implies a deficiency

in the creature, and so also a limitation in divine power, by suggesting

* ‘ .

- / i a .< - 1■ '
• i • - i ' .

'V;
 352

that God cannot improve his work. The creature can, however, be made

better*. because it is in the Creator's power to make it capable of

'V *
X80
greater goodness than that which he gave it at its creation. Thus,

the dynamism of salvation history prevents us from saying that the

<"5." " -'1 1
creature canndt possibly be made better than it is, before the divine

purpose in both creation, and redemption is fulfilled.

the third part, of book one, Hugh presents his doctrine of the

Trinity. He begins by discussing the ways in which the knowledge of

God comes to human beings, noting both that according to Romanis 1:19-20,
' •' “ 181
the invisibilia Dei' are manifested in the externals of creation, and

that the rational mind of man is our first and principal mirror for
182
contemplating the truth about God. From there, his presentation

moves through a discussion of the divine attributes of unity^ immuta­

bility, and omnipresence, by contrast with the limitations in created

183
spiritual beings. After that, he discusses the image of the Trinity

in the rational creature, using the Augustinian triad TOf mind*" wisdom, *

and love,^®^ before turning to a detailed discussion of the distinction

'of names in the three Persons, and the sense in which power is attributed

to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and goodness or'benignity to the Holy
185
Spirit. ■ In'this way, he incorporates both the traditional Augus-

tinian account of-the Trinity to describe the divine nature by analogy

’a- *r_-
with its created image, and the new, Abelardian triad to express what

is to be learned about God from his vestiges in creatures external to

the mind. , ^ . *

Before turning to Hugh's account of the production and nature of

rational creatures, it will be useful to surVey some aspects of his

■u ,
/ . / •
 )

• • *' 353

teaching on the will of God, as found in part four of book one. He

introduces the problem by noting that the* will of God is the first ^

cause of all things, with no antecedent cause to move it, because it

J.s eternal, and no subsequent cause to confirm it, because it is of

186
itself just‘,„and in its eternity confirms itself. After this, he
•r?,
briefly discusses ways in which Scripture speaks of the will of God,

noting that the diverse wills there attributed to God, must be under-
^ * 187
stood figurally .as signs of the one will of God. From there, he

proceeds into a logical analysis of aspects 'of the will of God, under
-- y;
. •“ ■ ’
the headings good pleasure (bene-placitum). operation, permission,

precept, and prohibition. Divine good pleasure is said to be the first

188
and principal will of God, .one and immutable. The two that follow,

namely operation and permission, Hugh calls signs of the will of God,
189
or consequences of his one, immutable will.

At this point, Hugh raises the problem that so exercised Rupert

of Deutz in his dealing with the theologians at Laon: does God will

evil things to be? In resolving the difficulty, Hugh refines the

teaching of the Lapn toasters. He distinguishes between what God made

and willed, and what he permitted: "For (God) made the good, and made
190
it well, and the evil he permitted but did not make." Nevertheless,

it is possible to say that God made and willed both, and that both are

good. Hugh continues:

And the good was good,^and evil, evil, and good was not
evil, nor evil good, But it was good that there should
be both good and evil. And God Willed both to be, because
ft was good that both should be. . . . And so God did not,.,
will evil, when he willed that there should also be evil.
 * 354
’ sr. cr'v ' ^

The question remains, however, why God would permit evil by willing

that it should also be. Hugh's explanation is similar to that proposed

.by Honorius, in dependence^, on Gregory: God willed that evils be added

to the good of creation, so that good things might be commended and

become more beautiful by contrast with evil, to the greater glory and
192 .
beauty of all.

In the chapters that follow, Hugh proceeds to define operation and

.a permission as signs of the will of God— understood as his good pleasure

, ji o % s?
— and to distinguish between these and his precepts and prohibitions.

Operation is understood-to refer to what God both effects and wills,

while permission refers to what God' wills, in such a way tha£ these two

include "the universe of all things which are capable of being effected,
* 193
or subsist." The divine precepts and prohibitions, unlike his

operation and permission, do not extend to all things, but are directed

only to rational, creatures, which are capable of receiving them and

*
acting according to them. Moreover, they do not correspond tp the good

pleasure of God in the same way that operation and permission correspond

to it, since they sometimes require what is not fulfilled in fact, and
194
prohibit what will nevertheless be done. In his Dialogus and Ethics,

a Abelard dealt with the problem by ^distinguishing between" the evil inten­

tion of the devil and human tyrants, and the good intehtion of God, in
195 - -
Willing the same thing to be done. Hugh speaks, instead, of the

guilt incurred by evildoers Who approveand love what God hates. In

• 1 ^ ‘

what they approve and love, they departfrom the will of-God; but by

their actions., they fulfil his operative and permitting will:

I
 355

They are evil, not by doing things contrary to his will,

but by loving things contrary to his love. And in this
way, indeed, the will of God is always fulfilled, and
the evil are not excused on account of the fact that in
•'them and through them the will of God is fulfilled,
because, they are not directed by their own wifi to ful­
fil the will’of God, but through his hidden disposition,
in which they cannot do otherwise, they are led to fulfil
his will.196 1

Having completed his presentation of the signs of divine good

pleasure in creation as a whole, and with reference to the rational

creature, Hugh concludes part four with a series of brief chapters'

showing how all these indicators of*the 'divine will are interrelated.

Finally, he sums up with a chapter on the order of things, as they

* follow the will of the Creator. Here,.he establishes a hierarchy of

creatures, in which those that are eternal and invisible, are followed

by those that are temporal and invisible, after which come those that -
197
are temporal and visible. It is on the basis of this hierarchy that

he then considers the rational creature, inquiring first into the.:

■- o »
angelic nature, and then into the creation and nature of human beings.
° ' ° a
I
<3 ‘

' The Rational Creature

In discussing the creation of angels, Hugh draws on his adnofea*?

©
tiones in Genesim to take as his key text, Ecclesiasticus 1:4 ("Primo
vt

omnium creata est sapientia"), since he identifies the created wisdom

.in this text with rational.creatures, as distinct from the uncreated

*
a °1 Qg ^
wisdom, of God. It appears, however, that there is a contradiction

between Ecclesiasticus 1:4, and the opening verses of Genesis, where if

_ Q
■ 199
is said that heaven and earth were created, in the beginning. 'Having
identified heaven find earth with the corporeal universe, Hugh seeks to
jt ? 1 'Jiw*
i . e
resolve the contradiction by saying that the rational creature is prior

to the corporeal creation in cause, retrospect, and dignity. He then

proceeds to'identify the creation of the rational creature with creation

according to .the likeness of God, or creation according to the exemplar

of‘the divine nature i t s e l f . W i t h reference to intervals of time

-in the creationOof spiritual and corporeal beings, however, he opts

■ "• , . ' I
20
tentatively for the Opinion that both were created simultaneously.

Hugh's presentation of the perfections in angelic nature as it Was

' <*, * ’ • w

created, .is constructed with a view to understanding how some of the m

cpuld have fallen, while others were confirmed in beatitude. He con1

eludes that they were founded perfect according to what Was required |hy
'° . 202 ' \
the moment of their creation", for a subsequent perfection according
t . • ' -

to nature,, or the glorified nature that would be theirs' after their

° 203 I
advancement to a merited- reward.. As part of their initial perfection,
i . . . ° ' '
* ’ •
’ ' * ,
they were created with free will, which Hugh defines as spontaneous

movement or voluntary desire, by implied contrast with iijjroluntary'

* * 204
movement or desire under compulsion. In proceeding to discuss the

angelic fall, he notes: a v

.The "guilt itself was not “the will-, because the will— » l
since it was given by God--was not evil; nor was the j
mofion of the will evil, because it was from the will, !’
and it pertained to the will, and the will received
mot-ion from God;'nor was that towards which-the will ‘
moved,-evil, because it was something, and all that .
was something,"was from God and was good-205 •. ■ '\ -

The guilt, therefore, must be said to have consisted in a movement of

•the will toward what it ought not to have sought, or a failure of the
. . \ o \
 357

rwill to move towards what it ought; to have sought. This,. Hugh

. a -

describes as movement outside of measure (extra mensuram),■or an efflu-

206 ” ' °*
ence beyond "the mode and law of its beauty." He continues:
** \ ''
^ 4 *
But (the will) that moved rightly and was conformed ,0 ^
according to the Creator's will,, turned to him by whom
it was governed, and its good was not to move beyond
* the will of him from whom it was.207 •

While the will of unfallen angels8is voluntarily subject to the will of

God, the will and power Of the fallen angels and evil'human beings are

said to be restrained in four waysthey are limited by the extent of

their natural powers; they may be limited by miracles of direct divine

intervention, or by ihe natural opposition-of another created power;

9 «

finally, they are led by the judgement of divine disposition to '

o ’ (
208 * *
accomplish the will "of God without in fact willing to- do so.

When he comes to the question of the orders' ofangels* and the

place of elect human beings in relation to these, Hugh follows the

authority of those who teach that there are nine orders of angels, to
209 *
which human beings will be added as a tenth. 5 He does not, however,

grant that the creation of human beings was intended only to make good
210
the loss of those angels who fell. After this, he concludes with

chapters on the questions, whether more angels fell than■remained;

' j ' a ' '

what should be believed about the names of angels; whether all heavenly -

spirits are sent as messengers; and finally’, on their office as adminis­

trators of the world. His teaching on these questions is drawn*

generally, from passages in Scripture. With regard to angelic names,

he adopts the same position as Honorius, teaching that'the names of

 angels are given“for our sake, and not actually necessary to the
211
angels, who have all perfections in common.

As rational creatures, humah beings’share in the nature and

destiny of the angels. They are distinguished, however, by their

association With earthly bodies which are intended for glorification

into spiritual life, as a confirmation of divine power and demonstration

212
of divine grace. In discussing the creation of human beings to the

image and likeness of God, Hugh describes the soul as the better-part

of man, "or rather, man himself," denying that the corporeal nature
213
could have received the likeness of God. He defines the image of
3 1
God in man as the qualities that pertain to reason, the understanding
O '
of truth, knowledge, and whatever things in the soul per-tain to wisdom.

Likeness, he defines in terms of love, the substance of the soul, the

214
soul!s unity of.essence,“and its spiritual nature. In subsequent

chapters, he teaches that the soul was created ex nihilo i^jfeovem the

body, and that it was created with a free will that he identifies,with ’

the movement of the mind to justice or injustice. This movement of

the mind, in turn, governs the movements of the body, although the loss

of rectitude at the fall set the movements of sensuality.in opposition

to the movement of the mind, to such an extent that sensuality seeks

215
= to dominate not only the body, but also the mind.

In.aQfurther presentation of the qualities of the soul, Hugh con­

trasts the condition of human beings with that of the angels and that
o .
of the beasts. The rational soul of & human being is said to have been

equipped with a twofold sense, one exterior and the other interior.

With regard to’ the exterior sense, man is like the animals in his
 %
I 359

capacity for grasping visible, efcterior, or corporeal things. With

£
j^sgard to the interior sense, or rationality, he is like the angelp,

insofar as he is capable Of contemplating thevinvisible things that

pertain t9 God and his works. As Hugh sought to demonstrate in the '

' ascent and return of De tribus diebus, the human mind has access to

both the visible and the invisible, and may move in contemplation of

divine wisdom from one to the other. The guide in such movement is,

as before, understood to be divine wisdom itself, described here by

' Hugh as a book "written within and without," or invisibly and visibly.

This divine book is further understood to have instructed the exterior

sense through the double work of creation and restoration:

He assumed flesh, not losing divinity, and was placed as

,a book written within and without; in humanity without,
within in.divinity, so that it might be read without
through imitation, within through contemplation; without
unto health, within unto felicity; without unto merit,
within unto joy. . . , Therefore, there was one book
written once withihi and twice without; first without-
through the foundation of visible things, secondly with­
out through the assumption of flesh; first unto enjoyment,
, secondly unto health; first unto natifre, secondly against .
sin; first, that nature might b^ nourished,'secondly that
vice might be healed and nature beatified.

As a creature with a double nature, the human being is also under­

stood to have a double good, namely the transitory and corporeal good
“ - 217
of the extetior nature, and the eternal good of the interior nature.

The first, exterior and transitory good is described by Hugh as a

gratuitous gift*to human beings. The second, however, is 'understopd to

■ ' 218 '•
be the reward of merit, earned through obedience* From this, it

follows that if human beings were to be given a precept to obey, it,

 i ’ .. 360

too, would be twofold'. Hugh accordingly outlines the double precept

of nature and’discipline, reproducing in general the discussion that

219
we have seen in De sacramentis legis. 1

, After these somewhat abstract indications about human nature, Hugh

notes that mankind has existed or will exist concretely in three states,”

namely that before sin, that which followed'sin, and that which will
220
'follow the resurrection. IJkik io the first state of man, before

sin, that Hugh dev^es the remaining chapters of part six, in a'series, 5
* •

of discussions concerning human knowledge of visible things, of God,

and of himself; human, free will and virtue before sin; W d the human '
.rt ’ *• ' 'o '
body and its operations before it was affected by the consequences of
221 . ' • . -
sin. Finally, he discusses the details of the paradise narrative in
o . ..
'Genesis 2, including the trees of paradise and their nature and the

.creation, of woman. The latter' presentation reduplicates, with few

' 222
alterations, that of the adnofcationes and the De sacramentis legis.

With the beginning of part seven, Hugh enters into his presentation of

the becond historical state of humanlbeings, through his account of the

' fall and its consequences. At the same time, however, he begins to
n
prepare for his presentation of the work of restoration, in its various
. -, ' ~ ip <■
aspects from the old Law to the redemption and the Christian sacraments.
0■ ,

Finally,, the last part of book two Will put forward some indications ”

about the third state of human beings,.when restoration is completed in

the resurrection and life to come.- ^ 1

) °
 6 . Conclusion •
’ . <• • ..
o '*44 *
Briefly stated, Hugh's principal intention in teaching .about
Q . < •„ *

• * ' v.
creation, is to educate his audience i6 the knowledge of,God. This

knowledge, he presents under a double-aspect, it includes both contem-

^ o a « o
plation of the divine’nature as ft discloses itself through creatures,

and recognition of the divine activity that establishes a relationship

between Creator and creatures. Among the works.we have surveyed, the 0

treatise De tribus diebus offers" the most striking example of the con-
" * - & • ' . t> *
*'=V , • o

templatiVe aspect, since it is constructed in the form of an Crderly

analysis of creatures as" they are now, -for the sake of considering the
. . . a - • .»

characteristics by which they .express divine power, wisdom, and goodness

‘or.love. In his treatments of the beginning of the universe, however,

■ ' ■ . . .
Hugh tends, "as a result cf his understanding of Scripture, to emphasise

the historical relationship between Creator and .creatures., . It can,

9 r-" i
'
i
indeed, be said that this emphasis is the.motive behind his critiques

of both William of Conches, and Peter Abel'ard.

- 223
As M. Chenu has shown, Hugh rejected William's teaching about
» *' ' ■ • tv •

simultaneous production of ,the elements in their natural order, because

it contradicted and obscured what Hugh regarded as an essential aspect

of the relationship between Creator and creatures, especially the

r\ O . ‘ g Q

■-b r
rational creature. Conscious of a movement in the Scripture^ from the
#

promises and Law given to tj^e patriarchs and Israel, through to

Christ's redemptive work, and*finally to a promise of future fulfillment

in the resurrection and the beatified life to come, Hugh regarded both
• -
t
■
’ ^
nature— or the material universe— and human history as open-ended
systems, or structures capable of improvement through implementation
^ t
j
of a divine plan. Just as the invisible divine attributes of .power,

wisdom, and goodness ate to be discerned in the present condition of

Visible creatures, so also the hidden divine plan for rational creatures

is to be discerned in the origin and development of the material world.

Accordingly, Hugh rejects the notion of simultaneously produced order,

although he doesnot deny that God could have worked in that way, had

he so chosen.

. Hugh's rejection of the notion that the world could not be created

other or better than it is, is to be understood as another way of pre-

■f ' ,
serving the same’ doctrine of development and open-endedness* in the

.Creator's work. It is cldlar from De tribus diebus that Hugh is in basic

agreement with Abelard about the character of creatures as witnesses to

the divine nature. Nevertheless, he insists--as he believed Abelard

did not— that the immensity, beauty, ^and usefulness of creatures may '»

not be regarded, so to speak, as the last word. Divine power to effect

change in creatures, and especially to improve the rational- creature,.

would appear to be restricted by speaking, under present conditions,

of a wbrldHthat could not be made Other or better. We may conclude^y^

accordingly, that as in his treatment of William's opinion, Hugh's

criticism of Abelard is intended ultimately to preserve his general

interpretation of the Scriptures, or his sense of the openness and

dynamism in salvation, history.

If,^finally, we look for the Origin of Hugh's scriptural outlook, ■ *

t.
it should be remembered that William of Champeai]ux, ^former master at "J

Laon, was one of the founding members of St. Victor. Hugh's adnotationes
on the “Old Testament, tOgether'with. his various commentaries on New
v; v ^ f ‘ . *, • * • 1
Testament texts , may well be regarded-as a n£w ph'ase in the glossatory

work of the school at liadn. - Certainly, t;h£re is sone evidence for this
* , U ~ '* ( *1
in his -treatments of the Spirit moving over the waters,, ah

of man.'s creation, which closely parallel teachings from

 Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon. ed. C, H. Buttimer (Washing­
ton, 1939), 3: 19.(p. 69): Ego a puero exsulaVi. c . ,
' " .Tr/ ’ ' &

See J. Taylor, The Origin and Early tife of Hugh of St. Victor:
An Evaluation of the Tradition (Notre Dame, Ind., 1957), pp. 67-69.
■ (t „.V
• V h , ‘ ■-■ ■■ v.
Vetera analecta 1: 326 (Paris*.,167§) ; dited by Taylor, p. 13,
n. 8. ' . r - /•'
4 - .
. . The manuscripts are Uouai, Bibliotheque, 361, 362, -363;« Ypres
was believed by Mabillon to have been part of Lotharingian territory at
the time of Robert of Torigny's Chronica ad 1116, ed. t. C. Bethmann,
'—
MGH.
— —SS. 6 ,“F,r. 484. . a.
' "w

, * Christian Gottfried Derling, Disseftatio inauguralis philo-

sophica de Hugone de Sancto Victore Comite Blankenbergensi (Helmstadt,
1745); cited by Taylo^T^pT 6 ; n. 2. . -

6 ( “
i s F.-.?E. Croydon, "Notes on the-Life of Hugh of ,Victor-,
' Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1939): 232-53. |

7
Taylor, pp. 67-69. ~ °

,/■Roger Baron, Etudes sur Hughes de Saint Victor (Paris, 1963),

pp. 9-30. '
v '
q ‘\ , >'■ ■ ’ ".. ' " ’
D. Van den Eynde, "Hugh of St: Victor," New Catholic Encyclo­
pedia, 1967.'
.ys •' * » g
"1fV' .j .< ^ ►’'
See D V a n den.Eynde, Ess'ais sur.la succession et la date des
ecrits das Hugues de Saint Victor (Rome, 1960), pp. 1-34; R. -Baron,
Science .et sagesse chez Hugues de Saint Victor (Paris, 1957), pp.
1 viii-1. ' ' ' •- ' **

R. Goy, Die Uberliefe'rung der Werke Hugos von St. Viktor, *

Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 14 (Stuttgart, 1976).

12 » ." •
* . JJ de Ghellinck, "La Table des metieres de fa premiere edition
des oeuvres de Hpgues de Saint Victor," Recherchel de Science Religieuse
.1 (1910'): 270i89 and 385-96. m* 7“
 13 ' ■
See diScussions iri Van den Eynde, Essais, pp. 1-34, and Baron,
Science et sagesse, pp. viii-1.

^ The latter three works are13edited by R^Baron in Hugonis de

Sancto Victore; Opera propaedeutlca (Not* Dame, Ind., 1966).-

^ Hugh's mystical waitings are printed in PL 176; six of the

shorter tractates are edited by R. Baron in Hugonis.de Sancto Victore;
Six opuscules spitituels (Paris, 1969). ‘
4*0 ^
0 “ ,
^ PL 176: 811-38; a critical edition is much to be desired.

17
Hugh's^ ex^getical writings are printed in PL 175.' -
18 . *
PL 176: 173-618; trans. R. J. Defferari, Rujaih of St. Victor on ?'
the Sacraments of the Christian Fdith (Cambridge, Mass., 1951).
t * Q

19 " ''V-
. * Van den Eynde, Essais, pp. 39-40.
y * • '* -
20 „
R. Baron, N5te sur la succession et la date des^ecrits de
Hugues de Saint Victor," Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique 57 £1962):
88-118. ^ .
^ " * J = '
^ See Baron,^'Note," -pp. 103-09.

22
Adnotationes in Genesim, prol. (PL 175: .31) ..
> ■ ^ ■'
^ Adnot.,
1—
in Gen.
----- 2 <32C). . J

24 1 •
. Adnot. in Gen. 3 (32CD).
_ - ^

25
Adnot. in Gen. 3 (32D-33A); In hoc autem libro duo praecipue
attendenda sunt: scilicet veritas rerum gestarum, et forma verborum,
quia sicut per veritatem verborum cognoscimus veritatem rerum ita
contra, cognita veritate rerum, facilius cognoscimus veritatem verborum,
quia per istam hlstoricam narrationem ad altiorem rerum intelligentiam
provehimur. ' ^

'26 '
Adnot. in Gen.# (33AB): Intentio ejus est in hoc J-ibro, tria
principaliter ostendere. In primis Deum Creatorem, et ntateriam creatam
et fbrmationem ejus, et totum hoc ad laudem Dei, et-utilitatem hominis:
qui utile est Deum admirari et venerari. .

27 * *
Adnot. in.' Gen. 4 (33B); of. Ambrose, Hexaemeron 1: 1 (PL 14: 13B) .
 f

' ' * ' • .366

28 N
■v, Adnot. in Gen. 4 (33C): Dicunt etiam hanc rationem, quia non
Deo convenit ad modum hominisl aliquid imperfectum facere, aufe inordina-
tum aut deforme. Sed facilgxfest illas auetoritates solvere. Contra
hanc rationem quoque possumus dicere, quod Deus, qui in momento poterat
omnia facere, sex diebus distinxit opera sua, non propter suam— -quae
nulla est— impotentiam, sed propter rationabilium creaturarum instruc-
tionem et exemplum. Sicut enim prius rebus dedit esse, et postea
pulchrum esse, ita et angelo, et homini, cjuibus dedetat rationales
„esse, si perstitfssen^, dedisset. et beatos esse, et hoc esset pulchrum
esse.

^ Adnot. in Gen. 4 (33D)." •

30
Adnot. in Gen. %j(34A): sed constat quod in principio temporum,
ante omnem diem, ita scilicet;ut simul coeperxnt tempus, et materia, et
in eodem tempore angelus. ‘°

31
Adnot. in Gen. 5 (34B): tempus non est aliud-nisi mutabilitas
sucesSio. . . . '

32
Adnot. in Gen. 5 (34BC): Creata est autera informis, non ex
toto carens forma, sed ad comparationem sequentis pulchritudinis et
ordinis, informi potest dici. Terra autem erat in medio, habens in se
alveos(.et venas, receptacula scilicet, aquarum, tarn superterram quam
intra earn labentium., Tria v^ro reliqua elements eonfusa in unum ad
modum spisse nebulae ferebantur super terram ex o’mni parte ac superficie
terrae, usque ad empyrium summum.

* 33 ' .
Adnot. in Gen. 6 (34D-35A): Ortu et oecasu .illius fecit tres
primos dies et noctes. Qualis autem forma ei fuerit, rotunda scilicet
an- longa, ignoratur. Creata autem creditur lux ilia in eo loco ubi sol
oritur, et ita initium illius primi diei non praecessit aurora sive
mane, id est lux praenuntia ortus solis; quod caute innuens Scriptura
distinguit naturalgm diem per,duos extremos articulos, ita: 'et factum
est,' inquit, 'vespere,' quod est finis artificialis diei., 'et factum
est mane,' quod est finis noctis. Dies enii. incipit ab ortu solis et
terminatur in occasum. Qucfd per aequalitatem aequinoctalis diei et
noctis potest probari. Et'totum illus spatium est.unus dies naturalis.

r 34 * -
See Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1: 26-31, p. 15.. •.

35 *
. See Jerome, Ep. 69u ad Oceanum (PL 22: 659B); Bede, De natura
re rum -7*8 (PL 90: 200-02).
0* •« , -
, . Adnot.in Gen. 6 (35B).
 367

^ Adnot. in Gen. 6 (35B).

38
Adnot. in Gen. 6 (35C): Sicut enim per significantia aliquando
comprehendimus veritatem significatorum, ita e contrario per significata,
.et hie et alibi, saepe possumus conjicere veritatem significantium.

39
Adnot. in Gen. 6(35C).

40
Adnot. in Gen. 7(33D).

41
Adnot. in Geh. 7(36A).
i
42
Adnot. in Gen. 7 (36A): Spiritum Dei vocat ejus intentioriem,
qui quasi artifex Operi formando praeerat.' . . . Cf. text edited in
0. Lottiri, Psychologie et moral aux 12me et 13me siecleS, vol. 5:
Problemes d'histoire litteralre (Louvain, 1959), ch. 1: 98, p. 83:
loquitiir per humanam similitudinem: quando aliquis habet aliquam
materiam, intentio eius versatur circa illam materiam, dum cogitat
quale opus de ilia materia acturus sit. i

^ Adnot. in Gen. 7 (36A)'. ‘

44 ‘ s '
Adnot. in Gen. 7 (36A) : Nota quod 'terra- e£ aer non mutaverunt
priora loca, siCut ignis et aqua, propterea quia terra ,et aere ubique
indiget Humana natufa: terra, ut sustentetur; aere, ut trahat et
emittat flatum quo vita subsifitit. Calore vero ignis et aquae humidi-
tate non semper eget. ,
* > ■

45 w
On tb(e concepts ornatus and expmatlo in Pla|pilic philosophy
and didactic 'poetry, see -Stock, Myth and Sciencei pp.,126-27.

46 -
Adnot.* in Gen.* 7 (36BC) .
""....... 1 f' w »

Q ^ Adnot. in Gen. 7 (36CD): Tria autein mirae virtutil et effica-

ciae fecit Deus in creaturis: herbas, lapides,,Stellas. Herbae enim
frigefaciunt, et calefaciunt, et totum statum corporis permutaht: quam
potentiam a Domino in creptione suscepertint. Lapides similiter-statum
corporum diverso modo permutant. - Stellae quidem omnes, et principaliter
planetae in corporibus subjectis stios-habent effectus permutandi medi-
ante aere*. Immutatis vero ,corporibus per affinitatem quam habent cum
animabus ,sibi adjunctis, et/ipsae quoque animae mutantur, gaudium vel
tristiam, et consimiles affectiones sortientes abextrinsecis. Istae
tamen affectiones non in tpntum dominantur animis hominum, ut actiones
nostrae magis’sequantur has, quam-discretiokem mentis, et liberum .
arbitrium. o v
 ^ Adnot. in Gen. 7 (37A).

49
Adnot. in Gen. 7 (37B): consilium inducit, . . ut nos cautos
reddat, ne dedignemur consilium accipere et ab aequalibus et a minori-
bus; cum ipse ad angelos ita loquatur, quorum ministerio forsitan forma-
tum est corpus hominis-^

5n '
Adnot. in Gen. 7 (37C). ,

3^ Adnot. in Gen. 7 (37C): Imago est in lineamentis similibus;

similitudo in cujuslibet ejusdem proprietatis participatione.

Adnot. in Gen. 7 (37CD): Filius imago est Patris, ifen ad

imaginem, quia quidquid habet Pater, tfotum habet et Filius per natupam.
Homo vero ita est imago Dei, quod ad imaginem, quia non per naturam,
sed participatione vel imitatione habet ea quae Dei sunt. Vel ad -
imaginem Dei, quae in Deo est, sicut est omnium creaturarum in mente.

53
Adnot. in Gen. 7 (37D-38A).
^ • — '

3^ Adnot. in Gen. 7 (38A). „ . ,

' ••

33 Adnot. in Gen. 7 (38B): Generationes vel active vel passive

possunt accipi. Passive sic, coelum et terra generata, sunt ista, id
e'st talia; vel active-, id est operatus est Deus circa ea.

36 Adrifet. in Gen. 7 (38c).

v *
3^ Adnot. in Gen. 7 (38D): Hie primum vocat Deum Dominum, quia
turn primum vere fuit Dominus, quando servum scilicet hominem habuit.

^ sn “• « >
Adnot. in Gen. 7 (38D-39A) .

' 5 9 •’ ' ”
Adftot. in Gen. 7 (39A-D); cf. Bede, Hexaemeron 1: 2: 7-18;
V pp. 45-53. For Hugh's access to manuscripts, see Jones' Introduction,
p. iii: "Bede's In Gen. . .* . was restricted in circulation to a belt
across northern France and south through the .territories of Lothaire
to Bobhio." " j

60 ' y
Adnot. in Gen. (39A); cf. Jerome; Hebraicarum quaestionum in
Genesim 1 (PL 23; 989A). ,
* ’ ’ . .

^ Adnot. in Gen. 7 (39A).

 3*69

62
Adnot. in Gen. 7 (40B): hoc ideo factum est, ne, si vigilanti
auferret costam, videretur Deus eum laesisse.
57 , ^
Adnot. in (Sen. 7 (40C>: attendendum esfc quod nec de capite, *
nee de pedibus viri sumptum est id unde fieret mulier'i, ne aut domina,
si de capite,.aut ancilla, si de pedibus putaretur. Ideo de medio, id
est costa sumi decuit, ut socia intelligeretur.
9■ , * '
^ Adnot. in Gen. 7 (40D). -
i a

* ^ Adnot. in Gen; 7 (41A).

Adnot'. in Gen. 7 (41A): et etiam^relinquat subjectione, et

tutela patema a qua emancipatus est, ex quo fit paterfamilias, ut curam
proprie* familiae impendere possit. ' ' •
. ° , ,' • . - o
f\l
” ‘ „ ,
Adnot. in> Gen. 7 (41A) : 'Et erunt duo in c a m e una,' id est*
tanta erit dilectio inter virum et mulierem, quod utriusque spiritus-
nullam habebit differentiam inter camem' a se yivificatam, et camem -
alterius dilectam et, si possent, in una et eadem c a m e libenter
habitarent. Et quia in re non possunt facete hanc unitatem, quod
possunt, faciunt uniohem dilectione, vel in c a m e una, scilicet in
generatfone unius caxnis, id est prolis, cooperabuntiir.

- 68 PE
v—r 176: 811-38. . ^

For a contemporary definition of natural philosophy as the

study, of things invisible and visible, see William of Conch&s, Philo- •
sophia mundi 1: 1 (PL 172: 43B): Philosophia est eorUm quae sunt et
non vi4entur, et eorum quae sunt et Videntur’Vera comprehensio.
.Hugh's own use of the categories vAsibilia -and invisibilia may "
stem from his^sensitivity to the use of those terms in eleventh-*to
early twelfth-centvfrydebates about the sacraments and their definition;
see, e.g.,’ hisDe sacramentis chr. fid. 1: 9: 2 (PL 176: 317D).
<■ "“ ' . ”\ *

70 ■'' > ■'' ” '• ■-

Se^» inter alia, PeterAbelard.0 TheologiaChristiana 1:1,
p. 72. ‘s ,
- ■ .• • ’* ,-jT ‘ ' » .’ *
71 ^ r ‘ ,'
De-trib. dieb. 1 (-811C): Ab his tribus procedunt Zinnia, "in his
tribus consistunt omnia, et per haec trfa reguntur omnia. -

72 ' ' - ''

De trib. dieb, 1 (811D): Potentia per benignitatem sapienter
creat. Sapientia per potentiam benigne gubemat. Benignitas per sapi­
ent iam potenter conservat. / ‘ „
 De trlb. dieb. (812C-813A) : Immensitas creaturarum in multi-
tudine*et magnxtudine. Multitudo in similibus, in diversis, in permis-
tis. Magnicufio in mole et spatio. Holes in massa et pondere. Spatium
est in long0,/ et lato, et profundo, et alto. Decor creaturarum est in
situ, et motu, et specie, et.qualitate. Situs est in compositipne et
ordine. Ordo est in loco, et tempore, et proprietate. Motus est
quadrigertitus, localis , naturalis animalis, rationalis. Localis est
ante „et retro: dext,rorsum etsinistrorsum, sursum, et deorsum, et
circum. Naturalis est in cremerito, et decremento. Animalis est in
sensibus et appetitibus. Rationalis est in factis et consiliis. f
Species®est fdrma visibilis, quae oculo. discernitur, sicut colores,
et figurae corporum. Qualitas est proprietas interior, quae, caeteris
Sensibus percipitur, ut rnelos in sono auditu aprium, dulcor in sapore
gustu faucidm, fragrantia in odore olfactu narium, lenitas in corpore
tactu manuum. Utilitascreaturarumconstat in grato, et apto, et
commodo, et necessario'. Gratum est quod placet, aptum quod convenit, “
eommodum quod pfodest, necessaritnn sine quo quid ease non potest.

74
De trib. dieb
o.
- o
75
De trib. dieb

76
________
De trib. ,____
dieb . (814A)’: Et hoc utinam ego tam pOsSem .subtili-
tei7perspicere, tap competenter enarrare, quam possum ardenter diligere.
Delectat 'enim. me quia valde dulce et jucundum est de his rebus frequen­
ter .agere, ubi simul et ratione eruditur sensus, et 'suavitate dele&ta-
tur' animus, et aemu&atione excitatur affectus. . . . ... ”
*"■ . '■ " . *
s fe 7J ■ '.. . 'S
' . De trib. dieb. 4 (814BC) : Universus enim mundus iste .sensi-*
bills quasi quidam liber est scripto digito Dei; hoc est virtute diyina
crgiatus,-et singulae creaturae quasi figurae quaedam sunt, non humano
placito inventaesed divxno arbitrio institutae ad manifestandum V
invisibilium D,ei sapientiam. Quemadmodum autem si illiterates quis
apertum librym videat, figuras aspicit, litteras non cognoscif: ita
stultus et 'animalis homo, ' qui 'non perdipit ea quae Dei sunt,' in.
’yisfbilibus istis creaturis foris videt speciem, sed intus non,intel- -
ligit rationem. Qui autem spiritualis est, et bmnia,,dijutLi<fare potest,,
in eo- quidem <juod foris consider^t pulchritudinem opdris, intus coh-
cipit. quam miranda sit sapientiV Creatoris. Et ideo nemo est cui opera
Dei/’mirabilia non siht, diiin insipien^ in eis sblam miratur „s,peclem;
.sapiens autem per id quod'foris videt profundam rimatur divihaesapien-
t i a e cogitationem, velut si in una eademque scriptura alter colorem seu
forinationem figurarum commehdet, alter vero laudet sensum et’ significa-
tionem. Bonurn, etgo est1 assidue contemplari et admirarl opera divina,
sed ei qui'ferum cbrporalium pulchritudinem in usum novit yertere"
spiritualem.,, ' ' ' >
. For a general discussion of the metaphor of the book of nature, «
see E .,R. CurtrUs, European Literature and the Latin .Middle Ages, trans.
W. R. Trhsk(London, 1953),'pp. 319-26•
 371

7® De trib. dieb. ^ (814D).

79 De trib. dieb. 4 (815B).

' '

80 ’ ■« v°
' - De trib. dieb. 4 (815D) : Quid repugnantius esse potest aqua
et igne? Quae tamen in rerum natura ita De-i contemperavit prudentia,
ut non solum ad invicem commune societatis vinculum non dissipent,
verum etiam nascentibus cunctis ut subsistere possint vitale nutrimen-
tum subministret. ,

. 83_ De trib. dieb. 4 (815D-816A). ,

82 . ’ » » : • f
De trib. dieb. 5 (816B): sic singulis locis, singulis tempori-.
bus, singulis rebus, divina providentia causas suas di'stribUit, ut in
nullo penitusordorerum perturbetur.. . . ^
■' ' '; ^ tb
83. De trib. dieb. 5 (816CD). ^ '

84 b e trib. dieb. 6 (816Q-817B). ' *'„■

85 De trib. dieb.4 (815D-816A)., .

88 De trib. dieb~‘.7 (817C-818A).

De trib.* dieb.7 (8J.8BC).

88
De trib. dieb. 8 (818D): Haec cuneta mirabilia, et soli Deo
possibilia sunt. . •
V

89 6 e trib. dieb. 8 (818D-819A).

”P Q/\ , /
De trib. dieb., 9 (819CD) : Vide ergo, quid n&gismffceris, dentes
apri, an tineae; alas gryphis-, an sciniphis? caput equi an.locustae?
crura elephantis., an culicis? rostrum suis, an sucerionis? aquilam an
formldam? leonem ad pulicem? tigridem an testudinem? Ibi miraris magni-
tudlnem, hie miraris parvitatem; corpus parvum.magna .sapientia conditum.
Magna sapientia cui nulla subrepit negligentia. Illis dedit oculis,
quos vix comprehendere potest' oculus; et in tam exiguis corporibus sic
omnifariam lineamenta naturae suae congrua plenissime distribuit, ut
nihiljvideas deesse in minimis eorum omnium*quae natura formavit in
magni^. '
■ ' I. . • ■ ■ . .

* f* De trib."dieb. 10 X 820A): up attendat quanto studio mala

aeterna fugere et bona aetema appetere debet, si pro his temporalibus

V
 M

372

bonis adipiscendis et malis evitandis tatitos labores sustinet.

92 ' . o 1 . i
De trib. dieff. 11 (820B): Quare crocodilus manducans inferio-
rem molam non movet? et quomodo salamandra. in igne illaesa perroanet?
quis dedit ericio spinas, et docuit eum, ut se pomis turbine discussis
involvat, quibys onustus incederts stridet quasi plaustrum? et formieam
quae hiemis superventurae praescia granis horrea sua replet? araneam
quae de visceribus suis laqueos nectit unde praedam capita? Isti sunt
testes sapientiae Dei.

93
De trib. dieb. 11 (820C)t et in tam multis similitudo jina
propagate primae originis formam non mutat.

94 . ‘
De trib. dieb.• 12 (820D-821A): -cum ipse visus probet quantum
naturae decoris additur, cum tam variis distincta coloribus adornatur. -

95 u ’

De trib. dieb. 12 (821AB): Quid luce pulehrius, quae cum

c$>lorem in se non-habeat, omnium tamen colores rerum ipsa quoddammodo
illuminando colorat? Quid jucundius ad videndum coelo cum serenum ^
est, qiiod splendet quasi sapphirus; et gratissimo quodam suae clarita-
tis temperamentd visum excipit et demulcet aspectum? •. Sol sicut aurum
rutilat; luna pallet quasi electrum; stellarum quaedam flammeo aspectu
radiant; quaedam luce, rosea micant-; quaedam vero altematim nunc roseum,
nunc viridem, nunc candidum fulgorem demonstrant. Quid de gemmis et
lapidibus pretiosisnarrem? Quorum non solum efficacia utilis, sed
aspectus quoque mirabilis est<; Ecce tellus redimita floribus, quam'
jucupdum spectaculum praebet, quomodo visum delectat, quomodo affectum
provocat? Videmus rubentes rosas, Candida lilia, purpureas violas, in
quibus omnibus non solum pulchritudo sed origo quoque mirabilis est.
Quomodd scilicet Dei sapientia de terrae pulvere talem producit speciem?

‘ 96 De ti:lb. d’ieb.- 13 (821CD).

r
97 • "
De trib. dieb. 14 (822AB)4 Necessarium unicuique rei est, sine
quo ipsa subsistere commode non potest,' utpote in victu hominis panis
et aqua, in vestitu lanea sive pellicea, aut quaelibet ejusmodi indu­
menta. Commpdum est quod, licet aliquando |mplius delectet, sine ipso
tamen vita du^. potest, utpote in victu hominis* poculum vini et esus
carnium; in vestitu byssus et sericum,, veloqupdlibet aliud mollius
indumentum. , Aptum et congruum est quod, licet utqntibus non prosit,
ad utendum tamen convenit, quales sunt tincturae colorum, pretipsi
lapides, et quaecunque ejusmodi censentur. Gratum est ejusmodi, .quod
ad psum quidem habile non est, et tamen ad spectandum delectabile,
qualia sunt fortasse quaedam herbarum genera et bestiarum, volucrum
quoque et piscium, et quaevis similia.

0 # Q8 * * , ' * ( ■
De trib. dieb. 14 (822D): Si enim sola necessaria tribueret,
 373

bonus quidem esset, sed dives non esset. ‘Cum-vero necessari'is etiam
commoda adjungit;, divitias bonitatis suae ostendit; cum autem cotnmoda
congruis0 superadditis cumulantur, abundantia divinae bonitatis ejus ’
demonstratur. . Sed dum postTemo congruis etiam grata et jucunda adjicit,
quid aliud quam superabundantes divitias bonitatis suae iiotas facit?

99 * -
De trib. dieb-. 15 (823AB) :. Videmus qiiod sqriba eas figuras '
quae exiles sunt, promptius format, in magnis figurandis propensius'
desudat, et calamus quanto velocius trahitur, tanto deformiores sunt
litterae quae exprimuntur. Nam et in formandis vestibus, ii qui nimis
pulchritudinem diligunt, saepe utilitatem perdunt; et qui utilitatem
conservare cupiunt, pulchritudinem habere non possunt. Sed in opere
Dei nec multitudino magttitudinem m^iuit, necmagnitudo multitudinem
stringit neque simul vel multitudo vel magnitudo,pulchritudini officit,
neque pulchritudo utilitatem tollit,, sed sic facta sunt omnia, quasi
facta-sint.singula, ut cum universa aspixeris, singula mireris.

100
De trib. dieb. 16 (823D).

101'
De trib. dieb. 16 (823D).
• t

102
De trib. dieb. 16 (824AB).
■ * \

103
De trib. dieb. 16 (824BC): Fulchre autem in inquirenda
sapientia ab ipso sapientiae simulacro inquisitionis exordium sumitur,
quia per sapient-iam suam Pater manifestatur, non solum quando sap'ien-
tiam suam in.cameiq misit, sed tunc quoque quando per sapientiam suam
mundum creavit.- , ’ '

- De'trib. dieb. 17 (824D): Primum ergo est ac principale

sapientiae sacramentum sapientia creata, id .est rationalis creature
quag, quia, secundum aliquid visibilis.est, secundum aliquid invisi-
bilis janua contemplationis facta est pariter et via.

1t\ C *
D e sacr. chr. fid. 1; 9: 2 (PL 176; 317D): sacramentum est
corporale vel materiale elementum-foris sensibiliter propositum ex
similitudine. repraesentans,' et ex institutione significans, et ex
sanc'tificatione- contineris allquam invisibilem et spiritalem gratiam.

• 106 Dearth. dieb. 17 (825B).

r ' J

107 • * ■
De trib. dieb. 17 (825C-B26A): ,Quod‘autem nihil est, esse
sibi dare non potest; et idcirco quidquid initium habuerit", dubium non
est quin ab alio'esse acceperit. Qiiod autem a setnetipso non est, esse
aliis dare non potest. Igitur quisquis ille est, qui rebus esse con-
tulit, ab alio esse non accepit. . . .. Nostra ergo nos natura instruit
 37$

quod Creatorem habemus aeternum, cui suum et proprium est quod sub-
-sist.it; quia, si ab alio esse acepisset, prima rerum origo veraciter
dici\non posset. Si enim aliquando non erat, a seipso Initium non
habui\, sed nec primus diei potest, si ab alio esse accepti. Igitur,
si Creator est, semper fuit. Item quod a semetipsb est, non esse non
potest.\ Quidquid enim a^semetipso est^huic idem est esse, et id quod
est, et\constat quia nulla res a semetipsa dividi aut separaci potest.
Cui igitur idem est esse et id quod est, necessario semper est, quia
a semetiiso separari nihil potest. Si Igitur quidquid a semetipso
est, huic idem est esse, et id quod, est, qui aliunde'esse non
accepit, sequitur necessario ut'sempem. sit, utque aliunde auferri non
possitj quod aliunde datum non sit. Necesse est ergo ut quern Creatotem
ctedimus,, hunc nec principium, nec finem habere posse confiteamur.
Principixim enim non habet quod semper fuit; nec finem, quod nunquam
desinit. Neque ergo aetemus praeter solum Creatorem est, neque
Creator'11 Cf, Anselm, Monologion! 3-6, pp.
15-2*?. n

J \
i
. 1.08
De trib. dieb.

•109 /
De trib. dieb.
1
1
J . ^ ,
j!<-
110 De trib. dieb.

111
De trib. diei-.
s fc i

112
De trib. dieb.

.113
De trib. dieb.

114
De trib-. dieb t 24 (834A) : 'Hie est Filius meus dilectus, ';in
quo mihl complacui.* Quidquid mihi placet, in ipso et per ipsum placet.
Ipsef est enim sapientia per quam feci omnia, in ipso aetemaliter dis-
posui quidquid temporaliter feci. Et tanto amplius unum quoque opus
meum diligo, quanto perfectius illud primae dispositioni concordare
video. Nolite putare quod ipse tantum sit mediator in reconciliations
hominum, quia per ipsum etiam commendabilis et placita fit aspectui
meo conditio omnium creaturarum, In ipso examino cuncta opera mea
quae facio, et non amare nequeo quod intueor simile illi querns amo.
Solus ille me of fendit, qui ad ejus. simLlitudine' recedit.'

115 ' • ^
De trib. dieb. 24 (834B): Si ergo vultis'mihi placere, ei
similes estote, ipsum audits. Et si forte1ab ejus* sjmilitudine male
agendo discessistis, ipsum imitando ad ipsum redite. In ipso datur
praeceptum; in ipsum datur consilium. 'Praeeeptum ut persistatis, con­
silium ut redeatis. Utinam tenuissetis praedeptum, sed' quia trans­
gress! estis praeeeptinn, saltern audite ^<p)hsilium, ipsum auditel .
 375

Ipse Conditi t redempjtor; ipse Deds me cum vos condidit, qui

vobis cuni homo7 ad vos vehit. -' .

116 ’ ■ 1 0
De trib.-dieb, 25 (835A): Quando pridem de visibilibus ad
investiganda invisibilia progredi coepinjus', primo a corporea creatura
ad incorpoream, hoc est rationalem creaturam transivimus; ac deinde a.
rationali creatura usque ad sapientiam Dei pervenimus; nunc vero
redeuntes primo a*sapientia Dei ad ritionalem creaturam, deinde a
rationali creatura ad creaturam-corp^ream habita consideration? pro-
cedemus.

117
De trib.^ieb. 25 (835BC).

118
De trib. dieb, 25 (835B),

119
De trib." dieb. 26 (835D) : Quid,enim nobis prodest, si in Deo
cognoscimus majestatis celsitudinem et- nullam nobis inde colligimus
utilitatem?

120
De trib. dieb. 26 (83>5D) : quid nisi lucem de regione lucis
venientes

121
De trib. dieb. 26 (836A) Potentia torpentes ad amorem
excitet; sapientia ignorantiae tenebris caecatos illuminet; benignitas
frigidos calore charitatis inflammeft.
I, .
122
De trib. dieb. 26 (836B).

123
De trib. dieb. 27 (837C-8-!8D).
-------- 5-
e
124
See Hugh of St. Victor, De institutione novitiorum (PL 176:
925-52).

125
' .De sacramentis legis naturalis et scriptae (PL 176: 17C):
Quid fuit priusquam mundus fieret? M . : Solus Deus.
D.:Quid

126 De sacr. leg. (17C): Prijus^in materia simul facta sunt> omnia:
postea vero in hac qua nunc mundu? cemitur forma, per sex dies compo-
sita sunt et ordinata universa,

127°
De sacr. leg. (17C): Quomodo poterat materia prius esse quam
forma? Cf. William of Conches, Pnilosophia mundi 1: 21 (PL 172: 53).

128
De sacr. leg. (17CD): -Materia ilia non omnino sine forma
 376

fuit; sed tamen informis prius fuisse dicitur, quia in prima sui
conditione tam decentem et tam aptam sicut nunc habet adhuc formam
non habuit. ”

129
De sacr. leg. (17D): Quare voluit Deus prius creare rudem
materiam:' quasi non potuerit simul cum forma creasse earn?

130
De sacr. leg. (18C).

■131
De sacr. left* (18D-19A).

132
V - .

De sacr. leg. (19BC). '

' vf ■ -
133
De sacr. leg. (19D): D.: Estne credendum adhuc esse aquas
super firmamentum? M . : Sic putatur; quia efScriptura sacra diversis
in locis hoc manifeste cottfirmat, sicut est illud Psalmistae testi­
monium, 'Aquae quae super coelos sunt laudent nomen1 Domini.'

134 • -
,De-sacr. leg.(20A). \

135
De sacr. lee.(20BC). ' °

^ ^ “ De sacr. leg.(20CD).

137
De sacr. leg.(20D-21A).

De sacr. leg.(21D).

139
t De sacr. leg. (21D-22C); cf. Lottin, vol. .5, ch. 3: 521
X|, 33i); Sententiae divinae paginae 4 and Sententiae Anselmi 2, ed".
F. Bliemetzrieder, in Anselms von Laon svstematische Sentenzen-. Bei-
trhge 18: 2-3 (Miinster i. W . 1919), pp. 10-11 and 48-49. *

De sacr..leg. (22A) .

* 141 > • "

De sacr.1 leg. (22C)

142
De sacr. leg. (22.CD) i " Fecit ergo, ut dictum est, cbrpus
hominis de limo terrae et inspiravit ei animam rationalem qUam creavif
de nihilo, ut in corpore obedienter viventem ad Consortium illdrum
spirituum qui sine corpore Vivebant, 'id est apgelqrum, quandoque simul
cum corpore elevaret; et pariter utrosque ad participationem gloriae
suae attolleret, quatenus.et in spiritum et in spiritu corpus glorifi-
caret; et quantum prius summa per dispensationem.'inclinavit dum

0 .

t•
1
 L
377

-p*..'
conderet, tantum nunc ima per dignationem^xaltaret.

143
De sacr. leg,

144
De sacr. leg,

145
De sacr.' leg, (23A).

146
De sacr .* leg (23B).

147
De sacr. leg (23C).

148
De sacr. leg (23D): Praeceptum naturae continet praecep-
____________
tionem, prohibitionem, concessionem; praeceptio naturalis fuit discretio
per quam ei i'nspiratum est quae. essent naturae suae necessaria; prohi-
bitio'naturalis fuit discretio per quamnaturaliter ei insinuatum est
quae essent noxia.; concessio discretio fuit eorum quae erant media, id
-ebt quibus uti et non uti sit}* incommodo pptuisset. Si igitur homo per
naturalepraeceptum imbutus negligentiamcavisset, divina prqvidentia
nulla eum violentia opprimi permitteret. ‘ ‘

t .
14Q w . '
. De sacr. leg. (24B-D);
rr *
1-50 ■ ' »’
De sacr. leg. (24D-26A).

151 • '
De sacramentis christianae fidei, prol. (PL 176; 183).

152 ' „
De sacr. fid..prol. (183).

153 '
De sacr. fid.y prol. 2 (183AB): Materia divinarum Scriptura-
rum omnium, sunt opera restaurationis humanae. Duo enim sunt opera in
quibus universe continentur quae facta sunt. Primum es,t opus conditio-
nis.,'"Secundum est opus restaurationis. OpUs conditionis est quo
factum est, ut essent quae non erant. Opus restaurationis est quo
factum est ut melius essent quae perierantv Ergo opus’ conditionis est
' creatio mundi cum omnibus elementis suis. Opus restaurationis est
Incarhatio Verbi cum 'omnibus sacramentis suis, sive iis quae praecesse-
runt ab initio saeculi, sive iis quaeaubsequuntur usque ad finem mundi.

' ^54 ■ , v'' • , '

De sacr. fid. 1: 1: 1 (187BC); cf. Ambrose, Hexaemerori 1; 1
(W.,14: 13B).‘

155 ^
. William of Conches, Glosae super Platonem 51, ed.°.E. Jeauneau,
in Guillaume de Conches; Glosae super Platonem: texte critique avec
. introductionnotes et tables, Textes philosophiques du moyen age 13
(Paris, *1965), p. 119. Fot discussions of the issue, see M.-D, Chenu,
"Nature ou histoire? Une'controversy exegetique sur la creation ay 12pe
siede," AHDLMA 20. (1953)\ :25-30, and Stock, Myth and Science, pp-
249-62. ' ' ' '

156 ■ ‘ 'I J
De sacr. fid. 1: 1: 2 (188A): Qui Deum omnia simul in materfa
et forma fecisse contendunt, propterea fortassis suam assertionem
justam esse arbitran^ur, quod omnipotentiaeCreatoris indignum videatur
ad humanae imbecillitatis similitudinem suum opus per.intervalla tem-
porurn ad perfectionem prpmovere, quodque etiam quaedam S'cripturarum' •
loca, quodammodo idem .asserentia iriveniuntur. ;

157 ■ ” ■ '• •• • *
Cf. De sacr. leg.- (17CD), discussed on pp. 333-34' above. ' '

158 De sacr. fid. 1; 1: 3 (188CD-189AB). ' ‘

• * * • i t■■ •
’159 ’
De sacr. fid. 1: 1: 4 (189CD): . certe non puto primam illam
rerum omnium materiam taliter xnformem fuisse," ut nullam omnino-formam
habuerit; quia nec aiiquid tale existere posse, omnino quod aliquid ; .
eSse habeat et non aliquam formam crediderim. Ita'tamen non absurde
informem earn appellari posse, quod in confusione et permistione quadam
suhsistens, nondum hanc in qua nunc cernitur, .pulchram' aptamque dis-
positionem et formam coeperit. ' * .
- * * ’

160 De sacr. fid. 1: 1: 5 (189D-190A),' . y •

161 De sacr. fid. IcdL: 10 (194D)* * ,, /

168 ' ' ** r"”P *

De sacr. fid. 1: 1: 12 (196A): lex praecessit gratiam/'serrao
spiritum; sic praecursor Johannes Christum; lux lucem; lucerna Solem;
et ipse Christus humanitatem kuam prius ^demonstravit, ut post manifest
taret divinitatem, et ubique lux lucem-praecedit. Lux. quae pedcatores
ad justitiam illuminat, illam lucem quae justificatos ab beatitudinem
illustrat. ’ •

163 * . / °
De sacr. fid, 1: 1: 12 (196BC): Primum»ln.corde pecaatoris^
creatur lux; quando semetipsum agnoscere’indipit, ut dividatp.fiter
Discern et tenebras,-et appellate dncipiat-lucem diem et tenebras noctem.
. . . 'Post haec autem cum coeperit inter lucem et tenebras dividere, '
et lucem diem,' tenebras quoque appellare noctem; Id est cum mala sua
veracitex per judicium rationis improbare,.' et quae ,sunt bona et lauda-
bili'a°lucis Opera-eligefe coeperit, restat ut -fiat in eo firmamyntum,
hoc est in bono propositio corroboretur. . . . ”

•164 ' v* ■-
De sacr. fid, ds 1: 12 (196CD-197AB); cf. Aiigustine, Confes-
siones 13, pp. 344-88. « ■ „ ‘f
 “165 * '•% .
•De sacr. fid. 1: 1: 28 (203D-204A): Nos siquidem pydpo'situm
habemue de .sacramento' redfemptionis’humanae, q„uod a principle in operi-i
bus restaurationis formatum estj .quantum Dominus dederit in hoc opere.
tractate. ' '* • ■ '• . -'

1-66 ^ -
De sact. fid. 1: 1: 28 (204A): opera conditionis sunt qiiae in
principio mundi psex diebus facta sunt'; opera vero. restaurationis quae a
sprihcipio mundi propter reparationem hominis sex aetatl'bus ’fiunt. . . .
a » 1 b ^ .I
.
V 167 . d * a 1 * ' - ”
^ De sacr. fid."1: 2: ,1 (205B|3)u Prius siquidem- opifex Deus
mundum,.fecit, ac deinde hominerl possessorem et dominum mundi, ut
ceteris omnibus jure dondartlsnis domfnaretur homo, ipsi a quo factus
fuerat soli -voldntaria llbertate subjectus. Unde constat creationem
hominis terum omnium vispbilium conditions posteriorem-quidem tempore, ..
sed causa priorem fOissji/, quia’'qUi factus egt post omhia, propter eum
omnia facta sunt. .(- s . ' ' **.. * "’

- 168' ’ ';■ •*
De sacr. fid.. 1; 2: 1 (205D-206B): Ita positus eSt in medio
homo, ut eit e! serviretjur et ipse (servipet, et acciperet utrinque,ipse,
et totumsibi Vindicaret; et reflueret totum ad bonym hominis, et quod,
accept! obsequium et quod impendit';, Voluit , enim Deus ut ab,homine s.ibi
serviretur, s,ic tamen ut ea se'rvitnte non Deus 5sed. homo ipse sferviens
juvaretur j et voluit ut' mundus( serViret homini, etexinde similiter
juvaretur homo, et totum hominis esset bonum, quia’propter hominem
totum, hoc.factum est. „ -' , • * ’ •

■ -i ^ * ■ 1 6 9 ■ ■ *»■ 1 - 11 '5 ■ ■” i
"De^Sacr. fid. Is. 2: 2 (207B(G): Primae autem causae aliae'
creatae sunt et qUpe sunt in suo genere primae;'aliae increatae sunt
•ei quae uniy^saiiter primae sunt. .Quhe'enim in suo genere primae
suntj; ad aliquid primae s u n t s e d ’universaliter primae non sunt, quoniam*
etsi praecedunt quae subsequuntur omnia, habent tamen et Ipsae aliquid
quo posteriores inveniantur, quoniam non praecedtinp-omnia. . In hac enim'
uniyers j»tate srferum onmium, ita- cunctis causalifer cphaerentlbus aliquid
primum inveniturj ut ex his, omnibus nihil prius esse possit,'quoniam
ipsum ex omnibus p'rimum est Omnium'; et tamen ipso aliquid prius, esse *
pecesse est, quoniam ex omnibus est quibus univerfepliter aliquid prius
!est»v Hiso ^etib causis quae universaiit°e°r-primaeosunt, nihil prius est;
quoniam’ipsae. primae sunt omnium, nec habent alias causas ipsae „.
priores; quoniam omnium causae ipsae sunt. ,
- ■ j : ,’ ' :* .i „ • ■>

170 De satcr^fid./lr^2^ 3 (207D) .

171 - •t ■■ ' \ , *.
De. sacr. fid. 1: 2: 4 (208A). ’

. ,/; 172 ■' ■' ' ''■

De sacr. fid. rlt 2: 3 (208B): Divina. enim voluntas sola
bdnitate perfecta n o n ‘fuisset, .nisi pariter adfuiss’et potestas; quoniam
id quod bonitate praeeunte voluit, potestate subsequente adimplevit.
'■.‘'S'--'.'-',v' .-Yf It * • • .
 ■3

380

In praedestinatione itaque creandorum operata est bonitas; in creatione

autem praedestinatorum operata est potestas; in beatificatione vero
creatorum potestas simul et bonitas. ° '

173 ' • -
De sacr. fid, 1: 2: 6 (208BC): Erant enim tria quaedam, et 1
haec tria erant unum, et aeterna erant tria haec, et riihil perfectum '
esse poterat sine bis tribusj et cum his nihil diminutum. Constabat
enim ut si adessent tria haec, nihil pferfectum deesset; et si deesset
de his tribus unum, aliquid cons.ummatum esse non posset. Et haec tria
erant potentia, sapientia, vOluntas: et ad omnem effectum concurrunt
tria haec, nec aliquid absolvitur nisi ista adfuerint. Voluntas movet,
sclenti-a disponit, potestas operatur. Et si horum discretionem pro-
ponas, non*est posse illud-quod scire neque scir-e illud quod velle; et
tamen Deo unum sunt posse, scire, et velle. Et discernit ilia ratio, '
et natura non dividit, et venit .nobis Trinitas8"indivisa quae totum
qontinet, et sine ipsa' totum est nihil. Quidquid de Deo vere dicitur,
aut pie./credi potest in\Deo, haec trid continent; potestas, sapientia
et bonitas. Et.plane sunt haec tria pariter. ,
*
174 ^
De sacr. fid. 1: 2s 6,(208CD).

175
De sacr. fid. 1: 2: 7 (209A) : Et videbatur Filius quasi non
°de suo potens. Quia, potentia.Fatris erat, neque Pater de suo sapiens,
quia sapientia Filii erat'; neque Pater ^yel Filius de suo bonus, quia
Spiritus sancti bohitas bratf et si hoc diceretur, scandalum patiebatur
Vveritas, et unites scissionem; nec poterat in tribus perfectus diei
Unus, cui proprium deesset aliquid, quod alter singulare haberet.

176 De sacr. fid. 1: 2: 8 (209B-210A). ,

177
De sacr. fid, lr 2: 22 (214CP): Aiunt enim: Hon potest Deus
aliud facere quam facit, nec melius facere quam facit; Si enim aliud
•potest facere quam facit, potest facere quod non praevidit; et si
potest facere quod non praevidit, potest sine providentia operari Deus;
-quia omne praevidit se facturum, facit, nec facit aliquid quod non
praevidit. . . . Amplius: quidquid facit Deus, si melius potest facere
quam facit, in hoc ipso non bene facit, quod optime quidem non facit
qUod facit. Melius enim faceret si quod facit melius faceret. Facere
quippe tet nolle melius'facere, etiam bonum facientis male est facere.
Sed hoc‘pia mens in Deum diei, non sus'tinet; et ob hoc proximum videtur
et consequens, quod melius facere non potest 'quam facit qui sic fdtit
ut non Jaciat male in eo quod sic facit.

178 * ~’
Peter Abelard, Commentaria in epistblam Pauli ad Romanos 1: 20
p. 69'; Dialogue . p. 166 : Intro.°ad theol. 3: 5 (1093D-1104B-).

13 179
De sacr. fid. 1: 2: 22 (216A): et vel extra metam exihnditur
 f

381

quod intra’est-, vel? Infra immensitatem coarctatur quod summum est, quod
utrumque pari inconvenifentia impossibile' est. , '

5 180 De sacr. fid. Is 2: 22 (216).

De sacr. fid. 1: 3-: 3 (217-218B). r

182 De sacr. fid. 1: 3: 6 (219A). *

183 De sacr. fid. 1: 3: 9-20 (219C-225B). '

* De sacr. fid, 1: 3: 21 (225CD).

\ 185 De sacr. fid. 1: 3: 24-27 (226D-230B). 5

186 De sacr. fid. 1; 4: 1 (233D-235A).

187 De sacr. fid. 1: 4: 2 (235BC).

188
De sacr. fid./l: 4: 3 (235C): Priroa voluntas Dei'beneplacitum
dicitur. Igitur'quae et primum et principaliter voluntas Dei dicitur,
es t ilia quae vere est voluntas „ejus, et haec est una nec multiplicita-
tem recipit, nec mutabilitatem..

-189 De sacr. fid. 1: 4: 4 (235CD-236A).

190
De sacr. fid. 1: 4: 5 (23<?A) : Bona enim fecit et benefecit,
et mala permisit et non fecit.

191
De sacr. fid. 1: 4.: 5 (236A): E]t fuerunt bona bona, et mala
mala, nec bona fuerunt mala, nec mala bona; sed bonum fuit esse et bona
et mala. Et voluit utrumque esse Deus, quia utrumque bonum esse fuit.
. . . Et idcirco nan voluit Deus malum, cum voluit ut esse et malum. '

192 ? ^
De sacr. fid. 1: 4: 6 (236C), and 1: 4: 13 (240BC). Cf.
Honorius, Elucidarium 1: 46, p. 369.

193 -
De sacr. fid. 1: 4: 8 (237BC): Et hoc beneplacitum universale
quod aeternum est, et omnia quae fiunt teftporibus suis pariter simplici
nutu justitiae suae approbat ut ad effectum procedant et fiant; per-
ficitur et consummatur, et manifestatur duobus his quae subsequtintur in
tempore pexmissione et operatione divina, quae et ipsa rerum omnium
quae effectum capiunt vel subsistunt universitatem complectuntur, et
respondent illf quod unum est in utroque, et indissimile ad dissimilia
omnia beneplacitum Creatoris. ■

• 194 De sacr, fid. Is 4: 10 (238BC).

- i95 ' ; : ' % *

\ Peter Abelard, Dialogus, pp. 164-65; Ethics, p. 2fr, 11. 18-24. .
■\' ‘ . * •1 ■
\ ^9® De sacr. fid. 1: 4; 15 (240D-241A): Et mali sunt non e£fici-
endo contrarium.ipsius voluntati, sed amando contrarium ipsius diiecr
tioni. Et sic quidem voluntas Dei*"semper impletur, et non excusantur ,
mali propterea quoniam* in eis et per eos voluntas Dei impletur. Quoniam
non\sua voluntate ad, implendam Dei vbluntatem diri'guntur, sed odculta
ipsius dispositions qua aliud non possunt ad implendam voluntatem'ejus'
conducuntur. • ’ : /

197
De sacr. fid. 1 : 4:

198
De. sacr. fid. 1 : 5:
*\
199
DeV sacr. fid." 1 : 5:
\
1 ,
200
De sacr. fid. 1 : 5: .4
I
■ 4-“
201
De sacr. fid. 1 : 5:

202
De sacr. fid. 1 : 5:

203
DeNsacr. fid. 1 : 5*:

204
Be, sacr. fid. 1 : 5:

205
De sacr.1 fid. 1 : 5:
erat, .quoniam/voluntas malum non erat quoniam a Deo data erat; nec,
motus Voluntatis malum erat quoniam ex voluntate .erat, et voluntatis
erat, et moveri voljuntas a' Deo acceperat; nec id ad quod motus
'voluntatis'erat, malum erat, quoniam aliquid erat, et omne quod '
aliquid erat. a Deo efat, et bonum erat.
■'' ••'
206 I •
De sacr. fid. 1: 5: 26 (2$8B): Hoc itaque mdlum factum est
voluntati aveptenti se et transgrediendi mehsuram, quod turpis facta
est et praya et inordinata, effluens et non tenens modum et legem
pulchritudinis suae. 1 T
* '' ^- •
'-- f" ' ' ' .'
20 7 ■ •, .
De sdcr. fid, 1: 5; 26 (258B)': ’■ Quae aufem recte movebatur et
secundum Creatoris voluntatem confbrmabatur, convertebatur ad eum a quo
regebatur, et illi bonum erat extra illius voluntatem non moveri a
quo erat1.

8 De sacr. fid. 1: 5: 28 (259AB).

20-

209
De sacr. fid. 1 : 5°: 30 (260D) .'
f

210 J
De sacr. fid. 1 : 5: 30 (260D). *
«-r

211
De saet. fid. 1 : 5: 32 (261D-262A). \
■ •' ' \ ■
212
De sacr. fid. 1 : 6 : 1 (263C). /

213
De sacr. fid. 1 : 6 : 2 (264D): in anima, quae potior p'ars est
hominis, vel potius ipse homo erdt, fuit imago et similitudo Dei.

214
De sacr. fid. 1 : 6 : 2 (264D).
A
215
De sacr. fid. 1 : 6 *. 4 (265C-266B).

216
De sacr. fid\ 1 : 6 : 5 (267A): Assumpsit carnem non emittens
divinitatem, et positus\est liter scr'iptus intus et foris; in humanitate
foris, intus in divinita^e, ut fparEs"'Ihlgeretur. per imitationefn, intus
per contCmplationem; forissed^anitatemy intjjs ad felicitatem; foris ad
meriting’ intus ad gaudium. . . . Liber ergo unus erat semel intus?
scriptus, et bis foris. Foris primo pef visibilium conditionem, secundo
foris per carnis assumptionem. Primo adjucunditatem, secundo ad sani-
tateta; primo ad naturam, •secundo contra culpam; primo ut iiatura fovere-
tur, secundo ut vitium sanaretur, et natura'beatificaretur.

217
De sacr. fid. J.: 6 : 6 (267B-268B). .

218
De sacr. fid. 1 : 6 : 5 (268B). ’
- o

219
De sa£r. fid. 1 : 6 : 7-9 C268CD-269C): cf. De sacr. leg. <23D)
t

'220
De sacr: fid. 1 : 6 : 10 (269D-270B).
'x . ' . *

221
De sacr. fid. 1 : 6 : 11-26 (270D-280B). ,

222
De sacr. fid. 1 : 6 : 27-36 (280C-284D); cf. Adnot. in Gen.
(PL 175: 38-40), and De sacr.' leg..(PL 176: 22^24).

223 Chenu, "Nature ou histoire?" ' \

 GENERAL -CONCLUSION

The four authors we have examined represent widely varied types ,

of intellectual training, personal development, and religious life.in

the first four decades of the twelfth century. In background', they

■! » »
range from Rupert's traditional monastic formation'at Liege, to Hugh

of St. Victor's education with the Augustiniap canons regular at

Hamersleven and Paris, to the itinerant scholarstiSp of Honorius and

Abelard, Nevertheless, all four share a similar basic training in the

arts of language,-“and acquired'the same general philosophic outlook—

an Augustinian Platonism coloured to varying degrees by Boethlan or

Eriugenian elements and the reading of Macrobius or- Calcidius. The

differences among them are to be found in details' of presentation and

interpretation.when they deal with Genesis 1-2, in each author's

selective.use of common sources, and in the place and significance

given to the doctrine of creation in each author's theological produc­

tion as a who'le. In this final conclusion, therefore, we shall survey

P '

and review some of these divergent aspects in their work on creation,

as well as noting some of their shared approaches antd interpretations.

The commentaries and notes on the text of Genesis 1-2 produced by

both Rupert of Seutz and Hugh of St. Victor form part of a larger pro­

gramme of scriptural exegesis. For Rupert, the beginning of Genesis

is an account of the work ascribed principally to the Father, which is

followed by the restorative work of the Son. and the sanctifying work

. 384 . .
of the Holy Spirit, in a -tripartite history of the world recorded in

Scripture and fulfilled ah the final resurrection. For Hugh, the

Trinitarian work of creation or foundation is the necessary background

to the history of the works of, restoration, beginning with the sacra­

ments and laws of the Old Testament, and continuing in the sacramental

life of the Church. The hexaemeron thus fbrms an integral part of

•j ■
"
both these authors’ theological programmes, in that it is the founda­

tion or introduction for their essentially historical approach to

Christian doctrine and spiritual development.

■* • - *
' By contrast, Honorius Augustodunensis and Peter Abelard wrote

separate hexaemeral treatises at the request of audiences who needed

introductory guides to the first two chapters of Genesis. Both authors

therefore, approach the text as a self-contained exegetical problem,

and begin their treatment' of it with an accessus describing the pro- ,

phetic author's intention,'material, and method of w-ritil^, before

proceeding to analyse the text in its several' levels of meaning.

Indeed, Honorius uses the text of Genesis 1-2 and the interpretations

given to it by his sources as the basis for a lesson in reading Scrip­

ture and understanding the created world. He begins at-th^dlementafy

level of the littera of Scripture and the material composition of the

world, but progresses to an .advanced or spiritual level that seeks to

comprehend both Scripture and the creation in terms of the eternal plan

in divine wisdom. As a bridge between the literal and the spiritual

senses of Scripture, he introduces the"history of the world divided

into six ages, beginning with the age of primordial innocence, and

ending with the day of judgement on which history is abolished and a

redeemed creation rests in God'. Mthough iris d^lared source "is

Augustine, and there is evident reliance on Bede for the first or

literal interpretation, Honorius' source for the general plan and

presentation of his hexaemeron is most probably Eriugena's Perinhvseon

or De divisione naturae. ' . '

Abelard's approach to the Genesis text is radically different from

that of Honorius. Although, he, too, includes an allegorical interpreta­

tion of the six days as six ages of worldTiistory— as well as a moral

interpretation of the days as stages of Christian lexistehce— his prin­

cipal concern is with the littera of the text. However, the text is

understood to« be a prophetic statement, closejw/related to,the philo­

sophical type of discourse that speaks of thcd^rine nature by siroili-

tudines and figural examples, according to the definition that Abelard

adopted from Macrobii^s. Thus, Abelard is'able to discern within the

words that describe the creation and formation of the elements, a

statement about .the amity and trinity

« ■»
of God,
.
in which power, is
• o ' - gj '

ascribed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and love or goodness to the

Holy Spirit. Moreover, the creation of animals from water on the

fifth day contains a prophetic reference to the baptism by which Chris­

tians are re-created through water and the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, the words of Adam at the creation of the woman are said to

conceal a prophetic reference''to the relationship between Christ and.

the Church, although iii ^belard's,opinion Adam could not himself’have

* *
been aware of that meaning.

Like Honorius, Abelard adheres to the Platonic notion of a double

creation, namely the intelligible creation ih divine wisdom,.and the

- . - ■’5..
 material creation ofa the sensible world. For this notion, his prin-
’ *
cipal source in addition to Augustine is Calcidius1 translation and,

interpretation of the Tiiaaeus. 'His presentation accordingly displays

a general optimism about the material world, antf"±acks the Eriugenian

A . V-
suggestion, found in Honorius, that corporeality represents a fall or.

descent into sin. The all-pervasive ^nfluence of Augustine led Rupert

of Deutz and Hugh of St. Victor, as well, to propose a theory of

exemplarism in creation. These authors, however, expressly sought to

^ ' .0
combat the Platonic notions of a creating demiurge, pre-existent

ideas, and pre-existing matter, by emphasizing creAtio ex nihilo and

the exemplar causality of the divine nature itself. In the opening

paragraphs of his Genesis commentary and in his commentary on the feast

of the Trinity, Rupert, describes the Trinity as' the exemplar of the-
‘ P - * ‘ .
• •' o

threefold structure of the universe--heaven, earth,*and all-their

ornament— while the generation of the Son is understood to be the

• \ — ' ■" •
exemplar of fecundity in creatures. 'Hugh, in turn, prefers to empha­

size the causality of the three Persons cooperating in power, wisdom,

and love or goodness to produce^the. material world and its' ordet.

/ For all four*authors, the key text in understanding and inter­

preting the doctrine of cyreation is Romans 1:20,, which states that

knowledge of the Creator is available to us through consideration of

l. * \ ,
creatures. ^Nevertheless, jpach author interprets and employs the text

according to .his own understanding of the doctrine *of creation. In.his

Genesis commentary, Rupert describes the second day especially as the

day that reveals God to the gentiles, in accordance with Romans 1:20,

since it is the day on which the Creator begins to form the material
world according to ttffe exemplar of his nature. In his commentary on
. A . 3
the feast of the .Trinity,* Rupert's theory of divine exemplarity in

creation allows him repeatedly to draw on some aspect of material or

j ’ •
rational creatures to illustrate the unity and trinity of God, the

generatioh of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit. Although

the divine nature is the'exemplar of creation, the decisive difference •

• .. s ,■ * *
between Creator and creatures is understood to be that all creatures

are composed of form and matter— whether spiritual or corporeal— while

the Creator is pure and undiffereij§iafed form without matter. Using a

•» ■ . • • -y ^ ■
series of arguments ,drawn from Boethius, Rupert goes on to show that

because the'creature is composed, it is mutable and transitory and can

S', ^ ‘ < ■1
h ’-'f'ii -I ' / 0 * '

never be what ^th^ ^Creator is. Nevertheless, it gpn advance through

grace and industry to a perfection prepared for it by the-Creator.■

For Honorius, who. draws his'argument from, Anselm's Monologion.

’the composed and mutable nature .of the creatureiis an indication that

it receives its being from another, namely the Creator who has his

being a se and not ab alio .1 Although he presents this argument from

created being to the being ‘o f the Creator, Hortorius does not proceed
.»-» * J

to argue for a’knowledge of God from creation. Unlike our other three

authors, he is exceptionally reticent about quoting or employing

Romans 1:20. Instead, he emphasizes the openness of’ all creatures to

the governance of divine providence, and notes how divine benevolence

• * * f ,

toward human beings is. displayed in the varied and delighting goods of
» «
material ^reation. 'v *

$ y contrast, Peter Abelard'a favourite text* seems to be Romans 1:20,

and he uses it in a variety of contexts to show how the knowledge of

God may be taught or appropriated through the study of creation.
t . *
Moses' intention, in beginning the books of the Lau with an account

of "the creation, is to teach the children of Israel something about- ~-

• 1 ' :

the power, wisdom, and love of the divine.Creator through a considera-

tion of his works. Similarly, Plato and. his followers,are understood

to have attained some knowledge of God through a recognition of his .

invisible attributes in the visible things of creation. Indeed,

'N • *

Romans .1:20 becomes Abelard's justification for his extensive use of

'pagan sources within the theologiae. since their knowledge of God

through creatures makes it possible to.understand,portions of their y

'cosmological writings as veiled references to the attributes and

activities of the three Persons, •

- Hugh of St. yictor follows Abelard in interpreting Romans 1:20

as a statement about the knowledge divine power, wisdom, and love '

through created things. In his treatise De-tribus djebus. he employs

this Abelardian interpretation to construct a systematic analysis of

the qualities in created natures as manifestations of the;invisible s

‘ - .. , * ' s •
divine attributes. The same interpretation, moreover, leads him to
- * ' 1* * ■
place his treatise on the Trinity within his general doctrine of;

creation in De sacramentis Christianae fidei, since the three Persons

are understood to be the threefold cause of creation, perceptible-in

and through creatures.

Although all four authors adhere to the catholic teaching ghat

the-three Persons cooperate^ in their works on the creature, there is

■a i-
a noticeable tendency in Rupert and Abelard to emphasize the activity

of the Spirit, while Honorius anci Hugh incline to.emphasize the activity
of the Word or holy wisdom, Honorius, indeed, does describe the
-o * ' t« -

Vivifying activity of the Spirit;, in his heAaeffieron commentary, but

■ ^ _fo, ■

proceeds into a larger discussion of creation in divine providence,

and its" perception by the angels,' or created wisdom, in the uncreated

wisdom of God. Moreover, his Cognitio vitae is 'constructed as an ... — •

ascent through the consideration of creatures to wisdom, or the patria

of the rational soul. Similarly, Hugh of St. Victor construes De

•• ■' ■ r?’ v •••
tribus diebusi Us an ascent from material^sreatures to created wisdom,
■ ' - ' ’ * .
'and thence to contemplation of divine wisdom. By contrast, Rupert of
“v • o ' - -.■'
Deutz and Peter Abelard place % relatively strong emphasis on the
'• . ’ V - V : .. ^ _ ■.

activity of the Holy 'Spirit ih their own-experience and Spiritual-

development in particular, .and in the spiritual growth of rational-

creatures in'general. Rupert's spiritual consolations and gift of ■•V ”

' ■’ <>. “ ^ ^
interpretation are attributed by him $o the Holy Spirit, just as

Abelard in his Historia calamitatum attributes his1’consolation to* the

Spirit or Paraclete, Both Rupert and Abelard make frequent references

to the sacrament of baptism, and see it prefigured in the movement Ofe“

s •

the Spirit over the primordial waters. In Honorius' hexaemerpn and

Hugh’s theological writings, however, greater attention is generally

given to the Eucharist,

-
or sacrament
ll>
of.the
"
incarnate Word.
•rr~ #
‘, •
^

. '
••* , V> ' **
It should be noted that Rupert's spiritualism, while strikingly

displayed in the account of his visions, is always constrained by h£S ,

<• S- ° •> \' ' :i,“ : "" - « “
Gregorian convictions co^cerningthe £hurch.as the unique bearer of

grace in! the world. Although he Uses pagan sources to.explain the

structure and qualities of,the material universe, he gives them ijo

place in the realm of the Spirit, o^,among the graced souls that .ape
 transformed, into1,likeness to God through the activity of the”Spirit. !

•AhhJhrd'V however, suggests— -in, the Theologia, 'summi boni1, especially

— a theory of prophetic and philosophical inspiratidn that “grants^to

>" " • .~’g • „-«1» 's$> ' .a *
-■the -pagan^ poets andphilosOphers
the-pagan,.poets ahd-philosOPhers isome share in the inspiration by the
5>
‘ 'v •'- ‘ 0 •ft' *** ’
Holy Spirit that guided the prophetic authors *of sacred Scripture. In

the Theologia Christiana.' moreover. he identifies the loss of integrity

' r- M '^ ■ *<3 '
r* “' '
at the fall with loss o'f likeness to the Holy Spirit, or .divine good-
.° . ^ I ,?e>r . . .. •
neSs,' and thentgoes oh to- show by- implication how his jjagaii. sources ■
-" -a. ° ' . t? * » , . . •
have achieved a kind of restoratlon^to. integrity through-their love

for God an the supreme good and the snurce of all goodness. *
"■ " " i ’ ° •* ' -
In this concluding survey, We phail not attempt a detailed com­

parison of the four authors' treatments of controversial points in the

•« ; V' ■ /» ■- -*
hexaemeron, since”lengthy presentations of 'the problems have been
. ' ■' " ~ ■ v ;■ . ‘ s'v
given in the body and conclusion of each,chapthx. With referenGe to»
■ ‘ ■-4
the problem of the -apparent, contradiction between the simultaneous ' ■

.creation of Ecelesiasticus^I8:l and "the-six days of the Genesis text,/*

jp” . o a ■ ■ " ---r ’ ■ ....

it should be noted that all four authors place the simultaneous •?

creation" in the intelligiblegrealm and^in the initial production'of

’ • <*t ■ ... sP,/'* ' » •v ■

matter,,,but understand the formation of fhe material world, as a gradual

process that included the distinction as:vwelf aY fhe“ordering of the

•ij. ^ v
four e^ments. Among o&ier problems within the textV the creation and
'' ::• “■*. . ■ ..."'? „■
nature, of the angels,*for .example, raised a number of questions, and

could variously, be identified with the production Of "heaven’* or of >

"light" oh the first day, and be held to have happened either prior to
; ,■ (P: ■ ■ " - ^ ..."
the creation of^ th% material ^orld,* or simultaneously^wifh it , depending •

oh the author's preference for the eastern or the western patristic ^

teaching on the issue. Although the angels are generally treated as

spiritual and therefore incorporeal creatures, Rupert and Honorius, '

in dependence On prego.ry', ascribe to them bodies of aetherial fire,

which became aerial shadow in the fallen onesA The production and

nature of .the*firmament, too,* posed a number of- problems, since it was

inaccessible to direct investigation and inexplicably contrary to the ,

CL •" .

natural order of the elements. Our. authors present a wide variety of

solutions drawn from several different^patristic and medieval sources,

but do not, themselvfes, Venture any positive pronouncement. The dis-

qussion and solution of these problems in the hexaemeral ^lbingf'aif!

oiir four authors must, finally, be said to owe less to the originality

of the twelfthrcentury theologians, than to the ingenuity or hesitancy

of their sources. It is only when we come to the creation of human

bhings in the image and likeness of God that we find original contribu­

tions from Rupert and Abelard to the tradition around that text.

Fpr Rupert, the image of God is given in the natural faculties of

the rational creature, and pertains to its resemblance to divine wisdom

or the Word. Likeness, however, is set before human beings as a goal

to be achieved through the combined effects of the Holy Spirit's gift

of grace, and human industry in obedience to the Creator. . Thus, the

. ■■■-;■ '
■ X2>
full^perfection of human nature.happens in a gradual process throughout ‘

time and material existence. This process, in turn, accounts in part ‘

for the imperfections in creation and the divine patience that tolerates

evil in mutable creatures until they come either to repentance, or to

the just penalty of separation from God. In commenting on ’the text of

. '. '' •«* * .• '
, •. :- ... •'./ 'v ’ r-

Genesis 1:26, Rupert describes this basically Augustinian distinction

 »' »
between the image and likeness, and then proceeds to draw from it a

conclusion concerning authority and government in human society. All

human beings have dominion over irrational creatures through the

rationality of the image. Only the- grated or elect, however, display

both' image and likeness, and arej as;such, especially qualified to

govern other human beings in the same w # that natural human beings

may govern cattle. In view of Rupert’s teachings'elsewhere to the

effect that the Church,, thtoujgh her sacraments, is the unique bearer

of divine grace, his interpretation, of the roles of the image and

likeness in the order of society "is clearly intended to support the

Gregorian contention that secular as well as ecclesiastical power is

delegated through the Church from the authority of the pope. If we

£ •
* 1 '
recall that Rupert’s great personal crisis occurred in the context of

the struggle at Liege between an^imperialist secular clergy and an

adamantly Gregorian monastic community, we may reasonably conjecture

that here, at least, the author’s personal and political circumstances

had their effect on his interpretation of the Genesis text.

Abelard's interpretation of the image and likeness to God— -which

is different from those of all his contemporaries— depends on his under­

standing of the grammatical structure of Genesis 1:26. The phrase, "to

his image and likeness," is understood to be paralleled by what follows,

"male and female created he them." Thus, the mple was created, to the

image, and the female to the likeness of God. Since image implies an

express likeness and likeness implies mere similarity, Abelard concludes

that the male of the species presents a greater likeness to divine

power, wisdom, and love than does the female, and supports his interpre­
tation with the story of the fall, in which the woman succumbed'to

temptation through weakness and a failure in both’Wisdom- and love for

L ■'
’God., It .is an interesting.experiment in the grammatical and logical

interpretation of a‘ text, but typically .tactless in view of the

intended audience. .

To summarize, if seems that the doctrine of creation, as developed

. •. . .Y - y " ...

from the study and interpretation of the first two-chapters of Genesis,

has an important and indeed formative place in the theologies of the

four twelfth-century authors whose works we have examined. For Rupert

and Hugh, with their historical outlook, it isihe foundation on which

1 •* ®
to construct their interpretations of buman existence and Christian

doctrine. In Honorius’ writings, too, it is the source from^jich to

draw a meaningful account of the structure of the universe and the goal

of salvation history. With Abelard, finally, it is the original

occasion of divine self-revelation, and a place in which to discover

a basic harmony among Christian and pagan authors concerning the

knowledge and service of God.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Abelard, Peter. Commentaria in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. In Petri

Abaalardi opera theologica. Vol. 1. Ed. E. M. Buytaert. CCCM 11.
Turnhout: Brepols,' 1969. "

.------- .-Dialectica. Ed. L. M. De Rijk. 2nd ed. Assdn: Van

Gprcum, 197,0. ■ /' . (l
. - f " <
. Dialogus inter philosophum, Judaeum, et Christianum;
Ed. R. Thomas. Stuttgart-Bad-Cannstatt, 1970.
■fi . ' s

-
—--- ■
--- . Epistolae. PL 178: 113-336.

---------. Ethics. Ed. and trans. D.’Luscombe. Oxford: Clarendon,

1971.

----- . Expositio in Hexaemeron. PL 178: 731-84.

— ~ :-----. Historia calamitatum. Ed. J.,Monfrin. Paris: Vrin, 1967.

— --- . Hymnarius Paraclitensis. 2 vols. Ed. J. Szoverffy.

Albany, N.Y.: Classical Folia Editions, 1975.

---. Introductio ad theologiam. PL 178 : 979-1114.

— —— Logica ingredientibus. In Petrus Abaelardus philosophische

Schriften. Ed. B.’Geyer. Beitrage 21: 1-3.. Miinster ±. W.* 1919-27.
> *
----- 1— . Problemata Heloissae. PL 178: 677-730.
■0
---------. Sic et non. Ed. B. Boyer and R. McKeon.. Chicago: Univer­
sity Press, 1976-77.

------- -. Theologia Christiana. In Petri Abaelardl opera theologica.

Vol. 2.-vEd. E. M. Buytaert. CCCM 12. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969. _

—------ .’ Theologia scholarium recensiones breviores. In Petri

Abaelardi opera theologica. Vol. 2. Ed. E. M. Buytaert. CCCM 12.
Turnhout: Brepols,. 1969.
* ' V

— --------- Theologia 'summi boni*. Ed. H. Ostlender. Beitrage

35:2-3. Munster i. W., 1939. *

395
 396

Alger of Liege. De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis domlnici. VPL

180: 739-854.

-*•-----— .v.Liber de miserlcordia et iustitia. ‘PL 180: 857-968.

't • • '•
- Ambrose. De digflitate conditione humanae libellus. PL 17-: 1105-08.

----- -— . Hexaemeron libri sex. PL 14: 131-288.

Anndles Palidensis auctore Theodoromonacho. Ed. G. H. Pdrfz. MGH. SS.

(in folio) 16. Hannover, 1859; rpt. Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1925,
pp. 48-98. “

Anselm. Cur Deus homo. In S. AnselmiCantuarensis' Archiepiscopi opera ■

omnia. Vol. 2. Ed. P. S. Schmitt. Rome: Sansaini, 1940.
* 1- <
-------- , Monologion. In S. Anselmi Cantuarensis Archiepiscopi opera
omnia. Vol. 1. Ed. F, S. Schmitt. Seccovia: Ex officina abbatiae,
3.938.
-----:
---- . Proslogion. In S. Anselmi Cantuarensis Archiepiscopi .opera
omnia. Vol. 1. Ed. F. S. Sciimitt. Seccovia: Ex officina abhatiae,
1958/ 1 :
Arnold of Bonneval. De operibus sex dierum. PL 189: 15,15-16 .
Augustine. Confessibnum libri XIII. Ed. L. Verheijen. CCSL 27.
Turnhout: Brepols, 198,1. ’

------•---. De civitate Dei libri XXII. E<i. E. Hoffmann. CSEL 40.

Leipzig: Tempsky, 1899-1900.
*»
0
v
. .

--------- . De doctrina Christiana libri quattuor. Ed. W. M. Green.

CSEL 80. Vienna: Tempsky, 1963.
. • ‘

— _____-- . De Genesi ad litteram libri 'duodecim. Bid. J, Zucha.

5 CSEL
28: 3: 2. Vienna: Tempsky, 1894, pp. 1-456.

_w__----- . De Genesi contra Manichaeos libri duo. PL 34: 173-220.

------- .De peccatorUnTmeritis et remisslone libri tres. PL 44:

109-200. '

---. De s’piritu et littera liber unus. Ed. C. F. Drb.a and -

J. Zycha.' CSEL 60. Vienna: Tempsky, 1913, pp. 155-229.

— ---- . De symbolo ad catechumenos tractatus IV. PL 40:. 627-68.,

- * »

---- . De Trinitate libri XV. Ed. W-. J. Mountain and F. Glorie.

. CCSL 50-50B. Turnhout: Brepols, 1968. _ f

Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et cairitate.

Ed. E. Evans. CCSL 46. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969, pp. 49-119.
. . In Johannls evangellum tractatus CXXIV. Ed. D. R.
Williams, CCSL 36. Turnhout: Brepols,' 1954.

. vRatractationes libri duo. Ed. P. Knoll. CSEL 36. Vienna:

Tempsky,'1902. ’
c'
Bede. Be natura rerum liber. In Bedae Venerabilis opera. Ed. C. W.
Jones, CCSL 123A, Turnhout: Brepols, 1975, pp. 174-204.\

•---- . Libri quatuor in principium Genesis usque ad’nativitatem

Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis adnotationum. In Bedae Venerabilis
c,opera. Ed. C. W. Jones. CCSL 118A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1967.

Boethius. In categorias Aristotelis libri quatuor. PL 64: 159-294.

------— . The Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy.

Ed. and- trans. E, K. Rand and S. J. Tester.' 2nd ed. London: Heine-,
mann, 1973.

Calcidius. Timaeus a Calcldio translatus commentarioque instructus.

Ed. J.,H. Waszink. 2nd ed. Plato Latinus 4r London: Warburg,
V • 1975.

Chronicoh sancti Hubert! AndaginensisT Ed. L. Bethmann and W. Watten-

bach. MGH..SS. (in folio) 8 . Hannover, 1858; rpt. Leipzig:
Hiersemann, 1925, pp. 565-630.

Cicero, --fe inventione rhetoricae. Ed. and trans. H. M. Hubbell. v

. London: Heinemann, 1949. • v4‘
■Kr-
Epistola Leodicensum adversum Paschalem papam. Ed. E. Sackur. MGH. /
L de L. 2. Hannover, 1892, pp. 543-62. ?,
. . . . , ‘ ■
Gregory. Hoiniliarum in evangelia libri duo. PL 76: 1075-1314.
*^5 . • •
------- . Moraliain Job. H,'75: 509-1162; PL 76: 9-782. ^

(Honorius Augustodunensis.) La Clavia physicae di Honorius Augusto-

dunensis, Ed. P. Lucentini.' Rome: Edizioni di storia e lettera-
tura, 1972, “ '

---- . Cognitlo vitae. PL 40: 1005-32.

;— — -- . De animae exsilio et patrla. PL 172: 1242-46. ,

---------. De luminaribus ecclesiae. PL‘172: 197-234.

-------- . Elucidarium. In L'Elucidarium et les lucidaires.

Ed. -Yves LefeVre. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1954.

— — — — , Expositio in Cantica Canticorum. PL 172: 347-496.

 ----- -— . Expositio totius Psalterii. PL 172: 269-312; PL 193: »
1315-72; PL 192: 485-730. *' * >

— --- .. imago mundi. PL 172: 119-88.

W " ■ »
--------Inevitabile. PL 172: ,1191-1222.

----- — -. Libellum octo quaestionum. PL 172: li85-92.

~ — *— -— . Liber duodecim quaestionum. PL 172: 1177-86.

. Neocosmos. PL 172: 253-68. „ '

4

— ----- . Sermo generalis. PL 172: 861-70.

— ------ . Summa gloria. Ed.

—■ . Dieterich. MGH. L de L. 3. Hanno­
ver, 1896, pp. 93-80. - ,

_— , Summa totius. PL 172: 187-96.

Hugh of Rouen. Tractatus in Hexaemeron. Ed, F. Lecomte. AHDLMA 25

(1958): 227-94.

Hugh of St. Victor. Adnotationes’^Slu'cidatoriae in Petttateuchon. PL

.175: 29-8£. ^ ‘ : 1

_— .— De sacramentis christianae fidei. PL 176: 173-618.

—------De sacramentis ’legistnaturalis et scriptae. PL 176: 17-42.

= i ’ , •• „ - ■ ■ '
------ *f De tribus dlebus. PL ,176: 811-38.

----- . Didascalicon de studio«legendi. Ed. C. H, Buttimer.

Washington: Catholic University Press, 1939.

—
------- . Opera propaedeutics. Ed. ,R. Baron. Notre Dame, Ind.:
University. Press, 1966. - ,

— . Six opuscules spirituels. Ed. R. Baron. Paris: Cerf,

1969. < * ;■

Isidore. De natura rerum liber ad Sisebutum regem. PL 83: 963-1018.

--------- . Etymologiarum libri XX. PL 82: 73-728.

Jerofie. Adversus Jovinianum libri duo. PL 23: 221-352.

----- *•— . Commentaria in Ezeehielem prophetam libri quatuordecim.

PL 25: 15-490.

Commentaria in Zachariam prophetam libri duo. PL 25:

1 41 5-15 4 2.
 399
° »

-— -- — . Episbola 69: Ad Qceanum. PL 22: 653-64.

--------— • Liber Hebraicarum ouaestionum in Genesim. PL 23: 983-.

1062. ■ :

John of Salisbury. Metalogicon, Ed. C. C. J. Webb. Oxford: Clarendon,

1929. ’

John Scottus^ Eriugena. Annotationes in Mareianum. Ed. C. E. Lutz.

Cambridge, Mass.: Medieval Academy of America, 1939.

— ---- . Periphyseon. PL 122: ’439-1022. *

‘ n ** - *

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Ed. and trans. H. Thackeray. London:

"Heinemann, 1930. ■
«x . V ■
Macrobius. Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis. Ed. J. Willis. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1963.
' 4^ ' " '
Manegold. of Lautenbach. Ophsculum contra Wolfemium. PL 155: 149-76.

Origen. In Canticum Canticorum libri quattuor. In Origenis opera.

Vol. 4. Ed. D. A. B. Caillau and G. Guillon. Paris: Mequignon-
Bavard,. 1892, pp. 355-546.

Peter Daotah. De perfections monachorum opusculum. PL 145: 291-328.

Peter .the Venerable. Letters, 2 vols. Ed. Giles Constable. Cam­

bridge, -Mass.: Harvard, 1967. '

Pliny. Naturalis historia libri I-VI. Ed. C. Mayhoff. Stuttgart:

Teubner,,1967.
■A- _ -
Rainer of Liege.* De ineptiis idiotae libellus ad.amicunn Ed. W. Arndt.
MGH. SS. (In folio) 20. Hannover, 18&3; rpt. Leipzig: Hiersemann,
1925, pp. 593-95. . ' . ”

Robert of Torigny. Chronica ad 1116. Ed. L. C. Bethmann.' MGH, SS. .

** (in folio) 6 , Hannover, 1844; rpt. Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1925,
pp. 475-538.?
■> * l’
Rudolph of St. Trond. . Gesta Abbatum Trudensis. Ed. D. R. Koepke.
MGH. SS. (in'folio) 10. Hannover', 1852; rpt. Leipzig: Hiersemann,
1925, pp. 22*7^72. *
• v

Ruperti chronicon S. Laurentii. Ed. W. Wattenbach. MGH. SS■• (in folio)

8 . Hannover, 1858; rpt. Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1925, pp. 261-79,

* 0' l

Rupert of Deutz. Altercatio monachi et clerici. PL 170: 537-42,

 . De gloria et honore Filii hominis super Mattheum.
• Ed. H. Haaeke. CCCM 7. Turnhout: Brepols, ^ 67.

--------- -. De omnipotentia Dei. PL .172: 453-78.

— -7 -— -. De sancta Trinitate et operibus eius. 4 vols. Ed. II.

Haaeke. •CCCM 21-24. Turnhout: Brepols, 1971. * .

— ---- . De victoria Verb! Dei. Ed. H. Haaeke. MGH. Geistes-

geschichte 5. Weimar, 1970. .

------ — . De voluntate Dei. PL 170: 437-5A.

— Epistola ad Evrardum. PL 170: 541-42 s

X. *
—— ., Liber de divinis officiis. Ed. H. Haaeke. CCCM 7.
Turnhout: Brepols, 1967.

; Monachi cuiusdam exulis S. Laurentii de calamitatibus

ecclesiae Leodiensis opusculum. Ed. H. Boehmer.' MGH. L de L., 3.
Hannover, ,1896, pp; 622-41.

— ---------. Quod monachis licet praedicare. In Honorius Angustodunen-

sis. Ed. J. A. Endres. Munich: Kosel*schen, 1906.

— ------. Super quaedam capltula regulae divi .Benedict! 'Abbatis<

PL 170: 477-538.
* -
i
, ’
Sallust. Ed..and trans. J. C. Rolfe. London: Heinemann, 1921.

(Thierry of Chartres.) "The Creation and Creators of the World Accord­

ing to'Thierry of Chartres and Clarenbaldus of Arras." Ed. -N.
Haring." AHDLMA 22 (1956)': 137-216.

Virgil. Georgies. Ed. and trans. H.R. Fairclough. London: Heinemann,

1974.

William of Conches. Philosophia mimdi. PL 172: 39-102.

William of St. Thierry. Guillelmi Abbatis ad Gaudfridum Carnotensem

Episcopum et Bemardum Abbatem Claraevallensem epistola. PL 182:
531-33.
 V

401

h-
Secondary Sources
Translations, and Incidental Editions

Barkholt, E. Bie Ontologie Hugos von St. Viktor. Bonn: [n.p.], 1930.

Baron, Roger. , "Etude sur 1'authenticity'de l'oeuvre de Hugues de Saint

Victor d'apres les MsS. Maz.. 717, B.N. 14506, et Douai 359-366/'
Scriptorium 10 (1956): 182-220.
' 1 <?
. Etudes sur Hugues de Saint Victor. Paris: Desclee de
Brower, 1963. <

— -------- . "Hugues de Saint Victor: contribution a un nouvel examen

de son oeuvre." TraditiO 15 (1959): 223-97.

— i — .— , "L'idee de liberte chez s. Anselme' et Hugues de St.

Victor." Recherches dfe Theologie Ancienne et Medievale 32 (1965):
117-21.

— •------- . "Note sur la succession et-la date des ecrits de Hugues de

Saint Victor." Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique 57 (1962): 88-118.
•— | -------
------- — • Science et sagesse chez Hegues de S.t. Victor. Paris:
Lethielleux, 1957.
• 0.

Bauerreiss, R. "Zur Herkunft des Honorius Augustodunensis." Studien

und Mitteilungen, zur Geschichte des Benediktiner Ordens 53 (1935):
28-36.

Benton, John. "A Reconsideration of the Authenticity of the Corre­

spondence of Abelard and Heloise." In Petrus Abaelardus (1079-
1142): Person, Werk, und Wirkung. Trierer Theologische Studien
38. Ed. R. -Thomas, J. Jolivet, B. E'.?■Luscombe, and L. M. De Rijk.
Trier: Paulinus, 1980, pp. 41-52.

Beinert, Wolfgang. Die Klrche, Gottes Heil in der~Welt. Beitrage

n. F. 13. Munster i. W;, 1973.

Berliere,,U. "L'exercise du ministere paroissal par les moines dans

le haut moyen age.," Revue Benedictine 39 (1927):* 246-50.

Bisch'off, G. G. "The Eucharistic Controversy between Rupert of Deutz

and His Anonymous Adversary." Diss. Princeton 1965.

Blau, Ludwig. "Shekinah." The Jewisli Encyclopedia (1905).

Bliemetzrieder,, F. "L'oeuvre d'Anselme de Laon et la litterature

theologique contemporaine. 1. Honorius d'Autun. 2. Hugues.de
Rouen." Recherches de Theologie" Ancienne et Medievale 5 (1933)I
275-91; 6 (1934): 261-^83; 7 (1935): 28-51.
 402

Buytaert, E.'M. "Peter Abelard's Expositio in Hexaemeron." Antonianum

‘ 43 (1968): 163-94.

Chatlllon, J. "De Guillaume de Champeaux a 0Thomas Gallus: chronique

d'histoire litteraire et doctrinale de l'ecole/de Saint Victor."
Revue du Moyen Age Latin 8 (1952): 139-264.

Chenti, M.-D. "L'homme et la nature. Perspectives sur la renaissance

du 12me siecle."- AHDLMA 19 (1952): 39-66.
v .. h.. '....

-~---- -■— . "Invo lucrum: le my the selon'les theologiens medievaux."

AHDLMA 22 (±955): 75-79.
_ v *
■— --- . "Naturalisms et theologie au'12me siecle." Recherches de
Science Religieuse 37 (1950):’5-12.

-------- — . Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century. Trans.

J. Taylor and L. K. Little. Chicago: University Press, 1968 (=La
theologie au 12me siecle. Paris: Vrin, 1957).

— — — — . "Nature ou histoi*1*?? Une controverse exegetique sur la

creation au 12me siecle." AHDLMA 20 (1953): 25-30..

Cloes, H. "La systematization theologique pendant la premiere moitie

du 12me siecle." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 34 (1958)-:
277-329.

Cougar, Y.-M. "Le theme de Dieu-Greateur et les explications de

1'hexaemeron dans la tradition cttretienne." In L'homme devant
Dieu: melanges offerts au Pere Henri de Lubac. 3 vols. Paris,
' 1963, 1 : 189-222. . «
' ' ; i

Crouse, Robert D. "Honorius Augustodunensis: De Neocosmo. A Critical

Edition of the Text with Introduction and, Notes." Diss.\Harvard
.1970. " . V "
------- "Honorius Augustodunensis: The Arts as Via ad Patriam." .
In Arts liberaux et philosophie au moyen age: actes du quatrieme
congres international de philosophie medievale. Montreal, 27 aout
- 2 septWbre, 1967. Paris: Vrin, 1969, pp. 531-39.

— “■
-- . "Intentio Moysi: Bede, Augustine, Eriugena and PlatOj. in
the Hexaemeron of Honorius Augustodunensis." Dionysius 2 (1978):
137-57. - * ^

Croydon,= F. E. "Notes on the Life of Hugh of St. Victor." Journal*of -

Theological Studies 40 (1939): 232-53.

Dales, R. C. "A Twelfth-Century Concept of the Natural Order."

Viator 9 (1978): 179-92.
d'Alverny, M.-Tr" "Abelard et l'astrologie." In Pierre Abelard-Pierre
le Venerable; Abbaye de Gluny, 2 au 9 juillet, 1972, Paris:
Centre national de la recherche scientifigue, 1975,'pp. 611-30.
j ' *
------- "Le cosmos symbolique du 12me siecle." AHDLMA 20 (1953):
31-81.

Deferrari, R. J., trans.. Hugh of St. Victor on the Sacraments of the

Christian Faith. Cambridge, Mass.: Medieval Academy of America,
-1951.
. » \ i i *
De Ghellinck, J. "Dialectique et dogme aux lOme au 12me siecles."- In”
Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie: Festgabe zum 60. Geburts-
tag C. Baeumker. Beitrage 4. Suppl. 1. Munster i. W., 1913,
pp. 79-^99. „ -

—--------.. Le mouvement theologique du 12me siecle. 2nd ed. Paris:

Desclee De Brouwer, 1948. ’ <
' . • * 1
—-----— "The Sentences of Anselm of Laon and Their Place in the
Codification of Theology during the 12th Century." Irish Theo­
logical Quarterly 7 (1911): 427-41. \

---------. "La table des matieres.de la premiere edition des oeuvres'

de Hugues de Saint Victor." Recherches de Science Religieuse 1 ,
,(1910): 270-89 and 385-96. ~ ; *
1 ' - ° *

De Lubaci H.v Exegese medi&vale: les quatre sens de l*Ecriture. 4 vols

Paris: Aubier, 1959-64. ’ ’

Derling, C. G. Dissertatio inauguralis philosophica de Hugone de

Sancto Victore, Comite Blankenbergensi. Helmstadt: [n.p.], 1745.

Dronke, Peter. Abelard and Heloise~ in Medieval Testimonies. W. P. Ker

Memorial Lecture 26.* Glasgow: University Press j 1976". .
* ® * \

--- _1— Fabula: Explorations into the Uses of Myth in Medieval

Platonism. Leiden: Brillj 1974. —

--------- - "New Approaches*to the'School of Chartres." Annuario de

Estudios Medievales 6 (1971): 117-40.

Endres, J. A. Forschung zur Geschichte der fruhmittelalterlichen

Philosophie.* Beitrage 17: 2y3. Miinstet i. W., 1915.
i . ’ * ’ J
‘ ' -f
--- •*— ~. Honorius Augustodunensis. 'Munich: Kosel'schen, 1906.

Flint,.. V. I. J. "The Career of Honorius Augustodunensis: Some Fresh

Evidence." Revue Benedictine 82 (1972): 63-8fe>

— "The Chronology of the Works of Honorius Augustodunensis."

Revue Benedictine 82 (1972): 215-42.
 -— -— — — . "The Date o'fv-the Arrival of Rupert of Deutz at Siegburg."
Revue Benedictine 81.(1971): 317r39. . „

--- . "The Original Text,of the Blucidarium of Honorius Augustq-

dunensis from the 12fch Century English Mss-.-" Scriptorium 17
(1964): 91-94.

. "The 'School of LaonV: A Reconsideration." -Recheftches de

-

* . Theologie Ancienne et Medievale 43 (1976); 89-110. ‘

Forest,^A*,‘F. van Steenbergheni- and M. de Gandillac.- Le mouvement

doctrinale du 9me au 14me siecles. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 19.56.

Gay, J. H. '.'Four Jiedieval Views of Creation." Harvard Theological

' Review 56 (1963): 243-73. " ’r 1 ‘V

Goy, R» Die Uberlieferung der Wetke Hugos, von St. Viktor: ein Beitrage
zur Kommunikationsges chichte des Mittelalters; Monographien zur
Geschichte des Mittelalters 14. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1976.

Gregory, T. Anima Mundi: la filosofia di Guolielmo di Conches et la

v scuola di Chartres. Florence: Sansoni, 1955. -■

"Considerations sur ratio ,et natura chez. AbSlard." In-.

pierre Abelard-Pierre la Venerable: Abbaye de Cluny, 2 au 9
juillet, 1972. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scienti-'
fique, 1975, pp. 569-81. '

----— "Considerazioni su ratio,,et natura in Abelardo ■" Studl"

Medievali, ser. 3: 14 (1973): 287-300. ’ ■

*. -— \— — — .• "L'idea di natura nella filosofia medievale primp dell'.

ingresso deila fisica di Arimjotele il' secolo 12." In La filoso­
fia della natura nel medloe^/-Proceedings of the Third ‘ interna- •
tional Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Trento, 31 August - 5
. September, 1964. 'Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1966-, pp. 27-65.
^ ' •
*-— .. "La-nouvelle idee de nature et de savoir scientifique au
12me siecle." In The.Cultural Context of Medieval Learning: First-
International.Colloquium of"Philosophy, Science, and Theology in
„ the Middle Ages,'North Andover, Hass., 1973. Ed. J. E. Murdoch
And E. i). Syria. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1975, pp. 193-218.

— — t* Platonismo medievale: studi a richerche. Istituto storico

italiano per il medioevo, studi storici. Fasc. 26-27. Rome:
Sede dell'istituto, 1958. ' -

Haring, N. "Abelard Yesterday and Today.’" In Pierre Abelard-Pierre

le Venerable: Abbaye de Cluny, 2 au 9 juillet, 1972. Paris: Centre
national de la recherche scientifique, 1975, pp. -341-403.
 \
405

--------- "Chartres and Paris Revisited." In Essays in Honour of

A. C. Peeis. Ed. J. R. O'Donnell. Toronto: Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, 1974, pp. 268-329.- ^

— ;--- — -r-® "John Scottus in Twelfth-Century Angelology." In The Mind

of Eriugena. Ed. J. J. O'Meara and L. Bieler.■ Dublin: Irish
University Press for Royal Irish Academy, 1973, pp. 15'8-69.
■ O-.

--- . "A Third Manuscript of Peter Abelard's Theologia summi

boni." Medieval Studies 18 (1956): 215-23. ‘ 4

Haskins, C. H.' The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard, 1927. j

Jaffd, P., ed.. Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicagum. 6 vols. Berlin, 1896.

: .

Javelet, R. "Image de Dieu et nature aU lime siecle." In La filosofia

J della natura.nel medioevo: Proceedings of the Third international
Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Trento, 31 August - 5 September.
1964. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1966, pp. 286-96.

ii- . Image et rassemblance au 12me siecle: de s. Anselme a .

Alain de Lille. 2 vols. Strasbourg: Letouzey et Ane, 1967.
- v>
.. \ (•
Jeauneau, E ., "MaeTolJe^ source du platonisme chartrain." Studi Medie­
val! set. 3:«1 (I960): 3-24.

— — "Notes sur 1'ecole de Chartres." Studi Medieval! ser.

3= 5 (1964): 821-65. '
? ;- . ‘ ^ ■
— y-y. "L'usage de la notion d'intetlumenfeom a travers les gloses
de Guillaume de Conches." AHDLMA 24 (1957): 35-100.

—— -. ."Wilhelm von Conches." Lexicon fiir Theologie und Kirche

2nd ed. (1958).

Jolivet, J. Arts du langage et theologie chez Abelard. Paris: Vrin,

1969.

-i;— -- — . "Elements du concept de nature chez Abelard." In La filo­

sofia della natura nel medioevo: Proceedings of the Third Interna­
tional Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Trento, 31 August - 5
September, 1964. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1966, pp. 297-304.

Kearney*, R. "Master Peter Abelard, Expositor of Sacred Scripture." *

Diss. Marquette 1980.

-- -— — . "Peter Abelard as Biblical Commentator: A Study of the

Expositio in Hexaemeron." In Petrus Abaelardus (1079-1142): Person,
Werk. und Wirkung. Trierer Theologische Studien 38. .Ed. R. Thomas,
 J. Jolivet, D. E. Luscombe, and L. H. De Rijk. Trier: Paulinus,
1980, pp. 199-210.

Snipping, R., ed. Die Regesten der Erzblschofe von Koln im Mittel-
alter. 6 vols. Bonn: [n.p.], 1901-15.
* <» - :

Ladner, Gerhard. The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on ^Christian Thought

and Action in the Age of the Fathers. Canibridge, Mass.: Harvard,
1959. , „

Landgraf, A. M. Introduction a l’histoire de la litterature theolo- -v

gique de la scholastique naissante. Ed. and trans. A. M. Landry
and L. B . Geiger. Montreal:. Institut d1etudes medievales, 1973.

Leclerq, J. The Love of Letters and the Desire for God. TraAs. C.
Misrahi. New York: Fordham, 1961 (■L'amour des lettres et le
desir de Dieu. Paris: Cerf, 1957). '

Lottin, 0. Psychologie et morale aux 12me et 13me siecles. Vol. 5:

Problemes d'histoire littdraire: l'ecole d'Anselme de Laon et de
Guillaume de Champeaux. |Louvain: Abbaye du Mont-Cdsar, 1942-49.

Lucentini, P . Platonismo medievale: contributi per la storia dell1

Eriugenismo. Florence: Sansonl, 1980.

Luscombe, David.. "Nature in the Thought of Peter Abelard." In La

filosofia della natura nel medioevo: Proceedings of the Third
' 'International Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Trentoy 31 August
- 5 September, 1964. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1966, pp. 314-19.

---------,. The School of Peter Abelard. Cambridge: University

Press, 1969. >
■f. , ‘ r •

McKeon°, R. "Medicine and Philosophy in the Eleventh^ an<d !^cjelfth

Centuries: The Problem;of the Elements." In The Dignity of
Science. Ed. J. A. Weisheipl, .[Washington:] Thomisfc'Press,
1961, pp. 75-120. ' . . y -
t)* " ",- ' ,• 4.
? j ■ '■ i ' ‘
---------. "Poetry and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century: The
Renaissance of Rhetoric." Modern Philology 43 (1945-46): 217-34.’
. — ' ■ •* ' ■
Menhardt, H. Der Nachlass des Honofius Augustodunensis." Zeitschrift
fur deutsches Altertum und deutsches Literatur 89 (1958): 30: 51-54.
* • V . ' ■•
Mews, C. "The Development of the Theologia of Peter.Abelard." In
Petrus Abaelardus (1079-1142)1 Pefeon, Werk, und Wirkung. ■ Trierer
Theologische Studien 38. Ed. R. Thomas, J. Jolivet, D. E. Luscombe,
. anil LV M., De^Rijk. Trier: Paulinus, 1980, pp. 183-98. .» • •
f ‘ ’ ■ /
Monchmeier, R. Amalar von Metz: Sein Leben und seine Schriften.
MEtinster i. W., 1893.
 407

Mulhem, P. "Trinity, Holy, Devotion to.j" New Catholic Encyclopedia

, - J f • ( i a 6 7 > * ' V

Bar€,G,i 0, Bfhnet. and P. Tremblay.- La renaissance du~12me siecle:

enseignement.■ Paris: Vrin, 1933.

Parent, J. M . La doctrine de la crgation dans 1'ecole de Chartres:

. etudes et revest Parist Vrin, 1938. ' • """

Payer, P. J., trans. A Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew and a

Christian. By PeterAbelard, Toronto: Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies, 1979. ’ „

Peppermiiller, R. Abaelards Auslegung des Romerbriefes. Beitrage 10.

Munster i. W., 1972. u .

— — — . "Exegetische Tradltionen und theologische Neuansatze

in Abelards Kotflwentar zuto RSmerbrief." Jn Peter Abelard: Pro­
ceedings of the International Conference, Louvain, May 10-12,
1971. Ed.;E. M. Buytaert. Hague: Nijhoff, 1974, pp. 116-26.

Quain, E. A. "The Medieval Accessus ad auctores." Traditio 3 (1945):

215-64. . • ■ '

Raby, R. J, E. "Nuda natura and Twelfth-Century Cosmology." Speculum

43> (1968): 72-77.' '

Reynolds,-R. -E. "Further Evidence for the Irish Origin of Honorius."

■Vivarium 7 (1969>: 1-7.

Robbins, F. E. The Hexaemeral Literature. Chicago: University Press,

1912'.

'■ Roinigi M. F. "A Critical Edition of Peter Abelard's Expositio in

Hexaemeron." Diss. California at Los Angeles 1981.

Rooth, E. "Kleine Beitrage zur Kenntnis des sogenannte Honorius Augus-

.todunensis." Studia-Neophilologica 12 (1939-40): 120-35.

Sanford, E. M.■ "Honorius, Presbyter and Schola&ticus." Speculum 23

(1948): 397-425.

Scheffczyk, L. Creation and Providence. Trans. R. Strachan. London:

Burns and Oates, 1970 (=Creation et providence. Paris, 1967).
6 ' . : "

. "Die heilsgeschichtliche TrinitStslehre des Rupert von

Deutz und ihre dogmatische Bedeutung." In Kirche und Dberliefer-
ung. Joseph Rupert Gieselmann zum 70 Geburtstag. Ed.jJ. Betz and
H. Fries. Freiburg: Herder, 1968, pp. 90-118.
 '408

Silverstein, T. "Elementatum. Its Appearance among .the TwelfthCentury

Cosmogonists." Mediaeval Studies 16 (1954): 156-62.

Silves.tre, H. VA propos de la lettre d'Anselme de Laon a Heribrand de

Saint-Laurent/' Recherches de Theologie Ancienne'?et Medievale 28
(1961): 3-25.

— -------- Le chronieon sancti Laurentii Leodiensls dit de Rupert de

Deutz: etude critique. Louvain: Bureaux de recueil, 1952’.

---- — — . "Notes sur la controversie de Rupert de Saint-Laurent avec

Anselme de Laon et Guillaume de Chatopeaux." In Saint-Laurent de '
Liege. Liege: [n.p.], 1968, pp. 63-80.

Smalley, B. The“Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Notre Dame,

Ind.: University Press, 1964:

Southern, R. W. St. Anselm and His Biographer. Cambridge: University

Press, 1963. *

Stock., B.t ""Experience, Praxis, Work and Planning in Bernard of Clair-

vaux: Observations on the Sermones in Cantica." In The Cultural
Context of Medieval Learning: First International Colloquium of
Philosophy. Science, and .Theology in the Middle Ages, North
Andover, Mass.,.1973. Ed. J. R. Murdoch and’E. ;D. Sylla. Dor­
drecht: Reidel, 1975, pp. 219-68.

--------- . "Hugh of St. Victor, Bernard Silvester, and Ms. Trinity

College Cambridge 0.7.7." Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972): 152-^.

--- . Myth and ^Science in the Twelfth Century:’A Study of

Bernard Silvester. Princeton: University Press, 1972.

Taylor, J. The Origin and Early Life of Hugh-of St. Victor: An Evalua­
tion of the Tradition. Notre Dame, Ind.: University Press, 1957.

«Van din Eynde, D. "Chronologie des ecrits d'Abelard a Heloise."

Antonianum 37 (1962): 347-49,

— *— -— ;— i. Essais sur la succession et la date des ecrits des Hugues

de Saint Victor. Spicilegium Pontificii Athfenaei Antoniani 13.
Rome: Apud Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, I960.*

, "Hugh of St, Victor." .New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967).

— ------» "Les Notulae in Genesim die Hugues de Saint Victor: source

litteraire de la Summa sententiarum." Antonianum 35 (1960): 323-
327.. ■ '•

Van Engen, J. "Rupert of Deutz: Monk, Theologian, and Contrcfversialist

at the End of the Gregorian Reform." Diss. California at Lbs
Angeles 1976. • . •
 Van Winden, J . C. M.' Calcldius on Hatter; His Doctrine and Sources. ■
Leiden: Brill, 1965,, - *
• • ' . - ' V

Weingart, R. E. "Peter Abelard's Contribution to Medieval Sacramentolo-

gy." Recherehes de Theologie Ancienne et Medievale 34 (1967): 159-
78. •

Q . * .■ *

Addenda

Chadwick, Henry. Boethius: The Consolations of Music. Logic. Theology

and Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981.

Chenu, M.-D. L 1eveil.de la conscience. .Conference Albert-le-Grand

1969. Montreal-Paris: Institut d'etudes mediev&les, 1969'.

fie Gandillac, Maurice, et al. Abelard: le "dialogue," la philosophie

de la loglque. Cahiers de la Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie 6.
Geneva-Lausanne-Neuchatel: Fonds National Suisse de la Recherche
* Scientifique, 1981. ».

,=Garrigues, M.-0. "Qui etait Honorius Augustodunensis?" Angelicum 50

(1973): 19-49.

Jolivet. Jean. Abdlard. ou la philosophie dans le langage. Editions

Seghers, 60. Paris: Seghers, 1969.
 curriculum vitae

NAME: Wanda CIZE..3KI

i ' ■ •9
ADDRESSJ 26 Balmoral Ave. #209 .
I'oronto, Ontario •
Canada M4V 1J4
. tel. (416) 964-3640

DATE AND PLACE OP BIRTH: October 2, 1951; Toronto, Ontario

CITIZENSHIP: Canadian

LANGUAGES: English
Dani sh/No rwe gi an
French .
German . . -
Latin ' ,

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION;

Ph.D. 1978-83 - University of Torontp, Centre for Medieval

Studies
. Thesis: ’'The Doctrine of Creation in the Fif'sto, Half
of the Twelfth Century: Selected Authors"
The thesis is a comparative analysis and study of
texts on creation by Rupert-of Deutz, Honorius
Augustodunensis, Peter Abelard, and. Hugh of St.
. Victor, with close attention to sources-and" use of
sources, and thq, place of -the doctrine of creation
in their theological authorship as a whole.
Supervisor: Dr. Brian C. Stock
Courses:, John Scottus-Eriugend: Periphyseon 4
Spirituality in the Writings of Bohaventure
The Person of the Holy Spirit in the Writing
'• of Thomas Aquinas and his Contemporaries
. The Activities of the Holy Spirit in the
. ’ Writings of Thomas Aquinas and his Con-
■ * . temporaries
introduction to the Main Sources of' Western
'Liturgy
Christ in the Writings of Thomas Aquinas
and his Contemporaries
„ Editing of Latin Text's
Literacy and Western Culture: 1,000-1250
Research Report: "a Study of Peter Abelard's
. v ' Exposltio in.- Hexaemeron in the Context of
r Contemporary Hexaemeral literature"
M.3.L. 1977-81, - Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies
Sectio- theologica (magna cum laude).
 £
i
M.A. 1977-78 - University of Toronto, Centre for Medieval
Studies *
Courses: Institutional Foundations' and Doctrinal
Developments of the Middle Ages
Archaeological Evidence'and Artistic Expres­
sions of,, Medieval Society
Latin Palaeography '. „
Letters of Ambrose and Jerome

M.L.S. 1974-1976 - University of Toronto, Faculty of Library

Science „
Courses: The Social Environment and Libraries .
Information Resources and Library Collections „
Organisation of Information.
Library Administration
‘ Re-search Methods,
Contemporary Publishing .
Library Collections in the Humanities
* Rare Books and Manuscripts
'Historical Manuscripts and. Archival Collections
Audio-Visual Materials and the Library'.
Studies in Descriptive Bibliography
' Intermediate Medieval Latin
B.A. 1970-74 - University,of Toronto, Victoria College
Course's :* Old English Language -and Literature
Medieval Literature in Translation
Ancient Art
Medieval Art. ^
Scientific German'Reading
Shakespeare .
Beowulf and Other Old English Literature
Sixteenth Century Prose and Poetry
European Aft 1400-1750
European Art 1750-1940 .
■' Chaucer
Later Greek and Roman Architecture
Hellenistic and Roman Sculpture
‘^Elementary Old Norse ,
Suetonius1 Julius Caesar'
Cicero fs; Pro Caelio
South German Baroque Art and Architecture
■ English Pfe-Gothic Art
Medieval Society
Christian arid Medieval Latin
Medieval Philosophy (St. .Michael's
College) '
^jpCLARSKIPS AND AWARDS:

1979-83 Social Sciences and Humanities .Research Council

of Canada Doctoral Fellowships
1978-79 'University of Toronto Connaught Scholarship
1977-78 Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies Bursary
1975f76. University of Toronto OpeniFellowship r .

PUBIICATIONS: '
Articles accepted for .publication in “the Dictionary of the
A g e s , Rew York: Scribners, 1982-
r *

Adam of the Little Bridge

Bible, Interpretation of (Four Senses)
Clemens Scottus
Villiam of Conches
S
William of Moerbeke
Study Form: Wanda Cizewski

Major Field: Theology.

M$Tf032F/S Aguinas (Prof. W. Principe) A
MST t
9310S Bonaventure(Prof. W, .Principe) A '
MST 9027F John Scotus Eriugena (Pro,f. E, Jeuneau) A . .>
MST9030L Christ in the Writings of Aquinas (Prof. W." Principe)
First Minor Field: Editing .Latin Texts
MST 9114L Editing of Latin Texts (Prof , V., Brown) B
Second ittnor Field: Main Sources of WEstem Liturgy.
MST 9005L Main Sources of Western Liturgy (Prof. R. Reynolds) A