Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book One — the works of the six days

THE WORK OF THE FOURTH DAY

LatineEnglish

THE WORK OF THE FOURTH DAY.1

OPUS QUARTI DIEI.

And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, etc. And God made two great lights. — Verse 14.2

Dixit autem Deus, Fiant luminaria in firmamento Caeli, etc. Fecitque Deus duo luminaria magna. — Vers. 14.

Catharinum Eugubinum, atque alios, qui putarunt astra esse a Deo creata ante hunc quartum diem, manifeste redarguit hoc loco narratio Mosis: sic enim ait, Dixit Deus, Fiant luminaria in firmamento Caeli, et factum est ita: Fecitque Deus duo luminaria magna, et factum est vespere, et mane dies quartus. Sane cum similiter loquatur Moses de creatione syderum, ut de effectione aliorum operum, quae reliquis quinque diebus facta narrantur, si creatio syderum ante diem quartum facta est, eo autem die quasi per recapitulationem ut isti dicunt, memoratur, similiter existimari posset opera aliorum dierum ante illos dies esse facta, et illis diebus tantum per recapitulationem commemorari. Et vero si ante creata sunt astra, cur non ante, suo videlicet loco et tempore, eorum creatio descripta est a Mose? Denique istis contradicunt omnes Patres, quos secuta est Ecclesia, quae in hymno, qui canitur in vesperis feriae quartae Deum laudat ob creationem syderum quarto die ab eo factam:
Catharinus, Eugubinus, and others who thought that the stars were created by God before this fourth day, the narrative of Moses in this place manifestly refutes: for thus it says, God said, Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, and it was so done: And God made two great lights, and the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Surely, since Moses speaks of the creation of the stars in the same way as of the making of the other works which are narrated as done on the remaining five days, then, if the creation of the stars was made before the fourth day, but is recorded on that day, as these men say, by way of recapitulation, it might in like manner be supposed that the works of the other days were done before those days, and only commemorated on those days by way of recapitulation. And truly, if the stars were created before, why was their creation not described earlier by Moses, namely in its own place and time? Finally, all the Fathers contradict these men—the Fathers whom the Church has followed, which, in the hymn that is sung at Vespers on the fourth weekday, praises God for the creation of the stars made by him on the fourth day:3

Most holy God of heaven, who paintest the shining center of the sky with fiery brightness, increasing it with comely light. Thou who, on the fourth day appointing the flaming wheel of the sun, dost order the course of the moon and the wandering courses of the stars, that thou mightest set for the nights, and as a boundary-line for [day's] parting, a most well-known sign for the beginnings of the months. So far there.4

Caeli Deus sanctissime, Qui lucidum centrum poli Candore pingis igneo, Augens decoro lumine. Quarto die qui flammeam Solis rotam constituens, Lunae ministras ordinem, Vagosque cursus syderum. Ut noctibus vel limini Diremptionis terminum, Primordiis et mensium Signum dares notissimum. Haec ibi.

Videamus igitur quemadmodum hoc quarto die facta sint astra. Quoniam non sunt aliud astra, quam partes Caeli densiores quae lucem habent et transmittunt. Caeli autem in principio creati sunt, ut supra docuimus, perfecti secundum substantiam, numerum orbium, magnitudinem, figuram, et aliarum partium densitatem, aliarumque raritatem: necessario efficitur, astra secundum materiam suam, quae non est alia, quam substantia Caeli, et secundum figuram, magnitudinem et densitatem a principio esse facta. Quid ergo his deerat? forma nempe, quae principaliter dat rei, et esse et nomen. Est autem astri forma, ipsa lux, quae hoc quarto die, illis data est, Deo partes illas Caeli densiores spissa luce complente, datus est illis praeterea proprius motus, nam alio motu cietur Luna, et alio Mercurius, itemque alio sydera: siquidem ante hunc quartum...
Let us see, then, in what way the stars were made on this fourth day. For the stars are nothing other than the denser parts of the Heaven which have light and transmit it. But the heavens were created in the beginning, as we have taught above, perfect as to substance, the number of the orbs, magnitude, figure, and the density of some parts and the rarity of others: it necessarily follows that the stars, as to their matter—which is none other than the substance of the Heaven—and as to figure, magnitude, and density, were made from the beginning. What, then, was lacking to them? Form, namely, which principally gives to a thing both its being and its name. And the form of a star is light itself, which on this fourth day was given to them, God filling those denser parts of the Heaven with dense light; there was given to them besides a proper motion, for the Moon is moved by one motion, Mercury by another, and likewise the stars by another: since indeed before this fourth...5
...tum diem, Caeli non alio quam uno primi Caeli motu communiter movebantur, tertio loco data est astris vis et potentia, varios et mirabiles effectus producendi, ex motu proprio et luce cuiusque astri proveniens. Censet Hieronymus Vielmius, lectione vigesima in Hexameron, hoc die partes Caeli evasuras in astra, fuisse a Deo densatas, cum antea aequabiliter omnes essent rarae. Sed non animadvertit, vir alioqui Theologiae ac Philosophiae doctus, cum Caelum sit incorruptibile, eius materiam secundum magnitudinem, figuram, densitatem ac raritatem, nullo modo posse variari. Dicit id esse factum per Dei omnipotentiam. Sed supervacue accersit miracula, cum sine his res non modo aeque bene, sed commodius etiam explicari possit: quanquam non potest effugere illud incommodum densato multis partibus Caelo praesertim octavo, necessario factum esse minus quam ante fuerat: quare inter ipsum et nonum Caelum, plurimum vacui esse relictum, quo interiecto fieri non posse, ut octavum Caelum ceterique inferiores motus noni Caeli et primi mobilis sint participes, nisi fingat, quantum aliquae partes Caeli sunt densatae, tantumdem alias fuisse simul rarefactas, quod est sine causa multiplicare miracula.
...before this fourth day, the heavens were moved in common by no other than the one motion of the first heaven; in the third place, there was given to the stars the force and power of producing various and wonderful effects, arising from the proper motion and the light of each star. Hieronymus Vielmius, in the twentieth lecture on the Hexameron, judges that on this day the parts of the Heaven that were to become stars were condensed by God, whereas before they were all uniformly rare. But he did not notice—a man otherwise learned in Theology and Philosophy—that, since the Heaven is incorruptible, its matter can in no way be varied as to magnitude, figure, density, and rarity. He says this was done by the omnipotence of God. But he needlessly drags in miracles, since without them the matter can be explained not only equally well, but even more conveniently. Although he cannot escape this difficulty: that, the Heaven being condensed in many of its parts—especially the eighth—it was necessarily made smaller than it had been before; wherefore between it and the ninth Heaven much empty space would be left, and with that interposed it could not be that the eighth Heaven and the other lower [orbs] should share in the motion of the ninth Heaven and the Primum Mobile—unless he should imagine that, as much as some parts of the Heaven were condensed, just so much were others at the same time rarefied: which is to multiply miracles without cause.6
Sed dicet aliquis, primo die creata est lux Solis, ut nos supra docuimus, et iam tunc Caeli habebant partes quasdam densiores: quomodo igitur non eas tunc Sol luce sua illustravit, atque ita fecit, ut essent astra? Huic respondendum est, lucem illam primi diei fuisse admodum tenuem, et, ut inquit Beda, similem luci aurorae: ideoque non potuisse densas illas Caeli partes luce implendo, facere astra, quanquam non est certum, quinetiam doctissimis viris falsum videtur, reliqua astra non sua et propria luce, sed aliena tantum et a Sole mutuata lucere, qualis vero et quam multiplex, hoc die quarto, lucis Solis facta sit accessio, propter quam vere dicatur hoc die Sol creatus, supra ostendimus, cum opus primi diei explanaremus.
But someone will say: on the first day the light of the Sun was created, as we taught above, and even then the heavens had certain denser parts: how then did the Sun not at that time illumine them with its light, and so make them to be stars? To this it must be answered that the light of the first day was very thin, and, as Bede says, similar to the light of dawn; and therefore it could not, by filling those dense parts of the Heaven with light, make stars—although it is not certain (nay, to most learned men it seems false) that the other stars shine not by their own proper light, but only by a borrowed light and one mutuated from the Sun. But of what kind, and how manifold, was the increase of the Sun's light made on this fourth day, on account of which the Sun is truly said to have been created on this day, we showed above, when we expounded the work of the first day.7
Caeterum, cum sydera, et quia sunt naturae incorruptibilis, et quia caussae sunt rerum omnium sublunarium, sint tum ordine naturae, tum praestantia dignitatis priora plantis: cur ea Deus post plantas condidit? Philo, Basilius, Ambrosius, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus et hic, et libro tertio Graecarum affectionum, qui est de Daemonibus: denique Beda in Hexameron ita respondent, Ante Solem et sydera, et creatam fuisse lucem et stirpes, ne putarent homines Solem esse primam, totamque causam lucis atque stirpium, quod videant nunc et lucem manare ex Sole, et generationem ac perfectionem stirpium ex eius luce motuque pendere, indeque ansam arriperent idololatriae. Providebat enim Deus futuros qui visa pulchritudine Solis Lunae et reliquorum astrorum, aestimatisque tot et tantis commoditatibus, quas ex illis perpetuo et affatim capit humanum genus, eas stellas quasi deos colerent et venerarentur. Quocirca in molitione mundi, ea prima omnium creare noluit, ut cum homines memoria repeterent, et cum...
Moreover, since the stars—both because they are of an incorruptible nature, and because they are the causes of all sublunary things—are prior to the plants both in the order of nature and in eminence of dignity: why did God establish them after the plants? Philo, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret (both here and in the third book of the Remedy for Greek Maladies, which is on the Demons), and finally Bede on the Hexameron, reply thus: that light and plants were created before the Sun and the stars, lest men should think that the Sun is the first and entire cause of light and of plants—seeing that now both light flows from the Sun, and the generation and perfection of plants depends on its light and motion—and thence should snatch an occasion for idolatry. For God foresaw that there would be those who, beholding the beauty of the Sun, the Moon, and the other stars, and esteeming the so many and so great benefits which the human race perpetually and abundantly receives from them, would worship and venerate those stars as gods. Wherefore in the contriving of the world he was unwilling to create these first of all, so that, when men recalled in memory, and when...8
...cum animo suo reputarent mundi primordia, in quibus et lux et stirpes fuerunt ante sydera, intelligerent, quae nunc ab illis pendere videntur, ea multo maxime pendere a Deo: nec stellis propter commoda, quae ab illis accipiunt, sed Deo, et honorem cultumque adhibendum, et gratias esse agendas. Etenim non Gentiles modo sed Iudaeos etiam prolapsos esse in eiusmodi errorem, satis indicant crebrae et admodum graves, quae sunt apud Prophetas, reprehensiones Iudaeorum adorantium Solem Orientem, et Lunae tanquam reginae Caeli sacrificantium, omnemque militiam Caeli venerantium, et Moses adversus hunc errorem praedocens ac praemuniens Hebraeos, monet eos Deuteronomii quarto, ne ob Solis, Lunae, astrorumque omnium pulchritudinem, errore decepti, adorent et colant ea quae Deus creavit in ministerium cunctis gentibus, quae sub Caelo sunt. Iob autem se ab hoc impietatis scelere, purum semper, ac liberum fuisse gaudens, et quasi glorians in capite tricesimo primo sic ait, Si vidi Solem cum fulgeret, et Lunam incedentem clare, et laetatum est in abscondito cor meum, et osculatus sum manum meam ore meo: Quae est iniquitas maxima, et negatio contra Deum altissimum. Plato etiam in Cratylo docet, astra fuisse primos deos, a priscis existimatos et cultos.
...when they pondered in their mind the beginnings of the world, in which both light and plants were before the stars, they might understand that the things which now seem to depend on those stars depend by far most of all on God; and that honor and worship must be rendered, and thanks given, not to the stars on account of the benefits which they receive from them, but to God. For that not only the Gentiles, but the Jews too, lapsed into this kind of error, is sufficiently indicated by the frequent and very grave reproofs in the Prophets, of the Jews who worshipped the rising Sun, and sacrificed to the Moon as to the Queen of Heaven, and venerated all the host of Heaven. And Moses, forewarning and forearming the Hebrews against this error, admonishes them in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, lest, deceived by error on account of the beauty of the Sun, the Moon, and all the stars, they should adore and worship the things which God created for the service of all the nations that are under Heaven. But Job, rejoicing and as it were glorying that he had always been pure and free from this crime of impiety, says thus in the thirty-first chapter: If I beheld the Sun when it shined, and the Moon going in brightness, and my heart in secret rejoiced, and I kissed my hand with my mouth: which is a very great iniquity, and a denial against the most high God. Plato too, in the Cratylus, teaches that the stars were the first gods, esteemed and worshipped by the ancients.9
Iuvat adscribere verba Sancti Leonis Papae ad eandem sententiam pertinentia, ex homiliis eius de Nativitate, quae sic habent, Absit, inquit in secunda homilia,
It is worthwhile to set down the words of Saint Pope Leo bearing on the same view, from his homilies on the Nativity, which run thus. 'Far be it,' he says in the second homily,10

'...from Christian minds be all impious superstition and monstrous falsehood: the temporal things are beyond all measure distant from the eternal, the corporeal from the incorporeal, the subject from the ruler; and although these have a wondrous beauty, yet they have no godhead to be adored. That power therefore, that is the wisdom, that is the majesty to be worshipped, which created the universe of the world out of nothing, and by its omnipotent reason produced the earthly and the heavenly substance into the forms and measures that it willed. Let the Sun and the Moon and the stars be useful to those who use them, let them be beautiful to those who behold them: but in such a way that thanks for them be referred to their author, and that God be adored who founded them, not the creature which serves.'11

...ab animis Christianis impia omnis superstitio, prodigiosumque mendacium: ultra omnem modum distant a sempiterno temporalia, ab incorporeo corporea, a dominatore subiecta, quae etsi mirandam habent pulchritudinem, adorandam tamen non habent deitatem. Illa ergo virtus, illa est sapientia, illa est colenda maiestas, quae universitatem mundi creavit ex nihilo, et in quas voluit, formas atque mensuras terrenam caelestemque substantiam omnipotenti ratione produxit. Sol et Luna et sydera sint commoda utentibus, sint speciosa cernentibus: sed ita, ut de illis, gratia referantur auctori, et adoretur Deus, qui condidit, non creatura quae servit.

In 7. vero homil. sic ait Leo:
And in the 7th homily Leo speaks thus:12

'There are added also those who falsely make the whole condition of human life depend on the effects of the stars, and say that what belongs either to the divine will or to ours belongs to inflexible gods—which, however, that they may do more cumulative harm, they promise can be changed, if supplication be made to the stars that oppose. Whence the fabrication itself is destroyed by its own reasoning: for if the predicted things do not stand fast, the fates are not to be feared; if they do stand fast, the stars are not to be venerated. From such practices, too, that impiety is engendered, that the Sun, rising at the onset of the daily light, is adored by certain more foolish persons from the higher places: which some Christians even think they do so religiously that, before they come to the basilica of the blessed Apostle Peter, dedicated to the one living and true God, having climbed the steps by which one ascends to the platform of the upper court, they turn their bodies and face back toward the rising Sun, and with bent necks bow themselves in honor of the shining orb—which we greatly grieve and lament is done, partly by the fault of ignorance, partly by the spirit of paganism. For although some perhaps venerate rather the Creator of the beautiful light than the light itself, which is a creature,...'13

Adduntur et illi, qui totam humanae vitae conditionem de stellarum pendere effectibus mentiuntur, et quod est aut divinae voluntatis aut nostrae, indeclinabilium dicunt esse deorum, quae tamen ut cumulatius noceant, spondent posse mutari, si illis quae adversantur syderibus supplicetur. Unde commentum ipsum sua ratione destruitur, quia si praedicta non permanent, non sunt fata metuenda: si permanent, non sunt astra veneranda. De talibus institutis etiam illa generatur impietas, ut Sol inchoatione diurna lucis exurgens, a quibusdam insipientioribus, de locis eminentioribus adoretur: quod nonnulli etiam Christiani adeo se religiose facere putant, ut priusquam ad beati Petri apostoli basilicam quae uni Deo vivo et vero est dedicata perveniant, superatis gradibus quibus ad suggestum areae superioris ascenditur, converso corpore ad nascentem se Solem reflectant, et curvatis cervicibus in honorem se splendidi orbis inclinent, quod fieri partim ignorantia vitio, partim paganitatis spiritu, multum tabescimus et dolemus. Quia etsi quidam forte Creatorem potius pulchri luminis, quam ipsum lumen quod est creatura vene-...

'...yet one must abstain from this very appearance of such an observance, which, when he who has abandoned the worship of the gods finds it among us, will he not retain with himself this part of his old opinion as probable, which he sees to be common to Christians and to the impious?' Thus Leo.14

...rantur, abstinendum tamen est ab ipsa huiusmodi specie officii, quam cum in nostris invenerit, qui Deorum cultum reliquit, nonne hanc secum partem opinionis vetusta tanquam probabilem retentabit, quam Christianis et impiis viderit esse communem? Haec Leo.

Sed cur Deus sydera creavit ante animalia? Theodoretus quaestione 16. in Genesim respondet, animalia sensum habentia oculorum, excellentiam et exuperantiam illius primae lucis sustinere non potuisse: postquam autem illa lux dispertita est in tot astra quarto die facta tolerabilem oculis animantium, splendorem reddidisse: genus autem stirpium prorsus omnis sensus expers est. Respondent alii tres posteriores dies pertinuisse ad ornatum et complementum mundi, quare par fuisse, ut primum omnium corporum mundi, quod est Caelum, ante alia, quarto hoc die compleretur et ornaretur syderibus. Sed cur potissimum Deus quarto die, astra omnia creare voluit? Ad declarandum, inquit Philo, huius operis singularem praestantiam et dignitatem, Symbolo numeri quaternarii: Cuius virtutes et laudes, et alii subtiliter tractant, et Philo bene longa oratione prosequitur.
But why did God create the stars before the animals? Theodoret, in question 16 on Genesis, replies that the animals, having the sense of sight, could not bear the excellence and superabundance of that first light; but after that light was distributed into so many stars made on the fourth day, it rendered a splendor tolerable to the eyes of living creatures; whereas the kind of plants is wholly devoid of all sense. Others reply that the three latter days pertained to the adornment and completion of the world; wherefore it was fitting that the first of all the bodies of the world, which is the Heaven, should before the others be completed and adorned with stars on this fourth day. But why did God especially choose to create all the stars on the fourth day? 'To declare,' says Philo, 'the singular excellence and dignity of this work, by the symbol of the number four': whose virtues and praises others too treat subtly, and Philo pursues in a good long discourse.15
Quid autem factum sit de ea luce, quae primo die creata est, an evanuerit creato Sole: an Soli fuerit impressa, ut sentit Basilius et Damascenus, an in omnia sydera, quae quarto die facta sunt distributa et dispertita sit, ut placet Theodoreto, an lux illa fuerit nubes quaedam lucens, ex qua postmodum die quarto, formatus sit Sol, ut visum est Bedae, Hugoni, Magistro sententiarum, aliisque permultis, an auctore Dionysio Areopagita, lux illa non fuerit alia, quam lux Solis, sed prius informis tamen et imperfecta, quae hoc die quarto, perfectius formata consumataque sit, nos superius explanando primi diei opere, satis diligenter et enucleate tractavimus.
But what became of that light which was created on the first day—whether it vanished when the Sun was created; or was impressed upon the Sun, as Basil and Damascene hold; or was distributed and dispersed into all the stars that were made on the fourth day, as Theodoret holds; or whether that light was a certain shining cloud, out of which afterward, on the fourth day, the Sun was formed, as seemed to Bede, Hugh, the Master of the Sentences, and very many others; or whether, on the authority of Dionysius the Areopagite, that light was none other than the light of the Sun, but at first unformed and imperfect, which on this fourth day was more perfectly formed and completed—we treated above, diligently and clearly enough, in expounding the work of the first day.16
Tradit Beda in Hexameron, et fusius in lib. de Ratione temporum hoc quarto die, qui fuit Mercurii et duodecimus Kalendas Aprilis, hoc est, vigesimus primus Martii, Solem exortu suo quartam Arietis partem ingressum, primum aequinoctium vernum consecrasse: quocirca primum mundi diem fuisse decimumquintum Kalendas Aprilis, hoc est, decimumoctavum diem Martii. His addit Beda, Lunam creatam esse in plenilunio, quod sit admodum credibile factam esse a Deo in statu perfecto, qui est plenilunii, neque enim conveniebat imperfectam creari primam Lunam, praesertim cum Moses dicat, Deum fecisse Lunam ut praeesset nocti, hoc est, ad illuminandam noctem: nisi autem plenilunii tempore, Luna noctem plene et perfecte non illuminat. Ex adverso contendunt alii, Lunae primo exorientis lumen fuisse imperfectum, tale nimirum, quale habere solet in novilunio: nam cum Luna menses cursu suo definiat, congruum fuit, a prima Luna primi mensis initium fieri: Si autem creata esset in plenilunio, non primus, sed decimus quintus primi mensis dies ille fuisset. Augustinus libro secundo de Genesi ad litteram...
Bede hands down, in the Hexameron, and more fully in the book On the Reckoning of Time, that on this fourth day—which was the day of Mercury (Wednesday) and the twelfth of the Kalends of April, that is, the twenty-first of March—the Sun, by its rising, entering the fourth degree of Aries, consecrated the first vernal equinox; wherefore the first day of the world was the fifteenth of the Kalends of April, that is, the eighteenth day of March. To these things Bede adds that the Moon was created at full moon, which is quite credible, that it was made by God in a perfect state, which is that of the full moon; for it was not fitting that the first Moon be created imperfect, especially since Moses says that God made the Moon to rule the night, that is, to illumine the night: but except at the time of full moon, the Moon does not fully and perfectly illumine the night. On the contrary, others contend that the light of the Moon, when it first rose, was imperfect, namely such as it is wont to have at the new moon: for since the Moon by its course marks off the months, it was fitting that the beginning of the first month be made from the first [new] Moon; but if it had been created at full moon, that would have been not the first, but the fifteenth day of the first month. Augustine, in the second book On Genesis according to the Letter...17
...litteram capite decimoquinto, neutrum horum asseveranter probare, aut reprobare audet, quod neutra opinio vel necessariis rationibus, vel manifestis Scripturae testimoniis nitatur. Iustinus Martyr in respondendo ad quaestionem 60. Orthodoxorum, cur post creatam primo die lucem, quarto die astra sint condita? ita respondet, ut vel sententia eius falsa sit, vel necesse sit locum illum esse insigniter vitiatum atque depravatum.
...according to the Letter, chapter fifteen, dares neither to affirm nor to reject either of these assertively, because neither opinion rests either on necessary reasons or on manifest testimonies of Scripture. Justin Martyr, in answering the 60th of the Questions of the Orthodox—why, after light was created on the first day, the stars were established on the fourth day?—replies in such a way that either his opinion is false, or it is necessary that that passage be notably corrupted and depraved.18
Caeterum quoniam hoc loco Scriptura docet, fecisse Deum duo luminaria magna, Solem dico et Lunam: de eorum syderum magnitudine, quatenus ad locum hunc illustrandum sit satis, disserere, non erit proposito nostro alienum. De Solis magnitudine variae fuerunt olim Philosophorum sententiae, quas refert Plutarchus libri undecimi de placitis Philosophorum, capite vigesimo primo. Anaximander astrum Solis aequale fecit terrae, orbem autem in quo circumvehitur, septies et vicies terra maiorem: Anaxagoras maiorem dixit esse Peloponesso: Heraclitus, latitudine pedali: Epicurus, aut esse tantum quantus apparet (quam opinionem etiam Heraclito affingit Laertius) aut paulo maiorem minoremve. Sed eius ingens magnitudo necessariis Mathematicorum rationibus explorate percepta, in confesso est apud omnes, tantum non doctrinae rudes et expertes. Principio: magnitudo eius intelligitur ex comparatione eius cum terra, cuius simul et aquae universum globum centies sexagies, sexies excedit. Tum, idem palam fit contentione eius facta, cum aliis syderibus: nam stellarum quas vocant Astrologi primae magnitudinis, et quindecim tantum in octavo Caelo numerant, quaelibet terrae magnitudinem continet non amplius quam centies et septies. Quanto autem amplior sit quam Luna, vix credi potest: nam esse maiorem ipsa sexies millies et quingenties superque tricies novies, demonstrationibus nihil dubii relinquentibus, compertum habere se Mathematici profitentur. Illud quoque indicium facit, quantam Sol habeat lucis copiam, quod solus ipse praesentia sua clarissimum diem facit omnibus nocturnis tenebris penitus discussis atque sublatis: id quod ne omnium quidem ceterorum syderum simul praesentium coniuncta lux praestare potest, ut quae non ex toto, sed ex aliqua tantum parte noctis obscuritatem diluere valeant. Adiice etiam, Solem praesentia sua reliquorum astrorum praestringere et occultare claritatem.
Moreover, since Scripture in this place teaches that God made two great lights—I mean the Sun and the Moon—it will not be foreign to our purpose to discuss the magnitude of those bodies, so far as suffices to illustrate this passage. Concerning the magnitude of the Sun there were once various opinions of the Philosophers, which Plutarch reports in the book On the Doctrines of the Philosophers, chapter twenty-one. Anaximander made the body of the Sun equal to the earth, but the orb in which it is carried round twenty-seven times greater than the earth; Anaxagoras said it was larger than the Peloponnese; Heraclitus, a foot in breadth; Epicurus, either that it is just as great as it appears (an opinion which Laertius also fastens on Heraclitus), or a little greater or smaller. But its vast magnitude, accurately ascertained by the necessary reasonings of the Mathematicians, is agreed among all who are not utterly rude and unskilled in learning. First: its magnitude is understood from its comparison with the earth, whose entire globe—of land and water together—it exceeds one hundred and sixty-six times. Then the same is made plain by its comparison with the other bodies: for of the stars which the astrologers call of the first magnitude (and they count only fifteen of them in the eighth Heaven), each contains the magnitude of the earth not more than one hundred and seven times. By how much it is greater than the Moon can scarcely be believed: for the Mathematicians profess to have found, by demonstrations leaving no room for doubt, that it is greater than she six thousand five hundred and thirty-nine times over. This too gives an indication of how great a store of light the Sun has: that it alone, by its presence, makes the brightest day, all the darkness of night being utterly scattered and removed—which not even the conjoined light of all the other stars present at once can do, since they can dispel the darkness of the night not wholly, but only in some part. Add, too, that the Sun by its presence dims and hides the brightness of the other stars.19
Ambigunt viri docti, utrum Sol sit fons omnis lucis caelestis, cunctaque astra lucem, quam habent omnem, ei ferant acceptam. ita enim visum est Avicennae, Alberto Magno, Bedae, et Astrologorum ac Theologorum non paucis. Plinius certe libri secundi capite sexto, Solem ait lumen ceteris syderibus foenerari. nam cum astrorum omnium, similem esse naturam, paremque rationem conveniat, manifestum autem sit Lunam accipere lumen a Sole, itidem facere reliquas stellas existimandum est: ad hunc enim modum ex rotunditate...
Learned men are in doubt whether the Sun is the fount of all heavenly light, and whether all the stars owe to it all the light they have. For so it seemed to Avicenna, Albertus Magnus, Bede, and not a few of the astrologers and theologians. Pliny, certainly, in the sixth chapter of the second book, says that the Sun lends out its light to the other stars on interest. For since it is agreed that the nature of all the stars is similar, and their account the same, and since it is manifest that the Moon receives its light from the Sun, it must be supposed that the rest of the stars do likewise: for in this way, from [their] roundness...20
...ditate lunae omnia sydera esse rotunda, in secundo libro de Caelo, text. 59. argumentatur Aristoteles. Hugo in libro Annotationum in Genesim cap. 6. Solum, inquit, solem propriam habere lucem, et ipsum ex igne esse factum: reliquas vero stellas omnes, ex aeria materia factas relucere potius quam lucere. Verum hoc limatioris iudicii Philosophis nequaquam probatur: nec sane ullo satis probabili argumento persuaderi potest. Non enim par est ratio lunae ceterorumque syderum, nec rotunditatis astri atque receptionis luminis eius: nec fit verisimile immensam illam choream caelestium ignium in octavo caelo, videlicet multo nobiliori, quam est orbis solis, mirabili pulchritudine micantium a sole lumen omne suum mutuari et emendicare. Praesertim autem cum videatur rationi consentaneum, astra illa, quae longe diversas vires et effectus habere videntur, dissimilem quoque lucis rationem obtinere.
...from the roundness of the moon Aristotle argues that all the stars are round, in the second book of On the Heavens, text 59. Hugh, in the book of Annotations on Genesis, chapter 6, says: 'The Sun alone has its own light, and is itself made of fire; but all the rest of the stars, made of airy matter, shine back rather than shine.' But this is by no means approved by philosophers of finer judgment, nor indeed can it be persuaded by any sufficiently probable argument. For the case of the moon and of the other stars is not the same, nor that of the roundness of a star and of its reception of light; nor is it likely that that immense dance of heavenly fires in the eighth heaven—a heaven, namely, far nobler than the orb of the sun—shining with wondrous beauty, borrows and begs all its light from the sun. Especially since it seems agreeable to reason that those stars, which seem to have powers and effects far different, should also have a dissimilar mode of light.21
B. Augustinus libro secundo de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 16. ait: ex divina Scriptura manifesto cognosci, disparem esse syderum claritatem, dicente Apostolo prioris Epistolae ad Corinthios capite 15. Aliam esse claritatem solis, aliam lunae, et aliam stellarum, et stellam differre a stella in claritate. Verum autem stellae lumen a sole accipiant necne, ex sacris litteris colligi et constitui non potest. Mox subdit Augustinus: quibusdam visum esse, quasdam in caelo stellas maiores esse quam solem; quod tamen falsum esse, non rationibus tantum Mathematicis patet, sed etiam in libro Ecclesiastici arguit sacra Scriptura. Quid, inquit, lucidius sole? Constat porro ea ratione maximum Astrorum esse solem, quod huius nostratis mundi conservationem, moderationem, et omnimodam mutationem plus ab uno sole, quam a ceteris omnibus astris pendere experimur. Verum de solis praestantia, eiusque locis perquam multiplici et admiranda vi et potentia, in libro de divinis nominibus, cap. 1. parte 4. divine philosophatur Dionysius.
Blessed Augustine, in the second book On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 16, says that it is manifestly known from divine Scripture that the brightness of the stars is unequal, the Apostle saying in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15: One is the brightness of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; and star differs from star in brightness. But whether the stars receive their light from the sun or not cannot be gathered and established from the sacred writings. Augustine soon adds: that it has seemed to some that certain stars in the heaven are larger than the sun; which, however, is false, as is plain not only by mathematical reasons, but also in the book of Ecclesiasticus sacred Scripture argues: What, it says, is brighter than the sun? Moreover it is established by this reasoning that the sun is the greatest of the stars, because we experience that the preservation, governance, and every kind of change of this our world depend more on the one sun than on all the other stars together. But concerning the excellence of the sun, and its manifold and wondrous force and power in its places, Dionysius philosophizes divinely in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 1, part 4.22
Sed quia Moses hoc loco Solem et Lunam vocat duo luminaria magna, posset fortassis quispiam existimare, secundum Solem, esse Lunam reliquorum syderum maximam. Basilius quidem certe in enarrando hunc locum Genes. apertis verbis docet, post solem maximum caeli Astrum esse Lunam. Idemque lib. 2 de Genesi ad litteram cap. 16. Augustinus colligit ex ipsa Scriptura, quae hoc loco solem et Lunam appellat luminaria magna. Certe, inquit, vel hoc concedant oculis nostris, ut ea duo sydera, manifestum sit amplius ceteris lucere super terram, nec diem clarescere nisi luce Solis, nec noctem tot stellis fulgentibus ita lucere, si Luna desit: quemadmodum praesentia illius illustratur. Verum secus esse docent Mathematici, apud quos omnes stellas inerrantes, visu insignes et notabiles, quae duae, ac viginti milleque numerantur longe maiores esse constat, quam Lunam: quippe quae tricies novies minor est quam terra, cuius tamen molem supradictae stellae, octies ac decies superant: ex planetis autem, praeter unum Mercurium, reliqui maiores sunt Luna: Itaque ut Sol maximus est omnium syderum, ita minimus est Mercurius, et post eum Luna. Cur igitur Luna et ceteris...
But since Moses in this place calls the Sun and the Moon two great lights, someone might perhaps suppose that, after the Sun, the Moon is the greatest of the other stars. Basil indeed, in expounding this passage of Genesis, teaches in plain words that, after the sun, the greatest star of heaven is the Moon. And the same Augustine, in book 2 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 16, gathers from Scripture itself, which here calls the sun and the moon great lights. 'Certainly,' he says, 'let them concede at least this to our eyes, that those two bodies manifestly shine more than the rest upon the earth, and that the day does not grow bright except by the light of the Sun, nor does the night, with so many stars shining, shine as it does if the Moon be absent—just as it is illumined by her presence.' But the Mathematicians teach that it is otherwise, among whom it is established that all the fixed stars notable and conspicuous to sight, which are numbered one thousand and twenty-two, are far larger than the Moon: seeing that she is thirty-nine times smaller than the earth, whose mass, however, the aforesaid stars exceed eighteen times; and of the planets, except the one Mercury, the rest are larger than the Moon. And so, as the Sun is the greatest of all the stars, so Mercury is the smallest, and after him the Moon. Why then is the Moon, [larger] than the rest of the stars...23
...ceteris Astris maior, et soli propemodum par videtur nobis? nimirum, quod citima et vicinissima terrae sit: quamobrem et ingens ceterorum a terris distantia, et proxima nobis Lunae vicinitas, tantam facit apparentiae dissimilitudinem. At enim si Luna, uno excepto Mercurio, re vera syderum omnium est minima, quaeret aliquis cur eam divina Scriptura luminare magnum appellet? An quia maior ceteris oculorum iudicio et vulgi existimatione censetur? An dicitur magnum luminare propter id, cuius causa Deus eam instituit? scilicet, ut illuminaret noctem, in hoc enim ceteris astris antecedit. An quia vires et effectus eius in elementis, metallis, stirpibus, animantibus, et humano corpore insigniores et illustriores sunt, quam ceterorum (unum excipio Solem) syderum? An denique in eo quod est esse in tempora, signa, dies, menses et annos, post solem praecellit Luna reliquis Astris? praesertim apud Iudaeos, qui distinctionem temporum non mensium modo, sed annorum etiam et rationem dierum festorum, quos agebant variis anni temporibus, ex Luna petebant: sicut exponitur in libro Ecclesiastici cap. 43. illis verbis: Luna in omnibus in tempore suo, ostensio temporis, et signum aevi. A luna signum diei festi luminare quod minuitur in consummatione.
...larger than the rest of the stars, and seem to us almost equal to the sun? Doubtless because it is the nearest and most neighboring to the earth; wherefore both the vast distance of the others from the earth, and the very near nearness of the Moon to us, make so great a dissimilarity of appearance. But if the Moon, except for Mercury alone, is really the smallest of all the stars, someone will ask why divine Scripture calls it a great light. Is it because it is reckoned larger than the rest by the judgment of the eyes and the estimation of the common people? Or is it called a great light on account of that for the sake of which God established it—namely, to illumine the night?—for in this it surpasses the other stars. Or because its forces and effects in the elements, metals, plants, living creatures, and the human body are more notable and conspicuous than those of the other stars (I except the one Sun)? Or finally, in that which is to serve for times, signs, days, months, and years, does the Moon, after the sun, excel the rest of the stars? especially among the Jews, who sought from the Moon the distinction not only of the months but also of the years, and the reckoning of the feast days, which they kept at various seasons of the year: as is set forth in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 43, in these words: The moon is in all things in its season, a declaration of times, and a sign of the world (or: of the age). From the moon is the sign of the feast day, a light that is diminished at its completion.24
Sed cur Moses, ut solis, et Lunae, non itidem aliorum quinque planetarum hoc loco meminit? An quia in commemoratione Solis et Lunae eos intelligi voluit? An quod eos uno stellarum generali vocabulo comprehendit? An potius, quia non nisi doctis hominibus eorum proprius motus, effectus, usus, et differentia, a ceteris Astris nota est, propterea eos hic recensere supersedit? Certe illorum quinque solius Luciferi, quod est sydus Veneris, in Scriptura mentio fit apud Isaiam et Iob. Multa hic de Astris disputari possent, praeclara sane cognituque ac memoratu dignissima, multa item de divinatione, quae petitur ex Astris, quam voluere quidam fulcire et ornare auctoritate Mosis, qui tradit hoc loco: Deum fecisse Astra ut essent in tempora, dies atque annos, et in signa, videlicet ad praenoscenda et praenuncianda futura. Verum haec, quia nec in angustum coarctari, nec in transcursu dici, sed cum subtilitate et cura tractari debent, commodius alio libro, qui proxime hunc sequetur, in quo nos de coelis et syderibus latissime agemus, separatim explicabuntur.
But why does Moses make mention here of the sun and the moon, but not likewise of the other five planets? Is it because in commemorating the Sun and the Moon he wished the others to be understood? Or because he comprehended them under the one general word 'stars'? Or rather, because their proper motion, effects, use, and difference from the other stars is known only to learned men, did he therefore forbear to enumerate them here? Certainly, of those five, mention is made in Scripture of Lucifer alone, which is the star of Venus, in Isaiah and in Job. Many things might here be disputed about the stars, things truly excellent and most worthy to be known and recorded; many things too about the divination which is sought from the stars, which some have wished to prop up and adorn by the authority of Moses, who relates in this place that God made the stars to be for times, days, and years, and for signs—namely, for foreknowing and foretelling future things. But these matters, because they ought neither to be cramped into a narrow space, nor said in passing, but treated with subtlety and care, will be more conveniently set forth separately in another book, which will follow next after this, in which we shall treat most fully of the heavens and the stars.25

Translator’s notes

  1. Section heading for the Fourth Day: the creation of the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14ff.). ↩
  2. The scripture lemma for the Fourth Day, Genesis 1:14 and 1:16. ↩
  3. Marginal gloss: 'That all the stars were created on the fourth day is proved against Catharinus and Eugubinus.' Catharinus = Ambrosius Catharinus Politi; Eugubinus = Agostino Steuco of Gubbio. Pererius refutes their view (that the stars were made earlier and only 'recapitulated' on day four). The decorated initial begins 'Catharinum'. The hymn for Wednesday Vespers follows. ↩
  4. The Ambrosian hymn 'Caeli Deus sanctissime', sung at Wednesday (feria quarta) Vespers, celebrating the creation of the heavenly lights on the fourth day. 'Haec ibi' = 'thus far the passage there' (Pererius's tag closing the quotation). ↩
  5. Marginal glosses: 'What the stars are' and 'In what manner the stars were established, as regards light and motion.' Pererius's doctrine: the stars are the denser parts of the heavenly substance, made in substance/figure/magnitude at the first creation, but receiving their form (light) and proper motion on the fourth day. Sentence continues onto p. 138 ('...ante hunc quartum [diem]...'). ↩
  6. Marginal gloss: 'Vielmius is refuted.' Completes (from p. 137) Pererius's account of the stars receiving form (light), proper motion, and causal power on day 4. He rejects Girolamo Vielmi's view (Lecture 20 on the Hexameron) that the star-parts were condensed at the fourth day, since the incorruptible heaven's matter cannot change density. ↩
  7. Marginal gloss: 'An objection, and the reply to it.' Why the first-day light did not already make stars: it was thin, dawn-like (Bede). Pererius doubts that the stars shine only by borrowed solar light. ↩
  8. Marginal gloss: 'Why the stars were created after the plants.' The Fathers' answer: light and plants precede the sun/stars to forestall idolatry (lest the sun be thought the source of light and life). Cites Philo, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret (Quaest. in Gen. and Graecarum affectionum curatio bk. 3), Bede. Sentence continues onto p. 139. ↩
  9. Marginal gloss: 'That the Jews of old often lapsed into the error of worshipping the stars as gods.' Cites Deuteronomy 4:19 and Job 31:26–28 against star-worship; Plato, Cratylus (the heavenly bodies as the first gods of the ancients). ↩
  10. Marginal gloss: 'The stars are devoid of all divinity.' Lead-in to two quotations from Leo the Great's Nativity sermons. ↩
  11. Quotation from Leo the Great, Sermon on the Nativity (the 'second homily'). The stars are creatures devoid of divinity; worship is owed to the Creator alone. ↩
  12. Lead-in to the second Leo quotation (the seventh Nativity sermon, against astrology and sun-worship). ↩
  13. Quotation from Leo the Great, Sermon on the Nativity (the 'seventh homily' = Sermo 27). Against astral fatalism and against the sun-worship practiced even by Christians on the steps of St. Peter's. The quotation continues onto p. 140. ↩
  14. Conclusion (from p. 139) of the Leo quotation (Sermo 27): even well-meant sun-bowing must be shunned, lest the converted pagan think his old star-worship vindicated. ↩
  15. Marginal glosses: 'Why the stars were created before the animals, according to Theodoret'; and 'Philo, in the book On the Making of the World.' Theodoret (Quaest. in Gen. 16): the first light was too strong for animal eyes; Philo, De opificio mundi: the symbolism of the number four. ↩
  16. Marginal gloss: 'According to Bede, the Sun was created on the 21st day of March.' A survey of opinions on the fate of the first-day light: Basil & John Damascene (impressed on the sun), Theodoret (dispersed into the stars), Bede/Hugh of St Victor/Peter Lombard (a shining cloud from which the sun was formed), Dionysius the Areopagite (the unformed solar light later perfected). ↩
  17. Marginal gloss: 'Whether the Moon was created at full moon or at new moon.' Bede (De temporum ratione): the Sun made 21 March (entering Aries, the vernal equinox), the world's first day being 18 March; and the Moon created full. The opposing view: the Moon created new (so the first month begins from it). Sentence continues onto p. 141 (Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 2.15). ↩
  18. Completes the citation of Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 2.15 (he leaves the full/new-moon question open), and adds Justin Martyr, Quaestiones ad Orthodoxos, q. 60 (whose answer Pererius finds either false or textually corrupt). ↩
  19. Marginal gloss: 'How great is the magnitude of the sun; the various opinions of the philosophers.' Cites Plutarch, De placitis philosophorum (the locus on the sun's size is bk. 2, ch. 20–21; the printed 'libri undecimi'/'eleventh book' is an error): Anaximander (sun = earth, orbit 27× earth), Anaxagoras (larger than the Peloponnese), Heraclitus (a foot wide), Epicurus (as it appears), with Diogenes Laertius. Pererius's own figures: sun = 166× the earth-and-water globe; first-magnitude stars = 107× the earth; sun = 6,539× the Moon. ↩
  20. Marginal gloss: 'Whether all the stars receive their light from the Sun.' The view of Avicenna, Albertus Magnus, Bede, and others, that the Sun is the source of all stellar light; Pliny (Natural History 2.6, 'the Sun lends light to the stars at interest'). Sentence continues onto p. 142 (catchword 'ditate'). ↩
  21. Completes (from p. 141) the question whether all stars borrow the sun's light. Cites Aristotle, De caelo 2 (text 59, on the roundness of stars) and Hugh of St Victor (Annotations on Genesis, ch. 6). Pererius rejects the view that the fixed stars merely reflect solar light. ↩
  22. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 2.16, citing 1 Corinthians 15:41 (the disparate brightness of sun, moon, stars) and Ecclesiasticus 17:30 / 42:16 ('What is brighter than the sun?'). Dionysius the Areopagite, De divinis nominibus 4 (the sun as image of the Good). ↩
  23. Marginal gloss: 'Whether the Moon is, after the sun, the greatest of all the stars.' Basil (Hexameron, on this passage) and Augustine (De Gen. ad litt. 2.16) place the moon second to the sun, but the astronomers reckon otherwise: the 1,022 notable fixed stars exceed the earth 18×, while the moon is 39× smaller than the earth—so the moon is in fact the smallest star but for Mercury. Sentence continues onto p. 143. ↩
  24. Marginal gloss: 'Why the Moon, though in truth nearly the smallest of all the stars (except for the sun [i.e., the smallest but for the sun's exception]), seems the greatest, and is called a great light by Moses.' The moon appears great only by nearness; it is called 'great' for its role in lighting the night and governing times. Cites Ecclesiasticus 43:6–8. ↩
  25. Marginal glosses: 'Why, of the seven planets, Moses here mentions only two, that is, the sun and the moon'; and 'Isaiah 14. Job 38.' Why Moses names only sun and moon; only Venus (Lucifer) is named elsewhere (Isaiah 14:12; Job 38:32). Pererius defers astrology to a later book (his treatise on the heavens). Cites Genesis 1:14 ('the stars for times, days, years, and signs'). This closes the commentary on the Fourth Day. ↩