Page:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu/434

 legislation was conformed to the will of nature, and that therefore those who followed it were true cosmopolitans; (b) the Biographies of the Virtuous—being, so to speak, the living unwritten laws which, unlike written laws, present the general types of moral conduct; (c) Legislation Proper, in two subdivisions— the ten principal chapters of the law, the special laws belonging to each of these ten. An appendix adds a view of such laws as do not fall under the rubrics of the decalogue, arranged under the headings of certain cardinal virtues.

The treatises which belong to this work are the following: (1) (De mundi opifico, M. i. 1–42). This work does not fall within the number of the allegorical commentaries. On the other hand, the introduction to the treatise De Abrahamo makes clear its immediate connexion with the De mundi opifico. The position of the De mundi opifico at the head of the allegorical commentaries, which is at present usual in the editions, seems indeed to go back to a very early date, for even Eusebius cites a passage from it with the formula (Praep. Ev. viii 12 fin, ed. Gaisford). The group of the  is headed by (2)  (De Abrahamo, M. ii. 1–40). Abraham is here set forth as the type of i e. of virtue as a thing learned. This biography of Abraham was followed by that of Isaac as a type of i e. of innate or natural virtue, which in turn was succeeded by that of Jacob as representing, i e. virtue acquired by practice; but both these are now lost. Hence in the editions the next treatise is (3) (De Josepho, M. ii. 41–79), where Joseph is taken as the pattern of the wise man in his civil relations. The Biographies of the Virtuous are followed by (4) (De decalogo, M. ii. 180–209) and (5)  (De specialibus legibus; the unabridged title is given by Eusebius, H.E. ii. 18, 5). Here under the rubrics of the ten commandments a systematic review of the special laws of the Mosaic economy is given; for example, under the first and second commandments (divine worship) a survey is taken of the entire legislation relating to priesthood and sacrifice; under the fourth (i e. the Sabbath law, according to Philo’s reckoning) there is a survey of all the laws about feasts; under the sixth (adultery) an account of matrimonial law; and so on. According to Eusebius the work embraced four books, which seem to have reached us entire, but in the editions have been perversely broken up into a considerable number of separate tractates (a) The first book (on the first and second commandments) includes the following: De circumcisione (M. ii. 210–212); De monarchia, lib. i. (ii. 213–222); De monarchia, lib. ii. (ii. 222–232); De praemiis sacerdotum (ii 232–237); De victimis (ii. 237–250); De sacrificantibus or De victimas offerentibus (ii. 251–264); De mercede meretricis non accipienda in sacrarium (ii. 264–269). (b) The second book (on the third, fourth and fifth commandments, i e. on perjury, Sabbath observance, and filial piety) is incomplete in Mangey (ii. 270–298), the section De septinario (on the Sabbath and feasts in general) being imperfect, and that De colendis parentibus being entirely wanting. Mai to a large extent made good the defect (De cophini festo et de colendis parentibus, Milan, 1818), but Tischendorf was the first to edit the full text (Philonea, pp. 1–83). (c) The third book relates to the sixth and seventh commandments (adultery and murder; M. 299–334). (d) To the fourth book (relating to the last three commandments) belongs all that is found in Mangey, ii 335–374, that is to say, not merely the tractates De judice (ii. 344–348) and De concupiscentia (ii. 348–358), but also those De Justitia (ii. 358–361) and De creatione principum (ii. 361–374). The last-named is, properly speaking, only a portion of the De justitia, which, however, certainly belongs to the fourth book, of which the superscription expressly bears that it treats also. With this tractate begins the appendix to the work De specialibus legibus, into which, under the rubric of certain cardinal virtues, such Mosaic laws are brought together as could not be dealt with under any of the decalogue rubrics. The continuation of this appendix forms a book by itself. (6) (De fortitudine, M. ii. 375–383; De caritate, ii 383–405; De poenitentia, ii. 405–407). Finally, in less intimate connexion with this entire work is another treatise still to be mentioned, (7) (De praemiis et poenis, M ii 408–428) and  (De execrationibus, M. ii. 429–457), two parts which constitute a single whole and deal with the promises and threatenings of the law.

IV Besides the above-named three great works on the Pentateuch, Philo was the author of a number of isolated writings, of which the following have reached us either in their entirety or in fragments (1) (Vita Mosis, lib. i–iii., M. ii. 80–179). It is usual to group this, as being biographical in its character, with the, and thus to incorporate it immediately after the De Josepho with the large work on the Mosaic legislation. But, as has been seen, the are intended to represent the general types of morality, while Moses is by no means so dealt with, but as a unique individual. All that can be said is that the literary character of the Vita Mosis is the same as that of the larger work. As in the latter the Mosaic legislation, so in the former the activity of the legislator himself, is delineated for the benefit of Gentile readers. (2) (Quod omnis probus liber, M. ii. 445–470). In the introduction to this treatise reference is made to an earlier book which had for its theme the converse proposition. The complete work was still extant in the time of Eusebius (H. E. ii. 18, 6). . The genuineness of the writing now possessed by us is not undisputed but see Lucius, Der Essenimus (1881), pp. 13–23. (3) (Adversus Flaccum, M. ii. 517–544) and (4)  (De legatione ad Gaium, M. ii. 545–600). These two works have a very intimate connexion. In the first Philo relates how the Roman governor Flaccus in Alexandria, towards the beginning of the reign of Caligula, allowed the Alexandrian mob, without interference, to insult the Jews of that city in the grossest manner, and even to persecute them to the shedding of blood. In the second he tells how the Jews had been subjected to still greater sufferings through the command of Caligula that divine honours should be everywhere accorded to him, and how the Jews of Alexandria in vain sought relief by a mission to Rome which was headed by Philo. But both together were only parts of a larger work, in five books, of which the first two and the last have perished. For it is clear from the introduction to the Adversus Flaccum that it had been preceded by another book in which the Jewish persecutions by Sejanus, under the reign of Tiberius, were spoken of, and the Chronicon of Eusebius (ed. Schoene, ii. 150, 151) informs us that these persecutions of Sejanus were related in the second book of the work now under discussion. But from the conclusion of the Legatio ad Gaium, which we still possess, we learn that it was also followed by another book which exhibited the, or change of Jewish fortunes for the better. Thus we make out five books in all—the number actually given by Eusebius (H.E. ii. 5, 1). (5) (De providentia). This work has reached us only in an Armenian translation, which has been edited, with a Latin translation, by Aucher (see below), 1822. It is mentioned by its Greek title in Eusebius (H. E. ii. 18, 6; Praep. Ev. vii. 20 fin., viii. 13 fin., ed. Gaisford). The Armenian text gives two books, but of these the first, if genuine at all, at any rate appears only in an abridged and somewhat revised state. Eusebius (Praep. Ev. viii. 14) quotes from the second book to an extent that amounts to a series of excerpts from the whole. The short passage in ''Praep. Ev.'' vii. 21, is also taken from this book, and it appears that Eusebius knew nothing at all about the first. (6) (De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant; so Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. 11); the Greek title is given in Euseb. H.E. ii. 18, 6. This also now exists only in an Armenian translation, which has been edited by Aucher. Two small Greek fragments occur in the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes (Mai, Scr. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1, p. 99, 100a). (7), a writing now known to us only through fragments preserved in Euseb. ''Praep. Ev'' viii. 6, 7. The title, as Bernays as shown, means "Counsels," "Recommendations," the reference being to such laws of the Jews as can be recommended also to non-Jewish readers. (8) a title met with in Euseb. H.E. ii. 18, 6. The writing is no doubt the same as, from which a quotation is given in Euseb. ''Praep. Ev.'' viii. 11. To this place also, perhaps, belongs the De nobilitate (M. ii. 437–444), which treats of that true noblesse of wisdom in which the Jewish people also is not wanting.

V. The doubtful treatises: (1) (De vita contemplativa). This contains the sole original account of an ascetic community known as the (q. v.) having their home on the shores of Lake Mareotis. These were held by Eusebius and many other Christian writers to be the earliest Christian monks, which of course could not be the case if it was a genuine work of Philo. On this account, amongst others, it was held to be spurious by Graetz and P. E. Lucius; and this view gradually received the assent of most modern scholars. Latterly, however, L. Massebieau has shown with great thoroughness that in language and thought alike it is essentially Philonic, and the genuineness of the book has also been affirmed by P. Wendland, and especially by F. C. Conybeare. (2) (De incorruptibilitate mundi), declared unauthentic by Z. Frankel and J. Bernays, has been successfully defended by F. Cumont. (3) (De mundo). It is generally agreed that, in L. Cohn’s words, this is “nothing but a compilation from various portions of the and other Philonic works.” (4) Two discourses, De Sampsone and De Iona, extant only in Armenian, and certain other writings of the same kind. These appear only to have been imputed to Philo by chance, and certainly cannot claim to be his work. (5) (Quod omnis probus liber sit) has been questioned by Z. Frankel and R. Ansfeld; but their arguments would rather point to its being an early work of Philo, which P. Wendland believes to be the case. (6) (De providentia), which we possess as a whole