Post on 28-Jan-2023
ARISTOTLE, COPERNICUS, AND THE SACRED COSMOS: NEGOTIATINGEARLY MODERN ASTRONOMY AND THE MOSAIC CREATION ACCOUNT
IN THE HEXAMERAL COMMENTARIES OF THE RENAISSANCE, 1527-1633
Joshua Benjamins21 April 2014
1
For centuries, thoughtful exegetes of the Bible have faced
the question of how to relate science and Scripture. One
category of literature that exhibits various approaches to this
question is the tradition of commentaries on the Book of Genesis.
The practice of systematically exegeting the book of Genesis—and
especially the Mosaic account of the six days of creation,
commonly called the hexameron1—has a long and storied history.
During the first few centuries after Christ, hexameral treatises
appeared from the pen of Church fathers in both the East and
West, including Augustine, Ambrose, Origen, Chrysostom, and Basil
of Caeserea.2 The medieval period also saw numerous learned
commentators on Genesis, like Peter Lombard, Hugo of St. Victor,
and Thomas Aquinas. No era, however, can rival the Renaissance
1 I have regularly used the Latin form hexameron, rather than the Greek form hexaemeron (ἑξαήμερον). The Greek term ἡ ἑξαήμερος means literally ‘the six days.’ The term was used as early as Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.–50 A.D.).
2 For a brief survey of the early hexameral commentaries, see Edward Grant, Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550: Aristotle to Copernicus (Baltimore, MA: John Hopkins University Press, 2006), 114-135.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
2
in both the sheer volume and scope of Genesis commentary. Nearly
every major theological figure of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, whether Protestant or Catholic, tried his hand at the
genre. From Martin Luther to Benedict Perera, from Jerome Zanchi
to Robert Bellarmine, from Andrew Willet to Girolamo Vielmi,
educated men across England and the Continent produced weighty
tomes on Genesis. The vast majority of these commentaries were
penned in Latin; a handful appeared in English.3 This prolific
hexameral tradition of the Renaissance has received little
scholarly attention, even though—as Kerry Magruder notes—it
represents “one of the most important textual traditions for
discussing the formation of the Earth before such discussions
acquired a more interdisciplinary character in the contested
print tradition known as Theories of the Earth.”4 Among other
3 It is singularly unfortunate for students of Renaissance intellectualhistory that virtually none of the many Latin commentaries on Genesis from this period have been translated into English. In this essay, all translations from the Latin commentaries are my own.
4 Kerry V. Magruder, “The idiom of a six day creation and global depictions in Theories of the Earth,” in Geology and Religion: A History of Harmony and Hostility, ed. Martina Kölbl-Eber (London: Geological Society of London, 2009), 49. For a wide-ranging and learned introduction to the Renaissance commentaries on Genesis, see Arnold Williams, The Common Expositor: An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis, 1527-1633 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,1948), 174. Though somewhat dated, this is the only book-length treatment of the Renaissance commentaries on Genesis to date, and I have found it to be generally reliable.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
3
things, these Renaissance commentaries provide a fascinating
window into early modern attempts to relate science and
Scripture.
At first glance, the hexameral commentaries might seem like
a curious instrument for exploring the relation between natural
and theological inquiry during the Renaissance period. However,
several factors make this genre a revealing window into the
subject. For one, the Renaissance commentaries typically
integrated leading scholarship of the day in such areas as
geology, astronomy, and physics. Arnold Williams, an expert on
Renaissance hexameral literature, even claims that
the exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries incorporated within their work a larger amount of what they took to be science than any exegetes before or since their day. They took Genesis far more as a literal, rather than as a merely religious or even literary account than have commentators since their time.5
Renaissance authors viewed the Mosaic narrative as a source of
scientific as well as theological truth. Genesis, as a book of
beginnings or origins, proved to be a particularly fertile ground
for inquiry into a wide range of scientific and particularly
5 Williams, The Common Expositor, 174.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
4
cosmological questions. As a result, these Renaissance
commentaries can provide significant insight into early modern
hermeneutics of Scripture and science.
To the modern reader perhaps, very few of the extended
discussions in the hexameral commentaries on physical and
astronomical topics seem to qualify as ‘scientific’
investigations. Questions such as whether the fixed stars have
living souls, whether the light of the sun is a body or a
substantial form, and whether the power of the stars comes
directly from God, fall more naturally into the category of
natural philosophy. (Other questions—such as “Did God create the
Moone in the Full, or in the Change?”—might seem patently
pedantic or simply quirky.)6 But it is important to remember
that the distinction between ‘science’ and ‘natural philosophy’
is a modern one, and cannot be retroactively applied to the
Renaissance period. It is better to recognize these standard
types of questions as part and parcel of the sort of inquiry into
nature which was characteristic of this time period. Most often
6 Abraham Rosse [Alexander Ross], An Exposition of the Fourteene first Chapters of Genesis, by way of Question and Answere. Collected out of Ancient and Recent Writers: Both briefely and subtilly propounded and Expounded (London: for Anthony Uphill, 1626), 8.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
5
in the Genesis commentaries, the question of how to relate
‘scientific’ or natural inquiry to religion takes the concrete
form of how to harmonize the Mosaic creation account with
traditional Aristotelian cosmology.7
With this caveat in mind, we can begin to explore how
Renaissance commentators tried to relate Scripture and science,
particularly astronomy. The dates selected to bracket this
inquiry nicely encapsulate a century of Renaissance commentary on
Genesis.8 1527 was the year Martin Luther published In Genesin Mosi
librum sanctissimum declamationes, in formal terms the first
‘Protestant’ commentary on Genesis. The succeeding hundred years
saw a flood of commentaries, right up to Andrew Willet’s Hexapla
in Genesin & Exodum in 1633. This period is especially suitable for
examining the commentary treatment of astronomical subjects,
since it coincides with the early phases of the Copernican
controversy. Copernicus published his revolutionary De
revolutionibus orbium coelestis in 1543. Galileo’s Sidereus Nuncius appeared7 Hereafter, when I use the word ‘science’ or ‘scientific’, it should
be construed in this broad sense.
8 I have borrowed these dates from Williams, who also provides a helpful list of commentaries on Genesis during the period (a list which, however, is incomplete and needs to be supplemented with additional sources).
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
6
in 1610. Although few of the Genesis commentaries mention
Copernicus, virtually every commentator during this period makes
some attempt to relate the Mosaic account to questions of
astronomy, and in some cases—especially in the later decades of
the century—the questions they raise clearly reflect the new,
post-Copernican cosmological terrain.
As will become clear, the Renaissance interpreters, in
treating astronomical issues, generally follow a hermeneutic of
harmony, as they seek to demonstrate continuity between the Book
of Nature (the testimony of the senses and conclusions of natural
reason) and the Book of Scripture. They also see natural
philosophy and the Bible as mutually illuminative, and often try
to reconcile the Mosaic account with the traditional
Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmological synthesis. Despite a broad
continuity in hermeneutical approach, the commentators differ in
the extent to which they yoke the hexameron to the received
natural philosophy and astronomy of the day. When it comes to
the Copernican issue, the evidence suggests that most
commentators were ignorant of Copernicus’s theory.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
7
To set the scene for an inquiry into astronomical
discussions in the commentaries, it is useful to survey the
general hermeneutical principles which motivate and direct the
Renaissance commentators. Although there is danger of painting
this background with excessively broad strokes, we can identify
some key principles which, explicitly or implicitly, undergird
nearly all the commentaries of this period. First of all, the
Renaissance exegetes generally viewed the Book of Genesis as an
authoritative source not only of religious truth but also of
history and science. For example, Benedict Perera (1536–1601), a
Spanish Jesuit and voluminous exegete, calls Moses “the first
Theologian, Philosopher, Poet, and Historian.”9 In his judgment,
“No one who now reads this book [of Genesis] can have any doubt
as to how distinguished a philosopher Moses was, for this book
certainly contains the most difficult and noblest part of
[natural] philosophy, namely that which concerns the world and
man, and Moses describes and explains it so wondrously and
9 “Ex his palam est, Mosem, qui Cecropi synchronos fuit omnium, quorum nunc extant scripta, vel quorum nomen in Gentilium scriptis proditum sit, primum fuisse Theologum, Philosophum, Poetam, & Historicum.” Benedict Pererius [Benito Perera], Commentariorum et disputationum in Genesim. Continentes historiam Mosis, usque ad obitum S.S. Patriarchum Iacobi & Iosephi. . . . (Cologne, 1601), 7.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
8
impressively.” Perera adds that Moses did not receive these
insights from men, but through divine revelation.10 David Pareus
(1548–1622), a Reformed Protestant commentator from Germany,
similarly comments that while philosophers disagree about “the
principles, substance, number, motion, and end of all things,”
the true “doctrine concerning these works of God is proper also
to Theology, and should be learned from Moses and the prophets,
who received this doctrine from God himself.”11 Jerome Zanchi
(1516–1590), a Protestant Scholastic and author of the hexameral
treatise De operibus dei (a work which seamlessly integrates
10 “Quam autem eximius Philosophus fuerit Moses, nemini qui vel hunc modo librum legerit, dubium esse potest: difficillimam quippe, ac nobilissimamPhilosophiae partem, eam dico, quae est de mundo & homine, hic liber, ut verissime, ita graviter & mirabiliter ab ipso descriptam & explicatam, continet. Atque haec omnia Moses non a se conficta, non ab hominibus accepta,non naturae vestigiis ductuque indagata, sed ipso Deo indicante ac docente sibi patefacta & cognita, litterarum monumentis consignavit.” Perera, Commentariorum . . . usque ad obitum S.S. Patriarchum, 8.
11 “Etsi autem Philosophia etiam aliquid docet de hac parte operum Dei,& philosophi profitentur, se de Deo, & de principiis, substantia, numero, motuac fine rerum omnium in natura . . . disserere: tamen revera in his tantum sequuntur conjecturas ingeniorum suorum, & ut loquitur Iustinus Martyr οἰκείῳ εἰχασμῳ placita sua definiunt, ac de internis quidem principiis, materia, & forma, quibus privatio accidit, rerum naturalium multa acute disputant, quorumcognitio est utilis & propria philosophiae. De externis vero principiis, hoc est, efficiente & fine creationis caecutiunt, ut noctuae in meridie, & ipsi inter se & a se mirum in modum diffentiunt. Doctrina igitur de his Dei operibus etiam propria est Theologiae, & ex Mose ac prophetis disci debet, quia Deo eam acceperunt. . . .” Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, cols. 43-44.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
9
Aristotelian natural philosophy with Biblical commentary), even
describes Genesis as “Moses’ history of the primal physical works
of God.”12 All of these commentators share a consensus that
Genesis should be understood as a source of infallible
information about the Book of Nature. This holds true to such a
degree that, in his discussion of the fourth day of creation, the
Jesuit commentator Perera feels the need to explain why Moses did
not treat questions like “what is the nature of the heavens, what
sort of figure it possesses, how great is its magnitude, what is
the number of the celestial spheres,” and similar topics which
are “customarily discussed by the philosophers and
mathematicians.”13 Even though Moses’ primary purpose was not to
reveal scientific truths, the Biblical author speaks infallibly
whenever he touches on issues of natural philosophy.
12 “Etsi vero Moses brevissimus est in sua primorum Physicorum operum Dei Historia. . . .” Hieronymus Zanchius [Girolamo Zanchi], De operibus dei intra spacium sex dierum creatis opus: tres in partes distinctum (Neustadt, 1591), 199.
13 “Quaerit B. August. cap.9.lib.2. de Genesi ad litteram, cur Auctoressacrarum litterarum non aperte & enucleare docuerunt, quaenam esset caeli natura, qualis figura, quanta magnitudo, & numerus orbium caelestium, qui motus, quae caelestis motus efficiens causa, quam ingens & varia syderu potentia, & efficacitas, aliaque huius generis multa, quae tam Philosophi quamMathematici solentur investigando, arguteque tractando, immortalitatem ingeniilaudem & nominis memoriam promeruerunt.” Perera, Commentariorum et disputationum in Genesim. Continentes historiam Mosis, ab exordio mundi usque ad Noeticum diluvium. . . . (Horatius Cardo, 1601), 87.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
10
Another general principle of the commentaries relates to the
tradition of natural theology, or understanding the nature of God
through the works of creation. The Renaissance commentators
often introduce their studies by explaining the purposes and
motivations for studying creation and particularly for studying
the heavens. Often, the primary motive turns out to be
theological in nature. Jerome Zanchi—who, in his discussion of
the work of the fourth day, devotes over thirty closely-set pages
to some two dozen astronomical questions—explains that, in
comparison with the earth, the heavens contain “even more
illustrious images of the divine power, wisdom, goodness, and
love towards us,” and have the power to “seize us and stir us up
to just admiration and honor of God.” The form of the heavens
(figura coeli) serves as a “shining mirror of divine wisdom and
power.” Zanchi waxes eloquently about the “very broad expanse”
of the heavens, “most pleasing in aspect, and most ornamented,
distinguished by many spheres, embossed and variegated by
infinite stars, as if by emblems.” All of this spacious theater—
the uniform motion of the heavens, the wonderful order of the
planetary spheres—“brings forward the divine art of the Creator,
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
11
and places it before our eyes, so that we can admire and
contemplate them to the full.”14 Along similar lines, the famous
French-born Reformer of Geneva, John Calvin (1509–1564), remarks
that “astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be
known; it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable
wisdom of God.”15 Theology furnished a motivation for
investigating and analyzing the natural world.
An important hermeneutical principle observed by nearly all
the Renaissance commentators on Genesis is that the interpreter
of Scripture should—whenever possible—seek explanations from
reason and nature, without needlessly appealing to the absolute
power of God (potentia absoluta). One of the rules of
interpretation (regulae) which Benedict Perera lays out in his
14 “Verum e terra, si lubet, ascendamus in coelum. Ibi enim illustriores extant imagines divinae potentiae, sapientiae, bonitatis & erga nos amoris. . . . Sin figuram coeli, aliaque accidentia respicias, nonne pelcerrimum, nitidissimum, ac pellucidum divinae sapientiae, potentiaeque speculum vides? Expansio latissima, aspectui laetissima, & ornatissima, pluribus orbibus distincta, infinitis stellis, tanquam emblematis, caelata, & variegata: magnitudo tanta aetheris, ut ima haec terrae pelagique sphaera, centri duntaxat, & puncti rationem ad eum habeat: siderum splendor & positus admirabilis: virtus in haec inferiora impervestigabilis, divinum conditoris artificium ita produnt, oculisque subiiciunt, ut satis admirari contemplariquenequeamus.” Zanchius, preface (not paginated).
15 John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis, trans. John King, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1948), ad. 1.16.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
12
preface to Genesis is that “In treating of and expounding this
teaching of Moses, we should not needlessly appeal to miracles
and to the absolute power of God, as do some unlearned and inept
men who, when they are unable to give a sufficient and probable
reason for their view, flee to miracles and the divine
omnipotence, as to an asylum.”16 Instead, Perera and other
commentators look for naturalistic explanations.
Closely related to this rule is the presupposition that the
teaching of Genesis can be harmonized with the conclusions of
other disciplines, including natural philosophy or ‘science’.
Some commentators explicitly appeal to the ‘two-books’ metaphor:
both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture are divine in
origin and hence cannot contradict one another. Matthias Martini
(1572–1630), a German Calvinist, opens his commentary with a
discussion of the “book of nature and scripture.”17 For
commentators like Martini, the unity of all truth implies the
16 “In hac Mosis doctrina tractanda & explicanda, non est sine causa recurrendum ad miracula, & ad potentiam Dei absolutam, sicut inscienter, & inepte faciunt nonnulli, qui cum opinionis suae rationem idoneam & probabilem reddere non possint quasi ad asylum, confugiunt ad miracula & omnipotentiam Dei.” Perera, Commentariorum . . . usque ad obitum S.S. Patriarchum, 24.
17 Matthias Martini, De creatione mundi commentariolus, ad declarandam s. theologiae summulam methodicam pertinens (Bremen: Johannis Wesselius, 1613), preface (n.p.).
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
13
congruence of the Bible with other disciplines. Perera explains
the principle of harmony in the beginning of his commentary: “We
must diligently beware, and take the greatest pains, lest in
treating the teaching of Moses, we should emphatically believe
and teach anything which is at variance with manifest experience
and the proofs of philosophy or of other disciplines: for since
every truth is congruent with every other, the truth of Sacred
Scripture cannot be contrary to the proofs and experiments of
human disciplines.”18 Perera finds support for this principle in
Augustine’s On Genesis according to the Letter,19 and gives some modern-
day illustrations from astronomy. If the commentator justly
weighs the opinions of previous interpreters in accordance with
18 “Illud etiam diligenter cavendum, & omnino fugiendum est, ne in tractanda Mosis doctrina, quicquam affirmate & asseveranter sentiamus, & dicamus quod repugnet manifestis experimentis, & rationibus philosophiae, vel aliarum disciplinarum: namque cum verum omne semper cum vero congruat, non potest veritas sacrarum litteratum, veris rationibus & experimentis humanarum doctrinarum esse contraria.” Perera, Commentariorum . . . usque ad obitum S.S. Patriarchum, 25.
19 Perera quotes Genesis ad litteram 1.25: “Hoc indubitanter tenendum est, utquicquid sapientes huius mundi de natura rerum verciter demonstrare potuerint,ostendamus nostris litteris non esse contrarium quicquid autem illi in suis voluminibus contrarium sacris litteris docent, sine ulla dubitatione credamus id falsissimum esse, & quoquo modo possumus, etiam ostendamus: atque ita teneamus fidem Domini nostri, in quo sunt absconditi omnes thesauri sapientiae, ut neque falsae Philosophiae loquacitate seducamur, neque simulatereligionis superstitione terreamur.” Perera, Commentariorum . . . usque ad obitum S.S.Patriarchum, 25.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
14
this rule of harmony, he will have to reject the teaching of men
like Origen, Lactantius, and Chrysostom, who thought “that
Scripture teaches that the heavens are not spherical, and are
immobile; that the stars move through the sky like fish through
water and birds through air; that there are no Antipodes . . .
Manifest experiments and necessary proofs demonstrate all these
things to be false.”20 This sentiment is reflective of a broader
concern in the Genesis commentators to harmonize reason and
experience with the words of Moses. As Arnold Williams comments,
“There was a widespread disposition to harmonize Genesis with the
findings of science, which for most of the commentators meant the
Aristotelian science of the schools.”21
Although Wilkins is correct to recognize the common impulse
towards harmonizing Moses with Aristotle, some intellectuals of
the period took a rather different approach to the subject. The 20 “Ad hanc regulam si exigamus, & expendamus nonnullas quorundam
interpretum opiones, plane respuendas atque reiiciendas esse intelligemus. Exempli causa: Origenes, Lactantius, Procopius Gazaeus, Chrysostomus, & quidamalii censent secundum scripturam coelum non esse rotundum, esse immobile: moveri stellas per coelum, ut pisces per aquam, & aves per aerem: non esse Antipodas: aquam maris esse multis partibus sblimiorem, celsissimis etiam terrae montibus: quae tamen falsa esse omnia, manifestis experimentis, necessariisque rationibus nunc conflat.” Perera, Commentariorum . . . usque ad obitum S.S. Patriarchum, 25.
21 Williams, The Common Expositor, 23.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
15
so-called Mosaic philosophers tried to derive a comprehensive
physics and metaphysics from the book of Genesis. The Harvard
intellectual historian Ann Blair, in an excellent survey of this
curious late-Renaissance phenomena, observes that while most
modern historians of science hastily dismiss the “Mosaic” or
“Christian” philosophers, eighteenth-century historians of
science assigned this school its own place alongside
Aristotelians, Platonists, Epicureans, Stoics, and Sceptics.
Thus, the German historian Johann Jakob Brucker (1696–1770), for
example, explained the uniqueness of the Mosaic philosophy thus:
“Some, following the letter of Scripture, used what the sacred
writers touched on [in passing] rather than recounted [at length]
concerning cosmogony and natural things in order to build a new
sacred physics. . . . Hence they are called Mosaic and Christian
philosophers.”22
The most well-known and widely-read of these “Mosaic
philosophers” was Johann Amos Comenius (1592–1670), an
influential Czech-born thinker and educator. He prescribed a
22 Cited in Ann Blair, “Mosaic physics and the search for a pious natural philosophy in the late Renaissance,” Isis 91.1 (2000): 35.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
16
Christian physics based on a naive union of “sense, reason and
Scripture,” uncontaminated by the alloy of Aristotelianism.23
Like many of the more mainstream commentators, Comenius and his
colleagues recognized the need to use reason and sense to find
the true meaning of Scripture as it related to the physical
world. Unlike most thinkers, however, the Mosaic philosophers
rejected established philosophical resources as tools for
integrating the Bible with reason and sense experience. In the
context of the suspicion of and even hostility to philosophy
voiced by Luther and some of the other Reformers, men like
Comenius jettisoned Aristotle and articulated a stringent
biblical literalism. As the prominent English physician and
cosmologist, Robert Fludd (1574–1637), put it, “the subject of
true Philosophy is not to be found in Aristotle’s works, but in the
Book of truth and Wisdom.”24 Though the Mosaic philosophers did
not produce any major commentaries during this period (unless we
count the first book of Fludd’s 1617 work, Utriusque cosmi Historia)25 23 Blair, “Mosaic physics,” 39-40.
24 Cited in Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 139.
25 Robert Fludd, Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia. . . . (Oppenheim, 1617). Reprinted, in part, in Robert Fludd, ed.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
17
and remained a minority school, their bibliocentric approach to
knowing the world complicates the narrative of Renaissance
understandings of the relationship between science and Scripture.
How do the general hermeneutical principles sketched out
above play out in the various discussions of astronomy in the
Renaissance commentaries? First, as the principle of harmony
implies, both Protestant and Catholic commentators seek a
confluence of reason and sense experience with Scriptural
teaching as they unfold the nature and structure of the heavens.
For example, David Pareus notes that “Aristotle ascribes the
light and heat which are diffused through the air not to the
stars themselves, but to the motion of the stars, because he says
that the air is rubbed and thence kindled by the constant motion
of the stars.” Pareus objects to this view on biblical grounds:
“Moses truly teaches that God at creation endowed the light-
bearers with light, and created them as actually bearing light,
not dark.” Pareus draws part of the evidence for this view from
Scripture: aside from Moses, he cites Paul’s statement that
“There is one glory of the sun and another of the moon” (1
William Huffman (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 2001), 58-81.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
18
Corinthians 15:41). But he also buttresses his view with the
testimony of the senses: “Our senses themselves also testify the
same thing. For the sun, like a king, supersedes all the stars
in magnitude and splendor.”26 The same hermeneutic appears in
Pareus’s defense of the traditional doctrine of creation ex nihilio.
Pareus notes that “Mathematicians define the stars as the densest
parts of the orbs, visibly enlarged by a mass of matter and by an
abundance of light.” He insists that this definition does not
necessarily imply creation ex materia: it is far better to ascribe
the origin of heavenly matter to creation ex nihilo than to affirm
that God created the stars out of scattered bits of pre-existing
heavenly matter—for the alternative “cannot be proved either from
Moses’ words or through rational proof.”27 Rational 26 “Aristoteles lumen & calorem in aere sparsum non ipsis astris, sed motui
astrorum asscribit, quia dicit, aerem assiduo motu astrorum fricari & inde ignescere. . . . At Moses vero docet, Deum luminaribus indidisse lucem in creatione, & creasse actu lucida, non opaca. . . . quod etiam testatur Apostolus: Alia enim est claritas solis alia Luna, alia stellarum, &c. Et testatur ipse sensus. Sol enim quasi rex magnitudine & fulgore sidera omnia superat. Proxime fulget Luna instar reginae: stellae reliquae sunt quasi fatellitiutu utriusque.” Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, col. 226. Zanchius uses the same kingly image to represent the physical and symbolic centrality of the sun: “Et deinde Solem in medio omnium, tanquam omnium astrorum regem” (De operibus dei, 379). Pareus in his commentary feels the need to insert an excursus combatting Roman Catholic interpreters of the hexameron who took the sun as a symbol of the papacy: In Genesin Mosis commentarius, col. 254.
27 “Mathematici definiunt astra esse densiores orbium partes, auctas mole materiae perspicue & copia complicatae lucis: Id absurdum non est credere. Verum non probat, astra ex materia coelorum facta esse, ut quidam volunt. Qui enim materia
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
19
demonstration and Scriptural testimony form the two great pillars
of astronomical truth, and the Renaissance commentators
consistently seek to harmonize these authorities.
Many of the commentators also try to harmonize Moses with
the traditional Aristotelian cosmology. This tendency appears
more strongly in some exegetes than others. As seen above,
Pareus disagrees with Aristotle on issues like the inherency of
light in the heavenly bodies. Other commentators entertain a
deep and thoroughgoing respect for Aristotle on astronomical
questions. The Jesuit Perera and the scholastic-minded Zanchi
both exemplify this veneration of the Philosopher. Zanchi makes
an extensive effort to reconcile Arisotelian physics with the
creation account. He argues that Moses and Aristotle have the
coelorum ex nihilo condere potuit, quidni luminaria eiusdem materiae ex nihilocondere potuerit? . . . tamen longe gloriosius Deo iudicamus statuere, cum astra eiusdem cum coelo materiae, vel etiam nobilioris, ex nihilo subito fecisse: quam dicere Deum ex partibus coeli plurimis invicem contractis astra conflusse, ut cum multae partes coaguli in unam massam contrahuntur: id quod nec Mosis verbis nec ratione probari potest, quin vel coelum iis partibus, quae astris carent, nunc esse tenuimus, quam initio conditum erat, vel in locum materiae in astra compactae tantundem materiae rursus fuisse a Deo creatum dieatur, vel certe ibi vacuum quid statuatur, quorum duo priora non sunt verisimilia, posterius absurdum est.” Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, cols. 231-232. The question of ex nihilo vs. ex materia creation is also taken up by Zanchius: De operibus dei, 13ff.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
20
same subject and even follow a similar method (ordo); Genesis
1:1-2 presents us with Aristotle’s form and matter.28
Often the commentators insert principles of contemporary
astronomy into their exegesis, as ways of unfolding the meaning
of the Biblical text.29 But the Mosaic account also has
independent authority and can disprove certain astronomical
theories. Zanchi emphasizes that the words “Let them be in the
expanse of the heavens” (Genesis 1:15) disproves the theory of
some astronomers that some stars exist outside of the eight
spheres.30 Pareus insists that the stars are infinite in number,
and from a literal reading of passages like Psalm 147:4, he
concludes, “The astronomers therefore are greatly deceived in
28 Zanchius, De operibus dei, 199-200.
29 Thus, e.g., Peter Martyr Vermigli: “Sed si nos physicorum sententiamhaec de re exploremus, hoc inveniri a nobis poterit, Coelorum substantiam esselucidam, sed cum rara admodum fit, non lucet, quod si alicubi condensetur in globos, tunc maxime splendet.” In primum librum Mosis, qui vulgo Genesis dicitur, commentarii doctissimi. . . . (Zurich: Christophorus Froschoverbus, 1579), 12. In contrast with Zanchi, Vermigli devotes very little space to questions of natural philosophy with reference to the hexameron, but this is no doubt to beattributed to the vastly greater amount of Mosaic material he aspires to cover.
30 “Neque illud praetereundem est, quod ait: Fiant in expansione Caelorum. Non sunt igitur facta extra Coelum, ut quidam volunt, & postea collocata in Coelis: sed facta sunt in ipsis Coelis: ac proinde etiam ex materia Coelorum: ut recte docent Philosophi: astra nil aliud esse, quam densiores Coelorum partes: sicut nodi sunt in asseribus.” Zanchius, De operibus dei, 379.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
21
thinking that they can define the number of the stars.” In the
end, “the number of these stars must be left to God, the most
perfect Astronomer.”31
Under the overarching authority of received Aristotelianism,
many exegetes explain the creation of the heavenly bodies
(Genesis 1:14-18) in terms of a traditional cosmos. For example,
the Italian cardinal Tommaso Cajetan (1469–1534) in his
commentary identifies the firmament with the empyrean and the sky
(coelum) with the seven planetary spheres.32 Cajetan further
31 “Septem igitur coelorum orbibus inferioribus, septem astra affixit, quae propter ἀνώμαλον motum suorum orbium planetae vocantur, seu stellae errantes, non retinentes eundem perpetuo situm ad se invicem, & ad stellas fixas. In octava autem sphaera non fidus unum ut in reliquis, sed plurima & innumera posuit, quae fixa vocantur, non quod non etiam alia septem suis infixa sint orbibus, aut quasi plane immobilia consistant: sed quia tardissimo& vix perceptibili motu moventur cum suo orbe, eundem perpetuo situm inter se retinentia. Haec sphaera ideo dicitur firmamentum, & coelum stellatum, a stabilitate & multitudine stellarum in eo defixarum. Quam vero multae haec sint, Deo perfectissimo astrologoest relinquendum. Solus enim numerare potest. Sicut dicitur Ps. 147.4. . . . Quod igitur astronomi putant, se possestellarum numerum definire, multum falluntur.” Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, col. 233.
32 “Quod autem Moses hoc loco nomine Coeli, empyrei Coeli creationem tradere voluerit, tribus argumentis confirmant. Primum argumentum petitur ex ipsa scriptura, quae in hac narratione Mosis distingit Coelum a firmamento, & aquis supra firmamentum factis secundo die, & a sole & luna caeterisque astris, quae quarto die sunt condita. Cum igitur per firmamentum intelligaturoctava sphaera per aquas supra firmamentum locatas, nonum Coelum, quod vocant crystallinum per solem autem lunamque & astra septem orbes planetarum: relinquitur, per coelum in principio factum, non aliud posse intelligi quam coelum empyreum.” Tommaso de Vio Cajetanus, Commentarii illustres planeque insignes in quinque mosaicos libros, edited by Antonio Fonseca (Johannis Boulle, 1539), 48.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
22
identifies the light-bearers of Genesis 1 with “the denser parts
of the heavens, which contain and transmit light,” and explains
that on the fourth day God endowed the heavenly bodies with light
—the Aristotelian ‘form’ appropriate to their matter—and with
their proper motion.33 Antonio Honcala (1484–1565) also appeals
to Aristotelian terminology when he explains that the sun and
moon “were placed in their orbits, not—to use the customary
language of the philosophers—as a thing located in place [locatum
in loco], but as a singular part in its whole.”34 Zanchi finds a
similar confluence between the received cosmological wisdom and
the Mosaic account. Commenting on Genesis 1:14-17, he remarks,
“Next, this too should be noted, that the heavens possess a
spherical form, and for this reason their motion—and,
consequently, the motion of the stars which are in them—is
circular. The sacred Scriptures indeed teach this; so do the
33 “Est autem astri forma ipsa lux, quae hoc quarto diei illis data est, Deo partes illas Coeli densiores spissa luce complente, datus est illis praeterea proprius motus, nam alio motu cietur Luna, & alio Mercurius, itemquealio sidera.” Cajetan, Commentarii, 137.
34 Antonio Honcala, Commentaria in Genesim. . . . (Johannus Brocarius, 1555), 12.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
23
philosophers, who deduce the same by reason.”35 For Cajetan,
Honcala, Zanchi, and others, traditional Aristotelian philosophy
and Ptolemaic cosmology supplied both linguistic categories and
philosophical resources for explaining the sacred cosmos.
David Pareus, in his commentary on the hexameron, takes the
Mosaic narrative as an occasion for giving a full description of
the Ptolemaic system. In expounding the verse “he placed the
light-bearers in the expanse of the sky” (Genesis 1:15), Pareus
runs through the traditional catalog of planets “according to the
received teaching of Ptolemy,” affirming that all the heavenly
bodies—including the fixed stars and the planets—were created on
the fourth day, along with the Sun and Moon.36 The inmost of the
nested spheres contains the Moon; the next two, Mercury and
35 “Deinde illud quoque notandum est, Coelos omnes esse figurarae sphaericae: eoque motum ipsorum, & ex consequenti motum astrorum quae in ipsissunt, esse circularem. Tradunt haec etiam sacrae literae: praeter Philosophos; qui ratione idem evincunt.” Zanchi, De operibus dei, 387.
36 “Aetheria corpora elementis superiora & qualitatum & mutationum elementarium expertia sunt orbes coelestes novem, iuxta receptam Ptolemai doctrinam: infimus Lunae, proximus Mercurii, tertius Veneris, quartus Solis, quintus Martis, sextus Iovis, septimus Saturni, octavus firmamentum, quo sidera fixa continentur: nonus & extremus primi mobilis.” Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, col. 164. Likewise Zanchius: “Hic habemus mandatum, quo Deus iussit esse in Coelis luminaria: Solem scilicet, Lunam, & reliquas stellas: tam Planetas reliquos quinque, quam stellas in octava sphaera fixas: quibus & Coelos ornavit, & orbem hunc sublunatem multis maximisque utilitatibus affecit: sine quibus consistere non poterat” (De operibus dei, 379).
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
24
Venus; then “in the middle sphere the Sun, like a king;” last of
all come Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.37 While these planets
(planetae), or “wandering stars,”38 occupy the first seven spheres,
the eighth sphere contains innumerable “fixed stars” which “move
with a very slow and scarcely perceptible motion, constantly
keeping the same position with respect to one another.” All
together, these eight spheres compose the “firmament” or “starry
heaven.” This completes Pareus’s sacred cosmos, uniting the
Genesis account with a traditional cosmology inherited from
Ptolemy.
Exposition of the Mosaic account often prompts inquiries
into strictly scientific matters. Even the question of the
magnitude of the heavenly bodies comes under the commentators’
purview. Here again the typical concern to harmonize empirical
37 “Supra Lunam proximae sphaerae fidus Mercurii affixit: tertiae a Luna stellam Veneris, quam mane φωσφόρον, Luciferum, vesperi ἔμπερον vocamus, indidit. In media sphaera Solem tanquam regem collocabit, qui cum eadem annuo spacio circa terram revolutus annum eiusque partes designaret, quanto etiam spacio Venus & Mercurius cursum proprium absolvunt. Soli super imposuit Martem, qui biennio Zodiacum permeat: Marti Iovis lucidissimum sidus eundem Zodiacum XIIannis percurrens: Saturni stellam frigidam & pallidam in septimo orbe supra Lunam collocavit, quae XXX annis semel eursum conficit.” Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, col. 233.
38
Stellae erantes, alluding to the derivation of planeta/πλανήτης from the Greek verb πλανάομαι, meaning ‘to wander’.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
25
and scientific proofs with Scripture is on display. Cajetan,
commenting on the creation of the “two great lights,” opines that
“it will not be unsuitable to our plan to discuss the magnitude
of the stars, insofar as it may illuminate this passage.
Concerning the magnitude of the sun, the philosophers have
posited various opinions, which Plutarch reports”—including
Epicurus’ position that the sun is no larger than it appears to
the naked eye. But, he adds, such a foolish and unlearned
estimate does not accord with “the huge magnitude demonstrated by
necessary mathematical proofs.”39 He cites mathematical figures
for the circumference of the earth, the diameter of the moon, and
the size of the stars. One of the fullest discussions of the
magnitude of the heavenly bodies comes from the pen of Marin
Mersenne, who devotes an entire article to ascertaining “the
earth’s diameter, radius, surface, and solidity, and weight, and 39 “. . . 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 & vicies terra maiorem: Anaxagoras maiorem dixit esse Polponesso: 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 consesso est apud omnes, tantum non doctrinae rudes & expertes.” Cajetan, Commentarii, 141.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
26
what profit can be deduced from it.”40 David Pareus also
discusses the question and, like Cajetan, takes issue with
Epicurus’ position. “The sun, to be sure, is more than one-
hundred-sixty-two times larger than the earth,” he insists, and
gives a rough estimate of the diameter of the moon “according to
the teaching of the astronomers.”41 Again, astronomical
principles are established by both Scripture and science: Moses
explicitly distinguishes the “absolute quantity” of the greater
and lesser luminaries, but the same truth is “discerned through
the observations of astronomers.”42
40 “De terrae diametro, semidiametro, superficie, ac soliditate, nec non de eius pondere, & quisinde fructus elici possit.” Marin Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim, cum accurata textus explicatione. . . . (Paris: Sebastian Cramois, 1623), cols. 875-880.
41 “Neque enim Sol aut Luna tantum pedalis est, ut nobis videtur: aut bipedalis, ut Epicurus contendebat, solis caeterorumque siderum magnitudinem eam esse quae videtur, ut est apud Laertium lib.10.p.436. Sed sunt corpora revera magna & maxima in sese: Solis quidem terra maius centies sexagies bis, octava minus: Lunae vero terra qui de minus tricies novies & unitate plus besse, ita tamen in se magnum ut diameter 600.fere milliaria germanica contineat, iuxta doctrinam astronomorum.” Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, col. 229.
42 “Ne vero cogitemus, haec luminaria esse aequaliter magna: Moses ea distinguit tum usu inaequali (de quo hic dicere non attinet) tum quantitate absoluta. . . . Errantes vero tres supra Solem terram aliquoties superant, Infra Solem, Venus terra minor, Luna maior, solus Mercurius etiam Luna minor esse observationibus Astronomorum deprehenditur.” Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, cols. 229-230.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
27
The Englishman Andrew Willet (1562–1621), an outspoken
Calvinist clergyman who published his Hexapla upon Genesis in 1595,
cites a similar figure to that of Pareus: “the Mathematicians
have found that the Sunne exceedeth the earth in bignesse 166
times.” He also gives figures for the size of the moon: “it is
found to be lesse than the earth.39.times, and to be the least of
all the Starres, except Mercurie.” The larger magnitude of the
sun relative to the moon leads Willet to articulate a principle
of accommodation, resolving an apparent inconsistency between
Moses and the heavens: “Moses therefore here speaketh according
to the opinion and capacity of the vulgar folk, to whose sight
the Moone seemeth greatest, next to the Sunne, because it is
nearest of all the Starres to the earth, and for that it is
greatest in operation, and hath the government of the night.”
Willet explicitly invokes accommodationism as a means of
reconciling Scripture with the testimony of the senses: the
language of the Mosaic narrative is adapted to the understanding
of ordinary readers. Willet repeatedly contrasts the common-
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
28
sense outlook of the Biblical account with what “the
Mathematicians have found” or “the Mathematicians say.”43
The principle of accommodationism, in fact, finds favor with
a number of commentators, often as a way of escaping certain
interpretative knots. John Calvin appeals to the principle in
explaining why Moses referred to the moon as a “light-bearer,”
given that “it is, as the astronomers assert, an opaque body.”44
He answers that Moses, “as it became a theologian,” had “respect
to us rather than to the stars,” and hence did not “subtilely
descant, as a philosopher.” Though the inspired author was not
ignorant of the fact that the moon reflects the sun’s rays, “he
deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive.”45
Calvin contrasts this with the ambitious project of the
astronomers of his day. The passage is worth quoting in full:
Moses wrote in a popular style things which without
instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common
43 Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum: that is, a sixfold commentary upon the two first Bookes of Moses, being Genesis and Exodus. . . . (London: John Haviland, 1633), 8.
44 Calvin rejects the theory that the moon is a dark body, and insists that it can produce some light of itself.45
Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, ad. 1.13-14.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
29
sense, are able to understand; but astronomers
investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of
the human mind can comprehend. . . [Not that Moses
wished] to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting
such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he
was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and
rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill
his office than by descending to this grosser method of
instruction. . . . If the astronomer inquires
respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will
find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is
something abstruse, for to the sight it appears
differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his
discourse to common usage.46
This hermeneutic of accommodation is not unique to Calvin. As
Williams points out, the Jesuit Perera follows a similar route in
reconciling the motion of the spheres with Scriptural passages
attributing motion to the heavenly bodies: “We do not see the
motion of the spheres, but only its effect in the motion of the
46 Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, ad. 1.16.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
30
planets. Hence Scripture, speaking of that which is apparent,
attributes the motion to the planets.”47 In short, the biblical
writer’s mode of discourse is adapted to the ways of thought and
understanding natural to his audience. This implies that the
exegete should not look to Genesis as a scientific textbook.
One final, nearly invariable feature of all the Renaissance
hexamera—usually occurring in the context of Genesis 1:14-18—is a
diatribe against astrology.48 Andrew Willet remarks that
although the “celestiall bodies doe serve, both for politicall
observations . . . and the celebration of festivals,” when it
comes to
morall matters, as to calculate mens nativities, and to
discerne of their dispositions to good or evill, or for
supernaturall, to foretell things to come, to discover
secrets, finde out things that are lost, or such like,
these celestiall signes have no use at all, neither
hath the vaine and superstitious invention of Astrology47
Perera, Commentariorum . . . usque ad obitum S.S. Patriarchum, 186.48
Note that the term astrologi in the commentaries is occasionally used asa synonym for astronomi, without any pejorative connotation—e.g. in Cajetan, Commentarii, 141.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
31
any ground at all out of this place, but is altogether
repugnant to 1. the Scriptures: 2. against reason: 3.
vaine: 4. impious.49
Similar denunciations of magic and astrology occur in many of the
other commentators.50 Like many other facets of Mosaic exegesis,
the excursus on astrology became a standard trope of the genre.
Of course, one of the largest issues overshadowing astronomy
during this period is the debate over heliocentrism. How do the
Genesis commentators respond to the Copernican controversy? In
many cases, the answer is simple: They don’t. Strikingly, very
few of the commentators mention Copernicus, Kepler, or Galileo.
Even the Scottish controversialist, Alexander Ross (c.1590–1654),
who is known to have been a virulently outspoken opponent of
Copernican astronomy,51 passes over the issue in silence.
49 Willet, Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum, 9.
50 Typical diatribes against astrology can be found in Pareus, In Genesin Mosis commentarius, cols. 217-221; Girolamo Vielmi, De sex diebus conditi orbis liber, ad Aloysium Iustinianum, Patritium Venetum, & Coadiutorem Aquileinsem ampliss (Venice, 1575), 211-213; Augustino Steuco, Cosmopoeia: vel, de mundane opificio, exposition trium capitum Genesis, in quibus de creatione tractat Moses (Sebastianus Gryphius, 1535), 85; and Salomon Gesner, Genesis sive primus liber Moysis, disputationibus XXXVIII. breviter comprehensus, &collatis diversorum inter se Patrum sententiis. . . . (Wittenburg, 1604), 23.
51 See John L. Russell, “The Copernican System in Great Britain,” in TheReception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory: Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science, ed. JerzyDobrzycki (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, [1972?]), 223-230.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
32
Sometimes the commentators, in discussing the size of the
heavenly bodies, or the eighth sphere, appropriate the
mathematical figures of Copernicus or Tycho Brahe, but without
accepting the whole system of either.52 In many instances, it is
difficult to say with certainty to what degree the commentators
are familiar with the Copernican view, and whether they pass over
it out of ignorance or contempt. In any case, most of the
commentators take the geocentric Ptolemaic cosmos as given.
Some commentators support the standard Aristotelian-
Ptolemaic synthesis with Scriptural proofs. In his hexameral
commentary, Jerome Vielmi (1509–1575?), a little-known French
Dominican, defends the fixity of the earth. After dispatching a
possible objection against the movement of the heavens from
Proverbs 3:19 (“God fixed the heavens by his wisdom”), he appeals
to Psalm 104:5 (“He founded the earth upon its foundation, and it
shall never be moved”) to prove that the earth is stationary.
But Vielmi also appeals to common-sense experience: “For we
perceive that the sun rises from the east at dawn, and then
52 Williams, The Common Expositor, 188.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
33
continues on to the summit of the sky, that is, gradually mounts
to its median position, and then sinks gradually to the west,
creating evening. Again, on a calm night we see the stars, which
are nearest to the Arctic Pole, moving around it in uniform
circles, and never falling towards us—just as Ptolemy says in the
Almagest.”53 Vielmi also cites Aristotle’s opinion in De caelo.
The testimony of common sense, wedded to the authority of Ptolemy
and Aristotle and the plain interpretation of Genesis 1,
interlock to support the traditional geocentric hypothesis.
Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), the Italian Roman Catholic
cardinal famed for his role in the Galileo trial, exemplifies the
usual reading of Genesis with regard to the Copernican question.
As Robert Westman explains, Bellarmine shared the common
understanding that Scripture must be harmonized with astronomical
explanations. Further, “where heavenly observers disagreed, 53 “Iam vero & de terra sic legimus in Psal. 103. Qui fundavit terram super
stabilitatem suam, non inclinabitur in saeculum saeculi, & Psal. 92. Etenim firmavit orbem terrae, qui non commovebitur, hoc est, orbem qui terra est, quae stabilis perenniter ac immota stabit. Refelluntur & sensu, quem in eiusmodi rebus dimittere, imbecillis intellectus certissima nota est. Nam perspicimus Solem mane ab Oriente surgere, & inde ad caeli fastigium, quod est eius medium sensim conscendere, meridiemque efficere, ac deinceps continue labi ad occasum, & vesperum facere. Rursum serena nocte videmus stellas, quas iuxta Polum arcticum sunt, gyros uniformes circa illum ducere, & nobis nunquam occidere: sicuti & Ptolemeus in Almagesti dist.1.cap.3. & Sphaetae auctor. cap.1. iampridem adnotarunt.” Vielmi, De sex diebus conditi orbis liber, 222.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
34
then, said Bellarmine, ‘it is possible for us to select among
them the one which best corresponds to Sacred Scriptures.’ And
it was here that the theologian, relying on the consensus of the
Church fathers, the literal meaning of scripture, and his own
interpretive intuitions, could feel confident in advancing
positions independent of astronomical tradition.”54 James M.
Lattis adds that “though Bellarmine disassociated himself from
the traditional Aristotelian and Ptolemaic approach to
understanding the structure of the heavens, he remained
nonetheless convinced of the earth’s centrality and immobility
because they are attested by the two trustworthy sources of
knowledge, the senses and Scripture.”55 Most commentators, like
Vielmi, shared Bellarmine’s view. In fact, this outlook proved
so widespread among the Genesis commentators of the period that
Robert Bellarmine could write to Galileo in a letter dated April
12, 1615, “if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy
Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms,
54 Robert Westman, The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 219.
55 James M. Lattis, Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christoph Clavius and the Collapse of Ptolemaic Cosmology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 111.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
35
Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the
literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around
the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from
heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world.”56
Even where Copernicus’s name is not mentioned, sometimes the
questions set out by the commentators betray his influence.
Perera—whose Commentariorum et disputationum in Genesin was the most
popular commentary of the period, going through seven separate
editions57—includes an excursus on “What sacred Scripture teaches
about the heavens and the stars, and what astrology teaches.”58
There, he sets out ten questions for consideration. The choice
of these questions is revealing:
First, Whether the heavens and the stars have an
incorruptible nature. Second, How the heavens will be
transformed and renewed after the day of judgment.
Third, On the figure of the heavens. Fourth, On the
56 In The Essential Galileo, trans. Maurice A. Finnochiaro (Indianapolis, ID:Hackett, 2008), 146-148.
57 Williams, The Common Expositor, 8.
58 “Qui est de Coelis & astris secundum sacram Scripturam, & de Divinatione astrologica.” Perera, Commentariorum . . . ab exordio mundi usque ad Noeticum diluvium, 87.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
36
number of the heavenly spheres. Fifth, Whether the
heavens move by their own natural power, or whether
they are moved by angels. Sixth, whether the motion of
the heavens will completely cease after the day of
judgment. Seventh, Whether the heavens and stars
really have souls. Eighth, Whether the stars are
actually hot. Ninth, Whether the stars are fixed in
their orbits, and revolve by their own motion, or
whether they are moved by their own motion with the
heavens unmoved, as fish move through water and birds
through the air through their own motion. Tenth,
Whether the multitude of fixed stars in the eighth
orbit are innumerable.59
59 “Hae autem sunt quaestiones, quas hoc volumine tractandas suscepimus: prima, An caeli & astra sint incorruptibilis naturae: secunda, Qualis futura sit post diem iudicii caelorum commutatio & renovatio: tertia, De figura caeli: quarta, De numero orbium caelestium: quinta, An coeli seipsi sua vi naturali moveant, an moveantur ab Angelis: sexta, An post diem iudicii omnino cessaturus sit caeli motus: septima, An caeli & astra sint vere animata: ocatava, An sydera sint actu calida: nona, An stellae sint infixae inorbibus, eorumque tantu motu voluantur, an coelo immoto per se, ipsae propriisagantur motibus, similter ut pisces in aqua & aves per aerem motus suos per agunt: decima, An multitudo syderum inerrantium quae sunt in ocatavo orbe, sitmortalibus innumerabilis.” Pererius, Commentariorum . . . ab exordio mundi usque ad Noeticum diluvium, 87.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
37
Many of these questions are longstanding topoi of the Renaissance
commentaries, as we have seen above. The fifth question relates
to one of the scholastic additions to the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian
synthesis. Most intriguing, however, is the ninth question,
which specifically “touches the battle between the proponents of
the received astronomy and the Copernicans.”60 In answering the
question, Perera begins by laying out two possible
interpretations of Genesis 1:15. God might have fixed the
heavenly bodies in their celestial places, or he might have
ordained them to move through a designated space. He concludes,
on the authority of the “Ecclesiastical writers,” that the
heavenly bodies—including the sun and moon—are not fixed but in
perpetual motion.61 Though he refutes a theory that there are
certain celestial “canals” through which the heavenly bodies
60 Williams, The Common Expositor, 184.
61 “Potest enim intelligi sydera esse infixa in caelo tanquam eius partes paulo densiores spissioresque ei cohaerentes & continuatas. . . . Potest etiam intelligi sydera esse posita in caelo, non ut ei cohaerentia & affixa, sed quia iussu Dei per ipsum caelum motus suos peragunt tanquam per spatium sibi a Deo determinatum, quod quaeque suo cursu emetiri & conficere debeant. Vetus est & complurium scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum auctoritate nobilis opinio, stellas non esse haerentes & affixas caelo, sed propriis motibus per spatium caeleste circumagi.” Pererius, Commentariorum . . . ab exordio mundi usque ad Noeticum diluvium, 100.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
38
pass, Perera does not explicitly mention the heliocentric
hypothesis in this article, nor does he name Copernicus.
One of the few Genesis commentators to explicitly address
the Copernican question is the French polymath Marin Mersenne
(1588–1648). Mersenne was a music theorist, mathematician, and
active scientific figure who laid the groundwork for both the
Académie des Sciences in Paris and the Royal Academy in London.
One historian calls him “the center of the world of science and
mathematics during the first half of the 1600s.”62 But Mersenne,
a Jesuit-trained theologian and one-time fellow student of
Descartes at La Flèche, was also a learned Biblical exegete, who
published a lengthy commentary on Genesis. His burden in this
work was largely to refute the perceived impiety of naturalistic
thought, and especially cabalism, alchemy, and astrology. One of
Mersenne’s lengthiest “Questions on Genesis” is entitled “Whether
or not the earth is moved: in which reasons are adduced for the
mobility of the earth, along with apparent proofs for the
immobility of the heavens.”63 The following article bears the 62 Peter L. Bernstein, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk (New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1996), 59.63
“An terra moveatur, necne. In quo rationes afferuntur, quibus terrae mobilitas, & coelorum quies probari videtur.” Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim, cols. 879-894.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
39
heading, “That the heaven is moved while the earth is at rest.”
In these columns, Mersenne discusses at length the “authors of
new philosophy,” including Campanella, Telesio, Kepler, Galileo,
and others. As Robert Westman observes, “Nothing like this had
happened in the sixteenth century, the heyday of Genesis
commentary.”64
Mersenne opens his discussion of the Copernicans with an
extended list of examples—sometimes humorous, sometimes ludicrous
—of the follies of accepting sense experience at first blush.
Epicurus’ infamous judgment on the size of the sun appears amidst
this whimsical catalog of errors, all leading to the simple
conclusion, “The philosophic man should not give attention to his
eyes, but to his mind.”65 He writes, “Perhaps someone will ask
where such a long discussion is heading? The endpoint is that
you may understand this: we should not have so much faith in our
eyes, that we accept their testimony without further persuasion
64 Westman, The Copernican Question, 496.
65 “Oportere hominem philosophum non oculos, sed mentem intueri.” Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim, col. 882.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
40
and exploration.”66 Mersenne then progressively surveys sixteen
arguments for the Ptolemaic view, ranging from the parallels
between the human body (with unmoved head and moveable feet) and
the solar system, to an argument from Pythagorean geometric
figures. Mersenne goes on to point out several absurdities which
would supposedly follow from the Copernican view. He concludes,
“Therefore the Copernican motion of the earth should hardly be
assented to, since indeed it destroys the simple upward and
downward motion of things” and introduces a circular motion “of
which no principle—either natural or unnatural, either external
or internal—can be designated without introducing many
absurdities.”67 If the fundamental principle of motion is
circular, he argues, then the vertical motion of a stone would be
violent and unnatural.
66 “Sed forte aliquis dixerit, cedo, quorsum tam longa tendit oratio? eo scilicet ut intelligas: non ita esse oculis habendam fidem, ut quod illi nuntiarint, persuasum exploratumque protinus haberi oporteat.” Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim, col. 881.
67 “Itaque motus terrae Copernicanus minime constituendus est, quippe qui tollit ex universo motum rerum simplicium sursum, & deorsum, inducit necessario rebus omnibus, tam a centro, quam ad centrum latis motum aliquem circularem, cuius tamen principium neque naturale, neque non naturale, nec externum, aut internum absque multis absurdis assignari potest. . . .” Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrima in Genesim, col. 894.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
41
Mersenne naturally is at pains to point out that all the
ancient philosophers and mathematicians affirmed the geocentric
schema. More recent authors (Mersenne mentions Francis
Patricius, David Origanus, Kepler, and Maestlin) who claim to
have better insights into the heavenly phenomena should be
classed, Mersenne suggests, with those theologians who, rejecting
the traditional view regarding divine simplicity, affirm a real
distinction between the divine attributes and thus “make the
truth of the universe to depend upon their conceptions.”68 Since
the things we seem to perceive in the earthly realm often turn
out to be mistaken, Mersenne urges a safer course: we should
“walk in the footsteps of the ancients” and not introduce new
hypotheses unless either “manifest reason or experience” compels
us to reject the received view.69
68 “. . . quibus [Philosophis et Mathematicis] Bernardus, Patricius, Keplerus, Origanus, Moestlinus, & caeteri Copernicani contradicere videntur, quia inde se melius intelligere credunt phaenomena coelestia, quos profecto similes illis esse putem Theologis, quicum non possunt concipere ea, quae de attributis divinis praedicantur, illa inter se realiter differe aiunt, quasi vero rerum veritas nostris e conceptibus pendeat.” Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrima in Genesim, cols. 895-896.
69 “Nunquid satius est antiquorum insistere vestigiis, ac eorum hypotheses retinere, si manifesta ratio, vel experientia nos ad aliud non cogit, quam omnia innovate, atque vetera: & usu communi recepta susque deque vertere.” Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrima in Genesim, col. 896.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
42
In the end, however, Mersenne proves to be flexible on the
Copernican question: “he neither endorsed the Earth’s motion nor
regarded the Church’s judgment as irreversible.”70 For instance,
in reviewing the Scriptural texts commonly cited in favor of the
geocentric view, Mersenne suggests that the literal
interpretation is not the only legitimate reading. In
particular, Joshua 10 presents no obstacle to the heliocentric
view: the description of the sun standing still was “accommodated
to our senses” so as to conform to our everyday experience of the
movements of the heavenly bodies.71 Mersenne’s final course is
“to present all the facts, to lean somewhat toward the Tychonian
system, which explained all observed phenomena as well as the
Copernican, and finally to deliver no positive judgment of his
own.”72 On the whole, the Renaissance commentators who deal with
70 Westman, The Copernican Question, 496.
71 “Nec obstat quod Iosue Soli iusserit, ut staret contra gabaon, & Lunae contra vallem Aialon, sese enim nostris sensibus accommodare potuit, quippequi se percipere existiment stellas, & planetas quotidie suum integrum cursum peragere ab ortu in occcasum. . . .” Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrima in Genesim, col. 894.
72 Williams, The Common Expositor, 190. At cols. 897-900, Mersenne printsdiagrams of both the Copernican and Tychonian system, though he declines to make any detailed comparison of the relative scientific merits of the two hypotheses.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
43
Copernicanism seem less perturbed by the new astronomy than one
might have expected.
In summary, the Renaissance commentaries on Genesis provide
fascinating insight into the way early modern exegetes tried to
harmonize the astronomy of their day with the Mosaic creation
account. Nearly all the commentators on Genesis share a few
basic principles: the Mosaic account is literal, historical, and
accurate insofar as it touches on scientific matters; further, it
can and should be harmonized with the conclusions of reason and
sense experience. In most commentators of the period—both
Protestant and Catholic—we see a sustained attempt to yoke Moses
together with Aristotle and Ptolemy. Some commentators attempt a
thoroughgoing synthesis of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology with
the hexameron, while others are more cautious about the received
cosmology. A few thinkers in the so-called Mosaic school reject
philosophy altogether as an interpretative tool. However, the
majority of commentators believe that the creation account and
Aristotelian astronomy can fruitfully inform one another,
providing both specific content and principles of investigation.
In some of commentators, we find hints of the Copernican debate;
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
44
the shadow of Copernicus lies over the astronomical discussions
of exegetes like Perera and Mersenne. On the whole, however,
Williams is correct to conclude that “one sees little of the
struggle over the Copernican system in the commentaries.”73 What
we do find is a thoroughgoing effort to read Scripture and the
heavens in tandem, grounded in the belief that all truth is one
and that the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature are
ultimately reconcilable.
73 Williams, The Common Expositor, 189.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
45
Bibliography
Artopoeus, Petrus. Christiana trium linguarum elementa: praeterea de prima rerum origine, vetustissimaque theologia, ex tribus primis capitibus Geneseos. Basil, 1546.
Bernstein, Peter L. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1996.
Blair, Ann. “Mosaic physics and the search for a pious natural philosophy in the late Renaissance.” Isis 91.1 (2000): 32-58.
Cajetanus, Tommaso de Vio. Commentarii illustres planeque insignes in quinque mosaicos libros. Edited by Antonio Fonseca. Johannis Boulle, 1539.
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis. Translated by John King. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1948.
Fagius, Paulus [Paul Buchleïn]. Exegesis sive expositio dictionum Hebraicorum literalis & simplex, in quatuor capita Geneseos. Isen, 1542.
Fernandez, Benedictus [Benito]. Commentariorum atque observationum moralium in Genesim. Lyon, 1618.
Finnochiaro, Maurice A., trans. The Essential Galileo. Indianapolis,ID: Hackett, 2008.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
46
Fludd, Robert. Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia. . . . Oppenheim, 1617.
Gesner, Salomon. Genesis sive primus liber Moysis, disputationibus XXXVIII. breviter comprehensus, & collatis diversorum inter se Patrum sententiis. . . . Wittenburg, 1604.
Grant, Edward. Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550: Aristotle to Copernicus. Baltimore, MA: John Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Harrison, Peter. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Honcala, Antonio. Commentaria in Genesim. . . . Johannus Brocarius, 1555.
Huffman, William, ed. Robert Fludd. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 2001.
Lattis, James M. Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christoph Clavius and the Collapse of Ptolemaic Cosmology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Lippomano, Luigi. Catena in Genesim ex authoribus ecclesiasticus plus minus sexaginta, iisque partim Gracis partim Latinis, connexa, authore Aloisio Lippomano Metonensi episcopo, coadiutoreque Veronensi. Paris, 1546.
Luther, Martin. Lectures on Genesis. Translated by George V. Shick.Vol. 1 of Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. St. Louis, MI: Concordia Publishing House, 1958.
Magruder, Kerry V. “The idiom of a six day creation and global depictions in Theories of the Earth.” Geology and Religion: A History of Harmony and Hostility. Edited by Martina Kölbl-Eber. London: Geological Society of London, 2009. 49-66.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
47
----. “Jesuit Science after Galileo: The Cosmology of Gabriele Beati.” Centaurus 51 (2009): 189-212.
Martini, Matthias. De creatione mundi commentariolus, ad declarandam s. theologiae summulam methodicam pertinens. Bremen: Johannis Wesselius, 1613.
Mercerus, Johannes [Jean Mercier]. In Genesin primum mosis liberum, sic a Graecis appellatum, commentariis. Matthaeus Berjon, 1598.
Mersenne, Marin. Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim, cum accurata textus explicatione. . . . Paris: Sebastian Cramois, 1623.
Pareus, David. In Genesin Mosis commentarius, quo praeter accuratam textus sacri analysin atque interpretationem theoricam & practicam, controversiae & dubia fidei plurima perspicue explicantur. . . . Frankfort, 1609.
Pererius, Benedict [Benito Perera]. Commentariorum et disputationum in Genesim. Continentes historiam Mosis, ab exordio mundi usque ad Noeticum diluvium. . . . Horatius Cardo, 1601.
----. Commentariorum et disputationum in Genesim. Continentes historiam Mosis, usque ad obitum S.S. Patriarchum Iacobi & Iosephi. . . . Cologne, 1601.
Rosse, Abraham [Alexander Ross]. An Exposition of the Fourteene first Chapters of Genesis, by way of Question and Answere. Collected out of Ancient and Recent Writers: Both briefely and subtilly propounded and Expounded. London: for Anthony Uphill, 1626.
Russell, John L. “The Copernican System in Great Britain.” The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory: Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science. Edited by Jerzy Dobrzycki. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, [1972?]. 189-240.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved
48
Steuco, Augustino. Cosmopoeia: vel, de mundane opificio, exposition trium capitum Genesis, in quibus de creatione tractat Moses. Sebastianus Gryphius, 1535.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. In primum librum Mosis, qui vulgo Genesis dicitur, commentarii doctissimi. . . . Zurich: Christophorus Froschoverbus, 1579.
Vielmi, Girolamo. De sex diebus conditi orbis liber, ad Aloysium Iustinianum, Patritium Venetum, & Coadiutorem Aquileinsem ampliss. Venice, 1575.
Westman, Robert. The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011.
Willet, Andrew. Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum: that is, a sixfold commentary upon the two first Bookes of Moses, being Genesis and Exodus. . . . London: John Haviland, 1633.
Williams, Arnold. “Commentaries on Genesis as a Basis for Hexaemeral Material in the Literature of the Late Renaissance.” Studies in Philology 34.2 (1937): 191-208.
----. “Milton and the Renaissance Commentaries on Genesis.” Modern Philology 37.3 (1940): 263-278.
----. The Common Expositor: An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis, 1527-1633. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948.
Zanchius, Hieronymus [Girolamo Zanchi]. De operibus dei intra spacium sex dierum creatis opus: tres in partes distinctum. Neustadt, 1591.
Joshua BENJAMINS All rights reserved