Philon

(Φίλων), 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. 17.56.)

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. 18.7). The fate of Philon himself is not mentioned.

3. There is a Philon mentioned by Justin (13.4) 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. (Plb. 21.14, 22.26; Liv. 37.45, 38.38.)

5. A follower and flatterer of Agathocles, the favourite of Ptolemy Philopator. During the sedition dition of the Alexandrians against Agathocles, Philon bad the imprdence to irritate the populace 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. (Plb. 15.33; Athen. 6.251e.)

6. A native of Cnossus, who commanded a force of Cretan mercenaries in the service of Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt. (Plb. 5.65.)

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. (Plb. 40.4.) [E.H.B]

(Φίλων), literary and ecclesiastical. Many persons of this name occur, of most of whom notices will be found in Jonsius (De Script. Hist. Phil. 3.44), 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 (Σουνινεύς), 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, tus, and all the other philosophers, from Athens. (D. L. 5.38.) Hence Athenaeus erroneonsly neously represents this Iaw as expressly banishing them (xiii. p. 610. f.; compare Pollux, 9.42, 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. Laert. l.c., where for Φιλλίωνος read Φιλώνος. The date of this transaction is doubtful. Alexis (apud Athen. l.c.) merely mentions Demetrius, without enabling us to judge whether it is Phalereus, reus, 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. >His 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, (D. L. 5.15.)

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. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. pp. 222, 234; Anthlolog. Graec. ed. Jacobs, vol. xiii. p. 899; Montucla, Histoire des Mathencatiqules, 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. 11.497c.) of Ctesibius in connection with a temple to Arsinoe, the wife and sister of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Hence it has been stated that Ctesibius flourished about the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus and Euergetes I B. C. 285-222, and Athenaeus, in that of Archimedes, who was slain B. C. 212. The inference drawn from the hydraulic invention of Ctesibius is untenable, as he might well be employed to ornament 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. 2.5.152) 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. 174c.), 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. 601=B. C. 153, which is sufficiently correct. Consequently Heron must be placed latcer. (See Schweighäuser, ad Athenaeum, vol. vii. p. 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). Works

Among his works is one wherein he took a wide range, treating of the formation of harbours, of levers, and the other mechanical powers; as well as all other contrivances connected with the besieging and the defending of cities. Hence, Vitruvius (vii. Praefat.) mentions him among the writers on military engineering. Military Engineering Books four and five

Of this, two books, the fourth and fifth, have come down to us. Editions

These books are printed in the Veterum Mathematicorum Opera, of Thevenot, Paris, 1693, wherein Pouchard revised the fragment of Philon, which occurs pp. 49-104. ἐκ τῶν Φιλώνος βελοποιικῶν

The fourth book is headed, ἐκ τῶν Φιλώνος βελοποιικῶν, and the general subject is the manufacture of missiles. He mentions in it an invention of his own, which he denominates ὀξυβέλης (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 Ctesibius (p. 77. &c.). The instrument described by him, named ἀερότονος, acted on the property of air when condensed, and is, evidently, in principle the same with the modern air-gun. The subject is investigated by Albert Louis Meister in a short treatise entitled De Catapulta polybola Commentatio, qua locus Philoeis Mechanici, in libro iv. de telorum constructio extans, illustratur, Gottingae, 1768. It has also attracted the notice of Dutens, in his Origine de Découvertes attributes aux Modernes, vol. i. p. 265, ed. Paris. 1776. Further details of this fragment will be found in Fabricius, vol. iv. p. 231, &c. Works on Geomery and Mechanics

According to Montucla, Philon was well skilled in Geometry, and his solution of the problem of the two mean proportionals (Pappus, Coll. Math. lib. viii.), although the same in principle with that of Apollonius, has its peculiar merits in practice. We learn from Pappus (l.c.) that he wrote a treatise on mechanics, the object of which was nearly the same as Heron's. (Montucla, vel. i. p. 268.) Περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ θεαμάτων (On the Seven Wonders of the World.

To Philon of Byzantium is attributed another work, Περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ θεαμάτων, On the Seven Wonders of the World. But Fabricius (Bibl. 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.

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 prooeminm, 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. Editions

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 Graecarum, 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 Index Graecitatis.

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.). Works Commentary on the Canticles

Philo Carpasius is principally known from his Commentary on the Canticles, which he treats allegorically. Editions

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. Other Commentaries

Besides this commentary, Philon wrote on various parts both of the Old and New Testament, fragments of which are contained in the various Catenae. Further Information

Suidas, s. v.; Cave, l.c. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. pp. 398, 611, 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 Archinncd. de Dim. Cire. in Montucla, vol. i. p. 340.)

5. The GEOGRAPHER, is mentioned by Strabo (ii. p.77) as having written an account of a voyage to Aethiopia. According to a conjecture of Vossius (De Hist. Graec. p. 486, ed. Westermann) this is the same with the Philon quoted by Antigonus Carystius (Hist. Mirab. 100.160).

6. Heracleiotes. Porphyry refers to a work of his, Περὶ θαυμασιῶν. (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. Παλαίφατος). This work is there entitled, Περὶ παραδόξου ἱστορία. Some absurdities are quoted by Aelian, from a similar work written by a Philon (H. A. 12.37). 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. (Snidas. l.c.) To him has been conjecturally referred the work, De Septem Orbis Mliraeulis, described under PHILON OF Byzantium. [No. 2.] (Fabric. Bibl. Graee. vol. iv. p. 233.)

7. Herennius Byblius. Suidas (s. v. Φίλων) 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 mprobabie 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 Catili is Severus, A. D. 120, and Haeniins Severus, A. D. 141, and Herennius must have been a consul suffectus. Sealiger, Tillemont, and Clinton, have proposed various emenldations 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, παρέτεινεν εἰς μακρόν ; and regarding Hadrian all he says is, he wrote περὶ τῆς βασιλείας, not that he wrote a history of his reign. Philon Byblius vs. Philon Herennius

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 (Σαγχουνιάθων), 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. Evany. ii. p. 31, &c.). Byblius is evidently a patronymic from Byblus, a Phoenician town. Now Suidas (s. v. Ἕρμιππος), 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 Two Letters of Advice, 1691.) This opinion will deserve examination in the inquiry into the writings of Sanchoniathon. Works

Philon was a voluminous writer. Suidas mentions: 1. His work on Hadrian's reign

Mentioned above. 2. a work in thirty books on cities and their illustrious men

This was abridged by Aelius Serenus in three books (s. v. Σεπῆνος), which is confirmed in the Etymologicon Magnum (s. vv. Ἀρσινοή, Βουκέρας); 3. a work, Περὶ κτήσεως καὶ ἐκλογῆς βλβλίων

in 12 books. Of this, the treatise Περὶ χρηστομαθείας is probably a part (Etym. Mug. s.v. Γέρανος). He states that he wrote other works, but does not enumerate them. Eudocia (p. 424) assigns to him, 4. four books of Epigrams

From these 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, Ῥητορικὸν

perhaps a dictionary of rhetoric (Etymol. Mag. s.v. Δέμα.) In the Etymologicon Magnum, we have noticed his Ῥηματικά (s. v. Ἀέντες, &c.), and Ῥωμαίων διαλέξεως (s. v. ἁλτὴρ); but these seem all divisions of the same rhetorical work. 7. Περὶ διαφόρων σημαινομένων

This 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 Anaximenem, p. 71) attributes to him the similar treatise generally ascribed to Ammonius ; and Valckenaer appends to his edition of Ammoniius 1739, a treatise by Eranius Philon, De Differenlia Significationis, which will be found along with the treatise of Ammonius at the end of Scapula's Lexicon. (See Valckenacr's Preface to Ammonius.) This he thinks to be the work of a later writer, who has appropriated, and that incorrectly, Philon's name. 8. Περὶ ἰατρικῶν

on the authority of Stephanus Byzantinus (s. v. Κύρτος). This Fabricius thinks to have contained a history of eminent physicians, and he deeply regrets its loss (vol. xiii. p. 367, ed. vet.). 9. Ἱστορία παράδοξον, in three books.

(Euseb. P. E. p. 32.) 10. A work on the Jews.

(Euseb. P.E. p. 40.) 11. Ἐφωδιῶν ὑπομνήματα.

(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 (Reflexions sur L'Histoire des Anciens Peuples, vol. i. p. 21).

The last three 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. Exercit. p. 866.) Αἰθιπικά

Lastly it may be mentioned that Vossius (ibid. p. 254) attributes to him the Αἰθιπικά, which with more probability he elsewhere assigns (p. 486) to Philon the geographer. Sanchoniathon

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. Μεταπόντιον).

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. Tleol. 325, No. 15). It is entitled, Contra Pulehritudinem Feminarum.

10. The Pythagorean. Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. i. p. 305), and Sozomenes (1.12), mention Philon ὁ Πυθαγόρειος. It is probable from their language that they both mean by the person so designated Phlon Judaeus. Jonsius (ibid. 3.100.4, 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 Sozomenes indicated Philon Judaeus by this epithet.

11. 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 philosophers, and Nicetas was surnamed, in the same way as Philon, ῥήτωρ καὶ φιλοσόφος. Besides, Polybius, in the life of Epiphanius alluded to above, expressly calls Philon of Carpasia κληρικόν ἀπὸ ῥητόρων, 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 ῥήτωρ held an office in the church itself, somewhat analogous to our professorship 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 Dignitate. 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. 1.23), when enumerating the heathen writers who had treated of Jewish history, mentions together Demetrius Phalereus, Philon, and Eupolemon. Philon he calls the elder (ὁ πρεσβύτερος), 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. Grae. p. 486, ed. Westermann.) And in this Jonsius agrees with him, while he notices the error of Josephus, in giving Demetrius the surname of Phalerens. (De Script. Hist. Phil. 3.4. 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. 9.20, 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. 100.11, ad Smyrnaeos, 100.13). He is supposed to have written, along with Rheus Agathopus, the Martyrium Ignatii, for which see Ignatius, in this work, Vol. II. p. 566b. (Comp. Cave, Hist Litt. p. 28. ed. Genevae 1720

14. Of Thebes. is quoted by Plutarch as an au thority 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. Ἄντισσα).

15. Thyanensis, 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 πλεκτοίδες (Coll. Mlath. 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. (Montuela, vol. i. p. 316.) [W.M.G]

(Φίλων), philosophers.

1. Judaeus, the Jew, sprang from a priestly family of distinction, and was born at Alexandria (J. AJ 18.8. § I, 20.5.2, 19.5 § I; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 2.4 ; 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. J. AJ 18.8.1). 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 (J. AJ 18.8.8). 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. Evang. 8.14, in Mangey, ii. p. 646). On the statement of Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 2.17; 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 (Phot. Bibl. 105), that he was a Christian, no dependence whatever can be placed. Works

The writings of Philon may be arranged in several classes. I. de Mundi Incorruptibilitate, Quod omnis Probus Liber, and de Vita Contemplativa.

Of these the first division, and probably the earliest in point of time, includes the books de Mundi Incorruptibilitate, Quod omnis Probus Liber, and de Vita Contemplativa. The beginning of the third (ii. p. 471, Mangey) refers to the second, which treats of the Essenes. II. On the Oppressions Endured by the Jews

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 (ad versus Flaccum, Legatio ad Caium, and probably also de Nobilitate, which appears to be a fragment from the lost Apology for the Jews. See Dähne, über die Sehriften des Juden Philon, in Ullmann's and Umbreit's Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1833, p. 990). Writings about Moses

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 follow s 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 Quiter. 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 (κανόνες) 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 and conditions of men, of the good as of the bad, to universal natural relations. The written laws are explained first generally in the Decalogus; then, according to their more special ends, in the treatises de Circumcisiones de Monarchia, de Praemiis Sacer-dotum, de Victimis, &c. (comp. A. F. Gfrörer, Kri-tische Geschichte des Urchristenthums, pt. i. Philon, p. 11, &c.). On the assumption that the allegorical writings were composed chiefly for Jews, and those relating to the laws, whether set forth in the conduct of living models, or written, for Hellenes (de Vita Mosis, 2.80), Gfrörer (I. c.) would entirely separate the one class from the other, and make the latter (the historicising), not the former (the allegorical), follow immediately the treatise de Mundi Opificio. He refers the statement of Philon himself (de Praemiis ac Poenis l.c.):--"The declarations of the prophet Moses divide themselves into two classes; the one relates to the creation of the world, the contents of the second are of an historical kind, the third embraces the laws"--merely to the treatise on the creation of the world and the two series. of writings relating to the law (ib. p. 23, &c.). On the other hand Dähne (l.c. p. 994, &c.) remarks with reason, that the historical part, according to the express remark appended in the passage of Philon referred to, is said to contain the description of wicked and virtuous modes of life, and the punishments and rewards which are appointed to each in the different races, i.e. what is treated of in the allegories. Dlahne further directs attention partly to a passage in the life of Moses (ii. p. 141), according to which Philon separates the books of Moses into two parts--the historical, which at the same time contains accounts of the origin of the world and genealogies, and one relating to commands and prohibitions ; partly to the circumstance that elsewhere (de Abrah. pr.) we find what in the other passage is called the historical part spoken of as belonging to the κοσμοωία ; so that here again it is clearly enough indicated that the allegorical books hang together with the work on the creation; and both these passages differ from that before adduced (de Praem. et Poen.) in this, that in the latter the two portions of Genesis, to which the κοσμοποία is to be considered as equivalent, are again separated. Gfrörer's attempt (in the preface to the second edition of his Philon, p. xii. &c.) to establish his assumption against Dähne's objections cannot be regarded as satisfactory, and the series of allegorical books should rather (with Mangey, Dähne, &c.) come immediately after the account of the creation. Editions

To the treatises of Philon contained in the earlier editions have recently been added not only those found by Angelo Mai in a Florentine manuscript, de Festo Cophini, and de Parentibus colendis, both belonging to the dissertations on the laws (Philo et Virgilii Interpretes, Mediolan. 1818), but also the treatises, discovered by Bapt. Aucher in an Armenian version and translated into Latin, De Provi-dentia and De Animalibus (Venet. 1822, fol. min.), Quaestion. et Solutt. in Genesim Serm. IV. in Exod. II., a short summary, in the form of question and answer, of the doctrines unfolded at length in the other treatises (comp. Dähne, l.c. p. 10, 37, &c.), Sermones de Sampsono, de Jona, et de tribus An-gelis A brahamo apparentibus. (Philonis Judaei Paralipomena Armena, ib. 1826, fol. min.) Of the latter, however, the Serm. de Sampsone et de Jona must be looked upon as decidedly spurious Compp. Dähne, l.c. p. 907, &c.), as also, among those printed eaclier, the book de Mundo cannot pass as philosophical. The really or apparently lost books of Philon are enumerated in Fabricius (Bibl. Gruce. vol. iv. p. 727, &c.).

Turnebus's edition of the writings of Philon (Paris, 1552, fol.) appeared, emended by Hoeschel, first Colon. Allobrog. 1613, then, reprinted, Paris, 1640, Francof. 1691, &c. These were followed by Mangey's splendid edition (Lond. 1742, 2 vols. fol.). Still, without detracting from its merits, it is far from complete; and how much remains to be done in order to make a really good edition, was shown by Valckenaer, Ruhnken, Markland, and others, at an earlier period, and more recently by Fr. Creuzer (Zur Kritik der Schriften des Juden Philo, in Ullmann's and Umbreit's theologischen Studien und Kritiken, 1832, pp. 1-43). The edition of Pfeiffer (Erlang. 1785-92, 5 vols. 8vo) contributed but little to the correction of the text, and that of E. Richter (Lips. 1828-30, 8 vols. 12mo) is little more than a reprint of Mangey's, including the pieces discovered in the mean time. Dr. Grossmann (Quaestionum Philonearum part. prim. Lips. 1829) holds out the hope of a new critical edition. Assessment

Even as early as the times of Alexander and Ptolemaeus Lagi, many Jews had been settled in Alexandria. In the times of Philon two of the five divisions of the town were exclusively occupied by them, and they had settled themselves in a scattered manner even in the rest. (Adv. Flacc. p. 523, &c.) Having become more closely acquainted with Greek philosophy by means of the museum established by the first Ptolemies, Soter and Philadelphus, and of the libraries, the learned Jews of Alexandria began very soon to attempt the reconciliation of this philosophy with the revelations contained in their own sacred writings. The more firmly however they were convinced of the divine origin of their doctrines, the less could they regard as contradictory or new what they recognised as truth in the Greek philosophy. Thence arose on the one hand their assumption that this truth must be an efflux, though a remote one, of the divine revelation, on the other hand, their endeavour, by means of a profounder penetration into the hidden sense of their holy books, to prove that it was contained in them. In reference to the first point, in order to establish the derivation of the fundamental truths of Greek philosophy from the Mosaic revelation, they betook themselves to fictitious references and supposititious books; and with regard to the second point, in order to distinguish between a verbal and a hidden sense, they had recourse to allegorical interpretations. Aristobulus had previously declared his views on both of these points in the dedication of his mystical commentary to Ptolemaeus Philometer (ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 8.10; comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 343). In the allegorical interpretation referred to definite maxims (canones), they proceeded on the assumption that every thing contained in the law must have an immediate influence upon the in struction and amendment of men, and that the whole body of its precepts stands in a hidden connection, which must be disclosed by a more profound understanding of them.

This new philosophy of religion, which was obtained through the appropriation of Greek philosophy by means of an allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic records, is taught us most clearly in the writings of Philon; for although his creative powers were only of a slender kind, he was able to work up and combine with skill results at which previous writers had already arrived. Above all, it was necessary that this new philosophy of religion should take great care, in unison with the refined doctrine respecting the Deity set forth by Plato and others, to represent Jehovah as the absolutely perfect existence. It was equally necessary to represent him as unchangeable, since transition, whether into abetter, a worse, or a similar condition. is inconsistent with absolute perfection. (Quod deterius potiori insid. p. 202, Leg. alleg. ii. pr., Quod mundus sit incorrupt. p. 500, de Sacrif p. 65, Quod Deus sit immutabilis, p. 275.) The unchangeable character of the Deity was defined more closely as the absolutely simple and uncompounded (quod mundus sit incorrupt. p. 492, de Nomin. mutat. p. 600), incapable of combination with any thing else (Leg. alleg. ii. pr. &c.), in need of nothing else (Leg. alleg. ibid.), as the eternal (de Humanit. p. 386, &c.), exalted above all predicates (quod Deus sit immut. p. 281, De Profugis, p. 575), without quality (Leg. allege. i. p. 51, &c.), as the exclusively blessed (De Septenario, p. 280, &c.), the exclusively free (de Somn. ii. p. 692). While, however, it was also recognised that God is incomprehensible (ἀκατάληπτος, de Somn. i. p. 630), and not even to be reached by thought (ὰπερινόητος, de Nomin. mutat. p. 579, &c.), and inexpressible (ακατονόμαστος καὶ άρρητος, de Somn. i. p. 575, de Vit. Mosis, i. p. 614. &c.), and that we can only know of his existence (ὕπαρξις), not of his proper existence (ἰδία ὕπ. de Praem. et Poen. p. 415, &c.), nevertheless knowledge of God must be set down as the ultimate object of human efforts (de Sacrif. p. 264), and contemplation of God (ἡ τοῦ ὄντος θέα. ή ὄψις θεοῦ, de Migrat. Abrah. p. 462, &c.) must be attainable; i. e. man by virtue of his likeness to God can participate in the immediate manifestation of him (ὲμφασις ἐναργής, quod deter. pot. inside. p. 221, &c.); and therefore must exert himself incessantly in searching for the ultimate foundation of all that exists (de Monarch. i. p. 216. &c.). Visible phaenomena are to lead us over to the invisible world (de Somn. i. p. 648, &c., de Praem. et Poen. p. 414), and to give us the conviction that the wisely and the beautifully fashioned world presupposes a wise and intelligent cause (de Mnarch. l.c. de Praem. et Poen. l.c. de Mundi Opific. p. 2) ; they are to become to us a ladder for getting to the knowledge of God by means of God, and for attaining to immediate contemplation (de Praem. et Poen. l.c., Leg. allege. iii. p. 107). Partly because he was unable to raise himself above the old Greek axiom, that nothing can be produced out of nothing (quod mund. sit incorrupt. p. 488), partly that he might in no way endanger the conviction of the absolute perfection of God, Philon, like the Greek philosophers, took refuge in the assumption of a lifeless matter, in itself immoveable and nonexistent, absolutely passive and primeval, and aestitute of quality and form; and while again he conceived this as an unarranged and unformed mass, containing within itself the four primal elements (de Cherub. p. 161, &c., de Plantat. pr. &c.), he represented the world-fashioning spirit of God as the divider (τομεύς) and bond (δεσμός) of the All (de Mundi Opif. 3, de Somn. i. p. 641, &c., de Plant. Noae, l.c.). In the second connection, conceived as something subordinate to, and resisting the divine arrangement (quis rer div. haer. p. 495, de Mundi Opif. 4), matter was looked upon by him as the source of all imperfection and evil (de Justitia. p. 367); whereas in other passages, in which he especially brings into notice the non-existence of matter, God is represented as the creator, as distinguished from the mere fashioner of the universe (de Somn. i. p. 632, &c.). Philon could not conceive of the unchangeable, absolutely perfect Deity as the immediate cause of the changeable. imperfect world; hence the assumption of a mediate cause, which, with reference as well to the immanent and transient activity attributed to him for the projection and realisation of the plan of the universe, as to the thinking and speaking faculty of man, designated by one and the same word (ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐν διανοία, ἐνδιάθετος and προφυρικός), he designated as the divine Logos (de Cherub. p. 162, de Migrat. Abrah. p. 436, &c., de Vita Mosis, iii. p. 154, &c.), within which he then again distinguished on the one hand the divine wisdom (the mother of what was brought into existence), and the activity which exerts itself by means of speech (Leg. alleg. i. p. 52, 58, &c., ii. p. 82, de Ebrietate, p. 361, &c., de Sacrif p. 175, &c.), on the other hand the goodness (ἀγαθότης), the power (ἀρετή, ἐξουσία, τὸ κράτος), and the world-sustaining grace (de Sacrif. p. 189, Quaest. in Gen. 1.57, de Cherub. p. 143, &c.). As the pattern (παράδειγμα) of the visible world he assumed an invisible, spiritual world (κόσμος ὀόρατος, νόητος, de Opif. 3, 6, 7, &c.), and this he regarded platonically as the collective totality of the ideas or spiritual forms (Dähne, l.c. p. 253); the principia of the mediate cause he regarded as powers invisible and divine, though still distinct from the Deity (de Migrat. Abrah. p. 464, &c., Dähne, p. 240, &c.); the spiritual world as com-pletely like God, as his shadow (de Opf M. p. 3, Leg. alleg. iii. p. 106, &c.); the world of sense in like manner as divine, by virtue of the spiritual forms contained in it (de Mundi Opif. p. 5). The relation of the world to the Deity he conceived of partly as the extension (ἐκτείνειν) of the latter to the former (de Nomin. mutat. p. 582, &c.), or as the filling of the void by the boundless ftlness of God (de Opif. Mund. p. 36, &c.); partly under the image of effiulgence : the primal existence was then looked upon by him as the pure light which shed its beams all around, the Logos as the nearest circle of light proceeding from it, each single power as a separate ray of the primordial light, and the universe as an illumination of matter, fading away more and more in proportion to its distance from the primal light (de Somn. i. pp. 638, 641, &c., de Praem. et Poen. p. 414, Leg. alley. i. p. 47, &c., iii. p. 120, &e.). Thus we already find in Philon in a very distinct form the outlines of the doctrine of emanations, which subsequently was further developed on the one hand by the Gnostics, on the other by the Neo-platonists.

2. The Megarian or Dialectician, was a disciple of Diodorus Cronus, and a friend of Zenon, though older than the latter, if the reading in Diogenes Läertins (7.16) is correct. In his Menexenus he mentioned the five daughters of his teacher (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. p. 528a. ed. Potter), and disputed with him respecting the idea of the possible, and the criteria of the truth of hypothetical propositions. With reference to the first point Philon approximated to Aristotle, as he recognized that not only what is, or will be, is possible (as Diodorns maintained), but also what is in itself conformable to the particular purpose of the object in question, as of chaff to burn (κατὰ ψιλὴν λεγόμενον ἐπιτηδειότητα; Alex. Aphrod. Nat. Qual. 1.14. Compare on the whole question J. Harris, in Upton's Arriani Dissertat. Epict. 2.19, ap. Schweighäser, vol. ii. p. 515, &c.) Diodorus had allowed the validity of hypothetical propositions only when the antecedent clause could never lead to an untrue conclusion, whereas Philon regarded those only as false which with a correct antecedent had an incorrect conclusion (Sext. Empir. ad v. Math. 8.113, &c. Hypotyp. 2.110, comp.Cic. Ac. 2.47, de Fato, 6). Both accordingly had sought for criteria for correct sequence in the members of hypothetical propositions, and each of them in a manner corresponding to what he maintained respecting the idea of the possible. Chrysippus attacked the assumption of each of them.

The Philon who is spoken of as an Athenian and a disciple of Pyrrhon, though ridiculed by Timon as a sophist, can hardly be different from Philon the dialectician (D. L. 9.67, 69). Hieronymus (Jov. 1) speaks of Philon the dialectician and the author of the Menexenus, as the instructor of Carneades, in contradiction to chronology, perhaps in order to indicate the sceptical direction of his doctrines.

3. The Academic, was a native of Larissa and a disciple of Clitomachus. After the conquest of Athens by Mithridates he removed thence to Rome, where he settled as a teacher of philosophy and rhetoric. Here Cicero was among his hearers (Cic. Fam. 13.1, Acad. 1.4. Brut. 89, Tusc. 2.3). When Cicero composed his Quaestiones Academicae, Philon was no longer alive (Acad. 2.6); he was already in Rome at the time when the dialogue in the books de Oratore is supposed to have been held (B. C. 92, de Orat. 3.28). Through Philon the sepsis of the Academy returned to its original starting point, as a polemical antagonism against the Stoics, and so entered upon a new course, which some historians have spoken of as that of the fourth academy (Sext. Emp. Hypotyp. 1.220). He maintained that by means of conceptive notions (καταληπτικὴ φαντασία) objects could not be comprehended (ἀκατάληπτα), but were comprehensible according to their nature (Sext. Emp. Hypotyp. 1.235; Cic. Acad. Quest. 2.6). How he understood the latter, whether he referred to the evidence and accordance of the sensations which we receive from things (Aristocles, ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 14.9), or whether he had returned to the Platonic assumption of an immediate spiritual perception, is not clear. In opposition to his disciple Antiochus, he would not admit of a separation of an Old and a New Academy, but would rather find the doubts of scepticism even in Socrates and Plato (Cic. Acad. Quaest. 2.4, 5, 23), and not less perhaps in the New Academy the recognition of truth which burst through its scepticism. At least on the one hand, even though he would not resist the evidence of the sensations, he wished even here to meet with antagonists who would endeavour to refute his positions (Aristocles, l.c.),i.e. he felt the need of subjecting afresh what he had provisionally set down in his own mind as true to the examination of scepticism; and on the other hand, he did not doubt of arriving at a sure conviction respecting the ultimate end of life. [Ch. A. B.]

(Φίλων), the name of several physicians, whom it is almost impossible to distinguish with certainty.

1. A native of Tarsus in Cilicia, of whose date it can only be certainly determined that he lived in or before the first century after Christ, as Galen speaks of him as having lived sometime before his own age. He was the author of a celebrated antidote, called after his name Philonium, Φιλώνειον. He embodied his directions for the composition of this medicine in a short enigmatical Greek poem, preserved by Galen, who has given an explanation of it (De Compos. Medicam. sec. Loc. ix. 4, vol. xiii. p. 267, &c.). This physician is supposed by Sprengel (Hist. de la Med. vol. ii.) and others to have been the same person as the grammarian, Herennius Philon, but probably without sufficient reason. His antidote is frequently mentioned by the ancient medical writers, e. g. Galen (Ad Glauc. de Meth. Med. 2.8, vol. xi. p. 114, Comment. in Hippocr. "Epid. VI." 6.5, vol. xvii. pt. ii. p. 331, De Compos. Medical. sec. Loc. 8.7, vol. xiii. p. 202, De Locis Affect. 2.5, vol. viii. p. 84, De Meth. Med. 12.1, vol. x. p. 818), Aretaeus (De Cur. Morb. Chron. 2.5, p. 335), Paulus Aegineta (3.23, 7.11, pp. 440, 657), Oribasius (Synops. iii. Eupor. 4.136, pp. 54, 675), Aetius (2.4. 28, 3.1. 32, 3.2. 1, 4.1. 107, pp. 382, 478, 511, 660), Joannes Actuarius (De Meth. Med. 5.6, p. 263), Marcellus (De Medicam, cc. 20, 22. pp. 329, 341), Alexander Trallianus (pp. 271, 577, ed. Basil.), Nicolaus Myrepsus (De Compos. Medicam. 1.243, 383, pp. 412, 437), Avicenna (Canon, v. l. l. vol. ii. p. 278, ed. Venet. 1595). This Philon may perhaps be the physician whose collyrium .is quoted by Celsus (De Medic. 6.6, p. 119.)

2. The physician who is mentioned among several others by Galen (De Meth. Med. 1.7, vol. x. p. 53) as belonging to the sect of the Methodici, is perhaps a different person from the preceding, and must have lived some time in or after the first century B. C. He may, perhaps, be the contemporary of Plutarch, in the second century after Christ, who is introduced by him in his Symposiacon (2.6. 2, 4.1. 1, 6.2. 1, 8.9. 1). He was of opinion that the disease called Elephantiasis first appeared shortly before his own time; but in this he was probably mistaken. See Jul. Alb. Hofmann's treatise, Rabiei Caninae ad Celsum usque Historia Critica,p. 53. (Lips. 8vo. 1826.)

A physician of this name is also mentioned by St. Epiphanius (ad v. Haeres. 1.1, 3); and a writer on metals, by Athenaeus (vii. p. 322). [W.A.G]

(Φίλων), artists.

1. Son of Antipater, a statuary who lived in the time of Alexander the Great, and made the statue of Hephaestion. (Tatian. Orat. adv. Graec. 55, p. 121, ed. Worth). He also made the statue of Zeus Ourios, which stood on the shore of the Black Sea, at the entrance of the Bosporus, near Chalcedon, and formed an important landmark for sailors. It was still perfect in the time of Cicero (in Verr. 4.58), and the base has been preserved to modern times, bearing an inscription of eight elegiac verses, which is printed in the works of Wheeler, Spon, and Chishull, and in the Greek Anthology (Brunck, Anal. vol. iii. p. 192; Jacobs, Anth. Graec. vol. iv. p. 159; comp. Sillig, Catal. Artif. s. v.). Philon is mentioned by Pliny among the statuaries who made athletas et armatos et venatores sacrificanlesue. (H. N. 34.8. s. 19.34).

2. A very eminent architect at Athens in the time of the immediate successors of Alexander. He built for Demetrius Phalereus, about B. C. 318, the portico of twelve Doric columns to the great temple at Eleusis. He also constructed for the Athenians, under the administration of Lycurgus, an armoury (armamentarium) in the Peiraeeus, containing arms for 1000 ships (Plin. Nat. 7.37. s. 38). This work, which excited the greatest admiration (Cic. de Orat. 1.14; Strab. ix. p.395d.; V. Max. 8.12. ext. 2), was destroyed in the taking of Athens by Sulla. (Plut. Sull. 14). He wrote works on the architecture of temples, and on the naval basin which he constructed in the Peiraeeus. (Vitruv. vii. Praef. § 12.)

3. A sculptor (λιθουργός), whose name appears on an inscription recently discovered at Delphi. (Ross, Inscr. Graec. Ined. Fasc. i. n. 73. p. 30 ; R. Rochette, Leltre à M. Schorn, p. 384, 2nd ed.)

4. An engraver of medals, whose name is seen on the front of the helmet of the head of Minerva, which is the type of several coins of Heracleia in Lucania. The letters are extremely minute, and the inscription is sometimes in the form ΦΙΛ, sometimes ΦΙΛΩ. (R. Rochette, Lettre à M. Scorn, p. 94, 2nd ed.) [P.S]