« 前へ次へ »
PHILOMELUS (pixáumAos), one of the witnesses to the will of Theophrastus, who died B c. 287 (Diog. Laërt. v. 57). He is perhaps the same with Philomelus, mentioned by Numenius, the Pythagoreo-Platonic philosopher, in connection with Mnaseas and Timon, as belonging to the school of the sceptics. (Euseb. P. E. xiv. p. 731, ed. 1688). [W. M. G.] PHILOMENUS. [PHILUMENUs.] PHILOMNESTUS (pixóuvmatos), the author of a work, IIepi rāv čv 'P654, Suvosav (Athen. p. 74, f.). As Athenaeus, in another passage (x, p. 445, a.), ascribes the same work to Philodemus, it would appear that there is a mistake in the name of one of these passages. PHILOMU'SUS. 1. A freedman of Livius, is described in an inscription as INAUR., that is, inaurator, a gilder, one of those artists, or perhaps rather artificers, whose employment consisted in covering wooden statues and other objects with thin beaten leaves of the precious metals, and who were called by the Greeks Aertowpyot, and by the Romans Bractearii Aurifices. (R. Rochette, Lettre a M. Schorn, p. 384, 2nd ed.) 2. The architect of a monument of a certain Cornelia, is designated in the inscription as at the same time a scene-painter and a contractor for public works (pictor scaenarius, idem redemptor). There are other instances of the union of these two professions. (Orelli, Inscr. Latin, select. No. 2636; R. Rochette, l. d [P. S.] PHILON (pixwy), historical. 1 A Phocian, who was charged with the administration of the sacred treasures under PHALAEcus. He was accused of peculation and embezzlement, and put to death in consequence, after having been compelled by the torture to disclose the names of those who had participated in his guilt, B. c. 347. (Diod. xvii. 56.) 2. A native of Aeniania in Thessaly, was an officer of the Greek mercenaries in the service of Alexander, which had been settled by that monarch in the upper provinces of Asia. After the death of Alexander these troops, actuated by a common desire to return to their native country, abandoned the colonies in which they had been settled, and assembling to the number of 20,000 foot and 3000 horse, chose Philon to be their leader. They were, however, defeated by Python, who was sent against them by the regent Perdiccas; and the remainder submitted to him on favourable terms, but were afterwards barbarously massacred by the Macedonians in pursuance of the express orders of Perdiccas (Diod. xviii. 7). The fate of Philon himself is not mentioned. 3. There is a Philon mentioned by Justin (xiii. 4) as obtaining the province of Illyria, in the division of Alexander's empire after his death: but this is certainly a mistake, and the name is probably corrupt. 4. A citizen of Chalcis in Euboea, who appears to have taken a leading part in favour of Antiochus the Great, as his surrender was made by the Romans one of the conditions of the peace concluded by them with that monarch, B. c. 190. (Polyb. xxi. 14, xxii. 26; Liv. xxxvii. 45, xxxviii. 38. 3. A follower and flatterer of Agathocles, the favourite of Ptolemy Philopator. During the se
by an insulting speech, on which he was instantly attacked and put to death: and his fate was quickly followed by that of Agathocles himself. (Polyb. xv. 33; Athen. vi p. 251, e.) 6. A native of Cnossus, who commanded a force of Cretan mercenaries in the service of Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt. (Polyb. v. 65.) 7. A Thessalian, who accompanied the Achaean deputies on their return from the camp of Q. Caecilius Metellus (B. c. 146), and endeavoured, but in vain, to induce the Achaeans to accept the terms offered them by the Roman general. (Polyb. xl. 4. [E. H. B.] PHILON (pixwy), literary and ecclesiastical. Many persons of this name occur, of most of whom notices will be found in Jonsius (De Script. Hist. Phil. iii. 44), and Fabricius -(Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 750, &c.). To these articles a general reference is made. The philosophers are spoken of below separately; but the other persons of this name that deserve particular notice are:– 1. Of ATHENs. While Demetrius prevailed at Athens, Sophocles of the Sunian district (>ovviews), got a law passed, ordaining that no philo.’ sopher should teach in Athens, without the express consent of the boule and the people, on pain of death. This had the effect of driving Theophrastus, and all the other philosophers, from Athens. (Diog. Laërt. v. 38.) Hence Athenaeus erroneously represents this law as expressly banishing them (xiii. p. 610. f. ; compare Pollux, ix. 42, where the law is said to have been aimed at the Sophists). This law was opposed by Philon, a friend of Aristotle, and defended by Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes. (Athen. l.c.) The exertions of Philon were successful, and next year the philosophers returned, Demochares being sentenced to pay a fine of five talents. (Diog. Laërt, l.c., where for plantavos read #1A&vos.) The date of this transaction is doubtful. Alexis (apud Athen. l. c.) merely mentions Demetrius, without enabling us to judge whether it is Phalereus, B. c. 316, or Poliorcetes, B. c. 307. Clinton leans to the former opinion. (F. H. vol. ii. p. 169.) But he gives references to the opinions of others, who think it referable to the time of Demetrius Poliorcetes—to whom may be added Ritter. (Host. of Ancient Philosophy, vol. iii. p. 379. Engl. Transl.) Jonsius (De Script. Hist. Phil.) places it as low as about B. c. 300. It is not improbable that this Philon is the slave of Aristotle, whom, in his will, he ordered to receive his freedom. (Diog. Laërt. v. 15.) 2. Of Byzantium, a celebrated mechanician, and a contemporary of Ctesibius. As much confusion has arisen regarding the era of these two men, and of Heron the pupil of Ctesibius (see Fabric. Biłł. Graec. vol. iv. pp. 222, 234; Antholog. Graec. ed. Jacobs, vol. xiii. p. 899; Montucla, Histoire des Mathematiques, vol. i. p. 268), it will be necessary to attend to the correct date. Athenaeus, the mechanician, mentions that Ctesibius dedicated his work to Marcellus. This Marcellus has been supposed to be the illustrious captor of Syracuse, without any evidence. Again, the epigrammatist Hedylus speaks (Athen. xi. p. 497, c.) of Ctesibius in connection with a temple to Arsinoë, the wife and sister of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Hence it has been stated that Ctesibius flourished about the
dition of the Alexandrians against Agathocles, time of Ptolemy Philadelphus and Euergetes I. Philon had the imprudence to irritate the populace | B. c. 285–222, and Athenaeus, in that of Archi
modes, who was slain B. c. 212. The inference drawn from the hydraulic invention of Ctesibius is untenable, as he might well be employed to omament a temple already existing, and there is no ground for believing that the Marcellus, to whom Athenaeus dedicated his work, is the person assumed. On the contrary, Philon, and therefore the rest, must have lived after the time of Archimedes, as we learn from Tzetzes (Chil. ii. v. 152) that Philon, in one of his works, mentions Archimedes. There is no reason, therefore, why we should reject the express statement of Athenaeus (iv. p. 174, c.), where he mentions Ctesibius as flourishing in the time of the second Euergetes, Ptolemy Physcon, who began to reign B. c. 146. Fabricius, with odd inconsistency, places the era of Philon at A.U. c. 60] = B. c. 153, which is suffitiently correct. Consequently Heron must be placed later. (See Schweighiuser, ad Athenaeum, vol. vii. | 637, &c.; Clinton, F. H. vol. iii. p. 535.) All that we know of his history is derived from his own notices in the work to be mentioned immediately; that he had been at Alexandria and Rhodes, and had profited by his intercourse with the engineers of both places (pp. 51, 80, 84). Among his works is one wherein he took a wide range, treating of the formation of harbours, of overs, and the other mechanical powers; as well * all other contrivances connected with the besieging and the defending of cities. Hence, Vitru. vius (vii. Praefat.) mentions him among the writers on military engineering. Of this, two books, the fourth and fifth, have come down to us, and are printed in the Veterum Mathematicorum Opera, of Thevenot, Paris, 1693, wherein Pouchard revised the fragment of Philon, which occurs pp. 4-104. The fourth book is headed, or táv *Pos flexorotików, and the general subject is the manufacture of missiles. He mentions in it an invention of his own, which he denominates &#Am; (p. 56). In the fifth book we are shocked to find that while recommending a besieging army to devastate the open country on the approach of an enemy, he advises them to poison the springs and the grain which they cannot dispose of (p. 103); and what renders this the worse, he mentions his having treated of poisons in his book on the preparations that should be made for a war. What principally attracted attention to this work in modern times is his notice of the invention of otesibius (p. 77. &c.). The instrument described by him, named depôrovos, acted on the property of *it when condensed, and is, evidently, in principle the same with the modern air-gun. The subject * investigated by Albert Louis Meister in a short *atise entitled De Catapulta polybola Commentatio, **usPhilonis Mechanici, in libro in. de telorum *ructione extans, illustratur, Gottingae, 1768. lt has also attracted the notice of Dutens, in his "one de Découreries attribuées aur Modernes, "... i. p. 265, ed. Paris. 1776. Further details of * fragment will be found in Fabricius, vol. iv. P. ol, &c. According to Montucla, Philon was well skilled in Geometry, and his solution of the * of the two mean proportionals (Pappus, Col. Moth lib. viii.), although the same in prin* with that of Apollonius, has its peculiar * in practice. We learn from Pappus (l.c.) * he wrote a treatise on mechanics, the object of
To Philon of Byzantium is attributed another work, IIepl Tov črta Seaudrov, On the Seven Wonders of the World. But Fabricius (Bill. Graec. vol. iv. p. 233) thinks that it is impossible that an eminent mechanician like Philon Byzantinus could have written this work, and conjectures that it was written by Philon Heracleiotes. No one can doubt that he is right in his first conjecture, but it seems more probable that it is the production of a later rhetorical writer, who gave it the name of Philon of Byzantium, as that of a man, who, from his life and writings, might be supposed to have chosen it as a subject for composition. It exists in only one MS. which, originally in the Vatican, was in 1816, in Paris, No. 389. It was first edited by Allatius, Rome, 1640, with a loose Latin translation, and desultory, though learned notes. It was re-edited from the same MS. by Dionysius Salvagnius Boessius, ambassador from the French court to the pope, and included in his Miscella, printed at Leyden, 1661. This edition has a more correct translation than that of Allatius, but abounds in typographical errors, there being no fewer than 150 in 14 pages. Gronovius reprinted the edition of Allatius, in his Thesaurus Antiquitatum Graecurum, vol. vii. pp. 2645–2686. It was finally reprinted at Leipzig, 1816, edited by J. C. Orelli. This edition, which is undoubtedly the best, contains the Greek, with the translations of both Allatius and Boessius, (with the exception of a fragment of a mutilated chapter, reprinted from the translation of L. Holstein, which originally appeared in Gronovius, ibid. vol. vii. p. 389), the notes of Allatius and others, along with some passages from other writers who had treated of the same or similar subjects, the fragments of the sophist Callinicus, and Adrian the Tyrian, and an Indear Graecitatis. The wonders treated of are the Hanging Gardens, the Pyramids, the statue of Jupiter Olympius, the Walls of Babylon, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, and, we may presume, from the prooemium, the Mausoleum ; but the last is entirely wanting, and we have only a fragment of the Ephesian temple. The style, though not wholly devoid of elegance, is florid and rhetorical. Orelli regrets the lost portions, as he thinks that the author had actually beheld the three last wonders. There does not appear to be much ground for this, and the whole seems to have been adopted from the reports of others. 3. CARPAthius (from Carpathus, an island north-east of Crete), or rather CARPAsius (from Carpasia, a town in the north of Cyprus). His birth-place is unknown ; but he derived this cognomen from his having been ordained bishop of Carpasia, by Epiphanius, the well-known bishop of Constantia. According to the statement of Joannes and Polybius, bishop of Rhinoscuri, in their life of Epiphanius, Philon, at that time a deacon, was sent, along with some others, by the sister of the emperors Arcadius and Honorius, to bring Epiphanius to Rome, that, through his prayers and the laying on of hands, she might be saved from a dangerous disease under which she was labouring. Pleased with Philon, Epiphanius not only ordained him bishop of Carpasia, but gave him charge of his own diocese during his absence. This was about the beginning of the fifth century (Cave, Hist. Litt. p. 240, ed. Genev.). Philo Carpasius is principally known from his Commentary on the
Canticles, which he treats allegorically. A Latin translation, or rather paraphrase of this commentary, with ill-assorted interpolations, from the commentary of Gregorius I., by Salutatus, was published, Paris, 1537, and reprinted in the Biblioth. Pat. Lugdun. vol. v. Fragments of Philon's Commentary are inserted in that on the Canticles, which is falsely ascribed to Eusebius, edited by Meursius, Lugd. Batav. 1617. In these, he is simply named Philon, without the surname. Bandurius, a Benedictine monk, promised in 1705 a genuine edition, which he never fulfilled. It was published from a Vatican MS. in 1750, under the name of Epiphanius, and edited by Fogginius. The most important edition, however, is that of Giacomellus, Rome, 1772, from two MSS. This has the original Greek, a Latin translation, with notes, and is accompanied by the entire Greek text of the Canticles, principally from the Alexandrian recension. This is reprinted in Galland, N. Bibl. PP. vol. ix. p. 713: Ernesti (Neuesten Theolog. Bibl. vol. iii. part 6), in a review of this edition, of which he thinks highly, is of opinion that the commentary, as we now have it, is but an abridgement of the original. Besides this commentary, Philon wrote on various parts both of the Old and New Testament, fragments of which are contained in the various Catenae. (Suidas, s. v.; Cave, l.c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. pp. 398, 6ll, viii. p. 645, x. p. 479.) 4. Of GADARA, and a pupil of Sporus. He extended to 10,000 decimal places the approximation of the proportion of the diameter to the circumference of the circle. (Eutoc. Comment. in Archimed. de Dim. Circ. in Montucla, vol. i. p. 340.) 5. The GEogh APHER, is mentioned by Strabo (ii. p. 77) as having written an account of a voyage to Aethiopia. According to a conjecture of Wossius (De Hist. Graec. p. 486, ed. Westermann) this is the same with the Philon quoted by Antigonus Carystius (Hist. Mirab. c. 160). 6. HERAcLEIotes. Porphyry refers to a work of his, IIepl Savuagiðv. (Stob. Eclog. Physic. p. 130, ed. 1609.) He is probably the same with the Philon, the first book of whose work is quoted as an authority by Suidas (s. v. IIaMaiqatos). This work is there entitled, IIepl trapałóšov iorropía. Some absurdities are quoted by Aelian, from a similar work written by a Philon (IH. A. xii. 37). We have no means of determining his age, but as he states that Palaephatus was a favourite of Aristotle, he must have lived subsequently to that philosopher. (Suidas. l. c.) To him has been conjecturally referred the work, De Septem Orbis Miraculis, described under Philon of ByzanTIUM. [No. 2.) (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 233.) 7. HERENNIUs Byblius. Suidas (s. v. PíAww.) styles this Philon only Herennius. According to him he was a grammarian, and, if the text be correct, filled the office of consul. But, if Suidas actually made this statement, it must, as is remarked by Kuster (ad locum), have been through oversight. He was born about the time of Nero, and lived to a good old age, , having written of the reign of Hadrian. This is all that we know of his life, except on his own authority, as given by Suidas, that he was in his 78th year in the consulship of Herennius Severus, from whose patronage he doubtless received his surname. This consulship, Suidas states, occurred in the 220th Olympiad, the last year of which was A. D. 104. Now, granting that this is the year meant, it has been deemed
highly improbable that he should have lived to chronicle the reign of Hadrian, who succeeded A. D. 117, when, according to this computation, Philon must have been 91 years old, especially as Hadrian reigned 21 years. The consulship of Herennius Severus unfortunately cannot aid us, for there is no consul of that name about this period : there is a Catilius Severus, A. D. 120, and Haenius Severus, A. D. 141, and Herennius must have been a consul suffectus. Scaliger, Tillemont, and Clinton, have proposed various emendations on the text of Suidas, Clinton conjecturally assigning his birth to A. D. 47, and consequently his 78th year to A. D. 124. (Fasti Rom. pp. 31, 111). After all, the text of Suidas may be correct enough. He expressly says that the life of Philon was very long protracted, rapéreuver eis uakpów ; and regarding Hadrian all he says is, he wrote repl tris Baauxelas, not that he wrote a history of his reign. Eusebius also mentions a Philon, whom he styles Byblius. This Philon Byblius had, according to the account of Eusebius, translated the work of a certain ancient Phoenician named Sanchoniathon (Xayxović0&y), which was the result of multifarious inquiries into the Phoenician mythology. Eusebius gives the preface of Philon Byblius, and copious extracts, but not seemingly at first hand. He states that he had found them in the writings of Porphyry. (Praep. Erang. ii. p. 31, &c.). Byblius is evidently a patronymic from Byblus, a Phoenician town. Now Suidas (s. v. "Eputros), states that Hermippus of Berytus, also a Phoenician town, was his disciple. Hence, it has long been held—as there is nothing in date to contradict it—that the Philon Herennius of Suidas, and the Philon Byblius of Porphyry, are one and the same. (See Dodwell's Discourse concerning Sanchoniathon, printed at the end of Tuco Letters of Advice, 1691.) This opinion will deserve examination in the inquiry into the writings of Sanchoniathon. Philon was a voluminous writer. In addition, 1. to his work on Hadrian's reign, Suidas mentions his having written, 2. a work in thirty books on cities and their illustrious men, which was abridged by Aelius Serenus in three books (s. v. >epivos), which is confirmed in the Etymologicon Magnum (s. v.v. 'Apowoli, Bovképas); 3. a work, IIepi krijgews kal KAoyms BišAtwy, in 12 books. Of this, the treatise IIepl xpmatouabelas is probably a part (Etym. Mag. s. v. Tépavos). He states that he wrote other works, but does not enumerate them. Eudocia (p. 424) assigns to him, 4. four books of Epigrams, from which we have perhaps a distich in the Anthologia Graeca. (Jacobs, vol. iii. p. 110.) There are besides attributed to him, 5, a Commentary on the Metaphysica of Aristotle. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 258.) 6. A rhetorical work, 'Phropiköv, perhaps a dictionary of rhetoric (Etymol. Mag. s. v. Aéua.) In the Etymologicon Magnum, we have noticed his 'Pnuaturd (s. v. 'Aévres, &c.), and IIepl Pauaiav 8taxéčews (s. v. dAtop); but these seem all divisions of the same rhetorical work. 7. IIepl 6taqāpww a muavouévau, which is said to be extant in one of the public libraries of Paris. Eustathius quotes extensively from this or the rhetorical work. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. v. p. 718.) Manegius (ad Laertii Anarimenem, p. 71) attributes to him the similar treatise generally ascribed to Ammonius ; and Valckenaer appends to his edition of Ammonius,
1739, a treatise by Eranius Philon, De Differentia Significationis, which will be found along with the treatise of Ammonius at the end of Scapula’s Lexicon. (See Walckenaer's Preface to Ammomius.) This he thinks to be the work of a later writer, who has appropriated, and that incorrectly, Philon's name. 8. IIepi iatpuków, on the authority of Stephanus Byzantinus (s. v. Koptos). This Fabricius thinks to have contained a history of eminent physicians, and he deeply regrets its loss (vol. xiii. p. 367, ed. vet.). 9. "Io topia trapá30;ov, in three books. (Euseb. P. E. p. #) 10. A work on the Jews. (Euseb. P. E. p. 40. 11. ‘E6*6táv Vrouwúuata. (Euseb. P. E. p. 41.) Vossius (De Hist. Graec. p. 292, ed. Westermann) inadvertently attributes the last three to Porphyry, and has been partially followed by Fourmont (Re. ions sur l Histoire des Anciens Peuples, vol. i. p. 21). These three must be assigned, on the authority of Eusebius, to Herennius Philon, if he is the same as Philon Byblius, who alone is mentioned by Eusebius, just as the former name alone, or standing without Herennius, is found elsewhere. (See Salmasius, Plin. Erercit. p. 866.) Lastly it may be mentioned that Vossius (ibid. p. 254) attributes to him the Albiomuká, which with more probability he elsewhere assigns (p. 486) to Philon the geographer. But the work which has made his name most celebrated in modern times, and of which alone we have any fragments of consequence, is the translation of the Phoenician work already referred to. For the controversy regarding the genuineness and authenticity of this work, see SANchoNIAthon. 8. METAPONTINUs, a musician and poet. (Steph. Byz. s. v. Meranóvrtov). 9. Monk. An ascetic treatise, bearing the name of Philon Monachus, whom Cave (H. L. p. 176, Diss.) deems to be much later than the other ecclesiastical writers of the same name, is preserved in the library of Vienna (Cod. Theol. 325, No. 15). It is entitled, Contra Pulchritudinem Feminarum. 10. The Pythagor EAN. Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. i. p. 305), and Sozomenes (i. 12), mention Philon 6 IIv6ayópeios. It is probable from their language that they both mean by the person so designated Philos Jud AEUs. Jonsius (ibid. iii. c. 4. p. 17) is strongly of opinion that Philon the elder, and this Philon mentioned by Clemens, are the same. Fabricius, who once held this opinion, was led to change his views (Fabric. Bibl. vol. i. P. 862), and tacitly assumes (vol. iv. p. 738) that some indicated Philon Judaeus by this epiet. ll. RhetoricIAN and PHILosopher. Cave, Giacomellus, and Ernesti, are of opinion that this is no other than Philon Carpasius. His era agrees with this, for the philosopher is quoted by Athanasius Sinaita, who flourished about A. D. 561. We need not be startled at the term philosopher as applied to an ecclesiastic. This was not uncommon. Michael Psellus was termed the prince of philo*phers, and Nicetas was surnamed, in the same way as Philon, forep ral pixoo.640s. Besides, Polybius, in the life of Epiphanius alluded to above, *Pressly calls Philon of Carpasia kampucáv diró Propov, which Tillemont and others erroneously understand to mean a man who has changed from the profession of the law to that of the church. Cave shows that the fifrap held an office in the *urch itself, somewhat analogous to our professor
ship of ecclesiastical history. Our only knowledge of Philon, under this name, whether it be Philon Carpasius or not, is from an inedited work of Anastasius Sinaita, preserved in the library of Vienna and the Bodleian. Glycas (Annal. p. 282, &c.), it is true, quotes as if from Philon, but he has only borrowed verbatim and without acknowledgment, from Anastasius. The work of Anastasius referred to, is entitled by Cave, Demonstratio Historica de Magna et Angelica summi Sacerdotis Dignitute. Philon's work, therein quoted, is styled a Church history, but, if we may judge from the only specimen of it we have, we need hardly regret its loss. It consists of a tale regarding a monk, that being excommunicated by his bishop, and having afterwards suffered martyrdom, he was brought in his coffin to the church, but could not rest till the bishop, warned in a dream, had formally absolved him. (Cave, Hist. Litt. p. 176, ed. Genevae, 1720 ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 420.)
12. SENIOR. Josephus (Apion. i. 23), when enumerating the heathen writers who had treated of Jewish history, mentions together Demetrius Phalereus, Philon, and Eupolemon. Philon he calls the elder (6 speaeisrepos), probably to distinguish him from Philon Judaeus, and he cannot mean Herennius Philon, who lived after his time. Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat. i. p. 146) also couples together the names of Philon the elder and Demetrius, stating that their lists of Jewish kings differed. Hence Vossius thinks that both authors refer to the same person. (De Hist. Graec. p. 486, ed. Westermann.) And in this Jonsius agrees with him, while he notices the error of Josephus, in giving Demetrius the surname of Phalereus. (De Script. Hist. Phil. iii. 4. p. 17.) As Huetius (Demonstrat. Evangel. p. 62) was of opinion that the apocryphal Book of Wisdom was written by this Philon, he was necessitated to consider him as an Hellenistic Jew, who, unskilled in the original Hebrew, had it translated, and then expanded it, in language peculiar to his class. (Ibid. pp. 62,246, &c.) Fabricius thinks that the Philon mentioned by Josephus, may have been a Gentile, and that a Philon different from either Philon Judaeus, or senior, was the author of the Book of Wisdom. Eusebius (Praep. Evangel. ix. 20, 24) quotes fifteen obscure hexameters from Philon, without giving hint of who he is, and merely citing them as from Alexander Polyhistor. These evidently form part of a history of the Jews in verse, and were written either by a Jew, in the character of a heathen, as Fabricius hints is possible, or by a heathen acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures. This is, in all probability, the author, and the work referred to by Josephus and Clemens Alexandrinus. Of course the author must have lived before the time of Alexander Polyhistor, who came to Rome, B. c. 83. It is doubtful whether he is the same writer with the geographer of the same name, mentioned above.
13. Of TARsus, a deacon. He was a companion of Ignatius of Antioch, and accompanied the martyr from the East to Rome, A. D. 107. He is twice mentioned in the epistles of Ignatius (ad Philadelph. c. 11, ad Smyrnaeos, c. 13). He is supposed to have written, along with Rheus Agathopus, the Martyrium Ignatii, for which see IGNATIUs, in this work, Vol. II. p. 566, b. (Comp. Cave, Hist. Litt. p. 28, ed. Genevae, 1720.) 3
14. Of Thebes, is quoted by Plutarch as an authority in his Life of Alexander (c. 46). He is probably the same Philon, who is mentioned as an authority for the Indian Antissa by Stephanus Byzantinus (s. v. "Avrigora). 15. Thy ANENsis, a geometrician of profound abilities, if we may judge from the subject of his writings, which regarded the most transcendental parts of ancient geometry, the consideration of curve lines. In particular, he investigated the lines formed by the intersection of a plane with certain curved surfaces. These lines are called by Pappus traektotôes (Coll. Math. iv. post prop. 40). The nature of the surfaces or the lines is unknown ; but Pappus informs us that their investigation excited the admiration of many geometricians ; among others, of Menelaus of Alexandria. As Menelaus was in Rome A. D. 98, Philon must have preceded him. (Montucla, vol. i. p. 316.) [W.M.G.) PHILON (pixww), philosophers. 1. JUDAEus, the Jew, sprang from a priestly family of distinction, and was born at Alexandria (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 8. § 1, xx. 5. § 2, xix. 5 § 1 ; Euseb. H. E. ii. 4; Phil. de Legat. ad Caium, ii. p. 567, Mangey). After his life, from early youth upwards, had been wholly devoted to learning, he was compelled, when he had probably already reached an advanced age, in consequence of the persecutions which the Jews had to suffer, especially under the emperor Caius, to devote himself to public business. With four others of his race he undertook an embassy to Rome, in order to procure the revocation of the decree which exacted even from the Jews divine homage for the statue of the emperor, and to ward off further persecutions. The embassy arrived at Rome in the winter of A. D. 39–40, after the termination of the war against the Germans, and was still there when the prefect of Syria, Petronius, received orders, which were given probably in the spring of A. D. 40, to set up the colossal statue of Caligula in the temple at Jerusalem. Philon speaks of himself as the oldest of the ambassadors (Phil. de Congressu, p. 530, de Leg. Spec. lib. ii. p. 299, de Legat. pp. 572, 598; comp. Joseph. Ant. xviii. 8. § 1). How little the embassy accomplished its object, is proved not only by the command above referred to, but also by the anger of the emperor at the request of the mildly-disposed Petronius, that the execution of the command might be deferred till the harvest was over (see the letter of Petronius in Phil. p. 583). Nothing but the death of the emperor, which ensued in January A. D. 41, saved Petronius, for whose death orders had been given (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 8. § 8). If Philon, at the time of the embassy, was, as is not improbable, about 60 years old, the date of his birth will be about B. c. 20. In the treatise on the subject, which without doubt was written not earlier than the reign of the emperor Claudius, he speaks of himself as an old man. As to other events in his personal history, we only know with certainty of a journey undertaken by him to Jerusalem (Phil. de Provid. ap. Euseb. Praep. Erang. viii. 14, in Mangey, ii. p. 646). On the statement of Eusebius (H. E. ii. 17; comp. Hieronym. Catalog. Script. Ecclesiast.), that Philon had already been in Rome in the time of the emperor Claudius, and had become acquainted with the Apostle Peter, as on that of Photius (Cod. 105), that he was a Christian, no dependence whatever can be placed. The writings of Philon may be arranged in several classes. Of these the first division, and
| to the second, which treats of the Essenes.
probably the earliest in point of time, includes the books de Mundi Incorruptibilitate, Quod omnis Probus Liber, and de Vita Contemplatica. The beginning of the third (ii. p. 471, Mangey) refers A second division, composed probably not before Philon was an old man, treats of the oppressions which the Jews had to endure at that time (adrersus Flaccum, Legatio ad Caium, and probably also de Nobilitate, which appears to be a fragment from the lost Apology for the Jews. See Dâhne, iller die Schriften des Juden Philon, in Ullmann's and Umbreit's Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1833, p. 990). All the other writings of Philon have reference to the books of Moses. At the commencement stands an exposition of the account of the creation (de Mundi Opificio). Then follows, according to the ordinary arrangement, a series of allegorical interpretations of the following sections of Genesis up to ch. xli., partly under the general title Legis Allegoriarum Libri I.-III., partly under particular titles. Yet it is not improbable that these titles were not added till a later time. and that the corresponding sections originally formed consecutive books of the above-named work, of which some traces are still found in the excerpta of the monk Joannes, and elsewhere. This series of allegorical expositions appears even originally not to have been a continuous commentary, and at a later period to have lost parts here and there. (Dähne, ibid. p. 1014, &c.) Philon, at the beginning of the first-mentioned treatise (de Mundi Opificio), indicates that the object of his expositions is to show how the law and the world accord one with the other, and how the man who lives according to the law is, as such, a citizen of the world. For Moses, as Philon remarks in his life of him (ii. p. 141), treats the older histories in such a manner, as to demonstrate how the same Being is the father and creator of the universe, and the true law-giver; and that, accordingly, whoever follows these laws adapts himself to the course of nature, and lives in accordance with the arrangements of the universe; while the man who transgresses them is punished by means of natural occurrences, such as the flood, the raining of fire, and so forth, in virtue of the accordance and harmony of the words with the works, and of the latter with the former. Accordingly, out of the accounts contained in Genesis of good and bad men, information respecting the destinies of man and the conditions of the soul should be drawn by means of allegorical interpretation, and the personages whose histories bore upon the subject be exhibited partly as powers, partly as states of the soul, in order, as by analysis, to attain a view of the soul (comp. de Congressu Quaer. Erud. Grat. p. 527). The treatises which have reference to the giving of the law are distinct from those hitherto considered, and the laws again are divided into unwritten laws, that is, living patterns (kaváves) of a blameless life, as Enos, Enoch, and Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses; and particular or written laws, in the narrower sense of the word (de Abrah. p. 2, comp. de Praem. et Poenis, p.408). Of those patternlives there are to be found in his extant works only those of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, treated of in separate writings. Even these are not without individual allegorical interpretations, which however only occur by the way, and are not designed, like the proper allegories, to refer the destinies