APPENDIX TO DE VITA CONTEMPLATIVA
(Title and sub-title.) The main title as here printed is that used by Eusebius himself, first when making his famous disquisition on the Therapeutae, Hist. Eccl. ii. 17, and again in his list of Philo’s writings in the next chapter. There can therefore be no doubt of its authenticity, but it is difficult to see why Philo substituted ἱκετῶν for θεραπευτῶν. It does not occur in the treatise itself and though as Conybeare shows there are many passages where ἱκεταί and θεραπευταί are coupled, they are not exactly the same and ἱκεταί does not suit the sense of healing which he gives as an alternative meaning for Therapeutae.
As for the sub-title, the “fourth (part or book) of the virtues” has no authority from Eusebius but appears to be given in all the MSS. The title of Περὶ ἀρετῶν is given by Eus. ii. 18 to the treatise of which the Legatio as we have it is a part, and he says in ii. 5 that this had five books and in ii. 6 speaks of the sufferings of the Jews in Alexandria as being described in the second book. The sub-title, therefore, affirms that the De Vit. Cont. was the fourth book of this treatise. We may be sure at any rate that Eusebius had no idea of this. But this, being part of the wider question what the complete Περὶ ἀρετῶν consists of and what is the meaning of the title, may be postponed until the Legatio is translated.
§ 2. προαίρεσις. This word occurs again five times in this treatise, §§ 17, 29, 32, 67, 79, and twice elsewhere in this volume, Quod Omn. Prob. 89 and Hyp. 11. 2. The uses in Philo, all springing from the sense of choice or purpose, may be divided into those which describe the purpose or motive of some particular action and those which indicate the motives and principles which regulate a lifetime or a career. To the first class belong §§ 29 and 79 as I understand the passage, and § 32 might be taken in the same way. In the other passages it is used in the second sense. In §§ 2, 17 and Hyp. 11. 2, where it is applied to the Therapeutae or the Essenes, it may be thought that it simply = the sect itself. So indeed Gifford translates it in the latter passage and L. & S. recognizes this use of the word. But it seems to me better in the Philonic passages to take it as the beliefs and principles held by the sects, thus including both a creed and a rule of life. The various attempts made in this volume to translate it, i.e. “persuasion,” “vocation,” “creed” and “rule of life,” are none of them, perhaps, quite adequate.
§ 3. (Hephaestus and Poseidon.) So Cornutus (§ 19) says of Hephaestus ἐκ τοῦ ἧφθαι ὠνομασμένος. In the same chapter he, like Philo in De Dec. 54, identifies Ἥρα with ἀήρ, but does not suggest a common derivation. For Poseidon cf. Corn. 4, where he identifies him with ἡ ἀπεργαστικὴ τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὑγροῦ δύναμις and adds εἴτʼ ἀπὸ τῆς πόσεως οὕτω κέκληται. This is followed by two alternative suggestions, cf. Philo’s τάχα.
§ 17. ῥαψῳδίας. Conybeare, scolding Lucius, who saw in this reference to the thirteenth rhapsody the mark of later authorship, says that the division into rhapsodies was the work of Zenodotus and Aristarchus, 250 years before Philo. He does not give his authority for this. As to the use of the word in this sense the lexica do not give any certain evidence. L. & S. (old and revised) gives “portions of an epic poem fit for recitation, etc., e.g. a book of the Iliad or Odyssey, Plut. 2, 186 E, Lucian, D. Mort. 20. 2 and Cont. 9.” In this they are really repeating Stephanus. In the first of the Lucian passages the greater Homeric personalities when in Hades are described as τὰ κεφάλαια τῶν ῥαψῳδιῶν. In the second Homer in Charon’s boat was sea-sick and vomits his rhapsodies. Plutarch is more definite. Alcibiades asks the teacher for a rhapsody of Homer and when the teacher says he has no Homer gives him a box on the ears. In the Life of Alcibiades 7 Plutarch repeats this story, substituting βίβλιον for ῥαψῳδίαν. It is both curious and regrettable that this passage of Philo which so definitely establishes the use of the word for the Homeric books as we have them has not found its way into the lexicon.
§ 25. μοναστήριον. On this word Conybeare states that it does not exist elsewhere in any Greek document until the end of the third century, when it has acquired the sense of a building or establishment for a single monk or hermit (for which he gives references from Athanasius and other patristic writers) or for several monks together. The statement that it does not occur earlier is confirmed by L. & S. revised, which, apparently ignoring the patristic use, quotes this passage but nothing else earlier than the sixth century. It translates it here by “hermit’s cell,” which does not seem to me a happy phrase. It indicates simply a room in a house, into which no one else is allowed to enter. The familiar “closet” of Matt. 6:6, though the R.V. has replaced it by “inner chamber,” seems to me to carry the same idea.
Ibid. (End of section.) τὰ ἄλλα presumably refers to writings of some kind. But the words may refer to the συγγράμματα mentioned in § 29, or to the other books of scripture besides those indicated above. So Wendland, who quotes the Canon given by Josephus, Ant. i. 8, i.e. the Law, the Prophets (including the historical books), and the four books of the psalms and precepts of human life, i.e. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Cantica. If Philo means this, τὰ ἄλλα will be the last three. But unless other evidence is forthcoming this seems very conjectural.
§ 36. λιπαίνουσιν. Wendland, like Conybeare, takes this word to mean “anoint” in the literal sense. He does not translate the passage, but as he thinks that τὰ θρέμματα is figuratively used and cites several passages where Philo uses the word to represent the senses or body as cattle under the guidance of the shepherd, the mind, he presumably would translate it “releasing as it were the animal side from its labours.” He also takes the passage to be a reminiscence of Plato, Menexenus 238 A, where oil is spoken of as πόνων ἀρωγήν, cf. De Aet. 63. With all due deference to two such high authorities, I still hold to the interpretation given in the translation that the relaxation of abstinence on the sabbath is to the Therapeutae what release from labour is to the beasts of burden. The Therapeutae have not endured the labour for which oil is a relief nor is λιπαίνω the natural word for anointing. Wendland certainly makes a point when he remarks that the indicative ἀνίασι would be expected rather than the participle. But the construction may, I think, be explained quite easily by understanding λιπαίνουσι. When he asks if they only eat bread and salt on the sabbath, what did they do on the other days, the natural answer is that on the sabbath they did not fast for the whole day or even until sunset. It is, I think, worth noting that according to Josephus, B.J. ii. 8. 3, the Essenes abstained altogether from the use of oil. Though it is not a decisive point it is a little surprising to find the Therapeutae making a sabbatical luxury of the indulgence which the less ascetic Essenes refuse.
§ 49. τρίκλινα. “Sets of three couches” is one of the meanings given in L. & S. revised for τρίκλινος (the more usual form) and τρίκλινον which appears to be found occasionally. Conybeare gives “couches for three to recline upon.” Whatever the exact meaning is the point is, as he says, that they are large articles of furniture and therefore it shows extravagance to make them of very expensive material.
§ 58. (Xenophon’s Symposium.) Philo’s description of this is very superficial. The amusements mentioned chiefly appear at the beginning and end of the banquet and he does no justice to the mixture of banter and seriousness (ἀναμὶξ ἔσκωψάν τε καὶ ἐσπούδασαν) which characterizes most of the talk, nor to the real seriousness in Socrates’ longer speech, while, on the other hand, he ignores the fact that the acceptance of the feature in Greek sentiment so strongly denounced in §§ 60–62 is as prominent here as in Plato’s Symposium.
§ 59. (Plato’s Symposium.) Philo’s criticisms of this are not very creditable to him. In the first place his equating πάνδημος ἔρως with παιδεραστία is entirely wrong. The essence of πάνδημος ἔρως as represented in Pausanias’s speech, where the phrase principally appears, is that it is περὶ σώματος. It is concerned with women as much as with boys (181 B) and the passion of a male for a younger male plays a greater part in οὐράνιος ἔρως. But more important than this is the error of dismissing the οὐράνιος ἔρως as merely a secondary adjunct brought in to give a touch of humour or wit. Such a description indeed would be appropriate to Aristophanes’ fable of the original third sex which Philo takes so seriously in § 63, but it does not apply to the rest, and much of the picture ascribed by Socrates to Diotima is very much after Philo’s heart. Indeed, he himself uses the word ἔρως in the same idealistic way, e.g. De Ebr. 136.
Philo, of course, is not the only person who has been shocked by the acceptance in some parts of the Symposium of παιδεραστία as a normal feeling and still more by the apparent callousness of Socrates as described by Alcibiades in the last part. It was perhaps with reference mainly to this that Athenaeus xi. 506 c declares that what Plato says about Alcibiades in the Symposium is not fit for repetition οὐδʼ εἰς φῶς ἄξιον λέγεσθαι, and that, as every Cambridge student learnt in an earlier generation, Paley in the Evidences, part ii. 2, says that Socrates himself was more than suspected of the foulest impurities. Philo makes very little use of the Symposium himself. The only definite reminiscence listed by Leisegang is that noted on p. 232 of this volume, though perhaps the thought of the preference of the Therapeutae for the immortal rather than mortal children in De Vit. Cont. 68 may have in mind Symp. 209.
§ 65. διʼ ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδων. Wendland rejects Conybeare’s view almost entirely on the ground that the word cannot yield this sense. He is wrong, I believe, in saying that the words in themselves cannot mean “after seven weeks.” διά in this sense indicates the interval between two events, but whether this interval occurs only once or recurs regularly depends on the context. Here, as stated in the footnote, since weekly sabbaths have been mentioned, “every seven weeks” is the natural meaning. But admitting that Philo has expressed himself carelessly if he means seven weeks after the Passover, is it likely that the Therapeutae, who appear to have been orthodox Jews, discarded the religious calendar of Moses and arranged a new system of festal days which one would have thought would have been difficult in itself? For since periods of fifty days do not fit into the year, this great feast would recur seven times in one year and eight times in another and in different months from year to year.
Wendland does not notice μεγίστης ἑορτῆς, which is not without its difficulties on Conybeare’s hypothesis but much more perplexing on his. In what sense is every fiftieth day which follows the Symposium on the forty-ninth called the greatest feast and what happened on it? Nor does he notice τὸ μὲν πρῶτον. Conybeare understood this to mean that they first meet on the eve for the banquet, the religious meeting on the day itself for worship being taken for granted. By translating it “first of all” I suggest that he does not rule out other cheerful convivial meals but takes this as the most notable, cf. § 40.
Ibid. The chief feast. Conybeare, p. 313, gives the following as reasons why Philo describes the Pentecostal meal in preference to the Paschal. The Passover was a domestic feast celebrated more austerely than Pentecost, which was also a day prescribed by the Law for rejoicing; also it occurred in a season more suited to remaining all night in the open air. These are perhaps satisfactory reasons for his selection of the feast for description, but not for his calling it the greatest feast, and Conybeare is mistaken when he says, p. 300, that Philo uniformly refers to Pentecost as the greatest of the feasts. Philo I think only mentions Pentecost three times, De Dec. 160, Spec. Leg. i. 183, ii. 176 ff. In the third of these he remarks that it is a greater feast than the Sheaf which he has just described. In the second he calls it δημοτελεστάτη, i.e. especially national or generally celebrated, while in the first he speaks of the Passover and Tabernacles as the greatest feasts. However this inconsistency is not greater than many of those to be found in Philo’s writings.
§ 67. (Genuineness of ἀλλʼ ἔτι κομιδῇ νέους παῖδας.) In Hermes, 1916, p. 179, Cohn gives as an additional reason for expunging these words that they make no sense, and that not they but ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐκ πρώτης … φιλοσοφίας are the antithesis to τοὺς πολυετεῖς καὶ πολιούς. This last is true, but the sentence contains another antithesis, viz. πρεσβυτέρους and νέους παῖδας. This may be awkward, but is perfectly intelligible. Conybeare says “Armenio plane desunt, non tamen omittenda esse videntur.”
§ 78. Reminding. I think this should be taken as an allusion to the Platonic doctrine that learning is recollection (Meno 81). The knowledge is latent in the mind and the teacher only brings it into consciousness, cf. De Praem. 9.
Conybeare discussing this thinks that the employment of ὑπόμνησις instead of ἀνάμνησις is against it. But surely if learning is recollection, teaching is reminding. He considers that Spec. Leg. iv. 107 is still more against it, but this seems to me irrelevant. There Philo says that, when the lesson is over, the pupil, by chewing the cud, i.e. by using his memory to call up what the teacher has told him, stamps a firm impression of them on his mind.
§ 80. (The hymns.) That the Jewish churches in the Hellenistic world should have hymns and that they should be composed in metres familiar to Greeks is perfectly natural, and I presume it was knowledge of such hymns that led Josephus to make the fanciful statement (Ant. vii. 12. 3) that David arranged the Psalms, some in trimeters and others in pentameters, and also that Moses composed both his longer and shorter hymns in hexameters (ii. 16. 4, iv. 8. 44), but I have seen no illustration of this statement of Philo which seems curiously elaborate, particularly its enumeration of Greek metres. Among these προσοδίων (or, at least the variant προσοδιακῶν) and στασίμων are recognized metrical terms. But παραβωμίων and παρασπονδείων are not cited elsewhere, at least as applied to hymns or lyrics, and χορικῶν appears to be a general term for any choral hymn.