ON THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE OR SUPPLIANTS (DE VITA CONTEMPLATIVA)
INTRODUCTION TO DE VITA CONTEMPLATIVA
This treatise is except for a few digressions a highly eulogistic account of an ascetic community known to Philo and settled near Alexandria. It is introduced as a counterpart to his description of the Essenes, whether that in Quod Omnis Probus 75–91 or perhaps more probably that in the Hypothetica, 11. 1–18, or possibly some third which has not survived. The Therapeutae are differentiated from the others in that while the Essenes exemplify the practical they represent the contemplative life. They do not have any active occupation or any custom of sharing houses or garments, nor do they even mess together except on special occasions. Another difference is that while the Essenes are exclusively male the Therapeutae admit women freely to such communal life as they have. On the other hand while the Essenes of course observe frugality there is no suggestion that they practised abstinence like the Therapeutae, who carried it to an extreme.
The treatise does not seem to me to rank high among the works of Philo; the subject is slight and gives little scope to the richness of thought which marks so much of the commentary and in a less degree the exposition of the Law. Historically it is perhaps of some importance as giving an account of an institution with some of the marks of later monasticism for which we have no parallel either without or within the Judaism of the times. And the importance would be much greater if we could suppose that this Alexandrian community was of a type widespread through the world outside. The opening words of section 21 may at first suggest that this was so and the argument of Lucius who maintained that the treatise was spurious was primarily based on this assumption. The Therapeutae, he argued, are said by the author to have been found in many places; if it were so we must have heard of them from other sources, and as we do not hear of them the whole thing must be a fiction. But I do not think that section 21 bears this meaning. This kind he says is found in many parts of the world, particularly in Egypt, and the best of them find a home in a certain spot which he proceeds to describe. But when we look back to find who this kind are it appears that they are religious enthusiasts who give up their property and family ties and go and live in solitude. That this type of character existed in Philo’s time we might take for granted even if we did not have, abundant evidence in his own writings, and it would not be surprising to find them occasionally organizing themselves into communities which would not necessarily attract much attention. Philo however does not assert that they ever did so except in the body which he glorifies in this treatise. Nor does he tell us how numerous they were or how long they maintained themselves. If any inference is to be drawn from the absence of mention elsewhere it would be that this settlement was small and ephemeral.
In fact it is neither the literary nor the philosophical value nor its historical importance which has made this treatise better known and more discussed than any other work of Philo. It owes its fame to the controversies which have raged round it since the fourth century. The thing began when Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 17 discovered in the Therapeutae a picture of the first Christian converts. After noting the traditional evangelization of Alexandria by St. Mark, he declares that no one could possibly doubt that Philo was referring to the first generation of his converts. In the renunciation of their property, their severe fasting, in the virginity of the women members, in their study of the scriptures including the writings of men of old which are clearly the gospels and apostolic writings and commentaries on the Old Testament such as Paul used—in their festal meetings which are a description of Easter celebrations, and the officials who manage these meetings in whom we may see bishops, priests and deacons, no one can possibly fail to see the first Christians. Nowadays it seems needless to argue that the theory has no foundation whatever. But it is easy to understand that the idea of finding in this Jewish philosopher an account of the life and worship of the early church, particularly in the great city whose evangelization is unnoticed in the New Testament, was very fascinating, and it is not surprising that it was strongly maintained by orthodox churchmen down to the 18th century. Hardly had it died out in the form sketched by Eusebius when it was revived in another form by two German scholars, Grätz and (more elaborately) Lucius in 1880. Eusebius had believed that Philo himself was in good faith describing the actual Christians of his time. Lucius supposed that some unknown writer at the end of the third century A.D. drew up an imaginary account of the monasticism of his own time which he put forth in Philo’s name in order to commend it to readers, who impressed by the authority thus given to it would believe that it was a genuine picture of the primitive church. Somehow Lucius secured the approval not only of such distinguished historians as Schiirer and Zeller but a formidable number of other distinguished scholars. But I find it difficult to understand how anyone who reads Conybeare’s and Wendland’s refutations side by side with Lucius’s dissertation can believe it. I will not attempt to give more than a few main points. Lucius’s strongest argument was the absolute silence elsewhere about the Therapeutae, and this might have weight if we understood the author to assert that communities like that of the Mareotic Lake were to be found everywhere through the Roman world. But as I have said above I see no need to make such a deduction. Lucius also declared that various practices mentioned had Christian parallels, a claim in some cases obviously absurd, in others I daresay justified. But it was necessary to his argument to show that these customs or practices were not only Christian but also non-Jewish and this, if the two writers I have mentioned are to be believed, is rarely if ever the case. But the one great source of evidence on which a student of Philo not expert in Christian Antiquities is entitled to give his opinion is the style and language. Here the evidence as shown not merely in thought but in vocabulary and phrasing seems to me quite beyond dispute. The Testimonia printed by Conybeare at the foot of each page are overwhelming and with the additions made by Wend-land demand at any rate a forger of extraordinary skill. They prove also that Lucius’s study of Philo, as shown in what he considers to be an approximately correct list of the parallels in the treatise with the rest of Philo, was exceedingly inadequate. Whatever was the case when Lucius’s argument was put forward sixty years ago, the tide of opinion has turned against it and rightly so far as I can judge.
The following is an analysis of the treatise:
He opens with saying that as a counterpart to the practical type represented by the Essenes he will describe the contemplative type which he calls Therapeutic. The name may originally mean healing but also worshipping, and this is the sense in which he further develops it (1–2). He compares this worship to the honour paid to other objects; the elements, the heavenly bodies and images are each reviewed and their inadequacy exposed (3–7), and this discussion ends with a scathing denunciation of the worst of all these false religions the Egyptian animal worship (8–9).
We now return to the Therapeutic type; their most essential characteristic is their mystical aspiration to reach the vision of the one God and this leads them to renounce all thoughts of private property (10–13). Philo praises them because in contrast to Anaxagoras and Democritus they do not let their property run to waste but give it over to friends and kinsmen while at the same time they gain leisure to devote themselves to the higher life (14–17). Free from these cares they leave behind them all family ties and seek solitude away from the corrupting influence of cities (18–20).
While the Therapeutic type in this wider sense is to be found in many parts of the Greek and Barbarian world, and particularly in Egypt, Philo declares that the best of them (in Egypt?) resort from every quarter to a particular spot near the Mareotic Lake, the climate and position of which he describes (21–23). The simple houses of these settlers each of them contain a room set apart for their meditations in which they study the Scriptures and devotional works from sunrise to sunset (24–26). At both times they pray and also compose hymns (27–29). This solitary life is relaxed somewhat on the Sabbath, when they meet in the synagogue where men and women sit in separate partitions and listen to a sermon (30–33). As to their diet, during the six days they eat nothing till sunset and even in some cases fast for three whole days or more, but on the Sabbath it is more generous, though then the food and drink are little more than bread and water (34–37) and this asceticism extends to their dress (38–39).
The ordinary Sabbath meeting does not seem to include a Symposium, but they have such a thing on occasions. But before giving an account of it Philo makes a digression which takes up about a quarter of the whole treatise, describing the pagan feasts with which he will contrast it. First he notes the savage violence and drunkenness which disfigure such feasts (40–47), secondly the extravagant luxury shown in the appurtenances, couches and drinking vessels and still more in the number, finery and beauty of the attendants (48–52), and the number and variety of the dishes with which the guests gorge themselves (53–56). Greek literature does include two Symposia of a more refined kind, those described by Xenophon and Plato. Yet even these are full of folly, and Philo can see little more in Plato’s than the exaltation of pederasty which he takes the occasion to denounce (57–63). The rest of the treatise (64–90) describes in contrast to the above the festal meeting of the Therapeutae. First the date and occasion (65); then the preliminaries and prayers, the seating in order of seniority in the community, with the sexes separate (66–69); then the nature of the couches used and the qualifications of the attendants who are not slaves but young freemen (69–72); the simplicity of the meal provided (73–74). After they have taken their places on the couches there follows a discourse by the President on some scriptural point bringing out the spiritual lessons that the literal text provides, which is received with all attention followed by applause at the end (75–79). The discourse is followed by hymns, the first sung by the President, the others by the congregation each in turn, while all join in the refrain at the end (80–81). Then at last the meal itself is served (82). After this the vigil begins, the men and women each form a choir, the two choirs sing and dance in turn and then join together (83–85), thus resembling the songs of Moses and Miriam after the destruction of Pharaoh in the Red Sea, which is once more told in some detail (85–87). This is continued till dawn when they stand up and face the east and at sunrise after prayer return each to their own prayer room (88–89). The concluding section sums up the virtues and blessedness of the Therapeutae (90).