The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory, with a General Bibliography of Philo

BY INNUENDO 49

followed divine guidance and inspiration, or, in other words, he had the
disposition of the ideal hellenistic king. By virtue of the fact that his
Egyptian owner recognized this character in Joseph, Joseph was as­

signed to the superintendence of the household,

but in fact and reality the assignment was made by nature, who was taking
steps to give him the rulership of whole cities and a nation, and a great coun­
try. For the future POLITICUS needed first to be trained and practised in house
management. For a household is a city compressed into small dimensions,
and household management is a sort of epitome of government, just as a city
too is a great house, and state government is a sort of public household man­
agement. All this shows clearly that the household manager is identical with
the POLITICUS, however much what is under the purview of the two may differ
in number and size.^25

For the politicus is like a painter or sculptor, Philo continues, who hav­
ing the art can produce larger or smaller pieces indifferently.^26
Philo's connecting household management with the work of a politi­
cus was no remote tour de force. Plato had spoken of the proper man­
agement of a city as being impossible if the households within it were
not properly regulated, for both were ultimately founded upon the
same legal principles.^27 In the Statesman, where Plato talks most of

kingship, the household manager, the politicus, and the King are fully
equated.^28 There is a single science used by all alike. Aristotle was also
impressed with the similarity, especially in the case of kingship, though
after his way he made distinctions.^29 Yet to Aristotle the words house-

25. Jos., 38 f. 26. Ibid., 39. 27. Laws, ygob.


26. 258? ff. Some of Philo's remarks are very close to Plato's. Cf. 259b: \izy&'K'Y\S oXHM'tt
    obcr|o-£Cflg r\ auAXQag afi nritacog 07x0? \i(bv xi Jtoog a.Q%r\v 8toioexov; Xenophon ascribes
    the same notion to Socrates, Memorab., Ill, iv, 12. Aristotle, as usual, wants to seem to differ
    from Plato on this point, though he ascribes the notion to "some," not to Plato in particular:
    Polk., 1252a 6ff., 1253^ 18 ff., 1255^ 16 ff. But he is willing to admit that jiovaoxeixai Jtag
    olxog (1255^ 19). His objection to Plato's statement seems to be based upon the fact that the
    distinction between the rule of free men and slaves is so great that he cannot include all types of
    rule under the same £jiiaxri|AT|. Yet it would appear from 1278^ 32 ff. that he classes the rule of
    a master of slaves with tyranny, and that of oixovouia, the proper rule of one's wife and
    household, with the true forms of government, while in 12590 37 ff. the rule of a father over
    his children is so truly royal that father and king, as in the case of Zeus, are interchangeable
    terms. When he finally admits: O&CRJIEQ yaQ *fj olxovou,TXT| Pacrdsia xig oixtag itfxiv, otix(og f|
    PaailEia Jt6tacog xal eftvovg evdg § JIXEIOVCOV oixovouia (1285^ 31 ff.) he has come back
    entirely to Plato's position. I should guess that the comparison was a Greek commonplace.


27. See the preceding note. The rule of a householder over his slaves is fiEajtoxixrj, that over
    his children is JtaxoiXTJ, administered pacnAixcog, that over his wife is ya\iw,r\, done jto/.ixi-
    xwg. See also Politics, Book I passim, especially 1259a 37 ff., and Colson's note to the Philo
    translation, VI, 600, §38.