Presumably during the Lent of ad 377 or 378 (Henke 2000: 15-16), Basil, bishop of Caesarea, delivered nine homilies on the six days of creation as told in Genesis 1: 1-26 (the so-called Hexaemeron, a term first used by the Jewish scholar Philo, 2. 197). In his Apologia in Hexaemeron (PG 44: 65), Gregory of Nyssa testifies to their success with both educated and (because of their simple style) illiterate listeners alike; but he also answers in the same work criticisms leveled against his brother’s homilies, thus producing, as it were, exegesis of exegesis (Amand de Mendieta 1978: 349 n. 16, 351-4). In his line-by-line explanations, Basil does not want to interpret Genesis systematically as a Christian cosmogony but to demonstrate, by popularizing or ‘‘vulgarizing’’ (Amand de Mendieta 1978: 347) scientific knowledge of his day, its ethical function of instructing and edifying the human soul in the Christian faith. The parenetic sermon is the most suitable form for this purpose (Staritz 1931: 36-9). In general, he uses the literal sense to establish the authority of the Bible (Hex. 2. 5; 9. 1; Swift 1981: 318) and to demonstrate, against competing pagan and heretical views, that nature has been created by the trinitarian God for the benefit of humanity.
This enables him to allegorize these divinely originated natural phenomena, and to elucidate the didactic character of nature as a model or warning for human beings (Pollmann 2006: 190-3). This means that, for Basil, the principles that otherwise govern ‘‘reading’’ and ‘‘interpretation’’ govern in fact the very experience of ‘‘observation.’’ The correct observation of natural phenomena can thus corroborate the right understanding of Scripture. Behind such reasoning lies an understanding of the created world as a ‘‘book’’ provided by God for humanity for didactic purposes: the will and purpose of the creator is discernible in the world created by him.
To illustrate this point, Basil sometimes integrates scientific knowledge about nature as it was held at his time. He explains, for instance, that the light of sun and moon is not part of their nature or substance but a quality or accidence (Hex. 6. 2), a distinction going back to Aristotle. He then uses this ‘‘scientific’’ fact to harmonize seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible. A bit later, however, he says that the phases of the moon remind us of the transience of everything worldly and of human fickleness (Hex. 6. 9). This moralizing interpretation is in no need of intermediary scientific corroboration.
Ambrose, bishop of Milan, came to know Basil’s sermons through Eustathius’ Latin translation (Amand de Mendieta and Rudberg 1958: xi-xvii). He composed, presumably in ad 389 (Henke 2000: 16), six sermons on Genesis 1: 1-26, based on Basil (Hier. Ep. 84. 7; Henke 2000: 17-22) and on other authors, delivering them (like Basil before him) during Lent that year. Ambrose’s explanations are roughly twice as long as those ofBasil, he is more generous in integrating the allegorical sense and, most importantly, he accentuates more strongly his skepticism about the power of the human intellect, stressing that divine intervention is indispensable to human understanding and salvation (Swift 1981: 319-23). His intentions, like those of Basil, are mainly pastoral, not speculative; he too sees nature as a symbol of human life. On occasion, however, he differs from Basil in his exegetical conclusions; and he is generally less dependent upon him than is sometimes assumed (Henke 2000: 28-9, 34-7, 423-9). For example, while Basil emphasizes the wisdom of God the creator, Ambrose highlights his power and activity (Staritz 1931: 39-41).
One instance will illustrate this in more detail. While dealing with Genesis 1: 24, Basil (Hex. 8. 4) and Ambrose (Hex. 5. 21) specify the bee as one of the ‘‘beasts of the earth.’’ This is a typical example of the discursive exegesis of both writers, who digress considerably from the biblical text, where the bee is not mentioned explicitly. Both authors use the creation narrative as a framework to justify the moral edification of their respective congregations. Characteristically, Ambrose’s explanations are much more extended, and he several times follows closely Virgil’s remarks on bees in the fourth book of the Georgics. Both Basil and Ambrose extol the wholly positive qualities of bees, whose industriousness is already stated in Proverbs 6: 6 and 8, a passage quoted by both authors, who refer it to the bee (and not to the ant, as in the Hebrew original and in Ambros. Hex. 6. 4. 16). Basil makes the point that bees, although unreasoning creatures, even have a government - that is to say, they do things together, in an ordered fashion. They are governed by a king ordained by nature; he is the biggest and best of all bees and peaceful, since he does not use his sting. (In antiquity, the leader of the bees was thought to be of the male sex, and his gentleness was stressed, since he had a sting but did not use it: Arist. Hist. an. 5.21; Basil, Hex. 8. 4; not in Verg. G. 4. Sen. Clem. 3. 17. 3 assumes that the king has no sting; Plin. HN 11. 17 offers both versions.) He, and the harmless bee in general, should serve as an example to Christians: ‘‘Listen, Christians, you to whom it is forbidden to ‘recompense evil for evil’ [Rom. 12: 17] and who are commanded ‘to overcome evil with good’ [Rom. 12: 21], take the bee for your model, which constructs its cells without injuring any one and without interfering with the goods of others’’ (Basil, Hex. 8. 4).
Ambrose differs from Basil in many details: he explicitly states that the idea of laws and customs common to all members of a citizen-body stems from the bees (Ambros. Hex. 5. 21. 66), an etiological claim not explicit in Basil. It makes all following statements much more directly relevant for his contemporary listeners. Bees also represent the virtue of virginity, since they do not copulate in order to procreate (Verg. G. 4. 198-201; Arist. Hist. an. 5. 21). In Ambrose, the king of the bees is ordained by the bees themselves, based on his superior qualities (ipsae sibi regem ordinant... nam etpraerogativam iudicii tenent, Hex. 5. 21. 68). The bees live in a paradise-like state, since labor is enjoyment for them (opus ipsum suave, Hex. 5. 21. 69); they work for everything they own, and they do not rob others (ibid.). A Christian should use them as an example, since they are strong in wisdom and the love of virtue (Hex. 5. 21. 70). In Basil, by contrast, a complex discipline like geometry is reflected in the bees’ ability to construct clever wax compartments to store the honey beneficial for humans: ‘‘See how the discoveries of geometry are mere by-works to the wise bee!’’ (Hex. 8.4). Implicit in the statement is the conviction that nature embodies in its tiny creatures skills considered great human achievements. So the wonders of nature are exalted. Ambrose hints more explicitly at the creator behind these wonders, asking rhetorically, ‘‘Which architect taught the bees [quis architectus eas docuit]?’ (Hex. 5. 21. 69).
Generally speaking, Ambrose is stylistically more ambitious than Basil and, by alluding repeatedly to Virgil and other classical authors, he tries to appeal to an educated audience, both to please them and to demonstrate how Scripture encompasses the teachings of the greatest Latin pagan writers. By romanizing, allegorizing, and dramatizing his Greek model, he intensifies the spiritualizing effect of his sermons for the simple listener as well (Henke 2000: 423-5).
World History
