ergy and heroism, and inflicting considerable mischief, he was killed in a swamp, August 12, 1676, when endeavoring to escape from captain Church.

PHILIPPI; a town on the borders of Thrace and Macedonia, where two battles were fought (B. C. 42) between the republicans under Brutus and Cassius, and the friends of Antony and Octavius, in which the former were defeated. (See Antonius, and Brutus.) The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians was written to the church which that apostle founded at Philippi.

PHILIPPICS; the orations of Demosthenes against Philip king of Macedon. (See Demosthenes.) Cicero applied this name to his invectives against Antony, and it has hence come to signify an invective in general.

PHILIPPINES; a group of islands in the Pacific ocean, 1200 in number (lat. 4° 22′ N., lon. 116-128° E.), extending about 450 leagues from north to south, and about 280 in its greatest breadth. The principal islands are Luçon (q. v.), Mindanao (q. v.), Palaouan, Mindoro, &c. The capital of the Spanish possessions is Manilla. (q. v.) The population of the group is estimated at about two and a half millions, of whom 7000 are Chinese, 4000 whites (Spaniards), 118,000 mestizos, and the rest natives. Of the latter there are two distinct races, the Papuas, or negroes, who live principally in the interior, and seem to have been the primitive inhabitants, and the Malays, who dwell nearer the coasts. (See Malays.) The Philippines were discovered, in 1521, by Magellan (q.v.), and received their present name in honor of Philip II king of Spain. The first settlements were made by the Spaniards in 1570. In 1823, the creoles and mestizos made an attempt to obtain a liberal government, but the insurrection was put down by the Spaniards, who employed in this service a force formed of the converted natives. The face of the country is mountainous, and there are numerous volcanoes in the different islands, whose eruptions have repeatedly caused great ravages. The climate is various, but the heat is never excessive. Violent rains, hurricanes and earthquakes often do much mischief. The soil is not less various, but, in general, is fertile. Rice, coffee, sugar, cocoas, tobacco, indigo, and a great variety of pulse, with many sorts of tropical fruits, ebony, sandal wood, dye woods, &c., are among the vegetable productions. Gold, silver and sulphur are among the minerals. The domestic animals of Europe thrive here. The trade of these islands is principally

with the Chinese and English.-See Aragon's Descripcion de la Isla de Luzon (Manilla, 1820).

PHILIPPONES; a Russian sect, a branch of the Roskolnicians, so called from their founder, Philip Pustoswiat. The sect took its rise in the northern part of Russia towards the end of the seventeenth century, and neither acknowledges the pope, nor esteems consecration by the Russian church as valid. They differed from the other Roskolnicians chiefly in having no ordained clergy. Communion, confirmation, absolution, and marriage by ecclesiastics, were not, therefore, practised among them. (See Greek Church, and Roskolnicians.) In each of their societies is an elder (starik), chosen by themselves or by his predecessor, who can read Sclavonic, and is obliged, after his baptism, to abstain from strong drinks. He performs the different clerical offices. Absolution, they consider, must be received immediately from God. They scruple to take an oath, or to perform military service. Many Philippones fled, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, into Polish Lithuania, whence some of them passed into the Prussian territories.

PHILIPS, Ambrose, a poet and dramatic writer, was a native of Leicestershire, and studied at Cambridge. On quitting the university he went to London, and became one of the literary wits who frequented Button's coffee-house, and a friend of Steele and Addison. The publication of his Pastorals involved him in a war with Pope, who ridiculed them in the Guardian; in consequence of which Philips threatened to inflict personal correction on the satirist. He was one of the writers of a periodical paper, called the Freethinker; and doctor Boulton, the conductor, obtaining preferment in Ireland, Philips was made registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin. He returned to England in 1748, and died the next year. He was the author of the Distrest Mother, a tragedy (1712), taken from Racine; the Briton (1722), and Humphey, Duke of Gloucester (1723); and he wrote the Life of Archbishop Williams. (See Johnson's Lives of the Poets.)

PHILIPS, John, an English poet, born in Oxfordshire, 1676, was educated at Christchurch, Oxford, where he produced the Splendid Shilling, in which the sonorous cadence of the blank verse of Milton is adapted to familiar and ludicrous topics. He also wrote Blenheim, a poem, in celebration of the duke of Marlborough's victory; but his principal work is Cyder, a

Georgical work, in imitation of Virgil. He died in 1708. (See Johnson's Lives of the Poets.)

PHILISTINES; apparently an Egyptian tribe, from whom Palestine, before called Canaan, received its name. They dwelt in the southern plains of that country, along the coasts of the Mediterranean. They were constantly at war with the Israelites, whom they reduced to subjection at one period, after the death of Joshua. In the German universities, the students give the name of Philistines to persons not members of the universities.

PHILO; a learned Jewish author, who flourished in the first century of the Christian era, in the reign of the emperor Caligula. He was born some years before Christ, in Alexandria, where he was educated, and distinguished himself by his proficiency in eloquence, philosophy, and a knowledge of the sacred writings. With the writings of Plato, whose philosophy was at that time in the highest repute in Alexandria, he made himself intimately acquainted, and he adopted his doctrines so completely, that it was said of him, Philo platonizes. From the time of the Ptolemies the Jews had borrowed the use of allegories from their Egyptian neighbors, and thus imbibed Platonic and Pythagorean doctrines, which they treated as the hidden and symbolical sense of their own law. Thus, without having the appearance of being indebted to the heathen philosophers, they could make an arbitrary use of their systems. These systems were likewise mixed with various Oriental theories, in particular respecting the nature of God. Philo zealously studied this philosophy, then so popular in Alexandria; and either because he did not sufficiently understand the Jewish doctrines, or because he was not satisfied with the literal sense of the Mosaic law, he mingled Platonic dogmas with the holy scriptures, and ascribed them to Moses. Probably he followed the example of the Essenes and Therapeutæ, of whom he always spoke with great esteem, though he did not adopt their mode of life. He considered God and matter as coëternal principles; God as the primitive light, from whose rays all finite intelligences proceed. The understanding or wisdom of God (oys), he called also the Son of God, his image, according to which God, by his creative power, produced the material world. He founds our knowledge of God upon intuition. On account of these doctrines, Bouterwek considers him as one of the first Alexandrian New Platonists.

Philo perfected himself also in eloquence, and acquired a knowledge of public affairs, in which his fame was so great that he was sent by his countrymen, in the year 42, at the head of an embassy to Rome, to defend the Jews against the calumnious accusations of Apion and others. Caligula would not admit the embassy into his presence, and Philo was even in danger of losing his life. He composed, in consequence, a written justification of the Jews, evincing great learning and skill. The accounts are unworthy of belief, which state that Philo went afterwards to Rome under Claudius, that he became there the friend of the apostle Peter, and embraced the Christian faith, but renounced it again on account of some mortifications which he met with. Those writings of Philo, which have come down to us, are published in the last and most complete edition by Manzey (London, 1742, 2 vols., folio); after him, by Pfeiffer (Erlangen, 1785 and the following years, 5 vols.). They show that Philo was a man of great learning and industry, who was well acquainted with Greek philosophy and literature, and are very useful for those who would learn the state of philosophy at that time in Alexandria.

PHILO OF BIBLOS; a grammarian, who lived under Nero and the following emperors till the time of Adrian. He translated Sanchoniathon's Phoenician History into Greek, of which we still possess some fragments.

PHILO OF BYZANTIUM, who lived in the second and third centuries, is mentioned as the author of a work on military engines, on the Seven Wonders of the World, &c. Besides these, there are an academic and a stoic philosopher of this name.

PHILOCTETES; a Grecian hero, son of Poan and Demonassa, celebrated for his skill in archery. He led the warriors of Methone, Thaumacia, Meliboa, and Olizon in the expedition against Troy; but," having been bitten in his foot, while he was offering sacrifice in the island of Chrysa, by a serpent which guarded the temple, he became, by the mortification of his wound, so offensive that he was sent back to Lemnos, and there dragged out nine miserable years in lamentations. But, according to the prophecy of Helenus, Troy could not be taken without the arrows of Hercules, and these were in possession of Philoctetes, to whom the hero had given them, when he ascended his funeral pile. It therefore became necessary for the Grecians before Troy to recall Philoc

tetes. Ulysses, who had advised his exile, with Pyrrhus (according to some, Diomedes) undertook the embassy; the latter, by promising to heal his wound, prevailed upon him to return to Troy. He was cured by Machaon (or Æsculapius), and after many Trojans, among whom was Paris, had fallen by his arrows, the city was taken. The history of Philoctetes forms the subject of one of the tragedies of Sophocles.

PHILOLOGY.* This word, among the ancients, had a signification which included what we now call philosophy, literature, the sciences, and the theory of arts, though it excluded their practice. Thus poetry and rhetoric, considered as sciences, came within the description of philology; but philologists were not expected to be orators or poets. Cicero calls his philosophical works oλoywepa, as opposed to his orations; the former being written in a didactic or argumentative, the latter in a more elegant or artificial style. (Ad Att., xiii, 12.) We are informed by Suetonius (De illustr. Gram., c. 10) that Eratosthenes of Cyrene was the first among the Greeks who assumed the name of phoyos. He was a man of unbounded erudition, a physician, philosopher, geographer, grammarian, historian and poet, though we are told that he excelled in none of these branches. (Moreri.) Before his time, a philologer or philologist for both words are used in the English language was called yoapparikos, which did not mean a grammarian in the present acceptation of the word, but a man of letters; in which sense literary men were first called at Rome literati, and afterwards, when Greek terminology became fashionable, grammatici and philologi. Philology, then, included in ancient times, with few exceptions, every thing that could be learned (omne scibile). In those days, however, science was circumscribed within much narrower bounds than it is at present. The numerous branches which compose what is now called natural science, were very imperfectly known. The same may be said of geography, astronomy and natural philosophy. All that was known of those sciences, with grammar, rhetoric, scholastic logic, metaphysics and elementary mathematics, formed an aggregate which obtained the name of philology, until long after the destruction of

*This article comes from the same learned source with that on Language, and forms a whole with it. The interest of the subject, and the orig

inality of the author's views, are the reason of the

space allowed it.-ED

the Roman empire; and that is the sense in which this word is understood in many, if not most of the colleges and universities of Europe, always with reference to ancient, and not to modern learning; hence criticism, as applied to the Greek and Roman writers, and the knowledge of ancient coins and medals, and other recondite antiquities, are considered as important branches of philology, and those which chiefly entitle their followers to the name of philologists. This opinion was general as late as the seventeenth century. At that time the Bentleys, the Scaligers, the Saumaises, were the philologists par excellence. The dictionary of the French academy defines philology érudition qui embrasse diverses parties des belles-lettres, et principalement la critique. A century afterwards Johnson defined it criticism, grammatical learning. But of late, the word philology has received a more definite and more appropriate meaning; and it seems now, by a tacit, but almost universal consent, to be chiefly, if not exclusively, appropriated to that science which embraces human language in its widest extent, analyzes and compares its component parts and its various structures in thousands of idioms and dialects, that are and have been spoken on the face of the habitable globe, and from the whole seeks to draw inferences that may lead to a clearer and more extensive knowledge than we have hitherto possessed of the history of our species, and particularly of the migrations of dif ferent nations, their connexion and intercourse with each other; for language, though perishable, like all other earthly things, is still the most lasting monument of events long since past, and the surest means of transmitting facts through successive generations. When the sounds of a language have ceased to reverberate, and no longer convey ideas through the human ear, that language still lives in written characters, which speak to the mind through the eyes, and even when the sense or meaning of those characters is lost or forgotten, genius, aided by philology, will, after many ages, revive, at least some fragments, and Champollions will arise, whose labors will perhaps succeed in recovering an ancient language, long considered as not only dead, but profoundly buried in the night of time. science like this, so wide in its extent, and yet so homogeneous in all its parts, requires an appropriate name, a name familiar to men of science, and such as the learned world will easily be led to adopt. Various denominations have been attempt

A

ed to be given to it, such as glossography, glossology, and others of the like kind; but those names have been uniformly rejected. The Germans, with more success, have called it, and still call it linguistik; but no other European nation that we know of has followed their example, while the name philology, for some years past, appears to have been generally adopted, even in Germany. It is believed that it was first used in this sense in the United States. Our Webster, in his excellent dictionary, is the first who has defined the word in this, its most appropriate meaning. "Philology," he says, "is that branch of literature which comprehends a knowledge of the etymology or origin and combination of words, and whatever relates to the history and present state of languages. It sometimes includes rhetoric, poetry, history and antiquities." Indeed, the word philology has been gradually falling off from its original acceptation, as no longer requisite for the heterogeneous mass of sciences to which it was formerly applied. Literature, criticism, archæology, philosophy, history, grammar, rhetoric, logic, metaphysics, and all else which once came under this sweeping denomination, have all received specific and appropriate names, and each of them is now too vast and too extensive, and many of them too distant from each other, to allow of their being classed under one general appellation. The word philology, therefore, had become as it were in abeyance, and the science of human language, comprehending all its various divisions and subdivisions, has very properly taken hold of it, and appropriated it to itself with universal consent. Under this impression, we have headed this article Philology, and under it, we shall endeavor to give a general idea of the science which it denominates. The science of languages, in its present extent, is of very late date. The ancients (we mean the Greeks and Romans) had, indeed, analyzed, with great judgment, their respective idioms, and reduced them to grammatical systems truly worthy of admiration; but beyond that they did not go. They called every language but their own barbarous, and did not think any other worthy of attention. We have learned nothing from them of the Punic, nor of the ancient Persian, though they were so long at war with the nations that spoke those idioms. Their excessive pride has suffered those idioms to perish, though there is reason to believe that they were both rich in literature of their own. Even of the language of Egypt, where they

so long governed, the Romans have told us nothing, and the Greeks very little. How interesting would be, at this day, a Coptic grammar, written by a Roman or Greek grammarian, with some explanation, at least, of their hieroglyphic characters, more satisfactory than what we have received from Herodotus and Clement of Alexandria! An incomplete translation of the works of Horus Apollo is all that we have, and it has rather increased than dispelled our ignorance of the system of that ancient mode of writing. It led us into a false track, in which we continued until Champollion showed us another and a better way. This prejudice continued until a very late period. Even in the days of Dante, Petrarch and Macchiavelli, and later still, in those of Ariosto and Tasso, the beautiful Italian language was styled, in opposition to the Latin, la lingua volgare; that is to say, the lingua rustica, the patois, the jargon, the dialect of the vulgar. The same contempt followed the other modern idioms. It was taught in the colleges that there were but four mother tongues, the Latin, the Greek, the Hebrew and the Syriac (the two last were added by the theologians on account of their supposed sacred origin). All other languages were mere dialects. The German, of course, was included, though derived from neither of the pretended mother tongues. Such was the ignorance that prevailed on the subject of languages. In the seventeenth century, the cloud began to be dispelled, but gradually indeed. A great step was made by Messieurs de Port Royal, who, in 1660, published their Grammaire générale et raisonnée, the work of Arnaud and Lancelot, two of their members. Here the first attempt was made to generalize the grammatical science, and to deduce from it principles and rules applicable to all languages. That work was much and justly adinired when it appeared, and has been the model of almost all that have been published since on the same subject. But the foundation was wanting for such a work at that time. The knowledge of languages was yet confined to a few. The Greek, the Latin, the Hebrew, with the French and Italian, and, perhaps, the Spanish, were the most that a philologist aspired to know. One cannot refrain from smiling, when he sees Messieurs de Port Royal, after stating a principle or rule common to the languages that they knew, gravely asserting that that principle governs in every language (dans toutes les langues). This assertion is frequently met with in the General Graminar,

and may at this day be as often easily disproved. The variety of forms existing in languages was not even suspected. The missionaries had not yet made known the extraordinary structure of the Chinese on the one hand, and of the American idioms on the other; what little was known of them might produce a momentary wonder, but did not excite the curiosity of grammarians and philologists. It was not until about the middle of the eighteenth century that a broad and comprehensive view of the various languages of men began to be taken by the learned. M. Maupertuis, who did not deserve all the ridicule which the jealousy of Voltaire endeavored to throw upon him, published an essay on the Origin of Language, in which he recommended studying the idjoms even of savage and barbarous nations, "because," said he, "there may be found among them some that are formed on new plans of ideas." So little was the world prepared for this view of the subject, that M. Turgot, a man, certainly, of great sense and judgment, who was afterwards minister to the unfortunate Louis XVI, in a similar essay that he published, thought proper to sneer at this expression, saying that he could not understand what was meant by plans of ideas. The science was then in its infancy. Languages were considered only in respect to the etymology of their words and their affinity with each other. For more than three centuries, attempts had been made from time to time to collect materials for the comparison of languages. These consisted of vocabularies, and of the Lord's prayer printed in various idioms, but all on a very limited scale. Adelung has given us a list of those works at the end of the first volume of the Mithridates, beginning with Johann Schildberger, who, about the year 1427, at the end of a book of travels, published the Pater Noster in the Armenian and Tartar languages. In all these the science was considered as confined to the knowledge and comparison of words; the importance of the grammatical forms and internal structure of the various idioms might have struck some privileged minds, as it did that of M. Maupertuis, but it was far from being understood by the grammarians and philologists of that day. The science did not begin to extend its bounds until about the period of our revolution. Hervas, in 1784, published at Cesena, in the Roman states, his catalogue of known languages (Catalogo delle Lingue conosciute, e Notizia delle loro Affinità e Diversità), and afterwards his polyglot vocabulary of 150

e

languages, and a collection of the Lord's prayer in more than 300. But, while he was engaged in the composition of these works, an illustrious sovereign, at the other end of the eastern hemisphere, Catharine the Second, empress of Russia, was meditating another, on a plan much more extensive, which was no less than a comparative vocabulary of all the languages in the world. This noble idea she not only conceived, but actually carried into execution, with the aid of professor Pallas, for the languages of Asia and Europe, and of Mr. Theodore Jankiewitsch, for those of Africa and America. Then, and not till then, philology began to be a science. Still etymology alone was the only object which that great work had in view. The various structure of languages had not yet attracted the attention of the learned. In the celebrated French Encyclopédie, under the word Langue, languages, in this respect, are divided only into two classes, those which admit of inversions, like the Latin and Greek, and in some measure the German, and those which do not, like the French and some other modern European idioms. The monosyllabic Chinese, with its absence of forms, the polysyllabic and polysynthetic structure of the American languages, were not at all taken into consideration in the classification of the various modes of human speech; indeed, that classification had not even been attempted, either in respect to etymological affinities, or to the grammatical construction and arrangement of words; or, if some efforts were made, they were so limited in their range, and on the whole so unsatisfactory, that they are undeserving of any attention at this day. To two illustrious Germans, John Christopher Adelung, and his able successor, John Severin Vater, is due the honor of having first presented the world with a scientific classification of all the known languages, and a correct description of each idiom, particularly with regard to its grammatical structure. This was done in their admirable work, the Mithridates, a work so well known to the learned, that it is unnecessary to mention more than its title. We may venture to call this book, without fear of being contradicted, the fountain of all philological knowledge; and we do not hesitate to say that it deserves to be placed among the greatest and happiest efforts of the human mind. A translation of it into the English or French language has been long desired, and it is astonishing that no one has been yet found to attempt it. M. Balbi has lately pub