THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB, LL.D. EDITED BY G. P. GOOLD, PH.D. FOBMEB EDITORS f Τ. E. PAGE, C.H., UTT.D. f Ε· CAPPS, PH.D., LL.D. t W. H. D. ROUSE, UTT.D. | L- A. POST, L.H.D. Ε. H. WARMINGTON, M.A., P.B.HIST.SOC. PHILO IX 363 P H I LO IN TEN VOLUMES (AND TWO SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUMES) IX WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY F. H. COLSON, M.A. LATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD MCMLXXXV American ISBN 0-674-99400-0 British ISBN 0 434 99363 8 First printed 1941 Reprinted 1954, I960,1967,1985 Printed in Great Britain CONTENTS OF VOLUME IX PREFACE vii LIST OF PHILO'S WORKS xi EVERY GOOD MAN IS FREE (QUOD OMNIS PROBUS LIBER SIT) Introduction 2 Text and Translation . . . . . . 10 ON THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE OR SUPPLIANTS (DE VITA CONTEMPLA- TIVA) Introduction 104» Text and Translation 112 ON THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD (DE AETERNITATE MUNDI) Introduction 172 Text and Translation 184» FLACGUS (IN FLACCUM) Introduction 295 Text and Translation 802 ν CONTENTS PAGE HYPOTHETICA (APOLOGIA PRO IU- DAEIS) Introduction 407 Text and Translation . . . . .. 414 ON PROVIDENCE (DE PROVIDENTIA) Introduction 447 Text and Translation- Fragment I 454 Fragment II 458 APPENDICES I. To Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit . . 509 II. To De Vita Contemplativa . . . . 518 III. To De Aeternitate Mundi . . .. 525 IV. To In Flaccum . . . . . .. 531 * V. To Hypothetica 539 VI. To De Providentia 541 vi PREFACE TO VOLUME IX THE six treatises or parts of treatises comprised in this volume are of a very different nature from the eight preceding volumes. In those the all-engrossing sub­ ject has been the interpretation of the Pentateuch, illustrated to a small extent from the rest of the Old Testament and largely, throughout the first five which we have called the Commentary, from Greek philo­ sophy. In this volume only one part, the fragment of the Hypothetica preserved by Eusebius, takes any serious account of the Pentateuch, and it treats it with a method and in a spirit which has nothing in common with the philosophical allegorizing of the Commentary and bears only a superficial resemblance to the full and orderly classification and the abun­ dance of striking thoughts which distinguish the Exposition. Of the other five treatises three are purely philosophical and differ entirely from the other two. One of these is to some extent auto­ biographical and deals with contemporary history. It is closely related to the longer Legatio which is reserved for the final volume, but stands quite apart from the remaining one, the De Fit Cont., which describes the life of a particular community, whether we take this, as is generally assumed, to be a typical example of a widespread movement, or, as I should prefer, an isolated and perhaps ephemeral institution vii PREFACE which happened to be well known to Philo and secured his friendship and admiration. Even the three philo­ sophical treatises are very heterogeneous. The first deals with that kernel of Stoic ethics, the self-suffi­ ciency of the virtuous man, the second with the mystery of the universe, the third with its divine government. The volume as a whole is an ample proof of the versatility of Philo's mind, but yet to me at least it is far less interesting than the other eight. I expect that this is true also of the great majority of those who throughout the centuries have made a careful study of Philo, and that what I have suggested with regard to the Quod Omn. Prob., that it owes its preservation not so much to its intrinsic merits as to the interest and respect created by Philo's main work, is true more or less of the other five treatises. In view of this it is odd to find that there has been more translation into English of the contents of this volume than of all the rest of Philo. In the first five volumes of Cohn-Wendland the German translation by different hands has appeared at intervals, but there has been no rendering into English except of isolated passages between Yonge and this translation. For this volume the German version is no doubt either in preparation or has been completed and possibly published, but I have heard nothing of it.a In Eng­ lish on the other hand we have Conybeare's version of the De Fit Cont., which supplements his great and important commentary, Gifford's versions of the Hypothetica, and of the De Prov. as well as of 16 sec­ tions of the Quod Omn. Prob. contained in the transla- α We have, however, Bernays' earlier version of the De Aeternitate, viii PREFACE tion which forms part of his monumental edition of the Praeparatio, and Box's translation of the Flaccus in his recent edition of that treatise. While I have been careful not to look at any of the translations before making my own I have found comparison with them very useful, leading sometimes to correction or at least reconsideration, though I have abstained from borrowing their phraseology even when I prefer it to my own. But I must say something more about Mr. Box's work. I cannot of course judge the com­ parative 'merits of the two translations, but his his­ torical introduction and commentary on historical points is on a scale which I could not attempt to rival, and my much shorter notes even when they embody different conclusions from his are largely founded on them. What a pity that the same pains and research have never been used to produce so complete a com­ mentary on the real, the theological and philosophical side of Philo's work! It was clearly right to include either in this or the next volume the extracts made by Eusebius from the otherwise unknown Hypothetica. The extracts are so substantial that it is much to be regretted that they were omitted in the Editio Maior of Cohn- Wendland, and their inclusion in the Editio Minor makes only partial amends, as that has no Apparatus Criticus. The other great set of extracts from the De Prov. are in a different position, as the whole treatise survives in the Armenian, and it was a doubtful question whether it should not be rele­ gated to a separate volume containing that and also the other treatise only known in the Armenian, the De Animalibus. But at any rate by the course which we have adopted the reader will have ultimately in ix