Scanned text contains errors.
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 tor 1000 ships (Plin. H. N. vii. 37. s. 38). This work, which excited the greatest admiration (Cic. de Orat. i. 14 ; Strab. ix. p. 395, d.; Val. Max. viii. 12. ext. 2), was destroyed in the taking oJ Athens by Sulla. (Plut. Sulla, 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 (\i6ovpy6s\ \vhose name appears on an inscription recently discovered at Delphi. (Ross, Inscr. Graec. Ined. Fasc. i. n. 73. p. 30 ; R. Rochette, Lettre a 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 «HA, sometimes 4»IAH. (R. Rochette, Lettre a M. Schorn^ p. 94, 2nd ed.) * [P. S.]
PHILONFCUS, artists. 1. C. Cornelius, a Roman artist in silver, whose name occurs in an inscription found at Narboune, faber argent. (Gruter, p. dcxxxix. 5). This inscription is one of several proofs that this branch of the arts was diligently cultivated in Gaul under the early emperors. In other inscriptions we find mention made of Vasclarii Argentarii, specimens of whose work are furnished by beautiful silver vases, which have been found in Gaul. (R. Rochette, Lettre a M. Schorn, p. 385, 2nd ed.)
2. M. Canuleius, an artist, whose name occurs in an inscription (Gruter, p. xxv. 1), where he is designated as Geniarius, that is, a maker of little figures of genii. (R. Rochette, I.e.) [P. S.]
PHILONIDES (*i\«w5i7s), an Athenian comic poet of the Old Comedy, who is, however, better known as one of the two persons in whose names Aristophanes brought out some of his plays, than by his own dramas. The information we have of him as a poet can be stated in a very few words ; but the question of his connection with Aristophanes demands a careful examination.
Before becoming a poet, Philonides was either a fuller or a painter, according to the different texts of Suidas and Eudocia, the former giving yvcxpevs, the latter ypa<peijs. Three of his plays are mentioned, 'Airqni, Ko6opvot, and &i\€raipos (Suid. s. v.). The title of K.66opvoi would of itself lead us to suppose that it was an attack upon Thera-menes, whose party fickleness had gained him the well-known epithet KoOopvos, and this conjecture is fully confirmed by the following passage of a grammarian (Bekker, Anecd. p. 100. 1): ®r)pa-juei/rjs' Trp /cArjTt/c^v • &i\iTnri8r]s Kodopvois, where we ought no doubt to read 4><Acoz/t5r;y, for no such play of Philippides is ever mentioned, but the Kotiopvoi of Philonides, besides being mentioned by Suidas, is several times quoted by Athenaeus and other writers. The plural number of the title, K6Qopvoi, is no doubt because the chorus consisted of persons of the character of Theramenes. We have another example of that confusion between names beginning with Phil., which has been noticed under philemon, in the fact that many frag-
ments, which Stobaeus has preserved under the name of Philonides, are evidently from the New Comedy, and ought to be ascribed to Philemon or Philippides. (Meineke, Frag. Com. Graec. vol. i. pp. 102—104, vol. ii. pp. 421—425 ; Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. ii. p. 482.)
The other question respecting Philonides is one of very great importance in connection with the literary history of the Old Comedy in general, and of Aristophanes in particular. It is generally believed that Philonides was an actor of Aristophanes, who is said to have committed to him and to Callistratus his chief characters. But the evidence on which this statement rests is regarded by some of the best modern critics as leading to a very different conclusion, namely, that several of the plays of Aristophanes were brought out in the names of Callistratus and Philonides. This question has been treated of by such scholars as Ranke, C. F. Hermann, Fritzsch, Hanovius, W. Dindorf, and Droysen ; but by far the most elaborate and satisfactory discussion of it is that by Theodor Bergk, prefixed to his edition of the fragments of Aristophanes, in Meineke's Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum, vol. ii. pp. 902—939.
It nmst be remembered that, when a poet wished to exhibit a drama, he had first to apply to either the first or second archon for a chorus, his obtaining which depended on the opinion of the archon as to the merits of his play, and also in no small degree on personal and political influence. We even find choruses refifsed to such poets as Sophocles and Cratinus. Even when he succeeded in obtaining a chorus, he had to encounter the proverbial capriciousness of an Athenian audience, whose treatment even of old favourites was, as Aristophanes complains, no small discouragement to a young candidate for their favour. In order to reduce the obstacles which a young poet found thus placed in his way upon the very threshold, two courses were customary: the candidate for dramatic honours either brought out in his own name the play of some popular poet, the intrinsic merit of which was sure to obtain a chorus, or else he availed himself of the reputation of a well-known poet by applying for a chorus in his name. The result was that by the former plan, which we know to have been adopted by the sons of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Aristophanes, the young poet's name became known, and he could more easily hope to obtain a chorus for one of his own plays ; and, in the latter case, the reception of his works would encourage him to appear again under his own name, or the contrary. There is, in fact, a passage of Aristophanes, which, if the figure be interpreted closely, would suggest the notion that it was customary for a young poet to pass through the following three stages: the first, assisting another poet in the composition of the less important passages of his plays (like the pupils of a great artist), as we know Eupolis- to have worked under Aristophanes in the Knights; then putting out his own dramas under the name of another poet, in order to see how the popular favour inclined ; and lastly, producing them in his own name. These several stages are perhaps intimated by the phrases, eperTjj/ yevecrdcu, irpwparevaat Kal royy ai/e/uous 8/a0p?7crcu, and KvSepvdv avrov eavrip in the passage alluded to (JEq. 541-—543, see Bergk, I.e. pp. 916,917). In addition to the reasons just stated, there is a very common opinion,