A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume 1 (of 2) by Lynn Thorndike

CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL SCIENCE: BASIL, EPIPHANIUS, AND THE PHYSIOLOGUS Lactantius not a fair example—Commentaries on the Biblical account of creation—Date and delivery of Basil’s _Hexaemeron_—The _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose—Basil’s medieval influence—Science and religion—Scientific curiosity of Basil’s audience—Allusions to amusements—Conflicts with Greek science—Agreement with Greek science—Qualification of the Scriptural account of creation—The four elements and four qualities—Enthusiasm for nature as God’s work—Sin and nature—Habits of animals—Marvels of nature—Spontaneous generation—Lack of scientific scepticism—Sun worship and astrology—Permanence of species—Final impression from the _Hexaemeron_—The _Medicine Chest_ of Epiphanius—Gems in the high priest’s breastplate—Some other gems—The so-called _Physiologus_; problem of its origin—Does the title apply to any one particular treatise?—And to what sort of a treatise?—Medieval art shows almost no symbolic influence of the _Physiologus_—_Physiologus_ was more natural scientist than allegorist. [Sidenote: Lactantius not a fair example.] The opposition of early Christian thought to natural science has been rather unduly exaggerated. For instance, Lactantius, one of the least favorable to Greek philosophy and natural science of the fathers, should hardly be cited as typical of early Christian attitude in such matters. Nor does his opposition impress one as weighty.[2060] He ridicules the theory of the Antipodes,[2061] which he perhaps understands none too well, asking if anyone can be so inept as to think that there are men whose feet are above their heads, although he knows very well that Greek science teaches that all weights fall towards the center of the earth, and that consequently if the feet are nearer the center of the earth that they must be below the head. He continues, however, to insist that the philosophers are either very stupid, or just joking, or arguing for the sake of arguing, and he declares that he could show by many arguments that the heaven cannot possibly be lower than the earth—which no one has asserted except himself—if it were not already time to close his third book and begin the fourth. Apparently Lactantius is the one who is arguing for the sake of arguing, or just joking, or else very stupid, and I fear it is the last. But other Christian fathers were less dense, and we already have heard the cultured pagan Plutarch scoff at the notion of a spherical earth and of antipodes. We may grant, however, that the ecclesiastical writers of the Roman Empire and early medieval period normally treat of spiritual rather than material themes and discuss them in a religious rather than a scientific manner. [Sidenote: Commentaries on the Biblical account of creation.] But in the commentaries upon the books of the Bible which the fathers multiplied so voluminously it was necessary for them, if they began their labors with _Genesis_, to deal at the very start in the first verses of the first book of the Bible with an explanation of nature which at several points was in disagreement with the accepted theories of Greek philosophy and ancient science. Such comment upon the opening verses of _Genesis_ sometimes developed into a separate treatise called _Hexaemeron_ from the works of the six days of creation which it discussed. Of the various treatises of this type the _Hexaemeron_ of Basil[2062] seems to have been both the best[2063] and the most influential, and will be considered by us as an example of Christian attitude towards the natural science and, to some extent, the superstition of the ancient world. [Sidenote: Date and delivery of Basil’s _Hexaemeron_.] Basil died on the first day of January, 379 A. D., and was born about