A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume 1 (of 2) by Lynn Thorndike
CHAPTER XXI
580 words | Chapter 54
CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL SCIENCE: BASIL, EPIPHANIUS, AND THE
PHYSIOLOGUS
Lactantius not a fair example—Commentaries on the Biblical account of
creation—Date and delivery of Basil’s _Hexaemeron_—The _Hexaemeron_
of Ambrose—Basil’s medieval influence—Science and religion—Scientific
curiosity of Basil’s audience—Allusions to amusements—Conflicts
with Greek science—Agreement with Greek science—Qualification of
the Scriptural account of creation—The four elements and four
qualities—Enthusiasm for nature as God’s work—Sin and nature—Habits
of animals—Marvels of nature—Spontaneous generation—Lack of
scientific scepticism—Sun worship and astrology—Permanence of
species—Final impression from the _Hexaemeron_—The _Medicine Chest_
of Epiphanius—Gems in the high priest’s breastplate—Some other
gems—The so-called _Physiologus_; problem of its origin—Does the
title apply to any one particular treatise?—And to what sort of a
treatise?—Medieval art shows almost no symbolic influence of the
_Physiologus_—_Physiologus_ was more natural scientist than allegorist.
[Sidenote: Lactantius not a fair example.]
The opposition of early Christian thought to natural science has been
rather unduly exaggerated. For instance, Lactantius, one of the least
favorable to Greek philosophy and natural science of the fathers,
should hardly be cited as typical of early Christian attitude in
such matters. Nor does his opposition impress one as weighty.[2060]
He ridicules the theory of the Antipodes,[2061] which he perhaps
understands none too well, asking if anyone can be so inept as to
think that there are men whose feet are above their heads, although
he knows very well that Greek science teaches that all weights fall
towards the center of the earth, and that consequently if the feet are
nearer the center of the earth that they must be below the head. He
continues, however, to insist that the philosophers are either very
stupid, or just joking, or arguing for the sake of arguing, and he
declares that he could show by many arguments that the heaven cannot
possibly be lower than the earth—which no one has asserted except
himself—if it were not already time to close his third book and begin
the fourth. Apparently Lactantius is the one who is arguing for the
sake of arguing, or just joking, or else very stupid, and I fear it
is the last. But other Christian fathers were less dense, and we
already have heard the cultured pagan Plutarch scoff at the notion of
a spherical earth and of antipodes. We may grant, however, that the
ecclesiastical writers of the Roman Empire and early medieval period
normally treat of spiritual rather than material themes and discuss
them in a religious rather than a scientific manner.
[Sidenote: Commentaries on the Biblical account of creation.]
But in the commentaries upon the books of the Bible which the fathers
multiplied so voluminously it was necessary for them, if they began
their labors with _Genesis_, to deal at the very start in the first
verses of the first book of the Bible with an explanation of nature
which at several points was in disagreement with the accepted theories
of Greek philosophy and ancient science. Such comment upon the opening
verses of _Genesis_ sometimes developed into a separate treatise
called _Hexaemeron_ from the works of the six days of creation which
it discussed. Of the various treatises of this type the _Hexaemeron_
of Basil[2062] seems to have been both the best[2063] and the most
influential, and will be considered by us as an example of Christian
attitude towards the natural science and, to some extent, the
superstition of the ancient world.
[Sidenote: Date and delivery of Basil’s _Hexaemeron_.]
Basil died on the first day of January, 379 A. D., and was born about
Reading Tips
Use arrow keys to navigate
Press 'N' for next chapter
Press 'P' for previous chapter