Scanned text contains errors.
jplfice it as late as the reign of Agathocles. Others, as Falconer, Bougainville, and Grail, with somewhat more probability, place Hanno about fe. c. 570. But it seems preferable to identify him with Hanno, the father or son of Hamilcar, who was killed at Himera, b.c. 4HO. [hanno, Nos. 1, 2.] The fact of such an expedition at that time had nothing at all improbable, for in the reign of the Egyptian king Necho, a similar voyage had been undertaken by the Phoenicians, and an accurate knowledge of the western coast of Africa was a matter of the highest importance to the Carthaginians. The number of colonists, 30,000, is undoubtedly an error either of the translator or of later transcribers. This circumstance, as well as many fabulous accounts contained in the periplus, and the difficulties connected with the identification of the places visited by Hanno, and with the fixing of the southernmost point to which Hanno penetrated, are not sufficient reasons for denying the genuineness of the periplus, or for regarding it as the product of a much later age, as Dodwell did. The first edition of Hanno's Periplus appeared at Basel, 1534, 4to., as an appendix to Arrian, by S. Gelenius. This was followed by the editions of J. H. Boeder and J. J. Miiller (Strassburg, 1661, 4to.), A. Berkel" (Ley-den, 1674, 12mo., with a Latin version by M. Gesner), and Thomas Falconer (London, 1797, with an English translation, two dissertations and maps). It is also printed in Hudson's Geograplii Minores^ vol. i., which contains Dodwell's dissertation, De vero Peripli^ qui Hannonis nomine circumfertur, Tempore, in which Dodwell attacks the genuineness of the work; but his arguments are satisfactorily refuted by Bougainville (M6m. de PAcad. des Insoript. xxvi. p. 10, &c., xxviii. p. 260, &c.), and by Falconer in his second dissertation. [L. S.]
HARMENOPULUS, CONSTANTl'NUS, nomophylax and judge of Thessalonice, a Graeco-Roman jurist and canonist, whose date has been a subject of much controversy. Suarez (Notit. Basil. § 5) says that his Prochiron was written in a.d. 1143. Jacques Godefroi, in his Manuale Juris (i. 9), makes it two years later, and Freher, in the Chronologia prefixed to the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leunelavius, follows Suarez. Selden, in his Uxor Hebraica (iii. 29) adopted the common opinion, which placed Harmenopulus in the middle of the twelfth century ; but he seems to have been the first to impugn this opinion in his treatise De Synedriis (i. 10). The common belief was founded on the asserted fact that Harmenopulus never, in any authentic passage, cites the Novells of any emperor later than Manuel Comnenus (a.d. 1143—• 1180), arid that in his treatise on Heresies (Leun-clavius, J. G. R. vol. i. p. 552), in the commencement of his account of the Bogomili, he describes them as a sect which had sprung up shortly before his time (ou irpti iro\\ov <riW(mj rrjs KaQy i/i/jids 7ejf6as). Now it is known that this heresy originated in the reign of Alexius Comnenus. The reason which induced Selden to ascribe to Harmenopulus a much later date was a composition of Philotheus (who was patriarch of Constantinople m a.d. 1362), which appears to be addressed in the form of a letter to Harmenopulus as a contemporary. The letter exists in various manuscripts,
and is printed in the J. G. R. of Leunelavius, vol. i. p. 288. It blames Harmenopulus, for inserting in his writings the anathemas which were denounced by some of the eastern emperors against seditious or rebellious subjects, whereas such denunciations ought not to be directed against Christians, however criminal, whose belief was orthodox. " Skilled as you are in such matters, venerable nomophylax and general judge Harmenopulus, why did you not add that the ro^oi had fallen into disuse, in consequence of the ordinances of the holy Chrysostom. However, I proceed to supply this deficiency in the works of my friend." The tomi synodici, which contain the objectionable anathema here referred to, still exist. That of Constantinus Porphyroge-nitus alone is given in Leunclavius, J. G. R. vol. i. p. 118, and to this are added the tomi of Manuel Comnenus and Michael Palaeologus (reigned A. d. 1261—1282), in the supplementary volume of Meerman's Thesaurus (p. 374), where they are copied from a manuscript in which they are appended to the Promptuarium of Harmenopulus. Some of the best critics, though not ignorant of this letter of Philotheus, still refused to depart from the opinion which ascribed Harmenopulus to the twelfth century. (Cave, Script. JEccles. Hist. Liter, vol. ii. p. 226 ; Bayle, Reponse anon Questions d^un Provincial, c. 53, Oeuvres^ vol. iii. p. 509.) They must have believed the so-called letter of Philotheus to have been a literary forgery, or have supposed that the patriarch addressed such language as we have quoted to an author who lived two centuries before him. The Promptuarium of Harmenopulus has been interpolated and altered ; otherwise it might be cited in favour of the later date, attributed to its author. As we have it in the edition of Reiz, in the supplemental or eighth volume of Meerman's Thesaurus Juris Civilis, it cites a constitution of the patriarch Athanasius of A. d. 1305. (Prompt, lib. 5. tit. 8. s. 95, with the note of G. 0. Reiz ; Meerm. Thes. vol. viii. p. 304, n. 176.) In lib. 4. tit. 6. s. 21, 22, 23, of the Promptuarium or Hexabiblon of Harmenopulus, are mentioned the names of Michael, who was patriarch of Constantinople in 1167, and of Arsenius, who was patriarch in 1255, but the sections in which these names occur are not found in the older manuscripts (p. 237, n. 46).
Such was the evidence with respect to the date of Harmenopulus, when Lambecius, who had originally ascribed Harmenopulus to the twelfth century (Comment, de Bill. Caes. Vindob. lib. v. p. 319, 365, 373, 381), found a note written in a manuscript at Vienna (Cod. Vindob. ii. fol. 195, b.), which induced him to change his opinion. This manuscript note is put forward by Lambecius (lib. vi. p. i. p. 40) as the testimony of Philotheus, but upon what ground does not appear, since there is no name affixed to it in the Vienna manuscript. It states that the Epitome of the Canons of Harmenopulus, the nomophylax and judge of Thessalonice, was composed in the reign of " our most pious and Christian lady and empress the lady Anna Palaeo-logina, and her most beloved son, our most pious and Christian king, and emperor of the Romans, the Lord Joannes Palaeologus, in the year of the Creation 6853, in the 13th Indiction," i.e. in a. d. 1345. This testimony has satisfied the majority of more modern critics, as Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol xii. p. 429), Heineccius, Ritter, Zepernic (ad Beck. de Novellis Leonist p. 22, n. k.), Pohl (ad Snares*