PHILOMEL (Fr. Philomèle; Ger. Philomele or Stahlgeige), a musical instrument similar to the violin, but having four steel, wire strings. The philomel has a body with incurvations similar to those of the guitar; therefore, without corner blocks, the outline of the upper lobe forms a wavy shoulder reminiscent of the viols but more ornate and fanciful. The peg-box sometimes terminates in a fancy head instead of a scroll. The philomel, never used in the orchestra, is the instrument of the dilettanti, frequently played in Germany with the bowed zither. The accordance of the philomel is the same as for the violin; the timbre is shrill and crystal-like. There is also an alto philomel corresponding to the viola. The bowed melodion is similar to the philomel, and has four steel strings of the same accordance as the violin, but arranged in inverse order; instead of being held like the violin and philomel, under the chin, it is placed on the knees of the performer, so that a hook under the fingerboard rests against the table. (K. S.)
PHILON, Athenian architect of the 4th century B.C., is known as the planner of two important works—the portico of the great
Hall of the Mysteries at Eleusis and an arsenal at Athens. Of
the last we have exact knowledge from an inscription. E. A.
Gardner (Ancient Athens, p. 557) observes that it “ is perhaps
known to us more in detail than any other lost monument of
antiquity.” It was to hold the rigging of the galleys; and was so contrived that all its contents were visible from a central hall, and so liable to the inspection of the Athenian democracy. (See Athens.)
PHILOPATRIS, the title of a dialogue formerly attributed
to Lucian, but now generally admitted to be spurious. Its date
and purport have long formed the subject of discussion. The
scene is laid at Constantinople. A certain Triephon, who has
been converted to Christianity by a bald, long-nosed Galilaean,
who was carried up through the air into the third heaven (an
evident allusion to St Paul), meets a friend, Critias, who is in a
state of great excitement. Triephon inquires the reason, and
the invocation of Zeus by Critias leads to a discussion on paganism
and Christianity, in which all the gods proposed by Critias
are rejected by Triephon, who finally suggests that Critias should
swear by the Trinity. (The sub-title, ἤ διδασκόμενος, refers to
this “ instruction ” of Critias in matters relating to Christianity.)
Critias goes on to relate how he had been introduced to a gathering
of pessimists, who predicted all kinds of disturbances in
the empire and defeat at the hands of its enemies. In the meantime
a third person appears on the scene, with the news that
the imperial armies have obtained a glorious victory. The
hope is expressed that Babel (Bagdad, the chief city of the caliphs)
may soon be destroyed, Egypt subdued (that is, reconquered
from the Arabs), and the attacks of the Scythians (Russians
or Bulgarians) repulsed. The whole concludes with thanks
to the unknown god of Athens that they have been permitted
to be the subjects of such an emperor and the inhabitants of
such an empire. The Philopatris was for a long time regarded
as an attack upon Christianity, and assigned to the time of
Julian the Apostate (emperor 361–363). Chronological indications
(e.g. the allusion to a massacre of women in Crete) led
Niebuhr to ascribe it to the reign of Nicephorus Phocas (963-969),
and this view is now generally supported. There being
at that time no pagans in Constantinople, the “ pessimists ”
referred to must be Christians either monks, especially the
intimate friends of the patriarch of Constantinople, who,
aggrieved at the measures taken by Phocas in regard to the
property of the Church, were ready to welcome the defeat of
the imperial arms and the ruin of the empire; or harmless visionaries,
who claimed to predict the future by fasting, prayer and
vigil. In any case, the author, whether he was a sophist
commissioned by Phocas to attack the monks, or some professor
who hoped to profit by singing the imperial praises, represents
the views of the “ patriotic ” (as the title shows) as opposed to
the “ unpatriotic ” party. According to another view, which
assigns the dialogue to the time of Heraclius (610–641), the
author was a Christian fanatic, whose object was to make known
the existence of a conventicle of belated pagans, the enemies
alike of the Christian faith and the empire; it is doubtful,
however, whether such a pagan community, sufficiently numerous
to be of importance, actually existed at that date. The
object of the first and longer portion of the dialogue was to
combat the humanism of the period, which threatened a revival
of polytheism as a rival of Christianity.
Bibliography. — Editions by J. M. Gesner (1715) and C. B. Hase in the Bonn Corpus scriptorum hist. byz. (1828), vol. xi.; also included in Jacobitz's edition of Lucian (1839). See R. Crampe, Philopatris. Ein heidnisches Konventikel des siebenten Jahrhunderts zu Constantinopel (1894); R. Garnett, “ Alms for Oblivion ” in Cornhill Magazine (May, 1901); C. Stach, De Philopatride (Cracow, 1894), who shows its late origin by linguistic tests; S. Reinach in Revue archéologique (1902), vol. i. ; B. G. Niebuhr, “ Ueber das Alter des Dialogs Philopatris ” in his Kleine historische Schriften (1843), vol. ii. and, for further authorities, article by Von Dobschütz in Herzog-Hauck's Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie (1904).
PHILOPOEMEN (253–184 B.C.), Greek general, was born at
Megalopolis, and educated by the academic philosophers
Ecdemus and Demophanes or Megalophanes, who had
distinguished themselves as champions of freedom. Avoiding
the fashionable and luxurious gymnasia, he devoted himself
to military studies, hunting and border forays. In 233–2
Philopoemen skilfully evacuated Megalopolis before the attack
of Cleomenes III., and distinguished himself at Sellasia (222).
The next eleven years he spent as a condottiere in Crete.
Elected commander of the League's cavalry on his return, he
reorganized that force and defeated the Aetolians on the Elean
frontier (210). Appointed to the chief command two years
later, he introduced heavy armour and close formation for the
infantry, and with a well-trained army beat Machanidas of
Sparta, near Mantinea. The new “ liberator ” was now so
famous that Philip V. of Macedon attempted to poison him.
In 202–1 Philopoemen drove Nabis, the Spartan tyrant, from
Messene and routed him off Tegea. After another long sojourn
in Crete he again received the command against Nabis. Though
unsuccessful at sea, he almost annihilated Nabis's land force
near Gythium, but was prevented by the Roman Flamininus
from taking Sparta. In 190 Philopoemen protected Sparta,
which meanwhile had joined the League and thereupon seceded,
but punished a renewed defection so cruelly as to draw the
censure of Rome upon his country. At Messene he likewise
checked a revolt (189), but when that city again rebelled, in 184,
he was captured in a skirmish and promptly executed. His
body was recovered by the Achaeans and buried with great
solemnity.
Philopoemen's great merit lies in his having restored to his compatriots that military efficiency without which the Achaean League for all its skilful diplomacy could never stand. Towards Rome he advocated a courteous but independent attitude. In politics he was a democrat, and introduced reforms of a popular character (see Achaean League).
Polybius’ Histories (x.–xxiii.) are our chief authority. These and a special treatise on Philopoemen (now lost) were used by Plutarch (Philopoemen), Pausanias (viii. 49–51), Livy (xxxi.–xxxviii.), and indirectly by Justin (xxx.–xxxiv.).
PHILOPONUS, JOANNES (John the Grammarian), Greek philosopher of Alexandria, lived in the later part of the 5th and the beginning of the 6th century of our era. The surname Grammaticus he assumed in virtue of his lectures on language and literature; that of Philoponus owing to the large number of treatises he composed. He was a pupil of Ammonius Hermiae, and is supposed to have written the life of Aristotle sometimes attributed to his master. To Philoponus are attributed a large number of works on theology and philosophy. It is said that, though he was a pupil of Ammonius, he was at first a Christian, and he has been credited with the authorship of a commentary on the Mosaic Cosmogony in eight books, dedicated to Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, and edited by Balthasar Corderius in 1630. Other authorities maintain that this, as well as the Dispulatio de pascliale, was the work of another author, John the Tritheist. It was perhaps this Philoponus who tried to save the Alexandrian library from the caliph Omar after Amu's victory in 639.
