A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

' IARMENOPULLS. tARMENOPULUS. 3817
place it as late as the reign of Agathocles. Others, and is printed in the'J. G. R. of Leunclavius, vol. i.
as Falconer, Bougainville, and Gail, with somewhat p. 288. It blames Harmenopulus, for inserting in
more probability,, place Hanno about t. c. 570. his writings the anathemas which were denounced
But it seems preferable to identify him with Hanno, by some of the eastern emperors against seditious
the father or son of Hamilcar, who was killed at or rebellious subjects, whereas such denunciations
Himera, B.C. 480. [HANNO, Nos. 1, 2.] The fact of ought not to be directed against Christians, howsutch an expedition at that time had nothing at all ever criminal, whose belief was orthodox. " Skilled
improbable, for in the reign of the Egyptian king as you are in such matters, venerable nomophylax
Necho, a similar voyage had been undertaken by and general judge Harmenopulus, why did you not
the Phoenicians, and an accurate knowledge of the add that the Tro'duo had fallen into disuse, in conwestern coast of Africa was a matter of the highest sequence of the ordinances of the holy Chrysostom.
importance to the Carthaginians. The number of However, I proceed to supply this deficiency in the
colonists, 30,000, is undoubtedly an error either of works of my.friend." The tomi synodici, which
the translator or of later transcribers. This cir- contain the'objectionable anathema here referred
cumstance, as well as many fabulous accounts con- to, still exist. That of Constantinus Porphyrogetained in the periplus, and the difficulties connected nitus alone is given in Leunclavius, J. G. R. vol. i.
with the identification of the places visited by p. 118, and to this are added the tomi of Manuel
Hanno, and with the fixing of the southernmost Comnenus and Michael Palaeologus (reigned A. D.
point to which Hanno penetrated, are not sufficient 1261-1282), in the supplementary volume of
reasons for denying the genuineness of the periplus, Meerman's Thesaurus (p. 374), where they are
or for regarding it as the product of a much later copied from a manuscript in which they are apage, as Dodwell did. The first edition of Hanno's pended to the Promptuarium of Harmenopulus.
Periplus appeared at Basel, 1534, 4to., as an ap- Some of the best critics, though not ignorant of
pendix to Arrian, by S. Gelenius. This was fol- this letter of Philotheus, still refused to depart
lowed by the editions of J. H. Boecler and J. J. from the opinion which ascribed Harmenopulus to
Miiller (Strassburg, 1661, 4to.), A. Berkel' (Ley- the twelfth century. (Cave, Sceript. Ecles. Hist.
den, 1674, 12mo., with a Latin version by M. Liter. vol. ii. p. 226; Bayle, ieiponse aux Questions
Gesner), and Thomas Falconer (London, 1797, with d'un Provincial, c. 53, Oeuvres, vol. iii. p. 509.)
an English translation, two dissertations and maps). They must have believed the so-called letter of
It is also printed in Hudson's Geographi Minores, Philotheus to have been a literary forgery, or have
vol. i., which contains Dodwell's dissertation, De supposed that the patriarch addressed such lanvero Peripli, qui Hannonis nomine circumnfertur, guage as we have quoted to an author who lived
Tempore, in which Dodwell attacks the genuineness two centuries before him. The Promptuarium of
of the work; but his arguments are satisfactorily Harmenopulus has been interpolated and altered;
refuted by Bougainville (Mdm. de l'Acad. des otherwise it might be cited in favour of the later
Inseript. xxvi. p. 10, &c., xxviii. p. 260, &c.), and date, attributed to its author. As we have it in
by Falconer in his second dissertation. [L. S.] the edition of Reiz, in the supplemental or eighth
- HARMA'TIUS, a sculptor whose name is in- volume of Meerman's Thesaurus Juris Civilis, it
scribed, with that of Heracleides, on the restored cites a constitution of the patriarch Athanasius of
statue of Ares in the Royal Museum at Paris. A. D. 1305. (Promjpt. lib. 5. tit. 8. s. 95, with the
[HERACLEIDES.] [P. S.] note of G. O. Reiz; Meerm. Thes. vol. viii. p. 304,
HARMENOPU'LUS, CONSTANT1'NUS, n. 176.) In lib. 4. tit. 6. s. 21, 22, 23, of the
nomophylax and judge of Thessalonice, a Graeco- Promptuarium or Hexabiblon of Harmenopulus,
Roman jurist and canonist, whose date has been a are mentioned the names of Michael, who was pasubject of much controversy. Suarez (Notit. Basil. triarch of Constantinople in 1167, and of Arsenius,
~ 5) says that his Prochiron was written in A.D. who was patriarch in 1255, but the sections in
1143. Jacques Godefroi, in his Manuale Juris which these names occur are not found in the older
(i. 9), makes it two years later, and Frdher, in the manuscripts (p. 237, n. 46).
Chronologia prefixed to the Jus Graeco-Romnanum Such was the evidence with respect to the date
of Leunclavius, follows Suarez. Selden, in his of Harmenopulus, when Lambecius, who had oriUlor Hebraica (iii. 29) adopted the common ginally ascribed Harmenopulus to the twelfth cenopinion, which placed Harmenopulus in the middle tury (Comment. de Bibl. Caes. Vindob. lib. v. p. 319,
of the twelfth century; but he seems to have been 365, 373, 381), found a note written in a manuthe first to impugn this opinion in his treatise De script at Vienna (Cod. Vindob. ii. fol. 195, b.),
Synedriis (i. 10). The common belief was founded which induced him to change his opinion. This
on the asserted fact that Harmenopulus never, in manuscript note is put forward by Lambecius (lib.
any authentic passage, cites the Novells of any em- vi. p. i. p. 40) as the testimony of Philotheus, but
peror later than Manuel Comnenus (A. D. 1143- upon what ground does not appear, since there is
1180), and that in his treatise on Heresies (Leun- no name affixed to it in the Vienna manuscript. It
clavius, J. G. R. vol. i. p. 552), in the commence- states that the Epitome of the Canons of Harmenoment of' his account of the Bogomili, he describes pulus, the nomophylax and judge of Thessalonice,
them as a sect which had sprung up shortly before was composed in the reign of" our most pious and
his time (ol 7irpa 7roX0o Orva'la;rIs KaO' ouvs Christian lady and empress the lady Anna Palaeoyeveas). Now it is known that this heresy origin- logina, and her most beloved son, our most pious
ated in the reign of Alexius Comnenus. The and Christian king, and emperor of the Romans,
reason which induced Selden to ascribe to Harme- the Lord Joannes Palaeologus, in the year of the
nopulus a much later date was a composition of Creation 6853, in the 13th Indiction," i.e. in A. D.
Philotheus (who was patriarch of Constantinople 1345. This testimony has satisfied the majority
in A. D. 136-2), which appears to be addressed in of more modern critics, as Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol,
the form of a letter to Harmenopulus as a contem- xii. p. 429), Heineccius, Ritter, Zepernic (ad Beck.
porary. The letter exists in various manuscripts, de Novellis Leonis, p. 22, n. k.), Pohl (ad Scares,