על הנטיעה, הקדמהConcerning Noah's Work as a Planter, Introduction
א׳
1Concerning Noah’s Work as a Planter (De Plantatione)
Analytical Introduction
Analytical Introduction
ב׳
2The first part of this treatise, extending to the end of § 139, treats firstly of God’s planting and then of man learning to copy His work. The second part (§ 140 onwards) should be entitled Περὶ μέθης, for it deals with the vine only with respect to its fruit. The title of the treatise is, therefore, inappropriate.
ג׳
3A. 1–139
ד׳
4(a) 1–72. The first Planter and His plant.
ה׳
5(α) 1–27. The universe and its component parts planted.
ו׳
6(β) 28–31. Trees planted in man, the microcosm.
ז׳
7(γ) 32–46. The names of the two trees in Eden point to an allegorical interpretation. “Eden” is “delight” in the Lord. “Eastward” is “in the light.” “The tree of Life” is the man of Gen. 1:27 in the image of God. The earthly man of Gen. 2 is placed in Paradise to be tested amid the virtues, the plants of a rational soul.
ח׳
8(δ) 47 ff. That Israel, God’s special inheritance, may be planted in Eden is Moses’ prayer.
ט׳
9(ε) 62–72. God the Portion of Inheritance of Levi and of those who have the Levite mind.
י׳
10(b) Lessons learned from the First Planter, and copies of His planting (73–139).
י״א
11(α) 74–93. Abraham’s planting (Gen. 21:33). The tree the “hide” of 10,000 cubits; the place the well, which is without water (Gen. 26:32 LXX), and so symbolic of the fruitless search for knowledge, and of the discovery of our own ignorance; the fruit the invocation of the Name “Eternal God,” which connotes “Benefactor,” whereas “Lord” connotes Master.”
י״ב
12(β) 94–139. Our planting (Lev. 19:23–25). Ere we can plant fruit trees we must migrate to the God-given land, i.e. the mind must find the way of Wisdom. The beginner bidden to prune, i.e. cut out all hurtful things, e.g. the harlot and the toady from Friendship, superstition from Religion. Jacob’s peeled rods and the leper’s flesh, both white all over, serve as a pattern. Philo attempts to explain the command to prune the fruit itself.
י״ג
13The fourth year, in which the fruit is “holy for praise to the Lord” leads to a discourse on the number 4, on praise as the fruit of education, on thanksgiving as creation’s chief duty, illustrated by the story of the birth of Mnemosyne. As the fifth year is ours for food, after the fourth year of thanksgiving, so “Issachar” or “Reward” was born next after “Judah” or “Praise.”
י״ד
14B. 140–177
ט״ו
15We now pass on to the vine-culture of Noah. As the vine is the means of Drunkenness (and the just man made himself drunk with it), we have to consider the subject of drunkenness. Moses’ views will be given later (in De Ebrietate). Let us now examine what the philosophical schools say about it. They put the question thus, “Will the wise man get drunk?” (139–141). But before stating the arguments on either side, we note that the term “get drunk” (μεθύειν) may be used for hard drinking (οἰνοῦσθαι) simply, or for drinking carried to the point of foolish behaviour (ληρεῖν). All condemn the latter, but one school holds that if μεθύειν is used in the less offensive sense, the wise man may freely indulge in it; another, “that he cannot safely do so, and will therefore avoid all carousals, unless social duties necessitate his participation in them.”
ט״ז
16The arguments of the thesis: “The wise man will get drunk” are now stated.”
י״ז
17(1) As μέθυ and οἶνος are admittedly synonyms, their derivatives μεθύειν and οἰνοῦσθαι must be synonyms also. (This is preceded by a disquisition on “homonyms” and “synonyms.”) (§§ 149–155.)
י״ח
18(2) μεθύειν is properly μετὰ τὸ θύειν, (“after sacrificing”), and the ancient and right use of wine was orderly and religious in marked contrast to present custom. If μεθύειν is used in this sense, it is suitable to the wise man (§§ 156–164).
י״ט
19(3) Another derivation of μεθύειν is from μέθεσις (relaxation), and the blessings of relaxation and cheerfulness are pointed out.
כ׳
20(4) A dialectical argument, that, as soberness is found in the fool as well as in the wise man, its opposite, drunkenness, is common to both (§ 172).
כ״א
21(5) An argument from the use of the term μέθη in various writers, showing that they identified μεθύειν with οἰνοῦσθαι, and did not associate it with λῆρος (§§ 173 f.).
כ״ב
22At this point the disputant professes to meet the arguments of the other side. The first of these is the argument of Zeno, that, since no man could trust the drunken man with a secret, drunkenness is unsuitable to the wise man. This is refuted (§§ 175–177). The rest of the disquisition is lost.