ii. WorkKs.—Philo’s collected works have ap- peared in several editions, of which that of Thomas Mangey is still the standard. This edition, how- ever, published in 1742, is neither sufficiently com- plete nor sufficiently accurate, and will be super- seded by that of Cohn and Wendland, of which four volumes have appeared (November 1902). A convenient edition is that of Richter, in eight volumes (1828-1830), containing in addition to Mangey’s text the treatises de Festo Cophini and de Parentibus Colendis, and the books translated from Armenian into Latin by Aucher. From this the Tauchnitz edition (1851-1853) was taken, with some slight alterations.
The works fall into several groups. 1. There is a series of philosophical works, which are believed by Cohn to have been written in Philo’s early life, because they contain little of his characteristic thought, and seem like exercises in philosophical style and dialectic. The difference of their char- acter from that of the other writings of Philo has led to suspicions of their genuineness; but Cohn thinks their style so specifically Philonean that there ought not to be a doubt on this point. This series comprises :—4. de Incorruptibilitate Mundi. This has been commonly regarded as spurious, but its genuineness has been defended by F. Cumont in the Prolegomena to his edition of the treatise (Berlin, 1891), and is accepted by Cohn. At the close it promises a sequel, which, however, has not been preserved. 2. (wod omnis probus liber sit, which, as we learn from its opening lines, was preceded by a discourse Iept rod mdvra So0Xov elvat padhov. 3. de Providentia, in two books, preserved in Armenian (with considerable fragments in Greek), of which the genuineness of the first, which has been somewhat injured in transmission, has been questioned. 4, Alexander, sive de eo quod rationem habeant bruta animalia, preserved in Armenian. The mention, in § 54, of an embassy to Rome can- not refer to the embassy to Gaius, as it occurs not in a speech of Philo’s, but in the treatise of Alex- ander which Philo begins to read in § 10. But, as Cohn points out, the consulship of Germanicus, in A.D. 12, is alluded to in § 27, so that the book must be later than this, but might still be a com- paratively early work. Philo, however, in § dB}
says ‘ex juventute in hac nutritus sum disciplina,’ so that he probably wrote this treatise in middle life.
2. There is the great collection of writings con- taining explanations of the Pentateuch. This embraces three extensive works. 1. The large group of allegorical commentaries, designed for educated Jews. These begin with the treatises now known as Sacrarum Legum Allegorie (a title which once had a more extended application), and dealt with the text of Gn 2-20, certain parts being omitted for special reasons. There are several gaps, some of which were certainly, and others probably, filled by books which are lost. This group, following the order observed in the editions, ends with the two books (originally five) de Somnis. To this series must have belonged the two lost books ‘On Covenants,’ to which reference is made in de Mutatione Nominum, 6 [i. 586].* A second book ‘On Drunkenness’ also, with the exception of some fragments, is lost; and yet another treatise, ‘On Rewards’ (founded on Gn 15'), is referred to as having preceded Quis rerum divinarum heres (1 [i. 473]). The fragment de Deo, preserved in Armenian, may have belonged to this group, and formed part of a treatise between de Mutatione Nominum and de Somniis. A few pages which appear in Mangey (ii. 265 ff.) as part of a separate tract, de Mercede Meretricis, have been restored by Cohn and Wendland to their proper place in the de Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini,§ 5. The first section belongs to the treatise de Sacrificantibus, where it should be inserted between sections 4 and 5. 2. The explanation of portions of the Pentateuch in the form of question and answer. This was intended to cover the whole Pentateuch ; but it is uncertain whether it was completed. Several books on Genesis and Exodus have been pre- served in an Armenian translation, and some fragments in Latin and Greek. Though this work is shown by references to be later than the great group of allegorical commentaries, cer- tain difficulties suggest that the two works may to some extent have proceeded simultaneously. 3. An exposition of the Mosaic legislation, in which allegorical explanation is sparingly used. The plan of this series is clearly described by Philo himself in the opening of the treatise de Premiis et Penis. It dealt first with the account of the Creation, then with history, and lastly with laws, the following treatises being a supplement. It is clear, therefore, that the tract de Mundi Opificio, which occupies the first place in the editions, formed the beginning of this group. This indeed foreshadows the general plan, and is expressly referred to as ‘the former composition’ in the opening of the treatise de Abrahamo, which introduces the second division. The object of this division was to illustrate the excellence of the laws through typical examples. The essays on Isaac and Jacob are Jost; and the three books on the Life of Moses do not belong to the series. The tract on Joseph is succeeded by one ‘On the Decalogue,’ and this again by four books on ‘Special Laws.’ The first of these has been broken up into several distinct treatises, beginning with that ‘On Circumcision,’ and the second and fourth books also comprise treatises with distinct titles. The essays on Fortitude, Philanthropy, and Peni- tence form a kind of appendix, and the work is completed by a dissertation on Rewards and Pun- ishments, and on Curses.