Philolaus, a Pythagorean philosopher, was born at Crotona, or Tarentum, towards the close of the 5th cen- tury B.C. Aresas, a probable disciple of Pythagoras, was his master; so that we receive the Pythagorean doctrine from Philolaus, only as it appeared to the third generation, and an account of it is therefore more prop- erly in place in a general examination of the philosophy of Pythagoras (q. v.). It has been repeated once and again that Philolaus divined the true theory of the universe, and was the virtual predecessor of Copernicus. Nothing can be more false. In his scheme indeed, not
the earth, but fire, is placed in the centre of the uni- verse; that fire, however, is not the svn, which, on the contrary, he makes revolve around the central -nvp. The scheme, in so far as it can be understood, is alto- gether fantastic, based on no observation or comparison of phenomena, but on vague and now unintelligible metaphysical considerations. The only predecessor of Copernicus in antiquity was Aristarchus of Samos, whose remarkable conjectures appeared first in the editio princeps of Archimedes — published after Coper- nicus wrote. Of Philolaus's three works, written in the Doric dialect, only fragments now remain. See Biickh, Leben, nebst den Bruchstiichen seiner Werke (Berl. 1819); Smith, Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Biog. and Mythol. s. v.; Uebenveg, Hist, of Philos. (see Index in vol. ii) ; But- ler, Hist, of Ancient Philos. vol ii. (J. H. W.)
Philol'ogus (<pi\u\oyoc, fond of talk), one of the Christians at Rome to whom Paul sent his salutations (Rom. xvi, 15). A.D. 55. Origen conjectures that he was the head of a Christian household which included the other persons named with him. Dorotheus makes him one of the seventy disciples, and alleges that he was placed by the apostle Andrew as bishop of Sinope, in Pontus (see Epiphanins, Mon. p. 68, ed. Dressel). Pseudo-Hippolytus {De LXX Apostolis) substantially repeats the same improbable tradition. His name is found in the Columbarium "of the freedmen of Livia x\ugusta" at Rome; which shows that there was a Phi- lologus connected with the imperial household at the time when it included many Julias. The name Plii- lologus was a common one at Rome (Lewin, Life and Ephtles of St. Paul, ii, 71).
Philology, Comparative. The importance which this subject has assumed in modern science as a key to the history of national origin justifies its admission and brief discussion here, with special reference to the two Biblical tongues.
The ethnographical table contained in the tenth chapter of Genesis has derived no little corroboration and illustration from the researches of modern philol- ogy. It has thus been clearly established that all the languages which have furnished a polished literature are reducible to two great families, corresponding, with a few sporadic variations, to the lineage of the two older sons of Noah respectively, namely, Shem and Japheth. The former of these, which is in fact usually designated as the Shemitic, is emphatically Oriental, and embraces the Hebrew and Arabic, with their cognates, the Samar- itan, the eastern and western Aramaean, or Chaldee and Syriac, and the Ethiopia The latter, which is conven- iently styled the Jndo- Germanic group, includes the Sanscrit, with its sister the Zend, and their offshoots, the Greek, the Latin, the Gallic, the Saxon— in a word, the stock of the Occidental or European languages. The analogies and coincidences subsisting between the mem- bers of the Shemitic family have been pretty fully ex- hibited by Castell, Gesenius, and Fiirst in their lexicons, and by Ewald and Nordheimer in their grammars; while the relationship existing among the Indo-Ger- manic group has been extensively traced by Bopp in his Comparative Grammar, by Pott in his Etymolo- gische Eorschungen, and by Benfey in his Wnrzel-Lex- icon. Other philologists, among whom De Sacy, Bour- nouf. Max Miiller, and Be'nan may be especially men- tioned, have somewhat extended the range of these comparisons, and occasional resemblances have been pointed out in particular forms between the Shemitic and Indo-Germanic branches ; but no systematic colla- tion of these latter coincidences, so far as we are aware, has been instituted, unless we accept such fanciful at- tempts as those of Parkhurst, who derives most of the Greek primitives from Hebrew roots! Yet notwith- standing the confusion at Babel and many a later lin- guistic misadventure, the common Noachian parentage ought to be capable of vindication by some distinct traces, at least of analogy if not of identity, in early forms of
PHILOLOGY
us
PHILOLOGY
speech existing among both these great branches of the human family as represented by t ln-ir written rec- <>rd-. We propose in thi- article briefly to exhibit a few of these resemblances which have presented them- selves in our own investigations as arguing a common origin, although a remote one, between the Shemitic and the [ndc-Germanic tongues; the most of them are certainly too striking to have been accidental Lesl we should venture beyond our own or our readers' depth, and make our pages bristle with an unnecessary display of foreign characters, we shall confine our illustrations to the Hebrew, on the one hand, and to the Greek, Latin. French. German, and English, on the other, as sufficient representatives of the two lingual families which we are comparing.
1. Identity of Roots. — The following is a table, com- piled from notes made in the course of our own reading, of such Hebrew roots as recur among the European dia- lects so strikingly similar in form and signification as to have iii most cases little doubt of their original identity. We have carefully excluded all those that betray evi- dences of later or artificial introduction from one lan- guage to the other, such as commercial, mechanical, or scientific terms, mere technicals, obvious onomatopoet- ics, names of animals, plants, minerals, official titles, etc., and we have selected words representing families as far divergent as possible, rather than those exhibiting the most striking resemblance. It will be interesting to observe how a root has sometimes slipped out of one or more of the cognate dialects, in the line of descent, and reappears in another representative; a few only are found in all the columns. In some of them again the signifi- cation or form has become disguised in one or another of the affiliated languages, bul becomes clear again in a later representative. We have restored the digamma wherever ii was necessary in order to bring out the re- lationship in the Greek roots. Those marked with an asterisk arc- Chaldee. A few oul of their proper column are included in brackets.