pere officerent nobis Stymphala colentes Et Diomedis equi, &c. In 31, I read unhesitatingly Thracis, as nearer the ductus literarum of Thracia, than Thracam is; moreover Thrax was the epitheton sollemne of this Diomede, to distinguish him from the other, who was equally famous for his horses: Nunc, quales Diomedis equi, nunc, quantus Achilles. Again, vi. 47-49, there is clearly a hiatus, but it is not so clear that one verse has managed to survive between two hiatuses; this, for manifest reasons, is improbable; I therefore suppose that after 47, Quandoquidem semel insignem, &c. there is a hiatus in which that sentence was completed, and that then a description followed of the fury of storms, and of the superstitious terrors they caused; and that 48 and 49 allude to the ensuing lull: Ventorum ex ira ut placentur, ut omina rursum Quæ fuerint sint placato conversa furore. The alterations I have made are very slight, with ex ira ut changed to exirtant comp. virtuti for vir uti, IV. 820. There are also, I think, several other passages, which can only be rightly understood by assuming a hiatus. 11. 501, &c. I am little satisfied with either Lachmann's or Bernays' correction of this passage; I believe something is lost between 501 and 502. Again, II. 1030, I believe Principio is quite right, and that some such verse as the following has dropt out after it [Undique diffusum circum supraque tuere.] Again, iv. 397, I feel sure that Extantisque is genuine, and believe that something is lost after this or the next verse; Lachmann intrudes his usques usque ad nauseam. Again, vI. 696, &c. I cannot understand Lachmann's violent changes in this passage; I believe the true way of proceeding is to suppose a hiatus after 697.

With a text in the state in which that of Lucretius is, there is a wide scope for difference of opinion. I had collected a number of passages, in which I believed that the latest editors were mistaken either with the earlier ones, or in opposition to them; but, "spatiis inclusus iniquis," I must defer their consideration to a future opportunity. Lachmann has far too great a contempt for his predecessors; else he would hardly have rejected Wakefield's reading, Iv. 1096, or Forbiger's claru' citat, v. 947; where his own clarigitat may well keep company with

his manticuler.

After dwelling so long on the shortcomings of his commentators, I will conclude with pointing out a blunder of the poet's

own: vi. 1235, &c., in the midst of his description of the plague, he speaks of the fearful contagiousness of the disease, saying that "this above all heaped death upon death, for," and then he gives a most curious reason, "those, who refused to attend the sick, killing neglect soon after punished with a miserable death for their too great love of life and fear of death;" he then adds naturally enough that those who did attend caught the infection and died. That the poet felt the weakness of the first part of the argument seems to be shewn by the elaborate way in which he has tricked it out. Lucretius was doubtless a good Greek scholar, and deserved the epithet of doctus which Statius gives to him; but here he has misunderstood Thucydides. He is translating Thuc. II. 52. § 6: repos ap ἑτέρου θεραπείας ἀναπιμπλάμενοι, ὥσπερ τὰ πρόβατα, ἔθνησκον· καὶ τὸν πλεῖστον φθόρον τοῦτο ἐνεποίει. εἴτε γὰρ μὴ θέλοιεν δεδιότες ἀλλήλοις προσιέναι, ἀπώλλυντο ἔρημοι, καὶ οἰκίαι πολλαὶ ἐκενώθησαν ἀπορίᾳ τοῦ θεραπεύσοντος εἴτε προσίοιεν, διεφθείροντο κ.τ.λ. Lucretius has not seen that the subject of draλλvvro is "the sick persons." Livy (xxv. 26) has understood his author aright: Postea curatio ipsa et contactus ægrorum vulgabat morbos, ut aut neglecti desertique qui incidissent morerentur, aut assidentes curantesque eadem vi morbi repletos secum traherent.

HUGH MUNRO.

Juvenal and Ovid.

It is strange that no editor of Juvenal has pointed out the source of his words (xiv. 213, 214): Vinceris, ut Ajax Præteriit Telamonem, ut Pelea vicit Achilles. See Ov. Met. xv. 855, 856: Sic magni cedit titulis Agamemnonis Atreus: Egea sic Theseus, sic Pelea vincit Achilles*.

* This parallel has also escaped Stanley, John Taylor, and Tan. Faber, in their MS. notes. Of these notes, with some collections which I have myself

made, I hope to give a digest, retaining only what is valuable, in some future numbers of the Journal.

J. E. B. MAYOR.

47

III.

St Paul and Philo; a passage in 1 Cor., illustrated from Philo Judæus.

It does not appear to be generally known that the remarks of St Paul on the Earthy Man and the Heavenly Man, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, are written with an express reference to the doctrines of Philo; and that while the Apostle adopts his phraseology, he at the same time gives it a new and totally different sense. Nay more, by pointedly inverting the order of the Two Men as it stands in Philo, St Paul has left us a direct and studied refutation of the very passage to which he alludes.

We will, without further preamble, cite their very words, as they proceed to comment on the same passage of Genesis (c. ii. v. 7).

ST PAUL.

Εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικὸν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν· οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν. ἀλλ ̓ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικὸν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν. ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοικὸς, ὁ δεύτερος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Ep. ad Cor. 1. c. XV. vv. 44—47. (Ed. Tischend.)

PHILO.

Καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς χθονὸς, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς. Καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. Διττὰ ἀνθρώπων γένη ̇ ὁ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ γήϊνος. Ὁ μὲν οὖν οὐράνιος, ἅτε κατ ̓ εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονώς, φθαρτῆς καὶ συνόλως γεώδους οὐσίας ἀμέτοχος· ὁ δὲ γήϊνος ἐκ σποράδος ὕλης, ἣν χοῦν κέκληκεν, ἐπάγη. Διὸ τὸν μὲν οὐράνιόν φησιν οὐ πεπλάσθαι, κατ ̓ εἰκόνα δὲ τετυπῶσθαι θεοῦ· τὸ δὲ γήϊνον πλάσμα, ἀλλ ̓ οὐ γέννημα εἶναι τοῦ τεχνίτου. Ἄνθρωπον δὲ τὸν ἐκ γῆς λογιστέον εἶναι νοῦν εἰσκρινόμενον σώματι, οὔπω δὲ εἰσκεκριμένον. Ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὗτος γεώδης ἐστὶ τῷ ὄντι καὶ φθαρτὸς, εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς ἐνέπνευσεν αὐτῷ δύναμιν ἀληθινῆς ζωῆς. Τότε γὰρ „γίνεται “ καὶ οὐκέτι πλάττεται εἰς ψυχὴν, οὐκ ἀργὴν καὶ ἀδιατύπωτον, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς νοερὰν καὶ ζῶσαν ὄντως, „Εἰς ψυχὴν γὰρ, φησὶ, „ ζωῆς ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος." Ζητήσειε δ ̓ ἄν τις, διὰ τί ἠξίωσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν γηγενῆ καὶ φιλοσώματον νοῦν πνεύματος θείου, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἰδέαν γεγονότα καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα ἑαυτοῦ. * Πνοὴν δὲ, ἀλλ ̓ οὐ πνεῦμα εἴρηκεν, ὡς διαφορᾶς οὔσης. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ πνεῦμα νενόηται κατὰ τὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ εὐτονίαν καὶ δύναμιν· ἡ δὲ πνοὴ ὡς ἂν αὖρά τίς ἐστι καὶ ἀναθυμίασις ἠρεμαία καὶ πρᾳεῖα. Ὁ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα γεγονὼς καὶ τὴν ἰδέαν νοῦς, πνεύματος ἂν λέγοιτο κεκοινωκέναι. Ρώμην γὰρ ἔχει ὁ λογισμὸς αὐτοῦ.

66

* *

Ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὕλης, τῆς κούφης καὶ ἐλαφροτάτης αὔρας, ὡς ἂν ἀποφορᾶς τινὸς, ὁποῖαι γίνονται ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρωμάτων.-De Allegor. Leg. I. 12, 13.

Now, who can believe that these two commentaries are independent of each other? Upon the same text Philo and St Paul proceed to enlarge, employing, to a considerable extent, the same most remarkable words*, on a subject not contained in the text at all, nor obviously arising out of it? We may then, I think, affirm with confidence, that we have here no fortuitous or trivial coincidence; but that the Apostle either had the place of Philo in his eye (and this certainly seems the most probable hypothesis), or else that Philo and St Paul drew the phraseology of their commentary from some common origin, such as the allegorical interpretations of Aristobulus, or other Alexandrian Jews, may possibly have been†.

Let us, in the first place, endeavour to discover the meaning of Philo, as a preliminary to the full understanding of the Apostle. However true it may be that some Rabbinic writers have designated the Messiah as the Second Adam, and that St Paul had their phraseology in his eye as well as that of Philo, both here and elsewhere (Rom. v. 14), yet our philosopher was thinking of a very different matter in his above-cited interpretation of the Mosaic cosmogony.

Philo had observed that Moses twice describes the Creation of the world, once in the first chapter of Genesis, and again in the second chapter. He explained this fact, in a Platonic fashion, by supposing that the first chapter contained an account of the ideal or suprasensual world, the voŋròs kóσμos, which God created by his Word (Aóyos), as by an instrument. In fact, the ideal world is itself regarded by him as identical with the Word of God, the idea of ideas. His Heavenly Man then is the archetypal man, incorporeal, unsexual, immortal, the ideal denizen of the ideal world, of whom the Earthy Man or Protoplast, the

*The omission of the words ò Kúpios in v. 47, which are now regarded as spurious by most editors, makes the allusion to Philo more direct and pointed.

The distinction which Philo here makes, occurs again in his works several times, e.g. Alleg. Leg. 1. 16, 28, 29, 30; II.2; III. 31. Opif. Mund. c. 46. Plant. Quæst. in Genes. c. 4, 8.

Noe. c. II.

Some of these passages will be employed in the course of the argument. They appear to have received less attention from the commentators on the New Testament than they deserve, though some among them, as Grotius, Loesner, and especially Whitby, have not entirely overlooked them.

Adam whose creation is described in the second chapter of Genesis, is only the antitype and ignoble representation. The Heavenly Man abounded with the divine Spirit, God gave not “ the Spirit by measure unto him,” (to use the Pauline expression, which contains in all probability an allusion to Philo); but the Earthy Man, created with a mortal body, had only a faint breath of the immortalizing and vivifying Spirit, the addition of which constituted him a living soul.

This will be better understood from Philo's own words, which, as the subject is somewhat difficult, we shall make no apology for quoting at length.

"

Ερμηνεύεται οὖν Βεσελεήλ, ἐν σκιᾷ ὁ θεός. Σκιὰ θεοῦ δὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ᾧ καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρησάμενος ἐκοσμοποίει. Αὕτη δὲ ἡ σκιὰ καὶ τὸ ὡσανεὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἑτέρων ἐστὶν ἀρχέτυπον. Ωσπερ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς παράδειγμα τῆς εἰκόνος, ἣν σκιὰν νυνὶ κέκληκεν, οὕτως ἡ εἰκὼν ἄλλων γίνεται παράδειγμα, ὡς καὶ ἐναρχόμενος τῆς νομοθεσίας ἐδήλωσεν, εἰπὼν, „Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ ̓ εἰκόνα θεοῦ,“ ὡς τῆς μὲν εἰκόνος κατὰ τὸν θεὸν ἀπεικονισθείσης, τοῦ δὲ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα, λαβοῦσαν δύναμιν παραδείγματος.—Leg. Alleg. III. 31.

Elsewhere he distinctly defines the Aóyos as the totality of ideas, or idea of ideas:

Εἰ δέ τις ἐθελήσειε γυμνοτέροις χρήσασθαι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον, ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ νοητὴ πόλις ἕτερόν τι ἐστὶν, ἢ ὁ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος λογισμὸς, ἤδη τὴν αἰσθητὴν πόλιν τῇ νοητῇ κτίζειν διανοουμένου. Μωϋσέως ἐστὶ τόδε δόγμα τοῦτο, οὐκ ἐμόν. Τὴν γοῦν ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν ἀναγράφων, ἐν τοῖς ἔπειτα ὁμολογεῖ διαῤῥήδην, ὡς ἄρα κατ ̓ εἰκόνα θεοῦ διετυπώθη. Εἰ δὲ τὸ μέρος εἰκὼν εἰκόνος, δηλονότι καὶ τὸ ὅλον εἶδος, ὁ σύμπας αἰσθητὸς οὑτοσὶ κόσμος, ὃ μεῖζόν ἐστι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης μίμημα θείας εἰκόνος. Δῆλον δὲ, ὅτι καὶ ἡ ἀρχέτυπος σφραγὶς, ὅν φαμεν εἶναι κόσμον νοητὸν, αὐτὸς ἂν εἴη τὸ ἀρχέτυπον παράδειγμα, ἰδέα τῶν ideŵv, ó beoû λóyos.-Mund. Opif. c. 6.

Consistently with this view he describes the Heavenly Man as being anterior to the Earthy Man:

Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησιν, ὅτι,Ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς ἄνθρωπον, χοῦν λαβὼν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς. Ἐναργέστατα καὶ διὰ τούτου παρίστησιν, ὅτι διαφορὰ παμμεγέθης ἐστὶ τοῦ τε νῦν πλασθέντος ἀνθρώπου, καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονότος πρότερον. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ διαπλασθεὶς ἤδη, αἰσθητὸς, μετέχων ποιότητος, ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς συνεστὼς, ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνὴ, φύσει θνητὸς ὤν· ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα, ἰδέα τις, ἢ γένος, ἢ σφραγὶς, νοητός, ἀσώματος, οὔτ ̓ ἄῤῥην οὔτε θῆλυς, ἄφθαρτος φύσει. Τοῦ δὲ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ μέρους ἀνθρώπου τὴν κατασκευὴν σύνθετον εἶναί φησιν ἐκ γεώδους οὐσίας καὶ πνεύματος θείου, γεγενῆσθαι γὰρ τὸ μὲν σῶμα, χοῦν τοῦ τεχνίτου λαβόντος, καὶ μορφὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ διαπλάσαντος, τὴν δὲ

VoL. I. March, 1854.

4