329. When or where the nine homilies which compose his _Hexaemeron_

were preached is not known, but from an allusion to his bodily infirmity in the seventh homily and his forgetfulness the next day in Homily VIII we might infer that it was late in life. To all appearances these sermons were taken down and have reached us just as they were delivered to the people, to whose daily life Basil frequently adverts. The sermons were delivered early in the morning before the artisans in the audience went to their work and again at the close of the day and before the evening meal, since Basil sometimes speaks of the approach of darkness surprising him and of its consequently being time to stop.[2064] One of the surest indications either that the sermons were delivered extemporaneously, or that Basil was repeating with variations to suit the occasion and present audience sermons which he had delivered so often as to have practically memorized, occurs in the eighth homily where he starts to discuss land animals, forgetting that the last day he did not get to birds, but is presently brought to a realization of his omission by the actions of his audience and, after a pause and an apology, makes a fresh start upon birds. The _Hexaemeron_ was highly praised by Basil’s contemporaries and was regarded as the best of his works by later Byzantine literary collectors and critics. [Sidenote: The _Hexaemeron_ of Ambrose.] Basil’s work, however, was not the first of its kind, as Hippolytus and Origen, at least, are known to have earlier composed similar treatises, and still earlier in the treatise of Theophilus _To Autolycus_ we find a few chapters[2065] devoted to the six days of creation. In one of his letters Jerome states that “Ambrose recently so compiled the _Hexaemeron_ of Origen that he rather followed the views of Hippolytus and Basil.”[2066] This Latin work of Ambrose is extant and seems to me to follow Basil very closely. At times the order of presentation is slightly varied and the work of Ambrose is longer, but this is due to its more verbose rhetoric and greater indulgence in Biblical quotation, and not to the introduction of new ideas. The Benedictine editors of Ambrose admit that he has taken a great deal from Basil but deny that he has servilely imitated him.[2067] But a striking instance of such servile imitation is seen in Ambrose’s duplicating even Basil’s mistake in omitting to discuss birds and then apologizing for it, reminding one of the Chinese workman who made all the new dinner plates with a crack and a toothpick stuck in it, like the old broken plate which he had been given as a model. It is true that Ambrose does not first discuss land animals for a page as Basil did, but makes his apology more immediately. The opening words of the eighth sermon in the twelfth chapter of his fifth book are, “And after he had remained silent for a moment, again resuming his discourse, he said....” Then comes his apology, expressed in different terms from Basil’s and to the effect that in his previous discourse upon fishes he became so immersed in the depths of the sea as to forget all about birds. Thus the incident which in Basil had every appearance of a natural mistake, in Ambrose has all the earmarks of an affected imitation. It is barely possible, however, that Origen made the original mistake and that Basil and Ambrose have both imitated him in it. On the other hand, we are told that the _Hexaemerons_ of Origen and Basil differed fundamentally in this respect, that Origen indulged to a great extent in allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic account of creation,[2068] while Basil declares that he “takes all in the literal sense,” is “not ashamed of the Gospel,” and “admits the common sense of the Scriptures.”[2069] [Sidenote: Basil’s medieval influence.] At any rate, Basil’s _Hexaemeron_ seems to have supplanted all such previous treatises in Greek, while its western influence is shown not only by Ambrose’s imitation of it so soon after its production, but by Latin translations of it by Eustathius Afer in the fifth, and perhaps by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century. Medieval manuscripts of it are fairly numerous and sometimes of early date,[2070] and include an Anglo-Saxon epitome ascribed to Aelfric in the Bodleian Library. Bartholomew of England[2071] in the thirteenth century quotes “Rabanus who uses the words of Basil in the _Hexaemeron_” for a description of the empyrean heaven which I have been unable to find in the works of either Rabanus or Basil. Bede, in a similar, though much abbreviated, work of his own, states that while many have said many things concerning the beginning of the _Book of Genesis_, the chief authorities, so far as he has been able to discover, are Basil of Caesarea, whom Eustathius translated from Greek into Latin, Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine, bishop of Hippo. These works, however, were so long and expensive that only the rich could afford to purchase them and so profound that only the learned could read and understand them. Bede had accordingly been requested to compose a brief rendition of them, which he does partly in his own words, partly in theirs.[2072] [Sidenote: Science and religion.] The general tenor of Basil’s treatise may be described as follows. He accepts the literal sense of the first chapter of _Genesis_ as a correct account of the universe, and, when he finds Greek philosophy and science in disagreement with the Biblical narrative, inveighs against the futilities and follies and conflicting theories and excessive elaborations of the philosophers. On such occasions the simple statements of Scripture are sufficient for him. “Upon the essence of the heavens we are contented with what Isaiah says.... In the same way, as concerns the earth, let us resolve not to torment ourselves by trying to find out its essence.... At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.”[2073] These three quotations illustrate his attitude at such times. But at all other times he is apt to follow Greek science rather implicitly, accepting without question its hypothesis of four elements and four qualities, and taking all his details about birds, beasts, and fish from the same source. [Sidenote: Scientific curiosity of Basil’s audience.] Moreover, while Basil may affirm that the edification of the church is his sole aim and interest, it is evident that his audience are possessed by a lively scientific curiosity, and that they wish to hear a great deal more about natural phenomena than Isaiah or any other Biblical author has to offer them. “What trouble you have given me in my previous discourses,” exclaims Basil in his fourth homily, “by asking me why the earth was invisible, why all bodies are naturally endued with color, and why all color comes under the sense of sight? And perhaps my reason did not appear sufficient to you.... Perhaps you will ask me new questions.” Basil gratifies this curiosity concerning the world of nature with many details not mentioned in the Bible but drawn from such works as Aristotle’s _Meteorology_ and _History of Animals_. This scientific curiosity displayed by Basil’s hearers is the more interesting in that artisans who had to labor for their daily bread appear to have made up a large element in his audience.[2074] It is perhaps on their account that Basil often speaks of God as the supreme artisan or artificer or artist,[2075] or calls their attention to “the vast and varied workshop of divine creation,”[2076] and makes other flattering allusions to arts which support life or produce enduring work, and to waterways and sea trade.[2077] He also seems to have a sincere appreciation of the arts and admiration of beauty, which he twice defines.[2078] [Sidenote: Allusions to amusements.] At the risk of digression, it is perhaps worth noting further that Basil’s hearers seem to have been very familiar with, not to say fond of, the amusements common in the cities of the Roman Empire. Twice he opens his sermons with allusions to the athletes of the circus and actors of the theater,[2079] apparently as the surest way of quickly catching the attention of his audience, while on a third occasion, in concluding his morning address on what appears to have been a holiday, he remarks that if he had dismissed them earlier, some would have spent the rest of the day gambling with dice, and that “the longer I keep you, the longer you are out of the way of mischief.”[2080] He also alludes to the spinning of tops and to what was apparently the game of push-ball.[2081] [Sidenote: Conflicts with Greek science.] Taking up the contents of the _Hexaemeron_ more in detail, we may first note those points upon which Basil supports the statements of the Bible against Greek science and philosophy. He of course insists that the universe was created by God and is not co-existent, much less identical, with Him.[2082] He also denies that the form of the world alone is due to God and that matter is of separate origin.[2083] Nor will he accept the arguments of the philosophers who “would rather lose their tongues” than admit that there is more than one heaven. Basil is ready to believe not merely in a second, but a third heaven, such as the apostle Paul speaks of being rapt to. He regards a plurality of heavens as no more difficult to credit than the seven concentric spheres of the planets, and as much more probable than the philosophic theory of the music of the spheres which he decries as “ingenious frivolity, the untruth of which is evident from the first word.”[2084] He also defends the statement of Scripture that there are waters above the firmament, not only against the doctrines of ancient astronomy,[2085] but also against “certain writers in the church,” among whom he probably has Origen in mind, who interpret the passage figuratively and assert that the waters stand for “spiritual and incorporeal powers,” those above the firmament representing good angels and those below the firmament standing for evil demons. “Let us reject these theories as we would the interpretations of dreams and old-wives’ tales.”[2086] In connection with Basil’s defense of the plurality of the heavens it may be noted that R. H. Charles presents evidence to show “that speculations or definitely formulated views on the plurality of the heavens were rife in the very cradle of Christendom and throughout its entire development,” and that “the prevailing view was that of the sevenfold division of the heavens.”[2087] He fails, however, to discriminate between the doctrine of Greek philosophy that the universe was one, although the circles of the planets are seven, and the plurality of the heavens, which Basil insists that the philosophers deny; and very probably the Jewish and early Christian notions of successive heavens full of angels and spirits developed from the spheres of the planets. Among the various early heresies described by the fathers are also found, of course, many allusions to these seven spheres or heavens. The disciples of Valentinus, for example, according to Irenaeus and Epiphanius, “affirm that these seven heavens are intelligent and speak of them as angels ... and declare that Paradise, situated above the third heaven, is a powerful angel.”[2088] [Sidenote: Agreement with Greek science.] On the other hand, we may note some points where Basil is in accord with Greek science. He warns his hearers not to “be surprised that the world never falls; it occupies the center of the universe, its natural place.”[2089] He advances numerous proofs of the immense size of the sun and moon.[2090] He accepts the hypothesis of four elements but abstains from passing judgment upon the question of a fifth element of which the heavens and celestial bodies may be composed.[2091] He thinks that “it needs not the space of a moment for light to pass through” the ether.[2092] [Sidenote: Qualification of the Scriptural account of creation.] Moreover, Basil finds it necessary to qualify some of the statements in the first chapter of _Genesis_. He interprets the command, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place,” to apply only to the sea or ocean, which he contends is one body of water, and not to pools and lakes,[2093] recognizing that otherwise “our explanation of the creation of the world may appear contrary to experience, because it is evident that all the waters did not flow together in one place.” In this connection he states that “although some authorities think that the Hyrcanian and Caspian Seas are enclosed in their own boundaries, if we are to believe the geographers, they communicate with each other and together discharge themselves into the Great Sea.” He speaks of “the vast ocean, so dreaded by navigators, which surrounds the isle of Britain and western Spain.”[2094] Later he contends that “sea water is the source of all the moisture of the earth.”[2095] He has also to meet the following objection made to the eleventh and twelfth verses of the first chapter of _Genesis_: “How then, they say, can Scripture describe all the plants of the earth as seed-bearing, when the reed, couch-grass, mint, crocus, garlic, and the flowering rush and countless other species produce no seed? To this we reply that many vegetables have their seminal virtue in the lower part and in the roots.”[2096] [Sidenote: The four elements and four qualities.] Basil regards the words of _Genesis_, “God called the dry land earth,” as a recognition of the fact that drought is the primal property of earth, as humidity is of air; cold, of water; and heat, of fire. He adds, however, that “our eyes and senses can find nothing which is completely singular, simple, and pure. Earth is at the same time dry and cold; water, cold and moist; air, moist and warm; fire, warm and dry.”[2097] Indeed, as he has already stated in the previous homily, the mixture of elements in actual objects is even more intricate than this last sentence might seem to indicate. Every element is in every other, and we not only do not perceive with our senses any pure elements but not even any compounds of two elements only.[2098] [Sidenote: Enthusiasm for nature as God’s work.] Basil is alive to the absorbing interest of the world of nature and to the marvelous intricacies of natural science. He tells his hearers that as “anyone not knowing a town is taken by the hand and led through it,” so he will guide them “through the mysterious marvels of this great city of the universe.”[2099] As he had said in the preceding homily, “A single plant, a blade of grass is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in the contemplation of the skill which produced it.”[2100] He sees “great wisdom in small things.”[2101] Thus by the argument from design he is apt to work back from nature to the Creator, so that his enthusiasm cannot be regarded as purely scientific. Going a step farther than Galen’s argument from design, he contends that “not a single thing has been created without reason; not a single thing is useless.”[2102] [Sidenote: Sin and nature.] Basil also cherishes the notion, which we have already found both in pagan and Christian writers, that human sin leaves its stain or has its effect upon nature. The rose was without thorns before the fall of man, and their addition to its beauty serves to remind us that “sorrow is very near to pleasure.”[2103] [Sidenote: Habits of animals.] Basil discusses the habits of animals largely in order to draw moral lessons from them for human beings and he has several passages in the style supposed to be characteristic of the _Physiologus_. But he also refers in a number of places to the ability of animals to find remedies with which to cure themselves of ailments and injuries, or to their power of divining the future. The sea-urchin foretells storms; sheep and goats discern danger by instinct alone. The starling eats hemlock and digests it “before its chill can attack the vital parts”; and the quail is able to feed on hellebore. The wounded bear nurses himself, filling his wounds with mullein, an astringent plant; “the fox heals his wounds with droppings from the pine tree”; the tortoise counteracts the venom of the vipers it has eaten by means of the herb marjoram; and “the serpent heals sore eyes by eating fennel.”[2104] [Sidenote: Marvels of nature.] Indeed, far from being led by his acquaintance with Greek science into doubting the marvelous, Basil finds “in nature a thousand reasons for believing in the marvelous.”[2105] He is ready to ascribe astounding powers to animals, and believes, like Pliny, that “the greatest vessels, sailing with full sails, are easily stopped by a tiny fish.”[2106] He tells us that nature endowed the lion with such loud and forceful vocal organs “that often much swifter animals are caught by his roaring alone.”[2107] He also repeats in charming style the familiar story of the halcyon days. The halcyon lays its eggs along the shore in mid-winter when violent winds dash the waves against the land. Yet winds are hushed and waves are calm during the seven days that the halcyon sits, and then, after its young are hatched and in need of food, “God in his munificence grants another seven days to this tiny animal. All sailors know this and call these days halcyon days.”[2108] [Sidenote: Spontaneous generation.] Like most ancient scientists, Basil believes that some animals are spontaneously generated. “Many birds have no need of union with males to conceive,” a circumstance which should make it easy for us to believe in the Virgin birth of Christ.[2109] Grasshoppers and other nameless insects and sometimes frogs and mice are “born from the earth itself,” and “mud alone produces eels,”[2110] a theory not much more amazing than the assertion of modern biologists that eels spawn only in the Mediterranean Sea. Basil states that “in the environs of Thebes in Egypt after abundant rain in hot weather the country is covered with field mice,” but without noting that abundant rain in upper Egypt in hot weather would itself be in the nature of a miracle. [Sidenote: Lack of scientific scepticism.] Basil is less sceptical than Apollonius of Tyana in regard to the birth of lions and of vipers, repeating unquestioningly the statement that the viper gnaws its way out of its mother’s womb, and that the lioness bears only one whelp because it tears her with its claws.[2111] Of purely scientific scepticism there is, indeed, little in the _Hexaemeron_. Basil does, however, question one of the powers ascribed to magicians, and this is his only mention of the magic art. Discussing the immense size of the moon and its great influence upon terrestrial nature, he declares ridiculous the old-wives’ tales which have been circulated everywhere that magic incantations “can remove the moon from its place and make it descend to the earth.”[2112] [Sidenote: Sun worship and astrology.] Sun worship still existed in Basil’s time and he hails the fact that the sun was not created until the fourth day, after both light and vegetation were in existence, as a severe blow to those who reverence the sun as the source of life.[2113] However, he does “not pretend to be able to separate light from the body of the sun.”[2114] Theophilus in his earlier discussion of creation had stated, perhaps copying Philo Judaeus, that the luminaries were not created until the fourth day, “because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on earth are produced from the heavenly bodies”—which is, indeed, a fundamental hypothesis of astrology—“so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior.”[2115] Basil does not make this point against the rule of inferior creation by the heavenly bodies, but in a succeeding homily he feels it necessary to devote several paragraphs[2116] to refutation of the “vain science” of casting nativities, which some persons have justified by the words of God concerning sun, moon, and stars in the first chapter of _Genesis_, “And let them be for signs.” Basil questions if it be possible to determine the exact instant of birth, declares that to attribute to the constellations and signs of the zodiac the characteristics of animals is to subject them to external influences, and defends human free will in much the usual fashion. He is ready, however, to grant that “the variations of the moon do not take place without exerting great influence upon the organization of animals and of all living things,” and that the moon makes “all nature participate in her changes.”[2117] [Sidenote: Permanence of species.] Basil’s utterances concerning the world of nature are not always consistent. In describing the creation of vegetation he asserts that species are unchanging, affirming that “all which sprang from the earth in the first bringing forth is kept the same to our time, thanks to the constant reproduction of kind.”[2118] Yet a few paragraphs later we find him saying, “It has been observed that pines, cut down or even submitted to the action of fire, are changed into a forest of oaks.”[2119] Nevertheless in the last homily he again asserts that “nature, once put in motion by divine command, ... keeps up the succession of kinds through resemblance to the last. Nature always makes a horse succeed to a horse, a lion to a lion, an eagle to an eagle, and preserving each animal by these uninterrupted successions she transmits it to the end of all things. Animals do not see their peculiarities destroyed or effaced by any length of time; their nature, as though it had just been constituted, follows the course of ages forever young.”[2120] [Sidenote: Final impression from the _Hexaemeron_.] Concerning Basil in conclusion we may say that while he can scarcely be called much of a scientist, he is a pretty good scientist for a preacher. His knowledge of, and errors concerning, the world of nature will probably compare quite as well with the science of his day as those of most modern sermons will with the science of our days. His occasional flings at Greek philosophy are probably not to be taken too seriously. But what interests us rather more than Basil’s attitude is that of his audience, curious concerning nature. Just as it is evident that many of them go to theaters and circuses, or play with dice, despite Basil’s denunciation of the immoral songs of the stage and the evils of gambling; just so, we suspect, it was the attractive morsels of Greek astronomy, botany, and zoology which he offered them that induced them to come and listen further to his argument from design and his moral lessons based upon these natural phenomena. Nor were they likely to observe his censure of incantations and nativities more closely than his condemnation of theater and gaming. It would be rash to infer that they always practiced what he preached. By the same token, even if the church fathers had opposed scientific investigation—and it hardly appears that they did—they would probably have been no more successful in checking it than they were in checking the commerce of Constantinople, although “S. Ambrose regards the gains of merchants as for the most part fraudulent, and S. Chrysostom’s language has been generally appealed to in a similar sense.”[2121] [Sidenote: _The Medicine Chest_ of Epiphanius.] The same recognition of an interest in nature on the part of his audience and the same appeal to their scientific curiosity, which we have seen in Basil’s sermons, is shown by Epiphanius of Cyprus (315-403) writing in 374-375 A. D.[2122] He calls his work against heresies the _Panarion_, or “Medicine Chest,” his idea being to provide antidotes and healing herbs in the form of salubrious doctrine against the venom of heretics whose enigmas he compares to the bites of serpents or wild beasts. This metaphor is more or less adhered to throughout the work, and particular heresies are compared to the asp, basilisk, dipsas,[2123] buprestis,[2124] lizard, dog-fish or shark, mole, centipede, scorpion, and various vipers. We are further told of substances that drive away serpents, such as the herbs _dictamnon_, _abrotonum_, and _libanotis_, the gum _storax_,[2125] and the stone _gagates_. As his authorities in such matters Epiphanius states that he uses Nicander for the natures of beasts and reptiles, and for roots and plants Dioscorides, Pamphilus, Mithridates the king, Callisthenes and Philo, Iolaos the Bithynian, Heraclides of Tarentum, and a number of other names.[2126] [Sidenote: Gems in the high priest’s breastplate.] If in his _Panarion_ Epiphanius makes use of ancient botany, medicine, and zoology for purposes of comparison, in his treatise on the twelve gems in the breastplate of the Hebrew high priest[2127] he perhaps gives an excuse and sets the fashion for the Christian medieval _Lapidaries_. This work was probably composed after the _Panarion_, and in the opinion of Fogginius even later than 392 A. D.[2128] This treatise probably was better known in the middle ages than the _Panarion_, since the fullest version of it extant is the old Latin one, while the Greek text which has survived seems only a very brief epitome. The Greek version, however, embodies a good deal of what is said concerning the gems themselves and their virtues, but omits entirely the long effort to identify each of the twelve stones with one of the twelve tribes of Israel, which is left unfinished even in the Latin version. Epiphanius shows himself rather chary in regard to such virtues attributed to gems as to calm storms, make men pacific, and confer the power of divination. He does not go so far as to omit them entirely, but he usually qualifies them as the assertion of “those who construct fables” or “those who believe fables.” It is without any such qualification, however, that he declares that the topaz,[2129] when ground on a physician’s grindstone, although red itself, emits a white milky fluid, and, moreover, that as many vessels as one wishes may be filled with this fluid without changing the appearance or shape or lessening the weight of the stone. Skilled physicians also attribute to this liquid a healing effect in eye troubles, in hydrophobia, and in the case of those who have gone mad from eating grape-fish. [Sidenote: Some other gems.] Epiphanius mentions a few other gems than those in the high priest’s breastplate. Among these is the stone hyacinth[2130] which, when placed upon live coals, extinguishes them without injury to itself and which is also beneficial to women in childbirth, and drives away phantasms. Certain varieties of it are found in the north among the barbarous Scythians. The gems lie at the bottom of a deep valley which is inaccessible to men because walled in completely by mountains, and moreover from the summits one cannot see into the valley because of a dark mist which covers it. How men ever became cognizant of the fact that there are gems there may well be wondered but is a point which Epiphanius does not take into consideration. He simply tells us that when men are sent to obtain some of these stones, they skin sheep and hurl the carcasses into the valley where some of the gems adhere to the flesh. The odor of the raw meat then attracts the eagles, whose keener sight is perhaps able to penetrate the mist, although Epiphanius does not say so, and they carry the carrion to their nests in the mountains. The men watch where the eagles have taken the meat and go there and find the gems which have been brought out with it. In the middle ages we find this same story in a slightly different form told of Alexander the Great on his expedition to India. Epiphanius has one thing to tell of India himself in connection with gems, which is that a temple of Father Liber (Bacchus) is located there which is said to have three hundred and sixty-five steps,—all of sapphire.[2131] [Sidenote: The so-called _Physiologus_: problem of its origin.] The problem of an early Christian work entitled _Physiologus_ is no easy one, although much has been written concerning it[2132] and more has been taken for granted. For instance, one often meets such wild and sweeping statements as that “the name Physiologus” was “given to a cyclopedia of what was known and imagined about earth, sea, sky, birds, beasts, and fishes, which for a thousand years was the authoritative source of information on these matters and was translated into every European tongue.”[2133] My later treatment of medieval science will make patent the inaccuracy of such a statement. But to return to the problem of the origin of Physiologus. The original Greek text,[2134] which some would put back in the first half of the second century of our era, if it ever existed, is now lost, and its previous existence and character are inferred from numerous apparent citations of it, possible extracts from it, and what are taken to be imitations, abbreviations, amplifications, adaptations, and translations of it in other languages and of later date. Thus we have versions or fragments in Armenian,[2135] Syriac,[2136] Ethiopian,[2137] and Arabic;[2138] a Greek text from medieval manuscripts, mostly of late date;[2139] various Latin versions in numerous manuscripts from the eighth century on;[2140] in Old High German a prose translation of about 1000 A. D. and a poetical version later in the same language;[2141] and Bestiaries such as those of Philip of Thaon[2142] and William the Clerk[2143] in the Romance languages[2144] and other vernaculars.[2145] The _Physiologus_ has been thought to have originated in Alexandria because of its use of the Egyptian names for the months and because Clement of Alexandria and Origen are supposed to have made use of it. But it is difficult to determine whether the church fathers drew passages concerning animals and nature from some such work or whether it was a collection of passages from their writings upon such themes. Ahrens, who thought he found the original form of the work in a Syriac _Book of the Things of Nature_,[2146] regarded Origen as its author. In a medical manuscript at Vienna is a _Physiologus_ in Greek ascribed to Epiphanius of Cyprus,[2147] of whom we have just been treating, while we hear that Pope Gelasius at a synod of 496 condemned as apocryphal a _Physiologus_ which was written by heretics and ascribed to Ambrose,[2148] who so closely duplicated the _Hexaemeron_ of Basil. A work on the natures of animals is also attributed to John Chrysostom.[2149] I am not sure whether a _Physiologus_ ascribed to John the Scot in a tenth century Latin manuscript is the same work.[2150] [Sidenote: Does the title apply to any one particular treatise?] The _Physiologus_ is commonly described as a symbolic bestiary, in which the characteristics and properties of animals are accompanied by Christian allegories and instruction. Some have almost gone so far as to hold that any passages of this sort are evidence of an author’s having employed the _Physiologus_, which some have held influenced the middle ages more than any other book except the Bible. But Pitra’s point is well taken that the _Physiologus_ is one thing and the allegorical interpretation thereof another. In the case of the discordant versions or fragments which he gathered and published from different manuscripts, centuries, and languages, he noted one common feature, that the allegorical interpretation was sharply separated from the extracts from _Physiologus_ and sometimes omitted entirely. This is what one would naturally expect since a _physiologus_ is a natural scientist on whose statements concerning this or that the allegorical interpretation is presumably based and added thereto. But this suggests another difficulty in identifying _Physiologus_ as a single work. The abbreviations for the word in medieval manuscripts are very easily confused with those for philosophers or _phisici_ (physical scientists), and just as medieval writers often cite what the philosophers say or the _phisici_ say without having reference to any particular book, so may they not cite what _physiologi_ or even _physiologus_ says without having any particular writer in mind? In the _De bestiis_ ascribed to Hugh of St. Victor of the twelfth century _physici_ are cited[2151] as well as _Physiologus_. When Albertus Magnus states in the thirteenth century in his work on minerals that the _physiologi_ have assigned very different causes for the marvelous occult virtue in stones, he evidently simply alludes to the opinions of scientists in general and has no such work or works as the so-called _Physiologus_ in mind.[2152] This is also clearly the case in a fragment from the introduction to a Latin translation from the Arabic of some treatise on the astrolabe, in which we find _phisiologi_ cited as astronomical authorities.[2153] Furthermore, even in works which deal with the natures of animals and which either have the word _Physiologus_ in their titles or cite it now and then in the course of their texts, there exists such diversity that it becomes fairly evident not only that it is impossible to deduce from them the list of animals treated in the original _Physiologus_ or the details which it gave concerning each, but also that it is highly probable that the title _Physiologus_ has been applied to different treatises which did not necessarily have a common origin. Or at least the greatest liberties were taken with the original text and title,[2154] so that the word _Physiologus_ came to apply less to any particular book, author, or authority than to almost any treatment of animals in a certain style. [Sidenote: And to what sort of a treatise?] But of what style? It has too often been assumed that theology dominated all medieval thought and that natural science was employed only for purposes of religious symbolism. Of this general assumption the _Physiologus_ has been seized upon as an apt illustration and it has been represented as a symbolic bestiary which influenced the middle ages more than any other book except the Bible[2155] and whose allegories accounted for the animal sculpture of the Gothic cathedrals and the strange or familiar beasts in the borders of the Bayeux Tapestry, the margins of illuminated manuscripts, and so on and so forth. [Sidenote: Medieval art shows almost no symbolic influence of the _Physiologus_.] The more recent scientific study of medieval art has largely dissipated this latter notion. It has become evident that in the main medieval men represented animals in art because they were fond of animals, not because they were fond of allegories. Their art was natural, not symbolic. They were, says Mâle, “craftsmen who delighted in nature for its own sake, sometimes lovingly copying the living forms, sometimes playing with them, combining and contorting them as they were led by their own caprice.” St. Bernard, although “the prince of allegorists,” saw no sense in the animal sculptures in Romanesque cloisters and inveighed against them. In short, with the exception of the symbols of the four evangelists, “there are few cases in which it is permissible to assign symbolic meaning to animal forms,” and it is “evident that the fauna and flora of medieval art, natural or fantastic, have in most cases a value that is purely decorative.” “To sum up,” concludes Mâle, “we are of the opinion that the Bestiaries of which we hear so much from the archaeologists had no real influence on art until their substance passed into Honorius of Autun’s book (_Speculum ecclesiae_, c. 1090-1120) and from that book into sermons. I have searched in vain (with but two exceptions) for representations of the hedgehog, beaver, tiger, and other animals which figure in the Bestiaries but which are not mentioned by Honorius.”[2156] [Sidenote: Physiologus was more natural scientist than allegorist.] These assertions concerning medieval art hold true also to a large extent of medieval literature and medieval science, although they were perhaps less natural and original than it and more dependent on past tradition and authority. But medieval men, as we shall see, studied nature from scientific curiosity and not in search for spiritual allegories, and even Goldstaub recognizes that by the thirteenth century the scientific zoology of Aristotle submerged that of the _Physiologus_ in writers like Thomas of Cantimpré and Albertus Magnus who, although they may still embody portions of the _Physiologus_, divest it of its characteristic religious elements.[2157] But were its characteristic elements ever religious? Were they not always scientific or pseudo-scientific? Ahrens holds that the title was taken from Aristotle in the first place, and that Pliny was the chief source for the contents. The allegories do not appear in such early texts as the Syriac version or the fragments preserved in the Latin Glossary of Ansileubus. Not even the introductory scriptural texts appear in the Greek version ascribed to Epiphanius. Moreover, in the Bestiaries where the allegorical applications are included, it is for the natures of the animals, the supposedly scientific facts on which the symbolism is based, and for these alone that _Physiologus_ is cited in the text. Thus the symbolism would appear to be somewhat adventitious, while the pseudo-science is constant. It is obvious that the allegorical applications cannot do without the supposed facts concerning animals; on the other hand, the supposedly scientific information can and does frequently dispense with the allegories. We do not know who was responsible for the allegorical interpretations in the first instance. Hommel would carry the origin of their symbolism back of the Christian era to the animal worship of Persia, India, and Egypt.[2158] But we are assured over and over again that Natural Scientist or _Physiologus_ vouches for the statements concerning the natures of animals. Thus the symbolic significance of the literature that has been grouped under the title _Physiologus_ has been exaggerated, while the respect for and interest in natural science to which it testifies have too often been lost sight of.