Polis and Megalopolis: Philo and the Founding of Alexandria

Author(s): David T. Runia

Source: Mnemosyne , 1989, Fourth Series, Vol. 42, Fasc. 3/4 (1989), pp. 398-412
Published by: Brill

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4431850

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mnemosyne, Vol. XLII, Fase. 3-4 (1989)

POLIS AND MEGALOPOLIS:

PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA

BY

DAVID T. RUNIA

1. Recently in my study entitled Philo of Alexandria a

Timaeus of Plato I devoted a number of pages to the wel
image of the founding of a city presented by Philo in De
mundi 17-18. My main thesis in this section was that the co
which the image is used should primarily be read in te
Platonist exegesis and development of the basic dem
metaphor of the Timaeus. Plato's humble craftsman has bee
moted to the rank of architect1). In this short paper I want t
to the Philonic passage in question and briefly dwell on a
that was given insufficient attention in the previous discus
argument will be that there are clear indications in Philo's t
in composing his image he is actually thinking of the found
his own city, Alexandria, by Alexander the Great in the
B.C.2). A recognition of that concrete background will
additional assistance towards the interpretation of Philo's ex
and philosophical intentions in this rich and subtle text.
2. First it will be necessary to sketch in some backgro
indicating the wider context of the passage in question. Aft
preliminary remarks on the unparalleled beauty and dept
Mosaic creation account, Philo commences his exegesis
radical and quite unexpected interpretation of 'day one'
tion. As its appellation by means of the cardinal and not th
number???e?a ??a, a Hebraism!?indicates, there is a s
divide between 'day one' and the five days of creation that

1) Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden 1986), 165-16

2) To my knowledge this suggestion has been made only once bef
obiter dictum in a footnote by G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of t
Era, I (Cambridge Mass. 1927), 267 (a reference I came across when I
pleted my research).

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 399

it. It contains preeminently the ???t?? ??s???, the intelligible mod

or blueprint for the a?s??t?? ??s??? that is to be created during th
remainder of the creative week (De opificio mundi 15-16). But t
location of this noetic cosmos poses a problem. It is not legitimate
to regard it as occupying a physical t?p??. We will understand how
and where it is composed, Philo declares, if we pay careful attenti
to an image drawn from our own world. I now cite the text of th
image which forms the subject of this paper (De opificio mun
17-18)3):
?pe?d?? p???? ?t???ta? ?at? p????? f???t???a? ?as????? ? t????
??e????? a?t???at??? e???s?a? ?etap????????? ?a? ??a t? f?????a
?a?p??? t?? e?t???a? s??ep???s????t??, pa?e???? 2st?? dte t?? t?? ?p?
pa?de?a? ???? a???te?t?????? ?a? t?? e???as?a? ?a? e??a???a? t?? t?p??
?eas??e??? d?a???fe? p??t?? ?? ?a?t? t? t?? ?e????s?? ?p?te?e?s?a?
p??e?? ???? s?ed?? ?pa?ta, ?e?? ?????s?a p??ta?e?a a????? ?????a?
?e?s?????? ste??p???, te???? ?atas?e???, ?d??se?? ?????? ?a? d???s???
????? ????d?????t?? e??' ?spe? ?? ???? t? ?a?t?? ???? t??? ??ast??
de???e??? t?p??? ??a??at?f??e? ???t?? p????, ?? ??a????sa? t? e?d??a
????? t? s??f?t? ?a? t??? ?a?a?t??a? et? ?????? ??sf?a??s??e???, ??a
d????????? a?a???, ap????p?? e?? t? pa??de???a t?? ?? ????? ?a?
????? ???eta? ?atas?e???e??, ??ast? t?? as???t?? ?de?? t??? s??at?-
??? ???????? ??s?a?.
Philo concludes by applying the lesson of the image to his
account of the creational event. When God decided to found the
cosmic ?e?a??p???? he first put together an intelligible cosmos,
which has as its location no other place than the divine Logos.
Indeed the ??s??? ???t?? is nothing else than the Logos of God
when actually engaged in the creative act (?e?? ????? ?d?
??s??p?????t??)4).
3. There are at least three reasons, I submit, for thinking that,
when Philo describes his image as e???? t?? t?? pa?' ????, the per-
sonal pronoun has a more specific force than one need normally
suspect, i.e. he has in mind the foundation of his own city, the great
city Alexandria.

3) Text cited from L. Cohn, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, I (Berlin
1896), 5.9-6.3.
4) De opificio mundi 18-20, 24-25. On the final, difficult passage, see J. C. M.
van Winden, The world of ideas in Philo of Alexandria: an interpretation o/De opificio
mundi 24-25, VChr 37 (1983), 209-217.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
400 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA

Firstly, although Philo couches his description in the most

general terms possible, the details of the image are paten
reminiscent of the various accounts of the founding of Alexandri
that are found in our sources5). These accounts are seven
number: Arrian Anabasis HI 1,4-2,2; Plutarch Vita Alexandri
26.3-10; Diodorus Siculus XVII 52; Strabo XVII 1,6-7; Pseudo-
Callisthenes Historia Alexandri Magni I 31-32; Quintus Curtius
8,1-2; Jason apud Steph. Byz. s.v. '??e???d?e?a. The figure of Alex-
ander the Great, as is hardly surprising, occupies the centre stage
in these accounts. In all but two (Arrian, Diodorus), however
some mention is made of architects who assisted the king in
enterprise. Ps. Callisthenes is the only source who actually giv
names. Among the five mentioned in that text is Dinocrates
Rhodes, who in a number of other texts is described as the archite
of Alexandria: Vitruvius II pref. 4; Valerius Maximus I 4,7; Plin
Natural History V 62; Strabo XIV 1,23; Ammianus Marcellinu
XXII 166).
It would be tedious, in the context of the present article, to mak
a detailed comparative analysis of adi the texts cited above. If we se
aside the various legendary accretions and differences in detail
basic narrative pattern, consisting of three main elements, can be
seen to be common to them: (1) Alexander's arrival at the sit
(heralded in some accounts by an oracular dream); (2) the selection
of the site as particularly suitable for a city, followed by the plan
ning of its main features; (3) the good omens for the future city,
indicated by the use of barley for marking out the walls (in some
sources eaten by birds). If we leave out the details not relevant to
Philo*s purposes in his image, such as the oracular dream and t
good omens, it is immediately clear that he follows the basic nar-
rative pattern of the accounts. But it will repay us to look at t
correspondences with more attention to detail.
What I propose to do now is to examine certain aspects of th
image by way of a kind of commentary, comparing them with wh
we find in the sources. I am going to point out not only vario

5) I am relying heavily on the analysis of P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria

(Oxford 1972), 3-7 and notes 1-15.
6) Cf. E. Fabric?is s.v. Deinokrates (6), RE I 4,2 (1901), 2392-3. I follow hi
in regarding Dinochares in Pliny as an error for Dinocrates.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 401

thematic similarities, but also a number of verbal parallels. If it is

true that Philo is thinking of the foundation of his own city, it i
likely that he will reflect written accounts of the event with whi
he was acquainted, and echoes of these will be contained in ou
sources7).
?as????? ? t???? ??e????? a?t???at??? e???s?a? ?etap?????????: The
titles and description fit Alexander perfectly, for he was ?as????? of
Maced?n by birth, ??e??? and (st?at????) a?t????t?? formally in
his leadership of Greece8), but also effectively as the result of his
stunningly successful military campaigns.
t?? e?t???a? s??ep???s????t??: Alexander's e?t???a was of course
proverbial; cf. exempli gratia the remarks with which Arrian con-
cludes his history, VII 30,1 ?a? ?? ds?? e?t???a? t?? a????p????
?????ta.
?at? p????? f???t???a? ... s??ep???s????t??: The motive of per-
sonal glory for the foundation of the city is that given by Plutarch
in Alexandria's case (26,4 ?????et? p???? ?e????? ?a? p????????p??
??????da ... ?p?????? ?a?t?? ?ata??pe??). Arrian, in contrast,
records Alexander's perception of the commercial possibilities of a
city on the site (III 1,5 ?e??s?a? ?? e?da????a).
t?? t?? ?p? pa?de?a? ???? a???te?t??????: As noted above, most
sources emphasize the role of Alexander himself in the planning
(note especially Arrian III 1. 5 a?t?? t? s??e?a t? p??e? ????e?, also
Diodorus XVII 52. 2), but there is also a tradition that mentions
the assistance of architects. The role of Dinocrates of Rhodes is
played down in the accounts of the founding of the city because th
limelight is-on Alexander. Vitruvius, in his different context, how-
ever, has Alexander delegate the task of establishing the city to
him9). The emphasis on the professional competence of the
architect is found in Ammianus XXII 16,7 architecti sollertia

7) Plutarch 26.3 refers somewhat obscurely to an account of 'the Alexandrians

trusting in the authority of Heracleides'; cf. Fraser op. cit., I 677 on the Alexan-
drian tradition behind Ps. Callisthenes.
8) Cf. A. B. Bos worth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander
(Oxford 1980), 48-49.
9) Note that in the other anecdote that Vitruvius tells about Dinocrates, the
grotesque project to transform Mount Athos, there is the same emphasis on plan-
ning; but on that occasion Alexander rejected the site.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
402 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA

Dinocratis10), Pliny V 62 architectus pluribus modis memorabili ingenio,

Vitruvius II pref. 1 architectus cogitationibus et sollertia fretus.
t?? e???as?a? ?a? e??a???a? t?? t?p?? ?eas??e???: Not only, as
Bosworth observes11), is the favourable location of Alexandria a
topos, mentioned in almost all sources, but the whole idea that a
suitable site must be selected for the foundation of a city is a
standard literary theme (examples at Plato Timaeus 24c, Laws 704-
707). Nevertheless we should note that Philo's description here uses
precisely the phraseology found at Diodorus (XVII 52,2
e??a???tata, e???as?a) and Strabo (XVII 1,7 e??a???a).
d?a???fe? p??t?? ?? ?a?t? t?...: The sources emphasize the care-
fully planned layout of the city, whether designed primarily by
Alexander or by one or more architects. Closest to Philo is Plutarch
24,7 ????e?se d?a????a? t? s???a t?? p??e?? (almost the same phrase
in Jason12)). When Arrian describes Alexander as placing s??e?a,
he probably means physical markings (cf. the story of the birds).
?e?? ?????s?a p??ta?e?a ?t?: Philo, wishing to embellish his
image, gives a longer list of kinds of structures to be included in the
city than is given in our sources (all of which are rather brief on the
actual planning). Arrian comes closest, describing Alexander as
marking out an agora, temples for Greek and Egyptian deities, and
the enclosing wall (III 1.5). Diodorus' phrase ?????? ?a? ?e???
p???te??s? ?atas?e?a?? p?sa [se. p????] ?e??s??ta? (XVII 52,3) is
highly reminiscent of Philo's description. He is describing the city
of his own day, but so too, of course, in a sense is Philo.?My conclu-
sion is, therefore, that the general and the particular similaritie
between Philo's image and the accounts of the founding of Alexan-
dria are sufficient to rule out mere coincidence.

10) In W. Seyfarth's edition (Leipzig 1978) the sentence reads: Alexandria enim
uertex omnium est dui tat um, quam multa nobilitant et magnifica, conditoris altissimi et
architecti sollertia Dinocratis. Petschenig argued for the retention of the reading of the
ms. V here, but older editions read magnificentia. This would introduce the contrast
between the magnificence of the king and the professional competence of the
architect which is basic to Philo's account.
11) Bosworth, op. cit. 264.
12) Even Philo's phrase ta t?? ?e????s?? ?p?te?e?s?a? p??e?? ???? is not entirely
without echo; cf. Val. Max. I 4,7 futurae urbis liniamenta (part of the story of th
birds which Philo does not exploit), Curtius IV 8,2 exaedificandae urbi.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 403

For the second argument in favour of my thesis we must turn

the writings of Philo himself. By far the most interesting text
found in De Providentia II 55, which unfortunately is not preser
in the original Greek. Philo gives the following reply to the stat
ment of his nephew Alexander that providence is not respon
for the existence of the void or place13). 'You say that God did n
found the void, and for that reason did not create body. By look
at <the example of> cities, however, you will better understa
what I am saying to you. These were each founded by rulers of o
Theseus founded Athens in Attica, <the Heraclidae founded
Sparta > in Laconia, and Alexander of Maced?n founded the
widely renowned Alexandria of Egypt. But it was not Theseus who
formed Attica or < the Heraclidae > Laconia or Alexander Egypt
or Libya, but rather they found a work of nature already prepared
for them, namely those regions. They surrounded certain areas
with walls and, constructing private and public buildings, caused
the cities mentioned above to be built. In a similar way God too,
while not having produced the void, created the megalopolis of the
cosmos <in> that void, and at the same time also caused place to
come into existence'. A little later in the dialogue (? 73) Philo, in
response to Alexander's query about the irrationally excessive
number of stars, adds that 'the founders of cities do not have just
three or four houses built, but increase the number of houses by far,
in correlation with the cities' circumference'. Philo thus twice uses
the image of the founding of cities in a context parallel to that of
De opificio mundi, namely the creation and structure of the cosmos14)

13) My translation from J. B. Aucher's Latin version and the French transla-
tion (based primarily on Aucher) of M. Hadas-Lebel (De Providentia I et II, Les
?uvres de Philon d'Alexandrie XXXV (Paris 1973), 282-285). In the Armenian
there are two textual difficulties. (1) novum clearly translates ?a????, which has
replaced ?e??? in the text (cf. an example of this confusion in our Greek mss. at
Spec. 1.327). (2) Only the Laconian region is mentioned, so it is reasonable to sup-
ply the name of Sparta and its founder(s); I follow the suggestion of Hadas-Lebel,
although one would expect a single founder (perhaps Lycurgus?). It must be
emphasized that the loss of the original precludes a precise interpretation. The
word principes which I have translated * rulers' perhaps renders ??e???e? in the
original Greek.
14) There are important differences between the texts. In Prov. Philo (following
a Stoic source) accepts the pre-existence of the void, whereas in Opifi he is anxious
to articulate the difference between intelligible and sense-perceptible reality and

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
404 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA

Of the actual founders mentioned, two are mythical, the other is

Alexander. One wonders whether Philo has added the example of
Alexandria to his source.
The pride reflected in the epithet 'highly renowned'15) resurfaces
elsewhere in Philo's writings. In the account of the translation of
the Septuagint he praises Ptolemy Philadelphus, who left many
indications and monuments of his greatness of mind (?e?a??f??s?-
???) in various cities and lands, so that extraordinary acts of munifi-
cence or constructions (f???t???a?, ?atas?e?a?) are proverbially
called Philadelphian (De vita Moysis II 29). Alexandria is not
specifically mentioned in this text, in contrast to Legatio 149-150,
where Philo extols the ???a???a16) and beneficence of Augustus,
whose monuments surpass the magnificent works already in
existence, especially in 'our own Alexandria'.
But in the religious thought-world of Philo magnificence is very
much a double-edged notion. Witness the allegory of the birth of
Cain given at De Cherubim 56-64. Adam-???? impregnates Eve-
a?s??s?? and she produces the greatest of evils for the soul, vainglory
(???s??). Cain, meaning 'possession' symbolizes the mind who
thinks that all he perceives with his senses is his own possession or
handiwork. The historical example that Philo gives is that of Alex-
ander, who, having become master of Europe and Asia, stands on
a prominent spot, gazes all around him and proclaims that ?a? ta
t?de ?a? ta t?de ??? (? 63). He thus showed the soul of an infant
or a private citizen, certainly not the soul of a king, for he does not
realize that all things are the possession of God. The magnificence
of conception (t? f?????a ?a?p???) adumbrated in our image can
thus be used to parallel the splendour of the divine Creator, but it
can also enter into rivalry with it, in which case it becomes the

the idea of the void actually forms part of the ??s???? ???t?? that is created (cf.
? 29). The phrase 'work of nature already prepared' is especially curious, since
surely no 'nature' exists outside God's creative power. But these differences do not
concern us here.
15) Aucher nominatissima probably renders ????ast?tat?? in the original; cf.
Mos. 1.265.
16) Philo quotes //. II 204 in favour of Augustus' ???a???a. Is he thinking of
the celebrated pun spoken to the same ruler by the philosopher Arius Didymus,
??? a?a??? p????a?sa??? (Plut. Ant. 81)?

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 405

?????? f?????a of the mind puffed up with its own self-importanc

(cf. De Cherubim 64)17).
One text still needs to be considered. In the vivid account of the
wretched (but in Philo's view thoroughly deserved) existence of
Flaccus in exile on the island Andros, the ex-Governor of Egypt is
described as hurling himself onto the ground and crying out: ???
F?????? e???, ? p?? ?????? t?? ?e?a??p??e?? ? p???p??e?? "??e?a?-
d?e?a? ??e???, ? t?? e?da????est?t?? ???a? ep?t??p?? ????pt??... (In
Flaccum 163). The two epithets used to describe Alexandria are
striking, p???p????, used by Philo only here, can be explained as
referring to the diverse ethnic p???te??ata (including the Jewish
community) embraced within the p???te?a of Alexandria as a whole,
?e?a??p???? is a more common word in Philo, but elsewhere he
always uses it to describe the cosmos as a whole, most notably at
De opificio mundi 19, when he applies the message of our image to
the creation of the cosmos18). It is revealing that the one time Philo
does call an earthly city a megalopolis, he is referring to Alexan-
dria. (On the other hand, Philo does not describe Alexandria as a
??t??p????. Interesting and somewhat surprisingly, on the six occa-
sions that he uses the word with concrete intent, it each time refers
to Jerusalem, the mothercity of the Jewish people19).)
The thematic parallels we have found in Philo's writings?the
foundation of Alexandria illustrating the creation of the cosmos, the
splendour of Alexandria and its royal patronage, the magnificence
of its rulers, a magnificence which can easily turn into vainglory,
its description as ?e?a??p?????give considerable support to our
thesis that the event Philo has in mind in the image of De opificio
mundi is the founding of Alexandria.

17) Cf. also Mos. 1.30, where the sober Moses (as future king) is contrasted
with those who become puffed up when the faintest breeze of e?t???a reaches them.
Another classic example of hybris is Xerxes who mounts an attack on heaven; cf.
Somn. 2.117-120. Macedonians, Ptolemies, Persians all get a place in the catalogue
of vanquished rulers illustrating the vicissitudes of human affairs in the famous
'life is a dream' passage at los. 125-147 (cf. esp. 135-136).
18) Cf. also los. 29, Mos. II 51, Deca?. 53, Spec. I 34, QE I 1. Philo is the first
(and according to Liddell and Scott the only) ancient author to use the word
figuratively of the cosmos.
19) Flacc. 46, Legat. 203, 281, 294, 305, 334.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
406 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA

Turning now to the third and final reason, I must emphasize that
on its own it can carry little weight, but may serve to reinforce the
arguments already presented. The description of the city that is to
be built is, as I have said, given in terms of the highest generality
and this will largely account for Philo's exclusive use of plurals (?e??
?????s?a p??ta?e?a a????? ?????a? ?t?). Nevertheless a plurality of
marketplaces and harbours does suit Alexandria particularly well,
the former on account of the city's great size, the latter in reference
to its two famous harbours on each side of the Heptastadion.
Dockyards too are only to be found in a city on the coast. Of the
cities founded by Alexander and his Hellenistic successors less than
a fifth fit this description, among which, of course, the most famous
was Alexandria itself20). It is interesting to note that when Philo
reflects on the biblical report making Cain (!) the first city builder,
he gives a long generalized description of the task of building a city
in order to prove that Cain could not do the task on his own, and
that the text has to be allegorized (De posteritate Caini 49-51). No
mention of harbours here, but there are dockyards and also
channels or canals (??et??? ?at? ???), reminiscent of the network of
waterways that made Alexandria the ancient precursor of
Amsterdam21).
4. All the above argumentation has shown?the argument is cir-
cular, but sufficiently plausible to avoid being vicious?that there
must have been one account or more of the founding of Alexandria
which Philo knew well enough to echo in his own writing. But our
thesis would be of little more than antiquarian interest, if it did not
lead us to a better understanding of the image with which we
started. Fortunately this is the case. The concrete background
against which the image can now be placed gives additional insight,
I wish to argue, into Philo's method and purpose in devising it.
There are two aspects of the account of the founding of Alexan-
dria which attracted Philo to it, and which he proceeded to exploit

20) I base this statistic on the beautiful map of the cities of Asia in the first edi-
tion of vol. VII of the Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge 1928), between 154
and 155, on which I count 16 'new or substantially new Hellenistic foundations'
that are ports and 70 that are not.
21) Cf. Fraser, op. cit., 5-6, 27-29. Strabo's word for the canals is d????? (XVII
1,7), but Pseudo-Callisthenes speaks of ??et???? (I 31,9).

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 407

in the composition of his image. Both of these will repay examina

tion in a little more detail.

All the accounts emphasize that right from the very start Alexan-
dria was a planned city. It was not a city whose origins went back
to the distant and undocumented past, and for which a mythical
founder had to be appointed22). Alexander and his architects had
adapted the plan of the city to the special features of the site, giving
the city its famous chlamys shape (i.e. like that of a Macedonian
military cloak23). No room was to be allowed for the spontaneous
developments of unplanned growth. The emphasis on planning
suits Philo's purpose admirably, for the rational structure of the
universe in his view is such that it does not admit developmental
change. Where he innovates is his strong stress on the internaliza-
tion of the plan in the architect's mind. The plan does not consist
of markings on the ground, as in the story of the birds. It is not even
a blueprint set down on paper. It is a ???t? p???? imprinted on the
rational soul of the architect as on wax, serving as a pa??de???a to
be followed in the actual construction of the city. The reason for the
internalization is clear. Philo wants to locate the source of the
rational and purposeful structure of the cosmos in the divine Logos
as present in God's mind.
As I pointed out in my earlier discussion24), the metaphor of the
city both as an illustration of the rational structure of the cosmos
and as pointing to the activity of a divine ruler or source of order
is a commonplace in philosophical literature before and elfter Philo.
There are many examples of the divine creative activity being
compared to that of an architect. It is, as noted above, a natural
extension of the basic demiurgic metaphor of the Timaeus. I have
found no actual parallels, however, for the use of the image of the
founding of a city in order to illustrate and articulate the act of

22) Hellenistic cities that had existed prior to Alexander's conquest attempted
to conceal their barbarian origin through the fabrication of foundation legends,
often connecting them to the great cities of Greece or the heroes of the epic cycle;
cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City (Oxford 1940), 49.
23) Cf. Strabo XVII 1,8, Pliny N.H. V 62. According to Strabo II 5,6 the
????????? too is ??a??d?e?d??, so that one might regard Alexandria as a microcosm
of the inhabited world.
24) Runia op. cit. (n. 1), 168.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
408 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA

creation25). The influence of the context, the exegesis of Genesis 1,

may be felt here, as is also the case in the emphasis on precreational
reflection, which is much stronger than anything we find in
Platonist sources26). Philo's adaptation of the story of the founding
of his own city may be less commonplace than at first appears.
Behind the internalization of the architect's plan lies, needless to
say, the Platonic theory of forms. Prefiguring the tendencies of later
Middle Platonist authors, Philo places more emphasis on the
paradigmatic than the epistemic role of the ideas27). The Timaeus
is clearly the model for this change of emphasis. It should be noted,
however, that Philo's image of the internalized plan of a city rein-
forces the conception of a ??s??? ???t?? serving as a model for the
structure of the cosmos precisely because it constitutes a complex
articulated network of ideas. Such a conception does violence to
Plato's basic idea in more than one respect. Not only, as has often
been pointed out, are the ideas no longer independent of the
demiurge, having patendy become dependent on the thinking
activity of the creator28). More seriously, in Plato the model is con-
ceived as a ???t?? ???? (cf. Timaeus 30c7, 39e8), a wholly generic
concept of animality which the demiurge contemplates (cf. 29a3
???epe?) as he calculates (cf. 30b 1 ????s??e???) how to make the
cosmos in the best possible way29). Philo's image, in contrast,
emphasizes the rational activity that takes place in the actual com-
position of the ??s??? ???t?? as network of ideas. The distinction
between intuitive contemplation and discursive reasoning, basic to
Plato's epistemological scheme, is thus obfuscated.
The second aspect of the story of the founding of the city of Alex-
andria that appealed to Philo was the distinction made between the
king who gave the initial impetus and the architect who was
entrusted with the task of designing and executing the work.
Admittedly in a number of our sources, most notably Arrian, it is
made to seem that Alexander carried out both tasks, and the role

25) Closest is the Epicurean polemic against Plato at Cicero DND I 19, cited
ibid. But it would be nice to know whether Philo thought up the image at Prov.
II 55, or whether he found it already present in his Stoic source.
26) Cf. Runia, op. cit., 164-165.
27) Cf. J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (London 1977), 58.
28) Cf. Dillon, op. cit., 159; Runia, op. cit., 53.
29) Cf. R. D. Mohr, The Platonic Cosmology (Leiden 1985), 23-33.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 409

of Dinocrates of Rhodes is eclipsed. It is possible to see in Phil

image, which very deliberately dissociates the king from active pa
ticipation in the actual designing of the city, a conscious divergen
from such a presentation. However this may be, it seems to m
highly plausible that, because a specific and famous architect w
associated with the founding of his city, this will have given h
encouragement in his adaptation of the received accounts to t
specific purposes of his exegetical and philosophical context.
There is clearly a discrepancy between the way the image is por
trayed and its actual application to the creation of the cosmos.
the image there is a strong demarcation between the king and the
architect. Not only are we not explicitly told that the king actual
decides to found the city (the effect of the rather forced use of
prepositional phrase two and a half lines long in the opening claus
of the image), but the words pa?e???? est?? dte t?? almost suggest
that it is a matter of coincidence that a trained architect happ
to come on the scene. Yet in the account of creation God, his Logo
and the noetic cosmos are kept closely together, most notably in
summary at De opificio mundi 2430).
There can be no question that the king is a symbol of divin
transcendence31). But what does such transcendence mean in term
of God's relation to the cosmos? Is he transcendent in that he is the
cosmos' creator, or does transcendence entail being entirely above
the 'dirty work' of creative activity? Even a century after Philo the
Platonist tradition had not resolved this issue. For Atticus the

Platonic demiurge is pa??as??e?? ?a? ???st?t????? (fr. 4,12 D

Places), for his contemporary Numenius the highest god was above
the demiurge, a???? ????? ?a? ?as??e??. This is the intellectu
background to Philo's distinction, but he is under a constraint not
felt by the two philosophers just mentioned. He cannot simp
postulate a hierarchy of gods, for that would run directly counter
to the tenet of monotheism at the heart of Judaism. 'God had
one to assist him, for who else was there?' is the rhetorical questio
posed at De opificio mundi 23. The solution in terms of a Divin
Logos (? 20) or a Divine power (? 21) runs along the knife edge

30) See above ?. 3.

31) Cf. Runia, op. cit., 168.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
410 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA

what is acceptable, inviting the process of hypostasization. T

figure of the king is, perhaps, not meant to signify remoteness,
if his transcendence meant that he was wholly cut off from the cr
tional event, but rather a splendour and fulness of Being that is
defined or exhausted by the relation he has to created reality as
creator and source32).
5. One final comment before I close my discussion. It is strikin
that in Philo's quite detailed description of the features of the ci
to be built no mention is made of palaces. This is in contrast to t
account in Diodorus, which explicitly states that Alexander g
orders to build a large and massive palace (XVII 52,4), wh
Strabo in his description of Alexandria remarks that the ro
palaces occupy a quarter or even a third of the city's enclos
(XVII 1,8). The chief reason for Philo's omission is not far to seek
It is a natural consequence of his endeavour to dissociate the k
from direct contact with the city in its foundation (and its la
administration). But more can be said.
At the very beginning of Genesis Rabbah, the Rabbinic midrash
commentary on Genesis, Rabbi Hosha'ia gives the following co
ment on Gen. 1:133). 'The Torah declares: ? was the working t
of the Holy One, blessed be He'. In human practice, when a morta
king builds a palace, he builds it not with his own skill but with t
skill of an architect. The architect moreover does not build it out
of his head, but employs plans and diagrams to know how to
arrange the chambers and the wicket doors. Thus God consulted
the Torah and created the world, while the Torah declares, 'in the
beginning God created (1:1)', 'beginning' referring to the
Torah...'. Numerous scholars have noted the similarity between
the image used by the Rabbi and Philo's account of the founding
of the city34). The hypothesis that the idea may have passed down

32) Cf. Philo's reflections on God's being and relationality at Mut. 7-29; the
uneasy coexistence of cataphatic and apophatic theology in relation to the highest
being is also reflected in Middle Platonism, as recently examined with admirable
clarity by J. Mansfeld, Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the
Xenophanes Reception, in R. van den Broek-T. Baarda-J. Mansfeld (edd.), Knowledge
of God in Philosophy and Religion from Alexander to Constantine (Leiden 1988), 92-117.
33) Translation in Midrash Rabbah, edd. H. Freedman and M. Simon, I
(London 1951), 1.
34) Cf. E. E. Urbach, The Sages (Jerusalem 19792), 198-200 and nn. 70-74.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA 411

directly or indirectly from Philo gains credence from the fact t

the Rabbi in question is very likely to have had contact with Ori
and his circle in third century Caesarea35). But, as Urbach h
strongly emphasized36), there is a fundamental difference betwe
the two images. Philo speaks of a world of ideas illustrated by pl
localized in the architect's mind; the Rabbi describes God as con-
sulting the Torah, which is illustrated by 'plans and diagrams'
explicitly described as not present in the architect's head. If there
was any relation between the two images, we would have to con-
clude that Rabbi Hosha'ia was not merely adapting the Philonic
presentation but deliberately reacting against it.
There is another difference between the two images to which I
want to draw attention. The Rabbi describes the king as building
a palace, whereas in Philo it is a city that is founded (and the king
is not said to build it). The choice of the palace can readily be
understood. It nicely converges with the Jewish conception of the
world as the dwelling place (and plaything) of the Master of the
Universe. In the words of the prophet Isaiah (66:1), 'the heaven is
my throne, and the earth is my footstool', a much quoted verse in
Jewish (and also early Christian) literature37). In Greek thought at
the time of Philo the image of the palace is associated above all with
the Great King of Persia, the archetype of the absolute monarch.
The most famous example is found in the Pseudo-Aristotelian De
Mundo, where the king is depicted as sitting in the centre of his
palace and controlling the reins of his mighty kingdom, though
unseen not only to his subjects but even to his most intimate

35) Cf. Moore, op. cit. (n. 2), I 268, but he cautiously concludes, 'the coin-
cidence is not a kind to demonstrate dependence'.
36) Urbach, op. cit., 200; note that he translates 'rolls and tablets' rather than
'plans and diagrams', which is even more reminiscent of the engraved Decalogue
and the written Torah. P. Borgen writes on the parallel between the two texts
(Philo of Alexandria, in M. Stone (ca.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period
(Assen 1984), 265): 'Here Jewish traditions about God as architect fuse with
Platonism. But Philo identifies these Platonic ideas with the Torah revealed
through Moses.' Two objections must be raised. There is no evidence of a Jewish
tradition about God as architect before Philo devised his image, and Philo doe
not identify the noetic cosmos with the Torah.
37) E.g. at Genesis Rabbah 1. 15, where the verse is quoted in order to explain
the 'heaven and earth' in Gen. 1:1.

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
412 PHILO AND THE FOUNDING OF ALEXANDRIA

courtiers38). The palace does not symbolize the entire cosmos, but
only its highest part, the divine residence. As Philo affirms at De v
Moysis 2.194, in the cosmos heaven is a ?as??e??? ?e??tat??, wh
the earth is its outermost region (even if it is in the middle!)39).
In our image a palace is not built, but a city is founded. Unlik
a palace, a city with its many and diverse parts interlocked in
complex structure is a suitable symbol of the cosmos as a whole. A
I have noted, it was often used as such in the philosophical trad
tion. Philo, explaining not just the structure of the universe but fir
and foremost its rationall/planned creation, illustrates by means
the image of the founding of a city. The image is presented in th
most general terms, but the close examination of its contents and
purpose that I have undertaken in this article has shown that it w
the foundation of the great city in which he himself lived that w
at the back of his mind.*

3762 VA Soest, Pelikaanweg 7

38) De Mundo 6 398all-bl; on this text cf. A. P. Bos, The theological conception
in 'De Mundo' and the relation between this writing and the work of Plato and Aristotle,
Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 39 (1977), 314-330.
39) Cf. also Congr. 116, where the ten curtains (a??a?a?) of the tabernacle sym-
bolize the perfect structure of S?f?a which a??? ?a? ?as??e??? ?st? t?? pa???e?????
?a? ????? ?as????? a?t???at????.
* This article was written with the financial support of the Netherlands
Organization for the Advancement of Scientific Research (N.W.O.).

This content downloaded from

31.60.32.154 on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:07:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms