Philo About the Contemplative Life (De Vita Contemplativa)

In France the tone of criticism has been more sober than it has been here and in Germany. Besides Professor Massebieau, M. Ferdinand Delaunay has upheld its authenticity with much skill and learning; and M. Renan See the Bibliography, for the views of M. Renan and others., with admirable caution, laid down rules for a solution of the problem raised by Lucius and Nicolas, which have guided me in making this edition. In Holland the genuineness of the treatise has found an able defender in Dr. B. Tideman, and it is satisfactory to note that, even in Germany, two scholars, so well known for the solidity of their contributions to the study of Philo as Dr. Leopold Cohn, of Breslau, and Dr. Paul Wendland, of Berlin, have both upheld its genuineness.

A few words are needful in explanation of the plan of this edition. I have begun with an essay on the sources of the text. I regret that in writing §§ 18 and 19 of the same, I failed to see as clearly as afterwards (see p. 250) the true significance of the Eusebian text at 483. 42. Both the Armenian text and that of Eusebius had here the same lacuna missing portion/gap and are therefore derived from a common archetype, distinct from the other archetype Σ from which all the Greek books with their common lacuna at 483. 18 have flowed. Thus all our textual sources are reducible to two archetypes. That these archetypes however belonged to a very remote antiquity is evident, for on the one hand, the Greek MSS., among which may be ranked the Old Latin version, fall into many widely divergent families, and the Old Latin already reflects a much worn text as early as A. D. 500; on the other hand, the Eusebian text had already undergone some vicissitudes before the

B
689
A 3