Chalcidius

English

'But the earth was invisible and formless' — that is, corporeal hyle, the old substance of the world, before it took on forms fashioned by the skill of God the craftsman, still then colourless and lacking every quality. And what is such is certainly held to be invisible and formless. It is called 'empty' and 'nothing' for this reason: that since it is the receiver of all qualities, it has none of its own by nature. Hyle, then, as that which receives into itself all the things that happen, is called empty, as that which can never seem able to be filled. And because it is devoid of all things, it is called nothing. But it is named 'idle' and 'undigested' by Symmachus: idle, in that of itself it avails nothing; and it is reckoned undigested in that it has the fitness to receive order from God adorning it as he sets about the world. But the signification 'stupefied, out of wonder' declares a certain force and likeness of soul, since it would be stupefied, seized by the majesty of its craftsman and author.

Draft English (Claude), awaiting Wilson · cc-by

Latin

Paris 1520, fo. LVIII recto (archive.org bub_gb_LxGcsxR3tWgC, page/n116.jpg) · chalcidius-1520

Notes

Tohu va-vohu given four Latin renderings in one paragraph, each explained, by the earliest Latin on this daf. Invisible and formless is hyle: the old corporeal substance of the world, colourless and without quality before the craftsman's skill gave it forms. Empty and nothing are explained by the receptacle argument in its clean Platonic form — it is called empty because it receives all qualities and has none of its own, and nothing because it is devoid of all things — which is what Augustine will grope toward in Confessions XII, calling it a nothing-something, and what the Gloss will flatten into materia informis. Symmachus's otiosa and indigesta are then glossed separately: idle because of itself it avails nothing, undigested because it has the fitness to receive order. And the reading Origen credits to the Hebrews, stupide ex admiratione, is given a psychological explanation — the earth would be stupefied, seized by the majesty of its maker. That last one is the crux's rabbinic answer arriving on the Latin bench and being taken seriously: Bereshit Rabbah 2:2 reads tohu va-vohu as tohe u-bohe, bewildered and astonished, and Rashi's word for tohu is astonishment. Alcuin, Angelomus and Hugh all know that alia translatio says inordinata, without knowing whose translation it is or that a fourth-century Latin had named him and explained the word.

Threads

• → parallel · Bereshit Rabbah
  The rabbinic reading of tohu va-vohu reaches the Latin bench in the fourth century, is explained, and goes nowhere. Bereshit Rabbah 2:2 hears tohe u-bohe in the words — bewildered and astonished — and Rashi's word for tohu at Troyes is astonishment. Chalcidius reports, from Origen and credited to the Hebrews, an exemplar reading terra autem stupida quadam erat admiratione, and then glosses it: the signification declares a certain force and likeness of soul, since the earth would be stupefied, seized by the majesty of its maker. A Latin has the other bench's reading of this verse, with its psychology, seven hundred years before Rashi writes it down.
• → contests · Angelomus of Luxeuil
  Angelomus knows there is another translation and does not know whose. 'Whence another translation says: unseen and unordered' is as far as the ninth century can get. Chalcidius names him — otiosa uero et indigesta nuncupatur a Symmacho — quotes him twice, and explains both words: idle because of itself it avails nothing, undigested because it has the fitness to receive order. The alia translatio of the Carolingian glosses is a named Greek version whose Latin attribution had been in print since the fourth century and was lost.
• → parallel · Augustine
  Augustine groping for the word Chalcidius already has. Confessions XII asks what the formless is to be called if not by some familiar word, and settles on a nothing-something, a is-that-is-not. Chalcidius states the receptacle argument flat: it is called empty because, being the receiver of all qualities, it has none of its own by nature, and nothing because it is devoid of all things. The two men are describing the same thing and only one of them has the Platonic vocabulary intact; Augustine is reaching for it through a Latin Bible.
• → parallel · Basil of Caesarea
  The two fourth-century texts that give a Latin reader the Greek behind inuisibilis et incomposita, and only one of them stays on the bench. Basil, in Eustathius's Latin, expounds the earth as invisible and unordered and explains why the terms are apt. Chalcidius gives the same clause four renderings — the Septuagint's, Aquila's inanis et nihil, Symmachus's otiosum quid confusumque et inordinatum, and the Hebrews' stupida admiratione — and explains each. Basil is copied by Bede and reaches the twelfth century; Chalcidius is copied by nobody.
• → contests · Ambrose
  Both name hyle and take opposite views of it. Ambrose at Milan reports the philosophers' matter in order to refuse it, as a rival to the God who makes out of nothing. Chalcidius uses sylua as the plain sense of the verse — 'the earth was invisible and formless', that is, corporeal hyle, the old substance of the world before it took on forms — and has already said on the previous leaf that the Hebrews confess hyle was generated, which is what removes Ambrose's objection. The concession Ambrose needed was on a Latin page he never saw.
• → parallel · Augustine
  The same doctrine reached from opposite directions. Augustine works down from God to a formless something 'near to nothing', and needs a page to say what it is not. Chalcidius works up from the Timaeus and has the definition ready: the receiver of all qualities has none of its own by nature, and is therefore called empty; being devoid of all things, it is called nothing. Augustine has the Bible and is short of the vocabulary; Chalcidius has the vocabulary and is using the Bible to confirm it.
• → parallel · Moses ben Naḥman (Naḥmanides)
  The two witnesses on this daf who take the plain sense of the verse to be about matter and still hold that the matter was made. Ramban: bara means from absolute non-existence, and what was drawn out on the first day was a formless substance from which everything after was formed. Chalcidius: the earth of v. 2 is corporeal hyle, the old substance of the world before it took form — and the Hebrews, he has just said, confess it was generated. Girona 1267 and a Latin commentary on the Timaeus of about 350, agreeing on both halves of the crux.
• ← parallel · Philo of Alexandria
  The one Latin here who had read Philo, describing hyle in Philo's terms: because it is the receiver of all qualities it has none of its own. That is Philo's apoios, without quality, and Philo's able to become all things. Chalcidius names Philo twice elsewhere in the commentary and does not name him here, which is the ordinary shape of this transmission: the doctrine crosses and the attribution does not.