De Sex Dierum Creatione (c.700)
Listen to Audio Analysis
Listen to a brief analysis of this text
Latin text and English translation of "On the Six Days of Creation," a medieval treatise attributed to Bede that systematically examines the Genesis creation narrative through patristic sources, offering theological interpretations of each creation day from the genesis of light to the Sabbath rest.
Authorship & Historical Context
“De Sex Dierum Creatione” (On the Six Days of Creation) is an anonymous early medieval treatise found in Patrologia Latina vol. 93 (cols. 207–234) (Fontes Anglo-Saxonici - Search uses). Its authorship is uncertain and was historically misattributed to various Church Fathers. Medieval sources often ascribed it to St. Ambrose or sometimes to Isidore of Seville (Reference), and early modern editors even included it among the works of Bede (hence the designation pseudo-Bede in some catalogs). Modern scholarship, however, recognizes it as a Carolingian-era compilation rather than a work by those patristic authors. Internal evidence and usage suggest it was compiled in the 8th or early 9th century, during the Carolingian Renaissance (University of Southern California - The medieval Latin hexameron from Bede to Grosseteste). This period saw a revival of scholarly activity under Charlemagne and his successors, with an emphasis on consolidating patristic learning. The text’s creation fits into that context: it is essentially a florilegium (collection) of patristic commentary on Genesis 1–3, assembled to serve the intellectual and educational needs of Carolingian monastic schools and the court. Indeed, it appears alongside other Carolingian compilations – for example, it precedes the Genesis commentary of Wigbod (an Anglo-Saxon scholar at Charlemagne’s court) in manuscripts and editions (Reference) (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s). All evidence points to an anonymous compiler drawing on earlier authorities, rather than an original single-author treatise. In summary, “De Sex Dierum Creatione” emerged in the early Middle Ages as part of the Carolingian project of preserving and systematizing theological knowledge, bridging late antique exegesis and the developing medieval scholastic tradition.
Historically, the work holds significance as a product of the Carolingian intellectual revival. At that time, scholars were keen to reconcile and transmit the teachings of the Church Fathers on Scripture. Our text is one such effort, focusing on the creation narrative in Genesis. It reflects medieval theological preoccupations: affirming orthodox creation doctrine (e.g. creation ex nihilo, the goodness of creation) against any lingering heresies (like Manichaeism), and educating clergy in proper biblical interpretation. By compiling authoritative sources, the text ensured continuity with patristic thought, which was crucial in an era when originality was less valued than fidelity to tradition. In the broader landscape of medieval theology, “De Sex Dierum Creatione” fits into the genre of Hexaemeron (six days) commentaries that were popular from the Patristic age through the Middle Ages. While Church Fathers such as Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose, and Augustine had written influential Hexaemeral works, the early medieval period produced fewer original treatments. Instead, scholars often curated existing insights – exactly what this compilation does. Thus, the work stands as a witness to how early medieval theologians engaged with Genesis: not by crafting new theories, but by carefully transmitting inherited wisdom. It became a building block in medieval exegesis, used by later commentators and even feeding into the great Glossa Ordinaria (the standard medieval biblical gloss) (University of Southern California - The medieval Latin hexameron from Bede to Grosseteste). Its historical importance therefore lies less in unique ideas and more in its role as a conduit of tradition, illustrating how 9th-century scholars approached Scripture through the lens of earlier authorities.
Thematic Analysis
As a Hexaemeron commentary, “De Sex Dierum Creatione” centers on the theological interpretation of the six days of creation described in Genesis 1, as well as the completion of creation and divine rest in Genesis 2:1–3. Its key themes align with orthodox Christian doctrine on creation. First and foremost is the affirmation that God created the world in an ordered sequence of six days, reflecting divine wisdom and purpose. Each day’s creative act is expounded with theological significance. For example, the creation of light on the first day is not only a physical beginning but also symbolizes the inception of divine illumination (often interpreted as the creation of angels or the light of Christ). The text likely discusses the separation of the heavens and waters on the second day, the emergence of land and vegetation on the third, and so forth, up to humanity’s creation on the sixth day. In doing so, it emphasizes the goodness of creation (“And God saw that it was good”), countering any notion that matter is evil – a stance important since some early heresies (like Manichaeism) viewed material creation negatively. Theologically, the work upholds creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and the power of the divine Word (“Let there be…”). It also treats the Sabbath rest (the seventh day) as the culmination of creation, imbuing it with spiritual meaning (often, the seventh day is seen as a figure of the eternal rest or the perfection of creation).
One notable theme in this compilation is the synthesis of literal and spiritual interpretations for each element of the creation story. The text does not introduce radically new doctrines; instead, it consolidates teachings from earlier authorities. In doing so, it often presents multiple layers of meaning for the same event. For instance, the emergence of light (Day 1) would be examined literally (as the creation of physical light or perhaps the angels), but also allegorically – many Fathers took “light” to signify the illumination of souls or the coming of Christ, the “light of the world.” The creation of the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4 might be interpreted literally as the formation of celestial bodies, yet simultaneously those luminaries can symbolize the greater and lesser lights of the Church (Christ and the Church, or spiritual and secular authority, etc., as various commentators suggested). This dual approach is a recurring theme. The alignment or divergence from other commentaries largely comes down to which patristic source is being echoed. Because the work draws heavily on Augustine and Ambrose, its exposition reflects their influence: Augustine’s more esoteric take on the six days (he famously contemplated that all things were created simultaneously by God and the “days” represent a logical framework for human understanding) versus Ambrose’s more straightforward, day-by-day approach in his Hexameron. The compiler seems to weave these together, generally presenting a harmonious view rather than highlighting conflicts. For example, where Basil and Ambrose insisted on the reality of successive days and the physical aspects of creation, Augustine delved into the philosophical notion of rationes seminales (seed principles implanted in creation). “De Sex Dierum Creatione” appears to accommodate such ideas in tandem, offering a composite understanding. It does not strongly take a side in debates like instantaneous creation vs. six-day process; instead, it records both the literal sequential narrative and the deeper spiritual truths extracted by the Fathers.
Philosophically, the text touches on medieval cosmology inherited from antiquity. It likely discusses the four elements (earth, water, air, fire) as they appear through the days (the separation of waters, creation of land, formation of celestial lights, etc.), since Ambrose and others often integrated the Greco-Roman natural philosophy of elements into their commentary. There is also an implicit theme of order and hierarchy in creation: light precedes luminaries, the heavens are made before earth is filled, simpler life forms (plants, then animals) come before humans – all underlining a grand design. This ordered creation is often linked to an ordered moral and spiritual cosmos. The work may draw parallels between the six days of creation and the “six ages of the world” or the “six ages of man” (a common medieval schema following Augustine and others, which saw human history in six eras analogous to the six days, with the seventh as the eternal Sabbath) (Walters Ms. W.307, “Trésor de sapience” (Creation to 138 CE)). Such a parallel would imbue the creation week with prophetic meaning, a theme in some patristic writings. In essence, thematically De Sex Dierum Creatione reinforces the idea that the Genesis creation account is foundational both cosmologically and spiritually: it establishes truths about the physical universe’s origin and also encodes spiritual lessons about God’s plan, order, and the destiny of creation.
Sources & Influences
As a “liber sententiarum ex Patribus collectarum” (a book of sentences collected from the Fathers), this text is built almost entirely from earlier authoritative sources (Reference). The compiler’s method was to excerpt and stitch together passages from renowned Church Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers who had commented on Genesis. The two most heavily used sources are St. Augustine and St. Ambrose (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s). The manuscript rubric explicitly notes that the exposition of the six days was “sumpta ex dictis sancti Augustini & sancti Ambrosii,” i.e. “taken from the sayings of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose” (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s). Augustine’s influence is primarily via his work De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis). Indeed, the compilation often lifts Augustine’s literal explanations of Genesis 1–3 almost verbatim (Reference). For example, when discussing the creation of light or the firmament, it echoes Augustine’s reasoning and even his phrasing (as can be confirmed by matching lines in Augustine’s text with the compiled version (Reference)). Augustine’s other writings on Genesis, such as De Genesi contra Manichaeos (which was a simpler, earlier commentary intended to refute heretics), might also inform some passages (Reference). From Augustine comes not only literal exegesis but also deep reflections on time, creation’s instantaneous vs. sequential nature, and the symbolic import of the days – the compiler uses these to underpin the literal narrative with intellectual weight.
From St. Ambrose of Milan, the work draws on the Hexameron, Ambrose’s series of sermons on the six days of creation. Ambrose’s Hexameron was itself hugely influential in the Latin West, and it provided vivid elaborations on each day’s events, rich with natural lore and moral lessons. De Sex Dierum Creatione uses Ambrose especially for the more concrete or allegorical points that Augustine might not have covered. In fact, one medieval catalogue entry described our text as “Explanatio sex dierum sumpta ex opusculis sancti Augustini et sancti Ambrosii et ceterorum,” meaning an explanation of the six days drawn from the works of Augustine, Ambrose “and others”* (Reference). Those “others” include at least **Isidore of Seville, and likely St. Jerome, Gregory the Great, and lesser-known commentators. We know Isidore’s Allegoriae or Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum contributed substantially: Gorman observes that Isidore’s allegorical commentary on Genesis 1–3 was excerpted in toto (in entirety) alongside Augustine’s literal text (Reference). Isidore’s influence is seen whenever the compilation shifts to a spiritual or allegorical explanation immediately after a literal one – a pattern that mirrors Isidore’s style of attaching moral/allegorical interpretations to biblical events. For example, if Augustine explains the creation of the firmament literally, the next lines might be from Isidore explaining the firmament allegorically as, say, a figure of the Scriptures or steadfast faith (such allegorical nuggets are typical of Isidore’s approach).
Other sources and influences likely woven into the text include St. Jerome’s works – Jerome wrote Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim (Hebrew Questions on Genesis), a philological commentary on Genesis. The Carolingian compiler might have borrowed Jerome’s insights on Hebrew terms or brief notes (Wigbod, who used De Sex Dierum Creatione, certainly knew Jerome’s Genesis questions (Reference)). Gregory the Great is another probable source, indirectly if not directly. Gregory didn’t write a Hexameron, but his Moralia in Job and other writings often allude to creation themes and provide allegorical interpretations (for instance, Gregory interpreted “light” as charity or good works, etc.). A 7th-century florilegium by Paterius (which compiles Gregory’s comments on Scripture) was available in the Carolingian age, and excerpts of Gregory via Paterius might be present (Reference). Indeed, scholars note that any use of Gregory’s opinions in our text is typically credited (in margin or content) to Gregory by name (Reference), showing the compiler was careful to acknowledge sources.
Lesser-known but important influences include Eucherius of Lyon (5th c.), who wrote formulae for spiritual interpretation of biblical terms – possibly used for concise allegories; Hilary of Poitiers (4th c.), who had tangential remarks on Genesis (though he wrote no full commentary, he commented on creation in his De Trinitate and other works, which might be excerpted); and Junilius Africanus (6th c.), whose handbook Institutes of Divine Law taught how to interpret Scripture (the compiler references Junilius regarding interpretative rules (Reference)). We see, then, a broad patristic net: Augustine provides the philosophical and literal backbone, Ambrose (and indirectly Basil via Ambrose) provides detailed exposition of the text, Isidore and others supply allegorical and moral glosses. The result is a mosaic of patristic wisdom.
It’s worth noting that the compiler was not merely stringing quotations randomly, but likely following the Genesis text sequentially and pulling in the best from each Father for each verse or topic. For instance, Day 6 (creation of animals and man) might combine Augustine’s musings on the image of God in man with Ambrose’s description of Adam’s formation and Isidore’s allegory of animals representing virtues/vices subdued by man’s reason. A subtle influence is how the compiler handles differing opinions: any divergences between sources are smoothed out. Augustine’s and Ambrose’s views on the nature of the “days” did differ, but the compilation doesn’t highlight the conflict; instead, it likely presents Augustine’s take in one place and Ambrose’s in another, without comment, leaving the reader to absorb both. This reflects the medieval respect for all authorities – apparent contradictions were often left to stand, trusting the reader or tradition to harmonize them. In summary, De Sex Dierum Creatione is deeply indebted to earlier Christian thought. It engages with existing theological traditions by literally incorporating them, acting as a digest of centuries of Genesis interpretation. Through it, the voice of Augustine, Ambrose, and others continued to be heard in the ninth-century classroom and monastery.
Exegetical Method
Medieval diagram of the Six Days of Creation, with textual commentary in concentric circles (The Hague, KB 72 A 23, fol. 36r). Such schematic illustrations reflect the kind of synthesized exegesis found in “De Sex Dierum Creatione,” integrating literal and allegorical interpretations for each day.
The interpretative technique of “De Sex Dierum Creatione” is characterized by a deliberate integration of the literal and allegorical senses of Scripture. In medieval hermeneutics, it was commonplace to acknowledge multiple levels of meaning (often enumerated as historical/literal, allegorical, tropological/moral, and anagogical). Our text explicitly invokes this framework: at its outset it reportedly reminds readers that “quattuor sunt regulae scripturae” — there are four rules (or senses) of Scripture: history, allegory, tropology, anagogy (Reference). This signals that the compiler intends to employ more than one sense in explaining Genesis. The primary structure followed is to present a literal (historical) interpretation first, then follow it with an allegorical (spiritual) interpretation. This approach mirrors what we see in the content: for each of the six days, the sequence might be: literal narrative (drawn largely from Augustine’s literal commentary) → allegorical insight (often drawn from Isidore or others). Such a method ensures the reader understands the actual events of creation (what happened on each day) and then perceives a deeper meaning behind those events (what it signifies for Christ, the Church, or the soul). For example, after describing Day 3 literally (the gathering of waters and appearance of dry land, growth of plants), the text may add an allegorical gloss: the dry land can symbolize the steadfast believer rising from the sea of worldly confusion, and the plants signify virtues that begin to grow in the soul. This literal-plus-allegorical pattern is systematic enough that a scholar has noted: “allegorical explanations from Isidore’s commentary on Genesis regularly follow the literal explanations of Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram” (Reference). In other words, the compiler intentionally paired sources to cover both angles, almost like a chain of commentary (catena) where each link complements the previous.
This method places De Sex Dierum Creatione in line with contemporary exegetical traditions of the early medieval period. Carolingian commentators often compiled glossae or commentaries that juxtaposed different interpretations. A similar text of the era, the Glossa on Genesis (and later the massive Glossa Ordinaria), would surround the biblical text with marginal notes gleaned from the Fathers – essentially doing what our compilation does, albeit in continuous prose form. There is also a resemblance to the Irish and Anglo-Saxon scholarly traditions, which valued encyclopedic commentary and had produced works like the anonymous Explanatio or Dialogues on Genesis that mix questions and answers with multi-sense interpretations (Reference). While De Sex Dierum Creatione is not cast as a Q&A dialogue (unlike Wigbod’s Quaestiones on Genesis, which was a dialogical catechism), it still reflects a pedagogical style. Each section implicitly asks, “Quid dicit historia? Quid significat allegoria?” (“What does the history say? What does the allegory signify?”) – then answers by quoting the relevant authority. This aligns with the didactic goal of Carolingian exegesis: to instruct not only in quid factum (what was done by God in creation) but quid credendum (what must be believed or understood spiritually).
In comparison to patristic exegesis, our text is less a product of one exegetical school (like Alexandrian allegorical vs. Antiochene literal) and more a compendium bridging those approaches. It inherits the allegorical penchant of origins like Origen (though Origen’s own Genesis homilies survive only in fragments, his influence comes via others), and the literal concern of writers like Basil. But rather than choosing one method, it employs a concordantia of methods. This was very much in keeping with medieval taste: by the 7th–9th centuries, Western exegetes assumed Scripture had multiple senses and sought to include them all. For instance, a Carolingian reader would expect that the Paradise of Eden is both a real garden (history) and a figure of the Holy Church or of the human soul (allegory/moral). De Sex Dierum Creatione meets that expectation by providing both the factual recounting and the symbolic interpretation side by side.
It’s also notable that the compiler preserved the actual words of the Fathers most of the time, rather than paraphrasing heavily. This gives the work a mosaic quality in style (Augustine’s eloquence in one line, Isidore’s concise latinisms in the next, etc.), but it was important for authority. The method was essentially catena or florilegium exegesis – stringing authoritative quotes together. In doing so, the compiler might introduce excerpts with phrases like “Sicut ait Ambrosius…” (“As Ambrose says…”) or might weave them more seamlessly. Evidence from Wigbod’s use of the text shows that sometimes the attributions were clear (Wigbod’s manuscript even had headings like “Ambrosius in Hexameron” embedded in the text) (Reference). Thus, the method is not to produce a novel interpretation, but to present a curated gallery of interpretations. This is akin to a modern annotated Bible, except the annotations are extensive and drawn from venerable sources.
Compared to later medieval exegesis, one could see De Sex Dierum Creatione as a precursor to the scholastic “Sentences” approach. Just as Peter Lombard in the 12th century compiled sentences of Fathers on various theological topics, here an unknown 8th/9th-century scholar compiles sentences on the biblical text. The difference is that Lombard organized by doctrinal topic, whereas our compiler organizes by biblical chronology (Genesis verses). Nonetheless, the spirit is the same: let the authorities speak, and harmonize them under a unifying format. In conclusion, the exegetical method of this work is both conservative and innovative: conservative in that it sticks rigorously to patristic interpretations (no personal, speculative commentary from the compiler is evident), yet innovative in the way it systematically arranges literal and allegorical insights into a single coherent commentary. This integrated approach offered readers a fuller understanding of Genesis, training them to see Scripture in the rich, multivalent way that medieval theology cherished.
Impact & Reception
“De Sex Dierum Creatione” had a discernible, if somewhat behind-the-scenes, impact on medieval biblical studies. In the immediate Carolingian era, it was evidently valued as a resource for teaching and commentary. One of its most significant uses was by Wigbod (fl. late 8th – 9th century), who prepared an encyclopedic commentary on the Octateuch (Genesis–Ruth) for Charlemagne. Wigbod’s commentary on Genesis 1–3 draws extensively from De Sex Dierum Creatione – in fact, over half of Wigbod’s text for those chapters is lifted directly from it, word for word, interspersed with only a few other sources (especially Augustine) (University of Southern California - The medieval Latin hexameron from Bede to Grosseteste). This shows that Wigbod trusted and relied on our compilation as a definitive digest of patristic wisdom on creation. Through Wigbod’s influential commentary (which circulated under Bede’s name in many manuscripts (University of Southern California - The medieval Latin hexameron from Bede to Grosseteste)), the content of De Sex Dierum Creatione permeated early medieval scholarship. It essentially became part of the standard commentary tradition on Genesis.
Moreover, as the medieval Glossa Ordinaria on the Bible began to take shape in the 11th–12th centuries, those compilers also used earlier Carolingian works. Wigbod’s commentary (with the material from De Sex Dierum Creatione embedded in it) was known to them (University of Southern California - The medieval Latin hexameron from Bede to Grosseteste). Thus, through Wigbod, our text’s influence filtered into the Glossa Ordinaria – the ubiquitous Bible gloss that was the cornerstone of High Medieval theological education. We can say that De Sex Dierum Creatione is one link in the chain of transmission of Genesis exegesis, helping bridge the gap between the Fathers and the scholastic era (University of Southern California - The medieval Latin hexameron from Bede to Grosseteste). It kept Augustine’s and Ambrose’s insights in circulation at a time (9th–10th century) when direct knowledge of Greek Fathers like Basil was waning in the West and before new commentaries had arisen.
In terms of wider reception, the work was copied in a number of manuscripts. The Christie’s catalog of a 12th-century manuscript (Schøyen Collection, MS 229) shows De Sex Dierum Creatione included with Bede’s and Wigbod’s Genesis commentaries (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s) (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s), indicating scribes saw it as a complementary text to authoritative commentaries. Its presence in at least eleven manuscripts is noted (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s), which, for an early medieval text, denotes a fair degree of circulation (especially considering many texts from that era survive in just one or two copies). The fact that later compilers sometimes attributed it to big names (Ambrose, Bede, etc.) arguably boosted its copying – scribes might include it in collections of a Father’s works. It was printed in the Renaissance by Herwagen (1563) and by Migne (19th c.), which suggests that it continued to be read or at least referenced by scholars who thought it might be genuinely by Bede or another Father (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s). While it never achieved the fame of Augustine’s or Ambrose’s individual works, it served as a reference text for those who wanted a concise yet authoritative Hexaemeron commentary.
In medieval theological discourse, De Sex Dierum Creatione did not spark controversy or novel debate – and that was by design, since it was a compilation. Its influence is thus seen in the continuity it provided. For instance, when later medieval thinkers like Hugh of St. Victor, Robert Grosseteste, or St. Bonaventure engaged with the Hexaemeron theme (each of these wrote their own Hexaemeron in the 12th–13th centuries, after a long gap of few original Hexaemeral works), they often cited the Fathers directly. Yet, intermediate compilations had kept those patristic sources alive for them. A quotation in a 14th-century text might trace back to Augustine originally, but the medieval author could have accessed it via the chain of florilegia like De Sex Dierum Creatione or the Glossa. In this way, our text quietly ensured that interpretations like Augustine’s view of the simultaneous creation of all things (the rationes causales) or Ambrose’s teachings on the harmony of the elements were familiar to scholars who did not have the original tomes at hand.
Reception-wise, the theological community respected the text as a compendium, but also recognized it was not apostolic or conciliar authority – it was authoritative insofar as it correctly conveyed the Fathers. We see evidence of its respected status in how carefully it was handled: medieval annotators identified its quotes, and it was placed alongside venerable authors in manuscripts, sometimes with rubrics clarifying its secondary nature (e.g., “ex dictis patrum” – “from the sayings of the fathers”). By the high Middle Ages, when scholastics preferred to quote the Fathers by name, De Sex Dierum Creatione receded in prominence; scholars would go straight to Augustine or Ambrose (especially with new critical translations and editions emerging). However, its legacy endured through those later writers it had educated. Even today, it provides modern historians with insight into early medieval exegesis and was noted as “a link in the chain of Carolingian literature on Genesis” that formed part of the background of the Glossa Ordinaria (University of Southern California - The medieval Latin hexameron from Bede to Grosseteste). In summary, the work’s impact was cumulative rather than singular: it did not create new doctrine, but it perpetuated and consolidated the Church’s understanding of the Creation, thereby influencing medieval readers indirectly through more famous channels.
Linguistic & Literary Considerations
Linguistically, “De Sex Dierum Creatione” is written in the Latin of the early medieval period, which carries traces of its diverse sources. The Latin style oscillates between the classically influenced prose of Augustine and Ambrose and the more concise, sometimes technical style of later writers like Isidore. Because much of the text is quoted or closely paraphrased, one can detect shifts in tone: for instance, Augustine’s sections (often from De Genesi ad litteram) are more elaborate, with nuanced philosophical vocabulary and longer periodic sentences, whereas Isidore’s contributions tend to be succinct and straightforward, reflecting a seventh-century monastic Latin that was more utilitarian. The compiler likely made some adaptations for coherence, but largely preserved the original phrasing to maintain authority. This creates a patchwork literary texture that was typical for florilegia. Medieval readers, accustomed to compilations, would recognize many of the famous lines or phrases. For example, an oft-cited Augustinian phrase about creation or a characteristically Ambrosian metaphor (Ambrose loved analogies from nature) would stand out in the text. Far from seeing this patchwork as a flaw, medieval scribes and readers valued it – it was like having a chorus of revered voices all in one place.
In terms of structure, the work is likely organized day by day or by sections of the Genesis narrative (possibly by chapter and verse up through Genesis 3). It might have discrete chapters or books for each of the six days of creation, though since it’s not very lengthy (covering only ~27 columns in Migne), it might be a single continuous treatise with divisions indicated for each day. The literary form is prosaic commentary, not a dialogue or drama. There is a brief prologue or introduction where the compiler sets the stage (perhaps invoking the fourfold method of interpretation and explaining the intent to compile authorities). After that, each segment of the Genesis text is followed by explanation. We do not have storytelling or narrative embellishment here; instead, it reads as an explanatory text – a chain of exposition. This is somewhat different from Ambrose’s Hexameron, which, being originally sermons, had a more rhetorical and pastoral flourish (e.g., Ambrose addresses the listener, uses lively imagery). In De Sex Dierum Creatione, such flourishes would be toned down or excerpted out in favor of the core meaning. For instance, Ambrose’s anecdotes or digressions on the habits of animals (he includes many in his Day 5 and Day 6 homilies) are likely omitted, but his theological points are kept.
The Latin is broadly medieval Latin with some vocabulary drawn from the Vulgate and patristic theological terms. Expect technical terms like firmamentum (firmament), aqua superior/inferior (upper/lower water), luminaria (lights for sun and moon), imaginem Dei (image of God), etc. Since the text quotes Scripture, the Vulgate Latin of Genesis is embedded throughout, often as lemmata (short citations) that the commentary then explicates. For example, it might quote “Fiat lux” (“Let there be light”) and then provide commentary: “Fiat lux: Mystice, lux primae creationis significat…” etc. The rhetorical strategy here is to anchor each section in the biblical words and then unfold their meaning with authoritative commentary. In terms of cohesion, the compiler occasionally provides linking sentences of his own. These can be spotted where a transition is needed between two patristic quotes. Such sentences are usually plain and functional Latin, e.g., “Hinc Augustinus docet…” (“Hence Augustine teaches…”) or “Allegorice autem…” (“But allegorically…”), marking a shift from literal to allegorical.
One notable literary feature is the use of marginal and internal attributions. In some manuscripts, marginal notes like “Aug.”, “Hier.”, “Amb.” indicate the source of a given passage (Reference). In others, the text itself might say “secundum sententiam Sancti Ambrosii” (“according to the opinion of St. Ambrose”) before giving Ambrose’s view. This was important to the medieval compilers to maintain transparency of authority. It also adds a layer of didactic tone: the text itself teaches the reader whose wisdom is being imparted, reinforcing respect for those authorities.
From a literary standpoint, De Sex Dierum Creatione is not an original narrative or argument, but a collation. Its artistry, if we may call it that, lies in the selection and ordering of material. The compiler had to ensure that the flow of commentary followed the flow of Scripture logically. This often required skillful abridgment. For instance, Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram is quite lengthy and technical; the compiler distilled key points from it. That distillation sometimes results in short, aphoristic statements that read as if they were meant to be memorized. An example might be a line like: “Sex diebus mundus perfectus est propter senariam huius saeculi aetatem” – “The world was perfected in six days on account of the six ages of this world” (a hypothetical summary line tying six days to six ages). Such crisp sentences are typical of medieval compendia, which often state a doctrinal point succinctly after elaboration.
The Latin style is generally clear and didactic, aimed at accessibility for educated monks or clergy. It’s less polished Ciceronian and more akin to the monastic textbook style of the era. There are, however, moments of elevated diction whenever a direct quote from, say, Ambrose is given – Ambrose, being a master rhetorician, adds a pleasant stylistic variety when his prose is included. An example from Ambrose’s Hexameron might be: “Deus, qui lucem iussit ex tenebris splendescere, corda illuminat” (“God, who commanded light to shine out of darkness, illuminates our hearts”) – if such a line appears, it momentarily lifts the stylistic tone with its balance and scriptural cadence. The compiler, by choosing such lines, shows an ear for impactful language.
Finally, the manuscript presentation of the text in known copies often includes red rubrics and decorated initials (as the Christies manuscript description notes an initial at the start) (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s) (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s). The incipit “In nomine Dei summi incipit explanatio sex dierum…” is given a formal rubric, marking it as a formal exposition (A 12th-century compilation, Bede (c.672-735), Wigbod (fl. 786), and Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), Commentaries on Genesis, and on the other first books of the Bible, etc., in Latin with some words in Greek majuscules, decorated manuscript on vellum [Germany, 12th century] - Christie’s). This indicates that contemporaries regarded it as a standalone treatise worthy of careful copying and illumination, even if it was derivative. The literary unity given to the compiled excerpts – binding them as one book – is itself a noteworthy accomplishment. It turned disparate sources into a single didactic narrative covering Creation. Thus, in literary terms, De Sex Dierum Creatione can be appreciated as a concise, well-curated Hexaemeron commentary, whose style serves clarity and authority, and whose structure meticulously follows the sacred text to impart layered meanings.
Side by side view is not available on small screens. Please use Latin Only or English Only views.
Latin Original
English Translation
Text & Translation Information
Enjoy this article? Continue the discussion!
Watch the translation and share your insights on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube