על הכרובים, הערותOn the Cherubim, Appendix
א׳
1APPENDIX TO ON THE CHERUBIM
ב׳
2§ 6. The stern and gloomy life, etc. Philo seems to interpret this first flight of Hagar as the tendency of youth to shrink from the stern discipline of the school, the Encyclia being for the moment treated as “the mind which is trained in them,” as in De Cong. 180.
ג׳
3§ 8. ἐπιλάμψῃ … μεταδιώκων. The obvious way of taking this difficult and probably corrupt passage, namely to translate ἀποθανόντων τὰ πάθη χαρᾶς καὶ εὑφροσύνης by “died to the passions (or ‘feelings’) of joy and gladness,” must be wrong, for as Isaac is regularly regarded as embodying these qualities (e.g. Leg. All. iii. 218), it is impossible that his parents should be thought of as discarding them at his birth. Two lines of correction seem possible, (a) as adopted in the translation, to bring χαρᾶς and εὐφροσύνης into co-ordination with εὐδαιμονίας, (b) to co-ordinate them with παιδιάς by reading χαρὰς καὶ εὐφροσύνας. This in itself would still leave untouched the awkward gen. abs. ἐκλιπόντων and ἀποθανόντων, to say nothing of the difficulty involved in applying the phrase ἐκλιπεῖν τὰ γυναικεῖα (used of Sarah in Gen. 18:11) to Abraham also. These difficulties, however, might be removed by reading also ἐκλιπόν … ἀποθανόν (ἀπομαθόν?) … μεταδίωκον. (a) certainly as it stands leaves the sentence almost intolerable. Perhaps the least drastic correction would be to expel ὁ Ἰσαάκ as a gloss, put in its place καὶ τῶν and insert ὁ before καὶ παιδιάς. Thus the whole sentence will run, ἐπιλάμψῃ δὲ καὶ τὸ εὐδαιμονίας γένος καὶ τῶν ἐκλιπόντων τὰ γυναικεῖα καὶ ἀποθανόντων τὰ πάθη χαρᾶς καὶ εὐφροσύνης, ὁ καὶ παιδιάς, etc. The participial genitives in this case though still clumsy are less unnatural, and the difficulty of the application of ἐκλιπεῖν, etc., to Abraham is avoided as the phrase becomes a general statement. The obvious difficulty involved in (b) that it ascribes to Isaac what belongs to Sarah may be met by supposing that Philo equates Sarah’s “ceasing from the manner of women” with the conception of Isaac (cf. De Post. 134).
ד׳
4[It would bring this passage into harmony with other passages, if what Philo wrote was ἐκλιπὸν … ἀποθανὸν … μεταδίωκον (all in agreement with γένος), and χαρὰς καὶ εὐφροσύνας. It would seem not unlikely that a scribe, a little puzzled by the neuters ἐκλιπὸν and ἀποθανόν, and seeing ἐκλιπόντ- and ἀποθανόντ- before him, filled in the -ων in each word, producing ἐκλιπόντων and ἀποθανόντων. This led to the change of χαρὰς καὶ εὐφροσύνας into genitives singular. With ἑκλιπόν and ἀποθανόν restored, the construction is the same as that in De Somniis, i. 68 ᾦ τὸ αὐτομαθὲς γενός, Ισαάκ, ἐνδιαιγᾶται, μηδέποτε … ἀφιστάμενον. Our passage is also illustrated by De Mut. Nom. 1 ᾗ τὸ αὐτομαθὲς ἐπέλαμψε γένος, Ἰσαάκ, εὐπαθειῶν ἀρίστη, χαρά, and Quod Det. 46 τὸ μόνον ἀπαθὲς εἶδος ἐν γενέσει τὸν Ἰσαάκ and De Mut. Nom. 261 τέξεται οὖν σοι ἡ ἀρετὴ υἱὸν γενναῖον ἄρρενα (Gen. 17:19) παντὸς ἀπηλλαγμένον θήλεος πάθους.
ה׳
5To Philo the fact that Isaac was sprung from one “as good as dead” and “the deadness of Sarah’s womb” carried with it his deadness to passions and his complete immunity from all that was weak and womanish.—G. H. W.]
ו׳
6τὰς παίδων. We have perhaps here an allusion to Gen. 21:9, where according to the A.V. Sarah saw Ishmael ‘mocking.’ The R.V. margin, however, has ‘playing,’ and the LXX. παίζοντα. The fact that it was this “playing of children” which led to Ishmael’s expulsion, would lend additional point to the words here.
ז׳
7§ 15. The idea of the lawfulness of falsehood under the circumstances here described is perhaps taken from Plato, Rep. iii. 389 B.
ח׳
8§ 25. The two hemispheres. Empedocles said εἶναι δύο ἡμισφαίρια, τὸ μὲν καθόλου πυρός, τὸ δὲ μικτὸν ἐξ ἀέρος καὶ ὀλίγου πυρός, ὅπερ οἴεται τὴν νύκτα εἶναι (see Ritter and Preller, 170). “Thus there arose two hemispheres which together form the concave sphere of heaven; the one is bright and consists entirely of fire; the other is dark and consists of air with isolated masses of fire sprinkled in it” (Zeller). Cf. Plato. Axiochus 376 A. A theory is mentioned that τοῦ πόλου ὄντος σφαιροειδοῦς …, τὸ μὲν ἕτερον ἡμισφαίριον οἱ θεοὶ ἔλαχον οἱ οὐράνιοι, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον οἱ ὑπένερθεν.
ט׳
9§ 26. Named by men of old the standing-place. Cf. Philolaus (ap. Stob. Ecl. i. 21. 8) τὸ πρᾶτον ἁρμοσθὲν τὸ ἓν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τᾶς σφαίρας ἑστία καλεῖται.
י׳
10§ 28. Elsewhere, in Quaestiones in Gen. i. 58 (which only survives in the Armenian), Philo gives the same explanation of the Cherubim, but interprets the sword as “heaven.”
י״א
11§ 32. Neither fights nor keeps the ranks. Guilty, that is, of ἀστρατεία, shirking service, and λιποτάξιον, desertion in the field. Both these were punishable offences in Attic law.
י״ב
12§ 41. Leah. Leah (symbolizing virtue) is derived by Philo from the Hebrew words “lo” = not, and “lahah” = to be weary. The fool “says no” (ἀνανεύει) to her ἄσκησις which makes herself weary. Elsewhere (in De Mut. Nom. 254) the weariness is interpreted of the weariness which she causes, and again (De Migr. Abr. 145) of the weariness caused by the burden of wickedness which she has cast off. In ἀνανευομένῃ there is also a reference to Jacob’s rejection of Leah in the actual story.
י״ג
13§ 42. Who have no other standards, etc. Cohn punctuates differently with a comma before τύφῳ and another after ἐθῶν, thus making ῥημάτων genitive after τύφῳ. But it seems unreasonable to break up the common collocation of ὀνόματα (nouns) with ῥήματα (verbs or phrases), the two together constantly standing for language as a whole.
י״ד
14τερθρείαις ἐθῶν, i.e. “mummeries of rituals.” This is well illustrated by Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 19, where both the τῦφος and the τερθρεία μυθική of the rites of Cybele are denounced.
ט״ו
15§ 45. In her solitude. Apparently a fanciful deduction from the fact that Abraham’s presence is not mentioned in Gen. 21:1. In the cases that follow there is the same deduction from the absence of any mention of the husband.
ט״ז
16§ 49. His greater mysteries. Philo borrows from the Eleusinian mysteries this idea of “greater” and “less.” Here Moses is the greater and the Prophets the less. For another application of the distinction see De Sacr. 62.
י״ז
17Husband.—The LXX. in Jer. 3:4, which differs wholly from the Hebrew, has ἀρχηγόν. As ἄνδρα is necessary to Philo’s argument he may be quoting some earlier rendering.
י״ח
18§§ 53–66. The argument of these sections seems to be as follows. Names do not ordinarily represent the thing named so absolutely that no further explanation is required. We should not know from the name Cain that he was first-born or male. But Moses’ names are given on a different principle. To show what this is, in 57–64 Philo describes the primitive τρόπος (65) of the mind to think that it possesses all that it seems to have. Since the name “Possession” indicates this τρόπος clearly, Moses had no need to say anything more. Philo adopts partially the Stoic theory that names came originally φύσει, but restricts it to the names of the O.T.
י״ט
19§ 69. Will-o’-the-wisps. The following passage suggests strongly that the reading adopted by the translator rather than that of Cohn is right. Chrysippus (on the distinction between φάντασμα, φανταστόν, φανταστικόν) says: φανταστικὸν δέ ἐστι διάκενος ἑλκυσμός, πάθος ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀπʼ οὐδενὸς φανταστοῦ γινόμενον, κάθαπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ σκιαμαχοῦντος καὶ κενοῖς ἐπιφέροντος τὰς χεῖρας … φάντασμα δέ ἐστιν ἐφʼ ὂ ἑλκόμεθα κατὰ τὸν φανταστικὸν διάκενον ἑλκυσμόν. ταῦτα δὲ γίνεται ἐπὶ τῶν μελαγχολώντων καὶ μεμηνότων (Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ii. 54. Cf. ibid. 64).
כ׳
20§ 79. Where there is reaction (ἀντιπεπονθός). Philo here utilizes a piece of Stoic grammar. Cf. Diog. Laert. vii. 64: ἀντιπεπονθότα δέ ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς ὑπτίοις, ἃ ὕπτια ὄντα ἐνεργήματά ἑστιν, οἷον Κείρεται· ἐμπεριέχει (perhaps ἐμπαρέχει, see παρέχων ἑαυτόν, 79) γὰρ ἑαυτὸν ὁ κειρόμενος, i.e. the ἀντιπεπονθότα are those among the passives which though passive (in form) represent actions, as κείρεται. The application of the term in these sections of Philo suggests that the grammatical meaning of the term was not so much that of the ordinary middle (I shave myself) as that of the causative middle “I get myself shaved.” The term thus describes “having something done to us in response to something we have done ourselves.”
כ״א
21A sheep or a fleece. δέρμα and κῴδιον might possibly be taken as accusatives, but the phraseology in the parallel passage, L.A. iii. 201 κείρεις ἑτέρως μὲν ἅνθρωπον ἑτέρως δὲ τὸ κῴδιον, suggests that they are nominatives. The translator is unable to make any suggestion as to the distinction between the two nouns, or why τὸ λεγόμενον is added.
כ״ב
22§ 84. “All things,” He says, “are mine.” The phrase does not occur in the O.T. Perhaps print ὅλα “μου,” φησίν, ἐστίν, and refer “He says” to the threefold “mine” in Numb. 28:2. Cf. L.A. iii. 176.
כ״ג
23§ 105. Grammar or literature. γραμματική always included the study of the poets and historians as well as what we call grammar, and in Philo’s time this literary side was by far the most important.
כ״ד
24By the means of fine music. The text implies that music is part of “geometry,” a view which is very unusual, if not unprecedented, though the two, since geometry included arithmetic, were closely connected. The change of the nominatives γραμματική, etc., to -κῇ (datives), suggested by Cohn, would obviate this, but to represent knowledge as e.g. studying history by means of γραμματική is very harsh. Cohn confessed that his emendation did not satisfy him.
כ״ה
25Rhetoric, etc. The allusion in this sentence is (a) to the regular division of rhetoric into (1) “invention” (εὔρεσις including τάξις), (2) style or expression (ἑρμηνεία), (3) delivery (ὑπόκρισις); and (b) to the expression of the gentler emotions (ἤθη) and that of the stronger emotions (πάθη).
כ״ו
26§§ 109–112. For the sense of this and the preceding sections cf. Epictetus, Diss. i. 12. 16 διέταξε δὲ θέρος εἷναι καὶ χειμῶνα καὶ φορὰν καὶ ἀφορίαν καὶ ἀρετὴν καὶ κακίαν καὶ πάσας τὰς τοιαύτας ἐναντιότητας ὑπὲρ συμφωνίας τῶν ὅλων.
כ״ז
27§ 114. The other gradations. Of the five gradations left untranslated ἡβῶν perhaps = age of puberty, while πρωτογένειος speaks for itself, and the other three fall of course between the limits thus indicated.
כ״ח
28Rebirth. Cf. a passage in Quaest. in Ex. ii. 46, where, according to the Latin version of the Armenian, the calling of Moses to the Mount is said to typify the “secunda nativitas sive regeneratio priore melior.” If we are to suppose that this “regeneration” is absorption in the Divine and occurs at death, the correction to ἀσύγκριτοι ἄποιοι, which is also wanted for the balance of the two clauses, seems necessary. But it is possible that Philo is following the Stoic doctrine, according to which the souls (of the good at any rate) survived the general conflagration (ἐκπύρωσις) which was to be followed by the “reconstruction” (παλιγγενεσία); see Arnim, l.c. ii. 802–822. In this case Cohn’s reading might stand; for the soul through this interregnum, though ἀσώματος, would still be σύγκριτος (of fire and air) and ποιός.
כ״ט
29§ 115. Philo adapts from the Attic orators the technical language used of a wife who formally claimed divorce or separation from her husband. If the husband did not agree, an ἀπολείψεως δίκη had to be brought before the Archon (πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα) (see Dict. of Ant., art. “Divortium”). Cf. Quod Det. 143, where also we have the phrase (apparently in general use: see Bekker, Anecd. 430. 30) χρηματίζειν ἀπόλειψιν.
ל׳
30§ 121. Licence of language. κατάχρησις (abusio) is the name used by the grammarians for the figure of speech involved in such a phrase as the “aedificare equum” of Virgil (aedificare being properly to build a house only).
ל״א
31The land shall not be sold at all. Philo is still quoting Lev. 25:23, which he cited correctly in 108. Here, however, he substitutes πράσει for εἰς βεβαίωσιν, probably from a reminiscence of Deut. 21:14, where the phrase πράσει οὐ πραθήσεται is used. The alteration, though it makes a considerable difference in the meaning of the text, hardly affects the argument.
ל״ב
32§ 123. Hawking his goods. Properly speaking the word ἐπευωνίζων means “selling cheap,” and this shade of meaning makes good sense in De Gig. 32. On the other hand here and elsewhere there is no special point in the cheapness, and probably the word merely conveys some measure of contempt. If, however, the ἑαυτοῦ is to be pressed, the idea might be “pressing his own goods upon the purchaser and thus underselling his competitors.”
ל״ג
33§ 125. πρὸς γὰρ τὴν γένεσιν, etc. Philo’s four causes are evidently based on Aristotle’s four, (1) the οὐσία or τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι (formal cause), (2) the ὕλη or ἐξ οὖ (material cause), (3) the ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως or τὸ ποιοῦν (efficient cause), (4) τὸ οὖ ἕνεκα or ἀγαθόν (final cause). But for the “formal cause” he substitutes the “instrument,” a view to which his theory of the λόγος naturally led. He repeats the first three of the causes in Quaest. in Gen. i. 58, and all four in De Providentia (also only extant in the Armenian). There, however, the “ad quid?” is answered by “ut sit argumentum,” i.e. apparently, to give a proof of his goodness. Here there is an evident confusion of his treatment of the world as compared with his treatment of the house. The ἀγαθότης of God does not correspond with the σκέπη furnished by the house. Philo is perhaps misled by Plato, Timaeus 29 E, where the question, “why did God make the world?” is answered in the first instance by ἀγαθὸς ἦν, but the true answer, namely that He wanted to make all things like Himself, follows directly.