Everyone's entitled to his opinion, however wrong. Why should I pick apart what someone else wants to believe? (That seems unkind; I'm not.) I don't disagree there were likely scribal edits but what you insist is too far off base.DCHindley wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 3:36 am ... I am not saying that the final editor HAS to be T J Alexander, but to me he was a good candidate for the dismissive POV about excesses in entertainment prevalent at Rome. Of course <aaarrrgghhh!!> This *could* be Philo's own words, but I am aware that Philo's works circulated under various names, so I think that posthumous publication by a relative, possibly in more than one edition, is a not-unlikely scenario. Philo and this final editor had different POVs, which is reflected in my analysis. You could argue that these are signs of changes in Philo POV that developed over time. Go ahead, I will not be offended ...
DCH
You are working with Yonge's translation: that's the first strike, IMO. You don't ever reference the Greek text?? Second strike. A quick peek below, and you miss the obvious (**where the Greek text clearly contradicts you**) ... Strike Three.
There you go. You insist three writer/editors, colored 'Black', 'Red', 'Blue', to separate different authorships. Here's one glaring error -- a defeat, really -- of your method, but it's illustrative of a failure throughout. (I've no doubt a dozen or more similar examples might be found, looking at the Greek; sorry no, I have zero interest in more homework.) This important term appears as a 'bridge' in all three of your imaginary 'separate' sections, quite coherently in fact, more proof it's basically one author's work and not three separate(s).DCHindley wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm Back in that file I posted a while ago which attempts to slice and dice Philo's De vita contemplativa, ca. mid 30s CE, to weed out the digressions and side comments of Philo's editor(s).
(Hindley, David C) Analysis of philo's De vita contemplativa 1.1-90 (C D Yonge, vol 1, 1854, analysis 2013-02-12).pdf
I came up with Philo's basic account which was posted at:
https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... 410&page=2
...
Philo's unadorned account of the Therapeutae.pdf
In Philo's allegorical writing, οὐσία (here) means 'estate' = archaic Manhood, Masculinity, Patrimony; in other Philonic works, the metaphysical sense, ousia is typically 'Essence'. (Man's Essence also relates naturally to the Divine Goo.) Later in DVC (61), Philo will also use the term in a manner that clearly implies wasting sperm, depleting one's vital essence. So we shall also see how Philo carefully ties all these together across several passages of (throughout) DVC. Important! Manhood is an Estate and an Essence.
First: Can you see how Philo is distinguishing between 'Man's Estate' and a projection, 'Provident Wealth' and 'Blind Wealth', in § 13?
13. εἶτα διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀθανάτου καὶ μακαρίας ζωῆς ἵμερον τετελευτηκέναι νομίζοντες ἤδη τὸν θνητὸν βίον ἀπολείπουσι τὰς οὐσίας υἱοῖς ἢ θυγατράσιν εἴτε καὶ ἄλλοις συγγενέσιν, ἑκουσίῳ γνώμῃ προκληρονομούμενοι, οἷς δὲ μὴ συγγενεῖς εἰσιν, ἑταίροις καὶ φίλοις· ἔδει γὰρ τοὺς τὸν βλέποντα πλοῦτον ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαβόντας τὸν τυφλὸν παραχωρῆσαι τοῖς ἔτι τὰς διανοίας τυφλώττουσιν.
13. Then, due to the yearning for immortal and blessed life, they presume their mortal existence already over. They willingly bequeath in advance their estates to sons or daughters or other relatives, and to those who are not relatives, companions and friends. For it is fitting that those who have readily accepted the ‘abundance of foresight’ should yield ‘blind riches’ to those whose minds are still shrouded in darkness {Alternate reading: For it is necessary that those who have acquired wealth in vision deliver from blindness those still obscured in their understanding.}
13. Then, due to the yearning for immortal and blessed life, they presume their mortal existence already over. They willingly bequeath in advance their estates to sons or daughters or other relatives, and to those who are not relatives, companions and friends. For it is fitting that those who have readily accepted the ‘abundance of foresight’ should yield ‘blind riches’ to those whose minds are still shrouded in darkness {Alternate reading: For it is necessary that those who have acquired wealth in vision deliver from blindness those still obscured in their understanding.}
Second: Can you also see how Philo is distinguishing between 'Man's Estate' and (social) 'Wealth' in § 14?
14. Ἀναξαγόραν καὶ Δημόκριτον Ἕλληνες ᾄδουσιν, ὅτι φιλοσοφίας ἱμέρῳ πληχθέντες μηλοβότους εἴασαν γενέσθαι τὰς οὐσίας· ἄγαμαι τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ αὐτὸς γενομένους χρημάτων κρείττονας. ἀλλὰ πόσῳ βελτίονες οἱ μὴ θρέμμασιν ἐμβόσκεσθαι τὰς κτήσεις ἀνέντες, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἀνθρώπων ἐνδείας, συγγενῶν ἢ φίλων, ἐπανορθωσάμενοι καὶ ἐξ ἀπόρων εὐπόρους ἀποφήναντες; ἐκεῖνο μὲν γὰρ ἀπερίσκεπτον — ἵνα μὴ μανιῶδες ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν, οὓς ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἐθαύμασεν, εἴπω τὸ ἔργον —, τοῦτο δὲ νηφάλιον καὶ μετὰ φρονήσεως ἠκριβωμένον περιττῆς.
14. Greeks sing of Anaxagoras and Democritus who, thus struck by a yearning for philosophy, abandoned their estates to become common sheep pastures. I myself admire these men for becoming superior to wealth. But how much better are those who did not permit their possessions to be grazed by livestock, but instead rectified the needs of men, whether relatives or friends, restoring them to prosperity from poverty? For while the former deed was reckless – not to call it ‘madness’, in men whom Greece has admired – but the latter is sober and prudent, providing without excess.
14. Greeks sing of Anaxagoras and Democritus who, thus struck by a yearning for philosophy, abandoned their estates to become common sheep pastures. I myself admire these men for becoming superior to wealth. But how much better are those who did not permit their possessions to be grazed by livestock, but instead rectified the needs of men, whether relatives or friends, restoring them to prosperity from poverty? For while the former deed was reckless – not to call it ‘madness’, in men whom Greece has admired – but the latter is sober and prudent, providing without excess.
Thirdly: Can you further see how Philo is distinguishing between 'Man's Estate' and 'Money-Wealth & Possessions' in § 16?
16. πόσῳ δὴ κρείττους οὗτοι καὶ θαυμασιώτεροι, χρησάμενοι μὲν οὐκ ἐλάττοσι ταῖς πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν ὁρμαῖς, μεγαλόνοιαν δὲ ὀλιγωρίας προτιμήσαντες καὶ χαρισάμενοι τὰς οὐσίας, ἀλλὰ μὴ διαφθείραντες, ἵνα καὶ ἑτέρους καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ὠφελήσωσι, τοὺς μὲν ἐν ἀφθόνοις περιουσίαις, ἑαυτοὺς δὲ ἐν τῷ φιλοσοφεῖν; αἱ γὰρ χρημάτων καὶ κτημάτων ἐπιμέλειαι τοὺς χρόνους ἀναλίσκουσι· χρόνου δὲ φείδεσθαι καλόν, ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὸν ἰατρὸν Ἱπποκράτην „ὁ μὲν βίος βραχύς, ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή.
16. How superior and more admirable are those who, though no less enamored with the most Divine Wisdom, and preferring magnanimity to contempt, have given away their estates – not having ruined them – that they might benefit both others and themselves: others with abundant resources, themselves in the pursuit of philosophy? For the attention to wealth and possessions consumes Time, and it is good to be sparing of Time. For even the physician Hippocrates says, 'Life is short, but Art is long.'
16. How superior and more admirable are those who, though no less enamored with the most Divine Wisdom, and preferring magnanimity to contempt, have given away their estates – not having ruined them – that they might benefit both others and themselves: others with abundant resources, themselves in the pursuit of philosophy? For the attention to wealth and possessions consumes Time, and it is good to be sparing of Time. For even the physician Hippocrates says, 'Life is short, but Art is long.'
Fourthly: Can you lastly see how Philo is distinguishing between 'Man's Estate' -- obviously, his Vital Essence -- versus the earlier 'Money-Wealth & Possessions' (§ 14), in § 61?
61. λυμηνάμενος δὲ τὴν παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν καὶ εἰς ἐρωμένης τάξιν καὶ διάθεσιν ἀγαγὼν ἐζημίωσε καὶ τοὺς ἐραστὰς περὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα, σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ οὐσίαν· ἀνάγκη γὰρ τοῦ παιδεραστοῦ τὸν μὲν νοῦν τετάσθαι πρὸς τὰ παιδικά, πρὸς ταῦτα μόνον ὀξυδορκοῦντα, πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἴδιά τε καὶ κοινὰ τυφλούμενον, τὸ δὲ σῶμα ὑπὸ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ μάλιστα εἰ ἀποτυγχάνοιτο, συντήκεσθαι, τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν ἐλαττοῦσθαι διχόθεν, ἔκ τε ἀμελείας καὶ τῶν εἰς τὸν ἐρώμενον ἀναλωμάτων.
61. Having debased their childhoods, leading them into the role and condition of passive partners, he has even harmed boy-lovers in the most vital things – Body, Soul, and Essence. For a pederast's mind must be wholly focused on his boy-loves, with keen eyes only for them and blind to all else, both private and public affairs. So his body wastes away by Craving, especially if left unquenched, and his {Vital} Estate is depleted in two ways: by neglect, and by the costs towards his beloved boy.
61. Having debased their childhoods, leading them into the role and condition of passive partners, he has even harmed boy-lovers in the most vital things – Body, Soul, and Essence. For a pederast's mind must be wholly focused on his boy-loves, with keen eyes only for them and blind to all else, both private and public affairs. So his body wastes away by Craving, especially if left unquenched, and his {Vital} Estate is depleted in two ways: by neglect, and by the costs towards his beloved boy.
These distinctions may be subtle in your eyes, but Philo IS using different words, exquisitely nuanced to his clever, structured argument against "Greeks" (aka alcoholic pedophiles). Effeminates who waste their seed in little boys' fannies = the 'wasting of earthly estates' (Proto-Malthusian anxieties, etc.). Ergo, we now see @ § 14 a clear parallel to § 61, and where Philo (One Author) was going with this elaboration from the start. Jewish money matters? Ahh, no.
62. παραφύεται δὲ καὶ μεῖζον ἄλλο πάνδημον κακόν· ἐρημίαν γὰρ πόλεων καὶ σπάνιν τοῦ ἀρίστου γένους ἀνθρώπων καὶ στείρωσιν καὶ ἀγονίαν τεχνάζονται, οἳ μιμοῦνται τοὺς ἀνεπιστήμονας τῆς γεωργίας, σπείροντες ἀντὶ τῆς. βαθυγείου πεδιάδος ὑφάλμους ἀρούρας ἢ λιθώδη καὶ ἀπόκροτα χωρία, ἃ πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν πεφυκέναι βλαστάνειν καὶ τὰ καταβληθέντα φθείρει σπέρματα.
62. And another, greater evil grows alongside it, affecting the people as a whole: cities are depopulated, the best kind of men grow scarce, and sterility and childlessness ensue. They would copy those ignorant of agriculture, sowing in salty marshes or stony, hard ground instead of the deep, fertile plain – places not only unfit by nature to produce any growth but also wasting seeds sown in them.
62. And another, greater evil grows alongside it, affecting the people as a whole: cities are depopulated, the best kind of men grow scarce, and sterility and childlessness ensue. They would copy those ignorant of agriculture, sowing in salty marshes or stony, hard ground instead of the deep, fertile plain – places not only unfit by nature to produce any growth but also wasting seeds sown in them.
Conclusion: These οὐσία sections (13,14,16 and 61) are all tied together by Philo's consistent rhetoric & terminology. He's alluding to the True 'Provident Savings' (Divine Wealth) of the Jews, in his similes, metaphors, yaddi-yadda, in contradistinction to the base, plutonic riches of the Greeks/Romans. Ousia is Man's Estate, masculinity, etc. which those nasty Hellenic buggers have "squandered." And THIS is Philo's argument; it isn't even very subtle.
My point here? Your own 'Black', 'Red', 'Blue' scheme -- to "weed out the digressions and side comments of Philo's editors" -- misses all of this. No: you would not even allow these sections to co-exist in the same (Author's) document, you could not see how Philo has built-up his key argument about the Jews' (Moral) Wealth, much less admit the integrity of a unitary work as shown here. Why? Please revisit your assumptions and method. You've lost the plot, ensnared by a fervid historical fantasy in your mind's eye.
Honestly: I'm sorry, and not gloating, to show you this. But IF your thesis were sound (it isn't), you would still need to prove it in the original Greek, NOT YONGE. Heads Up! That Victorian prude has bowdlerized his translation: you cannot even imagine how NASTY the AI Claude3 gets. It even hallucinates pornography in Ancient Greek.