KINGSHIP 91
security (oc*ynrjpiov). As such he does away with the fear we might have
toward him as a despot, while he puts into the soul the love and good will
which go to a Benefactor (euepyeT/ic).^22
So Philo goes on to describe God as characterized by the royal virtue of
love for man ($iAavGpwn!a).^23 Clearly Philo used such royal titles as Sav
ior (LUTY\P) and Benefactor (EuepY£T/)c) in terms of the current phi
losophy of kingship, according to which the ideal king produces love
(4>iA(a) and good will (euvoia) instead of fear, and rules by attracting
his subjects rather than by compelling them.^24
Again, the king figure is often used in Cynic-Stoic fashion to describe
the sage, for as the ideal king is a sage, every sage is essentially a king,
since kingliness is a matter of character, not of external position.^25 The
kingliness of a private citizen has little practical importance beyond
making him a complete individualist as over against the government.
But the fact that the king must ideally be a sage is quite the notion of
the Pythagorean fragments.^26 One of Philo's passages explains the king
liness of the sage on the ground that he is properly a citizen of heaven
(the universe) and hence lives and rules himself according to the Law
of Nature. As such he gets the title king. It is obvious that to Philo and
his audience the term king properly meant not anyone with royal
power or title, but one who ruled according to the Law of Nature.^27
Again he says that it would not entitle the conqueror to be called king
even if he conquered all the world, and went on, as is impious to sug
gest, to conquer the heavens also. Much more does the title belong to
one who is in intimate relations with God, has "kinship with the Unbe-
gotten" (h npoc TOV ayev/jTov oiKeioT/ic), or God as his portion (0 Geoc;
KAyjpoc).^28 We infer again that the true king in society is incarnate Wis
dom, in close relations with God. Regardless of his social rank, the sage
is royal because he is eternally ordained by Nature as royal,^29 which
brings in again the association of the king with the Law of Nature.
Like the authors of the Pythagorean fragments, Philo adds the king's
proper education to his natural endowment, as a most important part of
his equipment.^30 One of the most extensive discussions points out that
- Plant., 90. 23. Ibid., 92.
- See also above, p. 61. 25. QG, iv, 76.
- Sthenidas, ap. Stobaeus, IV, vii, 63: XQ^I TOV ftaoaAia ooqtbv f[Htv, KTX. See my "Hel
lenistic Kingship," 73 f$. - Agr., 41 ff., especially 65 f. 28. Plant., 66-68.
- Mut., 151. 30. Spec, ii, 20-22.