46 PHILO'S POLITICS
rean (probably on the whole Neo-Pythagorean) fragments.^10 His treat
ment of Philo's political theory is easily the best that has been done. His
defect lies chiefly, as it seems to me, in treating too literally Philo's rela
tions with the extant literature, without recognizing the possibility of
that literature's being but an expression of what was in Philo's day a
political axiom in Egypt and the Levant, if not, judging from Cicero
and later writers, in the Empire in general." But I should not like to go
on without expressing my great obligation to M. Brehier's remarks on
the subject, which seem to me for the first time to have made possible
an understanding of much of Philo's thought.
It is not strange that Philo should have applied this theory to the
representative of Rome in Egypt, for we know that that was commonly
done in the East in the cases of Pompey and Caesar, as well as of less
famous Roman generals and representatives.^12 That Philo was actually
doing so will appear in the course of the analysis of De Josepho.
The first detail of the conception has already appeared from this
treatise. Joseph was a person with gifts for rulership which his father
recognized from the outset as consisting in a "well born mind, one
greater than is associated with a private citizen," and accordingly the
father took care to cultivate Joseph in such a way that this nature would
shine out brilliantly.^13 In his early years what he was taught was the art
of the shepherd, the significance of which Philo makes explicit. Taking
from what he calls the "poetic genus" (Homer) the title "shepherds of
peoples" (TTOI|J£V£C; XaOv) for kings, he points out that as hunting is an
important part of the training of a warrior, so the man who is a skillful
shepherd will make the best king.^14 Of course Joseph never became
king, but Philo is thinking so closely in terms of the theory of kingship
that the word has come in unawares. Joseph, however, like all great
- Les Idees, 18 ff. The Neo-Pythagorean fragments are those ascribed to Archytas, Sthenidas,
Diotogenes, and Ecphantus, and discussed in my "Hellenistic Kingship." - So, as already stated, I cannot agree with his suggestion (p. 20) that the fragments pre
sent a theory which is "une utopie politique, qui neglige fort toutes conditions pratiques." He
recognizes a connection with Plato though not the full extent of that connection, and concludes,
erroneously, I think, "Ce que Platon considere comme un mythe a ete pris au serieux par les neo-
pythagoriciens qui en deduisent la nature divine du roi." He assumes, on what ground I cannot
see, that the Neo-Pythagorean fragments are of Egyptian origin. It has already been indicated
that apparendy Utopian talk about the ideal ruler was the only vehicle by which the private citi
zen under hellenistic or Roman rulership could express himself on political matters. - Wendland, "2COTT|Q," in Zeitschrijt /. d. neutest. Wissensch., V (1904), 340-342.
- See Diotogenes' paragraph on kingly majesty of appearance as quoted in my "Hellenistic
Kingship," 72. - Jos., 2, 3.