Recherche – Detailansicht








Gregory E. Sterling


The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Commentary

One of the most influential figures in the development of biblical commentaries was the Jewish allegorical interpreter Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BCE–50 CE). The tradition of writing commentaries on texts that authors and their audiences considered important was widespread in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds.1 This was particularly true of the Homeric epics and of philosophical texts. Similarly, Jews developed the practice of writing commentaries. The most notable early extant examples are the twenty-four pesharim and commentaries that were found in the caves near Qumran.2 These were not unique. Jerome tells us that Justin of Tiberius, the secretary of Herod Agrippa II, also wrote commentaries.3 The greatest example prior to the rabbinic tradition,4 however, was Philo of Alexandria, whose extensive commentaries on the Pentateuch had an enormous impact on early Christians, especially the Alexandrian tradition.5 Philo probably operated a private school and wrote his commentaries for his students and visitors.6

How did Philo organize his commentaries? The effort to understand the structure of Philo’s commentaries goes back to antiquity. As a young man, Eusebius of Caesarea helped the priest Pamphilus organize the library at Caesarea.7 One of the tasks was to catalogue the treatises of Philo that Origen had earlier brought from Alexandria. In his list of Philo’s treatises,8 Eusebius suggested that they fell into three major groups: there were fifteen different works in at least twenty-three scrolls on Genesis,9 six different treatises – al-though only four in reality – in eleven scrolls on Exodus,10 and nine single-scroll works.11 The bishop recognized the separate nature of the Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, but did not distinguish between the Allegorical Commentary and the Exposition of the Law and certainly not any subdivisions within them.12 He used the biblical books and the number of volumes as criteria for organizing them.

The next effort that we know about took place when sixth century Armenian Christians in Constantinople elected to translate Philo’s works so that Armenian students would be able to follow their Greek instructors’ explanations of his complex Greek texts.13 The Hellenizing School – as it has come to be known – did not attempt to preserve all of Philo, but the parts that the Greek teachers used.14 They arranged his works into major blocks. For example, according to Grigor Abasean’s The Book of Causes,15 there were seven blocks of material: providence,16 creation,17 allegory,18 the lives of the patriarchs,19 the appearance at Mamre,20 the exodus,21 and contemplation.22 Like Eusebius, the members of the Hellenizing School did not recognize or ignored Philo’s own divi-sions of his commentaries; their concerns were quite different: they arranged Philo’s works to promote the spiritual progress of their students, a telos that Philo would have approved but with a very different arrangement.

These two sources, the library at Caesarea and the Armenian translation, are the primary sources by which Philo’s works have come down to us. It was not until the modern period that the structure of Philo’s works became an important question. I am only aware of one manuscript that arranged Philo’s works in an order that approaches our understanding and it differs significantly from the modern arrangement. Laurentianus plut. 10–20, also known as Mediceus,23 an early thirteenth century manuscript, contains twenty-eight treatises including eleven from the Allegorical Commentary24 and ten from the Exposition of the Law25 that are, how-ever, arranged in different sequences than we think of them, including inserting On the Life of Abraham into the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary.

The first two major editions of Philo began the process of recognizing the order that Philo had created. The editio princeps of Adrianus Turnebus in 155226 printed seventeen of the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary but has seven major variations from the modern selection and sequence.27 In particular, Turnebus placed On the Life of Abraham and On the Life of Joseph in the treatises of belonging to the Allegorical Commentary, a move that suggests that he did not understand the distinction between the Allegorical Commentary and the Exposition of the Law. Thomas Mangey corrected most of Turnebus’s mistakes in his 1742 edition of Philo.28 In fact, he listed all of the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary in the sequence that we now use with the exception of placing On the Creation of the World at the outset of the Allegorical Commentary instead of at the outset of the Exposition of the Law, an arrangement that has been followed by all modern editions except the Hebrew translation of Philo.29 Mangey also arranged the Exposition of the Law in the basic sequence that we now know it. This ar-rangement was followed by C. E. Richter in his 1828–1830 edition30 and more importantly by Leopold Cohn and Paul Wendland in today’s standard editio major.31

Cohn worked through the evidence for the sequence of the treatises and set out his conclusions in a famous essay.32 Louis Mas-sebieau and Emile Bréhier, who edited Massebieau’s essays, also worked on the chronology and sequence of Philo’s works.33 The German scholar and the French scholars agreed in recognizing the three major commentary series, although they reached different conclusions about the sequence: Cohn argued that the Allegorical Commentary preceded both the Exposition of the Law and the Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus while Massebieau and Bréhier contended that the Exposition of the Law preceded the Allegorical Commentary.34

Fortunately, we do not need to settle the issue of sequence in this article.35 We are concerned with the arrangement and relationship of the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary, a concern that has not received the attention that it needs in contemporary Philonic scholarship. I propose to address the structure of the Allegorical Commentary by viewing it from three larger perspectives: the construction of the Allegorical Commentary as a series, the thematic integrity of individual treatises, and the question of subgroups within the series.

I Authorial Constructions

We begin with the construction of the series. While the modern division of Philo’s commentaries into three distinct series is gener-ally accepted, there are dissenters.36 French scholars have chal-lenged the distinction between the Allegorical Commentary and the Exposition of the Law. In particular, Valentin Nikiprowetzky argued that the Allegorical Commentary and the Exposition of the Law formed one grand commentary,37 a view that is still held by some leading French Philonists.38 I am convinced that the three series are authorial constructions of Philo’s own design and pro-pose five indicators of authorial construction: explicit statements,39 secondary prefaces,40 distinct approaches to the biblical text,41 the literary forms of the treatises in each series, and different audiences.42 Let me briefly apply these five criteria to each of the series. I will treat the Questions and Answers and Exposition briefly.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus

While there is a debate about whether the Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus precede or follow the Allegorical Commen-tary,43 there is virtually a unanimous judgment that they are a separate series with their own integrity. We have a literal sixth century Armenian translation and Greek fragments of the works of all six books on Genesis and four of the six books on Exodus.44

The first two criteria do not apply since we do not have any ex-plicit statements by Philo and there are no secondary prefaces. How-ever, the other three criteria apply. Philo handled the biblical text in a distinct way in this series. He began each quaestio with a citation of the biblical text. In the solutiones the Alexandrian consistently be-gan with literal interpretations and then moved on to allegorical readings. He rarely used secondary or tertiary texts in his answer (criterion 3).45 The form is also distinct: it is the first full zete-matic commentary from a Jewish author that we have (criterion 4).46 Finally, the audience appears to be specific (criterion 5). While there are different possibilities, I suggest that the Questions and Answers reflect the school instruction in which a teacher posed questions about a text that the student was expected to answer. The Questions and Answers was a preliminary text for students within Philo’s school.47

The Exposition of the Law

The Exposition of the Law has the best attestation as an independent work and is the best preserved of the three commentary series. We have twelve of fifteen scrolls (or eight of eleven separate works [two works have multiple scrolls]).48

The Exposition also has the fullest evidence for its independent status: it provides evidence for all five criteria. On three different occasions Philo laid out the plan for the Exposition (criterion 1). While the three plans do not agree in all of the specific details, they make it clear that he had reflected on the series as a whole and thought of it as a unit.49 More importantly for our purposes, they indicate that Philo planned subunits within the Exposition, a point to which we will return below.

Every treatise opens with a secondary preface that links it to the preceding treatise (criterion 2).50 The only exceptions are the introductory biography to the series, On the Life of Moses51 and the first treatise in the series, On the Creation of the World. Since secondary prefaces are intended to connect scrolls in a multi-scroll work, Philo’s consistent use of secondary prefaces makes it clear that he wanted readers to understand that the scrolls comprised a unified and continuous whole.

The unique character of the Exposition is also signaled by Philo’s approach to the biblical text (criterion 3). He rarely cited the biblical text as a basis for his comments, but retold it and then wrote a commentary on the retelling. This led Peder Borgen to call it rewritten Bible, a classification that recognizes the technique but not the fact that Philo provided a commentary on the retelling.52 The effect in a treatise like On the Life of Abraham is to move from a literal retelling to an allegorical commentary.

The literary character is also different. Most notably, there are five bioi associated with this attempt to cover the entire Pentateuch (criterion 4).53 Finally, the work presumes the broadest audience, including interested outsiders (criterion 5). I think that these treatises might reflect the type of presentations that Philo gave to larger groups who came to hear him expound the laws of Moses in much the same way that Epictetus, Plotinus, and Proclus offered »public lectures.«54

The Allegorical Commentary

The Allegorical Commentary is also a distinct work. We have nineteen scrolls and a fragment of thirty-two original scrolls (or all of or part of eighteen of twenty-three separate works [at least four works have multiple scrolls and two scrolls that have come down to us were originally one work]).55 While we do not have any Philonic statements about its plan (criterion 1), we do have secondary pre-faces for six of the preserved nineteen treatises (criterion 2). The first three create a network of four treatises. There are four treatises that deal with Noah after the flood: On agriculture, On planting, On drunkenness, and On sobriety. Philo linked these four with second-ary prefaces: On planting 1 refers back to On agriculture,56 On drunkenness to On planting,57 and On sobriety back to On drunkenness.58 The prefaces make the works into a unit on Noah. The other three secondary prefaces are scattered. Two of these refer back to works that have been lost59 and the other to a preceding work, i. e., On Flight and Finding refers back to On the Preliminary Studies.60 The inconsistent use of secondary prefaces is not surprising. Diodorus Siculus used them regularly in his Bibliotheke,61 but Josephus used them more occasionally in his magnum opus: he employed them in five of the twenty scrolls of his Jewish Antiquities, roughly the same frequency as Philo’s in the Allegorical Commentary.62 The second-ary prefaces make us realize that Philo conceived of the Allegorical Commentary as a unity.

As is well known, Philo handled the biblical text differently in the Allegorical Commentary than he did in either the Questions and Answers or the Exposition of the Law (criterion 3). The exegesis is lemmatic: it works from selections of the biblical text. It is, however, lemmatic in a far more complex way than the other two series. Philo anchors his exegesis in the main biblical lemma from Genesis, but adds secondary and tertiary layers of commentary based on other texts. While the references to the main biblical lemmata are clear, the relationships among the secondary and tertiary lemmata are not always immediately transparent.63 Still the basic pattern of his exegesis is unambiguous.64 The interpretations are overwhelmingly allegorical.

The specific literary form of the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary is – in many ways – sui generis (criterion 4). It clearly has roots in the Stoic allegorical interpretations of Homer and Hesiod as represented by commentators like Cornutus and Heraclitus, but goes beyond them in developing the narrative. It is closer to the philosophical commentaries in the larger Platonic tradition, e. g., the Middle Platonic Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary and Neo-Platonic commentaries like Porphyry’s On the Cave of the Nymphs and Proclus’s Commentary on the Timaeus.65 It is, however, distinct in ways that we will sketch below.

Finally, the audience for the Allegorical Commentary is different than the audiences for the other commentary series (criterion 5). The implied reader of these treatises knows both the biblical text and the Greek philosophical tradition reasonably well. I suggest that these treatises were for advanced students in Philo’s school.

The point is that the Allegorical Commentary has a literary integrity that should be respected. We need to think about the place of each treatise as a unit within the Allegorical Commentary. Treatises do not stand as independent works; they are units within a larger whole that Philo has shaped.

II The Thematic Unity of Individual Treatises

At the same time, individual treatises are discrete units. I suggested that Philo’s treatises were similar to but distinct from commen-taries in the philosophical tradition. They differ markedly by de-veloping specific themes for each scroll.66 It is correct to say that the Allegorical Commentary is a running commentary on the text of Genesis 2:1–17:22 – or 18:2 if we include the fragment On God. The commentaries do not, however, provide a balanced or relatively even treatment of the different units of the biblical text. Philo wrote treatises on significantly different lengths of the biblical text from a half verse in both Agriculture and Planting to a full modern chapter in Alleg. Interp. 1 and Heir.67 Why vary the length of the biblical text so much?

Philo typically organized the treatises around a specific theme.68 We do not know if he assigned titles to the treatises, but in his secondary prefaces he states basic themes for the treatises. For example, in the secondary preface that opens On planting he summarized both On agriculture and On planting: »In the former book we discussed the matters pertaining to general agricultural skills, at least what was appropriate to it. In this book we will explain – as best we can – the particular skill of tending vines.«69 The statement is more than a summary of the biblical text; it is a summary of the contents of the two treatises around an organizing theme. Similarly, Philo opened On flight and finding with a reference back to On the preliminary studies and a summary of On flight and finding: »Having discussed in the preceding the things that were appropriate to the preliminary studies and evil, we will next record the treatment of fugitives.«70 The other secondary prefaces make similar statements about the respective treatises they address.71 These are the only direct statements that we have from Philo about the treatises as a whole. The secondary prefaces suggest that he organized his treatises around specific themes.

There is, however, a limit to the unity of individual treatises that we should not ignore, a factor generated by the sequential nature of Philo’s exegesis of the biblical narrative. In some treatises, the theme works for a section of the treatise, but not for all of it. For example, in On the change of names, the theme proper works for §§ 60–129 where Philo works through a series of name changes. We could extend this to include Philo’s discussion of the names of God in §§  11–17 (see §§ 1–53). While this unit does not deal with a change of names, it is an explication of the different divine names and could be understood to reflect the broader nature of the role of different names in the treatise. However, the theme does not apply to Philo’s subsequent interpretation of Gen 17 in the treatise.72 The treatise is a good example of how the theme may work for some of the treatise but not for all of it. On the other hand, there are treatises where the theme works for the entire treatise. The most obvious example of this is On dreams, but it also works well for On flight and finding.

It is thus possible to speak of thematic unity as long as we keep in mind that the treatises do not have the type of closeknit structure and coherence that we would expect in a twenty-first century monograph or literary work. Even when a treatise in the Allegorical Commentary is clearly organized around a major theme or two, the layers of secondary and tertiary lemmata take readers into subjects that are at some distance from the main theme. The key structural device was the main biblical lemma that stands at the heart of the theme whether the theme is co-extensive with all of the texts that Philo addressed or not. There is enough unity in the treatise that the titles assigned to them are generally accurate summaries of the basic contents. For this reason, I think that we need to take the unity of treatises seriously, although I think that a careful study of this issue remains a desideratum.

But are there subunits beyond the individual treatises in the Allegorical Commentary? Do treatises relate to one another? It is to this question that we now turn.

III Subgroups within the Allegorical Commentary

As we indicated above and is well known, there are distinct subunits within the Exposition of the Law. Philo’s first two summaries of the plan for the Exposition offer two parts, creation and the laws;73 the final summary adds one more subunit, creation, historical works, and legislation.74 Does the Allegorical Commentary also have subunits?

Since the nineteenth century, scholars have explored different options for groups of treatises within the Allegorical Commentary. Massebieau and Bréhier began the discussion by suggesting that Philo’s treatises could be grouped chronologically on the basis of allusions to persecutions against the Jews in the treatises.75 They organized the treatises into four groups: Alleg. Interp. through Giants/Unchangeable were written during a period of peace and prosperity; Agriculture through Confusion reflect the turbulent years under Caligula; Heir, Prelim. Studies, and Flight suggest a return to peace; and Dreams turns back to the persecutions. There are several problems with this. First, I am very skeptical about Massebieau’s basic methodology. The allusions are vague at best: we cannot recreate a political history from the treatises. Second, while it is possible that Philo wrote the Allegorical Commentary over the course of his lifetime, I am inclined to think that he wrote it – or at least the bulk of it – prior to the Exposition of the Laws.76

The next major effort to analyze the treatises of the Allegorical Commentary was by another French scholar, Jacques Cazeaux. Cazeaux wrote two large works in which he applied structuralism to groups of texts that he identified as the Abraham cycle and the Noah cycle.77 He took his cue from Sacrifices 83–85 and argued that the Migration, Heir, Prelim. Studies, Flight, and Change formed a unified series of treatises. Similarly, he suggested that Giants/ Unchangeable, Agriculture, Planting, Drunkenness, and Sobriety form a cycle. While Cazeaux’s work is impressive, he fails to take the fundamental lemmatic nature of Philo’s exegesis into account, a failure that leads to an oversight of the basic structure of Philo’s treatises and an overdeveloped sense of unity.78 At the same time, he recognized that different treatises dealt with specific figures, a recognition to which we will return.

There are other works that have attempted to organize the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary, but Massebieau-Bréhier and Cazeaux are the major efforts.79 Our analysis above suggests that we need to think through several factors when addressing this question. On the one hand, we need to explain how an individual treatise fits into the Allegorical Commentary. On the other hand, each treatise within the Allegorical Commentary has a literary integ-rity that should be respected. How can we address these centrifugal forces?

I would like to offer a simple – but I hope not simplistic – proposal, one that is relatively transparent in the treatises themselves. Philo used characters in Genesis as a means of introducing ap­proaches to virtue. He organized the ancestors into two triads80 and wrote a trilogy on the second triad of ancestors in the Exposition of the Law: Abraham acquired virtue by learning, Isaac was born with virtue, and Jacob came to virtue through practice.81 I suggest that Philo also used characters and their relationship to virtue as a major structural device in the Allegorical Commen-tary. This is similar to the basic conclusion of Cazeaux about the two major series, although the grounds for my proposal are markedly different. There are three major clusters around specific characters:

Character Treatises





Noah Giants/Unchangeable



Drunkenness 1–2


Abraham Migration


Prelim. Studies



The three characters have different relationships to virtue; Cain is the embodiment of self-love;82 Noah is a model of justice or perfection and one of the members of the first triad; and Abraham ac-quired virtue by learning and is a member of the second triad. Each individual treatise represents a particular take on the relationship between the character and virtue. The case for Noah is also sup-ported by the presence of the secondary prefaces in the final four treatises that deal with him (see above). In the case of Abraham, the treatises make the point about his acquisition of virtue. For example, On the change of names makes the point that Abraham learned virtue (rather than was born with virtue or acquired it by practice) on multiple occasions.83 The treatise develops an interpretation of Gen 17 that illustrates this, but does not stand in any obvious sequence with surrounding treatises other than the biblical text. This is the typical pattern within the treatises devoted to Abraham: each illustrates his acquisition of virtue in some way, but there is no movement from one treatise to the next in his progress towards virtue. The movement is due to the narrative of the biblical text.

There is an obvious objection to this. How do we account for the beginning (Alleg. Interp. 1–3 and Cherubim) and end of the Alle-gorical Commentary (Dreams 1–2) or a treatise like Confusion that is neither about Noah nor about Abraham? The beginning and end consist of multi-scroll works that help form their own unit: there were originally four books in Alleg. Interp.84 and five in Dreams.85 The fact that the beginning and end of the series have a symmetry is worth noting. I would say that Confusion serves as a bridge between the two series that address the two major characters of virtue. I would thus posit five major clusters of treatises within the Allegorical Commentary: the creation of humanity and primeval history, Cain, Noah, Abraham, and dreams.86

IV Conclusion

The challenge in analyzing the Allegorical Commentary is thatthere are forces that push in different directions. We have identified three: the unity of the series, the literary integrity of each treatise, and the decision to write multiple treatises around specific themes or characters.

It is important that we recognize that the Allegorical Commentary is a Philonic – not a modern – construct: we have only recognized what Philo produced. We need to respect the integrity of the commentary series as a unit. While it is common to recognize the independence of the series, I hope that the criteria I have offered will sharpen the discussion and help us recognize the importance of taking the series seriously as a literary construct.

Each treatise within the series has a level of thematic unity that should also be respected. As we have seen, the extent or degree of this unity varies. In some treatises, there is a common theme or two for the entire treatise; in other treatises the theme works well for a section of the treatise, but not necessarily for the entire treatise. The key factor is the selection of the main biblical lemma. While it might be tempting to generalize and say that the smaller the main biblical lemma the greater the unity, this does not hold true in cases like Flight or Dreams. Philo was not consistent in the extent of the biblical lemma or in the degree that he thematized it. While we should not overlook the variations in the treatises, we should also not overlook the degree to which Philo gave them some unity. This is an area that deserves more study.

A glance at the treatises in the Allegorical Commentary suggests that they fall into five major groups. Three of these groups focus on individuals and likely reflect Philo’s known penchant for developing his understanding of virtue biographically. This is not an accident: it reflects his commitment to his own understanding of virtue ethics. Characters reflect the different approaches to virtue and ultimately the ascent to God. This does not mean that we should look for progressive movements that advance from one treatise to the next or a pattern of movements. Each treatise can be understood as a discrete treatment of the text in question. The exception to this is when Philo wrote pairs, e. g., Drunkenness and Sobriety. The treatises that deal with a major figure in the biblical text may be read together, but should not be read in the same way that we would read a biography, e. g., Abraham.

What then should we make of the literary integrity of the Allegorical Commentary? E. R. Dodds once called Philo a »jackdaw« rather than a philosopher because of the eclectic nature of his thought.87 While it is true that Philo is eclectic in the sense that he presents multiple perspectives and is not consistent, it is a mistake to think that he did not have a basic framework of thought. I have tried to show why we recognize the integrity of the three series, the literary unity of each treatise, and the structure of Philo’s magnum opus. While it is a real challenge to work through a treatise in the Allegorical Commentary and see the relationship between the various subunits, let alone think about the series as a whole, it is a mistake to think that Philo worked without a plan or that the treatises do not reflect that plan.


Philo von Alexandrien ist der bedeutendste jüdische Kommentator in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels. Er schrieb drei Reihen von Kommentaren, die er als eigenständige Reihen entwarf. Es gibt fünf In­dikatoren dafür, dass er die Reihen als eigenständige Werke konzipiert hat: explizite Aussagen, sekundäre Vorworte, unterschied-liche Zugänge zum biblischen Text, die literarischen Formen und verschiedene Zielgruppen. Die berühmteste Reihe ist der Allegorische Kommentar. Dieser Aufsatz führt aus, dass einzelne Ab­handlungen innerhalb des Allegorischen Kommentars eine eigene literarische Einheit haben, die auf einem Thema basiert, und dass das größere Werk in fünf Untergruppen strukturiert ist: Schöpfung und Urgeschichte, Kain als die Verkörperung der Selbstliebe, Noah als Modell der Gerechtigkeit oder Vollkommenheit, Abraham als Prototyp der Tugend durch Lernen und Träume. Ziel dieser Reihe war es, einen Leser durch die Kultivierung der Tugend zur Erfahrung Gottes zu führen.


1) For overviews of commentaries in the Greco-Roman world see Franz Bömer, »Der Commentarius: Zur Vorgeschichte und literarischen Form der Schriften Caesars,« Hermes 81 (1953): 210–250, and Marina del Fabbro, »Il commentario nela tradizione papiracea,« Studia Papyrologica: Revista Espanola de papirologia 18 (1979): 69–132.
2) There are 18 pesharim: 6 on Isa (3QpIsa [3Q4]; 4QpIsab [4Q162]; 4QpIsac [4Q163]; 4QpIsaa [4Q161]; 4QpIsae [4Q165]; and 4QpIsad [4Q164]); 3 on the Psalms (1QpPsa [1Q16]; 4QpPsa [4Q171]; and 4QpPsb [4Q173]); 2 on Hosea (4QpHosa [4Q166] and 4QpHosb [4Q167]), 2 on Micah (1QpMic [1Q14] and 4QpMic [4Q168]) and Zephaniah (1QpZeph [1Q15] and 4QpZeph [4Q170]); 1 each on Nahum (4QpNah [4Q169]) and Habakkuk (1QpHab); and one unidentified pesher (4QpUnid [4Q172]). In addition, there are four commentaries on Genesis (4QCommGen A [4Q252]; 4QCommGen B [4Q253]; 4QCommGen C [4Q254]; and 4QCommGen D [4Q254a]) and 2 on Malachi (5Q210 and 4QCommMal [4Q253a]). For a comparison of this form of commentary with Greek commentaries on the Iliad see Pieter B. Hartog, Pesher and Hypomnema: A Comparison of Two Commentary Collec-tions from the Hellenistic-Roman Period, STDJ 121 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017).
3) Jerome, Vir. ill. 14. Jerome is the only ancient author to note these commentaries.
4) On this tradition see the important work of Steven D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy, SUNY series in Judaism (Albany: State University of New York, 1991).
5) For a summary of his impact see David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey, CRINT 3.3 (Assen: van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993).
6) On the school of Philo as a setting for his commentaries and their function see Gregory E. Sterling, »›The School of Sacred Laws‹: The Social Setting of Philo’s Treatises,« VC 53 (1999): 148–64, which explores the indirect evidence for the school primarily through the transmission of Philo’s writings; idem, »Philo’s School: The Social Setting of Ancient Commentaries,« in: Sophisten in Hellenismus und Kaiserzeit: Orte, Methoden und Personen der Bildungsvermittlung, ed. Beatrice Wyss, Rainier Hirsch-Luipold, and Solmeng-Jonas Hirschi, STAC 101 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 123–142, which explores the social location for writing commentaries in antiquity; and idem, »The School of Moses in Alexandria: An Attempt to Reconstruct the School of Philo,« in: Second Temple Jewish Paideia in Context, ed. Jason M. Zurawski and Gabriele Cocaccini, BZNW 228 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017), 141–166, which attempts to reconstruct the function of the commentaries through known uses in other school settings.
7) On the library see Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, VCSup 67 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003), esp. 2–12; and Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge: Belknap, 2006).
8) Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.18.1–8.
9) Here is a list of the works listed by Eusebius using the longer English abbreviations rather than the shorter Latin abbreviations. Philo, Alleg. Interp. (unspecified plural = multiple scrolls), QG, Agriculture 1–2 (= Agriculture and Planting), Drunkenness 1–2, Sobriety, Confusion, Flight, Prelim. Studies, Heir, Virtues, Names, Covenants 1–2, Migration, Giants/Unchangeable, and Dreams 1–5.
10) Philo, QE 1–5, On the tabernacle (= QE 2), Decalogue, Spec. Laws 1–4, On animals for sacrifice (= Spec. Laws 1.162–256), and Rewards.
11) Philo, Providence, Hypothetica, Joseph, Animals, Wicked Person (= lost), Good Person, Contempl. Life, Names (= spurious), Virtues (= Flaccus, Embassy, and three other lost treatises; this is different than the preserved Virtues).
12) On Eusebius’s knowledge of Philo’s library and the importance of this evidence see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 16–31, and Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context, AJEC 64 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006).
13) On the Armenian corpus of Philo see Folker Siegert, »Der armenische Philon,« ZKG 100 (1989): 353–369, and Anna Sirinian, »Armenian Philo: A Survey of the Literature,« in: Studies on the Ancient Armenian Version of Philo’s Works, ed. Sara M. Lombardi and Paola Pontani, SPhA 6 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011), 7–44.
14) On the Hellenizing School see Abraham Terian, »The Hellenizing School: Its Time, Place and Scope of its Activities Reconsidered,« in: East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, ed. Nina G. Garsian, Thomas F. Mathews, and Robert W. Thomson (Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks, Center for Byzantine Studies, 1982), 175–186.
15) On this work see Manea Erna Shirinian, »Philo and the Book of Causes by Grigor Abasean,« in: Studies on the Ancient Armenian Version of Philo’s Works, 155–189. For a similar but slightly different construction see Olga Vardazaryan, »The ›Armenian Philo‹: A Remnant of an Unknown Tradition,« in: Studies on the Ancient Armenian Version of Philo’s Works, 191–216, esp. 199–200, who follows a scholiast. The difference between the two arrangements is the sequence of allegory and the patriarchs.
16) Philo, Providence 1–2.
17) Philo, QG 1–3.
18) Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1–2.
19) Philo, Abraham.
20) Philo, QG 4.
21) Philo, QE 1–2; Spec. Laws 1.79–81.131–161.285–345; 3.1–7; Decalogue; Spec. Laws 3.8–63; Sampson; Jonah; God.
22) Philo, Contempl. Life.
23) I have worked through the lists in Howard L. Goodhart and Erwin R. Goodenough, »A General Bibliography of Philo Judaeus,« in: The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory, by Erwin R. Goodenough (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938), 125–321. For M see #100 (p. 149).
24) Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1, Alleg. Interp. 2, Sacrifices, Cherubim (the order of Sacrifices and Cherubim is reversed from the modern order), Agriculture (Worse and Posterity are missing), Unchangeable, Giants (the order of Unchangeable and Giants is reversed from the modern order), Abraham (from the Exposition of the Law), Migration, Prelim. Studies, Dreams 1, and Planting (which belongs after Agriculture).
25) Philo, Abraham (included with the treatises from the Allegorical Commentary [see n. 24] but should go after Creation), Creation, Decalogue, Spec. Laws 1–4, Moses 1–3 (placed differently than the modern order where it follows Joseph), Virtues, Joseph (should follow Abraham).
26) Adrianus Turnebus, Philonis Iudaei in libros Mosis, de mundi opificio, historicos, de legibus. Eiusdem libri singulares (Paris: Adrianus Turnebus, 1552). Turnebus arranged the works as follows: Creation, Alleg. Interp. 1, 3 (= 2), Cherubim, Sacrifices, Worse, Agriculture, Planting, Drunkenness, Sobriety, Giants, Unchangeable, Confusion, Abraham, Migration, Prelim. Studies, Flight, Heir, Joseph, Dreams 1, Moses, Virtues 51–174, Spec. Laws 4.136–150.151–237, Virtues 1–50, Decalogue, Spec. Laws 2.1–38, 3, 1, Good Person, Contempl. Life, Virtues 187–227, Rewards, Punishments, Eternity, Flaccus, and Embassy. Turnebus’s edition was updated by David Hoeschelius and Sigmund Gelenius (Geneva: Petrus de la Rouiere, 1613) and again (Paris 1640).
27) Turnebus began with Creation, omitted Posterity, placed Giants and Unchangeable after Sobriety instead of after Worse and Posterity, introduced Abraham from the Exposition of the Law before Migration, reversed the order of Heir, Flight, and Prelim. Studies, omitted Change, and inserted Joseph from the Exposition of the Law.
28) Thomas Mangey, Philonis Iudaei opera quae reperiri potuerunt onia, Textum cum MSS, contulit, quamplurima etiam è Codd. Vaticano, Mediceo, & Bodleiano, scriptoribus item vetustis, necnon catenis graecis ineditis, adjecit, interpretationemque emendavit, universa notis & observationibus illustravit, 2 vols. (London: William Bowyer, 1742).
29) Suzanne Daniyel-Nataf, Yehoshua Amir, and Maren Niehoff, eds., Ketavim/Filon ha-Aleksandroni, 6 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1986–2015). It is odd that this has been the case since Louis Massebieau, Le classement des oeuvres de Philon (Paris: E. Loroux, 1889), 14, and Leopold Cohn, »Einleitung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos,« in: Philologus, Supplementband 7 (1899): 385–436, esp. 392, recognized that Creation belonged to the Exposition of the Law.
30) C. E. Richter, Philonis Iudaei opera omnia: Textus editus ad fidem optimarum editionum, 8 vols. (Leipzig: E. B. Schwickert, 1828–1830).
31) Leopold Cohn, Paul Wendland, Sigofred Reiter, and Ioannes Leisegang, eds., Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, 7 vols. (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1896–1930; 2nd ed., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1962).
32) Cohn, »Einleitung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos,« 385–436.
33) Massebieau, Le classement des œuvres de Philon, who worked through the arrangement of the treatises, and Louis Massebieau and Emile Bréhier, »Essai sur la chronologie de la vie et des œuvres de Philon,« in: Revue de Histoire des Reli-gions 53 (1906): 25–64.164–185.267–289, esp. 164–185 and 267–279, who worked out the chronology of the treatises.
34) Massebieau, Le classement des œuvres de Philon, 3, 7–41, and Cohn, »Einleitung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos,« 396–414.
35) The most significant recent treatment is Maren R. Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography, ABRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017). I differ with Niehoff in placing the QG and QE earlier and in situating some of the Exposition of the Law in Alexandria. She makes a solid case that the later parts of the Exposition could have been written in Rome.
36) The two most important treatments are Jenny Morris, »The Jewish Phi-losopher Philo,« in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. ed., Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1987), 3:819–870, and James R. Royse, »The Works of Philo,« in: The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. Adam Kamesar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 32–64.
37) Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de l’écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 192–202.241–242, and idem, »Brève note sur le Commentaire Allegorique et l’Exposition de la Loi chez Philon d’Alexandrie,« in: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, ed. André Caquot, Simon Légasse, and Michel Tardieu, AOAT 212 (Kevalaer: Butzon & Bre-cker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 321–329.
38) Most notably Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Philo of Alexandria: A Thinker in the Jewish Diaspora, trans. by Robin Fréchet, SPhA 7 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012), 117–122.149.
39) This is only true for the Exposition of the Law.
40) A secondary preface is a brief introduction at the outset of a scroll in a multiple scroll work that provides a bridge between the previous scroll and the current scroll by referring back to the previous scroll and orienting the reader to the current scroll. It thus helps to situate the scroll in a series. On secondary prefaces in Philo see Gregory E. Sterling, »›Prolific in Expression and Broad in Thought‹: Internal References to Philo’s Allegorical Commentary and Exposition of the Law,« in: Euphrosyne 40 (2012): 55–76, esp. 60–63.
41) There are a number of treatments of Philo’s use of the biblical text. I have attempted to summarize my own understanding in »The Interpreter of Moses: Philo of Alexandria and the Biblical Text,« in: A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 415–435.
42) The most important treatments of Philo’s audiences are Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes, BJS 290/SPhiloMS 2 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996); Martina Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandrien: Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum, BZNW 128 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2005); Maren Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); and eadem, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography, ABRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), who argued that Philo wrote the Allegorical Commentary and QGE in Alexandria for Jewish audiences and the Exposition in Rome to a largely non-Jewish audience. Cf. also Erwin R. Goodenough, »Philo’s Exposition of the Law and his De vita Mosis«, in: HTR 26 (1933): 109–125, who argued that the Exposition, in contrast to Philo’s other works, addressed a broader audience – including non-Jews.
43) Those who think the QG and QE were written prior to the Allegorical Commentary include Abraham Terian, »The Priority of the Quaestiones among Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries,« in: Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. David M. Hay; BJS 233 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 29–46; idem, Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum. I et II e versione armeniaca et fragmenta graeca, PAPM 34C (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992), 27–51; and Gregory E. Sterling, »Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought,« in: Both Literal and Allegorical, 99–123. Those who argue that the QG and QE come after the Allegorical Commentary include Cohn, »Einleitung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos,« 403–404; Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria, 152–168, esp. 157–158 and 168; and eadem, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography, 9–10 and 245–246, where she situated QG and QE between the Allegorical Commentary and the Exposition of the Law.
44) The Armenian has four books for Genesis and two for Exodus. Codex Vindobonensis Theologicus Graecus 29 states that there were six books for Genesis. It is likely that book 4 of the Armenian reflects books 4, 5, and 6. The only book that we have intact is QG 1. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.18.5, knew five books for Exo-dus, but it may well be that there were six for it as well since the books appear to reflect the same units as the later lectionary cycles. Here I follow James R. Royse, »The Original Structure of Philo’s Quaestiones,« in: SPhilo 4 (1976–1977): 41–78; and idem, »Philo’s Division of His Works into Books,« in: SPhiloA 13 (2001): 76–85. On this reconstruction, we have parts of < /span>QE 2, 4–6, but are missing 1 and 3.
45) On the absence of secondary texts in QG and QE see David T. Runia, »Sec-ondary Texts in Philo’s Quaestiones,« Both Literal and Allegorical, 47–79.
46) Compare Aristotle, Quaest. hom.; Plutarch, Quaest. plat. Earlier Jewish authors used the quaestio, but did not write zetematic commentaries – at least none that we know about, e. g., Demetrius, frags. 2 and 5; Aristobulus, frag. 2. On the form see Sze-Kar Wan, »The Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim et in Exodum of Philo Judaeus: A Synoptic Approach,« (Ph. D. diss., Harvard University, 1992), and Annelie Volgers and Claudio Zamagni, eds., Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context, CBET 37 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004).
47) On this see Sterling, »The School of Moses in Alexandria,« 141–166, esp. 157–159. On Philo’s school see n. 6 above.
48) I would arrange them as follows: Moses 1–2 (an introduction to the Exposition as a whole), Creation, Abraham, Isaac (lost), Jacob (lost), Joseph, Decalogue, Spec. Laws 1–4, Virtues, Piety (lost), and Rewards.
49) Philo, Moses 2.45–47; Abraham 2–5; and Rewards 1–3. For a detailed analysis of the three statements see Sterling, »Prolific in Expression and Broad in Thought,« 67–69.
50) Philo, Abraham 1–6; Joseph 1; Decalogue 1; Spec. Laws 1.1; 2.1; 3.7; 4.1, 132–35; Rewards 1–3.
51) Albert C. Geljon, Philonic Exegesis in Gregory of Nyssa’s De vita Moysis, BJS 333/SPhiloM 5 (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2002), 7–46, has shown that Moses is a type of introductory biography. I think that it belongs to the Exposition of the Law since it contains a plan for the Exposition (Moses 2.45–47) and there are two explicit references to Moses within the Exposition (Virtues 52; Rewards 53). For details see Sterling, »Prolific in Expression and Broad in Thought,« 72–74.
52) Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time, NovTSup 86 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 46–79, esp. 63–79.
53) Philo, Moses 1–2; Abraham, and Joseph. Two other bioi have been lost: On the Life of Isaac and On the Life of Jacob (Joseph 1).
54) For the evidence see Sterling, »The School of Moses in Alexandria,« 161–162.
55) I would arrange the Allegorical Commentary as follows: Hexameron (lost), Alleg. Interp. 1 (= Alleg. Interp. 1–2), Alleg. Interp. 2 (lost), Alleg. Interp. 3 (= Alleg. Interp. 3), Alleg. Interp. 4 (lost), Cherubim, Sacrifices, lost treatise on Gen 4:5–7, Worse, Posterity, lost treatise on Gen 5:32, Giants/Unchangeable (one treatise from two now independent scrolls), Covenants 1–2 (lost), Agriculture, Planting, Drunkenness 1–2 (2 is lost), Sobriety, Confusion, Migration, lost treatise on Gen 15:1, Heir, Preliminary Studies, Flight, Names, God (Armenian fragment only), Dreams 1 (lost), Dreams 2 (= Dreams 1), Dreams 3 (= Dreams 2), Dreams 4–5 (lost). It is clear that Agriculture and Planting are related as is Drunkenness and Sobriety.
56) See also Philo, Agriculture 181, that anticipates Planting.
57) Philo, Drunkenness 1.
58) Philo, Sobriety 1. This appears to be a reference to a lost treatise of Drunkenness. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.18.2, thought that Philo wrote two treatises on Drunkenness. Since the treatise opens by referring to five topics and the treatise only handles three of the five, it is likely that our treatise is Drunkenness 1 and that Drunkenness 2 is lost. This is at odds with the statement in our papyrus that states that it is Drunkenness 2. See James R. Royse, »The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus of Philo,« in: Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 17 (1980): 160–161. I have followed the statements of the mss of Sobriety rather than the papyrus.
59) Philo, Heir 1, refers back to a lost work on rewards based on Gen 15:1; and Dreams 1.1, refers to a preceding work (= Dreams 1; the extant Dreams 1 is Dreams 2).
60) Philo, Flight 2.
61) All of the extant books except for 2, 3, and 11 have secondary prefaces. On Diodorus’s practice see Kenneth S. Sacks, »The Lesser Prooemia of Diodorus Siculus,« in: Hermes 110 (1982): 434–444, and idem, Diodorus Siculus and the History of the First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 922.
62) Josephus, Ant. 8.1; 13.1; 14.1; 15.1; and 20.1.
63) This has produced a number of negative judgments. F. H. Colson, »Philo’s Quotations from the Old Testament,« in: JTS 41 (1940): 250, thought that his argumentation presented »an awful tangle.«
64) The most helpful summary of Philo’s handling of the lemmatic exegesis is Albert C. Geljon and David T. Runia, On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, PACS 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 10–21, esp. 10–16.
65) The most important treatments of the form of the commentaries are John M. Dillon, »The Formal Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Exegesis,« in: Two treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis, by David Winston and John Dillon; BJS 25 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 77–88; David T. Runia, »The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises: A Review of Two Recent Studies and Some Additional Comments,« in: VC 38 (1984): 209–256; and idem, »Further Observations on the Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises,« VC 41 (1987): 105–138.
66) On Philo’s division of his work into specific books see Royse, »Philo’s Division of His Works into Books,« 59–85.
67) Philo, Agriculture covers Gen 9:20a and Planting explains Gen 9:20b; while Alleg. Interp. 1 explores Gen 2:1–3:1a and Heir Gen 15:2–18.
68) I am arguing against the position of Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de l’Écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie, who thought that the sequential nature of Philo’s exegesis only allowed for a »loose thematic« unity. I agree with Nikiprowetzky that Philo incorporated quaestiones et solutiones into the Allegorical Commentary, but think that the explicit statements in the secondary prefaces must be taken more seriously than he allowed.
69) Philo, Planting 1. Cf. the conclusion of Agriculture 181, that sets up Plant-ing: »Let us speak in turn about his skill in cultivating plants.«
70) Philo, Flight 2.
71) Philo, Drunkenness 1: »We have mentioned – to the best of our ability – the things that other philosophers have said about intoxication as a metaphor in the preceding book. Let us now consider what the incredibly great and wise lawgiver thinks about it«; Sobriety 1, »Having gone through the things the lawgiver said about intoxication and nakedness previously, let us begin to append the subsequent account to what has been said« (note the absence of a theme for Sobriety in this statement, but not in the treatise); Heir 1, »In the preceding treatise we worked through the topic of rewards as accurately as possible« (note again the absence of the theme for Heir in this statement, although the treatise has a clear theme); Dreams 1.1, »The work prior to this one encompassed God-sent dreams incorporated in the first type, in which – as we said – the Deity sends dreams to us in our sleep by his own initiative. In this treatise we will show – to the best of our ability – those that belong to the second type.«
72) Gen 17:3 (§§ 54–56), 4 (§§ 57–59), 16 (§§ 130–153), 17a (§§ 154–174), 17b (§§ 175–200), 18 (§§ 201–251), 19 (§§ 252–260), 20 (§§ 261–263), 21 (§§ 264–266), 21 (§§ 267–278), and 22 (§ 279).
73) Philo, Abraham 2–5; Moses 2.45–47.
74) Philo, Rewards 1–3. Adam Kamesar, »Biblical Interpretation in Philo,« The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 74–77, noted that Josephus, Ant. 1.18, had the same threefold division and suggested that the threefold division may have been a traditional schema.
75) Massebieau and Bréhier, »Essai sur la chronologie de la vie et des œuvres de Philon,« 170–185.
76) See my »Prolific in expression and broad in thought.«
77) Jacques Cazeaux, La trame et la chaîne: Ou les structures littéraires et l’exégèse des cinq des Traités de Philon d’Alexandrie, ALGHJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1983) and idem, La trame de la chaîne, II: Le cycle de Noé dans Philon d’Alexandrie, ALGHJ 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1989).
78) The most important critique is Runia, »The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises.« For a recent attempt to work from Cazeaux see Uri Gershowitz and Arkady Kovelman, »A Symmetrical Teleological Construction in the Treatises of Philo and in the Talmud,« in: Review of Rabbinic Literature 5 (2002): 228–246, who argue that Philo and the rabbis followed two organizational principles: anticipation and symmetry. Anticipation refers to the points that open and close a treatise and symmetry to the process of moving through the treatise.
79) E. g., Gary Thorne, »The Structure of Philo’s Commentary on the Pentateuch,« in: Dionysius 13 (1989): 17–50, esp. 22–24, argued that all three commentary series should be read as a unit. He thinks that Creation 3 is the key to the entire project. While there is some merit in recognizing the common ground among the series, it is a mistake to ignore the very different character that each series has.
80) Philo, Abraham 7–47; Rewards 7–23.
81) Philo, Abraham and Joseph 1, for the lost works Isaac and Jacob.
82) On Cain see Hindy Najman, »Cain and Abel as Character Traits: A Study of the Allegorical Typology of Philo of Alexandria,« in: Eve’s Children: The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Themes in Biblical Narrative 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 107–118.
83) Philo, Change 12, 83–88.
84) Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1–2, is probably Alleg. Interp. 1; Alleg. Interp. 2 is lost as the lacuna suggests (Gen 3:1b–8a is not addressed); Alleg. Interp. 3 = Alleg. Interp. 3; and Alleg. Interp. 4 is lost (Sacrifices 51 and the gap in coverage of Gen 3:20–23).
85) Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.18.4.
86) The place of Dreams in the Allegorical Commentary is challenging: it breaks the narrative sequence that characterized the other treatises in the series. Given the fact that it follows the same approach to the biblical text as other treatises in the Allegorical Commentary (criterion 3), has the same basic literary form (criterion 4), and the same implied audience (criterion 5), I am inclined to con-sider it part of the Allegorical Commentary. It also uses a secondary preface (criterion 2), but refers to a now lost work that was probably part of Dreams.
87) E. R. Dodds, »The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic ›One‹,« in: CQ 22 (1928): 132.