(f) Philo, following the Old Testament, fre- quently refers to Wisdom. In many passages this is identified with the Logos. In others the two terms are distinguished ; and it is a little perplex- ing to find that their mutual relations are inverted, Wisdom being the fountain of the Logos, and the Logos being the fountain of Wisdom. Probably the difficulty may be resolved by the difference between the universal and the particular. Human reason or wisdom, distributed among many souls, flows from the supreme Wisdom or Reason, which are identical with one another in either the higher or the lower sphere. The term Wisdom is almost always used in relation to man, and is more ap- plicable than Logos to some forms of character and attainment ; but the latter term is generally pre- ferred, both on account of its philosophical associa- tions, and perhaps owing to Philo’s preference for a masculine substantive.
Another word which is sometimes used instead of Logos is rveiua. This occasionally denotes ‘ air in motion’; but in its higher sense it is identical with Logos. In the latter sense it is used only in connexion with men, and under the suggestion of some passage of Scripture.
The cosmical Thought necessarily contained a multitude of subordinate thoughts or logoi. This Stoical doctrine was fully adopted by Philo, who used the word logoi as synonymous with the Platonic ideas, the powers which constituted the essence of things. In relation to man they are ‘the right words of wisdom,’ seen with the eyes of the soul, ethical ideas or laws, the heavenly manna by which the soul is fed,
(7) The question of the personality of the Logos
PHILO sn ee
is one beset with difficulty, and consequently receives conflicting answers. It may be main- tained that Philo regarded it as a person, that he did not so regard it, or that he vacillated illogically between the two conceptions. The doctrine hitherto laid down does not involve the attribute of per- sonality. Large allowance must be made for Philo’s excessive love of poetical personification. Laughter is the ideal son of God, and the graces are his virgin daughters. Similar figures are abun- dantly applied to the Logos. It is a ‘charioteer and umpire,’ a ‘physician,’ a ‘military officer,’ a ‘spear-bearer,’ and a ‘champion.’ This use of per- sonification is largely suggested by the allegori- cal interpretation of the persons in Genesis, who represent ideas, including the Logos. Passages where such figures are employed could hardly induce any one to ascribe personality to the Logos ; but they may warn us to be very careful in other passages where the figurative meaning is not so obvious. We must briefly survey the arguments which have most weight. The Logos is the image of God and the archetype of man: could this be true of anything but a person? The answer must depend on the writer’s style of thought and lan- guage ; and this is clearly revealed in his treat- ment of the number seven. This number is the ‘image’ of God, and is referred to as if it were the very essence of the Logos. It is everywhere im- pressed upon creation. There are seven stars in the Pleiades and in the Bear. There are seven planets. There are seven zones marking the divi- sions of the sky. There are seven days in the week, determined by the changes of the moon. The same law extends to man. The head has seven essential parts—two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and the mouth. We need not give further details. In brief, the number seven is a mirror in which the Maker and Father of the universe is manifested (see especially de Mundi Op. 30 ff. fi, 21168]; Leg. All. i. 4, 5 [i. 45£.]; de Decal. 21 [ii 198]). This presents to us in a very striking way the mode in which Philo conceived that the Divine Thought was impressed upon matter, and became there an image of its originator. Regarded as the archetype of human reason, the Logos is simply the rational power of God, by participation in which man becomes rational. ‘The suppliant Logos’ (6 ixérns Néyos) is sometimes the suppliant cry of men; and once, where it is represented as standing between God and creation, the ambas- sador of the one and the suppliant of the other, it seems clearly to mean, in a figure, the ery ‘of the mortal pining always for the incorruptible,’ seek- ing for the complete realization of the Divine idea (Quis rer. div. her, 42 [i. 501 f.]). Whether the title rapdxdyros is ever applied to the Logos is at least doubtful; if it is so at all, it is only to the Logos as identified with the cosmos. The passages which are most relied on as proving the personality of the Logos are those in which the term ‘ angel’ is applied either to it or to the logoi. Of these there are no fewer than seventeen, and it is im- possible for us to consider them here one by one, The key to the true interpretation of all of them is to be found in Philo’s system of allegorical interpretation. The angels of the Old Testament become in this system Divine thoughts, just as the patriarchs, Moses and Aaron, and other persons, have fixed symbolical meanings attached to them. As we might expect in dealing with such a vision- ary world, Philo’s language is not always quite consistent and clear ; but, with a little care, every passage will yield its allegorical sense, and will save us from the necessity of forcing on Philo the absurd supposition that the great cosmic Thought of God was a soul flying in the air, that Jacob literally wrestled with this uncircumseribed and