Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis

Sefaria · Second Temple > Philo · 622 sections

Book I.Introduction.1
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 2, 3 (LEGUM ALLEGORIA) ANALYTICAL INTRODUCTION TO BOOK I
Book I.Introduction.2
In 1–18 Philo deals with Gen. 2:1–3, which tells first of the completion of Heaven and Earth. He takes these to mean the originals of Mind and Sense-perception, and bases on the Greek version a contrast between the numbers 6 and 7, making the former represent things earthly, and the latter things heavenly.
Book I.Introduction.3
In Gen. 2:2 he finds the origin of Mind and Sense-perception ascribed first to a Book and then to a Day, both Book and Day signifying the Mind or Reason of God. (19–21.)
Book I.Introduction.4
In the repetition of the word “field” in Gen. 2:5, he sees two fields yielding, respectively, what is intellectually and what is sensibly perceptible: in the rain the power given to the senses of apprehending objects presented to them, a power not needed when material objects did not exist, and in whose absence the Mind is without employment. (22–27.)
Book I.Introduction.5
Gen. 2:6 tells how Mind, the “spring,” waters the senses, “the face of the earth,” and shows the interdependence of Mind, Sense-perception, and object of sense, and the dependence of Mind on God; as well as the superiority of the living creature in being able to take in and go out to external object. (28–30.)
Book I.Introduction.6
Going on to Gen. 2:7, he contrasts the earthy man, moulded of clay by the Divine Artificer, with the heavenly Man, stamped with the image of God, and dwells on the change wrought in the former by the inbreathing of Life. He then answers four questions.
Book I.Introduction.7
To the question why the Divine Breath is given, not to the heavenly, but to the earthy Man, he answers (a) that God loves to give, even to the imperfect; (b) that the inbreathing is on a par with the enjoining of a “positive” duty, which is a duty only because it is enjoined.
Book I.Introduction.8
To the question as to the meaning of “inbreathed” he answers that it is a pregnant term for “inspired,” and that its aim is to enable us to conceive of God.
Book I.Introduction.9
To the question why the inbreathing is “into the face,” he answers (a) that the face is the part where the senses are chiefly situated; (b) that the face represents the mind, which acts as God’s deputy in inspiring organs and senses. Such was Moses to Pharaoh. He is thus led to speak of God’s use of agents. Lastly, he says that πνοή intimates a less powerful gift than would have been intimated by πνεῦμα. (31–42.)
Book I.Introduction.10
We now come to Gen. 2:8. God planting a Garden shows earthly wisdom to be a copy of heavenly wisdom, for it means God causing excellence to strike root on earth. The “Garden” is Virtue. “Eden” tells of its luxuriant yield of happiness. It is “toward the sunrising,” for right reason or virtue ever rises to dispel darkness. Man is placed in the Garden “to tend it,” i.e. to give his whole mind to virtue.
Book I.Introduction.11
God planting does not justify man in planting a grove by the altar, which is forbidden in Deut. 16:21, for (a) man cannot, like God, plant virtues in the soul; (b) a grove contains some wild trees; (c) what is prohibited is planting “to ourselves” (cf. 2nd Commandment).
Book I.Introduction.12
It is somewhat startling to be told that the Man placed in the Garden in Gen. 2:15 is not the Man of Gen. 2:8, but the Man of Gen. 1:27. Only the latter can till and guard the virtues. The former sees them only to be driven from them. The one is “made,” the other is “moulded.” The Man of 2:8 has but facility in apprehending (as is signified by the words “placed in the Garden”). The Man of 2:15 has also persistence in doing (“to till it”), and tenacity in keeping (“to guard it”). (43–55.)
Book I.Introduction.13
Gen. 2:9 tells of the Trees, which are particular virtues, and their activities. Theoretical virtue is denoted by “fair to behold”; practical virtue by “good for food.” The Tree of Life is goodness, virtue, not (as physicians might suppose) the heart. It is “in the midst of the Garden.” Where “the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” is, we are not told. Actually it is in the Garden, virtually outside it, for our dominant part is actually in God’s Garden through receiving the impress of goodness, virtually outside by receiving that of wickedness. Just so, my body can be here, my mind elsewhere. (56–62.)
Book I.Introduction.14
The theme of Gen. 2:10–14 is the Rivers. The four Rivers are the particular Virtues, effluxes of generic Virtue, the River that issues from “Eden,” which is the Wisdom or Reason of God. “Heads” implies the sovereignty of the Virtues: “separated”; their limited, defining, action. “Pheison” is Prudence, God’s fairest treasure, gleaming like gold, and encircling “Evilat” or Graciousness. “Geon” is Courage, beleaguering Ethiopia, which is Lowness or Cowardice. “Tigris” is Self-mastery, set against “Assyria,” the directing force claimed by Desire. Prudence, Courage, and Self-mastery occupy places in the soul corresponding to their spheres of action in the body, head, breast, and abdomen, the seats of Reason, High Spirit, and Lust. “Euphrates” (= fruitfulness) is Justice, or the harmony of the three parts of the soul.
Book I.Introduction.15
We are then shown another way of reaching the same truth about the four Rivers. “Pheison” signifies “change of mouth,” i.e. transformation of speech into action, the true sign of Prudence. “Evilat” signifies “in travail,” as Folly in its futility always is. (63–76.)
Book I.Introduction.16
The next eight sections (Gen. 2:12) are a Note on the Gold and Precious Stones. Prudence, the gold, is still God’s, Philo taking “where” (οὗ) as “whose”. “The gold of that land” is universal, as distinguished from particular, Prudence, and to it belongs the epithet “good.” The “ruby” and the “emerald” represent respectively having and exercising good sense. Or the two stones are, perhaps, Judah and Issachar, representing, the one, thankfulness, the other, noble deeds. So in the High-priestly robes, the ruby must, from its position, have borne the name of Judah, and the sapphire that of Issachar. “Stone” is not added after “ruby,” because praise and thanksgiving lift a man out of himself and all that is of earth. Red befits Judah, green Issachar. (77–84.)
Book I.Introduction.17
Now comes a short Note on Compassing (Gen. 2:11 and 13). “Pheison” and “Geon” are said to “compass” countries, for Prudence and Courage enclose and capture Folly and Cowardice. “Tigris” is said to be “over against the Assyrians,” for Self-mastery can but face and fight Pleasure. “Euphrates,” or Justice, neither encircles nor withstands but makes awards. (85–87).
Book I.Introduction.18
In 88 f. we see the heavenly Man, the Man whom God had “made” not “moulded,” placed in the garden. This pure and less material Mind is set amid the Virtues (“plants”) to practise (“till”) and remember (“guard”) them.
Book I.Introduction.19
The remainder of the treatise deals with the injunction to “Adam” in Gen. 2:16 ff.
Book I.Introduction.20
Since “Adam,” a name not self-imposed, signifies “earth,” probably the “moulded, earthy man” is meant. Moreover the heavenly Man needs no injunction to till and guard; still less does he need prohibition or exhortation.
Book I.Introduction.21
The command is given by “the Lord God.” Obedience to the “Lord” or ‘Master’ prepares us for boons from “God” the ‘Benefactor.’ So in Gen. 3:23 punishment is inflicted by “the Lord God” in kind severity.
Book I.Introduction.22
“Every tree” signifies all virtues. The addition of “feedingly” to “eat” signifies spiritual mastication. Eating represents perfunctory obedience: “feeding on,” thoughtful, hearty obedience.
Book I.Introduction.23
Anent the position of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, illustrations of actual and virtual presence are given in 100.
Book I.Introduction.24
The fact that the prohibition is addressed to more than one is explained by saying that (a) inferior men are very numerous; (b) the inferior man devoid of concentration is not a unity.
Book I.Introduction.25
The treatise ends with the drawing of a distinction between the death which all die and the death of the soul.
Book I._.1.1
[1] “And the heaven and the earth and all their world were completed” (Gen. 2:1). He had already told of the creation of mind and sense-perception; he now fully sets forth the consummation of both. He does not say that either the individual mind or the particular sense-perception have reached completion, but that the originals have done so, that of mind and that of sense-perception. For using symbolical language he calls the mind heaven, since heaven is the abode of natures discerned only by mind, but sense-perception he calls earth, because sense-perception possesses a composition of a more earthly and body-like sort. “World,” in the case of mind, means all incorporeal things, things discerned by mind alone: in the case of sense-perception it denotes things in bodily form and generally whatever sense perceives.
Book I._.2.1
[2] “And God finished on the sixth day His works which He had made” (Gen. 2:2). It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in a space of time at all. Why? Because every period of time is a series of days and nights, and these can only be made such by the movement of the sun as it goes over and under the earth: but the sun is a part of heaven, so that time is confessedly more recent than the world. It would therefore be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world, for it was heaven’s movement that was the index of the nature of time.
Book I._.2.2
[3] When, then, Moses says, “He finished His work on the sixth day,” we must understand him to be adducing not a quantity of days, but a perfect number, namely six, since it is the first that is equal to the sum of its own fractions ½, ⅓, and /6, and is produced by the multiplication of two unequal factors, 2×3; and see, the numbers 2 and 3 have left behind the incorporeal character that belongs to 1, 2 being an image of matter, and being parted and divided as that is, while 3 is the image of a solid body, for the solid is patient of a threefold division.
Book I._.2.3
[4] Nay more, the number 6 is akin to the movements of animals provided with instrumental limbs, for the body equipped with such instruments is so constituted by nature that it can move in six directions, forwards and backwards, upwards and downwards, to the right and to the left. Moses’ wish, therefore, is to exhibit alike the things created of mortal kind and those that are incorruptible as having been formed in a way corresponding to their proper numbers. As I have just said, he makes mortal things parallel with the number six, the happy and blessed things with the number seven.
Book I._.2.4
[5] First of all, then, on the seventh day the Creator, having brought to an end the formation of mortal things, begins the shaping of others more divine.
Book I._.3.1
For God never leaves off making, but even as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to chill, so it is the property of God to make: nay more so by far, inasmuch as He is to all besides the source of action.
Book I._.3.2
[6] Excellently, moreover, does Moses say “caused to rest” not “rested”; for He causes to rest that which, though actually not in operation, is apparently making, but He Himself never ceases making. For this reason Moses adds after “He caused to rest” the words “from what He had begun.” For whereas things produced by human arts when finished stand still and remain as they are, the products of divine skill, when completed, begin again to move; for their endings are the beginnings of other things, as the end of day is the beginning of night, and the openings of a month and of a year must naturally be regarded as limits which close those which have elapsed:
Book I._.3.3
[7] birth again is accomplished through other things decaying, and decay through fresh births, showing the truth of the saying:
Book I._.3.4
Naught that is born doth ever die,
Book I._.3.5
Its severed parts together fly,
Book I._.3.6
And yield another shape.
Book I._.4.1
[8] Nature takes delight in the number seven. Thus there are seven planets, the counterpoise to the uniform movement of the fixed stars. It is in seven stars that the bear reaches completeness, and gives rise not to commerce only but to fellowship and unity among men. The changes of the moon, again, occur by sevens: this is the luminary most sympathetic to earthly matters. And such changes as Nature produces in the atmosphere, she effects mainly by the influence of figures dominated by seven.
Book I._.4.2
[9] Indeed, all that concerns us mortals has a divine origin drawn from heaven and is for our weal when its movement is ruled by seven. Who does not know that seven months’ infants come to the birth, while those that have taken a longer time, remaining in the womb eight months, are as a rule still-born?
Book I._.4.3
[10] And they say that man becomes a reasoning being during his first seven years, by which time he is already capable of expressing ordinary nouns and verbs through having acquired the reasoning faculty; and that during his second period of seven years he reaches complete consummation; consummation meaning the power of reproducing his like; for at about the age of fourteen we are able to beget offspring like ourselves. The third period of seven years, again, is the end of growth, for till the age of twenty-one years men increase in height, and by many this time is called his prime.
Book I._.4.4
[11] Furthermore the unreasoning side of the soul consists of seven parts, five senses, and the organ of speech, and the genital organ.
Book I._.4.5
[12] The body again has seven movements, six mechanical, the seventh circular. Seven also are the internal organs, stomach, heart, spleen, liver, lung, two kidneys. Of equal number in like number are the divisions of the body—head, neck, breast, hands, belly, abdomen, feet. And the face, the living creature’s noblest part, is pierced by seven apertures, by two eyes, and two ears, as many nostrils, and the mouth, which make up seven.
Book I._.4.6
[13] The excrements are seven—tears, mucus, spittle, seed, superfluities discharged by two ducts, and the sweat that oozes from all over the body. Once again in diseases the seventh is the most critical day. And the monthly purgings of women extend to seven days.
Book I._.5.1
[14] The power of this number reaches also to the most beneficent of the arts: in grammar, for instance, the best and most effective of the letters, namely the vowels, are seven in number: in music we may fairly call the seven-stringed lyre the best of instruments, because the enharmonic genus, which as we know is the most dignified of those used in melodies, is best brought out when that instrument renders it. Sevenfold are the modulations in pronunciation—acute, grave, circumflex, aspirated and unaspirated, long, short.
Book I._.5.2
[15] Further, seven is the first number after the perfect number six, and the same in some sort with the number one. Whereas other numbers within the decade are either produced by or produce those within the decade and the decade itself, the number seven neither produces any of the numbers within the decade nor is produced by any. By reason of this the Pythagoreans, indulging in myth, liken seven to the motherless and ever-virgin Maiden, because neither was she born of the womb nor shall she ever bear.
Book I._.6.1
[16] “He rested therefore on the seventh day from all His works which He had made” (Gen. 2:2). This is as much as to say that God ceases moulding the masses that are mortal, whenever He begins to make those that are divine and in keeping with the nature of seven. But the interpretation of the statement in accordance with its bearing on human life and character is this, that, whenever there comes upon the soul the holy Reason of which Seven is the keynote, six together with all mortal things that the soul seems to make therewith comes to a stop.
Book I._.7.1
[17] “And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it” (Gen. 2:3). God both blesses and forthwith makes holy the dispositions set in motion in harmony with the seventh and truly Divine light, for closely akin are the character that is charged with benediction and the character that is holy. That is why, when treating of him who has vowed the great vow, he says that, if a change suddenly befall him and defile his mind, he shall no longer be holy, but “the preceding days are not reckoned.” Rightly enough, for the character that is not holy is vile, of no account, so that the character well accounted of is holy.
Book I._.7.2
[18] Rightly, then, did he say that God both blessed and hallowed the seventh day, “because in it He ceased from all His works which God began to make” (Gen. 2:3). But the reason why the man that guides himself in accordance with the seventh and perfect light is both of good understanding and holy, is that the formation of things mortal ceases with this day’s advent. For, indeed, the matter stands thus; when that most brilliant and truly divine light of virtue has dawned, the creation of that whose nature is of the contrary kind comes to a stop. But we pointed out that God when ceasing or rather causing to cease, does not cease making, but begins the creating of other things, since He is not a mere artificer, but also Father of the things that are coming into being.
Book I._.8.1
[19] “This book is that of the origin of heaven and earth, when it came into being” (Gen. 2:4). (That is to say): “This perfect Reason, moving in accord with the number 7, is the primal origin both of mind ordering itself after the original patterns, and of sense-perception in the domain of mind (if the expression is permissible) ordering itself after those originals.” “Book” is Moses’ name for the Reason of God, in which have been inscribed and engraved the formation of all else.
Book I._.8.2
[20] But that you may not suppose that the Deity makes anything in definite periods of time, but may know that to mortal kind the process of creation is unobserved, undescried, incomprehensible, he adds, “When it came into being,” not defining “when” by a determining limit, for the things that come into being under the hand of the First Cause come into being with no determining limit. There is an end, then, of the notion that the universe came into being in six days.
Book I._.9.1
[21] “In the day in which God made the heaven and the earth and every green thing of the field before it appeared upon the earth and all grass of the field before it sprang up; for God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the earth” (Gen. 2:4, 5). Above he has called this day a book, for he delineates the creation of heaven and earth as wrought in both: for by His own supremely manifest and far-shining Reason God makes both of them, both the original of the mind, which in symbolic language he calls “heaven,” and the original of sense-perception, to which by a figure he gave the name of “earth.”
Book I._.9.2
[22] And he compares the original of the mind and the original of sense-perception to two fields; for they bear fruit, the mind all that is done in thinking, sense-perception all that is done in perceiving. What he means is something of this sort. As before the particular and individual mind there subsists a certain original as an archetype and pattern of it, and again before the particular sense-perception, a certain original of sense-perception related to the particular as a seal making impression is to the form which it makes; just so, before the individual objects of intellectual perception came into being, there was existing as a genus the ‘intellectually-perceptible’ itself, by participation in which the name has been given to the members of the genus; and before the individual objects of sense-perception came into existence, there was existing as a genus the ‘sensibly-perceptible’ itself, by sharing in whose being all other objects of sense have become such.
Book I._.9.3
[23] “Green of the field,” then, is what he terms the “intellectually-perceptible” of the mind; for as in a field the green things spring up and bloom, even so the ‘intellectually-perceptible’ is a growth springing from the mind. Before, then, the particular ‘intellectually-perceptible’ came into being, the Creator produces the solely abstract ‘intellectually-perceptible,’ as a generic existence. This he rightly calls “all,” for the particular ‘intellectually-perceptible,’ being a fragment, is not all, but the generic is so, being a full whole.
Book I._.10.1
[24] “And all the grass of the field” he says, “before it sprang up,” that is to say, before the particular objects of sense sprang up, there existed by the Maker’s forethought the generic ‘sensibly-perceptible,’ and that it is that he again calls “all.” Natural enough is his comparison of the ‘sensibly-perceptible’ to grass. For as grass is the food of a creature devoid of reason, so has the ‘sensibly-perceptible’ been assigned to the unreasoning part of the soul. Else why, after saying before “green of the field,” does he go on to say, “and all grass,” as if it were impossible for green of the field to come up as grass? The fact is, “the green of the field” is the ‘intellectually-perceptible,’ an outgrowth of the mind, but the “grass” is the ‘sensibly-perceptible,’ it in turn being a growth of the unreasoning part of the soul.
Book I._.10.2
[25] He goes on “for God had not rained upon the earth, and there was no man to work the ground.” These words discover a deep knowledge of the laws of being. For if God does not shower upon the senses the means of apprehending objects presented to them, neither will the mind have anything to “work” or take in hand in the field of sense-perception. For the mind by itself is without employment when the Cause of all things does not pour down, like rain and moisture, colours on the sight, sounds on the hearing, savours on the taste, and that which is proper to them on the other senses.
Book I._.10.3
[26] But as soon as God has begun to water sense with objects of sense, that moment the mind also is found to be a tiller of rich soil, so to speak. The original of ‘sense-perception’ has no need of nourishment; but the nourishment of ‘sense-perception,’ which he figuratively calls “rain,” is the particular objects of sense, which of course are bodies; whereas an original has nothing to do with bodies. Thus before the creation of particular concrete substances, God did not rain on the original idea of sense-perception, which Moses calls “earth,” and this means that He supplied it with no food: for indeed it was in absolutely no need whatever of a sensible object of perception.
Book I._.10.4
[27] The meaning of the words, “and there was not a man to work the ground,” is this: the original idea of the mind did not work the original idea of sense-perception: for my mind like yours works the sense-perception through the objects of the senses, but the original idea of the mind, as there was of course no particular body in existence proper to it, does not work the original idea of ‘sense-perception’: for were it working, it would be working it by means of the objects of sense, but among original ideas there is no such thing as an object of sense.
Book I._.11.1
[28] “And a spring went up out of the earth and watered all the face of the earth” (Gen. 2:6). He calls the mind a “spring” of the earth, and the senses its “face,” because Nature, exercising forethought in all things, assigned this place to them out of all the body as most suitable for their special activities: and the mind like a spring waters the senses, sending to each of them the streams suitable to it. See then, how, like links in a chain, the powers of the living creature hold on to each other; for mind and ‘sense-perception’ and object of sense being three, ‘sense-perception’ is in the middle, while mind and object of sense occupy each extreme.
Book I._.11.2
[29] But neither has the mind power to work, that is, to put forth its energies by way of ‘sense-perception,’ unless God send the object of sense as rain upon it; nor is any benefit derived from the object of sense when so rained down, unless, like a spring, the mind, extending itself to reach the ‘sense-perception,’ stir it out of its repose to grasp the object presented to it. Thus the mind and the object of sense are always practising a reciprocity of giving, the one lying ready for sense-perception as its material, the other, like a craftsman, moving sense-perception in the direction of the external object, to produce an impulse towards it.
Book I._.11.3
[30] For the living creature excels the non-living in two respects, in the power of receiving impressions and in the active impulse towards the object producing them. The impression is produced by the drawing nigh of the external object, as it stamps the mind through sense-perception; while the active impulse, close of kin to the power aforesaid, comes about by way of the mind’s power of self-extension, which it exercises through sense-perception, and so comes into touch with the object presented to it, and goes towards it, striving to reach and seize it.
Book I._.12.1
[31] “And God formed the man by taking clay from the earth, and breathed into his face a breath of life, and the man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). There are two types of men; the one a heavenly man, the other an earthly. The heavenly man, being made after the image of God, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial substance; but the earthly one was compacted out of the matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls “clay.” For this reason he says that the heavenly man was not moulded, but was stamped with the image of God; while the earthly is a moulded work of the Artificer, but not His offspring.
Book I._.12.2
[32] We must account the man made out of the earth to be mind mingling with, but not yet blended with, body. But this earthlike mind is in reality also corruptible, were not God to breathe into it a power of real life; when He does so, it does not any more undergo moulding, but becomes a soul, not an inefficient and imperfectly formed soul, but one endowed with mind and actually alive; for he says, “man became a living soul.”
Book I._.13.1
[33] The question might be asked, why God deemed the earthly and body-loving mind worthy of divine breath at all, but not the mind which had been created after the original, and after His own image; in the second place, what “breathed in” means; thirdly, why the breathing is “into the face”; fourthly, why, though he shows his knowledge of the word ‘spirit’ when he says “and the Spirit of God was borne above the water” (Gen. 1:2), he now says “breath” not “spirit.”
Book I._.13.2
[34] In answer to the first query, one thing to be said is that God loves to give, and so bestows good things on all, even those who are not perfect, at the same time encouraging them to a zeal for virtue and a participation in it, by displaying His own overflowing wealth, and how there is abundance even for those who will derive no great benefit from it. This characteristic He shows very clearly in other instances also. For when He rains upon the sea, and causes springs to gush forth in the depths of the desert, and waters the poor and rough and barren soil, pouring on it rivers with their overflowings, what else does He prove save the exceeding greatness of His own wealth and goodness? This is the reason for which He created no soul barren of virtue, even if the exercise of it be to some impossible.
Book I._.13.3
[35] A second thing to be said is this. It is His will to make compliance with positive ordinances part of duty. One, then, into whom real life had not been breathed, but who was without experience of virtue, when punished for his transgressions would have said that he is unjustly punished, for that it was through inexperience of good that he failed in respect of it, and that the blame lay with Him who had failed to breathe into him any conception of it. Nay, he will perhaps say that he does not sin at all, if (as some say) involuntary acts and acts done in ignorance do not count as wrong deeds.
Book I._.13.4
[36] “Breathed into,” we note, is equivalent to “inspired” or “be-souled” the soulless; for God forbid that we should be infected with such monstrous folly as to think that God employs for inbreathing organs such as mouth or nostrils; for God is not only not in the form of man, but belongs to no class or kind. Yet the expression clearly brings out something that accords with nature.
Book I._.13.5
[37] For it implies of necessity three things, that which inbreathes, that which receives, that which is inbreathed: that which inbreathes is God, that which receives is the mind, that which is inbreathed is the spirit or breath. What, then, do we infer from these premises? A union of the three comes about, as God projects the power that proceeds from Himself through the mediant breath till it reaches the subject. And for what purpose save that we may obtain a conception of Him?
Book I._.13.6
[38] For how could the soul have conceived of God, had He not breathed into it and mightily laid hold of it? For the mind of man would never have ventured to soar so high as to grasp the nature of God, had not God Himself drawn it up to Himself, so far as it was possible that the mind of man should be drawn up, and stamped it with the impress of the powers that are within the scope of its understanding.
Book I._.13.7
[39] The breathing “into the face” is to be understood both physically and ethically: physically, because it is in the face that He set the senses; for this part of the body is beyond other parts endowed with soul: but ethically, on this wise. As the face is the dominant element in the body, so is the mind the dominant element of the soul: into this only does God breathe, whereas He does not see fit to do so with the other parts, whether senses or organs of utterance and of reproduction; for these are secondary in capacity.
Book I._.13.8
[40] By what, then, were these also inspired? By the mind, evidently. For the mind imparts to the portion of the soul that is devoid of reason a share of that which it has received from God, so that the mind was be-souled by God, but the unreasoning part by the mind. For the mind is, so to speak, God of the unreasoning part. In like manner he does not hesitate to speak of Moses as “a God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1).
Book I._.13.9
[41] For of the things which come into being some come into being both by God’s power and through God’s agency, while others come into being by God’s power but not by His agency. The most excellent things were made both by God and through God. For example, he will presently say, “God planted a pleasaunce” (Gen. 2:8): to these the mind belongs; but the part devoid of reason was made by God’s power but not by God’s agency, but by that of the reasonable power which rules and holds dominion in the soul.
Book I._.13.10
[42] He uses the word ‘breath’ not ‘spirit,’ implying a difference between them; for ‘spirit’ is conceived of as connoting strength and vigour and power, while a ‘breath’ is like an air or a peaceful and gentle vapour. The mind that was made after the image and original might be said to partake of spirit, for its reasoning faculty possesses robustness; but the mind that was made out of matter must be said to partake of the light and less substantial air, as of some exhalation, such as those that rise from spices: for if they are kept and not burned for incense there is still a sweet perfume from them.
Book I._.14.1
[43] “And God planted a pleasaunce in Eden toward the sun-rising, and placed there the man whom He had formed” (Gen. 2:8). By using many words for it Moses has already made it manifest that the sublime and heavenly wisdom is of many names; for he calls it “beginning” and “image” and “vision of God”; and now by the planting of the pleasaunce he brings out the fact that earthly wisdom is a copy of this as of an archetype. Far be it from man’s reasoning to be the victim of so great impiety as to suppose that God tills the soil and plants pleasaunces. We should at once be at a loss to tell from what motive He could do so. Not to provide Himself with pleasant refreshment and comfort.
Book I._.14.2
[44] Let not such fables even enter our mind. For not even the whole world would be a place fit for God to make His abode, since God is His own place, and He is filled by Himself, and sufficient for Himself, filling and containing all other things in their destitution and barrenness and emptiness, but Himself contained by nothing else, seeing that He is Himself One and the Whole.
Book I._.14.3
[45] Well then, God sows and plants earthly excellence for the race of mortals as a copy and reproduction of the heavenly. For pitying our race and noting that it is compact of a rich abundance of ills, He caused earthly excellence to strike root, to bring succour and aid to the diseases of the soul. It is, as I said before, a copy of the heavenly and archetypal excellence, to which Moses gives many names. Virtue is figuratively called “pleasaunce,” and the locality specially suited to the pleasaunce “Eden,” which means “luxury”; excellence to be sure has for its fit adjuncts peace and welfare and joy, in which true luxury consists.
Book I._.14.4
[46] Again the planting of the pleasaunce is “towards the sun-rising,” for right reason does not set nor is quenched, but its nature is ever to rise, and, I take it, just as the sun when it has risen fills the gloom of the atmosphere with light, so virtue also, when it has risen in the soul, illumines its mist and disperses its deep darkness.
Book I._.14.5
[47] “And He placed there” it says, “the man whom He had formed.” For God, being good and training our race to virtue as the operation most proper to it, places the mind amid virtue, evidently to the end that as a good gardener it may spend its care on nothing else but this.
Book I._.15.1
[48] Now the question might be asked, “Why, seeing that to imitate God’s works is a pious act, am I forbidden to plant a grove by the altar, while God plants the pleasaunce?” For it says, “Thou shalt not plant thyself a grove: thou shalt not make to thyself any wood by the side of the altar of the Lord thy God” (Deut. 16:21). What then are we to say? That it becomes God to plant and to build virtues in the soul,
Book I._.15.2
[49] but that the mind shows itself to be without God and full of self-love, when it deems itself as on a par with God; and, whereas passivity is its true part, looks on itself as an agent. When God sows and plants noble qualities in the soul, the mind that says “I plant” is guilty of impiety. Thou shalt not plant, therefore, whensoever God is tending His plants. But if thou dost set plants in the soul, O mind, set only fruit-bearing plants. Set not a grove, for in a grove there are both wild and cultivated trees. And to plant in the soul barren wickedness by the side of cultivated and fruit-yielding virtue is like leprosy with its twofold growths and blending of discordant hues.
Book I._.15.3
[50] If, however, thou dost bring into the same place things heterogeneous and incapable of mixture, let them be separate and distinct from the pure and unsullied growth that offers up fruits free from blemish to God. And it is such a growth that is meant by the altar of sacrifice: for it is a violation of this to say that anything is the (independent) work of the soul, since there is nothing there that has not reference to God.
Book I._.15.4
[51] To say that is to mingle the barren with the fruit-bearing. And this is a blemish, whereas only things without blemish are offered to God. If then thou transgress in any of these respects, O soul, thou wilt injure thyself, not God; that is why it says “thou shalt not plant to thyself”; for to God no one does such tillage, above all when the plants are bad ones; and it goes on to say, “thou shalt not make to thyself.” It says also in another case, “Ye shall not make together with Me gods of silver, and gods of gold ye shall not make to yourselves” (Exod. 20:23). For he that thinks either that God belongs to a type, or that He is not one, or that He is not unoriginate and incorruptible, or that He is not incapable of change, wrongs himself not God; for it says, “to yourselves ye shall not make”; for we must deem that He belongs to no type, and that He is One and incorruptible and unchangeable. He that does not so conceive infects his own soul with a false and godless opinion.
Book I._.15.5
[52] Do you not see that, even if He bring us into virtue and even if, when brought in, we plant no fruitless thing but “every tree good for food,” He yet commands us “thoroughly to cleanse its uncleanness” (Lev. 19:23)? And this means the notion that we are planting, for it is the cutting away of self-conceit that He demands, and self-conceit is in its nature unclean.
Book I._.16.1
[53] Speaking here of the man whom God moulded, it merely says that He “placed him in the garden.” Who then is it of whom it says later on “The Lord God took the man whom He had made, and placed him in the garden to till it and to guard it” (Gen. 2:15)? It would seem then that this is a different man, the one that was made after the image and archetype, so that two men are introduced into the garden, the one a moulded being, the other “after the image.”
Book I._.16.2
[54] The one then that was made according to the original has his sphere not only in the planting of virtues but is also their tiller and guardian, and that means that he is mindful of all that he heard and practised in his training; but the “moulded” man neither tills the virtues nor guards them, but is only introduced to the truths by the rich bounty of God, presently to be an exile from virtue.
Book I._.16.3
[55] For this reason in describing the man whom God only places in the garden, Moses uses the word “moulded,” but of the man whom He appoints both tiller and guardian he speaks not as “moulded,” but he says “whom He had made”; and the one He receives, and the other He casts out. And He confers on him whom He receives three gifts, which constitute natural ability, facility in apprehending, persistence in doing, tenacity in keeping. Facility in apprehending is the placing in the garden, persistence in doing is the practice of noble deeds, tenacity in keeping the guarding and retaining in the memory of the holy precepts. But the “moulded” mind neither keeps in mind nor carries out in action the things that are noble, but has facility in apprehending them and no more than this. Accordingly after being placed in the garden he soon runs away and is cast out.
Book I._.17.1
[56] “And God caused to spring out of the ground every tree fair to behold and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9). Moses now indicates what trees of virtue God plants in the soul.
Book I._.17.2
[57] These are the several particular virtues, and the corresponding activities, and the complete moral victories, and what philosophers call καθήκοντα or common duties. These are the plants of the garden. These very plants he characterizes, showing that what is good is also most fair to be seen and enjoyed. For some of the arts and sciences are theoretical indeed but not practical, such as geometry and astronomy, and some are practical, but not theoretical, as the arts of the carpenter and coppersmith, and all that are called mechanical; but virtue is both theoretical and practical; for clearly it involves theory, since philosophy, the road that leads to it, involves it through its three parts, logic, ethics, physics; and it involves conduct, for virtue is the art of the whole of life, and life includes all kinds of conduct.
Book I._.17.3
[58] But while virtue involves theory and practice, it is furthermore of surpassing excellence in each respect; for indeed the theory of virtue is perfect in beauty, and the practice and exercise of it a prize to be striven for. Wherefore he says that it is both “beautiful to look upon,” an expression signifying its aspect as theory, and “good to eat,” words which point to its excellence in exercise and practice.
Book I._.18.1
[59] Now the tree of life is virtue in the most comprehensive sense, which some term goodness. From it the particular virtues derive their existence. That is why it is also set in the midst of the garden, occupying the central all-embracing position, that it may, like a king, be attended by those on either side as by body-guards. But some say that it is the heart that is called the tree of life, since it is the cause of life and has been allotted the central place in the body, as it naturally would, being in their view the dominating principle. But these people should remember that they are setting forth a view worthy of the physician rather than of the philosopher, while we, as we have said, maintain that virtue in its most generic aspect is called the tree of life.
Book I._.18.2
[60] Of this he expressly says that it is in the midst of the garden, but as to the other tree, that of knowing good and evil, he has not made it clear whether it is within or without the garden, but immediately after the words, “and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” he comes to a stop without making it clear where it was. His silence is due to his desire to prevent the man unversed in natural philosophy from regarding with wonder the spot where that knowledge dwells.
Book I._.18.3
[61] What then must we say? That this tree is both in the garden and outside it, in literal fact in it, virtually outside it. How so? Our dominant part is all-receptive and resembles wax that receives all impressions fair and ugly; accordingly the supplanter Jacob makes acknowledgement saying, “Upon me came all these things” (Gen. 42:36); for upon the soul, one as it is, the countless impressions of all things in the universe are borne. Whenever, then, it shall have received the stamp of perfect virtue, it straightway becomes the tree of life, but when it receives that of wickedness, it straightway becomes the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But wickedness has been exiled from the divine choir. The ruling part in us therefore that has received it is actually in the garden, for it has in it likewise the stamp of virtue, properly belonging to the garden; but on the other hand it is virtually not in it, because the impress of wickedness is alien to a place of divine sunrising.
Book I._.18.4
[62] You may grasp what I mean in this way. At this moment my ruling part is in literal fact in my body, but virtually in Italy or Sicily, when it is pondering on these countries, and in heaven, when it is considering heaven. Accordingly it often happens that people who are actually in unconsecrated spots are really in most sacred ones, when they are forming images of all that pertains to virtue. Others, on the other hand, who are in consecrated spots are in mind profane, owing to their mind admitting bad impressions and inclinations to what is unworthy. Thus wickedness neither is in the garden, nor is it not in it, for it can be there actually, but virtually it cannot.
Book I._.19.1
[63] “A river goes forth from Eden to water the garden: thence it is separated into four heads; the name of the one is Pheison; this is that which encircles all the land of Evilat, there where the gold is; and the gold of that land is good; and there is the ruby and the emerald. And the name of the second river is Geon; this encompasses all the land of Aethiopia. And the third river is Tigris; this is that whose course is in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates” (Gen. 2:10–14). By these rivers his purpose is to indicate the particular virtues. These are four in number, prudence, self-mastery, courage, justice. The largest river, of which the four are effluxes, is generic virtue, which we have called “goodness.” The four effluxes are the virtues of the same number.
Book I._.19.2
[64] Generic virtue takes its start from Eden, the wisdom of God, which is full of joy, and brightness, and exultation, glorying and priding itself only upon God its Father; but the specific virtues, four in number, are derived from generic virtue, which like a river waters the perfect achievements of each of them with an abundant flow of noble doings.
Book I._.19.3
[65] Let us look too at the particular words used. “A river,” it says “issues forth from Eden to water the garden.” “River” is generic virtue, goodness. This issues forth out of Eden, the wisdom of God, and this is the Reason of God; for after that has generic virtue been made. And generic virtue waters the garden, that is, it waters the particular virtues. “Heads” he takes not in the sense of locality but of sovereignty. For each of the virtues is in very deed a sovereign and a queen. “Is separated” is equivalent to ‘has boundaries to define it.’ Prudence, concerned with things to be done, sets boundaries round them; courage round things to be endured; self-mastery round things to be chosen; justice round things to be awarded.
Book I._.20.1
[66] “The name of the one is Pheison. This is that which encompasseth all the land of Evilat, there where the gold is; and the gold of that land is good; and there is the ruby and the emerald.” One species of the four virtues is prudence, which he has called “Pheison,” owing to its ‘sparing’ and guarding the soul from deeds of wrong. And it encircles in its roundel the land of Evilat; that is to say, it cherishes with care the kindly and gentle and gracious disposition; and, as of all smelted substance the most excellent and most approved is gold, so of the soul too the most approved virtue is prudence.
Book I._.20.2
[67] And the words, “there where (or ‘whose’) the gold is” are not a mere piece of local information, there where the gold is, but there (is He) whose is the treasure, even prudence gleaming like gold, tried by the fire, and precious; and prudence is acknowledged to be God’s fairest treasure. And in the place where prudence dwells are two corresponding concretes, the man who is prudent, and the man who exercises prudence. These he likens to ruby and emerald.
Book I._.21.1
[68] “And the name of the second river is Geon; this encircles all the land of Ethiopia.” This river figuratively represents courage; for the word Geon is ‘breast’ or ‘butting’; and each of these indicates courage; for it has its abode about men’s breasts, where the heart also is, and it is fully equipped for self-defence; for it is the knowledge of things that we ought to endure and not to endure, and of things that fall under neither head. And it encompasses and beleaguers Ethiopia, whose name being interpreted is ‘lowness’; and cowardice is a low thing, while courage is a foe to lowness and cowardice.
Book I._.21.2
[69] “And the third river is Tigris; this is that whose course is over against the Assyrians.” Self-mastery is the third virtue, and takes its stand against pleasure, which thinks that it can direct the course of human weakness; for expressed in the Greek tongue “Assyrians” is ‘directing.’ He further compares desire, with which self-mastery is occupied, to a tiger, the animal least capable of being tamed.
Book I._.22.1
[70] It is worth inquiring why courage is mentioned in the second place, self-mastery in the third, and prudence in the first, and why he has not set forth a different order of the virtues. We must observe, then, that our soul is threefold, and has one part that is the seat of reason, another that is the seat of high spirit, and another that is the seat of desire. And we discover that the head is the place and abode of the reasonable part, the breast of the passionate part, the abdomen of the lustful part; and that to each of the parts a virtue proper to it has been attached; prudence to the reasonable part, for it belongs to reason to have knowledge of the things we ought to do and of the things we ought not; courage to the passionate part; and self-mastery to the lustful part. For it is by self-mastery that we heal and cure our desires.
Book I._.22.2
[71] As, then, the head is the first and highest part of the living creature, the breast the second, and the abdomen the third, and again of the soul the reasoning faculty is first, the high-spirited second, the lustful third: so too of the virtues, first is prudence which has its sphere in the first part of the soul which is the domain of reason, and in the first part of the body, namely the head; and second is courage, for it has its seat in high spirit, the second part of the soul, and in the breast, the corresponding part of the body; and third self-mastery, for its sphere of action is the abdomen, which is of course the third part of the body, and the lustful faculty, to which has been assigned the third place in the soul.

Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1929. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: https://www.nli.org.il/en/books/NNL_ALEPH001216057/NLI Licence: Public Domain. Source.