ON THE PRAYERS AND CURSES UTTERED BY NOAH WHEN HE BECAME SOBER (DE SOBRIETATE)
ANALYTICAL INTRODUCTION
In this short treatise Philo concludes his discussion of Gen. 9:20–27, which describe Noah’s husbandry, vine-planting, drinking the wine, intoxication and nakedness, return to sobriety, and cursing or blessing his children. The verses here treated (24–27) run as follows:
I. (sections 1–20 of this treatise) And Noah returned to soberness from the wine and knew what his younger son had done to him.
II. (30–50) And he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant and bondman shall he be to his brethren.”
III. (51–58) And he said, “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be a servant, a bondman of him.”
IV. (59–end) And he said, “May God widen for Japhet, and let him dwell in the houses of Shem and let Canaan become his servant.”
I. This raises two points, the meaning of “becoming sober” and that of the “younger son.” The former is treated briefly. Sobriety is conceived of mainly as sobriety of soul, which takes the same place in the soul as clear vision in the body, and thus provides it with thoughts which in their turn lead to good actions (1–5).
The word “younger” starts Philo on a discussion of the use made in the Pentateuch of words literally denoting age, to shew moral relations. Ham is “younger” because his unfilial and indecent action proved his spirit of (youthful) rebelliousness (νεωτεροποιία) (6). And so Ishmael is called a “child” when, as a little calculation will shew, he was twenty years old, because as a type of the falsely wise or sophist, he is, compared with the wise Isaac, a mere child (7–9). So too Moses calls the rebellious Israelites “blameworthy children” (10–11). Rachel (bodily beauty) is called younger than Leah (beauty of soul) (12). Joseph’s “youth” in the moral sense is shewn by his staying in Egypt (the body) and his association with his illegitimate brethren (12–15). Conversely the wise Abraham is called the “elder,” though the history represents him as less long-lived than his ancestors (16–18). The elders Moses is directed to choose mean those whose sterling worth he has proved (19–20). In particular the enactment forbidding the disinheritance of the firstborn son of the hated wife in favour of the younger son of the beloved wife, which gave rise to the long allegory of De Sacrificiis, 19–44 is audaciously pressed into service. As in De Sacrificiis the beloved wife is Pleasure, the hated Virtue, but as Moses mentioned the parenthood of Pleasure first, her child is firstborn in point of time and the name only belongs to the child of virtue in consideration of his moral superiority (21–26). So the younger in age Jacob takes the birthright from the elder Esau, and Jacob sets Ephraim who represents the faculty of memory, which comes later and is therefore younger, above Manasseh, who represents the more childish faculty of recollection, which is earlier and therefore older (27–29). This division ends with a statement of the justice of cursing the “younger” (30).
II. But why did Noah curse Ham’s son Canaan, against whom nothing is alleged, instead of Ham? (31–33). Because while Ham is evil potential or “in rest,” Canaan is evil active or “in motion.” To understand this we must consider these terms “rest” and “motion” with their respective congeners, “habit” or “faculty” (ἕξις) and “activity” (33–34). Now every workman or artist is called by such a name, even when he is not making anything, because he still has the faculty. But it is only when he is actually plying his trade or art that he incurs praise or blame (35–37). So too in the moral sphere. The possessor of good or bad qualities may have no opportunity for displaying them, but the qualities are still there (38–43). Ham means “heat,” i.e. the latent disease in the soul, Canaan means “tossing,” which represents the same in active motion. As no ruler punishes qualities till they actually produce crimes, Canaan properly incurs the curse, though, as one passes into the other, one may say that Ham is cursed through Canaan (44–47). Actual sin is the child of potential sin, and this is the real meaning of “visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children” (48). The same lesson is taught by the law of leprosy that only when the “bright spot” ceases to be stationary does the man become unclean (49), and also by God’s word to Cain, “thou hast sinned, be still” (50).
III. The prayer for Shem speaks of the “Lord, the God of Shem.” Shem is “the good” in its generic not in any of its special forms, and therefore to assert that God is Shem’s God is to put the good man on a level with God’s work, the Universe (51–54). And since “God” indicates the loving side of the Divine Nature, to say that the Lord is “Shem’s God” is to say that, like Abraham, he is God’s friend (55). And here Philo, adapting the well-known Stoic paradox, lays down that such a one alone is noble, rich, king and free (56–57). Finally the word “blessed” applied to God means that he who is thus blest can only repay God by blessing Him (58).
IV. In interpreting the prayer for Japhet Philo passes for a moment into one of his less austere moods. He suggests that the word “widen” means that Japhet may find good not only in the morally beautiful (τὸ καλόν) but in the “preferable indifferents” of the Stoics, bodily and external advantages (59–61). As to the last half, “let him dwell in the houses of Shem,” the “him” may be God (Philo ignores the fact that in this case it could not be a prayer for Japhet), for God’s fitting dwelling is in the good man’s soul in the sense that it is especially under His care (62–64). And so in the literal narrative Shem is very properly represented as the ancestor of the Twelve Tribes who are called God’s “palace” (65–66). If “him” is Japhet we may see a correction of the prayer for his “widening,” a prayer that though for a time he may find good elsewhere, his final home may be the excellence of the soul (67–68). The treatise concludes with a few lines on “Canaan shall be their servant.” The fool is indeed the slave of the virtues, if possible, for his reformation and emancipation, if otherwise, for chastisement (69).