Philo, Volume IV: On the Confusion of Tongues. On the Migration of Abraham. Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? On Mating with the Preliminary Studies

595 Pages·1932·11.2 MB·English

by  Philo Judaeus

THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY
FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB, LL.D.
EDITED BY
G. P. GOOLD, PH.D.
PREVIOUS EDITORS
t Τ. E. PAGE, C.H., LiTT.D. f E. CAPPS, PH.D., LL.D.
t W. H. D. ROUSE, LITT.D. t L. A. POST, L.H.D.
Ε. H. WARMINGTON, .Μ.Δ, F.R.HIST.SOC.
PHILO
IV
261

PHILO
IN TEN VOLUMES
(AND TWO SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUMES)
IV
WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY
F. H. COLSON, M.A.
LATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
AND
THE REV. G. H. WHITAKER, M.A.
LATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON
WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD
MCMT.XXXV
American ISBN 0-674-99287-3
British ISBN 0 434 99261 5
First printed 1932
Reprinted 1939, 1949, 1958, 1968, 1985
Printed in Great Britain
CONTENTS OF VOLUME IV
PAGH
PREFACE vii
LIST OF PHILO'S WORKS xi
ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES (DE CON-
FUSIONE LlNGUARUM)
Introduction 2
Text and Translation 8
ON THE MIGRATION OF ABRAHAM (DE MIGRA-
ΤΙΟΝΕ ABRAHAMl)
Introduction 123
Text and Translation 132
WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS (QUIS
RERUM DIVINARUM HERES)—
Introduction · . 270
Text and Translation 284
ON MATING WITH THE PRELIMINARY STUDIES
(DE CONGRESSU QUAERENDAE ERUDITIONIS
GRATIA)—
Introduction .451
Text and Translation . . . . . .. 458
ν
CONTENTS
APPENDICES— PAGE
I. To De Confusione Linguarum . · . 553
II. To De Migratione Abrahami . . . 560
III. To Quis Return Divinarum Heres . . 567
IV. To De Congressu quaerendae Erudi-
tionis gratia 577
PREFACE TO VOLUME IV
As was stated in the Preface to the last volume, Mr.
Whitaker's versions of the treatises he had agreed to
take in this volume and the fifth were in existence at
his death. As it happens, however, his part in this
volume was confined to one treatise of the four, viz.
the De Migration*. This had reached the typescript
stage, and just before his death I had sent him some
corrections or suggestions which he had accepted.
Since then, however, I have made a good many
further alterations in that treatise. On the De Con-
fusione he had sent me only a few suggestions, and
my versions of the other two treatises he had not
seen at all. Altogether I feel that, for good or for
ill, I must take the final responsibility for this
volume, and I have therefore ceased to use such
phrases as " The Translators think " and used the
first person singular instead. That the work has
suffered by his absence, and that there are sure to
be many things which I should have altered or modi­
fied if I had had his advice, need hardly be said.
A misunderstanding shewn by a reviewer makes
me think that it would be well to say something about
the textual notes. My own view has always been
that, while it would be beyond the scope of a work
of this kind to indicate the variants in the MSS.,
places in which the text printed has no MS. authority
should be recorded. Mr. Whitaker did not altogether
vii
PREFACE
agree with me, and consequently in the first two
volumes there was no consistent attempt to give this
information, though the reproduction of the angular
and square brackets did indicate insertions and
omissions in the text. In the third volume and this,
however, I have made it a rule to note all cases
(except such as are merely orthographical) where
the text printed is purely conjectural, however
certain the conjectures may be.a Further, it is to be
understood that, unless it is stated otherwise, the
text printed is that of Wendland. It does not follow,
however, that any particular emendation of the text
is due to Wendland, as I have not thought it neces­
sary to distinguish between his emendations and those
of Mangey, Markland and Turnebus, so long as he
himself has adopted them. I also note all cases
where I have not followed Wendland's text, and,
where the emendation is our own, have stated the
fact. Of these last there are not many. But there are
a good many more noted in footnotes or appendix
where I feel fairly confident that the reading we
have suggested is right, but have not that degree
of certitude which would justify my printing it in
the text itself. As to Wendland's corrections, while
I accept without question the facts of his apparatus
criticus, I do not, as the work progresses, feel the
same confidence in his judgement. He does not seem
to me to consider sufficiently how the text which he
adopts came to be corrupted to the form which it has
in the MSS. On the whole, however, the principle
laid down in the preface of the first volume, that
where hesitation does not amount to conviction the
β Omissions and insertions are of course not noted in the
footnotes, as the brackets speak for themselves.
viii
PREFACE
text of this standard edition should be preserved,
has been followed in this volume with modification.
A mild regret has also been expressed that no
account of the MSS. has been given. It is perhaps a
pity that this was not attempted in the General
Introduction. In apology it may be said that, leav­
ing out of consideration excerpts and quotations,
which form a considerable part of the evidence for
the text, the MSS. used by Cohn and Wendland, few
of which are earlier than the thirteenth century
and none earlier than the eleventh or tenth, amount
to more than twenty in the six volumes and vary
greatly with the different treatises ; and that Cohn
has declared at the end of his survey that no single
MS. or family of MSS. stands out in such a way that
anything more than an eclectic recension of Philo's
text is possible.α
I cannot conclude without again expressing the
greatness of the debt I owe to Leisegang's index.
True, there are a good many words absent, on which
one would be glad to be able to investigate Philo's
usage, and of the words dealt with I have sometimes
found examples omitted, so that one has to be
cautious in drawing negative conclusions from it.
Still, on the whole, it is an admirable piece of work,
and not only the present translator but all future
editors of Philo will have in their hands an instrument
which Mangey and Wendland would have given
much to possess. „ „
n
r. xi. C
February 1932.
a Prolegomena to Vol. I, p. xli.
ix