i J ^be Tflniversiti? of Cbtcaao FOUNDED BY JOHN O ROCKCPCLLeN THE HEXAEMERAL LITERATURE A STUDY OF THE GREEK AND LATIN COMMEN- TARIES ON GENESIS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of greek) BY FR.\NK EGLESTOX ROBBES'S THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS THE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Hgents THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY NEW TOBK THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON AND EDINBURGH Zbc "Clniversiti? ot Cbicago FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKCFCLLCR THE HEXAEMERAL LITERATURE A STUDY OF THE GREEK AND LATIN COMMEN- TARIES ON GENESIS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of greek) BY FRANK EGLESTON ROB BINS THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Copyright igi2 By The University of Chicago AH Rights Reserved Published May igi2 Composed and Printed By The University of Chicago Press Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. PREFACE An account of the commentaries on the creation story of Genesis might easily be expanded to many times the size of that here presented. The present study attempts rather to formulate concisely the development of Genesis interpretation, from its antecedents in Greek philosophy through the church writings, to the time of Milton. The question of literary form and the con- sideration of any but Latin, Greek, and English works bearing directly upon Genesis have been neglected in order to secure this end. It is the author's hope that the adoption of this plan in treating a class of literature which extends over such a long period of time and which as a whole has never previously been the subject of investigation will excuse the necessary shortcomings which it involves and increase the general usefulness of the essay. The index contains an alphabetical list of authors of Hexaemera and others to whom reference is made, and under their names have been added bibliographical data and short accounts of those not accorded special mention in the study proper. I wish here to express the warm thanks I owe to Professor Paul Shorey of the University of Chicago for suggesting to me this investigation and for his invaluable help at all times during its progress; to Professor Elmer Truesdell Merrill of the University of Chicago and to Professor William Arthur Heidel of Wesleyan University for the inspiration and practical help that have come to me from association with them, and to the editors of the American Journal of Theology for permitting me to reprint here from their journal of April, 191 2, the first chapter of this study. Frank Egleston Robbins The University of Chicago April, 1912 251381 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHVPTER PACB I. The Influence of Greek Philosophy on the Early Commentaries on Genesis i II. Philo Judaeus and Jewish Hexaemeral Writings 24 III. Early Christian Hexaemera before Basil ... 36 IV. Basil 42 \^ The Followers of Basil 53 VT. Augustine 64 VII. Erigena to the Ren.\iss.\nce 73 Index of Names 93 CHAPTER I THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY ON THE EARLY COMMENTARIES ON GENESIS- " Hexaemeron " is the title of certain treatises and series of sermons written by the Fathers of the Christian church comment- ing on the story of the creation of the world as told in Genesis, sometimes a simple exegesis and sometimes an allegorical version of the scriptural story.' The use of the name may be extended to cover the whole body of literature dealing with the subject, including formal or incidental accounts of the creation of the world, based upon Genesis, and poetical versions of the narrative. The works of this class extend in time from the Dc opificio mundi of Philo Judaeus {cir. 40 a.d.) to Milton's Paradise Lost. As is the case with other classes of hterary composition, so the ' Most of the authors cited are commentators on Genesis, and when a simple page reference is given, it is to be understood that it is to the commentary on Genesis of the author in question; for convenience, the Migne Greek and Latin Pairologiae have in most cases been cited. F"or complete bibliography see the index. The following abbreviations for books and collections have been used in the index : BC : Corpus Scriplorum Uistoriac Byzantlnae (Bonn Corpus), Bonn, 1828-78. CV : Corpus [Vindobonense] Scriptorum Ecclcsiasticoriim Latinoruni Academiae lillerarum Caesareae Vindobonensis, 1866 fif. Christ : W. von Christ, Geschichte der Griechischcn Liltcratur, Miinchen, iSgoff. Krumbacher : K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischcn Liltcratur, 2d. cd., Miin- chcn, 1807. MPG, MPL: Migne, Pairologiae cursus completus. Series Gracca, Paris, 1857 ff., Series Latina, Paris, 1844 fif. Otto : J. C. T. Otto, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Saeculi Sccundi, Jena, 1851-81. ' Strictly the name should be 17 'EJaiJ^ifpos [sc. Koa-fwiroiia, Srifuovpyla], but the neuter form came into use in connection with Basil's work. The first occurrence of the word is probably in Philo, Leg. All. 93, 8; it is found also in Theophilus, Ad. AiUol. II, 12, and later passim. > E.g., the late Greek and Byzantine chronologies frequently began with a chapter on creation, as did Sir Walter Raleigh 's History of the World. 2 'Tke-HE'XTAEMERAL LITERATURE Hexaemera tended to conform to certain types established by a few pioneers. Subsequent authors not only followed the general outlines that had been laid down by the greater writers, and repro- duced their topics, but even copied their phraseology. Imitation is commoner in this branch of Hterature than in almost any other, and the majority of the Hexaemera are consequently lacking in originality. At the same time the Hexaemeral writers were also consciously or unconsciously under the influences that came from without, from philosophy and science. The men of the early church, com- pelled to meet the arguments of pagans, had to make their own accovmts capable of standing the test of scrutiny; and often, going beyond a mere defense of their faith, they attempted to prove that the Christian doctrines, including those of Genesis, are in agreement with the best pagan thought or superior to it. As the church acquired power, the polemic tone grew sharper. Moreover, the mingling of philosophical material with that furnished by the sacred text took place the more easily because many of the great Fathers had been educated in pagan surroundings and per- sonally accepted whatever of science and philosophy did not con- flict with their religion. The philosophical elements which in this way became incorporated in the tradition form the subject of the present discussion. Plato is the first of the philosophers notably to influence Hexae- meral thought. Although the pre-Socratics devoted most of their energies to the study of material Nature, very little trace of them, in scattered citations, is found in the tradition. They tended toward materiaHstic views, and according to them Deity took little or no part in the making of the universe. Plato, however, in this important point agreed with the Christians. In the Timaeus, although that dialogue cannot be asserted to be the formal expres- sion of his own literal belief,' he presented for the first time an How seriously Plato took the Timaeus is a question that cannot be answered exactly, but whether he introduced the Demiurge as a purely mythical figure, or had some measure of belief in a Deity, his feeling in the dialogue is certainly lofty and religious. The question was much discussed in ancient times whether Plato actually believed in a creation in time, or presented it as such in the Timaeus for literary and GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY GENESIS COMMENTARIES 3 account of the creation of the world by a Deity who orders it for its own best advantage.' In addition the Timaeus gives a plausible account of the mate- rial world, and it is a fundamental principle of the dialogue that material things conform to a-priori ideal forms and ultimately to the best possible ideals. The philosophical schools took it to be the formulation of Plato 's deepest thought and it was used as the basis of their theories. Introducing the cosmological portion of the dialogue, Plato states the principles on which his theories are based, a part of the work which was especially well kno\vn. Things are either con- ceptual, and eternally, changelessly existent, or they are sensible and subject to becoming and perishing (27D ff.). Everything that becomes must have some cause (28A), and if the artificer of the thing looks to a pattern that is changeless, the result is fair; if he looks to the created as a pattern, the result is not fair. The pedagogical reasons. See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, II, i, 792; .A.rcher-Hind on Tim. 30A; Paul Shorey, A.J. P. X, 48. The Hexaemeral writers understood him to believe in a creation in time. ' The ideological principle does not appear first in Plato, but he was the first to make it all important in his cosmology and to ascribe creation to a personal, reasoning, feeling Deity (with the reservation indicated in the preceding note). The pre-Socratics uniformly looked upon "creation" as the evolution of the world from chaos to a better state, without, however, making the development a purposed process. Hera- clitus made the advance of stating that cosmic action depends upon law; cf. Benn, The Greek Philosophers, I, 24-25; Zeller, I, 2, 663 S. Diogenes of .\pollonia asserted that the first principle must be capable of thought because "if one is willing to con- sider, one would find that things (like daj-, night, summer, winter, rain, wind, and fair weather) are arranged in the best possible way," and without reason such an arrangement could not have been made (Diog.