The Work of the Second Day — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

The Work of the Second Day.¹

Opus Secundae Diei.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. — Verse 6.²

Dixitque Deus, Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et dividat aquas ab aquis. — Vers. 6.

Duas hic locus quaestiones habet perquam difficiles, et quorundam iudicio inexplicabiles, ut autem mea fert sententia, nequaquam adhuc satis explicatas. Prior quaestio est quidnam Moses nomine firmamenti significare voluerit; posterior autem quaestio est quales aquas intelligere oporteat, quas Moses ait supra firmamentum esse locatas. De his quaestionibus et aliorum iudicium et nostram sententiam, breviter quidem, diligenter tamen et accurate exponemus. Quam plurimis, tum veterum tum recentiorum, visum est nomine firmamenti hoc loco significari verum corpus caeleste, nempe vel octavum orbem in quo sunt inerrantia sydera, vel coniunctum quiddam ex octo caelis, octavo nimirum et septem inferioribus: ita ut vocabulo firmamenti significentur omnes Caeli, astris vel multis vel uno tantum lucentes. Sic [Augustinus]...

This place has two questions exceedingly difficult, and in the judgment of some inexplicable, but in my opinion by no means yet sufficiently explained. The first question is what Moses meant to signify by the name of “firmament”; the second question is what sort of waters must be understood, which Moses says were placed above the firmament. On these questions we will set out, briefly indeed yet carefully and accurately, both the judgment of others and our own opinion. Very many, both of the ancients and of the moderns, have held that by the name of “firmament” in this place is signified a true celestial body — namely, either the eighth sphere in which the fixed stars are, or some composite of the eight heavens, the eighth namely and the seven lower ones: so that by the word “firmament” are signified all the Heavens, shining with stars, whether many or one only. Thus [Augustine]...³

Sic autem (aiunt) esse appellatum caelum, quod sit solidum et firmae concretaeque materiae; quocirca LXX Interpretes hoc loco Graece reddiderunt στερέωμα, id est solidum, vel, ut Latinus Interpres Septuaginta imitatus vertit, “Firmamentum.” Velleius apud Ciceronem libro primo de Natura deorum corpora solida et firma vocari ait ab Epicuro, propter firmitatem, στερέωμα. Iure autem id nominis caelo est impositum, ut quod divinae litterae docent esse solidissimum: Iob enim capite tricesimoseptimo affirmat Caelos quasi aere solidissimo esse fusos; et alio loco, “Donec,” inquit, “atteratur caelum”; Homerus quoque appellavit Caelum ferreum et aeneum; quin etiam Aristoteles primo libro Meteororum motum solis dicit esse motum corporis solidi, quo aer atteratur et attenuetur calorque gignatur, quem locum explanans Alexander Aphrodiseus monet ex eo perspicue intelligi solis et reliquorum astrorum corpora esse solida. Basilius quoque Homilia tertia in Genesim tradit Scripturam nomine Stereomatis seu firmamenti significare solere corpora robore et soliditate pollentia et ad renitendum valida; sic dicitur in psalmis, “Dominus firmamentum meum et refugium meum.” Externi quoque scriptores stereoma vocant corpus non nudis modo tribus dimensionibus constans, uti est Mathematicum, sed densum plenumque et renitendi potens. Quare hic στερέωμα significat corpus solidum et firmum, scilicet ad aquas, suapte natura labiles et dissipabiles, coërcendas atque continendas idoneum. Theodoretus quaestione undecima in Genesim, “Propterea,” inquit, “appellatum esse firmamentum, quod ex aqua, quae prius erat fluxa et liquabilis, vehementissime spissata fortissimeque indurata concretum fuerit.”

And it was so called “heaven” (they say) because it is solid and of firm, compact matter; wherefore the Seventy Translators here rendered it in Greek στερέωμα (stereoma), that is, “solid,” or, as the Latin translator, imitating the Septuagint, rendered it, “Firmament.” Velleius, in Cicero's first book On the Nature of the Gods, says that solid and firm bodies were called by Epicurus στερέωμα, on account of their firmness. And this name was rightly imposed on the heaven, as on what the divine writings teach to be most solid: for Job, in chapter thirty-seven, affirms that the Heavens are “poured out as of most solid bronze”; and in another place he says, “Until the heaven be worn away”; Homer too called the Heaven iron and brazen; indeed Aristotle, in the first book of the Meteorology, says that the motion of the sun is the motion of a solid body, by which the air is worn and rarefied and heat is generated — explaining which passage, Alexander of Aphrodisias notes that from it one clearly understands that the bodies of the sun and the other stars are solid. Basil too, in the third homily on Genesis, hands down that Scripture is wont, by the name of “stereoma” or firmament, to signify bodies strong in vigor and solidity and powerful to resist; thus it is said in the psalms, “The Lord is my firmament and my refuge.” External writers too call “stereoma” a body consisting not merely of the bare three dimensions, as is the Mathematical [body], but dense and full and able to resist. So that here στερέωμα signifies a solid and firm body, namely one fit to coerce and contain the waters, which are of their own nature slippery and dissipable. Theodoret, in the eleventh question on Genesis, says, “It was called a firmament for this reason, because it was congealed out of water — which before was fluid and liquefiable — most vehemently thickened and most strongly hardened.”⁴

Arbitrantur etiam complures veterum firmamentum ex aqua valde gelata et ad similitudinem crystalli durata fuisse concretum. Hoc tradit Iosephus in primo capite primi libri de Iudaicis antiquitatibus; ait enim fuisse firmamentum glacie circumpactum, et humida natura ad terram irroratione iuvandam idonee temperatum. Eadem fuit sententia Theodoreti in quaestione undecima super Genesim, item Gennadii et Severiani, velut super hunc locum citatur in Catena, quibus consentit Beda in suo Hexamero. Bedam autem et Magister sentent. libro secundo distinctione 14, et Magister historiae scholasticae libro 1 capite 4, et Hugo in libro Annotationum in Genesim capite sexto, aliique nec pauci nec minuti scriptores secuti sunt. Sed libet hic Bedae verba apponere: “In medio aquarum,” inquit, “firmatum esse constat sydereum Caelum, neque aliquid prohibet ut de aquis factum esse credatur: qui enim Crystallini lapidis quanta firmitas, quae sit perspicuitas ac puritas novimus, quem de aquarum concretione certum est procreatum, quid obstat credi quod idem dispositor naturarum in firmamentum Caeli substantiam solidarit aquarum?” Hoc ipsum infra confirmat Beda verbis Beati Petri commemoratis a Beato Clemente libro 2 Recognitionum, quibus docet totum interius mundi spacium, intra supremi Caeli ambitum inclusum, fuisse ab initio plenum aquis; aqua vero quae erat in medio illo spacio, quasi gelu conglaciata et [concreta]...

Very many of the ancients also think that the firmament was congealed out of water heavily frozen and hardened into the likeness of crystal. This Josephus hands down in the first chapter of the first book of the Jewish Antiquities; for he says that the firmament was packed about with ice, and fitly tempered, by its moist nature, for the watering of the earth by dew. The same was the opinion of Theodoret in the eleventh question on Genesis, and likewise of Gennadius and Severian, as they are cited on this place in the Catena, with whom Bede agrees in his Hexaëmeron. And Bede was followed by the Master of the Sentences, in the second book, distinction 14; by the Master of the Scholastic History, book 1, chapter 4; by Hugh, in the book of Annotations on Genesis, chapter six; and by other writers neither few nor slight. But let me here set down Bede's words: “In the midst of the waters,” he says, “it is established that the starry Heaven was made firm, and nothing forbids it to be believed made out of the waters: for since we know how great is the firmness, and what the transparency and purity, of crystal stone — which it is certain was produced from the congealing of waters — what stands in the way of believing that the same ordainer of natures solidified into the firmament of Heaven a substance of waters?” This very thing Bede afterward confirms by the words of Blessed Peter recorded by Blessed Clement in the second book of the Recognitions, by which he teaches that the whole interior space of the world, enclosed within the compass of the highest Heaven, was from the beginning full of waters; and the water which was in the middle of that space, as if frozen solid by ice and [compacted]...⁵

...et concreta et modo Crystalli solidata, fecit firmamentum, quod Deus Caelum appellavit.” Sic Beda. Haec tamen opinio non solum non arrisit Basilio, sed eam ipse derisit, dicens esse nimium puerile nimiumque simplicis mentis arbitrari Caelum fuisse ex aqua concretum. Quae est igitur Basilii sententia? Permotus verbis illis Isaiae, quae sunt in capite quinquagesimoprimo, secundum translationem Septuaginta Interpretum, “Caelum sicut fumus firmatum est,” censet Basilius firmamentum ex tenui quadam materia, qualis est aerea, vehementer tamen densata et constipata, esse conflatum. Cum Basilio in hoc etiam, ut fere in aliis, consentit Ambrosius. Atque haec ab antiquis de firmamento eiusque materia sunt prodita. Nostra memoria Catharinus, in commentariis suis super Genesim, per firmamentum interpretatus est octavam sphaeram, sic ratus appellatam quod in ea stellae omnes inerrantes fixae firmaeque sint, nec variis motibus divagentur aut inter se unquam dissocientur, sed eadem omni aevo spacia inter se conservent.

...and compacted and solidified in the manner of Crystal, made the firmament, which God called Heaven.” So Bede. This opinion, however, not only did not please Basil, but he himself derided it, saying it was too childish and too much the mark of a simple mind to suppose that the Heaven was congealed out of water. What, then, is Basil's opinion? Moved by those words of Isaiah which are in the fifty-first chapter, according to the translation of the Seventy Translators, “The heaven was made firm like smoke,” Basil judges that the firmament was forged out of a certain thin matter, such as the aerial, yet vehemently densified and packed together. With Basil in this too, as in most things, Ambrose agrees. And these are the things handed down by the ancients concerning the firmament and its matter. In our own memory Catharinus, in his commentaries on Genesis, interpreted the firmament as the eighth sphere, supposing it so called because in it all the fixed stars are fixed and firm, and do not wander about with various motions, nor are ever dissociated among themselves, but preserve the same spaces among themselves for all time.⁶

Sed ego nomine firmamenti non significari hoc loco verum corpus caeleste, sive unum aliquod caelum, sive coniuncte multos caelos, videor mihi satis evidenter posse ostendere. Et ut primo confutem Catharinum, non potest firmamentum in praesens pro octavo Caelo sumi: nulla enim ratio est cur nomen firmamenti potius impositum fuerit octavo orbi quam cuilibet ceterorum, nec cur Deus octavum orbem proprie appellaverit caelum, cum id nominis aequaliter in omnes alios orbes conveniat. Et Scriptura vocabulum caeli usurpare solet non nisi duobus modis: vel pro omni corpore Caelesti, vel pro aëre seu toto illo spatio quod inter caelum et terram usquequaque interpatet. Deinde Moses paulo infra, enarrando quarti diei opus, ait Deum fecisse solem et lunam, quae vocat duo luminaria magna, eaque posuisse in firmamento: Solem autem et Lunam non esse in octavo Caelo nemini non est manifestum. Ad hoc, non potest Catharinus expedire quemadmodum octavum caelum sit in medio aquarum, superiores aquas determinans ab inferioribus: nam, ut demus quod ipse vult, per aquas superiores significari nonum caelum a multis dictum crystallinum, qua ratione inferiores et terrestres aquas vere dicetur octavum Caelum dividere a superioribus, et esse utrarumque tanquam medius quidam terminus interiectus? Cum inter aquas terrenas et octavum Caelum, prope immenso intervallo, duo sint interposita elementa aëris et ignis, superque septem planetarum orbes. Nisi forte Catharinus eorum perfugio uti velit qui fabulantur per aquas inferiores intelligendum esse orbem Saturni, ob frigidissimam eius vim et potentiam nomine aquarum rite appellatum; sed hoc quam frigidum sit commentum infirmumque refugium paulo infra ostendemus. Nec vero aliud quodlibet Caelum, aut multorum caelorum complexio et collectio, nomine firmamenti hoc loco significatur. Etenim supra docuimus omnes Caelos secundum ipsorum substantiam ante primum diem esse conditos. Deinde nullum est caelum quod vere dici queat esse in medio aquarum, et dividere aquas inferiores a supe[rioribus]...

But I think I can show clearly enough that by the name of “firmament” in this place no true celestial body is signified — neither some one heaven, nor jointly many heavens. And, to refute Catharinus first: the firmament cannot here be taken for the eighth Heaven, for there is no reason why the name of firmament should have been imposed on the eighth sphere rather than on any of the rest, nor why God should have properly called the eighth sphere “heaven,” since that name applies equally to all the other spheres. And Scripture is wont to use the word “heaven” in only two ways: either for every Celestial body, or for the air — that is, the whole space which lies open everywhere between heaven and earth. Next, Moses, a little below, in recounting the work of the fourth day, says that God made the sun and moon, which he calls two great luminaries, and placed them in the firmament: but that the Sun and Moon are not in the eighth Heaven is manifest to everyone. Besides, Catharinus cannot explain how the eighth heaven is in the midst of the waters, bounding the upper waters from the lower: for, granting what he himself wants — that by the upper waters is signified the ninth heaven, called by many the crystalline — by what reasoning will the eighth Heaven truly be said to divide the lower and earthly waters from the upper, and to be, as it were, a kind of middle boundary set between both? Since between the earthly waters and the eighth Heaven, by an almost immense interval, two elements, of air and fire, are interposed, and above them the seven spheres of the planets. Unless perhaps Catharinus should wish to use the refuge of those who fable that by the lower waters is to be understood the sphere of Saturn, rightly called by the name of waters on account of its most cold power and potency; but how cold a fiction and how weak a refuge this is, we shall show a little below. Nor indeed is any other Heaven, or any combination and collection of many heavens, signified here by the name of firmament. For we have taught above that all the Heavens, according to their substance, were founded before the first day. Again, there is no heaven which can truly be said to be in the midst of the waters and to divide the lower waters from the upper...⁷

...rioribus: ultimum enim caelum, in quo est Luna, longissimo spatio distat ab aquis terrenis, scilicet aëris et ignis duobus amplissimis elementis interpositis; nec sane supra ullum orbem caelestem ullae sunt aut esse possunt verae ac naturales aquae, ut mox ostendemus. Quid quod Moses infra, commemorans opus quinti diei, ait aves volare in firmamento seu super firmamentum, quod nulli caelo congruit? Nam quod eo loco habet Latina versio, “Producant aquae reptile animae viventis, et volatile super terram sub firmamento caeli,” Hebraice ad verbum est, “Et volatile volet in superficie, vel super faciem firmamenti Caeli, vel potius extensionis caeli”; LXX autem interpretes habent κατὰ τὸ στερέωμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, hoc est Latine, “Secundum firmamentum,” vel “in firmamento Caeli.”

...the upper: for the last heaven, in which is the Moon, is distant by a very long space from the earthly waters, with the two most ample elements of air and fire interposed; nor indeed above any celestial sphere are there, or can there be, any true and natural waters, as we shall soon show. And what of the fact that Moses, below, in recounting the work of the fifth day, says that birds fly in the firmament, or above the firmament — which fits no heaven? For what the Latin version has in that place, “Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl over the earth under the firmament of heaven,” in Hebrew is, word for word, “And let the fowl fly upon the surface, or over the face of, the firmament of Heaven — or rather, of the extension of heaven”; while the Seventy translators have κατὰ τὸ στερέωμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, that is in Latin, “along the firmament,” or “in the firmament of Heaven.”⁸

Legenda sunt quae super hoc scribit Beda exponens opus quinti diei, in iis Commentariis in Genesim qui falso nuper editi sunt sub nomine Iunilii Afri; sic enim ait: “Quod autem dictum est, ‘Et volatile super terram sub firmamento Caeli,’ nil rationi veritatis obsistit, quia nimirum, etsi immenso interiacenti spatio, sub sydereo tamen Caelo volant aves quae super terram volant: quomodo etiam nos homines in terra positi, sub Caelo ac Sole esse constituti, veraciter et recte dicimur, attestante Scriptura quae ait, ‘Qui erant in Hierusalem habitantes Iudaei ex omni natione quae sub Caelo est.’ Et, ‘Quid habet amplius homo de universo labore suo, quo laborat sub sole?’ Sane iuxta aliam translationem movet nonnullos quod dictum est, ‘Et volatilia volantia secundum firmamentum,’ id est iuxta firmamentum Caeli. Sed intelligendum est quod ideo dictum sit volare aves secundum firmamentum Caeli, quia hoc nomine etiam aethera indicetur, hoc est superius illud aëris spatium, quod a turbulento hoc et caliginoso loco, in quo aves volant, usque ad astra pertingit, et esse tranquillum prorsus ac luce plenum non immerito creditur. Nam et errantia sydera septem, quae in hoc aetheris spatio vaga ferri perhibentur, Scriptura in firmamento Caeli esse postea dixit; ideoque aves recte dicuntur secundum firmamentum Caeli volare, quia vicina sunt, ut dixi, aetheri turbulenta haec aëris spatia quae volatus avium sustinent. Nec mirandum si aether firmamentum Caeli nominetur, cum aër appelletur Caelum, ut supra docuimus.” Sic Beda.

One should read what Bede writes on this, expounding the work of the fifth day, in those Commentaries on Genesis which were lately published falsely under the name of Junilius the African; for he says thus: “As for what is said, ‘And the fowl over the earth under the firmament of Heaven,’ nothing stands against the reason of truth, since indeed — though by an immense interjacent space — the birds that fly over the earth nonetheless fly under the starry Heaven: just as we men too, placed on the earth, are truly and rightly said to be set under the Heaven and the Sun, Scripture attesting it, which says, ‘There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews out of every nation that is under Heaven.’ And, ‘What more has a man of all his labor, by which he labors under the sun?’ Indeed, according to another translation, it troubles some that it is said, ‘And the flying things flying along the firmament,’ that is, beside the firmament of Heaven. But it must be understood that the birds are said to fly along the firmament of Heaven for this reason — because by this name the aether too is indicated, that is, that upper space of air which, from this turbulent and dark place in which the birds fly, reaches up to the stars, and is not undeservedly believed to be wholly tranquil and full of light. For the seven wandering stars too, which are said to be borne wandering in this aetherial space, Scripture afterward said to be in the firmament of Heaven; and therefore the birds are rightly said to fly along the firmament of Heaven, because, as I said, these turbulent spaces of air which sustain the flight of birds are neighbors to the aether. Nor is it to be wondered at if the aether be named the firmament of Heaven, since the air is called Heaven, as we taught above.” So Bede.⁹

Quae igitur est nostra de firmamento sententia? Arbitramur veram firmamenti significationem et germanam propriamque horum verborum Mosis sententiam ex voce Hebraea, quae est hoc loco, esse eruendam. Quod Latinus Interpres reddit “firmamentum,” et LXX interpretes Graece verterunt στερέωμα, Hebraice est רקיע Rachiach, quae vox proprie significat extensionem, a verbo רקע Racha, quod est expandere seu extendere: hac enim significatione saepenumero usurpatur in Sacris litteris, ut animadvertere licet Isaiae quadragesimosecundo, et Psal. 133 et 136, et Hieremiae 10, aliisque locis, in quibus est verbum Hebraicum significans extendere, quod tamen Latinus Interpres, imitatus LXX, frequenter expressit verbo “firmare.” Sciendum porro est extensionem quattuor modis fieri posse: vel per dilatationem, sicut auri massa in tenuissimas et amplissimas laminas dilatata [extenditur]...

What, then, is our opinion concerning the firmament? We judge that the true signification of “firmament,” and the genuine and proper meaning of these words of Moses, is to be drawn out from the Hebrew word which is in this place. What the Latin translator renders “firmament,” and the Seventy translators rendered in Greek στερέωμα, in Hebrew is רקיע (Rachiach), a word which properly signifies an extension, from the verb רקע (Racha), which is to expand or to extend: for in this signification it is very often used in the Sacred writings, as one may observe in Isaiah forty-two, and Psalms 133 and 136, and Jeremiah 10, and in other places, in which there is a Hebrew word signifying “to extend,” which nevertheless the Latin translator, imitating the Septuagint, frequently expressed by the verb “to make firm.” Furthermore, it must be known that extension can come about in four ways: either by dilation, as a mass of gold is dilated and spread out into very thin and very broad sheets...¹⁰

...dilatata extenditur; vel per rarefactionem, quemadmodum aqua, subiecto igne fervescens, in ampliorem molem extenditur; vel per naturalem accretionem, veluti animal ex parvo, secundum omnes corporis dimensiones, in maiorem extenditur magnitudinem; vel denique per quandam expansionem et explicationem, videlicet cum quod erat convolutum et complicatum evolvitur, explicatur, et extenditur, quod in aulaeis, cortinis, et tabernaculis fieri solet. Atque hoc ultimo modo sumitur in praesenti nomen Hebraeum רקיע Rachiach, nempe pro quadam expansione et extensione; nam et David Psalmo centesimotertio ea significatione usus est dicens, “Extendens Caelum sicut pellem” (vel, ut ad verbum sonant Hebraea, “Sicut cortinam seu tabernaculum”); et Isaias cap. 40 inquit Deum “extendere Caelum sicut cortinam, vel telam tenuissimam, et tanquam tabernaculum ad inhabitandum.” Lippomanus quidem in Catena in Genesim super hunc locum tradit verbum רקע Racha, unde est ductum nomen רקיע Rachiach, praeter frequentem et vulgatam significationem expandendi seu extendendi, etiam significare interdum stabilire et firmare. Verum nec ipse ullum eiusmodi significationis adfert exemplum, nec Hebraice apprime docti talem huius verbi usum agnoscunt. Qui Hebraice tractant Mathematica, solida vocant nomine רקיע Rachiach, sed id faciunt illi quidem non tam propria vocis Hebraeae significatione servata, quam Septuaginta Interpretes, qui Hebraeum vocabulum רקיע Rachiach Graece verterunt στερέωμα, imitati.

...spread out and extended; or by rarefaction, as water, heated with fire set under it, is extended into a larger mass; or by natural growth, as an animal is extended from small into a greater magnitude according to all the body's dimensions; or finally by a certain expansion and unfolding — namely, when what was rolled up and folded together is unrolled, unfolded, and extended, as is wont to happen with hangings, curtains, and tents. And it is in this last way that the Hebrew name רקיע (Rachiach) is taken in the present case, namely for a kind of expansion and extension; for David too, in the hundred-and-third Psalm, used it in that sense, saying, “Stretching out the Heaven like a skin” (or, as the Hebrew sounds word for word, “Like a curtain or tent”); and Isaiah, chapter 40, says that God “stretches out the Heaven like a curtain, or a very thin cloth, and like a tent to dwell in.” Lippomanus indeed, in the Catena on Genesis on this place, hands down that the verb רקע (Racha), whence the name רקיע (Rachiach) is derived, besides the frequent and common signification of expanding or extending, sometimes also signifies to stabilize and make firm. But neither does he himself bring any example of such a signification, nor do those especially learned in Hebrew acknowledge such a use of this verb. Those who treat Mathematics in Hebrew call solids by the name רקיע (Rachiach), but they do this not so much by keeping the proper signification of the Hebrew word, as by imitating the Seventy Translators, who rendered the Hebrew word רקיע (Rachiach) into Greek as στερέωμα.¹¹

Nos igitur existimamus nomine firmamenti hoc loco significari a Mose totum illud spatium quod expansum et diffusum est circum terram usque ad astra, scilicet quatenus oculorum acies usquequaque porrigi potest. Huius spatii supremam partem tenent caeli et astra; imam partem elementum ignis et aëris. Et Moses aliquando loquitur de firmamento ratione supremae partis, ut cum dicit sydera esse posita in firmamento; interdum ratione inferioris partis, ut cum ait aves volare in firmamento, et firmamentum dividere aquas superiores ab inferioribus. Similiter in scriptura nomen caeli ponitur nunc pro sydereo, alias pro aëreo. Intelligendum autem est totum hoc spatium, quod inter terram et Caelum Lunae interfusum est, fuisse plenum materia quadam aquea et nebulosa, qualis solet esse aër proxime superfusus terrae, cum est multis densisque vaporibus et crassis nubibus obductus atque confertus. Atque hoc ego non ex meo sensu depromo, aut id meo arbitratu fingo, sed ex manifestis Scripturae locis elicio. In libro namque Ecclesiastici capite vicesimoquarto, Sapientia divina, commemorans quid ipsa in mundi opificio egerit, “Ego,” inquit, “feci in Caelis ut oriretur lumen indeficiens, et sicut nebula texi omnem terram.” Et apud Iob 38 sic ait Dominus: “Quis conclusit ostiis mare, quando erumpebat quasi de vulva procedens, cum ponerem nubem vestimentum eius, et caligine illud quasi pannis infantiae ob[volverem]...”

We, therefore, judge that by the name of “firmament” in this place Moses signifies that whole space which is expanded and diffused around the earth up to the stars — namely, as far as the keenness of the eyes can reach in every direction. The highest part of this space the heavens and the stars hold; the lowest part, the element of fire and of air. And Moses sometimes speaks of the firmament with respect to the highest part, as when he says that the stars are placed in the firmament; sometimes with respect to the lower part, as when he says that birds fly in the firmament, and that the firmament divides the upper waters from the lower. Similarly in Scripture the name of “heaven” is put now for the starry, now for the aerial. And it must be understood that this whole space, which is poured out between the earth and the Heaven of the Moon, was full of a certain watery and nebulous matter, such as the air is wont to be when, poured close over the earth, it is overspread and packed with many and dense vapors and thick clouds. And this I do not bring forth from my own sense, nor frame it by my own discretion, but draw it out from manifest places of Scripture. For in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter twenty-four, Divine Wisdom, recounting what she herself did in the making of the world, says, “I made that in the Heavens there should rise a light that fails not, and like a cloud I covered all the earth.” And in Job 38 the Lord says thus: “Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing from the womb, when I made a cloud its garment, and wrapped it in darkness as in the swaddling-bands of infancy...”¹²

...obvolverem?” Materiam autem nebulosam, et, ut ita loquar, vaporosam, cernimus facillime et ocyssime in aërem converti: sicut enim aër facile densatur in nubem et vaporem, ita vicissim vapor magna facilitate celeritateque in aërem solvitur. Itaque pars illius materiae nebulosae tenuior et levior, hoc secundo die, commutata est in aërem, et in eum qui supra aërem esse dicitur ignem — vel potentia et efficacitate primae lucis ardentissimae et ad agendum potentissimae, ut opinatur Eugubinus; vel, quod sit credibilius, Dei solius infinita vi et potestate: duorum enim elementorum, ignis et aëris, tam velox et subita procreatio non videtur naturali lucis potentia fieri potuisse. Reliqua vero inferior pars illius materiae nebulosae, et crassior, frigidior et gravior, circum terram subsedit: quae postea tertio die, magis etiam densata et ad propriam elementi aquae conditionem redacta, separata est a terra, et, ne eam rursus operiret, in praeparatum sibi locum congregata.

...I wrapped it?” Now we see that nebulous and (so to speak) vaporous matter is converted into air most easily and most swiftly: for just as air is readily condensed into cloud and vapor, so in turn vapor is dissolved into air with great ease and speed. And so the thinner and lighter part of that nebulous matter, on this second day, was changed into air, and into that which is said to be above the air, fire — whether by the power and efficacy of the first light, most burning and most powerful to act, as Eugubinus [Steuco] thinks; or, what is more credible, by the infinite power and might of God alone: for so swift and sudden a generation of the two elements, fire and air, does not seem able to have come about by the natural power of light. But the remaining lower part of that nebulous matter — coarser, colder, and heavier — settled around the earth: which afterward, on the third day, being still more condensed and reduced to the proper condition of the element of water, was separated from the earth, and, lest it cover it again, gathered into a place prepared for it.¹³

Veruntamen, quia supra diximus similius vero esse omnia elementa simul cum omnibus Caelis esse facta secundum substantiam, dicendum potius est hoc die factum esse aërem non secundum substantiam, sed factum esse medium quendam terminum disterminantem aquas pluviales a terrestribus, et esse factum locum naturalem generationis eiusmodi aquarum sublimium: ita ut hoc die facta sit distinctio elementi aquae in aquas aëreas et terrestres; tertio autem die facta est aliquatenus distinctio aquae a terra. Ergo die secundo factus est aër non simpliciter, sed ut rationem haberet firmamenti et munus dividendi aquas ab aquis. Neque necesse est hoc die sublatos esse vapores et nubes in sublime, et in media regione aëris generatas fuisse aquas, cum infra dicat Moses capite secundo quod, condito iam paradiso, “nondum pluerat super terram”; sed hoc die designatus et destinatus est aër, ut esset locus naturalis aquarum et divideret aquas ab aquis.

Nevertheless, since we said above that it is more likely true that all the elements were made together with all the Heavens according to their substance, it must rather be said that on this day air was made not according to its substance, but was made a certain middle boundary separating the rain-waters from the earthly waters, and was made the natural place for the generation of such upper waters: so that on this day there was made the distinction of the element of water into aerial and terrestrial waters, while on the third day there was made, in some measure, the distinction of water from earth. Therefore on the second day air was made, not simply, but so that it might have the character of a firmament and the office of dividing the waters from the waters. Nor is it necessary that on this day vapors and clouds were raised on high, and waters generated in the middle region of the air, since Moses says below, in the second chapter, that when paradise was already founded, “it had not yet rained upon the earth”; but on this day the air was designated and destined to be the natural place of the waters, and to divide the waters from the waters.¹⁴

Sed, ut ad propositum revertar, per firmamentum in praesentia intelligi debere spatium expansum inter caelum et terram multis argumentis patet. Primum: eorum qui nomen firmamenti tribuebant corpori caelesti confutatio huius nostrae opinionis est confirmatio; si enim firmamentum non significat corpus aliquod caeleste, proculdubio non aliud quam quod nos dicimus significare potest. Deinde, mirifice congruit huic nostrae interpretationi nomen Hebraeum רקיע Rachiach, quod, ut diximus, extensionem et expansionem significat. Postea firmamentum appellatum est a Deo Caelum, Hebraice שמים Shammaim, quasi dicas “ibi aquae”: שם Sham enim significat “ibi,” מים Maim vero “aquas”; hoc autem pulchre quadrat in aërem, in cuius regione superiori ingens est atque perennis aquarum, per imbres terram irrigantium atque foecundantium, generatio. Ad hoc, firmamentum esse in medio aquarum, dividens aquas supe[riores]...

But, to return to the matter in hand, that by “firmament” must here be understood the expanded space between heaven and earth is plain from many arguments. First: the refutation of those who attributed the name of firmament to a celestial body is a confirmation of this our opinion; for if the firmament does not signify some celestial body, then beyond doubt it can signify nothing other than what we say. Next, the Hebrew name רקיע (Rachiach) wonderfully fits this our interpretation, since, as we said, it signifies extension and expansion. Then the firmament was called by God “Heaven” — in Hebrew שמים (Shammaim), as if you would say “waters there”: for שם (Sham) means “there,” and מים (Maim) means “waters”; and this fits beautifully with the air, in whose upper region there is an immense and perennial generation of waters, by rains that water and make fruitful the earth. Besides, that the firmament is “in the midst of the waters,” dividing the upper waters [from the lower]...¹⁵

...periores ab inferioribus, nulli corpori praeterquam aëri potest vere apteque accommodari. Praeterea, quod Moses dixit exponendo opus quinti diei, aves volare in superficie firmamenti Caeli, secundum nostram firmamenti interpretationem et veram habet sententiam et intellectu facillimam. Ad extremum, crebro in sacris litteris aër vocatur caelum: hinc “volucres caeli”; et ad efficiendum diluvium “cataractae Caeli apertae sunt,” Geneseos septimo; et David, “Qui operit caelum nubibus,” Psalmo centesimo quadragesimosexto; Zacharias, “Caeli dabunt rorem suum,” Zachariae octavo; Dominus noster in Evangelio dixit, Matthaei decimosexto, “Triste et rubicundum caelum”; Moses in Deuteronomio minatur Iudaeis, si legem Dei violaverint, fore illis desuper Caelum aeneum, Deuteronomii vicesimooctavo; Elias dicitur clausisse tribus annis Caelum ne plueret, tertii Regum decimonono; denique Beatus Petrus in fine posterioris Epistolae docet eosdem Caelos, qui perierunt olim diluvio, in die iudicii etiam incendio perituros.

...waters from the lower, can truly and fitly be applied to no body except the air. Besides, what Moses said, in expounding the work of the fifth day, that the birds fly on the surface of the firmament of Heaven, according to our interpretation of the firmament has both a true sense and one most easy to understand. Lastly, in the sacred writings the air is frequently called heaven: hence “the birds of heaven”; and, to bring about the flood, “the cataracts of Heaven were opened,” Genesis seven; and David, “Who covers heaven with clouds,” Psalm one hundred forty-six; Zechariah, “The heavens shall give their dew,” Zechariah eight; our Lord said in the Gospel, Matthew sixteen, “A lowering and red sky”; Moses in Deuteronomy threatens the Jews that, if they violate the law of God, the Heaven above them shall be brazen, Deuteronomy twenty-eight; Elijah is said to have shut up the Heaven for three years that it might not rain, Third Kings nineteen; finally Blessed Peter, at the end of his second Epistle, teaches that the same Heavens which once perished by the flood will, on the day of judgment, perish also by fire.¹⁶

Nec vero haec, quam tradidimus de firmamento sententia, a nobis primo excogitata et inventa est; eam namque tanto ante nos intellexit et docuit Sanctus Hieronymus in Epistola octuagesimatertia, quam scripsit ad Oceanum: “Inter Caelum,” inquit, “et terram medium extruitur firmamentum; et iuxta Hebraici sermonis Etymologiam, Caelum, id est שמים Shamaim, ex aquis fortitur vocabulum.” Eandem quoque interpretationem innuit in libro de Genesi ad litteram imperfecto Augustinus: in duodecimo enim capite ita scribit, explanans hunc ipsum, quem nunc tractamus, locum Geneseos: “In hoc loco,” ait, “cum dicitur firmamentum caelum, intelligendum est omnem istam aetheream machinam dici, quae omnia substantia continet, sub qua puri et tranquilli aëris serenitas viget, sub qua item iste aër turbulentus et procellosus agitatur.”

Nor indeed was this opinion which we have set forth concerning the firmament first thought out and invented by us; for so long before us Saint Jerome understood and taught it, in the eighty-third Epistle which he wrote to Oceanus: “Between Heaven,” he says, “and earth a firmament is built up in the middle; and according to the Etymology of the Hebrew tongue, Heaven — that is, שמים (Shamaim) — takes its name from the waters.” The same interpretation Augustine also intimates in the unfinished book On Genesis according to the Letter: for in the twelfth chapter he writes thus, explaining this very passage of Genesis which we now treat: “In this place,” he says, “when the firmament is called heaven, it must be understood that all this aetherial structure is meant, which contains all things in its substance, under which thrives the serenity of pure and tranquil air, under which likewise that turbulent and stormy air is tossed about.”¹⁷

Hanc etiam opinionem, idem Augustinus iam ante ipsum ab aliis proditam, in libro secundo de Genesi ad litteram capite quarto, valde probat et laudat. Eandem inter maxime probabiles commendat Beatus Thomas prima parte quaestione sexagesimaoctava; quin, si quis advertat animum ad eius loquendi modum, ad hanc ipse propensior videtur. Durandus autem in secundo Sententia[rum] distinctione decimaquarta eam ceteris anteponit. Et Rupertus idem sensit in primo libro de Trinitate et eius operibus capite vicesimosecundo, sic scribens: “Firmamentum non solidum quid aut durum, ut vulgo putatur, sed aër est extensus, et adeo subtiliatus ut, licet videri queat, rectius tamen spiritus dici queat quam corpus, testante Ecclesiaste (Ecclesiast. primo, cum dicit de luminaribus quae visibiliter in eo feruntur), ‘Lustrans in circuitu pergit spiritus, et in circulos suos revertitur.’ Hoc itaque, cum solidum non sit, sed neque ita corpulentum ut haec inferior pars aëris, aliunde tamen [Scriptura]...”

This opinion too, the same Augustine — already before him reported by others — in the second book On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter four, greatly approves and praises. The same, among the most probable views, Blessed Thomas commends in the First Part, question sixty-eight; indeed, if one attends to his manner of speaking, he himself seems more inclined to it. Durandus, moreover, in the second book of the Sentences, distinction fourteen, prefers it to the rest. And Rupert held the same in the first book On the Trinity and Its Works, chapter twenty-two, writing thus: “The firmament is not something solid or hard, as is commonly supposed, but is air extended, and so rarefied that, although it can be seen, it can nonetheless more rightly be called spirit than body — Ecclesiastes attesting it (Ecclesiastes one, when he speaks of the luminaries that are visibly borne in it), ‘The spirit goes forth surveying all things round about, and returns to its circuits.’ This, therefore, since it is not solid, yet neither so corporeal as this lower part of the air, was nevertheless from another cause [called by Scripture]...”¹⁸

...Scriptura illud nuncupavit firmamentum, videlicet eo quod dividat aquas ab aquis.” Sic Rupertus. Non attinet commemorare Augustinum Eugubinum, qui, ut palam est omnibus, fuse tractat hanc interpretationem in Cosmopoeia et pugnaciter praefracteque defendit. Caietanus etiam, significatione vocis Hebraeae quam proxime exposuimus, affirmat nomine firmamenti hoc loco significari expansionem quae est inter caelum et terram, qua et aëris et ignis omniumque caelorum visibilium extensio comprehenditur.

...Scripture named it ‘firmament,’ namely because it divides the waters from the waters.” So Rupert. There is no need to mention Augustinus Eugubinus [Steuco], who, as is plain to all, treats this interpretation at length in the Cosmopoeia and defends it pugnaciously and stubbornly. Cajetan too, on the strength of the signification of the Hebrew word which we just now set forth, affirms that by the name of “firmament” in this place is signified the expansion which is between heaven and earth, by which is comprehended the extension both of the air and of the fire and of all the visible heavens.¹⁹

Verum huic sententiae duo videntur officere: nam et nomen Latinum firmamenti, quod est in Latina et vulgari translatione, et vox Graeca στερέωμα qua usi sunt Septuaginta Interpretes, in aërem — corpus admodum tenue et instabile perpetuaque iactatum agitatione — minime quadrant. Et Moses paulo inferius, ubi opus quarti diei tradit, solem et lunam astraque omnia in firmamento esse posita affirmat: non esse autem solem et lunam atque sydera in eo spacio quod aër obsidet et implet, nemo inficias ibit. Sed has obiectiones contra nostram opinionem esse invalidas facillima earum solutio declarabit. Prior ita solvitur: Non appellatur firmamentum quia sit corpus firmissimum, sed quia est interstitium et terminus interiectus inter aquas superiores et inferiores — terminus, inquam, firmissimus et immutabilis; semper enim id natura fert ut superiores aquae generentur in sublimiori aëre, indeque defluant in terram, inferiores autem aquae sub aëre locum habeant. Hanc significationem firmamenti non esse commentitiam, sed illi vocabulo bene congruentem, testem excitabo B. Augustinum, qui in libro secundo super Genesim ad litteram cap. 10 ad hunc modum scribit: “Nec nomen firmamenti cogit ut stare caelum putemus: Firmamentum enim non propter stationem, sed propter firmitatem, aut propter intransgressibilem terminum superiorum et inferiorum aquarum, intelligere licet.” Idem tradit Rupertus, eo quem paulo supra posuimus loco.

But two things seem to tell against this opinion: for both the Latin name “firmament,” which is in the Latin and common translation, and the Greek word στερέωμα which the Seventy Translators used, by no means fit the air — a body very thin and unstable, and tossed by perpetual agitation. And Moses, a little below, where he relates the work of the fourth day, affirms that the sun and moon and all the stars are placed in the firmament: but that the sun and moon and stars are not in that space which the air occupies and fills, no one will deny. But that these objections against our opinion are invalid, their very easy solution will show. The first is solved thus: it is called “firmament” not because it is a most solid body, but because it is an interstice and a boundary set between the upper and lower waters — a boundary, I say, most firm and immutable; for nature always brings it about that the upper waters are generated in the higher air and thence flow down to the earth, while the lower waters have their place beneath the air. That this signification of “firmament” is not a fabrication, but well agreeing with the word, I will summon as witness Blessed Augustine, who in the second book on Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 10, writes thus: “Nor does the name ‘firmament’ compel us to think that the heaven stands still: for one may understand ‘firmament’ not on account of standing, but on account of firmness, or on account of the impassable boundary of the upper and lower waters.” Rupert hands down the same, in the place we set down a little above.²⁰

Posterior obiectio multis modis refelli potest. Nec respondeo, ut quidam respondent, Mosem aliter usum esse vocabulo firmamenti secundo die, et aliter in quarto, illic nimirum pro aëre, hic autem pro corpore caelesti: vix enim fit credibile Mosem tam brevi intervallo eadem voce adeo varie et ambigue usum esse, quod haud dubie non parvam narrationi suae obscuritatem erat allaturum. Nec dicam, quod a nonnullis est proditum, in secundo die appellari praecise firmamentum, in quarto autem cum adiunctione, hoc est “In firmamento caeli,” ut haec varietas, variari utroque loco, huius vocis significationem indicaret: hoc enim parum firmum est, dicitur enim “In firmamento caeli” more Hebraico pro eo quod est “in firmamento quod est caelum,” vel quod supra in secundo die appellatum est a Deo caelum. Nec desunt qui, cum dicitur sydera posita esse “in firmamento caeli,” illud “In firmamento caeli” interpretentur pro “Supra firmamentum.” Certe qui per firmamen[tum]...

The latter objection can be refuted in many ways. I do not answer, as some answer, that Moses used the word “firmament” in one way on the second day and in another on the fourth — there, namely, for the air, but here for a celestial body: for it is scarcely credible that Moses, within so brief an interval, used the same word so variously and ambiguously, which would without doubt have brought no small obscurity upon his narrative. Nor will I say, as some have reported, that on the second day it is called precisely “firmament,” but on the fourth with an addition, that is, “In the firmament of heaven,” so that this variation — being varied in both places — might indicate the signification of this word: for this is too weak, since “In the firmament of heaven” is said, in the Hebrew manner, for what is “in the firmament which is heaven,” or which above, on the second day, was called by God “heaven.” Nor are there lacking those who, when the stars are said to be placed “in the firmament of heaven,” interpret that “In the firmament of heaven” as “Above the firmament.” Certainly those who by “firmament”...²¹

...tum intelligunt octavum caelum, coguntur etiam illud “In firmamento caeli” exponere pro “Sub firmamento caeli.” Sol enim et luna ceterique planetae non sunt positi in octavo caelo, sed sub ipso cursus et circuitus suos peragunt. Illa igitur probabilior est solutio: vel quod dicantur posita in firmamento caeli, quia per ipsum firmamentum, id est aërem, sint hominum oculis exposita et aspectabilia (nam prout spacium hoc aëreum magis minusve serenum et purum fuerit, ita vel clarius vel obscurius splendorem illa suum atque pulchritudinem mortalibus ostentant); vel potius Moses Hebraea voce רקיע Rachiach indiscrete significavit universum spacium et extensionem a terra usque ad summa sydera, videlicet quatenus oculorum acies usquequaque pertingere potest — nec enim iudicio sensus, nec vulgi existimatione, spacium in quo volvuntur sydera ab eo in quo est aër et ignis separatum est. Itaque Moses narrationem demisit et accommodavit ad opinionem sensumque vulgi existimantis solem, lunam, et astra per hoc spacium (seu, ut vulgo putatur, inane) vagari et motus suos conficere; neque enim hoc non infra fecit Moses, cum, enarrando opus quarti diei, secutus opinionem vulgi et iudicium sensus, lunam appellavit luminare magnum, ita ut post solem syderum maximum facere videatur, cum revera, ut certis argumentis docent Mathematici, plurimis astris sit magnitudine inferior. Ergo in firmamento, secundum partem eius supremam, posita sunt astra; in firmamento item, secundum eius inferiorem quam aër obsidet, sunt aquae de quibus agitur hoc loco. Et ita solvit hanc ipsam obiectionem sanctus Thomas, prima parte, quaestione trigesima, articulo primo. Illud etiam nemini negotium facessat, quod in scriptura legitur, “Et aquae quae super caelos sunt”: tanquam quod pluraliter dicatur “Super caelos,” propterea non possit de aëre intelligi; etenim ita dictum est secundum phrasim linguae Hebraeae, in qua nomen caeli caret singulari et tantum pluraliter dicitur שמים Sammaim, hoc est “caeli,” sicut Athenae, Syracusae, Venetiae.

...understand the eighth heaven, are also forced to expound that “In the firmament of heaven” as “Under the firmament of heaven.” For the sun and moon and the other planets are not placed in the eighth heaven, but below it accomplish their courses and circuits. That solution, therefore, is more probable: either that they are said to be placed in the firmament of heaven because, through the firmament itself — that is, the air — they are exposed and visible to the eyes of men (for according as this aerial space is more or less serene and pure, so do they display their splendor and beauty to mortals more clearly or more dimly); or rather, that Moses, by the Hebrew word רקיע (Rachiach), signified indiscriminately the whole space and extension from the earth up to the highest stars — namely, as far as the keenness of the eyes can reach in every direction; for neither by the judgment of sense nor by the estimation of the common people is the space in which the stars revolve separated from that in which the air and fire are. And so Moses lowered and accommodated his narrative to the opinion and sense of the common people, who think that the sun, moon, and stars wander through this space (or, as the crowd supposes, void) and accomplish their motions; for Moses did this very thing again below, when, in recounting the work of the fourth day, following the opinion of the crowd and the judgment of sense, he called the moon a great luminary, so that he seems to make it, after the sun, the greatest of the stars — whereas in truth, as the Mathematicians teach by sure arguments, it is in magnitude inferior to very many stars. Therefore in the firmament, with respect to its highest part, the stars are placed; and in the firmament likewise, with respect to its lower part which the air occupies, are the waters which are treated of in this place. And so Saint Thomas solves this very objection, in the First Part, question thirty, article one. And let it trouble no one that it is read in Scripture, “And the waters that are above the heavens”: as though, because it is said in the plural “above the heavens,” it could not therefore be understood of the air; for it is so said according to the idiom of the Hebrew tongue, in which the noun “heaven” lacks a singular and is said only in the plural, שמים (Sammaim), that is “heavens,” like Athenae, Syracusae, Venetiae.²²

Expedita priori quaestione de firmamento caeli, alteram, magis etiam perplexam et litigiosam, de aquis supra firmamentum positis tractare aggredimur. Quales essent illae aquae difficillimum explicatu visum est iis quibus nomine firmamenti caelum sydereum hoc loco significari erat persuasum; quamobrem multas illi earum aquarum interpretationes, et alias alii non diversas modo, sed adversas etiam tradiderunt. Incipiam ab Origene, cui, quod fortasse videretur incredibile supra caelos sydereos esse veras aquas, placuit nomen illarum aquarum non proprie accipere, sed figurate ac mystice interpretari. Etenim is (quemadmodum refert Epiphanius in epistola ad Ioannem Hierosolymitanum, et Hieronymus in epistola ad Pammachium) in scriptis suis super Genesim, enarrans hunc locum, per aquas superiores interpretatus est beatos [Angelos]...

The first question, concerning the firmament of heaven, being dispatched, we undertake to treat the other — even more perplexed and contentious — concerning the waters placed above the firmament. What sort those waters were seemed most difficult to explain to those who were persuaded that by the name of “firmament” in this place the starry heaven was signified; wherefore they handed down many interpretations of those waters, and some men gave interpretations not only different from, but even contrary to, those of others. I will begin with Origen, to whom — because perhaps it seemed incredible that above the starry heavens there should be true waters — it seemed good not to take the name of those waters properly, but to interpret it figuratively and mystically. For he (as Epiphanius relates in his letter to John of Jerusalem, and Jerome in his letter to Pammachius), in his writings on Genesis, expounding this passage, interpreted by the upper waters the blessed [Angels]...²³

...tos angelos, quos etiam a Davide nomine aquarum significari ait, cum dixit, “Et aquae quae super caelos sunt laudent nomen Domini”; per aquas vero inferiores exposuit malos Angelos e caelo in hunc turbulentum et caliginosum aërem deturbatos. Hanc interpretationem Epiphanius et Hieronymus supradictis locis damnant, quam etiam refellit Epiphanius eo argumento, quod aquae super firmamentum locatae sint illae quas Moses infra, capite septimo, scribit, apertis caeli cataractis, ad efficiendum diluvium fuisse delapsas. Basilius in homilia tertia super Genesim hanc expositionem, tacito tamen Origenis nomine, memorat, et quasi somnium anilemque fabulam reiicit, et sane merito. Nam, praeterquam quod historicam Mosis narrationem de veris aquis corrumpit, ad intellectuales et spirituales aquas nimium violente ac inepte detorquendo, duobus etiam Scripturae testimoniis aperte confutatur: alterum est in Psalmo 103, ubi sic est, “Extendens caelum sicut pellem, qui tegis aquis superiora eius,” vel, ut ad verbum est in Hebraeo, “Qui contiguas et contabulas superiora eius,” quod in Spiritus angelicos nequaquam convenit; alterum est in Psalmo 148 et in Cantico trium puerorum, ubi, cum omnia Dei opera provocentur ad laudandum Deum, primo loco memorantur Angeli et virtutes caelestes, deinde vero “aquae quae super caelos sunt”: quo licet intelligere aquas illas supercaelestes ab Angelis esse diversas. Atque hoc Scripturae testimonio, ad eam opinionem redarguendam, usus est Rupertus primo libro de operibus sanctissimae Trinitatis capite vigesimotertio. Augustinus simile quippiam, Origenis opinioni, scriptum reliquit libro vigesimotertio Confessionum capite 32: ait enim firmamentum esse positum inter superiores aquas spirituales, inferiores corporales. Verum hoc ipsemet postea, in libro secundo Retractationum capite sexto, ut in re tam obscura inconsiderate dictum, revocavit atque correxit.

...the blessed angels, whom he says are also signified by David under the name of waters, when he said, “And let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord”; while by the lower waters he expounded the evil Angels, cast down from heaven into this turbulent and dark air. This interpretation Epiphanius and Jerome condemn in the places cited above, and Epiphanius also refutes it by this argument, that the waters placed above the firmament are those which Moses, below in chapter seven, writes to have come down, with the cataracts of heaven opened, to cause the flood. Basil, in the third homily on Genesis, mentions this exposition — yet with Origen's name suppressed — and rejects it as a dream and an old wives' tale; and rightly so. For, besides that it corrupts the historical narrative of Moses concerning real waters, by twisting it too violently and ineptly to intellectual and spiritual waters, it is also plainly confuted by two testimonies of Scripture: one is in Psalm 103, where it stands, “Stretching out the heaven like a skin, who coverest the higher parts thereof with waters,” or, as it is word-for-word in the Hebrew, “Who roofest and beamest its upper parts” — which by no means fits angelic Spirits; the other is in Psalm 148 and in the Canticle of the Three Children, where, when all the works of God are summoned to praise God, in the first place are mentioned the Angels and the heavenly powers, but afterward “the waters that are above the heavens”: from which one may understand that those supercelestial waters are distinct from the Angels. And Rupert used this testimony of Scripture to refute that opinion, in the first book On the Works of the Most Holy Trinity, chapter twenty-three. Augustine left written something similar to Origen's opinion, in the twenty-third book of the Confessions, chapter 32: for he says that the firmament is placed between the upper spiritual waters and the lower corporeal ones. But he himself afterward, in the second book of the Retractations, chapter six, revoked and corrected this, as having been said inconsiderately in so obscure a matter.²⁴

Alia est sententia multorum, et antiquitatis et doctrinae sanctitatisque laude praestantium virorum probata et nobilitata, consensu: veras et naturales esse aquas supra caelum sydereum; quas enim Moses proprio nomine ac simpliciter appellavit aquas, proculdubio veras aquas esse intelligendas. Sed quibus haec placuerit sententia nominabo. Iustinus martyr, respondens ad nonagesimam tertiam quaestionem orthodoxorum, ait terga caeli esse aquis tecta, secundum illud, “Qui tegis aquis superiora eius”: earum vero aquarum duplicem esse usum; alterum, ad immensum tot tantorumque syderum ardorem, ne penitus omnia consumantur, sua refrigeratione mitigandum atque temperandum; alterum, ut earum pondere dorsum caeli urgeatur ac prematur deorsum, nec crebro ac violento ventorum impulsu concussum huc illuc agitetur. Similia fere duo Iudaeorum doctissimi, Philo et Iosephus, prodiderunt. Basilius autem homilia tertia super Genesim, de harum aquarum supercaelestium usu ac necessitate, multa diligenti et accurata oratione disputat: “Nam cum Deus,” inquit, “infinitam prope vim ignei ardoris [propter multiplices et necessarios eius usus]...”

Another is the opinion of many — approved and ennobled by the consent of men outstanding in the praise both of antiquity and of learning and holiness — that there are true and natural waters above the starry heaven: for the waters which Moses called by their proper name and simply “waters” must without doubt be understood as true waters. But I will name those to whom this opinion was pleasing. Justin Martyr, answering the ninety-third question of the orthodox, says that the back of heaven is covered with waters, according to that text, “Who coverest its higher parts with waters”: and that the use of those waters is twofold; one, to soften and temper, by their cooling, the immense heat of so many and so great stars, lest all things be utterly consumed; the other, that by their weight the back of heaven may be pressed and weighed down, and not be tossed this way and that, shaken by the frequent and violent impulse of the winds. Two most learned of the Jews, Philo and Josephus, have reported nearly the same. And Basil, in the third homily on Genesis, argues at length, in careful and accurate discourse, concerning the use and necessity of these supercelestial waters: “For when God,” he says, “had scattered far and wide an almost infinite force of fiery heat [for its manifold and necessary uses]...”²⁵

...ardoris, propter multiplices et ad plurima necessarios eius usus, in caelo et infra caelum multifariam sparsisset, essetque suapte natura ignis voracissimus suique foecundissimus ac minimis mire crescens initiis, ne ob eam causam universi salus atque incolumitas periclitaretur, ex adverso maximam ei infra supraque caelum vim aquarum opposuit, ut earum refrigeratione tantus ignium ardor temperatus non solum non obesset mundo, sed etiam prodesset plurimum.” Sic fere Basilius. Idem tradunt Theodoretus quaestione undecima super Genesim, Gennadius item et Severianus, uti hoc loco citantur in Catena. Ambrosius vero libro secundo in Hexameron capite secundo etiam huius rei duo ponit indicia et argumenta: alterum, quod nonnumquam ingens aquae vis de caelo repente magno impetu descendens in tantos imbres resolvitur, ut flumina et lacus repente compleantur et vel ipsa exundent maria; alterum, quod frequenter Solem cernamus quasi madidum et rorantem, scilicet propter aquarum alimentum ad eius ardoris temperiem attractum.

...heat — on account of its manifold uses, necessary for very many things — in many ways, both in heaven and below heaven, and since fire is by its own nature most voracious and most prolific of itself, growing wondrously from the smallest beginnings, lest for that cause the safety and soundness of the universe should be endangered, he set over against it, both below and above heaven, a very great force of waters, so that, the great heat of the fires being tempered by their cooling, it should not only not harm the world, but even profit it very much.” So, in substance, Basil. The same is handed down by Theodoret, in the eleventh question on Genesis, and likewise by Gennadius and Severian, as they are cited in this place in the Catena. And Ambrose, in the second book on the Hexaëmeron, chapter two, also sets down two indications and arguments of this matter: one, that sometimes a huge force of water, descending suddenly from heaven with great violence, dissolves into such rains that rivers and lakes are suddenly filled, and even the seas themselves overflow; the other, that we frequently behold the Sun as if wet and dewy — namely, on account of the nourishment of waters drawn up to temper its heat.²⁶

Beda in libro de Natura rerum ait quibusdam esse visum aquas supra caelum esse a Deo positas, ut earum ingenti copia e caelis praecipitata in terras generale totius orbis diluvium, quod Dei voluntate ac decreto aliquando erat futurum, effici posset; verum sibi probabilius videri eas aquas ad refrigerationem et temperationem ardoris syderum fuisse comparatas. Supradictam opinionem tribuit cuidam doctori solenni Tostatus super caput septimum Geneseos: sed eam falsam esse duplici constat argumento. Tum quia, ut illae deflueret in terram ad efficiendum diluvium, necessarium fuisset caelos omnes disrumpi, ut illis aquis pateret descensus, et rursus eosdem caelos occludi. Tum quia vel tota illa aqua defluxisset, et sic totus locus quem obsidebant remansisset vacuus; vel pars tantum defluxisset, et reliqua pars esset frustra, cum non futurum sit amplius diluvium generale, ut promisit Deus Genes. 9.

Bede, in his book On the Nature of Things, says that to some it seemed that the waters above heaven were placed there by God so that, by their immense quantity hurled down from the heavens upon the earth, the general flood of the whole world — which was at some time to come about by the will and decree of God — might be brought about; but that to himself it seems more probable that those waters were provided for the cooling and tempering of the heat of the stars. The aforesaid opinion Tostatus attributes to a certain solemn doctor, on the seventh chapter of Genesis: but that it is false is established by a twofold argument. First, because, in order for those waters to flow down to the earth to cause the flood, it would have been necessary that all the heavens be ruptured, so that a descent might lie open for those waters, and again that the same heavens be closed up. Second, because either that whole water would have flowed down, and so the whole place which it occupied would have remained empty; or only a part would have flowed down, and the remaining part would be in vain, since there will be no more a general flood, as God promised, Genesis 9.²⁷

Nec desunt qui putent hunc quoque sensum esse Ecclesiae, propterea quod in hymno qui ad vesperas feriae secundae publice cantatur in templis sic est:

Nor are there lacking those who think that this too is the sense of the Church, because in the hymn which is publicly sung in the churches at the Vespers of the second weekday [Monday] it stands thus:²⁸

O boundless Founder of the heaven, who, that things mingled might not be confounded, dividing the floods of water, gavest the heaven as a boundary; establishing a place for the heavenly [waters] and at the same time for the earth's streams, that the wave might temper the flames, lest [the waters] dissolve the earth's soil.²⁹

Immense caeli conditor, / Qui mixta ne confunderent, / Aquae fluenta dividens, / Caelum dedisti limitem; / Firmans locum caelestibus / Simulque terrae rivulis, / Ut unda flammas temperet, / Terrae solum ne dissipent.

Ad idem persuadendum, adhibent quidem rationem hanc ex analogia petitam, quam tangit Augustinus libro undecimo de Civitate Dei cap. ult.: sicut in microcosmo, id est homine, supra cor igneae naturae locatum est cerebrum frigidissimum, ita in magno mundo supra caelestes ignes aquas esse positas. Idem libro secundo super Genesim ad litteram cap. 5, et in libro de Genesi imperfecto capite octavo, refert quosdam fidelium convincere voluisse aquas esse supra caelum argumento Saturni: qui, cum maiori ceteris planetis concitatione feratur motu primi mobilis (pari enim tempore longe maius circuit spatium)...

To persuade of the same, they bring forward this argument drawn from analogy, which Augustine touches on in the eleventh book of the City of God, the last chapter: just as in the microcosm — that is, in man — above the heart, which is of fiery nature, is placed the brain, which is most cold, so in the great world, above the celestial fires, the waters are placed. The same [Augustine], in the second book on Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 5, and in the unfinished book on Genesis, chapter eight, reports that certain of the faithful wished to prove that there are waters above heaven by the argument from Saturn: which, since it is carried with a greater rapidity than the other planets by the motion of the prime mobile (for in an equal time it travels round a far greater space)...³⁰

...circuit spatium, maiorem quoque calorem concipere et ardentior esse debebat; cum tamen Astronomi doceant Saturnum esse frigidissimum, huius tantae frigiditatis non alia profecto causa quam supercaelestium aquarum vicinitas esse potest. Sed hoc frivolum est: octavum enim caelum vicinius est istis aquis quam orbi Saturni, et inter hunc et illas intermedium; quare sydera inerrantia quae in eo sunt, quo propiora illis aquis, eo plenius earum frigiditatem sentire ac participare deberent: quod falsum esse patet vel unius Syrii seu Caniculae argumento, quae ardoris excessu insignis est et apud omnes gentes infamis. Beatus Augustinus loco proxime posito, cum de istiusmodi aquis, qua ratione supra caelum esse queant, multum disputasset, hanc tandem velut clausulam disputationis adiicit: “Quoquo modo autem, et qualeslibet aquae ibi sint, eas esse ibi minime dubitemus: maior est quippe Scripturae huius auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas.” Lege quae in eandem sententiam lib. 11 de Civitate Dei cap. ult. scribit Augustinus.

...it travels round, it ought also to conceive a greater heat and to be more burning; whereas the Astronomers teach that Saturn is most cold — and of this great coldness there can surely be no other cause than the nearness of the supercelestial waters. But this is frivolous: for the eighth heaven is nearer to those waters than the sphere of Saturn, and is intermediate between this and them; and so the fixed stars which are in it, the nearer they are to those waters, the more fully they ought to feel and share their coldness — which is plainly false, by the argument of the single star Sirius, or the Dog-star, which is notable for its excess of heat and infamous among all nations. Blessed Augustine, in the place just cited, when he had disputed much about waters of this kind — by what reasoning they can be above heaven — at last adds this, as it were a conclusion of the dispute: “But in whatever way, and of whatever kind, the waters there may be, let us by no means doubt that they are there: for the authority of this Scripture is greater than all the capacity of human wit.” Read what Augustine writes to the same effect in book 11 of the City of God, the last chapter.³¹

Obiicitur adversus istam opinionem labilem et fluxam aquarum naturam super extimam caeli faciem, quae perfectissime rotunda et levis est, non posse consistere. Solvit hoc Basilius: licet concava Caeli superficies sit rotunda, non continuo tamen esse consequens et necessarium ut convexa Caeli superficies sit etiam rotunda, sicut videre est in fornicibus et locis concameratis. Beda vero in Hexameron ita respondet: “Non esse minus facile omnipotenti Deo tenere aquas super Caelum sydereum, sive liquidas sive modo Chrystalli conglaciatas atque concretas, quam (quod facit quotidie) tenere aquas in sublimi aëre suspensas, unde tantus sit imbrium defluxus — quod loco miraculi praedicat Iob de Deo capite vigesimosexto, ‘Qui ligat aquas in nubibus suis, ut non erumpant pariter deorsum.’ Ipse enim est qui undas rubri maris atque Iordanis, in sublime erectas et murorum similitudine firmatas, fecit consistere.” Sed ex Beda quaerendum esset utrum putaret aquas esse supra caelum naturaliter an miraculose. Si diceret esse miraculum, facile reiiceretur ex sententia Augustini, cui non placet in reddenda ratione eorum quae in prima rerum institutione et dispositione facta sunt ad omnipotentiam Dei et ad miracula confugere. Sin autem diceret aquas ibi esse naturaliter, facilius confutari posset, cum naturalis aquarum locus sit infra aërem terraeque proximus.

It is objected against this opinion that the slippery and flowing nature of water cannot rest upon the outermost surface of heaven, which is most perfectly round and smooth. Basil solves this: although the concave surface of Heaven is round, it does not at once follow as a consequence and necessity that the convex surface of Heaven is also round — as is to be seen in vaults and arched places. Bede, in the Hexaëmeron, answers thus: “It is no less easy for almighty God to hold waters above the starry Heaven — whether liquid, or congealed and compacted in the manner of crystal — than (what He does daily) to hold waters suspended in the upper air, whence comes so great a downpour of rains; which Job declares of God, as a kind of miracle, in chapter twenty-six, ‘Who binds the waters in his clouds, that they break not out all together downward.’ For He it is who made the waves of the Red Sea and of the Jordan, raised on high and made firm in the likeness of walls, to stand still.” But of Bede it should be asked whether he thought the waters are above heaven naturally or miraculously. If he should say it is a miracle, it would easily be rejected on Augustine's principle, who does not approve, in rendering the reason of things done in the first institution and ordering of things, to have recourse to the omnipotence of God and to miracles. But if he should say the waters are there naturally, it could be refuted more easily, since the natural place of water is below the air and nearest to the earth.³²

Nec iuvat eum argumentum vaporum qui sunt in sublimi aëre; namque illi, ut sint aqua secundum substantiam, non habent tamen naturalis aquae proprietates — frigiditatem dico, densitatem et gravitatem — sed propter calorem tenuati et facti leves feruntur ad supera loca; cum primum tamen in veram aquam mutantur, non queunt sublimi loco consistere, sed naturali pondere ad ima deferuntur. Ac licet vapores ad superiores regiones aëris, ob eas quas dixi causas, subvehi queant, illuc tamen nec ad supremam aëris regionem, neque ad locum ignis — quanto minus supra octavum Caelum — possunt attolli. Beatus Augustinus libro secundo [de Genesi ad litteram]...

Nor does the argument from vapors that are in the upper air help him; for those, although they are water in substance, do not however have the properties of natural water — coldness, I mean, density, and weight — but, rarefied by heat and made light, are carried to the upper places; yet as soon as they are changed into true water, they cannot remain in a lofty place, but are borne down to the lowest by their natural weight. And although vapors can be carried up to the higher regions of the air, for the causes I have said, they can nonetheless be raised neither to the highest region of the air, nor to the place of fire — much less above the eighth Heaven. Blessed Augustine, in the second book [on Genesis according to the Letter]...³³

...secundo de Genesi ad litteram capite quarto, et in Dialogo sexagesimoquinto quaestionum quaestione vigesimaseptima, argumentatur non esse putandum incredibile aquam evehi et esse supra caelum: “Videmus enim,” inquit, “quotidie aquam tenuatam in vaporem tolli ad superiores partes aëris, quae, si magis etiam magisque tenuaretur, celsiora quoque loca peteret. Cum igitur Physiologi doceant omne corpus in infinitum rarescere et dividi posse, etiam poterit in infinitum fieri levius et ad quamcumque locorum sublimitatem sustolli: quocirca non videtur impossibile aquam eatenus attenuari posse quoad idonea sit etiam supra Caelum promoveri.” Haec Augustinus.

...in the second book on Genesis according to the Letter, chapter four, and in the Dialogue of Sixty-five Questions, question twenty-seven, argues that it is not to be thought incredible that water should be carried up and be above heaven: “For we see,” he says, “every day water rarefied into vapor lifted to the upper parts of the air, which, if it were rarefied still more and more, would seek even loftier places. Since, then, the Natural Philosophers teach that every body can be rarefied and divided to infinity, it will also be able to become infinitely lighter and to be raised to any height of places whatsoever: wherefore it does not seem impossible that water can be attenuated so far as to be fit to be moved even above Heaven.” These are Augustine's words.³⁴

Cuius nec opinatio probabilis est, et invalida est argumentatio. Non enim fieri potest ut adeo extenuetur aqua ut supra Caelum efferri queat: primo, propter soliditatem et continuitatem caeli, nulli transitum praebentis; tum propter regionem ignis superfusam aëri, qui omnem istiusmodi vaporum vim prorsus absumeret; deinde, quia terminus naturalis eorum quae sursum feruntur est citima orbis Lunae extremitas — levissimus enim omnium corporum ignis ulteriora non appetit loca. Postea, licet omne corpus ratione Mathematica (qua seiunctum ab omni materia naturali cogitatur) in infinitum rarefieri ac dividi posse dicatur, id tamen revera fieri nullo in corpore naturali possibile est: omnium enim rerum natura constantium, tam parvitatis et magnitudinis quam densitatis et raritatis, certus a natura praefinitus est terminus; quamobrem aqua non potest constare quantalibet raritate, sed si plus quam fert eius natura attenuetur, continuo vertitur in aërem, et hic nimio plus tenuatus in ignem mutatur.

But neither is his opinion probable, nor is the argument valid. For it cannot come about that water be so attenuated that it can be carried above Heaven: first, on account of the solidity and continuity of the heaven, which affords passage to nothing; then, on account of the region of fire spread over the air, which would utterly consume all force of such vapors; next, because the natural terminus of the things that are borne upward is the nearest extremity of the Moon's sphere — for fire, the lightest of all bodies, seeks no places beyond. Further, although every body, by the Mathematical reckoning (whereby it is thought of as separated from all natural matter), is said to be able to be rarefied and divided to infinity, yet that this really happen is in no natural body possible: for of all things consisting of nature there is a fixed limit, set by nature, both of smallness and largeness and of density and rarity; wherefore water cannot subsist at any rarity whatsoever, but if it be attenuated more than its nature bears, it is straightway turned into air, and this, rarefied too much, is changed into fire.³⁵

Sed, ut brevi praecidam, universe opinionem istam de aquis super sydera positis confutabo. Nullo modo est credibile veram et naturalem aquam esse supra Caelum: etenim, cum sit aqua corpus gravius et crassius atque ignobilius aëre, esset profecto contra naturalem rerum ordinem et contra bonam universi dispositionem tantam vim aquarum, certe longe maiorem omnibus aquis terrestribus, non modo super aërem, sed etiam super octo caelestes orbes esse locatam. Nam et ratio docet et confirmat experientia naturalem aquae locum esse infra aërem et proxime supra terram: cernimus enim aquam non quiescere in aëre, et quae in sublimi aëre ex nubibus generatur statim suopte nutu et pondere deorsum praecipitari; quare, si aqua esset supra Caelum, negari non posset eam illic esse contra naturam suam ac violente; atqui nullum violentum est perpetuum; nec est credibile Deum, qui in exordio mundi res omnes quas potenter condidit sapienter etiam et cuiusque rei naturae convenienter disposuit, tantam aquarum copiam contra naturalem earum propensionem atque impetum supra Caelos collocasse. Si natura, ut saepe usurpat Aristoteles, nihil facit frustra, quanto minus Deus, omnis naturae sapientissimus opifex, frustra tantam aquarum vim posuisset super caelum, et tot annorum millibus violente ibi [tenuisset]...

But, to cut it short, I will refute this opinion about waters placed above the stars universally. In no way is it credible that there is true and natural water above Heaven: for, since water is a body heavier and coarser and more ignoble than air, it would surely be against the natural order of things and against the good disposition of the universe that so great a force of waters — certainly far greater than all the earthly waters — should be placed not only above the air, but even above the eight celestial spheres. For both reason teaches and experience confirms that the natural place of water is below the air and nearest above the earth: for we see that water does not rest in the air, and that the water which is generated in the upper air from clouds is at once cast down by its own inclination and weight; wherefore, if water were above Heaven, it could not be denied that it is there against its nature and by violence; but nothing violent is perpetual; nor is it credible that God — who, at the world's beginning, ordered all the things he powerfully founded also wisely and suitably to the nature of each thing — placed so great a quantity of waters, against their natural inclination and impetus, above the Heavens. If nature, as Aristotle often affirms, does nothing in vain, how much less would God, the most wise Maker of all nature, have placed so great a force of waters above heaven in vain, and for so many thousands of years [held them] there by violence...³⁶

...ibi tenuisset; praesertim cum earum aquarum nullus satis idoneus et probabilis usus excogitari possit. Nam quod aiunt quidam opus fuisse earum refrigeratione ad mitigandum ac moderandum ardorem syderum, Peripateticis nequaquam probaretur: sydera enim non esse calida et ignea demonstravit Aristoteles libro secundo de Caelo et primo libro Meteororum, et nos ostendemus in alio libro, quem de caelis et syderibus scripsimus, et huic subnectemus. Verum demus esse calida et ignea: at quanto satius fuisset a principio non plus caloris tribuere cuique syderi quam quantum utile futurum erat ad mundi conservationem, quam immoderatum syderibus largiri calorem, ad quem postea corrigendum et temperandum opus fuerit isto tam violento aquarum remedio. Et vero, si aqua illa refrigerando minuit ardorem syderum, id fieri non posset sine alteratione: remissio enim unius contrarii, auctore Aristotele, non fit nisi propter contrarii admixtionem; quamobrem perpetuo sydera alterarentur et quodammodo corrumperentur, certe in illis notabilis aliqua variatio evenisset, quae tamen ne minima quidem post mundum conditum adhuc potuit deprehendi. Cum autem sydera non calefaciant nisi per lucem, ut remittatur eorum vis calefaciendi necessum esset pariter etiam minui vim et copiam lucis, quam tamen eandem omni aevo et invariabilem fuisse concessu omnium constat. Porro inter contraria mutua est pugna, et, ut Philosophi loquuntur, actio et reactio: quocirca et aqua illa, reprimens vim caloris, vicissim syderum ardore calesceret atque tabesceret, ac tandem interiret; cuius interitus et irritum faceret primum Dei consilium atque propositum, et locum aquae corruptae inanem et vacuum relinqueret, vel aliquid in eius locum recens generatum sufficeretur, vel aquarum interitus proficeret ad incrementum syderum, et insignis aliqua syderibus fieret accessio. Haec cum sint et rationi et sensibus et doctorum hominum observationibus plane contraria, sunt etiam omnino repudianda et reiicienda, e quibus haec necessario conficiuntur.

...held them there by violence — especially since no sufficiently fitting and probable use of those waters can be devised. For as to what some say, that there was need of their cooling to mitigate and moderate the heat of the stars, this would by no means be approved by the Peripatetics: for that the stars are not hot and fiery Aristotle demonstrated in the second book On the Heaven and the first book of the Meteorology, and we shall show it in another book, which we have written on the heavens and the stars and will append to this. But let us grant that they are hot and fiery: yet how much better would it have been, from the beginning, not to give each star more heat than would be useful for the conservation of the world, than to lavish immoderate heat on the stars, for the correcting and tempering of which there should afterward be need of so violent a remedy of waters. And indeed, if that water by cooling lessens the heat of the stars, that could not happen without alteration: for the remission of one contrary, on Aristotle's authority, does not come about except by the admixture of its contrary; wherefore the stars would be perpetually altered and in a manner corrupted, and surely some notable variation would have arisen in them — which, however, not even the slightest, since the founding of the world, has yet been able to be detected. And since the stars do not give heat except by light, in order that their heating power be remitted it would be necessary that the force and quantity of light be likewise diminished — which light, however, all admit to have been the same and invariable through every age. Furthermore, between contraries there is mutual conflict and, as the Philosophers say, action and reaction: wherefore that water too, repressing the force of heat, would in turn grow hot by the burning of the stars, and waste away, and at last perish; and its perishing would frustrate and make void God's first counsel and purpose, and would leave the place of the corrupted water empty and void — or something newly generated would be substituted in its place, or the perishing of the waters would contribute to the increase of the stars, and some notable accession would be made to the stars. Since these things are plainly contrary to reason, to the senses, and to the observations of learned men, the premises from which they necessarily follow are also wholly to be repudiated and rejected.³⁷

Alii, his opinor convicti rationibus, opinantur eas aquas esse comparatas ad retundendum ardorem ignis elementaris sub orbem lunae subiecti, qui, cum sit mole amplissimus potentiaque efficacissimus, nisi esset ita repressus, omnia conficeret atque consumeret. Sed hoc futile est: nam neque ille ignis, cum sit in rarissima ac tenuissima materia, magnam habet calefaciendi vim; et ei, quantacumque ipsa sit reprimendae, tum media regio aëris frigidissima, tum immensa terrestrium aquarum copia abunde sufficit; ac ne illa quidem supercaelestis aqua posset ad elementum ignis frigus suum transmittere, impedita quippe esset octo caelestium orbium interpositu, qui, cum sint incorruptibiles, nec frigoris neque cuiusquam aliarum qualitatum quae vim habent corrumpendi sunt capaces. Quidam vero sic argumentatur: cum duae sint in sublunari mundo principes qualitates vim agendi habentes, Calor et Frigus, harum in caelis causas esse [aliquas effectrices et conservatrices]...

Others, convinced (I suppose) by these arguments, think that those waters were provided to beat back the heat of the elemental fire set beneath the sphere of the moon — which, since it is most ample in mass and most efficacious in power, would, unless it were thus repressed, destroy and consume all things. But this is futile: for neither does that fire, since it is in the rarest and thinnest matter, have a great power of heating; and for repressing it, however great it be, both the most cold middle region of the air and the immense quantity of earthly waters abundantly suffice; nor indeed could that supercelestial water transmit its cold to the element of fire, for it would be hindered by the interposition of the eight celestial spheres, which, since they are incorruptible, are capable neither of cold nor of any of the other qualities that have power to corrupt. But a certain one argues thus: since there are in the sublunary world two principal qualities having power to act, Heat and Cold, there must be in the heavens [some causes that produce and preserve] them...³⁸

...esse aliquas effectrices et conservatrices necesse est. Quemadmodum igitur Caeli astriferi syderum lumine calorem generant ac tuentur, ita ratio suadet esse Caelum aliquod aqueum, cuius potentia frigus effici et conservari possit. Verum haec infirma est argumentatio: nam neque caelum illud per tot orbes intermedios vim frigoris transmittere posset ad res sublunares; et Astronomi vim frigefaciendi etiam astris, ut Saturno, tribuunt; multi praeterea hoc referunt ad varias influentiarum facultates quas caelis assignant. Denique sententia est Peripateticorum Caelum per lumen facere tam calorem quam frigus, diversa tamen ratione — illum quidem per se, hoc autem per accidens; nam praesentia luminis facit calorem, absentia vero frigus: quo enim lumen Solis aut nullo modo aut tenuiter pertingit, inibi frigus vigere ac roborari cernimus.

...there must be some causes that produce and preserve them. As, therefore, the star-bearing Heavens generate and maintain heat by the light of the stars, so reason persuades that there is some watery Heaven, by whose power cold may be produced and preserved. But this is a weak argument: for neither could that heaven transmit the force of cold to sublunary things through so many intervening spheres; and the Astronomers attribute the power of cooling to the stars too, as to Saturn; and many besides refer this to the various faculties of the influences which they assign to the heavens. Finally, it is the opinion of the Peripatetics that the Heaven produces both heat and cold by light, yet in a different manner — heat by itself, but cold by accident; for the presence of light produces heat, but its absence cold: for wherever the light of the Sun reaches either not at all or only thinly, there we perceive cold to thrive and be strengthened.³⁹

Sunt alii qui multo aliter aquas illas interpretantur, quarum interpretationes atque sententias, ut propositum et promissum meum impleam et satisfaciam lectori, tacitas praeterire non debeo. Beatus Augustinus prioris libri de Genesi contra Manichaeos cap. 11 per aquas interpretatur materiam; per firmamentum, caelum astriferum, quod dividit inter materiam rerum invisibilium atque supercaelestium, et inter materiam inferiorum et sublunarium corporum: dici autem aquas illas invisibiles esse supra Caelum, non tam locorum spaciis quam naturae dignitate. Sic ille. Verum, ne hoc affirmate et pro certo dicere videretur, proxime subiicit: “Quamquam de hac re nihil temere affirmandum est: obscura est enim et remota a sensibus hominum.” Bene habet quod hoc Augustinus dubitanter sensit, non enim est probabile: nam praeterquam quod facere Angelos ex materia concretos abhorret multum a doctrina iampridem probata a Theologis, ipsa etiam interpretatio tota est figurata et mystica, nec verborum Mosis sententiae inhaerens, nimiumque violente contorta.

There are others who interpret those waters far otherwise, whose interpretations and opinions, that I may fulfill my purpose and promise and satisfy the reader, I ought not to pass over in silence. Blessed Augustine, in the first book on Genesis against the Manichees, chapter 11, interprets by the waters matter; by the firmament, the star-bearing heaven, which divides between the matter of invisible and supercelestial things and the matter of inferior and sublunary bodies: and that those invisible waters are said to be above Heaven not so much by spatial distances as by dignity of nature. So he. But, lest he should seem to say this by assertion and for certain, he immediately adds: “Although nothing is to be rashly affirmed about this matter: for it is obscure and remote from the senses of men.” It is well that Augustine held this hesitantly, for it is not probable: for, besides that to make Angels concrete out of matter abhors greatly from the teaching long since approved by the Theologians, the interpretation itself is also wholly figurative and mystical, not cleaving to the meaning of Moses' words, and twisted too violently.⁴⁰

Est multorum Theologorum alia quaedam opinio, in primis hoc loco perpendenda et diiudicanda. Placet multis per aquas superiores intelligendum esse nonum Caelum, ab ipsis dictum Chrystallinum et putatum primum mobile; per firmamentum autem interpretantur vel octavum orbem tantummodo, vel ipsum una cum septem ei subiectis planetarum orbibus. Haec praeter ceteras sententias probatur S. Bonaventurae in 2 sent. dist. 14, et Aegidio in 2 parte operis quod scribit in Hexameron c. 14 et sequentibus, nec paucis aliis scholasticis Theologis; quibus aggregare oportet Nicolaum de Lyra, Tostatum, Caietanum et Catharinum. Propterea vero nonum Caelum putant a Mose nomine aquarum appellatum, quod magnam cum aqua similitudinem et convenientiam habeat. Sed quae sit ista convenientia et similitudo, quoniam ceteris diligentius et enucleatius exponit Bonaventura, ipsum audiamus: in 2 li. Sent. d. 14 art. 1 ad hunc modum ipse Philosophatur: “In aqua elementari tres esse proprietates: perspicuitatem, frigiditatem et gravitatem. In perspicuitate nonum caelum formaliter convenit cum vera et naturali aqua; in gravitate nullo modo convenit; in frigiditate partim convenit, partim autem minime: formaliter quidem non convenit, quia non est actu frigidum, at vero virtualiter et effective maxime [convenit]...”

There is another opinion of many Theologians, especially to be weighed and judged in this place. It pleases many that by the upper waters is to be understood the ninth Heaven, called by them the Crystalline and supposed to be the prime mobile; while by the firmament they interpret either the eighth sphere alone, or it together with the seven planetary spheres beneath it. This opinion, beyond the rest, is approved by St. Bonaventure on the second book of the Sentences, distinction 14, and by Giles, in the second part of the work he writes on the Hexaëmeron, chapter 14 and following, and by not a few other scholastic Theologians; to whom must be added Nicholas of Lyra, Tostatus, Cajetan, and Catharinus. And they think the ninth Heaven was called by Moses by the name of waters because it has a great likeness and agreement with water. But what that agreement and likeness is — since Bonaventure expounds it more carefully and clearly than the rest — let us hear him: on the second book of the Sentences, distinction 14, article 1, he philosophizes in this manner: “In elemental water there are three properties: transparency, coldness, and weight. In transparency the ninth heaven formally agrees with true and natural water; in weight it in no way agrees; in coldness it partly agrees and partly not at all: formally indeed it does not agree, because it is not actually cold, but virtually and effectively it most of all [agrees]...”⁴¹

...maxime convenit: habet enim itidem refrigerandi vim ut aqua. Quapropter, cum nonum caelum duas habeat aquae proprietates, non inepte aquarum nomine appellatur.” Sic ille. Ceterum istam opinionem non est difficile multis et validis rationibus refellere. Principio, secundum istos fateri oportet Mosem in brevissima narratione tripliciter variasse significationem huius vocis “Aqua”: etenim cum primo dixit, “Et spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas,” isti per aquas exponunt materiam primam vel corpulentam quandam massam; cum autem postea subiungit, “Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et dividat aquas ab aquis,” per aquas superiores interpretantur nonum caelum; cum vero Moses tertio loco dixit, “Congregentur aquae quae sub caelo sunt in locum unum,” isti nomine aquarum verum aquae elementum intelligendum esse censent. Quis igitur, etiamsi non nimis acute videat, non videt eam interpretationem et procul esse a vero, et vitiosam facere ac reprehensioni obnoxiam narrationem Mosis, ut quem faciat, perexiguo intervallo eiusdem vocis ter variata significatione, in doctrina tam seria et gravi nimis ambigue et obscure loqui? Verum cominus istam de caelo Crystallino opinionem propriis argumentorum machinis oppugnemus.

...most of all agrees: for it has likewise a power of cooling, as water has. Wherefore, since the ninth heaven has two of the properties of water, it is not ineptly called by the name of waters.” So he. But it is not difficult to refute that opinion by many and strong arguments. First, according to these men one must admit that Moses, in a very brief narrative, varied the signification of this word “Water” three times: for when he first said, “And the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters,” these expound by the waters prime matter or a kind of bulky mass; but when he afterward adds, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters,” by the upper waters they interpret the ninth heaven; and when Moses said, in the third place, “Let the waters that are under heaven be gathered into one place,” these judge that by the name of waters the true element of water is to be understood. Who then — even if he does not see too keenly — does not see that this interpretation is both far from the truth, and makes Moses' narrative faulty and liable to censure, in that it makes him, within a very small interval, by varying the signification of the same word three times, speak too ambiguously and obscurely in a matter so serious and grave? But let us attack this opinion of the Crystalline heaven at close quarters, with the engines of its own [refuting] arguments.⁴²

Ac primo, propositum et institutum Mosis, qui hanc historiam scripsit Hebraeis rudibus nec doctrinae rerum invisibilium capacibus, illud profecto fuit (ut non semel antea meminimus) originem atque primordia mundi huius corporei et aspectabilis, et creationem rerum omnium quae in hoc mundo humanis patent sensibus, enarrare: nonum autem caelum est prorsus inaspectabile, nec modo non manifestum vulgo, sed etiam doctissimis Philosophorum et Astrologorum usque ad Hyparchi vel Ptolemaei tempora incompertum. Deinde, si nonum caelum, quia perspicuum est aut vim habet refrigerandi, propterea dicitur aqua, pari ratione orbis Saturni appellari deberet aqua, quippe cum totus praeter astrum Saturni sit pellucidus, ipsum autem astrum frigidissimum esse censeatur ab Astrologis. Postea, perabsurda est locutio et nimis remota a communi loquendi consuetudine appellare aliquid simpliciter aquam quod habeat vel perspicuitatem vel refrigerandi potentiam aquae similem: sic enim et vitrum et oppium et lactucam appellare aquam possemus.

And first, the purpose and design of Moses, who wrote this history for rude Hebrews not capable of the doctrine of invisible things, was assuredly this (as we have more than once remarked before): to recount the origin and first beginnings of this corporeal and visible world, and the creation of all the things which in this world lie open to human senses. But the ninth heaven is utterly invisible, and not only not manifest to the common people, but even unknown to the most learned of the Philosophers and Astrologers down to the times of Hipparchus or Ptolemy. Next, if the ninth heaven, because it is transparent or has a power of cooling, is on that account called water, then by the same reasoning the sphere of Saturn ought to be called water — since the whole of it, except the star Saturn, is pellucid, while the star itself is judged by the Astrologers to be most cold. Further, it is a most absurd manner of speaking, and too far removed from the common usage of speech, to call anything simply “water” that has either transparency or a cooling power similar to water's: for thus we could call glass, and opium, and lettuce “water.”⁴³

Illud quoque mirum est qua ratione istis exploratum et perspectum fuerit nonum caelum esse diaphanum et Crystallo simile, cum ad eius rei notitiam nec sensuum adminiculo, nec ullis ingenii opibus, nec cuiusquam nobilium Philosophorum testificatione aut monitu pervenire potuerint. Certe fuit proprium hoc eorum inventum, qui, cum persuasum haberent aquas illas esse super sydera, quo graviora vitarent incommoda, caelum illud Crystallinum ingeniose commenti sunt. Sed quis obsecro scit mortalium nonum illud caelum sit totum omnino pellucidum et perspicuum, necne? Quid? Quod arbitrantur isti [nonum illud caelum esse primum mobile]...

This too is strange: by what reasoning it was ascertained and clearly seen by these men that the ninth heaven is diaphanous and like crystal, since they could not have come to the knowledge of that matter either by the aid of the senses, or by any resources of wit, or by the testimony or warning of any of the noble Philosophers. Surely this was a peculiar invention of those who, since they were persuaded that those waters are above the stars, ingeniously devised that Crystalline heaven in order to avoid the heavier difficulties. But who, I beseech you, of mortals knows whether that ninth heaven is wholly pellucid and transparent throughout, or not? What of the fact that these men think [that ninth heaven to be the prime mobile]...⁴⁴

...isti nonum illud caelum esse primum mobile, repugnantibus fere qui trecentos abhinc annos fuere Mathematicis, qui se certis observationibus compertum habere dicunt aliud esse caelum nono superius, quod vere sit primum mobile. Quare duo sunt caeli supra firmamentum, ambo et mobiles et instellati: cur non etiam pellucidi, ut pariter ambo nomine aquarum appellari queant? Quod autem de suo addit Bonaventura, propterea nonum caelum rite nominari aquam, licet actu non sit frigidum, quod naturali potentia refrigerandi polleat: nullo id experimento aut coniectura, nedum certa ratione, probari potest; cum enim refrigeratio noni Caeli nullo argumento ab ipso fuerit deprehensa, nec vero deprehendi possit a quopiam, satis apparet nullam mereri fidem et prorsus esse improbabile.

...that ninth heaven to be the prime mobile — almost in contradiction to the Mathematicians who lived some three hundred years ago, who say they have ascertained by sure observations that there is another heaven above the ninth, which is truly the prime mobile. Wherefore there are two heavens above the firmament, both mobile and starless: why not transparent too, so that both alike might be called by the name of waters? And as for what Bonaventure adds on his own — that the ninth heaven is rightly named water, although it is not actually cold, because it is strong in a natural power of cooling: this can be proved by no experiment or conjecture, much less by sure reasoning; for since the cooling of the ninth Heaven has been detected by no argument from it, nor indeed can be detected by anyone, it sufficiently appears that it deserves no belief and is wholly improbable.⁴⁵

Nam quasnam res, aut qua ratione Caelum illud refrigerat? An sydera? Sed negat Bonaventura ea formaliter esse calida: cui consequens est nec egere refrigeratione, nec ea posse affici. An illa refrigeratio non in Caelis, sed in his quae sunt infra caelos exercetur? Sed primo exponi debet per quam vim et qualitatem caelum refrigeret, cum non sit actu frigidum. Etenim Aristoteli et peripateticis stat non aliter Caelum agere in res sublunares quam per motum et lumen. Illa porro vis refrigerandi, cum transire debeat elementum ignis, aut eam omnem corrumperet ignis, aut ab ea ipse corrumperetur. Oporteret etiam sublimiora loca esse omnia frigidiora, scilicet quo propius vim illam refrigerandi acciperent. Et cum caelum illud sit uniforme et simili modo totum moveatur, simili etiam parique modo refrigeraret omnia, quod valde noxium esset: certe falsum esse demonstrat experientia. Atque haec quidem ab aliis de supercaelestibus aquis sunt prodita.

For what things, or by what means, does that Heaven cool? Is it the stars? But Bonaventure denies that they are formally hot — whence it follows that they neither need cooling nor can be affected by it. Or is that cooling exercised not in the Heavens, but in the things that are below the heavens? But first it must be explained by what force and quality the heaven cools, since it is not actually cold. For it stands fixed for Aristotle and the Peripatetics that the Heaven acts upon sublunary things in no other way than by motion and light. Further, that cooling power, since it must pass through the element of fire, would either be wholly corrupted by the fire, or the fire itself would be corrupted by it. It would also have to be that all the loftier places are colder — namely, the nearer they receive that cooling power. And since that heaven is uniform and is wholly moved in a like manner, it would cool all things in a like and equal manner too, which would be very harmful: that this is false experience demonstrates. And these are the things handed down by others concerning the supercelestial waters.⁴⁶

Restat ut paucis aperiamus et expediamus (confutatis namque aliorum opinionibus, hoc unum est reliquum) sententiam nostram, non quidem a nobis primo inventam, sed nobis tamen praeter ceteras probatam: cuius eo facilior atque promptior erit explicatio et probatio, quod paulo superius, cum egimus de firmamento, satis perspicue ostendimus nomine firmamenti hoc loco Mosem non caelum sydereum, sed spacium aëreum quod circum terram usquequaque diffusum est et usque ad sydera expansum, significare voluisse. Nos igitur existimamus aquas quae sunt super firmamentum non esse alias quam quae in sublimi aëre, quam mediam regionem aëris vocant philosophi, generantur. Si enim firmamentum, hoc loco, est spacium aëreum quod interpatet inter terram et sydera, proculdubio aquas quae supra firmamentum sunt non alias interpretari convenit quam quae in superiori parte aëris gignuntur: illuc enim vapores ex terra et aquis, potentia solis elati, densantur et coguntur in nubes, ex quibus imbres generati tam large et commode ad irrigandam et fecundandam terram defluunt, tanta nonnunquam copia et impetu ut videantur illic esse ingentes lacus et flumina, quin etiam [maria]...

It remains that we open up and dispatch in few words (for, the opinions of others being refuted, this one thing is left) our own opinion — not indeed first discovered by us, yet approved by us beyond the rest. Its explanation and proof will be the easier and readier because, a little above, when we treated of the firmament, we showed clearly enough that by the name of firmament in this place Moses meant to signify not the starry heaven, but the aerial space which is diffused on every side around the earth and expanded up to the stars. We therefore judge that the waters which are above the firmament are none other than those which are generated in the upper air, which the philosophers call the middle region of the air. For if the firmament, in this place, is the aerial space which lies open between the earth and the stars, then without doubt it is fitting to interpret the waters which are above the firmament as none other than those which are begotten in the upper part of the air: for thither the vapors raised from earth and waters by the power of the sun are condensed and gathered into clouds, from which the rains, generated, flow down so abundantly and conveniently to water and make fruitful the earth, sometimes with such quantity and force that there seem to be there huge lakes and rivers — nay, even [seas]...⁴⁷

...etiam maria. Quocirca, ut fieret diluvium, Scriptura narrat reseratas esse caeli cataractas, quo significantur densissimi imbres maximo impetu et fragore deorsum praecipitati. Ad hoc intelligendum pertinet quod tradit Aristoteles primo libro Meteororum, summa tertia, capite primo: inter Caelum et terram ferri per aëra ingens quoddam flumen, sursum ascendens et deorsum descendens perpetua vicissitudine. Verba eius sic habent: “Oportet autem intelligere hunc veluti fluvium fluere circulariter sursum et deorsum, communem aëris et aquae: prope enim existente sole, vaporis sursum fluit fluvius; cum autem elongatur, aquae deorsum. Et hoc perenne vult fieri secundum ordinem. Quare, si obscure dicebant Oceanum priores, forte utique hunc fluvium dicebant circulariter fluentem circa terram.” Hactenus Aristoteles. Similia sunt quae docet Salomon Proverb. 8, cum ait, “Quando praeparabat caelos aderam, quando aethera firmabat sursum, et librabat fontes aquarum.” Pro illo vocabulo “Aethera” Hebraice est שחקים Shechachim, quod proprie significat nubes; quamobrem Septuaginta verterunt Graece τὰ ἄνω νέφη, hoc est supernas nebulas seu nubes. Quare quod sequitur, “Et librabat fontes aquarum,” non de fontibus qui e terra scaturiunt accipiendum est, sed potius de fontibus caelestibus, qui nimirum ex nubibus aquam in terram profundunt. Dicitur autem Deus librasse fontes aquarum, eo quod in excelso aëre suspendit nubes, e quibus quasi e fontibus imbres effundit, non sine modo, sed quasi librando et cum mensura, ne aut nimium parca aut nimium larga huiusmodi aquarum profusio terris noceat. Quo spectat illud apud Iob capite vicesimosexto, “Qui ligat aquas in nubibus suis, ut non erumpant pariter deorsum.”

...even seas. Wherefore, that the flood might come about, Scripture relates that the cataracts of heaven were unbarred — by which are signified the densest rains, hurled down with the greatest force and crash. To understanding this pertains what Aristotle hands down in the first book of the Meteorology, third section, chapter one: that between Heaven and earth there is borne through the air a certain huge river, ascending upward and descending downward in perpetual alternation. His words run thus: “One must understand this as a kind of river flowing in a circle, upward and downward, common to air and water: for when the sun is near, the river of vapor flows upward; but when it is far off, the water flows downward. And he wishes this to happen perennially, in due order. Wherefore, if the ancients spoke obscurely of Ocean, perhaps indeed they meant this river flowing in a circle around the earth.” Thus far Aristotle. Similar are the things Solomon teaches in Proverbs 8, when he says, “When he prepared the heavens, I was present; when he made firm the ether above, and balanced the fountains of waters.” For that word “ether,” in Hebrew it is שחקים (Shechachim), which properly signifies clouds; wherefore the Seventy rendered it in Greek τὰ ἄνω νέφη, that is, the upper mists or clouds. So that what follows, “And he balanced the fountains of waters,” is not to be taken of the springs that gush from the earth, but rather of the celestial fountains, which indeed pour out water from the clouds upon the earth. And God is said to have balanced the fountains of waters because, in the high air, he suspends the clouds, from which, as from fountains, he pours out the rains — not without measure, but as if by weighing and with measure, lest a profusion of such waters either too sparing or too lavish should harm the lands. To this looks that passage in Job, chapter twenty-six, “Who binds the waters in his clouds, that they break not out all together downward.”⁴⁸

Placet itaque nobis secundo die factum esse firmamentum, hoc est, ex materia illa nebulosa et aquea quae interius spacium opplebat, magis tenuata, factum esse aërem, et, si quis supra aërem est, ignem. Sic enim multi censuerunt. Sed similius vero est quod supra diximus, omnia quatuor elementa esse facta simul in principio una cum caelis; et hoc secundo die, hoc spatium supra terram usquequaque amplissime diffusum, quod Hebraice dicitur רקיע Rachiah, Graece στερέωμα, Latine firmamentum, secundum inferiorem sui partem quam tenet aër, factum esse naturalem locum generationis aquarum pluvialium, et firmissimum atque immutabile interstitium inter aquas caelestes (id est aëreas) et terrestres. Illud quoque nobis fit verisimile, mediam aëris regionem, in qua perennis fit istiusmodi aquarum generatio, factam esse tunc actu frigidam, scilicet ut frigore suo iuvaret condensationem et concretionem nubium, et ex his procreationem imbrium. Nisi forte putet quispiam mediam illam aëris oram, ob remotionem tam inferne quam superne ab omni calore, ex se frigidam esse: quod ut Stoici ultro concederent, quibus aër suapte natura frigidus est, ita negandum esset Aristoteli, qui aërem facit natura sua calidum et humidum. De his porro aquis supercaelestibus, quae sunt super aërem (saepe dictum in Scriptura caelum), permulti [Scripturae loci]...

We are therefore content that on the second day the firmament was made — that is, that from that nebulous and watery matter which filled the inner space, when further rarefied, air was made, and, if there is anything above the air, fire. For so many have judged. But it is more likely true, as we said above, that all four elements were made together in the beginning along with the heavens; and that on this second day this space, spread most amply on every side above the earth — which in Hebrew is called רקיע (Rachiah), in Greek στερέωμα, in Latin firmamentum — according to its lower part, which the air holds, was made the natural place for the generation of rain-waters, and a most firm and immutable interstice between the celestial (that is, aerial) waters and the terrestrial. This too becomes probable to us, that the middle region of the air, in which the perennial generation of such waters takes place, was then made actually cold — namely, that by its cold it might assist the condensation and congealing of clouds, and from these the production of rains. Unless perhaps someone think that that middle tract of the air is cold of itself, on account of its remoteness, both below and above, from all heat: which, although the Stoics would readily grant — for whom the air is by its own nature cold — must yet be denied against Aristotle, who makes the air by its nature hot and moist. Furthermore, concerning these supercelestial waters, which are above the air (often called “heaven” in Scripture), very many [passages of Scripture]...⁴⁹

...multi Scripturae loci commodissime intelliguntur: veluti cum dicitur Deus prohibere pluvias de Caelo, dare pluviam de Caelo, vel continere eam in caelo, aut claudere caelum ne pluat, et rursus aperire ut pluat; cum vocatur caelum pluviosum vel siccum; cum dicitur aquis tegere superiora caeli, vel operire caelum nubibus; et cum dicitur, quo diluvium fieret, aperuisse Deum caeli cataractas. Apud Malachiam capite tertio ait Dominus, “Si non aperuero vobis cataractas caeli, et effudero vobis benedictionem usque ad abundantiam.” Apud Hieremiam capite decimo: “Ad vocem suam dat Deus multitudinem aquarum in caelo, et elevat nebulas ab extremitatibus terrae, fulgura in pluviam facit, et educit ventum de thesauris suis.” Eadem sententia iterum ponitur ab ipso postea capite quinquagesimo primo.

...very many passages of Scripture are most conveniently understood: as when God is said to forbid rains from Heaven, to give rain from Heaven, or to hold it back in heaven, or to shut heaven that it rain not, and again to open it that it rain; when heaven is called rainy or dry; when he is said to cover the higher parts of heaven with waters, or to cover heaven with clouds; and when it is said, that the flood might come, that God opened the cataracts of heaven. In Malachi, chapter three, the Lord says, “If I do not open to you the cataracts of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing even to abundance.” In Jeremiah, chapter ten: “At his voice God gives a multitude of waters in heaven, and raises the mists from the ends of the earth; he makes lightnings into rain, and brings the wind out of his treasures.” The same statement is set down again by him afterward, in chapter fifty-one.⁵⁰

Non est ignorandum hoc loco duo solere Scripturam praedicare instar magni miraculi, ad omnipotentiam Dei declarandam: alterum est, quod Deus immensam terrae molem et pondus seu suspensum super nihilo teneat, sicut ait Iob vicesimosexto, “Qui appendit terram super nihilum,” et Isaias capite quadragesimo, “Appendit tribus digitis molem terrae”; alterum est, quod supra caelum, hoc est in sublimi aëre, infinitam vim aquarum cohibeat, quarum nimia vel retentione vel profusione omnem terrarum orbem perdere facile posset. Huc spectavit Iob capite vicesimo sexto, cum dixit, “Qui ligat aquas in nubibus suis, ut non erumpant pariter deorsum,” et capite duodecimo, “Si continuerit aquas, omnia siccabuntur; et si emiserit eas, subvertent terram.” Et Plinius libro tricesimo primo capite primo, “Quid mirabilius,” inquit, “aquis in Caelo stantibus?”

It must not be unknown here that Scripture is wont to proclaim two things, as a kind of great miracle, to declare the omnipotence of God: one is, that God holds the immense mass and weight of the earth suspended over nothing, as Job says in chapter twenty-six, “Who hangs the earth upon nothing,” and Isaiah in chapter forty, “He weighs the mass of the earth with three fingers”; the other is, that above heaven — that is, in the high air — he holds in check an infinite force of waters, by whose excessive retention or profusion he could easily destroy the whole globe of the lands. To this looked Job, chapter twenty-six, when he said, “Who binds the waters in his clouds, that they break not out all together downward,” and chapter twelve, “If he hold back the waters, all things shall be dried up; and if he send them forth, they shall overturn the earth.” And Pliny, in the thirty-first book, chapter one, says, “What is more wonderful than waters standing in the Heaven?”⁵¹

Has igitur aquas sublimes et caelestes, cum sint vulgo manifestae et admirabiles, perquam credibile est Mosem ex hoc loco denotare voluisse; et ob eandem causam tum Davidem in Psalmo centesimoquadragesimooctavo, tum etiam tres illos iuvenes Hebraeos in eo Hymno, quem per medios ignis Babilonici globos intacti Deo cantabant, hasce aquas invitasse ad laudandum Deum, hoc est, eiusmodi aquarum contemplatione et admiratione excitasse homines ad Divinae potentiae laudes praedicandas atque celebrandas. Hanc de aquis supercaelestibus sententiam valde commendat Augustinus libro undecimo de Genesi ad litteram capite quarto, ita scribens: “Hanc ego diligentiam considerationemque laude dignissimam iudico: quod enim dixi, neque contra fidem est, et in promptu posito documento credi potest.” In hac sententia fuisse Beatum Epiphanium existimari potest, quod is in Epistola quam scripsit ad Ioannem Hierosolymitanum Episcopum, et ab Hieronymo Latine conversa est, affirmat aquas quae super caelos sunt fuisse eas quarum defluxu in terram, apertis caeli cataractis, factum est Noëticum diluvium: illas vero aquas non ex nono Caelo, sed ex aëre descendisse constat. Denique magna huius nostrae sententiae comprobatio est eorum omnium confutatio quam supra posuimus, qui hasce aquas super caelestes orbes collocaverunt. Si enim non sunt supra sydera, nusquam alibi quam supra aërem esse intelli[gi potest]...

These sublime and celestial waters, therefore, since they are manifest and admirable to the common people, it is highly credible that Moses meant to denote in this place; and for the same reason both David, in Psalm one hundred forty-eight, and also those three Hebrew youths, in that Hymn which they sang, untouched, to God amid the very globes of the Babylonian fire, invited these waters to praise God — that is, by the contemplation and admiration of such waters they stirred men to proclaim and celebrate the praises of the Divine power. This opinion concerning the supercelestial waters Augustine greatly commends, in the eleventh book on Genesis according to the Letter, chapter four, writing thus: “This diligence and consideration I judge most worthy of praise: for what I have said is neither against the faith, and can be believed on a ready proof.” That Blessed Epiphanius was of this opinion can be supposed, since he, in the Epistle which he wrote to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and which was translated into Latin by Jerome, affirms that the waters which are above the heavens were those by whose flowing down upon the earth, the cataracts of heaven being opened, the Noachic flood was caused: but that those waters descended not from the ninth Heaven, but from the air, is certain. Finally, a great confirmation of this our opinion is the refutation, which we set down above, of all those who placed these waters above the celestial spheres. For if they are not above the stars, they can be understood to be nowhere else than above the air...⁵²

...telligi potest. Ac licet aquae aliquae essent super sydera, tamen quod illae remotissimae essent ab hominum non modo sensu, sed etiam intelligentia, nec ullo signo aut effectu notabiles, equidem reor Mosem fuisse eas hoc loco tacitas praeteriturum; quemadmodum etiam de Angelis multa quae docere potuisset, ob eandem causam silentio suppressit, suscepta tantum descriptione et explicatione huius mundi corporati et aspectabilis, et earum rerum quae in sensus hominum incurrunt, vel ex iis quae percepta sunt sensibus promptissime facillimeque possunt cognosci.

...And although there were some waters above the stars, yet, because those would be most remote from men not only in sense but even in understanding, and notable by no sign or effect, I for my part think that Moses would have passed them over in silence in this place — just as also concerning the Angels he suppressed in silence many things which he could have taught, for the same reason, having undertaken only the description and explanation of this corporeal and visible world, and of those things which fall under the senses of men, or which can be most readily and easily known from the things that are perceived by the senses.⁵³

Ceterum, quatuor sunt quae huic sententiae possunt opponi. Primum est, in psalmo 148 sic esse, “Laudate Deum caeli caelorum, et aquae quae super caelos sunt laudent nomen Domini”: per “caelos caelorum” haud dubie, secundum phrasim Hebraicam, intelliguntur nobilissimi et praestantissimi caeli, hoc est syderei, qui hoc nomine distinguuntur ab aëre, quem etsi nonnunquam Scriptura vocat caelum, vocat tamen caelum praecise, nunquam autem caelum caeli vel caelos caelorum. Quare cum proxime David subiicit, “Et aquae quae super caelos sunt laudent nomen Domini,” utique accipiendum est de caelis quos proxime ante dixerat caelos caelorum. Ex hoc igitur loco palam fit esse aquas super caelos sydereos. Alterum est, in hymno trium puerorum commemorari omnia Dei opera, non inordinate, sed eo ordine ut a supremis per media descendatur ad infima: primo autem loco ponuntur Angeli, secundo loco caeli, tertio aquae quae super caelos sunt, quarto sol luna et stellae; cum igitur aquae supercaelestes recenseantur statim post Angelos et caelos, et ante sydera omnia, manifestum fit eas aquas locatas esse super sydera. Tertium est, in eodem hymno distincte ac separatim memorari aquas quae sunt super caelum, et eas quae in superiori aëre generantur: siquidem ante solem et lunam et stellas commemorat aquas quae supra caelos sunt, et aliquanto infra enumerat rorem, nivem, grandinem, pruinam, denique nubes et imbres, quae omnia pertinent ad aquas quae in media regione aëris gignuntur; quis igitur non liquido cernit divinam Scripturam hoc loco alias facere aquas quae sunt supra caelum, et alias quae in aëre generantur? Quartum est, Ecclesiam in eo hymno quem paulo superius pro confirmatione secundae opinionis adduximus non obscure significare esse positas aquas supra caelum ad refrigerandum et temperandum ardorem syderum, quod indicant illa verba, “Ut unda flammas temperet, Terrae solum ne dissipent.”

But there are four things that can be objected to this opinion. The first is that in Psalm 148 it stands thus, “Praise God, you heavens of heavens, and let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord”: by “heavens of heavens,” doubtless, according to the Hebrew idiom, are understood the noblest and most excellent heavens — that is, the starry — which are distinguished by this name from the air; for although Scripture sometimes calls the air “heaven,” it calls it heaven precisely, but never “heaven of heaven” or “heavens of heavens.” Wherefore, when David next adds, “And let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord,” it must surely be taken of the heavens which he had just before called the heavens of heavens. From this place, then, it becomes plain that there are waters above the starry heavens. The second is that in the Hymn of the Three Children all the works of God are recorded, not in disorder, but in such an order that one descends from the highest through the middle to the lowest: in the first place are set the Angels, in the second the heavens, in the third the waters that are above the heavens, in the fourth the sun, moon, and stars; since, therefore, the supercelestial waters are reckoned immediately after the Angels and the heavens, and before all the stars, it is manifest that those waters are placed above the stars. The third is that in the same hymn the waters which are above the heaven, and those which are generated in the upper air, are mentioned distinctly and separately: for before the sun and moon and stars it records the waters that are above the heavens, and somewhat below it enumerates dew, snow, hail, frost, and finally clouds and rains — all of which pertain to the waters that are begotten in the middle region of the air; who, then, does not plainly see that divine Scripture here makes some waters that are above heaven, and others that are generated in the air? The fourth is that the Church, in that hymn which we adduced a little above for the confirmation of the second opinion, not obscurely signifies that the waters are placed above heaven to cool and temper the heat of the stars — which those words indicate, “That the wave may temper the flames, lest [the waters] dissolve the earth's soil.”⁵⁴

Sed his refellendis nec operosa nec longa opus est oratione. Primum enim ita solvitur: Concedamus per “caelos caelorum” significari caelos sydereos, aut potius caelum empyreum, quod sit singulari quadam ratione Dei sedes (certe est beatorum omnium, tam Angelorum quam hominum, domicilium); negamus tamen, cum subiungitur [“Et aquae quae super caelos sunt”]...

But to refute these there is need of neither a laborious nor a long discourse. The first is solved thus: Let us grant that by “heavens of heavens” are signified the starry heavens, or rather the empyrean heaven, which is in some singular way the seat of God (certainly it is the dwelling of all the blessed, both Angels and men); we deny, nevertheless, that when it is added [“And the waters that are above the heavens”]...⁵⁵

...“Et aquae quae super caelos sunt,” Davidem esse locutum de praedictis caelis, sed tantum de aëreis: non enim dixit, “Et aquae quae super Caelos Caelorum sunt,” sed praecise dixit, “Quae super Caelos sunt.” Nec moveat quempiam quod Scriptura dicat pluraliter aquas esse super Caelos, quasi id non conveniret aëri: est enim hoc dictum consuetudine linguae Hebraeae, ut ante docuimus, in qua caelum caret singulari, quemadmodum apud Latinos Athenae, Syracusae, Venetiae.

...“And the waters that are above the heavens,” David was speaking of the aforesaid heavens, but only of the aerial ones: for he did not say, “And the waters that are above the Heavens of Heavens,” but said precisely, “Which are above the Heavens.” Nor let it move anyone that Scripture says in the plural that the waters are above the Heavens, as though this did not befit the air: for this is said by the custom of the Hebrew tongue, as we taught before, in which “heaven” lacks a singular — just as among the Latins Athenae, Syracusae, Venetiae.⁵⁶

Ad secundum hoc modo respondendum est: futile esse argumentum illud ductum ex dispositione et ordine quo in illo hymno Dei opera numerantur; nam si ibi aquae supercaelestes ponuntur ante sydera, in Psalmo centesimoquadragesimo octavo eaedem aquae commemorantur post sydera. Quin eodem in hymno trium puerorum prius recensentur ros, pruina, nix, glacies et gelu, posterius autem dies et nox, lux et tenebrae, cum tamen haec, si ordo ille servatus esset, praeponi debuissent. Euthymius certe, illud Canticum explanans, monet nullo ordine recenseri in eo creaturas, siquidem terra, quae simul cum caelis ante alia omnia est facta, post alia multa memoratur.

To the second it must be answered in this way: that that argument drawn from the disposition and order in which the works of God are numbered in that hymn is futile; for if there the supercelestial waters are placed before the stars, in Psalm one hundred forty-eight the same waters are mentioned after the stars. Moreover, in the same Hymn of the Three Children, dew, frost, snow, ice, and cold are recounted earlier, but day and night, light and darkness later — whereas these, if that order had been kept, ought to have been placed first. Euthymius certainly, expounding that Canticle, advises that the creatures are recounted in it in no order, since the earth, which was made together with the heavens before all else, is mentioned after many other things.⁵⁷

Tertium sic est diluendum: voluit Scriptura prius universe ac in commune nominare aquas quae in sublimi aëre generantur, dicens, “Et aquae quae super caelos sunt,” deinde vero omnes quasi species eiusmodi aquarum, ut sunt grando, nix, etc., sigillatim enarrare voluit: quae ratio narrandi et docendi frequens est in sacris litteris.

The third is to be dissolved thus: Scripture wished first to name universally and in common the waters that are generated in the high air, saying, “And the waters that are above the heavens,” and then to recount one by one, as it were, all the species of such waters — as are hail, snow, and the rest: which manner of narrating and teaching is frequent in the sacred writings.⁵⁸

Quarti haec sit solutio: Ecclesia in illo hymno loquitur de aquis quae in caelo aëreo fiunt; his vero ait temperari calorem et ardorem syderum, non quidem calorem qui sit in ipsis syderibus, sed eum calorem qui ex syderibus accidit terrae. Nisi enim terra frequenter imbribus, rore, pruina, nive, nubibusque rigaretur, refrigeraretur, ac fecundaretur, proculdubio ardore syderum, maxime vero solis, nimium exsiccata et exusta omnino sterilesceret; et hoc plane significatur his verbis, “Ut unda flammas temperet, Terrae solum ne dissipent.”

Let this be the solution of the fourth: the Church in that hymn speaks of the waters that come to be in the aerial heaven; and by these she says the heat and burning of the stars is tempered — not indeed the heat which is in the stars themselves, but that heat which befalls the earth from the stars. For unless the earth were frequently watered, cooled, and made fruitful by rains, dew, frost, snow, and clouds, without doubt, too much dried up and scorched by the heat of the stars — and most of all of the sun — it would become wholly sterile; and this is plainly signified by those words, “That the wave may temper the flames, lest [the waters] dissolve the earth's soil.”⁵⁹

Verum iam tempus est ut hanc de supercaelestibus aquis disputationem, quam propter eius magnam obscuritatem sententiarumque varietatem longius quam voluissemus producere necesse fuit, tandem hoc loco terminemus.

But now it is time that we should at last, in this place, bring to an end this disputation concerning the supercelestial waters — which, on account of its great obscurity and the variety of opinions, it was necessary to draw out longer than we should have wished.⁶⁰

Translator’s notes

Section heading (centered) introducing the commentary on the second day of creation. ↩
Genesis 1:6, the lemma for the section on the second day. ↩
Opens the two great questions of the second day: (1) what “firmament” means; (2) what the “waters above the firmament” are. The first opinion: “firmament” = a real celestial body — the eighth sphere of the fixed stars, or all the heavens together. Marginal gloss: “What the word ‘firmament’ signifies; the first opinion.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 90. ↩
The first opinion (firmament = a solid celestial body): the etymology of στερέωμα/firmamentum as “solid.” Cicero, De natura deorum 1 (Velleius/Epicurus); Job 37:18; Job 14:12 (“donec atteratur caelum”); Homer (iron/brazen heaven); Aristotle, Meteorology 1, with Alexander of Aphrodisias; Basil, Hexaëmeron hom. 3; Psalm 17(18):3; Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim, q. 11. Marginal glosses: “Why Scripture calls the heaven by the name of firmament”; “Job 14”; “Psalm 17.” ↩
The “crystal from frozen water” version of the firmament: Josephus, Ant. 1.1; Theodoret q. 11; Gennadius and Severian (in the Catena); Bede (Hexaëmeron), followed by Peter Lombard (Sent. II, d. 14), Peter Comestor (Historia scholastica 1.4), and Hugh. Bede's appeal to crystal, and to Peter's words in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (bk. 2). Marginal gloss: “Clement of Rome.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 91. ↩
Completes Bede's crystal view; then Basil's derision of it and his own view (the firmament forged of thin aerial matter densely packed — Isaiah 51:6 LXX, “like smoke”), with Ambrose agreeing. Catharinus's view: firmament = the eighth sphere of the fixed stars. Marginal glosses: “Basil, hom. 3 on Genesis”; “Ambrose, in the Hexaëmeron.” ↩
Pererius's own thesis: “firmament” here does NOT mean a real celestial body. Against Catharinus: no reason to single out the eighth sphere; Scripture uses “heaven” only for a celestial body or for the air; the sun/moon (day four) are placed in the firmament but are not in the eighth heaven; the eighth heaven cannot be “in the midst of the waters” (two elements and seven planetary spheres lie between it and earthly waters); the “Saturn = lower waters” fable to be refuted below; all heavens were created before day one. Marginal glosses: “The author's opinion on the firmament”; “‘Heaven’ in Scripture is taken in two ways.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 92. ↩
Continues the argument: no heaven is “in the midst of the waters”; the last (lunar) heaven is far from earthly waters, and there are no true waters above any celestial sphere. The “birds fly in/along the firmament” of day five (Genesis 1:20) fits no heaven; the Hebrew and LXX (κατὰ τὸ στερέωμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) given. Marginal refs: Acts 2; Eccles. 1. ↩
Bede's exposition (in the Genesis commentary lately misascribed to Junilius Africanus): birds fly “under/along the firmament” because the aether (the upper air, reaching to the stars) is itself called the firmament of Heaven — just as men are said to live “under heaven” (Acts 2:5) and “under the sun” (Eccles. 1:3). ↩
Pererius's positive thesis begins: the meaning is to be drawn from the Hebrew רקיע (raqia), from the verb רקע (raqa) = “to spread/extend out” — used thus in Isaiah 42:5; Psalms 133(136):6 & 136(135):6; Jeremiah 10:12. The Vulgate's “firmamentum” (after LXX στερέωμα) obscures this. Marginal glosses: “The author's opinion, what is signified here by the word ‘firmament’”; “The fourfold mode of extension.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 93. ↩
The four modes of extension (dilation, rarefaction, growth, unrolling); רקיע here = the fourth (unrolling/spreading), confirmed by Psalm 103(104):2 and Isaiah 40:22 (heaven stretched like a curtain/tent). Against Lippomanus (Luigi Lippomano), who claimed רקע can mean “to make firm”: no example exists, and Hebraists don't recognize it; the “solid” sense only imitates the LXX στερέωμα. Marginal gloss: “Aloysius Lippomanus.” ↩
Pererius's own definition: “firmament” = the whole expanded space around the earth up to the stars (as far as eyesight reaches) — its top held by heavens/stars, its bottom by fire and air; Moses uses it now of the upper part (stars set in it), now of the lower (birds fly in it; it divides the waters). This whole sublunar space was full of watery/nebulous matter (vapor-laden air). Scriptural support: Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 24:5–6; Job 38:8–9. Marginal gloss: “What Moses signified by the name of firmament.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 94 (“...I wrapped it...”). ↩
Completes the Job 38 quotation, then Pererius's physics of day two: the thinner part of the vapor-matter becomes air and fire (by God's power rather than light's nature, against Steuco); the coarser part settles as water, separated from the earth on day three. Marginal gloss: “Augustinus Eugubinus [Steuco], in the Cosmopoeia.” ↩
Refinement: since all elements were made in substance before day one, day two's work is rather that air was constituted as the dividing boundary and natural place of the upper (rain) waters — not that clouds were actually raised then (Gen 2:5, “it had not yet rained”). Marginal gloss: “What was properly made on the second day.” ↩
Pererius's arguments that firmament = the expanded space (air): the refutation of the celestial-body view; the Hebrew רקיע (raqia, “extension”); the etymology of שמים (shamayim, “heaven”) as šam (“there”) + mayim (“waters”) = “waters there,” fitting the rain-bearing air. Marginal gloss: “By firmament is properly understood the space between Heaven and earth.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 95. ↩
Further confirmation that “firmament” = air: birds fly in it (day five); and Scripture often calls the air “heaven” — Genesis 7:11; Psalm 146(147):8; Zechariah 8:12; Matthew 16:3; Deuteronomy 28:23; 1 (3) Kings 17 (cf. Luke 4:25, James 5:17); 2 Peter 3:6–7. ↩
The view is not new: Jerome, Ep. 83 (to Oceanus); Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber, ch. 12 (the firmament = the whole aetherial frame, under which the calm upper and stormy lower air lie). ↩
More authorities for the “firmament = air/space” view: Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 2.4; Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 68; Durandus, Sent. II, d. 14; Rupert of Deutz, De Trinitate, bk. 1, ch. 22 (firmament = extended, rarefied air, “rather spirit than body,” citing Ecclesiastes 1:6). Sentence continues onto printed p. 96. ↩
Completes Rupert; notes Steuco (Cosmopoeia) and Cajetan as defenders of the same reading (firmament = the expansion between heaven and earth, including air, fire, and the visible heavens). Marginal gloss: “Cajetan, on Genesis.” ↩
The two objections (στερέωμα/firmament suits a solid, not air; the sun/moon/stars are placed “in the firmament” on day four). Solution to the first: “firmament” names not a most-solid body but a firm, immutable boundary between the waters (Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 2.10; Rupert). Marginal glosses: “Two objections”; “Solution of the objections.” ↩
Refuting weak solutions to the second objection: that Moses used “firmament” differently on days two and four (implausibly ambiguous); or that the bare word vs. “in the firmament of heaven” signals a shift (weak — it is just Hebrew idiom for “in the firmament which is heaven”); or that “in the firmament of heaven” means “above the firmament.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 97. ↩
The preferred solution: the stars are said to be “in the firmament” either because seen through it (the air), or because רקיע covers the whole space from earth to the stars, indistinct to the senses — Moses accommodating the common view (cf. calling the moon a “great luminary,” though astronomically smaller than many stars). Thus stars belong to the firmament's upper part, the waters to its lower (air) part. “Waters above the heavens” (Ps. 148:4) is just the Hebrew plural שמים (shamayim), like the plural-only Latin place-names Athenae/Syracusae/Venetiae. (Aquinas ref printed “q. 30”; the relevant questions are ST I qq. 68 & 70.) Marginal ref: Ps. 148. ↩
Begins the second great question: what the “waters above the firmament” are — hardest for those holding firmament = the starry heaven. The first interpretation, Origen's: figurative/mystical — the upper waters = the blessed Angels (reported by Epiphanius, Ep. to John of Jerusalem, and Jerome, Ep. to Pammachius). Marginal glosses: “What sort the waters placed above the firmament are”; “Origen's opinion, that by the waters placed above heaven the angels are understood.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 98. ↩
Completes Origen's figurative reading (upper waters = the good Angels [Ps. 148:4], lower waters = the fallen ones), refuted by Epiphanius, Jerome, and Basil (who dismisses it as an old wives' tale), and by Pererius: it corrupts the literal sense, and Scripture (Ps. 104:2–3 Heb.; Ps. 148 & the Canticle of Dan. 3) distinguishes the upper waters FROM the angels. Rupert, De Trinitate bk. 1, ch. 23. (“libro vigesimotertio Confessionum” — a printer's slip: the Confessions have 13 books; the passage is bk. 13, ch. 32; Augustine retracts it at Retractations 2.6.) Marginal glosses: “Ps. 148”; “Origen is refuted by Epiphanius, Jerome, Basil, and the author”; “Dan. 3.” ↩
The second opinion: that there are real, natural waters above the starry heaven (Justin Martyr, Responsiones ad orthodoxos q. 93; Philo; Josephus; Basil, Hexaëmeron hom. 3; and others named below). Their proposed purpose: to temper the heat of the stars (Ps. 104:3). Marginal glosses: “Ps. 103”; “The second opinion — of Justin Martyr, Philo, Josephus, Basil, Theodoret, Gennadius, Ambrose — that there are true waters above heaven.” Sentence (Basil's quotation) continues onto printed p. 99. ↩
Basil's argument (Hexaëmeron hom. 3): God set waters above and below heaven to temper the heat of the fires; shared by Theodoret (q. 11), Gennadius, and Severian (in the Catena). Ambrose (Hexaëmeron 2.2) adds two signs: sudden torrential rains, and the Sun appearing “wet” as if drawing up water to cool itself. ↩
Bede (De natura rerum) reports, but rejects, the view that the supercelestial waters were stored for the Flood, preferring the “tempering the stars' heat” reason; Tostatus ascribes the Flood-view to “a certain solemn doctor.” Pererius refutes it: it would require the heavens to be ruptured and resealed, and (since no more general flood, Gen. 9:11) any unused remainder would be pointless. Marginal gloss: “That the supercelestial waters were not reserved for the general flood.” ↩
Introduces the Monday-Vespers hymn “Immense caeli conditor,” cited as supposed Church testimony for waters set above to temper the celestial fires. ↩
The hymn “Immense caeli conditor” (Monday Vespers; attributed to Gregory the Great), printed in two columns on the page — read across as the eight lines given here. ↩
Two further supports for the supercelestial waters: the microcosm analogy (cold brain above the fiery heart, per Augustine, City of God 11, last ch.); and the “Saturn” argument (Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 2.5 & the unfinished commentary ch. 8) — Saturn sweeps the largest circuit, so should be hottest. Marginal gloss: “Nor [were the supercelestial waters reserved] for tempering the stars' heat raised by their motion.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 100. ↩
Pererius refutes the Saturn argument: the eighth heaven (with its fixed stars) lies nearer the waters than Saturn does, yet contains the scorching Dog-star (Sirius) — so coldness can't come from the waters' nearness. Augustine's deferential conclusion (City of God 11, last ch.): however they are there, Scripture's authority surpasses human reason. ↩
Objection: water can't rest on heaven's round outer surface. Replies: Basil (the convex face need not be round, like a vault's outside); Bede (God holds waters above as he holds clouds aloft — Job 26:8 — and made the Red Sea/Jordan stand like walls). But Pererius presses the dilemma: if miraculously, rejected (no miracles in creation, per Augustine); if naturally, refuted (water's natural place is low). Marginal glosses: “How water, of itself slippery and flowing, can rest above heaven”; “Basil, Hexaëmeron hom. 3.” ↩
The vapor argument fails: vapors are water in substance but lack water's properties (cold, density, weight), being heat-rarefied; once they revert to true water they fall, and can never rise even to the upper air or fire-region, let alone above the eighth heaven. Sentence continues onto printed p. 101. ↩
Augustine's rarefaction argument for water above heaven (De Genesi ad litteram 2.4; and the pseudo-Augustinian Dialogus quaestionum LXV, q. 27): vapor rises; bodies can be rarefied to infinity, so water could be made light enough to rise above heaven. Marginal gloss: “Augustine's opinion and argument about the supercelestial waters is examined.” ↩
Pererius refutes Augustine: water cannot rise above heaven (heaven's solidity bars passage; the fire-region would consume the vapor; up-borne things stop at the Moon's sphere); and infinite rarefaction holds only mathematically — every natural body has fixed limits, and over-rarefied water turns to air, then fire. ↩
Pererius's decisive argument: true water above the heavens would be against the natural order (water's place is low, near earth, as experience shows), hence violent and unnatural — but nothing violent is perpetual, and God orders each thing to its nature and does nothing in vain (Aristotle). Marginal glosses: “It is proved that there are no true waters above heaven”; “God and nature do nothing in vain.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 102. ↩
Completes the refutation: no good use can be devised for supercelestial waters as a coolant. The stars aren't fiery (Aristotle, De Caelo 2; Meteor. 1; and Pererius's own forthcoming book on the heavens); even if hot, the remedy is gratuitous and self-defeating (cooling = alteration → corruption/variation never observed; light is invariable; action/reaction would make the water itself perish). Marginal gloss: “That the stars do not need cooling to temper their heat.” ↩
Another version: the waters repress the elemental fire below the moon — refuted (that fire is feeble; the cold mid-air and earthly seas suffice; supercelestial cold can't cross the eight incorruptible orbs). Then a further argument begins (heat and cold need celestial causes). Marginal gloss: “That [the waters] were not provided either to beat back the heat of the elemental fire.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 103. ↩
Completes and rebuts the “watery heaven as cause of cold” argument: cold can't cross so many spheres; astronomers already credit stars (e.g. Saturn) and the planetary “influences” with cooling; and for the Peripatetics the heaven makes cold only per accidens, by the absence of light. ↩
Augustine's reading (De Genesi contra Manichaeos 1.11): waters = matter; firmament = the star-bearing heaven dividing the matter of invisible/supercelestial things from that of sublunary bodies; the “invisible waters above heaven” distinguished by dignity, not place. Augustine adds the caveat that nothing is to be rashly affirmed; Pererius judges it improbable (it makes angels material, and is wholly figurative). ↩
The major scholastic opinion: the upper waters = the ninth (Crystalline) heaven, the supposed prime mobile; the firmament = the eighth sphere (alone or with the seven planetary spheres). Held by Bonaventure (Sent. II, d. 14), Giles of Rome (Hexaëmeron, pt. 2, ch. 14ff.), Nicholas of Lyra, Tostatus, Cajetan, Catharinus. Bonaventure's rationale (three water-properties: transparency, cold, weight). Marginal gloss: “The opinion of many, that the supercelestial waters are the ninth heaven, commonly called the Crystalline.” Sentence (Bonaventure's quotation) continues onto printed p. 104. ↩
Completes Bonaventure and opens the refutation: this reading forces Moses to use “water” in three different senses within a few lines (prime matter; the ninth heaven; the element water) — making his grave narrative needlessly ambiguous. Marginal gloss: “The aforesaid opinion is refuted, and it is shown that the ninth heaven (called the Crystalline) is not the waters placed above heaven.” ↩
Refutation continued: Moses wrote of the visible world for rude Hebrews, but the ninth heaven was invisible and unknown until Hipparchus/Ptolemy; the same logic would make Saturn's (transparent, cold) sphere “water”; and calling a thing “water” for mere transparency or a cooling power would make glass, opium, and lettuce “water” too. ↩
Refutation continued: there is no way they could know the ninth heaven is crystal-clear (no sense, wit, or authority reaches it) — it was simply invented to escape the difficulties of waters above the stars; and no one even knows whether it is wholly transparent. Sentence continues onto printed p. 105. ↩
Refutation continued: they make the ninth heaven the prime mobile, against the astronomers (~300 years before) who posited a tenth above it as the true prime mobile — so there are two starless, mobile (and presumably transparent) heavens above the firmament. And Bonaventure's claim that the ninth heaven has a natural cooling power is unverifiable and improbable. Marginal gloss: continues from p. 104. ↩
Final blows against the crystalline-heaven view: it cools neither the (non-hot) stars nor sublunary things in any explicable way (heaven acts only by motion and light, per Aristotle); a cooling power crossing the fire would be destroyed; higher places would all be colder; and a uniform heaven would cool everything equally — contrary to experience. This closes the survey of others' opinions. ↩
Pererius's own view: since the firmament is the aerial expanse (not the starry heaven), the “waters above the firmament” are simply those generated in the upper air (the philosophers' “middle region”) — vapors raised by the sun, condensed into clouds, falling as the rains that water the earth. Marginal gloss: “The author's opinion on the waters that are above the Heavens.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 106. ↩
Completes the picture of the rain-bearing upper air (sometimes seeming like lakes/seas, whence the flood's “cataracts”). Aristotle's image of a circular “river” of vapor/water between heaven and earth (Meteorology 1.3, identified with the ancients' “Ocean”); Proverbs 8:27–28 (Hebrew שחקים sheḥaqim = “clouds,” LXX τὰ ἄνω νέφη); the “fountains” are the clouds, balanced and measured by God (Job 26:8). Marginal glosses: “A notable saying of Aristotle”; “The passage of Solomon in Proverbs ch. 8 is explained.” ↩
Pererius's account of the second day: not the making of air's substance (all four elements were made at the beginning) but the constituting of the firmament's lower part (air) as the natural place of rain-waters and the firm boundary between aerial and terrestrial waters; the middle air-region made actually cold to aid cloud/rain formation (against the Stoics, who hold air cold by nature; with Aristotle, who makes it hot and moist). Marginal gloss: “The middle region of the air was made actually cold at the world's beginning.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 107. ↩
Scriptural confirmation that “heaven” here = the rain-bearing air: God giving/withholding rain, covering heaven with clouds, opening its “cataracts” for the flood (1/3 Kings 18; Ps. 103/104; Ps. 146/147; Gen. 8); Malachi 3:10; Jeremiah 10:13 (= 51:16). Marginal glosses: “3 Kings 18; Ps. 103; Ps. 146; Gen. 8.” ↩
Two “miracles” by which Scripture proclaims God's omnipotence: hanging the earth on nothing (Job 26:7; Isa. 40:12), and holding the vast waters aloft in the air (Job 26:8; 12:15; Pliny, Natural History 31.1). Marginal gloss: “The two things Scripture is wont to mention to declare God's omnipotence.” ↩
Moses (and David, Ps. 148:4, and the Three Children, Dan. 3:60) summon these visible, wondrous waters to God's praise. Augustine commends the view (De Genesi ad litteram 11.4); Epiphanius (Ep. to John of Jerusalem, tr. Jerome) makes the supercelestial waters the source of the Flood — which descended from the air, not the ninth heaven. The earlier refutations confirm: if not above the stars, then above the air. Sentence continues onto printed p. 108. ↩
Even granting some waters above the stars, Moses would have passed them over (as he did much about the angels), since his subject is the visible, sensible world. ↩
The four objections to Pererius's view: (1) Ps. 148:4 places the waters above the “heavens of heavens” (= the starry heavens, never the air); (2) the Canticle of the Three Children (Dan. 3) lists them, in descending order, after angels/heavens but before the stars; (3) the same hymn lists the supercelestial waters separately from dew/snow/hail/clouds/rain (the mid-air waters); (4) the Church's hymn (“Immense caeli conditor”) sets them above heaven to temper the stars' heat. Marginal gloss: “Four objections are resolved. What the ‘heavens of heavens’ are.” ↩
Begins the reply to objection 1: granting “heavens of heavens” = the starry (or empyrean) heaven, Pererius will deny that the appended “waters above the heavens” refers to those heavens. Sentence continues onto printed p. 109. ↩
Reply to objection 1 completed: David said “above the Heavens,” not “above the Heavens of Heavens” — so the aerial heavens are meant; the plural “Heavens” is merely the Hebrew idiom (heaven has no singular), like the plural-only Latin Athenae/Syracusae/Venetiae. ↩
Reply to objections 2 & 3: the hymn's order proves nothing — Ps. 148 reverses it (waters after the stars), and the hymn itself is disordered (dew/frost before day/night; the earth, made first, listed late). Euthymius (Zigabenus) notes the Canticle recounts creatures in no order. ↩
Reply to objection 3 (developed): the hymn first names the upper-air waters in general (“waters above the heavens”), then their species (hail, snow, etc.) one by one — a common scriptural manner. ↩
Reply to objection 4: the Church's hymn speaks of the aerial (rain) waters, which temper not the stars' own heat but the heat the stars cast upon the earth — without which watering the earth would be scorched sterile. ↩
Closes the disputation on the supercelestial waters, and with it the commentary on the work of the second day. (The section on the third day, “Opus Tertii Diei,” begins on printed p. 110 / PDF 151.) ↩