William of Conches’ theory of the Creation did not differ a great deal from that of Theodoric, except that the _materia primordialis_ was not, in his opinion, a chaotic mingling of the elements; for within it, he thought, as we have already seen,[604] that the elements were arranged in their proper order according to accepted classical laws of physics. The lands were uncovered by the removal of the waters, though this took place later in the process according to William than it did according to Theodoric. William attributed the drying off of the waters partly to the warmth of the stars (which were not formed until the fourth day) and partly to the creation of the water and land animals on the fifth and sixth days respectively.[605] In different portions of this primordial land, when it was just in the act of emerging from the waters, fiery, watery, earthy elements were present in varying quantities. This condition gave birth to divers varieties of animals. Where the fiery element was in excess, choleric animals, like the lion, came into being; where the water element prevailed, phlegmatic animals, like the pig; and the earthy element produced melancholic creatures like the ass and cow. At the one and only place where the combination was absolutely equal, man appeared. Woman, on the other hand, was made from a combination almost like that of man but one in which the colder elements were very slightly in excess, because the warmest of women by nature is colder than the coldest of men! This last, an extremely free and heretical and from our point of view unchivalrous theory, William retracted in his old age.[606] FUNCTION OF LIGHT IN THE CREATION (3) What was the nature of the light which God made when he said, “Let there be light”? Although Augustine had interpreted this passage allegorically or mystically as referring to the creation of the world of the angels,[607] he had also suggested that God might have created an actual body of light corresponding to the sun. Bede[608] developed the latter suggestion and maintained that there must have been a luminary revolving around the earth as does the sun. In the twelfth century Hugh of St. Victor and Peter Comestor, both of whom interpreted Scripture more or less literally in this respect, followed Bede. Hugh maintained that this original light was like a luminous cloud which rose in the east and set in the west,[609] and Comestor spoke of it in much the same terms.[610] Other theologians, however, refused to believe that such a light could have actually existed and reverted to Augustine’s first explanation that by the light was meant the world of angels as distinct from the world of evil spirits below.[611] Peter Lombard referred to both interpretations, though he appears to have been inclined to favor the more literal and materialistic theory of Bede.[612]