the other an Aristotelian.  This involves not so much a difference of philosophical views as a difference of temper and of objective.  The followers of Plato are mystics, yearning for the love of God; the followers of Aristotle are rationalists, seeking for the abstract knowledge of God.  Hence in Maimonides there is less soaring and more argument than in Philo.  Everything is deduced, so far as may be, with exactitude and logical sequence—­according to the logic of the schoolmen—­and everything is formalized according to scholastic principles.  But the subjects treated are the same—­the nature of God and His attributes, His relation to the universe and man, the manner of the creation, and the way of righteousness.

Maimonides, who is in form more loyal to Jewish tradition, is to a larger degree than Philo dependent on authority for the philosophical ideas which he applies to religion.  To a great extent this is due to the spirit of his age, for in the Middle Ages not only was the matter of thought, but also its form, accepted on authority, and Aristotle ruled the one as imperiously as the Bible ruled the other.  The differences of form and substance do not, however, obscure the essential likeness with Philo’s interpretation of Judaism.  With him Maimonides holds that the essential nature of God is incognizable.[332] No positive predication can properly be applied to Him, but we know Him by His activities in relation to man and the world, i.e., by His attributes or by what Philo called His powers.  Maimonides does not preserve the absolute monarchy of the Divine government, but places between God and man intermediate beings with subordinate creative powers—­the separate intelligences of the stars, which are identified with the angels of the Bible.[333] But he maintains inviolate the sole causality of God and His immanence in the human soul.  Maimonides, like Philo, gives in addition to a metaphysical theology a philosophical exposition of the law of Moses, which has the same guiding principle as the books on the “Specific Laws.”  Moses was the perfect legislator,[334] whose ordinances are [Hebrew:  tsdikim], i.e., perfectly equitable, attaining “the mean”—­the Aristotelian conception of excellence—­and identical with the eternal laws of nature.[335] Numerous details of Maimonides’ interpretations agree with those given in the books on the “Specific Laws.”  Whether correspondence of thought is merely an indication of the similar workings of Jewish genius in similar conditions, or whether it is the effect of an early tradition common to both, or whether, finally, there was connection, however indirect, between the two minds, it is now impossible to say.  But at least the philosophy of Maimonides confirms the inner Jewishness of the philosophy of Philo, and its essential loyalty to Jewish tradition.