T H E L O E B CLASSICAL L I B R A R Y

FOUNDED B Y JAMES LOEB, LL.D.

EDITED BY
G. P . G O O L D , PH.D.

PREVIOUS EDITORS
t Τ. E. P A G E , C.H., LiTT.D. f E. C A P P S , PH.D., LL.D.
t W . H . D . R O U S E , LITT.D. t L . A . P O S T , L.H.D.
Ε. H . W A R M I N G T O N , Μ.Δ., F.R.HIST.SOC.

PHILO
IV

261
 PHILO
I N T E N VOLUMES
(AND TWO SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUMES)

IV

W I T H A N ENGLISH T R A N S L A T I O N B Y
F. H. COLSON, M.A.
LATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

AND

THE REV. G . H . W H I T A K E R , M.A.

LATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON
WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD
MCMT.XXXV
 American I S B N 0-674-99287-3
British I S B N 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 L l N G U A R U M )

Introduction 2
T e x t and Translation 8

ON THE MIGRATION OF ABRAHAM (DE MIGRA-

ΤΙΟΝΕ A B R A H A M l )

Introduction 123
T e x t and Translation 132

WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS (QUIS

RERUM DIVINARUM HERES)—
Introduction · . 270
T e x t and Translation 284

ON MATING WITH THE PRELIMINARY STUDIES

(DE CONGRESSU QUAERENDAE ERUDITIONIS
GRATIA)—
Introduction .451
T e x t and Translation . . . . . . . 458
ν
 CONTENTS

APPENDICES— PAGE

I. T o 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
A s was state d in t h e Preface t o t h e last volume, Mr.
Whitaker's versions of t h e treatises h e had agreed t o
take in this volume and t h e fifth were in existence at
his death. A s it happens, however, his part in this
volume was confined to one treatise of t h e four, viz.
the De Migration*. This had reached t h e typescript
stage, and just before his death I had sent him some
corrections or suggestions which h e had accepted.
Since t h e n , however, I have m a d e a g o o d m a n y
further alterations in that treatise. O n t h e De Con-
fusione h e had sent m e only a few suggestions, and
m y versions of t h e other t w o treatises h e had not
s e e n at all. A l t o g e t h e r I feel t h a t , for good or for
ill, I mus t t a k e t h e final responsibility for this
volume, and I have therefore ceased to use such
phrases as " T h e Translators think " and u s e d t h e
first person singular instead. That t h e work has
suffered b y his absence, and t h a t there are sure t o
be many things which I should h a v e altered or modi-
fied if I had had his advice, n e e d hardly b e said.
A misunderstanding shewn b y a reviewer m a k e s
m e think that it would b e well to say somethin g about
t h e textual notes. M y own view has always b e e n
that, while it would b e b e y o n d t h e scope of a work
of this kind t o indicate t h e variants in t h e MSS.,
places in which t h e t e x t printed has no MS. authority
should b e recorded. Mr. Whitaker did not altogether
vii
 PREFACE

agree with m e , and consequently in t h e first two

volumes there was no consistent a t t e m p t to give this
information, though the reproduction of t h e angular
and square brackets did indicate insertions and
omissions in t h e t e x t . In t h e third volume and this,
however, I have made it a rule to n o t e all cases
( e x c e p t such as are merely orthographical) where
t h e t e x t printed is purely conjectural, however
certain t h e conjectures m a y b e . Further, it is to be
a

understood that, unless it is stated otherwise, t h e

t e x t printed is that of Wendland. I t does not follow,
however, that any particular emendation of the t e x t
is due to Wendland, as I have not thought it neces-
sary to distinguish b e t w e e n his emendations and those
of M a n g e y , Markland and Turnebus, so long as he
himself has adopted t h e m . I also note all cases
where I have not followed Wendland's t e x t , and,
where the emendation is our own, have stated t h e
fact. Of thes e last there are not many. B u t there are
a good m a n y more note d in footnotes or appendix
where I feel fairly confident that the reading we
have s u g g e s t e d is right, but have not that degree
of certitude which would justify m y printing it in
t h e t e x t itself. A s to Wendland's corrections, while
I accept without question t h e facts of his apparatus
criticus, I do not, as t h e work progresses, feel the
same confidence in his j u d g e m e n t . H e does not s e e m
t o m e to consider sufficiently how t h e t e x t which he
adopts came t o be corrupted to t h e form which it has
in t h e MSS. On t h e whole, however, t h e principle
laid down in t h e preface of t h e first volume, that
where hesitation does not amount t o conviction t h e
β
Omissions and insertions are of course not noted in the
footnotes, as the brackets speak for themselves.
viii
 PREFACE

t e x t of this standard edition should be preserved,

has b e e n followed in this volume with modification.
A mild regret has also b e e n expressed t h a t no
account of t h e MSS. has b e e n given. I t is perhaps a
pity that this was not a t t e m p t e d in t h e General
Introduction. In apology it m a y be said that, leav-
ing out of consideration excerpts and quotations,
which form a considerable part of t h e evidence for
t h e t e x t , t h e MSS. used b y Cohn and Wendland, few
of which are earlier tha n t h e thirteent h century
and none earlier than t h e eleventh or t e n t h , amount
to more than t w e n t y in t h e six volumes and vary
greatly with t h e different treatises ; and that Cohn
has declared at t he end of his survey that no single
MS. or family of MSS. stands out in such a way t h a t
anything more than an eclectic recension of Philo's
t e x t is possible.α

I cannot conclude without again expressing t h e

greatness of t h e debt I o w e to Leisegang' s index .
True, there are a g o o d m a n y words absent, on which
one would be glad to b e able t o investigate Philo's
u s a g e , and of t h e words dealt with I have sometime s
found examples omitted, so that one has t o be
cautious in drawing n e g a t i ve conclusions from it.
Still, on t h e whole, it is an admirable p i e c e of work,
and not only t h e present translator but all future
editors of Philo will have in their hands an instrument
which M a n g e y and Wendland would have g i v e n
much to possess. „ „ n

r . xi. C
February 1932.

a
Prolegomena to Vol. I, p. xli.
ix